- Home
- Bible
- Daniel
- Chapter 12
- Verse 12
Daniel 12:8
Verse
Context
The End Times
7And the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by Him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, and times, and half a time. When the power of the holy people has finally been shattered, all these things will be completed.”8I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will be the outcome of these things?”
Sermons
Erlo StegenSummary
Commentary
- Adam Clarke
- Keil-Delitzsch
- Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
- John Gill
- Tyndale
Adam Clarke Bible Commentary
I heard, but I understand not - Could not comprehend what the time, times, and half time should refer to. These make three years and a half of prophetic times answering to one thousand two hundred and sixty years.
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary
Daniel heard his answer, but he understood it not. To שׁמעתּי, as to אבין לא, the object is wanting, because it can easily be supplied from the connection, namely, the meaning of the answer of the man clothed in linen. Grotius has incorrectly supplied quid futurum esset from the following question, in which he has also incorrectly rendered אלּה אחרית by post illiu triennii et temporis semestris spatium. Hvernick has also defined the object too narrowly, for he has referred the non-understanding merely to the mysterious number (a time, two times, etc.). It was, besides, not merely the double designation of time in Dan 12:7 which first at the hour of his receiving it, but while it was yet unintelligible to the hearer, compelled Daniel, as Hitzig thinks, to put the further question. The whole answer in Dan 12:7 is obscure. It gives no measure for the "times," and thus no intelligible disclosure for the prophet regarding the duration of the end, and in the definition, that at the time of the deepest humiliaton of the people the end shall come, leaves wholly undefined when this shall actually take place. (Note: As to this latter circumstance L'Empereur remarks: Licet Daniel ex antecedentibus certo tempus finiendarum gravissimarum calamitatum cognoverit, tamen illum latuit, quo temporis articulo calamitas inceptura esset: quod ignorantiam quandam in tota prophetia peperit, cum a priori termino posterioris exacta scientia dependeret. Initium quidem variis circumstantiis definitum fuerat: sed quando circumstantiae futurae essent, antequam evenirent, ignorabatur.) Hence his desire for a more particular disclosure. The question, "what the end of these?" is very differently interpreted. Following the example of Grotius, Kliefoth takes אחרית in the sense of that which follows something which is either clearly seen from the connection or is expressly stated, and explains אלּה אחרית of that which follows or comes after this. But אלּה is not, with most interpreters, to be taken as identical with כּל־אלּה of Dan 12:7; for since "this latter phrase includes all the things prophesied of down to the consummation, then would this question refer to what must come after the absolute consummation of all things, which would be meaningless." Besides, the answer, Dan 12:11, Dan 12:12, which relates to the things of Antiochus, would not harmonize with such a question. Much more are we, with Auberlen (p. 75f.), to understand אלּה of the present things and circumstances, things then in progress at the time of Daniel and the going forth of the prophecy. In support of this interpretation Auberlen adds, "The angel with heavenly eye sees into the far distant end of all; the prophet, with human sympathies, regards the more immediate future of his people." But however correct the remark, that אלּה is not identical with כּל־אלּה, this not identical with all this, there is no warrant for the conclusion drawn from it, that אלּה designates the present things and circumstances existing under Antiochus at the time of Daniel. אלּה must, by virtue of the connection in Dan 12:7, Dan 12:8, be understood of the same things and circumstances, and a distinction between the two is established only by כּל. If we consider this distinction, then the question, What is the last of these things? contains not the meaningless thought, that yet something must follow after the absolute consummation, but the altogether reasonable thought, Which shall be the last of the פּלאות prophesied of? Thus Daniel could ask in the hope of receiving an answer from which he might learn the end of all these פּלאות more distinctly than from the answer given by the angel in Dan 12:7. But as this reference of אלּה to the present things and circumstances is excluded by the connection, so also is the signification attributed to אחרית, of that which follows something, verbally inadmissible; see under Dan 8:19. Most other interpreters have taken אחרית as synonymous with קץ, which Hvernick seeks to establish by a reference to Dan 8:19, Dan 8:23, and Deu 11:12. But none of these passage establishes this identity. קץ is always thus distinguished from אחרית, that it denotes a matter after its conclusion, while אחרית denotes the last or the uttermost of the matter. A distinction which, it is true, may in many cases become irrelevant. For if this distinction is not noticed here, we would be under the necessity, in order to maintain that the two questions in Dan 12:6, Dan 12:8 are not altogether identical, of giving to מה the meaning qualis (Maurer), of what nature (Hofmann, v. Lengerke, and others); a meaning which it has not, and which does not accord with the literal idea of אחרית. "Not how? but what? is the question; מה is not the predicate, but the subject, the thing inquired about." Thus Hitzig, who is altogether correct in thus stating the question: "What, i.e., which even its the uttermost, the last of the פּלאות, which stands before the end?"
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
understood not--Daniel "understood" the main features of the vision as to Antiochus (Dan 10:1, Dan 10:14), but not as to the times. Pe1 1:10-12 refers mainly to Daniel: for it is he who foretells "the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow"; it is he who prophesies "not unto himself, but unto us"; it is he who "searched what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ in him did signify."
John Gill Bible Commentary
And I heard, but understood not,.... Daniel heard what Christ said, in answer to the angel, but he did not understand the meaning of it, which he ingenuously confesses; he did not understand what was meant by "time", and "times", and "half a time"; what kind of time this was, and when and how it would end, and which he was very desirous of knowing: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? he applied not to the angel that put the above question, but to the man clothed with linen; to Christ, whom he perceived to be a divine Person, a Person of dominion, power, and authority, superior to angels, and his Lord and God; and who only could resolve the question he puts, which is somewhat different from that of the angel's, Dan 12:6, that respects the length of time, to the accomplishment of these things; this the quality at the end of them, what kind of end they should have; or what the signs, symptoms, and evidences of the end of them, by which the true end of them might be known. Mr. Mede renders it, "what are these latter times?" perhaps it might be rendered better, "what is the last of these things?" (o) what is the last thing that will be done, that so it may be known when all is over? (o) "quid erit novissimum horum?" Munster; "postremum horum?" Calvin.
Tyndale Open Study Notes
12:8-10 God withheld exactly how and when all this would finally end. Daniel would not see the end (12:13); his job was to finish out his life in faith. • purified, cleansed, and refined: God would use violent and terrifying times to improve the moral and religious character of his people (cp. 11:35). • Being wise includes having insight into God’s ways and walking accordingly. The wicked will not understand or change their wickedness even if the vision is explained to them.
Daniel 12:8
The End Times
7And the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by Him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, and times, and half a time. When the power of the holy people has finally been shattered, all these things will be completed.”8I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will be the outcome of these things?”
- Scripture
- Sermons
- Commentary
- Adam Clarke
- Keil-Delitzsch
- Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
- John Gill
- Tyndale
Adam Clarke Bible Commentary
I heard, but I understand not - Could not comprehend what the time, times, and half time should refer to. These make three years and a half of prophetic times answering to one thousand two hundred and sixty years.
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary
Daniel heard his answer, but he understood it not. To שׁמעתּי, as to אבין לא, the object is wanting, because it can easily be supplied from the connection, namely, the meaning of the answer of the man clothed in linen. Grotius has incorrectly supplied quid futurum esset from the following question, in which he has also incorrectly rendered אלּה אחרית by post illiu triennii et temporis semestris spatium. Hvernick has also defined the object too narrowly, for he has referred the non-understanding merely to the mysterious number (a time, two times, etc.). It was, besides, not merely the double designation of time in Dan 12:7 which first at the hour of his receiving it, but while it was yet unintelligible to the hearer, compelled Daniel, as Hitzig thinks, to put the further question. The whole answer in Dan 12:7 is obscure. It gives no measure for the "times," and thus no intelligible disclosure for the prophet regarding the duration of the end, and in the definition, that at the time of the deepest humiliaton of the people the end shall come, leaves wholly undefined when this shall actually take place. (Note: As to this latter circumstance L'Empereur remarks: Licet Daniel ex antecedentibus certo tempus finiendarum gravissimarum calamitatum cognoverit, tamen illum latuit, quo temporis articulo calamitas inceptura esset: quod ignorantiam quandam in tota prophetia peperit, cum a priori termino posterioris exacta scientia dependeret. Initium quidem variis circumstantiis definitum fuerat: sed quando circumstantiae futurae essent, antequam evenirent, ignorabatur.) Hence his desire for a more particular disclosure. The question, "what the end of these?" is very differently interpreted. Following the example of Grotius, Kliefoth takes אחרית in the sense of that which follows something which is either clearly seen from the connection or is expressly stated, and explains אלּה אחרית of that which follows or comes after this. But אלּה is not, with most interpreters, to be taken as identical with כּל־אלּה of Dan 12:7; for since "this latter phrase includes all the things prophesied of down to the consummation, then would this question refer to what must come after the absolute consummation of all things, which would be meaningless." Besides, the answer, Dan 12:11, Dan 12:12, which relates to the things of Antiochus, would not harmonize with such a question. Much more are we, with Auberlen (p. 75f.), to understand אלּה of the present things and circumstances, things then in progress at the time of Daniel and the going forth of the prophecy. In support of this interpretation Auberlen adds, "The angel with heavenly eye sees into the far distant end of all; the prophet, with human sympathies, regards the more immediate future of his people." But however correct the remark, that אלּה is not identical with כּל־אלּה, this not identical with all this, there is no warrant for the conclusion drawn from it, that אלּה designates the present things and circumstances existing under Antiochus at the time of Daniel. אלּה must, by virtue of the connection in Dan 12:7, Dan 12:8, be understood of the same things and circumstances, and a distinction between the two is established only by כּל. If we consider this distinction, then the question, What is the last of these things? contains not the meaningless thought, that yet something must follow after the absolute consummation, but the altogether reasonable thought, Which shall be the last of the פּלאות prophesied of? Thus Daniel could ask in the hope of receiving an answer from which he might learn the end of all these פּלאות more distinctly than from the answer given by the angel in Dan 12:7. But as this reference of אלּה to the present things and circumstances is excluded by the connection, so also is the signification attributed to אחרית, of that which follows something, verbally inadmissible; see under Dan 8:19. Most other interpreters have taken אחרית as synonymous with קץ, which Hvernick seeks to establish by a reference to Dan 8:19, Dan 8:23, and Deu 11:12. But none of these passage establishes this identity. קץ is always thus distinguished from אחרית, that it denotes a matter after its conclusion, while אחרית denotes the last or the uttermost of the matter. A distinction which, it is true, may in many cases become irrelevant. For if this distinction is not noticed here, we would be under the necessity, in order to maintain that the two questions in Dan 12:6, Dan 12:8 are not altogether identical, of giving to מה the meaning qualis (Maurer), of what nature (Hofmann, v. Lengerke, and others); a meaning which it has not, and which does not accord with the literal idea of אחרית. "Not how? but what? is the question; מה is not the predicate, but the subject, the thing inquired about." Thus Hitzig, who is altogether correct in thus stating the question: "What, i.e., which even its the uttermost, the last of the פּלאות, which stands before the end?"
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
understood not--Daniel "understood" the main features of the vision as to Antiochus (Dan 10:1, Dan 10:14), but not as to the times. Pe1 1:10-12 refers mainly to Daniel: for it is he who foretells "the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow"; it is he who prophesies "not unto himself, but unto us"; it is he who "searched what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ in him did signify."
John Gill Bible Commentary
And I heard, but understood not,.... Daniel heard what Christ said, in answer to the angel, but he did not understand the meaning of it, which he ingenuously confesses; he did not understand what was meant by "time", and "times", and "half a time"; what kind of time this was, and when and how it would end, and which he was very desirous of knowing: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? he applied not to the angel that put the above question, but to the man clothed with linen; to Christ, whom he perceived to be a divine Person, a Person of dominion, power, and authority, superior to angels, and his Lord and God; and who only could resolve the question he puts, which is somewhat different from that of the angel's, Dan 12:6, that respects the length of time, to the accomplishment of these things; this the quality at the end of them, what kind of end they should have; or what the signs, symptoms, and evidences of the end of them, by which the true end of them might be known. Mr. Mede renders it, "what are these latter times?" perhaps it might be rendered better, "what is the last of these things?" (o) what is the last thing that will be done, that so it may be known when all is over? (o) "quid erit novissimum horum?" Munster; "postremum horum?" Calvin.
Tyndale Open Study Notes
12:8-10 God withheld exactly how and when all this would finally end. Daniel would not see the end (12:13); his job was to finish out his life in faith. • purified, cleansed, and refined: God would use violent and terrifying times to improve the moral and religious character of his people (cp. 11:35). • Being wise includes having insight into God’s ways and walking accordingly. The wicked will not understand or change their wickedness even if the vision is explained to them.