Christian Biblical Reflections.38

CBR Book of Daniel. Selections: 20-25

                It’s 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 any time 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:

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUq0AKV13E9Ek3uNQ?e=AzqhtR

https://1drv.ms/w/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUolXrUk8DRG-3fXQ?e=VlNwPd

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUukOnf3cpuJoWCJQ?e=DKFFqE (CBR4-5.Daniel)

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUr33cfjhqfqsRETA?e=vx4ZcR (CBR.PublicFolder)

CBR files in PDF & Word:

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUg_Ua3IHBwOxi9NWARA?e=2b3BsD

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

https://archive.org/details/@mikemjm

20. Driver.

The Book of Daniel with Introduction & Notes by Samuel Rolles Driver 1901 by Samuel Rolles, Regius Professor of Hebrew of the University of Oxford. Edited for the Syndics of the University Press.  Cambridge, University Press. 1900  Cambridge Bible for Schools & Colleges, Gen, Editor, Old Testament & Apocrypha, A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D.

                Contents:  Chronological Table.   Introduction:

§ 1. Person of Daniel & Contents of Book

§ 2. History  embraced  by  Book of David

§ 3. Authorship & Date  

§ 4. Some  characteristic features  of Book of  Daniel

§ 5. Versions, Commentaries,  &c.

                Text & Notes.   Additional Notes: ix, xxiii, xlvii, lxxvi, xcviii.

On term  Chaldaeans.

On terms ‘Excellent’ & ‘Excellency ‘ in A. V., R. V., &  P.B.V. of Psalms.

On  Nebuchadnezzar’s madness.

On Four  Empires of  Daniel 2.

On Expressiot1 ‘011e like unto a son of man in Dan. 7.

On  Ruins of Susa.

On  Prophecy  of the Seventy  Weeks’

On  Expression   ‘abomination of desolation’     

                Appendix: Inscription recording vote of thanks to Eumenes & Attalus passed by Council & people of Antioch.

                Index: B.C.

                Chronological Table: (B.C.)

605.  Defeat of Egyptians by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish.

604.  Nebuchadnezzar.

586.  Fall of Jerusalem.

561.  Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach).

559.  Nergal-Shar-Uzur (Neriglissar).

555. (9 months). Labashi-Marduk (Laborisoarchod).

555.  Naru-Na’jid (Nabonnedus, Nabonidus).

538.  Cyrus. Return of Jews under Zerubbabel.

529-522. Cambyses.

522 (7 months). Gaumata (Pseudo Smerdis).

511-485. Darius Hystaspis.         

485-465. Xerxes.

333.  Persian empire overthrown by Alexander the Great.

323. Death of Alexander.

                Kings of Syria: (B.C.)

312. Seleucus I (Nicator).

280. Antiochus l (Soter).

261. Antiochus II (Theos).

249. Antiochus II receives in marriage Berenice,  daughter  of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

246. Seleucus II (Callinicus).       

226. Seleucus III (Ceraunos).

223. Antiochus III (the Great).

198. Antiochus the Great defeats Ptolemy Epiphanes at Paneion & obtains possession of Palestine.

194-3. Antiochus the Great marries his   daughter, Cleopatra, to Ptolemy Epiphanes.

187. Seleucus IV (Philopator).

175-164. Antiochus IV (Epiphanes).

175. Jason purchases high-priesthood from Antiochus, expelling his brother Onias III.

172. Menelaus, outbidding Jason, becomes High-Priest.

170. Antiochus: 1st Expedition into Egypt. Returns & Enters Temple, & Carries Off Sacred Vessels.

168. Antiochus 3rd (or 2nd?) expedition into Egypt.

168. Apollonius surprises Jerusalem on Sabbath-day.

168. Antiochus measures against Jews. Desecration of Temple (25 Chisleu).

167.  Rise of Maccabees.

166-5. Victories over  Generals of Antiochus.

165.  Re-dedication of Temple (25 Chisleu).

164.  Death of Antiochus.

                Kings of Egypt: (B.C.)

322. Ptolemy I (Lagi), Satrap.

305. Ptolemy I (Lagi), King.

285. Ptolemy II (Philadelphus).

247. Ptolemy III (Euergetes I).

222. Ptolemy IV (Philopator).

205. Ptolemy V (Epiphanes).

182. Ptolemy VI (Eupator).

182-146. Ptolemy VII (Philometor).       

                Daniel: Introduction: § 4. Some characteristic features of the Book of Daniel. As has been pointed out in § 1, the first part of the Book of Daniel (chs. 1-6) consists essentially of a series of didactic narratives; the second part of the Book (chs. 7-12) as also ch. 2, in so far as a succession of world-empires forms the subject of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, deals with what, viewed from Daniel’s standpoint, is future, and is apocalyptic in its character. It will not be necessary to dwell further upon the narrative portions of the Book; but something remains to be said with regard to its apocalyptic parts, and also on some of the more characteristic doctrines which find expression in it. And firstly, as regards the symbolism and the veiled predictions, which form such conspicuous features in these parts of the Book. Symbolism is employed already by the later prophets to a greater extent than is the case with the earlier prophets. Thus in Ezekiel we have the allegories of the vine-tree (ch. 15), the abandoned infant (ch. 16), the two eagles and the vine (ch. 17), the lion’s whelps (ch. 19), the two harlots (ch. 23), the flourishing tree (ch. 31), the shepherds and their flock (ch. 34); and in Zech. we find a series of visions, in which the prophet sees, for instance, the Divine horses, symbolizing the ubiquity of Jehovah’s presence upon the earth (1:8-17), four horns symbolizing the powers of the world arrayed against Israel (1:18-21), a golden candlestick, representing the restored community (ch. 4), and chariots proceeding to the different quarters of the earth, symbolizing the fulfilment of Jehovah’s judgements (6:1-8). But, as applied in Daniel, both the symbolism and the veiled predictions are characteristic of a species of literature which was now beginning to spring up, and which is known commonly by modern writers as Apocalyptic Literature.

                The word “apocalypse” means disclosure, revelation; and though ordinary prophecy contains “disclosures,” whether respecting the will of God in general, or respecting the future, the term is applied in particular to writings in which the ‘disclosure,’ or ‘revelation,’ is of a specially marked and distinctive character. The beginnings of this type of writing are to be found in those post-exilic prophecies of the O.T. relating to the future, which are less closely attached to the existing order of things than is usually the case, and which, though they cannot be said actually to describe it, may nevertheless be regarded as prophetic anticipations of the final judgement, and consummation of all things, as Is. 24-27, Zech. 14, Joel 3:9-17. (* Cf. Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets, pp. 475 f., 481, 488 f.; and the present writer’s Joel and Amos (in the Cambridge Bible), p.32.*) But at a later date, apocalyptic prophecy assumed a special form, and became the expression of particular feelings and ideas.

                Apocalyptic prophecy arose in an age in which there were no longer any prophets of the older type, addressing themselves directly to the needs of the times, and speaking in person to the people in the name of God: and it consists essentially of a development and adaptation of the ideas and promises expressed by the older prophets, designed especially with the object of affording encouragement and consolation to faithful Israelites in a period of national distress. The call to repentance, and rebuke for sin, which formed the primary and central element in the teaching of the older prophets, assumed in the age now under consideration a secondary place: Israel was subject to the heathen, and the crying question was, When would its long and humiliating servitude be at an end? When would the older prophecies of future glory and triumph over the heathen be fulfilled? How much longer would Jehovah’s promised redemption be deferred? Hence, in the form of prophecy which now arose, a much more prominent place was taken than had formerly been the case by visions of the future: older, but hitherto unfulfilled, promises of Israel’s destined glory were reaffirmed, and were made the basis of larger and broader outlooks into the future. Its mode of representation was artificial. The disclosures which were the most characteristic element of apocalyptic prophecy were not made by the author in his own person, they were placed in the mouth of some pious and famous man of old —an Enoch, a Moses, a Baruch, an Ezra: from the standpoint of the assumed speaker the future was unrolled, usually under symbolic imagery, down to the time in which the actual author lived: the heavens were thrown open, glimpses were given of the offices and operation of the celestial hierarchy: God’s final judgement both upon His own people and upon the powers opposed to it was described: the approaching deliverance of the afflicted Israelites was declared: the resurrection and future lot alike of the righteous and of the wicked were portrayed in vivid imagery. The seer who is represented as the author of the book, sometimes beholds these things himself in a vision or dream, but often he holds discourse with an angel, who either explains to him what he does not fully understand, or communicates to him the revelations in their entirety. Naturally there are variations in detail: the subjects enumerated do not appear uniformly with precisely the same prominence; hortatory or didactic matter is also often present as well: but speaking generally some at least of them are present in every ‘apocalypse,’ and constitute its most conspicuous and distinctive feature. A brief account of two or three of the more important apocalypses may help to give substance to what has been said.

                The Book of Enoch is the longest known work of the kind; and in its earliest parts (for it is evidently of composite authorship) is certainly the nearest in date to the Book of Daniel. It is said of Enoch in Gen. 5:24 that he ‘walked with God’; and the expression was taken in later times to mean not only that he led a godly life, but also that he was the recipient of supernatural knowledge. The “Book of Enoch’ gives an account of the knowledge which he was supposed in this way to have attained. The oldest sections of the book are chs. 1-36, 72, 108, probably (Dillmann, Schūrer) c. 120 B.C., and chs. 83-90 may even, according to Charles, be almost contemporary with Daniel (B.C. 166-161). In chs. 1-36 Enoch first (ch. 1) tells how he had had a vision of future judgement: God would appear, “with ten thousands (10,000) of His holy ones’ (Jude 14,15) on Mount Sinai, to punish the fallen angels, and wicked men, and to reward the righteous with peace and felicity. In chs. 17-36 he relates how he had been led in vision through different parts of the earth; and had been shewn by an angel, Uriel or Raphael, the fiery abyss prepared for the rebellious angels, Sheol, with four divisions set apart for different classes of the departed (22), Jerusalem (25-26), Gehenna (the valley of Hinnom) close by (27), and Paradise, with the tree of life, in the far East (32). The ultimate lot of the righteous, as depicted here, is not, however, eternal life in heaven, but long, untroubled life in an ideal Paradise on earth. In chs. 83-90 —perhaps, as just said, the oldest part of the book, Enoch recounts to his son Methuselah two visions which he has seen. The first vision (83-84l) describes the approaching Deluge; the second (85-90) unfolds, in a symbolical form, the leaders of the chosen race being represented by domestic animals, bulls or sheep, and the Gentiles by different wild beasts and birds of prey, the entire history of the patriarchs and Israel, from Adam to the author’s own time; after that (90:18 ff.) God Himself appears to judge the world, Israel’s oppressors are destroyed, and the Messianic kingdom is established. The events indicated by the symbolism are usually sufficiently clear; but sometimes (as in Daniel) there is ambiguity: indeed, the date of this part of the book depends upon whether the ‘great horn’ which grows upon one of the “sheep’ in 90:9 is to be interpreted (with Dillm., Schūrer, and others) of John Hyrcanus (B.C.135-105), or (with Charles) of Judas Maccabaeus (B.C. 165-161). As illustrating Dan. 10:13, 20,21, 12:1, it is worth noticing that Israel, after its apostasy, is committed to the charge of 70 “shepherds’ (i.e. angels), who are held responsible for what happens to it, and are afterwards called up before God for judgement (89:54-90:17, 22-25).

                Chs. 91-93, also addressed to Methuselah, contain another historical apocalypse: the history of the patriarchs and of Israel is divided into seven weeks, in the first of which lives Enoch, in the second Noah, &c. (but without any names being actually mentioned); at the end of the seventh week, which is described as an age of apostasy, the writer lives himself: the eighth week, that of ‘righteousness,” sees the kingdom of God established in the land of Israel: in the ninth week it is spread over all the earth: in the tenth week will be the ‘eternal judgement’ upon the fallen angels; there will then follow ‘weeks without number in goodness and righteousness, and sin will no more be mentioned forever’ (93:1-10, 91:12-17). Chs. 104-105, addressed to Enoch’s sons, consist of a series of woes pronounced upon sinners, intermixed with exhortations to follow righteousness and avoid the ways of sin and death.

                In all the preceding sections of the book there is either no Messiah, or, at most (90:37), a Messiah who is merely a superior man, mentioned only in passing, very different from the glorious super-human Messiah of chs. 37-71.

                Chs. 37-71, commonly known as the ‘Similitudes,’ date, according to Dillm., Charles, and others, from shortly before B.C. 64, according to Schūrer, from the time of Herod. In these chapters the Messiah is a much more prominent and also a much more exalted figure than in the other parts of the book. The chapters consist of three ‘similitudes,” or visions. In the first (38-44) Enoch sees the abodes of the righteous, and the ‘Elect One’ (the Messiah), the Almighty surrounded by myriads of angels, and with the four “presences,” Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel, ever praying before Him, and is admitted also to the ‘secrets of the heavens’ (including the explanation of different natural phenomena, as lightnings, wind, dew, &c.). In the second vision (45-57) he beholds the Messianic judgement, the ‘Elect One,” or the “Son of Man,’ beside the “Head of Days” (the Almighty), and afterwards sitting on the ‘throne of His glory,’ for the purpose of judging the world; after the judgement, the fallen angels and wicked kings are cast into a furnace of fire; a resurrection of Israelites takes place (51:1), the righteous ‘become angels’ (51:4), and crying everlasting felicity. In the third vision (58-69), but with many interpolations, interrupting the connexion) Enoch describes more fully the ultimate felicity of the righteous (58) in the light of eternal life (58:3), and in the immediate presence of the “Son of Man’ (62:14), and the judgement of the Messiah upon angels and men (61-63, 69:26-29). The imagery of the ‘Similitudes’ is fine: and the thought is often an expansion of parts of Daniel (see the notes on 7:9,10, and p.106 f.).

                The Apocalypse of Baruch was written probably shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70), at a time when the problem which seemed to the Jews so difficult of solution was, how God could have permitted such a disaster to fall upon His people. Baruch, after the Chaldaeans have carried off the mass of the people, having fasted (cf. Dan. 10:3) for seven days, is told to remain in Jerusalem in order to receive disclosures respecting the future; and, after a second fast (12:5), hears a voice telling him that the heathen also will receive their punishment in due time (13:5): he debates at some length with God respecting the prosperity of the wicked and the sufferings of the righteous, but is given to understand that these anomalies will be adjusted in a future life. After a third fast, and prayer (ch. 21), Baruch sees the heavens opened (Ezek. 1:1), and is assured, in answer to his further questionings, that the time of redemption is not now far distant: ‘Behold, the days come, and the books will be opened in which are written the sins of all those who have sinned, and the treasuries in which the righteousness of all those who have been righteous in creation is gathered’ (24:1): the period of coming tribulation is divided into 12 times, each marked by its own woe (26-27); at the end of the twelfth time, the Messiah will be revealed, those who have “fallen asleep in hope” will rise again, and a reign of happiness will begin upon earth (29-30). Soon afterwards Baruch has a vision of a great forest, with a vine growing opposite to it: the forest was laid low till only a single cedar remained standing; this, after being rebuked by the vine for its iniquities, was destroyed by fire, while the vine spread, and the plain around blossomed into flowers. The forest is explained to signify the four empires which oppressed Israel: the vine was the Messiah, who should destroy the last empire (the Roman) for its impieties, and establish a rule of peace (36-40). On the strength of this revelation, Baruch exhorts the elders of the people to obedience and patience (44-46). In a fourth vision Baruch sees a great cloud rising up from the sea, and pouring down upon the earth black and bright waters alternately, twelve times in succession, the last bright waters being followed by waters blacker than any which had preceded, and these being followed by lightnings, and twelve rivers ascending from the sea (53). After a prayer (54), the interpretation of the vision is disclosed to him by the angel Ramiel: the twelve black and bright waters symbolize twelve evil and good periods in the history of the world: the eleventh dark waters symbolizing the Chaldaean disaster, the twelfth bright waters the restoration of Jerusalem, the blacker waters which followed, the future consummation of troubles, the lightning and the twelve rivers, the Messiah, and the felicity which he would bring (56-74).

                A third apocalypse is the Fourth (4th) Book of Esdras (2nd Esdras of the English Apocrypha), written most probably under Domitian (A.D. 81–96). Chs. 1-2, 15-16, are Christian additions: the Apocalypse itself consists only of chs. 3-14. It contains seven visions, purporting to have been seen by Ezra whilst in captivity. In the first of these Ezra, having unfolded to God in prayer his perplexity at the sight of Israel suffering at the hand of a nation more wicked than itself, is told, in the course of a colloquy with the angel Uriel, that he is not in a position to judge of the dealings of Providence (3:1-5:13). In a second and third vision (5:20-6:34, 6:36-9:25), the same subject being continued, Ezra is taught (among other things) that the events of history must run their appointed course, and that in a future state the righteous and the wicked will each be rewarded according to their due: there will be ‘seven ways’ of punishment for the one, and ‘seven orders’ of blessedness for the other (7:79–99, R.V.). In the fifth vision Ezra sees in a dream an eagle rising up out of the sea, with 12 wings and three heads: as he watched her spreading her wings over the earth, he perceived eight smaller wings growing up out of them: the 20 wings and the three heads bare rule over the earth in succession until a lion appeared, and in a loud voice rebuked the eagle for its tyranny and cruelty, and bade it disappear (11). The interpretation follows. The eagle is the fourth kingdom which appeared to Daniel, i.e. according to the interpretation adopted by the author (p.95, 99 n.), the Roman empire: the wings and heads are different Roman rulers”: the lion is the “anointed one’ (the Messiah), who should arise in the end of the days out of the seed of David, and reprove and overthrow these rulers, and give rest and peace unto his people, for 400 years (12:24; see 7:28 f.), until the final judgement. The sixth vision (13), of the one ‘in the likeness of a man,’ is summarized below, p.107 f. In the seventh and last vision (14), we have the curious story of the manner in which, the law having been burnt, the 24 books of the O.T., as well as 70 other ‘apocryphal’ books, were written, in the course of 40 days, by five scribes, at Ezra’s dictation.

                The Assumption of Moses, written, as 6:2-9 shews, within a very few years of the death of Herod, B.C. 4, –contains an ‘apocalypse’ of the history of Israel from their entry into Canaan till the days of Herod (chs. 2-5). Ch. 7 describes the rule of impious and scornful men, preceding the time of the end. Chs. 8-9, as the text at present stands, foretell a ‘second visitation’ destined then to befall the nation, which reads like a repetition of the persecution of Antiochus: indeed, it is possible that Dr Charles is right in supposing that it is really a description of that persecution, and that the two chapters have become displaced from their proper position after ch. 5.  Ch. 10 is a Psalm of triumph over the approaching judgement. From the death of Moses till the final judgement there are assigned (10:12) 250 “times,” or weeks of years, i.e. (cf. 1:2) it is placed A.M. 4250.

                The so-called Sibylline Oracles, a heterogeneous compilation, in Greek hexameters, of materials of very different origin and dates, partly Jewish and partly Christian, —contain in Book III. (ll. 162-807) a long “apocalypse,” in which the seventh Ptolemy (Physcon, B.C. 145–117) is more than once referred to (ll, 191-193, 316-318, 608-610), and which is considered by the best authorities to have been written c. 140 B.C. This apocalypse contains a survey of the history of Israel from the age of Solomon: Antiochus Epiphanes is referred to in all probability in ll. 388-400 (see p. 98), and certainly in ll. 612-615; the Sibyl also foretells the advent of the Messianic king, his vengeance on his adversaries, the prosperity which will prevail under him (652-731), and the signs which are to herald the end of all things (795-807)”. (* The names are not given; and very different opinions have been held as to what rulers are meant. See Schūrer, ii. 65off. (ed. 3, 1898, iii. 236 fi.).*)  (* See further, on both these and other “Apocalypses,’ Charles’ translations of the Book of Enoch, the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Assumption of Moses; the introductions and translations in Kautzsch’s Pseudepigraphen des A T.s (1899); the art. Apocalytic Literature in the Encyclopaedia Biblica; the arts. Baruch, Enoch, &c. in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible; Schūrer, ii. 610-691, 790-807, § 32 (ed. 3, iii. 190-294, 420-450); Dillmann in Herzog”, xii. 342 ff.; W. J. Deane, Pseudepigrapha (1891); and comp. the remarks of Wellhausen in his Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, vi. (1899), pp. 226–234.*)

                These examples will illustrate sufficiently the general character of the Jewish ‘Apocalypses.’ While including an element of exhortation, and theological reflexion, they are in their most distinctive parts imaginative developments, varying in detail, but with many common features, partly of the thought (which is usually placed as a ‘revelation’ in the mouth of an ancient seer) that the movements of history, including the course and end of the distress out of which the apocalypse itself arose, are predetermined by God; partly of the eschatological hopes which the writer expects to see realized as soon as the period of present distress is past, but which vary in character —being for instance more or less material, and being with or without a Messiah— according to the individual writer. And these are just the features which appear in the Book of Daniel. It is of course not for a moment denied that the Book of Daniel is greatly superior to the other ‘apocalypses’ that have been referred to, not only for example is its teaching more spiritual, but it is entirely free from the fantastic and sometimes indeed absurd representations in which the non-canonical apocalyptic writers often indulge: nevertheless, just as there are Psalms both canonical and non-canonical (the so-called ‘Psalms of Solomon’), Proverbs both canonical and non-canonical (Ecclesiasticus), histories both canonical and non-canonical (1st Macc.), “midrashim’ both canonical (Jonah) and non-canonical (Tobit, Judith), so there are analogously apocalypses both canonical and noncanonical; the superiority, in each case, from a theological point of view, of the canonical work does not place it in a different literary category from the corresponding non-canonical work or works. Probably, indeed, the Book of Daniel formed the model, especially in chs. 7-12, upon which the non-canonical apocalypses were constructed: it is at all events undoubted that there are many passages in the book which furnished in germ the thought or imagery which was expanded or embellished by subsequent apocalyptic writers.

                Comp., for instance, not merely the general mode of representation by means of symbolism and visions, the latter being often explained to the seer by the intervention of an angel; but also, more particularly, in Enoch, the titles ‘Most High’ (see on Dan. 3:26), and ‘watcher,’ or wakeful one (see on 4:13), the representation of the Almighty as an aged man, seated as judge on His throne, surrounded by myriads of angels (7:9, and p.106 f.), the books in which the deeds of men are recorded (7:10), and those in which the citizens of the Messianic kingdom are registered (12:1), the resurrection and ‘eternal life’ (12:2), the ‘son of man’ (7:13, and p.106 f.), the saints compared to stars (8:10, and 12:3), the fear at the sight of the vision, and the restoration by an angelic touch (8:17,18, 10:8 f.), the revelation designed for the future, not for the present (8:26b, 12:4), the 10 ‘weeks’ into which the history of the world is divided (En. 93, 91:12-15), the names and ranks of angels (more fully developed than in Dan.), with Michael appointed guardian over Israel (Dan. 8:16, 10:13); comp. in Baruch and 2nd Esdras, also, the fast, predisposing to a vision (Dan. 10:3.; see on vv. 5-9).

                The Book of Daniel is also one of the sources of the imagery, or the expression, of the Book of Revelation: see on 3:4, 7:3,  7 (‘ten horns’:  Rev.  12:3,  13:1,  17:3,  7,  12,  16), 8,9 (‘white as snow’), 10 (thrice), 13 (Rev. 1:7, 13, 14:14), 21 (Rev. 13:7),  25 (Rev. 12:14; cf. also the 41 months of  tribulation  in 11:2, 13:5 (see v. 7), and the  1260  days  of  11:3 and  12:6 each  being  equal  to  3½  years), 27,  8:10  (Rev. 12:4),  10:6  (Rev. 1:14b, 15), 12:1, 7  (Rev. 10:5,6, 12:14). Comp. also p.97 f.

                It remains to consider briefly certain doctrines and representations, which are characteristic of the Book of Daniel.

                I. The Kingdom  of  God.   One of  the  most fundamental ideas in  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  the  triumph  of  the  kingdom  of God over the kingdoms of the world. This is the thought expressed already in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in ch. ii., where the stone ‘cut out without hands,’ falling upon the feet of the colossal image, and causing it to break up, and afterwards itself filling the entire earth, represents the triumph of the kingdom of God over the anti-theocratic powers of the world. It is the same ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God over the kingdoms of the world, which, with increasing distinctness of detail, and with more special reference to the climax of heathen hostility to  the truth in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes, is depicted in chs. vii.­ xii.: upon a divinely appointed succession of world-empires follows at last the universal and eternal kingdom of the holy people of God, a kingdom which (ch. vii.) contrasts with all previous kingdoms, as man contrasts with beasts of prey. The book is thus dominated, ‘not only by an unshaken confidence in the ultimate triumph of truth, but also by an over-mastering sense of a universal divine purpose which overrules all the vicissitudes of human history, the rise and fall of dynasties, the conflicts of nations, and the calamities that overtake the faithful.’ (* Ottley, Bampton Lectures, 1897, p. 332.).

                 According to the Book of Daniel, when the need of the saints is the greatest, through the exterminating measures of Antiochus Epiphanes (7:11, 25, 8:24,25, 11:31-39, 12:7b), the Almighty will inter­pose: His throne of judgement will be set up, and the powers hostile to Israel will be overthrown (2:35, 44, 7:9-12, 22a, 26, 8:25 end, 11:45 end); everlasting dominion will be given to the people of the saints, and all surviving nations will serve them (7:14, 22b, 27); sin will be abolished and forgiven, and everlasting righteousness be brought in (9:24). The righteous dead of Israel will rise to an eternal life of glory; the apostate Jews will rise likewise, but only to be visited with contumely and shame (12:2,3). The inauguration of the kingdom of God will follow immediately upon the overthrow of the ‘fourth empire’ in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes.

                This representation of the future kingdom of God, though it differs in details, and displays traits marking the later age to which it belongs, is, in all essential features the same as that which is found repeatedly in the earlier prophets. The earlier prophets, as Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Second Isaiah, all pictured the advent of an age, when the trials and disappointments of the present would be no more, when human infirmity and human sin would cease to mar the happiness of earth, when Israel, freed from foreign oppressors without and purified from unworthy and ungodly members within, would realize its ideal character, and live an idyllic life of righteousness and peace upon its own soil (see e.g. Hos. 14:4-8; Is. 1:26, 4:2-4, 29:18-24, 32:1-8, 33:24, &c.), and when the nations of the world would either be themselves incorporated in the kingdom of God (Is. 2:2, 19:18-25; Jer. 3:17; Is. 51:4,5, 56:7), or would be held in more or less willing subjection by the restored  and invigorated  people of  Israel  (Am. 9:12;   Is. 11:14, 14:2, 14:14, 60:10, 14, 61:5), or,-which is more particularly the representation of the later prophets, in so far as they re­mained irreconcilably hostile, would be destroyed (Zeph. 3:8 [but contrast 3:9]; Ez. 38-39; Is. 60:12,  63:3-6, 66:15, 16; Joel 3:9-17; Zech. 14:12-13). (* On the prophetic pictures of the future kingdom of God, see more fully Kirkpatrick’s Doctrine of the Prophets; the present writer’s Isaiah, his life and times, or the third of his Sermons on the Old Testament.).

                In  comparing  these  representations  with  that  contained  in the Book of  Daniel,  there  are  two  important  points  which ought to be borne in mind,  one  a  point  of  difference,  the  other  a point of resemblance. The point of difference is that the representation in Daniel is  more  distinctly  eschatological  than are those  of  the  earlier  prophets.  The  change  did  not  take place at once; it was  brought  about  gradually.  At  first  the future contemplated by the prophets consisted  of little  more  than a continuance of the existing state of society, only purged by a judgement from sin, and freed  from  trouble;  but  gradually  it was severed more and more widely from the present order  of things: whereas for long the  prophets  had  been  content  to look at the destinies of the nation as a  unity, without distinctly facing the question of the ultimate fate of individuals, in course of time the destinies of individuals began to claim consideration; the judgement which was to introduce God’s kingdom assumed more and more the character of a final judgement, which, as soon as the idea of a resurrection began to  be current, was regarded as held by God over the dead as well as  over the  living; and the expectation of a glorified earthly life of righteous Israelites, which was the prevalent ideal of the Old Testament, became gradually transformed into the belief in a spiritual or heavenly life of all righteous men in  general,  which  is  the  ideal revealed in the New Testament.  (* Comp. A.  B. Davidson, art. Eschatology  in Hastings’ Dict.  of the Bible, p. 738b.*)   Some  of  the  later  prophets, the Book of Daniel, and the  Apocalyptic  writers spring from the transition-period, in which the former of these ideals was gradually merging into the other, and in which the line of demarcation between the earthly and the heavenly ideal was not always clearly or consistently drawn, so that it is not always easy to be confident in particular passages which of the two ideals the writer means to express. The passages from the prophets in which the character of the representation is such as to suggest that it is beginning to be eschatological, are Is. 26:18-19; Joel 3:9-17; Mal. 4:2-3.  The representation  in Daniel is of the same intermediate character; it is more distinctly eschatological than the passages just quoted, but less so  than, for instance, parts of  the  Book of  Enoch.   The scene of judge­ment in 7:9-14 belongs far more to the other world than any other  representation of  God’s judgement  to  be found  in  the Old Testament;  and  in 12:2  the  doctrine of a  resurrection  is taught more distinctly and definitely than is the case in any other Old Testament writing (see below, p. 92).

                The characteristic point of resemblance between the repre­sentation of the kingdom of God contained in the Book of Daniel and that found in earlier prophets is this. It was a great and ennobling ideal which the prophets, as described briefly above, projected upon the future, and it was one which was portrayed by many of them in brilliant colours. But it was an ideal which was not destined to be realized in the manner in which they anticipated. The prophets almost uniformly fore­shortened the future: they did not stop to ask themselves how national character was to be regenerated and transformed: and consequently they did not realize the length of period which must necessarily elapse, for God does not in such cases inter­ pose by miracle,-before corrupt human nature could be so transformed as to produce a perfect or ideal society. Isaiah and Micah pictured the Messianic age as commencing immediately after the troubles were past, to which their nation was exposed at  the  hands of  the  Assyrians  (Is. 11:1-10, see 10:28-34; 29:19-26, see 5:31; 31:7, 32:1-8, see 31:8; Mic. 5:4; the prophets of the exile pictured it as beginning with the restoration  of   Israel to  Palestine. Neither of these antici­pations corresponded to the event: in each case the somber reality contrasted strongly with the glowing delineations of the prophets. The same foreshortening of the future is characteristic, of the prophecies in the Book of Daniel. A careful study of Dan. 7-12 makes it evident that the reign  of  righteous­ness, and the everlasting dominion of the saints, are represented as beginning immediately after the fall of Antiochus: as in the case of  the  other  prophets, the  ideal consummation  of history is thus conceived by the writer as being much closer  at  hand than actually proved to be the case.

                The facts just referred to meet an objection which might otherwise perhaps be felt against the interpretation of the visions adopted in the present commentary, on the ground that the age of righteousness (7:27, 9:24), or the resurrection (12:2), did not actually follow immediately after the fall of Antiochus: the ideal glories promised by Isaiah and other  earlier  prophets were not realized, as these prophets in many cases plainly shew that they expect them to be realized, in the immediate future; the Book of Daniel, regarded from this point of view, is conse­quently in exact analogy with the writings of the earlier pro­phets. The non-agreement (as it seems) of the particulars contained in 11:40-45 a with the event (see the notes) is also in exact accordance with the same analogies: the earlier prophets often foretell correctly a future event, e.g. the failure of Sen­nacherib’s expedition against Jerusalem, or the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, though the details by which they imagi­natively represent these events as accompanied do not form part of the fulfilment, but merely constitute  the drapery in which  the prophet clothes what is to him the important and  central idea (see, for example, Is. 10:28-34, 23:15-18, 30:32,33, 46:1,2.) (* Comp. the writer’s Isaiah, pp. 61, 73, 94, 106, 111-146n.*) In the same way, Antiochus did actually meet his doom shortly, as foretold in Dan. 11:45b (cf. 8:25 end, 9:27 end), though the circumstances under which the writer pictures him as advancing towards it (11:40-45a) do not correspond to what we know of the historical reality . (* The idea that prophecy is ‘history written beforehand’ is radically false: it is a survival from an age in which the prophets were  not studied in the light of history, and it is a source of many and serious misunderstandings of their meaning (comp. Kirkpatrick,  Doctrine  of the Prophets, pp. 15-17, 194-6, 401-6, 524 f.)*)       

                2. The Resurrection. The ordinary belief of the ancient Hebrews on the subject of a future life, was that the spirit after death passed into the underworld, Sheol, the ‘meeting-place,’ as Job (30:23) calls it, ‘for  all living,’ good  and  evil alike (Gen. 38:35; Is. 14:8,9, 15), where it entered upon a shadowy, half-conscious, joyless existence, not worthy of  the  name  of ‘life,’ where communion with God was at  an  end,  and  where God’s mercies could be neither  apprehended  nor acknowledged (Is. 38:18; Ps. 6:5, 30:9, 87:10-12, 115:17, &c.). But the darkness which thus shrouded man’s hereafter did not remain in the O.T. without  gleams  of  light; and there are three lines along which the way is prepared for the fuller reve­lation  brought  by  the  Gospel.  There  is,  firstly,  the   limitation of the power  of  death set forth  by the  prophets,  in  their visions of a glorified, but yet earthly,  Zion  of  the  future:  ‘For  as the days of a tree shall be the days of my people, and  the  work  of their hands shall my chosen ones wear out’ (Is. 65:22; cf. 65:20, where it is said that death at  the  age  of 100  years  will  be regarded then as premature); or even its abolition altogether, ‘He hath swallowed up death for ever’ (Is. xxv. 8). There is, secondly, the conviction  uttered  by  particular  Psalmists  that their close fellowship with God implies and demands  that  they will themselves be personally superior to death: ‘Therefore my heart is glad and my  glory  (i.e.  my spirit]  rejoiceth:  my flesh also dwelleth securely. For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol1;  thou  wilt  not  suffer  thy godly one  to  see  the  pit’  (Ps. 16:9, 10; cf. 17:15, xlix. I 5, lxxiii. 26; Job xix. 26). (* The idea that prophecy is ‘history written beforehand’ is radically false : it is a survival from an age in which the prophets were  not studied in the light of history, and it is a source of many and serious misunderstandings of their meaning (comp. Kirkpatrick,  Doctrine of the Prophets, pp. 15-17, 194-6, 401-6, 524 f.)*). (* Not ‘in Sheol’ : the hope expressed by the Psalmist is not that he will rise again, but that he will not die.*)  (*1 See further the notes on these passages in the Cambridge Bible; and the Introduction to the Psalms, pp. 75-78.*) And, thirdly, we meet with the idea of a resurrection, which, however, only takes shape gradually, and is at first a  hope  and  not  a dogma, national and not individual, and in the Old  Testament, even to the end,  is  limited  to  Israel.  The  hope  is  expressed first,  though  dimly,  in  Hos.  6:2,  where  it  is  evidently national: ‘After two days he will revive us: in  the  third day he will raise us up, and we shall  live  before him’:  and the promise  in Hos. 13:14 is national likewise.  (*3 Cf. Oehler, Theol. of the O.T., § 215.*)  The passage which comes next chronologically is Ezek. xxxvii., the vision of the valley  of dry bones, where, by the express terms of v. 11  (‘Son  of  man, these bones are the whole house  of  Israel‘),  the  promise  is limited to Israel, and where also, as Prof. Davidson points out, what the prophet contemplates is a resurrection, not of indi­viduals, but of the  nation,  it is a  prophecy  of  the  resurrection of the nation, whose condition is figuratively expressed by the people when  they  represent  its  bones  as  long  scattered  and dry. (* ‘In his notes on the chapter in the Cambridge Bible.)  In the next prophecy in which the idea occurs, the (post­ exilic) apocalyptic prophecy, Is. 24-27,  there  is,  however, an advance, and the resurrection of individual  Israelites  is certainly contemplated, though rather as the object of a hope or prayer than as a fixed doctrine: the  people  confess  that  they could not  effect  any  true  deliverance  themselves:  ‘We  were with child, we  writhed  in  pain,  when  we  bare, it  was  wind, we made not the land salvation, neither were inhabitants of the world brought forth‘; they turned therefore to God: ‘May Thy dead live! may my dead bodies arise!,’ and the prophet  breaks in with the words of jubilant assurance: ‘Awake, and  sing aloud, ye that dwell in the dust; for a dew of lights [a dew charged with the light of life) is Thy dew, and the earth shall bring forth the Shades!’ The dwindled and suffering nation is thus represented as replenished and strengthened by the resur­rection of its deceased members. ‘The doctrine of the resurrec­tion here presented is reached through the conviction, gradually produced by the long process of revelation, that the final re­demption of Israel could not be accomplished within the limits of nature. It became clear that the hopes and aspirations engendered by the Spirit in believing minds pointed forward to the great miracle here described, and thus the belief in the resurrection was firmly bound up with the indestructible hopes of the future of Israel.  The idea is represented in a form which is immature in the light of the New Testament,’ but it marks almost the highest development of O.T. revelation on the subject. (* Skinner, in the Cambridge Bible, ad loc.*) That the hope is  limited  to Israel, appears both from the words of the passage itself, and also from v. I 4, where it is denied of Israel’s foes (‘ The dead live not (again), the Shades arise not ‘).

               The last  passage  in  the  O.T. in which  the  idea  is  expressed is Dan. 12:2, ‘And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dusty ground shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting  abhorrence.’  Here a  resurrection  of the wicked is taught for the first time,  as  also  a  doctrine  of future rewards and punishments: both doctrines  are,  however, still applied only to Israelites,  and  (as  the  word  ‘many’ shews) not even to all of these; the writer, it seems, having in view not individuals as such, but those individuals who had in an extra­ ordinary degree helped or hindered the advent  of  God’s king­dom, i.e. the Jewish  martyrs  and  apostates  respectively,  the great majority of the nation, who were of average character, neither overmuch righteous nor overmuch wicked, remaining still in Sheol (*Cf. the note ad loc., and Charles, Eschatology, p. 180. The idea that the resurrection was to be limited to Israel appears also among the later Jews; indeed, it became ultimately the accepted doctrine that it was to be limited to righteous Israelites, the wicked being either annihilated, or confined in prison-houses of perpetual torment: cf. e.g. 2nd Macc. 7:9, 1, 36; Psalms of Sol. 3:13, 16, 13:9, 10, 14:6, 7, 30:13-15; Apoc. of Baruch 30; Joseph.  Ant. XVIII.  i. 3  (the creed of the Pharisees); and see Charles on Enoch 51:1, Weber, Altsynag.Theo!. p.372 ff.*) The  nature of the  future reward and retribution is also left indefinite, the expressions used being quite general. (* See further, on the subject of the two preceding paragraphs, Salmond’s Christian Doctrine of Immortality, ed. 3 (1897), pp. 233-267.*)

                It does not fall within the scope of a Commentary on Daniel  to trace the development of the  doctrine  in subsequent times; it must suffice to point out generally how, in the century or so following the age of the Maccabees, the religious imagination of pious Jews, meditating upon the intimations of a future  life contained in the Old Testament, and combining them with different prophetic representations of the future triumph of the kingdom of God, arrived at fairly definite, though not always perfectly consistent, conceptions of a resurrection, a final judgement,  a  place  of  punishment  (Gehenna), Paradise, and a future life (which  is  more  or  less  spiritually  conceived, ac­cording to the point of view adopted by the particular writer); and   how, further, by  this  means  currency  was  given  to  certain figures and expressions, in which even our Lord and His Apostles could clothe appropriately the truths enunciated by them. (* The writer has sketched the growth of belief in a future state, with special reference to the Book of Enoch and the Targums,  in  the fourth of his Sermons  on  subjects  connected  with  the  Old  Testament (pp. 72-98); for more detailed particulars see Charles’ Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian (1899), chaps. 5-8.*)

                4. Antiochus Epiphanes and Antichrist. The Jews had suffered often at the hands of foreign rulers; but Antiochus Epiphanes was the first foreign king who persecuted them expressly on account of their religion,  and  not  only  forbade them, under pain of death,  to  practise  any  of  its  observances, but when they resisted him, avowed openly his determination to extirpate their nation (1st Macc. 3:35,36). By all loyal Jews  he was regarded in consequence with far  greater aversion  than  any of their previous conquerors or oppressors; and his hostility to their religion, combined with his ostentatious admiration of Hellenic deities, and the assumption by  himself  of  Divine honours (see p.191), caused him to be viewed by them as the impersonation of presumptuous and  defiant  impiety.  These are the traits which appear prominently in  the  descriptions  of  7:8b, 20b, 21, 25, 8:10-12, 25, 11:36-38. Many of the older interpreters supposed the description in ch. 7, and also that in vv. 36-45 of ch. 11, to rfer  not  to  Antiochus Epiphanes, but to the future ‘Antichrist.’ The figure of ‘Antichrist,’ the future ideal arch-enemy of the Messiah and of Israel, is ultimately of Jewish origin; but it was appropriated at an early date by the Christian Church, and received a Christian colouring. (*Cf. 2  Esdr. 5:6;   Apoc. of  Baruch  40:1,2.    If chaps. 8-9 of  the Assumption of Moses are not displaced (p.83), the writer  expected the time of the end to be preceded by a period of persecution almost exactly resembling that of Antiochus.*) St John, though he spiritualizes the idea, applying it to tendencies already at work, attests its currency even in the Apostolic age (1st John 2:18, 23, 4:3; 2nd John 7); and St Paul (2nd Thess. 2:3-10) develops it with fuller details. This interpretation of the passages of Daniel is indeed, upon exegetical grounds, untenable: never­ the less, it is true that Antiochus, as described in Daniel, is to a certain degree a prototype of the future Antichrist,  and  that traits in St Paul’s description have their origin in the Book of Daniel. (*Cf. pp. 65, 99 f., 193.*) In 2nd Thess. it is said that the coming of Christ is to be preceded by a great falling away (‘apostasy’ –(‘ apostasia)), in which the ‘man of sin‘ (or, according to what is probably the better reading, ‘the man of lawlessness’) will be revealed, who opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called ‘God’ or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of  God, setting himself forth as ‘God’ (cf. Dan. 11:36, 37): there is something (vv. 6,7) which for the time prevents his appearance, though, when he does appear, he will be slain by the Lord Jesus, with the ‘breath of his mouth’ (cf. Is. 11:4). (*Where, according to an old, though of course incorrect, Jewish exegesis, the ‘wicked’ is the future arch-enemy of the Jews.*) The beast having seven heads and ten  horns, who in  Rev. 13:1-8  rises out  of the sea, and has given him ‘a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies,’ who receives authority ‘to do (his pleasure) [poiēsai] during  forty and  two  months’  (= 3½  years), and   ‘to make war with the saints and overcome them,’ and whom all inhabi­tants of the earth (except those whose names are written in the ‘book of life’) ‘will worship’ (cf. vv. 12-r 5, xix. 20), is in all probability  ‘Nero redivivus’;  but traits of the  representation, as will be evident from the words quoted, are suggested by the descriptions in Dan. 7:8, 20,21, 25, 8:24 [LXX. Theod. (poiēsei), xi. 28 and 30 [poiēsei], 36, of Antiochus Epiphanes”. (* See further the article ‘Man of Sin‘ in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, and (with fuller details) ‘Antichrist‘ in the Encyclopaedia Biblica.*) Many of the Fathers, also, drew afterwards pictures of Antichrist, formed by a combination of the representations in Dan. vii. and xi. 36–45 (according to the interpretation mentioned above) with those contained in the New Testament”; but it lies beyond the scope of the present introduction to pursue the history of the subject further. (* See e.g. Iren. v. 25; Hippolytus (c. 220 A.D.), ed. Lagarde, pp. 101-114, &c.*)   

                Daniel 7: Additional Note on the Four Empires of Daniel II, VII.

                It is generally agreed that the four empires represented by the composite image in ch. 2 are the same as those represented by the four beasts in ch. 7; there is also no doubt that the first empire in ch. 7 is the same as the first empire in ch. 2, which is expressly stated in 2:38 to be that of Nebuchadnezzar, and that the kingdom which is to succeed the fourth is in both chapters the kingdom of God: but the identification of the second, third, and fourth empires in the two chapters has been the subject of much controversy. It is also further a question, to which different answers have been given, whether the same three kingdoms in these two chapters are or are not identical with those denoted by the two horns of the ram, and by the he-goat in 8:3-5, i.e. (as is expressly explained in 8:20,21), with the kingdoms of Media, Persia, and Greece. The following tabular synopsis (based upon that of Zūndel) of the two principal interpretations that have been adopted, will probably assist the reader in judging between them.

                                                A.

                Chapter 2. = Chapter 7. = Chapter 8.

C.2: Golden Head = C.7: Lion & Eagle’s Wing’s =  C.8:-?-    = Babylonian Empire

C.2: Silver Breast & Arms = C.7: Bear & Mouth & 3 Ribs = C.8: Ram & 2 Horns (Short & Long) = Medo-Persian Empire.

C.2: Bronze Belly & Arms = C.7: Leopard & 4 Wings = C.8: Goat & 1 Horn & 4 Horns & 1 Horn & 4 Horns  = Grecian Empire (Alexander & Successors).

C.2: Iron Legs & Feet & Toes Mixed Iron-Clay = C.7: Beast & Iron Teeth & 10 Horns & 1 Little Horn. = C.8: -?-  = Roman Empire.

                                                B.

                Chapter 2. = Chapter 7. = Chapter 8.

C.2: Golden Head = C.7: Lion & Eagle’s Wing’s =  C.8: -?-    = Babylonian Empire

C.2: Silver Breast & Arms = C.7: Bear & Mouth & 3 Ribs = C.8: 1st Ram’s Horn: Shorter  = Median Empire.

C.2: Bronze Belly & Thighs = C.7: Leopard & 4 Wings = C.8: 2nd Ram’s Horn: Longer  = Persian Empire.

C.2: Iron Legs & Feet & Toes Mixed Iron-Clay = C.7: Beast & Iron Teeth & 10 Horns & 1 Little Horn.= Goat & 1 Horn & 4 Horns & 1 Little Horn  = Grecian Empire (Alexander & Successors).

                The difference between the two interpretations comes out most markedly in the explanation given of the fourth empire: A, for convenience, may, therefore, be termed the Roman theory, and B the Grecian theory.

                A. This interpretation is first found1 in the apocryphal book of 2nd Esdras (written probably under Domitian, A.D. 81-96), 12:11 f., where the eagle, which Ezra is supposed to see in his vision and which unquestionably represents the imperial power of Rome, is expressly identified with the fourth kingdom which appeared to Daniel: though (it is added) the meaning of that kingdom was not expounded to Daniel as it is expounded to Ezra now. (* It is implied also (apparently) in Joseph. Ant. x. xi.7.*) The same view of the fourth kingdom is implied in Ep. Barnab. 4:4-5 (c. 100-120 A.D.), where the writer, in proof that the time of trial, preceding the advent of the Son of  God, is at hand, quotes the words from Dan. 7:7,8, 24, respecting the little horn abasing three of the ten horns. (* The writer seems to have understood by the ‘horn’ the Roman emperors: but there is great difficulty in determining precisely which  are  meant;  see  in Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition (1878), p. 69 f.*)  Hippolytus (c. 220 A.D.) expounds Dan. 2 and 7 at length in the same sense (ed. Lagarde, 1858, pp. 151 ff., 171 ff., 177 ff.). The same interpretation was also general among the Fathers; and it is met with likewise among Jewish authorities. Among modern writers, it has been advocated by Auberlen, Hengsten­berg, Hofmann (Weissagung und Erfūllung, I841, p.276 ff.), Keil, Dr Pusey, and others.

                Upon this view, the fourth empire being the Roman, the ten toes, partly of iron and partly of clay, of the image in ch. 2, and the ten horns of the fourth beast in ch. 7, represent ten kingdoms, into which the Roman empire is supposed to have broken up, each retaining to a certain extent the strength of the Roman, but with its stability greatly impaired by internal weakness and disunion: the ‘mouth speaking great things,’ which is to arise after the ten kingdoms and to destroy three of them, being Antichrist, who is identified by some with the Papacy, and by others is supposed to be a figure still future. (⦁Cf.  Hippolytus,  p.172,  ‘The legs  of  iron  are  the   Romans,  being  as  strong as iron; then come the toes, partly of iron, partly of clay, in order to represent the democracies which are to arise afterwards (similarly, p. 152); p.153,  ‘the  little horn growing up among the others is Antichrist.’*)

                Thus Dr Rule writes: (Historical Exposition of Daniel the Prophet, 1869, p.195 ff.) ((‘This little horn is too like the Papacy to be mistaken for anything else; and taking, this for granted, as I believe we may venture to do, ten kingdoms must be found that came into existence previously to the establishment of the Pope’s temporal power in Italy.’ Accordingly the ten kingdoms enumerated by him are:

                1. Kingdom of the Vandals in Africa, established A.D. 439.

                2. Venice, which became an independent state in A.D. 452, and long maintained an extremely important position in the affairs of Christendom.

                3. England, which, properly so called, was founded in A.D. 455, and in spite of the Norman Conquest still retains her independence.

                4. Spain, first Gothic, A.D. 476, then Saracenic, and still Spain.

                5. France. Gaul, conquered by the Romans, lost to Rome under the Visigoths, and transferred to the Franks under Clovis, A.D. 483.

                6. Lombardy, conquered by the Lombards, A.D. 568.

                7. The exarchate of Ravenna, which became independent of Constantinople in 584, and flourished for long as an independent state.

                8. Naples, subdued by the Normans about 1060.

                9. Sicily, taken by the Normans under Count Roger about 1080.

                10. Rome, which assumed independence under a Senate of its own in 1143, and maintained itself so till 1198. “The tumultuary revolution headed in Rome by Arnold of Brescia, tore away the ancient city from its imperial relations and brought the prophetic period of the ten kingdoms to its close.”

                The little horn diverse from the ten, having eyes and a mouth speaking very great things,’ is Pope Innocent III. (A.D. 1198–1216), who immediately after his consecration restored, as it was called, the patrimony of the Church, by assuming absolute sovereignty over the city and territory of Rome, and exacting of the Prefect of the city, in lieu of the oath of allegiance which he had hitherto sworn to the Emperor of Germany, an oath of fealty to himself, by which he bound himself to exercise in future the civil and military powers entrusted to him, solely in the interests of the Pope. ‘Here is the haughty speech, and here are the watchful eyes to survey the newly usurped dominion, and to spy out far beyond.” Of the three ‘horns’ which fell before Innocent III and his successors, the first was thus the Roman Senate and people, with the so-called patrimony of St Peter, in the year 1198; the other two were the two kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, which having in 1060 and 1080 fallen under the rule of the Dukes of Normandy, were afterwards offered by Urban IV to the Duke of Anjou, to be held by him in subjection to the Church, with the result that ultimately, in 1266, ‘the two Sicily’s,’ as they were afterwards called, fell under the subordinate rule of a branch of the house of Bourbon, and so remained until recent times. The war on the saints is referred to the Inquisition, organized by Innocent III and carried on by his successors, and abetted “by every device of oppressive legislation, and artful diplomacy.’ “Concerning the change of times and laws, a few words will suffice. “He shall think to change times” by the substitution of an ecclesiastical calendar for the civil. He shall ordain festivals, appoint jubilees, and so enforce observance of such times and years as to set aside civil obligations, and even supersede the sanctification of the Lord’s days by the multiplication of saints’ days. With regard to laws he will enforce Canon Law in contempt of Statute Law, and sometimes in contradiction to the Law of God.”

                Auberlen, on the other hand”, points more generally to the many different ways in which the influence of Rome has perpetuated itself even in modern Europe. (*Der Prophet Daniel (1857), pp. 252-4.*) The various barbarian nations out of which have developed gradually the states of modern Europe, have, he observes, fallen largely under the spell of Roman civilization. ‘Roman culture, the Roman church, the Roman language, and Roman law have been the essential civilizing principles of the Germanic world. The Romance nations are a monument of the extent to which the influence of Rome has penetrated even into the blood of the new humanity: they are the products of the admixture “by the seed of men.”  But they do not cohere together: the Roman element is ever re-acting against the Germanic. The struggles between Romans and Germans have been the determining factor of modern history: we need mention only the contests between the Emperor and the Pope, which stirred the Middle Ages, and the Reformation, with the consequences following from it, which have continued until the present day.            The fourth empire has thus a genuine Roman tenacity and force; at the same time, since the Germans have appeared on the scene of history, and the iron has been mixed with the clay, it has been much divided and broken up, and its different constituent parts have shewn themselves to be unstable and fragile (Dan. 2:41,42). The Roman element strives ever after universal empire, the German element represents the principles of individualism and division.” Hence the ever fresh attempts, whether on the part of the Pope, or of a secular prince, as Charlemagne, Charles V., Napoleon, and even the Czar, to realize anew the ideal of Roman unity. Against these attempts, however, the independent nationalities never cease to assert, as persistently their individual rights. Politically and religiously, the Roman, the German, and the Slavonic nationalities stand opposed to one another: in the end, however, after many conflicts, they will resolve themselves into ten distinct kingdoms, out of one of which Antichrist –a kind of exaggerated, almost superhuman, Napoleon— will arise, and realise, on an unprecedented scale, until Providence strikes him down, the ‘daemonic unity’ of an empire of the world.))

                So far as the mere symbolism of the vision goes, there is no objection to this interpretation. The kingdom which is to ‘tread down and break in pieces,’ with the strength of iron, “the whole earth’ (7:23; cf. 7:7, 2:40) might well be the empire of the Romans, who by their military conquests subdued, one after another, practically all the nations of the then known world; and it has been contended, not without some show of plausibility, that the imagery of the second kingdom agrees better with the Medo-Persian than with the Persian empire: the bear, it is urged, with its slow and heavy gait would be the most suitable symbol of the Medo-Persian empire, of which ‘heaviness,’ as exemplified by the vast and unwieldy armies which its kings brought into the field”, was the leading national characteristic, while the three ribs in its mouth are more naturally explained of three provinces absorbed by the empire of the Persians”, than of any conquests made by the Medes. (* Darius Hystaspis was said to have led 700,000 men into Scythia: Xerxes’ expedition against Greece numbered 2,500,000 (2 1/2 mil.) fighting men: Darius Codomannus, at the fatal battle of Issus, commanded 600,000 men (Pusey, p.71).*) (* Media, Assyria, and Babylonia Hippolytus); Persia, Media, and Babylonia (Jerome, Ephr, Syr.);  Lydia, Babylonia, and  Egypt  (Hofmann, Keil. Pusey1  p. 70).*)    These explanations of the imagery, however, though they fall in with the interpretation in question, cannot be said to be so certain, upon independent grounds, as to require it: Alexander’s military successes were also such that he might be spoken of as subduing the whole earth; and we do not now that the suggested interpretation of the symbolism of the bear is really that which was in the mind of the writer of the chapter.

                The great, and indeed fatal, objection to this interpretation is, however, that it does not agree with the history. The Roman empire, the empire which conquered and ruled so many nations of the ancient world,­ (* ‘Empire’ is  of course used here generally  in  the  sense of ‘power’:  at  the time when many of these conquests were made,  the  Romans, as is well known, were under the rule of neither  ’emperors’ nor  ‘kings’.*) –whether it be regarded as coming to its close when in A.D. 476 Romulus Augustulus, at the bidding of Odoacer, resigned his power to the Emperor of the East, or whether that act be regarded merely as a transference of power from the West to the East, and its real close be placed, with Gibbon, at the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, or whether, lastly, it be held, with Bryce, to have prolonged a legal existence till in 1806 the Emperor Francis II resigned the imperial crown, –has passed from the stage of history; nor, whichever date be assigned for its close, and, in the natural sense of the word, the ‘Roman empire’ ceased to exist at the first of these dates, can any “ten’ kingdoms be pointed to, as in any sense arising out of it? The non-natural character of the ‘praeterist’ explanation of Dr Rule must be patent to the reader. “Futurist’ expositors suppose that the kingdoms represented by the ten horns are yet to appear”. (* Auberlen, as cited above; Keil, p. 224; Dr Pusey, p.78 f.*) But these kingdoms are to ‘arise out of the fourth empire (Dan. 2:24); clearly therefore the fourth empire must still exist when they appear; but the Roman empire is beyond controversy an empire of the past. Auberlen’s explanation, ingenious as it is, cannot be deemed satisfactory”. (* It is remarkable, if Daniel’s vision really extends so far as to embrace the history of Europe, that the first coming of Christ, and the influences wrought by Christianity, should be ignored  in it.  The explanation  that Daniel,  “being a statesman and an Israelite, saw nothing of the Church” (Auberlen, p. 252) is surely artificial and improbable.*)

                The interpretation under discussion is in fact one which, in view of the circumstances of the age, might readily have suggested itself to Christian expositors of Daniel, while the Roman empire was still the dominant power in the world; but it is one which the progress of history has shewn to be untenable. The early Christians believed that they were living in an age in which the end of the world was imminent; and it was in this belief, as Mr. (now Bishop) Westcott has pointed out, that the interpretation in question originated. “It originated at a time when the triumphant advent of Messiah was the object of immediate expectation, and the Roman empire appeared to be the last in the series of earthly kingdoms. The long interval of conflict which has followed the first Advent formed no place in the anticipation of the first Christendom; and in succeeding ages the Roman period has been unnaturally prolonged to meet the requirements of a theory which took its rise in a state of thought which experience has proved false. (* Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, s.v. ‘Daniel‘.*)

                B. This interpretation appears first in Ephrem Syrus (c. 300-350 A.D.); ((* Or at least, for the first time distinctly; for a passage in the so-called ‘Sibylline Oracles’ (see the Introduction, p.83) makes it probable that the ‘ten horns’ were understood of the Seleucidae as early as c. 140 B.C. After describing (iii. 381-7) how Macedonia will bring great woe upon Asia, and overcome Babylon (alluding manifestly to Alexander the Great), the Sibyl continues (388 ff.): ((* [I substitute Driver’s Greek citation with Milton S. Terry’s English Translation (1899), & quote from 380-395, doubled & single lines, every 5th line marked with an *.]:

*Woe, woe, to thee, O Libya, and woe, woe: O sea & land! Ye daughters of the West:
How shall ye come upon a bitter day!  & ye shall come pursued by cruel strife:
Dreadful and harsh; dire judgment will set in: *And by force ye will all to ruin come:
Because ye marred the Immortal’s mighty house: & with iron teeth ye chewed it terribly.
So shalt thou see thy land full of the dead.   By war, & every spirit of violence,
*Famine, and pestilence, & barbarous foes:  Thy land all desert & the city waste.
And there shall shine at evening-time a star:  Which they will call a comet, baleful sign
To mortals of dire famine, sword, and death:  *And ruin of great leaders & chief men.

                The ‘man clad with purple, fierce, unjust fiery, lightning-born‘; who is to enslave Asia is, it seems, Antiochus Epiphanes (whose invasion of Egypt is certainly referred to in II 611–615). The race which he wishes to destroy, but by which his own race will be destroyed, is that of his brother Seleucus IV (B.C. 187-175), whose son, Demetrius I, caused the ‘one root’ which Antiochus left, viz. his son and successor, Antiochus V. Eupator (164-162), to be put to death (1st Macc. 7:1-4): this the writer expresses by saying, ‘the destroyer (Ares, the god of war) will cut him off out of ten horns’, i.e. as the last of ten kings. The (illegitimate) ‘plant” planted beside him is Alexander Balas, who defeated and slew Demetrius I, the “warrior father of a royal race’ in 150 (1st Macc. 10:49 f.), and usurped the throne of Syria from 150 to 146. In 146, however, Alexandar Balas (l. 399) was attacked and defeated by Demetrius II, son of Demetrius I, and his father in-law, Ptolemy Philometor, and soon afterwards murdered (1st Macc. 11:8–19; Jos. A rut. xiii. iv. 8). The ‘horn’ growing alongside, that was then, to rule, is the parvenu Trypho, guardian of the youthful Antiochus VI, who having procured the death of his ward, held the throne of Syria from 142 to 137 (1st Macc. 12:39, 13:31 f., 15:37). If this highly probable interpretation is correct (and it is accepted by Schūrer), the “ten horns,’ though not entirely, are nevertheless largely (see p.101 f.) the same Seleucid princes as in Dan.; and it is reasonable to regard the passage as indicating the sense in which the ‘horns’ of Dan. were at the time when it was written (see further Schūrer, ii. p.798 f.). 2nd Esdr. 12:11 (cited p.95), where the interpretation of Dan. vii. 7:7,8 given in vv. 23-26 seems to be corrected, may also perhaps justify the inference that this interpretation had previously been the prevalent one: it would be but natural that, when the empire of the Greeks had passed away, without the prophecy being fulfilled it should be re-interpreted of the Romans (cf. Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian, p. 173). *))  (* See the Commentary on Daniel in vol. ii. of his Syriac works (ed. 1740).*)  it was adopted afterwards by several later and mediaeval scholars; more recently it has been advocated in England by Mr (now Bishop) Westcott, and Prof. Bevan; and on the Continent by Ewald, Bleek, Delitzsch”, Kuenen, Meinhold, and others”. (* In his art. ‘Daniel‘, in the 2nd edition of Herzog’s Real-Encyklopādie (1878): It is also adopted by Buhl in the corresponding article in the 3rd edition (1898) of the same work.*)      (* It is adopted also in the art. ‘Daniel’, in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, by Prof. E. L. Curtis, of Yale, and in that in Black’s Encyclopaedia Biblica (col. 1007), by Prof. Kamphausen, of Bonn.*)    The strongest arguments in its favour are derived (1) from the positive objections stated above, to the “Roman’ interpretation, for an intermediate view, which has been suggested, viz. that the four empires are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedonian, and the Syrian, has little to recommend it: and (2) from the description of the ‘little horn’ in Dan. 7, viewed in connexion with what is said in other parts of the book. In ch. 8 there is a ‘little horn,’ which is admitted on all hands to represent Antiochus Epiphanes, and whose impious character and doings (8:10-12, 25) are in all essentials identical with those attributed to the ‘little horn’ in ch. 7 (7:8 end, 20,21, 25): as Delitzsch remarks, it is extremely difficult to think that where the description is so similar, two entirely different persons, living in widely different periods of the world’s history, should be intended. It is true, there are details in which the two descriptions differ, ch. 8 dwells for instance a good deal more fully on the particulars of Antiochus’ assaults upon the faith: but entire identity would be tautology; the differences affect no material feature in the representation; and there is consequently no better reason for supposing that they point here to two different personalities than for supposing that similar differences in the representations of ch. 2 and ch. 7 point there to two different series of  empires. Again, the period during which the persecution in ch. 7 is to continue is “a time, times, and half-a-time’ (i.e. 3 1/2 years) –exactly the period during which (12:7: cf. v. 11; and on 9:27) the persecution of Antiochus is to continue: is it likely that entirely different events should be measured by precisely the same interval of time? And thirdly, if the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes is in 12:1-3 (see the notes) followed immediately by the Messianic age, is it probable that in chs. 2 and 7 this should be represented as beginning at an indefinite date in the distant future? The age of Antiochus Epiphanes is in fact the limiting horizon of the book. Not only does the revelation of chs. 10-12, culminate in the description of that age, which is followed, without any interval, by the period of final bliss, but the age of Antiochus himself is in 8:19 (as the sequel shews) described as the ‘time of the end’: can there then, asks Delitzsch, have been for Daniel a ‘time of the end” after that which he himself expressly describes as the ‘end’? “There might have been if the visions which ex hyp. represent the Roman age as following that of Alexander and his successors, were later in date than those which do not look beyond the period of the Seleucidae. In point of fact, however, the dream of ch. 2, and the vision of ch. 7, are both of earlier date than the visions of ch. 8 and ch. 9.” (* The arguments in the preceding paragraph are substantially those of Delitzsch, in his article just referred to, p. 474.)     

                For these reasons it is impossible to think either that the ‘little horn’ of ch. 7 represents any other ruler but Antiochus Epiphanes, or that the fourth empire of ch. 2 and ch. 7 is any other than the Greek empire of Alexander’s successors. That the symbolism of the two visions leaves “nothing to be desired’ upon this interpretation, has been shewn by Delitzsch. “By the material of the feet being heterogeneous is signified the division of the kingdom, in consequence of which these offshoots (‘Auslāufer‘) of it arose (cf. 11:5); by its consisting of iron and clay is signified the superior strength of the one kingdom as compared with the other (11:5); by the iron and clay being mingled, without being organically united, is signified the union of the two kingdoms by matrimonial alliances (11:6, 17), without any real unity between them being attained. And how naturally are the silver breast and arms referred to the Median empire, and the brazen belly and loins to the Persian ‘After thee,” says Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar (2:39), “will arise another kingdom, inferior to thine.’ Was then the Persian empire inferior to the Chaldaean? It may be answered that it was so in its Median beginnings. But what justification is there for referring the word ‘inferior’ to the beginnings of the second empire, rather than to the period when it displayed most fully its distinctive character? The reference is to the Median Empire which because it was in general of less importance than the others, is passed by in the interpretation (2:39) in few words. Of the third empire, on the contrary, it is said (ibid.) that it will “bear rule over all the earth.” That is the Persian empire. Only this is again a universal empire, in the fullest sense of the term, as the Chaldaean was.    The intermediate Median empire, weaker than both, merely forms the transition from the one to the other. (* Delitzsch had already shewn, substantially as is done above, in the note on 2:39, that, according to the representation of the Book of Daniel, there was a Median empire, following the Chaldaean, and at the same time distinct from the Persian.*)

                What, however, upon this interpretation of the fourth empire, is denoted by the “ten horns”? The most probable view is that they represent the successors of Alexander upon the throne of Antioch, the line out of which Antiochus Epiphanes, the ‘little horn,’ ultimately arose. ‘That all ten appear simultaneously is a consequence of the vision [comp. in ch. 2 how the four successive empires appear as parts of the same image], and does not authorize the conclusion that all were contemporary, though of course the three uprooted by Antiochus must have been contemporary with him (Delitzsch). The first seven of  these successors are: (1) Seleucus (I) Nicator (B.C. 312-280); (2) Antiochus (I) Soter (279-261); (3) Antiochus (II) Theos (260-246); (4) Seleucus (II) Callinicus (245-226); (5) Seleucus (III) Ceraunus (225-223); (6) Antiochus (III) the Great (222-187); (7) Seleucus (IV) Philopator (186-176). The last three are reckoned differently. According to some, (* Bertholdt, von Lengerke, Ewald, Meinhold; cf. Delitzsch, p. 476.*) they are (8) Heliodorus, the chief minister of Seleucus Philopator, who, having poisoned his master, aimed at the throne for himself, and would, no doubt, have secured it, had not Antiochus Epiphanes returned from Rome in time, with the help of Attalus and Eumenes of Pergamum, to prevent it (see further on 11:20); (* Cf. Appian, Syr. 45: (ton de Hēliodōron…eis tēn archēn biazomenon ekballousin); and (of Antiochus) (tēs archēs harpazomenēs hupo allotriōn basileus oikeios ōphthē).*) (9) Demetrius, son of Seleucus Philopator and nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes, who after his father’s murder was the legitimate heir to the throne, but who was detained as hostage at Rome in lieu of Antiochus Epiphanes, and only actually succeeded to the throne after Antiochus Epiphanes’ death; (10) Ptolemy (VII.) Philometor, king of Egypt, also nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes (being son of his sister Cleopatra), whom, according to Jerome, a party in Syria desired to place on the throne, but whom Antiochus ‘by simulating clemency’ displaced: (* The statement, sometimes made, that Cleopatra herself claimed the throne of Syria for her son, is only matter of inference (cf. Pusey, p.150). It is, however, true that the claim was afterwards (148-147 B.C.) raised, and even acted on by the Roman senate (Polyb. xxxiii. 16), on behalf of Philometor’s son-in-law, Alexander Balas; and that Philometor, having marched into Syria to assist Alexander in enforcing his claim, was actually for a short time king of Syria (1st Macc. 11:13; Polyb. xl. 12; Jos. Ant. xiii. 4: see Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, p.366, and the configured on p.376).*) Philometor afterwards laid claim to the Syrian provinces of Coele-Syria and Palestine, but being attacked by Antiochus, he fell into his uncle’s hands, and had it not been for the interference of the Romans, would, in all probability, have permanently lost the crown of Egypt (see more fully on xi. 21). These three men, as Ewald points out, were all politically prominent at the time; they all stood in Antiochus’s way, and had in one way or another to be put aside before he could secure his crown: they might thus, in the imagery of the vision, be well described as ‘plucked up (7:8), “falling down” (7:20), or ‘abased’ (7:24), before him. Others, arguing that the fourth beast represents the Greek supremacy as a whole, consider that Alexander, the first king, should not be excluded from the enumeration: they accordingly begin the list with him, obtaining then (8) Seleucus Philopator; (9) Heliodorus; (10) Demetrius: upon this view it is supposed that the murder of Seleucus Philopator, though in fact the work of Heliodorus, was attributed popularly at the time to the suggestion, or instigation, of Antiochus (who, indeed, almost immediately succeeded his brother, and consequently was the one who, to all appearance, benefited most materially by his removal). The exclusion of Ptolemy Philometor from this enumeration, is thought to be a point in its favour; for before the accession of Antiochus, he was not, it is pointed out, king of Syria, and it is doubtful (p.101, note) whether even any claim to the throne was then made on his behalf. Others, again, doubt whether Demetrius is rightly included among the ten kings (for though he was the lawful heir aſter his father’s death, he was not actually king at the time here referred to), and prefer, therefore, (8) Seleucus Philopator; (9) Heliodorus; (10) an unnamed brother of Demetrius, who, according to a fragment of John of Antioch, was put to death by Antiochus”. One or other of these alternatives may be reasonably adopted, as sufficiently satisfying the requirements of the case; our knowledge of the times does not, unfortunately, enable us to decide with confidence which deserves the preference.

                (Bleek supposed that the ten horns represented the parts of Alexander’s empire which, after his death, became independent kingdoms, the number ten being chosen in view of the generals who, in the partition of B.C. 323, obtained the chief provinces, viz. 1) Craterus (Macedonia), 2) Antipater (Greece), 3) Lysimachus (Thrace), 4) Leo. matus (Little Phrygia on the Hellespont), 5) Antigonus (Great Phrygia, Lycia, and Pamphylia), 6) Kassander (Caria), 7) Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia), 8) Lao medon (Syria and Palestine), 9) Pithon (Media), 10) Ptolemy Lagi (Egypt). However, according to Justin (13:4) the entire number of provinces was not 10, but 28, and the principle upon which 10 are selected out of them appears to be arbitrary; moreover, these provinces were not independent kingdoms, but satrapies of an empire still regarded as one and undivided (see Pusey, p. 153 ff).)

                Additional Note on  Prophecy of  Seventy (70, LXX) Weeks. Daniel 9.

                Probably no passage of the Old Testament has been the subject of so much discussion, or has given rise to so many and such varied interpretations, as this. Already Jerome wrote”, (* Comm. on Dam., ad loc. (ed. Vallarsi, v. 681; ed. Migne, v. 542). They may be seen summarized in Zōckler, p.187. None of the interpretations which he mentions has found a sponsor in modern times.*) “Scio de hac quaestione aberuditissimis viris varie disputatum et unumquemdue pro captu ingeniisui dixisse quod senserat’ [I know that this cherished [crude, rude] poison changes disputes, and  solely by his capacity who ingeniously asserts what is perceived (Whitaker ?)]; after which he proceeds to give, in some cases quoting the explanations in full, nine different interpretations: though, deeming it “dangerous’ to decide between the opinions of magistri Ecclesiae and to prefer one above another, he leaves it to his reader to determine which he will adopt. Since the time of Jerome the number of divergent interpretations has greatly increased. They differ primarily in the terminus ad quem which it is desired, or which it is thought possible, to reach; this necessitates differences in the terminus a quo adopted, and also in the manner of calculating the ‘weeks,’ which have been treated sometimes as consisting of solar years, sometimes of lunar years, sometimes as jubilee-periods of 7×7 years, sometimes as mystic or symbolic periods, not necessarily equal in length; the order 7+62+1, implied apparently by the text, has been inverted, and altered into 62+7+1, or 62+1+7; the 62 weeks, instead of following the 7, have been made to begin concurrently with them; intervals, not taken account of in the prophecy, have been assumed in the period covered by it; the author, it has been supposed, has followed an erroneous chronology. The reason why commentators have had recourse to these varied and often singular expedients is that, understood in the plain and obvious meaning of the words, the ‘week’ being naturally allowed to signify a week of years, the prophecy admits of no explanation, consistent with history, whatever; and hence, if it is to be explained at all, an assumption, or assumptions, of some kind or other, must be made; and the only question that can arise is, What assumption is the least violent one, or most adequately meets the requirements of the case? It will be unnecessary to review at length the bewildering mass of explanations that have been offered”; the majority are so artificial, or extravagant, that they cannot be regarded as having a serious claim on the reader’s attention. (* A synopsis will be found  in Zōckler’s Comm. (1870),  p.185 ff.;  and  in Van  Len­nep’s De Zeventig Jaarweken van Daniel, 1888, p.99 ff.*) The two principal explanations will however be noticed in some detail; and specimens of others will be placed before the reader.

                Two exegetical conditions may be premised, which it seems reason­able that any sound interpretation ought to satisfy:  (1)  the  ‘weeks‘ must have the same value throughout; (2) they must be distributed  in the order in which they appear in the prophecy, i.e. 7, 62, and 1. It is the plain intention of the prophecy to answer Daniel’s questionings and supplication (vv. 2, 18,19, 22), by assigning certain dates, marking stages in the future history of Jerusalem and ending with the consummation of the Divine purpose towards it; and if these dates were to be fixed by variable standards, or if the stages were to be taken as following one another in an inverted order, not indicated in the terms of the text, no definite information would be conveyed by the vision, and the intention of the prophecy would be frustrated.

                (i) The traditional explanation of the passage makes it a prediction of the Advent (v. 25) and Death (v. 26) of Christ, of the abolition of Levitical sacrifices by His sacrifice, once for all, upon the Cross (v. 27), and of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus (v. 26). There are, no doubt, expressions in the version of Theodotion and the Vulgate, and still more in the Authorized Version, which directly suggest this interpretation, for instance, “to anoint the most Holy’ (tou chrisai hagion hagiōn, ut…ungatur sanctus sanctorum), “unto the Messiah the Prince‘ (heōs christou hēgoumenou, usque ad Christum ducem), “shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself’ (occidetur Christus; et non erit eius Populus, qui eum negaturus est; Theod. here (exolothreuthēsetai chrisma, kai krima ouk estin en autō)) (* i.e. (mashach) for (mashiach): so LXX. (apostathēsetai chrisma kai ouk estai).*) ‘and he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease‘ (Theod, and Vulg. here, somewhat less pointedly, (kai dunamōsei), confirmabit autem pactum multis hebdomada una; et in dimidio hebdomadis deficiet hostia et sacrificium); but these renderings are interpretations, of which one (‘but not for himself’) is impossible, while the others are, to say the least, exegetically doubtful, and certainly in no case necessary (see the notes ad locc.). Thus, to take here but one expression, the crucial term ‘Messiah’ depends upon a wholly uncertain exegesis: nowhere else in the O.T. does ‘māshīach’, used absolutely, denote the ideal, or even the actual, ruler of Israel: the expression used is always either “Jehovah’s anointed,” or ‘my, thy, his anointed’; and though the later Jews unquestionably used the term ‘meshīchā’ ‘the anointed one’ (the ‘Messias‘ of the N.T.) to denote Israel’s expected ideal king, it is just the question when this usage began, and whether it was current as early as when the book of Daniel was written: certainly, if the book was written by Daniel himself, its appearance in it would be extremely unlikely. Even, indeed, if more than this were conceded, and it were granted that the word might have this sense in Daniel, there would be no proof that it must have it, and the rendering would still remain exegetically a matter of uncertainty.

                When, moreover, the passage is examined in detail, positive objections of a serious, not to say fatal kind, reveal themselves.

                (1) If the Crucifixion (A.D. 29) is to fall (v. 27 A.V.) in the middle of the last week, the 490 years must begin c. 458 B.C., a date which coincides with the decree of Artaxerxes, and the mission of Ezra (Ezr. 7), and which is accordingly assumed as the terminus a quo by Auberlen, Pusey, and others. Unfortunately, however, this decree is silent as to any command to “restore and build Jerusalem”; nor was this one of the objects of Ezra’s mission to Judah. Others, therefore, adopting the same general view of the meaning of the prophecy, assume as the terminus a quo the permission given by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah, in his 20th year, to visit Jerusalem for the purpose of rebuilding the walls (Neh. 1-3). To urge the objection that at this time Jerusalem itself was already rebuilt (cf. Hag. 1:4), and that the work of Nehemiah was only to rebuild the walls of the city, might be deemed hypercritical: it is a more substantial objection that Artaxerxes’ 20th year was B.C. 445, which brings the terminus ad quem 13 years too late, a serious discrepancy, when the prediction is a minute one, and given (ex hyp.) by a special supernatural revelation. In so far also as this interpretation is usually adopted by those who believe the book to have been written by Daniel himself, it can hardly be considered probable that the terminus a quo should be a point some 80 years or more subsequent to the date (B.C. 538) at which the prophecy itself is stated to have been given (ch. 9:1).

                (2)   The  interpretation depends: upon the unnatural interpunction of 8.25 adopted in A.V., viz.’ unto an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks ; it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, and that in strait of times’ : the division  of  the 69 weeks into 7 weeks and 61 weeks, without the mention of anything to mark the close of the 7 weeks, is improbable, while at the same time some mention of the time at which or during which the city is to be ‘built again’ is desiderated. Those who adopt this interpretation generally suppose the 49 years (which would end c. 409 B.C.) to mark the close of the rebuilding of Jerusalem which was begun by Nehemiah: but there is really no ground for the supposition that this work continued till then. Nehemiah rebuilt, not the city, but the walls, and  that, not after the destruction  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  but after some  more recent catastrophe;   the  work  was  accomplished   rapidly  (Neh.  6:15), and even on the occasion of his second visit to Jerusalem in 432 (Neh. 13:6 ff.), there is no indication that any rebuilding, whether of the city or the  walls, was still going on. (* See Ryle on Neh. 1:3.  On Neh. 2:5 end, and 7:4, see also Ryle’s notes.*)    With the interpretation and rendering of = v. 25 adopted in R. V., the possibility ceases of identifying the ‘anointed one, the prince’ of v. 25 with the ‘anointed one’ of v. 26, and also of referring either-except upon such strained interpretations as those quoted below, pp. 148, 149-to Christ.

                (3) Christ did not ‘confirm a covenant with many for one week‘ (= 7 years); His ministry lasted at most somewhat over 3 years; and if, in the years following, He is regarded as carrying on His work through the agency of His apostles, the limit, ‘seven years,’ seems an arbitrary one; for the apostles con­tinued to gain converts from Judaism for many years subsequently.  The preaching of the Gospel to the Samaritans (Acts 8), which may have happened 3-4 years after the Crucifixion, and which has been suggested as the limit intended in the prophecy, did not mark such an epoch in the establishment of Christianity as could be naturally regarded as closing the period during which the Messiah would ‘make a firm covenant with many.’

                (4) The destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70), which is supposed upon this view to be predicted in v. 26b, follows the date of the Crucifixion by 40-41 years. It not only, therefore, is out of place before v. 27, but does not even come within the limits of the 490 years at all. Were the prophecy perfectly general in its terms, it would, no doubt, be unreasonable to press an objection of this kind; but where periods of 7 and 34 years, in the distant future, are (ex hyp.) exactly discriminated, a fortiori a period of 40 years should be so discriminated. Auberlen, it is true, argues that the final destruction of Jerusalem is rightly excluded from the 70 weeks, because after Israel rejected the Messiah it was no longer an object of sacred but only of profane history; but if such an argument be a sound one, it surely ought to apply to the prophecy, not less than to the history, and the event in question ought not to be referred to in the prophecy at all. It is, however (ex hyp.), referred to in it; and is there, to all appearance, placed before the commencement of the 70th week.

                (5) If the R.V. of v. 27 be correct, and it is certainly the natural meaning of the Heb., a reference to the death of Christ is excluded altogether; for the verse does not then describe the final abolition of material sacrifices, but their temporary suspension for ‘

                (ii) The principal alternative interpretation is the one adopted in this Commentary in the notes on ix. 24–27. According to this view the terminus a quo is B.C. 587—6, the probable date of the promises that Jerusalem should be rebuilt contained in Jer. xxx. 18, xxxi. 38–40; the 7 weeks of v. 25 end with B. c. 538, the date of the edict of Cyrus (the “anointed one, the prince’ of this verse); the 62 weeks, reckoned from 538, end with B.C. 171 (the date of the murder of Onias III., the ‘anointed one’ of v. 26); the last week extends from B.C. 171 to B.C. 164, the reference in vv. 26b, 27, being to Antiochus Epiphanes, and to his acts of violence and persecution against the Jews. This interpretation does entire justice to the terms of the text: but it labours under one serious difficulty. The number of years from 538 to 171 is not 434 (=62 ‘weeks‘), but 367; the number assigned in the prophecy is thus too large by 67. The difficulty is usually met, on the part of those who adopt this explanation, by the supposition that the author of Daniel followed an incorrect computation. There is no intrinsic improbability, it is urged, in such a supposition: for

                (1) the difficulty of calculating dates in the ancient world was much greater than is often supposed. Until the establishment of the Seleucid era, in B.C. 312, the Jews had no fixed era whatever; and a writer living in Jerusalem (ex hyp.) under Antiochus Epiphanes would have very imperfect materials for estimating correctly the chronology of the period here in question; the continuous chronology of the O.T. ceases with the destruction of Jerusalem B.C. 586, or at least (2nd Kings 25:27) with the 37th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin (= B.C. 562); and though mention is made in the O.T. of the 70 years of the Chaldaean supremacy, or (cf. on ch. 9:2) of the desolation of Judah, the length of the period between Cyrus and Alexander the Great could be ascertained exactly only by means of a knowledge of secular history which a Jew, living in such an age, was not likely to possess. There would thus be nothing unreasonable in the assumption of a mis-computation for the interval between 538 and 171.    Cornill makes the clever suggestion that, in the absence of any fixed era for the period before B.C. 312, the 490 years were arrived at by a calculation based on the generations of high-priests. From the destruction of Jerusalem to Onias III there were just 12 generations in the high-priestly family: 1. Jehozadak (1st Ch. 6:15); 2. Jeshua (Ezr. 3:2); 3. Joiakim; 4. Eliashib; 5. Joiada; 6. Jonathan; 7. Jaddua (Neh. 12:10,11); 8. Onias I (Jos. Ant. xi. viii.7); 9. Simon I the “Just’ (ib. XII. ii. 4); 10. Oniasi II (ib. xii. iv. 1); (* Son of Simon I, though not his immediate successor in the high-priestly office: being an infant at the time of his father’s death, he was preceded in the office first by his own uncle Eleazar, and then by Eleazar’s uncle, Manasseh (Ant. xii., ii. 4, iv. 10).)   11. Simon II; and 12. his son Onias III (ib. xII.iv. 10): and a generation being reckoned at 40 years, 12 generations (=48o years) might readily suggest 69 weeks (= 483 years) for the period from the destruction of Jerusalem to the date of the death of Onias, and 70 weeks (= 490 years) for the entire interval contemplated by the author.

                (2) It is remarkable that, as has been pointed out by Schūrer”, precisely similar chronological mistakes are made by other Jewish writers. (* Gesch. des Jūd. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, ii. 616 (Engl. tr. II. iii. p.54).*) Thus Josephus (B.F. VI. iv. 8) says that there were 639 years between the second year of Cyrus (B.C. 537 or 536) and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70): the real interval was thus reckoned by him as longer by some 30 years than it should be. Further, the same writer reckons (Ant. XX. x.) 434 years from the Return from the Captivity (B.C. 538) to the reign of Antiochus Eupator (B.C. 164–162), i.e. 374 years, and (Ant. XIII. xi. 1) 481 years from the same date to the time of Aristobulus (B.C. 105–4) i.e. 433 years, –the former calculation being 60 years, and the latter nearly 50 years, in excess of the true amount. The Hellenistic Jew, Demetrius (Clem. Al. Strom. i. 21, § 141), reckons 573 years from the Captivity of the Ten Tribes (B.C. 722) to the time of Ptolemy IV (B.C. 222), i.e. 500 years; he thus overestimates the true period by 73 years. (* As Behrmann, however, has pointed out, this mistake is not quite certain; for in the figures of Demetrius, as quoted by Clement, there is some confusion: he reckons, viz., from the Captivity of Israel to that of Judah 128 years, 8 months, and from that of Judah to Ptol. IV 338 years, 3 months,  both together thus equaling 466 years, 11 months; and yet for the whole period from the Captivity of Israel to Ptol. IV. he assigns 573 years, 9 months! –Kōnig (Expos. Times, 1899, p. 256 f.) explains a curious (early mediaeval) example of the opposite error (327 years from Uzziah to Alexander, and the Persian period contracted to 52 years).*) There seems in fact, as Schūrer has remarked, to have been a traditional error in the ancient chronology of the period here in question: it was over-estimated, —by Demetrius to approximately the same extent as by the author of Daniel. There is thus nothing astonishing in the fact ‘that an apocalyptic writer of the date of Epiphanes, basing his calculations on uncertain data to give an allegoric interpretation to an ancient prophecy, should have lacked the records which would alone have enabled him to calculate with exact precision’ (Farrar, Daniel, p. 291).

                What may be termed a modification of this interpretation has been adopted by Hilgenfeld*, also by Behrmann, the most recent commentator on Daniel. According to this view, the terminus a quo is B.C. 606 or . (* Die Jūdische Apokalyptik (1857), p. 29 f.*) 605, the date of Jer. 25, the promise contained in vv. 11 f. being the ‘word” of v. 24 here; the 7 weeks (= 49 years) end with B.C. 558; the 62 weeks (434 years), reckoned, not as following the 7 weeks, but as beginning from the same point that they do, end correctly with 171, the year in which Onias was murdered; and the last week ends with 164, the year of Antiochus’s death. The 7 weeks are thus included in the 62 weeks, and the entire number of weeks, reckoned consecutively, is not 70, but 63; it is, however, urged that the stress lies not upon the length of the period concerned in itself, but upon the events embraced in it, in so far as these depend upon a Divine decree; and so the sum of the years remains 70, even though the years do not follow consecutively. No doubt, it is not expressly stated either that the 7+62 + 1 weeks of vv. 25-27 make up the 70 weeks of v. 24, or that the 62 weeks of v. 25 begin at the close of the 7 weeks mentioned in the same verse; nevertheless, it may be doubted whether an explanation which assumes the contrary is altogether natural. It might further be objected to this interpretation, (1) that a promise for the rebuilding of Jerusalem is not contained in Jer. 25:11 f., except, at most, implicitly; and (2) that for the first 7 “weeks’ of the 62 (B.C. 606–558) no attempt whatever was made to “rebuild’ Jerusalem.          

                Van Lennep seeks to solve the difficulty by combining the historical with the symbolical interpretation: 60 weeks of years would have corresponded more exactly with the period from B.C. 588 to 164, but it would not have had the symbolical completeness of 70 x 7 (Gen. 4:24; Matth. 18:22): the 7 x 7 years at the beginning, and the 7 years at the end, though both agree substantially with the actual periods (B.C. 588–538, and B.C. 171-164), are also primarily symbolical; 7 x 7 years is a jubilee-period (Lev. 25:8 &c.), at the end of which Israel returns to Palestine, as the slave returns to his home; and the 7 years of trial are analogous to the 7 years of famine (Gen. 41:30; 2nd Sam. 24:13; 2nd Ki. 8:1), or the seven ‘times’ of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness, or the seven troubles of Job 5:19: the 62 intermediate weeks of years have thus no independent significance of their own, but are simply the residue which remains after the subtraction of 7 + 1 from 70.

                Specimens of other interpretations:—               
(1) Wieseler (1846): terminus a quo, 4th year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 25), B.C. 606*: 62 weeks thence end B.C. 172′; the last week is 172– 165* (vv. 26–27). (*Different authorities vary by a year or so in the dates assigned by them to the same events.*) The ‘7 weeks’ extend from 172 to the coming of Christ (the “anointed one, the prince’), and represent a jubilee-period (Is. 61:1,2), to be understood in a spiritual sense, and not limited to 50 literal years.
          (2) Delitzsch (1878): terminus a quo, Jehoiakim’s fourth year, B.C. 605 (Jer. 25): 62 weeks thence end with 171 (the deposition and murder of Onias, v. 26); one week thence carries us to the death of Antiochus in 164 (v. 27). The ‘7 weeks’ follow the 62 + 1: the ‘anointed one, the prince’ of v. 25 is the Messiah; as, however, the Advent of Christ did not take place 7 weeks (= 49 years) after B.C. 164, Delitzsch owns the “riddle’ of the 7 weeks to be insoluble.            The ‘70 weeks,’ however, are “quadratic sabbath-periods,” each consisting of 7 x 7 = 49 years; there are thus 49 x 70 = 3430 years from B.C. 605 to the Advent of Christ (the first and second advents being not distinguished). This result, it is added, is recommended by the fact that, as there were 3595 years from the Creation to Jehoiakim’s fourth year, the entire duration of the world would be not appreciably in excess of 7000 years.
       (3) Kranichfeld (1868)’: terminus a quo, c. 592 (Jer. 29) or 588 (destruction of Jerusalem). (* Das Buch Daniel erklārt, 1868.*) The 7 weeks end in 539 (the year of Daniel’s vision). The “anointed one, the prince’ is Cyrus. The 62 weeks begin in 539, and end with the death of Christ (the ‘anointed one’ of v. 26). Certainly, in point of fact the 62 weeks end with B.C. 105, vv. 26b, 27 referring to the time of Maccabees: there is thus a lacuna of 135 years (from B.C. 105 to A.D. 30), which Daniel, in accordance with the laws of ‘perspective’ prophecy, did not see.
     (4) Von Orelli (1882): terminus a quo, B.C. 588: end of 7 weeks, B. c. 536; end of 62 weeks, A. D. 29 (the death of Christ, to whom the “anointed one’ in both v. 25 and v. 26 refers); 434 years from 536 is indeed only c. B.C. 100, but the ‘weeks’ are typical weeks, and are not to be taken as mere mathematical quantities. (* O.T. Prophecy, Engl. tr. (1885), p. 434 f.) The ‘redactor’ of the Book of Daniel (who lived in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes) identified the last “week’ with his own time; and it seems to be Orelli’s opinion that he modified the terms of vv. 26,27 so as to introduce into them allusions to the events of B.C. 171–164.
     (5) Nāgelsbach (1858): terminus a quo, B.C. 536; end of 7 weeks, the dedication of the walls of Nehemiah (Neh. 12), B.C. 434–2; end of 62 weeks thence, the birth of Christ; the last week, from birth of Christ to destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. (shbu`), ‘week,” upon this theory may denote any ‘heptad,’ not one of 7 years only, but also one of any multiple of 7; in the first 7 weeks, it is of about 14 years; in the last week, of about 70 years.
      (6) Kliefoth (1868), and Keil (1869): terminus a quo, the edict of Cyrus, B.C. 537; the weeks are to be understood symbolically, not of chronologically definite periods of time. The seven weeks extend from 537 to the advent of Christ; the 62 weeks from Christ to the appearance of Antichrist; during this time Jerusalem (in a spiritual sense, i.e. the Church) is built; the last week is the period of the great apostasy, ending with the second Coming of Christ. The words, “an anointed one shall be cut off,” refer to the ruin of Christ’s kingdom upon earth in the days of Antichrist (the ‘prince that shall come’); v. 27 (the 70th week) relates throughout to the high-handed dealings of Antichrist; v. 24 to his final overthrow.
     (7) Julius Africanus, the chronographer (c. 200 A.D.), ap. Jerome, l.c.: terminus a quo, the 20th year of Artaxerxes (B.C. 445); end of 70 weeks (reckoned as 490 lunar years of 354 days = (nearly) 475 solar years), death of Christ. This view has been revived recently, in a slightly modified form, by Dr Robert Anderson, according to whom the ‘year’ of Daniel was the ancient luni-solar year of 360 days; reckoning, then, 483 years (= 69 ‘weeks’), of 360 days each, from 1st Nisan B.C. 445, the date of the edict of Artaxerxes, Dr Anderson arrives at the 10th of Nisan, in the 18th year of Tiberius Caesar, the day on which our Lord made His public entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:37 ff.). (* The Coming Prince, ed. 5 (1895), p.123 ff.*) Upon this theory, however, even supposing the objections against B.C. 445 as the terminus a quo (see above) to be waived, the 70th week remains unexplained; for the 7 years following the Crucifixion are marked by no events tallying with the description given in v. 27. }}

21. Wilson.

Studies in the Book of Daniel. A Discussion of the Historical Questions (1st Series) by Robert Dick Wilson, Ph.D., D.D.  WM. H. Green Professor of Semitic Languages & Old Testament Criticism. Princeton Theological Seminary. G.P. Putnam’s Sons. New York. 1917.

                Introduction: this volume is concerned especially with the objections made to the historical statements contained in the book of Daniel, and treats incidentally of chronological, geographical, and philosophical questions. In a second volume, it is my intention to discuss the objections made against the book on the ground of philological assumptions based on the nature of the Hebrew and Aramaic in which it is written. In a third volume [this was not to be, in volume 2, some selections are given after these from vol. 1, & in vol.2 Wilson covers his intent for both volumes 2 & 3], I shall discuss Daniel’s relation to the canon of the Old Testament as determining the date of the book, and in connection with this the silence of Ecclesiasticus with reference to Daniel, the alleged absence of an observable influence of Daniel upon post-captivity literature, and the whole matter of apocalyptic literature, especially in its relation to predictive prophecy.

                The method pursued is to give first of all a discussion  of some of the principles involved in the objections considered in the pages following; then, to state the objections with the assumptions on which they are based; next, to give the reasons why these assumptions are  adjudged to be false; and, lastly, to sum up in a few words the conclusions to be derived from the discussion.  As to the details of my method, it will be observed  that I have sought in the case of every objection to confront it with documentary evidence designed to show that the assumptions underlying the objection are contrary to fact. When no direct evidence is procurable either in favor of or against an objection, I  have endeavored to show by analogy, or the production of similar instances, that the events or statements recorded in Daniel are possible; and that the objections to these events, or statements, cannot be proved by mere assertion unsupported by testimony……. survey of Chapters 1-18……

                Hoping that this volume may confirm the faith of any  wavering ones in the historicity of a book which was so highly prized and so often quoted by our Lord and his apostles, and that it may show particularly to men who have a due regard for the laws of evidence, how flimsy are the grounds on which some would reject the testimony and impugn the veracity of the writer of Daniel, I send it forth upon its mission in the world. If it shall have served no other purpose, it has at least accomplished this: —it has convinced the writer that the methods pursued by many so-called higher critics are illogical, irrational, and unscientific. They are illogical because they beg the question at issue. They are irrational because they assume that historic facts are self-evident, and that they can set limits to the possible.  They are unscientific because they base their conclusions on incomplete inductions and on a practical claim of omniscience.

                Before closing my introduction, a few words ought to be said about the sources from which I have derived my evidence. Generally, it will be observed that I have appealed to the standard editions of texts in the original languages in which they are written. When there exist good translations as in the case of some of the classical historians, I have made free use of these translations, always, however, after comparison with the original texts. In the case of others, I have secured as good versions as possible, my son, Philip Howard Wilson,  A.B. (died June 27, 1913), honor man in classics of the class of 1911 at Princeton University, being responsible for many of the translations from the classical writers whose works have not yet been rendered into English.

                In the case of Assyrian and Babylonian documents, I  have made use, where possible, of the Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (denoted by K.B.), translating from the  German version, revised in the light of the transliterated  Assyrio-Babylonian text. In doubtful and important connections I have consulted the original texts, so far  as they are published. This method has been pursued, also, with all other original documents; that is, I have used the best version available, but always in comparison with the original texts.

                My hearty thanks are due to the Rev. Prof. Jesse L. Cotton, D.D., of LouisviUe, to the Rev. Oswald T. Allis, Ph.D., of Princeton, and to the Rev. J.B. Willson, M.A., B.D., for the invaluable assistance which they have given me in the preparation of this volume.
R.D.W.  Princeton, N. J.,  April, 1917.

                Contents: Introduction:
I. Argument from Silence.
II. Was Daniel Historical Character? 
III. Jehoiakim’s Third Year & Argument from Silence.
IV. Nebuchadnezzar’s Expedition Against Jerusalem.
V. Use of the Word “King”.
VI. Belshazzar.
VII. Darius the Mede.
VIII. Medes & Conquest of Babylon.
IX. Darius the Mede & Kings of Persia.
—Excursus on Words for Land and People.
X. Darius the Mede not  Confusion with Darius Hystaspis.
XI. Darius the Mede not Reflection of Darius Hystaspis.
XII. Darius the Mede not a Reflection (Continued).
XIII. Other Alleged Confusions of Kings.
XIV. Susa.
XV. Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness.
XVI. Were  Edicts of Kings Possible?
XVII. Chaldeans.
—Excursus on the Chaldeans.

XVIII. Daniel & Wise Men.

                Chapter I:  Argument from Silence.

                I shall begin the consideration of the historicity of  Daniel and of the book of Daniel with a discussion of  the argument from silence, not merely because of its intrinsic importance, but because of its bearing upon many of the objections made against the existence of Daniel himself and against the authenticity and genuineness of the book which bears his name. Before considering these objections, it may be well to state explicitly what is meant in this connection by an argument from silence. When the argument from silence is invoked against a statement of a record of any kind, it is implied that the statement is probably not true because there is no evidence to be gathered from other sources of information in support or confirmation of it. It is a purely negative argument.  For example, our Lord is said to have accompanied his  parents to a feast at Jerusalem in his twelfth year and  to have been present at several feasts in the same place  during the years of his ministry. Nothing is said in the  gospel records about his attendance at the feasts during the period intervening between his twelfth year and the  beginning of his Judean ministry. It would be an argument from silence to maintain that Jesus was never at a feast at Jerusalem during this long period of his life,  inasmuch as no mention of his having been there is to be found either in the gospels, or in any other credible document. But the argument is clearly inconclusive and unsatisfactory because it may be used as well to show the probability that he was there at many, or all, of the  feasts of the intervening years, — that it was his habit to attend the feasts. Certainly, the fact that his presence  at a feast in his twelfth year is mentioned in but one of  the gospels does not render that statement improbable. Nor does the fact that his attendance at certain other  feasts during the years of his ministry is stated in but one of the four” gospels render such an attendance  improbable. The commands laid upon the Israelites to  go up three times a year to the feasts, the rigid observance of these commands by other Israelites of that  period, and the well-known obedience of our Lord to the injunctions of the law, would make it probable that he observed the feasts. The fact that he is  said to have been present at several of them would  imply that he probably was present at more. But  the mere failure of more than one of the sources, or  even of all of them put together, to mention his attendance at a given feast during the whole period from his twelfth year onward, cannot be regarded as proof of  his absence from it.

                The failure, therefore, of any given authority to mention an event recorded in another, or the fact that a given event is recorded in only one authority, while  others pass it by in silence, does not prove that the event did not occur. Most events of antiquity of which  we have any knowledge are mentioned in but one contemporary source of information. For most of the history of Cyrus, Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius, and  Xerxes, we are absolutely dependent for our information upon Herodotus, often at best a second-hand and  unreliable source. For Artaxerxes I, Darius II, and the first part of the reign of Artaxerxes II, we have the  fragments of Ctesias, the partial accounts of Xenophon,  and allusions and short references in Thucydides and a few other writers. For the history of Assyria and  Babylonia, and for that of Syria, Phenida, and Egypt before 500 B.C., we have no historian, strictly so-called,  either native or foreign, who was contemporaneous with the events which transpired. For the history of the  Hittites and for that of Elam, Lydia, Media, and Persia, we have no native historians, of any age. whether contemporaneous or not. For the history of all of these countries from 500 B.C. to 300 B.C., we are limited as to contemporaneous historians to the Greeks, especially to Herodotus, Ctesias, Thucydides, and Xenophon.  About 300 B.C., a native Egyptian, Manetho by name, wrote in Greek what purported to be a history of Egypt from the earliest times, which, he asserted, he had derived from the records of the Egyptians. About the same time, also in Greek, Berosus wrote a history of the Babylonians; Menander, a history of Tyre; and Nicolaus, a history of Damascus. Unfortunately, fragments only of these historians have been preserved to us, mostly excerpts found in Josephus and Eusebius.

                But while, strictly speaking, we have no histories from any of the nations who came into contact with the ancient Israelites, we have from some of them a large number of documents affording us for certain periods the sources, or materials, from which to construct a more or less continuous history, and to obtain for certain epochs and individuals a more or less satisfactory knowledge of their civilization and especially of their political conditions and relations. The relative and even the absolute chronology of the times in which the Israelites flourished is becoming clearer and more definite. The geographical terminology and limitations are becoming known. The laws, manners, customs, science, art, and religion are becoming revealed. Some kings of Assyria, such as the Tiglath-Pilesers, the Shalmanesers, Ashumasirpal, Sargon, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal have left us annals which supply the place of histories and cause these kings to stand out before us as real characters. Hammurabi, Merodach-Baladan, Nebuchadnezzar, and Nabunaid, kings of Babylon, have left us inscriptions from which we can in a measure construct their biographies. The inscriptions of Nabtmaid, Cyrus, and Darius Hystaspis enable us, also, to supplement what the Greek historians and the biblical writers have to say about the early days of Persia; while the Egyptian and Phenidan records, though not as satisfactory, give us at least a chronological background and check for much of the history. The records of the Hittites, Lydians, and Elamites, also, are being resurrected in part from the graves of oblivion, and even the Arabian deserts are yielding up their long-buried secrets…….

                XIV. Lastly, it must be remembered, that, when all has been said, we have discovered but a very limited proportion of the ancient documents which once existed.  This is true as to both public and private documents. For example, of the kings of Persia, we have no public documents of Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius II, Xerxes II, Sogdianus, Arses, and Darius III, and only one each of Artaxerxes I and III, two, possibly, of Cyrus, and two of Artaxerxes II, six of Xerxes I, and about a dozen all told of Darius Hystaspis. Of private documents from the time of the Persian kings we have few after the time of Artaxerxes II, and the ones we have are nearly all from Babylonia. There are at most two in Babylonian from the time of Artaxerxes II, who  reigned from 404 to 359 B.C.  (* Tablet 86 of the Morgan collection, part I, is from the fifth month of the 41st year of Artaxerxes. Since Artaxerxes I reigned less than 41 years and Artaxerxes II about 46 years, this tablet must be from the reign of the latter. Some of the astronomical tablets mention Artaxerxes II and one at least Artaxerxes III. See Kugler: Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, i, 70-82. *)

                The places also where the records of Babylon and Persia have been found are comparatively few in number compared with the numerous places where they must have existed; and in these places, but a very few of the whole number that once existed have come down to us. Thus, there were doubtless many banking firms, like the Murashu and the Egibi houses at Babylon and many storehouses for contracts; but most of the contracts known have come from a few localities. Aramaic papyri were probably composed in a score of other Jewish colonies, but unfortunately only the one great find of Elephantine has thus far been made. The letters to Amenophis III and IV found at Tel-el-Amarna were most likely not the only ones ever sent by the vassals of the Egyptian kings to their sovereign lords. The reports to Assyrian kings thus far discovered are doubtless but a small part of those which must have been sent to Nineveh during the 500 years from Tiglath-Pileser I to Ashurbanipal.

                Conclusion.
               In concluding these general remarks upon the so-called argument from silence, and having in view our almost absolute lack of first-class evidence bearing upon the historicity of the statements made in the Old Testament in general and of Daniel in particular, we refuse to accept as true the indiscriminate charges and multitudinous specifications entirely unsupported by evidence which are often made against the truthfulness of the Old Testament writings. A man is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. A book, or document, is supposed to be true until it as proven false. And as to particular objections made against the historicity of a person or event mentioned in the book of Daniel on the ground that other authorities fail to notice them, would it not be well for us to possess our souls in patience, until such charges are supported by some direct evidence bearing upon the  case? Why not give Daniel the benefit of the doubt, if doubt there be?………[As to proof & veracity, a thing is not proven till it has not been disproven; a thing is true after it is shown to be not false. Only when we test & examine anything do we get proof & truth; therefore ‘test or prove all things’. Hence the Bible, & Daniel stands solid.]

                Chapter 18: …..Conclusion:
               In the above discussion we have shown that the six assumptions mentioned on page 370 are all false and that the objection to the historicity of the book of Daniel on the ground that a strict Jew cannot have been made chief of the heathen sages of Babylon, nor initiated into their class, is unsupported by the evidence drawn from the Jews themselves, as well as from the monuments, as to what the character of the wise men really was. We have shown, further, that the objection, if  valid, would militate as much against the ideas of the pious Jews in the second century B.C., as against those  held by them in the sixth century B.C.; inasmuch as the literary conception of such a character and the reception of a work based on such a conception would be as much against their ideas as the historical existence of such a man would be. Moreover, we have shown that the confused notions about Daniel in his relations to the wise men of Babylon, as well as about these wise men, are true not so much of the author of Daniel as of those who criticize the statements of the book in reference to them. And finally, we have shown that there is no reason for believing that Daniel may not have been and done all that the book of Daniel says that he was and did. without any infringement of the law or the prophets, or contravention of the religious ideas of the Jews at any time of their history.

Studies in the Book of Daniel. Discussions, Historical Questions.v2.(2nd Series). Robert Dick Wilson, PhD., D.D. LL.D. GPP. KP. 1938.

                Chapter VIII. Prophecies of Daniel Fourth Kingdom:  (Studies in the Book of Daniel, Series One, pp. 128-238 for the fuller account.)

                It is assumed by the critics that the fourth kingdom of Daniel  is the Greek instead of the Roman empire. (* Prince, Commentary on Daniel, p. 71.*) This involves the further assumption that not merely 11:20-45 but also 2:31-34, 40-43, 7:9, 19-27, 8:9-14, 23-26 refer to Antiochus Epiphanes.

                The assumption that Alexander and his successors, especially the kingdom of the Seleucids, represent the fourth kingdom of Daniel, depends on the further assumption that the second kingdom was Median, an assumption that has no foundation in the Book of Daniel. (* For a full discussion of the assumption that the second kingdom was Median the reader is referred to the writer’s Studies in the Book of Daniel, Series One, pp. 128-238.*)   To be sure Darius is called a Mede (6:1), and is said to have received the kingdom of Belshazzar; and the two horns of the ram spoken of in 8:20 are said to denote the kings of Media and Persia. But since Belshazzar was not king of Media but of Babylon and probably of Accad and Chaldea, it is to be presumed that Darius the Mede received the kingship over that comparatively small part of the empire of Cyrus that had been ruled over by Belshazzar the Chaldean. There is absolutely no foundation for the assertion of the critics that Daniel makes Darius the Mede to have ruled over Babylon before the accession of Cyrus. (* So Bevan, Commentary on Daniel, p. 20.*) He is said in 6:1 to have “received” (kabbel) the kingdom and from whom could he have received it except from Cyrus?  (* The verb kabbel means “receive,” not “take by force.” Brockelmann in his Syriac Dictionary renders it by accepit, that is annehmen, not einnehmen. In the Targum of Onkelos, it always has the sense of “receive,” the sense of “taking by force” being expressed by kevash and ‘chad. *)

                In 9:1, it is said that Darius was made king (homlak) over the realm of the Chaldeans. Who could have made him king but Cyrus? Hitzig, indeed, says that this does not mean merely that he was made king by God, but that he must by human action have been made king of Babylon and that this action was taken by the army led by Cyrus. (* Commentary on Daniel, p. 145.*) It seems convenient for Bevan and Prince to ignore these two passages in their discussions of Darius the Mede, an admirable way for a special pleader to escape the necessary conclusion to be derived from indisputable evidence against his side of the case! (* Bevan assumes that kabbel means “take possession,” (Comm., p. 109), but he does not attempt to prove it.*)  They confuse the issue by making long dissertations on irrelevant matters connected with the Median kingdom of Deioces and his successors down to Astyages whom Cyrus overthrew. For example, Prince affirms, that “Babylon was captured by Cyrus the Persian, who, sometime previously, had obtained possession of Media and its king Astyages.” (* Commentary on Daniel, p. 44.*) He then discusses the theory formerly advanced by some that Darius the Mede was “identical with Cyaxares, son of Astyages, mentioned in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia.” (*id. pp. 45, 46.*) He then compares “the data of Xenophon regarding the last Median kings with those of Herodotus on the same subject,” and notices in passing that “neither Berosus nor any other ancient author knows of a Median ruler after the fall of Babylon.” (*id. p. 47.*) He next states that the Annals of Nabonidus and the Cyrus Cylinder make no mention “of any ruler of Media between Astyages and Cyrus nor of any king of Babylon intervening between Nabonidus and Cyrus.” (*id. p. 48.*) He then continues to discourse at length on the Cyaxares of Xenophon, the Darius of Eusebius, and the coin darik, and gives a resume of the history of Media from Deioces to Cyaxares and finally gives his views as to the probable origin of the conception of Darius the Mede as given in Daniel. (*id. pp. 48-55.*) He concludes by saying that Darius the Mede “appears therefore to have been a product of a mixture of traditions” of the “destruction of Nineveh by the Medes” and of the “capture of Babylon by Darius Hystaspis,” (*id. p. 55.*) and thinks that “it seems apparent that the interpolation of Darius the Mede must be regarded as the most glaring inaccuracy in the Book of Daniel.” (*id. p. 56.*)

                Second Kingdom Not Median

                We readily give Professor Prince the credit of having produced the most scholarly and up to date presentation of the case of the critics versus Daniel that has so far been published. We think that most of his statements as to facts are undeniable, that Cyrus did conquer Babylon, that Xenophon and Herodotus differ as he says, that Berosus and the other ancient authors know nothing of a Median ruler after the fall of Babylon, that the Annals of Nabonidus and the Cyrus Cylinder make no mention of a Median king of Babylon, that there is doubt as to who the Cyaxares of Xenophon was and as to the Darius of Eusebius; but he will pardon us for the inability to perceive that his views and conclusions are justified by the facts and the evidence that he has produced. Our reasons for differing from his conclusions are the following:

                1. All authorities are agreed that Cyrus took Babylon. Herodotus and Xenophon say so expressly. Isaiah implies it. The Cyrus Cylinder confirms it, but adds that his general Gubaru took it for him and that Cyrus himself did not enter the city till four months later. Gubaru, according to the Cylinder, was made “governor” (in Aramaic malka “king”) of the city by Cyrus, a position which he seems to have held for at least twelve years. (* See tablet published by Pinches in The Expository Times for 1915.*)

                2. Whether there was a Cyaxares the son of Astyages and what his relationship to Cyrus may have been, are interesting questions; but the Book of Daniel says nothing bearing directly on either question. (* Since the Ku of the Greek Kuaxares corresponds to Eva in the Persian cuneiform of the Behistun inscription, it might be possible that the Hebrew and Aramaic Ahasuerus represents the axares of Cyaxares. In this case, Darius the Mede would be the son of Cyaxares, the son of Astyages, the son of Cyaxares; or he might be descended from the father of Astyages. In the Behistun Inscription the Median claimants to the throne call themselves the sons of Cyaxares. If Darius the Mede were the son of Cyaxares the son of Astyages, he could be called “of the seed of Media,” that is, of the royal family of Media, without his father or himself having really been king of Media.*)

                3. Since Daniel does not say that a Median king independent of Cyrus ruled over Babylon after the Chaldean empire was destroyed, the silence of Berosus and other ancient authors on this subject agrees with the silence of Daniel. The statement that Darius was a Mede no more proves that he was king of Media than does the statement that Napoleon was a Corsican prove that he was king of Corsica. Besides he may have been a king of Media and still have been subordinate to Cyrus king of Persia. Murat was a Frenchman who was made king of Naples and was subordinate to a Corsican Italian who had become emperor of the French. (* Again Darius the Mede may have been the son of Cyaxares, predecessor of Astyages, king of Media. Since he was sixty-two years old when he was made king of Babylon (by Cyrus?), he would have been born in 600 B.C. If Sayce is right in supposing that Astyages was a Scythian who conquered Media, Darius the Mede may have been the heir of Cyaxares. The defection of the Medes under Harpagus during the battle between Astyages and Cyrus would be accounted for if we could be certain that Astyages was a Scythian conqueror of the Medes. The Medes in this case were simply going over to their kinsmen the Persians and throwing off the yoke of the foreign despot who had subdued them.*)

                4. Prince points out that the Annals of Nabonidus and the Cyrus Cylinder make no mention of a ruler of Media between Astyages and Cyrus. In this they agree with Daniel.

                5. The Annals of Nabonidus and the Cyrus Cylinder are said to make no mention of any king of Babylon intervening between Nabonidus and Cyrus. To this statement we take exception because of the ambiguity of both terms of the phrase “king of Babylon,” and because of the use of the word “intervening.” As has been shown elsewhere, the Aramaic word for king may denote the son of a king, the ruler of a city, of a province, or of an empire. (* Studies in the Book of Daniel, Series One, pp. 90-94.*) Babylon, also, may mean the city of Babylon, or the lower region of the Euphrates-Tigris valley, or the whole Babylonian empire. Now, it is true that the records of Nabonidus and Cyrus do not mention a king of the empire as intervening between Nabonidus and Cyrus; but the records of Nabonidus and Cyrus do speak of many kings as reigning in subordination to them. Thus, in the Abu-Habba Cylinder (I, 45), Nabonidus refers to the kings, princes, and governors which the gods had made subject to him, and in I, 27, speaks of Astyages and the kings who helped him ; and Cyrus in his Cylinder Inscription says that all the kings from the upper to the lower sea came to Babylon and kissed his feet. In the Chronicle, also, the kings of the sea-land (i.e. Phenicia) who were subject to Nabonidus are mentioned. (* Reverse 3.*) In the Abu-Habba Cylinder, (I, 29), Cyrus king of the land of Anzan is called the “little servant of Astyages.” In the Chronicle (lines 15-17), Cyrus king of Persia is said to havecrossed the Tigris below Arbela and to have killed a king who must have been a sub-king to Nabonidus, king of Babylon. Neriglissar in the Cambridge Cylinder (I, 14) calls himself the son of Belshumishkun king of Babylon. This Belshumishkun must have been king of the city of Babylon at some time when Nabopolassar or Nebuchadnezzar was king of the empire; for the Chaldean empire began in 626 B.C., and the reign of Neriglissar began in 559 B.C. (* Of course if he were sixty-seven or over when he began to reign, his father may have been king of Babylon before Nabopolassar. In this case he must have been sub-king to Shamashshumukin or to Ashurbanipal king of Assyria ; for the latter was overlord of Babylon till his death in 626 B.C.*)  It is probable that a son of Nabonidus of the same name and title as his father was king of Harran while his father and overlord was still reigning as king of the empire of Babylon. (* See the Eshki-Harran Inscription edited by Pognon.*) Belshazzar is treated as king when his name is used in an oath along with that of his father. Besides, his father invokes the gods to bless him just as he invokes them to bless himself. Antiochus in like manner joins his son Seleucus with him and expressly calls his son king. (* Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, III, u, 139.*)  The “son of the king” who commanded Nabonidus’ armies in Accad was probably Belshazzar and in the 10th year of Nabonidus this son seems to have been made governor (Aramaic, malka “king”) of Erech. (*Id., 133.*) He would be the natural successor in the kingship over Babylon as soon as his father was made prisoner by Cyrus at Sippar. Gubaru the governor (pihu) of the land of Gutium took Babylon for Cyrus and was then made governor (pihu) of the city of Babylon, a position which he seems to have been occupying as late as the 4th year of Cambyses. (* cf . Footnote 14 supra.*) Finally Cyrus and Cambyses were both kings of Babylon at once. (* See, Studies in the Book of Daniel, Vol. 1. I32f.*)

                The above evidence proves that Nabonidus, Astyages, and Cyrus were all kings of kings, and that in the two accredited instances of Belshumishkun and Cambyses these sub-kings were called on the Babylonian monuments and in the Babylonian language king (sliarru) of Babylon. Gubaru, also, although he is not called sharru is called shaknu of Babylon and this would in Aramaic be equivalent to malka “king” of Babylon. “Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” The necessity for supposing that, if Daniel is true, there must have been a king intervening between Nabonidus and Cyrus does not exist. Like many other objections to the statements of the Bible, it is not merely unsupported by the evidence we possess, but is absolutely contrary to it. 6. Who the Cyaxares of Xenophon may have been, or whether he existed at all, is a question of importance for students of Xenophon, or historians of Media or Cyrus; but we agree with Professor Prince that there is not sufficient evidence to justify us in supposing that he was the same as Darius the Mede of Daniel. The same may be said of the Darius of Eusebius.

                7. As to the word darik, it is now generally agreed that it has  probably no connection with the name Darius, since it occurs in a contract tablet from the reign of Nabonidus. (* Strassmaier : Inschriftcn von Nabonidus, 1013, 26.*)

                The conclusion, then, to be derived from this long discussion of Darius and the Medes is that Darius the Mede is one of the hundreds of sub-kings who reigned over parts of the great empires of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, and Persians, whose name has been rescued from oblivion because of his connection with the prophet Daniel. Who he was and what he was we may never definitely determine. Most probably, he was either the same as Gubaru to whom Cyrus entrusted the government of Babylon immediately after its capture, or a greater sub-king who ruled over Media as well as Assyria and Babylonia and Chaldea, or a subordinate of Gubaru who we know was governor of Gutium before he was given the government of Babylon. But, whoever he was and whatever the extent of his government, there is no intimation in Daniel, or elsewhere, that he ever ruled over an independent kingdom, or that he ever was king of the Medes, or that his kingdom intervened between that of Nabonidus and Cyrus. Consequently, that the second empire of Daniel was that of the Medes is a figment of the critics’ imagination. With no evidence in support of its existence, it should be dropped from all serious discussion of the meaning of the predictions of Daniel.             Having thus ruled out the supposititious Median empire, the four kingdoms of Daniel’s visions will be the Babylonian, the Persian, the Greek, and the Roman, as has been held by most of the ablest Christians interpreters from the earliest times to the present. (* It seems, also, to have been the view of our Lord ; for he speaks of “the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel” as being about to be fulfilled in its true import in the time future to his own (Matt. xxiv, 15). No new evidence has appeared since the old commentaries were written that could cause us to change the traditional interpretation. On the contrary, the new evidence is preponderatingly in favour not merely of the historicity of Daniel, but of the old view of the meaning of his predictions.*)

                Darkness & Light in Daniel’s Predictions.

                It is assumed by the critics, (1) that the part of Daniel which treats of the Ptolemies and Seleucids down to the year of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes is substantially correct, and (2) that all before and after this is enveloped in darkness. (* Bevan, Comm. p. 162; Cornill, Introduction, p. 384.*)

                 1. With the first statement, all conservative scholars will agree. The part of Daniel concerned with Antiochus Epiphanes is correct as far as we can judge, but it is frequently enveloped in the same kind of darkness that is supposed to characterize the rest of the book. In their commentaries, the radical critics admit this “darkness.” In their attempts at interpretation of the passages referred to Epiphanes, they indulge in such words as “probable,” “incorrect,” author’s “ignorance of facts,” and obscurity “owing to our ignorance regarding the history of Israel at this period.” (* See Prince, Commentary, pp. 171-188.*) They disagree among themselves and resort to many violent changes of the text in order to make it suit their conception of what it ought to be. The most damning evidence of their inability to make the account of Antiochus Epiphanes harmonize with their view of the date of Daniel occurs in 11:40-45. DeWette-Schrader put the time of writing Daniel at between 167 and 164. (* Einleitung, p. 507.*) Driver at some- time about 168 B.C.; 30 and Cornill asserts that it must have been written between the end of December 165 and June 164, thus probably in January 164. (* L.O.T., p. 497.*) (*id., p. 390.*) But the commentators of the radical school say that the campaign against Egypt spoken of in verses 40-43 never occurred. (* Prince, p. 186 ; Bevan, p. 198.*) Yet we are expected to believe that the people of Israel were such a lot of innocents ( ?) and ignoramuses as to accept shortly after it was written this book as a genuine and authentic work of a great prophet living 400 years before ! It was, says Cornill, “the work of a pious Jew, loyal to the Law, of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was animated with the desire to encourage and support his persecuted and suffering comrades.” (* Introduction, p. 388.*)   Bevan asserts that “everything combines to show that the Book of Daniel is, from beginning to end, an exhortation addressed to the pious Israelites in the days of the great religious struggle under Antiochus Epiphanes.” (* Comm. p. 23.*) Prince makes it a “consolation to God’s people in their dire distress at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. (* Comm. p. 24. *)  Bevan asserts that it was “read aloud in public.” (* Comm. p. 25. *) All are agreed that it was known in the Maccabean times, for the author of First Maccabees cites from it. (*1st Mac. 2:59,60.*)

                And yet, we are asked to believe, that those men who had lived through the whole reign of Epiphanes and must have known all about his various campaigns accepted a work as historical and its predictions as having been fulfilled, when it speaks of a whirlwind conquest of Egypt which never took place at all! Why, it is fifty-three (53) years since the American war of secession, and there are tens of thousands of us now living who were boys in 1865 and thousands of veterans of the blue and of the grey who would laugh to scorn a historian who attempted to palm off on us a third Bull Run, or to add to the campaign of Antietam and Gettysburg a third great invasion of the Northern States under the command of General Lee! But if the historian camouflaged himself as a prophet of the Lord and sought to encourage us in these troublous times by stating that in his third campaign, Lee had captured Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, but had suddenly turned back across the Potomac because of rumours which he had heard from the west and from the south, we would peremptorily reject his whole series of stories and visions as a tissue of lies and would refuse to be comforted by all his exhortations and consolations. We would inevitably conclude that a book claiming to have been written four hundred years ago and narrating the marvellous interventions of God in behalf of his people in the days of old and predicting the persecutions and triumphs of the nation in our own times for our encouragement and support was an impudent and baseless forgery, provided that we saw clearly that the author was incontrovertibly wrong in his alleged prognostications with regard to the events which were transpiring before our very eyes.

                But, one can hear the supermen of Germany and their English and American scholars cry out in amazement, “You must not suppose that the Jews of Maccabean times were men of intelligence like us of to-day –Our people have die Kultur, la civilisation, the university professor, to guard them from the acceptance of such forgeries; but the Jews of Maccabean times were ignorant peasants, knowing nothing of criticism and sources.” In such an opinion there is some measure of truth. The average man of to-day has doubtless more both of learning and scientific knowledge than the average man then possessed. But this is not a matter of education but of memory and common sense, and in these two particulars there is no evidence to show that the men of to-day are superior to what they were two thousand years ago. At that time, when there were fewer books, the memories of men were most highly cultivated. Besides, there never was a man not an idiot who did not remember the great events of his own lifetime.

                Further, Daniel was not received by the common man alone, but by the leaders of the nation, by men like the Maccabees who had fought the armies of this same Antiochus Epiphanes and with zealous care had watched all his wicked machinations against their people from the beginning of his tyrannical conduct unto the end of his career. This was a time also when the Greek learning was spread all over the countries that had been conquered by Alexander. Most of the Old Testament books had already been translated into Greek by Jewish scholars who were competent for their task. It was the age when Jewish writers of ability like Aristobulus, and Jason of Cyrene, and the Ben Siras, and the writers of First and perhaps of Second Maccabees, and Wisdom and Judith and parts of Enoch flourished. The Jews of Egypt, Cyrene, Syria, Cyprus, and other parts of the Diaspora had adopted Greek as their language. A Hellenizing party had arisen even in Palestine itself which was ready to accept the innovations imposed by the Syrian king and prided itself on its Greek citizenship and customs. Alexandria and Antioch with their teeming Jewish populations were already the rivals of Athens and the centres of Greek learning. The critics of Alexandria were discussing the text of Homer and the works of Plato and Aristotle, and some at least of their Jewish scholars would be acquainted with their methods. Polybius, that great historian of Rome, was writing his unsurpassed discussion of how history should be written and condemning in unsparing terms the false statements of Timaeus, Calisthenes and the others of their kind. In order to prevent interpolations, the works of AEschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides had been collected at Athens in a standard edition which later was secured through fraud by Ptolemy Philadelphus for his library at Alexandria. As to the sacred writings of the Jews, they were most certainly looked upon with the deepest veneration long before the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. This is attested, not merely by the fact that most of them at least had been translated into Greek before this time, but also by the fact that the astute tyrant saw the necessity of destroying the books if he would destroy the religion based upon them, and by the further fact that the Jews preferred death to the giving up of their sacred writings.

                Now, the radical critics, without any direct evidence to support them, profess to believe that, into the midst of these sacred writings for which men readily died, a forged document of unknown authorship and (according to the critics) full of easily detected errors and of doctrines unrecognized in the Law and the other books of the Prophets was quietly admitted as a genuine and authentic writing of a prophet hitherto unknown to history. They would have us believe that this fictitious volume became immediately the model of a vast amount of similar literature and they admit that in the New Testament its influence is apparent almost everywhere and that “no writing of the Old Testament had so great a share in the development of Christianity.” (* Bevan, Comm., p.15, quoting Westcott.*) They admit, also, that in early times its canonicity and truthfulness were never seriously disputed by Jews or Christians. Truly, the credulity of these critics is pitiable in its eccentricities! They cannot believe in miracles and predictive prophecy which involve nothing but a simple faith in a wise and mighty and merciful God intervening in behalf of His people for His own glory and  their salvation; but they can believe that a lot of obstreperous and cantankerous Jews who through all their history from Jacob and Esau down to the present time have disagreed and quarreled about almost everything, or nothing, could have accepted, unanimously and without a murmur, in an age when they were enlightened by the brilliant light of Plato’s philosophy, and Aristotle’s logic, and the criticism of the schools of Alexandria, a forged and fictitious document, untrue to the well-remembered facts of their own experience and to the easily ascertained facts concerning their own past history and the history of the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and Greeks of whom the author writes. Such a psychological improbability, devoid of any direct evidence in its support, let the critic believe if he can. Your unsophisticated servant prefers his belief in predictive prophecy to any such quixotic and scholastic attempts to belittle and besmirch a book simply because we cannot understand the why and the how of all the extraordinary deeds and doctrines that are recorded there.

                2. As to the second part of the assumption of the critics, to wit, that all the records of Daniel before the time of the Seleucids and after June 164 B.C., is “enveloped in darkness,” the whole of the first volume of Studies in the Book of Daniel is intended to show that this is not true of the historical part which treats of the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus. As to the predictions which touch matters subsequent to June 164 B.C., the visions and interpretations of Daniel were no more veiled in darkness to those who lived in the sixth century B.C., than were those of Jacob, Moses, Balaam, Nathan, David, Isaiah, and Zechariah to those of their time, or than the predictions of Jesus, Peter, Paul, and John to the men of the first century A.D. The prophets, we are told on the highest authority, foretold many things which they themselves did not fully understand, let alone their hearers, but which they “desired to look into.” (*1st Peter 1:10,11.*) To the question of the disciples as to when the things of which Jesus spoke should be, the Lord replied: No man knoweth these things but the Father. (*Mat. xxiv, 3, 36.*)  The predictions of Daniel in regard to the resurrection, the judgment, the world kingdoms, and the Messiah, are no more obscure or difficult of interpretation than are some of those in the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Book of the Revelation of St. John. Of course, those who do not believe in God, nor in a revelation from God to man, nor in any superhuman prediction of future events, will reject alike the predictions of Daniel, Jesus, Paul, and John. But for those who call themselves Christians to deny the resurrection, the judgment, the second coming, and other predicted events, is absurd enough to make all the logicians in Hades laugh and all the angels weep. To reject a book from the sacred writings because it contains such statements with regard to the future, is to reject that in the book which most of all makes it sacred. For the distinguishing characteristic of sacred as contrasted with profane writings is this very fact, that they do contain, or are related to, such predictions. The most precious promises of the gospel from the protoevangelium to the last verses of the Book of the Revelation of St. John all refer to that blessed future which now we see through a glass darkly, but where we are assured sorrow and sin and death shall be no more. To the true Christian those things to come are the brightest things in all the universe, the anchor of the soul sure and steadfast; but the ‘god’ of this world has blinded the eyes of the children of disobedience, lest seeing with their eyes they should believe and be converted. Woe to the so-called Christian who under the pretence of a science falsely so-called denies the reality of revelation. Like Esau, he has sold his birthright of the hope of eternal glory for a mess of pottage, the beggarly elements of worldly wisdom and pride. (* For a thorough discussion of this subject, see Pusey’s Lectures on Daniel, pp. 60-233.*)

                Importance of Antiochus Epiphanes.

                The time has now arrived to grapple with the most insidious and treacherous attack that has been made upon the Book of Daniel. It is insidious because it claims to be philosophical and scientific.  It is treacherous in so far as it is made by professing Christians.  A philosopher who believes that God wound up the universe, like a clock, and then let it run its course without any interference, must refuse to accept the Book of Daniel as true. So, also, must one who thinks that nothing contrary to the ordinary course of human or natural events can be proved by testimony. A scientist (or shall we say sciolist?) who thinks he knows that the laws of nature are binding on their Creator and that a modern chemist or psychologist or animal trainer can manipulate the elements, or the minds of men, or of lions, better than the Almighty, will not hesitate to reject Daniel because of the extraordinary events recorded there as having been wrought by God. But a Christian who necessarily accepts the principles of theism, and who consequently believes in God’s intervention in the affairs of men, and in predictive prophecy as well as miracle, cannot refuse to accept the Book of Daniel as historical and reliable, as authentic, genuine, and veracious, simply because of the character of its predictions. Now, in works already published (* Especially in Studies in the Book of Daniel, Series One (1916).) and elsewhere in this volume we have endeavoured to show, that the objections against Daniel based upon the alleged inaccuracy of its statements about the age of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus are unfounded, that the argument from silence as illustrated in Ecclesiasticus and other cases is fallacious, that the argument from Daniel’s place in the present Hebrew Bible has no basis to rest on, and that the origin and influence of its ideas and its background including its language are in harmony with its claims to have been written in the sixth century B.C. in a Babylonian environment. (*See above, Introduction p. 51)  There remains but one important obstacle standing in the way of the Christian who desires to follow Christ and the apostles in their apparent acceptance of the Book of Daniel as being what it purports to be. It is the fact that Antiochus Epiphanes looms so high in the mind of the prophet. It is difficult to account for the prominence given to this “contemptible” monarch in the midst of a narrative that opens with an account of Nebuchadnezzar the king of great Babylon that he had built, that thinks Cyrus the founder of the Persian empire to be worthy of the merest reference, and that alludes to Alexander the Great in the most cursory fashion. Why should Epiphanes be selected from all the successors of Alexander, the Ptolemies, the Seleucids, Perdiccas, Eumenes, Antigonus, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and the rest? Why should he be given forty verses, or more, of a book which barely squints at the Persian kings, and never gives but a glimmering intimation that the Roman fleets and legions were to become in his time the masters of the world? Why should a vision predicting with such accuracy and detail the campaigns of the kings of the North and the South never allude to that unequalled family of heroes who were to begin at Modin the liberation of God’s people and scatter like the leaves of Vallombrosa the numerous and frequent hosts of deadly enemies who were to desolate the homes and attempt to suppress the religion of that Jehovah in whose name the prophet spoke? Why above all was his detailed vision to cease with the renovation of the temple and fade off into dim outlines when it passed beyond that time into the more distant vistas but the more glorious hopes of the Messianic kingdom? Why especially should he describe the true course of events in Epiphanes’ expedition against Egypt till the year 169 and then picture another campaign which according to the critics never occurred at all?

                These and similar questions have vexed the righteous souls of many who would like to believe in the real Daniel and who have no prejudices against the possibility of the kind of predictive prophecy alleged to be found in the book. They can accept the first six chapters which record the striking occurrences in the lives of Daniel and his companions. They can accept the principle of the possibility and the fact of divine revelation of future events. But they hesitate at accepting the whole, at least, of Daniel, because they see no good and sufficient reason why he should have narrated with such length and clearness the history of the Seleucids up to the death of Epiphanes and have given so much emphasis to the deeds of this tyrant while barely mentioning such superlatively and relatively important events as the resurrection, the judgment, and the kingdom of the Messiah.

                Now, in order to remove this hesitation, it may seem to some sufficient to affirm our belief that these predictions might have been made by God through Daniel, even though we could perceive no good reason for them. We think, however, that we can perceive a good and sufficient reason for them, one at least that justifies them in our estimation, and we shall proceed to state it, in order that if possible we may make the ways of God appear just to the men of little faith.           

                It appears to us, then, that the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes was one of the most important events in the history of the church. It can be rivalled only by the call of Abraham, the giving of the Law, the Captivity, and the Incarnation. Among all the crises to which the people of God have been subjected, it can be compared only with the dispersion in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The return of the exiles had been definitely foretold by Jeremiah, and Jeremiah’s prediction was known and pondered by Daniel. (* See Dan. 9:2.*) He was not needed, nor was it given to him, to supplement the work of his great predecessor. But he performed a greater and more lasting service for the church. He showed clearly that all the tyrants of the earth were under the control of the God of heaven, that the kingdoms of this world were foreordained by Him and should at last be superseded by the Kingdom of the Messiah and his saints, and he encouraged the people not merely of his own time but of all time to be steadfast in the midst of fiery trials and deadly perils of all kinds in view of the certainty that God could and would eventually circumvent or crush the tyrants and deliver the innocent for time and for eternity.

                Now, the deadliest peril that the church has ever confronted was the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to suppress it utterly. For reasons of state, and perhaps also of religion, he determined to enforce conformity of worship throughout his dominions. His plan of operations was the most astute that has ever been devised. He ordered the cessation of circumcision, the sign of the covenant between the people and their God and that which held them together as a race. He stopped the services in the temple and instituted in their stead the worship of Jupiter. He set up idol altars in every city and demanded that every Jew should sacrifice according to the heathen ritual which he had introduced. He commanded that the holy writings should be destroyed so that the laws and customs and institutions might be gradually but surely forgotten and eliminated. And for all who refused to accept these severe and stringent regulations and requirements he pronounced the penalty of death; whereas he crowned with honours and emoluments all who apostatized and renounced the God of their fathers. The result of his well calculated machinations was almost complete enough to equal the most sanguine expectations. Most of the Jewish people seem to have cast away without any apparent qualm the hereditary claims of race and country and religion, and to have grasped with eagerness the proffered hand of the subtle enemy of their faith. The blood-thirsty tyrant executed his threats of death upon all who opposed his will. Men, women, and children were ruthlessly slaughtered. Whole families were extirpated for the guilt of one of their number. The chosen people were on the point of being annihilated and the promises and the hopes of the covenant of being annulled forever.

                There never was, before or since, such a period of desperation and despondency in the history of the church. Pharaoh’s aim had been to destroy the race, but the promise to Abraham had been fulfilled through Moses and Joshua. Nebuchadnezzar had carried the people captive and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple; but the sacred books had been preserved, apostasy was rare, and through God’s servants, the kings of Persia, the people and the temple were at length restored to their former worship, as it had been foretold by the prophets. But, now, under Epiphanes, was attempted what had never been proposed by Babylonian conqueror or Persian friends, the entire destruction of people and religion at one fell blow. Prophecy had ceased. The tribes of Israel were scattered over the earth, some foreign cities like Alexandria and Antioch having more Jewish inhabitants than Jerusalem. The Holy Land was largely in possession of the Gentiles. The Jews themselves had become indifferent to the Law. The High Priests were murdering each other and one of them when deposed at Jerusalem built a rival temple in Egypt. The whole polity of the Jews was disintegrated, all their fortresses and cities were in the hands of the enemy, they had no army and no leaders, and all seemed lost.

                Then it was that one man stood up and defied the haughty king. His name was Mattathias. He lived at a village named Modin. The heathen had constructed an altar. The priest was ready to sacrifice the victim when Mattathias slew him and made a fiery appeal to his fellow citizens to take arms against the tyrant. To hearten them, he called to mind the great deeds of their fathers and the faith that had inspired them. In the climax of his speech he referred to the fiery furnace and to Daniel in the den of lions. This recalled to them that their God could and would save those who put their trust in Him. They rallied round Mattathias and his five noble sons, the most valiant and able of them all. The pious sprang to arms and after many a hard fought fight the Syrians were overcome, and the kingdom of the Jews was reestablished under the Asmonean rulers. Had the attempt of Antiochus succeeded, the preparation for the coming of the Messiah could not have been completed. A people waiting for his appearing would not have been existent. A Diaspora eager to receive and disseminate the gospel would not have been ready. In short, the continuity of the church would have been destroyed, the records of the Old Testament might have disappeared as utterly as the archives of Tyre and the memoirs of Hannibal, the New Testament could not have been written, the life of Jesus would have been entirely different, the method of the early propagation of the gospel must have been altered and the whole plan of salvation changed.

                But, it will be said, how did the time when these alleged predictions of Daniel were written affect all this? Only in this respect, that it affords sufficient reason for their having been made so many years before. Just as the deliverance of the three children from the fiery furnace and of Daniel from the lions’ den on account of their faith in Israel’s God gave Mattathias a fitting climax in his speech inciting the people to steadfastness in their trials, so the knowledge that their evil condition had been foretold nearly four hundred (400) years before would strengthen the hearers’ confidence that the rest of the prediction would be fulfilled in the overthrow of the oppressor and in the ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God. The stupendous crisis justified the prediction; the prediction justified the expectation of deliverance. Because the hearers of Mattathias knew about the three children and Daniel, they were incited by Mattathias’ speech to emulate their conduct and to imitate their faith. Because the learned leaders of the Jews believed that the visions were really those of Daniel, they accepted the book as true and received it as canonical. Had the history been fictitious, Mattathias would not have cited from it and the people would not have been roused by it. Had the visions not been considered genuine, the educated church of that day would not have acknowledged the book as holy and its teachings as divine. Had the book not been deemed authentic, it would have been condemned as a forgery and would have failed in that purpose of consolation and encouragement to which all critics ascribe the reason of its existence. Because both people and rulers and literati esteemed the book to be authentic, genuine, and veracious, they placed it among those holy writing for whose preservation they willingly gave up their lives.

                No other satisfactory explanation of the canonization and influence of Daniel has ever been given. The theories that the Jews received into their canon all of their national literature, or all that was written in their own language, or all that was religious in character, all break down in view of the Book of Ecclesiasticus alone; for it was written in Hebrew and is exceedingly religious and nationalistic. It is impossible also to see why First Maccabees and Tobit and the first and third sections of Enoch should have been rejected on the ground of not possessing these qualifications. Moreover, Jubilees, Judith, and the Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs are religious and nationalistic in an eminent degree. We are shut up, therefore, to the conclusion that the sharp-witted and intensely conscientious Jews of the second century B.C., who determined the limits of the canon, investigated thoroughly the origin, purpose, and contents, of the books which they accepted as authoritative as a rule of faith and practice, and that Daniel, if a forgery, could not have escaped detection and rejection when subjected to their intelligent and searching scrutiny.

                It is utterly irrelevant to assert that there were many “pious frauds” that were put forth during the second century B.C. and later, and that consequently Daniel must have been a fraud. There are three inadmissible assumptions in this proposition.

                1. It is assumed that the proof that one document is a forgery, or fraud, or fiction, shows that another is of the same character. You might as well assume that all coins are counterfeit because some are. You might as well assume that Polybius was a liar as he asserts that Ephorus and Timaeus were; that Cicero’s and Pliny’s letters were not authentic, because the epistles of Phalaris have been demonstrated by Bentley to have been written 500 years after Phalaris was dead; that all the tragedies of Euripides were falsely ascribed to him, because some are acknowledged to have been written by other and unknown authors; that the four canonical gospels were identical in origin with the gospel of Peter and those of the Infancy; that the lives of Augustine and Jerome were of the same character as those of St. Anthony and St. Christopher; that the decrees of Constantine, Theodosius, and Charlemagne in favour of the papacy were forged because the decretals of Isodore are false; that all parts of Ashurbanipal’s Annals are unreliable because some parts certainly are; that Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War are spurious because his Commentaries on the Civil War may be. In short the argument is absurd. For counterfeits involve the existence of the genuine; forgeries presuppose similar documents that are authentic; fictions are but the shadows of very similitude. The Jewish religious authorities accepted the Book of Daniel because they believed it to be authentic, genuine, and true. They rejected Tobit, Judith, Enoch, Jubilees, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings, because in their judgment they were lacking in one or more of these features.

                It may be attempted to escape this judgment by affirming that the Jews who accepted Daniel as canonical were deceived, or befooled, so that they decided wrongly with reference to this particular book. But this affirmation cannot be established as true. For the Jews who made the decision were living and present at the very time when the critics allege that Daniel was written and when the events described in the eleventh chapter, upon which the allegation is based, were enacted. Many of them had taken part in the glorious conflict for freedom and religion, and could no more be deceived as to what had happened than could the common soldiers of the Grand Army of the Republic who participated in the campaigns of Meade or Grant be deceived about the results of Gettysburg and Appomattox. As to the customs, they certainly would recognize anachronisms, incongruities, and inconsistencies better than we can do to-day after two thousand years have passed. As to the languages also, it is passing strange, if they contain so many marks of Hebrew and Aramaic of Maccabean times as the critics claim, that the Hebrew purists did not recognize the anachronisms; and, on the other hand, if the book were designed for a stimulus to the common people, how does it come to contain so many uncommon words and so many difficult constructions as to have rendered it largely “unintelligible” (to use Bevan’s word) to the Hebrews who, shortly after it was written (if we accept the critics’ date), translated it into Greek. It must have been hard to fool a people as to what was good Hebrew in the age that produced the Ben Siras, for the grandfather certainly knew how to write good Hebrew, unadulterated with foreign words and clear in its rhetoric and grammar; and the grandson knew both Hebrew and Greek well enough to make a magnificent version of his grandfather’s work. As to the Aramaic portions of the book, if they were, as Bevan suggests to be probable, a version of the original Hebrew by the author himself, the decision as to the date of the original would be made regardless of the peculiarities of the Aramaic version. If, however, the Aramaic was the original, it seems hard to account for the use, in a work designed to comfort the people, of so many words that must have been unintelligible to them; for there is no proof in favour of, and the analogies are all against, the probability of the presence of so many Babylonian and Persian words in an Aramaic composition of the second century B.C. (* See the writer’s article on “Babylon and Israel” in the Presbyterian and Reformed Review for April 1903, pp. 239 f.*) To say that the author, like another Chatterton, had dived into the records of the past and drawn from them a number of antique expressions in order to give credence to his forgery and to deceive his readers, breaks down because of three considerations: (1) a scholar with learning enough to investigate such ancient documents in order to give an antique colouring to his writings would certainly have used the antique spelling and pronouns, whose absence from Daniel is the strongest objective argument against its early date; (2) he would have used the eastern forms of the verb, if, as the critics affirm, those eastern forms were different from those of Palestine; and (3) he could hardly have known so much of the character of the ancient documents without having more knowledge of the times in which they were written than the critics ascribe to him.

                3. There remains, then, only the hypothesis that the writer of the book and those who accepted it as true were united in an endeavour to impose upon the common people. The chief objection to this hypothesis is that there is not a single item of evidence in its favour. It is absurd to suppose that men who were willingly giving up their lives for the preservation of their holy writings from destruction would have been participants in a fraud to perpetuate the Book of Daniel as one of their holy writings. But since such general charges of fraud without specifications and proofs are beneath the notice of a sober, scientific, historian, we leave the consideration of the charge of fraud until such time as the critics advance a specific charge with alleged proofs in its behalf. The investigation and arraignment of unexpressed motives and plausible possibilities are hereby relegated to the speculative philosopher and the examiner of psychological phenomena; the undeniable fact is that history knows nothing of the alleged composition and publication and canonization of the Book of Daniel in the Maccabean age. When it first emerged into historic view, it was already stamped with the same authority as the other books of the Old Testament. Its authenticity, genuineness, and veracity have never been denied except by those who have disbelieved in miracle and predictive prophecy and by some weak-kneed Jews and Christians of these later decades who have thought that they were scientific when they were merely blind followers of the blind. Scientific? This word implies knowledge. And where did they get their knowledge? Let the critics produce it. Where are their facts in evidence? The great jury of Christendom demand that they be produced. History and philology and archaeology have been searched for centuries and they have failed to present a single fact of direct evidence in support of the critics’ positions. The time is past when a German professor can pound his desk and overawe his submissive students with the shout, “Meine Herren, es ist unmōglich,” or “Es ist ganz selbstverstāndlich.”

                We Christians demand some facts to prove that the Book of Daniel is false before we will admit the charge from any man. We still believe that Christ and the Apostles and the Maccabean and Rabbinical Jews knew more about the origin and veracity and authority of Daniel than the critics do or can know. The vociferous and continuous cry of “all scholars agree” has weight only with those who are ignorant of what these scholars really know. As a fact, they know very little about Daniel, or any other Old Testament book, except what the book testifies as to itself. Against this firsthand and direct testimony they put forth a host of conjectures and opinions and ask the world to accept them as the testimony of science and scholarship. They set up their golden calves of what they call history and criticism and cry out: These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. They make a golden image of their own reason and imagination and command that all men shall bow down and do homage, in pain of being cast into the fiery furnace of their professional contempt and branded as bigots and ignoramuses. But the church of Christ will never bow down to this image, and God will deliver it from all evil and in the fiery furnace of the world’s criticism there will always be one like unto the Son of God to save it from all its foes. In the case of Daniel, Daniel is with us and Christ is with us. Caveat criticus!

                22. Seder Olam Rabba.    Brief Explanation of Daniel Chapter 9.  Jewish Rabbinical Views: Daniel 9:24-27.

                {{ I. Seder Olam Rabba. “The Succession of Ages the Greater.” An Ancient Hebrew Chronicle. Translated at the Expense of the Chronological Institute of London. Revised & Edited, with Explanatory Notes, etc. by John Williams, F.S.A.  Honorary Secretary of the Institute. London. 1861. gs [Great World Order (Chronology); Universal (Timeline) History of Ages (Generations); Major Biblical Chronology.]

                Chapter XXVIII: Daniel. 1st Temple & Jerusalem Destruction. Babylonian Exile & 70 Years Captivity. Darius & Cyrus Decrees. Remnant Return & Rebuild Jerusalem & Temple.

                “And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.” (Dan. 2:1). It does not appear how it can be said “in the second year.” But the Scripture reckons the years from the destruction of the Temple, as also the months from the same event.  In like manner it is written, “And it came to pass, in the seven-and-thirtieth (37th) year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in the twelfth (12th) month, in the five-and-twentieth (25th) day of the month, that Evil-merodach,” &c. (“lifted up the head of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, and brought him out of prison”) (Jer. 52:31). In another place of Scripture it is said (speaking of the same event), “In the 27th day of the month.” (2nd Kings 25:27). What therefore is signified by the twenty-fifth (25th) and the twenty-seventh (27th)? Because on the twenty-fifth (25th) day of the month Nebuchadnezzar, his adversary, died, and was buried; and on the twenty-sixth (26th) day Evil-merodach had his body torn out of the sepulchre  and dragged about, by which act his decrees were abolished, that it might be fulfilled, as is written of him, “But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch,” &c. (Isa. 14:19). (* According to Aburbanel this was because he feared Nebuchadnezzar might possibly return to life, and again take upon himself the administration of affairs, as, after having been “driven from men and eating grass as oxen,” (Dan. 4:33), he had done before.)  But on the 27th day “he lifted up the head of Jehoiachin.” (Jer. 52:31).

                At the same time Zedekiah died, concerning whom this lamentation was made, Alas! King Zedekiah is dead, who has drunk the dregs of all former ages, that this Scripture might be fulfilled, “But thou shalt die in peace,” &c. (Jer. 34:5.) From this we may understand that those with whom all things are prosperous should fear a reverse; and, on the other hand, however deep they may be sunk in adversity, they should not despair of a good and prosperous change. Whence, I ask, have we this? It may be gathered from (the history of) Jehoiachin and Zedekiah.

                Nebuchadnezzar reigned 45 years; Evil-merodach, his son, 23; Belshazzar, the son of the last-named, three (3) years.

                “In the first (1st) year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream,” &c. (Dan. 7:1.) “In the third (3rd) year of the reign of King Belshazzar, a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first.” (Dan. 8:1.) “Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand (1000) of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand (1000). Belshazzar commanded to bring the vessels,” &c., “that they might drink therein. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the house of God,” &c. “They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold,” &c. “In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand (and wrote over against the candlestick ” &c. “Then the king’s countenance was changed,” &c. (Dan. 5:1-6.)

                Thus was this Scripture fulfilled, “And he cried, A lion, my Lord,” &c. “The burden of Dumah. He calleth to me out of Seir, (Watchman, what of the night?)” &c. “The watchman said, The morning cometh (and also the night),” &c. (Isa. 21:8-12.) Who is intended by this watchman? God, holy and blessed, as we read, “Behold, He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.” &c.  “The Lord shall preserve  thee from all evil,” &c. (Ps. 121:4.) And thus with the entire psalm. Wherefore was this watchfulness? Lest nation should rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, lest even a thread should be taken away. But the kingdom whose time of ruin is to happen by day, shall fall in the daytime, and that whose danger threatens by night shall fall and perish in the night, as the prophet declares, “And Koph shall have distresses daily,” &c.; “at Tehaphnehes also the day shall be darkened,” &c. (Ezek. 30:16-18.)

                This is that which is declared, “In that night was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans, slain; and Darius the Mede took the kingdom, being about threescore and two (62) years old.” (Dan. 5:30,31.) What, I ask, does this signify, about threescore and two (62) years old? It signifies, that Darius was raised up as an enemy to Nebuchadnezzar at the very time when he seized on the Temple, in the days of Jeconiah. In the same manner, on the day that Jehu was anointed in Ramoth Gilead, Hazael, his enemy, was also anointed. (2nd Kings 8; 9.)

                Thus are fulfilled the 70 years from the time when Nebuchadnezzar began to reign, and 70 less one from the time when he subdued Jehoiakim. But Darius remained yet one year in Babylonia, according to this, “In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans.” (Dan. 9:1.)     Here, in the original, the following note occurs, relating to the 70 years:—

                But we may wonder how it can be affirmed that seventy years were fulfilled from the time when Nebuchadnezzar began to reign, when there were really not more than 69 years; for when you reckon 37 years from the captivity of Jehoiakim, which occurred in the eighth year of his reign, to Evil-merodach, and reckon backward the years of Nebuchadnezzar, seven only remain; and Nebuchadnezzar appears from this to have reigned only 44 years, even when imperfect or incomplete years are included. (* The mode of reckoning appears to be this: Jehoiakim reigns: 7 years.  Years of captivity: 37.  Making together years of Nebuchadnezzar: 44.   Evil-merodach reigns: 23.  Belshazzar reigns: 2 = 69 yrs total).

                The text goes on with —Neither do you find in the Scriptures any other year than this ascribed to the Mede.‘ (* i.e. that mentioned, Dan.  9:1, as above.)  A second note follows

                It also appears wonderful to me that, when in this book (the Seder Olam), chap. 29, it is stated that Cyrus the Mede held the kingdom for three years, not, however, complete years, it should be here said that ‘No other year can be found in the Scriptures, ascribed to the Mede, than this.’ How, then, can we say, in Megilla, fol. 11, 2, that the years of Darius and Cyrus were five, when we can find only four? It may be answered that the third year of Belshazzar, which preceded Darius the Mede, had not been completed, and that this year is to be considered as the first of Darius. Therefore, in the preceding section, as this third year had been attributed to Belshazzar, according to that which is written, “In the third (3rd) year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me” (Dan. 8:1), the author was unwilling to assign it to Darius; and of his second year, which is the fourth of Darius (it should be, “of Belshazzar”), which, however, was after his death, the Scripture says, “In the first (1st) year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus.” (Dan. 9:1.) It appears, however, he had then reigned two years, so that the Talmudical writers in the tract Megilla assign five years to Darius and Cyrus, although no other year is attributed by the Scriptures to the Mede besides this only, which, in reality, was the second year of Darius. It, therefore, appears that Darius remained in Babylonia one year, in which he completed the second year of his reign, and which indeed is the first properly ascribed to him. This much is to be noted.

                The text goes on with:   Thus Jeremiah says (51:46), “And lest your heart faint, and ye fear for the rumour that shall be heard in the land,” that is, for the rumor respecting Belshazzar, “A rumour shall both come one year,” that is to say, of Darius. “And after that in another year shall come a rumour,” of that which is predicted (Isa. 13:19), “And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms,” &c. “shall be,” &c. “And there shall be violence in the land,” that is, in Jerusalem. “And a conqueror,” Cyrus, king of Persia.

                “Also I in the first year of Darius, the Mede, even I stood to confirm and strengthen, and now I will show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia.” Dan. 11:1,2.) That is, Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and Darius, who rebuilt the Temple. But what is signified when it is said, “And the fourth shall be far richer?” That is to say, the fourth from Darius the Mede.

                And Daniel continued even unto the first  (1st) year of king Cyrus. (Dan. 1:21.) At what time were these things said? “At the beginning of this supplication the commandment came forth,” &c. “Seventy (70) weeks are determined upon thy people,” &c. “Know, therefore, and understand that, from the going forth of the commandment,” &c., “shall be seven (7) weeks, and afterwards sixty-two (62)weeks?” (Dan. 9:23, 27.) The seven weeks are those which they passed in exile and went up.  (* This mode of expression relates to the return from captivity.)

 The sixty-two (62) are those in which they remained in the land of Israel after their return. But one week is that in which they were partly in the land and partly out of the land. And after these sixty-two (62) weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, &c. “And he shall confirm the covenant with many (for one week.)” (9:27.)

                Rabbi Jose teaches us that the 70 weeks are to be reckoned from the destruction of the first Temple to that of the later one by the Romans. That is to say, 70 years during which it remained broken down and destroyed, and 420 during which it stood when rebuilt. But what do you mean by 70 weeks, when 70 years of the destruction had been already accomplished? It may be truly said that that decree had been ordained 70 years before (although now first revealed to Daniel.) In the same manner we read, “His days shall be 120 years.” (Gen. 6:3.) As, however, it is afterwards said, “In the 600th year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the 17th day of the month,” &c., “the fountains of the great deep were broken up,” &c. (Gen. 7:11), it may, therefore, be considered as implying that that sentence was to be understood as having been decreed 120 years before that relation. Of the same kind also is this, “And within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken that it be not a people.” (Isa. 7:8.) But the year in which these things were asserted was the fourth (4th) year of Ahaz. It may be said, therefore, that this sentence was decreed by the Lord, not at the time when this was written, but in the days of Amos, “two years before the earthquake” (Amos 1:1), as is written, “For this Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die b the sword, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of their own land” (Amos 7:11), and that it was a second time revealed to Isaiah.

                Chapter  XXIX: Ezra & Esther.

                “Now 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,” &c. “Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia,” &c. “Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin,” &c. (Ezra 1:1-5.) “The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore (42,360), besides their servants,” &c. (2:64,65.) Altogether, I say, there were 42,360, but taking them separately, only 30,360 are to be found; where, then, are the 12,000? They consisted of those truly who went up from the other tribes, and set up the altar upon his bases, &c. They gave money also unto the masons, &c. (3:3-7.)

                Cyrus held the kingdom for three (3) years, not, however, complete years.

                And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, &c. Then ceased the work of the house of the Lord. (4:6, 24.) In the third (3rd) year of his reign he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants, &c. Esth. 1:3.) For four (4) whole years Esther was kept in Shusan, in the royal city. Afterwards Esther was taken unto king Ahasuerus into his palace, in the 10th month (which is the month Tebeth), in the 7th year of his reign (2:16.) For five (5) whole years Haman had conceived in his mind the destruction of Mordecai. “In the first (1st) month, that is the month Nisan, in the twelfth (12th) year of king Ahasuerus, he commanded them to cast lots,” &c. “On the 13th of the month Nisan, Haman sent letters to destroy, to kill, and cause to perish all Jews,” &c. (3:7, 13.) On the 15th of Nisan (1st mnth), Esther came into the presence of the king, &c. On the 16th of that (1st) month they hanged Haman on the gallows. (5; 7.) On the 23rd of the third (3rd) month, which is called Sivan, Mordecai wrote letters that he might revoke the letters of Haman. The 13th of the month Adar (the day on which (the Jews were destined to be destroyed), the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, &c.; and in Shushan the palace, the Jews slew five hundred (500) men, and they hung the ten (10) sons of Haman, because they had written an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. On that day, the number of those that were slain in Shushan, the palace, was brought before the king. (8:9; 9:1, 5, 11.) At that time, in the following year, that of which we read happened; “Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail (and Mordecai the Jew), wrote (with all authority to confirm this second letter of Purim.)” (9:29.)

                The 70 years of which Jeremiah prophesied (Jer.29:10), “After 70 years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you,” are reckoned from the destruction of Jerusalem. For 52 years after the destruction of Jerusalem the Israelites passed their lives in the kingdom of Chaldea, then they were visited and went up. (* See note p. 66.) We have also three years of Cyrus, 14 of Ahasuerus, and two of Darius [19 yrs total], in whose second (2nd) year the Temple was built. Hence Zachariah speaks thus, “Then the angel of the Lord answered and said, O Lord of Hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?” (Zech. 1:12); this was on the 24th day of the 11th month, in the second year of Darius (7).

                For four consecutive years the Temple was building, as Ezra witnesses, “And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth (6th) year of the reign of Darius the king.” (Ezra 6:15.)

                At the same time in the following year, Ezra went up from Babylon with another company of exiles, according to that which is said, “This Ezra went up from Babylon, and he was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given,” &c. “And there went up some of the children of Israel, and of the priests, and the Levites,” &c., “in the seventh (7th) year of Artaxerxes the king. And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh (7th) year of the king. For upon the first day of the month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem,” &c. “For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Law of the Lord,” &c. (Ezra 7:6-10.) “And he came and separated Israel from strange wives.” (10:17.)

                Chapter  XXX: Nehemiah to End of Second Temple. Jerusalem’s Wall Repaired.

                “The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the 20th year, as I was in Shushan the palace,” &c. (Neh. 1:1.) Nehemiah remained 12 years in the land of Israel; be repaired the wall, and restored to the Israelites their city and their possessions. As he testifies, “But in all this time was not I at Jerusalem, for in the two and thirtieth (32nd) year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon came I unto the king,” &c. (13:6.) That is, from the 20th year unto the 32d —twelve (12) years. (v. 14.) Behold, Ezra says, “And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered,” &c. “according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.” (Ezra, 6:14.) But no kings of Persia can be found in the Scriptures excepting two, Cyrus and Darius, and two (kings) of the Medes, Darius and Ahasuerus. I say, therefore, that Cyrus as well as Darius (in this passage of Ezra), may have been the Artaxerxes (named by him), seeing that the whole kingdom, or rather all the kings were named Artaxerxes.

                The sum of all the years of the kings of Media and Persia amounts to 250 years (in the place of 250 we ought to write 52 [2 + 50 = 52] years). (* This appears to be a correction of the original text.)

                “So the priests, and the Levites, and the porters, and the singers, and some of the people, and the Nethinims, and all Israel, dwelt in their cities,” &c., “And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street,” &c. A little after, “And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity, made booths and sat under the booths, for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun, unto that day had not the children of Israel done so, and there was very great gladness,” &c. (Neh. 7:73; 8:2, 17.) But does it not appear that it could not be said that the same had not been done since the days of Joshua? But truly, he compares the entrance of the Israelites into their land in the days of Ezra with their entrance into it in the days of Joshua. Thus, as in the days of Joshua, they were bound to pay tithes, to observe the years of remission, and the Jubilees, and also the walled cities were sanctified, so at their entrance in the time of Ezra they were bound by the laws to pay tithes, to observe the years of remission, and the Jubilees, and they also sanctified their  walled cities, and there was great gladness before the Lord, as is eloquently written, “And there was very great gladness.” (8:17)

                Thus, in comparing the Scriptures, we find it spoken, “And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed (by inheritance), and thou shalt also possess it (by inheritance),” &c. (Deut. 30:5.) Here “thy possession” (in the time of Ezra) is compared with “ the possession of thy fathers” (in the time of Joshua). As thy fathers possessed this land by hereditary right, with the setting forth of all these things, so shall you possess it, with the renewal of all these things. If you say that Moses may have spoken of the third time of the acquisition of the inheritance, this place of Scripture will teach you the contrary, inasmuch as it says, “Which thy fathers possessed by inheritance, and thou also shalt possess it by inheritance.” This implies a first and second possession of the inheritance, but not a third.

                Moreover, “the rough he-goat is the king of Greece, and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.” (Dan. 8:31.) “And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion,” &c.; “and when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided towards the four winds of heaven.” (11:3,4.) This is Alexander of Macedon, who reigned 12 years.

                So far the prophets have prophesied by the Holy Spirit. From this time forth, as is written, “Bow down thine ear, and hear the words of the wise (and apply thine heart unto my knowledge), for it is a pleasant thing, if thou keep them within thee,” &c., “that thy trust may be in the Lord.” And it is added, “Have I not written to thee excellent things,” &c., “that I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth?” &c. (Prov. 22:17-21.) How is it we also read, “Ask thy father, and he will show thee, thy elders, and they will tell thee?” (Deut. 32:7.) What persons does he (Moses) mean by the word “elders?” Do not suppose he means those insignificant and common people who are to be met within the highways and public places, for he adds, “And they will tell thee.” He, therefore, denotes persons distinguished for their wisdom and knowledge.

                Rabbi Jose asserts that the Persian empire flourished thirty and four (34) years after the building of the Temple. The empire of the Greeks lasted 180 years, the rule of the Asmoneans (the Maccabees) 103 years, and the kingdom of the Herods also 103 years. Now, take out these numbers, and compute from the destruction of the Temple (by the Romans). To the captivity also is ascribed the era of contracts, being reckoned from the beginning of the kingdom of the Greeks.

                These are the eight kings of the Greeks: “Alexander of Macedon, Phirton, Selimon, Seleucus, Santarok, Antioch, Antiochus, Gaskalus. (* Most of these names are so much corrupted that it is almost hopeless to attempt to set them right. Phirton, however, may be Philip Aridaeus; Selimon, Ptolemy; Santarok, Cassander; Antioch, Antigonus; and Gaskalus, Lysimachus.) From the war of Asur Pul to the war of Vespasian (are) 80 years, during which the Temple was standing. (* Qu. what war was this?)  From the war of Vespasian to the war of Titus 24 years (it should be 4 years); from the war of Titus to the war of Ben Cosiba, 16 years; the war of Ben Cosiba lasted two years and a half; and thus 22 years were completed after the destruction of the Temple.

                Rabbi Jose says, Reward was granted in the day of deserving, and punishment in the day of sinning; for instance, when the Temple was first destroyed, that day was the eve of the Sabbath, and also was at the end of the seventh year (that of remission). It was also the watch and week of Jehojarib, and the ninth day of the month Ab (July). In like manner, thus it was, when t e second Temple was destroyed. On both these occasions the Levites stood on their platforms, and sang the chant. But what was the chant they sang? This: “And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness,” &c. (Ps. 94:23.) In the fourth month, on the ninth day of the month, the city was demolished, in the first destruction; and, on the 17th of the same month, in the second. “Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, forever. And let all the people say, Amen. Hallelujah.” “Blessed be God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things; and blessed be his glorious name forever,” &c. (Ps. 72:18,19.)

                “And he changeth the times and the seasons, he removes kings,” &c. (Dan. 2:21,22.) Times, that is the time of Sodom. The word seasons denotes the time of Jerusalem, that it may be restored shortly; to which wish let all reply, Amen. “He removes kings,” that is, king Jehoiakim. “And setteth up kings,” i.e. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. “He giveth wisdom unto the wise,” to Moses our master, the father of wisdom and knowled e. “And knowledge to them that know understanding,” to Joshua the son of Nun of whom we read, “And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom.” (Deut. 34:9.) Another interpretation, “ He giveth wisdom unto the wise,” to Joseph the just son of Jacob, of whom it was said, “There is none so discreet and wise as thou art.” (Gen. 41:39.) “And knowledge to them that know understanding,” to Daniel and his companions, of whom it is written, “Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision.” (Dan. 2:19.) “He revealeth the deep and secret things,” these are to be understood of the wheels of Ezekiel. “He knoweth what is in the darkness.” Understand by this the punishment which is inflicted upon the wicked in hell. “And the light dwelleth with him,” and by this the reward given to the just in a future state. Yet another exposition, “He giveth wisdom to the wise,” To Joshua, the son of Nun, of whom you find it written, “And Joshua, the son of Nun, was full of the spirit of wisdom.” (Deut. 34:9.) “And knowledge to them that seek understanding,” to Jeremiah, of whom this is written, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee,” &c. (Jer. 50:5.)

                If, however, you say that God knows things foretold only when they happen, you may learn the contrary from this passage, “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” (Gen. 5:1) By this the Scriptures teach that the Holy and Blessed God showed to the first man all succeeding ages, and their leaders and governors, their prophets in all ages, their holy men in’ all ages, their wise men in all ages, their pastors in all ages, their judges in all ages, their prophets in all ages.  (* Generations.)  The just of each generation, the number of their names, the computation of their days,‘|the calculation of their hours, and the whole of their steps, (* The length of their lives.) (* Their actions.) as it is written, “For now thou numberest my steps, dost thou not watch over my sin?” (Job 14:17.) and elsewhere, “And this was yet a small thing in thy sight, O Lord God, but thou hast spoken also of thy servant’s house for a great while to come,” &c. (2 Sam. vii. 19.) Again, “Thine eyes did see my substance,” &c. “And in thy book all my members are written,” &c. “How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God,” “If I should count them they are more in number than the sand; when I wake I am still with thee.” (Ps. 139:16, 18.) (sliqʼ  lh thniʼ  dsedrd)  (Thus endeth the teaching of the Seder Olam Rabba.) }}

\

                II. Daniel 9: True Biblical Interpretation. Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz. jewsforjudaism.org

                {{ A Brief Explanation of Daniel Chapter 9:

                The book of Daniel is filled with Messianic illusions and calculations that even left Daniel pondering their meanings. Additionally, a large proportion of the book is written in Aramaic rather than the traditional Hebrew adding to the complexity of these biblical texts. Is there something about the Jewish Messiah?

                The ninth chapter has been of particular interest to both Jews and Christians. The message of a merciful God communicated in verse 18, “for not because of our righteousness do we pour out supplications before You, but because of Your great compassion.” has been a foundation of a Jews personal and spiritual relationship with God. Christians, on the other hand, tend to focus on verses 24 -26. The following is the Christian translation of those verses:

                24) Seventy (70) weeks are determined upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

                25) Know therefore and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks (62); it will be built again with plaza and moat but in troubled times.                26) Then after sixty-two (62) weeks the Messiah will be cut off but not for himself and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

                Many Christians assert that these passages are a prophecy that predicts the exact dates that the Messiah will come and also die. They believe that Jesus fulfilled these predictions. Before examining these verses it is important to point out that: 1) Based on the Hebrew original and context, Jews have very valid reasons for rejecting the Christian interpretation and 2) the New Testament authors never quote these passages and calculations as a proof-text.

                To understand this chapter, we must begin with an explanation of the term “weeks.”               
Daniel chapter 9 uses the Hebrew word (shb‘im = Shavuim) to represents a period of time multiplied by seven. For various reasons this word is translated as “weeks” and means a multiple of seven years rather than a multiple of seven days.
a) We see a similar use in the verse, “You shall count (shb’ shbthth hshnim) seven Shabbaths of years, seven years seven times… forty-nine (49) years.” Leviticus 25:8 b) A Shabbath is a period of seven days and shares the same Hebrew root for the word (shby‘h = Shavuah) that means “week”. c) Normally the plural of week would be (shb‘yth = Shavuot) in Daniel it uses the masculine “im” ending for (shb‘im = Shavuim) similar to (years = shnim). This indicates that (shb‘im = Shavuim) is referring to a multiple of seven years. d) Both Jews and Christian agree that this is referring to a multiple of years.

                Therefore in Daniel chapter 9, each week is a period of seven years.

                Christian polemicists interpret these passages in the following way. These passages are being spoken by Daniel after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the evil Babylonian empire. At some point after the destruction, there will be a “decree” issued to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Starting from the issuing of that decree, 7 and 62 weeks totaling 69 weeks of years (483 years), will pass and then the Messiah will come and in that same seven year period “week” he will be cut off, but not for himself, but for the sins of mankind. Then the city and sanctuary will be destroyed. Christian assert that their calculation proves that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy to the exact day.

                After the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, any Jews that survived the Babylonian slaughter were exiled from their land. Daniel, for example, lived in Babylon. Eventually, the Babylonians were conquered by the Persian Empire. Christians claim that the decree mentioned in Daniel 9:25 was issued by the Persian King Artaxerxes in the year 444 BCE, based on Nehemiah 2:1-8. These passages speak about the king giving Nehemiah “letters” (’igruth = Iggrot) for safe passage and permission to rebuild the Temple.

                The building of Jerusalem was started and halted several times, and there are three additional decrees mentioned earlier in the Bible.

1) Ezra 1:1-4, King Cyrus issues a proclamation (qol = Kol) and writings  (mkthb = Michtav) granting the Jews permission to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.

2) Ezra 6:12-13, King Darius issues a decree (t‘am = Taam) granting permission to rebuild the Temple.

3) Ezra 7:11-16, Artaxerxes, issues a decree (t‘am = Taam) granting permission to rebuild the Temple. (Artaxerxex is a Persian title of royalty and can refer to different leaders. This is similar to the way Pharaoh is the title of rulers of Egypt)

                We will see latter that it is significant that in these verses there are four different words used to describe these proclamations, and none of them match the Hebrew word used in Daniel 9 which is (debar = Devar) that means “word.”

                With four different proclamations, there is no historical justification to choose the one mentioned in Nehemiah 2 and there is no reliable source stating that it occurred exactly in 444 BCE. It seems that Christians picked this passage out of convenience and assigned it this specific date, because if you start at 444 BCE and count 69 weeks of years (483 years) you reach 39 CE. Whatever their reason for choosing Nehemiah’s reference and attributing it as having occurred in 444 BCE it is still seven years off from the year 32 CE when Jesus supposedly died.

                This seven-year discrepancy is resolved by Christian theologians who redefined the definition of a “year.” They claim that prophecies like Daniel’s are to be understood in “Prophetic years” that have 360 days rather than 365 ¼ days. The argument that Daniel might be speaking to Babylonians who may have had a 360 year is unsubstantiated and refuted by the fact that this particular passage is spoken in Hebrew to Jews who had a different calendar than Babylonians who spoke Aramaic.

                Prophetic Year vs Solar Year.

                One Christian attempt to prove this concept of Prophetic years is from the New Testament: “They will tread underfoot the holy city for 42 months, and they will prophesy for 1260 days.” Revelations 11:2-3

                By dividing 1260 (days) by 42 (months) you get 30 days per month, they claim that each month is 30 days and a Prophetic Biblical year would therefore be being 360 days (30 x 12 = 360). An additional proof-text utilizes the events surrounding the flood. The following verses are quoted to show how biblical months were periods of 30 days, “the water prevailed upon the earth 150 days” Gen 7:24 and the flood started on, “the 17th day of the second month” Gen 7:11, and ended on, “the 17th day of the seventh month.” Gen 8:4.

                They argue that by taking this exact five month period and dividing it into the 150 days, you will see that there must be five months of 30 days each and therefore a year would be 360 days. The Christian argument continues that the difference between a solar year of 365 ¼ days and the so-called prophetic year of 360 days is what caused the seven-year discrepancy in their interpretation of Daniel 9, and the resolution of the problem is accomplished by converting the time period from “biblical” years to solar years.

                They argue that that by multiplying 360 days by 483 years (69 weeks of years) you get 173,880 prophetic days. To convert this to solar years, you divide the 173,880 days by 365 1/4 (days), and you will get 476 years. 444 BCE plus 476 years will give you the year 32 CE, which they claim is the year that Jesus not only made his triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Messiah’s arrival) but was also crucified (cut off ).

                Before explaining why this line of reasoning is absolutely false and a simply an act of desperation to resolve their 7 year miscalculation, we must explore the correct meaning of Daniel 9 and the concept of a Jewish calendar year.

                Translating Daniel Correctly.

It is essential to a correct understanding of Daniel 9, to point out that it is incorrect to read this passage as if it were speaking about the Messiah. This may appear [not] obvious to Christians since their translations has the word “Messiah” mentioned twice in this chapter; however this is the result of a blatant and intentional mistranslation of the Hebrew word (mshich = Moshiach).

                This word literally means “anointed” and is an adjective as in the 1 Samuel 10:1-2 where the word clearly means an act of consecration. It is not a personal pronoun that refers to a particular individual called “The Messiah.” The word (mshich = Moshiach) is used throughout Jewish Scriptures no less than 100 times and refers to a variety of individuals and objects. For example: Priests: Leviticus 4:3. Kings: 1 Kings 1:39. Prophets: Isaiah 61:1. Temple Alter: Exodus 40:9-11. Matzot = Unleavened Bread: Numbers 6:15. Cyrus = a non-Jewish Persian King: Isaiah 45:1

                Even in Christian translations, the word Moshiach is translated 99% of the time as “anointed.” The only exception is twice in Daniel 9 verses 25 and 26. This inconsistency is even more blatant since Christian translators translate the word (mshich = Moshiach) as “anointed” one verse earlier when it is used in Daniel 9:24. In this instance, it is referring to anointing the innermost chamber of the Holy Temple known as the “Holy of Holies,” (qdshim qdsh = Kodesh Kedoshim). It is incorrect to translate this, as some missionaries do, to mean the “most holy one” in an attempt to have this refer to the Messiah rather than a place.

                Therefore, in Daniel, the passages should be correctly translated as: Daniel 9:24 “Until an anointed prince” and not as “Until Messiah the prince.” Daniel 9:25 “an anointed one will be cut off” and not as “the Messiah will be cut off.”

                Additionally, in verse 25 there is no definite article (Hey = h) before the word (mshich = Moshiach), and it is incorrect to translate this as “the Messiah” or “the anointed one” as if it were speaking about one exclusive individual. When translating correctly as an “anointed individual,” the passages could be referring any one of a number of different individuals or objects that were anointed and not necessarily “the Messiah.”

                A careful examination of Daniel 9 will lead to a clear understand of exactly to whom and what this chapter is referring. An additional mistake made by Christians is the translation of 7 and 62 weeks as one undivided unity of 69 weeks. The Christian version makes it sound as if the arrival and “cutting off” of the “Messiah” will take place sixty-nine (69) weeks (483 years) after a decree to restore Jerusalem. They add the 7 and 62 weeks together and have one person (the Messiah) and two events occurring towards the end of the 69th week.

                Actually, according to the Hebrew the 7 and 62 weeks are two separate and distinct periods. One event happens after seven weeks and another event after an additional 62 weeks. Simply put, if you wanted to say 69 in Hebrew you would say “sixty and nine.” You would not say “seven and sixty two.”

                Furthermore, in Daniel it is written “7 weeks and 62 weeks” rather than “7 and 62 weeks.” The use of the word “weeks” after each number also shows that they are separate events. The use of the definite article (h = Hey) that means “the” in verse 26, “and after the 62 weeks shall an anointed one be cut off,” is sometimes deleted in Christian translations, but it’s presence in the Hebrew original clearly indicates that the 62 weeks is to be treated as separate period of time from the original 7 weeks.

                The correct translation should be: “until an anointed prince shall be 7 weeks (49 years),” “then for 62 weeks (434 years) it (Jerusalem) will be built again but in troubled times.” “Then after (those) the 62 weeks an anointed one shall be cut off.” Daniel 9:24-25

                Two separate events and anointed ones, 62 weeks (434 years) apart.

                Christians also incorrectly translated the Hebrew (V’ayn Lo = lo w’ain), at the end of Daniel 9:26. They translate it that he will be cut off “but not for himself,” as if it refers to someone being cut off not for himself but cut off for us and indicating a form of vicarious attainment. However the Hebrew original means “and he will be no more” literally “and no more of him” and indicates the finality of his demise. Interestingly the Hebrew word (kares = krth) translated as “cut off” biblically refers to someone who has sinned so grievously that they are put to death [or cast out, excommunicated; see all the occurences] by heavenly decree as a divine punishment for their own transgressions.

                An awareness of these eight mistranslations is essential to understanding the ninth chapter of Daniel. To recap:

1.  (qdshim qdsh) mean “holy of holies” not the “most holy one”.

2.  (dbr = Devar) that means “word” not decree.

3.  (mshich =  Moshiach) means “anointed” not “Messiah” verse 23.

4.  (mshich =  Moshiach) means “anointed” not “Messiah” verse 24.5

5.  “seven weeks and sixty-two (69) ” means two events one at 7 weeks and the other 62 weeks later not one event after a cumulative 69 weeks.

6. (Hey = h) mean “the”.

7. (V’ayn Lo = lo w’ain) mean “will be no more” not “not for himself”.

8. (kares = krth) means death [& severance] to a transgressor that cuts off their relationship to God.

                Jewish Calendar Years

                In addition to these these eight mistranslations Christians, as mentioned above, manipulate their calculation of the 69 weeks in Daniel 9 in an attempt to have them coincide with the arrival and death of Jesus in Jerusalem.

                Christians based their understand with a belief that the starting point of the prophesy begins in 444 BCE with the decree issued by King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-16). Sixty–nine (69) weeks (483 years) would bring you to 39 CE. This is 7 years off the commonly accepted date of 32 CE being the year Jesus was put to death. As mentioned above they attempt to resolve this issue by transforming “prophetic years” into solar years. The problem is that according to Jewish tradition and scriptures there is no such thing as a prophetic year of 360 days.

                Jewish scripture clearly teaches that the Jewish calendar is both Solar and Lunar. As early as Genesis 1:14, that deals with the creation of the sun and the moon, we are told that “Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years” Both luminaries are used to determine our calendar.

                A solar year is 365 1/4 days, and a lunar year is 11 days shorter, 354 days long. Unlike the Gentile’s year where the length of the months is set by convention rather than a relationship to the lunar calendar, a Biblical Jewish calendar must coincide with both the sun (for seasons) and the moon. When God, commanded the people of Israel to sanctify the months he established the month that the Exodus took place as the first of the months. Exodus 12:1. God also commanded to observe Passover in the springtime as is says, “Observe the month of springtime [Abib] and perform the Passover for God, for in the month on springtime [Abib] God took you out of Egypt.” Deut. 16:1.

                In other words, a biblical calendar must coincide the months with the seasons creating a Solar-Lunar calendar.

                There is an eleven day difference between a solar and lunar year. If Jewish holidays were established solely by a lunar year the holidays would move further and further away from their original seasons. This happens all the time with the Muslim Lunar calendar with Ramadan falling in a variety of seasons. A biblical Solar/Lunar calendar corrects this by adding a 13 month leap year approximately every 4 years. Some years have 12 months and the leap year has 13. The fabricated “prophetic year” of 360 days could not exist because it would not allow Jewish holidays to coincide with both months and seasons.

                Understanding Daniel:

                Now we can return to the beginning of Daniel 9 and establish the correct starting point for Daniel’s prophesy. The Christian major error in establishing the starting point of Daniel prophesy is caused by their mistranslation of the verse, “know therefore and discern that from the going forth of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” Daniel 9:25

                Since their translation asserts that the starting point of this prophesy is from the issuing of a certain decree to rebuild Jerusalem, they incorrectly assume that it is the decree of King Artaxerxes. However, as mentioned above, there were a number of different decrees made concerning returning and rebuilding Jerusalem.

                In Daniel 9:25, the original Hebrew used the word (dbr = Devar) which is significantly different from a human decree. The word (dbr = Devar) refers to a prophetic word. In the beginning of Daniel 9 verse 2, this word is used when Daniel says that he wants to understand “the word of the Lord to the Prophet Jeremiah.”

                As mentioned above, in all of the passages that mention some form of decree or proclamation concerning Jerusalem, none of them use the Hebrew word (dbr = Devar).

                The correct translation of Daniel should be: “Know therefore and discern that from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” Daniel 9:25

                Therefore the correct starting point of Daniel’s prophesy must be associated with the issuing of a prophetic word and not a human decree. The word (dbr = Devar) is used in the beginning of Daniel chapter 9. A careful reading of the beginning of this chapter clarifies the correct meaning of the reference to the “word to restore and to build Jerusalem” mentioned in Daniel 9:25. [Compare Deut. 10:4 “ten commandments” = (‘asereth ha-debarim = the 10 words (from debar))]

                Chapter 9 begins as follows: “I Daniel considered (or contemplated) in the books the number of the years which the word (dbr = Devar) of G-d came to Jeremiah the Prophet that would accomplish to the destruction of Jerusalem” Daniel 9:2

                Here Daniel uses the word (dbr = Devar) when pondering the numbers of years that Jeremiah had spoken about. Jeremiah had twice prophesied concerning a 70 year period.

                Once Jeremiah said: “and these [this] nation shall serve the King of Babylon 70 years and it shall come to pass when seventy years are accomplished that I will punish the King of Babylon and that nation … and make it everlasting desolation” Jeremiah 25: 11-12

                This prophesy states that Babylon would dominate Israel for a total of 70 years.

                Jeremiah also says: “After 70 years are accomplished to Babylon I will take heed of you and perform My good word towards you in causing you to return to this place.” Jeremiah 29:l0

                This prophesy states, that after the 70 years, in addition to the end of Babylonian domination, the Jews would also return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian exile. There are two Jeremiah prophesies concerning: 1) subjugation, and 2) return to Jerusalem.

                Jeremiah’s 70 years start from the initial subjugation of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. This took place 18 years before the destruction of Jerusalem, as demonstrated by the following passages. We know that the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. As it says:

                “In the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan the chief executioner was in service of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem… and destroyed the Temple of God” Jeremiah 52:12-13

                The 19th year means that 18 full years had already been completed. Nebuchadnezzar started to subjugate Jerusalem in his first year of his rule; this can be derived from the following verses.

                “in King Yehoyakim’s third year (three completed years) Nebuchadnezzar came to besiege Jerusalem” Daniel 1:1

                “in the fourth year (three completed years) of Yehoyakim which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar” Jeremiah 25:1

                These verses demonstrate that Nebuchadnezzar started to besiege Jerusalem in his first year and the destruction of Jerusalem took place in his 19th year. Therefore, 18 complete years had passed from the beginning of the siege until the destruction of Jerusalem. During these 18 years Jerusalem was laid siege and completely surrounded. Scriptures also indicate that the 70 years of Jeremiah were completed with the advent of Cyrus the King of the Persian Empire. As it says:

                “Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled.” Ezra 1:1-3

                “Those who survived the sword he exiled to Babylon, where they became slaves to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign. This was the fulfillment of the word of God to Jeremiah, until the land would be appeased of its Sabbatical years, all the years of its desolation it rested, to the completion of 70 years. In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, upon the expiration of God’s prophesy spoken by Jeremiah. God aroused the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia and he issues a proclamation… to build God a Temple in Jerusalem.” 2nd Chronicles 36:20-23. In addition to the Babylonian rule ended in fulfillment of Jeremiah 25:11-12, Cyrus also gave permission, in fulfillment of Jeremiah 29:10, to the Jews to return to Jerusalem, as it says:         “Whoever is among you all his people, let his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord G-d of Israel.” Ezra 1:4

                It is important to remember that from the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, 18 years before the fall of Jerusalem, until the fall of the Babylonian Empire, when Cyrus came into power, 70 years had elapsed. By subtracting the 18 years subjugation before the destruction of the first Temple from the total of 70 years we are left with 52 years. This proves that King Cyrus arose to power and fulfilled Jeremiah’s prophesy 52 years after the destruction of Jerusalem.

                This plays an essential role in understanding Daniel 9. Daniel yearned not only for the Babylonian Empire to cease 70 years after the subjugation of Jerusalem; he yearned to see the return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple. When Daniel begins speaking in chapter 9 it is in the first year of Darius the Median. This Darius is mentioned earlier in Daniel 6:1 and called the Mede so that he would not be confused with Darius son of Ahasuerus the Persian, who was born later during the days of Haman and Esther.

                Daniel was confused because although he now witnessed that, with the advent of Darius the 70 years to the Babylonian subjugation were over in fulfillment of Jeremiah 25:11-12, Daniel had not yet seen the fulfillment of Jeremiah 29:10 that promised that after the 70 years the Jewish exiles would return and rebuild Jerusalem. He did not foresee that very shortly Cyrus world rule and fulfill this promise.

                Daniel thought that perhaps, due to the sins of Israel the date had been delayed. This is why Daniel confesses for the sins of the people in verse 4-20 and says:               “Now I was still speaking and praying and confessing my sins and the sins of my people Israel and casting my supplications before the Lord My God about the holy mountain (the Sanctuary as seen in Isaiah 56:7) of my God.” Daniel 9:20

                This explains why at the beginning of chapter 9 Daniel contemplated the number of years to the destruction of Jerusalem and not to the subjugation, as it says, “I Daniel contemplated the calculations, the number of years about that which the word of God came to the prophet Jeremiah, to complete the 70 years to the destruction (lchrboth = L’Charvot) of Jerusalem.” Daniel 9:2

                Daniel saw that the subjugation was over, but he not only wanted to see the return to Jerusalem he wanted to know when the destruction would end with the building of the second Temple. In fact, after one year of rule by Darius, King Cyrus took power and fulfilled Jeremiah 29 and allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem. But Daniel’s desire to understand the years of Jeremiah to the destruction of Jerusalem, result in the revelation of a new and additional understanding of Jeremiah:

                There are now three different prophesies concerning 70 years. 1) 70 years of subjugation (Jeremiah 25). 2) 70 years till they return to the Jerusalem (Jeremiah 29). 3) 70 years of the destruction of Jerusalem (Daniel 9).

                Whereas the calculations of the first two begin with the subjugation of Jerusalem 18 years before its destruction, Daniel’s new insight into the 70 years of total destruction must be calculated from a different starting point, the date that Jerusalem was destroyed. In fact, starting from the destruction of the first Temple until the completion of the building of second Temple was exactly 70 years.

                As a result of Daniel’s praying, confessing and contemplating about the years to the destruction of Jerusalem, the angel Gabriel (verse 21), revealed to him and expanded prophesy of 70 weeks (490 years).

                The starting point of this prophesy “that from the going of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” Daniel 9:25, also begins from the Destruction of the First Temple.

                The use of the Hebrew word (dbr = Devar) in both Daniel 9:25 and Daniel 9:2 also establishes that they share the same beginning point, the destruction of Jerusalem.

                Starting from the destruction of Jerusalem we can now see the meaning of Daniel 9:24-26. From the Prophetic word (dbr = Devar) that refers to the destruction of the first Temple until an anointed Prince (the Hebrew (ngid = nagid) is correctly translated as Leader), will be seven weeks (49 years). As demonstrated earlier, from the destruction of Jerusalem until Cyrus was 52 years, this is within the 7th week (49 years and before the 8th weeks 56 years).

                Cyrus not only initiated the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 1:1-3, Ezra 5:13, Ezra 6:3 and Isaiah 44:28), he is also called and identified as God’s anointed, as it says, “Thus says the Lord to His anointed, Cyrus” Isaiah 45:1

                Remember there are two anointed subjects, one after seven weeks and another after an additional 62 weeks. The first “anointed” individual identified as a prince/leader in Daniel 9:25 is King Cyrus, who came seven weeks of years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Then from Cyrus’ Decree to rebuild Jerusalem, “it will be built again” for an additional 62 weeks (434 years). But “in troubled times,” Daniel 9:25, meaning under the foreign domination of the subsequent Persian, Greek and Roman rule. The Greek is mentioned in Daniel 11:2 and Roman alluded to in Daniel 1:30 where the word (kthim = Kittim) refers to the Roman capital of Constantinople). Then in the 69th week (483 years) after the destruction of the first Temple and one week (7 years) before the destruction of the second Temple, an anointed one is cut off.

                The fact that there is no definite article indicates that this can refer to several different anointed subjects. King Agrippa the last King of Israel (Kings are considered anointed as it says in 1st Chronicles 11:3) who was killed during this time. It also refers to the last High Priest (priests are anointed as seen in Leviticus 4) and the sacrifices (indicated in Leviticus 8:10-11). All three subjects were considered anointed and were cut off during the final week before the destruction of the second Temple.

The people of the prince will come and destroy the city and the Sanctuary” Daniel 9:26, refers to the Roman legions of Vespasian and Titus, who destroyed Jerusalem. Additionally, the sacrificial system (that was anointed) ceased during this last week before the completion of the total 70 weeks of 490 years, as it says, “during half of week he will abolish sacrifice and meal-offerings” Daniel 9:27

                Historically during the years before the destruction of the second Temple the Romans set up idolatry in the Temple fulfilling the final verse in Daniel 9 that says, “upon wings of abomination shall come one who make desolate until the decreed destruction is poured out desolator” Daniel 9:27

                The Romans, who are often symbolized by the Eagle Wings resting on their standards, would desecrate the Temple with idolatry; destroy the Temple that would remain desolate until the Roman exile is finished with the advent of the true Messianic age of complete peace, tranquility and knowledge of God. Today’s exile is considered an extension of the Roman exile that has lasted more than 2,000 years.

                In Daniel 9 the original 70 years are from the destruction of the first Temple until the building of the second. If they had returned whole-heartedly, there would have been no need for the second Temple to be destroyed, and the events listed verse 24 would have been fulfilled.

                “Seventy weeks (490 years) are determined upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity (atone for their past transgressions), and to bring in everlasting righteousness (Temple service that brings righteousness), and to seal up the vision and prophecy (fulfill the promises of the prophets and end the prophetic era) and, and to anoint the Holy of Holies (the Temple)” Daniel 9:24.  The angel Gabriel reveals to Daniel this additional understanding of the 70 years extending them from 70 years to 70 weeks of years stretching the time span to 490 years that span from the destruction of the first Temple to the Destruction of the second Temple. This prophesy also included a description of events that would unfold if the Jewish people did not repent properly.

                These are the 70 years for the first exile (52 years until Cyrus and 18 additional years to dedicate the second Temple) and 420 years of the second Temple.

                Although there appears to be a discrepancy in chronology between the Jewish and secular Gregorian calendars of 166 years (with the secular dates earlier) it is clear that Jewish record keeping is more reliable and consistent concerning these events. Babylonian calendars changed arbitrarily with every new Babylonian king and limited archeological discoveries often reflect their arbitrary chronology. (According to secular chronology 586 BCE is the year incorrectly associated with the destruction of the first Temple the Jewish Holy of Holies.)

                This is how Daniel 9:24-26 should be correctly translated and understood:

24) Seventy weeks (490 years) are determined upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. 25) Know therefore and discern that from the issuing of a word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (starting from its destruction) until an anointed Prince (Cyrus) will be seven weeks (49 years) and then for sixty-two weeks (434 years) it will be built again with plaza and moat but in troubled times. (Persian, Greek and Roman domination). 26) Then after the sixty-two weeks (483 years from the destruction of the first Temple) an anointed one (sacrifices, last Jewish priest and king) will be cut off and will be no more, and the people of the prince (Romans) who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. (in the 70th week 490 years from the destruction of the first Temple).

                This is a brief explanation of Daniel chapter 9. Any attempt to apply this chapter to Jesus is erroneous and wrought with mistranslations and misinterpretations.

                Related Content: For a clear explanation of the Jewish Messiah, check out this article….}}

                III.  Jewish Rabbinical Views: Daniel 9:24-27: (See Mesorah’s ArtScrollTanach Series, Daniel, Rabbi Hersh Goldwurm, etc.)

                {{ 9:24. 70 yrs = 70 weeks of yrs or 70×7 or 70 7s = 490 yrs. (Seder Olam, Ibn Ezra, ) based on Lev. 25:8; 23:15; Gen. 30:27; 7 wks of yrs = 7 wks of wks (shabathoth = wks not yrs as in 7 yr sabbatical cycles for Jubilee; Onkelos & Yonasan; Ramban). 490 yrs: Destruction of 1st Temple Anno Creation Mundi (A.C.M.) 3338 (shalach numeric = 338). Restoration of Temple 70 yrs later in 2nd yr of Darius the Persian, Hag. 1:1-8, in 3408. Temple lasted 420, some say, add 70 yrs Captivity = 490 yrs. to 2nd Temple A.C.M. 3828. Darius Decree before the 1st Temple’s Destruction about 51 yrs before Daniel’s Vision. Daniel’s 70 yrs = Jeremiah’s 70 yrs, wks of yrs for sabbatical yrs (shemitoth), Lev. 26:34;  2nd Chron. 36:21 of the Exile; see Mishnah & Talmud, Yoma; 490 yrs for complete redemption; etc. Others say 70 exile + 420 yrs redemption  is error: 490 yrs from Daniel’s Prayer to 2nd Temple’s Destruction (70 A.D.), increasing 51 yrs total. Terminate or atone or make-amend for transgression by exile & judgment to end or seal for sins to issue eternal righteousness by prophetic promised King Messiah, to anoint the Holy of Holies of the Ark of Covenant in the 3rd Temple. Others say 70 Weeks applies only to exile & redemption between 2 Temples, to coming of King Messiah according to prophetic visions of Scripture, to anoint the 2nd Temple which had never been anointe & without Shechinah.

                9:25. Daniel’s Prayer answered by the Word: went & sent to return & rebuild Jerusalem for 7 wks or 49 yrs (Rashi & others). Others, restoration & rebuilding of Jerusalem would be about 49 yrs after the 490 yrs; correcting Daniel’s thinking that 2300 yrs would transpire before Jerusalem’s rebuilding. Temple’s Destruction to Cyrus’ Advent was 51 yrs. So from the Lord’s Word to Jeremiah to return & rebuild Jerusalem = 7 wks or 49 yrs; to anointing (mashiach) the Prince (Nagid), that is, Cyrus, in Is.45:1, 13. Others, to anoint the returning exiled HighPriest Yehoshua benYehotzadak, or Zerubabel benShealtiel, seed of King Yechaniah (Yehoyachin) of Judah; till the Prince is anointed & Jerusalem rebuilt after 70 yrs. Resolved, 70 yrs from Jerusalem’s 1st conquest to Cyrus 1st yr; but 70 yrs from Jerusalem’s desolation to completion of redemption; that is, 18 yrs from Jerusalem’s 1st conquest to Temple’s destruction, after 51 yrs had passed. Messiah (mashiach) is used here for greatness, not anointed (Onkelos & others). Daniel’s word from the Angel revealed that the 70th yr of Captivity was only 52nd yr from Jerusalem’s conquest, 18 yrs till Temple’s destruction. Others, the Anointed Prince is Nechemiah benChalchaliah, Governor of Judah in 20th yr of Artachshast, Neh.2:1; 12:26. From Darius the Mede to 2nd yr of Darius the Persian, & rebuilding of Temple, is 19 yrs, Darius the Persian reigned 10 yrs more, add 20 yrs for Artachshast’s rule, totals 49 yrs, or 7 wks of yrs; from Cyrus’ Edict to Nechemiah. 62 wks = 434 yrs + 4 = 438+ yrs uncounted from before Anointed Prince reigned. Thus: 70 wks = 7 wks before Anointed Prince reigned; 62 wks from enthronement; & 1 wk of ½ wk before & ½ wk after enthronement.

                9:26. Anointed (Mashiach) cut off or terminated; anointed priesthood to cease, or anointed one as King Agrippa II of seed of Herod the Great; or a ruler high priest at time of Jerusalem & 2nd Temple’s destruction in 70 A.D. People of coming prince refers to Roman legions of Emperor Vespasian & his son General Titus who destroyed the Temple without Titus direct command says the Sages or Elders of Israel; the Roman destroyers will be terminated by King Messiah’s coming; or Jerusalem comes to a sudden end as a flood; or by war of King Messiah in War of Gog & Magog to the ruin of Jerusalem.

                9:27. Roman Destroyer establishes or strengthened Covenant or Treaty with Great Ones of the people, that is, Elders or Rabbis (larabbim), instead of ‘many’ or people. Rashi & Rambam & many others say that Romans broke covenant, voided treaty, violated pact made with Jewish Leaders in 3½ years or half-week before they abolished the sacrifices & priesthood, according to unsupported sources. Yosippon or Josephus in Chapter 79 is amended by some to say that 3½ yrs before Temple’s destruction the sacrifices & priesthood ended. Talmud tradition reports during the final days of siege the Jews lowered from Jerusalem’s walls 2 baskets of gold in exchange for two lambs hoisted up, then at last the Romans substituted pigs for lambs, thus ending the sacrifices by desecrating the holy things & priesthood. But this whole matter is very problematic, confused, & unsupported by facts & sources. The destruction spread to Temple’s wings & Jerusalem’s walls & defenses; & continued up to 52 yrs later in the revolt of Bar-Kochba, when Romans erected for worship Hadrian’s Idol Temple on the cite of Sanctuary to desecrate the Holy Place & spread abominations everywhere; till the decreed extermination or culmination upon the abominations of idolatry & desolation. Conclusion: Some, Ibn Ezra & others, this last week is additional to 70 Weeks, it is an exception unaccounted due to its nature;  it is for judgment & destruction but also for restoration & rebuilding. 2nd Temple’s period increases by 1 wk or 7 yrs; 471 yrs from Temple’s rebuilding in Darius the Persian’s 2nd yr; 51 extra yrs than tradition of the Sages allow. Seleucid calendar system adopted in 4th century B.C., lasting 1,000 yrs, differed at times by 100 yrs from Julian-Gregorian calendar, and here in Daniel 9, some 50 yrs off. }}

23. Larkin.

Dispensational Truth. God’s Plan & Purposes for the Ages. Clarence Larkin. 40th. CL. PA. 1920.  Rightly Dividing Word. Clarence Larkin. CL. Pa. 1921. 1850-1924   Website: larkinbooks.com

American Baptist Pastor, Bible Teacher, and Writer.

                ( “Clarence Larkin  was born October 28, 1850, in Chester, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. He was converted to Christ at the age of 19 and then felt called to the Gospel ministry, but the doors of opportunity for study and ministry did not open immediately. He then got a job in a bank.   When he was 21 years old, he left the bank and went to college, graduating as a mechanical engineer. He continued as a professional draftsman for a while, then he became a teacher of the blind. This last endeavor cultivated his descriptive faculties, something God would later use in him to produce a monumental work on dispensational theology. Later, failing health compelled him to give up his teaching career. After a prolonged rest, he became a manufacturer. But he was not happy.        Larkin felt that God wanted him in the Gospel ministry. When he was converted he had become a member of the Episcopal Church, but in 1882, at the age of 32, he became a Baptist and was ordained as a Baptist minister two years later. He went directly from business into the ministry.              His first charge was at Kennett Square, Pennsylvania; his second pastorate was at Fox Chase, Pennsylvania, where he remained for 20 years. He was not a pre-millennialist at the time of his ordination, but his study of the Scriptures, with the help of some books that fell into his hands, led him to adopt the pre-millennialist position. He began to make large wall charts, which he titled, “Prophetic Truth,” for use in the pulpit. These led to his being invited to teach, in connection with his pastoral work, in two Bible institutes. During this time he published a number of prophetical charts, which were widely circulated.         When World War I broke out in 1914, he was called on for addresses on The War and Prophecy. Then God laid it on his heart to prepare a work on Dispensational Truth (or God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages), containing a number of charts with descriptive matter. He spent three years of his life designing and drawing the charts and preparing the text. The favorable reception it has had since it was first published in 1918 seems to indicate that the world was waiting for such a book.     Because it had a large and wide circulation in this and other lands, the first edition was soon exhausted. It was followed by a second edition, and then, realizing that the book was of permanent value, Larkin revised it and expanded it, printing it in its present form. Larkin followed this masterpiece with other books: Rightly Dividing the Word, The Book of Daniel, Spirit World, Second Coming of Christ, and A Medicine Chest for Christian Practitioners, a handbook on evangelism.       Larkin, a kind and gentle man, deplored the tendency of writers to say uncharitable things about each other, so he earnestly sought to avoid criticisms and to satisfy himself with simply presenting his understanding of the Scriptures. Though he did not intend to publish his own works, the Lord led in that direction. During the last five years of his life, the demand for Larkin’s books made it necessary for him to give up the pastorate and devote his full time to writing. He went to be with the Lord on January 24, 1924.”)

{{ “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” [Rom. 11:25]

                Dispensational Truth: Chapter  X . Gentiles:

                The Scriptures speak of three classes of people on the earth, the Jews, the Gentile, and the Church. The Church is made up of both Jew and Gentile. Outside of the Church all who are not Jews are Gentiles. Up to the call of Abraham all the people of the earth were Gentiles. Abraham was the first Hebrew. His grandson Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel (Gen. 32:24-26), had twelve sons. They became the heads of twelve tribes, known as the “Twelve Tribes of Israel.” After the death of King Solomon these “Tribes” were divided. Ten of them became known as Israel, and two (Judah and Benjamin) as Judah. In B.C. 721 Israel was carried captive to Assyria, and in B. C, 606 Judah was carried captive to Babylon. When Judah, after seventy years, returned from captivity, a fair representation of the whole Twelve Tribes returned with them. From that time they have been known as the Jews. The Jews were God’s chosen people, but when they fell into idolatry and were carried into captivity, they were supplanted by the Gentiles.

                The nations of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon were anxious to conquer and supplant Israel (The Jews), but God held them in an unseen leash until the iniquity of Israel was full, and then He permitted the world power to pass into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. Jer. 27:5-7. This happened in B.C. 606 and marked the beginning of the “Times Of The Gentiles.” spoken of by Christ in Luke 21:24, and which is a period that in the mind of God has certain chronological limits. It is not to be confounded with the “Fulness of the Gentiles” spoken of by Paul in Rom. 11:25. The “Fulness of the Gentiles” refers to the Gentiles that are “gathered out” to make up the Church, and “blindness in part” will continue among the Jews until the “Fulness’ (the whole number of the elect) of the Gentiles be come in, then the Church is “caught out, ” and the Jews restored to their own land. The “Fulness of the Gentiles” began at Pentecost, and ends at least seven years before the “Times of the Gentiles” end.

         The “Times of the Gentiles” are fully outlined in the Book of Daniel.

         The Book of Daniel (see chart) contains one “Dream” by Nebuchadnezzar, and four

          “Visions” by Daniel all relating to the “Times of the Gentiles.”

                1. Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream.

                In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign he had a dream, but when he awoke it had gone from him. He demanded of his magicians and astrologers that they should not only reproduce the dream, but that they should interpret it. This they were unable to do and their destruction was ordered, but was stayed by Daniel’s petition for a little time. Then Daniel and his companions betook themselves to prayer, and in a night vision the “Dream” and its meaning was made known to Daniel. The interpretation is certainly one that human ingenuity could not have hit upon. The wise men and flatterers of the Chaldean court would never have dared to announce the End of Gentile Supremacy. The “Colossus” (Image) symbolized the “World Kingdoms” in their Unity and Historical Succession. Gentile dominion is represented by a huge “Metallic” Man. ‘The degeneration of the “World Kingdoms” is seen in the diminishing value of the metals used. Silver is worthless than gold, brass than silver, iron than brass, and clay than iron. The weight of the image also declines, the specific gravity of gold is 19. 5, of silver 10. 47, of brass 8, of cast-iron 5, and of clay 1. 93. The “Colossus” is Top-Heavy.

                The four metals of which the “Colossus” was composed represent Four Worldwide Empires, which were to arise in succession. Dan. 2:37-39. Four great Empires, and only four, are to succeed each other in the government of the world, from Nebuchadnezzar to the “Second Coming” of Christ-the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman. These Kingdoms are not only made known as to number, but their names, in the order of their succession, are given. The First Kingdom “Babylon” is indicated by Daniel while interpreting the vision to Nebuchadnezzar. “THOU art this Head of Gold.” Dan. 2:38. The Second-the “MedoPersian, ” he points out in his account of Belshazzar’s Feast, by the emphatic words-“In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain, and Darius the Median took the Kingdom.” Dan. 5:30, Dan. 5:31. The Third-the “Grecian, ” is mentioned in Dan. 8:20-21, “the ram which thou sawest having two horns are The kings of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the King of Grecia.” The Fourth-the “Roman” is referred to in Dan. 9:26, as-“the People of the Prince that should destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the Sanctuary”; and we know that it was the Romans under Titus, that destroyed Jerusalem in A. D. 70.

                We have seen that the deterioration of the “Colossus” is shown in the character of the metals composing it. This was prophetic of the character of the governments as they were to succeed one another. The power of Nebuchadnezzar was Absolute, of him Daniel said –“All people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared him; whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.” Dan. 5:19. The second Kingdom was inferior to the first. It was a Monarchy dependent upon the support of a Hereditary Aristocracy. The king could by no means do as he willed. This is seen in the case of Darius, who desired to save Daniel from the “Lions’ Den, ” and could not, Dan. 6:12-14; and in the case of Ahasuerus who could only save the Jews from slaughter by a counter-decree. Est. 8:3-5. The metal of the third Kingdom was brass, and the government of Alexander the Great was a Monarchy supported by a Military Aristocracy, that was as weak as the ambitions of its leaders. The iron power of the fourth Kingdom shows a still further depreciation. The Caesars were nominally elected by the people; they were merely called First Magistrates of the State or Generals; and for a long time they wore no diadem, but only the laurel crown of a successful commander. They had also a Senate which was supposed to counsel and control them. The people were neither allowed to legislate for them, nor to interfere with them, and if a Senator became too independent he was banished. Thus the Empire remained metallic and coherent. Iron is more perishable, more easily corroded or rusted than brass, or silver, or gold; but in the form of ‘Steel’ it is harder than any of them, and cuts through every other metal. Such has been Rome with her iron rule. But the “Colossus” grows weaker and weaker until the feet and toes become a mixture of Iron and Clay. In other words the government degenerates from an Absolute Monarchy to an Autocratic Democracy, a form of government in which the people largely have the say. In short the “Colossus” shows that Gentile dominion passes gradually from the Head, the organ which ought to direct the members, to the Feet, which are only made to carry the body whither the head directs. We see then that the first of these Kingdoms was a Unit, the second Dual, the third became Quadruple (Dan. 7:6, Dan. 8:8), and the fourth, in its final form, becomes Ten-Toed.

                The “Colossus” comes to an end by being smitten on the Feet by a “Stone Cut Out of a Mountain.” The “Stone” does not fill the earth by degrees, and thus crowd the “Colossus” out, it at One Blow ‘Demolishes It’. The action of the “Stone” is ‘Judgment’, not grace. It therefore cannot mean Christianity, for it is a “process” whereas the action of the “Stone” is ‘Sudden’ and ‘Calamitous’. Again the Time of the destruction is not until after the formation of the toes, and we know that the “Two Limbs” of the “Colossus” did not appear until A.D. 364, and the “Ten Toes” have not yet developed. The Time when the “Stone” falls on the “Colossus” is distinctly stated in the interpretation as “in the days of those kings,” that is, in the days of the kings represented by the “Ten Toes.” The “Stone” which smites the “Colossus” must be interpreted as Christ who is called a “Stone” in Scripture. “Whosoever shall fall on this stone (Christ) shall be broken (softened by repentance), but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” Matt. 21:44. This is exactly what the prophet foretells of the smiting of the “Colossus.” “Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them; and the Stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” Dan. 2:35. As the four Kingdoms typified by the “Colossus” are literal Kingdoms, it follows that the “Stone Kingdom” must be a literal Kingdom, for it takes the place of the Kingdoms that are destroyed, and conquers the whole earth. The “Stone Kingdom” then is the “Millennial Kingdom of Christ” and the “Colossus,” or the “Times of the Gentiles” typified by it, cannot come to an end until the “revelation of Christ” at His Second Coming.

                2. Vision of  “Four Beasts.”

                This was a vision of Daniel’s 48 years after Nebuchadnezzar had his dream, and occurred in the first year of Belshazzar, B.C. 555. In vision Daniel stood on the shore of the “Great Sea” (the Mediterranean), from which region the four Kingdoms arose. Out of the sea four “Great Beasts” came up in succession. We have no difficulty in identifying these “Four Beasts” with the “Four Kingdoms” represented by the “Colossus.” “The first was like a Lion and had Eagle’s Wings, ” and as the Prophet watched it, he saw it “lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon its feet as a Man, and a Man’s Heart was given to it. Dan. 7:4. We have only to visit the British Museum, London, and examine the colossal stone lions with the “wings of an eagle” and the “head of a man, ” disinterred from the ruins of Babylon and Assyria by Sir Henry Layard between the years 1840 and 1850 A. D., to see that the “First Beast” of Daniel’s vision represented the First World Kingdom-Babylon, and its King Nebuchadnezzar.

                The peculiarity of the “First Beast” was that it had “Eagle’s Wings.” This combination of the lion, the “King of Beasts, ” and the eagle, the “King of Birds,” corresponded to the Royalty of the “Head of Gold” of the Colossus, and typified the “Eagle-like” swiftness of the armies of Nebuchadnezzar. The “Plucking of the Wings” doubtless referred to the “Beastly Insanity” of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:20-22), and the “lifting up,” and causing to stand upon its feet “as a man” to his restoration to sanity.

                The Second Beast was “like to a Bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had Three Ribs in the mouth of it, between the teeth of it; and they said thus unto it, Arise, Devour Much Flesh.” Dan. 7:5. The bear is the strongest beast after the lion and is distinguished for its voracity, but it has none of the agility and majesty of the lion, is awkward in its movements, and effects its purpose with comparative slowness, and by brute force and sheer strength. These were the characteristics of the Medo-Persian Empire. It was ponderous in its movements. It did not gain its victories by bravery or skill, but overwhelmed its enemies by hurling vast masses of troops upon them. Xerxes’ expedition against Greece was undertaken with 2, 500, 000 fighting men, who with the camp followers made up an army of 5, 000, 000. Other Persian generals had armies running up into the 100, 000’s of men. It is easy to be seen that the movements of such enormous bodies of men would “devour much flesh,” not only in the destruction of their enemies, but thousands would die of disease and exposure and the countries through which they passed would become famine stricken by the loss of food seized to feed such armies. The side of the Bear which raised up to attack typified Persia, in which lay the greatest military strength, and corresponded to the right shoulder and arm of the “Colossus.” The “Three-Ribs” stood for the three Kingdoms of Lydia, Babylon and Egypt, which formed a “Triple Alliance” to check the Medo-Persian power, but were all destroyed by it.

                The Third Beast was “like a Leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the Beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.” Dan. 7:6. The leopard is the most agile and graceful of creatures; but its speed is here still further assisted by “wings.” Slight in its frame, but strong, swift and fierce, its characteristics render it a fitting symbol of the rapid conquests of the Greeks under Alexander the Great, who, followed by small but well-equipped and splendidly brave armies, moved with great celerity and in about 10 years overthrew the unwieldy forces of Persia, and subdued the whole civilized world. The “four wings of a Fowl” indicate, that, as a “fowl” does not fly high, the armies of Alexander were fitted mainly for lowland fighting. There is an incongruity between the number of “wings” and the number of “heads” of the Leopard. “Four heads” call for “four pair of wings.” Why only “four” wings we do not know, unless they denote the four quarters of the earth into which Alexander sought to extend his Kingdom. The “Four Heads” of the Leopard represent the “Four Kingdoms” into which the Empire of Alexander was divided by his generals, namely Egypt, Syria, Thrace and Macedonia. From B.C. 323 to B.C. 30 there was no world-wide Kingdom, there being this break or parenthesis between the Medo-Persian and Roman Empires, showing that while there was to be “four” and “only four” world-wide Empires it did not necessarily follow that there should be no break between them. The Third Beast, the Leopard, corresponds to the abdomen and hips of the Colossus.

                The Fourth Beast was unlike any beast that Daniel had ever seen or heard about, it was “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly, and it had great ‘Iron Teeth’. It devoured and brake in pieces, and tamped the residue (the other Beasts) with the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the Beasts that were before it and it had “Ten Horns.” The fact that the Fourth Beast had “Iron Teeth, ” and that there ere “Ten Horns” on its head, the “iron” corresponding to the “Iron Limbs” and the “ten horns” to the “Ten Toes” of the Colossus, would cause Daniel to see that the Fourth Beast represented the Fourth World Kingdom. But as Daniel “considered” the “Ten Horns, ” he was amazed to see another Horn, a “Little” one, come up among them, and before whom there were “three” of the “First Horns” plucked up by the roots, that is destroyed; and as he examined the “Little Horn” more closely he noticed that it had Eyes like the eyes of a Man, and the Mouth of a Man speaking great things. Dan. 7:7, Dan. 7:8. This mystified and troubled Daniel. He had seen nothing corresponding to it on the “Ten Toes” of the Colossus. It must mean some new and additional revelation that God did not see fit to impart to the Gentile King Nebuchadnezzar, and that was reserved for Daniel and his people (the Jews), for we must not forget that Daniel’s own visions, in the last six chapters of the Book, have to do with God’s dealings with the Jewish People in the “Latter Days.” Dan. 10:14.

                Before Daniel could ask for an explanation of the meaning of the “Little Horn, ” he had another vision, a vision of a Judgment. Dan. 7: 9-11. Daniel’s vision of the destruction of the Beast (vs. 11) locates this judgment as just before the Millennium. Daniel at the same time saw the “Son of Man” (Christ) receive His Kingdom (the Stone Kingdom). Vs. 13, 14. These visions added to Daniel’s perplexity, and he was “grieved in his spirit,” and the visions of his head “troubled him” (vs. 15), so he approached one of the “Heavenly Messengers” that stood by and asked him the meaning. He was told that the “Four Beasts” stood for Four Kings, or Kingdoms (vs. 23), that should arise out of the earth. Then Daniel wanted to know the “truth” about the “Fourth Beast, ” which was so diverse from the other three. The “Little Horn” of the Fourth Beast was what troubled him the most because it was to make war against the “Saints of the Most High,” and they were Daniel’s own people, the God-fearing Jews of the “End Time,” who were to pass through the “Great Tribulation” and to be prevailed against, until the time came that the people (the Jews) of the “Saints of the Most High” should possess the Kingdom. In explanation Daniel was told that the “Ten Horns” on the Fourth Beast represented “Ten Kings” that shall arise, and that the “Little Horn” was a king that should rise among them and subdue three of them, and that he would be a “person” of remarkable intelligence and great oratorical powers, having a mouth speaking great things (vs. 8, 20). That he would be audacious, arrogant, imperious and persecuting and change “times and laws,” and that the “Saints of the Most High” would be given into his hands for a “Time, and Times, and the Dividing of Time,” or 33 ½ [? = 3 ½] years. For a further description of the “Little Horn” see the Chapter on “The Antichrist.”

                In this vision of the Four Beasts we see “Degeneration” just as we saw it in the metals of the Colossus. The descent is from the Lion, the “King of Beasts,” to a nondescript monster that defies description. The reason why these Four Kingdoms are represented first as a “Golden Headed Metallic Image,” and then as a succession of “Wild Beasts,” is to show the difference between man’s view and God’s view of the World Kingdoms. Man sees in them the concentration of wealth, majesty and power; God sees them as a succession of rapacious wild beasts devouring one another.

                3. Vision of “Ram” & “He-Goat.”

                The explanation as to the meaning of the “Little Horn” perplexed Daniel, and he voiced it “My ‘cogitations’ much troubled me, and my countenance the matter in ‘my heart.”‘ Dan. 7:28. To comfort His servant God, two years later, transported Daniel in vision to Shushan the capital of Persia, and as he stood on the bank of Ulai, he saw a Ram which had “Two Horns, ” one higher than the other, and the higher came. He saw the Ram push “Westward” and “Northward” and “Southward” and nothing could stand before it, and it did according to its will. Dan. 8:4. While Daniel was “considering” what the vision of the Ram meant, he saw a He-Goat come from the West unmolested, and he noticed it had a “Notable Horn” between its eyes, and when it reached the Ram it was moved with “choler” or anger against it, and smote it with “fury,” and broke its “Two Horns,” and knocked it down and stamped upon it. Then the He-Goat waxed great, but when it became strong its “Great Horn” was broken off, and “Four Notable Horns” came up in its place, and out of one of them sprang a “Little Horn” which waxed exceeding great toward the “South” and toward the “East,” and toward the “Pleasant Land” (Palestine). Dan. 8:5-7.

                When Daniel sought for the meaning of the vision he heard a voice say “Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.” Then Gabriel said to Daniel: The vision belongs to the ‘Time of the End,’ and is to make thee know what shall come to pass in the “Last End of the Indignation.” Dan. 8:15-17. Gabriel then informed Daniel that the “Ram” stood for the Medo-Persian Kingdom, with its two Kings, Darius and his nephew Cyrus; that the He-Goat stood for the Grecian Kingdom, the “Great Horn” between its eyes for its first King (Alexander the Great), and that the “Four Horns” that took the place of the “Great Horn” stood for Four Kingdoms into which the Grecian Kingdom should be divided. This explanation cleared up things considerably for Daniel. It revealed to him that the “Two Horns” of the Ram, one higher than the other, and the “Two Shoulders” of the Bear, one higher than the other, of his vision of the “Four Wild Beasts;” and the “Two Arms” of the Colossus of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, must stand for the same thing, and that the double Kingdom of Medo-Persia. He also saw that the “Four Horns” that came up in the place of the “Great Horn” corresponded to the “Four Heads” of the Third Wild Beast (the Leopard) and that therefore the He-Goat and the Third Wild Beast and the “Abdomen and Hips” of the Colossus stood for the Grecian Kingdom, and its fourfold division among the generals of Alexander the Great.

                We have already anticipated this in our explanation of the “Colossus” and of the “Four Wild Beasts,” but we must not forget that Daniel’s information was progressive, and that each new vision threw light on his previous visions. For instance, the Ram’s pushing “Westward” and “Northward” and “Southward, ” identifies it with the Bear crunching “Three Ribs” in its mouth which we saw was prophetic of the subjugation of Lydia to the “West, ” Babylon to the “North,” and Egypt to the “South.” If the He-Goat had not been pointed out as the “King of Grecia” it would not be difficult for us to identify him, for the “Goat” was the national emblem of Macedonia, and is found on the coins of that country, the ancient capital of which was called “Aegae” or the “Goat City.”

                The same may be said as to the identification of the Ram with the Medo-Persian Kingdom. Persian coins have been found which display a “Ram’s Head” on one side, and a “Ram” incumbent on the other. We also read of a Persian kin riding in front of his army wearing a golden figure of a “Ram’s Head” set with gems, instead of a diadem. In the Zena- vesta, Ized Behram, the guardian spirit of Persia, appears as a “Ram, ” with clean feet and sharp-pointed horns.

The fury and violence of the He-Goat well depicts the vigor of Alexander the Great’s attacks which carried everything before them. Rushing from the West, Alexander, in three great battles, made himself master of the world. But the “Great Horn” was suddenly broken off, for Alexander, with plans inconceivably vast, succumbed to marsh fever and intemperance at Babylon, in the thirty-third year of his life, and, in fulfillment of the prophecy “Four Horns” sprang up in the place of the “Great Horn.” These “Four Horns” stood for the four Generals of Alexander’s army who divided his Kingdom among themselves. Cassander took possession of Macedonia. Lysimachus seized upon Thrace, Western Bithynia, Lower Phrygia, Mysia and Lydia. Seleucus took the remainder of Asia Minor and the East, including Syria and Assyria. Ptolemy took possession of Egypt. These Four Kingdoms were in time all absorbed into the

                Fourth World Kingdom, the Roman Empire. The last to lose its identity being Egypt, which succumbed in B.C. 30. Soon after the appearance of these “Four Horns” on the head of the He-Goat Daniel saw a “Little Horn” come up on one of them. Gabriel explained the significance of this “Little Horn” to Daniel. He told him that it stood for a King of “Fierce Countenance” who should stand up in the “Latter Time” of the Kingdom, and who should stand up against the “Prince of Princes” (Christ). Dan. 8:23-25. The description of this “Little Horn” so clearly corresponds with the description of the “Little Horn” that rose among the “Ten Horns” on the head of the Fourth Wild Beast that it was not difficult for Daniel to see that they described and stood for the same Person -‘The  Antichrist’. The revelation so overcame Daniel that he “fainted” and was sick certain days. Dan. 8:27.

                4. Vision of the “Kings of North & South.”

              While Daniel foresaw that the Kingdom of Alexander the Great would be divided into Four Kingdoms and that out of one of them would come the “Antichrist,” he was not told at that time which one it would be, but 20 years later, in B.C. 533, he had another vision in which he saw two kings warring against each other. One was called the “King of the North,” the other the “King of the South.” This chapter (Dan. 11:1-3) is one of the most wonderfully minute as to prophetic details of any chapter in the Bible. It corresponds exactly with the profane history of the kings of Egypt and Syria for over 350 years. From verse 5 to verse 31 we have an account of what is called the “wars” of the “Kings of the North” (Syria) and of the “Kings of the South” (Egypt). These end with the close of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 164. Verses 32-34 cover the whole period from, B.C. 164 down to the “Time of the End.” At verse 36 “The Wilful King” (Antichrist) appears, and from that verse down to the end of the Book, we have an account of what is to befall Daniel’s People in the “Latter Days.” This vision of the “King of the North” (Syria), and of the “King of the South” (Egypt), in which the “King of the North” prevailed, revealed to Daniel that Antichrist would arise in the “Syrian” division of Alexander’s Kingdom, for the description of the “King of the North” corresponded with the description of the “Little Horn” that came up on one of the “Four Horns” of the He-Goat, and also with the “Little Horn” that came up among the “Ten Horns” on the head of the Fourth Beast. Thus to Daniel was revealed the whole course of the “Times of the Gentiles.”

                5. Vision of “Seventy (70) Weeks”.

                In chapter nine Daniel had a Vision of “Seventy (70) Weeks” that were determined on his “People” (the Jews) and the Holy City (Jerusalem) to finish “their transgressions,” and make an “end of their sins,” and bring in “everlasting righteousness.” Dan. 9:24. This Vision of the “Seventy (70) Weeks” is the most important revelation in many respects made in the Scriptures. It set the date of the First Coming of Christ, and gives the length of the reign of Antichrist. The date of the “Vision” is important. The first verse of the chapter locates it in the “First Year” of Darius the Median, or the same year as the “Fall of Babylon, ” B.C. 538. Daniel had been studying the Prophecy of Jeremiah, and learned from it that the 70 years of “Captivity” of his people were drawing to a close, for the “Captivity” began in B.C. 606, and 68 years had elapsed since then. Jer. 25:11. This discovery thrilled Daniel and he set his face toward God and poured out his soul in one of the most wonderful prayers recorded in the Scriptures. Verses 3-5. It is a model of confession, supplication and intercession. His prayer was interrupted by the appearance of the angel Gabriel, who had been sent at its commencement to give him “understanding in the matter.” Vs. 20-22.     Daniel was concerned about the end of the “seventy (70) years” of the “Captivity,” and doubtless Gabriel relieved his mind as to that, but Gabriel had something more important to reveal to Daniel and that was the period of “Seventy (70) Weeks.” The purpose of Gabriel’s visit was to show Daniel that while his people would be restored to their own land at the end of the “Seventy (70) Years,” that did not mean the restoration of their National Life, but was only the commencement of a longer period, which the angel called the “Seventy (70) Weeks,” that must elapse before they should again be in control of their own land. This period was “determined” upon Daniel’s people, and upon the Holy City. This is very important. It discloses the fact that the “Seventy Weeks” have nothing to do with the Gentiles or the Church. It also discloses another fact that the “Seventy Weeks,” or 490 years, only cover the period when the Jews are, by God’s permission, dwelling as a people in their own land. It does not cover the present period of their Dispersion.

                Seventy (70) Weeks.

                The expression “Seventy Weeks” should read “Seventy Sevens (70 7s).” Whether those “sevens” are days, weeks or years is to be determined by the context. The “Period” of the “Seventy (70) Weeks” is divided into three periods of “Seven (7) Weeks, ” “Threescore and Two (62) Weeks” and “One Week,” and it was to be 7+62 = 69 weeks from the going forth of the “commandment” to Restore and Build Jerusalem Unto “Messiah the Prince.” The date of the “commandment” is given in Neh. 2:1 as the month “Nisan” in the twentieth (20th) year of Artaxerxes the king, which was the 14th day of March, B.C. 445. The day when Jesus rode in Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem as “Messiah the Prince,” was Palm Sunday, April 2, A.D. 30. Luke 19:37-39. But the time between March 14, B.C. 445, and April 2, A. D. 30, is more than 69 literal “weeks.” It is . 445+30 = 475 years. What explanation can we give for this? It is clear to every careful student of the Word of God that there is a “Time Element” in the Scriptures. We come across such divisions of time as “hours; ” “days;” “weeks;” “months; ” “years; ” “times; ” “time and the dividing of time.” To be intelligible and avoid confusion they must all be interpreted on the same scale. What is that scale? It is given in Num. 14:34. “After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days –Each Day for a Year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years.” See also Eze. 4:6.

                The “Lord’s Scale” then is –“A Day Stands for a Year.”

                Let us apply this scale to the “Seventy (70) Weeks.” We found that the time between the “commandment” to restore and build Jerusalem, and “Messiah the Prince, ” was to be 69 weeks, or 69 X 7 = 483 days, or if a “day” stands for a year, 483 years. But we found that from B.C. 445 to A. D. 30 was 475 years, a difference of 8 years. How can we account for the difference? We must not forget that there are years of different lengths. The Lunar year has 354 days. The Calendar year has 360 days. The Solar year has 365 days. The Julian, or Astronomical year, has 365 1/4 days, and it is necessary to add one day every 4 years to the calendar. Now which of these years shall we use in our calculation? We find the “Key” in the Word of God. In Gen. 7:11-13; Gen. 8:3, Gen. 8:4, in the account of the Flood, we find that the 5 months from the 17th day of the 2nd month, until the 17th day of the 7th month, are reckoned as 150 days, or 30 days to a month, or 360 days to a year. So we see that we are to use in “Prophetical Chronology” a “Calendar” year of 360 days. According to ordinary chronology, the 475 years from B.C. 445 to A. D. 30 are 64 “Solar” years of 365 days each. Now counting the years from B.C. 445 to A..D. 30, inclusively, we have 476 solar years. Multiplying these 476 years by 365 (the number of days in a Solar year), we have 173, 740 days, to which add 119 days for leap years, and we have 173, 859 days. Add to these 20 days inclusive from March 14 to April 2, and we have 173, 879 days. Divide 173, 879 by 360 (the number of days in a “Prophetical Year”), and we have 483 years all to one day, the exact number of days (483) in 69 weeks, each day standing for a year. Could there be anything more conclusive to prove that Daniel’s 69 weeks ran out on April 2, A. D. 30, the day that Jesus rode in triumph into the City of Jerusalem.

                We must carefully notice that nothing is mentioned as occurring between the “Seven (7) Weeks” and the “Threescore and Two (62) Weeks,” is and that Daniel was to understand that the latter followed the former without a break. The words that follow, “the street shall be built, and the wall, even in troublous times,” doubtless refers to the “first period” or 49 years, occupied by Ezra and Nehemiah in the work of restoring and rebuilding the City of Jerusalem. We see from this that if the “students of Prophecy” of Christ’s day had been on the alert, and had understood Daniel’s prophecy of the “Seventy (70) Weeks, ” they would have been looking for Him, and would have known to a certainty whether He was the Messiah or not. While there was no break between the “Seven (7) Weeks” and the “Threescore and Two (62) Weeks,” there is a break between the “Sixty-ninth” (69th) and “Seventieth (70th) Week,” in which several things were to happen.

                First we read that “Messiah Was to Be Cut Off, But Not for Himself.” This refers to Christ’s rejection and crucifixion. He died for others. Then we read that the people of the “Prince That Shall Come’ shall destroy the City and the Sanctuary. Note that it does not say that the “Prince” will destroy the City and Sanctuary, but the People of the Prince. The people who destroyed the City of Jerusalem and the Temple in A. D. 70 were the Romans, therefore the “Prince (Antichrist) must be a Roman Citizen. This does not mean that he cannot be a Syrian Jew, for Syria will then be a part of the revived Roman Empire, and Saul of Tarsus was a Roman citizen as well as Jew. We are then told that the desolation of the land of Palestine shall continue until the “End of the War” (probably Armageddon). As this “desolation” still continues we see that the “Gap” between the “Sixty ninth” (69th) and “Seventieth Week” (70th) takes in the whole of this ‘Present Dispensation’. The next verse (vs. 27) introduces the “Seventieth (70th) Week.” “And He (the “Prince” –Antichrist) shall confirm the Covenant with many for One Week (the Seventieth (70th) Week); and in the Midst (middle) of the Week He (the Antichrist), shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” etc. For a description of the “Seventieth (70th) Week” see the chapter on “The Tribulation.”

                Times of Gentiles.

                In Luke 21:24 Jesus says that Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the “Times of the Gentiles” be fulfilled. We have seen that the “Times of the Gentiles” began in B. C 606; is there any way of telling when they will end? There are those who claim that Jesus meant by the word “Times,” “Prophetical Times,” and that a Prophetical “Time” is a year of 360 days, each day standing for a year, thus making a “Time” equal to 360 years. They also claim that Moses in the Book of Leviticus (Lev. 26:18-20, Lev. 26:24-26), foretold, and four times repeated it, that if the Children of Israel disobeyed God, He would punish them “Seven Times” for their sins and that Jesus referred to these “Seven Times” when He spoke of the “Times” of the Gentiles. Therefore if a “Time” is 360 years, “Seven Times” would be 7 X 360 = 2520 years; and as the “Times of the Gentiles” began in B.C. 606, they should end in A. D. 1914.

                Can this claim be substantiated? In the Book of Revelation the last “half” of the “Seventieth (70th) Week” of Daniel is described by three statements of time. First by 42 months (Rev. 11:2; Rev. 13:5); second by 1260 days (Rev. 11:3; Rev. 12:6); third by “Time, and Times, and Half a time” (Rev. 12:14); this last corresponding with Daniel’s “Time and times and the dividing of time.” Dan. 7:25; Dan. 12:7. Now as all these statements of time apply to the same period it is clear that the things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other; and as a “thousand, two hundred and threescore days” equal 1260 days, and 1260 days equal 42 months of 30 days each, and 42 months equal 3 1/2 years, then “Time, Times and Half a Time” (or the dividing of time), must equal 3 1/2 years. That is, a “Time” must equal one year; and “Times,” two years; and a “Half a Time,” half a year. So we see that in “Prophetical Chronology” a “Time” is equal to a year of 360 days, and not a year of 360 years. There is therefore no scriptural authority for calling a “Time” 360 ordinary years. If a “Time” was 360 ordinary years, then the “times, and times, and half a time” of Rev. 12:14 would be equal to 360+720+180 or 1260 years, making the “Last Week” of Daniel’s “Seventy (70) Weeks” 2520 years long; the absurdity of which is seen when we remember that the last week of the “Seventy (70) Weeks” must be on the same scale as the “Weeks” of the 69 Week Period, which we proved from history were only 7 years long. If the claim that the “Times of the Gentiles” is 2520 years long is correct, then we must not forget that those years are years of 360 days each. Now 2520 years of 360 days each, make 907, 200 days. But exactly 2523 Julian or “Astronomical Years” of 365 1/4 days each, or 921, 516 days, have elapsed since B.C. 606 up to the present time (A.D. 1917), a difference of 14, 316 days. If we reduce these 2523 years of 365 1/4 days to years of 360 days, then we must divide 921, 516 by 360, which gives us 2559, 3/4 years, which is 39 3/4 years more than 2520 years, so that the 2520 years of the “Times of the Gentiles” ran out 393/4 years ago, or in A. D. 1877.

                As further proof that the “Seven Times” of Leviticus are not Prophetic “Times,” we have the fact (shown on the chart on “Prophetical Chronology”), that the Children of Israel have been punished, or given over to “Servitude” and “Captivity” exactly Seven times. Their present “Dispersion” is neither a “servitude” or “Captivity, ” and does not count. If the “Seven Times” of Leviticus are Prophetic “Times” and a “Time” is one year, then “Seven Times” would be seven years, the length of the “Last Week” of Daniel’s “Seventy (70) Weeks,” and would make the statement of Leviticus a Prophetic reference to the length of the “Tribulation Period” through which the Jews must go as a punishment for their sins. The 1000 years of Rev. 20:2-4 are ordinary years, just as the 70 years of the Babylonian Captivity were. The context will show whether ordinary or prophetical years are meant. It is this confusion in interpreting “Prophetical Chronology” that has led to the “time setting” that has brought discredit upon the whole system of Premillennial Truth. The “Times of the Gentiles” will end with the end of Daniel’s “Seventieth (70th) Week.” When that will begin and end no one knows, for the Scriptures teach that it is not for us to know the “Times and Seasons.” }}

                24. 1st Maccabees.

The Apocrypha of the Old Testament  With Historical Introductions, a Revised Translation, and Notes Critical and Explanatory  By Edwin Cone Bissell · 1890

                {{ 1st Maccabees: Content: The narrative covers a period of forty (40) years from the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes in 175 B .C. to the death of Simon in 135 B .C., and gives therefore a complete picture of the struggle. The book may be conveniently divided into five sections. ( 1) The cause of the revolt (chap. 1). The writer gives a vivid description of the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes, in conjunction with the Hellenizing party in Judזa, to abolish the Jewish religion and establish paganism in its stead . A Greek gymnasium was erected in Jerusalem; the Temple was desecrated, and became the scene of idolatrous sacrifices; a terrible inquisition was instituted, and all Jews who refused to abandon their faith were put to death. (2 ) The outbreak of the revolt (chap. 2). The standard of revolt was raised at Modin by Mattathias and his five sons, who gathered together a force and resisted the demands of Antiochus (167 B.C.). Just before his death, which occurred in the following year, Mattathias charged his sons “to be zealous for the law and give their lives for the covenant.” ( 3 ) The struggle under the leadership of Judas (chaps. 3:1-9:22). Judas is the hero of the book, and the writer dwells at length on his valorous deeds during the five years (166-161 ) of his captaincy . In his first campaign he won three signal victories, the first over Apollonius, the second over Seron, the third over a large army specially sent from Antioch to avenge the previous defeats under the command of Nicanor and Gorgias (chaps. 3, 4). In the following year he was again successful against a still larger Syrian army under Lysias, and this triumph enabled him to obtain possession of the Temple at Jerusalem , which he purified and re-dedicated to the worship of Jehovah (chaps. 5 and 6). The victories of Judas, and the difficulties which arose in Syria after the death of Antiochus, compelled Lysias to abandon the policy of destroying the Jewish religion, and grant the Jews religious liberty. Judas, however, was not content with this concession . The remainder of his life was devoted to the attempt to secure political independence as well (chaps. 7-9). (4 ) The leadership of Jonathan ( chaps. 9:23-12:53 ), which lasted from 161 B.C. to 143. After a fruitless guerilla warfare, in which Jonathan won some victories, a change of fortune took place through a civil strife in Syria. Jonathan was made High Priest in 153, and by diplomatic alliances succeeded in maintaining his position for ten years. (5 ) The leadership of Simon ( chaps. 13, 16) from 143-135 B.C. Partly by success in war, partly by diplomacy, Simon consolidated his position and secured complete independence for the Jews. His rule was characterized by many administrative reforms. In 135 B.C. he was treacherously murdered by his son in -law , Ptolemy, who hoped to secure the position.}}

Maccabees 1st. (Douay-Rheims Version. Chapter Summary altered from Hilderbrandt’s Quick & Dirty Summary.) (Text from Alexander to Antiochus.)

                {{ Chapter 1: Philip to Alexander: introduces Antiochus Epiphanes (Antiochus IV: 175-163 BC) son of Antiochus the Great (III: 222-187 BC) kings of Syria. Epiphanes: major persecutor of the Jews whom the Maccabees will oppose.

                1Now it came to pass, after that Alexander the son of Philip the Macedonian, who first reigned in Greece, coming out of the land of Cethim, had overthrown Darius king of the Persians and Medes: 2He fought many battles, and took the strong holds of all, and slew the kings of the earth: 3And he went through even to the ends of the earth, and took the spoils of many nations: and the earth was quiet before him. 4And he gathered a power, and a very strong army: and his heart was exalted and lifted up. 5And he subdued countries of nations, and princes: and they became tributaries to him. 6And after these things, he fell down upon his bed, and knew that he should die. 7And he called his servants the nobles that were brought up with him from his youth: and he divided his kingdom among them, while he was yet alive. 8And Alexander reigned twelve years, and he died. 9And his servants made themselves kings everyone in his place: 10And they all put crowns upon themselves after his death, and their sons after them many years, and evils were multiplied in the earth. 11And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus the Illustrious, the son of king Antiochus, who had been a hostage at Rome: and he reigned in the hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks. 12In those days there went out of Israel wicked men, and they persuaded many, saying: Let us go, and make a covenant with the heathens that are round about us: for since we departed from them, many evils have befallen us. 13And the word seemed good in their eyes. 14And some of the people determined to do this, and went to the king: and he gave them license to do after the ordinances of the heathens. 15And they built a place of exercise in Jerusalem, according to the laws of the nations: 16And they made themselves prepuces, and departed from the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathens, and were sold to do evil. 17And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms. 18And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships: 19And he made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt, but Ptolemee was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death. 20And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt. 21And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year, he returned and went up against Israel. 22And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude. 23And he proudly entered into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of proposition, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the little mortars of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces. 24And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country. 25And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly. 26And there was great mourning in Israel, and in every place where they were. 27And the princes, and the ancients mourned, and the virgins and the young men were made feeble, and the beauty of the women was changed. 28Every bridegroom took up lamentation: and the bride that set in the marriage bed, mourned: 29And the land was moved for the inhabitants thereof, and all the house of Jacob was covered with confusion. 30And after two full years the king sent the chief collector of his tributes to the cities of Juda, and he came to Jerusalem with a great multitude. 31And he spoke to them peaceable words in deceit: and they believed him. 32And he fell upon the city suddenly, and struck it with a great slaughter, and destroyed many people in Israel. 33And he took the spoils of the city, and burnt it with fire, and threw down the houses thereof, and the walls thereof round about: 34And they took the women captive, and the children, and the cattle they possessed. 35And they built the city of David with a great and strong wall, and with strong towers, and made it a fortress for them: 36And they placed there a sinful nation, wicked men, and they fortified themselves therein: and they stored up armour, and victuals, and gathered together the spoils of Jerusalem; 37And laid them up there: and they became a great snare. 38And this was a place to lie in wait against the sanctuary, and an evil devil in Israel. 39And they shed innocent blood round about the sanctuary, and defiled the holy place. 40And the inhabitants of Jerusalem fled away by reason of them, and the city was made the habitation to strangers, and she became a stranger to her own seed, and her children forsook her. 41Her sanctuary was desolate like a wilderness, her festival days were turned into mourning, her sabbaths into reproach, her honours were brought to nothing. 42Her dishonour was increased according to her glory, and her excellency was turned into mourning. 43And king Antiochus wrote to all his kingdom, that all the people should be one: and every one should leave his own law. 44And all nations consented according to the word of king Antiochus. 45And many of Israel consented to his service, and they sacrificed to idols, and profaned the sabbath. 46And the king sent letters by the hands of messengers to Jerusalem, and to all the cities of Juda: that they should follow the law of the nations of the earth, 47And should forbid holocausts and sacrifices, and atonements to be made in the temple of God. 48And should prohibit the sabbath, and the festival days, to be celebrated. 49And he commanded the holy places to be profaned, and the holy people of Israel. 50And he commanded altars to be built, and temples, and idols, and swine’s flesh to be immolated, and unclean beasts. 51And that they should leave their children uncircumcised, and let their souls be defiled with all uncleannesses, and abominations, to the end that they should forget the law, and should change all the justifications of God. 52And that whosoever would not do according to the word of king Antiochus should be put to death. 53According to all these words he wrote to his whole kingdom, and he appointed rulers over the people that should force them to do these things. 54And they commanded the cities of Juda to sacrifice. 55Then many of the people were gathered to them that had forsaken the law of the Lord: and they committed evils in the land: 56And they drove away the people of Israel into lurking holes, and into the secret places of fugitives. 57On the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year, king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God, and they built altars throughout all the cities of Juda round about: 58And they burnt incense, and sacrificed at the doors of the houses, and in the streets. 59And they cut in pieces, and burnt with fire the books of the law of God: 60And every one with whom the books of the testament of the Lord were found, and whosoever observed the law of the Lord, they put to death, according to the edict of the king. 61Thus by their power did they deal with the people of Israel, that were found in the cities month after month. 62And on the five and twentieth day of the month they sacrificed upon the altar of the idol that was over against the altar of God. 63Now the women that circumcised their children, were slain according to the commandment of king Antiochus. 64And they hanged the children about their necks in all their houses: and those that had circumcised them, they put to death. 65And many of the people of Israel determined with themselves, that they would not eat unclean things: and they chose rather to die than to be defiled with unclean meats. 66And they would not break the holy law of God, and they were put to death: 67And there was very great wrath upon the people.

                Chapter 2: Mattathias (priest of Modein, father of the Maccabees 5 brothers: Johanan, Judas (main warrior), Simon, Eleazar, Jonathan) reacts killing the legate and the Jews commissions his sons and but then Mattathias dies.

                1In those days arose Mathathias the son of John, the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, from Jerusalem, and he abode in the mountain of Modin. 2And he had five sons: John who was surnamed Gaddis: 3And Simon, who was surnamed Thasi: 4And Judas, who was called Machabeus: 5And Eleazar, who was surnamed Abaron: and Jonathan, who was surnamed Apphus. 6These saw the evils that were done in the people of Juda, and in Jerusalem. 7And Mathathias said: Woe is me, wherefore was I born to see the ruin of my people, and the ruin of the holy city, and to dwell there, when it is given into the hands of the enemies? 8The holy places are come into the hands of strangers: her temple is become as a man without honour. 9The vessels of her glory are carried away captive: her old men are murdered in the streets, and her young men are fallen by the sword of the enemies. 10What nation hath not inherited her kingdom, and gotten of her spoils? 11All her ornaments are taken away. She that was free is made a slave. 12And behold our sanctuary, and our beauty, and our glory is laid waste, and the Gentiles have defiled them. 13To what end then should we live any longer? 14And Mathathias and his sons rent their garments, and they covered themselves with haircloth, and made great lamentation. 15And they that were sent from king Antiochus came thither, to compel them that were fled into the city of Modin, to sacrifice, and to burn incense, and to depart from the law of God. 16And many of the people of Israel consented, and came to them: but Mathathias and his sons stood firm. 17And they that were sent from Antiochus, answering, said to Mathathias: Thou art a ruler, and an honourable, and great man in this city, and adorned with sons, and brethren. 18Therefore come thou first, and obey the king’s commandment, as all nations have done, and the men of Juda, and they that remain in Jerusalem: and thou, and thy sons, shall be in the number of the king’s friends, and enriched with gold, and silver, and many presents. 19Then Mathathias answered, and said with a loud voice: Although all nations obey king Antiochus, so as to depart every man from the service of the law of his fathers, and consent to his commandments: 20I and my sons, and my brethren will obey the law of our fathers. 21God be merciful unto us: it is not profitable for us to forsake the law, and the justices of God: 22We will not hearken to the words of king Antiochus, neither will we sacrifice, and transgress the commandments of our law, to go another way. 23Now as he left off speaking these words, there came a certain Jew in the sight of all to sacrifice to the idols upon the altar in the city of Modin, according to the king’s commandment. 24And Mathathias saw and was grieved, and his reins trembled, and his wrath was kindled according to the judgment of the law, and running upon him he slew him upon the altar: 25Moreover the man whom king Antiochus had sent, who compelled them to sacrifice, he slew at the same time, and pulled down the altar. 26And shewed zeal for the law, as Phinees did by Zamri the son of Salomi. 27And Mathathias cried out in the city with a loud voice, saying: Every one that hath zeal for the law, and maintaineth the testament, let him follow me. 28So he, and his sons fled into the mountains, and left all that they had in the city. 29Then many that sought after judgment, and justice, went down into the desert: 30And they abode there, they and their children, and their wives, and their cattle: because afflictions increased upon them. 31And it was told to the king’s men, and to the army that was in Jerusalem in the city of David, that certain men who had broken the king’s commandment, were gone away into the secret places in the wilderness, and that many were gone after them. 32And forthwith they went out towards them, and made war against them on the sabbath day, 33And they said to them: Do you still resist? come forth, and do according to the edict of king Antiochus, and you shall live. 34And they said: We will not come forth, neither will we obey the king’s edict, to profane the sabbath day. 35And they made haste to give them battle. 36But they answered them not, neither did they cast a stone at them, nor stopped up the secret places, 37Saying: Let us all die in our innocency: and heaven and earth shall be witnesses for us, that you put us to death wrongfully. 38So they gave them battle on the sabbath: and they were slain with their wives, and their children, and their cattle, to the number of a thousand persons. 39And Mathathias and his friends heard of it, and they mourned for them exceedingly. 40And every man said to his neighbour: If we shall all do as our brethren have done, and not fight against the heathens for our lives, and our justifications: they will now quickly root us out of the earth. 41And they determined in that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up against us to fight on the sabbath day, we will fight against him: and we will not all die, as our brethren that were slain in the secret places. 42Then was assembled to them the congregation of the Assideans, the stoutest of Israel, every one that had a good will for the law. 43And all they that fled from the evils, joined themselves to them, and were a support to them. 44And they gathered an army, and slew the sinners in their wrath, and the wicked men in their indignation: and the rest fled to the nations for safety. 45And Mathathias and his friends went round about, and they threw down the altars: 46And they circumcised all the children whom they found in the confines of Israel that were uncircumcised: and they did valiantly. 47And they pursued after the children of pride, and the work prospered in their hands: 48And they recovered the law out of the hands of the nations, and out of the hands of the kings: and they yielded not the horn to the sinner. 49Now the days drew near that Mathathias should die, and he said to his sons: Now hath pride and chastisement gotten strength, and the time of destruction, and the wrath of indignation: 50Now therefore, O my sons, be ye zealous for the law, and give your lives for the covenant of your fathers. 51And call to remembrance the works of the fathers, which they have done in their generations: and you shall receive great glory, and an everlasting name. 52Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was reputed to him unto justice? 53Joseph in the time of his distress kept the commandment, and he was made lord of Egypt. 54Phinees our father, by being fervent in the zeal of God, received the covenant of an everlasting priesthood. 55Jesus, whilst he fulfilled the word, was made ruler in Israel. 56Caleb, for bearing witness before the congregation, received an inheritance. 57David by his mercy obtained the throne of an everlasting kingdom. 58Elias, while he was full of zeal for the law, was taken up into heaven. 59Ananias and Azarias and Misael by believing, were delivered out of the flame. 60Daniel in his innocency was delivered out of the mouth of the lions. 61And thus consider through all generations: that none that trust in him fail in strength. 62And fear not the words of a sinful man, for his glory is dung, and worms: 63To day he is lifted up, and tomorrow he shall not be found, because he is returned into his earth; and his thought is come to nothing. 64You therefore, my sons, take courage, and behave manfully in the law: for by it you shall be glorious. 65And behold, I know that your brother Simon is a man of counsel: give ear to him always, and he shall be a father to you. 66And Judas Machabeus who is valiant and strong from his youth up, let him be the leader of your army, and he shall manage the war of the people. 67And you shall take to you all that observe the law: and revenge ye the wrong of your people. 68Render to the Gentiles their reward, and take heed to the precepts of the law. 69And he blessed them, and was joined to his fathers. 70And he died in the hundred and forty-sixth year: and he was buried by his sons in the sepulchres of his fathers in Modin, and all Israel mourned for him with great mourning.

                Chapter 3: Judas called Maccabeus (Hammer); Antiochus hears of Judas gets angry sends out Lysias with the elephants to fight Judas. Lysias captures and desecrates Jerusalem

                1Then his son Judas, called Machabeus, rose up in his stead. 2And all his brethren helped him, and all they that had joined themselves to his father, and they fought with cheerfulness the battle of Israel. 3And he got his people great honour, and put on a breastplate as a giant, and girt his warlike armour about him in battles, and protected the camp with his sword. 4In his acts he was like a lion, and like a lion’s whelp roaring for his prey. 5And he pursued the wicked and sought them out, and them that troubled his people he burnt with fire: 6And his enemies were driven away for fear of him, and all the workers of iniquity were troubled: and salvation prospered in his hand. 7And he grieved many kings, and made Jacob glad with his works, and his memory is blessed forever. 8And he went through the cities of Juda, and destroyed the wicked out of them, and turned away wrath from Israel. 9And he was renowned even to the utmost part of the earth, and he gathered them that were perishing. 10And Apollonius gathered together the Gentiles, and a numerous and great army from Samaria, to make war against Israel. 11And Judas understood it, and went forth to meet him: and he overthrew him, and killed him: and many fell down slain, the rest fled away. 12And he took their spoils, and Judas took the sword of Apollonius, and fought with it all his lifetime. 13And Seron captain of the army of Syria heard that Judas had assembled a company of the faithful, and a congregation with him, 14And he said: I will get me a name, and will be glorified in the kingdom, and will overthrow Judas, and those that are with him, that have despised the edict of the king. 15And he made himself ready: and the host of the wicked went up with him, strong succours, to be revenged of the children of Israel. 16And they approached even as far as Bethoron: and Judas went forth to meet him, with a small company. 17But when they saw the army coming to meet them, they said to Judas: How shall we, being few, be able to fight against so great a multitude and so strong, and we are ready to faint with fasting today? 18And Judas said: It is an easy matter for many to be shut up in the hands of a few: and there is no difference in the sight of the God of heaven to deliver with a great multitude, or with a small company: 19For the success of war is not in the multitude of the army, but strength cometh from heaven. 20They come against us with an insolent multitude, and with pride, to destroy us, and our wives, and our children, and to take our spoils. 21But we will fight for our lives and our laws: 22And the Lord himself will overthrow them before our face: but as for you, fear them not. 23And as soon as he had made an end of speaking, he rushed suddenly upon them: and Seron and his host were overthrown before him: 24And he pursued him by the descent of Bethoron even to the plain, and there fell of them eight hundred men, and the rest fled into the land of the Philistines. 25And the fear of Judas and of his brethren, and the dread of them fell upon all the nations round about them. 26And his fame came to the king, and all nations told of the battles of Judas. 27Now when king Antiochus heard these words, he was angry in his mind: and he sent and gathered the forces of all his kingdom, an exceeding strong army. 28And he opened his treasury, and gave out pay to the army for a year: and he commanded them, that they should be ready for all things. 29And he perceived that the money of his treasures failed, and that the tributes of the country were small because of the dissension, and the evil that he had brought upon the land, that he might take away the laws of old times: 30And he feared that he should not have as formerly enough, for charges and gifts, which he had given before with a liberal hand: for he had abounded more than the kings that had been before him. 31And he was greatly perplexed in mind, and purposed to go into Persia, and to take tributes of the countries, and to gather much money. 32And he left Lysias, a nobleman of the blood royal, to oversee the affairs of the kingdom, from the river Euphrates even to the river of Egypt: 33And to bring up his son Antiochus, till he came again. 34And he delivered to him half the army, and the elephants: and he gave him charge concerning all that he would have done, and concerning the inhabitants of Judea, and Jerusalem: 35And that he should send an army against them, to destroy and root out the strength of Israel, and the remnant of Jerusalem, and to take away the memory of them from that place: 36And that he should settle strangers to dwell in all their coasts, and divide their land by lot. 37So the king took the half of the army that remained, and went forth from Antioch the chief city of his kingdom, in the hundred and forty-seventh year: and he passed over the river Euphrates, and went through the higher countries. 38Then Lysias chose Ptolemee the son of Dorymenus, and Nicanor, and Gorgias, mighty men of the king’s friends. 39And he sent with them forty thousand men, and seven thousand horsemen: to go into the land of Juda, and to destroy it according to the king’s orders. 40So they went forth with all their power, and came, and pitched near Emmaus in the plain country. 41And the merchants of the countries heard the fame of them: and they took silver and gold in abundance, and servants: and they came into the camp, to buy the children of Israel for slaves: and there were joined to them the forces of Syria, and of the land of the strangers. 42And Judas and his brethren saw that evils were multiplied, and that the armies approached to their borders: and they knew the orders the king had given to destroy the people and utterly abolish them. 43And they said every man to his neighbour: Let us raise up the low condition of our people, and let us fight for our people, and our sanctuary. 44And the assembly was gathered that they might be ready for battle: and that they might pray, and ask mercy and compassion. 45Now Jerusalem was not inhabited, but was like a desert: there was none of her children that went in or out: and the sanctuary was trodden down: and the children of strangers were in the castle, there was the habitation of the Gentiles: and joy was taken away from Jacob, and the pipe and harp ceased there. 46And they assembled together, and came to Maspha over against Jerusalem: for in Maspha was a place of prayer heretofore in Israel. 47And they fasted that day, and put on haircloth, and put ashes upon their heads: and they rent their garments: 48And they laid open the books of the law, in which the Gentiles searched for the likeness of their idols: 49And they brought the priestly ornaments, and the firstfruits and tithes, and stirred up the Nazarites that had fulfilled their days: 50And they cried with a loud voice toward heaven, saying: What shall we do with these, and whither shall we carry them? 51For thy holies are trodden down, and are profaned, and thy priests are in mourning, and are brought low. 52And behold the nations are come together against us to destroy us: thou knowest what they intend against us. 53How shall we be able to stand before their face, unless thou, O God, help us? 54Then they sounded with trumpets, and cried out with a loud voice. 55And after this Judas appointed captains over the people, over thousands, and over hundreds, and over fifties, and over tens. 56And he said to them that were building houses, or had betrothed wives, or were planting vineyards, or were fearful, that they should return every man to his house, according to the law. 57So they removed the camp, and pitched on the south side of Emmaus. 58And Judas said: Gird yourselves, and be valiant men, and be ready against the morning, that you may fight with these nations that are assembled against us to destroy us and our sanctuary. 59For it is better for us to die in battle, than to see the evils of our nation, and of the holies: 60Nevertheless as it shall be the will of God in heaven so be it done.

                Chapter 4: Judas defeats Gorgias (one of Antiochus’ warriors) and wins battles and captures temple and re-consecrates it.

                1Then Gorgias took five thousand men, and a thousand of the best horsemen: and they removed out of the camp by night. 2That they might come upon the camp of the Jews, and strike them suddenly: and the men that were of the castle were their guides. 3And Judas heard of it, and rose up, he and the valiant men, to attack the king’s forces that were in Emmaus. 4For as yet the army was dispersed from the camp. 5And Gorgias came by night into the camp of Judas, and found no man, and he sought them in the mountains: for he said: These men flee from us. 6And when it was day, Judas shewed himself in the plain with three thousand men only, who neither had armour nor swords. 7And they saw the camp of the Gentiles that it was strong, and the men in breastplates, and the horsemen round about them, and these were trained up to war. 8And Judas said to the men that were with him: Fear ye not their multitude, neither be ye afraid of their assault. 9Remember in what manner our fathers were saved in the Red Sea, when Pharao pursued them with a great army. 10And now let us cry to heaven: and the Lord will have mercy on us, and will remember the covenant of our fathers, and will destroy this army before our face this day: 11And all nations shall know that there is one that redeemeth and delivereth Israel. 12And the strangers lifted up their eyes, and saw them coming against them. 13And they went out of the camp to battle, and they that were with Judas sounded the trumpet. 14And they joined battle: and the Gentiles were routed, and fled into the plain. 15But all the hindmost of them fell by the sword, and they pursued them as far as Gezeron, and even to the plains of Idumea, and of Azotus, and of Jamnia: and there fell of them to the number of three thousand men. 16And Judas returned again with his army that followed him, 17And he said to the people: Be not greedy of the spoils: for there is war before us: 18And Gorgias and his army are near us in the mountain: but stand ye now against our enemies, and overthrow them, and you shall take the spoils afterwards with safety. 19And as Judas was speaking these words, behold part of them appeared looking forth from the mountain. 20And Gorgias saw that his men were put to flight, ad that they had set fire to the camp: for the smoke that was seen declared what was done. 21And when they had seen this, they were seized with great fear, seeing at the same time Judas and his army in the plain ready to fight. 22So they all fled away into the land of the strangers. 23And Judas returned to take the spoils of the camp, and they got much gold, and silver, and blue silk, and purple of the sea, and great riches. 24And returning home they sung a hymn, and blessed God in heaven, because he is good, because his mercy endureth forever. 25So Israel had a great deliverance that day. 26And such of the strangers as escaped, went and told Lysias all that had happened. 27And when he heard these things, he was amazed and discouraged: because things had not succeeded in Israel according to his mind, and as the king had commanded. 28So the year following Lysias gathered together threescore thousand chosen men, and five thousand horsemen, that he might subdue them. 29And they came into Judea, and pitched their tents in Bethoron, and Judas met them with ten thousand men. 30And they saw that the army was strong, and he prayed, and said: Blessed art thou, O Saviour of Israel, who didst break the violence of the mighty by the hand of thy servant David, and didst deliver up the camp of the strangers into the hands of Jonathan the son of Saul and of his armourbearer. 31Shut up this army in the hands of thy people Israel, and let them be confounded in their host and their horsemen. 32Strike them with fear, and cause the boldness of their strength to languish, and let them quake at their own destruction. 33Cast them down with the sword of them that love thee: and let all that know thy name, praise thee with hymns. 34And they joined battle: and there fell of the army of Lysias five thousand men. 35And when Lysias saw that his men were put to flight, and how bold the Jews were, and that they were ready either to live, or to die manfully, he went to Antioch, and chose soldiers, that they might come again into Judea with greater numbers. 36Then Judas, and his brethren said: Behold our enemies are discomfited: let us go up now to cleanse the holy places and to repair them. 37And all the army assembled together, and they went up into mount Sion. 38And they saw the sanctuary desolate, and the altar profaned, and the gates burnt, and shrubs growing up in the courts as in a forest, or on the mountains, and the chambers joining to the temple thrown down. 39And they rent their garments, and made great lamentation, and put ashes on their heads: 40And they fell face down to the ground on their faces, and they sounded with the trumpets of alarm, and they cried towards heaven. 41Then Judas appointed men to fight against them that were in the castle, till they had cleansed the holy places. 42And he chose priests without blemish, whose will was set upon the law of God: 43And they cleansed the holy places, and took away the stones that had been defiled into an unclean place. 44And he considered about the altar of holocausts that had been profaned, what he should do with it. 45And a good counsel came into their minds, to pull it down: lest it should be a reproach to them, because the Gentiles had defiled it; so they threw it down. 46And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. 47Then they took whole stones according to the law, and built a new altar according to the former: 48And they built up the holy places, and the things that were within the temple: and they sanctified the temple, and the courts. 49And they made new holy vessels, and brought in the candlestick, and the altar of incense, and the table into the temple. 50And they put incense upon the altar, and lighted up the lamps that were upon the candlestick, and they gave light in the temple. 51And they set the loaves upon the table, and hung up the veils, and finished all the works that they had begun to make. 52And they arose before the morning on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month (which is the month of Casleu) in the hundred and forty-eighth year. 53And they offered sacrifice according to the law upon the new altar of holocausts which they had made. 54According to the time, and according to the day wherein the heathens had defiled it, in the same was it dedicated anew with canticles, and harps, and lutes, and cymbals. 55And all the people fell upon their faces, and adored, and blessed up to heaven, him that had prospered them. 56And they kept the dedication of the altar eight days, and they offered holocausts with joy, and sacrifices of salvation, and of praise. 57And they adorned the front of the temple with crowns of gold, and escutcheons, and they renewed the gates, and the chambers, and hanged doors upon them. 58And there was exceeding great joy among the people, and the reproach of the Gentiles was turned away. 59And Judas, and his brethren, and all the church of Israel decreed, that the day of the dedication of the altar should be kept in its season from year to year for eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month of Casleu, with joy and gladness. 60They built up also at that time mount Sion, with high walls, and strong towers round about, lest the Gentiles should at any time come, and tread it down as they did before. 61And he placed a garrison there to keep it, and he fortified it to secure Bethsura, that the people might have a defence against Idumea.

                Chapter 5: Judas sends his brother Simon to Galilee while he, Judas and Jonathan went over to Gilead in Jordan. Couple of Jews (Joseph and Azariah tried their own plans contrary to Judas’ wish and failed.

                1Now it came to pass, when the nations round about heard that the altar and the sanctuary were built up as before, that they were exceeding angry. 2And they thought to destroy the generation of Jacob that were among them, and they began to kill some of the people, and to persecute them. 3Then Judas fought against the children of Esau in Idumea, and them that were in Acrabathane: because they beset the Israelites around about, and he made a great slaughter of them. 4And he remembered the malice of the children of Bean: who were a snare and a stumblingblock to the people, by lying in wait for them in the way. 5And they were shut up by him in towers, and he set upon them, and devoted them to utter destruction, and burnt their towers with fire, and all that were in them. 6Then he passed over to the children of Ammon, where he found a mighty power, and much people, and Timotheus was their captain: 7And he fought many battles with them, and they were discomfited in their sight, and he smote them: 8And he took the city of Gazer and her towns, and returned into Judea. 9And the Gentiles that were in Galaad, assembled themselves together against the Israelites that were in their quarters to destroy them: and they fled into the fortress of Datheman. 10And they sent letters to Judas and his brethren, saying, The heathens that are round about are gathered together against us, to destroy us: 11And they are preparing to come, and to take the fortress into which we are fled: and Timotheus is the captain of their host. 12Now therefore come, and deliver us out of their hands, for many of us are slain. 13And all our brethren that were in the places of Tubin, are killed: and they have carried away their wives, and their children, captives, and taken their spoils, and they have slain there almost a thousand men. 14And while they were yet reading these letters, behold there came other messengers out Galilee with their garments rent, who related according to these words: 15Saying, that they of Ptolemais, and of Tyre, and of Sidon, were assembled against them, and all Galilee is filled with strangers, in order to consume us. 16Now when Judas and all the people heard these words, a great assembly met together to consider what they should do for their brethren that were in trouble, and were assaulted by them. 17And Judas said to Simon his brother: Choose thee men, and go, and deliver they brethren in Galilee: and I, and my brother Jonathan will go into the country of Galaad. 18And he left Joseph the son of Zacharias, and Azarias captains of the people with the remnant of the army in Judea to keep it: 19And he commanded them, saying: Take ye the charge of this people: but make no war against the heathens, till we return. 20Now three thousand men were alloted to Simon, to go into Gallilee: and eight thousand to Judas to go into the land of Galaad. 21And Simon went into Galilee, and fought many battles with the heathens: and the heathens were discomfited before his face, and he pursued them even to the gate of Ptolemais. 22And there fell of the heathens almost three thousand men, and he took the spoils of them, 23And he took with him those that were in Galilee and in Arbatis with their wives, and children, and all that they had, and he brought them into Judea with great joy. 24And Judas Machabeus, and Jonathan his brother passed over the Jordan, and went three days’ journey through the desert. 25And the Nabutheans met them, and received them in a peaceable manner, and told them all that happened to their brethren in the land of Galaad, 26And that many of them were shut up in Barasa, and in Bosor, and in Alima, and in Casphor, and in Mageth, and in Carnaim: all these strong and great cities. 27Yea, and that they were kept shut up in the rest of the cities of Galaad, and that they had appointed to bring their army on the morrow near to these cities, and to take them and to destroy them all in one day. 28Then Judas and his army suddenly turned their march into the desert, to Bosor, and took the city: and he slew every male by the edge of the sword, and took all their spoils, and burnt it with fire. 29And they removed from thence by night, and went till they came to the fortress. 30And it came to pass that early in the morning, when they lifted up their eyes, behold there were people without number, carrying ladders and engines to take the fortress, and assault them. 31And Judas saw that the fight was begun, and the cry of the battle went up to heaven like a trumpet, and a great cry out of the city: 32And he said to his host: Fight ye today for your brethren. 33And he came with three companies behind them, and they sounded their trumpets, and cried out in prayer. 34And the host of Timotheus understood that it was Machabeus, and they fled away before his face: and they made a great slaughter of them: and there fell of them in that day almost eight thousand men. 35And Judas turned aside to Maspha, and assaulted, and took it, and he slew every male thereof, and took the spoils thereof, and burnt it with fire. 36From thence he marched, and took Casbon, and Mageth, and Bosor, and the rest of the cities of Galaad. 37But after this Timotheus gathered another army, and camped over against Raphon beyond the torrent. 38And Judas sent men to view the army: and they brought him word, saying: All the nations, that are round about us, are assembled unto him an army exceeding great: 39And they have hired the Arabians to help them, and they have pitched their tents beyond the torrent, ready to come to fight against thee. And Judas went to meet them. 40And Timotheus said to the captains of his army: When Judas and his army come near the torrent of water, if he pass over unto us first, we shall not be able to withstand him: for he will certainly prevail over us. 41But if he be afraid to pass over, and camp on the other side of the river, we will pass over to them and shall prevail against him. 42Now when Judas came near the torrent of water, he set the scribes of the people by the torrent, and commanded them, saying: Suffer no man to stay behind: but let all come to the battle. 43And he passed over to them first, and all the people after him, and all the heathens were discomfited before them, and they threw away their weapons, and fled to the temple that was in Carnaim. 44And he took that city, and the temple he burnt with fire, with all things that were therein: and Carnaim was subdued, and could not stand against the face of Judas. 45And Judas gathered together all the Israelites that were in the land of Galaad, from the least even to the greatest, and their wives, and children, and an army exceeding great, to come into the land of Juda. 46And they came as far as Ephron: now this was a great city situate in the way, strongly fortified, and there was no means to turn from it on the right hand or on the left, but the way was through the midst of it. 47And they that were in the city, shut themselves in, and stopped up the gates with stones: and Judas sent to them with peaceable words, 48Saying: Let us pass through your land, to go into our country: and no man shall hurt you: we will only pass through on foot. But they would not open to them. 49Then Judas commanded proclamation to be made in the camp, that they should make an assault every man in the place where he was. 50And the men of the army drew near, and he assaulted that city all the day, and all the night, and the city was delivered into his hands: 51And they slew every male with the edge of the sword, and he razed the city, and took the spoils thereof, and passed through all the city over them that were slain. 52Then they passed over the Jordan to the great plain that is over against Bethsan. 53And Judas gathered together the hindmost, and he exhorted the people all the way through, till they came into the land of Juda. 54And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain, till they had returned in peace. 55Now in the days that Judas and Jonathan were in the land of Galaad, and Simon his brother in Galilee before Ptolemais, 56Joseph the son of Zacharias, and Azarias captain of the soldiers, heard of the good success, and the battles that were fought. 57And he said: Let us also get us a name, and let us go fight against the Gentiles that are round about us. 58And he gave charge to them that were in his army, and they went towards Jamnia. 59And Gorgias and his men went out of the city, to give them battle. 60And Joseph and Azarias were put to flight, and were pursued unto the borders of Judea: and there fell, on that day, of the people of Israel about two thousand men, and there was a great overthrow of the people: 61Because they did not hearken to Judas, and his brethren, thinking that they should do manfully. 62But they were not of the seed of those men by whom salvation was brought to Israel. 63And the men of Juda were magnified exceedingly in the sight of all Israel, and of all the nations where their name was heard. 64And people assembled to them with joyful acclamations. 65Then Judas and his brethren went forth and attacked the children of Esau, in the land toward the south, and he took Chebron, and her towns: and he burnt the walls thereof and the towers all round it. 66And he removed his camp to go into the land of the aliens, and he went through Samaria. 67In that day some priests fell in battle, while desiring to do manfully they went out unadvisedly to fight. 68And Judas turned to Azotus into the land of the strangers, and he threw down their altars, and he burnt the statues of their gods with fire: and he took the spoils of the cities, and returned into the land of Juda.

                Chapter 6: Anitochus defeated in Babylon pulls back and dies, Lysias left in Palestine, Eleazar Mac. dies killing the elephant from underneath and they lose Bethzur pulling back to Jerusalem, Lysias lies offering peace and then smokes Jerusalem and returns to Syria because Antiochus had died and Phillip had returned from Babylon to rear young Antiochus.

                1Now king Antiochus was going through the higher countries, and he heard that the city of Elymais in Persia was greatly renowned, and abounding in silver and gold. 2And that there was in it a temple, exceeding rich: and coverings of gold, and breastplates, and shields which king Alexander, son of Philip the Macedonian that reigned first in Greece, had left there. 3Lo, he came, and sought to take the city and to pillage it: But he was not able, because the design was known to them that were in the city. 4And they rose up against him in battle, and he fled away from thence, and departed with great sadness, and returned towards Babylonia. 5And whilst he was in Persia, there came one that told him, how the armies that were in the land of Juda were put to flight: 6And that Lysias went with a very great power, and was put to flight before the face of the Jews, and that thy were grown strong by the armour, and power, and store of spoils, which they had gotten out of the camps which they had destroyed: 7And that they had thrown down the abomination which he had set up upon the altar in Jerusalem, and that they had compassed about the sanctuary with high walls as before, and Bethsura also his city. 8And it came to pass when the king heard these words, that he was struck with fear, and exceedingly moved: and he laid himself down upon his bed, and fell sick for grief, because it had not fallen out to him as he imagined. 9And he remained there many days: for great grief came more and more and more upon him, and he made account that he should die. 10And he called for all his friends, and said to them: Sleep is gone from my eyes, and I am fallen away, and my heart is cast down for anxiety. 11And I said in my heart: Into how much tribulation am I come, and into what floods of sorrow, wherein now I am: I that was pleasant and beloved in my power! 12But now I remember the evils that I have done in Jerusalem, from whence also I took away all the spoils of gold, and of silver that were in it, and I sent to destroy the inhabitants of Juda without cause. 13I know therefore that for this cause these evils have found me: and behold I perish with great grief in a strange land. 14Then he called Philip, one of his friends, and he made him regent over all his kingdom. 15And he gave him the crown, and his robe, and his ring, that he should go to Antiochus his son, and should bring him up for the kingdom. 16So king Antiochus died there in the year one hundred and forty-nine. 17And Lysias understood that the king was dead, and he set up Antiochus his son to reign, whom he brought up young: and he called his name Eupator. 18Now they that were in the castle, had shut up the Israelites round about the holy places: and they were continually seeking their hurt, and to strengthen the Gentiles. 19And Judas purposed to destroy them: and he called together all the people, to besiege them. 20And they came together, and besieged them in the year one hundred and fifty, and they made battering slings and engines. 21And some of the besieged got out: and some wicked men of Israel joined themselves unto them. 22And they went to the king, and said: How long dost thou delay to execute the judgment, and to revenge our brethren? 23We determined to serve thy father and to do according to his orders, and obey his edicts: 24And for this they of our nation are alienated from us, and have slain as many of us as they could find, and have spoiled our inheritances. 25Neither have they put forth their hand against us only, but also against all our borders. 26And behold they have approached this day to the castle of Jerusalem to take it, and they have fortified the stronghold of Bethsura: 27And unless thou speedily prevent them, they will do greater things than these, and thou shalt not be able to subdue them. 28Now when the king heard this, he was angry: and he called together all his friends, and the captains of his army, and them that were over the horsemen. 29There came also to him from other realms, and from the islands of the sea hired troops. 30And the number of his army was an hundred thousand footmen, and twenty thousand horsemen, and thirty-two elephants, trained to battle. 31And they went through Idumea, and approached to Bethsura, and fought many days, and they made engines: but they sallied forth and burnt them with fire, and fought manfully. 32And Judas departed from the castle, and removed the camp to Bethzacharam, over against the king’s camp. 33And the king rose before it was light, and made his troops march on fiercely towards the way of Bethzacharam: and the armies made themselves ready for the battle, and they sounded the trumpets: 34And they shewed the elephants the blood of grapes, and mulberries to provoke them to fight. 35And they distributed the beasts by the legions: and there stood by every elephant a thousand men in coats of mail, and with helmets of brass on their heads: and five hundred horsemen set in order were chosen for every beast. 36These before the time wheresoever the beast was, the were there: and withersoever it went, they went, and they departed not from it. 37And upon the beast, there were strong wooden towers, which covered every one of them: and engines upon them: and upon every one thirty-two valiant men, who fought from above; and an Indian to rule the beast. 38And the rest of the horsemen he placed on this side and on that side at the two wings, with trumpets to stir up the army, and to hasten them forward that stood thick together in the legions thereof. 39Now when the sun shone upon the shields of gold, and of brass, the mountains glittered therewith, and they shone like lamps of fire. 40And part of the king’s army was distinguished by the high mountains, and the other part by the low places: and they marched on warily and orderly. 41And all the inhabitants of the land were moved at the noise of their multitude, and the marching of the company, and the rattling of the armour, for the army was exceeding great and strong. 42And Judas and his army drew near for battle: and there fell of the king’s army six hundred men. 43And Eleazar the son of Saura saw one of the beasts harnessed with the king’s harness: and it was higher than the other beasts: and it seemed to him that the king was on it: 44And he exposed himself to deliver his people and to get himself an everlasting name. 45And he ran up to it boldly in the midst of the legion, killing on the right hand, and on the left, and they fell by him on this side and that side. 46And he went between the feet of the elephant, and put himself under it: and slew it, and it fell to the ground upon him, and he died there. 47Then they seeing the strength of the king and the fierceness of his army, turned away from them. 48But the king’s army went up against them to Jerusalem: and the king’s army pitched their tents against Judea and mount Sion. 49And he made peace with them that were in Bethsura: and they came forth out of the city, because they had no victuals, being shut up there, for it was the year of rest to the land. 50And the king took Bethsura: and he placed there a garrison to keep it. 51And he turned his army against the sanctuary for many days: and he set up there battering slings, and engines and instruments to cast fire, and engines to cast stones and javelins, and pieces to shoot arrows, and slings. 52And they also made engines against their engines, and they fought for many days. 53But there were no victuals in the city because it was the seventh year: and such as had stayed in Judea of them that came from among the nations, had eaten the residue of all that which had been stored up. 54And there remained in the holy places but a few, for the famine had prevailed over them: and they were dispersed every man to his own place. 55Now Lysias heard that Philip, whom king Antiochus while he lived had appointed to bring up his son Antiochus, and to reign, to be king, 56Was returned from Persia, and Media, with the army that went with him, and that he sought to take upon him the affairs of the kingdom: 57Wherefore he made haste to go, and say to the king and to the captains of the army: We decay daily, and our provision of victuals is small, and the place that we lay siege to is strong, and it lieth upon us to take order for the affairs of the kingdom. 58Now therefore let us come to an agreement with these men, and make peace with them and with all their nation. 59And let us covenant with them, that they may live according to their own laws as before. For because of our despising their laws, they have been provoked, and have done all these things. 60And the proposal was acceptable in the sight of the king, and of the princes: and he sent to them to make peace: and they accepted of it. 61And the king and the princes swore to them: and they came out of the stronghold. 62Then the king entered into mount Sion, and saw the strength of the place: and he quickly broke the oath that he had taken, and gave commandment to throw down the wall round about. 63And he departed in haste, and returned to Antioch, where he found Philip master of the city: and he fought against him, and took the city.

                Ch. 7: Alcimus made high priest, speaks softly but once in power kills Jews, Maccabees revolt again, Nicanor sent to fight this time, demands Jews give up Judas, Judas rallies and defeats Nicanor at Beth-horon

                Ch. 8: Hear of Romans and make a treaty with them (Judas and Rome)

                Ch. 10: King Demetrius (Syria) and Alexander (from Egypt) court Jonathan with gifts and tax relief vying for the Syrian throne which was in chaos (Alexander wins).

                Chapter 11: Demetrius comes back because of Ptolemy coming up into Syria, they court and abuse Jonathan Mac. and Jonathan is once again at war with Demetrius. Simon Mac. left in the country.

                Ch. 12: Jonathan tries to make deals with Rome. Defeats Demetrius. Then goes against Tyrpho who tricks him, and he sends his troops home (after building a bigger wall around Jerusalem) and captured him

                Ch. 13 Simon Mac. and Typhro go at it, Finally Simon prevails after making deal with King Demetrius (Syria).

                Ch. 15: Antiochus son of Demetrius grants Simon freedom and no taxes etc. Antiochus fights Tyrpho at Dor. Simon Mac. now high priest.

                Ch. 16 Simon Mac. killed by Ptolemy (Egypt). So all the Mac. Brothers are now dead and Simon’s descendants, the Hasmoneans take over down to the time of Herod the Great in ca. 40 BC. }}

25. Josephus.

The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus Translated By William Whiston 1737 This work is in the Public Domain. Copy Freely.   UltimateBibleReferenceLibrary.com

Wars of Jews or History of Destruction of Jerusalem: Preface to the War of the Jews’

Book I: Taking of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes to the Death of Herod the Great. Interval of 167 Years.

Book II: Death of Herod till Vespasian was sent by Nero to Subdue the Jews.

Book III: Vespasian’s coming to Subdue the Jews to the Taking of Gamala

Book IV: Siege of Gamala to the Coming of Titus to besiege Jerusalem

Book V: Coming of Titus to besiege Jerusalem to the Great Extremity to which

the Jews were reduced

Book VI: Great Extremity to which the Jews were reduced to the taking of

Jerusalem by Titus

Book VII: Taking of Jerusalem by Titus to the Sedition of the Jews at Cyrene

Book I: Taking of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes to the Death of Herod the Great. Interval of 167 Years.

                Chapter 1. Jerusalem City Taken, Temple Pillaged, by Antiochus Epiphanes. Actions of Maccabees: Matthias & Judas. Death of Judas.

                1. AT the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the high priests, got the better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city, who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. But Onias, the high priest, fled to Ptolemy, and received a place from him in the Nomus of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter.

                2. Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine’s flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death. Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction, till at length he provoked the poor sufferers by the extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves.

                3. Accordingly Matthias, the son of Asamoneus, one of the priests who lived in a village called Modin, armed himself, together with his own family, which had five sons of his in it, and slew Bacchides with daggers; and thereupon, out of the fear of the many garrisons [of the enemy], he fled to the mountains; and so many of the people followed him, that he was encouraged to come down from the mountains, and to give battle to Antiochus’s generals, when he beat them, and drove them out of Judea. So he came to the government by this his success, and became the prince of his own people by their own free consent, and then died, leaving the government to Judas, his eldest son.

                4. Now Judas, supposing that Antiochus would not lie still, gathered an army out of his own countrymen, and was the first that made a league of friendship with the Romans, and drove Epiphanes out of the country when he had made a second expedition into it, and this by giving him a great defeat there; and when he was warmed by this great success, he made an assault upon the garrison that was in the city, for it had not been cut off hitherto; so he ejected them out of the upper city, and drove the soldiers into the lower, which part of the city was called the Citadel. He then got the temple under his power, and cleansed the whole place, and walled it round about, and made new vessels for sacred ministrations, and brought them into the temple, because the former vessels had been profaned. He also built another altar, and began to offer the sacrifices; and when the city had already received its sacred constitution again, Antiochus died; whose son Antiochus succeeded him in the kingdom, and in his hatred to the Jews also.

                5. So this Antiochus got together fifty thousand (50,000) footmen, and five thousand (5,000) horsemen, and fourscore (80) elephants, and marched through Judea into the mountainous parts. He then took Bethsura, which was a small city; but at a place called Bethzacharis, where the passage was narrow, Judas met him with his army. However, before the forces joined battle, Judas’s brother Eleazar, seeing the very highest of the elephants adorned with a large tower, and with military trappings of gold to guard him, and supposing that Antiochus himself was upon him, he ran a great way before his own army, and cutting his way through the enemy’s troops, he got up to the elephant; yet could he not reach him who seemed to be the king, by reason of his being so high; but still he ran his weapon into the belly of the beast, and brought him down upon himself, and was crushed to death, having done no more than attempted great things, and showed that he preferred glory before life. Now he that governed the elephant was but a private man; and had he proved to be Antiochus, Eleazar had performed nothing more by this bold stroke than that it might appear he chose to die, when he had the bare hope of thereby doing a glorious action; nay, this disappointment proved an omen to his brother [Judas] how the entire battle would end. It is true that the Jews fought it out bravely for a long time, but the king’s forces, being superior in number, and having fortune on their side, obtained the victory. And when a great many of his men were slain, Judas took the rest with him, and fled to the toparchy of Gophna. So Antiochus went to Jerusalem, and staid there but a few days, for he wanted provisions, and so he went his way. He left indeed a garrison behind him, such as he thought sufficient to keep the place, but drew the rest of his army off, to take their winter-quarters in Syria.

                6. Now, after the king was departed, Judas was not idle; for as many of his own nation came to him, so did he gather those that had escaped out of the battle together, and gave battle again to Antiochus’s generals at a village called Adasa; and being too hard for his enemies in the battle, and killing a great number of them, he was at last himself slain also. Nor was it many days afterward that his brother John had a plot laid against him by Antiochus’s party, and was slain by them.

Chapter 2.  Judas’ Successors: Jonathan & Simon, & John Hyrcanus.   

                1. When Jonathan, who was Judas’s brother, succeeded him, he behaved himself with great circumspection in other respects, with relation to his own people; and he corroborated his authority by preserving his friendship with the Romans. He also made a league with Antiochus the son. Yet was not all this sufficient for his security; for the tyrant Trypho, who was guardian to Antiochus’s son, laid a plot against him; and besides that, endeavored to take off his friends, and caught Jonathan by a wile, as he was going to Ptolemais to Antiochus, with a few persons in his company, and put him in bonds, and then made an expedition against the Jews; but when he was afterward driven away by Simon, who was Jonathan’s brother, and was enraged at his defeat, he put Jonathan to death.

                2. However, Simon managed the public affairs after a courageous manner, and took Gazara, and Joppa, and Jamnia, which were cities in his neighborhood. He also got the garrison under, and demolished the citadel. He was afterward an auxiliary to Antiochus, against Trypho, whom he besieged in Dora, before he went on his expedition against the Medes; yet could not he make the king ashamed of his ambition, though he had assisted him in killing Trypho; for it was not long ere Antiochus sent Cendebeus his general with an army to lay waste Judea, and to subdue Simon; yet he, though he was now in years, conducted the war as if he were a much younger man. He also sent his sons with a band of strong men against Antiochus, while he took part of the army himself with him, and fell upon him from another quarter. He also laid a great many men in ambush in many places of the mountains, and was superior in all his attacks upon them; and when he had been conqueror after so glorious a manner, he was made high priest, and also freed the Jews from the dominion of the Macedonians, after one hundred and seventy (170) years of the empire [of Seleucus].

                3. This Simon also had a plot laid against him, and was slain at a feast by his son-in-law Ptolemy, who put his wife and two sons into prison, and sent some persons to kill John, who was also called Hyrcanus. (* This holding a council in the temple of Apollo, in the emperor’s palace at Rome, by Augustus, and even the building of this temple magnificently by himself in that palace, are exactly agreeable to Augustus, in his elder years, as Aldrich and from Suttonius and Propertius. *) But when the young man was informed of their coming beforehand, he made haste to get to the city, as having a very great confidence in the people there, both on account of the memory of the glorious actions of his father, and of the hatred they could not but bear to the injustice of Ptolemy. Ptolemy also made an attempt to get into the city by another gate; but was repelled by the people, who had just then admitted of Hyrcanus; so he retired presently to one of the fortresses that were about Jericho, which was called Dagon. Now when Hyrcanus had received the high priesthood, which his father had held before, and had offered sacrifice to God, he made great haste to attack Ptolemy, that he might afford relief to his mother and brethren.

                4. So he laid siege to the fortress, and was superior to Ptolemy in other respects, but was overcome by him as to the just affection [he had for his relations]; for when Ptolemy was distressed, he brought forth his mother, and his brethren, and set them upon the wall, and beat them with rods in every body’s sight, and threatened, that unless he would go away immediately, he would throw them down headlong; at which sight Hyrcanus’s commiseration and concern were too hard for his anger. But his mother was not dismayed, neither at the stripes she received, nor at the death with which she was threatened; but stretched out her hands, and prayed her son not to be moved with the injuries that she suffered to spare the wretch; since it was to her better to die by the means of Ptolemy, than to live ever so long, provided he might be punished for the injuries he done to their family. Now John’s case was this: When he considered the courage of his mother, and heard her entreaty, he set about his attacks; but when he saw her beaten, and torn to pieces with the stripes, he grew feeble, and was entirely overcome by his affections. And as the siege was delayed by this means, the year of rest came on, upon which the Jews rest every seventh year as they do on every seventh day. On this year, therefore, Ptolemy was freed from being besieged, and slew the brethren of John, with their mother, and fled to Zeno, who was also called Cotylas, who was tyrant of Philadelphia.

                5. And now Antiochus was so angry at what he had suffered from Simon, that he made an expedition into Judea, and sat down before Jerusalem and besieged Hyrcanus; but Hyrcanus opened the sepulcher of David, who was the richest of all kings, and took thence about three thousand (3,000) talents in money, and induced Antiochus, by the promise of three thousand (3,000)  talents, to raise the siege. Moreover, he was the first of the Jews that had money enough, and began to hire foreign auxiliaries also.

                6. However, at another time, when Antiochus was gone upon an expedition against the Medes, and so gave Hyrcanus an opportunity of being revenged upon him, he immediately made an attack upon the cities of Syria, as thinking, what proved to be the case with them, that he should find them empty of god troops. So he took Medaba and Samea, with the towns in their neighborhood, as also Shechem, and Gerizzim; and besides these, [he subdued] the nation of the Cutheans, who dwelt round about that temple which was built in imitation of the temple at Jerusalem; he also took a great many other cities of Idumea, with Adoreon and Marissa.

                7. He also proceeded as far as Samaria, where is now the city Sebaste, which was built by Herod the king, and encompassed it all round with a wall, and set his sons, Aristobulus and Antigonus, over the siege; who pushed it on so hard, that a famine so far prevailed within the city, that they were forced to eat what never was esteemed food. They also invited Antiochus, who was called Cyzicenus, to come to their assistance; whereupon he got ready, and complied with their invitation, but was beaten by Aristobulus and Antigonus; and indeed he was pursued as far as Scythopolis by these brethren, and fled away from them. So they returned back to Samaria, and shut the multitude again within the wall; and when they had taken the city, they demolished it, and made slaves of its inhabitants. And as they had still great success in their undertakings, they did not suffer their zeal to cool, but marched with an army as far as Scythopolis, and made an incursion upon it, and laid waste all the country that lay within Mount Carmel.

                8. But then these successes of John and of his sons made them be envied, and occasioned a sedition in the country; and many there were who got together, and would not be at rest till they brake out into open war, in which war they were beaten. So John lived the rest of his life very happily, and administered the government after a most extraordinary manner, and this for thirtythree (33) entire years together. He died, leaving five sons behind him. He was certainly a very happy man, and afforded no occasion to have any complaint made of fortune on his account. He it was who alone had three of the most desirable things in the world, –the government of his nation, and the high priesthood, and the gift of prophecy. For the Deity conversed with him, and he was not ignorant of anything that was to come afterward; insomuch that he foresaw and foretold that his two eldest sons would not continue masters of the government; and it will highly deserve our narration to describe their catastrophe, and how far inferior these men were to their father in felicity.

Chapter 3. Aristobulus: 1st to be Crowned with Diadem on his Head. Murders his Mother & Brother. He Dies after 1 Year Reign.

                1. For after the death of their father, the elder of them, Aristobulus, changed the government into a kingdom, and was the first that put a diadem upon his head, four hundred seventy and one (471) years and three (3) months after our people came down into this country, when they were set free from the Babylonian slavery. Now, of his brethren, he appeared to have an affection for Antigonus, who was next to him, and made him his equal; but for the rest, he bound them, and put them in prison. He also put his mother in bonds, for her contesting the government with him; for John had left her to be the governess of public affairs. He also proceeded to that degree of barbarity as to cause her to be pined to death in prison.    (* Hear Dean Aldrich’s note on this place: “The law or Custom of the Jews (says he) requires seven days’ mourning for the dead, Antiq. B. XVII. ch. 8. sect. 4; whence the author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, ch. 22:12, assigns seven days as the proper time of mourning for the dead, and, ch. 38:17, enjoins men to mourn for the dead, that they may not be evil spoken of; for, as Josephus says presently, if any one omits this mourning [funeral feast], he is not esteemed a holy person. How it is certain that such a seven days’ mourning has been customary from times of the greatest antiquity, Genesis 1:10. Funeral feasts are also mentioned as of considerable antiquity, Ezekiel 24:17; Jeremiah 16:7; Prey. 31:6; Deuteronomy 26:14; Josephus, Of the War B. III. ch. 9. sect. 5. *)

                2. But vengeance circumvented him in the affair of his brother Antigonus, whom he loved, and whom he made his partner in the kingdom; for he slew him by the means of the calumnies which ill men about the palace contrived against him. At first, indeed, Aristobulus would not believe their reports, partly out of the affection he had for his brother, and partly because he thought that a great part of these tales were owing to the envy of their relaters: however, as Antigonus came once in a splendid manner from the army to that festival, wherein our ancient custom is to make tabernacles for God, it happened, in those days, that Aristobulus was sick, and that, at the conclusion of the feast, Antigonus came up to it, with his armed men about him; and this when he was adorned in the finest manner possible; and that, in a great measure, to pray to God on the behalf of his brother. Now at this very time it was that these ill men came to the king, and told him in what a pompous manner the armed men came, and with what insolence Antigonus marched, and that such his insolence was too great for a private person, and that accordingly he was come with a great band of men to kill him; for that he could not endure this bare enjoyment of royal honor, when it was in his power to take the kingdom himself.

                3. Now Aristobulus, by degrees, and unwillingly, gave credit to these accusations; and accordingly he took care not to discover his suspicion openly, though he provided to be secure against any accidents; so he placed the guards of his body in a certain dark subterranean passage; for he lay sick in a place called formerly the Citadel, though afterwards its name was changed to Antonia; and he gave orders that if Antigonus came unarmed, they should let him alone; but if he came to him in his armor, they should kill him. He also sent some to let him know beforehand that he should come unarmed. But, upon this occasion, the queen very cunningly contrived the matter with those that plotted his ruin, for she persuaded those that were sent to conceal the king’s message; but to tell Antigonus how his brother had heard he had got a very the suit of armor made with fine martial ornaments, in Galilee; and because his present sickness hindered him from coming and seeing all that finery, he very much desired to see him now in his armor; because, said he, in a little time thou art going away from me.

                4. As soon as Antigonus heard this, the good temper of his brother not allowing him to suspect any harm from him, he came along with his armor on, to show it to his brother; but when he was going along that dark passage which was called Strato’s Tower, he was slain by the body guards, and became an eminent instance how calumny destroys all good-will and natural affection, and how none of our good affections are strong enough to resist envy perpetually.

                5. And truly anyone would be surprised at Judas upon this occasion. He was of the sect of the Essens, and had never failed or deceived men in his predictions before. Now this man saw Antigonus as he was passing along by the temple, and cried out to his acquaintance, (they were not a few who attended upon him as his scholars,) “O strange!” said he, “it is good for me to die now, since truth is dead before me, and somewhat that I have foretold hath proved false; for this Antigonus is this day alive, who ought to have died this day; and the place where he ought to be slain, according to that fatal decree, was Strato’s Tower, which is at the distance of six hundred furlongs from this place; and yet four hours of this day are over already; which point of time renders the prediction impossible to be fill filled.” And when the old man had said this, he was dejected in his mind, and so continued. But in a little time news came that Antigonus was slain in a subterraneous place, which was itself also called Strato’s Tower, by the same name with that Cesarea which lay by the sea-side; and this ambiguity it was which caused the prophet’s disorder.

                6. Hereupon Aristobulus repented of the great crime he had been guilty of, and this gave occasion to the increase of his distemper. He also grew worse and worse, and his soul was constantly disturbed at the thoughts of what he had done, till his very bowels being torn to pieces by the intolerable grief he was under, he threw up a great quantity of blood. And as one of those servants that attended him carried out that blood, he, by some supernatural providence, slipped and fell down in the very place where Antigonus had been slain; and so he spilt some of the murderer’s blood upon the spots of the blood of him that had been murdered, which still appeared. Hereupon a lamentable cry arose among the spectators, as if the servant had spilled the blood on purpose in that place; and as the king heard that cry, he inquired what was the cause of it; and while nobody durst tell him, he pressed them so much the more to let him know what was the matter; so at length, when he had threatened them, and forced them to speak out, they told; whereupon he burst into tears, and groaned, and said, “So I perceive I am not like to escape the all-seeing eye of God, as to the great crimes I have committed; but the vengeance of the blood of my kinsman pursues me hastily. O thou most impudent body! how long wilt thou retain a soul that ought to die on account of that punishment it ought to suffer for a mother and a brother slain! How long shall I myself spend my blood drop by drop? let them take it all at once; and let their ghosts no longer be disappointed by a few parcels of my bowels offered to them.” As soon as he had said these words, he presently died, when he had reigned no longer than a year.

Chapter 4. Alexander Janneus: Actions. Reigned 27 Years.

                1. AND now the king’s wife loosed the king’s brethren, and made Alexander king, who appeared both elder in age, and more moderate in his temper than the rest; who, when he came to the government, slew one of his brethren, as affecting to govern himself; but had the other of them in great esteem, as loving a quiet life, without meddling with public affairs.

                2. Now it happened that there was a battle between him and Ptolemy, who was called Lathyrus, who had taken the city Asochis. He indeed slew a great many of his enemies, but the victory rather inclined to Ptolemy. But when this Ptolemy was pursued by his mother Cleopatra, and retired into Egypt, Alexander besieged Gadara, and took it; as also he did Amathus, which was the strongest of all the fortresses that were about Jordan, and therein were the most precious of all the possessions of Theodorus, the son of Zeno. Whereupon Theodopus marched against him, and took what belonged to himself as well as the king’s baggage, and slew ten thousand of the Jews. However, Alexander recovered this blow, and turned his force towards the maritime parts, and took Raphia and Gaza, with Anthedon also, which was afterwards called Agrippias by king Herod.

                3. But when he had made slaves of the citizens of all these cities, the nation of the Jews made an insurrection against him at a festival; for at those feasts seditions are generally begun; and it looked as if he should not be able to escape the plot they had laid for him, had not his foreign auxiliaries, the Pisidians and Cilicians, assisted him; for as to the Syrians, he never admitted them among his mercenary troops, on account of their innate enmity against the Jewish nation. And when he had slain more than six thousand (6,000) of the rebels, he made an incursion into Arabia; and when he had taken that country, together with the Gileadires and Moabites, he enjoined them to pay him tribute, and returned to Areathus; and as Theodorus was surprised at his great success, he took the fortress, and demolished it.

                4. However, when he fought with Obodas, king of the Arabians, who had laid an ambush for him near Golan, and a plot against him, he lost his entire army, which was crowded together in a deep valley, and broken to pieces by the multitude of camels. And when he had made his escape to Jerusalem, he provoked the multitude, which hated him before, to make an insurrection against him, and this on account of the greatness of the calamity that he was under. However, he was then too hard for them; and, in the several battles that were fought on both sides, he slew not fewer than fifty thousand (50,000) of the Jews in the interval of six (6) years. Yet had he no reason to rejoice in these victories, since he did but consume his own kingdom; till at length he left off fighting, and endeavored to come to a composition with them, by talking with his subjects. But this mutability and irregularity of his conduct made them hate him still more. And when he asked them why they so hated him, and what he should do in order to appease them, they said, by killing himself; for that it would be then all they could do to be reconciled to him, who had done such tragical things to them, even when he was dead. At the same time they invited Demetrius, who was called Eucerus, to assist them; and as he readily complied with their requests, in hopes of great advantages, and came with his army, the Jews joined with those their auxiliaries about Shechem.

                5. Yet did Alexander meet both these forces with one thousand (1,000) horsemen, and eight thousand (8,000) mercenaries that were on foot. He had also with him that part of the Jews which favored him, to the number of ten thousand (10,000); while the adverse party had three thousand (3,000) horsemen, and fourteen thousand (14,000) footmen. Now, before they joined battle, the kings made proclamation, and endeavored to draw off each other’s soldiers, and make them revolt; while Demetrius hoped to induce Alexander’s mercenaries to leave him, and Alexander hoped to induce the Jews that were with Demetrius to leave him. But since neither the Jews would leave off their rage, nor the Greeks prove unfaithful, they came to an engagement, and to a close fight with their weapons. In which battle Demetrius was the conqueror, although Alexander’s mercenaries showed the greatest exploits, both in soul and body. Yet did the upshot of this battle prove different from what was expected, as to both of them; for neither did those that invited Demetrius to come to them continue firm to him, though he was conqueror; and six thousand (6,000) Jews, out of pity to the change of Alexander’s condition, when he was fled to the mountains, came over to him. Yet could not Demetrius bear this turn of affairs; but supposing that Alexander was already become a match for him again, and that all the nation would [at length] run to him, he left the country, and went his way.

                6. However, the rest of the [Jewish] multitude did not lay aside their quarrels with him, when the [foreign] auxiliaries were gone; but they had a perpetual war with Alexander, until he had slain the greatest part of them, and driven the rest into the city Berneselis; and when he had demolished that city, he carried the captives to Jerusalem. Nay, his rage was grown so extravagant, that his barbarity proceeded to the degree of impiety; for when he had ordered eight hundred (800) to be hung upon crosses in the midst of the city, he had the throats of their wives and children cut before their eyes; and these executions he saw as he was drinking and lying down with his concubines. Upon which so deep a surprise seized on the people, that eight thousand (8,000) of his opposers fled away the very next night, out of all Judea, whose flight was only terminated by Alexander’s death; so at last, though not till late, and with great difficulty, he, by such actions, procured quiet to his kingdom, and left off fighting any more.

                7. Yet did that Antiochus, who was also called Dionysius, become an origin of troubles again. This man was the brother of Demetrius, and the last of the race of the Seleucids.  (* Here we have a strong confirmation that it was Xerxes, and not Artaxerxes, under whom the main part of the Jews returned out of the Babylonian captivity, i.e. in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. The same thing is in the Antiquities, B. XI. ch.6 *) Alexander was afraid of him, when he was marching against the Arabians; so he cut a deep trench between Antipatris, which was near the mountains, and the shores of Joppa; he also erected a high wall before the trench, and built wooden towers, in order to hinder any sudden approaches. But still he was not able to exclude Antiochus, for he burnt the towers, and filled up the trenches, and marched on with his army. And as he looked upon taking his revenge on Alexander, for endeavoring to stop him, as a thing of less consequence, he marched directly against the Arabians, whose king retired into such parts of the country as were fittest for engaging the enemy, and then on the sudden made his horse turn back, which were in number ten thousand, and fell upon Antiochus’s army while they were in disorder, and a terrible battle ensued. Antiochus’s troops, so long as he was alive, fought it out, although a mighty slaughter was made among them by the Arabians; but when he fell, for he was in the forefront, in the utmost danger, in rallying his troops, they all gave ground, and the greatest part of his army were destroyed, either in the action or the flight; and for the rest, who fled to the village of Cana, it happened that they were all consumed by want of necessaries, a few only excepted.

                8. About this time it was that the people of Damascus, out of their hatred to Ptolemy, the son of Menhens, invited Aretas [to take the government], and made him king of Celesyria. This man also made an expedition against Judea, and beat Alexander in battle; but afterwards retired by mutual agreement. But Alexander, when he had taken Pella, marched to Gerasa again, out of the covetous desire he had of Theodorus’s possessions; and when he had built a triple wall about the garrison, he took the place by force. He also demolished Golan, and Seleucia, and what was called the Valley of Antiochus; besides which, he took the strong fortress of Gamala, and stripped Demetrius, who was governor therein, of what he had, on account of the many crimes laid to his charge, and then returned into Judea, after he had been three whole years in this expedition. And now he was kindly received of the nation, because of the good success he had. So when he was at rest from war, he fell into a distemper; for he was afflicted with a quartan-ague, and supposed that, by exercising himself again in martial affairs, he should get rid of this distemper; but by making such expeditions at unseasonable times, and forcing his body to undergo greater hardships than it was able to bear, he brought himself to his end. He died, therefore, in the midst of his troubles, after he had reigned seven and twenty (27)  years.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUq0AKV13E9Ek3uNQ?e=AzqhtR
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUolXrUk8DRG-3fXQ?e=VlNwPd
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUukOnf3cpuJoWCJQ?e=DKFFqE (CBR4-5.Daniel)
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUr33cfjhqfqsRETA?e=vx4ZcR (CBR.PublicFolder)

CBR files in PDF & Word:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUg_Ua3IHBwOxi9NWARA?e=2b3BsD

Here is the link to my Internet Archive.org library page for those interested:
https://archive.org/details/@mikemjm

                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. 1777.gs  (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 o