From the publication of the edict, whether of Cyrus or Darius, to restore and to build it.

Namely the command from God, whence originated the command of the Persian king (Ezr 6:14). AUBERLEN remarks, there is but one Apocalypse in each Testament. Its purpose in each is to sum up all the preceding prophecies, previous to the "troublous times" of the Gentiles, in which there was to be no revelation. Daniel sums up all the previous Messianic prophecy, separating into its individual phases what the prophets had seen in one and the same perspective, the temporary deliverance from captivity and the antitypical final Messianic deliverance. The seventy weeks are separated (Dan 9:25-27) into three unequal parts, seven, sixty-two, one. The seventieth is the consummation of the preceding ones, as the Sabbath of God succeeds the working days; an idea suggested by the division into weeks. In the sixty-nine weeks Jerusalem is restored, and so a place is prepared for Messiah wherein to accomplish His sabbatic work (Dan 9:25-26) of "confirming the covenant" (Dan 9:27). The Messianic time is the Sabbath of Israel's history, in which it had the offer of all God's mercies, but in which it was cut off for a time by its rejection of them. As the seventy weeks end with seven years, or a week, so they begin with seven times seven, that is, seven weeks. As the seventieth week is separated from the rest as a period of revelation, so it may be with the seven weeks. The number seven is associated with revelation; for the seven spirits of God are the mediators of all His revelations (Rev 1:4; Rev 3:1; Rev 4:5). Ten is the number of what is human; for example, the world power issues in ten heads and ten horns (Dan 2:42; Dan 7:7). Seventy is ten multiplied by seven, the human moulded by the divine. The seventy years of exile symbolize the triumph of the world power over Israel. In the seven times seventy years the world number ten is likewise contained, that is, God's people is still under the power of the world ("troublous times"); but the number of the divine is multiplied by itself; seven times seven years, at the beginning a period of Old Testament revelation to God's people by Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi, whose labors extend over about half a century, or seven weeks, and whose writings are last in the canon; and in the end, seven years, the period of New Testament revelation in Messiah. The commencing seven weeks of years of Old Testament revelation are hurried over, in order that the chief stress might rest on the Messianic week. Yet the seven weeks of Old Testament revelation are marked by their separation from the sixty-two, to be above those sixty-two wherein there was to be none.

Hebrew, Nagid. Messiah is Jesus' title in respect to Israel (Psa 2:2; Mat 27:37, Mat 27:42). Nagid, as Prince of the Gentiles (Isa 55:4). Nagid is applied to Titus, only as representative of Christ, who designates the Roman destruction of Jerusalem as, in a sense, His coming (Mat 24:29-31; Joh 21:22). Messiah denotes His calling; Nagid, His power. He is to "be cut off, and there shall be nothing for Him." (So the Hebrew for "not for Himself," Dan 9:26, ought to be translated). Yet He is "the Prince" who is to "come," by His representative at first, to inflict judgment, and at last in person.

The "trench" or "scarped rampart" [TREGELLES]. The street and trench include the complete restoration of the city externally and internally, which was during the sixty-nine weeks.

From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem - The foregoing events being all accomplished by Jesus Christ, they of course determine the prophecy to him. And if we reckon back four hundred and ninety years, we shall find the time of the going forth of this command

Most learned men agree that the death of Christ happened at the passover in the month Nisan, in the four thousand seven hundred and forty-sixth year of the Julian period. Four hundred and ninety years, reckoned back from the above year, leads us directly to the month Nisan in the four thousand two hundred and fifty-sixth year of the same period; the very month and year in which Ezra had his commission from Artaxerxes Longimanus, king of Persia, (see Ezr 7:9), to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. See the commission in Ezra 7:11-26 (note), and Prideaux’ s Connexions, vol. 2 p. 380

The above seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, are divided, in Ezr 7:25, into three distinct periods, to each of which particular events are assigned. The three periods are: -

I. Seven weeks, that is, forty-nine years

II. Sixty-two weeks, that is, four hundred and thirty-four years

III. One week, that is, seven years

To the first period of seven weeks the restoration and repairing of Jerusalem are referred; and so long were Ezra and Nehemiah employed in restoring the sacred constitutions and civil establishments of the Jews, for this work lasted forty-nine years after the commission was given by Artaxerxes

From the above seven weeks the second period of sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years more, commences, at the end of which the prophecy says, Messiah the Prince should come, that is, seven weeks, or forty-nine years, should be allowed for the restoration of the Jewish state; from which time till the public entrance of the Messiah on the work of the ministry should be sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, in all four hundred and eighty-three years

From the coming of our Lord, the third period is to be dated, viz., "He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week,"that is seven years, Dan 9:27

This confirmation of the covenant must take in the ministry of John the Baptist with that of our Lord, comprehending the term of seven years, during the whole of which he might be well said to confirm or ratify the new covenant with mankind. Our Lord says, "The law was until John;"but from his first public preaching the kingdom of God, or Gospel dispensation, commenced

These seven years, added to the four hundred and eighty-three, complete the four hundred and ninety years, or seventy prophetic weeks; so that the whole of this prophecy, from the times and corresponding events, has been fulfilled to the very letter

Some imagine that the half of the last seven years is to be referred to the total destruction of the Jews by Titus, when the daily sacrifice for ever ceased to be offered; and that the intermediate space of thirty-seven years, from our Lord’ s death till the destruction of the city, is passed over as being of no account in relation to the prophecy, and that it was on this account that the last seven years are divided. But Dean Prideaux thinks that the whole refers to our Lord’ s preaching connected with that of the Baptist. וחצי vachatsi , says he, signifies in the half part of the week; that is, in the latter three years and a half in which he exercised himself in the public ministry, he caused, by the sacrifice of himself, all other sacrifices and oblations to cease, which were instituted to signify his

In the latter parts of Dan 9:26 and Dan 9:27 we find the Third Part of this great prophecy, which refers to what should be done after the completion of these seventy weeks.

Daniel here repeats the divisions of time already mentioned. He had previously stated seventy weeks; but he now makes two portions, one of seven weeks, and the other of sixty-two. There is clearly another reason why he wished to divide into two parts the number used by the angel. One portion contains seven weeks, and the other sixty-two; a single week is omitted which will afterwards be mentioned. The Jews reject seven weeks from the rule of Herod to that of Vespasian. I confess this to be in accordance with the Jewish method of speech; instead of sixty-two and seven, they will say seven and sixty-two; thus putting the smaller number first. The years of man (says Moses) shall be twenty and a hundred, (Gen 6:3) the Greeks and Latins would say, shall be a hundred and twenty years. I confess this to be the common phrase among the Hebrews; but here the Prophet is not relating the continuance of any series of years, as if he were treating of the life of a single man, but he first marks the space of seven weeks, and then cuts off another period of sixty-two weeks. The seven weeks clearly precede in order of time, otherwise we could not sufficiently explain the full meaning of the angel.

We shall now treat the sense in which the going forth of the edict ought to be received. In the meantime, it cannot be denied that the angel pronounces this concerning the edict which had been promulgated about the bringing back of the people, and the restoration of the city. It would, therefore, be foolish to apply it to a period at which the city was not restored, and no such decree had either been uttered or made public. But, first of all, we must treat what the angel says, until the Christ, the Messiah Some desire to take this singular noun in a plural sense, as if it were the Christ of the Lord, meaning his priests; while some refer it to Zerubbabel, and others to Joshua. But clearly enough the angel speaks of Christ, of whom both kings and priests under the law were a type and figure. Some, again, think the dignity of Christ lessened by the use of the word נגיד , negid, “prince” or “leader,” as if in his leadership there existed neither royalty, nor scepter, nor diadem. This remark is altogether without reason; for David is called a leader of the people, and Hezekiah when he wore a diadem, and was seated on his throne, is also termed a leader. (2Sa 5:2; 2Kg 20:5.) Without doubt, the word here implies superior excellence. All kings were rulers over the people of God, and the priests were endowed with a certain degree of honor and authority. Here, then, the angel calls Christ, leader, as he far surpassed all others, whether kings or priests. And if the reader is not captious, this contrast will be admitted at once.

He next adds, The people shall return or be brought back, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and that, too, in the narrow limit of the times. Another argument follows, — namely, after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be cut off. This the Jews understand of Agrippa, who certainly was cut off when Augustus obtained the empire. In this they seek only something to say; for all sound and sensible readers will be perfectly satisfied that they act without either judgment or shame, and vomit forth whatever comes into their thoughts. They are quite satisfied when they find anything plausible to say. That trifler, Barbinel, of whom I have previously spoken, thinks Agrippa has just as much right to be called a Christ as Cyrus; he allows his defection to the Romans, but states it to have been against his will, as he was still a worshipper of God. Although he was clearly an apostate, yet he treats him as by no means worse than all the rest, and for this reason he wishes him to be called the Christ. But, first of all, we know Agrippa not to have been a legitimate king, and his tyranny was directly contrary to the oracle of Jacob, since the scepter had been snatched away from the tribe of Judah. (Gen 49:10.) He cannot by any means be called Christ, even though he had surpassed all angels in wisdom, and virtue, and power, and everything else. Here the lawful government of the people is treated, and this will not be found in the person of Agrippa. Hence the Jewish arguments are altogether futile. Next, another statement is added, he shall confirm the treaty with many. The Jews elude the force of this clause very dishonestly, and without the slightest shame. They twist it to Vespasian and Titus. Vespasian had been sent into Syria and the East by Nero. It is perfectly true, that though a wish to avoid a severe slaughter of his soldiers, he tried all conditions of peace, and enticed the Jews by every possible inducement to give themselves up to him, rather than to force him to the last extremity. Truly enough, then, Vespasian exhorted the Jews to peace, and Titus, after his father had passed over to Italy, followed the same policy; but was this confirming the covenant? When the angel of God is treating events of the last importance, and embracing the whole condition of the Church, their explanation is trifling who refer it to the Roman leaders wishing to enter into a treaty with the people. They attempted either to obtain possession of the whole empire of the East by covenant, or else they determined to use the utmost force to capture the city. This explanation, then, is utterly absurd. It is quite clear that the Jews are not only destitute of all reason when they explain this passage of the continual wrath of God, and exclude his favor and reconciliation with the people, but they are utterly dishonest, and utter words without shame, and throw a mist over the passage to darken it. At the same time their vanity is exposed, as they have no pretext for their comments.

I now come to the Ancient Writers. Jerome, as I stated shortly yesterday, recites various opinions. But before I treat them singly, I must answer in few words, the calumny of that impure and obstinate Rabbi, Barbinel. To deprive the Christians of all confidence and authority, he objects to their mutual differences; as if differences between men not sufficiently exercised in the Scriptures, could entirely overthrow their truth. Suppose, for instance, that I were to argue against him, the absence of consent among the Jews themselves. If any one is anxious to collect their different opinions, he may exult as a conqueror in this respect, as there is no agreement between the Rabbis. Nay, he does not point out the full extent of the differences which occur among Christians, for I am ready to concede far more than he demands. For that brawler was ignorant of all things, and betrays only petulance and talkativeness. His books are doubtless very plausible among the Jews who seek nothing else. But he takes as authorities with us, Africanus and Nicolaus de Lyra, Burgensis, and a certain teacher named Remond. He is ignorant of the names of Eusebius, ¹¹⁹ Origen, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Apollinaris, Jerome, Augustine, and other similar writers. We here perceive how brazen this prater is, who dares to babble about matters utterly beyond his knowledge. But as I have stated, I allow many differences among Christians. Eusebius himself agrees with the Jews in referring the word “Christ” to the priests, and when the angel speaks of the death of Christ, he thinks the death of Aristobulus, who was slain, is intended here. But this is altogether foolish. He is a Christian, you will say; true, but he fell into ignorance and error. The opinion of Africanus is more to the point, but the time by no means accords with that of Darius the son of Hystaspes, as I shall afterwards show. He errs again on another chapter, by taking the years to be lunar ones, as Lyranus does. Without doubt, this was only a cavil of his; through not finding their own years suit, they thought the whole number might be made up, by using intercalary years together with the 490. For before the year was adjusted to the course of the sun, the ancients were accustomed to reckon twelve lunar months, and afterwards to add another. The whole number of years may be made up according to their imagination, if we add those additional periods to the years here enumerated by the Prophet. But I reject this altogether. Hippolytus also errs in another direction; for he reckons the seven weeks as the time which elapsed between the death and resurrection of Christ, and herein he agrees with the Jews. Apollinaris also is mistaken, for he thinks we must begin at Christ’s birth, and then extends the prophecy to the end of the world. Eusebius also, who contends with him in a certain passage, takes the last week for the whole period which must elapse till the end of the world shall arrive. I therefore am ready to acknowledge all these interpretations to be false, and yet I do not allow the truth of God to fail.

How, therefore, shall we arrive at any certain conclusion? It is not sufficient to refute the ignorance of others, unless we can make the truth apparent, and prove it by clear and satisfactory reasons. I am willing to spare the names of surviving commentators, and of those who have lived during our own times, yet I must say what will prove useful to my readers; meanwhile, I shall speak cautiously, because I am very desirous of being silent upon all points except those which are useful and necessary to be known. If any one has the taste and the needful leisure to inquire diligently into the time here mentioned, Oecolampadius rightly and prudently admonishes us, that we ought to make the computation from the beginning of the world. For until the ruin of the Temple and the destruction of the city, we can gather with certainty the number of years which have elapsed since the creation of the world; here there is no room for error. The series is plain enough in the Scriptures. But after this they leave the reader to other sources of information, since the computation from the overthrow of the Temple is loose and inaccurate, according to Eusebius and others. Thus, from the return of the people to the advent of Christ 540 years will be found to have elapsed. Thus we see how impossible it is to satisfy sensible readers, if we only reckon the years in the way Oecolampadius has done. ¹²⁰

Philip Melancthon, who excels in genius and learning, and is happily versed in the studies of history, fakes a double computation. He begins one plan from the second year of Cyrus, that is, from the commencement of the Persian monarchy; but he reckons the seventy weeks to be finished about the death of Augustus, which is the period of the birth of Christ. When he arrives at the baptism of Christ, he adds another method of reckoning, which commences at the times of Darius: and as to the edict here mentioned, he understands it to have been promulgated by Darius the son of Hystaspes, since the building of the Temple was interrupted for about sixty-six years. As to this computation, I cannot by any means approve of it. And yet I confess the impossibility of finding any other exposition of what the angel says — until Christ the Leader, unless by referring it to the baptism of Christ.

These two points, then, in my judgment, must be held as fixed; first, the seventy weeks begin with the Persian monarchy, because a free return was then granted to the people; and secondly, they did not terminate till the baptism of Christ, when he openly commenced his work of satisfying the requirements of the office assigned him by his father. But we must now see how this will accord with the number of years. I confess here, the existence of such great differences between ancient writers, that we must use conjecture, because we have no certain explanation to bring forward, which we can point out as the only sufficient one. I am aware of the various calumnies of those who desire to render all things obscure, and to pour the darkness of night upon the clearest daylight. For the profane and the skeptical catch at this directly; for when they see any difference of opinion, they wish to shew the uncertainty of all our teaching. So if they perceive any difference in the views of various interpreters, even in matters of the smallest moment, they conclude all things to be involved in complete darkness. But their perverseness ought not to frighten us, because when any discrepancies occur in the narratives of profane historians, we do not pronounce the whole history fabulous. Let us take Grecian history, — how greatly the Greeks differ from each other? If any should make this a pretext for rejecting them all, and should assert all their narrations to be false, would not every one condemn him as singularly impudent? Now, if the Scriptures are not self-contradictory, but manifest slight diversities in either years or places, shall we on that account pronounce them entirely destitute of credit? We are well aware of the existence of some differences in all histories, and yet this does not cause them to lose their authority; they are still quoted, and confidence is reposed in them.

With respect to the present passage, I confess myself unable to deny the existence of much controversy concerning these years, among all the Greek and Latin writers. This is true: but, meanwhile, shall we bury whatever has already past, and think the world interrupted in its course? After Cyrus had transferred to the Persians the power of the East, some kings must clearly have followed him, although it is not evident who they were, and writers also differ about. the period and the reigns of each of them, and yet on the main points there is a general agreement. For some enumerate about 200 years; others 125 years; and some are between the two, reckoning 140 years. Whichever be the correct statement, there was clearly some succession of the Persian kings, and many additional years elapsed before Alexander the Macedonian obtained the monarchy of the whole East. This is quite clear. Now, from the death of Alexander the number of years is well known. Philip Melancthon cites a passage from Ptolemy which makes them 292; and many testimonies may be adduced, which confirm that period of time. If any object, the number of years might be reckoned by periods of five years, as the Romans usually did, or by Olympiads, with the Greeks, I confess that the reckoning by Olympiads removes all source of error. The Greeks used great diligence and minuteness, and were very desirous of glory. We cannot say the same of the Persian empire, for we are unable accurately to determine under what Olympiad each king lived, and the year in which he commenced his reign and in which he died. Whatever conclusion we adopt, my previous assertion is perfectly true, — if captious men are rebellious and darken the clear light of history, yet, they cannot wrest this passage from its real meaning, because we can gather from both the Greek and Latin historians, the whole sum of the times which will suit very clearly this prophecy of Daniel. Whoever will compare all historical testimony with the desire of learning, and, without any contention, will carefully number the years, he will find it impossible to express them better than by the expression of the angel — seventy weeks. For example, let any studious person, endued with acuteness, experience, and skill, discover whatever has been written in Greek and Latin, and distinguish the testimony of each writer under distinct heads, and afterwards compare the writers together, and determine the credibility of each, and how far each is a fit and classical authority, he will find the same result as that here given by the Prophet. This ought to be sufficient for us. But, meanwhile, we must remember how our ignorance springs chiefly from this Persian custom; whoever undertook a warlike expedition, appointed his son his viceroy. Thus, Cambyses reigned, according to some, twenty years, and according to others, only seven; because the crown was placed on his head during his father’s lifetime. Besides this, there was another reason. The people of the East are notoriously very restless, easily excited, and always desiring a change of rulers. Hence, contentions frequently arose among near relatives, of which we have ample narratives in the works of Herodotus. I mention him among others, as the fact is sufficiently known. When fathers saw the danger of their sons mutually destroying each other, they usually created one of them a king; and if they wished to prefer the younger brother to the elder, they called him “king” with the concurrence of their council. Hence, the years of their reigns became intermingled, without any fixed method of reckoning them. And, therefore, I said, even if Olympiads could never mislead us, this could not be asserted of the Persian empire. While we allow much diversity and contradiction united with great obscurity, still we must always return to the same point, — some conclusion may be found, which will agree with this prediction of the Prophet. Therefore I will not reckon these years one by one, but will only admonish each of you to weigh for himself, according to his capacity, what he reads in history. Thus all sound and moderate men will acquiesce, when they perceive how well this prophecy of Daniel agrees with the testimony of profane writers, in its general scope, according to my previous explanations.

I stated that we must begin with the monarchy of Cyrus; this is clearly to be gathered from the words of the angel, and especially from the division of the weeks. For he says, The seven weeks have reference to the repair of the city and temple No cavils can in any way deprive the Prophet’s expression of its true force: from the going forth of the edict concerning the bringing back of the people and the building of the city, until Messiah the Leader, shall be seven weeks; and then, sixty-two weeks: afterward he adds, After the sixty-two weeks Christ shall be cut off When, therefore, he puts seven weeks in the first place, and clearly expresses his reckoning the commencement of this period from the promulgation of the edict, to what can we refer these seven weeks, except to the times of the monarchy of Cyrus and that of Darius the son of Hystaspes? This is evident from the history of the Maccabees, as well as from the testimony of the evangelist John; and we may collect the same conclusion from the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, as the building of the Temple was interrupted during forty-six years. Cyrus permitted the people to build the Temple; the foundations were laid when Cyrus went out to the war in Scythia; the Jews were then compelled to cease their labors, and his successor Cambyses was hostile to this people. Hence the Jews say, (Joh 2:20,) Forty-six years was this Temple in building, and wilt thou build it in three days? They strive to deride Christ because he had said, Destroy this Temple, and I will rebuild it in future days, as it was then a common expression, and had been handed down by their fathers, that the Temple had occupied this period in its construction. If you add the three years during which the foundations were laid, we shall then have forty-nine years, or seven weeks. As the event openly shews the completion of what the angel had predicted to Daniel, whoever wishes to wrest the meaning of the passage, only displays his own hardihood. And must we not reject every other interpretation, as obscuring so clear and obvious a meaning? We must next remember what I have previously stated. In yesterday’s Lecture we saw that seventy weeks were cut off for the people; the angel had also declared the going forth of the edict, for which Daniel had prayed. What necessity, then, is there for treating a certainty as doubtful? and why litigate the point when God pronounces the commencement of this period to be at the termination of the seventy years proclaimed by Jeremiah? It is quite certain, that these seventy years and seventy weeks ought to be joined together. Since, therefore, these periods are continuous, whoever refers this passage to the time of Darius Hystaspes, first of all breaks the links of a chain of events all connected together, and then perverts the whole spirit of the passage; for, as we yesterday stated, the angel’s object was to offer consolation in the midst of sorrow. For seventy years the people had been miserably afflicted in exile, and they seemed utterly abandoned, as if God would no longer acknowledge these children of Abraham for his people and inheritance. As this was the Almighty’s intention, it is quite clear that the commencement of the seventy weeks cannot be otherwise interpreted than by referring it to the monarchy of Cyrus. This is the first point.

We must now turn to the sixty-two weeks; and if I cannot satisfy every one, I shall still content myself with great simplicity, and I trust that all sound and humble disciples of Christ will easily acquiesce in this exposition. If we reckon the years from the reign of Darius to the baptism of Christ, sixty-two weeks or thereabouts will be found to have elapsed. As I previously remarked, I am not scrupulous to a few days or months, or even a single year; for how great is that perverseness which would lead us to reject what historians relate because they do not all agree to a single year? Whatever be the correct conclusion, we shall find about 480 years between the time of Darius and the death of Christ. Hence it becomes necessary to prolong these years to the baptism of Christ, because when the angel speaks of the last week, he plainly states, The covenant shall be confirmed at that time, and then the Messiah shall be cut off As this was to be done in the last week, we must necessarily extend the time to the preaching of the Gospel. And for this reason Christ is called a “Leader,” because at his conception he was destined to be king of heaven and earth, although he did not commence his reign till he was publicly ordained the Master and Redeemer of his people. The word “Leader” is applied as a name before the office was assumed; as if the angel had said, the end of the seventy weeks will occur when Christ openly assumes the office of king over his people, by collecting them from that miserable and horrible dispersion under which they had been so long ground down. I shall put off the rest till to-morrow.

The 490 year period begins with the commandment to rebuild the holy city. Some have taken this to be the decree of the emperor Cyrus, in about 536 b.c., recorded by Ezra. This is unlikely because that commandment only decreed the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 1:3). Evidently, there was no formal commandment to rebuild the city itself until the time of Nehemiah, when a later Persian emperor, Artaxerxes, did make such a decree (Neh 2:4-8). This was in about 446 b.c.

The 490 year period is divided into three components, 49 years, 434 years, and 7 years in duration. The first was evidently to be occupied with the actual completion of the streets and walls of the city, in "troublous times," as described in the books of Nehemiah and Malachi. Perhaps most significantly, the 49 year period did terminate with Malachi's prophecy, which marked the close of Old Testament revelation.

After the 49 year period was to be another period of 434 years before Messiah would come as Prince of Israel. This period between the two Testaments was marked by the fulfillment of some of Daniel's other prophecies - the fall of Persia, the rise of Greece, then of the great Roman empire and, in Israel, the conflicts with Egypt and Syria and the wars of the Maccabees. In all, there would be 69 weeks, or 483 years, "unto the Messiah the Prince.""

and understand : Dan 9:23; Mat 13:23, Mat 24:15; Mar 13:14; Act 8:30

from : Ezr 4:24, Ezr 6:1-15, Ezr 7:1, Ezr 7:8, 11-26; Neh 2:1-8, Neh 3:1

restore and to build Jerusalem : or, build again Jerusalem, as. 2Sa 15:25; Psa 71:10

the Messiah : Joh 1:41, Joh 4:25

the Prince : Dan 8:11, Dan 8:25; Isa 9:6, Isa 55:4; Mic 5:2; Act 3:15, Act 5:31; Rev 1:5, Rev 19:16

seventy weeks : The seventy weeks are here divided into three periods.

Seventy Weeks endash Three Periods
Order	Duration (in weeks)	Equivalent (in years)	Major Events
1.	Seven	49	for the restoration of Jerusalem
2.	Sixty-two	434	from that time to the announcement of the Messiah by John the Baptist
3.	One	7	for the ministry of John and of Christ himself to the crucifixion

be built again : Heb. return and be builded

wall : or, breach, or, ditch. even. Neh 4:8, Neh 4:16-18; Eph 5:16

troublous times : Heb. strait of times, Neh 6:15

Know, therefore, and understand - Hengstenberg renders this, "and thou wilt know and understand;"and supposes that the design of Gabriel is to awaken the attention and interest of Daniel by the assurance that, if he would give attention, he would understand the subject by the explanation which he was about to give. So also Theodotion renders it in the future tense. The Hebrew is in the future tense, and would probably convey the idea that he might, or would know and understand the matter. So Lengerke renders it, "Und so mogest du wissen,"etc. The object is doubtless to call the attention of Daniel to the subject, with the assurance that he might comprehend the great points of the communication which he was about to make respecting the seventy weeks. In the previous verse, the statement was a general one; in this, the angel states the time when the period of the seventy weeks was to commence, and then that the whole period was to be broken up or divided into three smaller portions or epochs, each evidently marking some important event, or constituting an important era. The first period of seven weeks was evidently to be characterized by something in which it would be different from what would follow, or it would reach to some important epoch, and then would follow a continuous period of sixty-two weeks, after which, during the remaining one week, to complete the whole number of seventy, the Messiah would come and would be cut off, and the series of desolations would commence which would result in the entire destruction of the city.

That from the going forth of the commandment - Hebrew, "of the word"- דבר dâbâr . It is used, however, as in Dan 9:23, in the sense of commandment or order. The expression "gone forth"( מצא môtsâ' ) would properly apply to the "issuing"of an order or decree. So in Dan 9:23 - דבר יצא yâtsâ' dâbâr - "the commandment went forth."The word properly means a going forth, and is applied to the rising sun, that goes forth from the east, Psa 19:6 (7); then a "place"of going forth, as a gate, a fountain of waters, the east, etc., Eze 42:11; Isa 41:18; Psa 75:6 (7). The word here has undoubted reference to the promulgation of a decree or command, but there is nothing in the words to determine "by whom"the command was to be issued. So far as the "language"is concerned, it would apply equally well to a command issued by God, or by the Persian king, and nothing but the circumstances can determine which is referred to. Hengstenberg supposes that it is the former, and that the reference is to the Divine purpose, or the command issued from the "heavenly council"to rebuild Jerusalem. But the more natural and obvious meaning is, to understand it of the command’ actually issued by the Persian monarch to restore and build the city of Jerusalem. This has been the interpretation given by the great body of expositors, and the reasons for it seem to be perfectly clear:

(a) This would be the interpretation affixed to it naturally, if there were no theory to support, or if it did not open a chronological difficulty not easy to settle.

(b) This is the only interpretation which can give anything like definiteness to the passage. Its purpose is to designate some fixed and certain period from which a reckoning could be made as to the time when the Messiah would come. But, so far as appears, there was no such definite and marked command on the part of God; no period which can be fixed upon when he gave commandment to restore and build Jerusalem; no exact and settled point from which one could reckon as to the period when the Messiah would come. It seems to me, therefore, to be clear, that the allusion is to some order to rebuild the city, and as this order could come only from one who had at that time jurisdiction over Jerusalem, and Judea, and who could command the resources necessary to rebuild the ruined city, that order must be one that would emanate from the reigning power; that is, in fact, the Persian power - for that was the power that had jurisdiction at the close of the seventy years’ exile. But, as there were several orders or commands in regard to the restoration of the city and the temple, and as there has been much difficulty in ascertaining the exact chronology of the events of that remote period, it has not been easy to determine the precise order referred to, or to relieve the whole subject from perplexity and difficulty. Lengerke supposes that the reference here is the same as in Dan 9:2, to the promise made to Jeremiah, and that this is the true point from which the reckoning is to be made. The exact edict referred to will be more properly considered at the close of the verse. All that is necessarily implied here is, that the time from which the reckoning is to be commenced is some command or order issued to restore and build Jerusalem.

To restore - Margin, "build again."The Hebrew is, properly, "to cause to return"- להשׁיב l^e hâshı̂yb . The word might be applied to the return of the captives to their own land, but it is evidently used here with reference to the city of Jerusalem, and the meaning must be, "to restore it to its former condition."It was evidently the purpose to cause it to return, as it were, to its former spendour; to reinstate it in its former condition as a holy city - the city where the worship of God would be celebrated, and it is this purpose which is referred to here. The word, in Hiphil, is used in this sense of restoring to a former state, or to renew, in the following places: Psa 80:3, "Turn us again - השׁיבנוּ hăshı̂ybēnû - and cause thy face to shine."So Psa 80:7, Psa 80:19. Isa 1:26, "And I will "restore"thy judges as at the first,"etc. The meaning here would be met by the supposition that Jerusalem was to be put into its former condition.

And to build Jerusalem - It was then in ruins. The command, which is referred to here, must be one to build it up again - its houses, temple, walls; and the fair sense is, that some such order would be issued, and the reckoning of the seventy weeks must "begin"at the issuing of this command. The proper interpretation of the prophecy demands that "that"time shall be assumed in endeavoring to ascertain when the seventy weeks would terminate. In doing this, it is evidently required in all fairness that we should not take the time when the Messiah "did"appear - or the birth of the Lord Jesus, assuming that to be the " terminus ad quem "- the point to which the seventy weeks were to extend - and then reckon "backward"for a space of four hundred and ninety years, to see whether we cannot find some event which by a possible construction would bear to be applied as the " terminus a quo ,"the point from which we are to begin to reckon; but we are to ascertain when, in fact, the order was given to rebuild Jerusalem, and to make "that"the " terminus a quo "- the starting point in the reckoning. The consideration of the fulfillment of this may with propriety be reserved to the close of the verse.

Unto the Messiah - The word Messiah occurs but four times in the common version of the Scriptures: Dan 9:25-26 : Joh 1:41; Joh 4:25. It is synonymous in meaning with the word "Christ,"the Anointed. See the notes at Mat 1:1. Messiah is the Hebrew word; Christ the Greek. The Hebrew word ( משׁיח mâshı̂yach ) occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and, with the exception of these two places in Daniel, it is uniformly translated "anointed,"and is applied to priests, to prophets, and to kings, as being originally set apart to their offices by solemn acts of anointing. So far as the "language"is concerned here, it might be applied to anyone who sustained these offices, and the proper application is to be determined from the connection. Our translators have introduced the article - "unto the Messiah."This is wanting in the Hebrew, and should not have been introduced, as it gives a definiteness to the prophecy which the original language does not necessarily demand.

Our translators undoubtedly understood it as referring to him who is known as the Messiah, but this is not necessarily implied in the original. All that the language fairly conveys is, "until an anointed one."Who "that"was to be is to be determined from other circumstances than the mere use of the language, and in the interpretation of the language it should not be assumed that the reference is to any particular individual. That some eminent personage is designated; some one who by way of eminence would be properly regarded as anointed of God; some one who would act so important a part as to characterize the age, or determine the epoch in which he should live; some one so prominent that he could be referred to as "anointed,"with no more definite appellation; some one who would be understood to be referred to by the mere use of this language, may be fairly concluded from the expression used - for the angel clearly meant to imply this, and to direct the mind forward to some one who would have such a prominence in the history of the world.

The object now is merely to ascertain the meaning of the "language."All that is fairly implied is, that it refers to some one who would have such a prominence as anointed, or set apart to the office of prophet, priest, or king, that it could be understood that he was referred to by the use of this language. The reference is not to the anointed one, as of one who was already known or looked forward to as such - for then the article would have been used; but to some one who, when he appeared, would have such marked characteristics that there would be no difficulty in determining that he was the one intended. Hengstenberg well remarks, "We must, therefore, translate "an anointed one, a prince,"and assume that the prophet, in accordance with the uniform character of his prophecy, chose the more indefinite, instead of the more definite designation, and spoke only of AN anointed one, a prince, instead of the anointed one, the prince - κατ ̓ ἐξοχήν kat' exochēn - and left his hearers to draw a deeper knowledge respecting him, from the prevailing expectations, grounded on earlier prophecies of a future great King, from the remaining declarations of the context, and from the fulfillment, the coincidence of which with the prophecy must here be the more obvious, since an accurate date had been given."- Christol. ii. 334, 335.

The Vulgate renders this, Usque ad Christum ducem - "even to Christ the leader,"or ruler. The Syriac, "to the advent of Christ the king."Theodotion, ἕως Χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου heōs Christou hēgoumenou - "Christ the leader,"or ruler. The question whether this refers to Christ will be more appropriately considered at the close of the verse. The inquiry will then occur, also, whether this refers to his birth, or to his appearance as the anointed one - his taking upon himself publicly the office. The language would apply to either, though it would perhaps more properly refer to the latter - to the time when he should appear as such - or should be anointed, crowned, or set apart to the office, and be fully instituted in it. It could not be demonstrated that either of these applications would be a departure from the fair interpretation of the words, and the application must be determined by some other circumstances, if any are expressed. What those are in the case will be considered at the close of the verse.

The Prince - נגיד nāgı̂yd . This word properly means a leader, a prefect, a prince. It is a word of very general character, and might be applied to any leader or ruler. It is applied to an overseer, or, as we should say, a "secretary"of the treasury, 1Ch 26:24; 2Ch 31:12; an overseer of the temple, 1Ch 9:11; 2Ch 31:13; of the palace, 2Ch 28:7; and of military affairs, 1Ch 13:1; 2Ch 32:21. It is also used absolutely to denote a prince of a people, any one of royal dignity, 1Sa 9:16; 1Sa 10:1; 1Sa 13:14. - Gesenius. So far as this word, therefore, is concerned, it would apply to any prince or leader, civil or military; any one of royal dignity, or who should distinguish himself, or make himself a leader in civil, ecclesiastical, or military affairs, or who should receive an appointment to any such station. It is a word which would be as applicable to the Messiah as to any other leader, but which has nothing in itself to make it necessary to apply it to him. All that can be fairly deduced from its use here is, that it would be some prominent leader; some one that would be known without anymore definite designation; someone on whom the mind would naturally rest, and someone to whom when he appeared it would be applied without hesitation and without difficulty. There can be no doubt that a Hebrew, in the circumstances of Daniel, and with the known views and expectations of the Hebrew people, would apply such a phrase to the Messiah.

Shall be seven weeks - See the notes at Dan 9:24. The reason for dividing the whole period into seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week, is not formally stated, and will be considered at the close of the verse. All that is necessary here in order to an explanation of the language, and of what is to be anticipated in the fulfillment, is this:

(a) That, according to the above interpretation Dan 9:24, the period would be forty-nine years.

(b) That this was to be the "first"portion of the whole time, not time that would be properly taken out of any part of the whole period.

© That there was to be some event at the end of the forty-nine years which would designate a period, or a natural division of the time, or that the portion which was designated by the forty-nine years was to be distinctly characterized from the next period referred to as sixty-two weeks, and the next period as one week.

(d) No intimation is given in the words as to the nature of this period, or as to what would distinguish one portion from the others, and what that was to be is to be learned from subsequent explanations, or from the actual course of events. If one period was characterized by war, and another by peace; one in building the city and the walls, and the other by quiet prosperity; one by abundance, and the other by famine; one by sickness, and the other by health - all that is fairly implied by the words would be met. It is foretold only that there would be something that would designate these periods, and serve to distinguish the one from the other.

And threescore and two weeks - Sixty-two weeks; that is, as above explained Dan 9:24, four hundred and thirty-four years. The fair meaning is, that there would be something which would characterize that long period, and serve to distinguish it from what preceded it. It is not indeed intimated what that would be, and the nature of the case seems to require that we should look to the events - to the facts in the course of the history to determine what that was. Whether it was peace, prosperity, quiet, order, or the prevalence of religion as contrasted with the former period, all that the words fairly imply would be fulfilled in either of them.

The street shall be built again - This is a general assertion or prediction, which does not seem to have any special reference to the "time"when it would be done. The fair interpretation of the expression does not require us to understand that it should be after the united period of the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks, nor during either one of those periods; that is, the language is not such that we are necessarily required to affix it to any one period. It seems to be a general assurance designed to comfort Daniel with the promise that the walls and streets of Jerusalem, now desolate, would be built again, and that this would occur some time during this period. His mind was particularly anxious respecting the desolate condition of the city, and the declaration is here made that it would be restored. So far as the languages - the grammatical construction is concerned, it seems to me that this would be fulfilled if it were done either at the time of the going forth of the commandment, or during either of the periods designated, or even after these periods.

It is, however, most natural, in the connection, to understand it of the "first"period - the seven weeks, or the forty-nine years - since it is said that "the commandment would go forth to restore, and to build Jerusalem;"and since, as the whole subsequent period is divided into three portions, it may be presumed that the thing that would characterize the first portion, or what would first be done, would be to execute the commandment - that is, to restore and build the city. These considerations would lead us, therefore, to suppose that the thing which would characterize the first period - the forty-nine years - would be the rebuilding of the city; and "the time"- a time which, considering the extent and entireness of the ruins, the nature of the opposition that might be encountered, the difficulty of collecting enough from among the exiles to return and do it, the want of means, and the embarrassments which such an undertaking might be supposed to involve, cannot, probably, be regarded as too long.

The word rendered "street"- רחוב r^e chôb - means a "street,"so called from its "breadth,"and would properly, therefore, be applied to a wide street. Then it denotes a market-place, or a forum - the broad open place at the gates of Oriental cities where public trials were held, and things exposed for sale, 2Ch 32:6. In Ezr 10:9, the word refers to the area or court before the temple: "And all the people sat in the street ( ברחוב bı̂r^e chôb ) of the house of God,"etc. Compare Neh 8:1, Neh 8:3, Neh 8:16. The reference in this place, therefore, may be to that area or court; or it may be to any place of concourse, or any thoroughfare. It is such language as would be naturally used to denote that the city would be restored to its former condition. The phrase "shall be built again"is, in the margin, "return and be builded."This is in accordance with the Hebrew. That is, it would be restored to its former state; it would, as it were, come back and be built up again. Hengstenberg renders it "a street is restored and built."The phrase properly implies that it would assume its former condition, the word "built"here being used in the sense of "made,"as we speak of "making a road."Lengerke renders it, wird wieder hergestellt - "shall be again restored."Theodotion renders it, ἐπιστρέψει epistrepsei - "it shall return,"understanding it as meaning that there would be a return, to wit, from the exile. But the more correct meaning undoubtedly is, that the street would return to its former state, and be rebuilt.

And the wall - Margin, "ditch."Hengstenberg renders this, "and firmly is it determined;"maintaining that the word חרוּץ chârûts here means fixed, determined, resolved on, and that the idea is, the purpose that the city should be rebuilt was firmly resolved on in the Divine mind, and that the design of what is here said was to comfort and animate the returned Hebrews in their efforts to rebuild the city, in all the discouragements and troubles which would attend such an undertaking. The common interpretation, however, has been that it refers to a ditch, trench, or wall, that would be constructed at the time of the rebuilding of the city. So the Vulgate, "muri, walls."So Theodotion, τεῖχος teichos - wall. The Syriac renders it, "Jerusalem, and the villages, and the streets."Luther, Mauren, walls. Lengerke renders it, as Hengstenberg does, "and it is determined."Maurer understands the two expressions, "street and wall,"to be equivalent to "within and without"- meaning that the city would be thoroughly and entirely rebuilt.

The Hebrew word חרוּץ chârûts means, properly, what is cut in, or dug out, from חרץ chârats - to cut in. The word is translated "sharp-pointed things"in Job 41:30; "gold, fine gold, choice gold,"in Psa 68:13; Pro 3:14; Pro 8:10, Pro 8:19; Pro 16:16; Zec 9:3; a threshing instrument, Isa 28:27; Amo 1:3; sharp (referring to a threshing instrument), Isa 41:15; "wall,"Dan 9:25; and "decision,"Joe 3:14. It does not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures. The notion of "gold"as connected with the word is probably derived from the fact of its being dug for, or eagerly sought by men. That idea is, of course, not applicable here. Gesenius supposes that it here means a "ditch or trench"of a fortified city. This seems to me to be the probable signification. At all events, this has the concurrence of the great body of interpreters; and this accords well with the connection. The word does not properly mean "wall,"and it is never elsewhere so used. It need not be said that it was common, if not universal, in wailed cities to make a deep ditch or trench around them to prevent the approach of an enemy, and such language would naturally be employed in speaking of the rebuilding of a city. Prof. Stuart renders it, "with broad spaces, and narrow limits."

Even in troublous times - Margin, "strait of."Hengstenberg, "in a time of distress."Lengerke, Im Druck der Zeiten - in a pressure of times. Vulgate, In angustia temporum . Theodotion, in the Septuagint, renders it, "And these times shall be emptied out"(Thompson) - καὶ ἐκκενωθήσονται οἱ καιροί kai ekkenōthēsontai hoi kairoi . The proper meaning of the Hebrew word ( צוק tsôq ) is, distress, trouble, anguish; and the reference is, doubtless. to times that would be characterized by trouble, perplexity, and distress. The allusion is clearly to the rebuilding of the city, and the use of this language would lead us to anticipate that such an enterprise would meet with opposition or embarrasment; that there would be difficulty in accomplishing it; that the work would not be carried on easily, and that a considerable time would be necessary to finish it.

Having gone through with an investigation of the meaning of the words and phrases of this verse, we are now prepared to inquire more particularly what things are referred to, and whether the predictions have been fulfilled. The points which it is necessary to examine are the following: - To whom reference is made by the Messiah the Prince; the time designated by the going forth of the commandment - or the " terminus a quo ;"the question whether the whole period extends to the "birth"of him here referred to as the Messiah the Prince, or to his assuming the office or appearing as such; the time embraced in the first seven weeks - and the fulfillment - or the question whether, from the time of the going forth of the commandment to the appearing of the Messiah, the period of the four hundred and ninety years can be fairly made out. These are evidently important points, and it need not be said that a great variety of opinions has prevailed in regard to them, and that they are attended with no little difficulty.

I. To whom reference is made as the Messiah the Prince. In the exposition of the meaning of the words, we have seen that there is nothing in the language itself to determine this. It is applicable to anyone who should be set apart as a ruler or prince, and might be applied to Cyrus, to any anointed king, or to him who is properly designated now as the Messiah - the Lord Jesus. Compare the notes at Isa 45:1. It is unnecessary to show that a great variety of opinions has been entertained, both among the Jewish rabbis and among Christian commentators, respecting the question to whom this refers. Among the Jews, Jarchi and Jacchiades supposed that it referred to Cyrus; Ben Gersom, and others, to Zerubbabel; Aben Ezra to Nehemiah; rabbi Azariah to Artaxerxes. Bertholdt, Lengerke, Maurer, and this class of expositors generally, suppose that the reference is to Cyrus, who is called the Messiah, or the "Anointed,"in Isa 45:1.

According to this interpretation, it is supposed that the reference is to the seventy years of Jeremiah, and that the meaning is, that "seven weeks,"or forty-nine years, would elapse from the desolation of the city until the time of Cyrus. See Maurer, in loc . Compare also Lengerke, pp. 444, 445. As specimens of the views entertained by those who deny the reference of the passage to the Messiah, and of the difculties and absurdities of those views, we may notice those of Etchhorn and Bertholdt. Eichhorn maintains that the numbers referred to are round numbers, and that we are not to expect to be able to make out an exact conformity between those numbers and the events. The "commandment"mentioned in Dan 9:25 he supposes refers to the order of Cyrus to restore and rebuild the city, which order was given, according to Usher, A.M. 3468. From this point of time must the "sevenweeks,"or the forty-nine years, be reckoned; but, according to his view, the reckoning must be "backward and forward;"that is, it is seven weeks, or forty-nine years, backward to Nebuchadnezzar, who is here called "Messiah the Prince,"who destroyed the temple and city, A.M. 3416 - or about fifty-two years before the going forth of the edict of Cyrus. From that time, the reckoning of the sixty-two weeks must be commenced.

But again, this is not to be computed literally from the time of Nebuchadnezzar; but since the Jews, in accordance with Jer 25:11-12, reckoned seventy years, instead of the true time, the point from which the estimate is to begin is the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and this occurred, according to Usher, A.M. 3397. Reckoning from this point onward, the sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, would bring us to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (A.M. 3829). At the end of the sixty-two weeks, in the first year of Antiochus Epiphanes, the high priest, Onias III (the Messiah of Dan 9:26), was displaced - "cut off"- יכרת yı̂kârēth - and Jason was appointed in his place, and Menelaus the year after removed him. Titus Onias had properly no successor, etc. This absurd opinion Bertholdt (p. 605, following) attempts to set aside - a task which is very easily performed, and then proposes his own - a hypothesis not less absurd and improbable. According to his theory (p. 613, following), the seventy years have indeed a historical basis, and the time embraced in them extends from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is divided into three periods:

(a) The seven first hebdomads extend from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar to king, Cyrus, who gave the exiles permission to return to their land. This is the period during which Jerusalem must lie waste Dan 9:2; and after the close of this, by the favor of Cyrus Dan 9:25, the promise of Jeremiah (Dan 9:25 - דבר dâbâr - "commandment"), that Jerusalem shall be rebuilt, goes forth.

(b) The following sixty-two weeks extend from the return of the exiles to the beginning of the troubles and persecutions under Antiochus. This is the period of the rebuilding of Jerusalem Dan 9:25.

© The last period of one week extends from the time of the oppressions and wrongs commenced under Antiochus, to the death of Antiochus. See this view fully explained and illustrated in Bertholdt, "ut supra."The great mass of Christian interpreters, however, have supposed that the reference is to the Messiah properly so called - the promised Saviour of the world - the Lord Jesus. In support of this opinion, the following considerations may be suggested, which seem to me to be conclusive:

(1) The language itself is such as is properly applicable to him, and such as would naturally suggest him. It is true, as we see in Isa 45:1, that the term Messiah may be applied to another, as it is there to Cyrus (see the note at the meaning of the word in that place, and in the exposition of this verse), but it is also true that if the term stands by itself, and with no explanation, it would naturally suggest him who, by way of eminence, is known as the Messiah. In Isa 45:1, it is expressly limited to Cyrus, and there can be no danger of mistake. Here there is no such limitation, and it is natural, therefore, to apply it in the sense in which among the Hebrews it would be obviously understood. Even Bertholdt admits the force of this. Thus (p. 563) he says: "That at the words נגיד משׁיח mâshı̂yach nāgı̂yd (Messiah the Prince) we should be led to think of the Messiah, Jesus, and at those, Dan 9:26, לו ואין משׁיח יכרת yı̂kârēth mâshı̂yach v^e 'ēyn lô (shall be cut off but not for himself), of his crucifixion, though not absolutely necessary, is still very natural."

(2) This would be the interpretation which would be given to the words by the Jews. They were so much accustomed to look forward to a great prince and deliverer, who would be by way of eminence the Anointed of the Lord, that, unless there was some special limitation or designation in the language, they would naturally apply it to the Messiah, properly so called. Compare Isa 9:6-7. Early in the history of the Jews, the nation had become accustomed to the expectation that such a deliverer would come, and its hopes were centerd on him. In all times of national trouble and calamity; in all their brightest visions of the future, they were accustomed to look to him as one who would deliver them from their troubles, and who would exalt their people to a pitch of glory and of honor, such as they had never known before. Unless, therefore, there was something in the connection which would demand a different interpretation, the language would be of course applied to the Messiah. But it cannot be pretended that there is anything in the connection that demands such a limitation, nor which forbids such an application.

(3) So far as the ancient versions throw any light on the subject, they show that this is the correct interpretation. So the Latin Vulgate, usque ad Christum ducem . So the Syriac, "unto Messiah, the most holy"- literally, "holy of holies."So Theodotion - ἔως Χριστοῦ heōs Christou - where there can be little doubt that the Messiah was understood to be referred to. The same is found in the Arabic. The Codex Chisianus is in utter confusion on this whole passage, and nothing can be made of it.

(4) All the circumstances referred to in connection with him who is here called "Messiah the Prince"are such as to be properly applicable to the work which the Lord Jesus came to do, and not to Cyrus, or Antiochus, or any other leader or ruler. See the notes at Dan 9:24. To no other one, according to the interpretation which the passage in that verse seems to demand, can the expressions there used be applied. In that exposition it was shown that the verse is designed to give a general view of what would be accomplished, or of what is expressed more in detail in the remaining verses of the vision, and that the language there used can be applied properly to the work which the Lord Jesus came to accomplish. Assuredly to no one else can the phrases "to restrain transgression,""to seal up sins,""to cover over iniquity,""to bring in everlasting righteousness,""to seal up the vision and prophecy,"and "to consecrate the most holy place,"be so well applied. The same is true of the language in the subsequent part of the prophecy, "Messiah shall be cut off,""not for himself ... shall confirm the covenant ... cause the oblation to cease."Any one may see the perplexities in which they are involved by adopting another interpretation, by consulting Bertholdt, or Lengerke on the passage.

(5) The expression used here ("prince"- נגיד nāgı̂yd - is applied to the Messiah beyond all question in Isa 4:4 : "I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader - נגיד nāgı̂yd - and a commander to the people."

(6) The perplexity attending any other interpretation is an additional proof of this point. In full illustration of this, it is necessary only to refer to the views of Bertholdt and Eichhorn as above exhibited. Whatever may be said about the difficulties on the supposition that it refers to the Lord Jesus - the true Messiah - no one can undertake to reconcile the applications which they have proposed with any belief of the inspiration of the passage. These considerations seem to me to make it clear that the prophecy had reference to the Messiah properly so called - the hope and the expectation of the Jewish people. There can be no doubt that Daniel would so understand it; there can be no doubt that it would be so applied by the Jews.

II. The next question is, From what point are we to reckon in computing the time when the Messiah would appear - the " terminus a quo ?"It is important to fix this, for the whole question of the fulfillment depends on it, and "honesty"requires that it should be determined without reference to the time to which four hundred and ninety years would reach - or the " terminus ad quem ."It is clearly not proper to do as Prideaux does, to assume that it refers to the birth of Christ, and then to reckon backward to a time which may be made to mean the "going forth of the commandment."The true method, undoubtedly, would be to fix on a time which would accord with the expression here, with no reference to the question of the fulfillment for in that way only can it be determined to be a true "prophecy,"and in that way only would it be of any use to Daniel, or to those who succeeded him. It need hardly be said, that a great variety of opinions have been maintained in regard to the time designated by the "going forth of the commandment."Bertholdt (pp. 567, 568) mentions no less than thirteen opinions which have been entertained on this point, and in such a variety of sentiment, it seems almost hopeless to be able to ascertain the truth with certainty. Now, in determining this, there are a few points which may be regarded as certain. They are such as these:

(a) That the commandment referred to is one that is issued by some prince or king having authority, and not the purpose of God. See the notes above on the first part of the verse.

(b) That the distinct command would be to "restore and build Jerusalem."This is specified, and therefore would seem to be distinguished from a command to build the temple, or to restore that from its state of ruin. It is true that the one might appear to be implied in the other, and yet this does not necessarily follow. For various causes it might be permitted to the Jews to rebuild their temple, and there might be a royal ordinance commanding that, while there was no purpose to restore the city to its former power and splendor, and even while there might be strong objections to it. For the use of the Jews who still resided in Palestine, and for those who were about to return, it might be a matter of policy to permit them to rebuild their temple, and even to aid them in it, while yet it might be regarded as perilous to allow them to rebuild the city, and to place it in its former condition of strength and power.

It was a place easily fortified; it had cost the Babylonian monarch much time, and had occasioned him many losses, before he had been able to conquer and subdue it, and, even to Cyrus, it might be a matter of very questionable policy to allow it to be built and fortified again. Accordingly we find that, as a matter of fact, the permission to rebuild the temple, and the permission to rebuild the city, were quite different things, and were separately granted by different sovereigns, and that the work was executed by different persons. The former might, without impropriety, be regarded as the close of the captivity - or the end of the "seventy years"of Jeremiah - for a permission to rebuild the temple was, in fact, a permission to return to their own country, and an implied purpose to aid them in it, while a considerable interval might, and probably would elapse, before a distinct command was issued to restore and rebuild the city itself, and even then a long period might intervene before it would be completed.

Accordingly, in the edict published by Cyrus, the permission to rebuild the temple is the one that is carefully specified: "Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to "build him an house"at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and "build the house of the Lord God of Israel"(he is the God), which is in Jerusalem,"Ezr 1:2-3. In this order there is nothing said of the restoration of the city, and that in fact occurred at a different time, and under the direction of different leaders. The first enterprise was to rebuild the temple; it was still a question whether it would be a matter of policy to allow the city to be rebuilt, and that was in fact accomplished at a different time. These considerations seem to make it certain that the edict referred to here was not what was issued by "Cyrus,"but must have been a subsequent decree bearing particularly on the rebuilding of the city itself. It is true that the command to rebuild the temple would imply that either there were persons residing amidst the ruins of Jerusalem, or in the land of Palestine, who were to worship there, and that there would be inhabitants in Jerusalem, probably those who would go from Babylon - for otherwise the temple would be of no service, but still this might be, and there be no permission to rebuild the city with any degree of its ancient strength and splendor, and none to surround it with walls - a very material thing in the structure of an ancient city.

© This interpretation is confirmed by the latter part of the verse: "the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."If the word rendered "wall"means "trench or ditch,"as I have supposed, still it was a trench or ditch which was designed as a "defense"of a city, or which was excavated for making a wall, for the purpose of fortifying a walled city in order to make it stronger, and the expression is one which would not be applied to the mere purpose of rebuilding the temple, nor would it be used except in a command to restore the city itself. We are, then, in the fair interpretation of the passage, required now to show that such a command went forth from the Persian king to "restore and rebuild"the city itself - that is, a permission to put it into such a condition of strength as it was before.

In order to see how this interpretation accords with the facts in the case, and to determine whether such a period can be found as shall properly correspond with this interpretation, and enable us to ascertain the point of time here referred to - the " terminus a quo "- it is proper to inquire what are the facts which history has preserved. For this purpose, I looked at this point of the investigation into Jahn’ s "Hebrew Commonwealth,"(pp. 160-177), a work not written with any reference to the fulfillment of this prophecy, and which, indeed, in the portion relating to this period of the world, makes no allusion whatever to Daniel. The inquiry which it was necessary to settle was, whether under any of the Persian kings there was any order or command which would properly correspond with what we have ascertained to be the fair meaning of the passage. A very brief synopsis of the principal events recorded by Jahn as bearing on the restoration of the Jews to their own country, will be all that is needful to add to determine the question before us.

The kings of the Persian universal monarchy, according to Ptolemy, were ten, and the whole sum of their reign two hundred and seven years - from the time of Cyaxares II to the time of Alexander the Great. But Ptolemy’ s specific object being chronology, he omitted those who continued not on the throne a full year, and referred the months of their reign, partly to the preceding, and partly to the succeeding monarch. The whole number of sovereigns was in reality fourteen, as appears by the following table:

538	Cyaxares II reigned	2	0
536	Cyrus	7	0
529	Cambyses	7	5
522	Smerdis	0	7
521	Darius Hystaspis	36	0
485	Xerxes I	21	0
464	Artaxerxes Longimanus	40	3
424	Xerxes II	0	2
424	Sogdianus	0	7
423	Darius Nothus	19	0
404	Artaxerxes Mnemon	46	0
358	Darius Ochus	21	0
337	Arses	0	2
335	Darius Codomanus	0	4
Under the reign of this last prince, 331 b.c., the kingdom was entirely subdued by Alexander the Great. In respect to the question whether any order or command was issued pertaining to the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem that corresponds with the meaning of the prediction as above explained, the following facts will probably furnish all the knowledge which can be obtained: (a) Cyaxares II Of course there was nothing in the time of Cyaxares II, the Darius of Daniel Dan 6:1; Dan 9:1, as it was under him that Babylon was conquered, and there was no movement toward a restoration of the Jews to their own land commenced by him, the first movement of that kind being under Cyrus. (b) Cyrus. What was the nature of the order issued by him we have seen above. It was a command to build the temple, and was limited to that, and involved no reference to the city. The command, as we have seen above, did not extend to that, and there were probably good reasons why it was not contemplated that it should be rebuilt in its former strength, and fortified as it was before. The purpose to fortify the city, or to encompass it by a wall or ditch, or even to build it at all, could not have been brought within the order of Cyrus, as recorded in Ezra, and that is the only form of the order which we have. The language of Daniel, therefore, seems to have been chosen of design when he says that the command would be issued to rebuild the city, not the temple. At any rate, such is the language, and such was not the order of Cyrus. © Cambyses. After the death of Cyrus the Samaritans wrote to Cambyses (called, by Ezra, Ahasuerus) against the Jews. We are not informed what effect this letter produced, but we can easily judge from the character of this degenerate son of Cyrus, as it is represented in history. He was a "thoughtless, gluttonous, furious warrior, who was considered as raving mad even by his own subjects."- Jahn. He madly invaded Egypt, and on his return learned that Smerdis, his brother, had usurped the throne in his absence; and died of a wound received from the falling of his sword from its sheath, as he was mounting his horse. No order is mentioned during his reign pertaining to the rebuilding either of the city or the temple. (d) Smerdis. He retained the throne about seven months. In the Bible the has the name of Artaxerxes. Compare, respecting him, Ctesias, x.; Justin, i. 9; Herod. iii. 61-67. "To this monarch the Samaritans again addressed themselves, complaining that the Jews were building (that is, fortifying) the city of Jerusalem, which they had never thought of doing; and in consequence of this false accusation, Smerdis issued a positive prohibition of their work."- Jahn. Two things, therefore, may be remarked respecting this reign: (1) the order or commandment referred to by Daniel could not have been issued during this reign, since there was an express "prohibition"against the work of building and fortifying the city; and (2) this confirms what is said above about the improbability that any order would have been issued by Cyrus to rebuild and fortify the city itself. It could not but have been foreseen that such an order would be likely to excite opposition from the Samaritans, and to cause internal dissensions and difficulties in Palestine, and it is not probable that the Persian govenment would allow the rebuilding of a city that would lead to such collisions. (e) Darius Hystaspis. He reigned thirty-six years. He was a mild and benevolent ruler. "As Smerdis was a mere usurper, his prohibition of rebuilding the temple was of no authority."- Jahn. In the second year of his reign, Haggai and Zechariah appeared, who plied the governor Zerubbabel, the high priest Joshua, and the whole people, with such powerful appeals to the Divine commands, that the building of the house of God was once more resumed. Upon this, Tatnai, the Persian governor on the west side of the Euphrates, came with his officers to call the Jews to an account, who referred him to the permission of Cyrus, and the Jews were suffered to proceed. The whole matter was, however, made known to Darius, and he caused search to be made among the archives of the state in reference to the alleged decree of Cyrus. The edict of Cyrus was found, which directed that a temple should be built at Jerusalem at the royal expense, and of much larger dimensions than the former. A copy of this was sent to Tatnai, and he was commanded to see that the work should be forwarded, and that the expenses should be defrayed from the royal treasury, and that the priests should be supplied with whatever was necessary to keep up the daily sacrifice. The work was, therefore, pressed on with renewed vigour, and in the sixth year of his reign the temple was completed and consecrated. The remainder of his reign was spent in unnecessary wars with Scythia, Thrace, India, and Greece. He suffered an overthrow at Marathon, and was preparing for a more energetic campaign in Greece when he died, and left his dominion and his wars to Xerxes. No order was issued during his reign for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. All his edicts pertain to the original grant of Cyrus - the permission to build the temple. (f) Xerxes I. The career of Xerxes is well known. He was distinguished for gluttony, voluptuousness, and cruelty. He is celebrated for his invasion of Greece, for the check which he met at Thermopylae, and for the overthrow of his naval forces at Salamis by Themistocles. In the twenty-first year of his reign he was murdered by Artabanus, commander of his life-guard. He died in the year 464 b.c. According to Jalm, it is probable that "the Artaxerxes of Ezra, who is mentioned next after Darius Hystaspis, and the Ahasuerus of Esther, are names of Xerxes I."If so, it was under him that the second caravan of Jews went to Judea, under the direction of Ezra Ezra 7 Xerxes, if he was the prince referred to, gave Ezra an ample commission in regard to the temple at Jerusalem, granting him full power to do all that was necessary to maintain public worship there, and committing to him the vessels of gold and silver in Babylon, pertaining to the temple, etc. The decree may be found in Ezr 7:13-26. This decree, however, relates wholly to the temple - the "house of God."There was no order for rebuilding the city, and there is no evidence that anything material was done in building the city, or the walls. Respecting this reign, John remarks, "The Hebrew colony in Judea seems never to have been in a very flourishing condition. The administration of justice was particularly defective, and neither civil nor religious institutions were firmly established. Accordingly, the king gave permission anew for all Hebrews to emigrate to Judea,"p. 172. Ezra made the journey with the caravan in three months; deposited the precious gifts in the temple, caused the Scriptures to be read and explained; commenced a moral reformation, but did nothing, so far as appears, in reconstructing the city - for his commission did not extend to that. (g) Artaxerxes Longimanus. According to Jahn, he began to reign 464 b.c., and reigned forty years and three months. It was during his reign that Nehemiah lived, and that he acted as governor of Judea. The colony in Judea, says Jahn, which had been so flourishing in the time of Ezra, had greatly declined, in consequence of the fact that Syria and Phoenicia had been the rendezvous of the armies of Artaxerxes. "Nehemiah, the cup-bearer of Artaxerxes, learned the unhappy state of the Hebrews, b.c. 444, from a certain Jew named Hanani, who had come from Judea to Shushan with a caravan. Of the regulations introduced by Esra b.c. 478 there was little remaining, and, amid the confusions of war, the condition of the Jews continually grew worse. This information so affected Nehemiah that the king observed his melancholy, and inquiring its cause, he appointed him governor of Judea, "with full power to fortify Jerusalem,"and thus to secure it from the disasters to which unprotected places are always exposed in time of war. Orders were sent to the royal officers west of the Euphrates to "assist in the fortification of the city,"and to furnish the requisite timber from the king’ s forest; probably on Mount Libanus, near the sources of the river Kadisha, as that was the place celebrated for its cedars. Thus commissioned, Nehemiah journeyed to Judea, accompanied by military officers and cavalry,"pp. 175, 176. Jahn further adds, "as soon as Nehemiah, on his arrival in Palestine, had been acknowledged governor of Judea by the royal officers, he made known his preparations for fortifying Jerusalem to the elders who composed the Jewish council. All the heads of houses, and the high priest Eliashib, engaged zealously in the work. The chiefs of the Samaritans, Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem, endeavored to thwart their undertaking by insults, by malicious insinuations that it was a preparation for revolt, by plots, and by threats of a hostile attack. The Jews, notwithstanding, proceeded earnestly in their business, armed the laborers, protected them still further by a guard of armed citizens, and at length happily completed the walls of their city." We have reached a point, then, in the history of the kings of Persia, when there was a distinct order to restore and fortify Jerusalem, and when there was an express expedition undertaken to accomplish this result. In the history of these kings, as reported by Jahn, this is the first order that would seem to correspond with the language of Daniel - "the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem,"and the assertion that "the street should be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."It may be well, therefore, to pause here, and to look more distinctly at this order of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and inquire into its conformity with the language of Daniel. The circumstances, then, as stated in the book of Nehemiah, are these: (a) Nehemiah learned from Hanani the state of his brethren in Judea, and the fact that the "walls of the city were broken down, and that the gates were burned with fire,"and that the people who were at Jerusalem were in a state of "great affliction and reproach,"and gave himself to weeping, and fasting, and prayer, on that account, Neh 1:1-11. (b) On coming into the presence of Artaxerxes, to perform the usual duty of presenting the wine to the king, the king saw the sadness and distress of Nehemiah, and inquired the cause, Neh 2:1-2. This, Nehemiah Neh 2:1 is careful to remark occurred in the twentieth year of his reign. © He states distinctly, that it was because Jerusalem was still in ruins: "Why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?"Neh 2:3. (d) The request of Nehemiah, in accordance with the language in Daniel, was, that he might be permitted to go to Jerusalem and "rebuild the city:""And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favor in thy sight, that thou wouldst send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it,"Neh 2:5. (e) The edict of Artaxerxes contemplated the same thing which is foretold by the angel to Daniel "And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king’ s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which pertained to the house, and for the wall of the city,"etc., Neh 2:8. (f) The work which Nehemiah did, under this edict, was what is supposed in the prediction in Daniel. His first work was to go forth by night to survey the state of the city: "And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, etc., and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire,"Neh 2:13. His next work was to propose to rebuild these walls again: "Then said I unto them, Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach,"Neh 2:17. The next work was to rebuild those walls, a full description of which we have in Neh. 3:1-32; 4:1-23. The city was thus fortified. It was built again according to the purpose of Nehemiah, and according to the decree of Artaxerxes. It took its place again as a fortified city, and the promised work of restoring and rebuilding it was; complete. (g) The building of the city and the walls under Nehemiah occurred in just such circumstances as are predicted by Daniel. The angel says, "The wall shall be built again, even in troublous times."Let anyone read the account of the rebuilding in Nehemiah - the description of the "troubles "which were produced by the opposition of Sanballat and those associated with him Neh. 4, and he will see the striking accuracy of this expression - an accuracy as entire as if it had been employed after the event in describing it, instead of having been used before in predicting it. It may confirm this interpretation to make three remarks: (1) After this decree of Artaxerxes there was no order issued by Persian kings pertaining to the restoration and rebuilding of the city. Neither Xerxes II, nor Sogdianus, nor Darius Nothus, nor Artaxerxes Mnemon, nor Darius Ochus, nor Arses, nor Darius Codomanus, issued any decree that corresponded at all with this prediction, or any that related to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. There was no occasion for any, for the work was done. (2) \caps1 a\caps0 second remark is, that, in the language of Hengstenberg, "Until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, the new city of Jerusalem was an open, thinly inhabited village, exposed to all aggressions from its neighbors, sustaining the same relation to the former and the latter city as the huts erected after the burning of a city for the first protection front rain and wind do to those which are still uninjured, or which have been rebuilt."- Christ. ii. 381. This is quite apparent from the remarks which have been already made respecting the state of the city. The want of any permission to rebuild the city and the walls; the fact that the permission to return extended only to a right-to rebuild the temple; the improbabilities above stated, that the rebuilding of the city in its strength would be allowed when they first returned, and the account which Nehemiah gives of the condition of Jerusalem at the time when he asked leave to go and "build"it, all tend to confirm this supposition. See Hengstenberg, as above, pp. 381-386. (3) A third remark is, that a confirmation of this may be found in the book of Ecclesiasticus, showing how Nehemiah was regarded in respect to the rebuilding of the city: "And among the elect was Neemias, whose renown is great, who raised up for us the walls that were fallen, and set up the gates and the bars, and raised up our ruins again,"Ecclesiasticus 49:13. On the other hand, Joshua and Zerubbabel are extolled only as rebuilders of the temple: "How shall we magnify Zorobabel? even he was as a signet on the right hand:""so was Jesus the son of Josedec: who in their time builded "the house"and set up a "holy temple"to the Lord,"Ecclesiasticus 49:11, 12. These considerations make the case clear, it seems to me, that the time referred to - the " terminus a quo "- according to the fair interpretation, was the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. To this we are conducted by the proper and necessary exposition of the language, and by the orders actually issued from the Persian court in regard to the temple and city. If it should be objected - the only objection of importance that has been alleged against it - that this would not meet the inquiry of Daniel; that he was seeking for the time when the captivity would cease, and looking for its termination as predicted by Jeremiah; that it would not console him to be referred to a period so remote as is here supposed - the time of the rebuilding of the city; and, still more, that, not knowing that time, the prophecy would afford him no basis of calculation as to the appearing of the Messiah, it may be replied: (a) That the prediction contained all the consolation and assurance which Daniel sought - the assurance that the city "would be rebuilt,"and that an order "would go forth"for its restoration. (b) That the angel does not profess to answer the precise point of the inquiry which Daniel had suggested. The prayer of Daniel was the occasion of uttering a higher prophecy than the one which lie had been contemplating. © It is not necessary to suppose that the design was that "Daniel"should be able to compute the exact time when the Messiah would appear. It was sufficient for him if he had the assurance that he would appear, and if he were furnished with a basis by which it might be calculated when he would appear, after the order to rebuild the city had gone forth. (d) At any rate, the prophecy must have appeared to Daniel to have a much more important meaning than would be implied merely by a direct answer to his prayer - pertaining to the close of the exile. The prophecy indubitably stretched far into future years. Daniel must have seen at once that it contained an important disclosure respecting future events, and, as it implied that the exile would close, and that the city would be rebuilt, and as he had already a sufficient intimation when the exile would close, from the prophecies of Jeremiah, we may suppose that the mind of Daniel would rest on this as more than he had desired to know - a revelation far beyond what he anticipated when he set apart this day for special prayer. The only remaining Poole -> Dan 9:25 Poole: Dan 9:25 - -- Know therefore and understand i.e. by deep consideration, upon a due search of reason, and comparing of things, and minding what the angel saith. Se... Know therefore and understand i.e. by deep consideration, upon a due search of reason, and comparing of things, and minding what the angel saith. Seven weeks from the publication of the edict, whether of Cyrus or Darius, to restore and to build, we shall see anon. Even in troublous times noting the enemy should create them much trouble in the building and reparations of the wall, city, and temple, which they did many ways, as we read in Nehemiah, which the Spirit of God doth premonish them of, lest they should think this their chief deliverance and redemption. These seven weeks are therefore mentioned by themselves, and repeated no more, because they contained the time of building the wall, city, and temple of Jerusalem, at the end of which seem to begin the sixty-two weeks. Haydock -> Dan 9:25 Haydock: Dan 9:25 - -- Word, &c. That is, from the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes, when, by his commandment, Nehemias rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, 2 Esdras ii. From... Word, &c. That is, from the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes, when, by his commandment, Nehemias rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, 2 Esdras ii. From which time, according to the best chronology, there were just sixty-nine weeks of years, the is 483 years, to the baptism of Christ, when he first began to preach and execute the office of Messias. (Challoner) --- The prophecy is divided into three periods: the first of forty-nine years, during which the walls were completed; (they had been raised in fifty-two days, (2 Esdras vi. 15.) but many other fortifications were still requisite) the second of four hundred and thirty-four years, at the end of which Christ was baptized, in the fifteenth of Tiberius, the third of three years and a half, during which Christ preached. In the middle of this last week, the ancient sacrifices became useless, (Calmet) as the true Lamb of God had been immolated. (Theod.) --- A week of years denotes seven years, as Leviticus xxv. and thus seventy of these weeks would make four hundred and ninety years. (Ven. Bede, Rat. temp. 6 &c.; Worthington) --- Origen would understand 4900 years, and dates from the fall of Adam to the ruin of the temple. Marsham begins twenty-one years after the captivity commenced, when Darius took Susa, and ends in the second of Judas, when the temple was purified. This system would destroy the prediction of Christ's coming, and is very uncertain. Hardouin modifies it, and acknowledges that Christ was the end of the prophecy, though it was fulfilled in figure by the death of Onias III. See 1 Machabees i. 19; Senens. Bib. viii. hזr. 12; and Estius. From Chapter vii. to xii. the changes in the East, till the time of Epiphanes, are variously described. After the angel had here addressed Daniel, the latter was still perplexed; (Chap. x. 1.) and in order to remove his doubts, the angel informs him of the persecution of Epiphanes, as if he had been speaking of the same event. We may, therefore, count forty-nine years from the taking of Jerusalem (when Jeremias spoke, Chap. vi. 19.) to Cyrus, the anointed, (Isaias xlv. 1.) who was appointed to free God's people. They would still be under the Persians, &c. for other four hundred and thirty-four years, and then Onias should be slain. Many would join the Machabees; the sacrifices should cease in the middle of the seventieth week, and the desolation shall continue to the end of it. Yet, though this system may seem plausible, it is better to stick to the common one, which naturally leads us to the death of Christ, dating from the tenth year of Artaxerxes. (Calmet) --- He had reigned ten years already with his father. (Petau.) --- All the East was persuaded that a great king should arise about the time; when our Saviour actually appeared, and fulfilled all that had been spoken of the Messias. (Calmet; Diss.) --- Ferguson says, "We have an astronomical demonstration of the truth of this ancient prophecy, seeing that the prophetic year of the Messias being cut off was the very same with the astronomical." In a dispute between a Jew and a Christian, at Venice, the Rabbi who presided....put an end to the business by saying, "Let us shut up our Bibles; for if we proceed in the examination of this prophecy, it will make us all become Christians." (Watson, let. 6.) --- Hence probably the Jews denounce a curse on those who calculate the times, (Haydock) and they have purposely curtailed their chronology. (Calmet) --- Times, &c. ( angustia temporum ) which may allude both to the difficulties and opposition they met with in building, and to the shortness of the time in which they finished the wall, viz. fifty-two days. (Challoner) Gill -> Dan 9:25 Gill: Dan 9:25 - -- Know, therefore, and understand,.... Take notice and observe, for the clearer understanding of these seventy weeks, and the events to be fulfilled in ... Know, therefore, and understand,.... Take notice and observe, for the clearer understanding of these seventy weeks, and the events to be fulfilled in them, what will be further said concerning them, the beginning of them, their distinct periods, and what shall be accomplished in them: that from the time of the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem; this commandment is the beginning of the seventy weeks or four hundred and ninety years, and from it they are to be reckoned; and which designs not the proclamation of Cyrus in the first year of his reign, which was only to rebuild the temple, and not the city of Jerusalem, Ezr 1:1, nor the decree of Darius Hystaspes, which also only regards the temple, and is only a confirmation of the decree of Cyrus, Ezr 6:1 and for the same reasons it cannot be the decree in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes; which only confirmed what his predecessors had granted concerning the temple, and provision for sacrifices, and exemption of the priests from toll, tribute, or custom, Ezr 7:7, but has not a word of building the wall and streets of Jerusalem, as that has, which was made in the twentieth year of his reign; and seems therefore to be the commandment or decree here referred to, Neh 2:1, and this is the general epoch of the seventy weeks, and where the first seven begin; though Gussetius a thinks that the word דבר does not signify any edict or decree, but a "thing"; and designs the thing itself, restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem; and that the following date is to be reckoned, not from any order to rebuild that city, but from the thing itself, from the moment when it first began to be rebuilt: and as singular is the notion of Tirinus b, who is of opinion that this is to be understood of the going out, or the end of the word; not whereby the holy city was ordered to be built, but when it was really built; and so begins the account from the dedication of the new city, in the twenty third year of Artaxerxes, Neh 12:27. There are others who suppose that not any human word, decree, commandment, or order, is here meant, but a divine one; either the word of the Lord to Jeremiah, foretelling the seventy years' captivity of the Jews, and their deliverance from it; and reckon these four hundred and ninety years from the destruction of the first temple, to the destruction of the second temple, as Jarchi, Saadiah, Jacchiades, and others; but between these two destructions was a course of six hundred and fifty six or six hundred and fifty seven years: others take the beginning of the seventy weeks to be from the going forth of the commandment to the angel, at the beginning of Daniel's prayers, as Aben Ezra; and to end at the destruction of the second temple; but, for a like reason, this must be rejected as the other; since this space of time will outrun the seventy weeks near one hundred and twenty years: it is best therefore to interpret this of a royal edict, the order or commandment of a king of Persia to rebuild Jerusalem; and it seems correct to reckon the number given, either from the seventh, or rather from the twentieth, of Artaxerxes Longimanus before mentioned; and either these reckonings, as Bishop Chandler c observes, are sufficient for our purpose, to show the completion of the prophecy in Christ: "the commencement of the weeks (as he remarks) must be either from the seventh of Artaxerxes, which falls on 457 B.C. or from the twentieth of Artaxerxes; (add to 457 B.C., twenty six years after Christ, which is the number that four hundred and eighty three years, or sixty nine weeks, exceeds four hundred and fifty seven years); and you are brought to the beginning of John the Baptist's preaching up the advent of the Messiah; add seven years or one week to the former, and you come to the thirty third year of A.D. which was the year of Jesus Christ's death or else compute four hundred and ninety years, the whole seventy weeks, from the seventh of Artaxerxes, by subtracting four hundred and fifty seven years (the space of time between that year and the beginning of A.D.) from four hundred and ninety, and there remains thirty three, the year of our Lord's death. Let the twentieth of Artaxerxes be the date of the seventy weeks, which is 455 B.C. and reckon sixty nine weeks of Chaldean years; seventy Chaldee years being equal to sixty nine Julian; and so four hundred and seventy eight Julian years making four hundred and eighty three Chaldee years, and they end in the thirty third year after Christ, or the passover following d''; the several particulars into which these seventy weeks are divided: unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; by whom is meant, not Cyrus, as Jarchi and Jacchiades; who, though called Messiah or anointed, Isa 44:28, cannot be intended; for this prince was to be cut off after seven, and sixty two weeks, or four hundred and eighty three years; whereas Cyrus died ages before this, and even died before the expiration of the seven weeks, or forty nine years; nor Joshua the high priest, or Zerubbabel, as Ben Gersom and others nor Nehemiah as Aben Ezra; nor Artaxerxes, which R. Azariah e thinks probable; for to none of these will this character agree, which denotes some eminent person known by this name; nor the work ascribed to him, Dan 9:24, nor can it be said of either of them that they were cut off, and much less at such a period as is here fixed: it is right to interpret it of the promised and expected Saviour, whom the Psalmist David had frequently spoken of under the name of the Messiah, and as a King and Prince; see Psa 2:2 and who is David, the Prince Ezekiel before this had prophesied of, Eze 34:24, and is the same with the Prince of peace in the famous prophecy of him in Isa 9:6. The Syriac version, though not a literal one, gives the true sense of the passage, rendering it, "unto the coming of the King Messiah;'' unto which there were to be seven, and sixty two weeks, or sixty nine weeks, which make four hundred and eighty three years; and these being understood of eastern years, used by the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Persians, consisting of three hundred and sixty days, reckoning thirty days to a month, and twelve months to a year, there were just four hundred and eighty three of these from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to the thirty third of the vulgar era of Christ, and the nineteenth of Tiberius Caesar, in which he suffered. Sir Isaac Newton f thinks the seven weeks unto Messiah, which he detaches from the sixty two, respects the second coming of Christ, when he shall come as a Prince, and destroy antichrist, and that it takes in the compass of a jubilee; but when it will begin and end he does not pretend to say; but the true reason of the sixty nine weeks being divided into seven, and sixty two, is on account of the particular and distinct events assigned to each period, as follows: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times; that is, within the space of seven weeks, or forty nine years, reckoning from the twentieth of Artaxerxes; when the Jews had a grant to rebuild their city and wall, and were furnished with materials for it; and which was done in very troublesome times; Nehemiah, and the Jews with him, met with much trouble from Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem the Arabian, while they were setting up the wall of the city, and filling the streets with ranges of houses, Nehemiah chapters four and five for which the space of seven weeks, or forty nine years, were cut out and appointed; and that this event belongs solely to this period is clear from the Messiah's coming being appropriated to the period of the sixty two weeks; which leaves this entirely where it is fixed. expand all Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes NET Notes -> Dan 9:25; Dan 9:25; Dan 9:25; Dan 9:25; Dan 9:25; Dan 9:25 NET Notes: Dan 9:25 Heb “it will return and be built.” The expression is a verbal hendiadys. 1 tn Or “decree” (NASB, NIV); or “word” (NAB, NRSV). 2 map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4. 3 tn The word “arrives” is added in the translation for clarification. 4 tn Heb “sevens” (also later in this line and in v. 26). sn The accents in the MT indicate disjunction at this point, which would make it difficult, if not impossible, to identify the “anointed one/prince” of this verse as messianic. The reference in v. 26 to the sixty-two weeks as a unit favors the MT accentuation, not the traditional translation. If one follows the MT accentuation, one may translate “From the going forth of the message to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince arrives, there will be a period of seven weeks. During a period of sixty-two weeks it will again be built, with plaza and moat, but in distressful times.” The present translation follows a traditional reading of the passage that deviates from the MT accentuation. 5 tn Heb “it will return and be built.” The expression is a verbal hendiadys. Geneva Bible -> Dan 9:25 Geneva Bible: Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from ( s ) the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [sha... Know therefore and understand, [that] from ( s ) the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven ( t ) weeks, and ( u ) threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. ( s ) That is, from the time that Cyrus gave them permission to depart. ( t ) These weeks make forty-nine years, of which forty-six are referred to the time of the building of the temple, and three to the laying of the foundation. ( u ) Counting from the sixth year of Darius, who gave the second commandment for the building of the temple are sixty-two weeks, which make 434 years, which comprehend the time from the building of the temple until the baptism of Christ. expand all Commentary -- Verse Range Notes TSK Synopsis -> Dan 9:1-27 TSK Synopsis: Dan 9:1-27 - --1 Daniel, considering the time of the captivity,3 makes confession of sins,16 and prays for the restoration of Jerusalem.20 Gabriel informs him of the... 1 Daniel, considering the time of the captivity, 3 makes confession of sins, 16 and prays for the restoration of Jerusalem. 20 Gabriel informs him of the seventy weeks. MHCC -> Dan 9:20-27 MHCC: Dan 9:20-27 - --An answer was immediately sent to Daniel's prayer, and it is a very memorable one. We cannot now expect that God should send answers to our prayers by... An answer was immediately sent to Daniel's prayer, and it is a very memorable one. We cannot now expect that God should send answers to our prayers by angels, but if we pray with fervency for that which God has promised, we may by faith take the promise as an immediate answer to the prayer; for He is faithful that has promised. Daniel had a far greater and more glorious redemption discovered to him, which God would work out for his church in the latter days. Those who would be acquainted with Christ and his grace, must be much in prayer. The evening offering was a type of the great sacrifice Christ was to offer in the evening of the world: in virtue of that sacrifice Daniel's prayer was accepted; and for the sake of that, this glorious discovery of redeeming love was made to him. We have, in Dan 9:24-27, one of the most remarkable prophecies of Christ, of his coming and his salvation. It shows that the Jews are guilty of most obstinate unbelief, in expecting another Messiah, so long after the time expressly fixed for his coming. The seventy weeks mean a day for a year, or 490 years. About the end of this period a sacrifice would be offered, making full atonement for sin, and bringing in everlasting righteousness for the complete justification of every believer. Then the Jews, in the crucifixion of Jesus, would commit that crime by which the measure of their guilt would be filled up, and troubles would come upon their nation. All blessings bestowed on sinful man come through Christ's atoning sacrifice, who suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. Here is our way of access to the throne of grace, and of our entrance to heaven. This seals the sum of prophecy, and confirms the covenant with many; and while we rejoice in the blessings of salvation, we should remember what they cost the Redeemer. How can those escape who neglect so great salvation! Matthew Henry -> Dan 9:20-27 Matthew Henry: Dan 9:20-27 - -- We have here the answer that was immediately sent to Daniel's prayer, and it is a very memorable one, as it contains the most illustrious prediction... We have here the answer that was immediately sent to Daniel's prayer, and it is a very memorable one, as it contains the most illustrious prediction of Christ and gospel-grace that is extant in all the Old Testament. If John Baptist was the morning-star, this was the day-break to the Sun of righteousness, the day-spring from on high. Here is, I. The time when this answer was given. 1. It was while Daniel was at prayer. This he observed and laid a strong emphasis upon: While I was speaking (Dan 9:20), yea, while I was speaking in prayer (Dan 9:21), before he rose from his knees, and while there was yet more which he intended to say. (1.) He mentions the two heads he chiefly insisted upon in prayer, and which perhaps he designed yet further to enlarge upon. [1.] He was confessing sin and lamenting that - "both my sin and the sin of my people Israel. "Daniel was a very great and good man, and yet he finds sin of his own to confess before God and is ready to confess it; for there is not a just man upon earth that does good and sins not, nor that sins and repents not. St. John puts himself into the number of those who deceive themselves if they say that they have no sin, and who therefore confess their sins, 1Jo 1:8. Good men find it an ease to their consciences to pour out their complaints before the Lord against themselves; and that is confessing sin. He also confessed the sin of his people, and bewailed that. Those who are heartily concerned for the glory of God, the welfare of the church, and the souls of men, will mourn for the sins of others as well as for their own. [2.] He was making supplication before the Lord his God, and presenting it to him as an intercessor for Israel; and in this prayer his concern was for the holy mountain of his God, Mount Zion. The desolations of the sanctuary lay nearer his heart than those of the city and the land; and the repair of that, and the setting up of the public worship of God of Israel again, were the things he had in view, in the deliverance he was preparing for, more than re-establishment of their civil interests. Now, (2.) While Daniel was thus employed, [1.] He had a grant made him of the mercy he prayed for. Note, God is very ready to hear prayer and to give an answer of peace. Now was fulfilled what God had spoken Isa 65:24, While they are yet speaking, I will hear. Daniel grew very fervent in prayer, and his affections were very strong, Dan 9:18, Dan 9:19. And, while he was speaking with such fervour and ardency, the angel came to him with a gracious answer. God is well pleased with lively devotions. We cannot now expect that God should send us answers to our prayer by angels, but, if we pray with fervency for that which God has promised, we may by faith take the promise as an immediate answer to the prayer; for he is faithful that has promised. [2.] He had a discovery made to him of a far greater and more glorious redemption which God would work out for his church in the latter days. Note, Those that would be brought acquainted with Christ and his grace must be much in prayer. 2. It was about the time of the evening oblation, Dan 9:21. The altar was in ruins, and there was no oblation offered upon it, but, it should seem, the pious Jews in their captivity were daily thoughtful of the time when it should have been offered, and at that hour were ready to weep at the remembrance of it, and desired and hoped that their prayer should be set forth before God as incense, and the lifting up of their hands, and their hearts with their hands, should be acceptable in his sight as the evening-sacrifice, Psa 141:2. The evening oblation was a type of the great sacrifice which Christ was to offer in the evening of the world, and it was in the virtue of that sacrifice that Daniel's prayer was accepted when he prayed for the Lord's sake; and for the sake of that this glorious discovery of redeeming love was made to him. The Lamb opened the seals in the virtue of his own blood. II. The messenger by whom this answer was sent. It was not given him in a dream, nor by a voice from heaven, but, for the greater certainty and solemnity of it, an angel was sent on purpose, appearing in a human shape, to give this answer to Daniel. Observe, 1. Who this angel, or messenger, was; it was the man Gabriel. If Michael the archangel be, as many suppose, no other than Jesus Christ, this Gabriel is the only created angel that is named in scripture. Gabriel signifies the mighty one of God; for the angels are great in power and might, 2Pe 2:11. It was he whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning. Daniel heard him called by his name, and thence learned it (Dan 8:16); and, though then he trembled at his approach, yet he observed him so carefully that now he knew him again, knew him to be the same that he had seen at the beginning, and, being somewhat better acquainted with him, was not now so terrified at the sight of him as he had been at first. When this angel said to Zacharias, I am Gabriel (Luk 1:19), he intended thereby to put him in mind of this notice which he had given to Daniel of the Messiah's coming when it was at a distance, for the confirming of his faith in the notice he was then about to give of it as at the door. 2. The instructions which this messenger received from the Father of lights to whom Daniel prayed (Dan 9:23): At the beginning of thy supplications the word, the commandment, came forth from God. Notice was given to the angels in heaven of this counsel of God, which they were desirous to look into; and orders were given to Gabriel to go immediately and bring the notice of it to Daniel. By this it appears that it was not any thing which Daniel said that moved God, for the answer was given as he began to pray; but God was well pleased with his serious solemn address to the duty, and, in token of that, sent him this gracious message. Or perhaps it was at the beginning of Daniel's supplications that Cyrus's word, or commandment, went forth to restore and to build Jerusalem, that going forth spoken of Dan 9:25. "The thing was done this very day; the proclamation of liberty to the Jews was signed this morning, just when thou wast praying for it;"and now, at the close of this fast-day, Daniel had notice of it, as, at the close of the day of atonement, the jubilee-trumpet sounded to proclaim liberty. 3. The haste he made to deliver his message: He was caused to fly swiftly, Dan 9:21. Angels are winged messengers, quick in their motions, and delay not to execute the orders they receive; they run and return like a flash of lightning, Eze 1:14. But, it should seem, sometimes they are more expeditious than at other times, and make a quicker despatch, as here the angel was caused to fly swiftly; that is, he was ordered and he was enabled to fly swiftly. Angels do their work in obedience to divine command and in dependence upon divine strength. Though they excel in wisdom, they fly swifter or slower as God directs; and, though they excel in power, they fly but as God causes them to fly. Angels themselves are to us what he makes them to be; they are his ministers, and do his pleasure, Psa 103:21. 4. The prefaces or introductions to his message. (1.) He touched him (Dan 9:21), as before (Dan 8:18), not to awaken him out of sleep as then, but to give him a hint to break off his prayer and to attend to that which he has to say in answer to it. Note, In order to the keeping up of our communion with God we must not only be forward to speak to God, but as forward to hear what he has to say to us; when we have prayed we must look up, must look after our prayers, must set ourselves upon our watch-tower. (2.) He talked with him (Dan 9:22), talked familiarly with him, as one friend talks with another, that his terror might not make him afraid. He informed him on what errand he came, that he was sent from heaven on purpose with a kind message to him: " I have come to show thee (Dan 9:23), to tell thee that which thou didst not know before."He had shown him the troubles of the church under Antiochus, and the period of those troubles (Dan 8:19); but now he has greater things to show him, for he that is faithful in a little shall be entrusted with more. "Nay, I have now come forth to give thee skill and understanding (Dan 9:22), not only to show thee these things, but to make thee understand them."(3.) He assured him that he was a favourite of Heaven, else he would not have had this intelligence sent him, and he must take it for a favour: " I have come to show thee, for thou art greatly beloved. Thou art a man of desires, acceptable to God, and whom he has a favour for."Note, Though God loves all his children, yet there are some that are more than the rest greatly beloved. Christ had one disciple that lay in his bosom; and that beloved disciple was he that was entrusted with the prophetical visions of the New Testament, as Daniel was with those of the Old. For what greater token can there be of God's favour to any man than for the secrets of the Lord to be with him? Abraham is the friend of God; and therefore Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do? Gen 18:17. Note, Those may reckon themselves greatly beloved of God to whom, and in whom, he reveals his Son. Some observe that the title which this angel Gabriel gives to the Virgin Mary is much the same with this which he here gives to Daniel, as if he designed to put her in mind of it - Thou that art highly favoured; as Daniel, greatly beloved. (4.) He demands his serious attention to the discovery he was now about to make to him: Therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision, Dan 9:23. This intimates that it was a thing well worthy of his regard, above any of the visions he had been before favoured with. Note, Those who would understand the things of God must consider them, must apply their minds to them, ponder upon them, and compare spiritual things with spiritual. The reason why we are so much in the dark concerning the revealed will of God, and mistake concerning it, is want of consideration. This vision both requires and deserves consideration. III. The message itself. It was delivered with great solemnity, received no doubt with great attention, and recorded with great exactness; but in it, as is usual in prophecies, there are things dark and hard to be understood. Daniel, who understood by the book of the prophet Jeremiah the expiration of the seventy years of the captivity, is now honourably employed to make known to the church another more glorious release, which that was but a shadow of, at the end of another seventy, not years, but weeks of years. He prayed over that prophecy, and received this in answer to that prayer. He had prayed for his people and the holy city - that they might be released, that it might be rebuilt; but God answers him above what he was able to ask or think. God not only grants, but outdoes, the desires of those that fear him, Psa 21:4. 1. The times here determined are somewhat hard to be understood. In general, it is seventy weeks, that is, seventy times seven years, which makes just 490 years. The great affairs that are yet to come concerning the people of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem, will lie within the compass of these years. (1.) These years are thus described by weeks, [1.] In conformity to the prophetic style, which is, for the most part, abstruse, and out of the common road of speaking, that the things foretold might not lie too obvious. [2.] To put an honour upon the division of time into weeks, which is made purely by the sabbath day, and to signify that that should be perpetual. [3.] With reference to the seventy years of the captivity; as they had been so long kept out of the possession of their own land, so, being now restored to it they should seven times as long be kept in the possession of it. So much more does God delight in showing mercy than in punishing. The land had enjoyed its sabbaths, in a melancholy sense, seventy years, Lev 26:34. But now the people of the Lord shall, in a comfortable sense, enjoy their sabbaths seven times seventy years, and in them seventy sabbatical years, which makes ten jubilees. Such proportions are there in the disposals of Providence, that we might see and admire the wisdom of him who has determined the times before appointed. (2.) The difficulties that arise about these seventy weeks are, [1.] Concerning the time when they commence and whence they are to be reckoned. They are here dated from the going forth of the commandments to restore and to build Jerusalem, Dan 9:25. I should most incline to understand this of the edict of Cyrus mentioned Ezr 1:1, for by it the people were restored; and, though express mention be not made there of the building of Jerusalem, yet that is supposed in the building of the temple, and was foretold to be done by Cyrus, Isa 44:28. He shall say to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built. That was, both in prophecy and in history, the most famous decree for the building of Jerusalem; nay, it should seem, this going forth of the commandment (which may as well be meant of God's command concerning it as of Cyrus's) is the same with that going forth of the commandment mentioned Dan 9:23, which was at the beginning of Daniel's supplications. And it looks very graceful that the seventy weeks should begin immediately upon the expiration of the seventy years. And there is nothing to be objected against this but that by this reckoning the Persian monarchy, from the taking of Babylon by Cyrus to Alexander's conquest of Darius, lasted but 130 years; whereas, by the particular account given of the reigns of the Persian emperors, it is computed that it continued 230 years. So Thucydides, Xenophon, and others reckon. those who fix it to that first edict set aside these computations of the heathen historians as uncertain and not to be relied upon. But others, willing to reconcile them, begin the 490 years, not at the edict of Cyrus (Ezr 1:1), but at the second edict for the building of Jerusalem, issued out by Darius Nothus above 100 years after, mentioned Ezra 6. Others fix on the seventh year of Artaxerxes Mnemon, who sent Ezra with a commission, Ezr 7:8-12. The learned Mr. Poole, in his Latin Synopsis, has a vast and most elaborate collection of what has been said, pro and con, concerning the different beginnings of these weeks, with which the learned may entertain themselves. [2.] Concerning the termination of them; and here likewise interpreters are not agreed. Some make them to end at the death of Christ, and think the express words of this famous prophecy will warrant us to conclude that from this very hour when Gabriel spoke to Daniel, at the time of the evening oblation, to the hour when Christ died, which was towards evening too, it was exactly 490 years; and I am willing enough to be of that opinion. But others think, because it is said that in the midst of the weeks (that is, the last of the seventy weeks) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, they end three years and a half after the death of Christ, when the Jews having rejected the gospel, the apostles turned to the Gentiles. But those who make them to end precisely at the death of Christ read it thus, "He shall make strong the testament to the many; the last seven, or the last week, yea, half that seven, or half that week (namely, the latter half, the three years and a half which Christ spent in his public ministry), shall bring to an end sacrifice and oblation."Others make these 490 years to end with the destruction of Jerusalem, about thirty-seven years after the death of Christ, because these seventy weeks are said to be determined upon the people of the Jews and the holy city; and much is said here concerning the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. [3.] Concerning the division of them into seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks, and one week; and the reason of this is as hard to account for as any thing else. In the first seven weeks, or forty-nine years, the temple and city were built; and in the last single week Christ preached his gospel, by which the Jewish economy was taken down, and the foundations were laid of the gospel city and temple, which were to be built upon the ruins of the former. (3.) But, whatever uncertainty we may labour under concerning the exact fixing of these times, there is enough clear and certain to answer the two great ends of determining them. [1.] It did serve them to raise and support the expectations of believers. There were general promises of the coming of the Messiah made to the patriarchs; the preceding prophets had often spoken of him as one that should come, but never was the time fixed for his coming until now. And, though there might be so much doubt concerning the date of this reckoning that they could not ascertain the time just to a year, yet by the light of this prophecy they were directed about what time to expect him. And we find, accordingly, that when Christ came he was generally looked for as the consolation of Israel, and redemption in Jerusalem by him, Luk 2:25, Luk 2:38. There were those that for this reason thought the kingdom of God should immediately appear (Luk 19:11), and some think it was this that brought a more than ordinary concourse of people to Jerusalem, Act 2:5. [2.] It does serve still to refute and silence the expectations of unbelievers, who will not own that Jesus is he who should come, but still look for another. This prediction should silence them, and will condemn them; for, reckon these seventy weeks from which of the commandments to build Jerusalem we please, it is certain that they have expired above 1500 years ago; so that the Jews are for ever without excuse, who will not own that the Messiah has come when they have gone so far beyond their utmost reckoning for his coming. But by this we are confirmed in our belief of the Messiah's being come, and that our Jesus is he, that he came just at the time prefixed, a time worthy to be had in everlasting remembrance. 2. The events here foretold are more plain and easy to be understood, at least to us now. Observe what is here foretold, (1.) Concerning the return of the Jews now speedily to their own land, and their settlement again there, which was the thing that Daniel now principally prayed for; and yet it is but briefly touched upon here in the answer to his prayer. Let this be a comfort to the pious Jews, that a commandment shall go forth to restore and to build Jerusalem, Dan 9:25. And the commandment shall not be in vain; for though the times will be very troublous, and this good work will meet with great opposition, yet it shall be carried on, and brought to perfection at last. The street shall be built again, as spacious and splendid as ever it was, and the walls, even in troublous times. Note, as long as we are here in this world we must expect troublous times, upon some account or other. Even when we have joyous times we must rejoice with trembling; it is but a gleam, it is but a lucid interval of peace and prosperity; the clouds will return after the rain. When the Jews are restored in triumph to their own land, yet there they must expect troublous times, and prepare for them. But this is our comfort, that God will carry on his own work, will build up his Jerusalem, will beautify it, will fortify it, even in troublous times; nay, the troublousness of the times may by the grace of God contribute to the advancement of the church. The more it is afflicted the more it multiplies. (2.) Concerning the Messiah and his undertaking. The carnal Jews looked for a Messiah that could deliver them from the Roman yoke and give them temporal power and wealth, whereas they were here told that the Messiah should come upon another errand, purely spiritual, and upon the account of which he should be the more welcome. [1.] Christ came to take away sin, and to abolish that. Sin had made a quarrel between God and man, had alienated men from God and provoked God against man; it was this that put dishonour upon God and brought misery upon mankind; this was the great mischief-maker. He that would do God a real service, and man a real kindness, must be the destruction of this. Christ undertakes to be so, and for this purpose he is manifested, to destroy the works of the devil. He does not say to finish your transgressions and your sins, but transgression and sin in general, for he is the propitiation not only for our sins, that are Jews, but for the sins of the whole world. He came, First, To finish transgression, to restrain it (so some), to break the power of it, to bruise the head of that serpent that had done so much mischief, to take away the usurped dominion of that tyrant, and to set up a kingdom of holiness and love in the hearts of men, upon the ruins of Satan's kingdom there, that, where sin and death had reigned, righteousness and life through grace might reign. When he died he said, It is finished; sin has now had its death-wound given it, like Samson's, Let me die with the Philistines. Animamque in vulnere ponit - He inflicts the wound and dies. Secondly, To make an end of sin, to abolish it, that it may not rise up in judgment against us, to obtain the pardon of it, that it may not be our ruin, to seal up sins (so the margin reads it), that they may not appear or break out against us, to accuse and condemn us, as, when Christ cast the devil into the bottomless pit, he set a seal upon him, Rev 20:3. When sin is pardoned it is sought for and not found, as that which is sealed up. Thirdly, To make reconciliation for iniquity, as by a sacrifice, to satisfy the justice of God and so to make peace and bring God and man together, not only as an arbitrator, or referee, who only brings the contending parties to a good understanding one of another, but as a surety, or undertaker, for us. He is not only the peace-maker, but the peace. He is the atonement. [2.] He came to bring in an everlasting righteousness. God might justly have made an end of the sin by making an end of the sinner; but Christ found out another way, and so made an end of sin as to save the sinner from it, by providing a righteousness for him. We are all guilty before God, and shall be condemned as guilty, if we have not a righteousness wherein to appear before him. Had we stood, our innocency would have been our righteousness, but, having fallen, we must have something else to plead; and Christ has provided us a plea. The merit of his sacrifice is our righteousness; with this we answer all the demands of the law; Christ has died, yea, rather, has risen again. Thus Christ is the Lord our righteousness, for he is made of God to us righteousness, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. By faith we apply this to ourselves and plead it with God, and our faith is imputed to us for righteousness, Rom 4:3, Rom 4:5. This is an everlasting righteousness, for Christ, who is our righteousness, and the prince of our peace, is the everlasting Father. It was from everlasting in the counsels of it and will be to everlasting in the consequences of it. The application of it was from the beginning, for Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; and it will be to the end, for he is able to save to the uttermost. It is of everlasting virtue (Heb 10:12); it is the rock that follows us to Canaan. [3.] He came to seal up the vision and prophecy, all the prophetical visions of the Old Testament, which had reference to the Messiah. He sealed them up, that is, he accomplished them, answered to them to a tittle; all things that were written in the law, the prophets, and the psalms, concerning the Messiah, were fulfilled in him. Thus he confirmed the truth of them as well as his own mission. He sealed them up, that is, he put an end to that method of God's discovering his mind and will, and took another course by completing the scripture-canon in the New Testament, which is the more sure word of prophecy than that by vision, 2Pe 1:19; Heb 1:1. [4.] He came to anoint the most holy, that is, himself, the Holy One, who was anointed (that is, appointed to his work and qualified for it) by the Holy Ghost, that oil of gladness which he received without measure, above his fellows; or to anoint the gospel-church, his spiritual temple, or holy place, to sanctify and cleanse it, and appropriate it to himself (Eph 5:26), or to consecrate for us a new and living way into the holiest, by his own blood (Heb 10:20), as the sanctuary was anointed, Exo 30:25, etc. He is called Messiah (Dan 9:25, Dan 9:26), which signifies Christ - Anointed (Joh 1:41), because he received the unction both for himself and for all that are his. [5.] In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa 53:8. Hence, when Paul preaches the death of Christ, he says that he preached nothing but what the prophet said should come, Act 26:22, Act 26:23. And thus it behoved Christ to suffer. He must be cut off, but not for himself - not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, - not for any advantage of his own (the glory he purchased for himself was no more than the glory he had before, Joh 17:4, Joh 17:5); no; it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off. [6.] He must confirm the covenant with many. He shall introduce a new covenant between God and man, a covenant of grace, since it had become impossible for us to be saved by a covenant of innocence. This covenant he shall confirm by his doctrine and miracles, by his death and resurrection, by the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, which are the seals of the New Testament, assuring us that God is willing to accept us upon gospel-terms. His death made his testament of force, and enabled us to claim what is bequeathed by it. He confirmed it to the many, to the common people; the poor were evangelized, when the rulers and Pharisees believed not on him. Or, he confirmed it with many, with the Gentile world. The New Testament was not (like the Old) confined to the Jewish church, but was committed to all nations. Christ gave his life a ransom for many. [7.] He must cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. By offering himself a sacrifice once for all he shall put an end to all the Levitical sacrifices, shall supercede them and set them aside; when the substance comes the shadows shall be done away. He causes all the peace-offerings to cease when he has made peace by the blood of his cross, and by it confirmed the covenant of peace and reconciliation. By the preaching of his gospel to the world, with which the apostles were entrusted, he took men off from expecting remission by the blood of bulls and goats, and so caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. The apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews shows what a better priesthood, altar, and sacrifice, we have now than they had under the law, as a reason why we should hold fast our profession. (3.) Concerning the final destruction of Jerusalem, and of the Jewish church and nation; and this follows immediately upon the cutting off of the Messiah, not only because it was the just punishment of those that put him to death, which was the sin that filled up the measure of their iniquity and brought ruin upon them, but because, as things were, it was necessary to the perfecting of one of the great intentions of his death. He died to take away the ceremonial law, quite to abolish that law of commandments, and to vacate the obligation of it. But the Jews would not be persuaded to quit it; still they kept it up with more zeal than ever; they would hear no talk of parting with it; they stoned Stephen (the first Christian martyr) for saying that Jesus should change the customs which Moses delivered them (Act 6:14); so that there was no way to abolish the Mosaic economy but by destroying the temple, and the holy city, and the Levitical priesthood, and that whole nation which so incurably doted on them. This was effectually done in less than forty years after the death of Christ, and it was a desolation that could never be repaired to this day. And this is it which is here largely foretold, that the Jews who returned out of captivity might not be overmuch lifted up with the rebuilding of their city and temple, because in process of time they would be finally destroyed, and not as now for seventy years only, but might rather rejoice in hope of the coming of the Messiah, and the setting up of his spiritual kingdom in the world, which should never be destroyed. Now, [1.] It is here foretold that the people of the prince that shall come shall be the instruments of this destruction, that is, the Roman armies, belonging to a monarchy yet to come (Christ is the prince that shall come, and they are employed by him in this service; they are his armies, Mat 22:7), or the Gentiles (who, though now strangers, shall become the people of the Messiah) shall destroy the Jews. [2.] That the destruction shall be by war, and the end of that war shall be this desolation determined. The wars of the Jews with the Romans were by their own obstinacy made very long and very bloody, and they issued at length in the utter extirpation of that people. [3.] That the city and sanctuary shall in a particular manner be destroyed and laid quite waste. Titus the Roman general would fain have saved the temple, but his soldiers were so enraged against the Jews that he could not restrain them from burning it to the ground, that this prophecy might be fulfilled. [4.] That all the resistance that shall be made to this destruction shall be in vain: The end of it shall be with a flood. It shall be a deluge of destruction, like that which swept away the old world, and which there will be no making head against. [5.] That hereby the sacrifice and oblation shall be made to cease. And it must needs cease when the family of the priests was so extirpated, and the genealogies of it were so confounded, that (they say) there is no man in the world that can prove himself of the seed of Aaron. [6.] that there shall be an overspreading of abominations, a general corruption of the Jewish nation and an abounding of iniquity among them, for which it shall be made desolate, 1Th 2:16. Or it is rather to be understood of the armies of the Romans, which were abominable to the Jews (they could not endure them), which overspread the nation, and by which it was made desolate; for these are the words which Christ refers to, Mat 24:15, When you shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, stand in the holy place, then let those who shall be in Judea flee, which is explained Luk 21:20, When you shall see Jerusalem encompassed with armies then flee. [7.] That the desolation shall be total and final: He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, that is, he shall make it completely desolate. It is a desolation determined, and it will be accomplished to the utmost. And when it is made desolate, it should seem, there is something more determined that is to be poured upon the desolate (Dan 9:27), and what should that be but the spirit of slumber (Rom 11:8, Rom 11:25), that blindness which has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in? And then all Israel shall be saved. Keil-Delitzsch -> Dan 9:25 Keil-Delitzsch: Dan 9:25 - -- The detailed statement of the 70 שׁבעים in 7 + 62 + 1 (Dan 9:25, Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27), with the fuller description of that which was to happen ... The detailed statement of the 70 שׁבעים in 7 + 62 + 1 (Dan 9:25, Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27), with the fuller description of that which was to happen in the course of these three periods of time, incontrovertibly shows that these three verses are a further explication of the contents of Dan 9:24. This explication is introduced by the words: "Know therefore, and understand,"which do not announce a new prophecy, as Wieseler and Hofmann suppose, but only point to the importance of the further opening up of the contents of Dan 9:24, since ותשׂכּל ( and thou wilt understand ) stands in distinct relation to בינה להשׂכּלך ( to give thee skill and understanding , Dan 9:22). The two parts of Dan 9:25 contain the statements regarding the first two portions of the whole period, the seven and the sixty-two שׁבעים , and are rightly separated by the Masoretes by placing the Atnach under שׁבעה . The first statement is: " from the going forth of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem unto a Messiah (Gesalbten) , a prince, shall be seven weeks ." דּבר מצא ( from the going forth of the commandment ) formally corresponds, indeed, to דּבר יצא ( the commandment came forth ), Dan 9:23, emphatically expressing a decision on the part of God, but the two expressions are not actually to be identified; for the commandment , Dan 9:23, is the divine revelation communicated in Dan 9:24-27, which the angel brings to Daniel; the commandment in Dan 9:25 is, on the contrary, more fully determined by the words, " to restore and to build , etc. להשׁיב is not to be joined adverbially with ולבנות so as to form one idea: to build again ; for, though שׁוּב may be thus used adverbially in Kal, yet the Hiphil השׁיב is not so used. השׁיב means to lead back , to bring again , then to restore ; cf. for this last meaning Isa 1:26, Psa 80:4, Psa 80:8,20. The object to להשׁיב follows immediately after the word ולבנות , namely, Jerusalem. The supplementing of עם , people (Wieseler, Kliefoth, and others), is arbitrary, and is not warranted by Jer 29:10. To bring back, to restore a city, means to raise it to its former state; denotes the restitutio , but not necessarily the full restitutio in integrum (against Hengstenberg). Here לבנות is added, as in the second half of the verse to תּשׁוּב , yet not so as to make one idea with it, restoring to build , or building to restore , i.e., to build up again to the old extent. בּנה as distinguished from השׁיב denotes the building after restoring, and includes the constant preservation in good building condition, as well as the carrying forward of the edifice beyond its former state. But if we ask when this commandment went forth, in order that we may thereby determine the beginning of the seven weeks, and, since they form the first period of the seventy, at the same time determine the beginning of the seventy weeks, the words and the context only supply this much, that by the "commandment"is meant neither the word of God which is mentioned in Dan 9:23, because it says nothing about the restoration of Jerusalem, but speaks only of the whole message of the angel. Nor yet is it the word of God which is mentioned in Dan 9:2, the prophecies given in Jer 25 and 29, as Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others suppose. For although from these prophecies it conclusively follows, that after the expiry of the seventy years with the return of Israel into their own land, Jerusalem shall again be built up, yet they do not speak of that which shall happen after the seventy years, but only of that which shall happen within that period, namely, that Jerusalem shall for so long a time lie desolate, as Dan 9:2 expressly affirms. The prophecy of the seventy years' duration of the desolation of Jerusalem (Dan 9:2) cannot possibly be regarded as the commandment (in Dan 9:25) to restore Jerusalem (Kliefoth). As little can we, with Hitzig, think on Jer 30 and 31, because this prophecy contains nothing whatever of a period of time, and in this verse before us there is no reference to this prophecy. The restoration of Israel and of Jerusalem has indeed been prophesied of in general, not merely by Jeremiah, but also long before him by Isaiah (Daniel 40-56). With as much justice may we think on Isa 40ff. as on Jer 30 and 31; but all such references are excluded by this fact, that the angel names the commandment for the restoration of Jerusalem as the terminus a quo for the seventy weeks, and thus could mean only a word of God whose going forth was somewhere determined, or could be determined, just as the appearance of the נגיד משׁיח is named as the termination of the seven weeks. Accordingly "the going forth of the commandment to restore,"etc., must be a factum coming into visibility, the time of which could without difficulty be known - a word from God regarding the restoration of Jerusalem which went forth by means of a man at a definite time, and received an observable historical execution. Now, with Calvin, Oecolampadius, Kleinert, Nägelsbach, Ebrard, and Kliefoth, we can think of nothing more appropriate than the edict of Cyrus (Ezr 1:1-11) which permitted the Jews to return, from which the termination of the Exile is constantly dated, and from the time off which this return, together with the building up of Jerusalem, began, and was carried forward, though slowly (Klief.). The prophecy of Isa 44:28, that God would by means of Cyrus speak to cause Jerusalem to be built, and the foundation of the temple to be laid, directs us to this edict. With reference to this prophecy, it is said in Ezr 6:14, "They builded according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of the king of Persia."This is acknowledged even by Hengstenberg, who yet opposes this reference; for he remarks ( Christol . iii. p. 142), "If the statement were merely of the commencement of the building, then they would undoubtedly be justified who place the starting-point in the first year of Cyrus. Isaiah (Isa 45:13) commends Cyrus as the builder of the city; and all the sacred writings which relate to the period from the time of Cyrus to Nehemiah distinctly state the actual existence of a Jerusalem during this period."But according to his explanation, the words of the angel do not announce the beginning of the building of the city, but much rather the beginning of its "completed restoration according to its ancient extent and its ancient glory."But that this is not contained in the words ולבנות להשׁיב we have already remarked, to which is to be added, that the placing in opposition the commencement of the building and the commencement of its completed restoration is quite arbitrary and vain, since certainly the commencement of the restoration at the same time includes in it the commencement of the completed restoration. In favour of interpreting להשׁיב of the completed restoration, Hengstenberg remarks that "in the announcement the temple is named along with the city in Dan 9:26 as well as in Dan 9:27. That with the announcement of the building the temple is not named here, that mention is made only of the building of the streets of the city, presupposes the sanctuary as already built up at the commencement of the building which is here spoken of; and the existence of the temple again requires that a commencement of the rebuilding of the city had also been already made, since it is not probable that the angel should have omitted just that which was the weightiest matter, that for which Daniel was most grieved, and about which he had prayed (cf. Dan 9:17, Dan 9:20) with the greatest solicitude."But the validity of this conclusion is not obvious. In Dan 9:26 the naming of the temple along with the city is required by the facts of the case, and this verse treats of what shall happen after the sixty-two weeks. How, then, shall it be thence inferred that the temple should also be mentioned along with the city in Dan 9:25, where the subject is that which forms the beginning of the seven or of the seventy weeks, and that, since this was not done, the temple must have been then already built? The non-mention of the temple in Dan 9:24, as in Dan 9:25, is fully and simply explained by this, that the word of the angel stands in definite relation to the prayer of Daniel, but that Daniel was moved by Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years' duration of the חרבות of Jerusalem to pray for the turning away of the divine wrath from the city. As Jeremiah, in the announcement of the seventy years' desolation of the land, did not specially mention the destruction of the temple, so also the angel, in the decree regarding the seventy weeks which are determined upon the people of Israel and the holy city, makes no special mention of the temple; as, however, in Jeremiah's prophecy regarding the desolation of the land, the destruction not only of Jerusalem, but also of the temple, is included, so also in the building of the holy city is included that of the temple, by which Jerusalem was made a holy city. Although thus the angel, in the passage before us, does not expressly speak of the building of the temple, but only of the holy city, we can maintain the reference of the דּבר מצא to the edict of Cyrus, which constituted an epoch in the history of Israel, and consider this edict as the beginning of the termination of the seven resp. seventy weeks. The words נגיד משׁיח עד show the termination of the seven weeks. The words נגיד משׁיח are not to be translated an anointed prince (Bertholdt); for משׁיח cannot be an adjective to נגיד , because in Hebr. The adjective is always placed after the substantive, with few exceptions, which are inapplicable to this case; cf. Ewald's Lehrb . §293 b . Nor can משׁיח be a participle: till a prince is anointed (Steudel), but it is a noun, and נגיד is connected with it by apposition: an anointed one , who at the same time is a prince . According to the O.T., kings and priests, and only these, were anointed. Since, then, משׁיח is brought forward as the principal designation, we may not by נגיד think of a priest-prince, but only of a prince of the people, nor by משׁיח of a king, but only of a priest; and by נגיד משׁיח we must understand a person who first and specially is a priest, and in addition is a prince of the people, a king. The separation of the two words in Dan 9:26, where נגיד is acknowledged as meaning a prince of the people, leads to the same conclusion. This priest-king can neither be Zerubbabel (according to many old interpreters), nor Ezra (Steudel), nor Onias III (Wieseler); for Zerubbabel the prince was not anointed, and the priest Ezra and the high priest Onias were not princes of the people. Nor can Cyrus be meant here, as Saad., Gaon., Bertholdt, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Ewald, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others think, by a reference to Isa 45:1; for, supposing it to be the case that Daniel had reason from Isa 45:1 to call Cyrus משׁיח - which is to be doubted, since from this epithet משׁיחו , His (Jehovah's) anointed , which Isaiah uses of Cyrus, it does not follow as of course that he should be named משׁיח - the title ought at least to have been משׁיח נגיד , the משׁיח being an adjective following נגיד , because there is no evident reason for the express precedence of the adjectival definition. (Note: "It is an unjustifiable assertion that every heathen king may also bear the name משׁיח , anointed . In all the books of the O.T. There is but a single heathen king, Cyrus, who is named משׁיח (Isa 45:1), and he not simply as such, but because of the remarkable and altogether singular relation in which he stood to the church, because of the gifts with which God endowed him for her deliverance, ... and because of the typical relation in which he stood to the author of the higher deliverance, the Messiah. Cyrus could in a certain measure be regarded as a theocratic ruler, and as such he is described by Isaiah."- Hengstenberg.) The O.T. knows only One who shall be both priest and king in one person (Psa 110:4; Zec 6:13), Christ, the Messias (Joh 4:25), whom, with Hävernick, Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Auberlen, Delitzsch, and Kliefoth, we here understand by the נגיד משׁיח , because in Him the two essential requisites of the theocratic king, the anointing and the appointment to be the נגיד of the people of God (cf. 1Sa 10:1; 1Sa 13:14; 1Sa 16:13; 1Sa 25:30; 2Sa 2:4; 2Sa 5:2.), are found in the most perfect manner. These requisites are here attributed to Him as predicates, and in such a manner that the being anointed goes before the being a prince, in order to make prominent the spiritual, priestly character of His royalty, and to designate Him, on the ground of the prophecies, Isa 61:1-3 and Isa 55:4, as the person by whom "the sure mercies of David"(Isa 55:3) shall be realized by the covenant people. (Note: In the נגיד משׁיח it is natural to suppose there is a reference to the passages in Isaiah referred to; yet one must not, with Hofmann and Auberlen, hence conclude that Christ is as King of Israel named משׁיח , and as King of the heathen נגיד , for in the frequent use of the word נגיד of the king of Israel in the books of Samuel it is much more natural to regard it as the reference to David.) The absence of the definite article is not to be explained by saying that משׁיח , somewhat as צמח , Zec 3:8; Zec 6:12, is used κατ ̓ἑχ . as a nomen propr . of the Messiah, the Anointed; for in this case נגיד ought to have the article, since in Hebrew we cannot say מלך דּוד , but only המּלך דּוד . Much rather the article is wanting, because it shall not be said: till the Messiah, who is prince, but only: till one comes who is anointed and at the same time prince , because He that is to come is not definitely designated as the expected Messiah, but must be made prominent by the predicates ascribed to Him only as a personage altogether singular. Thus the first half of Dan 9:25 states that the first seven of the seventy weeks begin with the edict (of Cyrus) permitting the return of Israel from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem, and extend from that time till the appearance of an anointed one who at the same time is prince, i.e., till Christ. With that view the supposition that שׁבעים are year-weeks, periods of seven years, is irreconcilable. Therefore most interpreters who understand Christ as the נגיד משׁיח , have referred the following number, and sixty-two weeks , to the first clause - "from the going forth of the command ... seven weeks and sixty-two weeks ."Thus Theodotion: ἕως Χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου ἑβδομάδες ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑβδομάδες ἑξηκονταδύο ; and the Vulgate: usque ad Christum ducem hebdomades septem et hebdomades sexaginta duae erunt . The text of the lxx is here, however, completely in error, and is useless. This interpretation, in recent times, Hävernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen have sought to justify in different ways, but without having succeeded in invalidating the reasons which stand opposite to them. First of all the Atnach forbids this interpretation, for by it the seven שׁבעים are separated from the sixty-two. This circumstance, however, in and of itself decides nothing, since the Atnach does not always separate clauses, but frequently also shows only the point of rest within a clause; besides, it first was adopted by the Masoretes, and only shows the interpretation of these men, without at all furnishing any guarantee for its correctness. But yet this view is not to be overlooked, as Hgstb. himself acknowledges in the remark: "Here the separation of the two periods of time was of great consequence, in order to show that the seven and the sixty-two weeks are not a mere arbitrary dividing into two of one whole period, but that to each of these two periods its own characteristic mark belongs."With this remark, Hävernick's assertion, that the dividing of the sixty-nine שׁבעים into seven and sixty-two is made only on account of the solemnity of the whole passage, is set aside as altogether vain, and the question as to the ground of the division presses itself on our earnest attention. If this division must indicate that to each of the two periods its own distinctive characteristic belongs, an unprejudiced consideration of the words shows that the characteristic mark of the "seven weeks"lies in this, that this period extends from the going forth of the word to restore Jerusalem till the appearance of an Anointed one, a Prince, thus terminating with the appearance of this Prince, and that the characteristic mark for the "sixty-two weeks"consists in that which the words immediately connected therewith affirm, וגו ונבנתה תּשׁוּב , and thus that the "sixty-two weeks"belong indeed to the following clause. But according to Hengstenberg the words ought not to be so understood, but thus: "sixty-nine weeks must pass away, seven till the completed restoration of the city, sixty-two from that time till the Anointed, the Prince."But it is clearly impossible to find this meaning in the words of the text, and it is quite superfluous to use any further words in proof of this. (Note: Hengstenberg, as Kliefoth has remarked, has taken as the first terminus ad quem the words "to restore and to build Jerusalem,"till the rebuilding of Jerusalem, till its completed rebuilding, till that Jerusalem is again built; and then the further words, "unto the Messiah the Prince,"as the second terminus ad quem ; and, finally, he assigns the seven weeks to the first terminus ad quem , and the sixty-two weeks is the second; as if the text comprehended two clauses, and declared that from the going forth of the commandment till that Jerusalem was rebuilt are seven heptades , and from that time till a Messiah, a Prince, are sixty-two heptades .) By the remark, "If the second designation of time is attributed to that which follows, then we cannot otherwise explain it than that during sixty-two weeks the streets will be restored and built up; but this presents a very inappropriate meaning,"- by this remark the interpretation in question is neither shown to be possible, nor is it made evident. For the meaning would be inappropriate only if by the building up of Jerusalem we were to understand merely the rebuilding of the city which was laid in ruins by the Chaldeans. If we attribute the expression "and sixty-two weeks"to the first half of the verse, then the division of the sixty-nine weeks into seven weeks and sixty-two weeks is unaccountable; for in Dan 9:26 we must then read, "after sixty-nine weeks,"and not, as we find it in the text, "after sixty-two weeks."The substitution, again [in Dan 9:26], of only this second designation of time (sixty-two weeks) is also intelligible only if the sixty-two weeks in Dan 9:25 belong to the second half of the verse, and are to be separated from the seven weeks. The bringing together of the seven and of the sixty-two week stands thus opposed to the context, and is maintained merely on the supposition that the שׁבעים are year-weeks, or periods of time consisting of seven years, in order that sixty-nine year-weeks, i.e., 483 years, might be gained for the time from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to Christ. But since there is in the word itself no foundation for attaching to it this meaning, we have no right to distort the language of the text according to it, but it is our duty to let this interpretation fall aside as untenable, in order that we may do justice to the words of the prophecy. The words here used demand that we connect the period "and sixty-two weeks"with the second half of the verse, "and during sixty-two weeks shall the street be built again,"etc. The "sixty-two weeks"are not united antithetically to the "seven weeks"by the copula , ו as Hofmann would have it, but are connected simply as following the seven; so that that which is named as the contents of the "sixty-two weeks"is to be interpreted as happening first after the appearance of the Maschiach Nagid , or, more distinctly, that the appearance of the Messias forming the terminus ad quem of the seven weeks, forms at the same time the terminus a quo of the sixty-two weeks. That event which brings the close of the sixty-two weeks is spoken of in Dan 9:26 in the words משׁיח יכּרת , Messiah shall be cut off . The words "and sixty-two שׁבעים owt-ytx "may be taken grammatically either as the absolute nominative or as the accusative of duration. The words ונבנתה תּשׁוּב refer undoubtedly to the expression ולבנות להשׁיב ( to restore and to build ), according to which תּשׁוּב is not to be joined adverbially to ונבנתה (according to Hävernick, Hofmann, and Wieseler), but is to be rendered intransitively, corresponding to השׁיב : shall be restored , as Eze 16:55; 1Ki 13:6; 2Ki 5:10,2Ki 5:14; Exo 4:7. The subject to both verbs is not (Rosenmüller, Gesenius, v. Leng., Hgstb.) רחוב , but Jerusalem, as is manifest from the circumstance that the verbs refer to the restoration and the building of Jerusalem, and is placed beyond a doubt by this, that in Zec 8:5 רחוב is construed as masculine; and the opinion that it is generis faem . rests only on this passage before us. There is no substantial reason for interpreting (with Klief.) the verbs impersonally. The words וחרוּץ רחוב are difficult, and many interpretations have been given of them. There can be no doubt that they contain together one definition, and that רחוב is to be taken as the adverbial accusative. רחוב means the street and the wide space before the gate of the temple. Accordingly, to חרוּץ have been given the meanings ditch, wall, aqueduct (Ges., Steud., Zünd., etc.), pond (Ewald), confined space (Hofmann), court (Hitzig); but all these meanings are only hit upon from the connection, as are also the renderings of the lxx εἰς πλάτος καὶ μῆκος , of Theod. πλατεῖα καὶ τεῖχος , and of the Vulg. platea et muri . חרץ means to cut, then to decide, to determine, to conclude irrevocably; hence חרוּץ , decision , judgment , Joe 3:14. This meaning is maintained by Häv., Hgstb., v. Leng., Wies., and Kran., and וחרוּץ is interpreted as a participle: "and it is determined."This shall form a contrast to the words, "but in the oppression of the times"- and it is determined, namely, that Jerusalem shall be built in its streets, but the building shall be accomplished in troublous times. But although this interpretation be well founded as regards the words themselves, it does not harmonize with the connection. The words וחרוּץ רחוב plainly go together, as the old translators have interpreted them. Now רחוב does not mean properly street, but a wide, free space, as Ezr 10:9, the open place before the temple, and is applied to streets only in so far as they are free, unoccupied spaces in cities. חרוּץ , that which is cut off, limited, forms a contrast to this, not, however, as that we may interpret the words, as Hofm. does, in the sense of width, and space cut off, not capable of extension, or free space and limited quarter (Hitzig), an interpretation which is too far removed from the primary import of the two words. It is better to interpret them, with Kliefoth, as "wide space, and yet also limited,"according to which we have the meaning, "Jerusalem shall be built so that the city takes in a wide space, has wide, free places, but not, however, unlimited in width, but such that their compass is measured off, is fixed and bounded." The last words, העתּים וּבצוק , point to the circumstances under which the building proceeds: in the difficulty , the oppression of the times . The book of Nehemiah, 3:33; Neh 4:1., Dan 6:1., 9:36, 37, furnishes a historical exposition of them, although the words do not refer to the building of the walls and bulwarks of the earthly Jerusalem which was accomplished by Nehemiah, but are to be understood, according to Ps. 51:20, of the spiritual building of the City of God. Constable -> Dan 8:1--12:13; Dan 9:1-27; Dan 9:24-27 Constable: Dan 8:1--12:13 - --III. Israel in relation to the Gentiles: God's program for Israel chs. 8--12 Two things signal the beginning of ... III. Israel in relation to the Gentiles: God's program for Israel chs. 8--12 Two things signal the beginning of a new section in the book here. These two things are a return to the Hebrew language in the original text (cf. 1:1-2:3) and an emphasis on the nation Israel. Evidently Daniel wrote the remainder of this book in Hebrew because the revelation in it concerned his people particularly.291 Constable: Dan 9:1-27 - --B. Daniel's vision of the 70 sevens ch. 9 This chapter records a third vision that Daniel received (cf. ... B. Daniel's vision of the 70 sevens ch. 9 This chapter records a third vision that Daniel received (cf. chs. 7, 8). The vision itself occupies only a small part of this chapter (vv. 24-27), but the verses that precede it prepare for it and connect with it. "In many respects, this is the high point of the book of Daniel. Although previously Gentile history and prophecy recorded in Daniel was related to the people of Israel, the ninth chapter specifically takes up prophecy as it applies to the chosen people."345 "Unless the ninth chapter of the book of Daniel is properly understood, the great prophetic discourse of our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, and Luke 21 will be misunderstood, as will the greater portion of the book of revelation."346 Constable: Dan 9:24-27 - --5. The revelation of Israel's future in 70 sevens 9:24-27 "In the concluding four verses of Daniel 9, one of the most important prophecies of the Old ... 5. The revelation of Israel's future in 70 sevens 9:24-27 "In the concluding four verses of Daniel 9, one of the most important prophecies of the Old Testament is contained. The prophecy as a whole is presented in verse 24. The first sixty-nine sevens is described in verse 25. The events between the sixty-ninth seventh and the seventieth seventh are detailed in verse 26. The final period of the seventieth seventh is described in verse 27."359 9:24 The Hebrew word translated "weeks" (sabu'im) literally means "sevens." It can refer to seven days (Gen. 29:27-28) or seven years (Lev. 25:3-5). Most scholars believe that this word here represents seven years. Daniel had been thinking of God's program for Israel in terms of years (vv. 1-2). It would have been normal then for him to interpret these sevens as years.360 Seventy seven-year periods totals 490 years. As Jerusalem was suffering under the hand of Gentiles for 70 years (v. 2), so the Jews and Jerusalem would suffer under the hand of Gentiles for 490 years. "Your people" and "your holy city" are obvious references to the Jews and Jerusalem (cf. vv. 7, 11, 20). They have nothing to do with the church, which is a distinct entity from Israel (cf. 1 Cor. 10:32). However as the following verses clarify, these will not be uninterrupted years. God had decreed these years. He had ordained them, and they are as certain to come as anything else that God has foreordained. The purpose for God decreeing this period is six-fold. First, it will end rebellion against Him. Second, it will end human failure to obey God. Third, it will provide time for atonement that will cover human wickedness. Fourth, it will inaugurate a new society in which righteousness prevails. Fifth, it will bring in the fulfillment of the vision that God has for the earth. Sixth, it will result in the anointing of the most holy, probably a reference to a new and more glorious temple. God has already achieved some of these goals, specifically the third one and to some extent the first two. However other goals have not yet seen fulfillment. Therefore it is reasonable to look for a future fulfillment from our perspective in history.361 "By the time these 490 years run their course, God will have completed six things for Israel. The first three have to do with sin, and the second three with the kingdom. The basis for the first three was provided in the work of Christ on the cross, but all six will be realized by Israel at the Second Advent of Christ."362 "This prophecy, it must be noted, concerns three deliverances. Daniel was greatly burdened about an early deliverance of the Jews from Babylon to return to Jerusalem. God was also interested in their deliverance from bondage to sin (at Christ's first advent) and in the final deliverance of the Jews from oppression (at Christ's second coming) . . ."363 9:25 There are four decrees concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem that Scripture records. The first was Cyrus' decree to rebuild the temple in 538 B.C. (2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4; 6:1-5). The second was Darius I's decree in 512 B.C. confirming Cyrus' earlier one (Ezra 6:1, 6-12). The third was Artaxerxes' decree in 457 B.C. (Ezra 7:11-26).364 The fourth was Artaxerxes' decree authorizing Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem in 444 B.C. (Neh. 2:1-8). The first two authorized the rebuilding of the temple, and the third provided for animal sacrifices in the temple. The fourth one gave the Jews permission to rebuild Jerusalem's walls, and it seems to be the one in view here. The Jews encountered opposition as they sought to rebuild and refortify their ancient capital, as the Book of Nehemiah records. The date 444 B.C. then marks the beginning of this 490-year period. Seven sevens plus sixty-two sevens equals 483 years. Gabriel predicted that after 483 years Messiah would be cut off. Detailed chronological studies have been done that show that Jesus Christ's death occurred then. One scholar, Sir Robert Anderson, believed that the day Jesus entered Jerusalem in his triumphal entry was the last day of this long period.365 Whether or not the chronology is that exact, almost all expositors agree that the death of Christ is in view and that it occurred at the end of the sixty-ninth week. What happened after 49 years that justifies breaking this period into two parts? Perhaps it was the end of the Old Testament revelation through the writing prophets. Another more probable view is that it took that long to clear out all the debris from Jerusalem and to restore it fully as a thriving city with streets and moat.366 "This perfectly describes the work of Nehemiah and under what difficult circumstances he performed his tasks."367 9:26 Most Christian interpreters have taken the cutting off of Messiah as a reference to Jesus Christ's death. He had nothing then in a very real sense. The prince who will come seems to be a different person from the Messiah.368 His people, not he himself, would destroy the city. This happened in A.D. 70 when the Roman army under Titus leveled Jerusalem. The prince who will come, however, was evidently not Titus but a future ruler, namely, the Antichrist (7:8). Titus made no covenant with the Jews (v. 27). However, Titus did initially what this prince will do ultimately. Jerusalem did not end because of a literal flood of water in Titus' day, but Roman soldiers overwhelmed it (cf. 11:10, 22, 26, 40; Isa. 8:8). War preceded the destruction. Gabriel announced that God had determined the city's desolation (cf. Matt. 24:7-22). Some interpreters believe that the end of this verse describes conditions that have followed Titus' destruction and continue even today.369 Others think it only describes what Titus did.370 9:27 "In contrast to the rather clear fulfillment of verses 25-26, verse 27 is an enigma as far as history is concerned; and only futuristic interpretation allows any literal fulfillment."371 The nearest antecedent of "he" is "the prince who is to come" (v. 26). Titus made no covenant with Israel, so who is in view? Apparently a future ruler of the revived or reorganized Roman Empire, the little horn of chapter 7, is in view. This seems preferable to taking the antecedent of "he" as Messiah since Jesus Christ did not do the things predicted of the prince here. This means that the seventieth week does not follow the sixty-ninth week immediately. Such a break in prophetic chronology has precedent in the predictions of Messiah's first and second advents (Isa. 61:1-2). This future ruler, according to Gabriel, will make a covenant with "the many" for one week (seven years). "The many" evidently refers to Daniel's people (v. 24), believers in the religion of Judaism (cf. 11:39; 12:2). After three and one-half years, this Antichrist will terminate the sacrifices and offerings that he permitted these Jews to offer. Their ability to offer these sacrifices indicates that they will be back in the land worshipping at a rebuilt temple. The wing of abominations may be a reference to a wing of the temple that is particularly abominable because of idolatry, possibly the pinnacle or summit of the temple.372 Another interpretation takes "wing" figuratively and sees Antichrist descending vulture-like on his prey.373 Perhaps the simplest explanation is to take "on the wing of" in the sense of "with." Apparently the prince will appear in the Jerusalem temple when he ends the sacrifices. Daniel 12:11 refers to a future stopping of the Jewish sacrifices forty-two months before Messiah returns to the earth. Revelation 13:4-7 also describes this future ruler in harmony with what Gabriel revealed here. Jesus too warned of him in Matthew 24:15-28 as did the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and the Apostle John in 1 John 2:18. The complete destruction decreed by God and poured out on this prince will come, according to these passages, when Messiah returns to the earth. Students of this passage who do not take this verse as predicting future events usually adopt one of the following interpretations.374 Liberal commentators believe that the events in the seventieth seven, as well as those in the preceding sixty-nine sevens, happened in a loose sense after the Maccabean persecution of the second century B.C.375 Orthodox Jewish scholars usually take the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as the fulfillment of this verse. Many amillennialists understand the seventieth week to represent what has happened since Jesus Christ's first advent and what will continue until His second advent.376 A few amillennialists take the seventieth seven as seven literal years beginning with Jesus' public ministry and ending about three and one-half years after his death.377 Pentecost represents the standard premillennial, pretribulational interpretation. "This seven-year period will begin after the Rapture of the church (which will consummate God's program in this present Age). The 70th seven' will continue till the return of Jesus Christ to the earth. Because Jesus said this will be a time of great distress' (Matt. 24:21), this period is often called the Tribulation."378 The strongest argument for a literal fulfillment of the events predicted in verse 27 is that the events predicted in verses 24-26 were fulfilled literally. "The abomination of desolation' set up by Antiochus is not the ultimate fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 because (a) Antiochus does not fit the time sequence given in that verse, and (b) long after the time of Antiochus, Jesus said Daniel's prophecy of the abomination of desolation was still future (Matt. 14:15-16)."379 Guzik -> Dan 9:1-27 Guzik: Dan 9:1-27 - --Daniel 9 - The Seventy Weeks of Daniel A. The prayer of Daniel. 1. (1-2) Introduction: Daniel's reason for prayer. In the first year of Darius the... Daniel 9 - The Seventy Weeks of Daniel A. The prayer of Daniel. 1. (1-2) Introduction: Daniel's reason for prayer. In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the lineage of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years specified by the word of the LORD through Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. a. Understood by the books: Daniel 9 is one of the most amazing and significant prophetic passages in the Bible, and it begins with Daniel's understanding and application of prophecy. i. Daniel understood something from reading the words of God's prophets. Prophecy is meant to be understood - perhaps not in every detail, but certainly in its main points. ii. Daniel understood this by the books - the specific words recorded in God-inspired books. Daniel couldn't read 2 Timothy 3:16, but he did believe the truth of it: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. iii. "These verses show Daniel as a diligent student of Scripture who built his prayer life on the Word of God." (Archer) iv. "Oh! That you studied your Bibles more! Oh! That we all did! How we could plead the promises! How often we should prevail with God when we could hold him to his word, and say, 'Fulfill this word unto thy servant, whereon thou hast caused me to hope.' Oh! It is grand praying when our mouth is full of God's word, for there is no word that can prevail with him like his own." (Spurgeon) b. The number of years specified by the word of the LORD through Jeremiah: Daniel knew that effective prayer comes out of knowing and praying both God's word and our present circumstances. His study of prophecy showed him a specific number - the 70 years described in Jeremiah 25:11-13 and Jeremiah 29:10, and his knowledge of the times led him to know those passages applied to his time. i. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 'Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity," says the LORD; "and I will make it a perpetual desolation. So I will bring on that land all My words which I have pronounced against it, all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah has prophesied concerning all the nations." (Jeremiah 25:11-13) ii. For thus says the LORD: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place. (Jeremiah 29:10) iii. It is important to note that Daniel regarded these as real, literal years. They were in no way understood as "symbolic" years. iv. Daniel was undoubtedly also familiar with Isaiah's prophecies concerning Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28-45:4). He must have been encouraged to see a man named Cyrus rise in power over Persia. c. That He would accomplish seventy years: If Daniel believed that God would accomplish seventy years of captivity, then why did he pray as passionately as he did in Daniel 9? Daniel knew that God's promises invite our prayers and participation; they don't exclude our prayers and participation. i. "Nothing, therefore, can be better for us, than to ask for what he has promised." (Calvin) ii. This principle is repeated in many passages. 2 Peter 3:12 indicates that there is a sense in which we can hasten the Lord's coming by our holy conduct and godly lives; we can also hasten the Lord's coming through evangelism because Paul says that God's prophetic focus on Israel will resume when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25). This means that we can also hasten the Lord's coming through prayer, even as Daniel asked for a speedy fulfillment of prophecy regarding captive Israel (Daniel 9). We can also pray Even so, come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:20) If you want Jesus to come soon, there is something you can do about it! iii. But a second important reason is that Daniel asked God, in His mercy, to take the earliest of all possible starting points (Daniel's abduction) for determining the beginning of the 70 years. There were three "waves" of captivity: · 605 B.C. - Jerusalem attacked, Daniel and other captives taken to Babylon · 597 B.C. - Jerusalem attacked, treasure taken from the temple · 587 B.C. - Jerusalem falls and the nation is exiled iv. If Daniel can prevail with God in prayer, and God then takes the earliest starting point to determine the 70 years then His mercy comes to Israel 18 years earlier. v. At the time of this prayer was still three or four years short of 70 years since 605 B.C. - it was not too soon for Daniel to begin praying. d. The word of the LORD through Jeremiah: Even in God's eternal decrees, human agencies are essential. God's plan of the ages is declared, yet Jeremiah made a prophecy, Daniel made a prayer, and Cyrus made a proclamation i. "Too often our interest in the prophetic Scriptures is of a curious and speculative nature, or else we conclude that God will carry out His sovereign purpose no matter what we do, and so we do not concern ourselves with those matters." (Strauss) ii. By tribal heritage or calling Daniel was not uniquely qualified for a ministry of intercession. He did not belong to a priestly family like Ezekiel and he wasn't a "career" prophet like Isaiah or Jeremiah. Yet like all of us, he could pray. iii. In fact, Daniel's calling and station in life made it less likely that he would be such a man of prayer. He was a high government official who almost certainly had a busy schedule - yet he took time and energy to pray. iv. "Do not, I pray you, get into the habit of neglecting the assembling of yourselves together for prayer. How often have I said, 'All our strength lies in prayer'! When we were very few, God multiplied us in answer to prayer." 2. (3) Daniel's preparation for prayer. Then I set my face toward the Lord God to make request by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes. a. I set my face: This implies determination in prayer. Daniel had an objective to achieve in prayer, and he approached God as a man who would not be denied. He did this because he was rightly convinced that his prayer was in the will of God, and knew it was not motivated by any selfish desire. b. To make request by prayer and supplications: Daniel wasn't passive as God's prophetic plan unfolded before him. In his approach to God, he made a request, asking God to perform His promise in the way that Daniel thought would bring God most glory. i. "We ask but little, and God gives it." (Spurgeon) c. With fasting, sackcloth, and ashes: This reflected Daniel's humble heart in approaching God. Fasting, sackcloth, and ashes are emblems of humiliation and mourning. i. Daniel was determined to do what ever it took to get this job done in prayer. He "left nothing undone that might possibly make his prayer more effective or more persuasive." (Walvoord) 3. (4-15) Daniel confesses the sin of his people, and glorifies the goodness and righteousness of God. And I prayed to the LORD my God, and made confession, and said, "O Lord, great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and mercy with those who love Him, and with those who keep His commandments, we have sinned and committed iniquity, we have done wickedly and rebelled, even by departing from Your precepts and Your judgments. Neither have we heeded Your servants the prophets, who spoke in Your name to our kings and our princes, to our fathers and all the people of the land. O Lord, righteousness belongs to You, but to us shame of face, as it is this day; to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Israel, those near and those far off in all the countries to which You have driven them, because of the unfaithfulness which they have committed against You. O Lord, to us belongs shame of face, to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, because we have sinned against You. To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, though we have rebelled against Him. We have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in His laws, which He set before us by His servants the prophets. Yes, all Israel has transgressed Your law, and has departed so as not to obey Your voice; therefore the curse and the oath written in the Law of Moses the servant of God have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against Him. And He has confirmed His words, which He spoke against us and against our judges who judged us, by bringing upon us a great disaster; for under the whole heaven such has never been done as what has been done to Jerusalem. As it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come upon us; yet we have not made our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities and understand Your truth. Therefore the LORD has kept the disaster in mind, and brought it upon us; for the LORD our God is righteous in all the works which He does, though we have not obeyed His voice. And now, O Lord our God, who brought Your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and made Yourself a name, as it is this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly!" a. O Lord, great and awesome God: Daniel began his prayer where we all should - by recognizing the greatness and goodness of God. Sometimes we approach God as a stingy person who must be persuaded to give us something. But Daniel knew the problem was not with God. God keeps His covenant and mercy with those who love Him. i. Daniel's prayer is remarkable for both its understanding and earnestness. Many pray with understanding but not earnestness; others are earnest but have no understanding in prayer. The two together are a powerful combination. ii. "Oh! That our prayers could get beyond praying, till they got to agonizing." (Spurgeon) b. We have sinned and committed iniquity: As Daniel confesses Israel's sin he prays as if he is as bad as the rest of Israel. This is a confession of we, not they. In this sense, they prayers never really reach God; genuine we prayers see self correctly and see our fellow saints with compassion. i. Daniel's confession of sin might seem phony until we realize how passionately and completely he is focused on God. Compared to God, even the most righteous among us falls far short. ii. "I firmly believe that, the better a man's own character becomes, and the more joy in the Lord he has in his own heart, the more capable is he of sympathetic sorrow; and, probably, the more of it he will have. If thou hast room in thy soul for sacred joy, thou hast equal room for holy grief." (Spurgeon) c. Righteousness belongs to You, but to us shame of face: Daniel knew that Israel's sin was not God's fault; God was utterly righteous and blameless. Any shame of face belonged to Israel, not to God. i. It would be easy to complain to God about Israel's problems. Daniel didn't think for a moment that God was too hard on Israel; he knew God was completely righteous and any failure was on Israel's side. ii. Instead of complaining, Daniel confessed. During times of great revival among God's people, the Holy Spirit always brings a deep conviction and awareness of sin. When that is responded to rightly, confession is appropriately made. J. Edwin Orr gives a good principle to govern confession: "If you sin secretly, confess secretly, admitting publicly that you need the victory but keeping details to yourself. If you sin openly confess openly to remove stumbling blocks from those whom you have hindered. If you have sinned spiritually (prayerlessness, lovelessness, and unbelief as well as their offspring, criticism, etc.) then confess to the church that you have been a hindrance." iii. Genuine, appropriate confession will be sincere, specific, and thorough. Orr describes how in the 1952 revival in Brazil a woman in a crowded church confessed, "Please pray for me, I need to love people more." The leader told her gently, "That is not a confession, sister. Anyone could have said it." Later in the service the lady stood again and said, "Please pray for me. What I should have said is that my sharp tongue has caused a lot of trouble in this congregation." The pastor leaned over to Orr and whispered "Now she is talking!" iv. This is praying from a low place, and very effective. Football players try to hit their opponent low, because they gain leverage from coming in low. Our prayers are leveraged when we come to God humble and lowly. d. We have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God: Daniel does not make the slightest excuse for Israel's sin. The fault belongs to Israel and Israel alone. We are prone to excuses for our sin and often even make even excuses in our "confessions." e. He has confirmed His words . . . As it is written in the Law of Moses: Daniel realized that even in His judgment against Israel, God was totally faithful to His word. He promised that curses would come upon a disobedient Israel (Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28) and they did. f. All this disaster has come upon us; yet we have not made our prayer before the LORD our God: As Daniel confesses his sin and the sin of Israel, he comes to the sin of prayerlessness. Even when they faced great trial and calamity, Israel still did not make their prayer before the LORD. When we sense trial or difficulty it should drive us immediately to prayer - when we are not so driven it should be a wake-up call to the coldness of our heart. g. Who brought Your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand: As Daniel prayed he remembered that the LORD delivered Israel from Egypt. He remembers the Old Testament "standard" of God's power, the deliverance from Egypt. The New Testament "standard" of God's power is the resurrection of Jesus (Ephesians 1:19-20). 4. (16-19) Daniel asks God to forgive and to restore Jerusalem. "O Lord, according to all Your righteousness, I pray, let Your anger and Your fury be turned away from Your city Jerusalem, Your holy mountain; because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Your people are a reproach to all those around us. Now therefore, our God, hear the prayer of Your servant, and his supplications, and for the Lord's sake cause Your face to shine on Your sanctuary, which is desolate. O my God, incline Your ear and hear; open Your eyes and see our desolations, and the city which is called by Your name; for we do not present our supplications before You because of our righteous deeds, but because of Your great mercies. O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and act! Do not delay for Your own sake, my God, for Your city and Your people are called by Your name." a. Let Your anger and Your fury be turned away from Your city Jerusalem: After his confession of Israel's sin and God's great righteousness, Daniel simply asks God to mercifully turn His kind attention to Jerusalem and the temple (cause Your face to shine on Your sanctuary) and that God would do this without delay (do not delay for your own sake). i. Daniel prayed as a patriot - but a patriot more of the Kingdom of God than the Kingdom of Israel. We should pray with similar patriotism for the Kingdom of God. "Let it never be said that the Church of God has no feeling of patriotism for the Holy City, for the Heavenly Land and for her glorious King enthroned above. To us, Christian patriotism means love to the Church of God." (Spurgeon) ii. Daniel asks for all this according to all Your righteousness. It is as if Daniel prayed, "LORD, I'm not asking You to do anything against Your righteousness. I'm praying this to advance Your righteous glory." b. Cause your face to shine: This is the heart of Daniel's plea. He knows that God's people need so much, but all their need can be summed up in this: they need God's face to shine upon them. i. "Oh, that we might learn how to pray so that God should be the subject as well as the object of our supplications! O God, thy Church needs thee above everything else! A poor, little, sick, neglected child needs fifty things; but you can put all those needs into one if you say that the child needs its mother. So, the Church, of God needs a thousand things, but you can put them all into one if you say, 'The Church of God needs her God.' " (Spurgeon) c. For the Lord's sake cause Your face to shine on Your sanctuary, which is desolate . . . Do not delay for Your own sake: Daniel's prayer is consumed with the glory of God, not primarily the benefit of man. His purpose in prayer was to see God's work accomplished and His cause glorified. i. It isn't wrong to pray for our own needs. Jesus invited us to ask, give us this day our daily bread. At the same time, we need to have an even greater passion for the glory and benefit of God. ii. We should pray with the same passion and concern for the work of God in our congregations and communities. We can pray the prayer of Psalm 85:6: Will You not revive us again, that Your people may rejoice in You? Alone and in groups we can pray for God to pour out the Holy Spirit, to bring repentance and revival among His people, and to awaken the unconverted. iii. This also speaks to purity of motive in Daniel's prayer. Sometimes we pray for God to do a great work so we can be known as great workers for God. We need to pray for the sake of the LORD's cause, both in our words and heart. d. We do not present our supplications before You because of our righteous deeds, but because of Your great mercies: Here Daniel prays on firm New Testament ground. His confidence isn't in his goodness, but in God's goodness. i. This is what it means to pray in the name of Jesus. Those aren't words we tack on to the end of a prayer, but they should express the fact we are praying in merits and righteousness of Jesus, not our own. ii. Daniel was not great because he prayed. He was great because his prayer was the necessary expression of great trust and dependence on God. Many religious people spend countless hours in prayer but it achieves nothing because it is not rooted in the goodness and righteousness of God. Self righteous or self trusting prayer is of no power before God. "One of Satan's most subtle delusions is that he succeeds in getting hundreds of thousands of men to trust in prayer, apart from faith in the shed blood of Jesus." (Talbot) e. O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and act! Sometimes we talk about "wrestling in prayer" and here Daniel prays like a great wrestler. He follows up one victory with another request with rapid movement. i. "Follow up your advantage; build another prayer or the answer that you have. If you have received a great blessing, say, 'Because he hath inclined his ear unto me, therefore will I call upon him; because he has heard me once, therefore will I call again.' " (Spurgeon) ii. "Cold prayers ask God to deny them: only importunate prayers will be replied to. When the Church of God cannot take 'No' for an answer, she shall not have 'No' for an answer. When a pleading soul must have it; when the Spirit of God works mightily in him so that he cannot let the angel go without a blessing, the angel shall not go till he has given the blessing to such a pleading one. Brethren, if there be only one among us that can pray as Daniel did, with intensity, the blessing will come." (Spurgeon) B. Gabriel brings the answer to Daniel's prayer. 1. (20-21) Daniel's prayer is interrupted by an angelic visit. Now while I was speaking, praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God, yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, reached me about the time of the evening offering. a. While I was speaking in prayer: This dramatic answer to prayer came even as Daniel prayed. Jesus said, your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him (Matthew 6:8). Whenever there seems to be a delay in answer to prayer, there is reason for the delay. When it is right to do it, God can answer prayer immediately. i. Sometimes God answers prayer before we even pray! It shall come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear. (Isaiah 65:24) b. Being caused to fly swiftly: This is one of the few places in the Bible where we are told that angels fly. Gabriel came quickly because there is no great distance between heaven and earth. c. The time of the evening offering: This was a special time, when Moses offered the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:6) and when Jesus was crucified (Matthew 27:45). i. As a young man in Jerusalem, Daniel often saw the smoke rising from the temple at the time of the evening sacrifice. 2. (22-23) Gabriel announces that he has come to bring Daniel an answer to his prayer. And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, "O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you skill to understand. At the beginning of your supplications the command went out, and I have come to tell you, for you are greatly beloved; therefore consider the matter, and understand the vision:" a. I have now come forth to give you skill to understand: In his prayer, Daniel didn't ask for understanding. His prayer demonstrated that his heart was close to God's heart, so God will reveal much to Daniel as His friend (John 15:15). i. Daniel studied the passage in Jeremiah, but still didn't understand much. In this case, understanding came more through prayer. "All students of the word will tell you that when the hammers of learning and biblical criticism have failed to break open a flinty text, oftentimes prayer has done it, and nuggets of gold have been found concealed therein. To every student of the word of God who would become a well-instructed scribe we would say, with all the means which you employ, with all your searchings of the commentaries, with all your diggings into the original, with all your researches among learned divines, mingle much fervent prayer." (Spurgeon) ii. "Luther affirmeth that he oft got more spiritual light by some one ardent prayer than ever he could do by the reading of many books, or by the most accurate meditation thereupon." (Trapp) b. For you are greatly beloved: Both Daniel and the Apostle John (John 13:23) were noted for their love-relationship with God. Both Daniel and John were also noted for receiving amazing prophetic messages. i. Daniel had just considered a set of "sevens" upon the nation of Israel - the 70 years of promised captivity prophesied by Jeremiah. It is as if God said through Gabriel, "I'll show you some 'sevens' that will really blow your mind." ii. When we seek God diligently, we often receive more than we ask for. C. The prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 1. (24a) Seventy weeks are determined for the Jews and Jerusalem. Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, a. Seventy weeks are determined: There is almost universal agreement among Bible scholars and commentators that this refers to seventy sets of seven years, or "weeks of years." i. In ancient Hebrew, weeks simply refers to a unit of seven. The Hebrew word here is often used to mean a unit of seven days, but it may also be used for a unit of seven years. ii. "The Jews had Sabbatic years, by which their years were divided into weeks of years, as in this important prophecy, each week containing seven years." (Clarke) iii. Genesis 29:15-28 is an example of using this ancient Hebrew word (shabuwa') for both "seven days" and "seven years" in the same context. b. For your people and for your holy city: The seventy weeks are focused upon Daniel's people (the Jews) and his holy city (Jerusalem). i. Unless the church has become Israel, it is not in view here. Talbot calls the seventy weeks "God's calendar for Israel" in that it does not focus on the Gentiles or the church. 2. (24b) What will be accomplished in the seventy weeks. To finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. a. To finish the transgression: This means that transgression itself will be finished. Taken literally this means establishing an entirely new order on earth, with an end to man's rebellion against God. i. "The culmination of appointed years will witness the conclusion of man's 'transgression' or 'rebellion' against God - a development most naturally entered into with the establishment of an entirely new order on earth. This seems to require nothing less than the inauguration of the kingdom of God on earth." (Archer) b. To make an end of sins: Taking these words at face value, this means not only the end of the guilt of sin, but an end of sin itself. It means to "seal up" or "restrain" sins. This looks to a new, redeemed world. c. To make reconciliation for iniquity: Man's iniquity must be reconciled to God's justice and holiness. This work was clearly accomplished at the cross. d. To bring in everlasting righteousness: One might take this in an individual sense, but there have always been righteous individuals. Taking the statement at face value, this means a new order of society brought in by the Messiah. e. To seal up vision and prophecy: This speaks of both the ending and fulfillment of prophecy, concluding the final stage of human history and culminating with the reign of the Son of God. i. "It must include his enthronement." (Archer) f. To anoint the most holy: Taken at its simple, literal meaning, this refers to a place, not a person. There is a most holy place - the most holy place of the temple - that will be anointed and blessed. g. Taken as a whole, Gabriel made a remarkable announcement to Daniel. He told him that each of these amazing things would happen within the period of seventy weeks. i. Looking back in history, we can only say this things have each been fulfilled if we ignore their plain, literal meaning and give them a "spiritual" meaning that ignores their plain meaning. Some like to say that these promises are fulfilled generally in the spread of the gospel over the centuries, but this ignores the plain and simple meaning of these words. 3. (25) The course and dividing of the seventy weeks. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. a. From the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem: Here Gabriel reveals to Daniel the starting point for the seventy-weeks prophecy. There was a command to restore and build Jerusalem in history that began this specific time period. i. The Bible presents four possible decrees that might fulfill this description: · Cyrus made a decree giving Ezra and the Babylonian captives the right to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple in 538 B.C. (Ezra in 1:1-4 and 5:13-17) · Darius made a decree giving Ezra the right to rebuild the temple in 517 B.C. (Ezra 6:6-12) · Artaxerxes made a decree giving Ezra permission, safe passage, and supplies to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple in 458 B.C. (Ezra 7:11-26) · Artaxerxes made a decree giving Nehemiah permission, safe passage and supplies to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and the walls in 445 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1-8) ii. Only the last of these four decrees was a command to restore and build Jerusalem. The first three each focused on the temple, not on the street or on the wall. b. Until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks: Gabriel's message to Daniel is simple and striking. 483 years - that is, 69 units of seven years - would pass from the time of the command recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8 until the appearance of Messiah the Prince. i. Some say the 483 years were completed at Jesus' birth (5 or 4 B.C.). There is little chronological support for this date. ii. Some say the 483 years were completed at His baptism, at the beginning of Jesus' ministry (if dated at 26 A.D.). This is possible if one begins with the earlier decree of Artaxerxes, and figures with our present measurement for years instead of the ancient measurement of years (360 days). iii. Some say the 483 years were completed at the triumphal entry of Jesus (if dated at 32 A.D.). Sir Robert Anderson's significant work The Coming Prince follows this argument in great detail. · Anderson, using a 360-day year (which Israel used in Daniel's day), calculates 173,880 days from the decree to the triumphal entry, fulfilling the prophecy to the day. "It is customary for the Jews to have twelve months of 360 days each and then to insert a thirteenth month occasionally when necessary to correct the calendar." (Walvoord) · The year 32 A.D. (based on Luke 3:1) for Jesus' death is controversial (most chronologists favor 30 or 33 A.D.). But recent attempts have made some case for the date: "A recent article attempts to give credence to the date of A.D. 32; cf. R.E. Showers, Grace Journal, XI (Winter, 1970), pp. 30ff. The evidence presented is worthy of notice." (Wood) · "No one today is able dogmatically to declare that Sir Robert Anderson's computations are impossible." (Walvoord) iv. Some say the 483 years were completed at the exact time of the crucifixion. c. Until Messiah the Prince: Taking Anderson's calculations as reliable, we see a remarkable fulfillment of prophecy. A Gentile king made a decree and 483 years later to the day, Jesus presented Himself as Messiah the Prince to Israel. i. In our mind a Prince is a good step lower than a king. In the Hebrew vocabulary, "Prince" has more the idea of "strong, mighty ruler" than "son of a king and heir to the throne." ii. "There was only one occasion in our Lord's earthly ministry on which He is depicted as presenting Himself openly as Zion's King, the so-called 'Triumphal Entry,' recorded in each one of the Gospels and fulfilling Zechariah 9:9 and Psalm 118:26." (Newell) · On that day, Jesus deliberately arranged the event to present Himself as Messiah (Mark 11:1-10) · On that day, Jesus welcomed praise (Luke 19:38-40) instead of quieting it (Luke 5:14 and 8:56) · On that day, Jesus made special reference to the importance of that day (Luke 19:41-42) iii. This prophecy is so specifically fulfilled that it has been a significant testimony to many. "Others of the Jewish [scholars], by the evidence of these words, have been compelled to confess that Messiah is already come, and that he was that Jesus whom their forefathers crucified." (Trapp) d. The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times: This indicates that the rebuilding of the streets and wall of Jerusalem would happen in the first seven weeks mentioned. Then would follow another 62 weeks of years until the coming of Messiah the Prince. i. The seventy weeks are divided into three parts: · Seven weeks - 49 years, until the city and its walls are rebuilt · 69 weeks (7 plus 62), 483 years from the decree, until Messiah the Prince appears · A final 70th week to complete the prophecy 4. (26) What happens after the first sixty-nine weeks. And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined. a. After the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off: The Biblical term cut off is sometimes used to describe execution (see Genesis 9:11 and Exodus 31:14). The Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself. i. "Able chronologists have shown that the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ occurred immediately after the expiration of 483 prophetic years, of 360 days each, from the time of Artaxerxes' order." (Ironside) ii. Strangely, many able commentators simply ignore these numbers. "The numbers are symbolic and not arithmetical." (Baldwin) iii. Cut off is a poignant description of Jesus' earthly life up to and including the cross. "Born in another man's stable, cradled in another man's manger with nowhere to lay his head during his life on earth, and buried in another man's tomb after dying on a cursed cross, the Christ of God and the Friend of the friendless was indeed cut off and had nothing." (Heslop) b. Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: After the Messiah is cut off, Jerusalem and her temple would be destroyed again by an overwhelming army (with a flood). Most all Bible scholars and commentators agree that this was fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. c. The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy: The destroying army is made up of the people of the prince who is to come. This coming prince is described more in Daniel 9:26. 6. (27) The events of the seventieth week. Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate. a. He shall confirm a covenant: The "he" Gabriel mentions is the prince who is to come mentioned in the previous verse. If we know that the prince's people destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., then we know this coming prince has his ancestral roots in the soil of the ancient Roman Empire. i. Therefore, the prince who is to come will in some way be an heir to the Romans, even as the final world government is an heir to the Roman Empire (Daniel 7). b. He shall confirm a covenant with many for one week: The coming prince will make a covenant with Israel for the final unit of seven years, completing the seventy weeks prophesied for the Jewish people and Jerusalem. i. Covenant with many: The word many here is a specific reference to Israel, not a general reference to a group. The ancient Hebrew says, "covenant with the many." ii. With this covenant Israel will embrace the Antichrist as a political messiah, if not the literal Messiah. Jesus predicted this in John 5:43: I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. iii. Taking the description of what would be accomplished in the 70 Weeks from Daniel 9:24, we know that the 70 Weeks are not yet complete. Yet the events promised in the first 69 weeks are fulfilled, indicated that there is a lengthy "pause" in the 70 Weeks, between the 69 th week and the 70 th week. The 70 th week will begin when the coming prince shall confirm a covenant with the Jewish people. These "gaps" or "pauses" in prophecy may seem strange to us, but they are common. Comparing Isaiah 9:6 and Luke 1:31-33 shows another significant "pause" or "gap" in prophecy regarding the coming of the Messiah. iv. We can think of it in this way: God has appointed 490 years of special focus on Israel in His redemptive plan. The years were "paused" by Israel's rejection of Jesus. Now, there is no special focus on Israel in God's redemptive plan because this is the time of the church. God's focus will return to Israel when the church is taken away (at the rapture) and the last seven years of man's rule on this earth begin. v. "The 70th week will begin when the Jewish people are restored in unbelief to their land and city; and among them will be found a faithful remnant, owning their sin, and seeking Jehovah's face." (Henry Ironside writing in 1911) c. In the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering: The coming prince will break the covenant with Israel in the middle of the seven years, the final "week." i. The Book of Revelation sees this seven year period with both its halves as yet future (Revelation 12:6, 13-14; 13:5-9, 14-15). The middle of the week and the end of sacrifice had not yet happened in 90 A.D. d. On the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate: The ending of sacrifice will come with abominations, followed by tremendous desolation. i. Abominations translates an ancient Hebrew word (shiqquwts) that is connected to horrific idolatry (Deuteronomy 29:17, 1 Kings 11:5-7, 2 Kings 23:13). The idea is that the coming prince breaks the covenant and brings an end to sacrifice and offering by desecrating the holy place of the temple with a horrific idolatry. ii. Jesus called this the abomination of desolation (Matthew 24:15) and indicated that it would be a pivotal sign in the Great Tribulation. Paul referred to the idolatry of the coming prince in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. e. Until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate: This breaking of the covenant and abomination of desolation has a promised consummation. Before the 70 th week is completed, each of the things described in Daniel 9:24 will be accomplished and everlasting righteousness will reign. The Seventy Weeks of Daniel As Understood by Sir Robert Anderson in The Coming Prince Daniel 9:24-25 says that from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the coming of the Messiah there will be 483 years. 7 + 62 "weeks" = 69 groups of seven years. 7 x 69 = 483 years Anderson sees a prophetic year as 360 days. This is based both on ancient history and on Revelation 11:2, 13:5, 11:3, and 12:6 which indicate that 42 months 3 ½ years are equal to 1,260 days. Therefore, 483 years x 360 days = 173,880 days Artaxerxes started his reign in 465 B.C. The decree to rebuild Jerusalem was given on the first day of Nisan, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes. In our calendar system (the Julian calendar) that date is March 14, 445 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1) Jesus started His ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius (see Luke 3:1). Tiberius started his reign in 14 A.D., so Jesus' ministry started in 29 A.D. Anderson believes that Jesus celebrated four Passovers during His ministry, one each in 29, 30, 31 and His final Passover in 32. With the help of lunar charts, we can calculate the exact date of ancient Passovers, so it is possible to calculate the exact day of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem as April 6, 32 A.D. From 445 B.C. to 32 A.D. there are 476 years on the Julian calendar (not 477 years, because there is no year zero) 476 years x 365 days = 173,740 days Adjusting for the difference between March 14 and April 6 adds 24 days Adjusting for leap years over a period of 476 years adds 116 days The total number of days from March 14, 445 B.C. to April 6, 32 A.D. 173,740 + 24 + 116 = 173,880 days According to his calendar, Daniel told us there would be 173,880 days between the decree and the arrival of Messiah the Prince. Jesus said to the Jews of this day: If you had known, even you, especially IN THIS YOUR DAY, the things that make for your peace! (Luke 19:42) David said of this day in Psalm 118:24: THIS IS THE DAY which the Lord has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. © 2002 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission expand all Introduction / Outline JFB: Daniel (Book Introduction) DANIEL, that is, "God is my judge"; probably of the blood royal (compare Dan 1:3, with 1Ch 3:1, where a son of David is named so). Jerusalem may have ... DANIEL, that is, "God is my judge"; probably of the blood royal (compare Dan 1:3, with 1Ch 3:1, where a son of David is named so). Jerusalem may have been his birthplace (though Dan 9:24, "thy holy city," does not necessarily imply this). He was carried to Babylon among the Hebrew captives brought thither by Nebuchadnezzar at the first deportation in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. As he and his three companions are called (Dan 1:4) "children," he cannot have been more than about twelve years old when put in training, according to Eastern etiquette, to be a courtier (Dan 1:3, Dan 1:6). He then received a new name, by which it was usual to mark a change in one's condition (2Ki 23:34; 2Ki 24:17; Ezr 5:14; Est 2:7), Belteshazzar, that is, "a prince favored by Bel" (Dan 1:7). His piety and wisdom were proverbial among his countrymen at an early period; probably owing to that noble proof he gave of faithfulness, combined with wisdom, in abstaining from the food sent to him from the king's table, as being polluted by the idolatries usual at heathen banquets (Dan 1:8-16). Hence Ezekiel's reference to him (Eze 14:14, Eze 14:20; Eze 28:3) is precisely of that kind we should expect; a coincidence which must be undesigned. Ezekiel refers to him not as a writer, but as exhibiting a character righteous and wise in discerning secrets, in those circumstances now found in his book, which are earlier than the time when Ezekiel wrote. As Joseph rose in Egypt by interpreting Pharaoh's dreams, so Daniel, by interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's, was promoted to be governor of Babylonia, and president of the Magian priest-caste. Under Evil-merodach, Nebuchadnezzar's successor, as a change of officers often attends the accession of a new king, Daniel seems to have had a lower post, which led him occasionally to be away from Babylon (Dan 8:2, Dan 8:27). Again he came into note when he read the mystic writing of Belshazzar's doom on the wall on the night of that monarch's impious feast. BEROSUS calls the last Babylonian king Nabonidus and says he was not killed, but had an honorable abode in Carmania assigned to him, after having surrendered voluntarily in Borsippa. RAWLINSON has cleared up the discrepancy from the Nineveh inscription. Belshazzar was joint king with his father, Evil-merodach or Nabonidus (called Minus in the inscriptions), to whom he was subordinate. He shut himself up in Babylon, while the other king took refuge elsewhere, namely, in Borsippa. BEROSUS gives the Chaldean account, which suppresses all about Belshazzar, as being to the national dishonor. Had Daniel been a late book, he would no doubt have taken up the later account of BEROSUS. If he gave a history differing from that current in Babylonia, the Jews of that region would not have received it as true. Darius the Mede, or Cyaxares II, succeeded and reigned two years. The mention of this monarch's reign, almost unknown to profane history (being eclipsed by the splendor of Cyrus) is an incidental proof that Daniel wrote as a contemporary historian of events which he knew, and did not borrow from others. In the third year of Cyrus he saw the visions (the tenth through twelfth chapters) relating to his people down to the latest days and the coming resurrection. He must have been about eighty-four years old at this time. Tradition represents Daniel as having died and been buried at Shushan. Though his advanced age did not allow him to be among those who returned to Palestine, yet he never ceased to have his people's interests nearest to his heart (Dan. 9:3-19; Dan 10:12). AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. Dan 7:1, Dan 7:28; Dan 8:2; Dan 9:2; Dan 10:1-2; Dan 12:4-5, testify that it was composed by Daniel himself. He does not mention himself in the first six chapters, which are historical; for in these it is not the author, but the events which are the prominent point. In the last six, which are prophetical, the author makes himself known, for here it was needed, prophecy being a revelation of words to particular men. It holds a third rank in the Hebrew canon: not among the prophets, but in the Hagiographa (Chetubim), between Esther and Ezra, books like it relating to the captivity; because he did not strictly belong to those who held exclusively the profession of "prophets" in the theocracy, but was rather a "seer," having the gift, but not the office of prophet. Were the book an interpolated one, it doubtless would have been placed among the prophets. Its present position is a proof of its genuineness, as it was deliberately put in a position different from that where most would expect to find it. Placed between Esther, and Ezra and Nehemiah, it separated the historical books of the time after the captivity. Thus, Daniel was, as BENGEL calls him, the politician, chronologer, and historian among the prophets. The Psalms also, though many are prophetical, are ranked with the Hagiographa, not with the prophets; and the Revelation of John is separated from his Epistles, as Daniel is from the Old Testament prophets. Instead of writing in the midst of the covenant people, and making them the foreground of his picture, he writes in a heathen court, the world kingdoms occupying the foreground, and the kingdom of God, though ultimately made the most significant, the background. His peculiar position in the heathen court is reflected in his peculiar position in the canon. As the "prophets" in the Old Testament, so the epistles of the apostles in the New Testament were written by divinely commissioned persons for their contemporaries. But Daniel and John were not in immediate contact with the congregation, but isolated and alone with God, the one in a heathen court, the other on a lonely isle (Rev 1:9). PORPHYRY, the assailant of Christianity in the third century, asserted that the Book of Daniel was a forgery of the time of the Maccabees (170-164 B.C.), a time when confessedly there were no prophets, written after the events as to Antiochus Epiphanes, which it professes to foretell; so accurate are the details. A conclusive proof of Daniel's inspiration, if his prophecies can be shown to have been before the events. Now we know, from JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 10.11.7], that the Jews in Christ's days recognized Daniel as in the canon. Zechariah, Ezra, and Nehemiah, centuries before Antiochus, refer to it. Jesus refers to it in His characteristic designation, "Son of man," Mat 24:30 (Dan 7:13); also expressly by name, and as a "prophet," in Mat 24:15 (compare Mat 24:21, with Dan 12:1, &c.); and in the moment that decided His life (Mat 26:64) or death, when the high priest adjured him by the living God. Also, in Luk 1:19-26, "Gabriel" is mentioned, whose name occurs nowhere else in Scripture, save in Dan 8:16; Dan 9:21. Besides the references to it in Revelation, Paul confirms the prophetical part of it, as to the blasphemous king (Dan 7:8, Dan 7:25; Dan 11:36), in 1Co 6:2; 2Th 2:3-4; the narrative part, as to the miraculous deliverances from "the lions" and "the fire," in Heb 11:33-34. Thus the book is expressly attested by the New Testament on the three points made the stumbling-block of neologists--the predictions, the narratives of miracles, and the manifestations of angels. An objection has been stated to the unity of the book, namely, that Jesus quotes no part of the first half of Daniel. But Mat 21:44 would be an enigma if it were not a reference to the "stone that smote the image" (Dan 2:34-35, Dan 2:44-45). Thus the New Testament sanctions the second, third, sixth, seventh, and eleventh chapters. The design of the miracles in the heathen courts where Daniel was, as of those of Moses in Egypt, was to lead the world power, which seemed to be victorious over the theocracy, to see the essential inner superiority of the seemingly fallen kingdom of God to itself, and to show prostrate Israel that the power of God was the same as of old in Egypt. The first book of Maccabees (compare 1 Maccabees 1:24; 9:27, 40, with Dan 12:1; Dan 11:26, of the Septuagint) refers to Daniel as an accredited book, and even refers to the Septuagint Alexandrian version of it. The fact of Daniel having a place in the Septuagint shows it was received by the Jews at large prior to the Maccabean times. The Septuagint version so arbitrarily deviated from the Hebrew Daniel, that Theodotius' version was substituted for it in the early Christian Church. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees. With Jaddua (high priest from 341-322 B.C.) the Old Testament history ends (Neh 12:11). (The register of the priests and Levites was not written by Nehemiah, who died about 400 B.C., but was inserted with divine sanction by the collectors of the canon subsequently.) An objection to Daniel's authenticity has been rested on a few Greek words found in it. But these are mostly names of Greek musical instruments, which were imported by Greece from the East, rather than vice versa. Some of the words are derived from the common Indo-Germanic stock of both Greek and Chaldee: hence their appearance in both tongues. And one or two may have come through the Greeks of Asia Minor to the Chaldee. The fact that from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh, the language is Chaldee, but the rest Hebrew, is not an argument against, but for, its authenticity. So in Ezra the two languages are found. The work, if that of one author, must have been composed by someone in the circumstances of Daniel, that is, by one familiar with both languages. No native-born Hebrew who had not lived in Chaldea would know Chaldee so well as to use it with the same idiomatic ease as his native tongue; the very impurities in Daniel's use of both are just such as were natural to one in his circumstances, but unnatural to one in a later age, or to one not half Hebrew, half Chaldean in residence as Daniel was. Those parts of Daniel which concern the whole world are mostly Chaldee, then the language of the world empire. So Greek was made the language of the New Testament, which was designed for the whole world. Those affecting the Jews, mostly Hebrew; and this not so impure as that of Ezekiel. His Chaldee is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. Two predictions alone are enough to prove to us that Daniel was a true prophet. (1) That his prophecies reach beyond Antiochus; namely, he foretells the rise of the four great monarchies, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (the last not being in Daniel's time known beyond the precincts of Italy, or rather of Latium), and that no other earthly kingdom would subvert the fourth, but that it would divide into parts. All this has come to pass. No fifth great earthly monarchy has arisen, though often attempted, as by Charlemagne, Charles V, and Napoleon. (2) The time of Messiah's advent, as dated from a certain decree, His being cut off, and the destruction of the city. "He who denies Daniel's prophecies," says SIR ISAAC NEWTON, "undermines Christianity, which is founded on Daniel's prophecies concerning Christ." CHARACTERISTICS OF DANIEL. The vision mode of revelation is the exception in other prophets, the rule in Daniel. In Zechariah (Zec. 1:1-6:15), who lived after Daniel, the same mode appears, but the other form from the seventh chapter to the end. The Revelation of St. John alone is perfectly parallel to Daniel, which may be called the Old Testament Apocalypse. In the contents too there is the difference above noticed, that he views the kingdom of God from the standpoint of the world kingdoms, the development of which is his great subject. This mode of viewing it was appropriate to his own position in a heathen court, and to the relation of subjection in which the covenant-people then stood to the world powers. No longer are single powers of the world incidentally introduced, but the universal monarchies are the chief theme, in which the worldly principle, opposed to the kingdom of God, manifests itself fully. The near and distant are not seen in the same perspective, as by the other prophets, who viewed the whole future from the eschatological point; but in Daniel the historical details are given of that development of the world powers which must precede the advent of the kingdom [AUBERLEN]. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY. The exile is the historical basis of Daniel's prophecies, as Daniel implies in the first chapter, which commences with the beginning, and ends with the termination, of the captivity (Dan 1:1, Dan 1:21; compare Dan 9:1-2). A new stage in the theocracy begins with the captivity. Nebuchadnezzar made three incursions into Judah. The first under Jehoiakim (606 B.C.), in which Daniel was carried away, subjected the theocracy to the Babylonian world power. The second (598 B.C.) was that in which Jehoiachin and Ezekiel were carried away. In the third (588 B.C.), Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and carried away Zedekiah. Originally, Abraham was raised out of the "sea" (Dan 7:2) of the nations, as an island holy to God, and his seed chosen as God's mediator of His revelations of love to mankind. Under David and Solomon, the theocracy, as opposed to the heathen power, attained its climax in the Old Testament, not only being independent, but lord of the surrounding nations; so that the period of these two kings was henceforth made the type of the Messianic. But when God's people, instead of resting on Him, seek alliance with the world power, that very power is made the instrument of their chastisement. So Ephraim (722 B.C.) fell by Assyria; and Judah also, drawn into the sphere of the world's movements from the time of Ahaz, who sought Assyrian help (740 B.C., Isa. 7:1-25) at last fell by Babylon, and thenceforth has been more or less dependent on the world monarchies, and so, till Messiah, was favored with no revelations from the time of Malachi (four hundred years). Thus, from the beginning of the exile, the theocracy, in the strict sense, ceased on earth; the rule of the world powers superseding it. But God's covenant with Israel remains firm (Rom 11:29); therefore, a period of blessing under Messiah's kingdom is now foretold as about to follow their long chastisement. The exile thus is the turning point in the history of the theocracy, which ROOS thus divides: (1) From Adam to the exodus out of Egypt. (2) From the exodus to the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. (3) From the captivity to the millennium. (4) From the millennium to the end of the world. The position of Daniel in the Babylonian court was in unison with the altered relations of the theocracy and the world power, which new relation was to be the theme of his prophecy. Earlier prophets, from the standpoint of Israel, treated of Israel in its relation to the world powers; Daniel, from Babylon, the center of the then world power, treats of the world powers in their relation to Israel. His seventy years' residence in Babylon, and his high official position there, gave him an insight into the world's politics, fitting him to be the recipient of political revelations; while his spiritual experiences, gained through Nebuchadnezzar's humiliation, Belshazzar's downfall, and the rapid decay of the Babylonian empire itself, as well as the miraculous deliverances of himself and his friends (the third through sixth chapters), all fitted him for regarding things from the spiritual standpoint, from which the world's power appears transient, but the glory of God's kingdom eternal. As his political position was the body, the school of magicians in which he had studied for three years (Dan 1:4-5) was the soul; and his mind strong in faith and nourished by the earlier prophecies (Dan 9:2), the spirit of his prophecy, which only waited for the spirit of revelation from above to kindle it. So God fits His organs for their work. AUBERLEN compares Daniel to Joseph: the one at the beginning, the other at the end of the Jewish history of revelation; both representatives of God and His people at heathen courts; both interpreters of the dim presentiments of truth, expressed in God-sent dreams, and therefore raised to honor by the powers of the world: so representing Israel's calling to be a royal priesthood among the nations; and types of Christ, the true Israel, and of Israel's destination to be a light to lighten the whole Gentile world, as Rom 11:12, Rom 11:15 foretells. As Achilles at the beginning, and Alexander at the end, of Grecian history are the mirrors of the whole life of the Hellenic people, so Joseph and Daniel of Israel. CONTENTS OF THE BOOK. Historical and biographical introduction in the first chapter. Daniel, a captive exile, is representative of his nation in its servitude and exile: while his heavenly insight into dreams, far exceeding that of the magi, represents the divine superiority of the covenant-people over their heathen lords. The high dignities, even in the world, which he thereby attained, typify the giving of the earth-kingdom at last "to the people of the saints of the Most High" (Dan 7:27). Thus Daniel's personal history is the typical foundation of his prophecy. The prophets had to experience in themselves, and in their age, something of what they foretold about future times; just as David felt much of Christ's sufferings in his own person (compare Hos 1:2-11; Hos 2:3). So Jon. 1:1-17, &c. [ROOS]. Hence biographical notices of Daniel and his friends are inserted among his prophecies. The second through twelfth chapters contain the substance of the book, and consist of two parts. The first (the second through seventh chapters) represents the development of the world powers, viewed from a historical point. The second (the eighth through twelfth chapters), their development in relation to Israel, especially in the future preceding Christ's first advent, foretold in the ninth chapter. But prophecy looks beyond the immediate future to the complete fulfilment in the last days, since the individual parts in the organic history of salvation cannot be understood except in connection with the whole. Also Israel looked forward to the Messianic time, not only for spiritual salvation, but also for the visible restoration of the kingdom which even now we too expect. The prophecy which they needed ought therefore to comprise both, and so much of the history of the world as would elapse before the final consummation. The period of Daniel's prophecies, therefore, is that from the downfall of the theocracy at the captivity till its final restoration, yet future--the period of the dominion of the world powers, not set aside by Christ's first coming (Joh 18:36; for, to have taken the earth-kingdom then, would have been to take it from Satan's hands, Mat 4:8-10), but to be superseded by His universal and everlasting kingdom at His second coming (Rev 11:15). Thus the general survey of the development and final destiny of the world powers (the second through seventh chapters) fittingly precedes the disclosures as to the immediate future (the eighth through twelfth chapters). Daniel marks the division by writing the first part in Chaldee, and the second, and the introduction, in Hebrew; the former, referring to the powers of the world, in the language of the then dominant world power under which he lived; the latter, relating to the people of God, in their own language. An interpolator in a later age would have used Hebrew, the language of the ancient prophets throughout, or if anywhere Aramaic, so as to be understood by his contemporaries, he would have used it in the second rather than in the first part as having a more immediate reference to his own times [AUBERLEN]. JFB: Daniel (Outline) THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY BEGINS; DANIEL'S EDUCATION AT BABYLON, &C. (Dan. 1:1-21) NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S DREAM: DANIEL'S INTERPRETATION OF IT, AND ADVANCEM... THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY BEGINS; DANIEL'S EDUCATION AT BABYLON, &C. (Dan. 1:1-21) NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S DREAM: DANIEL'S INTERPRETATION OF IT, AND ADVANCEMENT. (Dan. 2:1-49) NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S IDOLATROUS IMAGE; SHADRACH, MESHACH, AND ABED-NEGO ARE DELIVERED FROM THE FURNACE. (Dan. 3:1-30) EDICT OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR CONTAINING HIS SECOND DREAM, RELATING TO HIMSELF. (Dan. 4:1-37) BELSHAZZAR'S IMPIOUS FEAST; THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL INTERPRETED BY DANIEL OF THE DOOM OF BABYLON AND ITS KING. (Dan. 5:1-31) DARIUS' DECREE: DANIEL'S DISOBEDIENCE, AND CONSEQUENT EXPOSURE TO THE LION'S: HIS DELIVERANCE BY GOD, AND DARIUS' DECREE. (Dan. 6:1-28) VISION OF THE FOUR BEASTS. (Dan. 7:1-28) VISION OF THE RAM AND HE-GOAT: THE TWENTY-THREE HUNDRED DAYS OF THE SANCTUARY BEING TRODDEN DOWN. (Dan. 8:1-27) DANIEL'S CONFESSION AND PRAYER FOR JERUSALEM: GABRIEL COMFORTS HIM BY THE PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. (Dan. 9:1-27) DANIEL COMFORTED BY AN ANGELIC VISION. (Dan. 10:1-21) CONCLUSION OF THE VISION (TENTH THROUGH TWELFTH CHAPTERS) AND EPILOGUE TO THE BOOK. (Dan 12:1-13) TSK: Daniel 9 (Chapter Introduction) Overview Dan 9:1, Daniel, considering the time of the captivity, Dan 9:3, makes confession of sins, Dan 9:16. and prays for the restoration of Jer... Overview Dan 9:1, Daniel, considering the time of the captivity, Dan 9:3, makes confession of sins, Dan 9:16. and prays for the restoration of Jerusalem; Dan 9:20, Gabriel informs him of the seventy weeks. Poole: Daniel (Book Introduction) BOOK OF DANIEL THE ARGUMENT IN Daniel and his prophecy, observe these things for the better understanding of this book, and the mind of God in it... BOOK OF DANIEL THE ARGUMENT IN Daniel and his prophecy, observe these things for the better understanding of this book, and the mind of God in it: 1. As to the author; First, He was a prophet, as appears in the little stone cut out of the mountain without hands, meaning Christ the Messiah and his kingdom, what he should do, chapter 2; likewise chapter 7 to the end of the book: the first six chapters are historical, the last six prophetical. Secondly, As to his lineage, he was one of the royal seed. Thirdly, He was a captive. Fourthly, He was rarely qualified for piety, wisdom, beauty. Fifthly, As to his education, he was trained for three years in learning. Sixthly, His advancement for his parts and wisdom. Seventhly, He was faithful and blameless in the place of honour to which he was preferred. Eighthly, His care and kindness for his companions; he procured their promotion also. Ninthly, His singular holiness and power with God in prayer, Eze 14:14 . Tenthly, His faithfulness and constancy in the worship of God, maugre the envy and persecution of his enemies. Eleventhly, The strange providence of God in his preservation and deliverance. Twelfthly, His signal integrity and flourishing state under several kings’ reigns, even in critical times and great changes, unto his old age, and beyond the seventy years of captivity. 2. AS to the book itself, both the historical and prophetical part of it, especially the latter, we find, First. Great variety in them. Secondly, Famous predictions; of the Messiah, of dreadful wars, of fearful desolations to countries, and the Jewish nation in particular, for putting Christ to death; great persecutions of the church, by the Grecians and Romans especially, in which Antiochus and antichrist are pointed at. These things are all of such weighty consideration, that our blessed Saviour calls for especial understanding in the reading even of one part of it, Mat 24:15 . His chronology and calculations may be called the key of time, relating to the church’ s sufferings and deliverances. Daniel was the greatest favourite we read of, namely, of the King of heaven, Dan 9:23 10:11 , and of the greatest kings then on earth. He was the noblest pattern of a public heart for the church of God, for whose affliction he was deeply afflicted in the midst of his court honours and employments. Poole: Daniel 9 (Chapter Introduction) CHAPTER 9 Daniel, considering the time of the captivity, Dan 9:1,2 , maketh confession of his people’ s sins, Dan 9:3-15 , and prayeth for the... CHAPTER 9 Daniel, considering the time of the captivity, Dan 9:1,2 , maketh confession of his people’ s sins, Dan 9:3-15 , and prayeth for the restoration of Jerusalem, Dan 9:16-19 . Gabriel informeth him of the seventy weeks, and of the time and death of the Messiah, and of the succeeding troubles, Dan 9:20-27 . MHCC: Daniel (Book Introduction) Daniel was of noble birth, if not one of the royal family of Judah. He was carried captive to Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiachin, B. C. 606, whe... Daniel was of noble birth, if not one of the royal family of Judah. He was carried captive to Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiachin, B. C. 606, when a youth. He was there taught the learning of the Chaldeans, and held high offices, both under the Babylonian and Persian empires. He was persecuted for his religion, but was miraculously delivered; and lived to a great age, as he must have been about ninety-four years old at the time of the last of his visions. The book of Daniel is partly historical, relating various circumstances which befell himself and the Jews, at Babylon; but is chiefly prophetical, detailing visions and prophecies which foretell numerous important events relative to the four great empires of the world, the coming and death of the Messiah, the restoration of the Jews, and the conversion of the Gentiles. Though there are considerable difficulties in explaining the prophetical meaning of some passages in this book, we always find encouragement to faith and hope, examples worthy of imitation, and something to direct our thoughts to Christ Jesus upon the cross and on his glorious throne. MHCC: Daniel 9 (Chapter Introduction) (Dan 9:1-3) Daniel considers the time of the captivity. (v. 4-19) His confession of sin, and prayer. (Dan 9:20-27) The revelation concerning the com... (Dan 9:1-3) Daniel considers the time of the captivity. (v. 4-19) His confession of sin, and prayer. (Dan 9:20-27) The revelation concerning the coming of the Messiah. Matthew Henry: Daniel (Book Introduction) An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Book of the Prophet Daniel The book of Ezekiel left the affairs of Jerusalem under a doleful aspect... An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Book of the Prophet Daniel The book of Ezekiel left the affairs of Jerusalem under a doleful aspect, all in ruins, but with a joyful prospect of all in glory again. This of Daniel fitly follows. Ezekiel told us what was seen, and what was foreseen, by him in the former years of the captivity: Daniel tells us what was seen, and foreseen, in the latter years of the captivity. When God employs different hands, yet it is about the same work. And it was a comfort to the poor captives that they had first one prophet among them and then another, to show them how long, and a sign that God had not quite cast them off. Let us enquire, I. Concerning this prophet His Hebrew name was Daniel, which signifies the judgment of God; his Chaldean name was Belteshazzar. He was of the tribe of Judah, and, as it should seem, of the royal family. He was betimes eminent for wisdom and piety. Ezekiel, his contemporary, but much his senior, speaks of him as an oracle when thus he upbraids the king of Tyre with his conceitedness of himself: Thou art wiser then Daniel, Eze 38:3. He is likewise there celebrated for success in prayer, when Noah, Daniel, and Job are reckoned as three men that had the greatest interest in heaven of any, Eze 14:14. He began betimes to be famous, and continued long so. Some of the Jewish rabbin are loth to acknowledge him to be a prophet of the higher form, and therefore rank his book among the Hagiographa , not among the prophecies, and would not have their disciples pay much regard to it. One reason they pretend is because he did not live such a mean mortified life as Jeremiah and some other of the prophets did, but lived like a prince, and was a prime-minister of state; whereas we find him persecuted as other prophets were (ch. 6), and mortifying himself as other prophets did, when he ate no pleasant bread (Dan 10:3), and fainting sick when he was under the power of the Spirit of prophecy, Dan 8:27. Another reason they pretend is because he wrote his book in a heathen country, and there had his visions, and not in the land of Israel; but, for the same reason, Ezekiel also must be expunged out of the roll of prophets. But the true reason is that he speaks so plainly of the time of the Messiah's coming that the Jews cannot avoid the conviction of it and therefore do not care to hear of it. But Josephus calls him one of the greatest of the prophets, nay, the angel Gabriel calls him a man greatly beloved. He lived long an active life in the courts and councils of some of the greatest monarchs the world ever had, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius; for we mistake of we confine the privilege of an intercourse with heaven to speculative men, or those that spend their time in contemplation; no, who was more intimately acquainted with the mind of God than Daniel, a courtier, a statesman, and a man of business? The Spirit, as the wind, blows where it lists. And, if those that have much to do in the world plead that as an excuse for the infrequency and slightness of their converse with God, Daniel will condemn them. Some have thought that he returned to Jerusalem, and was one of the masters of the Greek synagogue; but nothing of that appears in scripture; it is therefore generally concluded that he died in Persia at Susan, where he lived to be very old. II. Concerning this book. The first six chapters of it are historical, and are plain and easy; the last six are prophetical, and in them are many things dark, and hard to be understood, which yet would be more intelligible if we had a more complete history of the nations, and especially the Jewish nation, from Daniel's time to the coming of the Messiah. Our Saviour intimates the difficulty of apprehending the sense of Daniel's prophecies when, speaking of them, he says, Let him that readeth understand, Mat 24:15. The first chapter, and the first three verses of the second chapter, are in Hebrew; thence to the eighth chapter is in the Chaldee dialect; and thence to the end is in Hebrew. Mr. Broughton observes that, as the Chaldeans were kind to Daniel, and gave cups of cold water to him when he requested it, rather than the king's wine, God would not have them lose their reward, but made that language which they taught him to have honour in his writings through all the world, unto this day. Daniel, according to his computation, continues the holy story from the first surprising of Jerusalem by the Chaldean Babel, when he himself was carried away captive, until the last destruction of it by Rome, the mystical Babel, for so far forward his predictions look, Dan 9:27. The fables of Susannah, and of Bel and the Dragon, in both which Daniel is made a party, are apocryphal stories, which we think we have no reason to give any credit to, they being never found in the Hebrew or Chaldee, but only in the Greek, nor ever admitted by the Jewish church. There are some both of the histories and of the prophecies of this book that bear date in the latter end of the Chaldean monarchy, and others of both that are dated in the beginning of the Persian monarchy. But both Nebuchadnezzar's dream, which Daniel interpreted, and his own visions, point at the Grecian and Roman monarchies, and very particularly at the Jews' troubles under Antiochus, which it would be of great use to them to prepare for; as his fixing the very time for the coming of the Messiah was of use to all those that waited for the consolation of Israel, and is to us, for the confirming of our belief, That this is he who should come, and we are to look for no other. Matthew Henry: Daniel 9 (Chapter Introduction) In this chapter we have, I. Daniel's prayer for the restoration of the Jews who were in captivity, in which he confesses sin, and acknowledges the... In this chapter we have, I. Daniel's prayer for the restoration of the Jews who were in captivity, in which he confesses sin, and acknowledges the justice of God in their calamities, but pleads God's promises of mercy which he had yet in store for them (v. 1-19). II. An immediate answer sent him by an angel to his prayer, in which, 1. He is assured of the speedy release of the Jews out of their captivity (Dan 9:20-23). And, 2. He is informed concerning the redemption of the world by Jesus Christ (of which that was a type), what should be the nature of it and when it should be accomplished (Dan 9:24-27). And it is the clearest, brightest, prophecy of the Messiah, in all the Old Testament. Constable: Daniel (Book Introduction) Introduction Background In 605 B.C. Prince Nebuchadnezzar led the Babylonian army of h... Introduction Background In 605 B.C. Prince Nebuchadnezzar led the Babylonian army of his father Nabopolassar against the allied forces of Assyria and Egypt. He defeated them at Carchemish near the top of the Fertile Crescent. This victory gave Babylon supremacy in the ancient Near East. With Babylon's victory, Egypt's vassals, including Judah, passed under Babylonian control. Shortly thereafter that same year Nabopolassar died, and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded him as king. Nebuchadnezzar then moved south and invaded Judah, also in 605 B.C. He took some royal and noble captives to Babylon (Dan. 1:1-3) including Daniel, whose name means "God is my judge" or "God is judging" or "God will judge," plus some of the vessels from Solomon's temple (2 Chron. 36:7). This was the first of Judah's three deportations in which the Babylonians took groups of Judahites to Babylon. The king of Judah at that time was Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:1-4). @pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p27dan-1@ Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin (also known as Jeconiah and Coniah) succeeded him in 598 B.C. Jehoichin reigned only three months and 10 days (2 Chron. 36:9). Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah again. At the turn of the year, in 597 B.C., he took Jehoichin to Babylon along with most of Judah's remaining leaders and the rest of the national treasures including young Ezekiel (2 Kings 24:10-17; 2 Chron. 36:10). A third and final deportation took place approximately 11 years later, in 586 B.C. Jehoikim's younger brother Zedekiah, whose name Nebuchadnezzar had changed to Mattaniah, was then Judah's puppet king. He rebelled against Babylon's sovereignty by secretly making a treaty with Pharaoh Hophra under pressure from Jewish nationalists (Jer. 37-38). After a two-year siege, Jerusalem fell. Nebuchadnezzar returned to Jerusalem, burned the temple, broke down the city walls, and took all but the poorest of the Jews captive to Babylon. He also took Zedekiah prisoner to Babylon after he executed his sons and put out the king's eyes at Riblah in Aramea (modern Syria; 2 Kings 24:18-25:24). Scope Daniel, the main character from whom this book gets its name, was probably only a teenager when he arrived in Babylon in 605 B.C. The Hebrew words used to describe him, the internal evidence of chapter 1, and the length of his ministry seem to make this clear. He continued in office as a public servant at least until 538 B.C. (1:21) and as a prophet at least until 536 B.C. (10:1). Thus the record of his ministry spans 70 years, the entire duration of the Babylonian Captivity. He probably lived to be at least 85 years old and perhaps older. Writer There is little doubt among conservative scholars that Daniel himself wrote this book under the Holy Spirit's guidance. Probably he did so late in his life, which could have been about 530 B.C. or a few years later. Several Persian-derived governmental terms appear in the book. The presence of these words suggests that the book received its final polishing after Persian had become the official language of government. This would have been late in Daniel's life. What makes Daniel's authorship quite clear is both internal and external evidence. Internally the book claims in several places that Daniel was its writer (8:1; 9:2, 20; 10:2). References to Daniel in the third person do not indicate that someone else wrote about him. It was customary for ancient authors of historical memoirs to write of themselves this way (cf. Exod. 20:2, 7).1 Externally the Lord Jesus Christ spoke of this book as the writing of Daniel (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14). The Jews believed that Daniel was its writer from its earliest appearance. The early church father Jerome argued for Daniel's authorship against a contemporary critic of his, Porphyry, who contended that someone composed it about 165 B.C. and claimed that he was Daniel. The Jews placed Daniel in the Writings section of their Bible.2 They did this because Daniel was not a prophet in the sense in which the other Hebrew prophets were. He functioned as a prophet and wrote inspired Scripture, but he was a government official, an administrator in a Gentile land, rather than an official prophet. "For though Christ spoke of Daniel's function as prophetic (Matt. 24:15), his position was that of governmental official and inspired writer, rather than ministering prophet (cf. Acts 2:29-30)."3 In contrast to Ezekiel, his contemporary in Babylon, Daniel lived and worked among Gentiles primarily, whereas Ezekiel live and ministered among the Israelites.4 The Greek and Latin translators of Daniel placed this book among the other major prophets in the Septuagint and Vulgate versions because of its prophetic content. That tradition influenced the scholars who produced our English versions. Date The dating of this book is one of the most controversial subjects in the field of Old Testament Introduction. The controversy is not due to the obscurity of evidence but to the presuppositions of critics. It is quite easy to determine when Daniel lived and ministered because of the many historical references in this book. His fellow prophet Ezekiel also referred to him (cf. Ezek. 14:14, 20; 28:3). However because the book contains prophecies that Antiochus Epiphanies fulfilled in the second century B.C. many rationalistic critics who deny that the Bible contains predictive prophecy have said that Daniel could not have written it. They contend that it must have been written after Antiochus, namely, about 165 B.C. However there are many evidences within the book itself that point to its origin in the sixth century B.C.5 This modern criticism follows Porphyry's view. However no significant writer espoused a late date for the book after Jerome refuted Porphyry until the eighteenth century A.D. J. D. Michaelis revived Porphyry's theory in 1771, and it took root in the rationalistic intellectual soil of the Enlightenment. Since then many scholars who disbelieve in predictive prophecy have insisted that this book must have been the product of the Maccabean revolt (168-165 B.C.). Liberal critics still consider the late dating of Daniel to be one of the most assured results of modern scholarship. Nevertheless there is ample evidence in the book itself that Daniel wrote it and that it dates from the sixth century B.C.6 "One who claims that the book of Daniel is a product of the Maccabean age thereby denies that it is a work of true predictive prophecy as it purports to be. Furthermore, if the book of Daniel comes from the age of the Maccabees, I do not see how it is possible to escape the conclusion that the book is also a forgery, for it claims to be a revelation from God to the Daniel who lived in Babylon during the exile."7 Languages Daniel is one of the few books in the Old Testament that was originally written in two different languages. One was Aramaic (also known as Chaldee or Syriac), the common language of the ancient Near East, and the other was Hebrew.8 The Aramaic portions deal with matters pertaining to all the citizens of the Babylonian and Persian empires whereas the Hebrew sections describe predominantly Jewish concerns and God's plans for Israel. Probably Daniel wrote the Aramaic sections for the benefit of his Gentile neighbors, and he wrote the whole book for the Jews who could read both languages. Purpose To the interested observer of Israel's fortunes in Daniel's time, it seemed that Yahweh had either become impotent or had abandoned His chosen people. The gods of Assyria and Babylon had apparently triumphed over Him. His temple lay in ruins, His capital had been ravaged and stood empty and vulnerable, and His people were living as unhappy captives in a foreign land. At such a time as this, God revealed His supernatural power. He did so to demonstrate that He is the one true God and that He is still sovereign over the affairs of humanity and history. He manifested his power to the supreme rulers of Babylon and Persia that they might know that He governs over all from heaven. This was a time in Israel's history similar to the time just before the Exodus. Israel was in captivity, and Israel's God was in disgrace. Daniel contains proof of God's sovereignty, which the plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea demonstrated to Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Daniel, as Exodus, relates several "contests" between false gods and Yahweh in which Israel's God proves to be the only true and living God. Like Daniel, Esther also shows God working for His people during a period of their divine discipline. "The predominant message is that God's people will experience suffering and be threatened with extinction, but that will not be the end of the story because their God is the living and all-powerful God who will get glory by vindicating His name and who will save them."9 "Daniel's purpose in writing blended the two themes of prophecy and piety. He wrote first to show God's future program for the nation of Israel (in light of her fall) during and after the times of the Gentiles.' Second, he wrote to show what the believers' present response should be as they await the coming kingdom of God. Daniel encouraged his readers to remain faithful to God in a hostile society while they waited for God's promised kingdom."10 Theology Theologically the book stresses the sovereignty of God. "The absolute sovereignty and transcendence of God above all angels and men literally permeates the book."11 "The theme running through the whole book is that the fortunes of kings and the affairs of men are subject to God's decrees, and that he is able to accomplish his will despite the most determined opposition of the mightiest potentates on earth."12 "The collapse and fall of both Israel and Judah notwithstanding, the book of Daniel makes crystal clear that the Lord God remains absolutely sovereign over human affairs. This is apparent in the present, despite political and religious conditions that might suggest otherwise, and in the future, when there would be no doubt in anyone's mind."13 The miracles recorded in chapters 1-6 show God's sovereignty at work for His people. The prophecies in chapters 7-12 show His sovereignty over the Gentile nations and Israel by unveiling what He will do with them far into the future. Especially the period that Jesus Christ referred to as "the times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24) is the focus of this revelation. "The times of the Gentiles is that extended period of time in which the land given in covenant by God to Abraham and his descendants is occupied by Gentile powers and the Davidic throne is empty of any rightful heir in the Davidic line. The times of the Gentiles, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Jerusalem in 605 B.C., will continue till the Messiah returns. Then Christ will subdue nations, deliver the land of Israel from its Gentile occupants, and bring the nation Israel into her covenanted blessings in the millennial kingdom."14 These prophecies also reveal the fulfillment of God's great redemptive plan that began at the Fall and will culminate in the return and reign of the Son of Man on the earth. A third theological emphasis is the power of prayer. God's working in response to His people's prayers is evident everywhere in this book, particularly in the first six chapters and in chapters 9 and 10. Another theological theme is the indomitable grace of God. Even though the Jews had failed Him miserably, God revealed that He had not cast off His people Israel. He was disciplining them presently, but He has a future for them as a nation (cf. Rom. 11:29). Furthermore He will fulfill His promises to the patriarchs regarding Gentile blessing too. Genre Daniel is a book of prophecy. "Among the great prophetic books of Scripture, none provides a more comprehensive and chronological prophetic view of the broad movement of history than the book of Daniel. Of the three prophetic programs revealed in Scripture, outlining the course of the nations, Israel, and the church, Daniel alone reveals the details of God's plan for both the nations and Israel. Although other prophets like Jeremiah had much to say to the nations and Israel, Daniel brings together and interrelates these great themes of prophecy as does no other portion of Scripture. For this reason, the book of Daniel is essential to the structure of prophecy and is the key to the entire Old Testament prophetic revelation. A study of this book is, therefore, not only important from the standpoint of determining the revelation of one of the great books of the Old Testament but is an indispensable preliminary investigation to any complete eschatological system."15 "In NT prophecy Daniel is referred to more than any other OT book. Moreover, it contains more fulfilled prophecies than any other book in the Bible."16 "In many respects, the book of Daniel is the most comprehensive prophetic revelation of the Old Testament, giving the only total view of world history from Babylon to the second advent of Christ and interrelating Gentile history and prophecy with that which concerns Israel. Daniel provides the key to the overall interpretation of prophecy, is a major element in premillennialism, and is essential to the interpretation of the book of Revelation. Its revelation of the sovereignty and power of God has brought assurance to Jew and Gentile alike that God will fulfill His sovereign purposes in time and eternity."17 Daniel is one of three Old Testament books that is apocalyptic. The apocalyptic sections are chapters 2, 7, 8, and 10-12. The other two books are Ezekiel (37:1-14; 40:1-48:35) and Zechariah (1:7-6:8). In the New Testament, Revelation is the only apocalyptic book.18 Apocalyptic literature is a particular genre (literary type). "Apocalyptic literature is symbolic visionary prophetic literature, composed during oppressive conditions, consisting of visions whose events are recorded exactly as they were seen by the author and explained through a divine interpreter, and whose theological content is primarily eschatological."19 "The book of Daniel is unquestionably the key to all biblical prophecy. It is the great apocalyptic book of the Old Testament, whereas Revelation is that of the New Testament. Passages such as Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 21, and the book of Revelation are unintelligible without a knowledge of the book of Daniel."20 "No one who has reverently studied the book of Daniel in the context of the completed Scriptures can deny the crucial contribution of this book to God's complete prophetic revelation. Our Lord spoke often of the kingdom of heaven' (Matt. 5:3; Dan. 2:44) and of Himself as the son of man' (Matt. 26:64; Dan. 7:13-14). Looking toward His second coming to the earth, He referred to a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now' (Matt. 24:21; cf. Dan. 12:1), and to the abomination of desolation' that will stand in the Temple (Matt. 24:15; Dan. 9:27; 12:11). The apostle Paul also referred to this work of the man of lawlessness' (2 Thess. 2:3-4; cf. Dan. 7:25; 11:36-39) but rejoiced that someday the saints will judge the world' (1 Cor. 6:1; Dan. 7:18, 22, 27)."21 Message22 The Book of Daniel contains many unique and significant emphases. I would like to point out some of these first before we organize them into an explanation of what God has given us this book to reveal. Theologically Daniel stresses the sovereignty of God. Specifically it shows that God is wise enough and powerful enough to control and to create history. Philosophically Daniel reveals the course and the culmination of good and evil throughout human history. Hermeneutically we see that God teaches His people what will happen in the future by helping them to appreciate what has happened in the past. In other words, we learn to understand the future by studying the past. The future builds on the past and is an extension of the past. Pedagogically we observe that God teaches us by going from the simple to the complex, from the known to the unknown. This applies as we look back on history, and it applies as we look forward in prophecy. For example, God gave Daniel simple visions first and then more complex ones later that built on the earlier ones. The first vision in Daniel is the most simple to interpret, and the last one is the most difficult to interpret. Temporally the book proceeds from what happened in the past to what will happen in the future. Some students of the book divide it into two parts: history (chs. 1-6), and prophecy (chs. 7-12). This illustrates how the content of this book moves generally from past events to future events. Anthropologically Daniel deals with two groups of people that occupy planet earth in time: Israel and the Gentiles. Some students of the book, including myself, prefer to divide it into three parts. We believe that the languages that Daniel wrote in reflect his emphases on revelation stressing particularly Gentiles or Jews in the various sections of the book. Chronologically the revelation in Daniel advances from the present, to the near future, to the far future from Daniel's perspective. Even liberal students of the book admit this. From Daniel's perspective in history, some of what God revealed to him involved what was past, and some was future. From our perspective, we can see that what God revealed was not just past and future for him but past, near future, and far future. Now with this background, let us turn to the major revelations in the Book of Daniel. The contrasts are observational; they help us see what is here clearly. The major revelations are interpretational; they help us understand what is here clearly. I am now going to suggest what is significant about what we observe. There are essentially two major revelations. The first major revelation is that Yahweh is sovereign in history. By history I mean what is past. In Daniel, God has proved that He is the ultimate ruler of the world by the way things turned out in the past. Half the book deals with history; the other half, generally speaking, deals with prophecy. God has revealed much evidence in this book that He is sovereign over history, that He has made it turn out the way He has wanted it to turn out. We find this evidence particularly in the record of the three rulers in chapters 1-6. We have the most evidence in the record of Nebuchadnezzar. In the first chapter we read, "The Lord (Adonai) gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his [Nebuchadnezzar's] hand" (1:2). All the events of chapter 1, beginning with Daniel's insignificance in Judah and his quick rise to great significance in Babylon, demonstrate God's sovereignty in the past. In chapter 2, we have the vision of Nebuchadnezzar's image that gets crushed by a stone that flies at it from heaven. This revelation teaches that all the kingdoms of the earth are subject to the kingdom of heaven. Daniel's own testimony to God's sovereignty in 2:20-22 expresses the main point of this dream, which the most powerful king in the ancient world received from God. In chapter 3, we see how God takes care of people who acknowledge His sovereignty, namely Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. In chapter 4 we see how He takes care of people who do not, namely Nebuchadnezzar. Learning who is the ultimate authority and responding appropriately to Him is extremely important for all human beings. Belshazzar was the second king through whom God revealed His sovereignty (ch. 5). Belshazzar could not read the handwriting on the wall, but Daniel could. The God of heaven had evaluated the king on earth, had found him deficient, and had decided to replace him. What a demonstration of Yahweh's sovereignty we have in this chapter! The third king was Darius (ch. 6). When Darius visited the lion's den early in the morning, he voiced a question that all people have asked. The Jews of Daniel's day, whom their Gentile enemies had wrenched from the land that Yahweh had promised them and given them, were asking this question. Darius said, "Has your God, whom you constantly serve, been able to deliver you from the lion's mouth?" (6:20). Remember that the lion was a symbol of Babylon (7:4). Daniel's reply testified to Yahweh's sovereignty: "My God . . . shut the lions' mouths, and they have not harmed me" (6:22). This is the historical evidence of Yahweh's sovereignty that provided a base of confidence for the prophet, and for the reader, to believe that He is sovereign over the future too. How were Daniel and his three friends able to perceive the fact that God is sovereign when most people did not? There are three keys to their spiritual perception that this book identifies for our education. First, they separated themselves unto God and His will. Daniel did this in chapter 1. We read that his three friends did it in chapter 3. Second, in response to their choice to separate to His will God gave them the ability to understand His will (1:20; 3:30). Third, the outcome of their decision and God's provision was the glorification of God publicly (3:28-29; 4:34-35; 6:25-27). Notice also how God communicated the fact of His sovereignty to Daniel and through him to others. Notice His methods. First, Daniel's contemporaries saw God's wisdom manifest through His own servants in their ability to interpret dreams and visions that no one else could interpret (1:20; 2:10; 5:11-12). The Jews who returned to the land to reestablish life there needed this wisdom, and God's provision of it to Daniel and his friends would have encouraged them. Second, Daniel's contemporaries saw God's power manifest through His own servants in His care of them (1:15, 21; 2:48-49; 3:24-26, 30; 5:29; 6:28). The many instances in which God protected His own who had committed themselves to following Him faithfully would have encouraged Daniel's contemporaries particularly. They encourage us too. A second major revelation of the Book of Daniel is God's sovereignty in the future. He has shown us that He is sovereign over the past in history, and now He asks us to believe that He is sovereign over the future in prophecy. The foci of prophecy in this book are three. The first general subject of prophecy in Daniel is the Gentiles. We might speak of this as humanity in general. He told us how He would direct the affairs of Gentile world powers in the future. He did this by comparing nations to the parts of an image of a person and to various beasts. What He showed Daniel about Gentile world powers under the image of the man (ch. 2) revealed their external manifestations primarily: their relative power and glory. What He showed Daniel about them under the figures of beasts (chs. 7 and 8) revealed their internal character primarily: their haughtiness, brutality, aggressiveness, vileness, etc. Notice that these were all beasts and birds of prey symbolizing their hostility toward one another. The second general subject of prophecy in Daniel is the Israelites. This is a particular element within humanity, namely Israel. God also told us how He would direct the affairs of His chosen people in the future. Essentially He did this in two stages both of which were future from Daniel's perspective in history but only one of which is future from our perspective. The first stage, or near future, involved Israel's affairs culminating in a great persecution under a Greek ruler, namely Antiochus Epiphanes (9:23-26; 11:2-35). This persecution happened in the second century B.C. The second stage, or far future, involved Israel's affairs culminating in a greater persecution under a Roman ruler, namely the Antichrist (9:27; 11:36-45). This would happen in the far future. Daniel struggled to understand this revelation because the two antagonists were both future from his perspective. God did not specify that they would be separate individuals. We can understand this revelation more easily than Daniel could because one antagonist has appeared and the other has not yet appeared. Similarly the Old Testament prophets struggled to understand God's revelation about the two advents of Christ (Isa. 61:1-2). From our perspective we now understand that He had always predicted two advents of Messiah and that we live between them. The third general subject of prophecy in Daniel is God Himself. As I have mentioned, it is God's sovereign control over time and space that He stressed in the Book of Daniel. However, two sub-revelations help us appreciate Yahweh's sovereignty, namely His wisdom and His power. Absolute sovereignty demands perfect wisdom and limitless power. We can see God's perfect wisdom in His insight into the course of history and in His ability to impart that wisdom (insight) to His prophet. We can see God's limitless power in His setting up and taking down Gentile kingdoms and in His delegating great worldly power to His prophet. We come now to the "so what" of the book. We have observed several important characteristics of this book and have pointed out the significant major revelation. We have done observation and interpretation of the book as a whole, so now we will do application. What effect did God intend that this book should have on the readers, the original Jewish readers of Daniel's day and us in our day? Let me suggest three applications. First, we must apply the revelation that God is sovereign by acknowledging it and by submitting to Him. We need to know that God is sovereign, to have an unshakable conviction that God is in control, to believe that He is the ultimate ruler over all the affairs of humankind. The Book of Daniel can strengthen this belief in us. However, we must not just reckon this fact as true. We must also yield ourselves to Him as Daniel and His three friends did. If He is sovereign, then we must submit to His will. His slightest wish must be for us a command. We must live according to His revealed will. Second, as we submit to His sovereignty we can understand what is going on in history. In this book God has revealed that He is guiding the course of evil to its end, which is destruction. He has also revealed that He is guiding the course of good to its end, which is victory. Some people are saying that the days in which we live are the most wonderful that the world has ever seen. The world is getting better and better, and utopia is just around the corner. With just a few more modifications, we can realize a world order that will surpass anything in the past. Other people say the world is getting worse and worse. Crime and violence are running rampant. We are just the push of a button away from extinction as a race. Which is true? Daniel reveals that both are true. If both are true, we seem to be headed for a crisis, a final conflict between the forces of good and evil. Daniel reveals that that crisis is coming. It also tells us what the outcome of that conflict will be. God will intervene in history to terminate evil and to establish good. The stone from heaven will crush the image that represents Gentile world dominion. Third, how should we then live? We should live as Daniel and his three friends did. We should separate ourselves unto God and His will. We should receive inspiration to persevere from the insight that He has given to us in this revelation. Moreover we should worship the sovereign God of the universe who, in His infinite wisdom and power, will eventually raise His own to everlasting life and reward them with participation in His coming kingdom (12:2-3, 13). Constable: Daniel (Outline) Outline I. The character of Daniel ch. 1 A. Historical background 1:1-2 ... Outline I. The character of Daniel ch. 1 A. Historical background 1:1-2 B. Nebuchadnezzar's training program for promising youths 1:3-7 C. Daniel's resolve to please Yahweh 1:8-13 D. The success of the test 1:14-16 E. God's blessing of Daniel and his friends 1:17-21 II. The Times of the Gentiles: God's program for the world chs. 2-7 A. Nebuchadnezzar's first dream: the big picture ch. 2 1. The king's dream 2:1-3 2. The failure of the king's wise men 2:4-13 3. Daniel's request for time 2:14-16 4. Daniel's reception of a revelation and his thanksgiving 2:17-23 5. Daniel's appearance before Nebuchadnezzar 2:24-30 6. What Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream 2:31-35 7. The interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream 2:36-45 8. The consequences of Daniel's interpretation 2:46-49 B. Nebuchadnezzar's golden image ch. 3 1. The worship of Nebuchadnezzar's statue 3:1-7 2. The charge against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego 3:8-12 3. The response of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego 3:13-18 4. The execution of the king's command 3:19-23 5. God's deliverance of His servants 3:24-27 6. The consequences of God's deliverance 3:28-30 C. Nebuchadnezzar's pride and humbling ch. 4 1. Nebuchadnezzar's introductory doxology 4:1-3 2. The king's frustration over his second dream 4:4-8 3. Nebuchadnezzar's account of his dream 4:9-18 4. Daniel's interpretation 4:19-27 5. The fulfillment of threatened discipline 4:28-33 6. Nebuchadnezzar's restoration 4:34-37 D. Belshazzar's feast ch. 5 1. Belshazzar's dishonoring of Yahweh 5:1-4 2. God's revelation to Belshazzar 5:5-9 3. The queen's counsel 5:10-12 4. Belshazzar's request of Daniel 5:13-16 5. Daniel's rebuke of Belshazzar 5:17-24 6. Daniel's interpretation of the writing 5:25-28 7. Daniel's rise and Belshazzar's fall 5:29-31 E. Darius' pride and Daniel's preservation ch. 6 1. Daniel's promotion in the Persian government 6:1-3 2. The conspiracy against Daniel 6:4-9 3. Daniel's faithfulness and Darius' predicament 6:10-15 4. Daniel in the lions' den 6:16-18 5. Daniel's deliverance and his enemies' destruction 6:19-24 6. Darius' decree and praise of Yahweh 6:25-28 F. Daniel's vision of future world history ch. 7 1. The four beasts 7:1-8 2. The Ancient of Days and the destruction of the fourth beast 7:9-12 3. The Son of Man's kingdom 7:13-14 4. The interpretation of the four beasts 7:15-18 5. Daniel's request for interpretation of the fourth beast 7:19-22 6. The interpretation of the fourth beast 7:23-25 7. The end of the fourth beast and the beginning of the everlasting kingdom 7:26-28 III. Israel in relation to the Gentiles: God's program for Israel chs. 8-12 A. Daniel's vision of the ram and the goat ch. 8 1. The setting of the vision 8:1 2. The ram 8:2-4 3. The goat 8:5-8 4. The little horn on the goat 8:9-14 5. The interpretation of this vision 8:15-26 6. The result of this vision 8:27 B. Daniel's vision of the 70 sevens ch. 9 1. Jeremiah's prophecy of Jerusalem's restoration and Daniel's response 9:1-3 2. Daniel's prayer of confession 9:4-14 3. Daniel's petition for restoration 9:15-19 4. God's response to Daniel's prayer 9:20-23 5. The revelation of Israel's future in 70 sevens 9:24-27 C. Daniel's most detailed vision of the future chs. 10-12 1. Daniel's preparation to receive the vision 10:1-11:1 2. The near future 11:2-35 3. The distant future 11:36-12:4 4. The end of Israel's trials 12:5-13 This outline reflects the linguistic divisions of the book, chapters 1 and 8-12 having been written in Hebrew, and chapters 2-7 in Aramaic. Many students of the book simply divide it into two parts. I. The history of Daniel chs. 1-6 II. The prophecies of Daniel chs. 7-12 Constable: Daniel Daniel Bibliography Albright, William F. From Stone Age to Christianity. 2nd ed. New York: Doubleday Press, Anc... Daniel Bibliography Albright, William F. From Stone Age to Christianity. 2nd ed. New York: Doubleday Press, Anchor Books, 1957. Aalders, G. C. Daniel. Koorte Verklaring servies. The Netherlands: Kampen, 1965. Albrektson, Bertil. History and the Gods. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1967. Alexander, J. B. "New Light on the Fiery Furnace." Journal of Biblical Literature 69:4 (December 1950):375-76. Alexander, Ralph H. "Hermeneutics of Old Testament Apocalyptic Literature." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968. Anderson, Robert. The Coming Prince. 14th ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1954. Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Daniel." In Daniel-Minor Prophets. Vol. 7 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985. _____. "Old Testament History and Recent Archeology From the Exile to Malachi." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:508 (October-December 1970):291-98. _____. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1964. Revised ed. 1974. Armerding, Carl. "Russia and the King of the North." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:477 (January-March 1963):50-55. Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel, An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978. Barker, Kenneth L. "Evidence from Daniel." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 135-46. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992. Bevan, Anthony Ashley. A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Cambridge: University Press, 1892. Boutflower, Charles. In and Around the Book of Daniel. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishing Co., 1977. Breshears, Gerry. "The Body of Christ: Prophet, Priest, or King?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):3-26. Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cook; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. reprinted. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1928. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 2 vols. Translated by Thomas Myers. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852. Campbell, Donald K. Daniel: Decoder of Dreams. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1977. Charles, Robert Henry. The Book of Daniel. The New Century Bible series. New York: H. Frowde, Oxford University, n.d. Cook, J. M. The Persian Empire. London: Dent, 1983. Culver, Robert D. Daniel and the Latter Days. Chicago: Moody Press, n.d. Cumont, F. "La Plus Ancienne geographie astrologique." Klio 9 (1909):263-73. Darby, John Nelson. Studies in the Book of Daniel. London: G. Morrish, n.d. Dennett, Edward. Daniel the Prophet: And The Times of the Gentiles Reprint ed. Denver: Wilson Foundation, 1967. Driver, Samuel Rolles. The Book of Daniel. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges series. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1900. Dyer, Charles H. "The Musical Instruments in Daniel 3." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:588 (October-December 1990):426-36. Dyer, Charles H., and Eugene H. Merrill. The Old Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001. Feinberg, Charles Lee. Daniel: The Kingdom of the Lord. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1981. Ferguson, Paul. "Nebuchadnezzar, Gilgamesh, and the Babylonian Job.'" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):321-31. Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964. Ford, Desmond. Daniel. Nashville: Southern Publishing House, 1978. Gaebelein, Arno C. The Prophet Daniel. New York: Our Hope Publishers, 1911. Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentaries series. Dallas: Word Books, 1989. Gurney, R. "the Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7." Themelios 2 (1977):39-45. Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969. Herodotus. History of the Persian Wars. 2 vols. Translated by Henry Carey. New York: Harper Publishers, 1889. Hiebert, D. Edmond. Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York: Carlton Press, 1987. Hoehner, Harold W. "Daniel's Seventy Weeks and New Testament Chronology." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):47-65. Humphreys, W. L. "A Life-style for Diaspora." Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973):211-23. Ironside, Harry A. Lectures on Daniel the Prophet. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1946. Jamieson, Robert; A. R. Fausset; and David Brown. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961. Jeffery, Arthur. "The Book of Daniel, Introduction and Exegesis." In The Interpreter's Bible. 6 vols. Edited by George A. Buttrick. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951. Jerome. Commentary on Daniel. Translated by Gleason L. Archer Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958. Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. Against Apion. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866. Keil, Carl Friedrich. Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Translated by M. G. Easton. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d. Kelly, William. Lectures on the Book of Daniel. 2nd ed. London: G. Morrish, 1881. King, Geoffrey R. Daniel. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966. Kitchen, Kenneth A. "The Aramaic in Daniel." In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 31-79. London: Tyndale Press, 1965. Kraeling, Emil G. Rand McNally Bible Atlas. New York, Chicago, and San Francisco: Rand McNally & Co., 1956. Lange, John Peter, ed. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 25 vols. New York: Charles Scribner, 1865-80. Reprint ed. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d. Vol. 7: Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Minor Prophets, by W. J. Schröder, et al. Larkin, Clarence. The Book of Daniel. Philadelphia: The author, 1929. Lehmann, Paul. The Transfiguration of Politics. London: SCM Press, 1975. Leupold, Herbert Carl. Exposition of Daniel. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1949; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969. Mauro, Philip. The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation. Boston: Scripture Truth Depot, 1923. McClain, Alva J. Daniel's Prophecies of the Seventy Weeks. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1940. Merrill, Eugene H. "Daniel as a Contribution to Kingdom Theology." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 211-25. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986. _____. "A Theology of Ezekiel and Daniel." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 365-95. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991. Mitchell, T. C., and R. Joyce. "The Musical Instruments in Nebuchadnezzar's Orchestra." In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 19-27. London: Tyndale Press, 1965. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1964. Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912. New Bible Dictionary. 1962 ed. S.v. "Belshazzar," by D. J. Wiseman. _____. S.v. "Ophir," by D. J. Wiseman. _____. S.v. "Uphaz," by D. J. Wiseman. New Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. Olmstead, A. T. The History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Oppenheim, A. L. "The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East." Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46 (1956):179-373. Patterson, Richard D. "Holding on to Daniel's Court Tales." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:4 (December 1993):445-54. Pember, George Hawkins. The Great Prophecies of the Centuries Concerning Israel and the Gentiles. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895. Pentecost, J. Dwight. "Daniel." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 1323-75. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985. _____. Prophecy for Today. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961. _____. Things to Come. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958. Peretti, Frank E. Piercing the Darkness. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1989. _____. Prophet. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1992. _____. This Present Darkness. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1986. Porteous, Norman W. Daniel: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965. Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Revised ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Pusey, Edward B. Daniel the Prophet. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885. Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Wiesbaden, Germany: O. Harrassowitz, 1961. Rowley, Harold Henry. Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel. Cardiff, Wales: University of Wales, 1959. _____. "The Historicity of the Fifth Chapter of Daniel." Journal of Theological Studies 32 (October 1930):12-31. Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965. Seiss, Joseph A. Voices from Babylon: Or the Records of Daniel the Prophet. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1879. Shea, William H. "Darius the Mede: An Update." Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (Autumn 1982):229-47. _____. "The Search for Darius the Mede (Concluded), or, The Time of the Answer to Daniel's Prayer and the Date of the Death of Darius the Mede." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):97-105. _____. "Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date for the 2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):89-96. Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995. Smith, Charles R. "The Book of Life." Grace Theological Journal 6:2 (Fall 1985):219-30. Stuart, Moses. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1850. Talbot, Louis T. The Prophecies of Daniel. 3rd ed. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1954. Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. Thomas, D. W., ed. Documents from Old Testament Times. London/New York: Thomas Nelson, 1958. Thomas, W. H. Griffith. "The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:499 (July-September 1968):254-62. Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel. 7th ed. London: Sovereign Grace, 1965. Unger's Bible Dictionary. 1957. S.v. "Shushan," by Merrill F. Unger. Van Sickle, C. E. A Political and Cultural History of the Ancient World. 2 vols. N.c.: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1947 & 1948. Waltke, Bruce K. "The Date of the Book of Daniel." Bibliotheca Sacra 133:532 (October-December 1976):319-29. Walton, John H. "The Four Kingdoms of Daniel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:1 (March 1986):25-36. Walvoord, John F. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971. _____. The Nations in Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967. _____. "Revival of Rome." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):317-28. West, Nathaniel. Daniel's Great Prophecy. New York: Hope of Israel, 1898. Whitcomb, John Clement. Daniel. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985. _____. Darius the Mede. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959. Wilson, Robert Dick. Studies in the Book of Daniel. New York: Putnam, 1917. _____. "The Title king of Persia' in the Scriptures." Princeton Theological Review 15 (1917):90-145. Wiseman, Donald J. The Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956. _____. "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel." In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 9-18. Edited by D. J. Wiseman, et al. London: Tyndale Press, 1965. Wood, Leon. A Commentary on Daniel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973. Yamauchi, Edwin M. Greece and Babylon. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967. Young, Edward J. The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949. Yuzon, Lourdino A. "The Kingdom of God in Daniel." South East Asia Journal of Theology 19 (1978):23-27. Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. S.v. "Book of Daniel," by J. Barton Payne. Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable Haydock: Daniel (Book Introduction) THE PROPHECY OF DANIEL. INTRODUCTION. DANIEL, whose name signifies "the judgment of God," was of the royal blood of the kings of Juda, and one o... THE PROPHECY OF DANIEL. INTRODUCTION. DANIEL, whose name signifies "the judgment of God," was of the royal blood of the kings of Juda, and one of those that were first of all carried away into captivity. He was so renowned for his wisdom and knowledge, that it became a proverb among the Babylonians, "as wise as Daniel;" (Ezechiel xxviii. 3.) and his holiness was so great from his very childhood, that at the time when he was as yet but a young man, he is joined by the Spirit of God with Noe[Noah] and Job, as three persons most eminent for virtue and sanctity. (Ezechiel xiv.) He is not commonly numbered by the Hebrews among the prophets, because he lived at court, and in high station in the world: but if we consider his many clear predictions of things to come, we shall find that no one better deserves the name and title of a prophet; which also has been given him by the Son of God himself. (Matthew xxiv.; Mark xiii.; Luke xxi.) (Challoner) --- The ancient Jews ranked him among the greatest prophets. (Josephus, Antiquities x. 12., and 1 Machabees ii. 59.) Those who came after Christ began to make frivolous exceptions, because he so clearly pointed out the coming of our Saviour, (Theodoret) that Porphyrius has no other method of evading this authority except by saying, that the book was written under Epiphanes after the event of many of the predictions. (St. Jerome) --- But this assertion is contrary to all antiquity. Some parts have indeed been questioned, which are found only in Greek. They must, however, have sometime existed in Hebrew or Chaldee else how should we have the version of Theodotion, which the Church has substituted instead of the Septuagint as that copy was become very incorrect, and is now lost? (Calmet) --- Some hopes of its recovery are nevertheless entertained; and its publication, at Rome, has been announced. (Kennicott.) --- In a title, it seems to make the Daniel visited by Habacuc, a priest; but it is abandoned. (Calmet) --- This version of course proves that the original was formerly known; and the loss of it, at present, is no more decisive against the authenticity of these pieces, that that of St. Matthew's Hebrew original, and of the Chaldee of Judith, &c. will evince that their works are spurious. (Haydock) ---Extracts of (Calmet) Aquila and Symmachus seen by St. Jerome, (Worthington) are also given in the Hexapla. Origen has answered the objections of Africanus, respecting the history of Susanna; and his arguments are equally cogent, when applied to the other contested works. The Jews and Christians were formerly both divided in their sentiments about these pieces. (Calmet) See St. Jerome in Jeremias xxix. 12. and xxxii. 44. --- But now as the Church ( the pillar of truth ) has spoken, all farther controversy ought to cease; (Haydock) and we should follow the precept, Remove not the landmarks which thy fathers have placed. (Deuteronomy xix. 14.) See N. Alex. [Alexander Noel] t. ii. St. Jerome, who sometimes calls these pieces "fables," explains himself, by observing, that he had delivered "not his own sentiments," but those of the Jews: quid illi contra nos dicere soleant. (Calmet) --- If he really denied their authority, his opinion ought not to outweigh that of so many other (Haydock) Fathers and Councils who receive them. They admit all the parts, as the Council of Trent expressly requires us to do. See St. Cyprian, &c., also the observations prefixed to Tobias, (Worthington) and p. 597. (Haydock) --- Paine remarks that Daniel and Ezechiel only pretended to have visions, and carried on an enigmatical correspondence relative to the recovery of their country. But this deserves no refutation. By allowing that their works are genuine, he cuts up the very root of his performance. (Watson) --- Daniel, according to Sir Isaac Newton, resembles the Apocalypse (as both bring us to the end of the Roman empire) and is "the most distinct in order of time, and easiest to be understood; and therefore, in those things that relate to the last times, he must be made a key to the rest." (Bp. Newton.) --- Yet there are many difficulties which require a knowledge of history; (St. Jerome; Worthington) and we must reflect on the words of Christ, He that readeth, let him understand. (Matthew xxiv. 15.) Daniel (Haydock) is supposed to have died at court, (Calmet) aged 110, having written many things of Christ. (Worthington) --- His name is not prefixed to his book, yet as Prideaux observes, he sufficiently shews himself in the sequel to be the author. (Haydock) Gill: Daniel (Book Introduction) INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL This book is called, in the Vulgate Latin version, "the Prophecy of Daniel"; and in the Syriac and Arabic versions "the Prop... INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL This book is called, in the Vulgate Latin version, "the Prophecy of Daniel"; and in the Syriac and Arabic versions "the Prophecy of Daniel the Prophet". This Daniel was of the children of Judah, that were carried captive into Babylon with Jehoiakim; and was of princely blood, if not of the royal seed, as appears from, Dan 1:3. Josephus a is express for it, that he was of the kindred and family of Zedekiah: and Saadiah Gaon b says he was of the seed of Hezekiah, and so fulfilled the prophecy in 2Ki 20:18. As to what the author of the "Lives of the Prophets", ascribed to Epiphanius, says c, that he was born in upper Bethabara, not far from Jerusalem, it is not to be depended on; or that his father's name was Sabaam, according to a tradition mentioned by the true Epiphanius d. The Jews e would have it that this book was not written by Daniel himself, but by the men of the great synagogue; though it is evident, from the book itself, that Daniel is the writer of it, as from Dan 7:1. That he wrote books, which were received, read, and believed by the Jews as of God, is affirmed by Josephus f; and the Jews in general acknowledge that this book was written by the influence of the Holy Spirit, but not by prophecy; they, without any foundation, distinguishing between the Holy Spirit and prophecy. And so Maimonides says g, it is the general consent of their nation, that this book is among the holy writings, but not among the Prophets; nor will they allow Daniel to be a prophet: the reasons they give are frivolous; what seems to have induced them to degrade him is the manifest prophecy of the time of the Messiah's coming in this book, which sometimes they are obliged to own is fixed in it. They tell us a story of Jonathan ben Uzziel, that having finished his paraphrase of the Prophets, thought to have wrote one on the Hagiographa, or holy writings, among which they place the book of Daniel; but was forbid by "Bath Kol", or a voice from heaven, giving this as a reason, because that in it is contained the end of the Messiah h, the precise time of his coming; and the gloss on the passage adds, by way of explanation, "in the book of Daniel;'' though elsewhere they would have it, that after it was made known to Daniel, it was taken away from him. For so, they say i, there are two men to whom the end was revealed, and afterwards it was hidden from them; and these are they, Jacob and Daniel: from Daniel, according to Dan 12:4, "but thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book &c.", from Jacob, Gen 49:1, "that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days". Yet the prophecy of Daniel was so clear, with respect to the time of the Messiah's coming, that one of their Rabbins, who lived about fifty years before the coming of Christ, asserted that the time of the Messiah, as signified by Daniel, could not be deferred longer than those fifty years k; and a most glaring prophecy it is, and sufficient to denominate Daniel a prophet, as well as many more contained in this book. And, after all, Maimonides himself owns, that he, and the other writers of the Hagiographa, or holy writings, may be called prophets in general. And Aben Ezra observes of Daniel, in his preface, that he delivered out prophecies of things now past, and of things to come; yea, he expressly calls him a prophet on Dan 1:17. And Jacchiades, another of their commentators on this book, says that he attained to the highest degree of prophecy. To which may be added the testimony of Josephus l, who says he was one of the greatest prophets, and to be preferred to others; since he not only predicted things future, but fixed the time when they should come to pass. And, above all, and what should satisfy us Christians, he is expressly called a prophet by our Lord, Mat 24:15. There are no other authentic writings of Daniel, which bear his name; the stories of Susannah, and of Bel and the Dragon, which make the "thirteenth" and "fourteenth" chapters in the Greek of Theodotion, and in the Vulgate Latin version, are apocryphal and spurious. The Oriental writers make Daniel the author of a volume, entitled, "Principles relating to the Explanation of Dreams". And there is another book in the king of France's library, with this title, "Odmath-al-mantoul ân Daniel al-nabi"; which contains predictions of the Prophet Daniel, received by tradition from him. This is a book which abounds with falsities, forged by the Mahometans, and founded on the real prophecies of Daniel m. This book, written by him, is partly historical, relating facts in which he was concerned; and partly prophetic, of things that should happen from his time to the end of the world, and especially of the Messiah and his kingdom; and it is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee. This great man, as he was both in nature and grace, in religion and politics, lived throughout the captivity, but does not seem ever to have returned into Judea; but continued in the courts of the kings of the Medes and Persians, to take care of the affairs of his people the Jews. Where he died, and was buried, is not certain. Some say in Babylon; and others, which is more likely, at Susa on the Tigris, where he was in the third year of Cyrus, Dan 10:1. So says Abulfeda n; with which agrees the account of Benjamin of Tudela o. Gill: Daniel 9 (Chapter Introduction) INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL 9 This chapter contains a prayer of Daniel, and the answer to it. The time, occasion, and manner of his prayer, or circumsta... INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL 9 This chapter contains a prayer of Daniel, and the answer to it. The time, occasion, and manner of his prayer, or circumstances of it, are observed, Dan 9:1, the parts of it, an address unto God, under various suitable epithets and characters, Dan 9:4 confession of sin, of his own, of the inhabitants of the land, kings, princes, and people, which are largely dwelt upon and exaggerated, Dan 9:5 and petitions for mercy, Dan 9:16, then the answer follows; the time when it was ordered and given, and the person by whom it was sent, are expressed, Dan 9:20 who delivered to him the vision of the seventy weeks to be considered by him; in which both the work of the Messiah, and the time of his coming, are clearly pointed out, Dan 9:24. Advanced Commentary (Dictionaries, Hymns, Arts, Sermon Illustration, Question and Answers, etc) copyright © 2005-2010 bible.org - Yayasan Lembaga SABDA (YLSA) | To report a problem/suggestion Display Bible Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes The Song of Songs Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ALL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Universal Search: NET Only Exact Search Advanced Search Commentary Study Dictionary Word Study Lexicon Study Maps System Sermon Illustrations Expository Arts Resource Daily Bible Reading Training Video Classic NET Bible iPhone NET Bible Mobile Bible TIP #32: [ALL] created in 0.10 seconds powered by bible.org - YLSA Interface : Indonesian | English Version : New English Translation Alkitab Terjemahan Baru Alkitab Kabar Baik (BIS) Terjemahan Lama Preferences   Advanced Search                             Home | bible.org | Download | Features | Fonts | Webmaster Tools | Interactive | Help | About