Daniel 9 - Introduction

THE PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS

In the first year of -Darius the Mede," Daniel, considering that the 70 years of desolation prophesied by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:11; cf. Jeremiah 25:12; Jeremiah 29:10) were drawing to their close, implores God to forgive His people's sin, and to look favourably upon His ruined city and sanctuary (Daniel 9:1). The angel Gabriel explains to Daniel that it would be, not 70 years, but 70 weeks of years (i.e. 490 years), before the iniquity of the people would be pardoned, and the promised deliverance be finally effected (Daniel 9:20). The period of 70 weeks is then divided into three smaller ones, 7 + 62 + 1; and it is said: (a) that 7 weeks (49 years) will elapse from the going forth of the -word" for the rebuilding of Jerusalem to -an anointed one, a prince;" (b) that for 62 weeks (434 years) the city will be rebuilt, though in straitened times; (c.that at the end of these 62 weeks -an anointed one" will be, cut off, and the people of a prince that shall come will -destroy" the city and the sanctuary: he will make a covenant with many for 1 week (7 years), and during (the second) half of this week he will cause sacrifice and meal-offering to cease, until his end come, and the destined doom overtake him (Daniel 9:25). The general sense of these verses is to postpone the fulfilment of the promises given by Jeremiah to the end of 490 years; and to describe in outline the troubles which must be gone through, in the closing years of this period, before the fulfilment can take place.

Additional Note on the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks

Probably no passage of the Old Testament has been the subject of so much discussion, or has given rise to so many and such varied interpretations, as this. Already Jerome wrote [341], -Scio de hac quaestione ab eruditissimis viris varie disputatum et unumquemque pro captu ingenii sui dixisse quod senserat"; after which he proceeds to give, in some cases quoting the explanations in full, nine different interpretations: though, deeming it -dangerous" to decide between the opinions of magistri Ecclesiaeand to prefer one above another, he leaves it to his reader to determine which he will adopt. Since the time of Jerome the number of divergent interpretations has greatly increased. They differ primarily in the terminus ad quemwhich it is desired, or which it is thought possible, to reach; this necessitates differences in the terminus a quoadopted, and also in the manner of calculating the -weeks," which have been treated sometimes as consisting of solar years, sometimes of lunar years, sometimes as jubile-periods of 7 × 7 years, sometimes as mystic or symbolic periods, not necessarily equal in length; the order 7 + 62 + 1, implied apparently by the text, has been inverted, and altered into 62 + 7 + 1, or 62 + 1 + 7; the 62 weeks, instead of following the 7, have been made to begin concurrently with them; intervals, not taken account of in the prophecy, have been assumed in the period covered by it; the author, it has been supposed, has followed an erroneous chronology. The reason why commentators have had recourse to these varied and often singular expedients is that, understood in the plain and obvious meaning of the words, the -week" being naturally allowed to signify a week of years, the prophecy admits of no explanation, consistent with history, whatever; and hence, if it is to be explained at all, an assumption, or assumptions, of some kind or other, mustbe made; and the only question that can arise is, What assumption is the least violent one, or most adequately meets the requirements of the case? It will be unnecessary to review at length the bewildering mass of explanations that have been offered [342] : the majority are so artificial, or extravagant, that they cannot be regarded as having a serious claim on the reader's attention. The two principal explanations will however be noticed in some detail; and specimens of others will be placed before the reader.

[341] Comm. on Dan., ad loc.(ed. Vallarsi, v. 681; ed. Migne, v. 542). They may be seen summarized in Zöckler, p. 187. None of the interpretations which he mentions has found a sponsor in modern times.

[342] A synopsis will be found in Zöckler's Comm.(1870), p. 185 ff.; and in Van Lennep's De Zeventig Jaarweken van Daniel, 1888, p. 99 ff.

Two exegetical conditions may be premised, which it seems reasonable that any sound interpretation ought to satisfy: (1) the -weeks" must have the same value throughout; (2) they must be distributed in the order in which they appear in the prophecy, i.e. 7, 62, and 1. It is the plain intention of the prophecy to answer Daniel's questionings and supplication (Daniel 9:2; Daniel 9:18; Daniel 9:22), by assigning certain dates, marking stages in the future history of Jerusalem and ending with the consummation of the Divine purpose towards it; and if these dates were to be fixed by variable standards, or if the stages were to be taken as following one another in an inverted order, not indicated in the terms of the text, no definite information would be conveyed by the vision, and the intention of the prophecy would be frustrated.

(i) The traditional explanation of the passage makes it a prediction of the Advent (Daniel 9:25) and Death (Daniel 9:26) of Christ, of the abolition of Levitical sacrifices by His sacrifice, once for all, upon the Cross (Daniel 9:27), and of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus (Daniel 9:26). There are, no doubt, expressions in the version of Theodotion and the Vulgate, and still more in the Authorized Version, which directly suggest this interpretation, for instance, -to anoint the most Holy" (τοῦ χρίσαι ἅγιον ἁγίων, ut … ungatur sanctus sanctorum), -unto the Messiah the Prince" (ἕως χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου, usque ad Christum ducem), -shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself" (occidetur Christus; et non erit eius populus, qui eum negaturus est; Theod. here ἐξολοθρευθήσεται χρίσμα [343], καὶ κρίμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ), -and he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (Theod. and Vulg. here, somewhat less pointedly, καὶ δυναμώσει διαθήκην πολλοῖς ἑβδομὰς μία· καὶ ἐν τῷ ἥμισυ τῆς ἑβδομάδος ἀρθήσεταί μου θυσία καὶ σπονδή, confirmabit autem pactum multis hebdomada una; et in dimidio hebdomadis deficiet hostia et sacrificium); but these renderings are interpretations, of which one (-but not for himself") is impossible, while the others are, to say the least, exegetically doubtful, and certainly in no case necessary (see the notes ad locc.). Thus, to take here but one expression, the crucial term -Messiah" depends upon a wholly uncertain exegesis: nowhere else in the O.T. does mâshîaḥ, used absolutely, denote the ideal, or even the actual, ruler of Israel: the expression used is always either -Jehovah's anointed," or -my, thy, his anointed"; and though the later Jews unquestionably used the term meshîḥâ-the anointed one" (the Μεσσίας of the N.T.) to denote Israel's expected ideal king, it is just the question when this usage began, and whether it was current as early as when the book of Daniel was written: certainly, if the book was written by Daniel himself, its appearance in it would be extremely unlikely. Even, indeed, if more than this were conceded, and it were granted that the word mighthave this sense in Daniel, there would be no proof that it musthave it, and the rendering would still remain exegetically a matter of uncertainty.

[343] i.e. מֶשַׁח for מָשִׁחַ : so LXX. (ἀποσταθήσεται χρίσμα καὶ οὐκ ἔσται).

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

(1) If the Crucifixion (a.d. 29) is to fall (Daniel 9:27 A.V.) in the middle of the last week, the 490 years must begin c.458 b.c., a date which coincides with the decree of Artaxerxes, and the mission of Ezra (Ezra 7), and which is accordingly assumed as the terminus a quoby Auberlen, Pusey, and others. Unfortunately, however, this decree is silent as to any command to -restore and build Jerusalem"; nor was this one of the objects of Ezra's mission to Judah. Others, therefore, adopting the same general view of the meaning of the prophecy, assume as the terminus a quothe permission given by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah, in his 20th year, to visit Jerusalem for the purpose of rebuilding the walls (Nehemiah 1-3). To urge the objection that at this time Jerusalem itself was already rebuilt (cf. Haggai 1:4), and that the work of Nehemiah was only to rebuild the walls of the city, might be deemed hypercritical: it is a more substantial objection that Artaxerxes" 20th year was b.c. 445, which brings the terminus ad quem13 years too late, a serious discrepancy, when the prediction is a minute one, and given (ex hyp.) by a special supernatural revelation. In so far also as this interpretation is usually adopted by those who believe the book to have been written by Daniel himself, it can hardly be considered probable that the terminus a quoshould be a point some 80 years or more subsequent to the date (b.c. 538) at which the prophecy itself is stated to have been given (ch. Daniel 9:1).

(2) The interpretation depends upon the unnatural interpunction of Daniel 9:25 adopted in A.V., viz. -unto an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, and that in strait of times": the division of the 69 weeks into 7 weeks and 62 weeks, without the mention of anything to mark the close of the 7 weeks, is improbable, while at the same time some mention of the time at which or during which the city is to be -built again" is desiderated. Those who adopt this interpretation generally suppose the 49 years (which would end c.409 b.c.) to mark the close of the rebuilding of Jerusalem which was begun by Nehemiah: but there is really no ground for the supposition that this work continued till then. Nehemiah rebuilt, not the city, but the walls, and that, not after the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, but after some more recent catastrophe [344]; the work was accomplished rapidly (Nehemiah 6:15), and even on the occasion of his second visit to Jerusalem in 432 (Nehemiah 13:6 ff.), there is no indication that any rebuilding, whether of the city or the walls, was still going on. With the interpretation and rendering of Daniel 9:25 adopted in R.V., the possibility ceases of identifying the -anointed one, the prince" of Daniel 9:25 with the -anointed one" of Daniel 9:26, and also of referring either except upon such strained interpretations as those quoted below, pp. 148, 149 to Christ. (3) Christ did not -confirm a covenant with many for one week" (7 years); His ministry lasted at most somewhat over 3 years; and if, in the years following, He is regarded as carrying on His work through the agency of His apostles, the limit, -seven years," seems an arbitrary one; for the apostles continued to gain converts from Judaism for many years subsequently. The preaching of the Gospel to the Samaritans (Acts 8), which may have happened 3 4 years after the Crucifixion, and which has been suggested as the limit intended in the prophecy, did not mark such an epoch in the establishment of Christianity as could be naturally regarded as closing the period during which the Messiah would -make a firm covenant with many."

[344] See Ryle on Nehemiah 1:3. On Nehemiah 2:5 end, and Daniel 7:4, see also Ryle's notes.

(4) The destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (a.d. 70), which is supposed upon this view to be predicted in Daniel 9:26 b, follows the date of the Crucifixion by 40 41 years. It not only, therefore, is out of place before Daniel 9:27, but does not even come within the limits of the 490 years at all. Were the prophecy perfectly general in its terms, it would, no doubt, be unreasonable to press an objection of this kind; but where periods of 7 and 3½ years, in the distant future, are (ex hyp.) exactly discriminated, à fortioria period of 40 years should be so discriminated. Auberlen, it is true, argues that the final destruction of Jerusalem is rightly excluded from the 70 weeks, because after Israel rejected the Messiah it was no longer an object of sacred but only of profane history; but if such an argument be a sound one, it surely ought to apply to the prophecy, not less than to the history, and the event in question ought not to be referred to in the prophecy at all. It is, however (ex hyp.), referred to in it; and is there, to all appearance, placed before the commencement of the 70th week.

(5) If the R.V. of Daniel 9:27 be correct, and it is certainly the natural meaning of the Heb., a reference to the death of Christ is excluded altogether; for the verse does not then describe the final abolitionof material sacrifices, but their temporary suspensionfor -half of the week."

(ii) The principal alternative interpretation is the one adopted in this Commentary in the notes on Daniel 9:24-27. According to this view the terminus a quois b.c. 587 6, the probable date of the promises that Jerusalem should be rebuilt contained in Jeremiah 30:18; Jeremiah 31:38-40; the 7 weeks of Daniel 9:25 end with b.c. 538, the date of the edict of Cyrus (the -anointed one, the prince" of this verse); the 62 weeks, reckoned from 538, end with b.c. 171 (the date of the murder of Onias III., the -anointed one" of Daniel 9:26); the last week extends from b.c. 171 to b.c. 164, the reference in Daniel 9:26 b, Daniel 9:27, being to Antiochus Epiphanes, and to his acts of violence and persecution against the Jews. This interpretation does entire justice to the terms of the text: but it labours under one serious difficulty. The number of years from 538 to 171 is not 434 (62 -weeks"), but 367; the number assigned in the prophecy is thus too large by 67. The difficulty is usually met, on the part of those who adopt this explanation, by the supposition that the author of Daniel followed an incorrect computation. There is no intrinsic improbability, it is urged, in such a supposition: for (1) the difficulty of calculating dates in the ancient world was much greater than is often supposed. Until the establishment of the Seleucid era, in b.c. 312, the Jews had no fixed era whatever; and a writer living in Jerusalem (ex hyp.) under Antiochus Epiphanes would have very imperfect materials for estimating correctly the chronology of the period here in question; the continuous chronology of the O.T. ceases with the destruction of Jerusalem b.c. 586, or at least (2 Kings 25:27) with the 37th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin (b.c. 562): and though mention is made in the O.T. of the 70 years of the Chaldaean supremacy, or (cf. on ch. Daniel 9:2) of the desolation of Judah, the length of the period between Cyrus and Alexander the Great could be ascertained exactly only by means of a knowledge of secular history which a Jew, living in such an age, was not likely to possess. There would thus be nothing unreasonable in the assumption of a mis-computation for the interval between 538 and 171.

Cornill makes the clever suggestion that, in the absence of any fixed era for the period before b.c. 312, the 490 years were arrived at by a calculation based on the generations of high-priests. From the destruction of Jerusalem to Onias III. there were just 12 generations in the high-priestly family: 1. Jehozadak (1 Chronicles 6:15); 2. Jeshua (Ezra 3:2); 3. Joiakim; 4. Eliashib; 5. Joiada; 6. Jonathan; 7. Jaddua (Nehemiah 12:10-11); 8. Onias I. (Jos. Ant.xi. viii. 7); 9. Simon I. the -Just" (ib. xii. ii. 4); 10. Onias [345] II. (ib.xii. iv. 1); 11. Simon II.; and 12. his son Onias III. (ib.xii. iv. 10): and a generation being reckoned at 40 years, 12 generations (480 years) might readily suggest 69 weeks (483 years) for the period from the destruction of Jerusalem to the date of the death of Onias, and 70 weeks (490 years) for the entire interval contemplated by the author.

[345] Son of Simon I., though not his immediate successor in the high-priestly office: being an infant at the time of his father's death, he was preceded in the office first by his own uncle Eleazar, and then by Eleazar's uncle, Manasseh (Ant.xii. ii. 4, iv. 10).

(2) It is remarkable that, as has been pointed out by Schürer [346], precisely similar chronological mistakes are made by other Jewish writers. Thus Josephus (B. J.vi. iv. 8) says that there were 639 years between the second year of Cyrus (b.c. 537 or 536) and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (a.d. 70): the real interval was thus reckoned by him as longer by some 30 years than it should be. Further, the same writer reckons (Ant.xx. x.) 434 years from the Return from the Captivity (b.c. 538) to the reign of Antiochus Eupator (b.c. 164 162), i.e. 374 years, and (Ant.xiii. xi. 1) 481 years from the same date to the time of Aristobulus (b.c. 105 4) i.e. 433 years, the former calculation being 60 years, and the latter nearly 50 years, in excess of the true amount. The Hellenistic Jew, Demetrius (Clem. Al. Strom. i. 21, § 141), reckons 573 years from the Captivity of the Ten Tribes (b.c. 722) to the time of Ptolemy IV. (b.c. 222), i.e. 500 years; he thus over-estimates the true period by 73 years [347]. There seems in fact, as Schürer has remarked, to have been a traditional error in the ancient chronology of the period here in question: it was over-estimated, by Demetrius to approximately the same extent as by the author of Daniel. There is thus nothing astonishing in the fact -that an apocalyptic writer of the date of Epiphanes, basing his calculations on uncertain data to give an allegoric interpretation to an ancient prophecy, should have lacked the records which would alone have enabled him to calculate with exact precision" (Farrar, Daniel, p. 291).

[346] Gesch. des Jüd. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, ii. 616 (Engl. tr. ii. iii. p. 54).

[347] As Behrmann, however, has pointed out, this mistake is not quite certain; for in the figures of Demetrius, as quoted by Clement, there is some confusion: he reckons, viz., from the Captivity of Israel to that of Judah 128 years, 8 months, and from that of Judah to Ptol. IV. 338 years, 3 months, both together thus equalling 466 years, 11 months; and yet for the whole period from the Captivity of Israel to Ptol. IV. he assigns 573 years, 9 months! König (Expos. Times, 1899, p. 256 f.) explains a curious (early mediæval) example of the opposite error (327 years from Uzziah to Alexander, and the Persian period contracted to 52 years).

What may be termed a modification of this interpretation has been adopted by Hilgenfeld [348], also by Behrmann, the most recent commentator on Daniel. According to this view, the terminus a quois b.c. 606 or 605, the date of Jeremiah 25, the promise contained in Daniel 9:11 f. being the -word" of Daniel 9:24 here; the 7 weeks (49 years) end with b.c. 558; the 62 weeks (434 years), reckoned, not as following the 7 weeks, but as beginning from the same point that they do, end correctly with 171, the year in which Onias was murdered; and the last week ends with 164, the year of Antiochus's death. The 7 weeks are thus included in the 62 weeks, and the entire number of weeks, reckoned consecutively, is not 70, but 63; it is, however, urged that the stress lies not upon the length of the period concerned in itself, but upon the events embraced in it, in so far as these depend upon a Divine decree; and so the sum of the years remains 70, even though the years do not follow consecutively. No doubt, it is not expressly stated either that the 7 + 62 + 1 weeks of Daniel 9:25 make up the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24, or that the 62 weeks of Daniel 9:25 begin at the close of the 7 weeks mentioned in the same verse; nevertheless, it may be doubted whether an explanation which assumes the contrary is altogether natural. It might further be objected to this interpretation, (1) that a promise for the rebuilding of Jerusalem is not contained in Jeremiah 25:11 f., except, at most, implicitly; and (2) that for the first 7 -weeks" of the 62 (b.c. 606 558) no attempt whatever was made to -rebuild" Jerusalem.

[348] Die Jüdische Apokalyptik(1857), p. 29 f.

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

Specimens of other interpretations:

(1) Wieseler (1846): terminus a quo, 4th year of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 25), b.c. 606: 62 weeks thence end b.c. 172; the last week is 172 165 [349] (Daniel 9:26). The -7 weeks" extend from 172 to the coming of Christ (the -anointed one, the prince"), and represent a jubile-period (Isaiah 61:1-2), to be understood in a spiritual sense, and not limited to 50 literal years.

[349] Different authorities vary by a year or so in the dates assigned by them to the same events.

(2) Delitzsch (1878): terminus a quo, Jehoiakim's fourth year, b.c. 605 (Jeremiah 25): 62 weeks thence end with 171 (the deposition and murder of Onias, Daniel 9:26); one week thence carries us to the death of Antiochus in 164 (Daniel 9:27). The -7 weeks" follow the 62+1: the -anointed one, the prince" of Daniel 9:25 is the Messiah; as, however, the Advent of Christ did not take place 7 weeks (49 years) after b.c. 164, Delitzsch owns the -riddle" of the 7 weeks to be insoluble. The -70 weeks," however, are -quadratic sabbath-periods," each consisting of 7 × 7 = 49 years; there are thus 49 × 70 = 3430 years from b.c. 605 to the Advent of Christ (the first and second advents being not distinguished). This result, it is added, is recommended by the fact that, as there were 3595 years from the Creation to Jehoiakim's fourth year, the entire duration of the world would be not appreciably in excess of 7000 years.

(3) Kranichfeld (1868) [350] : terminus a quo, c. 592 (Jeremiah 29) or 588 (destruction of Jerusalem). The 7 weeks end in 539 (the year of Daniel's vision). The -anointed one, the prince" is Cyrus. The 62 weeks begin in 539, and end with the death of Christ (the -anointed one" of Daniel 9:26). Certainly, in point of fact the 62 weeks end with b.c. 105, Daniel 9:26 b, Daniel 9:27 referring to the time of Maccabees: there is thus a lacunaof 135 years (from b.c. 105 to a.d. 30), which Daniel, in accordance with the laws of -perspective" prophecy, did not see.

[350] Das Buck Daniel erklärt, 1868.

(4) Von Orelli (1882) [351] : terminus a quo, b.c. 588: end of 7 weeks, b.c. 536; end of 62 weeks, a.d. 29 (the death of Christ, to whom the -anointed one" in both Daniel 9:25 and Daniel 9:26 refers); 434 years from 536 is indeed only c.b.c. 100, but the -weeks" are typical weeks, and are not to be taken as mere mathematical quantities. The -redactor" of the Book of Daniel (who lived in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes) identified the last -week" with his own time; and it seems to be Orelli's opinion that he modified the terms of Daniel 9:26 so as to introduce into them allusions to the events of b.c. 171 164.

[351] O.T. Prophecy, Engl. tr. (1885), p. 434 f.

(5) Nägelsbach (1858): terminus a quo, b.c. 536; end of 7 weeks, the dedication of the walls of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 12), b.c. 434 2; end of 62 weeks thence, the birth of Christ; the last week, from birth of Christ to destruction of Jerusalem, a.d. 70. שׁבוע, -week," upon this theory may denote any -heptad," not one of 7 years only, but also one of any multiple of 7; in the first 7 weeks, it is of about 14 years; in the last week, of about 70 years.

(6) Kliefoth (1868), and Keil (1869): terminus a quo, the edict of Cyrus, b.c. 537; the weeks are to be understood symbolically, not of chronologically definite periods of time. The seven weeks extend from 537 to the advent of Christ; the 62 weeks from Christ to the appearance of Antichrist; during this time Jerusalem (in a spiritual sense, i.e. the Church) is built; the last week is the period of the great apostasy, ending with the second Coming of Christ. The words, -an anointed one shall be cut off," refer to the ruin of Christ's kingdom upon earth in the days of Antichrist (the -prince that shall come"); Daniel 9:27 (the 70th week) relates throughout to the high-handed dealings of Antichrist; Daniel 9:24 to his final overthrow.

(7) Julius Africanus, the chronographer (c.200 a.d.), ap.Jerome, l.c.: terminus a quo, the 20th year of Artaxerxes (b.c. 445); end of 70 weeks (reckoned as 490 lunaryears of 354 days = (nearly) 475 solar years), death of Christ. This view has been revived recently, in a slightly modified form, by Dr Robert Anderson [352], according to whom the -year" of Daniel was the ancient luni-solar year of 360 days; reckoning, then, 483 years (69 -weeks"), of 360 days each, from 1 Nisan b.c. 445, the date of the edict of Artaxerxes, Dr Anderson arrives at the 10th of Nisan, in the 18th year of Tiberius Caesar, the day on which our Lord made His public entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:37 ff.). Upon this theory, however, even supposing the objections against b.c. 445 as the terminus a quo(see above) to be waived, the 70th week remains unexplained; for the 7 years following the Crucifixion are marked by no events tallying with the description given in Daniel 9:27.

[352] The Coming Prince, Exodus 5 (1895), p. 123 ff.

It is impossible to regard any of these interpretations as satisfactory, or, in fact, as being anything else than a resort of desperation. Even of the interpretation adopted in this Commentary, it must be owned that, like the rival traditional interpretation, it is not free from objection. When, however, it is asked, which of these two interpretations labours under the most serious objection, it can hardly be denied that it is the traditional one. As has been shewn (p. 144 ff.), there are points of crucial significance, at which the supposed fulfilment does not tally at all with the terms of the prediction. On the other hand, a chronological error, which would be in principle inconsistent with a prediction given by direct supernatural revelation, is not a conclusive objection to an interpretation in which (ex hyp.) the prediction does not extend to the figures here in question, but is limited, to the announcement of the approaching fall of Antiochus (Daniel 9:26 b, Daniel 9:27), and of the advent of the ideal age of righteousness which is then to commence (Daniel 9:24). The general parallelism of Daniel 9:26 b, Daniel 9:27, especially the suspension of the Temple services for -half of the week," with other passages of the book where the persecutions of Antiochus are alluded to (as Daniel 7:25; Daniel 8:11; Daniel 8:13; Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:7; Daniel 12:11), and the fact that elsewhere in c. 7 12. Antiochus is the prominent figure, and his age is that in which the prophecies culminate, are arguments which support the modern interpretation. The prophecy does not, upon this interpretation, cease to be a Messianic one: it promises an ideal end of the sin and trouble under which the people of God are at present suffering; and is thus Messianic in the broader sense of Isaiah 4:3 f., and the other passages quoted in the note on -everlasting righteousness" in Daniel 9:24. See further the Introduction, pp. lxxxvi f., lxxxix.

Additional Note on the Expression -The abomination of desolation"

The following expressions occur in Daniel:

1. Daniel 8:13 הַפֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם; LXX. Theod. ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐρημώσεως.

2. Daniel 9:27 שִׁקּוּצִים מְשֹׁמֵם; LXX. Theod. βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων.

3. Daniel 11:31 הַשִּׁקּוּץ מְשֹׁמֵם; LXX. βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως (so 1Ma 1:54, of the heathen altar built by Antiochus on the altar of burnt-offering), Theod. βδέλυγμα ἠφανισμένον.

4. Daniel 12:11 שִׁקּוּץ שֹׁמֵם; LXX. τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως (so Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14) [353], Theod. βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως.

[353] In the parallel in St Luke (Luke 21:20) the expression is paraphrased (-when ye see Jerusalem encompassed with armies, then know that her desolationis at hand").

The explanation of these expressions is difficult. Neither שֹׁמֵם nor מְשֹׁמֵם can really mean -desolation." מְשֹׁמֵם might mean either desolatingor appalling: שמֵם (also Daniel 9:27 end) would naturally mean either desolatedor appalled(see on Daniel 8:23), but neither of these renderings suits the subst. with which it is joined; it is, however, possible that, by an irregularity of form, of which there are a few examples (see ibid.), it might have an active force, desolatingor appalling: but the absence of the art. before שֹׁמֵם in (1) and (3) is anomalous (Ges.-Kautzsch, § 126 z); and in (2) the plur. שקוצים (if this word is rightly connected with מְשֹׁמֵם) is impossible, though the correction שִׁקּוּץ מְשֹׁמֵם would here be an easy one. On the whole, the supposition that the ptcp. in each case means appalling, horror-causing, is the one that is least free from difficulty, the word used being chosen possibly (as explained on Daniel 11:31) for the sake of its assonance with שָׁמַיִם -heaven."

As regards the two passages in the N.T., three things may be observed. (1) In St Mark the best MSS. and editions (as Tisch., Westcott and Hort, and so R.V.) have the masc.ἑστηκότα (hence R.V. -standing where heought not"), and omit the words -spoken of by Daniel the prophet" (which have been introduced from the parallel text of St Matthew, where they are contained in all MSS.). (2) The interpretationof the expressions in the N.T. is uncertain: the context, however, shews that it must refer to something or rather (Mk.) to some onestanding in the Temple, as is generally supposed, not long before its destruction by Titus (in which case the statue of a Roman emperor might, for instance, be intended) [354], though others suppose the reference to be to an expected future Antichrist (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4) [355]. (3) As regards the bearing of our Lord's use of the expression upon the interpretation of it in the Book of Daniel, it is to be observed that in St Mark's Gospel, which has the presumption of presenting the -synoptic tradition" in a more primitive and original form than the other Gospels, there is no reference to Daniel at all; hence, especially in view of the fondness of St Matthew for O.T. references, it becomes probable that even in the first Gospel the words, -spoken of by Daniel the prophet," are not part of our Lord's discourse, but are a comment added by the Evangelist. If this conclusion be accepted, it will follow that our Lord pronounces no judgement on the sense in which the expression is to be interpreted in Daniel: it is the expression alone which He borrows: His use of it by no means necessarily implies that He intends to denote by it the same object which it denotes in Daniel; and His authority cannot therefore be invoked against the interpretation of the expression, as used in Daniel, which has been adopted above.

[354] See for this and other cognate views the art. Abomination of Desolation in Hastings" Dict. of the Bible. A further discussion of the subject does not belong here.

[355] See Abomination of Desolation, and Antichrist (§ 4), in the Encyclopædia Biblica; and cf. Man of Sin in Hastings" Dict.(§ iv.).