The thought, "great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy," etc., which is found in ver. 4 and in Neh. i. 5, has its roots in Deut. vii. 21 and 9, cf. Ex. xx. 6, xxxiv. 7, and in the form found in Neh. ix. 32, in Deut. x. 17; the expression (ver. 15), " Thou hast brought Thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand," has its origin in Deut. vii. 8, ix. 26, etc. But in those verses where single thoughts or words of this prayer so accord with Neh. ix. or Ezra ix. 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. vers. 5 and 8), compared with these: " our kings, our princes, our priests, and our fathers" (Neh. ix. 34, 32), and " our kings and our priests" (Ezra ix. 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 Stahelin (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 Dan. ix. depended on the most recent historical writings, than that Dan. ix. was always before the eyes of the author of Chron. — a supposition the probability of which is not manfest.
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, Dan. ix., are compared with the prayers in Ezra ix. and Neh. ix., we will not easily suppose it possible that Daniel depends on Ezra and Nehemiah. The prayer of Ezra ix. 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 a 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. ix. 6-37, is, after the manner of Ps. cv. and cvi., 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 Him 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 Dan. ix., on the contrary, by its contents and form, not only creates the impression u 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, u Hear the prayer of Thy servant and Ms supplication (ver. 17); O my God, incline Thine ear" (ver. 18).1
The prayer is divided into two parts. Vers. 4-14 contain the confession of sin and guilt; vers. 15-19 the supplication for mercy, and the restoration of the holy city and its sanctuary lying in ruins.
1 After the above remarks, Ewald's opinion, that this prayer is only an epitome of the prayer of Baruch (ch. i. 15-iii. 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 Dan. ix., 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
The confession of sin divides itself into two strophes. Vers. 4-10 state the transgression and the guilt, while vers. 11-14 refer to the punishment from God for this guilt. Ver. 3 forms the introduction. The words, M Then I directed my face to the Lord," are commonly understood, after ch. vi. 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 BwgO ^"W, the Lord of the whole world, the true God, not to nirv, 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." n?Sin and tfOIJnri = njnn, cf. 1 Kings viii. 38, 45, 49, 2 Chron. vi. 29, 35. ntan is prayer in general; D^rw? 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 vers. 15-19.
Yer. 4. Since the desolation of the holy land and the exile of the people wTas 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 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. i. 15- iii. 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. ix. 12 is derived from Bar. ii. 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 protege, but manifestly says nothing for the critic.
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 wj my God. If we wish our prayers to be heard, then God, to whom we pray, must become our God. To n^n? (/ made confession) M. Geier applies Augustine's beautiful remark on Ps. xxix.: " Confessio gemina est, aut peccati aut laudis. Quando nobis male est in tribulationibus, confiteamur peccata nostra; quando nobis bene est in exultatione justitice, conjiteamur 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. Deut. vii. 21), and in the second part to the faithfulness of God toward those that fear Him in fulfill in£ His promises (cf. Deut. vii. 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.
Ver. 5. God is righteous and faithful, but Israel is unrighteous and faithless. The confession of the great guilt of Israel in ver. 5 connects itself with the praise of God. This guilt Daniel confesses in the strongest words. NDn, to make a false step, designates sin as an erring from the right; TO? to be perverse, as unrighteousness; VBn, to do wrong, as a passionate rebellion against God. To these three words, which Solomon (1 Kings viii. 47) had already used as an exhaustive expression of a consciousness of sin and guilt, and the Psalmist (Ps. cvi. 6) had repeated as the confession of the people in exile, Daniel yet further adds the expression ^T19> we have rebelled against God, and "riD, are departed, fallen away from His commandments; this latter word being in the inf. absol., thereby denotes that the action is presented with emphasis.
Ver. 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. xliv. 17, cf. Neh. ix. 32, 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 ci the whole people of the land," not merely the common people, so that no one might regard himself as exempted. Compare *P£iT73, Neh. ix. 32. This expression, comprehending all, is omitted wnen the thought is repeated in ver. 8.
Ver. 7. Thus to God belonsreth righteousness, but to the sinf ul people only shame. HjJ^Jfn *|? does not mean: Thine was the righteous cause (Hitzig). The interpolation of the was is arbitrary, and nij'rc 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. &^3n n#3j shame which reflects itself in the countenance, not because of disgraceful circumstances, Ezra ix. 7 (Kranichfeld), but in the consciousness of well-deserved suffering. '"Hri Dis3 does not mean: at this time, to-day, now (Hav., v. Leng., and others); the interpretation of 3 in the sense of circa stands opposed to the definite »T}n. In the formula n:tn Dis3 the 3 has always the meaning of a comparison; also in Jer. xliv. 6, 22, 23, 1 Sam. xxii. 8, and everywhere the expression has this meaning: as it happened this day, as experience has now shown or shows. See under Deut. ii. 30. Here it relates merely to 'eh n^a «7 [to us shame, etc.), not also to the first part of the verse. The w is particularized by the words, " the men of Judah " (^X collectively, since the plur. D^K in this connection cannot be used; it occurs only three times in the O. T.), u and the inhabitants of Jerusalem." Both together are the citizens of the kingdom of Judah.?K"}^, the whole of the rest of Israel, the members of the kingdom of the ten tribes. To both of these the further definition relates: a those that are near, and those that are far off, etc." With '» "IPK ajVp* {because of their trespass which" etc.), cf. Lev. xxvi. 40.
Ver. 8. In this verse Daniel repeats the thoughts of ver. la 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.
Ver. 9. Compassion and forgiveness are with the Lord our God; and these we need, for we have rebelled against Him. This thought is expanded in vers. 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.
Ver. 12. In this verse the Kethiv VOI, 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. u Our judges " is an expression comprehending the chiefs of the people, kings and princes, as in Ps. ii. 10, cxlviii. 11.
Ver. 13. The thought of ver. 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. 1")K before nyvrza is not, with. Kranichf eld, to be explained from the construction of the passive 3^ri3 with the accusative, for it does not depend on 3tf)3j but serves to introduce the subject absolutely stated: as concerns all this evil, thus it has come upon us, as Ezek. xliv. 3, Jer. xlv. 4; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. § 277d. Regarding '* 'JSTIK OTll (we entreated the face, etc.), cf. Zech. vii. 2, viii. 21.?jnDX2 fclJyrp is not to be translated: to comprehend Thy faithfulness (Hitzig), for the construction with 2 does not agree with this, and then HDN 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.
Ver. 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. i. 12, xxxi. 28, xliv. 27. P*TO with?V following, righteous on the ground of all His works — a testimony from experience; cf. Neh. ix. 33 (Kranichfeld).
Vers. 15-19. After this, confession, there now follows the prayer for the turning away of the wrath (vers. 15 and 16) of God, and for the manifestation of His grace toward His suppliant people (vers. 17-19).
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. lxiii. 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, Ex. xxxii. 11 ff., Num. xiv. 13. Jeremiah, and also Isaiah, in like manner ground their prayer for mercy to Israel on the name of the Lord, Jer. xxxii. 20 f., Isa. lxiii. 11-15. Nehemiah (ch. i. 10 and ix. 10) in this agrees with Jeremiah and Daniel, nw Dis3, in the same connection in Jer. 1., 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. ver. 5.
Ver. 16. The prayer for the turning away of God's anger follows, and is introduced by a repetition of the address, u O Lord," and by a brief condensation of the motive developed in ver. 15, by the words *pfl^T?'??1- T\)\>1)i does not mean in a gracious manner, and P'lV is not grace, but proofs of the divine righteousness. The meaning of the words ^flpnttvaa 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, flip*]? 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 T^P*]?"*5?, but also by the plea that Jerusalem is the city of God (TJiy city). Compare Ps. lxxix. 4 and xliv. 14.
Ver. 17. In this verse the prayer is repeated in more earnest words. With TjJS "wn {cause Thy face to shine) compare Ps. lxxx. 4 and Num. vi. 25. *j'"W fjW, because Thou art Lord, is stionger than 13#»p. As the Lord kot iffofflVy God cannot let the desolation of His sanctuary continue without doing injury to His honour; cf. Isa. xlviii. 11.
Yer. 18. 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. Ps. xlviii. 2 ff., and regarding this form of expression, the remarks under Deut. xxviii. 10.
The expression: and laying down my supplication before God (cf. ver. 20), is derived from the custom of falling down before God in prayer, and is often met with in Jeremiah; cf. ch. xxxviii. 26, xlii. 9, and xxxvi. 7. The Kethiv nni?3 (ver. 18, open) is to be preferred to the Keri nj?3, because it is conformed to the imperative forms in ver. 19, and is in accordance with the energy of the prayer. This energy shows itself in the number of words used in vers. 18 and 19. Chr. B. Mich., under ver. 19, has well remarked: " Fervorem precantis cognoscere licet cum ex anaphora, seu terna et mysterii plena nominis Adonai repetitione, turn ex eo, quod singulis hisce imperativis He paragogicum ad intensiorem adfectum significandum superaddidif, turn ex conger ie ilia verlorum: Audi, Condona, Attende, reliqua."
Vers. 20-23. The granting of the prayer. — While Daniel was yet engaged in prayer (p in?V, on account of the holy mountain, i.e. for it, see under ver. 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. 'J &*$*}, the man Gabriel, refers, by the use of the definite article, back to ch. viii. 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 ^nnz («< the first, ver. 21) see under ch. viii. 1. The differently interpreted words, ^3 *jJfD, belong, from their position, to the relative clause, or specially to WN"1 (/ had seen), not to Vti, since no ground can be perceived for the placing of the adverbial idea before the verb. The translation of *|JT3 ^y? by rd^eo <fiepojievo? (LXX.), Trero/jLevos (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 (Iliiv., v. Leng., Hitz.) maintain it, is without any foundation in the words, and was probably derived by the old translators from a confounding of W with TO. *\V* means onlv wearied, to become tired, to weary oneself by exertion, in certain places, as eg. Jer. ii. 24, by a long journey or course, but nowhere to run or to flee. *\V\ 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 dwellingplace 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 ch. viii. 17 f., 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. vK W, not he touched me, but he reached me, came forward to me. For this meaning of VH cf. 2 Sam. v. 8, Jonah hi. 6. " About the time of the evening sacrifice." nPlJD, properly the meat-offering, here comprehending the sacrifice, as is often its meaning in the later Scriptures; cf. Mai. i. 13, ii. 13, iii. 4. The time of the evening oblation was the time of evening prayer for the congregation.
Ver. 22. |2Jj he gave understanding, insight, as ch. viii. 16. The words point back to ver. 2. First of all Gabriel speaks of the design and the circumstances of his coming. ^tf^J '"W, now, viz. in consequence of thy morning prayer, / am come, sc. from the throne of God. n^l ^afefnp, to instruct thee in knowledge. This is more particularly declared in ver. 23. At the beginning of Daniel's prayer a word, i.e. a communication from God, came forth, which he brought, lyj, 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, vers. 24-27. The sentence, " for thou art a man greatly beloved" (niTi£n__nrPiDn t^K7 ch. x. 11,- 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. n**!®5] stands not for revelation, but is the vision, the appearance of the angel by whom the word of God was communicated to the prophet. fi^HD 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.
Vers. 24-27. 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.1
1 The first of these views is in our time fully and at length defended by Havernick (Comm.), Hengstenberg (Christol. iii. 1, p. 19 ff., 2d ed.), and Auberlen (Der Proph. Daniel, u.s.w., p. 103 ff., 3d ed.), and is adopted also by the Catholic theologian Laur. Reinke {die messian. Weissag. bei den gr. u. hi. Proph. des A. T. iv. 1, p. 206 ff.), and by Dr. Pusey of England. The second viewpresents itself in the Alexandrine translation of the prophecy, more distinctly in Julius Hilarianus (about a.d. 400) (Chronologia s. Melius 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 (JDie 70 Wochen u. die 63 Jahrwochen des Proph. Daniel,
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, ver. 24, with a general exhibition of the divine counsel regarding the city and the people of God; and then there follows, vers. 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 vers. 25-27 divided into three periods, and are closely defined according to their duration and their contents.
Gbtt. 1839, with which compare the Retractation in the Gottinger gel. Anzeigen, 1846, p, 113 ff.), who are followed by Liicke, Hilgenfeld, Kranichfeld, and others. This view has also been defended by Hofmann {die 70 Jahre des Jer. u. die 70 Jahrwochen des Daniel, Numb. 1836, and Weissag. u. Erfiillung, as also in the Schriftbew.), Delitzsch (Art. Daniel in Herz.'s Realenc. Bd. iii.), and Ziindel (in the Kritischen Unterss.), but with this essential modification, that Hofmann and Delitzsch have united an eschatological reference with the primary historical reference of vers. 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 Hippolytus and Apollinaris of Laodicea, who, having regard to the prophecy of Antichrist, ch. vii. 25, refer the statement of ver. 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 D*JDB>, i-e. the xettpol of Daniel (ch. ix. 24 ff.) mea- sured 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 cecumenicity. The 70 is again divided into three periods: into 7 (till Christ), 62 (till the apostasy of Antichrist), and one JFQEJ, the last world- enrol, divided into 2 x 3£
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 Danieb" in the Tub. theol. Quart. 1868, p. 535 ff.; for the period of the middle ages and of more modern times, Abr. Calovii E%<toi<tis theologica de septuaginta septimanis Danielis, in the Biblia illustr. ad Dan. ix., and Havernick's History of the Interpretation in his Comm. p. 386 ff.; and for the most recent period, R. Baxmann on the Book of Daniel in the Theolog. Studien u. Kritiken, 1863, iii. p. 497 ff.
Ver. 24. Seventy weeks are determined, — ^V?^ from V^^, properly, the time divided into sevenths, signifies commonly the period of seven days, the week, as Gen. xxix. 27 f. (in the sing.), and Dan. x. 2, 3, in the plur., which is usually in the form T\Sy2V; cf. Deut. xvi. 9 f., Ex. xxxiv. 22, etc. In the form D^jy 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. xxxii. 15 f., 1 Kings viii. 63; cf. Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 698. What period of time is here denoted by B\y3E> can be determined neither from the word itself and its form, nor from the comparison with &W CV??^ ch. x. 2, 3, since tPDJ is in these verses added to B^B*, 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 vers. 25 and 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 &V2W to the seventy years of Jeremiah, ver. 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 (ver. 17 f.), and as yet nowhere are there symptoms of any change. Then, in answer to his supplication, Daniel received the answer, seventy E*V??* must pass before the full working out of the deliverance. u 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, ver. 27, particularly appears to be identical in actual time with these three and a half times (years), ch. vii. 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 V^^, 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 VW or *WD, 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 yearweeks (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 year: 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21 (Hgstb., Kran., and others). But since these periods of seven years, as Hen£stenber£ himself confesses, are not called in the law D^JDBJ or TO3^, therefore, from the repeated designation of the seventh year as that of the great Sabbath merely (Lev. xxv. 2, 4, 5, xxvi. 34, 35, 43; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 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. xxv. 8 ff.). These, as well as the Sabbath-years, might be called B^yn^. Thus the idea of year-weeks has no exegetical foundation. Hofmann and Kliefoth are in the right when they remark that &V2W 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 air. Xey. ^rin means in Chald. to cut off, to cut up into pieces, then to decide, to determine closely, e.g. Targ. Esth. iv. 5; cf. Buxtorf, Lex. talm., and Levy, Chald. Worterb. s.v. The meaning for ^na, abbreviate sunt ( Vulg. for ifco\o/3a)67]crav, Matt. xxiv. 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. ^n3 we need neither the supposition that a definite noun, as ny (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 &yiW &yy& 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 bv 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 (Havernick, v. Lengerke, Kliefoth). But Jerusalem, even when in ruins, is called the holy city by virtue of its past and its future history; cf. ver. 20. This predicate does not point, as Wieseler and Hitzig have rightly acknowledged, to a time when the temple stood, as Stahelin 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? before the infinitive does not mean till or during, yet it is also not correct to say that b 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?, 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 tWWj) P"IV (the fourth clause); but it rests on a false construction of the individual members especially of the first two passages. Rather we have two tliive-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 Dnn.
In the first and second statements the reading is doubtful. Instead of EnnS (Keth.), to seal, the Keri has cnr6? to end (K. D^n, to complete). In tfci a double reading is combined, for the vowel-points do not belong to the Keth., which rather has *&>?, since N?3 is nowhere found in the PieL but to the Keri, for the
Masoretes hold &6a to be of the same meaning as rfo, to be ended. Thus the ancient translators interpreted it: LXX., ra<; aSc/clas cnravlcrai; Theod., avvTeXeaOrjvai,, al. avvrekeaau; Aquil., avvreXecrcu Tyv aOealav; Vulg., ut consummetur prcevaricatio. Bertholdt, Eosenmiiller, Gesenius, Winer, Ewald, Hitzig, Maurer, have followed them in supposing a passing of n into K. But since •"v3 occurs frequently in Daniel, always with n (cf. ver. 27, ch. ch. xi. 36, xii. 7), and generally the roots with n take the form of those with K much seldomer than the reverse, on these grounds the reading Nv2? thus deserves the preference, apart from the consideration that almost all the Keris are valueless emendations of the Masoretes; and the parallel DJ"ir6, decidedly erroneous, is obviously derived from ch. viii. 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 men; to pardon or forgive sin, on the other hand, 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. N?3 means to hold back, to hold in, to arrest, to hold in prison, to shut in or shut up; hence N?3, 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. Zech. v. 8 and Rev. xx. 3.
In the second passage, " to seal up sin" the rriNttn are the several proofs of the transgression. Dnn? to seal, does not denote the finishing or ending of the sins (Theodrt. and others). Like the Arab. J^-, it may occur in the sense of a 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 Ex. xxviii. 12. The figure of the sealing stands here in connection with the shutting up in prison. Cf. ch. vi. 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 xxxvii. 7, and the stars that they cannot give light, Job ix. 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, u 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. xx. 3.
The third statement is, " to make reconciliation for iniquity" ">S3 is terminus techn., to pardon, to blot out by means of a sinoffering, 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 avva- Opoia/Aos, 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, JJPBn, 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 avvaO ]poio /jlos it is objected, that the words "to shut up" and u 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 u to bring in everlasting righteousness" After the entire setting aside of sin must come a righteousness which shall never cease. That pl.V does not mean " happiness of the olden time " (Bertholdt, Rosch), 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. lxxxv. 11-14; Isa. li. 5-8), rises as a sun upon them that fear God (Mai. iii. 20), and is here called everlasting, corresponding to the eternity of the Messianic kingdom (cf. ii. 44, vii. 18, 27). P^ comprehends the internal and the external righteousness of the new heavens and the new earth, 2 Pet. iii. 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 Erin, 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: 1 Kings xxi. 8, and Jer. xxxii. 10, 11, 44 (Havernick, 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 K^jl |itn is also disputed. Berth., Ros., Bleek, Ewald, Hitzig, Wieseler, refer it to the prophecy of the seventy weeks (Jer. xxv. and xxix.), mentioned in ver. 2. But against this view stands the fact of the absence of the article; for if by ptn 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 tfQj 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. Matt. xi. 13, Luke xxii. 37, John i. 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 (/carapyrjOi]- aerai, 1 Cor. xiii. 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. Acts. iii. 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 (Ezra iii. 2 ff.), 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 Mace. iv. 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. Ex. xxx. 22 ff., xl. 1-16; Lev. viii. 10 ff. There is no mention of anointing even at the consecration of Solomon's temple, 1 Kings viii. and 2 Chron. v.-vii., 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 burntoffering of the new temple (Ezek. xliii. 20, 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 ">E3 of sins, in the place of wdiich righteousness is restored, accordingly the anointing will also stand in relation to this sacred action of the 133, 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 1B3 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 n^» is to be explained after the 1B3, then by u 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 D*KHpT W*}p are not used of a single holy vessel which alone could be thought of. Not only the altar of burnt-offering is so named, Ex. xxix. 37, xl. 10, but also the altar of incense, Ex. xxx. 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, Ex. xxx. 29, also the holy material for incense, Ex. xxx. 36, the shew-bread, Lev. xxiv. 9, the meat-offering, Lev. ii. 3, 10, vi. 10, x. 12, the flesh of the sin-offering and of the expiatory sacrifice, Lev. vi. 10, 18, x. 17, vii. 1, 6, xiv. 13, Num. xviii. 9, and that which was sanctified to the Lord, Lev. xxvii. 28. Finally, the whole surroundings of the hill on which the temple stood, Ezek. xliii. 12, and the whole new temple, Ezek. xlv. 3, is named a " most holy; " and according to 1 Chron. xxiii. 13, Aaron and his sons are sanctified as D^BHp vh'p.
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 u 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 or equipment with the Spirit of God. When Saul was anointed by Samuel, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, 1 Sam. x. 9 ff. The same thing was denoted by the anointing of David, 1 Sam. xvi. 13 f. 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., teal evtypdvai ayiov aylayv, and of Theod., tov yjpicrai ayiov aylcov, 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, u till the Messiah, the Most Holy."1 But this interpretation is set aside by the absence of the article. Without taking into view 1 Chron. xxiii. 13, the words E*Kn^ vhp 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, u that he should sanctify a BWP W"}py anoint him (Aaron) to be a most holy thing." Following Havernick, therefore, Hengstenberg (2d 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 nirp? VHp, nor in the declaration regarding Jehovah, " He shall be Vhpu?" Isa. viii. 14, cf. Ezek. xi. 16, is there any ground for the conclusion that the Messiah could simply be designated as a most holy thing. In Luke i. 35 Christ is spoken of by the simple neuter ayiov, but not by the word
1 Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. viii. 2, p. 387, ed. Colon., opposes the opinion that the translation of Aquila, x.a.1 d'hu^ai yjytua /xivov qyiota/Liivcov, may be understood of the Jewish high priest. Cf. Raymundis Martini, Pugio jidei, p. 285, ed. Carpz., and Edzard ad Abodah Sara, p. 246 sq., for evidences of the diffusion of this interpretation among the Jews.
u object; n and the passages in which Jesus is described as o #7*05, Acts iii. 14, iv. 30, 1 John ii. 20, Rev. iii. 7, prove nothing whatever as to this use of BHp 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 D^EHp BHp " 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 ^KHjpJ Bhp. 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 (Ezek. xlv. 3) DT"Ji?T ^fii 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 conspicuousness in which it is here represented till the time of the end, when the perfected church shall possess the conspicuousness of a visible sanctuary. But, on the contrary, Kliefoth (p. 307) has with perfect justice replied, that u the most holy, and the temple, so far as it has a most holy place, is not the place of the congregation where it comes to God and is with God, but, on the contrary, is the place where God is present for the congregation, and manifests Himself to it." The words under examination say nothing of the people and the congregation which God will gather around the place of His gracious presence, but of the objective place where God seeks to dwell among His people and reveal Himself to them. The anointing is the act by which the place is consecrated to be a holy place of the gracious presence and revelation of God. If thus the anointing of a most holy is here announced, then by it there is given the promise, not of the renewal of the place already existing from of old, but of the appointment of a new place of God's gracious presence among His people, a new sanctuary. This, as Kliefoth further justly observes, apart from the connection, might refer to the work of redemption perfected by the coming of Christ, which has indeed created in
Him t new place of the gracious presence of God, a new way of God's dwelling among men. But since this statement is closely connected with those going before, and they speak of the perfect setting aside of transgression and of sin, of the appearance of everlasting righteousness, and the shutting up of all prophecy by its fulfilment, thus of things for which the "work of redemption completed by the first appearance of Christ has, it is true, laid the everlasting foundation, but which first reach their completion in the full carrying through of this work of salvation in the return of the Lord by the final judgment, and the establishment of the kingdom of glory under the new heavens and on the new earth, — since this is the case, we must refer this sixth statement also to that time of the consummation, and understand it of the establishment of the new holy of holies which was shown to the holy seer on Patmos as 7) a/crjvr) rov Oeov fiera t£)v av6pa)7ra)v, in which God will dwell with them, and they shall become His people, and He shall be their God with them (Rev. xxi. 1-3). In this holy city there will be no temple, for the Lord, the Almighty God, and the Lamb is its temple, and the glory of God will lighten it (vers. 22, 23). Into it nothing shall enter that defileth or worketh abomination (ver. 27), for sin shall then be closed and sealed up; there shall righteousness dwell (2 Pet. iii. 13), and prophecy shall cease (1 Cor. xiii. 8) by its fulfilment.
From the contents of these six statements it thus appears that the termination of the seventy weeks coincides with the end of the present course of the world. But ver. 24 says nothing as to the commencement of this period. Nor can this be determined, as many interpreters think, from the relation in which the revelation of the seventy weeks stands to the prayer of Daniel, occasioned by Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem. If Daniel, in the sixty-ninth year of the desolation, made supplication to the Lord for mercy in behalf of Jerusalem and Israel, and on the occasion of this prayer God caused Gabriel to lay open to him that seventy weeks were determined upon the city and the people of God, it by no means thence follows that seventy year-weeks must be substituted in place of the seventy years prophesied of, that both commence simultaneously, and thus that the seventy years of the Exile shall be prolonged to a period of oppression for Israel lasting for seventy year-weeks. Such a supposition is warranted neither by the contents of the prophecy of Jeremiah, nor by the message of the angel to Daniel. Jeremiah, it is true, prophesied not merely of seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem and Judah, but also of the judgment upon Babylon after the expiry of these years, and the collecting together and bringing back of Israel from all the countries whither they were scattered into their own land (ch. xxv. 10-12, xxix. 10-14); but in his supplication Daniel had in his eye only the desolation of the land of Jeremiah's prophecy, and prayed for the turning away of the divine anger from Jerusalem, and for the pardon of Israel's sins. Now if the words of the angel had been, " not seventy years, but seventy year-weeks, are determined over Israel," this would have been no answer to Daniel's supplication, at least no comforting answer, to bring which to him the angel was commanded to go forth in haste. Then the angel announces in ver. 24 much more than the return of Israel from the Exile to their own land. But this is decided by the contents of the following verses, in which the space of seventy weeks is divided into three periods, and at the same time the commencement of the period is determined in a way which excludes its connection with the beginning of the seventy years of the Exile.
Ver. 25. The detailed statement of the 70 P"^ in 7 + 62 + 1 (vers. 25, 26, 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 ver. 24. This explication is introduced by the words: a 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 ver. 24, since ^SKTrt. (and thou wilt understand) stands in distinct relation to n:*1^ v3B>r6 (to give thee skill and understanding, ver. 22). The two parts of ver. 25 contain the statements regarding the first two portions of the whole period, the seven and the sixty-two &V2Wy and are rightly separated by the Masoretes by placing the Atnach under W^W. 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," "91 "?^ (from the going forth of the commandment) formally corresponds, indeed, to "H"] K£ (the commandment came forth), ver. 23, emphatically expressing a decision on the part of God, but the two expressions are not actually to be identified; for the commandment, ver. 23, is the divine revelation communicated in vers. 24-27, which the angel brings to Daniel; the commandment in ver. 25 is, on the contrary, more fully determined by the words, to restore and to build, etc. 2Wp is not to be joined adverbially with 0^371 so as to form one idea: to build again; for, though 310 may be thus used adverbially in Kal, yet the Hiphil ^rn is not so used. 3^H means to lead back, to bring again, then to restore; cf. for this last meaning Isa. i. 2(5, Pa. lxxx. 1, 8, 20. The object to ^V''7r follows immediately after the word ni3371j namely, Jerusalem* The supplementing of DJJ, people (Wieseler, Kliefoth, and others), is arbitrary, and is not warranted by Jer. xxix. 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 Hfaap is added, as in the second half of the verse to 3M5&J, 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. HJ3 as distinguished from ypn 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 u commandment " is meant neither the word of God which is mentioned in ver. 23, nor that mentioned in ver. 2. It is not that which is mentioned in ver. 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 ver. 2, the prophecies given in Jer. xxv. and xxix., 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 ver. 2 expressly affirms. The prophecy of the seventy years' duration of the desolation of Jerusalem (ver. 2) cannot possibly be regarded as the commandment (in ver. 25) to restore Jerusalem (Kliefoth). As little can we, with Hitzig, think on Jer. xxx. and xxxi., 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 (ch. xl.-lxvi.). With as much justice may we think on Isa. xl. ff. as on Jer. xxx. and xxxi.; 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 T33 IW» 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, GEcolampadius, Kleinert, Nagelsbach, Ebrard, and Kliefoth, we can think of nothing more appropriate than the edict of Cyrus (Ezra i.) which permitted the Jews to return, from which the termination of the Exile is constantly dated, and from the time of which this return, together with the building up of Jerusalem, began, and was carried forward, though slowly (Klief.). The prophecy of Isa. xliv. 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 Ezra vi. 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 (ch. xlv. 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 Hi:api 2Ntffl 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 3*($JJ of the completed restoration,
Hengstenberg remarks that " in the announcement the temple is named along with the city in ver. 26 as well as in ver. 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. vers. 17, 20) with the greatest solicitude." But the validity of this conclusion is not obvious.
In ver. 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 ver. 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 nonmention of the temple in ver. 24, as in ver. 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 Hinnn 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 "»yj NVb 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 TM rPBfo "^ show the termination of the seven weeks. The words T53 iwb are not to be translated an anointed prince (Bertholdt); for IWD cannot be an adjective to T3J, because in Hebr. the adjective is always placed after the substantive, with few exceptions, which are inapplicable to this case; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. § 2936. Nor can ITO» be a participle: till a prince is anointed (Steudel), but it is a noun, and TM 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, wTere anointed. Since, then, 1W£ is brought forward as the principal designation, we may not by TJJ think of a priest-prince, but only of a prince of the people, nor by WD of a king, but only of a priest; and by TJJ rrob 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 ver. 26, where TJJ 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 in. (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. xlv. 1; for, supposing it to be the case that Daniel had reason from Isa. xlv. 1 to call Cyrus fWb — which is to be doubted, since from this epithet to^E, His (Jehovah's) anointed, which Isaiah uses of Cyrus, it does not follow as of course that he should be named fWO — the title ought at least to have been JWD TJJ, the JWD being an adjective following T^J, because there is no evident reason for the express precedence of the adjectival definition.1
The O. T. knows only One who shall be both priest and king in one person (Ps. ex. 4; Zech. vi. 13), Christ, the Messias (John iv.
1 " It is an unjustifiable assertion that every heathen king may also bear the name rfty'lD, anointed. In all the books of the 0. T. there is but a single heathen king, Cyrus, who is named rVfc^D (Isa. xlv. 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.
25), whom, with Havernick, Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Auberlen, Delitzsch, and Kliefoth, we here understand by the T3J IWD? because in Him the two essential requisites of the theocratic king, the anointing and the appointment to be the TJJ of the people of God (cf. 1 Sam. x. 1, xiii. 14, xvi. 13, xxv. 30; 2 Sam. ii. 4, v. 2 f.), 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. lxi. 1-3 and lv. 4, as the person by whom " the sure mercies of David " (Isa. lv. 3) shall be realized by the covenant people.1 The absence of the definite article is not to be explained by saying that JWB, somewhat as nDV, Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12, is used /car e£. as a nomen propr* of the Messiah, the Anointed; for in this case TJJ ought to have the article, since in Hebrew we cannot say Tjpo TO, but only ipsn nn. Much rather the article is wanting, because it shall not be said: till the Messiah, ivho 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 ver. 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 OW^ are year-weeks, periods of seven years, is irreconcilable. Therefore most interpreters who understand Christ as the TJJ JWB, have referred the following number, and sixty-two vjeeJcs, to the first clause — u from the going forth of the command.... seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." Thus Theodotion: ©&>? Xpiarov riyov^ievov eftBo/JLaSes kirra teal e/3So/xa£e? i^rjKovraSvo; and the Vulgate: usque ad Christum ducem hebdomades septem et hebdomades sexaginta duo? erunt. The text of the LXX. is here, how-
1 In the TJ3 rVE>D 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 rP$D, and as King of the heathen TJ3, for in the frequent use of the word TJ3 of the king of Israel in the books of Samuel it is much more natural to regard it as the reference to David.
ever, completely in error, and is useless. This interpretation, in recent times, Havernick, 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 OWt? 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, Havernick's assertion, that the dividing of the sixty-nine DsyDK> 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 u 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 u sixty-two weeks " consists in that which the words immediately connected therewith affirm, 3MWJ 'U1 HJT13331, 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.1 By the remark,
1 Hengstenberg, as Kliefoth has remarked, has taken as the first terminus ad quern the words " to restore and to build Jerusalem," till the rebuildiog 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 quern; and, finally, he assigns the seven weeks to the first terminus ad quern,
(i 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 ver. 26 we must then read, u after sixty-nine weeks," and not, as we find it in the text, u after sixty-two weeks." The substitution, again [in ver. 26], of only this second designation of time (sixty-two weeks) is also intelligible only if the sixty-two weeks in ver. 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 weeks stands thus opposed to the context, and is maintained merely on the supposition that the D^J^ 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, a 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 i, 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 quern 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- 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.
two weeks is spoken of in ver. 26 in the words "H^tt flW, Messiah shall be cat off. The words " and sixty-two D\in# " may be taken grammatically either as the absolute nominative or as the accusative of duration. The words •"iron:! 2Wn refer undoubtedly to the expression niJITj ^B>n? (to restore and to build), according to which 2VPR is not to be joined adverbially to WJJ3?) (according to Havernick, Hofmann, and Wieseler), but is to be rendered intransitively, corresponding to Mfrl: shall be restored, asEzek. xvi. 55, 1 Kings xiii. 6, 2 Kings v. 10, 14, Ex. iv. 7. The subject to both verbs is not (Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, v. Leng., Hgstb.) 3lrn, 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 Zech. viii. 5 3im is construed as masculine; and the opinion that it is generis fcem. rests only on this passage before us. There is no substantial reason for interpreting (with Klief.) the verbs impersonally.
The words fVUJl lirn are difficult, and many interpretations have been given of them. There can be no doubt that they contain together one definition, and that a&rri is to be taken as the adverbial accusative. 3&rn means the street and the wide space before the gate of the temple. Accordingly, to J*1"1? have been given the meanings ditch, wall, aqueduct (Ges., Steud., Ziind., 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. et? 7r\a,To$ teal firj/cos, of Theod. TrXareca koX retype, and of the Vulg. platea et muri. Y~).n means to cut, then to decide, to determine, to conclude irrevocably; hence P"1?? decision, judgment, Joel iv. 14. This meaning is maintained by Hav., Hgstb., v. Leng., Wies., and Kran., and fTirn is interpreted as a participle: " and it is determined." This shall form a contrast to the words, u 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 rnrn Dim plainly go together, as the old translators have interpreted them. Now 3irn does not mean properly street, but a wide, free space, as Ezra x. 9, the open place before the temple, and is applied to streets only in so far as they are free, unoccupied spaces in cities, p"1?, that which is cut off, limited, forms a contrast to this, not, however, as that we may interpret the words, as
ITofm. 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 a wide space, and yet also limited," according to which we have the meaning, a 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, DWn pta^ point to the circumstances under which the building proceeds: in the difficulty, the oppression of the times. The book of Nehemiah, iii. 33, iv. 1 ff., vi. 1 ff., ix. 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. li. 20, of the spiritual building of the City of God.
Ver. 26. After the threescore and two weeks, i.e. in the seventieth &2W9 shall the Messiah be cut off. — From the *in.K (after) it does not with certainty follow that the u 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 u cutting off" can only be found from the whole contents of vers. 26 and 27. fi"p}, from rns, 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. Ps. xxxvii. 9, Prov. ii. 22 — without particularly designating the manner in which this is done. From 1113* 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 ver. 25, the Maschiach of ver. 26, and the Nagid of ver. 266, are three different persons; 2. that all the three expressions denote one and the same person; and 3. that the Maschiach Nagid of ver. 25 and the Maschiach of ver. 2Q are the same person, and that the Nagid of ver. 266 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 ver. 25 in order that His calling and His dignity ("T?)? as well as His power and strength (1^5), might be designated; in ver. 26a, n*t?D, the anointed, where mention is made of His sufferings and His rejection; in ver. 26b, TEj 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 N2H (that is to come) follows TMj whereby the prince is represented as first coming, as well as by the circumstance that N2H TJ3, 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 (ch. vii. 24, 25) in the last time. But if in ver. 26 the Nagid is different from the Maschiach, then both also appear to be different from the Maschiach Nagid of ver. 25. The circumstance that in ver. 26 nMjfB has neither the article nor the addition T13 following it, appears to be in favour of this opinion. The absence of the one as well as of the other denotes that 'jT?? 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 Havernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and Kliefoth, who regard the Maschiach of this verse as identical with the Maschiach Nagid of ver. 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 TfW we are not authorized to regard the word flW as necessarily pointing to the death of the Messias, the crucifixion of Christ, since TFiT, as above shown, does not necessarily denote a violent death. The right interpretation of this word depends on the explanation of the words ft P*H which follow — words which are very differently interpreted by critics. The supposition is grammatically inadmissible that ft pK = UJ^J (Michaelis, Hitzig), although the LXX. in the Codex Chisianus have translated them by kcli ovk earca; and in general all those interpretations which identify pN with IP, as e.g. et non sibi, and not for himself (Vitringa, Rosenmuller, Iliivernick, and others). For P^ is never interchanged with a<6, but is so distinguished from it that &6, non, is negation purely, while P$j " it is not," denies the existence of the thing; cf. Hengstenberg's Christol. iii. p. 81 f., where all the passages which Gesenius refers to as exemplifying this exchange are examined and rightly explained, proving that ptf is never used in the sense of &6. Still less is r? to be taken in the sense of v 1BW, « 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 pK 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. S? px 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 (WO, because \b points back to rPBfo; nor can it be DV, 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 ITta*; for it shows that ITO* 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.1
In consequence of the cutting off of the rVBto destruction falls upon the city and the sanctuary. This proceeds from the people of the prince who comes. JVn^, 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. xix. 13 f., where it is used of the destruction of Sodom; and even in the case of countries the IVnpn consists in the destruction of men and cattle; cf. Jer. xxxvi. 29.
The meaning of N2? TJ3 Dy depends chiefly on the interpretation of the N2n. This we cannot, wTith Ebrard, refer to EV. Naturally it is connected with TJJ, not only according to the order of the words, but in reality, since in the following verse (ver. 27) the people are no longer spoken of, but only the actions and proceedings of the prince are described. N?? does not mean qui succedit (Roesch, Maurer), but is frequently used by Daniel of a hostile coming; cf. ch. i. 1, xi. 10, 13, 15. But in this sense Kan 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 N^n designates the prince as one who was to come (e'p^oyLte^o?), since from the expression " coming days," as meaning " future days," it does not follow that a " coming prince" is a " future prince." The K|n with the article: " he who comes, or will come," denotes much rather the TJ3 (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 ch. vii. 8, 24 ff., of Antichrist; and in ch. viii. 9 ff., 23 ff., of Antiochus. To one of these the N?n 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.
1 Kranichfeld quite appropriately compares the strong expression ni3^ with " the equally strong fc^Q> (shall wear out) in ch. vii. 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. vers. 27, 22, 18), so also by this expression here (rnp)) we are not to understand annihilation."
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. Geierj Hiivernick, and others, therefore, refer it (the suffix) to the city and the sanctuary; but that is grammatically inadmissible, since "V^n (the city) is gen. fcem. 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 TVTWfr (shall destroy), or, more correctly, to the idea of destroying comprehended in it, for they understand ^P^ of a warlike overflowing flood: u 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 DV or to 1^\. 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. Y\>m can accordingly only denote the destruction of the prince. Hitzig's interpretation, that itfj? is the result of his coming, refutes itself.
In *\Qfz the article is to be observed, by which alone such interpretations as " in an overflowing" (Ros., Roed., and others), " vi quadam ineluctabili oppressus" (Steudel, Maurer), " like an overflowing," and the like, are proved to be verbally inadmissible. The article shows that a definite and well-known overflowing is meant. *!&$, " overflowing," may be the emblem of an army spreading itself over the land, as in ch. xi. 10, 22, 26, Isa. viii. 8, or the emblem of a judgment desolating or destroying a city, country, or people; cf. Ps. xxxii. 6, Nah. i. 8, Prov. xxvii. 4, Ps. xc. 5. The first of these interpretations would give this meaning: The prince shall find his end in his warlike expedition; and the article in *1 would refer back to K2»1. This interpretation is indeed quite possible, but not very probable, because *\®f 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 ch. vii. 21, 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 *)9^> 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 N3n: the people of a prince who shall come and find his destruction in the flood.
This verse (ver. 26) contains a third statement, which adds a new element to the preceding. Kosenmiiller, Ewald, Hofm., and others connect these into one passage, thus: and to the end of the war a decree of desolations continues. But although H?, grammatically considered, is the stat. constr., and might be connected with n^n^p (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 n?np? ought to have the article. From these reasons we agree with the majority of interpreters in regarding nzpnpD as the predicate of the passage: " and to the end is war; " but we cannot refer)'£, with Wieseler, to the end of the prince, or, with Hav. and Aub., to the end of the city, because Y\> has neither a suffix nor an article. According to the just remark of Hitzig, Yi> without any limitation is the end generally, the end of the period in progress, the seventy EHy?^, and corresponds to NEiD Ty in ch. vii. 26, to the end of all things, ch. xii. 13 (Klief.). To the end war shall be = war shall continue during the whole of the last V_™.
The remaining words, JnD&fc> ft^nn?., form an apposition to nonpOj 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 Wj£jJ. 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. TYiDtiw denotes desolation not in an active, but in a passive sense: laid waste, desolated, cf. ver. 27. "JHwvJ that which zs determined \ the irrevocably decreed; therefore used of divine decrees, and that of decrees with reference to the infliction of punishment; cf. ver. 27, ch. xi. 36, Isa. x. 23, xxviii. 22. Ewald is quite in error when he says that it means u the decision regarding the fearful deeds, the divine decision as it embodies itself in the judgments (ch. vii. 11 f.) on the world on account of such fearful actions and desolations," because tfODW 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 TO in ver. 27, as well as in the two passages from Isaiah above referred to, shows. The thought is therefore this: u Till the end war will be, for desolations are irrevocably determined by God." Since niDOb> 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.