(6:25-27) The consequences of this occurrence. As Nebuchadnezzar, after the wonderful deliverance of Daniel's friends from the burning fiery furnace, issued an edict to all the nations of his kingdom forbidding them on pain of death from doing any injury to these men of God (Daniel 3:29), so now Darius, in consequence of this wonderful preservation of Daniel in the den of lions, gave forth an edict commanding all the nations of his whole kingdom to fear and reverence Daniel's God. But as Nebuchadnezzar by his edict, so also Darius, did not depart from the polytheistic standpoint. Darius acknowledged the God of Daniel, indeed, as the living God, whose kingdom and dominion were everlasting, but not as the only true God, and he commanded Him to be reverenced only as a God who does wonders in heaven and on earth, without prejudice to the honour of his own gods and of the gods of his subjects. Both of these kings, it is true, raised the God of Judea above all other gods, and praised the everlasting duration of His dominion (see Daniel 3:29, 32 [Daniel 4:2]f., and Daniel 3:31 [Daniel 3:28]ff., 6:27 [Daniel 6:26]f.), but they did not confess Him as the one only God. This edict, the, shows neither the conversion of Darius to the worship of the God of the Jews, nor does it show intolerance toward the gods of his subjects. On v. 26 (Daniel 6:25) cf. Daniel 3:31 (Daniel 4:1). As Nebuchadnezzar, so also Darius, regarded his kingdom as a world-kingdom. On 27 a (Daniel 6:26) cf. Daniel 3:29. The reverence which all the nations were commanded to show to Daniel's God is described in the same words as is the fear and reverence which the might and greatness of Nebuchadnezzar inspired in all the nations that were subject to him (Daniel 5:19), which has led Hitzig justly to remark, that the words לאלההּ פּלחין להון ( they must worship his God) are not used. God is described as living (cf. v. 21 [Daniel 6:20]) and eternal, with which is connected the praise of the everlasting duration of His dominion, and of His rule in heaven and on earth; cf. Daniel 2:44 and 3:33 (Daniel 4:3). The דּי after מלכוּתהּ is not a conjunction, but is the relative, and the expression briefly denotes that His kingdom is a kingdom which is not destroyed; cf. Daniel 4:31 (Daniel 4:34). סופא עד , to the end - not merely of all heathen kingdoms which arise on the earth, i.e., to their final destruction by the kingdom of the Messiah, Daniel 2:44 (Kranichfeld), for there is no thought of the Messiah, Daniel 2:44 (Kranichfeld), for there is no thought of the Messianic kingdom here at all, but to the end of all things, to eternity. In v. 28 (Daniel 6:27) this God is lauded as the deliverer and wonder-worker, because in the case of Daniel He had showed Himself as such; cf. Daniel 3:32 (Daniel 4:2). יד מן , from the hand, i.e., from the power of; cf. Psalms 22:21. (6:28) Verse 29 (v. 28) closes the narrative in the same way as that regarding the deliverance of Daniel's friends (Daniel 3:30); only it is further stated, that Daniel continued in office till the reign of the Persian Cyrus. By the pronoun דּנה , this Daniel, the identity of the person is accentuated: the same Daniel, whom his enemies wished to destroy, prospered. From the repetition of בּמלכוּת before כּורשׁ it does not follow that Daniel separates the Persian kingdom from the Median; for מלכוּ here does not mean kingdom, but dominion, i.e., reign. The succession of the reign of Cyrus the Persian to that of Darius the Median does not show the diversity of the two kingdoms, but only that the rulers of the kingdom were of different races. The Vision of the Four World-Kingdoms; the Judgment; and the Kingdom of the Holy God After presenting to view (Daniel 3-6) in concrete delineation, partly in the prophetically significant experiences of Daniel and his friends, and partly in the typical events which befell the world-rulers, the position and conduct of the representatives of the world-power in relation to the worshippers of the living God, there follows in this chapter the record of a vision seen by Daniel in the first year of Belshazzar. In this vision the four world-monarchies which were shown to Nebuchadnezzar in a dream in the form of an image are represented under the symbol of beasts; and there is a further unfolding not only of the nature and character of the four successive world-kingdoms, but also of the everlasting kingdom of God established by the judgment of the world-kingdoms. With this vision, recorded like the preceding chapters in the Chaldean language, the first part of this work, treating of the development of the world-power in its four principal forms, is brought to a conclusion suitable to its form and contents. This chapter is divided, according to its contents, into two equal portions. Daniel 7:1-14 contain the vision, and Daniel 7:15-28 its interpretation. After an historical introduction it is narrated how Daniel saw (Daniel 7:2-8) four great beasts rise up one after another out of the storm-tossed sea; then the judgment of God against the fourth beast and the other beasts (Daniel 7:9-12); and finally (Daniel 7:13, Daniel 7:14), the delivering up of the kingdom over all nations to the Son of man, who came with the clouds of heaven. Being deeply moved (Daniel 7:15) by what he saw, the import of the vision is first made known to him in general by an angel (Daniel 7:16-18), and then more particularly by the judgment (Daniel 7:19-26) against the fourth beast, and its destruction, and by the setting up of the kingdom of the saints of the Most High (Daniel 7:27). The narrative of the vision is brought to a close by a statement of the impression made by this divine revelation on the mind of the prophet (Daniel 7:28). (Note: According to the modern critics, this vision also is to be regarded as belonging to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; and, as von Lengerke says, the representation of the Messianic kingdom (Daniel 7:13 and Daniel 7:14) is the only prophetic portion of it, all the other parts merely announcing what had already occurred. According to Hitzig, this dream-vision must have been composed (cf. Daniel 7:25, Daniel 8:14) shortly before the consecration of the temple (1 Macc. 4:52, 59). On the other hand, Kranichfeld remarks, that if this chapter were composed during the time of the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, “then it would show that its author was in the greatest ignorance as to the principal historical dates of his own time;” and he adduces in illustration the date in Daniel 7:25, and the failure of the attempts of the opponents of its genuineness to authenticate in history the ten horns which grew up before the eleventh horn, and the three kingdoms (Daniel 7:7., 20). According to Daniel 7:25, the blaspheming of the Most High, the wearing out of the saints, and the changing of all religious ordinances continue for three and a half times, which are taken for three and a half years, after the expiry of which an end will be made, by means of the judgment, to the heathen oppression. But these three and a half years are not historically proved to be the period of the religious persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes. “In both of the books of the Maccabees (1 Macc. 1:54; 2 Macc. 10:5) the period of the desecration of the temple (according to v. Leng.) lasted only three years; and Josephus, Ant. xii. 7. 6, speaks also of three years, reckoning from the year 145 Seleucid. and the 25th day of the month Kisleu, when the first burnt-offering was offered on the idol-altar (1 Macc. 1:57), to the 25th day of Kisleu in the year 148 Seleucid., when for the first time sacrifice was offered (1 Macc. 4:52) on the newly erected altar.” But since the βδέλυγμαἐρημώσεως was, according to 1 Macc. 1:54, erected on the 15th day of Kisleu in the year 145 Seleucid., ten days before the first offering of sacrifice upon it, most reckon from the 15th Kisleu, and thus make the period three years and ten days. Hitzig seeks to gain a quarter of a year more by going back in his reckoning to the arrival in Judea (1 Macc. 1:29, cf. 2 Macc. 5:24) of the chief collector of tribute sent by Apollonius. C. von Lengerke thinks that the period of three and a half years cannot be reckoned with historical accuracy. Hilgenfeld would reckon the commencement of this period from some other event in relation to the temple, which, however, has not been recorded in history. - From all this it is clear as noonday that the three and a half years are not historically identified, and thus that the Maccabean pseudo-Daniel was ignorant of the principal events of his time. Just as little are these critics able historically to identify the ten kings (Daniel 7:7 and Daniel 7:20), as we shall show in an Excursus on the four world-kingdoms at the close of this chapter.) Appendix to Daniel 1-7 The Four World-Kingdoms There yet remains for our consideration the question, What are the historical world-kingdoms which are represented by Nebuchadnezzar's image (Daniel 2), and by Daniel's vision of four beasts rising up out of the sea? Almost all interpreters understand that these two vision are to be interpreted in the same way. “The four kingdoms or dynasties, which were symbolized (Daniel 2) by the different parts of the human image, from the head to the feet, are the same as those which were symbolized by the four great beasts rising up out of the sea.” This is the view not only of Bleek, who herein agrees with Auberlen, but also of Kranichfeld and Kliefoth, and all church interpreters. These four kingdoms, according to the interpretation commonly received in the church, are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman. “In this interpretation and opinion,” Luther observes, “all the world are agreed, and history and fact abundantly establish it.” This opinion prevailed till about the end of the last century, for the contrary opinion of individual earlier interprets had found no favour. (Note: This is true regarding the opinion of Ephrem Syrus and of Cosmas Indicopleustes, who held that the second kingdom was the Median, the third the Persian, and the fourth the kingdom of Alexander and his successors. This view has been adopted only by an anonymous writer in the Comment. Var. in Dan. in Mai's Collectio nov. Script. Vett. p. 176. The same thing may be said of the opinion of Polychronius and Grotius, that the second kingdom was the Medo-Persian, the third the monarchy of Alexander, and the fourth the kingdom of his followers - a view which has found only one weak advocate in J. Chr. Becmann in a dissert. de Monarchia Quarta, Franc. ad Od. 1671.) But from that time, when faith in the supernatural origin and character of biblical prophecy was shaken by Deism and Rationalism, then as a consequence, with the rejection of the genuineness of the book of Daniel the reference of the fourth kingdom to the Roman world-monarchy was also denied. For the pseudo-Daniel of the times of the Maccabees could furnish no prophecy which could reach further than the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. If the reference of the fourth kingdom to the Roman empire was therefore a priori excluded, the four kingdoms must be so explained that the pretended prophecy should not extend further than to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. For this end all probabilities were created, and yet nothing further was reached than that one critic confuted another. While Ewald and Bunsen advanced the opinion that the Assyrian kingdom is specially to be understood by the first kingdom, and that the Maccabean author of the book was first compelled by the reference to Nebuchadnezzar to separate, in opposition to history, the Median from the Persian kingdom, so as to preserve the number four, Hitzig, in agreement with von Redepenning, has sought to divide the Babylonian kingdom, and to refer the first kingdom to Nebuchadnezzar and the second to his successor Belshazzar; while Bertholdt, Jahn, and Rosenmüller, with Grotius, have divided the kingdom of Alexander from the kingdom of his successors. But as both of these divisions appear to be altogether too arbitrary, Venema, Bleek, de Wette, Lücke, v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig (Daniel vii.), Hilgenfeld, and Kranichfeld have disjoined the Medo-Persian monarchy into two world-kingdoms, the Median and the Persian, and in this they are followed by Delitzsch. See Art. Daniel in Herz.'s Real Encyc. When we examine these views more closely, the first named is confuted by what Ewald himself ( Die Proph. iii. 314) has said on this point. The four world-kingdoms “must follow each other strictly in chronological order, the succeeding being always inferior, sterner, and more reckless than that which went before. They thus appear in the gigantic image (Daniel 2), which in its four parts, from head to feet, is formed of altogether different materials; in like manner in Daniel 7 four different beasts successively appear on the scene, the one of which, according to Daniel 8, always destroys the other. Now it cannot be said, indeed, in strict historical fact that the Chaldean kingdom first gave way to the Median, and this again to the Persian, but, as it is always said, the Persian and Median together under Cyrus overthrew the Chaldean and formed one kingdom. This is stated by the author himself in Daniel 8, where the Medo-Persian kingdom is presented as one under the image of a two-horned ram. According to this, he should have reckoned from Nabucodrossor only three world-kingdoms, if he had not received the number of four world-kingdoms from an old prophet living under the Assyrian dominion, who understood by the four kingdoms the Assyrian, the Chaldean, the Medo-Persian, and the Grecian. Since now this number, it is self-evident to him, can neither be increased nor diminished, there remained nothing else for him than to separate the Median from the Persian kingdom at that point where he rendered directly prominent the order and the number four, while he at other times views them together.” But what then made it necessary for this pseudo-prophet to interpret the golden head of Nebuchadnezzar, and to entangle himself thereby, in opposition not only to the history, but also to his own better judgment, Daniel 8, if in the old sources used by him the Assyrian is to be understood as the first kingdom? To this manifest objection Ewald has given no answer, and has not shown that in Daniel 2 and 7 the Median kingdom is separated from the Persian. Thus this hypothesis is destitute of every foundation, and the derivation of the number four for the world-kingdoms from a prophetic book of the Assyrian period is one of the groundless ideas with which Ewald thinks to enrich biblical literature. Hitzig's opinion, that Daniel had derived the idea of separating the heathen power into four kingdoms following each other from the representation of the four ages of the world, has no better foundation. It was natural for him to represent Assyria as the first kingdom, yet as he wished not to refer to the past, but to future, he could only begin with the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. Regarding himself as bound to the number four, he divided on that account, in Daniel 2, the Chaldean dominion into two periods, and in Daniel 7, for the same reason, the Medo-Persian into two kingdoms, the Median and the Persian. This view Hitzig founds partly on this, that in Daniel 2:38 not the Chaldean kingdom but Nebuchadnezzar is designated as the golden head, and that for Daniel there exist only two Chaldean kings; and partly on this, that the second מלכוּ (Daniel 2:39) is named as inferior to the Chaldean, which could not be said of the Medo-Persian as compared with the Chaldean; and, finally, partly on this, that in the vision seen in the first year of Belshazzar (Daniel 7), Nebuchadnezzar already belonged to the past, while according to Daniel 7:17 the first kingdom was yet future. But apart from the incorrectness of the assertion, that for the author of this book only two Chaldean kings existed, it does not follow from the circumstance that Nebuchadnezzar is styled the golden head of the image, that he personally is meant as distinct from the Chaldean king that succeeded him; on the contrary, that Nebuchadnezzar comes to view only as the founder, and at that time the actual ruler, of the kingdom, is clear from Daniel 2:39, “after thee shall arise another kingdom” , not another king , as it ought to be read, according to Hitzig's opinion. Belshazzar did not found another kingdom, or, as Hitzig says, another dominion ( Herschaft), but he only continued the kingdom or dominion of Nebuchadnezzar. The two other reasons advanced have been already disposed of in the interpretation of Dan 2:39 and of Dan 7:17. The expression, “ inferior to thee ” (Daniel 2:39), would not relate to the Medo-Persian kingdom as compared with the Chaldean only if it referred to the geographical extension of the kingdom, which is not the case. And the argument deduced from the words “shall arise” in Daniel 7:17 proves too much, and therefore nothing. If in the word יקוּמוּן ( shall arise) it be held that the first kingdom was yet to arise, then also the dominion of Belshazzar would be thereby excluded, which existed at the time of that vision. Moreover the supposition that מלכוּ means in Daniel 2:39 the government of an individual king, but in Daniel 2:4 a kingdom, the passages being parallel in their contents and in their form, and that מלכין in Daniel 7:17 (“the four beasts are four kings”) means, when applied to the first two beasts, separate kings, and when applied to the two last, kingdoms, violates all the rules of hermeneutics. “Two rulers personally cannot possibly be placed in the same category with two kingdoms” (Kliefoth). But the view of Bertholdt, that the third kingdom represents the monarchy of Alexander, and the fourth that of his διάδοχοι (successors), is at the present day generally abandoned. And there is good reason that it should be so; for it is plain that the description of the iron nature of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 breaking all things in pieces, as well as of the terribleness of the fourth beast in Daniel 7, by no means agrees with the kingdoms of the successors of Alexander, which in point of might and greatness were far inferior to the monarchy of Alexander, as is indeed expressly stated in Daniel 11:4. Hitzig has, moreover, justly remarked, on the other hand, that “for the author of this book the kingdom of Alexander and that of his successors form together the יון מלכוּת , Daniel 8:21 ( the kingdom of Javan = Grecia). But if he had separated them, he could not have spoken of the kingdom of the successors as 'diverse' in character from that of Alexander, Daniel 7:7, Daniel 7:19. Finally, by such a view a right interpretation of the four heads, Daniel 7:6, and the special meaning of the legs which were wholly of iron, Daniel 2:33, is lost.” Now, since the untenableness of these three suppositions is obvious, there only remains the expedient to divide the Medo-Persian world-kingdom into a Median and a Persian kingdom, and to combine the former with the second and the latter with the third of Daniel's kingdoms. But this scheme also is broken to pieces by the twofold circumstance, (1) that, as Maurer himself acknowledges, history knows nothing whatever of a Median world-kingdom; and (2) that, as Kranichfeld is compelled to confess (p. 122ff.), “it cannot be proved from Daniel 5:28; Daniel 7:1, 29; Daniel 9:1; Daniel 11:1, that the author of the book, in the vision in Daniel 2 or 7, or at all, conceived of an exclusively Median world-kingdom, and knew nothing of the Persian race as an inner component part of this kingdom.” It is true the book of Daniel, according to Daniel 8, recognises a distinction between a Median and a Persian dynasty (cf. Daniel 8:3), but in other respects it recognises only one kingdom, which comprehends in its unity the Median and the Persian race. In harmony with this, the author speaks, at the time when the Median government over Babylon was actually in existence, only of one law of the kingdom for Medes and Persians (Daniel 6:9, Daniel 6:13, Daniel 6:16), i.e., one law which rested on a common agreement of the two nations bound together into one kingdom. “The author of this book, who at the time of Darius, king of the Medes, knew only of one kingdom common to both races,” according to Kran., “speaks also in the preceding period of the Chaldean independence of the Medes only in conjunction with the Persians (cf. Daniel 5:28; Daniel 8:20), and, after the analogy of the remark already made, not as of two separated kingdoms, but in the sense of one kingdom, comprehending in it, along with the Median race, also the Persians as another and an important component part. This finds its ratification during the independence of Babylon even in Daniel 8:20; for there the kings of the Medes and the Persians are represented by one beast, although at the same time two separate dynasties are in view. This actual fact of a national union into one kingdom very naturally and fully explains why, in the case of Cyrus, as well as in that of Darius, the national origin of the governors, emphatically set forth, was of interest for the author (cf. Daniel 9:1; Daniel 6:1; Daniel 11:1; Daniel 6:28), while with regard to the Chaldean kings there is no similar particular notice taken of their origin; and generally, instead of a statement of the personal descent of Darius and Cyrus, much rather only a direct mention of the particular people ruled by each - e.g., for these rulers the special designations 'king of the Persians,' 'king of the Medes'-was to be expected (Note: Kranichfeld goes on to say, that Hilgenfeld goes too far if he concludes from the attribute, the Mede (Daniel 6:1 Daniel 5:31), that the author wished to represent thereby a separate kingdom of the Medes in opposition to a kingdom of the Persians at a later time nationally distinct from it; further, that as in the sequel the Median dynasty of the Medo-Persian kingdom passed over into a Persian dynasty, and through the government of the Persian Cyrus the Persian race naturally came forth into the foreground and assumed a prominent place, the kingdom was designated a potiori as that of the Persians (Daniel 10:1, Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:20; Daniel 11:2), like as, in other circumstances (Isaiah 13:17; Jeremiah 51:11, Jeremiah 51:28), the Medians alone are a potiori represented as the destroyers of Babylon. “As there was, during the flourishing period of the Median dynasty, a kingdom of the Medes and Persians (cf. Daniel 5:28; Daniel 8:20), so there is, since the time of Cyrus the Persian, a kingdom of the Persians and Medes (cf. Esther 1:3, Esther 1:18, 1 Macc. 1:1; 14:2). We find in Daniel, at the time of the Median supremacy in the kingdom, the law of the Medes and Persians (Daniel 6:9, Daniel 6:13, Daniel 6:16), and subsequently we naturally find the law of the Persians and Medes, Esther 1:19.”) (cf. Daniel 8:20; Daniel 10:1, Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:20; Daniel 11:2).” Hence, as Kranichfeld further rightly judges, it could not (Daniel 8) appear appropriate to suppose that the author had Persian in view as the third kingdom, while in the visions Daniel 2 and 7 we would regard Persian as a kingdom altogether separated from the Median kingdom. Moreover the author in Daniel 8 speaks of the one horn of the ram as growing up after the other, in order thereby to indicate the growing up of the Persian dynasty after the Median, and consequently the two dynasties together in one and the same kingdom (Daniel 8:3, cf. Daniel 8:20). Yet, in spite of all these testimonies to the contrary, Daniel must in Daniel 2 and 7 have had in view by the second world-kingdom the Median, and by the third the Persian, because at that time he did not think that in the relation of the Median and the Persian no other change in the future would happen than a simple change of dynasty, but because, at the time in which the Median kingdom stood in a threatening attitude toward the Chaldean (both in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar and in the first year of his son Belshazzar, i.e., Evilmerodach), he thought that a sovereign Persian kingdom would rise up victoriously opposite the Median rival of Nebuchadnezzar. As opposed to this expedient, we will not insist on the improbability that Daniel within two years should have wholly changed his opinion as to the relation between the Medians and the Persians, though it would be difficult to find a valid ground for this. Nor shall we lay any stress on this consideration, that the assumed error of the prophet regarding the contents of the divine revelation in Daniel 2 and 7 appears irreconcilable with the supernatural illumination of Daniel, because Kranichfeld regards the prophetic statements as only the produce of enlightened human mental culture. But we must closely examine the question how this reference of the world-kingdoms spoken of stands related to the characteristics of the third and fourth kingdoms as stated in Daniel 2 and 7. The description of the second and third kingdoms is very briefly given in Daniel 2 and 7. Even though the statement, Daniel 2:39, that the second kingdom would be smaller than the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar could point to a Median kingdom, and the statement that the third kingdom would rule over the whole earth might refer to the spread of the dominion of the Persians beyond the boundaries of the Chaldean and Medo-Persian kingdom under Darius, yet the description of both of these kingdoms in Daniel 7:5 sufficiently shows the untenableness of this interpretation. The second kingdom is represented under the image of a bear, which raises itself up on one side, and has three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. The three ribs in its mouth the advocates of this view do not know how to interpret. According to Kran., they are to be regarded as pointing out constituent parts of a whole, of an older kingdom, which he does not attempt more definitely to describe, because history records nothing of the conquests which Darius the Mede may have gained during the two years of his reign after the conquest of Babylon and the overthrow of the Chaldean kingdom by Cyrus. And the leopard representing (Daniel 7:6) the third kingdom has not only four wings, but also four heads. The four heads show beyond a doubt the vision of the kingdom represented by the leopard into four kingdoms, just as in Daniel 8 the four horns of the he-goat, which in Daniel 8:22 are expressly interpreted of four kingdoms rising out of the kingdom of Javan. But a division into four kingdoms cannot by any means be proved of the Persian world-kingdom. Therefore the four heads must here, according to Kran., represent only the vigilant watchfulness and aggression over all the regions of the earth, the pushing movement toward the different regions of the heavens, or, according to Hitzig, the four kings of Persia whom alone Daniel knew. But the first of these interpretations confutes itself, since heads are never the symbol of watchfulness or of aggressive power; and the second is set aside by a comparison with Daniel 8:22. If the four horns of the he-goat represent four world-kingdoms rising up together, then the four heads of the leopard can never represent four kings reigning after one another, even though it were the case, which it is not (Daniel 11:2), that Daniel knew only four kings of Persia. Yet more incompatible are the statements regarding the fourth world-kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7 with the supposition that the kingdom of Alexander and his followers is to be understood by it. Neither the monarchy of Alexander nor the Javanic world-kingdom accords with the iron nature of the fourth kingdom, represented by the legs of iron, breaking all things in pieces, nor with the internal division of this kingdom, represented by the feet consisting partly of iron and partly of clay, nor finally with the ten toes formed of iron and clay mixed (Daniel 2:33, Daniel 2:40-43). As little does the monarchy of Alexander and his successors resemble a fearful beast with ten horns, which was without any representative in the animal world, according to which Daniel could have named it (Daniel 7:7, Daniel 7:19). Kranichfeld rejects, therefore, the historical meaning of the image in Daniel 2, and seeks to interpret its separate features only as the expression of the irreparable division of the ungodly kingdom assailing the theocracy with destructive vehemence, and therein of dependent weakness and inner dissolution. Hitzig finds in the two legs the representation of a monarchy which, as the Greek domination, sets its one foot on Europe and its other on Asia; and he regards Syria and Egypt as the material of it - Syria as the iron, Egypt as the clay. Others, again, regard the feet as the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, and in the ten horns they seek the other kingdoms of the Διάδοχοι . On the other hand, Kliefoth justly asks, “How came Syria and Egypt to be feet? And the toes go out of the feet, but the other kingdoms of the Διάδοχοι do not arise out of Syria and Egypt.” And if in this circumstance, that it is said of the fourth terrible beast that it was different from all the beasts that went before, and that no likeness was found for it among the beasts of prey, Kran. only finds it declared “that it puts forth its whole peculiarity according to its power in such a way that no name can any longer be found for it,” then this in no respect whatever agrees with the monarchy of Alexander. According to Hitz., the difference of the fourth beast is to be sought in the monarchy of Alexander transplanted from Europe into Asia, as over against the three monarchies, which shared in common an oriental home, a different kind of culture, and a despotic government. But was the transference of a European monarchy and culture into Asia something so fearful that Daniel could find no name whereby to represent the terribleness of this beast? The relation of Alexander to the Jews in no respect corresponds to this representation; and in Daniel 8 Daniel does not say a word about the rapidity of its conquests. He had thus an entirely different conception of the Greek monarchy from that of his modern interpreters. Finally, if we take into consideration that the terrible beast which represents the fourth world-power has ten horns (Daniel 7:7), which is to be explained as denoting that out of the same kingdom ten kings shall arise (Daniel 7:24), and, on the contrary, that by the breaking off from the he-goat, representing the monarchy of Alexander, of the one great horn, which signified the first king, and the subsequent springing up of four similar horns, is to be understood that four kingdoms shall arise out of it (Daniel 8:5, Daniel 8:8, Daniel 8:21-22); then the difference of the number of the horns shows that the beast with the ten horns cannot represent the same kingdom as that which is represented by the he-goat with four horns, since the number four is neither according to its numerical nor its symbolical meaning identical with the number ten. Moreover, this identifying of the two is quite set aside by the impossibility of interpreting the ten horns historically. Giving weight to the explanation of the angel, that the ten horns represent the rising up of ten kings, Berth., v. Leng., Hitz., and Del. have endeavoured to find these kings among the Seleucidae, but they have not been able to discover more than seven: 1. Seleucus Nicator; 2. Antiochus Soter; 3. Antiochus Theus; 4. Seleucus Callinicus; 5. Seleuchus Ceraunus; 6. Antiochus the Great; 7. Seleucus Philopator, the brother and predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes, who after Philopator's death mounted the throne of Syria, having set aside other heirs who had a better title to it, and who must be that little horn which reached the kingdom by the rooting up of three kings. The three kings whom Antiochus plucked up by the roots (cf. Daniel 7:8, Daniel 7:20, Daniel 7:24) must be Heliodorus, the murderer of Philopator; Demetrius, who was a hostage in Rome, the son of Philopator, and the legitimate successor to the throne; and the son of Ptolemy Philometor, for whom his mother Cleopatra, the sister of Seleucus Philopator and of Antiochus Epiphanes, claimed the Syrian throne. But no one of these three reached the royal dignity, and none of them was dethroned or plucked up by the roots by Antiochus Epiphanes. Heliodorus, it is true, strove for the kingdom (Appian, Syriac. 45); but his efforts were defeated, yet not by Antiochus Epiphanes, but by Attalus and Eumenes. Demetrius, after his death, was the legitimate heir to the throne, but could not assert his rights, because he was a hostage in Rome; and since he did not at all mount the throne, he was not of course dethroned by his uncle Antiochus Epiphanes. Finally, Ptolemy Philometor, after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, for a short time, it is true, united the Syrian crown with the Egyptian (1 Macc. 11:13; Polyb. 40:12), but during the life of Antiochus Epiphanes, and before he ascended the throne, he was neither de jure nor de facto king of Syria; and the “pretended efforts of Cleopatra to gain for her son Philometor the crown of Syria are nowhere proved” (Hitzig). Of this historical interpretation we cannot thus say even so much as that it “only very scantily meets the case” (Delitzsch); for it does not at all accord with the prophecy that the little horn (Antiochus Epiphanes) plucked up by the roots three of the existing kings. Hitzig and Hilgenfeld ( Die Proph. Esra u. Daniel p. 82) have therefore dropped out of view the Syrian kingdom of Philometor, and, in order to gain the number ten, have ranked Alexander the Great among the Syrian kings, and taken Seleucus Philopator into the triad of the pretended Syrian kings that were plucked up by the roots by Antiochus Epiphanes. But Alexander the Great can neither according to the evidence of history, nor according to the statement of the book of Daniel, be counted among the kings of Syria; and Seleucus Philopator was not murdered by Antiochus Epiphanes, but Antiochus Epiphanes lived at the time of this deed in Athens (Appian, Syr. 45); and the murderer Heliodorus cannot have accomplished that crime as the instrument of Antiochus, because he aspired to gain the throne for himself, and was only prevented from doing so by the intervention of Attalus and Eumenes. Hilgenfeld also does not venture to reckon Heliodorus, the murderer of the king, among the triad of uprooted kings, but seeks to supply his place by an older son of Seleucus Philopator, murdered at the instigation of Antiochus Epiphanes according to Gutschmid; but he fails to observe that a king's son murdered during the lifetime of his father, reigning as king, could not possibly be represented as a king whom Antiochus Epiphanes drove from his throne. Of the ten kings of the Grecian world-kingdom of the branch of the Seleucidae before Antiochus Epiphanes, whom Hilgenfeld believes that he is almost able “to grasp with his hands,” history gives as little information as of the uprooting of the three Syrian kings by Antiochus Epiphanes. But even though the historical relevancy of the attempt to authenticate the ten Syrian kings in the kingdom of the Seleucidae were more satisfactory than, from what has been remarked, appears to be the case, yet this interpretation of the fourth beast would be shattered against the ten horns, because these horns did not grow up one after another, but are found simultaneously on the head of the beast, and consequently cannot mean ten Syrian kings following one another, as not only all interpreters who regard the beast as representing the Roman empire, but also Bell. and Kran., acknowledge, in spite of the reference of this beast to the Javanic world-kingdom. “We are induced,” as Bleek justly observes, “by Daniel 7:8, where it is said of the little horn that it would rise up between the ten horns, to think of ten contemporaneous kings, or rather kingdoms, existing along with each other, which rise out of the fourth kingdom.” Therefore he will “not deny that the reference to the successors of Alexander is rendered obscure by the fact that Daniel 8 speaks of four monarchies which arise out of that of Alexander after his death.” This obscurity, however, he thinks he is able to clear up by the remark, that “in the kind of development of the historical relations after the death of Alexander, the parts of his kingdom which formed themselves into independent kingdoms might be numbered in different ways.” Thus, in Daniel 7, “as ten from the number of the generals who in the arrangements of the division of the kingdom (323 b.c.) retained the chief provinces: 1. Kraterus (Macedonia); 2. Antipater (Greece); 3. Lysimachus (Thrace); 4. Leonatus (Phrygia Minor on the Hellespont); 5. Antigonus (Phrygia Major, Lycia, and Pamphylia); 6. Cassander (Karia); 7. Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia); 8. Laomedon (Syria and Palestine); 9. Pithon (Media); 10. Ptolemy Lagus (Egypt).” But Zündel justly observes in opposition to this view, that “these kingdoms could only have significance if this number, instead of being a selection from the whole, had been itself the whole. But this is not the case. For at that time the kingdom, according to Justin, hist. L. xiii. 4, was divided into more than thirty separate parts. (Note: Justinus, l.c., mentions the following, viz.: 1. Ptolemy (Egypt, Africa, Arabia); 2. Laomedon (Syria and Palestine); 3. Philotas (Cilicia); 4. Philo (Illyria); 5. Atropatos (Media Major); 6. Scynus (Susiana); 7. Antigonus (Phrygia Major); 8. Nearchus (Lycia and Pamphylia); 9. Cassander (Caria); 10. Menander (Lydia); 11. Leonatus (Phrygia Minor); 12. Lysimachus (Thracia and Pontus); 13. Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia); 14. Taxiles (the countries between the Hydaspes and the Indus); 15. Pithon (India); 16. Extarches (Caucasus); 17. Sybirtios (Gedrosia); 18. Statanor or Stasanor (Drangiana and Aria); 19. Amyntas (Bactria); 20. Seytaeus (Sogdiana); 21. Nicanor (Parthia); 22. Philippus (Hyrcania); 23. Phrataphernes (Armenia); 24. Tlepolenus (Persia); 25. Peucestes (Babylonia); 26. Archon (the Pelasgi); 27. Arcesilaus (Mesopotamia). Besides these there were other generals not named.) Although all the names do not perfectly agree as given by different writers, yet this is manifest, that there is no information regarding a division of the kingdom of Alexander into ten exclusively. History knows nothing of such a thing; not only so, but much more, this reckoning of Bleek's falls into the same mistake as the oldest of Porphyry, that it is an arbitrary selection and not a fixed number.” But if Bleek wishes to support his arbitrary selection by references to the Sibylline Oracles, where also mention is made of the horns of Daniel in connection with Alexander, Hilgenfeld ( Jüd. Apokal. p. 71ff.) has, on the contrary, shown that this passage is derived from Daniel, and is therefore useless as a support to Bleek's hypothesis, because in it the immediate successors of Alexander are not meant, but ten kings following one another; this passage also only shows that the sibyllist had given to the number ten an interpretation regarded by Bleek himself as incompatible with the words of Daniel. But notwithstanding the impossibility of interpreting the ten horns of the Greek world-kingdom, and notwithstanding the above-mentioned incompatibility of the statements of Daniel 2 and 7 regarding the third kingdom with those of Daniel 8 regarding the Medo-Persian kingdom, (Note: This incompatibility Kliefoth has so conclusively (p. 245f.) stated, that in confirmation of the above remarks we quote his words. “The bear and the panther,” he says, “are related to each other as the ram and the he-goat; but how, in two visions following each other and related to each other, the one Medo-Persian kingdom could be likened to beasts so entirely different as a winged panther and a he-goat is quite inconceivable. The interpreters must help themselves by saying that the choice of the beasts is altogether arbitrary. Daniel 8 describes Medo-Persia as a kingdom comprehending two peoples united together within it; but Daniel 7 says regarding its third kingdom with four heads, that after an original unity it shall fall to pieces on all sides. And interpreters are compelled to meet this contradiction by explaining the four heads, some in one way, and others in another, but all equally unsuccessfully. According to Daniel 8 Medo-Persia will extend itself only into three regions of the earth, while according to Daniel 7 the third kingdom with its four wings will extend itself on all sides. It comes to this, therefore, that these interpreters must divide Medo-Persia in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 into two kingdoms, of Media and Persia, while in Daniel 8 they must recognise but one Medo-Persian kingdom.”) yet, according to Kranichfeld, the identification of the fourth kingdom of Daniel with the Javanic world-kingdom receives a confirmation from the representation of Daniel 11 and Daniel 12:1-13, particularly by the striking resemblance of the description of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7 with that of the Javanic in Daniel 8ff. “As in Daniel 2 and 7 the inward discord of the fourth kingdom is predicated, so this is obviously represented in the inner hateful strife of the kingdom, of which Daniel 11:3. treats; as here the discord appears as inextinguishable, so there; as to the special means also for preventing so striking that it can overbalance the fundamental differences? “Of all that Daniel 8 says, in Daniel 8:5-8, Daniel 8:21, Daniel 8:22, of Macedonia, nothing at all is found in the statements of Daniel 2 and 7 regarding the fourth kingdom.” Kliefoth. Also the inner dissolution predicated of the fourth kingdom, Daniel 2:41., which is represented by the iron and clay of the feet of the image, is fundamentally different from the strife of the prince of the south with the prince of the north represented in Daniel 11:3. The mixing of iron and clay, which do not unite together, refers to two nationalities essentially different from each other, which cannot be combined into one nation by any means of human effort, but not at all to the wars and conflicts of princes (Daniel 11:3.), the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae, for the supremacy; and the attempts to combine together national individualities into one kingdom by means of the mingling together of different races by external force, are essentially different from the political marriages by which the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae sought to establish peace and friendship with each other. (Note: How little political marriages were characteristic of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae, rather how much more frequently they took place among the Romans, from the time of Sulla down to that of Diocletian, and that often in a violent way - cum frequenti divortio et raptu gravidarum - as a means of obtaining or holding the government, is shown from the numerous collection of cases of this sort compiled by J. C. Velthusen in his treatise Animad. ad Dan. 2:277-25, imprimis de principum Romanorum connubiis ad firmandam tyrannidem inventis , Helmst. 1783, in vol. v. of the Comentatt. Theolog. of Velth., edited by Kuinoel and Ruperti. Since this treatise has not received any attention from modern critics, we will quote from it the judgment which Cato passed on Caesar's triplex ad evertendam rempublicam inventa politicarum nuptiarum conspiratio . His words are these: “ rem esse plane non tolerabilem, quod connubiorum lenociniis imperium collocari caeperit, et per mulieres sese mutuo ad praefecturas, exercitus, imperia auderet introducere ” (p. 379).) There is more plausibility in criticism which gives prominence to the resemblance in the description of the two violent persecutors of the people of God who arise out of the Javanic and the fourth world-kingdom, and are represented in Daniel 8 as well as in Daniel 7 under the figure of a little horn. “If” - for thus Kran. has formulated this resemblance - ”in the fourth kingdom, according to Daniel 7:8, Daniel 7:11, Daniel 7:20-21, Daniel 7:25, the heathen oppressor appears speaking insolent words against the Most High and making war with the saints, so Daniel 8:10., 24, Daniel 11:31, Daniel 11:36, unfolds, only more fully, in his fundamental characteristics, the same enemy; and as in Daniel 7:25 the severe oppression continues or three and a half times, so also that contemplated in Daniel 8:14 and in Daniel 12:7, in connection with Daniel 12:1. and Daniel 11.” On the ground of this view of the case, Delitzsch asks, “Is it likely that the little horn which raised itself up and persecuted the church of God is in Daniel 8. Antiochus Epiphanes rising up out of the divided kingdom of Alexander, and in Daniel 7, on the contrary, is a king rising up in the Roman world-kingdom? The representation of both, in their relation to Jehovah, His people, and their religion, is the same. The symbolism in Daniel 7 and 8 coincides, in so far as the arch-enemy is a little horn which rises above three others.” We must answer this question decidedly in the affirmative, since the difference between the two enemies is not only likely, but certain. The similarity of the symbol in Daniel 7 and 8 reaches no further than that in both chapters the persecuting enemy is represented as a little horn growing gradually to greater power. But in Daniel 8:9 this little horn arises from one of the four horns of the he-goat, without doing injury to the other three horns; while in Daniel 7:8 the little horn rises up between the ten horns of the dreadful beast, and outroots three of these horns. The little horn in Daniel 8, as a branch which grows out of one of these, does not increase the number of the existing horns, as that in Daniel 7, which increases the number there to eleven. This distinction cannot, as Kranichfeld supposes, be regarded merely as a formal difference in the figurative representation; it constitutes an essential distinction for which the use of different symbols for the representation of the world-kingdoms in Daniel 2 and 7 furnishes no true analogue. By these two different images two wholly different things are compared with each other. The representations of the four world-kingdoms in Daniel 2 and in Daniel 7 are only formally different - in Daniel 2 a human image, in Daniel 7 four beasts - but in reality these representations answer to each other, feature for feature, only so that in Daniel 7 further outlines are added, which entirely agree with, but do not contradict, the image in Daniel 2. On the contrary, in Daniel 7 and 8 essential contradictions present themselves in the parallel symbols - four horns and ten horns - which cannot be weakened down to mere formal differences. As little does the description of the enemy of the people of God, portrayed as a little horn in Daniel 8, correspond with that in Daniel 7. The fierce and crafty king arising out of the kingdoms of Alexander's successors will become “great toward the south and toward the east and toward the pleasant land, and wax great even to the host of heaven, and cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground; yea, he will magnify himself even to the prince of the host, and take away the daily sacrifice, and cast down the place of the sanctuary” (Daniel 8:9-12, Daniel 8:23-25). On the other hand, the king who rises up out of the fourth world-kingdom, who overthrows three other kings, will “speak great things against the Most High, and make war against the saints of the Most High, and prevail against them, and think to change times and laws” (Daniel 7:8, Daniel 7:20, Daniel 7:25). These two enemies resemble each other in this, that they both make war against the people of God; but they differ in that he who arises out of the third world-kingdom, extending his power toward the south and the east, i.e., towards Egypt and Babylon, and towards the Holy Land, shall crush some of the people of God, and by the taking away of the daily worship and the destruction of the sanctuary in Jerusalem, will rise up against God; while, on the contrary, he that shall arise out of the fourth world-kingdom will go much further. He will establish his kingdom by the destruction of three kingdoms, by great words put himself in the place of God, and as if he were God will think to change the times and the laws of men. Conformably to this, the length of time during which the persecution of these two adversaries will continue is different. The laying waste of the sanctuary by the power of the little horn arising out the Javanic world-kingdom will continue 2300 evening-mornings (Daniel 8:14): to the power of the little horn arising out of the fourth world-kingdom the saints of the Most High must be given up for a time, two times, and half a time (Daniel 7:25). No one will be persuaded, with Kranichfeld, that these two entirely different periods of time are alike. This difference of the periods of time again appears in Daniel 12:7, Daniel 12:11-12, where also the three and a half times (Daniel 12:7) agree neither with the 1290 nor with the 1335 days. It is therefore not correct to say that in Daniel 8 and 7 Antichrist, the last enemy of the church, is represented, and that the aspects of the imagery in both chapters strongly resemble each other. The very opposite is apparent as soon as one considers the contents of the description without prejudice, and does not, with Kranichfeld and others, hold merely by the details of the representation and take the husk for the kernel. The enemy in Daniel 8 proceeds only so far against God that he attacks His people, removes His worship, and lays waste the sanctuary; the enemy in Daniel 7 makes himself like God ( לצד , Daniel 7:25), thinks himself to be God, and in his madness dares even to seek to change the times and the laws which God has ordained, and which He alone has the power to change. The enemy in Daniel 8 it is an abuse of words to call Antichrist; for his offence against God is not greater than the crime of Ahaz and Manasseh, who also took away the worship of the true God, and set up the worship of idols in His stead. On the other hand, it never came into the mind of an Ahaz, nor of Manasseh, nor of Antiochus Epiphanes, who set himself to put an end to the worship of God among the Jews, to put themselves in the place of God, and to seek to change times and laws. The likeness which the enemy in Daniel 8, i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes, in his rage against the Mosaic religion and the Jews who were faithful to their law, has to the enemy in Daniel 7, who makes himself like God, limits itself to the relation between the type and the antitype. Antiochus, in his conduct towards the Old Testament people of God, is only the type of Antichrist, who will arise out of the ten kingdoms of the fourth world-kingdom (Daniel 7:24) and be diverse from them, arrogate to himself the omnipotence which is given to Christ, and in this arrogance will put himself in the place of God. The sameness of the designation given to both of these adversaries of the people of God, a “ little horn,” not only points to the relation of type and antitype, but also, as Kliefoth has justly remarked, to “intentional and definite” parallelism between the third world-kingdom (the Macedonian) and the fourth (the Roman). “On all points the changes of the fourth kingdom are described similarly to the changes which took place in the Macedonian kingdom; but in every point of resemblance also there is indicated some distinct difference, so that the Macedonian kingdom in its development comes to stand as the type and representative of the fourth kingdom, lying as yet in the far-off future.” The parallelism appears in this, that in the he-goat, representing the Javanic kingdom, after the breaking of the one great horn four considerable horns come up; and the fourth beast has ten horns; and the horns in both show that out of the one kingdom four, and out of the other ten, kingdoms shall arise;-further, that as out of one of the Javanic Diadoch kingdoms, so also from among the ten kingdoms into which the fourth kingdom is divided, a little horn comes up; the little horn in the Javanic kingdom, however, developes itself and founds its dominion differently from that of the fourth kingdom. If one carefully considers the resemblances and the differences of this description, he cannot fail to observe “the relation of an imperfect preliminary step of heathenish ungodliness to a higher step afterwards taken,” which Kran. (p. 282) seeks in a typical delineation. For the assertion of this critic, that “in the pretended typical, as in the antitypical situation, the same thoughts of the rising up against the Most High, the removal of His worship, and the destruction of the sanctuary always similarly occur,” is, according to the exegetical explanation given above, simply untrue. The difference reduces itself not merely to the greater fulness with which, “not the chief hero, but the type,” is treated, but it shows itself in the diversity of the thoughts; for the elevation to the place of God, and the seeking to change the times and the laws, manifests one of a higher degree of godlessness than the removing of the Jewish sacrificial worship and the desecration of the Jewish temple. Finally, the relation of the type to the antitype appears yet more distinctly in the determining of the time which will be appointed to both enemies for their opposition to God; for, though apparently they are alike, they are in reality very differently designated, and particularly in the explanation of the angel, Daniel 8:17, Daniel 8:19, and in the representation of the conduct of both enemies in Daniel 11 and Daniel 12:1-13, as we shall show in our exposition of these chapters. Since, then, neither the division of the Medo-Persian kingdom into the Median and the Persian is allowable, nor the identification of the fourth kingdom, Daniel 2 and 7, with the Javanic world-kingdom in Daniel 8, we may regard as correct the traditional church view, that the four world-kingdoms are the Chaldean, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman. This opinion, which has been recently maintained by Häv., Hengst., Hofm., Auberl., Zündel, Klief., and by C. P. Caspari and H. L. Reichel, alone accords without any force or arbitrariness with the representation of these kingdoms in both visions, with each separately as well as with both together. If we compare, for instance, the two visions with each other, they are partly distinguished in this, that while Nebuchadnezzar sees the world-power in its successive unfoldings represented by one metallic image, Daniel, on the other hand, sees it in the form of four ravenous beasts; partly in this, that in Daniel 7 the nature of the world-power, and its relation to the kingdom of God, is more distinctly described than in the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 2. These diversities have their foundation in the person of the respective recipients of the revelation. Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, sees its development in its unity and in its earthly glory. As opposed to the kingdom of God, the world-kingdoms, in all the phases of their development, form a united power of outward glory. But its splendour gradually decreases. The image with the golden head has its breast and arms of silver, its belly of brass, its legs of iron, its feet of iron and clay mixed. Thus the image stands on feet that are weak and easily broken, so that a stone rolling against them can break in pieces the whole colossus. Since, then, the image must represent four phases of the world-kingdoms following each other, they must be represented by the separate parts of the image. Beginning with the head, as denoting the first kingdom, the second kingdom is in natural order represented by the breast and arms, the third by the belly, and the fourth by the legs and feet. Since this of necessity follows from the image being that of the human body, yet in the interpretation we may not attach any weight to the circumstance that the second kingdom is represented by the breasts and the two arms, and the fourth by the two legs; but this circumstance may be taken into consideration only in so far as importance is given to it by the interpretation which is furnished in the text, or as it finds corresponding importance in the vision of Daniel 7. If we thus consider now the image, Daniel 2, the selection of different metals for its separate parts must be regarded as certainly designed not only to distinguish the four world-kingdoms from each other, but also at the same time to bring to view their different natures and qualities. This is evident from the interpretation in Daniel 2:39., where the hardness and the crushing power of the iron, and the brittleness of the clay, are brought to view. From this intimation it is at the same time obvious that the metals are not, as Auberlen, p. 228ff., thinks, to be viewed only as to their worth, and that by the successive depreciation of the materials - gold, silver, brass, iron, clay - a continuous decline of the world-power, or a diminution of the world-kingdoms as to their inner worth and power, is intended. Though Aub. says many things that are true and excellent regarding the downward progress of the world-development in general, the successive deterioration of humanity from paradise to the day of judgment, yet this aspect of the subject does not come here primarily before us, but is only a subordinate element in the contemplation. Daniel does not depict, as Aub. with P. Lange supposes, the world-civilisations in the world-monarchies; he does not describe “the progress from a state of nature to one of refined culture - from a natural, vigorous, solid mode of existence to a life of refinement and intellectualism, which is represented by the eye (Daniel 7:8) of Antichrist;” but he describes in both visions only the development of the world-power opposite to the kingdom of God, and its influence upon it in the future. If Aub. holds as the foundation of his opinion, that “gold and silver are nobler and more valuable metals, but that, on the other hand, iron and brass are infinitely more important for the cause of civilisation and culture,” he has confounded two different points of view: he has made the essential worth and value of the former metals, and the purpose and use of the latter, the one point of comparison. Gold and silver are nobler and more valuable than brass and iron, yet they have less intrinsic worth. The difference is frequently noticed in the Old Testament. Gold and silver are not only more highly valued than brass and iron (cf. Isaiah 60:17), but silver and gold are also metonymically used to designate moral purity and righteousness (cf. Malachi 3:3 with Isaiah 1:22); brass and iron, on the contrary, are used to designate moral impurity (cf. Jeremiah 6:28; Ezekiel 22:18) and stubborn rebellion against God (Isaiah 48:4). With reference to the relative worth of the metals, their gradation in the image shows, without doubt, an increasing moral and religious deterioration of the world-kingdoms. It must not, however, be hence thought, as Auberlen does, “that the Babylonian and Persian religions presuppose more genuine truthfulness, more sacred reverence for that which is divine, deeper earnestness in contending against the evil, in the nations among whom they sprung up, than the Hellenic, which is so much richer and more beautifully developed;” for this distinction is not supported by history. But although this may be said of the Persian, it cannot be held as true of the Babylonian religion, from all we know of it. Kranichfeld (p. 107) is more correct when in the succession of the metals he finds “the thought conceived by the theocrat of a definite fourfold procedure or expression of character comparatively corresponding to them, of a fourfold דּרך ( way, Jeremiah 6:27) of the heathen kingdoms manifesting an increasing deterioration.” The two first kingdoms, the golden and the silver, in general appear to him in their conduct as proportionally noble, virtuous, and in their relation to the theocracy even relatively pious; the two latter, on the contrary, which presented themselves to him in the likeness of brass and iron, as among the four morally base, as standing in the moral scale lower and lowest, and in relation to the theocracy as more relentless and wicked (see v. 40) (Note: Kliefoth (p. 93) in a similar manner says, “From the application which in Daniel 2:40 is made of the iron material, we see that the substances representing the different kingdoms, and their deterioration from the gold down to the iron, must denote something else than that the world-power, in the course of its historical formation, will become always baser and more worthless - that also its more tender or more cruel treatment of the nations, and of the men subdued by it, must be characterized. If the bonds which the Babylonian world-monarchy wound around the nations which were brought into subjection to it, by its very primitive military and bureaucratic regulations, were loose, gentle, pliable as a golden ring, those of the Medo-Persian were of harder silver, those of the Macedonian of yet harder copper, but the yoke of the fourth will be one of iron.”)). With this the declaration of the text as to the position of the four world-kingdoms and their rulers with referenced to the people of God stand in accord; for, on the one hand, Nebuchadnezzar, and the first rulers of the second kingdom, Darius the Median and Cyrus the Persian, respect the revelations of the living God, and not only in their own persons give honour to this God, but also command their heathen subjects to render unto Him fear and reverence; on the other hand, on the contrary, from the third and the fourth kingdoms the greatest persecutors of the kingdom of God, who wish utterly to destroy it (Daniel 7, 8), arise. In this respect the two first world-kingdoms, seen in their rulers, are like gold and silver, the two latter like copper and iron. The relation of the world-kingdoms to the kingdom and people of God, represented by this gradation of the metals, corresponds only to the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman world-kingdoms, but not to the Babylonian, Median, and Persian. This appears more manifest in the representation of them by four ravenous beasts, the lion, the ear, the leopard, and another beast to which no likeness can be found, Daniel 7. Its eagle's wings were torn from the lion, and it had given to it, by God, a man's heart; the bear shows only wild voracity-holding its prey between its teeth, it raises its one side for new prey; the leopard with four heads and four wings springs forward as in flight over the whole earth, to seize it and to exercise dominion over it; the fourth nameless beast devours and breaks in pieces with its iron teeth all that remains, and stamps upon it with its iron feet, and thus represents godless barbarity in its fullest development. But for the historical interpretation there comes yet particularly into view the circumstance that the fourth beast is represented by no animal existing in nature, and is designated by no historical name, as in the case of the first (Daniel 2:38) and the second and third (Daniel 8:20-21); for the two first had already come into existence in Daniel's time, and of the third, the people at least out of whom it was to arise had then already come into relation to the people of Israel (Joe 3:6, Joe 3:8). The fourth kingdom, on the contrary, is represented by a nameless beast, because in Daniel's time Rome had not come into contact with Israel, and as yet lay beyond the circle of vision of Old Testament prophecy. Although Daniel receives much more special revelations regarding this world-kingdom (Daniel 7) than Nebuchadnezzar does in his dream (Daniel 2), yet all the separate lines of the representation of the beast and its horn are given with so much want of precision that every reference to a historical people is at fault, and from the vision and its interpretation it was not to be known where this kingdom would arise, whether in Asia or elsewhere. The strength of the monster, devouring and trampling mercilessly on all things, is in harmony with its iron nature, and in its ten horns its powerful armour is depicted. The very concrete expressions regarding the little or eleventh horn contain only ideal traces respecting the position of the king or kingdom represented by it, which distinctly show, indeed, the elevation of the same above all human and divine authority, but give no indication at all of any special historical connections. Thus it appears that the two vision, on the one hand, do not copy their prophetic representation from historical facts, that the prophecy is not vaticinium ex eventu ; but, on the other hand, also that it is not derived from general ideas, as Hitz. and Kran. have attempted to show. While Hitzig thinks that the idea of the four ages of the world lies at the foundation, not of the fourfoldness of the monarchies, but of the kind of representation given of them in Daniel 2, - an idea which came from India to Greece, and was adopted by Daniel in its Greek form, - Kranichfeld considers that, under divine enlightenment, Daniel delineated the ideal of the advancing completion of heathen depravation in four stages (not in five, six, etc.), after the notion of the four ages of the world which we find not only in the Indian four jugas, but also in the Greco-Roman representation of the metallic aeons. Now although for this book of Daniel no special dependence on the Greeks can be proved from the use and value of the metals, because they were used by the ancient Hebrews as metaphorical symbols, yet the combination of the idea of the ages of the world so firmly and definitely stamped with just the number four remains a very noteworthy phenomenon, which must have had a deeper foundation lying in the very fact itself. This foundation, he concludes, is to be sought in the four stages of the age of man. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/keildelitzsch/ With Daniel 7:2 Daniel begins his written report: “Daniel began and said,” introduces the matter. חזוי עם־ליליא , visions in ( during) the night, cf. Daniel 2:19. Daniel 7:2 and Daniel 7:3 describe the scene in general. The four winds of heaven break loose upon the great sea, and rage fiercely, so that four great beasts, each diverse from the others, arise out of its bosom. The great sea is not the Mediterranean (Berth., Ges., Hitz., Ewald), for such a geographical reference is foreign to the context. It is the ocean; and the storm on it represents the “tumults of the people,” commotions among the nations of the world (Häv., Leng., Hofm., etc.), corresponding to the prophetic comparison found in Jeremiah 17:12; Jeremiah 46:7. “Since the beasts represent the forms of the world-power, the sea must represent that out of which they arise, the whole heathen world” (Hofmann). In the interpretation of the image (Daniel 7:17) יגּמא מן is explained by ארעא מן . גּיח means to break forth (Ezekiel 32:2), to burst out in storm, not causative, “to make the great sea break forth” (Kran.). The causative meaning is not certainly found either in the Hebrew or the Chaldee. The four winds stand in relation to the four quarters of the heavens; cf. Jeremiah 49:39. Calvin remarks: Mundus similis turbulento mari, quod non agitatur una procella vel uno vento, sed diversis ventis inter se confligentibus, ac si totum coelum conspiraret ad motus excitandos . With this, however, the meaning of the words is not exhausted. The four winds of heaven are not merely diversi venti , and their bursting forth is not only an image of a general commotion represented by a storm in the ocean. The winds of the heavens represent the heavenly powers and forces by which God sets the nations of the world in motion; and the number four has a symbolical meaning: that the people of all regions of the earth are moved hither and thither in violent commotion. “(Ecumenical commotions give rise to oecumenical kingdoms” (Kliefoth). As a consequence of the storm on the sea, there arise out of it four fierce beasts, not all at once, but, as Daniel 7:6 and Daniel 7:7 teach, one after another, and each having a different appearance. The diversity of the form of the beasts, inasmuch as they represent kingdoms, is determined beforehand, not only to make it noticeable that the selection of this symbol is not arbitrary but is significant (Hävernick), but emphatically to intimate that the vision of different kingdoms is not to be dealt with, as many interpreters seem inclined to do, as one only of different kings of one kingdom. In these verses there is a description of the four beasts. - Daniel 7:4. The first beasts resembled a lion with eagle's wings. At the entrance to a temple at Birs Nimrud there has been found (Layard, Bab. and Nin.) such a symbolical figure, viz., a winged eagle with the head of a man. There have been found also images of winged beasts at Babylon (Mnter, Relig. der Bab.). These discoveries may be referred to as evidence that this book was composed in Babylon, and also as explaining the Babylonian colouring of the dream. But the representation of nations and kingdoms by the images of beasts is much more widely spread, and affords the prophetic symbolism the necessary analogues and substrata for the vision. Lions and eagles are not taken into consideration here on account of their strength, rapacity, and swiftness, but simply because they are kings among beasts and birds: “The beast rules royally like the lion, and wings its conquering royal flight high over the οἰκουμένη like the eagle” (Kliefoth). This emblem corresponds with the representation of the first kingdom with the golden head (Daniel 2). What the gold is among metals and the head among the members of the body, that the lion is among beasts and the eagle among birds. After a time Daniel sees a change take place with this beast. The wings, i.e., the feathers by which it flies, are plucked off: it is deprived of its power of flight, so that it can no more fly conquering over the earth, or hover as a ruler over it; i.e., the kingdom will be deprived of the power of conquering, for it will be lifted up from the earth ( הקימת is Hoph., cf. Daniel 4:33), and be placed on its feet as a man. The lifting up from the earth does not represent, accordingly, being taken away or blown away from the earth, not the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom (Theodrt., Hieron., Raschi, Hitzig, and others), but the raising of it up when lying prostrate on the ground to the right attitude of a human being. This change is further described by the words, “a man's heart was given to it,” denoting that the beast-nature was transformed to that of a man. The three expressions thus convey the idea, that the lion, after it was deprived of its power of flight, was not only in external appearance raised from the form of a beast to that of a man, but also that inwardly the nature of the beast was ennobled into that of a man. In this description of the change that occurred to the lion there is without doubt a reference to what is said of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4: it cannot, however, be thence concluded, with Hofmann and others, that the words refer directly to Nebuchadnezzar's insanity; for here it is not the king, but the kingdom, that is the subject with reference to whose fate that event in the life of its founder was significant. Forasmuch as it was on account of his haughtiness that madness came upon him, so that he sank down to the level of the beasts of the field, so also for the same reason was his kingdom hindered in its flight over the earth. “Nebuchadnezzar's madness was for his kingdom the plucking off of its wings;” and as when he gave glory to the Most High his reason returned to him, and then for the first time he attained to the true dignity of man, so also was his world-kingdom ennobled in him, although the continued influence of this ennobling may not be perceived from the events in the reign of his son, recorded in Daniel 5. Besides, there lies herein not only the idea of the superiority of the first world-kingdom over the others, as is represented in Daniel 2 by the golden head of the metallic image, but also manifestly the typical thought that the world-kingdom will first be raised to the dignity of manhood when its beast-like nature is taken away. Where this transformation does not take place, or where it is not permanent, there must the kingdom perish. This is the prophetic meaning, for the sake of which that occurrence in the life of the founder of the world-monarchy is here transferred to his kingdom. Daniel 7:5 The second beast. - וארו signifies that this beast came first into sight after the lion, which also the predicates תנינה אחרי prove. אחרי expresses the difference from the first beast, תנינה the order in which it appears. The beast was like a bear. Next to the lion it is the strongest among animals; and on account of its voracity it was called by Aristotle ζῶονπαμφάγον . The words לשׁטר־חד הקימת present some difficulty. They have been differently explained. The explanation of Rabbi Nathan, “and it established a dominion,” with which Kranichfeld also agrees, is not only in opposition to the חד , but is also irreconcilable with the line of thought. חד is not the indefinite article, but the numeral; and the thought that the beast established one dominion, or a united dominion, is in the highest degree strange, for the character of a united or compact dominion belongs to the second world-kingdom in no case in a greater degree than to the Babylonian kingdom, and in general the establishing of a dominion cannot properly be predicated of a beast = a kingdom. The old translators (lxx, Theod., Peshito, Saad.) and the rabbis have interpreted the word שׁטר in the sense of side, a meaning which is supported by the Targ. סטר , and is greatly strengthened by the Arabic s'thar, without our needing to adopt the reading שׂטר , found in several Codd. The object to the verb הקימת is easily supplied by the context: it raised up, i.e., its body, on one side. This means neither that it leaned on one side (Ebrard), nor that it stood on its fore feet (Hävernick), for the sides of a bear are not its fore and hinder part; but we are to conceive that the beast, resting on its feet, raised up the feet of the one side for the purpose of going forward, and so raised the shoulder or the whole body on that side. But with such a motion of the beast the geographical situation of the kingdom (Geier, Mich., Ros.) cannot naturally be represented, much less can the near approach of the destruction of the kingdom (Hitzig) be signified. Hofmann, Delitzsch, and Kliefoth have found the right interpretation by a reference to Daniel 2 and 8. As in Daniel 2 the arms on each side of the breast signify that the second kingdom will consist of two parts, and this is more distinctly indicated in Daniel 8 by the two horns, one of which rose up after the other, and higher, so also in this verse the double-sidedness of this world-kingdom is represented by the beast lifting itself up on the one side. The Medo-Persian bear, as such, has, as Kliefoth well remarks, two sides: the one, the Median side, is at rest after the efforts made for the erection of the world-kingdom; but the other, the Persian side, raises itself up, and then becomes not only higher than the first, but also is prepared for new rapine. The further expression, it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth, has also been variously interpreted. That עלעין means ribs, not sides, is as certain as that the ribs in the mouth between the teeth do not denote side-teeth, tusks, or fangs (Saad., Häv.). The עלעין in the mouth between the teeth are the booty which the bear has seized, according to the undoubted use of the word; cf. Amos 3:12; Psalms 124:6; Job 29:17; Jeremiah 51:44. Accordingly, by the ribs we cannot understand either the Persians, Medians, and Babylonians, as the nations that constituted the strength of the kingdom (Ephr. Syr., Hieron., Ros.), or the three Median kings (Ewald), because neither the Medes nor the three Median kings can be regarded as a prey of the Median or Medo-Persian world. The “ribs” which the beast is grinding between its teeth cannot be the peoples who constitute the kingdom, or the kings ruling over it, but only peoples who constitute the kingdom, or the kings ruling over it, but only peoples or countries which it has conquered and annexed to itself. The determining of these peoples and countries depends on which kingdom is represented by the bear. Of the interpreters who understand by the bear the Median kingdom, Maurer and Delitzsch refer to the three chief satrapies (Daniel 6:3 [Daniel 6:2]). Not these, however, but only the lands divided between them, could be regarded as the prey between the teeth of the beast, and then Media also must be excluded; so that the reference of the words to the three satrapies is altogether inadmissible. Hitzig thinks that the reference is to three towns that were destroyed by the Medians, viz., Nineveh, Larissa, and a third which he cannot specify; v. Leng. regards the number three as a round number, by which the voracity of the beast is shown; Kranichfeld understands by the three ribs constituent parts of a whole of an older national confederation already dissolved and broken asunder, of which, however, he has no proof. We see, then, that if the bear is taken as representing the Median kingdom, the three ribs in its mouth cannot be explained. If, on the other hand, the Medo-Persian world-kingdom is intended by the bear, then the three ribs in its mouth are the three kingdoms Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt, which were conquered by the Medo-Persians. This is the view of Hofm., Ebr., Zünd., and Klief. The latter, however, thinks that the number “Three” ought not to be regarded as symbolical, but as forming only the contrast to the number four in Daniel 7:6, and intimating that the second beast will not devour in all the regions of the world, but only on three sides, and will make a threefold and not a fourfold plunder, and therefore will not reach absolute universality. But since the symbolical value of each number is formed from its arithmetical signification, there is no reason here, any more than there is in the analogous passages, Daniel 8:4, Daniel 8:22, to depart wholly from the exact signification. The last expression of the verse, Arise, devour much flesh, most interpreters regard as a summons to go forth conquering. But this exposition is neither necessary, nor does it correspond to the relative position of the words. The eating much flesh does not form such a contrast to the three ribs in the mouth between the teeth, that it must be interpreted of other flesh than that already held by the teeth with the ribs. It may be very well understood, with Ebrard and Kliefoth, of the consuming of the flesh of the ribs; so that the command to eat much flesh is only an explication of the figure of the ribs held between the teeth, and contains only the thought that the beast must wholly consume the plunder it has seized with its teeth. The plur. אמרין ( they spoke) is impersonal, and is therefore not to be attributed to the angel as speaking. Daniel 7:6 The third beast, which Daniel saw after the second, was like a panther (leopard), which is neither so kingly as the lion nor so strong as the bear, but is like to both in rapacity, and superior to them in the springing agility with which it catches its prey; so that one may say, with Kliefoth, that in the subordination of the panther to the lion and the bear, the same gradation is repeated as that this is found (of the third kingdom) in Daniel 2 of the copper (brass). Of the panther it is said, that it had four wings of a fowl and four heads. The representation of the beast with four wings increases the agility of its movements to the speed of the flight of a bird, and expresses the thought that the kingdom represented by that beast would extend itself in flight over the earth; not so royally as Nebuchadnezzar, - for the panther has not eagle's wings, but only the wings of a fowl, - but extending to all the regions of the earth, for it has four wings. At the same time the beast has four heads, not two only, as one might have expected with four wings. The number four thus shows that the heads have an independent signification, and do not stand in relation to the four wings, symbolizing the spreading out of the kingdom into the four quarters of the heavens (Bertholdt, Häv., Kran.). As little do the four wings correspond with the four heads in such a way that by both there is represented only the dividing of the kingdom into four other kingdoms (Häv.. Comment., Auberl.). Wings are everywhere an emblem of rapid motion; heads, on the contrary, where the beast signifies a kingdom, are the heads of the kingdom, i.e., the kings or rulers: hence it follows that the four heads of the panther are the four successive Persian kings whom alone Daniel knows (Daniel 11:2). Without regard to the false interpretations of Dan 11:2 on which this opinion rests, it is to be noticed that the four heads do not rise up one after another, but that they all exist contemporaneously on the body of the beast, and therefore can only represent four contemporary kings, or signify that this kingdom is divided into four kingdoms. That the four wings are mentioned before the four heads, signifies that the kingdom spreads itself over the earth with the speed of a bird's flight, and then becomes a fourfold-kingdom, or divides itself into four kingdoms, as is distinctly shown in Daniel 8:5. - The last statement, and dominion was given to it, corresponds with that in Daniel 2:39, it shall bear rule over all the earth, i.e., shall found an actual and strong world-empire. Daniel 7:7-8 The fourth beast. - Introduced by a more detailed description, the fourth beast is presented more distinctly before our notice than those which preceded it. Its terribleness and its strength, breaking in pieces and destroying all things, and the fact that no beast is named to which it can be likened, represent it as different from all the beasts that went before. This description corresponds with that of the fourth kingdom denoted by the legs and the feet of the metallic image of the monarchies (Daniel 2). The iron breaking in pieces all things (Daniel 2:40) is here represented by the great iron teeth with which this monster devoured and brake in pieces. In addition to that, there are also feet, or, as Daniel 7:19 by way of supplement adds, “claws of brass,” with which in the mere fury of its rage it destroyed all that remained, i.e., all that it did not devour and destroy with its teeth. וגו משׁניה היא ( it was made different) denotes not complete diversity of being, from which Hitz. and Del. conclude that the expression suits only the Macedonian world-kingdom, which as occidental was different in its nature from the three preceding monarchies, which shared among themselves an oriental home and a different form of civilisation and despotic government. For although משׁניה expresses more than אחרי (Daniel 7:5), yet the דּא מן דּא שׁנין ( diverse one from another), spoken (Daniel 7:3) of all the beasts, shows that משׁניה cannot be regarded as expressing perfect diversity of being, but only diversity in appearance. The beast was of such terrible strength and destructive rage, that the whole animal world could furnish no representative by whose name it might be characterized. It had ten horns, by which its terrible strength is denoted, because a horn is in Scripture always the universal symbol of armed strength. With this the interpretation (Daniel 7:24), that these horns are so many kings or kingdoms, fully corresponds. In the ten horns the ten toes of the image (Daniel 2) are again repeated. The number ten comes into consideration only according to its symbolical meaning of comprehensive and definite totality. That the horns are on the head of the one beast, signifies that the unfolding of its power in the ten kingdoms is not a weakening of its power, but only its full display. Daniel 7:8 Here a new event is brought under our notice. While continuing to contemplate the horns (the idea of continuance lies in the particip. with the verb. fin.), Daniel sees another little horn rise up among them, which uproots, i.e., destroys, three of the other horns that were already there. He observes that this horn had the eyes of a man, and a mouth which spake great things. The eye and the mouth suggest a human being as represented by the horn. Eyes and seeing with eyes are the symbols of insight, circumspection, prudence. This king will thus excel the others in point of wisdom and circumspection. But why the eyes of a man? Certainly this is not merely to indicate to the reader that the horn signified a man. This is already distinctly enough shown by the fact that eyes, a mouth, and speech were attributed to it. The eyes of a man were not attributed to it in opposition to a beast, but in opposition to a higher celestial being, for whom the ruler denoted by the horn might be mistaken on account of the terribleness of his rule and government; ” ne eum putemus juxta quorundam opinionem vel diabolum esse vel daemonem, sed unum de hominibus, in quo totus Satanas habitaturus sit corporaliter,” as Jerome well remarks; cf. Hofmann and Kliefoth. - A mouth which speaketh great things is a vainglorious mouth. רברבן are presumptuous things, not directly blasphemies (Häv.). In the Apocalypse, Revelation 13:5, μεγάλα and βλασφημίαι are distinguished. The judgment on the horn speaking great things and on the other beasts, and the delivering of the kingdom to the Son of Man. After Daniel had for a while contemplated the rising up of the little horn that appeared among the ten horns, the scene changed. There is a solemn sitting in judgment by God, and sentence is pronounced. Seats or chairs were placed. רמיו , activ. with an indefinite subject: they were thrown, i.e., they were placed in order quickly, or with a noise. Seats, not merely a throne for God the Judge, but a number of seats for the assembly sitting in judgment with God. That assembly consists neither of the elders of Israel ( Rabb.), nor of glorified men (Hengstb. on Revelation 4:4), but of angels (Psalms 89:8), who are to be distinguished from the thousands and tens of thousands mentioned in Daniel 7:10; for these do not sit upon thrones, but stand before God as servants to fulfil His commands and execute His judgments. יומין עתּיק , one advanced in days, very old, is not the Eternal; for although God is meant, yet Daniel does not see the everlasting God, but an old man, or a man of grey hairs, in whose majestic from God makes Himself visible (cf. Ezekiel 1:26). When Daniel represents the true God as an aged man, he does so not in contrast with the recent gods of the heathen which Antiochus Epiphanes wished to introduce, or specially with reference to new gods, as Hitzig and Kran. suppose, by reference to Deuteronomy 32:17 and Jeremiah 23:23; for God is not called the old God, but appears only as an old man, because age inspires veneration and conveys the impression of majesty. This impression is heightened by the robe with which He is covered, and by the appearance of the hair of His head, and also by the flames of fire which are seen to go forth from His throne. His robe is white as snow, and the hair of His head is white like pure wool; cf. Revelation 1:14. Both are symbols of spotless purity and holiness. Flames of fire proceed from His throne as if it consisted of it, and the wheels of His throne scatter forth fire. One must not take the fire exclusively as a sign of punishment. Fire and the shining of fire are the constant phenomena of the manifestation of God in the world, as the earthly elements most fitting for the representation of the burning zeal with which the holy God not only punishes and destroys sinners, but also purifies and renders glorious His own people; see under Exodus 3:3. The fire-scattering wheels of the throne show the omnipresence of the divine throne of judgment, the going of the judgment of God over the whole earth (Kliefoth). The fire which engirds with flame the throne of God pours itself forth as a stream from God into the world, consuming all that is sinful and hostile to God in the world, and rendering the people and kingdom of God glorious. קדמוהי מן ( from before Him) refers to God, and not to His throne. A thousand times a thousand and ten thousand times ten thousand are hyperbolical expressions for an innumerable company of angels, who as His servants stand around God; cf. Deuteronomy 33:2; Psalms 68:18. The Keri presents the Chaldaic form אלפין for the Hebraizing form of the text אלפים ( thousands), and for רבון the Hebraizing form רבבן ( myriads), often found in the Targg., to harmonize the plur. form with the singular רבּו going before. Forthwith the judgment begins. יתב דּינא we translate, with most interpreters, the judgment sets itself. דּינא , judgment, abstr. pro concreto , as judicium in Cicero, Verr. 2. 18. This idea alone is admissible in Daniel 7:26, and here also it is more simple than that defended by Dathe and Kran.: “ He” (i.e., the Ancient of days) “sets Himself for judgment,” - which would form a pure tautology, since His placing Himself for judgment has been already (Daniel 7:9) mentioned, and nothing would be said regarding the object for which the throne was set. - ” The books were opened.” The actions of men are recorded in the books, according to which they are judged, some being ordained to eternal life and others condemned to eternal death; cf. Revelation 20:12, and the notes under Daniel 12:1. The horn speaking great things is first visited with the sentence of death. The construction of this verse is disputed. The second הוית חזה ( I was seeing) repeats the first for the purpose of carrying on the line of thought broken by the interposed sentence. בּאדין ( then) is separated by the accents from the first הוית חזה and joined to the clause following: “then on account of the voice of the great words.” By this interposed sentence the occasion of the judgment which Daniel sees passed upon the beast is once more brought to view. קל מן , “on account of the voice of the words,” i.e., on account of the loud words, not “ from the time of the words, or from the time when the voice of the great words made itself heard” (Klief.). The following expression, דּי עד ( till that), does not by any means require the temporal conception מן . To specify the terminus a quo of the vision was as little necessary here as in the דּי עד הוית חזה , Daniel 7:9. The temporal conception of מן alters not only the parallelism of the passage Daniel 7:9 and Daniel 7:11, but also the course of thought in the representation, according to which Daniel remains overwhelmed during the vision till all the separate parts of it have passed before his view, i.e., till he has seen the close of the judgment. The first part of this scene consists of the constituting of the judgment (Daniel 7:9, Daniel 7:10), the second of the death and extinction of the horn speaking great things (Daniel 7:11), with which is connected (Daniel 7:12) the mention of the destruction of the dominion of the other beasts. If one considers that the words “ I beheld till that” correspond with the like expression in Daniel 7:9, he will not seek, with Kran., in the דּי עד a reference to a lasting process of judicial execution ending with destruction. The thought is simply this: Daniel remained contemplating the vision till the beast was slain, etc. חיותא ( the beast) is, by virtue of the explanatory sentence interposed in the first hemistich, the horn speaking great things. The ungodly power of the fourth beast reaches its climax in the blaspheming horn; in this horn, therefore, the beast is slain and destroyed, while its body is given to the burning. אשּׁא ליקדת ( to the burning fire) corresponds with the Hebr. אשׁ לשׂרפת , Isaiah 64:10. The burning in the fire is not the mere figure of destruction, specially justified by the thunder-storm which gathered as a veil around the scene of judgment (Kran.), for there is no mention of a storm either in Daniel 7:9 or anywhere else in this entire vision. The supposition that the burning is only the figure of destruction, as e.g., in Isaiah 9:4, is decidedly opposed by the parallel passages, Isaiah 66:14, which Daniel had in view, and Revelation 19:20 and Revelation 20:10, where this prophecy is again taken up, and the judgment is expressed by a being cast into a like of fire with everlasting torment; so that v. Lengerke is right when he remarks that this passage speaks of the fiery torments of the wicked after death, and thus that a state of retribution after death is indicated. In this verse it is in addition remarked, that the dominion of the other beasts was also destroyed, because the duration of their lives was determined for a time and an hour. The construction of the words forbids us (with Luther) to regard the first part of Dan 7:12 as dependent on דּי עד of Daniel 7:11. The object חיותא וּשׁאר ( the rest of the beasts) is presented in the form of an absolute nominative, whereby the statement of Dan 7:12 is separated from the preceding. העדּיו , impersonal, instead of the passive, as דּקוּ in Daniel 2:35: “ their dominion was made to perish,” for “their dominion was destroyed.” “The other beasts” are not those that remained of the seven horns of the fourth beast, which were not uprooted by the horn coming up amongst them, the remaining kingdoms of the fourth monarchy after the destruction by that horn, for with the death of the beast the whole fourth world-monarchy is destroyed; nor are they the other kingdoms yet remaining at the time of the overthrow of the fourth world-monarchy or the destruction of the fourth beast (J. D. Mich., v. Leng.), which only lose their political power, but first of all would become subject to the new dominant people (Hitzig), for such other kingdoms have no existence in the prophetic view of Daniel, since the beasts represent world-kingdoms whose dominion stretches over the whole earth. The “remaining beasts” are much rather the first three beasts which arose out of the sea before the fourth, as is rightly acknowledged by Chr. B. Mich., Ros., Häv., Hofm., Maur., Klief., and Kran., with the old interpreters. Although the four world-kingdoms symbolized by those beasts follow each other in actual history, so that the earlier is always overthrown by that which comes after it, yet the dominion of the one is transferred to the other; so in the prophetic representation the death or the disappearance of the first three beasts is not expressly remarked, but is here first indicated, without our needing for that reason to regard העדּיו as the pluperfect. For the exposition of this verse also we may not appeal to Daniel 2, where all the four world-kingdoms are represented in one human image, and the stone which rolled against the feet of this image broke not only the feet, but with them the whole image to pieces (Daniel 2:34.), which in Daniel 2:44 is explained as meaning that the kingdom of God will bring to an end all those kingdoms. From this we cannot conclude that those kingdoms had long before already perished at the hour appointed for them, but that a remainder of them yet continued to exist (Häv.), for the representation in this chapter is different; and the rest of the beasts cannot possibly mean that which remained of the beasts after their destruction, but only the beasts that remained after the death of the fourth beast. The mas. suff. to שׁלטנהון ( their dominion) and להון refer ad sensum to the possessor or ruler of the world-kingdom represented by the beasts. With that interpretation of “the rest of the beasts” the statement also of the second half of the verse does not agree, for it proves that the subject is the destruction of the dominion of all the beasts which arose up before the fourth. The length or duration of life is the time of the continuance of the world-kingdoms represented by the beasts, and thus the end of life is the destruction of the kingdom. The passive pret. יהיבת is not to be taken thus as the imperf.: “a period of life was appointed to them,” but as the pluperf.: “had been granted to them,” and the passage formally connected by the simple ו is to be taken as confirming the preceding statement. ועדּן זמן (placed together as Daniel 2:21 in the meaning there explained) is not to be identified with זמנא , Daniel 7:22 (v. Leng., Kran.). The form ( stat. absol., not emphat.) shows that not a definite time, the time of the divine judgment of the fourth beast, is meant, but the time of the continuance of the power and dominion for each of the several beasts (kingdoms), foreseen only in the counsel of the Most High, and not further defined. In accordance with this, the statement of Dan 7:12 is that the first three beasts also had their dominion taken away one after another, each at its appointed time; for to each God gave its duration of life, extending to the season and time appointed by Him. Thus Kliefoth, with the older interpreters, correctly regards the connecting of the end of the first three beasts with that of the last as denoting that in the horn not merely the fourth kingdom, but also the first three kingdoms, the whole world-power, is brought to an end by the last judgment. This thought, right in itself, and distinctly announced in the destruction of the image (Daniel 2), appears, however, to lie less in the altogether loose connection of Dan 7:12 with Daniel 7:11 than in the whole context, and certainly in this, that with the fourth beast in general the unfolding of the world-power in its diverse phases is exhausted, and with the judgment of this kingdom the kingdom of God is raised to everlasting supremacy. The giving of the kingdom to the Son of Man. - The judgment does not come to an end with the destruction of the world-power in its various embodiments. That is only its first act, which is immediately followed by the second, the erection of the kingdom of God by the Son of man. This act is introduced by the repetition of the formula, I saw in the night-visions (Daniel 7:7 and Daniel 7:2). ( One) like a son of man came in the clouds of heaven. ענני עם , with the clouds, i.e., in connection with them, in or on them as the case may be, surrounded by clouds; cf. Revelation 1:7, Mark 13:26, Matthew 24:30; Matthew 26:64. He who comes is not named, but is only described according to his appearance like a son of man, i.e., resembling a man . That this was a man is not implied in these words, but only that he was like a man, and not like a beast or some other creature. Now, as the beasts signify not beasts but kingdoms, so that which appeared in the form of a man may signify something else than a human individuum . Following the example of Aben Ezra, Paulus, and Wegscheider, Hofmann ( Schriftbew. ii. 1. 80, and 2, p. 582f.), Hitzig, Weisse, Volkmar, Fries ( Jahrbb.f. D. Theol. iv. p. 261), Baxmann, and Herzfeld ( Gesch. des V. Isr. ii. p. 381) interpret this appearance in the form of a man not of the Messiah, as the Jewish and Christian interpreters in general do, but of the people of Israel, and adduce in support of this view the fact that, in the explanation of the vision, Daniel 7:27, cf. Daniel 7:24, the kingdom, the dominion, and the power, which according to Daniel 7:14 the son of man received, was given to the people of the saints of the Most High. But Daniel 7:27 affords no valid support to this supposition, for the angel there gives forth his declaration regarding the everlasting kingdom of God, not in the form of an interpretation of Daniel's vision, as in the case of the four beasts in Daniel 7:17 and Daniel 7:23, but he only says that, after the destruction of the horn and its dominion, the kingdom and the power will be given to the people of the saints, because he had before (Daniel 7:26, cf. 22) spoken of the blasphemies of the horn against God, and of its war against the saints of the Most High. But the delivering of the kingdom to the people of God does not, according to the prophetic mode of contemplation, exclude the Messiah as its king, but much rather includes Him, inasmuch as Daniel, like the other prophets, knows nothing of a kingdom without a head, a Messianic kingdom without the King Messiah. But when Hofmann further remarks, that “somewhere it must be seen that by that appearance in the form of a man is meant not the holy congregation of Israel, but an individual, a fifth king, the Messiah,” Auberlen and Kranichfeld have, with reference to this, shown that, according to Daniel 7:21, the saints appear in their multiplicity engaged in war when the person who comes in the clouds becomes visible, and thus that the difference between the saints and that person is distinctly manifest. Hence it appears that the “coming with the clouds of heaven” can only be applied to the congregation of Israel, if we agree with Hofmann in the opinion that he who appeared was not carried by the clouds of heaven down to the earth, but from the earth up to heaven, in order that he might there receive the kingdom and the dominion. But this opinion is contradicted by all that the Scriptures teach regarding this matter. In this very chapter before us there is no expression or any intimation whatever that the judgment is held in heaven. No place is named. It is only said that judgment was held over the power of the fourth beast, which came to a head in the horn speaking blasphemies, and that the beast was slain and his body burned. If he who appears as a son of man with the clouds of heaven comes before the Ancient of days executing the judgment on the earth, it is manifest that he could only come from heaven to earth. If the reverse is to be understood, then it ought to have been so expressed, since the coming with the clouds of heaven in opposition to the rising up of the beasts out of the sea very distinctly indicates a coming down from heaven. The clouds are the veil or the “chariot” on which God comes from heaven to execute judgment against His enemies; cf. Psalms 18:10., Psalms 97:2-4; Psalms 104:3, Isaiah 19:1; Nahum 1:3. This passage forms the foundation for the declaration of Christ regarding His future coming, which is described after Daniel 7:13 as a coming of the Son of man with, in, on the clouds of heaven; Matthew 24:30; Matthew 26:64; Mark 18:26; Revelation 1:7; Revelation 14:14. Against this, Hofmann, in behalf of his explanation, can only adduce 1 Thessalonians 4:17, in total disregard of the preceding context, Daniel 7:16. (Note: The force of these considerations is also recognised by Hitzig. Since the people of the saints cannot come from heaven, he resorts to the expedient that the Son of man is a “figure for the concrete whole, the kingdom, the saints - this kingdom comes down from heaven.” The difficulties of such an idea are very obvious. Fries appears to be of opinion, with Hofmann, that there is an ascension to heaven of the people of the saints; for to him “clear evidence” that the “Son of man” is the people of Israel lies especially in the words, “and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before Him,” which necessitates the adoption of the opposite terminus a quo from Matthew 24:30; Mark 14:62; Revelation 1:7; and hence makes the direct parallelism of Dan 7:13 with the passages named impossible (?).) With all other interpreters, we must accordingly firmly maintain that he who appears with the clouds of heaven comes from heaven to earth and is a personal existence, and is brought before God, who judges the world, that he may receive dominion, majesty, and a kingdom. But in the words “ as a man ” it is not meant that he was only a man. He that comes with the clouds of heaven may, as Kranichfeld rightly observes, “be regarded, according to current representations, as the God of Israel coming on the clouds, while yet he who appears takes the outward from of a man.” The comparison ( כ , as a man) proves accordingly much more, that this heavenly or divine being was in human form. This “ Son of man ” came near to the Ancient of days, as God appears in the vision of the judgment, Daniel 7:9, and was placed before Him. The subject to הקרבוּהי is undefined; Kran. thinks that it is the clouds just mentioned, others think it is the ministering angels. Analogous passages may be adduced in support of both views: for the first, the νεφέληὑπέλαβεναὐτόν in Acts 1:9; but the parallel passages with intransitive verbs speak more in favour of the impersonal translation, “ they brought him ” = he was brought. The words, “dominion, and glory, and a kingdom were given to him,” remind us of the expression used of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 2:37., but they are elevated by the description following to the conception of the everlasting dominion of God. God gave to Nebuchadnezzar, the founder and first bearer of the world-power, a kingdom, and might, and majesty, and dominion over all the inhabitants of the earth, men, and beasts, and birds, that he might govern all nations, and tribes, and tongues (Daniel 5:18-19), but not indeed in such a manner as that all nations and tribes should render him religious homage, nor was his dominion one of everlasting duration. These two things belong only to the kingdom of God. פּלח is used in biblical Chaldee only of the service and homage due to God; cf. Daniel 7:27; Daniel 3:12-13, Daniel 3:17., Ezra 7:19, Ezra 7:24. Thus it indicates here also the religious service, the reverence which belong to God, though in the Targg. it corresponds with the Heb. עבד in all its meanings, colere Deum, terram, laborare . Regarding the expression “nations, tribes, and tongues,” see under Daniel 7:3, Daniel 7:4. The eternity of the duration of the dominion is in this book the constant predicate of the kingdom of God and His Anointed, the Messiah; cf. Daniel 3:33; Daniel 4:31; Daniel 2:44. For further remarks regarding the Son of man, see at the close of this chapter. The interpretation of the vision. - Daniel 7:14 concludes the account of the contents of the vision, but not the vision itself. That continues to the end of the chapter. Daniel 7:15. The things which Daniel saw made a deep impression on his mind. His spirit was troubled within him; the sight filled him with terror. It was not the mystery of the images, nor the fact that all was not clear before his sight, that troubled and disquieted him; for Daniel 7:28 shows that the disquietude did not subside when an angel explained the images he had seen. It was the things themselves as they passed in vision before him - the momentous events, the calamities which the people of God would have to endure till the time of the completion of the everlasting kingdom of God - which filled him with anxiety and terror. רוּחי stands for the Hebr. נפשׁי , and דּניּאל אנה is in apposition to the suffix in רוּחי , for the suffix is repeated with emphasis by the pronoun, Daniel 8:1, Daniel 8:15; Ezra 7:21, and more frequently also in the Hebr.; cf. Winer, Chald. Gram. §40, 4; Ges. Hebr. Gram. §121, 3. The emphatic bringing forward of the person of the prophet corresponds to the significance of the vision, which made so deep an impression on him; cf. also Daniel 10:1, Daniel 10:7; Daniel 12:1-13:15. In this there is no trace of anxiety on the part of the speaker to make known that he is Daniel, as Hitzig supposes. The figure here used, “ in the sheath ” (E. V. “in the midst of my body”), by which the body is likened to a sheath for the soul, which as a sword in its sheath is concealed by it, is found also in Job 27:8, and in the writings of the rabbis (cf. Buxt. Lex. talm. s.v.). It is used also by Pliny, vii. 52. On “ visions of my head,” cf. Daniel 7:1. Daniel 7:16 Daniel turned himself towards an angel who stood by, with a request for an explanation of these things. One of them that stood by refers to those mentioned in Daniel 7:10, who stood around the throne of God; whence it is obvious that the vision is still continued. אבעא is not the preterite, I asked him, but the subjunctive, that I might ask. So also יהודענּני is to be taken with the ו going before: he spake to me, that he informed me, namely by his speaking. Daniel 7:17-19 In Daniel 7:17-27 the angel gives the wished-for explanation. In Daniel 7:17 and Daniel 7:18 he gives first a general interpretation of the vision. The words, these great beasts, of which there were four, form an absolute nominal clause: “as for the beasts;” as concerning their meaning, it is this: “they represent four kings.” The kings are named as founders and representatives of world-kingdoms. Four kingdoms are meant, as Daniel 7:23 shows, where the fourth beast is explained as מלכוּ , “dominion,” “kingdom.” Compare also Daniel 8:20 and Daniel 8:21, where in like manner kings are named and kingdoms are meant. From the future יקוּמוּן ( shall arise) Hitzig concludes that the first kingdom was yet future, and therefore, that since Daniel had the vision under Belshazzar, the first king could only be Belshazzar, but could not represent the Chaldean monarchy. But if from the words shall arise it follows that the vision is only of kings who arise in the future, then, since Daniel saw the vision in the first year of Belshazzar, it cannot of course be Belshazzar who is represented by the first beast; and if Belshazzar was, as Hitzig thinks, the last king of Chaldea, than the entire Chaldean monarchy is excluded from the number of the four great beasts. Kranichfeld therefore understands this word as modal, and interprets it should arise. This was the divine decree by which also the duration of their kingdoms was determined (Daniel 7:12, Daniel 7:25). But the modal interpretation does not agree with Daniel 7:16, according to which the angel wishes to make known the meaning of the matter to Daniel, not to show what was determined in the divine counsel, but what God had revealed to him by the beasts rising up out of the sea. The future, shall arise, is rather (Ros., v. Leng., Maur., Klief., etc.) for the purpose of declaring that the vision represents the development of the world-power as a whole, as it would unfold itself in four successive phases; whereupon the angel so summarily interprets the vision to the prophet, that, dating from the time of their origin, he points out the first world-kingdom as arising along with the rest, notwithstanding that it had already come into existence, and only its last stages were then future. The thought of this summary interpretation is manifestly nothing else than this: “Four kingdoms shall arise on the earth, and shall again disappear; but the saints of God shall receive the kingdom which shall have an everlasting duration.” יקבּלוּן , receive; not found and establish by their own might, but receive through the Son of man, to whom God (Daniel 7:14) has given it. עליונין (cf. Daniel 7:22, Daniel 7:25, Daniel 7:27) is the name of God, the Most High, analogous to the plur. forms אלהים , קדשׁים . “The saints of the Most High,” or briefly “the saints” (Daniel 7:21, Daniel 7:22), are neither the Jews, who are accustomed to call themselves “saints,” in contrast with the heathen (v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig, etc.), nor the converted Israel of the millennium (Hofmann and other chiliasts), but, as we argue from Exodus 19:6; Deuteronomy 7:6, the true members of the covenant nation, the New Testament Israel of God, i.e., the congregation of the New Covenant, consisting of Israel and the faithful of all nations; for the kingdom which God gives to the Son of man will, according to Daniel 7:14, comprehend those that are redeemed from among all the nations of the earth. The idea of the everlasting duration of their kingdom is, by the words עלמיּא עלם ( for ever and ever), raised to the superlative degree. The angel does not here give further explanations regarding the first three kingdoms. Since the second chapter treats of them, and the eighth also gives further description of the second and third, it is enough here to state that the first three beasts represent those kingdoms that are mentioned in Daniel 2. The form of the fourth beast, however, comprehends much more regarding the fourth world-kingdom that the dream-image of Nebuchadnezzar did. Therefore Daniel asks the angel further for certain information (certainty) regarding the dreadful form of this beast, and consequently the principal outlines of the representation before given of it are repeated by him in Daniel 7:19-21, and are completed by certain circumstances there omitted. Thus Daniel 7:19 presents the addition, that the beast had, along with iron teeth, also claws of brass, with which it stamped to pieces what it could not devour; and Daniel 7:20, that the little horn became greater than its fellows, made war against the people of God and overcame them, till the judgment brought its dominion to an end. צבית ליצּבא , I wished or sure knowledge, i.e., to experience certainty regarding it. Daniel 7:20 In Daniel 7:20, from וּנפלוּ ( fell down) the relative connection of the passage is broken, and the direct description is continued. דּכּן וקרנא ( and that horn) is an absolute idea, which is then explained by the Vav epexegetic. חזוהּ , the appearance which is presented, i.e., its aspect. חברתהּ מן ( above his fellows), for חזוּ חברתהּ מן ( above the aspect of his fellows), see under Daniel 1:10. Daniel 7:21 קדּישיּן (without the article), although used in a definite sense of the saints already mentioned, appertains to the elevated solemn style of speech, in which also in the Hebr. The article is frequently wanting in definite names; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. §277. Daniel 7:22 As compared with Daniel 7:13 and Daniel 7:14, this verse says nothing new regarding the judgment. For יהיב דּינא is not to be rendered, as Hengstenberg thinks ( Beitr. i. p. 274), by a reference to 1 Corinthians 6:2: “to the saints of the Most High the judgment is given,” i.e., the function of the judge. This interpretation is opposed to the context, according to which it is God Himself who executes judgment, and by that judgment justice is done to the people of God, i.e., they are delivered from the unrighteous oppression of the beast, and receive the kingdom. דּינא is justice procured by the judgment, corresponding to the Hebrew word משׁפּט , Deuteronomy 10:18. Daniel 7:23-24 Daniel receives the following explanation regarding the fourth beast. It signifies a fourth kingdom, which would be different from all the preceding, and would eat up and destroy the whole earth. “The whole earth is the οἰκουμένη ,” the expression, without any hyperbole, for the “whole circle of the historical nations” (Kliefoth). The ten horns which the beast had signify ten kings who shall arise out of that kingdom. מלכוּתהּ מנּהּ , from it, the kingdom, i.e., from this very kingdom. Since the ten horns all exist at the same time together on the head of the beast, the ten kings that arise out of the fourth kingdom are to be regarded as contemporary. In this manner the division or dismemberment of this kingdom into ten principalities or kingdoms is symbolized. For the ten contemporaneous kings imply the existence at the same time of ten kingdoms. Hitzig's objections against this view are of no weight. That מלכוּ and מלך are in this verse used as distinct from each other proves nothing, because in the whole vision king and kingdom are congruent ideas. But that the horn, Daniel 7:8, unmistakeably denotes a person, is only so far right, as things are said of the horn which are in abstracto not suitable to a kingdom, but they can only be applicable to the bearer of royal power. But Daniel 8:20 and Daniel 8:21, to which Hitzig further refers, furnishes no foundation for his view, but on the contrary confutes it. For although in Daniel 8:21 the great horn of the goat is interpreted as the first king of Javan, yet the four horns springing up immediately (Daniel 8:22) in the place of this one which was broken, are interpreted as four kingdoms (not kings), in distinct proof not only that in Daniel's vision king and kingdom are not “separate from each other,” but also that the further assertion, that “horn” is less fitted than “head” to represent a kingdom, is untenable. After those ten kingdoms another shall arise which shall be different from the previous ten, and shall overthrow three of them. יהשׁפּל , in contrast with אקים (cf. Daniel 2:21), signifies to overthrow, to deprive of the sovereignty. But the king coming after them can only overthrow three of the ten kingdoms when he himself has established and possesses a kingdom or empire of his own. According to this, the king arising after the ten is not an isolated ruler, but the monarch of a kingdom which has destroyed three of the kingdoms already in existence. Daniel 7:25 Daniel 7:25 refers to the same king, and says that he shall speak against the Most High. לצד means, properly, against or at the side of, and is more expressive than על . It denotes that he would use language by which he would set God aside, regard and give himself out as God; cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Making himself like God, he will destroy the saints of God. בּלא , Pa., not “make unfortunate” (Hitzig), but consume, afflict, like the Hebr. בּלּה , 1 Chronicles 17:9, and Targ. Jes. Daniel 3:15. These passages show that the assertion that בּלּה , in the sense of to destroy, never takes after it the accusative of the person (Hitz.), is false. Finally, “he thinks to change times and laws.” “To change times” belongs to the all-perfect power of God (cf. Daniel 2:21), the creator and ordainer of times (Genesis 1:14). There is no ground for supposing that זמנין is to be specially understood of “festival or sacred times,” since the word, like the corresponding Hebr. מועדים , does not throughout signify merely “festival times;” cf. Genesis 1:14; Genesis 17:21; Genesis 18:14, etc. The annexed ודּת does not point to arrangements of divine worship, but denotes “law” or “ordinance” in general, human as well as divine law; cf. Daniel 2:13, Daniel 2:15 with Daniel 6:6, Daniel 6:9. “Times and laws” are the foundations and main conditions, emanating from God, of the life and actions of men in the world. The sin of the king in placing himself with God, therefore, as Kliefoth rightly remarks, “consists in this, that in these ordinances he does not regard the fundamental conditions given by God, but so changes the laws of human life that he puts his own pleasure in the place of the divine arrangements.” Thus shall he do with the ordinances of life, not only of God's people, but of all men. “But it is to be confessed that the people of God are most affected thereby, because they hold their ordinances of life most according to the divine plan; and therefore the otherwise general passage stands between two expressions affecting the conduct of the horn in its relation to the people of God.” This tyranny God's people will suffer “till, i.e., during, a time, (two) times, and half a time.” By these specifications of time the duration of the last phase of the world-power is more definitely declared, as a period in its whole course measured by God; Daniel 7:12 and Daniel 7:22. The plural word עדּנין ( times) standing between time and half a time can only designate the simple plural, i.e., two times used in the dual sense, since in the Chaldee the plural is often used to denote a pair where the dual is used in Hebrew; cf. Winer, Chald. Gr. §55, 3. Three and a half times are the half of seven times (Daniel 4:13). The greater number of the older as well as of the more recent interpreters take imte as representing the space of a year, thus three and a half times as three and a half years; and they base this view partly on Daniel 4:13, where seven times must mean seven years, partly on Daniel 12:7, where the corresponding expression is found in Hebrew, partly on Revelation 13:5 and Revelation 11:2-3, where forty-two months and 1260 days are used interchangeably. But none of these passages supplies a proof that will stand the test. The supposition that in Daniel 4:13 the seven times represent seven years, neither is nor can be proved. As regards the time and times in Daniel 12:7, and the periods named in the passages of the Rev. referred to, it is very questionable whether the weeks and the days represent the ordinary weeks of the year and days of the week, and whether these periods of time are to be taken chronologically. Still less can any explanation as to this designation of time be derived from the 2300 days (evening-mornings) in Daniel 8:14, since the periods do not agree, nor do both passages treat of the same event. The choice of the chronologically indefinite expression עדּן , time, shows that a chronological determination of the period is not in view, but that the designation of time is to be understood symbolically. We have thus to inquire after the symbolical meaning of the statement. This is not to be sought, with Hofmann ( Weiss. i. 289), in the supposition that as three and a half years are the half of a Sabbath-period, it is thus announced that Israel would be oppressed during half a Sabbath-period by Antichrist. For, apart from the unwarrantable identification of time with year, one does not perceive what Sabbath-periods and the oppression of the people of God have in common. This much is beyond doubt, that three and a half times are the half of seven times. The meaning of this half, however, is not to be derived, with Kranichfeld, from Daniel 4:13, where “ seven times ” is an expression used for a long continuance of divinely-ordained suffering. It is not hence to be supposed that the dividing of this period into two designates only a proportionally short time of severest oppression endured by the people of God at the hands of the heathen. For the humbling of the haughty ruler Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4:13) does not stand in any inner connection with the elevation of the world-power over the people of God, in such a way that we could explain the three and a half times of this passage after the seven times of Dan 4:13. In general, the question may be asked, Whether the meaning of the three and a half times is to be derived merely from the symbolical signification of the number seven, or whether, with Lämmert, we must not much rather go back, in order to ascertain the import of this measure of time, to the divine judgments under Elias, when the heavens were shut for three years and six months; Luke 4:25 and James 5:17. “As Ahab did more to provoke God to anger than all the kings who were before him, so this king, Daniel 7:24, in a way altogether different from those who went before him, spake words against the Most High and persecuted His saints, etc.” But should this reference also not be established, and the three and a half times be regarded as only the half of seven times, yet the seven does not here come into view as the time of God's works, so that it could be said the oppression of the people of God by the little horn will last (Kliefoth) only half as long as a work of God; but according to the symbolical interpretation of the seven times, the three and a half, as the period of the duration of the circumstances into which the people of God are brought by the world-power through the divine permission, indicate “a testing period, a period of judgment which will (Matthew 24:22; Proverbs 10:27), for the elect's sake, be interrupted and shortened .” Leyrer in Herz.'s Real. Enc. xviii. 369. Besides, it is to be considered how this space of time is described, not as three and a half, but a time, two times, and half a time. Ebrard ( Offenb. p. 49) well remarks regarding this, that “it appears as if his tyranny would extend itself always the longer and longer: first a time, then the doubled time, then the fourfold - this would be a seven times; but it does not go that length; suddenly it comes to an end in the midst of the seven times, so that instead of the fourfold time there is only half a time.” “The proper analysis of the three and a half times,” Kliefoth further remarks, “in that the periods first mount up by doubling them, and then suddenly decline, shows that the power of the horn and its oppression of the people of God would first quickly manifest itself, in order then to come to a sudden end by the interposition of the divine judgment (Daniel 7:26).” For, a thing which is not here to be overlooked, the three and a half times present not the whole duration of the existence of the little horn, but, as the half of a week, only the latter half of its time, in which dominion over the saints of God is given to it (Daniel 7:21), and at the expiry of which it falls before the judgment. See under Daniel 12:7. Daniel 7:26-27 In Daniel 7:26 and Daniel 7:27 this judgment is described (cf. Daniel 7:10), but only as to its consequences for the world-power. The dominion of the horn in which the power of the fourth beast culminates is taken away and altogether annihilated. The destruction of the beast is here passed by, inasmuch as it is already mentioned in Daniel 7:11; while, on the other hand, that which is said (Daniel 7:12) about the taking away of its power and its dominion is strengthened by the inf. להשׁמדה ( to destroy), וּלהובדה ( and to consume), being added to יהעדּוּן ( they shall take away), to which שׁלטנהּ ( his dominion) is to be repeated as the object. סופא עד , to the end, i.e., not absolutely, but, as in Daniel 6:27, to the end of the days, i.e., for ever. Daniel 7:27 After the destruction of the beast, the kingdom and the dominion, which hitherto comprehended the kingdom under the whole heaven, are given to the people of God, i.e., under the reign of the Son of man, as is to be supplied from Daniel 7:14. As in Daniel 7:26 nothing is further said of the fate of the horn, because all that was necessary regarding it had been already said (Daniel 7:11), so also all that was to be said of the Son of man was already mentioned in Daniel 7:13 and Daniel 7:14; and according to the representation of the Scripture, the kingdom of the people of the saints without the Son of man as king is not a conceivable idea. מלכות דּי ( of the kingdom) is a subjective genitive, which is required by the idea of the intransitive רבוּתא ( the greatness) preceding it. The meaning is thus not “power over all kingdoms,” but “the power which the kingdoms under the whole heaven had.” With regard to Daniel 7:27, cf. Daniel 7:14 and Daniel 7:18. Daniel 7:28 In Daniel 7:28 the end of the vision is stated, and the impression which it left on Daniel. Hitherto, to this point, was the end of the history; i.e., thus far the history, or, with this the matter is at an end. מלּתא , the matter, is not merely the interpretation of the angel, but the whole revelation, the vision together with its interpretation. Daniel was greatly moved by the event (cf. Daniel 5:9), and kept it in his heart. Part Second - The Development of the Kingdom of God - Daniel 8-12 This Part contains three revelations which Daniel received during the reigns of Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian, regarding the development of the kingdom of God. After describing in the First Part the development of the world-power and its relation to the people and kingdom of God from the days of Nebuchadnezzar, its founder, down to the time of its final destruction by the perfected kingdom of God, in this Second Part it is revealed to the prophet how the kingdom of God, in war against the power and enmity of the rulers of the world, and amid severe oppressions, is carried forward to final victory and is perfected. The first vision, Daniel 8, represents what will happen to the people of God during the developments of the second and third world-kingdoms. The second revelation, Daniel 9, gives to the prophet, in answer to his penitential prayer for the restoration of the ruined holy city and the desolated sanctuary, disclosures regarding the whole development of the kingdom of God, from the close of the Babylonish exile to the final accomplishment of God's plan of salvation. In the last vision, in the third year of Cyrus, Daniel 10-12, he received yet further and more special revelations regarding the severe persecutions which await the people of God for their purification, in the nearer future under Antiochus Epiphanes, and in the time of the end under the last foe, the Antichrist. At Susa, in the province of Elam, Daniel saw in vision (Daniel 8:1, Daniel 8:2) a ram with two horns, which a he-goat coming from the west, running over the earth, having a great horn on his brow, smote and destroyed (Daniel 8:3-7). After that the goat waxed very mighty, till his great horn was broken; and in its place four notable horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven, and out of one of them there came forth a little horn, which directed its might toward the south and the east and toward the holy land, contended against the host of heaven, and magnified itself to the Prince of the heavenly host, took away the daily sacrifice, and desolated the place of the sanctuary (Daniel 8:8-12). He then hears from an angel how long this sacrilege shall continue (Daniel 8:13, Daniel 8:14). Another angel thereafter gives him an explanation (Daniel 8:15-26) of the vision; and with a remark (Daniel 8:27) regarding the effect of this revelation on the mind of Daniel, the chapter closes. This vision, it is manifest from the definition of the time in Daniel 8:1, stands in relation to the vision of the foregoing chapter, and in its contents is united to it also in so far as it gives more particular revelations regarding the relations of the second and third world-kingdoms, which are only briefly set forth in Daniel 7. But notwithstanding this point of union, this chapter does not form a mere appendix to the foregoing, but gives a new revelation regarding a phase in the development of the world-power and its enmity against the people of God of which nothing is prophesied in Daniel 7. The opinion that this chapter forms only an appendix to Daniel 7 is based on the erroneous idea that the fourth world-kingdom, the Macedonian, and the little horn in Daniel 7 are identical with that prophesied of in this chapter. (Note: According to the modern critics (Berth., v. Leng., Hitz., Bleek), this chapter must have been written shortly before the re-consecration of the temple, or immediately thereafter, before or immediately after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. This supposition is drawn from Daniel 8:14, according to which the period of oppression shall continue 2300 evening-mornings. But, overlooking the circumstance that these critics cannot agree as to the reckoning of this period of time, and thus announce the uncertainty of their hypothesis, the whole of the other contents of the chapter stand in contradiction to this supposition. It contains no hint whatever of the great victories of the Maccabees which preceded the consecration of the temple, and first made it possible, but, on the contrary, speaks of the oppression as continuing unchanged till the oppressor is himself destroyed (Daniel 8:25), and then it breaks off without any Messianic view, as one should expect from a parenetic poem of a Maccabean Jews; so that Bleek finds himself compelled from his own resources to add “the intimation, that the beginning of the deliverance destined by God for His people is closely and immediately joined to the discontinuance of the worship of Jehovah by Antioch. Epiph., and to the destruction of this prince,” in order to give to the vision “a Messianic character.”) The Vision Daniel 8:1, Daniel 8:2 contain the historical introduction to this new revelation. This was given to Daniel in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar, and thus two years after the vision of the four world-kingdoms (Daniel 7:1), but not in a dream as that was, but while he was awake. The words, I, Daniel, are neither a pleonasm (Hהv.) nor a sign that the writer wished specially to give himself out for Daniel (Ewald), but expressly denote that Daniel continues to speak of himself in the first person (Kliefoth). The article in הנראה ( that which appeared) takes place of the relative אשׁר , and the expression is concise for נראה אשׁר החזון ( the vision which appeared); cf. Ewald's Lehr. §335 a. בּתּחלּה ( at the first), as in Daniel 9:21, in the general signification earlier, and in Genesis 13:3; Genesis 41:21; Genesis 43:18, Genesis 43:20; Isaiah 1:26, synonymous with בּראשׁנה ( in the beginning). Here the word points back to Daniel 7, and in Daniel 9:21 it refers to Daniel 8:16 of this chapter. “In vision,” i.e., ἐνπνεύματι , not ἐνσώματι , Daniel was placed in the city of Susa, in the province of Elam (Elymaïs). By the words, “I saw in vision; and it came to pass when I saw,” which precede the specification of the scene of the vision, is indicated the fact that he was in Susa only in vision, and the misconception is sufficiently guarded against that Daniel was actually there in the body. This is acknowledge by v. Leng., Hitzig, Maurer, Häv., Hgstb., Kran., and Kliefoth, against Bertholdt and Rosenmüller, who understand this, in connection with Daniel 8:27, as meaning that Daniel was personally present in Susa to execute the king's business, from which Bertholdt frames the charge against the pseudo-Daniel, that he was not conscious that Elam under Nabonned did not belong to Babylon, and that the royal palace at Susa had as yet no existence. But this accusation has no historical foundation. We have no accurate information whether under Belshazzar Elam was added to Babylon or the Chaldean empire. It is true that not Hengstenberg ( Beitr. i. p. 42f.) only has, with older theologians, concluded from the prophecies of Jer 49:34., compared with Jeremiah 25:25 and Ezekiel 32:24, that Nebuchadnezzar subjugated Susa, but Niebuhr also ( Gesch. Assurs, p. 211ff.) seeks from these and other passages of the O.T. to establish the view, that Nebuchadnezzar, after the death of Cyaxares (Uwakhshatra), to whom he owed allegiance, refused to do homage to his successor, and entered on a war against Media, which resulted in the annexation of Elam to his kingdom. But, on the contrary, Hävernick has well remarked, that the subjugation of Elam by Nebuchadnezzar can scarcely harmonize with the fact of the division of the Assyrian kingdom between the Babylonian king Nabopolassar and the Median king Cyaxares, whereby the former obtained the western and the latter the eastern half, and that from these passages of prophecy a subjugation of Elam by the Chaldeans cannot be concluded. Jeremiah announces neither in Jeremiah 25:25 nor in Jeremiah 49:34. a conquest of Elam by Nebuchadnezzar, but rather in Jer. 49 prophesies the complete destruction of Elam, or a divine judgment, in language which is much too strong and elevated for a mere making of it tributary and annexing it to a new state. Besides, this passage in no respect requires that Susa and Elam should be regarded as provinces of the Chaldean kingdom, since the opinion that Daniel was in Susa engaged in some public business for the Chaldean king is founded only on a false interpretation of Dan 8:2, Daniel 8:27. From the prophet's having been placed in an ecstasy in the city of Susa, there follows nothing further than that this city was already at the time of the existing Chaldean kingdom a central-point of Elamitish or Persian power. And the more definite description of the situation of this city in the words, “which was in the province of Elam,” points decidedly to the time of Daniel, in which Susa as yet belonged to the province of Elam, while this province was made a satrapy, Susis, Susiana, now Chusistan, by the kings of Persia, and Susa became the capital of this province; therefore the capital Susa is not reckoned as situated in Elam by writers, who after this time distinguish between Susis (Susiana) and Elymaïs (Elam), as Strabo, xvi. 1. 17f., Pliny, hist. nat. vi. 27: Susianen ab Elymaide disterminat amnis Eulaeus . Still more groundless is the assertion, that the city of Susa was not in existence in the time of Daniel, or, as Duncker ( Gesch. der Alterth. ii. p. 913, 3 Auf.) affirms, that Darius first removed the residence or seat of the king to Susa with the intention that it should become the permanent residence for him and his successors, the central-point of his kingdom and of his government, and that Pliny and Aelian say decidedly that Darius built Susa, the king's city of Persia, and that the inscriptions confirm this saying. For, to begin with the latter statement, an inscription found in the ruins of a palace at Susa, according to the deciphering of Mordtmann ( in der D. morgl. Ztschr. xvi. pp. 123ff.), which Duncker cites as confirming his statement, contains only these words: “Thus speaks Artaxerxes the great king, the son of Darius the son of Achämenides Vistaçpa: This building my great-great-grandfather Darius erected; afterwards it was improved by Artaxerxes my grandfather.” This inscription thus confirms only the fact of the building of a palace in Susa by Darius, but nothing further, from which it is impossible to conclude that Darius first founded the city, or built the first tower in it. Still less does such an idea lie in the words of Aelian, nat. animal. i. 59: “Darius was proud of the erection of a celebrated building which he had raised in Susa.” And Pliny also, taken strictly, speaks only of the elevation of Susa to the rank of capital of the kingdom by Darius, which does not exclude the opinion that Susa was before this already a considerable town, and had a royal castle, in which Cyrus may have resided during several months of the year (according to Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 6. 22, Anab. iii. 5. 15; cf. Brissonius, de regio Pers. princ. p. 88f.). (Note: Pliny, hist. nat. vi. 27, says regarding Susiana, “ In qua vetus regia Presarum Susa a Dario Hystaspis filio condita, ” which may be understood as if he ascribed to Darius the founding of the city of Susa. But how little weight is to be given to this statement appears from the similar statement, hist. nat. vi. 14 (17): “ Ecbatana caput Mediae Seleucus rex condidit, ” which plainly contains an error, since Ecbatana, under the name of Achmeta, is mentioned (Ezra 6:2) in the time of Darius Hystaspes, in the tower of which the archives of the Persian kings were preserved.) The founding of Susa, and of the old tower in Susa, reaches back into pre-historic times. According to Strabo, xv. 2. 3, Susa must have been built by Tithonos, the father of Memnon. With this the epithet ΜεμνόνιαΣοῦσα , which Herod. vii. 151, v. 54, 53, and Aelian, nat. anim. xiii. 18, gives to the town of Susa, stands in unison. For if this proves nothing more than that in Susa there was a tomb of Memnon (Häv.), yet would this sufficiently prove that the city or its citadel existed from ancient times - times so ancient that the mythic Memnon lived and was buried there. The city had its name שׁוּשׁן , Lily, from the lilies which grew in great abundance in that region (Athen. Deipnos. xii. p. 409; Stephan. Byz., etc.), and had, according to Strabo, xv. 3. 2, a circuit of 120 (twelve English miles), and according to others, 200 stadia. Its palace was called Memnoneion, and was strongly fortified. Here was “the golden seat;” here also were “the apartments of Darius, which were adorned with gold,” as Aeschylos says ( Pers. 3. 4. 159, 160), “the widely-famed palace,” - the περιβόηταβασιλεῖα , as Diod. Sic. xvii. 65, expresses himself. The ruins of Susa are not only a wilderness, inhabited by lions and hyaenas, on the eastern banks of the Shapur, between it and the Dizful, where three great mountains of ruins, from 80 to 100 feet high, raise themselves, showing the compass of the city, while eastward smaller heaps of ruins point out the remains of the city, which to this day bear the name Schusch; cf. Herz.'s Realenc. xvi. p. 263f., and Duncker, Gesch. d. Alt. ii. p. 942ff. The designation of Elam as מדינה , a province, does not refer to a Chaldean province. עילם , in Greek ̓Ελυμαΐ́ς , formed the western part of the Persian satrapy of Susis or Susiana, which lay at the foot of the highlands of Iran, at the beginning of the valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates between Persia and Babylon, called by the Persians Uvaja, and by the Greeks Susis or Susiana after the capital, or Cissia after its inhabitants. It is bounded by the western border mountains of Persia and the Tigris, and on the south terminates in a arm, swampy and harbourless coast, which stretches from the mouth of the Tigris to that of the Aurvaiti (Oroatis). Strabo (xv. 732) says Susiana is inhabited by two races, the Cissaei and the Elymäi; Herodotus (iii. 91, v. 49, vii. 62), on the contrary, names only the Cissaei as the inhabitants of the country of the same name. The saying put into circulation by Josephus , that the Elamites are the primitive race of the Persians, has no historical foundation. The deep valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates was the country of the Semites. “The names of the towns and rivers of the country confirm the statements of Genesis, which names Elam among the sons of Shem, although the erecting of the Persian royal residence in Elam, and the long continuance of the Persian rule, could not but exercise, as it did, an influence on the manners and arts of the Semitish inhabitants” (Duncker, p. 942). The further statement, that Daniel in vision was by the river Ulai, shows that Susa lay on the banks of the river. אוּלי is the Εὐλαῖος , Eulaeus, of the Greeks and Romans, of which Pliny says, “ circuit arcem Susorum ,” and which Arrian ( Exped. Alex. vii. 7) also mentions as a navigable river of Susis. On the contrary, Herodotus, i. 188, v. 49, 52, and Strabo, xv. 3, 4, place Susa on the river Choaspes. These contradictory statements are reconciled in the simplest manner by the supposition that Ulai, Eulaeus, was the Semitish, Choaspes the Aryan (Persian) name of the Kuran, which received the Shapur and Dizful. In favour of this, we have not only the circumstance that the name Choaspes is undoubtedly of Persian origin, while, on the other hand, אוּלי is a word of Semitic formation; but still more, that Herodotus knows nothing whatever of the Eulaeus, while Ptolemy (vi. 3. 2) does not mention the Choaspes, but, on the contrary, two sources of the Eulaeus, the one in Media, the other in Susiana; and that what Herod. i. 188, says of the Choaspes, that the kings of Persia drink its water only, and caused it to be carried far after them, is mentioned by Pliny of the Euläus, h. n. vi. 27, and in 31:3 of the Choaspes and Euläus. (Note: There is little probability in the supposition that Choaspes is the modern Kerrah or Kerkha, the Euläus the modern Dizful, as Susa lay between these two rivers (Ker Porter, Winer, Ruetschi in Herz.'s Realen. xv. 246), and receives no sufficient support from the bas relief of Kojundshik discovered by Layard, which represents the siege of a town lying between two rivers, since the identification of this town with Susa is a mere conjecture.) Daniel was in spirit conveyed to Susa, that here in the future royal citadel of the Persian kingdom he might witness the destruction of this world-power, as Ezekiel was removed to Jerusalem that he might there see the judgment of its destruction. The placing of the prophet also on the river of Ulai is significant, yet it is not to be explained, with Kranichfeld, from Daniel 8:3, Daniel 8:6, “where the kingdom in question stands in the same relation to the flowing river as the four kingdoms in Daniel 7:2 do to the sea.” For the geographically defined river Ulai has nothing in common with the sea as a symbol of the nations of the world (Daniel 7:2). The Ulai is rather named as the place where afterwards the ram and the he-goat pushed against one another, and the shock followed, deciding the fate of the Persian kingdom. As, the, the scene of the vision stands in intimate relation to its contents, so also the time at which the revelation was made to Daniel. With the third year of Belshazzar the dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the Babylonian world-kingdom, was extinguished. In this year Belshazzar, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, died, and the sovereignty was transferred to a collateral branch, and finally to an intruder, under whom that world-kingdom, once so powerful, in a few years fell to pieces. Shortly before the death of Belshazzar the end of the Babylonian monarchy was thus to be seen, and the point of time, not very remote, which must end the Exile with the fall of Babylon. This point of time was altogether fitted to reveal to the prophet in a vision what would happen after the overthrow of Babylon, and after the termination of the Exile. Daniel 8:3-4 The vision. - Daniel 8:3. Daniel first sees one ram, איל , standing by the river. The אחד ( one) does not here stand for the indefinite article, but is a numeral, in contradistinction to the two horns which the one ram has. The two horns of the ram were high, but the one was higher than the other, the higher coming up later. האחת does not mean the first, but the one, and השּׁנית the other; for the higher grew up last. This is not to be understood as if Daniel first saw the ram without horns, and then saw the horns grow up, and at length the one horn become higher than the other (v. Leng., Hitzig); but that from the first Daniel saw the ram with two horns, but afterwards saw the one horn grow higher than the other (Kliefoth). The angel (Daniel 8:20) explains the ram with two horns of the king of Media and Persia. This does not mean that the two horns are to be understood (with Theodoret) of the two dynasties of Cyrus and of Darius Hystaspes; but since the ram represents the one kingdom of the Medes and Persians, so the two horns represent the people of the Medes and Persians, from the union of which the Medo-Persian kingdom grew up. Both nations were the horns, i.e., the power of the monarchy; therefore are they both high. The one horn, which afterwards grew up higher than the other, represents the Persians, who raised themselves above the Medians. A ram and goat, as emblems of kings, princes, chiefs, often occur; cf. Isaiah 14:9; Ezekiel 34:17; Ezekiel 39:18; Jeremiah 50:8; Zechariah 10:3. In Bundehesch the guardian spirit of the Persian kingdom appears under the form of a ram with clean feet and sharp-pointed horns, and, according to Amm. Marcell. xix. 1, the Persian king, when he stood at the head of his army, bore, instead of the diadem, the head of a ram (cf. Häv.). The point of resemblance of this symbol is to be sought, not in the richness (the wool) and in the aggressive nature (the horns) of the ram (Theod., Venema), but the ram and the he-goat form, as Hofmann has justly remarked, a contrast to dull firmness and nimble lightness, as the bear and the panther. The ram stands by the river and pushes toward the west, north, and south, but not toward the east. The river is thus not the one flowing on the east of Susa, for, standing there, the ram pushing toward the west from Susa would push against the capital of his kingdom, but the one flowing on the west; and the ram is to be conceived of as standing on the western bank of this river, from whence he pushed down with his horns all beasts before him, i.e., subdued all nations and kingdoms to his power in three regions of the earth. In the west he pushed against Babylon, Syria, and Asia Minor; in the south, Egypt; in the north, the Armenian and Scythian nations. These he subdued and incorporated in the Persian kingdom. He did not push toward the east - not because he could only push forwards and against that which was nearer, but not, without changing his position, backwards (Hitzig); nor because the Medo-Persians themselves came from the east (v. Leng., Kran.); not yet because the conquests of the Persians did not stretch toward the east (Häv.), for Cyrus and Darius subdued nations to the east of Persia even as far as to the Indus; but because, for the unfolding of the Medo-Persian monarchy as a world-power, its conquests in the east were subordinate, and therefore are not mentioned. The pushing toward the three world-regions corresponds to the three ribs in the mouth of the bear, Daniel 7:5, and intimates that the Medo-Persian world-kingdom, in spite of the irresistibility of its arms, did not, however, extend its power into all the regions of the world. חיּוח , to push, of beast, Exodus 21:28, in the Piel figuratively is used of nations, Deuteronomy 33:17; Psalms 44:6. יעמדוּ is potentialis : could not stand. The masculine is here used, because חיּות ( beasts) represents kingdoms and nations. כרצנו עשׂה , did according to his will, expresses arbitrary conduct, a despotic behaviour. הגדּיל , became great. The word does not mean to become haughty, for בּלבבו , in his heart, is not added here as it is in Psalms 44:25, but to magnify the action. It is equivalent to לעשׂות הגדּיל in Joe 2:20 ( hath done great things), and Psalms 126:2-3, in the sense of to become great, powerful; cf. Daniel 8:8. Daniel 8:5-7 After Daniel had for a while contemplated the conduct of the ram, he saw a he-goat come from the west over the earth, run with furious might against the two-horned ram, and throw it to the ground and tread upon it. The he-goat, according to the interpretation of the angel, Daniel 8:21, represents the king of Javan (Greece and Macedonia) - not the person of the king (Gesen.), but the kingship of Javan; for, according to Daniel 8:21, the great horn of the goat symbolizes the first king, and thus the goat itself cannot represent a separate king. The goat comes from the west; for Macedonia lay to the west of Susa or Persia. Its coming over the earth is more definitely denoted by the expression בּארץ נוגע ואין , and he was not touching the earth, i.e., as he hastened over it in his flight. This remark corresponds with the four wings of the leopard, Daniel 7:6. The goat had between its eyes חזוּת קרן ; i.e., not a horn of vision, a horn such as a goat naturally has, but here only in vision (Hofm., Klief.). This interpretation would render חזוּת an altogether useless addition, since the goat itself, only seen in vision, is described as it appeared in the vision. For the right explanation of the expression reference must be made to Daniel 8:8, where, instead of horn of vision, there is used the expression הגּדולה הקרן ( the great horn). Accordingly חזוּת has the meaning of מראה , in the Keri מראה אישׁ , 2 Samuel 23:21, a man of countenance or sight (cf. Targ. Esther 2:2): a horn of sight, consideration, of considerable greatness; κέραςθεορητόν (lxx, Theodot.), which Theodoret explains by ἐπίσημονκαὶπερίβλεπτον . The horn was between the eyes, i.e., in the middle of the forehead, the centre of its whole strength, and represents, according to Daniel 8:21, the first king, i.e., the founder of the Javanic world-kingdom, or the dynasty of this kingdom represented by him. The he-goat ran up against the ram, the possessor of the two horns, i.e., the two-horned ram by the river Ulai, in the fire of his anger, i.e., in the glowing anger which gave him his strength, and with the greatest fury threw him down. The prophet adds, “And I saw him come close unto the ram,” as giving prominence to the chief matter, and then further describes its complete destruction. It broke in pieces both of the horns, which the ram still had, i.e., the power of the Medes and Persians, the two component elements of the Persian world-kingdom. This representation proves itself to be genuine prophecy, whilst an author writing ex eventu would have spoken of the horn representing the power of the Medes as assailed and overthrown earlier by that other horn (see under Daniel 7:8, Daniel 7:20). The pushing and trampling down by the Ulai is explained from the idea of the prophecy, according to which the power of the ram is destroyed at the central seat of its might, without reference to the historical course of the victories by which Alexander the Great completed the subjugation of the Persian monarchy. In the concluding passage, Daniel 8:7, the complete destruction is described in the words of the fourth verse, to express the idea of righteous retribution. As the Medo-Persian had crushed the other kingdoms, so now it also was itself destroyed. The transformation of the Javanic kingdom. - By the kingdom of the ram the he-goat became very great, powerful ( הגדּיל as in Daniel 8:4). But the great horn was broken at the height of his strength, and four similar horns grew up in its stead, toward the four regions of heaven. חזוּת is here used adverbially, conspicuously: there came forth conspicuously four in its place. This statement does not contradict Daniel 8:22 and Daniel 11:4, according to which the four kingdom shave not the power of the one great horn; for the thought is only this: they represent in themselves a considerable power, without, however, gaining the power of the one undivided kingdom. The breaking of the great horn indicates the breaking up of the monarchy of Alexander by his death. The four horns which grow up in the place of the one great horn are, according to Daniel 8:22, four kingdoms. These are the dynasties of the Diadochs, of whom there were indeed five: Antigonus, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachus laid claim to the title of king; but for the first time after the overthrow of Antigonus at the battle of Ipsus, 301 b.c., and thus twenty-two years after the death of Alexander (323 b.c.), they became in reality four kings, and so divided the kingdom among themselves, that Lysimachus had Thrace and Bithynia, - Cassander, Macedonia and Greece, - Seleucus, Syria, Babylonia, and the Eastern countries as far as India, - and Ptolemy, Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia Petrea. But from the fact that this first happened after all the descendants of the royal family had been extirpated, we are not to conclude, with Hävernick, that the breaking of the great horn did not denote the death of Alexander, but the extinction of his race or house; a conclusion which derives no valid support from these words of Justin: “All of them abstained from the use of the insignia of this (royal) dignity while the sons of their king survived. So great was their veneration, that although they had royal wealth and resources, they cared not for the name of kings so long as there existed a legitimate heir to Alexander” ( Hist. xv. 2. 13). If the breaking of the horn is placed at the point of time when the horn was powerful, here as well as at Daniel 11:4, the reference of the words to the sudden death of Alexander in the prime of his days, and when in the very height of his victorious career, cannot be disputed; and by the breaking of the horn we can only understand Alexander's death, and the breaking up of the kingdom founded by him, although it was still held together in a considerable degree for two decenniums by his generals, till the most imperious and the most powerful amongst them usurped the rank of kings, and then, after the conquest of Antigonus, a formal division of the kingdom into the four considerable kingdoms here named raised them to royal dignity. The prophetic representation is not a prediction of historical details, but it gives only the fundamental traces of the development of the world-kingdoms, and that not in the form of a historiographical prophecy, but only so that it sketches the ground-thoughts of the divinely ordained unfolding of these world-kingdoms. This ideal fundamental thought of the prophecy has so wrought itself out in actual history, that from the one great kingdom, after the death of the founder, in the course of time four considerable kingdoms arise. The number four in the prophetic contemplation comes into view only according to its symbolical idea as the number of the world in its extension toward the four regions of heaven, so that thereby only the thought is declared, that a kingdom embracing the world will fall to ruins in a plurality of kingdoms toward all the regions of heaven (Kliefoth). This has been so historically realized, that out of the wars of the Diadochs for the supremacy four kingdoms arose toward the four regions of the earth into longer duration, - that of Cassander (Macedonia) toward the west, that of Seleucus (Babylonia, etc.) toward the east, that of Lysimachus (Thracia and Bithynia) toward the north, and finally that of Ptolemy (Egypt) toward the south. (Note: When, on the other hand, Hitzig seeks to explain the prophetic representation, here as well as at Daniel 11:4, that with or immediately after the death of Alexander his kingdom was divided, by reference to 1 Macc. 1:6, according to which Alexander himself, shortly before his death, divided the kingdom among his generals, he thereby not only misapprehends the ideal character of the prophecy, but does not in the least degree clear up the matter itself. For the passage in 1 Macc. 1:6, which not only Arabic and Persian authors repeat, but also Moses v. Chroene, and even later Greek and Latin historiographers, as Ammian Marcell., has been explained by Curtius (x. 10. 5) as a fama vana , and is proved by Wernsdorf ( de Fide Librr. Macc. p. 40 f) and Droysen ( das Test. Alex. 3te Beilage, zu Gesch. des Hellen. i.) to be without foundation (cf. Grimm, K. ex. Hdb. zu 1 Macc. 1:6). This may have been originally put into circulation by the partisans of the Hellenic kings, in order to legitimatize their sovereignty in the eyes of the people, as Grimm conjectures; yet the confirmation which the book of Daniel appears to give to it contributed to its wide diffusion by Oriental and Byzantine authors, and the author of the first book of the Maccabees had without doubt the book of Daniel before his eyes in the representation he gives.) The interpretation of the vision. Daniel 8:9 Without following the development of the four horns further, the prophecy passes over to the little horn, which grew up out of one of the four horns, and gained great significance in relation to the history of the people of God. The masculine forms מהם and יצא ( out of them came) are to be explained as a constructio ad sensum . אחת ( one) after קרן ( horn) is as little superfluous as is the מן in מצּעירה . אחת is a numeral, one horn, not several; מן is either comparative, less than little, i.e., very little (Ewald), or, as less than insignificance, wretchedness, i.e., in an altogether miserable way (Häv.). The one explanation is more forced than the other, and the idea of wretchedness is altogether untenable. Yet the מן serves as a circumlocution for the superlative = perpaucus (Gesen., Win., Aub.), while verbal analogies for it are wanting. מן signifies from, out of; but it is not to be united with קרן : one horn of smallness (v. Leng.), in which case מן would be superfluous, but with the verb יצא : it came up out of littleness, a parvo, i.e., a parvis initiis (Maur., Hofm., Kran., Klief.). Thus it corresponds with סלקת זעירה , Daniel 7:8. In the words “it arose out of littleness” there lies the idea that it grew to great power from a small beginning; for it became very great, i.e., powerful, toward the south, toward the east, and toward the הצּבי ( the splendour, glory), i.e., toward the glorious land. הצּבי = הצּבי ארץ , Daniel 11:16, Daniel 11:41. This designation of the land of Israel is framed after Jeremiah 3:19 and Ezekiel 20:6, Ezekiel 20:15, where this land is called “a heritage of the greatest glory of nations” (a goodly heritage of the host of nations, E. V.), “a glory of all lands,” i.e., the most glorious land which a people can possess. The expression is synonymous with חמדּה ארץ (“pleasant land”), Jeremiah 3:19; Zechariah 7:14; Psalms 106:24. Canaan was so designate don account of its great fruitfulness as a land flowing with milk and honey; cf. Ezekiel 20:6. The one of the four horns from which the little horn grew up is the Syrian monarchy, and the horn growing up out of it is the king Antiochus Epiphanes, as Josephus ( Ant. x. 11. 7) and all interpreters acknowledge, on the ground of 1 Macc. 1:10. The south, against which he became great, is Egypt (cf. Daniel 11:5 and 1 Macc. 1:16ff.). The east is not Asia (Kranichfeld), but Babylon, and particularly Elymaïs and Armenia, 1 Macc. 1:31, 37; 3:31, 37; 6:1-4, according to which he subdued Elymaïs and overcame Artaxias, king of Armenia (App. Syr. c. 45, 46; Polyb. xxxi. 11). Besides the south and the east, Canaan, the holy land, as lying between, is named as the third land, as in Isaiah 19:23. it is named as third, between Egypt and Assyria; but הצּבי ואל (“and toward the glorious land”) is not, with Kranichfeld, to be regarded as an exegetical addition to המּזרח ואל (“and toward the east”). Palestine lay neither to the east of Daniel, nor geographically to the east of the kingdom denoted by the little horn, because the text gives no support to the identifying of this kingdom with the Javanic, the horn operating from the west. Daniel 8:10 As this horn became great in extent toward the south and toward the east, so also it grew up in height even unto the host of heaven, and some of them it cast down, i.e., some of the stars, to the earth. The host of heaven is here, as in Jeremiah 33:22, the whole body of the stars of heaven, the constellations, and of the stars is epexegetical of of the host. Daniel in the vision sees the horn grow so great in height, that it reaches even to the heavens, can reach the heavenly bodies with the hand, and throws some of the stars ( מן is partitive) down to the earth and tramples upon them, destroys them with scorn. The words of the angel, Jeremiah 33:24, show that by the stars we are to understand the people of the saints, the people of God. The stars cast down to the earth are, according to this, neither the Levites (Grotius), nor the viri illustres in Israel (Glass.), nor the chief rulers of the Jews in church and state (Dathe). If the people of the saints generally are compared to the host of heaven, the stars, then the separate stars cannot be the ecclesiastical or civil chiefs, but the members of this nation in common. But by “the people of the saints” is to be understood (since the little horn denotes Antiochus Epiphanes) the people of God in the Old Covenant, the people of Israel. They are named the people of the saints by virtue of their being called to be an holy nation (Exodus 19:6), because “they had the revelation of God and God Himself dwelling among them, altogether irrespective of the subjective degrees of sanctification in individuals” (Kliefoth). But the comparing of them with the host of the stars does not arise from Jewish national pride, nor does it mean that Daniel thought only of the truly faithful in Israel (Theod., Häv.), or that the pseudo-Daniel thought that with the death of Antiochus the Messiah would appear, and that then Israel, after the extermination of the godless, would become a people of pure holiness. The comparison rather has its roots in this, that God, the King of Israel, is called the God of hosts, and by the צבאות ( hosts) are generally to be understood the stars or the angels; but the tribes of Israel also, who were led by God out of Egypt, are called “the hosts of Jehovah” (Exodus 7:4; Exodus 12:41). As in heaven the angels and stars, so on earth the sons of Israel form the host of God; and as the angels on account of the glory of their nature are called קדושׁים ( holy ones), so the Israelites by virtue of their being chosen to be the holy nation of God, forming the kingdom of heaven in this world. As God, the King of this people, has His throne in heaven, so there also Israel have their true home, and are in the eyes of God regarded as like unto the stars. This comparison serves, then, to characterize the insolence of Antiochus as a wickedness against Heaven and the heavenly order of things. Cf. 2 Macc. 9:10. (Note: The deep practical explanation of Calvin deserves attention: - ”Although the church often lies prostrate in the world and is trodden under foot, yet is it always precious before God. Hence the prophet adorns the church with this remarkable praise, not to obtain for it great dignity in the sight of men, but because God has separated it from the world and provided for it a sure inheritance in heaven. Although the sons of God are pilgrims on the earth, and have scarcely any place in it, because they are as castaways, yet they are nevertheless citizens of heaven. Hence we derive this useful lesson, that we should bear it patiently when we are thrown prostrate on the ground, and are despised by tyrants and contemners of God. In the meantime our seat is laid up in heaven, and God numbers us among the stars, although, as Paul says, we are as dung and as the offscourings of all things.” - Calv. in loc.) Daniel 8:11 This horn raised its might even to the Prince of the host. הצבא שׂר , the Prince of the host of heaven, is obviously not the high priest Onias (Grotius), but the God of heaven and the King of Israel, the Prince of princes, as He is called in Daniel 8:25. עד הגדּיל ( he magnified himself to) is repeated in Daniel 8:25 by על יעמוד ( he shall stand up against). Wherein this rising up against God consisted, the second half of the verse indicates in the statement that the תּמיד ( daily sacrifice) was taken away, and the building of His sanctuary was destroyed. This verse does not record a part of the vision, but is a further development of that which was seen in prophetic words. Hence we may not, with Ebrard, refer its contents to heavenly events, to a putting away of the sacrifice from before the throne of God and a destruction of the heavenly sanctuary. On the contrary, Kliefoth has well remarked that it is “without example in Scripture that men penetrate into heaven to insult God; what men do against God is done on the earth.” התּמיד is everything in the worship of God which is not used merely temporarily, but is permanent, as the daily sacrifice, the setting forth of the shew-bread, and the like. The limitation of it to the daily morning and evening service in the writings of the Rabbis is unknown in the O.T. The word much rather comprehends all that is of permanent use in the holy services of divine worship (Hgst., Häv., Hofm., Kran., Klief.). Thus interpreted, the prophetic announcement corresponds with history; for, according to 1 Macc. 1:45, Antiochus gave orders that they should “forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifice, and drink-offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the Sabbath and festival days.” The horn also overthrew the place of the sanctuary of Jehovah. השׁליך , to cast away, to cast forth, - used of buildings, to lay waste; cf. Jeremiah 9:18. מכון , properly, that which is set up, erected; here, as frequently, of the dwelling-place of God, the temple: so also שׁבתּך מכון ( a settled place for thee to dwell in), Exodus 15:17; 1 Kings 8:13. It is used also of the heavenly dwelling-place of God, 1 Kings 8:39, 1 Kings 8:43; here, of the temple of Jerusalem. With regard to the historical fulfilment, cf. The expressions, “ her (Jerusalem's) sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness,” and “pollute the sanctuary,” 1 Macc. 1:39, 46; and “the sanctuary was trodden down,” 1 Macc. 3:45. Daniel 8:12 The actions of the little horn are definitively comprehended in this verse, as may be seen from this, that in the first hemistich צבא and תּמיד are mentioned together. But this hemistich has been very variously interpreted. We must altogether reject the interpretation of the Vulgate, ” Robur autem datum est contra juge sacrificium propter peccata,” which is reproduced in Luther's translation, “ There was given to him such strength against the daily sacrifice on account of sin;” or Calvin's, ” Et tempus datum est super jugi sacrificio in scelere,” whereby, after Raschi's example, צבא is interpreted of the statio militaris , and thence the interpretation tempus or intervallum is derived. For צבא means neither robur , nor tempus , nor statio militaris , but only military service, and perhaps military forces. Add to this that צבא both in Daniel 8:10, Daniel 8:13 means host. If we maintain this, with the majority of interpreters, only two explanations are admissible, according as we understand צבא of the host of heaven, i.e., of Israel, or of some other host. The latter interpretation is apparently supported partly by the absence of the article in צבא , and partly by the construction of the word as fem. . Accordingly, Hitzig says that a Hebrew reader could not understand the words otherwise than as meaning, “ and a warlike expedition was made or conducted against the daily sacrifice with wickedness” (i.e., the impure service of idols); while others translate, “and a host placed against he daily sacrifice on account of sin” (Syr., Grot., Harenb., J. D. Michaelis); or, “a host is given against the daily sacrifice in wickedness” (Wieseler); or, “given against that which was continual with the service of idols,” i.e., so that, in the place of the “continual,” wickedness, the worship of idols, is appointed (Hofmann); or, “the power of an army is given to it (the horn) against the daily sacrifice through wickedness,” i.e., by the evil higher demons (Ebrard). But the latter interpretation is to be rejected on account of the arbitrary insertion of לו ( to it); and against all the others it is to be remarked, that there is no proof either from Daniel 8:13, or from Ezekiel 32:23 or Ezekiel 26:8, that נתן means to lead out, to bring forward, to give contrary to or against. In Daniel 8:13 תּת ( to give) is more closely defined by מרמס ( something trodden under foot); but in these passages in Ezekiel above referred to, it [the verb נתן ] is connected with an actual object. Construed with the accus. pers. and על , נתן means “to place one over anything.” This conception in its different shades is not so much derived from the words of the text as from a reference to the history; for it is supposed (cf. Grotius, Wies.) that because the matter spoken of is the wickedness of Antiochus, the entrance of the Syrian army into Jerusalem and its proceedings (1 Macc. 1:29ff.) must be set forth. צבא , notwithstanding the want of the article, and notwithstanding the feminine construction, cannot properly be otherwise understood in Daniel 8:12 than in Daniel 8:10, Daniel 8:13, not of the host of the Syrians, but only of the people of Israel. The article is wanting also in Daniel 8:13, where yet, because of its being taken in connection with קדשׁ , it can only refer to Israel. Besides this passage, the fem. construction is found also only in Isaiah 40:2, where it signifies the service of war or vassalage. But this meaning here, where weighty reasons oppose it, this construction does not require us to adopt, for such a construction is not infrequent. It is found not merely with names of nations and races, so far as land and people are nearly related ideas, but also with other words, such as even עם , people, fem., Exodus 5:16; 1 Kings 18:7; Jeremiah 8:5; המון , a multitude, Job 31:34; זרע , seed, i.e., descendants, Deuteronomy 31:21; cf. Ewald's Lehr. §174. But the want of the article in צבא in Daniel 8:12 and in Daniel 8:13 has its reason in this, that that which is said does not concern the whole host, but only one part of it, since, according to Daniel 8:10, the hostile horn will cast only some הצבא מן ( of the host) to the earth. If, therefore, there is no sufficient ground for rejecting the application of the צבא to the people of Israel, it follows that this interpretation is decidedly required not only by the connection, chiefly by Daniel 8:13, but also by that which is said of צבא in Daniel 8:12. “Since in Daniel 8:13 the inquirer resumes the contents of Dan 8:10-12, and along with the sanctuary names also the 'host' as the object of the 'treading down,' it is not credible that this 'host' should be different from that mentioned in Daniel 8:12” (Klief.). Moreover, תּנּתן can have in this passage only the meaning of to be given up. התּמיד על can then only be translated because of the permanent sacrifice, if בּפשׁע ( by reason of transgression) is united as object with תּנּתן in the sense: “was delivered up in transgression.” But apart from this, that נתן in the sense of to give up is construed with בּיד , and there are wanting certain parallels for its construction with ב merely, this interpretation, “the host (= Israel) is given up in wickedness on account of the continual sacrifice,” presents an idea not to be tolerated. We agree, therefore, in general with the interpretation of Daniel B. Michaelis, Hävernick, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth, and explain the words thus: “and (an) host shall be given up together with the daily sacrifice, because of transgression.” צבא , an host, i.e., a great company of the host, the people of Israel. ב before פּשׁע ( transgression) in the meaning of ב pretii, on account of ( um), or because of, cf. Genesis 18:28. פּשׁע is the apostasy of the Israelites from God, the wickedness proceeding from the פּשׁעים ( transgressors), Daniel 8:23. The objection that this interpretation is not appropriate, because פּשׁע is repeated in Daniel 8:13 in union with שׁמם ( desolation), and therefore a wickedness devoted to destruction is characterized (Klief.), avails nothing, because it in no way follows from this that the “transgression” must be wickedness seating itself in the place of the “daily sacrifice,” idolatrous worship supplanting the true worship. But “the transgression” cannot be that which sets itself in the place of the “daily sacrifice,” because התּמיד is not the subject of the sentence, but is only co-ordinated to the subject. If ב in בּפשׁע is regarded as the ב pretii, then פשׁע can only be that which would be put in the place of the צבא . The preposition על before התּמיד means thereon, after that, also at the same time, or together with, as in Amos 3:15; Hosea 10:14, etc. תּמיד , as in Daniel 8:11, is not merely the daily sacrifice, but all that had continuance in the Mosaic worship. Finally, the jussive forms תּנּתן and תּשׁלך d ( to be trodden) are to be observed, since, according to the just observation of Kran., they are not simply identical with the future, as Ewald (§343) thinks, but here, as in Daniel 11:4, Daniel 11:10, Daniel 11:16, modify the conception of time by the presentation of the divine pre-determination or the decree, and thus express a should, may, or a faculty, a being able, in consequence of the divine counsel. To the verbs of the second half of the verse קרן ( horn) is easily supplied from the foregoing context as the subject; and the passage closes with the thought: thus must the horn throw the truth to the ground, and he shall succeed in this. (Note: ” Successus Antiochi potuit pios omnes turbare, acsi tyrannus ille esset Deo superior. Ergo oportuit etiam hoc praedici, ne quid novum vel inopinatum constingeret fidelibus.” - Calvin.) אמת , the objective truth, the word of God, so far as it is embodied in the worship. As to this matter cf. 1 Macc. 1:43-52, 56, 60. Daniel 8:13-14 In addition to what has been already seen and communicated in the vision, a further vision unfolds itself, by which there is conveyed to the prophet disclosures regarding the duration of the oppression of the people of God by the little horn. Daniel hears a holy one, i.e., an angel (see under Daniel 4:10), talking. What he said is not recorded. But while he is talking, another angel interrupts him with the question as to the duration of the affliction, and this is done that Daniel may hear the answer. Therefore the first angel immediately turns himself to Daniel, and, addressing him, makes known to him the information that was desired. The אלי ( to me), Daniel 8:14, is not, according to the old versions, to be changed into אליו ( to him). What Hitzig says in justification of אליו is of no weight; cf. Kran. The angel that talked is designated by פּלמוני , quidam, nescio quis , as not being more particularly definable. The question condenses the contents of Dan 8:10-12: “ Till how long is the vision, etc.?” החזון is not the action, but the contents of the vision, the thing seen. The contents of the vision are arranged in the form of appositions: that which is continual and the desolating wickedness, for: the vision of that which is continual and of the desolation. The meaning of this apposition is more particularly defined by the further passage following asyndetos: to give up the sanctuary as well as the host to destruction. שׁמם after the definite noun without the article, which is sometimes wanting (Jeremiah 2:21; Ezekiel 39:27; cf. Ew. §293), does not mean being benumbed, confounded, but laid waste, fallen into ruin; thus the wickedness which consists in laying waste. שׁמם cannot be understood transitively, since שׁמם and משׁמם are placed over against each other in Daniel 9:27. In the answer, עד is to be interpreted as in the question: till 2300 evening-mornings have been, or have passed, thus: 2300 evening-mornings long, so (=then) the sanctuary is brought into its right state. צדק primarily means to be just, whence the meaning is derived to justify, which is not here suitable, for it must be followed by, from the defilement of the desolation. The restoration of the temple to its right condition is, it is true, at the same time a justification of it from its desolation, and it includes in it the restoration of the permanent worship. The interpretation of the period of time, 2300 evening-mornings, named by the angel is beset with difficulty. And first the verbal import of בּקר ערב is doubtful. Among recent interpreters, Berth., Häv., v. Leng., Maur., and Horm. ( Weiss. u. Erf. p. 295) understand by its days consisting of morning and evening (twenty-four hours); others, as Bleek, Kirmss, Ewald, Hitzig, Wieseler (who, however, in his treatise, Die 70 Wochen, u.s.w., p. 115ff., defends the first explanation), Kran., and Delitzsch, are of opinion that evening-morning is particularly reckoned with reference to the offering of a morning and an evening sacrifice each day, so that 2300 evening-mornings make only 1150 whole days. But there is no exegetical foundation for this latter opinion. It is derived only from a comparison, or rather an identification, of this passage with Daniel 7:25; Daniel 12:11., and Daniel 9:27; and therewith it is proved that, according to 1 Macc. 1:54, 59, cf. 4:52, the desolation of the sanctuary by the worship of idols under Antiochus Epiphanes lasted not longer than three years and ten days, and that from Daniel 12:11 it extends only to 1290 days. But these arguments rest on assertions which must first be justified. The passages Daniel 7:25 and Daniel 9:27 cannot be here taken into account, because they do not speak of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the 1290 days (1335 days, Daniel 12:11.) do not give 2300 evening-mornings, that we can and may at once identify these statements with this before us. In Daniel 12:11 the terminus a quo of the 1290 days is unquestionably the putting away or the removal of the תּמיד ( daily sacrifice), and the giving (placing, raising up) of the abomination that maketh desolate (i.e., the altar of idol-worship); but in this verse (Daniel 8:14), on the contrary, the continuance not only of the taking away of the תּמיד , but also of the delivering up of the saints and the people to be trodden under foot, is fixed to 2300 evening-mornings. This oppression continued longer than the removal of the appointed daily sacrifice. According to 1 Macc. 1:10ff., the violent assaults of Antiochus against the temple and the Jews who remained faithful to the law began in the 143rd year of the era of the Seleucidae, but the abomination that maketh desolate, i.e., the idol-altar, was first erected on Jehovah's altar of burnt-offering, according to 1 Macc. 1:54, in the 145th year of the Seleucidae, and the purification of the temple from this abomination, and its re-consecration, took place on the 25th day of Kisleu (9th month) of the year of the Seleucidae 148. According to this, from the beginning of the desecration of the temple by the plundering of its vessels and its golden ornaments (1 Macc. 1:20ff.) to its restoration to its right condition, more than five years passed. The fulfilment, or the historical reference, of this prophecy accordingly affords, as is sufficiently manifest, no proper means of ascertaining the import of the “evening-morning.” This must rather be exegetically decided. It occurs only here, and corresponds to νυχθήμερον , 2 Corinthians 11:25. But the choice of so unusual a measure of time, derived from the two chief parts of the day, instead of the simple measure of time by days, probably originates with reference to the morning and evening sacrifice, by which the day was to be consecrated to the Lord, after Genesis 1:5, Genesis 1:8, Genesis 1:13, etc., where the days of the creation week are named and reckoned according to the succession of evening and morning. This separation of the expression into evening and morning, so that to number them separately and add them together would make 2300 evening-mornings = 1150 days, is shown to be inadmissible, both by the asyndeton evening-morning and the usages of the Hebrew language. That in Daniel 8:26 והבּקר הערב ( the evening and the morning) stands for it, does not prove that the evening ad morning are reckoned separately, but only that evening-morning is a period of time consisting of evening and morning. When the Hebrews wish to express separately day and night, the component parts of a day of a week, then the number of both is expressed. They say, e.g., forty days and forty nights (Genesis 7:4, Genesis 7:12; Exodus 24:18; 1 Kings 19:8), and three days and three nights (Jonah 2:1; Matthew 12:40), but not eighty or six days-and-nights, when they wish to speak of forty or three full days. A Hebrew reader could not possibly understand the period of time 2300 evening-mornings of 2300 half days or 1150 whole days, because evening and morning at the creation constituted not the half but the whole day. Still less, in the designation of time, “till 2300 evening-mornings,” could “evening-mornings” be understood of the evening and morning sacrifices, and the words be regarded as meaning, that till 1150 evening sacrifices and 1150 morning sacrifices are discontinued. We must therefore take the words as they are, i.e., understand them of 2300 whole days. This exegetical resolution of the matter is not made doubtful by the remark, that an increasing of the period of oppression to 2300 days, over against the duration of the oppression limited in Daniel 7:25 to only three and a half times, or to 1290 (or 1335 days, Daniel 12:11-12), is very unlikely, since there is in no respect any reason for this increase over against these statements (Kran. p. 298). This remark can only be valid as proof if, on the one side, the three and a half times in Daniel 7:25 are equal to three and a half civil years, for which the proof fails, and, on the other side, if the 1290 or the 1335 days in Daniel 12:11. indicate the whole duration of the oppression of Israel by Antiochus. But if these periods, on the contrary, refer only to the time of the greatest oppression, the erection of the idol-altar in the temple, this time cannot be made the measure for the duration of the whole period of tribulation. The objection also, that it is more difficult to prove historically an oppression of the people of God for 2300 days by Antiochus than the 1150 days' duration of this oppression, need not move us to depart from the exegetically ascertained meaning of the words. The opponents of this view are indeed at one in this, that the consecration of the temple after its purification, and after the altar of Jehovah was restored, on the 25th Kisleu of the 148th year of the Seleucidae, formed the termination of the period named, but they are at variance as to the commencement of the period. Delitzsch reckons from the erection of the idol-altar in the temple on 15th Kisleu in the 145th year of the Sel., and thus makes it only three years and ten days, or 1090 to 1105 days. Hitzig reckons from the taking away of the daily sacrifice, which would take place somewhat earlier than the setting up of the idol-altar, but has not furnished proof that this happened tow months earlier. Bleek and Kirmss reckon from the taking of Jerusalem by Apollonius in the year of the Sel. 145 (1 Macc. 1:30ff.; 2 Macc. 5:24ff.), misplacing this in the first month of the year named, but without having any other proof for it than the agreement of the reckoning. To this is to be added, that the adoption of the consecration of the temple as the terminus ad quem is not so well grounded as is supposed. The words of the text, קדשׁ ונצדּק (“thus is the sanctuary placed in the right state”), comprehend more than the purification and re-consecration of the temple. In Daniel 8:11, also Daniel 9:17 and Daniel 11:31, Daniel uses the word מקדּשׁ for temple, while on the other hand קדשׁ means all that is holy. Was, then, the sanctuary, in this comprehensive meaning of the word, placed in its right state with the consecration of the temple, when after this occurrence “they that were in the tower (Acra) shut up the Israelites round about the sanctuary,” sought to hinder access to the temple, and, when Judas Maccabaeus had begun to besiege the tower, the Syrians approached with a reinforced army, besieged the sanctuary for many days, and on their departure demolished its strongholds (1 Macc. 6:18ff., 51, 62)? - when, again, under Demetrius Soter of Bacchides, the high priest Menelaus was deposed, and Alcimus, who was not descended from the family of a high priest, was advanced to his place, who cruelly persecuted the pious in Israel? - when the Syrian general Nicanor mocked the priests who showed to him the burnt-offering for the king, and defiled and threatened to burn the temple (1 Macc. 7)? And did the trampling upon Israel cease with the consecration of the temple, when at the building up of the altar and the restoration of the temple the heathen around became so furious, that they resolved to destroy all who were of the race of Jacob amongst them, and began to murder them (1 Macc. 5:1ff.)? Hävernick therefore, with Bertholdt, places the terminus ad quem of the 2300 days in the victory over Nicanor, by which the power of the Syrians over Judea was first broken, and the land enjoyed rest, so that it was resolved to celebrate annually this victory as well as the consecration of the temple (1 Macc. 7:48-50), according to which the terminus a quo of the period named would be shortly before the erection of the abomination of idolatry in the temple. If we now, however, turn from this supposition, since the text speaks further of it, to seek the end of the oppression in the restoration of the legal temple-worship, or in the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes, which the angel brings to view in the interpretation of the vision (Daniel 8:26), so also in these cases the 2300 days are to be calculated. C. v. Leng., Maur., and Wiesel., who regard the death of Antiochus as the termination, place the beginning of the 2300 days one year before the beginning of violence with which Antiochus, after his return from the expedition into Egypt in the year 143 Sel., went forth to destroy (1 Macc. 1:20) the Mosaic worship and law. Only a few weeks or months earlier, in the middle of the year 142 Sel., the point of commencement must be placed, if the consecration of the temple is held to be the termination. In the year 142 not only was the pious high priest Onias removed from his office by the godless Jason, but also Jason himself was forced from the place he had usurped by Menelaus, who gave Antiochus a greater bribe than he did, and gave away as presents and sold to the heathen the golden utensils of the temple, and commanded Onias, who denounced his wickedness, to be deceitfully murdered (2 Macc. 2:4). Hence we need not, with Hofmann, regard the deposition of Onias, the date of which cannot be accurately fixed, but which, 2 Macc. 4:7ff., is brought into connection with the commencement of the reign of Antiochus, and which probably took place before the year 142, as the date of the commencement of the 2300 days, although the laying waste of the sanctuary may be dated from it; since Jason by royal authority set up a heathen γυμνάσιον with an ἐφηβεῖον , and by the wickedness of the profane and unpriestly conduct of this man Greek customs and the adoption of heathenish manners so prevailed, that the priests ceased to concern themselves about the service of the altar, but, despising the temple and forgetting the sacrifice, they hastened to witness the spectacles in the palaestra, which were contrary to the law; cf. 2 Macc. 4:13ff. with 1 Macc. 1:11-15. The 2300 days are thus, as well as the 1150 days, historically authenticated. But it is on the whole questionable whether the number given by the angel is to be reckoned as an historico-chronological period of time, or is not rather to be interpreted as symbolical. The analogy of the other prophetic numbers speaks decidedly for the symbolical interpretation. The 2300 cannot, it is true, be directly a symbolical number, such as 7, 10, 40, 70, and other numbers are, but yet it can stand in such a relation to the number seven as to receive a symbolical meaning. The longer periods of time are usually reckoned not by days, but by weeks, months, or years; if, therefore, as to the question of the duration of the 2300 days, we reduce the days to weeks, months, and years, we shall find six years, three or four months, and some days, and discover that the oppression of the people by the little horn was to continue not fully a period of seven years. But the times of God's visitations, trials, and judgments are so often measured by the number seven, that this number came to bear stamped on it this signification; see under Daniel 4:13; Daniel 7:25. The number of seven years is used in the symbolical meaning when, not to mention the cases in Genesis 29:18, Genesis 29:27; Genesis 41:26., and Judges 6:1, seven years' famine were laid upon the land as a punishment for David's sin in numbering the people (2 Samuel 24:13), and when in Elisha's time Israel was visited with seven years' famine (2 Kings 8:1). Thus the answer of the angel has this meaning: The time of the predicted oppression of Israel, and of the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus, the little horn, shall not reach the full duration of a period of divine judgment, shall not last so long as the severe oppression of Israel by the Midianites, Judges 6:1, or as the famine which fell upon Israel in the time of Elisha, and shall not reach to a tenth part of the time of trial and of sorrow endured by the exiles, and under the weight of which Israel then mourned. But if this is the meaning of the angel's message, why does not the divine messenger use a pure symbolical expression, such as “not full seven times?” and why does he not simply say, “not quite seven years?” As to the first of these questions, we answer that the expression “times” is too indefinite; for the duration of this period of sorrow must be given more minutely. As to the second question, we know no other answer that can be given than this, that, on the one side, only the positive determination of the length of time, measured by days, can afford full confidence that the domination and the tyranny of the oppressor shall not continue one day longer than God has before fixed; but, on the other side, by the measuring of this period by a number defined according to thousands and hundreds, both the long duration of the affliction is shown, and the symbolical character of the period named is indicated. While by the period “evening-morning” every ambiguity of the expression, and every uncertainty thence arising regarding the actual length of the time of affliction, is excluded, yet the number 2300 shows that the period must be defined in round numbers, measuring only nearly the actual time, in conformity with all genuine prophecy, which never passes over into the mantic prediction of historico-chronological data. If we compare with this the designation of time in Daniel 7:25, instead of the general idea there expressed, of “time, times, and half a time,” which is not to be computed as to its duration, we have here a very definite space of time mentioned. This difference corresponds to the contents of the two prophecies. The oppression prophesied of in this chapter would visit the people of Israel at not too distant a time; and its commencement as well as its termination, announced by God beforehand, was fitted to strengthen believers in the faith of the truth and fidelity of God for the time of the great tribulation of the end, the duration of which God the Lord indeed determined accurately and firmly beforehand, but according to a measure of time whose extent men cannot calculate in advance. In this respect the designation of the time of the affliction which the horn growing up out of the third world-kingdom will bring upon God's people, becomes a type for the duration of the oppression of the last enemy of the church of the Lord at the end of the days. The interpretation of the vision - The interpretation of Daniel's vision, as given by the angel, falls within the vision itself. When Daniel sought to understand the vision, viz., in his mind, not by prayer or by asking a question, he saw before him, according to Daniel 8:17, one standing at some distance, who had the appearance of a man, but was not a man, but a supernatural being in human likeness. This person resembling a man is (Daniel 8:16) named by the angel, Gabriel, i.e., man of God. The voice of another, whom Daniel did not see, hearing only a human voice proceeding from the Ulai, commanded this person to explain the vision to the prophet ( להלּז , i.e., to Daniel). Nothing further is indicated of the person from whom the voice proceeded than what may be conjectured from אוּלי בּין ( between the Ulai), whence the voice sounded. These words do not mean “hither from Ulai” (Bertholdt), but “between the two banks of the Ulai” (Chr. B. Mich., Häv., etc.); according to which, the being whose voice Daniel heard appears as if hovering over the waters of the river Ulai. This conjecture is confirmed by Daniel 12:6-7, where Daniel sees a man hovering over the waters of the river of Ulai, who by the majesty of his appearance and his words shows himself to be a divine being, and is more minutely described according to the majesty of his appearance in Daniel 10:5. The question, who this man might be, is first answered in Daniel Daniel 10:5. Gabriel is not a nomen proprium but appellativum . The angel who was described as an appearance like a גּבר ( man) is named, for Daniel, Gabriel (“man of God”), that on subsequent occasions (e.g., Daniel 9:21) he might recognise him again as the same (Hgst., Hofm., Kliefoth). As to his relation to other angels and archangels, the Scripture gives no information. If Lengerke and Maurer regard him, after the book of Enoch, along with Michael, and Raphael, and Uriel whose name does not occur in Scripture, as one of the four angels that stand before the throne of God, the Scripture affords no support for it; nor does it countenance the supposition of Hitzig, that the two angels in Daniel 8:15, Daniel 8:16 are identical with those in Daniel 8:13, Daniel 8:14 - that Gabriel who spake, and the unknown angel, was the angel of the “rivers and fountains of waters,” Revelation 16:4. (Note: Altogether groundless, also, is the identification of them with the Persian Amschaspands, since neither the doctrine of angels nor the names of angels of the O.T. are derived from Parsism. The most recent attempt by Dr. Al. Kohut, in his researches regarding Jewish angelology and demonology in their dependence on Parsism ( Abhand. für die Kunde des Morgen. iv. Bc., Nr. 3), to establish this connection, is extremely poor and superficial. The proof adduced in the first ten pages of his treatise is confined to these points: that in the writings of the O.T. after the Exile or during the Exile the appearance of the angels is altogether different from that presented in the portions written before the Exile. It is said that, as a rule, the angels in the period first named take the human form, and bear names corresponding to their properties - Michael, Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21; Daniel 12:1; Gabriel, Daniel 8:16; Daniel 9:21; and in the book of Tobit, 12:15, not much later in date (?), Raphael; - now also, in contrast to the period before the Exile, there is an order in rank among the angels; Michael, Daniel 10:12, is designated as one of the first angel-princes, and, Daniel 12:1, as the greatest angel-prince; moreover, the number of שׂרים ( angel-princes) is spoken of as seven, corresponding to the Persian Amesha-çpentas (Tob. 12:15, and Book of Enoch 90:21). But does this distinction between the pre-exilian and post-exilian doctrine of angels, even though it were allowed to be as great as Kohut supposes, furnish a proof for the derivation of the latter from Parsism? or does this derivation follow from the fact that the Jews in exile came into intercourse with the Persians and the Medes, and that about this time the Zend worship flourished? And do the angels in the post-exilian writings for the first time indeed assume the human form? Kohut seems to know nothing of the appearance of angels in Genesis 19:1., Judges 6:11., Judges 13:9. Then does the agreement, not of the doctrine of the O.T., but of the later Jewish apocryphal writings, Tobit and the Book of Enoch, with regard to the number of angel-princes and of the Amesha-çpenta, furnish a sufficient proof of this derivation? Dr. Kohut does not himself appear to think so, since he regards it as necessary, in addition to this, which is “perhaps purely accidental,” to furnish an etymological argument. Amesha-çpenta means “ non connivens sanctus = the holy one not sleeping;” “thus,” he says, “it is a mere Chaldee rendering of the word Amesha-çpenta, when in Daniel 4:10, Daniel 4:14, Daniel 4:20; Daniel 8:13, the Jewish angel-princes are called עירין קדּשׁין = holy watchers.” But was, then, the Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar, to whom in a dream a “holy watcher” appeared, a Jew? and in what edition of the Bible has Dr. Kohut found in Daniel 8:13 the angel name עיר Nor is it any better proof that the demonology of the O.T. is a foreign production, resulting from the contact of the Jews with the Persians and Medes during the exile, because in Zechariah 3:1., Psalms 48:1-14:49; 1 Chronicles 21:1, and especially in Job 1:6., Daniel 2:1, Satan “is depicted as a plague-spirit, altogether corresponding to the Persian Agromainjus, the killing spirit.” Such silly talk needs no refutation.) Daniel 8:16-18 As commanded, the angel goes to the place where Daniel stands. On his approach Daniel is so filled with terror that he falls on his face, because as a sinful and mortal man he could not bear the holiness of God which appeared before him in the pure heavenly being. At the appearance of God he fears that he must die. Cf. remarks at Genesis 16:13 and Exodus 33:20. But the angel, in order to mitigate his alarm, calls him to take heed, for the vision relates to the time of the end. The address (Daniel 8:17), “son of man,” stands in contrast to “man of God” (= Gabriel), and is designed to remind Daniel of his human weakness (cf. Psalms 8:5), not that he may be humbled (Hävernick), without any occasion for that, but to inform him that, notwithstanding this, he was deemed worthy of receiving high divine revelations (Kliefoth). The foundation of the summons to give heed, “for the vision relates to the time of the end,” is variously interpreted. Auberlen (p. 87) and Zündel (p. 105ff.) understand עת־קץ not of the time of the end of all history, but of a nearer relative end of the prophecy. “Time of the end” is the general prophetic expression for the time which, as the period of fulfilment, lies at the end of the existing prophetic horizon - in the present case the time of Antiochus. Bleek ( Jahrb.f. D. Theol. v. p. 57) remarks, on the contrary, that if the seer was exhorted to special attention because the vision related to the time of the end, then קץ here, as in Daniel 8:19; Daniel 11:35, Daniel 11:40; Daniel 12:4, also Daniel 9:26, without doubt is to be interpreted of the end of the time of trial and sorrow of the people, and at the same time of the beginning of the new time of deliverance vouchsafed by God to His people; and herein lay the intimation, “that the beginning of the deliverance destined by God for His people (i.e., the Messianic time) would connect itself immediately with the cessation of the suppression of the worship of Jehovah by Antiochus Epiphanes, and with the destruction of that ruler.” From the passages referred to, Daniel 11:40 and Daniel 12:4, it is certainly proved that עתקץ denotes the time of all suffering, and the completion of the kingdom of God by the Messiah. It does not, however, follow, either that these words “are to be understood of the absolute end of all things, of the time when the Messiah will come to set up His regum gloriae , and of the time of the last tribulation going before this coming of the Lord” (Klief.); or that the prophet cherished the idea, that immediately after the downfall of Antiochus, thus at the close of the 2300 days, the Messiah would appear, bring the world to an end, and erect the kingdom of eternity (v. Leng., Hitz., Maur., etc.). The latter conclusion is not, it is true, refuted by the remark, that the words do not say that the vision has the time of the end directly for its subject, that the prophecy will find its fulfilment in the time of the end, but only that the vision has a relation, a reference, to the time of the end, that there is a parallelism between the time of Antiochus and the time of Antichrist, that “that which will happen to Javan and Antiochus shall repeat itself in, shall be a type of, that which will happen in the time of the end with the last world-kingdom and the Antichrist arising out of it” (Kliefoth). For this idea does not lie in the words. That is shown by the parallel passage, Daniel 10:14, which Kliefoth thus understands - ”The vision extends to the days which are before named הימים אחרית ( latter days); it goes over the same events which will then happen.” Accordingly the angel can also here (Daniel 8:17) only say, “Give heed, for the vision relates to the end-time; it gives information of that which shall happen in the end of time.” Daniel 8:19 The justice of this exposition is placed beyond a doubt by this verse. Here the angel says in distinct words, “I will show thee what will happen הזּעם בּאחרית ( in the last time of the indignation), for it relates to the appointed time of the end.” Kliefoth indeed thinks that what the angel, Daniel 8:19, says to the prophet for his comfort is not the same that he had said to him in Daniel 8:17, and which cast him down, and that Daniel 8:19 does not contain anything so weighty and so overwhelming as Daniel 8:17, but something more cheering and consoling; that it gives to the vision another aspect, which relieves Daniel of the sorrow which it had brought upon him on account of its import with reference to the end. From this view of the contents of Dan 8:19 Kliefoth concludes that Daniel, after he had recovered from his terror in the presence of the heavenly messenger, and had turned his mind to the contents of the vision, was thrown to the ground by the thought presented to him by the angel, that the vision had reference to the end of all things, and that, in order to raise him up, the angel said something else to him more comforting of the vision. But this conclusion has no foundation in the text. The circumstance that Daniel was not again cast to the ground by the communication of the angel in Daniel 8:19, is not to be accounted for by supposing that the angel now made known to him something more consoling; but it has its foundation in this, that the angel touched the prophet, who had fallen dismayed to the earth, and placed him again on his feet (Daniel 8:18), and by means of this touch communicated to him the strength to hear his words. But the explanation which Kliefoth gives of Dan 8:19 the words do not bear. “The last end of the indignation” must denote the time which will follow after the expiration of the זעם , i.e., the period of anger of the Babylonian Exile. But אחרית means, when space is spoken of, that which is farthest (cf. Psalms 139:9), and when time is spoken of, the last, the end, the opposite of רשׁית , the end over against the beginning. If הימים אחרית does not denote such a time was follows an otherwise fixed termination, but the last time, the end-time (see under Daniel 2:28), so also, since זעם is here the time of the revelation of the divine wrath, הזּעם אחרית ה can only denote the last time, or the end-time, of the revelation of the divine wrath. This explanation of the words, the only one which the terms admit of, is also required by the closing words of Dan 8:19, קץ למועד כּי ( for at the time appointed the end). According to the example of the Vulg., quoniam habet tempus finem suum , and Luther's version, “for the end has its appointed time,” Kliefoth translates the words, “for the firmly-ordained, definite time has its end,” and refers this to the time of the Babylonish Exile, which indeed, as Daniel knew (Daniel 9:2), was fixed by God to seventy years. But that in the Babylonish Exile will have its fixed end, will come to an end with the seventy years, the angel needed not to announce to the prophet, for he did not doubt it, and the putting him in remembrance of that fact would have afforded him but very poor consolation regarding the time of the future wrath. This conception of the words depends on the inaccurate interpretation of the words הזּעם אחרית , and will consequently fall to the ground along with it. If למועד ( to the appointment) were separated from קץ , and were to be taken by itself, and to be understood of the time of the זעם , then it ought to have the article, as in Daniel 11:27, Daniel 11:35. Without the article, as here, it must be connected with קץ , and them, with החזון supplied as the subject from the context (Daniel 8:17), is to be translated, as it is by almost all modern interpreters: for the vision relates to the appointed time of the end. But עתקץ , the time of the end, and קץ מועד , the appointed time of the end, is not the absolute end of all things, the time of the setting up of the regnum gloriae , and the time of the tribulation preceding the return of our Lord; but the time of the judgment of the world-kingdom and the setting up of the everlasting kingdom of God by the appearance of the Messiah, the end of αἰὼνοὕτος and the commencement of the αἰὼνμέλλων , the time of the הימים אחרית (Daniel 10:14), which the apostle calls (1 Corinthians 10:11) τὰτέλητῶναἰώνων , and speaks of as having then already come. Daniel 8:20-22 Since, from the explanation given by the angel in this verse, the vision relates to the Medo-Persian and the Javanic world-kingdoms, and to the persecuting kingdom of Antiochus which arose out of the latter, so it cannot be disputed that here, in prophetic perspective, the time of the end is seen together with the period of the oppression of the people of God by Antiochus, and the first appearance of the Messiah with His return in glory to the final judgment, as the latter is the case also in Daniel 2:34., 44f., and Daniel 7:13, Daniel 7:25. If Kliefoth objects: The coming of the Messiah may certainly be conceived of as bound up with the end of all things, and this is done, since both events stand in intimate causal relation to each other, not seldom in those O.T. prophets who yet do not distinguish the times; but they also know well that this intimate causal connection does not include contemporaneousness, that the coming of the Messiah in the flesh will certainly bring about the end of all things, but not as an immediate consequence, but after a somewhat lengthened intervening space, that thus, after the coming of the Messiah, a course of historical events will further unfold themselves before the end comes (which Daniel also knew, as Daniel 9 shows), and where the supposition is this, as in Daniel, there the time before the appearance of Christ in the flesh cannot be called the time of the end: - then the inference drawn in these last passages is not confirmed by the contents of the book of Daniel. For in the last vision (Daniel 10-12) which Daniel saw, not only the time of oppression of Antiochus and that of the last enemy are contemplated together as one, but also the whole contents of this one vision are, Daniel 10:14, transferred to the “end of the days;” for the divine messenger says to Daniel, “I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the end of the days, for the vision yet relates to the days.” And not only this, but also in Daniel 11:35 it is said of the tribulation brought upon the people of God by Antiochus, that in it many would fall, to cleanse them and to purify them to the time of the end, for it is yet for the appointed time. Here, beyond doubt, the time of the persecution by Antiochus is placed in intimate union with the time of the end, but, as is to be particularly observed, not so that the two are spoken of as synchronous. This point is of importance for the right exposition of the verse before us. If, in Daniel 11:35, Daniel 11:40, it is twice said la מועד קץ עוד כּי ( the end is yet for the appointed time), and thus does not begin with the oppression of the people of God by Antiochus, so we may not conclude from these verses - and in this Kliefoth is perfectly justified - that Daniel expected the erection of the Messianic kingdom and the end of all history with the overthrow of Antiochus. If, however, on the whole, the intimate causal connection of the two periods of tribulation placed together in Daniel 11 in one vision neither demands nor even permits us to regard the two as synchronous, so this erroneous conclusion drawn from these verses before us, in connection with an incorrect interpretation of Dan 11:36-45, is sufficiently obviated, both by Daniel 2 and 7, according to which the fourth world-kingdom shall precede the erection of the everlasting kingdom of God and the manifestation of the Son of man, as also by Daniel 9:24-27, where - as our exposition will show - the coming of the Messiah and the perfecting of the kingdom of God by the overthrow of the last enemy are dependent on one another in point of time - the coming of the Messiah after seven weeks, the perfecting of the kingdom of God will follow, but not trill after the lapse of seventy weeks. This passage is to be understood according to these distinct revelations and statements, and not that because in them, according to prophetic perspective, the oppression of the people of the saints by Antiochus, the little horn, is seen in one vision with the tribulation of the end-time, therefore the synchronism or identity of the two is to be concluded, and the erection of the regnum gloriae and the end of the world to be placed at the destruction of this little horn. The words, “the vision relates to the time of the end,” thus only declare that the prophecy has a reference to Messianic times. As to the nature of this reference, the angel gives some intimation when, having touched the prophet, who had fallen in amazement to the ground, he raised him up and enabled him to listen to his words (Daniel 8:18), the intimation that he would make known to him what would happen in the last time of violence (Daniel 8:19). הזּעם is the wrath of God against Israel, the punishment which God hung over them on account of their sins, as in Isaiah 10:5; Jeremiah 25:17; Ezekiel 22:24, etc., and here the sufferings of punishment and discipline which the little horn shall bring over Israel. The time of this revelation of divine wrath is called אחרית because it belongs to the הימים אחרית , prepares the Messianic future, and with its conclusion begins the last age of the world, of which, however, nothing more particular is here said, for the prophecy breaks off with the destruction of the little horn. The vision of the eleventh chapter first supplies more particular disclosures on this point. In that chapter the great enemy of the saints of God, arising out of the third world-kingdom, is set forth and represented as the prefiguration or type of their last enemy at the end of the days. Under the words יהיה אשׁר ( which shall be) the angel understands all that the vision of this chapter contains, from the rising up of the Medo-Persian world-kingdom to the time of the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes, as Daniel 8:20-25 show. But when he adds הזּעם אחרית , he immediately makes prominent that which is the most important matter in the whole vision, the severe oppression which awaits the people of Israel in the future for their purification, and repeats, in justification of that which is said, the conclusion from Daniel 8:17, in which he only exchanges עת for מועד is the definite time in its duration; קץ מועד thus denotes the end-time as to its duration. This expression is here chosen with regard to the circumstance that in Daniel 8:14 the end of the oppression was accurately defined by the declaration of its continuance. The object of these words also is variously viewed by interpreters. The meaning is not that the angel wished to console Daniel with the thought that the judgment of the vision was not yet so near at hand (Zündel); for, according to Daniel 8:17, Daniel was not terrified by the contents of the vision, but by the approach of the heavenly being; and if, according to Daniel 8:18, the words of the angel so increased his terror that he fell down confounded to the earth, and the angel had to raise him by touching him, yet it is not at the same time said that the words of the angel of the end-time had so confounded him, and that the subsequent fuller explanation was somewhat less overwhelming than the words, Daniel 8:17, something lighter or more comforting. Even though the statement about the time of the end contributed to the increase of the terror, yet the contents of Dan 8:19 were not fitted to raise up the prophet, but the whole discourse of the angel was for Daniel so oppressive that after hearing it, he was for some days sick, Daniel 8:27. From Daniel's astonishment we are not to conclude that the angel in Daniel 8:17 spoke of the absolute end of all things, and in Daniel 8:19, on the contrary, of the end of the oppression of the people of Israel by Antiochus. By the words, “the vision relates to the appointed end-time,” the angel wished only to point to the importance of his announcement, and to add emphasis to his call to the prophet to give heed. Daniel 8:20-26 After the introductory words, we have now in these verses the explanation of the chief points of the vision. Daniel 8:20-22 explain Daniel 8:3-8. “The kings of Media and Persia” are the whole number of the Medo-Persian kings as they succeed each other, i.e., the Medo-Persian monarchy in the whole of its historical development. To הצּפיר the epithet השּׂעיר , hairy, shaggy, is added to characterize the animal as an he-goat. The king of Javan (Greece) is the founder and representative of the Macedo-Grecian world-kingdom, or rather the royalty of this kingdom, since the great horn of the ram is forthwith interpreted of Alexander the Great, the first king of this kingdom. The words והנּשׁבּרת to תּחתּיה (Daniel 8:22) form an absolute subject-sentence, in which, however, ותּעמדנה is not to be taken ἐκβατικῶς , it broke in pieces, so that ... (Kran.); for “the statement of the principal passage may not appear here in the subordinate relative passage” (Hitzig); but to the statement beginning with the participle the further definition in the verb. in. with ו consec. is added, without the relative אשׁר , as is frequently the case (cf. Ewald's Lehr. §351), which we cannot give with so much brevity, but must express thus: “as concerning the horn, that it was broken in pieces, and then four stood up in its place, (this signifies) that four kingdoms shall arise from the people.” מגּוי without the article does not signify from the people of Javan, for in this case the article would not have been omitted; nor does it signify from the heathen world, because a direct contrast to Israel does not lie before us; but indefinitely, from the territory of the people, or the world of the people, since the prophecy conceives of the whole world of the people (Vöklerwelt) as united under the sceptre of the king of Javan. יעמדנה is a revived archaism; cf. Genesis 30:38; 1 Samuel 6:12; Ewald, §191; Gesen. Gramm. §47. - בכוחו ולא , but not in his power, not armed with the strength of the first king, cf. Daniel 11:4. Daniel 8:23-24 Daniel 8:23-26 give the interpretation of the vision of the little horn (Daniel 8:9-12) , with a more special definition of certain elements not made prominent in the vision. The horn signifies a king who will arise “in the last time of their kingdom.” The suffix to מלכוּתם ( of their kingdom) relates to the idea contained in מלכיּות ni deniat ( kings). הפּשׁעים כּהתם , when the transgressors have made full, scil. the transgression or measure of the sins. The object wanting to התם is seen from the conception of the subject. הפּשׁעים , the rebellious, are not the heathen, for פּשׁע denotes the apostasy from God which is only said of the Israelites, but not of the heathen; and the word points back to בּפשׁע in Daniel 8:12. The king that rises up is Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. 1 Macc. 1:10ff.). עז־פּנים , hard of countenance, i.e., impudent, unashamed in trampling down, without fear of God or man; cf. Deuteronomy 28:50. חידות מבין , understanding mysteries; here sensu malo , concealing his purpose behind ambiguous words, using dissimulation, forming an artifice, interpreted in Daniel 8:25 by מרמה , cf. Daniel 11:21. The unfolding of these qualities is presented in Daniel 8:24, Daniel 8:25; in Daniel 8:24 of the עז־פּנים . By virtue of the audacity of his conduct his power will be strengthened, בכחו ולא , but not by his own might. The contrast here is not: by the power or permission of God (Ephr., Theodrt., Häv., Hitz., Kran.), reference being made to תּנּתן ( was given) in Daniel 8:12, and to תּת ( to give) in Daniel 8:13. This contrast is foreign to the passage. The context much rather relates to the audacity and the cunning by which, more than by his power, Antiochus raised himself to might. The strengthening of the power is limited neither to his reaching the throne by the overthrow of other pretenders to it (Berth. and others), nor to the to the following statements, he developed as king against Israel, as well as against other kingdoms. נפּלאות ( wonderful works) is used adverbially, as in Job 37:5: in an astonishing, wonderful way, he will work destruction. But from this word it does not follow that the expression בכחו ולא is to be referred to the power of God, for it does not necessarily mean deeds or things supernaturally originating from God; and even though it had only this meaning, yet here they could not be thought of as deeds accomplished in God's strength, but only as deeds performed by demoniacal strength, because ישׁחית ( shall destroy) cannot be predicated of God in the sense determined by the context. This destructive work he shall direct against the mighty and against the people of the saints. עצוּמים does not here signify many, numerous, many individual Israelites (v. Leng., Maur., Kliefoth), partly because in Daniel 8:25 רבּים stands for that, partly because of the קדשׁים עם , by which we are to understand the people of Israel, not merely the insignificant and weak, or pious (Kran.). Hence עצוּמים cannot mean the elders of Israel, much less merely foreign kings (Berth., Dereser), but the mighty generally, under which perhaps we are specially to think of heathen rulers. Daniel 8:25 In Daniel 8:25 the cunning and craftiness of his action and demeanour are depicted. שׂכלו על ( through his craft) is placed first. שׂכל , sagacity, here sensu malo , cunning. On the ground of this cunning his deceit will be successful. מרמה without the article means “all kinds of deceit which he designs” (Hitzig). On that account his heart is raised in haughtiness, so that not only does he destroy many unexpectedly, but also raises himself against God. In the רבּים ( many) are comprehended “the mighty and the holy people” (Daniel 8:24). בּשׁלוה does not mean in deep peace, but in careless security, and thus unexpectedly. An historical proof of this is found in 1 Macc. 1:10. שׂרים שׂר ( Prince of princes) corresponds with אדני האדנים ( Lord of lords) in Psalms 136:3. It is God; cf. Daniel 8:11. But the angel adds, “he shall be destroyed without hands,” i.e., he shall be destroyed not by the hand of man, but by God. Daniel 8:26 In Daniel 8:26 there follows, in conclusion, the confirmation of the truth of what is said of the duration of this oppression for the people of God. Because the time of it was not seen by Daniel, but was revealed to him in words, נאמר אשׁר is here used in reference to that which was, or of which it was, said. But we need not connect this relative sentence with the genitive והבּקר הערב ( the evening and the morning), although this were admissible, but can make it depend on מראה ( vision), since the world-revelation of the evenings and mornings forms an integral part of the “vision.” והבּקר הערב are to be taken collectively. The confirmation of the truth of this revelation does not betray the purpose to make the book falsely appear as if it were old (v. Leng., Hitzig); it much more is fitted to serve the purpose of strengthening the weakness of the faithful, and giving them consolation in the hour of trial. For in the statement of the duration of the afflictions lies not only the fact that they will come to an end, but at the same time also that this end is determined beforehand by God; cf. Daniel 12:7. In other places this confirmation serves only to meet doubts, arising from the weakness of the flesh, as to the realization of revelations of such weighty import; cf. Daniel 10:1; Daniel 12:1; Revelation 19:9; Revelation 21:5; Revelation 22:6. But Daniel must close the prophecy, because it extends into a long time. סתן is not equivalent to חתם , to seal up, but it means to stop, to conclude, to hide (cf. 2 Kings 3:19; Ezekiel 28:3), but not in the sense of keeping secret, or because it would be incomprehensible for the nearest times; for to seal or to shut up has nothing in common with incomprehensibility, but is used in the sense of keeping. “A document is sealed up in the original text, and laid up in archives (shut up), that it may remain preserved for remote times, but not that it may remain secret, while copies of it remain in public use” (Kliefoth). The meaning of the command, then, is simply this: “Preserve the revelation, not because it is not yet to be understood, also not for the purpose of keeping it secret, but that it may remain preserved for distant times” (Kliefoth). The reason assigned for the command only agrees with this interpretation. רבּים לימים ( to many days) is not to be identified with לעת־קץ in Daniel 8:17, but designates only a long time; and this indefinite expression is here used because it was not intended to give exactly again the termination according to Daniel 8:17, Daniel 8:19, but only to say that the time of the end was not near. Daniel 8:27 In Daniel 8:27 the influence of this vision on Daniel is mentioned (cf. Daniel 7:28). It so deeply agitated the prophet that he was sick certain days, and not till after he had recovered from this sickness could he attend to the king's business. The contents of the vision remained fixed in his mind; the scene filled him with amazement, and no one understood it. Maurer, Hitzig, and Kranichfeld interpret מבין אין ( I understood it not,) supplying the pronoun of the first person from the connection. But even though the construction of the words should admit of this supplement, for which a valid proof is not adduced, yet it would be here unsuitable, and is derived merely from giving to סתן (Daniel 8:26) the false interpretation of to conceal. If Daniel had been required to keep the prophecy secret according to the command in Daniel 8:26, then the remark “no one understood it” would have been altogether superfluous. But if he was required only to preserve the prophecy, and it deeply moved him, then those around him must have had knowledge of it, and the amazement of Daniel would become the greater when not only he but all others failed to understand it. To refer מבין אין only to Daniel is forbidden by the comparison with אבין ולא in Daniel 12:8. The fulfilment of this vision can alone lead to its full understanding. The Seventy Weeks In the first year of Darius the Median, Daniel, by a diligent study of the prophecies of Jeremiah as to the number of years during which Jerusalem must lie desolate (Daniel 9:1, Daniel 9:2), was led to pour forth a penitential prayer, in which he acknowledges the justice of the divine chastisement which hung over Israel on account of their sins, and entreats the mercy of God in behalf of his people (vv. 3-19). In consequence of this prayer, the angel Gabriel (Daniel 9:20-23) must pass over his people and the holy city before the consummation of the kingdom of God. Daniel 9:1 and Daniel 9:2 mention the occasion on which the penitential prayer (vv. 3-19) was offered, and the divine revelation following thereupon regarding the time and the course of the oppression of the people of God by the world-power till the completion of God's plan of salvation. Regarding Darius, the son of Ahasverosch, of the race of the Medes, see under Daniel 6:1. In the word המלך the Hophal is to be noticed: rex constitutus, factus est . It shows that Darius did not become king over the Chaldean kingdom by virtue of a hereditary right to it, nor that he gained the kingdom by means of conquest, but that he received it ( קבּל , Daniel 6:1) from the conqueror of Babylon, Cyrus, the general of the army. The first year of the reign of Darius the Mede over the Chaldean kingdom is the year 538 b.c., since Babylon was taken by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus in the year 539-538 b.c. According to Ptolemy, Cyrus the Persian reigned nine years after Nabonadius. But the death of Cyrus, as is acknowledged, occurred in the year 529 b.c. From the nine years of the reign of Cyrus, according to our exposition, two years are to be deducted for Darius the Mede, so that the reign of Cyrus by himself over the kingdom which he founded begins in the year 536, in which year the seventy years of the Babylonish exile of the Jews were completed; cf. The exposition under Daniel 1:1 with the chronological survey in the Com. on the Books of the Kings. The statement as to the time, Daniel 9:1, is again repeated in the beginning of Dan 9:2, on account of the relative sentence coming between, so as to connect that which follows with it. We translate (in Daniel 9:2), with Hgstb., Maur., Hitzig, “I marked, or gave heed, in the Scriptures to the number of the years,” so that מספּר ( number) forms the object to בּינתי ( I understood); cf. Proverbs 7:7. Neither the placing of בּספרים ( by books) first nor the Atnach under this word controvert this view; for the object is placed after “by books” because a further definition is annexed to it; and the separation of the object from the verb by the Atnach is justified by this consideration, that the passage contains two statements, viz., that Daniel studied the Scriptures, and that his study was directed to the number of the years, etc. בּספרים , with the definite article, does not denote a collection of known sacred writings in which the writings of Jeremiah were included, so that, seeing the collection of the prophets cannot be thought of without the Pentateuch, by this word we are to understand (with Bleek, Gesenius, v. Leng., Hitzig) the recognised collection of the O.T. writings, the Law and the Prophets. For הסּפרים , τὰβιβλιά , is not synonymous with הכּתוּבים , αἱγραφαί , but denotes only writings in the plural, but does not say that these writings formed already a recognised collection; so that from this expression nothing can be concluded regarding the formation of the O.T. canon. As little can בּספרים refer, with Häv. and Kran., to the letter of Jeremiah to the exiles (Jeremiah 29), for this reason, that not in Jeremiah 29, but in Jeremiah 25:11., the seventy years of the desolation of the land of Judah, and implic. of Jerusalem, are mentioned. The plur. ספרים also can be understood of a single letter, only if the context demands or makes appropriate this narrower application of the word, as e.g., 2 Kings 19:14. But here this is not the case, since Jeremiah in two separate prophecies speaks of the seventy years, and not in the letter of Jer. 29, but only in Jer. 25, has he spoken of the seventy years' desolation of the land. In בּספרים lies nothing further than that writings existed, among which were to be found the prophecies of Jeremiah; and the article, the writings, is used, because in the following passage something definite is said of these writings. In these writings Daniel considered the number of the years of which Jeremiah had prophesied. אשׁר , as Daniel 8:26, with respect to which, relates not to השׁנים , but to השׁנים מספּר ( number of the years). It is no objection against this that the repetition of the words “seventy years” stands opposed to this connection (Klief.), for this repetition does not exist, since מספּר does not declare the number of the years. With למלּאת ( to fulfil) the contents of the word of Jehovah, as given by Jeremiah, are introduced. לחרבות does not stand for the accusative: to cause to be complete the desolation of Jerusalem (Hitzig), but ל signifies in respect of, with regard to. This expression does not lean on Jeremiah 29:10 (Kran.), but on Jeremiah 25:12 (“when seventy years are accomplished”). חרבות , properly, desolated places, ruins, here a desolated condition. Jerusalem did not certainly lie in ruins for seventy years; the word is not thus to be interpreted, but is chosen partly with regard to the existing state of Jerusalem, and partly with reference to the words of Jer 25:9, Jeremiah 25:11. Yet the desolation began with the first taking of Jerusalem, and the deportation of Daniel and his companions and a part of the sacred vessels of the temple, in the fourth years of Jehoiakim (606 b.c.). (Note: Thus also the seventy years of the Exile are reckoned in 2 Chronicles 36:21-23; Ezra 1:1. This Ewald also recognises ( Proph. iii. p. 430), but thinks that it is not an exact reckoning of the times, but rather, according to Zechariah 1:12 and Daniel 9:25, that the destruction of Jerusalem forms the date of the commencement of the desolation and of the seventy years. But Daniel 9:25 contains no expression, or even intimation, regarding the commencement of the Exile; and in the words of Zec 1:12, “against which Thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years,” there does not lie the idea that the seventy years prophesied of by Jeremiah came to an end in the second year of Darius Hystaspes. See under this passage.) Consequently, in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede over the kingdom of the Chaldeans the seventy years prophesied of by Jeremiah were now full, the period of the desolation of Jerusalem determined by God was almost expired. What was it that moved Daniel at this time to pour forth a penitential prayer in behalf of Jerusalem and the desolated sanctuary? Did he doubt the truth of the promise, that God, after seventy years of exile in Babylon, would visit His people and fulfil the good word He had spoken, that He would again bring back His people to Judea (Jeremiah 29:10)? Certainly not, since neither the matter of his prayer, nor the divine revelation which was vouchsafed to him in answer to his prayer, indicated any doubt on his part regarding the divine promise. According to the opinion of Bleek and Ewald, it was Daniel's uncertainty regarding the termination of the seventy years which moved him to prayer Bleek ( Jahrbb.f. D. Theol. v. p. 71) thus expresses himself on the subject: “This prophecy of Jeremiah might be regarded as fulfilled in the overthrow of the Babylonian kingdom and the termination of the Exile, when the Jews obtained from Cyrus permission to return to their native land and to rebuild their city and temple, but yet not perfectly, so far as with the hope of the return of the people from exile there was united the expectation that they would then turn in truth to their God, and that Jehovah would fulfil all His good promises to them to make them partakers of the Messianic redemption (cf. Jeremiah 29:10., also other prophecies of Jeremiah and of other prophets regarding the return of the people from exile, such as Isa. 40ff.); but this result was not connected in such extent and fulness with the return of the people and the restoration of the state.” On the supposition of the absolute inspiration of the prophets, it appeared therefore appropriate “to regard Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years, after the expiry of which God will fulfil His good promises to His people, as stretching out into a later period beyond that to which the seventy years would extend, and on that account to inquire how it was to be properly interpreted.” Ewald ( Proph. iii. p. 421ff.) is of opinion that these seventy years of Jeremiah did not pass by without the fulfilment of his prophecy, that the ruins of Jerusalem would not continue for ever. Already forty-nine years after its destruction a new city of Jerusalem took the place of the old as the centre of the congregation of the true religion, but the stronger hopes regarding the Messianic consummation which connected itself herewith were neither then, nor in all the long times following, down to that moment in which our author (in the age of the Maccabees) lived and wrote, ever fulfilled. Then the faithful were everywhere again exposed to the severest sufferings, such as they had not experienced since the old days of the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore the anxious question as to the duration of such persecution and the actual beginning of the Messianic time, which Daniel, on the ground of the mysterious intimation in Daniel 7:12, Daniel 7:25 and Daniel 8:13., regarding the period of the sufferings of the time of the end, sought here to solve, is agitated anew; for he shows how the number of the seventy years of Jeremiah, which had long ago become sacred, yet accorded with these late times without losing its original truth. Thus Ewald argues. These two critics in their reasoning proceed on the dogmatic ground, which they regard as firmly established, that the book of Daniel is a product of the age of the Maccabees. All who oppose the genuineness of this book agree with them in the view that this chapter contains an attempt, clothed in the form of a divine revelation communicated to the prophet in answer to his prayer, to solve the mystery how Jeremiah's prophecy of the beginning of the Messianic salvation after the seventy years of exile is to be harmonized with the fact that this salvation, centuries after the fall of the Babylonish kingdom and the return of the Jews from the Babylonish exile, had not yet come, but that instead of it, under Antiochus Epiphanes, a time of the severest oppression had come. How does this opinion stand related to the matter of this chapter, leaving out of view all other grounds for the genuineness of the book of Daniel? Does the prayer of Daniel, or the divine revelation communicated to him by means of Gabriel regarding the seventy weeks, contain elements which attest its correctness or probability? The prayer of Daniel goes forth in the earnest entreaty that the Lord would turn away His anger from the city Jerusalem and His holy mountain, and cause His face to shine on the desolation and on the city that was called by His name (Daniel 9:15-18). If this prayer is connected with the statement in Daniel 9:2, that Daniel was moved thereto by the consideration of the words of Jeremiah regarding the desolation of Jerusalem, we can understand by the ruins, for the removal of which Daniel prayed, only the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which was brought about by the Chaldeans. Consequently the prayer indicates that the desolation of Jerusalem predicted by Jeremiah and accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar still continued, and that the city and the temple had not yet been rebuilt. This, therefore, must have been in the time of the Exile, and not in the time of Antiochus, who, it is true, desolated the sanctuary by putting an end to the worship of Jehovah and establishing the worship of idols, but did not lay in ruins either the temple or the city. In his message (Daniel 9:24-27) the angel speaks only of the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, and present the going forth of this word as the beginning of the seventy weeks of Daniel determined upon the people and the holy city within which Jerusalem must be built, and thus distinguishes the seventy weeks as distinctly as possible from Jeremiah's seventy years during which Jerusalem and Judah should lie desolate. Thus is set aside the opinion that the author of this chapter sought to interpret the seventy years of Jeremiah by the seventy weeks; and it shows itself to be only the pure product of the dogmatic supposition, that this book does not contain prophecies of the prophet Daniel living in the time of the Exile, but only apocalyptic dreams of a Maccabean Jew. (Note: The supposition that the seventy weeks, Daniel 9:24, are an interpretation of the seventy years of Jeremiah, is the basis on which Hitzig rests the assertion that the passage does not well adjust itself to the standpoint of the pretended Daniel, but is in harmony with the time of the Maccabees. The other arguments which Hitzig and others bring forth against this chapter as the production of Daniel, consist partly in vain historical or dogmatic assertions, such as that there are doubts regarding the existence of Darius of Media, - partly in misinterpretations, such as that Daniel wholly distinguishes himself, Daniel 9:6, Daniel 9:10, from the prophets, and presents himself as a reader of their writings (Hitz.), - opinions which are no better founded than the conclusions of Berth., v. Leng., and Staeh., drawn from the mention of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Daniel 9:7, and of the holy city, Daniel 9:24, that Jerusalem was then still inhabited and the temple still standing. To this it is added, that the prayer of Daniel is an imitation of the prayers of Ezr 9:1-15 and Nehemiah 9, or, as Ewald thinks, an extract from the prayer of Baruch (Bar. 1 and 2).) Moreover, it is certainly true that in the Exile the expectation that the perfection and glory of the kingdom of God by the Messiah would appear along with the liberation of the Jews from Babylon was founded on the predictions of the earlier prophets, but that Daniel shared this expectation the book presents no trace whatever. Jeremiah also, neither in Jer. 25 nor in Jer. 29, where he speaks of the seventy years of the domination of Babylon, announces that the Messianic salvation would begin immediately with the downfall of the Babylonian kingdom. In Jer. 25 he treats only of the judgment, first over Judah, and then over Babylon and all the kingdoms around; and in Jer. 29 he speaks, it is true, of the fulfilling of the good word of the return of the Jews to their fatherland when seventy years shall be fulfilled for Babylon (Daniel 9:10), and of the counsel of Jehovah, which is formed not for the destruction but for the salvation of His people, of the restoration of the gracious relation between Jehovah and His people, and the gathering together and the bringing back of the prisoners from among all nations whither they had been scattered (Daniel 9:11-14), but he says not a word to lead to the idea that all this would take place immediately after these seventy years. Now if Daniel, in the first year of Darius the Mede, i.e., in the sixty-ninth year of the Exile, prayed thus earnestly for the restoration of Jerusalem and the sanctuary, he must have been led to do so from a contemplation of the then existing state of things. The political aspect of the world-kingdom could scarcely have furnished to him such a motive. The circumstance that Darius did not immediately after the fall of Babylon grant permission to the Jews to return to their fatherland and rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, could not make him doubt the certainty of the fulfilment of the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah regarding the duration of the Exile, since the prophecy of Isaiah, Isaiah 44:28, that Coresch (Cyrus) should build Jerusalem and lay the foundation of the temple was beyond question known to him, and Darius had in a certain sense reached the sovereignty over the Chaldean kingdom, and was of such an age (Daniel 6:1) that now his reign must be near its end, and Cyrus would soon mount his throne as his successor. That which moved Daniel to prayer was rather the religious condition of his own people, among whom the chastisement of the Exile had not produced the expected fruits of repentance; so that, though he did not doubt regarding the speedy liberation of his people from Babylonish exile, he might still hope for the early fulfilment of the deliverance prophesied of after the destruction of Babylon and the return of the Jews to Canaan. This appears from the contents of the prayer. From the beginning to the close it is pervaded by sorrow on account of the great sinfulness of the people, among whom also there were no signs of repentance. The prayer for the turning away of the divine wrath Daniel grounds solely on the mercy of God, and upon that which the Lord had already done for His people by virtue of His covenant faithfulness, the צדקות ( righteousness) of the Lord, not the “righteousness” of the people. This confession of sin, and this entreaty for mercy, show that the people, as a whole, were not yet in that spiritual condition in which they might expect the fulfilment of that promise of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 29:12.): “Ye shall seek me and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart; and I will be found of you, and will turn away your captivity,” etc. With this view of the contents of the prayer corresponds the divine answer which Gabriel brings to the prophet, the substance of which is to this effect, that till the accomplishment of God's plan of salvation in behalf of His people, yet seventy weeks are appointed, and that during this time great and severe tribulations would fall upon the people and the city. Daniel's prayer. This prayer has been judged very severely by modern critics. According to Berth., v. Leng., Hitzig, Staeh., and Ewald, its matter and its whole design are constructed according to older patterns, in particular according to the prayers of Neh 9 and Ezra 9:1-15, since Daniel 9:4 is borrowed from Nehemiah 1:5; Nehemiah 9:32; Daniel 9:8 from Nehemiah 9:34; Daniel 9:14 from Nehemiah 9:33; Daniel 9:15 from Nehemiah 1:10; Nehemiah 9:10; and, finally, Daniel 9:7, Daniel 9:8 from Ezra 9:7. But if we consider this dependence more closely, we shall, it is true, find the expression הפנים בּשׁת ( confusion of faces, Ezra 9:7, Ezra 9:8) in Ezra 9:7, but we also find it in 2 Chronicles 32:21; Jeremiah 7:19, and also in Psalms 44:16; סלחות ( forgivenesses, Daniel 9:9) we find in Nehemiah 9:17, but also in Psalms 130:4; and על תּתּך ( is poured upon, spoken of the anger of God, Daniel 9:11) is found not only in 2 Chronicles 12:7; 2 Chronicles 34:21, 2 Chronicles 34:25, but also Jeremiah 42:18; Jeremiah 44:6, and Nahum 1:6. We have only to examine the other parallel common thoughts and words adduced in order at once to perceive that, without exception, they all have their roots in the Pentateuch, and afford not the slightest proof of the dependence of this chapter on Nehemiah 9. The thought, “great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy,” etc., which is found in Daniel 9:4 and in Nehemiah 1:5, has its roots in Deuteronomy 7:21 and Daniel 9:9, cf. Exodus 20:6; Exodus 34:7, and in the form found in Nehemiah 9:32, in Deuteronomy 10:17; the expression (Daniel 9:15), “Thou hast brought Thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand,” has its origin in Deuteronomy 7:8; Deuteronomy 9:26, etc. But in those verses where single thoughts or words of this prayer so accord with Nehemiah 9 or Ezra 9:1-15 as to show a dependence, a closer comparison will prove, not that Daniel borrows from Ezra or Nehemiah, but that they borrow from Daniel. This is put beyond a doubt by placing together the phrases: “our kings, our princes, our fathers” (Daniel 9:5, Daniel 9:8), compared with these: “our kings, our princes, our priests, and our fathers” (Nehemiah 9:34, Nehemiah 9:32), and “our kings and our priests” (Ezra 9:7). For here the naming of the “priests” along with the “kings and princes” is just as characteristic of the age of Ezra and Nehemiah as the omission of the “priests” is of the time of the Exile, in which, in consequence of the cessation of worship, the office of the priest was suspended. This circumstance tends to refute the argument of Stähelin ( Einl. p. 349), that since the prayers in Chron., Ezra, and Nehem. greatly resemble each other, and probably proceed from one author, it is more likely that the author of Daniel 9 depended on the most recent historical writings, than that Daniel 9 was always before the eyes of the author of Chron. - a supposition the probability of which is not manifest. If, without any preconceived opinion that this book is a product of the times of the Maccabees, the contents and the course of thought found in the prayer, Daniel 9, are compared with the prayers in Ezra 9:1-15 and Nehemiah 9, we will not easily suppose it possible that Daniel depends on Ezra and Nehemiah. The prayer of Ezr 9:6-15 is a confession of the sins of the congregation from the days of the fathers down to the time of Ezra, in which Ezra scarcely ventures to raise his countenance to God, because as a member of the congregation he is borne down by the thought of their guilt; and therefore he does not pray for pardon, because his design is only “to show to the congregation how greatly they had gone astray, and to induce them on their part to do all to atone for their guilt, and to turn away the anger of God” (Bertheau). The prayer, Nehemiah 9:6-37, is, after the manner of Ps 105 and 106, an extended offering of praise for all the good which the Lord had manifested toward His people, notwithstanding that they had continually hardened their necks and revolted from His from the time of the call of Abraham down to the time of the exile, expressing itself in the confession, “God is righteous, but we are guilty,” never rising to a prayer for deliverance from bondage, under which the people even then languished. The prayer of Daniel 9, on the contrary, by its contents and form, not only creates the impression “of a fresh production adapted to the occasion,” and also of great depth of thought and of earnest power in prayer, but it presents itself specially as the prayer of a man, a prophet, standing in a near relation to God, so that we perceive that the suppliant probably utters the confession of sin and of guilt in the name of the congregation in which he is included; but in the prayer for the turning away of God's anger his special relation to the Lord is seen, and is pleaded as a reason for his being heard, in the words, “Hear the prayer of Thy servant and his supplication (Daniel 9:17); O my God, incline Thine ear” (Daniel 9:18). (Note: After the above remarks, Ewald's opinion, that this prayer is only an epitome of the prayer of Baruch (1:16-3:8), scarcely needs any special refutation. It is open before our eyes, and has been long known, that the prayer of Baruch in the whole course of its thoughts, and in many of the expressions found in it, fits closely to the prayer of Daniel; but also all interpreters not blinded by prejudice have long ago acknowledged that from the resemblances of this apocryphal product not merely to Daniel 9, but also much more to Jeremiah, nothing further follows than that the author of this late copy of ancient prophetic writings knew and used the book of Daniel, and was familiar with the writings of Daniel and Jeremiah, and of other prophets, so that he imitated them. This statement, that the pseudo-Baruch in ch. 1:15-3:8 presents an extended imitation of Daniel's prayer, Ewald has not refuted, and he has brought forward nothing more in support of his view than the assertion, resting on the groundless supposition that the mention of the “judges” in Daniel 9:12 is derived from Bar. 2:1, and on the remark that the author of the book of Baruch would have nothing at all peculiar if he had formed that long prayer out of the book of Daniel, or had only wrought after this pattern - a remark which bears witness, indeed, of a compassionate concern for his protége, but manifestly says nothing for the critic.) The prayer is divided into two parts. Daniel 9:4-14 contain the confession of sin and guilt; Daniel 9:15-19 the supplication for mercy, and the restoration of the holy city and its sanctuary lying in ruins. The confession of sin divides itself into two strophes. Daniel 9:4-10 state the transgression and the guilt, while Daniel 9:11-14 refer to the punishment from God for this guilt. Daniel 9:3 forms the introduction. The words, “Then I directed my face to the Lord,” are commonly understood, after Daniel 6:11, as meaning that Daniel turned his face toward the place of the temple, toward Jerusalem. This is possible. The words themselves, however, only say that he turned his face to God the Lord in heaven, to האלהים אדני , the Lord of the whole world, the true God, not to יהוה , although he meant the covenant God. “To seek prayer in (with) fasting,” etc. “Fasting in sackcloth (penitential garment made of hair) and ashes,” i.e., sprinkling the head with ashes as an outward sign of true humility and penitence, comes into consideration as a means of preparation for prayer, in order that one might place himself in the right frame of mind for prayer, which is an indispensable condition for the hearing of it - a result which is the aim in the seeking. In regard to this matter Jerome makes these excellent remarks: ” In cinere igitur et sacco postulat impleri quod Deus promiserat, non quod esset incredulus futurorum, sed ne securitas negligentiam et negligentia pareret offensam.” תּפלּה and תּחנוּנים = תּחנּה , cf. 1 Kings 8:38, 1 Kings 8:45, 1 Kings 8:49; 2 Chronicles 6:29, 2 Chronicles 6:35. תּפלּה is prayer in general; תּחנוּנים , prayer for mercy and compassion, as also a petition for something, such as the turning away of misfortune or evil . The design of the prayer lying before us is to entreat God that He would look with pity on the desolation of the holy city and the temple,and fulfil His promise of their restoration. This prayer is found in Daniel 9:15-19. Daniel 9:4 Since the desolation of the holy land and the exile of the people was a well-deserved punishment for their sins, and a removal of the punishment could not be hoped for without genuine humiliation under the righteous judgment of God, Daniel begins with a confession of the great transgression of the people, and of the righteousness of the divine dealings with them, that on the ground of this confession he might entreat of the divine compassion the fulfilment of the promised restoration of Jerusalem and Israel. He prays to Jehovah אלהי , my God. If we wish our prayers to be heard, then God, to whom we pray, must become our God. To אתודּה ( I made confession) M. Geier applies Augustine's beautiful remark on Psalms 29:1-11: ”Confession gemina est, aut peccati aut laudis. Quando nobis male est in tribulationibus, confiteamur peccata nostra; quando nobis bene est in exultatione justitiae, confiteamur laudem Deo: sine confessione tamen non simus.” The address, “ Thou great and dreadful God, who keepest the covenant,” etc., points in its first part to the mighty acts of God in destroying His enemies (cf. Deuteronomy 7:21), and in the second part to the faithfulness of God toward those that fear Him in fulfilling His promises (cf. Deuteronomy 7:9). While the greatness and the terribleness of God, which Israel had now experienced, wrought repentance and sorrow, the reference to the covenant faithfulness of God served to awaken and strengthen their confidence in the help of the Almighty. Daniel 9:5 God is righteous and faithful, but Israel is unrighteous and faithless. The confession of the great guilt of Israel in Daniel 9:5 connects itself with the praise of God. This guilt Daniel confesses in the strongest words. חטא , to make a false step, designates sin as an erring from the right; עוה , to be perverse, as unrighteousness; רשׁע , to do wrong, as a passionate rebellion against God. To these three words, which Solomon (1 Kings 8:47) had already used as an exhaustive expression of a consciousness of sin and guilt, and the Psalmist (Psalms 106:6) had repeated as the confession of the people in exile, Daniel yet further adds the expression מרדנוּ , we have rebelled against God, and סור , are departed, fallen away from His commandments; this latter word being in the inf. absol., thereby denotes that the action is presented with emphasis. Daniel 9:6 The guilt becomes the greater from the fact that God failed not to warn them, and that Israel would not hear the words of the prophets, who in His name spoke to high and low, - to kings and princes, i.e., the heads of tribes and families, and to the great men of the kingdom and to the fathers, i.e., to their ancestors, in this connection with the exclusion of kings and chiefs of the people, who are specially named, as Jeremiah 44:17, cf. Nehemiah 9:32, Nehemiah 9:34; not perhaps the elders, heads of families (Cocceius, J. D. Michaelis, and others), or merely teachers (Ewald). To illustrate the meaning, there is added the expression “the whole people of the land,” not merely the common people, so that no one might regard himself as exempted. Compare כּל־עמך , Nehemiah 9:32. This expression, comprehending all, is omitted when the thought is repeated in Daniel 9:8. Daniel 9:7 Thus to God belongeth righteousness, but to the sinful people only shame. הצדקה לך does not mean: Thine was the righteous cause (Hitzig). The interpolation of the was is arbitrary, and צדקה predicated of God is not righteous cause, but righteousness as a perfection which is manifested in His operations on the earth, or specially in His dealings toward Israel. הפנים בּשׁת , shame which reflects itself in the countenance, not because of disgraceful circumstances, Ezra 9:7 (Kranichfeld), but in the consciousness of well-deserved suffering. הזּה כּיום does not mean: at this time, to-day, now (Häv., v. Leng., and others); the interpretation of כ in the sense of circa stands opposed to the definite הזּה . In the formula הזּה כּיום the כ has always the meaning of a comparison; also in Jeremiah 44:6, Jeremiah 44:22-23; 1 Samuel 22:8, and everywhere the expression has this meaning: as it happened this day, as experience has now shown or shows. See under Deuteronomy 2:30. Here it relates merely to הף/ ot yl בּשׁת לנוּ ( to us shame, etc.), not also the first part of the verse. The לנוּ is particularized by the words, “the men of Judah” ( אישׁ collectively, since the plur. אישׁים in this connection cannot be used; it occurs only three times in the O.T.), “and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Both together are the citizens of the kingdom of Judah. ישׂראל , the whole of the rest of Israel, the members of the kingdom of the ten tribes. To both of these the further definition relates: “those that are near, and those that are far off, etc.” With m' אשׁר בּמעלם ( because of their trespass which,” etc.), cf. Leviticus 26:40. Daniel 9:8 In this verse Daniel repeats the thoughts of Dan 9:7 in order to place the sin and shame of the people opposite to the divine compassion, and then to pass from confession of sin to supplication for the sin-forgiving grace of the covenant-keeping God. Daniel 9:9-10 Compassion and forgiveness are with the Lord our God; and these we need, for we have rebelled against Him. This thought is expanded in Daniel 9:10-14. The rebellion against God, the refusing to hear the voice of the Lord through the prophets, the transgression of His law, of which all Israel of the twelve tribes were guilty, has brought the punishment on the whole people which the law of Moses threatened against transgressors. Daniel 9:11 ותּתּך with ו consec.: therefore has the curse poured itself out, and the oath, i.e., the curse strengthened with an oath. נתך , to pour forth, of storms of rain and hail (Exodus 9:33), but especially of the destroying fire-rain of the divine wrath, cf. Nahum 1:6 with Genesis 19:24, and Jeremiah 7:20; Jeremiah 42:18; Jeremiah 44:6. האלה is used, Deuteronomy 29:18., of the threatenings against the transgressors of the law in Leviticus 26:14., Deuteronomy 28:15., to which Daniel here makes reference. To strengthen the expression, he has added השּׁבעה ( and the oath) to האלה , after Numbers 5:21; cf. also Nehemiah 10:30. Daniel 9:12 In this verse the Kethiv דּבריו , in harmony with the ancient versions, is to be maintained, and the Keri only as an explanation inferred from the thought of a definite curse. “Our judges” is an expression comprehending the chiefs of the people, kings and princes, as in Ps. 20:10; Psalms 148:11. Daniel 9:13 The thought of Dan 9:11 is again taken up once more to declare that God, by virtue of His righteousness, must carry out against the people the threatening contained in His law. את before כּל־הרעה is not, with Kranichfeld, to be explained from the construction of the passive כּתוּב with the accusative, for it does not depend on כּתוּב no , but serves to introduce the subject absolutely stated: as concerns all this evil, thus it has come upon us, as Ezekiel 44:3; Jeremiah 45:4; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. §277 d. Regarding את־פּני חלּינוּ ( we entreated the face, etc.), cf. Zechariah 7:2; Zechariah 8:21. להשׂכּיל בּאמתּך is not to be translated: to comprehend Thy faithfulness (Hitzig), for the construction with ב does not agree with this, and then אמת does not mean faithfulness ( Treue), but truth ( Warheit). The truth of God is His plan of salvation revealed in His word, according to which the sinner can only attain to happiness and salvation by turning to God and obeying His commands. Daniel 9:14 Because Israel did not do this, therefore the Lord watched upon the evil, i.e., continually thought thereon - an idea very frequently found in Jeremiah; cf. Jeremiah 1:12; Jeremiah 31:28; Jeremiah 44:27. צדּיק with על following, righteous on the ground of all His works - a testimony from experience; cf. Nehemiah 9:33 (Kranichfeld). Daniel 9:15-19 After this confession, there now follows the prayer for the turning away of the wrath (Daniel 9:15 and Daniel 9:16) of God, and for the manifestation of His grace toward His suppliant people (Daniel 9:17-19). Daniel 9:15 This prayer Daniel founds on the great fact of the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, by which the Lord made for Himself a name among the nations. Jerome has here rightly remarked, not exhausting the thought however: ”memor est antiqui beneficii, ut ad similem Dei clementiam provocet.” For Daniel does not view the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt merely as a good deed, but as an act of salvation by which God fulfilled His promise He had given to the patriarchs, ratified the covenant He made with Abraham, and by the miracles accompanying the exodus of the tribes of Israel from the land of Egypt, glorified His name before all nations (cf. Isa. 63:32, 13), so that Moses could appeal to this glorious revelation of God among the heathen as an argument, in his prayer for pardon to Israel, to mitigate the anger of God which burned against the apostasy and the rebellion of the people, and to turn away the threatened destruction, Exodus 32:11., Numbers 14:13. Jeremiah, and also Isaiah, in like manner ground their prayer for mercy to Israel on the name of the Lord, Jeremiah 32:20., Isaiah 63:11-15. Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1:10 and Nehemiah 9:10) in this agrees with Jeremiah and Daniel. הזּה כּיום , in the same connection in Jeremiah 50, does not mean, then, at that time, but, as this day still: (hast gotten Thee) a name as Thou hast it still. In order to rest the prayer alone on the honour of the Lord, on the honour of His name, Daniel again repeats the confession, we have sinned, we have done wickedly; cf. Daniel 9:5. Daniel 9:16 The prayer for the turning away of God's anger follows, and is introduced by a repetition of the address, “O Lord,” and by a brief condensation of the motive developed in Daniel 9:15, by the words כּכל־צדקתיך . צדקות does not mean in a gracious manner, and צדק is not grace, but proofs of the divine righteousness. The meaning of the words כּכל־צדקתיך is not: as all proofs of Thy righteousness have hitherto been always intimately connected with a return of Thy grace, so may it also now be (Kran.); but, according to all the proofs of Thy righteousness, i.e., to all that Thou hitherto, by virtue of Thy covenant faithfulness, hast done for Israel. צדקות means the great deeds done by the Lord for His people, among which the signs and wonders accompanying their exodus from Egypt take the first place, so far as therein Jehovah gave proof of the righteousness of His covenant promise. According to these, may God also now turn away His anger from His city of Jerusalem! The words in apposition, “Thy holy mountain,” refer especially to the temple mountain, or Mount Zion, as the centre of the kingdom of God. The prayer is enforced not only by כּל־צדקריך , but also by the plea that Jerusalem is the city of God ( Thy city). Compare Psalms 79:4 and Psalms 44:14. Daniel 9:17 In this verse the prayer is repeated in more earnest words. With פּניך האר ( cause Thy face to shine) compare Psalms 80:4 and Numbers 6:25. אדני למען , because Thou art Lord, is stronger than למענך . As the Lord κατ̓ἐχοχήν , God cannot let the desolation of His sanctuary continue without doing injury to His honour; cf. Isaiah 48:11. Daniel 9:18-19 The argument by which the prayer is urged, derived from a reference to the desolations, is strengthened by the words in apposition: and the city over which Thy name is named; i.e., not which is named after Thy name, by which the meaning of this form of expression is enfeebled. The name of God is the revelation of His being. It is named over Jerusalem in so far as Jehovah gloriously revealed Himself in it; He has raised it, by choosing it as the place of His throne in Israel, to the glory of a city of God; cf. Psalms 48:2., and regarding this form of expression, the remarks under Deuteronomy 28:10. The expression: and laying down my supplication before God (cf. Daniel 9:20), is derived from the custom of falling down before God in prayer, and is often met with in Jeremiah; cf. Jeremiah 38:26; Jeremiah 42:9, and Jeremiah 36:7. The Kethiv פּקחה (Daniel 9:18, open) is to be preferred to the Keri פּקח , because it is conformed to the imperative forms in Daniel 9:19, and is in accordance with the energy of the prayer. This energy shows itself in the number of words used in Daniel 9:18 and Daniel 9:19. Chr. B. Mich., under Daniel 9:19, has well remarked: ”Fervorem precantis cognoscere licet cum ex anaphora, seu terna et mysterii plena nominis Adonai repetitione, tum ex eo, quod singulis hisce imperativis He paragogicum ad intensiorem adfectum significandum superaddidit, tum ex congerie illa verborum: Audi, Condona, Attende, reliqua.” The granting of the prayer. - While Daniel was yet engaged in prayer ( הר ק על , on account of the holy mountain, i.e., for it, see under Daniel 9:16), an answer was already communicated to him; for the angel Gabriel came to him, and brought to him an explanation of the seventy years of Jeremiah, i.e., not as to their expiry, but what would happen after their completion for the city and the people of God. האישׁ , the man Gabriel, refers, by the use of the definite article, back to Daniel 8:15, where Gabriel appeared to him in the form of a man. This is expressly observed in the relative clause, “whom I saw,” etc. Regarding בּתּחלּה ( at the first, Daniel 9:21) see under Daniel 8:1. The differently interpreted words, מעף בּיעף , belong, from their position, to the relative clause, or specially to ראיתי ( I had seen), not to נגע , since no ground can be perceived for the placing of the adverbial idea before the verb. The translation of מעף בּיעף by τάχειφερόμενος (lxx), πετόμενος (Theodot.), cito volans (Vulg.), from which the church fathers concluded that the angels were winged, notwithstanding the fact that rabbis, as e.g., Jos. Jacchiades, and modern interpreters (Häv., v. Leng., Hitz.) maintain it, is without any foundation in the words, and was probably derived by the old translators from a confounding of יעף with עוּף . יעף means only wearied, to become tired, to weary oneself by exertion, in certain places, as e.g., Jeremiah 2:24, by a long journey or course, but nowhere to run or to flee. יעף , weariness - wearied in weariness, i.e., very wearied or tired. According to this interpretation, which the words alone admit of, the expression is applicable, not to the angel, whom as an unearthly being, we cannot speak of as being wearied, although, with Kranichfeld, one may think of the way from the dwelling-place of God, removed far from His sinful people, to this earth as very long. On the contrary, the words perfectly agree with the condition of Daniel described in Daniel 8:17., 27, and Daniel mentions this circumstance, because Gabriel, at his former coming to him, not only helped to strengthen him, but also gave him understanding of the vision, which was to him hidden in darkness, so that his appearing again at once awakened joyful hope. אלי נגע , not he touched me, but he reached me, came forward to me. For this meaning of נגע cf. 2 Samuel 5:8; Jonah 3:6. “About the time of the evening sacrifice.” מנחה , properly meat-offering, here comprehending the sacrifice, as is often its meaning in the later Scriptures; cf. Malachi 1:13; Malachi 2:13; Malachi 3:4. The time of the evening oblation was the time of evening prayer for the congregation. ויּבן , he gave understanding, insight, as Daniel 8:16. The words point back to Daniel 9:2. First of all Gabriel speaks of the design and the circumstances of his coming. עתּה יצאתי , now, viz., in consequence of thy morning prayer, I am come, sc. from the throne of God. להשׂכּילך בינה , to instruct thee in knowledge. This is more particularly declared in Daniel 9:23. At the beginning of Daniel's prayer a word, i.e., a communication from God, came forth, which he brought. דּבר , not a commandment, or the divine commandment to Gabriel to go to Daniel, but a word of God, and particularly the word which he announced to Daniel, Daniel 9:24-27. The sentence, “for thou art a man greatly beloved” ( חמוּדות = חמוּדות אישׁ , Daniel 10:11, Daniel 10:19, vir desideriorum, desideratissimus ), does not contain the reason for Gabriel's coming in haste, but for the principal thought of the verse, the going forth of the word of God immediately at the beginning of Daniel's prayer. המּראה stands not for revelation, but is the vision, the appearance of the angel by whom the word of God was communicated to the prophet. מראה is accordingly not the contents of the word spoken, but the form for its communication to Daniel. To both - the word and the form of its revelation - Daniel must give heed. This revelation was, moreover, not communicated to him in a vision, but while in the state of natural consciousness. Seventy weeks are determined. - שׁבעים from שׁבוּע , properly, the time divided into sevenths, signifies commonly the period of seven days, the week, as Genesis 29:27. (in the sing.), and Daniel 10:2-3, in the plur., which is usually in the form שׁבעות ; cf. Deuteronomy 16:9., Exodus 34:22, etc. In the form שׁבעים there thus lies no intimation that it is not common weeks that are meant. As little does it lie in the numeral being placed after it, for it also sometimes is found before it, where, as here, the noun as the weightier idea must be emphasized, and that not by later authors merely, but also in Genesis 32:15., 1 Kings 8:63; cf. Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 698. What period of time is here denoted by שׁבעים can be determined neither from the word itself and its form, nor from the comparison with ימים שׁבעים , Daniel 10:2-3, since ימים is in these verses added to שׁבעים , not for the purpose of designating these as day-weeks, but simply as full weeks (three weeks long). The reasons for the opinion that common (i.e., seven-day) weeks are not intended, lie partly in the contents of Dan 9:25, Daniel 9:27, which undoubtedly teach that that which came to pass in the sixty-two weeks and in the one week could not take place in common weeks, partly in the reference of the seventy שׁבעים to the seventy years of Jeremiah, Daniel 9:2. According to a prophecy of Jeremiah - so e.g., Hitzig reasons - Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy years, and now, in the sixty-ninth year, the city and the temple are as yet lying waste (Daniel 9:17.), and as yet nowhere are there symptoms of any change. Then, in answer to his supplication, Daniel received the answer, seventy שׁבעים must pass before the full working out of the deliverance. “If the deliverance was not yet in seventy years, then still less was it in seventy weeks. With seventy times seven months we are also still inside of seventy years, and we are directed therefore to year-weeks, so that each week shall consist of seven years. The special account of the contents of the weeks can be adjusted with the year-weeks alone; and the half-week, Daniel 9:27, particularly appears to be identical in actual time with these three and a half times (years), Daniel 7:25.” This latter element is by others much more definitely affirmed. Thus e.g., Kranichfeld says that Daniel had no doubt about the definite extent of the expression שׁבוּע , but gave an altogether unambiguous interpretation of it when he combined the last half-week essentially with the known and definite three and a half years of the time of the end. But - we must, on the contrary, ask - where does Daniel speak of the three and a half years of the time of the end? He does not use the word year in any of the passages that fall to be here considered, but only עדּן or מועד , time, definite time. That by this word common years are to be understood, is indeed taken for granted by many interpreters, but a satisfactory proof of such a meaning has not been adduced. Moreover, in favour of year-weeks (periods of seven years) it has been argued that such an interpretation was very natural, since they hold so prominent a place in the law of Moses; and the Exile had brought them anew very distinctly into remembrance, inasmuch as the seventy years' desolation of the land was viewed as a punishment for the interrupted festival of the sabbatical years: 2 Chronicles 36:21 (Hgstb., Kran., and others). But since these periods of seven years, as Hengstenberg himself confesses, are not called in the law שׁבעים or שׁבעות , therefore, from the repeated designation of the seventh year as that of the great Sabbath merely (Leviticus 25:2, Leviticus 25:4-5; Leviticus 26:34-35, Leviticus 26:43; 2 Chronicles 36:21), the idea of year-weeks in no way follows. The law makes mention not only of the Sabbath-year, but also of periods of seven times seven years, after the expiry of which a year of jubilee was always to be celebrated (Leviticus 25:8.). These, as well as the Sabbath-years, might be called שׁבעים . Thus the idea of year-weeks has no exegetical foundation. Hofmann and Kliefoth are in the right when they remark that שׁבעים does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds. The ἁπ . λεγ . חתך means in Chald. to cut off, to cut up into pieces, then to decide, to determine closely, e.g., Targ. Esther 4:5; cf. Buxtorf, Lex. talm., and Levy, Chald. Wörterb. s.v. The meaning for נחתּך , abbreviatae sunt ( Vulg. for ἐκολοβώθησαν , Matthew 24:22), which Wieseler has brought forward, is not proved, and it is unsuitable, because if one cuts off a piece from a whole, the whole is diminished on account of the piece cut off, but not the piece itself. For the explanation of the sing. נחתּך we need neither the supposition that a definite noun, as עת ( time), was before the prophet's mind (Hgstb.), nor the appeal to the inexact manner of writing of the later authors (Ewald). The sing. is simply explained by this, that שׁבעים שׁבעים is conceived of as the absolute idea, and then is taken up by the passive verb impersonal, to mark that the seventy sevenths are to be viewed as a whole, as a continued period of seventy seven times following each other. Upon thy people and upon thy holy city. In the על there does not lie the conception of that which is burdensome, or that this period would be a time of suffering like the seventy years of exile (v. Lengerke). The word only indicates that such a period of time was determined upon the people. The people and the city of Daniel are called the people and the city of God, because Daniel has just represented them before God as His (Hävernick, v. Lengerke, Kliefoth). But Jerusalem, even when in ruins, is called the holy city by virtue of its past and its future history; cf. Daniel 9:20. This predicate does not point, as Wieseler and Hitzig have rightly acknowledged, to a time when the temple stood, as Stähelin and v. Lengerke suppose. Only this lies in it, Kliefoth has justly added, - not, however, in the predicate of holiness, but rather in the whole expression, - that the people and city of God shall not remain in the state of desolation in which they then were, but shall at some time be again restored, and shall continue during the time mentioned. One must not, however, at once conclude that this promise of continuance referred only to the people of the Jews and their earthly Jerusalem. Certainly it refers first to Israel after the flesh, and to the geographical Jerusalem, because these were then the people and the city of God; but these ideas are not exhausted in this reference, but at the same time embrace the New Testament church and the church of God on earth. The following infinitive clauses present the object for which the seventy weeks are determined, i.e., they intimate what shall happen till, or with the expiry of, the time determined. Although ל before the infinitive does not mean till or during, yet it is also not correct to say that ל can point out only the issue which the period of time finally reaches, only its result. Whether that which is stated in the infinitive clauses shall for the first time take place after the expiry of, or at the end of the time named, or shall develope itself gradually in the course of it, and only be completed at the end of it, cannot be concluded from the final ל , but only from the material contents of the final clauses. The six statements are divided by Maurer, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others into three passages of two members each, thus: After the expiry of seventy weeks, there shall (1) be completed the measure of sin; (2) the sin shall be covered and righteousness brought in; (3) the prophecy shall be fulfilled, and the temple, which was desecrated by Antiochus, shall be again consecrated. The masoretes seem, however, to have already conceived of this threefold division by placing the Atnach under עלמים צדק (the fourth clause); but it rests on a false construction of the individual members especially of the first two passages. Rather we have two three-membered sentences before us. This appears evident from the arrangement of the six statements; i.e., that the first three statements treat of the taking away of sin, and thus of the negative side of the deliverance; the three last treat of the bringing in of everlasting righteousness with its consequences, and thus of the positive deliverance, and in such a manner that in both classes the three members stand in reciprocal relation to each other: the fourth statement corresponds to the first, the fifth to the second, the sixth to the third - the second and the fifth present even the same verb חתם . In the first and second statements the reading is doubtful. Instead of לחתּם ( Keth.), to seal, the Keri has להתם , to end (R. תּמם , to complete). In לכלּא a double reading is combined, for the vowel-points do not belong to the Keth., which rather has לכלא , since כּלא is nowhere found in the Piel, but to the Keri, for the Masoretes hold כלא to be of the same meaning as כלה , to be ended. Thus the ancient translators interpreted it: lxx, τὰςἀδικίαςσπανίσαι ; Theod., συντελεσθῆναι , al. συντελέσαι ; Aquil., συντελέσαιτὴνἀθεσίαν ; Vulg., ut consummetur praevaricatio . Bertholdt, Rosenmüller, Gesenius, Winer, Ewald, Hitzig, Maurer, have followed them in supposing a passing of ה into . א But since כּלה occurs frequently in Daniel, always with ה htiw (cf. v. 27; Daniel 11:36; Daniel 12:7), and generally the roots with ה take the form of those with א much seldomer than the reverse, on these grounds the reading לכלא thus deserves the preference, apart from the consideration that almost all the Keris are valueless emendations of the Masoretes; and the parallel להתם , decidedly erroneous, is obviously derived from Daniel 8:23. Thus the Keri does not give in the two passages a suitable meaning. The explanation: to finish the transgression and to make full the measure of sin, does not accord with what follows: to pardon the iniquity; and the thought that the Jews would fill up the measure of their transgression in the seventy year-weeks, and that as a punishment they would pass through a period of suffering from Antiochus and afterwards be pardoned, is untenable, because the punishment by Antiochus for their sins brought to their full measure is arbitrarily interpolated; but without this interpolation the pardon of the sins stands in contradiction to the filling up of their measure. Besides, this explanation is further opposed by the fact, that in the first two statements there must be a different subject from that which is in the third. For to fill up the measure of sin is the work of God. Accordingly the Kethiv alone is to be adopted as correct, and the first passage to be translated thus: to shut up the transgression. כּלא means to hold back, to hold in, to arrest, to hold in prison, to shut in or shut up; hence כּלא , a prison, jail. To arrest the wickedness or shut it up does not mean to pardon it, but to hem it in, to hinder it so that it can no longer spread about (Hofm.); cf. Zechariah 5:8 and Revelation 20:3. In the second passage, “ to seal up sin,” the חטּאות are the several proofs of the transgression. חתם , to seal, does not denote the finishing or ending of the sins (Theodrt. and others). Like the Arab. chtm, it may occur in the sense of “to end,” and this meaning may have originated from the circumstance that one is wont at the end of a letter or document to affix the impress of a seal; yet this meaning is nowhere found in Hebr.: see under Exodus 28:12. The figure of the sealing stands here in connection with the shutting up in prison. Cf. Daniel 6:18, the king for greater security sealed up the den into which Daniel was cast. Thus also God seals the hand of man that it cannot move, Job 37:7, and the stars that they cannot give light, Job 9:7. But in this figure to seal is not = to take away, according to which Hgstb. and many others explain it thus: the sins are here described as sealed, because they are altogether removed out of the sight of God, altogether set aside; for “that which is shut up and sealed is not merely taken away, entirely set aside, but guarded, held under lock and seal” (Kliefoth). Hence more correctly Hofmann and Kliefoth say, “If the sins are sealed, they are on the one side laid under custody, so that they cannot any more be active or increase, but that they may thus be guarded and held, so that they can no longer be pardoned and blotted out;” cf. Revelation 20:3. The third statement is, “ to make reconciliation for iniquity.” כּפּר is terminus techn ., to pardon, to blot out by means of a sin-offering, i.e., to forgive. These three passages thus treat of the setting aside of sin and its blotting out; but they neither form a climax nor a mere συναθροισμός , a multiplying of synonymous expressions for the pardoning of sins, ut tota peccatorum humani generis colluvies eo melius comprehenderetur (M. Geier). Against the idea of a climax it is justly objected, that in that case the strongest designation of sin, הפּשׁע , which designates sin as a falling away from God, a rebelling against Him, should stand last, whereas it occurs in the first sentence. Against the idea of a συναθροισμός it is objected, that the words “to shut up” and “to seal” are not synonymous with “to make reconciliation for,” i.e., “to forgive.” The three expressions, it is true, all treat alike of the setting aside of sin, but in different ways. The first presents the general thought, that the falling away shall be shut up, the progress and the spreading of the sin shall be prevented. The other two expressions define more closely how the source whence arises the apostasy shall be shut up, the going forth and the continued operation of the sin prevented. This happens in one way with unbelievers, and in a different way with believers. The sins of unbelievers are sealed, are guarded securely under a seal, so that they may no more spread about and increase, nor any longer be active and operative; but the sins of believers are forgiven through a reconciliation. The former idea is stated in the second member, and the latter in the third, as Hofmann and Kliefoth have rightly remarked. There follows the second group of three statements, which treat of the positive unfolding of salvation accompanying the taking away and the setting aside of sin. The first expression of this group, or the fourth in the whole number, is “ to bring in everlasting righteousness.” After the entire setting aside of sin must come a righteousness which shall never cease. That צדק does not mean “happiness of the olden time” (Bertholdt, Rösch), nor “innocence of the former better times” (J. D. Michaelis), but “righteousness,” requires at present no further proof. Righteousness comes from heaven as the gift of God (Ps. 85:11-14; Isaiah 51:5-8), rises as a sun upon them that fear God (Mal. 3:20), and is here called everlasting, corresponding to the eternity of the Messianic kingdom (cf. Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:18, Daniel 7:27). צדק comprehends the internal and the external righteousness of the new heavens and the new earth, 2 Peter 3:13. This fourth expression forms the positive supplement of the first: in the place of the absolutely removed transgression is the perfected righteousness. In the fifth passage, to seal up the vision and prophecy, the word חתם , used in the second passage of sin, is here used of righteousness. The figure of sealing is regarded by many interpreters in the sense of confirming, and that by filling up, with reference to the custom of impressing a seal on a writing for the confirmation of its contents; and in illustration these references are given: 1 Kings 21:8, and Jeremiah 32:10-11, Jeremiah 32:44 (Hävernick, v. Lengerke, Ewald, Hitzig, and others). But for this figurative use of the word to seal, no proof-passages are adduced from the O.T. Add to this that the word cannot be used here in a different sense from that in which it is used in the second passage. The sealing of the prophecy corresponds to the sealing of the transgression, and must be similarly understood. The prophecy is sealed when it is laid under a seal, so that it can no longer actively show itself. The interpretation of the object ונביא חזון is also disputed. Berth., Ros., Bleek, Ewald, Hitzig, Wieseler, refer it to the prophecy of the seventy weeks (Jeremiah 25 and 29), mentioned in Daniel 9:2. But against this view stands the fact of the absence of the article; for if by חזון that prophecy is intended, an intimation of this would have been expected at least by the definite article, and here particularly would have been altogether indispensable. It is also condemned by the word נביא added, which shows that both words are used in comprehensive generality for all existing prophecies and prophets. Not only the prophecy, but the prophet who gives it, i.e., not merely the prophecy, but also the calling of the prophet, must be sealed. Prophecies and prophets are sealed, when by the full realization of all prophecies prophecy ceases, no prophets any more appear. The extinction of prophecy in consequence of its fulfilment is not, however (with Hengstenberg), to be sought in the time of the manifestation of Christ in the flesh; for then only the prophecy of the Old Covenant reached its end (cf. Matthew 11:13; Luke 22:37; John 1:46), and its place is occupied by the prophecy of the N.T., the fulfilling of which is still in the future, and which will not come to an end and terminate ( καταργηθήσεται , 1 Corinthians 13:8) till the kingdom of God is perfected in glory at the termination of the present course of the world's history, at the same time with the full conclusive fulfilment of the O.T. prophecy; cf. Acts 3:21. This fifth member stands over against the second, as the fourth does over against the first. “When the sins are sealed, the prophecy is also sealed, for prophecy is needed in the war against sin; when sin is thus so placed that it can no longer operate, then prophecy also may come to a state of rest; when sin comes to an end in its place, prophecy can come to an end also by its fulfilment, there being no place for it after the setting aside of sin. And when the apostasy is shut up, so that it can no more spread about, then righteousness will be brought, that it may possess the earth, now freed from sin, shut up in its own place” (Kliefoth). The sixth and last clause, to anoint a most holy, is very differently interpreted. Those interpreters who seek the fulfilment of this word of revelation in the time following nearest the close of the Exile, or in the time of the Maccabees, refer this clause either to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering (Wieseler), which was restored by Zerubbabel and Joshua (Ezra 3:2.), or to the consecration of the temple of Zerubbabel (J. D. Michaelis, Jahn, Steudel), or to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering which was desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, 1 Macc. 4:54 (Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others). But none of these interpretations can be justified. It is opposed by the actual fact, that neither in the consecration of Zerubbabel's temple, nor at the re-consecration of the altar of burnt-offering desecrated by Antiochus, is mention made of any anointing. According to the definite, uniform tradition of the Jews, the holy anointing oil did not exist during the time of the second temple. Only the Mosaic sanctuary of the tabernacle, with its altars and vessels, were consecrated by anointing. Exodus 30:22., 40:1-16; Leviticus 8:10. There is no mention of anointing even at the consecration of Solomon's temple, 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chron 5-7, because that temple only raised the tabernacle to a fixed dwelling, and the ark of the covenant as the throne of God, which was the most holy furniture thereof, was brought from the tabernacle to the temple. Even the altar of burnt-offering of the new temple (Ezekiel 43:20, Ezekiel 43:26) was not consecrated by anointing, but only by the offering of blood. Then the special fact of the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering, or of the temple, does not accord with the general expressions of the other members of this verse, and was on the whole not so significant and important an event as that one might expect it to be noticed after the foregoing expressions. What Kranichfeld says in confirmation of this interpretation is very far-fetched and weak. He remarks, that “as in this verse the prophetic statements relate to a taking away and כּפּר of sins, in the place of which righteousness is restored, accordingly the anointing will also stand in relation to this sacred action of the כפר , which primarily and above all conducts to the significance of the altar of Israel, that, viz., which stood in the outer court.” But, even granting this to be correct, it proves nothing as to the anointing even of the altar of burnt-offering. For the preceding clauses speak not only of the כפר of transgression, but also of the taking away (closing and sealing) of the apostasy and of sin, and thus of a setting aside of sin, which did not take place by means of a sacrifice. The fullest expiation also for the sins of Israel which the O.T. knew, viz., that on the great day of atonement, was not made on the altar of burnt-offering, but by the sprinkling of the blood of the offering on the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies, and on the altar of incense in the most holy place. If משׁח is to be explained later the כּפּר , then by “holy of holies” we would have to understand not “primarily” the altar of burnt-offering, but above all the holy vessels of the inner sanctuary, because here it is not an atonement needing to be repeated that is spoken of, but one that avails for ever. In addition to this, there is the verbal argument that the words קדשׁים קדשׁ are not used of a single holy vessel which alone could be thought of. Not only the altar of burnt-offering is so named, Exodus 29:37; Exodus 40:10, but also the altar of incense, Exodus 30:10, and the two altars with all the vessels of the sanctuary, the ark of the covenant, shew-bread, candlesticks, basins, and the other vessels belonging thereto, Exodus 30:29, also the holy material for incense, Exodus 30:36, the shew-bread, Leviticus 24:9, the meat-offering, Leviticus 2:3, Leviticus 2:10; Leviticus 6:10; Leviticus 10:12, the flesh of the sin-offering and of the expiatory sacrifice, Leviticus 6:10, Leviticus 6:18; Leviticus 10:17; Leviticus 7:1, Leviticus 7:6; Leviticus 14:13; Numbers 18:9, and that which was sanctified to the Lord, Leviticus 27:28. Finally, the whole surroundings of the hill on which the temple stood, Ezekiel 43:12, and the whole new temple, Ezekiel 45:3, is named a “most holy;” and according to 1 Chronicles 23:13, Aaron and his sons are sanctified as קדשׁים קדשׁ . Thus there is no good ground for referring this expression to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering. Such a reference is wholly excluded by the fact that the consecration of Zerubbabel's temple and altar, as well as of that which was desecrated by Antiochus, was a work of man, while the anointing of a “most holy” in the verse before us must be regarded as a divine act, because the three preceding expressions beyond controversy announce divine actions. Every anointing, indeed, of persons or of things was performed by men, but it becomes a work of God when it is performed with the divinely ordained holy anointing oil by priests or prophets according to God's command, and then it is the means and the symbol of the endowment of equipment with the Spirit of God. When Saul was anointed by Samuel, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, 1 Samuel 10:9. The same thing was denoted by the anointing of David, 1 Samuel 16:13. The anointing also of the tabernacle and its vessels served the same object, consecrating them as the place and the means of carrying on the gracious operations of the Spirit of God. As an evidence of this, the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle after it was set up and consecrated. At the dedication of the sanctuary after the Exile, under Zerubbabel and in the Maccabean age, the anointing was wanting, and there was no entrance into it also of the glory of the Lord. Therefore these consecrations cannot be designated as anointings and as the works of God, and the angel cannot mean these works of men by the “anointing of a most holy.” Much older, more general, and also nearer the truth, is the explanation which refers these words to the anointing of the Messiah, an explanation which is established by various arguments. The translation of the lxx, καὶεὐφράναιἅγιονἁγίων , and of Theod., τοῦχρῖσαιἅγιονἁγίων , the meaning of which is controverted, is generally understood by the church Fathers as referring to the Messiah. Theodoret sets it forth as undoubtedly correct, and as accepted even by the Jews; and the old Syriac translator has introduced into the text the words, “till the Messiah, the Most Holy.” (Note: Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. viii. 2, p. 387, ed. Colon., opposes the opinion that the translation of Aquila, καὶἀλεῖψαιἡγιασμένονἡγιασμένων , may be understood of the Jewish high priest. Cf. Raymundis Martini, Pugio fidei, p. 285, ed. Carpz., and Edzard ad Abodah Sara, p. 246f., for evidences of the diffusion of this interpretation among the Jews.) But this interpretation is set aside by the absence of the article. Without taking into view 1 Chronicles 23:13, the words קדשׁים קדשׁ are nowhere used of persons, but only of things. This meaning lies at the foundation of the passage in the book of Chronicles referred to, “that he should sanctify a קדשׁים קדשׁ קד , anoint him (Aaron) to be a most holy thing.” Following Hävernick, therefore, Hengstenberg (2nd ed. of his Christol. iii. p. 54) seeks to make this meaning applicable also for the Messianic interpretation, for he thinks that Christ is here designated as a most holy thing. But neither in the fact that the high priest bore on his brow the inscription ליהוה קדשׁ , nor in the declaration regarding Jehovah, “He shall be למקדּשׁ ,” Isaiah 8:14, cf. Ezekiel 11:16, is there any ground for the conclusion that the Messiah could simply be designated as a most holy thing. In Luke 1:35 Christ is spoken of by the simple neuter ἅγιον , but not by the word “object;” and the passages in which Jesus is described as ὁἅγιος , Acts 3:14; Acts 4:30; 1 John 2:20; Revelation 3:7, prove nothing whatever as to this use of קדשׁ of Christ. Nothing to the purpose also can be gathered from the connection of the sentence. If in what follows the person of the Messiah comes forward to view, it cannot be thence concluded that He must also be mentioned in this verse. Much more satisfactory is the thought, that in the words “to anoint a קדשׁים קדשׁ ” the reference is to the anointing of a new sanctuary, temple, or most holy place. The absence of the article forbids us, indeed, from thinking of the most holy place of the earthly temple which was rebuilt by Zerubbabel, since the most holy place of the tabernacle as well as of the temple is constantly called הקדשׁים קדשׁ . But it is not this definite holy of holies that is intended, but a new holy of holies which should be in the place of the holy of holies of the tabernacle and the temple of Solomon. Now, since the new temple of the future seen by Ezekiel, with all its surroundings, is called (Ezekiel 45:3) קדשׁים קדשׁ , Hofmann ( Deuteronomy 70 Jahre, p. 65) thinks that the holy of holies is the whole temple, and its anointing with oil a figure of the sanctification of the church by the Holy Ghost, but that this shall not be in the conspicuousness in which it is here represented till the time of the end, when the perfected church shall possess the conspicuousness of a visible sanctuary. But, on the contrary, Kliefoth (p. 307) has with perfect justice replied, that “the most holy, and the temple, so far as it has a most holy place, is not the place of the congregation where it comes to God and is with God, but, on the contrary, is the place where God is present for the congregation, and manifests Himself to it.” The words under examination say nothing of the people and the congregation which God will gather around the place of His gracious presence, but of the objective place where God seeks to dwell among His people and reveal Himself to them. The anointing is the act by which the place is consecrated to be a holy place of the gracious presence and revelation of God. If thus the anointing of a most holy is here announced, then by it there is given the promise, not of the renewal of the place already existing from of old, but of the appointment of a new place of God's gracious presence among His people, a new sanctuary. This, as Kliefoth further justly observes, apart from the connection, might refer to the work of redemption perfected by the coming of Christ, which has indeed created in him a new place of the gracious presence of God, a new way of God's dwelling among men. But since this statement is closely connected with those going before, and they speak of the perfect setting aside of transgression and of sin, of the appearance of everlasting righteousness, and the shutting up of all prophecy by its fulfilment, thus of things for which the work of redemption completed by the first appearance of Christ has, it is true, laid the everlasting foundation, but which first reach their completion in the full carrying through of this work of salvation in the return of the Lord by the final judgment, and the establishment of the kingdom of glory under the new heavens and on the new earth, - since this is the case, we must refer this sixth statement also to that time of the consummation, and understand it of the establishment of the new holy of holies which was shown to the holy seer on Patmos as ἡσκηνὴτοῦΘεοῦμετὰτῶνἀνθρώπων , in which God will dwell with them, and they shall become His people, and He shall be their God with them (Revelation 21:1-3). In this holy city there will be no temple, for the Lord, the Almighty God, and the Lamb is its temple, and the glory of God will lighten it (Revelation 21:22). Into it nothing shall enter that defileth or worketh abomination (Revelation 21:27), for sin shall then be closed and sealed up; there shall righteousness dwell (2 Peter 3:13), and prophecy shall cease (1 Corinthians 13:8) by its fulfilment. From the contents of these six statements it thus appears that the termination of the seventy weeks coincides with the end of the present course of the world. But Daniel 9:24 says nothing as to the commencement of this period. Nor can this be determined, as many interpreters think, from the relation in which the revelation of the seventy weeks stands to the prayer of Daniel, occasioned by Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem. If Daniel, in the sixty-ninth year of the desolation, made supplication to the Lord for mercy in behalf of Jerusalem and Israel, and on the occasion of this prayer God caused Gabriel to lay open to him that seventy weeks were determined upon the city and the people of God, it by no means thence follows that seventy year-weeks must be substituted in place of the seventy years prophesied of, that both commence simultaneously, and thus that the seventy years of the Exile shall be prolonged to a period of oppression for Israel lasting for seventy year-weeks. Such a supposition is warranted neither by the contents of the prophecy of Jeremiah, nor by the message of the angel to Daniel. Jeremiah, it is true, prophesied not merely of seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem and Judah, but also of the judgment upon Babylon after the expiry of these years, and the collecting together and bringing back of Israel from all the countries whither they were scattered into their own land (Jeremiah 25:10-12; Jeremiah 29:10-14); but in his supplication Daniel had in his eye only the desolation of the land of Jeremiah's prophecy, and prayed for the turning away of the divine anger from Jerusalem, and for the pardon of Israel's sins. Now if the words of the angel had been, “not seventy years, but seventy year-weeks, are determined over Israel,” this would have been no answer to Daniel's supplication, at least no comforting answer, to bring which to him the angel was commanded to go forth in haste. Then the angel announces in Daniel 9:24 much more than the return of Israel from the Exile to their own land. But this is decided by the contents of the following verses, in which the space of seventy weeks is divided into three periods, and at the same time the commencement of the period is determined in a way which excludes its connection with the beginning of the seventy years of the Exile. The detailed statement of the 70 שׁבעים in 7 + 62 + 1 (Daniel 9:25, Daniel 9:26, Daniel 9:27), with the fuller description of that which was to happen in the course of these three periods of time, incontrovertibly shows that these three verses are a further explication of the contents of Dan 9:24. This explication is introduced by the words: “Know therefore, and understand,” which do not announce a new prophecy, as Wieseler and Hofmann suppose, but only point to the importance of the further opening up of the contents of Dan 9:24, since ותשׂכּל ( and thou wilt understand) stands in distinct relation to בינה להשׂכּלך ( to give thee skill and understanding, Daniel 9:22). The two parts of Dan 9:25 contain the statements regarding the first two portions of the whole period, the seven and the sixty-two שׁבעים , and are rightly separated by the Masoretes by placing the Atnach under שׁבעה . The first statement is: “ from the going forth of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem unto a Messiah (Gesalbten) , a prince, shall be seven weeks.” דּבר מצא ( from the going forth of the commandment) formally corresponds, indeed, to דּבר יצא ( the commandment came forth), Daniel 9:23, emphatically expressing a decision on the part of God, but the two expressions are not actually to be identified; for the commandment, Daniel 9:23, is the divine revelation communicated in Daniel 9:24-27, which the angel brings to Daniel; the commandment in Daniel 9:25 is, on the contrary, more fully determined by the words, “ to restore and to build, etc. להשׁיב is not to be joined adverbially with ולבנות so as to form one idea: to build again; for, though שׁוּב may be thus used adverbially in Kal, yet the Hiphil השׁיב is not so used. השׁיב means to lead back, to bring again, then to restore; cf. for this last meaning Isaiah 1:26, Psalms 80:4, Psalms 80:8,20. The object to להשׁיב follows immediately after the word ולבנות , namely, Jerusalem. The supplementing of עם , people (Wieseler, Kliefoth, and others), is arbitrary, and is not warranted by Jeremiah 29:10. To bring back, to restore a city, means to raise it to its former state; denotes the restitutio , but not necessarily the full restitutio in integrum (against Hengstenberg). Here לבנות is added, as in the second half of the verse to תּשׁוּב , yet not so as to make one idea with it, restoring to build, or building to restore, i.e., to build up again to the old extent. בּנה as distinguished from השׁיב denotes the building after restoring, and includes the constant preservation in good building condition, as well as the carrying forward of the edifice beyond its former state. But if we ask when this commandment went forth, in order that we may thereby determine the beginning of the seven weeks, and, since they form the first period of the seventy, at the same time determine the beginning of the seventy weeks, the words and the context only supply this much, that by the “commandment” is meant neither the word of God which is mentioned in Daniel 9:23, because it says nothing about the restoration of Jerusalem, but speaks only of the whole message of the angel. Nor yet is it the word of God which is mentioned in Daniel 9:2, the prophecies given in Jeremiah 25 and 29, as Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others suppose. For although from these prophecies it conclusively follows, that after the expiry of the seventy years with the return of Israel into their own land, Jerusalem shall again be built up, yet they do not speak of that which shall happen after the seventy years, but only of that which shall happen within that period, namely, that Jerusalem shall for so long a time lie desolate, as Daniel 9:2 expressly affirms. The prophecy of the seventy years' duration of the desolation of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:2) cannot possibly be regarded as the commandment (in Daniel 9:25) to restore Jerusalem (Kliefoth). As little can we, with Hitzig, think on Jeremiah 30 and 31, because this prophecy contains nothing whatever of a period of time, and in this verse before us there is no reference to this prophecy. The restoration of Israel and of Jerusalem has indeed been prophesied of in general, not merely by Jeremiah, but also long before him by Isaiah (Daniel 40-56). With as much justice may we think on Isaiah 40ff. as on Jeremiah 30 and 31; but all such references are excluded by this fact, that the angel names the commandment for the restoration of Jerusalem as the terminus a quo for the seventy weeks, and thus could mean only a word of God whose going forth was somewhere determined, or could be determined, just as the appearance of the נגיד משׁיח is named as the termination of the seven weeks. Accordingly “the going forth of the commandment to restore,” etc., must be a factum coming into visibility, the time of which could without difficulty be known - a word from God regarding the restoration of Jerusalem which went forth by means of a man at a definite time, and received an observable historical execution. Now, with Calvin, Oecolampadius, Kleinert, Nägelsbach, Ebrard, and Kliefoth, we can think of nothing more appropriate than the edict of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1-11) which permitted the Jews to return, from which the termination of the Exile is constantly dated, and from the time off which this return, together with the building up of Jerusalem, began, and was carried forward, though slowly (Klief.). The prophecy of Isa 44:28, that God would by means of Cyrus speak to cause Jerusalem to be built, and the foundation of the temple to be laid, directs us to this edict. With reference to this prophecy, it is said in Ezra 6:14, “They builded according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of the king of Persia.” This is acknowledged even by Hengstenberg, who yet opposes this reference; for he remarks ( Christol. iii. p. 142), “If the statement were merely of the commencement of the building, then they would undoubtedly be justified who place the starting-point in the first year of Cyrus. Isaiah (Isaiah 45:13) commends Cyrus as the builder of the city; and all the sacred writings which relate to the period from the time of Cyrus to Nehemiah distinctly state the actual existence of a Jerusalem during this period.” But according to his explanation, the words of the angel do not announce the beginning of the building of the city, but much rather the beginning of its “completed restoration according to its ancient extent and its ancient glory.” But that this is not contained in the words ולבנות להשׁיב we have already remarked, to which is to be added, that the placing in opposition the commencement of the building and the commencement of its completed restoration is quite arbitrary and vain, since certainly the commencement of the restoration at the same time includes in it the commencement of the completed restoration. In favour of interpreting להשׁיב of the completed restoration, Hengstenberg remarks that “in the announcement the temple is named along with the city in Daniel 9:26 as well as in Daniel 9:27. That with the announcement of the building the temple is not named here, that mention is made only of the building of the streets of the city, presupposes the sanctuary as already built up at the commencement of the building which is here spoken of; and the existence of the temple again requires that a commencement of the rebuilding of the city had also been already made, since it is not probable that the angel should have omitted just that which was the weightiest matter, that for which Daniel was most grieved, and about which he had prayed (cf. Daniel 9:17, Daniel 9:20) with the greatest solicitude.” But the validity of this conclusion is not obvious. In Daniel 9:26 the naming of the temple along with the city is required by the facts of the case, and this verse treats of what shall happen after the sixty-two weeks. How, then, shall it be thence inferred that the temple should also be mentioned along with the city in Daniel 9:25, where the subject is that which forms the beginning of the seven or of the seventy weeks, and that, since this was not done, the temple must have been then already built? The non-mention of the temple in Daniel 9:24, as in Daniel 9:25, is fully and simply explained by this, that the word of the angel stands in definite relation to the prayer of Daniel, but that Daniel was moved by Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years' duration of the חרבות of Jerusalem to pray for the turning away of the divine wrath from the city. As Jeremiah, in the announcement of the seventy years' desolation of the land, did not specially mention the destruction of the temple, so also the angel, in the decree regarding the seventy weeks which are determined upon the people of Israel and the holy city, makes no special mention of the temple; as, however, in Jeremiah's prophecy regarding the desolation of the land, the destruction not only of Jerusalem, but also of the temple, is included, so also in the building of the holy city is included that of the temple, by which Jerusalem was made a holy city. Although thus the angel, in the passage before us, does not expressly speak of the building of the temple, but only of the holy city, we can maintain the reference of the דּבר מצא to the edict of Cyrus, which constituted an epoch in the history of Israel, and consider this edict as the beginning of the termination of the seven resp. seventy weeks. The words נגיד משׁיח עד show the termination of the seven weeks. The words נגיד משׁיח are not to be translated an anointed prince (Bertholdt); for משׁיח cannot be an adjective to נגיד , because in Hebr. The adjective is always placed after the substantive, with few exceptions, which are inapplicable to this case; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. §293 b. Nor can משׁיח be a participle: till a prince is anointed (Steudel), but it is a noun, and נגיד is connected with it by apposition: an anointed one, who at the same time is a prince. According to the O.T., kings and priests, and only these, were anointed. Since, then, משׁיח is brought forward as the principal designation, we may not by נגיד think of a priest-prince, but only of a prince of the people, nor by משׁיח of a king, but only of a priest; and by נגיד משׁיח we must understand a person who first and specially is a priest, and in addition is a prince of the people, a king. The separation of the two words in Daniel 9:26, where נגיד is acknowledged as meaning a prince of the people, leads to the same conclusion. This priest-king can neither be Zerubbabel (according to many old interpreters), nor Ezra (Steudel), nor Onias III (Wieseler); for Zerubbabel the prince was not anointed, and the priest Ezra and the high priest Onias were not princes of the people. Nor can Cyrus be meant here, as Saad., Gaon., Bertholdt, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Ewald, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others think, by a reference to Isaiah 45:1; for, supposing it to be the case that Daniel had reason from Isaiah 45:1 to call Cyrus משׁיח - which is to be doubted, since from this epithet משׁיחו , His (Jehovah's) anointed, which Isaiah uses of Cyrus, it does not follow as of course that he should be named משׁיח - the title ought at least to have been משׁיח נגיד , the משׁיח being an adjective following נגיד , because there is no evident reason for the express precedence of the adjectival definition. (Note: “It is an unjustifiable assertion that every heathen king may also bear the name משׁיח , anointed. In all the books of the O.T. There is but a single heathen king, Cyrus, who is named משׁיח (Isaiah 45:1), and he not simply as such, but because of the remarkable and altogether singular relation in which he stood to the church, because of the gifts with which God endowed him for her deliverance, ... and because of the typical relation in which he stood to the author of the higher deliverance, the Messiah. Cyrus could in a certain measure be regarded as a theocratic ruler, and as such he is described by Isaiah.” - Hengstenberg.) The O.T. knows only One who shall be both priest and king in one person (Psalms 110:4; Zechariah 6:13), Christ, the Messias (John 4:25), whom, with Hävernick, Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Auberlen, Delitzsch, and Kliefoth, we here understand by the נגיד משׁיח , because in Him the two essential requisites of the theocratic king, the anointing and the appointment to be the נגיד of the people of God (cf. 1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 13:14; 1 Samuel 16:13; 1 Samuel 25:30; 2 Samuel 2:4; 2 Samuel 5:2.), are found in the most perfect manner. These requisites are here attributed to Him as predicates, and in such a manner that the being anointed goes before the being a prince, in order to make prominent the spiritual, priestly character of His royalty, and to designate Him, on the ground of the prophecies, Isaiah 61:1-3 and Isaiah 55:4, as the person by whom “the sure mercies of David” (Isaiah 55:3) shall be realized by the covenant people. (Note: In the נגיד משׁיח it is natural to suppose there is a reference to the passages in Isaiah referred to; yet one must not, with Hofmann and Auberlen, hence conclude that Christ is as King of Israel named משׁיח , and as King of the heathen נגיד , for in the frequent use of the word נגיד of the king of Israel in the books of Samuel it is much more natural to regard it as the reference to David.) The absence of the definite article is not to be explained by saying that משׁיח , somewhat as צמח , Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12, is used κατ̓ἑχ . as a nomen propr. of the Messiah, the Anointed; for in this case נגיד ought to have the article, since in Hebrew we cannot say מלך דּוד , but only המּלך דּוד . Much rather the article is wanting, because it shall not be said: till the Messiah, who is prince, but only: till one comes who is anointed and at the same time prince, because He that is to come is not definitely designated as the expected Messiah, but must be made prominent by the predicates ascribed to Him only as a personage altogether singular. Thus the first half of Dan 9:25 states that the first seven of the seventy weeks begin with the edict (of Cyrus) permitting the return of Israel from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem, and extend from that time till the appearance of an anointed one who at the same time is prince, i.e., till Christ. With that view the supposition that שׁבעים are year-weeks, periods of seven years, is irreconcilable. Therefore most interpreters who understand Christ as the נגיד משׁיח , have referred the following number, and sixty-two weeks, to the first clause - ”from the going forth of the command ... seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.” Thus Theodotion: ἕωςΧριστοῦἡγουμένουἑβδομάδεςἑπτὰκαὶἑβδομάδεςἑξηκονταδύο ; and the Vulgate: usque ad Christum ducem hebdomades septem et hebdomades sexaginta duae erunt . The text of the lxx is here, however, completely in error, and is useless. This interpretation, in recent times, Hävernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen have sought to justify in different ways, but without having succeeded in invalidating the reasons which stand opposite to them. First of all the Atnach forbids this interpretation, for by it the seven שׁבעים are separated from the sixty-two. This circumstance, however, in and of itself decides nothing, since the Atnach does not always separate clauses, but frequently also shows only the point of rest within a clause; besides, it first was adopted by the Masoretes, and only shows the interpretation of these men, without at all furnishing any guarantee for its correctness. But yet this view is not to be overlooked, as Hgstb. himself acknowledges in the remark: “Here the separation of the two periods of time was of great consequence, in order to show that the seven and the sixty-two weeks are not a mere arbitrary dividing into two of one whole period, but that to each of these two periods its own characteristic mark belongs.” With this remark, Hävernick's assertion, that the dividing of the sixty-nine שׁבעים into seven and sixty-two is made only on account of the solemnity of the whole passage, is set aside as altogether vain, and the question as to the ground of the division presses itself on our earnest attention. If this division must indicate that to each of the two periods its own distinctive characteristic belongs, an unprejudiced consideration of the words shows that the characteristic mark of the “seven weeks” lies in this, that this period extends from the going forth of the word to restore Jerusalem till the appearance of an Anointed one, a Prince, thus terminating with the appearance of this Prince, and that the characteristic mark for the “sixty-two weeks” consists in that which the words immediately connected therewith affirm, וגו ונבנתה תּשׁוּב , and thus that the “sixty-two weeks” belong indeed to the following clause. But according to Hengstenberg the words ought not to be so understood, but thus: “sixty-nine weeks must pass away, seven till the completed restoration of the city, sixty-two from that time till the Anointed, the Prince.” But it is clearly impossible to find this meaning in the words of the text, and it is quite superfluous to use any further words in proof of this. (Note: Hengstenberg, as Kliefoth has remarked, has taken as the first terminus ad quem the words “to restore and to build Jerusalem,” till the rebuilding of Jerusalem, till its completed rebuilding, till that Jerusalem is again built; and then the further words, “unto the Messiah the Prince,” as the second terminus ad quem ; and, finally, he assigns the seven weeks to the first terminus ad quem , and the sixty-two weeks is the second; as if the text comprehended two clauses, and declared that from the going forth of the commandment till that Jerusalem was rebuilt are seven heptades, and from that time till a Messiah, a Prince, are sixty-two heptades.) By the remark, “If the second designation of time is attributed to that which follows, then we cannot otherwise explain it than that during sixty-two weeks the streets will be restored and built up; but this presents a very inappropriate meaning,” - by this remark the interpretation in question is neither shown to be possible, nor is it made evident. For the meaning would be inappropriate only if by the building up of Jerusalem we were to understand merely the rebuilding of the city which was laid in ruins by the Chaldeans. If we attribute the expression “and sixty-two weeks” to the first half of the verse, then the division of the sixty-nine weeks into seven weeks and sixty-two weeks is unaccountable; for in Daniel 9:26 we must then read, “after sixty-nine weeks,” and not, as we find it in the text, “after sixty-two weeks.” The substitution, again [in Daniel 9:26], of only this second designation of time (sixty-two weeks) is also intelligible only if the sixty-two weeks in Daniel 9:25 belong to the second half of the verse, and are to be separated from the seven weeks. The bringing together of the seven and of the sixty-two week stands thus opposed to the context, and is maintained merely on the supposition that the שׁבעים are year-weeks, or periods of time consisting of seven years, in order that sixty-nine year-weeks, i.e., 483 years, might be gained for the time from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to Christ. But since there is in the word itself no foundation for attaching to it this meaning, we have no right to distort the language of the text according to it, but it is our duty to let this interpretation fall aside as untenable, in order that we may do justice to the words of the prophecy. The words here used demand that we connect the period “and sixty-two weeks” with the second half of the verse, “and during sixty-two weeks shall the street be built again,” etc. The “sixty-two weeks” are not united antithetically to the “seven weeks” by the copula, ו as Hofmann would have it, but are connected simply as following the seven; so that that which is named as the contents of the “sixty-two weeks” is to be interpreted as happening first after the appearance of the Maschiach Nagid, or, more distinctly, that the appearance of the Messias forming the terminus ad quem of the seven weeks, forms at the same time the terminus a quo of the sixty-two weeks. That event which brings the close of the sixty-two weeks is spoken of in Daniel 9:26 in the words משׁיח יכּרת , Messiah shall be cut off. The words “and sixty-two שׁבעים owt-ytx ” may be taken grammatically either as the absolute nominative or as the accusative of duration. The words ונבנתה תּשׁוּב refer undoubtedly to the expression ולבנות להשׁיב ( to restore and to build), according to which תּשׁוּב is not to be joined adverbially to ונבנתה (according to Hävernick, Hofmann, and Wieseler), but is to be rendered intransitively, corresponding to השׁיב : shall be restored, as Ezekiel 16:55; 1 Kings 13:6; 2 Kings 5:10, 2 Kings 5:14; Exodus 4:7. The subject to both verbs is not (Rosenmüller, Gesenius, v. Leng., Hgstb.) רחוב , but Jerusalem, as is manifest from the circumstance that the verbs refer to the restoration and the building of Jerusalem, and is placed beyond a doubt by this, that in Zechariah 8:5 רחוב is construed as masculine; and the opinion that it is generis faem . rests only on this passage before us. There is no substantial reason for interpreting (with Klief.) the verbs impersonally. The words וחרוּץ רחוב are difficult, and many interpretations have been given of them. There can be no doubt that they contain together one definition, and that רחוב is to be taken as the adverbial accusative. רחוב means the street and the wide space before the gate of the temple. Accordingly, to חרוּץ have been given the meanings ditch, wall, aqueduct (Ges., Steud., Zünd., etc.), pond (Ewald), confined space (Hofmann), court (Hitzig); but all these meanings are only hit upon from the connection, as are also the renderings of the lxx εἰςπλάτοςκαὶμῆκος , of Theod. πλατεῖακαὶτεῖχος , and of the Vulg. platea et muri . חרץ means to cut, then to decide, to determine, to conclude irrevocably; hence חרוּץ , decision, judgment, Joe 3:14. This meaning is maintained by Häv., Hgstb., v. Leng., Wies., and Kran., and וחרוּץ is interpreted as a participle: “and it is determined.” This shall form a contrast to the words, “but in the oppression of the times” - and it is determined, namely, that Jerusalem shall be built in its streets, but the building shall be accomplished in troublous times. But although this interpretation be well founded as regards the words themselves, it does not harmonize with the connection. The words וחרוּץ רחוב plainly go together, as the old translators have interpreted them. Now רחוב does not mean properly street, but a wide, free space, as Ezra 10:9, the open place before the temple, and is applied to streets only in so far as they are free, unoccupied spaces in cities. חרוּץ , that which is cut off, limited, forms a contrast to this, not, however, as that we may interpret the words, as Hofm. does, in the sense of width, and space cut off, not capable of extension, or free space and limited quarter (Hitzig), an interpretation which is too far removed from the primary import of the two words. It is better to interpret them, with Kliefoth, as “wide space, and yet also limited,” according to which we have the meaning, “Jerusalem shall be built so that the city takes in a wide space, has wide, free places, but not, however, unlimited in width, but such that their compass is measured off, is fixed and bounded.” The last words, העתּים וּבצוק , point to the circumstances under which the building proceeds: in the difficulty, the oppression of the times. The book of Nehemiah, 3:33; Nehemiah 4:1., Daniel 6:1., 9:36, 37, furnishes a historical exposition of them, although the words do not refer to the building of the walls and bulwarks of the earthly Jerusalem which was accomplished by Nehemiah, but are to be understood, according to Ps. 51:20, of the spiritual building of the City of God. After the threescore and two weeks, i.e., in the seventieth שׁבוּע , shall the Messiah be cut off. - From the אחרי ( after) it does not with certainty follow that the “cutting off” of the Maschiach falls wholly in the beginning of the seventieth week, but only that the “cutting off” shall constitute the first great event of this week, and that those things which are mentioned in the remaining part of the verse shall then follow. The complete designation of the time of the “cutting off” can only be found from the whole contents of Dan 9:26, Daniel 9:27. נכרת , from כּרּת , to hew down, to fell, to cut to pieces, signifies to be rooted up, destroyed, annihilated, and denotes generally a violent kind of death, though not always, but only the uprooting from among the living, or from the congregation, and is therefore the usual expression for the destruction of the ungodly - e.g., Psalms 37:9; Proverbs 2:22 - without particularly designating the manner in which this is done. From יכּרת it cannot thus be strictly proved that this part of the verse announces the putting to death of an anointed one, or of the Messiah. Of the word Maschiach three possible interpretations have been given: 1. That the Maschiach Nagid of Dan 9:25, the Maschiach of Dan 9:26, and the Nagid of Dan 9:26, are three different persons; 2. that all the three expressions denote one and the same person; and 3. that the Maschiach Nagid of Dan 9:25 and the Maschiach of Dan 9:26 are the same person, and that the Nagid of Dan 9:26 is another and a different person. The first of these has been maintained by J. D. Michaelis, Jahn. Ebrard understands by all the three expressions the Messiah, and supposes that he is styled fully Maschiach Nagid in Daniel 9:25 in order that His calling and His dignity , as well as His power and strength , might be designated; in Daniel 9:26, משׁיח , the anointed, where mention is made of His sufferings and His rejection; in Daniel 9:26, נגיד , the prince, where reference is made to the judgment which He sends (by the Romans on apostate Jerusalem). But this view is refuted by the circumstance that הבּא ( that is to come) follows נגיד , whereby the prince is represented as first coming, as well as by the circumstance that הבּא נגיד , who destroys the city and the sanctuary, whose end shall be with a flood, consequently cannot be the Messiah, but is the enemy of the people and kingdom of God, who shall arise (Daniel 7:24-25) in the last time. But if in Daniel 9:26 the Nagid is different from the Maschiach, then both also appear to be different from the Maschiach Nagid of Dan 9:25. The circumstance that in Daniel 9:26 משׁיח has neither the article nor the addition נגיד following it, appears to be in favour of this opinion. The absence of the one as well as the other denotes that משׁיח , after that which is said of Him, in consideration of the connection of the words, needs no more special description. If we observe that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary is so connected with the Maschiach that we must consider this as the immediate or first consequence of the cutting off of the Maschiach, and that the destruction shall be brought about by a Nagid, then by Maschiach we can understand neither a secular prince or king nor simply a high priest, but only an anointed one who stands in such a relation to the city and sanctuary, that with his being “cut off” the city and the sanctuary lose not only their protection and their protector, but the sanctuary also loses, at the same time, its character as the sanctuary, which the Maschiach had given to it. This is suitable to no Jewish high priest, but only to the Messias whom Jehovah anointed to be a Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek, and placed as Lord over Zion, His holy hill. We agree therefore with Hävernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and Kliefoth, who regard the Maschiach of this verse as identical with the Maschiach Nagid of Dan 9:25, as Christ, who in the fullest sense of the word is the Anointed; and we hope to establish this view more fully in the following exposition of the historical reference of this word of the angel. But by this explanation of the משׁיח we are not authorized to regard the word יכּרת as necessarily pointing to the death of the Messias, the crucifixion of Christ, since יכּרת , as above shown, does not necessarily denote a violent death. The right interpretation of this word depends on the explanation of the words לו ואין which follow - words which are very differently interpreted by critics. The supposition is grammatically inadmissible that לו אין = איננּוּ (Michaelis, Hitzig), although the lxx in the Codex Chisianus have translated them by καὶοὐκἔσται ; and in general all those interpretations which identify אין with לא , as e.g., et non sibi , and not for himself (Vitringa, Rosenmüller, Hävernick, and others). For אין is never interchanged with לא , but is so distinguished from it that לא , non, is negation purely, while אין , “it is not,” denies the existence of the thing; cf. Hengstenberg's Christol. iii. p. 81f., where all the passages which Gesenius refers to as exemplifying this exchange are examined and rightly explained, proving that אין is never used in the sense of לא . Still less is לו to be taken in the sense of לו ( pronomen relat. may be wanting in short sentences, yet that can be only in such as contain a subject to which it can refer. But in the אין no subject is contained, but only the non-existence is declared; it cannot be said: no one is, or nothing is. In all passages where it is thus rightly translated a participle follows, in which the personal or actual subject is contained, of which the non-existence is predicated. לו ( people (Vulg., Grotius), or a descendant (Wieseler), or a follower (Auberlen), because all these words are destitute of any support from the context, and are brought forward arbitrarily. Since that which “is not to Him” is not named, we must thus read the expression in its undefined universality: it is not to Him, viz., that which He must have, to be the Maschiach. We are not by this to think merely of dominion, people, sanctuary, but generally of the place which He as Maschiach has had, or should have, among His people and in the sanctuary, but, by His being “cut off,” is lost. This interpretation is of great importance in guiding to a correct rendering of יכּרת ; for it shows that יכּרת does not denote the putting to death, or cutting off of existence, but only the annihilation of His place as Maschiach among His people and in His kingdom. For if after His “cutting off” He has not what He should have, it is clear that annihilation does not apply to Him personally, but only that He has lost His place and function as the Maschiach. (Note: Kranichfeld quite appropriately compares the strong expression יכּרת with “the equally strong יבלּא ( shall wear out) in Daniel 7:25, spoken of that which shall befall the saints on the part of the enemy of God in the last great war. As by this latter expression destruction in the sense of complete annihilation cannot be meant, since the saints personally exist after the catastrophe (cf. Daniel 9:27, Daniel 9:22, Daniel 9:18), so also by this expression here we are not to understand annihilation.”) In consequence of the cutting off of the משׁיח destruction falls upon the city and the sanctuary. This proceeds from the people of the prince who comes. ישׁחית , to destroy, to ruin, is used, it is true, of the desolating of countries, but predicated of a city and sanctuary it means to overthrow; cf. e.g., Genesis 19:13., where it is used of the destruction of Sodom; and even in the case of countries the השׁחית consists in the destruction of men and cattle; cf. Jeremiah 36:29. The meaning of הבּא נגיד עם depends chiefly on the interpretation of the הבּא . This we cannot, with Ebrard, refer to עם . Naturally it is connected with נגיד , not only according to the order of the words, but in reality, since in the following verse (Daniel 9:27) the people are no longer spoken of, but only the actions and proceedings of the prince are described. הבּא does not mean qui succedit (Roesch, Maurer), but is frequently used by Daniel of a hostile coming; cf. Daniel 1:1; Daniel 11:10, Daniel 11:13, Daniel 11:15. But in this sense הבּא appears to be superfluous, since it is self-evident that the prince, if he will destroy Jerusalem, must come or draw near. One also must not say that הבּא designates the prince as one who was to come , since from the expression “coming days,” as meaning “future days,” it does not follow that a “coming prince” is a “future prince.” The הבּא with the article: “he who comes, or will come,” denotes much rather the נגיד (which is without the article) as such an one whose coming is known, of whom Daniel has heard that he will come to destroy the people of God. But in the earlier revelations Daniel heard of two princes who shall bring destruction on his people: in Daniel 7:8, Daniel 7:24., of Antichrist; and in Daniel 8:9., 23ff., of Antiochus. To one of these the הבּא points. Which of the two is meant must be gathered from the connection, and this excludes the reference to Antiochus, and necessitates our thinking of the Antichrist. In the following clause: “ and his end with the flood,” the suffix refers simply to the hostile Nagid, whose end is here emphatically placed over against his coming (Kran., Hofm., Kliefoth). Preconceived views as to the historical interpretation of the prophecy lie at the foundation of all other references. The Messianic interpreters, who find in the words a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and thus understand by the Nagid Titus, cannot apply the suffix to Nagid. M. Geier, Hävernick, and others, therefore, refer it (the suffix) to the city and the sanctuary; but that is grammatically inadmissible, since העיר ( the city) is gen faem. Aub. and others refer it, therefore, merely to the sanctuary; but the separation of the city from the sanctuary is quite arbitrary. Vitringa, C. B. Michaelis, Hgstb., interpret the suffix as neuter, and refer it to ישׁחית ( shall destroy), or, more correctly, to the idea of destroying comprehended in it, for they understand שׁטף of a warlike overflowing flood: “and the end of it shall be (or: it shall end) in the flood.” On the other hand, v. Lengerke and Kliefoth have rightly objected to this view. “This reference of the suffix,” they say, “is inadmissibly harsh; the author must have written erroneously, since he suggested the reference of the suffix to עם or to נגיד . One cannot think of what is meant by the end of the destruction, since the destruction itself is the end; a flood may, it is true, be an emblem of a warlike invasion of a country, but it never signifies the warlike march, the expedition.” There thus remains nothing else than to apply the suffix to the Nagid, the prince. קץ can accordingly only denote the destruction of the prince. Hitzig's interpretation, that קצּו is the result of his coming, refutes itself. In בּשׁטף the article is to be observed, by which alone such interpretations as “in an overflowing” (Ros., Roed., and others), ” vi quadam ineluctabili oppressus” (Steudel, Maurer), “ like an overflowing,” and the like, are proved to be verbally inadmissible. The article shows that a definite and well-known overflowing is meant. שׁטף , “overflowing,” may be the emblem of an army spreading itself over the land, as in Daniel 11:10, Daniel 11:22, Daniel 11:26; Isaiah 8:8, or the emblem of a judgment desolating or destroying a city, country, or people; cf. Psalms 32:6; Nahum 1:8; Proverbs 27:4; Psalms 90:5. The first of these interpretations would give this meaning: The prince shall find his end in his warlike expedition; and the article in בּשׁטף would refer back to הבּא . This interpretation is indeed quite possible, but not very probable, because שׁטף would then be the overflowing which was caused by the hostile prince or his coming, and the thought would be this, that he should perish in it. But this agrees neither with the following clause, that war should be to the end, nor with Daniel 7:21, Daniel 7:26, according to which the enemy of God holds the superiority till he is destroyed by the judgment of God. Accordingly, we agree with Wieseler, Hofmann, Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth in adopting the other interpretation of שׁטף , flood, as the figure of the desolating judgment of God, and explain the article as an allusion to the flood which overwhelmed Pharaoh and his host. Besides, the whole passage is, with Maurer and Klief., to be regarded as a relative clause, and to be connected with הבּא : the people of a prince who shall come and find his destruction in the flood. This verse (Daniel 9:26) contains a third statement, which adds a new element to the preceding. Rosenmüller, Ewald, Hofm., and others connect these into one passage, thus: and to the end of the war a decree of desolations continues. But although קץ , grammatically considered, is the stat. constr., and might be connected with מלחמה ( war), yet this is opposed by the circumstance, that in the preceding sentence no mention is expressly made of war; and that if the war which consisted in the destruction of the city should be meant, then מלחמה ought to have the article. From these reasons we agree with the majority of interpreters in regarding מלחמה as the predicate of the passage: “and to the end is war;” but we cannot refer קץ , with Wieseler, to the end of the prince, or, with Häv. and Aub., to the end of the city, because קץ has neither a suffix nor an article. According to the just remark of Hitzig, קץ without any limitation is the end generally, the end of the period in progress, the seventy שׁבעים , and corresponds to סופא עד in Daniel 7:26, to the end of all things, Daniel 12:13 (Klief.). To the end war shall be = war shall continue during the whole of the last שׁבוּע . The remaining words, שׁממות נחרצת , form an apposition to מלחמה , notwithstanding the objection by Kliefoth, that since desolations are a consequence of the war, the words cannot be regarded as in apposition. For we do not understand why in abbreviated statements the effect cannot be placed in the form of an apposition to the cause. The objection also overlooks the word נחרצת . If desolations are the effect of the war, yet not the decree of the desolations, which can go before the war or can be formed during the war. שׁממות denotes desolation not in an active, but in a passive sense: laid waste, desolated. נחרצת , that which is determined, the irrevocably decreed; therefore used of divine decrees, and that of decrees with reference to the infliction of punishment; cf. Daniel 9:27; Daniel 11:36; Isaiah 10:23; Isaiah 28:22. Ewald is quite in error when he says that it means “the decision regarding the fearful deeds, the divine decision as it embodies itself in the judgments (Daniel 7:11.) on the world on account of such fearful actions and desolations,” because שׁממות has not the active meaning. Auberlen weakens its force when he renders it “decreed desolations.” “That which is decreed of desolations” is also not a fixed, limited, measured degree of desolations (Hofm., Klief.); for in the word there does not lie so much the idea of limitation to a definite degree, as much rather the idea of the absolute decision, as the connection with כלה in Daniel 9:27, as well as in the two passages from Isaiah above referred to, shows. The thought is therefore this: “Till the end war will be, for desolations are irrevocably determined by God.” Since שׁממות has nothing qualifying it, we may not limit the “decree of desolations” to the laying waste of the city and the sanctuary, but under it there are to be included the desolations which the fall of the prince who destroys the city and the sanctuary shall bring along with it. This verse contains four statements. - The first is: “ He shall confirm the covenant to many for one week.” Following the example of Theodotion, many (Hהv., Hgstb., Aub., v. Leng., Hitzig, Hofm.) regard אחד שׁבוּע אח as the subject: one week shall confirm the covenant to many. But this poetic mode of expression is only admissible where the subject treated of in the statement of the speaker comes after the action, and therefore does not agree with בּרית הגבּיר , where the confirming of the covenant is not the work of time, but the deed of a definite person. To this is to be added the circumstance that the definitions of time in this verse are connected with those in Daniel 9:25, and are analogous to them, and must therefore be alike interpreted in both passages. But if, notwithstanding these considerations, we make אחד שׁבוּע the subject, the question then presses itself upon us, Who effects the confirming of the covenant? Hävernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen regard the Messias as the subject, and understand by the confirming of the covenant, the confirming of the New Covenant by the death of Christ. Ewald, v. Lengerke, and others think of Antiochus and the many covenants which, according to 1 Macc. 1:12, he established between the apostate Jews and the heathen Greeks. Hitzig understands by the “covenant” the O.T. Covenant, and gives to הגבּיר the meaning to make grievous: The one week shall make the covenant grievous to many, for they shall have to bear oppression on account of their faith. On the other hand, Hofmann ( Schriftbew.) renders it: The one week shall confirm many in their fidelity to the faith. But none of these interpretations can be justified. The reasons which Hengstenberg adduces in support of his view that the Messias is the subject, are destitute of validity. The assertion that the Messias is the chief person spoken of in the whole of this passage, rests on the supposition, already proved to be untenable, that the prince who was to come (Daniel 9:26) was the instrument of the Anointed, and on the passages in Isaiah 53:11; Isaiah 42:6, which are not parallel to that under consideration. The connection much more indicates that Nagid is the subject to הגבּיר , since the prince who was to come is named last, and is also the subject in the suffix of קצּו ( his end), the last clause of Dan 9:26 having only the significance of an explanatory subordinate clause. Also “the taking away of the daily sacrifice combines itself in a natural way with the destruction (Daniel 9:26) of the city and the temple brought about by the הבּא נגיד ;” - further, “he who here is represented as 'causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease' is obviously identical with him who changes (Daniel 7:25) the times and usages of worship (more correctly: times and law)” (Kran.). “The reference of הגבּיר to the ungodly leader of an army, is therefore according to the context and the parallel passages of this book which have been mentioned, as well as in harmony with the natural grammatical arrangement of the passage,” and it gives also a congruous sense, although by the Nagid Titus cannot naturally be understood. בּרית הגבּיר means to strengthen a covenant, i.e., to make a covenant strong (Hitzig has not established the rendering: to make grievous). “Covenant” does not necessarily mean the covenant of God (Old Testament or New Testament Covenant), since the assertion that this word occurs only in this book with reference to the covenant of God with Israel (Hgstb.) does not also prove that it must here have this meaning; and with expression בּרית הגבּיר with ל is analogous to בּרית כּרּת [ icere faedus ] with ל ; and the construction with ל signifies that as in the forming of a covenant, so in the confirming of a covenant, the two contracting parties are not viewed as standing on an equality, but he who concludes or who confirms the covenant prevails, and imposes or forces the covenant on the other party. The reference to the covenant of God with man is thus indeed suggested, yet it is not rendered necessary, but only points to a relation analogous to the concluding of a covenant emanating from God. לרבּים with the article signifies the many, i.e., the great mass of the people in contrast with the few, who remain faithful to God; cf. Matthew 24:12. Therefore the thought is this: That ungodly prince shall impose on the mass of the people a strong covenant that they should follow him and give themselves to him as their God. While the first clause of this verse announces what shall happen during the whole of the last week, the second treats only of the half of this period. השׁבוּע חצי we cannot grammatically otherwise interpret than the definition of time mentioned immediately before, and thus, for reasons give above, cannot take it as the subject of the clause, but only as the accusative of the duration of time, consequently not in the sense of the ablative: in the midst of the week. The controversy whether חצי here means half, or midst, has no bearing on the matter, and acquires significance only if we interpret חצי , in opposition to the context, as synonymous with בּחצי , or with Klief., which is equally untenable and impossible in this context, regard השׁבוּע חצי as an absolute definition. חצי signifies only half, not midst. Only where the representation of an extent of space or period of time prevails can we render it, without a change of its meaning, by the word midst. In the half of the night is the same as in the middle of the night, at midnight, Exodus 12:29; in the half of the firmament, Joshua 10:13, is the same as in the middle of the space of the heavens across which the sun moves during day; in the half of the day of life is the same as in the middle of the period of life, Psalms 102:25. But during the half of the week is not the same as: in the middle of the week. And the objection, that if we here take חצי in the sense of half, then the heptad or cycle of seven would be divided into two halves (Klief.), and yet of only one of them was anything said, is without significance, because it would touch also the explanation “ and in the midst of the heptad,” since in this case of the first, before the middle of the expiring half of the week, nothing also is said of what shall be done in it. If Kliefoth answers this objection by saying that we must conceive of this from the connection, namely, that which brings the power of Antichrist to its height, then we shall be able also, in the verbally correct interpretation of השׁבוּע חצי , to conceive from the connection what shall happen in the remaining period of the שׁבוּע . Yet weaker is the further objection: “that which is mentioned as coming to pass השׁבוּע חצי , the causing of the offering of sacrifice to cease, is something which takes place not during a period of time, but at a terminus ” (Kliefoth); for since השׁבּית does not properly mean to remove, but to make to rest, to make quiet, it is thus not conceivable why we should not be able to say: The sacrifice shall be made to rest, or made still, during half a week. In the verbally correct interpretation of השׁבוּע חצי , the supposition that the second half of the heptad is meant loses its support, for the terminus a quo of this half remains undefined if it cannot be determined from the subject itself. But this determination depends on whether the taking away of the sacrifice is to be regarded as the putting a complete termination to it, or only the causing of a temporary cessation to the service of sacrifice, which can be answered only by our first determining the question regarding the historical reference of this divine revelation. וּמנחה זבח , bloody and unbloody sacrifice, the two chief parts of the service of sacrifice, represent the whole of worship by sacrifice. The expression is more comprehensive than התּמיד , Daniel 8:11, the continuance in worship, the daily morning and evening sacrifice, the cessation of which does not necessarily involve the putting an end to the service of sacrifice. The third clause of this verse, משׁמם שׁקּוּצים כּנף ועל , is difficult, and its interpretation has been disputed. The lxx have rendered it: καὶἐπὶτὸἱερὸνβδέλυγματῶνἐρημώσεωνἔσται . Theodotion has given the same rendering, only omitting ἔσται . The Vulgate has: et erit in templo abominatio desolationis . The church interpreters have explained the words in accordance with these translations, understanding by שׁקּוּצים כּנף the abomination of idols in the temple, or the temple desecrated by the abomination of idols. Hävernick explains the words of the extreme height of abomination, i.e., of the highest place that can be reached where the abominations would be committed, i.e., the temple as the highest point in Jerusalem; Hengstenberg, on the contrary, regards the “ wing of the abominations” as the pinnacle of the temple so desecrated by the abomination that it no longer deserved the name of a temple of the Lord, but the name of an idol-temple. Auberlen translates it “on account of the desolating summit of abominations,” and understands by it the summit of the abominations committed by Israel, which draws down the desolation, because it is the desolation itself, and which reached its acme in the desecration of the temple by the Zealots shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. But no one of these interpretations is justified by the language here used, because כּנף does not signify summit, highest point. This word, it is true, is often used figuratively of the extremity or skirt of the upper garment or cloak (1 Samuel 15:27; 1 Samuel 24:5; Haggai 2:12), of the uttermost part, end, of the earth, Isaiah 24:16, and frequently in the plur. of the borders of the earth, in the rabbin. also of the lobes of the lungs, but demonstrably never of the summit as the highest point or peak of an object; and thus can mean neither the temple as the highest point in Jerusalem, nor the pinnacle of the temple desecrated by the abomination, nor the summit of the abomination committed by Israel. “It is used indeed,” as Bleek ( Jahrbb. v. p. 93) also remarks, “of the extreme point of an object, but only of that which is extended horizontally (for end, or extremity), but never of that which is extended perpendicularly (for peak).” The use of it in the latter sense cannot also be proved from the πτερύγιοντοῦἱεροῦ , Matthew 4:5; Luke 4:9. Here the genitive τοῦἱεροῦ , not τοῦναοῦ , shows that not the pinnacle, i.e., the summit of the temple itself, is meant, but a wing or adjoining building of the sanctuary; and if Suidas and Hesychius explain πτερύγιον by ἀκρωτήριον , this explanation is constructed only from the passages of the N.T. referred to, and is not confirmed by the Greek classics. But though πτερύγιον may have the meaning of summit, yet this can by no means be proved to be the meaning of כּנף . Accordingly שׁקּוּצים כּנף cannot on verbal grounds be referred to the temple. This argument from the words used is not set aside by other arguments which Hengstenberg brings forward, neither by the remark that this explanation harmonizes well with the other parts of the prophecy, especially the removal of the sacrifice and the destruction of the temple, nor by the reference to the testimony of tradition and to the authority of the Lord. For, with reference to that remark, we have already shown in the explanation of the preceding verses that they do not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and thus are not reconcilable with this interpretation of שׁקּוּצים כּנף . But the testimony of tradition for this interpretation in Josephus, De bello Jud. iv. 6. 3, that by the desecration of the temple on the part of the Zealots an old prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple was fulfilled, itself demonstrates (under the supposition that no other passage occur in the book of Daniel in which Josephus would be able to find the announcement of bloody abomination in the temple which proceeded even from the members of the covenant people) nothing further than that Josephus, with many of his contemporaries, found such a prophecy in this verse in the Alexandrine translation, but it does not warrant the correctness of this interpretation of the passage. This warrant would certainly be afforded by the words of our Lord regarding “the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place” (Matthew 24:15.; Mark 13:14), if it were decided that the Lord had this passage (Daniel 9:27) alone before His mind, and that He regarded the “abomination of desolation” as a sign announcing the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. But neither of these conditions is established. The expression βδέλυγματῆςἐρημώσεως is found not only in Daniel 9:27 , but also in Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11 , and thus may refer to one of these passages. The possibility of this reference is not weakened by the objection, “that the prophecy Daniel 11 and Daniel 12:1-13 was generally regarded as fulfilled in the Maccabean times, and that the fulfilling of Daniel 9 was placed forward into the future in the time of Christ” (Hgstb.), because the Lord can have a deeper and more correct apprehension of the prophecies of Daniel than the Jewish writers of His time; because,moreover, the first historical fulfilling of Daniel 11 in the Maccabean times does not exclude a further and a fuller accomplishment in the future, and the rage of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jewish temple and the worship of God can be a type of the assault of Antichrist against the sanctuary and the church of God in the time of the end. Still less from the words, “whoso readeth, let him understand” (Matthew 24:15), can it be proved that Christ had only Daniel 9:27, and not also Daniel 11:31 or Daniel 12:11, before His view. The remark that these words refer to בּדּבר בּין ( understand the matter), Daniel 9:23, and to ותשׂכּל ותדע ( know, and understand), does not avail for this purpose, because this reference is not certain, and בּין את־הדּבר dna ,n ( and he understood the thing) is used (Daniel 10:1) also of the prophecy in Daniel 10 and 11. But though it were beyond a doubt that Christ had, in the words quoted, only Daniel 9:27 before His view, yet would the reference of this prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans not be thereby proved, because in His discourse Christ spake not only of this destruction of the ancient Jerusalem, but generally of His παρουσία and the συντέλειατοῦαἰῶνος (Matthew 24:3), and referred the words of Daniel of the βδέλυγματῆςἐρημώσεως to the παρουσίατοῦυἱοῦτοῦἀνθρώπου . On these grounds we must affirm that the reference of the words under consideration to the desecration of the temple before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is untenable. But also the reference of these words, as maintained by other interpreters, to the desecration of the temple by the βδέλυγμαἐρημώσεως (1 Macc. 1:54), built on the altar of burnt-offering by Antiochus Epiphanes, is disproved on the verbal ground that כּנף cannot designate the surface of the altar. In favour of this view the משׁמם השּׁקּוּץ , Daniel 11:31 ( the abomination that maketh desolate), is principally relied on, in order to establish the connection of משׁמם with שׁקּוּצים ; but that passage is of a different character, and the difference of number between them opposes the connecting together of these two words. The singular משׁמם cannot be connected as an adjective with שׁקּוּצים . But the uniting of משׁמם with the noun כּנף gives no meaning, and besides has the parallels Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11 against it. In this passage before us משׁמם can only be the subject; and the clause is neither to be connected with the preceding nor with the following, but is to be interpreted as containing an independent statement. Since in the preceding context mention is made of a Nagid who shall make desolate the city and the sanctuary, and shall take away the bloody and the unbloody sacrifice, it is natural to regard the משׁמם , desolater, as the Nagid, and to identify the two. The circumstance that it does not refer to it by the article is no valid objection, because the article is in no way necessary, as משׁמם is a participle, and can be rendered as such: “on the wings of abomination he comes desolating.” כּנף על can, without ingenuity, be rendered in no other way than on wings. שׁקּוּצים signifies not acts of abomination, but objects of abomination, things causing abomination, and is constantly used of the heathen gods, idol-images, sacrifices to the gods, and other heathen abominations. The connection of שׁקּוּצים permits us, however, with Reichel, Ebrard, Kliefoth, and Kranichfeld, to think on nothing else than that wings are attributed to the שׁקּוּצים . The sing. כּנף does not oppose this, since it is often used collectively in a peculiar and figurative meaning; cf. e.g., כּנף בּעל , Proverbs 1:17, with כּנפים בּעל , Ecclesiastes 10:20, the winged, the bird; and הארץ dna ;drib כּנף ( from the uttermost part of the earth), Isaiah 24:16, is not different from הארץ כּנפות , Job 37:3; Job 38:13, just as אברה , wing, plumage, Psalms 91:4; Deuteronomy 32:11, is found for אברות ( wings), Psalms 68:14. But from such passages as Deuteronomy 32:11; Exodus 19:4, and Psalms 18:11, we perceive the sense in which wings are attributed to the שׁקּוּצים , the idolatrous objects. (Note: The interpretation of J. D. Michaelis, which has been revived by Hofmann, needs no serious refutation. They hold that שׁקּוּצים כּנף signifies an idol-bird, and denotes the eagle of Jupiter of Zeus. Hofm. repeats this interpretation in his Schriftbew. ii. 2, p. 592, after he had abandoned it.) In the first of these passages (Deuteronomy 32:11), wings, the wings of an eagle, are attributed to God, because He is the power which raises up Israel, and lifting it up, and carrying it throughout its history, guides it over the earth. In P. 18 wings are attributed to the wind, because the wind is contemplated as the power which carries out the will of God throughout the kingdom of nature. “Thus in this passage wings are attributed to the שׁקּוּצים , idol-objects, and to idolatry with its abominations, because that shall be the power which lifts upwards the destroyer and desolater, carries him, and moves with him over the earth to lay waste” (Klief.). (Note: Similarly, and independently of Kliefoth, Kranichfeld also explains the words: “The powerful heathen enemy of God is here conceived of as carried on these wings of the idol-abomination, like as the God of the theocracy is borne on the wings of the clouds, and on cherubim, who are His servants; cf. Psalms 18:11; Psalms 104:3.”) The last clause, וגו ועד־כּלה , is differently construed, according as the subject to תּתּך , which is wanting, or appears to be wanting, is sought to be supplied from the context. Against the supposition of Hävernick and Ebrard, who take תּתּך as impersonal: “it pours down,” it is rightly objected that this word is never so found, and can so much the less be so interpreted here, since in Daniel 9:11 it is preceded by a definite subject. Others supply a subject, such as anger (Berth.), or curse and oath from Daniel 9:11; the former is quite arbitrary, the latter is too far-fetched. Others, again (Hengstenberg, Maurer), take ונחרצה כלה ( the consummation and that determined) as the subject. This is correct according to the matter. We cannot, however, so justify the regarding of ועד as a conjunction: till that; for, though עד is so used, ועד is not; nor, once more, can we justify the taking of ונחרצה כלה as a whole as the subject (Hofmann), or of ונחרצה alone as the subject (v. Leng., Hitzig, Kliefoth), since ועד is not repeated before ונחרצה on account of the ו (with v. Leng.), nor is ונחרצה alone supplied (with Hitz.), nor is the ו before נחרצה to be regarded (with Klief.) as a sign of the conclusion. Where ו introduces the conclusion, as e.g., Daniel 8:14, it is there united with the verb, and thus the expression here should in that case be נחרצה ותּתּך . The relative interpretation of תּתּך is the only one which is verbally admissible, whereby the words, “and till the consummation and that determined,” are epexegetically connected to the foregoing clause: “and till the consummation and that determined which shall pour down upon the desolater.” The words ונחרצה כלה remind us of Isa 10:23 and Isaiah 28:22, and signify that which is completed = altogether and irrevocably concluded, i.e., substantially the inflexibly decreed judgment of destruction. The words have here this meaning, as is clear from the circumstance that נחרצה points back to שׁממות נחרצת (Daniel 9:26, desolations are determined), and כלה עד corresponds to קץ עד (Daniel 9:26). In Daniel 11:31 משׁמם is not in a similar manner to be identified with שׁמם , but has the active signification: “laying waste,” while שׁמם has the passive: “laid waste.” Both words refer to the Nagid, but with this difference, that this ungodly prince who comes as the desolater of the city and the sanctuary will on that account become desolate, that the destruction irrevocably decreed by God shall pour down upon him as a flood. Let us now, after explaining the separate clauses, present briefly the substance of this divine revelation. We find that the Daniel 9:25-27 contain the following announcement: From the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the appearance of the Messias seven weeks shall pass away; after that, during threescore and two weeks the city shall be restored and built up amid the oppressions of the times; but after the sixty-two weeks the Messias shall be cut off, so that to Him nothing remains, and the city, together with the sanctuary, shall be destroyed by the people of a prince who shall come, who shall find his end in the flood; but the war shall continue to the end, since destruction is irrevocably decreed. That prince shall force a strong covenant for one week on the mass of the people, and during half a week shall take away the service of sacrifice, and, borne on the wings of idol-abominations, shall carry on a desolating rule, till the firmly decreed judgment shall pour itself upon him as one desolated. - According to this, the first seven weeks are determined merely according to their beginning and their end, and nothing further is said as to their contents than may be concluded from the definition of its terminus a quo , “to restore and to build Jerusalem,” namely, that the restoring and the building of this city shall proceed during the period of time indicated. The sixty-two weeks which follow these seven weeks, ending with the coming of the Messias, have the same contents, only with the more special definition, that the restoration and the building in the broad open place and in the limited place shall be carried on in oppressive times. Hence it is clear that this restoration and building cannot denote the rebuilding of the city which was destroyed by the Chaldeans, but refers to the preservation and extension of Jerusalem to the measure and compass determined by God in the Messianic time, or under the dominion of the Messias, since He shall come at the end of the seven weeks, and after the expiry of the sixty-two weeks connected therewith shall be cut off, so that nothing remains to Him. The statements of the angel (Daniel 9:26, Daniel 9:27) regarding the one week, which, because of the connection, can only be the seventieth, or the last of the seventy, are more ample. The cutting off of the Messias forms the beginning of this week; then follows the destruction of the city and of the sanctuary by the people of the coming prince, who shall find his end in the flood, not immediately after his coming, but at the end of this week; for the war shall continue to the end, and the prince shall take away the service of sacrifice during half a week, till the desolation determined as a flood shall pour down upon him, and make the desolater desolated. If we compare with this the contents of Dan 9:24, according to which seventy weeks are determined to restrain transgression, to make an end of sin and iniquity, partly by atonement and partly by shutting up, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to consecrate a new most holy, we shall find that the reciprocal statements are so related to each other, that Daniel 9:25-27 present what shall be done in the course of the seventy weeks, which are divided into three periods, but Daniel 9:24 what shall be the result of all these things. The seventieth week ends, according to Daniel 9:27, with the judgment on the destroyer of the city and the sanctuary of God; but with this judgment shall be the conclusion of the divine counsel of salvation, or the kingdom of God shall be consummated. This was revealed to the prophet in Daniel 7, and thus does not need to be here expressly repeated. If that which, according to Daniel 9:24, shall happen with the expiry of the seventy appointed weeks stood after Daniel 9:27, then would the connection of the judgment on the last enemy of God with the consummation of the kingdom of God appear here also distinctly to view. But it was not necessary after Daniel 7 to give express prominence to this connection here; and Gabriel here first mentions the positive aim and end of the divine plan of salvation with Israel, because he gives to the prophet a comforting answer to remove his deep distress on account of his own sins, and the sin and guilt of his people, and therein cannot conceal the severe affliction which the future would bring, because he will announce to him that by the sins of the people the working out of the deliverance designed by God for them shall not be frustrated, but that in spite of the great guilt of Israel the kingdom of God shall be perfected in glory, sin and iniquity blotted out, everlasting righteousness restored, the prophecy of the judgment and of salvation completed, and the sanctuary where God shall in truth dwell among His people erected. In order to establish this promise, so rich in comfort, and firmly to ratify it to Daniel he unveils to him (Daniel 9:25-27), in its great outlines, the progress of the development of the kingdom of God, first from the end of the Exile to the coming of the Messias; then from the appearance of Christ to the time far in the future, when Christ shall be cut off, so that nothing remains to Him; and finally, the time of the supremacy and of the victory of the destroyer of the church of God, the Antichrist, and the destruction of this enemy by the irrevocably determined final judgment. If, now, in this he says nothing particular regarding the first period of this development, regarding the time from the Exile to Christ, the reason is, that he had already said all that was necessary regarding the development of the world-kingdom, and its relation to the kingdom and people of God, in the preceding revelation in Daniel 8. It is the same angel Gabriel who (Daniel 8) comforted Daniel, and interpreted to him the vision of the second and third world-kingdom, and who here brings to him further revelations in answer to his prayer regarding the restoration of the holy city, which was lying in ruins, as is expressly remarked in Daniel 9:21. - Also regarding the second long period which passes from the appearance of the Messias to His annihilation ( Vernichtung), i.e., the destruction of His kingdom on the earth, little is apparently said, but in reality in the few words very much is said: that during this whole period the restoration and building shall proceed amid the oppressions of the times, namely, that the kingdom of God shall be built up to the extent determined by God in this long period, although amid severe persecution. this persecution shall during the last week mount up to the height of the cutting off of Christ and the destruction of His kingdom on the earth; but then with the extermination of the prince, the enemy of God, it shall reach its end. But if, according to what has been said, this revelation presents the principal outlines of the development of the kingdom of God from the time of Daniel to its consummation at the end of this epoch of the world, the seventy שׁבעים which are appointed for it cannot be year-weeks, or cycles of seven years, but only symbolically defined periods of measured duration. This result of our exposition contradicts, however, the usual interpretations of this prophecy so completely, that in order to confirm our exposition, we must put thoroughly to the test the two classes of opposing interpretations - which, however, agree in this, that the definitions of time are to be understood chronologically, and that under the שׁבעים year - weeks are to be understood-and examine whether a chronological reckoning is in all respects tenable. The first class of expositors who find the appearance of Christ in the flesh and His crucifixion, as well as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, prophesied of in this passage, adduce in support of their view, partly the agreement of the chronological periods, partly the testimony of Christ, who referred Daniel 9:27 to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. How does it now stand with these two arguments? The first Hengstenberg ( Christol. iii. 1, p. 137) introduces with the remark, “The predominant view in the synagogue and in the church has always been, that the seventy weeks, as well as the shorter periods into which the whole period is divided, are closely fixed and limited. The opposite supposition becomes very suspicious by this, that it is maintained only by such as come into conflict with the chronology by their hypotheses, or take no interest in chronological investigations.” He then seeks first to confute the arguments brought forward in favour of the supposition that the chronological definitions are only given in the lump ( in Bausch und Bogen), and then to present the positive arguments for the definiteness of the chronological statements. But he has in this identified the definiteness of the prophecy in general with its chronological definiteness, while there is between these two ideas a noticeable difference. Of the positive arguments adduced, the first is, that the seventy weeks stand in closer relation to the seventy years of Jeremiah, in so far as regards chronological definiteness, when the seventy years of Jeremiah are understood as strictly chronological and as chronologically fulfilled. But the force of this argument is neutralized by the fact, that in Jeremiah a chronologically described period, “years,” is in this prophecy, on the contrary, designated by a name the meaning of which is disputed, at all events is chronologically indefinite, since weeks, if seven-day periods are excluded by the contents off the prophecy, can as well signify Sabbath or jubilee periods, seven-year or seven times seven-years epochs. Still weaker is the second argument, that all the other designations of time with reference to the future in the book of Daniel are definite; for this is applicable only to the designations in Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 12:11-12, in which evening-mornings and days are named, but not to the passages Daniel 7:25; Daniel 12:7, and Daniel 4:13 (16), where the chronologically indefinite expression, time, times, occurs, which are arbitrarily identified with years. There remains thus, for the determination of the time spoken of in this prophecy, only the argument from its fulfilment, which should give the decision for the chronological definiteness. But, on the contrary, there arises a grave doubt, from the circumstance that among the advocates of the so-called “church Messianic interpretation” the terminus a quo of the prophecy is disputed; for some of these interpreters take the edict of Cyrus (b.c. 536) as such, while, on the other hand, others take the edict which Artaxerxes issued on the return of Ezra to Jerusalem for the restoration of the service of God according to the law, in the seventeenth year of his reign, i.e., in the year b.c. 457, and others, again, among whom is Hengstenberg, take the journey of Nehemiah to Jerusalem with the permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, i.e., b.c. 445, or according to Hengstenberg, b.c. 455, as the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks - a difference of eighty-one years, which in chronological reckoning is very noticeable. In our interpretation of Dan 9:25, we have given our decided opinion that the וגו להשׁיב דּבר , from the going forth of which seventy years are to be reckoned, refers to the edict of Cyrus permitting the Jews to return to their fatherland, and the arguments in favour of that opinion are given above. Against this reference to the edict of Cyrus, Hävernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen have objected that in that edict there is nothing said of building up the city, and that under Cyrus, as well as under the succeeding kings, Cambyses, Darius Hystaspes, and Xerxes, nothing also is done for the building of the city. We find it still unbuilt in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:8; Ezra 10:13; Nehemiah 1:3; Nehemiah 2:3; 5:34; Nehemiah 4:1; Nehemiah 7:4). Although from the nature of the case the building of the temple supposes the existence also of houses in Jerusalem (cf. Haggai 1:4), yet there is not a single trace of any royal permission for the restoration of the people and the rebuilding of the city. Much rather this was expressly forbidden (Ezra 4:7-23) by the same Artaxerxes Longimanus (who at a later period gave the permission however), in consequence of the slanderous reports of the Samaritans. “There was granted to the Jews a religious, but not a political restoration.” For the first time in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus the affairs of Israel took a favourable turn. In that year Artaxerxes granted to Ezra permission to go to Jerusalem, entrusting him with royal letters of great importance (Ezra 7:11-26, particularly Ezra 7:18, Ezra 7:25.); in his twentieth year he gave to Nehemiah express permission to rebuild the city (Nehemiah 2). Following the example of the old chronologist Julius Africanus in Jerome and many others, Häv., Hgstb., Reinke, Reusch, and others regard the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, while Auberlen, with Valovius, Newton, M. Geier, Gaussen, Pusey, and others, regard the seventy years, as the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks. But that the arguments derived from the absence of any mention being made in the edict of Cyrus of the building of Jerusalem against the reference of וגו דּבר מצא to that edict are not very strong, at least are not decisive, is manifest from what Auberlen has advanced for the seventh and against the twentieth year. Proceeding from the proposition, correct in itself, that the time of Ezra and that of Nehemiah form one connected period of blessing for Israel, Auberlen thence shows that the edict relating to Nehemiah had only a secondary importance, as the sacred narrative itself indicates by the circumstance that it does not mention the edict at all (Nehemiah 2:7-8), while the royal letters to Ezra (Ezra 7) are given at large. Since it was the same king Artaxerxes who sent away Ezra as well as Nehemiah, his heart must have been favourably inclined toward Israel in his seventh year. “Then must the word for the restoration and building of Jerusalem have gone forth from God.” The consciousness of this is expressed by Ezra himself, when, after recording the royal edict (Ezra 7:27), he continues: “Blessed be Jehovah, the God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem; and hath extended mercy to me before the king and his counsellors, and before all the king's mighty princes.” But, we must reply, wherein does the mercy extended to Ezra before the king consist? Is it in the permission to build up Jerusalem? Certainly not, but in the beautifying the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem. And to that alone the royal authority granted to Ezra (Ezra 7) refers. Of the building of the city there is not a word said. Only the means, as it appears, of restoring the temple-worship, which had fallen into great decay, and of re-establishing the law of God corresponding thereto, were granted to him in the long edict issued by the king. (Note: Auberlen, it is true, remarks (p. 138): - ”The authority given to Ezra is so extensive that it essentially includes the rebuilding of the city. It refers certainly, for the most part [rather wholly,] to the service of the sanctuary; but not only must Ezra set up judges (Ezra 7:25), he is also expressly permitted by the king to expend as it seems good to him the rest of the silver and gold (Ezra 7:18). How he then understood the commission, Ezra himself says clearly and distinctly in his prayer of repentance: 'Our Lord hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof (of our God), and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem.' The argument from this passage lies not merely in the גּדר ( encircling wall), but especially in this, 'to repair the desolations thereof.' This could not be the desolations of the temple, which had been long before this rebuilt, and therefore we may understand by it the desolations of Jerusalem.” But the strength of this argumentation rests merely on a verbally free rendering of the verse referred to (Ezra 9:9). The circumstance that Ezra speaks of the kings (in the plur.) of Persia, who showed favour to the Jews, indicates that he meant not merely that which Artaxerxes had done and would yet do in the future, but that he refers also to the manifestation of favour on the part of kings Cyrus, Darius Hystaspes, and Artaxerxes; thus also the expression, “to give us a wall,” cannot refer to the permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, which Artaxerxes some years later first granted to Nehemiah. Moreover, the expression, “to give us a גּדר in Judah and Jerusalem,” shows that by גּדר cannot be understood the fortified walls of Jerusalem; for גּדר never denotes the walls of a city or fortress as such, but always only the encompassing wall of a vineyard, which meaning is found in Micah 7:11; Ezekiel 13:5. גּדר is therefore to be understood here figuratively: encompassing wall in the sense of divine protection; and the meaning is not this: “that the place protected by the wall lies in Judah and Jerusalem; but in Judah and Jerusalem the Persian kings have given to the new congregation of the people a secure dwelling-place, because the power of the Persian kings secured to the Israelites who had returned from captivity the undisturbed and continued possession of their land” (Bertheau). The objection also, that חרבתיו cannot be the ruins of the temple, because it was already built, is set aside as soon as we express the infinitive להעמיד , as it is rightly done, by the praeterite, whereby this word refers to the completed building of the temple. Cf. with this Hengstenberg's extended refutation of this argument of Auberlen's ( Christol. iii. 1, p. 144).) If the clause, “from the going forth of the commandment,” etc., cannot refer to the edict of Cyrus, because in it there is no express mention made of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, so also, for the same reason, it cannot refer to that which was issued by Artaxerxes in favour of Ezra. Auberlen's remark, however, is correct, when he says that the edict relating to Nehemiah is of secondary importance when compared with that relating to Ezra. Strictly speaking, there is no mention made of an edict relating to Nehemiah. Nehemiah, as cup-bearer of Artaxerxes, entreated of the king the favour of being sent to Judah, to the city of his fathers' sepulchres, that he might build it; and the king (the queen also sitting by him) granted him this request, and gave him letters to all the governors on this side the Euphrates, that they should permit him undisturbed to prosecute his journey, and to the overseers of the royal forests, that they should give him wood “for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city” (Nehemiah 2:4-8). However important this royal favour was in its consequences for Jerusalem, - for Nehemiah built the walls of the city, and thereby raised Jerusalem to a fortified city guarded against hostile assaults, - yet the royal favour for this undertaking was not such as to entitle it to be designated as ' מצא דצר וגו , a going forth of a commandment of God. But if, in favour of the reference of דּבר מצא to the edict of Ezra, Auberlen (p. 128ff.) attaches special importance to the circumstance that in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are recorded two periods of post-exilian history, the first of which - namely, the time of Zerubbabel and of the high priest Joshua under Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes - we may designate the period of the building of the temple, the second - namely, the time of Ezra the priest, and Nehemiah the Tirshatha, under Artaxerxes Longimanus - we may designate the period of the restoration of the people and the building of the city, - the former the time of the religious, and the latter that of the political restoration; and, in seeking to establish this view, he interprets the first part of the book of Ezra as a whole in itself, and the second as a whole taken in combination with the book of Nehemiah; - if this is his position, then Hengstenberg has already ( Christol. iii. p. 149) shown the incorrectness of this division of the book of Ezra, and well remarks that the whole book of Ezra has the temple as its central-point, and views with reference to it the mission of Ezra as well as that of Zerubbabel and Joshua. There is certainly an inner connection of the mission of Ezra with that of Nehemiah, but it consists only in this, that Ezra's religious reformation was secured by Nehemiah's political reform. From the special design of the work of Ezra, to describe the restoration of the temple and of the service of God, we must also explain the circumstance that nothing is said in it of the building of the city of Jerusalem. Besides, this building, before Nehemiah's arrival in Judah, had not further advanced than to the re-erection of houses for the returned exiles who had settled in Jerusalem. Every attempt to restore the walls was hindered and frustrated by the enemies of Judah, so that the gates and the walls were yet lying burnt and in ruins on Nehemiah's arrival (Nehemiah 1:3; Nehemiah 2:3, Nehemiah 2:5). Therefore neither the absence of any mention in the decree of Cyrus of the building of the city, nor the fact that the rebuilding of the city walls was first effected by Nehemiah, forms a decisive argument against the reference of וגו דּבר מצא to this edict; and we must maintain this reference as the only correct one, because this edict only, but not that which gave permission to Ezra or that which gave authority to Nehemiah to build the city walls, formed an epoch marking a crisis in the development of the theocracy, as this is connected in the announcement of Gabriel with the going forth of the word to restore Jerusalem. Not less doubtful is the matter of the definition of the terminus ad quem of the seventy שׁבעים , and of the chronological reckoning of the whole period. As for the terminus ad quem , a sharply defined factum must form the conclusion of the sixty-ninth week; for at this point the public appearance of Christ, His being anointed with the Holy Ghost, is named as the end of the prophecy. If this factum occurred, according to Luke 3:1, in the year of Rome 782, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes - i.e., the year 455 b.c., according to the usual chronology - would be the year 299 A.U.C.; if we add to that sixty-nine weeks = 483 years, then it gives the year 782 A.U.C. In the middle of this last week, beginning with the appearance of the Anointed, occurred His death, while the confirming of the covenant extends through the whole of it. With reference to the death of Christ, the prophecy and its fulfilment closely agree, since that event took place three and a half years after His baptism. But the terminus ad quem of the confirming of the covenant, as one more or less moveable, is capable of no definite chronological determination. It is sufficient to remark, that in the first years after the death of Christ the ἐκλογή of the Old Covenant people was gathered together, and then the message of Christ was brought also to the heathen, so that the prophet might rightly represent the salvation as both subjectively and objectively consummated at the end of the seventy weeks for the covenant people, of whom alone he speaks (Hgst. pp. 163f., 180). Thus also Auberlen, who, however, places the end of the seventy weeks in the factum of the stoning of Stephen, with which the Jews pressed, shook down, and made full to the overflowing the measure of their sins, already filled by the murder of the Messias; so that now the period of grace yet given to them after the work of Christ had come to an end, and the judgment fell upon Israel. We will not urge against the precise accuracy of the fulfilment arrived at by this calculation, that the terminus a quo adopted by Hengstenberg, viz., The twentieth year of Artaxerxes, coincides with the 455th year b.c. only on the supposition that Xerxes reigned but eleven years, and that Artaxerxes came to the throne ten years earlier than the common reckoning, according to which Xerxes reigned twenty-one years, and that the correctness of this view is opposed by Hofm., Kleinert, Wieseler, and others, because the arguments for and against it are evenly balanced; but with Preiswerk, whose words Auberlen (p. 144) quotes with approbation, considering the uncertainty of ancient chronology on many points, we shall not lay much stress on calculating the exact year, but shall regard the approximate coincidence of the prophetical with the historical time as a sufficient proof that there may possibly have been an exact correspondence in the number of years, and that no one, at all events, can prove the contrary. But we must attach importance to this, that in this calculation a part of the communication of the angel is left wholly out of view. The angel announces not merely the cutting off of the Messias after seven and sixty-two weeks, but also the coming of the people of a prince who shall lay waste the city and the sanctuary, which all interpreters who understand משׁיח יכּרת of the death of Christ refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple by the Romans; he also says that this war shall last till the end of the seventy weeks. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans followed the death of Christ, not after an interval of only three and a half years, but of thirty years. Accordingly, the seventy weeks must extend to the year 70 a.d., whereby the whole calculation is shown to be inaccurate. If we yet further remark, that the advocates of this exposition of the prophecy are in a position to give no sufficient reason for the dividing of the sixty-nine weeks into seven and sixty-two, and that their reference of the seven weeks to the time of the rebuilding of Jerusalem under Nehemiah, and of the sixty-two weeks to the period from the completion of this building to the appearance of Christ in the flesh, stands in open contradiction to the words of the text; finally, that the placing of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes as the terminus a quo of the reckoning of the דּבר מצא cannot be correct, - then may we also regard the much commended exact concord of the prophecy with the actual events of history derived from this interpretation of the verse as only an illusion, since from the “going forth of the word” to restore Jerusalem to the destruction of that city by Titus, not seventy weeks or 490 years elapsed, but, according as we date the going forth of this word in the year 536 or 455 b.c., 606 or 525 years, i.e., more than eighty-six, or at least seventy-five, year-weeks, passed. This great gulf, which thus shows itself in the calculation of the שׁבעים as year-weeks, between the prophecy and its chronological fulfilment, is not bridged over by the remark with which Auberlen (p. 141) has sought to justify his supposition that Ezra's return to Judah in the year 457 b.c. formed the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks, while yet the word of the angel announcing the restoration and the building up of Jerusalem first finds its actual accomplishment in the building of the city walls on Nehemiah's return - the remark, namely, that the external building up of the city had the same relation to the terminus a quo of Daniel's seventy year-weeks as the external destruction of Jerusalem to that of Jeremiah's seventy years. “The latter begin as early as the year 606 b.c., and therefore eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem, for at that time the kingdom of Judah ceased to exist as an independent theocracy; the former begin thirteen years before the rebuilding of the city, because then the re-establishment of the theocracy began.” We find a repetition of the same phenomenon at the end of the seventy weeks. “These extend to the year 33 a.d. From this date Israel was at an end, though the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans did not take place till the year 70 a.d.” For Jeremiah did not prophesy that the destruction of Jerusalem should last for seventy years, but only that the land of Judah would be desolate seventy years, and that for so long a time its inhabitants would serve the king of Babylon. The desolating of the land and Judah's subjugation to the king of Babylon did not begin with the destruction of Jerusalem, but with the first siege of the city by Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e., in the year 606 b.c., and continued till the liberation of the Jews from Babylonian bondage by Cyrus in the first year of his reign, in the year 536 b.c., and thus after seventy years were fully accomplished. Jeremiah's chronologically definite prophecy is thus accurately fulfilled; but Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks is neither chronologically defined by years, nor has it been altogether so fulfilled as that the 70, 7, 52, and 1 week can be reckoned by year-weeks. The New Testament also does not necessitate our seeking the end of the seventy weeks in the judgment the Romans were the means of executing against the ancient Jerusalem, which had rejected and crucified the Saviour. Nowhere in the N.T. is this prophecy, particularly the משׁיח יכּרת , referred to the crucifixion of our Lord; nor has Christ or the apostles interpreted these verses, 26, 27 of this chapter, of the desolation and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. However general the opinion may be that Christ, in speaking of His παρουσία , Matthew 24; Mark 13:1, and Luke 21, in the words ὅτανἴδητετὸβδέλυγματῆςἐρημώσεωςτὸῥηθὲνΔανιὴλτοῦπροφήτουκ.τ.λ. (Matthew 24:15, cf. Mark 13:14), had before His eyes this prophecy (Daniel 9:26-27), yet that opinion is without foundation, and is not established by the arguments which Hävernick ( Daniel p. 383f.), Wieseler ( die 70 Wochen, p. 173ff.), Hengstenberg ( Beitr. i. p. 258f., and Christol. iii. 1, p. 113f.), and Auberlen ( Daniel p. 120f.) have brought forward for that purpose. We have already, in explaining the words שׁקּוּצים כּנף על , Daniel 9:27, shown that the βδέλυγματῆςἐρημώσεως , found in the discourse of Christ, is not derived from Daniel 9:27, but from Daniel 11:31 or Daniel 12:11, where the lxx have rendered משׁמם שׁקּוּץ by τὸβδέλυγματῆςἐρημώσεως . For the further confirmation of the arguments in behalf of this view there presented, we wish to add the following considerations. The appeal to the fact that Josephus, in the words ( Antt. x. 11. 7) Δανιῆλοςκαὶπερὶτὴςτῶν̔Ρηωμαίωνἡγεμονίαςἀνέγραψεκαὶὅτιὑπ̓αὐτῶνἐρημωθήσεται , referred to the prophecy Daniel 9, and gave this interpretation not only as a private view of his own, but as (cf. De Bell. Jud. iv. 6. 3) παλαιὸςλόγοςἀνδρῶν , i.e., represented the view of his people, as commonly received, even by the Zealots, - this would form a valid proof that Daniel 9 was at that time commonly referred to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, only, however, if besides this no other prophecy of the book of Daniel could be apparently referred to the destruction of the Jewish state by the Romans. But this is not the case. Josephus and his contemporaries could find such a prophecy in that of the great enemy (Daniel 7:25) who would arise out of the fourth or Roman world-kingdom, and would persecute and destroy the saints of the Most High. What Josephus adduces as the contents of the παλαιὸςλόγοςἀνδρῶν , namely, τότετῆνπόλινἁλώσεσθαικαὶκαταφλεγήσεσθαιτὰἅγιανόμῳπολέμου , occurs neither in Daniel 9 nor in any other part of the book of Daniel, and was not so defined till after the historical fulfilment. Wieseler, indeed, thinks (p. 154) that the words τὴνπόλινκαταφλεγήσεσθαικ.τ.λ. , perfectly correspond with the words of Daniel, ישׁחית והקּדשׁ והעיר , Daniel 9:26 ( shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, E. V.); but he also concedes that Josephus interpreted the kind of desolation, perhaps with reference to Daniel 11:33 (? 31), after the result, as a total desolation. It is thus granted that not only in Daniel 9, but also in Daniel 11, Daniel predicted a desolation of the city and the sanctuary which could be interpreted of their destruction by the Romans, and the opinion, that besides Daniel 9, no other part of Daniel can be found, is abandoned as incorrect. But the other circumstances which Josephus brings forward in the passage quoted, particularly that the Zealots by the desecration of the temple contributed to the fulfilling of that παλαιὸςλόγος , are much more distinctly contained in Daniel 11:31 than in Daniel 9:26, where we must first introduce this sense in the words (Daniel 9:27) כּ נף שׁקּוּצים משׁמם על ( on the wing of abominations one causing desolation). Similarly the other passages are constituted in which Josephus speaks of ancient prophecies which have been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. No one specially points to Daniel 9. But if the proof from Josephus could be made more valid than has yet been done, that the Jews of his time referred Daniel 9 to the overthrow of the Jewish commonwealth by the Romans, yet thereby it would not be proved that Christ also shared this Jewish opinion, and set it forth in His discourse, Matthew 24, as an undoubted truth. In favour of this view it has indeed been argued, “that the ἐντόπῳἁγίῳ fully corresponds to ἐπὶτὸἱερὸνβδέλυγματῶνἐρημώσεωνἔσται (lxx, Daniel 9:27):” Hengstenberg, Christol. p. 117. But it is still more inconsistent with the proof from the Alexandrian translation of the verses before us than it is with that from Josephus. In the form of the lxx text that has come down to us there are undoubtedly two different paraphrases or interpretations of the Hebrew text off Daniel 9:26, Daniel 9:27 penetrating each other, and therein the obscure words of Daniel (after Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11) are so interpreted that they contain a reference to the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus. (Note: That the Septuagint version (Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11; Daniel 9:24-27) is not in reality a translation, but rather an explanation of the passage as the lxx understood it, is manifest. “They regard,” as Klief. rightly judges, “ Daniel 9:24 and the first half of Dan 9:25 as teaching that it was prophesied to Daniel that Israel would soon return from exile, that Daniel also would return, and Jerusalem be built. The rest they treat very freely. They take the second half of Dan 9:25 out of its place, and insert it after the first clause of Dan 9:27; they also take the closing words of Dan 9:26 out of their place, and insert them after the second clause of Dan 9:27. The passage thus arranged they then interpret of Antiochus Epiphanes. They add together call the numbers they find in the text (70 + 7 + 62 = 139), and understand by them years, the years of the Seleucidan aera, so that they descend to the second year of Antiochus Epiphanes. Then they interpret all the separate statements of the times and actions of Antiochus Epiphanes in a similar manner as do the modern interpreters. C. Wieseler, p. 200 .”) The על כנף , incomprehensible to the translators, they interpreted after the חלּלוּ , Daniel 11:31, and derived from it the ἐπὶτὸἱερὸν . But Christ derived the expression τὸβδέλυγματῆςἐρημώσεως as well as the ἐστὼςἐντόπῳἁγίῳ from Daniel 11:31, cf. with Daniel 12:11, but not from Daniel 9:27, where neither the original text, “on the wings of abomination shall the desolater come,” nor the lxx translation, ἐπὶτὸἱερὸνβδέλυγματῶνἐρημώσεωνἔσται - ”over the sanctuary shall the abomination of the desolations come,” leads to the idea of a “standing,” or a “being placed,” of the abomination of desolation. The standing without doubt supposes the placing, which corresponds to the ונתנוּ ( δώσουσι , lxx), and the ולתת ( ἑτοιμασθῇδοθῆναι , lxx), and the ἐντόπῳἁγίῳ points to המקדּשׁ , Daniel 11:31, since by the setting up of the abomination of desolation, the sanctuary, or the holy place of the temple, was indeed desecrated. The prophecy in Daniel 11 treats, as is acknowledged, of the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus Epiphanes. If thus the Lord, in His discourse, had spoken of the βδέλυγματῆςἐρ. ἑστὼςἐντόπῳἁγίω | as a sign of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, it would not remotely follow that He referred this prophecy (Daniel 9) to that catastrophe. Much more would He then, as Kliefoth (p. 412) has well remarked, “represent that which Antiochus Epiphanes did against Jerusalem as an historical type of that which the Romans would do.” He would only say, “As once was done to Jerusalem by Antiochus, according to the word of Daniel, so shall it again soon be done; and therefore, it ye see repeating themselves the events which occurred under Antiochus in the fulfilment of Daniel's word, then know ye that it is the time for light.” But regarding the meaning which Christ found in Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27, not the least intimation would follow therefrom. But in the discourse in question the Lord prophesied nothing whatever primarily or immediately of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, but treated in it, as we have already remarked, generally of His παρουσία and the συντέλειατοῦαἰῶνος , which He places only in connection with the destruction of the temple. The occasion of the discourse, as well as its contents, show this. After He had let the temple, never to enter it again, shortly before His last sufferings, while standing on the Mount of Olives, He announces to His disciples, who pointed to the temple, the entire destruction of that building; whereupon they say to Him, “Tell us πότεταῦταἔσταικαὶτίτὸσημεῖοντῆςσῆςπαρουσίαςκαὶσυντελείαςτοῦαἰῶνος ?” for they believe that this destruction and His παρουσία take place together at the end of the world. This question the Lord replies to in a long discourse, in which He gives them the wished-for information regarding the sign ( σημεῖον , Matthew 24:4-31), and regarding the time of His παρουσία and the end of the world (Matthew 24:32). The information concerning the sign begins with a warning to take heed and beware of being deceived; for that false messiahs would appear, and wars and tumults of nations rising up one against another, and other plagues, would come (Matthew 24:4). All this would be only the beginning of the woes, i.e., of the affliction which then would come upon the confessors of His name; but the end would not come till the gospel was first preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations (Matthew 24:8). Then He speaks of the signs which immediately precede the end, namely, of the abomination of desolation in the holy place of which Daniel prophesied. With this a period of tribulation would commence such as never yet had been, so that if these days should not be shortened for the elect's sake, no one would be saved (Matthew 24:15). To this He adds, in conclusion, the description of His own παρουσία , which would immediately follow this great tribulation (Matthew 24:29). He connects with the description of His return (Matthew 24:32) a similitude, with which He answers the question concerning its time, and thus continues: “When ye see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, this γενεά shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Matthew 24:33, Matthew 24:34, Matthew 24:36). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/keildelitzsch/ The Revelation Regarding the Affliction of the People of God on the Part of the Rulers of the World Till the Consummation of the Kingdom of God - Daniel 10-12 In the third year of the reign of Cyrus, Daniel received the last revelation regarding the future of his people, which gives a fuller unfolding of the hostile attitude of the world-power toward the people and the kingdom of God from the time of the Persian dominion to the end of the days, as well as regarding the powerful protection which the covenant people shall experience amid the severe oppressions they would be exposed to for their purification. This revelation connects itself, both as to its contents and form, so closely with Daniel 8, that it is to be viewed as a further unfolding of that prophecy, and serves for the illustration and confirmation of that which was announced to the prophet shortly before the destruction of the Chaldean world-kingdom regarding the world-kingdoms that were to follow, and their relation to the theocracy. It consists of three parts: - (1.) There is the description of the appearance of God as to its nature, the impression it produced on the prophet, and its object (Daniel 10:1-11:2 a). (2.) The unveiling of the future, in brief statements regarding the relation of the Persian and the Javanic world-kingdoms to Israel, and in more comprehensive descriptions of the wars of the kings of the north and the south for the supremacy, with the hostilities thence arising against the kingdom of God - hostilities which aim at its destruction, but which, because of the powerful succour which is rendered to Israel by Michael the angel-prince, shall come to an end in the destruction of the enemy of God and the final salvation of the people of God (Daniel 11:2 b -12:3). (3.) This revelation concludes with the definition of the duration of the time of oppression, and with the command given to Daniel to seal up the words, together with the prophecy, till the time of the end, and to rest till the end come: “For thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of the days” (Daniel 12:4-13). If we attentively examine first of all the form of this revelation, namely, the manifestation of God, by which there is given to Daniel the understanding of the events of the future (Daniel 10:14, cf. Daniel 11 and Daniel 12:1-13), this revelation will be found to be distinguished from all the others in this, that it is communicated partly by supernatural illumination for the interpretation of the dream-vision, partly by visions, partly by the appearance of angels. Auberlen ( d. Proph. Daniel p. 91f.) has already referred to this distinction, and therein has found a beautiful and noteworthy progression, namely, that the one revelation always prepares the way, in a material and formal respect, for that which follows, from which we may see how God gradually prepared the prophet for the reception of still more definite disclosures. “First Nebuchadnezzar dreams, and Daniel simply interprets (Daniel 2 and 4); afterwards Daniel himself has a dream, but as yet it is only as a vision in a dream of the night (Daniel 7:1-2); then follows a vision in a waking state (Daniel 8:1-3); and finally, in the last two revelations (Daniel 9 and 10-12), when Daniel, now a feeble, trembling (?) old man (Daniel 10:8.), is already almost transplanted out of this world - now the ecstatic state seems to be no longer necessary for him. Now in his usual state he sees and hears angels speak like men, while his companions do not see the appearances from the higher world, and are only overwhelmed with terror, like those who accompanied Paul to Damascus (Daniel 9:20., Daniel 10:4., cf. Acts of Ap. Acts 9:7).” It is true, indeed, that, as Aub. remarks, there is a progression from interpreting of dreams to the receiving of visions in dreams and in the waking state, but by this reference neither are the actual contents of the revelation given in different forms perfectly comprehended, nor still less is the meaning of the difference made clear. Auberlen, in thus representing the distinction, has left out of view the circumstance, that the visions in Daniel 7 and 8 are also interpreted to Daniel by an angel; moreover, that the revelation in Daniel 8 does not merely consist of a vision, in which Daniel sees the destruction of the Persian world-kingdom by the Javanic under the figure of a he-goat casting down the ram, but that Daniel, after this vision, also hears an angel speak, and a voice comes to him from above the waters of the Ulai which commands the angel Gabriel to explain the vision to the seer (Daniel 8:13.), and that this second part of that revelation has a great likeness to that in Daniel 10-12; finally, that the same angel Gabriel again appears in Daniel 9, and brings to Daniel the revelation regarding the seventy weeks (Daniel 9:24-27). But as to the interpretation of these revelations given in different forms, this difference is conditioned partly by the subjective relations sustained by the recipients to God, while, on the other hand, the form is in the most intimate manner connected with the contents of the revelation, and indeed in a way wholly different and much deeper than Auberlen thinks, if he therein sees only the material progression to greater speciality in the prophecy. To comprehend the meaning of the divine revelation in Daniel 10-12, we must examine more closely the resemblance which it presents to Daniel 8:13-19. As in the vision Daniel 8, which points to the oppression of the time of the end (Daniel 8:17, Daniel 8:19), Daniel heard a voice from the Ulai (Daniel 8:16), so in Daniel 10 and Daniel 12:1-13 the personage from whom that voice proceeded appears within the circle of Daniel's vision, and announces to him what shall happen to his people הימים בּאחרית (Daniel 10:14). This celestial person appears to him in such awful divine majesty, that he falls to the ground on hearing his voice, as already in Daniel 8:17. on hearing his voice and message, so that he feared he should perish; and it was only by repeated supernatural consolation and strengthening that he was able to stand erect again, and was made capable of hearing the revelation. The heavenly being who appears to him resembles in appearance the glory of Jehovah which Ezekiel had seen by the river Chaboras (Chebar); and this appearance of the man clothed in linen prepared the contents of his revelation, for God so manifested Himself to Daniel (as He will approve Himself to His people in the times of the future great tribulation) as He who in judgment and in righteousness rules the affairs of the world-kingdoms and of the kingdom of God, and conducts them to the issues foreseen; so that the effect of His appearance on Daniel formed a pre-intimation and a pledge of that which would happen to the people of Daniel in the future. As Daniel was thrown to the ground by the divine majesty of the man clothed in linen, but was raised up again by a supernatural hand, so shall the people of God be thrown to the ground by the fearful judgments that shall pass over them, but shall again be raised up by the all-powerful help of their God and His angel-prince Michael, and shall be strengthened to endure the tribulation. According to this, the very appearance of God has prophetic significance; and the reason why this last vision is communicated to Daniel neither by a vision nor by angels, but by a majestic Theophany, does not lie in the more definite disclosures which should be given to him regarding the future, but only in this, that the revelation, as is mentioned in the superscription, Daniel 10:1, places in view the גּדול וצבא אמת (Daniel 10:1). Of this oppression, that spoken of in Daniel 8, which should come upon the people of God from the fierce and cunning king seen as a little horn, forms a type; therefore Daniel hears the voice from the waters of the Ulai. That which is there briefly indicated, is in Daniel 10-12 further extended and completed. In regard to the definiteness of the prediction, the revelation in Daniel 10-12 does not go beyond that in Daniel 8; but it does so with respect to the detailed description found in it of the wars of the world-rulers against one another and against the people of God, as well as in this, that it opens a glimpse into the spirit-world, and gives disclosures regarding the unseen spiritual powers who mingle in the history of nations. But over these powers God the Lord exercises dominion, and helps His people to obtain a victory over all their enemies. To reveal this, and in actual fact to attest it to the prophet, and through him to the church of God of all times, is the object of the Theophany, which is circumstantially described in Daniel 10 for the sake of its prophetical character. The Theophany - Daniel 10-11:2a The Introduction to the Following Manifestation of God - Daniel 10:1-3 This verse is to be regarded as an inscription or general statement of the substance of it. Therefore Daniel speaks of himself in the third person, as in Daniel 7:1, and in the historical portions Daniel 1-6. The definition of the time, “In the first year of Cores (Cyrus) king of Persia,” refers us back to Daniel 1:21, but it does not, as has been there already remarked, stand in contradiction to the first year of Cyrus named there. דּבר is the following revelation, which was communicated to the prophet not by a vision , but by a manifestation of God , and was given in the form of simple human discourse. The remark regarding Daniel, “whose name was Belteshazzar,” is designed only to make it obvious that the Daniel of the third year of Cyrus was the same who was carried by Babylon in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (seventy-two years before). To the question why Daniel did not return to his native land in the first year of Cyrus, which Hitzig has thus formulated for the purpose of framing an argument against the genuineness of this prophecy - ”How could he, who was a pattern of piety (Daniel 1:8; Ezekiel 14:14), so disregard the opportunity that was offered and the summons of Isaiah (Isaiah 48:20; Isaiah 52:11.) as if he stood on the side of those who forgot the holy mountain?” (Isaiah 65:11) - the supposition of his advanced old age (Häv.) is no sufficient answer. For, on the contrary, Hitzig has rightly replied that old men also, such as had even seen the former temple, had returned home (Ezra 3:12), and Daniel was not so infirm as to be unable for the journey. The correct answer is rather this, that Daniel, because divine revelations had been communicated to him, had obtained a position at the court of the world-rulers in which he was able to do much for the good of his people, and might not, without a special divine injunction, leave this place; that he thus, not from indifference toward the holy mountain or from neglect of the injunctions to flee from Babylon (Isaiah 48:20; Isaiah 52:11.), but from obedience to God, and for the furtherance of the cause of His kingdom, remained at his post till the Lord His God should call him away from it. In the second hemistich the contents of this new divine revelation are characterized. הדּבר with the article points back to דּבר in the first half of the verse. Of this “word” Daniel says that it contains אמת and גּדול צבא . In the statement that “the thing was true,” Hitzig finds an intimation that thereby the author betrays his standpoint, namely, the time when “the thing” was realized, for Daniel could not say this before it happened. But this objection supposes that the author was a lying prophet, who spoke from his own heart (Jeremiah 29:8, Jeremiah 29:15). But if Daniel had actually received a “word” from God, he could before its fulfilment testify its truth. The testimony to the truth of the word here indicates, as it does in Daniel 8:26 in the mouth of the angel, that the word of God now communicated to the prophet contained things which it would be difficult for the human heart to believe. The second predicate גּדול צבא shows in what respect this is so. For that these words do not, with the lxx and Aquil., refer to what follows is obvious, as is acknowledged by all modern interpreters. צבא , warfare, military service, then the difficulty of this service, and figuratively difficulty, afflictions of life, Job 7:1; Job 10:17, and also here. “The word is, i.e., concerns, has as its contents, great afflictions” [E.V. “the time appointed was long”]. In the last clause of this verse בּין and בינה are not the imperative (v. Lengerke), because a summons to give heed, or understand, would not be here in place. בינה is a substantive, and the throwing of the accent on the penultima is occasioned by the accented לו which follows. בּין is the 3rd pers. perf., not the infinitive (Häv.). Understanding was to him בּמּראה , by that which was seen, i.e., by the appearance described in Daniel 10:5. בּמּראה cannot at all be referred (Klief.) to the earlier prophecies of Dan 8:7, Daniel 8:9. The statement in these two passages serves for the confirmation of that which was said regarding the contents of the word from God, and stands in relation to Daniel 8:27, where Daniel was troubled because no one understood the vision. He was helped out of this state of non-understanding by the following revelation, cf. Daniel 10:14. But the objection that it cannot be here said that Daniel understood the word, because he himself, Daniel 12:8, says that he did not understand it, has been disposed of by Kliefoth, who justly remarks that the non-understanding in Daniel 12:8 regards a single point, namely, the duration of the affliction, regarding which, however, disclosures are given to the prophet in Daniel 12:10. The translation: “he heard the word, and understood the vision” (Kran.), is set aside by this circumstance, that it takes בּין in a different sense from בינה , contrary to the parallelism of the passages. Daniel 10:2, Daniel 10:3 introduce the following revelation by a statement of the occasion of it. ההם בּימים refers back to the date named in Daniel 10:1. The ימים after שׁבעים does not serve to designate the three weeks as common day-weeks, in contrast to the שׁבעים of Daniel 9:24., but is an accusative subordinated to the definition of time which expresses the idea of continuance: three weeks long, or three whole weeks, as Genesis 41:1; cf. Gesen. Gramm. §118, 3. For three weeks Daniel mourned and fasted, i.e., abstained from the usual food. חמות לחם , precious food, delicacies; but Häv., v. Leng., Maur., Hitz., and Kran. interpret it of leavened bread, so called in contrast to the unleavened paschal bread, the bread of affliction (Deuteronomy 16:3). But this contrast is not well founded, for the מצּות ( unleavened cakes) of the passover was not (notwithstanding Deuteronomy 16:3) bread of sorrow, but pure, holy bread, which Daniel did not eat, in opposition to the law, for three weeks. לחם is not to be limited to bread in its narrower sense, but denotes food generally. Flesh and wine are festival food, Isaiah 22:13; Genesis 27:25, which is not had every day. The anointing with oil was the sign of joy and of a joyous frame of mind, as with guests at a banquet, Amos 6:6, and was intermitted in the time of sorrow; cf. 2 Samuel 14:2. Fasting, as an abstaining from the better sustenance of common life, was the outward sign of sorrow of soul. According to Daniel 10:4, Daniel mourned and fasted in the first month of the year, the month in the middle of which the paschal feast was kept, in which Israel celebrated their deliverance from their state of slavery in Egypt and their advancement to be the people of God, and were joyful before their God. On the 24th day of this month occurred the Theophany (Daniel 10:4.), with which, however, his fasting came to an end. According to this, it appears that he fasted from the third to the twenty-third of the month Nisan; thus it began immediately after the feast of the new moon, which was kept for two days (cf. 1 Samuel 20:18., 27, 34 with 6:29; Daniel 2:19). Thus Häv. and Hitzig conclude; while v. Leng. and Maurer argue, from Daniel 10:13, that between the time of fasting and the appearance of the angel an interval elapsed, consequently that Daniel fasted from the first to the twenty-first of the month Nisan. But from Daniel 10:13 nothing further follows than that the angel was detained twenty-one days; so that the question as to the beginning and the end of the fast is not certainly answered from the text, and, as being irrelevant to the matter, it can remain undecided. More important is the question as to the cause of such long-continued great sorrow, which is not answered by the remark that he was thus prepared for receiving a divine revelation. According to Daniel 10:12, Daniel sought הבּין , i.e., understanding as to the state of the matter, or regarding the future of his people, which filled him with concern. The word about the restoration of Jerusalem which he had received through the angel Gabriel in the first year of Darius (Daniel 9) had come to pass since that revelation in the first year of Cyrus, but had had only little effect on the religious lukewarmness of the majority of the people. Of the whole people only a very small portion had returned to the land of their fathers, and had begun, after restoring the altar of burnt-offering, to build the house of God in Jerusalem. But while the foundation of the new temple was laid, there mingled with the joyful shoutings of the people also the loud wailings of the old men who had seen the former temple in its glory, when they beheld this building undertaken amid circumstances so depressing and sorrowful (Ezra 3:1-13). In addition to this, the Samaritans immediately, when the Jewish rulers refused for conscience sake to permit them to take part with them in the building, sought, by means of influences used at the Persian court, to prevent the carrying on of the building (Ezra 4:1-5). This sad state of matters could not but, at the beginning of the new year, fill the heart of Daniel with deep sorrow, and move him at the return of the time of the passover to mourn in fasting and prayer over the delay of the salvation promised to his people, and to supplicate in behalf of Israel the pardon of their sins, and their deliverance out of the hand of their enemies. Therefore he mourned and fasted before and during the paschal days for three weeks, until on the twenty-fourth day of the month he received a revelation from God. The Theophany. - On the day named Daniel found himself on the side (banks) of the river Hiddekel, i.e., the Tigris (see under Genesis 2:14), along with some who accompanied him (Daniel 10:7); thus he was there in reality, and not merely in vision as at the Ulai, Daniel 8:2. For what purpose he was there is not said. Here he saw a celestial being, whose form is described, Daniel 10:5, Daniel 10:6. It was a man ( אחד , one, not several) clothed in בּדּים , i.e., in a talar of shining white linen (regarding בּדּים , see under Ezekiel 9:2), and his loins girt about with gold of Uphaz. אוּפז occurs nowhere else, except in Jeremiah 10:9: gold of Uphaz and silver of Tarshish, from which we must conclude that Uphaz is the name of a region, a country, probably only a dialectically different form for אופיר ; the combination with the Sanscr. vipâça - Hyphasis is, on the other hand, very far-fetched. His body shone like תּרשׁישׁ , i.e., the chrysolite of the Old and the topaz of the New Testament (see under Ezekiel 1:16); his countenance had the appearance of lightning, his eyes as lamps of fire, his arms and the place of his feet like the sight of polished brass ( קלל , see under Ezekiel 1:7). מרגּלות , place of the feet, does not stand for feet, but denotes that part of the human frame where the feet are; and the word indicates that not the feet alone, but the under parts of the body shone like burnished brass. The voice of his words, i.e., the sound of his speaking, was like המון קול , for which in Ezekiel 1:24 המלּה קול ( the voice of noise), and by מחנה קול (Ezekiel 1:24) the noise of a host is denoted. This heavenly form has thus, it is true, the shining white talar common to the angel, Ezekiel 9:9, but all the other features, as here described - the shining of his body, the brightness of his countenance, his eyes like a lamp of fire, arms and feet like glistering brass, the sound of his speaking-all these point to the revelation of the יהוה כּבוד , the glorious appearance of the Lord, Ezekiel 1, and teach us that the אישׁ seen by Daniel was no common angel-prince, but a manifestation of Jehovah, i.e., the Logos. This is placed beyond a doubt by a comparison with Revelation 1:13-15, where the form of the Son of man whom John saw walking in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks is described like the glorious appearance seen by Ezekiel and Daniel. The place where this heavenly being was, is not here specially stated. In Daniel 12:6 he appears hovering over the waters of the river, the Tigris. This agrees also with the verse before us, according to which Daniel, while standing on the banks of the river, on lifting up his eyes beheld the vision. Hence it further follows, that the אישׁ seen here by Daniel is the same heavenly being whose voice he heard, Daniel 8:16, from the waters of the Ulai, without seeing his form. When now he whose voice Daniel heard from thence presents himself before him here on the Tigris in a majesty which human nature is not able to endure, and announces to him the future, and finally, Daniel 12:6., with a solemn oath attests the completion of the divine counsel, he thereby shows himself, as C. B. Michaelis ad Daniel p. 372, Schmieder in Gerlach's Bibelw., and Oehler (Art. Messias in Herz.'s Realenc. ix. p. 417) have acknowledged, to be the Angel of Jehovah κατ̓ἐξοχὴν , as the “Angel of His presence.” The combination of this angel with that in the form of a son of man appearing in the clouds (Daniel 7:13) is natural; and this combination is placed beyond a doubt by the comparison with Revelation 1:13, where John sees the glorified Christ, who is described by a name definitely referring to Daniel 7:13, as ὅμοιονυἱῷἀνθρώπου . On the other hand, the opinion maintained to some extent among the Rabbis, which even Hengstenberg has in modern times advocated ( Beitr. i. p. 165ff.; Christol. iii. 2, p. 50ff.), namely, that the angel of the Lord who here appears to Daniel in divine majesty is identical with the angel-prince Michael, has no support in Scripture, and stands in contradiction to Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21, where he who speaks is certainly distinguished from Michael, for here there is ascribed to Michael a position with reference to the people of God which is not appropriate to the Angel of the Lord or the Logos. It is true, indeed, that Hengstenberg holds, with many old interpreters, that he who speaks with Daniel, Daniel 10:11, and reveals to him the future, is different from him who appears to him, Daniel 10:5, Daniel 10:6, and is identical with the angel Gabriel. But the reasons advanced in support of this are not sufficient. The latter supposition is grounded partly on the similarity of the address to Daniel, חמות אישׁ , Daniel 10:11, Daniel 10:19, cf. with Daniel 9:23, partly on the similarity of the circumstances, Daniel 8:17-18, cf. with Daniel 10:10 and Daniel 12:5. But the address to Daniel חמות אישׁ proves nothing, because it does not express to Daniel the relation of the angel to him, but of the Lord who sent the angel; and Gabriel in Daniel 9:23 does not address the prophet thus, but only says that he is המדות , i.e., a man greatly beloved of God. The similarity of circumstances with Daniel 8:17-18 proves nothing further than that he who appeared was a heavenly being. More noticeable is the similarity of Dan 8:13 with Daniel 12:5, so far as in both cases two angels appear along with him who hovers over the waters, and the voice from above the waters in Daniel 8:16 directs the angel Gabriel to explain the vision to the prophet. But from the circumstance that in Daniel 8 and also in Daniel 9 Gabriel gives to the prophet disclosures regarding the future, it by no means follows, even on the supposition that he who is represented in the chapter before us as speaking is different from him who appears in Daniel 10:5, Daniel 10:6, that the angel who speaks is Gabriel. If he were Gabriel, he would have been named here, according to the analogy of Dan 10:9, Daniel 10:21. To this is to be added, that the assumed difference between him who speaks, Daniel 10:11, and him who appears, Daniel 10:5, Daniel 10:6, is not made out, nor yet is it on the whole demonstrable. It is true that in favour of this difference, he who speaks is on the banks of the river where Daniel stands, while he who appears, vv. 5, 6, and also at the end of the vision, Daniel 12:1-13, is in the midst of the Tigris, and in Daniel 10:5 of this chapter (Daniel 12:1-13) two other persons are standing on the two banks of the river, one of whom asks him who is clothed with linen, as if in the name of Daniel, when the things announced shall happen. Now if we assume that he who is clothed in linen is no other than he who speaks to Daniel, v. 11, then one of these two persons becomes a κωφὸνπρόσωπον , and it cannot be at all seen for what purpose he appears. If, on the contrary, the difference of the two is assumed, then each has his own function. The Angel of the Lord is present in silent majesty, and only by a brief sentence confirms the words of his messenger (Daniel 12:7). The one of those standing on the banks is he who, as the messenger and interpreter of the Angel of the Lord, had communicated all disclosures regarding the future to Daniel as he stood by the banks. The third, the angel standing on the farther bank, directs the question regarding the duration of the time to the Angel of the Lord. Thus Hengstenberg is in harmony with C. B. Michaelis and others. But however important these reasons for the difference appears, yet we cannot regard them as conclusive. From the circumstance that, Daniel 10:10, a hand touched Daniel as he was sinking down in weakness and set him on his knees, it does not with certainty follow that this was the hand of the angel (Gabriel) who stood by Daniel, who spoke to him, Daniel 10:11. The words of the text, “a hand touched me,” leave the person whose hand it was altogether undefined; and also in Daniel 10:16, Daniel 10:18, where Daniel is again touched, so that he was able to open his mouth and was made capable of hearing the words that were addressed to him, the person from whom the touch proceeded is altogether indefinite. The designations, אדם בּני כּדּמוּת , like the similitude of the sons of men, Daniel 10:16, and אדם כּמראה , like the appearance of a man, Daniel 10:18, do not point to a definite angel who appears speaking in the sequel. But the circumstance that in Daniel 12:1-13, besides the form that hovered over the water, other two angels appear on the banks, does not warrant us to assume that these two angels were already present or visible in Daniel 10:5. The words, “Then I looked and saw other two, the one,” etc., Daniel 12:5, much rather indicate that the scene was changed, that Daniel now for the first time saw the two angels on the banks. In Daniel 10 he only sees him who is clothed with linen, and was so terrified by this “great sight” that he fell powerless to the ground on hearing his voice, and was only able to stand up after a hand had touched him and a comforting word had been spoken to him. Nothing is here, as in Daniel 8:15, said of the coming of the angel. If thus, after mention being made of the hand which by touching him set him on his knees, it is further said, “and he spake to me ... “ (Daniel 10:11), the context only leads to this conclusion, that he who spake to him was the man whose appearance and words had so overwhelmed him. To suppose another person, or an angel different from the one who was clothed with linen, as speaking, could only be justified if the contents of that which was spoken demanded such a supposition. He who spake said, among other things, that he was sent to Daniel (Daniel 10:11); that the prince of the kingdom of Persia had withstood him one and twenty days; and that Michael, one of the chief angel-princes, had come to his help (Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21). These statements do not indicate that he was an inferior angel, but they are suitable to the Angel of the Lord; for he also says (Zechariah 2:13, 15; Zechariah 4:9) that he is sent by Jehovah; cf. also Isaiah 48:16 and Isaiah 61:1. The coming to his help by the angel-prince Michael, also, does not denote that he who speaks was an angel subordinated to the archangel Michael. In Zechariah 1:15 עזר denotes help which men render to God; and in 1 Chronicles 12:21. it is related that Israelites of different tribes came to David to help him against his enemies, i.e., under his leadership to fight for him. Similarly we may suppose that the angel Michael gave help to the Angel of the Lord against the prince of the kingdom of Persia. There thus remains only the objection, that if we take the angel clothed with linen and him who speaks as the same, then in Daniel 12:5 one of the angels who stood on the two banks of the Tigris becomes a κωφὸνπρόσωπον ; but if we are not able to declare the object for which two angels appear there, yet the one of those two angels cannot certainly be the same as he who announced, Daniel 10 and 11, the future to the prophet, because these angels are expressly designated as two others , and the אהרים excludes the identifying of these with angels that previously appeared to Daniel. This argument is not set aside by the reply that the angels standing on the two banks of the river are spoken of as אהרים with reference to the Angel of the Lord, Daniel 10:6, for the reference of the אהרים to that which follows is inconsistent with the context; see under Daniel 12:5. Thus every argument utterly fails that has been adduced in favour of the supposition that he who speaks, Daniel 10:11, is different from him who is clothed in linen; and we are warranted to abide by the words of the narrative, which in Daniel 10 names no other angel than the man clothed with linen, who must on that account be the same as he who speaks and announces the future to the prophet. The hand which again set him up by touching him, is, it is true, to be thought of as proceeding from an angel; but it is not more definitely described, because this angel is not further noticed. But after the man clothed with linen has announced the future to the prophet, the scene changes (Daniel 12:5). Daniel sees the same angels over the waters of the Tigris, and standing on the two banks of the river. Where he who was clothed in linen stands, is left indefinite in the narrative. If from the first it is he who hovers over the water of the river, he could yet talk with the prophet standing on its banks. But it is also possible that at first he was visible close beside the banks. According to this verse, the form described in Daniel 10:5 and Daniel 10:6 was visible to Daniel alone. His companions saw not the appearance, but they were so alarmed by the invisible nearness of the heavenly being that they fled and hid themselves. What is here said resembles Acts 9:3., where Christ, after His exaltation, appeared to Paul and spoke to him - Paul's companions hearing only the voice, but seeing no one. In order to account for the flight of Daniel's companions, it is not necessary to suppose the existence of thunder and lightning, of which the text makes no mention. The supposition also of Theodor. and Hitzig, that the men indeed saw not the angel, but that they heard his voice, is incorrect; for the voice was not heard till after his companions had fled. המּראה , pointed as fem., that which was seen, the appearance, seems to be a more limited conception than מראה , visio. בּהחבא יברחוּ : they fled, for they hid themselves; so that the hiding is not to be regarded as the object of the fleeing, but the fleeing is made known in their hiding themselves. Daniel here calls the appearance great with reference to the majesty displayed, such as had never hitherto been known to him. Its influence upon him is, therefore, also greater than that of the appearance of Gabriel, Daniel 8:17. There remained in him no strength, i.e., he felt himself overwhelmed, and as if about to perish. His הוד , splendour - the same as the Chald. זיו , Daniel 7:28; Daniel 5:6, Daniel 5:9 - i.e., the fresh colour of life which marked his countenance, was changed למשׁחית , properly, to destruction, to entire disfigurement, to corruption. The last clause, “and I retained no strength,” gives greater force to the preceding statement. When Daniel heard the voice, which according to v. 6 was like the noise of a multitude, he was stunned, and fell on his face to the ground, as Daniel 8:17. Yet the expression here, נרדּם הייתי , is stronger than נבעתּי , Daniel 8:17. Daniel 10:10 shows how great was his amazement in the further description it gives. The touching of him by an unseen hand raised him up and caused him to reel on his knees and hands , but did not enable him to stand erect. This he was first able to do after he heard the comfortable words, and was directed to mark the communication of the heavenly messenger. Regarding חמות אישׁ see under Daniel 9:23, and for עמדך על עמד see at Daniel 8:18. He now raises himself up, but still trembling . The עתּה now am I sent to thee, points to the delay of his coming spoken of in Daniel 10:12. According to this verse, the words of Daniel, i.e., his prayer from the first day of his seeking to understand the future, and of his self-mortification in sorrow and fasting (Daniel 10:2, Daniel 10:3), was heard of God, and the angel was immediately sent forth by God to convey to him revelations. And, he adds, בּדבריך בּאתי , I am come for thy words, i.e., in consequence of thy prayer, according to it. The בּאתי most interpreters understand of the coming to Daniel; Hofmann ( Schriftbew. i. p. 331) and Kliefoth, on the contrary, understand it of the coming of the angel to Persia (Daniel 10:13). According to the matter, both views are correct, but in the form in which they are presented they are incorrect. Against the latter stands the adversative ו in ושׂר ( but the prince), Daniel 10:13, by which the contents of Dan 10:13 are introduced; for, according to this, Daniel 10:13 cannot represent the object of the coming. Against the former stands the fact, that the angel does not come to Daniel immediately, but only after having gained a victory over the prince of the kingdom. The בּאתי is again taken up in Daniel 10:14, and must have here the same meaning that it has there. But in Daniel 10:14 it is connected with להבינך , “I am come to bring thee understanding,” in Daniel 10:12 with בּדבריך , which only denotes that the “coming” corresponded to Daniel's prayer, but not that he came immediately to him. Daniel had, without doubt, prayed for the accomplishment of the salvation promised to his people, and eo ipso for the removal of all the hindrances that stood in the way of that accomplishment. The hearing of his prayer may be regarded, therefore, as containing in it not merely the fact that God directed an angel to convey to him disclosures regarding the future fortunes of his people, but also at the same time as implying that on the side of God steps were taken for the removal of these hindrances. The thirteenth verse speaks of this, not as denoting that the angel came to Persia for the purpose of working for Israel, but much rather as announcing the reason of the twenty-one days' delay in the coming of the angel to Daniel, in the form of a parenthetical clause. His coming to Daniel was hindered by this, that the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood him twenty-one days. The twenty-one days are those three weeks of Daniel's fasting and prayer, Daniel 10:2. Hence we see that the coming of the angel had its reference to Daniel, for he came to bring him a comforting answer from God; but in order that he might be able to do this, he must first, according to Daniel 10:13, enter into war with and overcome the spirit of the king of Persia, hostile to the people of God. The contents of Dan 10:13 are hence not to be understood as showing that the angel went to Persia in order that he might there arrange the cause of Israel with the king; the verse much rather speaks of a war in the kingdom of the supernatural spirits, which could not relate to the court of the king of Persia. The prince of the kingdom of Persia, briefly designated in Daniel 10:21 “the prince of Persia,” is not king Cyrus, or the collectivum of the kings of Persia, as Häv. and Kran., with Calvin and most of the Reformers, think, but the guardian spirit or the protecting genius of the Persian kingdom, as the Rabbis and most of the Christian interpreters have rightly acknowledged. For the angel that appeared to Daniel did not fight with the kings of Persia, but with a spiritual intelligence of a like nature, for the victory, or precedence with the kings of Persia. This spirit of the kingdom of Persia, whom, after the example of Jerome, almost all interpreters call the guardian angel of his kingdom, is as little the nature-power of this kingdom as Michael is the nature-power of Israel, but is a spirit-being; yet not the heathen national god of the Persians, but, according to the view of Scripture (1 Corinthians 10:20.), the δαιμόνιον of the Persian kingdom, i.e., the supernatural spiritual power standing behind the national gods, which we may properly call the guardian spirit of this kingdom. In the לנגדּי עמד lies, according to the excellent remark of Kliefoth, the idea, that “the שׂר of the kingdom of Persian stood beside the kings of the Persians to influence them against Israel, and to direct against Israel the power lying in Persian heathendom, so as to support the insinuations of the Samaritans; that the angel, Daniel 10:5, came on account of Daniel's prayer to dislodge this 'prince' from his position and deprive him of his influence, but he kept his place for twenty-one days, till Michael came to his help; then he so gained the mastery over him, that he now stood in his place beside the kings of Persia, so as henceforth to influence them in favour of Israel.” He who appeared to Daniel, Daniel 10:5, and spake with him, Daniel 10:11, is not “the angel who had his dominion among the nations of the world,” or “his sphere of action in the embodiments of the heathen world-power, to which the Jewish people were now in subjection, to promote therein the working out of God's plan of salvation” (Hofm. Schriftbew. i. p. 334). This supposition is destitute of support from the Scriptures. It is rather the Angel of the Lord who carries out God's plans in the world, and for their accomplishment and execution makes war against the hostile spirit of the heathen world-power. The subjugation of this spirit supposes a particular angel ruling in the heathen world just as little as Jehovah's contending against the heathen nations that oppress and persecute His kingdom and people. In the war against the hostile spirit of the kingdom of Persia, the archangel Michael came to the help of the Angel of the Lord. The name מיכאל , who is as God, comes into view, as does the name Gabriel, only according to the appellative signification of the word, and expresses, after the analogy of Exo 15:11; Psalms 89:7., the idea of God's unparalleled helping power. Michael is thus the angel possessing the unparalleled power of God. He is here said to be “one of the chief princes,” i.e., of the highest angel-princes, - Daniel 10:21, “your prince,” i.e., the prince who contends for Israel, who conducts the cause of Israel. The first title points undoubtedly to an arrangement of orders and degrees among the angels, designating Michael as one of the most distinguished of the angel-princes; hence called in Jude 1:9 ἀρχάγγελος , also in Revelation 12:7, where he is represented as contending with his angels against the dragon. The opinion that Michael is called “one of the chief princes,” not as in contrast with the angels, but only with the demons of the heathen gods (Kliefoth), is opposed by the words themselves and by the context. From the circumstance that the guardian spirit of Persia is called שׂר it does not follow that שׂרים is not a designation of the angels generally, but only of the princes of the people, who are the spirits ruling in the social affairs of nations and kingdoms (Hofmann, p. 337); and even though this conclusion may be granted, this meaning for השׂרים with the article and the predicate הראשׁנים is undemonstrable. For the Scripture does not place the demon-powers of heathendom so on a line with the angels that both are designated as ראשׁנים שׂרים . The ראשׁנים שׁרים can only be the princes, chiefs, of the good angels remaining in communion with God, and working for the kingdom of God. Though what is said by the angel Michael, for the sake of the Israelitish people, among whom he has the sphere of his activity, may be said for their comfort, yet it does not follow therefrom that that which is said “cannot give disclosures regarding the relation within the angel-world, but only regarding the relation to the great historical nations and powers of the world” (Hofm. p. 338). For as regards the statement adduced in support of this opinion - ”the greatness and importance of the work entrusted to him makes him one of the ראשׁנים , not that the work is entrusted to him because he is so” - just the contrary is true. To a subordinate spirit God will not entrust a work demanding special power and greatness; much rather the being entrusted with a great and important work supposes a man exalted above the common mass. And for the comforting of Israel the words, “Michael, one of the foremost princes, came to my help,” affirm that Israel is under very powerful protection, because its guardian spirit is one of the foremost of the angel-princes, whereby implic. it is said at the same time that the people, though they be little esteemed before the world, yet cannot be destroyed by the nations of the world. This thought follows as a conclusion from what is said regarding the dignity of their guardian angel, but it does not form the contents of the saying regarding Michael and his place among the heavenly spirits. But we learn from Daniel 10:21 the reason why the archangel Michael, and no other angel, came to the help of him who was clothed with linen. It was because Michael was the prince of Israel, i.e., “the high angel-prince who had to maintain the cause of the people of God in the invisible spirit-world against opposing powers” (Auberlen, p. 289); and as such he appears also in Jude 1:9 and Revelation 12:7. The coming of Michael to give help does not include in it this, that he was superior in might or in position to the angel that spake, and thus supplies no proof that the angel that spake was Gabriel, or an angel different from him who was clothed with linen. For even a subordinate servant can bring help to his master, and in a conflict render him aid in gaining the victory. Against the idea of the subjection of Michael to the angel that spake, or the man clothed with linen, stands the further unfolding of the angel's message, the statement in Daniel 10:21 and Daniel 11:1, according to which the angel that spake gave strength and help to Michael in the first year of the Median Darius, from which we have more reason to conclude that the angel who spake stood above the angel Michael; see under Daniel 11:1. In consequence of the assistance on the part of Michael, the Angel of the Lord obtained the place of superiority by the side of the king of Persia. נותר has not here the usual meaning, to be over and above, to remain, but is to be translated after הותיר , Genesis 49:4, to have the pre-eminence, to excel, in the passive signification of the Hiphil: “ to be provided with the preference, to gain the superiority.” The translation, “I have maintained the place” (Hofm.), cannot be proved. אצל , at the side of, near, is explained from the idea of the protecting spirit standing by the side of his protege. The plural, “kings of Persia,” neither refers to Cyrus and Cambyses, nor to Cyrus and the conquered kings living with him (Croesus, etc.), nor to Cyrus and the prince, i.e., his guardian spirit (Hitzig). The plural denotes, that by the subjugation of the demon of the Persian kingdom, his influence not merely over Cyrus, but over all the following kings of Persia, was brought to an end, so that the whole of the Persian kings became accessible to the influence of the spirit proceeding from God and advancing the welfare of Israel. With this joyful message the angel comes to Daniel, to open up to him what would befall his people in the last time. The punctuation of יקרה ( shall befall) is according to יקרא (Genesis 49:1); the Kethiv יקרה has the correct form. חימים בּאחרית as Daniel 2:28, the Messianic world-time, in Daniel 8:17 is called the time of the end. “For,” the angel adds, “the vision refers, or stretches itself out, to the days.” ליּמים , with the article, are the days of the אחרית ( the latter time), the Messianic world-time. חזון is the revelation which in Daniel 10:1 is called דּבר and מראה , the following revelation in Daniel 11. Kliefoth is incorrect in thinking on the revelations already given, Daniel 7, 8, 9, to Daniel, regarding which the angel now seeks to bring to him further understanding. For although those revelations stretch out to the last time, and the revelations in Daniel 11 only give further disclosures regarding it, yet neither does the angel who speaks to Daniel here thus represent the matter, nor does the form of the revelation Daniel 10-12, namely, the majestic appearance of the Angel of the Lord, not a common angel-revelation, correspond with this supposition. חזון also cannot, without further definition, refer to those earlier revelations; and the opinion that הבּין denotes the understanding, as distinguished from the revelation or proclamation, does not accord with the usual style of Daniel's language. הבּין denotes here, as in Daniel 8:16, the interpretation of the vision, which in both cases contains the things which shall befall the people of God in the future. Cf. Daniel 9:22, where יבּין is used of the announcement of the revelation of God regarding the seventy weeks. In these verses it is further related how Daniel was gradually raised up and made capable of receiving the revelation of God. The communication of the angel hitherto had not fully gained this object. Daniel “stood trembling,” but he could not yet speak. With his face bent towards the earth he was as yet speechless. Then one having the likeness of a man touched his lips, whereby he received the power of speech, and could address him who stood before him, and utter the complaint: “By the vision anguish, i.e., violent terror, has fallen upon me: woes are turned upon me.” For this style of speech cf. 1 Samuel 4:19, and for the matter itself, cf. Isaiah 21:3; Isaiah 13:8. For the following כּח עצרתּי ולא ( and I have no strength, Daniel 10:16), cf. Daniel 10:8. Therefore he may not talk with this Lord, i.e., with Him who appeared before him in such dread majesty; and he is yet in such a state, since all strength has departed from him and his breath has gone, that he fears he must die; cf. 1 Kings 17:17. Then once more one like the appearance of a man touched him. אדם כּמראה is in reality = אדם בּני כּדּמוּת : both forms of expression leave the person of him who touched him undefined, and only state that the touching proceeded from some one who was like a man, or that it was such as proceeds from men, and are like the expression used in Daniel 10:19, “a hand touched me.” From this it does not follow that he who spoke to him touched him, but only that it was a spiritual being, who appeared like to a man. After thus being touched for the third time (Daniel 10:18), the encouragement of the angel that talked with him imparted to him full strength, so that he could calmly listen to and observe his communication. But before he communicated to Daniel what would befall his people in the “latter days” (Daniel 10:14), he gives to him yet further disclosures regarding the proceedings in the spirit-kingdom which determine the fate of nations, and contain for Israel, in the times of persecution awaiting them, the comforting certainty that they had in the Angel of the Lord and in the guardian angel Michael a strong protection against the enmities of the heathen world. Kliefoth supposes that the angel who speaks in v. 20 - Daniel 11:1 gives a brief resumי of the contents of his previous statement (Daniel 10:12-14). But it is not so. These verses, 10:20-11:1, contain new disclosures not yet made known in Daniel 11:12-19, although resembling the contents of Dan 10:13. Of the coming of the prince of Javan (v. 20 b), and the help which the angel-prince renders to Darius (Daniel 11:1), nothing is said in Daniel 10:13; also what the Angel of the Lord, Daniel 10:20, says regarding the conflict with the prince of Persia is different from that which is said in Daniel 10:13. In Daniel 10:13 he speaks of that which he has done before his coming to Daniel; in Daniel 10:20, of that which he will now do. To the question, “Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee?” no answer follows; it has, however, an affirmative sense, and is only an animated mode of address to remind Daniel of that which is said in Daniel 10:12-14, and to impress it upon him as weighty and worthy of consideration. Then follows the new communication: “and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia,” i.e., to carry forward and bring to an end the victory gained for thee before my arrival over the demon of Persia, the spirit of the Persian kingdom. The words which follow, ' וגו והנּה יוצא ואני (v. 20 b, and when I am gone forth, lo, etc.), present some difficulty. The ואני in comparison with אשׁוּב ( will I return) points to a contrast, and והנּה plainly indicates that which shall begin with the יוצא אני . By this, the union of the יוצא ואני with that which goes before and the adversative interpretation of והנּה (v. Leng.) is excluded. But יוצא is interpreted differently. Hävernick, Maurer, and others understand it of going forth to war; only we must not then think (with Maurer) of the war against the prince of Persia. “For he will do that even now (in the third year of Cyrus), and at this time the coming of the prince of Grecia has no meaning” (Hitzig). Hofmann and Hitzig understand, therefore, יוצא , in contrast to בּא , of a going forth from the conflict, as in 2 Kings 11:7 “they shall go forth on the Sabbath” is placed over against “that enter in on the Sabbath” in 2 Kings 11:5; but in an entirely different sense. Hitzig thus renders the clause: “when I have done with the Persians, and am on the point of departing, then shall the king of Grecia rise up against me.” יון must then be the Seleucidan kingdom, and the שׂר the guardian spirit of Egypt - suppositions which need no refutation, while the interpretation of the words themselves fails by the arbitrary interpolation “against me” after בּא . According to Hofmann, the angel says that “he had to return and contend further with the prince of the people of Persia; and that when he has retired from this conflict, then shall the prince of the Grecian people come, compelling him to enter on a new war.” This last clause Hofmann thus more fully illustrates: “Into the conflict with the prince of the people of Persia, which the angel retires from, the prince of the Grecian people enters, and against him he resumes it after that the Persian kingdom has fallen, and is then also helped by Michael, the prince of the Jewish people, in this war against the prince of Grecia, as he had been in the war against the prince of Persia” ( Schriftbew. i. pp. 333, 334f.). But Hitzig and Kliefoth have, in opposition to this, referred to the incongruity which lies in the thought that the prince of Javan shall enter into the war of the angel against the Persians, and assume and carry it forward. The angel fights against the demon of Persia, not to destroy the Persians, but to influence the Persian king in favour of the people of God; on the contrary, the prince of Javan comes to destroy the Persian king. According to this, we cannot say that the prince of Javan enters into the place of the angel in the war. “The Grecians and the Persians much rather stand,” as Hitzig rightly remarks, “on one side, and are adversaries of Michael and our שׂר ,” i.e., of the angel who spake to Daniel. Add to this, that although יצא , to go out, means also to go away, to go off, yet the meaning to go away from the conflict, to abandon it, is not confirmed: much rather יצא , sensu militari , always denotes only “to go out, forth, into the conflict;” cf. 1 Samuel 8:20; 1 Samuel 23:15; 1 Chronicles 20:1; Job 39:21, etc. We have to take the word in this signification here (with C. B. Michaelis, Klief., and Kran.), only we must not, with Kranichfeld, supply the clause, “to another more extensive conflict,” because this supplement is arbitrary, but rather, with Kliefoth, interpret the word generally as it stands of the going out of the angel to fight for the people of God, without excluding the war with the prince of Persia, or limiting it to this war. Thus the following will be the meaning of the passage: Now shall I return to resume and continue the war with the prince of Persia, to maintain the position gained (Daniel 10:13) beside the kings of Persia; but when (while) I thus go forth to war, i.e., while I carry on this conflict, lo, the prince of Javan shall come ( הנּה with the partic. בּא of the future) - then shall there be a new conflict. This last thought is not, it is true, expressly uttered, but it appears from Daniel 10:21. The warring with the prince, i.e., the spirit of Persia hostile to Israel, refers to the oppositions which the Jews would encounter in the hindrances put in the way of their building the temple from the time of Cyrus to the time of Darius Hystaspes, and further under Xerxes and Artaxerxes till the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah, as well as at a later time on the side of the Persian world-power, in the midst of all which difficulties the Angel of the Lord promises to guide the affairs of His people. יון שׂר is the spirit of the Macedonian world-kingdom, which would arise and show as great hostility as did the spirit of Persia against the people of God. This verse is antithetically connected with the preceding by אבּל , but yet. The contrast, however, does not refer to the fears for the theocracy (Kranichfeld) arising out of the last-named circumstance (v. 20 b), according to which the angel seeks to inform Daniel that under these circumstances the prophecy can only contain calamity. For “the prophecy by no means contains only calamity, but war and victory and everlasting victory added thereto” (Klief.). C. B. Michaelis has more correctly interpreted the connection thus: Verum ne forte et sic, quod principem Graeciae Persarum principi successurum intellexisti, animum despondeas, audi ergo, quod tibi tuisque solatio esse potest, ego indicabo tibi, quod , etc. “The Scripture of truth” is the book in which God has designated beforehand, according to truth, the history of the world as it shall certainly be unfolded; cf. Malachi 3:16; Psalms 139:16; Revelation 5:1. The following clause, אחד ואין , is not connected adversatively with the preceding: “there is yet no one ... “ (Hofmann and others), but illustratively, for the angel states more minutely the nature of the war which he has to carry on. He has no one who fights with him against these enemies ( אלּה על , against the evil spirits of Persia and Greece) but Michael the angel-prince of Israel, who strongly shows himself with him, i.e., as an ally in the conflict ( מתחזּק as 1 Samuel 4:9; 2 Samuel 10:12), i.e., renders to him powerful aid, as he himself in the first year of Darius the Mede had been a strong helper and protection to Michael. The Revelation of the Future - Daniel 11:2-12:3 Proceeding from the present, the angel reveals in great general outlines the career of the Persian world-kingdom, and the establishment and destruction, which immediately followed, of the kingdom which was founded by the valiant king of Javan, which would not descend to his posterity, but would fall to others (Daniel 11:2-4). Then there follows a detailed description of the wars of the kings of the south and the north for the supremacy, wherein first the king of the south prevails (Daniel 11:5-9); the decisive conflicts between the two (Daniel 11:10-12), wherein the south is subjugated; and the attempts of the kings of the north to extend their power more widely, wherein they perish (Daniel 11:13-20); finally, the coming of a “vile person,” who rises suddenly to power by cunning and intrigue, humbles the king of the south, has “indignation against the holy covenant,” desolates the sanctuary of God, and brings severe affliction upon the people of God, “to purge and to make them white to the time of the end” (Daniel 11:21-35). At the time of the end this hostile king shall raise himself above all gods, and above every human ordinance, and make the “god of fortresses” his god, “whom he will acknowledge and increase with glory” (Daniel 11:36-39). But in the time of the end he shall pass through the countries with his army as a flood, enter into the glorious land, and take possession of Egypt with its treasures; but, troubled by tidings out of the east and the north, shall go forth in great fury utterly to destroy many, and shall come to his end on the holy mountain (Daniel 11:40-45). At this time of greatest tribulation shall the angel-prince Michael contend for the people of Daniel. Every one that shall be found written in the book shall be saved, and the dead shall rise again, some to everlasting life, some to everlasting shame (Daniel 12:1-3). This prophecy is so rich in special features which in part have been literally fulfilled, that believing interpreters from Jerome to Kliefoth have found in it predictions which extend far beyond the measure of prophetic revelation, while rationalistic and naturalistic interpreters, following the example of Porphyry, from the speciality of the predictions, conclude that the chapter does not contain a prophetic revelation of the future, but only an apocalyptic description of the past and of the present of the Maccabean pseudo-Daniel. Against both views Kranichfeld has decidedly declared himself, and sought to show that in these prophetic representations “the prediction does not press itself into the place of historical development, i.e., that it does not concern itself with such future dates as do not connect themselves with the historical present of the prophetic author (Daniel), as the unfolding of religious moral thought animated by divine influence.” This is on the whole correct. Here also the prophecy does not become the prediction of historical dates which do not stand in inner connection with the fundamental idea of the book, which is to announce the unfolding of the heathen world-power over against the kingdom of God. This vision, also, as to its contents and form, is accounted for from the circumstances of time stated in Daniel 10:1, and contains much which a supposed Maccabean origin makes in the highest degree improbable, and directly contradicts. First, it is “against the nature of a fictitious production which should be written in the time of the greatest national commotion, that the great repeated victories of the people over the Syrian power should have been so slightingly spoken of as is the case here (Daniel 11:34),” i.e., should be designated only as “a little help.” Then the prophetic representation over against the historical facts of the case is full of inaccuracies; and these historical inconveniences are found not only in the description which had reference to the history of the times preceding the author, but also, above all, in the history of the times of the Maccabees themselves. Thus, e.g., in Daniel 11:40-45 an Egyptian expedition of Antiochus Epiphanes shortly before his death is prophesied, for which, besides Porphyry, no voucher and, in general, no historical probability exists (Kran.). Kranichfeld, however, goes too far when he holds all the special features of the prophetic revelation to be only individualizing paintings for the purpose of the contemplation, and therein seeks to find further developed only the fundamental thoughts of the great inner incurable enmity of the heathen ungodly kingdom already stated in Daniel 2:41-43; Daniel 7:8, Daniel 7:20, Daniel 7:24; Daniel 8:8, Daniel 8:22, Daniel 8:24. The truth lies in the middle between these two extremes. This chapter contains neither mere individualizing paintings of general prophetic thoughts, nor predictions of historical dates inconsistent with the nature of prophecy, but prophetic descriptions of the development of the heathen world-power from the days of Cyrus to the fall of the Javanic world-kingdom, as well as of the position which the two kingdoms (arising out of this kingdom) of the north and south, between which the holy land lay, assumed toward each other and toward the theocracy; for by the war of these two kingdoms for the sovereignty, not merely were the covenant land and the covenant people brought in general into a sorrowful condition, but they also were the special object of a war which typically characterizes and portrays the relation of the world-kingdom to the kingdom of God. This war arose under the Seleucidan Antiochus Epiphanes to such a height, that it formed a prelude of the war of the time of the end. The undertaking of this king to root out the worship of the living God and destroy the Jewish religion, shows in type the great war which the world-power in the last phases of its development shall undertake against the kingdom of God, by exalting itself above every god, to hasten on its own destruction and the consummation of the kingdom of God. The description of this war as to its origin, character, and issue forms the principal subject of this prophecy. It is set forth in the revelation of the angel from Daniel 11:21 to the end (Daniel 12:3), while the preceding description, as well of the course of the Persian and Javanic world-kingdoms as of the wars of the kings of the north and the south (Daniel 11:2-20), prepares for it. But this preparatory description is not merely individualizing pictures of the idea of the incurable hostility of the heathen ungodly kingdom, but a prophetic delineation of the chief lines of the process which the heathen world-power shall pass through till it shall advance to the attempt to destroy the kingdom of God. These chief lines are so distinctly laid down, that they contain their concrete fulfilment in the historical development of the world-power. In like manner are so described the appearance and the wars of the enemy of God, who desolates the sanctuary of God and takes away the daily sacrifice, that we can recognise in the assault of Antiochus Epiphanes against the temple and the worship of the people of Israel a fulfilling of this prophecy. Yet here the foretelling ( Weissagung) does not renounce the character of prophecy ( Prophetie): it does not pass over into prediction ( Praediction) of historical facts and events, but so places in the light of the divine foresight and predetermination the image of this enemy of God, and his wickedness against the sanctuary and the people of God, that it brings under contemplation, and places under the point of view of the purification of the covenant people for the time of the end (Daniel 11:35), the gradual progress of his enmity against God till he exalts himself above all divine and human relations. From the typical relation in which Antiochus, the O.T. enemy of God, stands to Antichrist, the N.T. enemy, is explained the connection of the end, the final salvation of the people of God, and the resurrection from the dead, with the destruction of this enemy, without any express mention being made of the fourth world-kingdom and of the last enemy arising out of it; from which the modern critics have drawn the erroneous conclusion, that the Maccabean pseudo-Daniel expected the setting up of the Messianic kingdom in glory along with the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes. At the foundation of this conclusion there lies an entire misapprehension of the contents and object of this prophecy, namely, the idea that the prophecy seeks to furnish a historical sketch, clothed in an apocalyptic form, of the development of the world-kingdoms from Cyrus to Antiochus Epiphanes. In support of this error, it is true that the church interpretation given by Jerome is so far valid, in that it interprets the prophecy partially considered under the point of view of the very special predictions of historical persons and events, and from this view concludes that Daniel 11:21-35 treat of Antiochus Epiphanes, and Daniel 11:36-45 of Antichrist; according to which there would be in Daniel 11:36 an immediate passing from Antiochus to the Antichrist, or in Daniel 12:1 a sudden transition from the death of Antiochus to the time of the end and the resurrection from the dead. But the prophecy does not at all correspond to this representation. The Angel of the Lord will reveal to Daniel, not what shall happen from the third year of Cyrus to the time of Antiochus, and further to the resurrection of the dead, but, according to the express declaration of Dan 10:14, what shall happen to his people בּאחרית היּמים , i.e., in the Messianic future, because the prophecy relates to this time. In the אחרית takes place the destruction of the world-power, and the setting up of the Messianic kingdom at the end of the present world-aeon. All that the angel says regarding the Persian and the Javanic world-kingdoms, and the wars of the kings of the north and the south, has its aim to the end-time, serves only briefly to indicate the chief elements of the development of the world-kingdoms till the time when the war that brings in the end shall burst forth, and to show how, after the overthrow of the Javanic world-kingdom, neither the kings of the north nor those of the south shall gain the possession of the dominion of the world. Neither by the violence of war, nor by covenants which they will ratify by political marriages, shall they succeed in establishing a lasting power. They shall not prosper, because (Daniel 11:27) the end goes yet to the times appointed (by God). A new attempt of the king of the north to subjugate the kingdom of the south shall be defeated by the intervention of the ships of Chittim; and the anger awakened in him by this frustration of his plans shall break forth against the holy covenant, only for the purifying of the people of God for the time of the end, because the end goes yet to the appointed time (Daniel 11:35). At the time of the end his power will greatly increase, because that which was determined by God shall prosper till the end of the indignation (Daniel 11:36); but in the time of the end he shall suddenly fall from the summit of his power and come to his end (Daniel 11:45), but the people of God shall be saved, and the wise shall shine in heavenly glory (Daniel 12:1-3). Accordingly the revelation has this as its object, to show how the heathen world-kingdoms shall not attain to an enduring stability, and by their persecution of the people of God shall only accomplish their purification, and bring on the end, in which, through their destruction, the people of God shall be delivered from all oppression and be transfigured. In order to reveal this to him (that it must be carried forward to completion by severe tribulation), it was not necessary that he should receive a complete account of the different events which shall take place in the heathen world-power in the course of time, nor have it especially made prominent that their enmity shall first come to a completed manifestation under the last king who should arise out of the fourth world-kingdom. For that the Javanic world-kingdom shall not form the last embodiment of the world-power, but that after it a fourth more powerful kingdom shall arise - this was already revealed to Daniel in Daniel 7. Moreover, in Daniel 8 the violent enemy of the people of Israel who would arise from the Diadoch-kingdoms of the Javanic world-monarchy, was already designated as the type of the last enemy who would arise out of the ten kingdoms of the fourth world-kingdom. After these preceding revelations, the announcement of the great tribulation that would come upon the people of God from these two enemies could be presented in one comprehensive painting, wherein the assault made by the prefigurative enemy against the covenant people shall form the foreground of the picture for a representation of the daring of the antitypical enemy, proceeding even to the extent of abolishing all divine and human ordinances, who shall bring the last and severest tribulation on the church of God, at the end of the days, for its purification and preparation for eternity. The first verse of the eleventh chapter belongs to Daniel 10:21; the ואני ( also I) is emphatically placed over against the mention of Michael, whereby the connection of this verse with Daniel 10:21 is placed beyond a doubt, and at the same time the reference of לו ( Daniel 11:1) to מיכאל (Daniel 10:21 b) is decided. Hengstenberg indeed thinks ( Christol. iii. 2, p. 53) that the reference of the לו to Michael is “against all that is already spoken in relation to Michael, and particularly against that which immediately goes before,” under a reference to Hitzig. But Hitzig only says that in Daniel 10:21 Michael is of one lineage with the speaker; but, on the contrary, the expressions למחזיק ( to confirm) and למעוז ( to strengthen) are so strong, that in לו we must think on one inferior, a man. Moreover, Hitzig can think of nothing done by Michael under Darius, since the transference of the kingdom to the Medes changed nothing in the fortune of the Jews. This was first effected by Cyrus. But Hengstenberg himself does not recognise this last reason, but remarks that Daniel 11:1 relates to the transference of the sovereignty from the Chaldeans to the Persians, whereby a way was opened for the return of Israel, and rightly, with Häv., thus determines the meaning of the verse in general: “As at that time the Lord made the change of the monarchy a cause of blessing to the covenant people, so in all the troubles that may arise to them in the heathen monarchies He will show Himself to be the same true and gracious God.” The other reason, namely, that the strong expressions, “to confirm and strengthen,” necessitate us to think of one inferior as referred to in לו , affects only the view already refuted above, that the speaker is either Gabriel or another inferior angel. If, on the contrary, the speaker is one person with him who is clothed in linen, i.e., with the Angel of the Lord, who is like unto God, then this person can also say of himself that he was a help and protection to the angel-prince Michael, because he stands higher than Michael; and the reference of the לו to Michael, which the “also I” in contrast to “Michael your prince” demands, corresponds wholly with that which is said of Michael. Besides, the reference of לו to Darius (Häv., Hengstb.) is excluded by this, that the name of Darius the Mede is not at all the object of the statements of the verse to which לו could refer, but occurs only in a subordinate or secondary determination of time. The thought of the verse is accordingly the following: “In the first year of Darius the Mede, Michael effected this, that Babylon, which was hostile to the people of God, was overthrown by the power of Medo-Persia, in doing which the Angel of the Lord rendered to him powerful help.” To this follows in order in Daniel 11:2 the announcement of the future, which is introduced by the formula ' וגו ועתּה resumed from Daniel 10:21. The events of the nearest future - Daniel 11:2-20 The revelation passes quickly from Persia ( Daniel 11:2) and the kingdom of Alexander (Daniel 11:3, Daniel 11:4), to the description of the wars of the kingdoms of the south and the north, arising out of the latter, in which wars the Holy Land, lying between the two, was implicated. Regarding Persia it is only said that yet three kings shall arise, and that the fourth, having reached to great power by his riches, shall stir up all against the kingdom of Javan. Since this prophecy originates in the third year of the Persian king Cyrus (Daniel 10:1), then the three kings who shall yet arise are the three successors of Cyrus, viz., Cambyses, the pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes; the fourth is then Xerxes, with whom all that is said regarding the fourth perfectly agrees. Thus Hävernick, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Auberlen, and Kliefoth interpret; on the contrary, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, and Kranichfeld will make the fourth the third, so as thereby to justify the erroneous interpretation of the four wings and the four heads of the leopard (Daniel 7:6) of the first four kings of the Persian monarchy, because, as they say, the article in הרביעי necessarily requires that the fourth is already mentioned in the immediately preceding statements. But the validity of this conclusion is not to be conceived; and the assertion that the O.T. knows only of four kings of Persia (Hitzig) cannot be established from Ezra 4:5-7, nor from any other passage. From the naming of only four kings of Persia in the book of Ezra, since from the end of the Exile to Ezra and Nehemiah four kings had reigned, it in no way follows that the book of Daniel and the O.T. generally know of only four. Moreover, this assertion is not at all correct; for in Nehemiah 12:22, besides those four there is mention made also of a Darius, and to the Jews in the age of the Maccabees there was well known, according to 1 Macc. 1:1, also the name of the last Persian king, Darius, who was put to death by Alexander. If the last named, the king who by great riches (Daniel 11:2) reached to a higher power, is included among the three previously named, then he should have been here designated “the third.” The verb עמד , to place oneself, then to stand, is used here and frequently in the following passages, as in Daniel 8:23, in the sense of to stand up , with reference to the coming of a new ruler. The gathering together of greater riches than all (his predecessors), agrees specially with Xerxes; cf. Herodot. iii. 96, vi. 27-29, and Justini Histor. ii. 2. The latter says of him: ” Divitias, non ducem laudes, quarum tanta copia in regno ejus fuit, ut, cum flumina multitudine consumerentur, opes tamen regiae superessent.” חזקתו is the infinit. or nomen actionis, the becoming strong; cf. 2 Chronicles 12:1 with 2 Kings 14:5 and Isaiah 8:11. בּעשׁרו is not in apposition to it, “ according to his riches” (Häv.); but it gives the means by which he became strong. “Xerxes expended his treasures for the raising and arming of an immense host, so as by such חזק (cf. Amos 6:13) to conquer Greece” (Hitzig). יון מלכוּת את is not in apposition to הכּל , all, namely, the kingdom of Javan (Maurer, Kranichfeld). This does not furnish a suitable sense; for the thought that הכּל , “they all,” designates the divided states of Greece, and the apposition, “the kingdom of Javan,” denotes that they were brought by the war with Xerxes to form themselves into the unity of the Macedonian kingdom, could not possibly be so expressed. Moreover, the reference to the circumstances of the Grecian states is quite foreign to the context. מ יון את is much rather a second, more remote object, and את is to be interpreted, with Hävernick, either as the preposition with, so far as יעיר involves the idea of war, conflict, or simply, with Hitzig, as the accusative of the object of the movement (cf. Exodus 9:29, Exodus 9:33), to stir up, to rouse, after the kingdom of Javan, properly to make, to cause, that all ( הכּל = every one, cf. Psalms 14:3) set out towards. Daniel calls Greece מלכוּת , after the analogy of the Oriental states, as a united historical power, without respect to the political constitution of the Grecian states, not suitable to prophecy (Kliefoth). From the conflict of Persia with Greece, the angel (Daniel 11:3) passes immediately over to the founder of the Grecian (Macedonian) world-kingdom; for the prophecy proceeds not to the prediction of historical details, but mentions only the elements and factors which constitute the historical development. The expedition of Xerxes against Greece brings to the foreground the world-historical conflict between Persia and Greece, which led to the destruction of the Persian kingdom by Alexander the Great. The reply of Alexander to Darius Codomannus (Arrian, Exped Alex. ii. 14. 4) supplies a historical document, in which Alexander justifies his expedition against Persia by saying that Macedonia and the rest of Hellas were assailed in war by the Persians without any cause , and that therefore he had resolved to punish the Persians. A deeper reason for this lies in this, that the prophecy closes the list of Persian kings with Xerxes, but not in this, that under Xerxes the Persian monarchy reached its climax, and partly already under him, and yet more after his reign, the fall of the kingdom had begun (Hävernick, Auberlen); still less in the opinion, proved to be erroneous, that the Maccabean Jew knew no other Persian kings, and confounded Xerxes with Darius Codomannus (v. Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig). But only brief notices, characterizing its nature, were given regarding the Macedonian kingdom, which agree with the prophecies Daniel 7:6 and Daniel 8:5-8, Daniel 8:21-22, without adding new elements. The founder of the kingdom is called גּבּור מלך , “brave king,” “hero-king,” and his kingdom “a great dominion.” Of his government it is said כּרצונו עשׂה , he does, rules, according to his will (cf. Daniel 8:4), so that his power might be characterized as irresistible and boundless self-will. Similarly Curtius writes of him (x. 5. 35): Fatendum est, cum plurimum virtuti debuerit, plus debuisse fortunae, quam solus omnium mortalium in potestate habuit. Hujus siquidem beneficio agere videbatur gentibus quidquid placebat . By the כ in כּעמדו the coming of the king and the destruction of his kingdom are stated as synchronous, so as to express with great force the shortness of its duration. עמדו is not to be otherwise interpreted than עמד in Daniel 11:3, and is thus not to be translated: “when he thus stands up,” sc. in the regal power described in Daniel 11:3 (Kran.), or: “on the pinnacle of his might” (Häv.), but: “when (or as) he has made his appearance, his kingdom shall be broken.” In the words, also, there does not lie the idea “that he himself in his life-time is deprived of this throne and his kingdom by a violent catastrophe” (Kran.); for the destruction of the kingdom does not necessarily include in it the putting to death of the ruler. The thought is only this: “when he has appeared and founded a great dominion, his kingdom shall be immediately broken.” תּשּׁבר ( shall be broken) is chosen with reference to Daniel 8:8, “toward the four winds of heaven.” We may neither supply תחץ ( shall be divided) to לאחריתו ולא ( and not to his posterity), nor is this latter expression “connected with תחץ in pregnant construction;” for תחץ , from חצה , signifies to divide, from which we are not to assume the idea of to allot, assign. We have simply to supply היא in the sense of the verb. subst., shall be, as well here as in the following clause, כמשׁלו ולא . The אחרית e signifies here as little as in Amos 4:2; Amos 9:1, posterity = זרע , but remnant, that which is left behind, the survivors of the king, by which we are to understand not merely his sons, but all the members of his family. כמשׁלו ולא , “and it shall not be according to the dominion which he ruled.” This thought, corresponding to בכחו ולא in Daniel 8:22, is the natural conclusion from the idea of division to all the four winds, which the falling asunder into several or many small kingdoms involves. הנּתשׁ , “shall be plucked up” (of plants from the earth), denotes the rooting up of that which is table, the destroying and dissolving of the kingdom into portions. In this division it shall pass to others מלּבד־אלּה , “with the exclusion of those” , the surviving members of the family of Alexander. To ולאחרים ( and for others) supply תּהיה ( shall be). In Daniel 11:4, accordingly, the prophetic thought is expressed, that the Javanic kingdom, as soon as the brave king has founded a great dominion, shall be broken to pieces and divided toward the four winds of heaven, so that its separate parts, without reaching to the might of the broken kingdom, shall be given not to the survivors of the family of the founder, but to strangers. This was historically fulfilled in the fact, that after the sudden death of Alexander his son Hercules was not recognised by his generals as successor on the throne, but was afterwards murdered by Polysperchon; his son also born by Roxana, along with his guardian Philip Arideus, met the same fate; but the generals, after they had at first divided the kingdom into more than thirty parts, soon began to war with each other, the result of which was, that at last four larger kingdoms were firmly established. Cf. Diod. Sic. xx. 28, xix. 105; Pausan. ix. 7; Justini hist. xv. 2, and Appiani Syr. c. 51. From the 5th verse the prophecy passes to the wars of the kings of the south and the north for the supremacy and for the dominion over the Holy Land, which lay between the two. Daniel 11:5 describes the growing strength of these two kings, and Daniel 11:6 an attempt made by them to join themselves together. חזק , to become strong. The king of the south is the ruler of Egypt; this appears from the context, and is confirmed by Daniel 11:8. שׂריו וּמן is differently interpreted; מן , however, is unanimously regarded as a partitive: “one of his princes,” as e.g., Nehemiah 13:28; Genesis 28:11; Exodus 6:25. The suffix to שׂריו ( his princes) does not (with C. B. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Rosenmüller, and Kranichfeld) refer to גּבּור מלך , Daniel 11:3, because this noun is too far removed, and then also עליו must be referred to it; but thereby the statement in Daniel 11:5, that one of the princes of the king of Javan would gain greater power and dominion than the valiant king had, would contradict the statement in Daniel 11:4, that no one of the Diadochs would attain to the dominion of Alexander. (Note: This contradiction is not set aside, but only strengthened, by translating עליו יחזק “he overcame him” (Kran.), according to which the king of Javan must be thought of as overcome by one of his princes, the king of the south. For the thought that the king of Javan survived the destruction of his kingdom, and that, after one of his princes had become the king of the south and had founded a great dominion, he was overcome by him, contradicts too strongly the statement of Dan 11:5, that the kingdom of the valiant king of Javan would be destroyed, and that it would not fall to his survivors, but to others with the exception of those, for one to be able to interpret the words in this sense.) The suffix to שׂריו can only be referred to the immediately preceding הנגב מלך : “one of the princes of the king of the south.” But then ו in וּמן cannot be explicative, but is only the simple copula. This interpretation also is not opposed by the Atnach under שׂריו , for this accent is added to the subject because it stands before separately, and is again resumed in ויחזק by the copula , ו as e.g., Ezekiel 34:19. The thought is this: one of the princes of the king of the south shall attain to greater power than this king, and shall found a great dominion. That this prince is the king of the north, or founds a dominion in the north, is not expressly said, but is gathered from Daniel 11:6, where the king of the south enters into a league with the king of the north. שׁנים לקץ , “in the end of years,” i.e., after the expiry of a course of years; cf. 2 Chronicles 18:2. The subject to יתחבּרוּ ( join themselves, 2 Chronicles 20:35) cannot, it is evident, be אהרים , Daniel 11:4 (Kran.), but only the king of the south and his prince who founded a great dominion, since the covenant, according to the following clause, is brought about by the daughter of the king of the south being given in marriage ( אל בּוא , to come to, as Joshua 15:18; Judges 1:14) to the king of the north, to make מישׁרים , to effect an agreement. מישׁרים , rectitudes, synonymous with righteousness and right, Proverbs 1:3, here designates the rectitude of the relation of the two rulers to each other in regard to the intrigues and deceits they had previously practised toward each other; thus not union, but sincerity in keeping the covenant that had been concluded. “But she shall not retain the power of the arm.” כּוח עשׂר as Daniel 10:8, Daniel 10:16, and הזּרוע , the arm as a figure of help, assistance. The meaning is: she will not retain the power to render the help which her marriage should secure; she shall not be able to bring about and to preserve the sincerity of the covenant; and thus the king of the south shall not be preserved with this his help, but shall become subject to the more powerful king of the north. The following passages state this. The subject to יעמד לא is the נגב מלך ; and his, i.e., this king's, help is his own daughter, who should establish מישׁרים by her marriage with the king of the north. וּזרעו is a second subject subordinated or co-ordinated to the subject lying in the verb: he together with his help. We may not explain the passage: neither he nor his help, because in this case הוּא could not be wanting, particularly in comparison with the following היא . The “not standing” is further positively defined by ותּנּתן , to be delivered up, to perish. The plur. מביאיה is the plur. of the category: who brought her, i.e., who brought her into the marriage , without reference to the number of those who were engaged in doing so; cf. The similar plur. in particip. Leviticus 19:8; Numbers 24:9, and in the noun, Genesis 21:7. היּלדהּ , particip. with the suffix, wherein the article represents the relative אשׁר . מחזיק , in the same meaning as Daniel 11:1, the support, the helper. The sense is: not only she, but all who brought about the establishment of this marriage, and the object aimed at by it. בּעתּים has the article: in the times determined for each of these persons. A violent war shall then break out, in which the king of the north shall be overcome. One of the offspring of her roots shall appear. מן in מנּצר is partitive, as Daniel 11:5, and נצר is used collectively. The figure reminds us of Isa 11:1. The suffix to שׁרשׁיה refers to the king's daughter, Daniel 11:6. Her roots are her parents, and the offspring of her roots a brother of the king's daughter, but not a descendant of his daughter, as Kranichfeld by losing sight of נצר supposes. כּנּו is the accusative of direction, for which, in Daniel 11:20, Daniel 11:21, Daniel 11:38, כּנּו על stands more distinctly; the suffix refers to the king of the south, who was also the subject in יעמד , Daniel 11:6. אל־החיל יבא does not mean: he will go to the (to his) army (Michaelis, Berth., v. Leng., Hitz., Klief.); this would be a very heavy remark within the very characteristic, significant description here given (Kran., Häv.); nor does it mean: he attained to might (Häv.); but: he shall come to the army, i.e., against the host of the enemy, i.e., the king of the north (Kran.). אל בּוא , as Genesis 32:9; Isaiah 37:33, is used of a hostile approach against a camp, a city, so as to take it, in contradistinction to the following בּמעוז יבא : to penetrate into the fortress. מעוז has a collective signification, as בּהם referring to it shows. ב עשׂה , to act against or with any one, cf. Jeremiah 18:23 (“deal with them”), ad libidinem agere (Maurer), essentially corresponding to כּרצונו in Daniel 11:33, Daniel 11:36. החזיק , to show power, i.e., to demonstrate his superior power. To bring the subjugated kingdom wholly under his power, he shall carry away its gods along with all the precious treasures into Egypt. The carrying away of the images of the gods was a usual custom with conquerors; cf. Isaiah 46:1., Jeremiah 48:7; Jeremiah 49:3. In the images the gods themselves were carried away; therefore they are called “their gods.” נסכיהם signifies here not drink-offerings, but molten images; the form is analogous to the plur. פּסילים , formed from פּסל ; on the contrary, נסיכם libationes, Deuteronomy 32:38, stands for נסכּיהם , Isaiah 41:29. The suffix is not to be referred to אלהים , but, like the suffix in חמדּתם , to the inhabitants of the conquered country. וזהב כּסף are in apposition to חמדּתם כּלי , not the genitive of the subject (Kran.), because an attributive genitive cannot follow a noun determined by a suffix. Häv., v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, and Klief. translate ' וגו יעמד שׁנים והוּא : he shall during (some) years stand off from the king of the north. Literally this translation may perhaps be justified, for עמד , c. מן , Genesis 29:35, has the meaning of “to leave off,” and the expression “to stand off from war” may be used concisely for “to desist from making war” upon one. But this interpretation does not accord with the connection. First, it is opposed by the expressive והוּא , which cannot be understood, if nothing further should be said than that the king of the south, after he had overthrown the fortresses of the enemies' country, and had carried away their gods and their treasures, abstained from war for some years. The והוּא much rather leads us to this, that the passage introduced by it states some new important matter which does not of itself appear from the subjugation of the enemy and his kingdom. To this is to be added, that the contents of Dan 11:9, where the subject to בּא can only be the king of the north, do not accord with the abstaining of the king of the south from warring against the king of the north. By Ewald's remark, “With such miserable marchings to and fro they mutually weaken themselves,” the matter is not made intelligible. For the penetrating of the king of the south into the fortresses of his enemy, and the carrying away of his gods and his treasures, was not a miserable, useless expedition; but then we do not understand how the completely humbled king of the north, after his conqueror abstained from war, was in the condition to penetrate into his kingdom and then to return to his own land. Would his conqueror have suffered him to do this? We must, therefore, with Kranichfeld, Gesenius, de Wette, and Winer, after the example of the Syriac and Vulgate, take מן יעמד in the sense of: to stand out before, מן in the sense of מפּני , contra, as in Psalms 43:1 it is construed with ריב , which is supported by the circumstance that עמד in Daniel 11:6, Daniel 11:15, Daniel 11:17, and Daniel 11:25, has this meaning. By this not only is והוּא rightly translated: and he, the same who penetrated into the fortresses of his adversary and carried away his gods, shall also take his stand against him, assert his supremacy for years; but also Daniel 11:9 contains a suitable addition, for it shows how he kept his ground. The king of the north shall after some time invade the kingdom of the king of the south, but shall return to his own land, namely, because he can effect nothing. Kran. takes the king of the south as the subject to וּבא , Daniel 11:9; but this is impossible, for then the word must be בּמלכוּתו , particularly in parallelism with אדמתו . As the words stand, הנגב מלך , can only be the genitive to בּמלכוּת ; thus the supposition that “the king of the south is the subject” is excluded, because the expression, “the king of the south comes into the kingdom of the south and returns to his own land,” has no meaning when, according to the context, the south denotes Egypt. With the וּבא there also begins a change of the subject, which, though it appears contrary to the idiom of the German [and English] language, is frequently found in Hebrew; e.g., in Daniel 11:11 and Daniel 11:9. By the mention of an expedition of the king of the north into the kingdom of the king of the south, from which he again returned without having effected anything, the way is opened for passing to the following description of the supremacy of the king of the north over the king of the south. The decisive wars - Daniel 11:10-12 Here the suffix in בּנו refers to the king of the north, who in Daniel 11:9 was the person acting. Thus all interpreters with the exception of Kranichfeld, who understand בנו of the son of the Egyptian prince, according to which this verse ought to speak of the hostilities sought, in the wantonness of his own mind, of the king of the south against the king of the north. But this interpretation of Kranichfeld is shattered, not to speak of other verbal reasons which oppose it, against the contents of Dan 11:11. The rage of the king of the south, and his going to war against the king of the north, supposes that the latter had given rise to this rage by an assault. Besides, the description given in Daniel 11:10 is much too grand to be capable of being referred to hostility exercised in mere wantonness. For such conflicts we do not assemble a multitude of powerful armies, and, when these powerful hosts penetrate into the fortresses of the enemy's country, then find that for the victorious invaders there is wanting the occasion of becoming exasperated for new warfare. The Kethiv בנו is rightly interpreted by the Masoretes as plur., which the following verbs demand, while the singulars ועבר ושׁטף וּבא ( shall come, and overflow, and pass through) are explained from the circumstance that the hosts are viewed unitedly in המון ( multitude). בּוא בּא expresses the unrestrained coming or pressing forward, while the verbs ועבר שׁטף , reminding us of Isa 8:8, describe pictorially the overflowing of the land by the masses of the hostile army. וישׁב (jussive, denoting the divine guidance), and shall return, expresses the repetition of the deluge of the land by the hosts marching back out of it after the עבּר , the march through the land, - not the new arming for war (Häv.), but renewed entrance into the region of the enemy, whereby they carry on the war מעזּה עד , to the fortress of the king of the south, corresponding with the הצּפון מלך בּמעוז in Daniel 11:7 ( to the fortress of the king of the north). יתגּרוּ signifies properly to stir up to war, i.e., to arm, then to engage in war. In the first member of the verse it has the former, and in the last the latter meaning. The violent pressing forward of the adversary will greatly embitter the king of the south, fill him with the greatest anger, so that he will go out to make war with him. The adversary marshals a great multitude of combatants; but these shall be given into his hand, into the hand of the king of the south. רב המון העמיד ( he raised up a great multitude) the context requires us to refer to the king of the north. בּידו נתּן , v. Leng., Maurer, and Hitzig understand of the acceptance of the command over the army - contrary to the usage of the words, which mean, to give into the hand = to deliver up, cf. 1 Kings 20:28; Daniel 1:2; Daniel 8:12-13, and is contrary also to the context. The marshalling of the host supposes certainly the power to direct it, so that it needs not then for the first time to be given into the power of him who marshalled it. The expression also, “to give into his hand,” as meaning “to place under his command,” is not found in Scripture. To this is to be added, that the article in ההמון refers back to רב המון . But if ההמון is the host assembled by the king of the north, then it can only be given up into the hand of the enemy, i.e., the king of the south, and thus the suffix in בּידו can only refer to him. The statements in Daniel 11:12 are in harmony with this, so far as they confessedly speak of the king of the south. This verse illustrates the last clause of Dan 11:11, i.e., explains more fully how the great multitude of the enemy are given into his hand. The first two clauses of Dan 11:12 stand in correlation to each other, as the change of the time and the absence of the copula before ירוּם show (the Keri ורם proceeds from a misunderstanding). The meaning is this: “As the multitude rises up, so his heart is lifted up.” ההמון , with the article, can only be the host of the king of the north mentioned in Daniel 11:12. The supposition that the Egyptian army is meant, is the result of the difficulty arising out of the misapprehension of the right relation in which the perfect ונשּׂא ( hath lifted up raised) stands to the imperfect ירוּם . נשּׂא as in Isaiah 33:10: they raise themselves to the conflict. לבב רוּם , the lifting up of the heart, commonly in the sense of pride; here the increase of courage, but so that pride is not altogether to be excluded. The subject to ירוּם is the king of the south, to whom the suffix to בּידו , Daniel 11:11, points. With excited courage he overthrows myriads, namely, the powerful multitude of the enemies, but he yet does not reach to power, he does not attain to the supremacy over the king of the north and over his kingdom which he is striving after. The Vulgate, without however fully expressing the meaning, has rendered יעוז ולא by sed non praevalebit . This thought is expanded and proved in these verses. - Daniel 11:13. The king of the north returns to his own land, gathers a host together more numerous than before, and shall then, at the end of the times of years, come again with a more powerful army and with a great train. רכוּשׁ , that which is acquired, the goods, is the train necessary for the suitable equipment of the army-”the condition to a successful warlike expedition” (Kran.). The definition of time corresponding to the בּעתּים in Daniel 11:6 is specially to be observed: שׁנים העתּים לקץ הע ( at the end of times, years), in which שׁנים is to be interpreted (as ימים with שׁבעים , Daniel 10:3-4, and other designations of time) as denoting that the `itiym stretch over years, are times lasting during years. העתּים , with the definite article, are in prophetic discourse the times determined by God. Daniel 11:14 In those times shall many rise up against the king of the south ( על עמד as Daniel 8:20); also עמך פריצי בּני , the violent people of the nation (of the Jews), shall raise themselves against him. פריצים .mih ts בּני are such as belong to the classes of violent men who break through the barriers of the divine law (Ezekiel 18:10). These shall raise themselves חזון להעמיד , to establish the prophecy, i.e., to bring it to an accomplishment. ha`amiyd = qayeem, Ezekiel 13:6, as עמד = קוּם in Daniel, and generally in the later Hebrew. Almost all interpreters since Jerome have referred this to Daniel's vision of the oppression under Antiochus Epiphanes, Daniel 8:9-14, Daniel 11:23. This is so far right, as the apostasy of one party among the Jews from the law of their fathers, and their adoption of heathen customs, contributed to bring about that oppression with which the theocracy was visited by Antiochus Epiphanes; but the limiting of the חזון to those definite prophecies is too narrow. חזון without the article is prophecy in undefined generality, and is to be extended to all the prophecies which threatened the people of Israel with severe chastisements and sufferings on account of their falling away from the law and their apostasy from their God. ונכשׁלוּ , they shall stumble, fall. “The falling away shall bring to them no gain, but only the sufferings and tribulation prophesied of” (Kliefoth). Daniel 11:15 In this verse, with ויבא the בּוא eht וי יבוא , Daniel 11:13, is again assumed, and the consequence of the war announced. סוללה שׁפך , to heap up an entrenchment; cf. Ezekiel 4:2; 2 Kings 19:32. מבצרות עיר , city of fortifications, without the article, also collectively of the fortresses of the kingdom of the south generally. Before such power the army, i.e., the war-strength, of the south shall not maintain its ground; even his chosen people shall not possess strength necessary for this. The Further Undertakings of the King of the North - Daniel 11:16-19 Having penetrated into the kingdom of the south, he shall act there according to his own pleasure, without any one being able to withstand him; just as before this the king of the south did in the kingdom of the north (Daniel 11:7). With ויעשׂ the jussive appears instead of the future - cf. וישׂם , יתּן (Daniel 11:17), ישׁב (Daniel 11:18 and Daniel 11:19) - to show that the further actions and undertakings of the king of the north are carried on under the divine decree. אליו הבּא is he that comes into the land of the south, the king of the north (Daniel 11:14, Daniel 11:15). Having reached the height of victory, he falls under the dominion of pride and haughtiness, by which he hastens on his ruin and overthrow. After he has subdued the kingdom of the southern king, he will go into the land of beauty, i.e., into the Holy Land (with reference to הצּבי ארץ , Daniel 8:9). בּידו וכלה , and destruction is in his hand (an explanatory clause), כלה being here not a verb, but a substantive. Only this meaning of כלה is verbally established, see under Daniel 9:27, but not the meaning attributed to the word, from the unsuitable introduction of historical events, accomplishing, perfection, according to which Häv., v. Leng., Maur., and Kliefoth translate the clause: and it (the Holy Land) is wholly given into his hand. כלה means finishing, conclusion, only in the sense of destruction, also in 2 Chronicles 12:2 and Ezekiel 13:13. For the use of בּידו of spiritual things which one intends or aims at, cf. Job 11:14, Isa. 54:20. The destruction, however, refers not to the Egyptians (Hitzig), but to the Holy Land, in which violent (rapacious) people (Daniel 11:14) make common cause with the heathen king, and thereby put arms into his hands by which he may destroy the land. This verse has been very differently expounded. According to the example of Jerome, who translates it: et ponet faciem suam ut veniat ad tenendum universum regnum ejus , and adds to this the explanatory remark: ut evertat illum h. e. Ptolemaeum, sive illud, h. e. regnum ejus , many translate the words וגו בּתקף לבוא by to come in or against the strength of his whole (Egyptian) kingdom (C. B. Michaelis, Venema, Hävernick, v. Lengerke, Maurer), i.e., to obtain the superiority over the Egyptian kingdom (Kliefoth). But this last interpretation is decidedly opposed by the circumstance that תּקף means strength not in the active sense = power over something, but only in the intransitive or passive sense, strength as the property of any one. Moreover, both of these explanations are opposed by the verbal use of בּוא c. ב rei, which does not signify: to come in or against a matter, but: to come with - cf. בּחיל בּוא , to come with power, Daniel 11:13, also Isaiah 40:10; Psalms 71:16 - as well as by the context, for of the completely subjugated south (according to Daniel 11:15, Daniel 11:16) it cannot yet be said מלכוּתו תּקף . Correctly, Theodot. translates: εἰσελθεῖνἐνἰσχύι ” πάσηςτῆςβασιλείαςαὐτοῦ ; Luther: “to come with the strength of his whole kingdom.” Similarly M. Geier, Hitzig, and Kran. The king of the north intends thus to come with the force of his whole kingdom to obtain full possession of the kingdom of the south. עמּו וישׁרים is an explanatory clause defining the manner in which he seeks to gain his object. ישׁרים , plur. of the adjective ישׁר , in a substantive signification, that which is straight, recta, as Proverbs 16:13, proba (Ewald's Gram. §172; while in his commentary he translates the word by agreement). עמּו , with him, i.e., having in intention. The sense of the passage is determined according to מישׁרים לעשׂות , Daniel 11:6: with the intention of establishing a direct, right relation, namely, by means of a political marriage to bring to himself the kingdom of the south. ועשׂה forms a clause by itself: he shall do it, carry it out; there is therefore no need for Hitzig's arbitrary change of the text into יעשׂה . The second half of this verse (Daniel 11:17) describes how he carries out this intention, but yet does not reach his end. “He shall give him the daughter of women.” הנּשׁים , of women, the plur. of the class, as אריות כּפיר , Judges 14:5, a young lion ( of lionesses); בּן אתנות , Zechariah 9:9, the foal of an ass ( of she-asses). The suffix to להשׁחיתהּ ( corrupting her, E.V.) is referred by many to מלכוּתו ( his kingdom); but this reference fails along with the incorrect interpretation of the בּתקף as the end of the coming. Since in the first half of the verse the object of his undertaking is not named, but in Daniel 11:16 is denoted by אליו , the suffix in question can only be referred to הנּשׁים בּת . Thus J. D. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Rosenmüller; the former, however, gives to the word להשׁחיתהּ the verbally untenable meaning: “to seduce her into a morally corrupt course of conduct;” but Hitzig changes the text, strikes out the suffix, and translates: “to accomplish vileness.” השׁחית means only to destroy, to ruin, hence “to destroy her” (Kran.). This, it is true, was not the object of the marriage, but only its consequence; but the consequence is set forth as had in view, so as forcibly to express the thought that the marriage could lead, according to a higher direction, only to the destruction of the daughter. The last clauses of the verse express the failure of the measure adopted. The verbs are fem., not neut.; thus the meaning is not: “it shall neither stand, nor succeed to him” (v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig), but: “she (the daughter) shall not stand,” not be able to carry out the plan contemplated by her father. The words תּהיה ולא־לו do not stand for לו ( impotent (cf. Ewald, §270): “she shall be a not for him ” , i.e., he shall have nothing at all from her. His fate further drives him to make an assault on the islands and maritime coasts of the west , many of which he takes. וישׁב is not, after the Keri, to be changed into וישׂם ; for turning himself from Egypt to the islands, he turns back his face toward his own land in the north. The two following clauses are explained by most interpreters thus: “but a captain shall stop his scorn (bring it to silence), and moreover shall give back (recompense) scorn to him in return.” This is then, according to the example of Jerome, referred to the expedition of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Grecian islands which were under the protection of Rome, for which he was assailed and overcome by the consul Lucius Scipio (Asiaticus) in a battle fought at Magnesia ad Sipylum in Lydia. But the translation in question affords a tolerable sense only when we take בּלתּי in the meaning moreover, in addition to; a meaning which it has not, and cannot have according to its etymology. In all places where it is so rendered a negative sentence goes before it, cf. Genesis 43:3; Genesis 47:18; Judges 7:14, or a sentence asking a question with a negative sense, as Amos 3:3-4; according to which, לא must here stand before השׁבּית if we would translate it by besides that or only. בּלתּי has the idea of exception, and can only be rendered after an affirmative statement by however, for the passage introduced by its limits the statement going before. Thus Theodot. rightly: καταπαύσειἄρχονταςὀνειδισμοῦαὐτῶν, πλὴνὁὀνειδισμὸςαὐτοῦἐπιστρέψειαὐτῷ ; and in close connection with this, Jerome has: et cessare faciet principem opprobrii sui et opprobrium ejus convertetur in eum . In like manner the Peshito. This rendering we must, with Kranichfeld, accede to, and accordingly understand וגו והשׁבּית of the king of the north, and interpret the indefinite קצין ( leader, chief) in undefined generality or collectively, and חרפּתו ( his reproach) as the second object subordinated to קצין , and refer לו as the dative to קצין . Thus the second חרפּתו gains expressiveness corresponding to its place before the verb as the contrast to לו (Daniel 11:19, of the overthrow of the king of the north, who wished to spread his power also over the west. Since the chiefs (princes) of the islands rendered back to him his reproach, i.e., required to him his attack against them, he was under the necessity of returning to the fortresses of his own land. With that begins his fall, which ends with his complete destruction. Another stands up in his place, who causeth נוגשׂ to pass over, through his eagerness for riches. נוגשׂ most understand as a collector of tribute, referring for this to 2 Kings 23:35, and מלכוּת הדר מלכוּת as the Holy Land, and then think on Heliodorus, whom Seleucus Nicator sent to Jerusalem to seize the temple treasure. But this interpretation of the words is too limited. נגשׂ denotes, no doubt (2 Kings 23:35), to collect gold and silver; but it does not thence follow that נוגשׂ , when silver and gold are not spoken of, means to collect tribute. The word in general designates the taskmaster who urges on the people to severe labour, afflicts and oppresses them as cattle. מלכוּת הדר is not synonymous with הצּבי ארץ , Daniel 11:16, but stands much nearer to מלכוּת הוד , Daniel 11:21, and designates the glory of the kingdom. The glory of the kingdom was brought down by נוגשׂ , and העביר refers to the whole kingdom of the king spoken of, not merely to the Holy Land, which formed but a part of his kingdom. By these oppressions of his kingdom he prepared himself in a short time for destruction. אחדים ימים ( days few), as in Genesis 27:44; Genesis 29:20, the designation of a very short time. The reference of these words, “ in days few,” to the time after the pillage of the temple of Jerusalem by Heliodorus is not only an arbitrary proceeding, but is also contrary to the import of the words, since ב in בּימים does not mean post. מאפּים ולא , in contradistinction and contrast to במלחמה ולא , can only denote private enmity or private revenge. “Neither by anger (i.e., private revenge) nor by war” points to an immediate divine judgment. If we now, before proceeding further in our exposition, attentively consider the contents of the revelation of vv. 5-20, so as to have a clear view of its relation to the historical fulfilment, we shall find the following to be the course of the thoughts exhibited: - After the fall of the Javanic world-kingdom (Daniel 11:4) the king of the south shall attain to great power, and one of his princes shall found (Daniel 11:5) a yet greater dominion in the north. After the course of years they shall enter into an agreement, for the king of the south shall give his daughter in marriage to the king of the north so as to establish a right relationship between them; but this agreement shall bring about the destruction of the daughter, as well as of her father and all who co-operated for the effecting of this marriage (Daniel 11:6). Hereupon a descendant of that king of the south shall undertake a war against the king of the north, victoriously invade the country of the adversary, gather together great spoil and carry it away to Egypt, and for years hold the supremacy. The king of the north shall, it is true, penetrate into his kingdom, but he shall again return home without effecting anything (Daniel 11:7-9). His sons also shall pass over the kingdom of the south with a multitude of hosts, but the multitude shall be given into the hand of the king, who shall not come to power by casting down myriads. The king of the north shall return with a host yet more numerous; against the king of the south many, also faithless members of the Jewish nation, shall rise up, and the king of the north shall take the fortified cities, without the king of the south having the power to offer him resistance (Daniel 11:10-15). The conqueror shall now rule in the conquered lands after his own pleasure, and set his foot on the Holy Land with the intention of destroying it. Thereupon he shall come with the whole might of his kingdom against the king of the south, and by the marriage of his daughter seek to establish a right relationship with him, but he shall only thereby bring about the destruction of his daughter. Finally, he shall make an assault against the islands and the maritime countries of the west; but he shall be smitten by his chiefs, and be compelled to return to the fortresses of his own land, and shall fall (Daniel 11:16-19). But his successor, who shall send taskmasters through the most glorious regions of the kingdom, shall be destroyed in a short time (Daniel 11:20). Thus the revelation depicts how, in the war of the kings of the south and of the north, first the king of the south subdued the north, but when at the summit of his conquest he sank under the power of his adversary through the insurrections and the revolt of an apostate party of the Jews; whereupon, by an assault upon the west in his endeavour, after a firmer establishment and a wider extension of his power, he brings about his own overthrow, and his successor, in consequence of the oppression of his kingdom, comes to his end in a few days. Now, since the king who comes into his place (Daniel 11:21.) after he has become strong raises himself up against the holy covenant, takes away the daily worship in the temple of the Lord, etc., is, according to the historical evidence found in the books of the Maccabees, the Seleucidan Antiochus Epiphanes, so the prophetic announcement, vv. 5-20, stretches itself over the period from the division of the monarchy of Alexander among his generals to the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes in the year 175 b.c., during which there reigned seven Syrian and six Egyptian kings, viz. - Syrian Kings (from b.c.) Egyptian Kings (from b.c.) Seleucus Nicator 310-280 Ptolemy Lagus 323-284 Antiochus Sidetes 280-260 Ptolemy Philadelphus 284 Antiochus Theus 260-245 Ptolemy Euergetes 246-221 Seleucus Callinicus 245-225 Ptolemy Philopator 221-204 Seleucis Ceraunus 225-223 Ptolemy Epiphanes 204-180 Antiochus the Great 223-186 Ptolemy Philometor 180 But in the prophetic revelation there is mention made of only four kings of the north (one in Daniel 11:5-9; his sons, Daniel 11:10-12; a third, Daniel 11:13-19; and the fourth, Daniel 11:20) and three kings of the south (the first, Daniel 11:5 and Daniel 11:6; the “branch,” Daniel 11:7-9; and the king, Daniel 11:10-15), distinctly different, whereby of the former, the relation of the sons (Daniel 11:10) to the king indefinitely mentioned in Daniel 11:11, is admitted, and of the latter the kings of the south, it remains doubtful whether he who is spoken of in Daniel 11:9-15 is different from or is identical with “the branch of her roots” (Daniel 11:7). This circumstance shows that the prophecy does not treat of individual historical personages, but only places in view the king of the south and the king of the north as representatives of the power of these two kingdoms. Of these kings special deeds and undertakings are indeed mentioned, which point to definite persons; e.g., of the king of the north, that he was one of the princes of the king of the south, and founded a greater dominion than his (Daniel 11:5); the marriage of the daughter of the king of the south to the king of the north (Daniel 11:6); afterwards the marriage also of the daughter of the king of the north (Daniel 11:17), and other special circumstances in the wars between the two, which are to be regarded not merely as individualizing portraitures, but denote concrete facts which have verified themselves in history. But yet all these specialities do not establish the view that the prophecy consists of a series of predictions of historical facta, because even these features of the prophecy which find their actual fulfilments in history do not coincide with the historical reality. Thus all interpreters regard the king of the south, Daniel 11:5, as Ptolemy Lagus, and that one of his princes who founded a greater dominion as Seleucus Nicator, or the “Conqueror,” who, in the division of the countries which the conquerors made after the overthrow and death of Antiochus, obtained, according to Appian, Syr. c. 55, Syria from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean Sea and Phrygia; then by using every opportunity of enlarging his kingdom, he obtained also Mesopotamia, Armenia, and a part of Cappadocia, and besides subjugated the Persians, Parthians, Bactrains, Arabians, and other nations as far as the Indus, which Alexander had conquered; so that, after Alexander, no one had more nations of Asia under his sway than Seleucus, for from the borders of Phyrgia to the Indus all owned his sway. While this extension of his kingdom quite harmonizes with the prophecy of the greatness of his sovereignty, yet the designation “one of his princes” does not accord with the position of Ptolemy Lagus. Both of these were certainly at the beginning generals of Alexander. Seleucus, afterwards vicegerent of the Babylonians, found himself, however, from fear of Antigonus, who sought to put him to death, under the necessity of fleeing to Egypt to Ptolemy, by whom he was hospitably received, and with whom and other vicegerents he entered into a league against Antigonus, and when war arose, led an Egyptian fleet against Antigonus (Diod. Sic. xix. 55-62). He was accordingly not one of Ptolemy's generals. Moreover, the marriage of the king's daughter, Daniel 11:6, is thus explained by Jerome, and all interpreters who follow him: - Ptolemy Philadelphus made peace with Antiochus Theus, after many years' war, on the condition that Antiochus should put away his own wife Laodice, who was at the same time his half-sister, and disinherit her son, and should marry Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy, and should appoint her first-born son as his successor on the throne of the kingdom (Appian, Syr. c. 65, and Jerome). This factum can be regarded as a fulfilling of the prophecy, Daniel 11:6; but the consequences which resulted from this political marriage do not correspond with the consequences prophesied of. According to the testimony of history, Ptolemy died two years after this marriage, whereupon Antiochus set aside Berenice, and took to himself again his former wife Laodice, along with her children. But she effected the death of her husband by poison, as she feared his fickleness, and then her son Seleucus Callinicus ascended the throne. Berenice fled with her son to the asylum of Daphne, but she was there murdered along with him. The prophecy, according to this, differs from the historical facts, not merely in regard to the consequences of the events, but also in regard to the matter itself; for it speaks not only of the daughter, but also of her father being given up to death, while the natural death of her father is in no respect connected with that marriage, and not till after his death did the consequences fatal to his daughter and her child develop themselves. Further, as to the contents of Dan 11:7-9, history furnishes the following confirmations: - In order to save his sister, who was put aside by Antiochus Theus, her brother, Ptolemy Euergetes, invaded the Syrian kingdom, in which Seleucus Callinicus had succeeded his father on the throne, in alliance with the armies of the Asiatic cities, and put to death his mother Laodice, since he had come too late to save his sister, in revenge for her murder, overthrew all the Syrian fortresses from Cilicia to the Tigris and Babylonia, and would have conquered the whole of the Syrian kingdom, if an insurrection which had broken out in Egypt had not caused him to return thither, carrying with him many images of the gods, and immense treasure, which he had taken from the vanquished cities. Then, while engaged in Egypt, Callinicus recovered the cities of Asia Minor, but failed to conquer the maritime countries, because his fleet was wrecked in a storm; and when he thereupon undertook a land expedition against Egypt, he was totally defeated, so that he returned to Antioch with only a few followers: cf. Justin, Hist. xxvii. 1, 2; Polyb. v. 58; and Appian, Syr. c. 65. On the other hand, the announcement of the war of his sons with many hosts overflowing the land, Daniel 11:10, is not confirmed by history. After the death of Callinicus in captivity, his son Seleucus Ceraunus succeeded to the government, a very incompetent man, who after tow years was poisoned by his generals in the war with Attalus, without having undertaken anything against Egypt. His brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great, succeeded him, who, in order to recover Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, renewed the war against the king of Egypt (not till about two years after he ascended the throne, however, did Ptolemy Philopator begin to reign), in which he penetrated twice to Dura, two (German) miles north from Caesarea (Polyb. x. 49), then concluded a four months' truce, and led his host back to the Orontes (Polyb. v. 66; Justin, xxx. 1). After the renewal of hostilities he drove the Egyptian army back to Sidon, conquered Gilead and Samaria, and took up his winter-quarters in Ptolemais (Polyb. v. 63-71). In the beginning of the following year, however, he was defeated by the Egyptians at Raphia, not far from Gaza, and was compelled, with great loss in dead and prisoners, to return as quickly as possible to Antioch, and to leave Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine to the Egyptians (Polyb. v. 79, 80, 82-86). Daniel 11:11 and Daniel 11:12 refer to this war. Thirteen our fourteen years after this, Antiochus, in league with Philip III of Macedon, renewed the war against the Egyptians, when, after Philopator's death, Ptolemy Epiphanes, being five years old, had ascended the throne, retook the three above-named countries (Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine), vanquished the Egyptian host led by Scopas near Paneas, and compelled the fortress of Sidon, into which the Egyptians had fled, to surrender after a lengthened siege, and then concluded a peace with Ptolemy on the condition that he took to wife the daughter of Antiochus, Cleopatra, who should bring with her, as her dowry, Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine (Polyb. xv. 20, xxviii. 17; App. Syr. c. i.; Liv. xxxiii. 19; and Joseph. Antt. xii. 4. 1). Since the time of Jerome, the prophecy Daniel 11:13-17 has been referred to this last war. But also here the historical events fall far behind the contents of the prophecy. The prophecy points to the complete subjugation of the king of the south, while this war was carried on only for the possession of the Asiatic provinces of the Egyptian kingdom. Also the rising up of many ( רבּים , Daniel 11:14) against the king of the south is not historically verified; and even the relation spoken of by Josephus ( Antt. xii. 3. 3) in which the Jews stood to Antiochus the Great was not of such a kind as to be capable of being regarded as a fulfilling of the “exalting themselves” of the פריצים בּני , Daniel 11:14. Still less does the statement of Dan 11:16, that the king of the north would stand in the glorious land, agree with כּלה interpreted of conduct of Antiochus the Great toward the Jews; for according to Josephus, Antt. l.c., he treated the Jews round about Jerusalem favourably, because of their own accord they had submitted to him and had supported his army, and granted to them not only indulgence in regard to the observance of their religious ordinances, but also afforded them protection. Moreover, Daniel 11:18, containing the prophecy of the undertaking of the king of the north against the islands, has not its historical fulfilment in the expedition of Antiochus the Great against the coasts and islands of Asia Minor and the Hellespont; but Daniel 11:19, that which is said regarding his return to the fortresses of his own land and his overthrow, does not so correspond with the historical issues of the reign of this king that one would be able to recognise therein a prediction of it. Finally, of his successor, Seleucus Philopator, to whom Daniel 11:20 must refer, if the foregoing verses treat of Antiochus the Great, nothing further is communicated, than that he quum paternis cladibus fractas admodum Syriae opes accepisset, post otiosum nullisque admodum rebus gestis nobilitatum annorum duodecim regnum, was put to death through the treachery of Heliodorus, unius ex purpuratis (Liv. xli. 19, cf. App. Syr. c. 45), and the mission of Heliodorus to Jerusalem to seize the treasures of the temple, which is fabulously described in 2 Macc. 3:4ff. The ישּׁבר ( shall be destroyed) of this king אחדים בּימים ( within few days) does not harmonize with the fact of his twelve years' reign. From this comparison this much follows, that the prophecy does not furnish a prediction of the historical wars of the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, but an ideal description of the war of the kings of the north and the south in its general outlines, whereby, it is true, diverse special elements of the prophetical announcement have historically been fulfilled, but the historical reality does not correspond with the contents of the prophecy in anything like an exhaustive manner. This ideal character of the prophecy comes yet more prominently forward to view in the following prophetic description. The further Unveiling of the Future In this section we have (Daniel 11:21) first the description of the prince who, in striving after supremacy, sues all the means that cunning and power can contrive, and in his enmity against the holy covenant knows no bounds. This description is divided into two parts - (1) Daniel 11:21-25, and (2) vv. 36-12:3-which designate the two stadia of his proceedings. In the first part are described, (1) his gradual rising to power, Daniel 11:21-24; (2) his war with the king of the south for the supremacy, Daniel 11:25-27; (3) his rising up against the covenant people, even to the desecration of the sanctuary by the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the setting up of the abomination of desolation, Daniel 11:28-32; (4) the effect and consequence of this for the people of God, Daniel 11:32-35. This prince is the enemy of the holy God who is prophesied of in Daniel 8:9-13, Daniel 8:23-25, under the figure of the little horn, and is typically represented in the rising up of the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes against the covenant people and their worship of God. The prince's advancement to power. - He appears as נבזה , one despised, i.e., not such an one as by reason of birth has any just claim to the throne, and therefore as an intruder, also one who finds no recognition (Kranichfeld); which Hitzig has more definitely explained by mentioning that not Antiochus Epiphanes, but his nephew Demetrius, the son of the murdered Seleucus Philopator, was the true heir, but was of such a character that he was not esteemed worthy of the throne. נבזה , is despised, not = bad, unworthy, but yet supposes unworthiness. There was not laid on him the honour or majesty of the kingdom. The dignity of the kingdom requires הוד , splendour, majesty, such as God lays upon the king of Israel, Psalms 21:6 (5), 1 Chronicles 29:25. But here the subject spoken of is the honour which men give to the king, and which was denied to the “despised one” on account of his character. He comes בּשׁלוה , in security, i.e., unexpectedly (cf. Daniel 8:25), and takes possession of the kingdom. החזיק , to grasp, here to draw violently to himself. בּחלקלקּות , properly, by smoothnesses, intrigues and cunning, not merely flatteries or smooth words, but generally hypocritical behaviour in word and deed; cf. Daniel 11:34. Daniel 11:22 The kingdom he seized he also knew how to hold fast with great power. השׁטף זרעות , arms (i.e., warlike strength) of an inundation, i.e., armies overflowing the land are swept away before him, destroyed by yet stronger military forces. It is not merely the enemy, but also the “prince of the covenant,” whom he destroys. בּרית נגיד is analogous to בּרית בּעלי , Genesis 14:13, and בּרית אנשׁי , Obadiah 1:7, cf. Malachi 2:14, and, as the absence of the article shows, is to be taken in a general sense. The interpretation of בּרית נגיד of the high priest Onias III, who at the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes was driven from his office by his brother, and afterwards, at the instigation of Menelaus, was murdered by the Syrian governor Andronicus at Daphne near Antioch, 2 Macc. 4:1ff., 33ff. (Rosenmüller, Hitzig, etc.) - this interpretation is not warranted by the facts of history. This murder does not at all relate to the matter before us, not only because the Jewish high priest at Antioch did not sustain the relation of a “prince of the covenant,” but also because the murder was perpetrated without the previous knowledge of Antiochus, and when the matter was reported to him, the murderer was put to death by his command (2 Macc. 4:36-38). Thus also it stands in no connection with the war of Antiochus against Egypt. The words cannot also (with Hävernick, v. Leng., Maurer, Ebrard, Kliefoth) be referred to the Egyptian king Ptolemy Philometor, because history knows nothing of a covenant entered into between this king and Antiochus Epiphanes, but only that soon after the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes the guardians of the young Philometor demanded Coele-Syria from Antiochus, which Antiochus the Great had promised as a dowry to his daughter Cleopatra, who was betrothed to Ptolemy Philometor, but Antiochus did not deliver it up, and hence a war arose between them. To this is to be added, that, as Dereser, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Kranichfeld have rightly remarked, the description in Daniel 11:22-24 bears an altogether general character, so that v. Leng. and Maurer find therein references to all the three expeditions of Antiochus, and in Daniel 11:25-27 find more fully foretold what is only briefly hinted at in Daniel 11:22-24. The undertaking of the king against Egypt is first described in Daniel 11:24. We must therefore, with Kranichfeld, understand בּרית נגיד in undefined generality of covenant princes in general, in the sense already given. Daniel 11:23-24 In these verses there is a fuller statement of the manner in which he treats the princes of the covenant and takes possession of their territory. The ו at the beginning of Dan 11:23 is explicative, and the suffix in אליו , pointing back to נגיד ב , is also to be interpreted collectively. אליו מן־התחבּרוּת , literally, “from the confederating himself with them” ( התחבּרוּת is infin. formed in the Syriac manner), i.e., from the time when he had made a covenant with them, he practised deceit. This was done by his coming ( עלה of a warlike coming) and gaining strength with a few people, namely (Daniel 11:24), by his coming unexpectedly into the fattest and richest places of the province, and there doing unheard-of things - things which no previous king, no one of his predecessors, had ever done, scattering among them (his followers) spoil and prey and riches. Thus rightly, after the Syriac and the Vulgate , Rosenmüller, Kranichfeld, and Ewald; while, on the contrary, v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, and Kliefoth interpret בּזר in the sense of to distribute, and refer the words to the circumstance that Antiochus Epiphanes squandered money lavishly, and made presents to his inferiors often without any occasion. But to distribute money and spoil is nothing unheard of, and in no way does it agree with the “fattest provinces.” The contest decidedly refers to conduct which injured the fat provinces. This can only consist in squandering and dissipating the wealth of this province which he had plundered to its injury ( להם [ to them], dativ. incommodi). An historical confirmation is found in 1 Macc. 3:29-31. To bring the provinces wholly under his power, he devises plans against the fortresses that he might subdue them. ועד־עת , and indeed (he did this) even for a time. We cannot, with Klief., refer this merely to the last preceding passage, that his assaults against the fortresses succeeded only partly and for a time. The addition (“and that for a time”) denotes a period determined by a higher power (cf. Daniel 11:24 and Daniel 12:4, Daniel 12:6), and relates to the whole proceedings of this prince hitherto described; as C. B. Michaelis has already rightly explained: nec enim semper et in perpetuum dolus ei succedet et terminus suus ei tandem erit . These verses describe the victorious war of the king who had come to power against the king of the south, the war of Antiochus Epiphanes against king Ptolemy Philometor, which is described in 1 Macc. 1:16-19, with manifest reference to this prophecy. ויער ( he shall stir up) is potentialis in the sense of divine decree: “he shall stir up his power and his heart.” כּח is not warlike power, which is mentioned in בּחיל־גּדול (Daniel 11:25), but the power which consists in the bringing of a great army under his command; לבב , the mental energy for the carrying out of his plans. For יעמד לא , cf. Daniel 8:4. The subject is the last-named king of the south, who, notwithstanding his very great and powerful army, shall not stand in battle, but shall give way, because devices are contrived against him. The subject to יחשׁבוּ is not the enemy, the king of the north, with his army, but, according to Daniel 11:26, his table-companions. Daniel 11:26 Here it is more definitely stated why he cannot stand. פתבּגו אכּלי , who eat his food ( פּתבּג , see under Daniel 1:5), i.e., his table-companions (cf. Psalms 41:10[9]), persons about him. ישׁבּרוּהוּ , shall break him, i.e., cast him to the ground. His army shall therefore overflow, but shall execute nothing, only many shall fall down slain. The first member of the verse points to treachery, whereby the battle was lost and the war was fruitless. Hitzig incorrectly interprets ישׁטוף rushes away, i.e., is disorganized and takes to flight. But שׁטף cannot have this meaning. Daniel 11:27 Here then is described how the two kings seek through feigned friendship to destroy one another. The two kings are of course the two kings of the north and the south previously named. Of a third, namely, of two kings of Egypt, Philometor and Physkon, Daniel knows nothing. The third, Physkon, is introduced from history; and hence Hitzig, v. Lengerke, and others understand by the “ two kings,” the two kings Antiochus and Philometor confederated against the king of the south, but Kliefoth, on the contrary, thinks of Antiochus and Physkon, the latter of whom he regards as the king of the south, Daniel 11:25. All this is arbitrary. Jerome has already rejected the historical evidence for this, and remarks: verum ex eo, quia scriptura nunc dicit: duos fuisse reges, quorum cor fuerit fraudulentum ... hoc secundum historiam demonstrari non potest . למרע לבבם Hitzig translates: “their heart belongs to wickedness,” contrary to the context. ל denotes also here only the direction: “their heart goes toward wicked deeds,” is directed thereto. מרע , formed after מצר (cf. Ewald, §160 a), the evil-doing, consists in this, that the one seeks to overthrow and destroy the other under the cloak of feigned friendship; for they eat as friends at one table, and “speak lies” - the one tells lies to the other, professing friendship. But their design shall not succeed. All interpretations of these words which are determined by historical facta are arbitrary. The history of Antiochus Epiphanes furnishes no illustrations for this. In the sense of the prophecy תצלח לא has only this meaning: the design of the king of the north to destroy the king of the south, and to make himself master both of the north and the south, shall not succeed, and the king of the south will not fulfil what he promises to his deceitful adversary. For yet the end shall be at the time appointed. These words state the reason why the מרע shall not succeed. Hitzig incorrectly translates: “but the end holds onwards to the appointed time;” for כּי cannot in this connection be rendered by but, and ל cannot express the idea of holding to anything. ל denotes here, as generally, the direction toward the end, as Daniel 11:35, and Daniel 8:17, Daniel 8:19. The end goes yet on to the time appointed by God. That this מועד ( appointment of time) does not lie in the present, but in the future, is denoted by עוד , although we do not, with Hävernick, interpret עוד by “for the end lies yet further out,” nor, with v. Lengerke and Maurer, may we supply the verb “withdraws itself, is reserved.” עוד stands before קץ because on it the emphasis lies. קץ is, however, not the end of the war between Antiochus and Egypt (v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig), but cannot be otherwise taken than קץ עת , Daniel 11:35, Daniel 11:40, and Daniel 12:4. But in the latter passage קץ עת is the time of the resurrection of the dead, thus the end of the present course of the world, with which all the oppression of the people of God ceases. Accordingly קץ in the verse before us, as in Daniel 11:35, Daniel 11:40, is the time in which the conduct of the kings previously described, in their rising up and in their hostility against the people of God, reaches its end (Daniel 11:45); and with the overthrow of these enemies the period of oppression also comes to an end. This end comes only למועד , at the time which God has determined for the purifying of His people (Daniel 11:35). So long may the kings of the north and the south prosecute their aims; so long shall they strive for the possession of the kingdom without succeeding in their plans. למועד has here and in Daniel 11:35 the definite article, because in both verses the language refers not to any definite time, but to the time determined by God for the consummation of His kingdom. The placing of the article in this word in the verse before us is not, with Kliefoth, to be explained from a reference to Daniel 8:17, Daniel 8:19. The two revelations are separated from each other by too long a space of time for this one to refer back to that earlier one by the mere use of the article, although both treat of the same subject. The למועד occurs besides in Daniel 11:29, where it is natural to suppose that it has the same meaning as here; but the contents of the verse oppose such a conclusion. Daniel 11:29 treats, it is true, of a renewed warlike expedition against the south, which, however, brings neither the final deciding of the war with the south (cf. Daniel 11:40), nor yet the end of the oppression of the people of God; המועד is thus only the time determined for the second aggression against the south, not the time of the end. The success gained by the crafty king of the north in his war against the king of the south (Daniel 11:25.) increases his endeavours after the enlarging of his dominions. Returning from Egypt with great riches, i.e., with rich spoil, he raises his heart against the holy covenant. By the potentialis ישׁב ( he shall return) this new undertaking is placed in the point of view of a divine decree, to denote that he thereby brings about his own destruction. קדשׁ בּרית signifies not the holy people in covenant with God (v. Lengerke, Maurer, and many older interpreters), but the divine institution of the Old Covenant, the Jewish Theocracy. The Jews are only members of this covenant, cf. Daniel 11:30. Calvin is right when he says: Mihi simplicior sensus probatur, quod scilicet bellum gerat adversus Deum . The holy covenant is named instead of the covenant people to represent the undertaking as an outrage against the kingdom of God, which was founded in Israel. ועשׂה , and he shall do, perform, that which his heart thinks, or that which he has in his mind against the holy covenant. The historical fulfilment is narrated in 1 Macc. 1:22-29. לארצו ושׁב resumes ארצו וישׁב , and teaches us that Antiochus undertook the first assault against the holy covenant on his return from Egypt into his kingdom (to Antioch), as is expressly stated in 1 Macc. 1:20. In order that he might bring Egypt wholly under his power, he undertook a new expedition thither ( וּבא ישׁוּב , he comes again). But this expedition, like the first, was not successful ( כ־כ , as-so, cf. Joshua 14:11; Ezekiel 18:4). For the ships of Chittim come against him. כּתּים ציּים , ships the Chittaei, for כּתּים מיד צים , Numbers 24:24, whence the expression is derived כּתּים is Cyprus with its chief city Κίττιον (now Chieti or Chitti); see under Genesis 10:4. Ships coming from Cyprus are ships which come from the west, from the islands and coasts of the Mediterranean. In 1 Macc. 1:1 and 8:5 כּתּים is interpreted of Macedonia, according to which Bertholdt and Dereser think of the Macedonian fleet with which the Roman embassy sailed to Alexandria. This much is historically verified, that the Roman embassy, led by Popillius, appeared with a fleet in Alexandria, and imperiously commanded Antiochus to desist from his undertaking against Egypt and to return to his own land (Liv. xlv. 10-12). The lxx have therefore translated these words by: καὶἥξουσἱΡηωμαῖοικαὶἐχώσουσιναὐτὸνκαὶἐμβριμήσονταιαὐτῷ , and correctly, so far as the prophecy has received the first historical accomplishment in that factum. ונכאה , he shall lose courage, is rightly explained by Jerome: non quod interierit, sed quod omnem arrogantiae perdiderit magnitudinem . (Note: The historical facts have been briefly and conclusively brought together by Hitzig thus: “On the complaint of the Alexandrians the Roman senate sent an embassage, at the head of which was C. Popillius Laenas (Polyb. xxix. 1; Liv. xliv. 19). After being detained at Delos (Liv. xliv. 29), they set sail to Egypt after the battle at Pydna (Liv. xlv. 10). Here he met Antiochus four Roman miles from Alexandria, and presented to him the message of the senate. When Antiochus explained that he wished to lay the matter before his counsellors, Popillius described with the staff he carried on his hand a circle round the king, and commanded him to give his answer before he left this circle. Antiochus, confounded by the circumstance, submitted and withdrew from Egypt (Liv. xlv. 12; Polyb. xxix. 11; Appian, Syr. c. 66; Justin. xxxiv. 3).”) וזעם ושׁב , not: he was again enraged, for nothing is said of a previous זעם . ושׁב , and he turned round (back) from his expedition against Egypt. Since he was not able to accomplish anything against the נגב ( the south), he turns his indignation against Judah to destroy the covenant people (cf. Daniel 11:28). The ושׁב in Daniel 11:30 resumes the ושׁב in Daniel 11:30, so as further to express how he gave vent to his anger. Hitzig's interpretation of the first ושׁב of the return to Palestine, of the second, of the return from Palestine to Antiochus, is not justified. ויבן , he shall observe, direct his attention to the Jews who forsook the holy covenant, i.e., the apostate Jews, that he might by their help execute his plans against the Mosaic religion - partim ornando illos honoribus, partim illorum studiis ad patriam religionem obliterandam comparatis obsecundando , as C. B. Michaelis excellently remarks; cf. 1 Macc. 1:11-16 with 2:18. Here is stated what he accomplished by the help of the apostate Jews. זרעים , arms, figuratively for help (Daniel 11:5), are warlike forces, as Daniel 11:15, Daniel 11:22. That the plur. has here the masculine form, while in those verses it has the fem. form, furnishes no reason for a difference of meaning, since זרוע in its proper sense of arm occurs promiscue with both endings in the plur.; cf. for זרעים Genesis 49:24; Isaiah 51:5; 2 Kings 9:24. מן in ממּנּוּ is not partitive, a part of him, i.e., the host as a part of the king (Hitzig), but out from him, or by his command. יעמדוּ , to stand up, not to stand still, as Hitzig, on the ground of the supposition that Antiochus on his return from Egypt placed a standing army-corps in Jerusalem, would interpret it, contrary to the usage of the word, since עמד does not signify to stand still in the sense of to remain behind, though it means to endure, to keep the ground (Daniel 11:6, Daniel 11:15). It is disputed whether these זרעים denote military forces, troops of the hostile king (Hävernick, v. Leng., Maur., Hitz., Klief.), or his accomplices of the apostate party of the Jews, and thus essentially identical with בּרית עזבי , Daniel 11:30 (Calvin, Hengstb. Christol. iii. 1, p. 110, Kran., and others). In favour of the latter view, Kranichfeld argues that the בּרית עזבי ( those that forsake the covenant), according to Daniel 11:30, come under consideration as a support to the king, and the ממּנּוּ of this verse before us evidently refers to the king's own army, and therefore would be superfluous. But these two reasons prove nothing. The ממּנּוּ is not superfluous, even though it were used of the king's own army. Since in Daniel 11:30, Daniel 11:32 the king of the north is the subject of the clause, it was necessary in זרעים to define in what relation they stood to the king. But the other remark, that the בּרית עזבי come into view as a support to the king, does not prove that these are the same who desecrate the sanctuary and set up the abomination of desolation. On the contrary, if ממּנּוּ denotes the causal exit, the זרעים cannot be the apostate Jews, but only warlike forces which the king leads forth. If we refer זרעים to the apostate Jews, then we must, with Hengstenberg and Gesenius, take ממּנּוּ in the sense of eo jubente . Moreover, the זרעים manifestly stand in contrast to the בּרית מרשׁיעי of Daniel 11:32. By his troops (military forces) the king lays waste the sanctuary, and he makes by means of smooth words those who sin against the covenant heathen. Kranichfeld himself recognises this contrast, and therefore will understand as the subject to וחלּלוּ not merely “those that forsake the covenant” (Daniel 11:30), but these along with and including the warlike power of the hostile king. An expedient which the difficulty suggested. המקדּשׁ is the temple, and המעוז ( the strength) is in apposition. This apposition, however, does not say that the temple was fortified (v. Leng., Hitzig, Ewald), but it points out the temple as the spiritual fortress of Israel. The temple is the “ Feste Burg ” (firm tower) of the holy covenant (Daniel 11:28), as the dwelling-place of Jehovah, which is a firm fortress to His people; cf. Psalms 31:4-5, (3, 4); Isaiah 25:4; Psalms 18:3 (2). חלּלוּ is essentially identical with מקדּשׁו מכון השׁלך , Daniel 8:11. The two following clauses state what the desecration consists in: in the taking away, the removal of the stated worship of Jehovah, and in the placing, setting up of the abomination of desolation, i.e., of the idol-altar on Jehovah's altar of burnt-offering; see under Daniel 8:11. משׁמם is not the genitive, but an adjective to השּׁקּוּץ (without the article after the definite noun, as e.g., Daniel 8:13): the desolating abomination, i.e., the abomination which effects the desolation. With reference to the fulfilment, cf. 1 Macc. 1:37, 45, 54. The consequences to the people of Israel which result from this sin against the holy covenant. - The ungodly shall become heathen, i.e., shall wholly apostatize from the true God; but, on the other hand, the pious shall be strengthened in their confidence in the Lord. This is in general the import of Dan 11:32, the first half of which, however, has been very differently interpreted. בּרית מרשׁיעי signifies neither “those who sinfully make a covenant” (Hävernick), nor “sinners among the covenant people” (v. Lengerke), nor “those who condemn the covenant,” i.e., those who reject the sign of the covenant, circumcision (Hitzig). The latter meaning is altogether arbitrary. Against the second is the fact that רשׁעים is in use for sinners; against the first, that בּרית הרשׁיע could only mean: “to declare the covenant punishable.” הרשׁיע means to act wickedly, to sin, and בּרית can only be the accusative of reference, which is subordinated to the participle for the purpose of limitation (Ewald, §288); literally, “the acting wickedly with reference to the covenant.” The absence of the article in בּרית is no proof against he reference of the word to the holy covenant. The article is wanting in Daniel where otherwise the determination is found from the connection, e.g., Daniel 8:13. Sinning against the covenant is, it is true, a stronger expression than בּרית עזב ( to forsake the covenant), but it does not include the idea of the entire apostasy from God, but only insolent violation of the covenant law, so that of בּרית מרשׁיעי it can very well be predicated יחניף . החניף does not mean to pollute (Kran.), but to desecrate, to make profane; and spoken of persons, to make them as heathen, as frequently in the Syriac. חלקּות , flatteries, here deceitful promises of earthly advantage; cf. under Daniel 11:21. For the subject spoken of here, see 1 Macc. 2:18. אלהיו ידעי are the true confessors of the Lord. The suffix to אלהיו is neither to be interpreted distributively nor to be referred to עם . To יחזיקוּ we are to supply בּבּרית from the context: “to hold fast to the covenant.” ועשׂוּ , as Daniel 11:17, Daniel 11:28, Daniel 11:30, to carry out the design. In what way this is done is explained in Daniel 11:33 and Daniel 11:34. Daniel 11:33 משׂכּילי is not the teachers, but intelligentes , those who have insight or understanding. The pious are meant by the word, those who know their God (Daniel 11:32). This is seen from the contrast רשׁעים , Daniel 12:10. According to the O.T. view, wisdom, insight, are correlative ideas with the fear of God, piety, Psalms 14:1; Job 28:28; and לרבּים with the article, the many, the great multitude of the people who bring themselves forward to view by the judicious appearance of the pious, are moved to hold fast by the law of the Lord. Yet they who understand shall for a time fall by the sword, etc. The subject to נכשׁלוּ is not the רבּים , or those with the teachers (Hitzig), but the עם משׂכּילי , but not all, but, according to Daniel 11:35, a number of them; for in Daniel 11:35 falling is not first specially predicated of the teachers, as Hitzig thinks, but only the effect which that would have on the whole people. The words point to a warlike rising up of the faithful members of the covenant people against the hostile king, and have had their first historical fulfilment in the insurrection of the Maccabees against Antiochus Epiphanes; cf. 1 Macc. 2ff. In 1 Macc. 1:57; 2:38; 3:41; 5:13, 2 Macc. 6:11, there are examples of this falling by the sword. The רבּים after ימים in several Codd. is a worthless gloss. Daniel 11:34 Through the fall of the pious in war little help shall come to the people of God. מעט ( little) is not “spoken contemptuously” (Hitzig), but the help is so named in comparison with the great deliverance which shall come to the people of God in the time of the end by the complete destruction of the oppressor. We may not therefore, with Hitzig and others, limit this expression to the circumstance that with the victories of Judas Maccabaeus (1 Macc. 3:11ff., 23ff., 4:14, etc.) they were far from gaining all, for they also met with a defeat (1 Macc. 5:60f.). For with the overthrow of Antiochus and the liberation of the Jews from the Syrian yoke, full help was not yet rendered to the people of God. The “little help” consists in this, that by the rising up and the wars of those that had understanding among the people the theocracy was preserved, the destruction of the service of Jehovah and of the church of God, which was aimed at by the hostile king, was prevented, and, as the following clauses express, the purifying of the people of God is brought about. This purifying is the design and the fruit of the oppression which God brings upon His people by means of the hostile king. The attaining of this end is a “little help” in comparison with the complete victory over the arch-enemy of the time of the end. Many shall connect themselves with the משׂכּילים ( intelligentes , Daniel 11:33) with flatteries (as Daniel 11:21). “The successes of Judas, and the severity with which he and Mattathias treated the apostates (1 Macc. 2:44; 3:5, 8), had the result of causing many to join them only through hypocrisy (1 Macc. 7:6; 2 Macc. 14:6), who again forsook them as soon as opportunity offered; 1 Macc. 6:21ff., 9:23” (Hitzig, Kliefoth). Daniel 11:35 Such has been the experience in all periods of the church's history. Therefore does the church need to pass through the purifying process of affliction, in which not only the lukewarm fall away in the time of conflict, but also many even מן־המּשׂכּילים . מן is here partitive. יכּשׁלוּ ( they shall fall) is to be understood not merely of death in battle, but of other calamities, such as being imprisoned, plundered, etc. בּהם לצרוף to melt, i.e., to purify by them, not as to them; for ב rof ;meht does not represent the accusative, as Kranichfeld thinks, referring in confirmation to Ewald, §282. The use of ב there spoken of is of a different nature. The suffix in בּהם refers neither to “those that understand” alone (Häv.), nor to the “many,” Daniel 11:33 (v. Leng.), still less to the flatterers in Daniel 11:34 (Maurer), but to all of these together, or to the whole company of the people of God in the sum of their individuals. The verbs וללבּן לברר serve to strengthen the expression ( ללבּן for ללבּין on account of the assonance). קץ עד־עת ( to the time of the end) is connected with יכּשׁלוּ , the chief idea of the passage. The stumbling and falling of “those who understand” (the pious) shall continue to the time of the end, to bring about the purification of the people for their glorification in the time of the end. For the end stretches itself out yet to the time appointed (cf. Daniel 11:27); i.e., it does not come in with the “little help” which Israel received by the rising up of “those who understand” against the hostile king, thus not with the afflictions that came upon them by Antiochus, but it shall come afterwards at the time appointed by God. The assertion that “the end is connected with the death of king Antiochus Epiphanes” (Hitzig, Bleek, and others) is founded on a misunderstanding of the following section, Daniel 11:36-45. On the contrary, Kranichfeld has rightly remarked, that “the statements made in Daniel 11:36-39 incl. regarding the king of the north, now fall, in accordance with the context, into the period which shall expire at that time of the end are then to be prophesied. The Hostile King Exalting Himself above All Divine and Human Ordinances at the Time of the End - Daniel 11:36-39 This exaltation of the king is here introduced by the formula כרצנו ועשׂה , which expresses the self-will and the irresistible might of his proceeding; cf. Daniel 3:16 and Daniel 8:4 - ”a feature common to Antiochus and Antichrist” (Klief.). He shall raise himself above every god, not merely “subjectively in his lofty imagination” (Hitzig), but also by his actions. כּל־אל , every god, not merely the God of Israel, but also the gods of the heathen. This does not agree with Antiochus. The ἰσόθεαφρονεῖνὑπερηφανῶς which is said of him, 2 Macc. 9:12, is not an exalting of himself above every god. “Antiochus was not an ἄθεος ; he even wished to render the worship of Zeus universal; and that he once spoiled the temple does not imply his raising himself above every god” (Klief.). Of Antiochus much rather, as is said by Livy (41:20), in duabus tamen magnis honestisque rebus fere regius erat animus, in urbium donis et deorum cultu . On the contrary, these words before us are expressly referred to Antichrist, 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Yet further, in his arrogance he shall speak נפּלאות , wonderful, i.e., impious and astonishing things, against the God of gods, i.e., the true God. This clause expounds and strengthens the מלּל רברבן ( speaking great things), which is said of the enemy at the time of the end, Daniel 7:8, Daniel 7:11, Daniel 7:20. In this he will prosper, but only till the anger of God against His people ( זעם as Daniel 8:19) shall be accomplished. Regarding כלה see at Daniel 9:27. This anger of God is irrevocably determined , that His people may be wholly purified for the consummation of His kingdom in glory. The perf. נעשׂתה does not stand for the imperf. because it is decreed, but in its proper meaning, according to which it represents the matter as finished, settled. Here it accordingly means: “for that which is irrevocably decreed is accomplished, is not to be recalled, but must be done.” The exalting of himself above all on the part of the king is further described. “He shall not regard the gods of his fathers,” i.e., shall cast aside the worship of the gods transmitted to him from his fathers. This again does not accord with Antiochus Epiphanes, regarding whom it is true that history records that he wished to suppress the worship practised by the Jews, but it knows nothing (Note: The statement in 1 Macc. 1:41ff., “Moreover king Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, and every one should have his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king,” does not amount to a proof of this. “For,” as Grimm rightly remarks, “the account of such a decree of Antiochus to all (not Hellenic) peoples of his kingdom is very doubtful. No profane historian records anything about it, neither does Josephus, nor the author of the second book of the Maccabees in the parallel passages. It is true that Antiochus, according to Livy, xli. 20, put great honour upon Jupiter by building a splendid temple to Tages, and according to Polybius, xxvi. 10, 11, he excelled all kings who preceded him in expensive sacrifices and gifts in honour of the gods; but this is no proof of a proselytizing fanaticism.” The contrary rather appears from Josephus, Antt. xii. 5. 5, where the Samaritans, in a letter to Antiochus, declare, contrary to the opinion entertained regarding them by their governor, that by descent and custom they were not Jews. Their letter rests on the supposition that the royal decree was directed only against the Jews. Cf. Falthe, Gesch. Macedoniens, ii. p. 596. Diodorus also (xxxiv. 1), to whom Hitzig refers, only states that Antiochus wished to dissolve τὰνόμιμα of the Jewish people, and to compel the Jews to abandon their manner of life . of attempts made by him to destroy the gods and the worship of other nations. The words which follow, נשׁים על־חמדּת , the old interpreters understood of the love of women, or of conjugal love; the modern, after the example of J. D. Michaelis and Gesenius, on the contrary, understand them of the goddess Anaïtis or Mylitta, the Assyrian Venus, and refer them specially to the spoiling of the temple of this goddess in Elymaïs (1 Macc. 6:1, cf. 2 Macc. 1:13). Ewald finally would understand by the expression “the desire of women,” the Syrian deity Tammuz-Adonis. The connection requires us to think on a deity, because these words are placed between two expressions which refer to the gods. But the connection is not altogether decisive; rather the כּל על in the clause at the end of the verse denotes that the subject spoken of is not merely the king's raising himself above the gods, but also above other objects of pious veneration. A verbal proof that נשׁים חמדּת denotes the Anaïtis or Adonis as the favourite deity of women has not been adduced. For these words, desiderium mulierum , denote not that which women desire, but that which women possess which is desirable; cf. under 1 Samuel 9:20. But it is impossible that this can be Anaïtis or Adonis, but it is a possession or precious treasure of women. This desirable possession of women is without doubt love; so that, as C. B. Michaelis has remarked, the expression is not materially different from נשׁים אהבת , the love of women, 2 Samuel 1:26. The thought: “he shall not regard the desire of women, or the love of women,” agrees perfectly with the connection. After it has been said in the first clause: he shall set himself free from all religious reverence transmitted from his fathers, from all piety toward the gods in which he had been trained, it is then added in the second clause: not merely so, but generally from all piety toward men and God, from all the tender affections of the love of men and of God. The “love of women” is named as an example selected from the sphere of human piety, as that affection of human love and attachment for which even the most selfish and most savage of men feel some sensibility. Along with this he shall set himself free from כּל־אלוהּ , from all piety or reverence toward God or toward that which is divine (Klief.). This thought is then established by the last clause: “for he shall magnify himself above all.” To כּל על we may not supply אלוהּ ; for this clause not only presents the reason for the foregoing clause, וגו כּל־אלוהּ על , but for both of the foregoing clauses. Hitzig and Kliefoth are right in their interpretation: “above everything, or all, gods and men,” he shall magnify himself, raise himself up in arrogance. On the other hand, he will honour the god of fortresses. That מעזּים is not, with Theodotion, the Vulgate, Luther, and others, to be regarded as the proper name of a god, is now generally acknowledge. But as to which god is to be understood by the “god of fortresses,” there is very great diversity of opinion. Grotius, C. B. Michaelis, Gesenius, and others think on Mars, the god of war, as the one intended; Hävernick, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Ewald regard Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom Antiochus purposed to erect a temple in Antioch (Livy, xli. 20); others, Jupiter Olympius; while Hitzig, by changing מעזּים into ים מעז , fortress of the sea, thinks that Melkart, or the Phoenician Hercules, is referred to. But according to the following passage, this god was not known to his fathers. That could not be said either of Mars, or Jupiter, or Melkart. Add to this, “that if the statement here refers to the honouring of Hercules, or Mars, or Zeus, or Jupiter, then therewith all would be denied that was previously said of the king's being destitute of all religion” (Klief.). The words thus in no respect agree with Antiochus, and do not permit us to think on any definite heathen deity. כּנּו על does not signify on his foundation, pedestal (Häv., v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald), because the remark that he honoured God on his pedestal would be quite inappropriate, unless it had been also said that he had erected a statue to him. כּנּו על has here the same meaning as in Daniel 11:7, Daniel 11:20, Daniel 11:21: “in his place or stead” (Gesenius, de Wette, Kliefoth, and others). But the suffix is not, with Klief., to be referred to כּל על : in the place of all that, which he did not regard, but it refers to כּל־אלוהּ : in the place of every god; which is not overthrown by the objection that in that case the suffix should have been plur., because the suffix is connected with the singular אלוה . The “god of fortresses” is the personification of war, and the thought is this: he will regard no other god, but only war; the taking of fortresses he will make his god; and he will worship this god above all as the means of his gaining the world-power. Of this god, war as the object of deification, it might be said that his fathers knew nothing, because no other king had made war his religion, his god to whom he offered up in sacrifice all, gold, silver, precious stones, jewels. With the help of this god, who was unknown to his fathers, he will so proceed against the strong fortresses that he rewards with honour, might, and wealth those who acknowledge him. This is the meaning of the verse, which has been very differently rendered. The majority of modern interpreters separate the two parts of the verse from each other, for they refer the first hemistich to the preceding, and in the second they find a new thought expressed. Hהvernick and v. Lengerke supply a demonstrative כּה , thus: - thus shall he do to the armed fortresses together with the strange gods, i.e., fill the fortified temples with treasures, and promote their worship. But the supplement כּה is here just as arbitrary as is the interpreting of the armed fortresses of temples. Hitzig misses the object to עשׂה , and seeks it by changing עם into עם : he prepares for the armed fortresses a people of a strange god; but apart from the fact that the change of the text is arbitrary, the use of the expression “people of a strange god” for colonists is most singular. Ewald translates the expression thus: “he proceeds with the strong fortresses as with the strange god,” and explains: “he loves the fortresses only just as a god;” but he has given no proof that ל עשׂה means to love. The missing object to ועשׂה follows in the second hemistich, just as in Deuteronomy 31:4; Joshua 8:2; Isaiah 10:11. עשׂה means simply to do anything to one (Kran., Klief.). נכר אלוהּ עם , with the help of the strange god ( עם of assistance, as in 1 Samuel 14:45), not: in the mind of the strange god (Kliefoth). מעזּים מבצרי , fortified, i.e., strong fortresses, are not the fortified walls and houses, but the inhabitants of the fortified cities. With these he does according to his will with the help of his god, i.e., of war, namely in this, that he rewards with honour and power only those who acknowledge him. הכּיר אשׁר , who acknowledges, sc. him, the king who made war his god. Hitzig has incorrectly interpreted: whom he acknowledges. The Keri יכּיר for the Kethiv הכּיר is an unnecessary emendation here, as in Isaiah 28:15 with עבּר . The verb הכּיר is chosen to reflect upon the word נכר . It means to recognise, properly to acknowledge him as what he is or wishes to be; cf. Deuteronomy 21:17. Such an one he shall increase with honour, confer upon him sovereignty over many, and divide the land. בּמחיר is not for payment, for recompense, as the contrast to חנּם ( gratuitously) (Kran.). That is not a suitable rendering here. The word rather means pro praemio , as a reward (Maur., Klief.), as a reward for the recognition accorded to him. The Vulgate renders it rightly according to the sense, gratuito . In this most modern interpreters find a reference to the circumstance that Antiochus occupied the Jewish fortresses with heathen garrisons, and rewarded his adherents with places of honour and with possessions of land (2 Macc. 4:10, 24; 5:15). But this is what all conquerors do, and it was not peculiar to Antiochus, so that it could be mentioned as characteristic of him. The words contain the altogether common thought that the king will bestow honour, power, and possessions on those who acknowledge him and conduct themselves according to his will, and they accord with the character of Antichrist in a yet higher degree than with that of Antiochus. The last Undertakings of the Hostile King, and His End By the words קץ בּעת , which introduce these verses, the following events are placed in the time of the end. Proceeding from the view that the whole of the second half of this chapter (vv. 21-45) treats of Antiochus and his undertakings, most modern interpreters find in the verses the prophecy of a last expedition of this Syrian king against Egypt, and quote in support of this view the words of Jerome: Et haec Porphyrius ad Antiochum refert, quod undecimo anno regni sui rursus contra sororis filium, Ptolem. Philometorem dimicaverit, qui audiens venire Antiochum congregaverit multa populorum millia, sed Antiochus quasi tempestas valida in curribus et in equitibus et in classe magna ingressus sit terras plurimas et transeundo universa vastaverit, veneritque ad Judaeam et arcem munierit de ruinis murorum civitatis et sic perrexerit in Aegyptum . But regarding this expedition not only are historians silent, but the supposition of such a thing stands in irreconcilable contradiction to the historical facts regarding the last undertakings of Antiochus. According to 1 Macc. 3:27ff., Antiochus, on receiving tidings of the successful insurrection of the Maccabees, and of the victory which Judas had won, since he found that money was wanting to him to carry on the war, resolved to return to Persia, “there to collect the tribute of the countries” (1 Macc. 3:31); and after he had made Lysias governor, he delivered to him the one half of his army, that he might with it “destroy and root out the strength of Israel,” and with the other half departed from Antioch and crossed the Euphrates into the high countries, i.e., the high-lying countries on the farther side of the Euphrates (1 Macc. 3:33-37). There he heard of the great treasures of a rich city in Persia, and resolved to fall upon this city and to take its treasures; but as the inhabitants received notice of the king's intention, he was driven back and compelled to return to Babylon, having accomplished nothing. On his return he heard in Persia the tidings of the overthrow of Lysias in a battle with the Maccabees, and of the re-erection of the altar of Jehovah at Jerusalem; whereupon he was so overcome with terror and dismay, that he fell sick and died (1 Macc. 6:1-16). The historical truth of this report is confirmed by Polybius, who mentions ( Fragm. xxxi. 11) that Antiochus, being in difficulty for want of money, sought to spoil the temple of Artemis and Elymaïs, and in consequence of the failure of his design he fell ill at Tabae in Persia, and there died. By these well-established facts the supposition of an invasion of Egypt by Antiochus in the eleventh, i.e., the last year of his reign, is excluded. The Romans also, after they had already by their intervention frustrated his design against Egypt, would certainly have prevented a new war, least of all would they have permitted an entire subjugation of Egypt and the south, which we must accept after Daniel 11:42, Daniel 11:43. Besides, the statement made by Porphyry shows itself to be destitute of historical validity by this, that according to it, Antiochus must have made the assault against Egypt, while on the contrary, according to the prophecy, Daniel 11:40, the king of the south begins the war against the king of the north, and the latter, in consequence of this attack, passes through the lands with a powerful host and subdues Egypt. For these reasons, therefore, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Hitzig have abandoned the statement of Porphyry as unhistorical, and limited themselves to the supposition that the section (Daniel 11:40-45) is only a comprehensive repetition of that which has already been said regarding Antiochus Epiphanes, according to which “the time of the end” (Daniel 11:40) denotes not the near time of the death of Antiochus, but generally the whole period of this king. But this is, when compared with Daniel 11:27, Daniel 11:35, impossible. If thus, according to Daniel 11:35, the tribulation with which the people of God shall be visited by the hostile king for their purification shall last till the time of the end, then the time of the end to which the prophecies of Dan 11:40-45 fall cannot designate the whole duration of the conduct of this enemy, but only the end of his reign and of his persecutions, in which he perishes (Daniel 11:40). On the contrary, the reference to Daniel 8:17 avails nothing, because there also קץ עת has the same meaning as here, i.e., it denotes the termination of the epoch referred to, and is there only made a more general expression by means of לעת than here, where by בּעת and the connection with Daniel 11:35 the end is more sharply defined. To this is to be added, that the contents of Dan 11:40-45 are irreconcilable with the supposition that in them is repeated in a comprehensive form what has already been said of Antiochus, for here something new is announced, something of which nothing has been said before. This even Maurer and Hitzig have not been able to deny, but have sought to conceal as much as possible, - Maurer by the remark: res a scriptore iterum ac saepius pertractatas esse, extremam vero manum operi defuisse ; and Hitzig by various turnings - ”as it seems,” “but is not more precisely acknowledged,” “the fact is not elsewhere communicated” - which are obviously mere make-shifts. Thus Daniel 11:40-45 do not apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, but, with most ancient interpreters, they refer only to the final enemy of the people of God, the Antichrist. This reference has been rightly vindicated by Kliefoth. We cannot, however, agree with him in distinguishing this enemy in Daniel 11:40 from the king of the south and of the north, and in understanding this verse as denoting “ that at the time of this hostile king, which shall be the time of the end, the kings of the south as well as of the north shall attack him, but that he shall penetrate into their lands and overthrow them.” Without taking into account the connection, this interpretation is not merely possible, but it is even very natural to refer the suffix in עליו and in עמּו to one and the same person, namely, to the king who has hitherto been spoken of, and who continues in Daniel 11:40-45 to be the chief subject. But the connection makes this reference impossible. It is true, indeed, that the suffix in עמּו refers without doubt to this king, but the suffix in עליו can be referred only to the king of the south named immediately before, who pushes at him, because the king against whom the king of the south pushes, and of whom mention is made vv. 21-39, is not only distinctly designated as the king of the north (Daniel 11:13-21), but also, according to Daniel 11:40-43, he advances from the north against the Holy Land and against Egypt; thus also, according to Daniel 11:40-43, must be identical with the king of the north. In Daniel 11:40-43 we do not read of a war of the hostile king against the king of the south and the king of the north. The words in which Kliefoth finds indications of this kind are otherwise to be understood. Daniel 11:40 If we now more closely look into particulars, we find that קץ עת is not the end of the hostile king, but, as in Daniel 11:27, Daniel 11:35, the end of the present world-period, in which also, it is true, occurs the end of this king ( קצּו , Daniel 11:45). For the figurative expression יתנגּח ( shall push), cf. Daniel 8:4. In the word there lies the idea that the king of the south commences the war, makes an aggression against the hostile king. In the second clause the subject is more precisely defined by “the king of the north” for the sake of distinctness, or to avoid ambiguity, from which it thence follows that the suffix in עליו refers to the king of the south. If the subject were not named, then “the king of the south” might have been taken for it in this clause. The words, “with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships,” are an oratorical exemplification of the powerful war-host which the king of the north displayed; for the further statement, “he presses into the countries, overflows and passes over” ( ועבר שׁטף as Daniel 11:10), does not agree with the idea of a fleet, but refers to land forces. The plur. בּארצות ( into the countries) does not at all agree with the expedition of a Syrian king against Egypt, since between Syria and Egypt there lay one land, Palestine; but it also does not prove that “the south-land and the north-land, the lands of the kings of the south and of the north, are meant” (Klief.), but it is to be explained from this, that the north, from which the angry king comes in his fury against the king of the south, reached far beyond Syria. The king of the north is thought of as the ruler of the distant north. Daniel 11:41 Penetrating into the countries and overflowing them with his host, he comes into the glorious land, i.e., Palestine, the land of the people of God. See at Daniel 11:16 and Daniel 8:9. “And many shall be overthrown.” רבּות is not neuter, but refers to ארצות , Daniel 11:40. For “that the whole lands are meant, represented by their inhabitants (cf. The verb masc. יכּשׁלוּ [ shall be overthrown ]), proceeds from the exceptions of which the second half of the verse makes mention” (Kran.). The three peoples, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, are represented as altogether spared, because, as Jerome has remarked, they lay in the interior, out of the way of the line of march of Antiochus to Egypt (v. Leng., Hitzig, and others). This opinion Hitzig with justice speaks of as altogether superficial, since Antiochus would not have omitted to make war against them, as e.g., his father overcame the Ammonites in war (Polyb. v. 71), if they had not given indubitable proofs of their submission to him. Besides, it is a historical fact that the Edomites and Ammonites supported Antiochus in his operations against the Jews (1 Macc. 5:3-8; 4:61); therefore Maurer remarks, under ימּלטוּ ( they shall escape): eorum enim in oppremendis Judaeis Antiochus usus est auxilio . But since the king here spoken of is not Antiochus, this historizing interpretation falls of itself to the ground. There is further with justice objected against it, that at the time of Antiochus the nation of Moab no longer existed. After the Exile the Moabites no longer appear as a nation. They are only named (Nehemiah 13:1 and Ezra 9:1), in a passage cited from the Pentateuch, along with the Philistines and the Hittites, to characterize the relations of the present after the relations of the time of Moses. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, related with Israel by descent, are the old hereditary and chief enemies of this people, who have become by name representatives of all the hereditary and chief enemies of the people of God. These enemies escape the overthrow when the other nations sink under the power of the Antichrist. עמּון בּני ' ראשׁית , “the firstling of the sons of Ammon,” i.e., that which was most valued or distinguished of the Ammonites as a first-fruit, by which Kranichfeld understands the chief city of the Ammonites. More simply others understand by the expression, “the flower of the people, the very kernel of the nation;” cf. Numbers 24:20; Amos 6:1; Jeremiah 49:35. The expression is so far altogether suitable as in the flower of the people the character of the nation shows itself, the enmity against the people of God is most distinctly revealed; but in this enmity lies the reason for this people's being spared by the enemy of God. Daniel 11:42 The stretching forth of his hand upon the countries is a sign expressive of his seizing them, taking possession of them, for which he falls upon them. בּארצות are not other countries besides those which, according to Daniel 11:40, he overflowed (Klief.), but the same. Of these lands Egypt is specially noticed in Daniel 11:42 as the most powerful, which had hitherto successfully withstood the assaults of the king of the north, but which in the time of the end shall also be overthrown. Egypt, as the chief power of the south, represents the mightiest kingdoms of the earth. לפּליטה תּהיה לא ( and there shall not be for an escape), expressive of complete overthrow, cf. Joe 2:3; Jeremiah 50:29. Daniel 11:43 Along with the countries all their treasures fall into the possession of the conqueror, and also all the allies of the fallen kingdom shall be compelled to submit to him. The genitive מצרים belongs not merely to חמות ( precious things), but to all the before-named objects. בּמצעדיו ( at his steps) = בּרגליו , Judges 4:10, denotes the camp-followers, but not as mercenary soldiers (v. Leng., Hitz.). The Lybians and Cushites represent all the allies of the Egyptians (cf. Ezekiel 30:5; Nahum 3:9), the most southern nations of the earth. The End of the Hostile King As has been already seen, the expressions in Daniel 11:40-43 regarding this king do not agree with Antiochus Epiphanes, so also the statements regarding his end are in contradiction to the historical facts regarding the end of the Syrian king. When the hostile king took possession of Egypt and its treasures, and made the Lybians and Cushites subject to him, tidings from the east and the north overwhelm him with terror. The masc. יבהלהוּ stands ad sensum related to the persons who occasion the reports. The reports excited his anger, so that he goes forth to destroy many. We have to think thus on the reports of revolt and insurrections in the east and the north of his kingdom, which came to his ears in Egypt. On this ground Hitzig, with other interpreters, refuses to refer the statement in Daniel 11:44 to the expedition of Antiochus against the Parthians and Armenians (Tacit. hist. Daniel 11:8, and App. Syr. c. 45, 46; 1 Macc. 3:37), because Antiochus did not undertake this expedition from Egypt; and rather, in regard to the east, thinks on the tidings from Jerusalem of the rebellion of Judea (2 Macc. 5:11ff.; 1 Macc. 1:24), and in regard to the north, on the very problematical expedition against the Aradiaei, without observing, however, that no Scripture writer designates Jerusalem as lying in the east of Egypt, But besides, Antiochus, since he has occupied for some years beyond the Euphrates, and there met with his death, could not shortly before his end lead an expedition out of Egypt against Aradus. What Porphyry says (Note: The words are: Pugnans contra Aegyptios et Lybias, Aethiopiasque pertransiens, audiet sibi ab aquilone et oriente praelia concitari, unde et regrediens capit Aradios resistentes et omnem in littore Phoenicis vastavit provinciam; confestimque pergit ad Artaxiam regem Armeniae, qui de orientis partibus movebatur .) (in Jerome under Daniel 11:44) regarding an expedition of Antiochus undertaken from Egypt and Lybia against the Aradiaei and the Armenian king Artaxias, he has gathered only from this verse and from notices regarding the wars of Antiochus against the Aradiaei and king Artaxias (after whose imprisonment, according to App. Syr. c. 46, he died), without having any historical evidence for it. But even though the statement of Porphyry were better established, yet it would not agree with Daniel 11:45; for when the king goes forth, in consequence of the report brought to him, to destroy many, he plants, according to Daniel 11:45, his palace-tent near to the holy mount, and here comes to his end; thus meeting with his destruction in the Holy Land not far from Jerusalem, while Antiochus, according to Polybius and Porphyry, died in the Persian city of Tabae on his return from Persia to Babylon. Daniel 11:45 נטע of planting a tent, only here instead of the usual word נטה , to spread out, to set up, probably with reference to the great palace-like tent of the oriental ruler, whose poles must be struck very deep into the earth. Cf. The description of the tent of Alexander the Great, which was erected after the oriental type, in Polyaen. Strateg. iv. 3. 24, and of the tent of Nadir-Schah in Rosenmüller, A. u. N. Morgl. iv. p. 364f. These tents were surrounded by a multitude of smaller tents for the guards and servants, a circumstance which explains the use of the plur. אהלי is incorrectly taken by Theodotion, Porphyry, Jerome, and others for a nomen propr., meaning in Syria, palace or tower. להר בּין = וּבּין בּין , Genesis 1:6; Joe 2:17, of a space between two other places or objects. צבי - קדשׁ-צב הר , the holy hill of the delight, i.e., of Palestine (cf. Daniel 8:9), is without doubt the mountain on which stood the temple of Jerusalem, as v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig, and Ewald acknowledge. The interpretation of the mountain of the temple of Anaïtis in Elymaïs (Dereser, Hävernick) needs no refutation. According to this, ימּים cannot designate the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea, as Kliefoth supposes, but it is only the poetic plur. of fulness, as a sign of the great Mediterranean Sea. Since now this scene where the great enemy of the people of God comes to his end, i.e., perishes, in no respect agrees with the place where Antiochus died, then according to Hitzig the pseudo-Daniel does not here accurately distinguish the separate expeditions from one another, and must have omitted between the first and the second half of the verse the interval between the return of Antiochus from Egypt and his death, because Antiochus never again trod the soil of Palestine. Such expedients condemn themselves. With “ he shall come to his end,” cf. Daniel 8:25, where the end of this enemy of God is described as a being “broken without the hand of man.” Here the expression “and none shall help him” is added to designate the hopelessness of his overthrow. The placing of the overthrow of this enemy with his host near the temple-mountain agrees with the other prophecies of the O.T., which place the decisive destruction of the hostile world-power by the appearance of the Lord for the consummation of His kingdom upon the mountains of Israel (Ezekiel 39:4), or in the valley of Jehoshaphat at Jerusalem, or at Jerusalem (Joe 3:2, Joe 3:12.; Zechariah 14:2), and confirms the result of our exposition, that the hostile king, the last enemy of the world-power, is the Antichrist. With this also the conclusion, Daniel 12:1-3, is in harmony. ההיא וּבעת points back to קץ בּעת (Daniel 11:4). At the time of the end, in which the hostile persecutor rises up to subdue the whole world, and sets up his camp in the Holy Land to destroy many in great anger and to strike them with the ban ( החרים , Daniel 11:44), i.e., totally to outroot them (Daniel 11:40-45), the great angel-prince Michael shall come forth and fight for the people of God against their oppressor. Regarding Michael, see under Daniel 10:13, p. 771. “Who stands over the sons of thy people,” i.e., stands near, protecting them (cf. for על עמד in the sense of coming to protect, Esther 8:11; Esther 9:16), describes Michael, who carries on his work as Israel's שׂר (Daniel 10:21). That Michael, fighting for Daniel's people, goes forth against the hostile king (Daniel 11:45), is, it is true, not said expressis verbis , but it lies in the context, especially in the עמך ימּלט ( they people shall be delivered) of the second half of the verse, as well as in the expressions regarding Michael, Daniel 10:13 and Daniel 10:21. But the people of God need such powerful help for their deliverance, because that time shall be one of oppression without any parallel. The description of this oppression seems to be based on Jeremiah 30:7 (C. B. Michaelis, Hengstenberg); but that which is there said is here heightened by the relative clause (cf. Joe 2:2), which enlarges the thought, Exodus 9:18, Exodus 9:24. This צרה עת ( time of distress) is the climax of the oppression which the hostile king shall bring upon Israel, and occurs at the same time as the expiry of the last (the seventieth) week, Daniel 9:26. “The salvation of Israel , which is here thought of as brought about under the direction of Michael, coincides essentially with the description, Daniel 7:18, Daniel 7:25., 14, Daniel 9:24.” Thus Kranichfeld rightly remarks. He also rightly identifies the continued victorious deliverance of Israel from the oppression (Daniel 12:1) with the setting up of the Messianic kingdom, described in Daniel 7:2, Daniel 7:9, and finds in this verse (Daniel 12:1) the Messianic kingdom dissolving the world-kingdoms. With this the opposers of the genuineness of the book of Daniel also agree, and deduce therefrom the conclusion, that the pseudo-Daniel expected, along with the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes, the appearance of the Messianic kingdom of glory. This conclusion would be indisputable if the premises from which it is drawn, that ההיא בּעת ( at that time) is the time of Antiochus, were well founded. All attempts of believing interpreters, who, with Porphyry, Grotius, Bleek, v. Lengerke, Hitzig, and others, find the death of Antiochus prophesied in Daniel 11:45, to dismiss this conclusion, appear on close inspection to be untenable. According to Hävernick, with ההיא וּבעת ( and at that time) a new period following that going before is introduced, and that ההיא בּעת means at some future time. The appearance of Michael for his people denotes the appearance of the Messiah; and the sufferings and oppressions connected with his appearance denote the sufferings which the people of Israel shall endure at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, but which shall be most fully realized only at the second coming of the Lord, Matthew 24:21-22. But this explanation is shattered against the ההיא בּעת , which never has the meaning “at some time,” i.e., in the further future, and is refuted by the following remark of Hitzig: - ”Not once,” says he, with good ground, “can the words ההוּא בּיּום be proved by such passages as 2 Kings 3:6; Isaiah 28:5; Genesis 39:11, to have the meaning of at that day; in ההיא בעת we may not by any means seek such a meaning, and the copula here puts a complete barrier in the way of such arbitrariness. Moreover, if the epoch of Antiochus Epiphanes was indeed a time of oppression, who could a reader then not refer this ההיא to the time of that king described in the foregoing chapter?” Finally, משׂכּילים , Daniel 12:3, refers back to the עם משׂכּילי who helped may to knowledge, and who lost their lives in the persecution (Daniel 11:33-34), and now are raised to eternal life. (Note: These arguments extend also to the overthrow of Ebrard's view, that the expression “to this time” refers to the time after Antiochus Epiphanes shall have died.) Hävernick, however, was right, in opposing those who refer Daniel 12:1 to the period of persecution under Antiochus, in arguing that the statement of the unheard-of greatness of the affliction is far too strong for such a period, and at the same time that the promise of the deliverance of those that shall be found written in the book does not accord with that Syrian oppression, although he is in error when he interprets the appearance of Michael of the first appearance of Christ. This interpretation receives no support either from Daniel 9:26 or from Matthew 24:21-22, because both passages treat of the coming of Christ in glory. But if the reference of this verse to the appearance of Christ in the flesh is inconsistent with the words, still more so is its reference to the period of Antiochus. Those interpreters who advance this view are under the necessity of violently separating Daniel 12:1 from Daniel 12:2, Daniel 12:3, which undoubtedly treat of the resurrection from the dead. According to Auberlen, who has rightly conceived that the משׂכּילים , Daniel 12:3, allude to the משׂכּילים , Daniel 11:33 and Daniel 11:34, the הרבּים מצדּיקי to the לרבּים יבינוּ , Daniel 11:33, Daniel 12:2, Daniel 12:3 do not intimate any progress in the development of the history, but by mentioning the resurrection only, are referred to the eternal retribution which awaits the Israelites according to their conduct during the time of great persecution under Antiochus, because, as C. B. Michaelis has said, ejus (i.e., of the resurrection) consideratio magnam vim habet ad confirmandum animum sub tribulationibus . As to the period between the time of trial and the resurrection, nothing whatever is said; for in Daniel 12:2, Daniel 12:3 every designation of time is wanting, while in Daniel 12:1 the expression “at this time” twice occurs. Thus Hengstenberg ( Christol. iii. 1, p. 6) has remarked, “Whether there be a longer or a shorter time between the tribulation of the Maccabean era and the resurrection, the consolation from the fact of the resurrection remains equally powerful. Therefore it is so connected with the deliverance from the persecution as if the one immediately followed the other.” But with this it is conceded that the resurrection from the dead is so associated with the deliverance of Israel from the tyranny of Antiochus as if it came immediately after it, as the opponents of the genuineness of the book affirm. But this interpretation is obviously a mere make-shift. These verses do not at all present the form of a parenetic reference to the retribution commencing with the resurrection. Daniel 12:2 is by the copula ו connected with Daniel 12:1, and thereby designates the continuance of the thought of the second half of Dan 12:1, i.e., the further representation of the deliverance of God's people, namely, of all those who are written in the book of life. Since many of the משׂכּילים who know their God (Daniel 11:33) lose their life in the persecution, so in the promise of deliverance a disclosure of the lot awaiting those who sealed with their blood their fidelity to God was not to be avoided, if the prophecy shall wholly gain its end, i.e., if the promise of the deliverance of all the pious shall afford to the people of God in the times of oppression strength and joy in their enduring fidelity to God. The appeal to the fact that Daniel 12:2, Daniel 12:3 contain no designation of time proves nothing at all, for this simple reason, that the verses connected by “and” are by this copula placed under Daniel 12:1, which contains a designation of time, and only further show how this deliverance shall ensue, namely thus, that a part of the people shall outlive the tribulation, but those who lose their lives in the persecution shall rise again from the dead. To this is to be added that the contents of Dan 12:1 do not agree with the period of persecution under Antiochus. That which is said regarding the greatness of the persecution is much too strong for it. The words, “There shall be a time of trouble such as never was מהיות , since there was a nation or nations,” designate it as such as never was before on the earth. Theodoret interprets thus: οἵαοὐγέγονεν, αφ̓οὐγεγένηταιεθνοςἐπὶτῆςγῆςἕωςτοῦκαιροῦἐκείνου . With reference to these words our Lord says: οἵαοὐγέγονενἀπ̓ἀρχῆςκόσμουἕωςτοῦνῦν, οὐδ̓οὐμὴγένηται , Matthew 24:21. Though the oppression which Antiochus brought upon Israel may have been most severe, yet it could not be said of it without exaggeration, that it was such a tribulation as never had been from the beginning of the world. Antiochus, it is true, sought to outroot Judaism root and branch, but Pharaoh also wished to do the same by his command to destroy all the Hebrew male children at their birth; and as Antiochus wished to make the worship of the Grecian Zeus, so also Jezebel the worship of the Phoenician Hercules, in the place of the worship of Jehovah, the national religion in Israel. Still less does the second hemistich of Dan 12:1 refer to the deliverance of the people from the power of Antiochus. Under the words, “every one that shall be found written in the book,” Hitzig remarks that they point back to Isaiah 4:3, and that the book is thus the book of life, and corrects the vain interpretation of v. Lengerke, that “to be written in the book” means in an earthly sense to live, to be appointed to life, by the more accurate explanation, “The book of life is thus the record of those who shall live, it is the list of the citizens of the Messianic kingdom (Phi 4:3), and in Isaiah contains the names of those who reach it living, in Daniel also of those who must first be raised from the dead for it.” Cf. regarding the book of life, under Exodus 32:32. Accordingly, ההיא בּעת extends into the Messianic time. This is so far acknowledged by Hofmann ( Weiss. u. Erf. i. p. 313, and Shcriftbew. 2:2, p. 697), in that he finds in Daniel 12:1, from “and there shall be a time,” and in Daniel 12:2, Daniel 12:3, the prophecy of the final close of the history of nations, the time of the great tribulation at the termination of the present course of the world, the complete salvation of Israel in it, and the resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. Since, however, Hofmann likewise refers the last verses of the preceding chapter to the time of Antiochus and his destruction, and can only refer the ההיא וּבעת at the beginning of Dan 12:1-13, from its close connection with the last words of Daniel 11, to the time which has hitherto been spoken of, so he supposes that in the first clause of the first verse of this chapter (Daniel 12:1-13) there cannot be a passing over to another time, but that this transition is first made by והיתה . This transition he seeks indeed, in the 2nd ed. of his Schriftbew. l.c., to cover by the remark: that we may not explain the words of the angel, וגו עת והיתה , as if they meant: that time shall be a time of trouble such as has not been till now; but much rather that they are to be translated: “and there shall arise a time of trouble such as never was to that time.” But this separation of the words in question from those going before by the translation of והיתה “and there shall arise,” is rendered impossible by the words following, ההיא העת עד ; for these so distinctly point back to the words with which the verse commences, that we may not empty them of their definite contents by the ambiguous “till that time.” If the angel says, There shall arise a time of oppression such as has never been since there were nations till that time when Michael shall appear for his people, or, as Hofmann translates it, shall “hold fast his place,” then to every unprejudiced reader it is clear that this tribulation such as has never been before shall arise not for the first time centuries after the appearance of Michael or of his “holding fast his place,” but in the time of the war of the angel-prince for the people of God. In this same time the angel further places the salvation of the people of Daniel and the resurrection of the dead. (Note: Hofmann's explanation of the words would only be valid if the definition of time ההיא העת אחרי stood after והיתה in the text, which Hofm. in his most recent attempts at its exposition has interpolated inadvertently, while in his earlier exposition ( Weiss. u. Erf. i. p. 314) he has openly said: “These last things connect themselves with the prospect of the end of that oppressor of Israel, not otherwise than as when Isaiah spoke of the approaching assault of the Assyrians on Jerusalem as of the last affliction of the city, or as in Jeremiah the end of those seventy years is also the end of all the sufferings of his people. There remains therefore a want of clearness in this prospect,” etc. This want of clearness he has, in his most recent exposition in the Schriftbew., not set aside, but increased, by the supposition of an immediate transition from the time of Antiochus to the time of the end.) The failure of all attempts to gain a space of time between Daniel 11:45 and Daniel 12:1, Daniel 12:2 incontrovertibly shows that the assertions of those who dispute the genuineness of the book, that the pseudo-Daniel expected along with the death of Antiochus the commencement of the Messianic kingdom and of the resurrection of the dead, would have a foundation if the last verses of Daniel 11 treated of the last undertakings of this Syrian king against the theocracy. This if, it has, however, been seen from Daniel 11, is not established. In Daniel 11:40-45 the statements do not refer to Antiochus, but to the time of the end, of the last enemy of the holy God, and of his destruction. With that is connected, without any intervening space, in Daniel 12:1 the description of the last oppression of the people of God and their salvation to everlasting life. The prophecy of that unheard-of great tribulation Christ has in Matthew 24:21 referred, wholly in the sense of the prophetic announcement, to the yet future θλῖψιςμεγάλη which shall precede the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven to judge the world and to bring to a consummation the kingdom of God. That this tribulation shall come only upon Israel, the people of God, is not said; the גּוי מהיות refers much more to a tribulation that shall come upon the whole of humanity. In it shall the angel-prince Michael help the people of Daniel, i.e., the people of God. That he shall destroy the hostile king, the Antichrist, is not said. His influence extends only to the assistance which he shall render to the people of God for their salvation, so that all who are written in the book of life shall be saved. Christ, in His eschatological discourse, Matthew 24, does not make mention of this assistance, but only says that for the elect's sake the days of the oppression shall be shortened, otherwise that no one would be saved ( ἐσώθη , Matthew 24:22). Wherein the help of Michael consists, is seen partly from that which is said in Daniel 10:13 and Daniel 10:21 regarding him, that he helped the Angel of the Lord in the war against the hostile spirit of the Persian and the Javanic world-kingdom, partly from the war of Michael against the dragon described in Revelation 12:7. From these indications it is clear that we may not limit the help on the part of Michael to the help which he renders to the saints of God in the last war and struggle, but that he stands by them in all wars against the world-power and its princes, and helps them to victory. But the salvation which the people of God shall experience in the time of the unparalleled great oppression is essentially different from the help which was imparted to the people of Israel in the time of the Maccabees. This is called “a little help,” Daniel 11:34. So also is the oppression of Israel in the time of the Maccabees different from the oppression in the end of the time, as to its object and consequences. The former oppression shall, according to Daniel 11:33-35, serve to purify the people and to make them white to the time of the end; the oppression at the time of the end, on the contrary, according to Daniel 12:1-3, shall effect the salvation of the people, i.e., prepare the people for the everlasting life, and bring about the separation of the righteous from the wicked for eternity. These clearly stated distinctions confirm the result already reached, that Daniel 12:1-3 do not treat of the time of Antiochus and the Maccabees. The promised salvation of the people is more particularly defined by the addition to עמך : “every one who shall be found written in the book,” sc. of life (see above, p. 813); thus every one whom God has ordained to life, all the genuine members of the people of God. נמלט , shall be saved, sc. out of the tribulation, so that they do not perish therein. But since, according to Daniel 11:33., in the oppression, which passes over the people of God for their purification, many shall lose their lives, and this also shall be the case in the last and severest oppression, the angel gives to the prophet, in Daniel 12:2, disclosures also regarding the dead, namely, that they shall awaken out of the sleep of death. By the connection of this verse with the preceding by , ו without any further designation of time, the resurrection of the dead is placed as synchronous with the deliverance of the people. “For that the two clauses, 'thy people shall be delivered' (Daniel 12:1), and 'many shall awake,' not only reciprocally complete each other, but also denote contemporaneous facts, we only deny by first denying that the former declares the final salvation of Israel” (Hofm. Schriftbew. ii. 2, p. 598). ישׁן , sleeping, is here used, as in Job 3:13; Jeremiah 51:39, of death; cf. καθεύδειν , Matthew 9:24; 1 Thessalonians 5:10, and κοιμᾶσθαι , 1 Thessalonians 4:14. אדמת־עפר , occurring only here, formed after Genesis 3:19, means not the dust of the earth, but dusty earth, terra pulveris , denoting the grave, as עפר , Psalms 22:30. It appears surprising that רבּים , many, shall awake, since according to the sequel, where the rising of some to life and of some to shame is spoken of, much rather the word all might have been expected. This difficulty is not removed by the remark that many stands for all, because רבּים does not mean all. Concerning the opinion that many stands for all, Hofmann remarks, that the expression “sleeping in the dust of earth” is not connected with the word many , but with the verb “shall awake” : “of them there shall be many, of whom those who sleep in the earth shall arise” (Hofm.). So also C. B. Michaelis interprets the words by reference to the Masoretic accentuation, which has separated רבּים from מיּשׁני ( sleeping), only that he takes מן in the sense of stating the terminus mutationis a quo . But by this very artificial interpretation nothing at all is gained; for the thought still remains the same, that of those who sleep in the dust many (not all) awake. The partitive interpretation of מן is the only simple and natural one, and therefore with most interpreters we prefer it. The רבּים can only be rightly interpreted from the context. The angel has it not in view to give a general statement regarding the resurrection of the dead, but only disclosures on this point, that the final salvation of the people shall not be limited to those still living at the end of the great tribulation, but shall include also those who have lost their lives during the period of the tribulation. In Daniel 11:33, Daniel 11:35, the angel had already said, that of “those that understand” many shall fall by the sword and by flame, etc. When the tribulation at the time of the end increases to an unparalleled extent (Daniel 12:1), a yet greater number shall perish, so that when salvation comes, only a remnant of the people shall be then in life. To this surviving remnant of the people salvation is promised; but the promise is limited yet further by the addition: “every one that is found written in the book;” not all that are then living, but only those whose names are recorded in the book of life shall be partakers of the deliverance, i.e., of the Messianic salvation. But many of those that sleep, who died in the time of tribulation, shall awake out of sleep, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame. As with the living, so also with the dead, not all attain to salvation. Also among those that arise there shall be a distinction, in which the reward of the faithful and of the unfaithful shall be made known. The word “many” is accordingly used only with reference to the small number of those who shall then be living, and not with reference either to the universality of the resurrection of the dead or to a portion only of the dead, but merely to add to the multitude of the dead, who shall then have part with the living, the small number of those who shall experience in the flesh the conclusion of the matter. If we consider this course of thought, then we shall find it necessary neither to obtrude upon רבּים the meaning of all, - a meaning which it has not and cannot have, for the universality of the resurrection is removed by the particle מן , which makes it impossible that , οἱπολλοί = πάντες ; for this conclusion can only be drawn from the misapprehension of the course of thought here presented, that this verse contains a general statement of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, an idea which is foreign to the connection. From the correct interpretation of the course of thought arises the correct answer to the controverted question, whether here we are taught concerning the resurrection of the people of Israel, or concerning the resurrection of mankind generally. Neither the one nor the other of these things is taught here. The prophetic words treat of the people of Daniel, by which we are to understand the people of Israel. But the Israel of the time of the end consists not merely of Jews or of Jewish Christians, but embraces all peoples who belong to God's kingdom of the New Covenant founded by Christ. In this respect the resurrection of all is here implicite intimated, and Christ has explicitly set forth the thoughts lying implicite in this verse; for in John 5:28. He teaches the awakening from sleep of all the dead, and speaks, with unmistakeable reference to this passage before us, of an ἀνάστασιςζωῆς and an ἀνάστασιςκρίσεως . For in the O.T. our verse is the only passage in which, along with the resurrection to everlasting life, there is mention also made of the resurrection to everlasting shame, or the resurrection of the righteous and of the wicked. The conception of עולם , חיּי ζωὴαἰώνιος , meets us here for the first time in the O.T. חיּים denotes, it is true, frequently the true life with God, the blessed life in communion with God, which exists after this life; but the addition עולם does not generally occur, and is here introduced to denote, as corresponding to the eternal duration of the Messianic kingdom (Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:14, Daniel 7:27, cf. Daniel 9:24), the life of the righteous in this kingdom as imperishable. עולם לדראון לחרפות forms the contrast to עולם לחיּי ; for first חרפות , shame (a plur. of intensive fulness), is placed over against the חיּי , then this shame is designated in reference to Isaiah 66:24 as דּראון , contempt, an object of aversion. Daniel 12:3 Then shall they who in the times of tribulation have led many to the knowledge of salvation receive the glorious reward of their faithfulness. With this thought the angel closes the announcement of the future. המשׂכּילים refers back to Daniel 11:33-35, and is here, as there, not limited to the teachers, but denotes the intelligent who, by instructing their contemporaries by means of word and deed, have awakened them to stedfastness and fidelity to their confession in the times of tribulation and have strengthened their faith, and some of whom have in war sealed their testimony with their blood. These shall shine in eternal life with heavenly splendour. The splendour of the vault of heaven (cf. Exodus 24:10) is a figure of the glory which Christ designates as a light like the sun (“The righteous shall shine forth as the sun,” Matthew 13:43, referring to the passage before us). Cf. for this figure also Revelation 2:28 and 1 Corinthians 15:40. By the expression הרבּים מצדּיקי Kranichfeld would understand such as take away the sins of the people in the offering up of sacrifice, i.e., the priests who attend to the offering of the sacrifices, because the expression is borrowed from Isaiah 53:11, “where it is predicated of the Messianic priest κατ̓ἐξοχὴν , in the fullest sense of the word, what is said here of the common priests.” But this interpretation is not satisfactory. In Isaiah 53:11 the Servant of Jehovah justifies many, not by the sacrifice, but by His righteousness, by this, that He, as צדּיק who has done no sin, takes upon Himself the sins of the people and gives His soul an offering for sin. הצּדּיק is neither in the law of sacrifices nor anywhere in the O.T. named as the effect of the sacrifice, but always only עון שׂאת ( to take up, take away iniquity) and כּפּר , and in the expiatory sacrifices with the constant addition לו (Leviticus 4:26, Leviticus 4:31, Leviticus 4:35; Leviticus 5:10, Leviticus 5:16; Psalms 32:1. Nor is the practice of offering sacrifice anywhere described as a הצּדּיק . This word signifies to assist in obtaining, or to lead to, righteousness, and is here to be read in this general interpretation, and not to be identified with the Pauline δικαιοῦσθαι . The מצדּיקים are those who by their צדקה , i.e., by their fidelity to the law, led others to צדקה , showed them by their example and teaching the way to righteousness. The salvation of the people, which the end shall bring in, consists accordingly in the consummation of the people of God by the resurrection of the dead and the judgment dividing the pious from the godless, according to which the pious shall be raised to eternal life, and the godless shall be given up to everlasting shame and contempt. But the leaders of the people who, amid the wars and conflicts of this life, have turned many to righteousness, shall shine in the imperishable glory of heaven. The Close of the Revelation of God and of the Book As the revelation in Daniel 8 closes with the direction, “Wherefore shut thou up the vision” (Daniel 8:26), so this before us closes with the command (Daniel 12:4), “But thou Daniel shut up these words;” and as in the former case החזון denotes the vision interpreted to him by the angel, so here הדּברים can only be the announcements of the angel, Daniel 11:2-12:3, along with the preceding appearance, Daniel 10:2-11:1, thus only the revelation designated as דּבר , Daniel 10:1. Accordingly, also, סתן is obviously to be interpreted in the meaning illustrated and defended under Daniel 8:25, to shut up in the sense of guarding; and thus also חתם , to seal. Thus all the objections against this command are set aside which Hitzig has derived from the sealing, which he understands of the sealing up of the book, so that he may thereby cast doubt on the genuineness of the book. It is disputed whether הספר is only the last revelation, Daniel 10-12 (Hävernick, v. Leng., Maurer, Kran.), or the whole book (Bertholdt, Hitzig, Auberlen, Kliefoth). That ספר might designate a short connected portion, a single prophecy, is placed beyond a doubt by Nahum 1:1; Jeremiah 51:63. The parallelism of the members of the passage also appears to favour the opinion that הספר stands in the same meaning as הדּברים . But this appearance amounts to a valid argument only under the supposition that the last revelation stands unconnected with the revelations going before. But since this is not the case, much rather the revelation of these chapters is not only in point of time the last which Daniel received, but also forms the essential conclusion of all earlier revelations, then the expression used of the sealing of this last revelation refers plainly to the sealing of the whole book. This supposition is unopposed. That the writing down of the prophecy is not commanded to Daniel, cannot be objected against. As this is here and in Daniel 8:26 presupposed as a matter of course, for the receiving of a revelation without committing it to writing is not practicable, so we may without hesitation suppose that Daniel wrote down all the earlier visions and revelations as soon as he received them, so that with the writing down of the last of them the whole book was completed. For these reasons we understand by הספר the whole book. For, as Kliefoth rightly remarks, the angel will close, Daniel 12:4, the last revelation, and along with it the whole prophetical work of Daniel, and dismiss him from his prophetical office, as he afterwards, Daniel 12:13, does, after he has given him, Daniel 12:5-12, disclosures regarding the periods of these wonderful things that were announced. He must seal the book, i.e., guard it securely from disfigurement, “till the time of the end,” because its contents stretch out to the time of the end. Cf. Daniel 8:26, where the reason for the sealing is stated in the words, “for yet it shall be for many days.” Instead of such a statement as that, the time of the end is here briefly named as the terminus , down to which the revelation reaches, in harmony with the contents of Daniel 11:40-12:3, which comprehend the events of the time of the end. The two clauses of Dan 12:4 are differently explained. The interpretation of J. D. Michaelis, “Many shall indeed go astray, but on the other side also the knowledge shall be great,” is verbally just as untenable as that of Hävernick, “Many shall wander about, i.e., in the consciousness of their misery, strive after salvation, knowledge.” For שׁוּט signifies neither to go astray nor to wander about, but only to go to and fro, to pass through a land, in order to seek out or search, to go about spying (Zechariah 4:10, of the eyes of God; Ezekiel 27:8, Ezekiel 27:26, to row). From these renderings there arises for this passage before us the meaning, to search through, to examine, a book; not merely to “read industriously” (Hitzig, Ewald), but thoroughly to search into it (Gesenius). The words do not supply the reason for the command to seal, but they state the object of the sealing, and are not (with many interpreters) to be referred merely to the time of the end, that then for the first time many shall search therein and find great knowledge. This limiting of their import is connected with the inaccurate interpretation of the sealing as a figure either of the incomprehensibility of the prophecy or of the secrecy of the writing, and is set aside with the correct interpretation of this figure. If Daniel, therefore, must only place the prophecy securely that it may continue to the time of the end, the sealing thus does not exclude the use of it in transcriptions, then there exists no reason for thinking that the searching into it will take place only for the first time in the end. The words וגו רבּים ישׁטטוּ are not connected with the preceding by any particle or definition of time, whereby they should be limited to קץ עת . To this is to be added, that this revelation, according to the express explanation of the angel (Daniel 10:14), refers to all that shall be experienced by the people of Daniel from the time of Cyrus to the time of the end. If, then, it must remain sealed or not understood till the time of the end, it must have lain unused and useless for centuries, while it was given for the very purpose of reflecting light on the ways of God for the pious in all times, and of imparting consolation amid their tribulations to those who continued stedfast in their fidelity. In order to serve these purposes it must be accessible at all times, so that they might be able to search into it, to judge events by it and to strengthen their faith. Kliefoth therefore is right in his thus interpreting the whole passage: “Daniel must place in security the prophecies he has received until the time of the end, so that through all times many men may be able to read them and gain understanding (better: obtain knowledge) from them.” הדּעת is the knowledge of the ways of the Lord with His people, which confirms them in their fidelity towards God. With Daniel 12:4 the revelation might have concluded, as that in Daniel ends with the direction to shut up the vision. But then a disclosure regarding the times of the events prophesied of, which Daniel might have expected according to the analogy of the visions in Daniel 8 and 9, would have been wanting. This disclosure is given to him in Daniel 12:5-12, and that in a very solemn, impressive way. The appearance which hitherto he has seen is changed. He sees two other angels standing on the banks of the river, the one on this side and the other on that side. והנּה ... וראיתי ( then I looked, and lo) does not, it is true, indicate a new vision so much as a new scene in the vision, which still continued. The words אהרים שׁנים , two others, sc. heavenly beings or angels (without the article), show that they now for the first time became visible, and were different from the one who was hitherto seen by him and had spoken with him. Therefore the supposition that the one of these two angels was Gabriel, who had communicated to him the revelation, fails, even if, which is according to our exposition, not the case, the speaker in Daniel 11 and Daniel 12:1-13 were this angel. Besides these two now first seen by Daniel, he who was “clothed in linen” is named as standing above the waters of the river; but when we take into view the whole scene, he is by no means to be regarded as now for the first time coming into view. The use of the article , and the clothing that characterized him, point him out as the person spoken of in Daniel 10:5. Hence our view developed in p. 768 is confirmed, viz., that previously the man clothed in linen was visible to Daniel alone, and announced to him the future. He also in the sequel alone speaks with Daniel. One of the other two makes inquiry regarding the end of the wonderful things, so as to give occasion to him (as in Daniel 8:13 and Daniel 8:14) to furnish an answer. With this the question presses itself upon us, For what purpose do the two angels appear, since only one of them speaks - the other neither does anything nor speaks? Leaving out of view the opinion of Jerome, Grotius, Stäudlin, and Ewald, that the two angels were the guardian spirits of Persia and Greece, and other conceits, such e.g., as that they represent the law and the prophets (after a gloss in the Cod. Chis.), which Geier has rejected as figmenta hominum textus auctoritate destituta , we confine ourselves to a consideration of the views of Hitzig and Kliefoth. Hitzig thinks that the two angels appear as witnesses of the oath, and that for that reason there are two; cf. Deuteronomy 19:15 with Deuteronomy 31:28. But these passage do not prove that for the ratification of an oath witnesses are necessary. The testimony of two or three witnesses was necessary only for the attestation of an accusation laid before a judge. Add to this also that in Daniel 8:13. two angels appear along with him whose voice came from the Ulai (Daniel 8:16), without any oath being there given. It is true that there the two angels speak, but only the utterance of one of them is communicated. Hence the conjecture is natural, that here also both of the angels spake, the one calling to the other the question that was addressed to the Angel of the Lord hovering over the water, as Theodot. and Ephrem Syrus appear to have thought, and as Klief. regards as probable. In any case the appearance of the angels on the two banks of the river stands in actual connection with the hovering of the man clothed in linen above the waters of this river, in which the circumstance merits consideration that the river, according to Daniel 10:4 the Tigris, is here called יאר , as besides the Nile only is called in the O.T. The hovering above the stream can represent only the power or dominion over it. But Kliefoth is inclined to regard the river as an emblem of time flowing on to eternity; but there is no support in Scripture for such a representation. Besides, by this the appellation יאר is not taken into consideration, by which, without doubt, the river over which the Angel of the Lord hovers is designated as a Nile; i.e., it is indicated that as the Angel of the Lord once smote the waters of the Nile to ransom his people out of Egypt, so in the future shall he calm and suppress the waves of the river which in Daniel's time represented the might of the world-kingdom. (Note: C. B. Michaelis has similarly interpreted the standing (or hovering) over the waters of the river as symbolum potestatis atque dominii supremi, quo non solum terram continentem et aridam, sed etiam aquas pedibus quasi suis subjectas habet, et ea quae aquarum instar tumultuantur, videlicet gentes, adversus ecclesiam Dei insurgentes atque frementes, compescere et coercere potest . Only he has not in this regard to the name יאר .) The river Hiddekel (Tigris) was thus a figure of the Persian world-power, through whose territory it flowed (cf. for this prophetic type, Isaiah 8:6-7; Psalms 124:3-4), and the designation of the river as יאר , Nile, contains an allusion to the deliverance of Israel from the power of Egypt, which in its essence shall be repeated in the future. Two other angels stand as servants by the side of the Angel of the Lord, the ruler over the Hiddekel, prepared to execute his will. Thus interpreted, all the features of the vision gain an interpretation corresponding with the contents of the prophecy. But the significance of the whole scene, which presents itself to the prophet after he received the announcement, at the same time shows that the Daniel 12:5-12 form no mere supplementary communication, which is given to Daniel before he is wholly dismissed for his prophetical office, regarding the question that lay upon his heart as to the duration of the severe tribulation that was announced, but that this disclosure constitutes an integral part of the foregoing revelation, and is placed at the end of the angel's message only because a change of scene was necessary for the giving prominence to the import of this disclosure. Thus, to give the prophet the firm certainty that the oppression of his people spoken of, on the part of the ungodly world-rulers, when it has gained its end, viz., The purification of the people, shall bring about, along with the destruction of the enemy of the last time, the salvation of those who are truly the people of God in their advancement to eternal life in glory, the Angel of the Lord standing above the waters of the river presents himself to view as the guide and ruler of the affairs of the nations, and announces with a solemn oath the duration and the end of the time of tribulation. This announcement is introduced by the question of the angel standing by the river: “Till when the end, i.e., how long continues the end, of these wonderful things?” not: “When shall the end of these things be?” (Kran.) הפּלאות are, according to the context, the extraordinary things which the prophecy had declared, particularly the unheard-of oppressions described in Daniel 11:30.; cf. with פּלאות the synonym נפּלאות , Daniel 11:36 and Daniel 8:24. But the question is not: “How long shall all these פּלאות themselves continue?” but: “How long shall הפּלאות קץ , the end of these wonderful things, continue?” The end of these things is the time of the end prophesied of from Daniel 11:40 to Daniel 12:3, with all that shall happen in it. To this the man clothed with linen answers with a solemn oath for the confirmation of his statement. The lifting up of his hands to heaven indicates the solemnity of the oath. Commonly he who swears lifts up only one hand; cf. Deuteronomy 32:40; Ezekiel 20:5, and the remark under Exodus 6:8; but here with greater solemnity both hands are lifted up, and he swears העולם בּחי , by Him that liveth for ever. This predicate of God, which we have already heard from the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 4:31, here points back to Deuteronomy 32:40, where God swears, “I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever,” and is quoted from this verse before us in Revelation 10:6, and there further expanded. This solemn form of swearing shows that the question and answer must refer not to the duration of the period of the persecution under Antiochus, but to that under the last enemy, the Antichrist. The definition of time given in the answer leads us also to this conclusion: a time, two times, and half a time; which accurately agrees with the period of time named in Daniel 7:25 as that of the duration of the actions of the enemy of God who would arise out of the fourth world-kingdom. The כּי serves, as ὅτι frequently, only for the introducing of the statement or the answer. ל before מועד does not signify till (= עד , Daniel 7:25), but to or upon, at. In both of the clauses of the answer, “space of time and point of time, duration and final end, are connected, and this relation is indicated by an interchange of the prepos. ל and כ ” (Hitzig). In וגו למועד ( for a time, etc.) is given the space of time on or over which the פּלאות קץ ( the end of these wonders) stretches itself, and in the following clause, וגו וּככלּות ( and when he shall have accomplished, etc.), the point of time in which the wonderful things reach their end. Thus the two expressions of the oath are related to one another. In the second clause יד נפּץ are differently expounded. Ancient and very wide-spread is the exposition of נפּץ by to scatter. Theodotion has translated the words thus: ἐντῷσυντελεσθῆναιδιασκορπισμόν ; and Jerome (Vulg.): cum completa fuerit dispersio manus populi sancti . Hävernick, v. Lengerke, Gesenius, de Wette, Hitzig: when at the end of the dispersion of a portion of the holy people, which Häv., v. Leng., and others understand of the dispersion of Israel into the different countries of the world, which dispersion shall be brought to an end, according to the prophetic view, at the time of the Messianic final victory; Joe 3:5. (Daniel 2:32.); Amos 9:11. Hitzig, however, refers this to the circumstance that Simon and Judas Maccabaeus brought back their people to Judea who were living scattered among the heathen in Galilee and Gilead (1 Macc. 5:23, 45, 53, 54). But against such an interpretation of the word נפּץ , Hofmann ( Weiss. u. Erf. i. p. 314) has with justice replied, that the reference to the reunion of Israel, which is nowhere else presented in Daniel, would enter very unexpectedly into this connection, besides that נפּץ does not agree with its object יד , though we should translate this by “might,” or altogether improperly by “part.” יד has not the meaning “part,” which is attributed to it only on the ground of an incorrect interpretation of certain passages. נפּץ signifies to beat to pieces, to shatter; cf. Psalms 2:9; Psalms 137:9, and in the Pu. Isaiah 27:9. This is the primary meaning of the word, from which is attempted to be derived the meaning, to burst asunder, to scatter. This primary meaning of the word, however, Hengstenberg, Maurer, Auberlen, Kranichfeld, Kliefoth, and Ewald have rightly maintained in this place. Only we may not, with them, translate כּלּות by: to have an end, for then the answer would be tautological, since the breaking to pieces of the might of the people is identical with their scattering, but it has the meaning to make perfect, to accomplish, so that nothing more remains to be done. יד , hand, is the emblem of active power; the shattering of the hand is thus the complete destruction of power to work, the placing in a helpless and powerless condition, such as Moses has described in the words יד אזלת כּי ( for the hand is gone), Deuteronomy 32:36, and announced that when this state of things shall arise, then “the Lord shall judge His people, and repent Himself for His servants.” With this harmonizes the conclusion of the oath: then all these things shall be finished, or shall complete themselves. כּל־אלּה ( all these things) are the פּלאות , Daniel 12:6. To these “wonderful things” belong not merely the crushing of the holy people in the tribulation such as never was before, but also their deliverance by the coming of the angel-prince Michael, the resurrection of the dead, and the eternal separation of the righteous from the wicked (Daniel 12:1-3). This last designation of the period of time goes thus, beyond a doubt, to the end of all things, or to the consummation of the kingdom of God by the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment. With this also agrees with expression קדשׁ עם , which is not to be limited to the converted Jews. The circumstance that in Daniel's time the Israel according to the flesh constituted the “holy people,” does not necessitate our understanding this people when the people of God are spoken of in the time of the end, since then the faithful from among all nations shall be the holy people of God. But by the majority of modern interpreters the designation of time, three and a half times, is referred to the duration of the oppression of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes; whence Bleek, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, and others conclude that the Maccabean pseudo-Daniel placed together as synchronous the death of Antiochus and the beginning of the Messianic salvation. Hävernick finds in the answer two different designations of time, but has said nothing as to the relation they bear to each other; Hofmann ( Weiss. u. Erf. i. p. 314) finds an obscurity in this, that the end of all things is simply placed in connection with the end of the oppressor Antiochus (see under Daniel 12:1). But, thus Kliefoth rightly asks, on the contrary, “How is it only possible that the catastrophe of Antiochus, belonging to the middle of the times, and the time of the end lying in the distant future, are so comprehended in one clause in an answer to a question regarding a point of time? How as it possible that to the question, How long continues the end of the wonders? it could be answered: For three and a half years shall Antiochus carry on his work; and when it comes to an end in the breaking of the people, then all shall come to an end? Thus the last only would be an answer to the question, and the first an addition not appertaining to it. Or how were it possible that for the expression, 'all shall be ended,' two characteristics were given, one of which belonged to the time of Antiochus and the other to the time of the end?” And, we must further ask, are we necessitated by the statement to make such an unnatural supposition? Certainly not. The two clauses do not give two different definitions of time, i.e., refer to different periods of time, but only two definitions of one period of time, the first of which describes its course according to a symbolical measure of time, the second its termination according to an actual characteristic. None of these definitions of time has any reference to the oppression of the holy people by Antiochus, but the one as well as the other refers to the tribulation of the time of the end. The measure of time: time, times, and half a time, does not indeed correspond to the duration of the dominion of the little horn proceeding from the Javanic world-kingdom (spoken of in Daniel 8) = 2300 evening-mornings (Daniel 8:14), but literally agrees with that in Daniel 7:25, for the dominion of the hostile king, the Antichrist, rising out of the ten kingdoms of the fourth or last world-kingdom. יד נפּץ כּכלּות also refers to this enemy; for of him it is said, Daniel 7:21, Daniel 7:25, that he shall prevail against and destroy the saints of the Most High ( יבלּא , Daniel 7:25). The reference of both the statements in the oath to the history of the end, or the time of Antichrist, has therefore been recognised by Auberlen and Zündel, although the latter understands also, with Hofmann, Daniel 11:36-45 of the oppression of Israel by Antiochus. To the question, how long the end of the terrible things prophesied of in Daniel 11:40-12:1 shall continue, the Angel of the Lord hovering over the waters answered with a solemn oath: Three and a half times, which, according to the prophecy of Dan 7:25 and Daniel 9:26-27, are given for the fullest unfolding of the power of the last enemy of God till his destruction; and when in this time of unparalleled oppression the natural strength of the holy people shall be completely broken to piece, then shall these terrible things have reached their end. Regarding the definition of time, cf. The exposition under Daniel 7:25. Daniel heard his answer, but he understood it not. To שׁמעתּי , as to אבין לא , the object is wanting, because it can easily be supplied from the connection, namely, the meaning of the answer of the man clothed in linen. Grotius has incorrectly supplied quid futurum esset from the following question, in which he has also incorrectly rendered אלּה אחרית by post illiu triennii et temporis semestris spatium . Hävernick has also defined the object too narrowly, for he has referred the non-understanding merely to the mysterious number (a time, two times, etc.). It was, besides, not merely the double designation of time in Daniel 12:7 which first at the hour of his receiving it, but while it was yet unintelligible to the hearer, compelled Daniel, as Hitzig thinks, to put the further question. The whole answer in Daniel 12:7 is obscure. It gives no measure for the “times,” and thus no intelligible disclosure for the prophet regarding the duration of the end, and in the definition, that at the time of the deepest humiliaton of the people the end shall come, leaves wholly undefined when this shall actually take place. (Note: As to this latter circumstance L'Empereur remarks: Licet Daniel ex antecedentibus certo tempus finiendarum gravissimarum calamitatum cognoverit, tamen illum latuit, quo temporis articulo calamitas inceptura esset: quod ignorantiam quandam in tota prophetia peperit, cum a priori termino posterioris exacta scientia dependeret. Initium quidem variis circumstantiis definitum fuerat: sed quando circumstantiae futurae essent, antequam evenirent, ignorabatur .) Hence his desire for a more particular disclosure. The question, “what the end of these?” is very differently interpreted. Following the example of Grotius, Kliefoth takes אחרית in the sense of that which follows something which is either clearly seen from the connection or is expressly stated, and explains אלּה אחרית of that which follows or comes after this. But אלּה is not, with most interpreters, to be taken as identical with כּל־אלּה of Daniel 12:7; for since “this latter phrase includes all the things prophesied of down to the consummation, then would this question refer to what must come after the absolute consummation of all things, which would be meaningless.” Besides, the answer, Daniel 12:11, Daniel 12:12, which relates to the things of Antiochus, would not harmonize with such a question. Much more are we, with Auberlen (p. 75f.), to understand אלּה of the present things and circumstances, things then in progress at the time of Daniel and the going forth of the prophecy. In support of this interpretation Auberlen adds, “The angel with heavenly eye sees into the far distant end of all; the prophet, with human sympathies, regards the more immediate future of his people.” But however correct the remark, that אלּה is not identical with כּל־אלּה , this not identical with all this, there is no warrant for the conclusion drawn from it, that אלּה designates the present things and circumstances existing under Antiochus at the time of Daniel. אלּה must, by virtue of the connection in Daniel 12:7, Daniel 12:8, be understood of the same things and circumstances, and a distinction between the two is established only by כּל . If we consider this distinction, then the question, What is the last of these things? contains not the meaningless thought, that yet something must follow after the absolute consummation, but the altogether reasonable thought, Which shall be the last of the פּלאות prophesied of? Thus Daniel could ask in the hope of receiving an answer from which he might learn the end of all these פּלאות more distinctly than from the answer given by the angel in Daniel 12:7. But as this reference of אלּה to the present things and circumstances is excluded by the connection, so also is the signification attributed to אחרית , of that which follows something, verbally inadmissible; see under Daniel 8:19. Most other interpreters have taken אחרית as synonymous with קץ , which Hävernick seeks to establish by a reference to Daniel 8:19, Daniel 8:23, and Deuteronomy 11:12. But none of these passage establishes this identity. קץ is always thus distinguished from אחרית , that it denotes a matter after its conclusion, while אחרית denotes the last or the uttermost of the matter. A distinction which, it is true, may in many cases become irrelevant. For if this distinction is not noticed here, we would be under the necessity, in order to maintain that the two questions in Daniel 12:6, Daniel 12:8 are not altogether identical, of giving to מה the meaning qualis (Maurer), of what nature (Hofmann, v. Lengerke, and others); a meaning which it has not, and which does not accord with the literal idea of אחרית . “Not how? but what? is the question; מה is not the predicate, but the subject, the thing inquired about.” Thus Hitzig, who is altogether correct in thus stating the question: “What, i.e., which even its the uttermost, the last of the פּלאות , which stands before the end?” The answer, לך , go thy way, Daniel, is quieting, and at the same time it contains a refusal to answer; yet it is not wholly a refusal, as is clear from Daniel 12:11, Daniel 12:12. The disclosure regarding the end which is given to him in these verses shows distinctly that the end of the things is not so revealed as that men shall be able to know it beforehand with certainty. (Note: On this Calvin has well remarked: Quamvis Daniel non stulta curiositate inductus quaesierit ex angelo de fine mirabilium, tamen non obtinet, quod petebat, quia scilicet voluit Deus ad modum aliquem intelligi quae praedixerat, sed tamen aliquid manere occultum usque dum veniret maturum plenae revelationis tempus. Haec igitur ratio est, cur angelus non exaudiat Danielem. Pium quidem erat ejus votum (neque enim optat quicquam scire plus quam jus esset), verum Deus scit quod opus sit, ideo non concessit quod optabat .) לך signifies neither go hence, i.e., depart, die (Bertholdt, Hävernick), nor go away, instead of standing waiting for an answer (Hitzig), for the angel does give him an answer; but as the formula dimittentis ut excitantis ad animi tranquillitatem (C. B. Michaelis), it has the meaning: vade Daniel, h. e. mitte hanc praesentem tuam curam . “Be at peace, leave this matter alone” (Geier and others, and similarly v. Lengerke, Kranichfeld, Kliefoth). The clause assigning the reason for the command כּי ( for the words are shut up, etc.), is chiefly interpreted as referring the closing and sealing up to the incomprehensibility of the prophecy. Thus e.g., Ewald explains it: “For hidden and sealed up are the words, all the things contained in these prophecies, till the time of the end; then shall they be easily unsealed and deciphered.” But since, according to Daniel 12:4, Daniel himself must shut up and seal the book, the participles in the clause, assigning the reason for the command לך , cannot have the meaning of the perfect, but only state what is or shall be done: shut up - they shall be (remain) till the time of the end; thus they only denote the shutting up and sealing which must be accomplished by Daniel. But Daniel could not make the prophecy unintelligible, since (Daniel 12:8) he himself did not understand it; nor could he seal it up till the time of the end, since he did not live to see the end. The shutting up and sealing which was commanded to the prophet can therefore only consist in this, that the book should be preserved in security against any defacement of its contents, so that it might be capable of being read at all times down to the time of the end, and might be used by God's people for the strengthening of their faith; cf. Daniel 8:26. “Thus Daniel is calmed in regard to his not understanding it by the fact that this whole prophecy ( הדּברים as in Daniel 12:4) shall be guarded and placed in safety, and shall continue through all times down to the end” (Kliefoth). For the use of it in all times is supposed in Daniel 12:10. The first clause of this verse is interpreted from Daniel 11:35. The being purified is effected through tribulation and affliction, which the people shall endure to the end. The prophecy shall serve for the gaining of this object. It is true, indeed, that this perfection shall not be attained by all; they that are ungodly shall remain ungodly still, and therefore they do not come to the understanding of the words which all the wise shall gain. יבינוּ and יבינוּ לא stand in such distinct relation to the אבין לא ( I understood not), Daniel 12:8, that they must be taken in the same sense in both places, i.e., not to have insight in general, but by supplying הדּברים as the object from Daniel 12:8, to have understanding of the prophecy. This is denied of the wicked or the godless. Only the wise shall gain it. Thus the angel says to Daniel for the purpose of calming him regarding his non-understanding: - Calm thyself, Daniel, if thou dost not understand these words. The prophecy shall be preserved for all times to the end of the days. These times shall bring many tribulations, to purify thy people; and though by these afflictions all shall not be converted, but the wicked shall remain wicked still and shall not understand the prophecy, yet the wise shall be purified and made white by the afflictions, and the longer they are tried the better shall they learn to understand the prophecy. Thus, though thou thyself understandest it not, yet it shall be a source of great blessing to the people of God, and in all times, even unto the end, they shall have more and more an understanding of it. Thus has Kliefoth rightly presented the meaning of both verses, and in confirmation of this interpretation has referred to 1 Peter 1:10, 1 Peter 1:12, where, with reference to the passage before us (cf. Hengstenberg, Beitrag. i. p. 273f.), it is said that the prophets received the prophecies of the end not for themselves alone, but much rather for “ us,” for those who come after. The angel gives to the prophet yet one revelation more regarding the duration of the time of tribulation and its end, which should help him to understand the earlier answer. The words, “from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination of the desolation,” so distinctly point back to Daniel 11:31, that they must here be referred, as there, to the wickedness of Antiochus in his desecrating the sanctuary of the Lord. The circumstance that the שׁקּוּץ ( abomination) is here described as שׁמם and in Daniel 11:31 as משׁמם , indicates no material distinction. In Daniel 11:31, where the subject spoken of is the proceedings of the enemy of God causing desolation, the abomination is viewed as משׁמם , bringing desolation; here, with reference to the end of those proceedings, as שׁמם , brought to desolation; cf. under Daniel 9:27. All interpreters therefore have found in these two verses statements regarding the duration of the persecutions carried on by Antiochus Epiphanes, and have sought to compare them with the period of 2300 evening-mornings mentioned in Daniel 8:14, in order thus to reckon the duration of the time during which this enemy of God shall prosecute his wicked designs. But as the opinion is regarding the reckoning of the 2300 evening-mornings in Daniel 8:14 are very diverse from each other, so also are they here. First the interpretation of ולתת ( and set up) is disputed. Wieseler is decidedly wrong in thinking that it designates the terminsu ad quem to הוּסר מעת ( from the time shall be removed), as is generally acknowledged. Hitzig thinks that with ולתת the foregoing infin. הוּסר is continued, as Ecclesiastes 9:1; Jeremiah 17:10; Jeremiah 19:12, and therewith a second terminus a quo supposed. This, however, is only admissible if this second terminus stands in union with the first, and a second terminus ad quem also stands over against it as the parallel to the later terminus ad quem . Both here denote: the daily sacrifice shall be taken away forty-five days before the setting up of the βδέλυγμαἐρημώσεως , and by so much the date in Daniel 12:12 comes below that of Dan 12:11. According to this, both verses are to be understood thus: from the time of the taking away of the daily sacrifice as 1290 days, and from the time of the setting up of the abomination of desolation are 1335 days. But this interpretation is utterly destitute of support. In the first place, Hitzig has laid its foundation, that the setting up of the idol-abomination is separated from the cessation of the worship of Jehovah by forty-five days, only by a process of reasoning in a circle. In the second place, the המחכּה אשׁרי ( blessed is he that waiteth), Daniel 12:12, decidedly opposes the combining of the 1335 days with the setting up of the idol-abomination; and further, the grammatical interpretation of ולתת is not justified. The passages quoted in its favour are all of a different character; there a clause with definite time always goes before, on which the infinitive clause depends. Kranichfeld seeks therefore to take הוּסר also not as an infinitive, but as a relative asyndetical connection of the praeter. proph. to עת , by which, however, no better result is gained. For with the relative interpretation of הוּסר : the time, since it is taken away ... ולתת cannot so connect itself that this infinitive yet depends on עת . The clause beginning with ולתת cannot be otherwise interpreted than as a final clause dependent on וגו הוּסר מעת ; thus here and in Daniel 2:16, as in the passages quoted by Hitzig, in the sense: to set (to set up) the abomination, so that the placing of the abomination of desolation is viewed as the object of the taking away of the תּמיד ( daily sacrifice). From this grammatically correct interpretation of the two clauses it does not, however, follow that the setting up of the idol-abomination first followed later than the removal of the daily sacrifice, so that ולתת signified “to set up afterwards,” as Kliefoth seeks to interpret it for the purpose of facilitating the reckoning of the 1290 days. Both can be done at the same time, the one immediately after the other. A terminus ad quem is not named in both of the definitions. This appears from the words “blessed is he that waiteth ... .” By this it is said that after the 1335 days the time of tribulation shall be past. Since all interpreters rightly understand that the 1290 and the 1335 days have the same terminus a quo , and thus that the 1290 days are comprehended in the 1335, the latter period extending beyond the former by only forty-five days; then the oppression cannot properly last longer than 1290 days, if he who reaches to the 1335 days is to be regarded as blessed. With regard to the reckoning of these two periods of time, we have already shown that neither the one nor the other accords with the 2300 evening-mornings, and that there is no ground for reckoning those 2300 evening-mornings for the sake of these verses before us as 1150 days. Moreover, we have there already shown how the diversity of the two statements is explained from this, that in Daniel 8:14 a different terminus a quo is named from that in Daniel 12:11.; and besides have remarked, that according to 1 Macc. 1:54, 59, cf. with 4:52, the cessation of the Mosaic order of worship by sacrifice lasted for a period of only three years and ten days. Now if these three years and ten days are reckoned according to the sun-year at 365 days, or according to the moon-year at 354 days with the addition of an intercalary month, they amount to 1105 or 1102 days. The majority of modern interpreters identify, it is true, the 1290 days with the 3 1/2 times (= years), and these two statements agree so far, since 3 1/2 years make either 1279 or 1285 days. But the identifying of the two is not justified. In Daniel 12:11 the subject plainly is the taking away of the worship of Jehovah and the setting up of the worship of idols in its stead, for which the Maccabean times furnish an historical fulfilment; in Daniel 12:7,however, the angel speaks of a tribulation which extends so far that the strength of the holy people is altogether broken, which cannot be said of the oppression of Israel by Antiochus, since a stop was put to the conduct of this enemy by the courageous revolt of the Maccabees, and the power of valiant men put an end to the abomination of the desolation of the sanctuary. The oppression mentioned in Daniel 12:7 corresponds not only in fact, but also with respect to its duration, with the tribulation which the hostile king of the time of the end, who shall arise from the fourth world-kingdom, shall bring upon the holy people, since, as already remarked, the 3 1/2 times literally correspond with Daniel 7:25. But Daniel 12:11 and Daniel 12:12 treat of a different, namely, an earlier, period of oppression than Daniel 12:7, so the 1290 and the 1335 days are not reckoned after the 3 1/2 times (Daniel 12:11 and Daniel 7:35); and for the Maccabean period of tribulation there remain only the 2300 evening-mornings (Daniel 8:14) for comparison, if we count the evening-mornings, contrary to the usage of the words, as half-days, and so reduce them to 1150 days. But if herewith we take into consideration the historical evidence of the duration of the oppression under Antiochus, the 1290 days would agree with it only if we either fix the taking away of the legal worship from 185 to 188 days, i.e., six months and five or eight days, before the setting up of the idol-altar on Jehovah's altar of burnt-offering, or, if these two facta occurred simultaneously, extend the terminus ad quem by six months and five or eight days beyond the day of the re-consecration of the altar. For both suppositions historical evidence is wanting. The former is perhaps probable from 1 Macc. 4:45, cf. with v. 54; but, on the contrary, for the second, history furnishes no epoch-making event of such significance as that the cessation of the oppression could be defined by it. The majority of modern interpreters, in the reckoning of the 1290 and the 1335 days, proceed from Daniel 8:14, and with them Kliefoth holds, firstly, that the 2300 evening-mornings are 1150 days, the termination of which constitutes the epoch of the re-consecration of the temple, on the 25th of the month Kisleu of the year 148 of the Seleucidan aera (i.e., 164 b.c.); and secondly, he supposes that the terminus a quo of the 2300 evening-mornings (Daniel 8:14 and of the 1290 or 1335 days is the same, namely, the taking of Jerusalem by Apollonius (1 Macc. 1:29ff.), and the setting aside of the תּמיד which followed immediately after it was taken, about 140 days earlier than the setting up of the idol-altar. As the terminus ad quem of the 2300 evening-mornings the re-consecration of the temple is taken, with which the power of Antiochus over Israel was broken, and the beginning of the restoration made. No terminus ad quem is named in this passage before us, but perhaps it lies in the greater number of the days, as well as in this, that this passage speaks regarding the entire setting aside of the power of Antiochus-an evidence and a clear argument for this, that in Daniel 12:11, Daniel 12:12 a further terminus ad quem , reaching beyond the purification of the temple, is to be supposed. This terminus is the death of Antiochus. “It is true,” Kliefoth further argues, “we cannot establish it to a day and an hour, that between the putting away of the daily sacrifice and the death of Antiochus 1290 days intervened, since of both facta we do not know the date of the day. But this we know from the book of the Maccabees, that the consecration of the temple took place on the 25th day of the month Kisleu in the 148th year of the Seleucidan aera, and that Antiochus died in the 149th year; and if we now add the 140 days, the excess of 2300 above 1290 after the consecration of the temple, we certainly come into the year 149. The circumstance also, that in the whole connection of this chapter the tendency is constantly toward the end of Antiochus, the Antichrist, induces us to place the death of that persecutor as the terminus ad quem of the 1290 days. Consequently we shall not err if, with Bleek, Kirmss, Hitzig, Delitzsch, Hofmann, Auberlen, Zündel, we suppose, that as the purifying of the temple is the end of the 2300 evening-mornings, so the death of Antiochus is the end of the 1290 days. The end of the 1335 days, Daniel 12:12, must then be an event which lies forty-five days beyond the death of Antiochus, and which certainly attests the termination of the persecution under Antiochus and the commencement of better days, and which at least bears clear evidence of the introduction of a better time, and of a settled and secure state of things. We are not able to adduce proof of such a definite event which took place exactly fort-five days after the death of Antiochus, simply because we do not know the date of the death of Antiochus. The circumstances, however, of the times after the death of Antiochus furnish the possibility of such an event. The successor of Antiochus Epiphanes, Antiochus Eupator, certainly wrote to the Jews, after they had vanquished his host under Lysias, asking from them a peace; but the alienation between them continued nevertheless, and did not absolutely end till the victory over Nicanor, 2 Macc. 11-15. Hence there was opportunity enough for an event of the kind spoken of, though we may not be able, from the scantiness and the chronological uncertainty of the records of these times, to prove it positively.” Hereupon Kliefoth enters upon the conjectures advanced by Hitzig regarding the unknown joyful event, and finds that nothing important can be brought forward in opposition to this especially, that the termination of the 1335 days may be the point of time when the tidings of the death of Antiochus, who died in Babylonia, reached the Jews in Palestine, and occasioned their rejoicing, since it might easily require forty-five days to carry the tidings of that even to Jerusalem; and finally he throws out the question, whether on the whole the more extended period of 1335 days must have its termination in a single definite event, whether by the extension of the 1290 days by fort-five days the meaning may not be, that whoever lives beyond this period of 1290 days, i.e., the death of Antiochus, in patience and in fidelity to the truth, is to be esteemed blessed. “The forty-five days were then only added to express the living beyond that time, and the form of this expression was chosen for the purpose of continuing that contained in Daniel 12:11.” We cannot, however, concur in this view, because not only is its principal position without foundation, but also its contents are irreconcilable with historical facts. To change the 2300 evening-mornings into 1150 days cannot be exegetically justified, because according to the Hebrew mode of computation evening and morning do not constitute a half but a whole day. But if the 2300 evening-mornings are to be reckoned as so many days, then neither their terminus a quo nor their terminus ad quem stands in a definite relation to the 1290 days, from which a conclusion may be drawn regarding the terminus ad quem of the latter. Then the death of Antiochus Epiphanes does not furnish a turning-point for the commencement of a better time. According to 1 Macc. 6:18-54, the war against the Jews was carried on by his successor Eupator more violently than before. And on the news that Philippus, returning from Persia, sought to deprive him of the government, Lysias advised the king to make peace with the Jews, and to promise to them that they would be permitted to live according to their own laws. On this the Jews opened the citadel of Zion; but the king, after he had entered into it, violated his oath, and ordered its walls to be demolished. It was not till two years after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes that Judas gained a decisive victory over Nicanor, which was celebrated by the Jews by a joyful festival, which they resolved to keep every year in memory of that victory (1 Macc. 7:26-50). In these circumstances it is wholly impossible to suppose an event forty-five days after the death of Antiochus which could clearly be regarded as the beginning of a better time, and of a settled and secure state of things, or to regard the reception in Palestine of the news of the death of Antiochus as an event so joyful, that they were to be esteemed as blessed who should live to hear the tidings. After all, we must oppose the opinion that the 1290 and the 1335 days are to be regarded as historical and to be reckoned chronologically, ad we are decidedly of opinion that these numbers are to be interpreted symbolically, notwithstanding that days as a measure of time are named. This much seems to be certain, that the 1290 days denote in general the period of Israel's sorest affliction on the part of Antiochus Epiphanes by the taking away of the Mosaic ordinance of worship and the setting up of the worship of idols, but without giving a statement of the duration of this oppression which can be chronologically reckoned. By the naming of “days” instead of “times” the idea of an immeasurable duration of the tribulation is set aside, and the time of it is limited to a period of moderate duration which is exactly measured out by God. But this is more strictly represented by the second definition, by which it is increased by 45 days: 1335 days, with the expiry of which the oppression shall so wholly cease, that every one shall be blessed who lives till these days come. For 45 days have the same relation to 1290 that 1 1/2 have to 43, and thus designate a proportionally very brief time. But as to this relation, the two numbers themselves show nothing. If we reduce them to the measure of time usual for the definition of longer periods, the 1290 days amount to 54 months, or 3 years and 7 months, and the 1335 days to 44 1/2 months, or 3 years and 8 1/2 months, since generally, and still more in symbolical definitions of time, the year is wont to be reckoned at 12 months, and the months at 30 days. Each of the two periods of time thus amounts to a little more than 3 1/2 years; the first exceeds by 1 month and the second by 2 1/2 months, only a little more than the half of 7 years - a period occurring several times in the O.T. as the period of divine judgments. By the reduction of the days to years and parts of a year the two expressions are placed in a distinct relation to the 3 1/2 times, which already appears natural by the connection of the two questions in Daniel 12:6, Daniel 12:8. On the one hand, by the circumstance that the 1290 days amount to somewhat more than 3 1/2 years, the idea that “times” stands for years is set aside; but on the other hand, by the use of “days” as a measure of time, the obscurity of the idea: time, times, and half a time, is lessened, and Daniel's inquiry as to the end of the terrible things is answered in a way which might help him to the understanding of the first answer, which was to him wholly unintelligible. Such an answer contains the two definitions of the time under the supposition that the hostile undertakings of Antiochus against Judaism, in their progress and their issue, form a type of the persecution of the last enemy Antichrist against the church of the Lord, or that the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the setting up of the idol-abomination by Antiochus Epiphanes shows in a figure how the Antichrist at the time of the end shall take away the worship of the true God, renounce the God of his fathers, and make war his god, and thereby bring affliction upon the church of God, of which the oppression which Antiochus brought upon the theocracy furnished a historical pattern. But this typical relation of the two periods of oppression is clearly set forth in Daniel 11:21-12:3, since in the conduct and proceedings of the hostile king two stadia are distinguished, which so correspond to each other in all essential points that the first, Daniel 11:21-35, is related to the second, Daniel 11:35-12:3, as the beginning and the first attempt is related to the complete accomplishment. This also appears in the wars of this king against the king of the south (Daniel 11:25-29, cf. with Daniel 11:40-43), and in the consequences which this war had for his relation to the people of God. On his return from the first victorious war against the south, he lifted up his heart against the holy covenant (Daniel 11:28), and being irritated by the failure of the renewed war against the south and against the holy covenant, he desolated the sanctuary (vv. 30, 31); finally, in the war at the time of the end, when Egypt and the lands fell wholly under his power, and when, alarmed by tidings from the east and the north, he thought to destroy many, he erected his palace - tent in the Holy Land, so that he might here aim a destructive blow against all his enemies - in this last assault he came to his end (Daniel 11:40-45). Yet more distinctly the typical relation shows itself in the description of the undertakings of the enemy of God against the holy covenant, and their consequences for the members of the covenant nation. In this respect the first stadium of his enmity against the God of Israel culminates in the taking away of His worship, and in the setting up of the abomination of desolation, i.e., the worship of idols, in the sanctuary of the Lord. Against this abomination the wise of the people of God raise themselves up, and they bring by their rising up “a little help,” and accomplish a purification of the people (Daniel 11:31-35). In the second stadium, i.e., at the time of the end, the hostile king raises himself against the God of gods, and above every god (Daniel 11:37), and brings upon the people of God an oppression such as has never been from the beginning of the world till now; but this oppression ends, by virtue of the help of the archangel Michael, with the deliverance of the people of God and the consummation by the resurrection of the dead, of some to everlasting life, and of some to everlasting shame (Daniel 12:1-3). If thus the angel of the Lord, after he said to Daniel that he might rest as to the non-understanding of his communication regarding the end of the wonderful things (Daniel 12:7), because the prophecy shall at the time of the end give to the wise knowledge for the purifying of many through the tribulation, so answers the question of Daniel as to the אלּה אחרית that he defines in symbolically significant numbers the duration of the sufferings from the removal of the worship of Jehovah to the commencement of better times, with which all oppression shall cease, then he gave therewith a measure of time, according to which all those who have understanding, who have lived through this time of oppression, or who have learned regarding it from history, may be able to measure the duration of the last tribulation and its end so far beforehand, as, according to the fatherly and wise counsel of God, it is permitted to us to know the times of the end and of our consummation. For, from the comparison of this passage with that in Daniel 8:14 regarding the duration of the crushing under feet of the holy people by the enemy rising from the Javanic world-kingdom, it is clear that as the 2300 evening-mornings do not contain a complete heptad of years, so the 1290 days contain only a little more than half a heptad. In this lies the comfort, that the severest time of oppression shall not endure much longer than half the time of the whole period of oppression. And if we compare with this the testimony of history regarding the persecution of the Old Covenant people under Antiochus, in consequence of which God permitted the suppression of His worship, and the substitution of idol-worship in its stead, for not fully 3 1/2 years, but only for 3 years and 10 days, then we are able to gather the assurance that He shall also shorten, for the sake of His elect, the 3 1/2 times of the last tribulation. We should rest here, that His grace is sufficient for us (2 Corinthians 12:9). For as God revealed to the prophets, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto us, the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow, that they might search and inquire what and what manner of time the Spirit of Christ who was in them did signify; so in the times of the accomplishment, we who are living are not exempted from searching and inquiring, but are led by the prophetic word to consider the signs of the times in the light of this word, and from that which is already fulfilled, as well as from the nature and manner of the fulfilment, to confirm our faith, for the endurance amid the tribulations which prophecy has made known to us, that God, according to His eternal gracious counsel, has measured them according to their beginning, middle, and end, that thereby we shall be purified and guarded for the eternal life. After these disclosures regarding the time of the end, the angel of the Lord dismisses the highly-favoured prophet from his life's work with the comforting assurance that he shall stand in his own lot in the end of the days. לקּץ לך evidently does not mean “go to the end, i.e., go thy way” (Hitzig), nor “go hence in relation to the end,” as Kranichfeld translates it, because לקּץ with the article points back to קץ עת , Daniel 12:9. For though this reference were placed beyond a doubt, yet לקּץ could only declare the end of the going: go to the end, and the meaning could then with Ewald only be: “but go thou into the grave till the end.” But it is more simple, with Theodoret and most interpreters, to understand לקּץ of the end of Daniel's life: go to the end of thy life (cf. for the constr. of הלך with ל , 1 Samuel 23:18). With this ותנוּח simply connects itself: and thou shalt rest, namely, in the grave, and rise again. תּעמוד = תּקוּם , to rise up, sc. from the rest of the grave, thus to rise again. לגורלך , in thy lot. גּורל , lot, of the inheritance divided to the Israelites by lot, referred to the inheritance of the saints in light (Colossians 1:12), which shall be possessed by the righteous after the resurrection from the dead, in the heavenly Jerusalem. הימים לקץ , to = at, the end of the days, i.e., not = הימים אחרית , in the Messianic time, but in the last days, when, after the judgment of the world, the kingdom of glory shall appear. Well shall it be for us if in the end of our days we too are able to depart hence with such consolation of hope!