Given that both defy God and persecute the people of God these differences in description are specific and do not suggest identification. They could of course be reconciled by clever argument, but the first impression is certainly of a different type of attitude and situation.

The king referred to here in chapter 8 is almost certainly Antiochus IV Epiphanes, (175-164 BC) who ruled the Seleucid empire in Babylonia and Syria (see I Maccabees 1.10), in contrast with that in chapter 7 which refers to a great and evil king of the time of the end.

‘Which grew exceedingly great towards the south, and towards the east and towards the beauty (the desirable).’ Reference here would seem to be towards Antiochus’ campaigns against Egypt (the south - 11.5) - see 1 Maccabees 1.16-19, from which he was turned back by the authority of Rome. The east is Elymais in Persia, and Armenia (1 Maccabees 3.31, 37; 6.1-4).

‘The beauty (the desirable).’ Reference may be made to 11.16, 41, 45; Jeremiah 3.19; Ezekiel 20.6, 15; compare Psalm 106.24; Zechariah 7.14. The reference is to the land of promise, seen as God’s land and God’s inheritance to His people. The aim is to bring out the awfulness of his crime.

‘And it grew great even to the host of heaven, and some of the host and of the stars it cast down to the ground and trampled on them.’

The host of heaven elsewhere can mean the sun, moon and stars and their connections with the gods (see Deuteronomy 4.19; 17.3; 2 Kings 17.16; 21.3 and often; Isaiah 34.4; Jeremiah 8.2; 19.13; Zephaniah 1.5), or the angels in God’s court (1 Kings 22.19; 2 Chronicles 18.18; Nehemiah 9.6). But the people of Israel are thought of as the hosts of Yahweh in Exodus 7.4; 12.41 also see Exodus 16.13; Deuteronomy 4.13 and often, where Israel are called ‘the host’.

Antiochus made great claims for himself, seeing himself as the manifestation of Zeus, and thus as being over the host of heaven in the first sense. He pillaged and robbed temples without restraint, treating their gods with contempt. Thus by the Jews he would be seen as not only blasphemous in his attitude towards God but also by many as sacrilegious in his attitude and behaviour towards the gods in general. That is not to say that he persecuted all religions, for that would have gained him nothing. As long as the people submitted to Zeus he left them generally alone, except where he felt that he could enrich himself by robbing their temples.

Polybius comments that he ‘robbed most of the sanctuaries’ although it is not clear how extensive was the area in mind, and Granus Licianus tells us that he plundered the temple of Diana in Hierapolis and robbed it of its treasures. Polybius also tells us that immediately prior to his death he made a vain attempt to acquire the riches of a temple of Artemis in Elymais, where he had come on a campaign against the Parthians (compare 1 Maccabees 6.1-4). These are examples we know of; we need not doubt that they were some among many, for it was clearly his custom. Thus he would adequately fit the description given, if interpreting the host of heaven as signifying the gods.

But alternately ‘the host of heaven’ (see 4.26 for the use of heaven to mean God) may here mean the people of the God of heaven. Compare verse 11 - ‘the prince of the host’, verse 12 - ‘the host who were given over to him’, and 12.3 where the true people of God are to shine as the stars, so that Daniel sees them as like stars (compare Genesis 37.9; Revelation 12.1). Indeed the next two verses really demand it. The trampling down then refers to their maltreatment and persecution.

8.11-12 ‘Yes it magnified itself, even to the prince of the host, and it took away from him what is done continually (religious worship including the offerings and sacrifices), and the place of his sanctuary was cast down, and the host was given up together with the continual (rites) because of transgression. And it cast down truth to the ground, and it acted and prospered.’

This would seem to confirm that the ‘host of heaven’ is the people of God. Antiochus, by his behaviour set himself against God and those who served Him.

For ‘the prince (sar) of the host’ compare Joshua 5.14, ‘as sar of the host of Yahweh have I come’ where the thought is probably of the divine Angel of Yahweh (Judges 2.1). See also ‘the prince (sar) of princes’ in verse 25 in this chapter. ‘Yahweh of Hosts’ was after all a regular name for God. In Isaiah 9.6 the coming king is called ‘the Prince (sar) of peace. But in Daniel 10.21 we have reference to ‘Michael your sar’ and in 12.1 to ‘Michael -- the great sar who stands for the children of your people’. However, neither are directly linked with God’s host.

So in the light of reference to the ‘taking away’ from him of what is ‘done continually’ (the sabbaths and feasts, the offerings and sacrifices) and the reference to ‘his’ sanctuary we must surely see this prince of the host as meaning God Himself or the Angel of Yahweh. The ‘host of heaven’ is then certainly the true Israel.

By his religious restrictions, forbidding sacrifices and circumcision, banning the sabbath, and the reading of the Scriptures, and by the desecration of God’s temple, he basically took away from God what was His, and in the course of it cast down the sanctuary (compare 1 Maccabees 1.44-47).

An alternative is to see the prince of the host as the true High Priest who had had taken from him the privilege of partaking in the continual rites of worship, and had also seen the sanctuary which was his responsibility, desecrated.

‘What is done continually’ (religious worship including the offerings and sacrifices). This is literally ‘the continual.’ It probably includes all the continually repeated aspects of Israelite worship; morning and evening sacrifice, other regular sacrifices, the keeping of the sabbath, circumcision, the reading of Scripture, and so on (compare again 1 Maccabees 1.44-47).

‘And the place of his sanctuary was cast down.’ ‘The place’ means that which has been set up. It may refer mainly to the altar, which was replaced by Antiochus with an altar for the worship of Zeus, or it may mean that the whole of the sanctuary which had been set up for the worship of God was rendered useless for its purpose because of the desecration. Notice that the stars (God’s true people?) were cast down to the ground, literally ‘were made to fall’ (verse 10), the place of His sanctuary was cast down (verse 11) and truth was cast down to the ground (verse 12), a threefold casting down denoting completeness.

The ‘giving up’ up may mean given up by God because of the transgressions of His people. Such humiliations of His people as this are usually traced to sin in Scripture, and at this time there was much sin and apostasy in Israel due to the worst aspects of Hellenisation. It will shortly be depicted as the latter part of the whole period of God’s indignation against Israel. Alternately it may signify that Antiochus gave them up, and the continual rites, to punishment, cessation and retribution because they had transgressed against him.

‘Because of transgression.’ Compare verse 23, but see also verse 13.

‘And it cast down truth to the ground, and it acted and prospered.’ This is expressing what has already been said in another way. As a result of his activities it was truth that was the victim. It was rejected and tossed to the ground. People were being turned from the way of truth by persecution. And in the face of it Antiochus prospered. There was judgment waiting to happen.

8.13 ‘Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that certain one who spoke, “How long will be the vision about the continual things (worship rites) and the transgression that appals (or makes desolate), to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot?” And he said to me, “To two thousand three hundred mornings and evenings. Then will the sanctuary be cleansed (made righteous).” ’

Here we have a conversation between two holy ones, or angels, in which the question is put as to how long the devastating things that are to happen will last.

We could paraphrase it as ‘how long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled, during which the continual rites will cease, and the transgression that appals takes place, and from the time when the sanctuary and God’s people are trodden under foot, to the date when the sanctuary is finally made righteous (justified)?’

The main ideas to be considered are:

• 1). The cessation of the continual rites of true worship. This represented the decrees by which true worship was forbidden, including the observance of the Sabbath, the offering of the morning and evening sacrifices, and the carrying out of the other regular ritual observances.
• 2). The transgression that appals. This could have been the active participation in worship of a high priest who was not of the recognised priestly line, the stealing of the temple vessels by that high priest, the murder of the true high priest by instigation of that high priest, or the final sacrilege of offering a pig on the altar. All these could be seen as transgressions that ‘appalled’. Compare Ezra 9.4 where he too was appalled. at the holy seed mixing in marriage with the inhabitants of the land, and Jeremiah 2.12 where God calls on the heavens to be appalled at the idolatry of God’s people.
• 3). The treading under foot of the sanctuary and God’s people. This occurred the moment that Menelaus was appointed and took up office. The sanctity of the sanctuary and the concerns of the people were both trodden under foot. And this then continued in what followed.
• 4). The date when the temple is finally ‘made righteous’. This may have been the time when the temple was purified, or it may have been seen as only accomplished when the defiler had died. It may thus refer to the date of Antiochus’ death.

  The reply to the question is then, for two thousand three hundred mornings and evenings, after which the sanctuary will be ‘made righteous’.

  The ‘desolation’ or ‘astonishment’ may refer to the time when the High Priest Menelaus was appointed who was not of the priestly line, thus defiling the sanctuary, the time when he stole the sacred temple vessels for his own use, taking them out of the sanctuary, the time when he slew the true high priest who was sacred before God, or to the time when the daily sacrifices ceased, all being transgressions which astonished and desolated the true Israel. The transgression may have been that of Antiochus, or that of the high priest, or that of the leadership of Israel who allowed it, or all three.

  The ‘two thousand three hundred mornings and evenings’ presents a difficulty of interpretation. Does this mean two thousand three hundred days, (compare the regular use of mornings and evenings in Genesis 1), or does it mean one thousand one hundred and fifty evening sacrifices and one thousand one hundred and fifty morning sacrifices which have been omitted because of the persecution? The latter may well be an accurate indication of the length of time that the sacrifices ceased.

  And if it means two thousand three hundred days is it then the equivalent of ‘a time, times (e.g. five times) and half a time’ (7.25) where it signified a period that came to more than six but less than seven times, thought of here in terms of years? Seven years would be, say, two thousand five hundred and twenty days, Thus two thousand three hundred could be a round number indicating not reaching the perfect seven years because God prevented it, expressed here in days so as to suggest that every day of that dreadful time was counted by God.

  One thing we can be sure of is that it does not mean two thousand three hundred years. It does not say ‘days’ it says evenings and mornings. Besides it is very questionable whether we have a right to see days as representing years anywhere except when it is made perfectly clear in the context. The prophets cannot be so straitjacketed or presumed upon.

  If we take the two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings as representing the number of evening and morning sacrifices, thus one thousand one hundred and fifty days, we can obtain this by adding the 1,080 days (360 + 360 + 360) between the sacrificing of a pig on the altar and the purifying of the temple, plus an extra ten as the finalising of the building of the pagan altar was early December and the cessation late December (the former the 15th the latter the 25th of Chislev) making 1,090 days, and adding two round months because the actual sacrifices ceased prior to the altar being set up, thus making 1,150 days. Alternately the two months may be to take into account work done in preparation for the final desecration, once the sacrifices had been forbidden (1 Maccabees 1.45). Either way we can reach the 1,150 days referred to in this chapter as ‘2,300 evenings mornings’ (i.e. morning and evening sacrifices).

  If we consider the meaning to be two thousand three hundred days, however, the period being over six years, but falling short of seven, compare ‘a time, times and half a time’, it may be from 171 BC, when Menelaus the High Priest appointed by Antiochus, who was not of the recognised priestly line, profaned the sanctuary itself by acting as High Priest, or from the time when he stole and profaned the temple vessels, or from 170 BC when he killed Onias III, the High Priest recognised by the people and by God (11.22), (any of these might be ‘the transgression that appals’) to 164 BC, the death of Antiochus, a date chosen on the grounds that only the death of the defiler could finally ‘make righteous’ the holy sanctuary and ‘atone’ for the blasphemy.

  One thing we can be sure of is that it refers to a period during the reign of Antiochus during which he caused the sabbaths and the sacrifices to cease, desecrated the temple and persecuted Israel severely.

  The Angel Gabriel Appears To Interpret the Vision.

  8.15-16 ‘And so it was that when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, that I sought to understand it, and behold there stood before me the appearance of a man, and I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai which called and said, “Gabriel, make this man (or ‘that one there’ - hallaz) to understand the vision.’

  Daniel, considering the vision he had seen and seeking in his own mind to understand it, suddenly saw the appearance of a man (gaber = ‘man’ or ‘strong’ - suggestive of Gabriel = ‘man of God’ or ‘God has made strong’) before him. Then he heard the voice of a man (adam), possibly coming from above the water at the centre of the river (compare 12.6, 7), telling Gabriel (see also 9.21) to reveal to him the truth about the vision. It was the voice of authority.

  The voice was probably not an ordinary ‘holy one’ (angel) otherwise why differ from verse 13? Thus this must have been the man clothed with linen (12.6, 7; Ezekiel 9.2), who was so powerful that he could declare the ending of time (12.7) and mark men off for judgment (Ezekiel 9.2), for the fact that it is described as the voice of a man suggests that whoever it was had appeared in human form. The voice commanded Gabriel to reveal the meaning of the vision.

  We should note that, along with Michael the archangel, Gabriel is the only angel ever mentioned by name in Scripture (9.21; 10.13, 21; 12.1; Luke 1.19, 26; Jude 1.9).

  8.17 ‘So he came near where I stood, and when he came I was filled with awe, and fell on my face. But he said to me, “Understand O son of man, for the vision belongs to the time of the end.”

  The approach of Gabriel filled Daniel with awe and he fell on his face. The presence of Gabriel and the voice from the river made him aware of the awesome presence of God. Gabriel then addressed him as ‘son of man’, a title suggestive of weakness and humanity, and, in the context of Daniel, of one of the people of God.

  ‘For the vision belongs to the time of the end.’ The meaning of this statement is open to question. Of course, for interpreters who see large parts of prophetic Scripture as belonging to what they call ‘the end times’, meaning the time just before Christ’s second coming, even when, on the face of it, it does not fit in, there is no difficulty, ‘the end’ always means that period. The fact that what has gone before does not fit in with that is no problem, they simply double up and say it all applies to both its obvious meaning and the end times. Such interpreters take up certain phrases and say that they always indicate what they mean by ‘the end times’ (phrases such as ‘the Day of Yahweh’, which can actually refer to any ‘day’ when Yahweh acts in judgment whether at the ‘end times’ or not; and ‘in that day’, which can simply mean at that time; although both often can mean ‘the end times’).

  But we have to ask what Daniel meant by it in context, and, as we have seen, the vision refers first to the rise of the Medo-Persian empire, and then of the Greek empire and then refers at the end to the time of the rise and persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and desecration of the temple, and ceases at the point of the ‘making righteous’ of the temple. ‘The ‘fourth empire’ is not yet in sight. Thus the obvious meaning of ‘belongs to the time of the end’ is that the whole significance and purpose of the vision was to bring us up to that end point, the end of the vision. The ‘time of the end’ is ‘the time of the end of the vision’. The concentration of the vision was not on the prior sweep of history but on the final phase, the dealings of Antiochus Epiphanes. That is the time the vision ‘belongs to’, the time at the end of the vision.

  Note on - ‘The vision belongs to the time of the end’ and similar phrases

  In Daniel, references to ‘the end’ are many and certainly do not all point to one period. We have seen already that in 8.17 ‘the time of the end’ is the time on which the vision concentrates at its end, the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, thus meaning ‘the time of the end of the vision’. We can compare 8.19 where ‘the latter time of the indignation’, that is the final part of the period of indignation against Israel and Judah, (which includes the three hundred and ninety years of Israel and the forty years of Judah - Ezekiel 4.4-13) belongs to ‘the appointed time of the end’. This refers to the activities of Antiochus which are seen as the closure of the time of indignation. The angel’s explanation will cover exactly the same period. This ‘indignation’ refers to God’s wrath against His people as described by the prophets, which was clearly here seen as continuing during the activities of Medo-Persia and Greece because of the disobedience of God’s rebellious people, the latter time of it being the reign of Antiochus, for that is what the vision is specifically emphasising. The end of this period is ‘the appointed time of the end’ (of the indignation).

  This phrase ‘the appointed time’ also occurs in 11.27; 11.29; 11.35 where each time it is referring to the time that God has appointed in which to deal with this vile persecutor, Antiochus. The exile was clearly not seen as having averted ‘the indignation’, and this was to be Israel’s next major hurdle. Thus Daniel saw the Maccabaean uprising which followed Antiochus, and the rise of the Hasidim (the loyal ones) and their followers, preparatory for the coming of John the Baptiser and Jesus, as following this period of indignation. The return from exile had not purified the people. This had required the persecution of an Antiochus.

  In 11.6 ‘the end of the years’ simply means the end of the period to which those particular circumstances apply.

  Very different are references to ‘the end’ (9.26; 11.40, 12.6 compare 12.13, and possibly 12.4; 12.9) where there is no reference point for ‘the end’ and we must therefore see them as actually referring to the time when God is about to sum up history. For all these references see the commentary at that point.

  Like all the prophets Daniel looked forward in his vision and saw the near and far future. None of them knew how long it would be. But they saw certain events ahead like mountain peaks one behind the other. And to them beyond the first mountain peak were ‘the last days’.

  Imagine a sturdy walker on a long hike in unknown mountainous country. He looks ahead and sees stretching before him a number of mountain peaks, and the farthest does not seem all that much further than the nearest. The problem is going to be getting to the first. Then they will come quickly one after another. So he struggles on and at last reaches the first mountain. But when he gets to the top of the first mountain peak, he receives his first shock. The second mountain peak which had seemed to be just behind the first is now a long way distance away separated from him by a huge plain. So he begins his weary trip towards the second. And the same happens each time he reaches a mountain top. Rather than being close together as they first appeared they are each separated from the other by huge plains.

  In the same way the prophets looked ahead and saw the mountain tops. They did not know what lay between, and they rarely reached the first mountain. (Ezekiel did and then he saw further mountains ahead). They were not fortune tellers or foretellers of future events in order to satisfy human curiosity, they were the voice of God, declarers of what God was going to do and the principles that he would follow through to the end. Their prophecies were regularly in two phases, the first phase which would be fulfilled in the not too distant future, but would only be a partial fulfilment, and a second phase, a further mountain top, which would bring about its final fulfilment. Compare for example Tyre (Ezekiel 26.7-14). This was first to be defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, but it would only a lot later on become a place to spread nets in. A similar example is Babylon, defeated by the Medes, but it was only long centuries later that it became a total ruin (Isaiah 13.17-22). And yet the second result followed the first inexorably.

  In Daniel’s case he saw first the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes, which would have such a profound effect on the faith of Israel, bringing about the birth of what was good in the Pharisaic teaching with its emphasis on the resurrection. That was his first mountain top. And then would come (of which he saw glimpses) the rise of the fourth kingdom and the birth of Jesus the Messiah and Son of Man, followed by the establishment of the new Israel under the Kingly Rule of God, arising out of the old Israel, all smiting at the base of the totality of the empires, and then would come ‘the end’, troublous times, followed by the final judgment of God and the resurrection (12.2-3). And all seen as coming closely one after another, without any conception of the spans of time that lay between, which to us seem so huge, but which to God, Who can step from one mountain top to another in a moment of time, are just ahead.

  So the fourth and final empire, which was already in view in 11.30, would follow Antiochus. And as we have seen in his visions that was the ‘end time’ empire, (2.40-44; 7.7-8, 19-25), the apocalyptic empire, which would clash with the smiting stone and the son of man receiving His kingdom.

  To put it in other words the actions of Antiochus would introduce ‘the last days’. These ‘last days’ would include the conquests of Rome, the coming of Jesus, the Messiah and Son of Man, (regularly described in the New Testament as ‘the last days’ and as being ‘the end of the ages’ and its equivalent - Acts 2.17; 1 Peter 1.20; 4.7; 1 Corinthians 10.11; Hebrews 1.1-2; Hebrews 9.26-28), the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome, the growth of the new Israel, the everlasting kingdom of God which incorporates all true believers, and indeed is the true church and the true Israel of God, the disintegration of Rome into many ‘kingships’ (the ten horns), and the final times prior to the second coming of Christ, which would include the rise of ‘the horn, the small one’, leading up to that coming, and the resurrection and the final judgment of God. All these are portrayed in one way or another by the prophets.

  End of note.

  8.18-19 ‘Now as he was speaking with me, I fell into a deep sleep (swooned) with my face towards the ground, but he touched me and set me upright, and he said, “Behold I will make you know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation, for it belongs to the appointed time of the end.” ’

  The effect of the contact with Gabriel caused him to go into a deep swoon as he lay on his face on the ground (verse 17). This is elsewhere the result of contact with the supernatural where something unique is happening, compare 10.9; Genesis 2.21;15.12. But Gabriel touched him and aroused him, giving him strength for this ordeal of receiving revelation from such a powerful angel. For ‘set me upright’ compare 7.4. He was made ready to receive God’s revelation.

  By considering the vision we are made to recognise that God’s indignation against his people had not ceased with the return from exile, simply because they failed to repent and be transformed. So it continued through the rise of Medo-Persia to the appointed time for Antiochus, the latter period being in the latter part of the whole period of indignation, leading up to ‘the appointed time of the end’ of the indignation. All was within God’s appointment. And the result of Antiochus’ persecution was the beginning of a new period for the true purified Israel, free from indignation, which was the beginning of the last days, preparing for the arrival of the Messiah, and was also the beginning of the rise of the fourth kingdom, the kingdom of the last days, which began with Rome and continued in different forms ever since. The days of Antiochus were seen as pivotal.

  The Interpretation of the Vision.

  8.20-22 ‘The ram which you saw, which had the two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia. And the rough he-goat is the king of Greece. And the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. And as for that which was broken, in the place whereof four stood up, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not with his power.’

  This confirms what we have seen above, all given in a few words within which more than three hundred years have passed by. But all is leading up to the time of Antiochus IV. Note the emphasis on the declining control of the empires. ‘Two horns’, an empire made up of two, although one king had dominion of the other; ‘four kingdoms’, an empire made up of four, and even more separated. Compare the declining value of the metals in 2.37-43.

  8.23 ‘And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors (or, repointed, this could be ‘transgressions’) are come to the full, a king of strong countenance, and understanding riddles, will stand up. And his power will be mighty, but not by his own power. And he will destroy wonderfully, and will prosper and will do (whatever he wants). And he will destroy the mighty ones and the holy people.’

  The one now spoken of arises in the latter time of the Greek kingdom, at a time when Israel’s transgressing has reached its full, as they turned back to the idolatry from which the exile was supposed to deliver them. Some would turn back reluctantly under persecution, but these had turned back for political convenience long before. Among many hellenisation and acknowledgement of the Greek gods gave them a new way of life and a new culture, and they embraced it eagerly (see 1 Maccabees 1.11-15).

  ‘A king of strong countenance, and understanding riddles, will stand up.’ This can hardly be any other than Antiochus Epiphanes. ‘Strong countenance’ refers to hardness of feature caused by a hard and unyielding spirit (compare Deuteronomy 28.50).

  ‘Understanding riddles.’ Seeing himself as a god he saw himself as wise and full of understanding of the things of the gods, which was why the stubborn Israelites so infuriated him. Did they not realise that he was a master of the knowledge of the gods? Or the idea may be that he was a master of dissimulation, cunning enough to be able to deceive people and disguise his intentions. For example, he sent his general to Jerusalem pretending peace, and when they received him he took advantage of the Sabbath and then slaughtered many Israelites.

  ‘And his power will be mighty, but not by his own power.’ He claimed to be the manifestation of Zeus and thus that Zeus was operative through him, thus this may be seeing it from his viewpoint. Others see it as meaning that it was God Who enabled him in order to use him as an instrument of chastisement for His people. He was only able to do it because God allowed it. Like the Assyrians and Nebuchadnezzar before him he was the rod of God’s anger (Isaiah 10.5). Perhaps the latter may be seen as more likely to be in Daniel’s mind.

  ‘He will destroy wonderfully, and will prosper and will do (whatever he wants). And he will destroy the mighty ones and the holy people.’ This describes his effectiveness in every sphere. He destroyed, and prospered, and did whatever he wanted. No one, apart in the end from the Romans, could prevent him from doing whatever he wanted. However mighty his enemies might be they could not stand before him. ‘The mighty ones and the holy people.’ A deliberate contrast. He was not just a successful warrior, he was an attacker of God’s true people, and it was that that would result in his downfall. He was the first real persecutor.

  8.25 ‘And by his understanding he will cause deceit to prosper by his hand, and he will magnify himself in his heart and he will destroy many in security. He will also stand up against the prince of princes. But he will be broken without hand.’

  His ‘understanding’ means his understanding of cunning. He used deceit to obtain victory and reap wealth. He was a man who could not be trusted. ‘Magnifying himself in his heart’ may well refer to his claims of deity. Once kings magnified themselves too highly, their end was sure. Compare 8.4, 8. ‘Destroy many in security’ probably refers to his methods such as that of pretending to come in peace and then taking men by surprise and slaughtering them (see 1 Maccabees 1.29-30).

  ‘He will also stand up against the prince of princes. But he will be broken without hand.’ The ‘prince of princes’, that is God. Compare ‘the prince of the host’ (verse 11.) This probably mainly refers to the desecration of the temple and the ban on circumcision, the Sabbath, and true worship, and the enforced destruction of the Scriptures. Thus he would die, but not by a human hand, that is not ‘naturally’ or by being slain in warfare but because God had destined him for death. They need not fear for God has him in hand.

  8.26 ‘And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true. But shut up the vision for it belongs to many days.’

  Compare verse 14. The spoken vision of the evenings and the mornings was of the period when the temple was desecrated, whether by a the ministrations of a false High Priest (Menelaus) or by the altar of Zeus. It would be a heavy burden for Israel if they considered the fact, that the sanctuary that they would so painfully erect would again be desecrated, and almost unbelievable that God would allow it. But Daniel is assured that it will indeed be so, but that it will not be for a long time. So the vision was not to be read out as though it could happen at any time. It was to be kept on one side and preserved with a recognition that it spoke of a distant future and in those days would prove a comfort and a strength.

  8.27 ‘And I Daniel was totally exhausted, and was sick certain days. Then I rose up and did the business of the king, and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it (or ‘I did not understand it’).’

  The reception of the vision was exhausting and demanding, so much so that Daniel was ill and unable to carry out his duties for the king. And he spent much time pondering it in total astonishment. But as it had been explained to him it is difficult to believe that this means that he did not understand it, as some suggest. Possibly he found it hard to believe and comprehend, living as he did when the Persian empire was so strong and powerful. Or possibly the idea is that, when he tried to explain it, it was too hard for men to grasp. It would seem to speak in riddles. It was beyond conception.

  Should We Read Into This Horn of Littleness The Evil King of the End Times?

  That he is a pattern of that king we need not doubt, but the evil king of the end times is clearly depicted in chapter 7. Thus this one is but a shadow of the other. It is in chapter 11 that the one merges into the other. We may safely therefore say that he was a warning and pattern of what is to come, but should probably go no further than that. Some are too eager to read into Scripture what it does not say, and should beware. This is the word of God. Our interpretations must therefore be careful and not so enthusiastic that they go beyond what is said.

  Chapter 9 The Vision of the Seventy Sevens.

  Daniel prays over the situation of Jerusalem and passionately declares the undeserving of Israel and expresses his hope in the mercy and forgiveness of God. He pleads for the restoration of Jerusalem. His prayer reveals the powerful influence of Jeremiah’s writings on him. God then sends Gabriel to tell him that there are yet ‘seventy sevens’ before the final purposes of God can be brought about.

  9.1 ‘In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans, in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of years about which the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah the prophet for the bringing to conclusion of the desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years.’

  For Darius the Mede see chapter 6 opening. Here he is called the son of Ahasuerus (Persian khshayarsha). This was a name applied to royalty (Xerxes) in the Medo-Persian empire and there is no reason why someone with such a name should not be father to Darius the Mede. And he is said to be ‘of the seed of the Medes’. This stresses that ‘the Mede’ refers to his birth and not to the empire over which he was king.

  ‘Was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans.’ ‘Was made.’ He was acting as an under-king to the ruler of the whole empire. We only hear of the first year of his reign and it may well be that he died, or was replaced, shortly after, for within two years Daniel begins to date in terms of Cyrus (10.1), whose son took over the governorship of Babylon.

  ‘Understood by the books.’ Daniel clearly had a number of ‘books’ which included at least a part of the prophet Jeremiah (see Jeremiah 36.2-3, 28). It is very possible that he had other parts of the Old Testament as well, especially Deuteronomy. These told him that Jerusalem’s period of barrenness and emptiness was to be seventy years, after which His people would return to the city (Jeremiah 25.11-14; 29.10-11; compare 2 Chronicles 36.21). The prayer that follows is clearly based on Scripture and confirms that Daniel was heavily influenced by Jeremiah and Deuteronomy, even to the use of the divine name Yahweh, which is found nowhere else in Daniel.

  ‘Seventy years’ would be considered a round number indicating the divine perfection of the period involved and a fairly long period, thinking in terms of a lifetime (Psalm 90.10). Daniel at this stage had been in Babylon since 605 BC (sixty six years) and was thus probably around eighty. He would therefore have felt that God’s time was surely near. 9.3 ‘And I set my face towards the Lord God to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.’

  He ‘set his face’, suggesting firm intention and perseverance. The Lord Who is God had promised and He must do it. Note the signs of repentance and humility, fasting, sackcloth and ashes. He was really in earnest (compare Exodus 34.28; 2 Kings 6.30; Isaiah 58.5; Jonah 3.5; Ezra 8.23; Nehemiah 9.1; Esther 4.1, 3, 16; Job 2.12).

  Daniel’s Prayer.

  9.4 ‘And I prayed to Yahweh my God, and made confession, and said, “O Lord, the great and dreadful God, who keeps covenant and mercy with those who love him and keep his commandments.” ’

  In Babylon the Israelite God was called ‘the God of heaven’, but in private prayer He was still Yahweh, the covenant name. Or perhaps the fact of reading Jeremiah had renewed for Daniel the thought of that name, for he uses it regularly in this chapter. Note that Daniel, with all his experiences of the divine, does not approach God lightly. Sometimes we fail to recognise the awe and reverence we should have when we approach Him. ‘The great and dreadful God,’ the powerful and awesome One Who had allowed His city and temple to be destroyed because of men’s sin (see Deuteronomy 7.9, 21; 10.17).

  ‘Who keeps covenant and mercy with those who love him and keep his commandments.’ Cited from Deuteronomy 7.9 (see also 5.10). Daniel’s hope lay in the fact that God was the covenant God, and would thus respond in mercy towards those who were faithful to His covenant. The word for ‘mercy’ means ‘covenant love’. God responds in covenant love towards those who obey the covenant commandments, not because they earn it, but because by it they reveal that they are His.

  9.5 “We have sinned and have dealt perversely, and have done wickedly and have rebelled, even turning aside from your precepts and from your judgments.”

  Daniel here identifies himself with his people. Note the multiplying of words to express sinfulness; wandered from the right way, behaved unrighteously, falling short of God’s requirements, doing wickedly by following that which was positively known to be wrong, acting in rebellion against God, and a deliberate turning aside from His Law as revealed in the Scriptures. Yet he no doubt felt its truth about himself deeply. None are more conscious of sin than the truly righteous.

  9.6 “Nor have we listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.”

  They had added to their sins in that they had refused to listen to the words of the true prophets, who had spoken in Yahweh’s name. All were involved in this, from the king downwards. Compare Jeremiah 7.25; 25.4; 26.5; 29.19; 44.17, 21; Nehemiah 9.32, 34; Ezra 9.7. The verses in Jeremiah demonstrate where Daniel obtained his ideas from, but he had distant memories of having seen it for himself. The references in Nehemiah and Ezra are more formal indicating that they come later than Daniel.

  9.7 “O Lord, righteousness belongs to you (is what is yours), but to us confusion of face as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel who are near, and who are far off, through all the countries where you have driven them, because of their trespass which they have trespassed against you.”

  He first acknowledges that God has been totally righteous in all His dealings with Israel. No blame could be set at His door. He had done all, and more than all, of what could have been expected. But His people, on the other hand, could only avoid His gaze in confusion, for they had failed Him utterly. The Hebrew is succint, ‘to You, honour, to us, dishonour’.

  As a trained administrator Daniel distinguishes the three sections of Israel, Jerusalem, which always saw itself as a separate city, Judah and all Israel. Although in 1.3, 6 he uses the names interchangeably. Thus perhaps ‘all Israel’ is to be seen as including the others. But wherever Israel is found all will suffer confusion of face, inability to look God or good men in the face, because of the way in which they have broken His laws and done what they should not. And this is demonstrated by the fact that they have been scattered among the nations because of it.

  9.8 “O Lord, to us belongs confusion of face, to our kings, and to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against you.”

  Daniel repeats his confession that they can only be ashamed before God. The princes were the heads of the tribes. ‘The fathers’, the heads of sub-tribes and family groups. All were responsible for guiding the behaviour of the people.

  9.9-10 “To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against him, nor have we obeyed the voice of Yahweh our God, to walk in his laws which he set before us by his servants the prophets.”

  He declares that Yahweh is the compassionate and forgiving One. This is literally ‘compassions and forgivenesses’. The thought is of God’s continual acts of compassion and forgiveness, resulting from the fact of His compassion and willingness to forgive.

  Had it not been for His compassion and forgiveness they would have been totally destroyed, for they had rebelled against Him, they had not obeyed His voice, and they had not walked in His laws which had been fully explained to them by God’s servants the prophets. They were thus without excuse.

  We can apply the same to ourselves. Before we point the finger at Israel we must look at our own lives.

  9.11 “Yes, all Israel have transgressed your law, even turning aside that they should not obey your voice. Therefore has the curse been poured out on us, and the oath that is written in the Law of Moses the servant of God. For we have sinned against him.”

  Daniel points back to the written Law. Remember his reference to Deuteronomy earlier. They have broken God’s Law. And they have also refused to listen to the voice of God through His prophets. That is why they have been cursed, as indeed God had warned them that they would be (Jeremiah 44.22; Deuteronomy 27.26; 29.20; and in detail 28.15 onwards; Leviticus 26.14 onwards).

  Daniel Relates What Has Happened To What They Deserved

  In this section Daniel does not speak to God directly, but indirectly. Indeed it may be that this short section was included by Daniel as an explanation of his prayer when he wrote the details down.

  9.12 “And he has confirmed his words, which he spoke against us and against our judges who judged us, by bringing on us a great evil. For under the whole heaven has not been done as has been done to Jerusalem.”

  What has happened to Jerusalem has in fact been a confirmation of the word of God. By His judgment He has demonstrated that He is a God Who does what He promises, and carries out what He says He will do (Jeremiah 35.17; 36.31). That is why this great evil has come on them.

  ‘For under the whole heaven has not been done as has been done to Jerusalem.’ If we were only thinking of the destruction of Jerusalem this would be a forgivable exaggeration. For other great cities have also been destroyed and razed to the ground. But he was thinking of more. He was also thinking of what Jerusalem had meant as the city of God, as God’s earthly dwellingplace. And they had enjoyed it and had lost it all. No one had ever lost what they had lost, for others had never enjoyed it.

  9.13-14 “In accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, all this evil has come on us, yet have we not appeased (begged the favour of) Yahweh our God, that we should turn from our iniquities and have discernment in your truth. Therefore has Yahweh watched over the evil and brought it on us. For Yahweh our God is righteous in all his works which he does, and we have not obeyed his voice.”

  Daniel acknowledged that all that had come on Israel was exactly what had been promised in God’s covenant, in the Book of the Law of Moses (compare Joshua 8.31; 23.6; 2 Kings 14.6) . He also acknowledged that they could have turned from their sin and sought God’s favour (for the meaning of the verb see 1 Kings 13.6; Jeremiah 26.19), but had failed to do so. They had refused to receive discernment and understanding through His truth. Thus Yahweh had Himself seen all that they had done and had brought His judgment on them, revealed in the evils that they faced (see Jeremiah 1.12; 31.28; 44.27). And he summed up the situation by acknowledging that Yahweh was righteous in all that He had done and does, and that Israel’s fate was simply due to their own disobedience.

  Note that it was not a question of them earning their deliverance. Deliverance required the favour and mercy of God, but it would always be available if they sought Him in repentance. But nevertheless without an obedient response there could be no deliverance. Responsive faith and obedience always go together.

  Daniel’s Final Plea

  Daniel again begins to speak directly to God.

  9.15-16 “And now, O Lord our God, you have brought your people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and have made for yourself a name as at this day. We have sinned, we have done wickedly. O Lord, in accordance with all your righteousness, let your anger and your fury, I pray you, be turned away from Jerusalem your city, the mountain of your holiness, because for our sins and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and your people have become a reproach to all who are round about us.”

  He reminds God that by His great and powerful deliverance from Egypt He had established what He was, He had ‘made for Himself a Name’ which had continued to this day. He admitted that in themselves they deserved nothing. They had sinned and done wickedly. But He asked God to reveal the righteousness that all good men knew He had, by turning His anger away from Jerusalem His city, from His holy mountain so that the reproach of non-Israelites round about, in what they said about Yahweh, might be shown to be false. Thus it was to be for the sake of His own holy name (‘that they might know that I am the Lord Yahweh’ was a regular cry on the lips of God through Ezekiel), not for the sake of His totally undeserving people who had brought this judgment on Jerusalem.

  ‘The mountain of your holiness.’ All that was left of Jerusalem at this time was the mountain and huddles of ruined buildings, some of which had probably been made barely habitable by people struggling to survive.

  9.17-18 “Now therefore, O our God, listen to the prayer of your servant, and to his supplications, and cause your face to shine on your sanctuary which is desolate, for the Lord’s sake (or ‘which is desolate because of the Lord’). O my God, incline your ear and hear, open your eyes, and behold our desolations and the city which is called by your name. For we do not present our supplications before you for our righteousnesses, but for your great mercies.”

  Daniel’s prayer bring out the feelings of the faithful among the exiles about Jerusalem and the Sanctuary. All their thoughts were centred on them, and their restoration, as though God’s purposes could not go on without them. They felt that until Jerusalem was restored God’s name would not be vindicated, nor would Israel be able to rise again, and the thought tore at their hearts. They had not heeded the message of Ezekiel which turned their thoughts away from Jerusalem to the presence of God in His heavenly temple on ‘a high mountain’ away from Jerusalem in a portion which was ‘very holy’, far holier than Jerusalem (Ezekiel 40.2 with 45.2-8).See our commentary on Ezekiel.

  Gabriel would also seek to turn his thoughts away from Jerusalem to the fuller purposes of God. True it would be rebuilt, but then both city and sanctuary would be destroyed before God’s final purposes came to fruition. He was pointing out that they were only secondary in the purposes of God for Israel and the world.

  Now, however, Daniel pleads with God on behalf of the sanctuary and the city. And he does it, not on the basis of the people’s deserving, but on the basis of His mercy. He asks Him to hear his pleading and let His face shine on the sanctuary which was desolate, and to turn His eyes on the situation of Jerusalem. To ‘let His face shine on’ means to again accept it and restore it and make it His earthly dwellingplace (Numbers 6.25; Psalm 80.3), and he is sure that once God takes a good look at Jerusalem and its devastation He will be moved for His own name’s sake to act on its behalf. His hope lies fully in the mercy of God.

  ‘For the Lord’s sake.’ A difficult expression in the context. Some see it as the equivalent of ‘For your sake, O Lord.’ Others as ‘desolate because of the Lord’. The latter may have been a well known saying, repeated here by Daniel verbatim.

  ‘The city which is called by your name’, or ‘on which your name is called’. Such a city was one over which the one named had exercised his sovereignty by conquest or restoration, or by virtue of great and memorable things done in it. The result was that men connected the name with the city. Thus Jerusalem was connected with the Name of Yahweh.

  ‘For we do not present our supplications before you for our righteousnesses, but for your great mercies.’ He makes clear that that he recognises that if mercy is to be shown it will only be because God is merciful. There is no question of it being deserved in any way.

  9.19 “O Lord, hear. O Lord, forgive. O Lord, listen and act, and do not put it off, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name.”

  Daniel’s prayer was becoming more fervent. His pleading increased, ‘hear, forgive, listen, act, do not put off’. His desperation is apparent. He would not take no for an answer, for he was deeply concerned for God’s reputation. The Lord must act for His own name’s sake, for the vindication of His name by restoring the city and the people which were called by His name.

  Gabriel Appears With The Promise That God Will Fully Bring About His Purposes, But It Will Not Be Within Seventy Years But Within ‘Seventy Sevens’.

  At this point deliverance for Israel was already in motion. In this first year of Cyrus the edict would be proclaimed which allowed Israel to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their temple (Ezra 1). The same would happen to many other nations. It was Cyrus’ policy. Indeed he restored many gods to their homelands from which Nabonidus had removed them, and in Israel’s case commanded that the temple vessels, stolen by Nebuchadnezzar, should be restored to them.

  But while man was concerned for the city and the temple, God’s concern was for greater things. His vision far exceeded that of Daniel. The city and temple were secondary, indeed would eventually be put out of the way. What mattered was the final fulfilment of history in the establishing of the Rule of God in righteousness. And graciously He recognised that that was indeed the end that Daniel really intended without fully understanding it. He would grant him the greater blessing.

  9.20-22 ‘And while I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before Yahweh my God for the mountain of holiness of my God, yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly in weariness, touched me (or ‘reached me’) at about the time of the evening oblation. And he instructed me and talked with me, and said, “O Daniel, I have now come to make you to make you wise in understanding.” ’

  The first part of these verses summarises Daniel’s petition. He has been praying audibly, and confessing both his own sinfulness, and also the sinfulness of his people Israel. And secondly he has been praying audibly for the restoration of God’s mountain of holiness, for the establishment of a new Israel in a new temple and a new Jerusalem. To Daniel that was the ultimate hope. From there would spring forth the purposes of God for the future. It was only in chapter 12 that he recognised a greater hope, the resurrection of men to face God and receive either blessing or cursing. But like Isaiah 26.19 he probably saw that resurrection as resulting in a new life on this earth for the righteous, and like Isaiah 66.24 he probably saw the fate of the wicked as connected with the valley of Hinnom.

  And then ‘the man Gabriel’ appeared, the same Gabriel that he had previously seen and before whom he had collapsed in awe. Called here a man because that was his appearance (8.15-17).

  ‘Being caused to fly in weariness.’ The idea here is that he was sent with such promptness and speed that had he really been a man it would have exhausted him. Daniel wants us to be aware of how quickly God had responded to his prayer (verse 23).

  ‘Touched me about the time of the evening oblation.’ We are possibly to understand that Daniel had begun praying at first light and that he had prayed through the day. The evening oblation was the time of the evening offering which would have been offered before the light died if there had been a temple in Jerusalem. It was a time observed by the faithful in Israel for worship and prayer, because the sacrifice could no longer be offered. The verb ‘touched’ can also mean ‘reached’. Daniel’s aim may have been to remind us of 8.18, where Gabriel had made him ready to receive the vision by touching him, or it may have been simply to give the time of arrival.

  ‘And he instructed me (or ‘made me to understand’) and talked with me, and said, “O Daniel, I have now come to make you to make you wise in understanding.’ This sums up what will follow. Gabriel would instruct him in, and enable him to understand, the message that he had brought to him.

  9.23 “At the beginning of your supplications the word went forth, and I have come to tell you, for you are greatly beloved. Therefore consider the matter and understand the vision.”

  Gabriel assures him that ‘the word went forth’ for the fulfilment of his hopes right from the beginning of his prayer. He was not heard for his much speaking but because of the graciousness of God towards a beloved servant.

  Here we learn the vital lesson that God’s response is prompt and not dependent on the volume of our prayers, as Jesus Himself would make clear (Matthew 6.7-8). But Daniel had not wasted his time. It had brought him nearer to God.

  Now he would learn what God was going to do in the future. His prayer had been the final touch to the prayers of all the faithful throughout the world. And he was to hear, and consider and understand.

  The Great Vision.

  We have come now to what is probably one of the most crucial passages in eschatology. It is the passage on which is based the idea of the ‘seven year’ tribulation which many question the existence of as such. The suggestion of seven years occurs nowhere else, and yet it is pivotal to many schemes. On the other hand it is often also interpreted to fit in with those schemes with scant regard to the niceties of the Hebrew in this passage. But I would suggest that in view of the importance of the passage the first thing that we need to ask ourselves is, ‘what does the Hebrew actually say?’ And as we look at these verses that will be the first priority that we keep in mind.

  So as a preliminary to our study let us consider some of the niceties of the Hebrew, and the first one that leaps to our attention is that the word for ‘prince’ in both cases is nagid. Elsewhere Daniel uses a number of words for ‘prince’ but the only time that he uses nagid is when he is speaking of an Israelite prince (11.22). And in 9.25 it is also clear that it is an Israelite prince that is in mind. The only possible ambiguous use is in verse 26 where it could mean ‘the prince who is coming’, that is, the one previously referred to in verse 25 as coming, and thus an Israelite prince, or secondly could mean some unknown prince who is coming. But if the latter why not use sar as Daniel normally does?

  This is especially so in that, outside Daniel, nagid as a title is a regular term for the anointed rulers of Israel but only once used in the singular of a ruler outside Israel, and then probably in ironic contrast. Let us consider the facts.

  In the remainder of the Old Testament the title ‘Prince’ (nagid) is elsewhere regularly applied to early kings of Israel. But as mentioned above its only application to a ruler outside Israel is in Ezekiel 28.2 where it is used of the ‘Prince of Tyre’. Yet there there is good reason to see it as derisive, contrasting him with God’s chosen princes. The contrast is between him as a self-proclaimed ‘nagid’, one who claims to be the chosen of the gods (see verse 2), an ‘anointed’ cherub (verse 14), and the true nagid of the people of God, who are the true anointed of God, and adopted as His sons (Psalm 2.7; 2 Samuel 7.14; Psalm 89.26-27). It is derisive of his great and blasphemous claims. He thinks he is a ‘nagid’ but he is only a king. Later in the passage he is in fact called ‘the king of Tyre’ (28.12).

  But from the earliest days nagid was a regular term applied to rulers of Israel, to Saul, David and Solomon (1 Samuel 9.16; 10.1; 13.14; 25.30; 2 Samuel 5.2; 6.21; 7.8; 1 Kings 1.35) and to early rulers of Israel and Judah after Solomon (1 Kings 14.7; 16.2; 2 Kings 20.5) . Saul was anointed ‘nagid’ (1 Samuel 9.16; 10.1). David was to replace him as ‘nagid’ (1 Samuel 13.14), as David himself acknowledged (2 Samuel 6.21). And it was a title of honour recognised by others (1 Samuel 25.30; 2 Samuel 5.2; 6.21; 7.8) And even though he later saw himself as king, he still recognised that in becoming king Solomon would be appointed ‘nagid’ (1 Kings 1.35). God was King, each king was His chosen nagid, His anointed representative and war leader.

  Daniel maintains this emphasis when he speaks in 9.25 of ‘an anointed one, a nagid’, clearly connecting the use of nagid with one who is anointed by God.

  In the plural it is also used of important men in authority in Israel and Judah, for example of ‘rulers over the house of God’, rulers of priestly courses, and grand viziers of Judah and Israel, once kingship was fully established, who all represented God under the king. In the plural it is also possibly used more generally in Psalm 76.12, but even there it may actually signify princes of Israel in contrast with the kings of the earth. The only time it is ever definitely applied outside Israel and Judah is in 2 Chronicles 32.21, where it is used in the plural of the king of Assyria’s war leaders. Thus in the plural it is almost always used of leaders of Israel, although not totally exclusively.

  But in the singular its only certain use of a foreign prince , even outside Daniel, is in Ezekiel 28.2, and there it is as one chosen of the gods, and whose anointing is mentioned in context (verse 14), and as we have suggested, the idea of the nagid of Israel is in mind as a contrast. It is being used ironically while keeping its basic meaning in mind.

  That being so there is overwhelming reason for seeing nagid in the singular as being a unique title referring exclusively to princes of Israel as representatives of God, adopted as His sons and anointed in His name. If this be so it means that we should then see ‘the people of the nagid who is coming’ as referring to Israel, and to the coming prince whom they had rejected and killed. This explains fully why the action is referred to the people and not to the prince. And as we shall see later there are other reasons also why we should interpret it in this way.

  The second thing we should note is that ‘the covenant’ mentioned in verse 27 is ‘confirmed’ not made. Now the only covenant mentioned elsewhere in Daniel is in 9.4; 11.22, where there is reference to Israel’s ‘nagid’ as ‘the prince of the covenant’; 11.28, 30, 32. Thus in Daniel ‘covenant’ always means ‘the holy covenant with God’. It is God’s covenant with His people, closely connected with His nagid.

  The third thing that we should note is that there is no mention anywhere of ‘years’. There are, as we shall see, indications that years may be in mind, but the fact is nowhere directly stated. We must therefore apply the idea of ‘years’ with caution.

  The more detailed niceties we will refer to as we come to them.

  9.24 “Seventy sevens are decreed on your people, and on your holy city, to finish transgression, and to make and end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy (‘one’ or ‘place’).”

  The seventy sevens are here seen as not only making the situation right between the nation and God, resulting at the commencement in the rebuilding of the city and the sanctuary, (which was what the seventy years of Daniel had in mind), but also as resulting in the making of a way of final full restoration and acceptability with God, and the final fulfilment of all prophecy, which includes all nations. The whole world is in mind.

  ‘Seventy sevens.’ The phrase could mean seventy weeks, but if we translate in that way we have no justification for then making the days mean years. Thus ‘seventy sevens’ is the clear significance. What Gabriel is saying is that far beyond the limited statement of Jeremiah there was to be a period of ‘seventy sevens’ which would result in the fulfilment of God’s final purposes. This expresses the ultra divinely perfect period. Seven is the number of perfection and seventy is an intensification of that number (see Genesis 4.24). Thus there are to be a divinely perfect number, not of years per Jeremiah, but of divinely perfect periods. God has them measured, even if man does not, and they are perfect within His will. The word for ‘sevens’ is unusually in the masculine plural, as in 10.2, 3 (and in Genesis 29.27 in the singular). Perhaps this was to stress the importance of these periods. They would be powerfully effective. (Further consideration will shortly be given to the interpretation of ‘sevens’).

  ‘Are determined on your people and on your holy city.’ The limited view that suggests that therefore these verses only refer to Israel misses the point. God’s purpose for Israel and the holy city (Isaiah 2.2-4; Micah 4.1-3; Jeremiah 3.17; Zechariah 14.8-9) was that finally they should be a blessing to the world. So Israel was not here for itself, it was here for the world. From the time of the first promise to Abraham of blessing on all nations (Genesis 12.3), through the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of priests in the Sinai covenant (Exodus 19.6), to the recognition that they were to be God’s servant to the nations in Isaiah 42 onwards, the divine emphasis was always on their status and position as world functionaries (see Isaiah 49.6). What God determined on His people He determined for the sake of the world. Thus this prophecy has a world view.

  The result of the seventy sevens is to be:

  • 1). ‘To shut up (restrain) transgression.’ This and 2). are parallel ideas. Transgression has raged through the world since man’s first days. Men have flouted God’s laws. Now it is to be restrained, to be brought under control, to be imprisoned, to be finally dealt with.
  • 2). ‘And to make an end of sins (or ‘seal up sin’).’ Job 14.17 refers to ‘the sealing up of sin’ where the idea is that God has sealed it up so as to bring it to account. The restraining and imprisonment of transgression and the making an end of or sealing up of sin could only have in mind both the binding and restraining of the Evil One and the cessation of the power of sin over men’s lives both in penalty and effectiveness. This would be brought about through a sufficient sacrifice for sin which put away sin (Hebrews 9.26), and effective transformation through the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3.18) so that men became blameless before God. Sin would finally be dealt with by mercy and judgment.
  • 3). ‘And to make reconciliation for (or more literally ‘cover’) iniquity.’ This means such a reconciliation that man can come to God and be received as His with no shadow of failure between (2 Corinthians 5.19; Ephesians 2.16). It was to remove any shadow or barrier between God and man. Transgression, sin and iniquity will all have been dealt with.
  • 4). ‘To bring in everlasting righteousness.’ This signifies that the stain of sin and evil is removed for ever, both judicially before God as men are covered in perfect righteousness (1 Corinthians 1.30; 2 Corinthians 2.21), and in fact, so that man will actually be holy, blameless and unreproachable before Him for ever (Colossians 1.22; Ephesians 5.27). Note that everlasting righteousness is ‘brought in’ from outside. There is clear reference here to God bringing near righteousness and salvation (Isaiah 46.13), everlasting salvation and righteousness (51.5-6), and to the work of the One Who came to do it as the perfectly righteous one, bringing His righteousness for men (Romans 5.17; 1 Corinthians 1.30; 2 Corinthians 5.21) and sacrificing Himself for sin.
  • 5). ‘To seal up vision and prophecy.’ This signifies its final and complete fulfilment so that it is no longer required and is past instead of future.
  • 6). ‘To anoint ‘the most holy’ (literally ‘the holy of holies’ - that which is most holy)’. Anointing indicates a new dedication to God, a setting apart for Him, within His purposes. This can refer either to the anointing of the everlasting King or more likely to the supreme everlasting sanctuary, in the heavenly Jerusalem (Exodus 40.9; Hebrews 12.22; Revelation 21), the eternal dwellingplace of God with men. Whichever we choose, it is an indication of the fulfilment of God’s final purposes in holiness.

  In our view these descriptions cancel out any interpretation of these seventy sevens that falls short of resulting in final perfection. There is no space for an inadequate ‘kingdom age’ to follow. Perfection has been achieved. And although there is a genuine sense in which Christ’s work on the cross and His resurrection fulfilled what is described here, it did not at that time bring it to complete fulfilment. That awaits the coming of Christ in glory and the final judgment. In our view it is not sufficient to stop short in a partial fulfilment at Christ’s first coming, glorious and initially complete though that was. Daniel is clearly in the end thinking of the final consummation.

  It has been said that there is no clear indication of what closes off the seventieth seven, but we find this suggestion quite remarkable. For we have it stated here quite clearly. It is closed by the final fulfilment of all God’s purposes brought to a state of perfection and completion.

  9.25 “Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem to the anointed one, the prince (nagid), will be seven sevens, and sixty two sevens. It will be built again with street and moat, even in troubled times.”

  The command to restore and build Jerusalem probably refers to God’s command for it to happen. But its earthly equivalent was decreed in the time of Nehemiah in 445 BC (Nehemiah 2.8). The decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1.2-4) was specifically about rebuilding the temple, and no mention was made of rebuilding the city. The words in Ezra 4.12-16 are almost certainly mainly a pretext to prevent the building of the temple because their offer of assistance had been rebuffed. It is possible that some work had proceeded, but it was immediately prevented (Ezra 4.21-24). Thus it was clearly not of God’s particular purpose at that time. Had He commanded it nothing would have stopped it.

  Isaiah 44.28 does declare of Cyrus, ‘even saying of Jerusalem “she shall be built”, and to the temple, “your foundation will be laid” (compare also Isaiah 45.13). But this was permitting a certain level of restoration so that the temple could be built. It was in no way a command to build the city up to its former status, and no decree about rebuilding the city was found. The emphasis is all on the building of the temple (Ezra 6.3-8, 14-15). Haggai also speaks of ‘ceiled houses’, but they were clearly few in number.

  It was the rise of Nehemiah that changed the situation. It was he who received the king’s authority to rebuild the city and its walls, and to establish it as an independent city, thus demonstrating that God wanted the plan to go forward. It was then, and only then, that Jerusalem could become what for Israel it had always been, a capital city, ruling over its own dependency. Note the words spoken to Daniel, it would be built with street and moat, a planned and defendable city, not a huddle of houses.

  The importance of this is clear. When Jerusalem was destroyed and ceased to be a ruling city, that was the sign that God had forsaken His people. And while it was trodden down that situation remained. The almost overwhelming vehemence of Ezekiel’s cries that ‘Jerusalem must be destroyed’ was the seal that God had closed a chapter in the history of Israel and Judah. (Later indeed, in other circumstances, after another destroying of Jerusalem, we are told that the times of the Gentiles will continue while Jerusalem was trodden down (Luke 21.24) demonstrating again that it was Jerusalem primarily and the Temple only secondarily that was seen as the prime test of God’s favour on the Jews).

  Up to the time of Nehemiah Jerusalem had again been populated to some extent, but it was a huddle of buildings with its own small Temple, and it was ruled from elsewhere and had little real authority. It was merely a provincial town of no importance and no status, part of a larger province, with no independence. It was still a dream in Israelite hearts rather than a reality. It was Nehemiah who rebuilt the walls and made it once more a ruling city with its pride restored (Nehemiah 5.14). It was Nehemiah who made ‘Jerusalem’ truly independent from the surrounding nations. Thus the edict in Daniel’s prophecy must surely be that concerning Nehemiah, when Jerusalem once again began to count for something.

  ‘To an anointed one, a prince (nagid) will be seven sevens, and sixty two sevens.’ There is no indication from the Hebrew whether the coming of the anointed prince was to be after the seven sevens or the sixty two sevens. So we must ask, what the significance of the split into two sections is, for nothing is specifically stated as happening at that time, and anointed princes were coming along in Israel all the time. It should be noted that this is not an ongoing prophecy like those in chapter 7, 8 and 11, covering different aspects of history. In this prophecy all the emphasis is on the achievement of God’s ends. Thus we must probably see this anointed prince as being also the one described in verse 26. All eyes are on his coming.

  The answer almost certainly lies in the nature of ‘seven sevens’. We must look at this from the perspective of Israel and understand in this regard that ‘seven sevens’ was a distinctive period for Israel. Time for them was split up into weeks, with the seventh day a sabbath, months, years and then seven year periods, with the seventh year a sabbath for the land, and then finally into ‘seven sevens of years’ (Leviticus 25.8) with the fiftieth year a year of Jubile (Leviticus 25.10-12). That was how they saw time. Thus time was seen as moving forward in seven year periods and then in fifty year periods.

  So seven sevens, if seen as referring to years, should on this basis lead to the year of Jubile, the year of release, the year when all Israelite bondservants would be released and land outside of walled cities would revert to its original owners (see Leviticus 25 & 27). All Israel would then be made free again. The culmination of ‘seven sevens’ pointed for Israel to a final picture of glorious freedom and deliverance.

  This suggests that the prophecy is looking forward to the freedom of the people. That is what the ‘seven sevens’ would point to. It would be declaring that the period determined will indeed go on until it reaches Jubile. But then is revealed the need to face a stark fact. The people are not to greet this jubile year with great expectancy as it approaches, for instead of jubile and release there will be a further sixty two sevens beyond this recognised period. It is in fact a discouraging message of foreordained delay.

  Thus the anticipated jubile, the fiftieth year, is replaced by sixty two further sevens. Expectancy has to be shelved, deliverance will be delayed and the lack of jubile will be extended by a considerable extent, by ‘sixty two sevens’. This explains the division made. It is stressing that the wait will not last just for seven sevens up to a fifty year release, but that it will endure for that plus a further sixty two sevens. Jubile will be long delayed. The whole passage is looking for the coming of ‘an anointed Prince’, but it is pointed out that that is to be a long, long way ahead. Meanwhile the city will be built again with street and moat, in other words will become an established, defendable city, but times will be troubled.

  But even if we accept this interpretation of the passage it does not necessarily mean that we have to think strictly of a certain period of years. The seven sevens are a comparison with the period before a Jubile, in order to raise the idea in the minds of the hearers, not necessarily to be paralleled with it. Thus it is saying that the seven sevens of divine perfection will not be followed by the perfect Jubile, rather they will be followed by a further sixty two sevens, a divinely lengthened period, but falling short of final perfection, for at the end of it the Prince will be ‘cut off’. This seems to confirm that the only split is between the sixty nine sevens and the seventieth seven, two periods of time within God’s plans.

  (A further interesting fact does here come to light. In prophetic and general calculations months tend to be seen as of thirty days. This was equally used for convenience outside prophetic circles. It was a useful approximation. True months per the moon were for twenty eight to twenty nine days which made for awkwardness, and our method of calculating months would not have been known to Daniel. Men lived by moon periods. So for calculation purposes a month was often seen as thirty days. Consider the 1,260 days of Revelation 11.3 which equates to forty two months which is intended to represent three and a half years (Revelation 11.2 with 11.3), and the 150 days of the flood which seems to indicate five months (Genesis 7.11 with 8.4). If we take the first sixty nine sevens as years and count them as being 360 days in length (12 times 30) we have 483 x 360, and the number of days resulting actually, quite remarkably, brings us to the time of Jesus ministry on earth. This seems so extraordinary a ‘coincidence’ that we really do find it difficult to see it as accidental. But we do not press it. Nor would we see it as the main intention of the words. The main idea behind seventy sevens is of God’s perfect timing and determined periods of activity of a duration unknown to man, as with the ‘seven times’ (see on 4.16). The remainder is simply a bonus. Because God has chosen to do this as a further sign to His people of His control over events it does not mean that it binds the interpretation to years).

  ‘To an anointed one, a prince (or ‘to Messiah the Prince’).’ The latter translation would mean that we have here the first specific reference to the Messiah, although not to the Messianic idea. But either way in these words all the emphasis is on this prince. He is the one who is coming, and to whom all should look forward. This account is all about the anointed One, the Prince, who is coming, and what is done to him.

  9.26 “And after the sixty two sevens the anointed one will be cut off, and will have nothing, and the people of the coming prince will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And their end will be with a flood. And even to the end there will be war. Desolations are determined.”

  Now if we read this without preconceived notions, or a theory to be supported, the natural interpretation of this verse is that the anointed prince who was to come after the sixty nine sevens have passed, will be cut off, and then his people will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And this is supported by the fact that the prince is nagid (a prince of Israel, see introduction to the passage) in both cases. Note especially that on this interpretation verse 25 speaks of ‘the anointed one, the prince’, then verse 26 refers to him first as ‘the anointed one’ and then as ‘the prince’. Thus the three references fit together as referring to the same person in three different ways, the first preparing for the other two.

  Indeed on this basis the whole passage fits together. The prince arrives. Rebellion takes place. He is cut off (compare Leviticus 7.20; Psalm 37.9; Isaiah 53.8). Then his rebellious people destroy the city and sanctuary. But could this be seen as happening to God’s anointed prince? Could it be that the One for whom Israel has waited should be cut off, and finish up with nothing?

  That that could be seen as happening is evidenced by Isaiah’s picture of the anointed prophet who, personifying Israel, comes to proclaim the truth to Israel (Isaiah 49.1-6), is falsely tried, smitten, spat on and shamed (Isaiah 50.6; 53.7-8), and sets his face like a flint to go towards his destiny (Isaiah 50.7), with the result that he is made to suffer and is offered as a sacrifice (Isaiah 53.3-5, 8, 10-12), thereby accomplishing the will of God (Isaiah 53.10). Daniel may well have had that picture and thought in mind.

  The fact is that all were looking forward to the coming of an anointed Prince (Isaiah 11.1-2; 9.6-7; 55.3; Hosea 3.4-5) or Prophet (Deuteronomy 18.15, 18; Isaiah 42.1-4; 49.1-6; 53.1-12; 61.1-2). But the prophets had come to realise that when such a One came Israel would reject Him, because He would not fulfil their expectations, They would put Him away because He was too righteous (compare Zechariah 13.7). But above all they recognised that somehow, in spite of what they did, God’s purposes would be fulfilled through that rejection.

  Of course this picture will not be pleasing to those who want to see Antiochus Epiphanes as the prince who destroys the sanctuary, nor to those who want to see it as Titus or the king of the end days. But it is very questionable whether any of these could be given the title ‘nagid’, which means a prince anointed by God and chosen as His adopted son. Indeed it is difficult to see why Antiochus Epiphanes or the king of the end days should be called ‘prince’ at all. They are always referred to elsewhere as ‘king’. And there is really no reason why the Roman invasion should not have been attributed to a king, for Titus was acting on his father’s authority. These difficulties are simply overlooked so as to support a theory.

  A further point to be made is that the reference is to ‘the people of the prince who is coming.’ Now if the prince has been cut off we can see immediately why they should be so described. But otherwise Daniel does not normally refer to ‘the people’, he refers directly to the king or the kingdom and the people who follow him are assumed. Why then this change? Why say ‘the people of Antiochus’ or ‘the people of Titus’? It is very odd indeed and against all precedent. (There is an argument for the king of the end days, in that he was not yet alive when the city was destroyed in 70 AD, but it is not a very good one. If he had been in mind surely more would have been said about him in the vision. If it meant such a one he is portrayed as having appeared and disappeared in a genitival phrase. It would certainly have been baffling to Daniel, for the end day king is nowhere in mind in the passage, and is never called a prince).

  However there is one circumstance where ‘the people’ are referred to rather than the prince and that is in 7.27 where reference is to the people of God in contrast with the kings and their kingdoms. They are called ‘the people of the saints of the Most High’. There the emphasis is on the people and not the prince. Thus general usage, admittedly limited in the latter case, is against the phrase ‘the people of the coming prince’ being seen as signifying a worldly ruler and in favour of it indicating Israel, although in this case Israel in rebellion.

  But how then was this fulfilled? Certainly the anointed prince came, and certainly He was put to death and had nothing. And certainly by their act of crucifying Jesus Israel brought on its own head the wrath of God resulting in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. And this was something that Jesus pointed out would happen again and again. The act of rejecting and crucifying Him was constantly connected by Him with the idea of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

  They had refused to listen to Him when He sought to gather them as chickens under His wings and their house would therefore be left to them desolate (Matthew 23.37-38; 24.2; compare John 2.19). The fig tree was to be cursed and the mountain was to be thrown into the sea (Mark 11.21-22). Jesus was confident that the Temple would be destroyed, and that must surely have been with His coming death in mind (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). Compare how in the same context in Daniel as this verse Jerusalem’s previous destruction came from a curse on them in Daniel 9.11-12. So by this act of cutting off the Messiah the people are seen by Daniel as again putting themselves under a curse, and thus, by it, bringing about the effective destruction of the city and the sanctuary.

  Furthermore it should be noted that very similar language was in fact used by the Jewish historian Josephus in 1st century AD, who also ascribed the destruction of Jerusalem to his own people and their behaviour. He says, ‘I venture to say that the sedition destroyed the city and the Romans destroyed the sedition.’ And again, ‘I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her walls.’ (Italics ours).

  And when we look at what happened we can understand why he said it. For the story of the end of Jerusalem in 70 AD is almost unbelievable. The Jews behaved like madmen. They fought each other even while the armies of Rome were approaching the city, and thus sacked much of the city. They destroyed the grain supplies to prevent their rivals from using them. The different factions then defended different places from which they glared at each other, although in the end also, with much bravery, fighting the Romans. And it is quite possible that they deliberately set alight their own temple to prevent Titus from desecrating it. So the suggestion that they destroyed their own city is historically true, and if Josephus could thus date the destruction of Jerusalem from the death of Ananus, how much more could it be dated from the death of their God sent Messiah.

  And how poignant is the picture. The city and sanctuary having been built, the anointed prince comes. But the people are so sinful that they cut Him off and then by their actions bring about the destruction of the very city and sanctuary which they had so longed for. Retribution indeed. By it the sinfulness of man is revealed to its fullest extent. But by it also the city and sanctuary are finished. They are written off. Hope now lies totally in God.

  We must pause for a moment to consider this picture. Daniel has seen and known of the process of Jerusalem’s first destruction, which has witnessed to the sinfulness of his people, he has been informed of the sacrilege to happen against the second temple in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, which was to be the end of the days of indignation against his people’s sins (8.19), and now he learns that Jerusalem and the sanctuary are once more to be destroyed, this time by his own people. The message could only be that once again his people as a whole will fail to truly respond to God, that no hope can be placed in them, even though they have been given another chance.

  ‘And their end will be with a flood. And even to the end there will be war. Desolations are determined.’ Scripture often describes invaders in terms of a flood. See 11.22; Isaiah 8.7-8; 17.13; Jeremiah 46.8. So Israel having killed their Messiah will experience the flood of God’s anger (Nahum 1.8). Reference is made to ‘their end’, which comes suddenly, and then to ‘the end’. This could be to the end of a new period of God’s indignation against them (compare 8.19), or possibly to the end of time. Either way it is described in terms of war. Jesus may well have had this verse in mind when He spoke of wars and rumours of wars (Mark 13.7).

  ‘Desolations are determined.’ The world and its sinfulness is such that there can only be desolations. Man in his inner heart does not change unless transformed by the power of Christ. Thus his continuing sinfulness will result in desolations, and is the reason why God determines desolations on him. War and desolations are the future of mankind.

  9.27 “And they will make a covenant to prevail (‘will confirm covenant’) with many for one seven, and in the midst of the seven they will cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, and even to the consummation, and that determined, will wrath be poured out on the desolator.”

  It will be observed immediately that I have translated the singular verbs in the plural. And the reason I have done this is because the obvious antecedent to the verbs is ‘the people of the coming prince’. The word for ‘people’ is a collective singular noun and therefore requires a singular Hebrew verb, but in English we translate as a plural. The translation is therefore a correct rendering of the Hebrew.

  Many refer the verbs back to ‘the coming prince’ of verse 26 or the ‘anointed one, the prince’ of verse 25. Both are possible. But neither are grammatically the most likely. Indeed the genitive ‘of the prince’ is extremely unlikely as an antecedent, for the emphasis of the phrase is on the people and the prince is only an identifying factor, and the mention of the ‘other’ prince is too far away really to be an antecedent, and besides, as the ‘other’ prince has been cut off, the idea of him confirming a covenant could only be derived from elsewhere. Neither is a totally insuperable objection but they do make either interpretation very unlikely. The fact is that Hebrew verbs with no subject usually look back to the subject of the previous sentence. And as that makes complete sense in this case we can see no reason why should we look elsewhere, especially as ‘the covenant’ in Daniel always means the holy covenant.

  What is to take place here is within the final ‘seven’, that final period of God’s divinely perfect activity of unknown duration which will bring His final purposes to pass.

  The people of the prince, who has been cut off, will at some stage recognise their rebellion for what it was and, realising that they have by their actions breached their holy covenant, will come to renew it before God, including within that renewal the ‘many’ who had not breached it, the true Israel of God, Gods true people. The word ‘many’ is regularly used by Daniel when referring to people of an uncertain number and identity (8.25; 11.14, 18, 26, 33, 34, 39, 41, 44; 12.3, 4, 10, compare also Isaiah 53.11). This is a picture of wholesale outward conversion of the Jews to their Messiah, to Christ, and of their rapprochement with the true people of God.

  This period may possibly be seen as immediately following the cutting off of the prince, as ‘the many’ of His followers are joined by large numbers of other repentant Jews in the confirming of God’s covenant through Christ, resulting in the new Israel, and then in the bringing in to the new Israel of the Gentiles who are converted to Christ (Romans 11.17-20; Galatians 3.29; 6.16; Ephesians 2.12, 19-22). The ceasing of true worship in the midst of the seven may then refer to apostasies that will occur as a result of persecutions (as testified to by Hebrews).

  It should be noted in this regard that verses 26a and 27 can be seen as parallel. Each commences at the time when the anointed prince is cut off, and each goes up to ‘the end’. Thus we may see in them two reactions of ‘the people of the Prince’. The one of those who rejected Him, and continued to do so, the other of those who after His death (and resurrection) responded to him. The whole of Israel rarely acted as one.

  But some consider it the more natural reading to see verse 27 as following the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary, and in that case it must be seen as occurring towards ‘the end’, when a great turning back of Israel to God through Christ is to be expected (Joel 2.15-17, 32; Zechariah 8.21-23; Romans 11.23, 26-32). This must especially be the case for those who wish to treat the ‘seven’ as years. Thus it may refer to a wholesale conversion in the end days.

  But this idyllic period will be cut short, for in the midst of the ‘seven’ which was begun by the renewal of the covenant, many will again turn away from Christ, probably as a result of the activities of persecutors, and especially finally the horn, the small one, of chapter 7 who is to ‘wear out the saints of the Most High’ (7.25 compare Revelation 11). Thus they will cease to worship and honour God, and will renege on their commitment to Christ. They will cease to honour His sacrifice on their behalf. They will ‘cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease’, not literally, for there will be no literal sacrifices (no new temple has been posited), but the spiritual sacrifices of worship, praise and thanksgiving through Christ’s own sacrifice of Himself ( Romans 12.1; Hebrews 13.15; 1 Peter 2.5; Mark 12.33). Given a further chance they have once again failed.

  (It must however be recognised that through all these failures of Israel there have always been a remnant who have carried on the purposes of God. God has never been left without a witness. And it was this remnant that Jesus used for the spreading of the Gospel. Thus were God’s promises for Israel fulfilled even when Israel as a whole failed).

  ‘And on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate.’ ‘Abominations’ regularly refers to idolatry and ungodliness, thus these spiritual renegades will be welcomed back by one who will come on the wing of abomination, of false and debased religion, and they will serve him and honour him, along with those who already serve him, and there will be a time of great trouble (12.1) and this will go on until the final consummation determined by God, and then judgment will be poured out on the desolator (see 12.1-3; Revelation 19.11-21).

  ‘The wing of abomination.’ The thought may be that false religion can only offer half of what it pretends. It flies with one wing, and is therefore deficient and lacking. It as it were limps along. (This is a vision so that the question of whether it is possible to fly with one wing is irrelevant, and anyway it could be argued that it flies like an injured bird). There may be here a deliberate contrast with the One Who carries His people on eagles’ wings, on two wings (Exodus 19.4; Deuteronomy 32.11). Others refer it to the wing of the temple, as an indication that the desolator is parodying the temple. The singular may, however, just be similar to our use when we speak of ‘a bird on the wing’.

  Some would see the seventieth seven as referring to the time when Christ was on earth. The renewing of the covenant then takes place through the ministry of Jesus, and the ceasing of sacrifices and offerings comes about through His death. This is then followed by an indeterminate period, the final part of God’s plans of unknown duration, in which the people of God have to face the tribulations ahead until God’s final judgment. The problem with this interpretation in my view is that it here treats the cessation of sacrifice and offering as a good thing, whereas elsewhere in Daniel it is a bad thing (8.11-12; 12.10-11). Nor does it lead up to the final consummation.

  ‘And even to the consummation (or ‘full end’), and that determined, will wrath be poured out on the desolator.

  Finally the troubles must cease, for the full end is coming as determined by God, and then wrath will be poured out on the desolator. We are left to recognise that the great blessings of verse 24 will become true for God’s own people. For the final destruction of evil coincides with the triumph of the people of God. Both are sides of the same coin, and the latter was the central purpose of the vision.

  Could There Be a Break Between the Sixty Nine Sevens and the Seventieth Seven?

  The fact of such a gap may be seen as suggested by the phrase ‘to the end’. Elsewhere in Daniel we have examples of history foretold and then of a sudden jump to ‘the end’. Contrast 11.29-35 with 11.36-45. The contrast between those two sections is so remarkable that two different periods of activity appear to be in mind, and the latter takes us on to ‘the time of the end’. This phenomenon is found in all the prophets. Regularly there is a gap between the near fulfilment and the far fulfilment.

  Compare and contrast also the ‘small horn’ (a small horn is an indication of a horn that is starting to grow) of the third empire in 8.20-26 with that of the fourth empire in 7.20-25 where the contrasts are far more than the similarities. The former deals with Antiochus’ persecutions, the latter with the time of the end.

  Besides if the seventy sevens is taken to mean years then there must be a gap, for the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple did not take place within seven years of the death of Christ. However, this does depend on what the seventieth seven means. If it is a perfect time of unknown length, as we believe, then all that is described in verses 26-27 can be encompassed in that ‘seven’. It simple represents ‘the end of the ages’ which began at the time of Christ’s death (1 Corinthians 10.11; Hebrews 9.26; 1 Peter 1.20; 4.7). When we are dealing with God time is irrelevant. To him a thousand years, or even ten thousand, could be accomplished within a ‘seven’.

  Furthermore, here in chapter 9 Daniel sums up what follows the cutting off of the Messiah by ‘their end will be with a flood’. Whose end? Why, the people of the coming Prince (a singular noun in Hebrew followed by a singular verb). They will be destroyed by a flood of invaders (compare 11.22). And the phrase that follows, ‘and even to the end shall be war. Desolations are determined’ is an indefinite and vague phrase that can cover many situations. Mankind will continue to face suffering and hardship because they are the result of their own sin.

  That such a history would be theirs is actually confirmed by Jesus in Luke 21.24 where He speaks of the coming in of the invaders, the times of the Gentiles, and the terrible and long exile of the Jewish people (described in Matthew as included in the ‘great tribulation’ which they would suffer under the invasion of Titus and the mad antics of their own fanatical leaders), which would commence with the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, when ‘the times of the Gentiles’ would begin. Thus the ‘seventy sevens which are determined upon your people’ (9.24) could be seen as suspended.

  This idea is also suggested by Paul in Romans 11.15-24. Indeed that is exactly his argument. He is dealing with the problem of God turning away from His people and setting them aside and answers it along two lines.

  • 1). That not all Jews have been rejected. An examination of the past reveals that God has always chosen out some and rejected others. Thus this position is no different.
  • 2). That the temporary rejection of the nation as a whole is in order that God might bless the Gentiles, but there is the suggestion that when this purpose is accomplished the Jewish nation itself may expect a new final offer of deliverance (verses 25-31).

  Thus Paul clearly saw a period when the Jewish nation would be put into the background, followed in the end by a great work of God among that people as they come in response to Christ. There can in fact be no future for the Israel away from Christ. It is only when they respond to Him and are grafted back into the olive tree that they can be saved and begin again to fulfil God’s purpose . This situation could be seen as confirmed in the seventieth seven.

  But while we agree that such a gap is possible, it seems far more realistic to see the seventieth seven as following the sixty ninth, and therefore as including all that will then happen until the end of time. It encompasses within it conversion, apostasy and tribulation, all the continual experience of the people of God, the true Israel, as well as the destruction of Jerusalem because of the unbelief of those who continually reject Him.

  Is This the Period of the Great Tribulation?

  Firstly we must question the phrase ‘the Great Tribulation’. It is the invention of Bible students not of the Bible. The Bible does speak of great tribulation which would come on parts of the church (Revelation 2.22), and great tribulation that the Jews would face when Titus destroyed Jerusalem with its aftermath (Matthew 24.21), and great tribulation which the people of God would suffer through the ages (Revelation 7.14), but never of a period called ‘the Great Tribulation’.

  Secondly we should note that here in Daniel war and desolations are promised right from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (verse 26), so that what is described in verse 27 is not unusual. Certainly verse 27 does suggest that the people of God will be persecuted so that some turn aside from the covenant, but if it is restricted to a seven year period at the end of time that might be limited to Palestine, and anyway the people of God are persecuted in all ages, and never more so than in parts of the world today, especially in Muslim countries. We must not over-exaggerate the picture.

  Thirdly we should note that while at the end there will be ‘a time of trouble such as never was’ (Daniel 12/1) that is not limited to seven years, and its geographical extent we do not know.

  So this modern huge emphasis by some on a seven year tribulation period cannot be obtained from Daniel. Nor, we believe, can it be found in Revelation (see our commentary on Revelation). That is not to deny that at the end there will be great troubles and persecution, only to reject that it can be summed up in a seven year period.

  Chapter 10 Angelic Warfare.

  In this remarkable chapter the veil of the other world is partly lifted. Daniel had seen the rise and fall of empires, but now he was to learn a little of the supernatural activity that lay behind such historical events. He was to learn of battles in the spiritual realm of which previously he had been unaware. Jacob had experienced such a glimpse into the other world at Bethel in Genesis 28.12, 17; Elisha was very much aware of it and prays that his servant too may have a glimpse of it (2 Kings 6.17, compare 2.11-12); Ezekiel saw it in the heavenly temple which descended on the unknown high mountain (Ezekel 40.2) where he was able to examine it in depth; now Daniel is to have further revelation of that invisible world, brief but emphatic. It will then be followed by an outline of history leading up to the end of time.

  But a central theme of the chapter is the physical effects it had on Daniel. Having to do with the spiritual realm in this way was physically and emotionally exhausting. This is emphasised again and again. He was overwhelmed by what he saw and experienced.

  10.1 ‘In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a word was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar, and the word was true. It was about a great warfare (literally ‘even a great warfare’). And he understood the word and had understanding of the vision.”

  The change of method of dating suggests either that Darius the Mede was Cyrus, or more likely that Darius the Mede was no longer the ruler of Babylon, having died or been replaced. Note that Cyrus is not called the king of Babylon, whereas Darius had been (9.1). Daniel makes clear distinctions. ‘King of Persia’ is an attested title for such a ruler.

  It is noteworthy that Daniel has not returned with the exiles. If the account was fictitious we would expect that he would be depicted as so returning, so that this is a strong affirmation of the genuineness of the account.

  Here we learn that ‘a word’ from God was revealed to Daniel, a word that was true. The latter statement, which is unusual, suggests that on this occasion Daniel felt the need to emphasise the truth of what he had seen. This may also explain his reference to himself as Belteshazzar. He wanted his credentials to be appreciated, and most knew him as Belteshazzar. What was revealed was a great warfare. This most probably refers to the supernatural warfare described in the chapter, which parallels warfare on earth. Others see it as referring to a struggle within Daniel himself. ‘Understood’ may mean simply that he apprehended it and was able to write it down (compare 12.8).

  10.2-3 ‘In those days I Daniel was mourning three whole weeks. I ate no pleasant bread, nor did flesh or wine come in my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all until three whole weeks were fulfilled.’

  We are not told why Daniel was mourning. Perhaps news had reached him of the dire straits of the exiles who had returned to Jerusalem at the instigation of Cyrus, or perhaps he was mourning over the significance of the visions that he had received, praying for God’s mercy on those to be involved. But the seriousness of his mourning comes out in that it lasted ‘three whole week’ (‘three weeks, days’). The days is added to demonstrate that the three weeks was to be taken literally (‘three weeks’ could usually signify one and a bit to three weeks).

  During that time he only drank water and had plain fare. And he refrained from the usual preparations for meeting people. (The emphasis on what he avoided counts against him having no food at all).

  10.4-6 ‘And on the twenty fourth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great River Hiddekel (Tigris) I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold a man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to burnished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.’

  Three weeks to the 24th day of the first month means that the period included Passover and unleavened bread, which would finish on the 21st. It may be that it was because he could not fulfil the Passover (either because of uncleanness or because the facilities were not available) that he decided on a period of mourning.

  Walking by rivers appears to have been one of his favourite pastimes. A similar thing occurred before the vision in chapter 8. But this time it was the Tigris, and he was accompanied.

  ‘I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold a man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with pure gold of Uphaz.’ For the man clothed in linen compare Ezekiel 9.2, 3, 11; 10.2, 6, 7; Mark 16.5. This was possibly also the one mentioned in Daniel 8.16. He was clearly of great authority, and linen was worn by important personages. His loins were also covered in the finest gold, a further sign of splendour and importance.

  ‘His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as torches of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to burnished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.’ ‘Beryl’ is literally ‘Tarshish’ and is probably Spanish gold topaz. The face as the appearance of lightning, the eyes like torches of fire, and arms and feet like burnished brass are intended to express indescribable glory. Compare the description of the Son of Man in Revelation Whose face was like the sun in its strength, whose eyes were as a flame of fire and whose feet were of burnished brass.

  But the descriptions are not exact and we are probably to see here only a powerful and glorious angel, but one not quite as powerful as Michael and the other chief princes (10.13). This is further confirmed by the later description of his activities.

  ‘And the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.’ The stress is on the fact that he spoke with the power of many voices. It is not necessary to assume that it was inarticulate. Crowds can speak as it were with one voice. It is the roar and crescendo that is in mind. The whole description is intended to bring out the awesome impact of the visitor.

  10.7 ‘And I Daniel alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great quaking fell on them and they fled to hide themselves.’

  This does not necessarily mean that they saw nothing. The very approach of the glorious figure may well have terrified them before he appeared in full view, so that they ran for cover and hid themselves and thus missed the full glory of the vision. (Running for cover suggests that they saw something). On the other hand it would not be the only time when a vision was only seen by one man while his companions were only aware of something strange and the sound of a voice (compare Acts 9.3 onwards).

  10.8 ‘So I was left alone, and saw this grand vision, and there remained no strength in me, and my acceptable appearance was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength.’

  The grandeur of the vision had a powerful effect on him. He lost all strength, and felt totally corrupt in the presence of such holiness.

  10.9 ‘Yet I heard the voice of his words, and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I fallen into a deep sleep on my face, with my face towards the ground.’

  The rolling thunder of the man’s voice continued even as Daniel collapsed to the ground and hid himself from the glorious sight, and then fell into a swoon, a deep unnatural sleep, with his face towards the ground (compare 8.18; Genesis 2.21;15.12). The whole thing was too much for him.

  10.10 ‘And behold a hand touched me, which set me on my knees and on the palms of my hands.’

  ‘A hand touched me’ probably means that he felt himself seized by a powerful hand, compare 8.18 where it lifted him onto his feet, also 9.21. Here it set him on his hands and knees. His awareness of the powerful and holy figure before him prevented him rising to his feet. He probably felt too weak. But there was something symbolic here. He was on all fours as a beast but he was to be raised to stand up like a man.

  10.11 ‘And he said to me, “O Daniel, you man greatly beloved (valued, precious), understand the words that I speak to you and stand upright. For I am now sent to you.” And when he had spoken this word to me, I stood, trembling.’

  Notice that the standing upright and the understanding of God’s words through His messenger are linked, Compare 7.4; 8.18. Man was made upright at the same time as he was made in the image of God as a spiritual and moral being. The one symbolises the other. That is why the nations were wild beasts that went on all fours, whereas the people of God were represented as the son of man.

  ‘You man greatly beloved.’ What a testimony to an old man. He was greatly beloved of God, precious to God, the highest accolade that a human being could receive.

  ‘Understand.’ That is, ‘listen and comprehend’.

  ‘And when he had spoken this word to me, I stood, trembling.’ Daniel responded to the man’s demand, but did so fearfully and with trembling. The situation had resulted in him being filled with awe.

  10.12-13 ‘Then he said to me, “Do not be afraid Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come for your words’ sake. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me for twenty one days. But lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I remained there with the kings of Persia. ” ’

  We may probably assume from this that Daniel had been contemplating his previous visions during the da