FROM THE TIME OF SCOFIELD [very early 20th century] AND HIS PUBLICATION OF HIS RENDITION OF THE HOLY BIBLE, WITH "NOTES" ATTACHED; WE HAVE HIS FANCY IDEAS OF UNDERSTANDING DANIEL 9 AND THE 70 WEEK PROPHECY. ALL HIS IDEAS STILL EXPOUNDED BY SOME PROTESTANT FUNDAMENTAL SO-CALLED "PROPHETS." SCOFIELD AND HIS FOLLOWERS ARE IN TOTAL ERROR AS TO THIS 70 WEEK PROPHECY. THEY SHOULD HAVE READ THE EXPOUNDING OF THIS PROPHECY FROM MATTHEW HENRY, ADAM CLARKE, AND ESPECIALLY ALBERT BARNES, WHO GIVES A VERY LONG AND DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THIS PROPHECY, THAT HAS ALL BEEN FULFILLED, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING IN PROPHECY FOR THE END TIMES, THE CLOSE OF THIS AGE, AND THE AGE TO COME - Keith Hunt
Albert Barnes on Daniel 9
The "no gap" Prophecy!
DANIEL 9
FROM THE ALBERT BARNES BIBLE COMMENTARY:
ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER (an over-view)
This chapter is properly divided into three parts, or comprises
three things I. The inquiry of Daniel into the time that the
desolations of Jerusalem were to continue, and his determination
to seek the Lord, to pray that this purpose in regard to the
restoration of the city and temple might be speedily
accomplished, verses 1-3. Daniel says (verse 1), that this occurred
in the first year of Darius of the seed of the Medes. He was
engaged in the study of the books of Jeremiah. He learned from
these books that seventy years were to elapse during which the
temple, the city, and the land were to be desolate. By a
calculation as to the time when this commenced, he was enabled to
ascertain the period when it would close, and he found that that
period was near, and that, according to the prediction, it might
be expected that the time of the restoration was at hand. His
mind was, of course, filled with the deepest solicitude. It would
seem not improbable that he did not perceive any preparation for
this, or any tendency to it, and it could not but be that he
would be filled with anxiety in regard to it. He does not appear
to have entertained any doubt that the predictions would be
fulfilled, and the fact that they were so clear and so positive
was a strong reason why he should pray, and was the reason why he
prayed so earnestly at this time. The prayer which he offered is
an illustration of the truth that men will pray more earnestly
when they have reason to suppose that God intends to impart a
blessing, and that an assurance that an event is to occur is one
of the strongest encouragements and incitements to prayer. So men
will pray with more faith when they see that God is blessing the
means of restoration to health, or when they see indications of
an abundant harvest; so they will pray with the more fervour for
God to bless his Word when they see evidences of a revival of
religion, or that the time has come when God is about to display
his power in the conversion of sinners; and so undoubtedly they
will pray with the more earnestness as the proofs shall be
multiplied that God is about to fulfil all his ancient
predictions in the conversion of the whole world to himself. A
belief that God intends to do a thing is never any hinderance to
real prayer; a belief that he is in fact about to do it does more
than anything else can do to arouse the soul to call with
earnestness on his name.
(Ah, indeed this is so. Maybe thousands have come to my Website
over the years, maybe the many years, but have not taken things
too serious. For sure when the world scene is as the explanation
of the prophecies of the Bible have been expounded on my
Website, people will flock to it again, and prayers will be that
more earnest and their living will be turned to serious action,
if it was not before - Keith Hunt)
II. The prayer of Daniel, verses 4-19
This prayer is remarkable for its simplicity, its fervour, its
appropriateness, its earnestness. It is a frank confession that
the Hebrew people, in whose name it was offered, had deserved all
the calamities which had come upon them, accompanied with earnest
intercession that God would now hear this prayer, and remove the
judgments from the people, and accomplish his purpose of mercy
towards the city and temple. The long captivity of nearly seventy
years; the utter desolation of the city and temple during that
time; the numberless privations and evils to which during that
period they had been exposed, had demonstrated the greatness of
the sins for which these calamities had come upon the nation, and
Daniel now, in the name, and uttering the sentiments, of the
captive people, confessed their guilt, and the justness of the
Divine dealings with them. Never has there been an instance in
which punishment has had more of its designed and appropriate
effect than in prompting to the sentiments which are uttered in
this prayer: and the prayer, therefore, is just the expression of
what we should feel when the hand of the Lord has been severely
laid upon us on account of our sins. The burden of the prayer is
confession; the object which he who offers it seeks is, that God
would cause the severity of his judgments to cease, and the city
and temple to be restored. The particular point: in the prayer
will be more appropriately elucidated in the exposition of this
part of the chapter.
III. The answer to the prayer, verses 20-27
The principal difficulty in the exposition of the chapter is in
this portion; and indeed there is perhaps no part of the
prophecies of the Old Testament that is, on some accounts, more
difficult of exposition, as there is, in some respects, none more
clear, and none more important. It is remarkable, among other
things, as not being a direct answer to the prayer, and as
seeming to have no bearing on the subject of the petition - that
the city of Jerusalem might be rebuilt, and the temple restored;
but it directs the mind onward to another and more important
event - the coming of the Messiah, and the final closing of
sacrifice and oblation, and a more entire and enduring
destruction of the temple and city, after it should have been
rebuilt, than had yet occurred. To give this information, an
angel--the same one whom Daniel had seen before--was sent forth
from heaven, and came near to him and touched him, and said that
he was commissioned to impart to him skill and understanding,
verses 20-23. "The speediness of his coming indicates a joyful
messenger. The substance of that message is as follows: As a
compensation for the seventy years in which the people, the city,
and the temple had been entirely prostrate, seventy weeks of
years, seven times seventy years of a renewed existence would be
secured to them by the Lord; and the end of this period, far from
bringing the mercies of God to a close, would for the first time
bestow them on the Theocracy in their complete and full measure."
Hengstenberg, "Christology," ii. 293. The "points" of
information which the angel gives in regard to the future
condition of the city are these:
(a) That the whole period determined in respect to the holy city,
to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make
reconciliation for the people, and to bring in everlasting
righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to
anoint the Most Holy, was seventy weeks - evidently seventy
prophetic weeks, that is, regarding each day as a year, four
hundred and ninety years, verse 24. The time when this period would
commence--the terminus a quo--is not indeed distinctly specified,
but the fair interpretation is, from that time when the vision
appeared to Daniel, the first year of Darius, ver.1. The literal
meaning of the phrase "seventy weeks," according to Prof.Stuart
("Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy," p.3), is seventy
sevens, that is, seventy sevens of years, or four hundred and
ninety years. "Daniel," says he, "had been meditating on the
accomplishment of the seventy years of exile for the Jews, which
Jeremiah had predicted. At the close of the fervent supplication
for the people which he makes, in connection with his meditation,
Gabriel appears, and announces to him that 'seventy sevens are
appointed for his people,' as it respects the time then future,
in which very serious and very important events are to take
place. Daniel had been meditating on the close of the seventy
years of Hebrew exile, and the angel now discloses to him a new
period of seventy times seven, in which still more important
events are to take place."
(b) This period of seventy sevens, or four hundred and ninety
years, is divided by the angel into smaller portions, each of
their determining some important event in the future. He says,
therefore (verse 25), that from the going forth of the command to
rebuild the temple, until the time when the Messiah should
appear, the whole period might be divided into two portions--one
of seven sevens, or forty nine years, and the other of threescore
and two sevens - sixty-two sevens, or four hundred and
thirty-four years, making together four hundred and eighty-three
years. This statement is accompanied with the assurance that the
"street would be built again, and the wall, even in troublous
times." Of these periods of seven weeks, sixtytwo weeks, and one
week, the close of the first is distinguished by the completion
of the rebuilding of the city; that of the second by the
appearing of the Anointed One, or the Messiah, the Prince; that
of the third by the finished confirmation of the covenant with
the many for whom the saving blessings designated in verse 24, as
belonging to the end of the whole period, are designed. The last
period of one week is again divided into two halves. While the
confirmation of the covenant is extends through it, from
beginning to end, the cessation of the sacrifice and
meat-offering, and the death of the Anointed One, on which this
depends, take place in the middle of it.
(c) The Messiah would appear after the seven weeks - reaching to
the time of completing the rebuilding of the city - and the
sixty-two weeks following that (that is, sixty-nine weeks
altogether) would have been finished. Throughout half of the
other week, after his appearing, he would labour to confirm the
covenant with many, and then die a violent death, by which the
sacrifices would be made to cease, while the confirmation of the
covenant would continue even after his death.
(d) A people of a foreign prince would come and destroy the city
and the sanctuary. The end of all would be a "flood"--an
overflowing calamity, till the end of the desolations should be
determined, verses 26, 27. This fearful desolation is all that the
prophet sees in the end, except that there is an obscure
intimation that there would be a termination of that. Put the
design of the vision evidently did not reach thus far. It was to
show the series of events after the rebuilding of the city and
temple up to the time when the Messiah would come; when the
great atonement would be made for sin, and when the oblations
and sacrifices of the temple would finally cease; cease in fact and
naturally, for the one great sacrifice, superseding them all,
would have been offered, and because the people of a foreign
prince would come and sweep the temple and the altar away.
The design of the whole annunciation is, evidently, to produce
consolation in the mind of the prophet. He was engaged in
profound meditation on the present state, and the long-continued
desolations of the city and temple. He gave his mind to the study
of the prophecies to learn whether these desolations were not
soon to end. He ascertained beyond a doubt that the period drew
near. He devoted himself to earnest prayer that the desolation
might not longer continue; that God, provoked by the sins of the
nation, would no longer execute his fearful judgments, but would
graciously interpose, and restore the city and temple. He
confessed ingenuously and humbly the sins of his people;
acknowledged that the judgments of God were just, but pleaded
earnestly, in view of his former mercies to the same people, that
he would now have compassion, and fulfil his promises that the
city and temple should be restored. An answer is not given
directly, and in the exact form in which it might have been hoped
for; but an answer is given, in which it is implied that these
blessings so earnestly sought would be bestowed, and in which it
is promised that there would be far greater blessings. It is
assumed in the answer (verse 25) that the city would be rebuilt,
and then the mind is directed onward to the assurance that it
would stand through seven times seventy years - seven times as
long as it had now been desolate, and that then that which had
been the object of the desire of the people of God would be
accomplished; that for which the city and temple had been built
would be fulfilled--the Messiah would come, the great sacrifice
for sin would be made, and all the typical arrangements of the
temple would come to an end. Thus, in fact, though not in form,
the communication of the angel was an answer to prayer, and that
occurred to Daniel which often occurs to those who pray - that
the direct prayer which is offered receives a gracious answer,
and that there accompanies the answer numberless other mercies
which are drawn along in the train; or, in other words, that
God gives us many more blessings than we ask of him.
............................
End of part one.
Note:
We see an overview that is all connected, all to do with the
coming of the Messiah and a seven year covenant confirmation. All
one prophecy that finalizes in the once more destruction of
Jerusalem. There is no "gap" anywhere needed in this prophecy,
certainly not some gap of 2,000 years to supposedly finish the
last 7 years or last week of this 7 x 7 week prophecy. This is a
prophecy that as Albert Barnes and others of his day, before and
after him, rightly knew, was a prophecy that had been fulfilled
entirely as one continuous prophecy, with no "gaps" anywhere.
We shall see as Albert Barnes methodically brings out in his Bible
Commentary, the logic and in-depth facts, that no "gaps" are
intended or required to fulfil this prophecy of 490 - 7 x 7 weeks
or 490 years, a day = one year.
Barnes on Daniel's 70 weeks #2
Sin and Righteousness
|
AND THE 70 WEEK PROPHECY #2 |
And he informed me. Heb., Gave me intelligence or understanding. That is, about the design of his visit, and about what would be hereafter. And talked with me. Spake unto me.
0 Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill. Marg., make
thee skilful of. The Hebrew is, literally, "to make thee skilful,
or wise, in understanding." The design was to give him information
as to what was to occur.
At the beginning of thy supplications.
We are not informed at what time Daniel began to pray, but as
remarked above, it is most natural to suppose that he devoted the
day to prayer, and had commenced these solemn acts of devotion in
the morning.
At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came
The commandment came forth. Marg., word. That is, the word of
God. This evidently means, in heaven; and the idea is, that as
soon as he began to pray a command was issued from God to Gabriel
that he should visit Daniel, and convey to him the important
message respecting future events. It is fair to conclude that he
had at once left heaven in obedience to the order, and on this
high embassage, and that he had passed over the amazing distance
between heaven and earth in the short time during which Daniel
was engaged in prayer. If so, and if heaven - the peculiar seat
of God, the dwelling-place of angels and of the just - is beyond
the region of the fixed stars, some central place in this vast
universe, then this may give us some idea of the amazing rapidity
with which celestial beings may move. It is calculated that there
are stars so remote from our earth, that their light would not
travel down to us for many thousand years. If so, how much more
rapid may be the movements of celestial beings than even light;
perhaps more than that of the lightning's flash - than the
electric fluid on telegraphic wires--though that moves at the
rate of more than 200,000 miles in a second. Compare Dick's
Philosophy of a Future State, p.220. "During the few minutes
employed in uttering this prayer," says Dr.Dick, "this angelic
messenger descended from the celestial regions to the country of
Babylonia. This was a rapidity of motion surpassing the
comprehension of the most vigorous imagination, and far exceeding
even the amazing velocity of light." With such a rapidity it may
be our privilege yet to pass from world to world on errands of
mercy and love, or to survey in distant parts of the universe the
wonderful works of God.
And I am come to show thee
To make thee acquainted with what will yet be.
For thou art greatly beloved. Marg., as in Heb., "a man of
desires."
That is, he was one whose happiness was greatly desired by God;
or, a man of God's delight; that is, as in our version, greatly
beloved. It was on this account that his prayer was heard, and
that God sent to him this important message respecting what was
to come.
Therefore understand the matter
The matter respecting what was yet to occur in regard to his
people.
And consider the vision.
This vision - the vision of future things which he was now about
to present to his view. From this passage, describing the appearance
of Gabriel to Daniel, we may learn, (a) That our prayers,
if sincere, are heard in heaven as soon as they are offered.
They enter at once into the ears of God, and he regards them at
the instant. (b) A command, as it were, may be at once issued to
answer them - as if he directed an angel to bear the answer at
once. (c) The angels are ready to hasten down to men, to
communicate the will of God. Gabriel came evidently with pleasure
on his embassage, and to a benevolent being anywhere there is
nothing more grateful than to be commissioned to bear glad
tidings to others. Possibly that may be a part of the employment
of the righteous for ever. (d) The thought is an interesting one,
if we are permitted to entertain it, that good angels may be
constantly employed as Gabriel was; that whenever prayer is
offered on earth they may be commissioned to bring answers of
peace and mercy, or despatched to render aid, and that thus the
universe may be constantly traversed by these holy beings
ministering to those who are "heirs of salvation," Heb. i. 1,4.
Seventy weeks are determined.
Here commences the celebrated prophecy of the SEVENTY WEEKS--a
portion of Scripture which has excited as much attention, and led
to as great a variety of interpretation, as perhaps any other. Of
this passage, Professor Stuart (Hints on the Interpetation of
Prophecy, p.104) remarks, "It would require a volume of
considerable magnitude even to give a history of the ever-varying
and contradictory opinions of critics respecting this locus
vexat-issimus; and perhaps a still larger one to establish an
exegesis which would stand. I am fully of opinion, that no
interpretation as yet published will stand the test of thorough
grammatico-historical criticism; and that a candid, and
searching, and thorough critique here is still a desideratum. May
sonic expositor, fully adequate to the task, speedily appear!"
[It can be understood, it is not at all difficult; the message to Daniel was not
some fancy deliberately hard for him to understand. The sages of Judah knew how to understand it, for it is evident the disciples of John the baptist knew it was about the time that the Messiah should appear. They were looking for him, hence this prophecy given to Daniel was basically well understood in its time frame - Keith Hunt]
After these remarks of this eminent Biblical scholar, it is with
no great confidence of success that I enter on the exposition of
the passage. Yet, perhaps, though all difficulties may not be
removed, and though I cannot hope to contribute anything new in
the exposition of the passage, something may be written which may
relieve it of some of the perplexities attending it, and which
may tend to show that its author was under the influence of
Divine inspiration.
[As I stated we find in the Gospels clear evidence that many were looking
for the ministry of the Messiah to start. We have evidence that two were
waiting and anticipating the birth of the Messiah, and that birth was
announced to shepherds and wise men from the East, so at least an inner
circle of people, Mary and Joseph two, who knew the Saviour of man
had been born; just adding ex years to mature manhood, would give some
the approximate time frame the Messiah should come to speak the words
of God. The same time frame was also given by John the Baptist, who at
one point said "there goes the Lamb of God." No doubt people would under
all this look back and see the 7 x 70 years did bring them to the time the
disciples of John were looking for the Messiah, they knew they were living
at their life time, when the Messiah could come - Keith Hunt]
The passage may be properly divided into two parts. The first, in
verse 24, contains a general statement of what would occur in the
time specified - the seventy weeks; the second, verses 25-27,
contains a particular statement of the manner in which that would
be accomplished. In this statement, the whole time of the seventy
weeks is broken up into three smaller portions of seven,
sixty-two, and one designating evidently some important epochs or
periods (verses 25), and the last one week is again subdivided in
such a way, that, while it is said that the whole work of the
Messiah in confirming the covenant would occupy the entire week,
yet that he would be cut off in the middle of the week, verse 27.
In the general statement (ver.24) it is said that there was a
definite time - seventy weeks--during which the subject of the
prediction would be accomplished; that is, during which all that
was to be done in reference to the holy city, or in the holy
city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, &c.,
would be effected. The things specified in this verse are what
was to be done, as detailed more particularly in the subsequent
verses. The design in this verse seems to have been to furnish a
general statement of what was to occur in regard to the holy city
of that city which had been selected for the peculiar purpose of
being a place where an atonement was to be made for human
transgression. It is quite clear that when Daniel set apart this
period for prayer, and engaged in this solemn act of devotion,
his design was not to inquire into the ultimate events which
would occur in Jerusalem, but merely to pray that the purpose of
God, as predicted by Jeremiah, respecting the captivity of the
nation, and the rebuilding of the city and temple, might be
accomplished. God took occasion from this, however, not only to
give an implied assurance about the accomplishment of these
purposes, but also to state in a remarkable manner the whole
ultimate design respecting the holy city, and the great event
which was ever onward to characterize it among the cities of the
world.
In the consideration of the whole passage (versses 24-27), it will
be proper, first, to examine into the literal meaning of the
words and phrases, and then to inquire into the fulfilment.
Seventy weeks
(Hebrew) Vulg., Septuaginta hebdomades. So Theodotion, Greek
Prof. Stuart (Hints, p.82) renders this "seventy sevens;" that
is, seventy times seven years: on the ground that the word
denoting weeks in the Hebrew is not (Hebrew given) but (Hebrew given)
"The form which is used here," says he, "which is a regular masculine
plural, is no doubt purposely chosen to designate the plural of
seven; and with great propriety here, inasmuch as there are many
sevens which are to be joined together in one common sum. Daniel
had been meditating on the close of the seventy years of Hebrew
exile, and the angel now discloses to him a new period of seventy
times seven, in which still more important events are to take
place. Seventy sevens, or (to use the Greek phraseology), seventy
heptades, are determined upon thy people. Heptades of what? Of
days, or of years? No one can doubt what the answer is. Daniel
had been making diligent search respecting the seventy years;
and, in such a connection, nothing but seventy Heptades of years
could be reasonably supposed to be meant by the angel." The
inquiry about the gender of the word, of which so much has been
said (Hengstenberg, Chris. ii. 297), does not seem to be very
important, since the same result is reached whether it be
rendered seventy sevens, or seventy weeks. In the former case, as
proposed by Prof.Stuart, it means seventy sevens of years, or 490
years; in the other, seventy weeks of years; that is, as a week
of years is seven years, seventy such weeks, or as before, 490
years. The usual and proper meaning of the word here used,
however--Heb. is a seven, Greek, hebdomad, i.e., a week. -
Gesenius, Lex. From the examples where the word occurs it would
seem that the masculine or the feminine forms were used
indiscriminately. The word occurs only in the following passages,
in all of which it is rendered week, or weeks, except in Ezek.
xlv. 21, where it is rendered seven, to wit, days. In the
following passages the word occurs in the masculine form plural,
Dan. ix. 24-26; x. 2,3; in the following in the feminine form
plural, Exod. xxxiv. 22; Numb. xxviii. 26; Deut. xvi. 9,10,16; 2
Chron. viii. 13 ; Jer. v. 24 ; Ezek. xlv. 21; and in the
following in the singular number, common gender, rendered "week"
- Gen.xxix 27,28, and in the dual masculine in Lev.xii. 5,
rendered "two weeks." From these passages it is evident that
nothing certain can be determined about the meaning of the word
from its gender. It would seem to denote "weeks" - periods of
seven days - hebdomads - in either form, and is doubtless so used
here. The fair translation would be, weeks seventy are
determined; that is seventy times seven days, or four hundred and
ninety days.....
(Barnes then goes into proving that in reality, the 490 days are
meant to be understood as 490 years, just as all commentators
agree upon - Keith Hunt)
.......
Greek - are cut off, decided, defined. The Vulgate renders it,
"abbreviate sent." Luther, "Sind bestimmet" - are determined. The
meaning would seem to be, that this portion of time - the seventy
weeks was cut off from the whole of duration, or cut out of it,
as it were, and set by itself for a definite purpose. It does
not mean that it was cut off from the time which the city would
naturally stand, or that this time was abbreviated, but that a
portion of time - to wit, four hundred and ninety years was
designated or appointed with reference to the city, to accomplish
the great and important object which is immediately specified.
A certain, definite period was fixed on, and when this was past,
the promised Messiah would come.
In regard to the construction here - the singular verb with a
plural noun, see Hengstenberg, "Christ. in loc." The true meaning
seems to be, that the seventy weeks are spoken of collectively,
as denoting a period of time; that is, a period of seventy weeks
is determined. The prophet, in the use of the singular verb,
seems to have contemplated the time, not as separate weeks, or as
particular portions, but as one period.
Upon thy people
The Jewish people; the nation to which Daniel belonged. This
allusion is made because he was inquiring about the close of
their exile, and their restoration to their own land.
And upon thy holy city
Jerusalem, usually called the holy city, because it was the place
where the worship of God was celebrated, Isa. Iii. 1; Neh. xi. 1,
18; Matt. xxvii. 53. It is called "thy holy city" - the city of
Daniel, because he was here making especial inquiry respecting
it, and because he was one of the Hebrew people, and the city was
the capital of their nation. As one of that nation, it could be
called his. It was then, indeed, in ruins, but it was to be
rebuilt, and it was proper to speak of it as if it were then a
city. The meaning of "upon thy people and city" (Heb. given) is,
respecting or concerning.
The purpose respecting the seventy weeks pertains to thy people
and city; or there is an important period of four hundred and
seventy years determined on, or designated, respecting that
people and city.
To finish the transgression
The angel proceeds to state what was the object to be
accomplished in this purpose, or what would occur during that
period. The first thing, to finish the transgression. The margin
is, "restrain." The Vulgate renders it, "ut consummetur
praevaricatio." Theodotion, (Greek) - to finish sin. Thompson
renders this, "to finish sin-offerings." The difference between
the marginal reading (restrain) and the text (finish) arises from
a doubt as to the meaning of the original word. The common
reading of the text is (Heb. given) but in 39 Codices examined by
Kennicott, it is (Heb. given) The reading in the text is undoubtedly
the correct one, but still there is not absolute certainty as to
the signification of the word, whether it means to finish, or to
restrain. The proper meaning of the word in the common reading of
the text (Heb given) is, to shut up, confine, restrain - as it is
rendered in the margin. The meaning of the other word found in
many MSS. (Heb. given) is, to be completed, finished, closed - and in
Piel, the form used here, to complete, to finish - as it is
translated in the common version. Gesenius (Lex.) supposes that
the word here is for--(Heb given)—meaning to finish or complete.
Hengstenberg, who is followed in this view by Lengerke, supposes
that the meaning is to "shut up transgression," and that the true
reading is that in the text--(Heb given)—though as that word is not
used in Piel, and as the Masorites had some doubts as to the
derivation of the word, they gave to it not its appropriate
pointing in this place - which would have been (Heb given)—
but the pointing of the other word (Heb given) in the margin.
According to Hengstenberg, the sense here of shutting up is derived
from the general notion of restraining or hindering, belonging to the
word; and he supposes that this will best accord with the other
words in this member of the verse--to cover, and to seal up.
The idea according to him is, that "sin, which hitherto lay naked
and open before the eyes of a righteous God, is now by his mercy
shut up, sealed, and covered, so that it can no more be regarded
as existing - a figurative description of the forgiveness of
sin." So Lengerke renders it, "Unteinzitschliessen[den]Abfall."
Bertholdt, "Bis der Frevel vollbracht." It seems most probable
that the true idea here is that denoted in the margin, and that
the sense is not that of finishing, but that of restraining,
closing, shutting up, &c. So it is rendered by Prof.Stuart - "to
restrain transgression."-- "Com. on Daniel, in loc". The word is
used in this sense of shutting up, or restraining, in several
places in the Bible: 1 Sam. vi. 10, "and shut up their calves at
home;" Jer. xxxii. 3, "Zedekiah had shut him up;" Psa.
lxxxviii. 8, "I am shut up, and I cannot come forth;" Jer. xxxii.
2, "Jeremiah the prophet was shut up." The sense of shutting up,
or restraining, accords better with the connection than that of
finishing. The reference of the whole passage is undoubtedly to
the Messiah, and to what would be done sometime during the
"seventy weeks;" and the meaning here is, not that he would
"finish transgression" - which would not be true in any proper
sense, but that he would do a work which would restrain iniquity
in the world, or, more strictly, which would shut it up - inclose
it - as in a prison, so that it would no more go forth and
prevail. The effect would be that which occurs when one is shut
up in prison, and no longer goes at large. There would be a
restraining power and influence which would check the progress of
sin. This does not, I apprehend, refer to the particular
transgressions for which the Jewish people had suffered in their
long captivity, but sin (Heb. given) in general - the sin of the world.
There would be an influence which would restrain and curb it, or
which would shut it up so that it would no longer reign and roam
at large over the earth. It is true that this might not have been
so understood by Daniel at the time, for the language is so
general that it might have suggested the idea that it referred to
the sins of the Jewish people. This language, if there had been
no farther explanation of it, might have suggested the idea that
in the time specified--seventy weeks - there would be some
process - some punishment--some Divine discipline - by which the
iniquities of that people, or their propensity to sin, for which
this long captivity had come upon them, would be cohibited, or
restrained.
But the language is not such as necessarily to confine the
interpretation to that, and the subsequent statements,
and the actual fulfilment in the work of the Messiah,
lead us to understand this in a much higher sense, as having
reference to sin in general, and as designed to refer to some
work that would ultimately be an effectual check on sin, and
which would tend to cohibit, or restrain it altogether in the
world. Thus understood, the language will well describe the work
of the Redeemer--that work which, through the sacrifice made on
the cross, is adapted and designed to restrain sin altogether.
And to make an end of sins--- Marg., to seal up
The difference here in the text and the margin arises from a
difference in the readings in the Hebrew. The common reading in
the text is (Heb. given)—from (Heb given)—to seal, to seal up.
But the Hebrew marginal reading is a different word--(Heb. given)
from (Heb. given)—to complete, to perfect, to finish.
The pointing in the text in the word (Heb. given) is not the proper
pointing of that word, which would have been (Heb. given) but the
Masorites, as is not unfrequently the case, gave to the word in
the text the pointing of another word which they placed in the
margin. The marginal reading is found in fifty-five MSS.
(Lengerke), but the weight of authority is decidedly in favour of
the common reading in the Hebrew text - to seal, and not to
finish, as it is in our translation. The marginal reading, to
finish, was doubtless substituted by some transcribers, or rather
suggested by the Masorites, because it seemed to convey a better
signification to say that "sin would be finished," than to say
that it would be sealed. The Vulgate has followed the reading in
the margin - "et finem accipiat peecatum;" Theodotion has
followed the other reading, (Greek given). Luther also has it, "to
seal." Coverdale, "that sin may have an end." The true rendering
is, doubtless, "to seal sin;" and the idea is that of removing it
from sight; to remove it from view. "The expression is taken,"
says Lengerke, "from the custom of sealing up those things which
one lays aside and conceals." Thus in Job ix. 7, "And sealeth up
the stars;" that is, he so shuts them up in the heavens as to
prevent their shining - so as to hide them from the view. They
are concealed, hidden, made close - as the contents of a letter
or package are sealed, indicating that no one is to examine them.
See Notes on that passage. So also in Job xxxvii. 7, referring to
winter, it is said, "He sealeth up the hand of every man, that
all men may know his work." That is, in the winter, when the snow
is on the ground, when the streams are frozen, the labours of the
husbandman must cease. The hands can no more be used in ordinary
toil. Every man is prevented from going abroad to his accustomed
labour, and is, as it were, sealed up in his dwelling. Comp. Jer.
xxxii. 11, 14; Isa. xxix. 11; Cant. iv. 12.
The idea in the passage before us is, that the sins of our nature will,
as it were, be sealed up, or closed, or hidden, so that they will not
be seen, or will not develop themselves; that is, "they will be
inert, inefficient, powerless." - Prof. Stuart. The language is
applicable to anything that would hide them from view, or remove
them from sight - as a book whose writing is so sealed that we
cannot read it; a tomb that is so closed that we cannot enter it
and see its contents; a package that is so sealed that we do not
know what is within it; a room that is so shut up that we may not
Enter it, and see what is within. It is not to be supposed that
Daniel would see clearly how this was to be done; but we, who
have now a full revelation of the method by which God can remove
sin, can understand the method in which this is accomplished by
the blood of the atonement, to wit, that by that atonement sin is
now forgiven, or is treated as if it were hidden from the view,
and a seal, which may not be broken, placed on that which covers it.
The language thus used, as we are now able to interpret it,
is strikingly applicable to the work of the Redeemer, and to the
method by which God removes sin. In not a few MSS. and editions
the word rendered "sins" is in the singular number. The amount of
authority is in favour of the common reading - sins - though the
sense is not materially varied. The work would have reference to
sin, and the effect would be to seal it, and hide it from the view.
And to make reconciliation for iniquity
More literally, "and to cover iniquity." The word which is
rendered to "make reconciliation"--(Heb. given) kaphar,--
properly means to cover (whence our English word cover);
to cover over, to overlay, as with pitch (Gen. vi. 14); and hence
to cover over sin; that is, to atone for it, pardon it, forgive it. It is the
word which is commonly used with reference to atonement or
expiation, and seems to have been so understood by our
translators. It does not necessarily refer to the means by which
sin is covered over, &c., by an atonement, but is often used in
the general sense of to pardon or forgive. Comp. Notes on Isa.
vi. 7, and more fully, Notes on Isa. xliii. 3. Here there is no
necessary allusion to the atonement which the Messiah would make
in order to cover over sin; that is, the word is of so general a
character in its signification that it does not necessarily
imply, this, but it is the word which would naturally be used on
the supposition that it had such a reference. As a matter of
fact, undoubtedly, the means by which this was to be done was by
the atonement, and that was referred to by the Spirit of
inspiration, but this is not essentially implied in the meaning
of the word. In whatever way that should be done, this word would
be properly used as expressing it. The Latin Vulgate renders
thus, "et deleaturiniquitas." Theodotion, (Greek given) --
"to wipe out iniquities." Luther, "to reconcile for transgression."
Here are three things specified, therefore, in regard to sin,
which would be done.
Sin would be Restrained, Scaled up, Covered over.
These expressions, though not of the nature of a climax, are
intensive, and show that the great work referred to pertained to
sin, and would be designed to remove it. Its bearing would be on
human transgression; on the way by which it might be pardoned; on
the methods by which it would be removed from the view, and be
kept from rising up to condemn and destroy. Such expressions
would undoubtedly lead the mind to look forward to some method
which was to be disclosed by which sin could be consistently
pardoned and removed. In the remainder of the verse, there are
three additional things which would be done as necessary to
complete the work:
To bring in everlasting righteousness;
To seal up the vision and prophecy;
To anoint the Most Holy.
And to bring in everlasting righteousness
The phrase "to bring in" - literally, "to cause to come" - refers
to some direct agency by which that righteousness would be
introduced into the world. It would be such an agency as would
cause it to exist; or as would establish it in the world. The
mode of doing this is not indeed here specified, and, so far as
the word here used is concerned, it would be applicable to any
method by which this would be done - whether by making an
atonement; or by setting an example; or by persuasion; or by
placing the subject of morals on a better foundation; or by the
administration of a just government; or in any other way. The
term is of the most general character, and its exact force here
can be learned only by the subsequently revealed facts as to the
way by which this would be accomplished. The essential idea in
the language is, that this would be introduced by the Messiah;
that is, that he would be its author. The word righteousness here
also (Heb. given) is of gernal character.
......................
Albert Barnes on Daniel 9 #3
The 70 week Prophecy
ALBERT BARNES ON DANIEL 9 AND THE 70 WEEKS #3
The word righteousness here also (Heb. given) is of a general
character.
The fair meaning would be, that some method would be introduced
by which men would become righteous. In the former part of the
verse, the reference was to sin - to the fact of its existence -
to the manner in which it would be disposed of - to the truth
that it would be coerced, sealed up, covered over. Here the
statement is, that, in contradistinction from that, a method
would be introduced by which man would become, in fact, righteous
and holy. But the word implies nothing as to the method by which
this would be done. Whether it would be by a new mode of
justification, or by an influence that would make men personally
holy, whether this was to be as the result of example, or
instruction, or an atoning sacrifice - is not necessarily implied
in the use of this word. That, as in the cases already referred
to, could be learned only by subsequent developments. It would
be, doubtless, understood that there was a reference to the
Messiah - for that is specified in the next verse; and it would
be inferred from this word that, under him, righteousness would
reign, or that men would be righteous, but nothing could be
argued from it as to the methods by which it would be done. It is
hardly necessary to add, that, in the prophets, it is constantly
said that righteousness would characterize the Messiah and his
times; that he would come to make men righteous, and to set up a
kingdom of righteousness in the earth. Yet the exact mode in
which it was to be done would be, of course, more fully explained
when the Messiah should himself actually appear.
The word "everlasting" is used here to denote that the righteousness
would be permanent and perpetual. In reference to the method of
becoming righteous, it would be unchanging - the standing method
ever onward by which men would become holy; in reference to the
individuals who should become righteous under this system, it
would be a righteousness which would continue for ever. This is
the characteristic which is everywhere given of the righteousness
which would be introduced by the Messiah. Thus in Isa.li. 6-8:
"Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth
beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the
earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein
shall die in like manner but my salvation shall be for ever, and
my righteousness shall not be abolished. Hearken unto me, ye that
know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye
not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.
For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall
eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and
my salvation from generation to generation." So Isa. xlv. 17:
"But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting
salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded, world without
end.", Compare Jer. xxxi. 3. The language used in the passage
before us, moreover, is such as could not properly be applied to
anything but that righteousness which the Messiah would
introduce. It could not be used in reference to the temporal
prosperity of the Jews on their return to the holy land, nor to
such righteousness as the nation had in former times. The fair
and proper meaning of the term is, that it would be eternal--that
which would endure for ever--(Heb. given) It would place
righteousness on a permanent and enduring foundation; introduce
that which would endure through all changes, and exist when the
heavens would be no more. In the plan itself there would be no
change; in the righteousness which any one would possess under
that system there would be perpetual duration--it would exist for
ever and ever. This is the nature of that righteousness by which
men are now justified; this is that which all who are interested
in the scheme of redemption actually possess. The way in which
this "everlasting righteousness" would be introduced is not
stated here, but is reserved for future revelations. Probably all
that the words would convey to Daniel would be, that there would
be some method disclosed by which men would become righteous,
and that this would not be temporary or changing, but would be
permanent and eternal. It is not improper that we should
understand it, as it is explained by the subsequent revelations
in the New Testament, as to the method by which sinners are
justified before God.
And to seal up the vision and prophecy--- Marg., as in the Heb.,
prophet.
The evident meaning, however, here is prophecy. The word "seal"
is found, as already explained, in the former part of the verse -
"to seal up sins." The word vision (for its meaning, see Notes
on Isaiah i. 1) need not be understood as referring particularly
to the visions seen by Daniel, but should be understood, like the
word prophecy or prophet here, in a general sense - as denoting
all the visions seen by the prophets - the series of visions
relating to the future, which had been made known to the
prophets. The idea seems to be that they would at that time be
all sealed, in the sense that they would be closed or shut up -
no longer open matters--but that the fulfilment would, as it
were, close them up for ever. Till that time they would be open
for perusal and study; then they would be closed up as a sealed
volume which one does not read, but which contains matter hidden
from the view. Comp. Notes on Isa. viii. 16 "Bind up the
testimony; seal the law among my disciples." See also Dan. viii.
26; xii. 4. In Isaiah (viii. 16) the meaning is, that the
prophecy was complete, and the direction was given to bind it up,
or roll it up like a volume, and to seal it. In Dan. viii. 26,
the meaning is, seal up the prophecy, or make a permanent record
of it, that, when it is fulfilled, the event may be compared with
the prophecy, and it may be seen that the one corresponds, with
the other. In the passage before us, Gesenius (Lex.) renders it,
"to complete, to finish"--meaning that the prophecies would be
fulfilled. Hengstenberg supposes that it means, that "as soon as
the fulfilment takes place, the prophecy, although it retains, in
other respects, its great importance, reaches the end of its
destination, in so far as the view of believers, who stand in
need of consolation and encouragement, is no longer directed to
it, to the future prosperity, but to that which has "appeared."
Lengerke supposes that it means to confirm, corroborate,
"ratifybekraftigen, bestatigen;" that is, "the eternal
righteousness will be given to the pious, and the predictions of
the prophets will be confirmed and fulfilled." To seal, says he,
has also the idea of confirming, since the contents of a writing
are secured or made fast by a seal. After all, perhaps, the very
idea here is, that of making fast, as a lock or seal does - for,
as is well known, a seal was often used by the ancients where a
lock is with us; and the sense may be, that, as a seal or lock
made fast and secure the contents of a writing or a book, so the
event, when the prophecy was fulfilled, would make it fast and
secure. It would be, as it were, locking it up, or sealing it,
forever. It would determine all that seemed to be undetermined
about it; settle all that seemed to be indefinite, and leave it
no longer uncertain what was meant.
According to this interpretation the meaning would be,
that the prophecies would be sealed up or settled by the coming
of the Messiah. The prophecies terminated on him (comp. Rev. xix.10);
they would find their fulfilment in him; they would be completed in him -
and might then be regarded as closed and consummated as a book that
is fully written and is sealed up. All the prophecies, and all the visions,
had a reference more or less direct to the coming of the Messiah,
and when he should appear they might be regarded as complete.
The spirit of prophecy would cease, and the facts would confirm and
seal all that had been written.
And to anoint the Most Holy
There has been great variety in the interpretation of this
expression. The word rendered anoint (Heb. given) - infinitive from
(Heb. given ) (Heb. given) (whence the word Messiah, verse 25),
means, properly, to strike or draw the hand over anything; to spread
over with anything, to smear, to paint, to anoint. It is commonly used
with reference to a sacred rite, to anoint, or consecrate by unction,
or anointing to any office or use; as, e.g., a priest, Exod.
xxviii. 41; xl. 15; a prophet, 1 Kings xix. 16; Isa. lxi. 1; a
king, I Sam. x. 1; xv. 1; 2 Sam. ii. 4; 1 Kings i. 34. So it is
used to denote the consecration of a stone or column as a future
sacred place, Gen. xxxi. 13; or vases and vessels as consecrated
to God, Exod. xl. 9,11; Lev. viii. 11; Numb. vii. 1. The word
would then denote a setting apart to a sacred use, or
consecrating a person or place as holy. Oil, or an unguent,
prepared according to a specified rule, was commonly employed for
this purpose, but the word may be used in a figurative sense - as
denoting to set apart or consecrate in any way without the use of
oil - as in the case of the Messiah. So far as this word,
therefore, is concerned, what is here referred to may have
occurred without the literal use of oil, by any act of
consecration or dedication to a holy use.
The phrase, "the Most Holy" (Heb. given) has been very variously
interpreted.
By some it has been understood to apply literally to the most
holy place - the holy of holies, in the temple; by others to the
whole temple, regarded as holy; by others to Jerusalem at large
as a holy place; and by others, as Hengstenberg, to the Christian
church as a holy place. By some the thing here referred to
is supposed to have been the consecration of the most holy place
after the rebuilding of the temple; by others the consecration of
the whole temple; by others the consecration of the temple and
city by the presence of the Messiah, and by others the
consecration of the Christian church, by his presence.
The phrase properly means "holy of holies," or most holy. It is
applied often in the Scriptures to the inner sanctuary, or the portion of
the tabernacle and temple containing the ark of the covenant, the
two tables of stone, &c. See Notes on Matt. xxi. 12. The phrase
occurs in the following places in the Scripture: Exod. xxvi. 33,
34; xxix. 37; xxx. 29,36; x1.10; Lev. ii. 3,10, et all-in all, in
about. It is not necessarily limited to the inner sanctuary of
the temple, but may be applied to the whole house, or to anything
that was consecrated to God in a manner peculiarly sacred. In a
large sense, possibly it might apply to Jerusalem, though I am
not aware that it ever occurs in this sense in the Scriptures,
and in a figurative sense it might be applied undoubtedly, as
Hengstenberg supposes, to the Christian church, though it is
certain that it is not elsewhere thus used. In regard to the
meaning of the expression an important and difficult one, as is
admitted by all - there are five principal opinions which it may
be well to notice. The truth will be found in one of them.
(1.)
That it refers to the consecration by oil or anointing of the
temple, that would be rebuilt after the captivity, by Zerubbabel
and Joshua. This was the opinion of Michaelis and Jahn. But to
this opinion there are insuperable objections: (a) that,
according to the uniform tradition of the Jews, the holy oil was
wanting in the second temple. In the case of the first temple
there might have been a literal anointing, though there is no
evidence of that, as there was of the anointing of the vessels of
the tabernacle, Exod. xxx. 22, &c. But in the second temple there
is every evidence that there can be, that there was no literal
anointing. (b.) The time here referred to is a fatal objection to
this opinion. The period is seventy weeks of years, or four
hundred and ninety years. This cannot be doubted (see Notes on
the first part of the verse) to be the period referred to; but it
is absurd to suppose that the consecration of the new temple
would be deferred for so long a time, and there is not the
slightest evidence that it was. This opinion, therefore, cannot
be entertained.
(2.)
The second opinion is, that it refers to the re-consecration and
cleansing of the temple after the abominations of Antiochus
Epiphanes. See Notes on ch. viii. 14.
But this opinion is liable substantially to the same objections
as the other. The cleansing of the temple, or of the sanctuary,
as it is said in ch. viii. 14, did not occur four hundred and
ninety years after the order to rebuild the temple (verse 25), but
at a much earlier period. By no art of construction, if the
period here referred to is four hundred and ninety years,
can it be made to apply to the rededication of the temple after
Antiochus had defiled it.
(3.)
Others have supposed that this refers to the Messiah himself,
and that the meaning is, that he, who was most holy, would then
be consecrated or anointed as the Messiah. It is probable,
as Hengstenberg (Christ. ii. 321, 322) has shown, that the Greek
translators thus understood it, but it is a sufficient objection to
this that the phrase, though occurring many times in the Scriptures,
is never applied to persons, unless this be an instance. Its uniform
and proper application is to things, or places, and it is undoubtedly
so to be understood in this place.
(4.)
Hengstenberg supposes (pp. 325-328) that it refers to the Christian
church as a holy place, or "the New Temple of the Lord," "the Church
of the New Covenant," as consecrated and supplied with the gifts of
the Spirit. But it is a sufficient refutation of this opinion that the phrase is
nowhere else so used; that it has in the Old Testament a settled
meaning as referring to the tabernacle or the temple; that it is
nowhere employed to denote a collection of people, any more than
an individual person - an idea which Hengstenberg himself
expressly rejects (p.322); and that there is no proper sense in
which it can be said that the Christian church is anointed. The
language is undoubtedly to be understood as referring to some
place that was to be thus consecrated, and the uniform Hebrew
usage would lead to the supposition that there is reference, in
some sense, to the temple at Jerusalem.
(5.)
It seems to me, therefore, that the obvious and fair interpretation is,
to refer it to the temple - as the holy place of God; his peculiar abode
on earth. Strictly and properly speaking, the phrase would apply
to the inner room of the temple - the sanctuary properly so
called (see Notes on IIeb. ix. 2); but it might he applied to the
whole temple as consecrated to the service of God. If it be
asked, then, what anointing or consecration is referred to here,
the reply, as it seems to me, is, not that it was then to be set
apart anew, or to be dedicated; not that it was literally to be
anointed with the consecrating; oil, but that it was to be
consecrated in the highest and best sense by the presence of the
Messiah--that by his coming there was to be a higher and more
solemn consecration of the temple to the real purpose for which
it was erected than had occurred at any time. It was reared as a
holy place; it would become eminently holy by the presence of him
who would come as the anointed of God, and his coming to it would
accomplish the purpose for which it was erected, and with
reference to which all the rites observed there had been
ordained, and then, this work having been accomplished, the
temple, and all the rites appertaining to it, would pass away.
In confirmation of this view, it may be remarked, that there are
repeated allusions to the coming of the Messiah to the second
temple, reared after the return from the captivity as that which
would give a peculiar sacredness to the temple, and which would
cause it to surpass in glory all its ancient splendour. So in
Hag. ii. 7, 9: "And I will shake all nations, and the desire of
all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory,
saith the Lord of hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be
greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this
place will I give peace, saith the Lord of hosts." So Mal. iii.
1,2: "The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple,
even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in: behold, he
shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of
his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like
a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap," &c. Comp. Matt. xii. 6
"But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the
temple."
Using the word anoint, therefore, as denoting to
consecrate, to render holy, to set apart to a sacred use, and the
phrase holy of holies to designate the temple as such, it seems
to me most probable that the reference here is to the highest
consecration which could be made of the temple in the estimation
of a Hebrew, or, in fact, the presence of the Messiah, as giving
a sacredness to that edifice which nothing else did give or could
give, and, therefore, as meeting all the proper force of the
language used here.
On the supposition that it was designed that there should be a
reference to this event, this would be such language as would
have been not unnaturally employed by a Hebrew prophet.
And if it be so, this may be regarded as the probable
meaning of the passage. In this sense, the temple which was to be
reared again, and about which Daniel felt so solicitous, would
receive its highest, its truest consecration, as connected with
an event which was to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to
seal up the vision and the prophecy.
[The coming of the Messiah - Keith Hunt]
Know, therefore, and understand
Hengstenberg renders this, "and thou wilt know and understand;"
and supposes that the design of Gabriel is to awaken the
attention and interest of Daniel by the assurance that, if he
would give attention, he would understand the subject by the
explanation which he was about to give. So also Theodotion
renders it in the future tense. The Hebrew is in the future
tense, and would probably convey the idea that he might or would
know and understand the matter. So Lengerke renders it, "Und so
mogest du wissen," &c. The object is doubtless to call the
attention of Daniel to the subject, with the assurance that he
might comprehend the great points of the communication which he
was about to make respecting the seventy weeks. In the previous
verse, the statement was a general one; in this, the angel states
the time when the period of the seventy weeks was to commence,
and then that the whole period was to be broken up or divided
into three smaller portions or epochs, each evidently marking
some important event, or constituting an important era.
The first period of seven weeks was evidently to be characterized by
something in which it would be different from and threescore and
two weeks the street shall be built again, that which would
follow, or it would reach to some important epoch, and then would
follow a continuous period of sixty-two weeks, after which,
during the remaining one week, to complete the whole number of
seventy, the Messiah would come and would be cut off, and the
series of desolations would commence which would result in the
entire destruction of the city.
That from the going forth of the commandment---- Heb., "of the
word"--(Heb. given)
It is used, however, as in ver.23, in the sense of commandment or
order. The expression "gone forth" would properly apply to the
issuing of an order or decree. So in verse 23--(Heb. given) ---"the
commandment went forth." The word properly means a going forth,
and is applied to the rising sun, that goes forth from the east,
Psa. xix. 6 (7); then a place of going forth, as a gate, a
fountain of waters, the east, &c., Ezek. xlii. 1; Isa. xli. 18;
Psa. lxxv. 6 (7). The word here has undoubted reference to the
promulgation of a decree or command, but there is nothing in the
words to determine by whom the command was to be issued. So far
as the language is concerned, it would apply equally well to a
command issued by God, or by the Persian king, and nothing but
the circumstances can determine which is referred to.
Hengstenberg supposes that it is the former, and that the
reference is to the Divine purpose, or the command issued from
the "heavenly council" to rebuild Jerusalem. But the more natural
and obvious meaning is, to understand it of the command actually
issued by the Persian monarch to restore and build the city of
Jerusalem. This has been the interpretation given by the great
body of expositors, and the reasons for it seem to be perfectly
clear: (a) This would be the interpretation affixed to it
naturally, if there were no theory to support, or if it did not
open a chronological difficulty not easy to settle. (b) This is
the only interpretation which can give anything like definiteness
to the passage. Its purpose is to designate some fixed and
certain period from which a reckoning could be made as to the
time when the Messiah would come. But, so far as appears, there
was no such definite and marked command on the part of God; no
period which can be fixed upon when he gave commandment to
restore and build Jerusalem; no exact and settled point from
which one could reckon as to the period when the Messiah would
come.
It seems to me, therefore, to be clear, that the allusion
is to some order to rebuild the city, and as this order could
come only from one who had at that time jurisdiction over
Jerusalem and Judea, and who could command the resources
necessary to rebuild the ruined city, that order must be one that
would emanate from the reigning power; that is, in fact, the
Persian power - for that was the power that had jurisdiction at
the close of the seventy years exile. But, as there were several
orders or commands in regard to the restoration of the city and
the temple, and as there has been much difficulty in ascertaining
the exact chronology of the events of that remote period, it has
not been easy to determine the precise order referred to, or to
relieve the whole subject from perplexity and difficulty.
Lengerke supposes that the reference here is the same as in verse
2, to the promise made to Jeremiah, and that this is the true
point from which the reckoning is to be made. The exact edict
referred to will be more properly considered at the close of the
verse. All that is necessarily implied here is, that the time
from which the reckoning is to be commenced is some command
or order issued to restore and build Jerusalem. To restore. Marg.,
build again. The Hebrew is, properly, to cause to
return--(Heb. given) The word might be applied to the return of the
captives to their own land, but it is evidently here used with
reference to the city of Jerusalem, and the meaning must be, to
restore it to ifs former condition. It was evidently the purpose
to cause it to return, as it were, to its former splendour; to
reinstate it in its former condition as a holy city - the city
where the worship of God would be celebrated, and it is this
purpose which is referred to here. The word, in Hiphil, is used
in this sense of restoring to a former state, or to renew, in the
following places: Psa. lxxx. 3, "Turn us again and cause thy face
to shine." So verses 7,19, of the same Psalm. Isa. i. 26, "And I
will restore thy judges as at the first," &c. The meaning here
would be met by the supposition that Jerusalem was to be put into
its former condition. And to build Jerusalem. It was then in
ruins. The command, which is referred to here, must be one to
build it up again--its houses, temple, walls; and the fair sense
is, that some such order would be issued, and the reckoning of
the seventy weeks must begin at the issuing of this command.
The proper interpretation of the prophecy demands that
that time shall be assumed in endeavouring to ascertain when the
seventy weeks would terminate. In doing this, it is evidently
required in all fairness that we should not take the time when
the Messiah did appear or the birth of the Lord Jesus, assuming
that to be the "terminus ad quem " the point to which the seventy
weeks were to extend - and then reckon backward for a space of
four hundred and ninety years, to see whether we cannot find some
event which by a possible construction would bear to be applied
as the terminus a quo, the point from which we are to begin to
reckon; but we are to ascertain when, in fact, the order was
given to rebuild Jerusalem, and to make that the terminus a quo
the starting point in the reckoning. The consideration of the
fulfilment of this may with propriety be reserved to the close of
the verse.
(With correct history we can figure it all. Jesus was born 5 B.C
an article on my Website proves that. His MINISTRY began in
the fall of 26 A.D. Going back 483 years would bring us to 458
The decree [in whatever form was to allow the Jews freedom to
rebuild] the freedom of the Jews to return to Jerusalem and start to
rebuild. Obviously the first thing to rebuild would be the Temple. The city
itself would take much longer, but in 516 B.C. the Jews had their freedom,
the 70 year captivity was over, they could start the return to Palestine
and Jerusalem. But many things would conflict with them for decades.
Add 483 years to 458 B.C. when the command to rebuild went forth
and you have 26 A.D. Jesus died after 3 and 1/2 years in the Passover Spring
of 30 A.D.[which many a scholar have agreed that was the year of his death].
Then 40 years later - 70 A.D. [40 is the number God uses for trial and
testing] Jerusalem was destroyed by the armies of Titus the
Roman, allowed by God, even foretold by Christ, so in
that sense under the prince Messiah that was to come, Messiah God
takes responsibility in allowing these armies of Rome to destroy
the Temple and Jerusalem. The years I have given all fit in the
typology of the numbers 7, 30, and 40 with 7 x 7 weeks. Barnes
here starts to make things way too complicated, the prophecy is not
that complicated. There was also in prophecy a person to come who
would "introduce" the Messiah. The true people of God knew the
one to come before the Messiah was John the baptist, the Elijah
to come [just as the Pharisees also proclaimed it, only they would
not acknowledge John the baptist fulfilling that prophecy], hence they
were looking at that time for the Messiah, whom John said would come to
replace him. The true people of God knew the 483 or 69 weeks of years
was in their life, very near completion, so they expected the Messiah to arise
on the scene; this we see from the very words of the disciples
and John the baptist in the Gospels - Keith Hunt)
Unto the Messiah
The word Messiah occurs but four times in the common version of
the Scriptures: Dan. ix. 25,26 John i. 41; iv. 25. It is
synonymous in meaning with the word Christ, the Anointed. See
Notes on Matt. i. 1.
Messiah is the Hebrew word; Christ the Greek. The Hebrew word
(Heb. given) occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and, with the
exception of these two places in Daniel, it is uniformly
translated anointed, and is applied to priests, to prophets, and
to kings, as being originally set apart to their offices by solemn
acts of anointing. So far as the language is concerned here, it
might be applied to any one who sustained these offices, and the
proper application is to be determined from the connection.
Our translators have introduced the article--"unto the Messiah."
This is wanting in the Hebrew, and should not have been
introduced, as it gives a definiteness to the prophecy - which
the original language does not necessarily demand. Our
translators undoubtedly understood it as referring to him who is
known as the Messiah, but this is not necessarily implied in the
original.
All that the language fairly conveys is, "until an anointed one."
Who that was to be is to be determined from other
circumstances than the mere use of the language, and in the
interpretation of the language it should not be assumed that the
reference is to any particular individual. That some eminent
personage is designated; someone who by way of eminence would be
properly regarded as anointed of God; some one who would act so
important a part as to characterize the age, or determine the
epoch in which he should live; some one so prominent that he
could be referred to as "anointed," with no more definite
appellation; some one who would be understood to be referred to
by the mere use of this language, maybe fairly concluded from the
expression used - for the angel clearly meant to imply this, and
to direct the mind forward to some one who would have such a
prominence in the history of the world.
The object now is merely to ascertain the meaning of the language.
All that is fairly implied is, that it refers to some one who would
have such a prominence as anointed, or set apart to the office of prophet,
priest, or king, that it could be understood that he was referred
to by the use of this language. The reference is not to the
anointed one, as of one who was already known or looked forward
to as such - for then the article would have been used; but to
some one who, when he appeared, would have such marked
characteristics that there would be no difficulty in determining
that he was the one intended. Hengstenberg well remarks, "We
must, therefore, translate an anointed one, a prince, and assume
that the prophet, in accordance with the uniform character of his
prophecy, chose the more indefinite, instead of the more definite
designation, and spoke only of an anointed one, a prince, instead
of the anointed one, the prince--(Greek given) --and left his hearers
to draw a deeper knowledge respecting him, from the prevailing
expectations, grounded on earlier prophecies of a future great
King, from the remaining declarations of the context, and from
the fulfilment, the coincidence of which with the prophecy must
here be the more obvious, since an accurate date had been
given."--Christol. ii. 334,335. The Vulgate renders this, "Usque
ad Christum ducem" - "even to Christ the leader," or ruler. The
Syriac, "to the advent of Christ the king." Theodotion, (Greek given)
-- "to Christ the leader," or ruler. The question whether this
refers to Christ will be more appropriately considered at the
close of the verse. The inquiry will then occur, also, whether
this refers to his birth, or to his appearance as the anointed
one - his taking upon himself publicly the office. The language
would apply to either, though it would perhaps more properly
refer to the latter - to the time when he should appear as such -
or should be anointed, crowned, or set apart to the office, and
be fully instituted in it. It could not be demonstrated that
either of these applications would be a departure from the fair
interpretation of the words, and the application must be
determined by some other circumstances, if any are expressed.
What those are in the case will be considered at the close of the
verse.
The Prince. (Heb. given)
This word properly means a leader, a prefect, a prince. It is a
a word of very general character and might be applied to any
leader or ruler.
...........................
To be continued
No comments:
Post a Comment