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 Jerusalem.” The version of the Septuagint goes on the

assumption that the critics are correct in their belief that the author of

Daniel imagined a Median Empire between the Babylonian and the Persian.

(1) “In the first year of Darius son of 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 Jerusalem.” Theodotion is

closer to the Massoretic, only he does not seem to have read the hophal of “reign,”

but the kal. Further, Theodotion omits the second statement of the year of

Darius, with which, both in the 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 Jerusalem — seventy

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 province of Babylonia. Not improbably,

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 Babylon. Only a

contemporary would have indicated this singular state of matters by the use

of an out-of-the way portion of a verb without further explanation. It is

singular that critics will not give the obvious meaning to the persistent

indications that the author of this book gives, that he regards Darius, not as

an independent sovereign, but as in some sort a vassal of a higher power,

on whom he is dependent. Of the seed of the Medes. This statement

naturally implies that while Darius was of Median descent, he was

naturalized into some 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 Babylon, therefore sixty-eight years from the time that Daniel

was carried captive. The period, then, which had been foretold by Jeremiah

during which the Jews were to be captive and Jerusalem desolate, WAS

DRAWING TO A CLOSE. According to the critical assumption, that this date is

to be reckoned from the captivity of Jehoiachin (B.C. 598), there were yet ten

years to run, and if it reckoned from the capture of Jerusalem during the

reign of Zedekiah, there were twenty years. There is a certain dramatic

suitability, if no more, in Daniel studying the prophecies of Jeremiah, with

always growing eagerness as the time approached when God had promised

release. I Daniel understood by books. The critical school have assumed

that this phrase “books” applies, and must apply, to the canon; therefore it

is concluded that this book was written after the formation of the canon,

and therefore very late. Unfortunately for the assumption brought

forward, aephareem is by no means invariably used collectively for the

books of the Bible, but K’thubim, e.g. Talmud Babli Shabbath (Mishna), p.

115a, was also used. Many of the cases where sephareem appears it is

used distributively, not collectively; e.g. Talmud Babli Megillah (Mishna),

p. 8b. From the fact that the same word was used for the third division of

the canon, and for the books of the canon as a whole, there was liable to be

a difficulty, and hence confusion. Traces of this we find in the prologue to

the Greek Version of Ecclesiasticus. Thus in the first sentence the translator

speaks of “the Law, the Prophets, and the others (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

with preceding Scripture.

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

synagogue service in Babylon.

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

this original source.

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.

Confession of Sin (vs. 3-8)

• THE DUTY OF CONFESSION. This implies, first, a recognition of

guilt in our own consciousness; and second, an admission of it in the

presence of God.

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

admit our guilt to ourselves.

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 we have sinned against Him;

o He is our Judge;

o He is our Father;

o HE ONLY can deliver us from the consequences and power

of sin.

• THE TESTS OF SINCERE CONFESSION. No duty is more often

obeyed only in outward form, and yet there is no duty in which unreality

and superficiality are more fatal.

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

of no value.

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).

• THE GROUNDS OF CONFESSION.

Ø A consideration of our conduct in the light of the nature and character

of God.

o We shall realize our guilt by comparison with God’s

righteousness, which is the standard of perfection. It is the daylight of God’s presence which reveals the defects of our

work.

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:

“we have rebelled.”

o We live under spiritual government, and are not left to our own

inclination to shape our conduct; therefore our wickedness is the breach of law: we have “departed from God’s precepts and judgments.”

o We have been enlightened by Divine revelation. We cannot plead

ignorance. Even the heathen have some light of conscience and nature (Romans 1:18-20). We have the clearer light of prophecy, and our guilt is that “We have not hearkened to God’s servants the prophets”

• THE PERSONAL APPLICATION OF THE DUTY OF

CONFESSION.

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

Besetting sins, the sins which are particularly our own characteristic defects, the different kinds of sin, the separate

acts of sin. Confession of general guilt is often vague, and does

not associate itself closely with our experience.

o We should recognize the sinful condition of the heart of which these special sins are symptoms, and confess our sin as well as

our sins (Psalm 51:5).

• THE ENDS OF CONFESSION.

Ø It is right on its own account, as an evidence of sincerity (I John

1:8).

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.

Prayer for Pardon (vs. 16-19)

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.

• ITS CHARACTER. The very atmosphere of this prayer is purifying and

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

confession (I John 1:9).

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

God that the sin has been committed. Faith confesses that there is NO HELP BUT IN GOD! Faith persists in pleading with God, and relies

on His mercy.

• ITS OBJECT. The object of this prayer is the pardon of sin. All our

greatest evil comes from sin, and can only be removed when our sin is

forgiven. Forgiveness brings in its train all the best blessings.

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

help.

• ITS PLEAS. The prophet has no plea of merit. We can ask for

nothing for our own righteousness. All our pleas must be found, as Daniel

found his, in the character and actions of God.

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

Christian phrase, “for Christ’s sake,” because Christ is both the Revelation of God’s mercy and the Sacrifice by which it becomes attainable.

The Omnipotence of Prayer (vs. 1-19)

The man of prayer exerts a greater influence over national affairs than even

crowned heads. “Prayer moves the hand that moves the world.” (John A. Wallace.) Daniel on his knees was a mightier man than Darius on his throne.

Daniel was in the service of the King of kings; was admitted to the audience-chamber of the Most High; and received the announcements of the Divine will. Darius now

mainly serves as a landmark on the course of time to indicate a date; Daniel

is still the teacher and molder of men.

• TRUE PRAYER IS FOUNDED ON KNOWLEDGE OF GOD’S

WILL. The reason why Daniel prayed so earnestly for this special blessing

was that he knew from Jeremiah’s prophecies God’s purpose concerning

Israel. This knowledge, instead of rendering prayer needless, made it more

necessary. For God is no fatalist, He does not absolutely fix a date for

certain events without good reason, nor is the fixture made regardless of

other events. That date for the termination of Israel’s bondage took into

account, through the Divine presence, the temper and feeling prevalent

among the 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

expectation.

• PRAYER DERIVES ITS INSPIRATION FROM THE CHARACTER

AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. It is very instructive to note how in this

prayer Daniel fastens his eye upon God, contemplates His manifold

perfections, and finds in them the fuel with which to feed the fires within

his soul. He delights to think on God’s 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

GOD IS WHAT HE IS! It does not hinder success in prayer that we are so needy and so unworthy. The highest good is accessible, because the Fountain is

so VAST and so UNFAILING!

• PRAYER EMPTIES THE SUPPLIANT OF SELF. The more men

pray the more they part with self-confidence, self-righteousness, self-importance,

self-seeking. They lose themselves in God. Every form of sin

that Daniel could find in his consciousness or in his memory was confessed,

and confessed with genuine sorrow. He acknowledges personal and public

sins in every variety of language:

Ø Positive wickedness,

Ø deafness to the Divine voice,

Ø neglect of the plain commandments,

Ø disregard of special messengers,

Ø contempt of God’s sovereign authority,

all is confessed in a spirit of candor and humility. The axe is laid to the utmost root of pride. His soul is mantled in just shame. There is a complete emptying of self — a needful preparation to be filled with God.

• PRAYER IDENTIFIES THE SUPPLIANT WITH OTHERS — ‘TIS

A VICARIOUS ACT. In prayer we take the place of others, bear their

burdens, and make intercession for them. Daniel here pleads for the whole

nation. He regards as his own the sins of rulers, kings, priests, and judges.

The whole nation is represented in his person. As upon a later occasion,

the lives of passengers and crew in the Egyptian ship were saved for Paul’s

sake (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

Israel.

• PRAYER, TO BE SUCCESSFUL, MUST CONSIST IN EARNEST

PLEADING. Sensible that so much hung upon his successful suit, Daniel

put his whole soul into it, and resolved that he would not fail for want of

earnestness. He had risen to the height of the great emergency. He knew

that the “set time to favor Zion was now come.” (Psalm 102:13). Other hindrances were now removed. God waked to be gracious — waited for human prayer as the last link in the chain; and Daniel was chosen to complete the series of preparations. Every possible argument Daniel could conceive or elaborate

he employs in his siege of the heavenly citadel. And God permitted this, not

on His own account, but to elicit fervent desire and to develop heroic faith.

If a man clearly sees the evil which follows from non-success, he will use

the most fervid appeal. Or, if he discerns the magnitude of the boon which

is in view, he will strain every nerve of his soul to obtain it. 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 Babylon extended over

twenty years; hence different men took a different starting-date whence to

reckon the seventy. Daniel reckons from the first siege, the date of his own

going into captivity (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 Babylon. (v. 1.)

Ø The Cyrus of prophecy was on the throne of Persia. Darius was only

vicegerent in Babylon (Isaiah 44:24-45:7). In the very next year Cyrus

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

Jerusalem.”

· 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

would befall them.

23 “At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment

came forth, and I am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved:

therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.”

The Septuagint differs somewhat from this, “In the beginning of thy prayer a

commandment came from the Lord, and I came to show thee, because thou

art merciful, and do thou understand (διανοήθητι – dianonthaeti – you are to

understand) the command.” The other versions do not present much worthy of remark.

At the beginning of thy supplications. This affords a reason why it was while Daniel

“was yet speaking,” that Gabriel came to him; the moment the desire was strong

enough to shape itself in words, the answer was on the way. The

commandment came forth. The word translated “commandment” is the

very common Hebrew word, דָבָר (dabar), “a word,” “a thing,” “a

matter,” in which sense it occurs in the penultimate clause of this verse.

And I am come to show thee. The angel Gabriel is the messenger sent forth

to interpret to Daniel the ways of God with His people. The angel Gabriel is

sent to give Daniel an explanatory oracle or word that he may be

comforted concerning his people. The reason of this is, “for thou art

greatly beloved.” This phrase has caused considerable difference of

opinion. The Septuagint renders, ἐλεεινὸς – eleeinos – pitiable,

meritable – Theodotion, ἀνὴρ ἐπιθυμιῶν – anaer epithumion – a man of

desires; a man much desired; the Peshitta, regee; Jerome, vir desideriorum; Hitzig’s rendering is “darling”(liebling); Ewald, “dearly beloved one.” Hemoodoth means “desires,”“loves;” hence may either be understood subjectively or objectively; in this

case, most probably the latter, “a man, the object of love.” Therefore

understand the matter, and consider the vision. The reader will have

observed that the last clause is omitted from the Septuagint. There is a false

succession here. Daniel is first commanded “to understand the matter,” and

then “to consider the vision.” Another rendering of the Massoretic avoids

this by neglecting the ethnach, and connecting בִין with the preceding

clause, gives “thou art greatly beloved and understanding in the matter.”

Prayer Answered (vs. 20-23)

We have here a lifting of the veil which commonly hides from our view the

processes which connect our prayers with God’s replies. The revelation

thus made of the unseen world should confirm our faith in the necessity

and power of prayer, and help us to understand in some way the manner in

which God answers it.

• GOD GIVES SOME BLESSINGS ONLY IN RESPONSE TO

PRAYER. The blessing was given to Daniel immediately he prayed, but

not till then. Probably if the prayer had been offered sooner, the response

also would have been enjoyed sooner. There are many good things which

we lose simply because we do not pray for them (James 4:2).

Ø This is not contrary to the idea of the universality and unchangeable

character of natural law.

o Because prayer itself is a factor among spiritual forces which

have influences upon the future; and

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

Ø This is not contrary to the wisdom and goodness of God. God knows

what we need before we ask Him (Matthew 6:8). Yet there may be

things which it is wise and right for God to give after we have asked for

them, but which it is not right or wise for Him to give before we have

prayed, because our recognition of the need of them and our trust to God

for them, may be important conditions for the right reception of them

(Matthew 7:7-11).

• GOD ANSWERS PRAYER ACTIVELY AND PROMPTLY. Prayer

is not merely a subjective act soothing and relieving the soul. Even the

subjective influence of it depends on our faith in its real efficacy. We

should not be comforted by prayer if we did not believe that God heard

and answered it.

Ø God hears prayer. Prayer is not only the breathing out of our souls. It is

talking to a God who hears, attends, and sympathizes (Isaiah 41:17).

Ø God acts in response to prayer. Gabriel is sent by God, and Daniel

receives new light. We may find, especially in spiritual matters, that there is a real exertion of energy on God’s side in response to prayer. He is not

a passive hearer of prayer. His answers are not the mere echoes of sympathy. They carry active aid (Psalm 91:15).

Ø God answers prayer promptly. Daniel prays, “Defer not.” God does not

defer. The answer is sent at the very beginning of the supplication, and

Gabriel is “caused to fly swiftly.” God is too powerful to need to delay,

and too merciful to be willing to delay. If we do not receive the answers to

our prayers quickly, it is not because God is slow, but because the time at

which the blessing is to be given is one of the conditions of its utility. Still,

the decree goes forth at once, and begins to be accomplished in due time

(Habakkuk 2:3).

• GOD’S RESPONSE TO PRAYER IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH

HIS WILL AND PROVIDENTIAL ORDER.

Ø The manner in which the answer is made does not imply any breach in

the order of providence. The angel is sent to communicate knowledge to

Daniel. This, according to Scripture, is the normal method of spiritual

help (Hebrews 1:14).

Ø The substance of the answer is in harmony with God’s will and the

order of His providence. Daniel prays for the restoration of his people. God answers the prayer by revealing the already settled purpose of this

restoration. God often answers prayer in a different way from our

expectation. Sometimes He opens our eyes to blessings already given, but

not recognized (Genesis 21:19). Sometimes He changes our desires,

and inclines our hearts to rest in His will by showing us that it is better than our will. The best prayer is that in which we seek to be reconciled to the will of God (Matthew 26:39).

24 “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon

thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins,

and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting

righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint

the Most Holy.” The Septuagint here differs from the above, “Seventy weeks

are determined (ἐκρίθησαν – ekrithaesan – from that time) upon thy people and the city of Zion, to make an end of sin, to make unrighteousness rare (σπανίσαι – spanisai)

and to wipe out the unrighteousnesses, and to understand the vision, and to give

(δοθῆναι – dothaenai - appoint) everlasting righteousness, and to end the visions and

the prophet, and to rejoice the holy of holies.” There seem here to be some

instances of doublet: τὰς ἀδικίας σπανίσαι – tas adikias sranisai – make

unrighteosness rare and ἀπαλεῖψαι τὰς ἀδικίας – apaleipsai tas adikias –

wipe away injustices; blot out unrighteousness -are different renderings of לְחָתֵם (lehathaym hattaoth), or as it isin the Q’ri, leahthaym hattath (לְחָתֵם חַטָּאוח). Neither of these seems to be the original of the Greek. Schleusner suggests to read

σφραγίσαί - sphagisai – seal.Against this is the fact that Paulus Tellensis renders lemaz’or, “to bring to nothing” (Jeremiah 10:24, Peshitta). How Wolf (‘Siebzigwochen,’ p. 26) can say the Septuagint confirms the Massoretic K’thib, is difficult to see.

The author of the first rendering of this phrase seems to have read חתת

(ha-thath) instead of hatham; the other translator must have read mahah

(מָחָה). The phrase, διανοηθῆναι τὸ ὅραμα – dianoaethaenai to horama –

to understand the vision, seems a doublet of the clause “to seal up the vision.”

There seems to have been in one of the manuscripts used by the Septuagint

translator a transposition of words; for one of them must have read ˆ לְחֻתַן (lehoothan) instead of לְחָבִיא, since he renders δοθῆναι (appoint). This is an impossible change, but the mistaking of להחם for להתן is perfectly easy to imagine, if להתם had

been written in place of להביא, and it transferred to the place in the

להיי, then we can easily understand ˆ להבין. In the last clause the Septuagint translator must have read שמח instead of משח, a clearly inferior reading. The impression conveyed to one is that the translators were able to put no intelligible meaning on the passage, and

rendered the words successively as nearly as they could without attempting

to make them sense. We must admit, however, that the phenomena that

cause this impression may be due to corruption of the text. Theodotion

renders, “Seventy weeks are determined (συνετμήθησαν – sunetmaethaesan –

were demarcated) upon thy people and on the holy city, to seal sins and wipe away unrighteousness, and to atone for sin, and to bring the everlasting righteousness,

and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies.” Theodotion, it

will be seen, as the Septuagint, has “prophet” instead of “prophecy,” which

certainly is more verbally accurate than our version; he omits “to finish

transgression,” having instead, “to seal sins.” The Peshitta has followed the

K’thib and renders, “finish transgressions,” and instead of “prophecy” has

the “prophets.” The text of the Vetus, as preserved to us by Tertullian, is,

“Seventy weeks are shortened (breviatae) upon thy people, and upon the

holy city, until sin shall grow old, and iniquities be marked (signentur), and

righteousnesses rise up, and eternal righteousness be brought in, and that

the vision and the prophet should be marked (signetur), and the holy of

holies (sanctus sanctorum) be anointed.” Jerome renders, “Seventy weeks

are shortened (abbreviate sunt) upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to

end falsehood (prevarieatio), to end sin, to wipe out iniquity, to bring in

the everlasting righteousness, to fulfil the vision and prophecy, and to

anoint the holy of holies (sanctus sanctorum).” The Hebrew here is

peculiar; the word for “weeks” is in the masculine, which is unexampled

elsewhere in the plural. The singular masculine is found, e.g Genesis

29:27; there is no case of feminine singular. Mr. Galloway (‘Shadow on the

Sundial,’ p. 51) would read שָׁבֻעִים שָׁבֻעִים,, and would render, “by weeks

it is determined.” There seems little evidence for this reading; against a few

late manuscripts is the consensus of versions. “Determined” is also a word

that occurs only here; it is Aramaic, but not common even in that

language. It means “to cut off.” It may thus refer to these weeks being “cut

off” from time generally; hence “determined.” It is singular, and its

nominative is plural. “To finish” also causes difficulty; so translated, it

implies that the word should be written כָלָה; but it is written כָּלָא, which

means “to restrain,” “to enclose,” “to separate off” (Furst). Hence if we

translate as it stands, it should be “restrain transgression.” “To make an

end of” is also “cause transgression to cease” This in a rendering of the

Massoretic Q’ri; if the K’thib had been taken, the translation should rather

have been “to seal.” “Sins:” this word is plural in the K’thib, but singular in

the Q’ri. A large number of manuscripts write the word plural; the Greek

versions give the plural; the Peshitta and Vulgate, Aquila and Paulus

Tellensis, singular. “The prophecy,” it is clearly an it stands “the prophet.”

Jerome is the only one of the versions that takes the word in the sense in

which it is taken in our versions. Professor Bevan renders it “prophet” (so

Hitzig and Hengstenberg). One is tempted to adopt the reading of

Michaelis הזיי חנביא, “the vision of the prophet,” which has some

manuscript authority (Wolf, ‘Siebzigwochen,’ p. 15). The overwhelming

mass of evidence is in favour of the present consonantal text. Seventy

weeks. “Week,” while generally a week of days (ch.10:2), was

occasionally week of years, as Genesis 29:27, “fulfil the week of this,”

i.e. the seven years of service. Among the later Jews this became a

recognized mode of reckoning, as in the Book of Jubilees, each jubilee in

divided into successive weeks. From what follows it is necessary that the

weeks here are sevens of years. “Are determined,” as already indicated,

means “cut off,” not “shortened,” which does not seem to be the meaning

of the word in any case. “Upon thy people and upon thy holy city.” Daniel

has been praying long and earnestly for his people; so there would be no

inability to see what was meant by “his city and his people.” “To finish

transgression” is equivalent to “to restrain transgression.” Transgression is

apt to become bold and imperious; it is a great deal when it is even

somewhat “restrained.” It is to be noted that, as Daniel’s prayer was

greatly confession of the sins of the people and prayer for forgiveness, the

promises here are largely moral; but still the Messianic period even was not

to be expected to be one in which there will be no sin — it is to be

restrained. “To make an end of sins” — though “to seal sins” seems the

better reading diplomatically it is the K’thib, and that of some of the

versions. It is difficult to give the phrase an intelligible meaning. Moreover,

the occurrence of חתם so immediately after is against it. Something may

be said for מחה, which occurs in a similar connection with תמם that this

does in Lamentations 4:22. This is the reading of one of the translators

in the Septuagint ἀπαλεῖψαι (blot out), the spirit of lawlessness would be restrained

and the past iniquities and their guilt wiped away. “To make reconciliation”

— “to make an atonement.” The verb used is the technical word, “the

offering of an atoning sacrifice.” In this sense it occurs some fifty times in

Leviticus. This might apply to the renewal of sacrificial offerings in the

temple after the fifty years’ cessation during the Babylonian captivity, or to

the renewal after the shorter cessation under the oppression inflicted on the

Jews under Epiphanes. The next clause implies a wider application and a

loftier sacrifice. Professor Bevan is right in maintaining that, despite the

accents, this clause is to be connected with the next. To bring in

everlasting righteousness. This is more than merely the termination of the

suit of God against His people (Isaiah 27:9). The phrase occurs in

Psalm 119:142, and is applied to the righteousness of God. These two,

“atonement for sin” and “the everlasting righteousness,” ARE FOUND

IN CHRIST! — His atoning death and the righteousness which He brings into the

world. It is true that when Daniel heard these words spoken by Gabriel he might

not put any very distinct meaning on them — in that he was but like other

prophets; the prophets did not know the meaning of their own prophecies.

To seal up the vision and prophecy; more correctly, to seal vision and

prophet — to set to them the seal of fulfilment. This does not refer to Jeremiah, his because prophecy referred merely to the return from Babylon, and this refers to a period which is to continue long after that. Jeremiah’s prophecy was about to be verified.

This new prophecy required four hundred and ninety years ERE IT RECEIVED

ITS VERIFICATION. Some event to happen nearly half a millennium after Daniel

is to prove the prophecy God has given him to be true. And to anoint the

Most Holy. This phrase, קָדָשִׁים קֹרֶשׁ; (qodesh qodasheem), is used some

forty times in Scripture, but almost always of things, as the altar and the

innermost sanctuary. The phrase for “sanctuary” is “קֹדֶשׁ הַקּ, with the article.

I Chronicles 23:13 as a case where, without the article, the

phrase applies to an individual, וַוִּבַּ דֵל אַחֲרֹן לְהִקְדִישׁו קיי קיי

(vayibba-dayl Aheron leheqdeesho qodesh qadasheem), “And he separated

Aaron to sanctify him as a holy of holies.” This seems almost the necessary

translation, despite the versions; for the prenominal suffix must be the

object, and “holy of holies” must be in apposition to it. The act of anointing

as a sign of consecration, though applied to the tabernacle (Exodus

30:26; 40:9), to the altar (Ibid. ch. 40:10), the laver (Ibid. v.11),

is never applied to the holy of holies. It is applied most frequently to

persons; as to Aaron (Ibid. v.13), to Saul (I Samuel 10:1), to

David (Ibid. ch. 16:3). The words of Gabriel thus point forward to a time

when all iniquity shall be restrained, sin atoned for, and a priest anointed.

A Section in Time (v. 24)

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy holy city,” etc. The inner connection

between this brilliant prophecy and Daniel’s prayer is to be carefully observed.

At the end of seventy years of captivity he prayed for the averting of the Divine

anger (vs. 4-19). The answer passed on to the next critical event in the

developments of God — to the anointing of the Redeemer. It responded to

the soul of Daniel’s prayer, but went far beyond it. Divine answers go far

beyond “all that we ask or think” (Ephesians 3:20-21). We had best

here anticipate our homiletic line of march by indicating how we read the

passage. Literally thus: “Hebdomads [sc. of days or years] seventy is cut

off in regard to thy people and thy holy city, to close the defection, and to

seal up sins, and to cover iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,

and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies.”

• THE SECTION, i.e. of time, here said to be “cut off.” But what section

of time was cut off — seventy hebdomads of days or of years? It might be

said of days, but then we think each day stands for a year. For our part we

think the year-day theory very doubtful. We say, therefore, “seventy

hebdomads of years;” and for the following reasons:

o The Law had made hebdomads of years familiar. (Leviticus

25:1-4, 8-10.)

o The magnitude of the events required years. Seventy weeks of days

would be only one year and four months — too short a time for the

restoration of the city, the advent of Messiah, and the overthrow of

the city and nation.

o To the consolation of Daniel. What comfort for him, pining for the

restoration, if all were to be in ruin again within a year or so!

• ITS PREDICTION. In the substance and form of this prediction of

“the seventy sevens” are several specialities.

Ø The length of the section is mystically given. “Seventy sevens” is itself

mystical. But when we ask — From what moment reckoned, to what

moment? a haze of uncertainty envelops the whole subject. The date of

Daniel’s prayer is about B.C. 538. Four hundred and ninety years on leads

to B.C. 48. We believe the four hundred and ninety years are not to be

reckoned from the moment of Daniel’s prayer; but why this haze and

mystery? Because:

o Prophecy must not be too explicit. Explicit enough to lead to

expectation of the event; but not so explicit as either to suggest its own

fulfillment or contribute to its own defeat, Prophecy must not usurp the

place of history. Man’s moral relations must not be hopelessly entangled by premature and too sharply defined revelations.

o Mercy was to be contrasted strongly with judgment. Of desolation

seventy years; of comfort and further probation, seventy times seven.

o The perfection of the cycle was to be suggested. By the use of sacred

numbers. “Seven” has a place peculiar in Scripture, based possibly on facts yet undiscovered in the universe. It is suggestive of perfection. The following sevens form a remarkable accumulation:

§ the prismatic colors;

§ the notes of the octave;

§ Shakespeare’s “seven ages;”

§ a man’s “seven senses,” though the vulgar make them five, the scientific more;

§ the week of creation;

§ our week of days;

§ the week of years; the seven sevens, and then the jubilee year; the branches of the candlestick;

§ at Jericho, trumpets, priests, and days of perambulation;

§ ‘purified seven times (Psalm 12:6);

§ seven times a day do I praise thee (Ibid. ch. 119:164);

§ at the bringing up the ark from the house of Obed-edom, they offered “seven bullocks and seven rams;’ (I Chronicles 15:25-26);

§ in the New Testament, seven:

ü Churches,

ü candlesticks,

ü angels,

ü stars,

ü horns,

ü eyes,

ü lamps,

ü spirits of God,

ü trumpets,

ü vials, and

ü seals.

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

o Exact enough to excite a general expectation of the Messiah. That

Daniel’s prophecy did so is notorious.

o But also with literal numerical exactness. From the arrival of Ezra to

restore Jerusalem (B.C. 457) to A.D. 26, the year of the Lord’s baptism is 483. 483 is equivalent to seven sevens, and sixty-two sevens. Another half-week of years brings us to THE CRUCIFIXION, and consider another three and a half years occupied by the confirmation of the covenant.

Ø The section is regarded as one whole. Hence the singular verb with

plural noun: “Seventy sevens is cut off.”

Ø And insulated. “Cut off.” A distinct portion of history, like the

antediluvian age, the era of Egyptian bondage, the forty years of the desert, the seventy of the Captivity.

Ø In the prediction we can see God’s fellowship with Daniel. In his prayer,

Daniel recognized God’s sympathy with Jerusalem; in the answer, God

recognizes Daniel’s. Daniel had said, “Thy city Jerusalem… thy holy

mountain… thy people… thy city and thy people, called by thy name.”

God now says, “Upon thy people, and upon thy holy city.” Thine as well as MINE..

• ITS CLOSE The majestic events which were to signalize it.

Ø The termination of sin. By:

o The conclusion of the great rebellion. “To close the defection” — the

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

o The limitation of sins. “To seal up sins,” to incarcerate them, and to

place on the door of the dungeon the king’s seal. The:

§ breaking the power of sin;

§ limitation of the number of sins;

§ entire oblivion,

are all ideas which may well be included here.

o The covering of iniquity. “To cover iniquity.” Note: In the Old

Testament usage “cover” is used in one sense of God, in quite

another of man, in relation to sin (see the use of dp"K; in the

Hebrew concordance).

§ God “covers’ sin by forgiving it.

§ Man, by atoning for it.

Now, in this prophecy nothing is said of who “covers;” but

history declares it to be Christ. But He is God-Man; and therefore

“covers” in the double sense — atones and forgives. He acts as man

and as God.

Ø The advent of righteousness. “To bring in everlasting righteousness.”

Many Christians overlook this, are content with pardon, forget that the end

of the gospel is righteousness in heart and life. Note, then:

o The fact that this great crisis was to be signalized by the advent of

righteousness.

o The agent. Not named here; but THE CHRIST!

o The mode. By:

§ Divine example.

§ Elevated precept.

§ Loving persuasion.

§ Placing morals on a better foundation.

§ Inaugurating a government of unprecedented character, viz.

mediatorial.

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

§ Atonement.

§ The coming of the Holy Ghost.

o Its attribute. “Everlasting.”

§ The method of making men righteous, once introduced,

should be unchangeable and perpetual.

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

Ø The close of prophecy. “To seal up vision and prophet.” Four hundred

and ninety years passing before the ending of sin, and the advent of

righteousness shows the greatness of these events. THE SIN OF ALL

PEOPLE AND ALL TIME WAS TO BE EFFECTIVELY DEALT

WITH! This was the aspiration of prophecy — prophecy fulfilled, might cease. Christ’s words illustrate, “The things concerning me have an end” (Luke 22:37). When once vision and prophet are accomplished by the manifestation of the Son of God, though prophecy still remains in some respects immensely important, the adoring gaze of the Church is fixed on THE LIFE and LIGHT of men!

Ø The anointing of the Lord Jesus. “And to anoint the holy of holies.”

The outline of the argument for applying this phrase to the consecration

of the Messiah.

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

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

o The name is appropriate to Jesus. (Acts 3:14; 4:27; I John

2:20; Mark 1:24.)

o The preceding clauses of this prophecy lead up naturally to the

Messiah.

o The “Anointed” must be the same in vs. 24-25. “And to anoint the Most Holy… unto the Anointed, the Prince,” etc.

o The chronology favors, demands this conclusion. The “sevens

seventy” terminated with the advent of the Lord, and the confirmation of the DIVINITY OF HIS MISSION!

o Scripture use of the word “anoint,” and its application to the

Redeemer. (Summarize Scripture teaching on literal anointing; its spiritual significance; and on Jesus as “the Messiah” of the Old Testament and “the Christ” of the New.) A very powerful appeal might well be made to both believer and unbeliever at the close on the following grounds:

§ The great rebellion is broken;

§ limitation has been put upon sin;

§ atonement has been made;

§ everlasting righteousness has been brought in;

§ attention has been concentrated on the Light and Life of men;

§ the Saviour-King has been anointed.

ü Have we broken with the rebellion?

ü Is limitation being put upon our sin?

ü Have we accepted the atonement?

ü Are we putting on the garment of righteousness?

ü Is our gaze on the Life and Light?

ü Is the Anointed our Saviour and King?

Redemption Promised (v. 24)

• THE ASSURANCE OF REDEMPTION.

Ø It comes from God. We have sinned against God; yet it is He who

purifies and renews us. God sends the calamities which are the

chastisement of sin; but God also removes them, and restores His

penitent people to His favour (Psalm 103:3-4).

Ø It was determined long before it was accomplished. From the Fall the

restoration was determined (Genesis 3:15; Yes, even prior to that

because Christ stood as a “Lamb slain from the foundation of the

world.” - Revelation 13:8 – CY – 2014). Old Testament saints were

comforted by the hope of it. All previous history prepared the way for it.

Though “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17), they were

not created at His advent. The gospel is not a revelation of new mercy,

but a new revelation of God’s eternal mercy (Psalm 136:1).

Ø The time of its accomplishment was fixed beforehand. Though Christ

did not come till long after sin had entered the world, He came at the most

suitable time. He came when the world was prepared for His advent, and

when men most needed Him (Galatians 4:4).

• THE CHARACTERISTICS OF REDEMPTION.

Ø As regards the evil of the past.

o The old life of sin is completed and forsaken. The “old man

is put off” (Colossians 3:9). “The transgression is finished.”

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

o The old sins are atoned for and forgiven. They are “covered.” God will remember them no more (Isaiah 43:25). This is

regarded as accomplished in the act of redemption only

predicted to Daniel. Therefore we must understand that the forgiveness of sins depends on the accomplishment of THE

GREAT WORK OF CHRIST!

Ø As regards the blessings of the future.

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

o The sources of confidence are no longer vague hopes of a future

redemption, but the clear knowledge of the accomplished fact.

Judaism lived upon prophecy, Christianity lives upon history.

o The shame and humiliation of sin:

§ IS ABOLISHED;

§ the desolation which it produced is done away with;

§ the world is again joyous in the love of God;

§ worship is glad and deep and real, and

§ all life made sacred by its influence;

ü the “most holy place is anointed” and

reconsecrated.

25 “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth

of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the

Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two

weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous

times.” The Septuagint is widely different from this, “And thou

shalt know and shalt understand and shalt discover that the commandments

are determined, and thou shalt build Jerusalem a city of the Lord.” The

change in the first clause is due to a doublet reading — tishmah being also

read as well as tishkayl, which may have become confluent in the Hebrew

text before the Septuagint translator wrote. Instead of min-motza, he must

have read v’timtza, deriving this, not from יָצָא; (yatza), “to go forth,” but

from מָצָא (matza), “to find” — a reading that is opposed by the fact that

many manuscripts write the word plerum, מוצָא. Dabar must have been in

the plural, and some such word as neherotzeem must have been supplied

instead of hasheeb. The fact, however, that the same change occurs in

Theodotion might render it at least possible that this was the word in the

text, but Paulus Tellensis must have had a different reading, “Thou shalt

find the precepts for answering;” a marginal reading adds, “and for the

understanding the weeks.” In the next clause, וּבָנִיתָ (oova-neetha) instead

of לִבְנות (libenoth), and instead of עַד (‘adh) עִר eer), must have been

read, and “Messiah the Prince” has been paraphrased into κυρίῳ - kurio –

lord.. The last clause may be regarded as omitted. Not impossibly this may have

resulted from the end of the one verse being so like the beginning of the next.

Theodotion’s rendering is much more in agreement with the received text,

“And thou shalt know and understand, from the going forth of the word to

determine and build Jerusalem, until the anointed leader, is seven weeks

and sixty-two weeks, and he shall return, and the broad places and the wall

shall be built, and the times shall be distressful.” As above remarked,

harootz is read instead of hasheeb. The Peshitta differs considerably from

the received text, “Thou shalt know and understand from the decreeing of

the word to restore and build Jerusalem, to the coming of the anointed

king, is seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, to restore and build Jerusalem,

its wall, and its palaces, at the end of the time.” The rendering of the

Vetus, as preserved to us in Tertuliian, runs thus, “And thou shalt know

and perceive and understand from the going forth of the speech (sermo) for

the restoring and rebuilding of Jerusalem, even to Christ the Leader, are

sixty-two weeks and a half; and he shall return and build in joy, and the

wall (convollationem), and times shall be renewed.” Jerome’s rendering

is,” Know and understand from the going forth of the word that Jerusalem

should be again built, even to Christ the Leader, shall be seven weeks and

sixty-two weeks, and the squares shall be again built and the walls in hard

times.” What cannot fail to impress one is the confusion that exists as to

the original text. Of necessity conjectural emendations have been resorted

to, with not much advantage. The most plausible is the suggestion of

Professor Bevan to read lehosheeh, “to repeople,” instead of lehasheeb,

“to restore;” but there is no sign in the versions of such a reading being

accepted. On the whole, a reading not far removed from the received has

probability in its favor. Going forth of the commandment to restore and

to build Jerusalem. To what does this refer? Hengstenberg (‘Christology,’

3:128) says, “There can be no doubt that motza dabar signifies the issue of

the decree.” This view has the advantage that in v. 23 we have the same

combination, יצא דבר (yatza dabar), “a command went forth.” The

probability is always in favor of holding a word not to change its meaning

in contiguous verses, unless there is some indication that a change has

taken place. Other commentators assume as strongly that the word must be

the word of the Lord to Jeremiah; hence Bevan renders dabar, “promise,”

without so much as a hint that there can be any doubt in the matter.

Behrmaun takes the לְ, the sign of the infinitive, as being equivalent to ut,

and that hence this is a case of indirect speech — a usage gravely to be

suspected, as certainly unexampled elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew. He refers

to Ewald’s ‘Grammar,’ but at his reference Ewald says that yKi is the sign

of the semi-oblique narrative used in Hebrew. In a note Ewald refers to

לאמר as introducing speeches; but that is not in point here. If dabar had

meant “promise” or “prophecy” here, it would have been followed with the

words in which the prophecy was announced. If, on the other hand, dabar

is taken as” a decree,” the infinitive is natural. The question, then, arises,

“Whose decree is it that is here referred to?” Daniel was hoping for a

decree being issued by Cyrus; of this he would naturally think, but what he

thought is not to be taken as necessarily true. The prophets did not always

know the meaning of their own prophecies. We must examine the record,

and see what decree suits best with the words of our text. Many

commentators think the reference here is to a Divine decree

(Hengstenberg, Wolf. etc.). The difficulty of this view is that there is in

appearance a definite starting-point given for the period named to begin.

Now, a decree of God has no visible time-relation. This view, when

maintained by those who hold that the prophecy of Jeremiah is referred to,

may have some justification, only that a prophecy is never regarded as a

decree, rendering certain its fulfilment. It must be, then, a human decree.

The decree of Cyrus did not involve any rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem.

The altar was set up — that was all; the temple, even, was not built. The

terms of the decree of Cyrus, as we have it in Ezra 1:2, are, “The Lord

God of heaven… hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem.”

This clearly is not the decree intended. When Darius Hystaspis founded his

permission to build the temple on the decree of Cyrus, there was no word

of permitting them to rebuild the city walls. When, in the seventh year of

Artaxerxes, Ezra and his companions left Babylon and came to Jerusalem,

still, though there was no command given to build again the walls of

Jerusalem, there is more nearly implied a restoration of Jerusalem as a city.

We may, then, start from B.C. 458. To Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of

the reign of Artaxerxes, was there a positive command given to build the

wall of Jerusalem. This date brings us to B.C. 445. Starting from the first

date, the end of the 490 years is A.D. 32, and the end of the 69 weeks

(equivalent to 483 years) is A.D. 25. If, again, we start from the latter of

these dates, the termination of the 490 years is A.D. 45, and of the 483

years A.D. 38. No one can fail to be struck with the fact that these dates are

very near THE MOST SACRED DATE OF ALL HISTORY— that of

THE CRUCIFIXION OF OUR LORD! We know there is considerable

Diversity of opinion as to the date at which that event occurred. But, further, we are not to expect that prophecy shall have the accuracy we have in astronomical ephemerides.

We admit there are great difficulties. We admit, further, that seven weeks

mark, with wonderful precision, the time which elapsed from the capture of

Jerusalem to the accession of Cyrus to the throne of Babylon. The interval

was really fifty years. We do not know the occurrences that marked the

relation of the Jewish people to their Persian masters during the century

and more which elapsed between this twentieth year of Artaxerxes and the

overthrow of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great. The city walls

and internal buildings of Jerusalem may have taken fifty years to erect —

we simply cannot tell. It is, at all events, a singular thing that the date of

OUR LORD’S CRUCIFIXION so nearly coincides with the termination of the

483 years. What is the result of starting from the date at which the prophecy

was given? Assuming that the writer lived in the reign of Epiphanes, and

meant to indicate the date of some event near his own period by the end of

the 490 or the 483 years, let us see what follows. If we take the Massoretic

date of the prophecy, it was given in the year of the accession of

Nebuchadnezzar, or the next year — his first year, according to Babylonian

chronology, that is to say, B.C. 606 or B.C. 605. Subtract 483 from either

of these, and we have the utterly inconspicuous years B.C. 122 and B.C.

123, that is to say, twelve or thirteen years after the death of Simon the

Maccabee. If three years and a half are added, to reach the middle of the

week, we have B.C. 119, an equally inconspicuous year. Professor Bevan,

however, follows Ewald, and begins with the destruction of Jerusalem.

That the statement contradicts the text, which dates “from the going forth

of a promise to people and build again Jerusalem,” according to Professor

Bevan’s own translation, not from the destruction of Jerusalem, is looked

upon evidently as of no importance. Of course, the refuge is the ignorance

of the author of Darnel, notwithstanding that Jeremiah (25:1) dates his first

prophecy “the fourth year of Jehoiakim,” and his letter (29:2), after the

captivity of Jeconiah, and immediately after. Moreover, something more

than ignorance is needed to explain the author of Daniel confounding the

going forth of a prophecy to rebuild Jerusalem with the destruction of it. If

we take the date of the destruction of Jerusalem, B.C. 588, and add 483

years, we reach B.C. 105 — a year conspicuous only for the death of John

Hyrcanus. This is so obvious, that many devices have been tried to square

matters. Ewald drops out seventy years. Professor Bevan justly

characterizes this device as fantastic. Hitzig would make the first seven

years run parallel with the first seven weeks of the sixty-two. Professor

Bevan rejects this as “highly artificial, and scarcely reconcilable with the

text.” So, again, in company with Graf and Cornill, he takes refuge in the

author’s ignorance. If, again, we take B.C. 164, the date the critics wish to

make the terminus ad quem, which is chosen because it is the year of the

purification of the temple; if four hundred and eighty-three years are added

to that date, we have B.C. 647 — a date that falls within the reign of

Manasseh. As, however, the point of time is the anointing of a holy one,

and there is reference also to an anointed prince in this verse, a more

plausible date would be B.C. 153, the year when Jonathan the brother of

Judas the Maccabee assumed the high priesthood (1 Maccabees 10:21); to this

add 483, and 636 is the result — a date during Josiah’s reign. Of course,

the refuge is the ignorance of our author; he didn’t know any better. The

difficulty is to understand, if he was so ignorant as to what was so

comparatively near his own time, how he was so well informed as to

Babylonian affairs. The critics cannot make the author of Daniel at once

exceptionally ignorant and exceptionally well-informed. If, however, we

take Mr. Galloway’s reading (‘Shadow on the Sundial,’ p. 48) of the Septuagint

Version of this verse, we have “seven and seventy weeks” or five hundred

and thirty-nine years. If we reckon these years from the decree of Cyrus,

B.C. 538, we reach A.D. 2. Messiah the Prince; “the anointed prince.” Both

priests and kings were anointed, as a sign of consecration to their office.

Very rarely are priests referred to as “anointed,” and never without a

distinct statement that they are priests, whereas “the Lord’s anointed”

always applies to kings. Priests are sometimes called “rulers,” נְגִיד

(negeed), but only in relation to the temple. Never is princedom and the

anointing combined in regard to priest. These ideas are connected in regard

to Solomon (I Chronicles 29:22). We do not deny that this title would

apply to the later Maccabeans, like Alexander Jannseus, who was at once

high priest and king. We also note, however, that it applies to our Lord,

who claimed to be anointed “to preach good tidings” (Luke 4:18). The

street shall be built again. Rehob, “street,” is really “broad place.” Instead

of the heaps of confused rubbish, the city was once more to be laid off in

orderly streets and squares, so that Zechariah’s prophecy might be fulfilled

(Zechariah 8:5), “The streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls

playing.” And the wall, even in troublous times. This was certainly fulfilled

in the days of Nehemiah; one has only to read the Book of Nehemiah to

see that. The word harootz, translated “wall,” is of somewhat doubtful

significance. It means (Isaiah 10:22) “a determination.” In Job

41:30 it is translated “a threshing-wain,” whereas in Proverbs 3:14

it means “fine gold.” Furst would make it mean here “a marked-off quarter

of a city.” Gesenius makes it mean here “a ditch “ — a view that Winer

also holds. Cornill (‘Siebzig Jahrwochen,’ p. 5) says most interpreters

explain harootz, from the Targumic, as “ditches.” It would seem that a

better rendering would be “a palisade;” the ruling idea of all meanings,

save the last, as pointed out by Winer, is “sharpness.” “A ditch” or “a wall”

conveys no suggestion of sharpness, but “a palisade” does. Not impossibly,

before the wall was erected, the city was protected by “a palisade,” and

would certainly be set up in troublous times. It is to be observed that the

events referred to in these two last clauses have no distinct temporal

relation to the weeks. We might surmise that it referred to the time during

which the city was being rebuilt — street and palisade — but we are

destitute of informatiou which might enable us either to confirm or

contradict that view. This period may be during the Maccabean struggle;

we cannot tell.

Times as Evidence (v. 25)

“Know therefore and understand,” etc.

• THE STATE OF MIND DEMANDED FROM THE STUDENT OF

PROPHECY,

Ø A certain temper. “Know and understand.” The angel anticipates

difficulties of interpretation. A skilled and spiritual mind necessary. So also industry, pains, care. The worst temper would be the proud, self-sufficient, and dogmatic. Compare words of Jesus, “Whoso readeth, let him understand;” (Matthew 24:15 – in reference to this chapter)

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Ibid. ch. 11:15)

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

o God’s. To see a truth like this demands insight of a spiritual kind. The

sovereign word of the Eternal King!

o But given through the edict of Cyrus.

• THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PASSAGE. We might study

separately the prophecy, and then the fulfillment in history. But take them

together — study the prophecy in the light of its historical development.

But consider the kind of agreement we may expect between the prediction

and the history. No greater than the circumstances admit of. Chronological

exactness is only to be looked for when the event is defined and limited to

some moment in time. But some events develop slowly; e.g. the restoration

of a city, the confirmation of a covenant. If events are not defined,

prophecy must be indefinite. We suggest the following outline for the

preacher, to make all clear (for detail, see the histories, secular and sacred):

Ø Before the time-section of four hundred and ninety years. Eighty years

from the time of Daniel’s prayer to “the restoration,” the moment whence

the four hundred and ninety are to be reckoned. Here the principal events

are: Jerusalem a desolation; the first migration at the decree of Cyrus; the

building of the temple only; interruption; Joshua and Zerubbabel; finished

in eighteen years, B.C. 534-516. Then fifty-eight years, of which history is

silent. The temple standing, but no wall; no city.

Ø Commencement of the four hundred and ninety (B.C. 457). The coming

of Ezra, the restoration and rebuilding of the city. “From the going forth of the word to restore,” etc.

Ø The forty-nine years. “Hebdomads seven and,” etc. These are made up

thus: Ezra at work alone about twelve or thirteen years; first visit of

Nehemiah about twelve years; Nehemiah’s return to Persia, and second

visit to the time of Joiada becoming high priest (his father, Eliashib, died in B.C. 413), about nineteen or twenty years. This accounts for forty-five out of the forty-nine. The other four may be reckoned to the death of

Nehemiah, but the date of his death is lost.

Ø The four hundred and thirty-four year’s. “Hebdomads sixty and two?

This period extends to the baptism of Jesus; i.e. to the public manifestation of “Messiah-Prince.” This could be none other than THE REDEEMER.

Ø The seven years. Three and a half to the Crucifixion; three and a half to

establishment of Christianity and the Church.

· THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRONOLOGY FOR THE DIVINITY

OF THE GOSPEL.

Ø Its place. Strange that both skeptic and Christian should object to this

kind of evidence. The skeptic: “Faith cannot depend on chronology.” The

Christian: “Questions of events and times do not become the spiritually

minded.” But the evidences for revelation are not all of one kind, nor all

for the same class of mind (see Hengstenberg’s ‘Christology,’ vol. 3:199,

Clark’s edit.).

Ø Its value. On this we had better quote Preiswerk: “We ought not,

considering the uncertainty of ancient chronology, to lay much stress in

calculating the exact year. For, though the calculation be very successful,

yet so soon as another interpreter follows, another chronological system,

what has been so laboriously reared up is apparently thrown down. But if

we grant, from the outset, that ancient chronology is uncertain, and be

content to point out a general coincidence of the historical with the

prophetical time; if we show that possibly even a minute coincidence took

place, and at least that no one can prove the contrary, we shall have done

enough to prove the truth of the ancient prophecy, and our work cannot be

overthrown by others.”

Ø Its availability; i.e. to ordinary readers of Scripture. Before Christ, the

Jews knew about when to reckon from, and so when to expect Messiah.

And now, though learned chronological arguments may not be within reach of the many, yet plain people may come to that simple knowledge of

history which shall teach that prophecy has been fulfilled in Christ. .

26 “And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut

off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince that shall come

shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be

with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

The Septuagint is nearly unintelligible as it stands, though the

genesis of each separate clause from a text akin to the Massoretic can be

easily understood, “And after seven and seventy and sixty-two, the

anointing shall be taken away, and shall not be, and the kingdom of the

heathen shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the Messiah, and his

end shall come with wrath, and it shall be warred with war till the time of

the end.” The first clause has strayed from the end of the preceding verse,

and שִׁבְעִים (shibeeem), “seventy,” is confused with שִׁבֻעִים (shibooeem),

“weeks.” It is a possible thing that the Kabbalistic use of numbers had

something to do with this number, for if these numbers are expressed in

letters, and the letters taken as initials, we have the initials of this sentence

סלעמיתּ בבל זמן עד, “The time until the overthrow of Babylon.” They

must have read משחה instead of מִָשיחַ. It is difficult to understand how

“the people of the prince that shall come” could be read, “the kingdom of

the Gentiles.” save by supposing a somewhat arbitrary paraphrase. The last

clause has probably assumed the present shape through the insertion of

some part of the verb לחם, and the omission of the end of the verse.

Theodotion’s rendering is in closer agreement with the Massoretic text, yet

is wide from it too, “After the sixty-two weeks anointing shall be utterly

destroyed, and judgment is not in it (or him, αὐτῷ - auto), and he (it) shall

destroy the city and the sanctuary with the leader that cometh; they shall be

cut off with a flood, even until the end of the war, having been arranged by

disappearances in order.” The introduction of κρίμα – krima – judgment - is difficult to explain, except as an explanatory addition from Isaiah 53:8. Still more difficult

is it to understand the genesis of the last clause. The Peshitta, though

considerably closer to the Massoretic in the beginning of the verse, is as far

apart in the last clause, “And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed shall

he killed, and there was not to him, and the city of the holy shall be

destroyed with the king that cometh and his end is with a flood, even until

the end of the war of the fragments of destruction.” The Vetus, as

represented by the quotation in Tertullian, is not so close to the Septuagint as it

usually is, “And after the sixty-two weeks, even the anointing shall be

destroyed, and shall not be, and with the coming leader he shall destroy the

holy city, and thus shall be destroyed in the end of the war, because he shall

be destroyed even to death.” This version agrees neither with the Septuagint nor

with Theodotion. Jerome translates into an eminently Christian sense, “And

after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain, and his people who will deny

him will not be. And his people with a leader about to come, will destroy

the city and sanctuary, its end wasting, and after the end of the war

desolation determined.” And after three score and two weeks shall the

Messiah be cut off. The period of sixty-two weeks must begin after the

seven weeks have ended, as the completed period to Messiah the prince is

seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. The Messiah: the word has no article,

and, therefore, it is argued, it ought to be rendered “an anointed one;” but

the use of the article is not so rigid. It is omitted in poetic and semi-poetic

passages: eg. the first word in the Hebrew Bible is anarthreus, although we

are obliged to translate it with the article. Further, the Messiah the Prince

has already been mentioned, and, therefore, comes somewhat into the

region of proper names, as Amos 7:12, “the sanctuary of king,” instead

of “the king;” so I Kings 21:13, “curse God and king.” We take

“Messiah” here as equivalent to “the Messiah” above mentioned. Who is it

that is here referred to? There seems to be a necessity to maintain that it was

some one who was to be the anointed prince of the Jewish people, who should

thus be cut off. But not for himself. Great difference of opinion exists as to the

precise meaning of this phrase. The meaning expressed by the Authorized Version

would have required at least in normal Hebrew, not ואין לו (v’ayin lo),

but וְללֺא לו (velo’lo). The Revised Version is preferable, “and shall have

nothing.” It may mean “he shall not be,” but that is not so natural. The

Revised, however, is vague, and one is inclined to seek for an explanation

in a parallel passage in ch.11:45, וְאֵין עפּוזִרִ לו, “And there was

no helper for to him.” It seems a more condensed expression of what we

find in Isaiah 53:3, “Of the people there was none with me.” “And the

people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the

sanctuary.” The word translated “prince” is rarely to be

rendered” king.” The only cases are these of Solomon (I Chronicles

29:22) and Hezekiah (II Kings 20:5). The former was anointed, נגיד,

while his father was still living; the latter occurs in a poetical passage.

Priests are sometimes called” princes,” or “rulers,” but that is simply in

regard to the house of God and the sacerdotal arrangements. If the verse

stood by itself, there would seem little possible difficulty in regard to

accepting the old Jewish interpretation which made “the prince” Titus, who

was left to carry on the siege of Jerusalem while his father was in Rome,

busied with the duties incumbent on the occupant of the imperial throne.

Certainly the Romans, the people of the prince, did destroy the city and the

sanctuary in a more thorough way than any one since Nebuchadnezzar.

And the end thereof shall be with a flood. It is difficult to decide the

reference of “thereof” here. The reference grammatically seems to be

restricted to “the people,” as that is the nominative of the preceding verb.

It may, however, without much grammatical strain, refer to the prince. In

regard to prophecy, especially apocalyptic prophecy, grammar cannot be

regarded as affording a final canon for interpretation. The main subject of

the verse is the Messiah who shall be cut off. There might, therefore, be a

reference to him, “His end” being the vengeance that came upon the people

for deserting Him. This is the interpretation of the Septuagint, “The

kingdom of the heathen shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the

Messiah,” identifying “prince” with “Messiah,” and his end shall come with

wrath.” Theodotion refers to the city and the sanctuary, for he has, “They

shall be cut off with a flood.” The Peshitta refers to the king that cometh.

The Vetus has finem belli. Jerome has finis eius vast#as, his reference

being to the city. The idea of Hitzig, that the prenominal suffix refers to the

campaign, seems the most natural one. With a flood; not a literal flood. This word does not elsewhere refer to a number of men, save in the eleventh chapter of this book; that chapter, however, is of doubtful authenticity. All that we draw from the use of

shateph, “a flood,” for “a multitude of men,” and of shataph, “to

overflow,” “to overrun,” is that, in the opinion of the author of the

eleventh chapter, the phrase here means “a multitude of men.” “Wrath,” or

“devastation,” seems to be the best meaning of the word. The latter seems,

on the whole, the more natural rendering here. If so, no one can fail to see

how apt a description it gives of the state of Judaea, and especially of

Jerusalem, after the war which was concluded by the capture of the city by

Titus. And unto the end of the war desolations are determined. Rather it

should be rendered, “until the end was the decree of desolations,” viz. the

end of this campaign above referred to, and until that end is reached, war,

which is itself a decree of desolations, is determined. Taken thus, this

clause explains that which has gone before. The text here, however, is

evidently in such a corrupt state that no decision can be made with any

feeling of confidence. The Septuagint appears to have read yillahaym

instead of nehresheth, and has omitted the last word altogether.

Theodotion has, “by order in disappearances,” but one cannot tell what

Hebrew words these represent. The Vetus, which usually stands closely

related to the Septuagint, omits a number of words. The uncertainty of the

text renders one chary of suggesting meanings.

27 “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one

week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the

oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall

make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined

shall be poured upon the desolate.” The verse in the Septuagint

corresponding to this is evidently mixed up with confluent readings and

notes as to earlier verses, “And the covenant shall be strong upon many,

and again (ἐπιστρέψει – epistrepsei - he shall turn), and it shall be built in

breadth and length, and according to the end of times until the end of the

war, and after seven and seventy times and sixty-two years until the end of

the war; and the desolation shall be taken away in confirming (or ‘when he

shall confirm’) the covenant to many weeks; and in the end of the week the

sacrifice and the oblation shall be taken away, and upon the temple shall be

the abomination of desolation until the end, and an end shall be given to the

desolation.” In this mass of confusion this much is clear — the clause, “the

covenant (δυναστεύσει – dunastreusei - shall be strong) upon many,” is a doublet of the

clause, “when he shall confirm the covenant to many weeks.” The clause,

“and after seven and seventy times and sixty-two years,” is a doublet of the

beginning of the twenty-sixth verse; “Till the end of the war, and the

desolation shall be taken away,” is an alternative version of the last clause

of the twenty-sixth verse. When those extraneous elements are got rid of,

we have left a rendering of the twenty-seventh verse, which may afford us

light as to the text. “The covenant shall be strong upon many” is a possible

rendering of the Hebrew (see Psalm 12:5). The alternative reading,

“when he shall confirm (ἐν τῷ κατισχῦσαι – en to katischusai) the covenant during

many weeks,” implies the infinitive with the preposition בְ, and “weeks” in the

plural, and one omitted — the latter is omitted, indeed, by both. “And in

the end of the week” — reading קֵצ (qaytz) instead of חֲצִי (hatzee) —

“sacrifice and offering shall be taken away, and upon the temple shall be

the abomination of desolation” — reading קֹדֶשׁ (qodesh), “holy,” instead

of זֶבַח, (kenaph), “wing,” “outspreading,” or it may be tendered “wing of

temple” — “until the end, and an end be given to desolation” — reading

ˆ תֻּתַּן (toottan), “is given,” or “appointed,” instead of תִּתַּך (tittak),f1

“poured out.” Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic, “And one week shall

confirm (δυναμώσει – dunamosei – strengthen) a covenant to many

and in the middle (ἡμίσει – haemisei – middle; half) of

the week my sacrifice and offering shall be taken away” — reading זִבְחִי (zebehee) instead of זֶבַח (zebah), and possibly min .hath, instead of minhah — “and upon the temple (shall be) the abomination of desolations, and till (at) the end of the time an end is set (given) to the desolation.” It will be observed that Theodotion agrees with the Septuagint in reading קֹדֶשׁ (qodesh) instead of כֵּנַפ (kenaph), and תֻּתַּן (toottan) instead of תִּתַּך (tittak)f1 The Peshitta is closer still to the Massoretic, but the last verb the translator seems to have read as tanah, “shall rest.” Tertullian, in his

quotation from the Vetus, shows that in this verse it follows Theodotion,

or rather the version which he made his basis. He, however, connects “half

a week” with “one week.” The Vulgate rendering is, “One week also shall

confirm the covenant to many, and in the middle of the week sacrifice and

offering shall cease” — reading יִשׁבַת: (yishbath) — “and in the temple

shall be the abomination of desolation” — therefore reading with the Greek

versions and the Vetus, קדֶשׁ instead of כָנָפ — “and even to the

consummation and end shall the desolation continue” — reading, therefore,

תֵּשֵׁב instead of תִּתַּך, and omitting the preposition עַל (‘al), “upon” — the

latter is not a probable reading. From this examination of the versions one

thing is clear — we must accept, with all its difficulties, “confirms.”

The next point is kenaph, “expansion.” Here the Greek and Latin versions, including in Matthew 24:15, but excluding the doublet mixed up in the text of the Vatican and Alexandrian Codices, have read קֹדֶשׁ. The Peshitta and the author of the reading

intruded into the Alexandrian Codex have read כְּנַפ (kenaph). However,

these two are not agreed as to the interpretation. The Peshitta renders

“wings,” the Vatican and Alexandrian scribes render πτερυγἱον – pterugion –

pinnacle - the word used in Matthew 4:5 for a pinnacle of the temple. We have

practically four Greek versions here two Syriac if we include Paulus Tellensis, two

Latin, and not one of them gives the slightest hint that this “well-nigh-certain” reading

was in existence. The balance of evidence is decidedly in favour of קֹדֶשׁ (qodesh), especially so in the light of our Lord’s words. Had the text with which his

hearers were familiar contained the suggestive word כִּנַפ “wing,” it was

impossible, speaking as he did of the setting up of the Roman eagles in the

temple, to have avoided remarking on the word used. Our Lord in this case

must have had the Hebrew before him, as He does not render as the Greek

versions do, ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν – epi to heiron – cause the offering, but ἐν τὸπῳ ἅγιῳ -

in the holy place. We must thus hold קֹדֶשׁ to have been the original text.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many. What is the subject of the verb here? Hengstenberg, Hitzig, and yon Lengerke make the one week the nominative of the verb. Professor Bevan objects that to represent a week making a covenant, or making it burdensome, is without analogy. Both Hitzig and Hengstenberg appeal to

Malachi 3:19; Isaiah 22:5; Job 3:3, where a “day” is represented

as acting. Theodotion translates thus. The natural meaning, according to

the Hebrew, if we do not pass beyond the clause before us for the subject

of the verb, is בְּרִית, (bereeth), “covenant.” Thus we ought naturally to

render either — taking the hiphil in its causative sense — “a covenant,” or

“the covenant shall confirm;” i.e. secure “one week to many,” or — and

this is better, as supported byPsalm 12:5 (4), in the sense given to the

hiphil of גָבַר (gabar) — “the covenant shall prevail for many during one

week.” This agrees with the first version we find in the Septuagint, The

covenant — God’s covenant with Israel, and this it must be here —

“prevails with many;” His covenant to send a Messiah, a part of the eternal

covenant with Israel, would prevail with the hearts of many of Israel during

one week. If we reckon our Lord’s ministry to have begun in the year A.D.

30, and the conversion of Paul A.D. 37, we have the interval required.

After the conversion of Paul, the Gentiles more than the Jews were

brought into the church. And in the midst of the week he shall cause

the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. In accordance with our

interpretation of the previous clause, we would interpret this, “The

covenant shall cause offering and oblation to cease.” What covenant is

this? The new Messianic covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31. The

author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (8:8) quotes this passage as

Messianic, and as proving that sacrifice and offering had ceased with

Christ’s sacrifice of Himself. The midst of the week. On the ordinary Christian interpretation, this applies to the crucifixion of our Lord, which took place, according to

the received calculation, during the fourth year after his baptism by John,

and the consequent opening of His ministry. For the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate. This is rendered in the Revised Version, “And upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate;” in the margin the rendering is, “upon the pinnacle of abominations.” We have seen that the great balance of evidence

was in favour of inserting קֹדֶשׁ, “holy place,” instead of כָּנָפ “wing.”

Even if we take the Massoretic reading, and render it according either to

the text or the margin, we have difficulties. We have no instance of a bird

supporting itself by one wing. If כְּנָפ (konaph), “wing,” is retained, the

reference to the Roman eagles can scarcely be resisted. The word has

several derivative meanings: “The edge” of the earth, as Isaiah 24:16;

from this is derived the rendering in the Revised. In the present passage,

Gesenius, Furst, and Wirier regard it as equivalent to πτερυγἱον (pinnacle) but no

such meaning is elsewhere found in Hebrew. “He shall make it desolate.”

In Hebrew, this is only one word, meshomaym, the participle. The word

occurs twice in Ezra 9:1, 4, and there means “astonished,” “stupefied.”

It is imitated in ch. 11:31, but the preceding word, שִׁקּוּצ

(shiqqootz), is in the singular, and agrees with meshomaym. Here we have

the noun shiqqootzeem in the plural while the participle is in the singular.

In ch. 12:11 we have another variation, שִׁקוּצ שֹׁמֵם. The versions

translate as if the word had been in the singular; hence we may doubt

whether the noun was not originally singular, all the more that in the

parallel passage (ch.11:31) we have the singular used. An

accidental reduplication of the מ, which begins מְשׁמֵם, would explain the

present reading. Professor Bevan suggests that we read מֻשָׁמִים, the hophal

participle plural from שׂוּם, “to sit;” but the evidence of the versions is

decisive against this. The rendering of the clause would be thus, “and upon

the temple the abomination of desolation.” The usage of shiqqootz leads us

to think of heathen idols, as I Kings 11:1, Chemosh, the abomination

of Moab; Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon, II Kings

23:13; Ashtoreth, the abomination of the Zidonians. More important is

Jeremiah 32:34, “They set their abominations in the house that is called

by my name, to defile it.” We have here the combination suggested by

Professor Bevan. From the fact that Daniel seems to have been saturated

with Jeremiah, his suggestion might have had weight; but the utter want of

any hint in the versions that the reading was even doubtful, compels us to

be against this view. There is no case where shiqqootz means “altar,” but

many where it means” idol.” So the setting up of a heathen altar is not

what would naturally be thought of in this connection. The traditional

opinion, that this refers to the Roman eagle standards, which were in a

sense “idols,” and were regarded especially as such by the Jews, is certainly

at least plausible on grammatical grounds, and may be regarded as certain

from other reasons; e.g. its suitability to the meaning of the other verses.

Even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured out

upon the desolate. The Revised Version is very different here, “And even

unto the consummation, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out

upon the desolator.” We have already seen that תִּתַּך (tittak),” poured

out,” must be abandoned, as not present in any of the versions. Most of

them have read תֻּתַּן. We must, in the first instance, assume the nominative

in the sentence to be the subject of the verb. In that case we should render

in accordance with the rendering of the two Greek versions, “Until an end

and a limit be set to the desolation.” The reading of Jerome in the Vulgate,

as we have seen, seems to have read תַּשֵׁב (tayshayb), “to dwell,” “to

remain,” for he renders persecerabit; and must not have had the

preposition עַל, (‘al), “upon,” for he makes desolation the nominative of

the verb. Jerome’s interpretation points to the end of the world, and the

reading we adopt points also to the same terminus ad quem, the more

indefinitely. The end set to the desolation may be the end of time; but it

may be some earlier period; but that is not revealed. The meaning of kalah

is assumed to be “end,” not “ruin,” as asserted by many commentators.

Where the word does mean “destruction,” it is simply as an utter end of a

person or nation — it is that person’s or nation’s destruction; but it never

does mean” destruction “apart from this. In connection with this question,

two passages in Isaiah have to be considered (Isaiah 10:23; 28:23),

where kalah and neheretzeth occur in connection. Our interpretation

implies that we take עד as a conjunction, and not as a preposition.

Professor Bevan would make it absolute, that when עד introduces a verbal

clause, the verb takes the precedence of the subject, and would therefore

point עֹד, not עַד; but in opposition to this dictum is I Samuel 2:15.

The generality of the phenomenon is due to the normal structure of the

Hebrew clause. An end shall be set some time to the desolation of Zion,

Although that end may coincide with the END OF ALL THINGS!

The Close of the Jewish Economy (vs. 26-27)

“And after three score and two weeks,” etc. (vs. 26-27). The angel

passed from the restoration of the city to the coming of Messiah and the

close of the Judaic dispensation. This is the manner of prophecy to seize on

the great epochs in the history el the Divine dealings with man.

• THE DEATH OF THE CHRIST.

Ø It was to be violent. “Messiah was to be cut off.” An ominous and

portentous phrase to every Jewish mind. Ever used of the close of the

career of the wicked (Exodus 31:14; Psalm 37:9; Proverbs 2:21-22).

The phrase implies a supernatural agent too; so in this case (Acts 2:23).

Ø Without cause. In Hebrew, literally, “There is nothing to Him.” The

Septuagint gives the meaning doubtless: καὶ κρίμα οὐκ ἔστιν

ἐν αὐτῷ - kai krima ouk estin en auto – and no judgment is in Him.

“In Him was no sin;” He “did no sin;” He “knew no sin.” Pilate’s verdict: “I find in him no fault at all.” (John 19:6)

• THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH POLITY.

Ø The instruments. “And the people of a prince that shall come shall

destroy the city and the sanctuary.” That the prince is not the Christ is

evident:

o Because of his designation — simply “a prince.”

o He is to “come” clearly from without the Jewish state.

o His invasion was to be after the death of Messiah. So the context

indicates. History shows that the prince was Titus.

Ø The mode. “And its end with inundation, and to the end, war; decree of

desolations.” The foreign army should sweep everything before it. The war was to be exterminating. No intermission of calamity until no city was left on which calamity could fall.

Ø The reason. Note the inner connection of the passage between the

cutting off of Messiah and the fall of the city and polity — between

Calvary and the coming of Titus (Luke 19:41-44). When Christ wept

over the city, the nation in heart had rejected Him. Formally, and in so

many words, in the course of a few days they discarded their only Saviour. For that rejection, city and nation descended into the abyss. As it was at the end of the Jewish economy, so shall it be at the close of the Christian. The condemnation will not be sin, but rejection, or neglect of the sinner’s Saviour (‘

John 3:18).

• THE CONFIRMATION OF THE COVENANT.

Ø The Confirmer. The Lord Jesus. His august Personality has been

prominent throughout. The actions described in v. 24 are His. In

Isaiah 42:1-7, specially in v. 6, Christ is described as Divine Covenant

incarnate.

Ø The covenant. Neither the old nor the new, but that one comprehensive

covenant of salvation, of which they were transcripts.

Ø Its confirmation was by the Redeemer’s words of grace, miracles, and

death; by the Pentecostal effusion; by the first preaching of the gospel,

especially to the Jews.

Ø The time. From the commencement of the Lord’s ministry to about the

time of the death of Stephen and the scattering of the Jewish Church —

about seven years. By that time the nation rejected both the Messiah and

that Spirit who came with Pentecostal power and grace. Then was the

nation dead, waiting for the fire of the Divine judgments. The “hebdomads seventy” were ended. Henceforth the history in the Acts of the Apostles turns to the Gentiles. (“Be it known therefore unto you,

that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and they will

HEAR IT!” - Acts 28:28)

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

• THE CESSATION OF SACRIFICE. “He shall cause the sacrifice,”

etc., that is, Christ the Lord.

Ø In mercy. The sacrifices might cease:

o either literally;

o or, their object accomplished, they might become useless, and in time disappear. In the latter sense they were made to cease. No need of the finger of the type, when the glory of the Antitype filled the world. Herein mercy. He offered up sacrifice for the people’s sins “once, when he offered up Himself” (Hebrews 7:27). “Once in the end of the world” He “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” (Ibid. ch. 9:26)

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

Ø In permanence. Ceasing, they cease for ever, and no power of man can

ever restore what has been doomed by God. (See description of the signal

attempts of Julian the Apostate to restore the sacrifices, and its remarkable

failure, an Dr. Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, art. Jerusalem, by James

Fergusson, vol. 1:1015, b.) “The Word of our God stands for ever.”

(Isaiah 40:8; I Peter 1:25; Matthew 24:35)

• THE CONSUMMATION. We read, “And upon the wing of

abominations, a desolator; even until destruction, and that determined, shall

be poured upon the desolate.” The passage would be difficult before the

events, intentionally so, but not so difficult after. The design was, perhaps,

to throw out fragments of thought rather than give a continuous idea; to

light up with lightning rather than with sunshine. After speaking of the

cessation of sacrifice, attention is fixed on the temple, some high point of

it, soaring portion, “wing.” A “wing of abominations,” the temple hateful

on account of its corruptions. The temple must become detestable:

Ø by corruption;

Ø from within, ere any desolator is allowed to touch it. Note the lesson

well. But having become abominable, look! watch! behold the desolator,

i.e. the Roman! But how long shall the Roman eagle look down upon the

temple threateningly? “Until destruction, and that which is decreed, shall be passed upon the desolate.” Daniel’s prayer was offered in sight of a

desolate Jerusalem; the vision opened by the angel ends with a desolation

more appalling. “How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out.” (Romans 11:33)

Prayer Opens Wider Horizons of God’s Kingdom (vs. 20-27)

We have here a signal instance of the fact that God not only answers

human prayer, but gives “more than we ask” or conceive (Ephesians 3:20).

The thing that Daniel asked was small compared with what God bestowed.

Compared with contemporary men, Daniel stood above them head and shoulders.

Compared with God, he was but a pigmy.

• PRAYER IS THE BEST PREPARATION FOR RECEIVING

LARGER REVELATION. The exercise of real prayer develops humility,

dependence, self-forgetfulness; and these states of mind are favorable to

ingress of light. “The meek will God teach His way” (Psalm 25:9); “To that man will He look, who is of humble and contrite heart” (Isaiah 66:2). Prayer brings the soul near to God; it lifts us up to heavenly elevations; it clears the eye from mist and darkness. The Apostle John was engaged in lonely worship, when the final revelation of Scripture was made to him. Our Lord was in the act of prayer

when heaven came down to earth, and his whole Person was enwrapped in

glory. The response to Daniel’s prayer was immediate. He had not ceased

to pray when the answer came. Swifter than the electric current came the

oracle’s response.

• LARGER REVELATION COMES BY A PURE AND PERSONAL

SPIRIT. We may fairly conclude that angels have larger knowledge of

God’s will than have we, because they are free from the darkness and the

doubt which sin generates. If they are not counselors in the heavenly

court, they are heralds, ambassadors, couriers. What God wills should

happen they know is wise and right and good. In their estimation it is an

incomparable honor to be engaged on Divine errands. Swift as their

natures will allow, they fly to convey instruction or help to men. It is

consonant, no less with reason than with Scripture, that there are ranks and

orders of intelligent beings with natures more ethereal than ours, and that

communication between us and them is possible. Every form of service is

attributed to the angels:

Ø An angel ministered to our Saviour’s bodily hunger.

Ø An angel strengthened Him in the garden.

Ø An angel rolled the stone from His sepulchre.

Ø An angel released Peter from prison.

Gabriel interpreted the vision to Daniel. Gabriel announced to Zacharias

and to Mary the approaching advent of a Saviour.

Ø LARGER REVELATION IS AN EVIDENCE OF GOD’S SPECIAL

LOVE. The dispatch of a special messenger from the court of heaven was

in itself a signal token of God’s favor. Not often in the history of our race

had such a favor been shown. Further, Gabriel was well pleased to assure

the man of prayer that, in heaven, he was “greatly beloved.” Every act of

devotion to God’s cause had been graven on the memory of God. His

character was an object of God’s complacency. On account of God’s great

love for Daniel He gave him larger understanding, and disclosed to him the

purposes and plans for man’s redemption. God’s intention was that Daniel

should enlarge the area of his vision, and look with solicitude, not on Israel

after the flesh, but on the true Israel of God. Yet all revelation is a mark of

God’s love to men. Because men are “greatly beloved” of God, therefore

He has given them this complete canon of Scripture, therefore He gives

them understanding to discern the meaning, therefore He leads them

FURTHER INTO THE TRUTH!

Ø LARGER REVELATION IS FOUNDED UPON A TYPICAL PAST.

The thoughtful love of God adapted this new revelation to the capacity and

mood of Daniel’s spirit. Daniel had been dwelling on the seventy years

which Jeremiah had declared to be the full period of Israel’s captivity. His

hope was resting on the fact that the seventy years were accomplished, and

that God was faithful to His word. Gabriel was charged to assure the

prophet that restoration was nigh at hand, but that other epochs of

“seventies” were opening. The desolation of Jerusalem in the past was a

type of a sadder desolation yet to come. The visible reconciliation between

God and Israel (implied in the restoration of the Jews) was a type of a

more complete reconciliation when sin should be purged away. By

identifying himself with the nation, and confessing its sins as his own,

Daniel himself had become a type of that Deliverer who should “bear our

sins” and “make intercession for the transgressors.” Time is reckoned in

weeks, to remind Israel of the perpetual obligation of the sabbath. After

each cycle of desolation rest shall follow, until the world shall enter into

the enjoyment of JEHOVAH’S REST! The mind of Daniel is thus carried onward from the consummation he so much desired to a grander consummation

still — THE APPEARANCE OF ISRAEL’S MESSIAH and this vital truth is impressed upon his soul, that no triumph is real or enduring which is not the triumph of righteousness over sin.

Ø LARGER REVELATION CENTERS IN THE PERSON AND

WORK OF MESSIAH. If now and then God should lift us up to some

spiritual height, and give us a wider vision of human destiny, we should be

amused and saddened at the littleness of our petitions. Often do we pray

and plead for some good, which seems to us a very consummation of

blessing; but when we have gained it, we find that there are far larger

possessions awaiting us. The desires of Daniel’s soul were concentrated on

Israel’s return to Palestine; yet, at the best, this was only a temporal

advantage. Change of place and resumption of worldly power would not in

themselves secure nobleness of character or purification of soul. The best

blessings of God can be enjoyed anywhere, and amid any outward

conditions. But God is too wise and too beneficent to confine His gifts

within the limits of human request. “His thoughts are not as our thoughts;”

(Isaiah 55:8) and from inferior restoration to outward privilege, as a starting-point, He leads our expectations onward to a nobler restoration of character and of

life. The center of the world’s hope (whether the world so regards it or

not) is JESUS THE MESSIAH! Before Gabriel had satisfied Daniel with respect

to Israel’s earthly fortune, he poured into Daniel’s ear what was uppermost

in his own mind — the advent of the Son of God. The grandeur, the value,

the triumphant issues of Messiah’s work, — these were the tidings which

he delighted to convey. The revelation which, in any age, man most needs

is revelation respecting the removal of sin — knowledge how the great

redemption can be accomplished. No tidings from heaven can ever be so

joyous as these, viz. that sin shall meet with final destruction, and that

reconciliation between God and man is made secure. Such a revelation

embraces an enormous sweep of blessing, and comprises EVERY POSSIBLE

INTEREST OF HUMANITY! The possession of the earthly Canaan is A VERY SHORT-LIVED BENEFIT; the inheritance of heaven is AN ETERNAL

GOOD!

Ø THE LARGER REVELATION EMBRACES THE FINAL

TRIUMPH OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. For the present the outlook of Israel

is flecked with light and shade. Like an April day, our present experience is

an alternation of blustering storm and bright sunshine. The defenses of

Jerusalem, Daniel was assured, would be rebuilt, but would be rebuilt amid

harassing trouble. Messiah the Prince should in due time appear; but

Messiah should be cut off. The city and the sanctuary should rise from the

reproach of present ruin, but they would again be destroyed — desolation,

like a flood, would sweep over them. Sacrifice should be restored in the

temple, but sacrifice and oblation should again cease. These were but

temporary arrangements to prepare the world for A REAL ATONEMENT!

But the final upshot shall be the destruction of abomination. Upon the desolater

there shall be desolation. “All that defileth” SHALL BE EXTERMINATED! DEATH shall die. “Captivity shall be led captive” (Ephesians 4:8);

“GOD SHALL BE ALL IN ALL!” (I Corinthians 15:28)

"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.

Materials are reproduced by permission."

This material can be found at:

http://www.adultbibleclass.com

If this exposition is helpful, please share with others.

(My apologies. This book, especially this chapter, has been different

than any I have tried to share from the Pulpit Commentary. CY –

August 16, 2014)