ing .Messianic righteousness, which nevertheless
are here particularly emphasized. The sense is
clearly general, similar to that found in New-
Test, passages like Acts iii. 19 ; x. 4:^ ; 2 Cor. i.
20, etc. — The prospect of an "anointing of the
most Holy," which is presented at the close, or

* ["The Bix statements (represented by the intinitives
with *) are divided by Maurer. Hitzig. Ivranichfeld. and
others:, into three pas-sages of two members e;ich, thu.« :
After the e.vpiratioii of seventy weeks theie ?hall ( 1 ) be com-
pleted the measure of sin : (2j the sin shall be covered and
righteousness brought in : (y) the prophecy shall be fulfilled,
and the temple, which was desecrated by Ajitiochus, shall
again be consecrated. The Maaoretos, however, seem to have
already conceived of this threefold division by placing the
Athnaeh under D'^cbi' pTIfc (the fourth clause) ; but it

resta on a false construction of the individual members,
especially of the first two passages. R.ither 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 aw( y of sin, and
thus of the bringing in of everlasting righteou.' ness, with its
consequences, and thus of the positive deliverance, and in
such a maimer that in both clas.ses the three members stand
in reciprocal relation to each other : the fourth statement
corresponds to the first, the fifth to the second, the sLxth to
the third — the second and the fifth present even the same verb
2r^n." — Keil. It is not necessary, however, to assume that
these results were all to await the expiration of this entire
period : they were only to be in the process of taking place
during or after it : iu a word, this was to be the final period
of the Jewish economy, in or at the e'nd of u hich all these
consimimations were to take place.]

t [" But for this figurative use of the word ' to seal ' no
proof-pas-^ges are adducted from the O. T. .\dti to this
that the word cannot be used here in a ditTerent sense from
that in which it is used in the second passage. The sealing
of the prophecy corresponds to the sealing of the transgres-
sion, and must be similarly understood. The prophecy ia
sealed when it is laid under a seiU. so thnt it can no longer
actively show itself '" {Keil) : and corresixintlingly transgres-
sion is sealed, when its further demonstration is prevented
In short, both are to be suppressed after that dale ; trana-
prcssion by the Atoning Sacrifice^ and pro;ihecy by the cloM
of the O.-T. canon.]



196



THE PROPHET DANIEL.



rather, " unto an anointed one, a prince," etc.
The expression "1^1 Stsn corresponds to S^'J
13"T at the beginning of the angel's remarks,
and therefore probably denotes the promulga-
tion of a Divine decree rather than of a royal
edict (as Dereser, Hiivemick. Weigl, etc., con-
ceive with refere.nce to the edict of Artaxerxep
Longinianus, ivlich commanded that the re-
building of Jerusalem should be commenced).
The latter idea would require that '^^'^ should
be connected with -;-;, in order to its clear
expression ; and the observation of Hitzig is
probably correct : "Gabriel could not speak so
objectively, and with composure, of the decree
of a heathen king that would imply his right to
dispose of the holy city ; such a decree would
no more be a I^T in the mind of a theocrat
than the confederacy in Isa. viii. 12 would be a
^"fp-" — Moreover, ^^-j cannot denote a decree
at all, but rather a prophetic statement, an
oracle, which in this instance promises the
restoration of Jerusalem. This Divine predic-
tion concerning the rebuilding of the holy city
cannot differ materially from the repeated pro-
phecy by Jeremiah (chap. xxv. and xxix.),
which foretold the desolation of Jerusalem dur-
ing seventy years, and the subsequent restora-
tion of the exiles and punishment of their Chal-
dsean oppressors. Although the restoration of
the theocracy, and especially the rebuilding of
Jerusalem, are not expressly mentioned in the
latter prophecies, these features are yet impli-
citly included in the prediction, chap. xxv. 12 et
seq., concerning the judicial visitation of the
Chaldaeans and the re-adoption of Israel ; and
in chap. xxix. 10 the gracious visitation of the
Jews is described dii-ectly as a restoration to
their place, i.e., their country. It is not neces-
sary, therefore, to seek for a prophecy by Jere-
miah that predicts the rebuilding of Jerusalem
in more literal and explicit terms. If such a
passage be found in Jer. xxx. 18, or xxxi. 38
(Hitzig, Ewald, Bleek, Kamphausen, etc.), it is
nevertheless unnecessary to assume that Daniel
here refers only to that prophecy (which was
probably composed after the destruction of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, B.C. 588, ac-
cording to chap. xxxi. et seq.). It is more
probable that our prophet made no chronologi-
cal distinction between Jer. xxix. (a letter com-
posed about B.C. 598) and the more extended
prophecy in chap. xxx. and xxxi. They (and
also chap. xxv. ) were probably regarded by him
as belonging, upon the whole, to the same
period and the same circle of prophecies, name-
ly, that of the overthrow of the kingdom of
Judah which covered eighteen to twenty years,
beginning with the first conquest of Jerusalem
by Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoi-
akim, or B.C. (!05, and ending with the destruc-
tion of the city in B.C. 588. His starting-point
for the calculation of the seventy years thus
naturally became uncertain and vacillating,
and for that very reason became the inciting
cause of the prophecy under consideration. See
supra, on v. 2.* — It would conflict with the

* [Few will be disposc<l to ndopt njl interpretation that
conies to so vai^ie a conclusion, when the very object
of these added verses is evidently ti furnish a deftnitc



rather of a most Holy ( p '•^"IP, without the
article) is evidently a solemn act of worship,
which is substantially equivalent to the restora-
tion of the theocratic worship as a whole. It
is the anointing with oil or theocr.itic consecra-
tion of the mcrificiid nltnr of the New Covenant,
of the IMessianic community of the redeemed,
the pure sanctuarj', which shall no more be pro-
faned, that, according to chap. viii. 14 (cf. vii.
25 ; ix. 17), shall take the place of the desecrated
aud defiled altar of the Old Dispensation. From
Lev. viii. 11, comp. with Ezek. xliii. 20, 2(5,
where a consecration of the altar of burnt-of-
ferings by means of an act of anointing is de-
scribed (in Lev.. 1. c, with oil, in Ezek., 1. c,
with the blood of the sacrifice), and also from
Ex. xxix. 37 ; xxx. 29 ; xl. 10, where the sacri-
ficial altar is expressly designated as the — ~p
^"r 7P. it is evident that the altar of sacrifice is
here intended, instead of the holy of holies in
the temple at large, or even the Messiah himself
{sinictus sanctorum), as Syrus, the Vulgate, and
others suppose. — The prophecy under considera-
tion has been twice fulfilled, — at first externally
and in a literal sense, by the actual restoration
of the Old-Test, services in the temple with
their bloody offerings of animals, which came
to pass three years after they had been inter-
rupted by Antiochus Epiphaues in the Maccabae-
an age (1 Mace. iv. 54-59),* and afterward in the
antitype by the historical introduction of the
more perfect sanctuary and worship of the New
Covenant, whicli were likewise foretold by the
prophet Zechariah ichap. iii. 9) and whose sacri-
ficial altar is Christ, having become such through
the cross which he anointed and consecrated by
his own exalted priestly saci'ifice and blood, f

Verse 25. Know therefore and imderstand.
This exhortation is intended to introduce the
more detailed explanation of the relation of the
seventy year-weeks to the yet unexpired seventy
years, and also to the subject of the earlier
theocratic promises which follows. It directs
the notice of both the hearer and the reader to
the importance of the disclosures now to be
made, and to the duty of subjecting them to
serious and thoughtful consideration ; cf. o
01 a; (n.)rrm.ii' jwi-i.i, Matt. xxiv. 15. — From the
going forth of the commandment (or " word ")
to restore and to build Jerusalem, imto the
Messiah the Prince shall be seven iireeks ;

• [Keil justly objects to this interpretation of the fulfil-
ment that " it is opi'osed by the acttca! fact, that neither in
the consecration of Zerubbabel's temple, nor at the reconse-
cr.'ition of the altar of burnt-offering desecrated by Antio-
chus, is mention made of any anointing. According to the
definite, uniform tradition of the Jews, the holy anointing
oil did not e.vist during the time of the second temple." The
term "anoint," however, may here be taken in the meta-
phorical sense of redeJUatint/.]

t [Keil likewise, after adducing several exegetical reasons
against the interpret.ition oi '• most holy " here as referring
to the temple, altar, or any of the sacred utensils, finally
concludes that "the reference is to the anointing of a new
eanctuar>', temple, or most holy place." This, however,
makes the wliole expression metaphorical, while all the as-
sociated phrases are taken in a .sense more or less literal. It
seems to us that the i-ejection of the old reference of the
language here to the Messiah, on the ground of the absence
of the article, is rather hasty : for surely the words may
jti-tly be rendered " to anoint a most holy " (one as well as
tUln^/\. and thus really refer to the inauguration of the Head
of the New Dispensatinn. The expression is doubtless to be
explained in conformity with the simila*" phraseology of
the verses immediately loll-.iwing. 1



CHAP. IX. 1-27.



197



general nsage to take -''â„¢V? ii an adverbial
sense and to connect it with the following verb,
no as to obtain the sense "to build Jerusalem
again," since only ;:iâ„¢ in the Kal is used to
designate our •• again" {rarsus, iteruin) in other
places (£ind also here, in the latter half of the
verse). Wieseler's rendering, "to lead back,"
i. f . , the people, is opposed in part by the harsh-
ness of such an objective supplement, and partly
by the impossibility of showing that this pas-
Rage refers directly and exclusively back to Jer.
xmx. 10, where -â– 'â– w~J certainly occurs in the
sense of "to lead back." The second half of
the verse, moreover, refers only to a rebuilding
of the city {~~:::/l :1CP), and not to a reduc-
tio pojJiiU erulii, which is decisive in favor of a
restoration, i.e., of bringing back out of the
Rtate of desolation; cf. Ezek. xvi. 55. — Who is
designated by 1^31 Il'^STp, the "anointed one,
the prince " (or, as it may be rendered with
equal correctness, the " anointed prince ; " cf.
Ewald, Le/irb., p. 741), in the sense of the pro-
phet ? Certainly not the Messiah of Isrml in an
immediate and primary .<^ense, as the Jewish
and orthodox exegesis has generally lield, do%\Ti
to the latest time. He would scarcely have
been referred to as " an anointed prince" with-
out the article ; nor would Daniel have intro-
duced Him after the brief interval contained in
the iirst seven of the seventy year-weeks, since
he always places the advent of the Me.ssiah in
the distant future, when the fourth and last
world-kingdom shall fall — which is especially
apparent in chapters ii, and vii. * The reference
is probably to a prince contemporar.v with Dan-
iel and already well known, who was destined
to exert a powerful influence in favor of the
theocracy, and to fulfil the special Divine pur-
pose relating to the Israel of that day (about
forty-nine or fifty years after the destruction of

chronolof^Ciil determination of the period spok<*n of. lyeil,
a1thoilc;ta no advocate of a strict literal fulfilment of thip
passage, justly remarks that '*all such references {to Jere-
miah) are excluded by the fact that the an:.iel names the
comm:uidment for the restoration of Jerusalem as the tei'-
mt>tu.i a qno for the seventy weeks, and could thus only
mean a word of (rod whoso ^oins forth was somewhere de-
termined, or could be determined, just as the appearance of
the Anoint*'d Prince is named as the termination of the
seventy weeks. Accordingly. ' the going forth of the com-
mandment to restore,' etc, must be a factum coming into
visibility, the time of which could without difficulty be
known — a word from God respecting the restoration of
Jerusalem, which went forth by means of a man at a defi-
nit*" time, and received an observable historical execution."
This last remark effectually disposes of the author's exegesis
regarding "^1 here.]

• [This last argument is certainly out of place, for Daniel
does not place the personage in question at an interval of
only seven weeks, but of seven and sixty-two weeks, i.e., all
but at the close of the entire period of the prophecy. So
likewise in the next verse. .\s to the objection against the
reference to the Messiah, both here and in the following and
preceding verses, on the ground of the absentx^ of the arti-
cle, this is greatly, if not wholly, made up by the conntriic-
ttoii oi the noun with an idjunct, w^hich in Hebrew often
makes a word really deliuite. so that the article is readily
dispensed with. Indeed, the simple term JT^CS, MtmsUih,
even anarthrous, is so emphatic that none but the Great
Prophet of Dent, xviii. IS (where K"^— 3 is in like manner

rendered definite only by the adjunct term) can well be
thought of. Accordingly, those interpreters who have for-
saken this old and widely-.accepted reference, have signally
failed to adduce any other historical personage to whom it
can be fitly applied.]



Jerusalem I — hence, without doubt, to Cyrns,
who is designated as Jehovah's Ma.shiach in Isa.
xlviu. 1 also. Cf. Kranichfeld, p. 327: "Ra-
ther, the person referred to appears as a differ-
ent prince, who has a theocratic dominion, and
is endowed with the spirit of Jehovah for his
calling ; cf 1 Sam. xvi. 13 et seq. ; x. 1. U et
seq. But since the special mention of the fea-
ture of anointing in the case of the ordinarj-,
i.e., non-Messianic national kings who came in
contact with Israel would be strange, it is pro-
per to search for a heathen prince, who became
prominent as the promoter of the theocracy,
and especially so, because of his relation to the
Messianic hopes before referred to. As such a
one, and unique in this respect, the theocratic
literature conceives of Kortsh. the victor from
the east who effected the return of Israel from
the exile. He is expressly designated in Isa.
xlv. 1 as the Mashiach of Jehovah. He appears
in the first year of the reign of Darius Medus
over Babylon, therefore at the time of the
vision, and was then at least the victorious
leader of the armies of Darius. We are com-
pelled to decide for him, in interpreting the
-,-". n"'â„¢?a of Daniel's description. He was
regarded as the executor of the will of Jehovah
already referred to, agreeably to the description
which immediately follows, .and in harmony with
the theoratic hopes which Israel based on him.
Having realized other prophetic expectations,
the author regarded him af. the agent who should
bring about the restoration and the rebuilding
of Jerusalem ; and consequently, the writer ex-
pressly confirms these expectations, since he
merely separates from them the direct Messianic
idea, which he finds himself obliged to refer to
a more distant future, in view of the course of
political events." * — The " Mashiach Nagid,"

• IKeil'B remarks on this point seem to us so satisfactory
that we transcribe them in full. ''The words "113! n^'w^
are not to be translated an anointed one, a pytnce (Ber-
tholdt) : for n'^'.r'i cannot be on adjective to ^^3!, be-
cause in Hebr. the ailjective is placed after the snlistantive,
with few exceptions which are inapplicable to this case ; cf.
in Ewald's Lehrb., % 29.3 b. Nor can n'^ir?3 be a participle :
till a prince {in) anointed (Steudel). but it is a noun, and
T^3t is connected with it by apposition ; an anointed ont

{who is at the same time) a prince. According to the O. T.,
kings and priests, and only these, were anointed. Since
then, rr^UJO is brought forward as the principal designa-
tion, we may not by T'aD think of a priest^prince, but
only of a prince of the people ; nor by n^THJJS of a king,
but only of a priest ; and by T^31 rflCKl we must nndei^

stand a person who, first and specially, is a priest, and in
addition is a prince of the people, a king. The separation
of the two words in ver. 20. where T13j is acknowledged

as meaning a prince of the people, leads to the same conclu-
sion. This prie.st-king can neitlier beZenibbabel (according
to many old inteniretors). nor Ezra (Steudel). nor Onias III.
( Wieseler) : for Zerubbahel 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 Saadias,
Gaon., Bertholdt. Von T^engerke. Maurcr, Ewald, Hitzig,
Kranichfeld, and others, think, by a reference to Is.a. xlv. 1 ;
for, supposing it to be the case that Daniel had reason from
Isa. xlv. 1 to call Cyrus n'^UT'S— which is doubted, since

from his epithet irT^'w^S. //'S (Jehovah's) f77io/;i(ed, whict
Isaiah uses of Cyrus, it does not follow, of course, that He



UIS



THE PROPHET DANIEL.



accorclingly, is in himself merely a type of the
Messiah, corresponding to the person introduced
in Isii. xlv., but is not Christ Himself (correctly
rendered hy Saad., Gaon. , Bertholdt, Von Leng ,
Hitzig-, Bleek. Kamph. . etc. . with the exception,
however, that they generally reject the typical
Messianic sense as well as the direct reference to
Christ). This typical forerunner of Christ, the
first restorer of the theocracy in the age of
Daniel itself, is placed by the prophet at the
close of the first cycle of seven Sabbatic years,
and hence after the expiration of the first jubi-
lee-period which had elapsed since the prophetic
activity of Jeremiah, while he assigns sixty-two
additional weeks of years (or nearly nine jubilee-
Iieriods) to the interval of tribulation that an-
nounced and prepared for the coming of the
genuine antitypical Christ. * Several expositors
attempt to substantiate the direct Messianic
interpretation of T'^" n^C)3, by placing the
seven weeks referred to in this passage after
the sixty-two weeks which follow (Von Hof-
mann. Wieseler in the Giittinger Gelehrten-
Aiizeiycii. 1.S4B. Delitzsch, etc.), and thus "reck-
on the contents of the seventy backward ; " but
if Daniel had jiref erred this order he would
certainly have noticed the sixty-two weeks first
and the seven weeks afterwards, and, moreover,
the ime week in v. 27 cannot be suitably pro-
vided for. Finally, all that has been heretofore
observed against the direct Messianic interpre-
tation of that expression, militates against their
view. Upon the whole, cf. the "history of the
exposition" in appendix to exeget. remarks. —
And three-score and two weeks ; the street

should be named n''!li?3 the title ought at least to have

T

been n""'!.''^ T'3'', the n"^",r'3 being an adjective fol-
lowing n^nr, because there is no evident reason for the

express precedence of the adjective definition.

'â–  The O. T. knows only one who shnll be both priest and
kins in one person (Psa, ex. 4; Zcch. vi, 1-3), Christ the
Mes.sias (John iv. 25), whom, with Hiivernick, Henpsten-
berg, Hofmann, Auberlen, Delitzsch, and Kliefoth, we here
understand by the ""^31 rT''j;?3, because in Him the two
essential requisites of the theocratic king, the anointing and
the appointment to be the "I'l^"! of the people of Ckid (cf.

1 Snm. X. 1 ; xiii. 14 : xvi. 13 : xxv. oO : 2 Sam. ii. 4 : v. 2
sell.), are found in the most perfect manner. The.se requi-
sit*.s 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 royalt.v, and tt) desi^ate Him, on the
ground of the pro})ljecics, Isa. Ixi. 1—3 and Iv. 4, as the per-
son by whom 'tlie sure mercies of David' (Isa. Iv. y) shall
be realized to the covenant people. The absence of the
definite article is not to be explained by saying that n^i',!;^!

somewhat as n?3y, Zech, iii. 8 ; vi. 12, is used Kar' k^o\, as
a no^nen propr. of the Messiah, the Anointed ; for in that
case T^32 ought to have the article, since in Hebrew we

cannot say Tl'^Z Til, but only Tlb'Sn "ill. Much ra-

I T - â–  T ' ^ -T - â–  T

ther the article is wanting, because it shall not be said : till
the Meaiia/i, wl'tt is pi'iJtce, but only, till une coine» who is
Unomted and at the same time pHHCe, because He that is to
come is not detinitely designated as the expected Messiah,
but must be made prominent by the predicates ascribed to
Him as a personage altogether singular.'']

* [How ill the chronological elements of tlie prophecy ac-
cord with the n-ference of this anointed one and prince to
C.\Tus, is evident from the fact that the author is obliged to
sever Daniel's conjoined statement (7+1)2) in order to elfect
anyrhing like an agreement. Yet even thus the historical
fultllmeut hiis to be vaguely presumeit, and cannot be defi-
aiteiy verilied.]



shall be built again, etc. ; rather, "and (dur-
ing) three-score and two weeks (it> shall return
(or 'be restored ') and be built." * This period
of sixty-two weeks, ihe " result of subtracting
the significant seven at the beginning, and of
one to be reserved for the end," covers the time
during which the heathen world-kingdoms suc-
ceed each other, down to the fourth and most
godless power, which is to attempt to entirelj
suppress the Divine kingdom of the Old Cove-
nant that had meanwhile been perfectly restored,
although with much labor, but which b3' that
very effort secured its own destruction through
the Messianic judgment (cf. viii. 11 et seq. ; 'i'i
et seq., and the preceding parallels). The sub-
ject of nii:3"l ^'l-?!, which must be supplied,
is doubtless Jerusalem, in analogy with the
former half of the verse, where the same idea
is presented in an active form. The specifica-
tion of time, O"! C"iS'i" aiJ'l'i"'', which precedes
in the accusative, " marks the limits of the
period, within which, at different times, the
building was prosecuted " (Hitzig). — The limi-
tation of this period, beginning a new clause as
it does, is properly preceded by an Athnach.
which serves to divide the verse. The method
adopted by the ancient translators, by Luther,
and by a majority of subsequent expositors (in-
cluding Hengstenb , Hiivem., Auberl., Ziindel,
etc. — but not Kranichfeld, Kliefoth, and FoUer),
divides the verse so as to connect the " sixty-two
weeks with the preceding clause, despite the
Athnach, and thus obtains sixty-nine weeks as
the time that should elapse before the coming
of the anointed prince ; but it is evidently based
on the desire to give a direct Messianic bearing
to the passage. It is opposed (1) by the fact
that the sixty- two weeks are repeated in v. 26,
where they are preceded by the article, which
clearly marks them as an independent period ;
(2) that the clause ""^l -Vitl thus occupies a
very abrupt and bare position, being without
any designation of time, while the preceding
clause hits two ; (3) that the sense of the writer
clearly is that the rebuilding and restoration
had not begun before the sixty-two weeks,
whUe he evidently regards the seven weeks as a
period of desolation and ruinous neglect of the
city which afterward was to be built (cf. Hitzig,
p. 100; also Kliefoth. p 328 et seq j.f— The

* [The only justification of this translation, which separ-
ates the two periods of seven weeks and sixty-two w-eeks,
assigning the former as the ternutnts ad qiteui of the
1 Anointed Prince, and the latter as the time of rebuilding,
lies m the Masoretic interpnnction, which places the Athnach
between them. Some adduce also the fact that ttie 1 con-
nective is likewise at the point, and not at 2T,irr. But

these arguments, especially the latter, are not conclumve ;
and the rendering in question involves a harsh construction
of the second member, being without a projinsition. It is
better, therefore, and simpler, to adhere to the Authorized
Version, wiiich follow-s all the older translations. Keil. in-
deed (although admitting that the Masoretii: |>unctuat!on is
neither authoritative nor decisive), dep irts from it, but en-
deavors to extricate himself from the chronological ditllcnl-