Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 9:26
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
26. And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and shall have no ] The ‘anointed one’ cannot be the same as the ‘anointed one’ of Dan 9:25; for he lives 62 ‘weeks’ (i.e. 434 years) after him. The language is intentionally allusive and ambiguous. The term ‘anointed’ (see on Dan 9:25) is used sometimes of the high-priest; and the reference, it seems, is here to Onias III. Onias III. was high-priest till b.c. 175, when he was superseded by his brother Jason, who by the offer of 440 talents of silver purchased the office from Antiochus for himself ( 2Ma 4:7-9 ). Jason held office for three years, at the end of which time a certain Menelaus, whom he had employed as his agent to carry the 440 talents to the king, took advantage of the occasion to secure the high-priesthood for himself by offering Antiochus 300 talents more. The money promised by Menelaus not being paid, he was summoned before the king. When he arrived he found Antiochus absent in Cilicia and a courtier named Andronicus representing him at Antioch. Menelaus, anxious to secure Andronicus’s favour, presented him with some golden vessels which he had stolen from the Temple. Onias, who was in the neighbourhood, hearing of what he had done, rebuked him sharply for his sacrilege; and Menelaus, resenting the rebuke, prevailed upon Andronicus to assassinate Onias. Antiochus, upon his return home, was vexed with what had occurred, and (according to 2 Macc.) had Andronicus put to death at the very spot at which he had murdered Onias ( 2Ma 4:7-9 ; 2Ma 4:23-38 ). The assassination of one who was the lawful high-priest was an occurrence which might well be singled out for mention in the prophecy; and how the godly character of Onias, and his unjust end, impressed the Jews, appears from what is said of him in 2Ma 3:1-2; 2Ma 4:2; 2Ma 4:35-37 ; 2Ma 15:12 [339] . On the chronological difficulty involved in the verse, see below, p. 146 f.
[339] This account of the end of Onias III. is accepted generally by historians (e.g. Ewald, v. 295; Schrer 2 , i. 152; Grtz ii. 2, 303): but 2 Macc. (which alone records it) is known to contain much that is not historical; and Josephus not only does not mention the assassination of Onias, but, while he sometimes ( Ant. xii. ix. 7, xiii. iii. 1 3, xx. x.) speaks of Onias’ son as fleeing to Egypt, and founding there the temple at Leontopolis, elsewhere ( B. J. i. i. 1, vii. x. 2 3) says that Onias himself, after Antiochus attack upon Jerusalem in 170 (Introduction, p. xliii.), fled to Egypt, and founded the temple at Leontopolis (cf. Bthgen, ZATW., 1886, pp. 278 282). On, these and some other grounds, Wellhausen ( Gtt. Gel. Anz. 1895, pp. 950 6; Isr. u. Jd. Gesch. 3 , 1897, pp. 244 7), partly following Willrich ( Juden u. Griechen vorder Makkab. Erhebung, 1895, pp. 77 90), regards the account of Onias’ murder in 2 Macc. as apocryphal: see, however, on the other side, Bchler, Die Tobiaden u. die Oniaden (1899), pp. 106 124, 240 f., 275 f., 353 6, whose conclusion on this subject has the weighty support of the historian Niese, Kritik der beiden Makkaberbcher (1900), p. 96 f. If Wellhausen’s view is correct, the reference in this verse of Dan. will be to the cessation of the legitimate high-priesthood, when Jason was superseded by the Benjaminite ( 2Ma 4:23 ; cf. 2Ma 3:4; Bchler, p. 14) Menelaus.
and shall have no.] The clause is difficult; though the same text ( ) was perhaps already read (but rendered incorrectly) by the LXX. ( ), and is distinctly implied by Aq., Symm., and the Pesh. The rendering ‘and shall have nothing ’ may be defended by Exo 22:3 [Hebrews 2 ], though, it is true, the ‘thing’ lacking is there more easily supplied from the context than is the case here; but the sense obtained is not very satisfactory, and the sentence (in the Heb.) reads also incompletely; we should have expected, ‘and shall have no [helper].’ as Grtz would actually read, comparing Dan 11:45, or ‘[successor],’ or ‘[seed],’ or something of the kind. Still, if the text be sound, this, it seems, must be the meaning: the ‘anointed one,’ when he is ‘cut off,’ will have nought, i.e. he will be left with nothing, no name, no house, no legitimate successor. (LXX. and be no more, would be the correct rendering of ; but this reading is suspiciously easy.) The rendering of A.V., ‘but not for himself,’ is an impossible one: is not a synonym of , but always includes the substantive verb, ‘there is not,’ ‘was not,’ ‘shall not be’ (the tense being supplied according to the context).
the people of a prince that shall come ] viz. against the land, the verb being used in the same hostile sense which it has in Dan 1:1, Dan 11:13; Dan 11:16; Dan 11:21; Dan 11:40-41. The allusion is to the soldiery of Antiochus Epiphanes, who set Jerusalem on fire, and pulled down many of the houses and fortifications, so that the inhabitants took flight, and the city could be described as being ‘without inhabitant, like a wilderness’ ( 1Ma 1:31-32 ; 1Ma 1:38 ; 1Ma 3:45 ) ‘people’ being used as in 2Sa 10:13, Eze 30:11, &c., of a body of troops. On the treatment which the Temple received at the same time, see above on Dan 8:11.
but his end (shall be) with a flood ] he will be swept away in the flood of a Divine judgement. The word (cf. Dan 11:22) may be suggested by Nah 1:8; cf. the cognate verb (also of an overwhelming Divine judgement) in Isa 10:22 (‘ overflowing with righteousness,’ i.e. judicial righteousness, judgement), Isa 28:2; Isa 28:15; Isa 28:17-18, Isa 30:28.
and until the end (shall be) war, (even) that which is determined of desolations ] until the end (i.e. until the close of the seventieth week, the period pictured by the writer (see on Dan 8:17) as the ‘end’ of the present dispensation), the war waged by Antiochus against the saints (Dan 7:21) will continue, together with the accompanying ‘desolations,’ determined upon in the Divine counsels. The word rendered ‘that which is determined,’ which recurs in Dan 9:27, and Dan 11:36, is a rare one; and is manifestly a reminiscence of Isa 10:23; Isa 28:22. For ‘desolations,’ comp. 1Ma 1:39 ; 1Ma 3:45 ; 1Ma 4:38 (quoted in the notes on Dan 8:11).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
26, 27. The 70th week (b.c. 171 to 164).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And after threescore and two weeks – After the completion of the last period of four hundred and thirty-four years. The angel had shown in the previous verse what would be the characteristic of the first period of seven weeks – that during that time the wall and the street would be built in circumstances of general distress and anxiety, and he now proceeds to state what would occur in relation to the remaining sixty-two weeks. The particular thing which would characterize that period would be, that the Messiah would be cut off, and that the series of events would commence which would terminate in the destruction of the city and the temple. He does not say that this would be immediately on the termination of the sixty-two weeks, but he says that it would be after ‘acharey – subsequent to the close of that period. The word does not mean necessarily immediately, but it denotes what is to succeed – to follow – and would be well expressed by the word afterward: Gen 15:14; Gen 23:19; Gen 25:26, et al. See Gesenius, Lexicon The natural meaning here would be, that this would be the next event in the order of events to be reckoned; it would be that on which the prophetic eye would rest subsequent to the close of the period of sixty-two weeks. There are two circumstances in the prophecy itself which go to show that it is not meant that this would immediately follow:
(a) One is, that in the previous verse it is said that the sixty-two weeks would extend unto the Messiah; that is, either to his birth or to his manifestation as such; and it is not implied anywhere that he would be cut off at once on his appearing, nor is such a supposition reasonable, or one that would have been embraced by an ancient student of the prophecies;
(b) the other is, that, in the subsequent verse, it is expressly said that what he would accomplish in causing the oblation to cease would occur in the midst of the week; that is, of the remaining one week that would complete the seventy. This could not occur if he were to be cut off immediately at the close of the sixty-two weeks.
The careful student of this prophecy, therefore, would anticipate that the Messiah would appear at the close of the sixty-two weeks, and that he would continue during a part, at least, of the remaining one week before he would be cut off. This point could have been clearly made out from the prophecy before the Messiah came.
Shall Messiah – Notes, Dan 9:25.
Be cut off – The word used here ( karath) means, properly, to cut, to cut off, as a part of a garment, 1Sa 24:5 (6), 11 (12); a branch of a tree, Num 13:23; the prepuce, Exo 4:25; the head, 1Sa 17:51; 1Sa 5:4; to cut down trees, Deu 19:5; Isa 14:8; Isa 44:14; Jer 10:3; Jer 22:7. Then it means to cut off persons, to destroy, Deu 20:20; Jer 11:19; Gen 9:11; Psa 37:9; Pro 2:22; Pro 10:31, et al. scepe. The phrase, that soul shall be cut off from his people, from the midst of the people, from Israel, from the congregation, etc., occurs frequently in the Scriptures (compare Gen 17:14; Lev 7:20-21; Num 15:30; Num 19:13, Num 19:20; Exo 12:19, et al.), and denotes the punishment of death in general, without defining the manner. It is never the punishment of exile. – Gesenius, Lexicon The proper notion or meaning here is, undoubtedly, that of being cut off by death, and would suggest the idea of a violent death, or a death by the agency of others.
It would apply to one who was assassinated, or murdered by a mob, or who was appointed to death by a judicial decree; or it might be applied to one who was cut down in battle, or by the pestilence, or by lightning, or by shipwreck, but it would not naturally or properly be applied to one who had lived out his days, and died a peaceful death. We always now connect with the word the idea of some unusual interposition, as when we speak of one who is cut down in middle life. The ancient translators understood it of a violent death. So the Latin Vulgate, occidetur Christus; Syriac, the Messiah shall be slain, or put to death. It need not be here said that this phrase would find a complete fulfillment in the manner in which the Lord Jesus was put to death, nor that this is the very language in which it is proper now to describe the manner in which he was removed. He was cut off by violence; by a judicial decree: by a mob; in the midst of his way, etc. If it should be admitted that the angel meant to describe the manner of his death, he could not have found a single word that would have better expressed it.
But not for himself – Margin, and shall have nothing. This phrase has given rise to not a little discussion, and not a little diversity of opinion. The Latin Vulgate is, et non erit ejus populus, qui eum negaturus est – and they shall not be his people who shall deny him. Theodotion (in the Septuagint), kai krima ouk estin en auto – and there is no crime in him. Syriac, And it is not with him. The Hebrew is ve‘eyn lo – and the interpretation turns on the meaning of the word ‘eyn. Hengstenberg maintains that it is never used in the sense of lo’ (not), but that it always conveys the idea of nothing, or non-existence, and that the meaning here is, that, then, there was nothing to him; that is, that he ceased to have authority and power, as in the cutting off of a prince or ruler whose power comes to an end.
Accordingly he renders it, and is not to him; that is, his dominion, authority, or power over the covenant people as an anointed prince, would cease when he was cut off, and another one would come and desolate the sanctuary, and take possession. Bertholdt renders it, Ohne Nachfolger von den Seinigen zu haben – without any successors of his own – meaning that his family, or that the dynasty would be cut off, or would end with him. He maintains that the whole phrase denotes a sudden and an unexpected death, and that it here means that he would have no successor of his own family. He applies it to Alexander the Great. Lengerke renders it, Und nicht ist vorhanden, der ihm, angehoret – and explains the whole to mean, The anointed one (as the lawful king) shall be cut off, but it shall not then be one who belongs to his family (to wit, upon the throne), but a Prince shall come to whom the crown did not belong, to whom the name anointed could not properly belong.
Maurer explains it, There shall be to him no successor or lawful heir. Prof. Stuart renders it, One shall be cut off, and there shall be none for it (the people). C. B. Michaelis, and not to be will be his lot. Jacch. and Hitzig, and no one remained to him. Rosch, and no one was present for him. Our translation – but not for himself – was undoubtedly adopted from the common view of the atonement – that the Messiah did not die for himself, but that his life was given as a ransom for others. There can be no doubt of that fact to those who hold the common doctrine of the atonement, and yet it maybe doubted whether the translators did not undesignedly allow their views of the atonement to shape the interpretation of this passage, and whether it can be fairly made out from the Hebrew. The ordinary meaning of the Hebrew word ‘eyn is, undoubtedly, nothing, emptiness – in the sense of there being nothing (see Gesenius, Lexicon); and, thus applied, the sense here would be, that after he was cut off, or in consequence of his being cut off, what he before possessed would cease, or there would be nothing to him; that is, either his life would cease, or his dominion would cease, or he would be cut off as the Prince – the Messiah. This interpretation appears to be confirmed by what is immediately said, that another would come and would destroy the city and the sanctuary, or that the possession would pass into his bands.
It seems probable to me that this is the fair interpretation. The Messiah would come as a Prince. It might be expected that he would come to rule – to set up a kingdom. But he would be suddenly cut off by a violent death. The anticipated dominion over the people as a prince would not be set up. It would not pertain to him. Thus suddenly cut off, the expectations of such a rule would be disappointed and blasted. He would in fact set up no such dominion as might naturally be expected of an anointed prince; he would have no successor; the dynasty would not remain in his hands or his family, and soon the people of a foreign prince would come and would sweep all away. This interpretation does not suppose that the real object of his coming would be thwarted, or that he would not set up a kingdom in accordance with the prediction properly explained, but that such a kingdom as would be expected by the people would not be set up.
He would be cut off soon after he came, and the anticipated dominion would not pertain to him, or there would be nothing of it found in him, and soon after a foreign prince would come and destroy the city and the sanctuary. This interpretation, indeed, will take this passage away as a proof-text of the doctrine of the atonement, or as affirming the design of the death of the Messiah, but it furnishes a meaning as much in accordance with the general strain of the prophecy, and with the facts in the work of the Messiah. For it was a natural expectation that when he came he would set up a kingdom – a temporal reign – and this expectation was extensively cherished among the people. He was, however, soon cut off, and all such hopes at once perished in the minds of his true followers (compare Luk 24:21), and in the minds of the multitudes who, though not his true followers, began to inquire whether he might not be the predicted Messiah – the Prince to sit on the throne of David. But of such an anticipated dominion or rule, there was nothing to him.
All these expectations were blighted by his sudden death, and soon, instead of his delivering the nation from bondage and setting up a visible kingdom, a foreign prince would come with his forces and would sweep away everything. Whether this would be the interpretation affixed to these words before the advent of the Messiah cannot now be determined. We have few remains of the methods in which the Hebrews interpreted the ancient prophecies, and we may readily suppose that they would not be disposed to embrace an exposition which would show them that the reign of the Messiah, as they anticipated it, would not occur, but that almost as soon as he appeared, he would be put to death, and the dominion pass away, and the nation be subjected to the ravages of a foreign power. And the people of the prince that shall come. Margin, And they (the Jews) shall be no more his people; or, the Princes (Messiahs) future people. This seems to be rather an explanation of the meaning, than a translation of the Hebrew. The literal rendering would be, and the city, and the sanctuary, the people of a prince that comes, shall lay waste. On the general supposition that this whole passage refers to the Messiah and his time, the language used here is not difficult of interpretation, and denotes with undoubted accuracy the events that soon followed the cutting off of the Messiah. The word people ( am) is a word that may well be applied to subjects or armies – such a people as an invading prince or warrior would lead with him for purposes of conquest. It denotes properly
(a) a people, or tribe, or race in general; and then
(b) the people as opposed to kings, princes, rulers (compare laos, the people as opposed to chiefs in Homer, Iliad ii. 365, xiii. 108, xxiv. 28): and then as soldiers, Jdg 5:2. Hence, it may be applied, as it would be understood to be here, to the soldiers of the prince that should come.
Of the prince that shall come – The word prince here ( nagyd) is the same which occurs in Dan 9:25, Messiah the prince. It is clear, however, that another prince is meant here, for
(a) it is just said that that prince – the Messiah – would be cut off, and this clearly refers to one that was to follow;
(b) the phrase that is to come ( habba’) would also imply this.
It would naturally suggest the idea that he would come from abroad, or that he would be a foreign prince – for he would come for the purposes of destruction. No one can fail to see the applicability of this to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman power, after the Lord Jesus was put to death. If that was the design of the prophecy, or if it be admitted that the prophecy contemplated that, the language could not have been better chosen, or the prediction more exact. No one can reasonably doubt that, if the ancient Hebrews had understood the former part of the prophecy, as meaning that the true Messiah would be put to death soon after his appearing, they could not fail to anticipate that a foreign prince would soon come and lay waste their city and sanctuary.
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary – The holy place – the temple. This is the termination of the prophecy. It begins with the command to rebuild and restore the city, and ends with its destruction. The time is not fixed, nor is there in the prophecy any direct intimation when it would occur, unless it be found in the general declaration in Dan 9:24, that seventy weeks were determined upon the people and the city. The whole scope of the prophecy, however, would lead to the supposition that this was soon to occur after the Messiah should be cut off. The series of events under the Romans which led to the destruction of the city and temple, in fact, began very soon after the death of the Lord Jesus, and ceased only when the temple was wholly demolished, and the city was rased to its foundations.
And the end thereof – Hebrew, its end, or his end – qtso. It is not certain as to what the word it ( o) here refers. It may be either the end of the city, or of the prince, or of the prophecy, so far as the grammatical construction is concerned. As the principal and immediate subject of the prophecy, however, is the city, it is more natural to refer it to that. Hengstenberg renders it, it will end, supposing, with Vitringa, that it refers to the subject of the discourse: the thing – the whole affair – all that is here predicted in this series of events – will end with a flood. This accords well with the whole design of the prophecy.
With a flood – basheteph. That is, it shall be like an overflowing flood. The word used here means a gushing, outpouring, as of rain, Job 38:25; of a torrent, Pro 27:4; an overflowing, inundation, flood, Psa 32:6; Nah 1:8. Hence, it would appropriately denote the ravages of an army, sweeping everything away. It would be like a sudden inundation, carrying everything before it. No one can doubt that this language is applicable in every respect to the desolations brought upon Jerusalem by the Roman armies.
And unto the end of the war desolations are determined – Margin, it shall be cut off by desolations. Hengstenberg renders this, and unto the end is war, a decree of ruins. So Lengerke – and his aufs Ende Krieg und Beschluss der Wusten. Bertholdt renders it, and the great desolations shall continue unto the end of the war. The Latin Vulgate renders it, et post finem belli statuta desolatio – and after the end of the war desolation is determined. Prof. Stuart translates it, and unto the end shall be war, a decreed measure of desolations. The literal meaning of the passage is, and unto the end of the war desolations are decreed, or determined. The word rendered determined ( charats) means, properly, to cut, cut in, engrave; then to decide, to determine, to decree, to pass sentence. See the notes at Dan 9:24. Here the meaning naturally is, that such desolations were settled or determined as by a decree or purpose. There was something which made them certain; that is, it was a part of the great plan here referred to in the vision of the seventy weeks, that there should be such desolations extending through the war. The things which would, therefore, be anticipated from this passage would be,
(a) that there would be war. This is implied also in the assurance that the people of a foreign prince would come and take the city.
(b) That this war would be of a desolating character, or that it would in a remarkable manner extend and spread ruin over the land. All wars are thus characterized; but it would seem that this would do it in a remarkable manner.
(c) That these desolations would extend through the war, or to its close. There would be no intermission; no cessation. It is hardly necessary to say that this was, in fact, precisely the character of the war which the Romans waged with the Jews after the death of the Saviour, and which ended in the destruction of the city and temple; the overthrow of the whole Hebrew polity; and the removal of great numbers of the people to a distant and perpetual captivity. No war, perhaps, has been in its progress more marked by desolation; in none has the purpose of destruction been more perseveringly manifested to its very close. The language here, indeed, might apply to many wars – in a certain sense to all wars; to none, however, would it be more appropriate than to the wars of the Romans with the Jews.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Dan 9:26
Shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself.
Cut off, but not for Himself
The Messiah here mentioned is the great and only God, who, in reference to His office as the anointed Saviour, was called Messiah, and also Christ. He is said to be cut off, but not for Himself. His being cut off denotes His being made a sacrifice. His being cut off, but not for Himself, implies His being made a sacrifice for us–that is, as our substitute. In no other way can justice be appeased; in noother way can sins be forgiven. The expression implies that He died as a sacrifice for the general good, and as a vicarious sacrifice. Christ died to make an atonement for our sins; and without that atonement we could never have been saved. (W. Durham.)
For the Sake of Others
On the side of some mighty tower you may see often a fragile rod. The rod saves the tower. It directs the vague, all-destroying electric flame of which the stormy air is full harmlessly into the earth. Such a lightning-rod is every righteous man to the city or class in which he lives. His one desire is to win some wondrous good for his fellow-men. That is what Christ did for all the world, and we are true Christians in as far as we are consciously trying to do for others the work of Christ. We cannot at the best do much we have only one life, one second that is in Gods eternity to do it in, but that becomes majestic when it is regarded as part of one mighty whole. (Dean Farrar.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 26. And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary] By the “prince” Titus, the son of Vespasian, is plainly intended; and “the people of that prince” are no other than the Romans, who, according to the prophecy, destroyed the sanctuary, hakkodesh, the holy place or temple, and, as a flood, swept away all, till the total destruction of that obstinate people finished the war.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
After the threescore and two weeks. i.e. after the seven before, and after the sixty-two that followed them, which all make up sixty-nine, referring the angels seventy weeks, which is nothing though no week more be described, because it makes up the number a round number, after the Jewish manner of calculation, and there might be some fragments in the particular reckoning to make up the sum, or it might be finished in the seventieth week, and that was enough to call it seventy weeks, Dan 9:24.
Shall Messiah be cut off; which word signifies cutting off, or cutting down, as a tree, Isa 44:14; Jer 10:3. Secondly, it is used for cutting off by capital punishment, Exo 12:15; 30:33,38; whether this be by the signal hand of God, or by the magistrate, for some heinous offence, Lev 18:29; 20:17; Psa 37:34. This foreshows that the death of Christ should be as of a condemned malefactor sentenced to death, and that justly. So did the Jews, Christs executioners, proclaim that he died for blasphemy, and that he was a devilish impostor, &c. Yea, God himself charged sin upon him and the curse, Isa 53:4; 2Co 5:21; Gal 3:13.
But not for himself; wl Nyaw which being abrupt, is variously rendered and read; some referring it to Christ, and some to the people: and others to both, and all with very probable conjectures, Psa 22:6,7; Isa 53:3; i.e. not to him: There was none to succour him; or that they would none of him for their Messiah; they set him at nought, and would not have him live, and therefore he would not own them for his people, but cast them off, for thus dying is expressed in short, not to be. Thus Enoch, Gen 5:24, Joseph, Gen 42:36, and Rachels children, Jer 31:15; Mat 2:17,18. But our English translation seems to hit the truest sense, i.e. not
for himself. He was innocent and guiltless, he died for others, not for himself, but for our sakes and for our salvation.
The people of the prince that shall come; the Romans under the conduct of Titus Vespantianus. Some will include Christs people here, whom he should chiefly gather out of the Roman empire, should ruin that church, and polity, and worship. Desolations are determined; God hath decreed to destroy that place and people by the miseries and desolations of war, i.e. sword, famine, sickness, scattering. All this is signified by
shomemoth: also the profaning of the temple by idols, which are called abominations that make desolate; this was done by the Greeks and Jews before, and the Romans at their siege, and after.
Quest. But some will query, why the angel who was sent to comfort Daniel should insert here this tragical business of destruction and desolation, being beyond the space of seventy weeks?
Answ.
1. That Daniel might be informed of the judgments of God upon that place and people, and the reasons of it, viz. their rejecting and killing Christ.
2. That the spirit of Gods people should not fail when these tragedies were acted; being foretold, thereby they were prepared and fortified against it, and to expect it, and not to be surprised by it when it came.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
26. after threescore and twoweeksrather, the threescore and two weeks. In thisverse, and in Da 9:27, Messiahis made the prominent subject, while the fate of the city andsanctuary are secondary, being mentioned only in the second halves ofthe verses. Messiah appears in a twofold aspect, salvation tobelievers, judgment on unbelievers (Lu2:34; compare Mal 3:1-6;Mal 4:1-3). He repeatedly,in Passion week, connects His being “cut off” with thedestruction of the city, as cause and effect (Mat 21:37-41;Mat 23:37; Mat 23:38;Luk 21:20-24; Luk 23:28-31).Israel might naturally expect Messiah’s kingdom of glory, if notafter the seventy years’ captivity, at least at the end of thesixty-two weeks; but, instead of that, shall be His death, and theconsequent destruction of Jerusalem.
not for himselfrather,”there shall be nothing to Him” [HENGSTENBERG];not that the real object of His first coming (His spiritualkingdom) should be frustrated; but the earthly kingdomanticipated by the Jews should, for the present, come to naught,and not then be realized. TREGELLESrefers the title, “the Prince” (Da9:25), to the time of His entering Jerusalem on an ass’s colt,His only appearance as a king, and six days afterwards put to deathas “King of the Jews.”
the people of the princetheRomans, led by Titus, the representative of the world power,ultimately to be transferred to Messiah, and so called by Messiah’stitle, “the Prince”; as also because sent by Him, as Hisinstrument of judgment (Mt 22:7).
end thereofof thesanctuary. TREGELLES takesit, “the end of the Prince,” the last head of the Romanpower, Antichrist.
with a floodnamely, ofwar (Psa 90:5; Isa 8:7;Isa 8:8; Isa 28:18).Implying the completeness of the atastrophe, “not one stone lefton another.”
unto the end of thewarrather, “unto the end there is war.”
determinedby God’sdecree (Isa 10:23; Isa 28:22).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And after threescore and two weeks,…. To be reckoned from the end of the seven weeks, or forty nine years, which, added to them, make four hundred and eighty three years:
shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; by whom is designed the same with Messiah the Prince in Da 9:25, not Onias the high priest, as a late writer g would have it, an upright person, and of great holiness, taken off by an unjust death; since he was dead many years before the expiration of these weeks; nor Hyrcanus the high priest, slain by Herod, as Eusebius h thinks; in whom the succession of the ancient priests terminated, and with whom the priestly unction perished; which indeed bids fairer than the former; but he was not a person of so much note as to be pointed at in such a prophecy; besides, the priesthood continued much longer: nor is King Agrippa intended, as Jarchi and Abarbinel, who, they say, was the last king of the Jews, and was slain by Vespasian at the destruction of Jerusalem; which is not true; he was not properly king of the Jews, having only Galilee for his jurisdiction; was not slain by Vespasian; was a confederate of the Romans, lived some years after the destruction of the city, and at last died in peace; but Jesus the true Messiah is intended, with whom the character, dates, and death, and the manner of it, entirely agree: now to his death were to be four hundred and eighty three years; which years ended, as we have observed, in the thirty third year of the vulgar era of Christ, and the nineteenth of Tiberius; when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation; see Isa 53:8: or “he is not”, as Jarchi, no more in the land of the living, is dead; see
Jer 31:15, or “there is”, or “will be, none for him”, or “with him” i, to help and assist him in his great work, Isa 63:5. The Vulgate Latin version is, “they shall not be his people”; the Jews rejecting him shall have a “loammi” upon them, and be no more the people of God. Gussetius k better renders it, “he hath not”; or he has nothing, so Cocceius; all things were wanted by him, that is, by Christ; he had neither riches, nor clothes, nor any to stand by him, or to accompany him:
and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; that is, the people of the Romans, under Vespasian their prince, emperor, and general, should, in a little time after the cutting off of the Messiah, enter into the land of Judea, and destroy the city of Jerusalem, and the temple that stood in it; though some understand this of Messiah the Prince that should come in his power, and in a way of judgment upon the Jewish nation, and destroy them for their rejection of him; whose people the Romans would be, and under whose direction, and by whose orders, all these judgments should be brought upon the Jews; but many of the Jewish writers themselves interpret it of Vespasian, as Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Abarbinel, and Jacchiades:
and the end thereof shall be with a flood: the end of the city and temple, and of the whole nation, should be by the Roman army, which, like a flood, would overspread the land, and carry all before it. It denotes the number, power, and irresistible force of the enemy, and the sad devastation made by them:
and unto the end of the war desolations are determined; from the beginning of the war by the Romans with the Jews, to the end of it, there would be nothing but continual desolations; a dreadful havoc and ruin everywhere; and all this appointed and determined by the Lord, as a just punishment for their sins.
g Scheme of literal Prophecy, c. p. 183. h Demonstrat. Evangel. l. 8. p. 396, 397. i “et non [erit] ei”, Pagninus “et nullus [erit] pro co”, Vatablus. k Comment. Ebr. p. 33.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
After the threescore and two weeks, i.e., in the seventieth , shall the Messiah be cut off. – From the ( after) it does not with certainty follow that the “cutting off” of the Maschiach falls wholly in the beginning of the seventieth week, but only that the “cutting off” shall constitute the first great event of this week, and that those things which are mentioned in the remaining part of the verse shall then follow. The complete designation of the time of the “cutting off” can only be found from the whole contents of Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27. , from , to hew down, to fell, to cut to pieces, signifies to be rooted up, destroyed, annihilated, and denotes generally a violent kind of death, though not always, but only the uprooting from among the living, or from the congregation, and is therefore the usual expression for the destruction of the ungodly – e.g., Psa 37:9; Pro 2:22 – without particularly designating the manner in which this is done. From it cannot thus be strictly proved that this part of the verse announces the putting to death of an anointed one, or of the Messiah. Of the word Maschiach three possible interpretations have been given: 1. That the Maschiach Nagid of Dan 9:25, the Maschiach of Dan 9:26, and the Nagid of Dan 9:26, are three different persons; 2. that all the three expressions denote one and the same person; and 3. that the Maschiach Nagid of Dan 9:25 and the Maschiach of Dan 9:26 are the same person, and that the Nagid of Dan 9:26 is another and a different person. The first of these has been maintained by J. D. Michaelis, Jahn. Ebrard understands by all the three expressions the Messiah, and supposes that he is styled fully Maschiach Nagid in Dan 9:25 in order that His calling and His dignity ( ), as well as His power and strength ( ), might be designated; in Dan 9:26, , the anointed, where mention is made of His sufferings and His rejection; in Dan 9:26, , the prince, where reference is made to the judgment which He sends (by the Romans on apostate Jerusalem). But this view is refuted by the circumstance that ( that is to come) follows , whereby the prince is represented as first coming, as well as by the circumstance that , who destroys the city and the sanctuary, whose end shall be with a flood, consequently cannot be the Messiah, but is the enemy of the people and kingdom of God, who shall arise (Dan 7:24-25) in the last time. But if in Dan 9:26 the Nagid is different from the Maschiach, then both also appear to be different from the Maschiach Nagid of Dan 9:25. The circumstance that in Dan 9:26 has neither the article nor the addition following it, appears to be in favour of this opinion. The absence of the one as well as the other denotes that , after that which is said of Him, in consideration of the connection of the words, needs no more special description. If we observe that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary is so connected with the Maschiach that we must consider this as the immediate or first consequence of the cutting off of the Maschiach, and that the destruction shall be brought about by a Nagid, then by Maschiach we can understand neither a secular prince or king nor simply a high priest, but only an anointed one who stands in such a relation to the city and sanctuary, that with his being “cut off” the city and the sanctuary lose not only their protection and their protector, but the sanctuary also loses, at the same time, its character as the sanctuary, which the Maschiach had given to it. This is suitable to no Jewish high priest, but only to the Messias whom Jehovah anointed to be a Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek, and placed as Lord over Zion, His holy hill. We agree therefore with Hvernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and Kliefoth, who regard the Maschiach of this verse as identical with the Maschiach Nagid of Dan 9:25, as Christ, who in the fullest sense of the word is the Anointed; and we hope to establish this view more fully in the following exposition of the historical reference of this word of the angel.
But by this explanation of the we are not authorized to regard the word as necessarily pointing to the death of the Messias, the crucifixion of Christ, since , as above shown, does not necessarily denote a violent death. The right interpretation of this word depends on the explanation of the words which follow – words which are very differently interpreted by critics. The supposition is grammatically inadmissible that = (Michaelis, Hitzig), although the lxx in the Codex Chisianus have translated them by ; and in general all those interpretations which identify with , as e.g., et non sibi , and not for himself (Vitringa, Rosenmller, Hvernick, and others). For is never interchanged with , but is so distinguished from it that , non, is negation purely, while , “it is not,” denies the existence of the thing; cf. Hengstenberg’s Christol. iii. p. 81f., where all the passages which Gesenius refers to as exemplifying this exchange are examined and rightly explained, proving that is never used in the sense of . Still less is to be taken in the sense of (<) , “there shall not then be one who (belongs) to him;” for although the pronomen relat. may be wanting in short sentences, yet that can be only in such as contain a subject to which it can refer. But in the no subject is contained, but only the non-existence is declared; it cannot be said: no one is, or nothing is. In all passages where it is thus rightly translated a participle follows, in which the personal or actual subject is contained, of which the non-existence is predicated. (<) without anything following is elliptical, and the subject which is not, which will not be, is to be learned from the context or from the matter itself. The missing subject here cannot be , because points back to ; nor can it be , people (Vulg., Grotius), or a descendant (Wieseler), or a follower (Auberlen), because all these words are destitute of any support from the context, and are brought forward arbitrarily. Since that which “is not to Him” is not named, we must thus read the expression in its undefined universality: it is not to Him, viz., that which He must have, to be the Maschiach. We are not by this to think merely of dominion, people, sanctuary, but generally of the place which He as Maschiach has had, or should have, among His people and in the sanctuary, but, by His being “cut off,” is lost. This interpretation is of great importance in guiding to a correct rendering of ; for it shows that does not denote the putting to death, or cutting off of existence, but only the annihilation of His place as Maschiach among His people and in His kingdom. For if after His “cutting off” He has not what He should have, it is clear that annihilation does not apply to Him personally, but only that He has lost His place and function as the Maschiach.
(Note: Kranichfeld quite appropriately compares the strong expression with “the equally strong ( shall wear out) in Dan 7:25, spoken of that which shall befall the saints on the part of the enemy of God in the last great war. As by this latter expression destruction in the sense of complete annihilation cannot be meant, since the saints personally exist after the catastrophe (cf. Dan 9:27, Dan 9:22, Dan 9:18), so also by this expression here ( ) we are not to understand annihilation.”)
In consequence of the cutting off of the destruction falls upon the city and the sanctuary. This proceeds from the people of the prince who comes. , to destroy, to ruin, is used, it is true, of the desolating of countries, but predicated of a city and sanctuary it means to overthrow; cf. e.g., Gen 19:13., where it is used of the destruction of Sodom; and even in the case of countries the consists in the destruction of men and cattle; cf. Jer 36:29.
The meaning of depends chiefly on the interpretation of the . This we cannot, with Ebrard, refer to . Naturally it is connected with , not only according to the order of the words, but in reality, since in the following verse (Dan 9:27) the people are no longer spoken of, but only the actions and proceedings of the prince are described. does not mean qui succedit (Roesch, Maurer), but is frequently used by Daniel of a hostile coming; cf. Dan 1:1; Dan 11:10, Dan 11:13, Dan 11:15. But in this sense appears to be superfluous, since it is self-evident that the prince, if he will destroy Jerusalem, must come or draw near. One also must not say that designates the prince as one who was to come ( ), since from the expression “coming days,” as meaning “future days,” it does not follow that a “coming prince” is a “future prince.” The with the article: “he who comes, or will come,” denotes much rather the (which is without the article) as such an one whose coming is known, of whom Daniel has heard that he will come to destroy the people of God. But in the earlier revelations Daniel heard of two princes who shall bring destruction on his people: in Dan 7:8, Dan 7:24., of Antichrist; and in Dan 8:9., 23ff., of Antiochus. To one of these the points. Which of the two is meant must be gathered from the connection, and this excludes the reference to Antiochus, and necessitates our thinking of the Antichrist.
In the following clause: “ and his end with the flood,” the suffix refers simply to the hostile Nagid, whose end is here emphatically placed over against his coming (Kran., Hofm., Kliefoth). Preconceived views as to the historical interpretation of the prophecy lie at the foundation of all other references. The Messianic interpreters, who find in the words a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and thus understand by the Nagid Titus, cannot apply the suffix to Nagid. M. Geier, Hvernick, and others, therefore, refer it (the suffix) to the city and the sanctuary; but that is grammatically inadmissible, since ( the city) is gen faem. Aub. and others refer it, therefore, merely to the sanctuary; but the separation of the city from the sanctuary is quite arbitrary. Vitringa, C. B. Michaelis, Hgstb., interpret the suffix as neuter, and refer it to ( shall destroy), or, more correctly, to the idea of destroying comprehended in it, for they understand of a warlike overflowing flood: “and the end of it shall be (or: it shall end) in the flood.” On the other hand, v. Lengerke and Kliefoth have rightly objected to this view. “This reference of the suffix,” they say, “is inadmissibly harsh; the author must have written erroneously, since he suggested the reference of the suffix to or to . One cannot think of what is meant by the end of the destruction, since the destruction itself is the end; a flood may, it is true, be an emblem of a warlike invasion of a country, but it never signifies the warlike march, the expedition.” There thus remains nothing else than to apply the suffix to the Nagid, the prince. can accordingly only denote the destruction of the prince. Hitzig’s interpretation, that is the result of his coming, refutes itself.
In the article is to be observed, by which alone such interpretations as “in an overflowing” (Ros., Roed., and others), ” vi quadam ineluctabili oppressus” (Steudel, Maurer), “ like an overflowing,” and the like, are proved to be verbally inadmissible. The article shows that a definite and well-known overflowing is meant. , “overflowing,” may be the emblem of an army spreading itself over the land, as in Dan 11:10, Dan 11:22, Dan 11:26; Isa 8:8, or the emblem of a judgment desolating or destroying a city, country, or people; cf. Psa 32:6; Nah 1:8; Pro 27:4; Psa 90:5. The first of these interpretations would give this meaning: The prince shall find his end in his warlike expedition; and the article in would refer back to . This interpretation is indeed quite possible, but not very probable, because would then be the overflowing which was caused by the hostile prince or his coming, and the thought would be this, that he should perish in it. But this agrees neither with the following clause, that war should be to the end, nor with Dan 7:21, Dan 7:26, according to which the enemy of God holds the superiority till he is destroyed by the judgment of God. Accordingly, we agree with Wieseler, Hofmann, Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth in adopting the other interpretation of , flood, as the figure of the desolating judgment of God, and explain the article as an allusion to the flood which overwhelmed Pharaoh and his host. Besides, the whole passage is, with Maurer and Klief., to be regarded as a relative clause, and to be connected with : the people of a prince who shall come and find his destruction in the flood.
This verse (Dan 9:26) contains a third statement, which adds a new element to the preceding. Rosenmller, Ewald, Hofm., and others connect these into one passage, thus: and to the end of the war a decree of desolations continues. But although , grammatically considered, is the stat. constr., and might be connected with ( war), yet this is opposed by the circumstance, that in the preceding sentence no mention is expressly made of war; and that if the war which consisted in the destruction of the city should be meant, then ought to have the article. From these reasons we agree with the majority of interpreters in regarding as the predicate of the passage: “and to the end is war;” but we cannot refer , with Wieseler, to the end of the prince, or, with Hv. and Aub., to the end of the city, because has neither a suffix nor an article. According to the just remark of Hitzig, without any limitation is the end generally, the end of the period in progress, the seventy , and corresponds to in Dan 7:26, to the end of all things, Dan 12:13 (Klief.). To the end war shall be = war shall continue during the whole of the last .
The remaining words, , form an apposition to , notwithstanding the objection by Kliefoth, that since desolations are a consequence of the war, the words cannot be regarded as in apposition. For we do not understand why in abbreviated statements the effect cannot be placed in the form of an apposition to the cause. The objection also overlooks the word . If desolations are the effect of the war, yet not the decree of the desolations, which can go before the war or can be formed during the war. denotes desolation not in an active, but in a passive sense: laid waste, desolated. , that which is determined, the irrevocably decreed; therefore used of divine decrees, and that of decrees with reference to the infliction of punishment; cf. Dan 9:27; Dan 11:36; Isa 10:23; Isa 28:22. Ewald is quite in error when he says that it means “the decision regarding the fearful deeds, the divine decision as it embodies itself in the judgments (Dan 7:11.) on the world on account of such fearful actions and desolations,” because has not the active meaning. Auberlen weakens its force when he renders it “decreed desolations.” “That which is decreed of desolations” is also not a fixed, limited, measured degree of desolations (Hofm., Klief.); for in the word there does not lie so much the idea of limitation to a definite degree, as much rather the idea of the absolute decision, as the connection with in Dan 9:27, as well as in the two passages from Isaiah above referred to, shows. The thought is therefore this: “Till the end war will be, for desolations are irrevocably determined by God.” Since has nothing qualifying it, we may not limit the “decree of desolations” to the laying waste of the city and the sanctuary, but under it there are to be included the desolations which the fall of the prince who destroys the city and the sanctuary shall bring along with it.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Here Daniel treats of the sixty-two weeks which elapsed between the sixth year of Darius and the baptism of Christ, when the Gospel began to be promulgated, but at the same time he does not neglect the seven weeks of which he had been speaking. For they comprehend the space of time which intervened between the Persian monarchy and the second edict which again granted liberty to the people after the death of Cambyses. After the sixty-two weeks which should succeed the seven former ones, Messiah shall be cut off, says he. Here the angel predicts the death of Christ. The Jews refer this to Agrippa, but this, as we have already observed, is utterly nugatory and foolish. Eusebius and others refer it to Aristobulus, but this is equally destitute of reason. Therefore the angel speaks of the only Mediator, as in the former verse he had said, until Christ the Leader The extension of this to all the priesthood is both forced and absurd. The angel rather means this — Christ should then be manifest to undertake the government of his people; or, in other words, until Messiah shall appear and commence his reign. We have already remarked upon those who erroneously and childishly explain the name “Leader,” as if it were inferior in dignity to that of king. As the angel had used the name “Christ” in the sense of Mediator, so he repeats it in this passage in the same sense. And surely, as he had formerly treated of those singular marks of God’s favor, by which the new Church was to surpass the old, we cannot understand the passage otherwise than of Christ alone, of whom the priests and kings under the Law were equally a type. The angel, then, here asserts, Christ should die, and at the same time he specifies the kind of death by saying, nothing shall remain to him. This short clause may be taken in various senses, yet I do not hesitate to represent the angel’s meaning to be this — Christ should so die as to be entirely reduced to nothing. Some expound it thus, — -the city or the people shall be as nothing to him; meaning, he shall be divorced from the people, and their adoption shall cease, since we know the Jews to have so fallen away from true piety by their perfidy as to be entirely alienated from God, and to have lost the name of a Church. But that is forced. Others think it means, it shall be neither hostile nor favorable; and others, nothing shall remain to him in the sense of being destitute of all help; but all these comments appear to me too frigid. The genuine sense, I have no doubt, is as follows, — the death of Christ should be without any attractiveness or loveliness, as Isaiah says. (Isa 53:2.) In truth, the angel informs us of the ignominious character of Christ’s death, as if he should vanish from the sight of men through want of comeliness. Nothing, therefore, shall remain to him, says he; and the obvious reason is, because men would think him utterly abolished.
He now adds, The leader of the coming people shall destroy the city and the sanctuary Here the angel inserts what rather concerns the end of the chapter, as he will afterwards return to Christ. He here mentions what should happen at Christ’s death, and purposely interrupts the order of the narrative to shew that their impiety would not escape punishment, as they not only rejected the Christ of God, but slew him and endeavored to blot out his remembrance from the world. And although the angel had special reference to the faithful alone, still unbelievers required to be admonished with the view of rendering them without excuse. We are well aware of the supineness and brutality of this people, as displayed in their putting Christ to death; for this event occasioned a triumph for the priests and the whole people. Hence these points ought to be joined together. But; the angel consulted the interests of the faithful, as they would be greatly shocked at the death of Christ, which we have alluded to, and also at his ignominy and rejection. As this was a method of perishing so very horrible in the opinion of mankind, the minds of all the pious might utterly despond unless the angel had come to their relief. Hence he proposes a suitable remedy, The leader of the coming people shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; as if he had said, There is no encouragement for the unbelievers to please and flatter themselves, because Christ was reduced to nothing after a carnal sense; vengeance shall instantly overtake them; the leader of the coming people shall destroy both the city and the sanctuary He names a coming leader, to prevent the unbelievers from resting secure through self-flattery, as if God would not instantly stretch forth his hand to avenge himself upon them. Although the Roman army which should destroy the city and sanctuary did not immediately appear, yet the Prophet assures them of the arrival of a leader with an army which should occasion the destruction of both the city and the sanctuary. Without the slightest doubt, he here signifies that God would inflict dreadful vengeance upon the Jews for their murder of his Christ. That trifler, Barbinel, when desirous of refuting the Christians, says — more than two hundred years elapsed between the destruction of the Temple and the death of Christ. How ignorant he was! Even if we were to withhold all confidence from the evangelists and apostles, yet profane writers would soon convict him of folly. But such is the barbarity of his nation, and so great their obstinacy, that they are ashamed of nothing. As far as we are concerned, we gather with sufficient clearness from the passage how the angel touched briefly upon the future slaughter of the city and the destruction of the Temple, lest the faithful should be overwhelmed with trials in consequence of Christ’s death, and lest the unbelievers should be hardened through this occurrence. The interpretation of some writers respecting the people of the coming leader, as if Titus wished to spare the most beautiful city and preserve it untouched, seems to me too refined. I take it simply as a leader about to come with his army to destroy the city, and utterly to overthrow the Temple.
He afterwards adds, Its end shall be in a deluge Here the angel removes all hope from the Jews, whose obstinacy might lead them to expect some advantage in their favor, for we are already aware of their great stupidity when in a state of desperation. Lest the faithful should indulge in the same feelings with the apostates and rebellious, he says, The end of the leader, Titus, should be in a deluge; meaning, he should overthrow the city and national polity, and utterly put an end to the priesthood and the race, while all God’s favors would at the same time be withdrawn. In this sense his end should be in a deluge Lastly, at the end of the war a most decisive desolation The word נחרצת, nech-retzeth, “a completion,” can scarcely be taken otherwise than as a noun substantive. A plural noun follows, שממות, shem-moth, “of desolation’s” or “devastation’s;” and taken verbally it means “definite or terminated laying waste.” The most skillful grammarians allow that the former of these words may be taken substantively for “termination,” as if the angel had said: Even if the Jews experience a variety of fortune in battle, and have hopes of being superior to their enemies, and of sallying out and prohibiting their foes from entering the city; nay, even if they repel them, still the end of the war shall result in utter devastation, and their destruction is clearly defined. Two points, then, are to be noticed here; first, all hope is to be taken from the Jews, as they must be taught the necessity for their perishing; and secondly, a reason is ascribed for this, namely, the determination of the Almighty and his inviolable decree. It afterwards follows: —
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(26) After threescore and two weeks.These words can only mean that in the seventieth week the Anointed one shall be cut off. Observe the care with which the seventy weeks are arranged in a series of the form 7 + 62 + 1. During the period of seven weeks Jerusalem is to be rebuilt. The troublous times are not to be restricted to this period, but may apply to the sixty-two weeks which follow. After the end of the sixty-nine weeks Messiah is to be cut off. By Messiah we must understand the same person who is spoken of in Dan. 9:25. It should also be observed that the word prince, which is applied to Messiah in Dan. 9:25, is here used of another personsome secular prince, who stands in opposition to the Messiah. The Greek versions render unction instead of anointed, whence Jacob of Edessa explains the cutting off to mean the cessation of the unction by which judgment and sovereignty were established. The word to cut off, however, applies to a person more appropriately than to a thing. It is frequently used of excommunication, e.g., Exo. 30:33; Exo. 30:38, Psa. 37:9, and must not be mistaken for the word to cut off (Isa. 53:8).
But not for himself.On the marginal rendering comp. Joh. 14:30. Literally the words mean, and He has not, but what it is that He loses is left indefinite. Taking the sense according to the context, the meaning is either that He has no more a people, or that His office of Messiah amongst His people ceases.
That shall come.These words imply coming with hostile intent, as Dan. 1:1; Dan. 11:10. Two such princes have been already mentioned (Dan. 7:23, &c., Dan. 8:23, &c.), the one being Antiochus, the other his great antitype, namely, Antichrist. Are we to identify this prince with either of these? Apparently not. Another typical prince is here introduced to our notice, who shall destroy the city and the sanctuary after the cutting off or rejection of the Messiah. But it must be noticed that the work of destruction is here attributed to the people, and not to the prince.
The end thereof.It is not clear what end or whose end is signified. According to grammatical rules, the possessive pronoun may either refer to sanctuary, the last substantive, or to prince, the chief nominative in the sentence. The use of the word flood (Dan. 11:22) (comp. overflow, Dan. 11:26) makes it, at first sight, more plausible to think of the end of a person than of a thing. (Comp. also Nah. 1:8.) But upon comparing this clause with the following, it appears that by the end is meant the whole issue of the invasion. This is stated to be desolation, such as is caused by a deluge.
Unto the end.That is, until the end of the seventy weeks, desolations are decreed. The words recall Isa. 10:22-23.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
26. R.V. reads, “And after the threescore and two weeks shall the [an] anointed one be cut off.” Delitzsch and Zockler, as recent evangelical scholars generally, accept Onias III as the “anointed one” referred to here. Onias was the last Jewish high priest who ruled in the regular succession. He was deposed by Antiochus about 175 B.C. and murdered 171 B.C. This awful event must have made a tremendous impression upon the Jewish world. (Compare Dan 11:22; 2Ma 4:35 .) Others of the newer critics explain this as referring to the murder of Seleucus Philopator by Heliodorus; but this seems less probable than the above. It is a significant fact that “Jewish exposition in pre-Christian times is united in referring this section [Dan 9:25-27 ] to the Maccabean era of tribulation under Antiochus Epiphanes” (Zockler). The older exegetes follow here the punctuation of the A.V. and, uniting the seven with the sixty-two weeks, see a direct reference to Jesus the Messiah, who was cut off at the end of the sixty-nine prophetic weeks. (See note Dan 9:25 and our remarks on “The Seventy Weeks,” Introduction to Daniel, II, 10.) The argument of Dr. Terry that an (or, “the”) anointed one in Dan 9:26 should be the same as the anointed one in Dan 9:25, while valid in ordinary historic narration, does not apply so forcibly in apocalyptic writings, which were made purposely obscure and of a double meaning.
But not for himself This translation of the Hebrew cannot be defended. The R.V. is better, “and shall have nothing,” or, as the margin, “there shall be none belonging to him” (or, “for him”). Kautzsch renders freely, “without his having any (fault).” There are grammatical objections to every translation and the meaning is very obscure. Behrmann and many others render “and no one follows [succeeds] him.” Most critics who hold the newer interpretation of the passage explain it as meaning that Onias had no legitimate successor. Those who hold to the direct Messianic interpretation, and yet accept the critical Hebrew text generally, take it to mean that the Messiah had no one to stand for him as protector or helper when threatened with death.
The people of the prince that shall come According to the most common form of the newer critical interpretation this refers to the army of Antiochus (compare Jdg 5:2), who came from Rome after the death of Onias and devastated Jerusalem, destroyed the sanctuary, and massacred forty thousand of its inhabitants. For the objection that Antiochus did not literally destroy Jerusalem compare notes Eze 29:8-12. According to the older view this phrase refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.
And the end thereof shall be with a flood In-stead of “the” end R.V. renders “his” end, as also the A.V., in the margin. The difficulty is to know whether the flood sweeps away the sanctuary or the people or the prince. It seems most natural to refer it to the city and sanctuary, over which the invading army sweeps like a deluge (Dan 11:22; compare Nah 1:8).
And unto the end of the war Rather, with R.V., “and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined.” Instead of the perfect security, victory, and peace which Daniel at the close of the seventy years’ captivity would probably have expected from the prophecy of Jeremiah which he was reading (Dan 9:2; compare Jer 29:11; Jer 29:14; Jer 30:8; Jer 30:10; Jer 30:19-20; Jer 33:10-16), the “perpetual desolations” which Jeremiah had prophesied against the heathen (Jer 25:12) are now prophesied against Jerusalem clear down to the end of the seventy weeks. Only after these seventy weeks of calamity can the real fulfillment of all Jeremiah’s prophecies of restoration and joy take place.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“And after the sixty two sevens the anointed one will be cut off, and will have nothing, and the people of the coming prince will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And their end will be with a flood. And even to the end there will be war. Desolations are determined.”
Now if we read this verse without preconceived notions, and without a theory to be supported, the natural interpretation of this verse is that the anointed prince, who was to come after the sixty nine ‘sevens’ have passed, will be cut off, and that his people will then destroy the city and the sanctuary. And this is supported by the fact that the prince is a ‘nagid’ (a prince of Israel, see earlier in the passage) in both cases. Note especially that on this interpretation Dan 9:25 speaks of ‘the anointed one, the prince’, then Dan 9:26 refers to him first as ‘the anointed one’ and then as ‘the prince’. Thus the three references fit together as referring to the same person in three different ways, the first combining both terms and preparing for the other two.
Indeed on this basis the whole passage fits together. The prince arrives. Rebellion takes place. The prince is cut off (compare Lev 7:20; Psa 37:9; Isa 53:8). Then his rebellious people destroy the city and sanctuary. But could this be seen as happening to God’s anointed prince? Could it be that the One for whom Israel has waited should be cut off (put to death for gross sin), and finish up with nothing?
That that could be seen as happening is evidenced by Isaiah’s picture of the anointed prophet who, personifying Israel, comes to proclaim the truth to Israel (Isa 49:1-6), is falsely tried, smitten, spat on and shamed (Isa 50:6; Isa 53:7-8), and sets his face like a flint to go towards his destiny (Isa 50:7), with the result that he is made to suffer and is offered as a sacrifice (Isa 53:3-5; Isa 53:8; Isa 53:10-12), thereby accomplishing the will of God (Isa 53:10). And finally He is to be exalted, extolled and be very high (Isa 52:13). Daniel may well have had this picture and thought in mind, especially if we link it with the anointed prophet in Isa 61:1.
The fact is that all were looking forward to the coming of an anointed Prince (Isa 11:1-2; Isa 9:6-7; Isa 55:3; Hos 3:4-5) or Prophet (Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18; Isa 42:1-4; Isa 49:1-6; Isa 53:1-12; Isa 61:1-2). But the prophets had come to realise that when such a One came Israel would reject Him, because He would not fulfil their expectations, They would put Him away because He was too righteous (compare Zec 13:7). But above all they recognised that somehow, in spite of what they did, God’s purposes would be fulfilled through that rejection.
Of course this picture will not be pleasing to those who want to see Antiochus Epiphanes as the prince who destroys the sanctuary (but why then a nagid?), nor to those who want to see it as referring to Titus or the king of the end days. But it is very questionable whether any of these could be given the title ‘nagid’, which means a prince anointed by God and chosen as His adopted son. Indeed it is difficult to see why Antiochus Epiphanes or the king of the end days should be called ‘prince’ at all, or why they would be spoken of, uniquely, in terms of their people. They are always referred to elsewhere as ‘king’. And there is really no reason why the Roman invasion should not have been attributed to a king, for Titus was acting on his father’s authority. But these difficulties are often simply overlooked because they get in the way of a theory.
A further point to be made is that the reference is to ‘ the people of the prince who is coming.’ Now if the prince has been cut off we can see immediately why they should be so described. On the other hand Daniel does not otherwise normally refer to ‘the people’. He refers directly to the king or the kingdom, whilst the people who follow the king are assumed. Why then this sudden change? Why say ‘the people of Antiochus’ or ‘the people of Titus’? It is very odd indeed and against all precedent.
However there is one circumstance where ‘the people’ are referred to rather than the prince, and that is in Dan 7:27 where reference is to the people of God in contrast with the kings and their kingdoms. They are called ‘the people of the saints of the Most High’. There the emphasis is on the people and not the prince. Thus general usage is against the phrase ‘the people of the coming prince’ being seen as signifying a worldly ruler and is in favour of it indicating Israel, although in this case Israel in rebellion.
But how then was this fulfilled? Certainly an ‘anointed prince’ came in Jesus Christ (Jesus the anointed One), and certainly He was put to death and had nothing. And certainly by their act of crucifying Jesus Israel brought on its own head the wrath of God resulting in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. This was something that Jesus again and again pointed out would happen. The act of rejecting and crucifying Him was constantly connected by Him with the idea of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
They had refused to listen to Him when He sought to gather them as chickens under His wings and their house would therefore be left to them desolate (Mat 23:37-38; Mat 24:2; compare Joh 2:19). The fig tree was to be cursed and the mountain was to be thrown into the sea (Mar 11:21-22). Jesus was confident that the Temple would be destroyed, and that must surely have been with His coming death in mind (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). Compare how in the same context in Daniel as this verse Jerusalem’s previous destruction came from a curse on them in Dan 9:11-12. So by this act of cutting off the Messiah the people are seen by Daniel as again putting themselves under a curse, and thus, by it, bringing about the effective destruction of the city and the sanctuary.
Furthermore it should be noted that very similar language was in fact used by the Jewish historian Josephus in 1st century AD, who also ascribed the destruction of Jerusalem to his own people and their behaviour. He says, ‘I venture to say that the sedition destroyed the city and the Romans destroyed the sedition.’ And again, ‘I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her walls.’ (Italics ours).
And when we look at what happened we can understand why he said it. For the story of the end of Jerusalem in 70 AD is almost unbelievable. The Jews behaved like madmen. They fought each other even while the armies of Rome were approaching the city, and in consequence they sacked much of the city. They even destroyed the grain supplies to prevent their rivals from using them. The different factions then defended different places from which they glared at each other, and made sallies against each other, although in the end also, with much bravery, fighting the Romans. And it must seem very probable that they did deliberately set alight their own temple in order to prevent Titus from desecrating it (Titus had given strict orders for the preservation of the Temple). So the suggestion that they destroyed their own city is certainly historically true, and if Josephus could thus date this destruction of Jerusalem from the death of Ananus, how much more could it be dated from the death of their God sent Messiah.
How poignant is the picture. The city and sanctuary having been built, the anointed prince comes. But the people are so sinful that they ‘cut Him off’, (a phrase which regularly signifies someone cut off for gross sin) and then by their actions bring about the destruction of the very city and sanctuary which they had so longed for. Retribution indeed. By it the sinfulness of man is revealed to its fullest extent. But by it also the city and sanctuary are finished. They are written off. Hope now lies totally in God. In other words this revelation is emphasising that final hope must not be placed in the city of Jerusalem or in the Temple
We must pause for a moment to consider this picture. Daniel has seen and known of the process of Jerusalem’s first destruction, which has witnessed to the sinfulness of his people, he has been informed of the sacrilege to happen against the second temple in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, which was to be the end of the days of indignation against his people’s sins (Dan 8:19), and now he learns that Jerusalem and the sanctuary are once more to be destroyed, this time by his own people. The message could only be that once again his people as a whole will fail to truly respond to God, that no hope can be placed in them, even though they have been given another chance.
‘And their end will be with a flood. And even to the end there will be war. Desolations are determined.’ Scripture often describes invaders in terms of a flood. See Dan 11:22; Isa 8:7-8; Isa 17:13; Jer 46:8. So Israel having killed their Messiah will experience the flood of God’s anger (Nah 1:8). Reference is made to ‘their end’, which comes suddenly, and then to ‘the end’. This could be to the end of a new period of God’s indignation against them (compare Dan 8:19), or possibly to the end of time. Either way it is described in terms of war. Jesus may well have had this verse in mind when He spoke of wars and rumours of wars (Mar 13:7). Some have tried to see ‘even to the end’ as signifying a gap between the sixty ninth and seventieth week. But if that were so it would leave the destruction of the city and the Temple to occur before the gap, and thus in the sixty ninth seven. For their theory it is simply self-defeating. And it is difficult to see ‘to the end’ as signifying any other than what it says. To the end of the seventy ‘sevens’.
‘Desolations are determined.’ The world and its sinfulness is such that there can only be desolations. Man in his inner heart does not change unless transformed by the power of Christ. Thus his continuing sinfulness will result in desolations, and is the reason why God determines desolations on him. War and desolations are to be the future of mankind.
Note On The Prince Who Will Come.
The natural interpretation of the prince who will come in the context, given that the reference is to his people, is that it refers to the prince already described as coming in Dan 9:25. He has been cut off and therefore his people are left to act on their own. This would tie in with the use of nagid, which almost always refers to a king of Israel appointed by God, and it would also link him and his death with the destruction of the city and the Temple, something which the Gospels do of the death of Jesus.
There is, however, another popular view (although not among most scholars) which attempts to see in this description a reference to a king who will come prior to the second coming of Christ. The idea is that his people are mentioned (which they see as the Romans) pointing to the fact that the king of those final days of the age will also be connected with the Roman empire, a Roman empire that is revived. But this view must be rejected for a number of reasons:
Firstly because the term nagid is not the term that Daniel would use of such a king. He would use either sar or melech. He only elsewhere uses nagid of an Israelite prince.
Secondly because the people who destroyed the city and Temple would not be his people. They would be the people of the emperor who was ruling the Roman empire at the time. Thus it is far too subtle. Surely had Daniel intended to convey such a message he could have done it by directly referring to the king and indicating his connection with the fourth beast. It took the subtle minds of the modern era to weave together such a pattern from different parts of Daniel.
Thirdly because it seems a very backhand way in which to introduce such an important personage without giving any further information about him.
Fourthly because those who hold this view then see him as a foreigner ‘confirming covenant’ with the Jews. But in this case he would be making the covenant not confirming it. Why then use the idea of ‘confirming’. And besides the word ‘covenant’ is not the one used of treaties and alliances made by foreign kings in Daniel. It is elsewhere only used of the covenant with God, which would then make sense of it being confirmed because it was already in existence, and having been broken required confirmation.
Fifthly because normally in Hebrew the antecedent of ‘he’ would be sought in the subject of a previous sentence unless there were good grounds for seeing otherwise. And a previously unmentioned prince would hardly be good grounds.
Thus everything about this interpretation is wrong.
End of note.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Ver. 26. And after threescore and two weeks. ] See on Dan 9:25 . Within these threescore and two weeks befell the Jews many memorable things, as may be seen in Dan 8:1-27 Dan 11:1-45 .
Shall Messiah be cut off.
But not for himself,
And the people of the prince that shall come,
Shall destroy the city.
And the sanctuary.
And the end thereof shall be with a flood,
And unto the end of the war, &c.
a Joseph.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
after threescore and two weeks. The definite Article here marks this period, as the one just mentioned in Dan 9:24, i.e. after the 483 years. How long “after” is not stated; but it must surely be either immediately or very soon after the Messiah was thus presented and proclaimed in and to Jerusalem as the Prince. The decree was issued in the month of Nisan, the same month as the events in Mat 21:1 Mat 26:61. Compare Zec 9:9. Luk 19:41-44 (“this thy day”).
threescore and two: i.e. the sixty-two sevens (= 434 years). See note on Dan 9:25.
cut off: i.e. in death. Hebrew. karath (Gen 9:11. Deu 20:20. Jer 11:19. Psa 37:9). Compare Hebrew. gazar (Isa 53:8).
but not for Himself = but no sign of aught for Him: i.e. He shall be rejected and crucified, and shall not then enter on the kingdom for which He came. It will be rejected, and therefore become in abeyance. See Joh 1:11.
-26 the people: i.e. the Roman people. Compare Luk 19:41-44; Luk 21:20.
the prince that shall come = a prince, &c. This is “the little horn” of Dan 7:8, Dan 7:24-26; Dan 8:9-12, Dan 8:23-25. See App-89.
shall destroy the city, &c. See Mat 21:41; Mat 22:7. This also was “after threescore and two weeks”, but not within the last seven; which are confined to the doings of “the prince’s people, the people that is coming” (“the little horn”) after the doings of “the people” in the destruction of the city, which ends Dan 9:26. What “the little horn” will do is stated in the words which follow. Antiochus never did this. He defiled it, but left it uninjured.
the end thereof: or, his own end [come]: i.e. the end of the desolator looking on to the end of the last seven years.
and unto the end of the war = up to the full end of the war (i.e. the end of the last seven years).
desolations = desolate places. Compare Mat 23:38.
determined. See note on “the wall”, Dan 9:25.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Dan 9:26
Dan 9:26 And afterH310 threescoreH8346 and twoH8147 weeksH7620 shall MessiahH4899 be cut off,H3772 but notH369 for himself: and the peopleH5971 of the princeH5057 that shall comeH935 shall destroyH7843 the cityH5892 and the sanctuary;H6944 and the endH7093 thereof shall be with a flood,H7858 and untoH5704 the endH7093 of the warH4421 desolationsH8074 are determined.H2782
Dan 9:26
“And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”
After sixty two periods of time identified as a week. These weeks are obviously symbolic and not literal. Many erstwhile and sincere scholars believe each week to represent one year but in order to force this interpretation into reality, some significant scriptural evidence to the contrary must be downright ignored.
As stated earlier in this study, the rendering of the original language as “sevens” instead of “weeks” better fits the reality of scripture and the historical account.
And after threescore and two [sevens] shall Messiah be cut off.
The first time interval accounted for the rebuilding of the temple which began in 537 BC and ended with the rebuilding of the walls in 444 BC. This covers a time span of about 93 years. The second time interval mentioned in this vision is one of threescore and two (62) sevens. It begins with the finishing of the walls of Jerusalem and ends with the cutting off of the Messiah. This can only be the death of Jesus Christ on the cross which happened in about 30 AD. This covers a time span of about 474 years. If a week equaled 7 years then we would be looking for a time span of 434 years. It’s close but not nearly close enough to attribute the “year for a day” interpretation to this vision. And even if it did work out, the first interval which would have been 49 years under the “year for a day” interpretation does not work out either. Therefore we can decisively conclude that these intervals of time are not literal years for a day.
Nothing is mentioned here of this interval of time which we refer to today as the interbiblical period. This particular vision only pays this interval of time an honorable mention. However, in Daniel’s last recorded vision, this interval of time receives a full treatment.
This interval time, here identified vaguely in apocalyptic language ends with the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Following this event are others which positively align with messianic history.
“and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary”
Jerusalem was utterly destroyed in AD 70 when Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian utterly destroyed the city and the temple. This happened after the death of Jesus on the cross but will be put into clearer perspective in the following verse.
“and the end thereof shall be with a flood and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”
The final destruction of Jerusalem was after a devastating defeat. The symbolism of a flood indicates the overwhelming degree of destruction that was to befall the city. And the destruction of Jerusalem did mark the end of a war with the Roman Empire. The Jews were utterly subjugated. The temple and the city was destroyed and the population was scattered across the Roman Empire, some going as refugees while others were forced to relocate at the command of the Empire. The result was that as a nation, the Jews were destroyed. Jerusalem lay in ruins, the temple was burned. The records of the Levitical line of Aaron were lost in the destruction which made it impossible for anyone to prove their bloodline qualification for serving as a priest in the temple. Never again would there be sacrifices offered to God from the temple in Jerusalem. The commonwealth status of the Jews, as the chosen people of God, was over. And to this day, nearly 2000 years later, it has not been restored, nor will it ever be restored.
“desolations are determined”
Desolations is a word associated elsewhere with the destruction or defilement of the temple. We will see similar wording concerning the abomination that maketh desolate in the last vision of Daniel concerning the acts of Antiochus IV in the temple.
In Matthew 24 is an account of Jesus warning his disciples of the impending destruction of the temple. In Mat 24:15 Jesus says, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet…” In this vision, Daniel is directly prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem and uses the words “desolations are determined” thus Jesus was making a connection between Daniel’s vision here and the coming destruction of the temple.
Daniel earlier referred to the destroyed temple of his day as desolate in his prayer of supplication leading up to this vision as recorded in Dan 9:17. Daniel knew when he heard the word desolations in connection with the destruction of the sanctuary that the temple which was going to be built would not be a permanent one. It would be destroyed like the first one had. No doubt Daniel was happy with the revelation that the temple would be rebuilt in the first part of this vision, but now he has been told that it will be destroyed again. It is hard to imagine what the aged Daniel would be thinking at this time. It is certain that he knew fully well the suffering that would be associated with it having lived through just such an event himself.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Messiah: Psa 22:15, Isa 53:8, Mar 9:12, Luk 24:26, Luk 24:46, Joh 11:51, Joh 11:52, Joh 12:32-34, 2Co 5:21, Gal 3:13, 1Pe 2:21, 1Pe 2:24, 1Pe 3:18
but not: or, and shall have nothing, Joh 14:30
and the people: etc. or, and – the Jewsshall be no more his people, Dan 11:17, Hos 1:9, or, and the Prince’s – Messiah’s, Dan 9:25, future people. The Romans, who under Titus, after the expiration of the 70 weeks, destroyed the temple and the city, and dispersed the Jews.
the prince: Mat 22:2, Mat 22:7, Mat 23:38, Mat 24:2, Mar 13:2, Luk 19:43, Luk 19:44, Luk 21:6, Luk 21:24, Act 6:13, Act 6:14
and the end: Mat 24:6-14, Mar 13:7
with: Dan 11:10, Isa 8:7, Jer 46:7, Amo 8:8, Amo 9:5, Nah 1:8
desolations are determined: or, it shall be cut off by desolations
Reciprocal: Gen 3:15 – thou Gen 8:16 – General Lev 4:4 – lay his hand Num 24:24 – and shall afflict Eber Deu 28:49 – bring a nation Deu 28:52 – General 2Sa 21:5 – devised Psa 88:16 – cut me Psa 94:23 – cut them Psa 124:4 – the waters Isa 28:18 – when Isa 28:22 – a consumption Isa 64:10 – General Jer 11:19 – destroy Jer 51:42 – General Jer 51:51 – for strangers Eze 26:19 – bring Dan 2:40 – the fourth Dan 8:11 – and the place Dan 8:19 – the last Dan 11:22 – with Dan 11:36 – for Dan 12:1 – there shall Hag 1:4 – and Zec 5:9 – for Zec 11:6 – into the Zec 11:10 – Beauty Mal 4:6 – lest Mat 17:23 – they shall Mat 21:41 – He will Mat 24:21 – General Mat 26:24 – Son of man goeth Mat 26:56 – that Mat 27:50 – yielded Mar 10:45 – and to Mar 12:9 – he will Mar 13:19 – in those Mar 14:21 – goeth Luk 5:35 – when Luk 9:22 – General Luk 13:35 – your Luk 17:37 – wheresoever Luk 18:31 – and Luk 21:22 – all Luk 23:31 – General Joh 1:41 – the Messias Joh 10:15 – and I Joh 11:48 – and the Joh 19:30 – It is Act 3:18 – all Act 8:33 – for Act 13:41 – for Act 18:5 – was Christ Rom 4:25 – Who was Rom 9:28 – and cut Phi 2:7 – made Heb 9:15 – means
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Dan 9:26. After threescore and two weeks means 62 weeks after the first 7 (69 weeks in all) shall Messiah he cut off, but it does not say how long after. We shall see that it was to be three and a half years after, for it was that many years after Jesus began his public ministry that he was cut off by the crucifixion. Not for himself. The last word has no separate term in the original and it must be understood in the light of the context. Moffatts translation renders the phrase, “leaving no successor,” and the American Standard Version says, “shall have nothing. These renderings agree with Isa 53:8 on the same subject which says, “who shall declare his generation? The statement is in question form but it is actually an affirmative prediction. The meaning ts that when Jesus died he left no successor, and the thought is most significant and beautiful. Dan 2:44 and many other passages predict that the kingdom of Christ was to “stand forever. In that case He would have no need for a successor, and God would see to it that even death should not prevent his Son from ascending the throne of the everlasting kingdom to be set up soon after his death and resurrection. People of the prince. The last word is from nagid which Strong defines, “A commander (as occupying the front), civil, military, or religious. The prince in this passage is Titus, who commanded the Roman forces at the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. The reader should secure the history of Josephus and read the third volume if possible, for the matter is too lengthy to copy here. He will find that the stubbornness of the Jews forced Titus to press the siege with unspeakable suffering being imposed upon them, “ending in desolations as this verse states. That event occurred 40 years after the death of Christ, and we may wonder why it is injected at this place, when the passage as a whole is not through with the public ministry and death of Christ. It was appropriate to interrupt the prophecy because of the direct relationship between the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. When Jesus was before Pilate (Mat 27:25) and that governor was hesitating about what to do with his prisoner, the Jews cried out, His blood be on us, and on our children, God sometimes takes people at their word, as lie did in this case. Forty years after that terrible sentence the city of Jerusalem was destroyed with ail the afflictions referred to above, and it was a punishment upon them for their murder of Jesus. The death of the Son of God was necessary for the salvation of the world, and it was to be accomplished by the wicked Jews as predicted. But the Lord never did tolerate a wrong attitude shown by any of His agencies, even when they were carrying out the divine decrees. Hence we have the crucifixion of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem (40 years apart) predicted in one connection, after which the prophet resumes predictions of the Messiah.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Dan 9:26. After threescore and two weeks (counting from the expiration of the first interval) shall Messiah be cut off This long interval extends from the 93d Olympiad to the 202d Olympiad, or four hundred and thirty- four years; ending with the sixty-ninth [prophetic] week, and with the commencing of our Lords ministry. No prophetic characters are here given of the long interval; but they are supplied from other predictions of this great prophet, which respect the Roman people and empire, the Persian monarchy, Alexander and his successors; particularly by that circumstantial prophecy in the eleventh chapter, respecting the Lagid and Seleucid, and extending to the antichristian persecutions and idolatries typified by those of Antiochus Epiphanes. These four centuries include the most interesting periods of profane history, and their chronology is so well ascertained as to make the computation of Daniels weeks mathematically exact. For sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, added to seven weeks, or forty-nine years, are equal to four hundred and eighty- three years. After which period, or in the last one week, containing seven years, the Messiah should be cut off. The title of MESSIAH is, by way of eminence, peculiar to Christ. It was first used in this prophecy in that appropriate sense. No other application of this title ever obtained among the ancient Jews. Nor can it, without absurdity, be applied to any civil or ecclesiastical prince, much less to a succession in the high-priesthood. It is here used personally, proper to some one anointed; and to whom it is proper is decided by that emphatic circumstance, Messiah shall be CUT OFF, an expression used in Scripture to denote a judicial sentence and a violent death; BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF Isaiah gives an exact comment on both these expressions, Isa 53:8. HE WAS CUT OFF out of the land of the living; FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF MY PEOPLE was he stricken. Dr. Apthorp.
And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city, &c. Thus to the death of Christ the angel immediately subjoins the excision of Jerusalem. The people here spoken of are the Romans, and the prince that should come, may mean, as some think, the Messiah; the Romans being called his people, both on account of their present subserviency to his will, and their future conversion to his faith; HE sent forth HIS armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city, Mat 22:7. Or, the prince that should come may be understood of Titus Vespasian, of whom the Roman writers speak as if his military glory chiefly resulted from the taking of Jerusalem. The actions of this prince, in the conduct of this memorable siege, are related in the fifth and sixth books of Josephus; the most tragical event in history was effected by a prince whose clemency made him the delight of human-kind, and who saw, with generous reluctance, the horrors of his own victory. Jos., 7:5. 2. It is thus Divine Providence distinguishes its counsels and instruments; and the victor himself acknowledged that God was his assistant, that none but God could have ejected the Jews from so strong fortifications, Josephus Dan 6:9. 1. They shall destroy the CITY and the SANCTUARY The specification is remarkable; as Jerusalem, in effect, sustained two separate sieges; one, of the lower city; the other, of the temple, or sanctuary of strength, as our prophet elsewhere styles it, chap. Josephus Dan 11:31, as being not only a magnificent temple newly rebuilt, but a strong fortress, which was consumed by their own fires, against the intention and efforts of their conqueror. Josephus Dan 6:4, 7. The end thereof shall be with a flood The symbol of invading armies:
Aggeribus ruptis cum spumeus amnis Exiit, oppositasque evicit gurgite moles, Fertur in arva furens cumulo, camposque per omnes, Cum stabulis armenta trahit. VIRG. N. 2:496.
Not with so fierce a rage the foaming flood Roars, when he finds his rapid course withstood; Bears down the dams with unresisted sway, And sweeps the cattle and the cots away. DRYDEN.
And unto the end of the war desolations are determined Which marks the irrevocable decree of Heaven, and the completeness of the devastation, after a continued war of more than seven years. Dr. Apthorp.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
9:26 And after threescore and two {x} weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but {y} not for himself: and the people of the {z} prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
(x) In this week of the seventy, will Christ come and preach and suffer death.
(y) He will seem to have no beauty, nor to be of any estimation; Isa 53:2 .
(z) Meaning Titus, Vespasians’s son, who would come and destroy both the temple, and the people, without any hope of recovery.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Most Christian interpreters have taken the cutting off of Messiah as a reference to Jesus Christ’s death. He had nothing then in a very real sense.
The prince who will come seems to be a different person from the Messiah. A legitimate translation is "the people of a ruler who will come." [Note: Archer, "Daniel," p. 116.] His people, not he himself, would destroy the city. This happened in A.D. 70 when the Roman army under Titus leveled Jerusalem. The prince who will come, however, was evidently not Titus but a future ruler, namely, the Antichrist (Dan 7:8). Titus made no covenant with the Jews (Dan 9:27). However, Titus did initially what this prince will do ultimately. Jerusalem did not end because of a literal flood of water in Titus’ day, but Roman soldiers overwhelmed it (cf. Dan 11:10; Dan 11:22; Dan 11:26; Dan 11:40; Isa 8:8). War preceded the destruction. Gabriel announced that God had determined the city’s desolation (cf. Mat 24:7-22).
Some interpreters believe that the end of this verse describes conditions that have followed Titus’ destruction and continue even today. [Note: E.g., Pentecost, "Daniel," p. 1364; and Archer, "Daniel," p. 117.] Others think it only describes what Titus did. [Note: E.g., Walvoord, Daniel . . ., p. 231.]