Christian Biblical Reflections.37

CBR Book of Daniel. Selections: 17-19.

Its been one year occupied with the Book of Daniel in CBR, I had no idea that it would take such a turn. As I posts these submissions of Selections 5-25, having already shared 1-4, I am writing the Reflections & completing the Chronology to the Persian period overtaken by Alexander the Great. I cite my notice in Christian Biblical Reflections.33 Posted on February 29, 2020 to apply here & now, but I have updated within it to apply to the current state or status. The Links likewise I make no changes for now, but will after posting CBR on Daniel when completed. There are only 3 or 4 cases of the Selections or sub-selections where I needed copyright permission, which I was given freely & kindly. I will hereby now & hereafter express to those who have asked, and to all others, all that I write & publish in any media & at anytime is shared free & grateful to be of any help to those who seek God’s Christ, God’s Book, & God’s truth in the journey of life. I apologize & regret that I have not regularly interacted with others in my posts. Anyone is always welcome to email for my personal response & reply. I have tried very hard to limit the pages of this chapter, part, & section of volume two of CBR, but ‘que sera’ it has swelled to 1,000 pages for the Book of Daniel, thus requiring volume 2 to become volumes 2 & 3, the Poetic Books & Major Prophets as vol.2, Daniel & the 12 Minor Prophets vol. 3. mjmselim, 2020.
((Not wishing to delay any further, and still several months (now several weeks as of July 2020) from completing the remaining Selections & the writing the Reflections on the whole, I share it with others who might have interest in this Key prophetic Book. The original in PDF of the Selections of Calvin’s & Newton’s & Lowth’s & many others of the 25 Selections, are from very old editions which typefaces that has caused considerable labor to edit. These 4 Selections, along with Selections 5-25 now shared in this & the other numbers, are of great importance to the later & modern interpreters & commentators of the Book. The Analysis & Digest was done months ago (now a year has passed; during which the doctors say I need a heart transplant, which I refuse; thus my times are marked; but God is good to me in this as in all things in Christ); the Chronology is incomplete (but I have added many names, dates, & details up to the end of the Persian Empire period, leaving the Greek & Roman period to be completed in the section of the 12 Minor Prophets), and to be completed when the Reflections are written. The Selections to be added are from the 19th-21st centuries, which all are dependent on these earlier Selections that are herein given. (Here is the list of the 25 Selections relevant to the Book of Daniel in CBR: 1-25: 1. Jerome. 2. Calvin. 3. Newton. 4. Lowth. 5. Stuart. 6. Barnes. 7. Auberlen. 8. Tregelles. 9. Japheth Ben Ali. 10. Rashi. 11. Darby. 12. Montagu. 13. Miller. 14. Folsom. 15. Smith. 16. Rule. 17. Pusey. 18. Keil. 19. Zōckler. 20. Driver. 21. Wilson. 22. Seder Olam Rabba. 23. Larkin. 24. 1st Maccabees. 25. Josephus.) If the Lord permits, the 12 Minor Prophets, being an Appendix to Daniel & the 3 Major Prophets, will follow. As in Ezekiel I’ve had to change my style in reflecting on this Book. mjm.Christian Biblical Reflections.33 Posted on February 29, 2020.))

The PDF is attached. The link to my One Drive files are:!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUq0AKV13E9Ek3uNQ?e=AzqhtR!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUolXrUk8DRG-3fXQ?e=VlNwPd!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUukOnf3cpuJoWCJQ?e=DKFFqE (CBR4-5.Daniel)!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUr33cfjhqfqsRETA?e=vx4ZcR (CBR.PublicFolder)

CBR files in PDF & Word:!AgcwUEJ0moRUg_Ua3IHBwOxi9NWARA?e=2b3BsD

Here is the link to my Internet library page for those interested:

                17. Pusey.

Daniel the Prophet, Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford with Copious Notes. By Rev. Edward Bouverie Pusey, Doctor of Divinity, Canon of Christ Church; Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford. London. 1864. (This work is extremely learned & scholarly; very helpful for those who seek advanced hermeneutics. “Edward Bouverie Pusey was an English churchman, for more than fifty years Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. He and his current lineage Paul George Pusey 1964 to present, are still one of the main promoters of the Oxford Movement.” –Wikipedia.)

                {{ Preface:  The following lectures were planned, as my contribution against that tide of skepticism, which the publication of the “Essays and Reviews” let loose upon the young and uninstructed. Not that those Essays contained anything formidable in themselves. Human inventiveness in things spiritual or unspiritual is very limited. It would be difficult probably to invent a new heresy. Objectors of old were as acute or more acute than those now ; so that the ground was well-nigh exhausted. The unbelieving school of Geologians had done their worst. Chronology had been pressed to the utmost long ago. The differences of human form and of language lay on the surface. The Jews had tried what pseudo-criticism could do against the prophecies as to our Lord and His Church. German rationalism had been deterred from no theory in regard to Holy Scripture, either by its untenableness or its irreverence. The Essays contained nothing to which the older of us had not been inured for some forty years. Their writers asserted little distinctly, attempted to prove less, but threw doubts on everything. They took for granted that the ancient faith had been overthrown; and their Essays were mostly a long trumpet-note of victories, won (they assumed,) without any cost to them, over the faith in Germany. They ignored the fact, that every deeper tendency of thought or each more solid learning had, at least, done away with something shallow, something more adverse to faith. They practically ignored all criticism which was not subservient to unbelief. Yet the Essayists, Clergymen (with one exception), staked their characters, although not their positions, on the issue, that the old faith was no longer tenable; that it was dead and buried and the stone on the grave’s mouth fast sealed. Their teaching was said to be “bold.” Too “bold” alas ! it was towards Almighty God; but, from whatever cause, its authors shrank, for the most part, from stating explicitly as their own, the unbelief which they suggested to others. They undermined men’s faith, without denying it themselves in such definite terms as would materially risk their offices or positions. This, however escaped notice; and the shock was given, not by the things which were said, (for the same had been said more clearly in publications avowedly infidel,) but that the faith was attacked by those, who, from their position, were expected to be its defenders. Kegarded as, (what the Essays were, after a time, understood to be,) a challenge to the Church of England to admit their misbelief as allowable denial of truth, it has not befallen me to read another book so cowardly.

                (* “First then to ascertain the real meaning of the passages extracted, and I must say that this is no easy task. If the author had studied to express his sentiments with ambiguity, I doubt if he could have been more successful.” Dr. Lushington on Dr. Williams, Judgment, p. 18. “I turn to Mr. Wilson’s own words. It is indeed to he regretted that Mr. Wilson in his Essay has frequently expressed himself in language so ambiguous as to admit of opposite constructions.” Dr. Lushington, lb. p.83. “This sentence is open to diverse interpretations, and some of its terms are self-contradictory.” lb. p. 34. “Mr. W. use of these contradictory terms, ‘supernaturally communicated speculation,’ together with his imputing blame to those of the Clergy who would haste the Church of Christ, as a society, upon the possession of this ‘supernaturally communicated speculation,’ rather than upon ‘ the manifestation of the divine life in man’ might leave upon some readers the impression that Mr. W. doubted whether the Holy Scriptures had been supernaturally communicated, and that he doubted whether the doctrines, as distinguished from the moral teaching of Christianity, were the necessary basis of the Church. Without saying this impression of this passage is false, I cannot say that is necessarily the true, especially considering this is a criminal case. —As a criminal charge, this Article cannot be supported.” p. 34, 5. “The drift of all the reasoning contained in these passages is to prove that subscription to the xxxix (39) Articles does not impose on the Clergy the obligation of honestly believing them to be true and binding on their consciences.” lb. 38.

                “What is meant by ‘passing by the side of the first five Articles, and’ as to the humanifying of the Divine word and the Divine personalities, without directly contradicting impugning or refusing assent to them? ‘The Clergy are bound by the King’s declaration to take the Articles in their literal and grammatical sense; the first five Articles are the most important of all. Is it consistent with their literal and grammatical sense to ‘pass by’ them? I think not. Is it consistent with the declaration that ‘they are agreeable to the Word of God?’ If so, why pass by? Is it consistent with the declaration ‘I do willingly and ex animo subscribe, &c ?’ I think not. And yet, according to Mr. W., the clerk is to ‘pass by’ these articles ‘without directly contradicting, impugning or refusing assent to them.’ In my opinion, this is not possible. I think that the substance of what Mr. W. has written is this; to suggest modes, by which the Articles subscribed may be evaded, contrary to the King’s declaration and the terms of subscription.” lb. p. 39, 40. Of the other writers, the Rev. Prof. Powell was soon removed from human judgment to the Judgment-seat of God. Mr. Pattison contented himself with shewing the weakness of Evidence-writers of the last century, without hinting on what grounds men’s faith in Jesus and His Gospel rests. He did not mention doctrine, except to say that the command to destroy the Canaanites and the eternity of future punishment are “questioned,” (he does not say “denied,”) by “natural conscience.” Continued study of Professor Jowett’s Essay makes one think sadly, ” What does there remain of Christianity, which the writer can believe?”.) Had the writers ventured, in plain terms a, to deny half the truths, as others to deny, they would have aroused the indignation of the whole believing people of England against them, that they denied such truths and remained ministers of the Church of England.

                Others, who wrote in defense of the faith, engaged in larger subjects; I took, for my province, one more confined but definite issue. I selected the book of Daniel, because unbelieving critics considered their attacks upon it to be one of their greatest triumphs. The exposure of the weakness of some ill-alleged point of evidence has often thrown suspicion on a whole faith. The exposure of the weakness of criticism, where it thought itself most triumphant, would, I hoped, shake the confidence of the young in their would be misleaders. True! Disbelief of Daniel had become an axiom in the unbelieving critical school. (* “Auherlen indeed defends [Daniel] but says, ‘Die Unchtheit Daniel’s ist in der modernen Theologie zum Axiom geworden.’ ” Dr. Williams in Essays, p. 76. “It is one of the highest triumphs and most saving facts of the more recent criticism, to have proved that the book of Daniel belongs to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.” A well known writer, now dead.*)   Only, they mistook the result of unbelief for the victory of criticism. They overlooked the historical fact that the disbelief had been antecedent to the criticism. Disbelief had been the parent, not the offspring of their criticism; their starting-point, not the winningpost of their course.

                In other books of Holy Scripture, disbelief could and did sever what, if true, (as it is,) was necessarily Divine, from what admitted of being represented as human. Rejecting what, if they accepted, they must own to be from God, they assigned to man the humanized residuum. They laid down, to their own satisfaction, that the miracles, related in any historical book of Holy Scripture, were magnified representations of the real truth, or that insulated prophecies were inserted after the event ; or that a long-lived prophet lived to recast his prophecies, and gave to his prophecies of nearer events a definiteness which, (they stated as confidently as if they had lived and had heard them,) they had not when he uttered them, or, if the events prophesied were too remote to be so accounted for, that the prediction must have been given close upon the events, when human sagacity could, (they held,) foresee them, and then, without prejudice to their unbelief, they could afford to admire what they claimed to be man’s own. The old prophets, (they tacitly assumed,) were inferior to themselves; still, for their own times, they were, “amid frailty and national contractedness,” above their age.  

                The book of Daniel admitted of no such compromises. Its historical portions are no history; for the people, as such, had, in the period of their Captivity, no history. The period was like one of those in the book of Judges, whether of oppression or of rest, in which their whole condition exemplified God’s Providence and dealings with them, and no marked change occurred. Jeremiah had bidden them, in God’s name, live as peaceable denizens in the land of their captivity. “Build ye houses, and dwell; and plant gardens and eat the fruit of them; take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there and not diminished. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof ye shall have peace.”……

                Contents:  9 Lectures:

                Lecture I: Introduction. Real grounds of objections raised to the book of Daniel, its prophecies and miracles. Unity of his book. His character one throughout. The Chaldee and Hebrew portions are from the same writer. Ground of the variation of language. No Greek words, except the names of two or three musical instruments, which were imported with them. Musical Instruments in Daniel not Macedonian. Macedonian Greek words in Daniel a fiction. Early intercourse between Greece and Assyria. The pesanterin of Daniel on Assyrian monuments. The Hebrew of Daniel and his use of Aryan words agree with his time and circumstances. Remarkable difference of the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra from that of the Targums; the basis of the Targums was early. Shallow criticism on the Aramaic of Daniel repeated in the Essays and Reviews. Cumulative evidence from the union of such Hebrew and Aramaic as those of Daniel.

                Lecture II: The prophecies of the four empires, Babylonian, Medo- Persian, Greek, Roman, and the establishment of the kingdom of Christ during the fourth Empire. Balaam’s prophecy as to the Eastern and Western Empires.   i. Circumstances and characteristics of the revelation of the four world-empires to Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel’s prophecy of the kingdom of Christ conceded. Greatness of the admitted prophecy. Inconsistency of rationalist objections. Both the metals and the parts of the human form in the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream significant, in regard to the 4 empires. Characteristics of the 4th empire,   ii. Correspondence of the parts of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the 4 Empires with Daniel’s vision; of the 2nd Empire with the Medo-Persian; the third with the Macedonian. Heaviness, characteristic of the aggressions of the Medo-Persian Empire; activity and intelligence of the third; terribleness and permanent subdual, of the fourth. Periods distinguished in the fourth Empire in Daniel’s vision. The ten “horns” or kingdoms belong to a later period, yet are simultaneous. Contrast of Roman Empire with those before it in Dionysius. The kingdom of God the chief subject of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s vision. The title, “the kingdom of God” taken from Daniel and part of the popular belief before Christ came. Belief in the Messiah, as Man but more than man, also rested on his prophecy before our Lord, as shown in the book of Enoch. Title, “Son of Man,” as used by our Lord, taken from Daniel. Daniel prophesied the worship of the Son of Man.   iii. Symbols in Daniel’s second vision, which are explained, in Daniel, to represent Persia and Greece, correspond respectively with those of the 2nd and 3rd Empires, and disagree with those of the 3rd and 4th. Antiochus Epiphanes does not correspond to the Anti-Christ either of the 7th or 9th chapter of Daniel. Contrast of his character with that of the Anti-Christ in Daniel ch. 11. Rationalists miss the special character of this Anti-Christ and pervert the prophecy of  his death. It is in conformity with nature, that there should be types of Anti-Christ. Eastern tradition of the 4th Empire and of the Messiah derived from Daniel.  

                Lecture III: Attempts to make out four Empires, (subtracting the Roman,) which should end with Antiochus. Four different experiments tried. The advocates of each solution agree in holding the other three to be untenable,   i. Ewald’s. The 1st Empire, the Assyrian, and Daniel an adaptation of an earlier Assyrian Daniel, who is to have prophesied the overthrow of the Assyrian empire. Ezekiel’s mention of Daniel, in each place, suits Daniel himself. Grounds of the selection of Daniel with Noah and Job as examples of righteousness, and of the order in which Ezekiel names them. No explanation of Daniel’s being named in Ezekiel unless he was the prophet. No ground for Ewald’s imaginary Daniel. Daniel’s vision on the Hiddekel. Rivers, places of prayer among the Jews. The human-headed winged-lion of Nineveh was an essentially different symbol from the eagle-winged lion of Daniel; probably it, as well as the human-headed bull, was a religious symbol, certainly not a symbol of Assyrian empire. The lion or eagle were symbols of Babylon, as well as of Assyria,   ii. Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar not a distinct empire from that of his successors. Greatness of the Babylonian empire, under him, both in conquest and internal policy. Medo-Persian inferior to Babylonian. Fain`eant character of Nebuchadnezzar’s successors; in no sense a separate empire,  iii. Medo-Persian empire owned never to have existed as two. Its unity presupposed in Scriptures which Rationalists allege the writer of the book of Daniel to know, and in Daniel himself. The authority of Darius stated in Daniel to have been delegated. Xenophon’s account likely, confirmed in part against Herodotus by Inscriptions. Policy of placing Median Vice-King at Babylon. Evidence from Daniel that lie spoke of the Medo-Persian empire as one. Inferiority of Persian empire to Nebuchadnezzar’s, its immediate degeneracy after Cyrus, and permanent miserableness. Disagreement of the symbol of the Persian empire in ch. 8. from that of the 3rd Empire in ch.7, and   iv. of symbols and prophecies as to Alexander’s successors from those of the 4th Empire. Alexander’s successors were one kingdom, only as one with him. Alexander’s central plan, to Hellenize Asia, and blend Greece and Asia, followed by his successors. Union of Jews and Greeks in Egypt, Cyrene, and Asia Minor. Lasting influence of his plan in God’s Providence. No ten-fold division in Alexander’s empire. Failure of the varied attempts to make out ten kings of Alexander’s successors, or three who should be uprooted. Attempts contradict Daniel and history. Roman world empire could not be foreseen at the date of people’s alleged Pseudo-Daniel, 174, B.C. Evidence from the 3rd Sibylline book and from the 1st book of Maccabees, that Roman Empire was not anticipated.  

                Lecture IV: The prophecy of the 70 weeks and of the death of the Messiah, and the attempts to make the 70 weeks end with Antiochus Epiphanes. General character of the prophecy; why the date, although fixed within a limited time, may not have been fixed precisely; only four possible dates, from which the 70 weeks could be counted, ending in four exact years; ground for selecting the 7th of Artaxerxes: his date: agreement of the whole period of 7 and 62 weeks, and of the 7 weeks by itself, with history; “strait of times;” the three years and a half, our Lord’s ministry; indications of a fourth Passover in His ministry; main subjects of the prophecy, the gifts of pardon and righteousness and of grace at the end of the 490 years; “holy of holies,” not “the holy of holies;” “anointing,” in Daniel’s time, spiritual only; the title “Messiah,” current in and before our Lord’s time, derived from this place, since here only it is used absolutely; extent of prophecy combined as to the Messiah, before our Lord came; “cut off” always used of death, inflicted by God or man; two-fold aspect of cessation of sacrifice; the general scope of the prophecy not varied by various renderings; connection of the destruction of the city and the temple with the cutting off of the Christ; fulness of the prophecy, as fulfilled exactly in the Gospel. Unnatural explanations, to get rid of the prophecy. Supposed non-fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecy, which all knew to have been fulfilled, and its eking out by Daniel’s; impossible construction of the words, ” 72 weeks, the street shall be built;” absurdity of making the 4th year of Jehoiakim the starting-point. Impossible problems which unbelief had to solve in regard to the prophecy of the 70 weeks. Corrodi’s theory and admissions. Shifts of Marsham. Eichhorn’s capricious amendment of Marsham’s theory, dishonest criticisms, unnatural expedients. Paulus’ arbitrary amendment of Eichhorn’s arbitrariness. Bertholdt’s theory, that 62 is a ’round number’ and unnatural expositions. Re-casting of old theories in opposition to Hengstenberg. Wieseler’s unnatural expedients and admissions. Lengerke’s fantastic theory incontrovertible in his own eyes. Ewald’s two attempts to take the numbers in their natural order; arbitrary dates assumed by him, and arbitrary expedients to get rid of the superfluous years. Mutual exchange of theories. Assumption that the fault as to the chronology was Daniel’s, not theirs, contrary to their own assumption that the writer knew the history; the charge recoils, since the years are too many for their theory, not too few. Naturalness of the interpretation that Jesus was the Messiah said to “cut off,” owned by Hitzig. Rationalist agreement, in pulling down only; their disagreement in constructing. Table of their variations as to the 70 weeks. Their failure as to the last week, the supposed agreement of which was to be the basis of the whole. Dates in the reign of Epiphanes. Events at its close ; his death no relief to the Jews; the 2300 days probably had a double fulfilment. Events of the last 7 years agree with no 7 years of Epiphanes; aggravations of the failure; unmeaningness of the meanings imported by rationalists into the prophecy. Contrast of the whole prophecy with the rationalist expositions of it. The Messiah was not expected, when, according to Daniel, He was not to come; when, according to Daniel, He was to come, He was expected.

                Lecture V: The minuteness of a portion of Daniel’s prophecies is in harmony with the whole system of Old Testament prophecy, in that, throughout, God gave a nearer foreground of prophecy, whose completion should, to each age, accredit the more distant and as yet unfulfilled prophecy.

                Argument of rationalists and the Essays against the prophecies of Daniel involves the denial of all supernatural prophecy. Prophecy, and prediction, which the Rationalists distinguish from it, are alike human, according to them. Indications of minute prophecy, throughout the Old Testament.  1) Test given to distinguish the true prophet from the false, Deut. 18:20,21.  2) Struggle between the false prophets and the true.  3) Urim and Thummim.  4) “Enquiring of God.” 5) “The Seer.” Old Testament prophecy related to a nearer or a more distant future of temporal judgment and mercy, and the Redeemer. Predictions to the Patriarchs. Continuous fulfilment of the blessings of Jacob and Moses, a continuous witness of God’s foreknowledge and Providence. “Until Shiloh come;” no temporal fulfilment can be made out. Series of individual prophecies. Prophecies to the ten tribes. Minute temporal prophecies to Israel end in larger. Succession of prophets in Judah. Prophecies of the Christ, connected with Jerusalem, imply that it would continue in being prophecies against Sennacherib and Babylon; prophecies of exact dates; ends of cities foretold, minute but varied; Jeremiah’s distinct unvarying prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, and lesser intervening prophecies. Jeremiah and Ezekiel foretell details of the capture of Jerusalem; the event improbable to the Jews beforehand; prophecies on individuals. Isaiah’s and Jeremiah’s detailed prophecies of the capture of Babylon; genuineness of Isaiah 13,14 and of Jeremiah 1, 51. Ezekiel’s prophecy of the duration of the two kingdoms and as to Egypt; its 40 years desolation and permanent abasement; decay in Egypt before its temporary recovery under Amasis; the 70 years of the captivity; Zechariah’s prediction of Alexander’s victories in Palestine and of the subsequent victories of Jews over Greeks, utterly improbable, but very definite and accurate. Rationalist expedients to get rid of them, and their failure. Daniel’s predictions suited to a transition-state. Daniel a teacher for the times before our Lord. In the Gospel also, and in the prophecies of our Lord, there is a foreground of minuter prediction and a large future. Rationalist misstatements as to prophecy. Capture of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, gradual concessions of rationalism. Fulfilment of God’s judgments slow through His mercy. Prophecy independent of time unless time is expressed. Daniel has all the varieties of prophecy.  

                Lecture VI: On the proof of the genuineness of the book of Daniel, furnished by the date of the closing of the Canon of the Old Testament, and by the direct reference to it in the Canonical Scriptures, and in other books before or of the Maccabee period.

                Josephus’ statement of the closing of the Canon, and of the ground, why it was closed about 400 B.C. The intervening period before our Lord, one of much mental activity. Date of the Wisdom of the son of Sirach fixed by the mention of Simon son of Onias and Euergetes in his grandson’s preface, early in the 3rd cent. B.C. His grandson attests that the Canon was closed when his grandfather wrote. The lowest date of the son of Sirach, and the existence of his book out of the Jewish Canon, prove the early date of Daniel. The son of Sirach alludes to the Canon. Tradition insisted upon by rationalists, as to Nehemiah’s collecting the scattered books of the Canon, relates, not to an original collection, but to the gathering of books already in the Canon, which had been dispersed. Gradual formation of the Canon. The Pentateuch laid up from the first; gradual accessions implied in Scripture itself. The Pentateuch an authority before Jeroboam’s schism. Each later prophet presupposes the earlier prophets. Gradual accessions of the historical books. Probable date of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Ruth; the Books of Kings before the close of the Captivity. Prophetic documents probably embodied in the Books of Kings. Gradual formation of the Psalter; the first book wholly David’s; the 5th book alone implies times after the Captivity; no one Psalm contains any indication of the Maccabee period; those selected as such belong to the Captivity. The Psalter probably translated by the LXX before the Maccabee times. The accession of Proverbs of Solomon, in Hezekiah’s time, to the collection already existing, shews that ch. 30, 31 alone can be later than Hezekiah. Job quoted from early times. The age of the Canticles and Lamentations unquestioned. Extent of Hagiographa extant before the captivity. Invalidity of the arguments from language or history, that Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon. Book of Esther written by a contemporary; the Chronicles prior to the book of Ezra and by its author; they allude to nothing later than Ezra; the one genealogy, alleged to prove a later date of the book, does not prove it, even if it is part of the book. The book of Ezra is one whole; the Chaldee portion, written by a contemporary, inserted by Ezra. Invalid arguments against authorship of Ezra. Nehemiah wrote the book which bears his name. Thoughtless objection founded on the use of the different names of God. Use of those names in Nehemiah. The name of Jaddua did not originally stand in Nehemiah. Careless objections to the book. Coincidence of Nehemiah and Malachi. Principle of the Jewish arrangement of the Canon; hagiographa, sacred books by men in secular office. Jewish distinction between writing through the spirit of prophecy and by the Holy Ghost. David and Daniel, both being prophets, were placed on the same principle among the hagiographa. The “silence of the son of Sirach” would have been remarkable, only if Daniel had been placed among the prophets. Direct evidence of the existence of the book of Daniel before Antiochus Epiphanes.   i. Use of language of Daniel’s prayer by Nehemiah.   ii. Two of Zechariah’s visions presuppose Daniel’s prophecy of the 4 empires; one, very obscure, unless explained by aid of Daniel’s prophecy, iii. Book of Barach, written probably soon after the close of the Canon, incorporates much of his prayer,   iv. Testimony to Daniel in LXX version of Pentateuch,   v. The Jewish writer of the 3rd Sibylline book, about 170, B.C., quoted book of Daniel, found nothing in it to support his temporal hopes,   vi. Extreme accuracy of the first book of Maccabees. Internal evidence of exactness of Mattathias’ speech. Exact, but simple reference to book of Daniel in it. First book of Maccabees, probably before B.C. 125, certainly before B.C. 105. History in the 1st book of Maccabees contradicts unbelieving theories as to the book of Daniel,   vii. Evidence from the Greek additions to the book of Daniel, the historical mistakes of the translator and his falsifying of the prophecy of the 70 weeks, to make it bear on the times of Epiphanes. Long interval between the book of Daniel and its translation owned by opponents,   viii. Book of Enoch. The doctrine of the Messiah as the Judge of the world in it taken from Daniel; that of the angels altered from the doctrine in Daniel. Date of the book probably not later than Judas Maccabeus or Simon, anyhow not later than John Hyrcanus. Testimony of our Lord stands alone, as infallible.  

                Lecture VII: On the “historical inaccuracies” falsely imputed to the book of Daniel, and the “improbabilities” alleged, i.   Agreement of dates in Daniel together, and  iv.  The doctrine of Angels, their numbers, nature, interest in us, as revealed before Daniel. “The Angel of the Lord,” throughout the O.T. probably a created Angel, with special Divine Presence. The “Angel-interpreter” of Job. The Seraphim, the Cherubim. “The Angel of the Lord ” probably Michael. The doctrine of Angels in Daniel the same as in other Scriptures. The revelation in Daniel, that other nations, besides the Jews, were under the care of Angels, in harmony with Daniel’s relation to the Heathen world. Daniel does not associate the creature with the Creator; “gods of counsel,” in Heathenism, astrological only.

                Doctrine of Angels earlier than Magism. Imperfection of the supreme god of the Aryans; time, light, space, co-existent with him. Zoroastrism only a modification of Vedism; dualism in its earliest writings. The six Ameshaepentas, too near to the supreme god of Parsism, yet mere genii of the same sort as other genii of Parsism; supreme god of Parsism prays to them; extensive devotedness to Mithra, Anahita, the Haoma, probably coeval with Parsism. Parsee genii, or gods, dependent upon man. Prophets warned Israel against idolatries of Babylon and Persia. Men borrow idolatries or trick out their own false systems, do not refine the errors of others. Parsee traditions against the antiquity of their books; their present books, unauthentic traditions. No development or corruption in the Zend books before Christ. No one likeness between Ameshaepentas and Archangels.

                v.1. Fasting prescribed throughout the O.T. Fasting of the day of Atonement; that of women regulated; public and private; abuses of it attest its use; Daniel’s fasts such as are prescribed by Joel; all self-affliction forbidden by principles of Parsism. v.2. Objections to Daniel’s prayer, v.3. ” Prayer three times a day,” the natural filling-up of prayer morning and evening; David mentions it in Ps. 55. Parsee worship of the five times of the day, wholly unconnected with prayer to God thrice a day. Traces of Parsee prayer to the sun three times a day, subsequent to our Lord, but immaterial.

                v.4. Daniel’s advice to Nebuchadnezzar about alms ascribes to them no “magical effect,” but agrees with the N.T. Summary. To answer objections can only prepare for faith, which God gives. The temptation of this day truth-sacrificing compromise. The objects of our faith as certain to us as our being.

                Lecture VIII & IX: The points of doctrine and practice mentioned in the book of Daniel, which are alleged to indicate a date later than that of the prophet, are identical or in harmony with the other Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; nor was any doctrine or practice, mentioned in the book of Daniel, borrowed from Parsism. Notes A-F. (p. 558-627)

                Note A.  The Aryan words in Daniel explained by Max Mūller. (p. 565-570)

                Note B. Alleged indications of the “lateness” of the Hebrew of Daniel. Eccentric character of the alleged proof. Words and idioms of Daniel,  i) peculiar to himself;  ii) common to the middle as well as the later age of Hebrew;  iii) those in common with the later age;  iv) those revived from the Pentateuch, or   v) adopted from Ezekiel. (p. 571-594)               

      Note C. Bare words in Daniel, retained or lost in the Syriac, later Chaldee, or at the date of the LXX.  (p. 594-8)

       Note D.  Aramaic words in Daniel, lost or rare in the Targums or Gemara. (p. 598-606)

         Note E. Variations in the LXX of Daniel, indicative of a long period having elapsed between the writing of the book and its translation. (p. 606-619)

          Note F. Temporal prophecies, alleged by Dr Stanley, as being equally definite with those of the O.T. (p. 619-627)

                Addenda & Corrigenda. }}

                Lecture II: Prophecies of Four Empires, Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, Roman, & of Establishment of Kingdom of Christ during Fourth Empire.

                Two great subjects of prophecy in Daniel, plainly and on their surface, extend into a future beyond the sight of one who lived even in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; 1) the prophecies of the fourth Empire; 2) that of the 70 weeks and the Death of the Redeemer.

                Before entering on the first, let us advert to the ancient prophecy of Balaam, in which the conquest of the East by the West, and the subsequent perishing of the Western Empire in its turn, are predicted in the plainest terms. They are the words with which Balaam’s prophecy closes. They are without a figure, and relate to things (he himself says) far distant. (*Num. 24:21-24) He beheld the Kenite, and took up his parable and said, Strong is thy dwelling place and place in the rock thy nest; for the Kenite shall be for a prey, until Asshur shall carry thee, (Israel,) away captive. And he took up his parable and said, Alas .’who shall live when God doeth this? And ships shall come from the side of Chittim  (mid kittim), i.e. (as is well known) Cyprus, and shall afflict Asshur and shall afflict Eber, (i.e. the country beyond the river,) and he too (who should so afflict them) shall perish forever. Balaam foretold the quarter whence they should come, not the people who should come. For as yet they were no people. But Cyprus was a great link of East and West by sea. Tyre early subdued it, and held it subdued, as a station for its commerce (*Hengst. de reb. Tyrior, p. 55, 56). It would contrariwise be the last station when the West should invade the East. Unbelieving criticism avers that Balaam’s words  “refer to an incursion of Greeks into Cilicia in the time of Sennacherib, and are a prophecy derived from the event.” (* Von Lengerke, p. lxxx, from Hitzig, Begr. d. Kritik, p. 55. v. Bohlen, Einl. z. Gen. § 17).  In plain words, these writers assert that this prophecy, which stands in the Pentateuch as contemporary with Moses, was in fact, the relation of an event, 750 years subsequent to Moses, by some writer who falsely alleged it to have been foretold. The explanation, upon which they have ventured, may serve for a foil to the truth. They from the West, both Alexander and the Romans, did afflict the great Empires beyond the river; we know how Alexander and his empire in turn perished; how the Roman empire was broken, although it still lives on, because it was not to be destroyed until the end. That inroad on Cilicia, related by Polyhistor, was in itself of no account, no joint or systematic effort (* in Eus. Chron. Arm.T. i. p.43.*). For Greece did nothing in common between the Trojan and Persian wars (* Thuc. i. 12.17. Grote, Greece, c. 28.*). There was no commencement of centralization or common endeavour, until B.C. 560, 140 years after the time of Sennacherib. The Greek marauders did not march against Sennacherib, but Sennacherib against them; he defeated them, although with considerable loss, “and set up his own image in the place as a monument of his victory, and had his prowess and valour engraven in Chaldee, as a memorial for the time to come.” Can anyone seriously assert that he honestly thinks that this description of the afflicting of Asshur and Eber, and the utter perishing of him who so afflicted them, relates to one battle, far from Assyria, in which a marauding party was defeated?

                Such an outline of prophecy as to the world’s Empires probably lingered on in Mesopotamia, Balaam’s home, when this new flood of light burst upon the Heathen world. Nebuchadnezzar, now in the second year of his reign, was already a conqueror. He had succeeded to a parent who was a conqueror. According to Berosus, (* in Jos. c. Ap. i. 19. more correctly in some things that in his Ant. x. 11.1) his father Nabopolassar, hearing that the Satrap, appointed in Egypt and the parts about Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, had revolted, and being himself no longer equal to fatigue, committed to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who was yet in the prime of life, some parts of the army, and sent him against the rebels. Nebuchadnezzar defeated him in pitched battle and brought the country again under his rule. At this time, his father fell sick at Babylon and died. Nebuchadnezzar, hearing of his death not long afterwards, set in order the affairs in Egypt and the rest of the country, and, having commissioned some of his friends to transport to Babylonia the prisoners of the Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians, and the nations in Egypt, together with the heaviest part of the army, himself with few attendants went across the desert to Babylon.” There “he received the government which had been administered by the Chaldeans, and the kingdom which had been kept for him by the chief of them, and ruled over all his father’s empire.”

                The young monarch, who had already shown himself so energetic and victorious, had in his mind, not only his subsequent career of conquest, but, (which, in any mind of large grasp, ever follows close upon those thoughts,) what would be the end of all. It is a striking picture of the young conqueror, that, not content with the vista of future greatness before him, he was looking on beyond our little span of life, which in youth so fills the mind, to a future, when his own earthly life should be closed. O king says Daniel (*2:29), thy thoughts came up upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter. To him God revealed, how empire should succeed empire, each great in its day, each misusing its greatness, until, at last, a kingdom should come, not founded by human means, and so not by human means destructible, which should absorb all empires into itself, and should itself endure forever. It is remarkable that this vicissitude of human things, this marked outline of the succession of Empires till our Lord should come, is laid open, not to the believing Hebrew, but to the Heathen monarch. The king is the organ and first depository of the revelation; Daniel is but its expositor. This change in the organ of prophecy is in remarkable harmony with those former revelations through the Prophets. To them the foreground is the kingdom of God, as already existing among them. Apart from their office of moral and religious teachers, the development of that kingdom was the subject of their prophecies. From this foreground they looked out on the powers of the world, as they bore upon His people, and as they should hereafter be absorbed into it or be punished for their misdeeds against it and against God in it. To Nebuchadnezzar, at the then centre of earthly greatness, God exhibits, as his foreground, the Empire of the world as it should develope in its different stages, until it should be confronted at last by the Kingdom of God, and universal obedience should be claimed, not by any one Empire of this world, but by God in His Kingdom. The form exhibited to Nebuchadnezzar is one ideal form, man in colossal majesty. The separate world-monarchies are but successive parts of one whole. The human commanding figure stands, (*2:3I.) its brightness excellent and the form thereof terrible, until the end. Human power, consolidated by human wisdom, has a majesty, lent to it by God, even while it abuses the God-entrusted gift. Three of these world-monarchies were to be displaced by the succeeding; the fourth (5th ?) by one, wholly unlike the four, not made with hands.

                Of the last of these Empires, (strange enough) no one has been found to doubt that it is the Kingdom of Christ. The greatest of all miracles is conceded; the less is questioned. It is owned by those who set these prophecies at the very latest, that, nearly two centuries before our Lord’s ministry began, it was foreshewn that the kingdom of God should be established without human aid, to replace all other kingdoms and to be replaced by none; to stand for ever, and to fill the earth. Above 18 centuries have verified the prediction of the permanency of that kingdom, founded, as it was, by no human means, endowed with unextinguishable life, ever conquering and to conquer in the four quarters of the world; a kingdom one and alone, since the world has been; embracing all times and climes, and still expanding; unworn by that destroyer of all things human, time; strong amid the decay of empires; the freshness and elasticity of youth written on the brow which has outlived eighteen centuries. This truth, so gigantic, so inconceivable beforehand, so inexplicable now except by the grace of God, was, (it is granted,) foreseen, foreshewn. Nay more, it is granted, that, the Prophet believed that He, the King of this new kingdom, was to be more than man! The question then is “Did the soul which grasped this truth, err (for it comes to this) as to some 150 years?” Porphyry was consistent; for he denied both. Having apparently rejected Christianity, as too hard for him, he wrote against Daniel as a part of a whole. In his times men had witnessed, for 2½ centuries only, the inherent vitality of the Gospel. They predicted the date of its expiry (* S. Aug. de Civ. D. xviii. 53, 4. in Ps. 40. § 1. Ps. 70. § 4. Baronius, A. 304. viii. gives two inscriptions of Diocletian in Spain, “nomine Christianonun deleto:” “superstitione Christi ubique deleta, cultu Deorum propagato.”). But in men who call themselves Christians, and who believe in some sense that the Gospel is the power of God, it is strange to grant or maintain so much, and yet to dispute what, if they believe what they say, is comparatively so little. When Infinity has been granted, the endless Kingdom of the Infinite God; it seems strange to dispute about an atom, some 150 years of our narrow time. Yet so it is. The question is this, “Granted that the author of our book was right in predicting the founding of a kingdom of God, which should not pass away, was the fourth kingdom in which he foretold that it should arise, that of Alexander’s successors, and did he himself, living (according to different rationalist hypotheses) during or shortly after the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, wrongly look that the kingdom of God should be founded soon after the death of that Old Testament Anti-Christ, B.C. 164? or did he expect that kingdom to come, when it did come, in the time of the Roman Empire, as almost all have believed from our Lord’s time until now?” For if the 4th Empire was the Roman Empire, then we have a temporal prediction too, beyond the sight of one who lived even in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.

                It is allowed on all hands, that the four beasts in Daniel’s vision in the first year of Belshazzar correspond exactly to the four empires represented in the image exhibited to Nebuchadnezzar. To the king God chiefly revealed that which most concerned him to know, the beginning and the end, the greatness of the power given and to be given to him by the King of heaven, and the nothingness of the mightiest human power, compared and in collision with the Kingdom of God. To this end, after briefly saying, that the second kingdom should be inferior to his own power, and that the third should rule over the whole earth, he dwells at length on the fourth kingdom, as symbolized by the strong, all-subduing, all crushing iron, yet itself, with all which went before it, the whole fabric of human power, as being, before the Kingdom of God, like the chaff of the summer-threshing-floor which the wind carrieth away, and there is no place found for them. The intense nothingness and transitoriness of man’s might in its highest estate, and so of his own also, and the might of God’s kingdom, apart from all human strength, are the chief subjects of this vision as explained to Nebuchadnezzar.

                Yet although thus much only was explained to the king, the symbol represented much more. The image, as one, represented the one principle of human Empire: in its manifold parts, it pourtrayed not only a manifoldness, but a variety in the successive Empires. The symbols which are explained shew that there is a meaning in the corresponding symbols, which are not explained. In regard to the first and the fourth empires, those represented by the head and the legs, both the parts of the human figure and the metal of which, in the statue, they consist, are explained in their symbolic meaning. Then, doubtless, the parts of the human figure and the metals have, both of them, their symbolical significance, in regard to the second and third empires also. The head of gold has a unity, a magnificence, an insight of its own. It is not only the first empire in time; the conception of the whole idea of world-empire lay in it, and in him whom chiefly it represented (* Hofmann, Weissag. u. i. Erfūll. i. 278, 9.). And so again, at the other extremity, in the fourth Empire, not only is the iron substance of the legs alluded to, as symbolical of heavy iron might, but the human form too, in that he speaks of its subduing all things, trampling them under foot, (as is said more fully in the next vision.) The inferiority of the 2nd empire to the first, then, doubtless is symbolized by the pale silver, as compared with the gold, inferior not in value only but in solidity and power of resistance, more liable to impression from without. The form moreover in the human figure is two-fold; nor only so, but the right is stronger than the left. The kingdom then, which was to succeed Nebuchadnezzar’s, was not only to be inferior to it, but was to be compounded of two parts, the one stronger than the other (*lb. 279. “The chest is twofold and unequal; the heart, the centre of the circulation of the blood, belongs to one side only. Then the arms hang on both sides of the chest: they especially have activity; the chest, firmness. Medes and Persians are the two sides of the chest, the arms stretch out from the chest, yet are not severed from it; so Phoenicia and Egypt stretched out on the one side, the territory of the Lydian empire with the Greeks of Asia Minor on the other, controlled from the centre of the empire, yet ever inclined to make themselves independent, and often successful. Alexander, before he attacked the centre of the kingdom, mastered the two arms which the Persian king had once stretched out, so full of peril to Greece.”). The symbol already suggests the Medo-Persian Empire. The third Empire, in its dark lowering colour, is to us even at first sight remarkably combined, “the belly and thighs.” Yet the lower part of the human figure singularly combines the greatest activity and strength with the dullest, most inactive, proverbial sluggishness. Just so were the two parts of Alexander’s empire contrasted. The old fierce energy of Egypt and the Mesopotamian powers was gone. “The loins of Greece held together the belly of Asia, yet could not impart to it its own activity. As the most active part of the body, the centre of its strength, motion, power of turning, is in closest nearness with that, which will simply be carried, so, in the kingdom of Alexander, was the then most stirring and self-adapting people with the mere passive East.” It reminds us involuntarily of the contrast, which impressed itself on Aristotle, of “the thoughtful and contriving but spiritless character” of the Asiatics, and “the spirited and thoughtful” genius of the Greeks, which would enable them to “rule the world, if” concentrated by “one government.” (* In his well-known passage (Pol. vii. 7.) speaking of his own (Alexander’s) time, “The nations in the cold countries and those around Europe are full of spirit, but are rather wanting in thought and contrivance; wherefore they retain their freedom, but have no fixed polity and cannot govern their neighbours. Those of Asia are thoughtful and contriving, but spiritless, wherefore they abide in subjection and servitude. But the Greek race, as it occupies the mid-space between them, so it partakes of both; for it is both spirited and thoughtful; whence it abides free and with excellent polities, and is able to rule the world, if it should come to have one government.”). The third Empire, one at first, is then represented in the thighs, as two great portions; not closely united together as the two sides of the chest, but one only by their common connection with the upper part, or in them continued. Nothing could more exactly represent those two subdivisions of Alexander’s empire, the account of which is expanded to Daniel in ch. 11, those by which his people were most affected.

                The kingdoms of the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, ever at variance with one another, had no unity, they were in no sense a kingdom, except as they were connected with the great Empire-plan of Alexander. They were continuations of Greek predominance over the nations of Oriental character in Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria, Assyria. They carried out that interpenetration of the Greek and Oriental nations, which Alexander must have contemplated; they Hellenized Egypt and Western Asia, and unknowingly prepared the way for the Gospel by diffusing, through means of their Greek cities, the language in which it was to be given.

                In the fourth Empire we have again strength, ending in division; strength yet greater than in the third Empire, ending in greater division; yet, even in its division, retaining to the end, in its several portions, its original iron might. Its chief characteristic is its strength. It is likened to the metal proverbially strong; it is strong as iron (*2:40); and it crushes all successively. Forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron that breaketh all these, it shall crush and break. It is an annihilating power, which leaves to that which it conquers, no trace of its existence, but itself replaces it. Twofold in its form, as the Roman power, itself one, came to be divided into East and West, it ends in yet further division into ten kingdoms; and the iron commingles itself with a material as plastic, as itself is unyielding, potter’s clay. This, as Daniel interprets it, expresses partly the mingled strength and weakness of the later condition of the empire, strong, as before, in some parts, yet side by side with weakness, partly the union of this fourth empire with that which was foreign from itself, through intermarriages, the seed of men (*lb. 42.), whereby however the two powers do not cohere. History down to Antiochus Epiphanes exhibits nothing of this sort. There was no such subdivision into ten; no three which were uprooted. A union moreover between the Seleucidae and Ptolemies by intermarriages would have been an union of like, not of unlike, materials. It would have been a cementing of the kingdom within itself, iron with iron, not iron with clay. There were also (as we shall see) only two such alliances between the two houses, and even those on no one policy. The ancient explanation corresponds best with the symbol, that the Eastern and Western Empire subdivided still further.  (* Hofmann, p. 281.) “When Germans and Slaves advanced partly into Roman ground, anyhow into the historical position of the Roman Empire, their princes intermarried with Roman families. Charlemagne was descended from a Roman house; almost at the same time the German Emperor Otho II. (* see P Art de verifier les Dates, ii. 2. p. 103.) and the Russian Grand-Prince Vladimir (* A.D. 989. lb. 250.) intermarried with daughters of the East-Roman Emperor. This was characteristic for the relation of the immigrating nations to Rome; they did not found a new kingdom, but continued the Roman. And so it continues to the end of all earthly power, until its final ramification into 10 kingdoms. To attempt now to mark out these would be as misplaced, as to fix the Coming of Christ, [with which they stand connected] tomorrow or the next day.”

                Even an opponent has said, (* De Wette, Hall. Encycl. art. Daniel. He adds that, in his opinion, the European kingdoms “can only in a very figurative war be looked upon as a continuation of the Roman Monarchy, and that the number 10 cannot be verified in them; yet it has its difficulty to make out the ten kings according to the other explanations.” See further in Lect. 3. I only cite him, as an instance how that interpretation, so far, commended itself to one on the extreme opposite side.) “It is in favor of this interpretation [of the 4th empire as the Roman] that the two feet of iron can be referred to the Eastern and Western Empire.”……

                So then, within the period of the fourth empire, there are these distinct periods, 1) the time until it is divided into the ten portions symbolized by the ten horns, as, before, it was represented as ending in the ten toes: 2) the period of those ten horns. 3) That in which the eleventh, diverse from the rest, held its sway. This also is marked to be no brief time, both from the events in it, and from the wondering lengthened contemplation of the Prophet: (*7:8.) I continued narrowly observing these horns; and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom three of the first horns were uprooted; and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things —(* 11) continued gazing then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake; I gazed on even till the beast was slain, —(*21) I gazed on, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them. 4) The period after the destruction of that power and of the whole fourth kingdom which is to perish with him, indicated by the words; And the rest of the beasts, the other kingdoms, their dominion was taken anway, yet their lives were prolonged on to a season and time, (* ‘ad¯zeman we‘iddan (i.q. mo‘ad) is a definite time, as in the phrase (beh¯zimna’) 3:28; 4:33; Ezr. 5:3. See also 7:25, and in Heb. Eccl. 3:1; Neh. 2:6. and in the N.T. (‘ho kairos) S. Luke 21:8; (chronous ē kairous) Acts 1:7. 1st Thess. 5:1.) i.e. on to the time appointed by God. The sentence seems most naturally to relate to a time after the destruction of the 4th empire; for it continues the description. It does not seem to be simply an account of what God had (*5:12) depends apparently on v. 11. “I (gazed on until the beast was killed and his body destroyed —and the rest of the beasts, their dominion,” &c.) done afore-time to those former empires, viz. that when He took away their world-rule, He left them in being as nations, but of something which should be after the destruction of the fourth. This however will be made clear when the time comes.

                The latter part of this, being still future, we cannot explain certainly. Prophecy is not given to enable us to prophesy, but as a witness to God when the time comes. This prophecy reaches on to the end of time. Much of it is confessedly expanded in the Revelations, as still to come. It would then be as inconsistent in us to attempt to explain it, as it would be in the school of Porphyry, not to explain it. For, according to them, it relates to past facts. They assume the book to have been written in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, to relate to his times, and to be intended to influence his times. Then, they are bound by their own hypothesis to explain it, if they can, with reference to those times. For, according to them, it represents past facts. The impossibility of pointing out these has, since Porphyry’s time, been one chief rock, on which those theories have been wrecked.

                Christians can point out the correspondence of the fourth Empire, as far is incumbent on them, viz. in its beginning. Crushing power was the characteristic of the fourth beast. Permanent subdual distinguished the Roman Empire. Other Empires swept over like a tornado. They ravaged, extorted submission, received tribute. But their connection with the states whom they subdued, was loose and disjointed. The title “king of kings,” which Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, assumed in succession, was a boast which confessed weakness. (* Hos. 8:10; Is. 10:8 and Merodach-baladan’s title, Is. 39:1.  * Ezek. 26:7. Dan. 2:37. comp. Is. xlvii. 5.   *Ezr. vii. 12. Strab. xv. 3. 7. Amm. Mar. xix. 19:2, 16. Persepol. Cunelf.  *Inscr. in Grotefend; Pehlevi coins in De Sac. Mem. s. diverges Antiq. de Perse, p. 87, 8. Ues. on Is. 10:8.) They had not the power of consolidating into one the disjointed materials of their greatness. The plans of Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander, the previous founders of world-Empires, failed in the hands of unworthy successors. Rome kept in dependence on itself all which it acquired, inferior yet still integral members of its polity. Dionysius, comparing it to the empires before it, especially the Assyrian, Persian, Alexander’s, says, (* Antiq. Rom. i. 2-4. see Newton on the Prophecies.) “If any one, considering the governments of which we have any account in the past, apart and as compared with one another, would judge which had the largest rule, and wrought the brightest deeds in peace and war, he will find the Roman far to surpass all before it, not only in the greatness of its empire and the splendour of its deeds but in its duration until now. For the Assyrian Empire, of fabulous antiquity, held but a small part of Asia. The Median, which destroyed the Assyrian and gained a wider rule, lasted no long time, but was overthrown in its 4th generation. The Persians, who subdued the Medes, mastered at last wellnigh all Asia; but, invading Europe also, they brought over to them not many nations, and their empire continued not much more than two centuries. The Macedonian Dynasty, which destroyed the Persian Empire, surpassed in extent of empire all before it: yet neither did it flourish long, but on Alexander’s death began to decline. For being rent asunder straightway by his successors (Diadochi) into many governments, and having strength to last out to the second or third generation after them, it was internally weak, and at last was effaced by the Romans. Nor did it cither subdue all land and sea. For it did not conquer that wide Africa except about Egypt, nor all Europe, but advanced only Northwards as far as Thrace and westward to the Adriatic.”

                “Such was the acme and might which the most illustrious Empires, recorded in history, attained, and they decayed. But the city of Rome rules over the whole habitable and inhabited earth, and the sea, not only within the columns of Hercules, but the ocean too, as far as ships may venture. It, first and alone of all in all recorded time, made East and West bounds of its sway; and the period of its might is not brief, but such as no other city or kingdom ever had. —Since it subdued Macedonia, which at that time seemed the most mighty on earth, it has now, for 7 generations, ruled without rival, barbarian or Greek. No nation, so to speak, disputes her supremacy or declines to obey her.’

                Abating what is the language of panegyric, Rome had consolidated a dominion different in character from any before her and wider in extent.

                Such was the aspect of the successive kingdoms, such their outline. But, the chief object of interest, that chiefly expanded, as in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, is that in which they should end, the kingdom of God victorious over the evil of the world. One verse is assigned to each of the first three kingdoms; one verse contains the explanation of them all; the rest of the vision and the explanation is occupied with that great conflict…..

                Lecture: IV.

                The prophecy of the 70 weeks and of the Death of the Messiah, and the attempts to make the 70 weeks end with Antiochus Epiphanes.

                In the first year of Darius, the term of the Captivity was, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, all but come. Babylon was conquered; the captors of God’s people were captives; but their own bonds were not broken. For the term, although all but come, was not ended. It was one of those seasons of breathless expectation, by which God teaches to man intense dependence upon Himself. Deliverance was at the door; the deliverer was come, but there was no token of deliverance. God had revealed the future through, or to, Daniel. But what was within the reach of man’s powers, He left to the exercise of those powers. So Daniel sought to learn the term of the Captivity, where God had revealed it, in the prophecy of Jeremiah. I understood, he says  by the Scriptures the number of the years, which the word of the Lord was to Jeremiah the Prophet to fulfil as to the desolations of Jerusalem, seventy years (*9:2. in reference, in the words too, to Jer. 25:11,12). And he set himself to do that which Jeremiah foretold that they should then do. After seventy years shall be accomplished at Babylon, I will visit you, and perform My good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. —Then shall ye call upon Me and shall go and pray unto Me, and I will hearken unto you (*Jer. 29:10, 12). On that deep fervid prayer, in which Daniel, adoring God’s judgment and mercy, confessing his own sins and the sins of his people, besieged God, as it were, to have mercy upon His holy city, His people, His sanctuary which was desolate, God anew uplifted the veil which lay upon futurity.

                The prophecy of the 70 weeks defined much more closely the period of the Coming of the Messiah, of which the two visions of the four empires had already given an outline. Daniel had himself survived the first Empire, and seen the dawn of the second. In the fourth, He, like a Son of man, was promised. But would those 2nd and 3rd Empires be as brief as the first? Would two successive lives, long as his own, see the rising of that fourth empire, in which He was to come ? Would He, a Prince of peace, as Isaiah had prophesied, come to be a shelter amid the terrific power of the fourth Empire, which, in the end, He was to break in pieces? Such thoughts could not but occupy the mind of Daniel at that crisis of the fortunes of his people, and the passing away of the first of the three world-empires interposed before the establishment of that, in which the Redeemer was to come. The answer embraces those thoughts, but goes beyond them. Daniel had prayed for his people and his holy city. In harmony with that revelation of a world-embracing kingdom, but not of this world, contained in the visions of the four empires, Daniel’s mind is carried beyond his own people, his holy city and the visible sanctuary. The temporary restoration of the city is promised, but in strait of times; the restoration of the temple and of sacrifice are implied since they were anew to cease and to be destroyed. But the prophecy went beyond all things visible, both in what it promised and in what it took away. It promised forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, a Messiah, who was to be cut off and yet to confirm a covenant. It took away all things visible, on which, as images of that which was to come, they had hitherto rested. It took away all which was local and visible; for He, the Messiah, was to make all sacrifice to cease and city and temple were to be an abiding desolation. A definite period, counted by sevens of years, is assigned, within which this purpose of God was to be accomplished.

                The period, which should elapse before the Coming of Christ, is fixed as nearly, we suppose, as it could be, without destroying man’s free-agency. Man was still to be on his trial, whether he would reject God. God, in revealing the future, still preserves unimpaired His own great law of His creatures’ free-agency. Our redemption was to be wrought by the death of our Redeemer at His creatures’ hands. He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (*Rev. 13:8). All sacrifice foreshewed His Death; David and Isaiah had foretold it; and now it was again to be foretold through Daniel (* Ps. 40. * Is. 53*). Perhaps it would have been impossible for man to have fulfilled this, which lay in the counsels of God, had he known what he was doing; or, if he had, the sin would have been irremediable. Jesus pleads it, as a ground of forgiveness, that His executioners knew not what they did (*S. Luke 23:34 *). We are told of those who stirred up their passions, had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (*1st Cor. 2:8 *). It may be, that, on these grounds, He did not declare, so that it should be certainly known beforehand, the precise year when the Messiah should come and should be cut off. But He intimated that time with sufficient nearness, to create the expectation which did arise, to awaken men’s minds, to predispose them to listen and to obey. What He does, He does not unprepared.

                The interval, which God assigned, had an evident reference to the 70 years of the captivity. That number had a bearing on the broken sabbaths, in punishment of which Moses had foretold that the land should enjoy her sabbaths in the captivity of his people (*Lev. 26:34). Seventy years were the term of their captivity; seven times seventy years was to be the main sum of their new period of probation, in the possession of their land and of their restored city. The date, whence those 490 years began, is described, not absolutely laid down. But it is described in words which leave no large or uncertain margin, from the going forth of a commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince (*Dan.  9:25). Above three thousand (3000) years had flowed by before; above two thousand (2000) years have flowed away since. The event, which was to change and regenerate millions upon millions (millions & billions), was fixed beforehand, within some surplus upon 490 years. The choice of the form of prophecy was itself prophetic. Greek and Latin philosophers too, (probably from some real mysterious connection of the number with the development of man’s frame,) have known of “weeks of years.” (* “Which some of the poets have said, who measure age (tais ‘ebdomasi), by the sevenfold.” Aristotle (quoted Liddell and Scott, v. ‘ebd.) “Heraclitus and the Stoics say that man’s perfection begins about the second 7th.” Plut. de Plac. Phil. v. 23. (ib.) Censorinus mentions the opinions of many who so counted; “Solon makes ten parts of human life, so that each age should have seven years. To these 10 hebdomades of Solon, Staseas the Peripatetic added two, and said that the space of a full life was 84 years. Varro mentions that in the Etruscan books of the Fates the age of man is described by 12 hebdomades, in that it could be protracted to 12 times 7 years, by deprecating the fated period through sacred rites. —Of all these, they seem to have come nearest to nature, who have measured human life by hebdomades. For that, almost after every seventh year, there is some new development. As you may see in Solon’s elegy. For he says that in the first seven the teeth are shed; in the second, &c. In the 2nd hebdomas however, or at the beginning of the 3rd, the voice becomes thicker and unequal. —Physicians too, and philosophers have written much as to these hebdomades. —Some say that those years are most to be observed which are made up of 3 hebdomades, i. e. the 21st, 42nd, and 63rd. The 63rd is made of 9 hebdomades, or 7 enneads.” [de Die Nat. c. 4.] “Varro adds, that he too had entered the 12th hebdomada of life, and, up to that day, had written 70 hebdomadas of books.” Gell. Noct. Att. iii. 10.*)   To the Hebrew, the 7 times 7 spoke of that recurring Jubilee year, when all debts were released, slavery was ended, everyone was restored to all the inheritance which had, during the half-century, been forfeited; slight, joyous, ever-recurring picture of the restoration, for. which all creation yearned and groaned. There could not be any ambiguity to the people’s mind. The period could not be “70 weeks of days,” i.e. a year and about 4 months. The events are too full for it. Seven weeks, (to go no further,) was no period in which to rebuild the city. It remained then to understand it, according to a key which God had given, of a sevenfold period of years (*Ezek. 4:5,6.*).

                The decree spoken of was doubtless meant of a decree of God, but to be made known through His instrument, man, who was to effectuate it. The commandment went forth from God, like that, at which, Gabriel had just said, using the same idiom, he himself came forth to Daniel (*9:23 yatza’ dabar. * 9:25 min-motza’ dabar *). But as the one was fulfilled through Gabriel, so the other remained to be fulfilled through the Persian monarch, in whose hands God had left, for the time, the outward disposal of His people. In themselves, the will and decrees of God are in all eternity; but His immutable decree seems then to go forth, when He, in Whose hands are all things, so disposes men’s wills, that it comes into effect. But, since there was no decree at all in favour of the Jews before Cyrus B.C. 536, it might be startling enough to one who does not yet believe in prophecy, that, even from Cyrus, the 490 years come within forty-six years of our Lord’s Birth; and that, although there were four different edicts, from which the 490 years might begin, these too admit of no vague coincidence. They do but yield four definite dates. There is a distance of 90 years from the 1st of Cyrus to the 20th of Artaxerxes Longimanus, but the dates within those 90 years, from which the prophecy could seem to be fulfilled, are only four. Those dates are, 1) The first year of Cyrus, B.C. 536 (*Ezr. 1:1-4; 6:3-5.*); 2) The third year of Darius Hystaspes, B.C. 518, when he removed the hindrances to the rebuilding of the temple, interposed by Pseudo-Smerdis; 3) The commission to Ezra in the 7th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, B.C. 45 8/7; 4) That to Nehemiah, in the 20th year of the same Artaxerxes, B.C. 444. These would give, as the close of the 490 years, respectively, the end of 46, B.C. 29, B.C. 32, A.D. 46, A.D. (*Ezr. 6:1-12. Zerubbabel and Sheatiel, encouraged by Haggai and Zechariah, resumed the building of the temple in the second year of Darius; (Ezr. 4:24; 5:1,2) they were accused to Darius, (v. 3-end) and thereon they received the decree, which would be in the next year.*)  (* The grounds for identifying Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7, 11, 23) with Pseudo-Smerdis are 1) the enemies of the Jews seem to have sent to each successive king of Persia. They hired counsellors in the days of Cyrus, (4:5.) They accused the Jews in the days of Ahasuerus. (4:6.) They wrote to Artaxerxes, (4:7, &c.) and subsequently to Darius, (v.6 sqq.) But Darius being Darius Hystaspes, the two intervening names can be no other than Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis. Ezra, who mentions them, says that the temple was finished in the 6th year of Darius, (6:15) and so, before Artaxerxes Longimanus. 2) Pseudo-Smerdis was a religious persecutor, destroying temples and worship. (Behistun Inscr. c. i. par. 14. in Rawl. Herod, ii. 595.) 3) We know that Darius undid acts of the usurper, (lb.) and this is more likely Uian that kings of Persia should reverse their own formal acts, (which were held sacrosanct, from the relation in which they were supposed to stand to Ormuzd,) or those of their predecessors. Both names, Ahasuerus (i. q. Xerxes, see Ges. Thes. v. (’Ahashueros) p. 75.) and Artaxerxes, were names of honor.*)

                ((* I have adhered to the authoritative Chronology of the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes. Diodorus (xi. 69.) says that Xerxes was murdered by Artabanus, after reigning more than 20 years, when Lysitheus was Archon at Athens. OI. 78. 4. B.C. 465. “According to the Canon, he died N.E. 283, i.e. after Dec. 17, B.C. 466, and before Dec. 17, B.C. 465, which coincides with the year of Lysitheus.” Clinton. (Fast. Hell. B.C. 465.) Eusebius agrees with this. Manetho also assigns the same length to the reign of Xerxes, 21 years, (quoted by Africanus ap. Syncell. p. 75. D. Clinton, F.H. c. 18. ii. 380. note.) This length of reign corresponds with the dates assigned to his father Darius, and to Artaxerxes, to whom 41 years are given by Manetho, (lb.) 40 by Diodorus, (lb. and xi. 69.) which agrees with Thucydides, (iv. 50) who mentions his death in the Archonship of Stratocles B.C. 42, 43, 44 (Clinton, p. 380). The accession of Artaxerxes, after the 7 months of the assassin Artabanus, would fall in latter parts of 464, B.C.

                The difficulties, raised by Kruger and insisted on by Hengstenberg, (Christol. iii. 167-179) relate to Greek Chronology chiefly, in that Themistocles arrived at the court of Persia when Artaxerxes had recently come to the throne, (Thuc. i. 137) and addressed his letter to him. (lb.) But it is said that there are too few events to fill up the time from Platrea B.C. 479, to B.C. 465, and, specifically, that Themistocles, whose flight followed immediately on the death of Pausanias, passed by the Athenian fleet, while besieging Naxos. (Thuc. i. 137.) But, it is alleged, that Pausanias was so precipitate, that the discovery of his treasonable correspondence is not likely to have been delayed until B.C. 466, and that Diodorus places the victories of the Eurymedon, which were later than that of Naxos, B.C. 470. (xi. 60, 1.) But, first, as to Pausanias, although in the first instance, his conceit, at the prospect of Persian greatness, absurdly betrayed him, (Thuc. i. 130) there is no reason that he should not have learned experience, after he had been twice sent for to Sparta for trial. (Thuc. i. 131, 133) He must have had prolonged communications with Artabanus, since the suspicions of the bearer of the last letter were aroused by the fact that “no one of the messengers before him had returned,” they having, in fact, been put to death at the request of Pausanias. At Sparta, moreover, where he was of course watched, greater precautions were absolutely necessary. He had betrayed himself, when at a distance, in Thrace, at Byzantium and Colonae of Troy. (Thuc. i. 130, 1) Diodorus also (xi. 54, 5) placed the ostracism of Themistocles, at the earliest, in the Archonship of Praxiergus; (Ol. 77. 2. B.C. 47 1/6) but Pausanias did not open his plans to Themistocles until after this time, when Themistocles was in exile at Argos. (Plutarch, Them. c. 23.) The sojourn also of Themistocles at Argos was of long duration, since it is said, that “he had his abode there, but visited repeatedly (epiphoitōn) the rest of Peloponnesus.” (Thuc. i. 135.) This agrees with the time ordinarily assigned to his flight, after that the Lacedaemonians, upon the conviction and death of Pausanias, had demanded that he should be brought to public trial, viz. 466, two years before the accession of Artaxerxes B.C. 464.

                The date of the siege of Naxos is proximately determined by the expedition against Thasos which followed after the battle of Eurymedon, which itself was subsequent to that of Naxos. For the expedition against Thasos was simultaneous with the attempt to settle 10,000 Athenians and their allies at what became Amphipolis; (Thuc. i. 100.) but this attempt was 32 years after the like destruction of those led by Aristagoras of Miletus. (lb. iv. 102.) But his attempt was in the 3rd year of the Ionian war, B.C. 497. (See Clinton, F.H.A. 497, 465 and T. ii. p. 317. c. 9. Amphipolis). The revolt of Thasos then was in 465, and the siege of Naxos may very probably have been in the preceding year. It is by an evident oversight, that Diodorus, having put together the victories of Cimon, from Elon which was reduced at last by famine (Her. vii. 107.) to the victories at Eurymedon (as he had, just before, the history of Themistocles,) stated that they took place in one year. (xi. 63.) Probably it was the date only of the reduction of Scyros. (Grote, v. 410. note.) The hints of Thucydides and Herodotus suggest, (as Grote first pointed out,) a large series of events between B.C. 477, the beginning of Athenian ascendency, and B.C. 465, ample to fill up the period; viz. the reduction of fortresses held by the Persians; the gradual change of the Athenian “headship” (hegemony) to “rule;” the decline of the Delian synod; the change made, at the wish of the allies, when tired of active service, from personal service to contributions in money and, ultimately, to tribute; implying also a period of naval and military service on the part of the Athenians, which obtained to them that ascendency. Elon, Scyros, Carystos, Naxos were the scenes of events, which were but specimens only of a large whole. (See Grote, Greece, c. 45 p. 390-415). Doriscus, when Herodotus wrote, had repeatedly been besieged, and as yet in vain. (Her. vii. 106. Rawl. iv. 93. note 1).

                Further, Justin (iii. 1.) represents Artabanus, as unapprehensive about Artaxerxes, being “quite a boy” (puer admodum) and, on that ground, feigning that Xerxes had been murdered by his other son Darius, who was a youth. It is said to be improbable, that Artaxerxes should be thus young, if his father had reigned 21 years. But Justin contradicts himself. For, in the same place, he speaks of Artaxerxes as “a youth,” (adolescens) and ascribes to him the rapid counsel and the strength of one matured. Artaxerxes, he says, on learning the treason of Artabanus, ordered a review of the army the next day, In which the skill which each had in arms should be tried; and when Artabanua came armed to it, he proposed to him to change his breastplate with him, (his own, he pretended, being too short,) and then, when he had taken it off, thrust him through with his sword, and had his sons apprehended.

                These are the only weighty objections alleged. They have not made any impression on our English writers who have treated of Grecian history. I have considered them, out of respect to Hengstenberg, who attaches much weight to them, and so assumes as the terminus a quo B.C. 455, being, as he thinks, the 20th year of Artaxerxes, but, according to the usual Chronology, his 11th year. His era differs then only by 3 years from that which I have adopted, after Prideaux. (Connection, ii. 14 sqq.). It is also preferred by a Lap. ad loc. and, of older writers, by Aquinas in Dan. Opp. T. xviii. p. 37.*))

                But further, of these four, two only are principal and leading decrees; that of Cyrus, and that in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. For that of the 20th year of Artaxerxes is but an enlargement and renewal of his first decree as the decree of Darius confirmed that of Cyrus. The decrees of Cyrus and Darius relate to the rebuilding of the temple; those of Artaxerxes to the condition of Judah and Jerusalem.

                But the decree of Darius was no characteristic decree. It did but support them in doing, what they were already doing without it.

                The decree of Artaxerxes was of a different character. The temple was now built. So the decree contains no grant for its building, like those of Cyrus  and Darius (* The decree of Cyrus, as relates to the grant, is embodied in that of Darius. 6:3-5.*)   (*7:27.*). Ezra thanks God that “He had put it into the king’s heart, to beautify (not, to build) the house of the Lord in Jerusalem.” On the other hand, the special commission of Ezra, was  to enquire concerning Juda and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God, which is in thy heart, and to set magistrates and judges, which may Judge all the people that are beyond the river (* lb. 14, 25.*). These magistrates had power of life and death, banishment, confiscation, imprisonment, conferred upon them (* lb. 26.*). It looks as if the people were in a state of disorganization. Ezra had full powers to settle it according to the law of his God, having absolute authority in ecclesiastical and civil matters. The little colony, which he took with him, of 1683 males (with women and children, some 8400 souls) was itself a considerable addition to those who had before returned, and involved a rebuilding of Jerusalem. This rebuilding of the city and reorganisation of the polity, begun by Ezra and carried on and perfected by Nehemiah, corresponds with the words in Daniel, From the going forth of a commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.

                The term also corresponds. Unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two (7 + 62) weeks, i.e. the first 483 years of the period, the last 7 being parted off. But 483 years from the month Nisan (March or April, as the year might be,) 458, B.C., in which Ezra had his own mission from Artaxerxes and began his journey, were completed at Nisan, 26, A.D. which (according to the ordinary belief that the Nativity was 4 years earlier than our era) would coincide with John’s Baptism, soon after the beginning of which, the descent of the Holy Ghost upon our Lord at His Baptism manifested Him to be the Anointed with the Holy Ghost, the Christ. (* “Upon the first day of the first month, began he to go up from Babylon.” (Ezr. 7:9). The date “the 7th year of the king” is in v. 8. The Attic year beginning with Hecatombaeon, nearly our July, the first year of Artaxerxes, which fell in the Archonship of Lysitheus, coincided with 46, 45, 44 B.C., the seventh year with 45, 49, 502, and, since the Jews retained the order of their months, even while they dated the years like their masters, the first month in the 7th year would fall in Nisan, i.e. the spring of 458, B.C. (*Acts 10:38.*)

                Further still, the whole period of 70 weeks is divided into three successive periods, 7, 62, 1, and the last week is subdivided into two halves. It is self-evident that, since these parts 7, 62, 1, are equal to the whole, viz. 70, it was intended that they should be. Every writer wishes to be understood; the vision is announced at the beginning, as one which is, on thought, to be understood. I am come to give thee skill and understanding; therefore understand the matter and consider the vision (*9:22,23.*). Yet, on this self-evident fact that the sum of the parts is intended to be the same as the whole, every attempt to explain the prophecy, so that it should end in Antiochus Epiphanes, or in any other than our Lord, (as we shall see,) shivers. On the other hand, the subordinate periods, as well as the whole, fit in with the Christian interpretation. It were not of any account, if we could not interpret these minor details. “De minimis non curat lex.” [law cares not for minor things]. When the whole distance is spanned over, it matters not, whether we can make out some lesser details. Men believe that Mount Athos was severed, because they can trace here and there a portion of the canal. Science assumes, as certain, whatever is presupposed by what it knows already. But, in the prophecy of the 70 weeks, the portions also can be traced. The words are From the going forth of a commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven (7) weeks and threescore and two (62) weeks; street and wall shall be restored and builded; and in strait of times. And after threescore and two (62) weeks shall Messiah be cut off.         (* The Jews put the main stop of the verse under (shibu`ah), meaning to separate the two numbers, 7 and 62. This they must have done dishonestly, (lt`n hmynym) (as Jarchi says in rejecting literal expositions which favoured the Christians) “on account of the heretics,” i.e. Christians. For the later clause, so divided off, could only mean, “and during threescore and two weeks street and wall shall be being restored and builded,” i.e. that Jerusalem should be 434 years in rebuilding, which would be senseless. Yet critics, who correct the text ad libitum, have all at once discovered in this case the value of the tradition of the Hebrew accents. Leng. p. 446. Hitz. p. 161.*)

                ((* The construction of the E.V., street and wall, is the most natural, both in itself and in the context, since pairs of words are used in this prophecy; “on thy people and on thy holy city;” “to seal vision and prophet;” “to restore and to build;” “the city and the sanctuary;” “sacrifice and oblation.” The Verss. also have so understood it. (oikodomēthēsetai eis platos kai eis mēkos), LXX. (periteichos), Theod. Ald.; (teichos),Theod.Vat.; muri, Vulg.; “street,” Syr.; (skamma), Gr. Ven. They may have had a traditional knowledge, that (charutz), orig. “fosse,” may have been used of any “fence.” Else a “fosse” was not a “fence” actually used for Jerusalem; for the circuit of Jerusalem then lay along the brows of hills, so that there was no occasion for a fosse, the declivity of the hill being more than any fosse. Nor is there any trace of a fosse around any part of the then Jerusalem. Nor is there any extant instance, in which (charutz) or (charitz) is used even of a ” fosse.” (charitz) in Targ. Job 38:25 corresponds to (te‘alah) “watercourse;” and in the Baba kama c. 5. is said to be used of a ditch, broad below, narrow above; (Buxt. Lex. col. 833.) In other instances, in Abulvalid and Kimchi, it is used of a narrow incision. But the word (charutz) etymologically signifies, “a thing cut,” and may, in the living language, have been used by a metaphor, analogous to (batzur), ” cut, cut off, inaccessible.” The meaning, “watercourse,” would itself also have a good sense, “street and watercourse,” since the supplies of water so provided were so essential to the well-being of the city and to its defense against an enemy. Still this would involve the use of an uncommon word in the place and meaning of a common word.

                2. In support of another rendering, and the street shall be built, yea, it is determined; and in straitness of times, is the use of (necheratzah) 27; (necheretzeh) 26; and of (charutz) Is. 10:22, explained (necheratzah)  lb. 23. Probably (chutztzabh) Nah. 2:8 is used with a like parenthesis; see ib. But, against it, is the unlikelihood, that words, so naturally conjoined, should be altogether severed. *))

                Obviously, unless there had been a meaning in this division, it would have stood, “shall be threescore and nine weeks,” “not, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.” For every word in this condensed prophecy has its place and meaning, and the division would be unmeaning, unless something were assigned to this first portion. The text does assign it. It says, the street shall be restored and be builded; arid that, in troublous times.

                The books of Ezra and Nehemiah give the explanation. Ezra came to Jerusalem, B.C. 458; he laboured in restoring the Jewish polity, within and without, for 13 years before Nehemiah was sent by Artaxerxes, B.C. 445 (*Neh. 2:1 *). Nehemiah, as governor, laboured together with Ezra for 12 years, from the twentieth (20th) year even unto the two and thirtieth (32nd) year of Artaxerxes the king, twelve (12) years (*lb. 5:14 *).Then he returned to the king, and after an undefined time, at the end of days, he says, obtained I leave of the king, and came to Jerusalem (*Ib. 13:6 *). The interval probably was not short; for there had been time for corruptions to creep in, nor is the king likely to have sent him back soon; else why should he have returned at all? The mention of Eliashib’s son, Joiada, being high priest then, in place of his deceased father, fixes this second visit probably in the reign of Darius Nothus, in whose 11th year Eliashib is said to have died (*Neh. 13:28. comp. 12:10, 22.  *Chron. Alex. Olymp. 78. p. 162, 163 *).  The expulsion of one of his sons who had become son-in law to Sanballat, and regulation of the wards of the priests and Levites, are among the last acts of reform which Nehemiah mentions in his second visit; with them he closes his book. Now from the seventh (7th) year of Artaxerxes to the eleventh (11th) of Darius Nothus are 45 years. But it was in the period of the high priesthood of Joiada, not precisely in the very first year, that this reform took place. We have any how for the period of the two great restorers of the Jewish polity, Ezra and Nehemiah conjointly, a time somewhat exceeding 45 years; so that we know that the restoration was completed in the latter part of the 7th week of years, and it is probable that it was not closed until the end of it. (*This explanation of the 7 weeks is brought out by Prideaux, Connection, P. 1. B. 5. p. 47-50. and 17 sqq. Even Winer, Real-Lex. v. Nehemiah, admits that he is probably right as to the date of Darius Ochus, the 45 years. *)   In regard to the strait of times, amid which this restoration was to take place, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are the commentary. Up to the completion of the walls, there was one succession of vexations on the part of the enemies of the Jews. Their abiding condition they confess in both periods to God; for our iniquities we have been delivered into the hands of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to a spoil, and to confusion of face, as at this day. And now for a little space grace hath been shewed from the Lord, to leave us a remnant to escape —to give us a little reviving in our bondage, for bondsmen are we, and in our bondage our God hath not forsaken us (*Ezr. 9:7-9 *) . In Nehemiah’s time, the great public confession of sin closes with the same statement; Behold we are bondsmen this day, and the land which Thou gavest to our fathers, to eat the fruit thereof and the good thereof, behold, we are bondsmen in it; and it yieldeth much increase unto the kings which Thou hast set over us, because of our sins; and over our bodies they have dominion, and over our cattle at their pleasure, and in great distress are we (*Neh. 9:36, 37 *) .

                The next division, 62 weeks, completes the period up to the time of the Messiah. Its two extreme points were marked, its beginning by the close of the 7 weeks or 49 years, its end by the Coming of the long-longed for, the Christ. It is in harmony with the other prophecies of Daniel, that what is filled up in one place, is bridged over in another. In the vision of the 4 Empires, the 2nd and 3rd are but slightly touched on; the brief notice is expanded in the 7th and 11th chapters. Other prophecies had, as their foreground, the events of world-empires. The subject of this was the people of God and the Messiah.

                The ever-recurring character of prophecy is thus apparent here also, that those two points, which concerned them most, are the most prominent; —the restoration of the polity in the nearer future, and, in the distant future, the crowning acts of God’s mercy and judgment, the blessings in Christ and the close of the temporal relation of God to His people. The intervening period would have occupied a disproportioned place here, and so is omitted.

                Not in, but after those threescore and two (62) weeks, it is said, Messiah shall be cut off; and there shall not be to Him, i.e. as the context implies, the city and the sanctuary shall be His no more. Then follows the subdivision of the last week, or seven years, wherein He was to be cut off, since He was to be cut off, and yet not in the 69 weeks. He shall make firm a covenant with many during one week; and in the midst of the week He shall make sacrifice and oblation to cease. He speaks not of a temporary suspension of sacrifices, but of the entire abolition of all which had been offered hitherto, the sacrifice (*zebach), with the shedding of blood, and the oblation (*minchah), the unbloody sacrifice which was its complement. These the Messiah was to make to cease three years and a half (3½ yrs) after that new covenant began, whether this was at first through the ministry of the Baptist or His own. It seems to me absolutely certain, that our Lord’s ministry lasted for some period above three years. For S. John mentions by name three Passovers (*2:13; 6:4 and the last *); and S. Matthew’s mention of the disciples rubbing the ears of corn relates to a time near upon a Passover (*S. Matt. 12:1 sqq. *), later than the first, (for John had been cast into prison (*lb. 11:2 *). yet earlier than the last but one, for it preceded the feeding of the 5000, which itself preceded that Passover (*6 lb. 14:15 S. John 6:4-10. Sūsskind brought out the argument, (in Bengel’s Archiv. i. 186-194) and observed that, even if the corn were ripe before the Passover, it would not have been ripe some weeks before it, yet the history in St Matt. 12 must have been, at least, some weeks before that in S. Matt. 14 which was itself before the Passover *). This bears out the opinion, which is in itself nearly certain, that the intermediate feast, mentioned by S. John, is the Passover.    (* The feast, S. John 5:1., must have been one of the three great feasts, 1) because of the addition, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, i.e. He went up in consequence of that feast. 2) No other feast is called “a feast of the Jews,” i.e. one binding upon all. The dedication-feast and the feast of Purim were not of obligation, and the feast of Purim was kept anywhere. (Jos. Ant. xi. 6. end.) 3) The first Passover had been spoken of, a few verses before, as the feast. (4:45 twice.) Had a different feast been intended, it would have been specified. 4) The Passover alone is spoken of in the Gospels as the feast. (S. Matt. 26:5; 27:15; S. Mark 15:6; S. Luke 2:42; 23:17 S. John above.) The feast of Tabernacles is named, S. John 7:2. “Since the Jews held the Pascha to be the special and first feast, the Evang. at times defines it further, the Pascha, the feast of the Jews, was nigh; at times not, there was Pascha, feast of the Jews.” Chron. P. p. 406. 8. Irenaeus adds the Pascha ii. 22, 3. Cod. Sinait. has the art. 5) The events in 8. John ii. 23-iv. 54. require more space than from Pascha to the feast of Tabernacles. 6) The words, there are yet 4 months and then cometh harvest, (S. John 4:35.) imply that the next feast was Pascha. The assumption, that the feast, S. John 5:1., was the feast of Purim, has nothing in its favour, and is excluded by Susskind’s argument (n. 6.) and by grounds 1, 2, 3, 5. Hengst. notices in addition, (from Reland, Antiq. iv. 9. and Schickard, De Festo Purim, Crit. Sacr. iii. p. 1185.) that the feast of Purim was celebrated in such sort, that our Lord would not have been present at it, and that it was not held on the Sabbath, whereas the festival, S. John 5, included the Sabbath.*)     Our Lord’s parable of the fig-tree virtually  asserts, that a period of some three years of special culture of God’s people had preceded.  Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree and find none; and that one year remained, let it alone this year also (*S. Luke 13:7 *). The cursing of the barren fig-tree and its instant withering, just before His Passion and the final pronunciation of its sentence, seems to be the symbolical declaration, that that year of respite was over, and its doom was fixed. (*S. Matt. 21:19 *)   (*lb.  23:34-39. *)

                The city was devoted, the punishment irreversible; the Messiah’s office would be, not with the people as a whole, but with the many who would be saved out of it, with whom the new covenant would be confirmed. The remaining 3 ½ years probably mark the time, during which the Gospel was preached to the Jews, before the preaching to the Samaritans shewed that the special privilege of the Jews were at an end, and that the Gospel embraced the world. We have not the chronological data to fix it.

                But the fact of these several periods being prophesied, and the last, above six hundred (600) years before, is the body not the soul of the prophecy; it is not that which bears chief evidence of its divinity.

                Human history recurs in cycles.  The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun (*Eccl. 1:9). Empires fall or rise gradually; so the prediction of the fall or rise of an empire within such latitude might have left the fulfilment uncertain. The main subject of Daniel’s prediction is single and alone in time, and reaches on through eternity. From eternity to eternity there hath not been nor shall be its like. Men may dispute whether it hath been they cannot dispute that, for 1800 years, what Daniel predicted has been believed to have been. The conception remains the same, even antecedent to our conviction of its truth. That then, which was foretold to Daniel, in answer to his confession of his own sins and of the sins of his people, of their iniquities and transgressions, and to his prayer for pardon, was a promise of absolute forgiveness of sins. (*The meaning of (lekalleʼ) is clear from the context, whether it be derived from (kalaʼ) (i.q. kleiō and kōkuō) “shut, hinder,” then, “close;” or i.q. (kalah) 1) “complete;” 2) ” finish,” bring to an end. (kalaʼ) does not indeed occur elsewhere in Piel, but that is no reason why it should not. *) Seventy seven-times (70 7s) are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to close the transgression, and to seal up sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity. (* (kopher), when God is the subject, signifies “forgive;” when man, it is the “atoning for,” “making the typical propitiation for sin;” covering it by making that offering, for the sake of which it is covered, or put out of God’s sight. The context implies, that it would be one act, which should so atone. *)    Sin was to be done away, hid out of sight, forgiven. The words, which Daniel had so often repeated in his deep intercessory prayer, sins, iniquity, transgression, the thought of which lay so heavy upon him, are now repeated to him in mercy, to assure him the more emphatically through that threefold repetition, that God would put them away as if they had not been. But the mere removal of sin is imperfect. The threefold complement is added; to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint a Holy of holies. These were to be gifts of God at the close of that 70th week; to be given, as they had never been given before, and the righteousness, so given, to last on to eternity. The very delay is a token of its greatness. God’s gifts are with usury. It was no common forgiveness of sins, the publication of which was to be delayed, according to the letter of the prophecy, at least half a thousand (500) years. They were not the past sins of his people, such as had brought upon them the captivity. The words are quite in the abstract, transgression, sins, iniquity. The fulfilment would have fallen short of the prophecy, unless, not their sins only but, sin in the abstract had been remitted. They were not only to be remitted; they were to be replaced. Hitherto there had been continual sacrifice for sin, a symbolical remission of all sins on the Day of Atonement, wonderful for its completeness as a picture, but incomplete; even because that wonderful picture was, year by year, renewed. Hitherto, there had been many atonements for man’s several sins. God here speaks of one act, atoning not for particular sins, but for sin. Once, in the future, at the end of the 70 weeks, there should be an atoning for all iniquity, i.e. for all of it, past, present, or to come. Then, all sin was to be atoned for, and He Who ended and forgave it, was to bring in everlasting righteousness. Bring in! Then, it was to dwell, to make its abode, to have its home, there. Everlasting! Then it was never to be removed, never worn out, never to cease, not to pass with this passing world, but to abide thence forth, coeternal with God, its Author and Giver. Righteousness had been promised before, as the gift of the times of the Messiah. It is what man, being made for God, yearned and yearns for.  (*Is. 46:13 *) I bring near My righteousness; it shall not be far off; and My salvation shall not tarry; and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel My glory. My righteousness is near. Lift up your eyes to the heavens and look upon the earth beneath; for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner; but My salvation shall be forever, and My righteousness shall not be abolished. My righteousness shall be forever, and My salvation from generation to generation. (*lb. 51:5,6, 8 add 45:17 *). It was the close of that great prophecy of our Lord’s atoning Death; My righteous servant shall make many righteous (*ls. 53:11 (yatzdiq tzaddiq ʻabdi)). Jeremiah had foretold, that God would raise unto David a Righteous branch, and that the name whereby He shall be called should be, The Lord our Righteousness. Daniel foretells the same; his prophecy joins on with theirs in substance; but he, first, adds the time of its fulfilment.

                And in that fulfilment, all prophecy was to be fulfilled. All hitherto had been a longing for that hour. That hour come, God set His seal upon vision and prophet. Their first office was fulfilled. To seal up vision and prophet, is not, to seal up any one vision or prophet. The words are purposely placed undefined, in order to mark that they are to be understood without any limitation, not of any one vision or prophet, but of vision and prophet generally (* (chazon) is used collectively Is. 1:1; 2nd Chr. 32:32. So both (chazoth) and (nebuʼah) 2nd Chr. 9:21. Kleinert, Aechtheit Ies. p.11 *). As our Lord said, All the prophets and the law prophesied until John(*S. Matt. 11:13 *). It is all one, whether by the word, seal, we understand, set His seal to, “accredited,” as our Lord speaks, Him hath God the Father sealed; or “completed.” (*S. John 6:27. So of man’s corresponding act in believing, lb. 3:33, he that hath received His testimony, has set to his seal, (esphragisen) that God is true. *) (* (chatham), “sealed,” receives its nearer definitions from the object with which a thing is sealed. It is determined by the context. A thing was sealed in a purse, to be retained, Job 14:17; a deed, covenant, letter was sealed, to be authenticated, Jer. 32:10, 11, 44; Neh. 10:1,2; 1st Kings 21:8. ‘So in its metaph. use, God is said to seal the stars, c. (beʻadh), as it were, “sealed them up,” withholding them from shining, Job 9:7; to seal the hand of man, c.(be-), hindering him from using it, Job 37:7; He sealeth up their (man’s) instruction, c. (be), i.e. impresseth it on him, lb. 33:16. So here sin is “sealed up” to be put out of sight, seen no more; vision and prophecy are sealed, i.e. authenticated. The use of the word, although different in the two clauses, is not ambiguous, being, in each case, ruled by the context. So further Pineda on Job  37:7)     Daniel says before, what S. Peter said near 600 years after, when the events came to pass; those things which God before had shewed by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled. (*Acts 3:18. “What is this which he says, to seal up vision and prophecy? That all prophets announced of Him, that He was to come, and had to suffer. Since then prophecy was fulfilled by His Coming, therefore he said, that vision and prophecy were sealed, because He is the seal of all the prophets, filling up all things which the prophets heretofore announced of Him. For after the Coming of Christ and His Passion, there is no more vision or prophet to announce that Christ should come.” Tert. adv. Jud. c. 8. p. 215. Rig. *).    The remaining clause, and to anoint an All-holy, must be spiritual, since all else is spiritual. It cannot be spoken of the natural “holy of holies,” which, in contrast to the holy place, is always “the holy of holies“; “never” holy of holies.” (* (qodash haqqadashim) is used 13 times of “the holy of holies,” (Ex. 26:33,34; Num. 4:4, 19; 1st Kings 6:16; 7:50; 8:6; 1st Chr. 6:34. (40, Eng.) 2nd Chr. 3:8, 10; 4:22; 5:7; Ezek. 41:4.) and these with one exception (1st Chr. 6:34.) occurring in the first directions about it, in the law or the building of the temple or Ezekiel’s symbolical temple. It is used also in one place of “the holy place,” as being relatively the holiest place for that purpose, the consuming of the sacrifice. Num. 18:10. “The holy of holies” is even oftener spoken of under another name, (debir) [oracle, speaking-place] (16 times) *)     Still less is it the material temple, as a whole, since the temple, as a whole, is never called by the name of a part of it. “Holy of holies,” lit. “holiness of holinesses,” i.e. All-holiness, is a ritual term, used to express the exceeding holiness, which things acquire by being consecrated to God. It is never used to describe a place, but is always an attribute of the thing, and, in one place, of the person, who is spoken of.  (*Ex. 30:10, 29, 36; Lev. 2:3, 10; vi. 10, 18, 22  [17, 25, 29  Eng.]; 7:1, 6; 10:12, 17; 14:13; 24:9; 27:28; Ezek. 43:12. It is used in apposition to the thing spoken of, Ex. 29:37; 40:10; Ezek. 45:3. *)  It is most holy. Aaron was separated, to hallow him all-holy (*1st Chr. 23:13 *). The destruction of the temple, as having been previously profaned, is the close of this prophecy (*9:26, 27 *) . The prophecy promised an All-holy, which should be anointed, for the holy place which should be destroyed; as our Lord speaks of the temple of His Body (*S. John 2:19, 21 *). At His Birth He was announced as, the Holy Thing which shall be born of thee (*S. Luke 1:35 (to ʻhagion *). The Holy One became His title, Who Alone was without sin (*Acts 3:14; 4:27, 30; 1st S. John 2:20; add 8. John 10:36; 17:19 *). The devils knew him, as the Holy One of God (*S. Mark 1:24; S. Luke 4:34. *).

                Anointing was the well-known symbol of sanctity through the Spirit of God. The Lord hath anointed thee, Samuel said to Saul, captain over His inheritance; and then, the Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy and shalt be turned into another man (*1st Sam. 10:1, 6). When Saul had forfeited the gift, Samuel, at God’s command, anointed David, and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward (*lb. 16:13.*). The “holy oil” had probably long been lost. Anyhow, it was among the things which the Jews missed in the 2nd temple. Material anointing had ceased. But anointing had entered into the symbolic language of prophecy in respect to the Christ. (*Is. 61:1,2.*) The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me; because the Lord hath anointed Me, to preach good tidings unto the meek. He hath sent Me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and to those that are bound, a great deliverance u, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord : and, Thou lovest righteousness and hatest iniquity; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (*puqachequach, intensive*) (*Ps. 45:7*).  This symbolical meaning of the anointing is fixed by the next words of the prophecy; unto Messiah the Prince…..

                Look then at this harmonizing prophecy as a whole, the completeness of its symmetry, its complicated harmony. Look at the elements which are combined together. There is a whole of time, 490 years, distributed into periods of 49, 434, and 3½ years, twice repeated, and these four periods not to be taken anyhow, but following in this exact order. Then, in this series of years, as in every other part of prophecy, there is a nearer prophetic foreground of events, whose fulfilment was to guarantee the more distant, the restoration of the city and polity in a period of 49 years from a decree to be issued. 434 years, from the end of those 49, were to reach to the Coming of Messiah the Prince. At a time within the 490 years, but after the first 483, i.e. in the last 7, Messiah was to be cut off; in the midst of those 7, he was to make sacrifice to cease, but to confirm a covenant, not with all, but with the many; transgression, sin, iniquity were to be effaced: everlasting righteousness was to be brought in; but city and sanctuary were to be destroyed by the overwhelming tide of the armies of a foreign prince; coming down upon the pinnacle of abominations, and the desolation was to endure.

                Marvellous blending of mercy and judgment, harmonizing with all God’s other ways, and with the prophecies that a remnant only would accept His mercies: yet inexplicable beforehand, and to be effected only by Divine power (* See on Joel 2:32 p. 199 *). The destruction and lasting desolation of city, temple, sacrifice, are closing traits of that vision which was to be the consolation of Daniel amid their present desolation, which was coming to an end. Sin is to be brought to an end and everlasting righteousness brought in; and yet the desolation is to come, because sin is at its height, and in possession of the holy place itself. The Messiah is to be cut off, and the people no more to be His (as a whole;) and yet He is to confirm the covenant with many; and this covenant must be plainly a new covenant, since the typical atonements for sin were to be abolished.

                All this meets in one in the Gospel. He, the so long looked-for, came; He was owned as the Messiah; He did cause the sacrifices of the law to cease; He was cut off; yet He did make the covenant with the many; a foreign army did desolate city and temple; the temple for these 1800 years has lain desolate; the typical sacrifices have ceased, not through disbelief in their efficacy on the part of those to whom they were once given. The city rose from its ashes, but not for them; long, not for them even to look upon, and, even now, to be strangers in it, not having a house of their own in the Holy City. (* This was stated to the Rev. O. Williams, author of “the Holy City,” by Signor Pierotti, (Architect under France to the Holy Land and Architect Engineer to Surraya Pasha of Jerusalem) the author of the excellent chart of Jerusalem, who had been for some time employed by the Turkish Government as Chief Surveyor of the public works. I mention this as a fact only, an illustration of its lasting desolation, a superabundance of fulfilment. That desolation of 1800 years would not be less signal, if, at any time, the Jews should anew acquire property in Jerusalem, preparing the way probably for Anti-Christ. *)

                Now what does the school of Porphyry give us in exchange? The failure in accounting for the periods of time in the prophecy is the least portion of their failure. The heterogeneousness of the events which they bring together, the unmeaningness of the whole, the impossibility of bringing the parts into any one connection, or so as to bear at all on the situation of Daniel or the people, evince yet more, that the unmeaningness, which they have brought into the prophecy, cannot be its meaning.

                First, as to time. Since the close of the 490 years, if counted even from the edict of Cyrus, falls 118 years after Antiochus, and within 42 years of our Lord’s Birth, the 118 years have to be removed. This is, for the most part, effected; thus, they assume that the ground of Daniel’s prayer was the nonfulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the restoration of the people and of the city. They say, “the 69th year was now come, and yet there was no appearance that the prophecy would be completed, for city and temple were still desolate (*v. Lengerke, pp. 407, 408*). Gabriel is sent to announce to him, that the 70 years of Jeremiah are not to be counted as common years, but as 70 weeks of years.” Thus the commencement of the 490 years is to be thrown back to some period of the captivity, and the first 49 years are to be disposed of before the date of the prophecy and the time of Cyrus. Then, because the years would still be too long, the 62 sevens (x7s) of years are to begin again at the same date. Cyrus is to be the Messiah of v. 25. The Messiah in v. 26. is to be a different person. Those chosen have been, Nebuchadnezzar, or Alexander, both of whom died by a natural death; (Alexander B.C. 323.) or Seleucus Philopator, who was poisoned by his treasurer Heliodorus, 175, B.C.; or Onias III. a deposed high priest, who was murdered by one Andronicus, a Syrian governor, at Daphne near Antioch, about 171, B.C., the murderer being put to death by Antioch us Epiphanes. (* See ab. Lect. 3. p.177*).   The prince who was to come is to be Antiochus, whose profanation of the temple was in December or January 16 8/7, B.C.

                The objectors, in this, strangely confuse the actual situation of Daniel in that 69th year of the captivity, and that of their own Pseudo-Daniel 3 centuries and a half (350 yrs) afterwards. To Daniel that 69th year was a year of longing expectation. The 70th year brought the fulfilment of the prophecy in Cyrus’ decree. In the time of the supposed Pseudo-Daniel, every instructed Jew knew that prophecy to have been fulfilled. The assumed nonfulfillment of the 70 years is in direct contradiction to the admitted testimony of those times. Zechariah alludes to it; Ezra asserts that the proclamation of Cyrus in the first year of his reign was in order to its fulfilment (*2nd Macc. 4:31-38.  *1:12 sqq.*).  (*Ezr. 1:1*) In the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, permitting the Jews to return, and aiding them to rebuild their temple. But, with this fact, the whole plea for dating back the 490 years is gone. It was a strange theory, that, on account of the non-fulfilment of a prophecy, at a time before that assigned for its fulfilment, another was commissioned to declare, that the 70 years, which the former prophet had predicted, were not to be 70 years, but 7 times 70 years. It would have been a mockery, declaring what Jeremiah had said in God’s Name to be false. For the words of Jeremiah admitted of no such extension. It was a definite prophecy, which, if not fulfilled, would have failed, which admitted of no eking out, (for 70 years would in no way have meant 490 years,) but which was believed at the time to be fulfilled, and which was fulfil led to the letter. The theory supposes the prophecy of the 70 weeks to have been written to explain the non-fulfilment of that, which they, to whom this amended prophecy is supposed to have been given, believed and knew to have been fulfilled.

                Then too, the words, from the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the prince, is 7 weeks and 62 weeks, cannot be disjoined. And this, on account both of the language and substance of the prophecy.

                In regard to its substance, the gifts which had just before, in the summary of the prophecy, been promised at the end of the 70 weeks, are those which all other prophets prophesied as gifts through the Messiah. No critic doubts of this, whether anyone believes that those promises were ever fulfilled or no. No rationalist interpreter questions that those promises were made, and were expected to be fulfilled in that “golden age,” the Coming of the Messiah. No one doubts of this, as to this prophecy. But then, since the times of the Messiah were, according to the admitted meaning of the words of the prophecy, to begin at the close of the 70 weeks, or 490 years, it could not be meant that the Messiah should come, when 1/10th only of the period had elapsed, at the end of the first 49.

                In regard to language; if the words, and threescore and two (62) weeks, were joined on to what follows, (as is required by this theory,) and threescore and two (62) weeks, the street shall be built again, and that in troublous times, then the meaning would be, that the street, i. e. the city, should be in building through that whole period of 434 years l, which is absurd in itself, and contrary to the theory, in that the first portion of the period, during which it is to be in building, would coincide with that in which it was to lie desolate, in the past Captivity 2. (* Lengerke acknowledges that Hengstenberg has shewn this. Ewald had laid down as a general rule, “In assigning dates, the accusative is used, if the action belongs to the whole period. But if you would express, that the action falls at a definite moment within a larger period, (be) must be used, as the Ablative is in Latin.” The only apparent exception is, where the larger space is itself very limited, and is used as a sort of adverb; as in German “you might say, diesen Tag, diese Stunde, diese Woche,” and we could say colloquially, “this month, this year,” for “within this month or this year;” but, “these seventy (70) years,” “diese siebenzig Jahre,” we or they could not say, except in the sense, “all through these seventy (70) years.” (hashshanah) “this year,” for,  ‘in the course of this year,’ ( Jer. 28:16) is so completely an adverb, that you cannot say (hashshanah hahiʼ) with the demonstr. Pron., but must say (bashshanah hahiʼ) , as it is in Jer. 28:17. So also (habbaʼim) Is. 27:6.” On the same principle, it would be contrary to the idiom, to construe with Lengerke, as a nominative absolute, and sixty and two (62) weeks —the street shall be built again. Without the addition of (bam), ” in them,” the words would express what was either in doing throughout the time, or what was done at the end of it, whereas the rebuilding of Jerusalem began, on the rationalist hypotheses, after the first ten (10), or seven (7) of the 62 weeks; in our belief, during the course of the seven (7). See Hengst. Christol. iii. 72, 3. Ewald, consistently, rendered, “throughout 62 weeks” (D. Proph. ii. 568) Maurer theorised that Seleucus might have contributed to the improvement of the city; Rosch asserted that the city was then completed. “He [Sel. Phil.] seems to have amplified the city which, beyond question, had been long ago restored.” Maur. “The completion of the building of the city under Seleucus IV.” Rosch, Stud. u. Krit. 1834. p. 288.)     (*2 ” They (Lengerke, &c.) maintain consistently,  that the building of the city Jerusalem was carried on during the captivity, or the time when it lay waste.” Wies. p. 103.)     Further, a decree to restore and build Jerusalem is, according to these theories, not to be any decree or commandment of God, but a prophetic promise. This is contrary to the idiom, both in itself and  in the context also, in that, the identical words having just been used of a direct command of God, those same words are now to signify, not a command, but a single prophecy. The words are, “from the going forth of a word,” (or “command,”) “to restore,” &c. It is word, not, “the word.” But “word,” simply and indefinitely, is not used to designate the word of God, or prophecy, apart from any mention that it is “the word of God,” any more than our “word” would be. But now, in the immediate context, the going forth of the word had been used of the issuing of a command from God to Gabriel, which command he obeyed. In no language would the same idiom be used in different senses in two places so closely adjacent. The prophecy of Jeremiah also, B.C. 606, was a prophecy of the desolation of Jerusalem and of the 70 years of the duration of that desolation. It was, as Daniel speaks of it in this chapter, the word of the Lord to accomplish 70 years in the desolations of Jerusalem. A prophecy, in God’s Name, of a desolation of the city for a limited period, involves that such desolation should last only for that period; yet it would be unheard of language to call the prophecy of that temporary desolation a word or promise to restore and rebuild it. Yet this is the only prophecy of Jeremiah, to which Daniel refers (*Jer. 25:9-11 *). Hosea, Amos, Micah, Isaiah had prophesied the restoration of Judah from captivity; Micah and Isaiah had specifically promised a restoration from Babylon. There is then no more ground to select a prophecy of Jeremiah that God would, after the 70 years, cause them to return to that place, than one of Micah and Isaiah. No one would think of representing those other prophecies as decrees to restore and build Jerusalem. Why? Because, when those prophecies were delivered, Jerusalem was not yet besieged, much less destroyed. There is no more reason to select a prophecy of Jeremiah, B.C. 606, than that of Micah, B.C. 758-26; i.e. there is no reason to take either.

                But, further, let people (which they will not allow to believers) place the beginning of the period where they will, they cannot make either the whole sum, or its several portions, agree with any event in history before Antiochus, if only they adhere to the obvious principle, that the parts are equal to the whole, and so, that 7 + 62 + 1 are the same as the 70 mentioned just before. This was, of course, in any honest way impossible. It was a postulate of “pure intellect,” that the prophecy should close in the life-time of the imagined author, accordingly not later than 164, 163, B.C., the date of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, which, since, on the hypothesis, the Man of God could not prophesy, he must be supposed to have outlived. But 164, -3 + 490 would carry us back to 654, 653, B.C. in the reign of Manasseh, before the birth of Jeremiah, whose prophecy was thus to be explained (* I see that Bōhmer consistently adopted this, as the beginning. See below, p. 216). Yet the axiom, that there could be no definite prediction, was more self-evident than what to our childhood seemed self-evident, that 2 and 2 make 4. Anyhow, man willed that the axiom should remain unquestioned, and the science of numbers had to give way before it. Granted, for the time, that Jeremiah’s prophecy of the desolation of Jerusalem could, by any human being, be seriously called, “the going forth of a word to restore and to build it;” still, from 606, B.C. there was an overplus of 48 years on the whole. Or, granted that the actual destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, when there was no contemporary prophecy of its restoration (* There is nothing to place the prophecy, Jer. 30:18 in that year. Hitzig assumes this as to “its genuine portions,” [i.e. what he, Hitzig, allows to be so,] on the ground that, as he thinks, Jer. 31:15. relates to that event), was that “word to restore and rebuild it,” this too, absurd as it was, left 30 years too much. But the difficulty as to the whole period was but the first item. Two other problems had to be worked out in harmony with the solution adopted for this. It was believed by most of the school, with a certainty equal to that claimed for revelation, that Messiah the prince (v. 26.) was Cyrus. Another Messias had to be found, who was to be cut off after the 62 weeks, or 434 years; also someone (since he was not to be the Messiah) who should “make a covenant with the many” for the last 7 years, in the midst of which 7 years he was to make sacrifice and oblation to cease, and at the end of which he was himself, (so the school agreed,) to come to an end.

                These were the impossible problems for unbelief to solve; it had to solve them for itself, which was, so far, easier; for nothing is impossible for unbelief to believe, except what God reveals.

                The impossible numbers were to be reduced somehow; men tried their hands all ways.

                One (*Lowenheim *) only was found to declare the three last verses at least a Rabbinical gloss; one or two only (it is almost strange that no more were found to support the scheme) declared that all the weeks were literal weeks. An essay of an English deist , who took this line, was almost unnoticed in England; was translated twice into German, “received with much applause,” but, in 7 years, “it was almost forgotten.” (* A Free Enquiry into Daniel’s Vision and Prophecy of 70 weeks. London, 1776. It was translated into German twice, in 1783 by Preiss, and in 1785.*) (* No trace of the book can now be found. It is not in the British Museum, nor in the University Libraries of Oxford or Cambridge. There is no notice of it in any English Bibliographical book, nor can one of our ablest booksellers discover it. It is just alluded to by Wintle on Daniel 9:24.*) [See Special Note at the end of this Selection, the Review of Thomas Payne’s book or essay referred to in this passage.]  (* Eichhorn, Allgem. Biblioth. Hi. 781-790. The English writer “referred ” the prophecy to ” Cyrus and the fate of the Jews in his time.” lb.*)  It was remoulded; but this, we are told, “found least reception of any.” (* Eckermann, Theol. Beitr. i. 1. p. 133 sqq.*)   (* Wieseler, Die 70 Wochen, p. 69.*)   (* Bertholdt, Daniel, p. 601.*)

                “Not until the light, which rose upon the theological world in the last century, had reached its full lustre,” the Germans tell us, “could Corrodi and Eichhorn succeed in winning their age to the right understanding of the passage.” Only, Corrodi was still so far benighted, that he thought that, take the numbers how men would, they must be real numbers. He saw too that the whole period must end with the Messiah. Since then the numbers, like water, did not admit of compression, and could not be condensed before the time of Epiphanes, and since there was no Messiah then, he detached the unreducible 49 years from the beginning and added them on to the end, so that, in lieu of Daniel’s divisions, 49, 434, 7, it was to be 434, 7, 49. (* Corrodi, Krit. Gesch. d. Chil. iii. 253. Wicseler, having first declared his solution “self-evidently arbitrary and at variance with the text,” afterwards adopted it.). The 434 years were to run from the prophecy of Jeremiah, B.C. 606, to Antiochus Epiphanes’ 1st invasion of Judaea, B.C. 170; the 7 years were to extend to B. C. 164,163, the death of Antiochus; and the 49 years, which, in Daniel, stand at the beginning, were to represent a period after the death of Antiochus, when the Messias is to have been expected to come, but did not. Corrodi’s plan conceded too much of the natural meaning, and was itself too obviously unnatural. It was, so far, the testimony of an opponent, that the natural interpretation was, that the prophecy should close with the coming of the Messiah, and that the numbers of years were to be real Bonafede years. So Eichhorn tried another way (* Allg. Bibliothck, d. Bibl. Iitt. B. 3. p. 793. Hebr. Proph. iii. 47.*). He revived a theory, which in Harduin had been reverential, (for he acknowledged a fuller fulfilment in Christ,) in Marsham was sceptical; and which, having found no soil in England to root in, had been transplanted to Germany, where it met a want, the want to be rid of the prophecy of Daniel.      (*Chronologia Vet. Test. Opera Selecta, p. 592 sqq. defended in his Diss. de LXX hebdom. Daniel, lb. p. 880 sqq. Collins (Scheme of Literal Prophecy, p. 175sqq.) in the main followed Harduin. The discrepancy of the first period, in this way, he gets over; thus, “All which, Chronology proves to have happened. For, from the 4th year of Jehoiakim, wherein the prophecy of the 70 years’ captivity, or of the deliverance from thence at the end of 70 years in the first of Cyrus, was made to Jeremiah, there are seven weeks or 49 years.” i.e. 49 are the same as 70. The supernumerary years, even from this date, he gets rid of, by supposing that two persons are prophesied in the words, “unto Messias the Prince,” in v. 25. so that the words should mean, ” unto Messias the prince, Cyrus, there shall be seven weeks (49 yrs), and unto another Messias prince there shall be 62 weeks (434 yrs).” Cyrus was the first; and “No one can doubt,” (he says, p. 182.) “that the name Messias belongs still better to Judas Maccabaeus, since he is called ‘the valiant man that delivered Israel,’ (1st Macc. 9:21.) and ‘your captain and fighting the battles of the people.’ ” (ii. 66.) The difficulty as to the 62 weeks and the one week (434 + 49 yrs = 483 yrs) he gets over summarily, by counting them together, so that they should contain the time from the 4th of Jehoiakim to A. S. 148, when the sanctuary was cleansed. The death of Antiochus, according to him, lay beyond the 63 weeks.)    (* Canon Chron. p. 610 sqq.  He closed with the words, meant to hint what he did not care to avow; “An ultra Epiphanem prospexerit Daniel, viderint alii.” [Not looking beyond Epiphane,  Daniel they see.])      The principle adopted from Marsham was, not to take the 70 weeks or 490 years, as one entire sum, but to divide them into two, so that the first period of 7 weeks or 49 years should somehow run parallel with the first portion of the 63 weeks, and so should not be counted. The selfsame years of time were to serve, as portions both of the 49 and of the 441 years; so that, in fact, the sum total was to be, not 490, but 441; a process like that of the steward, wise in his generation but unjust, who bade his Lord’s debtors write “fifty (50)” or “fourscore (80)” instead of a “hundred (100).” (*S. Luke 16:6,7.*)     Yet, even thus, the numbers 49 and 441 would not fit into the periods assigned to them. They could not be begun from any common date.

                There are 441 years from the 4th year of Jehoiakim, B.C. 606, to B. C. 165, the year when the temple was cleansed after the profanation by Antiochus; but from B.C. 606, to Cyrus, B.C. 536, (if he was to be made the Messiah of v. 25.) there were not 49 years only, but 70. How then was the number 49 to be accounted for at all? Harduin accounted for it in his way, by selecting, for the close of the 49 years, a date of his own, with which the Jews were not directly concerned, B. C. 557, which he assigned as the date of Cyrus’ conquest of Media (* p. 596.*). Marsham, in ignorance of Hebrew, took Daniel’s 3 weeks of fasting and prayer, in the third year of Cyrus, to be weeks of years (21 yrs), whereas they are expressly called weeks of days (21 dys)  and these 21 invented years were, in some not very intelligible way, to be deducted from the 70 years of the Captivity  (*Dan. 10:2. See E. Marg.). The 49 years then were to represent the remaining years of the Captivity, and to be dated from the expiration of the 21, which were somehow to be its first 21 years; while the 441 years, or, (as Marsham, again in ignorance of Hebrew, made them, 444½ years, were to commence from the original date 606, B.C. (* Rendering “half of a week (½ wk),”  instead of “the half, or midst of the week (½ of the 7),” i.e. of the one week just mentioned, as the use of the article requires, (chatzi hashshabuaʻ))   The 63½ weeks,=  444½ years, were to last from 4107 (A.C.M.) of the Julian Period to 4551(A.C.M.)    (i.e. from B.C. 607 to B.C. 163;) the 62 weeks were to reach to the beginning of the reign of Epiphanes; the one week was to be the time in which he had not profaned the temple s; the half week, the time from the capture of the city; the Messias to be cut off, were to be the high priests generally. (*p. 615. *p. 617. * p. 616.*)

                Marsham’s hypothesis, however, of the 21 years, which were to explain the 49, was obviously absurd, and in flagrant contradiction to the text. So Eichhorn tried to mend it in his way. He began, (as others after him,) at the end, as being the easiest. He paraphrased, rather than translated, but as no one else would;  “During a week of years, religion will shew its power with many;”  from A.S. 143, to the re-consecration of the temple at the beginning of A.S. 148, he counted 6 years, [of course, since he did not claim to count both extremities inclusively, from 143 to 148 are 5 years not 6; the actual persecution up to that time had lasted 3 years only :] “6 years might very well in poetry count for 7; the suspension of the daily sacrifice was to be 3½ [really 3] years.” (* Allgem. Biblioth. f. Bibl. Lit. iii. p. 787.*)  (* Literally, “the covenant will infuse might into many.” He recognised the right meaning of the word (berith), God’s covenant with man; but  1) if the prophet had meant to change the subject, and make (berith) the subject, he would have placed it before the verb.  2) (berith), often as it occurs as the object of a verb, never occurs as an agent.*)  Then he left the early part of Epiphanes’ reign a vacuum, and calculated that 62 weeks or 434 years would go back from the beginning of the reign of Epiphanes, when Onias was deposed, B.C. 175, to B. C. 609, 3 years only before Jeremiah’s prophecy: but “2 years” he said (*p. 791.*), “cannot come into account in a reckoning by septennia (7 yrs), since a round reckoning never troubles itself about a trifle.” Then, as to the 7 weeks, he took so far the plain meaning, that the decree to restore Jerusalem must be some actual command to rebuild it, and chose as his starting-point the first year of Cyrus. From 536, B.C. then, he said (*p. 792.*), the years, if counted forward, would come to no year of marked importance to the Jews: Messiah the prince must be an oppressor: and Xerxes, although very nearly one, was not. Counted backwards, 49 years would be, he says, only 2 years short of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, [really 3; he himself calls them 52 years.] All then, he says, was plain. It was to be a new interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy. “Jeremiah, when speaking of the 70 years of misfortune, [Jeremiah spake not of misfortune but of captivity] did not mean 70 years in their most special sense, but 70 seven-years. To the end of the captivity, were not 70 years, only 7 weeks or 49 years. But if you take 7 seven-years, and count in addition the 62 seven-years, which elapsed from the time when Jeremiah spoke, to Antiochus Epiphanes, and add the 7 years of his persecution, you have then the exact point of time when the new good- fortune of the Jews was to take its beginning.” In other words, because 70 years elapsed from the prophecy of Jeremiah to the end of the Captivity, but only 49 of these after the destruction of Jerusalem, therefore, on the one hand, you were to count 70 weeks of years, viz. 490 years, but, on the other, to deduct from them 49 years. Why? He says, “the word ‘after’ is used to mark succession of time; since then it is not used here, it is implied that the time is coincident.” In this way, by counting at one time backwards, at another forwards, and by dishonest criticism, Eichhorn, as far as he could, veiled the fact, that the simple words, “from the going forth of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem unto Messiah, (or, as he rendered, an Anointed Prince,) are 7 weeks and 62 weeks, street and wall shall be built,” were, according to him, to mean, “from Cyrus ‘command to restore and build Jerusalem unto the anointed prince Nebuchadnezzar who destroyed it, are 7 weeks, and during threescore and two weeks shall street and wall be rebuilt.” (* According to Eichhorn, the use of (’acharai) was to mark the succession of time, and for this he quoted v. 26,27 thus, (’acharai hashabu‘im shishshim ushaneim higebir berith larabbim shabu‘a  achar) paraphrasing, “after the 62 weeks of years, is a week of years to be sought, in which religion, &c,”  but he well knew that he had falsified the text, in which the order depends, not on the (’achri), but on the continuity of the narrative; “Messias shall be cut off, and he shall have nought, and city and sanctuary,” &c. (wehigebir not higebir) “and he shall confirm,” &c. So, contrariwise, he knew well that the words (wechatzi  hashabua‘  yashbith zabach) should be rendered, “the half of the week,” as he had rendered it, p. 786, not “a half week,” as, contrary to the Hebrew, he rendered, p. 796. But then the words themselves, “half of the week,” mark that the half week belongs to the week preceding, not the absence of (’acharey).) Threescore and two (62) weeks from when? Not from the command to rebuild it which he had selected; not from the destruction which he had specified; but from Jeremiah’s prophecy, before it was destroyed; so that the point of time prefixed to the whole, “from the going forth of the command, &c.” was, in regard to the first two words (* shabu‘im shib‘ah), “seven years,” to mean the decree of Cyrus, and for the next three words (* shabu‘im shishshim ushnaim), ” three score and two (62) weeks,” to mean the prophecy of Jeremiah, 70 years before it. Eichhorn owned the unnaturalness of all this, and called it “cabbalistic;” but the fault was to be with the prophet, not with his own non-natural interpretation. Eichhorn in this way veiled also the fact, that, even from Jeremiah’s prophecy, the 62 weeks or 434 years brought him to an unmarked period, the 5th year of Epiphanes (* 606-434= 172. Antiochus succeeded A.S. [Appian’s Syriaca] 137. (1st Macc. 1:10.) B.C. 176.)  [The wicked ruler Antiochus Epiphanes, son of King Antiochus the Third of Syria, was a descendant of one of Alexander’s generals. Antiochus Epiphanes had been a hostage in Rome before he became king of Syria in the year 137. (the year 137: The dates in Maccabee’s are counted from the beginning of the Syrian Kingdom in 312 B.C. The year 137 corresponds to 175 B.C.]); and that so the last week, (really 8 years) had no marked beginning, and that the deposition of Onias III which, according to him, was to be the cutting-off of the Messias, at the beginning of the reign of Antiochus (*2nd Mac. 4:7-10), took place during, not, as the text says, after the 434 years (*Dan. 9:26 *). Eichhorn, however, was an oracle in those times, and the result was what was wished for; so it was ruled that all this was an adequate representation of the prophet’s meaning. It was received by those who were themselves received as Theologians. (* “It deserved the applause with which it was received by two of the most celebrated and renowned Theologians of our times, (Amnion Bibl. Theol. ii. 207 sqq. ed. 2. Paulus Comm. ub. d. N. T. iii. 415 sqq. ed. 2. note) and other unknown Scholars in literary journals.” Bertholdt, Dan. p.605, 6. *) Only, for Nebuchadnezzar, Paulus substituted, as the Messiah, the weak Zedekiah, who imprisoned God’s prophet, gave him over to death, when overborne by his princes 7, did evil in the sight of God 8, rebelled against God and man, trusting in man 9, destroyed his country, and died a natural death 10, as a perjured rebel n, in the prisons of Babylon. (*Jer. 38:5.    *2nd Kgs. 24:19; Jer. 37:2.   *Ezek. 17:15.    *Jer. 52:11.     *Ezek. 17:13, 16, 18-20; 2nd Chr. 36:13.*).  Paulus tried to cover Eichhorn’s arbitrariness by other renderings, as arbitrary. Having reached to Zedekiah from Cyrus, he re-bounded from Zedekiah’s captivity, B.C. 588, to the murder of Onias, according to Ussher, B.C. 171, so far, at least, in conformity with the text. This, however, being only 417 years, was 17 years before the close of the 434 which he had to fit in. So, by aid of a meaning of his own, the words were to run, “and during the flowing by of the times, and after the threescore and two weeks, shall Messias be cut off, and the people of the prince which shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary;” i.e. Onias III was to be murdered 17 years before the lapse of the 434 years, and Antiochus was to destroy city and sanctuary after them. Only, everyone but himself, and probably himself too, knew, that the words must mean, “in straitness of the times,” not, “in the flowing by of the times; ” so the new explanation was only another confession of the difficulty, which it owned by trying so to solve it and failing. (* (tzuq) twice, in kal, is i.q. (yatzaq), “poured,” Job 39:6;  Is. 26:16 once in tr. “was poured out,” Job xxviii. 28:2. The noun (matzuq), “column,” 1st Sam. 2:8; 14:5 is connected with (hitziq) i.q. (hitztzinu) “set up.” To “flow by” is quite foreign from the root.)

                Yet it was patently unnatural. So then yet another, who was long the recognised interpreter of Daniel, virtually avowed their incompetency to explain the numbers; only, of course, since the application to Antiochus was infallible, the fault was to rest with the prophet, not with his expositors.   (* Bertholdt, Daniel. Rosenmuller abridged Bertholdt’s statements, and (as was his wont) gave them out unacknowledged as his own ; “nostra sententia,” i.e. by adoption, in Daniel, p. 322.).   It was owned that the 70 years could not so be counted, it was alleged that they were not meant to be counted. They were to be an indefinite prophetical number. The word “weeks” was only to stand, because in sound it resembled “seventy (70);” a comment or rather “a parody on the 70 years of Jeremiah.” (* Bertholdt, p. 610, 11.    *2 lb. p. 612.)

                It being assumed, that the 70 years of Jeremiah were not to be taken precisely, so neither, it was assumed, were the 70 weeks of years; and so, neither were the divisions of those years, selected prominently by the prophet, 7, 62, 1; and the number to be compressed was apparently that which had least the character of a round number, 62. Had it but been 60, or 63! These would, at least, have been multiples of other numbers, 10 or 7; but 62 is so solid, angular, unreducible, matter of fact, sort of number, as unlike a “round number” as could be. No process of dividing, subtracting, combining, could make its elements, sacred numbers or “round numbers.” There it stood, as if to set at nought the theory of “round numbers,” and to require an unevasive matter-of-fact explanation. So then the knot, which could not be solved, was to be cut. The other parts, 7 and 1, were held to be accounted for; and whereas, the more precise these numbers were, the more one should expect the remaining solid number to be so, this was, contrariwise, to be the very reason why it should not. For the first 49 years a very definite period was to be found, that from the destruction of Jerusalem to Cyrus; the last 7 years were to be made seemingly to correspond (which they did not) with the period of the persecution of Antiochus. And then, two periods having been explained, the middle and largest was to be allowed to be false. It was said that the writer, having once fixed upon the number 70, had to fill it up; and so was obliged to falsify the time from Cyrus to Antiochus Epiphanes, making it 62 weeks, or 434 years, instead of 361 years, because otherwise the number 70 could not be made out.

                One ground for introducing Epiphanes at all into the prophecy of the 70 weeks was, that he was prophesied of in the 8th and 11th chapters. Bertholdt extended the argument, and, since Alexander was also prophesied of in those chapters, inferred that he must be spoken of here al so3 ; and, since there was no other place for him, he was to be the Messias to be cut off  (* Bertholdt, p. 619-23.). Since, however, Alexander died a natural death, B.C. 323, and the alleged commencement of Antiochus’ persecution was in December, 168, B.C., a century and a half later, therefore the words, “after the 62 weeks,” were (contrary, of course, to all language,) to mean (in their latter half,” (in fact when § of the period had not expired;) nay, yet more, (“through prolepsis and sullepsis,”) it was to be used of events both before and after (* Towards the end,” p. 619. 659-61.  *5 lb. 616.  *6 Kjn. *). According to the new enlightened criticism then, the words were to mean, “And towards the end of the threescore and two (62)weeks shall an Anointed [Alexander] be cut off and have no [successor out of his own relations] ; and the city and sanctuary shall the army of a subsequent prince destroy (* habbahʼ);” although the death of Alexander was 150 years before the expiry of the 62 weeks, and the alleged destruction of the city and temple after their close, not to mention the fact, that neither city nor temple were destroyed by or under Antiochus. Such was the new historical and grammatical interpretation, of whose new light Bertholdt boasted (* See above, p.195. *).

                So for 26 years Daniel had rest. The three main plans of getting rid of the superfluous years had been tried. Corrodi had disposed of them beyond the time of Epiphanes; Eichhorn had made them run parallel, and so had thrown them out of the calculation; Bertholdt had declared, that the largest was not to be taken precisely, i.e. no more of it than was convenient. “O ye sons of men, how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing ?” One who should so keep accounts would meet the, penalty of dishonesty; one who should so make an astronomical calculation, would be counted a fool. But anything would do for “scientific theology.” For, God says, “My people love to have it so.” They who will to be deceived, are deceived. No one then had any interest in offering any new solution; for no one doubted that some one of the three solutions would do; and no one heeded, which. So that the reference to our Lord was buried, the rationalists, like the Jews, were hushed, for fear they should awake it. The less said about it, the better. Bleek disposed of the whole discussion in two pages; following the same division as Bertholdt, except that he made the 62 weeks end with Seleucus Nicator, (he meant, he said afterwards a, Philopator;) and he first, (though in courteous terms) assuming the infallibility of their theory, laid the blame of its incompatibility with facts upon the assumed ignorance of the writer.  (* Schleierm. ZS. iii. 291, 2.) (* Jahrbucher, f. Deutsch.Theol. 1860. v. 87.*)    “The space really meant in the prophecies [of Jeremiah] was defined [in Daniel] to be of seven-years, as to which we must needs assume, that the Author, according to his calculation of the time elapsed since Jeremiah, believed, that such was about its length.” Else he did not question Bertholdt.

                It was otherwise, after Hengstenberg revived from the dust the old belief, that Jesus and His Atoning Death were the end and object of the prophecy, and that we have here a real definite prediction. Thenceforth, all was commotion to tread out the spark ere the fire should be kindled. Yet the ways already tried had exhausted all practicable methods of making away with the obnoxious years; so the new schemes were only the old ones re-cast, mostly with some fresh monstrousness.

                One maintained that the 70 weeks, v. 24, after which those great blessings were to be given, were weeks of days; but the 7, 62, 1, (v. 25-27.) were to be weeks of years; only that the writer did not mean the 7 years to be counted at all.  (* Wieseler, Die 70 Wochen, p. 91-94.) (*  lb. p. 101-105.)    He then asks himself the naive question; “If the writer did not mean them to be counted, why did he name them at all?” (*p. 105.).    The answer is scarcely credible. “In part, in order to harmonise with an as sumed omission of 7 years of the 70 of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the Captivity; in part, lest the 70 weeks of v. 24. should be counted as weeks of years, and so, since there was no room for these seven weeks before Antiochus Epiphanes, any might be tempted to count them afterwards, as Corrodi did.” In other words, the writer, having mentioned 70 weeks, is subsequently to have counted 7, 62, 1, weeks, which make up 70, in order to shew that the weeks in both are not to be taken in the same sense, as weeks of years. The framer of this scheme was amazed at the blindness of all critics, Messianic and anti-Messianic. All, he thought, were biased, not to see what was so evident, yet what he himself afterwards abandoned 7, in order to take up that which he here condemned, as being “self-evidently arbitrary and at variance with the text.”  (*p. 106.*) (* Gott. gel. Anz. 1846. p. 43 sqq.)    (*p. 71. *) The ground of both his theories, in part, was, that he felt how incongruous were the two descriptions; that of the close of the 70 weeks as described in v. 24, and that of the 7 + 62+1 weeks, in v. 27, if the subject in these last was Antiochus Epiphanes (* p. 93. *). Then also he saw clearly that the Messiah spoken of must be one and the same. So does error again bear witness to the truth (*p. 103.*).

                Yet another (I take only persons who have been or are held in repute) placed the 7 weeks at the beginning, running parallel with the 62, i.e. not counted at all, and then again at the end, equally not to be counted. (* Von Lengerke, Daniel, p. 429. A good deal of his shew of learning was transferred tacitly to his pages from the writer whom he makes it an object to contradict, Hāvernick. *)      This is a wantonness of contradiction to the text, which can only be explained by the necessity of saying something, when there was nothing to be said. “The author,” he says (*p. 429 *), “divides the period from the going forth of the word of Jeremiah to the end, seemingly into 7 + 62 + 1 weeks. It would, however, be an error, if one were to sum up the three numbers, as they follow upon each other. Rather, the number is to be a mystery, and the seeming naturalness, with which it could be summed up, is precisely intended to intensify the mysterious obscurity. The writer divides the period from the terminus a quo (i.e. 588, B.C.) into two, of 62 and 8 weeks. In the first, he marks out a lesser period of 7 weeks to Cyrus, and then again counts from the same terminus a quo [i.e. still 588, B.C.]. So then the numbers 7 and 62 run parallel; both start from the same point, but the 7 comes to its close within the 62. This lesser period he names for two reasons;  1) on account of the great importance of Cyrus to the Jews;   2) in this way the sacred number of 3 becomes prominent; and even apart from this, he had no other choice. For since, in order to mark off more precisely the time of Antiochus and so to point him out more distinctly, 1 week (v. 27) had to stand alone, and the number of 62 weeks was fixed, in that he was compelled, going upwards from the end, to distinguish an unnamed period of 8 weeks, because the time of Antiochus the Great, since which the Jews again stood under Syrian rule, had to be specially marked, he had no other number but 7 left.     (* Lengerke apparently derived his “8 weeks” from Rōsch, (Stud. u. Kritik. 1834. p. 276 sqq.) whom he refutes p. 472, 3. Rצsch, by a chronology of his own, placed the destruction of Jerusalem at B.C. 609; whence 49 years reached to 560, B.C. when Cyrus was to have ascended the throne. (Harduin had token 557, B.C. as the first year of Cyrus in Media. See ab. p. 197.) From the same year 609, 62 weeks, or 434 years, were to come down to the death of Seleucus Philopator, B.C. 175 ; then 8 more weeks (56 years) would reach down to 120, B.C. [119.] “when John Hyrcanus had raised the condition of the Jews to their best estate.” The time of Antiochus Epiphanes was to be marked by the week and the half week taken together. Lengerke answered, 1) that 609 was 22 years before Jerusalem was destroyed;  2) that there is no authority for such a date as to Cyrus;  3) that the death of Philopator was on this theory both to end the 62 weeks, and, (on the hypothesis that he was the Messiah,) to follow after them;  4) that, in the text of Daniel, the half-week was plainly a part of the week, as expressed by the article (chatzi   hashshabuaʻ), “in the half,” or “the midst of, the week;” 6) that there was no occasion for this extension to Hyrcanus. The strange conception of the 8 weeks Lengerke adopted. *) The 70 weeks had then a two-fold fulfilment. But the true way of counting is a veiled one. The numbers 7 + 62 + 1 divide the sacred number 70 outwardly only. The true division is partly a hidden one; since only the period of 62 weeks is named, the other of 8 weeks is passed over in silence.”

                In plain language, in order to mark out an event, (the transfer of Palestine to Antiochus the Great through the defeat of Ptolemy Epiphanes, B.C. 203,) to which event there is no allusion in this prophecy, which event took place neither at the interval of 62 weeks, (434 years) downwards from the one term assumed, 588, (for this would go down to 154, 10 years after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes) nor at the interval of 8 weeks (56 years) upwards from the other term assumed, the death of Epiphanes, 164, B.C. (for this would reach up to 220, B.C. which is no epoch at all, being 4 years after the accession of Antiochus, and 18 years before the defeat of Ptolemy) —in order, in short, to mark an event to which Lengerke owned that there was no allusion in Daniel, he assumed that the writer mentally divided the 70 weeks into 62 and 8, although neither of the numbers, 62 weeks which are named, or 8 which are not named, could be made to coincide with this unnamed event. And to arrive at this, the writer, dividing 7, 62, 1, is to have placed the 7 where it was not to be counted, and to have interposed the 62 between it and the 1, with which he assumes that it was to be counted, and yet not even thus to be counted with the 62 with which it stands connected. And this is given us, as “incontrovertible,” as the literal unprejudiced exposition of the sacred text.    (* Lengerke says (p. 445.)”That the counting [of the 62 weeks] is to Antiochus the Great, becomes incontrovertibly certain on this ground, that the Messiah who is to be cut off, can be no other than Seleucus Philopator who actually succeeded him, and ‘the prince’ who follows him is Antiochus Epiphanes, who in 11:21. also (comp. 20.) is named as the immediate successor of Seleucus Philopator,” i.e. from an assumption transparently absurd, that the weak Seleucus Philopator, who attempted to plunder the temple, in order to pay his Roman tribute, but, in the 12 years of his reign, did nothing to be recorded, was spoken of as a Messiah cut off; it is to follow “incontrovertibly,” that the 62 weeks, after which the Messiah was to be cut off, were to end early in the reign of his father, 45 years before his death. *)

                So Ewald went back to one of the earlier ways of taking the numbers in their natural order, but making them inaccurate. First, he took as his starting point, the 4th year of Jehoiakim, 607, B.C., made Cyrus the Messiah in v. 25., then stretched on to Seleucus Philopator and made him the Messiah of v. 26., and his death, B.C. 176, the end of the 62 weeks or 434 years, and the time of Antiochus, (according to him, the prince, who should come,) the 7 years (* Die Propheten, ii. p. 569, 70. *). But the result was that, for 49 years he had 71; for 434, 360; for 7, 10; and, the excess in two items not counter-balancing the deficiency of the 3rd, for the whole 490, he had 441. This being unsatisfactory even to Ewald, he took from Hitzig another date, that of the actual destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, B.C. 588, from which there were 49 years to B.C. 539, when, they supposed, that “the Jews may first have heard of Cyrus  (* Jahrbūcher d. Bibl. Wiss. vi. p. 194.).”The last 7 years were to be from the death of Seleucus Philopator, B.C. 176, or 175, to 168, which was the date of the profanation of the temple by Antiochus. Every date assumed is alike arbitrary. At the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, no decree from God or man went forth to restore it. The approach of Cyrus was no marked epoch either at the time or afterwards. Not at the time, upon the unbelieving hypothesis. It had no interest for the Jews then, except on the ground of their belief in Isaiah’s prophecy, that God would restore them through Cyrus. Conquerors are not wont to give up a portion of their conquest, or to release the slaves of the vanquished, who, by right of conquest, have become their own. They do not trouble themselves about the details of the component parts of the dissolved empire, which they incorporate into their own. It passes, as a whole, into the empire which subdues and absorbs it. Nineveh had been conquered by the Medo-Persians and Babylonians, but the 10 tribes remained where their conquerors had placed them. The change of masters does not alter the condition of slaves. Men were the strength of the country, the riches of their masters. The Jews were a peaceful, industrious, faithful population, inured, for the most part, (as the event shewed,) to their condition. No human policy suggested their restoration; past memories and present interests forbad it.

                As they had no ground to expect release beforehand, except from Divine prophecy, so, when the release came, the release itself became the memorable date, not the first anticipation of it. Even to a contemporary, the first twilight of dawning hope disappears in the full brightness of the reality when risen and effulgent. This is true of all history. The birth, not the travail-pangs the first forerunners of that birth, is the date of the new existence which is called into being. It is according to a law of our nature, that the date, when the Jews or Babylonians first heard of the approach of Cyrus, left no trace in history. Immediately after their deliverance, the first year of Cyrus, the date of that deliverance, became the marked era in their history. It is even absurd to suppose that a date, at which no marked event, no change of relations or of outward circumstances, took place, from which nothing dated, should, (as this theory requires,) have become a date nearly 3 centuries and a half afterwards.

                The death of Seleucus Philopator, the supposed commencement of the last period, had no interest whatever for the Jewish people. At the beginning of his reign, he too had sought to secure the good-will of the Jews by bearing the expense of their sacrifices out of his own resources. After his attempt to plunder the temple, no mention is made of him in Jewish history.  (* “Insomuch that Seleucus too (kai Seleukon *) the king of Asia,” &c. i.e. he, as well as his ancestors; or, “even he who afterward sought to plunder the temple.” 2nd Macc. 3:3. Secular history speaks of him, as reigning inactively and weakly on account of his father’s misfortune (* App. Syr. 66. *). His death absolutely changed nothing, since the first years of Epiphanes were peaceable.

                The selection of the date of Antiochus’ desecration of the temple for the close of this last period is in direct contradiction to the prophecy to be explained. For the cessation of the sacrifice was to be in the midst of the week, i.e. after 3½ years, not at the close of the 7 years. Such is the accurate agreement at the beginning and the end of the period, which, Ewald thought, determined the Pseudo-Daniel to place the 62 weeks, or 434 years, in the middle, although the actual years were not 434, but 361, i.e. 73 less. Yet even thus conscience seems to require that some explanation, whether good coin or bad, should at least be tendered. So Ewald gave the solution, that seventy of the superfluous years may not have been counted, as being Sabbatical years, and the 3 other superfluous years might be employed to make up the period of Antiochus from 7 into 10. This is, of course, in the one case, much as if we were to say that there were only 313 days in our solar year because 52 days are Sundays; or as if two inaccurate sums became accurate, because the excess of the one was the same as the deficiency of the other. These solutions are so many idiosyncrasies; everyone sees their arbitrariness except their parents.

                Rationalists have pleased themselves in exaggerating the variety of ways in which they say that Christians have counted the 70 weeks. Let them look at home. I have recounted twelve variations of the anti-Messianic school, and I will add one more as a rare specimen of “scientific exposition.” One following Hitzig, yet owning that the 7 weeks must precede the 62, counts them back from B.C. 605, the date of Jeremiah’s prophecy, to B.C. 654, which he assumes to have been the date of Manasseh’s conversion.  (* Bōhmer, (Deutsch. Zeitschr. f. Christl. Wissenschaft u. Christl. Leben. Jan. 1867. p. 39sqq.) quoted by Auberl. p. 169. *)  (*2nd Chr. 33:16. *)

                And so, the weary changes were rung, each refuting his predecessor, the last awaiting his refutation from his successor, or ofttimes taking up that which he had before condemned. Lengerke refuted Rצsch, and Wieseler refuted Lengerke, and Hitzig, Wieseler; or they mutually exchanged with each other. Wieseler took up with Corrodi; and Hofmann exchanged his theory for Ewald’s; and Ewald gave up what Hofmann took, for Hitzig’s (*  This is noticed by Auberlen, Dan. p. 171.); and, at last, since the assumption, that the prophecy is no prophecy but a description of Antiochus, was to be infallible, and yet the periods given by Daniel were hopelessly irreconcileable with that assumption, the fault is to be thrown, not on the infallible theory, but on what, (whether men will it or no,) abides what it was, the word of God. Hitzig, in his arrogant way, says, “If, in this way, the reckoning does not agree, then Daniel has erred, and the only question is to explain the error.” (*  On Dan. p. 169, 70. See Week, (above and Jahrb. d. Deutsch. Theol. v. 84.) “This space [from Cyrus to Epiph.] is really shorter, is some 9 weeks of years [56 years] less, but this cannot make us doubt an interpretation, supported by grounds so weighty, if we consider that there are in the Canon no chronological data for this period, so that at least a later writer might easilyfollow an inaccurate calculation, especially if led by a special interest.” [i.e. ignorance guided by fraud.])    “The 7 weeks form the (prōton pseudos) in the calculation.” “The Hebrews had no Chronology and no connected history of the Persian period.” Those who are more courteous to the aged Prophet say the same more courteously. “The assumption of such an artificial and unnatural calculation is in reality contrary to the text (* Bunsen, Gott in d. Gesch. i. 527, 29.). For it is said, ‘throughout 62 weeks shall Jerusalem be rebuilt.’ The beginning of this period then cannot be the year of the prophecy; it can only be that of the return under Cyrus. Why should not the author have found and adopted a calculation for the time from Cyrus to Epiphanes, wrong by 70 years?” “Anyhow, one must assume here a blending of different calculations if one will not content one’s self with a mere erroneousness of the hereditary chronology. But the numbers are too important to allow of a mere accident, and so one has, either, [with Hitzig] to assume that arbitrary double starting-point of the calculation downwards, together with that strange twice-counting, or [with Ewald] to include the 70 years as their number, whereas, according to the literal meaning of the prophecy of Jeremiah, these might seem to be independent of any interpretation by weeks of years.”

                Such then is the result of this “scientific” criticism. It fixes the interpretation beforehand, at its own will; then it endeavours, in every way it can, to adjust with its theory the clear and definite statements of the text as to the seventy (70) weeks of years, as divided into the periods of 7, 62, 1, and this one into its two halves. It adjusts the numbers, adapts the descriptions of those spoken of, as it wills; no one for the time interferes with it; it has free scope; it adjusts, re-adjusts, turns, re-turns, in every way it wills. It gives its explanations authoritatively; no failure damps its confidence; it has but to please itself; and it cannot. After 80 years of twisting, untwisting, hewing at the knot, the knot is to them as fast and indissoluble as ever. “Except the Lord build the house, their labour is but lost that build it.” They form a rope of sand, and wonder that it does not cohere; that, twist it how they will, it is but sand. And so at last they throw up the problem; and, like insolent scholars, accuse not their own ignorance, but their Master’s. “It is not we who erred, but Daniel. The problem is insoluble in our way; therefore it cannot be solved at all.”

                And yet, in this very charge of error on the writer of the book of Daniel, they forgot their own previous charges. This school objects to the book, that the writer had too minute a knowledge of the history of Alexander’s successors. “God does not,” they say, “so minutely reveal the future.” Good. So far then it is conceded that the account is accurate. Again, it says, that the writer was ignorant of the Persian history ; that he believed that there were only 4 Persian kings in all, and that the Persian empire lasted but 54 years; that the empire of Alexander was divided immediately after his death (*Lengerke, p. 514. quoting also Bertholdt.).  Good, again. It concerns not us, whether God revealed to Daniel more of the future, than he has actually set down. But how this is to help the adaptation of the 70 weeks to the period from Jehoiakim or Cyrus to Antiochus Epiphanes, these theorists have to explain. According to them, the writer knew accurately the period from the battle of Ipsus, B.C. 301, to B.C. 164. This gives 137 years. Add the 54 years, during which these assume the writer to have believed the Persian Empire to have lasted, and the 10 of Alexander’s Asiatic wars. This gives us 201 years, which the writer is supposed to have believed to have elapsed from Cyrus to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. And yet they would have us to accept this as an explanation, why the writer of the book of Daniel should have supposed 63 weeks of years or 441 years to have elapsed from the 4th year of Jehoiakim or, if they would be but decently honest, from Cyrus, when a decree did go forth to restore and to build Jerusalem, to Epiphanes. They assume that the writer of the book of Daniel supposed the period from Cyrus to Antiochus Epiphanes, to have been little more than half of what it was, viz. 201 years instead of 374  (* Date of prophecy, B.C. 538-164 =374. *); and then, retaining the general term, “inaccuracy of Chronology,” they urge this as an argument why the writer may have fixed a period3, more than twice the length of the time which they themselves suppose him to have imagined the actual time to be.(* Even if the 7 weeks, = 49 years, are got rid of, there remain 63 weeks = 441 years. *).  Their charge of “inaccuracy of chronology” tells against themselves.

                And yet what one, the more bold because the least believing, speaks out, must have been in the consciences of many. “After the death of Jesus, the Son of man, it was inevitable that they, to whom He was the Messiah, should refer to Him the words, Messiah shall be cut off.”  (* Hitzig, Dan. p. 170 *)   (*9:26 *)  (*lb. P. 160. *)   “One might easily be tempted to interpret Messiah, v. 26, who was to die by a violent death, of Jesus and His Death; and if one thought of this Messias, notwithstanding the absence of the Article, as, the Messias, (as Christ stands in Greek for the Christ,) they with whom the Name had weight, naturally understood Messias, v. 25, also to be Jesus Christ.” Yet with a strange inconsistency, any chronological difficulty was a solid ground not to believe that Jesus was foretold; no chronological difficulty was any ground against believing anyone else to be spoken of.

                The harmony of unbelieving criticism has been contrasted with the disagreements among believers  (* “Among German commentators there is, for the first time in the history of the world, an approach to agreement and certainty.” Prof. Jowett, Essays and Rev. p. 340. *). It were no harm, were these disagreements as great as they allege; for the exposition of particular texts, closely or incidentally as it may at times bear upon the faith, is not, in itself, matter of faith. Not the meaning of texts in detail, but truths, on which they bear, are mostly s matters of faith. (* I say, “mostly,” because our Lord’s words, and so His expositions of the Old Testament also, are of course matters of faith. And so too whatever any inspired writer asserts, apart from translations of words, which, as not affecting the sense, he leaves unaltered. *)    But the alleged unanimity of this unbelieving criticism has been in pulling down, not in building up. It has been agreed in rejecting Christ. It would, if it could, blot the mention of Him out of the Old Testament. But when the question is, how to replace it, quot homines, tot sententiae. All agree in bearing witness against Him. But it is still, as of old, their witness agreed not together  (*S. Mark 14:56. *). If they waited, until they found those whose witness would agree together, the old faith would not have been parted with till now.

                In regard to the 70 weeks, agreement on certain points was a necessity of the case. It was essential to any exposition which should exclude our Lord, that the Messiah of v. 25. should be Cyrus; it was their axiom that the last week should be part of the reign of Epiphanes; they had then next to no choice as to the Messias who was to be cut off. Without religious indifference they could not have  lighted upon more than one. The following table will shew their unanimity as to the rest……

                But beyond this their utter inability to account for the whole period of four hundred (400) years, in any way plausible enough to command the assent and unity of their own school, they cannot make a theory, to satisfy one another even as to the last week. Here the harmony was to be so perfect, that we were to be ready, on the ground of such signal coincidence, to surrender at discretion, and accept the rest as an insoluble problem, with that same faith which Christians have, that all difficulties in God’s word must needs be soluble, even though they know not the solution. Rationalists required of us implicit unreasoning faith as to the rest of their theory, on account of the self-evidence of this portion of it. But is it then so? Do these seven (7) years so exactly correspond to the persecution of Antiochus? Here, on the rationalist hypothesis, we are in the writer’s own time. He is to be speaking, not of what he saw, as we know, enlightened by God, but of what he is, by the hypothesis, to have seen with his bodily eyes and heard with his bodily ears.

                The facts are not disputed. There is no question of research or intricate chronology. In his first years, Antiochus was otherwise engaged. A portion of the Jews were apostatizing, rationalizing probably. They were adopting Greek ways, and Greek unbelief  (*1st Mac. 1:11-15. *). They sought the king, not the king them. (* “They went unto the king, who gave them license to do alter the ordinances of the heathen, whereupon they built a gymnasium at Jerusalem according to the customs of the heathen , and made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen, and were sold to do mischief.” lb, 13-15. The gymnasium, adorned with emblems of Greek idolatry, and containing schools of Greek philosophy, was meant to Grecize the Jewish youth. The key to the unbelief was the “becoming uncircumcised,” an effacing of the outward mark of the covenant with God, (see Lightfoot on 1st Cor. 7:18.) resorted to subsequently in time of persecution, now undertaken voluntarily, to assimilate themselves to the heathen. “Let us make a covenant with the heathen,” was their resolve; “to do after the ordinances of the heathen,” was the permission of Antiochus. Jos. Ant. xii. 5. *) The date of Antiochus’ first attack on Jerusalem is given very precisely. “After that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third (143rd) year [of the Seleucidae, B.C. 170, 169] and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude  (*1st Mac. 1:20. *).     Then he plundered the temple, (as had been done by other conquerors before him,) to supply his reckless expenditure; but it was a passing storm  (*  He committed sacrilege on very many temples.” Polyb. xxxi. 4. *). It is said expressly, “when he had taken all away, he went into his own land  (*1st Mac. 1:24.).”The real lasting persecution began two years later, when he returned in great anger at the discomfiture of his plan by the decisiveness of Popilius, at some time in the early autumn of B.C. 168. It is again said expressly, “After two full years the king sent his chief collector of tribute unto the cities of Judah, who came unto Jerusalem with a great multitude  (*lb. 29.*).” Jerusalem and Judaea had been meantime unmolested from without. The collector of tribute came to the cities of Judah, when ” two years were fully expired.” Jerusalem lay secure within its strong walls, which held out so many sieges. It is again expressly recorded that “The [Apollonius] spake peaceable words unto them, but it was all deceit; for when they had given him credence, he fell suddenly upon the city and smote it very sore, and set it on fire and pulled down the houses and walls thereof on every side, and built the city of David [Mount Zion] with a great and strong wall, and with mighty towers, and made a stronghold for them and put a garrison of apostates in it  (*lb. 30-34. *).”It is clear then from the whole account, that, up to this time, autumn 168, B.C., there had been no permanent possession of Judaea by Antiochus.  (* “Both Livy  (xlv. 10. *) and Polybius (xxix. 11. Legat. 92.) shew that Popilius did not proceed to Egypt till after the battle of Pydna; and as that battle was on the 23rd of June, his interview with Antiochus must be placed in July or August; and Antiochus would reach Palestine in the Autumn.” Clinton, Fasti Hell. iii. 323. The date of the battle of Pydna is fixed by an eclipse. “The eclipse, which preceded the battle of Pydna, fell upon June 21, which would fix the battle to June 22, and the preceding notes of times agree with this date.—Porphyry in Euseb. Chron. 1. 38. p. 177. rightly places the battle within Olymp. 152. 4. 1. e. before July, B.C. 1 68.” Id. on B.C. 168. Tables, iii. p. 84. Popilius did not leave Delos, until the news of the battle of Pydna reached him at Delos ; they sailed by Rhodes, where they spent 5 days. (Liv. xlv. 10.) There had been time for Alexandria to be “reduced to extremities.” (Polyb. xxix. 11. Leg. 92.) Polybius too thinks that “Antiochus would not have obeyed, unless the overthrow of Perseus had taken place and been credited.” (pisteuthentos) lb. Popilius then probably proceeded leisurely, in order to give full time for the news, on which the success of his embassy depended, to be fully accredited.)    The persecution then commenced; on the 15th of Chisleu (December, 168, or January, 167, B.C.) the temple was desecrated by the idol-altar built upon the altar of God; on the 25th, the first sacrifice was offered upon it. Three years afterwards, on that same day in that month, the temple was cleansed. (*1st Mac. 1:54. There is no reason to change the date against all authority, in order to identify it with v. 59. The sacrifices to God were renewed on the day, on which the first idol-sacrifices were offered. (1st Mac. 4:52.) This is the point of contrast between 1:59 and 4:52. The fact in 1:54. is additional. *)

                This was, of course, December, 165, or January, 164, B.C. Judas proceeded to fortify the sanctuary, as before, and Bethsur. Antiochus was at this time engaged in war with “the Satraps of the upper provinces,” probably with Artaxias (* See ab. p. 150. 1. *). The tidings must have been dispatched soon after the defensive preparations of Judas, for no later tidings reached him. But the subsequent campaign of Judas Maccabaeus against the petty nations who harassed Israel had come to a close, while Epiphanes was still in Persia, attempting to plunder the temple in Elymais  (*1st Mac. 6:1. *). On his retreat after its failure, he heard how the Jews had defeated Lysias, undone his desecration of the temple, “fortified the sanctuary and his city Bethsur,” and he died, while yet in Persia, of a wasting disease, 149, A.S. 164,163 B.C. (*lb. 7.)  (*lb. 5. so too Polyb. Fragm. xxxi. 11. Porph. in S. Jer. on Dan. 11:44.    (*phthinon) App. Syr. 66. “He laid him down upon his bed, and fell sick for grief, and there he continued many days, for his grief was ever more and more, and he made account that he should die.” 1st Mac. 6:8,9. *)     (*lb. 16. Jos. Ant. xii. 9. 2. *)  The exact month it is impossible to determine.      (*Demetrius probably escaped from Rome so as to succeed at the very beginning of A.S. 151, i.e. Oct. B.C. 162. For the death of Lysias and Eupator, and the two expeditions against Judaea took place before the close of the Adar ensuing. If then Eupator reigned 2 years, (as Josephus Ant. xii. 10. 1. and Eusebius, Can. p. 356. say,) the death of Epiphanes must have fallen at the beginning of 149, A.S. the autumn of 164, B.C. But Eusebius (in his Table, ii. 260.) and his Chronographer (i. 194.) assign 1 year 6 months to the reign of Eupator. And it may be, that Josephus took his period of 2 years from the more general statements of the first book of Maccabees, that Epiphanes died A.S. 149 and that Demetrius escaped from Rome, A.S. 151. The uncertainty extends to 6 months. *).       But his death was no relief; rather it was the signal for renewed hostilities. Antiochus being far away, Lysias had remained inactive in the interval, gathering a fresh army at Antioch, perhaps awaiting the return of the messenger and further instructions  (*1st Mac. 4:35. *). After the death of Epiphanes, Lysias, in the name of his youthful son Antiochus Eupator, renewed the war; it was carried on by Demetrius, after he had murdered Lysias and Eupator; and the first rest in the war was, when Nicanor, the second general sent against the Jews by Demetrius, had been defeated and slain in Adar, 151, A.S.  i.e. early in 161, B.C. It is then remarked for the first time, “Thus the land of Judah had rest for a little while.”  (*Eusebius (p. 187. *) Says that he was 12 years old; Appian, that he was 9. (Syr. i. 46, 66.)) (*1st Mac. 7:1 . 43-50. *)   The first stage of the war then, and apparently that marked in Daniel himself in the prophecy specially relating to the persecution by Antiochus 12, was probably more than two years after the death of Epiphanes. How then do the events of the last week or their dates agree with this history?

                ((* The term assigned in Daniel 8:14 (which belongs to this Old Testament Anti-Christ) is 2300 days, i.e. 6 years, 4 months, 2 days. This is anything but a ” round number.” The time between the dates specified in the first book of Maccabees from Chisleu 15, A.S. 145, (the day when the idol-altar was erected) to Adar 13, A.S. 151, is only a month of 29 days short of the whole sum. The lunar year had 354 days; in 6 years, there would be two intercalary months of 30 days. The remainder of Chisleu adds 15 days; the two months before Adar, 59 days; of Adar there were 13 days. The sum then stands; thus, (354×6 = 2124;  2 intercalary months: 60; 2 intervening months: 59; parts of Chisleu and Adar: 28: = 2271)  leaving a deficit of a month of 29 days. But the desecration of the altar was not the beginning of the persecution. (1st Mac. 1:33-53.). A month then may well have elapsed before, in which all public worship of God was suspended, (lb. 39.) This is the calculation of Hāvernick, and, in the main, that of Dereser and even Bertholdt; only that Bertholdt tries to make room at the end for the month unaccounted for.        Another period, however, equally harmonises in point of time, that from the first invasion, in 143, A.S. to the death of Antiochus, if the death of Antiochus did not take place until the spring of A. S. 149, i.e. that of 163, B.C. For, since the 2nd invasion, that of 145, A.S., was “two full years” after the first, the first also must have been in Autumn, the previous part of our year B.C. 170, i.e. the close of A.S. 142, having been spent in the Egyptian expedition. For this invasion was “after he had smitten Egypt.” (1st Mac. 1:20.) If then we suppose this first invasion to have been near the middle of the 2nd month of 143, A.S. i.e. Nov. 15. B.C. 170, this would give the following result, the era of the Seleucidae beginning at Tisri 1, i.e. at the month in the lunar year answering to our October;

                (10 months of 143, A.S. and 13 days: 308 days;  A.S. 144, -5, -6, -7, -8; 354×5 = 1770; A.S. 149, 5 months of 30×3 = 90; 29×2 = 58; 6th month, 14 days of 14;  two intercalary months = 60; = 2300. )

                There is then good space, if the reign of Eupator was only 1½ year; and the events were marked in themselves, the first aggression of Antiochus against the people of God, and the issue of his persecution in his death. If this were so, the number was twice remarkably fulfilled. This way was adopted by `aLapide, although not entering into its proof.

                The Anti-Messianic interpreters, who could not satisfy themselves with the expedient of halving the days, have taken this plan; only in order to make Dan. 12:11,12 relate to events in the life of Antiochus, they re-modelled, in different ways, the beginning of the era of the Seleucidae and history. The shift of halving the days is one of those monsters, which have disgraced “scientific expositions ” of Hebrew. The simple words (ʻarabh boqer ʼalepaim ushlosh meʼoth), “evening morning two thousand and three hundred (2300),” (according to the analogy of (nuchthemeron), 2nd Cor. 11:25. and the summary of each day in Gen. 1:5, &c. “And evening was, and morning was, the first, second, third, &e. day,”) were to mean 1500 mornings on account of the morning sacrifice, and 1500 evenings on account of the evening sacrifice, and yet (ʻerabh) of course means “evening,” and  boqer morning.” But could they, per impossibile, mean “morning and evening sacrifices,” the matter would not be mended. Standing as the words do before the numeral, the numeral must, according to the principles of all language, apply to the whole. Conceive anyone rendering ” noctes diesque triginta,” “15 nights and 15 days.” *))    Those events are, the cutting off of Messiah, the confirming of a covenant with the many during the whole 7 years, the causing of all sacrifice to cease at the end of the first 3½ years. Anti-Messianic interpreters place in it, and must place in it, the utter destruction of city and temple, and (as they will have it) the destruction of the destroyer.

                The prophecy says, that at the end of the 3½ first years, all sacrifice was to cease ; it implies that it was to cease altogether; the temple, where alone it could be offered, was to be utterly destroyed; no word is said of its restoration. Ruin broods over its desolate places. Anti-Messianic interpreters have diverted attention from the first 3½  years, at the expiration of which all sacrifice was to cease, to the last 3½  years, after which they supposed it to be restored. Of this, there is nothing in the text ; and the desecration of the temple lasted for three years precisely, not for 3½  years. Again, counting back the 7 years from the only date, which these interpreters can make out for themselves, the death of Antiochus, (if it was so) in the spring of 163, B. C, we arrive at the spring of 170, B.C. in the middle of 142, A.S. This was 2 years and 9 months before the desecration of the temple, but it was itself absolutely no era at all. It was eight months before even that first passing storm, when Antiochus plundered the temple of Jerusalem, as he did so many besides. It was a happy eventless year for the Jews, when they were living every man under his vine, and under his fig-tree, with no signs even of that first hurricane; much less of their long desolation. Onias too, the exiled high-priest, having been deposed by Epiphanes on his accession towards the close of A.S. 137, in the middle of B.C. 175, had been murdered three years subsequently, B.C. 172; consequently two years before this date. (* 2nd Mac. 4:7-10.)  (* Clinton, F. H. iii. 323.)   (* 2nd Mac. 4:23, 32-34.) Lastly, the heathenizing party of the Jews also applied to Antiochus at the very beginning of his reign (* 2nd Mac. 4:7-10. 1st Mac. 1:10-15.). Even then on the Anti-Messianic theory, that “the confirming the covenant for one week” was meant of the encouragement given by Antiochus to the apostates who applied to him, this also was prior by 4 years to the week or 7 years of which it was to be a characteristic.

                Not a fact then, nor a date coincides. Granting these interpreters all which they ask for, allowing, which is utterly unnatural, that it should be said of one and the same earthly king, that he should destroy the city and sanctuary, confirm a covenant with many for one week, and that, after half of the week, he should make sacrifice and oblation to cease; and this, in the sense that he shewed favour to apostates and deserters, and made war upon the city and people—even supposing all this granted, they can give no account of those very dates in which all these things are supposed to have taken place, and which are to be the key to all the rest. Antiochus did not confirm any covenant for 7 years, nor did he make sacrifice to cease for half of those 7 years, nor was any Messias, or any one alleged to be a Messias, cut off during those 7 years; nor was the temple destroyed; nor were there any 7 years, in the period selected, of one uniform marked character. Rather the 7 years selected were of a most checkered character; first, nearly a year of entire peace; then horrible and cruel treachery and bloodshed; then nearly two years more of peace; then three years of intense persecution; then a respite, at least from the general of Epiphanes for a year and 5 months, and victory over the petty heathen nations who assailed them.

                And yet the writer, living, according to their hypothesis, in Judaea, writing, as they say, to encourage their countrymen “in their great struggle against Antiochus,” could not be mistaken about what he is to have seen with his own eyes  (*Ess. and Rev. p. 76. *).

                The scheme then of connecting the prophecy of the 70 weeks with Antiochus Epiphanes fails, evidently, palpably, as to the very point upon which it is mainly brought to bear, the end and object of it. The impossibility of accounting for the whole period of 490 years or the two periods of 49 and 434 years is not in the least relieved, but is aggravated by the impossibility of explaining the last 7. The writer is supposed to have had no object, except to describe his own times and their issue, so far as it lay before him; there was no call to mention time at all; and, having a tabula rasa, on which, according to the hypothesis, he had to describe, as future, events before his eyes, he is to have written them with marks, patently at variance with those events which he saw and knew. In order, on the hypothesis, to explain Jeremiah’s prediction, in the fulfilment of which all of his time believed and of which they desired no explanation, he is to have written, as relating to his own times, a prophecy, which no one can adapt to them, explaining what was clear by what was inexplicable, irradiating light by darkness.

                Yet this failure, as to time, although a mark against these interpretations, is not so great a failure as the objectless character of the whole.

                According to these dislocating interpretations, the whole promise of the blessings to come is to lie in that first verse of the prophecy ; and yet, since, according to them, to “anoint one all-holy” was to be the mere cleansing of the visible sanctuary, these too were to be quite impersonal. The promise does indeed contain what our spiritual nature most longs for, forgiveness of sins and the gift of righteousness, but, the personal Christ being blotted out, they were to be connected only with that outward purification of the profaned temple. All the rest of the prophecy is to relate, either to their restoration through Cyrus 370 years before, or to that checkered state in which they were, or to events in which they were no way concerned, or actual visitations of God upon them, in which the picture is to close. What to them was the death of Alexander, or Seleucus Philopator, or even of the ejected high-priest Onias III, whom these have substituted for the Christ? Shocked they were doubtless at the murder of the blameless old man; but it in no way affected them, since he was far removed from them at Antioch, and his death was the result of mere private malice, avenged even by Antiochus on the perpetrator. But, according to these men, the central part of the prophecy are the desolations and profanations of Antiochus, along abiding desolation decreed by God. Whether they interpret “to the end” or “to the end of the war,” it was to an end, which they were not to see, a night of which their eyes were not to behold the first faint streak of the dawn.

                Contrast together the text and the interpretation. On the 24th verse, I will refer only to those who are consistent. For of all anomalies, one of the strangest is, to assume that v. 24, with all its fulness of spiritual promise, had its fulfilment in Jesus, and yet to maintain that the rest, which is a filling up of that outline, relates to persons with whom the spiritual history of the world is no way concerned.

                They then, who are consistent, paraphrase thus ; (“not seventy years but) seventy seven-years are determined on thy people and on thy holy city, until iniquity is perfected, and the mass of sins is full, and transgression is atoned by the suffering of punishment, and the prosperity of old times is brought back, and the prophet’s (Jeremiah’s) saying is fulfilled, and the all-holy (the temple) is consecrated (by Judas Maccabaeus.”)

                We are told in explanation, “the Jews in the Hasmonaean age, according to the moral-deterministic principles of their nation, looked upon the time from the destruction of the Jewish state until that when Judas Maccabaeus, after driving out the Syrians, could undertake the consecration of the temple, as one, in which the people of Israel was to make the measure of its sins full; and on the same principles they believed, that henceforth the anger of God would turn away from the people, and the long-heaped guilt be looked upon by God as atoned.” (* Bertholdt, Daniel, p. 616, 8. *)  (* “Dan.  8:23.” This school continually draws its statements as to “the Hasmonaean age” from Daniel alone, and is seemingly unconscious that it is “begging the question.” *)   As far as this has any truth, the point of departure is arbitrarily selected. A greater than Daniel said , Fill ye up the measure of your fathers  (*S. Matt. 23:32.). Unrepented sin does accumulate, whether upon the individual or the nation, until it brings down God’s chastisements  (* See Butler’s Analogy, i. 2. *). Persevering disobedience to God’s warnings by the former prophets brought on the first captivity; disobedience, ending in the heathenizing under Antiochus Epiphanes, brought on his fierce persecution; disobedience, culminating in the rejection and murder of Christ, ended in their last destruction and dispersion. (* Lev. 26:14-39. (on the gradually accumulating punishment,) 2nd Kings 17:7-23; Jer. 25:3-11; 29:18, 19. Esek. 20. *). “But on each occasion, they were put on a new trial. The sins, of which Antiochus became the scourge, were not those of their fathers before the Captivity, but their own. The ground assigned then for dating from the first destruction of Jerusalem is arbitrary and false. It is either too early or too late. In one way, a nation takes its character from all its previous history, since it became a nation; in this sense the date of the first destruction of Jerusalem is too late. In another, Israel was put on a new trial, after the restoration under Cyrus, and in this way the date from Jeremiah is too early.

                The exposition is also self-contradictory, in that it assigns the same date for the filling up the measure of sin, and for its forgiveness. The filling up the measure of sin is the time, not of forgiveness but of punishment. If the punishment is, in its nature or in God’s purpose, temporary, the restoration comes at its close. In that 69th year of the captivity, in regard to which this prophecy is supposed by all these expositors to have been given, that punishment was coming to an end. Israel had not been, for those 69 years, filling up iniquity, but had been bearing its punishment.

                Apart from this acknowledgement, that sin is, not in itself but in the mind of the Hebrews, a cause of affliction, the rest is more heathen than heathenism; it is not on a par with Virgil’s description of the golden age to come, as borrowed from the Jewish Sibyl.

                To proceed with their exposition, I will take the most plausible, leaving out monsters, unless they have been followed by many;…….

                The prophecies of Daniel explain both the previous tranquillity in that long winter which lay upon them, and that sudden burst and glow of spring-like hope, all nature ready to expand and welcome Him, when the Sun was indeed to come and put forth His power. Daniel had pointed out a long time, lasting, at the least, five centuries, during which the Messiah should not come. The people believed him, and, during all those centuries, looked not for Him then to come. The latest edict in behalf of Jerusalem having been given B.C. 445, there remained only 91 years, at certain periods in which the prophecy of Daniel could be fulfilled (* Sec ab. p. 166-169. *) (*536, B.C.– 532 (490 + 42) = 4, B.C. the probable date of our Lord’s Birth. *). Of these, 42 only had elapsed, when the then tributary king, and alt Jerusalem with him, was troubled at the announcement, that strangers from the East were enquiring for the new-born king of the Jews, whom they were come to worship. Nearly 30 years more, and one appeared, arresting the thoughts of all by the austere garb of Elijah, which preached that he was living not for this world, while his herald-voice proclaimed in Daniel’s words, the kingdom of heaven is at hand. A few months more, and He came, who spake not as man spake, who did miracles which man could not do, who drew hearts, men knew not how. Expectation was created; men’s souls were prepared; they who were His listened to the Voice which man had so long waited to hear. But the awful freedom of the human will was respected by its Maker. Messiah was cut off, as Daniel foretold, legal sacrifices end, sin is forgiven, everlasting righteousness is brought in, the new covenant is confirmed.

                Look steadily at the emptiness, irrelevancy, inharmoniousness, of those things, which men have fastened, —not meanings but unmeaningness— on the book of Daniel, and then look how that book lights up with its true meaning, reflecting beforehand Him who had not yet risen; and you cannot hesitate to choose between the darkness and the light. }}

            {{ Special Note: The Monthly Review; or Literary Journal: From July to December, inclusive. By Several Hands. 1776. Vol. 55. London.  (See earlier notice above of this note.)

                Article III. (A free Inquiry into Daniel’s Vision or Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. In which the Vision is applied to the State of the Jews under the Persian Monarchy, and the Weeks are shewn to be Weeks of Days. With an Appendix on the Jewish Notion of a Messiah, 4to. 2 s. 6d. Thomas Payne. 1776.)  The Author of this Inquiry seems to be an ingenious and learned critic; and though he adopts a new interpretation of a passage, the meaning of which has been much controverted, he does not content himself with arbitrary suppositions and conjectures. He discovers a considerable degree of that kind of knowledge which the discussion of this subject requires. He begins with offering some considerations from the design and letter of Daniel’s celebrated prophecy, in order to shew that it does not admit an application to the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, events to which it has been usually referred. Daniel, when he received this prophetic vision, had been confessing the sins of his countrymen, and supplicating their deliverance from captivity. He knew, in consequence of the divine promise by Jeremiah, chap. 30 ver, 18 compared with Daniel 9:1,2, that, after seventy years, Jerusalem should be rebuilt; and he waited the approaching termination of this period with anxious expectation. The prophecy therefore our Author imagines, refers to this event, which Daniel contemplated in near prospect, and not to any other, that was more distant. He likewise supposes, on a general view of this passage, that the commandment here mentioned related to the rebuilding of Jerusalem, predicted by the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah; that the Messiah Prince was Cyrus the Persian, who immediately upon his accession published a decree for the return of the Jews, and the rebuilding of the holy city; and that the seven weeks are weeks of days, specifying the precise time, for Daniel’s consolation and encouragement, which was nearly arrived, when Darius should die, and leave Cyrus in possession of the Babylonish monarchy. The word (shbʻ), here rendered week, does, in other passages which the Author has cited, signify simply a week, in the common acceptation of the term; and our Author thinks that the context shews, that the words, v.24, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, alludes to the ratification and completion, of Jeremiah’s predictions. He then enters into a critical examination of the several parts of this prophecy, and adduces a variety of authorities, in order to support the rendering and interpretation which he has adopted. We shall insert his version of the Hebrew text, and the explication that accompanies it in two separate columns, so that they may be easily compared.

                Version of the Hebrew: Column 1:

                Ver. 24. Seventy weeks are abbreviated unto thy people, and unto thy holy city, to check the revolt, and to put an end to fins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in the righteousness of ages, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.

                V. 25. And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem unto the Messiah Prince, shall be seven weeks; and three score and two (62) weeks it shall be built again, the street and the lane, even in troublous times.

                V. 26. And after the three score and two (62) weeks Messiah shall be cut off, and it shall not be his; and the people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and the end there of shall be with a flood, and Person of the Hebrew unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

                V. 27. And the first week shall confirm the covenant unto many; but the midst of the week shall cause the sacrifice and the meat-offering to cease; and upon the wing, or border, shall be the abomination of desolation, even until destruction, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolator

                Explication: Column 2:

                Ver. 24. Seventy weeks are abbreviated (or there shall be nearly seventy (70) weeks) to thy people, and to thy holy city, to check the revolt (or the apostacy from Jehovah) and to put an end to other offences, and to make sacrificial atonement for iniquity, and to bring again the righteousness of ancient times, and to seal or confirm the truth of Jeremiah’s prophecies, and to anoint or consecrate the most holy altar.

                V. 25. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the divine word or commandment to rebuild Jerusalem (which was issued at the beginning of thy supplications, as I have just informed thee) to the accession of the Messiah Prince Cyrus, who is to execute it, shall be seven (7) weeks; and in threescore and two (62) weeks from his accession, Jerusalem shall be built again, the street and the lane (that is, the streets and the lanes of Jerusalem shall be rebuilt) even in times of trouble, from the jealousy and malignity of the neighbouring people.

                V. 26. And in the time, succeeding the threescore and two (62) weeks, shall the Messiah Prince Cyrus be slain in battle, and Jerusalem shall be no longer under his power and protection; and the people of the Prince that shall come after him, (or the Samaritans, the subjects of his successor Cambyses) shall lay waste the city, and the Sanctuary that shall be building in it, and the end thereof shall be with a flood (or with a sudden incursion of the adversary) and the desolations shall continue till the second year  Darius Hystaspes, when the kingdoms of the earth shall be at rest from war.

                V. 27. And the first week of the times succeeding the threescore and two (62) weeks (that is, the seventieth (70th) from the going forth of the commandment) shall, in the opinion of many, once more establish the covenant between Jehovah and his people; for in the beginning of this week the foundations of the temple shall be laid; but the midst of the week shall cause the sacrifice and the meat offering to cease (or the Samaritans in the midst of the week shall put a stop to the sacrifices) and on the wing or eastern border of the sanctuary, shall be the abomination of desolation, even until destruction, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolator (that is, the place appropriated to the altar shall remain desolate and defiled, till Cambyses, the enemy or desolator of the Jews, shall be destroyed).

                The Author closes his Inquiry with the following recapitulation :

                 Jeremiah had foretold that Jerusalem should be desolate seventy years. Near the expiration of the term predicted, Daniel, who well knew of the prophecy, was fervently praying for the restoration of the holy city; and as he was greatly beloved by Jehovah, Gabriel is commissioned from heaven to acquaint him with the divine orders concerning it, which had been given out at the beginning of his prayers.    The angel comes to him, and opens his information, ch. 9 ver. 24, in terms implying, that within seventy weeks the Jews should return from captivity, the worship of Jehovah should be introduced again, and Jeremiah should be found to have been a true prophet. He then proceeds to a more circumstantial detail, and tells him,

                 1. That Cyrus, who was to send back his countrymen to their land, and to restore Jerusalem, should succeed to the throne in seven (7) weeks.

                 2. That in sixty-two (62) weeks from his accession, the streets of Jerusalem should be rebuilt.

                 3. That after these weeks, Cyrus should be slain, and the Samaritans, instigated by the edict of his successor Cambyses, and by a spirit of revenge, should come suddenly upon the Jews in their low condition, and lay waste the city and the sanctuary, that should be building in it, and that Jerusalem should continue desolate, without a temple, and without walls, till the second year of Darius Hystaspes, a time of profound peace throughout the Persian empire, when it should begin to rise again out of its ruins.

                 4. That in the first week after the sixty-two (62), or the seventieth (70th) from the vision, the temple should be founded, and many of the Jews be encouraged by this, to expect the firm, re-establishment of their covenant with Jehovah, but that in the midst of the week the Samaritans should oblige them to desist from their worship, by polluting the altar that had been set up about seven months before, which should remain deserted and unhallowed, till the death of Cambyses, the enemy of the Jews, who was to perish miserably.           The Appendix contains merely a confirmation of the generally received opinion, that the Jews were strongly prepossessed with the expectation of a Messiah, who was to be a mighty conqueror, and whose kingdom was to be solely of this world: nor have they to this day given up this flattering opinion. }}

 18. Keil.

Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, by C.F. Keil, D.D. & F. Delitzsch, D.D. The Book of the Prophet Daniel, by C.F. Keil. Translated from the German by the Rev. M. G. Easton, D.D.

Edinburgh. T.&T Clark. 1877.

                {{ Translator’s Preface:  The venerable and learned author of the following Commentary has produced a work which, it is believed, will stand comparison with any other of the present age for the comprehensive and masterly way in which he handles the many difficult and interesting questions of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation that have accumulated from the earliest times around the Exposition of the Book of the Prophet Daniel. The Translator is glad of the opportunity of bringing this work under the notice of English readers. The severely critical and exegetical nature of the work precludes any attempt at elegance of style. The Translator’s aim has simply been to introduce the English student to Dr. Keil’s own modes of thought and forms of expression. }}

                {{ Table of Contents: Preface.

                Introduction: (p. 1-57)

1. Person of Prophet.

2. Daniel’s Place in History of Kingdom of God. Exile Turning-point in the Development of  Kingdom of God & in History of Heathen Nations.

3. Contents & Arrangement of Book of Daniel.

4. Genuineness of Book of Daniel. Four Great Periods of Miracles. Revelations of God first & principally intended for Israel. Revelation by Dreams & by Visions distinguished. External Arguments against Genuineness of Book answered. Internal Arguments against its Genuineness answered:

(1.) Greek Names of Musical Instruments.

(2.) Historical Difficulties.

(3.) Was composed in Time of Maccabees.

Arguments against this Objection, & Origin in Time of Exile proved.

                Exposition: (p.58-506)

                Chap. I. Historico-Biographical Introduction.

Vers. 1,2. Expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem.

Vers. 3-7. Daniel & his Companions set apart for Training for King’s Service.

Vers. 8-16. Daniel‘s Request to Chief Chamberlain granted.

Vers. 17-21. Progress of  Young Men in Wisdom of Chaldeans, &  their Appointment to King’s Service.

                Part First —Development of World-Power. Chapters: II-VII. (84-283)

                Chap. II. Nebuchadnezzar’s Vision or World-Monarchies, & It’s Interpretation by Daniel.

Vers. 1-13. Dream of Nebuchadnezzar.

Vers. 14-30. Daniel’s Willingness to declare Dream to King & his Prayer for Revelation of Secret.

Vers. 31-45. Dream & its Interpretation.

Vers. 46-49. Consequences of Interpretation.

                Chap. III. Daniel’s Three Friends in Fiery Furnace.

Vers. 1-18. Erection & Consecration of Golden Image, & Accusation against Daniel’s Friends.

Vera. 14-18. Trial of Accused.

Vers. 19-27. Judgment pronounced on Accused, their Punishment & Deliverance.

Vers. 28-30. Impression made by this Event on Nebuchadnezzar.

                Chap. III. 31 (IV. 1)-IV. 34 (37). Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream & Madness.

                Chap. iii. 31 (iv. 1)-iv. 15 (18). Preface to King’s Edict, & Account of his Dream.

                Chap. iv. 16-24 (19-27). Interpretation of Dream.

Vers. 25-30 (28-33). Fulfilling of  Dream.

Vers. 31-34 (34-37). Nebuchadnezzar’s Recovery, his Restoration to his Kingdom, & his thankful Recognition of the Lord in Heaven.

                Chap. V. Belshazzar’s Feast & Handwriting of God. Belshazzar & Kings of Chaldea.

Vers. 1-4. Belshazzar magnifies himself against God.

Vers. 5-12. Warning Sign & Belshazzar’s Astonishment.

Vers. 13-28. Daniel is summoned, reminds King of his Sins, reads & interprets Dream.

Vers. 29,30. Daniel rewarded, & Beginning of Fulfilment of  Writing.

                Chap. VI. Daniel in Den of Lions. Historical Statements of Chapter vindicated.

Vers. 1-10 (ch. v. 31-vi. 9). Transference of  Kingdom to Darius  Mede; Appointment of  Regency, & Envy of  Satraps against Daniel.

Vers. 11-25 (10-24). Daniel’s Offence against Law; his Accusation, Condemnation, & Miraculous Deliverance.

Vers. 26-29 (28). Consequences of this Occurrence.

                Chap. VII. Vision of Four World-Kingdoms; Judgment & Kingdom of Holy God.

Ver. 1. Time of Vision.

Vers. 4-8. Description of Four Beasts.

Vers. 9-14. Judgment on Horn speaking Great Things & on other Beasts, & Delivering of  Kingdom to Son of Man.

Vers. 15-18. Interpretation of Vision. Four World-Kingdoms. Messianic Kingdom & Son of Man.

Son of Man, (‘ho ‘huios tou anthrōpou). Little Horn & Apocalyptic Beast.

                Part Second —Development of Kingdom of God, Chapters: VIII.-XII. (284-506)

                Chap. VIII. Enemy Arising out of Third World-Kingdom.

Vers. 1-14. Vision.

Vers. 15-27. Interpretation of Vision.

                Chap. IX. Seventy (70, LXX) Weeks.

Vers. 1,2. Occasion of Penitential Prayer.

Vers. 3—19. Daniel’s Prayer.

Vers. 20-23. Granting of Prayer.

Vers. 24-27. Divine Revelation regarding Seventy (70) Weeks.

Ver. 24. Seventy Weeks determined, etc.

Ver. 25. Detailed Statement of the Seventy (70) Weeks, . 350

Ver. 26. After Threescore & Two  (62) Weeks Messiah Cut Off.

Ver. 27. To Confirm the Covenant, etc.  Abomination of Desolation.  Symbolical Interpretation of Seventy (70) Weeks.

                Chap. X.-XII. Revelation Regarding Affliction of People of God on part of Rulers of World

Till Consummation of Kingdom of God.

                Chap. x.-xi. 2. Theophany.

Chap. 1:. 1-3. Introduction to Manifestation of God.

Vers. 4-6. Theophany.

Vers. 7-10. Effect of Appearance on Daniel & his Companions.

Vers. 12-19. Daniel raised up & made capable of receiving the Revelation of God.

Ver. 20-chap. xi. 1. Disclosures regarding the Spirit-World.

                Chap. xi. 2-xii. 3. Revelation of the Future.

Chap. xi. 2-20. The Events of the Nearest Future, . . 430

Vers. 5-9. Wars of the Kings of the South & the North.

Vers. 10-15. Decisive War.

Vers. 16-19. Further Undertakings of the King of the North.

Ver. 20. Prince who strives after Supremacy & is Enemy of Holy Covenant. Kings of Syria & Egypt.

                Chap. xi. 21-xii. 3. Further Unveiling of  Future.

Vers. 21-24. Prince’s Advancement to Power.

Vers. 2527. War of Antiochus Epiphanes against Ptolemy Philomator.

Vers. 28-32. Rising Up against Holy Covenant.

Vers. 32-35. Its Consequences for People of Israel.

Vers. 36-39. Hostile King exalting himself above all Divine & Human Ordinances at Time of  End.

Vers. 40-43. The Last Undertakings of the Hostile King, and his End.

Vers. 44,45. End of Hostile King.

                Chap. xii. 1-3. Final Deliverance of Israel, & their Consummation.

                Chap. xii. 4-13. Conclusion of Revelation of God of Book.

Ver. 4. Daniel commanded to Seal Book.

Vers. 5-7. Angels on Banks of River, & Man clothed with Linen.

Vets. 9-13. Angel‘s Answer to Daniel’s Inquiry regarding End.

Vers. 11, 12. 1290 & 1335 Days.

Ver. 13. Daniel’s Dismissal & his Rest. }}

                Introduction: ……II. Daniel’s Place in History of Kingdom of God……

                {{ Accordingly the exile forms a great turning-point in the development of the kingdom of God which He had founded in Israel. With that event the form of the theocracy established at Sinai comes to an end, and then begins the period of the transition to a new form, which was to be established by Christ, and has been actually established by Him. The form according to which the people of God constituted an earthly kingdom, taking its place beside the other kingdoms of the nations, was not again restored after the termination of the seventy years of the desolations of Jerusalem and Judah, which had been prophesied by Jeremiah, because the Old Testament theocracy had served its end. God the Lord had, during its continuance, showed daily not only that He was Israel’s God, a merciful and gracious God, who was faithful to His covenant towards those who feared Him and walked in His commandments and laws, and who could make His people great and glorious, and had power to protect them against all their enemies; but also that He was a mighty and a jealous God, who visits the blasphemers of His holy name according to their iniquity, and is able to fulfil His threatenings no less than His promises. It was necessary that the people of Israel should know by experience that a transgressing of the covenant and a turning away from the service of God does not lead to safety, but hastens onward to ruin; that deliverance from sin, and salvation life and happiness, can be found only with the Lord who is rich in grace and in faithfulness, and can only be reached by a humble walking according to His commandments.

                The restoration of the Jewish state after the exile was not a re-establishment of the Old Testament kingdom of God. When Cyrus granted liberty to the Jews to return to their own land, and commanded them to rebuild the temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem, only a very small band of captives returned; the greater part remained scattered among the heathen. Even those who went home from Babylon to Canaan were not set free from subjection to the heathen world-power, but remained, in the land which the Lord had given to their fathers, servants to it. Though now again the ruined walls of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah were restored, and the temple also was rebuilt, and the offering up of sacrifice renewed, yet the glory of the Lord did not again enter into the new temple, which was also without the ark of the covenant and the mercy-seat, so as to hallow it as the place of His gracious presence among His people. The temple worship among the Jews after the captivity was without its soul, the real presence of the Lord in the sanctuary; the high priest could no longer go before God’s throne of grace in the holy of holies to sprinkle the atoning blood of the sacrifice toward the ark of the covenant, and to accomplish the reconciliation of the congregation with their God, and could no longer find out, by means of the Urim and Thummim, the will of the Lord. When Nehemiah had finished the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem, prophecy ceased, the revelations of the Old Covenant came to a final end, and the period of expectation (during which no prophecy was given) of the promised Deliverer, of the seed of David, began. When this Deliverer appeared in Jesus Christ, and the Jews did not recognise Him as their Saviour, but rejected Him and put Him to death, they were at length, on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans, scattered throughout the whole world, and to this day they live in a state of banishment from the presence of the Lord, till they return to Christ, and through faith in Him again enter into the kingdom of God and be blessed.

                The space of 500 years, from the end of the Babylonish captivity to the appearance of Christ, can be considered as the last period of the Old Covenant only in so far as in point of time it precedes the foundation Of the New Covenant; but it was in reality, for that portion of the Jewish people who had returned to Judea, no deliverance from subjection to the power of the heathen, no re-introduction into the kingdom of God, but only a period of transition from the Old to the New Covenant, during which Israel were prepared for the reception of the Deliverer coming out of Zion. In this respect this period may be compared with the forty, or more accurately, the thirty-eight (38) years of the wanderings of Israel in the Arabian desert. As God did not withdraw all the tokens of His gracious covenant from the race that was doomed to die in the wilderness, but guided them by His pillar of cloud and fire, and gave them manna to eat, so He gave grace to those who had returned from Babylon to Jerusalem to build again the temple and to restore the sacrificial service, whereby they prepared themselves for the appearance of Him who should build the true temple, and make an everlasting atonement by the offering up of His life as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.

                If the prophets before the captivity, therefore, connect the deliverance of Israel from Babylon and their return to Canaan immediately with the setting up of the kingdom of God in its glory, without giving any indication that between the end of the Babylonish exile and the appearance of the Messiah a long period would intervene, this uniting together of the two events is not to be explained only from the perspective and apotelesmatic character of the prophecy, but has its foundation in the very nature of the thing itself. The prophetic perspective, by virtue of which the inward eye of the seer beholds only the elevated summits of historical events as they unfold themselves, and not the valleys of the common incidents of history which lie between these heights, is indeed peculiar to prophecy in general, and accounts for the circumstance that the prophecies as a rule give no fixed dates, and apotelesmatically bind together the points of history which open the way to the end, with the end itself. But this formal peculiarity of prophetic contemplation we must not extend to the prejudice of the actual truth of the prophecies. The fact of the uniting together of the future glory of the kingdom of God under the Messiah with the deliverance of Israel from exile, has perfect historical veracity. The banishment of the covenant people from the land of the Lord and their subjection to the heathen, was not only the last of those judgments which God had threatened against His degenerate people, but it also continues till the perverse rebels are exterminated, and the penitents are turned with sincere hearts to God the Lord and are saved through Christ. Consequently the exile was for Israel the last space for repentance which God in His faithfulness to His covenant granted to them. Whoever is not brought by this severe chastisement to repentance and reformation, but continues opposed to the gracious will of God, on him falls the judgment of death; and only they who turn themselves to the Lord, their God and Saviour, will be saved, gathered from among the heathen, brought in within the bonds of the covenant of grace through Christ, and become partakers of the promised riches of grace in His kingdom.

                But with the Babylonish exile of Israel there also arises for the heathen nations a turning-point of marked importance for their future history. So long as Israel formed within the borders of their own separated land a peculiar people, under immediate divine guidance, the heathen nations dwelling around came into manifold hostile conflicts with them, while God used them as a rod of correction for His rebellious people. Though they were often at war among themselves, yet, in general separated from each other, each nation developed itself according to its own proclivities. Besides, from ancient times the greater kingdoms on the Nile and the Euphrates had for centuries striven to raise their power, enlarging themselves into world-powers; while the Phoenicians on the Mediterranean sea-coast gave themselves to commerce, and sought to enrich themselves with the treasures of the earth. In this development the smaller as well as the larger nations gradually acquired strength. God had permitted each of them to follow its own way, and had conferred on them much good, that they might seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him and find Him; but the principle of sin dwelling within them had poisoned their natural development, so that they went farther and farther away from the living God and from everlasting good, sunk deeper and deeper into idolatry and immorality of every kind, and went down with rapid steps toward destruction. Then God began to winnow the nations of the world by His great judgments. The Chaldeans raised themselves, under energetic leaders, to be a world-power, which not only overthrew the Assyrian kingdom and subjugated all the lesser nations of Hither Asia, but also broke the power of the Phoenicians and Egyptians, and brought under its dominion all the civilized peoples of the East. With the monarchy founded by Nebuchadnezzar it raised itself in the rank of world-powers, which within not long intervals followed each other in quick succession, until the Roman world-monarchy arose, by which all the civilized nations of antiquity were subdued, and under which the ancient world came to a close, at the appearance of Christ. These world-kingdoms, which destroyed one another, each giving place, after a. short existence, to its successor, which in its turn also was overthrown by another that followed, led the nations, on the one side, to the knowledge of the helplessness and the vanity of their idols, and taught them the fleeting nature and the nothingness of all earthly greatness and glory, and, on the other side, placed limits to the egoistical establishment of the different nations in their separate interests, and the deification of their peculiarities in education, culture, art, and science, and thereby prepared the way, by means of the spreading abroad of the language and customs of the physically or intellectually dominant people among all the different nationalities united under one empire, for the removal of the particularistic isolation of the tribes separated from them by language and customs, and for the re-uniting together into one universal family of the scattered tribes of the human race. Thus they opened the way for the revelation of the divine plan of salvation to all peoples, whilst they shook the faith of the heathen in their gods, destroyed the frail supports of heathen religion, and awakened the longing for the Saviour from sin, death, and destruction.

                But God, the Lord of heaven and earth, revealed to the heathen His eternal Godhead and His invisible essence, not only by His almighty government in the disposal of the affairs of their history, but He also, in every great event in the historical development of humanity, announced His will through that people whom He had chosen as the depositaries of His salvation. Already the patriarchs had, by their lives and by their fear of God, taught the Canaanites the name of the Lord so distinctly, that they were known amongst them as “princes of God ” (Gen. 23:6), and in their God they acknowledged the most high God, the Creator of heaven and earth (Gen. 14:19, 22). Thus, when Moses was sent to Pharaoh to announce to him the will of God regarding the departure of the people of Israel, and when Pharaoh refused to listen to the will of God, his land and his people were so struck by the wonders of the divine omnipotence, that not only the Egyptians learned to fear the God of Israel, but the fear and dread of Him also fell on the princes of Edom and Moab, and on all the inhabitants of Canaan (Ex. 15:14 ff.). Afterwards, when Israel came to the borders of Canaan, and the king of Moab, in conjunction with the princes of Midian, brought the famed soothsayer Balaam out of Mesopotamia that he might destroy the people of God with his curse, Balaam was constrained to predict, according to the will of God, to the king and his counsellors the victorious power of Israel over all their enemies, and the subjection of all the heathen nations (Num. 22-24). In the age succeeding, God the Lord showed Himself to the nations, as often as they assailed Israel contrary to His will, as an almighty God who can destroy all His enemies; and even the Israelitish prisoners of war were the means of making known to the heathen the great name of the God of Israel, as the history of the cure of Naaman the Syrian by means of Elisha shows (2nd Kings 5). This knowledge of the living, all-powerful God could not but be yet more spread abroad among the heathen by the leading away captive of the tribes of Israel and of Judah into Assyria and Chaldea.

                But fully to prepare, by the exile, the people of Israel as well as the heathen world for the appearance of the Saviour of all nations and for the reception of the gospel, the Lord raised up prophets, who not only preached His law and His justice among the covenant people scattered among the heathen, and made more widely known the counsel of His grace, but also bore witness by word and deed, in the presence of the heathen rulers of the world, of the omnipotence and glory of God, the Lord of heaven and earth. This mission was discharged by Ezekiel and Daniel. God placed the prophet Ezekiel among his exiled fellow-countrymen as a watchman over the house of Israel, that he might warn the godless, proclaim to them continually the judgment which would fall upon them and destroy their vain hopes of a speedy liberation from bondage and a return to their fatherland; but to the God-fearing, who were bowed down under the burden of their sorrows and were led to doubt the covenant faithfulness of God, he was commissioned to testify the certain fulfilment of the predictions of the earlier prophets as to the restoration and bringing to its completion of’ the kingdom of God. A different situation was appointed by God to Daniel. His duty was to proclaim before the throne of the rulers of this world the glory of the God of Israel as the God of heaven and earth, in opposition to false gods; to announce to those invested with worldly might and dominion the subjugation of all the kingdoms of this world by the everlasting kingdom of God; and to his own people the continuance of their afflictions under the oppression of the world-power, as well as the fulfilment of the gracious counsels of God through the blotting out of all sin, the establishment of an everlasting righteousness, the fulfilling of all the prophecies, and the setting up of a true holy of holies. }}

                III. —Contents & Arrangement of Book of Daniel.

                {{ The book begins (ch. 1) with the account of Daniel’s being carried away to Babylon, his appointment and education for the service of the court of the Chaldean king by a three years’ course of instruction in the literature and wisdom of the Chaldeans, and his entrance on service in the king’s palace. This narrative, by its closing (ver. 21) statement that Daniel continued in this office till the first year of king Cyrus, and still more by making manifest his firm fidelity to the law of the true God and his higher enlightenment in the meaning of dreams and visions granted to him on account of this fidelity, as well as by the special mention of his three like-minded friends, is to be regarded as a historico-biographical introduction to the book, showing how Daniel, under the divine guidance, was prepared, along with his friends, for that calling in which, as prophet at the court of the rulers of the world, he might bear testimony to the omnipotence and the infallible wisdom of the God of Israel. This testimony is given in the following book. Ch. 2 contains a remarkable dream of Nebuchadnezzar, which none of the Chaldean wise men could tell the king or interpret. But God made it known to Daniel in answer to prayer, so that he could declare and explain to the king the visions he saw in his dream, representing the four great world-powers, and their destruction by the everlasting kingdom of God. Ch. 3 describes the wonderful deliverance of Daniel’s three friends from the burning fiery furnace into which they were thrown, because they would not bow down to the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Ch. 4 (in Heb. text  3:31-4:34) contains an edict promulgated by Nebuchadnezzar to all the peoples and nations of his kingdom, in which he made known to them a remarkable dream which had been interpreted to him by Daniel, and its fulfilment to him in his temporary derangement,—a beast’s heart having been given unto him as a punishment for his haughty self-deification,—and his recovery from that state in consequence of his humbling himself under the hand of the almighty God. Ch. 5 makes mention of a wonderful handwriting which appeared on the wall during a riotous feast, and which king Belshazzar saw, and the interpretation of it by Daniel. Ch. 6 narrates Daniel’s miraculous deliverance from the den of lions into which the Median king Darius had thrown him, because he had, despite of the king’s command to the contrary, continued to pray to his God.

                The remaining chapters contain visions and divine revelations regarding the development of the world-powers and of the kingdom of God vouchsafed to Daniel. The seventh sets forth a vision, in which, under the image of four ravenous beasts rising up out of the troubled sea are represented the four world-powers following one another. The judgment which would fall upon them is also revealed. The eighth contains a vision of the Medo-Persian and Greek world-powers under the image of a ram and a lie-goat respectively, and of the enemy and desolater of the sanctuary and of the people of God arising out of the last named kingdom; the ninth, the revelation of the seventy weeks appointed for the development and the completion of the kingdom of God, which Daniel received in answer to earnest prayer for the pardon of his people and the restoration of Jerusalem; and, finally, ch. 10-12 contain a vision, granted in the third year of the reign of Cyrus, with further disclosures regarding the Persian and the Grecian world-powers, and the wars of the kingdoms of the north and the south, springing out of the latter of these powers, for the supreme authority and the dominion over the Holy Land; the oppression that would fall on the saints of the Most High at the time of the end ; the destruction of the last enemy under the stroke of divine judgment; and the completion of the kingdom of God, by the rising again from the dead of some to everlasting life, and of some to shame and everlasting contempt.

                The book has commonly been divided into two parts, consisting of six chapters each (0.9. by Ros., Mann, Hāvern., Hitz., Zūndel, etc.). The first six are regarded as historical, and the remaining six as prophetical; or the first part is called the “ book of history,” the second, the “book of visions.” But this division corresponds neither with the contents nor with the formal design of the book. If we consider the first chapter and its relation to the whole already stated, we cannot discern a substantial reason for regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the image representing the monarchies (ch. 2), which with its interpretation was revealed to Daniel in a night vision (ch. 2:19), as an historical narration, and Daniel’s dream-vision of the four world-powers symbolized by ravenous beasts, which an angel interpreted to him, as a prophetic vision, since the contents of both chapters are essentially alike. The circumstance that in ch. 2 it is particularly related how the Chaldean wise men, who were summoned by Nebuchadnezzar, could neither relate nor interpret the dream, and on that account were threatened with death, and were partly visited with punishment, does not entitle us to refuse to the dream and its contents, which were revealed to Daniel in a night vision, the character of a prophecy. In addition to this, ch. 7, inasmuch as it is written in the Chaldee language and that Daniel speaks in it in the third person (ch. 7:1,2), naturally connects itself with the chapters preceding (ch. 2-6), and separates itself from those which follow, in which Daniel speaks in the first person and uses the Hebrew language. On these grounds, we must, with Aub., Klief., and Kran., regard ch. 2, which is written in Chaldee, as belonging to the first part of the book, viz. ch. 2-7, and ch. 8-12, which are written in Hebrew, as constituting the second part; and the propriety of this division we must seek to vindicate by an examination of the contents of both of the parts.

                Kranichfeld (das Bach Daniel erklārt) thus explains the distinction between the two parts : —The first presents the successive development of the whole heathen world power, and its relation to Israel, till the time of the Messianic kingdom (ch. 2 and 7), but lingers particularly in the period lying at the beginning of this development, i.e. in the heathen kingdoms standing nearest the exiles, namely, the Chaldean kingdom and that of the Medes which subdued it (ch. 6). The second part (ch. 8-12), on the contrary, passing from the Chaldean kingdom, lingers on the development of the heathen world-power towards the time of its end, in the Javanic form of power, and on the Median and Persian kingdom only in so far as it immediately precedes the unfolding of the power of Javan. But, setting aside this explanation of the world-kingdoms, with which we do not agree, the contents of ch. 9 are altogether overlooked in this view of the relations between the two parts, inasmuch as this chapter does not treat of the development of the heathen world-power, but of the kingdom of God and of the time of its consummation determined by God. If we inspect more narrowly the contents of the first part, we find an interruption of the chronological order pervading the book, inasmuch as events (ch. 9) belonging to the time of the Median king Darius are recorded before the visions (ch. 7 and 8) in the first and third year of the Chaldean king Belshazzar. The placing of these events before that vision can have no other ground than to allow historical incidents of a like kind to be recorded together, and then the visions granted to Daniel, without any interruption. Hence has arisen the appearance of the book’s being divided into two parts, historical and  prophetical.

                In order to discover a right division, we must first endeavour to make clear the meaning of the historical incidents recorded in ch. 3-6, that we may determine their relations to the visions in ch. 2 and 7. The two intervening chapters 4 and 5 are like the second chapter in this, that they speak of revelations which the possessors of the world-power received, and that, too, revelations of the judgment which they drew upon themselves by their boastful pride and violence against the sanctuaries of the living God. To Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, when he boasted (ch. 4) of the building of great Babylon as a royal residence by his great might, it was revealed in a dream that he should be cast down from his height and debased among the beasts of the field, till he should learn that the Most High rules over the kingdom of men. To king Belshazzar (ch. 5), in the midst of his riotous banquet, at which he desecrated the vessels of the holy temple at Jerusalem, was revealed, by means of a handwriting on the wall, his death and the destruction of his kingdom. To both of these kings Daniel had to explain the divine revelation, which soon after was fulfilled. The other two chapters (3 and 6) make known the attempts of the rulers of the world to compel the servants of the Lord to offer supplication to them and to their images, and the wonderful deliverance from death which the Lord vouchsafed to the faithful confessors of His name. These four events have, besides their historical value, a prophetical import: they show how the world-rulers, when they misuse their power for self-idolatry and in opposition to the Lord and His servants, will be humbled and cast down by God, while, on the contrary, the true confessors of His name will be wonderfully protected and upheld. For the sake of presenting this prophetic meaning, Daniel has recorded these events and incidents in his prophetical book; and, on chronological and essential grounds, has introduced ch. 2 and 7 between the visions, so as to define more clearly the position of the world-power in relation to the kingdom of God. Thus the whole of the first part (ch. 2-7) treats of the world-power and its development in relation to the kingdom of God ; and we can say with Kliefoth, that “chapter second gives a survey of the whole historical evolution of the world-power, which survey ch. 7, at the close of this part, further extends, while the intermediate chapters 3-6 show in concrete outlines the nature and kind of the world-power, and its conduct in opposition to the people of God.” (* Das Buch Daniels ūbers. u. erkl.)

                If we now fix our attention on the second part, ch. 8-12 it will appear that in the visions, ch. 8 and 10-12, are prophesied oppressions of the people of God by a powerful enemy of God and His saints, who would arise out of the third world-kingdom; which gave occasion to Auberlen to say that the first part unfolds and presents to view the whole development of the world-powers from a universal historical point of view, and shows how the kingdom of God would in the end triumph over them; that the second part, on the contrary, places before our eyes the unfolding of the world-powers in their relation to Israel in the nearer future before the predicted (ch. 9) appearance of Christ in the flesh.  (* Der Proph. Daniel u. die Offenb. Johannis, p. 38, der 2 Auf. (The Prophecies of Daniel, and the Revelations of John. Published by Messrs. T. and T Clark, Edinburgh.)    This designation of the distinction between the two parts accords with that already acknowledged by me, yet on renewed reflection it does not accord with the recognised reference of ch. 9:24-27 to the first appearance of Christ in the flesh, nor with ch. 11:36-12:7, which prophesies of Antichrist. Rather, as Klief. has also justly remarked, the second part treats of the kingdom of God, and its development in relation to the world-power. “As the second chapter forms the central-point of the first part, so does the ninth chapter of the second part, gathering all the rest around it. And as the second chapter presents the whole historical evolution of the world-power from the days of Daniel to the end, so, on the other hand, the ninth chapter presents the whole historical evolution of the kingdom of God from the days of Daniel to the end.” But the preceding vision recorded in ch. 8, and that which follows in ch. 10-12, predict a violent incursion of an insolent enemy rising out of the Javanic world-kingdom against the kingdom of God, which will terminate in his own destruction at the time appointed by God, and, as a comparison of ch. 8 and 7 and of ch. 11:21-35 with 36-44 and ch. 12:1-3 shows, will be a type of the assault of the last enemy, in whom the might of the fourth world-power reaches its highest point of hostility against the kingdom of God, but who in the final judgment will also be destroyed. These two visions, the second of which is but a further unfolding of the first, could not but show to the people of God what wars and oppressions they would have to encounter in the near and the remote future for their sanctification, and for the confirmation of their faith, till the final perfecting of the kingdom of God by the resurrection of the dead and the judgment of the world, and at the same time strengthen the true servants of God with the assurance of final victory in these severe conflicts.

                With this view of the contents of the book the form in which the prophecies are given stands also in harmony. In the first part, which treats of the world-power, Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, is the receiver of the revelation. To him was communicated not only the prophecy (ch. 4) relating to himself personally, but also that which comprehended the whole development of the world-power (ch. 2); while Daniel received only the revelation (ch. 7) specially bearing on the relation of the world power in its development to the kingdom of God, in a certain measure for the confirmation of the revelation communicated to Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar also, as the bearer of the world power, received (ch. 5) a revelation from God. In the second part, on the contrary, which treats of the development of the kingdom of God, Daniel, “who is by birth and by faith a member of the kingdom of God,” alone receives a prophecy—“With this the change in the language of the book agrees. The first part (ch. 2-7), treating of the world-power and its development, is written in Chaldee, which is the language of the world-power; the second part (ch. 8-12), treating of the kingdom of God and its development, as also the first chapter, which shows how Daniel the Israelite was called to be a prophet by God, is written in the Hebrew, which is the language of the people of God. This circumstance denotes that in the first part the fortunes of the world-power, and that in the second part the development of the kingdom of God, is the subject treated of (cf. Auber. p. 39, Klief. p. 44).  (*Kranichfeld (d. B. Daniels, p. 53) seeks to explain this interchange of the Hebrew and Chaldee (Aramean) languages by supposing that the decree of Nebuchadnezzar (ch. 3:31 [4:1] f.) to his people, and also his conversation with the Chaldeans (ch.  2:4-11), were originally in the Aramaic language, and that the author was led from this to make use of this language throughout one part of his book, as was the case with Ezra, e.g. ch. 4:23 ff. And the continuous use of the Aramaic language in one whole part of the book will be sufficiently explained, if it were composed during a definite epoch, within which the heathen oppressors as such, and the heathen persecution, stand everywhere in the foreground, namely in the time of the Chaldean Supremacy, on which the Median made no essential change. Thus the theocrat, writing at this time, composed his reports in the Aramaic language in order to make them effective among the Chaldeans, because they were aimed against their enmity and hostility as well as against that of their rulers. But this explanation fails from this circumstance, that in the third year of Belshazzar the vision granted to Daniel (ch. 8) is recorded in the Hebrew language, while, on the contrary, the later events which occurred in the might on which Belshazzar was slain (ch. 5) are described in the Chaldee language. The use of the Hebrew language in the vision (ch. 8) cannot be explained on Kranichfeld’s supposition, for that vision is so internally related to the one recorded in the Chaldee language in the seventh chapter, that no ground can be discerned for the change of language in these two chapters.)

                From these things we arrive at the certainty that the book of Daniel forms an organic whole, as is now indeed generally acknowledged, and that it was composed by a prophet according to a plan resting on higher illumination. }}

                Exposition: Chap. I. Historico-Biographical Introduction.

                {{ When Nebuchadnezzar first besieged Jerusalem he not only took away the holy vessels of the temple, but also commanded that several Israelitish youths of noble lineage, among whom was Daniel, should be carried to Babylon and there educated in the science and wisdom of the Chaldeans for service in his court, which they entered upon when their education was completed. This narrative, in which the stedfast attachment of Daniel and his three friends to the religion of their fathers, and the blessings which flowed to them from this fidelity (vers. 8-17), are particularly set forth, forms the historical introduction to the following book, whilst it shows how Daniel reached the place of influence which he held, a place which was appointed for him according to the divine counsel, during the Babylonish exile, for the preservation and development of the Old Testament kingdom of God. It concludes (ver. 21) with the remark, that Daniel continued to occupy this place till the first year of Cyrus.

                Vers. 1 and 2. Of this expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem it is related in the second book of Kings (ch. 24:1): “In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years; then he turned and rebelled against him ;” and in the second book of Chronicles (ch. 36:6): “Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also carried of the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon.” That both of these statements refer to the same expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim mentioned here, appears not only from the statement of the book of Chronicles agreeing with ver. 2 of this chapter, namely, that Nebuchadnezzar took away a part of the sacred vessels of the temple to Babylon, and there put them in the temple of his god, but also from the circumstance that, beyond all doubt, during the reign of Jehoiakim there was not a second siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. It is true, indeed, that when Jehoiakim threw off the yoke at the end of three years’ subjection, Nebuchadnezzar sent Chaldean, Aramaean, Moabitish, and Ammonitish hosts against him for the purpose of bringing him into subjection, but Jerusalem was not again laid siege to by these hosts till the death of Jehoiakim. Not till his son Jehoiachin ascended the throne did the servants of Nebuchadnezzar again come up against Jerusalem and besiege it. When, during the siege, Nebuchadnezzar himself came up, Jehoiachin surrendered to him after three months, and was, along with the chief men of his kingdom, and the strength of the population of Jerusalem and Judah, and the treasures of the royal palace and of the temple, carried down to Babylon (2nd Kings 24:2-16). The year, however, in which Nebuchadnezzar, in the reign of Jehoiakim, first took Jerusalem and carried away a part of the treasures of the temple to Babylon, is stated neither in the second book of Kings nor in Chronicles, but may be pretty certainly determined by the statements of Jeremiah (ch. 46:2; 25:1 ff., 36:1 ff.). According to Jer. 46:2, Nebuchadnezzar smote the Egyptian king Pharaoh-Necho with his army at Carchemish in the fourth (4th) year of the reign of Jehoiakim. That same year is spoken of (Jer. 25:1) as the first year of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and is represented by Jeremiah not only as a critical period for the kingdom of Judah; but also, by the prediction that the Lord would bring His servant Nebuchadnezzar against Judah and against its inhabitants, and against all the nations round about, that He would make Judah a desolation, and that these nations would serve the king of Babylon seventy (70) years (vers. 2-11), he without doubt represents it as the beginning of the seventy (70) years of Babylonish exile. In this the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the prophet was also commanded (ch. 36:1 ff.) to write in a book all the words which the Lord had spoken unto him against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day in which He had spoken to him in the time of Josiah even till then, that the house of Judah might hear all the evil which He purposed to do unto them, and might return every man from his evil way. Jeremiah obeyed this command, and caused these predictions, written in the roll of a book, to be read by Baruch to the people in the temple; for he himself was a prisoner, and therefore could not go to the temple.

                The first capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar cannot therefore have taken place in the third, but must have been in the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim, i.e. in the year 606 B.C. This, however, appears to stand in opposition to the statement of the first verse of this chapter: “In the third (3rd) year of the reign of Jehoiakim (ba’) Nebuchadnezzar to Jerusalem.” The modern critics accordingly number this statement among the errors which must disprove the genuineness of this book (see above, p. 35 f.). The apparent opposition between the language of Daniel (ch. 1:1) that Nebuchadnezzar undertook his first expedition against Jerusalem in the third (3rd) year of Jehoiakim, and the affirmation of Jeremiah, according to which not only was Pharaoh-Necho slain by Nebuchadnezzar at the Euphrates in the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim, but also in this same year Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Judea is for the first time announced, cannot be resolved either by the hypothesis of a different mode of reckoning the years of the reign of Jehoiakim and of Nebuchadnezzar, nor by the supposition that Jerusalem had been already taken by Nebuchadnezzar before the battle of Carchemish, in the third (3rd) year of Jehoiakim. The first supposition is set aside by the circumstance that there is no certain analogy for it.  (* The old attempt to reconcile the difference in this way has already been shown by Hengstenberg (Beit. z. Einl. in d. A. T. p. 53) to be untenable; and the supposition of Klief. (p. 65 f.), that Jehoiakim entered on his reign near the end of a year, and that Jeremiah reckons the year of his reign according to the calendar year, but that Daniel reckons it from the day of his ascending the throne, by which it is made out that there is no actual difference, is wholly overthrown by the circumstance that in the sacred Scriptures there is no analogy for the reckoning of the year of a king’s reign according to the day of the month on which he began to reign. On this supposition we might reconcile the apparent difference only if no other plan of reconciliation were possible. But such is not the actual state of the case.)    The latter supposition is irreconcilable with Jer. 25 and 36  (* Following the example of Hofmann (die 70 Jaine Jer. p. 13 ff.), Hāvernick (Neue Krit. Unterss. uber d. B. Daniel, p. 62 ii), Zūndel (Krit. Unterss. p. 20 fig, and others have decided in favour of it.)   If Jeremiah in the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim announced that because Judah did not hearken unto his warnings addressed to them “from the thirteenth (13th) year of Josiah even unto this day,” that is, for the space of three and twenty (23) years, nor yet to the admonitions of all the other prophets (ch. 25:3-7) whom the Lord had sent unto them, therefore the Lord would now send His servant Nebuchadnezzar with all the people of the north against the land and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, utterly to destroy the land and make it desolate, etc., —then it must be affirmed that he publicly made known the invasion of Judah by the Chaldeans as an event which had not yet taken place, and therefore that the supposition that Jerusalem had already in the preceding year been taken by Nebuchadnezzar, and that Jehoiakim had been brought under his subjection, is entirely excluded. It is true that in ch. 25 Jeremiah prophesies a judgment of “perpetual desolations against Jerusalem and against all the nations,” but it is as unwarrantable to apply, as Klief. does, this prophecy only “to the total destruction of Jerusalem and of Judah, which took place in the eleventh (11th) year of Zedekiah,” as with older interpreters only to the first expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim, 2nd Kings 24:1 and 2nd Chron. 36:6 f. In the words of threatening uttered by the prophet there are included all the expeditions of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem and Judah, from his first against Jehoiakim to the final destruction of Jerusalem under Zedekiah; so  that we cannot say that it is not applicable to the first siege of Jerusalem under Jehoiakim, but to the final destruction of Judah and Jerusalem, as this whole prophecy is only a comprehensive intensified summary of all the words of God hitherto spoken by the mouth of the prophet. To strengthen the impression produced by this comprehensive word of God, he was commanded in that same year (ch. 36:1 f.), as already mentioned, to write out in the roll of a book all the words hitherto spoken by him, that it might be seen whether or not the several words gathered together into a whole might not exert an influence over the people which the separate words had failed to do.

                Moreover a destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans before the overthrow of the Egyptian power on the Euphrates, which took place in the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim, cannot at all be thought of. King Jehoiakim was “put into hands” by Pharaoh-Necho and made a tributary vassal to him (2 Kings 23:33 ff.), and all the land from the river of Egypt even unto the Euphrates was brought under his sway; therefore Nebuchadnezzar could not desolate Judah and Jerusalem before Pharaoh-Necho was slain. Neither could Nebuchadnezzar pass in the presence of the Egyptian host stationed in the stronghold of Carchemish, on the Euphrates, and advance toward Judah, leaving behind him the city of Babylon as a prize to so powerful an enemy, nor would Necho, supposing that Nebuchadnezzar had done this, have quietly allowed his enemy to carry on his operations, and march against his vassal Jehoiakim, without following in the rear of Egypt’s powerful foe. (* With the above compare my Lehrb. der Einl. § 131, and my Commentary on 2nd Kings 24:1. With this Kran. agrees (p. 17 f.), and in addition remarks: “In any case Necho would at once have regarded with jealousy every invasion of the Chaldean into the region beyond the Euphrates, and would least of all have suffered him to make an extensive western expedition for the purpose of conquering Judea, which was under the sway of Egypt.” *)

                The statement in the first verse may indeed, literally taken, be interpreted as meaning that Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem and took it in the third (3rd) year of the reign of Jehoiakim, because (bo’) frequently means to come to a place. But it is not necessary always so to interpret the word, because (bo’): means not only to come, but also to go, to march to a place. The assertion, that in this verse (bo’) is to be interpreted (Hāv. N. Kr. U. p. 61, Ew., and others) as meaning to come to a place, and not to march to it, is as incorrect as the assertion that the translation of (ba’) by he marched is inadmissible or quite impossible, because (`alah) is generally used of the march of an army (Staeh., Zūnd.). The word (bo’), from the first book of the Canon (cf. Gen. 14:5) to the last, the book of Daniel not excepted (cf. e.g. 11:13, 17, 29, etc.), is used of military expeditions; and regarding the very general opinion, that (bo’), in the sense of to march, to go to a place, occurs less frequently, Kran. (p. 21) has rightly remarked, that “it stands always and naturally in this sense whenever the movement has its point of departure from the place of him who observes it, thinks of it, or makes a communication regarding it.” Therefore, e.g., it is used “always in a personal verbal command with reference to the movement, not yet undertaken, where naturally the thought as to the beginning or point of departure passes into the foreground; as e.g. in Gen. 45:17; Ex. 6:11, 7:26, 9:1, 10:1; Num. 32:6; 1st Sam. 20:19; 2nd Kings 5:5. In Jonah 1:3 it is used of the ship that was about to go to Tarshish; and again, in the words (labo’ `immahem), ibid., it is used when speaking of the conclusion of the journey.” “On the contrary, if the speaker or narrator is at the terminus ad quem of the movement spoken of, then of course the word rain is used in the other sense of to come, to approach, and the like.” Accordingly these words of Daniel, “Nebuchadnezzar (bo’) to Jerusalem,” considered in themselves, may be interpreted without any regard to the point of departure or the termination of the movement. They may mean “Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem,” or that “he marched to Jerusalem,” according as the writer is regarded as writing in Judah or Jerusalem, or in Babylon at the point of departure of Nebuchadnezzar’s journey. If the book was composed by a Maccabean Jew in Palestine, then the translation, “he came to Jerusalem,” would he the more correct, because such a writer would hardly have spoken of a military movement from its eastern point of departure. The case is altogether different if Daniel, who lived as a courtier in Babylon from his youth up, to old age, wrote this account. “ For him, a Jew advanced in years, naturally the first movement of the expedition threatening and bringing destruction to his fatherland, whether it moved directly or by a circuitous route upon the capital, would be a significant fact, which he had in every respect a better opportunity of comprehending than his fellow-countrymen living in the remote west, since this expedition was an event which led to the catastrophe of the exile. For the Jew writing in Babylon about the expedition, the fatal commencement of the march of the Chaldean host would have a mournful significance, which it could not have for a writer living in Jerusalem.”   

                In this way Kran. has thoroughly vindicated the rendering of (bo’), “he marched” to Jerusalem, and also the explanation of the’ word as referring to the setting out of the Chaldean army which Hitz., Hofm., Staeh., Zūnd., and others have declared to be opposed to the meaning of the word and “impossible,” and at the same time he has set aside as groundless the further remark of Hitzig, that the designation of the time also applies to (waiyatzar). If (ba‘) is to be understood of an expedition with reference to its point of departure, then the fixing of its time cannot of course refer also to the time of the arrival of the expedition at its termination and the siege then ensuing. The time of its arrival before Jerusalem, as well as the beginning, duration, and end of the siege, is not defined, and only its result, the taking of Jerusalem, is, according to the object of the author, of sufficient importance to be briefly announced. The period of the taking of the city can only be determined from dates elsewhere given. Thus from the passages in Jeremiah already referred to, it appears that this happened in the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim, in which year Nebuchadnezzar overcame the army of Necho king of Egypt at the Euphrates (Jer. 46:2), and took all the land which the king of Egypt had subdued, from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, so that Pharaoh-Necho came no more out of his land (2nd Kings 24:7). With this agrees Berosus in the fragments of his Chaldean history preserved by Josephus (Ant. x. 11. 1, and c. Ap. i. 19). His words, as found in the latter passage, are these: “When his (Nebuc.) father Nabopolassar heard that the satrap whom he had set over Egypt and over the parts of Coelesyria and Phoenicia had revolted from him, he was unable to bear the annoyance any longer, but committing a part of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was then a youth, he sent him against the rebel. Nabuchodonosor encountered him in battle and overcame him, and brought the land again under his dominion. It happened that his father Nabopolassar at this time fell sick and died at the city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-one (21) years (Berosus says twenty-nine (29) years). But when Nabuchodonosor not long after heard of the death of his father, he set the affairs of Egypt and of the other countries in order, and committed the prisoners he had taken from the Jews, the Phoenicians, and Syrians, and from the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct the heavy armed troops with the rest of the baggage to Babylonia, while he himself hastened with a. small escort through the desert to Babylon. When he came hither, he found that the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldeans, and that the principal persons among them had preserved the kingdom for him. He now obtained possession of all his father’s dominions, and gave directions that the captives should be placed as colonies in the most favourably situated districts of Babylonia,” etc. This fragment illustrates in an excellent manner the statements made in the Bible, in case one be disposed to estimate the account of the revolt of the satrap placed over Egypt and the countries lying round Coelesyria and Phoenicia as only the expression of boastfulness on the part of the Babylonish historian, claiming that all the countries of the earth of right belonged to the monarch of Babylon; and it also shows that the rebel satrap could be none other than Pharaoh-Necho. For Berosus confirms not only the fact, as declared in 2nd Kings 24:7, that Pharaoh-Necho in the last year of Nabopolassar, after the battle at Megiddo, had subdued Judah, Phoenicia, and Coelesyria, i.e. “all the land from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates,” but he also bears witness to the fact that Nebuchadnezzar, after he had slain Pharaoh-Necho (Jer. 46:2) “by the river Euphrates in Carchemish,” made Coelesyria, Phoenicia, and Judah tributary to the Chaldean empire, and consequently that he took Jerusalem not before but after the battle at Carchemish, in prosecution of the victory he had obtained over the Egyptians.

                This does not, however, it must he confessed, prove that Jerusalem had already in the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim come under the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore Hitz. and others conclude from Jer. 36:9 that Nebuchadnezzar’s assault upon Jerusalem was in the ninth month of the fifth (5th) year of Jehoiakim as yet only in prospect, because in that month Jeremiah prophesied of the Chaldean invasion, and the extraordinary fast then appointed had as its object the manifestation of repentance, so that thereby the wrath of God might be averted. This Kran. endeavours to prove from 2nd Kings 25:27, cf. Jer. 3:31. But in the ninth month of the fifth (5th) year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah caused to be rehearsed to the people in the court of the temple his former prophecies, written by Baruch in a book according to the commandment of the Lord, and pronounced the threatening against Jehoiakim because he had cut to pieces this book and had cast it into the fire, Jer. 36:29 ff. This threatening, that God would bring upon the seed and upon the servants of Jehoiakim, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, all the evil which He had pronounced against them (ver. 31), does not exclude the previous capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, but announces only the carrying out of the threatened judgment in the destruction of Jerusalem and of the kingdom of Judah to be as yet imminent.

                The extraordinary fast of the people also, which was appointed for the ninth month, was not ordained with the view of averting the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, which was then expected, after the battle at Carchemish ; for although fasts were sometimes appointed or kept for the purpose of turning away threatened judgment or punishment (e.g. 2nd Sam. 12:15 ff.; 1st Kings 21:27; Esth. 4:1, 3:16), yet, in general, fasts were more frequently appointed to preserve the penitential remembrance of punishments and chastisements which had been already endured: cf. e.g. Zech. 7:5; Ezra x. 10:6 f.; Neh. 1:4; 1st Sam. 31:13; 2nd Sam. 1:12, etc. To ascertain, therefore, what was the object of this fast which was appointed, we must keep in view the character of Jehoiakim and his relation to this fast. The godless Jehoiakim, as he is represented in 2nd Kings 23:37, 2nd Chron. 36:5, and Jer. 22:13 ff., was not the man who would have ordained a fast (or allowed it if the priests had wished to appoint it) to humble himself and his people before God, and by repentance and prayer to turn away the threatened judgment. Before he could ordain a fast for such a purpose, Jehoiakim must hear and observe the word of the prophet, and in that case he would not have been so enraged at the reading of the prophecies of Jeremiah as to have cut the book to pieces and cast it into the fire. If the fast took place previous to the arrival of the Chaldeans before Jerusalem, then neither the intention of the king nor his conduct in regard to it can be comprehended. On the other hand, as Zūnd. p. 21, and Klief. p. 57, have shown, both the ordaining of a general fast, and the anger of the king at the reading of the prophecies of Jeremiah in the presence of the people in the temple, are well explained, if the fast is regarded as designed to keep in remembrance the day of the year on which Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem. As Jehoiakim bore with difficulty the yoke of the Chaldean oppression, and from the first meditated on a revolt, for after three years he did actually revolt, be instituted the fast “to stir up the feelings of the people against the state of vassalage into which they had been brought” (Klief.), “and to call forth a religious enthusiasm among them to resist the oppressor” (Zūnd.). This opposition could only, however, result in the destruction of the people and the kingdom. Jeremiah therefore had his prophecies read to the people in the temple on that day by Baruch “as a counterbalance to the desire of the king,” and announced to them that Nebuchadnezzar would come again to subdue the land and to destroy from out of it both man and beast. “Therefore the king was angry, and destroyed the book, because he would not have the excitement of the people to be so hindered; and therefore also the princes were afraid (Jer. 36:16) when they heard that the book of these prophecies was publicly read ” (Klief.).

                The words of 2nd Kings 25:27, cf. Jer. 3:31, do not contradict this conclusion from Jer. 36:9, even though that drawn by Kran., p. 18, from this passage were adopted, viz. that since almost thirty-seven whole years had passed from the carrying away of Jehoiachin to the end of the forty-three (43) years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, but Jehoiachin had reigned only for a few months, the beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar must be dated in the sixth (6th) of the eleven years’ reign of Jehoiakim, the predecessor of Jehoiachin. For since, according to the testimony of Berosus, Nebuchadnezzar conducted the war against ‘Hither Asia, in which he slew king Necho at Carchemish, and as a further consequence of this victory took Jerusalem, before the death of his father, in the capacity of a commander-in-chief clothed with royal power, and when in Hither Asia, as it seems, and on the confines of Egypt, he then for the first time heard tidings of his father’s death, and therefore hastened by the shortest road to Babylon to assume the crown and lay claim to all his father’s dominions, —then it follows that his forty-three (43) years’ reign begins after the battle of Carchemish and the capture of Jerusalem under Jehoiakim, and might possibly have begun in the sixth (6th) year of Jehoiakim, some five months after the ninth month of the fifth (5th) year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:9). Against this supposition the circumstance that Nebuchadnezzar, as stated in Jer. 46:2, 25:1, and also Dan. 1:1, was called king of Babylon before he had actually ascended the throne is no valid objection, inasmuch as this title is explained as a prolepsis which would be easily understood by the Jews in Palestine. Nabopolassar came into no contact at all with Judah; the Jews therefore knew scarcely anything of his reign and his death; and the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s approach to Jerusalem would be regarded in a general way both by Jeremiah and his contemporaries as the first (1st) year of his reign, and the commander of the Chaldean army as the king of Babylon, no matter whether on account of his being actual co-regent with his aged and infirm father, or merely because he was clothed with royal power as the chief commander of the army. (* Thus not only Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 63, Hāv., Klief., Kran., etc., but also v. Lengerke, Dan. p. 3, and Hitz. Dan. p. 3. The latter, e.g., remarks: “The designation as king does not furnish any obvious objection, for Nebuchadnezzar, the commander-in-chief of the army, is to the Jewish writers (thus Jer. 25:1) a king when he first comes under their notice. They appear to have had no knowledge whatever of his father”).   In this sense Daniel (ch. 1:1) names him who was afterwards king, at a time when he was not yet the possessor of the throne, the king of Babylon; for he was in effect the king, so far as the kingdom of Judah was concerned, when he undertook the first expedition against it.

                But the reckoning of Kran. is also not exact. Nebuchadnezzar’s ascending the throne and the beginning of his reign would only happen in the sixth (6th) year of Jehoiakim if either the three months of Jehoiachin (37 years’ imprisonment of Jehoiachin + 1 year’s reign + 5 years of Jehoiakim = 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar) are to be reckoned as 1 year, or at least the 11 years of Jehoiakim as 11 full years, so that 5 3/4 years of Jehoiakim’s reign must be added to the 37 years of Jehoiachin’s imprisonment and the 3 months of his reign so as to make up the 43 years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus Jehoiakim must have reigned 5 1/4 years at the time when Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne. Whereas if Jehoiakim’s reign extended only to 10 1/2 years, which were reckoned as 11 years in the books of the Kings, according to the general method of recording the length of the reign of kings, then Nebuchadnezzar’s ascending the throne took place in the fifth (5th) year of Jehoiakim’s reign, or, at the furthest, after he had reigned 4% years. This latter reckoning, whereby the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is made to coincide with the fifth (5th) year of Jehoiakim’s, is demanded by those passages in which the years of the reign of the kings of Judah are made parallel with the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign; viz. 2nd Kings 24:12, where it is stated that Jehoiachin was taken prisoner and carried away captive in the eighth (8th) year of Nebuchadnezzar; also Jer. 32:1, where the tenth (10th) year of Zedekiah corresponds with the eighteenth (18th) of Nebuchadnezzar; and finally, Jer. 52:5, 12, and 2nd Kings 25:2, 8, where the eleventh (11th) year of Zedekiah corresponds with the nineteenth (19th) year of Nebuchadnezzar. According to all these passages, the death of Jehoiakim, or the end of his reign, happened either in the eighth (8th) year, or at all events in the end of the seventh (7th) year, of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, for Jehoiachin reigned only three months; so that Nebuchadnezzar reigned six (6) full years, and perhaps a few months longer, as contemporary with Jehoiakim, and consequently he must have mounted the throne in the fifth (5th) of the eleven (11) years of Jehoiakim’s reign.  (* The synchronistic statements in the passages, 2nd Kings 24:12, 25:2, 8, Jer. 32:1 and 52:5, 12, might indeed be interpreted as meaning, that in them the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign are reckoned from the time when his father entrusted to him the chief command of the army at the breaking out of the war with Necho (see my Commentary on 2nd Kings 24:12); but in that case the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign would amount to 44 1/2 years, viz. 37 years of Jehoiachin’s imprisonment, 3 months of his reign, and 7 years of Jehoiakim’s reign. And according to this reckoning, it would also result from the passages referred to, that the beginning of his 43 years’ reign happened in the fifth (5th) year of Jehoiakim.*)

                The above discussion has at the same time also furnished us with the means of explaining the apparent contradiction which has been found between Dan. 1:1 ff. and Dan. 2:1. ff., and which has been brought forward as an historical error in argument against the genuineness of the book. According to ch. 1:3 ff., Nebuchadnezzar after the capture of Jerusalem commanded that young Israelites of noble birth should be carried away to Babylon, and there educated for the space of three years in the literature and wisdom of the Chaldeans; and, according to ch. 1:18, after the expiry of the appointed time, they were brought in before the king that they might be employed in his service. But these three years of instruction, according to ch. 2:1 ff., expired in the second (2nd) year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, when Daniel and his companions were ranked among the wise men of Babylon, and Daniel interpreted to the king his dream, which his Chaldean magi were unable to do (ch. 2:13 ff., 19 ff.). If we observe that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed his dream “in the second year of his reign,” and that he entered on his reign sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity 0f Jehoiakim, then we can understand how the three years appointed for the education of Daniel and his companions came to an end in the second year of his reign; for if Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in the fifth year of Jehoiakim, then in the seventh year of Jehoiakim three years had passed since the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in the fourth year of this king. For the carrying away of the Israelitish youths followed, without doubt, immediately after the subjugation of Jehoiakim, so that a whole year or more of their period of education had passed before Nebuchadnezzar mounted the throne. This conclusion is not set aside by what Berosus affirms, that Nebuchadnezzar, after he heard of the death of his father, committed the captives he had taken from the Jews to the care of some of his friends that they might be brought after him, while he himself hastened over the desert to Babylon; for that statement refers to the great transport of prisoners who were carried away for the colonization of Central Asia. As little does the consideration that a twofold method of reckoning the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s government by Daniel is improbable militate against this reconciliation of the discrepancy, for no such twofold method of reckoning exists. In ch. 1 the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is not given, but Nebuchadnezzar is only named as being king; while in ch. 2:1 mention is made not merely of the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, but of the second year of his reign, from which it appears that the historian here reckons from the actual commencement of his reign. (* If, on the contrary, Bleek understands from Dan. 1:1 that Nebuchadnezzar had become king of Babylon in the third (3rd) year of Jehoiakim at Jerusalem, whilst, “perhaps only with the design of making the pretended opposition between ch. 1:1 and 2:1 truly evident, he understands the appositional designation (melek babel) as a more definite determination of the meaning of the verb (ba‘), this idea finds recommendation neither in the position of the words, nor in the expression, ch. 1:3, nor in the accents.” Kranichfeld, p. 19.) Also, as Klief., p.67, has well remarked, one may “easily discover the ground on which Daniel in ch. 1:1 followed a different mode of reckoning from that adopted in ch. 2:1. In ch. 1 Daniel had to do with Israelitish circumstances and persons, and therefore followed, in making reference to Nebuchadnezzar, the general Israelitish mode of contemplation. He reckons his years according to the years of the Israelitish kings, and sees in him already the king; on the contrary, in ch. 2 Daniel treats of the relations of the world-power, and he reckons here accurately the year of Nebuchadnezzar, the bearer of the world-power, from the day in which, having actually obtained the possession of the world-power, he became king of Babylon.”

                  If we now, in conclusion, briefly review the results of the preceding discussions, it will be manifest that the following is the course of events: —Necho the king of Egypt, after he had made Jehoiakim his vassal king, went forth on an expedition against the Assyrian kingdom as far as the Euphrates. Meanwhile, however, with the dissolution of the Assyrian kingdom by the fall of Nineveh, the part of that kingdom lying on this side of the Tigris had come under the dominion of the Chaldeans, and the old and enfeebled king Nabopolassar gave to his son Nebuchadnezzar the chief command of the army, with the commission to check the advance of the Egyptians, and to rescue from them the countries they had occupied and bring them again under the Chaldean rule. In consequence of this, Nebuchadnezzar took the field against Hither Asia in the third (3rd) year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and in the first month of the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim slew Pharaoh-Necho at Carchemish and pursued his army to the confines of Egypt, and in the ninth month of the same year took Jerusalem and made king Jehoiakim his subject. While Nebuchadnezzar was busied in Hither Asia with the subjugation of the countries that had been conquered by Pharaoh-Necho, he received the tidings of the death of his father Nabopolassar in Babylon, and hastened forward with a small guard by the nearest way through the desert to Babylon in order to assume the government, giving directions that the army, along with the whole band of prisoners, should follow him by slow marches. But as soon as the Chaldean army had left Judea and returned to Babylon, Jehoiakim sought how he might throw off the Chaldean yoke, and three years after his subjugation he revolted, probably at a time when Nebuchadnezzar was engaged in establishing his dominion in the East, so that he could not immediately punish this revolt, but contented himself meanwhile with sending against Jehoiakim the armies of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, whom he had left behind on the confines of Judah. They were unable, however, to vanquish him as long as he lived. It was only after his son Jehoiachin had ascended the throne that Nebuchadnezzar, as commander of the army, returned with a powerful host to Jerusalem and besieged the city. While the city was being besieged, Nebuchadnezzar came in person to superintend the war. Jehoiachin with his mother, and his chief officers from the city, went out to surrender themselves to the king of Babylon. But Nebuchadnezzar took him as a prisoner, and commanded that the golden vessels of the temple and the treasures of the royal palace should be taken away, and he carried the king with the great men of the kingdom, the men of war, the smiths and craftsmen, as prisoners to Babylon, and made his vassal Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, king in Jerusalem, under the name of Zedekiah (2nd Kings 28:8-17). This happened in the eighth (8th) year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (2nd Kings 24:12), and thus about six years after Daniel had interpreted his dream (ch. 2), and had been promoted by him to the rank of president of the wise men in Babylon.

                The name (nebukadne’tzar) is written in ver. 1 with (‘ = alef), as it is uniformly in Jeremiah, e.g. 27:6, 8, 20; 28:3, 11, 12; xxix. 29:1, 3, and in the books of the Kings and Chronicles, as 2nd Kings 24:1, 10, 11; 25:1, 2nd Chron. 36:6, 10, 13; whereas in Dan. 1:18 it is written without the (‘ = alef), as it is also in ch. 2:1, 28, 46; 3:1-3, 5 ff., and Ezra 1:7, v. 12, 14; Esth. 2:6. From this circumstance Hitzig concludes that the statement in Daniel is derived from 2nd Kings 24:1, because the manner of writing the name with the (‘ = alef) is not peculiar to this book (and is not the latest form), but is that of 2nd Kings  24:1. Both statements are incorrect. The writing without the (‘ = alef) cannot on this account be taken as the latest form, because it is not found in the Chronicles, and that with the (‘ = alef) is not peculiar to the second book of Kings, but is the standing form, along with the more national Babylonian form (nebukadre’tzar) (with r = rho), in Jer. 21:2, 7; 32:1; 35:11, 39:11, Ezek. 26:7; 29:18; 20:10, which, according to Menant (Grammaire Assyrienne, 1868, p. 327), is written in Babylonian inscriptions Nabukudurriusur (nbu kdr ‘tzar, i.e. Nebo coronam servat), the inscription of Behistan having the form Nabukudratschara. Megasthenes and Berosus, in Polyhistor, write the name (Naboukodrosoros). The writing Nebuchadnezzar, with (n = nu) and without the (‘ = alef), appears to be the Aramean form, since it prevails in the Chaldean portions of Daniel and Ezra, and accounts for the Masoretic pronunciation of the word (the tzade with Dagesch forte). On other forms of the name, cf. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assure, p. 41 f. }}

                Part First: Development of World-Power.  Chap. II-VII.

                {{ This Part contains in six chapters as many reports regarding the successive forms and the natural character of the world-power. It begins (ch. 2) and ends (ch. 7) with a revelation from God regarding its historical unfolding in four great world-kingdoms following each other, and their final overthrow by the kingdom of God, which shall continue forever. Between these chapters (2 and 7) there are inserted four events belonging to the times of the first and second (world-kingdom, which partly reveal the attempts of the rulers of the world to compel the worshippers of the true God to pray to their idols and their gods, together with the failure of this attempt (ch. 3 and 6), and partly the humiliations of the rulers of the World, who were boastful of their power, under the judgments of God (ch. 4 and 5), and bring under our consideration the relation of the rulers of this world to the Almighty God of heaven and earth and to the true fearers of His name. The narratives of these four events follow each other in chronological order, because they are in actual relation bound together, and therefore also the occurrences (ch. 5 and 6) which belong to the time subsequent to the vision in ch. 7 are placed before this vision, so that the two revelations regarding the development of the world-power form the frame within which is contained the historical section which describes the character of that world-power. }}

                Chap. II. Nebuchadnezzar’s Vision of World Monarchies, &  Interpretation by Daniel.

                {{ 2:31-45. The Dream and its Interpretation. —Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream a great metallic image which was terrible to look upon. (‘alu) (behold), which Daniel interchanges with (‘aru), corresponds with the Hebrew words (re’eh, re’u, or hinneh). (tzelem) is not an idol-image (Hitz.), but a statue, and, as is manifest from the following description, a statue in human form. (chad [frm ‘echad = one]) is not the indefinite article (Ges., Win., Maur.), but the numeral. “The world-power is in all its phases one, therefore all these phases are united in the vision in one image” (Klief.). The words from (tzalma’ to yattir) contain two parenthetical expressions, introduced for the purpose of explaining the conception of (sagi‘) (great). (qa’em) is to be united with (wa’alu). (dikken) here and at ch. 7:20 f. is used by Daniel as a peculiar form of the demonstrative pronoun, for which Ezra uses (dek). The appearance of the colossal image was terrible, not only on account of its greatness and its metallic splendour, but because it represented the world-power of fearful import to the people of God (Klief.).

                2:32,33. The description of the image according to its several parts is introduced with the absolute (hu’ tzalma‘), concerning this image, not: “this was the image.” The pronoun (hu’) is made prominent, as (denah), ch. 4:15, and the Hebr. (zeh) more frequently, e.g. Isa. 23:13. (chaddohi), plur. (chadin) —its singular occurs only in the Targums—corresponding with the Hebr. (chazeh), the breast. (me`in), the bowels, here the abdomen enclosing the bowels, the belly. (yarkah), the thighs (hūfte) and upper part of the loins. Ver. 33. (shaq), the leg, including the upper part of the thigh. (minhon) is partitive: part of it of iron. Instead of (minhon) the Keri prefers the fem. (minhen)here and at vers. 41 and 42, with reference to this, that (raglaiu) is usually the gen. fem., after the custom of nouns denoting members of the body that are double. The Kethiv unconditionally deserves the preference, although, as the apparently anomalous form, which appears with this suffix also in ch. 7:8, 20, after substantives of seemingly feminine meaning, where the choice of the masculine form is to be explained from the undefined conception of the subjective idea apart from the sex; cf. Ewald’s Lehr. d. hebr. Sp. § 319.

                The image appears divided as to its material into four or five parts —the head, the breast with the arms, the belly with the thighs, and the legs and feet. “Only the first part, the head, constitutes in itself a united whole; the second, with the arms, represents a division; the third runs into a division in the thighs; the fourth, bound into one at the top, divides itself in the two legs, but has also the power of moving in itself; the fifth is from the first divided in the legs, and finally in the ten toes runs out into a wider division. The material becomes inferior from the head downward —gold, silver, copper, iron, clay; so that, though on the whole metallic, it becomes inferior, and finally terminates in clay, losing itself in common earthly matter. Notwithstanding that the material becomes always the harder, till it is iron, yet then suddenly and at last it becomes weak and brittle clay.”—Klief. The fourth and fifth parts, the legs and the feet, are, it is true, externally separate from each other, but inwardly, through the unity of the material, iron, are bound together; so that we are to reckon only four parts, as afterwards is done in the interpretation. This image Nebuchadnezzar was contemplating (ver. 34), i.e. reflected upon with a look directed toward it, until a stone moved without human hands broke loose from a mountain, struck against the lowest part of the image, broke the whole of it into pieces, and ground to powder all its material from the head even to the feet, so that it was scattered like chaff of the summer thrashing-floor. (di la’ bidaiin) does not mean: “which was not in the hands of anyone” (Klief.), but the words are a prepositional expression for without (la’ be), not with = without, and (di) expressing the dependence of the word on the foregoing noun. Without hands, without human help, is a litotes for: by a higher, a divine providence; cf. ch. 8:25; Job 4:20; Lam. 4:6. (kachadah), as one = at once, with one stroke. (daqu) for (daqqu) is not intransitive or passive, but with an indefinite plur. subject: they crushed, referring to the supernatural power by which the crushing was effected. The destruction of the statue is so described that the image passes over into the matter of it. It is not said of the parts of the image, the head, the breast, the belly, and the thighs, that they were broken to pieces by the stone, “for the forms of the world-power represented by these parts had long ago passed away, when the stone strikes against the last form of the world-power represented by the feet,” but only of the materials of which these parts consist, the silver and the gold, is the destruction predicated; “for the material, the combinations of peoples, of which these earlier forms of the world-power consist, pass into the later forms of it, and thus are all destroyed when the stone destroys the lastform of the world-power” (Klief.). But the stone which brought this destruction itself became a great mountain which filled the whole earth. To this Daniel added the interpretation which he announces in ver, 36. (ne’mar), we will tell, is “a generalizing form of expression” (Kran.) in harmony with ver. 30. Daniel associates himself with his companions in the faith, who worshipped the same God of revelation; cf. ver. 23b.

                Vers. 37, 38. The interpretation begins with the golden head. (melek malkaiyah), the usual title of the monarchs of the Oriental world kingdoms (vid. Ezek. 26:7), is not the predicate to (‘anetah), but stands in apposition to (malka‘). The following relative passages, vers. 37b and 38, are only further explications of the address King of Kings, in which (‘anetah) is again taken up to bring back the predicate. (bekal-di), wherever, everywhere. As to the form (da’erin), see the remarks under (qa’emin) at ch. 3:3. The description of Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion over men, beasts, and birds, is formed after the words of Jer. 27:6 and 28:14; the mention of the beasts serves only for the strengthening of the thought that his dominion was that of a world-kingdom, and that God had subjected all things to him. Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion did not, it is true, extend over the whole earth, but perhaps over the whole civilised world of Asia, over all the historical nations of his time; and in this sense it was a world-kingdom, and as such, “the prototype and pattern, the beginning and primary representative of all world powers” (Klief.). (re’shah), stat. emphat, for (re’sha’); the reading (re’sheh) defended by Hitz. is senseless. If Daniel called him (Nebuchadnezzar) the golden head, the designation cannot refer to his person, but to the world-kingdom founded by him and represented in his person, having all things placed under his sway by God. Hitzig’s idea, that Nebuchadnezzar is the golden head as distinguished from his successors in the Babylonian kingdom, is opposed by ver. 39, where it is said that after him (not another king, but) “another kingdom” would arise. That “Daniel, in the words, ‘Thou art the golden head,’ speaks of the Babylonian kingdom as of Nebuchadnezzar personally, while on the contrary he speaks of the other world-kingdoms impersonally only as of kingdoms, has its foundation in this, that the Babylonian kingdom personified in Nebuchadnezzar stood before him, and therefore could be addressed by the word thou, while the other kingdoms could not” (Klief.).

                Ver. 39. In this verse the second and third parts of the image are interpreted of the second and third world-kingdoms. Little is said of these kingdoms here, because they are more fully described in ch. 7, 8 and 10. That the first clause of ver. 39 refers to the second, the silver part of the image, is apparent from the fact that ver. 38 refers to the golden head, and the second clause of ver. 39 to the belly of brass. According to this, the breast and arms of silver represent another kingdom which would arise after Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. after the Babylonian kingdom. This kingdom will be (‘ar`a’ minnak), inferior to thee, i.e. to the kingdom of which thou art the representative. Instead of the adjective (‘ar`a’), here used adverbially, the Masoretes have substituted the adverbial form (‘ara`), in common use in later times, which Hitz. incorrectly interprets by the phrase “downwards from thee.” Since the other, i.e. the second kingdom, as we shall afterwards prove, is the Medo-Persian world-kingdom, the question arises, in how far was it inferior to the Babylonian? In outward extent it was not less, but even greater than it. With reference to the circumstance that the parts of the image representing it were silver, and not gold as the head was, Calm, Aub., Kran., and others, are inclined to the opinion that the word “inferior” points to the moral condition of the kingdom. But if the successive deterioration of the inner moral condition of the four world-kingdoms is denoted by the succession of the metals, this cannot be expressed by (‘ar`a’ minnak), because in regard to the following world-kingdoms, represented by copper and iron, such an intimation or declaration does not find a place, notwithstanding that copper and iron are far inferior to silver and gold. Klief., on the contrary, thinks that the Medo Persian kingdom stands inferior to, or is smaller than, the Babylonian kingdom in respect of universality; for this element is exclusively referred to in the text, being not only attributed to the Babylonian kingdom, ver. 37, in the widest extent, but also to the third kingdom, ver. 39, and not less to the fourth, ver. 40. The universality belonging to a world-kingdom does not, however, require that it should rule over all the nations of the earth to its very end, nor that its territory should have a defined extent, but only that such a kingdom should unite in itself the (oikoumenēe), i.e. the civilized world, the whole of the historical nations of its time. And this was truly the case with the Babylonian, the Macedonian, and the Roman world-monarchies, but it was not so with the Medo-Persian, although perhaps it was more powerful and embraced a more extensive territory than the Babylonian, since Greece, which at the time of the Medo-Persian monarchy had already decidedly passed into the rank of the historical nations, as yet stood outside of the Medo-Persian rule. But if this view is correct, then would universality be wanting to the third, i.e. to the Graeco Macedonian World-monarchy, which is predicated of it in the words “That shall bear rule over the whole earth,” since at the time of this monarchy Rome had certainly passed into the rank of historical nations, and yet it was not incorporated with the Macedonian empire.

                The Medo-Persian world-kingdom is spoken of as “inferior” to the Babylonian perhaps only in this respect, that from its commencement it wanted inner unity, since the Medians and Persians did not form a united people, but contended with each other for the supremacy, which is intimated in the expression, ch. 7:5, that the bear “raised itself up on one side:” see under that passage. In the want of inward unity lay the weakness or the inferiority in strength of this kingdom, its inferiority as compared with the Babylonian. This originally divided or separated character of this kingdom appears in the image in the circumstance that it is represented by the breast and the arms. “Medes and Persians,” as Hofm. (Weiss. u. Erf. i. S. 279) well remarks, “are the two sides of the breast. The government of the Persian kingdom was not one and united as was that of the Chaldean nation and king, but it was twofold. The Magi belonged to a different race from Cyrus, and the Medes were regarded abroad as the people ruling with and beside the Persians.” This two-sidedness is plainly denoted in the two horns of the ram, ch. 8.

                2:39b treats of the third world-kingdom, which by the expression (‘achari), “another,” is plainly distinguished from the preceding; as to its quality, it is characterized by the predicate “of copper, brazen.” In this chapter it is said only of this kingdom that “it shall rule over the whole earth,” and thus be superior in point of extent and power to the preceding kingdoms. Cf. 7:6, where it is distinctly mentioned that “power was given unto it.” Fuller particulars are communicated regarding the second and third world-kingdoms in ch. 8 and 10. f.

                2:40-43. The interpretation of the fourth component part of the image, the legs and feet, which represent a fourth world kingdom, is more extended. That kingdom, corresponding to the legs of iron, shall be hard, firm like iron. Because iron breaks all things in pieces, so shall this kingdom, which is like to iron, break in pieces and destroy all these kingdoms.

                2:40. Instead of (rebi`aya‘), which is formed after the analogy of the Syriac language, the Keri has the usual Chaldee form (rebi`a’ah), which shall correspond to the preceding (thelitha’ah), ver. 39. See the same Keri ch. 3:25; 7:7, 23. (kal-qebel) does not mean just as (Ges., v. Leng., Maur., Hitz.), but because, and the passage introduced by this particle contains the ground on which this kingdom is designated as hard like iron. (chashel), breaks in pieces, in Syriac to forge, i.e. to break by the hammer, cf. (chushela‘), bruised grain, and thus separated from the husks. (kal-‘illen) is referred by Kran., in conformity with the accents, to the relative clause, “because by its union with the following verbal idea a blending of the image with the thing indicated must first be assumed; also nowhere else, neither here nor in ch. 7, does the non-natural meaning appear, e.g., that by the fourth kingdom only the first and second kingdoms shall be destroyed; and finally, in the similar expression, ch. 7:7, 19, the (haddeq) stands likewise without an object.” But all the three reasons do not prove much. A mixing of the figure with the thing signified does not lie in the passage: “the fourth (kingdom) shall, like crushing iron, crush to pieces all these” (kingdoms). But the “non-natural meaning,” that by the fourth kingdom not only the third, but also the second and the first, would be destroyed, is not set aside by our referring (kal-‘illen); to the before-named metals, because the metals indeed characterize and represent kingdoms. Finally, the expressions in ch. 7:7, 19 are not analogous to those before us. The words in question cannot indeed be so understood as if the fourth kingdom would find the three previous kingdoms existing together, and would dash them one against another; for, according to the text, the first kingdom is destroyed by the second, and the second by the third; but the materials of the first two kingdoms were comprehended in the third. “The elements out of which the Babylonian world-kingdom was constituted, the countries, peoples, and civilisation comprehended in it, as its external form, would be destroyed by the Medo-Persian kingdom, and carried forward with it, so as to be constituted into a new external form. Such, too, was the relation between the Medo-Persian and the Macedonian world kingdom, that the latter assumed the elements and component parts not only of the Medo-Persian, but also therewith at the same time of the Babylonian kingdom” (Klief.). In such a way shall the fourth world-kingdom crush “all these” past kingdoms as iron, i.e. will not assume the nations and civilizations comprehended in the earlier world-kingdoms as organized formations, but will destroy and break them to atoms with iron strength. Yet will this world-kingdom not throughout possess and manifest the iron hardness. Only the legs of the image are of iron (ver. 41), but the feet and toes which grow out of the legs are partly of clay and partly of iron.

                Regarding (minhon), see under ver. 33. (chasaf) means clay, a piece of clay, then an earthly vessel, 2nd Sam. 5:20. (pechar) in the Targums means potter, also potter’s earth, potsherds. The (di pechar) serves to strengthen the (chasaf), as in the following the addition of (tina‘), clay, in order the more to heighten the idea of brittleness. This two fold material denotes that it will be a divided or severed kingdom, not because it separates into several (two to ten (2 to 10)) kingdoms, for this is denoted by the duality of the feet and by the number of the toes of the feet, but inwardly divided; for (pelag) always in Hebr., and often in Chald., signifies the unnatural or violent division arising from inner disharmony or discord; cf. Gen. 10:25, Ps. 45:10, Job 38:25; and Levy, chald. Worterb. s.v. Notwithstanding this inner division, there will yet be in it the firmness of iron. (nitzba‘), firmness, related to (yetzabh), Pa. to make fast, but in Chald. generally plantatio, properly a slip, a plant.

                2:42,43. In ver. 42 the same is said of the toes of the feet, and in ver. 43 the comparison to iron and clay is defined as the mixture of these two component parts. As the iron denotes the firmness of the kingdom, so the clay denotes its brittleness. The mixing of iron with clay represents the attempt to bind the two distinct and separate materials into one combined whole as fruitless, and altogether in vain. The mixing of themselves with the seed of men (ver. 43), most interpreters refer to the marriage politics of the princes. They who understand by the four kingdoms the monarchy of Alexander and his followers, think it refers to the marriages between the Seleucidas and the Ptolemies, of which indeed there is mention made in ch. 11:6 and 17, but not here; while Hofm. thinks it relates to marriages, such as those of the German Kaiser Otto II and the Russian Grand-Duke Wladimir with the daughters of the Kaiser of Eastern Rome. But this interpretation is rightly rejected by Klief., as on all points inconsistent with the text. The subject to (mith`arbin) is not the kings, of whom mention is made neither in ver. 43 nor previously. For the two feet as well as the ten toes denote not kings, but parts of the fourth kingdom; and even in ver. 44, by (malkaiyah), not kings in contradistinction to the kingdoms, but the representatives of the parts of the kingdom denoted by the feet and the toes as existing contemporaneously, are to be understood, from which it cannot rightly be concluded in any way that kings is the subject to (mith`arbin) (shall mingle themselves).

                As, in the three preceding kingdoms, gold, silver, and brass represent the material of these kingdoms, i.e. their peoples and their culture, so also in the fourth kingdom iron and clay represent the material of the kingdoms arising out of the division of this kingdom, i.e. the national elements out of which they are constituted, and which will and must mingle together in them. If, then, the “mixing themselves with the seed of men” points to marriages, it is only of the mixing of different tribes brought together by external force in the kingdom by marriages as a means of amalgamating the diversified nationalities. But the expression is not to be limited to this, although (hith`arebh), Ezra 9:2, occurs of the mixing of the holy nation with the heathen by marriage. The peculiar expression (zera`  ‘anasha‘), the seed of men, is not of the same import as (shikbath zera`), but is obviously chosen with reference to the following contrast to the divine Ruler, ver. 44 f., so as to place (Kran.) the vain human endeavour of the heathen rulers in contrast with the doings of the God of heaven; as in Jer. 31:27 (zera` ‘adam) is occasioned by the contrast of (zera`  behemah)The figure of mixing by seed is derived from the sowing of the field with mingled seed, and denotes all the means employed by the rulers to combine the different nationalities, among which the connubium is only spoken of as the most important and successful means.

                But this mixing together, will succeed just as little as will the effort to bind together into one firm coherent mass iron and clay. The parts mixed together will not cleave to each other. Regarding (leheon), see under ver. 20.

                2:44. The world-kingdom will be broken to pieces by the kingdom which the God of heaven will set up. “In the days of these kings,” i.e. of the kings of the world-kingdoms last described; at the time of the kingdoms denoted by the ten toes of the feet of the image into which the fourth world-monarchy extends itself ; for the stone (ver. 34) rolling against the feet of the image, or rather against the toes of the feet, breaks and destroys it. This kingdom is not founded by the hands of man, but is erected by the God of heaven, and shall forever remain immoveable, in contrast to the world-kingdoms, the one of which will be annihilated by the other. Its dominion will not be given to another people. HP13?79, his dominion, i.e. of the kingdom. This word needs not to be changed into misfits, which is less suitable, since the mere status absol. would not be here in place. Among the world-kingdoms the dominion goes from one people to another, from the Babylonians to the Persians, etc. On the contrary, the kingdom of God comprehends always the same people, i.e. the people of Israel, chosen by God to be His own, only not the Israel (kata sarka), but the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16). But the kingdom of God will not merely exist eternally without change of its dominion, along with the world-kingdoms, which are always changing and bringing one another to dissolution, it will also break in pieces and destroy all these kingdoms (thasef, from suf, to bring to an end, to make an end to them), but itself shall exist for ever. This is the meaning of the stone setting itself free without the hands of man, and breaking the image in pieces.

                2:45. The (mittura’) before (‘ithgezreth), which is wanting in ver. 34, and without doubt is here used significantly, is to be observed, as in ver. 42 “the toes of the feet,” which in ver. 33 were also not mentioned. As it is evident that a stone, in order to its rolling without the movement of the human hand, must be set free from a mountain, so in the express mention of the mountain there can be only a reference to Mount Zion, where the God of heaven has founded His kingdom, which shall from thence spread out over the earth and shall destroy all the world-kingdoms. Cf. Ps. 50:2, Isa. 2:3, Mic. 4:2.

                The first half of the 45th verse (down to wedahaba‘) gives the confirmation of that which Daniel in ver. 44 said to the king regarding the setting up and the continuance of the kingdom of God, and essentially belongs to this verse. On the other hand, Hitz. (and Kran. follows him) wishes to unite this confirmatory passage with the following: “because thou hast seen that the stone, setting itself free from the mountain, breaks in pieces the iron, etc., thus has God permitted thee a glimpse behind the veil that hides the future,”–in order that he may conclude from it that the writer, since he notes only the vision of the stone setting itself free as an announcement of the future, betrayed his real standpoint, i.e. the standpoint of the Maccabean Jew, for whom only this last catastrophe was as yet future, while all the rest was already past. This conclusion Kran. has rejected, but with the untenable argument that the expression, “what shall come to pass hereafter,” is to be taken in agreement with the words, “what should come to pass,” ver. 29, which occur at the beginning of the address. Though this may in itself be right, yet it cannot be maintained if the passage ver. 45a forms the antecedent to ver. 45b. In this case (degah) (this), in the phrase “after this” (= hereafter, ver. 45), can be referred only to the setting loose of the stone. But the reasons which Hitz. adduces for the uniting together of the passages as adopted by him are without any importance. Why the long combined passage cannot suitably conclude with (wedahabah) there is no reason which can be understood; and that it does not round itself is also no proof, but merely a matter of taste, the baselessness of which is evident from ver. 10, where an altogether similar long passage, beginning with (kal-qebel di) (forasmuch as), ends in a similar manner, without formally rounding itself off. The further remark also, that the following new passage could not so unconnectedly and baldly begin with (elah rabh), is no proof, but a mere assertion, which is set aside as groundless by many passages in Daniel where the connection is wanting; cf. e.g. iv. 16b, 27. The want of the copula before this passage is to be explained on the same ground on which Daniel uses (elah rabh) (stat. absol., i.e. without the article) instead of the prosaic (elah rabh), Ezra 5:8. The elevated discourse has occasioned also the absence of the copula, which will not be missed if one only takes a pause at the end of the interpretation, after which Daniel then in conclusion further says to the king, “The great God has showed to the king what will be hereafter.” (achare degah), after this which is now, does not mean “at some future time” (Hitz.), but after that which is at present, and it embraces the future denoted in the dream, from the time of Nebuchadnezzar till the setting up the kingdom of god in the time of the Messiah.

                2:45b. The word with which Daniel concludes his address, (yatztzibh), firm, sure, is the dream, and certain its interpretation, is not intended to assure the king of the truth of the dream, because the particulars of the dream had escaped him, and to certify to him the correctness of the interpretation (Kran.), but the importance of the dream should put him in mind to lay the matter to heart, and give honour to God who imparted to him these revelations; but at the same time also the word assures the readers of the book of the certainty of the fulfilment, since it lay far remote, and the visible course of things in the present and in the proximate future gave no indication or only a very faint prospect of the fulfilment. For other such assurances see ch. 8:26,  10:21, Rev. 19:9, 21:5, 22: 6.

                We shall defer a fuller consideration of the fulfilment of this dream or the historical references of the four world-kingdoms, in order to avoid repetition, till we have expounded the vision which Daniel received regarding it in ch. 7. }}

                Chap. VII. Vision of Four World-Kingdoms; Judgment; & Kingdom of  Holy God.

                {{ 7:23 ff. Daniel receives the following explanation regarding the fourth beast. It signifies a fourth kingdom, which would be different from all the preceding, and would eat up and destroy the whole earth. “The whole earth is the (oikoumenē),” the expression, without any hyperbole, for the “whole circle of the historical nations” (Kliefoth). The ten horns which the beast had signify ten kings who shall arise out of that kingdom. (minnah malkuthah) from it, the kingdom, i.e. from this very kingdom. Since the ten horns all exist at the same time together on the head of the beast, the ten kings that arise out of the fourth kingdom are to be regarded as contemporary. In this manner the division or dismemberment of this kingdom into ten principalities or kingdoms is symbolized. For the ten contemporaneous kings imply the existence at the same time of ten kingdoms. Hitzig’s objections against this view are of no weight. That (malku) and are in this verse used as distinct from each other proves nothing, because in the whole vision king and kingdom are congruent ideas. But that the horn, ver. 8, unmistakably denotes a person, is only so far right, as things are said of the horn which are in abstract to not suitable to a kingdom, but they can only be applicable to the bearer of royal power. But ch. 8:20 and 21, to which Hitzig further refers, furnishes no foundation for his view, but on the contrary confutes it. For although in ch. 8:21 the great horn of the goat is interpreted as the first king of Javan, yet the four horns springing up immediately (ver. 22) in the place of this one which was broken, are interpreted as four kingdoms (not kings), in distinct proof not only that in Daniel’s vision king and kingdom are not “separate from each other,” but also that the further assertion, that “horn” is less fitted than “head ” to represent a kingdom, is untenable.

                After those ten kingdoms another shall arise which shall be different from the previous ten, and shall overthrow three of them. (yehashpil), in contrast with (‘aqim) (cf. ch. 2:21), signifies to overthrow, to deprive of the sovereignty. But the king coming after them can only overthrow three of the ten kingdoms when he himself has established and possesses a kingdom or empire of his own. According to this, the king arising after the ten is not an isolated ruler, but the monarch of a kingdom which has destroyed three of the kingdom already in existence.

                7:25 refers to the same king, and says that he shall speak against the Most High. (letzad) means, properly, against or at the side of, and is more expressive than (`al). It denotes that he would use language by which he would set God aside, regard and give himself out as ‘God’; cf. 2nd Thess. 2:4. Making himself like God, he will destroy the saints of God. (bala‘), Pa., not “make unfortunate” (Hitzig), but consume, afflict, like the Hebr. (billah), 1st Chron. 17:9, and Targ. Jes. 3:15. These passages show that the assertion that (billah), in the sense of to destroy, never takes after it the accusative of the person (Hitz.), is false. Finally, “he thinks to change times and laws.” “To change times” belongs to the all-perfect power of God (cf. ch. 2:21), the creator and ordainer of times (Gen. 1:14). There is no ground for supposing that (zimnin) is to be specially understood of “festival or sacred times,” since the Word, like the corresponding Hebr. (mo`adim), does not throughout signify merely “festival times;” cf. Gen. 1:14; 17:21; 18:14, etc. The annexed (wedath) does not point to arrangements of divine worship, but denotes “law” or “ordinance” in general, human as well as divine law; cf. ch. 2:13, 15 with ch. 6:6, 9′. “Times and laws” are the foundations and main conditions, emanating from God, of the life and actions of men in the world. The sin of the king in placing himself with God, therefore, as Kliefoth rightly remarks, “consists in this, that in these ordinances he does not regard the fundamental conditions given by God, but so changes the laws of human life that he puts his own pleasure in the place of the divine arrangements.” Thus shall he do with the ordinances of life, not only of God’s people, but of all men. “But it is too he confessed that the people of God are most affected thereby, because they hold their ordinances of life most according to the divine plan; and therefore the otherwise general passage stands between two expressions affecting the conduct of the horn in its relation to the people of God.”

                This tyranny God’s people will suffer “till, i.e. during, a time, (two) times, and half a time.” By these specifications of time the duration of the last phase of the world-power is more definitely declared, as a period in its whole course measured by God; vers. 12 and 22. The plural word (`iddanin) (times) standing between time and half a time can only designate the simple plural, i.e. two times used in the dual sense, since in the Chaldee the plural is often used to denote a pair where the dual is used in Hebrew; cf. Winer, Chald. Gr. § 55, 3. Three and a half times are the half of seven times (ch. 4:13). The greater number of the older as well as of the more recent interpreters take time (`iddan) as representing the space of a year, thus three and a half times (3 1/2) as three and a half (3 1/2) years; and they base this view partly on ch. 4:13, where seven (7) times must mean seven (7) years, partly on ch. 12:7, where the corresponding expression is found in Hebrew, partly on Rev. 13:5 and 11:2,3, where forty-two months (42) and 1260 days are used interchangeably. But none of these passages supplies a proof that will stand the test. The supposition that in ch. 4:13 the seven (7) times represent seven (7) years, neither is nor can be proved. As regards the time and times in ch. 12:7, and the periods named in the passages of the Rev. referred to, it is very questionable whether the weeks and the days represent the ordinary weeks of the year and days of the week, and whether these periods of time are to be taken chronologically. Still less can any explanation as to this designation of time be derived from the 2300 days (evening-mornings) in ch. 8:14, since the periods do not agree, nor do both passages treat of the same event. The choice of the chronologically indefinite expression (`iddan) time; shows that a chronological determination of the period is not in view, but that the designation of time is to be understood symbolically. We have thus to inquire after the symbolical meaning of the statement. This is not to be sought, with Hofmann (W’eiss. i. 289), in the supposition that as three and a half (3 1/2) years are the half of a Sabbath-period, it is thus announced that Israel would be oppressed during half a Sabbath-period by Antichrist. For, apart from the unwarrantable identification of time with year, one does not perceive what Sabbath-periods and the oppression of the people of God have in common. This much is beyond doubt, that three and a half (3 1/2) times are the half of seven (3 1/2) times. The meaning of this half (3 1/2) , however, is not to be derived, with Kranichfeld, from ch. 4:13, where “seven times” is an expression used for a long continuance of divinely-ordained suffering. It is not hence to be supposed that the dividing of this period into two designates only a proportionally short time of severest oppression endured by the people of God at the hands of the heathen. For the humbling of the haughty ruler Nebuchadnezzar (ch. 4:13) does not stand in any inner connection with the elevation of the world-power over the people of God, in such a way that we could explain the three and a half (3 1/2) times of this passage after the seven (7) times of ob. 4:13. In general, the question may be asked, Whether the meaning of the three and a half (3 1/2)  times is to be derived merely from the symbolical signification of the number seven, or whether, with L’ammert, we must not much rather go back, in order to ascertain the import of this measure of time, to the divine judgments under Elias, when the heavens were shut for three years and six months (3 1/2 yrs); Luke 4:25 and Jas. 5:17. “As Ahab did more to provoke God to anger than all the kings who were before him, so this king, Dan. 7:24, in a way altogether different from those who went before him, spake words against the Most High and persecuted His saints, etc.” But should this reference also not be established, and the three and a half (3 1/2) times be regarded as only the half of seven (3 1/2) times, yet the seven does not here come into view as the time of God’s works, so that it could be said the oppression of the people of God by the little horn will last (Kliefoth) only half as long as a work of God; but according to the symbolical interpretation of the Seven (7) times (see p. 152), the three and a half (3 1/2), as the period of the duration of the circumstances into which the people of God are brought by the world-power through the divine permission, indicate “a testing period, a period of judgment which will (Matt. 24:22; Prov. 10:27), for the elect’s sake, be interrupted and shortened (septenarius truncus).” Leyrer in Herz.’s Real. Enc. xviii. 369. Besides, it is to be considered how this space of time is described, not as three and a half (3 1/2), but a time, two times, and half a time (3 1/2). Ebrard (Offenb. p. 49) well remarks regarding this, that “it appears as if his tyranny would extend itself always the longer and longer: first a time, then the doubled time, then the fourfold —this would be a seven times; but it does not go that length; suddenly it comes to an end in the midst of the seven times, so that instead of the fourfold time there is only half a time.” “The proper analysis of the three and a half times (3 1/2),” Kliefoth further remarks, “in that the periods first mount up by doubling them, and then suddenly decline, shows that the power of the horn and its oppression of the people of God would first quickly manifest itself, in order then to come to a sudden end by the interposition of the divine judgment (ver. 26).” For, a thing which is not here to be overlooked, the three and a half (3 1/2) times present not the whole duration of the existence of the little horn, but, as the half of a week (3 1/2), only the latter half of its time, in which dominion over the saints of God is given to it (ver. 21), and at the expiry of which it falls before the judgment. See under ch. 12:7.

                In vers. 26 and 27 this judgment is described (cf. ver. 10), but only as to its consequences for the world-power. The dominion of the horn in which the power of the fourth beast culminates is taken away and altogether annihilated. The destruction of the beast is here passed by, inasmuch as it is already mentioned in ver. 11; while, on the other hand, that which is said (ver. 12) about the taking away of its power and its dominion is strengthened by the inf. (lehashmadah) (to destroy), (ulhobadah) (and to consume), being added to (yeha`dun) (they shall take away), to which (shaltaneh) (his dominion) is to be repeated as the object. (`adh sopha‘), to the end, i.e. not absolutely, but, as in ch.  6:27, to the end of the days, i.e. forever.

                7:27. After the destruction of the beast, the kingdom and the dominion, which hitherto comprehended the kingdom under the whole heaven, are given to the people of God, i.e. under the reign of the Son of man, as is to be supplied from ver. 14. As in ver. 26 nothing is further said of the fate of the horn, because all that was necessary regarding it had been already said (ver. 11), so also all that was to be said of the Son of man was already mentioned in vers. 13 and 14; and according to the representation of the Scripture, the kingdom of the people of the saints without the Son of man as king is not a conceivable idea. (di malkewath), (of the kingdom) is a subjective genitive, which is required by the idea of the intransitive (rebutha‘) (the greatness) preceding it. The meaning is thus not “power over all kingdoms,” but “the power which the kingdoms under the whole heaven had.” With regard to ver. 27, cf. vers. 14 and 18.

                In ver. 28 the end of the vision is stated, and the impression which it left on Daniel. Hitherto, to this point, was the end of the history, i.e. thus far the history, or, with this the matter is at an end. (milletha‘), the matter, is not merely the interpretation of the angel, but the whole revelation, the vision together with its interpretation.  Daniel was greatly moved by the event (cf ch. 5:9), and kept it in his heart. }}

                Four World-kingdoms.

                {{ There yet remains for our consideration the question, What are the historical world-kingdoms which are represented by Nebuchadnezzar’s image (ch. 2), and by Daniel’s vision of four beasts rising up out of the sea? Almost all interpreters understand that these two visions are to be interpreted in the same way. “The four kingdoms or dynasties, which were symbolized (ch. 2) by the different parts of the human image, from the head to the feet, are the same as those which were symbolized by the four great beasts rising up out of the sea.” This is the view not only of Bleek, who herein agrees with Auberlen, but also of  Kranichfeld and Kliefoth, and all church interpreters. These four kingdoms, according to the interpretation commonly received in the church, are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman. “In this interpretation and opinion,” Luther observes, “all the world are agreed, and history and fact abundantly establish it.” This opinion prevailed till about the end of the last century, for the contrary opinion of individual earlier interpreters had found no favour.  (* This is true regarding the opinion of Ephrem Syrus and of Cosmas Indicopleustes, who held that the second kingdom was the Median, the third the Persian, and the fourth the kingdom of Alexander and his successors. This view has been adopted only by an anonymous writer in the Comment. Var. in Dan. in Mai’s Collectio nov. Script. Vett. p. 176. The same thing may be said of the opinion of Polychronius and Grotius, that the second kingdom was the Medo-Persian, the third the monarchy of Alexander, and the fourth the kingdom of his followers —a view which has found only one weak advocate in J. Chr. Becmann in a dissert. de Monarchia Quarta, Franc. ad 0d. 1671. *) But from that time, when faith in the supernatural origin and character of biblical prophecy was shaken by Deism and Rationalism, then as a consequence, with the rejection of the genuineness of the book of Daniel the reference of the fourth kingdom to the Roman world-monarchy was also denied. For the pseudo-Daniel of the times of the Maccabees could furnish no prophecy which could reach further than the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. If the reference of the fourth kingdom to the Roman empire was therefore a priori excluded, the four kingdoms must be so explained that the pretended prophecy should not extend further than to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. For this end all probabilities were created, and yet nothing further was reached than that one critic confuted another. While Ewald and Bunsen advanced the opinion that the Assyrian kingdom is specially to be understood by the first kingdom, and that the Maccabean author of the book was first compelled by the reference to Nebuchadnezzar to separate, in opposition to history, the Median from the Persian kingdom, so as to preserve the number four, Hitzig, in agreement with von Redepenning, has sought to divide the Babylonian kingdom, and to refer the first kingdom to Nebuchadnezzar and the second to his successor Belshazzar; while Bertholdt, Jahn, and Rosenmūller, with Grotius, have divided the kingdom of Alexander from the kingdom of his successors. But as both of these divisions appear to be altogether too arbitrary, Venema, Bleek, deWette, Lūcke, v. Long, Maurer, Hitzig (ch. 7), Hilgenfeld, and Kranichfeld have disjoined the Medo-Persian monarchy into two world-kingdoms, the Median and the Persian, and in this they are followed by Delitzsch. See Art. Daniel in Herz.’s Real. Encyc.

                When we examine these views more closely, the first named is confuted by what Ewald himself (Die Proph. iii. 314) has said on this point. The four world-kingdoms “must follow each other strictly in chronological order, the succeeding being always inferior, sterner, and more reckless than that which went before. They thus appear in the gigantic image (ch. 2), which in its four parts, from head to feet, is formed of altogether different materials; in like manner in ch. 8 four different beasts successively appear on the scene, the one of which, according to ch. 8, always destroys the other. Now it cannot be said, indeed, in strict historical fact that the Chaldean kingdom first gave way to the Median, and this again to the Persian, but, as it is always said, the Persian and Median together under Cyrus overthrew the Chaldean and formed one kingdom. This is stated by the author himself in ch. 8, where the Medo-Persian kingdom is presented as one under the image of a two-horned ram. According to this, he should have reckoned from Nabucodrossor only three world-kingdoms, if he had not received the number of four world-kingdoms from an old prophet living under the Assyrian dominion, who understood by the four kingdoms the Assyrian, the Chaldean, the Medo-Persian, and the Grecian. Since now this number, it is self-evident to him, can neither be increased nor diminished, there remained nothing else for him than to separate the Median from the Persian kingdom at that point where he rendered directly prominent the order and the number four, while he at other times views them together.” But what then made it necessary for this pseudo-prophet to interpret the golden head of Nebuchadnezzar, and to entangle himself thereby, in opposition not only to the history, but also to his own better judgment, ch. 8, if in the old sources used by him the Assyrian is to be understood as the first kingdom? To this manifest objection Ewald has given no answer, and has not shown that in ch. ii. and vii. the Median kingdom is separated from the Persian. Thus this hypothesis is destitute of every foundation, and the derivation of the number four for the world-kingdoms from a prophetic book of the Assyrian period is one of the groundless ideas with which Ewald thinks to enrich biblical literature.

                Hitzig’s opinion, that Daniel had derived the idea of separating the heathen power into four kingdoms following each other from the representation of the four ages of the world, has no better foundation. It was natural for him to represent Assyria as the first kingdom, yet as he wished not to refer to the past, but to the future, he could only begin with the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. Regarding himself as bound to the number four, he divided on that account, in ch. 2, the Chaldean dominion into two periods, and in ch. 7, for the same reason, the Medo-Persian into two kingdoms, the Median and the Persian. This view Hitzig founds partly on this, that in ch. 2:38 not the Chaldean kingdom but Nebuchadnezzar is designated as the golden head, and that for Daniel there exist only two Chaldean kings; and partly on this, that the second (malku) (ch.  2:39) is named as inferior to the Chaldean, which could not be said of the Medo-Persian as compared with the Chaldean; and, finally, partly on this, that in the vision seen in the first year of Belshazzar (ch. 7), Nebuchadnezzar already belonged to the past, while according to ver. 17 the first kingdom was yet future. But apart from the incorrectness of the assertion, that for the author of this book only two Chaldean kings existed, it does not follow from the circumstance that Nebuchadnezzar is styled the golden head of the image, that he personally is meant as distinct from the Chaldean king that succeeded him; on the contrary, that Nebuchadnezzar comes to view only as the founder, and at that time the actual ruler, of the kingdom, is clear from ch. 2:39, “after thee shall arise another kingdom” (malku) , not another king (melek), as it ought to be read, according to Hitzig’s opinion. Belshazzar did not found another kingdom, or, as Hitzig says, another dominion (Herschaft), but he only continued the kingdom or dominion of Nebuchadnezzar. The two other reasons advanced have been already disposed of in the interpretation of ch. 2:39 and of ch. 7:17. The expression, “inferior to thee” (ch. 2:39), would not relate to the Medo-Persian kingdom as compared with the Chaldean only if it referred to the geographical extension of the kingdom, which is not the case. And the argument deduced from the words “shall arise” in ch. 7:17 proves too much, and therefore nothing. If in the word (yequmun) (shall arise) it be held that the first kingdom was yet to arise, then also the dominion of Belshazzar would be thereby excluded, which existed at the time of that vision. Moreover the supposition that (malku)  means in ch. 2:39 the government of an individual king, but in ch. ii. 4 a kingdom, the passages being parallel in their contents and in their form, and that (malku) in ch. 7:17 (“the four beasts are four kings”) means, when applied to the first two beasts, separate kings, and when applied to the two last, kingdoms, violates all the rules of hermeneutics. “Two rulers personally cannot possibly be placed in the same category with two kingdoms” (Kliefoth).

                But the view of Bertholdt, that the third kingdom represents the monarchy of Alexander, and the fourth that of his (diadochoi) (successors), is at the present day generally abandoned. And there is good reason that it should be so; for it is plain that the description of the iron nature of the fourth kingdom in ch. 2 breaking all things in pieces, as well as of the terribleness of the fourth beast in ch. 7, by no means agrees with the kingdoms of the successors of Alexander, which in point of might and greatness were far inferior to the monarchy of Alexander, as is indeed expressly stated in ch. 11:4. Hitzig has, moreover, justly remarked, on the other hand, that “for the author of this book the kingdom of Alexander and that of his successors form together the (malkuth yawan), ch. 8:21 (the kingdom of Javan= Grecia). But if he had separated them, he could not have spoken of the kingdom of the successors as ‘diverse’ in character from that of Alexander, ch. 7:7, 19. Finally, by such a view a right interpretation of the four heads, ch. 7:6, and the special meaning of the legs which were wholly of iron, ch. 2:33, is lost.”

                Now, since the untenableness of these three suppositions is obvious, there only remains the expedient to divide the Medo-Persian world-kingdom into a Median and a Persian kingdom, and to combine the former with the second and the latter with the third of Daniel’s kingdoms. But this scheme also is broken to pieces by the twofold circumstance, (1) that, as Maurer himself acknowledges, history knows nothing whatever of a Median world kingdom; and (2) that, as Kranichfeld is compelled to confess (p. 122 ff.), “it cannot be proved from Dan. 5:28, 6:1, 29; 9:1, 11:1, that the author of the book, in the vision in ch. 2 or 7, or at all, conceived of an exclusively Median world-kingdom, and knew nothing of the Persian race as an inner component part of this kingdom.” It is true the book of Daniel, according to ch. 8, recognizes a distinction between a Median and a Persian dynasty (cf. ver. 3), but in other respects it recognizes only one kingdom, which comprehends in its unity the Median and the Persian race. In harmony with this, the author speaks, at the time when the Median government over Babylon was actually in existence, only of one law of the kingdom for Medes and Persians (ch. 6:9, 13, 16), i.e. one law which rested on a common agreement of the two nations bound together into one kingdom. “The author of this book, who at the time of Darius, king of the Medes, knew only of one kingdom common to both races,” according to Kran., “speaks also in the preceding period of the Chaldean independence of the Medes only in conjunction with the Persians (cf. ch.  5:28, 8:20), and, after the analogy of the remark already made, not as of two separated kingdoms, but in the sense of one kingdom, comprehending in it, along with the Median race, also the Persians as another and an important component part. This finds its ratification during the independence of Babylon even in ch. 8:20; for there, the kings of the Medes and the Persians are represented by one beast, although at the same time two separate dynasties are in view. This actual fact of a national union into one kingdom very naturally and fully explains why, in the case of Cyrus, as well as in that of Darius, the national origin of the governors, emphatically set forth, was of interest for the author (cf. ch. 9:1, 6:1, 11:1, 6:28), while with regard to the Chaldean kings there is no similar particular notice taken of their origin; and generally, instead of a statement of the personal descent of Darius and Cyrus, much rather only a direct mention of the particular people ruled by each —e.g. for these rulers the special designations ‘king of the Persians,’ ‘king of the Medes’ —was to be expected1 (cf. ch. 8:20, 10:1, 13, 20; 11:2). (* Kranichfeld goes on to say, that Hilgenfeld goes too far if he concludes from the attribute, the Mede (ch. 6:1 [v. 31] *), that the author Wished to represent thereby a separate kingdom of the Medes in opposition to a kingdom of the Persians at a later time nationally distinct from it; further, that as in the sequel the Median dynasty of the Medo-Persian kingdom passed over into a Persian dynasty, and through the government of the Persian Cyrus the Persian race naturally came forth into the foreground and assumed a prominent place, the kingdom was designated a potiori [generally]as that of the Persians (ch. 10:1, 13, 20; 11:2), like as, in other circumstances (Isa. 13:17; Jer. 51:11, 28), the Medians alone are a potiori represented as the destroyers of Babylon. “As there was, during the flourishing period of the Median dynasty, a kingdom of the Medes and Persians (cf. Dan. 5:28, 8:20), so there is, since the time of Cyrus the Persian, a kingdom of the Persians and Medes (cf. Esth. 1:3, 18, 1st Macc. 1:1, 14:2). We find in Daniel, at the time of the Median supremacy in the kingdom, the law of the Medes and Persians (Dan. 6:9, 13, 16), and subsequently we naturally find the law of the Persians and Medes, Esth. 1:19.))  Hence, as Kranichfeld further rightly judges, it could not (ch. 8) appear appropriate to suppose that the author had Persia in view as the third kingdom, while in the visions ch. 2 and 7 we would regard Persia as a kingdom altogether separated from the Median kingdom. Moreover the author in ch. 8 speaks of the one horn of the ram as growing up after the other, in order thereby to indicate the growing up of the Persian dynasty after the Median, and consequently the two dynasties together in one and the same kingdom (ver. 3, cf. ver. 20). Yet, in spite of all these testimonies to the contrary, Daniel must in ch. 2 and 7 have had in view by the second world-kingdom the Median, and by the third the Persian, because at that time he did not think that in the relation of the Median and the Persian no other change in the future would happen than a simple change of dynasty, but because, at the time in which the Median kingdom stood in a threatening attitude toward the Chaldean (both in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar and in the first year of his son Belshazzar, i.e. Evilmerodach), he thought that a sovereign Persian kingdom would rise up victoriously opposite the Median rival of Nebuchadnezzar.

                As opposed to this expedient, we will not insist on the improbability that Daniel within two years should have wholly changed his opinion as to the relation between the Medians and the Persians, though it would be difficult to find a valid ground for this. Nor shall we lay any stress on this consideration, that the assumed error of the prophet regarding the contents of the divine revelation in ch. 2 and 7 appears irreconcilable with the super- natural illumination of Daniel, because Kranichfeld regards the prophetic statements as only the product of enlightened human mental culture. But we must closely examine the question how this reference of the world-kingdoms spoken of stands related to the characteristics of the third and fourth kingdoms as stated in ch. 2 and 7.

                The description of the second and third kingdoms is very briefly given in ch. 2 and 7. Even though the statement, ch. 2:39, that the second kingdom would be smaller than the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar could point to a Median kingdom, and the statement that the third kingdom would rule over the whole earth might refer to the spread of the dominion of the Persians beyond the boundaries of the Chaldean and Medo-Persian kingdom under Darius, yet the description of both of these kingdoms in ch. 7:5 sufficiently shows the untenableness of this interpretation. The second kingdom is represented under the image of a bear, which raises itself up on one side, and has three ribs in its month between its teeth. The three ribs in its mouth the advocates of this view do not know how to interpret. According to Kran., they are to be regarded as pointing out constituent parts of a whole, of an older kingdom, which he does not attempt more definitely to describe, because history records nothing of the conquests which Darius the Mede may have gained during the two years of his reign after the conquest of Babylon and the overthrow of the Chaldean kingdom by Cyrus. And the leopard representing (ch. 7:6) the third kingdom has not only four wings, but also four heads. The four heads show beyond a doubt the division of the kingdom represented by the leopard into four kingdoms, just as in ch. 8 the four horns of the he-goat, which in ver. 22 are expressly interpreted of four kingdoms rising out of the kingdom of Javan. But a division into four kingdoms cannot by any means he proved of the Persian world-kingdom. Therefore the four heads must here, according to Kran., represent only the vigilant watchfulness and aggression over all the regions of the earth, the pushing movement toward the different regions of the heavens, or, according to Hitzig, the four kings of Persia whom alone Daniel knew. But the first of these interpretations confutes itself, since heads are never the symbol of watchfulness or of aggressive power; and the second is set aside by a comparison with ch. 8:22. If the four horns of the he-goat represent four world-kingdoms rising up together, then the four heads of the leopard can never represent four kings reigning after one another, even though it were the case, which it is not (ch. 11:2), that Daniel knew only four kings of Persia.

                Yet more incompatible are the statements regarding the fourth world-kingdom in ch. 2 and 7 with the supposition that the kingdom of Alexander and his followers is to be understood by it. Neither the monarchy of Alexander nor the Javanic world-kingdom accords with the iron nature of the fourth kingdom, represented by the legs of iron, breaking all things in pieces, nor with the internal division of this kingdom, represented by the feet consisting partly of iron and partly of clay, nor finally with the ten toes formed of iron and clay mixed (ch. 2:33, 40-43). As little does the monarchy of Alexander and his successors resemble a fearful beast with ten horns, which was without any representative in the animal world, according to which Daniel could have named it (ch. 7:7, 19). Kranichfeld rejects, therefore, the historical meaning of the image in ch. 2, and seeks to interpret its separate features only as the expression of the irreparable division of the ungodly kingdom assailing the theocracy with destructive vehemence, and therein of dependent weakness and inner dissolution. Hitzig finds in the two legs the representation of a monarchy which, as the Greek domination, sets its one foot on Europe and its other on Asia; and he regards Syria and Egypt as the material of it —Syria as the iron, Egypt as the clay. Others, again, regard the feet as the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, and in the ten horns they seek the other kingdoms of the (diadochoi). On the other hand, Kliefoth justly asks, “How came Syria and Egypt to be feet? And the toes go out of the feet, but the other kingdoms of the (diadochoi) do not arise out of Syria and Egypt.” And if in this circumstance, that it is said of the fourth terrible beast that it was different from all the beasts that went before, and that no likeness was found for it among the beasts of prey, Kran. only finds it declared “that it puts forth its whole peculiarity according to its power in such a way that no name can any longer be found for it,” then this in no respect whatever agrees with the monarchy of Alexander. According to Hitz., the difference of the fourth beast is to be sought in the monarchy of Alexander transplanted from Europe into Asia, as over against the three monarchies, which shared in common an oriental home, a different kind of culture, and a despotic government. But was the transference of a European monarchy and culture into Asia something so fearful that Daniel could find no name whereby to represent the terribleness of this beast? The relation of Alexander to the Jews in no respect corresponds to this representation; and in ch. 8 Daniel does not say a word about the terribleness of the Javanic kingdom, but presents only the great rapidity of its conquests. He had thus an entirely different conception of the Greek monarchy from that of his modern interpreters.

                Finally, if we take into consideration that the terrible beast which represents the fourth world-power has ten horns (ch. 7:7), which is to be explained as denoting that out of the same kingdom ten kings shall arise (ch. 7:24), and, on the contrary, that by the breaking off from the he-goat, representing the monarchy of Alexander, of the one great horn, which signified the first king, and the subsequent springing up of four similar horns, is to be understood that four kingdoms shall arise out of it (ch. 8:5, 8, 21, 22); then the difference of the number of the horns shows that the beast with the ten horns cannot represent the same kingdom as that which is represented by the he-goat with four horns, since the number four is neither according to its numerical nor its symbolical meaning identical with the number ten. Moreover, this identifying of the two is quite set aside by the impossibility of interpreting the ten horns historically. Giving weight to the explanation of the angel, that the ten horns represent the rising up of ten kings, Berth., v. Leng., Hitz., and Del. have endeavoured to find these kings among the Seleucidae, but they have not been able to discover more than seven: 1. Seleucus Nicator; 2. Antiochus Soter; 3. Antiochus Theus; 4. Seleucus Callinicus; 5. Selencus Ceraunus; 6. Antiochus the Great; 7. Seleucus Philopator, the brother and predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes, who after Philopator’s death mounted the throne of Syria, having set aside other heirs who had a better title to it, and who must be that little-horn which reached the kingdom by the rooting up of three kings. The three kings whom Antiochus plucked up by the roots (cf. ch. 7:8, 20, 24) must be Heliodorus, the murderer of Philopator; Demetrius, who was a hostage in Rome, the son of Philopator, and the legitimate successor to the throne; and the son of Ptolemy Philometor, for whom his mother Cleopatra, the sister of Seleucus Philopator and of Antiochus Epiphanes, claimed the Syrian throne. But no one of these three reached the royal dignity, and none of them was dethroned or plucked up by the roots by Antiochus Epiphanes. Heliodorus, it is true, strove for the kingdom (Appian, Syriac. 45); but his efforts were defeated, yet not by Antiochus Epiphanes, but by Attalus and Eumenes. Demetrius, after his death, was the legitimate heir to the throne, but could not assert his rights, because he was a hostage in Rome; and since he did not at all mount the throne, he was not of course dethroned by his uncle Antiochus Epiphanes. Finally, Ptolemy Philometor, after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, for a short time, it is true, united the Syrian crown with the Egyptian (1st Macc. 11:13; Polyb. 40. 12), but during the life of Antiochus Epiphanes, and before he ascended the throne, he was neither de jure nor de facto king of Syria; and the “pretended efforts of Cleopatra to gain for her son Philometor the crown of Syria are nowhere proved” (Hitzig).

                Of this historical interpretation we cannot thus say even so much as that it “only very scantily meets the case” (Delitzsch); for it does not at all accord with the prophecy that the little horn (Antiochus Epiphanes) plucked up by the roots three of the existing kings. Hitzig and Hilgenfeld (Die Proph. Esra u. Dan. p. 82) have therefore dropped out of view the Syrian kingdom of Philometor, and, in order -to gain the number ten, have ranked Alexander the Great among the Syrian kings, and taken Seleucus Philopator into the triad of the pretended Syrian kings that were plucked up by the roots by Antiochus Epiphanes. But Alexander the Great can neither according to the evidence of history, nor according to the statement of the book of Daniel, be counted among the kings of Syria; and Seleucus Philopator was not murdered by Antiochus Epiphanes, but Antiochus Epiphanes lived at the time of this deed in Athens (Appian, Syr. 45); and the murderer Heliodorus cannot have accomplished that crime as the instrument of Antiochus, because he aspired to gain the throne for himself, and was only prevented from doing so by the intervention of Attalus and Eumenes. Hilgenfeld also does not venture to reckon Heliodorus, the murderer of the king, among the triad of uprooted kings, but seeks to supply his place by an older son of Seleucus Philopator, murdered at the instigation of Antiochus Epiphanes according to Gutschmid; but he fails to observe that a king’s son murdered during the lifetime of his father, reigning as king, could not possibly be represented as a king whom Antiochus Epiphanes drove from his throne. Of the ten kings of the Grecian world-kingdom of the branch of the Seleucidae before Antiochus Epiphanes, whom Hilgenfeld believes that he is almost able “to grasp with his hands,” history gives as little information as of the uprooting of the three Syrian kings by Antiochus Epiphanes.

                But even though the historical relevancy of the attempt to authenticate the ten Syrian kings in the kingdom of the Seleucidae were more satisfactory than, from what has been remarked, appears to be the case, yet this interpretation of the fourth beast would be shattered against the ten horns, because these horns did not grow up one after another, but are found simultaneously on the head of the beast, and consequently cannot mean ten Syrian kings following one another, as not only all interpreters who regard the beast as representing the Roman empire, but also Bleek and Kran., acknowledge, in spite of the reference of this beast to the Javanic world-kingdom. “We are induced,” as Bleek justly observes, “by ver. 8, where it is said of the little horn that it would rise up between the ten horns, to think of ten contemporaneous kings, or rather kingdoms, existing along with each other, which rise out of the fourth kingdom.” Therefore he will “not deny that the reference to the successors of Alexander is rendered obscure by the fact that ch. 8 speaks of four monarchies which arise out of that of Alexander after his death.” This obscurity, however, he thinks he is able to clear up by the remark, that “in the kind of development of the historical relations after the death of Alexander, the parts of his kingdom which formed themselves into independent kingdoms might be numbered in different ways.” Thus, in ch. 7, “as ten from the number of the generals who in the arrangements of the division of the kingdom (323 B.C.) retained the chief provinces: 1. Kraterus (Macedonia); 2. Antipater (Greece); 3. Lysimachus (Thrace); 4. Leonatus (Phrygia Minor on the Hellespont) ; 5. Antigonus (Phrygia Major, Lycia, and Pamphylia); 6. Cassander (Karia); 7. Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia); 8. Laomedon (Syria and Palestine); 9. Pithon (Media); 10. Ptolemy Lagus (Egypt).” But Zūndel justly observes in opposition to this view, that “these kingdoms could only have significance if this number, instead of being a selection from the whole, had been itself the whole. But this is not the case. For at that time the kingdom, according to Justin, hist. L. xiii. 4, was divided into more than thirty separate parts. (* Justinus, l.c., mentions the following, viz. : 1. Ptolemy (Egypt, Africa, Arabia); 2. Laomedon (Syria and Palestine); 3. Philotas (Cilicia); 4. Philo (Illyria); 5. Atropatos (Media Major): 6. Scynus (Susiana); 7. Antigonus (Phrygia Major) ; 8. Nearchus (Lycia and Pamphylia) ; 9. Cassander (Caria) ; 10. Menander (Lydia) ; 11. Leonatus (Phrygia Minor) ; 12. Lysimachus (Thracia and Pontus); 13. Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia); 14. Taxiles (the countries between the Hydaspes and the Indus); 15. Pithon (India); 16. Extarches (Caucasus); 17. Sybirtios (chrosia); 18. Statanor or Stasanor (Drangiana and Aria); 19. Amyntas (Bactria); 20. Scytaeus (Sogdiana); 21. Nicanor (Parthia); 22. Philippus (Hyrcania); 23. Phrataphernes (Armenia); 24. Tlepolenus (Persia); 25. Peucestes (Babylonia); 26. Archon (the Pelasgi); 27. Areesilaus (Mesopotamia). Besides these there were other generals not named. *)  Although all the names do not perfectly agree as given by different writers, yet this is manifest, that there is no information regarding a division of the kingdom of Alexander into ten exclusively. History knows nothing of such a thing; not only so, but much more, this reckoning of Bleek’s falls into the same mistake as the oldest of Porphyry, that it is an arbitrary selection and not a fixed number.” But if Bleek wishes to support his arbitrary selection by references to the Sibylline Oracles, where also mention is made of the horns of Daniel in connection with Alexander, Hilgenfeld (Jed. Apokal. p. 71 if.) has, on the contrary, shown that this passage is derived from Daniel, and is therefore useless as a support to Bleek’s hypothesis, because in it the immediate successors of Alexander are not meant, but ten kings following one another; this passage also only shows that the sibyllist had given to the number ten an interpretation regarded by Bleek himself as incompatible with the words of Daniel.

                But notwithstanding the impossibility of interpreting the ten horns of the Greek world-kingdom, and notwithstanding the above mentioned incompatibility of the statements of ch. 2 and 7 regarding the third kingdom with those of ch. 8 regarding the Medo-Persian kingdom, yet, according to Kranichfeld, the identification of the fourth kingdom of Daniel with the Javanic world kingdom receives a confirmation from the representation of ch. 11 and 12, particularly by the striking resemblance of the description of the fourth kingdom in ch. 2 and 7 with that of the Javanic in ch. 8 fl. (* This incompatibility Kliefoth has so conclusively (p. 245 f.) stated, that in confirmation of the above remarks we quote his words. “The bear and the panther,” he says, “are related to each other as the ram and the he-goat; but how, in two visions following each other and related to each other, the one Medo-Persian kingdom could be likened to beasts so entirely different as a winged panther and a he-goat is quite inconceivable. The interpreters must help themselves by saying that the choice of the beasts is altogether arbitrary. Ch. describes Medo-Persia as a kingdom comprehending two peoples united together within it; but ch. 7 says regarding its third kingdom with four heads, that after an original unity it shall fall to pieces on all sides. And interpreters are compelled to meet this contradiction by explaining the four heads, some in one way, and others in another, but all equally unsuccessfully. According to ch. 8 Medo-Persia will extend itself only into three regions of the earth, while according to ch. 7 the third kingdom with its four wings will extend itself on all sides. It comes to this, therefore, that these interpreters must divide Medo-Persia in ch. 2 and ch. 7 into two kingdoms, of Media and Persia, while in ch. 8 they must recognise but one Medo-Persian kingdom. “As in ch. 2 and 7 the inward discord of the fourth kingdom is predicated, so this is obviously represented in the inner hateful strife of the kingdom, of which ch. 11:3 ff. treats; as here the discord appears as inextinguishable, so there; as to the special means also for preventing the ominous ruin, of ch. 2:43 with ch. 11:6, 17.”

                But is, then, this resemblance indeed so striking that it can overbalance the fundamental differences? “Of all that ch. 8 says, in vers. 5-8, 21,22, of Macedonia, nothing at all is found in the statements of ch. 2 and 7 regarding the fourth kingdom.” Kliefoth. Also the inner dissolution predicated of the fourth kingdom, ch. 2:41 ff., which is represented by the iron and clay of the feet of the image, is fundamentally different from the strife of the prince of the south with the prince of the north represented in ch. 11:3 f. The mixing of iron and clay, which do not unite together, refers to two nationalities essentially different from each other, which cannot be combined into one nation by any means of human effort, but not at all to the wars and conflicts of princes (ch. 11:3 ff.), the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae, for the supremacy and the attempts to combine together national individualities into one kingdom by means of the mingling together of different races by external force, are essentially different from the political marriages by which the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae sought to establish peace and friendship with each other. (* How little political marriages were characteristic of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae, rather how much more frequently they took place among the Romans, from the time of Sulla down to that of Diocletian, and that often in a violent way —cum frequenti divortio et raptu gravidarum— as a means of obtaining or holding the government, is shown from the numerous collection of cases of this sort compiled by J. C. Velthusen in his treatise Animad. ad Dan. 27-45, impriniis de principum Romanorum connubiis ad firmandam tyrannidem inventis, Helmst. 1783, in vol. v. of the Comentatt. Theolog. of Velth., edited by Kuinoel and Ruperti. Since this treatise has not received any attention from modern critics, we will quote from it the judgment which Cato passed on Caesar’s triplex ad evertendam rempublicam inventa politicarum nuptiarum conspiratio. His words are these: “rem esse plane non tolerabilem, quad connubiorum lenociniis imperium collocari (diamastrōpeuesthai) coeperit, et per mulieres sese mutuo ad prwfecturas, exercitus, imperia auderet introducere” (p. 379). *)

                There is more plausibility in criticism which gives prominence to the resemblance in the description of the two violent persecutors of the people of God who arise out of the Javanic and the fourth world-kingdom, and are represented in ch. 8 as well as in ch. 7 under the figure of a little horn. “If” —for thus Kran. has formulated this resemblance— “in the fourth kingdom, according to ch. 8:8,11, 20,21, 25, the heathen oppressor appears speaking insolent words against the Most High and making war with the saints, so ch. 8:10 ff., 24; 11:31, 36, unfolds, only more fully, in his fundamental characteristics, the same enemy; and as in ch. 7:25 the severe oppression continues for three and a half (3 1/2) times, so also that contemplated in ch. 8:14 and in 12:7, in connection with ch. 12:1 ff. and ch. 11.” On the ground of this view of the case, Delitzsch (p. 280) asks, “Is it likely that the little horn which raised itself up and persecuted the church of God is in ch. 8 Antiochus Epiphanes rising up out of the divided kingdom of Alexander, and in ch. 7, on the contrary, is a king rising up in the Roman world-kingdom? The representation of both, in their relation to Jehovah, His people, and their religion, is the same. The symbolism in ch. 7 and 8 coincides, in so far as the arch-enemy is a little horn which rises above three others.” We must answer this question decidedly in the affirmative, since the difference between the two enemies is not only likely, but certain. The similarity of the symbol in ch. 7 and 8 reaches no further than that in both chapters the persecuting enemy is represented as a little horn growing gradually to greater power. But in ch. 8:9 this little horn arises from one of the four horns of the he-goat, without doing injury to the other three horns; while in ch. 7:8 the little horn rises up between the ten horns of the dreadful beast, and outroots three of these horns. The little horn inch. 8, as a branch which grows out of one of these, does not increase the number of the existing horns, as that in ch. 7, which increases the number there to eleven (11). This distinction cannot, as Kranichfeld supposes, be regarded merely as a formal difference in the figurative representation; it constitutes an essential distinction for which the use of different symbols for the representation of the world-kingdoms in ch. 2 and 7 furnishes no true analogue. By these two different images two wholly different things are compared with each other.

                The representations of the four World-kingdoms in ch. 2 and in ch. 7 are only formally different, —in ch. 2 a human image, in ch. 7 four beasts,— but in reality these representations answer to each other, feature for feature, only so that in ch. 7 further outlines are added, which entirely agree with, but do not contradict, the image in ch. 2. On the contrary, in ch. 7 and 8 essential contradictions present themselves in the parallel symbols —four horns and ten horns— which cannot be weakened down to mere formal differences. As little does the description of the enemy of the people of God, portrayed as a little horn in ch. 8 correspond with that in ch. 7. The fierce and crafty king arising out of the kingdoms of Alexander’s successors will become “great toward the south and toward the east and toward the pleasant land, and wax great even to the host of heaven, and cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground; yea, he will magnify himself even to the prince of the host, and take away the daily sacrifice, and cast down the place of the sanctuary” (ch. 8:9-12, 23-25). On the other hand, the king who rises up out of the fourth world-kingdom, who overthrows three other kings, will “speak great things against the Most High, and make war against the saints of the Most High, and prevail against them, and think to change times and laws ” (ch. 7:8, 20, 25). These two enemies resemble each other in this, that they both make war against the people of God; but they differ in that he who arises out of the third world-kingdom, extending his power toward the south and the east, i.e. towards Egypt and Babylon, and towards the Holy Land, shall crush some of the people of God, and by the taking away of the daily worship and the destruction of the sanctuary in Jerusalem, will rise up against God; while, on the contrary, he that shall arise out of the fourth world-kingdom will go much further. He will establish his kingdom by the destruction of three kingdoms, by great words put himself in the place of God, and as if he were God will think to change the times and the laws of men. Conformably to this, the length of time during which the persecution of these two adversaries will continue is different. The laying waste of the sanctuary by the power of the little horn arising out of the Javanic world kingdom will continue 2300 evening-mornings (ch. 8:14): to the power of the little horn arising out of the fourth world-kingdom the saints of the Most High must be given up for a time, two times, and half a time (ch. 7:25). No one will be persuaded, with Kranichfeld, that these two entirely different periods of time are alike. This difference of the periods of time again appears in ch. 12:7, 11,12, where also the three and a half (3 1/2) times (ver. 7) agree neither with the 1290 nor with the 1335 days. It is therefore not correct ‘to say that in ch. 8 and 7 Antichrist, the last enemy of the church, is represented, and that the aspects of the imagery in both chapters strongly resemble each other. The very opposite is apparent as soon as one considers the contents of the description without prejudice, and does not, with Kranichfeld and others, hold merely by the details of the representation and take the husk for the kernel. The enemy in ch. 8 proceeds only so far against God that he attacks His people, removes His worship, and lays waste the sanctuary; the enemy in ch. 7 makes himself like God (13:7, ver. 25), thinks himself to be God, and in his madness dares even to seek to change the times and the laws which God has ordained, and which He alone has the power to change. The enemy in ch. 8 it is an abuse of words to call Antichrist; for his offence against God is not greater than the crime of Ahaz and Manasseh, who also took away the worship of the true God, and set up the worship of idols in His stead. On the other hand, it never came into the mind of an Ahaz, nor of Manasseh, nor of Antiochus Epiphanes, who set himself to put an end to the worship of God among the Jews, to put themselves in the place of God, and to seek to change times and laws. The likeness which the enemy in ch. 8, i.e. Antiochus Epiphanes, in his rage against the Mosaic religion and the Jews who were faithful to their law, has to the enemy in ch. 7, who makes himself like God, limits itself to the relation between the type and the antitype. Antiochus, in his conduct towards the Old Testament people of God, is only the type of Antichrist, who will arise out of the ten kingdoms of the fourth world-kingdom (ch. 7:24) and be diverse from them, arrogate to himself the omnipotence which is given to Christ, and in this arrogance will put himself in the place of God.

                The sameness of the designation given to both of these adversaries of the people of God, a “little horn,” not only points to the relation of type and antitype, but also, as Kliefoth has justly remarked, to “intentional and definite” parallelism between the third world kingdom (the Macedonian) and the fourth (the Roman). “On all points the changes of the fourth kingdom are described similarly to the changes which took place in the Macedonian kingdom; but in every point of resemblance also there is indicated some distinct difference, so that the Macedonian kingdom in its development comes to stand as the type and representative of the fourth kingdom, lying as yet in the far-off future.” The parallelism appears in this, that in the he-goat, representing the Javanic kingdom, after the breaking of the one great horn four considerable horns come up; and the fourth beast has ten horns; and the horns in both show that out of the one kingdom four, and out of the other ten, kingdoms shall arise; further, that as out of one of the Javanic Diadoch kingdoms, so also from among the ten kingdoms into which the fourth kingdom is divided, a little horn comes up; the little horn in the Javanic kingdom, however, developed itself and founds its dominion differently from that of the fourth kingdom. If one carefully considers the resemblances and the differences of this description, he cannot fail to observe “the relation of an imperfect preliminary step of heathenish ungodliness to a higher step afterwards taken,” which Kran. (p. 282) seeks in a typical delineation. For the assertion of this critic, that “in the pretended typical, as in the antitypical situation, the same thoughts of the rising up against the Most High, the removal of His worship, and the destruction of the sanctuary always similarly occur,” is, according to the exegetical explanation given above, simply untrue. The difference reduces itself not merely to the greater fulness with which, “not the chief hero, but the type,” is treated, but it shows itself in the diversity of the thoughts; for the elevation to the place of God, and the seeking to change the times and the laws, manifests one of a higher degree of godlessness than the removing of the Jewish sacrificial worship and the desecration of the Jewish temple.

                Finally, the relation of the type to the antitype appears yet more distinctly in the determining of the time which will be appointed to both enemies for their opposition to God; for, though apparently they are alike, they are in reality very differently designated, and particularly in the explanation of the angel, ch. 8:17, 19, and in the representation of the conduct of both enemies in ch. 11 and 12, as we shall show in our exposition of these chapters.

                Since, then, neither the division of the Medo-Persian kingdom into the Median and the Persian is allowable, nor the identification of the fourth kingdom, ch. 2 and 7, with the Javanic world-kingdom in ch. 8, we may regard as correct the traditional church view, that the four world-kingdoms are the Chaldean, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman. This opinion, which has been recently maintained by Hāv., Hengst., Hofm., Auberl., Zūndel, Klief., and by C. P. Caspari and H. L. Reichel, alone accords without any force or arbitrariness with the representation of these kingdoms in both visions, with each separately as well as with both together. If we compare, for instance, the two visions with each other, they are partly distinguished in this, that while Nebuchadnezzar sees the world-power in its successive unfoldings represented by one metallic image, Daniel, on the other hand, sees it in the form of four ravenous beasts; partly in this, that in ch. 7 the nature of the world-power, and its relation to the kingdom of God, is more distinctly described than in the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar, ch. 2. These diversities have their foundation in the person of the respective recipients of the revelation. Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, sees its development in its unity and in its earthly glory. As opposed to the kingdom of God, the world-kingdoms, in all the phases of their development, form a united power of outward glory. But its splendour gradually decreases. The image with the golden head has its breast and arms of silver, its belly of brass, its legs of iron, its feet of iron and clay mixed. Thus the image stands on feet that are weak and easily broken, so that a stone rolling against them can break in pieces the whole colossus. Since, then, the image must represent four phases of the world-kingdoms following each other, they must be represented by the separate parts of the image. Beginning with the head, as denoting the first kingdom, the second kingdom is in natural order represented by the breast and arms, the third by the belly, and the fourth by the legs and feet. Since this of necessity follows from the image being that of the human body, yet in the interpretation we may not attach any weight to the circumstance that the second kingdom is represented by the breast and the two arms, and the fourth by the two legs; but this circumstance may be taken into consideration only in so far as importance is given to it by the interpretation which is furnished in the text, or as it finds corresponding importance in the vision of ch. 7.

                If we thus consider now the image, ch. 2, the selection of different metals for its separate parts must be regarded as certainly designed not only to distinguish the four world-kingdoms from each other, but also at the same time to bring to view their different natures and qualities. This is evident from the interpretation in ch. 2:39 ff., where the hardness and the crushing power of the iron, and the brittleness of the clay, are brought to view. From this intimation it is at the same time obvious that the metals are not, as Auberlen, p. 228 ff., thinks, to be viewed only as to their worth, and that by the successive depreciation of the materials —gold, silver, brass, iron, clay— a continuous decline of the world power, or a diminution of the world-kingdoms as to their inner worth and power, is intended. Though Aub. says many things that are true and excellent regarding the downward progress of the world development in general, the successive deterioration of humanity from paradise to the day of judgment, yet this aspect of the subject does not come here primarily before us, but is only a subordinate element in the contemplation. Daniel does not depict, as Aub. with P. Lange supposes, the world-civilizations in the world monarchies; he does not describe “the progress from a state of nature to one of refined culture —from a natural, vigorous, solid mode of existence to a life of refinement and intellectualism, which is represented by the eye (ch. 7:8) of Antichrist ;” but he describes in both visions only the development of the world-power opposite to the kingdom of God, and its influence upon it in the future. If Aub. holds as the foundation of his opinion, that “gold and silver are nobler and more valuable metals, but that, on the other hand, iron and brass are infinitely more important for the cause of civilization and culture,” he has confounded two different points of view: he has made the essential worth and value of the former metals, and the purpose and use of the latter, the one point of comparison. Gold and silver are nobler and more valuable than brass and iron, yet they have less intrinsic worth. The difference is frequently noticed in the Old Testament. Gold and silver are not only more highly valued than brass and iron (cf. Isa. 60:17), but silver and gold are also metonymically used to designate moral purity and righteousness (cf. Mal. 3:3 with Isa. 1:22); brass and iron, on the contrary, are used to designate moral impurity (cf. Jer. 6:28, Ezek. 22:18) and stubborn rebellion against God (Isa. 48:4). With reference to the relative worth of the metals, their gradation in the image shows, without doubt, an increasing moral and religious deterioration of the world-kingdoms. It must not, however, be hence thought, as Auberlen does, “that the Babylonian and Persian religions presuppose more genuine truthfulness, more sacred reverence for that which is divine, deeper earnestness in contending against the evil, in the nations among whom they sprung up, than the Hellenic, which is so much richer and more beautifully developed ;” for this distinction is not supported by history. But although this may be said of the Persian, it cannot be held as true of the Babylonian religion, from all we know of it. Kranichfeld (p. 107) is more correct when in the succession of the metals he finds “the thought conceived by the theocrat of a definite fourfold procedure or expression of character comparatively corresponding to them, of a fourfold (derek) (way, Jer. 6:27) of the heathen kingdoms manifesting an increasing deterioration.” The two first kingdoms, the golden and the silver, in general appear to him in their conduct as proportionally noble, virtuous, and in their relation to the theocracy even relatively pious; the two latter, on the contrary, which presented themselves to him in the likeness of brass and iron, as among the four morally base, as standing in the moral scale lower and lowest, and in relation to the theocracy as more relentless and wicked (see ver. 40). (* Kliefoth (p. 93) in a similar manner says, “From the application which in ch. 2:40 is made of the iron material, we see that the substances representing the different kingdoms, and their deterioration from the gold down to the iron, must denote something else than that the world-power, in the course of its historical formation, will become always baser and more worthless —that also its more tender or more cruel treatment of the nations, and of the men subdued by it, must be characterized. If the bonds which the Babylonian world monarchy wound around the nations which were brought into subjection to it, by its very primitive military and bureaucratic regulations, were loose, gentle, pliable as a golden ring, those of the Medo-Persian were of harder silver, those of the Macedonian of yet harder copper, but the yoke of the fourth will be one of iron.” *) . With this the declaration of the text as to the position of the four world-kingdoms and their rulers with reference to the people of God stand in accord; for, on the one hand, Nebuchadnezzar, and the first rulers of the second kingdom, Darius the Median and Cyrus the Persian, respect the revelations of the living God, and not only in their own persons give honour to this God, but also command their heathen subjects to render unto Him fear and reverence; on the other hand, on the contrary, from the third and the fourth kingdoms the greatest persecutors of the kingdom of God, who wish utterly to destroy it (ch. 7, 8), arise. In this respect the two first world-kingdoms, seen in their rulers, are like gold and silver, the two latter like copper and iron.

                The relation of the world-kingdoms to the kingdom and people of God, represented by this gradation of the metals, corresponds only to the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman world-kingdoms, but not to the Babylonian, Median, and Persian. This appears more manifest in the representation of them by four ravenous beasts, the lion, the bear, the leopard, and another beast to which no likeness can be found, ch. 7. Its eagle’s wings were torn from the lion, and it had given to it, by God, a man’s heart; the bear shows only wild voracity, —holding its prey between its teeth, it raises its one side for new prey; the leopard with four heads and four wings springs forward as in flight over the whole earth, to seize it and to exercise dominion over it; the fourth nameless beast devours and breaks in pieces with its iron teeth all that remains, and stamps upon it with its iron feet, and thus represents godless barbarity in its fullest development. But for the historical interpretation there comes yet particularly into view the circumstance that the fourth beast is represented by no animal existing in nature, and is designated by no historical name, as in the case of the first (ch. 2:38) and the second and third (ch. 8:20,21); for the two first had already come into existence in Daniel’s time, and of the third, the people at least out of whom it was to arise had then already come into relation to the people of Israel (Joel 4:6, 8). The fourth kingdom, on the contrary, is represented by a nameless beast, because in Daniel’s time Rome had not come into contact ‘with Israel, and as yet lay beyond the circle of vision of Old Testament prophecy. Although Daniel receives much more special revelations regarding this world-kingdom (ch. 7) than Nebuchadnezzar does in his dream (ch. 2), yet all the separate lines of the representation of the beast and its horns are given with so much want of precision that every reference to a historical people is at fault, and from the vision and its interpretation it was not to be known where this kingdom would arise, whether in Asia or elsewhere. The strength of the monster, devouring and trampling mercilessly on all things, is in harmony with its iron nature, and in its ten horns its powerful armour is depicted. The very concrete expressions regarding the little or eleventh (11th) horn contain only ideal traces respecting the position of the king or kingdom represented by it, which distinctly show, indeed, the elevation of the same above all human and divine authority, but give no indication at all of any special historical connections.

                Thus it appears that the two visions, on the one hand, do not copy their prophetic representation from historical facts, that the prophecy is not vaticinium ex eventu; but, on the other hand, also that it is not derived from general ideas, as Hitz. and Kran. have attempted to show. While Hitzig thinks that the idea of the four ages of the world lies at the foundation, not of the fourfoldness of the monarchies, but of the kind of representation given of them in Dan. 2, —an idea which came from India to Greece, and was adopted by Daniel in its Greek form, Kranichfeld considers that, under divine enlightenment, Daniel delineated the ideal of the advancing completion of heathen depravation in four stages (not in five, six, etc.), after the notion of the four ages of the world which we find not only in the Indian four jugas, but also in the Greco-Roman representation of the metallic aeons. Now although for this book of Daniel no special dependence on the Greeks can be proved from the use and value of the metals, because they were used by the ancient Hebrews as metaphorical symbols, yet the combination of the idea of the ages of the world so firmly and definitely stamped with just the number four remains a very noteworthy phenomenon, which must have had a deeper foundation lying in the very fact itself. This foundation, he concludes, is to be sought in the four stages of the age of man.

                This conjecture might appear plausible if Kranichfeld had proved the supposed four stages of the age of man as an idea familiar to the O. T. He has not, however, furnished this proof, but limited himself to the remark, that the combination of the number four with the ages of the life of man was one lying very near to Daniel, since the four phases of the development of heathenism come into view (ch. 2) in the image of a human being, the personification of heathendom. A very marvellous conclusion indeed! What, then, have the four parts of the human figure —the head, breast, belly, feet— in common with the four stages of the age of man? The whole combination wants every point of support. The idea of the development of the world-power in four kingdoms following after each other, and becoming continually the more oppressive to the people of God, has no inward connection with the representation of the four ages of the world, and —as even Ewald (Dan. p. 346), in opposition to this combination, remarks —“the mere comparison with gold, silver, brass, iron lies too near for the author of this book to need to borrow it from Hesiod.” The agreement of the two ideas in the number four (although Hesiod has inserted the age of the heroes between the brazen and the iron aeon, and thus has not adhered to the number four) would much more readily have been explained from the symbolical meaning of four as the number of the world, if it were the mere product of human speculation or combination in the case of the world-ages as of the world-kingdoms, and not much rather, in the case of the world-ages, were derived from the historical development of humanity and of Daniel’s world-kingdoms, from divine revelation. Yet much less are the remaining declarations regarding the development and the course of the world-kingdoms to be conceived of as the product of enlightened human thought. This may be said of the general delineation of the second and third world-kingdoms (ch. 2 and 7), and yet much more of the very special declaration regarding them in ch. 8, but most of all of the fourth world-kingdom. If one wished to deduce the fearful power of this kingdom destroying all things from the idea of the rising up of hostility against that which is divine, closely bound up with the deterioration of the state of the world, and to attach importance to this, that the number ten of the horns of the fourth beast, corresponding to the number of the toes of the feet, is derived from the apprehension of heathendom as the figure of a man, and is not to be understood numerically, but symbolically; yet there remains, not to mention other elements, the growth of the little horn between the ten existing horns, and its elevation to power through the destruction of three existing horns, which are deduced neither from the symbolical meaning of the numbers nor are devised by enlightened human thought, but much rather constrain us to a recognition of an immediate divine revelation.

                If we knew approach more closely to the historical reference of the fourth world-kingdom, it must be acknowledged that we cannot understand by it the Grecian, but only the Roman world-power. With it, not with the Macedonian monarchy, agree both the iron nature of the image (ch. 2), and the statements (ch. 7:23) that this kingdom would be different from all that preceded it, and that it would devour and break and trample upon the whole earth. The Roman kingdom was the first universal monarchy in the full sense. Along with the three earlier world-kingdoms, the nations of the world-historical future remained still unsubdued: along with the Oriental kingdoms, Greece and Rome, and along with the Macedonian, the growing power of Rome.

                First the Roman kingdom spread its power and dominion over the whole (oikoumenē), over all the historical nations of antiquity in Europe, Africa, and Asia. “There is” (says Herodian, ii. 11. 7) “no part of the earth and no region of the heavens whither the Romans have not extended their dominion.” Still more the prophecy of Daniel reminds us of the comparison of the Roman world kingdom with the earlier world-kingdoms, the Assyrico-Babylonian, the Persian, and the Grecian, in Dionys. Halicar., when in the prooem. 9 he says: “These are the most famous kingdoms down to our time, and this their duration and power. But the kingdom of the Romans ruled through all the regions of the earth which are not inaccessible, but are inhabited by men; it ruled also over the whole sea, and it alone and first made the east and the west its boundaries.” Concerning the other features of the image in ch. 2, we can seek neither (see p. 261) in the two legs and feet of the image, nor in the twofold material of the feet, any hint as to the division of the Roman kingdom into the Eastern and Western Rome. The iron and clay are in the image indeed not so divided as that the one foot is of iron and the other of clay, but iron and clay are bound together in both of the feet. In this union of two heterogeneous materials there also lies no hint that, by the dispersion of the nations, the plastic material of the Germanic and the Sclavic tribes was added to the Old Roman universal kingdom (ver. 40) with its thoroughly iron nature (Auberl. p. 252, cf. with Hof. Weiss. u. Erf. i. p. 281). For the clay in the image does not come into view as a malleable and plastic material, but, according to the express interpretation of Daniel (ver. 42), only in respect of its brittleness. The mixing of iron and clay, which do not inwardly combine together, shows the inner division of the nations, of separate natural stocks and national characters, which constituted the Roman empire, who were kept together by external force, whereby the iron firmness of the Roman nation was mingled with brittle clay.

                The kingdoms represented by the ten horns belong still to the future. To be able to judge regarding them with any certainty, we must first make clear to ourselves the place of the Messianic kingdom with reference to the fourth world-kingdom, and then compare the prophecy of the Apocalypse of John regarding the formation of the world-power —a prophecy which rests on the book of Daniel. }}

                Messianic Kingdom & Son of Man.

                {{ In the image of the monarchies, ch. 2, the everlasting kingdom of God is simply placed over against the kingdoms of the world without mention being made of the king of this kingdom. The human image is struck and broken to pieces by a stone rolling down against its feet, but the stone itself grows into a great mountain and fills the whole earth (ch. 2:34 ff.). This stone is a figure of that kingdom which the God of heaven will erect in the days of the kings of the fourth world-kingdom; a kingdom which to all eternity shall never be destroyed, and which shall crush all the kingdoms of the world (ch. 2:44). In ch. 7, on the contrary, Daniel sees not only the judgment which God holds over the kingdoms of the world, to destroy them forever with the death of their last ruler, but also the deliverance of the kingdom to the Messiah coming with the clouds of heaven in the likeness of a son of man, whom all nations shall serve, and whose dominion shall stand for ever (ch. 7:9-14, cf. ver. 26 f.).

                In both visions the Messianic kingdom appears in its completion. Whence Auberlen (p. 248), with other chiliasts, concludes that the beginning of this kingdom can refer to nothing else than to the coming of Christ for the founding of the so-called kingdom of the thousand years; an event still imminent to us. In favour of this view, he argues (1) that the judgment on Antichrist, whose appearance is yet future, goes before the beginning of this kingdom; (2) that this kingdom in both chapters is depicted as a kingdom of glory and dominion, while till this time the kingdom of heaven on the earth is yet a kingdom of the cross. But the judgment on Antichrist does not altogether go before the beginning of this kingdom, but only before the final completion of the Messianic kingdom; and the Messianic kingdom has the glory and dominion over all the kingdoms under heaven, according to ch. 2 and 7, not from the beginning, but acquires them only for the first time after the destruction of all the world-kingdoms and of the last powerful enemy arising out of them. The stone which breaks the image becomes for the first time after it has struck the image a great mountain which fills the whole earth (ch. 2:35), and the kingdom of God is erected by the God of heaven, according to ch. ii. 2:44, not for the first time after the destruction of all the world-kingdoms, but in the days of the kings of the fourth world-monarchy, and thus during its continuance. With this ch. 7 harmonizes; for, according to vers. 21,22, 25, 27, the little horn of the fourth beast carries on war with the saints of the Most High till the Ancient of days executes judgment in their behalf, and the time arrives when the saints shall possess the kingdom. Here we distinctly see the kingdom of heaven upon earth bearing the form of the cross, out of which condition it shall be raised by the judgment into the state of glory. The kingdom of the Messiah is thus already begun, and is warred against by Antichrist, and the judgment on Antichrist only goes before the raising of it to glory. (3) Auberlen adduces as a third argument, that (according to Roos, Hofm., etc.) only the people of Israel in opposition to the heathen nations and kingdoms can be understood by the “people of the saints of the Most High” (ch. 7:18, 27), because Daniel could only think of this people. But to this Kranichfeld has rightly replied, that Daniel and the whole O.T. knew nothing whatever of such a distinction between a non-Israelitish and an Israelitish epoch within the kingdom of Messiah, but only a Messianic kingdom in which Israel forms the enduring centre for the heathen believing nations drawing near to them. To this we add, that the division of the kingdom of heaven founded by Christ on the earth into a period of the church of the Gentiles, and following this a period of a thousand years of the dominion of Jewish Christians, contradicts the clear statements of Christ and the apostles in the N. T., and is only based on a misconception of a few passages of the Apocalypse (cf. Comm. on Ezek. p. 504 ff.).

                Daniel certainly predicts the completion of the kingdom of God in glory, but he does not prophesy that the kingdom of heaven will then for the first time begin, but indicates its beginnings in a simple form, although he does not at large represent its gradual development in the war against the world-power, just as he also gives only a few brief intimations of the temporary development of the world-kingdoms. If Aub. (p. 251) replies that the words of the text, ch. 2:35,“then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to pieces together,” cannot at all permit the thought of the co-existence of the fourth world kingdom and the kingdom of God, he attributes to these words a meaning which they do not hear. The “together” refers only to the breaking in pieces of the five substances named, of which the world-kingdoms are formed, the destruction of the world power in all its parts, but not that this happened at one and the same moment, and that then for the first time the kingdom of God which is from heaven began. The stone which brake the image in pieces, then first, it is true, grows up into a great mountain filling the whole earth. The destruction of the world-kingdoms can in reality proceed only gradually along with the growth of the stone, and thus also the kingdom of God can destroy the world-kingdoms only by its gradual extension over the earth. The destruction of the world-power in all its component parts began with the foundation of the kingdom of heaven at the appearance of Christ upon earth, or with the establishment of the church of Christ, and only reaches its completion at the second coming of our Lord at the final judgment. In the image Daniel saw in a moment, as a single act, what in its actual accomplishment or in its historical development extends through the centuries of Christendom. Auberlen has in his argument identified the image with the actual realization, and has not observed that his conception of the words ch. 2:35 does not accord with the millennium, which according to Rev. 20 does not gradually from small beginnings spread itself over the earth —is not to be likened to a stone which first after the destruction of the world-kingdom grows up into a mountain.

                So also in ch. 7 Daniel sees the judgment of the world kingdoms in the form of an act limited to a point of time, by which not only the beast whose power culminates in the little horn is killed, but also the dominion and the kingdom over all nations is given over to the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven and appearing before God the Judge. If one here identifies the form of the prophetic vision with the actual fact, then he places Daniel in opposition to the teaching of the N.T. regarding the judgment of the world. According to N.T. doctrine, Christ, the Son of man, receives the dominion and power over all nations not for the first time on the day of judgment, after the destruction of the world-kingdoms by the Father, but He received it (Matt. 28:18) after the completion of His work and before His ascension; and it is not God the Father who holds the judgment, but the Son raised to the right hand of the Father comes in the clouds of heaven to judge the world (Matt. 25:31). The Father committed the judgment to the Son even while He yet sojourned on this earth in the form of a servant and founded the kingdom of heaven (John 5:27). The judgment begins not for the first time either before or after the millennium, about which chiliasts contend with one another, but the last judgment forms only the final completion of the judgment commencing at the first coming of Christ to the earth, which continues from that time onward through the centuries of the spread of the kingdom of heaven upon earth in the form of the Christian church, till the visible return of Christ in His glory in the clouds of heaven to the final judgment of the living and the dead. This doctrine is disclosed to us for the first time by the appearance of Christ; for by it are unfolded to us for the first time the prophecies regarding the Messiah in His lowliness and in His glory, in the clear knowledge of the first appearance of Christ in the form of a servant for the founding of the kingdom of God by His death and resurrection, and the return of the Son of man from heaven in the glory of His Father for the perfecting of His kingdom by the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment.

                That which has been said, above, avails also for explaining the revelation which Daniel received regarding the King of the kingdom of God. While His appearance in the form of a son of man with the clouds of heaven, according to the statements of the N. T. regarding the second coming of Christ, points to His coming again in glory, yet, as above remarked, His coming before the Ancient of days, i.e. before God, and receiving from God the kingdom and the dominion, does not accord with the statements of the N. T. regarding the return of Christ to judge the world; so that we must here also distinguish between the actual contents and the form of the prophetic representation, and between the thought of the prophecy and its realization or historical fulfilment. Only because of a disregard of this distinction could Fries, e.g., derive from Dan. 8:13 an argument against the parallelizing of this passage with Matt. 24:30, Mark 14:62, and Rev. 1:7, as well as against the reference to the Messias of the personage seen by Daniel in the clouds of heaven as a son of man.

                In the vision, in which the Ancient of days, i.e. God, holds judgment over the world and its rulers, and in the solemn assembly for judgment grants to the Son of man appearing before Him the kingdom and the dominion, only this truth is contemplated by the prophet, that the Father gave to the Son all power in heaven and in earth; that He gave the power over the nations which the rulers of the earth had, and which they used only for the oppression of the saints of God, to the Son of man, and in Him to the people of the saints, and thereby founded the kingdom which shall endure forever. But as to the way and manner in which God executes judgment over the world-power, and in which He gives (ch. 7:22, 27) to the Son of man and to the people of the saints the dominion and the power over all the kingdoms under the heavens —on this the prophecy gives no particular disclosures; this much, however, is clear from ver. 27, that the judgment held by the Ancient of days over the world-power which was hostile to God is not a full annihilation of the kingdoms under the whole heavens, but only an abolition of their hostile dominion and power, and a subjection of all the kingdoms of this earth to the power and dominion of the Son of man, whereby the hostile rulers, together with all ungodly natures, shall be forever destroyed. The further disclosures regarding the completion of this judgment are given us in the N. T., from which we learn that the Father executes judgment by the Son, to whom He has given all power in heaven and on earth. With this further explanation of the matter the passages of the N.T. referring to Dan. 7:13, regarding the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven to execute judgment over the world, easily harmonize. To show this, we must examine somewhat more closely the conception and the use of the words “Son of man” in the N. T. }}

                The Son of Man, (‘ho ‘uios tou anthrōpou).

                {{ It is well known that Jesus only during His sojourn on earth made use of this designation of Himself, as appears in the N.T. Bengel on Matt. 16:13 remarks: “Nemo nisi solus Christus a nemine dum time in term ambularet, ‘nisi a semetipso appel Zitatus est fil’ius hominis.” Even after Christ’s ascension the apostles do not use this name of Christ. In the passages Acts 7:56 and Rev. 1:13; 14:14, where alone it is found in the N.T. beyond the Gospels, the title is borrowed from Dan. 7:13. It is, moreover, generally acknowledged that Jesus wished by thus designating Himself to point Himself out as the Messiah; and “this pointing Himself out as the Messiah is founded,” as H.A.W. Meyer on Matt. 8:20 rightly remarks, “not on Ps. 8, but, as is manifest from such passages as Matt. 24:30; 26:64 (cf. also Acts 7:56), on the description of that prophetic vision, Dan. 7:13, well known to the Jews (John 12:34), and found also in the pre-Christian book of Enoch, where the Messiah appears in the clouds of heaven (kebar ‘enash = hōs `uios anthrōpou), amid the angels of the divine judgment-seat.” The comparison in the (ke = hōs)  to a son of man refers to the form in which He is seen by the prophet (see p. 234), and affirms neither the true humanity nor the superhuman nature of Him who appeared. The superhuman or divine nature of the person seen in the form of a man lies in the coming with the clouds of heaven, since it is true only of God that He makes the clouds His chariot; Ps. 104:3, cf. Isa. 19:1. But on the other hand, also, the words do not exclude the humanity, as little as the (homoios huiō anthrōpou), Rev. 1:13; for, as C.B. Michaelis has remarked, (ke) non excludit rei veritatem, sed formam ejus quad visum est describit; so that with Oehler (Herz. Realenc.) we may say: The Messiah here appears as a divine being as much as He does a human. The union of the divine and the human natures lies also in the self-designation of Christ as (ho huios tou anthrōpou), although as to the meaning Jesus unites with it there is diversity of opinion.

                That this was a designation of the Messiah common among the Jews in the time of Jesus, we cannot positively affirm, because only Jesus Himself made use of it; His disciples did not, much less did the people so style the Messiah. [See Ezekiel for its true meaning, occurring some 100 times.] If, then, Jesus speaks of Himself as the Son of man, He means thereby not merely to say that He was the Messiah, but He wishes to designate Himself as the Messiah of Daniel’s prophecy, i.e. as the Son of man coming to the earth in the clouds of heaven. He thereby lays claim at once to a divine original, or a divine pre-existence, as well as to affirm true humanity of His person, and seeks to represent Himself, according to John’s expression, as the Logos becoming flesh. (* Meyer justly remarks: “The consciousness from which Jesus appropriates to Himself this designation by Daniel was the antithesis of the God sonship, the necessary (contrary to Schleiermacher) self-consciousness of a divine pre-existence appearing in the most decided manner in John, the glory (doxa) of which He had laid aside that He might appear as that (hōs huios anthrōpou) of Daniel in a form not originally appertaining to Him. . . Whatever has, apart from this, been found in the expression, as that Christ hereby designated Himself as the Son of man in the highest sense of the word, as the second Adam, as the ideal of humanity (Bōhme, Neander, Ebrard, Olsh., Kahnis, Gess, and Weisse), on as the man whom the whole history of mankind since Adam has in view (Hofm. Schriftbew. 1, p. 81, cf. Thomas. Chr. Pers. u. Werk, ii. p. 15), is introduced unhistorical with reference to Dan. 7). This View of the expression will be confirmed by a comparison of the passages in which Jesus uses it. In John 1:51, “Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man,” the divine glory is intimated as concealed in the lowliness of the Son of man: the Son of man who walks on the earth in the form of a man is the Son of God. So also in the answer which Jesus gave to the high priest, when he solemnly adjured Him to say “whether He were the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63), pointing distinctly to Dan. 7:13, “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” In like manner in all the other passages in the Gospels in which Jesus designates Himself the Son of man, He points either to His present lowliness or to His future glory, as is abundantly proved by Fr. A. Philippi (Kirch. Glaubenslehre, iv. 1, p. 415, der 2 Anti.) by a lucid comparison of all the passages in the Gospel of Matthew.

                From the use of the expression “the Son of man” by Jesus (not only where He refers to His supernatural greatness or His divine pre-existence, but also where He places His human lowliness in contrast with His divine nature), it follows that even in those passages which treat of His coming to judgment, connected with the description, borrowed from Dan. vii. 13, of His coming in the clouds of heaven, He seeks to prove not so much His appearance for judgment, as rather only the divine power and glory which the Father gave Him, or to indicate from the Scriptures that the Father gave Him dominion over all people, and that He will come to reveal this dominion by the judgment of the world and the completion of His kingdom. The power to execute judgment over the living and the dead, the Father, i.e. God as the Lord of the world, has given to His Son, to Christ, because He is the Son of man (John 5:27), i.e. because He as man is at the same time of a divine nature, by virtue of which He is of one essence with the Father. This truth is manifested in the vision, Dan. 7:13,14, in this, that the Ancient of days gives glory and the kingdom to Him who appears before Him in the form of a man coming in the clouds of heaven, that all people and nations might honour Him. There with He gave Him also implicit the power to execute judgment over all peoples; for the judgment is only a disclosure of the sovereignty given to Him.

                The giving of the kingdom to the Son of man goes before the appearance of the great adversary of the people of God represented by the little horn —the adversary in whom the enmity of the world against the kingdom of God reaches its highest manifestation. But to form a well-founded judgment regarding the appearance of this last enemy, we must compare the description given of him in Dan. 7:8, 24 f. with the apocalyptic description of the same enemy under the image of the beast out of the sea or out of the abyss, Rev. 13:1-8 and 17:7-13.

                John saw a Beast Rise Up Out Of The Sea which had seven heads and ten horns, and on its horns ten crowns; it was like a leopard, but had the feet of a bear and the mouth ofv a lion, and the dragon gave him his throne and great power. One of its heads appears as if it had received a deadly wound, but its deadly wound was healed, Rev. 13:1-3. In this beast the four beasts of Daniel, the lion, the bear, the leopard, and the nameless ten horned beast (Dan. 7:7), are united, and its heads and horns are represented, like the beasts of Daniel, as kings (Rev. 17:9, 12). The beast seen by John represents accordingly the world-power, in such a way that the four aspects of the same, which Daniel saw in the form of four beasts rising up one after another, are a whole united together into one. In this all interpreters are agreed. Hofmann is wrong (Schriftbew. ii. 2, p. 699), however, when from the circumstance that this beast has the body of a leopard, has its peculiar form like that of a leopard, he draws the conclusion “that John sees the Grecian kingdom rise again in a new form, in which it bears the lion’s mouth of the Chaldean, the bear’s feet of the Median or Persian, and the ten horns of the last kingdom.” For the apocalyptic beast has the body of a leopard from no other reason than because the fourth beast of Daniel was to be compared with no other beast existing in nature, whose appearance could be selected for that purpose. In these circumstances nothing else remained than to lay hold on the form of Daniel’s third beast and to make choice of it for the body of the beast, and to unite with it the feet, the mouth or the jaws, and the ten horns of the other beasts.

                But that the apocalyptic beast must represent not the rising again of Daniel’s third world-kingdom, but the appearance of the fourth, and that specially in its last form, which Daniel had seen as the little horn, appears evidently from this, not to mention the explanation given in Rev. 17, that the beast with the seven heads and ten horns, with the name of blasphemy on its heads (Rev. 13:1), the marks of the little horn of Daniel, speaks great things and blasphemies, and continues forty and two months (ch. 13:5), corresponding to the three and a half times of Daniel, ch. 7:25. Hofmann, on the other hand, rightly remarks, that the beast must represent not merely the last world-power, but at the same time the last world-ruler, the chief enemy of the saints of God. As with Daniel the world-power and its representative are conceived of as one and the same, so here also with John. This is seen in the insensible transition of the neuter to the masculine, (tō thēriō hos echei), ver. 14. In this beast not only does the whole world-power concentrate itself, but in it also attains to its personal head. The ten horns are to be conceived of as on one of the heads, and that the seventh or last, and not (Dūsterdieck, etc.) as distributed among the seven heads, so that one horn should be assigned to each head, and three horns should be conceived as between the sixth and the seventh head. This wonderful supposition owes its origin only to the historical reference of the beast to the first Roman emperor, and stands in opposition to the interpretation of the beast which is given by John, ch. 17:7 ff. There John sees the woman, the great Babylon, the mother of harlots and abominations, sitting on a scarlet-coloured beast, which was full of names of blasphemy, and had ten horns (ch. 17:3). The identity of the seven-headed beast (ch. 13) with the scarlet-coloured beast (ch. 17) is justly recognised by the greater number of recent interpreters, even by Dist. Of this red beast the angel, ch. 17:8, says first, “The beast that thou sawest was (ēn) and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit and go into perdition; and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder . . . when they be hold the beast that was and is not, and yet is” (kai parestai = shall come, be present, i.e. again, according to a more accurate reading). In these words the most of interpreters find a paraphrase of the statement, ch. 13:3, 12, 14, that the beast was wounded to the death, but that its deadly wound was healed. “The distinguishing of the two statements (viz. of the not-being and the death-wound, the coming again and the healing of the wound) has,” as A. Christiani (uebersichtl. Darstellung des Inhalts der Apok., in der Dorpater Zeitschrtft Theol. 1861, iii. p. 219) rightly remarks, “its foundation (against Ebrard) either in the false supposition that the beast in ch. 17 is different from that in ch. 13, or in this, that there must abstractly be a distinction between the world-power (ch. 13) and the ruler of the world (ch. 17); whereby, moreover, it is not clear wherein the difference between the death-wound and the not-being consists (against Aub.).” The being, the not-being, and the appearing again of the beast, are not to be understood of the present time as regards the seer, so as to mean: the beast existed before John’s time, after that it was not, and then one day shall again appear, which has been combined with the fable of Nero’s coming again; but the past, the present, and the future of the beast are, with Vitringa, Bengel, Christ., to be regarded from the standpoint of the vision, according to which the time of the fulfilment, belonging to the future, is to be regarded as the point of time from which the being, the not-being, and the appearing again are represented, so that these three elements form the determination of the nature of the beast in its historical manifestation.   

                Hereupon the angel points out to the seer the secret of the woman and of the beast which bears the woman, beginning with the interpretation of the beast, ch. 17:9. “The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth; and there are seven kings.” The heads are thus defined in a twofold way: For the woman they are seven mountains, on which she sits; but in so far as they belong to the beast, they are seven kings (Hofm. p. 711, Christ., etc.). The reference of the mountains to the seven hills of Rome is to be rejected, because it is difficult to understand how the heads can represent at one and the same time both mountains and kings. Mountains are, according to the prophetic view, seats of power, symbols of world-kingdoms (cf. Ps. 68:17, 76:5; Jer. 51:25; Ezek. 35:2), and thus are here as little to be thought of as occupying space along with one another as are the seven kings to be thought of as contemporaneous (Hofm., Aub.). According to this, the (basileis) are not also separate kings of one kingdom, but kingships, dominions, as in Daniel ruler and kingdom are taken together. One need not, however, on this account assume that (basileis) stands for (basileiai); for, according to Dan. 8:20-22, “the kingdom is named where the person of the ruler is at once brought into view; but where it is sought to designate the sovereignty, then the king is named, either so that he represents it altogether, or so that its founder is particularly distinguished” (Hofm. p. 714).

                The angel further says of the seven heads: “Five (of these sovereignties) are fallen,” i.e. are already past, “one is,” i.e. still exists, “the other is not yet come; and when it cometh, it must continue a short space.” This explanation is obviously given from the point of view of the present of the seer. The five fallen (basileis) (sovereignties) are Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Medo-Persia, and Greece (Hengst., Aub., Christ.), and not Assyria, Chaldea, Persia, Grecia, and the kingdom of the Seleucidae, as Hofmann, with Ebrard and Stier, affirms. The reception of the Seleucidae or of Antiochus Epiphanes into the rank of world-rulers, depends, with Hofmann, on the erroneous interpretation of the apocalyptic beast image as representing the reappearance of the Grecian world kingdom, and falls with this error. The chief argument which Hofmann alleges against Egypt, that it was never a power which raised itself up to subdue or unite the world under itself, or is thus represented in the Scriptures, Aub. (p. 309) has already invalidated by showing that Egypt was the first world-power with which the kingdom of God came into conflict under Moses, when it began to exist as a nation and a kingdom. Afterwards, under the kings, Israel was involved in the wars of Egypt and Assyria in like manner as at a later period they were in those of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae. For this reason Egypt and Assyria are often named together by the prophets, particularly as the world-powers with which the people of God” committed whoredom, yea, by the older prophets generally as the representatives of the world-power (2nd Kings 17:4; Hos. 7:11, 12:1, 9:3, 11:5, 11; Micah 7:12; Isa. 52:4, 19:23-25; Jer. 2:18, 36; Zech. 10:10). On the other hand, the Seleucidan appears before us in Dan. 8 and 11:1-35 as an offshoot of the Grecian world-kingdom, without anything further being intimated regarding him. In Dan. 7 there is as little said of him as there is in Zechariah’s vision of the four horsed chariots.

                The sixth sovereignty, which “is” (ho heis estin), is the Roman world-power exercising dominion at the time of John, the Roman emperor. The seventh is as yet future (oupō ēlthen), and must, when it comes, continue a short time (oligon). If the sixth sovereignty is the Roman, then by the seventh we may understand the world-powers of modern Europe that have come into its place. The angel adds (ver. 11), “The beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth (king), and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.” By that which is called “even the eighth” can properly be meant only the seventh. The contrast lying in the (kai autos ogdoos) demands this. But that instead of the seventh (ver. 10, ho allos) the beast itself is named, therewith it is manifestly intimated that in the eighth the beast embodies itself, or passes into its completed form of existence as a beast. This is supported partly by the expression (ek tōn hepta) which is added to (ogdoos), partly by the designation as “the beast that was and is not.” That addition does not merely say, one out of the seven, for which John would have written (heis ek tōn hepta) (cf. ch. xvii. 1 and xxi. 9), or, formed like the seven, but, growing up out of the seven, as the blossom out of the plant (blastanōn), as the Greek Andreas explains, and erroneously adds (ek mias autōn). It is the comprehensive essence of these seven, the embodiment of the beast itself, which for the first time reaches in it to its perfect form (Aub., Dūsterd., Christ). As such it is placed over against the seven as the eighth; but it is not therefore an eighth kingdom, for it is not represented by an eighth head, but only by the beast —only the beast which was, and is not, and then shall be again (parestai, ver. 11, cf. ver. 8). If now this definition, according to the above, means the same thing as is intended in ch. 13 by the deadly wound of the beast and the healing again of the wound, then these words mean that the world-power in one of its heads (the seventh?) receives the deadly wound, so that the beast is not —i.e. it cannot show its power, its beast-nature— till the healing of the same, but after the healing of the wound it will appear as the eighth ruler in its full nature as a beast, and will unfold the power of its ten horns. Of these ten horns the angel says, ver. 12, “They are ten kings which have received no (basileian), but will receive power as kings one hour with the beast.” By this it is affirmed, on the one side, that the ten horns belong to the seventh beast; but, on the other, it appears from this interpretation of the angel, taken in connection with that going before, that the ruler with the ten horns growing up as the eighth out of the seven represents the last and the highest phases of the development of the world-power, and is to be regarded as contemporary with the ten (basileis) which receive power as kings with the beast.

                The statement, however, that the seventh ruler is also an eighth, and must represent the beast in its perfect form, without his being denoted by an eighth head to the beast, has its foundation, without doubt, in the dependence of the apocalyptic delineation on Daniel’s prophecy of the fourth world-power, in which (ch. 2) the iron legs are distinguished from the feet, which consist partly of iron and partly of clay; and yet more distinctly in ch. 7 the climax of the power of the fourth beast is represented in the little horn growing up between its ten horns, and yet neither is it called in ch. 2 a fifth kingdom, nor yet in ch. 7 is the little horn designated as a fifth world-ruler.

                The apocalyptic delineation of the world-power and the world ruler is related, therefore, to the prophecy of Daniel in such a manner that, in the first place, it goes back to the elements of the same, and gathers them together into one combined image, according to its whole development in the past, present, and future, while Daniel’s prophecy goes forth from the present, beginning with the Chaldean world-kingdom. Moreover, the Apocalypse discloses the spiritual principle working in the world-power. The dragon, i.e. Satan, as prince of this world, gave his throne and his power to the beast. Finally, the Apocalypse, extends itself at large over the unfolding, as yet future, of the ungodly world-kingdom; for it places in view, in addition to the sixth ruler existing in the presence of the seer, the rising up of yet a seventh, in which the beast, healed of its death-wound, will first as the eighth ruler fully reveal its ungodly nature. The dividing of the fourth world-kingdom of Daniel between two rulers has its foundation in the purpose to gain the significant number seven. By the number seven of the heads, while Daniel saw only four beasts, the apocalyptic beast must be represented as the diabolical contrast to the Lamb. The seven heads and ten horns the beast has in common with the dragon, which gave his power to the beast (cf. Rev. 13:1,2 with 12:3). The seven heads of the dragon and of the beast are the infernal caricature and the antithesis of the seven Spirits of God, the seven eyes and seven horns of the Lamb (Rev. 5:6), just as the seven mountains on which the woman sits are the antitype and the antithesis of the hill of Zion, the chosen mountain of the Lord. (Of. Lammert, Babel, das Thier u. der falsche Prophet, (1863, p. 84.) From the symbolical signification of the numbers, it is also clear how the beast which was and is not can also appear as the eighth ruler. The eighth, arising from the addition of one to seven, denotes a new beginning, or the beginning of a. new life, as frequently in the laws relating to religious worship, as e.g. regarding circumcision, the consecration of priests, the purification of lepers, the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles, etc. Cf. Leyrer in Herz.’s Real. Encycl. xviii. p. 370. According to him, the beast is called (kai autos ogdoos) (Rev. 17:11), “because, although it is of the seven which hitherto have constituted the antichristian development in its completeness, a new one presumes to establish itself in self-deification, and in open rebellion against God, raising itself to the experiment of an absolute world-monarchy before the final judgment passes upon it.”

                As the number seven of the heads of the beast in the Apocalypse, so also the number four of the beasts rising up out of the sea in Daniel’s vision comes first under consideration, according to their symbolical meaning as the number of the world. For the sake of this significance of the number four, only the four world kingdoms are spoken of, while in the fourth there are distinctly two different phases of the development of the world-kingdom. If we look at this significance of the numbers, the difference between the representation of Daniel and that of the Apocalypse reduces itself to this, that Daniel designates the world-power simply only in opposition to the kingdom of God; the Apocalypse, on the contrary, designates it according to its concealed spiritual background, and in its antichristian form. The world-number four appears here augmented to the antichristian contrast to the divine number seven. But in both representations the beast forming the last phase of the world-kingdom has ten horns. This number also has a symbolical meaning; it is the signature of definitive completeness, of fullest development and perfection. “The ten horns are kings; for ‘horn’ as well as ‘king’ signifies might crushing, conquering” (Lammert, p. 78). The little horn which outrooted three existing ones and entered into their place, makes, with the remaining seven, eight; but eight is seven augmented. It is therefore the beast itself in its highest power, and ripe for judgment, just as the beast which was and is not mounts up as the eighth ruler, to be destroyed, after a short period of action, by the judgment.

                But while we attach a symbolical import to the numbers, we do not, however, wish to dispute that their numerical worth may not also be realized in the fulfilment. As the comparison of Daniel 7 with 8 beyond doubt shows that the second and third kingdoms which the prophet saw have historically realized themselves in the succession of the Medo-Persian and Grecian kingdoms after the Babylonian; as, moreover, in the prophetic delineation of the fourth world-kingdom the character of the Roman world-power is not to be mistaken; finally, as in the Apocalypse the first six heads of the beast are referred to the world-powers that have hitherto appeared in history: so may also the prophecy of the seven heads and of the ten horns of the beast. (in Dan. and the Apoc.) perhaps yet so fulfil itself in the future, that the anti-Christian world-power may reach its completion in ten rulers who receive power as kings one hour with the beast, i.e., as companions and helpers of Antichrist, carry on war for a while against the Lord and His saints, till at the appearance of the Lord to judgment they shall be destroyed, together with the beast and the dragon.

                How indeed this part of the prophecy, relating to the last unfolding of the ungodly and antichristian world-power, shall fulfil itself, whether merely according to the symbolical meaning of the numbers, or finally also actually, the day will first make clear. }}

                Part Second: Development of Kingdom of God. Chap. VIII-XII.

                {{ This Part contains three revelations, which Daniel received during the reigns of Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian, regarding the development of the kingdom of God. After describing in the First Part the development of the world-power and its relation to the people and kingdom of God from the days of Nebuchadnezzar, its founder, down to the time of its final destruction by the perfected kingdom of God, in this Second Part it is revealed to the prophet how the kingdom of God, in war against the power and enmity of the rulers of the world, and amid every oppressions, is carried forward to final victory and is perfected. The first vision, ch. 8, represents what will happen to the people of God during the developments of the second and third world-kingdoms. The second revelation, ch. 9, gives to the prophet, in answer to his penitential prayer for the restoration of the ruined holy city and the desolated sanctuary, disclosures regarding the whole development of the kingdom of God, from the close of the Babylonish exile to the final accomplishment of God’s plan of salvation. In the last vision, in the third year of Cyrus, ch. 10-12, he received yet further and more special revelations regarding the severe persecutions which await the people of God for their purification, in the nearer future under Antiochus Epiphanes, and in the time of the end under the last foe, the Antichrist. }}

                Chap. VIII. Enemy Arising out of Third World-Kingdom.

                {{ Vers. 13 and 14. In addition to what has been already seen and communicated in the vision, a further vision unfolds itself, by which there is conveyed to the prophet disclosures regarding the duration of the oppression of the people of God by the little horn. Daniel hears a holy one, i.e. an angel (see under ch. 4:10), talking. What he said is not recorded. But while he is talking, another angel interrupts him with the question as to the duration of the affliction, and this is done that Daniel may hear the answer. Therefore the first angel immediately turns himself to Daniel, and, addressing him, makes known to him the information that was desired.

                The (‘elai) (to me), ver. 14, is not, according to the old versions, to be changed into (‘elaiu) (to him). What Hitzig says in justification of (‘elaiu) is of no weight; cf Kran. The angel that talked is designated by (palmoni), (quidam, nescio quis = unknown person (angel)), as not being more particularly definable. The question condenses the contents of vers. 10-12: “Till how long the vision is, etc.’?” (hechazon) is not the action, but the contents of the vision, the thing seen. The contents of the vision are arranged in the form of appositions: that which is continual and the desolating wickedness, for: the vision of that which is continual and of the desolation. The meaning of this apposition is more particularly defined by the further passage following asyndetos: to give up the sanctuary as well as the host to destruction. (shomem) after the definite noun without the article, which is sometimes wanting (Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 39:27; cf. Ew. § 293), does not mean being benumbed, confounded, but laid waste, fallen into ruin; thus the wickedness which consists in laying waste. (shomem) cannot be understood transitively, since (shomem) and (meshomem) are placed over against each other in ch.  9:27.

                In the answer, (`adh) is to be interpreted as in the question: till 2300 evening-mornings have been, or have passed, thus: 2300 evening-mornings long, so (= then) the sanctuary is brought into its right state. (tzadaq) primarily means to be just, whence the meaning is derived to justify, which is not here suitable, for it must be followed by, from the defilement of the desolation. The restoration of the temple to its right condition is, it is true, at the same time a justification of it from its desolation, and it includes in it the restoration of the permanent worship.

                The interpretation of the period of time, 2300 evening-mornings, named by the angel is beset with difficulty. And first the verbal import of (`erebh boqer) is doubtful. Among recent interpreters, Berth., Ham, v. Leng., Maur., and Hofm. (Weiss. u. Erf. p. 295) understand by it days consisting of morning and evening (twenty four hours); others, as Bleek, Kirmss, Ewald, Hitzig, Wieseler (who, however, in his treatise, Die 70 Wochen, u.s.w., p. 115 ff., defends the first explanation), Kran., and Delitzsch, are of opinion that evening-morning is particularly reckoned with reference to the offering of a morning and an evening sacrifice each day, so that 2300 evening-mornings make only 1150 whole days. But there is no exegetical foundation for this latter opinion. It is derived only from a comparison, or rather an identification, of this passage with Dan. 7:25, 12:11 f., and 9:27; and therewith it is proved that, according to 1st Mac. 1:54, 59, cf. 4:52, the desolation of the sanctuary by the worship of idols under Antiochus Epiphanes lasted not longer than three years and ten days, and that from Dan. 12:11 it extends only to 1290 days. But these arguments rest on assertions which must first be justified. The passages Dan. 7:25 and 9:27 cannot be here taken into account, because they do not speak of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the 1290 days (1335 days, ch. 13:11 f.) do not give 2300 evening-mornings, that we can and may at once identify these statements with this before us. In ch. 12:11 the terminus a quo of the 1290 days is unquestionably the putting away or the removal of the (tamidh) (daily sacrifice), and the giving (placing, raising up) of the abomination that maketh desolate (i.e. the altar of idol-worship); but in this verse (ch. 8:14), on the contrary, the continuance not only of the taking away of the (tamidh), but also of the delivering up of the saints and the people to be trodden under foot, is fixed to 2300 evening-mornings. This oppression continued longer than the removal of the appointed daily sacrifice. According to 1st Macc. 1:10 ff., the violent assaults of Antiochus against the temple and the Jews who remained faithful to the law began in the 143rd year of the era of the Seleucidae, but the abomination that maketh desolate, i.e. the idol-altar, was first erected on Jehovah’s altar of burnt-offering, according to 1st Macc. 1:54, in the 145th year of the Seleucidae, and the purification of the temple from this abomination, and its reconsecration, took place on the 25th day of Kisleu (9th month) of the year of the Seleucidae 148. According to this, from the beginning of the desecration of the temple by the plundering of its vessels and its golden ornaments (1st Mac. 1:20 ff.) to its restoration to its right condition, more than five years passed. The fulfilment, or the historical reference, of this prophecy accordingly affords, as is sufficiently manifest, no proper means of ascertaining the import of the “evening-morning.” This must rather be exegetically decided. It occurs only here, and corresponds to (nuchthēmeron), 2nd Cor. 11:25. But the choice of so unusual a measure of time, derived from the two chief parts of the day, instead of the simple measure of time by days, probably originates with reference to the morning and evening sacrifice, by which the day was to be consecrated to the Lord, after Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, etc., where the days of the creation week are named and reckoned according to the succession of evening and morning. This separation of the expression into evening and morning, so that to number them separately and add them together would make 2300 evening-mornings = 1150 days, is shown to be inadmissible, both by the asyndeton evening morning and the usages of the Hebrew language. That in ver. 26 (ha`erebh wehaboqer) (the evening and the morning) stands for it, does not prove that the evening and morning are reckoned separately, but only that evening-morning is a period of time consisting of evening and morning. When the Hebrews wish to express separately day and night, the component parts of a day of a week, then the number of both is expressed. They say, e.g., forty days and forty nights (Gen. 7:4, 12; Ex. 24:18; 1st Kings 19:8), and three days and three nights (Jonah 2:1; Matt. 12:40), but not eighty or six days-and-nights, when they wish to speak of forty or three full days. A Hebrew reader could not possibly understand the period of time 2300 evening-mornings of 2300 half days or 1150 whole days, because evening and morning at the creation constituted not the half but the whole day. Still less, in the designation of time, “till 2300 evening-mornings,” could “evening-mornings” be understood of the evening and morning sacrifices, and the words be regarded as meaning, that till 1150 evening sacrifices and 1150 morning sacrifices are discontinued. We must therefore take the words as they are, i.e. understand them of 2300 whole days.

                This exegetical resolution of the matter is not made doubtful by the remark, that an increasing of the period of oppression to 2300 days, over against the duration of the oppression limited in ch. 7:25 to only three and a half (3 1/2) times, or to 1290 (or 1335 days, ch. 12:11, 12), is very unlikely, since there is in no respect any reason for this increase over against these statements (Kran. p. 298). This remark can only be valid as proof if, on the one side, the three and a half (3 1/2) times in ch. 7:25 are equal to three and a half (3 1/2) civil years, for which the proof fails, and, on the other side, if the 1290 or the 1335 days in ch. 12:11 f. indicate the whole duration of the oppression of Israel by Antiochus. But if these periods, on the contrary, refer only to the time of the greatest oppression, the erection of the idol-altar in the temple, this time cannot be made the measure for the duration of the whole period of tribulation.

                The objection also, that it is more difficult to prove historically an oppression of the people of God for 2300 days by Antiochus than the 1150 days’ duration of this oppression, need not move us to depart from the exegetically ascertained meaning of the words. The opponents of this view are indeed at one in this, that the consecration of the temple after its purification, and after the altar of Jehovah was restored, on the 25th Kisleu of the 148th year of the Seleucidae, formed the termination of the period named, but they are at variance as to the commencement of the period. Delitzsch reckons from the erection of the idol-altar in the temple on 15th Kisleu in the 145th year of the Sel., and thus makes it only three years and ten days, or 1090 to 1105 days. Hitzig reckons from the taking away of the daily sacrifice, which would take place somewhat earlier than the setting up of the idol-altar, but has not furnished proof that this happened two months earlier. Bleek and Kirmss reckon from the taking of Jerusalem by Apollonius in the year of the Sel. 145 (1st Macc. 1:30 ff; 2nd Mac. 5:24 ff.), misplacing this in the first month of the year named, but without having any other proof for it than the agreement of the reckoning.

                To this is to be added, that the adoption of the consecration of the temple as the terminus ad quem is not so well grounded as is supposed. The words of the text, (wenitzdaq qodes) (“thus is the sanctuary placed in the right state”), comprehend more than the purification and re-consecration of the temple. In ver. 11, also ch. 9:17 and 11:31, Daniel uses the word (miqdash) for temple, while on the other hand means all that is holy. Was, then, the sanctuary, in this comprehensive meaning of the word, placed in its right state with the consecration of the temple, when after this occurrence “they that were in the tower (Acra) shut up the Israelites round about the sanctuary,” sought to hinder access to the temple, and, when Judas Maccabaeus had begun to besiege the tower, the Syrians approached with a reinforced army, besieged the sanctuary for many days, and on their departure demolished its strongholds (1st Macc. 6:18 ff., 51, 62)? —when, again, under Demetrius Soter of Bacchides, the high priest Menelaus was deposed, and Alcimus, who was not descended from the family of a high priest, was advanced to his place, who cruelly persecuted the pious in Israel? —when the Syrian general Nicanor mocked the priests who showed to him the burnt-offering for the king, and defiled and threatened to burn the temple (1st Macc. 7)? And did the trampling upon Israel cease with the consecration of the temple, when at the building up of the altar and the restoration of the temple the heathen around became so furious, that they resolved to destroy all who were of the race of Jacob amongst them, and began to murder them (1st Mac. 5:1 ff.)? Havernick therefore, with Bertholdt, places the terminus ad quem of the 2300 days in the victory over Nicanor, by which the power of the Syrians over Judea was first broken, and the land enjoyed rest, so that it was resolved to celebrate annually this victory, as well as the consecration of the temple (1st Macc. 7:48-50), according to which the terminus a quo of the period named would be shortly before the erection of the abomination of idolatry in the temple.

                If we now, however, turn from this supposition, since the text speaks further of it, to seek the end of the oppression in the restoration of the legal temple-worship, or in the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes, which the angel brings to view in the interpretation of the vision (ver. 26), so also in these cases the 2300 days are to be calculated. C. v. Leng., Maur., and Wiesel., who regard the death of Antiochus as the termination, place the beginning of the 2300 days one year before the beginning of violence with which Antiochus, after his return from the expedition into Egypt in the year 143 Sel., went forth to destroy (1st Macc. 1:20) the Mosaic worship and law. Only a few weeks or months earlier, in the middle of the year 142 Sel., the point of commencement must be placed if the consecration of the temple is held to be the termination. In the year 142 not only was the pious high priest Onias removed from his office by the godless Jason, but also Jason himself was forced from the place he had usurped by Menelaus, who gave Antiochus a greater bribe than he did, and gave away as presents and sold to the heathen the golden utensils of the temple, and commanded Onias, who denounced his wickedness, to be deceitfully murdered (2nd Mac. 2:4). Hence we need not, with Hofmann, regard the deposition of Onias, the date of which cannot be accurately fixed, but which, 2nd Macc. 4:7 ff., is brought into connection with the commencement of the reign of Antiochus, and which probably took place before the year 142, as the date of  the commencement of the 2300 days, although the laying waste of the sanctuary may be dated from it; since Jason by royal authority set up a heathen (gumnasion) with an (ephēbeion), and by the wickedness of the profane and unpriestly conduct of this man Greek customs and the adoption of heathenish manners so prevailed, that the priests ceased to concern themselves about the service of the altar, but, despising the temple and forgetting the sacrifice, they hastened to witness the spectacles in the palaestra, which were contrary to the law; cf. 2nd Mac. 4:13 ff. with 1st Macc. 1:11-15. The 2300 days are thus, as well as the 1150 days, historically authenticated.

                But it is on the whole questionable whether the number given by the angel is to be reckoned as an historico-chronological period of time, or is not rather to be interpreted as symbolical. The analogy of the other prophetic numbers speaks decidedly for the symbolical interpretation. The 2300 cannot, it is true, be directly a symbolical number, such as 7, 10, 40, 70, and other numbers are, but yet it can stand in such a relation to the number seven as to receive a symbolical meaning. The longer periods of time are usually reckoned not by days, but by weeks, months, or years; if, therefore, as to the question of the duration of the 2300 days, we reduce the days to weeks, months, and years, we shall find six years, three or four months, and some days, and discover that the oppression of the people by the little horn was to continue not fully a period of seven years. But the times of God’s visitations, trials, and judgments are so often measured by the number seven, that this number came to bear stamped on it this signification; see under ch. iv. 13, vii. 25. The number of seven years is used in the symbolical meaning when, not to mention the cases in Gen. xxix. 18, 27, xli. 26 f., and Judg. vi. 1, seven years’ famine were laid upon the land as a punishment for David’s sin in numbering the people (2nd Sam. 24:13), and when in Elisha’s time Israel was visited with seven years’ famine (2nd Kings 8:1). Thus the answer of the angel has this meaning: The time of the predicted oppression of Israel, and of the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus, the little horn, shall not reach the full duration of a period of divine judgment, shall not last so long as the severe oppression of Israel by the Midianites, Judg. 6:1, or as the famine which fell upon Israel in the time of Elisha, and shall not reach to a tenth part of the time of trial and of sorrow endured by the exiles, and under the weight of which Israel then mourned.

                But if this is the meaning of the angel’s message, why does not the divine messenger use a pure symbolical expression, such as “not full seven times?” and why does he not simply say, “not quite seven years ?” As to the first of these questions, we answer that the expression “times” is too indefinite; for the duration of this period of sorrow must be given more minutely. As to the second question, we know no other answer that can be given than this, that, on the one side, only the positive determination of the length of time, measured by days, can afford full confidence that the domination and the tyranny of the oppressor shall not continue one day longer than God has before fixed; but, on the other side, by the measuring of this period by a number defined according to thousands and hundreds, both the long duration of the affliction is shown, and the symbolical character of the period named is indicated. While by the period “evening-morning” every ambiguity of the expression, and every uncertainty thence arising regarding the actual length of the time of affliction, is excluded, yet the number 2300 shows that the period must be defined in round numbers, measuring only nearly the actual time, in conformity with all genuine prophecy, which never passes over into the mantic prediction of historico-chronological data.

                If we compare with this the designation of time in ch. 7:25, instead of the general idea there expressed, of “time, times, and half a time,” which is not to be computed as to its duration, we have here a very definite space of time mentioned. This difference corresponds to the contents of the two prophecies. The oppression prophesied of in this chapter would visit the people of Israel at not too distant a time; and its commencement as well as its termination, announced by God beforehand, was fitted to strengthen believers in the faith of the truth and fidelity of God for the time of the great tribulation of the end, the duration of which God the Lord indeed determined accurately and firmly beforehand, but according to a measure of time whose extent men cannot calculate in advance. In this respect the designation of the time of the affliction which the horn growing up out of the third world-kingdom will bring upon God’s people, becomes a type for the duration of the oppression of the last enemy of the church of the Lord at the end of the days.

                Vers. 15-27. The interpretation of the vision. The interpretation of Daniel’s vision, as given by the angel, falls within the vision itself. When Daniel sought to understand the vision, viz. in his mind, not by prayer or by asking a question, he saw before him, according to ver. 17, One standing at some distance, who had the appearance of a man, but was not a man, but a supernatural being in human likeness. This person resembling a man is (ver. 16) named by the angel, Gabriel, i.e. man of God. The voice of another, whom Daniel did not see, hearing only a human voice proceeding from the Ulai, commanded this person to explain the vision to the prophet (lehallai, i.e. to Daniel). Nothing further is indicated of the person from whom the voice proceeded than what may be conjectured from (ben ‘ulai) (between the Ulai), whence the voice sounded. These words do not mean “hither from Ulai” (Bertholdt), but “between the two banks of the Ulai” (Chr. B. Mich., Ham, etc.); according to which, the being whose voice Daniel heard appears as if hovering over the waters of the river Ulai. This conjecture is confirmed by ch. 12:6,7, where Daniel sees a man hovering over the waters of the river of Ulai, who by the majesty of his appearance and his words shows himself to be a divine being, and is more minutely described according to the majesty of his appearance in ch. 10:5 ff. The question, who this man might be, is first answered in ch. 10:5 f. Gabriel is not a nomen proprium but appellativum. The angel who was described as in appearance like a (man) is named, for Daniel, Gabriel (“man of God”), that on subsequent occasions (e.g. ch. 9:21) he might recognise him again as the same (Hgst., Hofm., Kliefoth). As to his relation to other angels and archangels, the Scripture gives no information. If Lengerke a and Maurer regard him, after the book of Enoch, along with Michael, and Raphael, and Uriel Whose name does not occur in Scripture, as one of the four angels that stand before the throne of God, the Scripture affords no support for it; nor does it countenance the supposition of Hitzig, that the two angels in vers. 15 and 16 are identical with those in vers. 13 and 14 —that Gabriel who spake, and the unknown angel, was the angel of the “rivers and fountains of waters,” Rev. 16:4.   (* Altogether groundless, also, is the identification of them with the Persian Amschaspands, since neither the doctrine of angels nor the names of angels of the O. T. are derived from Parsism. The most recent attempt by Dr. Al. Kohut, in his researches regarding Jewish angelology and demonology in their dependence on Parsism (Abhand. fūr die Kunde des Morgen. iv. Bd., Nr. 3), to establish this connection, is extremely poor and superficial. The proof adduced in the first ten pages of his treatise is confined to these points: that in the writings of the O.T. after the Exile or during the Exile the appearance of the angels is altogether different from that presented in the portions written before the Exile. It is said that, as a rule, the angels in the period first named take the human form, and bear names corresponding to their properties —Michael, Dan. 1:13, 21, 12:1; Gabriel,  8:16, 9:21; and in the book of Tobit, 12:15, not much later in date (?), Raphael; —now also, in contrast to the period before the Exile, there is an order in rank among the angels; Michael, Dan. 10:12, is designated as one of the first angel-princes, and, ch. 12:1, as the greatest angel-prince; moreover, the number of (sarim) (angel-princes) is spoken of as seven, corresponding to the Persian Amesha-cpentas (Tob. 12:15, and Book of Enoch 90:21). But does this distinction between the pre-exilian and post exilian doctrine of angels, even though it were allowed to be as great as Kohut supposes, furnish a proof for the derivation of the latter from Parsism? or does this derivation follow from the fact that the Jews in exile came into intercourse with the Persians and the Medes, and that about this time the Zend worship flourished? And do the angels in the post-exilian writings for the first time indeed assume the human form? Kohut seems to know nothing of the appearance of angels in Gen. 19:1 ff., Judg. 6:11 ff., 13:9 ff. Then does the agreement, not of the doctrine of the O.T., but of the later Jewish apocryphal writings, Tobit and the Book of Enoch, with regard to the number of angel princes and of the Amesha-cpenta, furnish a sufficient proof of this derivation? Dr. Kohut does not himself appear to think so, since he regards it as necessary, in addition to this, which is “perhaps purely accidental,” to furnish an etymological argument. Amesha-cpenta means “non connivens sanctus = the holy one not sleeping;” “thus,” he says, “it is a mere Chaldee rendering of the word Amesha-cpenta, when in Dan. 4:10, 14, 20, 8:13, the Jewish angel-princes are called (`irin qadishin= holy watchers.” But was, then, the Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar, to whom in a dream a “ holy watcher” appeared, a Jew? and in what edition of the Bible has Dr. Koliut found in Dan.  8:13 the angel name (`ir)? Nor is it any better proof that the demonology of the O.T. is a foreign production, resulting from the contact of the Jews with the Persians and Medes during the Exile, because in Zech. 3:1 f., Ps. 48:49, 1st Chron. 21:1, and especially in Job 1:6 f., 2:1, Satan “is depicted as a plague-spirit, altogether corresponding to the Persian Agromainjus, the killing spirit.” Such silly talk needs no refutation.) }}

                Chap. IX. Seventy Weeks.

                {{ In the first year of Darius the Median, Daniel, by a diligent study of the prophecies of Jeremiah as to the number of years during which Jerusalem must lie desolate (vers. 1, 2), was led to pour forth a penitential prayer, in which he acknowledges the justice of the divine chastisement which hung over Israel on account of their sins, and entreats the mercy of God in behalf of his people (vers. 3-19). In consequence of this prayer, the angel Gabriel (vers. 20-23) appeared, and announced to him that seventy weeks (vers. 24-27) must pass over his people and the holy city before the consummation of the kingdom of God……

                Vers. 24-27. The divine revelation regarding the seventy (70) weeks. —This message of the angel relates to the most important revelations regarding the future development of the kingdom of God. From the brevity and measured form of the expression, which Auberlen designates “the lapidary style of the upper sanctuary,” and from the difficulty of calculating the period named, this verse has been very variously interpreted. The interpretations may be divided into three principal classes. 1. Most of the church fathers and the older orthodox interpreters find prophesied here the appearance of Christ in the flesh, His death, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. 2. The majority of the modern interpreters, on the other hand, refer the whole passage to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. 3. Finally, some of the church fathers and several modern theologians have interpreted the prophecy eschatologically, as an announcement of the development of the kingdom of God from the end of the Exile on to the perfecting of the kingdom by the second coming of Christ at the end of the days.    ((* The first of these views is in our time fully and at length defended by Hāvernick (Comm), Hengstenberg (Christol. iii. 1, p. 19 5., 2d ed.), and Auberlen (Der Proph. Daniel, u.s.w., p. 103 ii., 3d ed.), and is adopted also by the Catholic theologian Laur. Reinke (die messian. Weissag. bei den gr. u. kl. Proph. ales A. T. iv. 1, p. 206 ii.), and by Dr. Pusey of England. The second view presents itself in the Alexandrine translation of the prophecy, more distinctly in Julius Hilarianus (about A.D. 400) (Chronologia s. libellus de nmndi duratione, in Migne’s Biblioth. cler. univ. t. 13, 1098), and in several rabbinical interpreters, but was first brought into special notice by the rationalistic interpreters Eichhorn, Bertholdt, v. Leng., Maurer, Ewald, Hitzig, and the mediating theologians Bleek, Wieseler (Die 70 Wochen u. die 63 Jahrwochen des Proph. Daniei, Gōtt. 1839, with which compare the Retractation in the Gōttinger gel. Anzeigen, 1846, p. 113 ii.), who are followed by Lūoke, Hilgenfeld, Kranichfeld, and others. This view has also been defended by Hofmann (die 70 Jahre des Jer. a. die 70 Jahrwochen des Daniel, Nūrnb. 1836, and Weissag. u. ETfūllung, as also in the Schriftbew.), Delitzsch (Art. Daniel in Herz.’s Realenc. Bd. iii.), and Zūndel (in the Kritischen Unterss.), but with this essential modification, that Hofmann and Delitzsch have united an eschatological reference with the primary historical reference of vers. 25-27 to Antiochus Epiphanes, in consequence of which the prophecy will be perfectly accomplished only in the appearance of Antichrist and the final completion of the kingdom of God at the end of the days. Of the third view we have the first germs in Hippolytus and Apollinaris of Laodicea, who, having regard to the prophecy of Antichrist, ch. vii. 25, refer the statement of ver. 27 of this chapter, regarding the last week, to the end of the world; and the first half of this week they regard as the time of the return  of Elias, the second half as they time of Antichrist. This view is for the first time definitely stated in the Berleburg Bible. ’Bnt Kliefoth, in his Comm. on Daniel, was the first who sought to investigate and establish this opinion exegetically, and Leyrer (in Herz.’s Realenc. xviii. p. 383) has thus briefly stated it:—“ The seventy (shabu`im), i.e. the (kairoi) of Daniel (ch. 9:24 ff.) measured by sevens, within which the whole of God‘s plan of salvation in the world will be completed, are a symbolical period with reference to the seventy (70) years of exile prophesied by Jeremiah, and with the accessory notion of ecumenicity. The 70 is again divided into three periods: into 7 (till Christ), 62 (till the apostasy of Antichrist), and one (shabu`a), the last world-(hepta), divided into 2 x 3 1/2 times, the rise and the fall of Antichrist.”

                For the history of the interpretation, compare for the pat-ristic period the treatise of Professor Reusch of Bonn, entitled “Die Patrist. Berechnung der 7O Jahrwochen Daniels,” in the Tūb. theol. Quart. 1868, p. 535 ff.; for the period of the middle ages and of more modern times, Abr. Calovii (Exetasis); theologica de septuaginta seplimanis Danielis, in the Biblia illustr. ad Dan. ix., and Havernick’s History of the Interpretation in his Comm. p. 386 ff. ; and for the most recent period, R. Baxmann on the Book of Daniel in the Theolog. Studien u. Kritiken, 1863, iii. p. 497 ff. *))

                In the great multiplicity of opinions, in order to give clearness to the interpretation, we shall endeavour first of all to ascertain the meaning of the words of each clause and verse, and then, after determining exegetically the import of the words, take into consideration the historical references and calculations of the periods of time named, and thus further to establish our view.

                The revelation begins, ver. 24, with a general exhibition of the divine counsel regarding the city and the people of God; and then there follows, vers. 25-27, the further unfolding of the execution of this counsel in its principal parts. On this all interpreters are agreed that the seventy weeks which are determined upon the people and the city are in vers. 25-27 divided into three periods, and are closely defined according to their duration and their contents.

                Ver. 24. Seventy weeks are determined. —(shabu`im) from (shabu`a), properly, the time divided into sevenths, signifies commonly the period of seven days, the week, as Gen. 29:27 f. (in the sing), and Dan. 10:2,3, in the plur., which is usually in the form (shabu`im); cf. Deut. 16:9 f., Ex. 34:22, etc. In the form (shabu`im) there thus lies no intimation that it is not common weeks that are meant. As little does it lie in the numeral being placed after it, for it also sometimes is found before it, where, as here, the noun as the weightier idea must be emphasized, and that not by later authors merely, but also in Gen. 32:15 f., 1st Kings 8:63; cf. Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 698. What period of time is here denoted by (shabu`im) can be determined neither from the word itself and its form, nor from the comparison with (shabu`im yamim), ch. 10:2,3, since 0‘19: is in these verses added to (shabu`im), not for the purpose of designating these as day-weeks, but simply as full weeks (three weeks long). The reasons for the opinion that common (i.e. seven-day) weeks are not intended, lie partly in the contents of vers. 25 and 27, which undoubtedly teach that that which came to pass in the sixty-two (62) weeks and in the one week could not take place in common weeks, partly in the reference of the seventy (70) (shabu`im) to the seventy (70) years of Jeremiah, ver. 2. According to a prophecy of Jeremiah —so e.g. Hitzig reasons— Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy (70) years, and now, in the sixty-ninth (69th) year, the city and the temple are as yet lying waste (ver. 17 f.), and as yet nowhere are there symptoms of any change. Then, in answer to his supplication, Daniel received the answer, seventy (70) (shabu`im) must pass before the full working out of the deliverance. “If the deliverance was not yet in seventy (70) years, then still less was it in seventy (70) weeks. With seventy (70) times seven months we are also still inside of seventy (70) years, and we are directed therefore to year-weeks, so that each week shall consist of seven years. The special account of the contents of the weeks can be adjusted with the year-weeks alone; and the half-week, ver. 27, particularly appears to be identical in actual time with these three and a half times (years), ch. 7:25.” This latter element is by others much more definitely affirmed. Thus e.g. Kranichfeld says that Daniel had no doubt about the definite extent of the expression Wig, but gave an altogether unambiguous interpretation of it when be combined the last half-week essentially with the known and definite three and a half years of the time of the end. But —we must, on the contrary, ask— where does Daniel speak of the three and a half (3 1/2) years of the time of the end? He does not use the word year in any of the passages that fall to be here considered, but only (`iddan) or (mo`ed), time, definite time. That by this word common years are to be understood, is indeed taken for granted by many interpreters, but a satisfactory proof of such a meaning has not been adduced. Moreover, in favour of year weeks (periods of seven years) it has been argued that such an interpretation was very natural, since they hold so prominent a place in the law of Moses; and the Exile had brought them anew very distinctly into remembrance, inasmuch as the seventy (70) years’ desolation of the land was viewed as a punishment for the interrupted festival of the sabbatical year: 2 Chron. 36:21 (Hgstb., Kran., and others). But since these periods of seven years, as Hengstenberg himself confesses, are not called in the law (shabu`im) or (shabu`oth), therefore, from the repeated designation of the seventh year as that of the great Sabbath merely (Lev. 25:2, 4, 5, 26:34, 35, 43; 2nd Chron. 36:21), the idea of year-weeks in no way follows. The law makes mention not only of the Sabbath-year, but also of periods of seven times seven years, after the expiry of which a year of jubilee was always to be celebrated (Lev. 25:8 ff.). These, as well as the Sabbath-years, might be called (shabu`im). Thus the idea of year-weeks has no exegetical foundation. Hofmann and Kliefoth are in the right when they remark that (shabu`im) does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds. The (hap. leg.) (chathak) means in Chald. to cut off, to cut up into pieces, then to decide, to determine closely, e.g. Targ. Esth. 4:5; cf. Buxtorf, Lex. talm., and Levy, Chald. Worterb. s.v. The meaning for (nechtak), abbreviate sunt (Vulg. for (ekolobōthēsan), Matt. 24:22), which Wieseler has brought forward, is not proved, and it is unsuitable, because if one cuts ofi a piece from a whole, the whole is diminished on account of the piece cut off, but not the piece itself. For the explanation of the sing.(nechtak) we need neither the supposition that a definite noun, as (`eth) (time), was before the prophet’s mind (Hgstb.), nor the appeal to the inexact manner of writing of the later authors (Ewald). The sing. is simply explained by this, that (shabu`im shib`im) is conceived of as the absolute idea, and then is taken up by the passive verb impersonal, to mark that the seventy sevenths are to be viewed as a whole, as a continued period of seventy seven times following each other.

                Upon thy people and upon thy holy city. In the (`al) there does not lie the conception of that which is burdensome, or that this period would be a time of suffering like the seventy (70) years of exile (v. Lengerke). The word only indicates that such a period of time was determined upon the people. The people and the city of Daniel are called the people and the city of God because Daniel has just represented them before God as His (Hāvernick, v. Lengerke, Kliefoth). But Jerusalem, even when in ruins, is called the holy city by virtue of its past and its future history; cf. ver. 20. This predicate does not point, as Wieseler and Hitzig have rightly acknowledged, to a time when the temple stood, as Staheliu and v. Lengerke suppose. Only this lies in it, Kliefoth has justly added, —not, however, in the predicate of holiness, but rather in the whole expression, —that the people and city of God shall not remain in the state of desolation in which they then were, but shall at some time be again restored, and shall continue during the time mentioned. One must not, however, at once conclude that this promise of continuance referred only to the people of the Jews and their earthly Jerusalem. Certainly, it refers first to Israel after the flesh, and to the geographical Jerusalem, because these were then the people and the city of God; but these ideas are not exhausted in this reference, but at the same time embrace the New Testament church and the church of God on earth.

                The following infinitive clauses present the object for which the seventy (70) weeks are determined, i.e. they intimate what shall happen till, or with the expiry of, the time determined. Although, before the infinitive, does not mean till or during, yet it is also not correct to say that: We can point out only the issue which the period of time finally reaches, only its result. Whether that which is stated in the infinitive clauses shall for the first time take place after the expiry of, or at the end of the time named, or shall develope itself gradually in the course of it, and only be completed at the end of it, cannot be concluded from the final (le), but only from the material contents of the final clauses. The six statements are divided by Maurer, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others into three passages of two members each, thus: After the expiry of seventy weeks, there shall (1) be completed the measure of sin; (2) the sin shall be covered and righteousness brought in; (3) the prophecy shall be fulfilled, and the temple, which was desecrated by Antiochus, shall be again consecrated. The Masoretes seem, however, to have already conceived of this threefold division by placing the Atnach under (tzedeq `olamim) (the fourth clause); but it rests on a false construction of the individual members especially of the first two passages. Rather we have two three-membered sentences before us. This appears evident from the arrangement of the six statements ; i.e. that the first three statements treat of the taking away of sin, and thus of the negative side of the deliverance ; the three last treat of the bringing in of everlasting righteousness with its consequences, and thus of the positive deliverance, and in such a manner that in both classes the three members stand in reciprocal relation to each other: the fourth statement corresponds to the first, the fifth to the second, the sixth to the third—the second and the fifth present even the same verb (chthm).

                In the first and second statements the reading is doubtful. Instead of (lachtom) (Keth.), to seal, the Keri has (lehatem), to end (R. tamam, to complete). In (lekalle’) a double reading is combined, for the vowel-points do not belong to the Keth., which rather has (liklo‘), since (kala‘) is nowhere found in the Piel, but to the Keri, for the Masoretes hold (kala‘) to be of the same meaning as (kalh), to be ended. Thus the ancient translators interpreted it: LXX., (tas adikias spanisai); Theod., (suntelesthēnai al. suntelesai); Aquil., (suntelesai tēn athesian); Vulg., ut consummetur preevaricatio. Bertholdt, Rosenmūller, Gesenius, Winer, Ewald, Hitzig, Maurer, have followed them in supposing a passing of (h) into (‘a). But since (kala) occurs frequently in Daniel, always with (h) (cf. ver. 27, ch. 11:36, 12:7), and generally the roots with (h) take the form of those with (‘a) much seldomer than the reverse, on these grounds the reading (liklo‘) thus deserves the preference, apart from the consideration that almost all the Keris are valueless emendations of the Masoretes; and the parallel (lhthm), decidedly erroneous, is obviously derived from ch. 8:23. Thus the Keri does not give in the two passages a suitable meaning. The explanation: to finish the transgression and to make full the measure of sin, does not accord with what follows: to pardon the iniquity; and the thought that the Jews would fill up the measure of their transgression in the seventy year-weeks, and that as a punishment they would pass through a period of suffering from Antiochus and afterwards be pardoned, is untenable, because the punishment by Antiochus for their sins brought to their full measure is arbitrarily interpolated; but without this interpolation the pardon of the sins stands in contradiction to the filling up of their measure. Besides, this explanation is further opposed by the fact, that in the first two statements there must be a different subject from that which is in the third. For to fill up the measure of sin is the work of men; to pardon or forgive sin, on the other hand, is the work of God. Accordingly the Kethiv alone is to be adopted as correct, and the first passage to be translated thus: to shut up the transgression. (kala‘) means to hold back, to hold in, to arrest, to hold in prison, to shut in or shut up, hence a prison, jail. To arrest the wickedness or shut it up does not mean to pardon it, but to hem it in, to hinder it so that it can no longer spread about (Hofm.); cf. Zech. 5:8 and Rev. 20:3.

                In the second passage, “to seal up sin,” the (chata’oth) are the several proofs of the transgression. (chatham), to seal, does not denote the finishing or ending of the sins (Theodrt. and others). Like “the Arab. (hatham), it may occur in the sense of “to end,” and this meaning may have originated from the circumstance that one is wont at the end of a letter or document to affix the impress of a seal; yet this meaning is nowhere found in Hebr.: see under Ex. 28:12. The figure of the sealing stands here in connection with the shutting up in prison. Cf. ch. 6:18, the king for greater security sealed up the den into which Daniel was cast. Thus also God seals the hand of man that it cannot move, Job 37:7, and the stars that they cannot give light, Job 9:7. But in this figure to seal is not = to take away, according to which Hgstb. and many others explain it thus: the sins are here described as sealed, because they are altogether removed out of the sight of God, altogether set aside; for “that which is shut up and sealed is not merely taken away, entirely set aside, but guarded, held under lock and seal” (Kliefoth). Hence more correctly Hofmann and Kliefoth say, “If the sins are sealed, they are on the one side laid under custody, so that they cannot any more be active or increase, but that they may thus be guarded and held, so that they can no longer be pardoned and blotted out ; ” cf. Rev. 20:3.

                The third statement is, “to make reconciliation for iniquity.” (kipper) is terminus techn., to pardon, to blot out by means of a sin offering, i.e. to forgive.

                These three passages thus treat of the setting aside of sin and its blotting out; but they neither form a climax nor a mere (sunathroismos), a multiplying of synonymous expressions for the pardoning of sins, ut tota peccatorum humani generis colluvies eo melius comprehenderetur (M. Geier). Against the idea of a (sunathroismos) it is justly objected, that in that case the strongest designation of sin, (happesha`), which designates sin as a falling away from God, a rebelling against Him, should stand last, whereas it occurs in the first sentence. Against the idea of a (sunathroismos) it is objected, that the words “to shut up” and “to seal” are not synonymous with “to make reconciliation for,” i.e. “to forgive.” The three expressions, it is true, all treat alike of the setting aside of sin, but in different ways. The first presents the general thought, that the falling away shall be shut up, the progress and the spreading of the sin shall be prevented. The other two expressions define more closely how the source whence arises the apostasy shall be shut up, the going forth and the continued operation of the sin prevented. This happens in one way with unbelievers, and in a different way with believers. The sins of unbelievers are sealed, are guarded securely under a seal, so that they may no more spread about and increase, nor any longer be active and operative; but the sins of believers are forgiven through a reconciliation. The former idea is stated in the second member, and the latter in the third, as Hofmann and Kliefoth have rightly remarked.

                There follows the second group of three statements, which treat of the positive unfolding of salvation accompanying the taking away and the setting aside of sin. The first expression of this group, or the fourth in the whole number, is “to bring in everlasting righteousness.” After the entire setting aside of sin must come a righteousness which shall never cease. That does not mean “ happiness of the olden time” (Bertholdt, Rōsch), nor “innocence of the former better times” (J.D. Michaelis), but “righteousness,” requires at present no further proof. Righteousness comes from heaven as the gift of God (Ps. 85:11-14; Isa. 51:5-8), rises as a sun upon them that fear God (Mal. 3:20), and is here called everlasting, corresponding to the eternity of the Messianic kingdom (cf 2:44, 18, 27). (tzedeq) comprehends the internal and the external righteousness of the new heavens and the new earth, 2nd Pet. 3:13. This fourth expression forms the positive supplement of the first: in the place of the absolutely removed transgression is the perfected righteousness.

                In the fifth passage, to seal up the vision and prophecy, the word (chatham), used in the second passage of sin, is here used of righteousness. The figure of sealing is regarded by many interpreters in the sense of confirming, and that by filling up, with reference to the custom of impressing a seal on a writing for the confirmation of its contents; and in illustration these references are given: 1st Kings 21:8, and Jer. 32:10,11, 44 (Havernick, v. Lengerke, Ewald, Hitzig, and others). But for this figurative use of the word to seal, no proof-passages are adduced from the O.T. Add to this that the word cannot be used here in a different sense from that in which it is used in the second passage. The sealing of the prophecy corresponds to the sealing of the transgression, and must be similarly understood. The prophecy is sealed when it is laid under a seal, so that it can no longer actively show itself.

                The interpretation of the object (chazon wenabi‘) is also disputed. Berth., Ros, Bleek, Ewald, Hitzig, Wieseler, refer it to the prophecy of the seventy weeks (Jer. 25 and 29), mentioned in ver. 2. But against this view stands the fact of the absence of the article; for if by (chazon) that prophecy is intended, an intimation of this would have been expected at least by the definite article, and here particularly would have been altogether indispensable. It is also condemned by the word (nabia‘) added, which shows that both words are used in comprehensive generality for all existing prophecies and prophets. Not only the prophecy, but the prophet who gives it, i.e. not merely the prophecy, but also the calling of the prophet, must be sealed. Prophecies and prophets are sealed, when by the full realization of all prophecies prophecy ceases, no prophets any more appear. The extinction of prophecy in consequence of its fulfilment is not, however (with Hengstenberg), to be sought in the time of the manifestation of Christ in the flesh; for then only the prophecy of the Old Covenant reached its end (cf. Matt. 11:13, Luke 22:37, John 1:46), and its place is occupied by the prophecy of the N.T., the fulfilling of which is still in the future, and which will not come to an end and terminate (katargēthēsetai), 1st Cor. 13:8) till the kingdom of God is perfected in glory at the termination of the present course of the world’s history, at the same time with the full conclusive fulfilment of the O.T. prophecy; cf. Acts. 3:21. This fifth member stands over against the second, as the fourth does over against the first. “When the sins are sealed, the prophecy is also sealed, for prophecy is needed in the war against sin; when sin is thus so placed that it can no longer operate, then prophecy also may come to a state of rest; when sin comes to an end in its place, prophecy can come to an end also by its fulfilment, there being no place for it after the setting aside of sin. And when the apostasy is shut up, so that it can no more spread about, then righteousness will be brought, that it may possess the earth, now freed from sin, shut up in its own place” (Kliefoth).

                The sixth and last clause, to anoint a most holy, is very differently interpreted. Those interpreters who seek the fulfilment of this word of revelation in the time following nearest the close of the Exile, or in the time of the Maccabees, refer this clause either to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering (Wieseler), which was restored by Zerubbabel and Joshua (Ezra 3:3:2 ff.), or to the consecration of the temple of Zerubbabel (J.D. Michaelis, Jahn, Steudel), or to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering which was desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, 1st Macc. 4:54 (Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others). But none of these interpretations can be justified. It is opposed by the actual fact, that neither in the consecration of Zerubbabel’s temple, nor at the re-consecration of the altar of burnt-offering desecrated by Antiochus, is mention made of any anointing. According to the definite, uniform tradition of the Jews, the holy anointing oil did not exist during the time of the second temple. Only the Mosaic sanctuary of the tabernacle, with its altars and vessels, were consecrated by anointing. Ex. 30:22 ff., 11:1-16; Lev. 8:10 ff. There is no mention of anointing even at the consecration of Solomon’s temple, 1st Kings 8 and 2nd Chron. 5-7, because that temple only raised the tabernacle to a fixed dwelling, and the ark of the covenant as the throne of God, which was the most holy furniture thereof, was brought from the tabernacle to the temple. Even the altar of burnt offering of the new temple (Ezek. 43:20, 26) was not consecrated by anointing, but only by the offering of blood. Then the special fact of the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering, or of the temple, does not accord with the general expressions of the other members of this verse, and was on the whole not so significant and important an event as that one might expect it to be noticed after the foregoing expressions. What Kranichfeld says in confirmation of this interpretation is very far-fetched and weak. He remarks, that “as in this verse the prophetic statements relate to a taking away and (kapper) of sins, in the place of which righteousness is restored, accordingly the anointing will also stand in relation to this sacred action of the (kphr), which primarily and above all conducts to the significance of the altar of Israel, that, viz., which stood in the outer court.” But, even granting this to be correct, it proves nothing as to the anointing even of the altar of burnt offering. For the preceding clauses speak not only of the (kphr) of transgression, but also of the taking away (closing and sealing) of the apostasy and of sin, and thus of a setting aside of sin, which did not take place by means of a sacrifice. The fullest expiation also for the sins of Israel which the O.T. knew, viz. that on the great day of atonement, was not made on the altar of burnt-offering, but by the sprinkling of the blood of the offering on the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies, and on the altar of incense in the most holy place. If (mashach) is to be explained after the (kapper), then by “holy of holies” we would have to understand not “primarily” the altar of burnt-offering, but above all the holy vessels of the inner sanctuary, because here it is not an atonement needing to be repeated that is spoken of, but one that avails forever.

                In addition to this, there is the verbal argument that the words (qodesh qadashim), are not used of a single holy vessel which alone could be thought of. Not only the altar of burnt-ofiering is so named, Ex. xxix. 37, xi. 10, but also the altar of incense, Ex. xxx. 10, and the two altars with all the vessels of the sanctuary, the ark of the covenant, shew-bread, caudlesticks, basins, and the other vessels belonging thereto, Ex. 30:29, also the holy material for incense, Ex. 30:36, the shew-bread, Lev. 24:9, the meat-offering, Lev. 2:3, 10, 6:10, 10:12, the flesh of the sin-offering and of the expiatory sacrifice, Lev. 6:10, 18, 10:17, 7:1, 6, 14:13, Num. 18:9, and that which was sanctified to the Lord, Lev. 27:28. Finally, the whole surroundings of the hill on which the temple stood, Ezek. 43:12, and the whole new temple, Ezek. 45:3, is named a “most holy; ” and according to 1st Chron. 23:13, Aaron and his sons are sanctified as (qodesh qadashim).

                Thus there is no good ground for referring this expression to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering. Such a reference is wholly excluded by the fact that the consecration of Zerubbabel’s temple and altar, as well as of that which was desecrated by Antiochus, was a work of man, while the anointing of a “most holy” in the verse before us must be regarded as a divine act, because the three preceding expressions beyond controversy announce divine actions. Every anointing, indeed, of persons or of things was performed by men, but it becomes a work of God when it is performed with the divinely ordained holy anointing oil by priests or prophets according to God’s command, and then it is the means and the symbol of the endowment or equipment with the Spirit of God. When Saul was anointed by Samuel, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, 1st Sam. 10:9 ff. The same thing was denoted by the anointing of David, 1st Sam. 16:13 f. The anointing also of the tabernacle and its vessels served the same object, consecrating them as the place and the means of carrying on the gracious operations of the Spirit of God. As an evidence of this, the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle after it was set up and consecrated. At the dedication of the sanctuary after the Exile, under Zerubbabel and in the Maccabean age, the anointing was wanting, and there was no entrance into it also of the glory of the Lord. Therefore these consecrations cannot be designated as anointings and as the works of God, and the angel cannot mean these works of men by the “anointing of a most holy.”

                Much older, more general, and also nearer the truth, is the explanation which refers these words to the anointing of the Messiah, an explanation which is established by various arguments. The translation of the LXX., (kai eupranai hagion hagiōn), and of Theod., (tou chrisai hagion hagiōn), the meaning of which is controverted, is generally understood by the church Fathers as referring to the Messiah. Theodoret sets it forth as undoubtedly correct, and as accepted even by the Jews; and the old Syriac translator has introduced into the text the words, “till the Messiah, the Most Holy.” (* Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. viii. 2, p. 387. ed. Colon opposes the opinion that the translation of Aquila, (kai aleipsai hegiasmenon hegiasmenōn), may be understood of the Jewish high priest. Cf. Raymundis Martini, Pugio fidei, p. 285, ed. Carpz, and Edzard ad Abodah Sara, p. 246 sq., for evidences of the diffusion of this interpretation among the Jews.)  But this interpretation is set aside by the absence of the article. Without taking into view 1st Chron. 23:13, the words (qodesh qadashim) are nowhere used of persons, but only of things. This meaning lies at the foundation of the passage in the book of Chronicles referred to, “that he should sanctify a (qodesh qadashim), anoint him (Aaron) to be a most holy thing.” Following Havernick, therefore, Hengstenberg (2d ed. of his Christol. iii. p. 54) seeks to make this meaning applicable also for the Messianic interpretation, for he thinks that Christ is here designated as a most holy thing. But neither in the fact that the high priest bore on his brow the inscription (qodesh laihowah), nor in the declaration regarding Jehovah, “He shall be (lemiqdash),” Isa. 8:14, cf. Ezek. 11:16, is there any ground for the conclusion that the Messiah could simply be designated as a most holy thing. In Luke 1:35 Christ is spoken of by the simple neuter (hagion), but not by the word “object;” and the passages in which Jesus is described as (ho hagios), Acts 3:14, 4:30, 1st John 2:20, Rev. 3:7, prove nothing whatever as to this use of (qodesh) of Christ. Nothing to the purpose also can be gathered from the connection of the sentence. If in what follows the person of the Messiah comes forward to view, it cannot be thence concluded that He must also be mentioned in this verse.

                Much more satisfactory is the thought, that in the words “to anoint a (qodesh qadashim)” the reference is to the anointing of a new sanctuary, temple, or most holy place. The absence of the article forbids us, indeed, from thinking of the most holy place of the earthly temple, which was rebuilt by Zerubbabel, since the most holy place of the tabernacle as well as of the temple is constantly called (qodesh haqqadashim). But it is not this definite holy of holies that is intended, but a new holy of holies which should be in the place of the holy of holies of the tabernacle and the temple of Solomon. Now, since the new temple of the future seen by Ezekiel, with all its surroundings, is called (Ezek. 45:3) (qodesh qadashim), Hofmann (de 70 Jahre, p. 65) thinks that the holy of holies is the whole temple, and its anointing with oil a figure of the sanctification of the church by the Holy Ghost, but that this shall not be in the conspicuousness in which it is here represented till the time of the end, when the perfected church shall possess the conspicuousness of a visible sanctuary. But, on the contrary, Kliefoth (p. 307) has with perfect justice replied, that “the most holy, and the temple, so far as it has a most holy place, is not the place of the congregation where it comes to God and is with God, but, on the contrary, is the place where God is present for the congregation, and manifests Himself to it.” The words under examination say nothing of the people and the congregation which God will gather around the place of His gracious presence, but of the objective place where God seeks to dwell among His people and reveal Himself to them. The anointing is the act by which the place is consecrated to be a holy place of the gracious presence and revelation of God. If thus the anointing of a most holy is here announced, then by it there is given the promise, not of the renewal of the place already existing from of old, but of the appointment of a new place of God’s gracious presence among His people, a new sanctuary. This, as Kliefoth further justly observes, apart from the connection, might refer to the work of redemption perfected by the coming of Christ, which has indeed created in Him a new place of the gracious presence of God, a new way of God’s dwelling among men. But since this statement is closely connected with those going before, and they speak of the perfect setting aside of transgression and of sin, of the appearance of everlasting righteousness, and the shutting up of all prophecy by its fulfilment, thus of things for which the work of redemption completed by the first appearance of Christ has, it is true, laid the everlasting foundation, but which first reach their completion in the full carrying through of this work of salvation in the return of the Lord by the final judgment, and the establishment of the kingdom of glory under the new heavens and on the new earth, —since this is the case, we must refer this sixth statement also to that time of the consummation, and understand it of the establishment of the new holy of holies which was shown to the holy seer on Patmos as (he skēnē tou Theou meta autōn anthrōpōn), in which God will dwell with them, and they shall become His people, and He shall be their God with them (Rev. 21:1-3). In this holy city there will be no temple, for the Lord, the Almighty God, and the Lamb is its temple, and the glory of God will lighten it (vers. 22, 23). Into it nothing shall enter that defileth or worketh abomination (ver. 27), for sin shall then be closed and scaled up; there shall righteousness dwell (2nd Pet. 3:13), and prophecy shall cease (1st Cor. 13:8) by its fulfilment.

                From the contents of these six statements it thus appears that the termination of the seventy (70) weeks coincides with the end of the present course of the world. But ver. 24 says nothing as to the commencement of this period. Nor can this be determined, as many interpreters think, from the relation in which the revelation of the seventy (70) weeks stands to the prayer of Daniel, occasioned by Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy (70) years of the desolation of Jerusalem. If Daniel, in the sixty-ninth (69th) year of the desolation, made supplication to the Lord for mercy in behalf of Jerusalem and Israel, and on the occasion of this prayer God caused Gabriel to lay open to him that seventy (70) weeks were determined upon the city and the people of God, it by no means thence follows that seventy (70) year-weeks must be substituted in place of the seventy (70) years prophesied of, that both commence simultaneously, and thus that the seventy (70) years of the Exile shall be prolonged to a period of oppression for Israel lasting for seventy (70) year-weeks. Such a supposition is warranted neither by the contents of the prophecy of Jeremiah, nor by the message of the angel to Daniel. Jeremiah, it is true, prophesied not merely of seventy (70) years of the desolation of Jerusalem and Judah, but also of the judgment upon Babylon after the expiry of these years, and the collecting together and bringing back of Israel from all the countries whither they were scattered into their own land (ch. 25:10-12, 29:10-14); but in his supplication Daniel had in his eye only the desolation of the land of Jeremiah’s prophecy, and prayed for the turning away of the divine anger from Jerusalem, and for the pardon of Israel’s sins. Now if the words of the angel had been, “not seventy years, but seventy (70) year-weeks, are determined over Israel,” this would have been no answer to Daniel’s supplication, at least no comforting answer, to bring which to him the angel was commanded to go forth in haste. Then the angel announces in ver. 24 much more than the return of Israel from the Exile to their own land. But this is decided by the contents of the following verses, in which the space of seventy weeks is divided into three periods, and at the same time the commencement of the period is determined in a way which excludes its connection with the beginning of the seventy (70) years of the Exile.

                Ver. 25. The detailed statement of the 70 (shabu`im) in 7 + 62 + 1 (vers. 25,26,27), with the fuller description of that which was to happen in the course of these three periods of time, incontrovertibly shows that these three verses are a further explication of the contents of ver. 24. This explication is introduced by the words: “Know therefore, and understand,” which do not announce a new prophecy, as Wieseler and Hofmann suppose, but only point to the importance of the further opening up of the contents of ver. 24, since (and thou wilt understand) stands in distinct relation to (lehaskilka binah) (to give thee skill and understanding, ver. 22). The two parts of ver. 25 contain the statements regarding the first two portions of the whole period, the seven and the sixty-two (62) (shabu`im), and are rightly separated by the Masoretes by placing the Atnach under 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.” (motza’ dabar) (from the going forth of the commandment) formally corresponds, indeed, to (yatza’ dabar) (the commandment came forth), ver. 23, emphatically expressing a decision on the part of God, but the two expressions are not actually to be identified; for the commandment, ver. 23, is the divine revelation communicated in vers. 24-27, which the angel brings to Daniel; the commandment in ver. 25 is, on the contrary, more fully determined by the words, to restore and to build, etc. (lehashibh) is not to be joined adverbially with (welibnoth) so as to form one idea: to build again; for, though (shubh) may be thus used adverbially in Kal, yet the Hiphil (heshibh) is not so used. (heshibh) means to lead back, to bring again, then to restore; cf. for this last meaning Isa. 1:26, Ps. 80:4, 8, 20. The object to (lehashibh) follows immediately after the word (welibnoth), namely, Jerusalem. The supplementing of (`am), 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 (libnoth) is added, as in the second half of the verse to (tashubh), 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. (banah) as distinguished from (heshibh) 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 (70), at the sametime determine the beginning of the seventy (70) 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 ver. 23, nor that mentioned in ver. 2. It is not that which is mentioned in ver. 23, because it says nothing about the restoration of Jerusalem, but speaks only of the whole message of the angel. Nor yet is it the word of God which is mentioned in ver. 2, the prophecies given in Jer. 25 and 29, as Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others suppose. For although from these prophecies it conclusively follows, that after the expiry of the seventy (70) 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 (70) years, but only of that which shall happen within that period, namely, that Jerusalem shall form long a time he desolate, as ver. 2 expressly affirms. The prophecy ‘of the seventy (70) years’ duration of the desolation of Jerusalem (ver. 2) cannot possibly. be regarded as the commandment (in ver. 25) to restore Jerusalem (Kliefoth). As little can we, with Hitzig, think on Jer. 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 (ch. 40-46). With as much justice may we think on Isa. 40 ff. 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 (70) 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 (mashiach nagidh) 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, (Ecolampadius, Kleinert, Nāgelsbach, Ebrard, and Kliefoth, we can think of nothing more appropriate than the edict of Cyrus (Ezra 1) which permitted the Jews to return, from which the termination of the Exile is constantly dated, and from the time of which this return, together with the building up of Jerusalem, began, and was carried forward, though slowly (Klief.). The prophecy of Isa. 45:28, that God would by means of Cyrus speak to cause Jerusalem to be built, and the foundation of the temple to be laid, directs us to this edict. With reference to this prophecy, it is said in Ezra 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 (ch. 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 (lehashibh welibnoth) 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 (lehashibh) of the completed restoration, Hengstenberg remarks that “in the announcement the temple is named along with the city in ver. 26 as well as in ver. 27. That with the announcement of the building the temple is not named here, that mention is made only of the building of the streets of the city, presupposes the sanctuary as already built up at the commencement of the building which is here spoken of; and the existence of the temple again requires that a commencement of the rebuilding of the city had also been already made, since it is not probable that the angel should have omitted just that which was the weightiest matter, that for which Daniel was most grieved, and about which he had prayed (cf. vers. 17, 20) with the greatest solicitude.” But the validity of this conclusion is not obvious. In ver. 26 the naming of the temple along with the city is required by the facts of the case, and this verse treats of what shall happen after the sixty-two (62) weeks. How, then, shall it be thence inferred that the temple should also be mentioned along with the city in ver. 25, where the subject is that which forms the beginning of the seven or of the seventy (70) weeks, and that, since this was not done, the temple must have been then already built? The non-mention of the temple in ver. 24, as in ver. 25, is fully and simply explained by this, that the word of the angel stands in definite relation to the prayer of Daniel, but that Daniel was moved by Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy (70) years’ duration of the (charboth) of Jerusalem to pray for the turning away of the divine wrath from the city. As Jeremiah, in the announcement of the seventy (70) 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 (motza’ dabar) 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 (70) weeks.

                The words (`adh mashiach nagidh) show the termination of the seven weeks. The words (mashiach nagidh) are not to be translated an anointed prince (Bertholdt); for (mashiach) cannot be an adjective to (nagidh), because in Hebr. the adjective is always placed after the substantive, with few exceptions, which are inapplicable to this case; cf. Ewald’s Lehrb. §293b. Nor can (mashiach) be a participle: till a prince is anointed (Steudel), but it is a noun, and (nagidh) 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, (mashiach) is brought forward as the principal designation, we may not by (nagidh); think of a priest-prince, but only of a prince of the people, nor by (mashiach) of a. king, but only of a priest; and by (nagidh mashiach) we must understand a person who first and specially is a priest, and in addition is a prince of the people, a king. The separation of the two words in ver. 26, where (nagidh) 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. xlv. 45:1; for, supposing it to be the case that Daniel had reason from Isa. 45:1 to call Cyrus (mashiach) —which is to be doubted, since from this epithet (meshicho), His (Jehovah’s) anointed, which Isaiah uses of Cyrus, it does not follow as of course that he should be named (mashiach) —the title ought at least to have been (nagidh), the (mashiach) being an adjective following (nagidh), because there is no evident reason for the express precedence of the adjectival definition. (* “It is an unjustifiable assertion that every heathen king may also bear the name (mashiach), anointed. In all the books of the O.T. there is but a single heathen king, Cyrus, who is named (mashiach) (Isa. xlv. 1), and he not simply as such, but because of the remarkable and altogether singular relation in which he stood to the church, because of the gifts with which God endowed him for her deliverance, … and because of the typical relation in which he stood to the author of the higher deliverance, the Messiah. Cyrus could in a certain measure be regarded as a theocratic ruler, and as such he is described by Isaiah.”—Hengstenberg.*)

                The O.T. knows only One who shall be both priest and king in one person (Ps. 110:4; Zech. 6:13), Christ, the Messias (John 4:25), whom, with Hāvernick, Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Auberlen, Delitzsch, and Kliefoth, we here understand by the (mashiach nagidh), because in Him the two essential requisites of the theocratic king, the anointing and the appointment to be the (nagidh); of the people of God (cf. 1st Sam. 10:1, 13:14, 16:13, 25:30; 2nd Sam. 2:4, 5:2 f.), are found in the most perfect manner. These requisites are here attributed to Him as predicates, and in such a manner that the being anointed goes before the being a prince, in order to make prominent the spiritual, priestly character of His royalty, and to designate Him, on the ground of the prophecies, Isa. 61:1-3 and 55:4, as the person by whom “the sure mercies of David” (Isa. 55:3) shall be realized by the covenant people. (* In the (mashiach nagidh) 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 (mashiach), and as King of the heathen (nagidh), for in the frequent use of the word (nagidh) 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 (mashiach), somewhat as (tzemach), Zech. 3:8, 6:12, is used (kat ex.) as a nomen propr. of the Messiah, the Anointed; for in this case (nagidh) ought to have the article, since in Hebrew we cannot say (melek dodh), but only (hamelek dodh). 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 ver. 25 states that the first seven of the seventy (70) 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 (shabu`im) are year-weeks, periods of seven years, is irreconcilable. Therefore most interpreters who understand Christ as the (mashiach nagidh), 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: (heōs Christou hēgoumenou hebdomades hepta kai hebdomades hexēkontaduo); and the Vulgate: usque ad Christum ducem hebdomades septem et hede mades sexaginta duw erunt. The text of the LXX is here, however, completely in error, and is useless. This interpretation, in recent times, Hāvernick, 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 (shabu`im) are separated from the sixty-two (62). 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 (69) 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, Hāvernick’s assertion, that the dividing of the sixty-nine (69) (shbu`m) into seven and sixty-two (69) 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 (62) weeks” consists in that which the words immediately connected therewith affirm, (tashubh wenibnethah wgw‘), and thus that the “sixty-two (62) weeks” belong indeed to the following clause. But according to Hengstenberg the words ought not to be so understood, but thus: “sixty-nine (69) weeks must pass away, seven till the completed restoration of the city, sixty-two (62) 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. (* 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 (62) 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 (62) heptades (7s). *)   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 (62) 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 (62) weeks” to the first half of the verse, then the division of the sixty-nine (69) weeks into seven weeks and sixty-two weeks (62) is unaccountable; for in ver. 26 we must then read, “after sixty-nine (69) weeks,” and not, as we find it in the text, “after sixty-two (62) weeks.” The substitution, again [in ver. 26], of only this second designation of time (sixty-two (62) weeks) is also intelligible only if the sixty-two (62) weeks in ver. 25 belong to the second half of the verse, and are to be separated from the seven weeks. The bringing together of the seven (7) and of the sixty-two (62) weeks stands thus opposed to the context, and is maintained merely on the supposition that the (shabu`im) are year-weeks, or periods of time consisting of seven years, in order that sixty-nine (69) 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 (62) weeks ” with the second half of the verse, “and during sixty-two (62) weeks shall the street be built again,” etc. The “sixty-two (69) weeks” are not united antithetically to the “seven weeks” by the copula (w), 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 (62) 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 (62) weeks. That event which brings the close of the sixty two (6) weeks is spoken of in ver. 26 in the words (yikkareth Maschiach), Messiah shall be cut off. The words “and sixty-two (62) (shabu`im) may be taken grammatically either as the absolute nominative or as the accusative of duration. The words (tashubh wenibnethah) refer undoubtedly to the expression (lehashibh welibnoth) (to restore and to build), according to which (tashubh) is not to be joined adverbially to (wenibnethah) (according to Hāvernick, Hofmann, and Wieseler), but is to be rendered intransitively, corresponding to (hashibh): shall be restored, as Ezek. 16:55, 1st Kings 13:6, 2nd Kings 5:10, 14, Ex. 4:7. The subject to both verbs is not (Rosenmūller, Gesenius, v. Leng., Hgstb.) (rechobh), but Jerusalem, as is manifest from the circumstance that the verbs refer to the restoration and the building of Jerusalem, and is placed beyond a doubt by this, that in Zech. 8:5 (rechobh) is construed as masculine; and the opinion that it is generis foem. rests only on this passage before us. There is no substantial reason for interpreting (with Klief.) the verbs impersonally.

                The words (rechobh wecharutz) are difficult, and many interpretations have been given of them. There can be no doubt that they contain together one definition, and that (rechobh) is to be taken as the adverbial accusative. (rechobh) means the street and the wide space before the gate of the temple. Accordingly, to (charutz) have been given the meanings ditch, wall, aqueduct (Ges., Steud., Zūnd., 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 (eis platos kai mēkos), of Theod. (plateia kai teichos), and of the Vulg. platea et muri. (charatz) means to cut, then to decide, to determine, to conclude irrevocably; hence (charutz), decision, judgment, Joel 4:14. This meaning is maintained by Hāv., Hgstb., v. Leng., Wies., and Kran., and (wecharutz) 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 (rechobh wecharutz) plainly go together, as the old translators have interpreted them. Now (rechobh) does not mean properly street, but a wide, free space, as Ezra 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. (charutz), 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, (ubtzoq ha`ittim), point to the circumstances under which the building proceeds: in the difficulty, the oppression of the times. The book of Nehemiah, 3:33, 4:1 ff., vi. 6:1 ff., 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.

                Ver. 26. After the threescore and two weeks, i.e. in the seventieth (shabua`), shall the Messiah be out oft—From the (‘achrey) (after) it does, not with certainty follow that the “cutting off” of the Maschiach falls wholly in the beginning of the seventieth (70th) week, but only that the “cutting off” shall constitute the first great event of this week, and that those things which are mentioned in the remaining part of the verse shall then follow. The complete designation of the time of the “ cutting off” can only be found from the whole contents of vers. 26 and 27 (nichrath), from (karath), to hew down, to fell, to cut to pieces, signifies to be rooted up, destroyed, annihilated, and denotes generally a violent kind of death, though not always, but only the uprooting from among the living, or from the congregation, and is therefore the usual “expression for the destruction of the ungodly —e.g. Ps. 37:9, Prov. 2:22 —without particularly designating the manner in which this is done. From (yikkareth) it cannot thus be strictly proved that this part of the verse announces the putting to death of an anointed one, or of the Messiah. Of the word Maschiach three possible interpretations have been given: 1. That the Maschiach Nagid of ver. 25, the Maschiach of ver. 26, and the Nagid of ver. 26b, are three different persons; 2. that all the three expressions denote one and the same person; and 3. that the Maschiach Nagid of ver. 25 and the Maschiach of ver. 26 are the same person, and that the Nagid of ver. 26b is another and a different person. The first of these has been maintained by J.D. Michaelis, Jahn. Ebrard understands by all the three expressions the Messiah, and supposes that he is styled fully Mashiach Nagid in ver. 25 in order that His calling and His dignity (Maschiach), as well as His power and strength (nagidh), might be designated; in ver. 26a, (Maschiach), the anointed, where mention is made of His sufferings and His rejection; in ver. 26b, (nagidh), the prince, where reference is made to the judgment which He sends (by the Romans on apostate Jerusalem). But this view is refuted by the circumstance that (haba‘) (that is to come) follows (nagidh), whereby the prince is represented as first coming, as well as by the circumstance that (nagidh habba’), who destroys the city and the sanctuary, whose end shall be with a flood, consequently cannot be the Messiah, but is the enemy of the people and kingdom of God, who shall arise (ch. 7:24,25) in the last time. But if in ver. 26 the Nagid is different from the Maschiach, then both also appear to be different from the Maschiach Nagid of ver. 25. The circumstance that in ver. 26 (Maschiach)has neither the article nor the addition (nagidh); following it, appears to be in favour of this opinion. The absence of the one as well as of the other denotes that (Maschiach), after that which is said of Him, in consideration of the connection of the words, needs no more special description. If we observe that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary is so connected with the Maschiach that we must consider this as the immediate or first consequence of the cutting off of the Maschiach, and that the destruction shall be brought about by a Nagid, then by Maschiach we can understand neither a secular prince or king nor simply a high priest, but only an anointed one who stands in such a relation to the city and sanctuary, that with his being “cut off” the city and the sanctuary lose not only their protection and their protector, but the sanctuary also loses, at the same time, its character as the sanctuary, which the Maschiach had given to it. This is suitable to no Jewish high priest, but only to the Messias whom Jehovah anointed to be a Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek, and placed as Lord over Zion, His holy hill. We agree therefore with Hāvernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and Kliefoth, who regard the Maschiach of this verse as identical with the Maschiach Nagid of ver. 25, as Christ, who in the fullest sense of the word is the Anointed; and we hope to establish this view more fully in the following exposition of the historical reference of this word of the angel.

                But by this explanation of the (Maschiach) we are not authorized to regard the word (yikkareth), as necessarily pointing to the death of the Messias, the crucifixion of Christ, since (yikkareth), as above shown, does not necessarily denote a violent death. The right interpretation of this word depends on the explanation of the words is (we’en lo) which follow —words which are very differently interpreted by critics. The supposition is grammatically inadmissible that is M : mfg; (Michaelis, Hitzig), although the LXX. in the Codex Chisianus have translated them by (kai ouk estai); and in general all those interpretations which identify (‘en); with (lo‘), as e.g. et non sibi, and not for himself (Vitringa, Rosenmūller, Hāvernick, and others). For (‘en) is never interchanged with (lo‘), but is so distinguished from it that (lo‘), non, is negation purely, while (‘en), “it is not,” denies the existence of the thing; cf. Hengstenberg’s Christol. iii. p. 81 f., where all the passages which Gesenius refers to as exemplifying this exchange are examined and rightly explained, proving that (‘en) is never used in the sense of (lo‘). Still less is (lo‘); to be taken in the sense of is “there shall not then be one who (belongs) to him;” for although the pronomen relat. may be wanting in short sentences, “yet that can be only in such as contain a subject to which it can refer. But in the (‘en) no subject is contained, but only the non-existence is declared; it cannot be said: one is, or nothing is. In all passages where it is thus rightly translated a participle follows, in which the personal or actual subject is contained, of which the non-existence is predicated. (en lo)without anything following is elliptical, and the subject, which is not, which will not be, is to be learned from the context or from the matter itself. The missing subject here cannot be (Maschiach), because (lo‘) points back to (Maschiach); nor can it be my, people (Vulg, Grotius), or a descendant (Wieseler), or a follower (Auberlen), because all these words are destitute of any support from the context, and are brought forward arbitrarily. Since that which “is not to Him” is not named, we must thus read the expression in its undefined universality: it is not to Him, viz. that which He must have, to be the Maschiach. We are not by this to think merely of dominion, people, sanctuary, but generally of the place which He as Maschiach has had, or should have, among His people and in the sanctuary, but, by His being “cut off,” is lost. This interpretation is of great importance in guiding to a correct rendering of (yikkareth); for it shows that (yikkareth) does not denote the putting to death, or cutting off of existence, but only the annihilation of His place as Maschiach among His people and in His kingdom. For if after His “cutting off” He has not what He should have, it is clear that annihilation does not apply to Him personally, but only that He has lost His place and function as the Maschiach. (* Kranichfeld quite appropriately compares the strong expression (yikkareth) with “the equally strong up; (shall wear out) in ch. 7:25, spoken of that which shall befall the saints on the part of the enemy of God in the last great war. As by this latter expression destruction in the sense of complete annihilation cannot he meant since the saints personally exist after the catastrophe (cf. vers. 27, 22, 18), so also by this expression here (yikkareth) we are not to understand annihilation. *)

                In consequence of the cutting off of the (Maschiach) destruction falls upon the city and the sanctuary. This proceeds from the people of the prince who comes. (yaschith), to destroy, to ruin, is used, it is true, of the desolating of countries, but predicated of a city and sanctuary it means to overthrow; cf. e.g. Gen. 19:13 f., where it is used of the destruction of Sodom; and even in the case of countries the (hashchith) consists in the destruction of men and cattle; cf. Jer. 36:29.

                The meaning of (`am nagidh habba‘) depends chiefly on the interpretation of the (habba‘). This we cannot, with Ebrard, refer to (nagidh). Naturally, it is connected with (`am), not only according to the order of the words, but in reality, since in the following verse (ver. 27) the people are no longer spoken of, but only the actions and proceedings of the prince are described. (habba‘) does not mean qui succedit (Roesch, Maurer), but is frequently used by Daniel of a hostile coming; cf. ch. 1:1, 11:10, 13, 15. But in this sense (habba‘) appears to be superfluous, since it is self-evident that the prince, if he will destroy Jerusalem, must come or draw near. One also must not say that (habba’) designates the prince as one who was to come (erchomenos), since from the expression “coming days,” as meaning “future days,” it does not follow that a “coming prince” is a “future prince.” The (habba‘) with the article: “ he who comes, or will come,” denotes much rather the (nagidh) (which is without the article) as such an one whose coming is known, of whom Daniel has heard that he will come to destroy the people of God. But in the earlier revelations Daniel heard of two princes who shall bring destruction on his people: in ch. 7:8, 24 f., of Antichrist; and in ch. 8:9 ff., 23 ff., of Antiochus. To one of these the (habba‘) points. Which of the two is meant must be gathered from the connection, and this excludes the reference to Antiochus, and necessitates our thinking of the Antichrist.

                In the following clause : “and his end with the flood,” the suffix refers simply to the hostile Nagid, whose end is here emphatically placed over against his coming (Kran., Hofm., Kliefoth). Preconceived views as to the historical interpretation of the prophecy lie at the foundation of all other references. The Messianic interpreters, who find in the words a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and thus understand by the Nagid Titus, cannot apply the suffix to Nagid. M. Geier, Hāvernick, and others, therefore, refer it (the suffix) to the city and the sanctuary; but that is grammatically inadmissible, since (ha`ir) (the city) is gen. foem. Aub. and others refer it, therefore, merely to the sanctuary; but the separation of the city from the sanctuary is quite arbitrary. Vitringa, C.B. Michaelis, Hgstb., interpret the suffix as neuter, and refer it to (yashchith) (shall destroy), or, more correctly, to the idea of destroying comprehended in it, for they understand of a warlike overflowing flood: “and the end of it shall be (or: it shall end) in the flood.” On the other hand, v. Lengerke and Kliefoth have rightly objected to this view. “This reference of“ the suffix,” they say, “is inadmissibly harsh; the author must have written erroneously, since he suggested the, reference of the suffix to (`am) or to (nagidh). One cannot think of what is meant by the end of the destruction, since the destruction itself is the end; a flood may, it is true, he an emblem of a warlike invasion of a country, but it never signifies the warlike march, the expedition.” There thus remains nothing else than to apply the suffix to the Nagid, the prince. (qetz) can accordingly only denote the destruction of the prince. Hitzig’s interpretation, that (qitztzo) is the result of his coming, refutes itself.

                In (bashshetef) the article is to be observed, by which alone such interpretations as “in an overflowing” (Ros, Roed., and others), “vi quadam ineluctabili oppressus” (Steudel, Maurer), “like an overflowing,” and the like, are proved to be verbally inadmissible. The article shows that a definite and well-known overflowing is meant. (shetef), “overflowing,” may be the emblem of an army spreading itself over the land, as in ch. 11:10, 22, 26, Isa. 8:8, or the emblem of a judgment desolating or destroying a city, country, or people; cf. Ps. 32:6, Nah. 1:8, Prov. 27:4, Ps. 95:5. The first of these interpretations would give this meaning: The prince shall find his end in his warlike expedition; and the article in (bashshetef) would refer back to (habba‘). This interpretation is indeed quite possible, but not very probable, because would then be the overflowing which was caused by the hostile prince or his coming, and the thought would be this, that he should perish in it. But this agrees neither with the following clause, that war should be to the end, nor with ch. 7:21, 26, according to which the enemy of God holds the superiority till he is destroyed by the judgment of God. Accordingly, we agree with Wieseler, Hofmann, Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth in adopting the other interpretation of flood, as the figure of the desolating judgment of God, and explain the article as an allusion to the flood which overwhelmed Pharaoh and his host. Besides, the whole passage is, with Maurer and Klief., to be regarded as a relative clause, and to be connected with. (habba‘): the people of a prince who shall come and find his destruction in the flood.

                This verse (ver. 26) contains a third statement, which adds a new element to the preceding. Rosenmūller, Ewald, Hofm., and  others connect these into one passage, thus: and to the end of the war a decree of desolations continues. But although (qetz), grammatically. considered, is the stat. constr., and might be connected with (milchamah) (war), yet this is opposed by the circumstance, that in the preceding sentence no mention is expressly made of war; and that if the war which consisted in the destruction of the city should he meant, then (milchamah) ought to have the article. From these reasons we agree with the majority of interpreters in regarding (milchamah) as the predicate-of the passage: “and to the end is war; ” but we cannot refer (qetz), with Wieseler, to the end of the prince, or, with Hāv. and Aub., to the end of the city, because (qetz) has neither a suffix nor an article. According to the just remark of Hitzig, (qetz) without any limitation is the end generally, the end of the period in progress, the seventy (70) (shabu`im), and corresponds to (`adh sopha‘) in ch. 7:26, to the end of all things, ch. 12:13 (Klief.). To the end war shall be = war shall continue during the whole of the last (shabua`).

                The remaining words, (necheretzeth shomemoth) form an apposition to (milchamah), notwithstanding the objection by Kliefoth, that since desolations are a consequence of the war, the words cannot be regarded as in apposition. For we do not understand why in abbreviated statements the efiect cannot be placed in the form of an apposition to the cause. The objection also overlooks the word (necheretzeth). If desolations are the effect of the war, yet not the decree of the desolations, which can go before the war or can be formed during the war. (shomemoth) denotes desolation not in an active, but in a pas sive sense: laid waste, desolated, cf. ver. 27. (necheretzeth), that which is determined, the irrevocably decreed; therefore used of divine decrees, and that of decrees with reference to the infliction of punishment; cf. ver. 27, ch. 11:36, Isa. 10:23, 28:22. Ewald is quite in error when he says that it means “the decision regarding the fearful deeds, the divine decision as it embodies itself in the judgments (ch. 7:11f.) on the world on account of such fearful actions and desolations,” because (shomemoth) has not the active meaning. Auberlen weakens its force when he renders it “decreed desolations.” “That which is decreed of desolations” is also not affixed, limited, measured degree of desolations (Hofm., Klief.); for in the word there does not lie so much the idea of limitation to a definite degree, as much rather the idea of the absolute decision, as the connection with (kalah) in ver. 27, as well as in the two passages from Isaiah above referred to, shows. The thought is therefore this: “Till the end war will be, for desolations are irrevocably determined by God.” Since (shomemoth) has nothing qualifying it, we may not limit the “ decree of desolations” to the laying waste of the city‘and the sanctuary, but under it there are to be included the desolations which the fall of the prince who destroys the city and the sanctuary shall bring along with it.

                Ver. 27. This verse contains four statements. The first is: “He shall confirm the covenant to many for one week.” Following the example of Theodotion, many (Ham, Hgstb., Aub., v. Leng., Hitzig, Hofm.) regard (shabua` ‘echad) as the subject: one week shall confirm the covenant to many. But this poetic mode of expression is only admissible where the subject treated of in the statement of the speaker comes after the action, and therefore does not agree with (higbir berith), where the confirming of the covenant is not the work of time, but the deed of a definite person. To this is to be added the circumstance that the definitions of time in this verse are connected with those in ver. 25, and are analogous to them, and must therefore be alike interpreted in both passages. But if, notwithstanding these considerations, we make (shabua` ‘echad) the subject, the question then presses itself upon us, Who effects the confirming of the covenant? Hāvernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen regard the Messias as the subject, and understand by the confirming of the covenant, the confirming of the New Covenant by the death of Christ. Ewald, v. Lengerke, and others think of Antiochus and the many covenants which, according to 1st Macc. 1:12, he established between the apostate Jews and the heathen Greeks. Hitzig understands by the “covenant” the O.T. Covenant, and gives to (higbir) the meaning to make grievous: The one week shall make the covenant grievous to many, for they shall have to bear oppression on account of their faith. On the other hand, Hofmann (Schriftbew.) renders it: The one week shall confirm many in their fidelity to the faith. But none of these interpretations can be justified. The reasons which Hengstenberg adduces in support of his view that the Messias is the subject, are destitute of validity. The assertion that the Messias is the chief person spoken of in the whole of this passage, rests on the supposition, already proved to be untenable, that the prince who was to come (ver. 26) was the instrument of the Anointed, and on the passages in Isa. 53:11 and 42:6, which are not parallel to that under consideration. The connection much more indicates that Nagid is the subject to (higbir), since the prince who was to come is named last, and is also the subject in the suffix of (qitztzo) (his end), the last clause of ver. 26 having only the significance of an explanatory subordinate clause. Also “the taking away of the daily sacrifice combines itself in a natural way with the destruction (ver. 26) of the city and the temple brought about by the (nagid habba‘)” –further, “he who here is represented as ‘causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease’ is obviously identical with him who changes (ch. 7:25) the times and usages of worship (more correctly: times and law)” (Kran.). “The reference of (higbir) to the ungodly leader of an army, is therefore according to the context and the parallel passages of this book which have been mentioned, as well as in harmony with the natural grammatical arrangement of the passage,” and it gives also a congruous sense, although by the Nagid Titus cannot naturally be understood. (higbir berith) means to strengthen a covenant, i.e. to make a covenant strong (Hitzig has not established the rendering: to make grievous). “Covenant” ‘does not necessarily mean the covenant of God (Old Testament or New Testament Covenant), since the assertion that this word occurs only in this book with reference to the covenant of God with Israel (Hgstb.) does not also prove that it must here have this meaning; and with regard particularly to ch. 11:22, it is very questionable. The expression (higbir berith) with (le) is analogous to (karath berith) [icere foedus] with (le); and the construction with (le) signifies that as in the forming of a covenant, so in the confirming of a covenant, the two contracting parties are not viewed as standing on an equality, but he who concludes or who confirms the covenant prevails, and imposes or forces the covenant on the other party. The reference to the covenant of God with man is thus indeed suggested, yet it is not rendered necessary, but only points to a relation analogous to the concluding of a covenant emanating from God. (laribbim) with the article [preposition] signifies the [to] many, i.e. the great mass of the people in contrast with the few, who remain faithful to God; cf. Matt. 24:12. Therefore the thought is this: That ungodly prince shall impose on the mass of the people a strong covenant that they should follow him and give themselves to him as their God.

                While the first clause of this verse announces what shall happen during the whole of the last week, the second treats only of the half of this period. (chatzi hashshabua`) we cannot grammatically otherwise interpret than the definition of time mentioned immediately before, and thus, for reasons given above, cannot take it as the subject of the clause, but only as the accusative of the duration of time, consequently not in the sense of the ablative: in the midst of the week. The controversy whether (chatzi) here means half, or midst, has no bearing on the matter, and acquires significance only if we interpret (chatzi), in opposition to the context, as synonymous with (bachatzi), or with Klief., which is equally untenable and impossible in this context, regard (chatzi hashshabua`) as an absolute definition. (chatzi) signifies only half, not midst. Only where the representation of an extent of space or period of time prevails can we render it, without a change of its meaning, by the Word midst. In the half of the night is the same as in the middle of the night, at midnight, Ex. 12:29; in the half of the firmament, Josh. 10:13, is the same as in the middle of the space of the heavens across which the sun moves during day; in the half of the day of life is the same as in the middle of the period of life, Ps. 102:25. But during the half of the week is not the same as: in the middle of the week. And the objection, that if we here take (chatzi) in the sense of half, then the heptad or cycle of seven would be divided into two halves (Klief.), and yet of only one of them was anything said, is without significance, because it would touch also the explanation “and in the midst of the heptad,” since in this case of the first, before the middle of, the expiring half of the week, nothing also is said of what shall be done in it. If Kliefoth answers this objection ‘by saying that we must conceive of this from the connection, namely, that which brings the power of Antichrist to its height, then we shall be able also, in the verbally correct interpretation of (chatzi hashshabua`), to conceive from the connection what shall happen in the remaining period of the (shabua`). Yet weaker is the further objection: “that which is mentioned as coming to pass (chatzi hashshabua`), the causing of the offering of sacrifice to cease, is something which takes place not during a period of time, but at a terminus ” (Kliefoth); for since (hishbith) does not properly mean to remove, but to make to rest, to make quiet, it is thus not conceivable why we should not be able to say: The sacrifice shall be made to rest, or made still, during half a week.

                In the verbally correct interpretation of (chatzi hashshabua), the supposition that the second half of the heptad is meant loses its support, for the terminus a quo of this half remains undefined if it cannot be determined from the subject itself. But this determination depends on whether the taking away of the sacrifice is to be regarded as the putting a complete termination to it, or only the causing of a temporary cessation to the service of sacrifice, which can be answered only by our first determining the question regarding the historical reference of this divine revelation. (zebach uminchah), bloody and unbloody sacrifice, the two chief parts of the service of sacrifice, represent the whole of worship by sacrifice. The expression is more comprehensive than “roan, ch. 8:11, the continuance in worship, the daily morning and evening sacrifice, the cessation of which does not necessarily involve the putting an end to the service of sacrifice.

                The third clause of this verse, (we`al kenaf shiqqutzim meshomem), is difficult, and its interpretation has been disputed. The LXX. have rendered it: (kai epi to hieron bdelugma tōn erēmōseōn estai). Theodotion has given the same rendering, only omitting (estai). The Vulgate has: et erit in templo abominatio desolationis. The church interpreters have explained the words in accordance with these translations, understanding by (kenaf shiqqutzim) the abomination of idols in the temple, or the temple desecrated by the abomination of idols. Hāvernick explains the words of the extreme height of abomination, i.e. of the highest place that can be reached where the abominations would be committed, i.e. the temple as the highest point in Jerusalem; Hengstenberg, on the contrary, regards the “wing of the abominations” as the pinnacle of the temple so desecrated by the abomination that it no longer deserved the name of a temple of the Lord, but the name of an idol-temple. Auberlen translates it “on account of the desolating summit of abominations,” and understands by it the summit of the abominations committed by Israel, which draws down the desolation, because it is the desolation itself, and which reached its acme in the desecration of the temple by the Zealots shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. But no one of these interpretations is justified by the language here used, because fig.? does not signify summit, highest point. This word, it is true, is often used figuratively of the extremity or skirt of the upper garment or cloak (1st Sam. 15:27, 24:5; Hag. 2:12), of the uttermost part, end, of the earth, Isa. 24:16, and frequently in the plur. of the borders of the earth, in the rabbin also of the lobes of the lungs, but demonstrably never of the summit as, the highest point or peak of an object; and thus can mean neither the temple as the highest point in Jerusalem, nor the pinnacle of the temple desecrated by the abomination, nor the summit of the abomination committed by Israel. “It is used indeed,” as Bleek (Jahrbb. v. p.93) also remarks, “of the extreme point of an object, but only of that which is extended horizontally (for end, or extremity), but never of that which is extended perpendicularly (for peak).” The use of it in the latter sense cannot also be proved from the (pterugion tou hierou), Matt. 4:5, Luke 4:9. Here the genitive (tou hierou), not (tou naou) shows that not the pinnacle, i.e. the summit of the temple itself, is meant, but a wing or adjoining building of the sanctuary; and if Suidas and Hesychius explain (pterugion) by (akrōtērion), this explanation is constructed only from the passages of the N.T. referred to, and is not confirmed by the Greek classics.

                But though (pterugion)  may have the meaning of summit, yet this can by no means be proved to be the meaning of (kanaf). Accordingly (kenaf shiqqutzim) cannot on verbal grounds be referred to the temple. This argument from the words used is not set aside by other arguments which Hengstenberg brings forward, neither by the remark that this explanation harmonizes well with the other parts of the prophecy, especially the removal of the sacrifice and the destruction of the temple, nor by the reference to the testimony of tradition and to the authority of the Lord. For, with reference to that remark, we have already shown in the explanation of the preceding verses that they do not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and thus are not reconcilable with this interpretation of (kenaf shiqqutzim). But the testimony of tradition for this interpretation in Josephus, De bello Jud. iv. 6. 3, that by the desecration of the temple on the part of the Zealots an old prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple was fulfilled, itself demonstrates (under the supposition that no other passages occur in the book of Daniel in which Josephus would be able to find the announcement of bloody abomination in the temple which proceeded even from the members of the covenant people) nothing further than that Josephus, with many of his contemporaries, found such a prophecy in this verse in the Alexandrine translation, but it does not warrant the correctness of this interpretation of the passage. This warrant would certainly be afforded by the words of our Lord regarding “the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place” (Matt. 24:15 f.; Mark 13:14), if it were decided that the Lord had this passage (Dan. 9:27) alone before His mind, and that He regarded the “abomination of desolation” as a sign announcing the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. But neither of these conditions is established. The expression (bdelugma tēs erēmōseōs) is found not only in Dan. 9:27 (where the LXX. and Theod. have the plur. erēmōseōn), but also in Dan. 11:31 (bd. erēmōseōs) and Dan. 12:11 (to bd. tēs erēmōseōs), and thus may refer to one of these passages. The possibility of this reference is not weakened by the objection, “that the prophecy Dan. 11 and 12 was generally regarded as fulfilled in the Maccabean times, and that the fulfilling of ch. 9 was placed forward into the future in the time of Christ” (Hgstb.), because the Lord can have a deeper and more correct apprehension of the prophecies of Daniel than the Jewish writers of His time; because, moreover, the first historical fulfilling of Dan. 11 in the Maccabean times does not exclude a further and a fuller accomplishment in the future, and the rage of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jewish temple and the worship of God can be a type of the assault of Antichrist against the sanctuary and the church of God in the time of the end. Still-less from the words, “whoso readeth, let him understand” (Matt. 24:15), can it be proved that Christ had only Dan. 9:27, and not also 11:31 or 12:11, before His view. The remark that these words refer to (bin ‘eth-haddabar); (understand the matter), Dan. 9:23, and to (wethera` wethaskel) (know, and understand), does not avail for this purpose, because this reference is not certain, and (bin baddabar) (and he understood the thing) is used (ch. 10:1) also of the prophecy in ch. 10 and 11. But though it were beyond a doubt that Christ had, in the words quoted, only Dan. 9: 27 before His view, yet would the reference of this prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans not be thereby proved, because in His discourse Christ spake not only of this destruction of the ancient Jerusalem, but generally of His (parousia) and the (sunteleia tou aiōnos) (Matt. 24:3), and referred the words of Daniel of the (bdelugma tēs erēmōseōs) to the (parousia tou Huiou tou Anthrōpou).

                On these grounds we must affirm that the reference of the words under consideration to the desecration of the temple before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is untenable.

                But also the reference of these words, as maintained by other interpreters, to the desecration of the temple by the (bdelugma tēs erēmōseōs) (1st Mac. 1:54), built on the altar of burnt-offering by Antiochus Epiphanes, is disproved on the verbal ground that (kanaf) cannot designate the surface of the altar. In favour of this view the (hashshiqqutzim meshomem), Dan. 11:31 (the abomination that maketh desolate), is principally relied on, in order to establish the connection of (meshomem) with user; but that passage is of a different character, and the difference of number between them opposes the connecting together of these two words. The singular (meshomem) cannot be connected as an adjective with (shiqqutzim). But the uniting of with the noun (kenaf) gives no meaning, and besides has the parallels ch. 11:31 and 12:11 against it. In this passage before us (meshomem) can only be the subject; and the clause is neither to be connected with the preceding nor with the following, but is to be interpreted as containing an independent statement. Since in the preceding context mention is made of a Nagid who shall make desolate the city and the sanctuary, and shall take away the bloody and the unbloody sacrifice, it is natural to regard the (meshomem), desolater, as the Nagid, and to identify the two. The circumstance that it does not refer to it by the article (hammeshomem) is no valid objection, because the article is in no way necessary, as (meshomem)is a participle, and can be rendered as such: “on the wings of abomination he comes desolating.” (`al kanaf) can, without ingenuity, be rendered in no other way than on wings. (shiqqutzim) signifies not acts of abomination, but objects of abomination, things causing abomination, and is constantly used of the heathen gods, idol-images, sacrifices to the gods, and other heathen abominations. The connection of (shiqqutzim) permits us, however, with Reichel, Ebrard, Kliefoth, and Kranichfeld, to think on nothing else than that wings (kanaf)  are attributed to the (shiqqutzim). The sing. (kenaf) does not oppose this, since it is often used collectively in a peculiar and figurative meaning; cf. e.g. (ba`al kanaf), Prov. 1:17, with (ba`al kenapaim), Eccles. 10:20, the winged, the bird; and (kenaf ha’aretz) (from the uttermost part of the earth), Isa. 24:16, is not different from (kanphoth ha’aretz), Job 38:3, 38:13, just as (‘ebrah), wing, plumage, Ps. 91:4, Deut. 32:11, is found for (`ebroth) (wings), Ps. 68:14. But from such passages as Deut. 32:11, Ex. 19:4, and Ps. 18:11, we perceive the sense in which wings are attributed to the (shiqqutzim), the idolatrous objects.  (* The interpretation of J. D. Michaelis, which has been revived by Hofmann, needs no serious refutation. They hold that (kenaf shiqqutzim) signifies an idol-bird, and denotes the eagle of Jupiter or Zeus. Hofm. repeats this interpretation in his Schriftbew. ii. 2, p.592, after he had abandoned it.*) In the first of these passages (Deut. 32:11), wings, the wings of an eagle, are attributed to God, because He is the power which raises up Israel, and lifting it up, and carrying it throughout its history, guides it over the earth. In Ps. 18 wings are attributed to the wind, because the wind is contemplated as the power which carries out the will of God throughout the kingdom of nature. “Thus in this passage wings are attributed to the (shiqqutzim) idol-objects, and to idolatry with its abominations, because that shall be the power which lifts upwards the destroyer and desolater, carries him, and moves with him over the earth to lay waste ” (Klief.)  (* Similarly, and independently of Kliefoth, Kranichfeld also explains the words: “The powerful heathen enemy of God is here conceived of as carried on (`al) these wings of the idol-abomination, like as the God of the theocracy is borne on the wings of the clouds, and on cherubim, who are His servants; cf. Ps. 18:11, 104:3.” *)

                The last clause, (we`ad-kalah wgu‘), is differently construed, according as the subject to (tittak), which is wanting, or appears to be wanting, is sought to be supplied from the context. Against the supposition of Hāvernick and Ebrard, who take 3133′.“ as impersonal: “it pours down,” it is rightly objected that this word is never so found, and can so much the less be so interpreted here, since in ver. 11 it is preceded by a definite subject. Others supply a subject, such as anger (Berth.), or curse and oath from ver. 11; the former is quite arbitrary, the latter is too far-fetched. Others, again (Hengstenberg, Maurer), take (kalah wenecheratzah) (the consummation and that determined) as the subject. This is correct according to the matter. We cannot, however, so justify the regarding of (we`ad) as a conjunction: till that; for, though (we`ad) is so used, (we`ad) is not; nor, once more, can we justify the taking of (kalah wenecheratzah) as a whole as the subject (Hofmann), or of alone as the subject (v. Leng., Hitzig, Kliefoth), since (we`ad) is not repeated before (wenecheratzah) on account of the (w) (with v. Leng), nor is alone supplied (with Hitz.), nor is the (w)  before (wenecheratzah)to be regarded (with Klief.) as a sign of the conclusion. Where 1 introduces the conclusion, as e.g. ch. 8:14, it is there united with the verb, and thus the expression here should in that case be (wethittak necheratzah). The relative interpretation of (tittak) is the only one which is verbally admissible, whereby the words, “and till the consummation and that determined,” are epexegetically connected to the foregoing clause: “and till the consummation and that determined which shall pour down upon the desolater.” The words (kalah wenecheratzah)  remind us of Isa. 10:23 and 28:22, and signify that which is completed = altogether and irrevocably concluded, i.e. substantially the inflexibly decreed judgment of destruction. The words have here this meaning, as is clear from the circumstance that (necheratzah) points back to (necheratzah shomemoth) (ver. 26, desolations are determined), and (`ad kalah) corresponds to (`ad qetz) (ver. 26). In ch. 11:31 (meshomem)  is not in a similar manner to be identified with (shomem), but has the active signification: “laying waste,” while (shomem); has the passive: “laid waste.” Both words refer to the Nagid, but with this difference, that this ungodly prince who comes as the desolater of the city and the sanctuary will on that account become desolate, that the destruction irrevocably decreed by God shall pour down upon him as a flood.

                Let us now, after explaining the separate clauses, present briefly the substance of this divine revelation. We find that the verses 25-27 contain the following announcement: From the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the appearance of the Messias seven weeks shall pass away; after that, during three score and two (62) weeks the city shall be restored and built up amid the oppressions of the times; but after the sixty-two (62) weeks the Messias shall be cut off, so that to Him nothing remains, and the city, together with the sanctuary, shall be destroyed by the people of a prince who shall come, who shall find his end in the flood; but the war shall continue to the end, since destruction is irrevocably decreed. That prince shall force a strong covenant for one week on the mass of the people, and during half a week shall take away the service of sacrifice, and, borne on the wings of idol-abominations, shall carry on a desolating rule, till the firmly decreed judgment shall pour itself upon him as one desolated —According to this, the first seven weeks are determined merely according to their beginning and their end, and nothing further is said as to their contents than may be concluded from the definition of its terminus a quo, “to restore and to build Jerusalem,” namely, that the restoring and the building of this city shall proceed during the period of time indicated. The sixty-two (62) weeks which follow these seven (7)weeks, ending with the coming of the Messias, have the same contents, only with the more special definition, that the restoration and the building in the broad open place and in the limited place shall be carried on in oppressive times. Hence it is clear that this restoration and building cannot denote the rebuilding of the city which was destroyed by the Chaldeans, but refers to the preservation and extension of Jerusalem to the measure and compass determined by God in the Messianic time, or under the dominion of the Messias, since He shall come at the end of the seven (7) weeks, and after the expiry of the sixty-two (62) weeks connected therewith shall be out off, so that nothing remains to Him.

                The statements of the angel (vers. 26, 27) regarding the one week, which, because of the connection, can only be the seventieth (70th), or the last of the seventy (70), are more ample. The cutting off of the Messias forms the beginning of this week; then follows the destruction of the city and of the sanctuary by the people of the coming prince, who shall find his end in the flood, not immediately after his coming, but at the end of this week; for the war shall continue to the end, and the prince shall take away the service of sacrifice during half a week, till the desolation determined as a flood shall pour down upon him, and make the desolater desolated. If we compare with this the contents of ver. 24, according to which seventy (70) weeks are determined to restrain transgression, to make an end of sin and iniquity, partly by atonement and partly by shutting up, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to consecrate a new most holy, we shall find that the reciprocal statements are so related to each other, that vers. 25-27 present what shall be done in the course of the seventy (70) weeks, which are divided into three periods, but ver. 24 what shall be the result of all these things. The seventieth (70th) weekends, according to ver. 27, with the judgment on the destroyer of the city and the sanctuary of God; but with this judgment shall be the conclusion of the divine counsel of salvation, or the kingdom of God shall be consummated. This was revealed to the prophet in ch. 7, and thus does not need to be here expressly repeated. If that which, according to ver. 24, shall happen with the expiry of the seventy (70) appointed weeks stood after ver. 27, then would the connection of the judgment on the last enemy of God with the consummation of the kingdom of God appear here also distinctly to view. But it was not necessary after ch. 7 to give express prominence to this connection here; and Gabriel here first mentions the positive aim and end of the divine plan of salvation with Israel, because he gives to the prophet a comforting answer to remove his deep distress on account of his own sins, and the sin and guilt of his people, and therein cannot conceal the severe affliction which the future would bring, because he will announce to him that by the sins of the people the working out of the deliverance designed by God for them shall not be frustrated, but that in spite of the  great guilt of Israel the kingdom of God shall be perfected in glory, sin and iniquity blotted out, everlasting righteousness restored, the prophecy of the judgment and of salvation completed, and the sanctuary where God shall in truth dwell among His people erected. In order to establish this promise, so rich in comfort, and firmly to ratify it to Daniel, he unveils to him (vers. 25-27), in its great outlines, the progress of the development of the kingdom of God, first from the end of the Exile to the coming of the Messias ; then from the appearance of Christ to the time far in the future, when Christ shall be cut off, so that nothing remains to Him; and finally, the time of the supremacy and of the victory of the destroyer of the church of God, the Antichrist, and the destruction of this enemy by the irrevocably determined final judgment. If, now, in this he says nothing particular regarding the first period of this development, regarding the time from the Exile to Christ, the reason is, that he had already said all that was necessary regarding the development of the world-kingdom, and its relation to the kingdom and people of God, in the preceding revelation in ch. 8. It is the same angel Gabriel who (ch. 8) comforted Daniel, and interpreted to him the vision of the second and third world-kingdom, and who here brings to him further revelations in answer to his prayer regarding the restoration of the holy city, which was lying in ruins, as is expressly remarked in ver. 21. —Also regarding the second long period which passes from the appearance of the Messias to His annihilation (Vernichtung), i.e. the destruction of His kingdom on the earth, little is apparently said, but in reality in the few words very much is said: that during this whole period the restoration and building shall proceed amid the oppressions of the times, namely, that the kingdom of God shall be built up to the extent determined by God in this long period, although amid severe persecution. This persecution shall during the last week mount up to the height of the cutting off of Christ and the destruction of His kingdom on the earth; but then with the extermination of the prince, the enemy of God, it shall reach its end.                 But if, according to what has been said, this revelation presents the principal outlines of the development of the kingdom of God from the time of Daniel to its consummation at the end of this epoch of the world, the seventy (70) (shabu`im) which are appointed for it cannot be year-weeks, or cycles of seven years, but only symbolically defined periods of measured duration. This result of our exposition contradicts, however, the usual interpretations of this prophecy so completely, that in order to confirm our exposition, we must put thoroughly to the test the two classes of opposing interpretations —which, however, agree in this, that the definitions of time are to be understood chronologically, and that under the (shabu`im) year-weeks are to be understood— and examine whether a chronological reckoning is in all respects tenable.

                The first class of expositors who find the appearance of Christ in the flesh and His crucifixion, as well as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, prophesied of in this passage, adduce in support of their view, partly the agreement of the chronological periods, partly the testimony of Christ, who referred ver. 27 to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. ‘How does it now stand with these two arguments?

                The first Hengstenberg (Christol. iii. 1, p.137) introduces with the remark, “The predominant view in the synagogue and in the church has always been, that the seventy (70)weeks, as well as the shorter periods into which the whole period is divided, are closely fixed and limited. The opposite supposition becomes very suspicious by this, that it is maintained only by such as come into conflict with the chronology by their hypotheses, or take no interest in chronological investigations.” He then seeks first to confute the arguments brought forward in favour of the supposition that the chronological definitions are only given in the lump (in Bausch und Bogen), and then to present the positive arguments for the definiteness of the chronological statements. But he has in this identified the definiteness of the prophecy in general with its chronological definiteness, while there is between these two ideas a noticeable difference. Of the positive arguments adduced, the first is, that the seventy (70) weeks stand in closer relation to the seventy (70) years of Jeremiah, in so far as regards chronological definiteness, when the seventy years of Jeremiah are understood as strictly chronological and as chronologically fulfilled. But the force of this argument is neutralized by the fact, that in Jeremiah a chronologically described period, “years,” is in this prophecy, on the contrary, designated by a name the meaning of which is disputed, at all events is chronologically indefinite, since weeks, if seven-day periods are excluded by the contents of the prophecy, can as well signify Sabbath or jubilee periods, seven year or seven times seven-year epochs. Still weaker is the second argument, that all the other designations of time with reference to the future in the book of Daniel are definite; for this is applicable only to the designations in ch. 8:14 and 12:11,12, in which evening-mornings and days are named, but not to the passages ch. 7:25, 12:7, and 4:13 (16), where the chronologically indefinite expression, time, times, occurs, which are arbitrarily identified with years.

                There remains thus, for the determination of the time spoken of in this prophecy, only the argument from its fulfilment, which should give the decision for the chronological definiteness. But, on the contrary, there arises a grave doubt, from the circumstance that among the advocates of the so-called “church Messianic interpretation” the terminus a quo of the prophecy is disputed: for some of these interpreters take the edict of Cyrus (B.C. 536) as such, while, on the other hand, others take the edict which Artaxerxes issued on the return of Ezra to Jerusalem for the restoration of the service of God according to the law, in the seventeenth year of his reign, i.e. in the year B.C. 457, and others, again, among whom is Hengstenberg, take the journey of Nehemiah to Jerusalem with the permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, i.e. B.C. 445, or according to Hengstenberg, B.C. 455, as the terminus a quo of the seventy (70) weeks —a difference of eighty-one (81) years, which in chronological reckoning is very noticeable.

                In our interpretation of ver. 25, we have given our decided opinion that the (dabar lehashibh wgu‘), from the going forth of which seventy (70) years are to be reckoned, refers to the edict of Cyrus permitting the Jews to return to their fatherland, and the arguments in favour of that opinion are given in p.352. Against this reference to the edict of Cyrus, Hāvernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen have objected that in that edict there is nothing said of building up the city, and that under Cyrus, as well as under the succeeding kings, Cambyses, Darius Hystaspes, and Xerxes, nothing also is done for the building of the city. We find it still unbuilt in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:8, 10:13; Neh. 1:3, 2:3, 5:34, 4:1, 7:4). Although from the nature of the case the building of the temple supposes the existence also of houses in Jerusalem (cf. Hag. 1:4), yet there is not a. single trace of any royal permission for the restoration of the people and the rebuilding of the city. Much rather this was expressly forbidden (Ezra 4:7-23) by the same Artaxerxes Longimanus (who at a later period gave the permission however), in consequence of the slanderous reports of the Samaritans. “There was granted to the Jews a religious, but not a political restoration.” For the first time in the seventh (7th) year of Artaxerxes Longimanus the affairs of Israel took a favourable turn. In that year Artaxerxes granted to Ezra permission to go to Jerusalem, entrusting him with royal letters of great importance (Ezra 7:11-26, particularly vers. 18, 25 f.); in his twentieth (20th) year he gave to Nehemiah express permission to rebuild the city (Neh. 2). Following the example of the old chronologist Julius Africanus in Jerome and many others, Hāv., Hgstb., Reinke, Reusch, and others regard the twentieth (20th) year of Artaxerxes, while Auberlen, with Calovius, Newton, M. Geier, Gaussen, Pusey, and others, regard the seventh (7th) year, as the terminus a quo of the seventy (70) weeks. But that the arguments derived from the absence of any mention being made in the edict of Cyrus of the building of Jerusalem against the reference of (motza’ dabar wgu‘) to that edict are not very strong, at least are not decisive, is manifest from what Auberlen has advanced for the seventh (7th) and against the twentieth (20th) year. Proceeding from the proposition, correct in itself, that the time of Ezra and that of Nehemiah form one connected period of blessing for Israel, Auberlen thence shows that the edict relating to Nehemiah had only a secondary importance, as the sacred narrative itself indicates by the circumstance that it does not mention the edict at all (Neh. 2:7,8), while the royal letters to Ezra (Ezra 8) are given at large. Since it was the same king Artaxerxes who sent away Ezra as well as Nehemiah, his heart must have been favourably inclined toward Israel in his seventh year. “ Then must the word for the restoration and building of Jerusalem have gone forth from God.” The consciousness of this is expressed by Ezra himself, when, after recording the royal edict (ch. 7:27), he continues: “Blessed be Jehovah, the God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king’s heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem; and hath extended mercy to me before the king and his counsellors, and before all the king’s mighty princes.”

                But, we must reply, wherein does the mercy extended to Ezra before the king consist? Is it in the permission to build up Jerusalem? Certainly not, but in the beautifying of the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem. And to that alone the royal authority granted to Ezra (Ezra 7) refers. Of the building of the city there is not a word said. Only the means, as it appears, of restoring the temple-worship, which had fallen into great decay, and of re-establishing the law of God corresponding thereto, were granted to him in the long edict issued by the king.  ((* Auberlen, it is true, remarks (p.138): “ The authority given to Ezra is so extensive that it essentially includes the rebuilding of the city. It refers certainly, for the most part [rather wholly], to the service of the sanctuary; but not only must Ezra set up judges (ch. 8:25), he is also expressly permitted by the king to expend as it seems good to him the rest of the silver and gold (ch. 7:18). How he then understood the commission, Ezra himself says clearly and distinctly in his prayer of repentance: ‘Our Lord hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof (of our God), and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem.’ The argument from this passage lies not merely in the (gader) (encircling wall), but especially in this, ‘to repair the desolations thereof.’ This could not be the desolations of the temple, which had been long before this rebuilt, and therefore we may understand by it the desolations of Jerusalem.” But the strength of this argumentation rests merely on a verbally free rendering of the verse referred to (Ezra 9:9). The circumstance that Ezra speaks of the kings (in the plur.) of Persia, who showed favour to the Jews, indicates that he meant not merely that which Artaxerxes had done and would yet do in the future, but that he refers also to the manifestation of favour on the part of kings Cyrus, Darius Hystaspes, and Artaxerxes; thus also the expression, “to give us a wall,” cannot refer to the permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, which Artaxerxes some years later first granted to Nehemiah. Moreover, the expression, “to give us a (gader) in Judah and Jerusalem,” shows that by (gader) cannot be understood the fortified walls of Jerusalem; for (gader) never denotes the walls of a city or fortress as such, but always only the encompassing wall of a vineyard, which meaning is found in Mic. 7:11, Ezek. 13:5. is therefore to be understood here figuratively: encompassing wall in the sense of divine protection; and the meaning is not this: “that the place protected by the wall lies in Judah and Jerusalem; but in Judah and Jerusalem the Persian kings have given to the new congregation of the people a secure dwelling-place, because the power of the Persian kings secured to the Israelites who had returned from captivity the undisturbed and continued possession of their land ” (Bertheau). The objection also, that (charbothayu) cannot be the ruins of the temple, because it was already built, is set aside as soon as we express the infinitive (leha`amid), as it is rightly done, by the praeterite, whereby this word refers to the completed building of the temple. Cf. with this Hengstenberg’s extended refutation of this argument of Auberlen’s (Christol. iii. 1, p.144).*))    If the clause, “from the going forth of the commandment,” etc., cannot refer to the edict of Cyrus, because in it there is no express mention made of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, so also, for the same reason, it cannot refer to that which was issued by Artaxerxes in favour of Ezra. Auberlen’s remark, however, is correct, when he says that the edict relating to Nehemiah is of secondary importance when compared with that relating to Ezra. Strictly speaking, there is no mention made of an edict relating to Nehemiah; Nehemiah, as cup-bearer of Artaxerxes, entreated of the king the favour of being sent to Judah, to the city of his fathers’ sepulchres, that he might build it; and the king (the queen also sitting by him) granted him this request, and gave him letters to all the governors on this side the Euphrates, that they should permit him undisturbed to prosecute his journey, and to the overseers of the royal forests, that they should give him wood “for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city ” (Neh. 2:4-8). However important this royal favour was in its consequences for Jerusalem, —for Nehemiah built the walls of the city, and thereby raised Jerusalem to a fortified city guarded against hostile assaults,— yet the royal favour for this undertaking was not such as to entitle it to be designated as (motza’ datzar wgu‘), a going forth of a commandment of God. But if, in favour of the reference of (motza’ dabar) to the edict of Ezra, Auberlen (p.128 ff.) attaches special importance to the circumstance that in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are recorded two periods of post-exilian history, the first of which —namely, the time of Zerubbabel and of the high priest Joshua under Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes —we may designate the period of the building of the temple, the second —namely, the time of Ezra the priest, and Nehemiah the Tirshatha, under Artaxerxes Longimanus— we may designate the period of the restoration of the people and the building of the city, —the former the time of the religious, and the latter that of the political restoration; and, in seeking to establish this view, he interprets the first part of the book of Ezra as a whole in itself, and the second as a whole taken in combination with the book of Nehemiah; —if this is his position, then Hengstenberg has already (Christol. iii. p.149) shown the incorrectness of this division of the book of Ezra, and well remarks that the whole book of Ezra has the temple as its central-point, and views with reference to it the mission of Ezra as well as that of Zerubbabel and Joshua. There is certainly an inner connection of the mission of Ezra with that of Nehemiah, but it consists only in this, that Ezra’s religious reformation was secured by Nehemiah’s political reform. From the special design of the work of Ezra, to describe the restoration of the temple and of the service of God, we must also explain the circumstance that nothing is said in it of the building of the city of Jerusalem. Besides, this building, before Nehemiah’s arrival in Judah, had not further advanced than to the re-erection of houses for the returned exiles who had settled in Jerusalem. Every attempt to restore the walls was hindered and frustrated by the enemies of Judah, so that the gates and the walls were yet lying burnt and in ruins on Nehemiah’s arrival (Neh. 1:3, 2:3, 5). Therefore neither the absence of any mention in the decree of Cyrus of the building of the city, nor the fact that the rebuilding of the city walls was first effected by Nehemiah, forms a decisive argument against the reference of (motza’ datzar wgu‘) to this edict; and we must maintain this reference as the only correct one, because this edict only, but not that which gave permission to Ezra or that which gave authority to Nehemiah to build the city walls, formed an epoch marking a crisis in the development of the theocracy, as this is connected in the announcement of Gabriel with the going forth of the word to restore Jerusalem.

                Not less doubtful is the matter of the definition of the terminus ad quem of the seventy (70) was), and of the chronological reckoning of the whole period. As for the terminus ad quem, a sharply defined factum must form the conclusion of the sixty-ninth week; for at this point the public appearance of Christ, His being anointed with the Holy Ghost, is named as the end of the prophecy. If this factum occurred, according to Luke iii. 1, in the year of Rome 782, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes—i.e. the year 455 B.O., according to the usual chronology—would be the year 299 A.U.C.; if we add to that sixty-nine weeks = 483 years, then it gives the year 782 A.U.0. In the middle of this last week, beginning with the appearance of the Anointed, occurred His death, while the confirming of the covenant extends through the whole of it. With reference to the death of Christ, the prophecy and its fulfilment closely agree, since that event took place three and a half years after His baptism. But the terminus ad quem of the confirming of the covenant, as one more or less moveable, is capable of no definite chronological determination. It is sufficient to remark, that in the first years after the death of Christ the (eklogē) of the Old Covenant people was gathered together, and then the message of Christ was brought also to the heathen, so that the prophet might rightly represent the salvation as both subjectively and objectively consummated at the end of the seventy (70) weeks for the covenant people, of whom alone he speaks (Hgst. pp. 163 f., 180). Thus also Auberlen, who, however, places the end of the seventy weeks in the factum of the stoning of Stephen, with which the Jews pressed, shook down, and made full to the overflowing the measure of their sins, already filled by the murder of the Messias; so that now the period of grace yet given to them after the work of Christ had come to an end, and the judgment fell upon Israel.

                We will not urge against the precise accuracy of the fulfilment arrived at by this calculation, that the terminus a quo adopted by Hengstenberg, viz. the twentieth (20th) year of Artaxerxes, coincides with the 455th year B.C. only on the supposition that Xerxes reigned but eleven (11) years, and that Artaxerxes came to the throne ten (10) years earlier than the common reckoning, according to which Xerxes reigned twenty-one (21) years, and that the correctness of this view is opposed by Hofm., Kleinert, Wieseler, and others, because the arguments for and against it are evenly balanced; but with Preiswerk, whose words Auberlen (p.144) quotes with approbation, considering the uncertainty of ancient chronology on many points, we shall not lay much stress on calculating the exact year, but shall regard the approximate coincidence of the prophetical with the historical time as a sufficient proof that there may possibly have been an exact correspondence in the number of years, and that no one, at all events, can prove the contrary. But we must attach importance to this, that in this calculation a part of the communication of the angel is left wholly out of view. “The angel announces not merely the cutting off” of the Messias after seven and sixty-two (62) weeks, but also the coming of the people of a prince who shall lay waste the city and the sanctuary, which all interpreters who understand (yikkareth mashiach) of the death of Christ refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple by the Romans; he also says that this war shall last till the end of the seventy (70) weeks, The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans followed the death of Christ, not after an interval of only three and a half (3 1/2) years, but of thirty years. Accordingly, the seventy (70) weeks must extend to the year 70 A.D., whereby the whole calculation is shown to be inaccurate. If we yet further remark, that the advocates of this exposition of the prophecy are in a position to give no sufficient reason for the dividing of the sixty-nine (69) weeks into seven (7) and sixty-two (62), and that their reference of the seven (7) weeks to the time of the rebuilding of Jerusalem under Nehemiah, and of the sixty-two (62) weeks to the period from the completion of this building to the appearance of Christ in the flesh, stands in open contradiction to the words of the text; finally, that the placing of the twentieth (20th)  year of Artaxerxes as the terminus a quo of the reckoning of the (motza’ dabar) cannot be correct, —then may we also regard the much commended exact concord of the prophecy with the actual events of history derived from this interpretation of the verse as only an illusion, since from the “going forth of the word” to restore Jerusalem to the destruction of that city by Titus, not seventy (70) weeks or 490 years elapsed, but, according as we date the going forth of this word in the year 536 or 455 B.C., 606 or 525 years, i.e. more than eighty-six (86), or at least seventy-five (75), year-weeks, passed. This great gulf, which thus shows itself in the calculation of the (shab`uim) as year-weeks, between the prophecy and its chronological fulfilment, is not bridged over by the remark with which Auberlen (p.141) has sought to justify his supposition that Ezra’s return to Judah in the year 457 B.C. formed the terminus a quo of the seventy  (70) weeks, while yet the word of the angel announcing the restoration and the building up of Jerusalem first finds its actual accomplishment in the building of the city walls on Nehemiah’s return—the remark, namely, that the external building-up of the city had the same relation to the terminus a quo of Daniel’s seventy (70)  year-weeks as the external destruction of Jerusalem to that of Jeremiah’s seventy (70)  years. “The latter begin as early as the year 606 B.C., and therefore eighteen (18) years before the destruction of Jerusalem, for at that time the kingdom of Judah ceased to exist as an independent theocracy; the former begin thirteen (13) years before the rebuilding of the city, because then the re-establishment of the theocracy began.” We find a repetition of the same phenomenon at the end of the seventy (70)  weeks. “These extend to the year 33 AD. From this date Israel was at an end, though the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans did not take place till the year 70 A.D.” For Jeremiah did not prophesy that the destruction of Jerusalem should last for seventy (70)  years, but only that the land of Judah would be desolate seventy (70)  years, and that for so long a time its inhabitants would serve the king of Babylon. The desolating of the land and Judah’s subjugation to the king of Babylon did not begin with the destruction of Jerusalem, but with the first siege of the city by Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e. in the year 606 B.C., and continued till the liberation of the Jews from Babylonian bondage by Cyrus in the first year of his reign, in the year 536 B.C., and thus after seventy (70)  years were fully accomplished. Jeremiah’s chronologically definite prophecy is thus accurately fulfilled; but Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy (70)  weeks is neither chronologically defined by years, nor has it been altogether so fulfilled as that the 70, 7, 62, and 1 week can be reckoned by year- weeks.

                The New Testament also does not necessitate our seeking the end of the seventy (70) weeks in the judgment the Romans were the means of executing against the ancient Jerusalem, which had rejected and crucified the Saviour. Nowhere in the N.T. is this prophecy, particularly the (yikkareth mashiach), referred to the crucifixion of our Lord; nor has Christ or the apostles interpreted these verses, 26,27 of this chapter, of the desolation and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. However general the opinion may be that Christ, in speaking of His (parousia), Matt. 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, in the words (hotan idēte to bdelugma tēs erēmōseōs to hrēthen dia Daniēl tou prophētou, k.t.l.) (Matt. 24:15, cf. Mark 13:14), had before His eyes this prophecy (Dan. 9:26,27), yet that opinion is without foundation, and is not established by the arguments which Hāvernick (Dan. p.383 f.), Wieseler (die 70 Wochen, p.173 ff.), Hengstenberg (Beitr. i. p.258 H., and Christol. iii. 1, p. 113 ff.), and Auberlen (Dan. p. 120 f.) have brought forward for that purpose. We have already, in explaining the words (`al kenaf shiqqutzim), ver. 27, p.370, shown that the (to bdelugma tēs erēmōseōs), found in the discourse of Christ, is not derived from Dan. 9:27, but from Dan. 11:31 or 12:11, where the LXX. have rendered (shiqqutz meshomem) by (to bdelugma tēs erēmōseōs). For the further confirmation of the arguments in behalf of this view there presented, we wish to add the following considerations. The appeal to the fact that Josephus, in the words (Antt. x. 11. 7) (Daniēlos kai peri tēs tōn HRōmaiōn hēgemonias anegrapse, kai hoti hup’ autōn ēremōthēsetai), referred to the prophecy Dan. 9, and gave this interpretation not only as a private view of his own, but as (cf. De Bell. Jud. iv. 6. 3) (palaios logos andrōn), i.e. represented the view of his people, as commonly received, even by the Zealots, —this would form a valid proof that Dan. 9 was at that time commonly referred to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, only, however, if besides this no other prophecy of the book of Daniel could be apparently referred to the destruction of the Jewish state by the Romans. But this is not the case. Josephus and his contemporaries could find such a prophecy in that of the great enemy (Dan. 7:25) who would arise out of the fourth or Roman world-kingdom, and would persecute and destroy the saints of the Most High. What Josephus adduces as the contents of the (palaios logos andrōn), namely, (tote tēn polin halōsesthai kai kataphlegēsesthai ta hagia nomō polemou), occurs neither in ch. 9 nor in any other part of the book of Daniel, and was not so defined till after the historical fulfilment. Wieseler, indeed, thinks (p.154) that the words (tēn polin kataphlegēsesthai, k.t.l.), perfectly correspond with the words of Daniel, (weha`ir we haqodesh yashchith), ch. 9:26 (shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, E.V.); but he also concedes that Josephus interpreted the kind of desolation, perhaps with reference to Dan. 11:33 (? 31), after the result, as a total desolation. It is thus granted that not only in ch. 9, but also in ch. 11, Daniel predicted a desolation of the city and the sanctuary which could be interpreted of their destruction by the Romans, and the opinion, that besides ch. 9 no other part of Daniel can be found, is abandoned as incorrect. But the other circumstances which Josephus brings forward in the passage quoted, particularly that the Zealots by the desecration of the temple contributed to the fulfilling of that (palaios logos), are much more distinctly contained in Dan. 11:31 than in ch. 9:26, where we must first introduce this sense in the words (ver. 27) (`al kenaf shiqqutzim meshomem) (on the wing of abominations one causing desolation). Similarly the other passages are constituted in which Josephus speaks of ancient prophecies which have been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. No one specially points to Dan. 9.

                But if the proof from Josephus could be made more valid than has yet been done, that the Jews of his time referred Dan. 9 to the overthrow of the Jewish commonwealth by the Romans, yet thereby it would not be proved that Christ also shared this Jewish opinion, and set it forth in His discourse, Matt. 24, as an undoubted truth. In favour of this view it has indeed been argued, “that the (en topō hagiō) fully corresponds to (epi to hieron bdelugma tēs erēmōseōs) (LXX., Dan. 9:27):” Hengstenberg, Christol. p. 117. But it is still more inconsistent with the proof from the Alexandrian translation of the verses before us than it is with that from Josephus. In the form of the LXX text that has come down to us there are undoubtedly two different paraphrases or interpretations of the Hebrew text of vers. 26 and 27 penetrating each other, and therein the obscure words of Daniel (after ch. 11:31 and 12:11) are so interpreted that they contain a reference to the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus. (* That the Septuagint version (ch. 11:31, 11, 9:24-27) is not in reality a translation, but rather an explanation of the passage as the LXX. understood it, is manifest. “They regard,” as Klief. rightly judges, “ver. 24 and the first half of ver. 25 as teaching that it was prophesied to Daniel that Israel would soon return from exile, that Daniel also would return, and Jerusalem be built. The rest they treat very freely. They take the second half of ver. 25 out of its place, and insert it after the first clause of ver. 27; they also take the closing words of ver. 26 out of their place, and insert them after the second clause of ver. 27. The passage thus arranged they then interpret of Antiochus Epiphanes. They add together all the numbers they find in the text (70 + 7 + 62: 139), and understand by them years, the years of the Seleucidan aera, so that they descend to the second year of Antiochus Epiphanes. Then they interpret all the separate statements of the times and actions of Antiochus Epiphanes in a similar manner as do the modern interpreters. Cf. Wieseler, p.200 ff.”)   The (`al kenaf shiqqutzim), incomprehensible to the translators, they interpreted after the (chillelu hammiqdash), ch. 11:31, and derived from it the (epi to hieron). But Christ derived the expression (to bdelugma tēs erēmōseōs) as well as the (hestos en topō hagiō) from ch. 11:31, cf. with ch. 12:11, but not from ch. 9:27, where neither the original text, “on the wings of abomination shall the desolater come,” nor the LXX translation, (epi to hieron bdelugma tōn erēmōseōn estai)—“over the sanctuary shall the abomination of the desolations come,” leads to the idea of a “standing,” or a “being placed,” of the abomination of desolation. The standing (hestōs) without doubt supposes the placing, which corresponds to the (wenathnu) (dōsousi, LXX) and the (welatheth) (hetoimasthē dothēnai, LXX.), and the (en topō hagiō) points to hammiqdash), ch. 11:31, since by the setting up of the abomination of desolation, the sanctuary, or the holy place of the temple, was indeed desecrated.

                The prophecy in Dan. 11 treats, as is acknowledged, of the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus Epiphanes. If thus the Lord, in His discourse, had spoken of the (bdelugma tēs erēmōseōs) as a sign of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, it would not remotely follow that He referred this prophecy (ch. 9) to that catastrophe. Much more would He then, as Kliefoth (p. 412) has well remarked, “represent that which Antiochus Epiphanes did against Jerusalem as an historical type of that which the Romans would do.” He would only say, “As once was done to Jerusalem by Antiochus, according to the word of Daniel, so shall it again soon be done; and therefore, if ye see repeating themselves the events which occurred under Antiochus in the fulfilment of Daniel’s word, then know ye that it is the time for flight.” But regarding the meaning which Christ found in Dan. 9:26 and 27, not the least intimation would follow therefrom.

                But in the discourse in question the Lord prophesied nothing whatever primarily or immediately of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, but treated in it, as we have already remarked, p.370, generally of His (parousia) and the (sunteleia tou aiōnos), which He places only in connection with the destruction of the temple. The occasion of the discourse, as well as its contents, show this. After He had left the temple, never to enter it again, shortly before His last sufferings, while standing on the Mount of Olives, He announces to His disciples, who pointed to the temple, the entire destruction of that building; whereupon they say to Him, “ Tell us (pote tauta estai kai ti to sēmeion tēs sēs parousias kai sunteleias tou aiōnos)?” for they believe that this destruction and His (parousia) take place together at the end of the world. This question the Lord replies to in a long discourse, in which He gives them the wished for information regarding the sign (sēmeion), Matt. 24:4-31), and regarding the time (pote) of His (parousia) and the end of the world (vers. 32-34). The information concerning the sign begins with a warning totake heed and beware of being deceived; for that false messiahs would appear, and wars and tumults of nations rising up one against another, and other plagues, would come (vers. 4-7). All this would be only the beginning of the woes, i.e. of the afflictions which then would come upon the confessors of His name; but the end would not come till the gospel was first preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations (vers. 8-14). Then He speaks of the signs which immediately precede the end, namely, of the abomination of desolation in the holy place of which Daniel prophesied. With this a period of tribulation would commence such as never yet had been, so that if these days should not be shortened for the elect’s sake, no one would be saved (vers. 15-28). To this He adds, in conclusion, the description of His own (parousia), which would immediately (eutheōs) follow this great tribulation (vers. 29-31). He connects with the description of His return (ver. 32 f.) a similitude, with which He answers the question concerning its time, and thus continues: “When ye see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, this (genea) shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (vers. 33, 34, 36).

                From this brief sketch of the course of the thought it clearly appears that the Lord speaks expressly neither of the destruction of Jerusalem, nor yet of the time of that event. What is to be understood by (bdelugma t. er.). He supposes to be known to the disciples from the book of Daniel, and only says to them that they must flee when they see this standing in the holy place, so that they may escape destruction (ver. 15 ff.). Only in Luke is there distinct reference to the destruction of Jerusalem; for there we find, instead of the reference to the abomination of desolation, the words, “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that its (erēmosis) is nigh (Luke 21:20). According to the record of all the three evangelists, however, the Lord not only connects in the closest manner the tribulation commencing with the appearance of the (bdelugma t. er.), or with the siege of Jerusalem, with the last great tribulation which opens the way for His return, but He also expressly says, that immediately after the tribulation of those days (Matt. 24:29), or in those days of that tribulation (Mark 13:24), or then (tote), Luke  21:27), the Son of man shall come in the clouds in great power and glory. From this close connection of His visible (parousia) with the desolation of the holy place or the siege of Jerusalem, it does not, it is true, follow that “by the oppression of Jerusalem connected with the (parousia), and placed immediately before it, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans cannot possibly be meant;” much rather that the discourse is “of a desecration and an oppression by Antichrist which would come upon the (topos hagios) and Jerusalem in the then future time, immediately before the return of the Lord, in the days of the (thlipsis megale) (Kliefoth). But just as little does it follow from that close connection —as the eschatological discourse, Matt. 24, is understood by most interpreters— that the Lord Himself, as well as His disciples, regarded as contemporaneous the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and His visible return in the last days, or saw as in prophetic perspective His (parousia) behind the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and thus, without regard to the sequence of time, spoke first of the one event and then of the other. The first conclusion is inadmissible for this reason, that the disciples had made inquiry regarding the time of the destruction of the temple then visibly before them. If the Lord, in His answer to this question, by making mention of the (bdelugma t. e. hestos en topō hagiō), had no thought of this temple, but only of the (topos hagios) of the future, the temple of the Christian church, then by the use of words which the disciples could not otherwise understand than of the laying waste and the desolation of the earthly sanctuary He would have confirmed them in their error. The second conclusion is out of harmony with the whole course of thought in the discourse. Besides, both of them are decidedly opposed by this, that the Lord, after setting forth all the events which precede and  open the way for His (parousia) and the end of the world, says to the disciples, “When ye see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors” (Matt. xxiv. 33), and solemnly adds, “This veiled,” i.e. the generation then living, “shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled” (ver. 34). Since the (panta tauta) in ver. 33 comprehends all that goes before the (parousia), all the events mentioned in vers. 15-28, or rather in vers. 5-28, it must be taken also in the same sense in ver. 34. If, therefore, the contemporaries of Jesus and His disciples —for we can understand nothing else by (hē genea hautē) — must live to see all these events, then must they have had a commencement before the destruction of Jerusalem, and though not perfectly, yet in the small beginnings, which like a germ comprehended in them the completion. Hence it is beyond a doubt that the Lord speaks of the judgment upon Jerusalem and the Jewish temple as the beginning of His (parousia) and of the (sunteleia tou aiōnos), not merely as a preintimation of them, but as an actual commencement of His coming to judgment, which continues during the centuries of the spread of the gospel over the earth; and when the gospel shall be preached to all nations, then the season and the hour kept in His own power by the Father shall reach its completion in the (epiphaneia tēs parousias autou) (2nd Thess. 2:8) to judge the world.  (* This view of the parousia of Christ has been controverted by Dr. A. Christiani in his Bermerkungen zur Auslegung der Apocalypse mit besonderer Rūcksicht auf die chiliastische Frage (Riga 1868, p. 21), —only, however, thus, that notwithstanding the remark, “Since the words (panta tauta), Matt. 24:34, plainly refer back to ver. 33, they cannot in the one place signify more than in the other,” he yet refers these words in ver. 34 to the event of the destruction of Jerusalem, because the contemporaries of Jesus in reality lived to see it; thus giving to them, as they occur in ver. 34, a much more limited sense than that which they have in ver. 33.*)    According to this view, Christ, in His discourse, interpreted the prophecy of Daniel, ch. 11, of the abomination of desolation which should come, and had come, upon Jerusalem and Judah by Antiochus Epiphanes, as a type of the desolation of the sanctuary and of the people of God in the last time, wholly in the sense of the prophecy, which in ver. 36 passes over from the typical enemy of the saints to the enemy of the people of God in the time of the end.

                Thus the supposition that Christ referred Dan. 9:26 and 27 to the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Romans loses all support; and for the chronological reckoning of the seventy (70) weeks of Daniel, no help is obtained from the New Testament.

                We have now to take into consideration the second view regarding the historical reference of the seventy (70) weeks prevailing in our time. The opponents of the genuineness of the book of Daniel generally are agreed in this (resting on the supposition that the prophecies of Daniel do not extend beyond the death of Antiochus Epiphanes), that the destruction of this enemy of the Jews (Ant. Ep.), or the purification of the temple occurring a few years earlier, forms the terminus ad quem of the seventy (70) weeks, and that their duration is to be reckoned from the year 168 or 172 B.C. back either to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, or to the beginning of the Exile. Since now the seventy (70) year weeks or 490 years, reckoned from the year 168 or 172 B.C., would bring us to the year 658 or 662 B.C., i.e. fifty-two (52) or fifty-six (56) years before the commencement of the Exile, and the terminus a quo of Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy (70) years, a date from which cannot be reckoned any commencing period, they have for this reason sought to shorten the seventy (70) weeks. Hitzig, Ewald, Wieseler, and others suppose that the first seven (7) year-weeks (= forty-nine (49) years) are not to be taken into the reckoning along with the sixty-two (62) weeks (62), and that only sixty-two (62) weeks = 434 years are to be counted to the year 175 (Ewald), or 172 (Hitzig), as the beginning of the last week filled up by the assault of Antiochus against Judaism. But this reckoning also brings us to the year 609 or 606 B.C., the beginning of the Exile, or three years further back. To date the sixty-two (62) year-weeks from the commencement of the Exile, agrees altogether too little with the announcement that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem during sixty-two (62) weeks it shall be built, so that, of the most recent representatives of this view, no one any longer consents to hold the seventy (70) years of the exile for a time of the restoring and the building of Jerusalem. Thus Hitzig and Ewald openly declare that the reckoning is not correct, that the pseudo-Daniel has erred, and has assumed ten weeks, i.e. seventy (70) years, too many, either from ignorance of chronology, “or from a defect in thought, from an interpretation of a word of sacred Scripture, springing from certain conditions received as holy and necessary, but not otherwise demonstrable” (Ewald, p.425). By this change of the sixty-two (62) weeks = 434 years into fifty-two (52) weeks or 364 years, they reach from the year 174 to 538 B.C., the year of the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus, by whom the word “to restore Jerusalem” was promulgated. To this the seven (7) weeks (= forty-nine (49) years) are again added in order to reach the year 588 or 587 B.C., the year of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, from which the year-weeks, shortened from seventy (70) to sixty (60), are to be reckoned.

                This hypothesis needs no serious refutation. For a reckoning which places the first 7 weeks = 49 years aside, and then shortens the 62 weeks by 10 in order afterwards again to bring in the 7 weeks, can make no pretence to the name of a “scientific explanation.” When Hitzig remarks (p.170) “that the 7 weeks form the (prōton pseudos); in the (Daniel’s) reckoning, which the author must bring in; the whole theory of the 70 year-weeks demands the earlier commencement in the year 606 B.C.”—we may, indeed, with greater accuracy say that the (prōton pseudos) of the modern interpretation, which needs such exegetical art and critical violence in order to change the 70 and the 62 weeks into 60 and 52, arises out of the dogmatic supposition that the 70 weeks must end with the consecration of the temple under Antiochus, or with the death of this enemy of God.

                Among the opponents of the genuineness of the book this supposition is a dogmatic axiom, to the force of which the words of Scripture must yield. But this supposition is adopted also by interpreters such as Hofmann, Reichel (die 70 Jahreswochen Dan.ix. 9:24-27, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p.735 ff.), Fries, and others, who recognise the genuineness of the book of Daniel, and hold the announcement of the angel in these verses to be a divine revelation. These interpreters have adopted this view for this reason, that in the description of the hostile prince who shall persecute Israel and desecrate the sanctuary, and then come to his end with terror (vers. 26 and 27), they believe that they recognise again the image of Antiochus Epiphanes, whose enmity against the people and the sanctuary of God is described, ch. 8:9 ff., 23 f. It cannot, it is true, be denied that there is a certain degree of similarity between the two. If in vers. 26 and 27 it is said of the hostile prince that he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and put an end to the sacrifice and the meat-offering for half a week, then it is natural to think of the enemy of whom it is said : he “shall destroy the mighty and the holy people” (E.V. ch. 8:24), “and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away” (ch. 8:11), “and he shall take away the daily sacrifice” (ch. 11:31), especially if, with Hofmann, we adopt the view (Schriftbew. ii. 2, p. 592) that between the expressions “take away the daily sacrifice” (hattamid [hesiu remove] herim), and “he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease” (yashbith zebach uminchah), there “is no particular distinction.” (* We confine ourselves here to what Hofm. in his Schriftbew. has brought forward in favour of this view, without going into the points which he has stated in his die 70 Wochen, u.s.w. p.97, but has omitted in the Schriftbew., and can with reference to that earlier argumentation only refer for its refutation to Kliefoth’s Daniel, p.417 ff.8)   But the predicate “particular” shows that Hofmann does not reject every distinction; and, indeed, there exists a not inconsiderable distinction; for, as we have already remarked, (hattamidh) denotes only that which is permanent in worship, as e.g. the daily morning and evening sacrifice; while, on the other hand, (zebah hattamidh) denotes the whole series of sacrifices together. The making to cease of the bloody and the unbloody sacrifices expresses an altogether greater wickedness than the taking away of the daily sacrifice. This distinction is not set aside by a reference to the clause (we`al kenaf shiqqutzim meshomem) (ver. 27) compared with (wenathnu hashshiqqutz meshomem) (ch. 11:31). For the assertion that the article in (hashshiqqutzim meshomem) (ch. 11:31, “the abomination that maketh desolate”) denotes something of which Daniel had before this already heard, supplies no proof of this; but the article is simply to be accounted for from the placing over against one another of (hattamidh) and (hashiqqutz) Moreover the (hashshiqqutz meshomem) is very difierent from the (`al kenaf shiqqutzim meshomem). The being carried on the wings of idol abominations is a much more comprehensive expression for the might and dominion of idol-abominations than the setting up of an idol-altar on Jehovah’s altar of burnt-offering. 

                As little can we (with Hofm., p. 590) perceive in the (habba’), closely connecting itself with (weqitztsu bashshetef) (ver. 26), a reference to the divine judgment described in ch. 8, because the reference to the enemy of God spoken of in ch. 7:8 and 24 is as natural, yea, even more so, when we observe that the enemy of God in ch. 7 is destroyed by a solemn judgment of God —a circumstance which harmonizes much more with (qitztsu) than with(bashshetef) which is said of the enemy described in ch. 8. Add to this that the half-week during which the adversary shall (ch. 9:27) carry on his work corresponds not to the 2300 evening mornings (ch 8:13), but, as Delitzsch acknowledges, to the 3 1/2 times, ch. 7:25 and xii. 12:7, which 3 1/2 times, however, refer not to the period of persecution under Antiochus, but to that of Antichrist.

                From all this it therefore follows, not that the prince who shall come, whose people shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and who shall cause the sacrifice to cease, is Antiochus, who shall raise himself against the people of the saints, take away the “continuance” ( = daily sacrifice), and cast down the place of the sanctuary (ch. 8:11), but only that this wickedness of Antiochus shall constitute a type for the abomination of desolation which the hostile prince mentioned in this prophecy shall set up, till, like Pharaoh, he find his overthrow in the flood, and the desolation which he causes shall pour itself upon him like a flood.

                This interpretation of vers. 26 and 27 is not made doubtful also by referring to the words of 1st Macc. 1:54, (ōkodomēson bdelugma), as an evidence that at that time Dan. ix. 9:27 was regarded as a prophecy of the events then taking place (Hofm. Weiss. i. p.309). For these words refer not to Dan. 9:27, where the LXX. have (bdelugma erēmōseōn), but to Dan. xi. 11, where the singular (bdelugma erēmōseōs) with the verb (kai dosousi) (LXX. for (wenathnu)), to which the (ōkodomēsetai) visibly refers.

                If, therefore, the reference of vers. 26,27 to the period of Antiochus’ persecution is exegetically untenable, then also, finally, it is completely disproved in the chronological reckoning of the 70 weeks. Proceeding from the right supposition, that after the 70 weeks, the fulfilling of all that was promised, the expiating and putting away of sin, and, along with that, the perfect working out of the divine plan of salvation for eternity, shall begin, —thus, that in ver. 24 the perfecting of the kingdom of God in glory is prophesied of,— Hofmann and his followers do not interpret the 7, 62, and 1 week which are mentioned in vers. 25-27 as a division of the 70 weeks, but they misplace the first-mentioned 7 weeks at the end of the period consisting of 70 such weeks, and the following 62 + 1 in the time reaching from the beginning of the Chaldean supremacy in the year 605 to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in the year 164, which makes 441 years = 63 year-weeks; according to which, not only the end of the 62 + 1 weeks does not coincide with the end of the 70 weeks, but also the 7 + 62 + 1 are to be regarded neither as identical with the 70 nor as following one another continuously in their order, —much more between the 63 and the 7 weeks a wide blank space, which before the coming of the end cannot be measured, must lie, which is not even properly covered up, much less filled up, by the remark that “the unfolding of the 70 proceeds backwards.” For by this reckoning 7 + 62 + 1 are not an unfolding of the 70, and are not equal to 70, but would be equal to 62 + 1 + some unknown intervening period + 7 weeks. This were an impossibility which the representatives of this interpretation of the angel’s communication do not, it is true, accept, but seek to set aside, by explaining the 7 weeks as periods formed of 7 times 7, or jubilee-year periods, and, on the contrary, the 62 + 1 of seven-year times or Sabbath-periods.

                This strange interpretation of the angel’s words, according to which not only must the succession of the periods given in the text be transposed, the first 7 weeks being placed last, but also the word (shabu`im) in the passages immediately following one another must first denote jubilee (49 year) periods, then also Sabbath-year (7 year) periods, is not made plain by saying that “the end of the 62 + 1 week is the judgment of wrath against the persecutor, thus only the remote making possible the salvation; but the end of the 70 weeks is, according to ver. 24, the final salvation, and fulfilling of the prophecy and consecration of the Most Holy —thus the end of the 62 + 1 and of the 70 does not take place at the same time;” and—“if the end of the two took place at the same time, what kind of miserable consolation would this be for Daniel, in answer to his prayer, to be told that Jerusalem within the 70 weeks would in troublous times again arise, thus only arise amid destitution!” (Del. p.284). For the prophecy would furnish but miserable consolation only in this case if it consisted merely of the contents of vers. 25b, 26, and 27, —if it said nothing more than this, that Jerusalem should be built again within the 70 weeks in troublous times, and then finally would again be laid waste. But the other remark, that the judgment of wrath against the destroyer forms only the remote making possible of the salvation, and is separated from the final deliverance or the completion of salvation by a long intervening period, stands in contradiction to the prophecy in ch. 7 and to the whole teaching of Scripture, according to which the destruction of the arch-enemy (Antichrist) and the setting up of the kingdom of glory are brought about by one act of judgment.

                In the most recent discussion of this prophecy, Hofmann (Schriftbew. ii. 2, p.585 ff., 2 Aufl.) has presented the following positive arguments for the interpretation and reckoning of the period of time in question. The message of the angel in vers. 25-27 consists of three parts: (1) A statement of how many heptades(7s) shall be between the going forth of the command to rebuild Jerusalem and a Maschiach Nagid; (2) the mentioning of that which constitutes the contents of sixty-two (62) of these periods; (3) the prediction of what shall happen with the close of the latter of these times. In the first of these parts, (dabar), with the following infinitive, which denotes a human action, is to be taken in the sense of commandment, as that word of Cyrus prophesied of Isa. 44:28, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem is to be interpreted as in this passage of Isaiah, or in Jeremiah’s prophecy to the same import, and not as if afterwards a second rebuilding of Jerusalem amid the difficulty and oppression of the times is predicted; then will the sixty-two (62) heptades (7s) remain separated from the seven (7), and not sixty-nine (69) of these, but only seven (7), be reckoned between the going fort of the command to build Jerusalem again and the Masclziach Nagid, since in ver. 26 mention is made not of that which is to be expected on the other side of the sixty-nine (69), but of the sixty-two (62) times; finally, the contents of the seven times are sufficiently denoted by their commencement and their termination, and will remain without being confounded with the building up of Jerusalem in troublous times, afterwards described.

                All these statements of Hofmann are correct, and they agree with our interpretation of these verses, but they contain no proof that the sixty-two (62) weeks are to be placed after the seven (7), and that they are of a different extent from these. The proof for this is first presented in the conclusion derived from these statements (on the ground of the correct supposition that by Maschiach Nagid not Cyrus, but the Messias, is to be understood), that because the first of these passages (ver. 25a) does not say of a part of these times what may be its contents, but much rather points out which part of them lies between the two events in the great future of Israel, and consequently separates them from one another, that on this account these events belong to the end of the present course of the world, in which Israel hoped, and obviously the seven (7) times shall constitute the end of the period consisting of seven (7) such times. This argument thus founds itself on the circumstance that the appearing of the Maschiach Nagid which concludes the seven (7) weeks, and separates them from the sixty-two (62) weeks which follow, is not to be understood of the appearance of Christ in the flesh, but of His return in glory for the completion of the kingdom which was hoped for in consequence of the restoration of Jerusalem, prophesied of by Isaiah (e.g. ch. 55:3,4) and Jeremiah (e.g. ch. 30:9). But we could speak of these deductions as valid only if Isaiah and Jeremiah had prophesied only of the appearance of the Messias in glory, with the exclusion of His coming in the flesh. But since this is not the case —much rather, on the one side, Hofmann himself says the (dabar lehashibh wgu‘) may be taken for a prediction, as that Isa. 44:28, of Cyrus —but Cyrus shall not build the Jerusalem of the millennial kingdom, but the Jerusalem with its temple which was destroyed by the Chaldeans— and, on the other hand, here first, if not alone, in the prophecies ch. 25 and 29, by which Daniel was led to pray, Jeremiah has predicted the return of Israel from exile after the expiry of the seventy (70) years as the beginning of the working out of the divine counsel of salvation towards Israel, —therefore Daniel also could not understand the (dabar lehashibh wgu’) otherwise than of the restoration of Jerusalem after the seventy (70) years of the Babylonish exile. The remark also, that nothing is said of the contents of the seven (7) weeks, warrants us in no respect to seek their contents in the time of the millennial kingdom. The absence of any mention of the contents of the seven (7) weeks is simply and sufficiently accounted for from the circumstance, as we have already (p.375) shown, that Daniel had already given the needed information (ch. 8) regarding this time, regarding the time from the end of the Exile to the appearance of Christ. Still less can the conclusion be drawn, from the circumstance that the building in the sixty-two (62) weeks is designated as one falling in troublous times, that the restoration and the building of Jerusalem in the seven (7) weeks shall be a building in glory. The (lehashibh welibnoth) (to restore and to build, ver. 25a) does not form a contrast to the (tashubh wenibngthah ubhtzoq) (= E.V. shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times, ver. 25b), but it is only more indefinite, for the circumstances of the building are not particularly stated. Finally, the circumstance also, that after the sixty-two (62) heptades a new devastation of the holy city is placed in view, cannot influence us to escape from the idea of the second coming of Christ in the last time along with the building of Jerusalem during the seven heptades, since it was even revealed to the prophet that not merely would a cruel enemy of the saints of God (in Antiochus Epiphanes) arise out of the third world-kingdom, but also that a yet greater enemy would arise out of the fourth, an enemy who would perish in the burning fire (ch. 7:12, 26 f.) in the judgment of the world immediately before the setting up of the kingdom of glory.

                Thus neither the placing of the contents of the seven (7) weeks in the eschatological future, nor yet the placing of these weeks at the beginning instead of at the end of the three periods of time which are distinguished in vers. 25-27, is established by these arguments. This Fries (Jahrb. deutsche Theol. iv. p.254 ff.) has observed, and rightly remarked, that the effort to interpret the events announced in ver. 26 f. of the tyranny of Antiochus, and to make this epoch coincide with the close of the sixty-two year-weeks in the chronological reckoning, cannot but lead to the mistake of including the years of Babylon in the seventy year-weeks —a mistake which is met by three rocks, against which every attempt of this kind must be shattered. (I) There is the objection that it is impossible that the times of the destruction and the desolation of Jerusalem could be conceived of under the same character as the times of its restoration, and be represented from the same point of view; (2) the inexplicable inconsequence which immediately arises, if in the seventy (70) year-weeks, including the last restoration of Israel, the Babylonish but not also the Romish exile were comprehended; (3) the scarcely credible supposition that the message of the angel sent to Daniel was to correct that earlier divine word which was given by Jeremiah, and to make known that not simply seventy (70) years, but rather seventy (70) year-weeks, are meant. Of this latter supposition we have already (p.323) shown that it has not a single point of support in the text.

                In order to avoid these three rocks, Fries advances the opinion that the three portions into which the seventy (70) year-weeks are divided, are each by itself separately to be reckoned chronologically, and that they form a connected whole, not in a chronological, but in a historico-pragmatical sense, “as the whole of all the times of the positive continuance of the theocracy in the Holy Land lying between the liberation from Babylonish exile and the completion of the historical kingdom of Israel ” (p.258); and, indeed, so that the seven (7) year-weeks, ver. 25a, form the last part of the seventy (70) year-weeks, or, what is the same, the jubilee-period of the millennial kingdom, and the sixty-two (62) year-weeks, ver. 26a, represent the period of the restoration of Israel after its liberation from Babylon and before its overthrow by the Romans —reckoned according to the average of the points of commencement and termination, according to which, from the reckoning 536 (edict of Cyrus), 457 (return of Ezra), and 410 (termination by the restoration), we obtain for the epoch of the restoration the mean year 467 B.C.; and for the crisis of subjection to the Roman power A.U.C. 691 (the overthrow of Jerusalem by Pompey), 714 (the appointment of Herod as king of the Jews), and 759 (the first Roman procurator in Palestine), we obtain the mean year 721 A.U.C.= 33 B.C., and the difference of these mean numbers, 467 and 33, amounts exactly to 434 years: 62 year-weeks. The period described in ver. 26 thus reaches from the beginnings of the subjection of Israel under the Roman world-kingdom to the expiry of the time of the diaspora of Israel, and the separate year-week, ver. 27, comprehends the period of the final trial of the people of God, and reaches from the bringing back of Israel to the destruction of Antichrist (pp. 261-266).

                Against this new attempt to solve the mystery of the seventy (70) weeks, Hofmann, in Schriftbew. ii. 2, p.594, raises the objection, “that in ver. 26 a period must be described which belongs to the past, and in ver. 27, on the contrary, another which belongs to the time of the end; this makes the indissoluble connection which exists between the contents of the two verses absolutely impossible.” In this he is perfectly right. The close connection between these two verses makes it certainly impossible to interpose an empty space of time between the cutting off of the Anointed, by which Fries understands the dispersion of Israel among the heathen in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and the coming of Antichrist, a space which would amount to 1800 years. But in opposition to this hypothesis we must also further remark, (1) that Fries has not justified the placing of the first portion of the seventy (70)  year-weeks (i.e. the seven (7) weeks) at the end, —he has not removed the obstacles standing against this arbitrary supposition, for his interpretation of the words (`adh Mashiach Nagid), “till Messias the prince shall be,” is verbally impossible, since, if Nagid is a predicate, then the verb flzflf could not be wanting; (2) that the interpretation of the (yikkareth Mashiach) of the abolition of the old theocracy, and of the dispersion of the Jews abandoned by God among the heathen, needs no serious refutation, but with this interpretation the whole hypothesis stands or falls. Finally, (3) the supposition requires that the sixty-two (62) weeks must be chronologically reckoned as year-weeks; the seven (7) weeks, on the contrary, must be interpreted mystically as jubilee-periods, and the one week as a period of time of indefinite duration; a freak of arbitrariness exceeding all measure, which can no longer be spoken of as scripture interpretation.

                Over against such arbitrary hypotheses, we can regard it as only an advance on the way toward a right understanding of this prophecy, that Hofmann (p. 594) closes his most recent investigations into this question with the following remarks: —“On the contrary, I always find that the indefiniteness of the expression (shabua`), which denotes a period in some way divided into sevens (7s), leaves room for the possibility of comprehending together the sixty-three (63) and the seven (7) weeks in one period of seventy (70), as its beginning and its end. . . . What was the extent of the units of which the seventy (70) times consist, the expression (shabua`) did not inform Daniel: he could only conjecture it.” This facilitates the adoption of the symbolical interpretation of the numbers, which, after the example of Leyrer and Kliefoth, we regard as the only possible one, because it does not necessitate our changing the seventy (70) years of the exile into years of the restoration of Jerusalem, and placing the seven (7) weeks, which the text presents as the first period of the seventy (70) weeks, last.

                The symbolical interpretation of the seventy (70) (shabu`im) and their divisions is supported by the following considerations: —(1) By the double circumstance, that on the one side all the explanations of them as year-weeks necessitate an explanation of the angel’s message which is justified neither by the words nor by the succession of the statements, and do violence to the text, without obtaining a natural progress of thought, and on the other side all attempts to reckon these year-weeks chronologically show themselves to be insufficient and impossible. (2) The same conclusion is sustained by the choice of the word (shabua`) for the definition of the whole epoch and its separate periods ; for this word only denotes a space of time measured by sevens, but indicates nothing as to the duration of these sevens. Since Daniel in ch. viii. 14 and xii. 11 uses a chronologically definite measure of time (evening-mornings, days), we must conclude from the choice of the expressions, seven, seven times (as in ch. vii. 25 and xii. 7 of the like expression, times), which cannot be reckoned chronologically, that the period for the perfecting of the people and the kingdom of God was not to be chronologically defined, but only noted as a divinely appointed period measured by sevens. “ They are sevens, of that there is no doubt; but the measure of the unit is not given :” thus Lāmmert remarks (Zur Revision der bibl. Zahlensymb. in den Jahrbb. f. D. Theol. ix. 1). He further says: “If the great difficulty of taking these numbers chronologically does not of itself urge to their symbolical interpretation, then we should be led to this by the disagreement existing between Gabriel’s answer (ver. 22) and Daniel’s question (ver. 2). To his human inquiries regarding the end of the Babylonish exile, Daniel receives not a human but a divine answer, in which the seventy (70) years of Jeremiah are reckoned as sevens (7s), and it is indicated that the full close of the history of redemption shall only be reached after a long succession of periods of development.”

                By the definition of these periods according to a symbolical measure of time, the reckoning of the actual duration of the periods named is withdrawn beyond the reach of our human research, and the definition of the days and hours of the development of the kingdom of God down to its consummation is reserved for God, the Governor of the world and the Ruler of human history; yet by the announcement of the development in its principal stadia, according to a measure fixed by God, the strong consolation is afforded of knowing that the fortunes of His people are in His hands, and that no hostile power will rule over them one hour longer than God the Lord thinks fit to afford time and space, in regard to the enemy for his unfolding and ripening for the judgment, and in regard to the saints for the purifying and the confirmation of their faith for the eternal life in His kingdom according to His wisdom and righteousness.

                The prophecy, in that it thus announces the times of the development of the future consummation of the kingdom of God and of this world according to a measure that is symbolical and not chronological, does not in the least degree lose its character as a revelation, but thereby first rightly proves its high origin as divine, and beyond the reach of human thought. For, as Leyrer (Herz.’s Realenc. xviii. p.387) rightly remarks, “should not He who as Creator has ordained all things according to measure and number, also as Governor of the world set higher measures and bounds to the developments of history? which are to be taken at one time as identical with earthly measures of time, which indeed the eventus often first teaches (e.g. the seventy (70)  years of the Babylonish exile, Dan. ix. 2), but at another time as symbolical, but yet so that the historical course holds and moves itself within the divinely measured sphere, as with the seventy (70) weeks of Daniel, wherein, for the establishing of the faith of individuals and of the church, there lies the consolation, that all events even to the minutest, particularly also the times of war and of oppression, are graciously measured by God (Jer. 5:22; Job 38:11; Ps. 93:3 f.).” (* Auberlen, notwithstanding that he interprets the seventy (70) (shabu`im) chronologically as year-weeks, does not yet altogether misapprehend the symbolical character of this definition of time, but rightly remarks (p. 133 f.), “The history of redemption is governed by these sacred numbers ; they are like the simple foundation of the building, the skeleton in its organism. These are not only outward indications of time, but also indications of nature and essence.” What he indeed says regarding the symbolical meaning of the seventy (70) weeks and their divisions, depends on his erroneous interpretation of the prophecy of the appearance of Christ in the flesh, and is not consistent with itself.*)

                To give this consolation to the faithful is the object of this revelation, and that object it fully accomplishes. For the time and the hour of the consummation of the kingdom of God it belongs not to us to know. What the Lord said to His disciples (Acts i. 7) before His ascension, in answer to their question as to the time of the setting up of the kingdom of Israel—“ It belongs not to you to know (chronous ē kairous hous ho patēr etheto en tē idia, exousia,)” —that He says not only to the twelve (12) apostles, but to the whole Christian world. That the reason for this answer is to besought not merely in the existing condition of the disciples at the time He uttered it, but in this, that the time and the hour of the appearance of the Lord for the judgment of the world and the completion of His kingdom in glory are not to be announced beforehand to men, is clear from the circumstance that Christ in the eschatological discourse (Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32) declares generally, “Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” According to this, God, the Creator and Ruler of the world, has kept in His own power the determination of the time and the hour of the consummation of the world, so that we may not expect an announcement of it beforehand in the Scripture. What has been advanced in opposition to this view for the justifying of the chronological interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy of seventy (70) weeks, and similar prophecies (cf. e.g. Hengstb. Christol. iii. 1, p.202 ff.), cannot be regarded as valid proof. If Bengel, in Ordo Temporum, p.259, 2d ed., remarks with reference to Mark 13:32: “Negatur praevia scientia, pro ipso duntaxat praesenti sermonis tempore, ante passionem et glorificationem Jesu. Non dixit, nemo sciet, sed: nemo scit. Ipse jam, jamque, sciturus erat: et quum scientiam diei et hora: nactus fuit, ipsius erat, scientiam dare, cui vellet et quando vellet,” [He denied prior knowledge: at least for the present time; He spoke before the passion and the glorification of Jesus. I said, no one knows, and nobody knew. He Himself already fully knows, and will understand: & when the knowledge of the day and the hour has come: & also to give that knowledge to whom he wished, and when He pleased. Whitaker.?. Compare Bengel’s reasoning at Mark 13:32 in his Gnomon.] —so no one can certainly dispute a priori the conclusion “Ipse jam,” etc., drawn from the correct statements preceding, but also everyone will confess that the statement “Ipsius erat,” etc., cannot prove it to be a fact that Jesus, after His glorification, revealed to John in Patmos the time and the hour of His return for the final judgment. Bengel’s attempt to interpret the prophetical numbers of the Apocalypse chronologically, and accordingly to reckon the year of the coming again of our Lord, has altogether failed, as all modern scientific interpreters have acknowledged. So also fails the attempt which has been made to conclude from what Christ has said regarding the day of His (parousia), that the Scripture can have no chronologically defined prophecies, while yet Christ Himself prophesied His resurrection after three days. }}

                Chap. X-XII. Revelation Regarding Affliction of People of God on part of Rulers of World Till Consummation of Kingdom of God.

                {{ In the third year of the reign of Cyrus, Daniel received the last revelation regarding the future of his people, which gives a fuller unfolding of the hostile attitude of the world-power toward the people and the kingdom of God from the time of the Persian dominion to the end of the days, as well as regarding the powerful protection which the covenant people shall experience amid the severe oppressions they would be exposed to for their purification. This revelation connects itself, both as to its contents and form, so closely with ch. 8, that it is to be viewed as a further unfolding of that prophecy, and serves for the illustration and confirmation of that which was announced to the prophet shortly before the destruction of the Chaldean world-kingdom regarding the world kingdoms that were to follow, and their relation to the theocracy. It consists of three parts: (1.) There is the description of the appearance of God as to its nature, the impression it produced on the prophet, and its object (ch. 10:1-11:2a). (2.) The unveiling of the future, in brief statements regarding the relation of the Persian and the Javanic world-kingdoms to Israel, and in more comprehensive descriptions of the wars of the kings of the north and the south for the supremacy, with the hostilities thence arising against the kingdom of God —hostilities which aim at its destruction, but which, because of the powerful succour which is rendered to Israel by Michael the angel-prince, shall come to an end in the destruction of the enemy of God and the final salvation of the people of God (ch. 11:2b-12:3).  (3.) This revelation concludes with the definition of the duration of the time of oppression, and with the command given to Daniel to seal up the words, together with the prophecy, till the time of the end, and to rest till the end come: “For thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of the days” (ch. 12:4-13).

                If we attentively examine first of all the form of this revelation, namely, the manifestation of God, by which there is given to Daniel the understanding of the events of the future (ch. 10:14, cf. ch. 11 and 12), this revelation will be found to be distinguished from all the others in this, that it is communicated partly by supernatural illumination for the interpretation of the dream vision, partly by visions, partly by the appearance of angels. Auberlen (d. Proph. Dan. p. 91 f.) has already referred to this distinction, and therein has found a beautiful and noteworthy progression, namely, that the one revelation always prepares the way, in a material and formal respect, for that which follows, from which we may see how God gradually prepared the prophet for the reception of still more definite disclosures. “First Nebuchadnezzar dreams, and Daniel simply interprets (ch. 2 and 4); afterwards Daniel himself has a dream, but as yet it is only as a vision in a dream of the night (ch. 7:1,2); then follows a vision in a waking state (ch. 8:1-3); and finally, in the last two revelations (ch. 9 and 10-12), when Daniel, now a feeble, trembling (‘?’) old man (ch. 10:8 ff.), is already almost transplanted out of this world —now the ecstatic state seems to be no longer necessary for him. Now in his usual state he sees and hears angels speak like men, while his companions do not see the appearances from the higher world, and are only overwhelmed with terror, like those who accompanied Paul to Damascus (ch. 11:20 ff., 10: 4 ff., cf. Acts of Ap. 9:7).” It is true, indeed, that, as Aub. remarks, there is a progression from interpreting of dreams to the receiving of visions in dreams and in the waking state, but by this reference neither are the actual contents of the revelation given in different forms perfectly comprehended, nor still less is the meaning of the difference made clear. Auberlen, in thus representing the distinction, has left out of view the circumstance, that the visions in ch. 7 and 8 are also interpreted to Daniel by an angel; moreover, that the revelation in ch. 8 does not merely consist of a vision, in which Daniel sees the destruction of the Persian world-kingdom by the Javanic under the figure of a he-goat casting down the ram, but that Daniel, after this vision, also hears an angel speak, and a voice comes to him from above the waters of the Ulai which commands the angel Gabriel to explain the vision to the seer (ch. 8:13 ff), and that this second part of that revelation has a great likeness to that in ch. 10-12; finally, that the same angel Gabriel again appears in ch. 9, and brings to Daniel the revelation regarding the seventy (70) weeks (ch. 9:24-27). But as to the interpretation of these revelations given in different forms, this difference is conditioned partly by the subjective relations sustained by the recipients to God, while, on the other hand, the form is in the most intimate manner connected with the contents of the revelation, and indeed in a way wholly different and much deeper than Auberlen thinks, if he therein sees only the material progression to greater specialty in the prophecy.

                To comprehend the meaning of the divine revelation in ch. 10-12, we must examine more closely the resemblance which it presents to ch. 8:13-19. As in the vision ch. 8, which points to the oppression of the time of the end (ch. 8:17, 19), Daniel heard a voice from the Ulai (ch. 8:16), so in ch. 10 and 12 the personage from whom that voice proceeded appears within the circle of Daniel’s vision, and announces to him what shall happen to his people (be’acharith haiyamim) (ch. 10:14). This celestial person appears to him in such awful divine majesty, that he falls to the ground on hearing his voice, as already in ch. 8:17 ff. on hearing his voice and message, so that he feared he should perish; and it was only by repeated supernatural consolation and strengthening that he was able to stand erect again, and was made capable of hearing the revelation. The heavenly being who appears to him resembles in appearance the glory of Jehovah which Ezekiel had seen by the river Chaboras (Chebar); and this appearance of the man clothed in linen prepared the contents of his revelation, for God so manifested Himself to Daniel (as He will approve Himself to His people in the times of the future great tribulation) as He who in judgment and in righteousness rules the affairs of the world-kingdoms and of the kingdom of God, and conducts them to the issues foreseen; so that the effect of His appearance on Daniel formed a pre-intimation and a pledge of that which would happen to the people of Daniel in the future. As Daniel was thrown to the ground by the divine majesty of the man clothed in linen, but was raised up again by a supernatural hand, so shall the people of God be thrown to the ground by the fearful judgments that shall pass over them, but shall again be raised up by the all-powerful help of their God and His angel-prince Michael, and shall be strengthened to endure the tribulation. According to this, the very appearance of God has prophetic significance; and the reason why this last vision is communicated to Daniel neither by a vision nor by angels, but by a majestic Theophany, does not lie in the more definite disclosures which should be given to him regarding the future, but only in this, that the revelation, as is mentioned in the superscription, ch. 10:1, places in view the (‘emeth wetzaba’ gadol) (ch. 10:1).

                Of this oppression, that spoken of in ch. 8, which should come upon the people of God from the fierce and cunning king seen as a little horn, forms a type; therefore Daniel hears the voice from the waters of the Ulai. That which is there briefly indicated, is in ch. 10-12 further extended and completed. In regard to the definiteness of the prediction, the revelation in ch. 10-12 does not go beyond that in ch. 8; but it does so with respect to the detailed description found in it of the wars of the world-rulers against one another and against the people of God, as well as in this, that it opens a glimpse into the spirit-world, and gives disclosures regarding the unseen spiritual powers who mingle in the history of nations. But over these powers God the Lord exercises dominion, and helps His people to obtain a victory over all their enemies. To reveal this, and in actual fact to attest it to the prophet, and through him to the church of God of all times, is the object of the Theophany, which is circumstantially described in ch. 10 for the sake of its prophetical character. }}

                Chap. 10-11:2a. Theophany.

                Ch. 10:1-3. The introduction to the following manifestation of God…..

                Chap. 11:2-12:3. The Revelation of the Future.

                {{ Proceeding from the present, the angel reveals in great general outlines the career of the Persian world-kingdom, and the establishment and destruction, which immediately followed, of the kingdom, which was founded by the valiant king of Javan, which would not descend to his posterity, but would fall to others (vers. 2-4). Then there follows a detailed description of the wars of the kings of the south and the north for the supremacy, wherein first the king of the south prevails (vers. 5-9); the decisive conflicts between the two (vers. 10-12), wherein the south is subjugated; and the attempts of the kings of the north to extend their power more widely, wherein they perish (vers. 13-20); finally, the coming of a “vile person,” who rises suddenly to power by cunning and intrigue, humbles the king of the south, has “indignation against the holy covenant,” desolates the sanctuary of God, and brings severe affliction upon the people of God, “to purge and to make them white to the time of the end” (vers. 21-35). At the time of the end this hostile king shall raise himself above all gods, and above every human ordinance, and make the “’god’ of fortresses” his ‘god’, “whom he will acknowledge and increase with glory” (vers. 36—39). But in the time of the end he shall pass through the countries with his army as a flood, enter into the glorious land, and take possession of Egypt with its treasures; but, troubled by tidings out of the east and the north, shall go forth in great fury utterly to destroy many, and shall come to his end on the holy mountain (vers. 40-45). At this time of greatest tribulation shall the angel-prince Michael contend for the people of Daniel. Every one that shall be found written in the book shall be saved, and the dead shall rise again, some to everlasting life, some to everlasting shame (ch. 12:1-3).

                This prophecy is so rich in special features which in part have been literally fulfilled, that believing interpreters from Jerome to Kliefoth have found in it predictions which extend far beyond the measure of prophetic revelation, while rationalistic and naturalistic interpreters, following the example of Porphyry, from the specialty of the predictions, conclude that the chapter does not contain a prophetic revelation of the future, but only an apocalyptic description of the past and of the present of the Maccabean pseudo-Daniel. Against both views Kranichfeld has decidedly declared himself, and sought to show that in these prophetic representations “the prediction does not press itself into the place of historical development, i.e. that it does not concern itself with such future dates as do not connect themselves with the historical present of the prophetic author (Daniel), as the unfolding of religious moral thought animated by divine influence.” This is on the whole correct. Here also the prophecy does not become the prediction of historical dates which do not stand in inner connection with the fundamental idea of the book, which is to announce the unfolding of the heathen world power over against the kingdom of God. This vision, also, as to its contents and form, is accounted for from the circumstances of time stated in ch. 10:1, and contains much which a supposed Maccabean origin makes in the highest degree improbable, and directly contradicts. First, it is “against the nature of a fictitious production which should be written in the time of the greatest national commotion, that the great repeated victories of the people over the Syrian power should have been so slightingly spoken of as is the case here (ch. 11:34),” i.e. should be designated only as “a little help.” Then the prophetic representation over against the historical facts of the case is full of inaccuracies; and these historical inconveniences are found not only in the description which had reference to the history of the times preceding the author, but also, above all, in the history of the times of the Maccabees themselves. Thus, e.g., in ch. 11:40-45 an Egyptian expedition of Antiochus Epiphanes shortly before his death is prophesied, for which, besides Porphyry, no- voucher and, in general, no historical probability exists (Kran.).

                Kranichfeld, however, goes too far when he holds all the special features of the prophetic revelation to be only individualizing paintings for the purpose of the contemplation, and therein seeks to find further developed only the fundamental thoughts of the great inner incurable enmity of the heathen ungodly kingdom already stated in ch. 2:41-43, 7:8, 20, 24, 8:8, 22, 24. The truth lies in the middle between these two extremes.

                This chapter contains neither mere individualizing paintings of general prophetic thoughts, nor predictions of historical dates inconsistent with the nature of prophecy, but prophetic descriptions of the development of the heathen world-power from the days of Cyrus to the fall of the Javanic world-kingdom, as well as of the position which the two kingdoms (arising out of this kingdom) of the north and south, between which the holy land lay, assumed toward each other and toward the theocracy; for by the war of these two kingdoms for the sovereignty, not merely were the covenant land and the covenant people brought in general into a sorrowful condition, but they also were the special object of a war which typically characterizes and portrays the relation of the world-kingdom to the kingdom of God. This war arose under the Seleucidan Antiochus Epiphanes to such a height, that it formed a prelude of the war of the time of the end. The undertaking of this king to root out the worship of the living God and destroy the Jewish religion, shows in type the great war which the world power in the last phases of its development shall undertake against the kingdom of God, by exalting itself above every ‘god’, to hasten on its own destruction and the consummation of the kingdom of God.

                The description of this war as to its origin, character, and issue forms the principal subject of this prophecy. It is set forth in the revelation of the angel from ch. 11:21 to the end (ch. 12:3), while the preceding description, as well of the course of the Persian and Javanic world-kingdoms as of the wars of the kings of the north and the south (ch. 11:2-20), prepares for it. But this preparatory description is not merely individualizing pictures of the idea of the incurable hostility of the heathen ungodly kingdom, but a prophetic delineation of the chief lines of the process which the heathen world-power shall pass through till it shall advance to the attempt to destroy the kingdom of God. These chief lines are so distinctly laid down, that they contain their concrete fulfilment in the historical development of the world-power. In like manner are so described the appearance and the wars of the enemy of God, who desolates the sanctuary of God and takes away the daily sacrifice, that we can recognise in the assault of Antiochus Epiphanes against the temple and the worship of the people of Israel a fulfilling of this prophecy. Yet here the foretelling (Weissagung) does not renounce the character of prophecy (Prophetie): it does not pass over into prediction (Praediction) of historical facts and events, but so places in the light of the divine foresight and predetermination the image of this enemy of God, and his wickedness against the sanctuary and the people of God, that it brings under contemplation, and places under the point of view of the purification of the covenant people for the time of the end (ch. 11:35), the gradual progress of his enmity against God till he exalts himself above all divine and human relations.

                From the typical relation in which Antiochus, the O.T. enemy of God, stands to Antichrist, the N.T. enemy, is explained the connection of the end, the final salvation of the people of God, and the resurrection from the dead, with the destruction of this enemy, without any express mention being made of the fourth world-kingdom and of the last enemy arising out of it; from which the modern critics have drawn the erroneous conclusion, that the Maccabean pseudo-Daniel expected the setting up of the Messianic kingdom in glory along with the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes. At the foundation of this conclusion there lies an entire misapprehension of the contents and object of this prophecy, namely, the idea that the prophecy seeks to furnish a historical sketch, clothed in an apocalyptic form, of the development of the world-kingdoms from Cyrus to Antiochus Epiphanes. In support of this error, it is true that the church interpretation given by Jerome is so far valid, in that it interprets the prophecy partially considered under the point of view of the very special predictions of historical persons and events, and from this view concludes that vers. 21-35 treat of Antiochus Epiphanes, and vers. 36-45 of Antichrist; according to which there would be in ver. 36 an immediate passing from Antiochus to the Antichrist, or in ch. 12:1 a sudden transition from the death of Antiochus to the time of the end and the resurrection from the dead. But the prophecy does not at all correspond to this representation. The Angel of the Lord will reveal to Daniel, not what shall happen from the third (3rd) year of Cyrus to the time of Antiochus, and further to the resurrection of the dead, but, according to the express declaration of ch. 10:14, what shall happen to his people (be’acharith haiyamim), i.e. in the Messianic future, because the prophecy relates to this time. In the (‘acharith haiyamim) takes place the destruction of the world-power, and the setting up of the Messianic kingdom at the end of the present world-aeon. All that the angel says regarding the Persian and the Javanic world-kingdoms, and the wars of the kings of the north and the south, has its aim to the end-time, serves only briefly to indicate the chief elements of the development of the world kingdoms till the time when the war that brings in the end shall burst forth, and to show how, after the overthrow of the Javanic world-kingdom, neither the kings of the north nor those of the south shall gain the possession of the dominion of the world. Neither by the violence of war, nor by covenants which they will ratify by political marriages, shall they succeed in establishing a lasting power. They shall not prosper, because (ch. 11:27) the end goes yet to the time appointed (by God). A new attempt of the king of the north to subjugate the kingdom of the south shall be defeated by the intervention of the ships of Chittim; and the anger awakened in him by this frustration of his plans shall break forth against the holy covenant, only for the purifying of the people of God for the time of the end, because the end goes yet to the appointed time (ch. 11:35). At the time of the end his power will greatly increase, because that which was determined by God shall prosper till the end of the indignation (ch. 11:36); but in the time of the end he shall suddenly fall from the summit of his power and come to his end (ch. 11:45), but the people of God shall be saved, and the wise shall shine in heavenly glory (ch. 12:1-3). Accordingly the revelation has this as its object, to show how the heathen world-kingdoms shall not attain to an enduring stability, and by their persecution of the people of God shall only accomplish their purification, and bring on the end, in which, through their destruction, the people of God shall be delivered from all oppression and be transfigured. In order to reveal this to him (that it must be carried forward to completion by severe tribulation), it was not necessary that he should receive a complete account of the different events which shall take place in the heathen world-power in the course of time, nor have it especially made prominent that their enmity shall first come to a completed manifestation under the last king who should arise out of the fourth world-king dom. For that, the Javanic world-kingdom shall not form the last embodiment of the world-power, but that after it a fourth more powerful kingdom shall arise —this was already revealed to Daniel in ch. 7. Moreover, in ch. 8 the violent enemy of the people of Israel who would arise from the Diadoch-kingdoms of the Javanic world-monarchy, was already designated as the type of the last enemy who would arise out of the ten kingdoms of the fourth world-kingdom. After these preceding revelations, the announcement of the great tribulation that would come upon the people of God from these two enemies could be presented in one comprehensive painting, wherein the assault made by the prefigurative enemy against the covenant people shall form the foreground of the picture for a representation of the daring of the antitypical enemy, proceeding even to the extent of abolishing all divine and human ordinances, who shall bring the last and severest tribulation on the church of God, at the end of the days, for its purification and preparation for eternity.

                Ch. 11:2-20. The events of the nearest future. Ver. 2. The revelation passes quickly from Persia (ver. 2b) and the kingdom of Alexander (vers. 3 and 4), to the description of the wars of the kingdoms of the south and the north, arising out of the latter, in which wars the Holy Land, lying between the two, was implicated. Regarding Persia it is only said that, yet three kings shall arise, and that the fourth, having reached to great power by his riches, shall stir up all against the kingdom of Javan. Since this prophecy originates in the third (3rd) year of the Persian king Cyrus (ch. 10:1), then the three kings who shall yet () arise are the three successors of Cyrus, viz. Cambyses, the pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes; the fourth is then Xerxes, with whom all that is said regarding the fourth perfectly agrees. Thus Hāvernick, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Auberlen, and Kliefoth interpret; on the contrary, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, and Kranichfeld will make the fourth the third, so as thereby to justify the erroneous interpretation of the four wings and the four heads of the leopard (ch. 7:6) of the first four kings of the Persian monarchy, because, as they say, the article in (harbi`i) necessarily requires that the fourth is already mentioned in the immediately preceding statements. But the validity of this conclusion is not to be conceived; and the assertion that the O.T. knows only of four kings of Persia (Hitzig) cannot be established from Ezra 4:5-7, nor from any other passage. From the naming of only four kings of Persia in the book of Ezra, since from the end of the Exile to Ezra and Nehemiah four kings had reigned, it in no way follows that the book of Daniel and the O.T. generally know of only four. Moreover, this assertion is not at all correct; for in Neh. 12:22, besides those four there is mention made also of a Darius, and to the Jews in the age of the Maccabees there was well known, according to 1st Macc. 1:1, also the name of the last Persian king, Darius, who was put to death by Alexander. If the last named, the king who by great riches (ver. 2) reached to a higher power, is included among the three previously named, then he should have been here designated “the third.” The verb (`amadh), to place oneself, then to stand, is used here and frequently in the following passages, as in ch. 8:23, in the sense of to stand up (= qum), with reference to the coming of a new ruler. The gathering together of greater riches than all (his predecessors), agrees specially with Xerxes; cf. Herodot. iii. 96, vi. 27-29, and Justini Histor. ii. 2. The latter says of him : “Divitias, non ducem laudes, quorum tanta copia in regno ejus fuz’t, ut, cum flumina multitudine consumerentur, opes tamen regiw superessent.”

                (chezqatho) is the infinit. or nomen actionis, the becoming strong; cf. 2nd Chron. 12:1 with 2nd Kings 14:5 and Isa. 8:11. (be`ashro) is not in apposition to it, “according to his riches” (Hāv.); but it gives the means by which he became strong. “Xerxes expended his treasures for the raising and arming of an immense host, so as by such (chozeq) (cf. Amos vi. 13) to conquer Greece” (Hitzig). (‘eth malkuth Yawan) is not in apposition to (hakkol), all, namely, the kingdom of Javan (Maurer, Kranichfeld). This does not furnish a suitable sense; for the thought that (hakkol), “they all,” designates the divided states of Greece, and the apposition, “the kingdom of Javan,” denotes that they were brought by the war with Xerxes to form themselves into the unity of the Macedonian kingdom, could not possibly be so expressed. Moreover, the reference to the circumstances of the Grecian states is quite foreign to the context. (‘eth malkuth Yawan) is much rather a second, more remote object, and () is to be interpreted, with Halvernick, either as the preposition with, so far as (ya`ir) involves the idea of war, conflict, or simply, with Hitzig, as the accusative of the object of the movement (cf. Ex. 9:29, 33), to stir up, to rouse, after the kingdom of Javan, properly to make, to cause, that all (hakkol = every one, cf. Ps. 14:3) set out towards. Daniel calls Greece (malkuth), after the analogy of the Oriental states, as a united historical power, without respect to the political constitution of the Grecian states, not suitable to prophecy (Kliefoth).

                From the conflict of Persia with Greece, the angel (ver. 3) passes immediately over to the founder of the Grecian (Macedonian) world-kingdom; for the prophecy proceeds not to the prediction of historical details, but mentions only the elements and factors which constitute the historical development. The expedition of Xerxes against Greece brings to the foreground the world-historical conflict between Persia and Greece, which led to the destruction of the Persian kingdom by Alexander the Great. The reply of Alexander to Darius Codomannus (Arrian, Exped Alex. ii. 14. 4) supplies a historical document, in which Alexander justifies his expedition against Persia by saying that Macedonia and the rest of Hellas were assailed in war by the Persians without any cause (ouden proēdikēmenoi), and that therefore he had resolved to punish the Persians. A deeper reason for this lies in this, that the prophecy closes the list of Persian kings with Xerxes, but not in this, that under Xerxes the Persian monarchy reached its climax, and partly already under him, and yet more after his reign, the fall of the kingdom had begun (Hāvernick, Auberlen); still less in the opinion, proved to be erroneous, that the Maccabean Jew knew no other Persian kings, and confounded Xerxes with Darius Codomannus (v. Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig).

                Vers. 3 and 4. But only brief notices, characterizing its nature, were given regarding the Macedonian kingdom, which agree with the prophecies ch. vii. 6 and viii. 5-8, 21,22, without adding new elements. The founder of the kingdom is called (melek gibbor) “braveking,” “hero-king,” and his kingdom “a great dominion.” Of his government it is-said (`asah kirtzono), he does, rules, according to his will (cf. ch. 8:4), so that his power might be characterized as irresistible and boundless self-will. Similarly Curtius writes of him (10:5. 35): Fatendum est, cum plurimum virtuti debuerit, plus de buisse fortunw, quam solus omnium mortalium in potestate habuit. Hujus siguidem beneficio agere videbatur gentibus quidguid placebat. By the (k) in (k`amedo) the coming of the king and the destruction of his kingdom are stated as synchronous, so as to express with great force the shortness of its duration. (`amedo) is not to be otherwise interpreted than (`amedh) in ver. 3, and is thus not to be translated: “when he thus stands up,” sc. in the regal power described in ver. 3 (Kran.), or: “on the pinnacle of his might ” (Hāv), but: “when (or as) he has made his appearance, his kingdom shall be broken.” In the words, also, there does not lie the idea “that he himself in his life-time is deprived of his throne and his kingdom by a violent catastrophe” (Kran.); for the destruction of the kingdom dues not necessarily include in it the putting to death of the ruler. The thought is only this: “when he has appeared and founded a great dominion, his kingdom shall be immediately broken.” (tishshaber) (shall be divided) is chosen with reference to ch. 8:8, “toward the four winds of heaven.” We may neither supply (thechatz) (shall be divided) to (welo le’achritho) (and not to his posterity), nor is this latter expression “connected with (techatz) in pregnant construction;” for (techatz), from (chatza), signifies to divide, from which we are not to assume the idea of to allot, assign. We have simply to supply (hi’) in the sense of the verb. subst., shall be, as well here as in the following clause, (welo’ kemashlo). The (‘achrith) signifies here as little as in Amos 4:2, 9:1, posterity = (zeratz), but remnant, that which is left behind, the survivors of the king, by which we are to understand not merely his sons, but all the members of his family. (welo’ kemashlo), “and it shall not be according to the dominion which he ruled.” This thought, corresponding to (welo’ bekocho) in ch. 8:22, is the natural conclusion from the idea of division to all (the four winds, which the falling asunder into several or many small kingdoms involves. (hinnathesh), “shall he plucked up” (of plants from the earth), denotes the rooting up of that which is stable, the destroying and dissolving of the kingdom into portions. In this division it shall pass to others (millebar-‘eleh), “with the exclusion of those” (the (‘achrith)), the surviving members  of the family of Alexander. To (wela’acherim) (and for others) supply (tihyeh) (shall be).

                In ver. 4, accordingly, the prophetic thought is expressed, that the Javanic kingdom, as soon as the brave king has founded a great dominion, shall be broken to pieces and divided toward the four winds of heaven, so that its separate parts, without reaching to the might of the broken kingdom, shall be given not to the survivors of the family of the founder, but to strangers. This was historically fulfilled in the fact, that after the sudden death of Alexander his son Hercules was not recognised by his generals as successor on the throne, but was afterwards murdered by Polysperchon; his son also born by Roxana, along with his guardian Philip Arideus, met the same fate; but the generals, after they had at first divided the kingdom into more than thirty parts (see above, p. 256), soon began to war with each other, the result of which was, that at last four larger kingdoms were firmly established (see above, p.294). Cf. Diod. Sic. xx. 28, xix. 105; Pausan. ix. 7; Justini hist. xv. 2, and Appiani Syr. c. 51.

                Vers. 5 and 6. From the 5th verse the prophecy passes to the wars of the kings of the south and the north for the supremacy and for the dominion over the Holy Land, which lay between the two. Ver. 5 describes the growing strength of these two kings, and ver. 6 an attempt made by them to join themselves together. (chazaq), to become strong. The king of the south is the ruler of Egypt; this appears from the context, and is confirmed by ver. 8. (umin saraiu) is differently interpreted; (min), however, is unanimously regarded as a partitive: “one of his princes,” as e.g. Neh. 13:28, Gen. 28:11, Ex. 6:25. The suffix to (saraiu) (his princes) does not (with C.B. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Rosenmūller, and Kranichfeld) refer to (melek gibbor) ver. 3, because this noun is too far removed, and then also (`alaiu) must be referred to it; but thereby the statement in ver. 5b, that one of the princes of the king of Javan would gain greater power and dominion than the valiant king had, would contradict the statement in ver. 4, that no one of the Diadochs would attain to the dominion of Alexander. (* This contradiction is not set aside, but only strengthened, by translating (yechezeq                 `alaiu) “he overcame him” (Kran.), according to which the king of Javan must be thought of as overcome by one of his princes, the king of the south. For the thought that the king of Javan survived the destruction of his kingdom, and that, after one of his princes had become the king of the south and had founded a great dominion, he was overcome by him, contradicts too strongly the statement of ver. 5, that the kingdom of the valiant king of Javan would be destroyed, and that it would not fall to his survivors, but to others with the exception of those, for one to be able to interpret the words in this sense.*)  The suffix to (saraiu) can only be referred to the immediately preceding (melek)“one of the princes of the king of the south.” But then (w) in (channegebh) cannot be explicative, but is only the simple copula. This interpretation also is not opposed by the Atnach under (saraiu), for this accent is added to the subject because it stands before separately, and is again resumed in (weyechezeq) by the copula (w), as e.g. Ezek. 34:19. The thought is this: one of the princes of the king of the south shall attain to greater power than this king, and shall found a great dominion. That this prince is the king of the north, or founds a dominion in the north, is not expressly said, but is gathered from ver. 6, where the king of the south enters into a league with the king of the north.

                Ver. 6. (leqitz shanim), “in the end of years,” i.e. after the expiry of a course of years; cf. 2nd Chron. 18:2. The subject to (yithchabbaru) (join themselves, 2nd Chron. 20:35) cannot, it is evident, be (‘acherim), ver. 4 (Kran.), but only the king of the south and his prince who founded a great dominion, since the covenant, according to the following clause, is brought about by the daughter of the king of the south being given in marriage ((bo’ ‘el), to come to, as Josh. xv. 18, Judg. i. 14) to the king of the north, to make (mesharim), to effect an agreement. (mesharim), rectitudes, synonymous with righteousness and right, Prov. 1:3, here designates the rectitude of the relation of the two rulers to each other in regard to the intrigues and deceits they had previously practised toward each other; thus not union, but sincerity in keeping the covenant that had been concluded. “But she shall not retain the power of the arm.” (`atzar koach) as 10:8, 16, and (hauweroa`), the arm as a figure of help, assistance. The meaning is: she will not retain the power to render the help which her marriage should secure; she shall not be able to bring about and to preserve the sincerity of the covenant; and thus the king of the south shall not be preserved with this his help, but shall become subject to the more powerful king of the north. The following passages state this. The subject to (lo’ yamodh) is the (melek negebh); and his, i.e. this king’s, help is his own daughter, who should establish (mesharim) by her marriage with the king of the north. (tero`o) is a second subject subordinated or co-ordinated to the subject lying in the verb: he together with his help. We may not explain the passage : neither he nor his help, because in this case (hi‘) could not be wanting, particularly in comparison with the following (hi‘). The “not standing” is further positively defined by man, to be delivered up, to perish. The plur. (mebi’eyah) is the plur. of the category: who brought her, i.e. who brought her into the marriage ((mebi’); to be explained after (bo‘)), without reference to the number of those who were engaged in doing so; cf. the similar plur. in particip. Lev. 19:8, Num. 24:9, and in the noun, Gen. 21:7. (haiyoldah), particip. with the suffix, wherein the article represents the relative (‘asher), in the same meaning as ver. 1, the support, the helper. The sense is: not only she, but all who brought about the establishment of this marriage, and the object aimed at by it. (ba`ittim) has the article: in the times determined for each of these persons.

                Vers. 7-9. A violent war shall then break out, in which the king of the north shall be overcome. One of the offspring of her roots shall appear. (min) in (minnetzer) is partitive, as ver. 5, and (netzar) is used collectively. The figure reminds us of Isa. 11:1. The suffix to (sharasheha) refers to the king’s daughter, ver. 6. Her roots are her parents, and the offspring of her roots a brother of the king’s daughter, but not a descendant of his daughter, as Kranichfeld by losing sight of (netzer)supposes. (kanno) is the accusative of direction, for which, in vers. 20,21, 38, (`al kanno) stands more distinctly; the suffix refers to the king of the south, who was also the subject in (yamodh), ver. 6b. (yabo’ ‘el-hachayil) does not mean: he will go to the (to his) army (Michaelis, Berth., v. Leng., Hitz., Klief.); this would be a very heavy remark within the very characteristic, significant description here given (Kran., Hāv.); nor does it mean: he attained to might (Hāv.) ; but: he shall come to the army, i.e. against the host of the enemy, i.e. the king of the north (Kran.). (bo’ ‘el), as Gen. xxxii. 32:9, Isa. 37:33, is used of a hostile approach against a camp, a city, so as to take it, in contradistinction to the following (yabo’ bema`oz): to penetrate into the fortress. (ma`oz) has a collective signification, as (bahem) referring to it shows. (`asah be), to act against or with anyone, cf. Jer. 18:23 (“deal with them”), ad libidinem agere (Maurer), essentially corresponding to (kirtzono) in vers. 33, 36. (hechezim), to show power, i.e. to demonstrate his superior power.

                Ver. 8. To bring the subjugated kingdom wholly under his power, he shall carry away its gods along with all the precious treasures into Egypt. The carrying away of the images of the ‘gods’ was a usual custom with conquerors; cf. Isa. 46:1 f., Jer.  48:7, 49:3. In the images the ‘gods’ themselves were carried away; therefore they are called “their gods.” (nesikehem) signifies here not drink-offerings, but molten images; the form is analogous to the plur. (pesilim), formed from (pesel); on the contrary, (nesikam) libationes, Deut. 32:38, stands for (nisekkehem), Isa. 41:29. The suffix is not to be referred to (‘elohim), but, like the suffix in (‘elohehem) to the inhabitants of the conquered country. (kesef thahabh) are in apposition to (kele chemedatham), not the genitive of the subject (Kran.), because an attributive genitive cannot follow a noun determined by a suffix. Hāv., v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, and Klief. translate (wehu’ shanim ya`modh wgu‘): he shall during (some) years stand off from the king of the north. Literally this translation may perhaps be justified, for (`amadh), c. (min), Gen. 29:35, has the meaning of “to leave off,” and the expression “to stand off from war’ may be used concisely for “to desist from making war” upon one. But this interpretation does not accord with the connection. First, it is opposed by the expressive (wehu‘), which cannot be understood, if nothing further should be said than that the king of the south, after he had overthrown the fortresses of the enemies’ country, and had carried away their ‘gods’ and their treasures, abstained from war for some years. The (wehu‘) much rather leads us to this, that the passage introduced by it states some new important matter which does not of itself appear from the subjugation of the enemy and his kingdom. To this is to be added, that the contents of ver. 9, where the subject to (ba‘) can only be the king of the north, do not accord with the abstaining of the king of the south from warring against the king of the north. By Ewald’s remark, “With such miserable marchings to and fro they mutually weaken themselves,” the matter is not made intelligible. For the penetrating of the king of the south into the fortresses of his enemy, and the carrying away of his ‘gods’ and his treasures, was not a miserable, useless expedition; but then we do not understand how the completely humbled king of the north, after his conqueror abstained from war, was in the condition to penetrate into his kingdom and then to return to his own land. Would his conqueror have suffered him to do this? We must, therefore, with Kranichfeld, Gesenius, de Wette, and Winer, after the example of the Syriac and the Vulgate, take (ya`modh min) in the sense of: to stand out before, It? in the sense of (mippene), contra, as in Ps. 43:1 it is construed with (dibh), which is supported by the circumstance that (`amadh) in vers. 6, 15, 17, and 25, has this meaning. By this not only is (wehu‘) rightly translated: and he, the same who penetrated into the fortresses of his adversary and carried away his ‘gods’, shall also take his stand against him, assert his supremacy for years; but also ver. 9 contains a suitable addition, for it shows how he kept his ground. The king of the north shall after some time invade the kingdom of the king of the south, but shall return to his own land, namely, because he can effect nothing. Kran. takes the king of the south as the subject to (uba‘), ver. 9; but this is impossible, for then the word must be (bemalkutho), particularly in parallelism with (‘admatho). As the words stand, (melek hannegebh) can only be the genitive to (bemalkuth); thus the supposition that “the king of the south is the subject” is excluded, because the expression, “the king of the south comes into the kingdom of the south and returns to his own land,” has no meaning when, according to the context, the south denotes Egypt. With the (uba’) there also begins a change of the subject, which, though it appears contrary to the idiom of the German [and English] language, is frequently found in Hebrew, e.g. in vers. 11a and 9a. By the mention of an expedition of the king of the north into the kingdom of the king of the south, from which he again returned without having effected anything, the way is opened for passing to the following description of the supremacy of the king of the north over the king of the south.

                Vers. 10-12. The decisive wars.

                Ver. 10. Here the suffix in (banaw, [banaiu]) refers to the king of the north, who in ver. 9 was the person acting. Thus all interpreters with the exception of Kranichfeld, who understands (bnw)of the son of the Egyptian prince, according to which this verse ought to speak of the hostilities sought, in the wantonness of his own mind, of the king of the south against the king of the north. But this interpretation of Kranichfeld is shattered, not to speak of other verbal reasons which oppose it, against the contents of ver. 11. The rage of the king of the south, and his going to war against the king of the north, supposes that the latter had given rise to this rage by an assault. Besides, the description given in ver. 10 is much too grand to be capable of being referred to hostility exercised in mere wantonness. For such conflicts we do not assemble a multitude of powerful armies, and, when these powerful hosts penetrate into the fortresses of the enemy’s country, then find that for the victorious invaders there is wanting the occasion of becoming exasperated for new warfare. The Kethiv (bnw) is rightly interpreted by the Masoretes as plur., which the following verbs demand, while the singulars (uba’ weshataf we`abar) (shall come, and overflow, and pass through) are explained from the circumstance that the hosts are viewed unitedly in (hamon) (multitude). (ba’ bo‘) expresses the unrestrained coming or pressing forward, while the verbs (shataf we`abar), reminding us of Isa. 8:8, describe pictorially the overflowing of the land by the masses of the hostile army. (weyashobh) (jussive, denoting the divine guidance), and shall return, expresses the repetition of the deluge of the land by the hosts marching back out of it after the (`abar), the march through the land, —not the new arming for war (Hāv), but renewed entrance into the region of the enemy, whereby they carry on the war (`adh ma`uwoh), to the fortress of the king of the south, corresponding with the (bem`aoth melek hatzapon) in ver. 7 (to the fortress of the king of the north). (yithgaru) signifies properly to stir up to war, i.e. to arm, then to engage in war. In the first member of the verse it has the former, and in the last the latter meaning. The violent pressing forward of the adversary will greatly embitter the king of the south, fill him with the greatest anger, so that he will go out to make war with him. The adversary marshals a great multitude of combatants; but these shall be given into his hand, into the hand of the king of the south. (he`emidh hamon rabh) (he raised up a great multitude) the context requires us to refer to the king of the north. (nittan beyado), v. Leng., Maurer, and Hitzig understand of the acceptance of the command over the army —contrary to the usage of the words, which mean, to give into the hand = to deliver up, cf. 1st Kings 20:28, Dan. 1:2, 8:12,13, and is contrary also to the context. The marshalling of the host supposes certainly the power to direct it, so that it needs not then for the first time to be given into the power of him who marshalled it. The expression also, “to give into his hand,” as meaning “to place under his command,” is not found in Scripture. To this is to be added, that the article in (hehamon) refers back to (hamon rabh). But if (hehamon) is the host assembled by the king of the north, then it can only be given up into the hand of the enemy, i.e. the king of the south, and thus the suffix in ver. 12) can only refer to him. The statements in ver. 12 are in harmony with this, so far as they confessedly speak of the king of the south.

                Ver. 12. This verse illustrates the last clause of ver. 11, i.e. explains more fully how the great multitude of the enemy are given into his hand. The first two clauses of ver. 12 stand in correlation to each other, as the change of the time and the absence of the copula before (yarum) show (the Keri (weram) proceeds from a misunderstanding). The meaning is this: “As the multitude rises up, so his heart is lifted up.” (hehamon), with the article, can only be the host of the king of the north mentioned in ver. 12. The supposition that the Egyptian army is meant, is the result of the difficulty arising out of the misapprehension of the right relation in which the perfect (wenissa‘) (hath lifted up raised) stands to the imperfect (yarum). (nissa‘) as in Isa. 33:10: they raise themselves to the conflict. (rum lebabh), the lifting up of the heart, commonly in the sense of pride; here the increase of courage, but so that pride is not altogether to be excluded. The subject to (yarum) is the king of the south, to whom the suffix to (beyado), ver. 11, points. With excited courage he overthrows myriads, namely, the powerful multitude of the enemies, but he yet does not reach to power, he does not attain to the supremacy over the king of the north and over his kingdom which he is striving after. The Vulgate, without however fully expressing the meaning, has rendered (welo’ ya`ou) by sed non praevalebit [but he’ll  not prevail.].

                Vers. 13-15. This thought is expanded and proved in these verses.—Ver. 13. The king of the north returns to his own land, gathers a host together more numerous than before, and shall then, at the end of the times of years, come again with a more powerful army and with a great train. (rekush), that which is acquired, the goods, is the train necessary for the suitable equipment of the army—“the condition to a successful warlike expedition” (Kran.). The definition of time corresponding to the (ba`ittim) in ver. 6 is specially to be observed: (leqetz ha`ittim shanim )(at the end of times, years), in which (shanim) is to be interpreted (as (yamim) with (shabu`im), ch. 10:3,4, and other designations of time) as denoting that the (`ittim)) stretch ever years, are times lasting during years. (ha`ittim ), with the definite article, are in prophetic discourse the times determined by God.

                Ver. 14. In those times shall many rise up against the king of the south ((`amadh `al) as ch. 8:20); also (beney peritzey `ammeka), the violent people of the nation (of the Jews), shall raise themselves against him. (beney paritzim) are such as belong to the classes of violent men who break through the barriers of the divine law (Ezek. 18:10). These shall raise themselves (leha`amidh chazon) to establish the prophecy, i.e. to bring it to an accomplishment. (ha`amidh) = (qayim) Ezek. 13:6, as (`amadh ) = (qum) in Daniel, and generally in the later Hebrew. Almost all interpreters since Jerome have referred this to Daniel’s vision of the oppression under Antiochus Epiphanes, ch. 8:9-14, ver. 23. This is so far right, as the apostasy of one party among the Jews from the law of their fathers, and their adoption of heathen customs, contributed to bring about that oppression with which the theocracy was visited by Antiochus Epiphanes; but the limiting of the (chazon) to those definite prophecies is too narrow. (chazon) without the article is prophecy in undefined generality, and is to be extended to all the prophecies which threatened the people of Israel with severe chastisements and sufferings on account of their falling away from the law and their apostasy from their God. (wenikshalu), they shall stumble, fall. “The falling away shall bring to them no gain, but only the sufferings and tribulation prophesied of” (Kliefoth).

                Ver. 15. In this verse, with (weyabo’) the (yabo’ bo’), ver. 13, is again assumed, and the consequence of the war announced. (weashpak solalah), to heap up an entrenchment; cf. Ezek. 4:2, 2nd Kings 19:32. (`ir mibtzaroth), city of fortifications, without the article, also collectively of the fortresses of the kingdom of the south generally. Before such power the army, i.e. the war-strength, of the south shall not maintain its ground; even his chosen people shall not possess strength necessary for this.

                Vers. 16-19. The further undertakings of the king of the north.

                Ver. 16. Having penetrated into the kingdom of the south, he shall act there according to his own pleasure, without any one being able to withstand him; just as before this the king of the south did in the kingdom of the north (ver. 7). With (weya`as) the jussive appears instead of the future—cf. (yitten weyasem), (ver. 17), (yashebh) (vers. 18 and 19) —to show that the further actions and undertakings of the king of the north are carried on under the divine decree. (habba’ ‘elaiu) is he that comes into the land of the south, the king of the north (vers. 14 and 15). Having reached the height of victory, he falls under the dominion of pride and haughtiness, by which he hastens on his ruin and overthrow. After he has subdued the kingdom of the southern king, he will go into the land of beauty, i.e. into the Holy Land (with reference to (‘eretz hatztzebi) ch. 8:9). (wekalah beyado), and destruction is in his hand (an explanatory clause), (kalah) being here not a verb, but a substantive. Only this meaning of (kalah) is verbally established, see under ch. 9:27, but not the meaning attributed to the word, from the unsuitable introduction of historical events, accomplishing, perfectio, according to which Hāv., v. Leng., Maur., and Kliefoth translate the clause: and it (the Holy Land) is wholly given into his hand. (kalah) means finishing, conclusion, only in the sense of destruction, also in 2nd Chron. 12:2 and Ezek. 13:13. For the use of (beyado) of spiritual things which one intends or aims at, cf. Job 11:14, Isa. 44:20. The destruction, however, refers not to the Egyptians (Hitzig), but to the Holy Land, in which violent (rapacious) people (ver. 14) make common cause with the heathen king, and thereby put arms into his hands by which he may destroy the land.

                Ver. 17. This verse has been very differently expounded. According to the example of Jerome, who translates it: et ponet faciem suam ut veniat ad tenendum universum regnum ejus, and adds to this the explanatory remark: ut evertat illum h. e. Ptole maaum, sive illud, h. e. regnum ejus, [And he shall set his face to come to possess all his kingdom, and he shall make upright conditions with him: and he shall give him a daughter of women, to overthrow it: and she shall not stand, neither shall she be for him.] many translate the words (labo’ bethoqef wgu) by to come in or against the strength of his whole (Egyptian) kingdom (C. B. Michaelis, Venema, Hāvernick, v. Lengerke, Maurer), i.e. to obtain the superiority over the Egyptian kingdom (Kliefoth).  But this last interpretation is decidedly opposed by the circumstance that final” means strength not in the active sense: power over something, but only in the intransitive or passive sense, strength as the property of anyone. Moreover, both of these explanations are opposed by the verbal use of (bo‘) c. (be), which does not signify: to come in or against a matter, but: to come with —cf. (bo’  bechayil), to come with power, ver. 13, also Isa. 11:10, Ps. 71:16 —as well as by the context, for of the completely subjugated south (according to vers. 15 and 16) it cannot yet be said (toqef malkutho). Correctly, Theodot. translates: (eiselthein en ischui pasēs tēs basileias autou); Luther: “to come with the strength of his whole kingdom.” Similarly M. Geier, Hitzig, and Kran. The king of the north intends thus to come with the force of his whole kingdom to obtain full possession of the kingdom of the south. (wisharim `immo) is an explanatory clause defining the manner in which he seeks to gain his object. (yesharim), plur. of the adjective (yashar), in a substantive signification, that which is straight, recta, as Prov. 16:13, proba (Ewald’s Gram. § 172; while in his commentary be translates the word by agreement). (`immo), with him, i.e. having in intention. The sense of the passage is determined according to (la`asoth mesharim), ver. 6: with the intention of establishing a direct, right relation, namely, by means of a political marriage to bring to himself the kingdom of the south. (we`asah) forms a clause by itself: he shall do it, carry it out; there is therefore no need for Hitzig’s arbitrary change of the text into (ya`asah).

                The second half of this verse (ver. 17) describes how he carries out this intention, but yet does not reach his end. “ He shall give him the daughter of women.” (hannashim), of women, the plur. of the class, as (kephir ‘arayoth), Judg. 14:5, a young lion (of lionesses); (ben ‘athonoth), Zech. 9:9, the foal of an ass (of she-asses). The suffix to (lehashchithah) (corrupting her, E.V.) is referred by many to (malkutho) (his kingdom); but this reference fails along with the incorrect interpretation of the (bethoqef) as the end of the coming. Since in the first half of the verse the object of his undertaking is not named, but in ver. 16 is denoted by (‘elayu), the suffix in question can only be referred to (bath hannashim). Thus J. D. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Rosenmūller; the former, however, gives to the word (lehashchithah) the verbally untenable meaning: “to seduce her into a morally corrupt course of conduct;” but Hitzig changes the text, strikes out the suffix, and translates: “to accomplish vileness.” (hishchith) means only to destroy, to ruin, hence “to destroy her” (Kran.). This, it is true, was not the object of the marriage, but only its consequence; but the consequence is set forth as had in view, so as forcibly to express the thought that the marriage could lead, according to a higher direction, only to the destruction of the daughter.

                The last clauses of the verse express the failure of the measure adopted. The verbs are fem., not neut.; thus the meaning is not: “it shall neither stand, nor succeed to him” (v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig), but: “she (the daughter) shall not stand,” not be able to carry out the plan contemplated by her father. The words (welo’-lo‘) do not stand for (thihyeh) “she shall not be to hint” or “for him.” In this case rib must be connected with the verb. According to the text, forms one idea, as (lo’ koach), impotent (cf. Ewald, § 270) : “she shall be a not for him” (ein Nichtihm), i.e. he shall have nothing at all from her.

                Vers. 18 and 19. His fate further drives him to make an assault on the islands and maritime coasts of the west (‘iyim), many of which he takes. (weyashebh) is not, after the Keri, to be changed into (weyasem); for turning himself from Egypt to the islands, he turns back his face toward his own land in the north. The two following clauses are explained by most interpreters thus: “but a captain shall stop his scorn (bring it to silence), and moreover shall give back (recompense) scorn to him in return.” This is then, according to the example of Jerome, referred to the expedition of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Grecian islands which were under the protection of Rome, for which he was assailed and overcome by the consul Lucius Scipio (Asiaticus) in a battle fought at Magnesia ad Sipylum in Lydia. But the translation in question affords a tolerable sense only when we take (bilti) in the meaning moreover, in addition to; a meaning which it has not, and cannot have according to its etymology. In all places where it is so rendered a negative sentence goes before it, cf. Gen. 43:3, 47:18, Judg. 7:14, or a sentence asking a question with a negative sense, as Amos 3:3,4; according to which, (lo‘) must here stand before (hishbith) if we would translate it by besides that or only. (bilti) has the idea of exception, and can only be rendered after an affirmative statement by however, for the passage introduced by it limits the statement going before. Thus Theodot. rightly: (katapausei archontas oneidismou autōn plēn ho oneidismos autou epistrepsei autō); and in close connection with this, Jerome has: et cessare faciet principem opprobrii sui ct opprobrium ejus convertetur in eum. In like manner the Peshito. This rendering we must, with Kranichfeld, accede to, and accordingly understand (wehishbith wgu) of the king of the north, and interpret the indefinite (qatzin) (leader, chief) in undefined generality or collectively, and (cherpatho) (his reproach) as the second object subordinated to (qatzin), and refer (lo) as the dative to (qatzin). Thus the second (cherpatho) gains expressiveness corresponding to its place before the verb as the contrast to (cherpatho lo) “however his reproach,” i.e. the dishonour he did to the chiefs, “shall they recompense to him.” The subject to (yashibh) is the collective (qatzin). The statement of the last clause introduces us to the announcement, mentioned in ver. 19, of the overthrow of the king of the north, who wished to spread his power also over the west. Since the chiefs (princes) of the islands rendered back to him his reproach, i.e. requited to him his attack against them, he was under the necessity of returning to the fortresses of his own land. With that begins his fall, which ends with his complete destruction.

                Ver. 20. Another stands up in his place, who causeth (noges) to pass over, through his eagerness for riches. (noges) most understand as a collector of tribute, referring for this to 2nd Kings 23:35, and (heder malkuth)as the Holy Land, and then think on Heliodorus, whom Seleucus Nicator sent to Jerusalem to seize the temple treasure. But this interpretation of the words is too limited. (nogas), denotes, no doubt (2nd Kings 23:35), to collect gold and silver; but it does not thence follow that (noges), when silver and gold are not spoken of, means to collect tribute. The word in general designates the taskmaster who urges on the people to severe labour, afflicts and oppresses them as cattle. (heder malkuth) is not synonymous with (‘eretz hatzbi), ver. 16, but stands much nearer to (hodh malkuth), ver. 21, and designates the glory of the kingdom. The glory of the kingdom was brought down by (noges), and (he’ebir) refers to the whole kingdom of the king spoken of, not merely to the Holy Land, which formed but a part of his kingdom. By these oppressions of his kingdom he prepared himself in a short time for destruction. (yamim ‘achadim ) (days few), as in Gen. 27:44, 29:20, the designation of a very short time. The reference of these words, “in days few,” to the time after the pillage of the temple of Jerusalem by Heliodorus is not only an arbitrary proceeding, but is also contrary to the import of the words, since (be) in (beyamim) does not mean post. (welo’ be’apayim) in contradistinction and contrast to (welo’ bemilchamah), can only denote private enmity or private revenge. “Neither by anger (i.e. private revenge) nor by war” points to an immediate divine judgment.

                If we now, before proceeding further in our exposition, attentively consider the contents of the revelation of vers. 5-20, so as to have a clear view of its relation to the historical fulfilment, we shall find the following to be the course of the thoughts exhibited —After the fall of the Javanic world-kingdom (ver. 4) the king of the south shall attain to great power, and one of his princes shall found (ver. 5) a yet greater dominion in the north. After a course of years they shall enter into an agreement, for the king of the south shall give his daughter in marriage to the king of the north so as to establish a right relationship between them; but this agreement shall bring about the destruction of the daughter, as well as of her father and all who co-operated for the effecting of this marriage (ver. 6). Hereupon a descendant of that king of the south shall undertake a war against the king of the north, Victoriously invade the country of the adversary, gather together great spoil and carry it away to Egypt, and for years hold the supremacy. The king of the north shall, it is true, penetrate into his kingdom, but he shall again return home without effecting anything (vers. 7-9). His sons also shall pass over the kingdom of the south with a multitude of hosts, but the multitude shall be given into the hand of the king, who shall not come to power by casting down myriads. The king of the north shall return with a host yet more numerous; against the king of the south many, also faithless members of the Jewish nation, shall rise up, and the king of the north shall take the fortified cities, without the king of the south having the power to offer him resistance (vers. 10-15). The conqueror shall new rule in the conquered lands after his own pleasure, and set his foot on the Holy Land with the intention of destroying it. Thereupon he shall come with the whole might of his kingdom against the king of the south, and by the marriage of his daughter seek to establish a right relationship with him, but he ‘shall only thereby bring about the destruction of his daughter. Finally, he shall make an assault against the islands and the maritime countries of the west; but he shall be smitten by his chiefs, and be compelled to return to the fortresses of his own land, and shall fall (vers. 16-19). But his successor, who shall send taskmasters through the most glorious regions of the kingdom, shall be destroyed in a short time (ver. 20).

                Thus the revelation depicts how, in the war of the kings of the south and of the north, first the king of the south subdued the north, but when at the summit of his conquest he sank under the power of his adversary through the insurrections and the revolt of an apostate party of the Jews; whereupon, by an assault upon the west in his endeavour after a firmer establishment and a wider extension of his power, he brings about his own overthrow, and his successor, in consequence of the oppression of his kingdom, comes to his end in a few days.

                Now, since the king who comes into his place (ver. 21 ff.) after he has become strong raises himself up against the holy covenant, takes away the daily worship in the temple of the Lord, etc., is, according to the historical evidence found in the books of the Maccabees, the Seleucidan Antiochus Epiphanes, so the prophetic announcement, vers. 5-20, stretches itself over the period from the division of the monarchy of Alexander among his generals to the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes in the year 175 B.C., during which there reigned seven Syrian and six Egyptian kings, viz.—

                Syrian Kings: From B.C. Dates:

Seleucus Nicator, 310. Antiochus Sidetes, 280.  Antiochus Theus, 260.  Seleucus Callinicus, 245. Seleucus (Jeraunus, 225. Antiochus the Great, 223. Seleucus Philopator, 186.

                Egyptian Kings: From B.C. Dates:

Ptolemy Lagus, 323. Ptolemy Philadelphus, 284. Ptolemy Euergetes, 246. Ptolemy Philopator, 221. Ptolemy Epiphanes, 204. Ptolemy Philometor, 180. [Roman Partition, 164].

                But in the prophetic revelation there is mention made of only four kings of the north (one in vers. 5-9; his sons, vers. 10-12 ; a third, vers. 13-19; and the fourth, ver. 20) and three kings of the south (the first, vers. 5 and 6; the “branch,” vers. 7-9 ; and the king, vers. 10-15), distinctly different, whereby of the former, the relation of the sons (ver. 10) to the king indefinitely mentioned in ver. 11, is admitted, and of the latter the kings of the south, it – remains doubtful whether he who is spoken of in vers. 9-15 is different from or is identical with “the branch of her roots” (ver. 7 ). This circumstance shows that the prophecy does not treat of individual historical personages, but only places in view the king of the south and the king of the north as representatives of the power of these two kingdoms. Of these kings special deeds and undertakings are indeed mentioned, which point to definite persons; e.g. of the king of the north, that he was one of the princes of the king of the south, and founded a greater dominion than his (ver. 5); the marriage of the daughter of the king of the south to the king of the north (ver. 6) ; afterwards the marriage also of the daughter of the king of the north (ver. 17), and other special circumstances in the wars between the two, which are to be regarded not merely as individualizing portraitures, but denote concrete facts which have verified themselves in history. But yet all these specialties ’do not establish the view that the prophecy consists of a series of predictions of historical facta, because even these features of the prophecy which find their actual fulfilments in history do not coincide with the historical reality.

                Thus all interpreters regard the king of the south, ver. 5, as Ptolemy Lagus, and that one of his princes (min-saraiu) who founded a greater dominion as Seleucus Nicator, or the “Conqueror,” who, in the division of the countries which the conquerors made after the overthrow and death of Antiochus, obtained, according to Appian, Syr. c. 55, Syria from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean Sea and Phrygia; then by using every opportunity of enlarging his kingdom, he obtained also Mesopotamia, Armenia, and a part of Cappadocia, and besides subjugated the Persians, Parthians, Bactrians, Arabians, and other nations as far as the Indus, which Alexander had conquered; so that, after Alexander, no one had more nations of Asia under his sway than Seleucus, for from the borders of Phrygia to the Indus all owned his sway. While this extension of his kingdom quite harmonizes with the prophecy of the greatness of his sovereignty, yet the designation “one of his princes ” does not accord with the position of Ptolemy Lagus. Both of these were certainly at the beginning generals of Alexander. Seleucus, afterwards vicegerent of the Babylonians, found himself, however, from fear of Antigonus, who sought to put him to death, under the necessity of fleeing to Egypt to Ptolemy, by whom he was hospitably received, and with whom and other vicegerents he entered into a league against Antigonus, and when war arose, led an Egyptian fleet against Antigonus (Diod. Sic. xix. 55-62). He was accordingly not one of Ptolemy’s generals.

                Moreover, the marriage of the king’s daughter, ver. 6, is thus explained by Jerome, and all interpreters who follow him: —Ptolemy Philadelphus made peace with Antiochus Theus, after many years’ war, on the condition that Antiochus should put away his own wife Laodice, who was at the same time his half-sister, and disinherit her son, and should marry Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy, and should appoint her first-born son as his successor on the throne of the kingdom (Appian, Syr. c. 65, and Jerome). This factum can be regarded as a fulfilling of the prophecy, ver. 6; but the consequences which resulted from this political marriage do not correspond with the consequences prophesied of. According to the testimony of history, Ptolemy died two years after this marriage, whereupon Antiochus set aside Berenice, and took to himself again his former wife Laodice, along with her children. But she effected the death of her husband by poison, as she feared his fickleness, and then her son Seleucus Callinicus ascended the throne. Berenice fled with her son to the asylum of Daphne, but she was there murdered along with him. The prophecy, according to this, differs from the historical facts, not merely in regard to the consequences of the events, but also in regard to the matter itself; for it speaks not only of the daughter, but also of her father being given up to death, while the natural death of her father is in no respect connected with that marriage, and not till after his death did the consequences fatal to his daughter and her child develop themselves.

                Further, as to the contents of vers. 7-9, history furnishes the following confirmations:—In order to save his sister, who was put aside by Antiochus Theus, her brother, Ptolemy Euergetes, invaded the Syrian kingdom, in which Seleucus Callinicus had succeeded his father on the throne, in alliance with the armies of the Asiatic cities, and put to death his mother Laodice, since he had come too late to save his sister, in revenge for her murder, overthrew all the Syrian fortresses from Cilicia to the Tigris and Babylonia, and would have conquered the whole of the Syrian kingdom, if an insurrection which had broken out in Egypt had not caused him to return thither, carrying with him many images of the gods, and immense treasure, which he had taken from the vanquished cities. Then, while engaged in Egypt, Gallinicus recovered the cities of Asia Minor, but failed to conquer the maritime countries, because his fleet was wrecked in a storm; and when he thereupon undertook a land expedition against Egypt, he was totally defeated, so that he returned to Antioch with only a few followers: of. Justin, Hist. xxvii. 1, 2 ; Polyb. v. 58; and Appian, Syr. c. 65. On the other hand, the announcement of the war of his sons with many hosts overflowing the land, ver. 10, is not confirmed by history. After the death of Callinicus in captivity, his son Seleucus Ceraunus succeeded to the government, a very incompetent man, who after two years was poisoned by his generals in the war with Attalus, without having undertaken anything against Egypt. His brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great, succeeded him, who, in order to recover Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, renewed the war against the king of Egypt (not till about two years after he ascended the throne, however, did Ptolemy Philopator begin to reign), in which he penetrated twice to Dura, two (German) miles north from Caesarea (Polyh. x. 49), then concluded a four months’ truce, and led his host back to the Orontes (Polyh. v. 66; Justin, xxx. 1). After the renewal of hostilities he drove the Egyptian army back to Sidon, conquered Gilead and Samaria, and took up his winter-quarters in Ptolemais (Polyh. v. 63-71). In the beginning of the following year, however, he was defeated by the Egyptians at Raphia, not far from Gaza, and was compelled, with great loss in dead and prisoners, to return as quickly as possible to Antioch, and to leave Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine to the Egyptians (Polyb. v. 79, 80, 82-86). Vers. 11 and 12 refer to this war. Thirteen or fourteen years after this, Antiochus, in league with Philip III. of Macedon, renewed the war against the Egyptians, when, after Philopator’s death, Ptolemy Epiphanes, being five years old, had ascended the throne, retook the three above-named countries (Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine), vanquished the Egyptian host led by Scopas near Paneas, and compelled the fortress of Sidon, into which the Egyptians had fled, to surrender after a lengthened siege, and then concluded a peace with Ptolemy on the condition that he took to wife the daughter of Antiochus, Cleopatra, who should bring with her, as her dowry, Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine (Polyb. xv. 20, xxviii. 17; App. Syr. c. i.; Liv. xxxiii. 19; and Joseph. Antt. xii. 4. 1). Since the time of Jerome, the prophecy vers. 13-17 has been referred to this last war. But also here the historical events fall far behind the contents of the prophecy. The prophecy points to the complete subjugation of the king of the south, while this war was carried on only for the possession of the Asiatic provinces of the Egyptian kingdom. Also the rising up of many ((rabbim), ver. 14) against the king of the south is not historically verified; and even the relation spoken of by Josephus (Antt. xii. 3. 3) in which the Jews stood to Antiochus the Great was not of such a kind as to be capable of being regarded as a. fulfilling of the “ exalting themselves” of the (beney paritzim), ver. 14. Still less does the statement of ver. 16, that the king of the north would stand in the glorious land, agree with (kalah) interpreted of conduct of Antiochus the Great toward the Jews; for according to Josephus, Antt. l.c., he treated the Jews round about Jerusalem favourably, because of their own accord they had submitted to him and had supported his army, and granted to them not only indulgence in regard to the observance of their religious ordinances, but also afforded them protection.

                Moreover, ver. 18, containing the prophecy of the undertaking of the king of the north against the islands, has not its historical fulfilment in the expedition of Antiochus the Great against the coasts and islands of Asia Minor and the Hellespont; but ver. 19, that which is said regarding his return to the fortresses of his own land and his overthrow, does not so correspond with the historical issue of the reign of this king that one would be able to recognise therein a. prediction of it. Finally, of his successor, Seleucus Philopator, to whom ver. 20 must refer, if the foregoing verses treat of Antiochus the Great, nothing further is communicated, than that he quum paternis cladibus fractas admodum Syrice apes accepissct, post otiosum nullisgue admodum rebus gestis nobilitatum annorum duodecim regnum, was put to death through the treachery of Heliodorus, unius erpurpuratis (Liv. xli. 19, cf. App. Syr. c. 45), and the mission of Heliodorus to Jerusalem to seize the treasures of the temple, which is fabulously described in 2nd Mac. 3:4 ff. The (yishshaber) (shall be destroyed) of this king (beyamim `achadim) (within few days) does not harmonize with the fact of his twelve (12) years’ reign.

                From this comparison this much follows, that the prophecy does not furnish a prediction of the historical wars of the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, but an ideal description of the war of the kings of the north and the south in its general outlines, whereby, it is true, diverse special elements of the prophetical announcement have historically been fulfilled, but the historical reality does not cor respond with the contents of the prophecy in anything like an exhaustive manner. This ideal character of the prophecy comes yet more prominently forward to view in the following prophetic description.

                Chap. 11:21-12:3. The further unveiling of the future.  In this section we have (ver. 21) first the description of the prince who, in striving after supremacy, uses all the means that cunning and power can contrive, and in his enmity against the holy covenant knows no bounds. This description is divided into two parts—(1) vers. 21-35, and (2) vers. 36 – ch. 12:3 —which designate the two stadia of his proceedings. In the first part are described, (1) his gradual rising to power, vers. 21-24; (2) his war with the king of the south for the supremacy, vers. 25-27; (3) his rising up against the covenant people, even to the desecration of the sanctuary by the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the setting up of the abomination of desolation, vers. 28-32 ; (4) the effect and consequence of this for the people of God, vers. 32-35. This prince is the enemy of the holy God who is prophesied of in ch. 8:9-13, 23-25, under the figure of the little horn, and is typically represented in the rising up of the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes against the covenant people and their worship of God.

                Vers. 21-24. The prince’s advancement to power.-—He appears as (nibzeh), one despised, i.e. not such an one as by reason of birth has any just claim to the throne, and therefore as an intruder, also one who finds no recognition (Kranichfeld); which Hitzig has more definitely explained by mentioning that not Antiochus Epiphanes, but his nephew Demetrius, the son of the murdered Seleucus Philopator, was the true heir, but was of such a character that he was not esteemed worthy of the throne. (nibzeh), is despised, not = bad, unworthy, but yet supposes unworthiness. There was not laid on him the honour or majesty of the kingdom. The dignity of the kingdom requires (hodh), splendour, majesty, such as God lays upon the king of Israel, Ps. 21:6 (5), 1st Chron. 29:25. But here the subject spoken of is the honour which men give to the king, and which was denied to the “despised one” on account of his character. He comes (beshalwah), in security, i.e. unexpectedly (cf. ch. 8:25), and takes possession of the kingdom. (hecheziq), to grasp, here to draw violently to himself. (bachalaqlaqqoth), properly, by smoothnesses, intrigues and cunning, not merely flatteries or smooth words, but generally hypocritical behaviour in word and deed; cf. ver. 34. .

                Ver. 22. The kingdom he seized he also knew how to hold fast with great power. (zero`othhashshetef), arms (i.e. warlike strength) of an inundation, i.e. armies overflowing the land are swept away before him, destroyed by yet stronger military forces. It is not merely the enemy, but also the “prince of the covenant,” whom he destroys. (negidh berith) is analogous to (bi`aley berith), Gen. 14:13, and (‘anshey berith), Obad. 7, cf. Mal. 2:14, and, as the absence of the article shows, is to be taken in a general sense. The interpretation of (negidh berith) of the high priest Onias III, who at the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes was driven from his office by his brother, and afterwards, at the instigation of Menelaus, was murdered by the Syrian governor Andronicus at Daphne near Antioch, 2nd Mac. 4:1 ff, 33 ff. (Rosenmūller, Hitzig, etc.) —this interpretation is not warranted by the facts of history. This murder does not at all relate to the matter before us, not only because the Jewish high priest at Antioch did not sustain the relation of a “prince of the covenant,” but also because the murder was perpetrated without the previous knowledge of Antiochus, and when the matter was reported to him, the murderer was put to death by his command (2nd Macc. 4:36-38). Thus also it stands in no connection with the war of Antiochus against Egypt. The words cannot also (with Hāvernick, v. Leng., Maurer, Ebrard, Kliefoth) be referred to the Egyptian king Ptolemy Philometor, because history knows nothing of a covenant entered into between this king and Antiochus Epiphanes, but only that soon after the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes the guardians of the young Philometor demanded (Coele-Syria from Antiochus, which Antiochus the Great had promised (see above, p.448) as a dowry to his daughter Cleopatra, who was betrothed to Ptolemy Philometor, but Antiochus did not deliver it up, and hence a war arose between them. To this is to be added, that, as Dereser, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Kranichfeld have rightly remarked, the description in vers. 22-24 bears an altogether general character, so that v. Leng. and Maurer find therein references to all the three expeditions of Antiochus, and in vers. 25-27 find more fully foretold what is only briefly hinted at in vers. 22-24. The undertaking of the king against Egypt is first described in ver. 24. We must therefore, with Kranichfeld, understand (negidh berith) in undefined generality of covenant princes in general, in the sense already given.

                Vers. 23 and 24. In these verses there is a fuller statement of the manner in which he treats the princes of the covenant and takes possession of their territory. The (w) at the beginning of ver. 23 is explicative, and the suffix in (‘elau), pointing back (negidh berith), is also to be interpreted collectively. (min-hithchabruth ‘elau), literally, “from the confederating himself with them” ((hithchabruth) is infin. formed in the Syriac manner), i.e. from the time when he had made a covenant with them, he practised deceit. This was done by his coming ((`alah) of a warlike coming) and gaining strength with a few people, namely (ver. 24), by his coming unexpectedly into the fattest and richest places of the province, and there doing unheard of things —things which no previous king, no one of his predecessors, had ever done, scattering among them (his followers) spoil and prey and riches. Thus rightly, after the Syriac and the Vulgate (dissipabit), Rosenmūller, Kranichfeld, and Ewald; while, on the contrary, v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, and Kliefoth interpret (bazar) in the sense of to distribute, and refer the words to the circumstance that Antiochus Epiphanes squandered money lavishly, and made presents to his inferiors often without any occasion. But to distribute money and spoil is nothing unheard of, and in no way does it agree with the “fattest provinces.” The context decidedly refers to conduct which injured the fat provinces. This can only consist in squandering and dissipating the wealth of this province which he had plundered to its injury (lahem) [to them], dativ. incommodi). An historical confirmation is found in 1st Macc. 3:29-31. To bring the provinces wholly under his power, he devises plans against the fortresses that he might subdue them. (we`adh-`eth), and indeed (he did this) even for a time. We cannot, with Klief., refer this merely to the last preceding passage, that his assaults against the fortresses succeeded only partly and for a time. The addition (“and that for a time”) denotes a period determined by a higher power (of. ver. 35 and ch. 12:4, 6), and relates to the whole proceedings of this prince hitherto described; as C.B. Michaelis has already rightly explained: nec em’m semper et in perpetuum dolus ei succedet et terminus suus ei tanaem [tandem] erit [= also, not always & forever deception to succeed; in the end, it will be her last ?].

                Vers. 25-27. These verses describe the victorious war of the king who had come to power against the king of the south, the war of Antiochus Epiphanes against king Ptolemy Philometor, which is described in 1st Macc. 1:16-19, with manifest reference to this prophecy. (weya`er) (he shall stir up) is potentialis in the sense of divine decree: “he shall stir up his power and his heart.” (koach) is not warlike power, which is mentioned in (bechayil) (ver. 25), but the power which consists in the bringing of a great army under his command; (lebab), the mental energy for the carrying out of his plans. For (lo’ ya`amodh), cf. ch. 8:4. The subject is the last-named king of the south, who, notwithstanding his very great and powerful army, shall not stand in battle, but shall give way, because devices are contrived against him. The subject to (yachshebu) is not the enemy, the king of the north, with his army, but, according to ver. 26, his table-companions.

                Ver. 26. Here it is more definitely stated why he cannot stand. (‘okley pathbago) who eat his food ((pathbagh), see under ch. 1:5), i.e. his table companions (cf. Ps. 41:10 [9]), persons about him. (yishberuhu), shall break him, i.e. cast him to the ground. His army shall therefore overflow, but shall execute nothing, only many shall fall down slain. The first member of the verse points to treachery, whereby the battle was lost, and the war was fruitless. Hitzig incorrectly interprets Filmy”, rushes away, i.e. is disorganized and takes to flight. But (shataf) cannot have this meaning.

                Ver. 27 . Here then is described how the two kings seek through feigned friendship to destroy one another. The two kings are of course the two kings of the north and the south previously named. Of a third, namely, of two kings of Egypt, Philometor and Physkon, Daniel knows nothing. The third, Physkon, is introduced from history; and hence Hitzig, v. Lengerke, and others understand by the “two kings,” the two kings Antiochus and Philometor confederated against the king of the south, but vKliefoth, on the contrary, thinks of Antiochus and Physkon, the latter of whom he regards as the king of the south, ver. 25. All this is arbitrary. Jerome has already rejected the historical evidence for this, and remarks: verum ex eo, quia scriptura mmc dicit: duos fuisse reges, quorum cor fuerit fraudulentum . . . hoe seeundum historiam demonstrari non potest [see Jerome Selection on 11:27]. (lebabam lemera`) Hitzig translates: “their heart belongs to wickedness,” contrary to the context. (le) denotes also here only the direction: “their heart goes toward wicked deeds,” is directed thereto. (mera`) (from (r“)), formed after (metzar) (cf. Ewald, §160a), the evil-doing, consists in this, that the one seeks to overthrow and destroy the other under the cloak of feigned friendship; for they eat as friends at one table, and “speak lies” —the one tells lies to the other, professing friendship. But their design shall not succeed. All interpretations of these words which are determined by historical facta are arbitrary. The history of Antiochus Epiphanes furnishes no illustrations for this. In the sense of the prophecy (lo’ thitzlach) has only this meaning: the design of the king of the north to destroy the king of the south, and to make himself master both of the north and the south, shall not succeed, and the king of the south will not fulfil what he promises to his deceitful adversary. For yet the end shall be at the time appointed. These words state the reason why the (mera`) shall not succeed. Hitzig incorrectly translates: “but the end holds on wards to the appointed time;” for (ki) cannot in this connection be rendered by but, and (le) cannot express the idea of holding to anything. (le) denotes here, as generally, the direction toward the end, as ver. 35, and ch. 8:17, 19. The end goes yet on to the time appointed by God. That this (mo`edh) (appointment of time) does not lie in the present, but in the future, is denoted by (`odh), although we do not, with Hāvernick, interpret (`odh) by “for the end lies yet further out,” nor, with v. Lengerke and Maurer, may we supply the verb “withdraws itself, is reserved.” (`odh)stands before (qetz) because on it the emphasis lies. (qetz) is, however, not the end of the war between Antiochus and Egypt (v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig), but cannot be otherwise taken than (`eth qetz), vers. 35, 40, and ch. 12:4. But in the latter passage (`eth qetz) is the time of the resurrection of the dead, thus the end of the present course of the world, with which all the oppression of the people of God ceases. Accordingly (qetz) in the verse before us, as in vers. 35 and 40, is the time in which the conduct of the kings previously described, in their rising up and in their hostility against the people of God, reaches its end (ver. 45); and with the overthrow of these enemies the period of oppression also comes to an end. This end comes only (lammo`edh), at the time which God has determined for the purifying of His people (ver. 35). So long may the kings of the north and the south prosecute their aims; so long shall they strive for the possession of the kingdom without succeeding in their plans. (lammo`edh) has here and in ver. 35 the definite article, because in both verses the language refers not to any definite time, but to the time determined by God for the consummation of His kingdom. The placing of the article in this word in the verse before us is not, with Kliefoth, to be explained from a reference to ch. 8:17, 19. The two revelations are separated from each other by too long a space of time for this one to refer back to that earlier one by the mere use of the article, although both treat of the same subject. The (lammo`edh) occurs besides in ver. 29, where it is natural to suppose that it has the same meaning as here; but the contents of that verse oppose such a conclusion. Ver. 29 treats, it is true, of a renewed warlike expedition against the south, which, however, brings neither the final deciding of the war with the south (cf, ver. 40), nor yet the end of the oppression of the people of God; (hammo`edh) is thus only the time determined for the second aggression against the south, not the time of the end.

                Vers. 28-32. The rising up against the holy covenant.

                Ver. 28. The success gained by the crafty king of the north in his war against the king of the south (ver. 25 f.) increases his endeavours after the enlarging of his dominions. Returning from Egypt with great riches, i.e. with rich spoil, he raises his heart against the holy covenant. By the potentialis (yashobh) (he shall return) this new undertaking is placed in the point of view of a divine decree, to denote that he thereby brings about his own destruction. (berith qodesh) signifies not the holy people in covenant with God (v. Lengerke, Maurer, and many older interpreters), but the divine institution of the Old Covenant, the Jewish Theocracy. The Jews are only members of this covenant, cf. ver. 30. Calvin is right when he says: Mihi simplicior sensus probatur, quad scilicet bellum gerat adversus Deum. The holy covenant is named instead of the covenant people to represent the undertaking as an outrage against the kingdom of God, which was founded in Israel. (we`asah), and he shall do, perform, that which his heart thinks, or that which he has in his mind against the holy covenant. The historical fulfilment is narrated in 1st Mac. 1:22-29. (weyashobh ‘artzo) resumes (weyashobh ‘artzo), and teaches us that Antiochus undertook the first assault against the holy covenant on his return from Egypt into his kingdom (to Antioch), as is expressly stated in 1st Macc. 1:20.

                Ver. 29. In order that he might bring Egypt wholly under his power, he undertook a new expedition thither ((yashobh uba’), he comes again). But this expedition, like the first, was not successful ((ke)—(ke), asso, cf. Josh. 14:11, Ezek. 18:4). For the ships of Chittim come against him. (tziyim kittim), ships the Chittaei, for (tzim miyadh kittim), Num. 24:24, whence the expression is derived (kittim) is Cyprus with its chief city (Kittion) (now Chieti or Chitti); see under Gen. 10:4. Ships coming from Cyprus are ships which come from the west, from the islands and coasts of the Mediterranean. In 1st Macc. 1:1 and 8:5 (kittim) is interpreted of Macedonia, according to which Bertholdt and Dereser think of the Macedonian fleet with which the Roman embassy sailed to Alexandria. This much is historically verified, that the Roman embassy, led by Popillius, appeared with a fleet in Alexandria, and imperiously commanded Antiochus to desist from his undertaking against Egypt and to return to his own land (Liv. xlv. 10-12). The LXX. have therefore translated these words by: (kai hēxousi HRōmaioi kai exōsousin auton kai embrimesontai autō), and correctly, so far as the prophecy has received the first historical accomplishment in that factum. (wenik’ah), he shall lose courage, is rightly explained by Jerome: non quod inierierit, sed quod omnem arrogantiae perdiderit magnitudinem. (* The historical facts have been briefly and conclusively brought together by Hitzig thus : “ On the complaint of the Alexandrians the Roman senate sent an embassage, at the head of which was C. Popillius Laenas (Polyb. xxix. 1 ; Liv. xliv. 19). After being detained at Delos (Liv. xliv. 29), they set sail to Egypt after the battle at Pydna (Liv. xlv. 10). Here he met Antiochus four Roman miles from Alexandria, and presented to him the message of the senate. When Antiochus explained that he wished to lay the matter before his counsellors, Popillius described with the staff he carried in his hand a circle round the king, and commanded him to give his answer before he left this circle. Antiochus, confounded by the circumstance, submitted and withdrew from Egypt (Liv. xlv. 12 ; Polyb. xxix. 11 ; Appian, Syr. c. 66 ; Justin. xxxiv. 3).”*) (weshabh weza`am), not: he was again enraged, for nothing is said of a previous (z`am). (weshabh), and he turned round (back) from his expedition against Egypt. Since he was not able to accomplish anything against the (the south), he turns his indignation against Judah to destroy the covenant people (cf. ver. 28). The (weshabh) in ver. 30b resumes the in ver. 30a, so as further to express how he gave vent to his anger. Hitzig’s interpretation of the first of the return to Palestine, of the second, of the return from Palestine to Antioch, is not justified. (weyaben), he shall observe, direct his attention to the Jews who forsook the holy covenant, i.e. the apostate Jews, that he might by their help execute his plans against the Mosaic religion—partim ornando illos honoribus, partim illorum studiis ad patriam religionem oblite randam comparatis obsecundando, as C.B. Michaelis excellently remarks; cf. 1st Macc. 1:11-16 with 2:18.

                Ver. 31. Here is stated what he accomplished by the help of the apostate Jews. (zero`im), arms, figuratively for help (ver. 5), are warlike forces, as vers. 15 and 22. That the plur. has here the masculine form, while in those verses it has the fem. form, furnishes no reason for a difierence of meaning, since (zero`am) in its proper sense of arm occurs promisoue with both endings in the plur.; cf. for (zero`im) Gen. 49:24, Isa. 51:5, 2nd Kings 9:24. (min) in (mimmennu) is not partitive, a part of him, i.e. the host as a part of the king (Hitzig), but out from him, or by his command. (ya`amodu), to stand up, not to stand still, as Hitzig, on the ground of the supposition that Antiochus on his return from Egypt placed a standing army-corps in Jerusalem, would interpret it, contrary to the usage of the word, since (`amadh) does not signify to stand still in the sense of to remain behind, though it means to endure, to keep the ground (vers. 6, 15). It is disputed whether these (zero`im) denote military forces, troops of the hostile king (Hāvernick, v. Leng., Maur., Hitz., Klief.), or his accomplices of the apostate party of the Jews, and thus essentially identical with (`ozbe berith), ver. 30 (Calvin, Hengstb. Christol. iii. 1, p. 110, Kran., and others). In favour of the latter view, Kranichfeld argues that the (`ozbe berith) (those that forsake the covenant), according to ver. 30, come under consideration as a support to the king, and the (mimmennu) of this verse before us evidently refers to the king’s own army, and therefore would be superfluous. But these two reasons prove nothing. The (mimmennu) is not superfluous, even though it were used of the king’s own army. Since in vers. 30 and 32 the king of the north is the subject of the clause; it was necessary in (zero`im) to define in what relation they stood to the king. But the other remark, that (`ozbe berith) come into view as a support to the king, does not prove that these are the same who desecrate the sanctuary and set up the abomination of desolation. On the contrary, if (mimmennu) denotes the causal exit, the (zero`im) cannot be the apostate Jews, but only warlike forces which the king leads forth. If we refer (zero`im) to the apostate Jews, then we must, with Hengstenberg and Gesenius, take (mimmennu) in the sense of eo jubente. Moreover, the (zero`im) manifestly stand in contrast to the (marshi`ey berith) of ver. 32. By his troops (military forces) the king lays waste the sanctuary, and he makes by means of smooth words those who sin against the covenant heathen. Kranichfeld himself recognises this contrast, and therefore will understand as the subject to (wehillelu) not merely “those that forsake the covenant” (ver. 30), but these along with and including the warlike power of the hostile king. An expedient which the difficulty suggested. (hammiqdash) is the temple, and (hamma`oz) (the strength) is in apposition. This apposition, however, does not say that the temple was fortified (v. Leng., Hitzig, Ewald), but it points out the temple as the spiritual fortress of Israel. The temple is the “Feste Burg” (firm tower) of the holy covenant (ver. 28), as the dwelling-place of Jehovah, which is a firm fortress to His people; cf. Ps. 31:4,5 (3,4); Isa. 25:4; Ps. 18:3 (2). (hillelu hm.) is essentially identical with (hushlach mechon miqdasho), ch. 8:11. The two following clauses state what the desecration consists in: in the taking away, the removal of the stated worship of Jehovah, and in the placing, setting up of the abomination of desolation, i.e. of the idol-altar on Jehovah’s altar of burnt-offering; see under ch. 8:11 (p.297 f.). (meshomem) is not the genitive, but an adjective to (hashshiqqutz) (without the article after the definite noun, as e.g. ch. 8:13): the desolating abomination, i.e. the abomination which effects the desolation. With reference to the fulfilment, cf. 1st Macc. 1:37, 45, 54, and above, p.371.

                Vers. 32-35. The consequences to the people of Israel which result from this sin. against the holy covenant. —The ungodly shall become heathen, i.e. shall wholly apostatize from the true God; but, on the other hand, the pious shall be strengthened in their confidence in the Lord. This is in general the import of ver. 32, the first half of which, however, has been very differently interpreted. (marshi`ey berith) signifies neither “those who sinfully make a covenant” (Hāvernick), nor “sinners among the covenant people” (v. Lengerke), nor “those who condemn the covenant,” i.e. those who reject the sign of the covenant, circumcision (Hitzig). The latter meaning is altogether arbitrary. Against the second is the fact that (resh`im), is in use for sinners; against the first, that (hirshi`ey berith) could only mean: “to declare the covenant punishable.” (hirshi`ey) means to act wickedly, to sin, and (berith) can only be the accusative of reference, which is subordinated to the participle for the purpose of limitation (Ewald, § 288); literally, “the acting wickedly with reference to the covenant.” The absence of the article in (berith); is no proof against the reference of the word to the holy covenant. The article is wanting in Daniel where otherwise the determination is found from the connection, e.g. ch. 8:13. Sinning against the covenant is, it is true, a stronger expression than (azabh berith) (to forsake the covenant), but it does not include the idea of the entire apostasy from God, but only insolent violation of the covenant law, so that of (marshi`ey berith) it can very well be predicated (yachanif). (hechenif) does not mean to pollute (Kran.), but to desecrate, to make profane; and spoken of persons, to make them as heathen, as frequently in the Syriac. (chalaqqoth), flatteries, here deceitful promises of earthly advantage; cf. under ver. 21. For the subject spoken of here, see 1st Macc. 2:18. (yodh`ey ‘ellohayu) are the true confessors of the Lord. The suffix to (‘ellohayu) is neither to be interpreted distributively nor to be referred to (`am). To (yachziqu) we are to supply (babarith) from the context: “to hold fast to the covenant.” (re`asu), as vers. 17, 28, 30, to carry out the design. In what way this is done is explained in vers. 33 and 34a.

                Ver. 33. (maskiley) is not the teachers, but intelligentes, those who have insight or understanding. The pious are meant by the word, those who know their God (ver. 32). This is seen from the contrast (resha`im), ch. 12:10. According to the O.T. view, wisdom, insight, are correlative ideas with the fear of God, piety, Ps. 14:1, Job 28:28; and (larabbim) with the article, the many, the great multitude of the people who bring themselves forward to view by the judicious appearance of the pious, are moved to hold fast by the law of the Lord. Yet they who understand shall for a time fall by the sword, etc. The subject to (nikshelu) is not the (rabbim), or those with the teachers (Hitzig), but the (maskiley `am), but not all, but, according to ver. 35, a number of them; for in ver. 35 falling is not first specially predicated of the teachers, as Hitzig thinks, but only the efiect which that would have on the whole people. The words point to a warlike rising up of the faithful members of the covenant people against the hostile king, and have had their first historical fulfilment in the insurrection of the Maccabees against Antiochus Epiphanes; cf. 1st Mac. 2 ff. In 1st Mac. 1:57, 2:38, 3:41, 5:13, 2nd Mac. 6:11, there are examples of this falling by the sword. The (rabbim) after (yamim) in several Codd. is a worthless gloss.

                Ver. 34. Through the fall of the pious in war little help shall come to the people of God. (me`at) (little) is not “spoken contemptuonsly” (Hitzig), but the help is so named in comparison with the great deliverance which shall come to the people of God in the time of the end by the complete destruction of the oppressor. We may not therefore, with Hitzig and others, limit this expression to the circumstance that with the victories of Judas Maccabaeus (1st Macc. 3:11 ff., 23 ff., 4:14, etc.) they were far from gaining all, for they also met with a defeat (1 Macc. v. 60 f.). For with the overthrow of Antiochus and the liberation of the Jews from the Syrian yoke, full help was not yet rendered to the people of God. The “little help” consists in this, that by the rising up and the wars of those that had understanding among the people the theocracy was preserved, the destruction of the service of Jehovah and of the church of God, which was aimed at by the hostile king, was prevented, and, as the following clauses express, the purifying of the people of God is brought about. This purifying is the design and the fruit of the oppression which God brings upon His people by means of the hostile king. The attaining of this end is a “little help” in comparison with the complete victory over the arch enemy of the time of the end. Many shall connect themselves with the (maskilim) (intelligentes, ver. 33a) with flatteries (as ver. 21). “The successes of Judas, and the severity with which he and Mattathias treated the apostates (1st Macc. 2:44, 3:5, 8), had the result of causing many to join them only through hypocrisy (1st Macc. 7:6; 2nd Macc. 14:6), who again forsook them as soon as opportunity offered; 1st Mac. 6:21 ff., 9:23” (Hitzig, Kliefoth).

                Ver. 35. Such has been the experience in all periods of the church’s history. Therefore does the church need to pass through the purifying process of affliction, in which not only the lukewarm fall away in the time of conflict, but also many even (min-hammaskilim). (min) is here partitive. (yikkashlu) (they shall fall) is to be understood (cf. ver. 33, ‘I’ll not merely of death in battle, but of other calamities, such as being imprisoned, plundered, etc. (litzrof bahem), to melt, i.e. to purify by them, not as to them; for (be) does not represent the accusative, as Kranichfeld thinks, referring in confirmation to Ewald, § 282. The use of there spoken of is of a different nature. The suffix in (bahem) refers neither to “those that understand ” alone (Hāv.), nor to the “many,” ver. 33 (v. Leng.), still less to the flatterers in ver. 34 (Maurer), but to all of these together, or to the whole company of the people of God in the sum of their individuals. The verbs (lebarer welalben) serve to strengthen the expression (lalben for lalbin) on account of the assonance). (`adh-`eth qetz) (to the time of the end) is connected with (yikkashlu), the chief idea of the passage. The stumbling and falling of “those who understand” (the pious) shall continue to the time of the end, to bring about the purification of the people for their glorification in the time of the end. For the end stretches itself out yet to the time appointed (of. ver. 27); i.e. it does not come in with the “little help” which Israel received by the rising up of “those who understand” against the hostile king, thus not with the afflictions that came upon them by Antiochus, but it shall come afterwards at the time appointed by God. The assertion that “the end is connected with the death of king Antiochus Epiphanes” (Hitzig, Bleek, and others) is founded on a misunderstanding of the following section,  vers. 36-45. On the contrary, Kranichfeld has rightly remarked, that “the statements made in vers. 36 to 39 incl. regarding the king of the north, now fall, in accordance with the context, into the period which shall expire at that time of the end (ver. 35, cf. ver. 40).” From ver. 40 the events of the time of the end are then to be prophesied.

                Ver. 36-ch. 12:3. The second and last stadium in the dominion of the enemy of God, with his destruction, and the deliverance of the people of God.

                This part of the prophecy is divided into three sections: (1) Vers. 36-39 describe the rising of the hostile king above all divine and human ordinances; (2) vers. 40-45, his last undertaking against the king of the south for the gaining of the dominion of the world, together with his overthrow; (3) ch. 12:1-3, the deliverance of the people of God from the last tribulation.

                Regarding the king whose course to its end is described in vers. 36—45, the views of interpreters differ. Following the example of Porphyry, Ephrem Syrus, and Grotius, almost all modern interpreters find predicted here only a description of the conduct of Antiochus Epiphanes to the time of his destruction, believing interpreters, such as C. B. Michaelis, Hāvernick, and others, regarding the whole as having a typical reference to Antichrist. On the contrary, Jerome, Theodoret, Luther, Oecolampadius, Osiander, Calovius, Geier, and at length Kliefoth, interpret this section as a direct prophecy of Antichrist; according to which, (hammelek), ver. 36, representing not Antiochus Epiphanes, but the prince, i.e. the Antichrist, who is prophesied of under the figure of the little horn growing up among the ten kingdoms of the fourth world-kingdom, and described in ch. 9:26 as (nagidh habba‘), must be introduced as a new subject in ver. 36. The rabbinical interpreters have also adopted the idea of a change of subject in ver. 36, for Aben Ezra, Jacchiades, and Abarbanel take Constantine the Great, while B. Solomon takes the Roman empire generally, as the subject. Essentially the reference of the section to the Antichrist is correct; but the supposition of a change of subject in the prophetic representation is not established. If in the words, “the fall of those who understand, to purify and make white, shall continue to the time of the end” (ver. 35), it is also said that the end does not yet come with the proceedings of the enemy of God prophesied of in vers. 28-34, but lies beyond that; so also, in the verses referred to, the destruction of this enemy (Antiochus) is neither directly nor indirectly so spoken of as to justify the conclusion that “the words ‘to purify and make white,’ etc., extend beyond his time.” If the contents of vers. 36-45 lie beyond the end of the enemy who has been hitherto spoken of, then ought his destruction to have been mentioned, especially since with the words, “to the time of the end, because yet for a time appointed,” ver. 35, the words of ver. 27, “for yet the end of the time appointed,” are resumed. All attempts to give to the former of these expressions in ver. 35 a different meaning from that contained in the latter, ver. 27 (Calovius, Geier, Kliefoth), amount to verbally impossible interpretations. The non-mention also of the destruction of this enemy (Antiochus) in vers. 32-35 is not justified by the remark that this was already known to Daniel from ch. 8, and that in vers. 36-45 the duration of Antichrist is also omitted (Klief.). For the verses do not treat of the duration of the proceedings of the enemy of God, but of his end or his destruction. The destruction of the enemy at the time of the end is, however, expressly declared, ver. 45. This would also have been stated in vers. 32-34 if the king in ver. 36 had been a different person from the one previously described. (hammelek) with the definite article undeniably points back to the king whose appearance and conduct are described in vers. 21-33. The definite article neither denotes that the Antichrist of ch. vii. and ix. 26 f. was known to Daniel (Klief.), nor is it to be emphatically interpreted in the sense of the king simply (Geier). This is only so far right, that that which is said regarding this king, vers. 36-39, partly goes far beyond what Antiochus did, partly does not harmonize with what is known of Antiochus, and, finally, partly is referred in the N.T. expressly to the Antichrist; cf. ver. 36 with 2nd Thess. 2:4, and ch. 12:1 with Matt. 24:21. These circumstances also are not satisfactorily explained by the remark that the prophecy regarding Antiochus glances forward to the Antichrist, or that the image of the type (Antiochus) hovers in the image of the antitype (Antichrist); they much rather show that in the prophetic contemplation there is comprehended in the image of one king what has been historically fulfilled in its beginnings by Antiochus Epiphanes, but shall only meet its complete fulfilment by the Antichrist in the time of the end.

                Vers. 36-39. The hostile king exalting himself above all divine and human ordinances at the time of the end.

                Ver. 36. This exaltation of the king is here introduced by the formula (we`asah kirtzono), which expresses the self-will and the irresistible might of his proceeding; cf. ch. 3:16 and 8:4,—“a feature common to Antiochus and Antichrist” (Klief.). He shall raise himself above every ‘god’, not merely “subjectively in his lofty imagination” (Hitzig), but also by his actions. (kal-el), every ‘god’, not merely the God of Israel, but also the ‘gods’ of the heathen. This does not agree with Antiochus. The (isothea phronein huperēphanōs) which is said of him, 2nd Mac. 9:12, is not an exalting of himself above every ‘god’. “Antiochus was not an (atheos); he even wished to render the worship of Zeus universal; and that he once spoiled the temple does not imply his raising himself above every ‘god’” (Klief.). Of Antiochus much rather, as is said by Livy (xli. 20), in duabus tamen magnis honestisgue rebus fere regius erat animus, in urbium donis et deorum cultu [= In two matters of great importance and redounding to his honour he showed a truly kingly spirit – his munificence to cities and his care for divine worship.]. On the contrary, these words before us are expressly referred to Antichrist, 2nd Thess. 2:4.

                Yet further, in his arrogance he shall speak (niphla’oth) wonderful, i.e. impious and astonishing things, against the God of ‘gods’, i.e. the true God. This clause expounds and strengthens the (mallel rabreban) (speaking great things), which is said of the enemy at the time of the end, ch. 7:8, 11, 20. In this he will prosper, but only till the anger of God against His people ((za`am) as ch. 8:19) shall be accomplished. Regarding (kalah) see at ch. 9:27. This anger of God is irrevocably determined (necheratzah), that His people may be wholly purified for the consummation of His kingdom in glory. The perf. does not stand for the imperf. because it is decreed, but in its proper meaning, according to which it represents the matter as finished, settled. Here it accordingly means: “for that which is irrevocably decreed is accomplished, is not to be recalled, but must be done.”

                Ver. 37. The exalting of himself above all on the part of the king is further described. “He shall not regard the gods of his fathers,” i.e. shall cast aside the worship of the gods transmitted to him from his fathers. This again does not accord with Antiochus Epiphanes, regarding whom it is true that history records- that he wished to suppress the worship practised by the Jews, but it knows nothing of attempts made by him to destroy the gods and the worship of other nations. (* The statement in 1st Mac. 1:41 ff., “Moreover king Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, and everyone should have his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king,” does not amount to a proof of this. “For,” as Grimm rightly remarks, “the account of such a decree of Antiochus to all (not Hellenic) peoples of his kingdom is very doubtful. No profane historian records anything about it, neither does Josephus, nor the author of the second book of the Maccabees in the parallel passages. It is true that Antiochus, according to Livy, xli. 20, put great honour upon Jupiter by building a splendid temple to Tages, and according to Polybius, xxvi. 10, 11, he excelled all kings who preceded him in expensive sacrifices and gifts in honour of the ‘gods’; but this is no proof of a proselytizing fanaticism.” The contrary rather appears from Josephus, Antt. xii. 5. 5, where the Samaritans, in a letter to Antiochus, declare, contrary to the opinion entertained regarding them by their governor, that by descent and custom they were not Jews. Their letter rests on the supposition that the royal decree was directed only against the Jews. Cf. Flathe, Gesch. Macedoniens, ii. p. 596. Diodorus also (xxxiv. 1), to whom Hitzig refers, only states that Antiochus wished to dissolve (ta nomima) of the Jewish people, and to compel the Jews to abandon their manner of life (tas agōgas metathesthai).*)    The words which follow, (`al-chemdath nashim), the old interpreters understood of the love of women, or of conjugal love; the modern, after the example of J.D. Michaelis and Gesenius, on the contrary, understand them of the ‘goddess’ Anaitis or Mylitta, the Assyrian Venus, and refer them specially to the spoiling of the temple of this goddess in Elymais (1st Mac. 6:1, cf. 2nd Macc. 1:13). Ewald finally would understand by the expression “the desire of women,” the Syrian deity Tammuz-Adonis. The connection requires us to think on a deity, because these words are placed between two expressions which refer to the ‘gods’. But the connection is not altogether decisive; rather the (`al-kol) in the clause at the end of the verse denotes that the subject spoken of is not merely the king’s raising himself above the ‘gods’, but also above other objects of pious veneration. A verbal proof that (chemdath nashim) denotes the Anaitis or Adonis as the favourite deity of women has not been adduced. For these words, desiderium mulierum, denote not that which women desire, but that which women possess which is desirable; cf. under 1st Sam. 9:20. But it is impossible that this can be Anaitis or Adonis, but it is a possession or precious treasure of women. This desirable possession of women is without doubt love; so that, as C.B. Michaelis has remarked, the expression is not materially different from (‘ahabath nashim), the love of women, 2nd Sam. 1:26. The thought: “he shall not regard the desire of women, or the love of women,” agrees perfectly with the connection. After it has been said in the first clause: he shall set himself free from all religious reverence transmitted from his fathers, from all piety toward the ‘gods’ in which he had been trained, it is then added in the second clause: not merely so, but generally from all piety toward men and God, from all the tender affections of the love of men and of God. The “love of women” is named as an example selected from the sphere of human piety, as that affection of human love and attachment for which even the most selfish and most savage of men feel some sensibility. Along with this he shall set himself free from (kal-‘eloah), from all piety or reverence toward God or toward that which is divine (Klief.). This thought is then established by the last clause: “for he shall magnify himself above all.” To (`al kol) we may not supply (‘eloah); for this clause not only presents the reason for the foregoing clause, (`al kal-‘eloah wgu.), but for both of the foregoing clauses. Hitzig and Kliefoth are right in their interpretation: “above everything, or all, gods and men,” he shall magnify himself, raise himself up in arrogance.

                Ver. 38. On the other hand, he will honour the god of fortresses. That (ma`uwim) is not, with Theodotion, the Vulgate, Luther, and others, to be regarded as the proper name of a god, is now generally acknowledged. But as to which god is to be understood by the “god of fortresses,” there is very great diversity of opinion. Grotius, C. B. Michaelis, Gesenius, and others think on Mars, the god of war, as the one intended; Havernick, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Ewald regard Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom Antiochus purposed to erect a temple in Antioch (Liv , xli. 20); others, Jupiter Olympius; while Hitzig, by changing (ma`uwim) into (ma`oz yam), fortress of the sea, thinks that Melkart, or the Phoenician Hercules, is referred to. But according to the following passage, this god was not known to his fathers. That could not be said either of Mars, or Jupiter, or Melkart. Add to this, “that if the statement here refers to the honouring of Hercules, or Mars, or Zeus, or Jupiter, then therewith all would be denied that was previously said of the king’s being destitute of all religion” (Klief.). The words thus in no respect agree with Antiochus, and do not permit us to think on any definite heathen deity. (`al kanno) does not signify on his foundation, pedestal (Hāv., v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald), because the remark that he honoured God on his pedestal would be quite inappropriate, unless it had been also said that he had erected a statue to him. (`al kanno) has here the same meaning as in vers. 20,21, and 7: “in his place or stead” (Gesenius, de Wette, Kliefoth, and others). But the suffix is not, with Klief., to be referred to (`al kol): in the place of all that, which he did not regard, but it refers to (kal-‘eloah): in the place of every god; which is not overthrown by the objection that in that case the suffix should have been plur., because the suffix is connected with the singular miss. The “’god’ of fortresses” is the personification of war, and the thought is this: he will regard no other ‘god’, but only war; the taking of fortresses he will make his ‘god’; and he will worship this ‘god’ above all as the means of his gaining the world-power. Of this ‘god’, war as the object of deification, it might be said that his fathers knew nothing, because no other king had made war his religion, his ‘god’ to whom he offered up in sacrifice all, gold, silver, precious stones, jewels.

                Ver. 39. With the help of this god, who was unknown to his fathers, he will so proceed against the strong fortresses that he rewards with honour, might, and wealth those who acknowledge him. This is the meaning of the verse, which has been very differently rendered. The majority of modern interpreters separate the two parts of the verse from each other, for they refer the first hemistich to the preceding, and in the second they find a new thought expressed. Hāvernick and v. Lengerke supply a demonstrative (koh), thus: thus shall he do to the armed fortresses together with the strange ‘gods’, i.e. fill the fortified temples with treasures, and promote their worship. But the supplement (koh) is here just as arbitrary as is the interpreting of the armed fortresses of temples. Hitzig misses the object to (`asah), and seeks  it by changing (`im) into (`am): he prepares for the armed fortresses a people of a strange god; but apart from the fact that the change of the text is arbitrary, the use of the expression “people of a strange god” for colonists is most singular. Ewald translates the expression thus: “he proceeds with the strong fortresses as with the strange god,” and explains: “he loves the fortresses only just as a god;” but he has given no proof that (`asah le ) means to love. The missing object to (we`asah) follows in the second hemistich, just as in Deut. 31:4, Josh. 8:2, Isa. 10:11. (`asah) means simply to do anything to one (Kran., Klief.). (`im ‘eloah nekar), with the help of the strange ‘god‘ (`im) of assistance, as in 1st Sam. 14:45), not: in the mind of the strange ‘god’ (Kliefoth). (mibtzerey ma`uwim), fortified, i.e. strong fortresses, are not the fortified walls and houses, but the inhabitants of the fortified cities. With these he does according to his will with the help of his ‘god’, i.e. of war, namely in this, that he rewards with honour and power only those who acknowledge him. (‘asher hikkir) “fig, who acknowledges, so him, the king who made war his god. Hitzig has incorrectly interpreted: whom he acknowledges. The Keri (yakkir) for the Kethiv (hikkir) is an unnecessary emendation here, as in Isa. 28:15 with (`abar). The verb (hikkir) is chosen to reflect upon the word (nekar). It means to recognise, properly to acknowledge him as what he is or wishes to be; cf. Deut. 21:17. Such a one he shall increase with honour, confer upon him sovereignty over many, and divide the land. (bimchir) is not for payment, for recompense, as the contrast to (chinnam) (gratuitously) (KranL). That is not a suitable rendering here. The word rather means pro praemio, as a reward (Maur., Klief.), as a reward for the recognition accorded to him. The Vulgate renders it rightly according to the sense, gratuito. In this most modern interpreters find a reference to the circumstance that Antiochus occupied the Jewish fortresses with heathen garrisons, and rewarded his adherents with places of honour and with possessions of land (2nd Mac.  4:10, 24, 5:15). But this is what all conquerors do, and it was not peculiar to Antiochus, so that it could be mentioned as characteristic of him. The words contain the altogether common thought that the king will bestow honour, power, and possessions on those who acknowledge him and conduct themselves according to his will, and they accord with the character of Antichrist in a yet higher degree than with that of Antiochus.

                Vers. 40-43. The last undertakings of the hostile king, and his end.

                By the words (be`eth qetz), which introduce these verses, the following events are placed in the time of the end. Proceeding from the view that the whole of the second half of this chapter (vers. 21-45) treats of Antiochus and his undertakings, most modern interpreters find in the verses the prophecy of a last expedition of this Syrian king against Egypt, and quote in support of this view the words of Jerome: Et haec Porphyrius ad Antiochum refert, quod undecimo anno regni sui rursus contra sororis filium, Ptolem. Philometorem dimicaverit, qui audiens venire Antiochum congregaverit multa populorum millia, sed Antiochus quasi tempestas valida in curribus et in equitibus et in clause magna ingressus sit terras plurimas et transeundo universe vastaverit, veneritque ad Judaeam et arcem munierit de ruinis murorum civitatis et sic perrexerit in AEgyptum [Jerome on v.40: This too is referred by Porphyry to Antiochus, on the ground that in the eleventh (11th) year of his reign he warred for a second time against his nephew, Ptolemy Philometor. For when the latter heard that Antiochus had come, he gathered many thousands of soldiery. But Antiochus invaded many lands like a mighty tempest, with his chariots and horsemen and large navy, and laid everything waste as he passed through. And he came to the glorious land, that is, Judaea, which Symmachus rendered as “land of strength.” In place of this Theodotion used the Hebrew word itself, Sabai (variants: Sabam and Saba) (sby). And Antiochus used the ruins of the wall of the city to fortify the citadel, and thus he continued on his way to Egypt. G.L. Archer, Transl.1958]. But regarding this expedition not only are historians silent, but the supposition of such a thing stands in irreconcilable contradiction to the historical facts regarding the last undertakings of Antiochus. According to 1st Mac. 3:27 ff., Antiochus, on receiving tidings of the successful insurrection of the Maccabees, and of the victory which Judas had won, since he found that money was wanting to him to carry on the war, resolved to return to Persia, “there to collect the tribute of the countries” (1st Mac. 3:31); and after he had made Lysias governor, he delivered to him the one half of his army, that he might with it “destroy and root out the strength of Israel,” and with the other half departed from Antioch and crossed the Euphrates into the high countries, i.e. the high-lying countries on the farther side of the Euphrates (1st Mace. 3:33-37). There he heard of the great treasures of a rich city in Persia, and resolved to fall upon this city and to take its treasures; but as the inhabitants received notice of the king’s intention, he was driven back and compelled to return to Babylon, having accomplished nothing. On his return he heard in Persia the tidings of the overthrow of Lysias in a battle with the Maccabees, and of the re-erection of the altar of Jehovah at Jerusalem; whereupon he was so overcome with. terror and dismay, that he fell sick and died (1st Mac.  6:1-16). The historical truth of this report is confirmed by Polybius, who mentions (Fragm. xxxi. 11) that Antiochus, being in difficulty for want of money, sought to spoil the temple of Artemis in Elymais, and in consequence of the failure of his design he fell ill at Tabae in Persia, and there died. By these well-established facts the supposition of an invasion of Egypt by Antiochus in the eleventh (11th), i.e. the last year of his reign, is excluded. The Romans also, after they had already by their intervention frustrated his design against Egypt, would certainly have prevented a new war, least of all would they have permitted an entire subjugation of Egypt and the south, which we must accept after vers. 42 and 43. Besides, the statement made by Porphyry shows itself to be destitute of historical validity by this, that according to it, Antiochus must have made the assault against Egypt, while on the contrary, according to the prophecy, ver. 40, the king of the south begins the war against the king of the north, and the latter, in consequence of this attack, passes through the lands with a powerful host and subdues Egypt.              

                For these reasons, therefore, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Hitzig have abandoned the statement of Porphyry as unhistorical, and limited themselves to the supposition that the section (vers. 40-45) is only a comprehensive repetition of that which has already been said regarding Antiochus Epiphanes, according to which “the time of the end” (ver. 40) denotes not the near time of the death of Antiochus, but generally the whole period of this king. But this is, when compared with vers. 27 and 35, impossible. If thus, according to ver. 35, the tribulation with which the people of God shall be visited by the hostile king for their purification shall, last till the time of the end, then the time of the end to which the prophecies of vers. 40-45 fall cannot designate the whole duration of the conduct of this enemy, but only the end of his reign and of his persecutions, in which he perishes (ver. 40). On the contrary, the reference to ch. 8:17 avails nothing, because there also (`eth qetz) has the same meaning as here, i.e. it denotes the termination of the epoch referred to, and is there only made a more general expression by means of (le`eth) than here, where by (be`eth) and the connection with ver. 35 the end is more sharply defined. To this is to be added, that the contents of vers. 40-45 are irreconcilable with the supposition that in them is repeated in a comprehensive form what has already been said of Antiochus, for here something new is announced, something of which nothing has been said before. This even Maurer and Hitzig have not been able to deny, but have sought to conceal as much as possible,—Maurer by the remark: res a scriptore iterum ac saepius pertractatas esse, extremam vero manum operi defuisse; and Hitzig by various turnings —“as it seems,” “but is not more precisely acknowledged,” “the fact is not elsewhere communicated” —which are obviously mere make-shifts.

                Thus vers. 40-45 do not apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, but, with most ancient interpreters, they refer only to the final enemy of the people of God, the Antichrist. This reference has been rightly vindicated by Kliefoth. We cannot, however, agree with him in distinguishing this enemy in ver. 40 from the king of the south and of the north, and in understanding this verse as denoting “that at the time of this hostile king, which shall be the ‘time of the end, the kings of the south as well as of the north shall attack him, but that he shall penetrate into their lands and overthrow them.” Without taking into account the connection, this interpretation is not merely possible, but it is even very natural to refer the suffix in (`alayu) and in (`immu) to one and the same person, namely, to the king who has hitherto been spoken of, and who continues in vers. 40-45 to be the chief subject. But the connection makes this reference impossible. It is true, indeed, that the suffix in (`immu) refers without doubt to this king, but the suffix in (`alayu) can be referred only to the king of the south named immediately before, who pushes at him, because the king against whom the king of the south pushes, and of whom mention is made vers. 21-39, is not only distinctly designated as the king of the north (vers. 13—21), but also, according to vers. 40-43, he advances from the north against the Holy Land and against Egypt; thus also, according to vers. 40b-43, must be identical with the king of the north. In vers. 40-43 we do not read of a war of the hostile king against the king of the south and the king of the north. The words in which Kliefoth finds indications of this kind are otherwise to be understood.

                Ver. 40. If we now more closely look into particulars, we find that (`eth qetz) is not the end of the hostile king, but, as in vers. 27 and 35, the end of the present world-period, in which also, it is true, occurs the end of this king ((qitztzo), ver. 45). For the figurative expression (yithgaggach) (shall push), cf. ch. 8:4. In the word there lies the idea that the king of the south commences the war, makes an aggression against the hostile king. In the second clause the subject is more precisely defined by “the king of the north” for the sake of distinctness, or to avoid ambiguity, from which it thence follows that the suffix in (`alayu) refers to the king of the south. If the subject were not named, then “the king of the south” might have been taken for it in this clause. The words, “with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships,” are an oratorical exemplification of the powerful war-host which the king of the north displayed; for the further statement, “he presses into the countries, overflows and passes over” ((shataf we`abar) as ver. 10), does not agree with the idea of a fleet, but refers to land forces. The plur. (ba’aratzoth); (into the countries) does not at all agree with the expedition of a Syrian king against Egypt, since between Syria and Egypt there lay one land, Palestine; but it also does not prove that “ the south land and the north-land, the lands of the kings of the south and of the north, are meant” (Klief.), but it is to be explained from this, that the north, from which the angry king comes in his fury against. the king of the south reached far beyond Syria. The king of the north is thought of as the ruler of the distant north.

                Ver. 41. Penetrating into the countries and overflowing them with his host, he comes into the glorious land, i.e. Palestine, the land of the people of God. See at ver. 16 and ch. 8:9. “And many shall be overthrown.” (rabboth) is not neuter, but refers to (‘aratzoth), ver. 40. For “that the whole lands are meant, represented by their inhabitants (cf. the verb masc. (yikkashelu)) [shall be overthrown]), proceeds from the exceptions of which the second half of the verse makes mention” (Kran.). The three peoples, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, are represented as altogether spared, because, as Jerome has remarked, they lay in the interior, out of the way of the line of march of Antiochus to Egypt (v. Leng., Hitzig, and others). This opinion Hitzig with justice speaks of as altogether superficial, since Antiochus would not have omitted to make war against them, as e.g. his father overcame the Ammonites in war (Polyb. v. 71), if they had not given indubitable proofs of their submission to him. Besides, it is a historical fact that the Edomites and Ammonites supported Antiochus in his operations against the Jews (1st Mac. 5:3-8, 4:61); therefore Maurer remarks, under (yittaltu) (they shall escape): eorum enim in oppremendis Judaesis Antiochus usus est auxilio. But since the king here spoken of is not Antiochus, this historizing interpretation falls of itself to the ground. There is further with justice objected against it, that at the time of Antiochus the nation of Moab no longer existed. After the Exile, the Moabites no longer appear as a nation. They are only named (Neh. 13:1 and Ezra 9:1), in a passage cited from the Pentateuch, along with the Philistines and the Hittites, to characterize the relations of the present after the relations of the time of Moses. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, related with Israel by descent, are the old hereditary and chief enemies of this people, who have become by name representatives of all the hereditary and chief enemies of the people of God. These enemies escape the overthrow when the other nations sink under the power of the Antichrist. (re’shith beney `ammon), “the firstling of the sons of Ammon,” i.e. that which was most valued or distinguished of the Ammonites as a first-fruit, by which Kranichfeld understands the chief city of the Ammonites. More simply others understand by the expression, “the flower of the people, the very kernel of the nation;” cf. Num. 24:20, Amos 6:1, Jer. 49:35. The expression is so far altogether suitable as in the flower of the people the character of the nation shows itself, the enmity against the people of God is most distinctly revealed; but in this enmity lies the reason for this people’s being spared by the enemy of God.

                Ver. 42. The stretching forth of his hand upon the countries is a sign expressive of his seizing them, taking possession of them, for which he falls upon them. (ba’aratzoth) are not other countries besides those which, according to ver. 40, he overflowed (Klief.), but the same. Of these lands Egypt is specially noticed in ver. 42 as the most powerful, which had hitherto successfully withstood the assaults of the king of the north, but which in the time of the end shall also be overthrown. Egypt, as the chief power of the south, represents the mightiest kingdoms of the earth. (liphletah) (and there shall not be for an escape), expressive of complete overthrow, cf. Joel 2:3, Jer. 50:29.

                Ver. 43. Along with the countries all their treasures fall into the possession of the conqueror, and also all the allies of the fallen kingdom shall be ,compelled to submit to him. The genitive (mitzrayim) belongs not merely to (chamudoth) (precious things), but to all the before named objects. (bemitz`adayu) (at his steps) = (beraglayu), Judg. 4:10, denotes the camp-followers, but not as mercenary soldiers (v. Leng., Hitz.). The Lybians and Cushites represent all the allies of the Egyptians (cf. Ezek. 30:5, Nah. 3:9), the most southern nations of the earth.

                Vers. 44, 45. The end of the hostile king.

                As has been already seen, the expressions in vers. 40-43 regarding this king do not agree with Antiochus Epiphanes, so also the statements regarding his end are in contradiction to the historical facts regarding the end of the Syrian king. When the hostile king took possession of Egypt and its treasures, and made the Lybians and Cushites subject to him, tidings from the east and the north overwhelm him with terror. The masc. (yebachluhu) stands ad sensum related to the persons who occasion the reports. The reports excitcd his anger, so that he. goes forth to destroy many. We have to think thus on the reports of revolt and insurrections in the east and the north of his kingdom, which came to his ears in Egypt. On this ground Hitzig, with other interpreters, refuses to refer the statement in ver. 44 to the expedition of Antiochus against the Parthians and Armenians (Tacit. hist. v. 8, and App. Syr. c. 45, 46; 1st Macc. 3:37), because Antiochus did not undertake this expedition from Egypt; and rather, in regard to the east, thinks on the tidings from Jerusalem of the rebellion of Judea (2nd Macc. 5:11 if; 1st Macc. 1:24), and in regard to the north, on the very problematical expedition against the Aradiaei, without observing, however, that no Scripture writer designates Jerusalem as lying in the east of Egypt. But besides, Antiochus, since he was occupied for some years beyond the Euphrates, and there met with his death, could not shortly before his end lead an expedition out of Egypt against Aradus. What Porphyry says (in Jerome under ver. 44) regarding an expedition of Antiochus undertaken from Egypt and Lybia against the Aradiaei and the Armenian king Artaxias, he has gathered only from this verse and from notices regarding the wars of Antiochus against the Aradiaei and king Artaxias (after whose imprisonment, according to App. Syr. c. 46, he died), without having any historical evidence for it. (* The words are: Pugnans contra AEgyptios et Lybias, AEthiopiasque pertransiens, audiet sibi ab aquilone et oriente praelia concitari, unde et regrediens capit Aradios resistentes et omnem in littore Phoenicis vastavit provinciam, confestimque pergit ad Artaxiam regem Armeniae, qui de orientis partibus movebatu” [Even for this passage Porphyry has some nebulous application to Antiochus, asserting that in his conflict with the Egyptians, Libyans, and Ethiopians, passing through them he was to hear of wars which had been stirred up against him in the North and the East. Thence he was to turn back and overcome the resistance of the Aradians [Aradus was an island off the coast of Phoenicia], and lay waste the entire province along the coastline of Phoenicia. And then he was to proceed without delay against Artaxias, the king of Armenia, who was moving down from the regions of the East, and having slain a large number of his troops, he would pitch his tent in the place called Apedno which is located between the two broadest rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. But it is impossible to state upon what famous and holy mountain he took his seat, after he had proceeded to that point. After all, it cannot be shown that he took up his seat between two seas, and it would be foolish to interpret the two seas as being the two rivers of Mesopotamia.].*) But even though the statement of Porphyry were better established, yet it would not agree with ver. 45; for when the king goes forth, in consequence of the report brought to him, to destroy many, he plants, according to ver. 45, his palace-tent near to the holy mount, and here comes to his end; thus meeting with his destruction in the Holy Land not far from Jerusalem, while Antiochus, according to Polybius and Porphyry, died in the Persian city of Tabae on his return from Persia to Babylon.

                Ver. 45. (nata`) of planting a tent, only here instead of the usual word (natah), to spread out, to set up, probably with reference to the great palace-like tent of the oriental ruler, whose poles must be struck very deep into the earth. Of. the description of the tent of Alexander the Great, which was erected after the oriental type, in Polywn. Strateg. iv. 3. 24-, and of the tent of Nadir-Schah in Rosenmiiller, A.u.N Morgl. iv. p.364 f. These tents were surrounded by a multitude of smaller tents for the guards and servants, a circumstance which explains the use of the plur. is incorrectly taken by Theodotion, Porphyry, Jerome, and others for a nomen propr., meaning in Syriac, palace or tower. (ben lehar = ben uben), Gen. 1:6, Joel 2:17, of a space between two other places or objects. (har tzbi-qodesh), the holy hill of the delight, i.e. of Palestine (cf. ch. 8:9), is without doubt the mountain on which stood the temple of Jerusalem, as v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig, and Ewald acknowledge. The interpretation of the mountain of the temple of Ana’itis in Elyma’is (Dereser, Hāvernick) needs no refutation. According to this, (yammim) cannot designate the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea, as Kliefoth supposes, but it is only the poetic plur. of fulness, as a sign of the great Mediterranean Sea. Since now this scene where the great enemy of the people of God comes to his end, i.e. perishes, in no respect agrees with the place where Antiochus died, then according to Hitzig the pseudo-Daniel does not here accurately distinguish the separate expeditionsfrom one another, and must have omitted between the first and the second half of the verse the interval between the return of Antiochus from Egypt and his death, because Antiochus never again trod the soil of Palestine. Such expedients condemn themselves. With “he shall come to his end,” cf. ch. 8:25, where the end of this enemy of God is described as a being “broken without the hand of man.” Here the expression “and none shall help him” is added to designate the hopelessness of his overthrow.

                The placing of the overthrow of this enemy with his host near the temple-mountain agrees withthe other prophecies of the O.T., which place the decisive destruction of the hostile world-power by the appearance of the Lord for the consummation of His kingdom upon the mountains of Israel (Ezek. 39:4), or in the valley of Jehoshaphat at Jerusalem, or at Jerusalem (Joel 4:2 [3:2], 12 f.; Zech. 14:2), and confirms the result of our exposition, that the hostile king, the last enemy of the world-power, is the Antichrist. With this also the conclusion, ch. 12:1-3, is in harmony.

                Ch. 12:1-3. The final deliverance of Israel from the last tribulation, and their consummation.

                Ver. 1. (ubah`eth hahi’) points back to (be`eth qetz) (ch. 11:40). At the time of the end, in which the hostile persecutor rises up to subdue the whole world, and sets up his camp in the Holy Land to destroy many in great anger and to strike them with the ban ((hach`rim), ch. 11:44), i.e. totally to outroot them (ch. 11:40-45), the great angel prince Michael shall come forth and fight for the people of God against their oppressor. Regarding Michael, see under ch. 10:13, p.417. “Who stands over the sons of thy people,” i.e. stands near, protecting them (cf. for (`amadh `al) in the sense of coming to protect, Esth. 8:11, 9:16), describes Michael, who carries on his work as Israel’s (sar) (ch. 10:21). That Michael, fighting for Daniel’s people, goes forth against the hostile king (ch. 11:45), is, it is true, not said expressis verbis, but it lies in the context, especially-in the (yittalet `ammeka) (thy people shall be delivered) of the second half of the verse, as well as in the expressions regarding Michael, ch. 10:13 and 21.

                But the people of God need such powerful help for their deliverance because that time shall be one of oppression without any parallel. The description of this oppression seems to be based on Jer. 30:7 (C.B. Michaelis, Hengstenberg); but that which is there said is here heightened by the relative clause (cf. Joel 2:2), which enlarges the thought, Ex. 9:18, 24. This (`eth tzarah) (time of distress) is the climax of the oppression which the hostile king shall bring upon Israel, and occurs at the same time as the expiry of the last (the seventieth (70th)) week, ch. 9:26. “The salvation of Israel ((yittalet)), which is here thought of as brought about under the direction of Michael, coincides essentially with the description, ch. 7:18, 26 f., 14, 9:24.” Thus Kranichfeld rightly remarks. He also rightly identifies the continued victorious deliverance of Israel from the oppression (ver. 1) with the setting up of the Messianic kingdom, described in ch. 7:2, 9, and finds in this verse (ch. 12:1) the Messianic kingdom dissolving the world-kingdoms.

                With this the opposers of the genuineness of the book of Daniel also agree, and deduce therefrom the conclusion, that the pseudo-Daniel expected, along with the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes, the appearance of the Messianic kingdom of glory. This conclusion would be indisputable if the premises from which it is drawn, that (ba`eth hahi‘) (at that time) is the time of Antiochus, ware well founded. All attempts of believing interpreters, who, with Porphyry, Grotius, Bleek, v. Lengerke, Hitzig, and others, find the death of Antiochus prophesied in ch. 11:45, to dismiss this conclusion, appear on close inspection to be untenable. According to Hāvernick, with (ba`eth hahi’) (and at that time) a new period following that going before is introduced, and that (ba`eth hahi’) means at some future time. The appearance of Michael for his people denotes the appearance of the Messiah; and the sufferings and oppressions connected with his appearance denote the sufferings which the people of Israel shall endure at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, but which shall be most fully realized only at the second coming of the Lord, Matt. 24:21,22. But this explanation is shattered against the (ba`eth hahi’), which never has the meaning “at some time,” i.e. in the further future, and is refuted by the following remark of Hitzig: —“Not once,” says he, with good ground, “can the words (baiyom hahu‘) be proved by such passages as 2nd Kings 3:6, Isa. 28:5, Gen. 39:11, to have the meaning of at that day; in (ba`eth hahi’) we may not by any means seek such a meaning, and the copula here puts a complete barrier in the way of such arbitrariness. Moreover, if the epoch of Antiochus Epiphanes was indeed a time of oppression, how could a reader then not refer this was to the time of that king described in the foregoing chapter?” Finally, (maskilim) (intelligentes), ver. 3, refers back to the (maskilim `am) who helped many to knowledge, and who lost their lives in the persecution (ch. 11:33,34), and now are raised to eternal life. (* These arguments extend also to the overthrow of Ebrard’s view, that the expression “to this time” refers to the time after Antiochus Epiphanes shall have died.*)

                Hāvernick, however, was right, in opposing those who refer ver. 1 to the period of persecution under Antiochus, in arguing that the statement of the unheard of greatness of the affliction is far too strong for such a period, and at the same time that the promise of the deliverance of those that shall be found written in the book does not accord with that Syrian oppression, although he is in error when he interprets the appearance of Michael of the first appearance of Christ. This interpretation receives no support either from ch. 9:26 or from Matt. 24:21,22, because both passages treat of the coming of Christ in glory. But if the reference of this verse to the appearance of Christ in the flesh is inconsistent with the words, still more so is its reference to the period of Antiochus. Those interpreters who advance this view are under the necessity of violently separating ver. 1 from vers. 2 and 3, which undoubtedly treat of the resurrection from the dead.

                According to Auberlen, who has rightly conceived that the (maskilim), ch. 12:3, allude to the (maskilim), ch. 11:33 and 34, the (matzdiqey harabbim) to the (yabinu larabbim), ch. 11:33, vers. 2 and 3 do not intimate any progress in the development of the history, but by mentioning the resurrection only, are referred to the eternal retribution which awaits the Israelites according to their conduct during the time of great persecution under Antiochus, because, as C.B. Michaelis has said, ejus (i.e. of the resurrection) consideratio magnum rim habet ad confirmandum animum sub tribulatiombus. As to the period between the time of trial and the resurrection, nothing whatever is said; for in vers. 2 and 3 every designation of time is wanting, while in ver. 1 the expression “at this time” twice occurs. Thus Hengstenberg (Christol. iii. 1, p. 6) has remarked, “Whether there be a longer or a shorter time between the tribulation of the Maccabean era and the resurrection, the consolation from the fact of the resurrection remains equally powerful. Therefore it is so connected with the deliverance from the persecution as if the one immediately followed the other.” But with this it is conceded that the resurrection from the dead is so associated with the deliverance of Israel from the tyranny of Antiochus as if it came immediately after it, as the opponents of the genuineness of the book affirm. But this interpretation is obviously a mere make-shift.

                Vers. 2, 3. These verses do not at all present the form of a parenetic reference to the retribution commencing with the resurrection. Ver. 2 is by the copula (w) connected with ver. 1, and thereby designates the continuance of the thought of the second half of ver. 1, i.e. the further representation of the deliverance of God’s people, namely, of all those who are written in the book of life. Since many of the (maskilim) who know their God (ch. 11:33) lose their life in the persecution, so in the promise of deliverance a disclosure of the lot awaiting those who sealed with their blood their fidelity to God was not to be avoided, if the prophecy shall wholly gain its end, i.e. if the promise of the deliverance of all the pious shall afford to the people of God in the times of oppression strength and joy in their enduring fidelity to God. The appeal to the fact that vers. 2 and 3 contain no designation of time proves nothing at all, for this simple reason, that the verses connected by “and” are by this copula placed under ver. 1, which contains a designation of time, and only further show how this deliverance shall ensue, namely thus, that a part of the people shall outlive the tribulation, but those who lose their lives in the persecution shall rise again from the dead.

                To this is to be added that the contents of ver. 1 do not agree with the period of persecution under Antiochus. That which is said regarding the greatness of the persecution is much too strong for it. The words, “There shall be a time of trouble such as, never was (mihyoth), since there was a nation or nations,” designate it as such as never was before on the earth. Theodoret interprets thus: (hoia ou gegonen, aph’ hou gegenētai ethnos epi tēs gēs heōs tou kairou ekeinou). With reference to these words our Lord says: ((hoia ou gegonen, ap’ archēs kosmou heōs tou nun, oud’ mē genētai)), Matt. 24:21. Though the oppression which Antiochus brought upon Israel may have been most severe, yet it could not be said of it without exaggeration, that it was such a tribulation as never had been from the beginning of the world. Antiochus, it is true, sought to outroot Judaism root and branch, but Pharaoh also wished to do the same by his command to destroy all the Hebrew male children at their birth; and as Antiochus wished to make the worship of the Grecian Zeus, so also Jezebel the worship of the Phoenician Hercules, in the place of the worship of Jehovah, the national religion in Israel.

                Still less does the second hemistich of ver. 1 refer to the deliverance of the people from the power of Antiochus. Under the words, “every one that shall be found written in the book,” Hitzig remarks that they point back to Isa. 4:3, and that the book is thus the book of life, and corrects the vain interpretation of v. Lengerke, that “to be written in the book” means in an earthly sense to live, to be appointed to life, by the more accurate explanation, “The book of life is thus the record of those who shall live, it is the list of the citizens of the Messianic kingdom (Phil. 4:3), and in Isaiah contains the names of those who reach it living, in Daniel also-of those who must first be raised from the dead for it.” Cf. regarding the book of life, under Ex. 32:32.

                Accordingly (ba`eth hahi‘) extends into the Messianic time. This is so far acknowledged by Hofmann (Weiss. u. Erf. i. p.313, and Schriftbew. ii. 2, p.697), in that he finds in ver. 1, from “and there shall be a time,” and in vers. 2 and 3, the prophecy of the final close of the history of nations, the time of the great tribulation at the termination of the present course of the world, the complete  salvation of Israel in it, and the resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. Since, however, Hofmann likewise refers the last verses of the preceding chapter to the time of Antiochus and his destruction, and can only refer the (uba`eth hahi‘) at the beginning of ch. 12, from its close connection with the last words of ch. 11 to the time which has hitherto been spoken of, so he supposes that in the first clause of the first verse of this chapter (12) there cannot be a passing over to another time, but that this transition is first made by (wehayethah). This transition he seeks indeed, in the 2d ed. of his Schriftbew. l.c., to cover by the remark: that we may not explain the words of the angel, (wehayethah `eth ugw.), as if they meant: that time shall be a time of trouble such as has not been till now; but much rather that they are to be translated : “and there shall arise a time of trouble such as never was to that time.” But this separation of the words in question from those going before by the translation of (wehayethah) “and there shall arise,” is rendered impossible by the words following, (`adh ha`eth hahi‘); for these so distinctly point back to the words with which the verse commences, that we may not empty them of their definite contents by the ambiguous “till that time.” If the angel says, There shall arise at time of oppression such as has never been since there were nations till that time when Michael shall appear for his people, or, as Hofmann trans, lates it, shall “hold fast his place,” then to every unprejudiced reader it is clear that this tribulation such as has never been before shall arise not for the first time centuries after the appearance of Michael or of his “holding fast his place,” but in the time of the war of the angel-prince for the people of God. In this same time the angel further places the salvation of the people of Daniel and the resurrection of the dead. (* Hofmann’s explanation of the words would only be valid if the definition of time (‘achrey ha`eth hahi‘)stood after (wehayethah) in the text, which Hofm. in his most recent attempts at its exposition has interpolated inadvertently, while in his earlier exposition (Weiss. u. Erf. i. p.314) he has openly said: “These last things connect themselves with the prospect of the end of that oppressor of Israel, not otherwise than as when Isaiah spoke of the approaching assault of the Assyrians on Jerusalem as of the last afiiiction of the city, or as in Jeremiah the end of those seventy (70) years is also the end of all the sufierings of his people. There remains therefore a want of clearness in this prospect.” etc. This want of clearness he has, in his most recent exposition in the Schriftbew., not set aside, but increased, by the supposition of an immediate transition from the time of Antiochus to the time of the end.*)

                The failure of all attempts to gain a space of time between ch. 11:45 and 12:1 or 2 incontrovertibly shows that the assertions of those who dispute the genuineness of the book, that the pseudo-Daniel expected along with the death of Antiochus the commencement of the Messianic kingdom and of the resurrection of the dead, would have a foundation if the last verses of ch. 11 treated of the last undertakings of this Syrian king against the theocracy. This if, it has, however, been seen from ch. 11, is not established. In ch. 11:40-45 the statements do not refer to Antiochus, but to the time of the end, of the last enemy of the holy God, and of his destruction. With that is connected, without any intervening space, in ch. 12:1 the description of the last oppression of the people of God and their salvation to everlasting life. The prophecy of that unheard of great tribulation Christ has in Matt. 24:21 referred, wholly in the sense of the prophetic announcement, to the yet future (thipsis megalē) which shall precede the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven to judge the world and to bring to a consummation the kingdom of God. That this tribulation shall come only upon Israel, the people of God, is not said; the (mihyoth goy) refers much more to a tribulation that shall come upon the whole of humanity. In it shall the angel-prince Michael help the people of Daniel, i.e. the people of God. That he shall destroy the hostile king, the Antichrist, is not said. His influence extends only to the assistance which he shall render to the people of God for their salvation, so that all who are written in the book of life shall be saved. Christ, in His eschatological discourse, Matt. 24, does not make mention of this assistance, but only says that for the elect’s sake the days of the oppression shall be shortened, otherwise that no one would be saved ((esōthē), Matt. 24:22). Wherein the help of Michael consists, is seen partly from that which is said in ch. 10:13 and 21 regarding him, that he helped the Angel of the Lord in the war against the hostile spirit of the Persian and the Javanic world-kingdom, partly from the war of Michael against the dragon described in Rev. 12:7 ff. From these indications it is clear that we may not limit the help on the part of Michael to the help which he renders to the saints of God in the last war and struggle, but that he stands by them in all wars against the world power and its princes, and helps them to victory.

                But the salvation which the people of God shall experience in the time of the unparalleled great oppression is essentially different from the help which was imparted to the people of Israel in the time of the Maccabees. This is called “a little help,” ch. 11:34. So also is the oppression of Israel in the time of the Maccabees different from the oppression in the end of the time, as to its object and consequences. The former oppression shall, according to ch. 11:33-35, serve to purify the people and to make them white to the time of the end; the oppression at the time of the end, on the contrary, according to ch. 12:1-3, shall effect the salvation (hittalet) of the people, i.e. prepare the people for the everlasting life, and bring about the separation of the righteous from the wicked for eternity. These clearly stated distinctions confirm the result already reached, that ch. 12:1-3 do not treat of the time of Antiochus and the Maccabees.

                The promised salvation of the people is more particularly defined by the addition to (yimmalet): “everyone who shall be found written in the book,” sc. of life (see above, p. 478); thus everyone whom God has ordained to life, all the genuine members of the people of God. list”, shall be saved, so. out of the tribulation, so that they do not perish therein. But since, according to ch. xi. 11:33 ff., in the oppression, which passes over the people of God for their purification, many shall lose their lives, and this also shall be the case in the last and severest oppression, the angel gives to the prophet, in ver. 2, disclosures also regarding the dead, namely, that they shall awaken out of the sleep of death. By the connection of this verse with the preceding by (w), without any further designation of time, the resurrection of the dead is placed as synchronous with the deliverance of the people. “For that, the two clauses, ‘thy people shall be delivered’ (ver. 1), and ‘many shall awake,’ not only reciprocally complete each other, but also denote contemporaneous facts, we only deny by first denying that the former declares the final salvation of Israel” (Hofm. Schriftbew. ii. 2, p.598). (yashen), sleeping, is here used, as in Job 3:13, Jer. 51:39, of death; cf. (katheudein), Matt. 9:24, 1st Thess. 5:10, and (koimasthai), 1st Thess. 4:14. (‘admath-`aphar), occurring only here, formed after Gen. 3:19, means not the dust of the earth, but dusty earth, terra pulveris, denoting the grave, as (`aphar), Ps. 22:30.

                It appears surprising that (rabbim), many, shall awake, since according to the sequel, where the rising of some to life and of some to shame is spoken of, much rather the word all might have been expected. This difficulty is not removed by the remark that many stands for all, because (rabbim) does not mean all. Concerning the opinion that many stands for all, Hofmann remarks, that the expression “sleeping in the dust of earth” is not connected with the word many (rabbim), but with the verb “shall awake” (yaqitzu): “of them there shall be many, of whom those who sleep in the earth shall arise” (Hofm.). So also C.B. Michaelis interprets the words by reference to the Masoretic accentuation, which has separated (rabbim) from (miyesheney) (sleeping), only that he takes (min) in the sense of stating the terminus mutationis a quo. But by this very artificial interpretation nothing at all is gained; for the thought still remains the same, that of those who sleep in the dust many (not all) awake. The partitive interpretation of (min) is the only simple and natural one, and therefore with most interpreters we prefer it. The (rabbim) can only be rightly interpreted from the context. The angel has it not in view to give a general statement regarding the resurrection of the dead, but only disclosures on this point, that the final salvation of the people shall not be limited to those still living at the end of the great tribulation, but shall include also those who have lost their lives during the period of the tribulation.            

                In ch. 11:33, 35, the angel had already said, that of “those that understand ” many shall fall by the sword and by flame, etc. When the tribulation at the time of the end increases to an an paralleled extent (ch. 12:1), a yet greater number shall perish, so that when salvation comes, only a remnant of the people shall be then in life. To this surviving remnant of the people salvation is promised; but the promise is limited yet further by the addition: “every one that is found written in the book;” not all that are then living, but only those whose names are recorded in the book of life shall be partakers of the deliverance, i.e. of the Messianic salvation. But many (rabbim) of those that sleep, who died in the time of tribulation, shall awake out of sleep, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame. As with the living, so also with the dead, not all attain to salvation. Also among those that arise there shall be a distinction, in which the reward of the faithful and of the unfaithful shall be made known. The word “many” is accordingly used only with reference to the small number of those who shall then be living, and not with reference either to the universality of the resurrection of the dead or to a portion only of the dead, but merely to add to the multitude of the dead, who shall then have part with the living, the small number of those who shall experience in the flesh the conclusion of the matter.

                If we consider this course of thought, then we shall find it necessary neither to obtrude upon (rabbim) the meaning of all, —a meaning which it has not and cannot have, for the universality of the resurrection is removed by the particle (min), which makes it impossible that (rabbim) = (harabbim) (cf. Rom. 5:15 with ver. 12), —nor shall we need to adopt the conclusion that here a partial resurrection is taught, in contradiction to the doctrine of the N.T., and particularly of Christ, who has quoted this passage in John v. 24, using for the (rabbim) the word (pantes); for this conclusion can only be drawn from the misapprehension of the course of thought here presented, that this verse contains a general statement of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, an idea which is foreign to the connection.

                From the correct interpretation of the course of thought arises the correct answer to the controverted question, whether here we are taught concerning the resurrection of the people of Israel, or concerning the resurrection of mankind generally. Neither the one nor the other of these things is taught here. The prophetic words treat of the people of Daniel, by which we are to understand the people of Israel. But the Israel of the time of the end consists not merely of Jews or of Jewish Christians, but embraces all peoples who belong to God’s kingdom of the New Covenant founded by Christ. In this respect the resurrection of all is here implicite intimated, and Christ has explicitly set forth the thoughts lying implicite in this verse; for in John v. 28 f. He teaches the awakening from sleep of all the dead, and speaks, with unmistake able reference to this passage before us, of an (anastasis zōēs) and an (anastasis kriseōs). For in the O.T. our verse is the only passage in which, along with the resurrection to everlasting life, there is mention also made of the resurrection to everlasting shame, or the resurrection of the righteous and of the wicked. The conception of (chaiyey `olam,  zōē aiōnios), meets us here for the first time in the O.T. (chaiyim) denotes, it is true, frequently the true life with God, the blessed life in communion with God, which exists after this life; but the addition (`olam) does not generally occur, and is here introduced to denote, as corresponding to the eternal duration of the Messianic kingdom (ch. 2:44, 7:14, 27, cf. ch. 9:24), the life of the righteous in this kingdom as imperishable. (lacharaphoth ledir’on `olam) forms the contrast to (lechaiyey `olam ); for first (charaphoth), shame (a plur. of intensive fulness), is placed over against the (chaiyey), then this shame is designated in reference to Isa. 66:24 as (dera’on), contempt, an object of aversion.

                Ver. 3. Then shall they who in the times of tribulation have led many to the knowledge of salvation receive the glorious reward of their faithfulness. With this thought the angel closes the announcement of the future. (hammiskelim) refers back to ch. 11:33-35, and is here, as there, not limited to the teachers, but denotes the intelligent who, by instructing their contemporaries by means of word and deed, have awakened them to stedfastness and fidelity to their confession in the times of tribulation and have strengthened their faith, and some of whom have in war sealed their testimony with their blood. These shall shine in eternal life with heavenly splendour. The splendour of the vault of heaven (cf. Ex. 24:10) is a figure of the glory which Christ designates as a light like the sun (“The righteous shall shine forth as the sun,” Matt. 13:43, referring to the passage before us). Cf. for this figure also Rev. 2:28 and 1st Cor. 15:40 ff. By the expression (matzdiqey harubbim) Kranichfeld would understand such as take away the sins of the people in the offering up of sacrifice, i.e. the priests who attend to the offering of the sacrifices, because the expression is borrowed from Isa. 53:11, “where it is predicated of the Messianic priest (kat’ exochēn), in the fullest sense of the word, what is said here of the common priests.” But this interpretation is not satisfactory. In Isa. 53:11 the Servant of Jehovah justifies many, not by the sacrifice, but by His righteousness, by this, that He, as (tzaddiq) who has done no sin, takes upon Himself the sins of the people and gives His soul an offering for sin. (hatzdiq) is neither in the law of sacrifices nor anywhere in the O.T. named as the effect of the sacrifice, but always only ((nesa’) se’eth `aon) (to take up, take away iniquity) and (kapper), and in the expiatory sacrifices with the constant addition (wenislach lo); cf. Lev. 4:26, 31, 35, v. 10, 16, Ps. 32:1 ff.

                Nor is the practice of offering sacrifice anywhere described as a (hatzdiq). This word signifies to assist in obtaining, or to lead to, righteousness, and is here to be read in this general interpretation, and not to be identified with the Pauline (dikaiousthai).  The (matzdiqim) are those who by their (tzedaqah), i.e. by their fidelity to the law, led others to (tzedaqah), showed them by their example and teaching the way to righteousness.

                The salvation of the people, which the end shall bring in, consists accordingly in the consummation of the people of God by the resurrection of the dead and the judgment dividing the pious from the godless, according to which the pious shall be raised to eternal life, and the godless shall be given up to everlasting shame and contempt. But the leaders of the people who, amid the wars and conflicts of this life, have turned many to righteousness, shall shine in the imperishable glory of heaven.

                Chapter 12:4-13. The Close of the Revelation of God and of the Book. ……

                Vers. 11, 12. The angel gives to the prophet yet one revelation more regarding the duration of the time of tribulation and its end, which should help him to understand the earlier answer. The words, “from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination of the desolation,” so distinctly point back to ch. 11:31, that they must here be referred, as there, to the wickedness of Antiochus in his desecrating the sanctuary of the Lord. The circumstance that the (shiqqutz) (abomination) is here described as (shomem) and in ch. 11:31 as (meshomem), indicates no material distinction. In ch. 11:31, where the subject spoken of is the proceedings of the enemy of God causing desolation, the abomination is viewed as (meshomem), bringing desolation; here, with reference to the end of those proceedings, as (shomem), brought to desolation; cf. under ch. 9:27 (p.372). All interpreters therefore have found in these two verses statements regarding the duration of the persecutions carried on by Antiochus Epiphanes, and have sought to compare them with the period of 2300 evening-mornings mentioned in ch. 8:14, in order thus to reckon the duration of the time during which this enemy of God shall prosecute his wicked designs.

                But as the opinions regarding the reckoning of the 2300 evening-mornings in ch. 8:14 are very diverse from each other (see p.303 ff.), so also are they here. First the interpretation of (welatheth) (and set up) is disputed. Wieseler is decidedly wrong in thinking that it designates the terminus ad quem to (me`eth husar) (from the time shall be removed), as is generally acknowledged. Hitzig thinks that with (welatheth) the foregoing infin. (husar) is continued, as Eccles. 9:1, Jer. 17:10, 19:12, and there with a second terminus a quo supposed. This, however, is only admissible if this second terminus stands in union with the first, and a second terminus ad quem also stands over against it as the parallel to the later terminus ad quem. Both here denote: the daily sacrifice shall be taken away forty-five (45) days before the setting up of the (bdelugma erēmōseōs), and by so much the date in ver. 12 comes below that of ver. 11. According to this, both verses are to be understood thus: from the time of the taking away of the daily sacrifice are 1290 days, and from the time of the setting up of the abomination of desolation are 1335 days. But this interpretation is utterly destitute of support. In the first place, Hitzig has laid its foundation, that the setting up of the idol-abomination is separated from the cessation of the worship of Jehovah by forty-five (45) days, only by a process of reasoning in a circle. In the second place, the (‘ashrey hamchakkeh) (blessed is he that waiteth), ver. 12, decidedly opposes the combining of the 1335 days with the setting up of the idol-abomination; and further, the grammatical interpretation of is not justified. The passages quoted in its favour are all of a different character; there a clause with definite time always goes before, on which the infinitive clause depends. Kranichfeld seeks therefore to take (husar) also not as an infinitive, but as a relative asyndetical connection of the praeter. proph. to (`eth), by which, however, no better result is gained. For with the relative interpretation of (husar) the time since it is taken away . . . (welatheth) cannot so connect itself that this infinitive yet depends on (`eth). The clause beginning with (welatheth) cannot be otherwise interpreted than as a final clause dependent on (me`eth husar wgw.); thus here and in ch. 2:16, as in the passages quoted by Hitzig, in the sense: to set (to set up) the abomination, so that the placing of the abomination of desolation is viewed as the object of the taking away of the (tamidh) (daily sacrifice). From this grammatically correct interpretation of the two clauses it does not, however, follow that the setting up of the idol-abomination first followed later than the removal of the daily sacrifice, so that (welatheth) signified “to set up afterwards,” as Kliefoth seeks to interpret it for the purpose of facilitating the reckoning of the 1290 days. Both can be done at the same time, the one immediately after the other.

                A terminus ad quem is not named in both of the definitions. This appears from the words “blessed is he that waiteth . . .” By this it is said that after the 1335 days the time of tribulation shall be past. Since all interpreters rightly understand that the 1290 and the 1335 days have the same terminus a quo, and thus that the 1290 days are comprehended in the 1335, the latter period extending beyond the former by only forty-five days; then the oppression cannot properly last longer than 1290 days, if he who reaches to the 1335 days is to be regarded as blessed. 

                With regard to the reckoning of these two periods of time, we have already shown (p. 302) that neither the one nor the other accords with the 2300 evening-mornings, and that there is no ground for reckoning those 2300 evening-mornings for the sake of these verses before us as 1150 days. Moreover, we have there already shown how the diversity of the two statements is explained from this, that in ch. 8:14 a different terminus a quo is named from that in ch. 12:11 f.; and besides have remarked, that according to 1st Macc. 1:54, 59, cf. with 4:52, the cessation of the Mosaic order of worship by sacrifice lasted for a period of only three (3) years and ten (10) days. Now if these three (3) years and ten (10) days are reckoned according to the sun-year at 365 days, or according to the moon-year at 354 days with the addition of an intercalary month, they amount to 1105 or 1102 days. The majority of modern interpreters identify, it is true, the 1290 days with the 3 1/2 times (= years), and these two statements agree so far, since 3 1/2 years make either 1279 or 1285 days. But the identifying of the two is not justified. In ver. 11 the subject plainly is the taking away of the worship of Jehovah and the setting up of the worship of idols in its stead, for which the Maccabean times furnish an historical fulfilment; in ver. 7, however, the angel speaks of a tribulation which extends so far that the strength of the holy people is altogether broken, which cannot be said of the oppression of Israel by Antiochus, since a stop was put to the conduct of this enemy by the courageous revolt of the Maccabees, and the power of valiant men put an end to the abomination of the desolation of the sanctuary. The oppression mentioned in ver. 7 corresponds not only in fact, but also with respect to its duration, with the tribulation which the hostile king of the time of the end, who shall arise from the fourth world-kingdom, shall bring upon the holy people, since, as already remarked, the 3 1/2 times literally correspond with ch. 7:25. But vers. 11 and 12 treat of a different, namely, an earlier, period of oppression than ver. 7, so the 1290 and the 1335 days are not reckoned after the 3 1/2 times (ver. 11 and ch. 7:35); and for the Maccabean period of tribulation there remain only the 2300 evening-mornings (ch. 8:14) for comparison, if we count the evening-mornings, contrary to the usage of the words (see p. 302), as half-days, and so reduce them to 1150 days. But if herewith we take into consideration the historical evidence of the duration of the oppression under Antiochus, the 1290 days would agree with it only if we either fix the taking away of the legal worship from 185 to 188 days, i.e. six months and five or eight days, before the setting up of the idol-altar on Jehovah’s altar of burnt-offering, or, if these two facta occurred simultaneously, extend the terminus ad quem by six months and five or eight days beyond the day of the re-consecration of the altar. For both suppositions historical evidence is wanting. The former is perhaps probable from 1st Macc. 4:45, cf. with ver. 54; but, on the contrary, for the second, history furnishes no epoch-making event of such significance as that the cessation of the oppression could be defined by it.

                The majority of modern interpreters, in the reckoning of the 1290 and the 1335 days, proceed from ch. 8:14, and with them Kliefoth holds, firstly, that the 2300 evening-mornings are 1150 days, the termination of which constitutes the epoch of the re-consecration of the temple, on the 25th of the month Kisleu of the year 148 of the Seleucidan aera (i.e. 164 B.C.); and secondly, he supposes that the terminus a quo of the 2300 evening-mornings (ch. 8:14) and of the 1290 or 1335 days is the same, namely, the taking of Jerusalem by Apollonius (1st Macc. 1:29 ff.), and the setting aside of the (tamidh) which followed immediately after it was taken, about 140 days earlier than the setting up of the idol-altar As the terminus ad quem of the 2300 evening-mornings the re-consecration of the temple is taken, with which the power of Antiochus over Israel was broken, and the beginning of the restoration made. No terminus ad quem is named in this passage before us, but perhaps it lies in the greater number of the days, as well as in this, that this passage speaks regarding the entire setting aside of the power of Antiochus —an evidence and a clear argument for this, that in ch. 12:11 and 12 a further terminus ad quem, reaching beyond the purification of the temple, is to be supposed. This terminus is the death of Antiochus. “It is true,” Kliefoth further argues, “we cannot establish it to a day and an hour, that between the putting away of the daily sacrifice and the death of Antiochus 1290 days intervened, since of both facta we do not know the date of the day. But this we know from the book of the Maccabees, that the consecration of the temple took place on the 25th day of the month Kisleu in the 148th year of the Seleucidan aera, and that Antiochus died in the 149th year; and if we now add the 140 days, the excess of 2300 above 1290 after the consecration of the temple, we certainly come into the year 149. The circumstance also, that in the whole connection of this chapter the tendency is constantly toward the end of Antiochus, the Antichrist, induces us to place the death of that persecutor as the terminus ad quem of the 1290 days. Consequently we shall not err if, with Bleek, Kirmss, Hitzig, Delitzsch, Hofmann, Auberlen, Zūndel, we suppose that as the purifying of the temple is the end of the 2300 evening-mornings, so the death of Antiochus is the end of the 1290 days. The end of the 1335 days, ver. 12, must then be an event which lies forty-five (45) days beyond the death of Antiochus, and which certainly attests the termination of the persecution under Antiochus and the commencement of better days, and which at least bears clear evidence of the introduction of a better time, and of a settled and secure state of things. we are not able to adduce proof of such a definite event which took place exactly forty-five (45) days after the death of Antiochus, simply because we do not know the date of the death of Antiochus. The circumstances, however, of the times after the death of Antiochus furnish the possibility, of such an event. The successor of Antiochus Epiphanes, Antiochus Eupator, certainly wrote to the Jews, after they had vanquished his host under Lysias, asking from them a peace; but the alienation between them continued nevertheless, and did not absolutely end till the victory over Nicanor, 2nd Macc. 11-15. Hence there was opportunity enough for an event of the kind spoken of, though we may not be able, from the scantiness and the chronological uncertainty of the records of these times, to prove it positively.” Hereupon Kliefoth enters upon the conjectures advanced by Hitzig regarding the unknown joyful event, and finds that nothing important can be brought forward in opposition to this especially, that the termination of the 1335 days may be the point of time when the tidings of the death of Antiochus, who died in Babylonia, reached the Jews in Palestine, and occasioned their rejoicing, since it might easily require forty-five (45) days to carry the tidings of that event to Jerusalem; and finally he throws out the question, whether on the whole the more extended period of 1335 days must have its termination in a single definite event, whether by the extension of the 1290 days by forty-five (45) days the meaning may not be, that whoever lives beyond this period of 1290 days, i.e. the death of Antiochus, in patience and in fidelity to the truth, is to be esteemed blessed. “The forty-five (45) days were then only added to express the living beyond that time, and the form of this expression was chosen for the purpose of continuing that contained in ver. 11.”

                We cannot, however, concur in this view, because not only is its principal position without foundation, but also its contents are irreconcilable with historical facts. To change the 2300 evening mornings into 1150 days cannot be exegetically justified, because according to the Hebrew mode of computation evening and morning do not constitute a half but a Whole day. But if the 2300 evening mornings are to be reckoned as so many days, then neither their terminus a quo nor their terminus ad quem stands in a definite relation to the 1290 days, from which a conclusion may be drawn regarding the terminus ad quem of the latter. Then the death of Antiochus Epiphanes does not furnish a turning-point for the commencement of a better time. According to 1st Macc. 6:18-54, the war against the Jews was carried on by his successor Eupator more violently than before. And on the news that Philippus, returning from Persia, sought to deprive him of the government, Lysias advised the king to make peace with the Jews, and to promise to them that they would be permitted to live according to their own laws. On this the Jews opened the citadel of Zion; but the king, after he had entered into it, violated his oath, and ordered its walls to be demolished. It was not till two years after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes that Judas gained a decisive victory over Nicanor, which was celebrated by the Jews by a joyful festival, which they resolved to keep every year in memory of that victory (1st Macc. 7:26-50). In these circumstances it is wholly  impossible to suppose an event forty-five (45) days after the death of Antiochus which could clearly be regarded as the beginning of a better time, and of a settled and secure state of things, or to regard the reception in Palestine of the news of the death of Antiochus as an event so joyful, that they were to be esteemed as blessed who should live to hear the tidings.

                After all, we must oppose the opinion that the 1290 and the 1335 days are to be regarded as historical and to be reckoned chronologically, and we are decidedly of opinion that these numbers are to be interpreted symbolically, notwithstanding that days as a measure of time are named. This much seems to be certain, that the 1290 days denote in general the period of Israel’s sorest affliction on the part of Antiochus Epiphanes by the taking away of the Mosaic ordinance of worship and the setting up of the worship of idols, but without giving a statement of the duration of this oppression which can be chronologically reckoned. By the naming of “days” instead of “times” the idea of an immeasurable duration of the tribulation is set aside, and the time of it is limited to a period of moderate duration which is exactly measured out by God. But this is more strictly represented by the second definition, by which it is increased by 45 days: 1335 days, with the expiry of which the oppression shall so wholly cease, that everyone shall be blessed who lives till these days come. For 45 days have the same relation to 1290 that 1 1/2 have to 43, and thus designate a proportionally very brief time. But as to this relation, the two numbers themselves show nothing. If we reduce them to the measure of time usual for the definition of longer periods, the 1290 days amount to 43 months, or 3 years and 7 months, and the 1335 days to 44 1/2 months, or 3 years and 8 1/2 months, since generally, and still more in symbolical definitions of time, the year is wont to be reckoned at 12 months, and the months at 30 days. Each of the two periods of time thus amounts to a little more than 3 1/2  years; the first exceeds by 1 month and the second by 2 1/2  months, only a little more than the half of 7 years, —a period occurring several times in the O.T. as the period of divine judgments (see p. 306). By the reduction of the days to years and parts of a year the two expressions are placed in a distinct relation to the 3 1/2  times, which already appears natural by the connection of the two questions in vers. 6 and 8. On the one hand, by the circumstance that the 1290 days amount to somewhat more than 3 1/2; years, the idea that “times” stands for years is set aside; but on the other hand, by the use of “days” as a measure of time, the obscurity of the idea: time, times, and half a time, is lessened, and Daniel’s inquiry as to the end of the terrible things is answered in a way which might help him to the understanding of the first answer, which was to him wholly unintelligible.

                Such an answer contains the two definitions of time under the supposition that the hostile undertakings of Antiochus against Judaism, in their progress and their issue, form a type of the persecution of the last enemy Antichrist against the church of the Lord, or that the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the setting up of the idol-abomination by Antiochus Epiphanes shows in a figure how the Antichrist at the time of the end shall take away the worship of the true God, renounce the God of his fathers, and make war his ‘god’, and thereby bring affliction upon the church of God, of which the oppression which Antiochus brought upon the theocracy furnished a historical pattern. But this typical relation of the two periods of oppression is clearly set forth in ch. 11:21-12:3, since in the conduct and proceedings of the hostile king two stadia are distinguished, which so correspond to each other in all essential points that the first, ch. 11:21-35, is related to the second, ch. 11:36-12:3, as the beginning and the first attempt is related to the complete accomplishment. This also appears in the wars of this king against the king of the south (ch. 11:25-29, cf. with ch. 11:40-43), and in the consequences which this war had for his relation to the people of God. On his return from the first victorious war against the south, he lifted up his heart against the holy covenant (ch. 11:28), and being irritated by the failure of the renewed war against the south and against the holy covenant, he desolated the sanctuary (vers. 30 and 31); finally, in the war at the time of the end, when Egypt and the lands fell wholly under his power, and when, alarmed by tidings from the east and the north, he thought to destroy many, he erected his palace-tent in the Holy Land, so that he might here aim a destructive blow against all his enemies —in this last assault he came to his end (ch. 11:40-45).

                Yet more distinctly the typical relation shows itself in the description of the undertakings of the enemy of God against the holy covenant, and their consequences for the members of the covenant nation. In this respect the first stadium of his enmity against the God of Israel culminates in the taking away of His worship, and in the setting up of the abomination of desolation, i.e. the worship of idols, in the sanctuary of the Lord. Against this abomination the wise of the people of God raise themselves up, and they bring by their rising up “a little help,” and accomplish a purification of the people (ch. 11:31-35). In the second stadium, i.e. at the time of the end, the hostile king raises himself against the God of ‘gods’, and above every ‘god’ (ch. 11:37), and brings upon the people of God an oppression such as has never been from the beginning of the world till now; but this oppression ends, by virtue of the help of the archangel Michael, with the deliverance of the people of God and the consummation by the resurrection of the dead, of some to everlasting life, and of some to everlasting shame (ch. 12:1-3).

                If thus the angel of the Lord, after he said to Daniel that he might rest as to the non-understanding of his communication regarding the end of the wonderful things (ver. 7), because the prophecy shall at the time of the end give to the wise knowledge for the purifying of many through the tribulation, so answers the question of Daniel as to the (‘achrith ‘eleh) that he defines in symbolically significant numbers the duration of the sufferings from the removal of the worship of Jehovah to the commencement of better times, with which all oppression shall cease, then he gave therewith a measure of time, according to which all those who have understanding, who have lived through this time of oppression, or who have learned regarding it from history, may be able to measure the duration of the last tribulation and its end so far beforehand, as, according to the fatherly and wise counsel of God, it is permitted to us to know the times of the end and of our consummation. For, from the comparison of this passage with that in ch. 8:14 regarding the duration of the crushing under feet of the holy people by the enemy rising from the Javanic world-kingdom, it is clear that as the 2300 evening mornings do not contain a complete heptad of years, so the 1290 days contain only a little more than half a heptad. In this lies the comfort, that the severest time of oppression shall not endure much longer than half the time of the whole period of oppression. And if we compare with this the testimony of history regarding the persecution of the Old Covenant people under Antiochus, in consequence of which God permitted the suppression of His worship, and the substitution of idol-worship in its stead, for not fully 3 1/2 years, but only for 3 years and 10 days, then we are able to gather the assurance that He shall also shorten, for the sake of His elect, the 3 1/2  times of the last tribulation. We should rest here, that His grace is sufficient for us (2nd Cor. 12:9). For as God revealed to the prophets, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto us, the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow, that they might search and inquire what and what manner of time the Spirit of Christ who was in them did signify; so in the times of the accomplishment, we who are living are not exempted from searching and inquiring, but are led by the prophetic word to consider the signs of the times in the light of this word, and from that which is already fulfilled, as well as from the nature and manner of the fulfilment, to confirm our faith, for the endurance amid the tribulations which prophecy has made known to us, that God, according to His eternal gracious counsel, has measured them according to their beginning, middle, and end, that thereby we shall be purified and guarded for the eternal life.

                Ver. 13. After these disclosures regarding the time of the end, the angel of the Lord dismisses the highly-favoured prophet from his life’s work with the comforting assurance that he shall stand in his own lot in the end of the days. (lek laqqetz) evidently does not mean “go to the end, i.e. go thy way” (Hitzig), nor “go hence in relation to the end,” as Kranichfeld translates it, because with the article points back to (`eth qetz), ver. 9. For though this reference were placed beyond a doubt, yet could only declare the end of the going: go to the end, and the meaning could then with Ewald only be : “but go thou into the grave till the end.” But it is more simple, with Theodoret and most interpreters, to understand of the end of Daniel’s life: go to the end of thy life (cf. for the constr. of (halak) with (le) 1st Sam. 23:18). With this (wethanuach) simply connects itself: and thou shalt rest, namely, in the grave, and rise again. (ta`amodh) = (taqum), to rise up, sc. from the rest of the grave, thus to rise again. (legoraleka), in thy lot. (goral), lot, of the in heritance divided to the Israelites by lot, referred to the inheritance of the saints in light (Col. 1:12), which shall be possessed by the righteous after the resurrection from the dead, in the heavenly Jerusalem. (leqets haiyamim), to = at, the end of the days, i.e. not = (‘achrith haiyamim), in the Messianic time, but in the last days, when, after the judgment of the world, the kingdom of glory shall appear.

                Well shall it be for us if in the end of our days we too are able to depart hence with such consolation of hope!

19. Zōckler.

The Book of the Prophet Daniel: an Exegetical and Doctrinal Commentary (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scripture) [Zōckler, Otto, Lange, John Peter, Schaff, Philip]

The book of the prophet Daniel : theologically and homiletically expounded … The book of the prophet Daniel : theologically and homiletically expounded by Zōckler, Otto, 1833-1906; James Strong,  1822-1894. Publication date 1899.

                {{ Preface (Editor, Lange-Schaff): The thirteenth volume of this work embraces the Commentaries on the Prophetical Books of Ezekiel and Daniel. …..II. The Commentary on Daniel is the work of Prof. Zōckler (1870), whom the readers of Lange already know as one of the largest and ablest contributors to the Old Testament part of this Commentary.     The English edition of Daniel is the work of the Rev. Dr. Strong, of Drew Theological  Seminary, aided by the Rev. G. Miller, B.D., of Walpach Centre, N. J., who prepared the  first draft of the translation. Dr. Strong has inserted the Biblical Text with its emendations  and Critical Notes, and has made all the additions to the Commentary. The most extensive of these are the synoptical view of Daniel’s prophecies, in tabular form, given in the Introduction, originally prepared by Dr. Strong for another work, and the excursus on the Seventy Weeks.  Dr. Strong has everywhere added the interpretations of later or unnoticed Commentaries, especially those of Dr. Keil and Moses Stuart. He differs from the German author with respect  to the genuineness of certain parts of Chap. XI (vers. 5-39), and hopes he has fully vindicated the complete integrity of the text, as well as cleared up those difficulties which the author has confessedly left unsolved. Dr. Zōckler himself admits, in the Preface, that his doubts concerning Chap. XI are purely subjective, (the supposed analogia visionis propheticae,) and that the external testimonies are all in favor of the integrity of the text.  Philip Schaff, New York, Oct., 1876. }}

                {{ Author’s Preface:    In the following exposition of the Book of Daniel, the undersigned has occupied an exegetical and critical position, the peculiarity of which will probably not be overlooked, on a careful comparison with the views and methods of other recent expositors. While he has held fast to the authenticity of the book as a whole, although it was difficult for him to change his former opinion respecting the composition of the book, that it originated during the Maccabaean age, and to conform it to the results of the thorough investigations of M. v. Niebuhr, Pusey, Zūndel, Kranichfeld, Volck, Fuller, and others, which demonstrated its composition during the captivity, he is still obliged to retain his former doubts with respect to the greater portion of Chap. 11 (particularly vs. 5-39). The reasons which determine him to this conclusion, are certainly of an internal character only. They result in the conviction that a particularizing prophecy, embracing the history of centuries, as it is found in that section, forms so marked a contrast to everything in the line of specializing prediction that occurs elsewhere in the prophetic literature of the Old Testament, that only the theory of an interpolating revision of its prophetic contents, imposed on it during the period of the Seleucid persecutions, or soon afterward, seems to afford a really satisfactory explanation of its particulars. Granted, that In the face of the unanimous testimony of all the external witnesses to the integrity of the prophet’s text, the subjective nature of a criticism, such as is involved in this conclusion, may be censured; granted, that it may be termed inconsequent, that the intimate unity of the well planned, well-adapted, and well-arranged work is thus broken through at but a single point; yet the analogia visionis propheticae, which furnishes the motive for our decision, appears to us to be no less a certain, objectively admissible, and most weighty criterion in critical questions like the present, than is the analogia fidei in the domain of Scriptural dogmatics. Nor was the solution of the many difficulties that were encountered, as it resulted from the assumption of an ex eventu interpolation at a single point, permitted to restrain us from submitting the progressive results of our investigation to the careful inspection of Biblical scholars belonging to wider circles, so far as the plan and design of the theological and homiletical Bible-work permitted such a course. [The American reviser has taken the liberty of combating the author’s view as to the interpolation of the passage in question.]

                In the treatment of a prophetic book like the one before us, it is evident that the homiletic element must occupy a very subordinate place. Nor could it be a principal aim for an exegete to obtain dogmatic results and modes of presenting them, from such a prophet as Daniel. For this reason we have preferred to follow the example of one of our esteemed co-laborers (Dr. Bāhr, in his exposition of the Books of Kings), and accordingly we have given the title of “Ethico-fundamental principles related, to the history of salvation” to the section ordinarily devoted to that object, and in the same connection we have noticed the apologetic questions that presented themselves, and also have indicated what was suitable for practical and homiletical treatment, in addition to the features designated by that heading.

                We have devoted an especially careful attention, as in the case of our former exposition of the Song of Solomon, to the history and literature of the exposition of this prophet, both as a whole and with reference to its principal parts severally. Especially has the history of the exposition of the difficult and important vision of the 70 weeks of years, (chap. 9:24-27,) been sketched by us as thoroughly as was possible, more thoroughly, we believe, than in any of the recent and latest commentaries on Daniel.

                Of the most recent exegetical and critical literature on this prophet, it was unfortunately impossible to notice two works that appeared while this book was in press: the commentary of Keil (in Keil and Delitzsch’s Bible-work on the O.T.), and the monograph by P. Caspari Zur Einfuhrung in das Buck Daniel (Leipsic, Dōrffling und Franke).

                May our attempt to add a further new and independent contribution to the exegetical literature on the most mysterious and difficult of all the prophets, which has recently been enriched by somewhat numerous, and in some respects not unimportant treatises, find that tolerant reception, at least on the part of Bible students who share our views in substance, which it may appropriately claim, in view of the unusual difficulty attending the execution of its object. Dr. Zōckler. Greifswald, April, 1869. }}

                {{ Introduction: Sect. 1…. These circumstances also serve to account for peculiarities in the language oi the book: for its composition, to the extent of about one-half in Hebrew, and the remainder (chap). 2:4b chap. 7) in the Aramaean or Chaldee idiom, which gradually, and as a consequence of the Babylonian captivity and of the Persian supremacy, became the language of the Palestinian Jews, is due solely to its origin, not only in a time of exile, but among the scenes of the exile, and at the court of the barbarous conquerors. The historical book of Ezra, which appeared immediately at the close of the exile, is the only one of the Old Testament Scriptures which shares this peculiarity of language, while the prophetical books (e.g., Jeremiah, which originated at the time of the exile and when its author was in constant intercourse with the Babylonians), merely contain isolated Aramaean words or paragraphs (see especially Jer. 10:11).

                The peculiar literary traits and theological contents of this book, especially in its second or prophetical part, likewise find their explanation in its origin among the scenes of the captivity. The prophecies of Daniel, conveyed generally in the form of dreams and visions, and nowhere enforced by inspired addresses or exhortations, and concerning themselves chiefly, if not exclusively, with the fate of the all-controlling world-power, on the one hand, and, on the other, with the final triumph of the Messianic kingdom of God, are thus distinguished from the earlier prophetical writings by peculiarities which mark the book as the pattern for the so-called apocalyptic prophecies. In ordinary prophecies the people of God had usually occupied the foreground of vision, while the world-powers by which they were threatened, were only noticed incidentally, and made the objects of “burdens” or threatening prophecies, as isolated representatives of the spirit that opposes God. Daniel, on the contrary, takes his position in the heart of that world-power, which had overthrown and subjugated all the nations of the East, and among them the chosen race. From this point of vision he foretells the rise of a new world-kingdom, which shall destroy the present empire, to be followed, in turn, by another and still greater power, and so on to the end, when an eternal kingdom of truth and righteousness shall be established on their ruins, by the direct interference of the God of heaven. The result of all earthly development, and the succession of judgments visited on the enemies of God’s people, closing with the Messianic or general judgment, form the subject of this prophecy; and the grandeur of its field of vision, compassing all history and embracing the world, together with the visional clothing of its teaching and the profound symbolism of its eschatological descriptions, constitute the features which stamp it as an apocalypse, in distinction from all earlier prophecy. Within the Old Testament, this form of prophetical writing is approached by the closing chapters of Ezekiel (40-48), but it is directly represented only in the former half of Zechariah (chap, 1-8), where the model found in Daniel was probably copied. In the New Testament it is found, if we except certain brief sections in the Gospels and Pauline epistles (the eschatological discourse in Matt, 24, 25, and parallel passages, and 2nd Thess. 2), only in the Revelation of St. John, which is a direct copy and continuation of the prophecies of Daniel.

                These peculiarities, as numerous as they are apparent and significant, explain why the book of Daniel was separated [in the Hebrew Bible] from the other prophets and placed among the Hagiograplia, when the Old-Testament canon was formed. Its internal features, consisting in an embrace of all history with an eschatological aim, joined to a visional and symbolical dress, which stamp it as the model of all Biblical (and extra-Biblical or apocryphal) apocalypse, would not of themselves have compelled such a separation; since many of the later prophetical writings display clear transitions in matter and form to the field of apocalypse, and permit the distinction between this richest fruit of Scriptural prophetical development and prophecy in the narrower sense, to appear as the result of the gradual growth. The decisive reason for the disposition made of this book, must be found in its peculiar division into historical and prophetical parts, and in its composition in Hebrew and Aramaic. This appears with irrefragable certainty from its assignment to a place immediately before Ezra, the only other book in the canon which frames in Chaldee a section of considerable extent between the Hebrew portions of its text.

                An additional circumstance, which may have contributed to placing the present book among; the Hagiographa, was the [presumed] revision of its prophetical portion, apparently by a pious seer of Maccabean times, who sought to establish as exact a relation as was possible between the prophecy and its historical fulfillment, as observed by him. This later revision, which affected especially the contents of chapters 10-12, will be considered below, in connection with the question of genuineness and integrity.

                Note 1. —With reference to the circumstances of the times— so deplorable in their condition and yet so full of displays of Divine grace and wonderful providences —to which the book of Daniel owes its origin, Hāvernick. in the introduction to his commentary (page 16 et seq.), is especially thorough and instructive. He justly disputes the opinion of Winer, de Wette, Lee (Jūdische Geschichte, p. 188), and others, according to which the situation of the captive Jews was not one of especial hardship. “The shame there inflicted on Israel was not exactly insignificant, when it could inspire pious and faithful men with a holy revenge, and lead them to invoke the Divine indignation on their tormentors! Remember the 137th Psalm and the audacious desecration of the Temple vessels by Belshazzar, as Dan. v. records, which lead to the conclusion that such conduct was of frequent occurrence. Even martyrs to the truth, cheerful and undismayed while testifying that Jehovah alone is God and none beside Him, are revealed in the history of Daniel and his friends (Dan. 3 and 6); to which event the observation and experience of the wise preacher perhaps refer, when he remarks that ‘there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness’ (Ecc. 7:15).  (* [These arguments of Hāvernick, however, are not in point to show the general oppression of the Jews m the latter portion of the Babylonian exile. The treatment of the three Hebrew children, and at times of Daniel himself, are only occasional and exceptional instances of Oriental despotism, when aroused by opposition to an arbitrary and universal edict, as the immunity and even honors following evince. The book of Esther contains an apt commentary on these capricious vicissitudes. The reference to the passage in Eccles. is particularly inapposite, as that book belongs to the Solomonic age.] *)    When we consider the internal state of the nation in this period, we find further abundant reason for complaint, because of Israel’s sin and misery. Ezekiel addressed the people with earnest censure because they listened to his words, but refused to obey them, when he condemned their ways (Eze. 33:30, sq.), in which they dishonored God among the heathen, and continued to murder, work abomination, and violate chastity, until men asked. ‘Are these the people of the Lord, that are gone forth out of His land? (33:20; 36:20,21; cf. chap, 34). Where, indeed, could greater opportunity be found for indulgence in heathen customs by the Israelites, who were at all times excessively addicted to idolatry, than in Babylon, which was notorious as the home of luxury and idolatry? Hence, we must deplore the profound sense of sin, and of being forsaken by God, which is so clearly revealed, not only in the destruction of the temple, and the expulsion of Israel from the holy land, but also in the lack of prophecy (cf. Sam. 2:9; Psa. 74:9); and which finds its most striking expression in the prayer of Daniel, uttered before the Lord in the name of the people, toward the end of the captivity. (* [On the contrary it appears that the chastisement of Israel by the captivity, became, as it was intended to be, an effectual cure of outward idolatry. The very sight of the abominatio’s practised by their heathen captors, seems, as in the case of similar close contact with polytheism in Egypt, to have thoroughly disgusted and warned them from ail such tendencies. The prayer of Daniel, alluded to by the author, is only a general confession of the past sins of the nation, for which the exile, now drawing near its close, is recognized as the just penalty. The passages in Ezekiel have a much earlier date.]*)  A different class, who preferred the condition of the exile to the hairy garment of the prophet and the rigorous service of Jehovah, would doubtless enjoy their situation. If there were no other proof of this, it would appear from the fact that many preferred to remain in Babylon at the close of the exile. But the fate of these apostate souls, who by the Divine decree, were at this exact juncture separated and cast out as dregs from the healthy and pious portion of the nation, was none the less deplorable on that account.” . . . Further, page 20: “But the wretched and outcast nation was, and still continued to be, the people of His covenant, and, therefore, despite their low estate, the elect and favorite nation of the Lord. They were not merely to continue until the days of their great destiny were fulfilled, but, for Jehovah’s sake, they were to be glorified among the heathen. As, therefore, He had always afforded them miraculous aid in seasons of great tribulation, so extraordinary signs and events, that transcended the ordinary course of nature, now occurred and secured the good of Israel while they alarmed the Gentiles ; but at the same time these pointed forward, without exception, to the future realization of the great plan of salvation, whose end is the redemption of sinful man . . . Prophecies and wonders were the gracious means with which Jehovah overwhelmed Israel and compelled it to abide by Him, but through which, also, the determined apostates who would not turn to God, were finally cut out, so that a purified people, which agreed in confessing Israel’s God at least in outward form, could return to the land of its fathers,” etc.—This view of the time of Daniel and its significance, which is held by orthodox exegetes, with few exceptions (see particularly Auberlen, Der Prophet Daniel, etc., 2d ed., p. 26 et seq.) is rejected by rationalists, inasmuch, as has already been remarked, they do not admit that Israel’s condition during the captivity was especially deplorable and fallen, nor acknowledge the historical character of the narratives respecting the wonderful displays of Divine power and grace, which are recorded in this book. And yet another collection of prophecies, whose origin in the time of the exile and at Babylon is considered by rationalistic critics to be an incontrovertible fact, substantiates the view in question concerning the conditions of the time which underlie our book, in all its bearings, and in many respects, even in its smallest details. The second part of the prophet Isaiah —whether with the modern critics, we consider it as the “Pseudo-Isaiah” or “the exilian Isaiah,” or admit its genuineness and therewith its thoroughly prophetic character —describes the condition of the exiled nation in Babylon, as well as the striking contrast between their religious and national ruin and wickedness, and the miracles by which the grace of God was magnified in them, in precisely the same colors as does the book of Daniel, and therefore serves to establish the authenticity of the contents of this book in an impressive manner. Isaiah’s lamentations because of the turning of many to idolatry (chap. 46:6, etc.; 57:5, etc.; 60:8, etc.); because of unrighteousness, wanton revelry, and violence (chap. 56:11; 58:2, etc.; 59:3, etc); because of the discouragement and lack of faith among even the best of the exiles (chap. 60:27; 49:24; 51:12, etc.; 45:9, etc.) and on account of the rebellious disposition and insolent stubbornness of the masses (48:4, 8, 10; 63:17; 64:7, etc.) —all these merely recapitulate in detail what is briefly comprehended in Daniel’s priestly confession and penitential prayer in the affecting language of bitter lamentation. (* [The passages of Isaiah here cited depict in part the idolatry of the heathen, with which the chosen nation arc contrasted, and in part the degeneracy of the prophet’s countrymen in his own day. for which the captivity was lo be a punishment. Few, if any of them, necessarily imply anything more than discouragement, which a long delay of the promised deliverance would naturally engender.) Furthermore, the manner in which the deutero-Isaiah refers to the marvellous power and majesty of Jehovah, as revealed in wonderful signs of every sort (chap. 44:6; 45:11), in multitudes of prophecies and promises that have been realized (chap. 46:21 et seq.; 43:9 et seq.; 44:7 et seq.; 45:19, 21; 46:10; 49:3 et seq.), and in the humiliation and destruction of heathen idols and their worshippers, touches closely upon the corresponding descriptions in both parts of Daniel, the historical as well as the prophetical and symbolical (see especially chap. 2:47; 3:28; 4:31 et seq.; 6:27 et seq.; 7:13 et seq.;  9:24 et seq.). The relations of God’s people to their heathen oppressors and their gods, on the one hand, and to their covenant God, Jehovah, and His displays of grace and promises of deliverance, on the other, are described by both prophets with substantially the same result; and there remains only this difference, that the mode of statement employed by Isaiah, accords with the older usage of spoken and written prophetical language, while Daniel illustrates the fate of kingdoms in the present and future from a decidedly apocalyptic point of view. The following note treats specifically of this important difference between our prophet and his earlier predecessors.

                Note 2.—The relation of Daniel, as the original representative of Scriptural apocalypse, to the earlier prophets, is considered in an especially instructive manner by Auberlen (Der Prophet Daniel, etc., p.2 sq.): “The prophets generally occupy an intro-Israelitish standpoint, from whence they view the future of God’s kingdom. The congregation of His people constantly occupies the foreground with them, and the world-powers enter their range of vision only as they interfere in the present or immediate future of God’s people. . . . The contrary holds with Daniel. Himself separated from the holy land and nation, and living and discharging duty as a high official at the Babylonian and Persian courts, he presents the development of the world-power at the outset as the chief object of his prophecies, and the kingdom of God is relegated significantly to the background. If the other prophets glance occasionally from their post in Zion to the south, the north, or the east, as one or another world-kingdom is presented to their vision, Daniel, from the heart of the world-power, overlooks its entire development, and not until his glance has penetrated through all its changing forms does he rest in Zion, recognizing her affliction and punishment, but also her triumph and exaltation. The prophecies of Daniel no longer relate merely to single and contemporaneous world-kingdoms of greater or less importance; but rather the period of universal monarchies has begun, which rise in succession to universal conquest, and in whose deportment the worldly principle that opposes the reign of God is revealed in steadily-increasing power and hostility. Intimately connected with this is the further peculiarity of Daniel, that his prophecies contain a much greater wealth of historical and political detail than those of all other prophets. While prophecy generally, viewing the near and the distant in perspective, is accustomed to regard the entire future from an eschatological point of view as the coming of the kingdom of God, Daniel, on the contrary, sees spread before him substantially the future history of the world which must transpire before the advent of the kingdom. Hence results the special form of prophecy which is peculiar to him alone. If this were in any case a history of the future, it would be with so him.” The idea, that the notice in detail of the several features of progress in the future development of the world-power and its relations to God’s people, is a final chief peculiarity of Daniel’s prophecies, is based principally on the contents of chap. 11, which Auberlen regards as written throughout by Daniel and soon after the captivity. We believe ourselves warranted in holding a different view respecting this chapter, which is the chief support for the assumption of a continued series of the most special predictions, and therefore prefer to accept a revision in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, by a pious apocalyptic investigator. Hence we charge the thorough description of the kingdoms of the Seleucids clown to that tyrant, to the account of the modifying agency of this interpolator. We are not led to this view, either by a preconceived opinion that the Spirit of prophecy is incapable of producing such special predictions, or by a one sided reference to the analogy of the remaining prophetical books of the Old Testament, which contain no such detailed descriptions of the future; but the decisive circumstance which arouses our suspicion concerning the assumption that Dan. 11 is throughout and in all its details a proper prediction, and which even directly forbids it, is the fact that the Revelation of St. John, besides our book the only independent and more comprehensive production of the canonical apocalypse, every- where presents only ideal pictures of the future. We admit that the prophet, borne by the Spirit of prophecy, would, at the point in question, receive many surprisingly exact disclosures respecting the future history of the God-opposed world-power and its hostility towards the people of God, because we regard Daniel, the “vir desideriorum” (chap. 10:11) as pre-eminent in zeal and successful effort, among the Old-Testament prophets who, according to 1st Pet. 1:11, searched “what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify.” But precisely because he was only a searcher of the future and could lie no more than this, we are compelled to reject everything that transforms his prophecy from a Divinely inspired picture of the future into a detailed and painfully exact history of the future, and we therefore charge this portion to the account of the reviser. Daniel is and remains for us a “prophetic light for the times devoid of revelation, during which Israel was given into the hands of the heathen,” a “light that was designed to illumine the night of five hundred years from the Captivity to Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, for the understanding ones in Israel” (Auberlen, p. 80); but we cannot assume that the clear prophetic light which emanated from him was intended to penetrate to the smallest corners and most gloomy recesses of the history of God’s people which was for him, yet future. (* [To those far removed from all influence of the prevalent rationalism of German criticism, the insidious tincture of which, notwithstanding the authors disclaimer, is evident in his conclusion on this point, the ascription of any portion of the book of Daniel to a later nameless writer on such purely subjective grounds, must appear altogether gratuitous. The business of the interpreter is. not to prescribe what God was likely to cause a prophet to predict, but to accept and expound accordingly what historical and substantial testimony has delivered to us as the actual words of prophecy. There is no more evidence of a pseudo-Daniel than of a pseudo-Isaiah.] *) But if we can assent to Auberlen’s description of the canonical apocalypses as prophetical disclosures, intended to “serve the congregation of God’s people as lights during the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24) in which there is no revelation,” only on the condition that we conceive their light in an ideal sense, and as corresponding to the fundamental law in the Divine revelation of gradual and mediate disclosure, we are none the less compelled on the other hand to reject decidedly a special feature, admitted by Lūcke, Hilgenfeld, and others, into their conception of the idea of apocalypse, a conception which otherwise conforms approximately to that of Auberlen. We refer to the idea of pseudonymity, concerning which Lūcke (Einleitung in die Offenharung Johannis und die soyenannte apolcalyptische Literatur, 2d ed., p.47 sq.) asserts that it is necessarily connected with the other two distinguishing features of apocalyptic prophecy, its eschatological and its comprehensive character that covers all history, since only later writers wo cunningly related the prophecies to the past and invented additions to the older prophets, were capable of such all-embracing vision. The one-sidedness and rashness of this assertion likewise appear from the mode of origin and the literary peculiarities of the Revelation by St. John, this most important and significant of apocalypses, against which no more unjust criticism can be offered than that of a pseudonymic origin; and not less from the notorious authenticity of the former half of the book of Zechariah (chap. 1-8), the remaining apocalyptic composition that has been admitted to the Old-Testament canon, and which may be regarded as the earliest imitation of Daniel. We can yield our assent to the charge of forgery as regards this form of writing, in so far only as it applies to the apocryphal apocalypses, and are therefore in accord with Hilgenfeld (Die jūdische Apokalyptik in ihrer (geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 1857, p.5 sq.) —whose view diverges somewhat from that of Lūcke— no further than as he excepts the Johannean apocalypse from the canon of Lūcke, which stamps pseudonymity as the invariable mark of apocalyptic literature; but to this exception we add the two apocalypses of the canonical Old Testament. For the more special consideration of the relations of Daniel to the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical apocalypses. Which were mainly framed on its model, see below, § 11.  (* [The inconsistency of the author’s position here is palpable if we correctly apprehend his somewhat involved statement of it. The Revelation of St. John, if not the apostle’s, if of course under a fictitious name, and the 11th chapter if Daniel, if not that prophet’s, is equally pseudonymical, whoever may be conceived as the interpolator. The distinction on this respect between a whole work and a part only is too nice to escape the odium of a “pious fraud.”] *)   (* [Auberlen (Daniel and Revelation, Clarke’s ed.. p. 77 eq.) notices several other “materialistic differences between the Apocalypse of the Old and of the New Testament,” growing more or less directly out of the different position occupied by the people of God at their respective times. Those who have insisted that the Antichrist of the one is necessarily the Antichrist of the other, have therefore interpreted the symbols as having precisely the same significance, have unduly overlooked these differences in the standpoint and design of the two prophets. *) 

                Note 3.—With respect to the Chaldaic idiom in Dan. 2-7, which we represented above as a principal reason for leading the framers of the canon to assign to Daniel a place anions the Hagiographa, and in the immediate neighborhood of Ezra, we remark in general,   (1.) that this dialect, which gradually became the current language of the Palestinian Jews, was the eastern-Aramaean or Babylonian, a purely Shemitic idiom, which, as the popular tongue of the Babylonians, must be carefully distinguished from the (leshon kasdim), mentioned in Dan. 1:4, the latter being the court language of Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldaean dynasty, and comprehending numerous Aryan or Turanian elements. This follows from Dan. 2:4; Isa. 36:11; and Ezra 4:7, where documents and speeches in this dialect are designated as such by the term (‘aramith) (Luther [and English version]: “Syriac,” rather Aramaic, while the “tongue of the Chaldeans” (l” kasdim) mentioned in Dan. 1:4 is not again referred to, and is clearly distinguished from the ordinary Aramaean language as a peculiar dialect, current among the warrior and priestly caste then dominant in Babylon (possibly identical with those perpetuated in the Assyrio-Babylonish cuneiform inscriptions) by the manner in which it is there introduced; for Daniel and his companions would hardly have been obliged to undergo a regular course of instruction in the common Aramaean or Babylonian language, as it should be called, instead of Chaldee, which is less exact. Compare below, on chapter 1:4.   (2.) The Aramaean of chapters 2-7 includes numerous Hebraisms, as the Hebrew of the remaining chapters Chaldaizes many expressions; a circumstance that can hardly lie explained, except on the supposition of an intermingling of both dialects in the popular language, which may have begun at the time of the frequent Assyrian invasions, at first among the ten tribes, and later gradually extended also to Judah, and to which the strongly Aramaizing Hebrew of the prophet Ezekiel, most intimately related to the Hebrew of Daniel, bears testimony.   (3.) The co-existence of the Hebrew and Aramaean, as dialects spoken and understood by the people, is substantiated further by the circumstance that our author could venture to express most of his narratives and predictions in the latter tongue; a feature that is repeated only in the book of Ezra, which was written a century later, while Isaiah (nearly two hundred (200) years before Daniel) admits no Aramaic expressions into his text in a passage which would have afforded a suitable opportunity (chap. 36:11; cf. 2nd Kings 18:26), and even Jeremiah contents himself with employing a brief Aramaic sentence (Jer. 10:11; compare the use of single words in Aram. in earlier books, e.g., Gen. 31:47; 2nd Kings 5:12).   (4.) The Aramaic idiom of Daniel corresponds closely to that of the book of Ezra and of Jer. 10:11, both in its grammatical and its lexical features. Its wealth of older words (e.g., (shepa-parach) instead of the later (shephar, `alohir) for the later (`al-‘aphar, tachtohi), for the later (milra’, sim te`am) for the later (paqir, kal-qibal-di), for the later (‘arey `al pek) for (qilqalthah), etc.) and its general grammatical peculiarities (where the forms, (lechon, lekon), instead of the apparently more ancient (lechom, lekom), which are found in Ezra, form the only exceptions) create the impression of a much higher antiquity than is represented by the otherwise closely related Chaldee of the Targums, which were composed about the beginning of the Christian aera.   (5.) Of the seven notorious Parseeisms, or words derived from the Persian, which are found in the Aramaic portion of our book, only (‘azda‘) occurs in the Targums, while it has two others (patnam and partemim) in common with the Chaldaizing Hebrew of the book of Esther and the Chaldee of Ezra, and a fourth (gizbar) occurs at least in the Chald. Ezra. There is thus in this respect also a more remarkable lingual relationship between Daniel and Ezra, than between them and the Chaldee Targums, and the position assigned to our book between Esther and Ezra on the forming of the canon, is fully justified by this consideration. We shall endeavor to show, in connection with the question of genuineness, that the weight of these lingual peculiarities, which point so decisively to the composition of this book during the period immediately preceding and following the captivity, is in no wise diminished by the occurrence in its Chaldee text of several phrases evidently derived from the Greek. We were only concerned in this connection, to show that the lingual peculiarities of the book formed a principal motive for its collocation with the Hagiographa, instead of its being placed in the series of prophetical books. Compare Hengstenberg, Die Authentic des Daniel, etc… p.297 sq.; Hāvernick, Einleilung ins A.T., II. 2, 482 et seq.; Zūndel, Kritische Untersuckungen ūber die Abfassungsseit des Buches Daniel , p.239 et seq. Concerning its place after Esther and Ezra, compare in addition, Delitzsch, Art. “Daniel,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., III. 272: “The book of Daniel stands between Esther and Ezra, because Esther, for a sufficient reason, is the last ot the five Megilloth (festival volumes), and because the principal contents of Daniel belong to the time before Ezra and Nehemiah.” accordingly, this book was regarded as belonging among the historical Hagiographa (in view of its really historical character throughout the first half), and it was placed at the head of these books, because of its lingual relationship with Ezra, and also because of its pre-eminently holy and inspired character. This arrangement is not chronological, indeed, for in this respect the Chronicles should precede, and Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther follow in their order. But considerations of a different nature prevailed, on the whole, in the collocation of these final constituents of the Old-Testament canon. The following section will illustrate one of the leading considerations which enable us definitely to understand the position of this book, in connection with its remarks on the call of Daniel to the prophetic office.

                § 3 Contents and Form of Daniel’s Prophecies.

                The first or historical division (chap. 1-6) of the two which compose our book according to § 1, p.1, has already, so far as its principal features are concerned, been analyzed in the preceding paragraph, which narrates the leading events of the prophet’s life in exact chronological order. The second or prophetical division (chap. 7-12) contains the prophetic elements of the book, but not so exclusively as not to interweave occasional historical and biographical notices with its predictions (see especially the mention of Daniel’s illness, chap. 8:27 ; of his fasting, mourning, and prayer, chap. 9:1 et seq.; 10:2 cf seq.; of his visions on the banks of the Tigris, chap. 10:4 et seq.; 12:5). Nor are prophecies entirely wanting in the historical division; for besides the interpretation of the dream relating to the lycanthropy of Nebuchadnezzar (in chap. 4:16-24), which is equivalent to an actual prophecy or special prophetical prediction, and also besides the interpretation of the mysterious writing on the wall of Belshazzar’s banquet-hall, which likewise testifies to Daniel’s prophetic endowments (chap. 5:17-28), the leading features of the narrative in chapter 2, relating to the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream by Daniel, form a prophecy of the specifically apocalyptic kind in their reference to the history of kingdoms and of the world. The great image composed of gold, silver, brass, iron, and clay, the so-called image of the monarchies, together with the stone that destroys it, which were seen by Nebuchadnezzar in his dream, and afterward by the prophet, in a night vision, were interpreted by Daniel by virtue of Divine inspiration, to signify a succession of world-kingdoms that should precede the kingdom of Messiah or of God, commencing with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar himself. The golden head of the image represented the existing kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar with its exalted power and greatness. Upon it should follow a second and inferior kingdom, and a third, that should bear rule over all the earth with the power and hardness of brass; afterwards a fourth, strong as iron, which should crush and destroy all things; and finally a divided kingdom, partly of iron and partly of clay, i.e.. partly strong and partly brittle, which, though seeking to combine its several parts, should yet fail to develope into a united whole. In the time of this divided kingdom, God Himself would establish a kingdom on the earth, which, like the destroying stone, should overturn and crush all the world-kingdoms in order to flourish on their ruins forever (chap. 2:37-45).

                ((* [Keil (Commentary on Daniel, Clarke’s tr., p.84) ingeniously traces the logical position of the chapters in this historical portion as follows. He regards chaps. 2-3 as comprising, after the introductory chap. 1, the first part of the book, containing “the development of the world-power,” and remarks that “this part contains in six chapters as many reports regarding the successive forms and the natural character of the world-powers. It begins (chap. 2) and ends (chap. 7) with a revelation from God regarding its historical unfolding in four great world-kingdoms following each other, and their final overthrow by the kingdom of God, which shall continue forever. Between these chapters (2 and 7) there are inserted four events belonging to the times of the first and second world-kingdoms, which partly reveal the attempts of the rulers of the world to compel the worshippers of the true God to pray to their idols and their gods, together with the failure of this attempt (chaps. 3 and 6), and partly the humiliations of the rulers of the world, who were boastful of their power, under the judgments of God (chaps. 4 and 5), and bring under our consideration the relation of the rulers of this world to the Almighty God of heaven and earth and to the true fearers of His name. The narratives of these four events follow each other in chronological order, because they are in actual relation bound together, and therefore also the occurrences (chaps, v. and vi.) which belong to the time subsequent to the vision in chap. vii. are placed before the vision, so that the two revelations regarding the development of the world-power form the frame within which is contained the historical section which describes the character of that world-power.” The second part of the entire book, as distributed by Keil (chaps. 8-12) is designated by him as “the development of the kingdom of God” —thus contrasted with the world power of the former section. This latter part Keil analyzes as follows; “This part contains three revelations which Daniel received during the reigns of Belshazzar. Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian, regarding the development of the kingdom of God. After describing in the first part the development of the world-power and its relation to the people and kingdom of God from the days of Nebuchadnezzar, its founder, down to the time of its final destruction by the perfected kingdom of God, in this second part; it is revealed to the prophet how the kingdom of God entered against the power and enmity of the rulers of the world, and amid severe oppressions, is carried forward to final victory, and is perfected. The first vision, chap. 8, represents what will happen to the people of God during the developments of the second and third world-kingdoms; the second revelation, chap. 9, gives to the prophet, in answer to his penitential prayer for the restoration of the ruined holy city and the desolated sanctuary, disclosures regarding the whole development of the kingdom of God, from the close of the Babylonian exile to the final accomplishment of God’s plan of salvation. In the last vision, in the third year of Cyrus, chap. 10-12, he received yet further and more special revelations regarding the severe persecutions which await the people of God for their purification, in the nearer future under Antiochus Epiphanes, and in the time of the end under the last foe, the Antichrist” (p. 283).]*))

                This prophecy, which is interwoven with the first or historical part, is closely related to the first prediction of the prophetical part (chap. 7), and indeed is identical with it in purport. This latter prophecy is also a dream-vision with a succeeding Divinely disclosed interpretation, but revealed originally and solely to Daniel. The succession of the four world-kingdoms which began with that of Nebuchadnezzar, is in this instance represented by four beasts which rise in succession from the sea: a lion with eagle’s wings and the heart of a man, a bear with three ribs in its ravenous jaws, a leopard with four wings and four heads, and a fourth terrible monster with iron teeth and ten horns, three of which were plucked up by the roots, and replaced by “another little horn” with human eyes and a mouth that spoke presumptuous blasphemies (chap. 7:2-8). The fourth of these kingdoms is now described somewhat differently, and more particularly, as a fearful reign of tyranny, which devoured the earth and destroyed and ruined all things, and from which should proceed in succession ten kings, who are symbolized by the ten horns. Three of these kings are to be supersede by the final monarch, who is represented by the “little horn,” and whose madness and blasphemous presumption exceed that of all who have preceded him, so that he speaks blasphemy against the Highest, makes war upon the saints of God, and aims to set aside the law and the holy seasons. The sufferings of the people of God at the hands of this tyrant are limited to three and a half (3 1/2) years, at the end of which Divine judgments shall be visited on him through one like the Son of man, who comes with the clouds of heaven, and to whom is committed an everlasting dominion over all nations.

                The second prophecy of the second part (chap. 8) also stands connected in its subject and purport with the image of the monarchies, whose middle and lower parts it develops and illustrates more fully. Under the figure of a contest between a ram and a he-goat, it describes the overthrow of the third by the fourth world-kingdom, together with succeeding events down to the Messianic judgment. A ram with two horns, of which the taller appeared last, pushes fiercely towards the four quarters of the earth, until a he-goat with a notable horn, coming from the west, smites him to the ground, and breaks his two horns. Next, the great horn of the victorious goat is broken, and replaced by four other notable ones, toward the four winds of heaven. Out of one of these comes forth a little horn, which increases mightily toward the south, the east, and Judaea, grows even to the host of heaven and its prince, desecrates the sanctuary, and interrupts the offering of the daily sacrifice during a period of 2,300 evenings and mornings (i.e. 1,150 days, or three and a half (3 1/2) years), vers. 3-14. The angel Gabriel interprets this vision to the prophet, and applies it to the Medo-Persian empire, which should be overthrown by the fourth world-power, founded by the king of Greecia (Alexander the Great), and also to the four more important kingdoms of the Diadochi, which should arise out of the Greek world-monarchy, on the early death of its founder. One of these latter kingdoms (that of the Seleucidae) should become especially hurtful to the people of God and His sanctuary, through the craft and audacity of one of its rulers, until finally the breaking of this offender “without hand,” i.e., by the interference of a superior power should come to pass. [For a comparative table of all these prophecies see § 10, Note 3; and for a refutation of the “year-day ” hypothesis on which the application of the fourth kingdom exclusively to Papal Rome rests, see § 10, Note 4.]

                A third vision (chap. 9) is vouchsafed to the prophet in connection with his meditating on the meaning of the seventy (70) years, which Jeremiah had predicted should elapse before the rebuilding of Jerusalem. While addressing Jehovah in fervent penitential prayer, in connection with his meditations, and beseeching Him to forgive the sins of His people, and to turn away His fury from Jerusalem (vers. 3-19), the angel Gabriel discloses to him the meaning of Jeremiah’s prophecy. The seventy (70) years are to be understood as seventy (70) weeks of years. Four hundred and ninety (490) years were determined, in order to atone fully for the sins of the people, and to reanoint the Most Holy of His temple. The first seven of the seventy (70) weeks of years were to include the period between the utterance of Jeremiah’s prophecy and the “anointed prince” (Cyrus); in the course of the sixty-two (62) weeks of years that should follow, the city (Jerusalem) was to be rebuilt, but in troublous times. The last, or seventieth (70th), week of years should begin with the “cutting off of an anointed one,” after which the people and their sanctuary were to be devastated by the armies of a tyrant, and the customary offering of the sacred sacrifices and oblations to be interrupted during the half of a week (evidently during the latter half of this final week of years), until, in the end, ruin should overtake the destroyer  (vers. 21-27). (* In support of this statement of the contents of chap. 9:22-27, and especially of the verse last mentioned, compare the exegetical remarks on that passage. [For counter arguments, see the additions thereto.])

                The final vision (chaps. 10-12) contains the most thorough and detailed description of the developments of the future. After three weeks of fasting and mourning, an angel, whose clothing and appearance were wonderful (chap. 10:5-11), appeared to the prophet on the banks of the Tigris, and gave him an account of the contests which he was compelled to enter into with the “princes,” or angelical protectors of Persia and Greecia, and in which he was aided only by Michael, the angel of God’s people (chap. 10:12-11:1). To this account he added a representation, full of life and minute detail, of the immediate future, and extending to the time of the tyrannical oppressor of God’s people, who has already been frequently described. In this connection he dwells especially upon the conflicts of the kings of a southern kingdom (Egypt) and a northern kingdom (Syria), which were to constitute the principal states that should arise from the ruins of the fourth (Greek or Macedonian) world-power (chap. 11:2-20), and more than all, on the insolent, audacious, and blasphemous deportment of the last king of the northern realm, who should ultimately come to a terrible end, after inflicting the most horrible abominations on the holy nation, their sacred city, and its sanctuary (chap. 11:21-45). After unparalleled tribulation and affliction, deliverance and salvation should come to Daniel’s nation, in connection with the resurrection of the dead, which should lead to the exaltation of the righteous, but consign the ungodly to everlasting punishment (chap. 12:1-3). (* [See, however, the exegetical remarks on this last particular.] *)

  After the angel has directed the prophet to seal the prophecy to the time of the end (ver. 4), he supplements it by a final revelation in regard to the duration of the period of severe affliction before the introduction of Messiah’s kingdom, which is fixed at 1,290, or, conditionally, at 1,335 days (vs. 7-12). The whole closes with the counsel of the angel to the prophet, to wait patiently until the end of all things, and until his resurrection to eternal life.

                The arrangement of the four prophecies of the second part is strictly chronological, so that the order of their succession is parallel with that of the actual events in Daniel’s life, as recorded in the first part. The first vision appeared to him “in the first year of Belshazzar” the king, in the form of a dream, which he at once recorded in writing (chap. 7:1); the second, in the third year of the same reign, “in the palace of Shushan, in the province of Elam, by the river of Ulai,” —where the prophet in his exaltation at least believed himself to be (chap. 8:1,2); the third, in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede, hence soon after the overthrow of Belshazzar (chap. 9:1,2; cf. 5:30; 6:1); and the fourth, “in the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia,” on the 24th day of the first month, while the prophet was on the banks of the Tigris, after completing his fast of three weeks (chap. 10:1-4; cf. 12:5,6). The first vision is included in the Aramaic portion of the book; the three others, like chap. 1 and the opening verses of chap. 2 (vers. 1-4a), are recorded in Hebrew.

                In a formal point of view, the marked difference between the prophecies of the second part and those of the first is to be noticed, namely, that in the latter instance the interpretation of the wonderful and prophetic appearance of the vision in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (chap. 2), and of the mysterious writing, Mene, Mene, Tekel, etc., at the banquet of Belshazzar (chap. 5), was imparted to the prophet immediately through the Divine Spirit, and without the agency of angels; while in each of the four prophecies of the second part angels are employed, either to reveal the purport of the visions seen by Daniel while awake or dreaming (as in the case of the first two, chap. 7 and 8), or to convey direct disclosures relating to the future, without any previous symbolical vision (as with the final prophecies, chap. 9 and 10-12). The prophet, however, is the only narrator, even when he recapitulates (as is the case especially in chap. 10:20-12:4) the extended remarks of the angel, his celestial teachers and interpreters. The epistolary form of narration which occurs once in the first part, chap. 3:31-4:34 (but which is not rigidly adhered to in that connection, since Nebuchadnezzar, the writer of the letter under our notice, is referred to in the third person, in chap. iv. 4:25-30), is not found in the second part.

                Note. —In opposition to the division of the contents of this book into historical and prophetico-visional parts, which we have adopted, Auberlen (p.38), and in connection with him Keil (Einl. ins A.T., 2d ed., p. 389 et seq.), and also Kranichfeld (Das Buck Daniel, p. 2 et seq.), contends that chap. vii. should be included in the first part. The reasons adduced by the last mentioned exegete, as “material” in contrast with ours as merely “formal,” are, first, the prophetico-visional elements which enter also into the first part, and particularly into chap, 2, and secondly, the identity of language in chap. 7 with chapters 2-5, which forbids a wider separation between chapters 6 and 7 as contrary to the intention of the author. But the visional constituents of the first part are extremely meagre when compared with the far greater proportion of the narrative elements in this division; and the chronological difference between chapters 6 and 7 is decidedly more important than the affinities of language between chap. 7 and the five chapters that precede it. The dream-vision recorded in chapter 7 dates back to the reign of Belshazzar, the last (or one of the last) of the Babylonian kings, while the historical contents of the preceding chapter belong to the Medo-Persian period; hence the time of chapter 7 and also of chap. 8 corresponds to that of chapter 5, while chapter 6 is contemporary with chapter 9. Since the general arrangement, both of the pre-eminently historical chapters of the first part, and of the chiefly visional contents of the second, is strictly chronological, the distribution of the entire book into the categories of history and prophecy seems to have been the leading idea by which its editor (whom we regard as identical with its author) was governed, while the identity of language in chapter 7 and the preceding chapters sinks into a merely accidental feature. The following section may serve to show the most probable explanation of this feature. For the present, we are only concerned to show that the arrangement adopted by us, even if it were based more on a formal than a material principle, conforms fully to the idea and design of the writer, and is therefore with justice retained by a majority of modem expositors —even by Zūndel (p. 39 et seq.), Reusch (Eiitl. ins A.T., 3d ed., p. 109), and others. ….}}

                § 9. Authenticity of  Book (Concluded).

{{ c.) Examination of Internal Reasons Against its Genuineness, which are based on its Miracles Prophecies.

                Note 3. —With reference to the difficult, but, for the exegesis of this book, exceedingly important question, “Which world-kingdoms of the last pre-Christian time correspond to the four characteristic figures of Daniel’s monarchies (chap. 2:31 et seq.; 7:2 et seq.)?” we offer the preliminary remark, that the interpretation by which the fourth kingdom represents the Roman supremacy —an interpretation which was accepted by Josephus and a majority of the church fathers, and which has become traditional and is in almost universal favor— does not to us seem to meet the sense of the prophet.   ((* [Dr. Pusey, the latest scholarly advocate of this reference of the fourth kingdom to Rome (pagan rather than papal), offers the following special considerations in its favor (p. 69 et seq.):

                1. “Even an opponent (De Wette, in the Halt. Encykl. s.v. Daniel) has said, ‘It is in favor of this interpretation [of the 4th empire as Roman] that the two feet of iron can be referred to the eastern and western emperors,'” But so is the 3rd empire described by the plural ” breasts” (hadohi) and arms,” where the Medo-Persian coalition affords but a faint parallel.

                2. “The ten horns are explained to be kings or kingdoms which should issue out of it. ‘And the ten horns out of (i.e., going forth from) this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise.’ Throughout these prophecies the king represents the kingdom, and the kingdom is concentrated in its king. The kings, then, or kingdoms, which should arise out of this kingdom must, from the force of the term as well as from the context, be kings or kingdoms which should arise at some later stage of its existence, not those first kings without which it could not be a kingdom at all.” The force of this reasoning is somewhat difficult to perceive, and its whole validity is destroyed by the Masoretic accents of the text quoted, which should be translated thus: “The ten horns [are] the kingdom thence, [namely] ten kings [that] shall arise.”

                3. “These ten horns or kingdoms are also to be contemporaneous. They are all prior in time to the little horn which is to arise out of them. ‘Another shall arise after them, and is diverse from the rest.’ Yet the ten horns or kingdoms are to continue on together until the eleventh (11th) shall have risen up: for it is to rise up among them and destroy three of them.” The inconclusiveness of this argument is palpable. Antiochus certainly was later than his predecessors, but of the same line, and he displaced three of them. The correspondence is as perfect as could be desired, far more so than on any other scheme.

                4. “The period after the destruction of that power [the eleventh (11th) horn], and of the whole fourth kingdom which is to perish with him, is indicated by these words: ‘And the rest of the beasts (the other kingdoms), their dominion was taken away, yet their lives were prolonged on‘ to the time appointed by God. The sentence seems most naturally to relate to a time after the destruction of the 4th empire; for it continues the description.” This was exactly true of the Maccabaean deliverance, which for the first time effected the independence of the Jews from Antiochus, who was but the sequel and climax of the long subjugation ever since the captivity. If the theory in question has no better support than these arguments, it is weak indeed. Its main prop, as to pagan Rome, is the superficial resemblance in the event and power of the latter—which is at once dissipated when the prophecy is viewed from the stand-point of the Jewish martyrs; and as to papal Rome, its great bulwark is the year-for a-day interpretation, with the overthrow of which it utterly falls. The subject is argued at length by Dr. Cowles, Commentary on Daniel, p. 354 et seq.]))          

                Nor can we, with Ephraem Syrus, Hitzig, Ewald, Delitzsch, and others, find in this fourth kingdom the Macedonian or Grecian empire of Alexander the Great, together with the kingdoms of the Diadochi, which sprang from it; but instead, the divided nature of the fourth kingdom (chap. 2:41) appears to us to symbolize only the empire of the Greek Diadochi after Alexander, while the kingdom of Alexander himself must be considered as the third. See above, § 3 [also § 10, Notes 3 and 4] ; and compare the exegesis of chap. ii. 40 et seq. See ibid, in relation to the number four and its symbolical meaning as applitd to the world-kingdoms. Meanwhile compare Kranichfeld, p. 57: ”It is an unquestionable peculiarity of Daniel that he attempts to cover this period by four of such kingdoms; but the general application by the Helbrews of the number four to extensions of time or space is equally unquestioned (cf. the four winds, Dan. 7:2; 8:8; the four quarters of the heavens, four ages of the world, four principal metals, etc.). If we therefore consider the composer of the book to have been a person who estimated the political condition of his time and its consequences understandingly and naturally, and at the same time clung decidedly and immovably to his faith in the realization of the Messianic hopes which rested on previous prophecies. It will be evident that the Messianic period would present itself to his mind as connected with the fourth, i.e., extreme development of heathen supremacy, which was so significant to the reflections of a scholar as such; and this conception would be as natural as that, for instance, of Isaiah and Jeremiah, in whom the predominance of religious and theocratic thought, together with the corresponding subordination of political interests as such, produced an association of the Messianic period with the fall of Babylon,” etc. See the same author, p. 58, in relation to the peculiarly definite character of the chronological predictions of Daniel: “There is not a single prediction relating to a definite point of time, in tlie prophecies of Daniel, which is not the expression of an idea that would be perfectly intelligible til a theocratic contemporary of the writer. The manner in which he determines a point of time might, indeed, seem to be peculiar; but this consists merely in the astronomically arithmetical measurement of a current conception of time, which reminds us of Babylon, the cradle of astronomical as well as astrological definitions, and which, by its union with the thoroughly Babylonian feature presented in the use of animal symbols, and with the grotesquely descriptive style of the narrative in general, harmonizes with the Babylonian origin of the book.” }}

                § 10. Design of Book of Daniel.

                {{ According to the opponents of the genuineness of this book, who assign it to the      Maccabaean period, its author aimed merely to exhort and comfort, and even invented the contents of the first or historical part for this purpose. Both the narratives relating to the heroic faith and steadfastness of Daniel and his friends, when exposed to the threatenings and persecutions of the Babylonian tyrants, and the apocalyptic visions of the second part, were designed to admonish the compatriots and contemporaries of the writer to “emulate these men in their unconquerable faith, as shown in their public and disinterested confession of the God of their fathers, and to remind them that this only true God would, at the proper time, know how to humble and destroy those who, like Antiochus Epiphanes, should exalt themselves against Him in their reckless pride, and should seek to cause His people to renounce His service, as well as how to secure the final victory to his faithful and steadfast adherents” (Bleck, Einleit.,p. 602). The book, if really composed in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, would certainly correspond to this design but imperfectly. The hortative and typical bearing of many of its marvelous narratives upon the sufferings, temptations, and religious duties of Israel in a later age, would not have been at all understood. Nebuchadnezzar, Benhazzar, and Darius would hardly have been recognized as types of that Seleucidian tyrant since their relations to the theocracy were wholly different from his. The latter aimed at the complete extirpation and annihilation of the worship of Jehovah, and would never have consented to even a temporary recognition of the supreme power and majesty of the Covenant God of the Old Dispensation, such as was secured from each of those rulers; and the cordial relations which Daniel maintained throughout the exile towards the Chaldean and Medo-Persian heathendom, as chief of the Magian caste, and as an influential political officer and confidential adviser of their heathen rulers, would certainly have exerted a forbidding influence on the narrow-minded, illiberal, and fanatically-inclined Jews of Maccabaean times, instead of encouraging them, quickening their faith, and inspiring them with the zeal of martyrs. With the exception of three men in the fiery furnace, not a single really suitable example would have been presented to the martyrs of this period for their encouragement and comfort, while, at the same time, the prophetic portions of the book would have been burdened with much that was superfluous, obscure, and incomprehensible, and therefore with much that contradicted its design (cf. the note below).

                On the other hand, everything reveals a definite plan, and is adapted to a practical end, which is easily apprehended when it is examined from the position of the nation during the exile and immediately afterward. The Chaldee fragments, chap, 2-7, which were recorded first, are seen in this light to be a collection of partly narrative and partly prophetic testimonies to Jehovah, as the only true God, in contrast with the vain gods of the Babylonians. These fragments were designed to strengthen the faith of the captives, and this design is indicated by the unvarying manner in which each section closes, viz.: by an ascription of praise to Jehovah, which generally falls from the lips of one of the heathen sovereigns himself (see chap. 2:247; 3:28 et seq.; 4:34; 5:29; 6:26 et seq.; 7:27). The Hebrew text was composed somewhat later, and was designed directly and solely for Israel, which appears, not only from the absence of doxologies expressive of the triumph of the faith in Jehovah over the worship of idols, at the end of the several paragraphs, but also from the fact that, aside from the historical introduction to the book as a whole (chap. 1:1-2:4), it contains only prophecies, which are, moreover, exclusively of a comforting nature. They are designed “to comfort the Hebrew people in the trying political circumstances under which they are either newly engaged in arranging their affairs in Palestine, or are still languishing in the laud of the exile. In view of the fact that to the human understanding the duration of this trying condition is unknown, they present the assurance that the continued and increasing tribulations, which must keep pace with the moral corruption of heathendom, are designed by God for the purifying of the faithful (cf. chap. 11:35; 12:10), and cannot he imposed a single day beyond what lie has determined”’ (Kranichfeld, p. 60); and with a view to afford a still more effectual comfort and encouragement, they contain repeated references :to the Messianic period of salvation (chap. 9:25 et seq.; 12:1 et seq.; cf. 7:13 et seq.), that long predicted glorious conclusion at which the history of God’s people must arrive after passing through many previous clouds and shadows, and which contains in and of itself the assurance that Israel shall be saved out of every affliction, however great.

                From their connection with these comforting prophecies, the older records relating to the marvelous displays of Divine power and grace as witnessed by Daniel and his companions receive an additional significance, as examples tending to encourage, comfort, and quicken the faith of Israel in succeeding ages, and serving, especially in the more sad and troublous seasons, as shining way-marks and guiding stars through the dark nights of a condition in which God had apparently forsaken them, although they were originally recorded for a different situation. This comforting tendency of the book, however, did not reveal itself fully, until, as has been shown elsewhere (§ 6, note 1), almost three hundred and fifty (350) years after the captivity, the religious tyranny of the Seleucidae brought the full measure of the sufferings predicted by Daniel to bear upon Israel. In consequence, this prophetical book, which up to that time had perhaps been partially misconceived, or at least misunderstood and undervalued, attained its rightful position in the public mind; for the sufferings of the time revealed not only the marked keenness of vision displayed by the Divinely-enlightened seer, but also the fullness of consoling power contained in his wonderful narratives and visions. The Maccabaean period served, therefore, to fully demonstrate the practical design of the book, and thereby to solve its prophetical riddles, to bring to view the depths of wisdom which underlie its meditations on the relations of the world-powers to the kingdom of God, and to secure permanently to its author the honorable rank of the fourth among the greater prophets.

                Note 1.—Hāvernick, Einl., II. 488, shows in a striking manner, the untenable character of the assumption that the book is a fiction of the Maccabaean age, invented to serve a purpose, especially in view of the marked difference between the religious and political circumstances of that time and those prevailing in the captivity: “How marked is the distinction between the heathen kings of this book and Antiochus Epiphanes! Collisions with Judaism occur, indeed, but how different is the conduct of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius the Mede, in relation to the recognition of Judaism and its God! Where is the evidence in this taste of a desire to extirpate Judaism, or to inaugurate a formal persecution of the Jews, such as entered into the designs of Antiochus. There can hardly be two things more dissimilar than are the deportment of a Belshazzar or Darius and that of the Soleucidian king.” Compare page 487: “That Daniel, together with his companions, receives instruction in the language and wisdom of Chaldaea, that he even appears as the head of the Magian caste, and bears a heathen name, fills political positions at heathen courts, maintains relations of intimate friendship with heathen princes, and even manifests the warmest interest in them (cf. 4:16) all these are traits in thorough harmony with the history, and corresponding to the circumstances resulting from the captivity, but not according with the rigid exclusiveness of the Maccabaean period,”‘ etc. Cf. Herbst, Einleit , II. 2, 98 ; Zūndel, p. 60 et seq.; Pusey, p. 374 et seq.

                [Note 2. —We introduce here, as an appropriate connection, some valuable remarks from Keil’s Commentary on Daniel (Clark’s ed., Introd., § ii., p.5 et seq.), on Daniel’s place in the History of the kingdom of God, so far as these relate to the chosen people of Israel. “The destruction of the kingdom of Judah and the deportation of the Jews into Babylonian captivity, not only put an end to the independence of the covenant people, but also to the continuance of that constitution of the kingdom of God which was founded at Sinai; and that not only temporarily but forever, for in its integrity it was never restored…. the abolition of the Israelitish theocracy, through the destruction of the kingdom of Judah and (he carrying away of the people into exile by the Chaldaeans, in consequence of their continued unfaithfulness and the transgression of the laws of the covenant on the part of Israel, was foreseen in the gracious counsels of God; and the perpetual duration of the covenant of grace, as such, was not dissolved, but only the then existing condition of the kingdom of God was changed, in order to winnow that perverse people, who, notwithstanding all the chastisements that had hitherto fallen upon them, had not in earnest turned away from their idolatry, by that the severest of all the judgments that had been threatened them; to exterminate by the sword, by famine, by the plague, and by other calamities, the incorrigible mass of the people; and to prepare the better portion of them, the remnant who might repent, as a holy seed to whom God might fulfill His covenant promises. Accordingly the exile forms a great turning-point in the development of the kingdom of God which He had founded in Israel. With that event the form of the theocracy established at Sinai comes to an end, and then begins the period of the transition to a new form, which was to be established by Christ, and has actually been established by Him….. The restoration of the Jewish state after the exile was not a re-establishment of the Old-Testament kingdom of God. Then Cyrus granted liberty to the Jews to return to their own land, and commanded them to rebuild the temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem, only a very small band of captives returned; the greater part remained scattered among the heathen. Even those who went home from Babylon to Canaan were not set free from subjection to the heathen world-power, but remained, in the land which the Lord had given to their fathers, servants to it. Though now again the ruined walls of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah were restored, and the temple also was rebuilt, and the offering up of sacrifice renewed, yet the glory of the Lord did not again enter into the new temple, which was also without the ark of the covenant and the mercy-seat, so as to hallow it as the place of His gracious presence among His people. The temple worship among the Jews after the captivity was without its soul, the real presence of the Lord in the sanctuary; the high priest could no longer go before God’s throne of grace in the holy of holies to sprinkle the atoning blood of sacrifice toward the ark of the covenant, and to accomplish the reconciliation of the congregation with their God, and could no longer find out, by means of the Urim and Thumim, the will of the Lord. When Nehemiah had finished the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem, prophecy ceased, the revelations of the Old Covenant came to a final end, and the period of expectation (during which no prophecy was given) of the promised Deliverer, of the seed of David, began. If the prophets before the captivity, therefore, connect the deliverance of Israel from Babylon, and their return to Canaan, immediately with the setting up of the kingdom of God in its glory, without giving any indication that between the end of the Babylonian exile and the appearance of the Messiah a long period would intervene, this uniting together of the two events is not to be explained only from the perspective and apotelesmatic character of the prophecy, but has its foundation in the very nature of the thing itself. The prophetic perspective, by virtue of which the inward eye of the seer beholds only the elevated summits of historical events as they unfold themselves, and not the valleys of the common incidents of history which lie between these heights, is indeed peculiar to prophecy in general, and accounts for the circumstance that the prophecies as a rule give no fixed dates, and apostelesmatically bind together the points of history which open the way to the end with the end itself. But this formal peculiarity of prophetic contemplation we must not extend to the prejudice of the actual truth of the prophecies. The fact of the uniting together of the future glory of the kingdom of God under the Messiah with the deliverance of Israel from exile, has perfect historical veracity. The banishment of the covenant people from the land of the Lord, and their subjection to the heathen, was not only the last of those judgments which God threatened against His degenerate people, but it also continues till the perverse rebels are exterminated, and the penitents are turned with sincere hearts to God the Lord and are saved through Christ. Consequently the exile was for Israel the last space for repentance which God in His faithfulness to His covenant granted to them. Whoever is not brought by this severe chastisement to repentance and reformation, but remains opposed to the gracious will of God, on him falls the judgment of death: and only they who turn themselves to the Lord, their God and Saviour, will be saved, gathered from among the heathen, brought in within the bonds of the covenant of grace through Christ, and become partakers of the promised riches of grace in His kingdom.”]

                [Note 3. —As a conspectus of Daniel’s entire series of prophecies respecting the world-kingdoms, showing their complete harmony and mutual illustration, as well as their exact accordance with history, we insert (on pages 44-47) a table of all the passages, taken from M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia, s. v. Daniel.]

                [Note 4. —Dr. Cowles, in his Commentary on Daniel (N. Y. 1871), devotes an Excursus (pp. 459 sq.) to the consideration of that theory, generally called the ” year-for-a-day ” view, which results in applying the prophecy of the fourth kingdom of Rome, and especially the Papacy. His arguments are perfectly conclusive to candid minds. As the