Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 9:24
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
24. The 70 years foretold by Jeremiah are to be understood as 70 weeks of years (i.e. 490 years); at the end of that period sin will be done away with, and the redemption of Israel will be complete. Jeremiah’s promises, which, while the city and nation are being made the prey of Antiochus, seem a dead letter, will, with this new explanation of their meaning, receive their fulfilment; and (as Dan 9:26-27 shew) the time when this will take place is not now far distant. Perhaps, as Prof. Bevan observes, this explanation may have been suggested to the writer by the terms of Lev 26:18; Lev 26:21; Lev 26:24; Lev 26:28, where it is emphatically declared that the Israelites are to be punished seven times for their sins: “the 70 years of Jeremiah were to be repeated seven times, and at the end of the 490th year the long-promised deliverance might be confidently expected.” The Chronicler had already brought the idea of the 70 years of Judah’s desolation into connexion with heptads, or ‘weeks,’ of years, by his remark (2Ch 36:20 f.) that they were the penalty exacted by God for the ‘sabbatical’ years, which Israel had neglected to observe whilst in possession of its land (cf. Lev 26:34 f.).
weeks ] i.e. (as the sequel shews) weeks of years, a sense not occurring elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew, but found in the Mishna.
determined ] decreed (R.V.). The word is a different one from that rendered ‘determined’ in Dan 9:26-27, and occurs only here in Biblical Hebrew. In the Talm. it means to determine in judgement, decide.
to finish the transgression ] to bring it to an end. The verb rendered finish is anomalous in form, and might also be rendered to confine (as in a prison, Jer 32:2), or restrain (Num 11:28), viz. so that it could no longer spread or continue active (so R.V. marg.). But the former rendering is preferable; and is that adopted both by the ancient versions and by the great majority of modern commentators.
and to make an end of sins ] parallel with to finish transgression: cf. for the meaning of the verb, Eze 22:15 (‘consume’). So the Heb. marg. ( Qr), Aq., Pesh., Vulg. The Heb. text (K’tib) and Theod. have to seal up ( for ), which is explained (in agreement with restrain in the last clause), as meaning partly to preclude from activity, partly to preclude from forgiveness (cf. Job 14:17): but this explanation is forced; and the Qr yields here a meaning in better harmony with the context.
and to cancel iniquity ] The verb kipper means originally, as seems to be shewn by Arabic, to cover; in Hebrew, however, it is never used of literal covering, but always in a moral application, viz. either of covering the face of (i.e. appeasing [334] ) an offended person, or of screening an offence or an offender. When, as here, the reference is to sin or iniquity, the meaning differs, according as the subject is the priest, or God: in the former case the meaning is to cover or screen the sinner by means (usually) of a propitiatory sacrifice [335] , and it is then generally rendered make atonement or reconciliation for (as Lev 4:20; Lev 4:26; Lev 4:31); in the latter case it means to treat as covered, to pardon or cancel, without any reference to a propitiatory rite, as Jer 18:23; Psa 65:3; Psa 78:38; Psa 79:9 (A.V. to purge away or forgive) [336] . Here no subject is mentioned: it would most naturally (as in the case of the other infinitives) be God; moreover, when, in the ritual laws, the subject is the priest, the object of the verb is never, as here, the guilt. The rendering of R.V. marg. (‘to purge away’), though somewhat of a paraphrase, is thus preferable to that of A.V.
[334] See Gen 32:20 [Heb. 21]; and cf. Pro 16:14 (‘pacify’).
[335] Occasionally without one, as Exo 30:15-16, Num 16:46 f., Num 25:13.
[336] See more fully the note in the writer’s Deuteronomy, p. 425 f.; or the art. Propitiation in Hastings’ Dict. the Bible.
everlasting righteousness ] The expression does not occur elsewhere. In thought, however, Isa 45:17, ‘Israel is saved through Jehovah with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be put to shame, and ye shall not be confounded, for ever and ever,’ Isa 60:21, ‘Thy people shall be all of them righteous, for ever shall they inherit the land,’ are similar. The general sense of the four clauses, of which this is the last, is that the Messianic age is to be marked by the abolition and forgiveness of sin, and by perpetual righteousness. It thus expresses in a compendious form the teaching of such passages as Isa 4:3 f. (the survivors of the judgement to be all holy), Isa 32:16-17 (righteousness the mark of the ideal future), Isa 33:24 (‘the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity’), Eze 36:25-27; Isa 45:17; Isa 60:21.
and to seal vision and prophet ] i.e. to set the seal to them, to ratify and confirm the prophets’ predictions, the figure (cf. Joh 3:33; Joh 6:27) being derived from the custom of affixing a seal to a document, in order to guarantee its genuineness (Jer 32:10-11; Jer 32:44). The close of the 70 weeks will bring with it the confirmation of the prophetic utterances (such as those just quoted) respecting a blissful future.
A.V., R.V., ‘seal up,’ means to close up, preclude from activity, the sense of the expression, upon this view, being supposed to be that, prophecies being fulfilled, prophet and vision will be needed no more.
and to anoint a most holy ] ‘most holy’ or ‘holy of holies’ (lit. holiness of holinesses) is an expression belonging to the priestly terminology and is variously applied. It is used of the altar of burnt-offering (Exo 29:37, ‘and the altar shall be most holy,’ Exo 40:10), of the altar of incense (Exo 30:10), of the Tent of meeting, with the vessels belonging to it ( ib. Exo 30:26-29; cf. Num 4:4; Num 4:19, Eze 44:13); of the sacred incense ( ib. 30: 36), of the shew-bread (Lev 24:9), of the meal-offering (Lev 2:3; Lev 2:10; Lev 6:17; Lev 10:12), of the flesh of the sin-and guilt-offering (Lev 6:17; Lev 6:25; Lev 7:1; Lev 7:6; Lev 10:17; Lev 14:13, Num 18:9; cf. Lev 21:22, Eze 42:13, Ezr 2:63, 2Ch 31:14); of things ‘devoted’ to Jehovah (Lev 27:28); of the entire Temple, with the territory belonging to it, in Ezekiel’s vision (Eze 43:12; Eze 45:3; Eze 48:12); and once (perhaps) of the priests (1Ch 23:13), ‘And Aaron was separated, to sanctify him as (a thing) most holy [337] , him and his sons for ever, to burn incense, &c.’: ‘ the holy of holies,’ or ‘ the most holy (place),’ is also the name, in particular, of the inmost part of the Tent of meeting, and of the Temple, in which the ark was (Exo 26:33, and frequently). As no object is called in particular ‘a most holy (thing),’ general considerations, viewed in the light of the context, can alone determine what is here intended. A material object, rather than a person, is certainly most naturally denoted by the expression, and most probably either the altar of burnt-offering (which was in particular desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes), or the Temple generally, is what is meant. The term anoint is used both of the altar of burnt-offering in particular, and of the Tent of meeting and vessels belonging to it in general, in Exo 29:36; Exo 30:26-28 (cf. Exo 40:9-11; Lev 8:10-11; Num 7:1; Num 7:10; Num 7:84; Num 7:88), each time immediately preceding the passages quoted above for the use in the same connexion of the term ‘most holy.’ The consecration of a temple in the Messianic age (cf. Isa 60:7; Ezekiel 40 ff.) is, no doubt, what is intended by the words.
[337] The words ought however, perhaps, to be rendered (cf. A.V., R.V.) ‘that he should sanctify that which was most holy, he and his sons for ever,’ the reference being to the sanctuary and sacred vessels (cf. Exo 30:29), and to the various sacrifices mentioned above.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Seventy weeks are determined – Here commences the celebrated prophecy of the seventy weeks – a portion of Scripture Which has excited as much attention, and led to as great a variety of interpretation, as perhaps any other. Of this passage, Professor Stuart (Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, p. 104) remarks, It would require a volume of considerable magnitude even to give a history of the ever-varying and contradictory opinions of critics respecting this locus vexatissimus; and perhaps a still larger one to establish an exegesis which would stand. I am fully of opinion, that no interpretation as yet published will stand the test of thorough grammatico-historical criticism; and that a candid, and searching, and thorough critique here is still a desideratum. May some expositor, fully adequate to the task, speedily appear! After these remarks of this eminent Biblical scholar, it is with no great confidence of success that I enter on the exposition of the passage.
Yet, perhaps, though all difficulties may not be removed, and though I cannot hope to contribute anything new in the exposition of the passage, something may be written which may relieve it of some of the perplexities attending it, and which may tend to show that its author was under the influence of Divine inspiration. The passage may be properly divided into two parts. The first, in Dan 9:24, contains a general statement of what would occur in the time specified – the seventy weeks; the second, Dan 9:25-27, contains a particular statement of the manner in which that would be accomplished. In this statement, the whole time of the seventy weeks is broken up into three smaller portions of seven, sixty-two, and one – designating evidently some important epochs or periods Dan 9:25, and the last one week is again subdivided in such a way, that, while it is said that the whole work of the Messiah in confirming the covenant would occupy the entire week, yet that he would be cut off in the middle of the week, Dan 9:27.
In the general statement Dan 9:24 it is said that there was a definite time – seventy weeks – during which the subject of the prediction would be accomplished; that is, during which all that was to be done in reference to the holy city, or in the holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, etc., would be effected. The things specified in this verse are what was to be done, as detailed more particularly in the subsequent verses. The design in this verse seems to have been to furnish a general statement of what was to occur in regard to the holy city – of that city which had been selected for the peculiar purpose of being a place where an atonement was to be made for human transgression. It is quite clear that when Daniel set apart this period for prayer, and engaged in this solemn act of devotion, his design was not to inquire into the ultimate events which would occur in Jerusalem, but merely to pray that the purpose of God, as predicted by Jeremiah, respecting the captivity of the nation, and the rebuilding of the city and temple, might be accomplished. God took occasion from this, however, not only to give an implied assurance about the accomplishment of these purposes, but also to state in a remarkable manner the whole ultimate design respecting the holy city, and the great event which was ever onward to characterize it among the cities of the world. In the consideration of the whole passage Dan 9:24-27, it will be proper, first, to examine into the literal meaning of the words and phrases, and then to inquire into the fulfillment.
Seventy weeks – shabuym shbym. Vulgate, Septuaginta hebdomades. So Theodotion, Hebdomekonta hebdomades. Prof. Stuart (Hints, p. 82) renders this seventy sevens; that is, seventy times seven years: on the ground that the word denoting weeks in the Hebrew is not shabuym, but shabuoth. The form which is used here, says he, which is a regular masculine plural, is no doubt purposely chosen to designate the plural of seven; and with great propriety here, inasmuch as there are many sevens which are to be joined together in one common sum. Daniel had been meditating on the close of the seventy years of Hebrew exile, and the angel now discloses to him a new period of seventy times seven, in which still more important events are to take place. Seventy sevens, or (to use the Greek phraseology), seventy heptades, are determined upon thy people.
Heptades of what? Of days, or of years? No one can doubt what the answer is. Daniel had been making diligent search respecting the seventy years; and, in such a connection, nothing but seventy heptades of years could be reasonably supposed to be meant by the angel. The inquiry about the gender of the word, of which so much has been said (Hengstenberg, Chris. ii. 297), does not seem to be very important, since the same result is reached whether it be rendered seventy sevens, or seventy weeks. In the former ease, as proposed by Prof. Stuart, it means seventy sevens of years, or 490 years; in the other, seventy weeks of years; that is, as a week of years is seven years, seventy such weeks, or as before, 490 years. The usual and proper meaning of the word used here, however – shabuaa is a seven, hebdomas, i. e., a week. – Gesenius, Lexicon From the examples where the word occurs it would seem that the masculine or the feminine forms were used indiscriminately.
The word occurs only in the following passages, in all of which it is rendered week, or weeks, except in Eze 45:21, where it is rendered seven, to wit, days. In the following passages the word occurs in the masculine form plural, Dan 9:24-26; Dan 10:2-3; in the following in the feminine form plural, Exo 34:22; Num 28:26; Deu 16:9-10, Deu 16:16; 2Ch 8:13; Jer 5:24; Eze 45:21; and in the following in the singular number, common gender, rendered week, Gen 29:27-28, and in the dual masculine in Lev 12:5, rendered two weeks. From these passages it is evident that nothing certain can be determined about the meaning of the word from its gender. It would seem to denote weeks, periods of seven days – hebdomads – in either form, and is doubtless so used here. The fair translation would be, weeks seventy are determined; that is, seventy times seven days, or four hundred and ninety days. But it may be asked here, whether this is to be taken literally, as denoting four hundred and ninety days? If not, in what sense is it to be understood? and why do we understand it in a different sense? It is clear that it must be explained literally as denoting four hundred and ninety days, or that these days must stand for years, and that the period is four hundred and ninety years. That this latter is the true interpretation, as it has been held by all commentators, is apparent from the following considerations:
(a) This is not uncommon in the prophetic writings. See the notes at Dan 7:24-28. (See also Editors Preface to volume on Revelation.)
(b) Daniel had been making inquiry respecting the seventy years, and it is natural to suppose that the answer of the angel would have respect to years also; and, thus understood, the answer would have met the inquiry pertinently – not seventy years, but a week of years – seven times seventy years. Compare Mat 18:21-22. In such a connection, nothing but seventy heptades of years could be reasonably supposed to be meant by the angel. – Prof. Stuarts Hints, etc., p. 82.
(c) Years, as Prof. Stuart remarks, are the measure of all considerable periods of time. When the angel speaks, then, in reference to certain events, and declares that they are to take place during seventy heptades, it is a matter of course to suppose that he means years.
(d) The circumstances of the case demand this interpretation. Daniel was seeking comfort in view of the fact that the city and temple had been desolate now for a period of seventy years. The angel comes to bring him consolation, and to give him assurances about the rebuilding of the city, and the great events that were to occur there. But what consolation would it be to be told that the city would indeed be rebuilt, and that it would continue seventy ordinary weeks – that is, a little more than a year, before a new destruction would come upon it? It cannot well be doubted, then, that by the time here designated, the angel meant to refer to a period of four hundred and ninety years; and if it be asked why this number was not literally and exactly specified in so many words, instead of choosing a mode of designation comparatively so obscure, it may be replied,
(1) that the number seventy was employed by Daniel as the time respecting which he was making inquiry, and that there was a propriety that there should be a reference to that fact in the reply of the angel – one number seventy had been fulfilled in the desolations of the city, there would be another number seventy in the events yet to occur;
(2) this is in the usual prophetic style, where there is, as Hengstenberg remarks (Chris. ii. 299), often a concealed definiteness. It is usual to designate numbers in this way.
(3) The term was sufficiently clear to be understood, or is, at all events, made clear by the result. There is no reason to doubt that Daniel would so understand it, or that it would be so interpreted, as fixing in the minds of the Jewish people the period when the Messiah was about to appear. The meaning then is, that there would be a period of four hundred and ninety years, during which the city, after the order of the rebuilding should go forth Dan 9:25, until the entire consummation of the great object for which it should be rebuilt: and that then the purpose would be accomplished, and it would be given up to a greater ruin. There was to be this long period in which most important transactions were to occur in the city.
Are determined – The word used here ( nechettak from chatak) occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures. It properly means, according to Gesenius, to cut off, to divide; and hence, to deterinine, to destine, to appoint. Theodotion renders it, sunetmeetheesan – are cut off, decided, defined. The Vulgate renders it, abbreviate sunt. Luther, Sind bestimmet – are determined. The meaning would seem to be, that this portion of time – the seventy weeks – was cut off from the whole of duration, or cut out of it, as it were, and set by itself for a definite purpose. It does not mean that it was cut off from the time which the city would naturally stand, or that this time was abbreviated, but that a portion of time – to wit, four hundred and ninety years – was designated or appointed with reference to the city, to accomplish the great and important object which is immediately specified. A certain, definite period was fixed on, and when this was past, the promised Messiah would come. In regard to the construction here – the singular verb with a plural noun, see Hengstenberg, Christ. in, loc. The true meaning seems to be, that the seventy weeks are spoken of collectively, as denoting a period of time; that is, a period of seventy weeks is determined. The prophet, in the use of the singular verb, seems to have contemplated the time, not as separate weeks, or as particular portions, but as one period.
Upon thy people – The Jewish people; the nation to which Daniel belonged. This allusion is made because he was inquiring about the close of their exile, and their restoration to their own land.
And upon thy holy city – Jerusalem, usually called the holy city, because it was the place where the worship of God was celebrated, Isa 52:1; Neh 11:1, Neh 11:18; Mat 27:53. It is called thy holy city – the city of Daniel, because he was here making special inquiry respecting it, and because he was one of the Hebrew people, and the city was the capital of their nation. As one of that nation, it could be called his. It was then, indeed, in ruins, but it was to be rebuilt, and it was proper to speak of it as if it were then a city. The meaning of upon thy people and city ( al) is, respecting or concerning. The purpose respecting the seventy weeks pertains to thy people and city; or there is an important period of four hundred and seventy years determined on, or designated, respecting that people and city.
To finish the transgression – The angel proceeds to state what was the object to be accomplished in this purpose, or what would occur during that period. The first thing, to finish the transgression. The margin is, restrain. The Vulgate renders it, ut consummetur proevaricatio. Theodotion, tou suntelesthenai hamartian – to finish sin. Thompson renders this, to finish sin-offerings. The difference between the marginal reading (restrain) and the text (finish) arises from a doubt as to the meaning of the original word. The common reading of the text is kalle’, but in 39 Codices examined by Kennicott, it is . The reading in the text is undoubtedly the correct one, but still there is not absolute certainty as to the signification of the word, whether it means to finish or to restrain. The proper meaning of the word in the common reading of the text ( kala’) is, to shut up, confine, restrain – as it is rendered in the margin.
The meaning of the other word found in many manuscripts ( kalah) is, to be completed, finished, closed – and in Piel, the form used here, to complete, to finish – as it is translated in the common version. Gesenius (Lexicon) supposes that the word here is for – kalleh – meaning to finish or complete. Hengstenberg, who is followed in this view by Lengerke, supposes that the meaning is to shut up transgression, and that the true reading is that in the text – – though as that word is not used in Piel, and as the Masoretes had some doubts as to the derivation of the word, they gave to it not its appropriate pointing in this place – which would have been keloh – but the pointing of the other word ( kaleh) in the margin. According to Hengstenberg, the sense here of shutting up is derived from the general notion of restraining or hindering, belonging to the word; and he supposes that this will best accord with the other words in this member of the verse – to cover, and to seal up.
The idea according to him is, that sin, which hitherto lay naked and open before the eyes of a righteous God, is now by his mercy shut up, sealed, and covered, so that it can no more be regarded as existing – a figurative description of the forgiveness of sin. So Lengerke renders it, Ura einzuschliessen (den) Abfall. Bertholdt, Bis der Frevel vollbracht. It seems most probable that the true idea here is that denoted in the margin, and that the sense is not that of finishing, but that of restraining, closing, shutting up, etc. So it is rendered by Prof. Stuart – to restrain transgression. – Com. on Daniel, in loc. The word is used in this sense of shutting up, or restraining, in several places in the Bible: 1Sa 6:10, and shut up their calves at home; Jer 32:3, Zedekiah had shut him up; Psa 88:8, I am shut up, and I cannot come forth; Jer 32:2, Jeremiah the prophet was shut up.
The sense of shutting up, or restraining, accords better with the connection than that of finishing. The reference of the whole passage is undoubtedly to the Messiah, and to what would be done sometime during the seventy weeks; and the meaning here is, not that he would finish transgression – which would not be true in any proper sense, but that he would do a work which would restrain iniquity in the world, or, more strictly, which would shut it up – enclose it – as in a prison, so that it would no more go forth and prevail. The effect would be that which occurs when one is shut up in prison, and no longer goes at large. There would be a restraining power and influence which would check the progress of sin. This does not, I apprehend, refer to the particular transgressions for which the Jewish people had suffered in their long captivity, but sin ( hapesha) in general – the sin of the world.
There would be an influence which would restrain and curb it, or which would shut it up so that it would no longer reign and roam at large over the earth. It is true that this might not have been so understood by Daniel at the time, for the language is so general that it might have suggested the idea that it referred to the sins of the Jewish people. This language, if there had been no farther explanation of it, might have suggested the idea that in the time specified – seventy weeks – there would be some process – some punishment – some Divine discipline – by which the iniquities of that people, or their propensity to sin, for which this long captivity had come upon them, would be cohibited, or restrained. But the language is not such as necessarily to confine the interpretation to that, and the subsequent statements, and the actual fulfillment in the work of the Messiah, lead us to understand this in a much higher sense, as having reference to sin in general, and as designed to refer to some work that would ultimately be an effectual check on sin, and which would tend to cohibit, or restrain it altogether in the world. Thus understood, the language will well describe the work of the Redeemer – that work which, through the sacrifice made on the cross, is adapted and designed to restrain sin altogether.
And to make an end of sins – Margin, to seal up. The difference here in the text and the margin arises from a difference in the readings in the Hebrew. The common reading in the text is chathem – from chatham – to seal, to seal up. But the Hebrew marginal reading is a different word – hathem, from tamam – to complete, to perfect, to finish. The pointing in the text in the word chatem is not the proper pointing of that word, which would have been chetom, but the Masoretes, as is not unfrequently the case, gave to the word in the text the pointing of another word which they placed in the margin. The marginal reading is found in fifty-five manuscripts (Lengerke), but the weight of authority is decidedly in favor of the common reading in the Hebrew text – to seal, and not to finish, as it is in our translation.
The marginal reading, to finish, was doubtless substituted by some transcribers, or rather suggested by the Masoretes, because it seemed to convey a better signification to say that sin would be finished, than to say that it would be sealed. The Vulgate has followed the reading in the margin – et finem accipiat peccatum; Theodotion has followed the other reading, sphragisai hamartias. Luther also has it, to seal. Coverdale, that sin may have an end. The true rendering is, doubtless, to seal sin; and the idea is that of removing it from sight; to remove it from view. The expression is taken, says Lengerke, from the custom of sealing up those things which one lays aside and conceals. Thus in Job 9:7, And sealeth up the stars; that is, he so shuts them up in the heavens as to prevent their shining – so as to hide them from the view. They are concealed, hidden, made close – as the contents of a letter or package are sealed, indicating that no one is to examine them.
See the note at that passage. So also in Job 37:7, referring to winter, it is said, He sealeth up the hand of every man, that all men may know his work. That is, in the winter, when the snow is on the ground, when the streams are frozen, the labors of the farmer must cease. The hands can no more be used in ordinary toil. Every man is prevented from going abroad to his accustomed labor, and is, as it were, sealed up in his dwelling. Compare Jer 32:11, Jer 32:14; Isa 29:11; Son 4:12. The idea in the passage before us is, that the sins of our nature will, as it were, be sealed up, or closed, or hidden, so that they will not be seen, or will not develop themselves; that is, they will be inert, inefficient, powerless. – Prof. Stuart. The language is applicable to anything that would hide them from view, or remove them from sight – as a book whose writing is so sealed that we cannot read it; a tomb that is so closed that we cannot enter it and see its contents; a package that is so sealed that we do not know what is within it; a room that is so shut up that we may not enter it, and see what is within.
It is not to be supposed that Daniel would see clearly how this was to be done; but we, who have now a full revelation of the method by which God can remove sin, can understand the method in which this is accomplished by the blood of the atonement, to wit, that by that atonement sin is now forgiven, or is treated as if it were hidden from the view, and a seal, which may not be broken, placed on what covers it. The language thus used, as we are now able to interpret it, is strikingly applicable to the work of the Redeemer, and to the method by which God removes sin. In not a few manuscripts and editions the word rendered sins is in the singular number. The amount of authority is in favor of the common reading – sins – though the sense is not materially varied. The work would have reference to sin, and the effect would be to seal it, and hide it from the view.
And to make reconciliation for iniquity – More literally, and to cover iniquity. The word which is rendered to make reconciliation – kaphar – properly means to cover (from our English word cover); to cover over, to overlay, as with pitch Gen 6:14; and hence, to cover over sin; that is, to atone for it, pardon it, forgive it. It is the word which is commonly used with reference to atonement or expiation, and seems to have been so understood by our translators. It does not necessarily refer to the means by which sin is covered over, etc., by an atonement, but is often used in the general sense of to pardon or forgive. Compare the notes at Isa 6:7, and more fully. See the notes at Isa 43:3. Here there is no necessary allusion to the atonement which the Messiah would make in order to cover over sin; that is, the word is of so general a character in its signification that it does not necessarily imply this, but it is the word which would naturally be used on the supposition that it had such a reference. As a matter of fact, undoubtedly, the means by which this was to be done was by the atonement, and that was referred to by the Spirit of inspiration, but this is not essentially implied in the meaning of the word. In whatever way that should be done, this word would be properly used as expressing it. The Latin Vulgate renders thus, et deleatur iniquitas. Theodotion, apaleipsai tas adikias – to wipe out iniquities. Luther, to reconcile for transgression. Here are three things specified, therefore, in regard to sin, which would be done. Sin would be
Restrained,
Sealed up,
Covered over.
These expressions, though not of the nature of a climax, are intensive, and show that the great work referred to pertained to sin, and would be designed to remove it. Its bearing would be on human transgression; on the way by which it might be pardoned; on the methods by which it would be removed from the view, and be kept from rising up to condemn and destroy. Such expressions would undoubtedly lead the mind to look forward to some method which was to be disclosed by which sin could be consistently pardoned and removed. In the remainder of the verse, there are three additional things which would be done as necessary to complete the work: –
To bring in everlasting righteousness;
To seal up the vision and prophecy; and
To anoint the Most Holy.
And to bring in everlasting righteousness – The phrase to bring in – literally, to cause to come – refers to some direct agency by which that righteousness would be introduced into the world. It would be such an agency as would cause it to exist; or as would establish it in the world. The mode of doing this is not indeed here specified, and, so far as the word used here is concerned, it would be applicable to any method by which this would be done – whether by making an atonement; or by setting an example; or by persuasion; or by placing the subject of morals on a better foundation; or by the administration of a just government; or in any other way. The term is of the most general character, and its exact force here can be learned only by the subsequently revealed facts as to the way by which this would be accomplished. The essential idea in the language is, that this would be introduced by the Messiah; that is, that he would be its author.
The word righteousness here also ( tsedeq) is of a general character. The fair meaning would be, that some method would be introduced by which men would become righteous. In the former part of the verse, the reference was to sin – to the fact of its existence – to the manner in which it would be disposed of – to the truth that it would be coerced, sealed up, covered over. Here the statement is, that, in contradistinction from that, a method would be introduced by which man would become, in fact, righteous and holy. But the word implies nothing as to the method by which this would be done. Whether it would be by a new mode of justification, or by an influence that would make men personally holy – whether this was to be as the result of example, or instruction, or an atoning sacrifice – is not necessarily implied in the use of this word. That, as in the cases already referred to, could be learned only by subsequent develop. ments.
It would be, doubtless, understood that there was a reference to the Messiah – for that is specified in the next verse; and it would be inferred from this word that, under him, righteousness would reign, or that men would be righteous, but nothing could be argued from it as to the methods by which it would be done. It is hardly necessary to add, that, in the prophets, it is constantly said that righteousness would characterize the Messiah and his times; that he would come to make men righteous, and to set up a kingdom of righteousness in the earth. Yet the exact mode in which it was to be done would be, of course, more fully explained when the Messiah should himself actually appear. The word everlasting is used here to denote that the righteousness would be permanent and perpetual. In reference to the method of becoming righteous, it would be unchanging – the standing method ever onward by which men would become holy; in reference to the individuals who should become righteous under this system, it would be a righteousness which would continue forever.
This is the characteristic which is everywhere given of the righteousness which would be introduced by the Messiah. Thus in Isa 51:6-8 : Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished. Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings. For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be forever, and my salvation from generation to generation. So Isa 45:17 : But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded, world without end.
Compare Jer 31:3. The language used in the passage before us, moreover, is such as could not properly be applied to anything but that righteousness which the Messiah would introduce. It could not be used in reference to the temporal prosperity of the Jews on their return to the holy land, nor to such righteousness as the nation had in former times. The fair and proper meaning of the term is, that it would be eternal – what would endure forever – tsedeq olamym. It would place righteousness on a permanent and enduring foundation; introduce that which would endure through all changes, and exist when the heavens would be no more. In the plan itself there would be no change; in the righteousness which anyone would possess under that system there would be perpetual duration – it would exist forever and ever. This is the nature of that righteousness by which men are now justified; this is what all who are interested in the scheme of redemption actually possess. The way in which this everlasting righteousness would be introduced is not stated here, but is reserved for future revelations. Probably all that the words would convey to Daniel would be, that there would be some method disclosed by which men would become righteous, and that this would not be temporary or changing, but would be permanent and eternal. It is not improper that we should understand it, as it is explained by the subsequent revelations in the New Testament, as to the method by which sinners are justified before God.
And to seal up the vision and prophecy – Margin, as in the Hebrew, prophet. The evident meaning, however, here is prophecy. The word seal is found, as already explained, in the former part of the verse – to seal up sins. The word vision (for its meaning, see the notes at Isa 1:1) need not be understood as referring particularly to the visions seen by Daniel, but should be understood, like the word prophecy or prophet here, in a general sense – as denoting all the visions seen by the prophets – the series of visions relating to the future, which had been made known to the prophets. The idea seems to be that they would at that time be all sealed, in the sense that they would be closed or shut up – no longer open matters – but that the fulfillment would, as it were, close them up forever. Till that time they would be open for penusal and study; then they would be closed up as a sealed volume which one does not read, but which contains matter hidden from the view.
Compare the notes at Isa 8:16 : Bind up the testimony; seal the law among my disciples. See also Dan 8:26; Dan 12:4. In Isaiah Isa 8:16 the meaning is, that the prophecy was complete, and the direction was given to bind it up, or roll it up like a volume, and to seal it. In Dan 8:26, the meaning is, seal up the prophecy, or make a permanent record of it, that when it is fulfilled, the event may be compared with the prophecy, and it may be seen that the one corresponds with the other. In the passage before us, Gesenius (Lexicon) renders it, to complete, to finish – meaning that the prophecies would be fulfilled. Hengstenberg supposes that it means, that as soon as the fulfillment takes place, the prophecy, although it retains, in other respects, its great importance, reaches the end of its destination, in so far as the view of believers, who stand in need of consolation and encouragement, is no longer directed to it, to the future prosperity, but to what has appeared.
Lengerke supposes that it means to confirm, corroborate, ratify – bekraftigen, bestatigen; that is, the eternal righteousness will be given to the pious, and the predictions of the prophets will be confirmed and fulfilled. To seal, says he, has also the idea of confirming, since the contents of a writing are secured or made fast by a seal. After all, perhaps, the very idea here is, that of making fast, as a lock or seal does – for, as is well known, a seal was often used by the ancients where a lock is with us; and the sense may be, that, as a seal or lock made fast and secure the contents of a writing or a book, so the event, when the prophecy was fulfilled, would make it fast and secure. It would be, as it were, locking it up, or sealing it, forever. It would determine all that seemed to be undetermined about it; settle all that seemed to be indefinite, and leave it no longer uncertain what was meant. According to this interpretation the meaning would be, that the prophecies would be sealed up or settled by the coming of the Messiah. The prophecies terminated on him (compare Rev 19:10); they would find their fulfillment in him; they would be completed in him – and might then be regarded as closed and consummated – as a book that is fully written and is sealed up. All the prophecies, and all the visions, had a reference more or less direct to the coming of the Messiah, and when he should appear they might be regarded as complete. The spirit of prophecy would cease, and the facts would confirm and seal all that had been written.
And to anoint the Most Holy – There has been great variety in the interpretation of this expression. The word rendered anoint – meshocha – infinitive from mashach (from the word Messiah, Dan 9:25), means, properly, to strike or draw the hand over anything; to spread over with anything, to smear, to paint, to anoint. It is commonly used with reference to a sacred rite, to anoint, or consecrate by unction, or anointing to any office or use; as, e. g., a priest, Exo 28:41; Exo 40:15; a prophet, 1Ki 19:16; Isa 61:1; a king, 1Sa 10:1; 1Sa 15:1; 2Sa 2:4; 1Ki 1:34. So it is used to denote the consecration of a stone or column as a future sacred place, Gen 31:13; or vases and vessels as consecrated to God, Exo 40:9, Exo 40:11; Lev 8:11; Num 7:1. The word would then denote a setting apart to a sacred use, or consecrating a person or place as holy. Oil, or an unguent, prepared according to a specified rule, was commonly employed for this purpose, but the word may be used in a figurative sense – as denoting to set apart or consecrate in any way without the use of oil – as in the case of the Messiah. So far as this word, therefore, is concerned, what is here referred to may have occurred without the literal use of oil, by any act of consecration or dedication to a holy use.
The phrase, the Most Holy ( qodesh qadashym) has been very variously interpreted. By some it has been understood to apply literally to the most holy place – the holy of holies, in the temple; by others to the whole temple, regarded as holy; by others to Jerusalem at large as a holy place; and by others, as Hengstenberg, to the Christian church as a holy place. By some the thing here referred to is supposed to have been the consecration of the most holy place after the rebuilding of the temple; by others the consecration of the whole temple; by others the consecration of the temple and city by the presence of the Messiah, and by others the consecration of the Christian church, by his presence. The phrase properly means holy of holies, or most holy. It is applied often in the Scriptures to the inner sanctuary, or the portion of the tabernacle and temple containing the ark of the covenant, the two tables of stone, etc.
See the notes at Mat 21:12. The phrase occurs in the following places in the Scripture: Exo 26:33-34; Exo 29:37; Exo 30:29, Exo 30:36; Exo 40:10; Lev 2:3, Lev 2:10, et al. – in all, in about twenty-eight places. See the Englishmans Hebrew Concordance. It is not necessarily limited to the inner sanctuary of the temple, but may be applied to the whole house, or to anything that was consecrated to God in a manner peculiarly sacred. In a large sense, possibly it might apply to Jerusalem, though I am not aware that it ever occurs in this sense in the Scriptures, and in a figurative sense it might be applied undoubtedly, as Hengstenberg supposes, to the Christian church, though it is certain that it is not elsewhere thus used. In regard to the meaning of the expression – an important and difficult one, as is admitted by all – there are five principal opinions which it may be well to notice. The truth will be found in one of them.
(1) That it refers to the consecration by oil or anointing of the temple, that would be rebuilt after the captivity, by Zerubbabel and Joshua. This was the opinion of Michaelis and Jahn. But to this opinion there are insuperable objections:
(a) That, according to the uniform tradition of the Jews, the holy oil was wanting in the second temple. In the case of the first temple there might have been a literal anointing, though there is no evidence of that, as there was of the anointing of the vessels of the tabernacle, Exo 30:22, etc. But in the second temple there is every evidence that there can be, that there was no literal anointing.
(b) The time here referred to is a fatal objection to this opinion. The period is seventy weeks of years, or four hundred and ninety years. This cannot be doubted (see the notes at the first part of the verse) to be the period referred to; but it is absurd to suppose that the consecration of the new temple would be deferred for so long a time, and there is not the slightest evidence that it was. This opinion, therefore, cannot be entertained.
(2) The second opinion is, that it refers to the re-consecration and cleansing of the temple after the abominations of Antiochus Epiphanes. See the notes at Dan 8:14. But this opinion is liable substantially to the same objections as the other. The cleansing of the temple, or of the sanctuary, as it is said in Dan 8:14, did not occur four hundred and ninety years after the order to rebuild the temple Dan 9:25, but at a much earlier period. By no art of construction, if the period here referred to is four hundred and ninety years, can it be made to apply to the re-dedication of the temple after Antiochus had defiled it.
(3) Others have supposed that this refers to the Messiah himself, and that the meaning is, that he, who was most holy, would then be consecrated or anointed as the Messiah. It is probable, as Hengstenberg (Christ. ii. 321, 322) has shown, that the Greek translators thus understood it, but it is a sufficient objection to this that the phrase, though occurring many times in the Scriptures, is never applied to persons, unless this be an instance. Its uniform and proper application is to things, or places, and it is undoubtedly so to be understood in this place.
(4) Hengstenberg supposes (pp. 325-328) that it refers to the Christian church as a holy place, or the New Temple of the Lord, the Church of the New covenant, as consecrated and supplied with the gifts of the Spirit. But it is a sufficient refutation of this opinion that the phrase is nowhere else so used; that it has in the Old Testament a settled meaning as referring to the tabernacle or the temple; that it is nowhere employed to denote a collection of people, anymore than an individual person – an idea which Hengstenberg himself expressly rejects (p. 322); and that there is no proper sense in which it can be said that the Christian church is anointed. The language is undoubtedly to be understood as referring to some place that was to be thus consecrated, and the uniform Hebrew usage would lead to the supposition that there is reference, in some sense, to the temple at Jerusalem.
(5) It seems to me, therefore, that the obvious and fair interpretation is, to refer it to the temple – as the holy place of God; his peculiar abode on earth. Strictly and properly speaking, the phrase would apply to the inner room of the temple – the sanctuary properly so called (see the notes at Heb 9:2); but it might he applied to the whole temple as consecrated to the service of God. If it be asked, then, what anointing or consecration is referred to here, the reply, as it seems to me, is, not that it was then to be set apart anew, or to be dedicated; not that it was literally to be anointed with the consecrating oil, but that it was to be consecrated in the highest and best sense by the presence of the Messiah – that by his coming there was to be a higher and more solemn consecration of the temple to the real purpose for which it was erected than had occurred at any time. It was reared as a holy place; it would become eminently holy by the presence of him who would come as the anointed of God, and his coming to it would accomplish the purpose for which it was erected, and with reference to which all the rites observed there had been ordained, and then, this work having been accomplished, the temple, and all the rites pertaining to it, would pass away.
In confirmation of this view, it may be remarked, that there are repeated allusions to the coming of the Messiah to the second temple, reared after the return from the captivity – as that which would give a peculiar sacredness to the temple, and which would cause it to surpass in glory all its ancient splendor. So in Hag 2:7, Hag 2:9 : And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts. – The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord of hosts. So Mal 3:1-2 : The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiners fire, and like fullers soap, etc.
Compare Mat 12:6 : But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. Using the word anoint, therefore, as denoting to consecrate, to render holy, to set apart to a sacred use, and the phrase holy of holies to designate the temple as such, it seems to me most probable that the reference here is to the highest consecration which could be made of the temple in the estimation of a Hebrew, or, in fact, the presence of the Messiah, as giving a sacredness to that edifice which nothing else did give or could give, and, therefore, as meeting all the proper force of the language used here. On the supposition that it was designed that there should be a reference to this event, this would be such language as would have been not unnaturally employed by a Hebrew prophet. And if it be so, this may be regarded as the probable meaning of the passage. In this sense, the temple which was to be reared again, and about which Daniel felt so solicitous, would receive its highest, its truest consecration, as connected with an event which was to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and the prophecy.
(D) Simultaneously with this event, as the result of this, we are to anticipate such a spread of truth and righteousness, and such a reign of the saints on the earth, as would be properly symbolized by the coming of the Son of man to the ancient of days to receive the kingdom, Dan 7:13-14. As shown in the interpretation of those verses, this does not necessarily imply that there would be any visible appearing of the Son of man, or any personal reign (see the note at these verses), but there would be such a making over of the kingdom to the Son of man and to the saints as would be properly symbolized by such a representation. That is, there would be great changes; there would be a rapid progress of the truth; there would be a spread of the gospel; there would be a change in the governments of the world, so that the power would pass into the hands of the righteous, and they would in fact rule. From that time the saints would receive the kingdom, and the affairs of the world would be put on a new footing. From that period it might be said that the reign of the saints would commence; that is, there would be such changes in this respect that that would constitute an epoch in the history of the world – the proper beginning of the reign of the saints on the earth – the setting up of the new and final dominion in the world. If there should be such changes – such marked progress – such facilities for the spread of truth – such new methods of propagating it – and such certain success attending it, all opposition giving way, and persecution ceasing, as would properly constitute an epoch or era in the worlds history, which would be connected with the conversion of the world to God, this would fairly meet the interpretation of this prophecy; this occurring, all would have taken place which could be fairly shown to be implied in the vision.
(E) We are to expect a reign of righteousness on the earth. On the character of what we are fairly to expect from the words of the prophecy, see the notes at Dan 7:14. The prophecy authorizes us to anticipate a time when there shall be a general prevalence of true religion; when the power in the world shall be in the hands of good men – of men fearing God; when the Divine laws shall be obeyed – being acknowledged as the laws that are to control men; when the civil institutions of the world shall be pervaded by religion, and moulded by it; when there shall be no hinderance to the free exercise of religion, and when in fact the reigning power on the earth shall be the kingdom which the Messiah shall set up. There is nothing more certain in the future than such a period, and to that all things are tending. Such a period would fulfill all that is fairly implied in this wonderful prophecy, and to that faith and hope should calmly and confidently look forward. For that they who love their God and their race should labor and pray; and by the certain assurance that such a period will come, we should be cheered amidst all the moral darkness that exists in the world, and in all that now discourages us in our endeavors to do good.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Dan 9:24
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people.
Shutting, Sealing, and Covering: or, Messiahs Glorious Work
The Lord God appointed a set time for the coming of His Son into the world; nothing was left to chance. Infinite wisdom dictated the hour at which the Messiah should be born, and the moment at which he should be cut off. Note, again, that the Lord told His people somewhat darkly, but still with a fair measure of clearness, when the Christ would come. Thus he cheered them when the heavy clouds of woe hung over their path. This prophecy shone like a star in the midst of the sorrows of Israel; so bright was it that at the period when Christ came there was a general expectation of Him. The first advent of our Lord is spoken of in our text as ordained to be ere the seventy weeks were finished, and the city should be destroyed; and so it was even as the prophet had spoken.
I. First, LET US SURVEY THE MESSIAHS WORK. The first work of our Lord Jesus Christ is the overthrow of evil, and it is thus described–To finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity. But our Lords labour is not all spent upon down-pulling work; He comes to build up, and His second work is the setting up of righteousness in the world, described again by three sentences: To bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. The first work of the Messiah is the overthrow of evil. This overthrow of evil is described by three words. If I were to give you a literal translation from the Hebrew I might read the passage thus: To shut up the transgression, to seal up sin, and to cover up iniquity. According to learned men, those are the words which are here used, and the three put together are a singularly complete description off the putting away of sin. First, it is shut up; it is, as it were, taken prisoner, and confined in a cell; the door is fastened, and it is held in durance; it is out of sight; held to a narrow range: unable to exercise the power it once possessed. In a word, it is , restrained–so the margin of our Bibles reads it. The Hebrew word signifies to hold back, to hold in, to arrest, to keep in prison, to shut in or shut up. Its dominion is finished, for sin itself is bound. Christ has led captivity captive. But it is not enough to shut up the vanquished tyrant, unless he be shut up for ever; end, therefore, lest there should be any possibility of his breaking loose again, the next sentence is, To seal up. The uses of the seal are many, but here it is employed for certainty of custody. Thus is sin placed doubly out of sight; it is shut up and sealed up, as a document put into a case and then sealed down. Finished and made an end of are the two words used in our authorised version, and they give the essence of the meaning. To borrow a figure–Arabi, the Egyptian rebel, is shut up as our prisoner, and his defeat is sealed, therefore his rebellion is finished and an end is made of it. Even thus is it with transgression; our Lord has vanquished evil, and certified the same under the hand and seal of the Omnipotent, and therefore we may with rapture hear Him say, It is finished, and also behold Him rise from the dead to seal our justification. Yet, as if this might not suffice, the next term in the Hebrew is to cover up; for the word to make reconciliation or expiation is usually in the Hebrew to cover over. Blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Christ has come to cover sin, to atone for it, and so to hide it. The two former sentences speak of finishing transgression and making an end of sin, and these expressions are full and complete, while this third one explains the means by which the work is done, namely, by an expiation which covers up every trace of sin. Thus in the three together we have a picture of the utter extinction of sin both as to its guilt and its power, ay, and its very existence; it is put into the dungeon and the door is shut upon it; after this the door is sealed and then it is covered up, so that the place of sins sepulchre cannot be seen any more for ever. Observe that the terms for sin are left in an absolute form. It is said, to finish transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity. Whose transgression is this? Whose sins are these? It is not said. There is no word employed to set out the persons for Whom atonement is made, as is done in verses like these–Christ loved the church and gave himself for it; I lay down my life for the sheep. The mass of evil is left unlabelled, that any penitent sinner may look to the Messiah and find in Him the remover of sin. What transgression is finished? Transgression of every kind. The Messiah came to wipe out and utterly destroy sin, and this is, and will he, the effect of His work. Put all the three sentences into one and this is the sum of them. I take the sentences separately and press each cluster by itself. And first notice that it is said He came to finish the transgression. As some understand it, our Lord came that in His death transgression might reach its highest development, and sign its own condemnation. Sin reached its finis, its ultimatum, its climax, in the murder of the Son of God. It could not proceed further; the course of malice could no further go. Now hath sin finished itself, and now hath Jesus come to finish it. Thus far, saith He, thou shalt go, but no further; here in my wounds and death shall thy proud waves be stayed. The huge leviathan of evil has met its match, and is placed under the power of the Avenger. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will put my hook in thy nose and my bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee by the way by which thou earnest. The Lord hath set bounds to the transgression which aforetime broke all bounds. Where sin abounded, grace doth much more abound. Sin is shut up that grace may have liberty. Now take the second sentence, which in our version is, To make an end of sin. Messiah has come to proclaim so free, so rich, so gracious a pardon to the sons of men that when they receive it sin virtually ceases to he; it is made an end of. But the Hebrew has it to seal up sins. Now I take it to mean just this. There are certain handwritings which are against us, and they would be produced against us in court, but by the order of the judge all these handwritings are sealed up, and regarded as out of sight; no man dare break the seal, and no man can read them unless the seal be broken; therefore they will never be brought against us. They have become virtually null and void. Everything that can be brought as an accusation against Gods people is now sealed up and put out of the way once for all, never to be opened and laid to their charge before the living God. Or, if you regard sin as a captive prisoner, you must now see that by Christs death the prison wherein sin lies is so sealed that the enemy can never come forth again in its ancient power. But now, the last expression is in English, He hath come to make reconciliation for iniquity; that is, to end the strife between God and man by a glorious reconciliation, a making again of peace between these twain; so that God loveth man, and, as a consequence, man loveth God. In the blessed atonement of Christ, God and man meet at a chosen meeting-place. Now, take the Hebrew for it, and read the sentence thus–to cover iniquity. Oh, what bliss this is; to think that sin is now once for all covered! I fail to describe this triumphant overthrow of sin and Satan. I have neither wisdom nor language answerable to such a theme. I invite you now to consider the second work, namely, the setting up of righteousness. This is set before us in three expressions; first, in the words to bring in everlasting righteousness. And what is that? Why, his own righteousness which is from everlasting to everlasting. Happy are those spirits to whom Christ gives an everlasting righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom and in it they shall shine forth as the sun. Next, in order to the setting up of a kingdom of righteousness He is come that He may seal up vision and prophecy. That is, by fulfilling all the visions and the prophecies of the Old Testament in Himself, He ends both prophecy and vision. He seals up visions and prophecies so that they shall no more be seen or spoken; they are closed, and no man can add to them; and therefore–and that is the point to note–the gospel is for ever settled, to remain eternally the same. Christ has set up a kingdom that shall never he moved. His truth can never be changed by any novel revelation. There always was something better yet to come in all times till Christ arrived; but after the best there cometh none. This, then, is an essential part of the setting up of that which is good–namely, to settle truth on a fixed basis, whereon we may stand steadfast, immovable. The candles are snuffed out because the day itself looks out from the windows of Heaven. Then, as if this were not enough, He is also come to anoint the Most Holy, or the Holy of holies, as you may read it And what means this? Nothing material, for the Holy of holies, the place into which the High Priest went of old is demolished, and the veil is rent. The most holy place is now the person of the Lord Jesus Christ; He was anointed that God might dwell in Him. Together with Christ the Holy of holies is now His Church, and that Church was anointed or dedicated when the Holy Ghost fell at Pentecost, to be with us, and to abide in us for ever. That was a noble part of the setting up of the great kingdom of righteousness, when tongues of fire descended and sat upon each of the disciples, and they began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Heaven rings with the praises of the Messiah who came to destroy the work of sin, and to set up the kingdom of righteous-hess in the midst of the world.
II. LET US NOW ENQUIRE AS TO OUR PARTICIPATION IN THESE TWO WORKS. First, Christ has come into the world to do all this good work, but has He done it for us? There is a general aspect to the atonement, but there is quite as surely a special object in it. The first question that is to help you to answer that enquiry is this–Is your sin shut up as to its power? Sin shall not have dominion over you if Christ is in you. How is it between your soul and evil? Is there war or peace? The next question arising out of the text is, Is your sin sealed up as to its condemning power? Have you ever felt the power of the Holy Spirit in your soul, saying to you, Go in peace; thy sins which are many, are all forgiven thee? There is no peace saith my God, to the wicked. There is no peace to any of us till Christ hath made an end of our sin. How is it with your hearts? And next, is your sin covered as to its appearance before God? Has the Lord Jesus Christ made such an expiation for your sin that it no longer glares in the presence of the Most High, but you can come unto God without dread? Further, let me question you about the next point. Has the Lord Jesus Christ made you righteous? Do you glory in His blood and righteousness, and do you now seek after that which is pure and holy? Furthermore, are the prophecies and visions sealed up as to you? Are they fulfilled in you? When God declares that He will wash us and make us whiter than snow, is it so with you? When He declares that He will cleanse our blood, which has not yet been cleansed, is it so with you? Nor is this all; are you anointed to be most holy to the Lord? Are you set apart that you may serve Him?
III. Lastly, THE RESULTS OF PARTICIPATING IN ALL THIS. The results! They are, first of all, security. How can that man be lost whose transgression is finished, and whose sin has ceased to be? What is there for him to dread on earth, in Heaven, or in hell? And now, inasmuch as you are secure, you are also reconciled to God, and made to delight in Him. God is your friend, and you are one of the friends of God. Rejoice in that hallowed friendship, and live in the assurance of it. But now, suppose when I put the question, you had to shake your head and say, No, it is not so with me. Then hear these few sentences. If the Messiah has not done this for you, then your sin will be finished in another way–sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. An awful death awaits you–death unto God, and purity and joy. If Christ has never made an end of your sin, then mark this, your sin will soon make an end of you, and all your hopes, your pleasures, your boasting, your peace will perish. Has not Christ reconciled you? Then mark this, your enmity will increase. Have you never had the righteousness of Christ brought in? Then mark this, your unrighteousness will last for ever. One of these days God will say, He that is unholy, let him be unholy still; he that is filthy, let him be filthy still. Are not the prophecies fulfilled in you, the prophecies of mercy? Then listen. The prophecies of woe will be written large across your history. The wicked shall be turned into hell, with all the nations that forget God. Lastly, will you never be anointed to be most holy? Then remember, holiness and you will stand at a distance for ever, and to be far off from holiness must necessarily be to be far off from Heaven and happiness. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The Seventy-Sevens
A general summary of what those seventy-sevens are to see accomplished is the first thing explained by the angel. If we ask for what these periods are thus divided out, we here get the answer.
1. To consummate transgression–finish it, bring it to its final stopping-point, after which there will be no more of it.
2. To make an end of sins–seal them up, shut them in prison, so as never to break forth again.
3. To cover iniquity–expiate it by adequate satisfaction, blot it out, hide it for ever.
4. To bring in everlasting righteousness–put man in normal relations with God, set human life into thorough accord with Jehovahs will and law, induce a condition of moral rectitude, which thenceforward shall never again be interrupted, but endure for all the ages.
5. To seal vision and prophet–authenticate and vindicate by fulfilment, make good and finish out in fact and deed all that God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.
6. To anoint–consecrate, put into place and effectiveness–a holiness of holinesses, which is the literal sense of the words in this last clause. It can refer to nothing less than the completed outcome of the redemptive administrations as a whole–the ultimate result and crown of grace and providence, of which all the prophets speak. Everything promised, prophesied, or ever to be hoped for Israel is thus summed up in what these seventy-seven years are to bring. (Joseph, A. Seiss, D.D.)
Gods Set Times
This text was an answer to a prayer–one of the warmest, humblest, and most earnest prayers that was ever offered up. In answer, the angel told Daniel of the time when the Son of God was to come down, and of all the blessed things He was to do for mans salvation.
1. As to the time. Seventy weeks. Punctually the Lord came.
2. See the description of what He was to do. His name is expressive, Most holy. His qualification is anointed and consecrated, What was His undertaking? Something He came to do away with. Finish the transgression, and make an end of sin. And to make reconciliation for iniquity. Jesus not only does away with the guilt of the sins which men have committed, but He breaks sins power in them for the time to come. See what He comes to do. To bring everlasting righteousness. He sealed up the vision and the prophecy by bringing it to pass. Reflections.
(1) What a respect does the Lord Show to a humble and a contrite supplicant.
(2) How punctual is the Lord; how faithful to His own set time!
(3) What a glorious event for man was the first coming of the Lord Jesus. (A. Roberts, M. A.)
And to bring in everlasting righteousness.
An Everlasting Righteousness
1. What we are to understand by the word righteousness. Some would say moral honesty, doing justice between man and man. It likewise signifies inward holiness, wrought in us by the Spirit of God. I think the word here used means imputed righteousness. When Christs righteousness is spoken of, we are to understand Christs obedience and death; all that Christ has done and suffered for an elect world–for all that will believe on Him. It might be called a blessed righteousness, a glorious righteousness, an invaluable righteousness; the angel here calls it an everlasting righteousness.
2. On what account is it called an everlasting righteousness?
(1) Because it was intended by God to extend to mankind even from eternity. From all the ages of eternity God had thoughts of us.
(2) Because the efficacy of Christs death took place immediately upon Adams fall. Christianity in one sense is as old as the creation.
(3) Because the efficacy of it is to continue till time shall be no more.
(4) Because the benefit of it is to endure to everlasting life. Those whom God justifies, them He also glorifies.
3. What are we to understand by Christs bringing this righteousness in?
(1) Our Lords promulgating and proclaiming it to the world. It was brought in under the law, but then under types and shadows, Jesus Christ brought life and immortality to light by the gospel.
(2) Jesus brought in this righteousness, as He wrought it out for sinners upon the cross.
(3) The expression also implies Christs bringing it, by His blessed Spirit, into poor believers hearts. An unapplied Christ is no Christ at all. Are there any here that can go along with me on this doctrine? (G. Whitefield, A.M.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 24. Seventy weeks are determined] This is a most important prophecy, and has given rise to a variety of opinions relative to the proper mode of explanation; but the chief difficulty, if not the only one, is to find out the time from which these seventy weeks should be dated. What is here said by the angel is not a direct answer to Daniel’s prayer. He prays to know when the seventy weeks of the captivity are to end. Gabriel shows him that there are seventy weeks determined relative to a redemption from another sort of captivity, which shall commence with the going forth of the edict to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, and shall terminate with the death of Messiah the Prince, and the total abolition of the Jewish sacrifices. In the four following verses he enters into the particulars of this most important determination, and leaves them with Daniel for his comfort, who has left them to the Church of God for the confirmation of its faith, and a testimony to the truth of Divine revelation. They contain the fullest confirmation of Christianity, and a complete refutation of the Jewish cavils and blasphemies on this subject.
Of all the writers I have consulted on this most noble prophecy, Dean Prideaux appears to me the most clear and satisfactory. I shall therefore follow his method in my explanation, and often borrow his words.
Seventy weeks are determined – The Jews had Sabbatic years, Le 25:8, by which their years were divided into weeks of years, as in this important prophecy, each week containing seven years. The seventy weeks therefore here spoken of amount to four hundred and ninety years.
In Da 9:24 there are six events mentioned which should be the consequences of the incarnation of our Lord: –
I. To finish ( lechalle, to restrain,) the transgression, which was effected by the preaching of the Gospel, and pouring out of the Holy Ghost among men.
II. To make an end of sins; rather ulehathem chataoth, “to make an end of sin-offerings;” which our Lord did when he offered his spotless soul and body on the cross once for all.
III. To make reconciliation ( ulechapper, “to make atonement or expiation”) for iniquity; which he did by the once offering up of himself.
IV. To bring in everlasting righteousness, tsedek olamim, that is, “the righteousness, or righteous ONE, of ages;” that person who had been the object of the faith of mankind, and the subject of the predictions of the prophets through all the ages of the world.
V. To seal up ( velachtom, “to finish or complete”) the vision and prophecy; that is, to put an end to the necessity of any farther revelations, by completing the canon of Scripture, and fulfilling the prophecies which related to his person, sacrifice, and the glory that should follow.
VI. And to anoint the Most Holy, kodesh kodashim, “the Holy of holies.” mashach, to anoint, (from which comes mashiach, the Messiah, the anointed one,) signifies in general, to consecrate or appoint to some special office. Here it means the consecration or appointment of our blessed Lord, the Holy One of Israel, to be the Prophet, Priest, and King of mankind.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Seventy weeks: these weeks are weeks of days, and these days are so many years; though neither days, nor months, nor years are expressed, (which makes it somewhat the more obscure,) but weeks only. It is yet plain and obvious that the angel useth the number seventy to show the favour of God towards them, that they might have so much liberty and joy as their seventy years bondage and sufferings amounted to. Yet was this but a type of the time of grace which was to follow after by the coming of Christ. Upon thy people, and upon thy holy city. Why doth he call them Daniels people?
1. Because they were his by nation, blood, laws, and profession.
2. Thine because thou dost own them, and art so tender of them, and so zealous for them.
To finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity. Note,
1. The angel discovers first the disease, in three several words, which contain all sorts of sin, which the Messiah should free us from by his full redemption, see Exo 34:6,7; Mt 1:21 viz. original, actual, of ignorance, presumption, &c.; also fault and punishment, which we may prove by Scripture.
2. The angel shows us also the cure of this disease in three words, le callee, le chatem, le capper:
1. To finish transgression;
2. To make an end of sin;
3. To make reconciliation: all which words are very significant in the original, and signify to pardon, to blot out, mortify, expiate.
To bring in everlasting righteousness, i.e. to bring in justification by the free grace of God in Jesus Christ the Lord our Righteousness, Isa 53:6; Jer 23:6; 33:16; 1Co 1:30; called everlasting because Christ is eternal, and he and his righteousness is everlasting. Christ brings this in,
1. By his merit;
2. By his gospel declaring it;
3. By faith applying and sealing it by the Holy Ghost.
To seal up the vision and prophecy; to abrogate the former dispensation of the laws, and to fulfil it, and the prophecies relating to Christ, and to confirm and ratify the new testament or gospel covenant of grace. The Talmud saith, all the prophecies of the prophets related to Christ.
To anoint the most Holy; by which alluding to the holy of holies, which was anointed, Exo 30:25-31; 40:9-16. This typified the church, which is called anointed, 2Co 1:21, and heaven, into which Christ is entered, Heb 8:1; 9:24; 10:19; but chiefly Christ himself, who is the Holy One, Act 3:14. He received the Spirit
without measure, Joh 3:34. His human nature is therefore called the temple, Joh 2:19, and tabernacle, Heb 8:2; 9:11; moreover Christ is he that held the law, by which the will of God is revealed; the propiatory, appeasing God; the table, that nourisheth us; the candlestick, that enlightens; the altar, that sanctifies the gift and offering. All these were anointed and holy: by this word anointing he alludes to his name Messiah and Christ, both which signify anointed. Christ was anointed at his first conception and personal union, Luk 1:35; in his
baptism, Mat 3:17; to his three offices by the Holy Ghost,
(1.) King, Mat 2:2,
(2.) Prophet, Isa 61:1,
(3.) Priest, Psa 110:4.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24. Seventy weeksnamely, ofyears; literally, “Seventy sevens”; seventy heptads orhebdomads; four hundred ninety years; expressed in a form of”concealed definiteness” [HENGSTENBERG],a usual way with the prophets. The Babylonian captivity is a turningpoint in the history of the kingdom of God. It terminated the freeOld Testament theocracy. Up to that time Israel, though oppressed attimes, was; as a rule, free. From the Babylonian captivity thetheocracy never recovered its full freedom down to its entiresuspension by Rome; and this period of Israel’s subjection to theGentiles is to continue till the millennium (Re20:1-15), when Israel shall be restored as head of the NewTestament theocracy, which will embrace the whole earth. The freetheocracy ceased in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, and the fourthof Jehoiakim; the year of the world 3338, the point at which theseventy years of the captivity begin. Heretofore Israel had a right,if subjugated by a foreign king, to shake off the yoke (Jdg 4:1-5;2Ki 18:7) as an unlawful one, atthe first opportunity. But the prophets (Jer27:9-11) declared it to be God’s will that they shouldsubmit to Babylon. Hence every effort of Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, andZedekiah to rebel was vain. The period of the world times, and ofIsrael’s depression, from the Babylonian captivity to the millennium,though abounding more in afflictions (for example, the twodestructions of Jerusalem, Antiochus’ persecution, and those whichChristians suffered), contains all that was good in the precedingones, summed up in Christ, but in a way visible only to the eye offaith. Since He came as a servant, He chose for His appearing theperiod darkest of all as to His people’s temporal state. Always freshpersecutors have been rising, whose end is destruction, and so itshall be with the last enemy, Antichrist. As the Davidic epoch is thepoint of the covenant-people’s highest glory, so the captivity isthat of their lowest humiliation. Accordingly, the people’ssufferings are reflected in the picture of the suffering Messiah. Heis no longer represented as the theocratic King, the Antitype ofDavid, but as the Servant of God and Son of man; at the same time thecross being the way to glory (compare Dan 9:1-27;Dan 2:34; Dan 2:35;Dan 2:44; Dan 12:7).In the second and seventh chapters, Christ’s first coming is notnoticed, for Daniel’s object was to prophesy to his nation as to thewhole period from the destruction to the re-establishment of Israel;but this ninth chapter minutely predicts Christ’s first coming, andits effects on the covenant people. The seventy weeks datethirteen years before the rebuilding of Jerusalem; for then there-establishment of the theocracy began, namely, at the return ofEzra to Jerusalem, 457 B.C.So Jeremiah’s seventy years of the captivity begin 606 B.C.,eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem, for then Judahceased to exist as an independent theocracy, having fallen under thesway of Babylon. Two periods are marked in Ezra: (1) The return fromthe captivity under Jeshua and Zerubbabel, and rebuilding of thetemple, which was the first anxiety of the theocratic nation.(2) The return of Ezra (regarded by the Jews as a second Moses) fromPersia to Jerusalem, the restoration of the city, the nationality,and the law. Artaxerxes, in the seventh year of his reign,gave him the commission which virtually includes permission torebuild the city, afterwards confirmed to, and carried out by,Nehemiah in the twentieth year (Ezr 9:9;Ezr 7:11 Da9:25, “from the going forth of the commandment to buildJerusalem,” proves that the second of the two periods isreferred to. The words in Da 9:24are not, “are determined upon the holy city,” but “uponthy people and thy holy city”; thus the restoration of thereligious national polity and the law (the inner workfulfilled by Ezra the priest), and the rebuilding of the housesand walls (the outer work of Nehemiah, the governor), are bothincluded in Da 9:25, “restoreand build Jerusalem.” “Jerusalem” represents both thecity, the body, and the congregation, the soul of the state. ComparePsa 46:1-11; Psa 48:1-14;Psa 87:1-7. Thestarting-point of the seventy weeks dated from eighty-one years afterDaniel received the prophecy: the object being not to fix for himdefinitely the time, but for the Church: the prophecy taught himthat the Messianic redemption, which he thought near, was separatedfrom him by at least a half millennium. Expectation was sufficientlykept alive by the general conception of the time; not only theJews, but many Gentiles looked for some great Lord of the earth tospring from Judea at that very time [TACITUS,Histories, 5.13; SUETONIUS,Vespasian, 4]. Ezra’s placing of Daniel in the canonimmediately before his own book and Nehemiah’s was perhaps owing tohis feeling that he himself brought about the beginning of thefulfilment of the prophecy (Da9:20-27) [AUBERLEN].
determinedliterally,”cut out,” namely, from the whole course of time, for Godto deal in a particular manner with Jerusalem.
thy . . . thyDanielhad in his prayer often spoken of Israel as “Thy people,Thy holy city”; but Gabriel, in reply, speaks of them asDaniel’s (“thy . . . thy”) people and city, God thusintimating that until the “everlasting righteousness”should be brought in by Messiah, He could not fully own them as His[TREGELLES] (compare Ex32:7). Rather, as God is wishing to console Daniel and the godlyJews, “the people whom thou art so anxiously prayingfor”; such weight does God give to the intercessions of therighteous (Jas 5:16-18).
finishliterally, “shutup”; remove from God’s sight, that is, abolish (Ps51:9) [LENGKERKE]. Theseventy years’ exile was a punishment, but not a full atonement, forthe sin of the people; this would come only after seventy propheticweeks, through Messiah.
make an end ofTheHebrew reading, “to steal,” that is, to hide out ofsight (from the custom of sealing up things to be concealed,compare Job 9:7), is bettersupported.
make reconciliationforliterally, “to cover,” to overlay (as with pitch,Ge 6:14). Compare Ps32:1.
bring in everlastingrighteousnessnamely, the restoration of the normal statebetween God and man (Jer 23:5;Jer 23:6); to continue eternally(Heb 9:12; Rev 14:6).
seal up . . . vision . . .prophecyliterally, “prophet.” To give the seal ofconfirmation to the prophet and his vision by the fulfilment.
anoint the MostHolyprimarily, to “anoint,” or to consecrateafter its pollution “the Most Holy” place but mainlyMessiah, the antitype to the Most Holy place (Joh2:19-22). The propitiatory in the temple (the same Greekword expresses the mercy seat and propitiation, Ro3:25), which the Jews looked for at the restoration from Babylon,shall have its true realization only in Messiah. For it is only whensin is “made an end of” that God’s presence can beperfectly manifested. As to “anoint,” compare Exo 40:9;Exo 40:34. Messiah was anointedwith the Holy Ghost (Act 4:27;Act 10:38). So hereafter,God-Messiah will “anoint” or consecrate with His presencethe holy place at Jerusalem (Jer 3:16;Jer 3:17; Eze 37:27;Eze 37:28), after its pollutionby Antichrist, of which the feast of dedication after the pollutionby Antiochus was a type.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city,….. Or, “concerning thy people, and concerning thy holy city” s; that is, such a space of time is fixed upon; “cut out” t, as the word signifies; or appointed of God for the accomplishment of certain events, relative to the temporal good of the city and people of the Jews; as the rebuilding of their city and temple; the continuance of them as a people, and of their city; the coming of the Messiah to them, to obtain spiritual blessings for them, and for all the people of God; who also were Daniel’s people and city in a spiritual sense, to which he belonged; and likewise what was relative to the utter ruin and destruction of the Jews as a people, and of their city: and this space of “seventy” weeks is not to be understood of weeks of days; which is too short a time for the fulfilment of so many events as are mentioned; nor were they fulfilled within such a space of time; but of weeks of years, and make up four hundred and ninety years; within which time, beginning from a date after mentioned, all the things prophesied of were accomplished; and this way of reckoning of years by days is not unusual in the sacred writings; see Ge 29:27. The verb used is singular, and, joined with the noun plural, shows that every week was cut out and appointed for some event or another; and the word, as it signifies “to cut”, aptly expresses the division, or section of these weeks into distinct periods, as seven, sixty two, and one. The first events mentioned are spiritual ones, and are not ascribed to any particular period; but are what should be done within this compass of time in general, and were done toward the close of it; and are first observed because of the greatest importance, and are as follow:
to finish the transgression; not the transgression of Adam, or original sin, which, though took away by Christ from his people, yet not from all men; nor the actual transgression of man in general, which never more abounded than in the age in which Christ lived; but rather the transgressions of his people he undertook to satisfy for, and which were laid on him, and bore by him, and carried away, so as not to be seen more, or to have no damning power over them. The word used signifies “to restrain” u; now, though sin greatly abounded, both among Jews and Gentiles, in the age of the Messiah; yet there never was an age in which greater restraints were laid on it than in this, by the ministry of John the Baptist, and of Christ in Judea and by the apostles in the Gentile world:
and to make an end of sins; so that they shall be no more, but put away and abolished by the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ for them, as to guilt and punishment; so that those, for whose sins satisfaction is made, no charge can be brought against them, nor the curse of the law reach them, nor any sentence of it be executed, or any punishment inflicted on them; but are entirely and completely saved from all their sins, and the sad effects of them. Our version follows the marginal reading; but the textual writing is, “to seal up sins” w; which is expressive of the pardon of them procured by Christ; for things sealed are hid and covered, and so are sins forgiven, Ps 32:1,
and to make reconciliation for iniquity: to expiate it, and make atonement for it; which was made by the sacrifice of Christ, by his sufferings and death; whereby the law and justice of God were fully satisfied, full reparation being made for the injury done by sin; and this was made for all kind of sin, expressed here by several words; and for all the sins, iniquities, and transgressions of the Lord’s people; to do which was the grand end of Christ’s coming into the world; see Heb 2:17: and to bring in everlasting righteousness; which is true only of the righteousness of Christ, by which the law is magnified and made honourable, justice satisfied, and all that believe in him justified from all their sins: this Christ, by his obedience, sufferings, and death, has wrought out, and brought into the world; and which phase designs, not the manifestation of it in the Gospel; nor the act of imputation of it, which is Jehovah the Father’s act; nor the application of it, which is by the Spirit of God; but Christ’s actual working of it out by obeying the precept and bearing the penalty of the law: and this may be truly called “everlasting”, or “the righteousness of ages” x, of ages past; the righteousness by which the saints in all ages from the beginning of the world are justified; and which endures, and will endure, throughout all ages, to the justification of all that believe; it is a robe of righteousness that will never wear out; its virtue to justify will ever continue, being perfect; it will answer for the justified ones in a time to come, and has eternal life connected with it:
and to seal up the vision and prophecy; not to shut it up out of sight; rather to set a mark on it, by which it might be more clearly known; but to consummate and fulfil it: all prophecy is sealed up in Christ, and by him; he is the sum and substance of it; the visions and prophecies of the Old Testament relate to him, and have their accomplishment in him; some relate to his person and office; others to his coming into the world, the time, place, and manner of it; others to the great work of redemption and salvation he came about; and others to his miracles, sufferings, and death, and the glory that should follow; all which have been fulfilled: or, “to seal up the vision and prophet” y; the prophets were until John, and then to cease, and have ceased ever since the times of Jesus; there has been no prophet among the Jews, they themselves do not deny it; Christ is come, the last and great Prophet of all, with a full revelation of the divine will, and no other is to be expected; all that pretend to set up a new scheme of things, either as to doctrine or worship, through pretended vision or prophecy, are to be disregarded:
and to anoint the most Holy; not literally the most holy place in the temple; figuratively, either heaven itself, anointed, and prepared for his people by the Messiah’s ascension thither, and entrance into it; or rather most holy persons, the church and people of God, typified by the sanctuary, the temple of God; and in a comparative sense are most holy, and absolutely so, as washed in the blood of Christ, clothed with his righteousness, and sanctified by his Spirit; and by whom they are anointed, some in an extraordinary and others in an ordinary way, and all by the grace of Christ: or it may be best of all to understand this of the Messiah, as Aben Ezra and others do; who is holy in his person, in both his natures, human and divine; sanctified and set apart to his office, and holy in the execution of it; equal in holiness to the Father and the Spirit; superior in it to angels and men, who have all their holiness from him, and by whom they are sanctified; and of whom the sanctuary or temple was a type; and who was anointed with the Holy Ghost as man, at his incarnation, baptism, and ascension to heaven; and Abarbinel owns it may be interpreted of the Messiah, who may be called the Holy of holies, because he is holier than all other Israelites.
s “de populo tuo”, Helvicus. t “decisae”, Pagninus: Montanus, Junius Tremellius, Piscator, Cocceius, Michaelis. u “cohibendo”, Junius Tremellius “ad cohibendum”, Piscator, Gejerus, Michaelis “ad coercendum”, Cocceius. w “obsignando”, Junius Tremellius “ad sigilandum”, Montanus; “ut obsignet”, Piscator. x “justitiam seculorum”, Pagninus, Montanus, Vatablus, Michaelis. y “et prophetam”, Pagninus, Montanus, Munster, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Cocceius, Michaelis.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The divine revelation regarding the seventy weeks. – This message of the angel relates to the most important revelations regarding the future development of the kingdom of God. From the brevity and measured form of the expression, which Auberlen designates “the lapidary style of the upper sanctuary,” and from the difficulty of calculating the period named, this verse has been very variously interpreted. The interpretations may be divided into three principal classes. 1. Most of the church fathers and the older orthodox interpreters find prophesied here the appearance of Christ in the flesh, His death, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. 2. The majority of the modern interpreters, on the other hand, refer the whole passage to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. 3. Finally, some of the church fathers and several modern theologians have interpreted the prophecy eschatologically, as an announcement of the development of the kingdom of God from the end of the Exile on to the perfecting of the kingdom by the second coming of Christ at the end of the days.
(Note: The first of these views is in our time fully and at length defended by Hvernick (Comm.), Hengstenberg ( Christol. iii. 1, p. 19ff., 2nd ed.), and Auberlen ( Der Proph. Daniel, u.s.w., p. 103ff., 3rd ed.), and is adopted also by the Catholic theologian Laur. Reinke ( die messian. Weissag. bei den gr. u. kl. Proph. des A.T. iv. 1, p. 206ff.), and by Dr. Pusey of England. The second view presents itself in the Alexandrine translation of the prophecy, more distinctly in Julius Hilarianus (about a.d. 400) ( Chronologia s. libellus de mundi duratione, in Migne’s Biblioth. cler. univ. t. 13, 1098), and in several rabbinical interpreters, but was first brought into special notice by the rationalistic interpreters Eichhorn, Bertholdt. v. Leng., Maurer, Ewald, Hitzig, and the mediating theologians Bleek, Wieseler ( Die 70 Wochen u. die 63 Jahrwochen des Proph. Daniel, Gtt. 1839, with which compare the Retractation in the Gttinger gel. Anzeigen, 1846, p. 113ff.), who are followed by Lcke, Hilgenfeld, Kranichfeld, and others. This view has also 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 Herz.’s Realenc. Bd. iii.), and Zndel (in the Kritischen Uterss.), but with this essential modification, that Hofmann and Delitzsch have united an eschatological reference with the primary historical reference of Dan 9:25-27 to Antiochus Epiphanes, in consequence of which the prophecy will be perfectly accomplished only in the appearance of Antichrist and the final completion of the kingdom of God at the end of the days. Of the third view we have the first germs in Hoppolytus and Apollinaris of Laodicea, who, having regard to the prophecy of Antichrist, Dan 7:25, refer the statement of Dan 9:27 of this chapter, regarding the last week, to the end of the world; and the first half of this week they regard as the time of the return of Elias, the second half as the time of Antichrist. This view is for the first time definitely stated in the Berleburg Bible. But Kliefoth, in his Comm. on Daniel, was the first who sought to investigate and establish this opinion exegetically, and Leyrer (in Herz.’s Realenc. xviii. p. 383) has thus briefly stated it: – ”The seventy , i.e., the of Daniel (Dan 9:24.) measured by sevens, within which the whole of God’s plan of salvation in the world will be completed, are a symbolical period with reference to the seventy years of exile prophesied by Jeremiah, and with the accessory notion of oecumenicity. The 70 is again divided into three periods: into 7 (till Christ), 62 (till the apostasy of Antichrist), and one , the last world – , divided into 2 x 3 1/2 times, the rise and the fall of Antichrist.”
For the history of the interpretation, compare for the patristic period the treatise of Professor Reusch of Bonn, entitled “ Die Patrist. Berechnung der 70 Jahrwochen Daniels,” in the Tb. Theol. Quart. 1868, p. 535ff.; for the period of the middle ages and of more modern times, Abr. Calovii theologica de septuaginta septimanis Danielis, in the Biblia illustr. ad Daniel. ix., and Hvernick’s History of the Interpretation in his Comm. p. 386ff.; and for the most recent period, R. Baxmann on the Book of Daniel in the Theolog. Studien u. Kritiken, 1863, iii. p. 497ff.)
In the great multiplicity of opinions, in order to give clearness to the interpretation, we shall endeavour first of all to ascertain the meaning of the words of each clause and verse, and then, after determining exegetically the import of the words, take into consideration the historical references and calculations of the periods of time named, and thus further to establish our view.
The revelation begins, Dan 9:24, with a general exhibition of the divine counsel regarding the city and the people of God; and then there follows, Dan 9:25-27, the further unfolding of the execution of this counsel in its principal parts. On this all interpreters are agreed, that the seventy weeks which are determined upon the people and the city are in Dan 9:25-27 divided into three periods, and are closely defined according to their duration and their contents.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Seventy weeks are determined. – from , properly, the time divided into sevenths, signifies commonly the period of seven days, the week, as Gen 29:27. (in the sing.), and Dan 10:2-3, in the plur., which is usually in the form ; cf. Deu 16:9., Exo 34:22, etc. In the form there thus lies no intimation that it is not common weeks that are meant. As little does it lie in the numeral being placed after it, for it also sometimes is found before it, where, as here, the noun as the weightier idea must be emphasized, and that not by later authors merely, but also in Gen 32:15., 1Ki 8:63; cf. Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 698. What period of time is here denoted by can be determined neither from the word itself and its form, nor from the comparison with , Dan 10:2-3, since is in these verses added to , not for the purpose of designating these as day-weeks, but simply as full weeks (three weeks long). The reasons for the opinion that common (i.e., seven-day) weeks are not intended, lie partly in the contents of Dan 9:25, Dan 9:27, which undoubtedly teach that that which came to pass in the sixty-two weeks and in the one week could not take place in common weeks, partly in the reference of the seventy to the seventy years of Jeremiah, Dan 9:2. According to a prophecy of Jeremiah – so e.g., Hitzig reasons – Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy years, and now, in the sixty-ninth year, the city and the temple are as yet lying waste (Dan 9:17.), and as yet nowhere are there symptoms of any change. Then, in answer to his supplication, Daniel received the answer, seventy must pass before the full working out of the deliverance. “If the deliverance was not yet in seventy years, then still less was it in seventy weeks. With seventy times seven months we are also still inside of seventy years, and we are directed therefore to year-weeks, so that each week shall consist of seven years. The special account of the contents of the weeks can be adjusted with the year-weeks alone; and the half-week, Dan 9:27, particularly appears to be identical in actual time with these three and a half times (years), Dan 7:25.” This latter element is by others much more definitely affirmed. Thus e.g., Kranichfeld says that Daniel had no doubt about the definite extent of the expression , but gave an altogether unambiguous interpretation of it when he combined the last half-week essentially with the known and definite three and a half years of the time of the end. But – we must, on the contrary, ask – where does Daniel speak of the three and a half years of the time of the end? He does not use the word year in any of the passages that fall to be here considered, but only or , time, definite time. That by this word common years are to be understood, is indeed taken for granted by many interpreters, but a satisfactory proof of such a meaning has not been adduced. Moreover, in favour of year-weeks (periods of seven years) it has been argued that such an interpretation was very natural, since they hold so prominent a place in the law of Moses; and the Exile had brought them anew very distinctly into remembrance, inasmuch as the seventy years’ desolation of the land was viewed as a punishment for the interrupted festival of the sabbatical years: 2Ch 36:21 (Hgstb., Kran., and others). But since these periods of seven years, as Hengstenberg himself confesses, are not called in the law or , therefore, from the repeated designation of the seventh year as that of the great Sabbath merely (Lev 25:2, Lev 25:4-5; Lev 26:34-35, Lev 26:43; 2Ch 36:21), the idea of year-weeks in no way follows. The law makes mention not only of the Sabbath-year, but also of periods of seven times seven years, after the expiry of which a year of jubilee was always to be celebrated (Lev 25:8.). These, as well as the Sabbath-years, might be called . Thus the idea of year-weeks has no exegetical foundation. Hofmann and Kliefoth are in the right when they remark that does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds. The . . means in Chald. to cut off, to cut up into pieces, then to decide, to determine closely, e.g., Targ. Est 4:5; cf. Buxtorf, Lex. talm., and Levy, Chald. Wrterb. s.v. The meaning for , abbreviatae sunt ( Vulg. for , Mat 24:22), which Wieseler has brought forward, is not proved, and it is unsuitable, because if one cuts off a piece from a whole, the whole is diminished on account of the piece cut off, but not the piece itself. For the explanation of the sing. we need neither the supposition that a definite noun, as ( time), was before the prophet’s mind (Hgstb.), nor the appeal to the inexact manner of writing of the later authors (Ewald). The sing. is simply explained by this, that is conceived of as the absolute idea, and then is taken up by the passive verb impersonal, to mark that the seventy sevenths are to be viewed as a whole, as a continued period of seventy seven times following each other.
Upon thy people and upon thy holy city. In the there does not lie the conception of that which is burdensome, or that this period would be a time of suffering like the seventy years of exile (v. Lengerke). The word only indicates that such a period of time was determined upon the people. The people and the city of Daniel are called the people and the city of God, because Daniel has just represented them before God as His (Hvernick, v. Lengerke, Kliefoth). But Jerusalem, even when in ruins, is called the holy city by virtue of its past and its future history; cf. Dan 9:20. This predicate does not point, as Wieseler and Hitzig have rightly acknowledged, to a time when the temple stood, as Sthelin and v. Lengerke suppose. Only this lies in it, Kliefoth has justly added, – not, however, in the predicate of holiness, but rather in the whole expression, – that the people and city of God shall not remain in the state of desolation in which they then were, but shall at some time be again restored, and shall continue during the time mentioned. One must not, however, at once conclude that this promise of continuance referred only to the people of the Jews and their earthly Jerusalem. Certainly it refers first to Israel after the flesh, and to the geographical Jerusalem, because these were then the people and the city of God; but these ideas are not exhausted in this reference, but at the same time embrace the New Testament church and the church of God on earth.
The following infinitive clauses present the object for which the seventy weeks are determined, i.e., they intimate what shall happen till, or with the expiry of, the time determined. Although before the infinitive does not mean till or during, yet it is also not correct to say that can point out only the issue which the period of time finally reaches, only its result. Whether that which is stated in the infinitive clauses shall for the first time take place after the expiry of, or at the end of the time named, or shall develope itself gradually in the course of it, and only be completed at the end of it, cannot be concluded from the final , but only from the material contents of the final clauses. The six statements are divided by Maurer, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others into three passages of two members each, thus: After the expiry of seventy weeks, there shall (1) be completed the measure of sin; (2) the sin shall be covered and righteousness brought in; (3) the prophecy shall be fulfilled, and the temple, which was desecrated by Antiochus, shall be again consecrated. The masoretes seem, however, to have already conceived of this threefold division by placing the Atnach under (the fourth clause); but it rests on a false construction of the individual members especially of the first two passages. Rather we have two three-membered sentences before us. This appears evident from the arrangement of the six statements; i.e., that the first three statements treat of the taking away of sin, and thus of the negative side of the deliverance; the three last treat of the bringing in of everlasting righteousness with its consequences, and thus of the positive deliverance, and in such a manner that in both classes the three members stand in reciprocal relation to each other: the fourth statement corresponds to the first, the fifth to the second, the sixth to the third – the second and the fifth present even the same verb .
In the first and second statements the reading is doubtful. Instead of ( Keth.), to seal, the Keri has , to end (R. , to complete). In a double reading is combined, for the vowel-points do not belong to the Keth., which rather has , since is nowhere found in the Piel, but to the Keri, for the Masoretes hold to be of the same meaning as , to be ended. Thus the ancient translators interpreted it: lxx, ; Theod., , al. ; Aquil., ; Vulg., ut consummetur praevaricatio . Bertholdt, Rosenmller, Gesenius, Winer, Ewald, Hitzig, Maurer, have followed them in supposing a passing of into . But since occurs frequently in Daniel, always with htiw (cf. v. 27; Dan 11:36; Dan 12:7), and generally the roots with take the form of those with much seldomer than the reverse, on these grounds the reading thus deserves the preference, apart from the consideration that almost all the Keris are valueless emendations of the Masoretes; and the parallel , decidedly erroneous, is obviously derived from Dan 8:23. Thus the Keri does not give in the two passages a suitable meaning. The explanation: to finish the transgression and to make full the measure of sin, does not accord with what follows: to pardon the iniquity; and the thought that the Jews would fill up the measure of their transgression in the seventy year-weeks, and that as a punishment they would pass through a period of suffering from Antiochus and afterwards be pardoned, is untenable, because the punishment by Antiochus for their sins brought to their full measure is arbitrarily interpolated; but without this interpolation the pardon of the sins stands in contradiction to the filling up of their measure. Besides, this explanation is further opposed by the fact, that in the first two statements there must be a different subject from that which is in the third. For to fill up the measure of sin is the work of God. Accordingly the Kethiv alone is to be adopted as correct, and the first passage to be translated thus: to shut up the transgression. means to hold back, to hold in, to arrest, to hold in prison, to shut in or shut up; hence , a prison, jail. To arrest the wickedness or shut it up does not mean to pardon it, but to hem it in, to hinder it so that it can no longer spread about (Hofm.); cf. Zec 5:8 and Rev 20:3.
In the second passage, “ to seal up sin,” the are the several proofs of the transgression. , to seal, does not denote the finishing or ending of the sins (Theodrt. and others). Like the Arab. chtm, it may occur in the sense of “to end,” and this meaning may have originated from the circumstance that one is wont at the end of a letter or document to affix the impress of a seal; yet this meaning is nowhere found in Hebr.: see under Exo 28:12. The figure of the sealing stands here in connection with the shutting up in prison. Cf. Dan 6:18, the king for greater security sealed up the den into which Daniel was cast. Thus also God seals the hand of man that it cannot move, Job 37:7, and the stars that they cannot give light, Job 9:7. But in this figure to seal is not = to take away, according to which Hgstb. and many others explain it thus: the sins are here described as sealed, because they are altogether removed out of the sight of God, altogether set aside; for “that which is shut up and sealed is not merely taken away, entirely set aside, but guarded, held under lock and seal” (Kliefoth). Hence more correctly Hofmann and Kliefoth say, “If the sins are sealed, they are on the one side laid under custody, so that they cannot any more be active or increase, but that they may thus be guarded and held, so that they can no longer be pardoned and blotted out;” cf. Rev 20:3.
The third statement is, “ to make reconciliation for iniquity.” is terminus techn ., to pardon, to blot out by means of a sin-offering, i.e., to forgive.
These three passages thus treat of the setting aside of sin and its blotting out; but they neither form a climax nor a mere , a multiplying of synonymous expressions for the pardoning of sins, ut tota peccatorum humani generis colluvies eo melius comprehenderetur (M. Geier). Against the idea of a climax it is justly objected, that in that case the strongest designation of sin, , which designates sin as a falling away from God, a rebelling against Him, should stand last, whereas it occurs in the first sentence. Against the idea of a it is objected, that the words “to shut up” and “to seal” are not synonymous with “to make reconciliation for,” i.e., “to forgive.” The three expressions, it is true, all treat alike of the setting aside of sin, but in different ways. The first presents the general thought, that the falling away shall be shut up, the progress and the spreading of the sin shall be prevented. The other two expressions define more closely how the source whence arises the apostasy shall be shut up, the going forth and the continued operation of the sin prevented. This happens in one way with unbelievers, and in a different way with believers. The sins of unbelievers are sealed, are guarded securely under a seal, so that they may no more spread about and increase, nor any longer be active and operative; but the sins of believers are forgiven through a reconciliation. The former idea is stated in the second member, and the latter in the third, as Hofmann and Kliefoth have rightly remarked.
There follows the second group of three statements, which treat of the positive unfolding of salvation accompanying the taking away and the setting aside of sin. The first expression of this group, or the fourth in the whole number, is “ to bring in everlasting righteousness.” After the entire setting aside of sin must come a righteousness which shall never cease. That does not mean “happiness of the olden time” (Bertholdt, Rsch), nor “innocence of the former better times” (J. D. Michaelis), but “righteousness,” requires at present no further proof. Righteousness comes from heaven as the gift of God (Ps. 85:11-14; Isa 51:5-8), rises as a sun upon them that fear God (Mal. 3:20), and is here called everlasting, corresponding to the eternity of the Messianic kingdom (cf. Dan 2:44; Dan 7:18, Dan 7:27). comprehends the internal and the external righteousness of the new heavens and the new earth, 2Pe 3:13. This fourth expression forms the positive supplement of the first: in the place of the absolutely removed transgression is the perfected righteousness.
In the fifth passage, to seal up the vision and prophecy, the word , used in the second passage of sin, is here used of righteousness. The figure of sealing is regarded by many interpreters in the sense of confirming, and that by filling up, with reference to the custom of impressing a seal on a writing for the confirmation of its contents; and in illustration these references are given: 1Ki 21:8, and Jer 32:10-11, Jer 32:44 (Hvernick, v. Lengerke, Ewald, Hitzig, and others). But for this figurative use of the word to seal, no proof-passages are adduced from the O.T. Add to this that the word cannot be used here in a different sense from that in which it is used in the second passage. The sealing of the prophecy corresponds to the sealing of the transgression, and must be similarly understood. The prophecy is sealed when it is laid under a seal, so that it can no longer actively show itself.
The interpretation of the object is also disputed. Berth., Ros., Bleek, Ewald, Hitzig, Wieseler, refer it to the prophecy of the seventy weeks (Jer 25 and 29), mentioned in Dan 9:2. But against this view stands the fact of the absence of the article; for if by that prophecy is intended, an intimation of this would have been expected at least by the definite article, and here particularly would have been altogether indispensable. It is also condemned by the word added, which shows that both words are used in comprehensive generality for all existing prophecies and prophets. Not only the prophecy, but the prophet who gives it, i.e., not merely the prophecy, but also the calling of the prophet, must be sealed. Prophecies and prophets are sealed, when by the full realization of all prophecies prophecy ceases, no prophets any more appear. The extinction of prophecy in consequence of its fulfilment is not, however (with Hengstenberg), to be sought in the time of the manifestation of Christ in the flesh; for then only the prophecy of the Old Covenant reached its end (cf. Mat 11:13; Luk 22:37; Joh 1:46), and its place is occupied by the prophecy of the N.T., the fulfilling of which is still in the future, and which will not come to an end and terminate ( , 1Co 13:8) till the kingdom of God is perfected in glory at the termination of the present course of the world’s history, at the same time with the full conclusive fulfilment of the O.T. prophecy; cf. Act 3:21. This fifth member stands over against the second, as the fourth does over against the first. “When the sins are sealed, the prophecy is also sealed, for prophecy is needed in the war against sin; when sin is thus so placed that it can no longer operate, then prophecy also may come to a state of rest; when sin comes to an end in its place, prophecy can come to an end also by its fulfilment, there being no place for it after the setting aside of sin. And when the apostasy is shut up, so that it can no more spread about, then righteousness will be brought, that it may possess the earth, now freed from sin, shut up in its own place” (Kliefoth).
The sixth and last clause, to anoint a most holy, is very differently interpreted. Those interpreters who seek the fulfilment of this word of revelation in the time following nearest the close of the Exile, or in the time of the Maccabees, refer this clause either to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering (Wieseler), which was restored by Zerubbabel and Joshua (Ezr 3:2.), or to the consecration of the temple of Zerubbabel (J. D. Michaelis, Jahn, Steudel), or to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering which was desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, 1 Macc. 4:54 (Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others). But none of these interpretations can be justified. It is opposed by the actual fact, that neither in the consecration of Zerubbabel’s temple, nor at the re-consecration of the altar of burnt-offering desecrated by Antiochus, is mention made of any anointing. According to the definite, uniform tradition of the Jews, the holy anointing oil did not exist during the time of the second temple. Only the Mosaic sanctuary of the tabernacle, with its altars and vessels, were consecrated by anointing. Exo 30:22., 40:1-16; Lev 8:10. There is no mention of anointing even at the consecration of Solomon’s temple, 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chron 5-7, because that temple only raised the tabernacle to a fixed dwelling, and the ark of the covenant as the throne of God, which was the most holy furniture thereof, was brought from the tabernacle to the temple. Even the altar of burnt-offering of the new temple (Eze 43:20, Eze 43:26) was not consecrated by anointing, but only by the offering of blood. Then the special fact of the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering, or of the temple, does not accord with the general expressions of the other members of this verse, and was on the whole not so significant and important an event as that one might expect it to be noticed after the foregoing expressions. What Kranichfeld says in confirmation of this interpretation is very far-fetched and weak. He remarks, that “as in this verse the prophetic statements relate to a taking away and of sins, in the place of which righteousness is restored, accordingly the anointing will also stand in relation to this sacred action of the , which primarily and above all conducts to the significance of the altar of Israel, that, viz., which stood in the outer court.” But, even granting this to be correct, it proves nothing as to the anointing even of the altar of burnt-offering. For the preceding clauses speak not only of the of transgression, but also of the taking away (closing and sealing) of the apostasy and of sin, and thus of a setting aside of sin, which did not take place by means of a sacrifice. The fullest expiation also for the sins of Israel which the O.T. knew, viz., that on the great day of atonement, was not made on the altar of burnt-offering, but by the sprinkling of the blood of the offering on the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies, and on the altar of incense in the most holy place. If is to be explained later the , then by “holy of holies” we would have to understand not “primarily” the altar of burnt-offering, but above all the holy vessels of the inner sanctuary, because here it is not an atonement needing to be repeated that is spoken of, but one that avails for ever.
In addition to this, there is the verbal argument that the words are not used of a single holy vessel which alone could be thought of. Not only the altar of burnt-offering is so named, Exo 29:37; Exo 40:10, but also the altar of incense, Exo 30:10, and the two altars with all the vessels of the sanctuary, the ark of the covenant, shew-bread, candlesticks, basins, and the other vessels belonging thereto, Exo 30:29, also the holy material for incense, Exo 30:36, the shew-bread, Lev 24:9, the meat-offering, Lev 2:3, Lev 2:10; Lev 6:10; Lev 10:12, the flesh of the sin-offering and of the expiatory sacrifice, Lev 6:10, Lev 6:18; Lev 10:17; Lev 7:1, Lev 7:6; Lev 14:13; Num 18:9, and that which was sanctified to the Lord, Lev 27:28. Finally, the whole surroundings of the hill on which the temple stood, Eze 43:12, and the whole new temple, Eze 45:3, is named a “most holy;” and according to 1Ch 23:13, Aaron and his sons are sanctified as .
Thus there is no good ground for referring this expression to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering. Such a reference is wholly excluded by the fact that the consecration of Zerubbabel’s temple and altar, as well as of that which was desecrated by Antiochus, was a work of man, while the anointing of a “most holy” in the verse before us must be regarded as a divine act, because the three preceding expressions beyond controversy announce divine actions. Every anointing, indeed, of persons or of things was performed by men, but it becomes a work of God when it is performed with the divinely ordained holy anointing oil by priests or prophets according to God’s command, and then it is the means and the symbol of the endowment of equipment with the Spirit of God. When Saul was anointed by Samuel, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, 1Sa 10:9. The same thing was denoted by the anointing of David, 1Sa 16:13. The anointing also of the tabernacle and its vessels served the same object, consecrating them as the place and the means of carrying on the gracious operations of the Spirit of God. As an evidence of this, the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle after it was set up and consecrated. At the dedication of the sanctuary after the Exile, under Zerubbabel and in the Maccabean age, the anointing was wanting, and there was no entrance into it also of the glory of the Lord. Therefore these consecrations cannot be designated as anointings and as the works of God, and the angel cannot mean these works of men by the “anointing of a most holy.”
Much older, more general, and also nearer the truth, is the explanation which refers these words to the anointing of the Messiah, an explanation which is established by various arguments. The translation of the lxx, , and of Theod., , the meaning of which is controverted, is generally understood by the church Fathers as referring to the Messiah. Theodoret sets it forth as undoubtedly correct, and as accepted even by the Jews; and the old Syriac translator has introduced into the text the words, “till the Messiah, the Most Holy.”
(Note: Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. viii. 2, p. 387, ed. Colon., opposes the opinion that the translation of Aquila, , may be understood of the Jewish high priest. Cf. Raymundis Martini, Pugio fidei, p. 285, ed. Carpz., and Edzard ad Abodah Sara, p. 246f., for evidences of the diffusion of this interpretation among the Jews.)
But this interpretation is set aside by the absence of the article. Without taking into view 1Ch 23:13, the words are nowhere used of persons, but only of things. This meaning lies at the foundation of the passage in the book of Chronicles referred to, “that he should sanctify a , anoint him (Aaron) to be a most holy thing.” Following Hvernick, therefore, Hengstenberg (2nd ed. of his Christol. iii. p. 54) seeks to make this meaning applicable also for the Messianic interpretation, for he thinks that Christ is here designated as a most holy thing. But neither in the fact that the high priest bore on his brow the inscription , nor in the declaration regarding Jehovah, “He shall be ,” Isa 8:14, cf. Eze 11:16, is there any ground for the conclusion that the Messiah could simply be designated as a most holy thing. In Luk 1:35 Christ is spoken of by the simple neuter , but not by the word “object;” and the passages in which Jesus is described as , Act 3:14; Act 4:30; 1Jo 2:20; Rev 3:7, prove nothing whatever as to this use of of Christ. Nothing to the purpose also can be gathered from the connection of the sentence. If in what follows the person of the Messiah comes forward to view, it cannot be thence concluded that He must also be mentioned in this verse.
Much more satisfactory is the thought, that in the words “to anoint a ” the reference is to the anointing of a new sanctuary, temple, or most holy place. The absence of the article forbids us, indeed, from thinking of the most holy place of the earthly temple which was rebuilt by Zerubbabel, since the most holy place of the tabernacle as well as of the temple is constantly called . But it is not this definite holy of holies that is intended, but a new holy of holies which should be in the place of the holy of holies of the tabernacle and the temple of Solomon. Now, since the new temple of the future seen by Ezekiel, with all its surroundings, is called (Eze 45:3) , Hofmann ( de 70 Jahre, p. 65) thinks that the holy of holies is the whole temple, and its anointing with oil a figure of the sanctification of the church by the Holy Ghost, but that this shall not be in the conspicuousness in which it is here represented till the time of the end, when the perfected church shall possess the conspicuousness of a visible sanctuary. But, on the contrary, Kliefoth (p. 307) has with perfect justice replied, that “the most holy, and the temple, so far as it has a most holy place, is not the place of the congregation where it comes to God and is with God, but, on the contrary, is the place where God is present for the congregation, and manifests Himself to it.” The words under examination say nothing of the people and the congregation which God will gather around the place of His gracious presence, but of the objective place where God seeks to dwell among His people and reveal Himself to them. The anointing is the act by which the place is consecrated to be a holy place of the gracious presence and revelation of God. If thus the anointing of a most holy is here announced, then by it there is given the promise, not of the renewal of the place already existing from of old, but of the appointment of a new place of God’s gracious presence among His people, a new sanctuary. This, as Kliefoth further justly observes, apart from the connection, might refer to the work of redemption perfected by the coming of Christ, which has indeed created in him a new place of the gracious presence of God, a new way of God’s dwelling among men. But since this statement is closely connected with those going before, and they speak of the perfect setting aside of transgression and of sin, of the appearance of everlasting righteousness, and the shutting up of all prophecy by its fulfilment, thus of things for which the work of redemption completed by the first appearance of Christ has, it is true, laid the everlasting foundation, but which first reach their completion in the full carrying through of this work of salvation in the return of the Lord by the final judgment, and the establishment of the kingdom of glory under the new heavens and on the new earth, – since this is the case, we must refer this sixth statement also to that time of the consummation, and understand it of the establishment of the new holy of holies which was shown to the holy seer on Patmos as , in which God will dwell with them, and they shall become His people, and He shall be their God with them (Rev 21:1-3). In this holy city there will be no temple, for the Lord, the Almighty God, and the Lamb is its temple, and the glory of God will lighten it (Rev 21:22). Into it nothing shall enter that defileth or worketh abomination (Rev 21:27), for sin shall then be closed and sealed up; there shall righteousness dwell (2Pe 3:13), and prophecy shall cease (1Co 13:8) by its fulfilment.
From the contents of these six statements it thus appears that the termination of the seventy weeks coincides with the end of the present course of the world. But Dan 9:24 says nothing as to the commencement of this period. Nor can this be determined, as many interpreters think, from the relation in which the revelation of the seventy weeks stands to the prayer of Daniel, occasioned by Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem. If Daniel, in the sixty-ninth year of the desolation, made supplication to the Lord for mercy in behalf of Jerusalem and Israel, and on the occasion of this prayer God caused Gabriel to lay open to him that seventy weeks were determined upon the city and the people of God, it by no means thence follows that seventy year-weeks must be substituted in place of the seventy years prophesied of, that both commence simultaneously, and thus that the seventy years of the Exile shall be prolonged to a period of oppression for Israel lasting for seventy year-weeks. Such a supposition is warranted neither by the contents of the prophecy of Jeremiah, nor by the message of the angel to Daniel. Jeremiah, it is true, prophesied not merely of seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem and Judah, but also of the judgment upon Babylon after the expiry of these years, and the collecting together and bringing back of Israel from all the countries whither they were scattered into their own land (Jer 25:10-12; Jer 29:10-14); but in his supplication Daniel had in his eye only the desolation of the land of Jeremiah’s prophecy, and prayed for the turning away of the divine anger from Jerusalem, and for the pardon of Israel’s sins. Now if the words of the angel had been, “not seventy years, but seventy year-weeks, are determined over Israel,” this would have been no answer to Daniel’s supplication, at least no comforting answer, to bring which to him the angel was commanded to go forth in haste. Then the angel announces in Dan 9:24 much more than the return of Israel from the Exile to their own land. But this is decided by the contents of the following verses, in which the space of seventy weeks is divided into three periods, and at the same time the commencement of the period is determined in a way which excludes its connection with the beginning of the seventy years of the Exile.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
This passage has been variously treated, and so distracted, and almost torn to pieces by the various opinions of interpreters, that it might be considered nearly useless on account of its obscurity. But, in the assurance that no prediction is really in vain, we may hope to understand this prophecy, provided only we are attentive and teachable according to the angel’s admonition, and the Prophet’s example. I do not usually refer to conflicting opinions, because I take no pleasure in refuting them, and the simple method which I adopt pleases me best, namely, to expound what I think delivered by the Spirit of God. But I cannot escape the necessity of confuting’ various views of the present passage. I will begin with the Jews, because they not only pervert its sense through ignorance, but through shameful impudence. Whenever they’re exposed to the light which shines from Christ, they instantly turn their backs in utter shamelessness, and display a complete want of ingenuousness. They are like dogs who are satisfied with barking. In this passage especially, they betray their petulance, because with brazen forehead they elude the Prophet’s meaning. Let us observe, then, what they think, for we should condemn them to little purpose, unless we can convict them by reasons equally firm and certain. When Jerome relates the teaching of the Jews who lived before his own day, he attributes to them greater modesty and discretion then their later descendants have displayed. He reports their confession, that this passage cannot be understood otherwise than of the advent of Messiah. that perhaps Jerome was unwilling to meet them in open conflict, as he was not fully persuaded of its necessity, and therefore he assumed more than they had allowed. I think this very probable, for he does not let fall a single word as to what interpretation he approves, and excuses himself for bringing forward all kinds of opinions without any prejudice on his part. Hence, he dares not pronounce whether or not the Jewish interpreters are more correct than either the Greek or the Latin, but leaves his readers entirely in suspense. Besides, it is very clear that all the Rabbis expounded this prophecy of Daniel’s, of that continual punishment which God was about to inflict upon his people after their return from captivity. Thus, they entirely exclude the grace of God, and blame the Prophet, as if he had committed an error in thinking that God would be propitious to these miserable exiles, by restoring them to their homes and by rebuilding their Temple. According to their view, the seventy weeks began at the destruction of the former Temple, and closed at the overthrow of the second. In one point they agree with us, — in considering the Prophet to reckon the weeks not by days but by years, as in Leviticus. (Lev 25:8.) There is no difference between us and the Jews in numbering the years; they confess the number of years to be 490, but disagree with us entirely as to the close of the prophecy. They say — as I have already hinted — the continual calamities which oppressed the people are here predicted. The Prophet hoped the end of their troubles was fast approaching, as God had testified by Jeremiah his perfect satisfaction with the seventy years of captivity. They say also — the people were miserably harassed by their enemies again overthrowing their second Temple; thus they were deprived of their homes, and the ruined city became a sorrowful spectacle of devastation and disaster. In this way, I shewed how they excluded the grace of God; and to sum up their teaching shortly, this is its substance, — the Prophet is deceived in thinking the state of the Church would improve at the close of the seventy years, because seventy weeks still remained; that is, God multiplied the number in this way, for the purpose of chastising them, until at length he would abolish the city and the Temple, disperse their nation over the whole earth and destroy their very name, until at length the Messiah whom they expected should arrive. This is their interpretation, but all history refutes both their ignorance and their rashness. For, as we shall afterwards observe, all who are endued with correct judgment will scarcely approve of this, because all historians relate the lapse of a longer period between the monarchy of Cyrus, and the Persians, and the coming of Christ, than Daniel here computes. The Jews again include the years which occurred from the ruin of the former Temple to the advent of Christ, and the final overthrow of their city. Hence, according to the commonly received opinion, they heap together about six hundred years. I shall afterwards state how far I approve of this computation, and how far I differ from it. Clearly enough, however, the Jews are both shamefully deceived and deceive others, when they thus heap together different periods without any judgment.
A positive refutation of this error is readily derived from the prophecy of Jeremiah, from the beginning of this chapter, and from the opinion of Ezra. That deceiver and impostor, Barbinel, who fancies himself the most acute of all the Rabbis, thinks he has a convenient way of escape here, as he eludes the subject by a single word, and answers only one objection. But I will briefly shew how he plays with frivolous trifles. By rejecting Josephus, he glories in an easy victory. I candidly confess that I cannot place confidence in Josephus either at all times or without exception. But what conclusions do Barbinel and his followers draw from this passage? Let us come to that prophecy of Jeremiah which I have mentioned, and in which he takes refuge. He says, the Christians make Nebuchadnezzar reign forty-five years, but he did not complete that number. Thus he cuts off half a year, or perhaps a whole one, from those monarchies. But what is this to the purpose? Because 200 years will still remain, and the contention between us concerns this period. We perceive then how childishly he trifles, by deducting five or six years from a very large number, and still there is the burden of 200 years which he does not remove. But as I have already stated, that prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years remains immovable. But when do they begin? From the destruction of the Temple? This will not suit at all.
Barbinel makes the number of the years forty-nine or thereabouts, from the destruction of the Temple to the reign of Cyrus. But we previously perceived the Prophet to be then instructed concerning the close of the captivity. Now, that impudent fellow and his followers are not ashamed to assert that Daniel was a bad interpreter of this part of Jeremiah’s prophecy, because he thought the punishment completed, although some time yet remained. Some of the Rabbis make this assertion, but its frivolous character appears from this, Daniel does not here confess any error, but confidently affirms that he prayed in consequence of his learning from the book of Jeremiah the completion of the time of the captivity. Then Ezra uses the following words, — When the seventy years were completed, which God had predicted by Jeremiah, he stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, to free the people in the first year of his monarchy. (Dan 1:1.) Here Ezra openly states, that Cyrus gave the people liberty by the secret impulse of the Spirit. Had the Spirit of God become forgetful, when he hastened the people’s return? For then we must necessarily convict Jeremiah of deception and falsehood, while Ezra treats the people’s return as an answer to the prophecy. On the other hand, they cite a passage from the first chapter of Zechariah, (Zec 1:12,) Wilt thou not, O Lord, pity thy city Jerusalem, because the seventy years are now at an end? But here the Prophet does not point out the moment at which the seventy years were finished, but while some portion of the people had returned to their country by the permission of Cyrus, and the building of the Temple was still impeded, after a lapse of twenty or thirty years, he complains of God not having completely and fully liberated his people. Whether or not this is so, the Jews must explain the beginning of the seventy years from the former exile before the destruction of the Temple; otherwise the passages cited from Daniel and Ezra would not agree. We are thus compelled to close these seventy years before the reign of Cyrus, as God had said he should then put all end to the captivity of his people, and the period was completed at that point.
Again, almost all profane writers reckon 550 years from the reign of Cyrus to the advent of Christ.
I do not hesitate to suppose some error here, because no slight difficulty would remain to us on this calculation, but I shall afterwards state the correct method of calculating the number of years. Meanwhile, we perceive how the Jews in every way exceed the number of 600 years, by comprehending the seventy years’ captivity under these seventy weeks; and then they add the time which elapsed from the death of Christ to the reign of Vespasian. But the facts themselves are their best refutation. For the angel says, the seventy weeks were finished. Barbinel takes the word חתך , chetek, for “to cut off,” and wishes us to mark the continual miseries by which the people were afflicted; as if the angel had said, the time of redemption has not yet arrived, as the people were continually wretched, until God inflicted upon them that final blow which was a desperate slaughter. But when this word is taken to mean to “terminate” or “finish,” the angel evidently announces the conclusion of the seventy weeks here. That impostor contends with this argument — weeks of years are here used in vain, unless with reference to the captivity. This is partially true, but he draws them out longer than he ought. Our Prophet alludes to the seventy years of Jeremiah, and I am surprised that the advocates of our side have not considered this, as no one suggests any reason why Daniel reckons years by weeks. Yet we know this figure to be purposely used, because he wished to compare seventy weeks of years with the seventy years. And whoever will take the trouble to consider this likeness or analogy, will find the Jews slain with their own sword. For the Prophet here compares God’s grace with his judgment; as if he had said, the people have been punished by an exile of seventy years, but now their time of grace has arrived; nay, the day of their redemption has dawned, and it shone forth with continual splendor, shaded, indeed, with a few clouds, for 490 years until the advent of Christ. The Prophet’s language must be interpreted as follows, — Sorrowful darkness has brooded over you for seventy years, but God will now follow up this period by one of favor of sevenfold duration, because by lightening your cares and moderating your sorrows, he will not cease to prove himself propitious to you even to the advent of Christ. This event was notoriously the principal hope of the saints who looked forward to the appearance of the Redeemer.
We now understand why the angel does not use the reckoning’ of years, or months, or days, but weeks of years, because this has a tacit reference to the penalty which the people had endured according to the prophecy of Jeremiah. On the other hand, this displays God’s great loving kindness, since he manifests a regard for his people up to the period of his setting forth their promised salvation in his Christ. Seventy weeks, then, says he, were finished upon thy people, and upon thy holy city I do not approve of the view of Jerome, who thinks this an allusion to the rejection of the people; as if he had said, the people is thine and not mine. I feel sure this is utterly contrary to the Prophet’s intention. He asserts the people and city to be here called Daniel’s, because God had divorced his people and rejected his city. But, as I said before, God wished to bring some consolation to his servant and all the pious, and to prop them up by this confidence during their oppression by their enemies. For God had already fixed the time of sending the Redeemer. The people and the city are said to belong to Daniel, because, as we saw before, the Prophet was anxious for the common safety of His nation, and the restoration of the city and Temple. Lastly, the angel confirms his previous expression — God listened to his servant’s prayer, and promulgated the prophecy of future redemption. The clause which follows convicts the Jews of purposely corrupting Daniel’s words and meaning, because the angel says, the time was finished for putting an end to wickedness, and for sealing up sins, and for expiating iniquity We gather from this clause, God’s compassionate feelings for His people after these seventy weeks were over. For what purpose did God determine that time? Surely to prohibit sin, to close up wickedness, and to expiate iniquity. We observe no continuance of punishment here, as the Jews vainly imagine; for they suppose God always hostile to his people, and they recognize a sign of most grievous offense in the utter destruction of the Temple. The Prophet, or rather the angel, gives us quite the opposite view of the case, by explaining how God wished to finish and close up their sin, and to expiate their iniquity He afterwards adds, to bring in everlasting righteousness We first perceive how joyful a message is brought forward concerning the reconciliation of the people with God; and next, something promised far better and more excellent than anything which had been granted under the law, and even under the flourishing times of the Jews under David and Solomon. The angel here encourages the faithful to expect something better than what their fathers, whom God had adopted, had experienced. There is a kind of contrast between the expiation’s under the law and this which the angel announces, and also between the pardon here promised and that which God had always given to his ancient people; and there is also the same contrast between the eternal righteousness and that which flourished under the law.
He next adds, To seal up the vision and the prophecy Here the word “to seal” may be taken in two senses. Either the advent of Christ should sanction whatever had been formerly predicted — and the metaphor will imply this well enough — or we may take it otherwise, namely:, the vision shall be sealed up, and so finally closed that all prophecies should cease. Barbinel thinks he points out a great absurdity here, by stating it to be by no means in accordance with God’s character, to deprive his Church of the remarkable blessing of prophecy. But that blind man does not comprehend the force of the prophecy, because he does not understand anything about Christ. We know the law to be distinguished from the gospel by this peculiarity,-they formerly had a long course of prophecy according to the language of the Apostle. (Heb 1:1.) God spake formerly in various ways by prophets, but in these last times by his only-begotten Son. Again, the law and the prophets existed until John, says Christ. (Mat 11:11; Luk 16:16; Luk 7:28.) Barbinel does not perceive this difference, and as I have formerly said, he thinks he has discovered an argument against us, by asserting that the gift of prophecy ought not to be taken away. And, truly, we ought not to be deprived of this gift, unless God desired to increase the privilege of the new people, because the least in the kingdom of heaven is superior in privilege to all the prophets, as Christ elsewhere pronounces. tie next adds, that the Holy of Holies may be anointed Here, again, we have a tacit contrast between the anointings of the law, and the last which should take place. Not only is consolation here offered to all the pious, as God was about to mitigate the punishment which he had inflicted, but because he wished to pour forth the fullness of all his pity upon the new Church. For, as I have said, the Jews cannot escape this comparison on the part of the angel between the state of the Church under the legal and the new covenants; for the latter privileges were to be far better, more excellent, and more desirable, than those existing in the ancient Church from its commencement. But the rest tomorrow. (114)
(114) See Dissertations at the end of this volume. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
HOMILETICS
SECT. XXXIII.THE PROMISED MESSIAH (Chap. Dan. 9:24-27)
We now come to that part of Daniels prophecies which perhaps more than any other distinguishes him as a prophet, and which was communicated to him as a man greatly beloved. It is the prediction regarding the promised Messiah, more full and explicit, especially in regard to the time of His appearing, than any that had hitherto been given [258]. The communication was made to the prophet in connection with the announcement as to what was to befall his people and country, in whom Daniel felt so deep an interest, and for whom he had prayed so fervently. The prediction, therefore, was twofold, having relation in the first instance to Messiah, and in the second to the Jewish people to whom He should come, and whose King He was to be. Daniel had prayed that God would graciously visit His people, now captive in Babylon, as well as the Holy City and its Temple, now lying in ruins. In the promise of the Messiah this prayer was answered. No more gracious visitation of Israel could be vouchsafed than in the Advent of Him who was to come as the consolation and glory of His people, and who had been so long promised and waited for as such (Luk. 1:68-69). The mere return of the exiles to Judea, and the restoration of their polity and worship, was insignificant in itself compared with the birth of that Saviour who was to be a light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of His people Israel, an event of which none less than angels were to be the immediate heralds (Luk. 2:8-14; Luk. 2:25-38). In the present section we shall confine our attention to the Messiah Himself, as here promised, with the time of His appearing, leaving for a succeeding one the blessed results that should follow His Advent.
[258] This is the general view regarding the prophecy. Keil observes that the interpretations of the passage may be divided into three principal classes. 1. That of most of the Church fathers and the older orthodox interpreters, who find prophesied herethe appearance of Christ in the flesh, His death, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans; the view held also by Hvernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and Dr. Pusey. 2. That of the majority of the modern interpreters (that is, mainly, the German Rationalists), who refer the whole passage to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; a view held also by Hofmann and Delitzsch, who, however, have united with what they consider the primary historical reference of Dan. 9:25-27 to Antiochus, an eschatological reference, according to which the prophecy will be perfectly accomplished only in the appearance of Antichrist and the final completion of the kingdom of God. 3. That of some of the Church fathers, and several modern theologians, who interpret the prophecy eschatologically, as an announcement of the development of the kingdom of God from the end of the exile on to the perfecting of the kingdom by the second coming of Christ at the end of the days. This last view is that of Keil himself, as well as Kliefoth, the germs of it appearing in Hippolytus and Apollinaris of Laodicea, who refer the statement in Dan. 9:27, regarding the last week, to the end of the world, viewing the first half as the time of the return of Elijah, and the second as that of Antichrist. From the contents of Dan. 9:24, Keil concludes that the termination of the seventy weeks coincides with the end of the present course of the world. Differently from most, he thinks the periods are not to be reckoned chronologically, but to be viewed symbolically, as a divinely-appointed period measured by sevens, the reckoning of their actual duration being withdrawn beyond the reach of our human research, but leaving us the strong consolation of knowing that the fortunes of Gods people are safe in His hands.
I. The Messiah Himself. He is here called by two names, or, perhaps more strictly, by a name and a title, Messiah the Prince [259].
[259] Messiah the Prince (Dan. 9:25). (Mashiakh Naghidh), not, as Bertholdt thinks, are anointed prince; for cannot be an adjective to , because in Hebrew the adjective is, with few exceptions, which are inapplicable in this case, always placed after the noun. Nor is a participle, as Steudel makes it, but a noun with in appositionan anointed one who is also a prince. According to Keil, it is one who is first and specially a priest, and, in addition, a prince of the people or a king, it being chiefly priests and kings who in the Old Testament were anointed to their office. He remarks that this could neither be Zerubbabel, as many old interpreters thought, nor Ezra, nor Onias III., nor Cyrus, as some Rabbis and Rationalists have supposed. The Old Testament 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); in whom the two essential requisites of the theocratic king, the anointing and the appointment to be the or prince of the people of God (1Sa. 10:1; 2Sa. 1:21), are found in the most perfect manner. Some explain the want of the article on the ground that (Mashiakh) Messiah is used as a proper name, like (tsemakh) the Branch, in Zec. 3:8; Zec. 6:12; the term having certainly been used as a proper name before it was applied to Jesus (Joh. 1:41; Joh. 4:25). Keil, who thinks that in this case the article would have stood before (naghidh) the prince, prefers to readtill one comet 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 only be made prominent by what is ascribed to Him as a personage altogether singular.
1. Messiah. This Hebrew term, equivalent to the Greek Christ, denotes the Anointed. The promised Deliverer had already been spoken of by the prophets as Gods Anointed. See 1Sa. 2:35; 1Sa. 12:3; 1Sa. 12:5; Psa. 2:2; Psa. 18:50; Psa. 84:9. Now, however, perhaps for the first time, He is designated by this name alone, Messiah or the Anointed. God speaks in the Psalms of having anointed Him, as the King whom He had chosen and appointed to rule over Israel on the throne of His father David, Solomons antitype (Psa. 89:19-20; Psa. 2:6, marg.) Isaiah speaks of Him as anointed by God with the Holy Spirit, as a prophet to make known the glad tidings of salvation to fallen men (Isa. 61:10). This in accordance with the practice of both kings and prophets being installed in their office with the anointing of oil, the symbol of the Holy Spirit, with whom, as the true king and prophet, Messiah was to be anointed. As the great High Priest also, He was to receive the same anointing, it being appointed under the law that the priests should be introduced into their office by the anointing with oil (Exo. 30:30; Exo. 40:15; Psa. 133:2). This symbolical anointing, which was to receive its fulfilment in the promised Deliverer, hence called the Messiah or Anointed, was actually fulfilled in Jesus, on whom the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape at His baptism, and of whom Peter testifies, that He went about doing good, being anointed by God with the Holy Ghost, and with power (Act. 10:38). The evangelists relate that Jesus went up from the Jordan full of the Holy Ghost, and was led by the same Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. The Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that it was through the eternal Spirit that Jesus, as the Great High Priest, offered Himself without spot unto God (Heb. 9:14). Through the Holy Ghost He gave commandments to His apostles after His resurrection (Act. 1:2). He was anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows. God gave not His Spirit by measure unto Him (Psa. 45:7; Joh. 3:34).
2. The Prince. [260] The Hebrew term here used also applied to the promised Saviour in Isa. 55:4, and there rendered Leader. It may be regarded as equivalent to king, head, or ruler. Jehovah, in the passage referred to, declares, in regard to the provided and promised Saviour, I have given Him for a witness to the people (His prophetical office); a leader and a commander to the people, thus indicating at the same time His office as a king. So we read of Jesus, that He has been exalted by the Father with His own right hand, a prince and a Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel and the forgiveness of sins (Act. 5:31). He is the Prince of the kings of the earth; equivalent to King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 1:5; Rev. 19:16). The Saviour was especially promised in the character of a prince or king. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; for behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek and having salvation (Zec. 9:9). It was in this character that He was to bruise the serpents head, and deprive him of his usurped dominion. His language to Joshua, as Captain of the Lords host am I come. He is the Captain of our salvation; travelling in the greatness of His strength, mighty to save; the King of glory, mighty in battle (Heb. 2:10; Isa. 63:2; Psa. 24:8). His princedom as head of all principality and power, given to Him by the Father as the reward of His mediatorial work, and at the same time as the means of fully securing the ends of that undertaking (Php. 2:6-11; Eph. 1:20-22; Mat. 28:18; Joh. 17:2; Psa. 110:1, &c.)
[260] The prince (Dan. 9:25). Here the Messiah, though in the following verse an earthly prince, probably Titus or the Roman emperor. Josephus applies the term even in this verse to Vespasian as the person intended. Theodoret and Eusebius thought of John Hyrcanus, who was both prince and high priest. Others hare applied it to the anointed governors and elders among the Jews in general. Some of the Jews applied it to Herod Agrippa, who was slain shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem.
It may here be interesting to inquire how far Messiah had been promised and made known previously to this communication made to Daniel concerning Him, and through Daniel to the Church. We may mark seven leading promises, previously given, revealing so many particulars concerning the Saviour who was to come:
(1.) The original promise in Eden, showing that the Saviour of men was to be a man, and that while He was to be the destroyer of him who had overcome and sought to ruin man, He was Himself to suffer (Gen. 3:15). Hence the name He generally gave Himself, the Son of Man.
(2.) The promise made to Abraham, and renewed to Isaac and Jacob, indicating the nation from which the Saviour was to spring, that of which Abraham was to be the head, the Jewish people (Gen. 12:3). Salvation was to be of the Jews.
(3.) The promise made through Jacob on his dying bed, intimating the tribe in the Jewish nation out of which the Messiah was to spring, viz., that of Judah, the royal tribe, indicating that Messiah was to be a king (Gen. 49:10). Jesus claimed the title of King of the Jews.
(4.) The promise through Moses, showing that the Saviour was to be a prophet as well as a king (Deu. 18:15). It was more especially in this character that He exercised His three and a half years ministry, teaching the people.
(5.) The promise by David, showing the family in which Messiah was to be born, viz., that of David the son of Jesse; and that though He was to succeed His father David as king of Israel, He was to be rejected by the leaders of the people, and to suffer and die; while, as a priest, He offered Himself as a sacrifice to God for the sins of the world, the very kind of death He was to suffer being indicated (Act. 2:30; Psa. 89:4; Psa. 110:4; Psa. 118:22; Psa. 40:6-8; Psa. 22:16). The Son of David, the name by which the Jews generally designated the promised Messiah.
(6.) The promise by Isaiah, B.C. 71450, that He was to be miraculously born of a virgin, intimating also that while truly man He was also to possess a divine nature, as Emmanuel, the Mighty God; and showing at the same time more distinctly than before that He was to be rejected by men, and made by God a sacrifice for the sins of the people (Isa. 7:14, Isa. 9:7, Isaiah 53.) Isaiah especially the evangelical prophet, or prophet of the Gospel.
(7.) The promise given through Micah, B.C. 710, shortly after the preceding, and showing the place where Messiah was to be born, viz., in Bethlehem, a small village in Judah, and declaring still more explicitly that, notwithstanding the lowly place of His birth, He was the everlasting God (Mic. 5:2). Singularly fulfilled, while Mary and Joseph were at the time inhabitants of Nazareth.
II. The time of Messiahs appearing. This is expressly intimated in the text, though somewhat enigmatically. Seventy weeks are said to be determined upon Daniels people for the accomplishment of those gracious purposes connected with Messiahs advent (Dan. 9:24). These prophetic weeks are again divided into three portions, of seven, sixty-two, and one; each portion having some important event or transaction connected with it (Dan. 9:25-27). The points requiring consideration are
1. The seventy weeks and the event they bring. No room is left for doubt that these weeks are prophetic weeks or weeks of years, each week being seven years, and the whole thus making up 490 years, or seventy times seven [261]. The events to take place in the course of them render every other meaning of the expression out of the question. The event with which these years were to terminate is not so certain, and is differently understood [262]. Not improbably that event is the ceasing of the Gospel to be preached exclusively to the Jews, when the kingdom of God was to be given to another people bringing forth the fruits of it. This took place only a few years after the death of Christ (Acts 10.) It is possible that, as some suppose, they extend to the period when the Jews shall be restored.
[261] Seventy weeks (Dan. 9:24). Seventy (shabhuim), sevens, hence, weeks. Dr. Taylor observes that here it is not necessary to adopt the year-day theory, although itself resting on sufficient grounds. The prophet says, seventy weeks, or seventy sevens, which might either be days or years; and as this allusion appears to be to the seventy years of the captivity, so years are naturally to be understood here. For the one seventy in exile, there should be seven seventies of continued occupation of the holy city. Auberlen thinks the seventy weeks, or 490 years, extend to the year 33 a.d. The fixed chronological point from which to calculate we find in the death of the Messiah, which falls in the middle of the last week, that is, three and a half years before the end of the whole period, consequently the year 30 a.d. But it is in this very year, according to the soundest chronological investigations, and the most generally adopted reckoning, in which Bengel and Wieseler, for example, coincide, that the Lord Jesus was crucified. So Willet, reckoning from the first year of Cyrus, computes,the Persian monarchy lasted 130 years; the Greek or Macedonian, 300; the Roman, to the death of Christ, 60; in all, 490. He observes that, although in the particular account of time there be some disagreement, yet herein most Christian interpreters agree, that all those years expired either at the birth or passion of Christ, or in the destruction of Jerusalem; so that whichever account be received, two main points are proved, namely, that Messiah is come, and that He came not as a temporal prince, but was put to death. Calvin, who remarks that the diversity of opinions among interpreters doth not evacuate or extenuate the authority of Scripture, says that the Jews agree with us in considering the prophet to reckon the weeks not by days but by years, as in Lev. 25:8; only they consider them to have begun at the destruction of the former temple, and closed at the overthrow of the second, when God would disperse them over all the earth, as a chastisement for their sin, till at length Messiah should come. He paraphrases thus: Sorrowful darkness has brooded over you for seventy years; but God will now follow up this period by one of favour of sevenfold duration, because, by lightening your cares and moderating your sorrow, He will not cease to prove Himself propitious to you, even to the advent of Christ. Dr. Pusey also, who observes that the choice of the form of the prophecy was itself prophetical, thinks that the interval which God assigned had an evident reference to the seventy years of the captivity; and that that number had a bearing on the broken Sabbaths, in punishment of which Moses foretold that the land should enjoy her Sabbaths in the captivity of the people. Seventy years were the term of their captivity; seven times seventy years were to be the main term of their new probation in the possession of their land and of their restored city. Mr. Bosanquet also thinks these seventy weeks are seventy Sabbaths of years, each ending with a shemittah, or year of release, such as were to be observed under the Levitical law; the period of seven weeks representing seven Sabbaths of years, or 49 years, ending with a year of jubilee (Lev. 25:8-9), and with the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem. Professor Stuart calls them seventy heptades of years, Daniel having been making diligent inquiry regarding the seventy years of the captivity. Professor Lee understands only an indefinite period. Hofmann and Kliefoth too, with whom Keil agrees, remark that (shabh uim) does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds. Hengstenberg and Krauichfeld, however, are in favour of year-weeks (periods of seven years), on the ground that such an interpretation is very natural, since they hold so prominent a place in the law of Moses; and the exile had brought them anew very distinctly into remembrance, inasmuch as the seventy years desolation of the land was viewed as a punishment for the interrupted festival of the Sabbatical year (2Ch. 36:21). So Junius, Pellican, Polanus, &c., the last remarking that the number seven is of great observance among the Jews, indicating periods of holy rest, and pointing to the great year of rest in the redemption of the world by Messiah.
[262] Are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city to finish, &c. (Dan. 9:24) (nekhtach), from (khathach), occurring only here in Hebrew, but in Chaldee meaning to cut off, cut up into pieces, hence to decide, or determine; so Pagn. Mont Jun., &c. Not abbreviated or shortened, as the Vulgate, abbreviat, and as Wieseler thinks. The singular used, either from a singular noun, as (eth) time, being before the prophets mind, as Hengstenberg thinks, or, as Keil prefers, from the seventy weeks being conceived of as a whole or absolute idea; but not from an inexact manner of writing of the later authors, as Ewald supposes. The expression upon thy people, &c., implies, according to Kliefoth and Keil, that the people and city of God should not remain in the state of desolation in which they then were, but should at some time be again restored, and should be continued during the time mentioned; Keil understanding these terms certainly to refer first to Israel after the flesh and to the geographical Jerusalem, but also as embracing the New Testament Church and the Church of God on earth. He remarks that the following infinitive clauses, to finish, &c., present the object for which the seventy weeks are determined, intimating what shall happen till, or with the expiry of the time determined; it being only to be concluded from the contents of the final clauses whether what is mentioned shall take place only at the end of the period, or shall develop itself gradually in the course of it. He thinks, from the contents of these six clauses, that the termination of the seventy weeks coincides with the end of the present course of the world. Sir Isaac Newton also inclined to apply the last seven weeks of the period to the time when Antichrist should be destroyed by the brightness of the Saviours coming. colampadius understood this last week to be no definite number of years, but commencing with the time of Pompey, continuing to the death of Christ, and terminating in the reign of Adrian, ninety-eight years later. Melanchthon and Junius (first edition) viewed the second half of that week as commencing with Christs death and continuing onwards. Polanus and Junius make that latter half to include the destruction of Jerusalem. Bullinger, Broughton, and Willet make the last of the weeks the seven years previous to Christs death, the first half being a preparatory season before His baptism, which took place in the middle of it. Scaliger divided the last week into two parts, assigning four years and a half to Christs ministry, and the other two and a half to the destruction of Jerusalem. Apollinaris seems to have extended the prophecy to the end of the world. The Duke of Manchester, reckoning the whole period of 490 years from b.c. 424, or anno Nabonassar 325, the supposed time of the vision, brings its termination down to a.d. 66.
2. The three portions of the seventy weeks. The first of these appears to be seven weeks or forty-nine years, the event connected with it being, apparently, the rebuilding of Jerusalem [263], when the street should be built again and the wall, even in troublous times (Dan. 9:25). The historical fulfilment particularly related in the Book of Nehemiah [264]. The second portion of sixty-two weeks or 434 years, succeeding the former, and with it making up 483 years, would appear to terminate with the death of Messiah, which should take place either then or soon after. After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (Dan. 9:26) [265]. The third portion, or one week of seven years, apparently succeeding the others, and including the death of Messiah, and the fruits of it among the Jews in connection with the preaching of the Gospel during the first few years succeeding that event. Some extend it so as to include the judgments to fall on the Jews for the rejection of the Gospel, according to the verses that immediately follow.
[263] Seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks (Dan. 9:25). Keil observes that most interpreters who understand Christ as Messiah the Prince, have referred both of these periods to the first clause, as being to be reckoned from the going forth of the commandment. Thus Theodotion and the Vulgate. So Hvernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen. Hengstenberg says: The separation of the two periods of time was of great consequence, in order to show that the seven and the sixty-two weeks are not a mere arbitrary dividing into two of one whole period, but that to each of these two periods its own characteristic mark belongs. He divides them thus: Sixty weeks must pass away; seven till the completed restoration of the city, sixty from that time till the Anointed, the Prince. Keil, however, who regards the periods symbolically and not chronologically, thinks that this interpretation distorts the language of the text, and ought to be suffered to fall aside as untenable, in order that we may do justice to the words of the prophecy. He thinks that the seven weeks are said to terminate with the appearance of Messiah the Prince, after which the sixty and two weeks take their commencement, terminating with the cutting off of the Messiah. Willet, after Calvin, colampadius, and Broughton, reckoning from the first year of Cyrus, make the first seven weeks, or forty-nine years, to terminate with the finishing of the temple in the sixth year of Darius or Artaxerxes Longimanus.
[264] The street shall be built again and the wall, even in troublous times (Dan. 9:25). (tashubh), shall return, is thus joined adverbially to the second verb, (venibhnethah), and shall be built. So Hvernick, Hofmann, and Wieseler. Keil, on the other hand, thinks that the words refer undoubtedly to the expression in the former clause of the verse (lehashibh velibhnoth), to restore and to build; and that therefore (tashubh) is to be rendered intransitively, shall be restored, as Eze. 16:55; 1Ki. 13:6, and elsewhere He thinks, against Rosenmller, Gesenius, and Hengstenberg, that the subject to both verbs is not (rekhobh), the street, but Jerusalem, as is manifest both from the words of the commandment, and from the fact that in Zec. 8:5 the noun is construed as masculine, while here the verb is feminine. He is also of the opinion that the words (rekhobh vekharuts), the street and the wall, contain together one definition, the former, (rekhobh), the street and wide space before the gate of the temple, being taken as the adverbial accusative, with wide spaces; and the latter as a participle, and yet cut off or limited, the sense being, Jerusalem shall be built so that the city takes in a wide space, has wide free places, but not, however, unlimited in width, but such that their compass is measured off, is fixed and bounded. So Kliefoth, Theodotion, and the Vulgate have the street and the wall. To the latter word () Gesenius and others give the meaning ditch, wall, aqueduct;. Ewald, a pond; Hofmann, a confined space; Hitzig, the court. Hvernick, Hengstenberg, and others translate it as a participle, and it is determined. The expression in troublous times, (betsoq haittim), in the difficulty or oppression of the times, points to the circumstances under which the building was to proceed, and which are fully recorded in the Book of Nehemiah (chaps, 3, 4, 6, 9); but, in Keils opinion, is, according to Psa. 51:17, to be applied also to the spiritual building of the city of God.
[265] After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (Dan. 9:26). These weeks apparently the period immediately succeeding the seven weeks that constitute the first section of these weeks of years. Keil remarks that from the (akhar) after, it does not follow with certainty that the cutting off of the Messiah falls wholly in the beginning of the seventieth week, but only that the cutting off shall constitute the first great event of this week, and that those things that are mentioned in the remaining part of the verse shall then follow. Many think that, according to Dan. 9:27, this great event will only take place in the midst of that last week, when, in consequence of it, the typical sacrifices and oblations shall be made to cease, the true sacrifice being now offered.
3. The period of their commencement. Where do the seventy weeks begin? Here also is some uncertainty and difference of opinion. [266] In the text, it is the time of the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem (Dan. 9:25). The uncertainty is as to what that time was, or what was the precise commandment referred to. There have been four commandments or edicts of the kings of Persia, to which the words of the angel have been referred, each a few yearsthough only a fewdistant from the others. The first is the edict of Cyrus, B.C. 536, permitting the Jews to return to their own land (Ezr. 1:1). The second, about sixteen years later, is that of Darius Hystaspis, in the second or third year of his reign, B.C. 520, confirmatory of that of Cyrus (Ezr. 6:1). The third is that of Artaxerxes Longimanus, in the seventh year of his reign, B.C. 457, giving commission to Ezra to repair to Jerusalem and put matters right there (Ezr. 7:7; Ezr. 7:11). The fourth and last is that of the same monarch, in the twentieth year of his reign, B.C. 444, giving permission to Nehemiah to visit Jerusalem with the object of setting forward the restoration of the city (Neh. 1:2; Neh. 2:1, &c.) The first and the last two appear to have the most to be said in their favour, the third being, perhaps, the most probable. Whichever of these periods or edicts may be the exact one, there can be little doubt that the prophecy was intended to mean that somewhere about five centuries, more or less, after Daniel received the vision, Messiah was to appear. Although there is an uncertainty connected with ancient chronology, it appears that, as a matter of fact, the baptism of Jesus, which was preparatory to His death, like the setting apart of the passover lamb (Exo. 12:3; Exo. 12:6), took place somewhere about 483 years, or 69 prophetic weeks, from the third of the above edicts, and that in little more than seven years, or one prophetic week later, the Gospel had begun to be preached among the Gentiles. It is certain that at the very time when Jesus appeared, the Jews, guided by ancient prophecy, were in earnest expectation of the advent of their promised Messiah. When John the Baptist began to exercise his ministry, all men mused in their hearts whether he were the Christ. From his prison John sent two of his disciples to Jesus with the inquiry, Art thou He that should come, or look we for another? At the time of the birth of Jesus the godly in Jerusalem were waiting and looking for Him who was to be the Redeemer and Consolation of Israel. Even the Samaritans were looking for Him: I know that Messias cometh; when He is come, He will tell us all things (Joh. 4:25). That there existed at that time a widespread report through all the East that a ruler should appear in Judea and obtain a universal dominion, even Roman historians testify. According to Josephus, it was that very expectation that moved the Jews to revolt from their Roman masters. It has even been believed by Jewish Rabbis that the Messiah was born at the time that the temple was destroyed, and that He lay hid among the lepers in Rome. So fully were the Jews persuaded that He should appear about that period, that, rejecting Him when He came in the person of Jesus, they were ready to embrace and welcome every pretender; till, always disappointed, their Rabbis pronounced a curse upon those who should attempt to calculate the time of His appearing, which could chiefly, and almost only, be done from this very prophecy of Daniel. When the fulness of the time was come, God did indeed send forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons (Gal. 4:4-5).
[266] From the going forth of the commandment, &c. (Dan. 9:24). Various opinions as to what commandment is here referred to. Calvin and colampadius, and, among the moderns, Kleinert, Ebrard, Kliefoth, Keil, and others, regard it as the edict of Cyrus (Ezr. 1:1), from which, says Kliefoth, the termination of the exile is constantly dated, and from which time the return of the Jews, together with the building up of Jerusalem, began. Keil thinks that Isa. 44:28 directs us to this view, as also the words in Ezr. 6:14, They builded according to the commandment of the king of Persia. Hvernick and Hengstenberg, following some Church fathers, decide in favour of the second decree of Artaxerxes given in favour of Nehemiah in the twentieth year of his reign; Hengstenberg being of opinion that the words of the angel do not refer to the beginning of the building of Jerusalem, but much rather to the beginning of its complete restoration according to its ancient extent and glory. Luther and Bengel regard the commandment as the decree of Darius Hystaspis; while Bullinger, Pfaff, Sir Isaac Newton, Prideaux, Auberlen, and others prefer the edict of Artaxerxes given to Ezra in the seventh year of his reign. Dr. Rule, observes that the first decree by Cyrus related only to the temple, not the city; but that the great and decisive decree for rebuilding Jerusalem was issued by Artaxerxes, 457 b.c., in the seventh year of his reign, and is preserved in full in Ezra 7, being no doubt to be found in the archives of the realm. Seven weeks or forty-nine years from that date come down to the year 408 b.c., when Nehemiah finished his work of restoring the city. Sixty-two weeks, added to this, making sixty-nine weeks or 483 years, reach down to a.d. 26, when our Lord was about thirty years of age, and was baptised by John; which Dr. Rule considers to be meant by His being cut off, or separated as a victim for sacrifice. The remaining week or seven years was, in his view, occupied with the Saviours ministry till His death; during which He confirmed the covenant with many by His teaching. This is also the view of Dr. Pusey, who remarks, that of the four, two only are principal and leading decrees, that of Cyrus, and that in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus; that those of Cyrus and Darius relate to the rebuilding of the temple, those of Artaxerxes to the condition of Judea and Jerusalem; and that this rebuilding of the city and reorganisation of the Jewish polity, begun by Ezra and carried on and perfected by Nehemiah, corresponds with the words in Daniel, From the going forth, &c. He observes that the time also corresponds; that 483 years of the whole period of seventy weeks or 490 years, the last seven years being parted off, reckoned from the year 457 b.c., were completed in the year 27 a.d., which, since the nativity was four years earlier than our era, would coincide with our Lords baptism, when the Holy Ghost descending upon Him manifested Him to be the Anointed One, or the Messiah. He adds: But the fact of these several periods being prophesied, and the last above six hundred years before, is the body, not the soul, of the prophecy; it is not that which is the chief evidence of its divinity. Hesse thinks we are not forced to understand the angels words as referring, to only one of these edicts, but that they refer to the whole period during which such edicts were given, revoked, and renewed. Preiswerk thinks that, considering the uncertainty of ancient chronology, we ought not to lay much stress on calculating the exact year, but be content to point out a mere general coincidence of the prophecy with the historical time; and that 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. Sack thinks it was enough to strengthen faith and keep alive expectation, to leave only a general conception of the time when the Deliverer, Messiah the Prince, should appear.
We may observe from the text
1. The cause of rejoicing afforded by this prediction. This is one of those portions of Scripture that cannot be attentively and believingly read without a thrill of joy. Here is not only a prediction concerning the Saviour who was to come, with the blessed results of His advent, but of the very time when He was to appear, though given nearly five centuries before the event, and given in terms so plain and precise, that in consequence of it the Jews looked for His coming at the very period indicated; [267] while exactly at that period, Jesus, with every prophetic mark of the true Messiah found in Him, actually came; and though rejected, a thing which was also predicted of the Messiah, by the mass of His countrymen, and more especially their leaders, was hailed, accepted, and trusted in as the promised Saviour of the world, by numbers during His life, and by millions more since then in almost every part of the world, and among the most civilised portions of the human race. The reading of the text may well awaken those feelings claimed by another angel for his statement when announcing the actual fulfilment of the prophecy: Behold, I bring you glad tidings of great joy, which shall be unto all people; for unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour which is Christ the Lord. If any tidings are fitted to evoke feelings of joy, surely it is these.
[267] Josephus says: What gave them (the Jews) courage to fight was a saying found in the Holy Scriptures that about that time (shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem) one of their nation was to obtain the government of the world. This report was widely spread. Tacitus says: Many had the conviction that it stood written in their ancient priestly books that just about that very time the East would rise up in great power, and men from Judea would obtain the government of the world. Suetonius, another Roman historian of the period, also says: The old and common opinion was spread through all the East that it was destined by fate that met of Judea should obtain at this time the government of the world. Jewish writings bear the same testimony. Our Rabbins have delivered to us that in the week in which the Son of David comes, &c. (Talmud, Sanh. 97, 1). Seventy weeks after the destruction of the first temple shall intervene till the destruction of the second (Seder Olam, Yalkut Shimeoni, 2:79, 4). Why was Jonathan ben Uzziel forbidden to interpret the Hagiographa? Because in it is contained the term of Messiahs advent (Megillah, 3, 1). Rashi says, The term of Messiah is found in the book of Daniel. Bishop Hurd observes: They (the Jews) were led by these prophecies, as interpreted by themselves, to expect that they would be completed at the time at which we say they were completed; and it was not till after the coming of Christ that they began to interpret them differently, and to look out for another completion of them. The natural and proper sense will be thought to be that in which we take them; for that sense occurred first to themselves, and was, in truth, their sense before we adopted it. When I say their sense, I mean especially in respect to the time which they had fixed for the accomplishment of the prophecies concerning the Messiah. Dr. Keith remarks: Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, and Philo agree in testifying the antiquity of the prophecies, and their acknowledged reference to that period. Even the Jews to this day own that the time when their Messiah ought to have appeared is long since past; and they attribute the delay of His coming to the sinfulness of their nation. And thus, from the distinct prophecies themselves; from the testimony of profane historians; and from the concessions of the Jews, every requisite proof is afforded that Christ appeared when all the concurring circumstances of the time denoted the prophesied period of His advent.
2. The duty of personally accepting that Saviour whose advent was thus graciously foretold, and at the predicted period actually took place. The text reveals a Saviour and promises a salvation which meets the requirements of every human being; a salvation not only from sins consequences, but from sin itself, and one which in the Gospel is freely tendered to every creature. Millions, accepting the announcement and cordially embracing the promised Saviour as their own, have experienced its truth both in life and death, and, made by it new creatures in Christ Jesus, have rejoiced with exceeding joy. Such an experience is for each to make his own, and that without delay. To you is the word of this salvation sent. Behold, now is the day of salvation. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation? Has the reader embraced it?
3. The evidence here afforded of the truth of Christianity and the word of God. With this prophecy of Daniel before us, and the Gospel narrative in our hands, and the existence of the Christian Church before our eyes, we need nothing more to convince us that there is such a thing as divinely inspired prediction, and that Christianity is of God. Sir Isaac Newton, no mean authority in connection with such a subject, was willing to stake the truth of Christianity on this very prophecy of Daniel. With the prediction of the text and the facts of history before us, even the most scriptural may well exclaim with the magicians of Egypt, This is the finger of God! Believers, if only from the evidence afforded by this prophecy and its fulfilment, may rejoice with Peter in the assurance, that they have not followed cunningly devised fables. Calvin was right when he said, How clear and sure a testimony we have in Daniels prophecy, where he counts the years till the advent of Christ; so that we may with boldness oppose Satan and all the scorn of the ungodly, if it be but true that the book of Daniel was in mens hands before Christ came. That it was so is doubted by none; even the keenest opposer of the genuineness of the book placing it at least 150 years before that event. [268]
[268] The views of the German Rationalists, and others of the same school, are thus expressed by an English writer, R. W. Mackay (Progress of the Intellect): During the severe persecutions under Antiochus Epiphanes, when the cause of Hebrew faith, in its struggle with colossal heathenism, seemed desperate; and when, notwithstanding some bright examples of heroism, the majority of the higher class was inclined to submit and to apostatise; an unknown writer adopted the ancient name of Daniel, in order to revive the almost extinct hopes of his countrymen, and to exemplify the proper bearing of a faithful Hebrew in the presence of a Gentile tyrant. The object of Pseudo-Daniel is to foreshadow, under a form adapted to make the deepest impression on his countrymen, by a prophecy, half-allusive, half-apocryphal, the approaching destruction of heathenism through the advent of Messiah. The prophecies of Daniel are supposed by this school to extend to the death of Antiochus, but no further, the book being completed shortly after that event. The great effort is to make the periods mentioned in this chapter to coincide with the events of that time. The attempt, always failing, is renewed under another form again and again, with the same success. Dr. Pusey has counted thirteen various ways in which this school attempts to reckon the seventy weeks. Keil observes: The opponents of the genuineness of the book of Daniel generally are agreed in this, that the destruction of this enemy of the Jews, or the purification of the temple occurring a few years earlier, forms the terminus ad quem (or termination) of the seventy weeks; and that their duration is to be reckoned, from the year 168 or 172 b.c., back either to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, or to the beginning of the exile. Hitzig, Ewald, Wieseler, and others suppose that the first seven year-weeks, or forty-nine years, are not to be taken into the reckoning along with the sixty-two weeks, and that only sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, are to be counted to the year 175 (as Ewald), or 172. (as Hitzig thinks), as the beginning of the last week, filled up by the assault of Antiochus against Judaism. But even this reckoning brings us to the year 609 or 606 b.c., the commencement of the exile, or three years further back. To date the sixty years from that event agrees too little with the announcement that from the going forth of the commandment to restore, &c. So that of the most recent representatives of this view, no one any longer consents to hold the seventy years of the exile for a time of the restoring and the building of Jerusalem. Thus Hitzig and Ewald openly declare that the reckoning is not correct, and that the Pseudo-Daniel has erred, and assumed ten weeks, or seventy years, too many. By this change of the sixty-two weeks into fifty-two, or 434 years into 364, they reach from the year 174 to 538 b.c., the year of the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus, by whom the commandment to restore Jerusalem was promulgated. To this the seven weeks (or forty-nine years) are again added, in order to reach the year 588 or 587 b.c., the year of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, from which the year-weeks, shortened from seventy to sixty, are to be reckoned. Keil adds: This hypothesis needs no serious refutation; yet this supposition is made among these opponents a dogmatic axiom.
HOMILETICS
SECT. XXXIV.THE OBJECTS OF MESSIAHS ADVENT (Chap. Dan. 9:24)
We come to the cream of the prophecy. The angel foretells what were to be the blessed results of Messiahs advent, which were to take place within the seventy weeks determined upon Daniels people. These objects and results are described in six particulars, or in three pairs, more or less connected. [269]
[269] The six statements are divided by Maurer, Hitzig, Krauichfeld, and others, into three passages of two members each, containing (1) the completion of the measure of sin; (2) the covering of sin and bringing in righteousness; (3) the fulfilling of prophecy and consecration of the temple. Keil regards the passage as rather containing two three-membered sentences; the first three treating of the taking away of sin, and thus giving the negative side of the deliverance; the three last treating of the bringing in of righteousness with its consequences, and thus of the positive deliverance; the members in both classes standing in reciprocal relation to each other.
I. Transgression was to be finished or restrained. Dan. 9:24. To finish transgression. The word rendered finish is ambiguous, [270] many preferring the translation given in the margin of our Bibles, to restrain. One blessed result of Messiahs advent was to be that transgression and sin would be so restrained that it should no longer rule and prevail, and in multitudes of cases should for ever cease among men as before. Accordingly the name to be given to the Messiah, and by which He was to be known among men when He came, was JESUS, because He should save His people from their sins. Deliverance from sin the primary object of Messiahs advent. Hence Zachariahs song: That He would grant unto us, that we, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear, in righteousness and holiness before Him, all the days of our life (Luk. 1:74-75). Such deliverance impossible without an atonement or satisfaction to divine justice for human guilt. Sin must be forgiven before it can cease to reign. But without shedding of blood there is no remission. Sin shall have no dominion over us, only because we are delivered from the condemning sentence of the law, and placed on a footing of grace and free favour through the satisfaction made by Christs death. It is the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, that purges our conscience from dead works to serve the living God (Heb. 9:14).
[270] To finish transgression (Dan. 9:24). (lechall), properly to restrain. Keil remarks that in this word a double reading is combined; the vowel points not belonging to the Kethibh or text, which rather has (lichloh), but to the Keri; the Masorites holding to be of the same meaning with , to be ended, as Theodotion, Aquila, and the Vulgate have translated it. Rosenmller, Gesenius, Winer, and others, have followed them in supposing that has passed into ; and understand the expression to mean, the filling up or completing the measure of sin. Keil objects to this meaning as not agreeing with the context, and prefers to retain , to restrain, in the sense of hemming in or hindering wickedness, so that it can no longer spread about. Calvin understands the expression to mean putting an end to wickedness; Bullinger, that by the coming of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel, there should be a general restraint of sin, according to 1Co. 6:10. Dr. Rule understands the finishing or ending the transgression which has lasted through so many ages, in the stubborn rebellion of the ancient people against Gods law.
II. Sin was to be forgiven. To make an end of sin, or, according to the margin, to seal it up, [271] as something that was no longer to see the light. This probably connected with the preceding as its ground or foundation. When sin, having been atoned for, is sealed up as a thing no longer to be seen, it loses its power or prevalence, and so is restrained as under bonds and imprisonment. Deliverance from the guilt of sin, inseparably connected with deliverance from its power; the latter deliverance being in consequence of the former, as it is the guilt or condemnation under which sin brings us that gives it its power. Sin, as an act of transgression against Gods law, brings death, spiritual as well as temporal, as its penalty; but spiritual death is simply the reign of sin in the soul. The soul that sinneth it shall die. Forgiveness cancels the sentence, and so delivers not only from the guilt but from the reigning power of sin. Christ is made righteousness to us, in the forgiveness from sin and the acceptance of our person; and so is also immediately made to us sanctification for our personal holiness (1Co. 1:30). In the Lord we have righteousness and strength; righteousness, or forgiveness and acceptance, first, and then, or along with it, strength, in order to overcome sin and serve God (Isa. 45:24). God first forgives all the sinners iniquities, and then heals all his diseases (Psa. 103:3). This forgiveness is complete and permanent, a true sealing up of sin. Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more (Heb. 8:12). There is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). He that believeth is justified from all things; hath everlasting life; and shall never come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life. Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea (Act. 13:38-39; Joh. 3:36; Joh. 5:24; Mic. 7:19). This making an end of or sealing up of sin, by its entire and everlasting forgiveness, solely the result of Christs death. Constantly exhibited in the great central ordinance of the Church, the Lords Supper: This cup is the new covenant in my blood shed for the remission of sins.
[271] To make an, end of sin. (lekhathem), literally, to seal up. Hofmann, Kliefoth, and Keil understand the expression to mean that sins should be laid under custody, so as no more to be active or increase; while Hengstenberg and others think it means the taking away of sins or removing them out of Gods sight. Polanus and Willet also understand the meaning to be, that sins should be bound up, sealed, and closed, so as never more to be opened, read, or declared against us, as writings are sealed up to be concealed and buried in oblivion (Col. 2:14). Dr. Rule understands it of the putting away of sin by the atoning sacrifice of One who should establish a better covenant (Heb. 9:26).
III. Satisfaction or atonement was to be made for iniquity. To make reconciliation for iniquity. [272] This the ground of the preceding, as that again was of its predecessor. Before sin could be restrained or arrested in its power, it must be forgiven; and before it can be forgiven, it must be atoned for. This the significance of all the sacrificial blood that had flowed from the beginning; for without shedding of blood is no remission. The sin that is to be forgiven must be laid and punished somewhere. But it was impossible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sinatone or satisfy for mans guilt. This could only point to blood that was able, from the dignity of the person whose blood it was, to effect this object. This was the Messiah, the Anointed, emphatically called the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Hence the evangelical prophet: He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. It pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief. Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin. He shall bear their iniquities. He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (Isa. 53:5-6; Isa. 53:10-12). Thus exhibited by the Apostle: Whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by His blood, to show His righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, I say, of His righteousness at the present season; that He might Himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:25-26, R. V.)
[272] To make reconciliation for iniquity. (lehapper), to pardon, to blot out by means of a sin-offering, i.e., to forgive. So Keil. The term properly denotes, as in Lev. 1:4, &c., to make atonement by a sacrifice; hence gives its name to the mercy-seat (capporeth), that which makes atonement or propitiation; applied to Christ, and His atoning death,the propitiation through His blood (Rom. 3:25). The verb in its simple form or root, (caphar), to cover; applied to the covering or smearing of the ark with pitch; the atoning sacrifice covers the sin so as not to appear, and covers the sinner so that no deserved wrath shall reach him. Sin, when forgiven, said to be covered (Psa. 32:2). Keil observes that the three expressions in the textto finish or shut up transgression, &c.,all treat alike of the setting aside of sin, but in different ways. The first presents the general thought, that the falling away shall be shut up, the progress and the spreading of the sin shall be prevented. The other two expressions define more closely how the source whence arises the apostasy shall be shut up, the going forth and the continued operation of the sin prevented. This happens in one way with unbelievers, and in a different way with believers. The sins of unbelievers are sealed, are guarded securely under a seal, so that they may no more spread about and increase, nor any longer be active and operative; but the sins of believers are forgiven through a reconciliation.
Die man or justice must, unless for him
Some other, able and as willing, pay
The rigid satisfaction, death for death.Paradise Lost.
IV. Everlasting righteousness for mans acceptance to be procured. To bring in everlasting righteousness. What righteousness is this? [273] Righteousness in the Bible is either judicial or moral; acceptance with God, or that conformity to His law which is the ground of it. In the former sense it includes forgiveness, which is the removal or cancelling of what would otherwise forbid our acceptance with God. Such acceptance, however, requires more than forgiveness. Besides the cancelling of transgressions against Gods law, it requires a perfect obedience to it. It is properly the righteous man, or the man who is able to present such a righteousness as the law demands, that is accepted, or regarded and pronounced righteous. Forgiveness is something negative; righteousness something positive. Forgiveness cancels disobedience; righteousness presents obedience. To be accepted requires both. Both provided for in the Messiah; the one in His atoning death, the other in His spotless life. As the result of both, the Lord was well pleased for His (Messiahs) righteousness; He hath magnified the law, and made it honourable (Isa. 42:21). It is in the righteousness of Messiah, including both His active and passive obedience, His rendering to the law the obedience it requires, and the penalty it demands for the transgressions which in becoming man and mans Surety He took upon Him, that we sinners are accepted. We are righteous and accepted in Him who for our sakes became Gods righteous Servant, and is pre-eminently the Righteous and the Just One. His name was therefore to be called the Lord Our Righteousness. In Him shall all the seed of Israel be justified and shall glory. Surely, shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength. In this respect the Messiah was to be the Second Adam, and the contrast as well as the antitype of the first. As through the one mans disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One shall the many be made righteous (Rom. 5:19, R. V.) This righteousness of Messiah was to be an everlasting righteousness. Unlike the obedience of the first Adam, His obedience was to continue to the end, and to be followed by no disobedience; and the result of it was to be everlasting and perpetual acceptance, as of Himself, the Head, so of all His members who are made to share in His righteousness and be accepted in Him. They, like the Head, were never to come into condemnation, but to be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation, and never to be ashamed or confounded world without end (Isa. 45:17). This everlasting righteousness was brought in by Messiah as the product of His whole life, terminating in the one great act of obedience to His Fathers will and surrender to the laws demands, His vicarious atoning death. He said, It is finished; and He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost. Thus brought in, it is made to belong to those for whom it was provided, on their belief in and acceptance of it as their own,their entire trust and dependence on it alone for acceptance with God. This is faith, the means or instrument by which we are put in possession of it, and are justified. Justified by faith, we have peace with God. He that believeth is justified from all things. The righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, unto all them that believe (Act. 8:39; Rom. 8:1; Rom. 3:22, R.V.)
[273] To bring in everlasting righteousness. Keil and others, taking the word in its moral sense, understand by righteousness that which is practised by believers,the internal and external righteousness of the new heavens and the new earth, according to 2 Peter 3; called everlasting, as corresponding to the eternity of the Messianic kingdom (chap. Dan. 2:44, Dan. 7:18; Dan. 7:27). Vatablus understands it as Christ Himself; Bullinger and others, as Christs righteousness imputed to us (Jas. 2:23).
Oh, how unlike the complex works of man,
Heavens easy, artless, unencumberd plan?
It stands like the crulean arch we see,
Majestic in its own simplicity.
Inscribed above the portal, from afar,
Conspicuous as the brightness of a star,
Legible only by the light they give,
Stand the soul-quickening wordsBELIEVE AND LIVE.
V. Prophecy was to receive its fulfilment and to cease. To seal up the vision and prophecy; or, literally, to seal up vision and prophet. [274] In the birth, life, death, resurrection, and kingdom of the Messiah, vision and prophecy would receive their fulfilment; for what the Spirit of Christ testified beforehand in the prophets was the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow them (1Pe. 1:11, R. V.) The testimony of Jesus was the spirit of prophecy. Jesus could testify before His death with reference to the vision and prophecy of the Old Testament, The things concerning Me have an end. To this completion of prophecy His last words might also have reference: It is finished. He had told His disciples while yet with them, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning Him. So after His resurrection, beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself (Luk. 24:27; Luk. 24:44). As a precious gift indeed for the edification of His Church, and the extension of His kingdom in the world, as had also been made the subject of Old Testament prophecy in connection with the glories that should follow Messiahs sufferings, the Spirit was poured out upon the believers, both men and women, so that they were enabled to prophesy (Act. 2:1-18; 1Co. 14:1; Eph. 4:11). But with the apostles and immediate disciples of Jesus vision and prophecy in relation to the future were to cease. These having received their fulfilment, either absolutely, or, as in the case of Messiahs kingdom, incipiently, with the communications given to the beloved disciple, the last of the apostles, the canon of Scripture was closed.
[274] To seal up the vision and prophecy, (Khazon venabhi), vision and prophet. Not only the prophecy, but the prophet or his calling, must be sealed; namely, when by the full realisation of all prophecies, prophecy itself ceases, and no more prophets appear. So Keil, who, however, thinks that the extinction of prophecy in consequence of its fulfilment is not, as Hengstenberg and others believe, to be sought in the time of the manifestation of Christ in the flesh; for then only the prophecy of the Old Covenant reached its end, and its place is occupied by the prophecy of the New Testament, the fulfilling of which is still in the future, and which will not come to an end till the kingdom of God is perfected in glory; namely, at the termination of the present course of the worlds history, at the same time with the full conclusive fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecy (Act. 3:21). Willet and others think that the vision and prophecy intended was that of the Old Testament, which referred to the Messiah and had its fulfilment in Jesus. Experience shows that long since all prophecies and visions among the Jews are ceased; hence they are convinced (or shown) that the Messiah is come. Dr. Rule understands the clause to mean the fulfilling of the predictions of former ages, and the confirming of them by making the events to correspond with the prophecies respecting the Messiah. It is not, however, to be forgotten that the Old Testament prophets testified beforehand not merely the sufferings of Christ, but the glory that should follow (1Pe. 1:12).
VI. The new spiritual Temple was to be set up and consecrated. To anoint the Most Holy; or, literally, to anoint a Holy of holies. [275] The allusion to the most holy place in the tabernacle or temple is obvious. The question is, what is here particularly the thing predicted? The reference is probably to that New Testament Church, Temple, or House of God which Messiah was to establish, and of which He was to be the chief corner-stone. That Church or Temple, with Messiah as at once its foundation and builder, was made the subject of express prophecy. The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head stone of the corner. Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation. Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH, and He shall grow up out of His place, and He shall build the temple of the Lord (Psa. 118:22; Isa. 28:16; Zec. 6:12). Of this spiritual temple, identified with Christ as His body, the anointed tabernacle and temple at Jerusalem was a type. Speaking of Himself, Christ said, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. And of His Church He said, On this rock will I build My church. So the Apostle Paul, addressing believers, says, Ye are the temple of the living God; Ye are Gods building; built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. Peter, in like manner: To whom coming as unto a living stone, ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house (1Co. 3:17; 1Co. 6:19; Eph. 2:20; 1Pe. 2:5). This New Testament Church was to be set up by Messiah at His advent, and in conformity with its type it was to be consecrated by anointing. That Anointing Oil was the Holy Ghost, the antitype of the holy anointing oil of the Old Testament. We have seen how Jesus Himself, the chief corner-stone, and who is one with His Church, was anointed with the Holy Ghost at His baptism. In like manner was the Church, His members, anointed on the day of Pentecost and onwards, in fulfilment of the great promise made by their Head, Ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. It was this anointing that was to fit them for their great work in the world till He should come again. Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto Me, both in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth (Act. 1:5; Act. 1:8). The effects of the anointing in the now consecrated spiritual Temple were immediately apparent. They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved (Act. 2:4; Act. 2:41-47). This anointing with the Holy Ghost to be characteristic of the New Testament Church. He who hath anointed us is God. Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. The anointing which ye have received abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him (2Co. 1:21; 1Jn. 2:20; 1Jn. 2:27). The privilege as well as duty of the New Testament Church is expressed in the apostolic exhortation, Be ye filled with the Spirit. Its members were to be distinguished by the fruits and graces of that Spirit with which, in common with their Head, they were to be anointed. God hath not given us the Spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. But the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; against such there is no law: and they that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts (2Ti. 1:7; Gal. 5:18; Gal. 5:22-24). The name given to the New Testament Church descriptive of this anointing. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. But Christians are simply Christs men, or the members of the Anointed One, and so anointed themselves. Even the very name of Christ, the Anointed, appears to be given them in the word (1Co. 12:12; Rev. 11:15). This quite natural, the Head and members forming one body. The same holy Anointing Oil which was poured on the head of Aaron ran down to his beard, even to the skirts of his garment (Psa. 133:1-2).
[275] To anoint the most holy, (Kodhesh Kadhashim), literally, a holy of holies; a new holy of holies which, as Keil observes, should be in the place of the tabernacle and the temple of Solomon. Those who refer the fulfilment of the prophecy to the time nearest the close of the exile, or to the time of the Maccabees, apply this clause either, with Wieseler, to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering, restored by Zernbbabel and Joshua (Ezr. 3:2, &c.); or, with J. D. Michaelis, to the consecration of the temple of Zernbbabel; or, with Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others, to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering which was desecrated by Autiochus Epiphanes (1Ma. 4:54). But only the Mosaic sanctuary of the tabernacle, with its altars and vessels, were consecrated by anointing (Exo. 30:22, &c.); nor is the expression used of a single article or holy vessel, but to the whole. The Church fathers understood Christ Himself to be meant. The old Syriac translation has introduced into the text the words, Till the Messiah, the Most Holy. Willet says: This is Christ, prefigured and shadowed forth by the most holy place in the temple. Calvin thinks it refers to the entire restoration of the Church of God, on which He was to pour forth the fulness of all His pity at the advent of Christ; the privileges of the New Church being far better, more excellent and desirable, than those of the ancient one. He, however, adds: But Christ Himself is properly and deservedly called the Holy One of holy ones, or the Tabernacle of God, His body being the temple of Deity, and being anointed when the Spirit of God rested on Him with all His gifts. Dr. Cox understands by the expression the Messiah, dedicated to His work, and made the priest of His people. Dr. Rule thinks of the consecration to some high office of a person worthy to be called The Most Holythe Anointed. Hofmann applies it to the sanctification of the Church by the Holy Ghost; not, however, to take place in its predicted conspicuousness till the time of the end. Keil, from the want of the article, and the constant application of the term to things, not persons, thinks the reference is to the anointing of a new sanctuary or most holy place; and, with Kliefoth, understands it of the establishment, in the time of the end, of the new holy of holies which was shown to John in Patmos, as the tabernacle of God with men, a new place of the gracious presence of God, or a new way of His dwelling among men, opened up by Christs work of redemption. Dr. Pusey thinks the clause must be spiritual, as all else is spiritual. Holy of holies, literally, holiness of holinesses; i.e., all-holiness, be observes, is a ritual term, used to express the exceeding holiness which things acquire by being consecrated to God. It is never used to describe a place, but is always an attribute of the thing, and, in one place, of the person who is spoken of (1Ch. 23:13). The destruction of the temple, as having been previously profaned, is the close of this prophecy. Mr. Bosanquet, applying it to Christ, thinks that the anointing has reference only to the birth of the Prince of the house of David, and to His anointing to the kingdom, and not to either His priesthood or His ministry; the holy of holies being literally the most holy portion of the sanctuary of the Jewish temple, but here applied figuratively to the Holy of Holies of the spiritual Church of Christ; i.e., to the most holy portion of that spiritual temple of which Jesus Christ is the chief corner-stone, to the Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. Hengstenberg, following Hvernick, would make the expression applicable to the Messiah, as it is applied to Aaron and his sons in 1Ch. 23:13, under the idea of a most holy thing (Luk. 1:35). Kliefoth, with whom Keil agrees, says that the most holy is not the place of the congregation where it comes to God and is with God, but where God is present for the congregation and manifests Himself to it. This, he says, apart from the connection, might refer to the work of redemption perfected by the coming of Christ, which has indeed created in Him a new place of the gracious presence of God; but in the connection of the clause it looks forward to the time when the work of salvation shall be fully carried through, in the return of the Lord from heaven for the final judgment.
HOMILETICS
SECT. XXXV.A REJECTED SAVIOUR (Chap. Dan. 9:26)
The view of Israels future, afforded to Daniel by the angel, like the pillar in the wilderness, presented both a bright side and a dark one. It assured Daniel of the coming of the long promised Messiah at a definite though still distant period, together with the blessed and glorious results that should follow His appearing It revealed, however, at the same time the awful fact that the Messiah when He came should not only be rejected by the mass of His countrymen, but should be put to a violent death. It declared, further, that, as the consequence of their wicked rejection of their King and Saviour, the city and sanctuary that had been rebuilt should be overthrown by a foreign power, and that war and desolation should be visited upon the land and the people until the appointed end. [276]
[276] Keil, analyses of the whole passage, gives, as who enters fully into the grammatical his conclusion, that in the seventieth week Messiah is cut off, and that in consequence of it destruction falls upon the city and the sanctuary.
The prophecy brings us to the great central truth of the Bible, and that which constitutes the foundation of a sinners hope. The same fact that formed the greatest wickedness of the Jews, and brought the heaviest judgments upon the land and nation, is that which brings life and salvation to a guilty world. It is the violent but vicarious death of the provided Saviour. MESSIAH SHALL BE CUT OFF. To the astonishment of angels who had studied the predictions regarding Him with deepest interest (1Pe. 1:12), instead of hailing and embracing their own and the worlds Deliverer when He came, after having for more than a thousand years been promised to their nation by a succession of prophets, and foreshadowed by numerous divinely appointed types, they, and especially their priests and elders, reject Him with scorn, anathematise Him as a blasphemer, and in bitter hatred demand that He shall be put to an ignominious and cruel death. They took Him, and by wicked hands crucified and slew Him (Act. 2:23). The prophecy brings before us
I. The time of the solemn event. After threescore and two weeks. [277] As noticed in a former section, these prophetic weeks are doubtless the same as those mentioned in the preceding verse, as succeeding the first seven from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem; thus making sixty-nine such weeks, or 483 years from the issuing of that edict. Although some uncertainty may exist as to which of the three or four possible edicts may be expressly referred to, yet it is a fact calling for deepest thankfulness, that exactly that period, according to accepted chronology, after the most probable of these edicts, brings us to the time when John the Baptist pointed to Jesus and exclaimed, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world (Joh. 1:29); or perhaps to the time when, three years and a half later, the Jews cried out concerning Him, Crucify Him, Crucify Him!
[277] After threescore and two weeks. That is, says Keil, in the seventieth week, viewing these sixty-two as following the previously mentioned seven, and added to thenm, so as to make one entire period of sixty-nine weeks. These most interpreters understand as weeks of years, and consequently as making 483 years. After that period, without saying how long after, Messiah was to be cut off. Keil thinks that the after does not certainly imply that the cutting off should wholly fall in the beginning of the seventieth week, but only that it should constitute the first great event of it. This, Mr. Bosanquet thinks, would make up the third of those equal cycles of seventy weeks of years in which the people of Israel may be said to have fulfilled their previous destinies, viz., seventy such weeks (or 490 years) under the Tabernacle; seventy, including the seventy neglected Sabbaths kept at Babylon, under the first Temple; and seventy under the second Temple, even until the laying of the foundation-stone of the third Temple, not made with hands, in the time of Jesus Christ.
II. The event itself. Messiah shall be cut off, [278] but not for Himself; or rather, according to the marginal reading, and He shall have nothing. Shall be cut off. So Isaiah says, though using a different word, He was cut off out of the land of the living (Isa. 53:8). It is the word used for being cut off from among the people, or from the presence of the Lord (Lev. 20:18; Lev. 23:3). The angel says not by whom. Other prophets supply the information. He is despised and rejected of men; and more particularly, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner (Isa. 53:3; Psa. 118:22). The historian agrees with the prophet in showing not only that Messiah was cut off at the time indicated, but that He was rejected by His own people, and more especially by the builders, the priests and elders, who were the appointed and professed builders of the Church of God. He came to His own, but His own received Him not. All the chief priests and elders took counsel against Jesus to put Him to death. The chief priests and elders persuaded the people that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy, Jesus. Then answered all the people His blood be upon us and upon our children. To the Jewish people Peter declared, Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you, and killed the Prince of life. I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers (Joh. 1:11; Mat. 20:20; Mat. 20:25; Act. 3:14-15; Act. 3:17). In this rejection and cutting off of the Messiah, indeed, Gentiles were associated with Jews, Of a truth against Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done (Act. 4:27-28). The cutting off was indeed of God, whose love provided such a Lamb for a burnt-offering, when no other could take away sin; Jews and Gentiles, His betrayers and murderers, were the no less guilty and responsible instruments.
[278] Be cut off. (yiccareth), in Keils opinion, does not necessarily point to the death of the Messiah, or the crucifixion of Christ; the root denoting to fell or hew down, to cut to pieces, and the passive form, here used, to be rooted up, destroyed, annihilated; and generally, though not always, indicating a violent kind of death, being the usual expression for the death of the ungodly (e.g., Psa. 37:9; Pro. 2:22), without particularly designating the manner in which this is done. He thinks the right interpretation of the word depends on the meaning of the expression that follows, (ve-en lo), and that it denotes not the cutting off of existence, but the annihilation of His place as Messiah among His people. Dr. Pusey thinks the word, in the passive form, shall be cut off, never means anything but excision, death inflicted directly by God, or violent death at the bands of man; is never used of mere death, nor of a sudden but natural death; and is, after the Pentateuch, used absolutely and of national inflictions of destruction of which man is the instrument. He thinks it equivalent to the word used by Isaiah in chap. Isa. 53:8. colampadius thought the word did not refer to the death of Christ, as it indicates such a cutting off as to extinguish and cause to perish, which with Christ was not the case.
Let us turn aside and consider this great sight, Messiah cut off. The provided and promised Saviour, the mighty God in mans nature, is rejected and made to suffer the death of a felon, a blasphemer, and a slave. Wonder, O heavens, at mans depravity! But the thing is of God. While the act is that of their own free will, it is what His hand and His counsel have determined before to be done. Josephs brethren sold him; but it was God that sent him into Egypt, to save much people alive. Messiah must be cut off, or man must remain in his sins. He who is to save must suffersuffer in the room of those whom he saves. Sin must be atoned for, if it is to be forgiven. Justice must be satisfied, if mercy is to bless. The womans seed must have his heel bruised, if he is to bruise the serpents head. The Son of God in mans nature must die, if man is to live. The Blessed One must be cut off, if the accursed are to be restored. It is done. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. To save the sinner, it pleased the Lord to bruise His Son. Wonder, O heavens, at Gods love to man!
Messiah was cut off both by man and for man. By man. But how could such wickedness exist? The answer is not far to seek. The root of that wickedness is in the heart both of writer and reader. He who knows that heart has declared it to be deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. A sinful blindness occasioned by the Fall, unbelief regarding the testimony of God, pride, self-righteousness, love of the world and sin, hatred of a holy God and what is holythese are the natural products of mans wretchedly depraved heart, and these, yielded to, were sufficient to reject the Son of God and to murder the Saviour that God sent. And they still do so. The Saviour whom the Jews crucified, the Gentiles reject, and in rejecting Him trample on His blood. He is still despised and rejected of men. We still turn away our faces from Him. Though in Himself the chief among ten thousand, and for sinful ruined man everything that is to be desired, yet we esteem Him not.
And for man, not for Himself. [279] The marginal reading is better, He shall have nothing; literally, There shall be nothing for Him. In His being cut off, life and everything should be taken from Him. The world would have nothing whatever to do with Him. Perhaps these two short words pointed to the cry, Away with Him, away with Him! Or to the fact that, in His last hours, His very garments were taken from Him and divided among the soldiers that crucified Him. Or to that other fact, that after His death charity provided Him a winding-sheet and a grave. Or did they indicate that so absolute was the cutting off, that while the chief priests and scribes and elders mocked Him, and they that passed by reviled Him, wagging their heads, and the thieves who were crucified with Him cast reproaches in His teeth, His very disciples forsook Him and fled, and only one of them returned to take His stand at the cross? Or did they point to that still more awful abandonment, involving the soul and centre of the cutting off, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? This one thing the words may well suggest: Though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich. It was for man He was cut off, stripped of everything, and abandoned by all. There was to be nothing for Him, but everything for man. For Him the cross, and shame, and anguish, and death; for man, pardon, peace, holiness, heaven, and God. For your sakes. The ram was taken from the thicket and laid on the altar in Isaacs place. This the essence of the Gospel. This the only foundation of our hope, and the true source of a sinners peace. We have a substitute provided by God in the person of His incarnate Son. This our joy on earth; this the song of the redeemed in heaven. Thou west slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood. Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
[279] But not for himself. (ve-en lo) is rendered by Bullinger, Willet, Vitringa, Rosenmller, Hvernick, and others, as in our English version, not for himself, identifying (ain) with (lo) which Keil and Hengstenberg maintain cannot be done, notwithstanding the passages adduced by Gesenius as examples of the interchange. Keil, viewing the expression in its undefined universality, renders the clause, and it is not to Him, namely, the place which He as Messiah has had, or should have, among His people and in the sanctuary, but which, by His being cut off, is lost. Calvin renders the words, He shall have nothing, i.e., He shall die a contemptible death. Junius: It shall be nothing to Him,death shall have no power over Him to stay His judgments. Roman Catholic expositors follow Jerome and the Vulgate: He shall have no people or disciples, as they were to reject Him. So Grotius and Auberlen. colampadius refers the clause to Jerusalem: It shall have nothing, neither king nor priest. Vatablus has: There shall be none to help Him. Dr. Rule observes that the clause is most obscure, and apparently an imperfect reading, and thinks it safer, in the uncertainty regarding, it to let our Authorised Version remain unaltered. Dr. Pusey reads there shall not be to Him, i.e., as he thinks the context implies, the city and the sanctuary,they shall be His no more; or, as he says in another place, What hitherto was His, viz., His people, whose Prince He heretofore was; the Jews as a nation having cut themselves off when they crucified Him.
III. The consequences of this rejection of Messiah. These are partly mentioned in the latter part of the verse: The people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a flood; [280] and unto the end war and desolations are determined. [281] So Jesus Himself foretold while He wept over the infatuated and doomed city. If (Oh that) thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! 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 within thee; and they shall not leave thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation (Luk. 19:41-44). History tells how sadly the prediction was fulfilled. Within forty years after the Jews had crucified their King and Saviour, the Romans under Titusthe people of the prince that shall comeinvaded Judea, compelled by the infatuated Jews who took up arms against them in the belief that their promised Messiah would come to their help and deliver them from their heathen masters. After a protracted siege, both Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed, notwithstanding the orders of the general to spare the beautiful and magnificent fabric. War swept over the land like a desolating flood. In the siege alone above a million perished by the sword, while nearly a hundred thousand were sold into slavery. Even after that protracted and destructive war was terminated, a desolating curse seemed to be poured upon the land. War followed war, as one Gentile nation after another invaded it. Jerusalem, according to the word of its rejected King, has been literally trodden under foot of the Gentiles. The Jewish inhabitants of the country were all but rooted out of it, and scattered over all the earth, tribes of the wandering foot and weary breast. Such in a large degree is what at this day still meets our view in that once favoured and glorious land, now and for centuries under the blighting rule, or rather misrule, of the Turks. Desolation and wretchedness meet you everywhere, with a few thousands of squalid Jews, still in unbelief and hardness of heart, located in four of the cities, or rather villages, and subsisting on the alms they receive from their brethren in other lands. The blood of their crucified King and Saviour has indeed, according to their own imprecation, been upon them and their children. Hitherto it has been on them as a people only for a curse; may the promised period soon arrive when it shall be on them for a blessing!
[280] The end there of shall be with a flood. Keil, with Kranichfeld, Hofmann, and Kliefoth, considers the end to be that of the hostile prince, here emphatically placed over against his coming, but regards that prince as not Titus, but the Antichrist who is yet to appear. Geier, Hvernick, Auberlen, and others refer it to the city and sanctuary, more especially to the latter, as the pronoun is masculine. Vitringa, C. B. Michaelis, and Hengstenberg regard the suffix in (kittso) as neuter, and refer it to the previous verb destroy, or the idea of destroying comprehended in it, the end of it (or it shall end) in the flood; a warlike expedition overflowing the land (bashsheteph) in or with a flood, or rather, on account of the article: in or with the flood. Rosenmller and others: in an overflowing. Steudel and Maurer: with a certain irresistible force. Others: like an overflowing. Keil remarks, however, that the article shows that a definite and well-known overflowing is meant, and, with Wieseler, Hofmann, and others, understands it of the desolating judgment of God, the article conveying an allusion to the flood which overwhelmed Pharaoh and his host. Dr. Pusey renders the clause: The end thereof shall be with that flood, the flood of war just spoken of. The Septuagint has: They shall be cut off with a deluge; and the Vulgate: The end of it shall be ruin. Junius understands the meaning to be: The calamity shall be sudden, inevitable, and general. Bullinger interprets it of perfect desolation on the city.
[281] And to the end of the war, desolations are determined. As no war has as yet been mentioned, and the noun (milkhamah) is without the article, Keil, with Hengstenberg and many other interpreters, regards that noun as the subject of the clause, to the end is war; understanding the end to be, not as Hvernick and Auberlen think, the end of the city, nor, as Wieseler, the end of the prince, but as the end generally, the end of the period in progress, the seventy weeks; that is, war shall continue during the whole of the last week. The Septuagint and Vulgate, however, read the clause, the end of the war. So Rosenmller, Ewald, Hofmann, and others. Dr. Pusey makes war along with desolations the subject of the verb are determined,unto the end, war and desolatenesses (are) decreed. For the last clause the Septuagint has, determined with desolations; while the Vulgate reads as the English. Hengstenberg regards the clause as in apposition to war, a decree of ruins, the meaning being that the war and the decree of ruins will terminate only with the end of the object. So Auberlen, decreed desolations. Keil renders the passage, Till the end war will be, for desolations are irrevocably determined by God, the desolations including those which the fall of the prince, who destroys the city and the sanctuary, shall bring along with it.
Such, to the Jews, were some of the consequences of a rejected Saviour; and these are but a shadow of those which the eye cannot now perceive. Israel are now, and for eighteen centuries have been, suffering what they themselves call their great captivity, because they are reaping the consequence of their great sin, the rejection and crucifixion of their King and Saviour. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord (Mat. 23:37-39). May the day speedily come when, with the veil taken away from their heart, this shall be the language of penitent Israel!
The section suggests two obvious topics for reflection.
1. The remarkable fulfilment of prophecy at an evidence of the inspiration of the Scriptures and the truth of Christianity. The verse before us contains three distinct predictions, each of which has received an obvious fulfilment.
(1) The Messiah when He came was to be rejected and cut off by a violent death;
(2) this was to take place at a certain definite period, nearly four hundred and ninety years after a decree from the ruling power to restore and build Jerusalem; and
(3) as the consequence of that rejection and cutting off of their Messiah, the Jews were to see the destruction of their city and sanctuary, and the desolation of their land for a lengthened and indefinite period. The fulfilment of each of these is obvious. The Jews as a nation rejected Him whom we know, and many among themselves have acknowledged, to be the Messiah. History leaves no room to doubt that this took place at the time predicted, the time at which the Jews themselves expected their Messiah to appear. And every one knows what happened to Jerusalem and the temple soon after, and what has been the condition of the country and the people these eighteen centuries, and still is to this day. Humanly speaking, such a state of things was in the highest degree unlikely. Such a treatment of the Deliverer promised to their fathers for nearly two thousand years, and eagerly expected by all the godly among them, was only to be accounted for on the ground of the desperate depravity of the human heart, and the secret purpose and plan of the Almighty thus to effect the redemption of the human race. More, surely, is not needed to convince any reasonable mind that such a prediction was from God, and that Jesus who was crucified is indeed the Saviour of the world, whose coming had been promised and foretold from the beginning. The words of Alfred Cave, in a recent number of the British and Foreign Evangelical Review, may be suitably quoted here. How is that notable phenomenon of the Hebrew religion called Prophecy to be regarded as a datum on which to found the Spencerian theory of evolution? The reply afforded by the advocates of a theory of natural development isby banishing from prophecy any idea of prediction. The question arises whether the idea of prediction can be dissociated from the Biblical idea of prophecy? This is firm ground. If there is a single instance of prediction in the Old Testament which cannot be adequately described as conjecture, then any such theory as the Spencerian is declared insufficient in its explanation. Such facts as the adoration of the Magi, and the fulfilment to the letter of Daniels prophecy of the seventy weeks, which might be augmented a hundredfold, provide incontestable proofs of the reality of prediction; and these facts receive a most impressive recognition from the laboured attempts of rationalistic interpreters to explain them away.
2. The guilt involved in the rejection of the provided Saviour. What was it that consigned to the flames that magnificent temple which the Roman general did his utmost to spare; that overthrew that strongly fortified city which so long defied the power of the Roman army, and which Titus declare he could never have taken had not God Himself wrought with him in the siege; and that caused the Jews to be banished from their own land, and to be scattered over the whole earth, while that land lies desolate, even to this day? We have only to point to Calvary, and the cry that preceded it, Away with Him! away with Him! Crucify Him! crucify Him! Nor need we wonder. Had Jesus of Nazareth been a mere man, as the Jews wished to believe, and as some who are not Jews even still maintain, it would be, to say the least, unwarranted to connect these unparalleled and long continued calamities of the Jewish people with Calvary and the crucifixion of the Nazarene. He suffered death as a blasphemer. But if Jesus was what He declared Himself to be, the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who shall one day come with the clouds of heaven, then the whole is clear. What tongue can describe the guilt of rejecting and crucifying the Son of God when, in His love, assuming mans nature, He came to save a dying world? This was the crying guilt of the Jews. But what of the Gentiles? Have they not rejected Jesus? Are thousands and tens of thousands not rejecting Him now? The charge is too true. Even where a nominal and outward profession of acceptance of the Crucified is made, the life declares in too many instances that He is still in heart rejected. Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say? Where the Gospel is preached and the offer of the Saviour is made, men must either believe and accept that offer and so be savedsaved from sin and all its consequences, and have peace with God, and be made new creaturesor, like the Jews, they must reject Him. The streets of Britain, the Sabbaths of Protestant England, the land of Bibles and of Gospel light and liberty, proclaim too loudly that the secret language of the heart is that which the lips of the Jews dared openly to utter, We will not have this man to reign over us: not this man, but Barabbas. We have no king but Csar. Away with Him! When, for the rejection of their King, the kingdom of God was taken from the Jews, the Gentiles were to have their time, and they have it now. Their rejection of the Son of God and Saviour of men is not winked at, although not now signally punished as in the case of the Jews. Individuals experience the blessedness of accepting and the misery of rejecting that Saviour. A day also has been foretold, and cannot now be far distant, when that same Jesus, who had been preached to the nations, shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the Gospel of His Son Jesus Christ. Happy those who, having through grace cordially accepted Jesus as their Saviour and King, are in a condition to say, Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen.
HOMILETICS
SECT. XXXVI.THE LAST WEEK AND ITS EMPLOYMENT. (Chap. Dan. 9:27.)
We have seen what was to take place at the end of the first seven of the seventy weeks, and did take place; also what was to happen after the second period, or other sixty-two weeks, and actually did so. The street and wall of Jerusalem were restored, and Messiah was cut off. The prophet seems to be further informed what was to take place during the remaining one week of the seventy determined upon his people and the holy city. This is related in the last verse of the chapter, and is given in three particulars.
I. The confirmation of the covenant. He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. [282] This is generally understood as referring to the ministry of the Messiah on behalf of His own people, and fulfilled in the personal ministry of Jesus and that of His apostles after His ascension into heaven. The Lords own ministry was confined to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and His apostles were commanded, after His resurrection, to preach repentance and the remission of sins through His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Their mission was, Ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth (Act. 1:7). In the Gospel which they were commissioned to preach, and which Jesus Himself had preached before them, a covenantthe covenant of grace and peaceis tendered, and is established with all who believe and accept it. Its terms are: Hearken diligently and come unto Me; hear and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David (Isa. 55:3). It is the covenant which takes the place both of that which was made with our first parents in Paradise, and that afterwards made with Israel at Mount Sinai. In both these cases the tenor of the covenant was, Obey, and live; in this it is, Hear, or believe, and live. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. To as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God; even to them that believe on His name (Joh. 1:12; Joh. 3:36). As distinguished from the covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai, it is called the New Covenant; the former, based upon their personal obedience, having been broken and thus set for ever aside. 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 an husband unto them (or, and I regarded them not), saith the Lord. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put My laws in their inward parts, &c. (Jer. 31:31-33; Heb. 8:8-12). In respect to mankind in general, it is the New Covenant as distinguished from and taking the place of the covenant made originally with man in Eden, which, like that made with Israel at Sinai, was broken, and its promised blessings forfeited and lost. By man (the first man) came death. In Adam all die. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners. This New Covenant has also a man for its head and representativethe Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, with whom it is made in the name and behalf of His spiritual children whom He represents in it. With His perfect obedience He purchased its blessings, and with His blood, shed for the forgiveness of the transgressions committed under the first covenant, called therefore the blood of the everlasting covenant, He sealed it (Heb. 13:20; Mat. 26:20). By the blood of that covenant, thence called Messiahs covenant, His prisoners, or those for whom He acted, and who accept of and trust in Him for life and deliverance, are discharged from all condemnation (Zec. 9:11). It is in virtue of that blood, or the atoning sacrifice of His death, that God can and does receive sinners into His favour and family. Those accepting this covenant and its blessings at the hand of Christ, and trusting in Him as their Surety, are therefore spoken of by God as My saints, those that have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice (Psa. 50:5). Jesus, as He procured the blessings of this covenant by His obedience and sealed it by His blood, is thus made the Mediator of it, and has the administration of it committed to Him by Jehovah, who declares, I have given Him for a covenant to the people (Heb. 8:6; Isa. 55:4; Isa. 42:6). As the Mediator of the covenant and the Covenant itself, He tendered it to sinners personally when He stood and cried, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink. Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest (Joh. 7:37; Mat. 11:28). He did the same by the ministry of His apostles and disciples after He was taken up to heaven; and now does it through the instrumentality of His servants and people. The Spirit and the Bride say, Come (Rev. 22:17). The covenant was thus confirmed by Messiah with many among the Jews for one week. We have to rejoice and praise God that when that week was over, or while it still lasted, He confirmed it with many among the Gentiles, and is graciously doing so to this day. May multitudes more among the Gentiles know the day of their merciful visitation, before their time also comes to an end!
[282] He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. Theodotion renders the words, One week shall confirm the covenant to many. So Hofmann,understanding it to mean, One week shall confirm many in their fidelity to the faith. Hvernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen understand the Messiah as confirming the new covenant by His death. Ewald and the Rationalists only think of the many covenants which Antiochus made with the apostate Jews. Hitzig thinks of the Old Testament covenant which the one week should make grievous, (highbir), to the faithful Jews who should suffer for their adherence to it. Keil thinks the subject of the verb is not the Messiah, nor the one week, but the prince that shall come (the Antichrist), who shall impose on the manythe great mass of the Jews, in contrast with the few who remain faithfula strong covenant that they should follow him and give themselves to him as their God. Calvin understands the covenant of grace, confirmed through the preaching of the Gospel by Christ and His apostles with the world at large, the faithful Gentiles united with the Jews. Willet thinks the confirmation of the covenant includes both the preaching of it by Messiah and the sealing of it with His blood. Dr. Pusey includes the preaching of the Baptist. Mr. Bosanquet thinks the covenant is the two-fold covenant made with Abraham: (1) that in his seed, that is, Messiah, all the nations of the earth should be blessed; (2) that to Abraham, and his seed after him, all the land of Canaan should be given as an everlasting possession (Gen. 22:18; Gen. 17:7-8);the covenant and mercy for which David prayed (Luk. 1:17-18). He thinks also that the one week has a figurative reference to the Sabbath-week, a.d. 2734, or seven years of covenant from the preaching of the kingdom of the Messiah, by John the Baptist to the Jews, until the calling of the Gentiles; or, literally, to the Sabbath-week, a.d. 6572, or seven years of covenant, during which the Jews partially regained possession of the promised land of Canaan, and resisted the power of the Romans.
II. The termination of the legal sacrifices. In the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. [283] This is generally understood of the abolition of the various sacrifices and oblations prescribed by the law of Moses, together with the whole of the Levitical worship. Jesus Christ, doubtless, pointed to this Himself when He said to the woman of Sychar, The hour cometh when ye shall neither on this mountain (Gerizim), nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship Him (Joh. 4:21; Joh. 4:23). Those sacrifices and offerings, with all that Mosaic system of ceremonial worship, were intended only for a temporary purpose, to serve as types and figures till Messiah, the true and only atoning sacrifice, should come, and introduce a spiritual worship. They were a shadow of the good things to come, and only imposed until the time of reformation (Heb. 9:10; Heb. 10:1). This cessation of sacrifices, therefore, as it could only take place when the one Great Sacrifice was offered, which alone could take away sin, so it must do so then. Accordingly, as a matter of fact, the sacrifices of the temple ceased entirely within forty years after the death of Jesus; and as if to put a sure and absolute end to them, the temple itself, where alone they could be offered, ceased to exist. As if to visibly and unmistakably connect the abolition of the ceremonial temple-worship with the death of Jesus the true Lamb of God, at the hour in which He expired on the cross, the veil of the temple which separated the most holy from the holy place, and through which none but the high priest could pass, and he but once a year, on the great Day of Atonement, was without hands rent in twain from the top to the bottom; the Holy Ghost thus signifying that the way into the holiest of all was now made manifest, and that free access to God was provided (Mat. 27:51; Heb. 9:8; Heb. 10:19-20). This cessation of the sacrifices was to take place in the midst of the last week; and if, as appears likely, the sixty-two or rather sixty-nine previous weeks, or 483 years, expired with the baptism of Jesus, then this rending of the veil, which was the expression of it, must have taken place exactly in the middle of that week, or three days and a half (three years and a half) after its commencement, that being generally believed to have been the time that intervened between the Lords baptism and death. And it is remarkable that no attempts to offer sacrifices on Mount Moriah have been allowed in the providence of God to be made in all these eighteen centuries, or, if ever defiantly made, to be successful. [284] The only bloody sacrifice that Israel has since then attempted to offer is the cock, which, of course without the slightest authority, as the poor expiation for their sins, they kill at home on the Day of Atonement, which, in a way, they still observe. [285]
[283] And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. (zebhakh uminkhah), the bloody and unbloody offerings, the two chief parts of sacrificial service, representing the Whole of worship by sacrifice. Keil understands the abolishing of such service for half a week by the ungodly prince or Antichrist, who is to come in the time of the end. Mr. Bosanquet thinks that the prophecy has reference, figuratively, to the death of Christ in a.d. 32; and literally, to the actual cessation of the morning and evening sacrifice and oblation on the 17th of the month Panemus or Tamuz, a.d. 70, as Josephus relates in his Jewish War, Dan. 6:2.
[284] Such an attempt was made by the Emperor Julian, the Apostate from Christianity. The workmen engaged in preparing the foundation of the intended temple were obliged to desist from their operations by extraordinary obstructions which they met with in their work, in the form, it is said, of balls of fire that issued from the place of excavation.
[285] It is said the reason why the Jews take a cock for sacrifice on the Day of Atonement is because the name of a cock in their language is also the name of a man, (gebher); by a kind of fiction, therefore, it is viewed as taking the place of the offerer, who, as he kills it with various ceremonies, declares that he wishes it to be regarded as his substitute and sin-bearer, and as by its death making atonement for his sins, of which death is the legal penalty. The circumstance indicates the view that the Jews entertained of the meaning of sacrifice, the only true and natural one, the death of the victim being regarded as standing for that of the offerer who by sin has come under the penalty.
III. The continuance and increase of sin and unbelief with their baleful consequences among the Jews. For the overspreading of abominations He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate. [286] The sentence is somewhat obscure, but the general meaning seems not difficult to apprehend. The great sin and abomination of the Jews was their rejection of their divine King and Saviour, and along with that their rejection of Him that sent Him. After the crucifixion of Jesus, that abomination, with others which it brought in its train, seemed not only to continue but to increase and intensify. There was the overspreading of abominations. Having crucified their King, they added to their sin by bitterly persecuting His followers; and not only blaspheming Him themselves, but compelling others to do the same. The Acts of the Apostles is a record of these abominations, which commenced immediately after the disciples began to carry out the commission of their ascended Master. As they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead; and they laid hands on them and put them in hold unto the next day. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus (Act. 4:1-3; Act. 4:18). On another occasion soon after; The high priest rose up, and all they that were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and were filled with indignation, and laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison. And when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go (Act. 5:17-18; Act. 5:40). Then followed in the same year the martyrdom of Stephen. They gnashed on him with their teeth; then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city and stoned him. One distinguished person among them, who kept the clothes of those who stoned him, made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison. Breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, and compelling them to blaspheme, Saul received, at his own desire, a commission from the high priest to go to Damascus and bring any he might find of that way as prisoners to Jerusalem. Him on his conversion they immediately laid wait to kill. The same spirit of bitter hatred and persecution spread through the provinces. At Antioch in Pisidia, the Jews were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming (Act. 13:45). So the Jews at Thessalonica, from the same spirit, not only set the whole city in an uproar against the apostles, but followed them to Bersa, and did the same thing there also. At Corinth they made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment-seat (Act. 18:12). Pauls dark testimony of them in his letter to the Thessalonian Church was, that they please not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved; to fill up their sins alway (1Th. 2:15-16). What they became before their city was destroyed their own historian has recorded. Josephus, an eyewitness, declares that never city suffered such things, and never race of men, not even Sodom, were so wicked; and states it as his conviction that God brought all the evils on Jerusalem in consequence of their sins, giving them over to blindness of mind, so that they not only fought against the Romans but against God.
(6) The appalling and unparalleled calamities which he relates as overtaking his countrymen in the siege and in the war, we may regard as the beginning of that desolation which was to follow the overspreading of abominations, until the decreed consummation, even now still going on, should be poured upon the desolate. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her chickens under her wings; but ye would not. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord (Mat. 24:37-39).
[286] For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate. This is variously rendered. For the first clause the Greek translation has, On the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; reminding one of Mat. 26:15. The Vulgate follows it: There shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation. Similarly the Arabic: Upon the sanctuary shall be the abomination of ruin. Dr. A. Clarke remarks that a Hebrew MS. of the thirteenth century, instead of (canaph), rendered in our version overspreading, and in the margin battlements, and literally meaning a wing, has the word (hecal), temple. Houbigant has also, In the temple, &c., like the Vulgate. colampadius, Bullinger, Osiander, &c., understood the word of the wings or pinnacles of the temple. Brightman reads, Desolation on the wing of abominations; observing that the wing is a military word signifying a troop or band of soldiers, such as the wing of the Jewish rebels when they took up arms against the Romans; and understanding the passage to mean, When rebellion shall be added to abomination, and the people shall be ranked into wings, bands or troopsthe wing of abominations being the troops of thieves and robbers, the zealots in the temple, though all the people conspired along with themthey shall make desolate by bringing ruin on their own heads and on the whole country. Calvin understands the extremity or extension of abomination; and interprets it of the profanation which occurred after the Gospel began to be promulgated, and the punishment which was inflicted on the Jews when they saw their temple subjected to the grossest forms of desecration, because unwilling to submit to the only begotten Son of God as its true glory. Gesenius renders the clause, On the pinnacle are the abominations of the desolator. Hengstenberg prefers the word summit, i.e., the highest part of the temple, here called abomination, being so desecrated by abomination, as no longer to deserve the name of the temple of the Lord, but that of the temple of idols; the expression indicating its utter ruin: Over the summit of abomination comes the destroyer. Auberlen adopts the word summit, but in a different sense: On account of the desolating summit of abominations; adding that it is the aeme or summit of the abominations committed by Israel which, according to Stier, draws down the desolation, nay, which is the desolation itself; and that the worship of a people who have murdered the Lords Anointed, and only go on more obdurately in their self-righteousness and hardness of heart, is full of abominations. So Ewald: On account of the frightful height of abominations. Hvernick combines the local idea with the moral, understanding the extreme heights of abominations of the highest place that can be reached where the abominations would be committed, namely, the temple, as the highest point in Jerusalem. Keil objects to the reference of the passage to the desecration of the temple before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and, with some others, takes the word (canaph) in its ordinary meaning of wing: On the wings of abominations he comes desolating; the abominations being heathen gods, idol-images, and other heathen abominations; idolatry being the power that lifts upwards the destroyer and desolator, carries him and moves with him over the earth, that destroyer being the future Antichrist. Dr. Pusey translates: And upon the pinnacle of abominations, a desolator, understanding the abominations to be the moral ground why in Gods providence he came.
Let us make one reflection.
The verse before us exhibits the terrible consequences of abused privileges. To the Jews belonged the giving of the law, with its types and shadows of good things to come; and the service of God, with its temple, priests, and sacrifices; and the promises, including that crowning one, the promise of a Saviour-King; and the covenants, the old one at Sinai, and the new one promised in connection with the Messiah, tendered to them first by Christ and then by His apostles, and securing to them, on their acceptance of it, all the blessings of a present and an eternal salvation. These privileges, however, were abused. The law given to them they made their boast of without yielding to it the obedience of a loving heart which it required; and rested in its outward and typical observances, instead of embracing the substance to which they pointed. The promised Saviour, when He came, they rejected; and the covenant which held out to them the full forgiveness of their sins and the renewal of their nature, they refused, preferring to merit their acceptance with God by their own wretched works of a mere external righteousness. The consequence was that while a remnant accepted the offered covenant and entered into the enjoyment of all its precious blessings, the rest were blinded, and went on in the hardness and frowardness of their unbelieving hearts, adding sin to sin, not only refusing to accept Christ themselves, but doing their utmost to hinder others from doing so, and persecuting even to the death those who accepted Him themselves and sought to make Him known to others; till the measure of their iniquity being full, the threatened judgments of God came upon them to the uttermost, and from being the most favoured nation in the world they became outcasts from their own country and wanderers over the face of the earth, as we see them at this day; a beacon and a warning to the Gentiles, to whom their privileges were graciously transferred, to beware of similar unbelief and misuse of Gospel-mercies, lest a like judgment happen to them also. Be not highminded, but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches (of the good olive tree), take heed lest He also spare not thee (who hast been only grafted in among them). For unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith (Rom. 11:20-21). The language that comes to us from that long desolated land, once the glory of all lands, and that long desecrated templeless mount, where Jehovah once had His abode, and that wretched remnant of the scattered nation, once Gods favoured people, the kings and priests of Jehovah, now unable to find a settled home or resting-place for the sole of their foot, is, Behold the goodness and severity of God: on them that fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness; if thou continue in His goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation? To-day if ye will hear His voice, harden not your heart. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries (Heb. 2:3; Heb. 3:7-8; Heb. 10:26-27)
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(24) Seventy weeks.Great difficulty is experienced in discovering what sort of weeks is intended. Dan. 9:25-27 are sufficient to show that ordinary weeks cannot be meant. Possibly, also, the language (Dan. 10:2, margin weeks of days) implies that weeks of days are not intended here. On the other hand, it is remarkable that in Lev. 25:1-10 the word week should not have been used to signify a period of seven years, if year-weeks are implied in this passage. However, it is generally assumed that we must understand the weeks to consist of years and not of days (see Puseys Daniel, pp. 165, 166), the principle of year-weeks depending upon Num. 14:34, Lev. 26:34, Eze. 4:6. The word week in itself furnishes a clue to the meaning. It implies a Heptad, and is not necessarily more definite than the time mentioned in Dan. 7:25.
Are determined.The word only occurs in this passage. Theod. translates ; LXX., ; Jer. abbreviat sunt. In Chaldee the word means to cut, and in that sense to determine.
The object determined is twofold: (1) transgression and sin; (2) reconciliation and righteousness.
To finish.The Hebrew margin gives an alternative rendering, to restrain, according to which the meaning is to hold sin back and to prevent it from spreading. If this reading is adopted it will be parallel to the second marginal alternative, to seal up, which also implies that the iniquity can no more increase. Although the alternative readings may be most in accordance with the Babylonian idea of sealing sins, the presence of the word to seal in the last clause of the verse makes it more probable that the marginal readings are due to the conjectures of some early critics, than that they once stood in the text. However, it must be observed that while St. Jerome translates the passage ut consummetur prvaricatio, et finem habeat peccatum, Theodotion supports the marginal reading to seal.
To make reconciliationi.e., atonement. (Comp. Pro. 16:6; Isa. 6:7; Isa. 27:9; Psa. 78:38.) The two former clauses show that during the seventy weeks sin will cease. The prophet now brings out another side of the subject. There will be abundance of forgiveness in store for those who are willing to receive it.
Everlasting righteousness.A phrase not occurring elsewhere. The prophet seems to be combining the notions of righteousness and eternity, which elsewhere are characteristics of Messianic prophecy. (Isa. 46:13; Isa. 51:5-8; Psa. 89:36; Dan. 2:44; Dan. 7:18; Dan. 7:27.)
To Seal Up., Theod.; , LXX.; impleatur, Jer.; the impression of the translators being that all visions and prophecies were to receive their complete fulfilment in the course of these seventy weeks. It appears, however, to be more agreeable to the context to suppose that the prophet is speaking of the absolute cessation of all prophecy. (Comp. 1Co. 13:8.)
To anoint the most Holy.The meaning of the sentence depends upon the interpretation of the words Most Holy or Holy of Holies. In Scripture they are used of (1) the altar (Exo. 29:37); (2) the atonement (Exo. 30:10); (3) the tabernacle and the sacred furniture (Exo. 30:29); (4) the sacred perfume (Exo. 30:36); (5) the remnant of the meat offering (Lev. 2:3; Lev. 2:10); (6) all that touch the offerings made by fire (Lev. 6:18); (7) the sin offering (Lev. 10:17); (8) the trespass offering (Lev. 14:13); (9) the shewbread (Lev. 24:9); (10) things devoted (Lev. 27:28); (11) various offerings (Num. 18:9); (12) the temple service and articles connected with it, or perhaps Aaron (1Ch. 23:13); (13) the limits of the new temple (Eze. 43:12); (14) the sanctuary of the new temple (Eze. 45:3); (15) the territory set apart for the sons of Zadok (Eze. 48:2). Which of these significations is to be here adopted can only be discovered by the context. Now from the careful manner in which this and the following verse are connected by the words Know therefore, it appears that the words most Holy are parallel to Messiah the Prince (Dan. 9:25), and that they indicate a person. (See Lev. 6:18; 1Ch. 23:13.) This was the opinion of the Syriac translator, who renders the words Messiah the most Holy, and of the LXX. , on which it has been remarked that would have no meaning if applied to a place, and the phrase employed in this version for the sanctuary is invariably . Any reference to Zerubbabels temple, or to the dedication of the temple by Judas Maccabus, is opposed to the context.
EXCURSUS G: THE SEVENTY WEEKS (Daniel 9:24).
It may be questioned in what way this prophecy presents any meaning to those who follow the punctuation of the Hebrew text, and put the principal stop in Dan. 9:25 after seven weeks, instead of after three score and two weeks. The translation would be as follows, From the going out . . . until Messiah the prince shall be seven weeks; and during sixty-two weeks the city shall be rebuilt . . . and after sixty-two weeks shall Messiah be cut off . . . This can only be explained upon the hypothesis that the word week is used in an indefinite sense to mean a period. The sense is then as follows:The period from the command of Cyrus or of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem, down to the time of Messiah, consisted of seven such weeks; during the sixty-two weeks that followed the kingdom of Messiah is to be established amidst much persecution. During the last week the persecution will be so intense that Messiah may be said to be annihilated by it, His kingdom on earth being destroyed. At the end of the last week the Antichristian prince who organises the persecution is himself exterminated, and destroyed in the final judgment.
According to this view the seventy weeks occupy the whole period that intervenes between the times of Cyrus or Artaxerxes and the last judgment. The principal objection to it is that it gives no explanation of the numbers seven and sixty-two, which seem to have been chosen for some particular purpose. Nor does it furnish any reason for the choice of the word weeks instead of times or seasons, either of which words would have equally served the same indefinite purpose.
The traditional interpretation follows the punctuation of Theodotion, which St. Jerome also adopted, and reckons the seventy weeks from B.C. 458, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. From this date, measuring seven weeks of yearsthat is, forty-nine yearswe are brought to the date B.C. 409. It is predicted that during this period the walls of Jerusalem and the city itself should be rebuilt, though in troublous times. It must be remembered that very little is known of Jewish history during the times after Ezra and Nehemiah. The latest date given in Nehemiah is the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, or B.C. 446. It is highly probable that the city was not completely restored till nearly forty years later. Reckoning from B.C. 409 sixty-two weeks or 434 years, we are brought to A.D. 25, the year when our Saviour began His ministry. After three and a half years, or in the midst of a week, he was cut off. The seventy weeks end in A.D. 32, which is said to be the end of the second probation of Israel after rejecting the Messiah. The agreement between the dates furnished by history and prediction is very striking, and the general expectation that there prevailed about the appearance of a Messiah at the time of our Saviours first advent points to the antiquity as well as to the accuracy of the interpretation. However, the explanation of the latter half of the seven weeks is not satisfactory. We have no chronological account of events which occurred shortly after the Ascension, and there are no facts stated in the New Testament that lead us to suppose that Israel should have three and a half years probation after the rejection of the Messiah.
The modern explanation adheres in part to the Masoretic text, and regards the sixty-two year-weeks as beginning in B.C. 604. Reckoning onwards 434 years, we are brought to the year B.C. 170, in which Antiochus plundered the Temple and massacred 40,000 Jews. Onias III., the anointed prince, was murdered B.C. 176, just before the close of this period; and from the attack upon the Temple to the death of Antiochus, B.C. 164. was seven years, or one week, in the midst of which, B.C. 167, the offering was abolished, and the idolatrous altar erected in the Temple. The seven weeks are then calculated onwards from B.C. 166, and are stated to mean an indefinite period expressed by a round number, during which Jerusalem was rebuilt after its defilement by Antiochus. This explanation is highly unsatisfactory. It not only inverts the order of the weeks, but arbitrarily uses the word week in a double sense, in a definite and in an indefinite sense at once. There is still a graver objection to assuming that the starting point of the seventy weeks is the year B.C. 604. No command to rebuild Jerusalem had then gone forth.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE GREAT PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS, Dan 9:24-27.
For a detailed examination of the various explanations of these verses and the reasons for our own position see our Introduction to Daniel, II, 10. We will merely attempt here to give succinctly the newer and the older views in their most reasonable form with our conclusions.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
24. The R.V. (with marginal references in brackets) reads, “Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish [to restrain] [the] transgression, and to make an end of [to seal up] sins, and to make reconciliation for [to purge away] iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy [prophet], and to anoint the most holy [a most holy place].” Kautzsch freely translates, “to bring to end the wickedness and to make full the measure of sin and to seal the prophetic revelations and to consecrate (again) a most holy.” All expositors agree that these terms relate to the Messianic hope. Whatever the author of Daniel saw or thought of when he penned these lines, such a vision could only be fully realized in Him who alone could atone for sin and bring in everlasting righteousness. That the prophet saw this Messianic glory break in upon the world immediately upon the close of the Antiochian persecution is in accordance with all other prophetic utterances. (See our discussion of “The Seventy Weeks,” Introduction to Daniel, II, 10, and compare Matthew 24.)
Seventy weeks Literally, seventy sevens; that is, “sevens of years” (as Gen 29:27). The period of desolation prophesied by Jeremiah was to be seventy years (ten “sevens”), but this Danielic period of affliction was to be at least seven times longer. (Compare Lev 26:18.)
To finish the transgression That is, to fill up the full measure of the “transgression,” described Dan 7:12, and elsewhere.
To make an end of sins This either means, as the preceding phrase, to fill up the measure of sin (Hitzig) or, more probably, “to abolish sin” (Bevan). That is, an end will now be put to this flood of crime and wickedness.
To make reconciliation for iniquity That is, to make atonement for sin. This is the common meaning of this familiar phrase which occurs again and again in the Pentateuch. It has reference to the mediatorial work of the Messiah, “which is here conceived as following the judgment of those transgressors whose sins are come to the full” (Terry).
To bring in everlasting righteousness “Bring in! then it was to dwell, to make its abode, to have its home there. Everlasting! Then it was never to be removed, never worn-out, never to cease, not to pass with this passing world, but to abide thenceforth, coeternal with God, its Author and Giver.” Pusey.
To seal up the vision and prophecy That is, either to “seal” in the sense of “closing” there being no more need of visions or prophets, since the old order has now given place to the new (see Wolf, who refers to 1Co 13:8) or more probably “ seal” in the sense of vindication. The predictions previously made by many prophets, of a glorious era which should follow all the back-slidings and afflictions of God’s people, should have the seal of Jehovah set to them by their fulfillment. (Compare Joh 3:33; Joh 6:27.)
Prophecy Rather, prophet.
To anoint the most Holy “A most holy place” (R.V., margin); “the most holy thing” (Bevan); “a holy of holies” (Terry). This may refer either to the anointing of the sacrificial altar (Exo 29:37; Exo 40:10), a holy sanctuary (Exo 30:26; Exo 40:9), or a holy one (Exo 40:13; Isa 61:1) although this phrase is never used elsewhere of an individual unless in one doubtful verse (1Ch 23:13). It is possible this may have primary reference to the reconsecration of the altar, defiled by Antiochus; though this altar was probably never “anointed,” literally, as the Jews had no holy anointing oil at this period (Keil, Wolf, etc.). But in any case, coming at the close of a passage confessedly full of the Messianic hope, this reference should not be pushed back and confined within the narrow scope of the prophet’s natural vision, but must be allowed its wider and richer Messianic meaning. In that new and blessed era which Daniel so dimly saw it was made known that all former altars and sanctuaries and high priests were but types and shadows of the “true tabernacle which the Lord pitched,” with its cross altar and its holy living sacrifices (Hebrews viii-x). “Anointing” had always been the symbol of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Isa 61:1; compare 1Jn 2:20-27).
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“Seventy sevens are decreed on your people, and on your holy city, to finish transgression, and to make and end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy (‘one’ or ‘place’).”
The seventy sevens are here seen as not only making the situation right between the nation and God, resulting at the commencement in the rebuilding of the city and the sanctuary in the first ‘seven’, (which was what the seventy years of Jeremiah had in mind), but also as resulting in the making of a way of final full restoration and acceptability with God, and the final fulfilment of all prophecy, which includes all nations. The whole world is in mind.
‘Seventy sevens.’ These seventy ‘sevens’ are in contrast with Jeremiah’s seventy ‘years’. Thus the idea is that final and full deliverance will occur in God’s timing. What Gabriel is saying is that far beyond the limited statement of Jeremiah concerning seventy years there was rather to be a period of seventy ‘sevens’ which would result in the fulfilment of God’s final purposes. In other words the ‘sevens’ (divinely perfect time periods) replace years. This expresses the ultra divinely perfect period. Seven is the number of perfection and seventy is an intensification of that number (see Gen 4:24). Thus there are to be a divinely perfect number, not of years per Jeremiah, but of divinely perfect periods. God has them measured, even if man does not, and they are perfect within His will. The word for ‘sevens’ is unusually in the masculine plural, as in Dan 10:2-3 (and in Gen 29:27 in the singular). Perhaps this was to stress the importance of these periods. They would be powerfully effective. (Further consideration will shortly be given to the interpretation of ‘sevens’).
‘Are determined on your people and on your holy city.’ The limited view that suggests that therefore these verses only refer to Israel misses the point. God’s purpose for Israel and the holy city (Isa 2:2-4; Mic 4:1-3; Jer 3:17; Zec 14:8-9) was that finally they should be a blessing to the world. So Israel was not here for itself, it was here for the world. From the time of the first promise to Abraham of blessing on all nations (Gen 12:3), through the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of priests in the Sinai covenant (Exo 19:6), to the recognition that they were to be God’s servant to the nations in Isaiah 42 onwards, the divine emphasis was always on their status and position as world functionaries (see Isa 49:6). What God determined on His people He determined for the sake of the world. Thus this prophecy has a world view.
The result of the seventy sevens is to be:
1) ‘To shut up (restrain) transgression.’ This and 2). are parallel ideas. Transgression has raged through the world since man’s first days. Men have flouted God’s laws. Now it is to be restrained, to be brought under control, to be imprisoned, to be finally dealt with.
2) ‘And to make an end of sins (or ‘seal up sin’).’ Job 14:17 refers to ‘the sealing up of sin’ where the idea is that God has sealed it up so as to bring it to account. The restraining and imprisonment of transgression and the making an end of or sealing up of sin could only have in mind both the binding and restraining of the Evil One and the cessation of the power of sin over men’s lives both in penalty and effectiveness. This would be brought about through a sufficient sacrifice for sin which put away sin (Heb 9:26), and effective transformation through the Holy Spirit (2Co 3:18) so that men became blameless before God. Sin would finally be dealt with by mercy and judgment.
3) ‘And to make reconciliation for (or more literally ‘cover’) iniquity.’ This means such a reconciliation that man can come to God and be received as His with no shadow of failure between (2Co 5:19; Eph 2:16). It was to remove any shadow or barrier between God and man. Transgression, sin and iniquity will all have been dealt with.
4) ‘To bring in everlasting righteousness.’ This signifies that the stain of sin and evil is removed for ever, both judicially before God as men are covered in perfect righteousness (1Co 1:30; 2 Corinthians 2:21), and in fact, so that man will actually be holy, blameless and unreproachable before Him for ever (Col 1:22; Eph 5:27). Note that everlasting righteousness is ‘brought in’ from outside. There is clear reference here 1). to God ‘bringing near’ righteousness and salvation (Isa 46:13), everlasting salvation and righteousness (Isa 51:5-6), and 2). to the work of the One Who came to do it as the perfectly righteous one, bringing His righteousness for men (Rom 5:17; 1Co 1:30; 2Co 5:21) and sacrificing Himself for sin.
5) ‘To seal up vision and prophecy.’ This signifies its final and complete fulfilment so that it is no longer required and is past instead of future.
6) ‘To anoint ‘the most holy’ (literally ‘the holy of holies’ – that which is most holy)’. Anointing indicates a new dedication to God, a setting apart for Him, within His purposes. This can refer either to the anointing of the everlasting King (as mentioned later in the chapter of ‘the anointed One’) or more likely to the anointing of the supreme everlasting sanctuary, in the heavenly Jerusalem (Exo 40:9; Heb 12:22; Revelation 21), the eternal dwellingplace of God with men. Whichever we choose, it is an indication of the fulfilment of God’s final purposes in holiness.
In our view these descriptions cancel out any interpretation of these seventy ‘sevens’ that falls short of resulting in final perfection. There is no space for an inadequate ‘kingdom age’ to follow. Perfection has been achieved. And although there is a genuine sense in which Christ’s work on the cross and His resurrection fulfilled what is described here up to a point, it did not at that time bring it to complete fulfilment. That awaits the coming of Christ in glory and the final judgment. In our view it is not sufficient to stop short in a partial fulfilment at Christ’s first coming, glorious and initially complete though that was. Daniel is clearly, in the end, thinking of the final consummation.
It has been said that there is no clear indication of what closes off the seventieth ‘seven’, but we find this suggestion quite remarkable. For we have it stated here quite clearly. It is closed by the final fulfilment of all God’s purposes brought to a state of perfection and completion. In terms of Dan 9:27 it is closed by ‘the consummation’.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Dan 9:24. Seventy weeks are determined, &c. The sum of Calmet’s observations on this prophesy is as follows: Daniel is afflicted before the Lord, with a desire to know when the end of those seventy weeks’ captivity shall appear, which are foretold by Jeremiah. But God reveals to him a much more sublime and important mystery; namely, the time of the finishing transgressions, and of the coming of the Messiah, of the reign of everlasting righteousness, and of the perfect accomplishment of the prophesies. All this was to be brought about after a space of seventy weeks of years, which make four hundred and ninety. “You are solicitous to know when the seventy years of captivity, foretold by Jeremiah, shall have an end: I am going to announce to you a deliverance infinitely more important, and of which that foretold by Jeremiah is only a figure.” The whole verse may be thus paraphrased: “The space of seventy weeks is invariably fixed and determined. This is no conditional or uncertain prediction, whose execution depends upon a future contingency,the fidelity or infidelity of the people. It is not one of those promises, the accomplishment of which may be protracted or invalidated by the malice of men. It is a prophesy, the event of which is certain, and which shall be executed at a fixed period;in seventy weeks, which are to begin from the time of the edict that enjoins the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, and which will terminate with the death of the Messiah, and the abolition of sacrifices.” The Hebrew word callei, rendered finish, may be translated to restrain; and the sense will then be, “To put a stop to hypocrisy or sin.”To make an end of sins; either by the atonement to be made for them, or by the exemplary punishment to be inflicted upon the offenders.To seal up the vision, &c. things which are fulfilled and perfected, are usually sealed up; because they were to receive their accomplishment in Christ. It is thus that the Jews commonly interpret the words, and both Rabbi Levi Ben-Gerson and Abarbanel expressly assert on this passage, that “All the prophesies shall be fulfilled in the Messiah.” The sealing up of the prophesy, and the anointing of the Most Holy, were fulfilled in Christ’s appearance among the Jews, and in their putting him to death, which was indeed the unction or consecration of the Holy One of God to his priestly office. See Dr. Chandler’s Vindication of Daniel, p. 156 and Bishop Chandler’s Defence, p. 124 and Vind. p. 297. Houbigant renders the 25th verse, Know therefore and understand; from the edict which shall be promulged for the return, and for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, shall be seven weeks; then shall the city be built again in solicitude and in troublous times; when, to Messiah the prince, shall be threescore and two weeks. See his note, where this version is fully justified. By the people of the prince who was to come, are meant the Romans, who are strongly pointed out at the close of the prophesy: see Mat 22:7; Mat 24:15 and Mar 13:14 where our Saviour refers to this prophesy. The former words, but not for himself, (though the passage has been otherwise translated) refer to our Lord’s suffering, through his rich mercy, solely for the sins of the world. The aera usually fixed upon for the commencement of the seventy weeks, is the twentieth year of Artaxerxes.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
DISCOURSE: 1140
THE TIME AND ENDS OF CHRISTS ADVENT
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.
IT has pleased God on many occasions to manifest his regard to prayer; and to give such speedy and gracious answers to it as should encourage all his people to pour out their hearts before him. Daniel, having understood by books that the seventy years captivity in Babylon were drawing to a close, set himself by fasting and prayer to implore mercy for himself and his captive nation: and God instantly sent an angel to testify the acceptance of his prayers, and to reveal to him the period fixed for that far greater deliverance, which should in due time be effected by the Messiah. Seventy weeks, according to the prophetic language, mean seventy weeks of years, that is, four hundred and ninety years, a day for a year [Note: Eze 4:6. There is a remarkable coincidence between the seventy years at the end of which this temporal deliverance was to take place, and the seventy weeks of years when the great Deliverer was to come. That space of time (four hundred and ninety years) includes ten Jubilees; at the last of which, not one nation only, but all the nations of the world should hear the sound of the gospel-trumpet, and be restored to their forfeited inheritance.]. Commentators are not agreed respecting the precise year from which the numeration of them begins [Note: The more approved calculations are those which are dated from the seventh, or from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and the latter by lunar years.]: but, according to any calculation, the Messiah must have long since come into the world; and the Jews are inexcusable in rejecting so decisive a testimony. The ends of the Messiahs advent, which are here set forth in a rich variety of expression, will form the subject of our present discourse.
God sent him,
I.
To open a way for our salvation
There were two great obstacles to the salvation of man, namely, guilt and corruption And
For the removal of these the law made no adequate provision
[There were sacrifices and various other services appointed for the removal of guilt: and the person who complied with the ordinances prescribed, was considered as absolved from his sin. But in the nature of things it was not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin. Indeed the annual repetition of the same offerings on the great day of atonement shewed, that the transgressions, which had been before atoned for, were not fully and finally forgiven: these repeated sacrifices were so many remembrances of sins, intended to lead the minds of men to that greater sacrifice, which alone could make them perfect as pertaining to the conscience, or procure to them a complete and eternal redemption [Note: Heb 9:9-12; Heb 10:1-4.].]
But what the law could not do, God sent his only dear Son to effect [Note: Rom 8:3.]
[The Messiah was to be cut off, but not for himself [Note: Dan 9:27.]: by him Divine justice was to be satisfied, and the hand-writing that was against us, being nailed to his cross, was to be for ever cancelled [Note: Col 2:14.]: he was so to finish transgression, and make an end of sin that no further sacrifice for it should ever be necessary: by his one offering he was to perfect for ever them that are sanctified [Note: Heb 10:11-14.]. All this has been done: through the blood of his cross, reconciliation is made between God and man [Note: Col 1:21-22.]: God no more abhors the sinner, seeing that he is cleansed from sin in the Redeemers blood, and is clothed in that spotless righteousness which Jesus has brought in [Note: 2Co 5:21.]: nor does the sinner any longer hate God, because he is enabled to behold him as his God and Father in Christ. Thus is the breach completely closed: thus is man restored to the favour and love of God: thus are all typical sacrifices abrogated and annulled [Note: Dan 9:27.]: and thus are men delivered, no less from the love and practice of sin than from the curse and condemnation due to it [Note: Tit 2:14.]. Sin is no more remembered on the part of God, nor any more practiced on the part of man.]
Thus far the subject is plain. What remains of our text is more difficult to be understood. But I conceive that the true sense of it will be marked, if we consider it as exhibiting yet farther the way devised for our salvation, and the sending of the Messiah,
II.
To complete all that was necessary for its full accomplishment
Two things were necessary to be effected by him:
1.
He was to fulfil for us all that had been predicted
[There were a great variety of types and prophecies which designated the Messiahs work and character. The first promise, given immediately after the fall, represented him as the seed of the woman who should bruise the serpents head. In process of time other prophecies declared the family from which he should spring, the time and place of his birth, the minutest circumstances of his life and death, together with his subsequent exaltation and glory: moreover the whole nature of his undertaking, the various offices he was to sustain, with all the effects of his mission, were exactly delineated. Besides these, there were also many figurative representations instituted of God for the purpose of exhibiting to the world, as in a shadow, those things which were afterwards to be realized and substantially effected. Our first parents were clothed by God himself with the skins of beasts, which they had before been directed to otter in sacrifice; that, in that type, they might see the only true way of atoning for their sin, or covering their shame from the eyes of God. The various ordinances that were appointed under the Mosaic dispensation, the paschal lamb, whose sprinkled blood averted from the Israelites the sword of the destroying angel, while its flesh, eaten with bitter herbs, nourished their bodies; the daily and annual sacrifices, with all the sprinklings and other ceremonies; the habits and services of the priests, the form and furniture of the tabernacle, with many other things, which it would be tedious to enumerate, declared in ten thousand forms the work and offices of the promised Messiah.
All of these Christ was in the exactest manner to fulfil. Some parts of the inspired volume represented him as God, others as a man, yea, as a worm and no man; some as victorious, others as suffering; some as living for ever, others as dying; some as the priest, others as the sacrifice; some as a sanctuary, and others as a stumbling-block: all manner of opposites were to unite in him as lines in their centre, in order that, when he should appear, there should not exist a doubt in any unprejudiced mind, but that he was the person foretold; and that every thing respecting him had been fore-ordained in the Divine counsels. Accordingly when he came, he shewed himself to be that very Messiah, who, like a seal, engraven with strokes infinitely diversified, corresponded exactly with the impression which had been given of it to the Church two thousand years before. Thus did he seal up the vision and prophecy, completing it in all its parts, and leaving no further occasion for such methods of instruction.]
2.
He was to impart to us all that had been promised
[The anointing of the most Holy is generally thought to import, that Christ himself should receive the Spirit; but we apprehend that it imports also his communicating of the Spirit to his Church.
Christ is certainly the Holy One and the Just, to whom the character of The Most Holy eminently belongs. It is certain also that he was anointed with the Spirit from his very first designation to preach the glad tidings of salvation [Note: Isa 61:1.]; and that lie received a further unction when the Spirit descended upon him in a bodily shape like a dove [Note: Mat 3:16.]. But these do not appear to be the seasons alluded to in the text: the unction there spoken of seems to follow the other ends of his mission; and consequently to relate to something which took place after his ascension to heaven. The Psalmist speaks of Christ after his ascension, and consequent inauguration, when lie says, Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows [Note: Psa 45:7.], In another psalm he declares the same truth in still plainer terms; Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive; thou hast received gifts for men, yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them [Note: Psa 68:18.]. By consulting the Apostle Paul, we shall find that this gift which Jesus then received, was the Holy Spirit; and that he received it in order that he might communicate it to his Church; for, quoting this very passage, he alters one word in it, and says, he gave gifts unto men; and then adds, that he gave these for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ [Note: Eph 4:8; Eph 4:11-12.]. But the testimony of another Apostle is absolutely decisive on this point: while St. Peter was preaching on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost came down upon all the Apostles, and abode on each of them in the shape of cloven tongues of fire: the Apostle then declared that this was an accomplishment of Joels prophecy respecting the pouring out of Gods Spirit; and referred them to Jesus as the author of it, and as having received, at this time, the gift of the Spirit for this very end; therefore, says he, being exalted by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, Jesus hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear [Note: Act 2:3; Act 2:16; Act 2:33.]. Thus was this holy oil poured out upon the head of our great High Priest, that it might flow down to the skirts of his garments, and reach to the meanest of his members [Note: Psa 133:2.].]
The ends of the Messiahs advent being so clearly and so fully declared, I wish you to observe
1.
What abundant provision God has made for our salvation
[What can we conceive either as necessary or desirable beyond what our blessed Redeemer has done for us? What could the most guilty and abandoned sinner upon earth desire more of Christ, than that he should finish transgression, make an end of sin, make reconciliation for iniquity, bring in for him an everlasting righteousness, and anoint him with that same Spirit wherewith he himself is anointed without measure [Note: Joh 3:34.]? Or what evidence of his ability and willingness to do these things would any man have, beyond what the accomplishment of so many types and prophecies affords him? And shall God freely offer us this glorious salvation, and we not deign to receive it? O let us open our eyes, and behold our truest interest: let us not perish in the midst of mercy: let us not be famished when so rich a feast is set before us [Note: Isa 25:6.]; but let us comply with the Saviours invitation, Eat, O friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved [Note: Son 5:1.].]
2.
How deeply we are interested in obtaining the knowledge of Christ
[When the Apostles were asked by our Lord whether they also intended to forsake him, Peter well replied, Lord, whither shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. Thus must we say; for assuredly there is salvation in no other; there is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved, but the name of Jesus Christ [Note: Act 4:12.]. In vain will be all our self-righteous endeavours to reconcile ourselves to God, or to renew our polluted hearts. If Christ wash us not, we have no part with him [Note: Joh 13:8.]: if he put not away our sins, they must abide upon us for ever: if he do not impart to us that unction of the Holy One, whereby we know all things [Note: 1Jn 2:20.], and can do all things [Note: Php 4:13.], we must perish in our impotency, even as new-born infants that are left to themselves. Shall we then be regardless of the Saviour, and perish for lack of knowledge, when God is thus labouring to instruct us? Shall we not rather, like Daniel, pray day and night that we may obtain a clearer knowledge of his will? Our neglect of this is the true reason why, with the Bible in our hands, we understand so little of this subject, and feel so little its sanctifying and saving efficacy. Would to God there were more Daniels in the midst of us! O let us henceforth give more earnest heed to the things that are spoken; and treasure up in our minds that truth of God, which alone can sanctify us, which alone can save us.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
We have within the compass of these few verses one of the most illustrious prophecies of scripture: and blessed be our God, he who gave the prophecy, hath given to his Church to see the fulfillment of it. The prophecy itself is introduced by the man Gabriel with great solemnity, and equal affection. Daniel had simply prayed for the restoration of his people from the Babylonish captivity. But the Lord not only answers this to the full, and tells him that that captivity is now over; but the Lord opens to the Prophet’s mind a subject of infinitely higher moment, in the deliverance from a more grievous captivity: of sin, death, and hell, by the wonderful coming, and more wonderful labours, sufferings, and blood-shed of the Son of God. Seventy years had been determined, and was now past, of Israel’s captivity in Babylon. Now Daniel is called upon to number seventy weeks more to be accomplished, and the Shiloh shall come, to whom the gathering of the people should be, Gen 49:10 . What a blessed promise was here! What a glorious answer to prayer! Various have been the opinions of men, concerning the commencement and termination of those seventy weeks. Volumes have been written on the subject: and the matter is left just where the whole body of writers found it. Reader! let it be your wisdom and mine to rest satisfied in those grand points, concerning this blessed prophecy; that it hath been fulfilled; that Christ to whom it pointed is come; that he was, and is, and ever will be, the anointed, and the most holy; that he hath finished transgression: mark the expression, finished it; not sin in this or that man, but sin itself, made an end of sin; sealed up sin, as the margin of our old Bibles hath it; so that when sin is sought for it is not found; made reconciliation also for iniquity, and brought in an everlasting righteousness; that he hath been cut off, but not for himself, hath confirmed the covenant with many, and caused the sacrifice to cease. These are truths, facts, and doctrines, perfectly plain, clear, and undeniable. And whether the seventy weeks, (which, no doubt, agreeable to scripture language, meant weeks of years) making four hundred and ninety years, were to commence the first year of the people’s deliverance from Babylon, when Cyrus commanded them to return; or as some think, at the command of Artaxerxes, another prince of Persia, about one hundred years after, see Ezr 6:11 , etc. in either case the events are the same. Certain it is, that near two thousand years are run out since Christ came, and finished transgression, and made an end of sin by the sacrifice of himself. So that the Jews who reject Christ, can now expect no other Christ from all their own prophecies. And while believers rejoice with a joy unspeakable and full of glory, in him that is come; they are now, and for many centuries have been, as one of their Prophets described them, abiding without a king, without a prince, without sacrifice, without an image, and ephod, and teraphim. The Lord grant the prophecy that follows may be hastening to be fulfilled. Hos 3:4-5 ; Rom 11:25 to the end.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
VI
THE RELATED PROPHETIC SECTIONS OF DANIEL
Having completed the historical sections of this book, we now consider the related prophetic sections. It is here we find the crux of the opposition of the atheistic critics. Their presupposition is: There can be no prophecy in any supernatural sense. Therefore they refuse to see any reference in the book to matters beyond the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. He to them is the culmination of the book. The unknown writer, as they claimed, lived after his times, and cast well-known history into the form of prophecy, attributing its authorship, through a license accorded to writers of novels, to a fictitious Daniel supposed to be living in the period between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.
A complete answer to both their premise and conclusion would be the proof of even one real prediction in the book, fulfilled after their own assigned date for the author. Any one who really believes the New Testament will find that proof in the words of our Lord: “When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the Holy Place (let him that readeth understand) then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains.”
But as our purpose it to expound the prophetic sections of this book, and not merely to reply to the contentions of atheists, we now take up our work. These are the prophetic sections:
1. Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream of the great and luminous image, or the five world empires (Dan 2:31-45 ).
2. Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream of the great tree, or what befell the great king of the first world empire (Dan 4:10-27 ).
3. The handwriting on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast, or what befell the last king of the first world empire and how the second empire comes to the front (Dan 5:25-28 ).
4. The vision of the four great beasts arising from the sea, representing in another form the four secular world empires and the enthronement of the King of the fifth world empire (Dan 7:1-28 ).
5. The vision of the ram and the he-goat, or the fortunes of the second and third world empires (Dan 8:1-27 ).
6. The seventy weeks, or the coming and sacrifice of the Messiah, the King of the fifth world empire (Dan 9:24-27 ).
7. The vision of the Son of man (Dan 10 ).
8. Revelation of the conflicts between two of the divisions of the third world empire) and the transition to the final advent of the Messiah, the King of the fifth world empire (Daniel 11-12).
On these eight prophetic sections let us give careful attention to the following observations:
OBSERVATIONS ON THE EIGHT PROPHECIES TAKEN TOGETHER
1. The most casual glance at this grouping of the several prophetic sections reveals both the unity of the book and the relation of its prophetic parts and the design of all.
2. Any man who looks carefully at this group and finds its culmination in Antiochus Epiphanes, a ruler of a fourth fragment of the third world empire, either is devoid of common sense and should receive the charity accorded to those unfortunates afflicted with mental aberration, or is so blinded with prejudice he cannot see. In the case of the latter alternative this much of Paul’s words apply: “If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them whom the god of this world has blinded lest they should see,” or our Lord’s words, “Having eyes they see not.” An unbiased child can see that the culmination of the book as to a person is in the King of the fifth world empire, and the culmination as to a fact is in the Messiah’s final advent for resurrection and judgment.
3. Following the characteristic Bible method and plan, secular governments in this book are considered only as they relate to the supremacy of the divine government and to the kingdom of God. All the rest concerning them is left in silence.
4. The relation between the parts of the prophecy is manifest throughout: The first prophecy is the basis of all the following sections. They only elaborate some detail concerning one or the other of the five world empires set forth in the first dream of Nebuchadnezzar, the four-pointed image and the conquering stone. For example, the first prophecy tells in general terms of four successive world empires to be followed by a fifth and spiritual world empire. The second and third sections of prophecy elaborate some details of the first great secular monarchy, telling us what befell its first and last king and the transition to the second monarchy. The fourth prophecy presents under different imagery the same five world empires, but gives some detail of every one not stated in the general terms of the first prophecy.
The fifth prophecy confines itself to details not before given of the second and third monarchies, how sovereignty passes from one to the other, how the third is dismembered, to prepare the way for the fourth, and how both are related to the kingdom of God. The sixth prophecy speaks only of the King of the fifth monarchy in his humiliation and sacrifice, as the third had spoken of his glory and exaltation, and the seventh is the vision of the Son of man.
The eighth deals only at first with the strifes between two of the parts of the dismembered third monarchy, incidentally alluding to the coming power of the fourth monarchy, glides, by easy transition, from the first antichrist, Antiochus, to a second antichrist in the far distant future, an antichrist already foreshown in the little horn of the fourth beast, and concludes with the final advent of the king of the fifth monarchy. No other book in all literature, sacred or profane, more clearly evidences greater unity, one consistent plan, more order in treatment, or a more glorious climax.
Of very great interest to us and to all who love God and his cause is the development of the messianic thought as the hope of the world. It concerns us much to fix in our minds this development.
The first prophecy tells of the divine origin and ultimate prevalence of Messiah’s kingdom.
The sixth tells of Messiah’s first advent in his humiliation and sacrifice.
The fourth tells of his exaltation and enthronement after the humiliation.
The eighth tells of his final advent for resurrection and judgment.
And so we need to note the coming of the first antichrist. Antiochus, in the little horn of the third beast (Dan 8:9 ) and the second antichrist in the little horn of the fourth beast (Dan 7:8 ) identical with John’s antichrist, (Rev 13:1-8 ) with its papal head (Rev 13:11-18 ). And so we find reference to the third antichrist in Dan 11:34-45 who is not the same as Paul’s man of sin. (2Th 2:8 and Rev 20:11 ), but this third antichrist comes at the beginning of the millennium and wages a conflict against the Jews, at which time they will be converted and the millennium will be ushered in. Daniel does not see Paul’s man of sin.
How clearly and with what precious comfort do all these prophecies reveal the supreme government of God over nations and men, the universal sweep of his providence, both general and special!
5. Finally how well we can understand, in the light of these great prophecies, the influence of the man and his book on all subsequent ages. His apocalyptic style and symbolism reappear in Zechariah’s visions, and form the greater part of the basis of John’s New Testament apocalypse. His Son of man creates a messianic title which our Lord adopts. His unique prophecy of the exact time of Messiah’s first advent creates a preparation in the hearts of the pious to expect him just then. We could not understand old Simeon at all if Daniel hadn’t fixed the time. Other prophets had foretold his lineage, the place of his birth, his great expiation and consequent enthronement, but no other showed just when he would come. His stress on “the kingdom of God and its certain coming and prevalence” put the titles of this divine government in the mouths of John the Baptist, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. His sublime character as evidenced in his temperance, wisdom, incorruptible integrity, audacity of faith, indomitable courage, and inflexible devotion to God, has fired the hearts of a thousand orators and created a million heroes. His words have become the themes of a thousand pulpits. His righteous administration of public affairs has created a thousand reformers in politics and supplied the hope of all subsequent civic righteousness. “Dare to be a Daniel” has become the slogan of the ages.
His distinction between duty to the human government and duty to the divine government prepared the way for the reception of our Lord’s great dictum, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” He laid the foundation of the doctrine that the state cannot intrude into the realm of conscience, and so was the pioneer, piloting a burdened world to its present great heritage of religious liberty. This man was not a reed shaken by the wind. He was no Reuben, unstable as water. We can’t even think about him without wanting to sing:
How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
is laid for your faith in his excellent word. Born in the reign of good Josiah, thy childhood remembering the finding of the lost book of Moses, thy youth passed in the great reformation and thy heart warmed in the mighty revival that followed, student of Jeremiah, prime minister of two world empires and beloved of God thou art a granite mountain, O Daniel, higher than Chimborazo, Mount Blanc or Dwa Walla Giri! Snarling little critics, like coyotes, may grabble their holes in the foot-hills that lean for support against thy solidity, but their yelping can never disturb thy calm serenity nor the dust they paw up can ever dim the eternal sunshine of the smiles of God that halo thy summit. SELECTED.
Having now considered these eight prophetic sections in group, let us give attention to their exposition in severalty.
NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S FIRST DREAM God’s sovereignty extends to men asleep as well as to men awake. Often his spirit has made revelation through dreams. Dreams of indigestion are chaotic, without form, plan, or coherence. But dreams sent by the Spirit awaken after-thought, appeal to the intelligence and vividly impress the dreamer. So Jacob’s dream at Bethel of the ladder reaching from earth to heaven, on which the angels of God ascended and descended, or Pharaoh’s dreams interpreted by Joseph, and the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar. No human system of psychology has ever explained the subtle and direct impact of Spirit on spirit. It is quite possible that there may have been some connection between Nebuchadnezzar’s waking thoughts and the dream which follows. We can at least conceive of previous reflections on his part full of questionings to which this dream would be a pertinent answer.
He may well have meditated upon the worldwide empire he had established and wondered if it would last, and if not what other government would succeed, and would it last. He may have pondered the causes of stability in human government, or the elements of decay and disintegration, and have wondered if human history would always be a record of the successive rising and falling of nations, or would the time ever come when the earth would know a universal and everlasting kingdom, and if so, who would be its author and what the principles of its perpetuity. Nebuchadnezzar was a truly great man, a thinker and organizer, and he was a pious man according to the requirements of his religion. So he may have been the waking subject of thoughts and questionings to which God sends an answer in a dream by night. Anyhow, he had the dream, and this was the dream: He saw a great and terrible image, a silent and luminous colossus in human form, standing upon the level Babylonian plain. Its several parts were strangely incongruous. The head was gold, the chest and arms were silver, the lower body and thighs were brass, the legs were iron, ending in feet with ten toes whose iron was mingled with clay.
Did this image reveal the highest attainment of human government and prophecy, its inevitable deterioration from gold to silver, from silver to brass, from brass to iron, from iron to crumbling clay? Or did it suggest a succession of governments, the first with the greatest unity and the greatest excellency, one head and that gold? The second dual in composition with its two arms, third commencing one, but dividing into two thighs, the fourth standing dual in it he saw a little stone cut out of a mountain without human hands, falling to the plain and intelligently rolling toward the image, and rolling gathering bulk and momentum until it smites the image on its feet of mixed iron and clay, overthrows it, crushes it, pulverizes it, and rolling on in resistless power, ever growing as it rolls, until it becomes a mountain in bulk and fills the whole earth. Such the dream.
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DREAM The dream foretells five great world empires:
The first is identified as the Babylonian.
The second is identified in the prophecy as the Medo-Persian.
The third is identified in the prophecy as the Grecian.
The fourth by a suggestion in the eighth prophecy as the Roman.
The fifth is the kingdom of God set up by the God of heaven and without hands in the days of the fourth empire.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE EMPIRES This is the characteristic of the first: Thou, O king, art king of kings unto whom the God of heaven hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength and the glory, and wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven hath he given into thine hands and hath made thee to rule over them all, and thou art that head of gold.
The characteristic of the second one is, so far as this chapter tells us, that it is inferior to the first. This chapter, in identifying the second world monarchy, simply tells us that it succeeds the Babylonian, the first, but in the later prophetic sections when this vision is elaborated it is expressly said to be a kingdom of the Modes and of the Persians. I say that the book of Daniel identifies the second world government as the Medo-Persian Empire just as plainly and explicitly and exactly as it identifies the first with the Babylonian.
Now when we come to the third, “another third kingdom of brass which shall bear rule over all the earth,” is all this chapter says about this one, but when we take up the subsequent prophetic section it is explicitly said to be the Grecian Empire, the thighs indicating subsequent division of the empire. One man said to me, “If the third empire is unquestionably the Greek Empire, how can it be represented as the lower body and two thighs divided into four parts?” My answer is that this book tells us that it did divide into four parts, but deals only with the two parts which touched God’s people. This book has nothing in detail to say about the divisions of Alexander’s empire beyond the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, one of them getting Syria and the other getting Egypt.
When he comes to speak of the fourth this is what he says: And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things, and as iron that crusheth, all these shall it break in pieces and crush. Whereas, thou sawest the feet and the toes, a part of potter’s clay and part of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom. But there shall be in it of the strength of the iron forasmuch as thou sawest iron mixed with the miry clay, and as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so shall the kingdom be partly strong and partly broken; and whereas, thou sawest the iron mingled with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another even as iron does not mingle with clay.
This book in this chapter does not name that fourth government, but when we come to consider the visions of the four beasts which is the same as this vision in another form, but with other details, we get a still clearer idea of the characteristics of this government; and when we come to chapter 2, when we are considering the last prophetic revelation, we have a suggestion where this fourth government comes in and holds Antiochus Epiphanes at bay, that place where the representative of Rome made a little circle in the sand around Antiochus and said, “You must answer before you step outside of that circle.” We know it also to be Rome because Rome with two legs divided into the Eastern and Western Empires, Constantine establishing Eastern Rome at Byzantium on the Bosporus while the Western Empire continues at Rome. We also know it by its divisions into ten kingdoms as its imperial supremacy passed away.
Here is what he says about the last kingdom:
1. He gives its origin: “I saw a little stone cut out without hands.” Those other four stood in the form of a man because man was the author of them all. This fifth one is divine, this fifth kingdom is set up by the God of heaven, and we should never lose sight of that fact.
2. The second thought that he presents is as to the time when the God of heaven would set up this kingdom; that it would be in the days of the fourth monarchy the Roman monarchy: “In the days of these kings will the God of heaven set up a kingdom.” So when a man asks when was the kingdom of heaven set up, and that, of course, means in its visible form, as the Babylonian kingdom was visible, the Medo-Persian kingdom was visible, the Greek kingdom was visible, the Roman kingdom was visible, and as God all the time had a spiritual kingdom, but now he is to set up a visible kingdom and it is to be just as visible as any of these others then, as a Baptist, I answer: Jesus set up the kingdom in his lifetime, as the Gospels abundantly show.
3. The third thought in this description of this kingdom is its beginning, its gradual progress, its prevalence over the whole earth, Just a pebble falling, and as it falls getting bigger, rolling, and as it rolls getting bigger, smiting these other governments, becoming a mountain, becoming as big as the world. And when we get to thinking about that progress of this kingdom, we should remember what our Lord said, that in its eternal working it is like leaven which a woman puts in three measures of meal and ultimately it leavens the whole lump; and when we think about its external development, it is like a grain of mustard seed which a man planted and it grew and grew and grew until it became a tree.
Whenever we hear a pessimist preaching an idea of a kingdom like a tadpole, that commences big at first and tapers to a very fine tail, getting smaller and smaller and worse and worse, then that is not the kingdom Daniel spoke of.
His kingdom commences small and gets bigger and bigger, and mightier and mightier, and I thank God that I don’t have to preach concerning a kingdom that is continually “petering out.” I am glad that I can preach a gospel that is growing in power and extending in domain and that has the promise of God that it shall fill the whole world and be everlasting. It always did give me the creeps to hear one of those pessimists. They get their ideas from an inexcusable misinterpretation of certain passages of the Scriptures.
I heard one of them say, “Doesn’t our Lord say in answer to the direct question, ‘Are there few that will be saved?’ that ‘Straight is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find if ?” I said, “Yes, but to whom did he say that?” To the Jews of his day, and then to prevent a misconstruction, while only a few Jews of his day would be saved, he says, “But I say unto you that many shall come from the east and the west and the north and the south and shall recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.” The thought reappears in Revelation where John sees the host of the redeemed. He introduces us first to 144,000 Jews and then he shows us a line that no man can see the end of: “I saw a great multitude that no man could number out of every nation and tribe and tongue and kindred.” So if the kingdom which Jesus Christ in the days of his flesh set up on this earth is narrowing, that is cause for sadness, but if it is spreading out, growing bigger and bigger, and has perpetuity, that is a cause for gladness.
This visible kingdom of Jesus Christ will be perpetual. Perpetuity is its heritage.
We need not be afraid to preach its perpetuity and its visibility, with visible subjects, with visible ordinances, with a visible church charged with its administration. It will not be sponged off the board, any of it, neither the kingdom nor its gospel nor its church nor its ordinances. They will stand until the rivers shall be emptied into the sea. As Dr. Burleson used to say: “It will be standing when grass quits growing, and we should not be afraid to preach perpetuity.” Let us not be too sure that we can take a surveying chain and trace that perpetuity through human agencies and human history, but we may certainly stand on the declaration of God’s Word that this kingdom is everlasting: Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.
Over and over again in this book, Daniel holds out, as he explains the thought of this first dream as a light that gets bigger and bigger and brighter and brighter, that the saints shall possess the kingdoms of the world.
I expect to see (in the flesh or out of the flesh it matters not ) every mountain of this earth or mountain range and every valley between and every plain, whether rich red land like the Panhandle or dry sand like the Sahara Desert; and every zone, Arctic, Temperate, or Torrid: every iceberg shivering in the Aurora Borealis around the North Pole or South Pole, have floating over it the great white conquering banner of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We are to have every bit of it, and the time will come when no fallen angel will flap his wing and make a shadow on any part of it and when no wicked man shall crush beneath his feet any of its beautiful or sweet flowers, but when the meek shall inherit the earth, and throughout the whole earth, after its regeneration, there shall dwell eternal righteousness.
QUESTIONS
1. Give, in order, the prophetic sections of the book of Daniel.
2. Show the unity of the book from these sections.
3. Show the culmination of the book in person and fact.
4. In what respect only are secular governments considered in this book and throughout the Bible?
5. Show the relations of the prophetic sections to each other and how all the rest are developments of the first.
6. Give, in order, all the developments of the messianic thought.
7. Give the several antichrists, citing passages for each.
8. What great doctrine of special comfort do all these prophecies show?
9. Give particulars to show the influence of the man and the book on later ages.
10. Name the five world empires of Dan 2 .
11. What are the characteristics of the fifth, who its author and when set up?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
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.
Ver. 24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, ] i.e., Seventy weeks of years; ten jubilees, which make up four hundred and ninety years. Thus the very time is here particularly foretold when the Messiah should be revealed and put to death. The like hereunto is not to be found in any other of the prophets, as Jerome well observeth. This, therefore, is a noble prophecy, and many great wits have been exercised about it. Cornelius a Lapide speaketh of one learned gentleman who ran out of his wits, after many years’ study upon it. The doctors are much divided about the beginning and ending of these seventy weeks. “From the outgoing of the word,” Dan 9:25 seemeth to me to fix the beginning of these weeks on Cyrus’s decree concerning the holy city and the temple to be rebuilding. The end and period of them must he at the death of Christ, though some will have it at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. I choose rather thus to compute than to dispute. It is well observed by the learned that the Jews, after their seventy years’ captivity, have seven seventies of years granted for the enjoying of their own country (God’s mercies bear the same proportion to his punishments which seven – a complete number – have to n unit), besides the mercy of mercies, the grace of the Messiah.
Upon thy people.
To finish the transgression.
And to make an end of sins.
And to make reconciliation for iniqulty,
And to bring in everlasting righteousness.
And to seal up the vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the most holy.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 9:24-27
24Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. 25So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.
Dan 9:24-27 This passage has a parallel or poetic aspect (series of INFINITIVE CONSTRUCTS) and is translated into poetic lines by NJB (Dan 9:24-27) and NAB (Dan 9:22-26) translations, but not by most English versions.
This is one of the most specific, yet debated, passages in the OT. Have we switched genres from apocalyptic, fuzzy, symbolic, imaginative literature (Daniel 7, 8) to a very specific, historical prophecy (Dan 9:24-27 and chapter 11)? Are the details meant to be seen as foreshadowing future history?
Does this vision have any connection (1) to the vision of Daniel 8 and Dan 11:1-35 or (2) is it an extension going back to and extending the little horn of the fourth kingdom (end-time Antichrist) of Daniel 7 and Dan 11:36-45? What is the literary context; to which historical setting?
A third option is to see it as referring to the time of Jesus (His Incarnation and earthly life), which would limit it to the fifth kingdom of Dan 2:35; Dan 2:44-45; Dan 7:9-10; Dan 7:13-14; Dan 7:18; Dan 7:22; Dan 7:27. This is the option I feel most comfortable with at this point in my study. Passages like this must remain tentative!
This paragraph functions theologically in several ways.
1. God has punished His own people. Sin is an ongoing problem.
2. God will forgive and restore His people. Salvation is always possible.
3. More problems remain for His people (believing Jews and Gentiles).
4. Messiah is coming, but He will be a suffering servant (cf. Isaiah 53), a wounded shepherd (cf. Zechariah 12-13)
5. God will judge those who attack His people.
One of my concerns with this context is that it is presented in the OT prophetic terms of the land promises to Abraham (Genesis 12; Genesis 15; Genesis 16), but the NT expands this into a universal perspective! See Special Topic: Why are OT Covenant Promises so Different from NT Covenant Promises? . Daniel is familiar with the Gentile kings to whom YHWH has revealed Himself and they have praised Him. God’s people are wider than racial Jews (cf. Rom 2:28-29; Rom 9:6; Gal 3:7-9; Gal 3:29; Gal 6:16; 1Pe 2:5; 1Pe 2:9; 1Pe 3:6; Rev 1:6).
At this point please turn to Contextual Insights for Daniel 11 and read F, which deals with the nature of apocalyptic literature taken from Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic by D. Brent Sandy, pp. 156-158.
Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks The Hebrew phrase (BDB 988) is literally seventy units of seven (or weeks). Numerals were usually FEMININE PLURAL, but here they are MASCULINE PLURAL and this is unusual, possibly to denote its symbolic nature. This seventy units of seven relates to the seventy units of Jeremiah’s prophecy noted in Dan 9:2. Daniel is being told that there would be a another longer period in Israel’s history when the temple would be destroyed again (similar to Ezekiel 38-39), but he was to remember that God was in control of all human history and that He would bring creation to its divine purpose.
have been decreed This Hebrew term decree (BDB 367, KB 364) is found only here in the OT (there are three Aramaic terms translated decree in Dan 2:4 to Dan 7:28, but none relate to this Hebrew form). It is related to an Aramaic term which meant to cut, cut off, or decide. This is a Niphal PASSIVE form.
The decree of Dan 9:24 is parallel to the decree (literally word, BDB 182) of Dan 9:25! Both deal with the restoration of the center of Jewish worship (cf. Dan 9:25). Connected to this restoration is God’s eternal redemptive plan (cf. Dan 9:24), which involved the Messiah’s being cut off (cf. Dan 9:26; Zechariah 9-14) and Jerusalem destroyed again (cf. Dan 9:26; Ezekiel 38-39).
If one takes the historical period from the permission of Artaxerxes for Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls of the city in 445 B.C.; and if one assumes that seventy weeks refers to 490 years; and if one calculates the end of the 69th week as 483 years, then one comes very close to the date of the beginning of Jesus’ (1) ministry (i.e., baptism) or (2) crucifixion (the cutting off of the Messiah).
There have been three major theories about this decree related to Persian monarchs: (1) Cyrus II, known as Cyrus the Great, allowed all captive people to return to their homes in 538 B.C. (cf. Isa 44:26-28; Ezra 1); (2) Artaxerxes to Ezra in 458 B.C. allowed more priests and Levites to return to Jerusalem with Ezra (cf. in Aramaic, Ezr 7:11-26); and (3) Artaxerxes to Nehemiah, 445 B.C. allowed Nehemiah to go to Jerusalem to rebuild the walls (cf. Neh 1:3; Neh 2:3-8).
for your people and your holy city This decree refers to Jerusalem, but which time-frame?
1. Ezra-Nehemiah in the Persian period
2. Maccabees in the Greek period
3. Jesus in the Roman period
4. end-time
5. or is this a recurrent pattern through human history
a. Covenant disobedience on the part of God’s people
b. the anger of unbelieving humanity against God and His people
NASB, NKJV,
NRSVto finish the transgression
TEVfor freeing. . .from sin
NJBputting an end to transgression
The first part of this Hebrew construct means to finish, to complete (BDB 477-8, KB 476, from an Aramaic root to cease or to perish, cf. 2Ch 31:3; Ezr 9:1).
H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, pp. 411-412, says this is the only occurrence of a different Hebrew VERB (BDB 480, KB 476) in the Piel form and should be translated to restrain completely. Both the NASB and NIV note this possibility in a footnote, but use the first option in the translation.
The term transgression (BDB 833, rebel, revolt, transgress) is used in Daniel 8, 9 of several different people and sins.
1. sins of the Jewish people (cf. Dan 8:12-13; Dan 8:23, a different word in Dan 9:11)
2. sins of Jewish leadership that helped Antiochus (cf. Dan 8:12-13; Dan 8:23)
3. sins of Antiochus IV (cf. Dan 8:12-13; Dan 8:23).
Dan 9:24 is not referring to one particular time or kind of sinning or rebellion, but to the problem of sin, which will ultimately be dealt with, not by Israel, but by the Messiah (cf. Gen 3:15; Galatians 3; the book of Hebrews).
There are six things mentioned that are part of God’s redemptive purpose in issuing the decrees about the seventy units of seven. There are three negative and three positive:
1. the negative:
a. finish the transgression
b. make an end of sin
c. make atonement for iniquity
2. the positive:
a. bring in everlasting righteousness
b. seal up the vision of the prophecy
c. anoint the Most Holy (this refers either to a place [temple] or a person [High Priest])
These seem to have been accomplished by Jesus’ incarnation, life, death, and resurrection, but will not be fully consummated until His Second Coming.
NASBto make an end of sin
NKJVto make an end of sins
NRSVto put an end to sin
TEVsin will be forgiven
NJBfor placing the seal on sin
This Hebrew word’s basic meaning is (1) seal up (BDB 367, KB 364, cf. Dan 9:24 f; Dan 12:4) or (2) from a different Hebrew word (BDB 478) to make an end (NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NIV). The free reign of sin is to be brought to an end.
The term sin (BDB 308-309, cf. Dan 9:20) is the general term for missing the mark, goal, or way.
NASBto make atonement for iniquity
NKJVto make reconciliation for iniquity
NRSVto atone for iniquity
TEVfreeing. . .from. . .evil
NJBfor expiating crime
The Hebrew phrase to make atonement (BDB 497), basically means to cover, or to blot out. The possible Aramaic counterpart would be to wash away or to rub off.
There is an obvious parallel in these phrases in Dan 9:24.
1. transgression, Dan 8:12-13; Dan 9:24
2. sin, Dan 9:20; Dan 9:24
3. iniquity, Dan 9:13; Dan 9:16; Dan 9:24
There is a continuing rebellion among fallen humankind. God desires a final closure to the problem (cf. Dan 9:24).
NASB, NKJV,
NRSVto bring in everlasting righteousness
TEVeternal justice established
NJBfor introducing everlasting uprightness
The Hebrew word ‘olam (i.e., everlasting, BDB 841) must be interpreted in light of its context. See note on ‘olam at Dan 7:18. This context is future culmination or consummation (cf. Isa 51:6; Isa 51:8; Jer 23:5-6). Righteousness (BDB 761) is the character (standard) of God. See Special Topic: RIGHTEOUSNESS . Creation was meant to reflect God’s character (cf. 1Th 4:7; 1Th 5:23; 2Th 2:13; Tit 2:14). See note at Dan 9:7. The goal of salvation is to be like God (cf. Lev 19:2; Mat 5:48). Believers are not only called to heaven at death, but to Christlikeness now. God desires a people who reflect His holiness (cf. Rom 8:29-30; 2Co 3:18; Gal 4:19; Eph 1:4; Eph 2:10; 1Th 3:13; 1Th 4:3; 1Pe 1:15).
NASB, NKJVto seal up vision and prophecy
NRSVto seal both vision and prophet
TEVso that the vision and the prophecy will come true
NJBfor setting the seal on vision and on prophecy
This Hebrew construct (BDB 367, KB 364, Qal INFINITIVE) implies a cessation of revelation either (1) because of the certainty of the events or (2) the culmination of God’s redemptive plans for history. Some see this as fulfill the ministry of the prophets. In this verse vision and prophecy are hendiadys. He Himself will be among them, no need for others to speak for Him.
NASBto anoint the most holy place
NKJVto anoint the Most Holy
NRSVto anoint a most holy place
TEVthe holy Temple will be rededicated
NJBfor anointing the holy of holies
The Brown, Driver, and Briggs Lexicon (BDB 871) says the most holy place refers to Jerusalemand its hills and lists Dan 9:16; Dan 9:20; Isa 11:9; Jer 31:23; Eze 20:40 as some parallels. The NOUN construct is usually used of a place, in this case the restored temple, but the contextual ambiguity allows the phrase to refer to a person (used of a person, Aaron, in 1Ch 23:13). Therefore, I think it refers to the coming Messiah because it is the concluding phrase in a series of culminating phrases. The end has come, victory has been won through God’s character and God’s provision of (1) the holiness of holinesses (E. J. Young); (2) the Son of Man (Dan 7:13); or (3) the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53). The anointed One is anointed in the new Jerusalem (Revelation 21) or the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews 8-9). Jesus Himself is the new temple (cf. Joh 2:13-22 [esp. Joh 2:19]; Mat 26:61; Mat 27:40; Mar 14:58; Mar 15:29; Act 6:14). He is the new focus of worship (cf. Heb 9:11-28).
Dan 9:25 from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem If this is to be understood historically then it relates to
1. Cyrus’ decree for all the exiled nations under the domination of Assyria and Babylon to return home and restore their national temples (538 B.C., cf Ezr 1:3; Ezr 6:3)
2. Artaxerxes’ decrees to Ezra (458 B.C.) and especially to Nehemiah (445 B.C.) related to the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem.
It is just possible that the decree refers to God’s sovereign redemptive plan referred to as a decree (cf. Jer 25:9-13). E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, p. 201, asserts that it is God who issues the decree which shows the parallel with Dan 9:23 (both use the same Hebrew term, word, [BDB 182], cf. Jer 25:13). God’s plans are worked out on earth through the decrees of pagan kings (cf. Luk 2:1).
Messiah, the Prince This may be an anointed, a prince. Many scholars and commentators have understood anointed one to refer to Cyrus II (cf. Isa 41:2; Isa 41:25; Isa 44:28 to Isa 45:7; Isa 46:11; Isa 48:15) whom YHWH used to restore His people to the Promised Land. These interpreters then relate Dan 9:26-27 to the time and activities of Antiochus IV.
The reason that some scholars deny that this phrase refers to the Messiah (cf. NET Bible, Second Beta Ed., p. 1551, footnote 23) is because there is an accent mark (athnach) in the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which denotes a disjunction. However, in the first place, the accent marks of the MT are not inspired, but are Jewish rabbinical traditions, and second, this mark does not always denote a complete stop, but here possibly accents the distinction between the time period of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks (cf. Christology of the Old Testament, by E. W. Hengstenberg, pp.415-417; H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, pp. 417-426; and Hard Sayings of the Bible, pp. 318-320).
For me this refers to Jesus the Messiah (cf. Dan 7:13). In verse 26 this title is split into two different persons. The first phrase, the anointed one refers to Jesus, while the second phrase, the people of the Prince, apparently refers to Titus, the Roman general who destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
If this apocalyptic language has a multiple fulfillment aspect then surely an end-time context is possible. The nature of evil and rebellion in both humans and angels remains constant, but the historical details do not. This is not a specific prophecy, but an apocalyptic interpretation of Daniel’s prayer request (cf. Dan 9:3). Interpreters’ historical and theological biases and presuppositions drive their understanding of these ambiguous texts!
See Special Topic: Messiah .
there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. . .one week The seventy units of seven will be broken into three time periods: one unit of seven sevens (Dan 9:25); one unit of sixty- two sevens (Dan 9:25); and one unit of one seven (Dan 9:27). The crux for commentators has been how these relate to each other: (1) are they sequential or (2) are there time segments between these three time units? For me this issue is the symbolic nature of the number (i.e., 70) and its previous use in Dan 9:2 (the quote from Jeremiah). This number is used of God’s sovereign plan for Israel’s punishment (cf. Jer 25:9-13; Jer 29:10) and restoration (cf. Jer 30:18-22; Jer 31:38-40). Numerical precision is not the focus, but divine sovereignty over time, history, and redemption!
For a good, brief discussion of the symbolic use of numbers see (1) Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 12, pp. 1256-1259; (2) Biblical Numerology, A Basic Study of the Use of Numbers in the Bible, by John J. Davis; or (3) Biblical Hermeneutics, by Milton S. Terry, pp. 380-390.
it will be built again Obviously Daniel was concerned with the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple. To his shock, he learned that there would be subsequent attacks and destructions (cf. Psalms 2; Ezekiel 38-39; Matthew 24 [and parallels]; 2 Thessalonians 2; Revelation 12-14).
NASBwith the plaza and moat
NKJVthe street shall be built again, and the wall
NRSVwith streets and moat
TEVstreets and strong defenses
NJBwith squares and ramparts
John Joseph Owens, The Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 4, p. 743, translates these two Hebrew words as squares (BDB 932 I, wide or broad) and moat (BDB 358 III, to cut a trench), but there is no evidence that Jerusalem ever had a defense moat; therefore, possibly a cut in the ridge on which a defensive wall was built. This then refers t the city and not the temple.
NASBeven in times of distress
NKJVeven in troublesome times
NRSVin a troubled time
TEVbut this will be a time of troubles
NJBbut in a time of trouble
Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, p. 856, has even in the end of times, which, it notes, follows the Septuagint and Syriac translations and requires a textual emendation. The MT construct (BDB 848 and 773) has but in a troubled time. How one interprets Dan 9:24-27 will set the time-frame as past (Jesus and Titus) or future end-time (Jesus’ Second Coming and Antichrist).
Dan 9:26
NASBthe Messiah
NKJVMessiah
NRSVan anointed one
TEVGod’s chosen leader
NJBAn Anointed One
The difficulty in interpreting this verse is because of the possible meanings associated with the term Messiah or anointed one (BDB 603):
1. used of Jewish kings (e.g., 1Sa 2:10; 1Sa 12:3)
2. used of Jewish priests (e.g., Lev 4:3; Lev 4:5)
3. used of Cyrus (cf. Isa 45:1)
4. #1 and #2 are combined in Psalms 110 and Zechariah 4
5. used of God’s special coming, Davidic King to bring in the new age of righteousness
a. line of Judah (cf. Gen 49:10)
b. house of Jesse (cf. 2 Samuel 7)
c. universal reign (cf. Psalms 2; Isa 9:6; Isa 11:1-5; Mic 5:1-4 f)
I personally am attracted to the identification of an anointed one with Jesus of Nazareth because:
1. the introduction of an eternal Kingdom in Daniel 2 during the fourth empire
2. the introduction of a son of man in Dan 7:13 being given an eternal kingdom
3. the redemptive clauses of Dan 9:24 which point toward a culmination of fallen world history
4. Jesus’ use of the book of Daniel in the NT (cf. Mat 24:15; Mar 13:14)
NASBwill be cut off
NKJV, NRSVshall be cut off
TEVwill be killed
NJBput to death
The Hebrew term (BDB 503, KB 500, Niphahl IMPERFECT) literally means to cut off or to cut down. As an example, it is used literally and metaphorically in Jeremiah.
1. literally of trees, Jer 6:10; Jer 10:3; Jer 22:7; Jer 46:23
2. metaphorically of the death of persons, Jer 11:19; Jer 50:16
Another covenant usage is its relationship to berith (to cut a covenant), where an animal was cut in half and the covenant partners walked through the dead animal to signal the consequences of a covenant violationdeath (cf. Gen 15:17; Jer 11:10; Jer 31:31-33; Jer 34:18-19).
The VERB form (here is Niphal) is used for the cutting off (death) of people (e.g., Gen 9:11; Gen 41:36; Isa 11:13; Isa 29:20; Dan 9:26). Therefore, this VERB form combined a sacrificial aspect with a covenant aspectdeath with a redemptive purpose (i.e., the suffering servant of Isa 52:13 to Isa 53:12; and the wounded shepherd of Zechariah 12-13, also note these NT texts: Mar 10:45; 2Co 5:21)!
NASBand have nothing
NKJVbut not for Himself
NRSVand shall have nothing
TEVunjustly
NJBwithout his
This Hebrew term (BDB 34 II) means to have nothing. It is used in a variety of senses, but all of them are connected to the idea of nothing. William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 13, says it implies no successor, but E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, p. 207, says
these words are exceedingly difficult, but they seem to indicate that all which should properly belong to the Messiah, He does not have when He dies. This is a very forceful way of setting forth His utter rejection, both by God and man. (e.g., We have no king but Caesar,’ cried the Jews. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ were Jesus’ words from the cross. In that hour of blackness He had nothing, nothing but the guilt of sin of all those for whom He died’).
In these ambiguous symbolic phrases it is so easy to interject one’s own theological systems! The ambiguity is purposeful. It is part of the fluidity of apocalyptic genre. We must not turn the original inspired author’s purposeful genre ambiguity into our theological or historical specificity! We must read and interpret these Old Covenant texts through the words of Jesus and the New Covenant/New Testament authors (cf. Galatians 3; and the book of Hebrews) and not vice versa! History, further revelation, and progressive revelation help us clarify these ambiguous, apocalyptic biblical passages.
the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary Here the term prince (BDB 617) means leader (cf. TEV). This same term was used in Dan 9:25 as a description of Messiah; here it means just the opposite, His oppressor (e.g., Lion of Judah of Rev 5:5 vs. roaring lion of 1Pe 5:8; white horse of Revelation 6 vs. white horse of Revelation 19). This leader brings destruction on Jerusalem and the temple; as did Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus IV, so too, will Titus and possibly an end-time Antichrist (cf. Mat 24:2; Mar 13:2; Luk 19:43-44). Multiple fulfillment prophecy can be seen in
1. the virgin birth, Isa 7:14; Mat 1:23 (historical birth in Isaiah’s day, cf. Dan 7:15-16, as well as the virgin birth of Jesus, cf. LXX quote in Mat 1:23)
2. the abomination of destruction (Antiochus, Titus and end-time Antichrist, cf. Dan 9:27; Mat 24:15; Mar 13:19; Luk 21:20; see Special Topic: The Abomination of Desolation )
If Jesus is the anointed, the Prince of Dan 9:25, then this Prince of Dan 9:26 must be Titus (Calvin) who destroys Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70. The temple has never been rebuilt!
NASB, NRSVits end will come with a flood
NKJVthe end of it shall be with a flood
TEVthe end will come like a flood
NJBthe end of that prince will be catastrophe
The question is who or what does its refer to.
1. the immediate antecedent, the people of the Prince
2. the Prince himself (cf. Dan 9:26)
3. the Messiah (cf. Dan 9:25-26)
4. Jerusalem and the temple (Jerusalem of Dan 9:25 and the sanctuary of Dan 9:26)
It is this kind of ambiguity that characterizes apocalyptic literature. Often the modern interpreters’ biases remove the ambiguity and become determinative and dogmatic. Theological systems not inspired texts become the focus!
NASB, NKJVdesolations are determined
NRSVdesolations are decreed
TEVdestruction which God has prepared
NJBall the devastation decreed
This Niphal PARTICIPLE (BDB 358, KB 356) is different from the term decreed in Dan 9:24 (BDB 367, KB 364, seal), but they both reflect divine sovereignty so characteristic of apocalyptic literature. God is in control of history, punishment, restoration, and the ultimate restoration of creation!
The crucial question remains, does the end in this verse refer to (1) Antiochus; (2) Titus; or (3) the end-time?
Dan 9:27
NASBAnd he will make a firm covenant
NKJVthen he will confirm a covenant
NRSVhe shall make a strong covenant
TEVthat ruler will have a firm agreement
NJBhe will strike a firm alliance
Brown, Driver, and Briggs Lexicon (BDB 149, KB 175, Hiphil PERFECT) gives the translation confirm a covenant. The word’s basic meaning is to be strong, or to be mighty. The Aramaic counterpart implies to compel or force with the connotation of being overbearing. This is not the usual Hebrew idiom (BDB 136, to cut a covenant) used to denote the ratification of a covenant. This phrase’s meaning must remain ambiguous.
Is this meant to be a literal historical detail of the end-time or is this another apocalyptic symbol of believers’ poor judgment in making any agreement with the rulers of this world/age?
The ambiguity of this phrase is confirmed by the fact that some scholars relate this to Jesus (E. J. Young), while others relate it to an end-time Antichrist (H. C. Leupold). What fluidity!
NASBwith the many
NKJV, NRSVwith many
TEV, NJBwith many people
This Hebrew term (BDB 912 I) has the DEFINITE ARTICLE the many. This group is identified by one’s interpretation of the time-frame.
CHART OF THE THEORIES RELATED TO VERSES 24-27
In Third Kingdom Antiochus IV (cf. Dan 8:9)In Fourth Kingdom Incarnation of Jesus (Dan 2:34-35)In a Future Rome-Like Kingdom 2nd Coming of Jesus
Who issues the Decree of v. 25Jeremiah, Dan 9:2; Jer 25:9-13Cyrus (538 B.C.) Isa 44:20-28; Isa 45:1 Ezra 1:24; Ezr 6:3-5Artaxerxes (444 B.C., cf. Neh 2:1-8) Ezr 7:11-26
Who is an anointed One cut off in v. 26Jewish High Priest Onias III or JoshuaJesus at CalvaryJesus at Calvary
Who are the people of the Prince who destroy Jerusalem in v. 26Antiochus IV in 168 B.C.Titus in A.D. 70The Antichrist at the eschaton
Who makes the Covenant in v. 27Antiochus IV in 165 B.C.Messiah Hebrews 7-11The Antichrist 70th week
What or who is the abomination in v. 27Antiochus IV offers pig on the altar of the Temple in 168 B.C.Messiah’s death ended Jewish sacrificial system Hebrews 7-11Antichrist breaks the Covenant with the Jews during the Tribulation Period (dispensationalism)
NASB, NKJV,
NRSVfor one week
TEVfor seven years
NJBfor the space of a week
This is the last of three divisions of the 70 weeks of Dan 9:24.
in the middle of the week Literally this means in the midst of the seven.
he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering This is very similar to what Antiochus IV did to the temple sacrifices. Does this demand an end-time temple or does this show that fallen humanity wants control over religion?
Some try to take Daniel literally and then interpret Revelation literally. But this is not the way to show respect for Scripture! If the inspired writer chose apocalyptic language as the literary genre to reveal his message, moderns have no right in the name of conservatism to ignore the genre and force the ancient author into a modern systematic theological grid! Genre is a literary contract with the reader on how to interpret the message. It seems better to let the NT revelation interpret ambiguous OT prophetic/apocalyptic texts. Christ is the fulfillment of the OT, not a restored Israel! The goal of redemptive history is Jesus and a world-wide gospel, not a Palestinian nationalism!
NASB, NKJVon the wing of abominations
NRSVan abomination that desolates
TEVthe Awful Horror will be placed on the highest point of the Temple
NJBon the wing of the Temple will be the appalling abomination
This construct is literally the extremity of abomination (BDB 489 and 1055). The extremity (BDB 489) can refer to the wing of the temple or to the ultimacy of the abomination (BDB 1055, e.g., Antiochus having a pig sacrificed on the altar and an idol to Zeus set up in the Holy Place of the temple). In the OT, abominations referred to idol worship (e.g., 1Ki 11:7; 2Ki 23:13; 2Ch 15:8). Jesus used this phrase to speak of the coming of the Roman army and the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Mat 24:15; Mar 13:14; Luk 21:20-21).
one who makes desolate. . .the one who makes desolate In Hebrew one who may be impersonal, which would refer to the ruins of the temple or if personal, to God’s antagonist.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
This is a study guide commentary, which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.
These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought-provoking, not definitive.
1. How does Jeremiah’s prophecy relate to Daniel 9?
2. Why is the interpretation of Dan 9:24-27 so important and so difficult?
3. How long is seventy units of seven?
4. What decree is Dan 9:25 speaking of?
5. Who is the Anointed One, a prince that is cut off in Dan 9:26?
6. When does the seventieth week begin and end?
7. Does this prophecy have anything to do with believing Gentiles?
8. Does Jesus ever reaffirm the OT hope of a restored Israel with a functioning temple as the goal of history?
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Seventy weeks = Seventy sevens: i.e. of years. Not on any “yearday” theory. If “days” had been intended, it would be so expressed, as in Dan 10:3 (compare Lev 25:8). Moreover, “years” had been the subject of Daniel’s prayer (Dan 9:2). The last “seven” is “one”, and it is divided in half in Dan 9:27, and the half is three and a half years (Dan 7:25; Compare Dan 8:11-14; Dan 11:33). In Rev 11:2 this half is expressed by “forty-two months”; and in the next verse as” 1,260 days”. See App-90. The whole period is therefore 490 years.
determined = cut off: i.e. divided off from all other years. The verb is in the singular to indicate the unity of the whole period, however it may be divided up. Hebrew. hathak. Occurs only here.
thy People: i.e. Daniel’s People, Israel, with which alone the prophecy is concerned.
thy holy city: i.e. Jerusalem (verses: Dan 9:2, Dan 9:7, Dan 9:16).
finish = put an end to.
transgression. Hebrew. pasha'(with Art.) App-44. Compare Dan 8:12, Dan 8:23.
make an end of. Hebrew. hatham, as below (“to seal up”).
sins. Hebrew. chata’. App-44. Hebrew margin, with four early printed editions, some codices, and Vulgate, read “sin” (singular)
make reconciliation = make expiation or atonement.
iniquity. Hebrew. ‘avah. App-44.
seal up, &c. = make an end of by fulfilling all that has been the subject of prophecy.
prophecy = prophet.
the most Holy = a Holy of Holies. Never used of a person. This answers to the cleansing of the sanctuary (Dan 8:14) which immediately precedes “the end”. See App-89.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Dan 9:24
Dan 9:24 SeventyH7657 weeksH7620 are determinedH2852 uponH5921 thy peopleH5971 and uponH5921 thy holyH6944 city,H5892 to finishH3607 the transgression,H6588 and to make an endH2856 of sins,H2403 and to make reconciliationH3722 for iniquity,H5771 and to bring inH935 everlastingH5769 righteousness,H6664 and to seal upH2856 the visionH2377 and prophecy,H5030 and to anointH4886 the most Holy.H6944 H6944
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.”
In response to Daniel’s prayer, Gabriel here gives Daniel a figurative period of time in which a list of things will be accomplished. All of these accomplishments culminated with the coming of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah.
1) to finish the transgression,
The original language literally means to “shut up; to remove from God’s sight. Jesus came in the “fulness of the time” (Gal 4:4) meaning in the time appointed when the transgression of the people had reached the point where it completed God’s arrangement for the fulfilling of His promise to usher in the Messiah. Finishing the transgression is closely associated with the ending of sins. The two are bound together.
2) “and to make an end of sins,”
This was accomplished when Christ “condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3). Only through Jesus Christ has there ever been any such thing as the absolute forgiveness of sins. Under the Mosaic Law, sins were atoned for but were not taken away (Heb 10:4). Through the blood of Christ, the complete forgiveness of sins was made available both to those living before (Heb 9:15) and after the cross (Heb 10:12). Jesus did not bring an end to sinful behavior, which will endure to the end of time itself. Rather He made an end of the bondage and penalty of sin for those who seek redemption, in and through Jesus Christ, according to His will.
3) “and to make reconciliation for iniquity,”
The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), which is understood to be eternal destruction from the presence of God (2Th 1:9). Our sins have separated us from God (Isa 59:2), and we are in need of reconciliation. This was accomplished through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. The Israelites enjoyed a temporary reconciliation with God from their blood sacrifices. The Hebrew writer went into great detail on this in chapters 9 and 10. Under the Mosaic law, once a year, the high priest would enter into the holy of holies where he would be a type of mediator and make reconciliation for the sins of the people (Heb 9:7). But this reconciliation was not complete (Heb 9:9), because the blood of bulls and goats could not completely take away sin, thus there was a remembrance of sin every year (Heb 10:3-4).
Heb 9:11-15
“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 testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”
The reconciliation that Christ made for sin was not in need of repetition. Notice in verse 15 of Hebrews 9 that “by means of death, [Jesus offered His blood] for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament”. The complete reconciliation of sin for those living under the old testament did not happen until Jesus offered His sacrifice for their sins. Jesus’ blood shed on the cross was for everyone living both before and after His crucifixion.
The application of this for us living after the cross is mentioned by Paul in Rom 5:10, “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled , we shall be saved by his life.”
Paul also mentions the reconciliation of Jesus in other epistles: 2Co 5:18-21, “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”
Col 1:20-22, “And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight.”
4) “and to bring in everlasting righteousness,”
Everlasting means perpetual. The new covenant is a much better one than the old one and was “established upon better promises” (Heb 8:6). The old covenant could not provide perpetual righteousness, thus is had a fault (Heb 8:7) and was replaced by the new covenant. Jesus accomplished this through His death, burial and resurrection. The righteousness that Jesus ushered in through His sacrifice would never be in need of renewal. The righteousness under the Mosaic law was only a temporary measure set in place until such time that Jesus came in the flesh and through His sacrifice ushered in a righteousness that had no end, “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more” (Heb 8:12).
5) “and to seal up the vision and prophecy,”
The sealing of vision and prophecy has a dual meaning here. The Greek word for “seal” is OT:2856, “chatham”, pronounced (khaw-tham’). It carries the meaning of “to close up”. It is translated in the KJV as, “make an end”, “mark” and “stop”. This word is used in Isa 29:11 to illustrate the inability to read a book due to its being sealed, or closed up, “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed”.
The sealing up of the vision and prophecy is speaking first of the visions and prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. They would no longer be open and awaiting fulfillment. Secondly, it means to bring in the fullness of revelation and thus bring no more. So we know that during this period of time represented as seventy weeks, we can expect the OT prophecies concerning Christ to be fulfilled and the reception of the covenant in its entirety to be received. And we know from scripture that this has indeed happened. Scripture makes the internal self-affirmation that everything pertaining to life and godliness has been given (2Pe 1:3), that is was once for all time delivered (Jud 1:3), and that it is God breathed and throughly furnishes us unto all good works (2Ti 3:16-17).
Having received the will of God embodied in the new covenant in its entirety and recorded in the scriptures, there is therefore no reason for any further prophecy or vision and according to Daniel it was finished and sealed up during the period of time characterized as seventy weeks.
6) “and to anoint the most Holy.”
This is of course in reference to Jesus Christ. The word “Christ” (Christos) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah” (mashiach; compare in the New Testament, Joh 1:41; Joh 4:25, “Messiah”), which means “anointed”. Jesus Christ is recognized as the fulfiller of the Messianic hopes of the Old Testament and of the Jewish people. After the resurrection, Jesus Christ became the current title for Jesus among the saved.
The Hebrew word for “anoint”, OT:4886, “mashach” means to mark, smear or consecrate. It is and was a common word in both ancient and modern Hebrew. It is a verb in this form and the objects of this verb are usually people, sacrificial animals or objects of worship. In this case, it was referring to Jesus Christ, the Messiah, or the anointed one.
On the occasion when the chief priests in Jerusalem forbad the teaching of Jesus by his disciples following the healing of the man at the beautiful gate, the disciples assembled and prayed to God for strength and boldness, this was said during that prayer recorded in Act 4:27, “For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed…” When Peter was speaking to Cornelius at his conversion, Peter made this statement recorded in Act 10:38, “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him”. There can be no doubt that the anointing of the “most Holy” is indeed a Messianic prophecy of Jesus Christ.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Seventy weeks
These are “weeks” or more accurately, sevens of years; seventy weeks of seven years each. Within these “weeks” the national chastisement must be ended and the nation re- established in everlasting righteousness (Dan 9:24). The seventy weeks are divided into seven = 49 years; sixty-two = 434 years; one = 7 years (Dan 9:25-27). In the seven weeks = 49 years, Jerusalem was to be rebuilt in “troublous times.” This was fulfilled, as Ezra and Nehemiah record. Sixty-two weeks = 434 years, thereafter Messiah was to come (Dan 9:25). This was fulfilled in the birth and manifestation of Christ (Dan 9:26). Dan 9:26 is obviously an indeterminate period. The date of the crucifixion is not fixed. It is only said to be “after” the threescore and two weeks. It is the first event in Dan 9:26. The second event is the destruction of the city, fulfilled A.D. 70. Then, “unto the end,” a period not fixed, but which has already lasted nearly 2000 years. To Daniel was revealed only that wars and desolations should continue (cf. Mat 24:6-14.) The N.T. reveals, that which was hidden from the O.T. prophets; Mat 13:11-17; Eph 3:1-10 that during this period should be accomplished the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven Mat 13:1-50 and the out-calling of the Church; Mat 16:18; Rom 11:25. When the Church- age will end, and the seventieth week begin, is nowhere revealed. Its duration can be but seven years. To make it more violates the principle of interpretation already confirmed by fulfilment. Dan 9:27 deals with the last week. The “he” of Dan 9:27 is the “prince that shall come” of Dan 9:26, whose people (Rome) destroyed the temple, A.D. 70. He is the same with the “little horn” of chapter 7. He will covenant with the Jews to restore their temple sacrifices for one week (seven years), but in the middle of that time he will break the covenant and fulfil; Dan 12:11; 2Th 2:3; 2Th 2:4. Between the sixty-ninth week, after which Messiah was cut off, and the seventieth week, within which the “little horn” of Daniel 7. will run his awful course, intervenes this entire Church-age. Dan 9:27 deals with the last three and a half years of the seven, which are identical with the “great tribulation.” Mat 24:15-28 “time of trouble” Dan 12:1 hour of temptation” Rev 3:10. (see “Tribulation,”; Psa 2:5; Rev 7:14). (See Scofield “Psa 2:5”).
make reconciliation
There is no word in the O.T. properly rendered reconcile. In the A.V. the English word is found 1Sa 29:4; 2Ch 29:24; Lev 6:30; Lev 8:15; Lev 16:20; Eze 45:15; Eze 45:17; Eze 45:20; Dan 9:24 but always improperly; atonement is invariably the meaning. Reconciliation is a N.T. doctrine Rom 5:10 (See Scofield “Col 1:21”)
thy people Cf. Hos 1:9 The Jews, rejected, are “thy people,” i.e. Daniel’s, not Jehovah’s though yet to be restored.
reconciliation Heb. kaphar, atonement. See this verse note 1, and see note, Exo 29:33 (See Scofield “Exo 29:33”)
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Seventy weeks: That is, seventy weeks of years, or 490 years, which reckoned from the seventh year of Artaxerxes, coinciding with the 4,256th year of the Julian period, and in the month Nisan in which Ezra was commissioned to restore the Jewish state and polity (Ezr 7:9-26) will bring us to the month of Nisan of the 4,746th year of the same period, or ad 33, the very month and year in which our Lord suffered, and completed the work of our salvation. Lev 25:8, Num 14:34, Eze 4:6
finish: or, restrain, Mat 1:21, 1Jo 3:8
and to: Lam 4:22, Col 2:14, Heb 9:26, Heb 10:14
make an end of: or, seal up, Eze 28:12
to make: Lev 8:15, 2Ch 29:24, Isa 53:10, Rom 5:10, 2Co 5:18-20, Col 1:20, Heb 2:17
to bring: Isa 51:6, Isa 51:8, Isa 53:11, Isa 56:1, Jer 23:5, Jer 23:6, Rom 3:21, Rom 3:22, 1Co 1:30, 2Co 5:21, Phi 3:9, Heb 9:12-14, 2Pe 1:1, Rev 14:6
seal up: Mat 11:13, Luk 24:25-27, Luk 24:44, Luk 24:45, Joh 19:28-30
prophecy: Heb. prophet, Act 3:22
and to anoint: Psa 2:6, Psa 45:7, Isa 61:1, Luk 4:18-21, Joh 1:41, Joh 3:34, Heb 1:8, Heb 1:9, Heb 9:11
the most: Mar 1:24, Luk 1:35, Act 3:14, Heb 7:26, Rev 3:7
Reciprocal: Exo 12:41 – selfsame Exo 29:37 – and sanctify it Exo 32:7 – Go Lev 1:4 – atonement Lev 4:20 – an atonement Lev 14:7 – let Lev 16:17 – no man Lev 23:28 – General Num 29:11 – beside Neh 11:18 – the holy Job 14:5 – his days Psa 16:10 – thine Psa 72:3 – by righteousness Psa 103:17 – his righteousness Psa 111:3 – righteousness Psa 119:142 – an everlasting Isa 8:16 – seal Isa 9:6 – The Prince of Peace Isa 10:27 – because Isa 40:2 – warfare Isa 42:21 – well Isa 45:11 – Ask Isa 48:2 – they call Isa 53:5 – But he was Eze 35:5 – in the Eze 45:15 – to make Dan 9:22 – he informed Dan 10:2 – full weeks Mic 7:19 – cast Hab 2:3 – the vision Zec 3:9 – remove Zec 4:14 – These Zec 13:7 – smite Mat 2:1 – Herod Mat 11:3 – Art Mat 20:18 – and the Mat 20:28 – and to Mat 24:6 – but Mat 26:54 – General Mat 26:56 – that Mat 27:53 – holy Mar 9:12 – he must Mar 10:45 – and to Mar 14:21 – goeth Mar 14:49 – but Luk 1:70 – which Luk 2:11 – which Luk 2:26 – the Lord’s Luk 4:34 – the Holy One Luk 7:19 – Art Luk 12:56 – that Luk 19:44 – because Luk 22:22 – truly Luk 24:27 – and all Luk 24:47 – that Joh 1:24 – that Christ Joh 4:25 – Messias Joh 16:10 – righteousness Joh 19:30 – It is Act 2:23 – being Act 10:43 – him Act 13:32 – how Act 13:38 – that Act 26:6 – the promise Act 26:23 – Christ Rom 4:6 – imputeth Rom 4:25 – Who was Rom 5:19 – so by Rom 10:3 – God’s righteousness Rom 11:15 – the reconciling Rom 14:17 – but 1Co 15:3 – according Gal 3:13 – redeemed Gal 4:4 – the fulness Eph 1:7 – whom Eph 1:10 – in the Tit 1:3 – in Heb 5:9 – being Heb 9:14 – without 1Pe 1:11 – the sufferings 1Pe 1:12 – that not 1Pe 1:19 – with 1Jo 4:10 – and sent
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE MESSIAH CUT OFF
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 9:24
The leaders of the new school of criticism agree that this is a prophecy fulfilled only in Christ.
I. Let us look at this marvellous prophecy.The words are vague enough to be indefinite, and yet they are so marvellously definite too, that we can apply them only to that one deaththe only death in history which fulfils them. The cutting off of this Prince is the central point of the prophecy. Notice what this cutting off is to bring. 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. Is there any death in all history, but one, of which you can say all that? Try these words on Socrates, on Confucius, on Zoroaster. It is a difficult thing to fit the event to the prophecy, but the marvellous terms of this prophecy do it. Mark this, that there was not a single human being who could understand these words: not even Peter, James, and John could see how that death of their Master should bring in everlasting righteousness. We think that if they had not been slow of heart, these disciples might have understood it better. But at the critical moment they all forsook Him and fled, and on the day of His glorious resurrection they were saying, We trusted that it had been He Which should have redeemed Israel. Even the women, who were last at His cross and first at His sepulchre, were inspired by love rather than by faith. Did not the fact of their bringing spices for His embalming show that their faith in Him was gone? From their present point of view the prophecy was reversed. Sin had made an end of Him, transgression had finished Him. His crucifixion seemed the final triumph of iniquity. Does it relieve this gloom at all to speak of His perfect holiness and purity? Nay, rather, so much the blacker is the crime, so much the more hideous the triumph of iniquity. Anointing the Most Holy! The coronation of hellish hate and iniquity rather! No wonder that Unitarians make so little of the death of Christ on the Cross. They only see sin making an end of a good man, and what sort of gospel is that? But wait till the resurrection, and you see the seeming Victim become the Victor. The death on Calvary was not the endit was only the dark passage to light and life. From the darkness He issues forth in triumph, with the banner of salvation in His hand. We understand all the prophecy of the text nowall stands luminous in the light of the risen Sun of Righteousness. Reading the story of the Cross in this light it is no longer the darkest event in all the worlds history, but it fills us with the hope of the ultimate triumph of righteousness.
His loving voice comes to each of us, Thou canst love Me, Who hast died for thee.
II. It seemed that God had deserted the innocent Sufferer.In all our afflictions He was afflicted. That is true, but there is something more. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities. Jesus not only suffers with, but suffers for us. It meant that He finished our transgressions and made an end of our sins. But do you point me to the history of the world to-day, nineteen centuries since that crucifixion? Does that look like making an end of sin? Is this prophecy half fulfilled? In one sense it is; in another sense not quite yet; and in a third sense, scarcely at all.
(1) Jesus, Son of God, was also the Son of Man, the representative of humanity, and He bears the transgression of humanity, and dies the death of humanity. In His person, as our representative, He has made an end of sin. This is an important fulfilment of the prophecy, and we can point to the Lamb of God Who taketh away the sin of the world.
But it takes two to make a bargain! The representative must be accepted by humanity. His constituents, let us call them, as soon as they are united to Him by loyalty of heart, have their sins blotted out. There is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus. But there must be a bond between, so that His grace may flow into you. Your heart must be open to His, as His is all the time to you.
(2) Is there not still sin in us? Yes, the prophecy of making an end of sin is only in part fulfilled; but a time is coming, and for some of us coming soon, when we shall be entirely free. We are perfect in our purpose, though not in our life. All true Christians make an end of sin in purposethey are eager to have every sin destroyed. Though conscious of great weakness, yet the purpose is pure. If you are not willing to be made free from every sin, you are still in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity, and on the road to death. What a terrible thing to choose sin and let Him go! Rather let us welcome this great salvation to our hearts and lives.
(3) The final fulfilment will be in the time coming. The advance seems slow to the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, but this is Gods method. If we stagger not at the ons which elapsed before the evolution of things terrestrial, whystagger at the millions of years in the evolution of things spiritual? One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. But the day of the Lord will come. Then shall the great words of this prophecy be completely fulfilled.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Dan 9:24, This verse introduces the most important time prophecy in the Bible; important because it concerns the last act in God’s provision for the salvation of mankind. The reason the subject should be considered as an answer to Daniels prayer for his people, is the fact that it was to be accomplished through the instrumentality of those people and while their dispensation was still In force. The verse is a general statement that covers the entire period of the great transaction, after which the prophet sLarts with the details of the prophecy. Seventy weeks is figurative as to “weeks, and means 70 times 7 years. In other words, the period to be covered by the great prophecy will he 490 years. The grand purpose to be accomplished, and with which it will complete the fulfillment of the prophecy, will include the items referred to in general terms In this verse. Make an end of sins means to perform the final act of God for the salvation of mankind from their sins, Bring in everlasting righteousness refers to Ihe same fact that was predicted before Nebuchadnezzar about the kingdom that would stand forever (Dan 2:44). Sen? up the vision and prophecy means to ratify the prophecy about to be made through the prophet. Anoint the most Holy refers to the crowning of Jesus as “king of kings for the whole earth, both Jew and Gentile.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Dan 9:24. Seventy weeks, &c. Weeks not of days, but of years, or, seventy times seven years, that is, four hundred and ninety years, each day being accounted a year according to the prophetic way of reckoning, (see note on Dan 7:25,) a way often used in Scripture, especially in reckoning the years of jubilee, which correspond with these numbers in Daniel: see Lev 25:8. See also Gen 29:27, where, to fulfil her week, is explained by performing another seven years service for Rachel; and Num 14:34, where we read, that according to the number of the days which the spies employed in searching out the land of Canaan, even forty days, the Israelites were condemned to bear their iniquities, even forty years. Thus God says likewise to Ezekiel, cotemporary with Daniel, I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days three hundred and ninety days. I have appointed thee EACH DAY FOR A YEAR. Nor was this mode of expression in use only among the Jews; for Varro, speaking of himself, says, he was entered into the twelfth week of his age, at the close of which he would have been eighty-four years old. In these instances, the days evidently denote solar years, which were in use throughout the Jewish history; so that there is no probability that the angel should here intend any such singularity, as counting by lunar years. Are determined upon, or concerning, thy people Hebrew , are decided. The great event specified was not to be protracted beyond this period, fixed and determined in the counsels of God.
To finish the transgression The reader will observe, the expression is not, to finish transgressions, but , the transgression; a word which is derived from a theme which signifies, to revolt, to rebel, to be contumacious, to refuse subjection to rightful authority, or obedience to a law which we ought to observe. To finish such transgression, is expressed by a word () which denotes universality, to cancel, or annihilate. Dr. Apthorp, in his Discourses on Prophecy, vol. 1. p. 262, justly observes, that the diversity of expression respecting the several benefits here promised to the world by the Messiah, may be well supposed to intend so many distinct and determinate ideas. In a prophecy of such moment, says he, we cannot suppose a mere co-acervation of synonymous terms, but each word is emphatic, and proper to its subject. The appropriate sense of each may be investigated, from their use and significance in other passages of Holy Scripture. Accordingly, by the word transgression, he here understands mans first disobedience, with its direful effects, the depravation and mortality of human nature. And by finishing this transgression he understands, cancelling the primeval guilt of Adams apostacy, and reversing the sentence of mortality then passed on all the human race. In other words we may properly understand by the expression, the abolishing the guilt and fatal effects of that disobedience, in such a manner that no man shall perish eternally merely on account of the sin of our first parents, or the depravity entailed upon us thereby; to counteract the influence of which, sufficient grace is procured for us, and offered to us in the gospel of Christ. Concerning this first benefit of our redemption, the apostle treats explicitly Rom 5:12-21, a passage which the reader is particularly requested carefully to consider, as containing a full justification of the exposition here given of the first clause of this verse; mans first disobedience, termed by the apostle the one offence, and the offence of one, being represented by him as introducing death into the world, and all our misery; and the obedience, or righteousness of one, and the free gift, procured for all mankind, and actually conferred on all penitent believers, as the one meritorious cause and source of our salvation. No words can express, or thought conceive, the greatness of this redemption. Imagination faints under the idea of a Divine Benefactor effacing sin, annihilating death, and restoring eternal life.
And to make an end of sins As, in the appropriate sense of the words, the transgression denotes one original act of apostacy and rebellion against a positive command of God; sins, in the plural, emphatically express all the vices [offences] against conscience, all the crimes against civil society, and all sins against God, which have ever reigned among men. The redemption by Christ hath abolished all the fatal effects of moral evil, with respect to such as believe and obey the gospel; not only cancelling their actual guilt by a gracious remission, but even renewing their fallen nature, stamping them with the divine image, and thus both entitling them to, and preparing them for, the immortality lost by the fall.
And to make reconciliation for iniquity In these words is expressed the manner in which our redemption from death and sin hath been effected. The word , rendered reconciliation here, is the etymon of our English word, to cover. Its primary meaning is, to hide, or conceal, the surface of any substance, by inducing another substance over it. Thus the ark is commanded to be pitched, or covered, within and without, to secure it from the waters of the deluge. Sin, when grievous, and ripe for punishment, is said to be before God, or in his sight: a propitiation is the covering of sin, [procuring] Gods hiding his face from our sins, and blotting out our iniquities: see Rom 3:23; Rom 3:25. The word redemption implies a price paid for those who are set at liberty: the price is the blood of Christ; that blood a sacrifice; and the sacrifice an expiation for sinners, that is, for all mankind. This is the first and leading notion of the divine expedient for saving sinners, the sacrifice and blood of Christ. The second principal idea under which this redemption is represented, is that of substitution, and satisfaction, by anothers suffering for our guilt; and in this way of stating the doctrine, still the principal and leading idea is that of a sacrifice, and the blood of a victim; namely, Christs dying for the ungodly: see Rom 5:6-9. Inasmuch as Christ, by dying in our stead, hath prevented either the extinction or [eternal] misery of a whole species, and hath obtained for us a positive happiness, greater than we lost in Adam; every considerate man must think it fit, that to effect such a redemption, some great expedient should be proposed by God himself, to vindicate his wisdom and moral government, in suffering so much vice and confusion to end so happily. Add to this, that so congenial to the most generous sentiments of the human mind is the idea of one devoting himself for another, for many, and for all, that all antiquity abounds with such examples and opinions. Not that the Scripture doctrine of Christs satisfaction, in itself so luminous, needs any support from foreign testimony; but it is certain that a general consent, founded in nature, or divine institution, or both, hath led men to seek expiation of conscious guilt, in the way of voluntary substitution, and vicarious devotement. The chief reason of that prejudice, which is by some entertained against a doctrine so essential to peace of conscience, is founded on inattention to ancient religious customs. By the sacrifice of Christ, victims and sacrifices are abolished; but all the ancient religions abounded with them to a degree which we should think astonishing, and scarcely credible. Oceans of blood flowed round their altars; and the Levitical rites were instituted on purpose to adumbrate Christs expiation, and to introduce all that admirable spirituality and [pious] devotion, which is now the distinguishing excellence of Christianity. Dr. Apthorp.
To bring in everlasting righteousness The three former particulars already considered import the removing the greatest evils; this, and the two following, imply the conferring of the greatest benefits, and all by Jesus Christ. This clause, says Dr. Apthorp, may admit of two interpretations, which both concur in Christ, and are consistent with each other: our justification by faith in him, and our subsequent study [practice] of personal virtue. The first is a gratuitous act of Christ; the second is characteristic of his true disciples. In the former sense, Jeremiah styles him by his divine title, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. And in both senses Christ Jesus is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption. To speak a little more distinctly: to bring in everlasting righteousness, according to the gospel, evidently includes three things: 1st, To bring in Christs righteousness, or his obedience unto death, as the ground of our justification and title to eternal life, he being the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 2d, To bring holiness, the divine nature, or the Spirit of God, with his various graces, into our souls, making us conformable to his image, as our meetness for that future felicity. And, 3d, For our direction in the way that leads to it; to lay before us, for our observation, a complete rule of life and manners. Of this last particular, which Dr. Apthorp includes in the everlasting righteousness here spoken of, as being immutable in its obligations, and eternal in its sanctions, he speaks as follows: When we consider the Christian morality in its ground of obligation, [namely, the will of God,] its principle of charity, and in its detail of special duties, we are struck with admiration at the simplicity and perfection of a rule of life, which, without any artificial system, extended the Jewish law, and combined all the excellences of Gentile philosophy; the elevation of Plato, without his mysticism; the reasonableness of Aristotle, without his contracted selfishness, and worldly views; tempering the rigour of Zeno with the moderation of Epicurus; while, by the greatness of its end, it reforms, refines, and elevates human nature from sense to spirit, from earth to heaven.
And seal up the vision and prophecy Hebrew, , to seal vision and prophet; prophet being put for prophecy. The words are a Hebraism, and when expressed in modern language signify, 1st, The accomplishing, and thereby confirming, all the ancient predictions relating to the most holy person here intended. God had spoken of the Messiah, by the mouths of his holy prophets, from the foundation of the world; had foretold his coming, pointed out the place of his birth, and specified the extraordinary circumstances of it; described the manner of his life, the nature of his doctrine, and the variety and splendour of his miracles, with the treatment he should receive from his countrymen; had foretold repeatedly, and set forth at large, his humiliation, sufferings, and death, his resurrection, ascension, and the glory that should follow. Now by making the events exactly to answer the predictions, he confirmed them, as the setting of a seal to any writing confirms its authenticity. 2d, To seat implies, to finish, conclude, and put an end to any thing. Thus also were the vision and prophecy sealed among the Jews. They were shut up and finished. The privilege and use of them were no longer to be continued in their church. And this also happened accordingly; for, by their own confession, from that day to this they have not enjoyed either vision or prophet. But, 3d, To seal, is to consummate and perfect; and to seal the vision and prophecy here, may include the adding the New Testament revelations and predictions to those of the Old, and thereby supplying what was wanting to perfect the book of God, and render it a complete system of divine revelation. It is only necessary to add, 4th, That as things are frequently sealed in order to their security, the preservation of the divine records and oracles included in both Testaments may be also here intended by the expression.
And to anoint the Most Holy Hebrew, , literally, the holy of holiest an expression often used of holy places, or things, especially of the most holy place of the Jewish tabernacle and temple. It is here very properly applied to the Messiah, whose sacred body was the temple of the Deity; agreeable to his own declaration, Destroy this temple, pointing to himself by some expressive action, and in three days I will raise it up; and who was greater than the temple. Now this most holy person, in whom dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and who, even as man, had the Holy Spirit without measure, was by that divine unction (which is here principally intended) at once designated and qualified for the sundry offices he was to sustain, especially the prophetic, sacerdotal, and kingly offices, for the various characters he was to bear, and the work he was to do on earth, and is now doing in heaven, and hence is properly termed the Messiah, or the Anointed One. To this may be added, that, as the Jewish temple was evidently a type of the church of God, especially the Christian Church, termed in the Psalms and Prophets the city of God, and the holy place of the tabernacle of the Most High; by anointing the holy of holies here, may be also intended the effusion of the Holy Spirit, in his rich variety of gifts and graces, upon the Christian Church, foretold in innumerable passages of the Prophets, and eminently fulfilled, as the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles contained in the New Testament, and the writings of the ancient fathers abundantly prove.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
9:24 Seventy {p} weeks are determined upon {q} thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the {r} 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.
(p) He alludes to Jeremiah’s prophecy, who prophesied that their captivity would be seventy years: but now God’s mercy would exceed his judgment seven times as much, which would be 490 years, even until the coming of Christ, and so then it would continue forever.
(q) Meaning Daniel’s nation, over whom he was careful.
(r) To show mercy and to put sin out of remembrance.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
5. The revelation of Israel’s future in 70 sevens 9:24-27
"In the concluding four verses of Daniel 9, one of the most important prophecies of the Old Testament is contained. The prophecy as a whole is presented in Dan 9:24. The first sixty-nine sevens is described in Dan 9:25. The events between the sixty-ninth seventh and the seventieth seventh are detailed in Dan 9:26. The final period of the seventieth seventh is described in Dan 9:27." [Note: Walvoord, Daniel . . ., p. 216.]
Renald Showers demonstrated that these verses imply a pretribulation Rapture of the church. [Note: Renald E. Showers, Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church, pp. 230-44. See also Alva J. McClain, Daniel’s Prophecies of the Seventy Weeks, pp. 53-55.]
"Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks (Dan 9:24-27) provides the chronological frame for Messianic prediction from Daniel to the establishment of the kingdom on earth and also a key to its interpretation." [Note: The New Scofield . . ., p. 913.]
"Probably no single prophetic utterance is more crucial in the fields of Biblical Interpretation, Apologetics, and Eschatology." [Note: McClain, p. 9.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The Hebrew word translated "weeks" (shabu’im) literally means "sevens." It can refer to seven days (Gen 29:27-28) or seven years (Lev 25:3-5). The Jews observed a seven-year celebration (the sabbatical year), as well as a seven-day celebration (the Sabbath). Most scholars believe that this word here represents seven years. Daniel had been thinking of God’s program for Israel in terms of years. He had read Jeremiah’s prophecy that the exile would last 70 years (Dan 9:1-2). It would have been normal then for him to interpret these sevens as years. [Note: For defense of this view based on additional internal evidence in the Book of Daniel, see Otto Zöckler, "The Book of the Prophet Daniel," in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 7:2:194. See also Pentecost, "Daniel," p. 1361; and The New Scofield . . ., p. 913.] Furthermore, the fulfillment of the first sixty-nine years shows that these sevens are years. In addition, the last half of the seventieth seven is described elsewhere as consisting of three and one-half years, or 42 months, or 1260 days. [Note: For an example of how interpreting the numbers in this passage as both symbolic and literal leads to confusion, see Waltke, An Old . . ., pp. 549-50.]
Seventy seven-year periods totals 490 years. As Jerusalem was suffering under the hand of Gentiles for 70 years (Dan 9:2), so the Jews and Jerusalem would suffer under the hand of Gentiles for 490 years. "Your people" and "your holy city" are obvious references to the Jews and Jerusalem (cf. Dan 9:7; Dan 9:11; Dan 9:20). They do not refer to the church, which is a distinct entity from Israel (cf. 1Co 10:32). However, as the following verses clarify, these will not be uninterrupted years. Similarly, Israel’s rule by Davidic monarchs has suffered interruption: the last king being Zedekiah-and the next, Messiah.
God had decreed these years. He had ordained them, and they were as certain to come as anything else that God had foreordained. This verse states that the purpose for God decreeing this period is six-fold. First, it will end rebellion against Him. Second, it will end human failure to obey God. Third, it will provide time for atonement that will cover human wickedness. Fourth, it will inaugurate a new society in which righteousness prevails. Fifth, it will bring in the fulfillment of the vision that God has for the earth. Sixth, it will result in the anointing of the most holy, probably a reference to a new and more glorious temple.
God has already achieved some of these goals: specifically the third one, and to some extent the first two. However, other goals have not yet seen fulfillment. Therefore it is reasonable to look for a future fulfillment from our perspective in history. [Note: Cf. Barker, pp. 143-46.]
"By the time these 490 years run their course, God will have completed six things for Israel. The first three have to do with sin, and the second three with the kingdom. The basis for the first three was provided in the work of Christ on the cross, but all six will be realized by Israel at the Second Advent of Christ." [Note: Pentecost, "Daniel," p. 1361.]
Young believed Christ completed all six things for the church at His first coming. [Note: Young, p. 201.]
"This prophecy, it must be noted, concerns three deliverances. Daniel was greatly burdened about an early deliverance of the Jews from Babylon to return to Jerusalem. God was also interested in their deliverance from bondage to sin (at Christ’s first advent) and in the final deliverance of the Jews from oppression (at Christ’s second coming) . . ." [Note: Campbell, p. 108. See also Wood, A Commentary . . ., p. 244.]
"This vs. is a Divine revelation of the fact that a definite period of time has been decreed for the accomplishment of all that which is necessary for the true restoration of God’s people from bondage." [Note: Young, p. 195.]