Daniel 9
THE SEVENTY WEEKS.
This is the chapter of Daniel which has occasioned most
controversy. It was appealed
Lord’s claims to Messiahship. It
is now received by critical commentators that to
our
Lord this prophecy cannot refer. Many treatises have been written on
the
“seventy
weeks” of Daniel, and none of them have entirely cleared up
the
difficulties; indeed, it may be doubted whether all together they have
illuminated the subject very much.
1 “In the first year of
Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the
seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the
Chaldeans;
2 In the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by books
the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord same to
Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy
years in the
desolations of
assumption that the critics are correct in their belief that the
author of
Daniel imagined a Median Empire between the Babylonian and
the Persian.
(1) “In the first year of Darius son of to
Xerxes, of the seed of the Medes who,”
that is, the Medes — the Septuagint seems to have read malkoo
instead
of
homlak — “reigned over the kingdom of the Chaldeans.”
(2)
“In the
first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by the books the
number of the years when the ordinance (πρόσταγμα – prostagma -command;
order) about the land was
(revealed) to Jeremiah the prophet to accomplish
seventy years to the fulfillment of the reproach of
closer to the Massoretic, only he does not seem to have read the hophal of “reign,”
but the kal. Further, Theodotion omits the second statement of the year of
Darius, with which, both in the Septuagint and in the Massoretic, the second
verse begins. We have in Tertullian a
few verses from this chapter in the
Old Latin Version, called sometimes the Vetus.
It coincides exactly with
neither of the Greek Versions, nor with the Massoretic,
but is in closer
relationship with Theodotion. The Peshitta in the first agrees in the main
with the Massoretic texf,
but renders the second verse thus: “In the first
year of his reign, I Daniel understood in the book the number of years; I
saw
what was the ordinance of the number which Jeremiah the prophet had
said concerning the completion of the desolation of
years.” Theodotion, the Vetus, the Peshitta, and also
Jerome, neglect the
fact that הָמְלַד;(hom’lak) is hophal,
and translate as if the word were kal.
This neglect is due to the difficulty of understanding the
semi-satrapial
position occupied by Gobryas (Darius). He
had regal powers given him to appoint
satraps in the divisions of the
further, be could fulfill certain sacred functions which
customarily only a
king could fulfill. This is the only case where the hophal
of this verb occurs.
Such a unique use of a verb must imply unique
circumstances; such unique
circumstances existed in the position of Gobryas
in
contemporary would have indicated this singular state of matters by the
use
of
an out-of-the way portion of a verb without further explanation. It is
singular that critics will not give the obvious meaning to the
persistent
indications that the author of this book gives, that he regards
Darius, not as
an
independent sovereign, but as in some sort a vassal of a higher power,
on
whom he is dependent. Of
the seed of the Medes. This statement
naturally implies that while Darius was of Median descent, he was
naturalized into some other race. In the first year of his reign.
This phrase
has
the appearance of representing the original beginning of the narrative.
Probably there were originally two recensions
of this narrative, one of them
beginning with the first verse, the other with some modification of
the
second verse which has been still further modified till it has
reached its
present form. The year indicated corresponds to B.C. 538, the
year of the
capture of
was carried captive.
The period, then, which had
been foretold by Jeremiah
during which the Jews were to be captive and
DRAWING TO A CLOSE. According to the critical assumption, that this date is
to
be reckoned from the captivity of Jehoiachin (B.C. 598),
there were yet ten
years to run, and if it reckoned from the capture of
reign of Zedekiah, there were twenty years. There is a certain
dramatic
suitability, if no more, in Daniel studying the prophecies of
Jeremiah, with
always growing eagerness as the
time approached when God had promised
release. I Daniel understood by books. The
critical school have assumed
that this phrase “books” applies, and must apply, to the canon; therefore it
is
concluded that this book was written after the formation of the canon,
and
therefore very late. Unfortunately for the assumption brought
forward, aephareem is by
no means invariably used collectively for the
books of the Bible, but K’thubim, e.g.
Talmud Babli Shabbath (Mishna), p.
115a, was also used. Many of the cases where sephareem
appears it is
used distributively, not collectively; e.g. Talmud
Babli Megillah (Mishna),
p. 8b. From the fact that the same word was used for the third
division of
the
canon, and for the books of the canon as a whole, there was liable to be
a
difficulty, and hence confusion. Traces of this we find in the prologue to
the
Greek Version of Ecclesiasticus. Thus in the first
sentence the translator
speaks of “the Law, the Prophets, and the others (τῶν αλλων
– ton allon –the
other),” as if τῶν
βίβλοιν
- ton biblion – the book - were mentally supplied
before
νὸμου
- nomou - law. While sepher is
used for any individual book of
Scripture,
and sephareem used for a group of these books, as the Books of Moses,
it
is not used for the Bible as a whole, just as in English we never call the
Bible
“the
books,” but not unfrequently “the Scriptures; “on the other hand, we speak
of
“the Books of Moses,” never of the “Scriptures of Moses.” If sephareem does
not
mean the canon, what does it mean? We know from Jeremiah 29:1 that
Jeremiah
sent to the exiles a “letter,” and in that letter (v. 10) it is said,
“For
thus saith the Lord, After seventy years be accomplished for Babylon,
I
will visit you, and perform my good word toward you in causing you to
return
to this place.” It is true that this
letter is called sepher in Jeremiah,
but
in II Kings 19:14 and Isaiah 37:14 we have sephareem the
plural,
used for a single letter. This is proved by the fact that in Isaiah all
the
suffixes referring to it are singular; in Kings one is in the plural by
attraction,
but the other is singular as in Isaiah. The correct rendering of
the
passage, then, is, “I Daniel understood by the letter the number of the
years,
whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet.” It is
clear
that the reference in this verse is to Jeremiah’s letter, for we have the
use
of יחוה, Jahw (Jehovah),
which out of this chapter does not appear in
this
book; we have in this verse מַלִּאת,
which we have in Jeremiah 29:10;
it
is vocalized as infinitive piel in Daniel, and infinitive kal in Jeremiah,
but
there is probably some error in Daniel. Another peculiarity
which
connects this passage with the “letter” of Jeremiah is the form the
prophet’s
name assumes. In the rest of his prophecy it is usually called
יִרְמְיָהוּ (Yir’myahoo);
in the section of which the ‘letter forms part, as in
this
verse in Daniel, he is called יִרְמְיָה
(Yir’myah). It is thus clear that
Daniel
had in his mind Jeremiah’s “letter;” hence it is far-fetched to imagine
that
he claims acquaintance with all the books of the Hebrew canon, in
order to know the contents of a letter. Even a falsarius (forger; counterfeiter);of the
most ignorant
sort would scarcely fail to avoid the blunder attributed to the
author
of Daniel by critics. How do the critics harmonize their explanation
of
this verse with their theory that the canon closed in B.C. 105, while
Daniel
was written in the year B.C. 1687 It would be as impossible for an
author
to speak of the canon in terms which denote it being long fixed,
sixty
years before it was actually collected, as four hundred years. The
impossible
has no degrees. That he would
accomplish seventy years. That
seventy
years would fulfill the period of desolation to Jerusalem. It is to be
noted
that the word translated here “accomplish”
occurs in Jeremiah’s
letter
in regard to this very period (Jeremiah 29:10). The word for
“desolations”
is connected by Furst with “drought;” it is also connected
with
the word for “a sword.” The date at which the vision related in the
chapter
was given was, as we have seen, shortly after the fall of Babylon.
The
period set by God,
if we date from Daniel’s own captivity, was
rapidly
nearing
its conclusion.
As yet Cyrus had given no sign that he was about to
treat
the Jews differently from the other nations. The King of Ansan had
declared
himself — whether from faith or policy we cannot tell — a fervent
worshipper
of Merodach and the other gods of Babylon: would he not be
prone
to pursue the policy of the kings of Babylon, whose successor he
claimed
to be? He had certainly ordered the return to the various cities of
the
images of those gods which had been brought to Babylon by
Nabunahid,
but there was no word of the return of the captives of Zion.
Would
Jehovah be true to His promise or not? Like believers in every age,
DANIEL
TAKES REFUGE IN PRAYER!
3
“And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by
prayer and
supplications,
with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.” The
Septuagint
here
is slavishly close; it renders אֶתְּנָא, (‘etruria) in accordance with its more
common
meaning, ἔδωκα - edoka,
and the idiomatic phrase, “to seek
prayer
and supplication,” is rendered εὑρεῖν προσευχὴν
– eurein
proseuchaen –
to
set to prayer. Theodotion is nearly as slavish; only he
omits “ashes,” and has
“fastings.”
The Peshitta is close, but does not follow the change of construction
in
the last clause. Jerome seems to have
read, “my God.” The cessation of the
temple
worship, with its sacrifices, was naturally fitted to bring prayer as a mode
of
worship into a prominence it had not before. Yet we find prayers made
while
the first temple was yet standing, as the prayer of Hezekiah (II Kings 19:15),
of
Jehoshaphat (II Chronicles 20:6). The comparison more naturally stands with
the
prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah, as the subject of their supplication is
similar
to
that of the prayer before us.
4
“And I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my
confession,
and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping
the
covenant and mercy to them that love Him, and to them that keep
His
commandments.” The versions do not call for
remark. The first clause
is
somewhat of a repetition of the end of the previous verse, and may thus
be
the indication of there having been two recensions; at the same time, the
Oriental
style allows greater repetition and redundancy than in Western
countries
would be permitted. There is a reference here to
Deuteronomy
7:9, from which the latter clause is quoted verbatim. It is
also
quoted with equal exactness in Nehemiah 1:5. The chapter in
Deuteronomy
exhibits God’s love for Israel, and hence, as that love is His
plea,
Daniel appeals to it. We note the
evidence of careful acquaintance
5
“We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and
have
done
wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy
precepts
and from thy judgments.” While otherwise
close, neither of the
Greek
versions retains the change of construction before the last clause,
which
is exhibited in the English versions. The Peshitta fails in this way also,
but
uses participles all through. This verse has a strong resemblance to
Nehemiah
1:6-7, only in Nehemiah there is more elaboration and all the
signs
of a later development. There is a climax here from simple sin to
rebellion; at the same time, this heaping up of terms so nearly
synonymous
is
more liturgic than literary; these words may have been used in the
6
“Neither have
we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets,
which
spake in thy Name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers,
and
to all the people of the land.” The
Septuagint, while agreeing in the
main
with the Massoretic, translates “to all the people of the land” as
“to
every
nation on the earth.” Theodotion is more accurate, but the Peshitta
maintains
the ambiguity. Daniel continues his confession of sin. Not only
will
they not keep God’s commands, but when God sent prophets, men of
their
brethren, to speak to them with human voice, they
would not hearken.
The
designation of the ordinary inhabitants, the common people, as
עַם־הָאָרֶצ
(‘am ha’aretz.)
is a usage that became more pronounced in
later
days, when all not educated as rabbin were called ‘am ha’aretz. The
resemblance
is striking between this passage and Nehemiah 9:30-32. It
is,
perhaps, impossible to settle on merely critical grounds which is the
more
primitive form. There is much in both passages that would suggest a
third
form, the independent source of both. Not unlikely the source was
some
liturgic prayer. As the shorter, the passage before us may be nearer
7
“O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto
us
confusion
of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the
inhabitants
of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that
are
far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them.
because
of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.
8 O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to
our princes,
and
to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee.” The versions
are
all very close to the Massoretic text. The most important variation is
Theodotion’s
repetition of the first clause of v. 7 at the beginning of v 8.
Neither
of the English versions brings out the contrast in the Hebrew of
the
second clause of v. 7; it is “man,” not “men,” of Judah. This contrast
is
observed by Theodotion and Jerome, but not by the Septuagint or the
Peshitta.
These two verses have a strong resemblance to Baruch 1:15-16,
“And
ye shall say, To our God belongeth righteousness, but unto us the
confusion
of faces, as it is come to pass this day to man of Judah, and to
the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to our kings, and to our princes, and to
our
priests, and to our prophets, and to our fathers.” This confession is
introduced
into the text of Baruch as a quotation. The captives on the river
Lud
send money to Jerusalem for offerings and sacrifices, and with the
money
send certain advices. As the circumstances in which the Baruch
version
purports to be written do not so naturally suit the words used, we
can,
we think, have no difficulty in recognizing that it is not the primitive
recension.
The words have the look of a liturgic prayer. The relationship
between
the present passage and Jeremiah is close; “confusion of face”
occurs
in Jeremiah 7:19 as well as Ezra 9:7. The most marked case
is
the collocation, “man of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem.” This
phrase
is frequent in Jeremiah; e.g Jeremiah 4:4; 11:2; 17:25. There is
also
a resemblance to Ezekiel in the phrase, “their trespass that they have
trespassed
against thee;” e.g. Ezekiel 15:8; 20:27. The
language thus is in
strict
dramatic suitability to one who has just been studying the prophets
of
the
Captivity. To our kings, to our princes. This could not be used
naturally
after the date of Daniel. To him who remembered kings and
princes
in Judah and Jerusalem, this language is natural. In the age of
Epiphanes
it would be absurd and meaningless. The phrase is used in the
liturgic
prayer in Nehemiah, because there is a narrative of the history of
the
people. When we compare the Psalter of Solomon, we find the only
King
of Israel is God: yet Alexander Jannseus, who was not long dead
when
that Psalter was written, had assumed the crown; and his sons had
competed
for the possession of it.
guilt
in our own consciousness; and second, an admission of it in the
Ø
If
we have sinned, it is wrong
to ignore the fact or to forget it, till we
have
repented and have been forgiven. To do so will foster insincerity
and
self-deception, and will harden the heart
in sin. We must first
Ø
If
we have sinned, we are required to declare our guilt before God. The
guilt
must not be hidden in the secret darkness of our own consciousness.
It
must be confessed. Though we may confess our sins one to another, the
supreme
duty is to confess them to God, because:
o
HE
ONLY can deliver
us from the consequences and power
obeyed
only in outward form, and yet there is no duty in which unreality
and
superficiality are more fatal.
Ø
One
test of sincerity is the presence of real
grief (v. 3). There may be
a
bald admission of guilt without any feeling of compunction. This is
Ø
Another
test is the feeling of shame: “confusion of faces.” There is a
confession
which glories in wickedness. True confession is self-humiliating
(Genesis 3:7-10).
Ø A
consideration of our conduct in the light of the nature and character
o
We
shall realize our guilt by comparison with God’s
o
We
shall be prompted to confess our sin to God when we see:
§
His
greatness, which cannot endure sin;
§
His
faithfulness, which is true to His side of the
covenant,
though we are false to ours (v. 4); and
§
His
mercy, which pardons the penitent (v. 9).
Ø A
consideration of our conduct in the light of our obligations.
o
We
are subjects of the great King; therefore our sin is treason:
o
We
live under spiritual government, and are not left to our own
o
We
have been enlightened by Divine revelation. We cannot plead
Ø
It
is universal. Daniel
includes men of all classes and in all situations.
We
cannot shake off our guilt by leaving the scenes of our sins. We carry
this
burden with us (v. 7). The rich and great are not exempt (v. 8).
Ø
It
is personal. The prophet writes in the first person — “we.”
Confession
must be individual.
o
We
should acknowledge and confess our special sins, our
acts
of sin. Confession of general guilt is often vague, and does
not
associate itself closely with our experience.
Ø
It
is right on its own account, as an evidence of sincerity (I John
Ø
It
is a necessary condition of forgiveness (Ibid. v.:9).
Ø
It
is the first step towards a better life. As we admit the evil of the past
we
are more able to do better for the future (Psalm 51:7-10).
9
“To the Lord our God belong mercies and
forgivenesses,
though
we have rebelled against Him; 10 Neither have we obeyed the
voice
of the Lord our God, to walk in His laws, which He set before us
by
His servants the prophets.” The Septuagint
renders the last clause,
“The
Law which thou gavest before Moses, and us by thy servants the
prophets.”
There is a change here which has the appearance of marking an
interpolation.
The prayer ceases, and an explanatory narrative begins. In
content
it resembles the parallel passage in Baruch 1., but is much briefer, and
therefore
more likely to be the older. “Forgivenesses” occurs only here and
Nehemiah
9:17 in a prayer that otherwise seems borrowed from that before us.
11
“Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy Law. even by
departing,
that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is
poured
upon us, and the oath that is written in the Law of Moses the
servant
of God, because we have sinned against Him.” The
versions do
not
present any points worthy of special consideration. The prayer is
resumed
during the greater part of this verse. The reference here is to
Leviticus
26:14 and Deuteronomy 28:15, the probability being
more
in favor of the latter, from the reference to the “oath.” The last
clause
is a lapse again into the narrative style. In the parallel passage in
Baruch
it is narrative throughout. This clause may easily have been a gloss
added
by a scribe and inserted in the text by a copyist. There may,
however,
simply be an error in the prenominal suffix.
12
“And He hath confirmed His words, which He spake against
us.
and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a
great
evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath
been
done upon Jerusalem.” The Septuagint differs somewhat, “And he hath
confirmed against us (ἔστησεν ἡμῖν – estaesen haemin – He has confirmed)
His
words (προστάγματα
– prostagmata) such as
He spake againsjt us and
against
our judges, such great evils as thou didst (ἔκρινας
ἡμῖν –
ekrinas
haemin adjudge us), to bring upon
us. The rest is fairly in
accordance
with the Massoretic. It is clear that in the text before the Septuagint
translator
the word was shephattanoo instead of shephatoonoo, that is to
say,
ת (tau) instead of ו (vav). These letters in earlier scripts were
liable to
be
confounded. The meaning assigned to shaphat in this reading is unusual;
but
this is rather in favor of it being the true reading; and the return to the
second
person, while awkward, also has weight. Theodotion and the
Peshitta
do not call for remark. The use of the word “judges” for rulers
generally
ought to be noted. If we take the Massoretic reading, there may
be
a reminiscence of II Kings 23:22. Among the Carthaginians the
principal
magistrates bore the title suffetes, equivalent to shopheteen.
Under
the whole heaven hath not been done as bath been done upon
Jerusalem. Such language is to be regarded in any case as the exaggeration
of
grief; but it would have something like a justification twice in the history
of
Jerusalem, and only twice — after the capture of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar,
and after its capture by Titus. No one has maintained that
the
origin of Daniel is so late as the latter event; hence we are thrown back
upon
the former. With the fact before him that temples had been plundered
everywhere,
and desecrated, and cities sacked, the writer could not have
regarded
the case of Jerusalem, and its temple, in the days of Epiphanes, as
unique
under all heaven. After the capture of Jerusalem by.
Nebuchadnezzar,
the temple was left in rums and the city deserted. Such
measure,
so far as we know, was not meted out by Nebuchadnezzar to any
other
city. Only rarely had even the Ninevite monarchs taken such terrible
vengeance on rebellious subjects.
13
“As it is written in the Law of Moses, all this evil is
come
upon
us: yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our God, that
we
might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.” The
Septuagint renders
“laws,” διαθήκῃ
- diathaekae – covenant; testament –
which
is applied to the “Law” (Hebrews
9:20, quoting from Exodus 24:8;
Deuteronomy 29:1). Theodotion
agrees in the main with the Massoretic text.
The
Peshitta
differs only in joining the first clause of the next verse to this.
Ewald
makes the prenominal suffix at the end of the verse third person, not
second.
The very awkwardness of the construction is an evidence in favour
of
the received reading, “As it is written in the Law of Moses.” The
passages referred to are those denoted previously (Leviticus 26. especially,
vs.
33-35, 38-39, 43 and Deuteronomy 28.). All
this evil is come upon us —
the
curses referred to there. Yet made we
not our prayer before the Lord our
God; literally, entreat the face. The face being the sign of favor, “entreated not
the favor
of the Lord” would be really
what is meant. “Understand thy
truth.”
Hitzig
here
the reference is to God’s faithfulness, either in promises or in threats.
Keil
objects to this, contending that baamitheka with the preposition be
cannot
mean “faithfulness,” but” truth.” This is a mistake; the preposition
might
alter the significance of the verb it follows, but not that of the noun it
governs.
The truth is that the word here is extended to its fullest meaning,
“God’s
supreme reality.” God’s being God implies necessarily that
every
word
He utters of promise or threatening is true; veracity and faithfulness
are
equally involved in Jehovah being God. At the same time, from the
connection
it is the evil — the judgments — He had threatened that bulk
most largely in the prophet’s mind.
14 “Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil, and
brought
it upon us: for the Lord our God is righteous in all His works
which
He doeth: for we obeyed not His voice. The
Greek versions agree
with
this, save that the Septuagint. has “Lord God” in the first case as well as the
second.
The Peshitta, when one remembers the different division of the
verses,
is also identical. There is an obvious resemblance here to
Jeremiah 44:27, “Behold, I am watching over you for evil, and
not for
good.” The verb shaqad is somewhat
rare, occurring only twelve times in
Scripture,
and five of these times in Jeremiah. It is not always an evil
watching;
in Jeremiah 31:28 the two meanings are contrasted. Then
follows
an acknowledgment of the righteousness of God in so dealing with
them
Baruch 2:9 is really a version of this verse; the original Hebrew would
be
almost identical. There are few indications which, did this verse stand
alone, would enable one to decide which is the more primitive.
15
“And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people
forth
out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten
thee
renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.”
The
versions are in agreement with the Masoretic text. This verse also has
many
resemblances to Jeremiah 32:20-21. Hast
brought thy people
forth out of the land of Egypt with a
mighty hand. In Jeremiah we have,
“Hast
brought forth thy people Israel with signs and with wonders and with
a
strong hand.” In Jeremiah it is fuller, in Daniel we have only a condensed
reference.
Hast gotten thee renown, as at
this day. This is an exact
quotation
from Jeremiah. The exactness is obscured in our Authorized
Version,
in which Jeremiah 32:20 is given, “Hast
made thee a name, as
at this day:” the words rendered, “made thee a name,” in Jeremiah, are
precisely
the same as these rendered above,” gotten
thee renown.” The last
clause
is very much a repetition of the opening of v. 5, “we have sinned,”
missed the mark; “we have done wickedly,” violently
transgressed.
16
“O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee,
let
thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem,
thy
holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our
fathers,
Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that
are
about us.” The Septuagint rendering here is in close agreement with the
Massoretic.
The Peshitta, imagining a certain want of
completeness in the last
clause,
inserted after “Jerusalem” “is scattered into all lands.” The appeal is
made
to God’s righteousness, because now the seventy years were nearing their
end,
and God’s righteousness was involved in the time not being exceeded.
“Righteousness” here signifies the fair dealing (wohlverhalten) of God to His
people
in reference to the fulfillment
of His promises.” “Righteousness”
is really
righteousnesses, in the plural, the reference being to the many proofs God
has given in the past of His benevolence. “Thy
city Jerusalem, thy
holy
mountain,” forms a further argument: “The mountain of thy holiness”
(Psalm
2:6). A reproach to all that are
about us. There is a striking
resemblance
here to Jeremiah: repeatedly in his prophecies are the Jews
threatened
that they will become a reproach (herpa). Especially is there a
resemblance
here to Jeremiah 29:18, the letter of Jeremiah, to which
reference
is made in the beginning of the chapter. This whole prayer is
saturated
with phrases borrowed from Jeremiah. The apocryphal Book of
Baruch,
which has expanded on this prayer, has also drawn from Jeremiah.
17
“Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant,
and
his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary
that
is desolate, for the Lord’s sake.” The
Septuagint differs here, “Now
give
ear, O Lord, to the prayer of thy servant, and to my supplications; for
thy
servant’s sake lift up thy countenance upon thy holy mountain which is
desolate,
O Lord.” The omission of the vav in tahenoonayiv would
occasion
the Septuagint rendering, “my supplications.” They had read אדני
before,
עבדך. Certainly the Septuagint
rendering gives better sense than
the
violent change to the third person from the second. The
conjunction would not
naturally
be lema’an (ˆלְמַעַן),
but possibly ‘eqeb asher (עֶקֶב
אֲשֶׁר).
Further,
the covenant name would certainly have been used in such a
connection,
and it would necessarily have been followed by “thou.” As it
stands,
it really asserts that the desolations are on account of the Lord —
an
assertion which would not be germane to the tenor of the prayer. The
reading
of the Septuagint is thus better here. Theodotion is closer to the
Massoretic
text, but instead of “O our God,” reads, “O Lord our God,”
and
avoids the change of person in the last clause by reading אדני as a
vocative,
and inserting σου – sou – your. The Peshitta has, “our supplication,”
and
avoids
the awkward change of person by reading, “for thy Name’s sake.”
Jerome
gives a fairly accurate rendering of the Massoretic. only in the last
clause
he omits “Lord” and renders temet ipsum. The influence of the
Psalter
is to be seen in this verse. The first clause is a slightly altered and
condensed
version of Psalm 143:1. The verb that ought to open the
second
member is omitted. The word tahooneem is not a very common
one.
Cause thy face to shine upon thy
sanctuary has a close resemblance to
Psalm 80:3, 7, 19. As they.had no temple
sacrifices in Babylon, the
captive
Jews would have only the psalms of the sanctuary to keep the sense
of
worship alive in their hearts.
18 “O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open
thine
eyes,
and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy
Name:
for we do not present our supplications before thee for our
righteousnesses,
but for thy great mercies. 19 O Lord, hear; O Lord,
forgive;
O Lord. hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my
God;
for thy city and thy people are called by thy Name.” The
Septuagint
differs but little from the Massoretic; they read “hear me”
instead
of simply “hear.” The translator also connects the “desolation “with
the city, against grammar. The Septuagint adds, (σὺ ἱλάτευσον –
su
hilateuson - be propitious to us – v. 19). The repetition of the vocative in v.19 is
omitted,
but “Zion” and “Israel” are inserted after “city” and “people”
respectively.
Theodotion is in yet closer agreement with the received text.
The
Peshitta is very close, but adds “ruin” to “desolation.” The Vulgate
affords
no cause of remark. Our desolations. The
word used here occurs in
Lamentations.
In the prophecies of Jeremiah a cognate word is used,
differing
from that before us only in vocalization (compare Jeremiah
25:12,
where it is applied to Babylon after the seventy years of Babylonian
rule
are ended). Which is called by thy
Name. This phrase is used
repeatedly
in Jeremiah 7. of the temple. Present
our supplications. The
words
used suggest the posture in presenting a petition — falling down
before
the person to whom it is addressed. It is one frequently used in
Jeremiah,
sometimes of persons (Jeremiah 38:26), of God
(Jeremiah
42:9). Not on account of our
righteousnesses. There is a
marked
advance in spiritual insight exhibited by this. The old position was
reward
according to righteousness, and mercy because of it. The Jews
before
the Captivity had very much the heathen idea of paying God by
sacrifice for benefits received or asked;
but the long cessation of sacrifice
raised
them above this. But for thy great
mercies. This plea to God
because
in the past He has multiplied His mercies, is in the same elevated
plane.
We find a similar line in Nehemiah 9:17, 30-32, only as an occasion of
thanksgiving.
The repetition of the word Adonai, and the short sentences,
give
a feeling of intensity to the prayer suitable to the circumstances. The
words
used are all echoes of Jeremiah; e.g. “forgive,” “hearken,” are
used
in
connections that would suit Daniel’s study of Jeremiah. It is impossible
not
to observe to how great an extent
this prayer is colored by Jeremiah.
In
its tone and character, the ends it seeks and the pleas it urges, this prayer
of
Daniel’s may be regarded as a model prayer for the forgiveness of sins.
inspiring.
It is marked by several important characteristics.
Ø
Contrition. It follows a confession of sin (vs. 5-8),
and frankly admits
that
the present calamities are the merited consequences of sin (v. 16).
Forgiveness
is only possible after repentance (Acts 3:19) and
Ø
Earnestness. This is the most striking feature of the
prayer Its short
passionate
phrases, its repetitions, its direct practical aims, are proofs of
reality
and intensity of desire. We may expect that God will attend to our
prayers
in proportion to our earnestness in offering them. Reverent
importunity
is expected by God, and attains its end, as with Abraham
(Genesis
18:23-33), Jacob (Ibid. ch.32:26), Moses (Exodus 32:7-14),
and
in our Lord’s parable of the importunate widow (Luke 18:1-7).
Ø
Faith. In his distress the prophet seeks his
God, though it is against his
greatest
evil comes from sin, and can only be removed when our sin is
forgiven.
Forgiveness brings in its train all the best blessings.
Ø
The
turning away of God’s anger (v. 16.). The worst effect of our sin
is
seen in the changed relations between our souls and God. God is angry
with
us. The essence of forgiveness is not the remission of penalties, but
the
restoration of friendly relations between God and man.
It is personal
reconciliation
rather than
legal acquittal.
Ø
The
awakening of God’s sympathy. The prophet prays, “Incline thine ear
and
hear; open thine eyes.” Forgiveness is not
merely the negative
cessation
of God’s anger. It is the positive restoration of His sympathy.
Ø
The
practical help of God. “Cause thy face to shine;”
“hearken and do;”
“defer
not,” are earnest practical
petitions. After the spiritual
reconciliation,
we may naturally ask for help in the external calamities
which
our sins have brought upon us. Forgiveness is the preface to active
nothing
for our own righteousness. All our pleas must be found, as Daniel
found
his, in the character and actions of God.
Ø
God’s righteousness. This is a plea,
o
because
it implies His faithfulness to His promises of pardon
to
the penitent (Leviticus 26:40-44); and
o
because
righteousness is more honored by the forgiveness
which
destroys sin than by the anger which only punishes it (Isaiah 45:21).
Ø
God’s honor. Jerusalem is “God’s holy mountain;” the city is “called by
His
name.” God is dishonored in
the humiliation of His people, and He is
glorified
in their restoration (Numbers 14:13-16).
Ø
God’s mercy. (v. 18.) All prayer
depends on the free grace of God.
Prayer
for pardon rests on that grace which pities misery and overlooks
offences
— the grace which we call mercy. This plea is expressed by the
The
Omnipotence of Prayer (vs. 1-19)
The man of
prayer exerts a greater influence over national affairs than even
mainly
serves as a landmark on the course of time to indicate a date; Daniel
is
still the teacher and molder of men.
WILL.
The reason why Daniel prayed so earnestly for this special blessing
was
that he knew from Jeremiah’s prophecies God’s purpose concerning
Israel.
This knowledge, instead of rendering prayer needless, made it more
necessary.
For God is no fatalist, He does not absolutely fix a date for
certain
events without good reason, nor is the fixture made regardless of
other
events. That date for the termination of Israel’s bondage took into
account,
through the Divine presence, the temper and feeling prevalent
among
the Jews — took into account even this very prayer of Daniel.
Speaking
after the manner of men, Daniel’s intercession was a foreseen link
in
the chain of events, and could not be spared. Daniel possibly did not
realize
the full extent of his responsibility; still, he felt that a turn in the tide
of
Israel’s fortunes was due, that the Divine promise awaited fulfillment,
and that much
depended on earnest prayer. Hope liberates the tongue of
prayer. If God has purposed to bless, we
can plead with confident
AND ATTRIBUTES
OF GOD. It is very instructive to note how in this
prayer
Daniel fastens his eye upon God, contemplates His manifold
perfections,
and finds in them the fuel with which to feed the fires within
his
soul. He delights to think on God’s greatness —
His vast resources of
good. He reposes with confidence on the
unchanging faithfulness of Him
who
had stooped to make a covenant with Israel. If the nation’s sins
depress
his hopes, the mercy of God far more elates him. He is pleased to
contemplate
God’s infinite righteousness; for that
righteousness He can and
will
convey to His suppliant people. He extracts
hope even from the
inviolable
justice of Jehovah, inasmuch as this attribute secures to men the
fullest
benefit of every gracious promise. He pleads that anger may be
diverted
from Jerusalem, “according to the righteousness” of God.
Once
and
again Daniel urges his request “for the Lord’s
sake” — “for thine own
sake, O my God.” This is the inexhaustible
well of human comfort, viz. that
pray
the more they part with self-confidence, self-righteousness, self-importance,
self-seeking.
They lose themselves in God. Every form of
sin
that
Daniel could find in his consciousness or in his memory was confessed,
and confessed with genuine sorrow. He acknowledges personal and public
sins in every variety of language:
Ø
deafness to the
Divine voice,
Ø
neglect of the
plain commandments,
Ø
disregard of
special messengers,
Ø
contempt of God’s
sovereign authority,
A VICARIOUS ACT. In prayer we take the
place of others, bear their
burdens,
and make intercession for them. Daniel here pleads for the whole
nation.
He regards as his own the
sins of rulers, kings, priests, and judges.
The
whole nation is represented in his person. As upon a later occasion,
the
lives of passengers and crew in the Egyptian ship were saved for Paul’s
sake
(Acts 27), so now the restoration of Israel was due instrumentally to the
advocacy
of Daniel. A self-righteous man would have repudiated the idea
that
he was as guilty as others; he would have plumed himself on his
superior
virtues. Not so Daniel. The sins of the nation he attaches to
himself
— felt himself, in a sense, responsible for the whole; and seeks
Divine
favor, not for himself individually, but for the commonwealth of
PLEADING. Sensible that so much hung
upon his successful suit, Daniel
put
his whole soul into it, and resolved that he would not fail for want of
earnestness.
He had risen to the height of the great emergency. He knew
he
employs in his siege of the heavenly citadel. And God permitted this, not
on
His own account, but to elicit fervent desire and to develop heroic faith.
If
a man clearly sees the evil which follows from non-success, he
will use
the
most fervid appeal. Or, if he discerns
the magnitude of the boon which
is
in view, he will strain every nerve of his soul to obtain it. Langor in
prayer is the offspring
of ignorance. Earnestness is only sober wisdom.
20
“And whiles I was
speaking, and praying, and
confessing
my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my
supplication
before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my
God; 21 Yea,
whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel,
whom
I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly
swiftly,
touched me about the time of the evening oblation.” All the
versions
are practically in agreement with the Massoretic text, save that
none
of them gives the hophal meaning, “caused to fly swiftly;” the
nearest
approach
being in the Septuagint, in which we have τάχει φερόμενος
–
tachei
pheromenos. All, however, derive the word from יָעַפ, “to fly;”
another
etymology is possible
from יָעַפ. As to the meaning
of this word,
there
is a difference of opinion, Gesenius holding that it means “wearied out” —
a
meaning unsuited
to the subject or to the context, though in accordance with
the
use of
the word elsewhere. Meinbold would connect this word with the
preceding
clause, and refer it to Daniel, “when I was faint.” The main
difficulty
is the succeeding word. Furst suggests that it means “shining in
splendor”
— a meaning perfectly suited to the circumstances, but for
which
there seems little justification in etymology from cognate tongues.
Furst
suggests a transposal from יָפַע.
Winer gives it, “celeriter ivit,
cucurrit.”
This view is taken by Hitzig, yon Lengerke, and Havernick.
V.
20
is largely an expansion of the first clause of v. 21. Whiles I was
speaking, and praying. (compare Genesis 24:15, “And it came to pass,
before
he had done speaking”). This shows the
rapidity of the Divine
answer to prayer; even before we ask, “our Father knows what things we
have
need of before we ask” (Matthew 6:8). The man Gabriel. The name
Gabriel,
as mentioned above, means “Hero of God;” and tile word here
translated
“man”
is the ordinary word for “man,” ‘ish. It may be remarked
that
in Scripture angels are always “men;” never, as in modern art and poetry,
“women.” Whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning. This really means
“whom
I had seen previously
in vision,” the reference being to ch.8:16. Being caused
to fly swiftly. As above mentioned, there is considerable difficulty in
deciding
which meaning is to be taken as the correct. Touched me about the time
of
the evening oblation. Daniel
is so absorbed in his devotions that not till Gabriel
touched
him did he recognize the presence of an
angel-visitant. The time
of
the evening offering does not imply that those offerings were made in
Babylon,
but simply that, through the half-century that had intervened
since
the
capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar the sacred hour had been kept
in remembrance, not impossibly as being one
consecrated to prayer. Daniel
had
been using this season to make known his request and petition to God.
“Oblation,”
minhah, the bloodless meat offering (Leviticus 2:1, 4, 14).
The
Nation’s Advocate at God’s Bar (vs. 1-21)
“Whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel…
touched me”
(v. 21). Our subject is the prayer of Daniel, and the following
points will
demand full and careful consideration.
·
THE MOMENT IN TIME.
This was most critical; for:
Ø
The moment had been anticipated in prophecy. (Jeremiah 25:11-12;
29:10-14.) How Daniel reckoned
the seventy years, and how others did so,
must be carefully observed. The deportation to
twenty years; hence different men took a different starting-date
whence to
reckon the seventy. Daniel reckons from the first siege, the date
of his own
going into captivity (B.C. 606). Zechariah from the
third siege,
o
from the beginning of
it, B.C. 590 (Zechariah 1:12);
o
from its close, B.C. 588 (ibid. 7:1, 5). The prophets wrote each from his own standpoint, and there are no discrepancies, though
the critical school tries to create them.
Ø
It was immediately after the fall of
Ø
The Cyrus of prophecy was on the throne of
vicegerent in
issued his decree (Ezra 2:1-2).
Ø
It was offered at the exact moment of evening sacrifice.
(v. 21.)
·
THE FOUNDATION OF THE PRAYER. The Word of God, as
contained in “the Scriptures.”
We should read v. 2 thus: “I Daniel
understood by the Scriptures
the number of the years.” The
expression is,
indeed, most remarkable, and has been laid hold of to impugn
Daniel’s
authorship. This is said in substance: The expression shows that the
Old
Testament was, when the Book of
Daniel was written, complete. It must
then have been written after the close of the Old Testament
canon; not then
by Daniel, but by some one very much later. The author,
whoever he was,
has inadvertently betrayed himself. The answer would be best
given by
showing historically the gradual formation of the canon all the
way down
from Moses, and particularly that from his time even “the Scriptures”
had
an acknowledged existence. (See Westcott,
on ‘The Canon,’ specially p.
251, in Dr.
Smith’s ‘Dict. of the Bible.’ See also Pusey on Jonah 1:1.)
Enough for us here to note that
Daniel’s prayer was founded on the
prophecy and promise of Daniel’s God. Enough for
practical purposes.
·
ITS SOLEMN AND DELIBERATE CHARACTER. Imagine vividly
the crisis. The first great world-power had already gone
down. How long
the second and third might last, who could tell? Then would
appear the
fourth, during whose existence “one like a Son of man”
would come “with
the clouds of heaven.” The deliverer from captivity (Cyrus) had already
appeared — was on the throne
of power.
Ø
Such a prayer could
not be breathed amidst life’s business. Retirement,
leisure, deliberateness, solemnity, were all essential.
Ø
There had been
preparation for it. “Fasting, and
sackcloth, and ashes,”
i.e. the withdrawal of
the spirit from the realm of the sensuous, the
assumption of the mourner’s garb, the sign of abasement and grief,
viz.
casting ashes on the head.
Ø Daniel’s mode of speaking implies deliberation
and solemnity. “I set my
face,” etc.
“Unto the Lord God,” with
perhaps the lattice open “toward
·
ITS CONTENTS.
In a sense we would analyze it; but not so as to
dissipate the aroma of its sweetly plaintive devotional spirit.
Ø
The invocation. (v. 4.) In these words
we have:
o
Some of the glorious attributes
of God referred to. And:
§
His majesty. All great in Him.
§
Fidelity to covenant. Whether the terms be
written in the ordinances of heaven, the social constitution of man, the
development of providence, the book of the Law, or the gospel
of His
Son. But “the covenant”
specially.
§
Mercy.
o
An answering feeling. Dread. Not the
abjectness of fear, but the
prostration of reverent love.
Ø
The confession.
In it there are the following specialities: The iniquity of
the nation is set forth:
o
In its greatness. Terms that to us are
almost synonymous in Daniel’s
Hebrew set forth the nation’s
sin as:
§
failure,
§
perversity,
§
disturbance,
§
rebellion,
§
departure from all
that is holiest and best,
§
disobedience to the one supreme voice.
o
In its aggravations. The Law disregarded. Prophets
unheeded. See the
history (II Chronicles 36:14-16). Divine judgments in vain.
o
In its universality. The ten tribes “afar
off,” and the two “near.”
o
In its effects. The fulfillment of oath and curse
in the desolations of
temple and city, Church and nation.
Ø
The vindication of God. (vs.
7-8, 11-14.)
Ø
Complaint. The reproach of the people and the ruin of the sanctuary
were the prophet’s mighty griefs (vs.
16-18). “Our desolations.”
Ø The petition.
o
The plea. It is for:
§
The cherishing of anger. (v. 16.)
§
The recognition of the desolation. (v.
18.)
§
The favoring smile of God. (v. 17.)
§
Pardon. (v.
19.)
§
Divine action. (v. 19.)
§
Instant and speedy relief. (v. 19.)
o
Its ground. Observe:
§
Daniel has never forgotten for a moment the covenant
relation of God. Note: “The Lord my God;” “The Lord our God;”
§
Toward the close all
the argument is fetched, not from what man is, but from what God is.
ü “According to all thy righteousness;”
ü “For the Lord’s sake;”
ü “The city which is called by thy name;”
ü “For thy great mercies;”
ü
“For thine own sake;”
ü
“Thy city and thy
people are called by thy name.”
·
THE ANSWER.
Ø
Instantaneous.
Ø
Most marked.
Ø
By angelic envoy.
·
IN CONCLUSION, observe:
Ø
The noble unselfishness of the prayer. All
intercessory.
Ø
Its consequent prevalence. Every word was answered.
Next year out
came the edict
of Cyrus for the restoration.
22
“And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O
Daniel,
I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.” The
Septuagint.
and Peshitta render the first clause, “And he approached and talked
with
me.” It is difficult to understand how that reading could have arisen
from
the Massoretic text, or how, on the other hand, the Massoretie text
could
have arisen from that behind the Septuagint. The rendering of the
Septuagint
in the last clause is better than that in our Authorized Version,
and
is in accordance with our Revised, “to make thee skilful of
understanding.”
Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic. Although Daniel
was
highly endowed, and although he had before him the inspired words of
Jeremiah, he had need of yet
higher endowments to understand the
secrets
of the Divine plan.
He knew that if he reckoned seventy years from the
time
when he himself had been carried captive, then the period was
drawing
to a close: but the sins
of the people were still there. It might be
that
God would restrain the fulfilment of His promise; the more so that, if
the
prophecy of Jeremiah were reckoned from the fall of Jerusalem, twenty
years
would yet have to run. Daniel is concerned about the sins of his
people,
knowing that, unless they were removed, renewed punishment