Verse 2

understood by books--rather, "letters," that is, Jeremiah's letter (Jer 29:10) to the captives in Babylon; also Jer 25:11-12; compare Ch2 36:21; Jer 30:18; Jer 31:38. God's promises are the ground on which we should, like Daniel, rest sure hope; not so as to make our prayers needless, but rather to encourage them.

Verse 3

prayer . . . supplications--literally, "intercessions . . . entreaties for mercy." Praying for blessings, and deprecating evils.

Verse 4

my confession--according to God's promises in Lev 26:39-42, that if Israel in exile for sin should repent and confess, God would remember for them His covenant with Abraham (compare Deu 30:1-5; Jer 29:12-14; Jam 4:10). God's promise was absolute, but prayer also was ordained as about to precede its fulfilment, this too being the work of God in His people, as much as the external restoration which was to follow. So it shall be at Israel's final restoration (Psa 102:13-17). Daniel takes his countrymen's place of confession of sin, identifying himself with them, and, as their representative and intercessory priest, "accepts the punishment of their iniquity." Thus he typifies Messiah, the Sin-bearer and great Intercessor. The prophet's own life and experience form the fit starting point of the prophecy concerning the sin atonement. He prays for Israel's restoration as associated in the prophets (compare Jer 31:4, Jer 31:11-12, Jer 31:31, &c.) with the hope of Messiah. The revelation, now granted, analyzes into its successive parts that which the prophets, in prophetical perspective, heretofore saw together in one; namely, the redemption from captivity, and the full Messianic redemption. God's servants, who, like Noah's father (Gen 5:29), hoped many a time that now the Comforter of their afflictions was at hand, had to wait from age to age, and to view preceding fulfilments only as pledges of the coming of Him whom they so earnestly desired to see (Mat 13:17); as now also Christians, who believe that the Lord's second coming is nigh, are expected to continue waiting. So Daniel is informed of a long period of seventy prophetic weeks before Messiah's coming, instead of seventy years, as he might have expected (compare Mat 18:21-22) [AUBERLEN]. great and dreadful God--as we know to our cost by the calamities we suffer. The greatness of God and His dreadful abhorrence of sin should prepare sinners for reverent, humble acknowledgment of the justice of their punishment. keeping . . . covenant and mercy--that is, the covenant of Thy mercy, whereby Thou hast promised to deliver us, not for our merits, but of Thy mercy (Eze 36:22-23). So weak and sinful is man that any covenant for good on God's part with him, to take effect, must depend solely on His grace. If He be a God to be feared for His justice, He is one to be trusted for His "mercy." love . . . keep his commandments--Keeping His commandments is the only sure test of love to God (Joh 14:15).

Verse 5

Compare Nehemiah's confession (Neh. 9:1-38). sinned . . . committed iniquity . . . done wickedly . . . rebelled--a climax. Erred in ignorance . . . sinned by infirmity . . . habitually and wilfully done wickedness . . . as open and obstinate rebels set ourselves against God.

Verse 6

prophets . . . spake . . . to our kings . . . to all the people--They fearlessly warned all without respect of persons.

Verse 7

confusion of faces, as at this day--Shame at our guilt, betrayed in our countenance, is what belongs to us; as our punishment "at this day" attests. near, and . . . far off--the chastisement, however varied, some Jews not being cast off so far from Jerusalem as others, all alike were sharers in the guilt.

Verse 9

mercies--The plural intensifies the force; mercy manifold and exhibited in countless ways. As it is humbling to recollect "righteousness belongeth unto God," so it is comforting, that "mercies belong to the Lord OUR God." though we have rebelled--rather, "since," &c. [Vulgate], (Psa 25:11). Our punishment is not inconsistent with His "mercies," since we have rebelled against Him.

Verse 10

set before us--not ambiguously, but plainly, so that we were without excuse.

Verse 11

all-- (Psa 14:3; Rom 3:12). the curse . . . and . . . oath . . . in . . . law--the curse against Israel, if disobedient, which God ratified by oath (Lev. 26:14-39; Deu 27:15-26; Deu. 28:15-68; Deu. 29:1-29).

Verse 12

confirmed his words--showed by the punishments we suffer, that His words were no idle threats. under . . . heaven hath not been done as . . . upon Jerusalem-- (Lam 1:12).

Verse 13

yet made we not our prayer before--literally, "soothed not the face of." Not even our chastisement has taught us penitence (Isa 9:13; Jer 5:3; Hos 7:10). Diseased, we spurn the healing medicine. that we might turn, &c.--Prayer can only be accepted when joined with the desire to turn from sin to God (Psa 66:18; Pro 28:9). understand thy truth--"attentively regard Thy faithfulness" in fulfilling Thy promises, and also Thy threats [CALVIN]. Thy law (Dan 8:12), [MAURER].

Verse 14

watched upon the evil--expressing ceaseless vigilance that His people's sins might not escape His judgment, as a watchman on guard night and day (Job 14:16; Jer 31:28; Jer 44:27). God watching upon the Jews punishment forms a striking contrast to the Jews slumbering in their sins. God is righteous--True penitents "justify" God, "ascribing righteousness to Him," instead of complaining of their punishment as too severe (Neh 9:33; Job 36:3; Psa 51:4; Lam 3:39-42).

Verse 15

brought thy people . . . out of . . . Egypt--a proof to all ages that the seed of Abraham is Thy covenant-people. That ancient benefit gives us hope that Thou wilt confer a like one on us now under similar circumstances (Psa 80:8-14; Jer 32:21; Jer 23:7-8). as at this day--is known.

Verse 16

thy righteousness--not stern justice in punishing, but Thy faithfulness to Thy promises of mercy to them who trust in Thee (Psa 31:1; Psa 143:1). thy city--chosen as Thine in the election of grace, which changes not. for . . . iniquities of . . . fathers-- (Exo 20:5). He does not impugn God's justice in this, as did the murmurers (Eze 18:2-3; compare Jer 31:29). thy people . . . a reproach--which brings reproach on Thy name. "All the nations that are about us" will say that Thou, Jehovah, wast not able to save Thy peculiar people. So Dan 9:17, "for the Lord's sake"; Dan 9:19, "for Thine own sake" (Isa 48:9, Isa 48:11).

Verse 17

cause thy face to shine--metaphor from the sun, which gladdens all that it beams upon (Num 6:25; Mal 4:2).

Verse 18

present . . . supplications--literally, "cause to fall," &c. (compare Note, see on Jer 36:7).

Verse 19

The short broken ejaculations and repetitions show the intense fervor of his supplications. defer not--He implies that the seventy years are now all but complete. thine own sake--often repeated, as being the strongest plea (Jer 14:21).

Verse 20

whiles I was speaking--repeated in Dan 9:21; emphatically marking that the answer was given before the prayer was completed, as God promised (Isa 30:19; Isa 65:24; compare Psa 32:5).

Verse 21

I had seen in the vision at the beginning--namely, in the former vision by the river Ulai (Dan 8:1, Dan 8:16). fly swiftly--literally, "with weariness," that is, move swiftly as one breathless and wearied out with quick running [GESENIUS]. English Version is better (Isa 6:2; Eze 1:6; Rev 14:6). time of . . . evening oblation--the ninth hour, three o'clock (compare Kg1 18:36). As formerly, when the temple stood, this hour was devoted to sacrifices, so now to prayer. Daniel, during the whole captivity to the very last, with pious patriotism never forgot God's temple-worship, but speaks of its rites long abolished, as if still in use.

Verse 22

to give thee . . . understanding-- Dan 8:16; Dan 8:26 shows that the symbolical vision had not been understood. God therefore now gives "information" directly, instead of by symbol, which required interpretation.

Verse 23

At the beginning of thy supplications, &c.--The promulgation of the divine decree was made in heaven to the angels as soon as Daniel began to pray. came forth--from the divine throne; so Dan 9:22. thou art greatly beloved--literally, "a man of desires" (compare Eze 23:6, Eze 23:12); the object of God's delight. As the apocalyptic prophet of the New Testament was "the disciple whom Jesus loved," so the apocalyptic prophet of the Old Testament was "greatly beloved" of God. the vision--the further revelation as to Messiah in connection with Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years of the captivity. The charge to "understand" is the same as in Mat 24:15, where Rome primarily, and Antichrist ultimately, is referred to (compare Note, see on Dan 9:27).

Verse 24

Seventy weeks--namely, of years; literally, "Seventy sevens"; seventy heptads or hebdomads; four hundred ninety years; expressed in a form of "concealed definiteness" [HENGSTENBERG], a usual way with the prophets. The Babylonian captivity is a turning point in the history of the kingdom of God. It terminated the free Old Testament theocracy. Up to that time Israel, though oppressed at times, was; as a rule, free. From the Babylonian captivity the theocracy never recovered its full freedom down to its entire suspension by Rome; and this period of Israel's subjection to the Gentiles is to continue till the millennium (Rev 20:1-15), when Israel shall be restored as head of the New Testament theocracy, which will embrace the whole earth. The free theocracy ceased in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, and the fourth of Jehoiakim; the year of the world 3338, the point at which the seventy years of the captivity. begin. Heretofore Israel had a right, if subjugated by a foreign king, to shake off the yoke (Jdg. 4:1-5:31; Kg2 18:7) as an unlawful one, at the first opportunity. But the prophets (Jer 27:9-11) declared it to be God's will that they should submit to Babylon. Hence every effort of Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah to rebel was vain. The period of the world times, and of Israel's depression, from the Babylonian captivity to the millennium, though abounding more in afflictions (for example, the two destructions of Jerusalem, Antiochus' persecution, and those which Christians suffered), contains all that was good in the preceding ones, summed up in Christ, but in a way visible only to the eye of faith. Since He came as a servant, He chose for His appearing the period darkest of all as to His people's temporal state. Always fresh persecutors have been rising, whose end is destruction, and so it shall be with the last enemy, Antichrist. As the Davidic epoch is the point of the covenant-people's highest glory, so the captivity is that of their lowest humiliation. Accordingly, the people's sufferings are reflected in the picture of the suffering Messiah. He is no longer represented as the theocratic King, the Antitype of David, but as the Servant of God and Son of man; at the same time the cross being the way to glory (compare Dan. 9:1-27 with Dan 2:34-35, Dan 2:44; Dan 12:7). In the second and seventh chapters, Christ's first coming is not noticed, for Daniel's object was to prophesy to his nation as to the whole period from the destruction to the re-establishment of Israel; but this ninth chapter minutely predicts Christ's first coming, and its effects on the covenant people. The seventy weeks date thirteen years before the rebuilding of Jerusalem; for then the re-establishment of the theocracy began, namely, at the return of Ezra to Jerusalem, 457 B.C. So Jeremiah's seventy years of the captivity begin 606 B.C., eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem, for then Judah ceased to exist as an independent theocracy, having fallen under the sway of Babylon. Two periods are marked in Ezra: (1) The return from the captivity under Jeshua and Zerubbabel, and rebuilding of the temple, which was the first anxiety of the theocratic nation. (2) The return of Ezra (regarded by the Jews as a second Moses) from Persia to Jerusalem, the restoration of the city, the nationality, and the law. Artaxerxes, in the seventh year of his reign, gave him the commission which virtually includes permission to rebuild the city, afterwards confirmed to, and carried out by, Nehemiah in the twentieth year (Ezr 9:9; Ezr 7:11, &c.). Dan 9:25, "from the going forth of the commandment to build Jerusalem," proves that the second of the two periods is referred to. The words in Dan 9:24 are not, "are determined upon the holy city," but "upon thy people and thy holy city"; thus the restoration of the religious national polity and the law (the inner work fulfilled by Ezra the priest), and the rebuilding of the houses and walls (the outer work of Nehemiah, the governor), are both included in Dan 9:25, "restore and build Jerusalem." "Jerusalem" represents both the city, the body, and the congregation, the soul of the state. Compare Psa 46:1-11; Psa 48:1-14; Psa 87:1-7. The starting-point of the seventy weeks dated from eighty-one years after Daniel received the prophecy: the object being not to fix for him definitely the time, but for the Church: the prophecy taught him that the Messianic redemption, which he thought near, was separated from him by at least a half millennium. Expectation was sufficiently kept alive by the general conception of the time; not only the Jews, but many Gentiles looked for some great Lord of the earth to spring from Judea at that very time [TACITUS, Histories, 5.13; SUETONIUS, Vespasian, 4]. Ezra's placing of Daniel in the canon immediately before his own book and Nehemiah's was perhaps owing to his feeling that he himself brought about the beginning of the fulfilment of the prophecy (Dan 9:20-27) [ AUBERLEN]. determined--literally, "cut out," namely, from the whole course of time, for God to deal in a particular manner with Jerusalem. thy . . . thy--Daniel had in his prayer often spoken of Israel as "Thy people, Thy holy city"; but Gabriel, in reply, speaks of them as Daniel's ("thy . . . thy") people and city, God thus intimating that until the "everlasting righteousness" should be brought in by Messiah, He could not fully own them as His [TREGELLES] (compare Exo 32:7). Rather, as God is wishing to console Daniel and the godly Jews, "the people whom thou art so anxiously praying for"; such weight does God give to the intercessions of the righteous (Jam 5:16-18). finish--literally "shut up"; remove from God's sight, that is, abolish (Psa 51:9) [LENGKERKE]. The seventy years exile was a punishment, but not a full atonement, for the sin of the people; this would come only after seventy prophetic weeks, through Messiah. make an end of--The Hebrew reading, "to steal," that is, to hide out of sight (from the custom of sealing up things to be concealed, compare Job 9:7), is better supported. make reconciliation for--literally, "to cover," to overlay (as with pitch, Gen 6:14). Compare Psa 32:1. bring in everlasting righteousness--namely, the restoration of the normal state between God and man (Jer 23:5-6); to continue eternally (Heb 9:12; Rev 14:6). seal up . . . vision . . . prophecy--literally, "prophet." To give the seal of confirmation to the prophet and his vision by the fulfilment. anoint the Most Holy--primarily, to "anoint," or to consecrate after its pollution "the Most Holy" place but mainly Messiah, the antitype to the Most Holy place (Joh 2:19-22). The propitiatory in the temple (the same Greek word expresses the mercy seat and propitiation, Rom 3:25), which the Jews looked for at the restoration from Babylon, shall have its true realization only in Messiah. For it is only when sin is "made an end of" that God's presence can be perfectly manifested. As to "anoint," compare Exo 40:9, Exo 40:34. Messiah was anointed with the Holy Ghost (Act 4:27; Act 10:38). So hereafter, God-Messiah will "anoint" or consecrate with His presence the holy place at Jerusalem (Jer 3:16-17; Eze 37:27-28), after its pollution by Antichrist, of which the feast of dedication after the pollution by Antiochus was a type.

Verse 25

from the going forth of the commandment--namely the command from God, whence originated the command of the Persian king (Ezr 6:14). AUBERLEN remarks, there is but one Apocalypse in each Testament. Its purpose in each is to sum up all the preceding prophecies, previous to the "troublous times" of the Gentiles, in which there was to be no revelation. Daniel sums up all the previous Messianic prophecy, separating into its individual phases what the prophets had seen in one and the same perspective, the temporary deliverance from captivity and the antitypical final Messianic deliverance. The seventy weeks are separated (Dan 9:25-27) into three unequal parts, seven, sixty-two, one. The seventieth is the consummation of the preceding ones, as the Sabbath of God succeeds the working days; an idea suggested by the division into weeks. In the sixty-nine weeks Jerusalem is restored, and so a place is prepared for Messiah wherein to accomplish His sabbatic work (Dan 9:25-26) of "confirming the covenant" (Dan 9:27). The Messianic time is the Sabbath of Israel's history, in which it had the offer of all God's mercies, but in which it was cut off for a time by its rejection of them. As the seventy weeks end with seven years, or a week, so they begin with seven times seven, that is, seven weeks. As the seventieth week is separated from the rest as a period of revelation, so it may be with the seven weeks. The number seven is associated with revelation; for the seven spirits of God are the mediators of all His revelations (Rev 1:4; Rev 3:1; Rev 4:5). Ten is the number of what is human; for example, the world power issues in ten heads and ten horns (Dan 2:42; Dan 7:7). Seventy is ten multiplied by seven, the human moulded by the divine. The seventy years of exile symbolize the triumph of the world power over Israel. In the seven times seventy years the world number ten is likewise contained, that is, God's people is still under the power of the world ("troublous times"); but the number of the divine is multiplied by itself; seven times seven years, at the beginning a period of Old Testament revelation to God's people by Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi, whose labors extend over about half a century, or seven weeks, and whose writings are last in the canon; and in the end, seven years, the period of New Testament revelation in Messiah. The commencing seven weeks of years of Old Testament revelation are hurried over, in order that the chief stress might rest on the Messianic week. Yet the seven weeks of Old Testament revelation are marked by their separation from the sixty-two, to be above those sixty-two wherein there was to be none. Messiah the Prince--Hebrew, Nagid. Messiah is Jesus' title in respect to Israel (Psa 2:2; Mat 27:37, Mat 27:42). Nagid, as Prince of the Gentiles (Isa 55:4). Nagid is applied to Titus, only as representative of Christ, who designates the Roman destruction of Jerusalem as, in a sense, His coming (Mat 24:29-31; Joh 21:22). Messiah denotes His calling; Nagid, His power. He is to "be cut off, and there shall be nothing for Him." (So the Hebrew for "not for Himself," Dan 9:26, ought to be translated). Yet He is "the Prince" who is to "come," by His representative at first, to inflict judgment, and at last in person. wall--the "trench" or "scarped rampart" [TREGELLES]. The street and trench include the complete restoration of the city externally and internally, which was during the sixty-nine weeks.

Verse 26

after threescore and two weeks--rather, the threescore and two weeks. In this verse, and in Dan 9:27, Messiah is made the prominent subject, while the fate of the city and sanctuary are secondary, being mentioned only in the second halves of the verses. Messiah appears in a twofold aspect, salvation to believers, judgment on unbelievers (Luk 2:34; compare Mal 3:1-6; Mal 4:1-3). He repeatedly, in Passion week, connects His being "cut off" with the destruction of the city, as cause and effect (Mat 21:37-41; Mat 23:37-38; Luk 21:20-24; Luk 23:28-31). Israel might naturally expect Messiah's kingdom of glory, if not after the seventy years' captivity, at least at the end of the sixty-two weeks; but, instead of that, shall be His death, and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem. not for himself--rather, "there shall be nothing to Him" [HENGSTENBERG]; not that the real object of His first coming (His spiritual kingdom) should be frustrated; but the earthly kingdom anticipated by the Jews should, for the present, come to naught, and not then be realized. TREGELLES refers the title, "the Prince" (Dan 9:25), to the time of His entering Jerusalem on an ass's colt, His only appearance as a king, and six days afterwards put to death as "King of the Jews." the people of the prince--the Romans, led by Titus, the representative of the world power, ultimately to be transferred to Messiah, and so called by Messiah's title, "the Prince"; as also because sent by Him, as His instrument of judgment (Mat 22:7). end thereof--of the sanctuary. TREGELLES takes it, "the end of the Prince," the last head of the Roman power, Antichrist. with a flood--namely, of war (Psa 90:5; Isa 8:7-8; Isa 28:18). Implying the completeness of the catastrophe, "not one stone left on another." unto the end of the war--rather, "unto the end there is war." determined--by God's decree (Isa 10:23; Isa 28:22).

Verse 27

he shall confirm the covenant--Christ. The confirmation of the covenant is assigned to Him also elsewhere. Isa 42:6, "I will give thee for a covenant of the people" (that is, He in whom the covenant between Israel and God is personally expressed); compare Luk 22:20, "The new testament in My blood"; Mal 3:1, "the angel of the covenant"; Jer 31:31-34, describes the Messianic covenant in full. Contrast Dan 11:30, Dan 11:32, "forsake the covenant," "do wickedly against the covenant." The prophecy as to Messiah's confirming the covenant with many would comfort the faithful in Antiochus' times, who suffered partly from persecuting enemies, partly from false friends (Dan 11:33-35). Hence arises the similarity of the language here and in Dan 11:30, Dan 11:32, referring to Antiochus, the type of Antichrist. with many-- (Isa 53:11; Mat 20:28; Mat 26:28; Rom 5:15, Rom 5:19; Heb 9:28). in . . . midst of . . . week--The seventy weeks extend to A.D. 33. Israel was not actually destroyed till A.D. 79, but it was so virtually, A.D. 33, about three or four years after Christ's death, during which the Gospel was preached exclusively to the Jews. When the Jews persecuted the Church and stoned Stephen (Act 7:54-60), the respite of grace granted to them was at an end (Luk 13:7-9). Israel, having rejected Christ, was rejected by Christ, and henceforth is counted dead (compare Gen 2:17 with Gen 5:5; Hos 13:1-2), its actual destruction by Titus being the consummation of the removal of the kingdom of God from Israel to the Gentiles (Mat 21:43), which is not to be restored until Christ's second coming, when Israel shall be at the head of humanity (Mat 23:39; Act 1:6-7; Rom 11:25-31; Rom. 15:1-32). The interval forms for the covenant-people a great parenthesis. he shall cause the sacrifice . . . oblation to cease--distinct from the temporary "taking away" of "the daily" (sacrifice) by Antiochus (Dan 8:11; Dan 11:31). Messiah was to cause all sacrifices and oblations in general to "cease" utterly. There is here an allusion only to Antiochus' act; to comfort God's people when sacrificial worship was to be trodden down, by pointing them to the Messianic time when salvation would fully come and yet temple sacrifices cease. This is the same consolation as Jeremiah and Ezekiel gave under like circumstances, when the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was impending (Jer 3:16; Jer 31:31; Eze 11:19). Jesus died in the middle of the last week, A.D. 30. His prophetic life lasted three and a half years; the very time in which "the saints are given into the hand" of Antichrist (Dan 7:25). Three and a half does not, like ten, designate the power of the world in its fulness, but (while opposed to the divine, expressed by seven) broken and defeated in its seeming triumph; for immediately after the three and a half times, judgment falls on the victorious world powers (Dan 7:25-26). So Jesus' death seemed the triumph of the world, but was really its defeat (Joh 12:31). The rending of the veil marked the cessation of sacrifices through Christ's death (Lev 4:6, Lev 4:17; Lev 16:2, Lev 16:15; Heb 10:14-18). There cannot be a covenant without sacrifice (Gen 8:20; Gen 9:17; Gen 15:9, &c.; Heb 9:15). Here the old covenant is to be confirmed, but in a way peculiar to the New Testament, namely, by the one sacrifice, which would terminate all sacrifices (Psa 40:6, Psa 40:11). Thus as the Levitical rites approached their end, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, with ever increasing clearness, oppose the spiritual new covenant to the transient earthly elements of the old. for the overspreading of abominations--On account of the abominations committed by the unholy people against the Holy One, He shall not only destroy the city and sanctuary (Dan 9:25), but shall continue its desolation until the time of the consummation "determined" by God (the phrase is quoted from Isa 10:22-23), when at last the world power shall be judged and dominion be given to the saints of the Most High (Dan 7:26-27). AUBERLEN translates, "On account of the desolating summit of abominations (compare Dan 11:31; Dan 12:11; thus the repetition of the same thing as in Dan 9:26 is avoided), and till the consummation which is determined, it (the curse, Dan 9:11, foretold by Moses) will pour on the desolated." Israel reached the summit of abominations, which drew down desolation (Mat 24:28), nay, which is the desolation itself, when, after murdering Messiah, they offered sacrifices, Mosaic indeed in form, but heathenish in spirit (compare Isa 1:13; Eze 5:11). Christ refers to this passage (Mat 24:15), "When ye see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place" (the latter words being tacitly implied in "abominations" as being such as are committed against the sanctuary). TREGELLES translates, "upon the wing of abominations shall be that which causeth desolation"; namely, an idol set up on a wing or pinnacle of the temple (compare Mat 4:5) by Antichrist, who makes a covenant with the restored Jews for the last of the seventy weeks of years (fulfilling Jesus' words, "If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive"), and for the first three and a half years keeps it, then in the midst of the week breaks it, causing the daily sacrifices to cease. TREGELLES thus identifies the last half week with the time, times, and a half of the persecuting little horn (Dan 7:25). But thus there is a gap of at least 1830 years put between the sixty-nine weeks and the seventieth week. SIR ISAAC NEWTON explains the wing ("overspreading") of abominations to be the Roman ensigns (eagles) brought to the east gate of the temple, and there sacrificed to by the soldiers; the war, ending in the destruction of Jerusalem, lasted from spring A.D. 67 to autumn A.D. 70, that is, just three and a half years, or the last half week of years [JOSEPHUS, Wars of the Jews, 6.6]. poured upon the desolate--TREGELLES translates, "the causer of desolation," namely, Antichrist. Compare "abomination that maketh desolate" (Dan 12:11). Perhaps both interpretations of the whole passage may be in part true; the Roman desolator, Titus, being a type of Antichrist, the final desolator of Jerusalem. BACON [The Advancement of Learning, 2.3] says, "Prophecies are of the nature of the Author, with whom a thousand years are as one day; and therefore are not fulfilled punctually at once, but have a springing and germinant accomplishment through many years, though the height and fulness of them may refer to one age." The tenth through twelfth chapters more fully describe the vision in the eighth chapter by a second vision on the same subject, just as the vision in the seventh chapter explains more fully that in the second. The tenth chapter is the prologue; the eleventh, the prophecy itself; and the twelfth, the epilogue. The tenth chapter unfolds the spiritual worlds as the background of the historical world (Job 1:7; Job 2:1, &c.; Zac 3:1-2; Rev 12:7), and angels as the ministers of God's government of men. As in the world of nature (Joh 5:4; Rev 7:1-3), so in that of history here; Michael, the champion of Israel, and with him another angel, whose aim is to realize God's will in the heathen world, resist the God-opposed spirit of the world. These struggles are not merely symbolical, but real (Sa1 16:13-15; Kg1 22:22; Eph 6:12). Next: Daniel Chapter 10

Verse 1

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes,.... This is the same with Darius the Median, that took the kingdom after the death of Belshazzar; so called, to distinguish him from Darius the Persian; and yet Porphyry has the gall to assert that this was Darius the Persian, under whom the temple was built, that Daniel might appear to live later than he did: Ahasuerus, whose son he was, is not he that was the husband of Esther, and was many years later than this; but the same with Astyages king of the Medes, and who is called Ahasuerus, in the Apocrypha: "But before he died he heard of the destruction of Nineve, which was taken by Nabuchodonosor and Assuerus: and before his death he rejoiced over Nineve.'' (Tobit 14:15) the father of Cyaxares, the same with this Darius, who was uncle to Cyrus that conquered Babylon, and made him king of it, and of the whole empire; for this was not the first year of his reign over Media, where he had reigned many years before, but over Chaldea, as follows: which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; by Cyrus his nephew; who having taken Babylon, and settled his affairs, undertook a journey to Persia, and made Media in his way; where he met with his uncle Cyaxares, the same with this Darius, and delivered the kingdom of Babylon to him, and married his daughter, with whom he had for her dowry the kingdom of Media, as Xenophon (y) relates. Now it was in the first year of his reign over the Chaldeans that Daniel had the following vision of the seventy weeks; which, according to Bishop Usher (z) and Mr. Whiston (a), was in the year of the world 3467 A.M. and 537 B.C. Dean Prideaux (b) places it in the year 538; and Mr. Bedford (c) in the year 536. (y) Cyropaedia, l. 8. c. 36. (z) Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 3467. (a) Chronological Tables, cent. 10. (b) Connexion, &c. part 1. p. 125, 128. (c) Scripture Chronology, p. 711.

Verse 2

In the first year of his reign,.... Which was also the first of Cyrus, who was partner with him in the kingdom; in which year ended the seventy years' captivity of the Jews, and proclamation was made to have their liberty to go up to Jerusalem, and build the temple, Ezr 1:1, reckoning from the third, or the beginning of the fourth, of Jehoiakim king of Judah, when the desolation of the land began, and Daniel himself was carried captive; and which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, during whose reign, and that of his son, and son's son, the Jews were to be detained captives, Dan 1:1. I Daniel understood by books; the sacred Scriptures, which, though a prophet, he was not above reading; and, though a prime minister of state, yet found time to look into these divine oracles; which he read, studied, thoroughly considered, and well weighed in his mind; whereby he came to have knowledge of the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem; Daniel might possibly have heard this prophecy of Jeremiah from his own mouth, before he went to Babylon; since the first intimation of it was in the first year of Jehoiakim, Jer 27:1, and after this the prophecy might be sent to Babylon for the use of the captive Jews there; and indeed a copy of all his prophecies was no doubt brought thither at the last captivity of the people; so that it is easy to account for it how Daniel came by it; and it is plain it was now before him; for he uses the very word, "desolations", which Jeremiah does, Jer 25:9, the prophecy of the seventy years' captivity, and of deliverance from it at the expiration of that term, stands in Jer 25:12, which Daniel carefully read over, thoroughly considered, and as he full well knew what was the epoch of them, or when they begun, he found that they were just ready to expire; and this set him to the work of prayer, as in the following verses. From hence it is manifest that the law was not burnt, nor the Scriptures lost, in the Babylonish captivity; so that none knew what were or would be done by the Lord, as is falsely asserted in the Apocrypha: "For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin. &c.'' (2 Esdras 14:21)

Verse 3

And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications,.... He set apart some time on purpose for this service, distinct from his usual stated times of prayer, as well as from his civil business and employment; and he not only set his face toward Jerusalem, as he used to do, Dan 6:10, the more to affect his mind with the desolations the city and temple lay in; but towards the Lord God, the sovereign Lord of all, who does according to his will in heaven and in earth, the Governor of the universe, the one true God, Father, Son, and Spirit: and this denotes the intenseness of his spirit in prayer; the fixedness of his heart; the ardour of his mind; the fervency of his soul; his holy confidence in God; the freedom and boldness he used in prayer, and his constancy and continuance in it; which is a principal means, and a proper manner of seeking God. The Septuagint version, agreeably to the Hebrew text (d), renders it, "to seek prayer and supplications"; such as were suitable and pertinent to the present case; most beneficial and interesting to him and his people, and most acceptable to the Lord: with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes; as was usual on extraordinary occasions, in times of public mourning; and this he did, to show his sense of the divine Being, and of his own unworthiness to ask or receive anything of him; his great humiliation for the sins of the people; and to distinguish this prayer of his from ordinary ones, and to affect his own heart in it, with the sad condition his nation, city, and temple were in; and therefore abstained from food for a time, put sackcloth on his loins, and ashes on his head, or sat in them. (d) , Sept; "ad quaerendum orationem et deprecationes", Montanus; "ad quaerendam orationem et supplicationem", Cocceius.

Verse 4

And I prayed unto the Lord my God,.... Not to idols, nor to angels or saints departed; but to the Lord God of heaven and earth, who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, &c.: a God hearing and answering prayer; and to whom he directed his prayer, not only as the God of nature and providence, but as his own covenant God and Father; thereby encouraging his faith in him, and using his interest with him: and made my confession; of his own sins, and of the sins of his people; of the favours bestowed on him and them; of his justice in afflicting them, and his mercy in appointing a time for their deliverance; of his own faith in him, love to him, and submission to his will: and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God; great in his being and perfections, and in all his works of nature, providence, and grace; "and dreadful" in his threatenings and judgments, in his wrath and vengeance: or, to be "feared" (e); and reverenced by all men, especially by his saints; and particularly when they draw near unto him, as Daniel now did; and that because of his greatness and goodness: this Daniel observes to raise in his mind a proper awe and reverence of God, whose presence he was now approaching: keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments; faithful to his word of promise; large and liberal in the distribution of his grace and mercy to such that love him sincerely and heartily; and, as an evidence of it, observe his precepts from a principle of love, and with a view to his glory: respect seems to be had to Exo 20:6, this is observed, by the prophet, to encourage his own faith, and that of others, as to the fulfilment of the promise of their deliverance from captivity at the end of the seventy years; and to raise, in his mind and theirs, love to God, who was thus merciful; and to show the obligations they lay under, in gratitude, to keep his commandments. (e) "reverendus", Vatablus; "summe reverende", Junius & Tremellius; "metuende", Cocceius.

Verse 5

We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled,.... Some think there is a gradation in these words; that they had committed some sins through error and ignorance; others through infirmity and obliquity, or in the perverseness of their spirits, and the crookedness of their ways; and others wilfully and in malice, in the wickedness of their hearts; and others were open acts of hostility against God, casting off his yoke, and refusing obedience to him, and obstinately persisting therein. Jacchiades refers them to sins of actions, words, and thoughts, which they proudly and presumptuously committed. This heap of phrases seems to be used to take in all kind of sin committed by them, and rather to exaggerate than to extenuate them, and to confess them with all their aggravated circumstances; and Daniel puts in himself among the body of the people, as being a member of it, and as well knowing he was not without sin; and therefore willingly took his part in the blame of it, in confession of it, and confusion for it: even by departing from thy precepts, and from thy judgments; both of a moral and positive nature, which were enjoined by the law of Moses, as the rule of their conduct; but from this they swerved.

Verse 6

Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets,.... To their explanations of the laws and judgments of God; to their admonitions, reproofs, and counsels; these they did not attentively listen to, nor give credit to them, nor yield obedience to them; but despised and rejected them, though they were the true prophets and servants of the Lord; such as Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others: which spake in thy name; they came by the authority of God, being sent by him; they delivered their message in his name, being his ambassadors; and which as it was an honour done to this people to have such men sent unto them, so it was an aggravation of their sin that they showed no respect to them; since their words were not their own, but the Lord's, which they spoke to all sorts of persons: to our kings; one after another, as to Ahaz, Manasseh, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah; kings of the house of David, and over the land of Judah: our princes; princes of the blood, nobles, and courtiers: and our fathers; meaning not only their immediate ancestors, but their subordinate rulers, civil magistrates, judges or elders of the people, as Jacchiades interprets it: and to all the people of the land: of Judea; the common people, as distinguished from persons of rank and figure before expressed. These several persons are named, partly to observe how faithful the prophets were in delivering their message to all sorts of persons, high and low, not fearing the faces of any; and partly to show that none could plead ignorance, or excuse themselves with that, since all had had sufficient warning and instruction: as also to observe, that the sin of rejecting the true prophets of the Lord was universal among them, all were guilty of it.

Verse 7

O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee,.... It is essential to him, it is his nature, and appears in all his works; he is perfectly pure, holy, and righteous; he is just, and without iniquity; and there is no unrighteousness in him, nor any to be charged upon him, on account of anything done by him: punitive justice belongs to him; nor is he to be complained of because of his judgments, which are righteous altogether; nor had the prophet, or any of his countrymen, just reason to complain of the evils brought on them; the desolations of their land, city, and temple, and their captivity in a strange land; by all which no injustice was done, nor could they charge the Lord with any: and with him also is righteousness wrought out by his Son, to justify sinners that believe in him; he has accepted of it, and imputes it without works. But unto us confusion of face, as at this day; both on account of their sins, which stared them in the face, loaded their consciences with guilt, and filled them with shame; and on account of their punishment, the miserable condition in which their country was and they themselves were at that day; which declared to all the world what sinners they had been, and what sins they had committed, which had brought this ruin upon them, and them into such sad circumstances: to the men of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; or, "man of Judah" (f); to every man of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; who once dwelt in that land flowing with milk and honey, and now in a strange land for their sins; and to every inhabitant of that renowned city of jerusalem, the metropolis of the nation, the seat, of the kings of Judah; yea, the city of the great King, where the temple stood, and divine worship was performed, but now lay in ruins, through the iniquity of its inhabitants, and therefore had just reason to be ashamed: and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are afar off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of the trespass that they have trespassed against thee; shame and confusion of face also belonged to the ten tribes of Israel; to such of them as were mixed with the Jews in Babylon, or were in those parts of Assyria that lay nearest to it; and to those that were at a greater distance, in Media, Iberia, Colchis, and other places; yea, in all kingdoms and countries where they were dispersed for their trespass against the Lord; particularly in worshipping the calves at Dan and Bethel, and other acts of idolatry and impiety. (f) "vire Judae", Cocceius.

Verse 8

O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face,.... Which is repeated, to show how much the mind of the prophet was affected with it, and to fix a sense of it in the minds of others; as well as to suggest that he wanted words fully to express that shame that everyone ought to take to themselves; and also in order to introduce what follows, and that to observe that all ranks and degrees of men were concerned in it: to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee; these had each of them sinned against the Lord, by not hearkening to his prophets, who reproved them for their sins, and warned them of their danger, Dan 9:6 and therefore had reason to be ashamed of them before him; as well as to observe the low estate in which the royal family, princes, elders, and people in Babylon, were, being exposed to shame and reproach before all the world.

Verse 9

To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses,.... Mercy is his nature, and what he delights in; it is abundant, and he is plenteous in it the fountain of mercy is with him, and numerous are the streams which flow from it, called "the multitude of his tender mercies"; all temporal favours spring from hence, and so do all spiritual blessings, the sure mercies of David; and particularly the forgiveness of sin, which is the Lord's prerogative, and is according to the tender mercies of our God, and the riches of his grace; and is of all sins, and of all sorts of sinners; he doth abundantly pardon all that apply to him for it, and forgives all trespasses; see Psa 130:4, though we have rebelled against him: there is mercy with the Lord, and forgiveness with him, even for rebellious ones; which is an exaggeration and illustration of his pardoning grace and mercy: or, "for we have sinned against him" (g); so that it is a plain case that he is merciful and has forgiven our iniquities, since he has spared us, and not destroyed us, and now is about to put an end to our captivity, according to his promise; and if he had not mercy on us, and did not forgive our sins, we must perish in them, and there would be no hope of salvation for us. (g) "quia rebellavimus", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Polanus, Cocceius, Michaelis.

Verse 10

Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God,.... Speaking in the law, and by his prophets; for what was spoken there, and by them, should have been considered, not as the word of man, but as the word of God, and should have been attended to and obeyed; for despising that and them was interpreted as despising the Lord, and refusing to hearken to him, and obey his voice; which was a sin highly provoking to him, and resented by him: to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets; by Moses and others; for it seems to include the system of laws which were delivered by Moses, and were many; and the doctrines of the prophets, which were explications and enforcements of them: and these the Lord set before them by both, as a rule to walk by, and a path to walk in; and not to do this was very sinful in them, and greatly displeasing to him.

Verse 11

Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law,.... Even God's professing people, on whom he had bestowed distinguishing favours and blessings, and gave them such a law as no other people had, and yet they transgressed it; not a few, or the greatest part only, but the whole body of them: and indeed there is no man that lives without sin, or the transgression of the law, in thought, word, or deeds; no, not a just man; but these transgressed the law in a very heinous manner, both the first as well as the second table of it, committing idolatry, and all manner of impiety, in which they continued: even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; by departing from the law, and the precepts of it; from God and his worship; from the temple of God, and the service of it; and from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin: it seems to have some respect to the separation of the ten tribes under Jeroboam, who set up the calves at Dan and Bethel, that the people might not obey the voice of the Lord, in going to worship at the solemn feasts in Jerusalem: therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God: that is, the just punishment of their sins was inflicted on them; or the curse the law threatened the transgressors of it with was come upon them in its large extent, and overflowed them like a flood; which God swore he would bring upon them, if they transgressed his law; or which they by an oath imprecated and pronounced upon themselves, should they not hearken to it, but transgress and disobey it: because we have sinned against him; and therefore this curse was not a causeless one; sin, the transgression of the law, was the cause of it.

Verse 12

And he hath confirmed his words which he spake against us,.... That is, he hath made good his threatenings of wrath and vengeance, in case of disobedience to his law: and against our judges that judged us; kings, and inferior governors, that ruled over them, who perverted justice, and did not execute righteous judgment; and against them the Lord performed what he threatened: by bringing upon us a great evil; the desolation of the whole land, the destruction of Jerusalem; the death of many by the sword, famine, and pestilence, and the captivity of the rest; all which was a great punishment considered in itself, but, when compared with their offences, was less than they deserved: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem; its walls broken down, its houses burnt with fire, even the palaces of the king and nobles, and the temple of the Lord itself; and all its inhabitants destroyed, dispersed, or carried captive; see Lam 1:12.

Verse 13

As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us,.... As it is there threatened it should, and as it is there foretold it would come upon them, so it has; even the selfsame things, in the same manner, and with the same circumstances, as there foretold; which is a proof of the omniscience, omnipotence, and faithfulness of God, and an evidence of the truth of divine revelation; see Lev 26:1, yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our God; during the seventy years captivity, they might have prayed, and doubtless did, in a lifeless, formal manner; but not sincerely and heartily, in faith and with fervency, under a sense of sin, with confession of it, and true repentance for it, and so as to forsake it, as follows: that we might turn from our iniquities; for since they did not pray against sin, and entreat the Lord to enable them to turn from it, and forsake it, but continued in a course of disobedience, their prayer was not reckoned prayer: and understand thy truth; either the truth and faithfulness of God, in fulfilling both his promises and his threatenings; or his law, which is truth, as Jacchiades interprets it; for, had they prayed aright, they would have had an understanding given them of divine truths, both with respect to doctrine and practice; of which they were ignorant, as prayerless persons usually are.

Verse 14

Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us,.... The evil of punishment; he watched the fit and proper time to bring it upon them; indeed, he watches over the evil of sin, to bring upon men the evil of chastisement or punishment, Job 14:16, but the latter is here meant; see Jer 31:28, the word used has the signification of hastening; and so Jarchi and Saadiah explain it, "he hath hastened" (h): the almond tree, as the latter observes, has its name from hence, because it prevents other trees, and is quicker in putting out its blossom than they, Jer 1:11 and so this may denote the purity of the Lord; his displicency at sin; his strict justice in punishing it; and his diligence and activity in executing judgment for it, which slumbers not, as some imagine: for the Lord our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth; the prophet is all along careful to clear God from any imputation of injustice in any of his works, even in his strange work, punitive justice; though he watches over the evil to bring it, yet he is righteous in so doing; no charge of unrighteousness is to be exhibited against him on this account: for we obeyed not his voice; neither in his word, nor in his providences; neither by his prophets, nor by his judgments; and being guilty of the evil of fault, it was but just they should bear the evil of punishment. (h) "festinavit", Paguinus, Vatablus.

Verse 15

And now, O Lord our God,.... The Lord of the whole earth in general, the sovereign Ruler of the universe, and the God of Israel in a special and peculiar manner; which is used to encourage faith in prayer, and carries in it a tacit argument or plea with God to be heard, in what he was about to say in behalf of Israel; and to which purpose also is the following description of God, from an ancient benefit he had granted to that people: that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand; which though it may be considered as an aggravation of their sin, that after this they should behave so wickedly, as to be carried captive for their sins, out of the land they were brought into; yet it seems to be mentioned to put the Lord in mind of his former favours to them, and of his promise that he would bring them out of Babylon, as he had brought them out of Egypt, Jer 16:14, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; by the many wonders wrought in Egypt, and at the Red sea, when Israel was brought from thence; as particularly by slaying the firstborn of Egypt, dividing the waters of the sea, and destroying the Egyptians in it, as Saadiah observes; the memory and fame of which continued to that day, and will continue throughout all ages: and the prophet suggests, that he would also get a name or renown in the world, and among his people, should he deliver them from their present captivity; but for this they had nothing to plead but his promise and mercy; for, as for them, they were obliged to confess themselves sinners, and unworthy of such a favour: we have sinned, we have done wickedly; the prophet knows not how to leave off confessing sin; there had been so much committed, and there was so much need of confessing it.

Verse 16

O Lord, according to all thy righteousness,.... Or "righteousnesses" (i); which he had been used to exercise in the world, in all ages of it; either punishing wicked men according to their deserts, to which respect may be had here; since turning away wrath from his people would issue in turning it upon their enemies, which would be in righteous judgment or in fulfilling his promises; and so it signifies his faithfulness, of which there had been so many instances in times past, and gave encouragement to believe the performance of those not yet accomplished: or this may be understood of his goodness, and kindness, which is sometimes meant by his righteousness see Psa 31:1 and so the Septuagint and Arabic versions render it, "in all thy mercy"; and Jacchiades paraphrases the words thus, "O Lord, according to all the multitude of thy righteousness, and of thy kindness, which thou dost in the world:'' I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem; the city of the great King, which he chose for his residence, in which the temple, was, and where he was worshipped; and the prophet earnestly entreats, that the marks of divine displeasure, which were upon it, might be removed; that the punishments or judgments inflicted, as the effects of the anger and wrath of God, might cease, and the city be rebuilt, and restored to its former glory: thy holy mountain; the temple, devoted to the worship and service of God; or Mount Moriah, on which it stood: 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; their neighbours, the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tyrians, and Philistines; who rejoiced at their destruction, and jeered at them and their religion, and scoffingly said, where were their temple of which they boasted, and their God in whom they trusted? the cause of all this is owned to be their own sins, and the sins of their ancestors, which they their posterity continued in; and therefore do not lay the fault wholly upon them, but take the blame to themselves. (i) "justitias tuas", Vatablus, Calvin, Gejerus, Cocceius, Michaelis.

Verse 17

Now therefore, O our God,.... This being our miserable case, and the seventy years' captivity being at an end, and thou still our covenant God, whom we profess and worship: hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications; which he had put up in an humble manner, consisting of various petitions for grace and mercy before expressed: and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate; the temple; its walls demolished, its altars thrown down, and the whole in ruins; a melancholy scene! the Lord, suffering these things, seemed to frown upon it, and upon his people, that used to serve him there; wherefore it is entreated that he would smile upon it again, and upon them, and cause it to be rebuilt, and his worship restored in it: and this is asked for the Lord's sake: that is, for Christ's sake, who is Lord of all, especially of his chosen people, by creation, redemption, and marriage, as well as by their own consent and profession; and for whose sake, and in whose name, all requests are to be made to God, he being the only Mediator between God and man; and for the sake of whose blood, righteousness, and mediation, all the blessings of goodness are given unto men; and who also was Lord and proprietor of the temple, and was to come into it, as well as was the antitype of it.

Verse 18

O my God, incline thine ear, and hear,.... The petitions now put up, for Christ's sake: open thine eyes, and behold our desolations; the city and temple a heap of rubbish, and the whole land forsaken of its inhabitants, and lying waste and uncultivated, or, however, at most possessed by enemies; and things being thus, it seemed as if the Lord shut his eyes to them, and therefore is desired to open them, and look with pity and compassion on the case of his people, and deliver them out of all their troubles: and the city which is called by thy name; or, "on which thy name is called" (k); as Jerusalem was, being called the city of our God, the city of the great King, Psa 48:1 and in which also his name was called upon, both by the inhabitants of it in their private houses, and by the priests and Levites, and others, in the temple, which stood in it: for we do not present our supplications before thee; or, "cause them to fall before thee" (l); expressing the humble and lowly manner in which they presented their petitions to God, and respecting the gesture they used in prayer, bowing themselves to the ground, and falling prostrate upon it; and as was the custom of the eastern people when they supplicated their princes: and this Daniel, in the name of his people, did; not, says he, for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies; not pleading their good works and righteous actions, and the merits of them, which had none in them, and were no other than as filthy rags, and could not recommend them to God, or be used as a plea and argument to obtain any good thing from him; but throwing themselves upon the abundant grace and mercy of God in Christ, mercy they pleaded, and not merit; and made mention of the righteousness of Christ, and not their own; as all good men, who are truly sensible of themselves, and of the grace of God, will do. (k) "super quam invocatum est nomen tuum", Vatablus, Pagninus, Calvin; "super qua nomen tuum nuncupatum est", Cocceius. (l) "nos cadere facientes", Montanus; "nos cadere facimus", Gejerus, Michaelis.

Verse 19

O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive,.... That is, hear the prayers and supplications that have been presented, and forgive the sins that have been confessed; show both, by removing present calamities, and restoring to former prosperity and privileges: O Lord, hearken, and do; not only listen to what has been said, and give an answer by speaking, but work salvation and deliverance: defer not, for thine own sake, O my God; these words seem to be directed to Christ the Son of God, and who is the true God, and the God of his people; who is three times in this verse before called Adonai, for whose sake prayer and supplication were made, Dan 9:17 and here again, for his own sake, he is entreated not to "defer" the fulfilment of the promise of delivering the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, the seventy years being now up, or just expiring; and also that he would not defer his own coming for the redemption of his people, which no doubt Daniel had in his mind, and was wishing and waiting for: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name; Jerusalem, the city of the great King, Christ, and a type of his church and people, who are also called by his name, and call upon him.

Verse 20

And while I was speaking and praying,.... Speaking to God in prayer; for it seems his prayer was vocal, and not mental only: and confessing my sin, and the sin of my people Israel; Daniel, though so holy and good a man, was not without sin, and thought it his duty to confess it before the Lord; and which he did in the first place, and then the sin of his people; which is the way to succeed with the Lord for the application of pardoning grace, and the enjoyment of other mercies and blessings: and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God; for the temple, and the service of God in it; which was the first and principal thing that lay upon the heart of the prophet, and he was most importunate and solicitous for.

Verse 21

Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer,.... Which is repeated, that it might be observed, that while he was in prayer, before he had finished it, or got off of his knees, an answer was sent him; see Isa 65:24, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning; either at the beginning of Belshazzar's reign, in the third year of it, Dan 8:1, or rather "before", as the Syriac version renders it; before this time, in the vision of the ram and he goat, Dan 8:16, when he saw this angel Gabriel that appeared in a human form, and he knew this to be his name, by a man's voice calling him by it; and now he knew him to be the same angel by his appearance and voice; at the sight of whom he does not seem to be terrified, as before, having had free conversation with him, and being made acquainted by him with many secrets; and no doubt inwardly rejoiced to see him again, as hoping and believing he had something to communicate to him: being caused to fly swiftly; having an order from the Lord, and being strengthened by him to make quick dispatch to Daniel, which is signified by flying swiftly; and for which reason angels are represented as having wings, to denote their celerity and quick dispatch of business: or "flying with weariness" (m), as some render it; he made such haste as to be weary with it; as he appeared in the form of a man, he looked like one out of breath, and panting for it, occasioned by his swift flight; and which expresses the haste he made, according to his orders, and his eagerness to bring to Daniel the welcome tidings of the coming of the Messiah, and the time of it, which angels desired to look into: touched me about the time of the evening oblation; the time of offering the evening sacrifice; which, though not now offered, the altar being destroyed, and the Lord's people in a foreign land; yet the time was observed by them, and which was the time of prayer, being about the ninth hour of the day, or three o'clock in the afternoon, see Act 3:1, as the time of the morning sacrifice was another hour of prayer; at which time very likely Daniel began, and continued till now, since he was fasting, Dan 9:3 and this was the time when Christ, the antitype of the daily sacrifice, was offered up; of the time of whose coming, sufferings, and death, the angel here brings an account: and, in order to excite the attention of Daniel to it, "touched him"; for he, being on his knees, and intent in prayer, might not at first observe him; and therefore gives him a gentle touch, to let him know he was present, and had something to say to him; and to suggest to him to break off his prayer, to which he had brought an answer, as well as to lift him up, and encourage familiarity with him. (m) "volans in lassitudine", Montanus; "cum lassitudine, vel fatigatione", so some in Vatablus; "cum, lassitudine", as others in Michaelis.

Verse 22

And he informed me, and talked with me,.... He informed him, by talking with him, of the will of God, to restore the captivity of his people, to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, and of the coming of the Messiah: or, "he caused me to attend" (n), "and talked with me"; he excited his attention to what he had to say, and caused him to advert to his discourse, in order to understand it: and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth; just now come from heaven, from the presence of God, and by his order: to give thee skill and understanding; or, "to instruct thee in understanding" (o); to teach thee the knowledge and give thee the understanding of secret things, which otherwise could not be known; such as particularly the time of the coming of Christ, which the angels themselves knew not till it was revealed; and being made acquainted with it, one of them is employed to make it known to Daniel; who is the only prophet that fixes the exact time of it, and was favoured with this divine and heavenly skill of knowing it, and of being the publisher of it to others. (n) "attendere fecit", Michaelis. (o) "ad imbuendum te intelligentia", Piscator; "ad docendum te intelligentiam", Micaelis.

Verse 23

At the beginning of thy supplications,.... As soon as ever he began to pray. This circumstance shows how ready the Lord is to hear the prayers of his people; and yet it was not owing to the prayers of the prophet, and to any intrinsic virtue or merit in them that the Lord did what he afterwards declares should be done; and, besides, more is revealed and promised than Daniel asked for: the commandment came forth; either the order from the Lord to the angel, dispatching him on this errand to the prophet, to acquaint him with his mind and will; or the proclamation of Cyrus, to let the people of the Jews go free, and go up to Jerusalem to build their city and temple, published that morning, just about the time Daniel began to pray, the seventy years' captivity being completely finished; see Dan 9:25, and I am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved; or, "art desires" (p); all desire, exceedingly desired; very lovely, amiable, and delightful, in the sight of God, and all good men: or, "that thou art greatly beloved" (q); thus the angel came from God, out of heaven, to show it to him, to make it appear that he was highly in the favour of God, in that he made known his secrets to him: therefore understand the matter; or "word" (r); attend to the word; advert to the form of speaking used, and labour to get the knowledge of it: and consider the vision; this vision, as Japhet; the following vision or prophecy of the seventy weeks; think of it well, as being a matter of great importance and consequence. (p) "desideria", Michaelis; "vir desideriorum", Pagninus, Munster, Piscator; so Ben Melech. (q) "quod dilectus tu sis", Cocceius; "quod desideria tu sis", Michaelis. (r) "in verbo", Montanus; "verbum", Pagninus; "ipsum verbum", Junius & Tremellius; "sermonem", Cocceius.

Verse 24

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city,..... Or, "concerning thy people, and concerning thy holy city" (s); that is, such a space of time is fixed upon; "cut out" (t), as the word signifies; or appointed of God for the accomplishment of certain events, relative to the temporal good of the city and people of the Jews; as the rebuilding of their city and temple; the continuance of them as a people, and of their city; the coming of the Messiah to them, to obtain spiritual blessings for them, and for all the people of God; who also were Daniel's people and city in a spiritual sense, to which he belonged; and likewise what was relative to the utter ruin and destruction of the Jews as a people, and of their city: and this space of "seventy" weeks is not to be understood of weeks of days; which is too short a time for the fulfilment of so many events as are mentioned; nor were they fulfilled within such a space of time; but of weeks of years, and make up four hundred and ninety years; within which time, beginning from a date after mentioned, all the things prophesied of were accomplished; and this way of reckoning of years by days is not unusual in the sacred writings; see Gen 29:27. The verb used is singular, and, joined with the noun plural, shows that every week was cut out and appointed for some event or another; and the word, as it signifies "to cut", aptly expresses the division, or section of these weeks into distinct periods, as seven, sixty two, and one. The first events mentioned are spiritual ones, and are not ascribed to any particular period; but are what should be done within this compass of time in general, and were done toward the close of it; and are first observed because of the greatest importance, and are as follow: to finish the transgression; not the transgression of Adam, or original sin, which, though took away by Christ from his people, yet not from all men; nor the actual transgression of man in general, which never more abounded than in the age in which Christ lived; but rather the transgressions of his people he undertook to satisfy for, and which were laid on him, and bore by him, and carried away, so as not to be seen more, or to have no damning power over them. The word used signifies "to restrain" (u); now, though sin greatly abounded, both among Jews and Gentiles, in the age of the Messiah; yet there never was an age in which greater restraints were laid on it than in this, by the ministry of John the Baptist, and of Christ in Judea and by the apostles in the Gentile world: and to make an end of sins; so that they shall be no more, but put away and abolished by the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ for them, as to guilt and punishment; so that those, for whose sins satisfaction is made, no charge can be brought against them, nor the curse of the law reach them, nor any sentence of it be executed, or any punishment inflicted on them; but are entirely and completely saved from all their sins, and the sad effects of them. Our version follows the marginal reading; but the textual writing is, "to seal up sins" (w); which is expressive of the pardon of them procured by Christ; for things sealed are hid and covered, and so are sins forgiven, Psa 32:1, and to make reconciliation for iniquity: to expiate it, and make atonement for it; which was made by the sacrifice of Christ, by his sufferings and death; whereby the law and justice of God were fully satisfied, full reparation being made for the injury done by sin; and this was made for all kind of sin, expressed here by several words; and for all the sins, iniquities, and transgressions of the Lord's people; to do which was the grand end of Christ's coming into the world; see Heb 2:17, and to bring in everlasting righteousness; which is true only of the righteousness of Christ, by which the law is magnified and made honourable, justice satisfied, and all that believe in him justified from all their sins: this Christ, by his obedience, sufferings, and death, has wrought out, and brought into the world; and which phase designs, not the manifestation of it in the Gospel; nor the act of imputation of it, which is Jehovah the Father's act; nor the application of it, which is by the Spirit of God; but Christ's actual working of it out by obeying the precept and bearing the penalty of the law: and this may be truly called "everlasting", or "the righteousness of ages" (x), of ages past; the righteousness by which the saints in all ages from the beginning of the world are justified; and which endures, and will endure, throughout all ages, to the justification of all that believe; it is a robe of righteousness that will never wear out; its virtue to justify will ever continue, being perfect; it will answer for the justified ones in a time to come, and has eternal life connected with it: and to seal up the vision and prophecy; not to shut it up out of sight; rather to set a mark on it, by which it might be more clearly known; but to consummate and fulfil it: all prophecy is sealed up in Christ, and by him; he is the sum and substance of it; the visions and prophecies of the Old Testament relate to him, and have their accomplishment in him; some relate to his person and office; others to his coming into the world, the time, place, and manner of it; others to the great work of redemption and salvation he came about; and others to his miracles, sufferings, and death, and the glory that should follow; all which have been fulfilled: or, "to seal up the vision and prophet" (y); the prophets were until John, and then to cease, and have ceased ever since the times of Jesus; there has been no prophet among the Jews, they themselves do not deny it; Christ is come, the last and great Prophet of all, with a full revelation of the divine will, and no other is to be expected; all that pretend to set up a new scheme of things, either as to doctrine or worship, through pretended vision or prophecy, are to be disregarded: and to anoint the most Holy; not literally the most holy place in the temple; figuratively, either heaven itself, anointed, and prepared for his people by the Messiah's ascension thither, and entrance into it; or rather most holy persons, the church and people of God, typified by the sanctuary, the temple of God; and in a comparative sense are most holy, and absolutely so, as washed in the blood of Christ, clothed with his righteousness, and sanctified by his Spirit; and by whom they are anointed, some in an extraordinary and others in an ordinary way, and all by the grace of Christ: or it may be best of all to understand this of the Messiah, as Aben Ezra and others do; who is holy in his person, in both his natures, human and divine; sanctified and set apart to his office, and holy in the execution of it; equal in holiness to the Father and the Spirit; superior in it to angels and men, who have all their holiness from him, and by whom they are sanctified; and of whom the sanctuary or temple was a type; and who was anointed with the Holy Ghost as man, at his incarnation, baptism, and ascension to heaven; and Abarbinel owns it may be interpreted of the Messiah, who may be called the Holy of holies, because he is holier than all other Israelites. (s) "de populo tuo", Helvicus. (t) "decisae", Pagninus: Montanus, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Cocceius, Michaelis. (u) "cohibendo", Junius & Tremellius; "ad cohibendum", Piscator, Gejerus, Michaelis; "ad coercendum", Cocceius. (w) "obsignando", Junius & Tremellius; "ad sigilandum", Montanus; "ut obsignet", Piscator. (x) "justitiam seculorum", Pagninus, Montanus, Vatablus, Michaelis. (y) "et prophetam", Pagninus, Montanus, Munster, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Cocceius, Michaelis.

Verse 25

Know, therefore, and understand,.... Take notice and observe, for the clearer understanding of these seventy weeks, and the events to be fulfilled in them, what will be further said concerning them, the beginning of them, their distinct periods, and what shall be accomplished in them: that from the time of the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem; this commandment is the beginning of the seventy weeks or four hundred and ninety years, and from it they are to be reckoned; and which designs not the proclamation of Cyrus in the first year of his reign, which was only to rebuild the temple, and not the city of Jerusalem, Ezr 1:1, nor the decree of Darius Hystaspes, which also only regards the temple, and is only a confirmation of the decree of Cyrus, Ezr 6:1 and for the same reasons it cannot be the decree in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes; which only confirmed what his predecessors had granted concerning the temple, and provision for sacrifices, and exemption of the priests from toll, tribute, or custom, Ezr 7:7, but has not a word of building the wall and streets of Jerusalem, as that has, which was made in the twentieth year of his reign; and seems therefore to be the commandment or decree here referred to, Neh 2:1, and this is the general epoch of the seventy weeks, and where the first seven begin; though Gussetius (a) thinks that the word does not signify any edict or decree, but a "thing"; and designs the thing itself, restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem; and that the following date is to be reckoned, not from any order to rebuild that city, but from the thing itself, from the moment when it first began to be rebuilt: and as singular is the notion of Tirinus (b), who is of opinion that this is to be understood of the going out, or the end of the word; not whereby the holy city was ordered to be built, but when it was really built; and so begins the account from the dedication of the new city, in the twenty third year of Artaxerxes, Neh 12:27. There are others who suppose that not any human word, decree, commandment, or order, is here meant, but a divine one; either the word of the Lord to Jeremiah, foretelling the seventy years' captivity of the Jews, and their deliverance from it; and reckon these four hundred and ninety years from the destruction of the first temple, to the destruction of the second temple, as Jarchi, Saadiah, Jacchiades, and others; but between these two destructions was a course of six hundred and fifty six or six hundred and fifty seven years: others take the beginning of the seventy weeks to be from the going forth of the commandment to the angel, at the beginning of Daniel's prayers, as Aben Ezra; and to end at the destruction of the second temple; but, for a like reason, this must be rejected as the other; since this space of time will outrun the seventy weeks near one hundred and twenty years: it is best therefore to interpret this of a royal edict, the order or commandment of a king of Persia to rebuild Jerusalem; and it seems correct to reckon the number given, either from the seventh, or rather from the twentieth, of Artaxerxes Longimanus before mentioned; and either these reckonings, as Bishop Chandler (c) observes, are sufficient for our purpose, to show the completion of the prophecy in Christ: "the commencement of the weeks (as he remarks) must be either from the seventh of Artaxerxes, which falls on 457 B.C. or from the twentieth of Artaxerxes; (add to 457 B.C., twenty six years after Christ, which is the number that four hundred and eighty three years, or sixty nine weeks, exceeds four hundred and fifty seven years); and you are brought to the beginning of John the Baptist's preaching up the advent of the Messiah; add seven years or one week to the former, and you come to the thirty third year of A.D. which was the year of Jesus Christ's death or else compute four hundred and ninety years, the whole seventy weeks, from the seventh of Artaxerxes, by subtracting four hundred and fifty seven years (the space of time between that year and the beginning of A.D.) from four hundred and ninety, and there remains thirty three, the year of our Lord's death. Let the twentieth of Artaxerxes be the date of the seventy weeks, which is 455 B.C. and reckon sixty nine weeks of Chaldean years; seventy Chaldee years being equal to sixty nine Julian; and so four hundred and seventy eight Julian years making four hundred and eighty three Chaldee years, and they end in the thirty third year after Christ, or the passover following (d)''; the several particulars into which these seventy weeks are divided: unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; by whom is meant, not Cyrus, as Jarchi and Jacchiades; who, though called Messiah or anointed, Isa 44:28, cannot be intended; for this prince was to be cut off after seven, and sixty two weeks, or four hundred and eighty three years; whereas Cyrus died ages before this, and even died before the expiration of the seven weeks, or forty nine years; nor Joshua the high priest, or Zerubbabel, as Ben Gersom and others nor Nehemiah as Aben Ezra; nor Artaxerxes, which R. Azariah (e) thinks probable; for to none of these will this character agree, which denotes some eminent person known by this name; nor the work ascribed to him, Dan 9:24, nor can it be said of either of them that they were cut off, and much less at such a period as is here fixed: it is right to interpret it of the promised and expected Saviour, whom the Psalmist David had frequently spoken of under the name of the Messiah, and as a King and Prince; see Psa 2:2 and who is David, the Prince Ezekiel before this had prophesied of, Eze 34:24, and is the same with the Prince of peace in the famous prophecy of him in Isa 9:6. The Syriac version, though not a literal one, gives the true sense of the passage, rendering it, "unto the coming of the King Messiah;'' unto which there were to be seven, and sixty two weeks, or sixty nine weeks, which make four hundred and eighty three years; and these being understood of eastern years, used by the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Persians, consisting of three hundred and sixty days, reckoning thirty days to a month, and twelve months to a year, there were just four hundred and eighty three of these from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to the thirty third of the vulgar era of Christ, and the nineteenth of Tiberius Caesar, in which he suffered. Sir Isaac Newton (f) thinks the seven weeks unto Messiah, which he detaches from the sixty two, respects the second coming of Christ, when he shall come as a Prince, and destroy antichrist, and that it takes in the compass of a jubilee; but when it will begin and end he does not pretend to say; but the true reason of the sixty nine weeks being divided into seven, and sixty two, is on account of the particular and distinct events assigned to each period, as follows: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times; that is, within the space of seven weeks, or forty nine years, reckoning from the twentieth of Artaxerxes; when the Jews had a grant to rebuild their city and wall, and were furnished with materials for it; and which was done in very troublesome times; Nehemiah, and the Jews with him, met with much trouble from Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem the Arabian, while they were setting up the wall of the city, and filling the streets with ranges of houses, Nehemiah chapters four and five for which the space of seven weeks, or forty nine years, were cut out and appointed; and that this event belongs solely to this period is clear from the Messiah's coming being appropriated to the period of the sixty two weeks; which leaves this entirely where it is fixed. (a) Ebr. Comment. p. 177, 329. (b) Chronolog. Sacr. p. 44. (c) Answer to the Grounds and Reasons, &c. p. 139. (d) See these seventy weeks more largely considered, in a Treatise of mine, concerning the prophecies of the Old Testament respecting the Messiah, &c. p. 64-78. (e) Meor Enayim, c. 41. fol. 134. 2. (f) Observations on Daniel, p. 132, 133, 134.

Verse 26

And after threescore and two weeks,.... To be reckoned from the end of the seven weeks, or forty nine years, which, added to them, make four hundred and eighty three years: shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; by whom is designed the same with Messiah the Prince in Dan 9:25, not Onias the high priest, as a late writer (g) would have it, an upright person, and of great holiness, taken off by an unjust death; since he was dead many years before the expiration of these weeks; nor Hyrcanus the high priest, slain by Herod, as Eusebius (h) thinks; in whom the succession of the ancient priests terminated, and with whom the priestly unction perished; which indeed bids fairer than the former; but he was not a person of so much note as to be pointed at in such a prophecy; besides, the priesthood continued much longer: nor is King Agrippa intended, as Jarchi and Abarbinel, who, they say, was the last king of the Jews, and was slain by Vespasian at the destruction of Jerusalem; which is not true; he was not properly king of the Jews, having only Galilee for his jurisdiction; was not slain by Vespasian; was a confederate of the Romans, lived some years after the destruction of the city, and at last died in peace; but Jesus the true Messiah is intended, with whom the character, dates, and death, and the manner of it, entirely agree: now to his death were to be four hundred and eighty three years; which years ended, as we have observed, in the thirty third year of the vulgar era of Christ, and the nineteenth of Tiberius; when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation; see Isa 53:8, or "he is not", as Jarchi, no more in the land of the living, is dead; see Jer 31:15, or "there is", or "will be, none for him", or "with him" (i), to help and assist him in his great work, Isa 63:5. The Vulgate Latin version is, "they shall not be his people"; the Jews rejecting him shall have a "loammi" upon them, and be no more the people of God. Gussetius (k) better renders it, "he hath not"; or he has nothing, so Cocceius; all things were wanted by him, that is, by Christ; he had neither riches, nor clothes, nor any to stand by him, or to accompany him: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; that is, the people of the Romans, under Vespasian their prince, emperor, and general, should, in a little time after the cutting off of the Messiah, enter into the land of Judea, and destroy the city of Jerusalem, and the temple that stood in it; though some understand this of Messiah the Prince that should come in his power, and in a way of judgment upon the Jewish nation, and destroy them for their rejection of him; whose people the Romans would be, and under whose direction, and by whose orders, all these judgments should be brought upon the Jews; but many of the Jewish writers themselves interpret it of Vespasian, as Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Abarbinel, and Jacchiades: and the end thereof shall be with a flood: the end of the city and temple, and of the whole nation, should be by the Roman army, which, like a flood, would overspread the land, and carry all before it. It denotes the number, power, and irresistible force of the enemy, and the sad devastation made by them: and unto the end of the war desolations are determined; from the beginning of the war by the Romans with the Jews, to the end of it, there would be nothing but continual desolations; a dreadful havoc and ruin everywhere; and all this appointed and determined by the Lord, as a just punishment for their sins. (g) Scheme of literal Prophecy, &c. p. 183. (h) Demonstrat. Evangel. l. 8. p. 396, 397. (i) "et non erit ei", Pagninus; "et nullus erit pro co", Vatablus. (k) Comment. Ebr. p. 33.

Verse 27

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week,.... Sixty nine of the seventy weeks being accounted for, and the several events observed to be fulfilled in them; the angel proceeds to take notice of the remaining "one" week, or seven years, and what should be done within that space of time: a covenant should be confirmed with many; which is not to be understood of the Messiah's confirming the covenant of grace with many, or on account of all his people, by fulfilling the conditions of it, and by his blood and sacrifice, through which all the blessings of it come to them; for this is not for one week only, but for ever; but this is to be interpreted of the Roman people, spoken of in the latter part of the preceding verse; who, in order to accomplish their design to destroy the city and temple of Jerusalem, made peace with many nations, entered into covenant and alliance with them, particularly the Medes, Parthians, and Armenians, for the space of one week, or seven years; as it appears they did at the beginning of this week (l): and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; the daily sacrifice of the Jews, and all their other offerings; and which was literally fulfilled "in the half part" (m) of this week, as it may be rendered; towards the close of the latter half of it, when the city of Jerusalem, being closely besieged by Titus, what through the closeness of the siege, the divisions of the people, and the want both of time and men, and beasts to offer, the daily sacrifice ceased, as Josephus (n) says, to the great grief of the people; nor have the Jews, ever since the destruction of their city and temple, offered any sacrifice, esteeming it unlawful so to do in a strange land: and at the same time, in the same half part of the week, for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate; that is, the Roman people shall make the land of Judea desolate, for the overspreading of their abominations or idolatries in it. The words may be rendered, as by some, "upon the wing", the battlements of the temple, shall be the abominations, or "idols of the desolator", or "of him that makes desolate" (o); so Bishop Lloyd; meaning either the ensigns of the Roman army, which had upon them the images of their gods or emperors; and being set up in the holy place, and sacrificed to, nothing could be a greater abomination to the Jews; or else the blood of the zealots slain on these battlements, by which the holy place was polluted; see Mat 24:15, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate; that is, either these abominations shall continue in the place where they are set until the utter destruction of the city and temple; or the desolation made there should continue until the consummation of God's wrath and vengeance upon them; until the whole he has determined is poured out on this desolate people; and which continues unto this day, and will till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, Luk 21:24. Some, as Bishop Lloyd, render it, "upon the desolator" (p); meaning the Romans; and the sense they take to be is, that this vengeance shall continue upon the Jews until it is turned upon the head of those who have made them desolate: now this "one week", according to the sense given, must begin in the sixty third year of the vulgar era of Christ, about thirty years after the expiration of the sixty nine weeks; since it ends in the seventieth year of the same era, in which was the destruction of Jerusalem, the grand event assigned to it in this famous prophecy; when it might have been expected it should have begun at the end of the sixty nine weeks, and run on in a direct line from them. The true reason of its being thus separated from them is the longsuffering and forbearance of God to the people of the Jews, who gave them, as to the old world, space to repent; but his grace and goodness being slighted, things began to work at the beginning of this week towards their final ruin, which, in the close of it, was fully accomplished: from the whole of this prophecy it clearly appears that the Messiah must be come many hundred years ago. The Jews are sensible of the force of this reasoning; so that, to terrify persons from considering this prophecy, they denounce the following curse, "let them burst, or their bones rot, that compute the times" (q). R. Nehemiah, who lived about fifty years before the coming of Christ, declared the time of the Messiah, as signified by Daniel, could not be protracted longer than those fifty years (r). The Jews also say the world is divided into six parts, and the last part is from Daniel to the Messiah (s). (l) See Marshall's Chron. Treat. p. 271. (m) "et in dimidio hebdomadis", Montanus, Michaelis; "dimidio septimanae", Cocceius. (n) De Bello, Jud. l. 6. c. 2. (o) "desolator", Piscator, Gejerus; "desolans", Covveius; "stupefaciens", Montanus. (p) "super obstupescentem", Montanus; "in stupendem", Cocceius, (q) T. Bab. Sanhedrin. fol. 97. 2. (r) Apud Grotium de Ver. Rel. Christ l. 5. sect. 14. (s) Caphtor Uperah, fol 17. 2. Next: Daniel Chapter 10

Verse 1

Dan 9:1 and Dan 9:2 mention the occasion on which the penitential prayer (vv. 3-19) was offered, and the divine revelation following thereupon regarding the time and the course of the oppression of the people of God by the world-power till the completion of God's plan of salvation. Regarding Darius, the son of Ahasverosch, of the race of the Medes, see under Dan 6:1. In the word המלך the Hophal is to be noticed: rex constitutus, factus est. It shows that Darius did not become king over the Chaldean kingdom by virtue of a hereditary right to it, nor that he gained the kingdom by means of conquest, but that he received it (קבּל, Dan 6:1) from the conqueror of Babylon, Cyrus, the general of the army. The first year of the reign of Darius the Mede over the Chaldean kingdom is the year 538 b.c., since Babylon was taken by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus in the year 539-538 b.c. According to Ptolemy, Cyrus the Persian reigned nine years after Nabonadius. But the death of Cyrus, as is acknowledged, occurred in the year 529 b.c. From the nine years of the reign of Cyrus, according to our exposition, two years are to be deducted for Darius the Mede, so that the reign of Cyrus by himself over the kingdom which he founded begins in the year 536, in which year the seventy years of the Babylonish exile of the Jews were completed; cf. The exposition under Dan 1:1 with the chronological survey in the Com. on the Books of the Kings. The statement as to the time, Dan 9:1, is again repeated in the beginning of Dan 9:2, on account of the relative sentence coming between, so as to connect that which follows with it. We translate (in Dan 9:2), with Hgstb., Maur., Hitzig, "I marked, or gave heed, in the Scriptures to the number of the years," so that מספּר (number) forms the object to בּינתי (I understood); cf. Pro 7:7. Neither the placing of בּספרים (by books) first nor the Atnach under this word controvert this view; for the object is placed after "by books" because a further definition is annexed to it; and the separation of the object from the verb by the Atnach is justified by this consideration, that the passage contains two statements, viz., that Daniel studied the Scriptures, and that his study was directed to the number of the years, etc. בּספרים, with the definite article, does not denote a collection of known sacred writings in which the writings of Jeremiah were included, so that, seeing the collection of the prophets cannot be thought of without the Pentateuch, by this word we are to understand (with Bleek, Gesenius, v. Leng., Hitzig) the recognised collection of the O.T. writings, the Law and the Prophets. For הסּפרים, τὰ βιβλιά, is not synonymous with הכּתוּבים, αἱ γραφαί, but denotes only writings in the plural, but does not say that these writings formed already a recognised collection; so that from this expression nothing can be concluded regarding the formation of the O.T. canon. As little can בּספרים refer, with Hv. and Kran., to the letter of Jeremiah to the exiles (Jer 29), for this reason, that not in Jer 29, but in Jer 25:11., the seventy years of the desolation of the land of Judah, and implic. of Jerusalem, are mentioned. The plur. ספרים also can be understood of a single letter, only if the context demands or makes appropriate this narrower application of the word, as e.g., Kg2 19:14. But here this is not the case, since Jeremiah in two separate prophecies speaks of the seventy years, and not in the letter of Jer. 29, but only in Jer. 25, has he spoken of the seventy years' desolation of the land. In בּספרים lies nothing further than that writings existed, among which were to be found the prophecies of Jeremiah; and the article, the writings, is used, because in the following passage something definite is said of these writings. In these writings Daniel considered the number of the years of which Jeremiah had prophesied. אשׁר, as Dan 8:26, with respect to which, relates not to השׁנים, but to השׁנים מספּר (number of the years). It is no objection against this that the repetition of the words "seventy years" stands opposed to this connection (Klief.), for this repetition does not exist, since מספּר does not declare the number of the years. With למלּאת (to fulfil) the contents of the word of Jehovah, as given by Jeremiah, are introduced. לחרבות does not stand for the accusative: to cause to be complete the desolation of Jerusalem (Hitzig), but ל signifies in respect of, with regard to. This expression does not lean on Jer 29:10 (Kran.), but on Jer 25:12 ("when seventy years are accomplished"). חרבות, properly, desolated places, ruins, here a desolated condition. Jerusalem did not certainly lie in ruins for seventy years; the word is not thus to be interpreted, but is chosen partly with regard to the existing state of Jerusalem, and partly with reference to the words of Jer 25:9, Jer 25:11. Yet the desolation began with the first taking of Jerusalem, and the deportation of Daniel and his companions and a part of the sacred vessels of the temple, in the fourth years of Jehoiakim (606 b.c.). (Note: Thus also the seventy years of the Exile are reckoned in Ch2 36:21-23; Ezr 1:1. This Ewald also recognises (Proph. iii. p. 430), but thinks that it is not an exact reckoning of the times, but rather, according to Zac 1:12 and Dan 9:25, that the destruction of Jerusalem forms the date of the commencement of the desolation and of the seventy years. But Dan 9:25 contains no expression, or even intimation, regarding the commencement of the Exile; and in the words of Zac 1:12, "against which Thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years," there does not lie the idea that the seventy years prophesied of by Jeremiah came to an end in the second year of Darius Hystaspes. See under this passage.) Consequently, in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede over the kingdom of the Chaldeans the seventy years prophesied of by Jeremiah were now full, the period of the desolation of Jerusalem determined by God was almost expired. What was it that moved Daniel at this time to pour forth a penitential prayer in behalf of Jerusalem and the desolated sanctuary? Did he doubt the truth of the promise, that God, after seventy years of exile in Babylon, would visit His people and fulfil the good word He had spoken, that He would again bring back His people to Judea (Jer 29:10)? Certainly not, since neither the matter of his prayer, nor the divine revelation which was vouchsafed to him in answer to his prayer, indicated any doubt on his part regarding the divine promise. According to the opinion of Bleek and Ewald, it was Daniel's uncertainty regarding the termination of the seventy years which moved him to prayer Bleek (Jahrbb.f. D. Theol. v. p. 71) thus expresses himself on the subject: "This prophecy of Jeremiah might be regarded as fulfilled in the overthrow of the Babylonian kingdom and the termination of the Exile, when the Jews obtained from Cyrus permission to return to their native land and to rebuild their city and temple, but yet not perfectly, so far as with the hope of the return of the people from exile there was united the expectation that they would then turn in truth to their God, and that Jehovah would fulfil all His good promises to them to make them partakers of the Messianic redemption (cf. Jer 29:10., also other prophecies of Jeremiah and of other prophets regarding the return of the people from exile, such as Isa. 40ff.); but this result was not connected in such extent and fulness with the return of the people and the restoration of the state." On the supposition of the absolute inspiration of the prophets, it appeared therefore appropriate "to regard Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years, after the expiry of which God will fulfil His good promises to His people, as stretching out into a later period beyond that to which the seventy years would extend, and on that account to inquire how it was to be properly interpreted." Ewald (Proph. iii. p. 421ff.) is of opinion that these seventy years of Jeremiah did not pass by without the fulfilment of his prophecy, that the ruins of Jerusalem would not continue for ever. Already forty-nine years after its destruction a new city of Jerusalem took the place of the old as the centre of the congregation of the true religion, but the stronger hopes regarding the Messianic consummation which connected itself herewith were neither then, nor in all the long times following, down to that moment in which our author (in the age of the Maccabees) lived and wrote, ever fulfilled. Then the faithful were everywhere again exposed to the severest sufferings, such as they had not experienced since the old days of the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore the anxious question as to the duration of such persecution and the actual beginning of the Messianic time, which Daniel, on the ground of the mysterious intimation in Dan 7:12, Dan 7:25 and Dan 8:13., regarding the period of the sufferings of the time of the end, sought here to solve, is agitated anew; for he shows how the number of the seventy years of Jeremiah, which had long ago become sacred, yet accorded with these late times without losing its original truth. Thus Ewald argues. These two critics in their reasoning proceed on the dogmatic ground, which they regard as firmly established, that the book of Daniel is a product of the age of the Maccabees. All who oppose the genuineness of this book agree with them in the view that this chapter contains an attempt, clothed in the form of a divine revelation communicated to the prophet in answer to his prayer, to solve the mystery how Jeremiah's prophecy of the beginning of the Messianic salvation after the seventy years of exile is to be harmonized with the fact that this salvation, centuries after the fall of the Babylonish kingdom and the return of the Jews from the Babylonish exile, had not yet come, but that instead of it, under Antiochus Epiphanes, a time of the severest oppression had come. How does this opinion stand related to the matter of this chapter, leaving out of view all other grounds for the genuineness of the book of Daniel? Does the prayer of Daniel, or the divine revelation communicated to him by means of Gabriel regarding the seventy weeks, contain elements which attest its correctness or probability? The prayer of Daniel goes forth in the earnest entreaty that the Lord would turn away His anger from the city Jerusalem and His holy mountain, and cause His face to shine on the desolation and on the city that was called by His name (Dan 9:15-18). If this prayer is connected with the statement in Dan 9:2, that Daniel was moved thereto by the consideration of the words of Jeremiah regarding the desolation of Jerusalem, we can understand by the ruins, for the removal of which Daniel prayed, only the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which was brought about by the Chaldeans. Consequently the prayer indicates that the desolation of Jerusalem predicted by Jeremiah and accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar still continued, and that the city and the temple had not yet been rebuilt. This, therefore, must have been in the time of the Exile, and not in the time of Antiochus, who, it is true, desolated the sanctuary by putting an end to the worship of Jehovah and establishing the worship of idols, but did not lay in ruins either the temple or the city. In his message (Dan 9:24-27) the angel speaks only of the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, and present the going forth of this word as the beginning of the seventy weeks of Daniel determined upon the people and the holy city within which Jerusalem must be built, and thus distinguishes the seventy weeks as distinctly as possible from Jeremiah's seventy years during which Jerusalem and Judah should lie desolate. Thus is set aside the opinion that the author of this chapter sought to interpret the seventy years of Jeremiah by the seventy weeks; and it shows itself to be only the pure product of the dogmatic supposition, that this book does not contain prophecies of the prophet Daniel living in the time of the Exile, but only apocalyptic dreams of a Maccabean Jew. (Note: The supposition that the seventy weeks, Dan 9:24, are an interpretation of the seventy years of Jeremiah, is the basis on which Hitzig rests the assertion that the passage does not well adjust itself to the standpoint of the pretended Daniel, but is in harmony with the time of the Maccabees. The other arguments which Hitzig and others bring forth against this chapter as the production of Daniel, consist partly in vain historical or dogmatic assertions, such as that there are doubts regarding the existence of Darius of Media, - partly in misinterpretations, such as that Daniel wholly distinguishes himself, Dan 9:6, Dan 9:10, from the prophets, and presents himself as a reader of their writings (Hitz.), - opinions which are no better founded than the conclusions of Berth., v. Leng., and Staeh., drawn from the mention of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Dan 9:7, and of the holy city, Dan 9:24, that Jerusalem was then still inhabited and the temple still standing. To this it is added, that the prayer of Daniel is an imitation of the prayers of Ezr 9:1-15 and Neh 9, or, as Ewald thinks, an extract from the prayer of Baruch (Bar. 1 and 2).) Moreover, it is certainly true that in the Exile the expectation that the perfection and glory of the kingdom of God by the Messiah would appear along with the liberation of the Jews from Babylon was founded on the predictions of the earlier prophets, but that Daniel shared this expectation the book presents no trace whatever. Jeremiah also, neither in Jer. 25 nor in Jer. 29, where he speaks of the seventy years of the domination of Babylon, announces that the Messianic salvation would begin immediately with the downfall of the Babylonian kingdom. In Jer. 25 he treats only of the judgment, first over Judah, and then over Babylon and all the kingdoms around; and in Jer. 29 he speaks, it is true, of the fulfilling of the good word of the return of the Jews to their fatherland when seventy years shall be fulfilled for Babylon (Dan 9:10), and of the counsel of Jehovah, which is formed not for the destruction but for the salvation of His people, of the restoration of the gracious relation between Jehovah and His people, and the gathering together and the bringing back of the prisoners from among all nations whither they had been scattered (Dan 9:11-14), but he says not a word to lead to the idea that all this would take place immediately after these seventy years. Now if Daniel, in the first year of Darius the Mede, i.e., in the sixty-ninth year of the Exile, prayed thus earnestly for the restoration of Jerusalem and the sanctuary, he must have been led to do so from a contemplation of the then existing state of things. The political aspect of the world-kingdom could scarcely have furnished to him such a motive. The circumstance that Darius did not immediately after the fall of Babylon grant permission to the Jews to return to their fatherland and rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, could not make him doubt the certainty of the fulfilment of the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah regarding the duration of the Exile, since the prophecy of Isaiah, Isa 44:28, that Coresch (Cyrus) should build Jerusalem and lay the foundation of the temple was beyond question known to him, and Darius had in a certain sense reached the sovereignty over the Chaldean kingdom, and was of such an age (Dan 6:1) that now his reign must be near its end, and Cyrus would soon mount his throne as his successor. That which moved Daniel to prayer was rather the religious condition of his own people, among whom the chastisement of the Exile had not produced the expected fruits of repentance; so that, though he did not doubt regarding the speedy liberation of his people from Babylonish exile, he might still hope for the early fulfilment of the deliverance prophesied of after the destruction of Babylon and the return of the Jews to Canaan. This appears from the contents of the prayer. From the beginning to the close it is pervaded by sorrow on account of the great sinfulness of the people, among whom also there were no signs of repentance. The prayer for the turning away of the divine wrath Daniel grounds solely on the mercy of God, and upon that which the Lord had already done for His people by virtue of His covenant faithfulness, the צדקות (righteousness) of the Lord, not the "righteousness" of the people. This confession of sin, and this entreaty for mercy, show that the people, as a whole, were not yet in that spiritual condition in which they might expect the fulfilment of that promise of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah (Jer 29:12.): "Ye shall seek me and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart; and I will be found of you, and will turn away your captivity," etc. With this view of the contents of the prayer corresponds the divine answer which Gabriel brings to the prophet, the substance of which is to this effect, that till the accomplishment of God's plan of salvation in behalf of His people, yet seventy weeks are appointed, and that during this time great and severe tribulations would fall upon the people and the city.

Verse 3

Daniel's prayer. This prayer has been judged very severely by modern critics. According to Berth., v. Leng., Hitzig, Staeh., and Ewald, its matter and its whole design are constructed according to older patterns, in particular according to the prayers of Neh 9 and Ezr 9:1-15, since Dan 9:4 is borrowed from Neh 1:5; Neh 9:32; Dan 9:8 from Neh 9:34; Dan 9:14 from Neh 9:33; Dan 9:15 from Neh 1:10; Neh 9:10; and, finally, Dan 9:7, Dan 9:8 from Ezr 9:7. But if we consider this dependence more closely, we shall, it is true, find the expression הפנים בּשׁת (confusion of faces, Ezr 9:7, Ezr 9:8) in Ezr 9:7, but we also find it in Ch2 32:21; Jer 7:19, and also in Psa 44:16; סלחות (forgivenesses, Dan 9:9) we find in Neh 9:17, but also in Psa 130:4; and על תּתּך (is poured upon, spoken of the anger of God, Dan 9:11) is found not only in Ch2 12:7; Ch2 34:21, Ch2 34:25, but also Jer 42:18; Jer 44:6, and Nah 1:6. We have only to examine the other parallel common thoughts and words adduced in order at once to perceive that, without exception, they all have their roots in the Pentateuch, and afford not the slightest proof of the dependence of this chapter on Neh 9. The thought, "great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy," etc., which is found in Dan 9:4 and in Neh 1:5, has its roots in Deu 7:21 and Dan 9:9, cf. Exo 20:6; Exo 34:7, and in the form found in Neh 9:32, in Deu 10:17; the expression (Dan 9:15), "Thou hast brought Thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand," has its origin in Deu 7:8; Deu 9:26, etc. But in those verses where single thoughts or words of this prayer so accord with Neh 9 or Ezr 9:1-15 as to show a dependence, a closer comparison will prove, not that Daniel borrows from Ezra or Nehemiah, but that they borrow from Daniel. This is put beyond a doubt by placing together the phrases: "our kings, our princes, our fathers" (Dan 9:5, Dan 9:8), compared with these: "our kings, our princes, our priests, and our fathers" (Neh 9:34, Neh 9:32), and "our kings and our priests" (Ezr 9:7). For here the naming of the "priests" along with the "kings and princes" is just as characteristic of the age of Ezra and Nehemiah as the omission of the "priests" is of the time of the Exile, in which, in consequence of the cessation of worship, the office of the priest was suspended. This circumstance tends to refute the argument of Sthelin (Einl. p. 349), that since the prayers in Chron., Ezra, and Nehem. greatly resemble each other, and probably proceed from one author, it is more likely that the author of Daniel 9 depended on the most recent historical writings, than that Daniel 9 was always before the eyes of the author of Chron. - a supposition the probability of which is not manifest. If, without any preconceived opinion that this book is a product of the times of the Maccabees, the contents and the course of thought found in the prayer, Daniel 9, are compared with the prayers in Ezr 9:1-15 and Neh 9, we will not easily suppose it possible that Daniel depends on Ezra and Nehemiah. The prayer of Ezr 9:6-15 is a confession of the sins of the congregation from the days of the fathers down to the time of Ezra, in which Ezra scarcely ventures to raise his countenance to God, because as a member of the congregation he is borne down by the thought of their guilt; and therefore he does not pray for pardon, because his design is only "to show to the congregation how greatly they had gone astray, and to induce them on their part to do all to atone for their guilt, and to turn away the anger of God" (Bertheau). The prayer, Neh 9:6-37, is, after the manner of Ps 105 and 106, an extended offering of praise for all the good which the Lord had manifested toward His people, notwithstanding that they had continually hardened their necks and revolted from His from the time of the call of Abraham down to the time of the exile, expressing itself in the confession, "God is righteous, but we are guilty," never rising to a prayer for deliverance from bondage, under which the people even then languished. The prayer of Daniel 9, on the contrary, by its contents and form, not only creates the impression "of a fresh production adapted to the occasion," and also of great depth of thought and of earnest power in prayer, but it presents itself specially as the prayer of a man, a prophet, standing in a near relation to God, so that we perceive that the suppliant probably utters the confession of sin and of guilt in the name of the congregation in which he is included; but in the prayer for the turning away of God's anger his special relation to the Lord is seen, and is pleaded as a reason for his being heard, in the words, "Hear the prayer of Thy servant and his supplication (Dan 9:17); O my God, incline Thine ear" (Dan 9:18). (Note: After the above remarks, Ewald's opinion, that this prayer is only an epitome of the prayer of Baruch (1:16-3:8), scarcely needs any special refutation. It is open before our eyes, and has been long known, that the prayer of Baruch in the whole course of its thoughts, and in many of the expressions found in it, fits closely to the prayer of Daniel; but also all interpreters not blinded by prejudice have long ago acknowledged that from the resemblances of this apocryphal product not merely to Daniel 9, but also much more to Jeremiah, nothing further follows than that the author of this late copy of ancient prophetic writings knew and used the book of Daniel, and was familiar with the writings of Daniel and Jeremiah, and of other prophets, so that he imitated them. This statement, that the pseudo-Baruch in ch. 1:15-3:8 presents an extended imitation of Daniel's prayer, Ewald has not refuted, and he has brought forward nothing more in support of his view than the assertion, resting on the groundless supposition that the mention of the "judges" in Dan 9:12 is derived from Bar. 2:1, and on the remark that the author of the book of Baruch would have nothing at all peculiar if he had formed that long prayer out of the book of Daniel, or had only wrought after this pattern - a remark which bears witness, indeed, of a compassionate concern for his protge, but manifestly says nothing for the critic.) The prayer is divided into two parts. Dan 9:4-14 contain the confession of sin and guilt; Dan 9:15-19 the supplication for mercy, and the restoration of the holy city and its sanctuary lying in ruins. The confession of sin divides itself into two strophes. Dan 9:4-10 state the transgression and the guilt, while Dan 9:11-14 refer to the punishment from God for this guilt. Dan 9:3 forms the introduction. The words, "Then I directed my face to the Lord," are commonly understood, after Dan 6:11, as meaning that Daniel turned his face toward the place of the temple, toward Jerusalem. This is possible. The words themselves, however, only say that he turned his face to God the Lord in heaven, to האלהים אדני, the Lord of the whole world, the true God, not to יהוה, although he meant the covenant God. "To seek prayer in (with) fasting," etc. "Fasting in sackcloth (penitential garment made of hair) and ashes," i.e., sprinkling the head with ashes as an outward sign of true humility and penitence, comes into consideration as a means of preparation for prayer, in order that one might place himself in the right frame of mind for prayer, which is an indispensable condition for the hearing of it - a result which is the aim in the seeking. In regard to this matter Jerome makes these excellent remarks: "In cinere igitur et sacco postulat impleri quod Deus promiserat, non quod esset incredulus futurorum, sed ne securitas negligentiam et negligentia pareret offensam." תּפלּה and תּחנוּנים = תּחנּה, cf. Kg1 8:38, Kg1 8:45, Kg1 8:49; Ch2 6:29, Ch2 6:35. תּפלּה is prayer in general; תּחנוּנים, prayer for mercy and compassion, as also a petition for something, such as the turning away of misfortune or evil (deprecari). The design of the prayer lying before us is to entreat God that He would look with pity on the desolation of the holy city and the temple,and fulfil His promise of their restoration. This prayer is found in Dan 9:15-19. Dan 9:4 Since the desolation of the holy land and the exile of the people was a well-deserved punishment for their sins, and a removal of the punishment could not be hoped for without genuine humiliation under the righteous judgment of God, Daniel begins with a confession of the great transgression of the people, and of the righteousness of the divine dealings with them, that on the ground of this confession he might entreat of the divine compassion the fulfilment of the promised restoration of Jerusalem and Israel. He prays to Jehovah אלהי, my God. If we wish our prayers to be heard, then God, to whom we pray, must become our God. To אתודּה (I made confession) M. Geier applies Augustine's beautiful remark on Psa 29:1-11 : "Confession gemina est, aut peccati aut laudis. Quando nobis male est in tribulationibus, confiteamur peccata nostra; quando nobis bene est in exultatione justitiae, confiteamur laudem Deo: sine confessione tamen non simus." The address, "Thou great and dreadful God, who keepest the covenant," etc., points in its first part to the mighty acts of God in destroying His enemies (cf. Deu 7:21), and in the second part to the faithfulness of God toward those that fear Him in fulfilling His promises (cf. Deu 7:9). While the greatness and the terribleness of God, which Israel had now experienced, wrought repentance and sorrow, the reference to the covenant faithfulness of God served to awaken and strengthen their confidence in the help of the Almighty. Dan 9:5 God is righteous and faithful, but Israel is unrighteous and faithless. The confession of the great guilt of Israel in Dan 9:5 connects itself with the praise of God. This guilt Daniel confesses in the strongest words. חטא, to make a false step, designates sin as an erring from the right; עוה, to be perverse, as unrighteousness; רשׁע, to do wrong, as a passionate rebellion against God. To these three words, which Solomon (Kg1 8:47) had already used as an exhaustive expression of a consciousness of sin and guilt, and the Psalmist (Psa 106:6) had repeated as the confession of the people in exile, Daniel yet further adds the expression מרדנוּ, we have rebelled against God, and סור, are departed, fallen away from His commandments; this latter word being in the inf. absol., thereby denotes that the action is presented with emphasis. Dan 9:6 The guilt becomes the greater from the fact that God failed not to warn them, and that Israel would not hear the words of the prophets, who in His name spoke to high and low, - to kings and princes, i.e., the heads of tribes and families, and to the great men of the kingdom and to the fathers, i.e., to their ancestors, in this connection with the exclusion of kings and chiefs of the people, who are specially named, as Jer 44:17, cf. Neh 9:32, Neh 9:34; not perhaps the elders, heads of families (Cocceius, J. D. Michaelis, and others), or merely teachers (Ewald). To illustrate the meaning, there is added the expression "the whole people of the land," not merely the common people, so that no one might regard himself as exempted. Compare כּל־עמך, Neh 9:32. This expression, comprehending all, is omitted when the thought is repeated in Dan 9:8. Dan 9:7 Thus to God belongeth righteousness, but to the sinful people only shame. הצדקה לך does not mean: Thine was the righteous cause (Hitzig). The interpolation of the was is arbitrary, and צדקה predicated of God is not righteous cause, but righteousness as a perfection which is manifested in His operations on the earth, or specially in His dealings toward Israel. הפנים בּשׁת, shame which reflects itself in the countenance, not because of disgraceful circumstances, Ezr 9:7 (Kranichfeld), but in the consciousness of well-deserved suffering. הזּה כּיום does not mean: at this time, to-day, now (Hv., v. Leng., and others); the interpretation of כ in the sense of circa stands opposed to the definite הזּה. In the formula הזּה כּיום the כ has always the meaning of a comparison; also in Jer 44:6, Jer 44:22-23; Sa1 22:8, and everywhere the expression has this meaning: as it happened this day, as experience has now shown or shows. See under Deu 2:30. Here it relates merely to הף/ ot yl בּשׁת לנוּ (to us shame, etc.), not also the first part of the verse. The לנוּ is particularized by the words, "the men of Judah" (אישׁ collectively, since the plur. אישׁים in this connection cannot be used; it occurs only three times in the O.T.), "and the inhabitants of Jerusalem." Both together are the citizens of the kingdom of Judah. ישׂראל, the whole of the rest of Israel, the members of the kingdom of the ten tribes. To both of these the further definition relates: "those that are near, and those that are far off, etc." With m' אשׁר בּמעלם (because of their trespass which," etc.), cf. Lev 26:40. Dan 9:8 In this verse Daniel repeats the thoughts of Dan 9:7 in order to place the sin and shame of the people opposite to the divine compassion, and then to pass from confession of sin to supplication for the sin-forgiving grace of the covenant-keeping God. Dan 9:9-10 Compassion and forgiveness are with the Lord our God; and these we need, for we have rebelled against Him. This thought is expanded in Dan 9:10-14. The rebellion against God, the refusing to hear the voice of the Lord through the prophets, the transgression of His law, of which all Israel of the twelve tribes were guilty, has brought the punishment on the whole people which the law of Moses threatened against transgressors. Dan 9:11 ותּתּך with ו consec.: therefore has the curse poured itself out, and the oath, i.e., the curse strengthened with an oath. נתך, to pour forth, of storms of rain and hail (Exo 9:33), but especially of the destroying fire-rain of the divine wrath, cf. Nah 1:6 with Gen 19:24, and Jer 7:20; Jer 42:18; Jer 44:6. האלה is used, Deu 29:18., of the threatenings against the transgressors of the law in Lev 26:14., Deu 28:15., to which Daniel here makes reference. To strengthen the expression, he has added השּׁבעה (and the oath) to האלה, after Num 5:21; cf. also Neh 10:30. Dan 9:12 In this verse the Kethiv דּבריו, in harmony with the ancient versions, is to be maintained, and the Keri only as an explanation inferred from the thought of a definite curse. "Our judges" is an expression comprehending the chiefs of the people, kings and princes, as in Ps. 20:10; Psa 148:11. Dan 9:13 The thought of Dan 9:11 is again taken up once more to declare that God, by virtue of His righteousness, must carry out against the people the threatening contained in His law. את before כּל־הרעה is not, with Kranichfeld, to be explained from the construction of the passive כּתוּב with the accusative, for it does not depend on כּתוּב no, but serves to introduce the subject absolutely stated: as concerns all this evil, thus it has come upon us, as Eze 44:3; Jer 45:4; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. 277d. Regarding את־פּני חלּינוּ (we entreated the face, etc.), cf. Zac 7:2; Zac 8:21. להשׂכּיל בּאמתּך is not to be translated: to comprehend Thy faithfulness (Hitzig), for the construction with ב does not agree with this, and then אמת does not mean faithfulness (Treue), but truth (Warheit). The truth of God is His plan of salvation revealed in His word, according to which the sinner can only attain to happiness and salvation by turning to God and obeying His commands. Dan 9:14 Because Israel did not do this, therefore the Lord watched upon the evil, i.e., continually thought thereon - an idea very frequently found in Jeremiah; cf. Jer 1:12; Jer 31:28; Jer 44:27. צדּיק with על following, righteous on the ground of all His works - a testimony from experience; cf. Neh 9:33 (Kranichfeld). Dan 9:15-19 After this confession, there now follows the prayer for the turning away of the wrath (Dan 9:15 and Dan 9:16) of God, and for the manifestation of His grace toward His suppliant people (Dan 9:17-19). Dan 9:15 This prayer Daniel founds on the great fact of the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, by which the Lord made for Himself a name among the nations. Jerome has here rightly remarked, not exhausting the thought however: "memor est antiqui beneficii, ut ad similem Dei clementiam provocet." For Daniel does not view the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt merely as a good deed, but as an act of salvation by which God fulfilled His promise He had given to the patriarchs, ratified the covenant He made with Abraham, and by the miracles accompanying the exodus of the tribes of Israel from the land of Egypt, glorified His name before all nations (cf. Isa. 63:32, 13), so that Moses could appeal to this glorious revelation of God among the heathen as an argument, in his prayer for pardon to Israel, to mitigate the anger of God which burned against the apostasy and the rebellion of the people, and to turn away the threatened destruction, Exo 32:11., Num 14:13. Jeremiah, and also Isaiah, in like manner ground their prayer for mercy to Israel on the name of the Lord, Jer 32:20., Isa 63:11-15. Nehemiah (Neh 1:10 and Neh 9:10) in this agrees with Jeremiah and Daniel. הזּה כּיום, in the same connection in Jer 50, does not mean, then, at that time, but, as this day still: (hast gotten Thee) a name as Thou hast it still. In order to rest the prayer alone on the honour of the Lord, on the honour of His name, Daniel again repeats the confession, we have sinned, we have done wickedly; cf. Dan 9:5. Dan 9:16 The prayer for the turning away of God's anger follows, and is introduced by a repetition of the address, "O Lord," and by a brief condensation of the motive developed in Dan 9:15, by the words כּכל־צדקתיך. צדקות does not mean in a gracious manner, and צדק is not grace, but proofs of the divine righteousness. The meaning of the words כּכל־צדקתיך is not: as all proofs of Thy righteousness have hitherto been always intimately connected with a return of Thy grace, so may it also now be (Kran.); but, according to all the proofs of Thy righteousness, i.e., to all that Thou hitherto, by virtue of Thy covenant faithfulness, hast done for Israel. צדקות means the great deeds done by the Lord for His people, among which the signs and wonders accompanying their exodus from Egypt take the first place, so far as therein Jehovah gave proof of the righteousness of His covenant promise. According to these, may God also now turn away His anger from His city of Jerusalem! The words in apposition, "Thy holy mountain," refer especially to the temple mountain, or Mount Zion, as the centre of the kingdom of God. The prayer is enforced not only by כּל־צדקריך, but also by the plea that Jerusalem is the city of God (Thy city). Compare Psa 79:4 and Psa 44:14. Dan 9:17 In this verse the prayer is repeated in more earnest words. With פּניך האר (cause Thy face to shine) compare Psa 80:4 and Num 6:25. אדני למען, because Thou art Lord, is stronger than למענך. As the Lord κατ ̓ἐχοχήν, God cannot let the desolation of His sanctuary continue without doing injury to His honour; cf. Isa 48:11. Dan 9:18-19 The argument by which the prayer is urged, derived from a reference to the desolations, is strengthened by the words in apposition: and the city over which Thy name is named; i.e., not which is named after Thy name, by which the meaning of this form of expression is enfeebled. The name of God is the revelation of His being. It is named over Jerusalem in so far as Jehovah gloriously revealed Himself in it; He has raised it, by choosing it as the place of His throne in Israel, to the glory of a city of God; cf. Psa 48:2., and regarding this form of expression, the remarks under Deu 28:10. The expression: and laying down my supplication before God (cf. Dan 9:20), is derived from the custom of falling down before God in prayer, and is often met with in Jeremiah; cf. Jer 38:26; Jer 42:9, and Jer 36:7. The Kethiv פּקחה (Dan 9:18, open) is to be preferred to the Keri פּקח, because it is conformed to the imperative forms in Dan 9:19, and is in accordance with the energy of the prayer. This energy shows itself in the number of words used in Dan 9:18 and Dan 9:19. Chr. B. Mich., under Dan 9:19, has well remarked: "Fervorem precantis cognoscere licet cum ex anaphora, seu terna et mysterii plena nominis Adonai repetitione, tum ex eo, quod singulis hisce imperativis He paragogicum ad intensiorem adfectum significandum superaddidit, tum ex congerie illa verborum: Audi, Condona, Attende, reliqua."

Verse 20

The granting of the prayer. - While Daniel was yet engaged in prayer (הר ק על, on account of the holy mountain, i.e., for it, see under Dan 9:16), an answer was already communicated to him; for the angel Gabriel came to him, and brought to him an explanation of the seventy years of Jeremiah, i.e., not as to their expiry, but what would happen after their completion for the city and the people of God. האישׁ , the man Gabriel, refers, by the use of the definite article, back to Dan 8:15, where Gabriel appeared to him in the form of a man. This is expressly observed in the relative clause, "whom I saw," etc. Regarding בּתּחלּה (at the first, Dan 9:21) see under Dan 8:1. The differently interpreted words, מעף בּיעף, belong, from their position, to the relative clause, or specially to ראיתי (I had seen), not to נגע, since no ground can be perceived for the placing of the adverbial idea before the verb. The translation of מעף בּיעף by τάχει φερόμενος (lxx), πετόμενος (Theodot.), cito volans (Vulg.), from which the church fathers concluded that the angels were winged, notwithstanding the fact that rabbis, as e.g., Jos. Jacchiades, and modern interpreters (Hv., v. Leng., Hitz.) maintain it, is without any foundation in the words, and was probably derived by the old translators from a confounding of יעף with עוּף. יעף means only wearied, to become tired, to weary oneself by exertion, in certain places, as e.g., Jer 2:24, by a long journey or course, but nowhere to run or to flee. יעף, weariness - wearied in weariness, i.e., very wearied or tired. According to this interpretation, which the words alone admit of, the expression is applicable, not to the angel, whom as an unearthly being, we cannot speak of as being wearied, although, with Kranichfeld, one may think of the way from the dwelling-place of God, removed far from His sinful people, to this earth as very long. On the contrary, the words perfectly agree with the condition of Daniel described in Dan 8:17., 27, and Daniel mentions this circumstance, because Gabriel, at his former coming to him, not only helped to strengthen him, but also gave him understanding of the vision, which was to him hidden in darkness, so that his appearing again at once awakened joyful hope. אלי נגע, not he touched me, but he reached me, came forward to me. For this meaning of נגע cf. Sa2 5:8; Jon 3:6. "About the time of the evening sacrifice." מנחה, properly meat-offering, here comprehending the sacrifice, as is often its meaning in the later Scriptures; cf. Mal 1:13; Mal 2:13; Mal 3:4. The time of the evening oblation was the time of evening prayer for the congregation.

Verse 22

ויּבן, he gave understanding, insight, as Dan 8:16. The words point back to Dan 9:2. First of all Gabriel speaks of the design and the circumstances of his coming. עתּה יצאתי, now, viz., in consequence of thy morning prayer, I am come, sc. from the throne of God. להשׂכּילך בינה, to instruct thee in knowledge. This is more particularly declared in Dan 9:23. At the beginning of Daniel's prayer a word, i.e., a communication from God, came forth, which he brought. דּבר, not a commandment, or the divine commandment to Gabriel to go to Daniel, but a word of God, and particularly the word which he announced to Daniel, Dan 9:24-27. The sentence, "for thou art a man greatly beloved" (חמוּדות = חמוּדות אישׁ, Dan 10:11, Dan 10:19, vir desideriorum, desideratissimus), does not contain the reason for Gabriel's coming in haste, but for the principal thought of the verse, the going forth of the word of God immediately at the beginning of Daniel's prayer. המּראה stands not for revelation, but is the vision, the appearance of the angel by whom the word of God was communicated to the prophet. מראה is accordingly not the contents of the word spoken, but the form for its communication to Daniel. To both - the word and the form of its revelation - Daniel must give heed. This revelation was, moreover, not communicated to him in a vision, but while in the state of natural consciousness.

Verse 24

The divine revelation regarding the seventy weeks. - This message of the angel relates to the most important revelations regarding the future development of the kingdom of God. From the brevity and measured form of the expression, which Auberlen designates "the lapidary style of the upper sanctuary," and from the difficulty of calculating the period named, this verse has been very variously interpreted. The interpretations may be divided into three principal classes. 1. Most of the church fathers and the older orthodox interpreters find prophesied here the appearance of Christ in the flesh, His death, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. 2. The majority of the modern interpreters, on the other hand, refer the whole passage to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. 3. Finally, some of the church fathers and several modern theologians have interpreted the prophecy eschatologically, as an announcement of the development of the kingdom of God from the end of the Exile on to the perfecting of the kingdom by the second coming of Christ at the end of the days. (Note: The first of these views is in our time fully and at length defended by Hvernick (Comm.), Hengstenberg (Christol. iii. 1, p. 19ff., 2nd ed.), and Auberlen (Der Proph. Daniel, u.s.w., p. 103ff., 3rd ed.), and is adopted also by the Catholic theologian Laur. Reinke (die messian. Weissag. bei den gr. u. kl. Proph. des A.T. iv. 1, p. 206ff.), and by Dr. Pusey of England. The second view presents itself in the Alexandrine translation of the prophecy, more distinctly in Julius Hilarianus (about a.d. 400) (Chronologia s. libellus de mundi duratione, in Migne's Biblioth. cler. univ. t. 13, 1098), and in several rabbinical interpreters, but was first brought into special notice by the rationalistic interpreters Eichhorn, Bertholdt. v. Leng., Maurer, Ewald, Hitzig, and the mediating theologians Bleek, Wieseler (Die 70 Wochen u. die 63 Jahrwochen des Proph. Daniel, Gtt. 1839, with which compare the Retractation in the Gttinger gel. Anzeigen, 1846, p. 113ff.), who are followed by Lcke, Hilgenfeld, Kranichfeld, and others. This view has also been defended by Hofmann (die 70 Jahre des Jer. u. die 70 Jahrwochen des Daniel, Nrnb. 1836, and Weissag. u. Erfllung, as also in the Schriftbew.), Delitzsch (Art. Daniel in Herz.'s Realenc. Bd. iii.), and Zndel (in the Kritischen Uterss.), but with this essential modification, that Hofmann and Delitzsch have united an eschatological reference with the primary historical reference of Dan 9:25-27 to Antiochus Epiphanes, in consequence of which the prophecy will be perfectly accomplished only in the appearance of Antichrist and the final completion of the kingdom of God at the end of the days. Of the third view we have the first germs in Hoppolytus and Apollinaris of Laodicea, who, having regard to the prophecy of Antichrist, Dan 7:25, refer the statement of Dan 9:27 of this chapter, regarding the last week, to the end of the world; and the first half of this week they regard as the time of the return of Elias, the second half as the time of Antichrist. This view is for the first time definitely stated in the Berleburg Bible. But Kliefoth, in his Comm. on Daniel, was the first who sought to investigate and establish this opinion exegetically, and Leyrer (in Herz.'s Realenc. xviii. p. 383) has thus briefly stated it: - "The seventy שׁבעים, i.e., the καιροὶ of Daniel (Dan 9:24.) measured by sevens, within which the whole of God's plan of salvation in the world will be completed, are a symbolical period with reference to the seventy years of exile prophesied by Jeremiah, and with the accessory notion of oecumenicity. The 70 is again divided into three periods: into 7 (till Christ), 62 (till the apostasy of Antichrist), and one שׁבוּע, the last world - ἑπτά, divided into 2 x 3 1/2 times, the rise and the fall of Antichrist." For the history of the interpretation, compare for the patristic period the treatise of Professor Reusch of Bonn, entitled "Die Patrist. Berechnung der 70 Jahrwochen Daniels," in the Tb. Theol. Quart. 1868, p. 535ff.; for the period of the middle ages and of more modern times, Abr. Calovii Εξετασις theologica de septuaginta septimanis Danielis, in the Biblia illustr. ad Daniel. ix., and Hvernick's History of the Interpretation in his Comm. p. 386ff.; and for the most recent period, R. Baxmann on the Book of Daniel in the Theolog. Studien u. Kritiken, 1863, iii. p. 497ff.) In the great multiplicity of opinions, in order to give clearness to the interpretation, we shall endeavour first of all to ascertain the meaning of the words of each clause and verse, and then, after determining exegetically the import of the words, take into consideration the historical references and calculations of the periods of time named, and thus further to establish our view. The revelation begins, Dan 9:24, with a general exhibition of the divine counsel regarding the city and the people of God; and then there follows, Dan 9:25-27, the further unfolding of the execution of this counsel in its principal parts. On this all interpreters are agreed, that the seventy weeks which are determined upon the people and the city are in Dan 9:25-27 divided into three periods, and are closely defined according to their duration and their contents. Seventy weeks are determined. - שׁבעים from שׁבוּע, properly, the time divided into sevenths, signifies commonly the period of seven days, the week, as Gen 29:27. (in the sing.), and Dan 10:2-3, in the plur., which is usually in the form שׁבעות; cf. Deu 16:9., Exo 34:22, etc. In the form שׁבעים there thus lies no intimation that it is not common weeks that are meant. As little does it lie in the numeral being placed after it, for it also sometimes is found before it, where, as here, the noun as the weightier idea must be emphasized, and that not by later authors merely, but also in Gen 32:15., Kg1 8:63; cf. Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 698. What period of time is here denoted by שׁבעים can be determined neither from the word itself and its form, nor from the comparison with ימים שׁבעים, Dan 10:2-3, since ימים is in these verses added to שׁבעים, not for the purpose of designating these as day-weeks, but simply as full weeks (three weeks long). The reasons for the opinion that common (i.e., seven-day) weeks are not intended, lie partly in the contents of Dan 9:25, Dan 9:27, which undoubtedly teach that that which came to pass in the sixty-two weeks and in the one week could not take place in common weeks, partly in the reference of the seventy שׁבעים to the seventy years of Jeremiah, Dan 9:2. According to a prophecy of Jeremiah - so e.g., Hitzig reasons - Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy years, and now, in the sixty-ninth year, the city and the temple are as yet lying waste (Dan 9:17.), and as yet nowhere are there symptoms of any change. Then, in answer to his supplication, Daniel received the answer, seventy שׁבעים must pass before the full working out of the deliverance. "If the deliverance was not yet in seventy years, then still less was it in seventy weeks. With seventy times seven months we are also still inside of seventy years, and we are directed therefore to year-weeks, so that each week shall consist of seven years. The special account of the contents of the weeks can be adjusted with the year-weeks alone; and the half-week, Dan 9:27, particularly appears to be identical in actual time with these three and a half times (years), Dan 7:25." This latter element is by others much more definitely affirmed. Thus e.g., Kranichfeld says that Daniel had no doubt about the definite extent of the expression שׁבוּע, but gave an altogether unambiguous interpretation of it when he combined the last half-week essentially with the known and definite three and a half years of the time of the end. But - we must, on the contrary, ask - where does Daniel speak of the three and a half years of the time of the end? He does not use the word year in any of the passages that fall to be here considered, but only עדּן or מועד, time, definite time. That by this word common years are to be understood, is indeed taken for granted by many interpreters, but a satisfactory proof of such a meaning has not been adduced. Moreover, in favour of year-weeks (periods of seven years) it has been argued that such an interpretation was very natural, since they hold so prominent a place in the law of Moses; and the Exile had brought them anew very distinctly into remembrance, inasmuch as the seventy years' desolation of the land was viewed as a punishment for the interrupted festival of the sabbatical years: Ch2 36:21 (Hgstb., Kran., and others). But since these periods of seven years, as Hengstenberg himself confesses, are not called in the law שׁבעים or שׁבעות, therefore, from the repeated designation of the seventh year as that of the great Sabbath merely (Lev 25:2, Lev 25:4-5; Lev 26:34-35, Lev 26:43; Ch2 36:21), the idea of year-weeks in no way follows. The law makes mention not only of the Sabbath-year, but also of periods of seven times seven years, after the expiry of which a year of jubilee was always to be celebrated (Lev 25:8.). These, as well as the Sabbath-years, might be called שׁבעים. Thus the idea of year-weeks has no exegetical foundation. Hofmann and Kliefoth are in the right when they remark that שׁבעים does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds. The ἁπ. λεγ. חתך means in Chald. to cut off, to cut up into pieces, then to decide, to determine closely, e.g., Targ. Est 4:5; cf. Buxtorf, Lex. talm., and Levy, Chald. Wrterb. s.v. The meaning for נחתּך, abbreviatae sunt (Vulg. for ἐκολοβώθησαν, Mat 24:22), which Wieseler has brought forward, is not proved, and it is unsuitable, because if one cuts off a piece from a whole, the whole is diminished on account of the piece cut off, but not the piece itself. For the explanation of the sing. נחתּך we need neither the supposition that a definite noun, as עת (time), was before the prophet's mind (Hgstb.), nor the appeal to the inexact manner of writing of the later authors (Ewald). The sing. is simply explained by this, that שׁבעים שׁבעים is conceived of as the absolute idea, and then is taken up by the passive verb impersonal, to mark that the seventy sevenths are to be viewed as a whole, as a continued period of seventy seven times following each other. Upon thy people and upon thy holy city. In the על there does not lie the conception of that which is burdensome, or that this period would be a time of suffering like the seventy years of exile (v. Lengerke). The word only indicates that such a period of time was determined upon the people. The people and the city of Daniel are called the people and the city of God, because Daniel has just represented them before God as His (Hvernick, v. Lengerke, Kliefoth). But Jerusalem, even when in ruins, is called the holy city by virtue of its past and its future history; cf. Dan 9:20. This predicate does not point, as Wieseler and Hitzig have rightly acknowledged, to a time when the temple stood, as Sthelin and v. Lengerke suppose. Only this lies in it, Kliefoth has justly added, - not, however, in the predicate of holiness, but rather in the whole expression, - that the people and city of God shall not remain in the state of desolation in which they then were, but shall at some time be again restored, and shall continue during the time mentioned. One must not, however, at once conclude that this promise of continuance referred only to the people of the Jews and their earthly Jerusalem. Certainly it refers first to Israel after the flesh, and to the geographical Jerusalem, because these were then the people and the city of God; but these ideas are not exhausted in this reference, but at the same time embrace the New Testament church and the church of God on earth. The following infinitive clauses present the object for which the seventy weeks are determined, i.e., they intimate what shall happen till, or with the expiry of, the time determined. Although ל before the infinitive does not mean till or during, yet it is also not correct to say that ל can point out only the issue which the period of time finally reaches, only its result. Whether that which is stated in the infinitive clauses shall for the first time take place after the expiry of, or at the end of the time named, or shall develope itself gradually in the course of it, and only be completed at the end of it, cannot be concluded from the final ל, but only from the material contents of the final clauses. The six statements are divided by Maurer, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others into three passages of two members each, thus: After the expiry of seventy weeks, there shall (1) be completed the measure of sin; (2) the sin shall be covered and righteousness brought in; (3) the prophecy shall be fulfilled, and the temple, which was desecrated by Antiochus, shall be again consecrated. The masoretes seem, however, to have already conceived of this threefold division by placing the Atnach under עלמים צדק (the fourth clause); but it rests on a false construction of the individual members especially of the first two passages. Rather we have two three-membered sentences before us. This appears evident from the arrangement of the six statements; i.e., that the first three statements treat of the taking away of sin, and thus of the negative side of the deliverance; the three last treat of the bringing in of everlasting righteousness with its consequences, and thus of the positive deliverance, and in such a manner that in both classes the three members stand in reciprocal relation to each other: the fourth statement corresponds to the first, the fifth to the second, the sixth to the third - the second and the fifth present even the same verb חתם. In the first and second statements the reading is doubtful. Instead of לחתּם (Keth.), to seal, the Keri has להתם, to end (R. תּמם, to complete). In לכלּא a double reading is combined, for the vowel-points do not belong to the Keth., which rather has לכלא, since כּלא is nowhere found in the Piel, but to the Keri, for the Masoretes hold כלא to be of the same meaning as כלה, to be ended. Thus the ancient translators interpreted it: lxx, τὰς ἀδικίας σπανίσαι; Theod., συντελεσθῆναι, al. συντελέσαι; Aquil., συντελέσαι τὴν ἀθεσίαν; Vulg., ut consummetur praevaricatio. Bertholdt, Rosenmller, Gesenius, Winer, Ewald, Hitzig, Maurer, have followed them in supposing a passing of הinto .א But since כּלה occurs frequently in Daniel, always with ה htiw(cf. v. 27; Dan 11:36; Dan 12:7), and generally the roots with הtake the form of those with אmuch seldomer than the reverse, on these grounds the reading לכלא thus deserves the preference, apart from the consideration that almost all the Keris are valueless emendations of the Masoretes; and the parallel להתם, decidedly erroneous, is obviously derived from Dan 8:23. Thus the Keri does not give in the two passages a suitable meaning. The explanation: to finish the transgression and to make full the measure of sin, does not accord with what follows: to pardon the iniquity; and the thought that the Jews would fill up the measure of their transgression in the seventy year-weeks, and that as a punishment they would pass through a period of suffering from Antiochus and afterwards be pardoned, is untenable, because the punishment by Antiochus for their sins brought to their full measure is arbitrarily interpolated; but without this interpolation the pardon of the sins stands in contradiction to the filling up of their measure. Besides, this explanation is further opposed by the fact, that in the first two statements there must be a different subject from that which is in the third. For to fill up the measure of sin is the work of God. Accordingly the Kethiv alone is to be adopted as correct, and the first passage to be translated thus: to shut up the transgression. כּלא means to hold back, to hold in, to arrest, to hold in prison, to shut in or shut up; henceכּלא, a prison, jail. To arrest the wickedness or shut it up does not mean to pardon it, but to hem it in, to hinder it so that it can no longer spread about (Hofm.); cf. Zac 5:8 and Rev 20:3. In the second passage, "to seal up sin," the חטּאות are the several proofs of the transgression. חתם, to seal, does not denote the finishing or ending of the sins (Theodrt. and others). Like the Arab. chtm, it may occur in the sense of "to end," and this meaning may have originated from the circumstance that one is wont at the end of a letter or document to affix the impress of a seal; yet this meaning is nowhere found in Hebr.: see under Exo 28:12. The figure of the sealing stands here in connection with the shutting up in prison. Cf. Dan 6:18, the king for greater security sealed up the den into which Daniel was cast. Thus also God seals the hand of man that it cannot move, Job 37:7, and the stars that they cannot give light, Job 9:7. But in this figure to seal is not = to take away, according to which Hgstb. and many others explain it thus: the sins are here described as sealed, because they are altogether removed out of the sight of God, altogether set aside; for "that which is shut up and sealed is not merely taken away, entirely set aside, but guarded, held under lock and seal" (Kliefoth). Hence more correctly Hofmann and Kliefoth say, "If the sins are sealed, they are on the one side laid under custody, so that they cannot any more be active or increase, but that they may thus be guarded and held, so that they can no longer be pardoned and blotted out;" cf. Rev 20:3. The third statement is, "to make reconciliation for iniquity." כּפּר is terminus techn., to pardon, to blot out by means of a sin-offering, i.e., to forgive. These three passages thus treat of the setting aside of sin and its blotting out; but they neither form a climax nor a mere συναθροισμός, a multiplying of synonymous expressions for the pardoning of sins, ut tota peccatorum humani generis colluvies eo melius comprehenderetur (M. Geier). Against the idea of a climax it is justly objected, that in that case the strongest designation of sin, הפּשׁע, which designates sin as a falling away from God, a rebelling against Him, should stand last, whereas it occurs in the first sentence. Against the idea of a συναθροισμός it is objected, that the words "to shut up" and "to seal" are not synonymous with "to make reconciliation for," i.e., "to forgive." The three expressions, it is true, all treat alike of the setting aside of sin, but in different ways. The first presents the general thought, that the falling away shall be shut up, the progress and the spreading of the sin shall be prevented. The other two expressions define more closely how the source whence arises the apostasy shall be shut up, the going forth and the continued operation of the sin prevented. This happens in one way with unbelievers, and in a different way with believers. The sins of unbelievers are sealed, are guarded securely under a seal, so that they may no more spread about and increase, nor any longer be active and operative; but the sins of believers are forgiven through a reconciliation. The former idea is stated in the second member, and the latter in the third, as Hofmann and Kliefoth have rightly remarked. There follows the second group of three statements, which treat of the positive unfolding of salvation accompanying the taking away and the setting aside of sin. The first expression of this group, or the fourth in the whole number, is "to bring in everlasting righteousness." After the entire setting aside of sin must come a righteousness which shall never cease. That צדק does not mean "happiness of the olden time" (Bertholdt, Rsch), nor "innocence of the former better times" (J. D. Michaelis), but "righteousness," requires at present no further proof. Righteousness comes from heaven as the gift of God (Ps. 85:11-14; Isa 51:5-8), rises as a sun upon them that fear God (Mal. 3:20), and is here called everlasting, corresponding to the eternity of the Messianic kingdom (cf. Dan 2:44; Dan 7:18, Dan 7:27). צדק comprehends the internal and the external righteousness of the new heavens and the new earth, Pe2 3:13. This fourth expression forms the positive supplement of the first: in the place of the absolutely removed transgression is the perfected righteousness. In the fifth passage, to seal up the vision and prophecy, the word חתם, used in the second passage of sin, is here used of righteousness. The figure of sealing is regarded by many interpreters in the sense of confirming, and that by filling up, with reference to the custom of impressing a seal on a writing for the confirmation of its contents; and in illustration these references are given: Kg1 21:8, and Jer 32:10-11, Jer 32:44 (Hvernick, v. Lengerke, Ewald, Hitzig, and others). But for this figurative use of the word to seal, no proof-passages are adduced from the O.T. Add to this that the word cannot be used here in a different sense from that in which it is used in the second passage. The sealing of the prophecy corresponds to the sealing of the transgression, and must be similarly understood. The prophecy is sealed when it is laid under a seal, so that it can no longer actively show itself. The interpretation of the object ונביא חזון is also disputed. Berth., Ros., Bleek, Ewald, Hitzig, Wieseler, refer it to the prophecy of the seventy weeks (Jer 25 and 29), mentioned in Dan 9:2. But against this view stands the fact of the absence of the article; for if by חזון that prophecy is intended, an intimation of this would have been expected at least by the definite article, and here particularly would have been altogether indispensable. It is also condemned by the word נביא added, which shows that both words are used in comprehensive generality for all existing prophecies and prophets. Not only the prophecy, but the prophet who gives it, i.e., not merely the prophecy, but also the calling of the prophet, must be sealed. Prophecies and prophets are sealed, when by the full realization of all prophecies prophecy ceases, no prophets any more appear. The extinction of prophecy in consequence of its fulfilment is not, however (with Hengstenberg), to be sought in the time of the manifestation of Christ in the flesh; for then only the prophecy of the Old Covenant reached its end (cf. Mat 11:13; Luk 22:37; Joh 1:46), and its place is occupied by the prophecy of the N.T., the fulfilling of which is still in the future, and which will not come to an end and terminate (καταργηθήσεται, Co1 13:8) till the kingdom of God is perfected in glory at the termination of the present course of the world's history, at the same time with the full conclusive fulfilment of the O.T. prophecy; cf. Act 3:21. This fifth member stands over against the second, as the fourth does over against the first. "When the sins are sealed, the prophecy is also sealed, for prophecy is needed in the war against sin; when sin is thus so placed that it can no longer operate, then prophecy also may come to a state of rest; when sin comes to an end in its place, prophecy can come to an end also by its fulfilment, there being no place for it after the setting aside of sin. And when the apostasy is shut up, so that it can no more spread about, then righteousness will be brought, that it may possess the earth, now freed from sin, shut up in its own place" (Kliefoth). The sixth and last clause, to anoint a most holy, is very differently interpreted. Those interpreters who seek the fulfilment of this word of revelation in the time following nearest the close of the Exile, or in the time of the Maccabees, refer this clause either to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering (Wieseler), which was restored by Zerubbabel and Joshua (Ezr 3:2.), or to the consecration of the temple of Zerubbabel (J. D. Michaelis, Jahn, Steudel), or to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering which was desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, 1 Macc. 4:54 (Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others). But none of these interpretations can be justified. It is opposed by the actual fact, that neither in the consecration of Zerubbabel's temple, nor at the re-consecration of the altar of burnt-offering desecrated by Antiochus, is mention made of any anointing. According to the definite, uniform tradition of the Jews, the holy anointing oil did not exist during the time of the second temple. Only the Mosaic sanctuary of the tabernacle, with its altars and vessels, were consecrated by anointing. Exo 30:22., 40:1-16; Lev 8:10. There is no mention of anointing even at the consecration of Solomon's temple, 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chron 5-7, because that temple only raised the tabernacle to a fixed dwelling, and the ark of the covenant as the throne of God, which was the most holy furniture thereof, was brought from the tabernacle to the temple. Even the altar of burnt-offering of the new temple (Eze 43:20,Eze 43:26) was not consecrated by anointing, but only by the offering of blood. Then the special fact of the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering, or of the temple, does not accord with the general expressions of the other members of this verse, and was on the whole not so significant and important an event as that one might expect it to be noticed after the foregoing expressions. What Kranichfeld says in confirmation of this interpretation is very far-fetched and weak. He remarks, that "as in this verse the prophetic statements relate to a taking away and כּפּר of sins, in the place of which righteousness is restored, accordingly the anointing will also stand in relation to this sacred action of the כפר, which primarily and above all conducts to the significance of the altar of Israel, that, viz., which stood in the outer court." But, even granting this to be correct, it proves nothing as to the anointing even of the altar of burnt-offering. For the preceding clauses speak not only of the כפר of transgression, but also of the taking away (closing and sealing) of the apostasy and of sin, and thus of a setting aside of sin, which did not take place by means of a sacrifice. The fullest expiation also for the sins of Israel which the O.T. knew, viz., that on the great day of atonement, was not made on the altar of burnt-offering, but by the sprinkling of the blood of the offering on the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies, and on the altar of incense in the most holy place. If משׁח is to be explained later the כּפּר, then by "holy of holies" we would have to understand not "primarily" the altar of burnt-offering, but above all the holy vessels of the inner sanctuary, because here it is not an atonement needing to be repeated that is spoken of, but one that avails for ever. In addition to this, there is the verbal argument that the words קדשׁים קדשׁ are not used of a single holy vessel which alone could be thought of. Not only the altar of burnt-offering is so named, Exo 29:37; Exo 40:10, but also the altar of incense, Exo 30:10, and the two altars with all the vessels of the sanctuary, the ark of the covenant, shew-bread, candlesticks, basins, and the other vessels belonging thereto, Exo 30:29, also the holy material for incense, Exo 30:36, the shew-bread, Lev 24:9, the meat-offering, Lev 2:3, Lev 2:10; Lev 6:10; Lev 10:12, the flesh of the sin-offering and of the expiatory sacrifice, Lev 6:10,Lev 6:18; Lev 10:17; Lev 7:1, Lev 7:6; Lev 14:13; Num 18:9, and that which was sanctified to the Lord, Lev 27:28. Finally, the whole surroundings of the hill on which the temple stood, Eze 43:12, and the whole new temple, Eze 45:3, is named a "most holy;" and according to Ch1 23:13, Aaron and his sons are sanctified as קדשׁים קדשׁ. Thus there is no good ground for referring this expression to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering. Such a reference is wholly excluded by the fact that the consecration of Zerubbabel's temple and altar, as well as of that which was desecrated by Antiochus, was a work of man, while the anointing of a "most holy" in the verse before us must be regarded as a divine act, because the three preceding expressions beyond controversy announce divine actions. Every anointing, indeed, of persons or of things was performed by men, but it becomes a work of God when it is performed with the divinely ordained holy anointing oil by priests or prophets according to God's command, and then it is the means and the symbol of the endowment of equipment with the Spirit of God. When Saul was anointed by Samuel, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, Sa1 10:9. The same thing was denoted by the anointing of David, Sa1 16:13. The anointing also of the tabernacle and its vessels served the same object, consecrating them as the place and the means of carrying on the gracious operations of the Spirit of God. As an evidence of this, the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle after it was set up and consecrated. At the dedication of the sanctuary after the Exile, under Zerubbabel and in the Maccabean age, the anointing was wanting, and there was no entrance into it also of the glory of the Lord. Therefore these consecrations cannot be designated as anointings and as the works of God, and the angel cannot mean these works of men by the "anointing of a most holy." Much older, more general, and also nearer the truth, is the explanation which refers these words to the anointing of the Messiah, an explanation which is established by various arguments. The translation of the lxx, καὶ εὐφράναι ἅγιον ἁγίων, and of Theod., τοῦ χρῖσαι ἅγιον ἁγίων, the meaning of which is controverted, is generally understood by the church Fathers as referring to the Messiah. Theodoret sets it forth as undoubtedly correct, and as accepted even by the Jews; and the old Syriac translator has introduced into the text the words, "till the Messiah, the Most Holy." (Note: Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. viii. 2, p. 387, ed. Colon., opposes the opinion that the translation of Aquila, καὶ ἀλεῖψαι ἡγιασμένον ἡγιασμένων, may be understood of the Jewish high priest. Cf. Raymundis Martini, Pugio fidei, p. 285, ed. Carpz., and Edzard ad Abodah Sara, p. 246f., for evidences of the diffusion of this interpretation among the Jews.) But this interpretation is set aside by the absence of the article. Without taking into view Ch1 23:13, the words קדשׁים קדשׁ are nowhere used of persons, but only of things. This meaning lies at the foundation of the passage in the book of Chronicles referred to, "that he should sanctify a קדשׁים קדשׁ קד, anoint him (Aaron) to be a most holy thing." Following Hvernick, therefore, Hengstenberg (2nd ed. of his Christol. iii. p. 54) seeks to make this meaning applicable also for the Messianic interpretation, for he thinks that Christ is here designated as a most holy thing. But neither in the fact that the high priest bore on his brow the inscription ליהוה קדשׁ, nor in the declaration regarding Jehovah, "He shall be למקדּשׁ," Isa 8:14, cf. Eze 11:16, is there any ground for the conclusion that the Messiah could simply be designated as a most holy thing. In Luk 1:35 Christ is spoken of by the simple neuter ἅγιον, but not by the word "object;" and the passages in which Jesus is described as ὁ ἅγιος, Act 3:14; Act 4:30; Jo1 2:20; Rev 3:7, prove nothing whatever as to this use of קדשׁ of Christ. Nothing to the purpose also can be gathered from the connection of the sentence. If in what follows the person of the Messiah comes forward to view, it cannot be thence concluded that He must also be mentioned in this verse. Much more satisfactory is the thought, that in the words "to anoint a קדשׁים קדשׁ" the reference is to the anointing of a new sanctuary, temple, or most holy place. The absence of the article forbids us, indeed, from thinking of the most holy place of the earthly temple which was rebuilt by Zerubbabel, since the most holy place of the tabernacle as well as of the temple is constantly called הקדשׁים קדשׁ. But it is not this definite holy of holies that is intended, but a new holy of holies which should be in the place of the holy of holies of the tabernacle and the temple of Solomon. Now, since the new temple of the future seen by Ezekiel, with all its surroundings, is called (Eze 45:3) קדשׁים קדשׁ, Hofmann (de 70 Jahre, p. 65) thinks that the holy of holies is the whole temple, and its anointing with oil a figure of the sanctification of the church by the Holy Ghost, but that this shall not be in the

Verse 25

The detailed statement of the 70 שׁבעים in 7 + 62 + 1 (Dan 9:25, Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27), with the fuller description of that which was to happen in the course of these three periods of time, incontrovertibly shows that these three verses are a further explication of the contents of Dan 9:24. This explication is introduced by the words: "Know therefore, and understand," which do not announce a new prophecy, as Wieseler and Hofmann suppose, but only point to the importance of the further opening up of the contents of Dan 9:24, since ותשׂכּל (and thou wilt understand) stands in distinct relation to בינה להשׂכּלך (to give thee skill and understanding, Dan 9:22). The two parts of Dan 9:25 contain the statements regarding the first two portions of the whole period, the seven and the sixty-two שׁבעים, and are rightly separated by the Masoretes by placing the Atnach under שׁבעה. The first statement is: "from the going forth of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem unto a Messiah (Gesalbten), a prince, shall be seven weeks." דּבר מצא (from the going forth of the commandment) formally corresponds, indeed, to דּבר יצא (the commandment came forth), Dan 9:23, emphatically expressing a decision on the part of God, but the two expressions are not actually to be identified; for the commandment, Dan 9:23, is the divine revelation communicated in Dan 9:24-27, which the angel brings to Daniel; the commandment in Dan 9:25 is, on the contrary, more fully determined by the words, "to restore and to build, etc. להשׁיב is not to be joined adverbially with ולבנות so as to form one idea: to build again; for, though שׁוּב may be thus used adverbially in Kal, yet the Hiphil השׁיב is not so used. השׁיב means to lead back, to bring again, then to restore; cf. for this last meaning Isa 1:26, Psa 80:4, Psa 80:8,20. The object to להשׁיב follows immediately after the word ולבנות, namely, Jerusalem. The supplementing of עם, people (Wieseler, Kliefoth, and others), is arbitrary, and is not warranted by Jer 29:10. To bring back, to restore a city, means to raise it to its former state; denotes the restitutio, but not necessarily the full restitutio in integrum (against Hengstenberg). Here לבנות is added, as in the second half of the verse to תּשׁוּב, yet not so as to make one idea with it, restoring to build, or building to restore, i.e., to build up again to the old extent. בּנה as distinguished from השׁיב denotes the building after restoring, and includes the constant preservation in good building condition, as well as the carrying forward of the edifice beyond its former state. But if we ask when this commandment went forth, in order that we may thereby determine the beginning of the seven weeks, and, since they form the first period of the seventy, at the same time determine the beginning of the seventy weeks, the words and the context only supply this much, that by the "commandment" is meant neither the word of God which is mentioned in Dan 9:23, because it says nothing about the restoration of Jerusalem, but speaks only of the whole message of the angel. Nor yet is it the word of God which is mentioned in Dan 9:2, the prophecies given in Jer 25 and 29, as Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others suppose. For although from these prophecies it conclusively follows, that after the expiry of the seventy years with the return of Israel into their own land, Jerusalem shall again be built up, yet they do not speak of that which shall happen after the seventy years, but only of that which shall happen within that period, namely, that Jerusalem shall for so long a time lie desolate, as Dan 9:2 expressly affirms. The prophecy of the seventy years' duration of the desolation of Jerusalem (Dan 9:2) cannot possibly be regarded as the commandment (in Dan 9:25) to restore Jerusalem (Kliefoth). As little can we, with Hitzig, think on Jer 30 and 31, because this prophecy contains nothing whatever of a period of time, and in this verse before us there is no reference to this prophecy. The restoration of Israel and of Jerusalem has indeed been prophesied of in general, not merely by Jeremiah, but also long before him by Isaiah (Daniel 40-56). With as much justice may we think on Isa 40ff. as on Jer 30 and 31; but all such references are excluded by this fact, that the angel names the commandment for the restoration of Jerusalem as the terminus a quo for the seventy weeks, and thus could mean only a word of God whose going forth was somewhere determined, or could be determined, just as the appearance of the נגיד משׁיח is named as the termination of the seven weeks. Accordingly "the going forth of the commandment to restore," etc., must be a factum coming into visibility, the time of which could without difficulty be known - a word from God regarding the restoration of Jerusalem which went forth by means of a man at a definite time, and received an observable historical execution. Now, with Calvin, Oecolampadius, Kleinert, Ngelsbach, Ebrard, and Kliefoth, we can think of nothing more appropriate than the edict of Cyrus (Ezr 1:1-11) which permitted the Jews to return, from which the termination of the Exile is constantly dated, and from the time off which this return, together with the building up of Jerusalem, began, and was carried forward, though slowly (Klief.). The prophecy of Isa 44:28, that God would by means of Cyrus speak to cause Jerusalem to be built, and the foundation of the temple to be laid, directs us to this edict. With reference to this prophecy, it is said in Ezr 6:14, "They builded according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of the king of Persia." This is acknowledged even by Hengstenberg, who yet opposes this reference; for he remarks (Christol. iii. p. 142), "If the statement were merely of the commencement of the building, then they would undoubtedly be justified who place the starting-point in the first year of Cyrus. Isaiah (Isa 45:13) commends Cyrus as the builder of the city; and all the sacred writings which relate to the period from the time of Cyrus to Nehemiah distinctly state the actual existence of a Jerusalem during this period." But according to his explanation, the words of the angel do not announce the beginning of the building of the city, but much rather the beginning of its "completed restoration according to its ancient extent and its ancient glory." But that this is not contained in the words ולבנות להשׁיב we have already remarked, to which is to be added, that the placing in opposition the commencement of the building and the commencement of its completed restoration is quite arbitrary and vain, since certainly the commencement of the restoration at the same time includes in it the commencement of the completed restoration. In favour of interpreting להשׁיב of the completed restoration, Hengstenberg remarks that "in the announcement the temple is named along with the city in Dan 9:26 as well as in Dan 9:27. That with the announcement of the building the temple is not named here, that mention is made only of the building of the streets of the city, presupposes the sanctuary as already built up at the commencement of the building which is here spoken of; and the existence of the temple again requires that a commencement of the rebuilding of the city had also been already made, since it is not probable that the angel should have omitted just that which was the weightiest matter, that for which Daniel was most grieved, and about which he had prayed (cf. Dan 9:17, Dan 9:20) with the greatest solicitude." But the validity of this conclusion is not obvious. In Dan 9:26 the naming of the temple along with the city is required by the facts of the case, and this verse treats of what shall happen after the sixty-two weeks. How, then, shall it be thence inferred that the temple should also be mentioned along with the city in Dan 9:25, where the subject is that which forms the beginning of the seven or of the seventy weeks, and that, since this was not done, the temple must have been then already built? The non-mention of the temple in Dan 9:24, as in Dan 9:25, is fully and simply explained by this, that the word of the angel stands in definite relation to the prayer of Daniel, but that Daniel was moved by Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years' duration of the חרבות of Jerusalem to pray for the turning away of the divine wrath from the city. As Jeremiah, in the announcement of the seventy years' desolation of the land, did not specially mention the destruction of the temple, so also the angel, in the decree regarding the seventy weeks which are determined upon the people of Israel and the holy city, makes no special mention of the temple; as, however, in Jeremiah's prophecy regarding the desolation of the land, the destruction not only of Jerusalem, but also of the temple, is included, so also in the building of the holy city is included that of the temple, by which Jerusalem was made a holy city. Although thus the angel, in the passage before us, does not expressly speak of the building of the temple, but only of the holy city, we can maintain the reference of the דּבר מצא to the edict of Cyrus, which constituted an epoch in the history of Israel, and consider this edict as the beginning of the termination of the seven resp. seventy weeks. The words נגיד משׁיח עד show the termination of the seven weeks. The words נגיד משׁיח are not to be translated an anointed prince (Bertholdt); for משׁיח cannot be an adjective to נגיד, because in Hebr. The adjective is always placed after the substantive, with few exceptions, which are inapplicable to this case; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. 293b. Nor can משׁיח be a participle: till a prince is anointed (Steudel), but it is a noun, and נגיד is connected with it by apposition: an anointed one, who at the same time is a prince. According to the O.T., kings and priests, and only these, were anointed. Since, then, משׁיח is brought forward as the principal designation, we may not by נגיד think of a priest-prince, but only of a prince of the people, nor by משׁיח of a king, but only of a priest; and by נגיד משׁיח we must understand a person who first and specially is a priest, and in addition is a prince of the people, a king. The separation of the two words in Dan 9:26, where נגיד is acknowledged as meaning a prince of the people, leads to the same conclusion. This priest-king can neither be Zerubbabel (according to many old interpreters), nor Ezra (Steudel), nor Onias III (Wieseler); for Zerubbabel the prince was not anointed, and the priest Ezra and the high priest Onias were not princes of the people. Nor can Cyrus be meant here, as Saad., Gaon., Bertholdt, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Ewald, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others think, by a reference to Isa 45:1; for, supposing it to be the case that Daniel had reason from Isa 45:1 to call Cyrus משׁיח - which is to be doubted, since from this epithet משׁיחו, His (Jehovah's) anointed, which Isaiah uses of Cyrus, it does not follow as of course that he should be named משׁיח - the title ought at least to have been משׁיח נגיד, the משׁיח being an adjective following נגיד, because there is no evident reason for the express precedence of the adjectival definition. (Note: "It is an unjustifiable assertion that every heathen king may also bear the name משׁיח, anointed. In all the books of the O.T. There is but a single heathen king, Cyrus, who is named משׁיח (Isa 45:1), and he not simply as such, but because of the remarkable and altogether singular relation in which he stood to the church, because of the gifts with which God endowed him for her deliverance, ... and because of the typical relation in which he stood to the author of the higher deliverance, the Messiah. Cyrus could in a certain measure be regarded as a theocratic ruler, and as such he is described by Isaiah." - Hengstenberg.) The O.T. knows only One who shall be both priest and king in one person (Psa 110:4; Zac 6:13), Christ, the Messias (Joh 4:25), whom, with Hvernick, Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Auberlen, Delitzsch, and Kliefoth, we here understand by the נגיד משׁיח, because in Him the two essential requisites of the theocratic king, the anointing and the appointment to be the נגיד of the people of God (cf. Sa1 10:1; Sa1 13:14; Sa1 16:13; Sa1 25:30; Sa2 2:4; Sa2 5:2.), are found in the most perfect manner. These requisites are here attributed to Him as predicates, and in such a manner that the being anointed goes before the being a prince, in order to make prominent the spiritual, priestly character of His royalty, and to designate Him, on the ground of the prophecies, Isa 61:1-3 and Isa 55:4, as the person by whom "the sure mercies of David" (Isa 55:3) shall be realized by the covenant people. (Note: In the נגיד משׁיח it is natural to suppose there is a reference to the passages in Isaiah referred to; yet one must not, with Hofmann and Auberlen, hence conclude that Christ is as King of Israel named משׁיח, and as King of the heathen נגיד, for in the frequent use of the word נגיד of the king of Israel in the books of Samuel it is much more natural to regard it as the reference to David.) The absence of the definite article is not to be explained by saying that משׁיח, somewhat as צמח, Zac 3:8; Zac 6:12, is used κατ ̓ἑχ. as a nomen propr. of the Messiah, the Anointed; for in this case נגיד ought to have the article, since in Hebrew we cannot say מלך דּוד, but only המּלך דּוד. Much rather the article is wanting, because it shall not be said: till the Messiah, who is prince, but only: till one comes who is anointed and at the same time prince, because He that is to come is not definitely designated as the expected Messiah, but must be made prominent by the predicates ascribed to Him only as a personage altogether singular. Thus the first half of Dan 9:25 states that the first seven of the seventy weeks begin with the edict (of Cyrus) permitting the return of Israel from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem, and extend from that time till the appearance of an anointed one who at the same time is prince, i.e., till Christ. With that view the supposition that שׁבעים are year-weeks, periods of seven years, is irreconcilable. Therefore most interpreters who understand Christ as the נגיד משׁיח, have referred the following number, and sixty-two weeks, to the first clause - "from the going forth of the command ... seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." Thus Theodotion: ἕως Χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου ἑβδομάδες ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑβδομάδες ἑξηκονταδύο; and the Vulgate: usque ad Christum ducem hebdomades septem et hebdomades sexaginta duae erunt. The text of the lxx is here, however, completely in error, and is useless. This interpretation, in recent times, Hvernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen have sought to justify in different ways, but without having succeeded in invalidating the reasons which stand opposite to them. First of all the Atnach forbids this interpretation, for by it the seven שׁבעים are separated from the sixty-two. This circumstance, however, in and of itself decides nothing, since the Atnach does not always separate clauses, but frequently also shows only the point of rest within a clause; besides, it first was adopted by the Masoretes, and only shows the interpretation of these men, without at all furnishing any guarantee for its correctness. But yet this view is not to be overlooked, as Hgstb. himself acknowledges in the remark: "Here the separation of the two periods of time was of great consequence, in order to show that the seven and the sixty-two weeks are not a mere arbitrary dividing into two of one whole period, but that to each of these two periods its own characteristic mark belongs." With this remark, Hvernick's assertion, that the dividing of the sixty-nine שׁבעים into seven and sixty-two is made only on account of the solemnity of the whole passage, is set aside as altogether vain, and the question as to the ground of the division presses itself on our earnest attention. If this division must indicate that to each of the two periods its own distinctive characteristic belongs, an unprejudiced consideration of the words shows that the characteristic mark of the "seven weeks" lies in this, that this period extends from the going forth of the word to restore Jerusalem till the appearance of an Anointed one, a Prince, thus terminating with the appearance of this Prince, and that the characteristic mark for the "sixty-two weeks" consists in that which the words immediately connected therewith affirm, וגו ונבנתה תּשׁוּב, and thus that the "sixty-two weeks" belong indeed to the following clause. But according to Hengstenberg the words ought not to be so understood, but thus: "sixty-nine weeks must pass away, seven till the completed restoration of the city, sixty-two from that time till the Anointed, the Prince." But it is clearly impossible to find this meaning in the words of the text, and it is quite superfluous to use any further words in proof of this. (Note: Hengstenberg, as Kliefoth has remarked, has taken as the first terminus ad quem the words "to restore and to build Jerusalem," till the rebuilding of Jerusalem, till its completed rebuilding, till that Jerusalem is again built; and then the further words, "unto the Messiah the Prince," as the second terminus ad quem; and, finally, he assigns the seven weeks to the first terminus ad quem, and the sixty-two weeks is the second; as if the text comprehended two clauses, and declared that from the going forth of the commandment till that Jerusalem was rebuilt are seven heptades, and from that time till a Messiah, a Prince, are sixty-two heptades.) By the remark, "If the second designation of time is attributed to that which follows, then we cannot otherwise explain it than that during sixty-two weeks the streets will be restored and built up; but this presents a very inappropriate meaning," - by this remark the interpretation in question is neither shown to be possible, nor is it made evident. For the meaning would be inappropriate only if by the building up of Jerusalem we were to understand merely the rebuilding of the city which was laid in ruins by the Chaldeans. If we attribute the expression "and sixty-two weeks" to the first half of the verse, then the division of the sixty-nine weeks into seven weeks and sixty-two weeks is unaccountable; for in Dan 9:26 we must then read, "after sixty-nine weeks," and not, as we find it in the text, "after sixty-two weeks." The substitution, again [in Dan 9:26], of only this second designation of time (sixty-two weeks) is also intelligible only if the sixty-two weeks in Dan 9:25 belong to the second half of the verse, and are to be separated from the seven weeks. The bringing together of the seven and of the sixty-two week stands thus opposed to the context, and is maintained merely on the supposition that the שׁבעים are year-weeks, or periods of time consisting of seven years, in order that sixty-nine year-weeks, i.e., 483 years, might be gained for the time from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to Christ. But since there is in the word itself no foundation for attaching to it this meaning, we have no right to distort the language of the text according to it, but it is our duty to let this interpretation fall aside as untenable, in order that we may do justice to the words of the prophecy. The words here used demand that we connect the period "and sixty-two weeks" with the second half of the verse, "and during sixty-two weeks shall the street be built again," etc. The "sixty-two weeks" are not united antithetically to the "seven weeks" by the copula ,ו as Hofmann would have it, but are connected simply as following the seven; so that that which is named as the contents of the "sixty-two weeks" is to be interpreted as happening first after the appearance of the Maschiach Nagid, or, more distinctly, that the appearance of the Messias forming the terminus ad quem of the seven weeks, forms at the same time the terminus a quo of the sixty-two weeks. That event which brings the close of the sixty-two weeks is spoken of in Dan 9:26 in the words משׁיח יכּרת, Messiah shall be cut off. The words "and sixty-two שׁבעים owt-ytx" may be taken grammatically either as the absolute nominative or as the accusative of duration. The words ונבנתה תּשׁוּב refer undoubtedly to the expression ולבנות להשׁיב (to restore and to build), according to which תּשׁוּב is not to be joined adverbially to ונבנתה (according to Hvernick, Hofmann, and Wieseler), but is to be rendered intransitively, corresponding to השׁיב: shall be restored, as Eze 16:55; Kg1 13:6; Kg2 5:10,Kg2 5:14; Exo 4:7. The subject to both verbs is not (Rosenmller, Gesenius, v. Leng., Hgstb.) רחוב, but Jerusalem, as is manifest from the circumstance that the verbs refer to the restoration and the building of Jerusalem, and is placed beyond a doubt by this, that in Zac 8:5 רחוב is construed as masculine; and the opinion that it is generis faem. rests only on this passage before us. There is no substantial reason for interpreting (with Klief.) the verbs impersonally. The words וחרוּץ רחוב are difficult, and many interpretations have been given of them. There can be no doubt that they contain together one definition, and that רחוב is to be taken as the adverbial accusative. רחוב means the street and the wide space before the gate of the temple. Accordingly, to חרוּץ have been given the meanings ditch, wall, aqueduct (Ges., Steud., Znd., etc.), pond (Ewald), confined space (Hofmann), court (Hitzig); but all these meanings are only hit upon from the connection, as are also the renderings of the lxx εἰς πλάτος καὶ μῆκος, of Theod. πλατεῖα καὶ τεῖχος, and of the Vulg. platea et muri. חרץ means to cut, then to decide, to determine, to conclude irrevocably; hence חרוּץ, decision, judgment, Joe 3:14. This meaning is maintained by Hv., Hgstb., v. Leng., Wies., and Kran., and וחרוּץ is interpreted as a participle: "and it is determined." This shall form a contrast to the words, "but in the oppression of the times" - and it is determined, namely, that Jerusalem shall be built in its streets, but the building shall be accomplished in troublous times. But although this interpretation be well founded as regards the words themselves, it does not harmonize with the connection. The words וחרוּץ רחוב plainly go together, as the old translators have interpreted them. Now רחוב does not mean properly street, but a wide, free space, as Ezr 10:9, the open place before the temple, and is applied to streets only in so far as they are free, unoccupied spaces in cities. חרוּץ, that which is cut off, limited, forms a contrast to this, not, however, as that we may interpret the words, as Hofm. does, in the sense of width, and space cut off, not capable of extension, or free space and limited quarter (Hitzig), an interpretation which is too far removed from the primary import of the two words. It is better to interpret them, with Kliefoth, as "wide space, and yet also limited," according to which we have the meaning, "Jerusalem shall be built so that the city takes in a wide space, has wide, free places, but not, however, unlimited in width, but such that their compass is measured off, is fixed and bounded." The last words, העתּים וּבצוק, point to the circumstances under which the building proceeds: in the difficulty, the oppression of the times. The book of Nehemiah, 3:33; Neh 4:1., Dan 6:1., 9:36, 37, furnishes a historical exposition of them, although the words do not refer to the building of the walls and bulwarks of the earthly Jerusalem which was accomplished by Nehemiah, but are to be understood, according to Ps. 51:20, of the spiritual building of the City of God.

Verse 26

After the threescore and two weeks, i.e., in the seventieth שׁבוּע, shall the Messiah be cut off. - From the אחרי (after) it does not with certainty follow that the "cutting off" of the Maschiach falls wholly in the beginning of the seventieth week, but only that the "cutting off" shall constitute the first great event of this week, and that those things which are mentioned in the remaining part of the verse shall then follow. The complete designation of the time of the "cutting off" can only be found from the whole contents of Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27. נכרת, from כּרּת, to hew down, to fell, to cut to pieces, signifies to be rooted up, destroyed, annihilated, and denotes generally a violent kind of death, though not always, but only the uprooting from among the living, or from the congregation, and is therefore the usual expression for the destruction of the ungodly - e.g., Psa 37:9; Pro 2:22 - without particularly designating the manner in which this is done. From יכּרת it cannot thus be strictly proved that this part of the verse announces the putting to death of an anointed one, or of the Messiah. Of the word Maschiach three possible interpretations have been given: 1. That the Maschiach Nagid of Dan 9:25, the Maschiach of Dan 9:26, and the Nagid of Dan 9:26, are three different persons; 2. that all the three expressions denote one and the same person; and 3. that the Maschiach Nagid of Dan 9:25 and the Maschiach of Dan 9:26 are the same person, and that the Nagid of Dan 9:26 is another and a different person. The first of these has been maintained by J. D. Michaelis, Jahn. Ebrard understands by all the three expressions the Messiah, and supposes that he is styled fully Maschiach Nagid in Dan 9:25 in order that His calling and His dignity (משׁיח), as well as His power and strength (נגיד), might be designated; in Dan 9:26, משׁיח, the anointed, where mention is made of His sufferings and His rejection; in Dan 9:26, נגיד, the prince, where reference is made to the judgment which He sends (by the Romans on apostate Jerusalem). But this view is refuted by the circumstance that הבּא (that is to come) follows נגיד, whereby the prince is represented as first coming, as well as by the circumstance that הבּא נגיד, who destroys the city and the sanctuary, whose end shall be with a flood, consequently cannot be the Messiah, but is the enemy of the people and kingdom of God, who shall arise (Dan 7:24-25) in the last time. But if in Dan 9:26 the Nagid is different from the Maschiach, then both also appear to be different from the Maschiach Nagid of Dan 9:25. The circumstance that in Dan 9:26 משׁיח has neither the article nor the addition נגיד following it, appears to be in favour of this opinion. The absence of the one as well as the other denotes that משׁיח, after that which is said of Him, in consideration of the connection of the words, needs no more special description. If we observe that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary is so connected with the Maschiach that we must consider this as the immediate or first consequence of the cutting off of the Maschiach, and that the destruction shall be brought about by a Nagid, then by Maschiach we can understand neither a secular prince or king nor simply a high priest, but only an anointed one who stands in such a relation to the city and sanctuary, that with his being "cut off" the city and the sanctuary lose not only their protection and their protector, but the sanctuary also loses, at the same time, its character as the sanctuary, which the Maschiach had given to it. This is suitable to no Jewish high priest, but only to the Messias whom Jehovah anointed to be a Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek, and placed as Lord over Zion, His holy hill. We agree therefore with Hvernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and Kliefoth, who regard the Maschiach of this verse as identical with the Maschiach Nagid of Dan 9:25, as Christ, who in the fullest sense of the word is the Anointed; and we hope to establish this view more fully in the following exposition of the historical reference of this word of the angel. But by this explanation of the משׁיח we are not authorized to regard the word יכּרת as necessarily pointing to the death of the Messias, the crucifixion of Christ, since יכּרת, as above shown, does not necessarily denote a violent death. The right interpretation of this word depends on the explanation of the words לו ואין which follow - words which are very differently interpreted by critics. The supposition is grammatically inadmissible that לו אין = איננּוּ (Michaelis, Hitzig), although the lxx in the Codex Chisianus have translated them by καὶ οὐκ ἔσται; and in general all those interpretations which identify אין with לא, as e.g., et non sibi, and not for himself (Vitringa, Rosenmller, Hvernick, and others). For אין is never interchanged with לא, but is so distinguished from it that לא, non, is negation purely, while אין, "it is not," denies the existence of the thing; cf. Hengstenberg's Christol. iii. p. 81f., where all the passages which Gesenius refers to as exemplifying this exchange are examined and rightly explained, proving that אין is never used in the sense of לא. Still less is לו to be taken in the sense of לו (<) אשׁר, "there shall not then be one who (belongs) to him;" for although the pronomen relat. may be wanting in short sentences, yet that can be only in such as contain a subject to which it can refer. But in the אין no subject is contained, but only the non-existence is declared; it cannot be said: no one is, or nothing is. In all passages where it is thus rightly translated a participle follows, in which the personal or actual subject is contained, of which the non-existence is predicated. לו (<) אין without anything following is elliptical, and the subject which is not, which will not be, is to be learned from the context or from the matter itself. The missing subject here cannot be משׁיח, because לו points back to משׁיח; nor can it be עם, people (Vulg., Grotius), or a descendant (Wieseler), or a follower (Auberlen), because all these words are destitute of any support from the context, and are brought forward arbitrarily. Since that which "is not to Him" is not named, we must thus read the expression in its undefined universality: it is not to Him, viz., that which He must have, to be the Maschiach. We are not by this to think merely of dominion, people, sanctuary, but generally of the place which He as Maschiach has had, or should have, among His people and in the sanctuary, but, by His being "cut off," is lost. This interpretation is of great importance in guiding to a correct rendering of יכּרת; for it shows that יכּרת does not denote the putting to death, or cutting off of existence, but only the annihilation of His place as Maschiach among His people and in His kingdom. For if after His "cutting off" He has not what He should have, it is clear that annihilation does not apply to Him personally, but only that He has lost His place and function as the Maschiach. (Note: Kranichfeld quite appropriately compares the strong expression יכּרת with "the equally strong יבלּא (shall wear out) in Dan 7:25, spoken of that which shall befall the saints on the part of the enemy of God in the last great war. As by this latter expression destruction in the sense of complete annihilation cannot be meant, since the saints personally exist after the catastrophe (cf. Dan 9:27, Dan 9:22, Dan 9:18), so also by this expression here (יכּרת) we are not to understand annihilation.") In consequence of the cutting off of the משׁיח destruction falls upon the city and the sanctuary. This proceeds from the people of the prince who comes. ישׁחית, to destroy, to ruin, is used, it is true, of the desolating of countries, but predicated of a city and sanctuary it means to overthrow; cf. e.g., Gen 19:13., where it is used of the destruction of Sodom; and even in the case of countries the השׁחית consists in the destruction of men and cattle; cf. Jer 36:29. The meaning of הבּא נגיד עם depends chiefly on the interpretation of the הבּא. This we cannot, with Ebrard, refer to עם. Naturally it is connected with נגיד, not only according to the order of the words, but in reality, since in the following verse (Dan 9:27) the people are no longer spoken of, but only the actions and proceedings of the prince are described. הבּא does not mean qui succedit (Roesch, Maurer), but is frequently used by Daniel of a hostile coming; cf. Dan 1:1; Dan 11:10,Dan 11:13, Dan 11:15. But in this sense הבּא appears to be superfluous, since it is self-evident that the prince, if he will destroy Jerusalem, must come or draw near. One also must not say that הבּא designates the prince as one who was to come (ἐρχόμενος), since from the expression "coming days," as meaning "future days," it does not follow that a "coming prince" is a "future prince." The הבּא with the article: "he who comes, or will come," denotes much rather the נגיד (which is without the article) as such an one whose coming is known, of whom Daniel has heard that he will come to destroy the people of God. But in the earlier revelations Daniel heard of two princes who shall bring destruction on his people: in Dan 7:8, Dan 7:24., of Antichrist; and in Dan 8:9., 23ff., of Antiochus. To one of these the הבּא points. Which of the two is meant must be gathered from the connection, and this excludes the reference to Antiochus, and necessitates our thinking of the Antichrist. In the following clause: "and his end with the flood," the suffix refers simply to the hostile Nagid, whose end is here emphatically placed over against his coming (Kran., Hofm., Kliefoth). Preconceived views as to the historical interpretation of the prophecy lie at the foundation of all other references. The Messianic interpreters, who find in the words a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and thus understand by the Nagid Titus, cannot apply the suffix to Nagid. M. Geier, Hvernick, and others, therefore, refer it (the suffix) to the city and the sanctuary; but that is grammatically inadmissible, since העיר (the city) is gen faem. Aub. and others refer it, therefore, merely to the sanctuary; but the separation of the city from the sanctuary is quite arbitrary. Vitringa, C. B. Michaelis, Hgstb., interpret the suffix as neuter, and refer it to ישׁחית (shall destroy), or, more correctly, to the idea of destroying comprehended in it, for they understand שׁטף of a warlike overflowing flood: "and the end of it shall be (or: it shall end) in the flood." On the other hand, v. Lengerke and Kliefoth have rightly objected to this view. "This reference of the suffix," they say, "is inadmissibly harsh; the author must have written erroneously, since he suggested the reference of the suffix to עם or to נגיד. One cannot think of what is meant by the end of the destruction, since the destruction itself is the end; a flood may, it is true, be an emblem of a warlike invasion of a country, but it never signifies the warlike march, the expedition." There thus remains nothing else than to apply the suffix to the Nagid, the prince. קץ can accordingly only denote the destruction of the prince. Hitzig's interpretation, that קצּו is the result of his coming, refutes itself. In בּשׁטף the article is to be observed, by which alone such interpretations as "in an overflowing" (Ros., Roed., and others), "vi quadam ineluctabili oppressus" (Steudel, Maurer), "like an overflowing," and the like, are proved to be verbally inadmissible. The article shows that a definite and well-known overflowing is meant. שׁטף, "overflowing," may be the emblem of an army spreading itself over the land, as in Dan 11:10,Dan 11:22, Dan 11:26; Isa 8:8, or the emblem of a judgment desolating or destroying a city, country, or people; cf. Psa 32:6; Nah 1:8; Pro 27:4; Psa 90:5. The first of these interpretations would give this meaning: The prince shall find his end in his warlike expedition; and the article in בּשׁטף would refer back to הבּא. This interpretation is indeed quite possible, but not very probable, because שׁטף would then be the overflowing which was caused by the hostile prince or his coming, and the thought would be this, that he should perish in it. But this agrees neither with the following clause, that war should be to the end, nor with Dan 7:21, Dan 7:26, according to which the enemy of God holds the superiority till he is destroyed by the judgment of God. Accordingly, we agree with Wieseler, Hofmann, Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth in adopting the other interpretation of שׁטף, flood, as the figure of the desolating judgment of God, and explain the article as an allusion to the flood which overwhelmed Pharaoh and his host. Besides, the whole passage is, with Maurer and Klief., to be regarded as a relative clause, and to be connected with הבּא: the people of a prince who shall come and find his destruction in the flood. This verse (Dan 9:26) contains a third statement, which adds a new element to the preceding. Rosenmller, Ewald, Hofm., and others connect these into one passage, thus: and to the end of the war a decree of desolations continues. But although קץ, grammatically considered, is the stat. constr., and might be connected with מלחמה (war), yet this is opposed by the circumstance, that in the preceding sentence no mention is expressly made of war; and that if the war which consisted in the destruction of the city should be meant, then מלחמה ought to have the article. From these reasons we agree with the majority of interpreters in regarding מלחמה as the predicate of the passage: "and to the end is war;" but we cannot refer קץ, with Wieseler, to the end of the prince, or, with Hv. and Aub., to the end of the city, because קץ has neither a suffix nor an article. According to the just remark of Hitzig, קץ without any limitation is the end generally, the end of the period in progress, the seventy שׁבעים, and corresponds to סופא עד in Dan 7:26, to the end of all things, Dan 12:13 (Klief.). To the end war shall be = war shall continue during the whole of the last שׁבוּע. The remaining words, שׁממות נחרצת, form an apposition to מלחמה, notwithstanding the objection by Kliefoth, that since desolations are a consequence of the war, the words cannot be regarded as in apposition. For we do not understand why in abbreviated statements the effect cannot be placed in the form of an apposition to the cause. The objection also overlooks the word נחרצת. If desolations are the effect of the war, yet not the decree of the desolations, which can go before the war or can be formed during the war. שׁממות denotes desolation not in an active, but in a passive sense: laid waste, desolated. נחרצת, that which is determined, the irrevocably decreed; therefore used of divine decrees, and that of decrees with reference to the infliction of punishment; cf. Dan 9:27; Dan 11:36; Isa 10:23; Isa 28:22. Ewald is quite in error when he says that it means "the decision regarding the fearful deeds, the divine decision as it embodies itself in the judgments (Dan 7:11.) on the world on account of such fearful actions and desolations," because שׁממות has not the active meaning. Auberlen weakens its force when he renders it "decreed desolations." "That which is decreed of desolations" is also not a fixed, limited, measured degree of desolations (Hofm., Klief.); for in the word there does not lie so much the idea of limitation to a definite degree, as much rather the idea of the absolute decision, as the connection with כלה in Dan 9:27, as well as in the two passages from Isaiah above referred to, shows. The thought is therefore this: "Till the end war will be, for desolations are irrevocably determined by God." Since שׁממות has nothing qualifying it, we may not limit the "decree of desolations" to the laying waste of the city and the sanctuary, but under it there are to be included the desolations which the fall of the prince who destroys the city and the sanctuary shall bring along with it.

Verse 27

This verse contains four statements. - The first is: "He shall confirm the covenant to many for one week." Following the example of Theodotion, many (Hv., Hgstb., Aub., v. Leng., Hitzig, Hofm.) regard אחד שׁבוּע אח as the subject: one week shall confirm the covenant to many. But this poetic mode of expression is only admissible where the subject treated of in the statement of the speaker comes after the action, and therefore does not agree with בּרית הגבּיר, where the confirming of the covenant is not the work of time, but the deed of a definite person. To this is to be added the circumstance that the definitions of time in this verse are connected with those in Dan 9:25, and are analogous to them, and must therefore be alike interpreted in both passages. But if, notwithstanding these considerations, we make אחד שׁבוּע the subject, the question then presses itself upon us, Who effects the confirming of the covenant? Hvernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen regard the Messias as the subject, and understand by the confirming of the covenant, the confirming of the New Covenant by the death of Christ. Ewald, v. Lengerke, and others think of Antiochus and the many covenants which, according to 1 Macc. 1:12, he established between the apostate Jews and the heathen Greeks. Hitzig understands by the "covenant" the O.T. Covenant, and gives to הגבּיר the meaning to make grievous: The one week shall make the covenant grievous to many, for they shall have to bear oppression on account of their faith. On the other hand, Hofmann (Schriftbew.) renders it: The one week shall confirm many in their fidelity to the faith. But none of these interpretations can be justified. The reasons which Hengstenberg adduces in support of his view that the Messias is the subject, are destitute of validity. The assertion that the Messias is the chief person spoken of in the whole of this passage, rests on the supposition, already proved to be untenable, that the prince who was to come (Dan 9:26) was the instrument of the Anointed, and on the passages in Isa 53:11; Isa 42:6, which are not parallel to that under consideration. The connection much more indicates that Nagid is the subject to הגבּיר, since the prince who was to come is named last, and is also the subject in the suffix of קצּו (his end), the last clause of Dan 9:26 having only the significance of an explanatory subordinate clause. Also "the taking away of the daily sacrifice combines itself in a natural way with the destruction (Dan 9:26) of the city and the temple brought about by the הבּא נגיד;" - further, "he who here is represented as 'causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease' is obviously identical with him who changes (Dan 7:25) the times and usages of worship (more correctly: times and law)" (Kran.). "The reference of הגבּיר to the ungodly leader of an army, is therefore according to the context and the parallel passages of this book which have been mentioned, as well as in harmony with the natural grammatical arrangement of the passage," and it gives also a congruous sense, although by the Nagid Titus cannot naturally be understood. בּרית הגבּיר means to strengthen a covenant, i.e., to make a covenant strong (Hitzig has not established the rendering: to make grievous). "Covenant" does not necessarily mean the covenant of God (Old Testament or New Testament Covenant), since the assertion that this word occurs only in this book with reference to the covenant of God with Israel (Hgstb.) does not also prove that it must here have this meaning; and with expression בּרית הגבּיר with ל is analogous to בּרית כּרּת [icere faedus] with ל; and the construction with ל signifies that as in the forming of a covenant, so in the confirming of a covenant, the two contracting parties are not viewed as standing on an equality, but he who concludes or who confirms the covenant prevails, and imposes or forces the covenant on the other party. The reference to the covenant of God with man is thus indeed suggested, yet it is not rendered necessary, but only points to a relation analogous to the concluding of a covenant emanating from God. לרבּים with the article signifies the many, i.e., the great mass of the people in contrast with the few, who remain faithful to God; cf. Mat 24:12. Therefore the thought is this: That ungodly prince shall impose on the mass of the people a strong covenant that they should follow him and give themselves to him as their God. While the first clause of this verse announces what shall happen during the whole of the last week, the second treats only of the half of this period. השׁבוּע חצי we cannot grammatically otherwise interpret than the definition of time mentioned immediately before, and thus, for reasons give above, cannot take it as the subject of the clause, but only as the accusative of the duration of time, consequently not in the sense of the ablative: in the midst of the week. The controversy whether חצי here means half, or midst, has no bearing on the matter, and acquires significance only if we interpret חצי, in opposition to the context, as synonymous with בּחצי, or with Klief., which is equally untenable and impossible in this context, regard השׁבוּע חצי as an absolute definition. חצי signifies only half, not midst. Only where the representation of an extent of space or period of time prevails can we render it, without a change of its meaning, by the word midst. In the half of the night is the same as in the middle of the night, at midnight, Exo 12:29; in the half of the firmament, Jos 10:13, is the same as in the middle of the space of the heavens across which the sun moves during day; in the half of the day of life is the same as in the middle of the period of life, Psa 102:25. But during the half of the week is not the same as: in the middle of the week. And the objection, that if we here take חצי in the sense of half, then the heptad or cycle of seven would be divided into two halves (Klief.), and yet of only one of them was anything said, is without significance, because it would touch also the explanation "and in the midst of the heptad," since in this case of the first, before the middle of the expiring half of the week, nothing also is said of what shall be done in it. If Kliefoth answers this objection by saying that we must conceive of this from the connection, namely, that which brings the power of Antichrist to its height, then we shall be able also, in the verbally correct interpretation of השׁבוּע חצי, to conceive from the connection what shall happen in the remaining period of the שׁבוּע. Yet weaker is the further objection: "that which is mentioned as coming to pass השׁבוּע חצי, the causing of the offering of sacrifice to cease, is something which takes place not during a period of time, but at a terminus" (Kliefoth); for since השׁבּית does not properly mean to remove, but to make to rest, to make quiet, it is thus not conceivable why we should not be able to say: The sacrifice shall be made to rest, or made still, during half a week. In the verbally correct interpretation of השׁבוּע חצי, the supposition that the second half of the heptad is meant loses its support, for the terminus a quo of this half remains undefined if it cannot be determined from the subject itself. But this determination depends on whether the taking away of the sacrifice is to be regarded as the putting a complete termination to it, or only the causing of a temporary cessation to the service of sacrifice, which can be answered only by our first determining the question regarding the historical reference of this divine revelation. וּמנחה זבח, bloody and unbloody sacrifice, the two chief parts of the service of sacrifice, represent the whole of worship by sacrifice. The expression is more comprehensive than התּמיד, Dan 8:11, the continuance in worship, the daily morning and evening sacrifice, the cessation of which does not necessarily involve the putting an end to the service of sacrifice. The third clause of this verse, משׁמם שׁקּוּצים כּנף ועל, is difficult, and its interpretation has been disputed. The lxx have rendered it: καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων ἔσται. Theodotion has given the same rendering, only omitting ἔσται. The Vulgate has: et erit in templo abominatio desolationis. The church interpreters have explained the words in accordance with these translations, understanding by שׁקּוּצים כּנף the abomination of idols in the temple, or the temple desecrated by the abomination of idols. Hvernick explains the words of the extreme height of abomination, i.e., of the highest place that can be reached where the abominations would be committed, i.e., the temple as the highest point in Jerusalem; Hengstenberg, on the contrary, regards the "wing of the abominations" as the pinnacle of the temple so desecrated by the abomination that it no longer deserved the name of a temple of the Lord, but the name of an idol-temple. Auberlen translates it "on account of the desolating summit of abominations," and understands by it the summit of the abominations committed by Israel, which draws down the desolation, because it is the desolation itself, and which reached its acme in the desecration of the temple by the Zealots shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. But no one of these interpretations is justified by the language here used, because כּנף does not signify summit, highest point. This word, it is true, is often used figuratively of the extremity or skirt of the upper garment or cloak (Sa1 15:27; Sa1 24:5; Hag 2:12), of the uttermost part, end, of the earth, Isa 24:16, and frequently in the plur. of the borders of the earth, in the rabbin. also of the lobes of the lungs, but demonstrably never of the summit as the highest point or peak of an object; and thus can mean neither the temple as the highest point in Jerusalem, nor the pinnacle of the temple desecrated by the abomination, nor the summit of the abomination committed by Israel. "It is used indeed," as Bleek (Jahrbb. v. p. 93) also remarks, "of the extreme point of an object, but only of that which is extended horizontally (for end, or extremity), but never of that which is extended perpendicularly (for peak)." The use of it in the latter sense cannot also be proved from the πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ, Mat 4:5; Luk 4:9. Here the genitive τοῦ ἱεροῦ, not τοῦ ναοῦ, shows that not the pinnacle, i.e., the summit of the temple itself, is meant, but a wing or adjoining building of the sanctuary; and if Suidas and Hesychius explain πτερύγιον by ἀκρωτήριον, this explanation is constructed only from the passages of the N.T. referred to, and is not confirmed by the Greek classics. But though πτερύγιον may have the meaning of summit, yet this can by no means be proved to be the meaning of כּנף. Accordingly שׁקּוּצים כּנף cannot on verbal grounds be referred to the temple. This argument from the words used is not set aside by other arguments which Hengstenberg brings forward, neither by the remark that this explanation harmonizes well with the other parts of the prophecy, especially the removal of the sacrifice and the destruction of the temple, nor by the reference to the testimony of tradition and to the authority of the Lord. For, with reference to that remark, we have already shown in the explanation of the preceding verses that they do not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and thus are not reconcilable with this interpretation of שׁקּוּצים כּנף. But the testimony of tradition for this interpretation in Josephus, De bello Jud. iv. 6. 3, that by the desecration of the temple on the part of the Zealots an old prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple was fulfilled, itself demonstrates (under the supposition that no other passage occur in the book of Daniel in which Josephus would be able to find the announcement of bloody abomination in the temple which proceeded even from the members of the covenant people) nothing further than that Josephus, with many of his contemporaries, found such a prophecy in this verse in the Alexandrine translation, but it does not warrant the correctness of this interpretation of the passage. This warrant would certainly be afforded by the words of our Lord regarding "the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place" (Mat 24:15.; Mar 13:14), if it were decided that the Lord had this passage (Dan 9:27) alone before His mind, and that He regarded the "abomination of desolation" as a sign announcing the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. But neither of these conditions is established. The expression βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως is found not only in Dan 9:27 (where the lxx and Theod. have the plur. ἐρημώσεων), but also in Dan 11:31 (βδ. ἐρημώσεως) and Dan 12:11 (τὸ βδ. τῆς ἐρημώσεως), and thus may refer to one of these passages. The possibility of this reference is not weakened by the objection, "that the prophecy Daniel 11 and Dan 12:1-13 was generally regarded as fulfilled in the Maccabean times, and that the fulfilling of Daniel 9 was placed forward into the future in the time of Christ" (Hgstb.), because the Lord can have a deeper and more correct apprehension of the prophecies of Daniel than the Jewish writers of His time; because,moreover, the first historical fulfilling of Daniel 11 in the Maccabean times does not exclude a further and a fuller accomplishment in the future, and the rage of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jewish temple and the worship of God can be a type of the assault of Antichrist against the sanctuary and the church of God in the time of the end. Still less from the words, "whoso readeth, let him understand" (Mat 24:15), can it be proved that Christ had only Dan 9:27, and not also Dan 11:31 or Dan 12:11, before His view. The remark that these words refer to בּדּבר בּין (understand the matter), Dan 9:23, and to ותשׂכּל ותדע (know, and understand), does not avail for this purpose, because this reference is not certain, and בּין את־הדּבר dna ,n (and he understood the thing) is used (Dan 10:1) also of the prophecy in Daniel 10 and 11. But though it were beyond a doubt that Christ had, in the words quoted, only Dan 9:27 before His view, yet would the reference of this prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans not be thereby proved, because in His discourse Christ spake not only of this destruction of the ancient Jerusalem, but generally of His παρουσία and the συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος (Mat 24:3), and referred the words of Daniel of the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως to the παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. On these grounds we must affirm that the reference of the words under consideration to the desecration of the temple before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is untenable. But also the reference of these words, as maintained by other interpreters, to the desecration of the temple by the βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως (1 Macc. 1:54), built on the altar of burnt-offering by Antiochus Epiphanes, is disproved on the verbal ground that כּנף cannot designate the surface of the altar. In favour of this view the משׁמם השּׁקּוּץ, Dan 11:31 (the abomination that maketh desolate), is principally relied on, in order to establish the connection of משׁמם with שׁקּוּצים; but that passage is of a different character, and the difference of number between them opposes the connecting together of these two words. The singular משׁמם cannot be connected as an adjective with שׁקּוּצים. But the uniting of משׁמם with the noun כּנף gives no meaning, and besides has the parallels Dan 11:31 and Dan 12:11 against it. In this passage before us משׁמם can only be the subject; and the clause is neither to be connected with the preceding nor with the following, but is to be interpreted as containing an independent statement. Since in the preceding context mention is made of a Nagid who shall make desolate the city and the sanctuary, and shall take away the bloody and the unbloody sacrifice, it is natural to regard the משׁמם, desolater, as the Nagid, and to identify the two. The circumstance that it does not refer to it by the article (המּשׁמם) is no valid objection, because the article is in no way necessary, as משׁמם is a participle, and can be rendered as such: "on the wings of abomination he comes desolating." כּנף על can, without ingenuity, be rendered in no other way than on wings. שׁקּוּצים signifies not acts of abomination, but objects of abomination, things causing abomination, and is constantly used of the heathen gods, idol-images, sacrifices to the gods, and other heathen abominations. The connection of שׁקּוּצים permits us, however, with Reichel, Ebrard, Kliefoth, and Kranichfeld, to think on nothing else than that wings (כּנף) are attributed to the שׁקּוּצים. The sing. כּנף does not oppose this, since it is often used collectively in a peculiar and figurative meaning; cf. e.g., כּנף בּעל, Pro 1:17, with כּנפים בּעל, Ecc 10:20, the winged, the bird; and הארץ dna ;drib כּנף (from the uttermost part of the earth), Isa 24:16, is not different from הארץ כּנפות, Job 37:3; Job 38:13, just as אברה, wing, plumage, Psa 91:4; Deu 32:11, is found for אברות (wings), Psa 68:14. But from such passages as Deu 32:11; Exo 19:4, and Psa 18:11, we perceive the sense in which wings are attributed to the שׁקּוּצים, the idolatrous objects. (Note: The interpretation of J. D. Michaelis, which has been revived by Hofmann, needs no serious refutation. They hold that שׁקּוּצים כּנף signifies an idol-bird, and denotes the eagle of Jupiter of Zeus. Hofm. repeats this interpretation in his Schriftbew. ii. 2, p. 592, after he had abandoned it.) In the first of these passages (Deu 32:11), wings, the wings of an eagle, are attributed to God, because He is the power which raises up Israel, and lifting it up, and carrying it throughout its history, guides it over the earth. In P. 18 wings are attributed to the wind, because the wind is contemplated as the power which carries out the will of God throughout the kingdom of nature. "Thus in this passage wings are attributed to the שׁקּוּצים, idol-objects, and to idolatry with its abominations, because that shall be the power which lifts upwards the destroyer and desolater, carries him, and moves with him over the earth to lay waste" (Klief.). (Note: Similarly, and independently of Kliefoth, Kranichfeld also explains the words: "The powerful heathen enemy of God is here conceived of as carried on (על) these wings of the idol-abomination, like as the God of the theocracy is borne on the wings of the clouds, and on cherubim, who are His servants; cf. Psa 18:11; Psa 104:3.") The last clause, וגו ועד־כּלה, is differently construed, according as the subject to תּתּך, which is wanting, or appears to be wanting, is sought to be supplied from the context. Against the supposition of Hvernick and Ebrard, who take תּתּך as impersonal: "it pours down," it is rightly objected that this word is never so found, and can so much the less be so interpreted here, since in Dan 9:11 it is preceded by a definite subject. Others supply a subject, such as anger (Berth.), or curse and oath from Dan 9:11; the former is quite arbitrary, the latter is too far-fetched. Others, again (Hengstenberg, Maurer), take ונחרצה כלה (the consummation and that determined) as the subject. This is correct according to the matter. We cannot, however, so justify the regarding of ועד as a conjunction: till that; for, though עד is so used, ועד is not; nor, once more, can we justify the taking of ונחרצה כלה as a whole as the subject (Hofmann), or of ונחרצה alone as the subject (v. Leng., Hitzig, Kliefoth), since ועד is not repeated before ונחרצה on account of the ו(with v. Leng.), nor is ונחרצה alone supplied (with Hitz.), nor is the וbefore נחרצה to be regarded (with Klief.) as a sign of the conclusion. Where וintroduces the conclusion, as e.g., Dan 8:14, it is there united with the verb, and thus the expression here should in that case be נחרצה ותּתּך. The relative interpretation of תּתּך is the only one which is verbally admissible, whereby the words, "and till the consummation and that determined," are epexegetically connected to the foregoing clause: "and till the consummation and that determined which shall pour down upon the desolater." The words ונחרצה כלה remind us of Isa 10:23 and Isa 28:22, and signify that which is completed = altogether and irrevocably concluded, i.e., substantially the inflexibly decreed judgment of destruction. The words have here this meaning, as is clear from the circumstance that נחרצה points back to שׁממות נחרצת (Dan 9:26, desolations are determined), and כלה עד corresponds to קץ עד (Dan 9:26). In Dan 11:31 משׁמם is not in a similar manner to be identified with שׁמם, but has the active signification: "laying waste," while שׁמם has the passive: "laid waste." Both words refer to the Nagid, but with this difference, that this ungodly prince who comes as the desolater of the city and the sanctuary will on that account become desolate, that the destruction irrevocably decreed by God shall pour down upon him as a flood. Let us now, after explaining the separate clauses, present briefly the substance of this divine revelation. We find that the Dan 9:25-27 contain the following announcement: From the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the appearance of the Messias seven weeks shall pass away; after that, during threescore and two weeks the city shall be restored and built up amid the oppressions of the times; but after the sixty-two weeks the Messias shall be cut off, so that to Him nothing remains, and the city, together with the sanctuary, shall be destroyed by the people of a prince who shall come, who shall find his end in the flood; but the war shall continue to the end, since destruction is irrevocably decreed. That prince shall force a strong covenant for one week on the mass of the people, and during half a week shall take away the service of sacrifice, and, borne on the wings of idol-abominations, shall carry on a desolating rule, till the firmly decreed judgment shall pour itself upon him as one desolated. - According to this, the first seven weeks are determined merely according to their beginning and their end, and nothing further is said as to their contents than may be concluded from the definition of its terminus a quo, "to restore and to build Jerusalem," namely, that the restoring and the building of this city shall proceed during the period of time indicated. The sixty-two weeks which follow these seven weeks, ending with the coming of the Messias, have the same contents, only with the more special definition, that the restoration and the building in the broad open place and in the limited place shall be carried on in oppressive times. Hence it is clear that this restoration and building cannot denote the rebuilding of the city which was destroyed by the Chaldeans, but refers to the preservation and extension of Jerusalem to the measure and compass determined by God in the Messianic time, or under the dominion of the Messias, since He shall come at the end of the seven weeks, and after the expiry of the sixty-two weeks connected therewith shall be cut off, so that nothing remains to Him. The statements of the angel (Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27) regarding the one week, which, because of the connection, can only be the seventieth, or the last of the seventy, are more ample. The cutting off of the Messias forms the beginning of this week; then follows the destruction of the city and of the sanctuary by the people of the coming prince, who shall find his end in the flood, not immediately after his coming, but at the end of this week; for the war shall continue to the end, and the prince shall take away the service of sacrifice during half a week, till the desolation determined as a flood shall pour down upon him, and make the desolater desolated. If we compare with this the contents of Dan 9:24, according to which seventy weeks are determined to restrain transgression, to make an end of sin and iniquity, partly by atonement and partly by shutting up, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to consecrate a new most holy, we shall find that the reciprocal statements are so related to each other, that Dan 9:25-27 present what shall be done in the course of the seventy weeks, which are divided into three periods, but Dan 9:24 what shall be the result of all these things. The seventieth week ends, according to Dan 9:27, with the judgment on the destroyer of the city and the sanctuary of God; but with this judgment shall be the conclusion of the divine counsel of salvation, or the kingdom of God shall be consummated. This was revealed to the prophet in Daniel 7, and thus does not need to be here expressly repeated. If that which, according to Dan 9:24, shall happen with the expiry of the seventy appointed weeks stood after Dan 9:27, then would the connection of the judgment on the last enemy of God with the consummation of the kingdom of God appear here also distinctly to view. But it was not necessary after Daniel 7 to give express prominence to this connection here; and Gabriel here first mentions the positive aim and end of the divine plan of salvation with Israel, because he gives to the prophet a comforting answer to remove his deep distress on account of his own sins, and the sin and guilt of his people, and therein cannot conceal the severe affliction which the future would bring, because he will announce to him that by the sins of the people the working out of the deliverance designed by God for them shall not be frustrated, but that in spite of the great guilt of Israel the kingdom of God shall be perfected in glory, sin and iniquity blotted out, everlasting righteousness restored, the prophecy of the judgment and of salvation completed, and the sanctuary where God shall in truth dwell among His people erected. In order to establish this promise, so rich in comfort, and firmly to ratify it to Daniel he unveils to him (Dan 9:25-27), in its great outlines, the progress of the development of the kingdom of God, first from the end of the Exile to the coming of the Messias; then from the appearance of Christ to the time far in the future, when Christ shall be cut off, so that nothing remains to Him; and finally, the time of the supremacy and of the victory of the destroyer of the church of God, the Antichrist, and the destruction of this enemy by the irrevocably determined final judgment. If, now, in this he says nothing particular regarding the first period of this development, regarding the time from the Exile to Christ, the reason is, that he had already said all that was necessary regarding the development of the world-kingdom, and its relation to the kingdom and people of God, in the preceding revelation in Daniel 8. It is the same angel Gabriel who (Daniel 8) comforted Daniel, and interpreted to him the vision of the second and third world-kingdom, and who here brings to him further revelations in answer to his prayer regarding the restoration of the holy city, which was lying in ruins, as is expressly remarked in Dan 9:21. - Also regarding the second long period which passes from the appearance of the Messias to His annihilation (Vernichtung), i.e., the destruction of His kingdom on the earth, little is apparently said, but in reality in the few words very much is said: that during this whole period the restoration and building shall proceed amid the oppressions of the times, namely, that the kingdom of God shall be built up to the extent determined by God in this long period, although amid severe persecution. this persecution shall during the last week mount up to the height of the cutting off of Christ and the destruction of His kingdom on the earth; but then with the extermination of the prince, the enemy of God, it shall reach its end. But if, according to what has been said, this revelation presents the principal outlines of the development of the kingdom of God from the time of Daniel to its consummation at the end of this epoch of the world, the seventy שׁבעים which are appointed for it cannot be year-weeks, or cycles of seven years, but only symbolically defined periods of measured duration. This result of our exposition contradicts, however, the usual interpretations of this prophecy so completely, that in order to confirm our exposition, we must put thoroughly to the test the two classes of opposing interpretations - which, however, agree in this, that the definitions of time are to be understood chronologically, and that under the שׁבעים year - weeks are to be understood-and examine whether a chronological reckoning is in all respects tenable. The first class of expositors who find the appearance of Christ in the flesh and His crucifixion, as well as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, prophesied of in this passage, adduce in support of their view, partly the agreement of the chronological periods, partly the testimony of Christ, who referred Dan 9:27 to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. How does it now stand with these two arguments? The first Hengstenberg (Christol. iii. 1, p. 137) introduces with the remark, "The predominant view in the synagogue and in the church has always been, that the seventy weeks, as well as the shorter periods into which the whole period is divided, are closely fixed and limited. The opposite supposition becomes very suspicious by this, that it is maintained only by such as come into conflict with the chronology by their hypotheses, or take no interest in chronological investigations." He then seeks first to confute the arguments brought forward in favour of the supposition that the chronological definitions are only given in the lump (in Bausch und Bogen), and then to present the positive arguments for the definiteness of the chronological statements. But he has in this identified the definiteness of the prophecy in general with its chronological definiteness, while there is between these two ideas a noticeable difference. Of the positive arguments adduced, the first is, that the seventy weeks stand in closer relation to the seventy years of Jeremiah, in so far as regards chronological definiteness, when the seventy years of Jeremiah are understood as strictly chronological and as chronologically fulfilled. But the force of this argument is neutralized by the fact, that in Jeremiah a chronologically described period, "years," is in this prophecy, on the contrary, designated by a name the meaning of which is disputed, at all events is chronologically indefinite, since weeks, if seven-day periods are excluded by the contents off the prophecy, can as well signify Sabbath or jubilee periods, seven-year or seven times seven-years epochs. Still weaker is the second argument, that all the other designations of time with reference to the future in the book of Daniel are definite; for this is applicable only to the designations in Dan 8:14 and Dan 12:11-12, in which evening-mornings and days are named, but not to the passages Dan 7:25; Dan 12:7, and Dan 4:13 (16), where the chronologically indefinite expression, time, times, occurs, which are arbitrarily identified with years. There remains thus, for the determination of the time spoken of in this prophecy, only the argument from its fulfilment, which should give the decision for the chronological definiteness. But, on the contrary, there arises a grave doubt, from the circumstance that among the advocates of the so-called "church Messianic interpretation" the terminus a quo of the prophecy is disputed; for some of these interpreters take the edict of Cyrus (b.c. 536) as such, while, on the other hand, others take the edict which Artaxerxes issued on the return of Ezra to Jerusalem for the restoration of the service of God according to the law, in the seventeenth year of his reign, i.e., in the year b.c. 457, and others, again, among whom is Hengstenberg, take the journey of Nehemiah to Jerusalem with the permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, i.e., b.c. 445, or according to Hengstenberg, b.c. 455, as the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks - a difference of eighty-one years, which in chronological reckoning is very noticeable. In our interpretation of Dan 9:25, we have given our decided opinion that the וגו להשׁיב דּבר, from the going forth of which seventy years are to be reckoned, refers to the edict of Cyrus permitting the Jews to return to their fatherland, and the arguments in favour of that opinion are given above. Against this reference to the edict of Cyrus, Hvernick, He

Verse 1

We left Daniel, in the close of the foregoing chapter, employed in the king's business; but here we have him employed in better business than any king had for him, speaking to God and hearing from him, not for himself only, but for the church, whose mouth he was to God, and for whose use the oracles of God were committed to him, relating to the days of the Messiah. Observe, 1. When it was that Daniel had this communion with God (Dan 9:1), in the first year of Darius the Mede, who was newly made king of the Chaldeans, Babylon being conquered by him and his nephew, or grandson, Cyrus. In this year the seventy years of the Jews' captivity ended, but the decree for their release was not yet issued out; so that this address of Daniel's to God seems to have been ready in that year, and, probably, before he was cast into the lions' den. And one powerful inducement, perhaps, it was to him then to keep so close to the duty of prayer, though it cost him his life, that he had so lately experienced the benefit and comfort of it. 2. What occasioned his address to God by prayer (Dan 9:2): He understood by books that seventy years was the time fixed for the continuance of the desolations of Jerusalem. Dan 9:2. The book by which he understood this was the book of the prophecies of Jeremiah, in which he found it expressly foretold (Jer 29:10), After seventy years be accomplished in Babylon (and therefore they must be reckoned from the first captivity, in the third year of Jehoiakim, which Daniel had reason to remember by a good token, for it was in that captivity that he was carried away himself, Dan 1:1), I will visit you, and perform my good word towards you. It was likewise said (Jer 25:11), This whole land shall be seventy years a desolation (chorbath), the same word that Daniel here uses for the desolations of Jerusalem, which shows that he had that prophecy before him when he wrote this. Though Daniel was himself a great prophet, and one that was well acquainted with the visions of God, yet he was a diligent student in the scripture, and thought it no disparagement to him to consult Jeremiah's prophecies. He was a great politician, and prime-minister of state to one of the greatest monarchs upon earth, and yet could find both heart and time to converse with the word of God. The greatest and best men in the world must not think themselves above their Bibles. 3. How serious and solemn his address to God was when he understood that the seventy years were just upon expiring (for it appears, by Ezekiel's dating of his prophecies, that they exactly computed the years of their captivity), then he set his face to seek God by prayer. Note, God's promises are intended, not to supersede, but to excite and encourage, our prayers; and, when we see the day of the performance of them approaching, we should the more earnestly plead them with God and put them in suit. So Daniel did here; he prayed three times a day, and, no doubt, in every prayer made mention of the desolations of Jerusalem; yet he did not think that enough, but even in the midst of his business set time apart for an extraordinary application to Heaven on Jerusalem's behalf. God had said to Ezekiel that though Daniel, among others, stood before him, his intercession should not prevail to prevent the judgment (Eze 14:14), yet he hopes, now that the warfare is accomplished (Isa 40:2), his prayer may be heard for the removing of the judgment. When the day of deliverance dawns it is time for God's praying people to bestir themselves; something extraordinary is then expected and required from them, besides their daily sacrifice. Now Daniel sought by prayer and supplications, for fear lest the sins of the people should provoke him to defer their deliverance longer than was intended, or rather that the people might be prepared by the grace of God for the deliverance now that the providence of God was about to work it out for them. Now observe, (1.) The intenseness of his mind in this prayer; I set my face unto the Lord God to seek him, which denotes the fixedness of his thoughts, the firmness of his faith, and the fervour of his devout affections, in the duty. We must, in prayer, set God before us, an set ourselves as in his presence; to him we must direct our prayer and must look up. Probably, in token of his setting his face towards God, he did, as usual, set his face towards Jerusalem, to affect his own heart the more with the desolations of it. (2.) The mortification of his body in this prayer. In token of his deep humiliation before God for his own sins, and the sins of his people, and the sense he had of his unworthiness, when he prayed he fasted, put on sackcloth, and lay in ashes, the more to affect himself with the desolations of Jerusalem, which he was praying for the repair of, and to make himself sensible that he was now about an extraordinary work.

Verse 4

We have here Daniel's prayer to God as his God, and the confession which he joined with that prayer: I prayed, and made my confession. Note, In every prayer we must make confession, not only of the sins we have been guilty of (which we commonly call confession), but of our faith in God and dependence upon him, our sorrow for sin and our resolutions against it. It must be our confession, must be the language of our own convictions and that which we ourselves do heartily subscribe to. Let us go over the several parts of this prayer, which we have reason to think that he offered up much more largely than is here recorded, these being only the heads of it. I. Here is his humble, serious, reverent address to God, 1. As a God to be feared, and whom it is our duty always to stand in awe of: "O Lord! the great and dreadful God, that art able to deal with the greatest and most terrible of the church's enemies." 2. As a God to be trusted, and whom it is our duty to depend upon and put a confidence in: Keeping the covenant and mercy to those that love him, and, as a proof of their love to him, keep his commandments. If we fulfil our part of the bargain, he will not fail to fulfil his. He will be to his people as good as his word, for he keeps covenant with them, and not one iota of his promise shall fall to the ground; nay, he will be better than his word, for he keeps mercy to them, something more than was in the covenant. It was proper for Daniel to have his eye upon God's mercy now that he was to lay before him the miseries of his people, and upon God's covenant now that he was to sue for the performance of a promise. Note, We should, in prayer, look both at God's greatness and his goodness, his majesty and mercy in conjunction. II. Here is a penitent confession of sin, the procuring cause of all the calamities which his people had for so many years been groaning under, Dan 9:5, Dan 9:6. When we seek to God for national mercies we ought to humble ourselves before him for national sins. These are the sins Daniel here laments; and we may here observe the variety of words he makes use of to set forth the greatness of their provocations (for it becomes penitents to lay load upon themselves): We have sinned in many particular instances, nay, we have committed iniquity, we have driven a trade of sin, we have done wickedly with a hard heart and a stiff neck, and herein we have rebelled, have taken up arms against the King of kings, his crown and dignity. Two things aggravated their sins: - 1. That they had violated the express laws God had given them by Moses: "We have departed from they precepts and from thy judgments, and have not conformed to them. And (Dan 9:10) we have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God." That which speaks the nature of sin, that it is the transgression of the law, does sufficiently speak the malignity of it; if sin be made to appear sin, it cannot be made to appear worse; its sinfulness is its greatest hatefulness, Rom 7:13. God has set his laws before us plainly and fully, as the copy we should write after, yet we have not walked in them, but turned aside, or turned back. 2. That they had slighted the fair warnings God had given them by the prophets, which in every age he had sent to them, rising up betimes and sending them (Dan 9:6): "We have not hearkened to thy servants the prophets, who have put us in mind of thy laws, and of the sanctions of them; though they spoke in thy name, we have not regarded them; though they delivered their message faithfully, with a universal respect to all orders and degrees of men, to our kings and princes, whom they had the courage and confidence to speak to, to our fathers, and to all the people of the land, whom they had the condescension and compassion to speak to, yet we have not hearkened to them, nor heard them, or not heeded them, or not complied with them." Mocking God's messengers, and despising his words, were Jerusalem's measure-filling sins, Ch2 36:16. This confession of sin is repeated here, and much insisted on; penitents should again and again accuse and reproach themselves till they find their hearts thoroughly broken. All Israel have transgressed thy law, Dan 9:11. It is Israel, God's professing people, who have known better, and from whom better is expected - Israel, God's peculiar people, whom he has surrounded with his favours; not here and there one, but it is all Israel, the generality of them, the body of the people, that have transgressed by departing and getting out of the way, that they might not hear, and so might not obey, thy voice. This disobedience is that which all true penitents do most sensibly charge upon themselves (Dan 9:14): We obeyed not his voice, and (Dan 9:15) we have sinned, we have done wickedly. Those that would find mercy must thus confess their sins. III. Here is a self-abasing acknowledgment of the righteousness of God in all the judgments that were brought upon them; and it is evermore the way of true penitents thus to justify God, that he may be clear when he judges, and the sinner may bear all the blame. 1. He acknowledges that it was sin that plunged them in all these troubles. Israel is dispersed through all the countries about, and so weakened, impoverished, and exposed. God's hand has driven them hither and thither, some near, where they are known and therefore the more ashamed, others afar off, where they are not known and therefore the more abandoned, and it is because of their trespass that they have trespassed (Dan 9:7); they mingled themselves with the nations that they might be debauched by them, and now God mingles them with the nations that they might be stripped by them. 2. He owns the righteousness of God in it, that he had done them no wrong in all he had brought upon them, but had dealt with them as they deserved (Dan 9:7): "O Lord! righteousness belongs to thee; we have no fault to find with thy providence, no exceptions to make against thy judgments, for (Dan 9:14) the Lord our God is righteous in all his works which he does, even in the sore calamities we are now under, for we obeyed not the words of his mouth, and therefore justly feel the weight of his hand." This seems to be borrowed from Lam 1:18. 3. He takes notice of the fulfilling of the scripture in what was brought upon them. In very faithfulness he afflicted them; for it was according to the word which he had spoken. The curse is poured upon us and the oath, that is, the curse that was ratified by an oath in the law of Moses, Dan 9:11. This further justifies God in their troubles, that he did but inflict the penalty of the law, which he had given them fair notice of. It was necessary for the preserving of the honour of God's veracity, and saving his government from contempt, that the threatenings of his word should be accomplished, otherwise they look but as bugbears, nay, they seem not at all frightful. Therefore he has confirmed his words which spoke against us because we broke his laws, and against our judges that judged us because they did not according to the duty of their place punish the breach of God's laws. He told them many a time that if they did not execute justice, as terrors to evil-workers, he must and would take the work into his own hands; and now he has confirmed what he said by bringing upon us a great evil, in which the princes and judges themselves deeply shared. Note, It contributes very much to our profiting by the judgments of God's hand to observe how exactly they agree with the judgments of his mouth. 4. He aggravates the calamities they were in, lest they should seem, having been long used to them, to make light of them, and so to lose the benefit of the chastening of the Lord by despising it. "It is not some of the common troubles of life that we are complaining of, but that which has in it some special marks of divine displeasure; for under the whole heaven has not been done as has been done upon Jerusalem," Dan 9:12. It is Jeremiah's lamentation in the name of the church, Was ever sorrow like unto my sorrow? which must suppose another similar question, Was ever sin like unto my sin? 5. He puts shame upon the whole nation, from the highest to the lowest; and if they will say Amen to his prayer, as it was fit they should if they would come in for a share in the benefit of it, they must all put their hand upon their mouth, and their mouth in the dust: "To us belongs confusion of faces as at this day (Dan 9:7); we lie under the shame of the punishment of our iniquity, for shame is our due." If Israel had retained their character, and had continued a holy people, they would have been high above all nations in praise, and mane, and honour (Deu 26:19); but now that they have sinned and done wickedly confusion and disgrace belong to them, to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the inhabitants both of the country and of the city, for they have been all alike guilty before God; it belongs to all Israel, both to the two tribes, that are near, by the rivers of Babylon, and to the ten tribes, that are afar off, in the land of Assyria. "Confusion belongs not only to the common people of our land, but to our kings, our princes, and our fathers (Dan 9:8), who should have set a better example, and have used their authority and influence for the checking of the threatening torrent of vice profaneness." 6. He imputes the continuance of the judgment to their incorrigibleness under it (Dan 9:13, Dan 9:14): "All this evil has come upon us, and has lain long upon us, yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our God, not in a right manner, as we should have made it, with a humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart. We have been smitten, but have not returned to him that smote us. We have not entreated the face of the Lord our God" (so the word is); "we have taken no care to make our peace with God and reconcile ourselves to him." Daniel set his brethren a good example of praying continually, but he was sorry to see how few there were that followed his example; in their affliction it was expected that they would seek God early, but they sought him not, that they might turn from their iniquities and understand his truth. The errand upon which afflictions are sent is to bring men to turn from their iniquities and to understand God's truth; so Elihu had explained them, Job 36:10. God by them opens men's ears to discipline and commands that they return from iniquity. And if men were brought rightly to understand God's truth, and to submit to the power and authority of it, they would turn from the error of their ways. Now the first step towards this is to make our prayer before the Lord our God, that the affliction may be sanctified before it is removed, and that the grace of God may go along with the providence of God, to make it answer the end. Those who in their affliction make not their prayer to God, who cry not when he binds them, are not likely to turn from iniquity or to understand his truth. "Therefore, because we have not improved the affliction, the Lord has watched upon the evil, as the judge takes care that execution be done according to the sentence. Because we have not been melted, he has kept us still in the furnace, and watched over it, to make the heat yet more intense;" for when God judges he will overcome, and will be justified in all his proceedings. IV. Here is a believing appeal to the mercy of God, and to the ancient tokens of his favour to Israel, and the concern of his own glory in their interests. 1. It is some comfort to them (and not a little) that God has been always ready to pardon sin (Dan 9:9): To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgiveness; this refers to that proclamation of his name, Exo 34:6, Exo 34:7, The Lord God, gracious and merciful, forgiving iniquity. Note, It is very encouraging to poor sinners to recollect that mercies belong to God, as it is convincing and humbling to them to recollect that righteousness belongs to him; and those who give him the glory of his righteousness may take to themselves the comfort of his mercies, Psa 62:12. There are abundant mercies in God, and not only forgiveness but forgivenesses; he is a God of pardons (Neh 9:17, marg.); he multiplies to pardon, Isa 55:7. Though we have rebelled against him, yet with him there is mercy, pardoning mercy, even for the rebellious. 2. It is likewise a support to them to think that God had formerly glorified himself by delivering them out of Egypt; so far he looks back for the encouragement of his faith (Dan 9:15): "Thou hast formerly brought thy people out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and wilt thou not now with the same mighty hand bring them out of Babylon? Were they then formed into a people, and shall they not now be reformed and new-formed? Are they now sinful and unworthy, and were they not so then? Are their oppressors now mighty and haughty, and were they not so then? And has not God said the their deliverance out of Babylon shall outshine even that out of Egypt?" Jer 16:14, Jer 16:15. The force of this plea lies in that, "Thou hast gotten thyself renown, hast made thyself a name" (so the word is) "as at this day, even to this day, by bringing us out of Egypt; and wilt thou lose the credit of that by letting us perish in Babylon? Didst thou get a renown by that deliverance which we have so often commemorated, and wilt thou not now get thyself a renown by this which we have so often prayed for, and so long waited for?" V. Here is a pathetic complaint of the reproach that God's people lay under, and the ruins that God's sanctuary lay in, both which redounded very much to the dishonour of God and the diminution of that name and renown which God had gained by bringing them out of Egypt. 1. God's holy people were despised. By their sins and the iniquities of their fathers they had profaned their crown and made themselves despicable, and then though they are, in name and profession, God's people, and upon that account truly great and honourable, yet they become a reproach to all that are round about them. Their neighbours laugh them to scorn, and triumph in their disgrace. Note, Sin is a reproach to any people, but especially to God's people, that have more eyes upon them and have more honour to lose than other people. 2. God's holy place was desolate. Jerusalem, the holy city, was a reproach (Dan 9:16) when it lay in ruins; it was an astonishment and a hissing to all that passed by. The sanctuary, the holy house, was desolate (Dan 9:17), the altars were demolished, and all the buildings laid in ashes. Note, The desolations of the sanctuary are the grief of all the saints, who reckon all their comforts in this world buried in the ruins of the sanctuary. VI. Here is an importunate request to God for the restoring of the poor captive Jews to their former enjoyments again. The petition is very pressing, for God gives us leave in prayer to wrestle with him: "O Lord! I beseech thee, Dan 9:16. If ever thou wilt do any thing for me, do this; it is my heart's desire and prayer. Now therefore, O our God! hear the prayer of thy servant and his supplication (Dan 9:17), and grant an answer of peace." Now what are his petitions? What are his requests? 1. That God would turn away his wrath from them; that is it which all the saints dread and deprecate more than any thing: O let thy anger be turned away from thy Jerusalem, thy holy mountain! Dan 9:16. He does not pray for the turning again of their captivity (let the Lord do with them as seems good in his eyes), but he prays first for the turning away of God's wrath. Take away the cause, and the effect will cease. 2. That he would lift up the light of his countenance upon them (Dan 9:17): "Cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate; return in thy mercy to us, and show that thou art reconciled to us, and then all shall be well." Note, The shining of God's face upon the desolations of the sanctuary is all in all towards the repair of it; and upon that foundation it must be rebuilt. If therefore its friends would begin their work at the right end, they must first be earnest with God in prayer for his favour, and recommend his desolate sanctuary to his smiles. Cause thy face to shine and then we shall be saved, Psa 80:3. 3. That he would forgive their sins, and then hasten their deliverance (Dan 9:19): O Lord! hear; O Lord! forgive. "That the mercy prayed for may be granted in mercy, let the sin that threatens to come between us and it be removed: O Lord! hearken and do, not hearken and speak only, but hearken and do; do that for us which none else can, and that speedily - defer not, O my God!" Now that he saw the appointed day approaching he could in faith pray that God would make haste to them and not defer. David often prays, Make haste, O God! to help me. VII. Here are several pleas and arguments to enforce the petitions. God gives us leave not only to pray, but to plead with him, which is not to move him (he himself knows what he will do), but to move ourselves, to excite our fervency and encourage our faith. 1. They disdain a dependence upon any righteousness of their own; they pretend not to merit any thing at God's hand but wrath and the curse (Dan 9:18): "We do not present our supplications before thee with hope to speed for our righteousness, as if we were worthy to receive thy favour for any good in us, or done by us, or could demand any thing as a debt; we cannot insist upon our own justification, no, though we were more righteous than we are; nay, though we knew nothing amiss of ourselves, yet are we not thereby justified, nor would we answer, but we would make supplication to our Judge." Moses had told Israel long before that, whatever God did for them, it was not for their righteousness, Deu 9:4, Deu 9:5. And Ezekiel had of late told them that their return out of Babylon would be not for their sakes, Eze 36:22, Eze 36:32. Note, Whenever we come to God for mercy we must lay aside all conceit of, and confidence in, our own righteousness. 2. They take their encouragement in prayer from God only, as knowing that his reasons of mercy are fetched from within himself, and therefore from him we must borrow all our pleas for mercy, and so give honour to him when we are suing for grace and mercy from him. (1.) "Do it for thy own sake (Dan 9:19), for the accomplishment of thy own counsel, the performance of thy own promise, and the manifestation of thy own glory." Note, God will do his own work, not only in his own way and time, but for his own sake, and so we must take it. (2.) "Do it for the Lord's sake, that is, for the Lord Christ's sake," for the sake of the Messiah promised, who is the Lord (so the most and best of our Christian interpreters understand it), for the sake of Adonai, so David called the Messiah (Psa 110:1), and mercy is prayed for for the church for the sake of the Son of man (Psa 80:17), and for thy Word's sake, he is Lord of all. It is for his sake that God causes his face to shine upon sinners when they repent and turn to him, because of the satisfaction he has made. In all our prayers that therefore must be our plea; we must make mention of his righteousness, even of his only, Psa 71:16. Look upon the face of the anointed. He has himself directed us to ask in his name. (3.) "Do it according to all thy righteousness (Dan 9:16), that is, plead for us against our persecutors and oppressors according to thy righteousness. Though we are ourselves unrighteous before God, yet with reference to them we have a righteous cause, which we leave it with the righteous God to appear in the defence of." Or, rather, by the righteousness of God here is meant his faithfulness to his promise. God had, according to his righteousness, executed the threatening, Dan 9:11. "Now, Lord, wilt thou not do according to all thy righteousness? Wilt thou not be as true to thy promises as thou hast been to thy threatenings and accomplish them also?" (4.) "Do it for thy great mercies (Dan 9:18), to make it to appear that thou art a merciful God." The good things we ask of God we call mercies, because we expect them purely from God's mercy. And, because misery is the proper object of mercy, the prophet here spreads the deplorable condition of the church before God, as it were to move his compassion: "Open thy eyes and behold our desolations, especially the desolations of the sanctuary. O look with pity upon a pitiable case!" Note, The desolations of the church must in prayer be laid before God and then left with him. (5.) "Do it for the sake of the relation we stand in to thee. The sanctuary that is desolate is thy sanctuary (Dan 9:17), dedicated to thy honour, employed in thy service, and the place of thy residence. Jerusalem is thy city and thy holy mountain (Dan 9:16); it is the city which is called by thy name," Dan 9:18. It was the city which God had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. "The people that have become a reproach are thy people, and thy name suffers in the reproach cast upon them (Dan 9:16); they are called by thy name, Dan 9:19. Lord, thou hast a property in them, and therefore art interested in their interests; wilt thou not provide for thy own, for those of thy own house? They are thine, save them," Psa 119:94.

Verse 20

We have here the answer that was immediately sent to Daniel's prayer, and it is a very memorable one, as it contains the most illustrious prediction of Christ and gospel-grace that is extant in all the Old Testament. If John Baptist was the morning-star, this was the day-break to the Sun of righteousness, the day-spring from on high. Here is, I. The time when this answer was given. 1. It was while Daniel was at prayer. This he observed and laid a strong emphasis upon: While I was speaking (Dan 9:20), yea, while I was speaking in prayer (Dan 9:21), before he rose from his knees, and while there was yet more which he intended to say. (1.) He mentions the two heads he chiefly insisted upon in prayer, and which perhaps he designed yet further to enlarge upon. [1.] He was confessing sin and lamenting that - "both my sin and the sin of my people Israel." Daniel was a very great and good man, and yet he finds sin of his own to confess before God and is ready to confess it; for there is not a just man upon earth that does good and sins not, nor that sins and repents not. St. John puts himself into the number of those who deceive themselves if they say that they have no sin, and who therefore confess their sins, Jo1 1:8. Good men find it an ease to their consciences to pour out their complaints before the Lord against themselves; and that is confessing sin. He also confessed the sin of his people, and bewailed that. Those who are heartily concerned for the glory of God, the welfare of the church, and the souls of men, will mourn for the sins of others as well as for their own. [2.] He was making supplication before the Lord his God, and presenting it to him as an intercessor for Israel; and in this prayer his concern was for the holy mountain of his God, Mount Zion. The desolations of the sanctuary lay nearer his heart than those of the city and the land; and the repair of that, and the setting up of the public worship of God of Israel again, were the things he had in view, in the deliverance he was preparing for, more than re-establishment of their civil interests. Now, (2.) While Daniel was thus employed, [1.] He had a grant made him of the mercy he prayed for. Note, God is very ready to hear prayer and to give an answer of peace. Now was fulfilled what God had spoken Isa 65:24, While they are yet speaking, I will hear. Daniel grew very fervent in prayer, and his affections were very strong, Dan 9:18, Dan 9:19. And, while he was speaking with such fervour and ardency, the angel came to him with a gracious answer. God is well pleased with lively devotions. We cannot now expect that God should send us answers to our prayer by angels, but, if we pray with fervency for that which God has promised, we may by faith take the promise as an immediate answer to the prayer; for he is faithful that has promised. [2.] He had a discovery made to him of a far greater and more glorious redemption which God would work out for his church in the latter days. Note, Those that would be brought acquainted with Christ and his grace must be much in prayer. 2. It was about the time of the evening oblation, Dan 9:21. The altar was in ruins, and there was no oblation offered upon it, but, it should seem, the pious Jews in their captivity were daily thoughtful of the time when it should have been offered, and at that hour were ready to weep at the remembrance of it, and desired and hoped that their prayer should be set forth before God as incense, and the lifting up of their hands, and their hearts with their hands, should be acceptable in his sight as the evening-sacrifice, Psa 141:2. The evening oblation was a type of the great sacrifice which Christ was to offer in the evening of the world, and it was in the virtue of that sacrifice that Daniel's prayer was accepted when he prayed for the Lord's sake; and for the sake of that this glorious discovery of redeeming love was made to him. The Lamb opened the seals in the virtue of his own blood. II. The messenger by whom this answer was sent. It was not given him in a dream, nor by a voice from heaven, but, for the greater certainty and solemnity of it, an angel was sent on purpose, appearing in a human shape, to give this answer to Daniel. Observe, 1. Who this angel, or messenger, was; it was the man Gabriel. If Michael the archangel be, as many suppose, no other than Jesus Christ, this Gabriel is the only created angel that is named in scripture. Gabriel signifies the mighty one of God; for the angels are great in power and might, Pe2 2:11. It was he whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning. Daniel heard him called by his name, and thence learned it (Dan 8:16); and, though then he trembled at his approach, yet he observed him so carefully that now he knew him again, knew him to be the same that he had seen at the beginning, and, being somewhat better acquainted with him, was not now so terrified at the sight of him as he had been at first. When this angel said to Zacharias, I am Gabriel (Luk 1:19), he intended thereby to put him in mind of this notice which he had given to Daniel of the Messiah's coming when it was at a distance, for the confirming of his faith in the notice he was then about to give of it as at the door. 2. The instructions which this messenger received from the Father of lights to whom Daniel prayed (Dan 9:23): At the beginning of thy supplications the word, the commandment, came forth from God. Notice was given to the angels in heaven of this counsel of God, which they were desirous to look into; and orders were given to Gabriel to go immediately and bring the notice of it to Daniel. By this it appears that it was not any thing which Daniel said that moved God, for the answer was given as he began to pray; but God was well pleased with his serious solemn address to the duty, and, in token of that, sent him this gracious message. Or perhaps it was at the beginning of Daniel's supplications that Cyrus's word, or commandment, went forth to restore and to build Jerusalem, that going forth spoken of Dan 9:25. "The thing was done this very day; the proclamation of liberty to the Jews was signed this morning, just when thou wast praying for it;" and now, at the close of this fast-day, Daniel had notice of it, as, at the close of the day of atonement, the jubilee-trumpet sounded to proclaim liberty. 3. The haste he made to deliver his message: He was caused to fly swiftly, Dan 9:21. Angels are winged messengers, quick in their motions, and delay not to execute the orders they receive; they run and return like a flash of lightning, Eze 1:14. But, it should seem, sometimes they are more expeditious than at other times, and make a quicker despatch, as here the angel was caused to fly swiftly; that is, he was ordered and he was enabled to fly swiftly. Angels do their work in obedience to divine command and in dependence upon divine strength. Though they excel in wisdom, they fly swifter or slower as God directs; and, though they excel in power, they fly but as God causes them to fly. Angels themselves are to us what he makes them to be; they are his ministers, and do his pleasure, Psa 103:21. 4. The prefaces or introductions to his message. (1.) He touched him (Dan 9:21), as before (Dan 8:18), not to awaken him out of sleep as then, but to give him a hint to break off his prayer and to attend to that which he has to say in answer to it. Note, In order to the keeping up of our communion with God we must not only be forward to speak to God, but as forward to hear what he has to say to us; when we have prayed we must look up, must look after our prayers, must set ourselves upon our watch-tower. (2.) He talked with him (Dan 9:22), talked familiarly with him, as one friend talks with another, that his terror might not make him afraid. He informed him on what errand he came, that he was sent from heaven on purpose with a kind message to him: "I have come to show thee (Dan 9:23), to tell thee that which thou didst not know before." He had shown him the troubles of the church under Antiochus, and the period of those troubles (Dan 8:19); but now he has greater things to show him, for he that is faithful in a little shall be entrusted with more. "Nay, I have now come forth to give thee skill and understanding (Dan 9:22), not only to show thee these things, but to make thee understand them." (3.) He assured him that he was a favourite of Heaven, else he would not have had this intelligence sent him, and he must take it for a favour: "I have come to show thee, for thou art greatly beloved. Thou art a man of desires, acceptable to God, and whom he has a favour for." Note, Though God loves all his children, yet there are some that are more than the rest greatly beloved. Christ had one disciple that lay in his bosom; and that beloved disciple was he that was entrusted with the prophetical visions of the New Testament, as Daniel was with those of the Old. For what greater token can there be of God's favour to any man than for the secrets of the Lord to be with him? Abraham is the friend of God; and therefore Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do? Gen 18:17. Note, Those may reckon themselves greatly beloved of God to whom, and in whom, he reveals his Son. Some observe that the title which this angel Gabriel gives to the Virgin Mary is much the same with this which he here gives to Daniel, as if he designed to put her in mind of it - Thou that art highly favoured; as Daniel, greatly beloved. (4.) He demands his serious attention to the discovery he was now about to make to him: Therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision, Dan 9:23. This intimates that it was a thing well worthy of his regard, above any of the visions he had been before favoured with. Note, Those who would understand the things of God must consider them, must apply their minds to them, ponder upon them, and compare spiritual things with spiritual. The reason why we are so much in the dark concerning the revealed will of God, and mistake concerning it, is want of consideration. This vision both requires and deserves consideration. III. The message itself. It was delivered with great solemnity, received no doubt with great attention, and recorded with great exactness; but in it, as is usual in prophecies, there are things dark and hard to be understood. Daniel, who understood by the book of the prophet Jeremiah the expiration of the seventy years of the captivity, is now honourably employed to make known to the church another more glorious release, which that was but a shadow of, at the end of another seventy, not years, but weeks of years. He prayed over that prophecy, and received this in answer to that prayer. He had prayed for his people and the holy city - that they might be released, that it might be rebuilt; but God answers him above what he was able to ask or think. God not only grants, but outdoes, the desires of those that fear him, Psa 21:4. 1. The times here determined are somewhat hard to be understood. In general, it is seventy weeks, that is, seventy times seven years, which makes just 490 years. The great affairs that are yet to come concerning the people of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem, will lie within the compass of these years. (1.) These years are thus described by weeks, [1.] In conformity to the prophetic style, which is, for the most part, abstruse, and out of the common road of speaking, that the things foretold might not lie too obvious. [2.] To put an honour upon the division of time into weeks, which is made purely by the sabbath day, and to signify that that should be perpetual. [3.] With reference to the seventy years of the captivity; as they had been so long kept out of the possession of their own land, so, being now restored to it they should seven times as long be kept in the possession of it. So much more does God delight in showing mercy than in punishing. The land had enjoyed its sabbaths, in a melancholy sense, seventy years, Lev 26:34. But now the people of the Lord shall, in a comfortable sense, enjoy their sabbaths seven times seventy years, and in them seventy sabbatical years, which makes ten jubilees. Such proportions are there in the disposals of Providence, that we might see and admire the wisdom of him who has determined the times before appointed. (2.) The difficulties that arise about these seventy weeks are, [1.] Concerning the time when they commence and whence they are to be reckoned. They are here dated from the going forth of the commandments to restore and to build Jerusalem, Dan 9:25. I should most incline to understand this of the edict of Cyrus mentioned Ezr 1:1, for by it the people were restored; and, though express mention be not made there of the building of Jerusalem, yet that is supposed in the building of the temple, and was foretold to be done by Cyrus, Isa 44:28. He shall say to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built. That was, both in prophecy and in history, the most famous decree for the building of Jerusalem; nay, it should seem, this going forth of the commandment (which may as well be meant of God's command concerning it as of Cyrus's) is the same with that going forth of the commandment mentioned Dan 9:23, which was at the beginning of Daniel's supplications. And it looks very graceful that the seventy weeks should begin immediately upon the expiration of the seventy years. And there is nothing to be objected against this but that by this reckoning the Persian monarchy, from the taking of Babylon by Cyrus to Alexander's conquest of Darius, lasted but 130 years; whereas, by the particular account given of the reigns of the Persian emperors, it is computed that it continued 230 years. So Thucydides, Xenophon, and others reckon. those who fix it to that first edict set aside these computations of the heathen historians as uncertain and not to be relied upon. But others, willing to reconcile them, begin the 490 years, not at the edict of Cyrus (Ezr 1:1), but at the second edict for the building of Jerusalem, issued out by Darius Nothus above 100 years after, mentioned Ezra 6. Others fix on the seventh year of Artaxerxes Mnemon, who sent Ezra with a commission, Ezr 7:8-12. The learned Mr. Poole, in his Latin Synopsis, has a vast and most elaborate collection of what has been said, pro and con, concerning the different beginnings of these weeks, with which the learned may entertain themselves. [2.] Concerning the termination of them; and here likewise interpreters are not agreed. Some make them to end at the death of Christ, and think the express words of this famous prophecy will warrant us to conclude that from this very hour when Gabriel spoke to Daniel, at the time of the evening oblation, to the hour when Christ died, which was towards evening too, it was exactly 490 years; and I am willing enough to be of that opinion. But others think, because it is said that in the midst of the weeks (that is, the last of the seventy weeks) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, they end three years and a half after the death of Christ, when the Jews having rejected the gospel, the apostles turned to the Gentiles. But those who make them to end precisely at the death of Christ read it thus, "He shall make strong the testament to the many; the last seven, or the last week, yea, half that seven, or half that week (namely, the latter half, the three years and a half which Christ spent in his public ministry), shall bring to an end sacrifice and oblation." Others make these 490 years to end with the destruction of Jerusalem, about thirty-seven years after the death of Christ, because these seventy weeks are said to be determined upon the people of the Jews and the holy city; and much is said here concerning the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. [3.] Concerning the division of them into seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks, and one week; and the reason of this is as hard to account for as any thing else. In the first seven weeks, or forty-nine years, the temple and city were built; and in the last single week Christ preached his gospel, by which the Jewish economy was taken down, and the foundations were laid of the gospel city and temple, which were to be built upon the ruins of the former. (3.) But, whatever uncertainty we may labour under concerning the exact fixing of these times, there is enough clear and certain to answer the two great ends of determining them. [1.] It did serve them to raise and support the expectations of believers. There were general promises of the coming of the Messiah made to the patriarchs; the preceding prophets had often spoken of him as one that should come, but never was the time fixed for his coming until now. And, though there might be so much doubt concerning the date of this reckoning that they could not ascertain the time just to a year, yet by the light of this prophecy they were directed about what time to expect him. And we find, accordingly, that when Christ came he was generally looked for as the consolation of Israel, and redemption in Jerusalem by him, Luk 2:25, Luk 2:38. There were those that for this reason thought the kingdom of God should immediately appear (Luk 19:11), and some think it was this that brought a more than ordinary concourse of people to Jerusalem, Act 2:5. [2.] It does serve still to refute and silence the expectations of unbelievers, who will not own that Jesus is he who should come, but still look for another. This prediction should silence them, and will condemn them; for, reckon these seventy weeks from which of the commandments to build Jerusalem we please, it is certain that they have expired above 1500 years ago; so that the Jews are for ever without excuse, who will not own that the Messiah has come when they have gone so far beyond their utmost reckoning for his coming. But by this we are confirmed in our belief of the Messiah's being come, and that our Jesus is he, that he came just at the time prefixed, a time worthy to be had in everlasting remembrance. 2. The events here foretold are more plain and easy to be understood, at least to us now. Observe what is here foretold, (1.) Concerning the return of the Jews now speedily to their own land, and their settlement again there, which was the thing that Daniel now principally prayed for; and yet it is but briefly touched upon here in the answer to his prayer. Let this be a comfort to the pious Jews, that a commandment shall go forth to restore and to build Jerusalem, Dan 9:25. And the commandment shall not be in vain; for though the times will be very troublous, and this good work will meet with great opposition, yet it shall be carried on, and brought to perfection at last. The street shall be built again, as spacious and splendid as ever it was, and the walls, even in troublous times. Note, as long as we are here in this world we must expect troublous times, upon some account or other. Even when we have joyous times we must rejoice with trembling; it is but a gleam, it is but a lucid interval of peace and prosperity; the clouds will return after the rain. When the Jews are restored in triumph to their own land, yet there they must expect troublous times, and prepare for them. But this is our comfort, that God will carry on his own work, will build up his Jerusalem, will beautify it, will fortify it, even in troublous times; nay, the troublousness of the times may by the grace of God contribute to the advancement of the church. The more it is afflicted the more it multiplies. (2.) Concerning the Messiah and his undertaking. The carnal Jews looked for a Messiah that could deliver them from the Roman yoke and give them temporal power and wealth, whereas they were here told that the Messiah should come upon another errand, purely spiritual, and upon the account of which he should be the more welcome. [1.] Christ came to take away sin, and to abolish that. Sin had made a quarrel between God and man, had alienated men from God and provoked God against man; it was this that put dishonour upon God and brought misery upon mankind; this was the great mischief-maker. He that would do God a real service, and man a real kindness, must be the destruction of this. Christ undertakes to be so, and for this purpose he is manifested, to destroy the works of the devil. He does not say to finish your transgressions and your sins, but transgression and sin in general, for he is the propitiation not only for our sins, that are Jews, but for the sins of the whole world. He came, First, To finish transgression, to restrain it (so some), to break the power of it, to bruise the head of that serpent that had done so much mischief, to take away the usurped dominion of that tyrant, and to set up a kingdom of holiness and love in the hearts of men, upon the ruins of Satan's kingdom there, that, where sin and death had reigned, righteousness and life through grace might reign. When he died he said, It is finished; sin has now had its death-wound given it, like Samson's, Let me die with the Philistines. Animamque in vulnere ponit - He inflicts the wound and dies. Secondly, To make an end of sin, to abolish it, that it may not rise up in judgment against us, to obtain the pardon of it, that it may not be our ruin, to seal up sins (so the margin reads it), that they may not appear or break out against us, to accuse and condemn us, as, when Christ cast the devil into the bottomless pit, he set a seal upon him, Rev 20:3. When sin is pardoned it is sought for and not found, as that which is sealed up. Thirdly, To make reconciliation for iniquity, as by a sacrifice, to satisfy the justice of God and so to make peace and bring God and man together, not only as an arbitrator, or referee, who only brings the contending parties to a good understanding one of another, but as a surety, or undertaker, for us. He is not only the peace-maker, but the peace. He is the atonement. [2.] He came to bring in an everlasting righteousness. God might justly have made an end of the sin by making an end of the sinner; but Christ found out another way, and so made an end of sin as to save the sinner from it, by providing a righteousness for him. We are all guilty before God, and shall be condemned as guilty, if we have not a righteousness wherein to appear before him. Had we stood, our innocency would have been our righteousness, but, having fallen, we must have something else to plead; and Christ has provided us a plea. The merit of his sacrifice is our righteousness; with this we answer all the demands of the law; Christ has died, yea, rather, has risen again. Thus Christ is the Lord our righteousness, for he is made of God to us righteousness, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. By faith we apply this to ourselves and plead it with God, and our faith is imputed to us for righteousness, Rom 4:3, Rom 4:5. This is an everlasting righteousness, for Christ, who is our righteousness, and the prince of our peace, is the everlasting Father. It was from everlasting in the counsels of it and will be to everlasting in the consequences of it. The application of it was from the beginning, for Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; and it will be to the end, for he is able to save to the uttermost. It is of everlasting virtue (Heb 10:12); it is the rock that follows us to Canaan. [3.] He came to seal up the vision and prophecy, all the prophetical visions of the Old Testament, which had reference to the Messiah. He sealed them up, that is, he accomplished them, answered to them to a tittle; all things that were written in the law, the prophets, and the psalms, concerning the Messiah, were fulfilled in him. Thus he confirmed the truth of them as well as his own mission. He sealed them up, that is, he put an end to that method of God's discovering his mind and will, and took another course by completing the scripture-canon in the New Testament, which is the more sure word of prophecy than that by vision, Pe2 1:19; Heb 1:1. [4.] He came to anoint the most holy, that is, himself, the Holy One, who was anointed (that is, appointed to his work and qualified for it) by the Holy Ghost, that oil of gladness which he received without measure, above his fellows; or to anoint the gospel-church, his spiritual temple, or holy place, to sanctify and cleanse it, and appropriate it to himself (Eph 5:26), or to consecrate for us a new and living way into the holiest, by his own blood (Heb 10:20), as the sanctuary was anointed, Exo 30:25, etc. He is called Messiah (Dan 9:25, Dan 9:26), which signifies Christ - Anointed (Joh 1:41), because he received the unction both for himself and for all that are his. [5.] In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa 53:8. Hence, when Paul preaches the death of Christ, he says that he preached nothing but what the prophet said should come, Act 26:22, Act 26:23. And thus it behoved Christ to suffer. He must be cut off, but not for himself - not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, - not for any advantage of his own (the glory he purchased for himself was no more than the glory he had before, Joh 17:4, Joh 17:5); no; it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off. [6.] He must confirm the covenant with many. He shall introduce a new covenant between God and man, a covenant of grace, since it had become impossible for us to be saved by a covenant of innocence. This covenant he shall confirm by his doctrine and miracles, by his death and resurrection, by the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, which are the seals of the New Testament, assuring us that God is willing to accept us upon gospel-terms. His death made his testament of force, and enabled us to claim what is bequeathed by it. He confirmed it to the many, to the common people; the poor were evangelized, when the rulers and Pharisees believed not on him. Or, he confirmed it with many, with the Gentile world. The New Testament was not (like the Old) confined to the Jewish church, but was committed to all nations. Christ gave his life a ransom for many. [7.] He must cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. By offering himself a sacrifice once for all he shall put an end to all the Levitical sacrifices, shall supercede them and set them aside; when the substance comes the shadows shall be done away. He causes all the peace-offerings to cease when he has made peace by the blood of his cross, and by it confirmed the covenant of peace and reconciliation. By the preaching of his gospel to the world, with which the apostles were entrusted, he took men off from expecting remission by the blood of bulls and goats, and so caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. The apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews shows what a better priesthood, altar, and sacrifice, we have now than they had under the law, as a reason why we should hold fast our profession. (3.) Concerning the final destruction of Jerusalem, and of the Jewish church and nation; and this follows immediately upon the cutting off of the Messiah, not only because it was the just punishment of those that put him to death, which was the sin that filled up the measure of their iniquity and brought ruin upon them, but because, as things were, it was necessary to the perfecting of one of the great intentions of his death. He died to take away the ceremonial law, quite to abolish that law of commandments, and to vacate the obligation of it. But the Jews would not be persuaded to quit it; still they kept it up with more zeal than ever; they would hear no talk of parting with it; they stoned Stephen (the first Christian martyr) for saying that Jesus should change the customs which Moses delivered them (Act 6:14); so that there was no way to abolish the Mosaic economy but by destroying the temple, and the holy city, and the Levitical priesthood, and that whole nation which so incurably doted on them. This was effectually done in less than forty years after the death of Christ, and it was a desolation that could never be repaired to this day. And this is it which is here largely foretold, that the Jews who returned out of captivity might not be overmuch lifted up with the rebuilding of their city and temple, because in process of time they would be finally destroyed, and not as now for seventy years only, but might rather rejoice in hope of the coming of the Messiah, and the setting up of his spiritual kingdom in the world, which should never be destroyed. Now, [1.] It is here foretold that the people of the prince that shall come shall be the instruments of this destruction, that is, the Roman armies, belonging to a monarchy yet to come (Christ is the prince that shall come, and they are employed by him in this service; they are his armies, Mat 22:7), or the Gentiles (who, though now strangers, shall become the people of the Messiah) shall destroy the Jews. [2.] That the destruction shall be by war, and the end of that war shall be this desolation determined. The wars of the Jews with the Romans were by their own obstinacy made very long and very bloody, and they issued at length in the utter extirpation of that people. [3.] That the city and sanctuary shall in a particular manner be destroyed and laid quite waste. Titus the Roman general would fain have saved the temple, but his soldiers were so enraged against the Jews that he could not restrain them from burning it to the ground, that this prophecy might be fulfilled. [4.] That all the resistance that shall be made to this destruction shall be in vain: The end of it shall be with a flood. It shall be a deluge of destruction, like that which swept away the old world, and which there will be no making head against. [5.] That hereby the sacrifice and oblation shall be made to cease. And it must needs cease when the family of the priests was so extirpated, and the genealogies of it were so confounded, that (they say) there is no man in the world that can prove himself of the seed of Aaron. [6.] that there shall be an overspreading of abominations, a general corruption of the Jewish nation and an abounding of iniquity among them, for which it shall be made desolate, Th1 2:16. Or it is rather to be understood of the armies of the Romans, which were abominable to the Jews (they could not endure them), which overspread the nation, and by which it was made desolate; for these are the words which Christ refers to, Mat 24:15, When you shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, stand in the holy place, then let those who shall be in Judea flee, which is explained Luk 21:20, When you shall see Jerusalem encompassed with armies then flee. [7.] That the desolation shall be total and final: He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, that is, he shall make it completely desolate. It is a desolation determined, and it will be accomplished to the utmost. And when it is made desolate, it should seem, there is something more determined that is to be poured upon the desolate (Dan 9:27), and what should that be but the spirit of slumber (Rom 11:8, Rom 11:25), that blindness which has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in? And then all Israel shall be saved.

Verse 1

9:1-19 Daniel prayed for his people, realizing that Jerusalem’s seventy years of desolation were due to end. His prayer is comparable to prayers of Solomon (1 Kgs 8:14-61), Ezra (Ezra 9), and Nehemiah (Neh 9). God answered Daniel’s prayer very quickly (see study note on Dan 9:19; see also 9:20-27).

9:1 Darius the Mede: See study note on 5:31. • Ahasuerus is the Hebrew rendering of a Persian word taken into Greek as “Xerxes.” The father of Darius the Mede must have been a different Xerxes from the later Xerxes I, who reigned from 486 to 465 BC (see Esth 1:1); the time of this vision was 539 BC. It has been argued that the name Xerxes/Ahasuerus is an ancient throne name for Persian kings.

Verse 2

9:2 reading . . . Jeremiah: Daniel apparently had a copy of Jeremiah’s prophecies. • Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy years: Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC (see 2 Kgs 25:8), and the first return occurred in 538 BC—about 48 years later. The rebuilding of the city began almost at once (see Ezra 3:1-13; Isa 44:28), and the rebuilt Temple was completed in 515 BC—about seventy-one years after it was destroyed (Ezra 6:15). Daniel might have thought of Jerusalem’s “destruction” as having begun with his own exile in 605 BC (see Jer 25:11-12), with sixty-seven years between 605 and 538 BC.

Verse 3

9:3 Daniel realized that the seventy years were nearly at an end, so he turned to the Lord God seeking restoration for his people and the city of Jerusalem. • People in mourning often wore burlap and ashes (cp. Neh 9:1; Esth 4:1; Lam 2:10; Luke 10:13). • Focused prayer was often accompanied by fasting to put spiritual concerns ahead of physical needs.

Verse 4

9:4-11 God’s faithfulness contrasted sharply with his people’s unfaithfulness and rebellion. When Daniel confessed the sins of his people, he included himself among them (9:5), though he had lived a laudatory life (see “Community Identity” Theme Note). Daniel prayed the equivalent of a high priestly prayer on behalf of his people, using many quotations from and allusions to the Torah, prophets, and psalms.

9:4 the Lord (Hebrew Yahweh): The covenant name of God (Exod 6:2-3; 20:2) is found in Daniel only in this chapter. • God is faithful to his covenant with his people who love . . . and obey him (cp. Exod 34:6-7; Deut 7:9; Rom 8:28). God’s unfailing love (Hebrew khesed, elsewhere translated “grace,” “mercy,” “kindness”) is his fundamental nature that is the cause of faith, hope, and worship throughout the Bible (see Num 14:18; Neh 9:17; Pss 108:4; 136:1-26; Jon 2:4; 1 Jn 4:7-8).

Verse 5

9:5 Daniel used four different words meaning sin: The people had sinned (literally missed the mark), done wrong (i.e., committed a bent or twisted act), rebelled against the covenant, and scorned (literally turned away from) the Lord’s instructions.

Verse 6

9:6 God’s servants the prophets were his specially called and inspired spokesmen (9:10; Deut 18:15-22; 2 Kgs 17:23; 21:10-15; Jer 7:25; 25:4).

Verse 7

9:7-14 Lord, you are in the right: God orchestrated the Exile as a judgment on unfaithful Israel (9:11-14). God had given ample warning that it would happen (see Deut 28:36-37, 49-68).

Verse 12

9:12 God’s act of driving Israel into exile for breaking his covenant was unique in all of history. Israel’s exodus from Egypt, their exile, and their return from Babylon are still unequaled (see also Jer 29:10).

Verse 13

9:13 Every curse written against us in the Law of Moses is summarized in Lev 26 and Deut 27–28. When the people entered into the covenant they swore to be obedient, calling down curses on themselves if they failed (see Exod 24:7-8; Josh 8:34-35).

Verse 15

9:15-19 Daniel cried out for God to rescue his people and end the Exile, relying on God’s mercy and God’s desire to honor his own name. Daniel’s prayer is among the great intercessory prayers of God’s Old Testament people (see also Exod 32:11-14; Ezra 9:1-15; Neh 9:1-37).

9:15 God could bring lasting honor to his name by rescuing his people from exile in Babylonia, just as he did when he rescued them from Egypt (cp. Ezek 36:19-24).

Verse 16

9:16 mock Jerusalem and your people: God’s name was dishonored when his chosen city and his chosen people were ridiculed because of their helplessness before their enemies, making it appear that their God was helpless (9:19; cp. Ezek 36:19-20).

Verse 17

9:17 For your own sake: That is, for God’s own honor (9:19).

Verse 18

9:18 because of your mercy: God’s compassionate and merciful character gave Daniel hope (cp. Exod 34:6; Jon 4:1-3; Mic 6:8).

Verse 19

9:19 listen and act! . . . do not delay: Daniel prayed this prayer in 539 BC (see study note on 9:1). Shortly thereafter (in 538 BC), King Cyrus gave his decree allowing the Jewish people to return to Judea (Ezra 1:1-4). The new Temple in Jerusalem was completed in 515 BC (Ezra 6:15). God returned the Israelites from exile in response to their prayers and repentance, just as the Exile had been his response to his people’s sins and rebellion. • your people and your city bear your name: God’s reputation was associated with Jerusalem (Neh 1:9) and his people, Israel (Exod 5:22–6:1).

Verse 20

9:20-27 God’s immediate answer to Daniel’s prayer was to send his messenger Gabriel to explain Daniel’s vision. Gabriel’s explanation covered the near and distant future of Daniel’s people.

Verse 21

9:21 Gabriel . . . earlier vision: See 8:15-16. • evening sacrifice: Before the destruction of the Temple, Israel had offered two sacrificial lambs daily, one in the morning and one in the evening (Exod 29:41). Daniel apparently observed these times daily with prayer (Dan 6:10, 13; cp. Ps 55:17).

Verse 22

9:22 In the book of Daniel, insight and understanding are key words that often refer to the meaning of God’s revelation (cp. 1:4; 9:13, 25; 11:33, 35). God did not promise Daniel the answers to all of his questions, but rather, a basic grasp of the issues. God is in charge of history.

Verse 23

9:23 a command was given (literally a word went forth): This command might have been God’s decree to end the Exile and return his people to Jerusalem and Judea, or it might have been the command to explain the future to Daniel (9:24-27). • you are very precious to God: Also in 10:11, 19. • It is unclear what your vision refers to: It could be the restoration of Jerusalem and God’s people that Daniel read about in Jeremiah and envisioned in his prayer (9:2-20), or one of the earlier visions (e.g., ch 8; cp. 8:27).

Verse 24

9:24-27 Gabriel further explained the meaning of Daniel’s vision (9:22-23). Because the vision of ch 8 culminated with Antiochus IV (see 8:23-25; cp. 11:21-39), many interpreters understand this explanation as also pointing to Antiochus. Others understand it as culminating in the death of Christ, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the coming of the antichrist.

9:24 Many understand the period of seventy sets of seven as seventy “weeks of years”—i.e., 490 years. However, they are not called “years” in the Hebrew text, and it has proven difficult to assign this period to an actual historical period of 490 years. Therefore, many interpreters believe that the numbers are not intended as calendar years but as symbolic periods of time to fulfill the visions. Just as Jerusalem suffered a lifetime of desolation (9:2; see study note on Jer 25:11), the city would experience many lifetimes of restoration. • The period of time was for your people (the Jews) and your holy city (Jerusalem). The six purposes listed here appear to refer to the restoration of the Jews and the city of Jerusalem. Other interpreters see these six purposes as representing God’s universal work of redemption in the world. • God would finish the rebellion of the Israelites, and he would also finish the rebellions of human rulers who defy the Lord and attack the holy people (Dan 7:8, 22, 25-26; 8:13-14; 11:29-45). • To confirm the prophetic vision means to fulfill the content of the visionary answer to Daniel’s prayer. • the Most Holy Place (Or the Most Holy One; literally a most holy): Some interpreters see this as referring to the restored Most Holy Place in the Temple in 164 BC. Others see it as referring to the anointing of Christ and his church as God’s own temple (Matt 12:6; Eph 2:19-22).

Verse 25

9:25 The command . . . to rebuild Jerusalem and its Temple marks the beginning of the seventy sets of seven. The event that best fits this description is the decree of Cyrus the Great in 538 BC that allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and begin rebuilding (see 5:31; 9:1; Ezra 1:2-4). Less likely are the decrees of Artaxerxes I in 458 BC (see Ezra 7:12-26) and 445 BC (see Neh 2:5-8). • a ruler—the Anointed One: Many interpreters see Christ as fulfilling this prophecy, so they understand this passage as describing history from the time of Daniel to the time of Christ. However, an “anointed one” can refer to any of Israel’s kings or priests, who were ordained by anointing with oil. If the passage was fulfilled in the time of Antiochus IV, then the anointed one was probably the high priest at the time, Onias III (cp. Dan 11:22). • and strong defenses: The vision refers to Jerusalem as being physically rebuilt. The rebuilding of the Temple was completed in 515 BC (Ezra 3:1–6:22); in 445 BC, Nehemiah completed the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 2–6). • The perilous times can refer to the history of Jerusalem and its Temple from the time the decree was published until the end of the seventy sets of seven (see Dan 11:2-45).

Verse 26

9:26 the Anointed One (literally an anointed): Those who see the fulfillment of this passage in the time of Antiochus IV point to the murder of the high priest Onias III in 171 BC as the fulfillment of this prophecy (see study note on 11:22). Those who see the fulfillment of this passage in the time of Christ will refer this prophecy to the crucifixion of the Messiah in AD 30 or 33. • The ruler who will arise could refer to Antiochus IV, who attempted to destroy the Jewish people and their worship in the Temple between 171 and 164 BC (see 1 Maccabees 1:20-40). Many believe, however, that the destruction of the city and the Temple refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 66–70. • The end refers to the completion of the seventy sets of seven. The text implies that the very end is a later time, and that the war would continue into the future (cp. Matt 24:4-8; Mark 13:5-8). • The image of a flood often represents an invading army (cp. Dan 11:10, 22, 40; Nah 1:8) or devastating destruction.

Verse 27

9:27 The ruler (literally he): Most interpreters understand this pronoun as referring to the ruler of 9:26. Some think that it refers back to the anointed one of 9:25-26 and is thus a prophecy about Christ, meaning that Christ caused a covenant to prevail and removed the need for sacrifices and offerings by his death. However, the word behind make a treaty has the sense of imposing a covenant, evidently by the use of force or intimidation. Antiochus IV imposed a covenant with the people of Judea following the beginning of his rule in 175 BC (cp. 11:23; see 1 Maccabees 1:10-15). Other interpreters believe that this prophecy was fulfilled in the events of AD 66–70. For still others, it refers to a future ruler. • The phrase put an end refers to a destructive action, not an act of God’s salvation such as the Messiah would accomplish by his death. In 167 BC, Antiochus IV ordered the people of Judea to cease all practice of Jewish worship in the Temple and instead practice pagan worship, on pain of death (see 1 Maccabees 1:41-63). Similarly, the Roman general Titus put an end to the sacrifices and offerings in the Temple when he destroyed it in AD 70. • a sacrilegious object that causes desecration (literally an abomination of desolation): Cp. Dan 8:13; 11:31; 12:11. This expression (Hebrew shiqqutsim meshomem) is possibly a mocking play on the Semitic name for Zeus (Ba‘al Shamayim, “Lord of the Heavens”). Idol-gods are often referred to as shiqquts, “abomination,” “desolation,” elsewhere in the Bible (see Deut 29:17; 2 Chr 15:8; Isa 66:3; Jer 32:34; Ezek 20:7), and the similarity between the sounds of shomem, “devastation, destruction, desolation,” and shamayim is clear. In December 167 BC, Antiochus IV erected an image of Zeus atop the altar of burnt offering in the Temple court and sacrificed unclean animals there. The same phrase (abomination of desolation) is used in 1 Maccabees 1:54 to describe that altar and its sacrifices. Jesus and multiple New Testament authors anticipated a desolating sacrilege in the future (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20; 2 Thes 2:3-4). After Titus destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70, the Romans set up their idols in the Temple precinct and made sacrifices to their gods (see Josephus, War 6.6.1). The apostle John later observed that many antichrists had appeared (1 Jn 2:18-23) and that the spirit of the antichrist was at work in the world (1 Jn 4:3). • The time of destruction is under God’s control, and the fate decreed for this defiler is certain to come (cp. Dan 7:11; 8:25; 11:45). So it is with every ruler who exalts himself against God and seeks to destroy God’s people.