Daniel · Chapter 9

V. 1. In the first year of Darius-That is, immediately after the overthrow of the kingdom of Babylon, which was the year of the Jews deliverance from captivity. Of the Medes-This Darius was not Darius the Persian, under whom the temple was built, as some have asserted, to invalidate the credibility of this book; but Darius the Mede, who lived in the time of Daniel.

Verse 1. In the first year of Darius] This is the same Darius the Mede, spoken of before, who succeeded Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans. See Daniel 5:31.

Verses 1, 2. In the first year of Darius — That is, immediately after the overthrow of the kingdom of Babylon, which was the year of the Jews’ deliverance from captivity. This Darius was not Darius the Persian, under whom the temple was built, as some have asserted, to invalidate the credibility of this book; but Darius the Mede, who lived in the time of Daniel, and is called Cyaxares, the son of Astyages, by the heathen historians: see note on chap. 6:1. In the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by books, &c. — Namely, by the several prophecies of Jeremiah 25:11, 12, and 29:10, which are called so many books: see Jeremiah 25:13, and 30:2. We may learn from hence, that the later prophets studied the writings of those prophets who were before them, especially for the more perfect understanding of the times when their prophecies were to be fulfilled. The same they did by several of their own prophecies. That he would accomplish seventy years, &c. — Concerning the time from whence these seventy years are to be dated, see note on Jeremiah 25:11, 12. Daniel saw a part of Jeremiah’s prediction fulfilled, by the vengeance which the Lord had taken upon the house of Nebuchadnezzar; but he saw no appearance of that deliverance of the Jews which the prophet foretold. This was the cause of his uneasiness, and the motive of his prayers.

Verse 1. In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus. He is also called Cyaxares, the son of Astyages. His father was called by the jews, Ahasuerus. See on Esther.

1. For “Darius the Mede” see our Introduction, III, 3, (5), and note 5:31. If this king really was Gubaru, appointed vicegerent by Cyrus when he captured Babylon, then this prophecy of the “seventy year-weeks” is represented as being given in the very year when the Jews received permission to return and rebuild their temple; that is, at the end of their “seventy weeks” of captivity in Babylon. Son of Ahashuerus — This may possibly have been a marginal note, though the versions do not indicate it. If the reference here is to the Book of Esther’s famous Ahasuerus (Xerxes) it is a bad mistake; for he was the son of Darius Hystaspes, not the father of Darius the Mede. But a famous man is usually preceded by less famous men bearing the same name. In official documents of the fifth century B.C. and later the name Ahasuerus (Khsyrs, mighty) occurs in many forms. The Hebrew ear was not keen nor the tongue glib, so that no objection can be properly raised here because of the Hebrew spelling of this name. In the very first year of the reign of the celebrated Xerxes (485 B.C.) his name was spelled in official records, Akhsu-varsi, Akki-sarsu, Akhsi-varsa, Aksi-yarsu; the form fixing itself later as Akhsi-yarsu (Oppert, Revue des Etudes Juives, 1894).

V. 2. By books-By the sacred books.

Verse 2. I Daniel understood by books] The prophecy referred to here is found Jeremiah 25:12; 29:10. The people must have been satisfied of the Divine inspiration of Jeremiah, or his prophecies would not have been so speedily collected nor so carefully preserved. It appears that there was a copy of them then in Daniel’s hands.

Verses 1, 2. In the first year of Darius — That is, immediately after the overthrow of the kingdom of Babylon, which was the year of the Jews’ deliverance from captivity. This Darius was not Darius the Persian, under whom the temple was built, as some have asserted, to invalidate the credibility of this book; but Darius the Mede, who lived in the time of Daniel, and is called Cyaxares, the son of Astyages, by the heathen historians: see note on chap. 6:1. In the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by books, &c. — Namely, by the several prophecies of Jeremiah 25:11, 12, and 29:10, which are called so many books: see Jeremiah 25:13, and 30:2. We may learn from hence, that the later prophets studied the writings of those prophets who were before them, especially for the more perfect understanding of the times when their prophecies were to be fulfilled. The same they did by several of their own prophecies. That he would accomplish seventy years, &c. — Concerning the time from whence these seventy years are to be dated, see note on Jeremiah 25:11, 12. Daniel saw a part of Jeremiah’s prediction fulfilled, by the vengeance which the Lord had taken upon the house of Nebuchadnezzar; but he saw no appearance of that deliverance of the Jews which the prophet foretold. This was the cause of his uneasiness, and the motive of his prayers.

Ver. 2. I Daniel understood by books, by Jeremiah, and confirmed by Ezekiel, that the seventy years of the captivity were accomplished. This passage proves how prophecies, even in those irreligious times, were valued by good men, and how widely the writings of the prophets were circulated. Why then should Rome keep the bible from the people? It is like forcing the people to keep their windows closed against the sun which brings us light, and health, and joy.

2. By the books (or, rolls) of Jeremiah’s prophecies, which Daniel possessed, he understood the number of years which the Lord had decreed “for the accomplishing of the desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years” (R.V.; compare Jeremiah 25:11, 12; 29:10).

Verse 3. I set my face—to seek by prayer] He found that the time of the promised deliverance could not be at any great distance; and as he saw nothing that indicated a speedy termination of their oppressive captivity, he was very much afflicted, and earnestly besought God to put a speedy end to it; and how earnestly he seeks, his own words show. He prayed, he supplicated, he fasted, he put sackcloth upon his body, and he put ashes upon his head. He uses that kind of prayer prescribed by Solomon in his prayer at the dedication of the temple. See 1 Kings 8:47, 48.

Verse 3. I set my face unto the Lord God — This expression does not merely mean, that he directed his face to the place where the temple had stood: it signifies also his resolution to apply to God with the utmost seriousness, fervency, importunity, and perseverance, for the accomplishment of his promises respecting the restoration of his people. It denotes, says Henry, “the intenseness of his mind in this prayer, the fixedness of his thoughts, the firmness of his faith, and the fervour of his devout affections in the duty.” To seek by prayer and supplication, &c. — God’s promises, in general, are conditional, and intended, not to supersede, but to excite and encourage our prayers: this was especially the case with regard to God’s promise of restoring the Jews from captivity after seventy years, and this condition was particularly expressed when the promise was made by Jeremiah 29:10-14, where God says, Ye shall call upon me, and I will hearken unto you, &c., and will turn away your captivity, &c. Here we see Daniel complied with the condition; he sought unto the Lord with all his heart, (and undoubtedly excited others to do the same,) and the Lord was found of him. With fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes — In token of humiliation, sorrow for their sins, and grief for the duration of their captivity.

Ver. 3. I set my face to the Lord God, to seek him by fasting, by prayer, and by confession of sin. The Spirit of God inspired the prophet with this prayer, that he might hear it.

3. It was now nearly seventy years since Daniel had been carried captive to Babylon (Daniel 1:1), and as the time of the captivity seemed drawing to a close he is represented as becoming deeply and solemnly interested in its fulfillment. Kautzsch’s idea that Daniel’s sadness proves that according to the writer’s calculation the time of fulfillment must have been already past (Beilagen, p. 205), curiously misinterprets the prophetic temperament. There is no necessary anachronism here. Daniel’s sorrow is not said to be because of Jehovah’s failure to keep his promise of deliverance, but because of his people’s sins which had brought upon them these terrible calamities. So earlier prophets, notably Jeremiah, had sorrowed with equal bitterness. (See also note Daniel 10:2-4, 15, 16.) As the number “seventy” was the common symbolical number of perfection and fullness of time (see our Introduction to Ezekiel, VIII), no elaborate calculation is necessary as to the year when these “desolations” commenced. If they began with Jehoiachin’s captivity (598 B.C.) there were yet ten years before the seventy years of ruin would literally come to an end.

Verse 4. Keeping the covenant] Fidelity and truth are characteristics of God. He had never yet broken his engagements to his followers, and was ever showing mercy to men.

Verse 4. I prayed unto the Lord my God — Daniel could approach God with confidence, knowing him to be his God in covenant, his reconciled God and Father. Observe, reader, we must know God to be our God, if we would pray in faith, and with success, when we apply to him for any blessing. And made my confession — Both acknowledging his justice and holiness, and my own and my people’s iniquity. The more pious men are, and the better they are acquainted with themselves and God, the greater is the sense they have of their past guilt and present unworthiness, and the deeper is their humiliation: see Job 42:6; and 1 Timothy 1:15. Observe, reader, in every prayer we must make confession, not only of the sins we have committed, (which is what we commonly call confession,) but of our faith in God, and dependance upon him; our sorrow for sin, and our resolutions against it. It must be our confession, the language of our own convictions, and what we ourselves do heartily subscribe to. And said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God — A God of whom it is our duty always to stand in awe, and who art well able to deal with the greatest and most terrible of thy churches enemies; keeping covenant and mercy to them that love him — Fulfilling his promises to his people, and showing them mercy and loving-kindness, even beyond what he hath promised.

4-6. This is a model prayer, including adoration and praise, confession of sin, and petition for further mercies. (Compare Nehemiah’s prayer, Nehemiah 1:5-11.) The phraseology used is distinctly scriptural. (See Exodus 20:6; Deuteronomy 7:9; 2 Chronicles 36:15, 16, and compare Nehemiah 9:30, 32.)

Verse 5. We have sinned, and have committed iniquity — Daniel uses the same confession here that is prescribed, in Solomon’s consecration prayer, to be used by the Jews in the land of their captivity; with a promise subjoined, of a favourable answer that God would make to their supplications presented to him on such an occasion: see the margin. And being one of the Jewish nation, he speaks of their sins as his own; and, though certainly a most holy man, puts himself among the greatest sinners. There seems to be a kind of gradation in the prophet’s confessions here, beginning with sins in general, and rising to rebellion and apostacy.

4-6. This is a model prayer, including adoration and praise, confession of sin, and petition for further mercies. (Compare Nehemiah’s prayer, Nehemiah 1:5-11.) The phraseology used is distinctly scriptural. (See Exodus 20:6; Deuteronomy 7:9; 2 Chronicles 36:15, 16, and compare Nehemiah 9:30, 32.)

4-6. This is a model prayer, including adoration and praise, confession of sin, and petition for further mercies. (Compare Nehemiah’s prayer, Nehemiah 1:5-11.) The phraseology used is distinctly scriptural. (See Exodus 20:6; Deuteronomy 7:9; 2 Chronicles 36:15, 16, and compare Nehemiah 9:30, 32.)

Verse 7. All Israel, that are near, and that are far off] He prays both for Judah and Israel. The latter were more dispersed, and had been much longer in captivity.

Verses 7-10. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee — Thou hast done us no wrong in any of the calamities which thou hast brought upon us; but hast shown thyself to be just and holy, nay, merciful and gracious, punishing us far less than our iniquities deserved. But unto us confusion of faces — But ignominy and shame belong to us; and the contempt and ill treatment we have met with has been no more than we justly deserved. To the men of Judah, and unto all Israel that are near, &c. — To the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, that are near, by the rivers of Babylon; and to the ten tribes, that are afar off, in the land of Assyria. Confusion belongs not only to the common people of our land, but to our kings, our princes, and to our fathers, who ought to have set a better example, and to have used their authority and influence for the checking of the threatening torrent of vice and profaneness. Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord — Though we were under infinite obligations to obey him; to walk in his laws — Which were all holy, just, and good; which he set before us by his servants the prophets — By Moses, and the succession of prophets that followed him; who re-enforced the law of Moses, and gave the people new instructions from God upon emergent occasions.

7, 8. The Lord is righteous, and all the sorrows which have fallen upon Israel have been because of their trespass (or, because of the unfaithfulness that they have committed). (Compare Leviticus 26:40.) It is this unfaithfulness which causes confusion of faces to all Israel, both rulers and people; those that are near (in Palestine) and those that are far off (the captives in foreign countries).

Verses 7-10. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee — Thou hast done us no wrong in any of the calamities which thou hast brought upon us; but hast shown thyself to be just and holy, nay, merciful and gracious, punishing us far less than our iniquities deserved. But unto us confusion of faces — But ignominy and shame belong to us; and the contempt and ill treatment we have met with has been no more than we justly deserved. To the men of Judah, and unto all Israel that are near, &c. — To the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, that are near, by the rivers of Babylon; and to the ten tribes, that are afar off, in the land of Assyria. Confusion belongs not only to the common people of our land, but to our kings, our princes, and to our fathers, who ought to have set a better example, and to have used their authority and influence for the checking of the threatening torrent of vice and profaneness. Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord — Though we were under infinite obligations to obey him; to walk in his laws — Which were all holy, just, and good; which he set before us by his servants the prophets — By Moses, and the succession of prophets that followed him; who re-enforced the law of Moses, and gave the people new instructions from God upon emergent occasions.

7, 8. The Lord is righteous, and all the sorrows which have fallen upon Israel have been because of their trespass (or, because of the unfaithfulness that they have committed). (Compare Leviticus 26:40.) It is this unfaithfulness which causes confusion of faces to all Israel, both rulers and people; those that are near (in Palestine) and those that are far off (the captives in foreign countries).

Verse 9. Mercies and forgivenesses] From God’s goodness flow God’s mercies; from his mercies, forgivenesses.

Verses 7-10. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee — Thou hast done us no wrong in any of the calamities which thou hast brought upon us; but hast shown thyself to be just and holy, nay, merciful and gracious, punishing us far less than our iniquities deserved. But unto us confusion of faces — But ignominy and shame belong to us; and the contempt and ill treatment we have met with has been no more than we justly deserved. To the men of Judah, and unto all Israel that are near, &c. — To the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, that are near, by the rivers of Babylon; and to the ten tribes, that are afar off, in the land of Assyria. Confusion belongs not only to the common people of our land, but to our kings, our princes, and to our fathers, who ought to have set a better example, and to have used their authority and influence for the checking of the threatening torrent of vice and profaneness. Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord — Though we were under infinite obligations to obey him; to walk in his laws — Which were all holy, just, and good; which he set before us by his servants the prophets — By Moses, and the succession of prophets that followed him; who re-enforced the law of Moses, and gave the people new instructions from God upon emergent occasions.

9. Though we have rebelled — R.V., “for we have rebelled.” The phrase might even be read, “because we have rebelled.” (Compare Psalm 25:15.)

Verses 7-10. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee — Thou hast done us no wrong in any of the calamities which thou hast brought upon us; but hast shown thyself to be just and holy, nay, merciful and gracious, punishing us far less than our iniquities deserved. But unto us confusion of faces — But ignominy and shame belong to us; and the contempt and ill treatment we have met with has been no more than we justly deserved. To the men of Judah, and unto all Israel that are near, &c. — To the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, that are near, by the rivers of Babylon; and to the ten tribes, that are afar off, in the land of Assyria. Confusion belongs not only to the common people of our land, but to our kings, our princes, and to our fathers, who ought to have set a better example, and to have used their authority and influence for the checking of the threatening torrent of vice and profaneness. Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord — Though we were under infinite obligations to obey him; to walk in his laws — Which were all holy, just, and good; which he set before us by his servants the prophets — By Moses, and the succession of prophets that followed him; who re-enforced the law of Moses, and gave the people new instructions from God upon emergent occasions.

10, 11. Having disobeyed persistently the written law, the penalty of disobedience, which God had confirmed by an oath, had to be inflicted. (See Leviticus 26:14-39; Deuteronomy 28:15-68; 29:14, 19-28; 30:17-19.)

Verse 11. Therefore the curse is poured upon us] It is probable that he alludes here to the punishment of certain criminals by pouring melted metal upon them; therefore he uses the word Ëtt tittach, it is poured out, like melted metal, for this is the proper meaning of the root Ëtn nathach.

Verses 11-14. Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law — Not here and there one, but the generality of them; the body of the people have transgressed, by departing, and taking themselves out of the way, that they might not hear, and so might not obey thy voice: therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath, &c. — That is, the curse that was ratified by an oath in the law of Moses. This further justified God in their troubles, that he only inflicted the penalty of the law, of which he had given them fair notice. It was necessary for preserving the honour of God’s veracity, and saving his government from contempt, that the threatenings of his word should be executed; otherwise they would have looked but as bugbears, nay, they would have had no terror in them. And he hath confirmed his words against us — Because we broke his laws, And against our judges that judged us — Because they did not, according to the duty of their places, punish the breach of God’s laws. He informed them frequently, that if they did not execute justice, as terrors to evil-doers, he must and would take the work into his own hands; and now, says Daniel, he has confirmed what he said, by bringing upon us a great evil — In which the princes and judges themselves have deeply shared. For under the whole heaven hath not been done, &c. — See note on Lamentations 1:12, and 2:13; Ezekiel 5:9. As it is written, &c., all this is come upon us — This is a devout acknowledgment, that, from the very beginning of their state, they had been forewarned that such evils as they now suffered would come upon them, when they forsook the Lord their God, and turned aside from the observation of his law. And it is an humble confession of God’s justice and providence, in making his judgments exactly fulfil the threatenings denounced many ages before by Moses. Yet we made not our prayer before the Lord our God — Not in a right manner, as we should have made it, with a lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; we have been smitten, but have not returned to him that smote us; literally, we have not entreated the face, or, as Wintle translates it, have not deprecated the wrath, of the Lord our God. We have taken no care to make our peace with God, and reconcile ourselves to him. Daniel set his brethren a good example of praying continually, but he was sorry to see how few there were that followed his example; in their affliction it was expected they would seek God early, but they sought him not, so as to turn from their iniquities and understand his truth. Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil — Hebrew, watched over the evil; namely, hath taken care that his threatenings should be fulfilled, as a just judge takes care that execution be done, according to the sentence pronounced; because we have not been melted, he hath kept us still in the furnace, and watched over it to make the heat yet more intense; for when God judges he will overcome, and will be justified in all his proceedings.

10, 11. Having disobeyed persistently the written law, the penalty of disobedience, which God had confirmed by an oath, had to be inflicted. (See Leviticus 26:14-39; Deuteronomy 28:15-68; 29:14, 19-28; 30:17-19.)

V. 12. Judged us-Whose duty it was to govern the people, and to judge their causes; wherein if there was a failure, it was a sin, and judgment upon the people, and upon the rulers and judges themselves also. Upon Jerusalem-A place privileged many ways above all others, and punished above all others.

Verses 11-14. Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law — Not here and there one, but the generality of them; the body of the people have transgressed, by departing, and taking themselves out of the way, that they might not hear, and so might not obey thy voice: therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath, &c. — That is, the curse that was ratified by an oath in the law of Moses. This further justified God in their troubles, that he only inflicted the penalty of the law, of which he had given them fair notice. It was necessary for preserving the honour of God’s veracity, and saving his government from contempt, that the threatenings of his word should be executed; otherwise they would have looked but as bugbears, nay, they would have had no terror in them. And he hath confirmed his words against us — Because we broke his laws, And against our judges that judged us — Because they did not, according to the duty of their places, punish the breach of God’s laws. He informed them frequently, that if they did not execute justice, as terrors to evil-doers, he must and would take the work into his own hands; and now, says Daniel, he has confirmed what he said, by bringing upon us a great evil — In which the princes and judges themselves have deeply shared. For under the whole heaven hath not been done, &c. — See note on Lamentations 1:12, and 2:13; Ezekiel 5:9. As it is written, &c., all this is come upon us — This is a devout acknowledgment, that, from the very beginning of their state, they had been forewarned that such evils as they now suffered would come upon them, when they forsook the Lord their God, and turned aside from the observation of his law. And it is an humble confession of God’s justice and providence, in making his judgments exactly fulfil the threatenings denounced many ages before by Moses. Yet we made not our prayer before the Lord our God — Not in a right manner, as we should have made it, with a lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; we have been smitten, but have not returned to him that smote us; literally, we have not entreated the face, or, as Wintle translates it, have not deprecated the wrath, of the Lord our God. We have taken no care to make our peace with God, and reconcile ourselves to him. Daniel set his brethren a good example of praying continually, but he was sorry to see how few there were that followed his example; in their affliction it was expected they would seek God early, but they sought him not, so as to turn from their iniquities and understand his truth. Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil — Hebrew, watched over the evil; namely, hath taken care that his threatenings should be fulfilled, as a just judge takes care that execution be done, according to the sentence pronounced; because we have not been melted, he hath kept us still in the furnace, and watched over it to make the heat yet more intense; for when God judges he will overcome, and will be justified in all his proceedings.

12, 13. Because of Israel’s extreme sensitiveness, better training, higher ideals, and nobler possibilities the loss of her land and temple cut her deeper than any such loss could have wounded a heathen people. (See notes Ezekiel 5:9.) All this ruin had fallen upon the nation wholly because of the people’s sins and their failure to repent and recognize the truth of the prophetic promises and warnings. R.V. reads, “have discernment in thy truth;” that is, gain a knowledge of the true way of safety and life.

Verses 11-14. Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law — Not here and there one, but the generality of them; the body of the people have transgressed, by departing, and taking themselves out of the way, that they might not hear, and so might not obey thy voice: therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath, &c. — That is, the curse that was ratified by an oath in the law of Moses. This further justified God in their troubles, that he only inflicted the penalty of the law, of which he had given them fair notice. It was necessary for preserving the honour of God’s veracity, and saving his government from contempt, that the threatenings of his word should be executed; otherwise they would have looked but as bugbears, nay, they would have had no terror in them. And he hath confirmed his words against us — Because we broke his laws, And against our judges that judged us — Because they did not, according to the duty of their places, punish the breach of God’s laws. He informed them frequently, that if they did not execute justice, as terrors to evil-doers, he must and would take the work into his own hands; and now, says Daniel, he has confirmed what he said, by bringing upon us a great evil — In which the princes and judges themselves have deeply shared. For under the whole heaven hath not been done, &c. — See note on Lamentations 1:12, and 2:13; Ezekiel 5:9. As it is written, &c., all this is come upon us — This is a devout acknowledgment, that, from the very beginning of their state, they had been forewarned that such evils as they now suffered would come upon them, when they forsook the Lord their God, and turned aside from the observation of his law. And it is an humble confession of God’s justice and providence, in making his judgments exactly fulfil the threatenings denounced many ages before by Moses. Yet we made not our prayer before the Lord our God — Not in a right manner, as we should have made it, with a lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; we have been smitten, but have not returned to him that smote us; literally, we have not entreated the face, or, as Wintle translates it, have not deprecated the wrath, of the Lord our God. We have taken no care to make our peace with God, and reconcile ourselves to him. Daniel set his brethren a good example of praying continually, but he was sorry to see how few there were that followed his example; in their affliction it was expected they would seek God early, but they sought him not, so as to turn from their iniquities and understand his truth. Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil — Hebrew, watched over the evil; namely, hath taken care that his threatenings should be fulfilled, as a just judge takes care that execution be done, according to the sentence pronounced; because we have not been melted, he hath kept us still in the furnace, and watched over it to make the heat yet more intense; for when God judges he will overcome, and will be justified in all his proceedings.

12, 13. Because of Israel’s extreme sensitiveness, better training, higher ideals, and nobler possibilities the loss of her land and temple cut her deeper than any such loss could have wounded a heathen people. (See notes Ezekiel 5:9.) All this ruin had fallen upon the nation wholly because of the people’s sins and their failure to repent and recognize the truth of the prophetic promises and warnings. R.V. reads, “have discernment in thy truth;” that is, gain a knowledge of the true way of safety and life.

V. 14. The Lord watched-God’s watching denotes the fit ways that he always takes to punish sinners.

Verse 14. The Lord watched upon the evil] In consequence of our manifold rebellions he hath now watched for an opportunity to bring these calamities upon us.

Verses 11-14. Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law — Not here and there one, but the generality of them; the body of the people have transgressed, by departing, and taking themselves out of the way, that they might not hear, and so might not obey thy voice: therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath, &c. — That is, the curse that was ratified by an oath in the law of Moses. This further justified God in their troubles, that he only inflicted the penalty of the law, of which he had given them fair notice. It was necessary for preserving the honour of God’s veracity, and saving his government from contempt, that the threatenings of his word should be executed; otherwise they would have looked but as bugbears, nay, they would have had no terror in them. And he hath confirmed his words against us — Because we broke his laws, And against our judges that judged us — Because they did not, according to the duty of their places, punish the breach of God’s laws. He informed them frequently, that if they did not execute justice, as terrors to evil-doers, he must and would take the work into his own hands; and now, says Daniel, he has confirmed what he said, by bringing upon us a great evil — In which the princes and judges themselves have deeply shared. For under the whole heaven hath not been done, &c. — See note on Lamentations 1:12, and 2:13; Ezekiel 5:9. As it is written, &c., all this is come upon us — This is a devout acknowledgment, that, from the very beginning of their state, they had been forewarned that such evils as they now suffered would come upon them, when they forsook the Lord their God, and turned aside from the observation of his law. And it is an humble confession of God’s justice and providence, in making his judgments exactly fulfil the threatenings denounced many ages before by Moses. Yet we made not our prayer before the Lord our God — Not in a right manner, as we should have made it, with a lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; we have been smitten, but have not returned to him that smote us; literally, we have not entreated the face, or, as Wintle translates it, have not deprecated the wrath, of the Lord our God. We have taken no care to make our peace with God, and reconcile ourselves to him. Daniel set his brethren a good example of praying continually, but he was sorry to see how few there were that followed his example; in their affliction it was expected they would seek God early, but they sought him not, so as to turn from their iniquities and understand his truth. Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil — Hebrew, watched over the evil; namely, hath taken care that his threatenings should be fulfilled, as a just judge takes care that execution be done, according to the sentence pronounced; because we have not been melted, he hath kept us still in the furnace, and watched over it to make the heat yet more intense; for when God judges he will overcome, and will be justified in all his proceedings.

14. The Lord watched closely all the evil that came upon his people, and brought it upon them not because he hated them, or had forgotten them, but because he remembered his own righteousness and the people’s sins.

Verse 15. And now, O Lord, who hast brought thy people forth, &c. — A form of supplication used in several places of Scripture, whereby devout persons entreat God to continue his favours, by recounting his former mercies toward them. And hast gotten thee renown, or, made thee a name, as at this day — That is, even to this day, namely, by bringing Israel out of Egypt; and wilt thou lose the credit of that, by letting them perish in Babylon? Didst thou get renown by that deliverance which we have so often commemorated, and wilt thou not now also get thee renown by this which we have so often prayed for, and so long waited for? We have sinned, we have done wickedly — Here Daniel confesses again God’s being just and good in all his ways; and that it was owing to themselves only that all these evils were come upon them.

15. By Jehovah’s marvelous deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage he had gotten for himself “a name even for this day” (an exact quotation from Jeremiah 32:20). After this mention of God’s mercies in the past the sins of Israel appear to the prophet even worse than before.

Verses 16, 17. According to all thy righteousness let thine anger be turned away — The word righteousness here, as in many other places of Scripture, is equivalent to mercy; (see the margin;) from thy holy mountain — The place whereon thy temple stood. Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach — Our conquerors and others, who know into what a miserable condition we are brought, mock at us, and say, See to what a state the people are reduced, who boasted themselves to be the chosen people of the Lord of heaven and earth! Now, therefore, cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary — Return in mercy to us, and show that thou art reconciled to us, by repairing the desolations of thy sanctuary. For the Lord’s sake — That is, as some interpret the expression, for thine own sake; that is, do this that thou mayest do honour to thyself. Or rather, as most Christian interpreters understand the words, for the Lord Christ’s sake; for the sake of the Messiah promised, who is Lord. The Hebrew word, here rendered Lord, is ynda, Adonai, the word used for the Messiah Psalm 110:1, where David calls him his Lord. It is for Christ’s sake, and because of the atonement he has made for sin, that God causes his face to shine upon sinners, when they repent and turn to him. In all our prayers, therefore, that must be our plea; we must make mention of his righteousness, even his only. He himself has directed us to pray in his name.

16-19. The prophet cries out in great agony, beseeching Jehovah, since now his righteous punishments had been so fearfully fulfilled upon Jerusalem and the holy mountain (Psalm 2:6; Jeremiah 25:1-11), that the equally righteous promises to repentant Israel might also be speedily fulfilled (see Jeremiah 25:12, etc.; 27:22; 29:10-14), and as a representative of repentant Israel he makes an intercessory prayer for the desolated and ruined sanctuary which reminds one of the mediatorial cry of Moses (Exodus 32:32; Deuteronomy 9:26-29), and especially of the prayer of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32) and the petition of the Levites (Nehemiah 9).

V. 17. For the Lord’s sake-For the sake of the Messiah: to whom the title Lord is frequently given in the Old Testament.

Verse 17. And cause thy face to shine] Give us proof that thou art reconciled to us.

Verses 16, 17. According to all thy righteousness let thine anger be turned away — The word righteousness here, as in many other places of Scripture, is equivalent to mercy; (see the margin;) from thy holy mountain — The place whereon thy temple stood. Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach — Our conquerors and others, who know into what a miserable condition we are brought, mock at us, and say, See to what a state the people are reduced, who boasted themselves to be the chosen people of the Lord of heaven and earth! Now, therefore, cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary — Return in mercy to us, and show that thou art reconciled to us, by repairing the desolations of thy sanctuary. For the Lord’s sake — That is, as some interpret the expression, for thine own sake; that is, do this that thou mayest do honour to thyself. Or rather, as most Christian interpreters understand the words, for the Lord Christ’s sake; for the sake of the Messiah promised, who is Lord. The Hebrew word, here rendered Lord, is ynda, Adonai, the word used for the Messiah Psalm 110:1, where David calls him his Lord. It is for Christ’s sake, and because of the atonement he has made for sin, that God causes his face to shine upon sinners, when they repent and turn to him. In all our prayers, therefore, that must be our plea; we must make mention of his righteousness, even his only. He himself has directed us to pray in his name.

16-19. The prophet cries out in great agony, beseeching Jehovah, since now his righteous punishments had been so fearfully fulfilled upon Jerusalem and the holy mountain (Psalm 2:6; Jeremiah 25:1-11), that the equally righteous promises to repentant Israel might also be speedily fulfilled (see Jeremiah 25:12, etc.; 27:22; 29:10-14), and as a representative of repentant Israel he makes an intercessory prayer for the desolated and ruined sanctuary which reminds one of the mediatorial cry of Moses (Exodus 32:32; Deuteronomy 9:26-29), and especially of the prayer of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32) and the petition of the Levites (Nehemiah 9).

Verses 18, 19. O my God, incline thine ear and hear — The prophet’s importunity, in these verses, is very remarkable and affecting, and shows how exceedingly he had it at heart to have his request granted. Open thine eyes, and behold our desolations — Especially the desolations of thy city and temple: or, look with pity upon a most distressing and piteous case. For we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousness — That is, our righteous acts. We do not hope to have success for the sake of any thing we have done, do, or ever can do, as if we were worthy to receive thy favour, as if we could merit it by any good in us, or could demand any thing as a debt; but for thy great mercies — The only sources of all our blessings. Grant what we ask, to make it appear thou art a merciful God. Observe, reader, the good things we request of God we call mercies, because we expect them purely from God’s mercy. And because misery is the proper object of mercy, therefore the prophet here spreads the deplorable condition of God’s church and people before him, as it were, to move his compassion. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; defer not — Forgive our sins, and then hasten our deliverance. That the mercy which we ask may be granted, let the sin, that stands in the way of our receiving it, be removed; O Lord, hearken and do — Not hearken and speak only, but hearken and do: do that for us which none else can do, and that speedily. As he now sees the appointed day approaching, he could pray in faith that God would make haste to them, and not defer the expected blessing.

16-19. The prophet cries out in great agony, beseeching Jehovah, since now his righteous punishments had been so fearfully fulfilled upon Jerusalem and the holy mountain (Psalm 2:6; Jeremiah 25:1-11), that the equally righteous promises to repentant Israel might also be speedily fulfilled (see Jeremiah 25:12, etc.; 27:22; 29:10-14), and as a representative of repentant Israel he makes an intercessory prayer for the desolated and ruined sanctuary which reminds one of the mediatorial cry of Moses (Exodus 32:32; Deuteronomy 9:26-29), and especially of the prayer of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32) and the petition of the Levites (Nehemiah 9).

Verse 19. Thy city and thy people are called by thy name.] The holy city, the city of the great King. I think it scarcely possible for any serious man to read these impressive and pleading words without feeling a measure of the prophet’s earnestness.

Verses 18, 19. O my God, incline thine ear and hear — The prophet’s importunity, in these verses, is very remarkable and affecting, and shows how exceedingly he had it at heart to have his request granted. Open thine eyes, and behold our desolations — Especially the desolations of thy city and temple: or, look with pity upon a most distressing and piteous case. For we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousness — That is, our righteous acts. We do not hope to have success for the sake of any thing we have done, do, or ever can do, as if we were worthy to receive thy favour, as if we could merit it by any good in us, or could demand any thing as a debt; but for thy great mercies — The only sources of all our blessings. Grant what we ask, to make it appear thou art a merciful God. Observe, reader, the good things we request of God we call mercies, because we expect them purely from God’s mercy. And because misery is the proper object of mercy, therefore the prophet here spreads the deplorable condition of God’s church and people before him, as it were, to move his compassion. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; defer not — Forgive our sins, and then hasten our deliverance. That the mercy which we ask may be granted, let the sin, that stands in the way of our receiving it, be removed; O Lord, hearken and do — Not hearken and speak only, but hearken and do: do that for us which none else can do, and that speedily. As he now sees the appointed day approaching, he could pray in faith that God would make haste to them, and not defer the expected blessing.

16-19. The prophet cries out in great agony, beseeching Jehovah, since now his righteous punishments had been so fearfully fulfilled upon Jerusalem and the holy mountain (Psalm 2:6; Jeremiah 25:1-11), that the equally righteous promises to repentant Israel might also be speedily fulfilled (see Jeremiah 25:12, etc.; 27:22; 29:10-14), and as a representative of repentant Israel he makes an intercessory prayer for the desolated and ruined sanctuary which reminds one of the mediatorial cry of Moses (Exodus 32:32; Deuteronomy 9:26-29), and especially of the prayer of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32) and the petition of the Levites (Nehemiah 9).

Verses 20, 21. And while I was speaking and praying, &c. — We have here the answer that was immediately sent to Daniel’s prayer, and it is a very remarkable one; as it contains the most illustrious prediction of Christ, and gospel grace, that is extant in any part of the Old Testament. Daniel here observes, and lays a great emphasis on, the time when this answer was given; While I was speaking, says he, verse 20, yea, while I was speaking in prayer, verse 21. Before he rose from his knees, and while there was yet more which he intended to say if the answer was not given. He mentions the two heads which he chiefly insisted on in prayer, and which, perhaps, he designed yet further to enlarge upon. 1st, He was confessing sin, his own sin, and the sin of his people Israel. 2d, He was making supplication before the Lord his God, and presenting petitions to him as an intercessor for Israel. Now while Daniel was thus employed, he had both a grant made him of the mercy he prayed for, and had a discovery communicated of a far greater and more glorious redemption, which God could work out for his church in the latter days. He further observes, that as this answer was given him at the very moment when he was requesting it, and before he had concluded his petitions, so it was about the time of the evening oblation — The altar was in ruins, and there was no oblation offered upon it; but, it seems, the pious Jews, in their captivity, daily thought of the times when it should have been offered, and at those hours endeavoured to set forth before God their prayers as incense, and the lifting up of their hands as a morning or evening sacrifice, Psalm 141:2. The evening oblation was a type of the great sacrifice which Christ was to offer in the evening of the world; and it was in virtue of that sacrifice that Daniel’s prayer was accepted, and this glorious discovery of redeeming love was made to him: the Lamb opened the seals of prophecy in the virtue of his own blood, Revelation 5:5.

Daniel informs us here also by whom this answer was sent. It was not communicated to him in a dream, or by a voice from heaven; but, for the greater certainty and solemnity of it, an angel was sent from heaven to bring it to him. The man Gabriel — That is, the angel Gabriel, appearing in a human shape, whom I had seen in the beginning — Or, before, see Daniel 8:16; being caused to fly swiftly — An expression used to signify the haste he made to bring Daniel an answer to his prayer. Angels are winged messengers, quick in their motions, and delay not a moment to execute the orders they receive. But, it would seem, that at some times they are directed to use more expedition, and make a quicker despatch than at others, as, it appears, was the case with Gabriel now; touched me — Probably to infuse additional strength and courage into him, that he might be perfectly recollected, have the proper use and exercise of all his faculties at this important season, and might at once understand and retain a perfect remembrance of the whole message which the angel was commissioned to bring him from God.

20, 21. The answer to the prayer comes even while the words are still upon his lips. For Gabriel see notes Daniel 7:16, and 10:13. Being caused to fly swiftly — Some first-rate scholars (as, for example, Schultz, Alt-testament-lithe Theologie, 2:226) follow Furst in rendering this obscure phrase “gleaming in splendor.” It is better to refer it to Daniel rather than to Gabriel, and translate “being exhausted,” or, “being faint.” (Compare Daniel 7:18, 27; 10:9.) Touched me — Or, “came near unto me” (R.V., margin). This was the meal (A.V., meat) offering which was made at sunset (Leviticus 2:14). For centuries, beginning at least as early as the Babylonian captivity, every true son of Israel had regular hours of daily prayer (of which this was one) in which he turned his face toward Jerusalem and presented his supplications unto God. (See note Daniel 6:10.)

V. 21. About the time-The time of the evening sacrifice was a solemn and set time of devotion. Tho’ the altar was in ruins, and there was no oblation offered upon it, yet the pious Jews were daily thoughtful of the time when it should have been offered, and hoped that their prayer would be set forth before God as incense, and the lifting up of their hands, as the evening sacrifice. This was peculiarly a type of that great sacrifice, which Christ was to offer: and it was in virtue of that sacrifice, that Daniel’s prayer was accepted, when he prayed for the Lord’s sake.

Verse 21. The man Gabriel] Or the angel Gabriel, who had appeared to me as a man. vya ish is the same here as person—the person Gabriel. Being caused to fly swiftly] God hears with delight such earnest, humble, urgent prayers; and sends the speediest answer. Gabriel himself was ordered on this occasion to make more than usual speed.

Verses 20, 21. And while I was speaking and praying, &c. — We have here the answer that was immediately sent to Daniel’s prayer, and it is a very remarkable one; as it contains the most illustrious prediction of Christ, and gospel grace, that is extant in any part of the Old Testament. Daniel here observes, and lays a great emphasis on, the time when this answer was given; While I was speaking, says he, verse 20, yea, while I was speaking in prayer, verse 21. Before he rose from his knees, and while there was yet more which he intended to say if the answer was not given. He mentions the two heads which he chiefly insisted on in prayer, and which, perhaps, he designed yet further to enlarge upon. 1st, He was confessing sin, his own sin, and the sin of his people Israel. 2d, He was making supplication before the Lord his God, and presenting petitions to him as an intercessor for Israel. Now while Daniel was thus employed, he had both a grant made him of the mercy he prayed for, and had a discovery communicated of a far greater and more glorious redemption, which God could work out for his church in the latter days. He further observes, that as this answer was given him at the very moment when he was requesting it, and before he had concluded his petitions, so it was about the time of the evening oblation — The altar was in ruins, and there was no oblation offered upon it; but, it seems, the pious Jews, in their captivity, daily thought of the times when it should have been offered, and at those hours endeavoured to set forth before God their prayers as incense, and the lifting up of their hands as a morning or evening sacrifice, Psalm 141:2. The evening oblation was a type of the great sacrifice which Christ was to offer in the evening of the world; and it was in virtue of that sacrifice that Daniel’s prayer was accepted, and this glorious discovery of redeeming love was made to him: the Lamb opened the seals of prophecy in the virtue of his own blood, Revelation 5:5.

Daniel informs us here also by whom this answer was sent. It was not communicated to him in a dream, or by a voice from heaven; but, for the greater certainty and solemnity of it, an angel was sent from heaven to bring it to him. The man Gabriel — That is, the angel Gabriel, appearing in a human shape, whom I had seen in the beginning — Or, before, see Daniel 8:16; being caused to fly swiftly — An expression used to signify the haste he made to bring Daniel an answer to his prayer. Angels are winged messengers, quick in their motions, and delay not a moment to execute the orders they receive. But, it would seem, that at some times they are directed to use more expedition, and make a quicker despatch than at others, as, it appears, was the case with Gabriel now; touched me — Probably to infuse additional strength and courage into him, that he might be perfectly recollected, have the proper use and exercise of all his faculties at this important season, and might at once understand and retain a perfect remembrance of the whole message which the angel was commissioned to bring him from God.

Ver. 21. Even the man Gabriel, the archangel who came as a man, and who had revealed the dream of the four monarchies: chap. 7. This is the same heavenly messenger that appeared to Zachariah, and made the annunciation to the virgin Mary. Luke 1:11, 26. The church has this glory, that an innumerable company of angels are ever watching over her for good. “More are they that are for us, than all those that are against us.”

20, 21. The answer to the prayer comes even while the words are still upon his lips. For Gabriel see notes Daniel 7:16, and 10:13. Being caused to fly swiftly — Some first-rate scholars (as, for example, Schultz, Alt-testament-lithe Theologie, 2:226) follow Furst in rendering this obscure phrase “gleaming in splendor.” It is better to refer it to Daniel rather than to Gabriel, and translate “being exhausted,” or, “being faint.” (Compare Daniel 7:18, 27; 10:9.) Touched me — Or, “came near unto me” (R.V., margin). This was the meal (A.V., meat) offering which was made at sunset (Leviticus 2:14). For centuries, beginning at least as early as the Babylonian captivity, every true son of Israel had regular hours of daily prayer (of which this was one) in which he turned his face toward Jerusalem and presented his supplications unto God. (See note Daniel 6:10.)

Verses 22, 23. And he informed me — Namely, on what errand he came; and talked with me — That is, familiarly, as one friend talks with another. And said, O Daniel, I am come to give thee skill and understanding — To reveal to thee things of infinite importance, and to make thee understand them. Mr. Wintle reads this verse in connection with the preceding, as follows: “Even as I was yet speaking — the man Gabriel — reached me, about the time of the evening oblation; when he brought information, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to improve thee in understanding.” At the beginning of thy supplication the commandment came forth — God’s command to me, to instruct thee further in what should hereafter befall the city and temple of Jerusalem, in the behalf of which thou didst pour forth thy supplications. Here was a remarkable completion of that promise, Isaiah 65:24, While they are yet speaking I will hear. For thou art greatly beloved — Learned men have observed a near affinity between the prophecy of Daniel and the Revelation of St. John; and we may take notice that much the same title is given to both. Daniel is styled here, and chap. 10:11, 19, a man greatly beloved; and the character given to St. John is, that of the disciple whom Jesus loved, John 21:20, 24. Therefore, understand the matter, and consider the vision — Apply thy mind carefully to what is said, for this prophecy contains in it truths of the greatest importance. Our Saviour plainly refers to these words, which are repeated verse 25, when, explaining the latter part of this prophecy of the final destruction of Jerusalem, he adds, Let him that readeth understand, Matthew 24.

22. Daniel knew concerning the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity and its end (verse 2); but the angel is now to make him “skillful of understanding” (R.V.) concerning the larger deliverance which shall come in the Messianic era.

Verses 22, 23. And he informed me — Namely, on what errand he came; and talked with me — That is, familiarly, as one friend talks with another. And said, O Daniel, I am come to give thee skill and understanding — To reveal to thee things of infinite importance, and to make thee understand them. Mr. Wintle reads this verse in connection with the preceding, as follows: “Even as I was yet speaking — the man Gabriel — reached me, about the time of the evening oblation; when he brought information, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to improve thee in understanding.” At the beginning of thy supplication the commandment came forth — God’s command to me, to instruct thee further in what should hereafter befall the city and temple of Jerusalem, in the behalf of which thou didst pour forth thy supplications. Here was a remarkable completion of that promise, Isaiah 65:24, While they are yet speaking I will hear. For thou art greatly beloved — Learned men have observed a near affinity between the prophecy of Daniel and the Revelation of St. John; and we may take notice that much the same title is given to both. Daniel is styled here, and chap. 10:11, 19, a man greatly beloved; and the character given to St. John is, that of the disciple whom Jesus loved, John 21:20, 24. Therefore, understand the matter, and consider the vision — Apply thy mind carefully to what is said, for this prophecy contains in it truths of the greatest importance. Our Saviour plainly refers to these words, which are repeated verse 25, when, explaining the latter part of this prophecy of the final destruction of Jerusalem, he adds, Let him that readeth understand, Matthew 24.

23. The word from God came forth at the beginning of Daniel’s prayer, and before the prayer was ended the angelic messenger had reached the supplicant with his divine revelation of comfort (verse 20). It was not the answer Daniel had hoped for, but it was a better answer. He had asked for a proof of God’s mercy in a speedy deliverance from Babylon; the answer brings the news of continuing sorrows and persecutions but of a final and heavenly triumph. Therefore understand the matter — Rather, therefore consider the word and give heed to the vision. This “word” is the larger explanation of Daniel’s former vision (Daniel 8:2-16) with which God had intrusted Gabriel at the opening of this prayer (verse 20). Jehovah had really sent to Daniel long ago the answer to his present petition, and relief for all his sadness, but he had not been able, through lack of attention or through physical exhaustion (Daniel 8:27), to understand the divine answer.

V. 24. Seventy weeks-These weeks are weeks of days, and these days are so many years. To finish the transgression-The angel discovers first the disease in three several words, which contain all sorts of sin, which the Messiah should free us from by his full redemption. He shews the cure of this disease in three words.

1. To finish transgression.

2. To make an end of sin.

3. To make reconciliation:

all which words are very expressive in the original, and signify to pardon, to blot out, to destroy.

To bring in everlasting righteousness-To bring in justification by the free grace of God in Christ, and sanctification by his spirit: called everlasting, because Christ is eternal, and so are the acceptance and holiness purchased for us. Christ brings this in,

1. By his merit.

2. By his gospel declaring it.

3. By faith applying, and sealing it by the Holy Ghost.

To seal up-To abrogate the former dispensation of the law, and to ratify the gospel covenant. To anoint-This alludes to his name Messiah and Christ, both which signify anointed. Christ was anointed at his first conception, and personal union, Luke 1:35. In his baptism, Matthew 3:17, to his three offices by the holy Ghost,

1. King, Matthew 2:2.

2. Prophet, Isaiah 61:1.

3. Priest, Psalm 110:4.

Verse 24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and the city of thy sanctuary: That sin may be restrained, and transgressions have an end; That iniquity may be expiated, and an everlasting righteousness brought in; That visions and prophecies may be sealed up, and the Holy of holies anointed.

Verse 24. Seventy weeks, &c. — Weeks not of days, but of years, or, seventy times seven years, that is, four hundred and ninety years, each day being accounted a year according to the prophetic way of reckoning, (see note on Daniel 7:25,) a way often used in Scripture, especially in reckoning the years of jubilee, which correspond with these numbers in Daniel: see Leviticus 25:8. See also Genesis 29:27, where, to fulfil her week, is explained by performing another seven years’ service for Rachel; and Numbers 14:34, where we read, that according to the number of the days which the spies employed in searching out the land of Canaan, even forty days, the Israelites were condemned to bear their iniquities, even forty years. Thus God says likewise to Ezekiel, cotemporary with Daniel, I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days three hundred and ninety days. I have appointed thee EACH DAY FOR A YEAR. Nor was this mode of expression in use only among the Jews; for Varro, speaking of himself, says, he was entered into the twelfth week of his age, at the close of which he would have been eighty-four years old. In these instances, the days evidently denote solar years, which were in use throughout the Jewish history; so that there is no probability that the angel should here intend any such singularity, as counting by lunar years. Are determined upon, or concerning, thy people — Hebrew Ëtjn, are decided. The great event specified was not to be protracted beyond this period, fixed and determined in the counsels of God.

To finish the transgression — The reader will observe, the expression is not, to finish transgressions, but [cph, the transgression; a word which is derived from a theme which signifies, “to revolt, to rebel, to be contumacious, to refuse subjection to rightful authority, or obedience to a law which we ought to observe.” To finish such transgression, is expressed by a word (alkl) which denotes universality, to cancel, or annihilate. Dr. Apthorp, in his Discourses on Prophecy, vol. 1. p. 262, justly observes, that the diversity of expression respecting the several benefits here promised to the world by the Messiah, may be well supposed to intend so many distinct and determinate ideas. “In a prophecy of such moment,” says he, “we cannot suppose a mere co-acervation of synonymous terms, but each word is emphatic, and proper to its subject. The appropriate sense of each may be investigated, from their use and significance in other passages of Holy Scripture.” Accordingly, by the word transgression, he here understands man’s first disobedience, with its direful effects, the depravation and mortality of human nature. And by finishing this transgression he understands, “cancelling the primeval guilt of Adam’s apostacy, and reversing the sentence of mortality then passed on all the human race.” In other words we may properly understand by the expression, the abolishing the guilt and fatal effects of that disobedience, in such a manner that no man shall perish eternally merely on account of the sin of our first parents, or the depravity entailed upon us thereby; to counteract the influence of which, sufficient grace is procured for us, and offered to us in the gospel of Christ. Concerning this first benefit of our redemption, the apostle treats explicitly Romans 5:12-21, a passage which the reader is particularly requested carefully to consider, as containing a full justification of the exposition here given of the first clause of this verse; man’s first disobedience, termed by the apostle the one offence, and the offence of one, being represented by him as introducing death into the world, and all our misery; and the obedience, or righteousness of one, and the free gift, procured for all mankind, and actually conferred on all penitent believers, as the one meritorious cause and source of our salvation. “No words can express, or thought conceive, the greatness of this redemption. Imagination faints under the idea of a Divine Benefactor effacing sin, annihilating death, and restoring eternal life.”

And to make an end of sins — “As, in the appropriate sense of the words, the transgression denotes one original act of apostacy and rebellion against a positive command of God; sins, in the plural, emphatically express all the vices [offences] against conscience, all the crimes against civil society, and all sins against God, which have ever reigned among men. The redemption by Christ hath abolished all the fatal effects of moral evil, with respect to such as believe and obey the gospel;” not only cancelling their actual guilt by a gracious remission, but even renewing their fallen nature, stamping them with the divine image, and thus both entitling them to, and preparing them for, the immortality lost by the fall.

And to make reconciliation for iniquity — In these words is expressed the manner in which our redemption from death and sin hath been effected. “The word rpk, rendered reconciliation here, is the etymon of our English word, to cover. Its primary meaning is, to hide, or conceal, the surface of any substance, by inducing another substance over it. Thus the ark is commanded to be pitched, or covered, within and without, to secure it from the waters of the deluge. Sin, when grievous, and ripe for punishment, is said to be before God, or in his sight: a propitiation is the covering of sin, [procuring] God’s hiding his face from our sins, and blotting out our iniquities: see Romans 3:23, 25. The word redemption implies a price paid for those who are set at liberty: the price is the blood of Christ; that blood a sacrifice; and the sacrifice an expiation for sinners, that is, for all mankind. This is the first and leading notion of the divine expedient for saving sinners, the sacrifice and blood of Christ. The second principal idea under which this redemption is represented, is that of substitution, and satisfaction, by another’s suffering for our guilt; and in this way of stating the doctrine, still the principal and leading idea is that of a sacrifice, and the blood of a victim;” namely, Christ’s dying for the ungodly: see Romans 5:6-9. Inasmuch as Christ, by dying in our stead, “hath prevented either the extinction or [eternal] misery of a whole species, and hath obtained for us a positive happiness, greater than we lost in Adam; every considerate man must think it fit, that to effect such a redemption, some great expedient should be proposed by God himself, to vindicate his wisdom and moral government, in suffering so much vice and confusion to end so happily.” Add to this, that “so congenial to the most generous sentiments of the human mind is the idea of one devoting himself for another, for many, and for all, that all antiquity abounds with such examples and opinions. Not that the Scripture doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction, in itself so luminous, needs any support from foreign testimony; but it is certain that a general consent, founded in nature, or divine institution, or both, hath led men to seek expiation of conscious guilt, in the way of voluntary substitution, and vicarious devotement. The chief reason of that prejudice, which is by some entertained against a doctrine so essential to peace of conscience, is founded on inattention to ancient religious customs. By the sacrifice of Christ, victims and sacrifices are abolished; but all the ancient religions abounded with them to a degree which we should think astonishing, and scarcely credible. Oceans of blood flowed round their altars; and the Levitical rites were instituted on purpose to adumbrate Christ’s expiation, and to introduce all that admirable spirituality and [pious] devotion, which is now the distinguishing excellence of Christianity.” — Dr. Apthorp.

To bring in everlasting righteousness — The three former particulars already considered import the removing the greatest evils; this, and the two following, imply the conferring of the greatest benefits, and all by Jesus Christ. This clause, says Dr. Apthorp, “may admit of two interpretations, which both concur in Christ, and are consistent with each other: our justification by faith in him, and our subsequent study [practice] of personal virtue. The first is a gratuitous act of Christ; the second is characteristic of his true disciples. In the former sense, Jeremiah styles him by his divine title, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. And in both senses Christ Jesus is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption.” To speak a little more distinctly: to bring in everlasting righteousness, according to the gospel, evidently includes three things: 1st, To bring in Christ’s righteousness, or his obedience unto death, as the ground of our justification and title to eternal life, he being the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 2d, To bring holiness, the divine nature, or the Spirit of God, with his various graces, into our souls, making us conformable to his image, as our meetness for that future felicity. And, 3d, For our direction in the way that leads to it; to lay before us, for our observation, a complete rule of life and manners. Of this last particular, which Dr. Apthorp includes in the everlasting righteousness here spoken of, as being immutable in its obligations, and eternal in its sanctions, he speaks as follows: “When we consider the Christian morality in its ground of obligation, [namely, the will of God,] its principle of charity, and in its detail of special duties, we are struck with admiration at the simplicity and perfection of a rule of life, which, without any artificial system, extended the Jewish law, and combined all the excellences of Gentile philosophy; the elevation of Plato, without his mysticism; the reasonableness of Aristotle, without his contracted selfishness, and worldly views; tempering the rigour of Zeno with the moderation of Epicurus; while, by the greatness of its end, it reforms, refines, and elevates human nature from sense to spirit, from earth to heaven.”

And seal up the vision and prophecy — Hebrew, aybnw ˆwzj µtjlw, to seal vision and prophet; prophet being put for prophecy. The words are a Hebraism, and when expressed in modern language signify, 1st, The accomplishing, and thereby confirming, all the ancient predictions relating to the most holy person here intended. God had spoken of the Messiah, by the mouths of his holy prophets, from the foundation of the world; had foretold his coming, pointed out the place of his birth, and specified the extraordinary circumstances of it; described the manner of his life, the nature of his doctrine, and the variety and splendour of his miracles, with the treatment he should receive from his countrymen; had foretold repeatedly, and set forth at large, his humiliation, sufferings, and death, his resurrection, ascension, and the glory that should follow. Now by making the events exactly to answer the predictions, he confirmed them, as the setting of a seal to any writing confirms its authenticity. 2d, To seat implies, to finish, conclude, and put an end to any thing. Thus also were the vision and prophecy sealed among the Jews. They were shut up and finished. The privilege and use of them were no longer to be continued in their church. And this also happened accordingly; for, by their own confession, from that day to this they have not enjoyed either vision or prophet. But, 3d, To seal, is to consummate and perfect; and to seal the vision and prophecy here, may include the adding the New Testament revelations and predictions to those of the Old, and thereby supplying what was wanting to perfect the book of God, and render it a complete system of divine revelation. It is only necessary to add, 4th, That as things are frequently sealed in order to their security, the preservation of the divine records and oracles included in both Testaments may be also here intended by the expression.

And to anoint the Most Holy — Hebrew, µycdq cdq, literally, the holy of holiest an expression often used of holy places, or things, especially of the most holy place of the Jewish tabernacle and temple. It is here very properly applied to the Messiah, whose sacred body was the temple of the Deity; agreeable to his own declaration, Destroy this temple, pointing to himself by some expressive action, and in three days I will raise it up; and who was greater than the temple. Now this most holy person, in whom dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and who, even as man, had the Holy Spirit without measure, was by that divine unction (which is here principally intended) at once designated and qualified for the sundry offices he was to sustain, especially the prophetic, sacerdotal, and kingly offices, for the various characters he was to bear, and the work he was to do on earth, and is now doing in heaven, and hence is properly termed the Messiah, or the Anointed One. To this may be added, that, as the Jewish temple was evidently a type of the church of God, especially the Christian Church, termed in the Psalms and Prophets the city of God, and the holy place of the tabernacle of the Most High; by anointing the holy of holies here, may be also intended the effusion of the Holy Spirit, in his rich variety of gifts and graces, upon the Christian Church, foretold in innumerable passages of the Prophets, and eminently fulfilled, as the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles contained in the New Testament, and the writings of the ancient fathers abundantly prove.

Ver. 24. Seventy weeks are determined. This revelation has ever been regarded as the sheet anchor of the christian religion, because it fixes the time when Christ should come. Jews and christians are equally divided in calculating the seventy weeks of Daniel; and no wonder, as Beroaldus observes, seeing the pagan historians respecting the Persian empire so constantly and grossly contradict one another. “Xenophon makes Astyages the last but one of the Median kings, but Herodotus says he was the last. Xenophon relates that Astyages died in peace when Cyrus was very young, leaving the kingdom to his son Cyaxares; whereas Herodotus affirms that Cyrus subdued Astyages. Xenophon says that the father of Cyrus was one of the princes of Persia, descended from Perseus, and that he received a princely education; but Herodotus makes him the son of one Cambyses, of ignoble birth, and brought up with a shepherd. Xenophon allows no more than eleven years for Cyrus’s reign, Herodotus twenty nine. The former makes him die peaceably on his bed, the latter says he was slain in a war against Tomyris, queen of the Massagetæ.”

Hence, as this point of the seventy weeks can never be exactly settled for want of evidence in early historians, we should rest satisfied that the jews who lived in our Saviour’s time really did believe that those weeks were accomplished. Dr. Lightfoot suggests, that the multitude went out to be baptized by John, in expectation of the Messiah’s kingdom. There were four commands or edicts issued to rebuild the city and temple of Jerusalem; but the temple was not begun till the prophet Haggai had reproved the jews for building themselves ceiled houses, and for neglecting the house of God. The last edict was in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and from that date most christians compute the commencement of Daniel’s weeks up to the crucifixion of our blessed Lord. And Ptolemy’s table does not go much beyond this time, nor has the difference any weight, when opposed to the expectation of the jews, those devout men out of every nation under heaven, who really at that time did expect the Messiah. Professor G. Strauchius, of the university of Wirtemburg, has written well upon this subject. I will gratify the rigorous enquirer with the substance of his arguments.

“We read,” says this learned divine, “of four edicts concerning the restoration of the jews, and the rebuilding of the temple and city, in the holy scripture. The first is in Ezra 1:1-3. “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, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, the Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he hath charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? His God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel (he is the God) which is in Jerusalem.” The same words we read also in 2 Chronicles 36:22, 23, pursuant to the prophecies of Isaiah in chap. 45.

The second edict concerning this restitution is described likewise by Ezra 6:7-12. This which was issued by Darius in the same year that the prophets Haggai and Zechariah began to prophesy to the governors beyond the river, contains the following words. “Let the work of this house of God alone. Let the governor of the jews, and the elders of the jews build this house of God in his place. Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon, and let his house be made a dunghill for this; and the God that hath caused his name to dwell there, destroy all kings and people that shall put their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I, Darius have made a decree; let it be done with speed.” And the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah cited by Ezra, mention expressly the second year of Darius, and the month. For thus we read in Haggai 1:1, 8. “In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the Lord by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech the highpriest, saying, thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Go up to the mountain and bring wood, and build the house, and I will be glorified, saith the Lord.” The same mandate is repeated by Zechariah in Zechariah 1:1. In the eighth month of the same second year of Darius, then, pursuant to God’s commandment, and the decree of the Persian king, the work was happily brought to perfection, according to the words of Ezra: Ezra 6:15, 16. “And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king: and the children of Israel, the priests and the levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house with joy.”

The third edict is likewise described by Ezra 7:6. “This Ezra went up from Babylon, and the king granted him all his requests, according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him. And there went up some of the children of Israel, and of the priests, the levites, the singers, the porters, and the Nethinims, unto Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king. And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king.” This decree of Artaxerxes grants full liberty to the jews to return to Jerusalem, and exempts all the priests, levites, and other ministers of the house of God from toll, tribute, or custom. The fourth edict concerned particularly Nehemiah, Ezra 7:13-24, who in the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes, got leave to go to Jerusalem with the king’s letter to the governors beyond the river, and to Asaph the keeper of the king’s forests, that he should give the jews timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertaineth to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house he was to enter into, as may be seen more at large in Nehemiah 2:1-9. These are the four several mandates concerning the restoration of the jews, and the rebuilding of the temple and city, to one of which the beginning of these seventy weeks must be fixed. There are not a few, both among the ancient and modern interpreters, who would have this epoch of the seventy weeks begin from the time of the edict of Cyrus, of which mention is made in Ezra 1:1, and in 2 Chronicles 36:23. Among the ancients, Clement of Alexandria patronizes this opinion before all others; and of the modern authors, David Paræus, Constantine L’ Empereur, and Johannes Wichmannus, especially Matthæus Beroaldus, and Hugh Broughton, an Englishman. To this opinion also the Dutch interpreters seem to incline, as appears out of their original Annotations, but without any probability of truth. For supposing with Beroaldus, that Christ suffered in the thirty third year of his age, in the fourth year of the two hundred and second olympiad, in the year seven hundred and eighty four from the building of the city of Rome, in the eighteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, and in the year of the world 3961. Supposing, I say, that according to the synchronisms of Beroaldus, Christ suffered in the year of the Julian period 4745, the beginning of these seventy weeks, and (according to the hypothesis of Beroaldus) the solution of the Babylonian captivity of the jews must be coincident with the year of the Julian period 4255, when Cyrus was dead; the interval from the beginning of the Babylonian epoch of Cyrus till the eighteenth year of the reign of the emperor Tiberius, comprehending no less than five hundred and sixty nine years, as most evidently appears out of the following table of Ptolemy. But no positive dependence can be placed in this table, because it reckons the reign of Persian, Syrian, Egyptian, and Roman princes in regular succession.

PTOLEMY’S TABLE.

Years.

Cyrus reigned — 9

Cambyses — 8

Darius 1. — 36

Xerxes — 21

Artaxerxes 1. — 41

Darius 2. — 19

Artaxerxes 2. — 46

Ochus — 21

Arostus — 2

Darius 3. — 4

Alexander the Great — 8

Philippus Aridæus — 7

Alexander — 12

Ptolemæus Lagus — 20

Ptolemæus Philippians — 38

Evergetes — 25

Philopater — 17

Epiphanus — 24

Philomater — 35

Evergetes 2. — 29

Soter — 36

Dionysius — 29

Cleopatra — 22

Augustus — 43

Tiberius — 17

Total = 569

One of the main questions, and the most difficult to be resolved belonging to this point is, which of the three Dariuses is to be understood by that Darius mentioned by Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra. It is well known that the first Darius is commonly surnamed Hystaspes, the second Nothus, and the third Codomanus. Concerning the last, it is put beyond all dispute by the consent of all the chronologers, that he had not the least share in this decree or edict; but about the two first, the most learned interpreters are very different in their opinions. Josephus, Antiq. lib. 9. cap. 4, refers this edict to Darius Hystaspes, who being put in mind by Zerubbabel of his promise, before he was king, of rebuilding the city and temple of Jerusalem, and to restore all the vessels and utensils carried away by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon, he joyfully granted his request, commanding his governors to conduct him and his followers safely to Jerusalem, to perfect the structure of the temple, and ordering those of Phœnicia and Syria to furnish them with cedars from mount Lebanon. But though archbishop Usher stands up in defence of the opinion of Josephus, yet his relation renders the whole very dubious: for he describes this edict as an effect of the marriage between Darius Hystaspes and Esther. On the other hand, there are very strong motives which induce belief, that the edict for the rebuilding of the temple was made by Darius Nothus in the second year of his reign.

1. Because it must be understood of the reign of the same Darius, when the jews lived in ceiled houses, and the temple laid waste, which was the reason they were afflicted with a general scarcity. Haggai 1:4. 2:16. Now, there being but twelve years betwixt the edict of Cyrus and the second year of the reign of Darius Hystaspes, it seems very improbable that in so short a time, especially under the reign of Cambyses, the jews should have built themselves ceiled houses, and have quite laid aside that zeal they had so lately shown in contributing cheerfully towards the rebuilding of the temple. Ezra 2:68.

2. It is to be understood of the reign of the same Darius, under whose auspicious reign the jews, after they had endured a great deal of misery, began to enjoy the benefit of a more peaceable state, pursuant to the words of God in Zechariah 8:11-13. But now I will not be unto the residue of this people as in the former days, saith the Lord of hosts. For the seed shall be more prosperous, the vine shall give her fruit, and the ground shall give her encrease, and the heavens shall give their dew, and I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things. And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, oh house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing.

3. The above cited passages are to be understood of the same Darius who lived and reigned many years after the solution of the Babylonian captivity, it being evident from Ezra 5:6, that the Persian nobles had not the least remembrance of the edict published in behalf of the jews by Cyrus; for which reason it was that they were obliged to search the royal records. But this appears in nowise agreeable to the reign of Darius Hystaspes, there being but a few years betwixt the beginning of the reign of Cyrus and that of this Darius, who was probably one of the chief Persian lords under Cyrus. But this being applied to the reign of Darius 2. surnamed Nothus, there remains not the least difficulty, there being betwixt Cyrus and Darius Nothus above a hundred years. In confirmation of this may be alleged the words of Rupertus,, cap. 5:6, formerly professor in the university of Altorf. “If it was Darius Hystaspes that granted leave to the jews to rebuild the temple; how is it possible that the edict of Cyrus, concerning the restoration of the jews, could be so entirely forgotten? For Darius Hystaspes was one of the principal Persian lords under Cyrus; and yet this same Darius is obliged to have recourse to the records. Nehemiah was forced to inspect the genealogies of those that returned with Zerubbabel, when at the time of Darius Hystaspes there were living among them such as were able to give an account of their own descent. What can be more absurd? When we therefore read of Darius, that he ordered the records to be searched; and of Nehemiah, that he was obliged to inspect the genealogies; we may rationally conclude with Scaliger, that the edict of Cyrus was not a thing of a late date, at that time when Darius was petitioned about the rebuilding of the temple; and that consequently it could not be Darius Hystaspes who was coetaneous with Cyrus, but Darius Nothus, who granted liberty to the jews to rebuild the temple.”

4. The words in Haggai and Zechariah are to be understood of the same Darius who was at least the third after Cyrus, it being evident from the following words of Ezra 4:5-7, that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes reigned betwixt Cyrus and this Darius; and that under both their reigns the building of the temple was obstructed. These are his words. “And the people of the land hired counsellors against the people of Judah, to frustrate their purpose all the days of Cyrus, king of Persia, even unto the reign of Darius king of Persia. 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. And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia, and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue.” And in the seventeenth and following verses of the same chapter may be read the answer of Artaxerxes, forbidding the rebuilding of the temple. But betwixt Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes there reigned but one lawful king, which was Cambyses; wherefore the words of Ezra, both in this passage and in Ezra 6:1-15, cannot be understood of the son of Hystaspes. Whereas on the other hand, Darius Nothus having reigned betwixt the two Artaxerxes, to wit, Artaxerxes Longimanus, and Artaxerxes Mnemon, all the circumstances of the holy text concur for his reign.

Notwithstanding the unquestionable perspicuity of this argument, Dionysius Petavius found out another objection against Scaliger, which has been embraced and promoted by some of his followers. Among the rest, Periculi has the following words. “This Cambyses, this Smerdis, the son of Cyrus, either true or supposititious, we believe to have been the same with Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes mentioned in the scriptures; as appears out of the words of Daniel 11:2, ‘That after Cyrus till the time of Artaxerxes there reigned three kings over Persia;’ which would not be agreeable to the catalogue of the Persian kings, if Smerdis were not numbered among them. The objection that there is to the congruity betwixt Artaxerxes and Cambyses, and Ahasuerus and Smerdis, is of little moment. For Cambyses and Smerdis were their names when they lived yet in a private condition, or perhaps were their surnames, which afterwards, when they attained the royal dignity, were changed and transmuted into those of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. So according to Josephus, lib. 11. cap. 6, the son of Xerxes was by his father called Cyrus, by the Greeks Artaxerxes, and in the scriptures Ahasuerus; and if we may rely upon the testimony of Sedar Olam Rabba, the Persians called all their kings Artaxerxes.” Those who would have Darius, mentioned in Ezra and by the other prophets, to have been the son of Hystaspes, are in no wise agreeable to the true computation of the history. And to make Artaxerxes the same with Cambyses, and Ahasuerus the same with Smerdis, is an unaccountable way of arguing. It is undeniable, that among the Persian kings there was a supposititious or Pseudo-Smerdis; but that he should be the same Ahasuerus mentioned in scripture, is contrary to truth, it being manifest out of Herodotus, that this Magus reigned only a few months; which time he bestowed in settling himself in the throne which he had usurped, not in oppressing the jews. And what is related of Ahasuerus in the book of Esther, has very little or no relation to the Pseudo-Smerdis, this impostor having never appeared in public during his short reign. It is also very evident from all the circumstances of the original text in Ezra, that in those ancient times, all the Persian kings were called Artaxerxes, Artasastas, or Ahasuerus.

There are likewise some who maintain, that Ezra did by Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus understand one and the same king of Persia, contrary to the tenor of the sacred history, which assigns them not only different names, but also different actions. Under the reign of Ahasuerus divers accusations were brought against the jews, but without success; whereas in the time of Artaxerxes the jews were, pursuant to a royal mandate, publicly opposed in the building of the temple by their enemies.

5. If, according to our opinion, by this Darius is to be understood Darius Nothus, and the beginning of these seventy annual weeks be fixed in the second year of his reign, this interval, as described by the angel Gabriel, will by a just computation, founded upon undeniable chronological characters, amount exactly to four hundred and ninety years, till the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Wherefore we conclude with the words of Scaliger, lib. 7. p. 591, “It is very apparent that this Darius, in the second year of whose reign the rebuilding of the temple was begun afresh, must be Darius Nothus, who reigned betwixt the two Artaxerxes, viz. Artaxerxes Machrocire or Longimanus, and Artaxerxes Mnemon or Memor. The predecessor of Artaxerxes Longimanus could be no other person but Xerxes, who is called Oxyares in the scripture, which was his name before he obtained the royal dignity.”

Those who differ from us in opinion concerning this Darius mentioned by Ezra, make, among others, this objection, that our hypothesis is not agreeable to the age of Zerubbabel and Joshua. But this objection is answered very succinctly by Joshua Scaliger, lib. 6. p. 603. “They make, says he, this objection; because from the time of the edict of Cyrus, when Zerubbabel and Joshua were sent to Jerusalem, till the second year of the reign of Darius Nothus, are less or more one hundred and six years. And say they, how could they be living after one hundred and six years? But for my part I see no great occasion why they should so much wonder at it, there being no want of examples in the holy scripture, that several persons, especially those whom God had chosen as instruments to rule his church and people, have lived above one hundred and thirty years. And do we not see in our age some who attain to the age of a hundred and twenty years, and are in their full senses?”

But what is most remarkable, is, that Petavius, who is the main champion against our and Scaliger’s opinion, and looks upon the age of Zerubbabel as a thing very improbable, is very liberal in attributing at least the same age to Sanballat. For Petavius, lib. 13., himself makes Nehemiah’s journey into Palestine coincident with the 4259th year of the Julian period; and it is evident from Nehemiah 4., that the beforementioned Sanballat flourished about the same time. Now, according to Petavius’s own hypothesis, Alexander besieged Tyrus in the year of the Julian period 4382; so that from the time of Nehemiah’s journey into Palestine, when Sanballat flourished, till the taking of Tyrus after a siege of seven months, are to be accounted one hundred and twenty three years. For the beforenamed Sanballat assisted in the siege of Tyrus, and died not long after in Alexander’s camp in the siege of Gaza, as may be seen more at large in Josephus, lib. 12. cap. 8. From whence it is evident, that supposing this Sanballat but twenty seven years old at the time of Nehemiah’s journey into Palestine, he was one hundred and fifty years old when he died, and consequently Petavius contradicts his own opinion. But there is something peculiar in the age of Zerubbabel and Joshua, which is so far from carrying with it the least improbability, that long life was promised as a particular benefit from God, to all such as should return from the Babylonian captivity, according to Zechariah 8:4. “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, there shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age.” Many examples might be produced of such persons as have lived to a great age, in Scaliger’s behalf. But for the sake of brevity we are willing to pass them by in silence, and refer the reader to other historians.

Those who are not pleased with Scaliger’s chronological computation allege, among other matters, that the following passage in Zechariah 1:12, contradicts his hypothesis concerning Darius. “Then the angel of the Lord answered and said, oh 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.” From whence they draw the following consequence—that since from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, till the second year of Darius Nothus, are elapsed above seventy years, the restoration of the temple is not to be referred to that king’s reign. But Scaliger’s answer is, that this passage of Zechariah is as little agreeable to their opinion concerning Darius Hystaspes, since these seventy years differ as well from the time of Darius Hystaspes as from the second year of Darius Nothus. He adds therefore, that those seventy years of which mention is made by the angel in Zechariah, begin about the twenty ninth or thirtieth year of the reign of Darius Hystaspes, when the jews were sorely oppressed by their enemies, and their condition grew worse after the death of the said Darius, about the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes, as may be seen more at large in Ezra 4:5.

To finish the transgression. alkl lecallai. Theodotian’s version, with all the various readings, is now before me, and he follows the LXX, tou suntelesqhnai amartian. This reading is nearly as the English, only the Greek prefix syn, marks the full and complete expiation of sin. Liv. 16. Chrysostom has the same remark on the prefix to the word self-denial in the gospel, as equivalent to the injunction that a man should deny himself altogether. [vp pesha, French, péché, sin, crime, transgression. What more can we ask? What greater consummation can we have? Why then should our arians and socinians still give us trouble by reading, “To restrain transgression?” This rendering, borrowed from Grotius, cohibendo, is illusive and false. Let the English reader refer to places where the word callai occurs, and it will demonstrate the idea, that Christ hath put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and shut and covered it up in his grave. Zedekiah, it is said, shut up Jeremiah in prison. Jeremiah 32:3. They shut up the calves of the cows that drew the ark. 1 Samuel 6:10. I am shut up, said David, and cannot come forth. Psalm 88:8. Ahab said of Micaiah, put this fellow in prison. 1 Kings 22:27. The heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from fruit. Haggai 1:10. The preaching of the gospel did not “restrain” the jews from sin; they filled up the measure of their iniquity by the blood of the saints, as Daniel had foretold in ver. 26, 27.

The second blessing of the Messiah’s coming is, the consummation of his great sacrifice for the sin of the world. Such is the force of the word µtjl lechatam; he sealed, he finished on the high altar of the cross, the propitiatory oblation of his body for the sin of the world. He has consequently abolished in his flesh the enmity of ordinances in the ceremonial law, a yoke revolting to the jews, and insupportable to the gentiles. Ephesians 2:15.

The third blessing is reconciliation, as the Mediator between God and men, as the prophet had foretold. Isaiah 53:10. 1 Corinthians 5:18. Colossians 1:20.

The fourth blessing is everlasting righteousness, described in the following passages. Jeremiah 23:6. Romans 3. 4. Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength. This is literally the righteousness of ages, lasting as the kingdom of God.

The fifth blessing is the obsignation, or sealing up of the vision and prophecy, by fulfilling all the figures of the law, and all that the prophets had foretold. The Mosaic economy lasted till the mission of John. Matthew 11:13. After that there was no need of farther visions respecting the glory of his person, he being come the great High Priest, and the light of the world.

The sixth blessing is the anointing of the Most Holy. Literally, the holy of holies, the church of which he is the head. To him the Spirit was given without measure; and on all his members he sheds it down according to his good pleasure. He dwells in the church, of which the temple was a figure, in all the glory of the only-begotten of the Father.

THE GREAT PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS, 24-27.

For a detailed examination of the various explanations of these verses and the reasons for our own position see our Introduction to Daniel, II, 10. We will merely attempt here to give succinctly the newer and the older views in their most reasonable form with our conclusions.

24. The R.V. (with marginal references in brackets) reads, “Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish [to restrain] [the] transgression, and to make an end of [to seal up] sins, and to make reconciliation for [to purge away] iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy [prophet], and to anoint the most holy [a most holy place].” Kautzsch freely translates, “to bring to end the wickedness and to make full the measure of sin… and to seal the prophetic revelations and to consecrate (again) a most holy.” All expositors agree that these terms relate to the Messianic hope. Whatever the author of Daniel saw or thought of when he penned these lines, such a vision could only be fully realized in Him who alone could atone for sin and bring in everlasting righteousness. That the prophet saw this Messianic glory break in upon the world immediately upon the close of the Antiochian persecution is in accordance with all other prophetic utterances. (See our discussion of “The Seventy Weeks,” Introduction to Daniel, II, 10, and compare Matthew 24.) Seventy weeks — Literally, seventy sevens; that is, “sevens of years” (as Genesis 29:27). The period of desolation prophesied by Jeremiah was to be seventy years (ten “sevens”), but this Danielic period of affliction was to be at least seven times longer. (Compare Leviticus 26:18.) To finish the transgression — That is, to fill up the full measure of the “transgression,” described Daniel 7:12, and elsewhere. To make an end of sins — This either means, as the preceding phrase, to fill up the measure of sin (Hitzig) or, more probably, “to abolish sin” (Bevan). That is, an end will now be put to this flood of crime and wickedness. To make reconciliation for iniquity — That is, to make atonement for sin. This is the common meaning of this familiar phrase which occurs again and again in the Pentateuch. It has reference to the mediatorial work of the Messiah, “which is here conceived as following the judgment of those transgressors whose sins are come to the full” (Terry). 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 thenceforth, coeternal with God, its Author and Giver.” — Pusey. To seal up the vision and prophecy — That is, either to “seal” in the sense of “closing” — there being no more need of visions or prophets, since the old order has now given place to the new (see Wolf, who refers to 1 Corinthians 13:8) — or more probably “seal” in the sense of vindication. The predictions previously made by many prophets, of a glorious era which should follow all the back-slidings and afflictions of God’s people, should have the seal of Jehovah set to them by their fulfillment. (Compare John 3:33; 6:27.) Prophecy — Rather, prophet. To anoint the most Holy — “A most holy place” (R.V., margin); “the most holy thing” (Bevan); “a holy of holies” (Terry). This may refer either to the anointing of the sacrificial altar (Exodus 29:37; 40:10), a holy sanctuary (Exodus 30:26; 40:9), or a holy one (Exodus 40:13; Isaiah 61:1) — although this phrase is never used elsewhere of an individual unless in one doubtful verse (1 Chronicles 23:13). It is possible this may have primary reference to the reconsecration of the altar, defiled by Antiochus; though this altar was probably never “anointed,” literally, as the Jews had no holy anointing oil at this period (Keil, Wolf, etc.). But in any case, coming at the close of a passage confessedly full of the Messianic hope, this reference should not be pushed back and confined within the narrow scope of the prophet’s natural vision, but must be allowed its wider and richer Messianic meaning. In that new and blessed era which Daniel so dimly saw it was made known that all former altars and sanctuaries and high priests were but types and shadows of the “true tabernacle which the Lord pitched,” with its cross altar and its holy living sacrifices (Hebrews viii-x). “Anointing” had always been the symbol of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 61:1; compare 1 John 2:20-27).

V. 25. From the going forth-From the publication of the edict, whether of Cyrus or Darius, to restore and to build it.

Verse 25. Know therefore and understand:— From the edict which shall be promulgated, to return and rebuild Jerusalem, there shall be seven weeks. Then it shall be fully rebuilt, with anxiety, in difficult times. Thence, to the Prince Messiah, there shall be sixty-two weeks.

Verse 25. Know therefore and understand — Learn therefore and retain; from the going forth of the commandment — From the publication of the edict by the Persian king; to restore and to build Jerusalem — Or, to build again Jerusalem: so the verb bwc is translated in the latter part of the verse. Daniel had besought God to behold their desolations, and the ruins of the city which was called by his name, verse 18. In answer to this his supplication, the angel acquaints him, that an order should be issued from the Persian king to rebuild both the city and its wall. Now when, after this, the commandment did actually go forth, the faith of God’s people would be greatly confirmed, respecting the accomplishment of this wonderful prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, the prescience of the end being confirmed by that of all the intermediate events.

Four edicts of the kings of Persia, in favour of the Jews, mentioned in Scripture, are, 1st, That of Cyrus, Ezra 1:1. 2d, That of Darius Hystaspes, Ezra 4:6; Haggai 1:1, 2. 3d, That of Artaxerxes Longimanus, in the seventh year of his reign, Ezra 7.; Esdras 8.: and, 4th, That in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah 2:1. The first of these edicts cannot be applied to this prophecy, inasmuch as from the first of Cyrus, before Christ 536, to the death of Christ, A.D. 34, are 570 years. It was, however, the basis of liberty to the Jews, for all the indulgences granted them afterward, by the following kings of Persia, were founded on the precedent of this great monarch. So that he might well be considered as fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah: He shall build my city, he shall let go my captives, Isaiah 45:13. In consequence of this decree 50,000 Jews returned under Zerubbabel, and partly dispersed themselves in their several tribes, and partly settled at Jerusalem, and began to build both the city and temple. But this was in a very rude and tumultuous manner, and they met with so many hinderances from the Samaritans and others, that the decree was not carried into effect. This therefore is not the period we are to reckon from. The second, namely, that of Darius Hystaspes, was made about fourteen years after, preceding the death of Christ 550 years. But neither was this efficacious. Besides, it related to the temple only, as appears from the letter of the Samaritan colony to Cambyses, Ezra 4:11-16; neither therefore is this the period. The third decree, which was that of Artaxerxes Longimanus, recorded at large Ezra 7:12-26, “was of great solemnity and efficacy, importing no less than the restoration of the Jewish constitution, both civil and ecclesiastical, providing in the first place for the re-establishment of divine worship with becoming order and magnificence, exempting the priesthood from all taxes; then, for the civil government of the people, the institution of tribunals, and the administration of justice, according to the law of Moses. This decree answers to all the characters of the prophecy, the restoring of the constitution, the rebuilding of the city, and the chronological periods distinctly specified,” and is, no doubt, here chiefly intended. “It is not unpleasing to conjecture the cause that moved the Persian monarch thus to emulate and transcend the magnanimity of Cyrus. Josephus with great probability, supposes the famous Esther to have been the queen of Artaxerxes. By her influence both the edicts of the seventh and twentieth of his reign were obtained: which is almost demonstrable from Nehemiah’s prayer, Nehemiah 1:5-11; and relation, Nehemiah 2:1-11. Thus the providence of God raised a Jewish heroine to the throne of Persia, first to preserve his people from massacre and extermination, and afterward to facilitate and complete their resettlement. Under these auspices, Ezra, like another Moses, became a second founder of the Jewish state: and his return with the captives to restore Jerusalem is the glorious epoch, from which the seventy weeks begin. God was pleased to reward the heroic virtue of Esther with a long and uninterrupted prosperity, being in full favour with the king from the seventh to the twentieth year of his reign, and perhaps earlier and later: and she had the felicity, than which none on earth can be greater, of having restored her nation to the full possession of their religion, laws, and liberties.”

“The fourth and last edict was that which the same Artaxerxes granted to Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of his reign, to repair and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Between the two edicts of the seventh and the twentieth, the rebuilding had met with so much opposition and hostility, that Nehemiah had much of the fortifications to begin again: the temple, which is the essential part of the completion, being finished, in consequence of the former edict. It is easy to solve the seeming difficulty respecting the thirteen years between the two edicts; for the archangel commences the seventy weeks, not from the actual rebuilding the walls and streets, but from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild them. So that the date of the first edict, not the work itself, is the epoch from whence begins the period of four hundred and ninety years. The work itself, though interrupted and resumed, properly began with the permission to execute it. Ezra began the foundation of the temple; Nehemiah completed the walls on the old foundations, and celebrated the encænia, keeping the dedication with gladness and with thanksgivings, Nehemiah 12:27. Thus, of the four edicts, the first two are excluded because they were not efficacious, and prolong the term to near six hundred years: and the fourth was only a confirmation of the third. No other commencement of the four hundred and ninety years agrees with the event, than that of the seventh of Artaxerxes: and this system is perspicuous, and free from all difficulties.” — Apthorp.

In order to manifest the perspicuity of this exposition, and give it the greater evidence, it may be well to examine the distinct characters of each of the three intervals into which the seventy weeks are divided; namely, seven weeks, threescore and two weeks, and one week. The reason of this distribution into three intervals, flowing in uninterrupted succession, is not so obscure as to elude discovery. The first and third of these intervals are marked by great events; the restoration of the Jewish polity, the expiation of Christ’s passion, and his covenant with the Jews and Gentiles. The long interval which connects the two extremes, necessarily contains sixty-two weeks. “In our English version, the sense of the twenty-fifth verse is somewhat obscured by the punctuation. It is easily rectified thus: From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks — The angel then specifies the great events of each of these intervals. In the first, of seven weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And thus it was; the city and the walls were rebuilt in forty-nine years, not without much opposition and various impediments. Nothing can be more exact than this period of the completion, both for the interval of forty-nine years, ending with the sixteenth of Darius; and for the troublous times in which the Jewish patriots restored and rebuilt their city.” — Dr. Apthorp. It must be observed here, 1st, That the restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem, here spoken of, though it may chiefly respect the laws and constitution, is not so merely figurative as to exclude the literal sense: for though the city itself was in some degree rebuilt before this period, yet it was done so imperfectly, by reason of their poverty, and the opposition and envy of their neighbours, that the work was to be resumed in the seventh of Longimanus, whose long reign, and his favour to the nation of his queen, providentially effected its complete restoration. 2d, The troublous times mentioned, refer both to the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks. “The peculiarity in the application of these times to the seven weeks, consists in the almost continual obstructions which the restored Jews met with, chiefly from the Samaritans, and also from their idolatrous neighbours the Moabites, Ammonites, and others, in the difficult work of rebuilding the temple and walls of the new city; insomuch that the artificers were obliged to carry on their work with arms in their hands to repulse their assailants. But the troublous times here predicted have also an aspect on the long period of sixty-two weeks, in which the Jewish history abundantly verified this sad circumstance. Not to mention their general calamities and subjection to their potent neighbours of Syria and Egypt, their city was taken and their temple profaned by Ptolemy I., by Antiochus, by Crassus, by Pompey, by Herod: and their state was often so critical, that a particular providence was manifested in their preservation, especially in raising them up those illustrious patriots, who so nobly resisted the tyranny and persecution of Antiochus. Few periods of history are more savage and inglorious, more profligate and flagitious, than that of the successors of Alexander: and the Jewish government is not to be calumniated for their portion in the general calamities of those ages; while they are deserving of the highest admiration for their constancy, in being the only people on earth who adhered to the exclusive worship of the ONLY GOD.” — Apthorp.

Ver. 25. From the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. Archbishop Usher reckons the whole of the seventy weeks from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes; but here Daniel divides that period into three; seven weeks—sixty two weeks—and one week. Dr. Lightfoot allots the seven weeks, or forty nine years, for the building of the temple; and the one week, or seven years, from the commencement of John’s ministry to the crucifixion.

25. The commandment — Literally, the word. When was this command, to restore (or, “re-people”) and to rebuild Jerusalem, given? That cannot be settled positively. (See remarks on “The Seventy Weeks” in our Introduction, II, 10.) Probably most modern scholars believe that this is the “word of the Lord” recorded by the prophet Jeremiah — of which Daniel was thinking at this very time (verse 2) — which “word” came to him in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (606 B.C.) and later (593 B.C.; 586 B.C.), and included inferentially at first, and afterward by explicit statement, the promise of restoration at the end of the seventieth year, the punishment of enemies, and the repopulation and rebuilding of the capital city (Jeremiah 25:1, 2, 12; 29:1, 14; 30:3, 9, 18; 31:38, etc.). This is the most natural reference — since it was concerning this “word” that Daniel had just been praying — unless we refer it to the edict of Cyrus which gave historical expression to the divine edict which Daniel had been so earnestly considering. This would be equally “natural,” hut does not furnish as satisfactory a terminus at the end of the first seven weeks, when according to the prophecy “an anointed one, a prince” should appear. The older interpretation generally dates it from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (but see next verse). Unto the Messiah the Prince — Later scholars usually read, with the R.V., “Unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks.” According to this version the passage cannot refer primarily to Christ, for the “anointed one” is to come after seven weeks. Who is this anointed one? The reference attaches itself naturally to Cyrus, who had recently been called by this very title by Isaiah (xliv, 28; 45:1) and who historically did appear as king of Anzan, 544 B.C., and as conqueror of Babylon, 537 B.C., just about seven weeks (forty-nine years) after these later and more explicit prophecies of the rebuilding of the city had been given (593 B.C.; 586 B.C.); although it may possibly refer to Jeshua, son of Jozadak (Ezra 3:2), who was the Jewish high priest at the time of the Return, (compare Haggai 1:1; Zechariah 3:1), the high priest being sometimes called in Scripture the “anointed” (Leviticus 4:3, 5, 16; 6:20). Most of the older expositors prefer the hypothesis that the command of verse 23 is the decree of Artaxerxes given either to Ezra (about 458 B.C.) or to Nehemiah (about 445 B.C.), in which case the “anointed one” must be considered as the Lord Christ (compare Isaiah 61:1), and the punctuation of the verse retained as in the A.V. and margin of the R.V., where the seven weeks are united with the sixty-two. It seems more natural, however, to identify this mysterious “word” with the divine word of which the prophet was then thinking, as all acknowledge (see verse 2), rather than with a later decree made long after the exilic Daniel must have gone to his grave. Threescore and two weeks — The R.V. reads, “unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks: and threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times.” This period of sixty-two weeks is passed by almost without remark, because the chief interest centers in the last week. Since the common symbolism of number required that the full period of sevenfold (or perfected) affliction should be seventy (7 x 10) weeks, and since seven weeks had been taken from the whole number at the beginning of the calculation and another week at the end, that necessarily left sixty-two weeks in the middle. According to the newer interpretation it is not probable that in the mind of the writer this represented any exact number of years, but in a general way was meant to cover the long period lying between the return of the Jews after the longed-for decree had been proclaimed by Cyrus, the “anointed prince” (537 B.C.) and the assassination of Onias III, the high priest, 171 B.C. (See next verse.) It was not, perhaps, intended to be chronologically exact, but was an indeterminate quantity connecting the two definite and well-known periods covered by the first seven and the final week of years. Certainly this final week, as is acknowledged by all, was the period upon which the emphasis was chiefly placed. During these sixty-two weeks Jerusalem should suffer trouble, but should at last be built up again “with street and moat” (R.V.), or perhaps rather, “with court and street.” The troubles experienced by the Jews in rebuilding may be seen from the fact that some ninety years after the Return, Nehemiah could speak of the vast open spaces in the city where no one yet lived and in which dwellings “are not builded” (Nehemiah 7:4; compare Nehemiah 1:3; 2:3; 6:1; 9:37). Perhaps, however, the phrase and in troublous times should be connected with the statement following.

V. 26. And after-After the seven and the sixty two that followed them. Not for himself-But for our sakes, and for our salvation. And the people-The Romans under the conduct of Titus. Determined-God hath decreed to destroy that place and people, by the miseries and desolations of war.

Verse 26. And after sixty-two weeks the Messiah shall be slain, and have no justice. Afterwards he shall waste the city and the sanctuary, by the prince that is to come. And his end shall be in straits; and to the end of the war desolation is appointed.

Verse 26. After threescore and two weeks (counting from the expiration of the first interval) shall Messiah be cut off — “This long interval extends from the 93d Olympiad to the 202d Olympiad, or four hundred and thirty-four years; ending with the sixty-ninth [prophetic] week, and with the commencing of our Lord’s ministry. No prophetic characters are here given of the long interval; but they are supplied from other predictions of this great prophet, which respect the Roman people and empire, the Persian monarchy, Alexander and his successors; particularly by that circumstantial prophecy in the eleventh chapter, respecting the Lagidæ and Seleucidæ, and extending to the antichristian persecutions and idolatries typified by those of Antiochus Epiphanes. These four centuries include the most interesting periods of profane history, and their chronology is so well ascertained as to make the computation of Daniel’s weeks mathematically exact. For sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, added to seven weeks, or forty-nine years, are equal to four hundred and eighty-three years. After which period, or in the last one week, containing seven years, the Messiah should be cut off. The title of MESSIAH is, by way of eminence, peculiar to Christ. It was first used in this prophecy in that appropriate sense. No other application of this title ever obtained among the ancient Jews. Nor can it, without absurdity, be applied to any civil or ecclesiastical prince, much less to a succession in the high-priesthood. It is here used personally, proper to some one anointed; and to whom it is proper is decided by that emphatic circumstance, Messiah shall be CUT OFF, an expression used in Scripture to denote a judicial sentence and a violent death; BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF — Isaiah gives an exact comment on both these expressions, Isaiah 53:8. HE WAS CUT OFF out of the land of the living; FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF MY PEOPLE was he stricken.” — Dr. Apthorp. And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city, &c. — Thus to the death of Christ the angel immediately subjoins the excision of Jerusalem. The people here spoken of are the Romans, and the prince that should come, may mean, as some think, the Messiah; the Romans being called his people, both on account of their present subserviency to his will, and their future conversion to his faith; HE sent forth HIS armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city, Matthew 22:7. Or, the prince that should come may be understood of Titus Vespasian, of whom the Roman writers speak as if his military glory chiefly resulted from the taking of Jerusalem. “The actions of this prince, in the conduct of this memorable siege, are related in the fifth and sixth books of Josephus; the most tragical event in history was effected by a prince whose clemency made him ‘the delight of human-kind,’ and who saw, with generous reluctance, the horrors of his own victory. — Jos., 7:5. 2. It is thus Divine Providence distinguishes its counsels and instruments; and the victor himself acknowledged that ‘God was his assistant, that none but God could have ejected the Jews from so strong fortifications,’ 6:9. 1. They shall destroy the CITY and the SANCTUARY — The specification is remarkable; as Jerusalem, in effect, sustained two separate sieges; one, of the lower city; the other, of the temple, or sanctuary of strength, as our prophet elsewhere styles it, chap. 11:31, as being not only a magnificent temple newly rebuilt, but a strong fortress, which was consumed by their own fires, against the intention and efforts of their conqueror. — Jos., 6:4, 7.” The end thereof shall be with a flood — The symbol of invading armies:

— — Aggeribus ruptis cum spumeus amnis

Exiit, oppositasque evicit gurgite moles,

Fertur in arva furens cumulo,

camposque per omnes,

Cum stabulis armenta trahit.

VIRG. ÆN. 2:496.

Not with so fierce a rage the foaming flood

Roars, when he finds his rapid course withstood;

Bears down the dams with unresisted sway,

And sweeps the cattle and the cots away.

DRYDEN.

And unto the end of the war desolations are determined — “Which marks the irrevocable decree of Heaven, and the completeness of the devastation, after a continued war of more than seven years.” — Dr. Apthorp.

Ver. 26. After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. From this text, Tertullian argues against the jews, that the Messiah must be really come, and must have been cut off one hundred and sixty years prior to his writing at the close of the second century; and no rabbi of that age had confidence to refute him.— The people of the prince, the Romans shall come, as stated in Deuteronomy 28:49-52.

26. R.V. reads, “And after the threescore and two weeks shall the [an] anointed one be cut off.” Delitzsch and Zockler, as recent evangelical scholars generally, accept Onias III as the “anointed one” referred to here. Onias was the last Jewish high priest who ruled in the regular succession. He was deposed by Antiochus about 175 B.C. and murdered 171 B.C. This awful event must have made a tremendous impression upon the Jewish world. (Compare Daniel 11:22; 2 Macc. 4:35.) Others of the newer critics explain this as referring to the murder of Seleucus Philopator by Heliodorus; but this seems less probable than the above. It is a significant fact that “Jewish exposition in pre-Christian times is united in referring this section [verses 25-27] to the Maccabean era of tribulation under Antiochus Epiphanes” (Zockler). The older exegetes follow here the punctuation of the A.V. and, uniting the seven with the sixty-two weeks, see a direct reference to Jesus the Messiah, who was cut off at the end of the sixty-nine prophetic weeks. (See note verse 25 and our remarks on “The Seventy Weeks,” Introduction to Daniel, II, 10.) The argument of Dr. Terry that an (or, “the”) anointed one in verse 26 should be the same as the anointed one in verse 25, while valid in ordinary historic narration, does not apply so forcibly in apocalyptic writings, which were made purposely obscure and of a double meaning. But not for himself — This translation of the Hebrew cannot be defended. The R.V. is better, “and shall have nothing,” or, as the margin, “there shall be none belonging to him” (or, “for him”). Kautzsch renders freely, “without his having any (fault).” There are grammatical objections to every translation and the meaning is very obscure. Behrmann and many others render “and no one follows [succeeds] him.” Most critics who hold the newer interpretation of the passage explain it as meaning that Onias had no legitimate successor. Those who hold to the direct Messianic interpretation, and yet accept the critical Hebrew text generally, take it to mean that the Messiah had no one to stand for him as protector or helper when threatened with death. The people of the prince that shall come — According to the most common form of the newer critical interpretation this refers to the army of Antiochus (compare Judges 5:2), who came from Rome after the death of Onias and devastated Jerusalem, destroyed the sanctuary, and massacred forty thousand of its inhabitants. For the objection that Antiochus did not literally destroy Jerusalem compare notes Ezekiel 29:8-12. According to the older view this phrase refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. And the end thereof shall be with a flood — In-stead of “the” end R.V. renders “his” end, as also the A.V., in the margin. The difficulty is to know whether the flood sweeps away the sanctuary or the people or the prince. It seems most natural to refer it to the city and sanctuary, over which the invading army sweeps like a deluge (Daniel 11:22; compare Nahum 1:8). And unto the end of the war — Rather, with R.V., “and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined.” Instead of the perfect security, victory, and peace which Daniel at the close of the seventy years’ captivity would probably have expected from the prophecy of Jeremiah which he was reading (verse 2; compare Jeremiah 29:11, 14; 30:8, 10, 19, 20; 33:10-16), the “perpetual desolations” which Jeremiah had prophesied against the heathen (Jeremiah 24:12) are now prophesied against Jerusalem clear down to the end of the seventy weeks. Only after these seventy weeks of calamity can the real fulfillment of all Jeremiah’s prophecies of restoration and joy take place.

V. 27. He shall confirm-Christ confirmed the new covenant,

1. By the testimony of angels, of John baptist, of the wise men, of the saints then living, of Moses and Elias.

2. By his preaching.

3. By signs and wonders.

4. By his holy life.

5. By his resurrection and ascension.

6. By his death and blood shedding.

Shall cause the sacrifice to cease-All the Jewish rites, and Levitical worship. By his death he abrogated, and put an end to this laborious service, for ever. And that determined-That spirit of slumber, which God has determined to pour on the desolate nation, ‘till the time draws near, when all Israel shall be saved.

Verse 27. And for one week he shall confirm a covenant with many; And in the middle of the week he shall abrogate sacrifice and offering; And in the temple there shall be the abomination of desolation, Until the ruin which is decreed rush on after the desolation. In this translation there are some peculiarities.

Instead of “the street shall be built again, and the wall,” Daniel 9:25, he translates xwrjw bwjr (with the prefix b beth instead of w vau in the latter word,) “it shall be fully (the city and all its walls) rebuilt with anxiety.”

Instead of wl ואינ “but not for himself,” he translates, “Nor shall justice be done him;” supposing that דינ “justice” was originally in the verse. Instead of “the people of the prince,” Daniel 9:26, he translates “by the prince,” using µ[ im as a preposition, instead of µ[ am, “the people.” Instead of “and for the overspreading,” he translates ãnk ועל “in the temple; “ following the Septuagint, kai epi to ieron. This rendering is at least as good as ours: but see the marginal readings here, and the preceding notes.

Houbigant contends also that the arrangement of the several members in these passages is confused. He proposes one alteration, which is important, viz., From the promulgation of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem shall be seven weeks; and unto Messiah the prince, sixty-two weeks. All these alterations he vindicates in his notes at the end of this chapter. In the text I have inserted Houbigant’s dots, or marks of distinction between the different members of the verses.

VARIOUS READINGS

Verse 24. µy[bc µywbc weeks written full, so to prevent mistakes, in thirteen of Kennicott’s, four of Deuteronomy Rossi’s, and one ancient of my own.

µy[bc Seventy-one of Kennicott’s, and one of Deuteronomy Rossi’s, have µy[wbc “weeks, weeks, weeks;” that is, “many weeks:” but this is a mere mistake.

alkl “to restrain.” jlkl “to consume,” is the reading of twenty-nine of Kennicott’s, thirteen of Deuteronomy Rossi’s, and one ancient of my own. ולחתם “and to seal up.” Forty-three of Kennicott’s, twelve of Deuteronomy Rossi’s, and one of my own, have ולחתם “to make an end.” One reads ולחתום, more full.

twacj “sins.” tacj “sin,” in the singular, is the reading of twenty-six of Deuteronomy Rossi’s; and so, in the second instance where this word occurs, two of my MSS.

µyml[ “everlasting.” Two of my oldest MSS. read µymlc, and so in the next instance.

aybnw “and the prophet.” The conjunction is omitted by two of Kennicott’s.

lkvtw “and understand.” One of my MSS. has lykvtw.

Verse 25. axwm מנ “from the publication.” One MS. of Deuteronomy Rossi’s omits the מנ “from,” and instead of either, one of my oldest MSS. has axwml “to the publication.”

hycm “Messiah.” Nine MSS. read the word with the point sheva, which makes it read, in regimine, “the anointed of the prince.” But this is evidently the effect of carelessness, or rather design. h[bc “seven.” Two MSS. add the conjunction w vau, “and.” twnblw “and to build.” One of mine omits the conjunction. h[bc µy[bc “seven weeks.” One of Kennicott’s has hbc µy[bc “seventy years.”

µy[bcw “and weeks.” One of Kennicott’s has [wbcw and a week.” µycc “sixty.” A few add the conjunction w vau, “and sixty;” and another has hcc “six;” and another µy[bc “seventy.” Wherever this word signifies weeks, two of my oldest MSS. write it full µy[wbc. In one of my MSS. µycc µy[wbch are omitted in the text, but added by a later hand in the margin.

xwrjw “and the ditch.” One MS. has העיר “the city.” And for bjr “street,” one of mine has bwjr of the same meaning, but more full. qwxbw “and in straits,” or anxiety. One MS. without and, as the Vulgate and Septuagint.

Verse 26. cdqhw “and the holy place or sanctuary.” But two of my most ancient MSS., and four of Kennicott’s, leave out the w vau, and read cdqh והעיר “and the holy city,” or “city of holiness,” instead of “the city and sanctuary.” In one MS. w is omitted in והעיר.

wxqw “and its end.” One MS. omits the conjunction w and; one omits the following xq “the end;” reading thus: “and unto the war.” But a more singular reading is that of one of my own MSS. written about A.D. 1136, which has wxyqw “and its summer.”

µycc “sixty.” But one of Kennicott’s MSS. has µy[bc µycc “sixty weeks;” and another adds the conjunction, AND sixty.

tyjcy shall destroy.” But one of Deuteronomy Rossi’s has tjcy “shall be destroyed.”

µ[ “the people.” µ[ im, “with,” is the reading of one of Kennicott’s, with the Septuagint, Theodotion, Syriac, Hexapla, Vulgate, and Arabic. ãccb “with a flood.” One MS. has ãcch “the flood.”

ãnk ועל “and upon the wing.” Nearly twenty MSS. have ועד “and unto,” &c.

Verse 27. xq ועד “and unto the end.” -de “to the end;” and one has ועל “and upon.”

xq “the end.” One has t[ “the time; “ and another both, xq t[ “the time of the end.”

µyxwqc ãnk ועל “and upon the wing (or battlement) abomination.” Instead of this, one of the Parisian MSS. numbered three hundred and thirteen in Kennicott’s, has xwqyc hyhy lkyhbw “and in the temple there shall be abomination.” See the preceding notes. This is a similar reading to Theodotion, the Vulgate, Septuagint, Syriac, Hexapla, and the Arabic; and is countenanced by our Lord, Matthew 24:15. After all that has been said on this reading, (which may be genuine, but is less liable to suspicion, as the MS. appears to be the work of some Christian; it is written from the left to the right hand, and is accompanied by the Vulgate Latin,) if this be an attempt to accommodate the Hebrew to the Vulgate, it should be stated that they who have examined this MS. closely, have asserted that there is no evidence that the writer has endeavoured to conform the Hebrew to the Latin text, unless this be accounted such. The ancient versions give this reading great credit.

µyxwqc “abominations.” One of mine has less fully µyxqc. µmcm “desolation.” One of mine has more fully µmycm.

ועד “and unto,” is wanting in one of mine; ועל “and upon” is the reading in one other.

µmwc l[ “until the desolation.” µmwc “the desolation.” One of mine has µmc without the w vau. l[ is wanting; but is added in the margin, by a later hand, in another of these ancient MSS.

I have thus set down almost all the variations mentioned by Kennicott and Deuteronomy Rossi, and those furnished by three ancient MSS. of my own, that the learned reader may avail himself of every help to examine thoroughly this important prophecy. Upwards of thirty various readings in the compass of four verses, and several of them of great moment. DANIEL

Verse 27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many — “The covenant to be confirmed by the Messiah is not a civil, but a religious compact, as such, styled by Daniel himself, the holy covenant, Daniel 11:28, 30, 32, the covenant of grace; which, after the infraction of the first divine law of strict obedience, was, of mere clemency, granted to all mankind by the mediation of Christ. He not only expiated the sins of the world by his death, which was the chief article of the federal system; but in person, by the energy of his miracles, by the efficacy of his doctrine, and, soon after his resurrection, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, he induced many myriads of the Jews to accede to this covenant, which the Prophet Jeremiah so admirably describes, Jeremiah 31:33, 34: compare Hebrews 8:6-13. He shall confirm this covenant with MANY, not with ALL, which marks the exclusion of the obstinate and impious Jews, whose fate is predicted in the preceding and following clause. By an obvious analogy, the Christian covenant, though offered to all, is still confirmed with many; namely, those only who, by a rational faith and moral subjection, having his law written in their hearts, attain to that exalted privilege.”

For one week — “Christ’s personal ministry continued to its fourth year. St. John (John 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 11:15;) distinctly reckons four passovers; the first, A.D. 30, Feb. 15, and the first year of his ministry; the second, A.D. 31; the third, A.D. 32; the fourth, A.D. 33. The half year precedes the first passover from his baptism. The first half week of Daniel is from the beginning of Christ’s first preaching, Mark 1:15, Repent ye, and believe the gospel, A. 30, to his death, April 3, A. 33; or rather, to the pentecost following, when all the Christian mysteries were completed. The duration of Christ’s ministry is so ascertained by St. John; and is so suitable to the great events of his life as well as to this prophecy, that, as it needs not to be protracted, so it cannot be shortened with any degree of probability. The second half week is from the feast of pentecost, (when St. Peter with so much energy converted three thousand of the Jews,) to the conversion of Cornelius, and the first-fruits of the Gentiles, by the same apostle. The best chronologers place the vision of St. Peter, and the conversion of Cornelius, in the fourth year after the passion; and in the same year we may place the foundation of the church of Antioch, where the disciples were first called CHRISTIANS, Acts 10.; 11:26. Thus a prediction, which began with the happy event of rebuilding the earthly Jerusalem, sublimely terminates with the structure of the heavenly, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, JESUS CHRIST himself being the chief corner-stone, Ephesians 2:20-22. The confirmation of the Christian covenant in one week, or seven years, includes its full effect, both in the conversion of many myriads of the Jews, and in the first-fruits of the Gentile Church.”

And in the MIDST of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease — “The sacrifice here specified, with its attendant bread-offering, was eucharistical, as well as propitiatory, being a slain victim, on which the offerers feasted in token of amity and reconciliation with God. When Christ, in the MIDST of the week, offered his own body, that great sacrifice for the expiation of sin, to reconcile sinners to God; by that most holy and acceptable victim, he completed and abolished all the typical sacrifices of the law. The legal sacrifices, indeed, continued to be offered at the temple, for thirty-six years after Christ’s death; but, in effect, they ceased, at that instant their efficacy was no more, after that Christ had given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour, Ephesians 5:2. Hence forward the Christian religion abrogated the Levitical sacrifices, as was accurately foretold by the psalmist, Psalm 40:6, as commented by the inspired writer to the Hebrews 10:5-10.” And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate — Or, more literally, And he shall be a desolator by the wing of abominations. Or, And being a desolator, he shall command over a wing of abominations. The desolator is the Roman army of sixty thousand men: Jos., B. J. 3:4. 2. The wing, as well as the flood, is the Hebrew metaphor for great armies. Abominations, in the Jewish style, are idols. The word is so used by Daniel 11:31, for the idol of the Olympian Jupiter, which Antiochus placed on God’s altar, 1 Mac. 1:57. In this prophecy, it denotes the standards of the Roman legions. To every legion was a golden eagle with expanded wings, grasping a thunder-bolt. The eagles, with the standards of the cohorts, ten in each legion, adorned with the image of the reigning Cesar, were deified, adored, and sworn by; each eagle was placed in a little temple, or shrine; and there was a chapel in the camp where all the eagles were adored. At Rome they were deposited in the temple of Mars. Such deified ensigns were an abomination to the Jews: see Jos. 17:7, 2; 18:8. The prediction was minutely verified when the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the temple and adjacent buildings, brought the ensigns to the holy place, fixed them against the eastern gate, offered sacrifices to them, and hailed Titus Imperator, Jos. 6:6. 1. The allusion to the Roman standards is observable in that prediction of Moses; The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle flieth, a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand, Deuteronomy 28:49: see also Matthew 24:15, 16. The eagles, and the language, and the distance from Rome, discriminate the Romans from the Chaldeans, whose tongue was only a dialect of the Hebrew.”

“The concluding clause, Even until the consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate, is elliptical. It may be thus literally translated, and the ellipses supplied; Even until the consummation and excision, the divine wrath shall be poured on the desolate city, temple and people; which expresses so complete a devastation, as cannot be described but in the emphatic words of Christ, when his disciples beheld with admiration the recent magnificence of Herod’s temple. See ye not all these things? Verily, I say unto you, there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And, verse 21, Then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Christ’s own prediction was memorably verified against the attempt of the apostate emperor, Julian, expressly to defeat it: an attempt which confirms the principle of prophecy, that the designs and counsels of God are independent of the projects of men, either to frustrate or fulfil them.” The war of Adrian, A.D. 133, may be also intended in this last clause of the prophecy; and the re-duplication of images and expressions, rising one above another, may relate to the two completions. “It is worthy of attention, that the ancient prophecies, prior to this of Daniel, have no such exact specification of the time of their completion. Chronology was not reducible to historic certainty prior to the Olympiads. When that era became the authentic measure of time, God was pleased to give this singular credential to the Christian religion; whose author and original could not be more precisely ascertained than by a measure of time, adapted to the ideas of the Jewish law, including ten jubilees, or seventy sabbatic years, nearly commencing with the war of Peloponnesus [between the Athenians and Lacedemonians;] in the recital of which, the unexampled accuracy of Thucydides led the example of the most exact notation of time to other historians. If chronology for six hundred years after Cyrus had been as perplexed as it was for six hundred years before, it would not have been possible to ascertain the completion of a prophecy, specifying so many particular dates.” — Dr. Apthorp. The reader will observe, that several false and evasive systems have been advanced on the subject of this prophecy; but it has not been judged proper to embarrass this exposition of the passage with a refutation of them.

Ver. 27. For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate. The prophets when contemplating distant objects are always laconic. Montanus reads, “and upon the wing of abomination exciting stupefaction.” The abominations in the temple brought the Roman eagles with swift wings to desecrate the city and temple, conformably to the determinate counsel of God, that the once holy place should, like Babylon and Nineveh, be desolate till the times of the gentiles should be fulfilled. The ruins of that sanctuary should be warnings to christians against Israel’s sins.

27. And he shall confirm — R.V. reads, “And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week.” Expositors of the old school generally make the “Messiah” (verse 26) the subject here. He shall make strong his new covenant of grace (Hebrews 9:13) during his life, in his death and resurrection, and for a short time afterward — this “week” being variously estimated as running to Pentecost, to the conversion of St. Paul, or farther still into the Christian era. But according to this method of interpretation it is not easy to find a period of seven years or thereabouts which could be naturally described as the week during which our Lord made firm his covenant. Some expositors make the “one week” refer to “the last period of the Jewish dispensation;” but is it consistent to make the sixty-ninth week end with the death (the “cutting off”) of the Messiah (verse 26), and then to consider the week following as a part of the Jewish dispensation? It is one of the difficulties of this theory that the “cutting off” of Christ (verse 26) should have occurred seemingly before the crisal week opens in which “he shall make a firm covenant with many” (verse 27). For fuller discussion, see Introduction, II, 10. The newer interpretation is that Antiochus, by his many alliances with other princes and the covenant made with apostatizing Jews, was able to keep himself strong for one week (the first seven years of his reign, 175-168 B.C.), and during this period he was confirmed in his heartless persecutions of the Jews. Although the Hebrew word “covenant” usually refers to God’s covenant with Israel, this usage is not universal. (See Hosea 12:1; Amos 1:9.) By a very slight change, however, the phrase may be rendered, “he shall cause many to transgress the covenant;” which was indeed sadly true of Antiochus, for we have independent Jewish testimony that “many Israelites” turned heathen at his command, consenting to profane the Sabbath, and even to set up altars to idols and sacrifice to them swine’s flesh and other unclean offerings (1 Macc. 1:10-15). And in the midst of the week, etc. — R.V. reads, “and for the half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation [meal offering] to cease.” The older school of expositors refer this to the cessation of the temple sacrifices, when Christ through the eternal Spirit offered himself as a Lamb without spot to bear the sins of the world (compare Hebrews 8-10). But was it only for half a week that these temple sacrifices were to cease? Or, if the A.V. is preferred, is it historical truth to say that in the middle of the week following the one in which the Christ was “cut off” (verse 26) these sacrifices came to an end? Their typical virtue ended with the crucifixion, not half a week later; while beast sacrifices actually continued to be offered on the temple altar down to the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. Scholars who favor the new interpretation see in this half week a clearer allusion to the “time, times, and half a time” mentioned previously by Daniel, during which the saints were delivered into the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes (see note 7:25) and the sacrifices (as all acknowledge) were abolished for some three and a half years; from perhaps June, 168 B.C., to December, 165 B.C. And for the overspreading of abominations, etc. — The R.V. (which is accepted in substance by scholars of all schools) reads, “and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate.” R.V., margin, “upon the pinnacle of abominations.” The older commentators generally explain this as having reference to the idolatrous eagle standards of the Roman armies, which spread desolations wherever they came. The newer school explains it in harmony with the similar but clearer phrase found in 11:31; 12:11, where it evidently has an allusion to the heathen altar built by Antiochus Epiphanes on the temple altar of Jehovah, and where on Chislev (December) 25, B.C. 168, sacrifice was offered to the Olympic Zeus. This altar is actually called (1 Macc. 1:51, 54; 6:7) “the abomination of desolation.” This sacrilege certainly caused desolations and made even the most sacred altar of Jehovah an “abomination.” Although Farrar suggests that the heathen altar may have seemed to overshadow the great altar of burnt offering “like a wing,” it is not best to press any vivid pictorial meaning out of the word “wing,” as the exact thought of the Hebrew is uncertain. For the possible connection of this winged abomination with the Babylonian representations of evil genii see Speaker’s Commentary, in loco. The Greek version used by our Lord (Matthew 24:15) seems to favor the modern view that this abomination specially referred to the desecration of the “holy place.” Even until the consummation, etc. — The R.V. reads, “and even unto the consummation, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolator (margin, ‘desolate’).” There are various readings of this very difficult phrase, but the general meaning certainly is that the desolations shall come to the divinely determined end and the desolator shall be punished. If we read “desolate,” with R.V., margin, instead of “desolator,” as the last word of the chapter, this would refer plainly to Jerusalem and would emphasize the statement that up to the very week of Messianic triumph desolations and afflictions should overwhelm the holy city. For this picture of Messianic triumph see Daniel 12:1-3. We cannot think that there is here any direct prophecy of the second coming of Christ or the end of the world; neither can we think that the passage as a whole has direct and primary reference to the coming and crucifixion of our Saviour and the destruction of the temple by the Romans. We have given our reasons for doubting this, and might add the suggestive fact that “neither our Lord nor his apostles nor any of the earliest Christian writers once appealed to the evidence of this prophecy” (Farrar), which would be superlatively astonishing if this were a direct chronological proof that Jesus was indeed the Christ. On the other hand, we must never forget that in all prophecy the future is pictured in the present with an historic exit point in the background. It has been said that the seers of God were not “children of their time but were exalted above their time.” Whether that was true or not of the prophets as individuals, it certainly was true of their Messianic visions. They often spake better than they knew. Daniel’s vision does not stop with Antiochus; the picture which he paints fits upon him only as the forerunner of an enemy of the theocracy still more dreadful. As Professor Simcox has written in the Cambridge Bible, “If the Book of Daniel be accepted as a really inspired prophecy, the visions admit of but one explanation. The oppression of Antiochus is foretold in part for its own sake, as an important episode in the temporal and religious history of God’s people; in part also as a type of a greater and still more important oppression” (The Book of Revelation, p. 21).