A Study of Daniel
Charles H. Ray, Th.D.
This article is the third of a four part series on Daniel 9:24-27. The previous article examined the last part of verse 24 and the first part of verse 25. The present article picks up in v. 25 at "to restore and rebuild� and continues on into verse 27. A bibliography will appear at the end of Part IV.
Some attention will now be given to a few other linguistic
matters. The phrase �to restore and rebuild� (so NASB, NIV) is from bYv!h*l= tonb=l!w=, and
�is a rich and suggestive phrase that combines reference to the restoring of
the community and the rebuilding of the city.�[1]
bYv!h*l= (Hiph. inf. constr.) primarily means �to turn back, return,� but it is
translated into numerous other English words, including �bring back,� �again,�
�recovered,� and �restore.� In the Hiphil, it is
literally �to cause to return.� Barnes elaborates on the significance of this
matter by saying
�Until Messiah the Prince� is the terminus ad quem of the sixty-nine �weeks.� Not a few scholars pinpoint this phrase to the day of the Triumphal Entry, because on that day He officially presented Himself to the Jews as their Messiah, in fulfillment of Zech. 9:9. As mentioned before, Luke 19 seems to confirm this theory, stating, �And when He approached, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, �If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes�� (vv.41,42).[5] The Hebrew will not allow j^Yv!m* dYg!n* (two masculine singular nouns) to be translated �anointed prince� (so Archer, BDB, Keil, and Young). To obtain such an expression the Hebrew would have to be j^Yv!m* dYg!n*.[6]
This grammatical reality implies this person must be both
a ruler and an anointed one (NASB, �Messiah the Prince�; NIV, �the Anointed
One, the ruler�). �Prince� comes from the root dgn and denotes �to be conspicuous,
out front� (BDB, p.617). Similarly, because �messiah� could designate a king or
a priest, this leader must be one or both.[7]
Those terms rarely speak about a non-Israelite leader, so this person is most
probably an Israelite. In Daniel, a non-Israelite prince is usually referred to
as a ilm.[8]
Again, Jesus obviously meets all these qualifications, for He is the �Anointed
One� (i.e., Christ), and He is called a priest (Heb.
Both terms are applied to various leaders of the Old Testament, but here they clearly refer to Christ. He is the supreme Messiah and Prince; no one else fits the chronology developed in the text; this One is said in the next verse to be �cut off,� which fits for the crucifixion of Christ; and by far the majority of expositors agree on this point.[10]
The Vulgate, the Syriac, and Theodotion actually insert the word �Christ� in this verse.[11] Amillennialists seek to deny this assertion by reasoning as follows:
�Messiah� is epithet of king, of priest (cf. 2 Mac 1:10),
of prophet; and in a spiritual sense of patriarch (Ps. 105:15), and even of
Cyrus, who is �My Anointed,� Is. 45:1�The second term �prince,� qualifying the
first, is used of various officers of rank: as a chief among officials, esp. in
the temple personnel, e.g. 11:22 of the high priest, q.v.; of
nobles or princes, e.g., Job 29:10, 31:37; then of royalty, appearing as
an early title for the king in Israel, e.g., 1 Sa.
In Hebrew, proper names do not take the definite article, and neither do titles that have become virtual proper names by usage. A few examples are: YD*v^ (�the Almighty�), /f*c* (�the Adversary�), lb@T@ (�the world�), and /oYl=u# (�the Most High�). Therefore the words are not so vague. Daniel intended them to be understood as �Messiah the Ruler.�[13] Since there is no definite article used here, the �reference is not to the anointed one, as of one who was already known or looked forward to as such � for then the article would have been used; but to someone who, when he appeared, would have such marked characteristics that there would be no difficulty in determining that he was the one intended.�[14]
When
It seems unlikely
The book of Nehemiah leaves no doubt the city was restored �in times of distress� (NASB). Qox (�distress�; masc. sing. noun in constr.) is nowhere else in the OT in this form, and includes the idea of constraint.[22] <YT!uh* is actually �the times� (masc. plural noun). That the rebuilding would take longer than expected is likewise implied by this phrase.[23]
So far the news has been good.
The Hebrew verb here is tr@K*Y! (Niphal imperfect) has a basic meaning of �to cut,� but it can also indicate death.[25] It is the word used for execution in Lev. 7:20, Ps. 37:9, and Prov. 2:22.[26] Miller gives more details,
The verb translated �cut off� is the common verb for �cut� (K*r^T). It can be
used literally (Exod
A synonym for tr@K*Y!, rz~g=n,! is found in Isa. 53:8, where the death of the Suffering Servant is also described as �cut off�.[28]
The term �have nothing� (ol /Ya@w=) can be literally rendered �and (or �but�) not to (or �for�) him.�[29] Furthermore, /Ya can have the meaning �no one.�[30] With such a multitude of choices it is no wonder there has been much speculation as to what it means. The KJV has �but not for himself� which implies substitutionary atonement but that truth is not taught in this verse. The Vulgate has �they shall not be his people.�[31] The phrase is a Hebrew idiom for �not have� (Gen. 11:30, Isa. 27:4).[32] Goldingay places the next clause with this one and comes up with �and will have neither the city nor the sanctuary.� Not only does that arrangement not make sense, it also forces him to render the next few phrases as: �A leader to come will devastate a people, and its end will come with a flood.� �People� is in construct (<u^) and yet Goldingay doesn�t connect it with anything.[33] Additionally, since he teaches the one �cut off� is Onias III, the words �..have neither the city�� must refer to Onias� exile to Daphne.[34]
The significance here may evince Christ�s ministry appeared
to be all for naught when He died. He had not accomplished what He had set out
to do.[35]
Wood (p. 255) adds He died without friends or honor. He was rejected, and
treated like a criminal. �In the realm of things attractive and desirable, His
portion was equivalent to �nothingness�.� His people had rejected Him and the
kingdom could not now be set up (cf. John
The next few words can be read, �people of a prince, the
one coming� (AB*h^).[38]
It was Josephus� opinion (among many others) the Roman invasion of A.D. 70
fulfilled this verse,[39]
and thus eschatologically speaking this prince is a
leader of the last phase of the Roman Empire, the antichrist. Some intimate the
�people� are the Israelites, but it is ridiculous to believe the Jews would
tear down their own city. This prophecy is for �your people� (Dan.
No doubt this verse would have been enigmatic to the Jews, for it did not fit their concept of the Messiah. They envisioned Him saving their country, but here He dies and Gentiles overrun the city. The reason the devastation of the Tribulation is not primarily in view here is the fact that this one occurs before the 70th �week.�[41] The word for �prince� is the same one found in v. 25 (dYg!n*). That fact on top of the unidentified �he� of v. 27 compounds the confusion this passage can cause.
So, who is the prince of v. 26? In the near term he is the
Roman General Titus who wiped out
Concerning
The historians of the day vividly lament the horrific
scene. �On the 105th day [of the siege] ..the temple and the lower
city were burnt, and the last day found the whole city in flames. Only the
three great towers of Herod, Hippicus, Pharsael, and Mariamne, with the
western walls, were spared to protect the camp of the Xth
Legion which was left to guard the site..[T]he rest of the city was dug up to
its foundations.�[45]
[f#V#
�denotes the number, power, and irresistible force of the enemy.�[46]
Daniel utilizes this �flood� imagery for describing war in
It is easy to bungle the end of v. 26 because the grammar
allows more than one acceptable interpretation. What has been determined (tx#r#j$n#, Niph.
participle, �to decide, decree;� also used in v. 27): the war or the
desolations? The student must dig deeper to find the correct answer. �War� (hm*j*l=m!), �determined,�
and �desolations� (tomm@v) are all feminine. Does �the end� look to the
culmination of the city�s woes, or the completion of the church age? If the
emphasis is on desolations, then the punctuation would be �until the end of the
war desolations are determined.� If it�s war that is to be highlighted, then it
would be written �until the end will be war; desolations are determined.�[48]
Miller�s view (p. 269) is that it is war that has been decreed, and it will
continue until
In accordance with the fact that �end� is written twice in
this verse, one can assume two terminal points are in view. The general sense
is
Archer lays stress on the truth that all these events take
place before the 70th �week,� which is not brought up until v. 27
(p. 116), affirming the need for an era between the 69th and 70th
�weeks.� Even Pusey, an amillennialist,
agrees the death of the Messiah comes about not in the 69 "weeks" but
after them.[52]
Finally, it is important to notice Zech. 14:1-3. That passage indicates
It has been noted several times in this paper that the two salient beings in this prophecy are the Messiah and the antichrist. Obviously, then, one of them is the �he� of this verse. It is highly improbable the Messiah is the referent; the weight of the evidence favors the identification of the �he� as the antichrist. Critics who contend that Christ is the �he� look to four reasons. First, this entire prophecy is about Him. Second, Titus did not make a covenant with the Jews. Third, nowhere else in Scripture is this covenant-making prince found. Lastly, the word used for �firm� (or �prevail�) is the same one used in Isaiah 9:6 for �mighty God.�[54] This reasoning is unconvincing, if for no other reason than nowhere else is this seventy �weeks� addressed in this manner either.
That no consensus can be reached as to which covenant is
in view is another weakness of this theory. Some believe it is the New
Covenant, whereas others assert it is an already existing covenant. Goldingay draws attention to the covenant found in Dan. 9:4
and
The three verses in Daniel 11 seem to be figurative uses
of �covenant� (no definite article). In context, tYr!B=
symbolizes �the entire Mosaic system.�[55]
�The term �holy covenant� appears to have the same basic meaning that it has in
1 Maccabees
In deciding between the Messiah or the �prince to come� as
the antecedent, Barnes contends �it is not reasonable to suppose that the
latter is referred to, because it is said (ver. 26)
that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to �destroy the city and
the sanctuary.��[57]
In other words Barnes is saying the prince is coming to make peace. He is wrong
on two accounts. Verse 26 says it is the people of the prince, not the
prince himself, who execute the destruction. Too, he is implying it is
reasonable to suppose the Messiah would bring about the devastation. To assume
v. 27 deals with Christ is presumptuous, for that is the very question for
which interpreters are seeking an answer. Lastly, it is not unthinkable a
future leader would bring about such an agreement with
Verse 27 has a negative tone to it that is out of character with the Messiah. If the �he� were Christ, the wording would have been more direct�and positive. AB*h^ (v. 26) is a Qal active participle with the definite article modifying �prince.� That he is the prince may be a hint he is referred to earlier in the book, and indeed that is the case. Many conservative scholars regard him as the �little horn� of chap. 7, and the �little horn� is generally understood to be the antichrist. A question to consider is: about which person is the reader expecting more information in v. 27? Since the Messiah was �cut off� and the prince didn�t do anything in v. 26 (the people are the focus), it is safe to assume the latter is in mind (or a future ruler who is typified by this one.)[59] Wood�s remarks are noteworthy.
The use of the term �prince� for this [coming] one, the term used in reference to Christ in verse twenty-five, signifies him as one who would in some sense parallel Christ in the role he would play � something uniquely true of the Antichrist, who will be Satan�s counterfeit for Christ�Since the Antichrist has been presented in Daniel�s two earlier occasions of revelation (7:8, 23, 24; 8:23-25) and will be again in the last (11:36-45), one might expect that he would be brought into this third location as well.
..[T]he descriptions in the remainder of this verse fit all that
is revealed elsewhere regarding the Antichrist. Amillenarians
frequently identify this one with Titus Vespasian,
who led the Roman legions against
Leupold and Keil are some of the few non-premillenarians who admit the �he� is the antichrist. In doing so, they are driven to the conclusion at least part of this pericope is still future.[61] In order to get around this inference, Keil (p. 365) translates the initial part, �One week shall confirm the covenant to many,� leaving out the �he� altogether. Goldingay defends this alternative because the subject is otherwise too vague.[62] However, most expositors would consider Keil's rendering grammatically untenable.[63] His translation has a feminine subject with a masculine verb. �It is not usual to represent time as an agent in accomplishing work.�[64] Furthermore, if more testimony emerges that supports the concept of a time gap after the 69th �seven,� then one would be forced to admit this �he� is a heretofore undisclosed character. That evidence will now be rehearsed.
(1)Verse 26 declares the people will level the
city, whereas verse 27 states the prince is the instigator of evil. The
best solution sees the antichrist in v. 27, and v. 26 as evidence he comes from
the regions of the ancient
(4) In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus quotes Isaiah 61:1, 2 while
teaching in his hometown synagogue. He does not read the entire pericope, however. He mentions �the favorable year of the
Lord� (the theme of His first advent), but does not continue to the next
portion that proclaims God�s judgment (the purpose of His second coming). (5)
In v. 26 the
�Amillenarians teach that Christ�s First Advent ministry was in the 70th �seven,� that there was no interval between the 69th and 70th �sevens,� and that the six actions predicted in Daniel 9:24 are being fulfilled today in the church.�[69] Others of this persuasion, such as Young, believe Jesus� death caused the sacrifices to cease since He was the perfect sacrifice, which likewise means the 70th �week� was immediately subsequent to the 69th. Barnes comments,
The literal signification [of �cause to cease�] here would be met by the supposition that an end would be made of these sacrifices, and this would occur either by their being made wholly to cease to be offered at that time, or by the fact that the object of their appointment was accomplished, and that henceforward they would be useless and would die away. As a matter of fact, so far as the Divine intention in the appointment of these sacrifices and offerings was concerned, they ceased at the death of Christ � in the middle of the �week.�[70]
A number of factors make this eschatological explanation unlikely. Verse 27 is a strange place to bring up the atonement, for the Messiah died in v. 26.[71] The offerings did not stop for forty more years, and even then it was by the hand of the Romans, not by the dissolution of a contract.[72] The crucifixion certainly ended the need for subsequent sacrifices, but Young�s proposal cannot satisfactorily explain when the 7-year period terminates.
Another flaw is this: Christ dies after the 69 �weeks,� but not in the 70th �seven.� The sacrifices do not cease until the middle of the 70th �week.� Barnes declares the prophecy finishes about three and one-half years after the crucifixion, for that is when the apostles turned their attention from the Hebrew people (for whom this prophecy is intended) and began evangelizing the Gentiles. This belief raises more questions than it answers (what covenant is this?, how does turning to the Gentiles stop the sacrifices?). He goes on to claim the leveling of the Holy city was not immediate but gradual.[73] Young is forced to conclude the endpoint is not vital to this prophecy,[74] a stark contrast to the truth: it is Christ�s second coming!
It must be recalled that �unseen� gaps are found in other pericopes, too, even within this book (Dan. 7; 8; and 11).
(Isa. 9:6 is perhaps the best known one.) Other
portions of Scripture affirm the conclusion that the antichrist is not active
until the seventieth �seven� (Dan.
Therefore, the promise of v. 24 implies there is a time
gap, contrary to the amillennialists who teach righteousness is gradually
increasing as the church conducts its ministry.[77]
Other arguments refuting these claims were presented above, with the strongest
refutation being the Messiah would not wipe out
To summarize, the �he� is the antichrist, and he will (1) be the leader of the final phase of the Roman Empire, (2) establish a seven-year covenant with Israel, (3) break his agreement after three and a half years, (4) force the Jews to cease their sacrificial system, and (5) demand they worship him only, likely setting up a statue of himself in the Temple. Lastly, he is depicted in chapter two by the ten toes and, in chapter seven as the ten-horned beast.[79]
Continue to Part 4. |
---|
[1] Quoted from Lacocque by John Goldingay, Daniel (WBC), p. 260.
[2] Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament, pp. 149, 150.
[3] Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (abbrv. TWOT), p. 116.
[4] Goldingay, p. 226.
[5] J. Dwight Pentecost, �Daniel� in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 1363.
[6] Gleason Archer, �Daniel� in The Expositor�s Bible Commentary, p. 120.
[7] Stephen R. Miller, Daniel (NAC), p. 264.
[8] Goldingay, p. 261.
[9] Miller, p. 264.
[10] Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, p. 251.
[11] Barnes, p. 151.
[12] Quoted by John Walvoord, Daniel: The Key
to Prophetic Revelation (p. 229) from
[13] Archer, p. 120.
[14] Barnes, p. 151 (italics original).
[15] TWOT, pp. 840, 841.
[16] Miller, p. 266.
[17] BDB, p. 358.
[18] Harold Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, p. 120.
[19] so Hengstenberg, Barnes, p. 153.
[20] Taken from Porteous� commentary (p.142) by Miller, p. 267.
[21] As quoted from Hartman by Goldingay, p. 261.
[22] TWOT, p. 760.
[23] Barnes, p. 153.
[24] Miller, p. 267.
[25] TWOT, p. 456.
[26] Wood, p. 255.
[27] Miller, p. 267.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Archer, p. 113.
[31] John Gill, Commentary on Daniel, p. 209.
[32] Miller, p. 267.
[33] Goldingay, p. 226.
[34] Ibid., p. 262.
[35] Miller, p. 267.
[36] Pentecost, p. 1364.
[37] Walvoord, p. 230.
[38] Wood, p. 255.
[39] Miller, p. 268.
[40] John Whitcomb, Daniel, p. 133.
[41] Wood, p. 256.
[42] Barnes, p. 180.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Wood, p. 256.
[45] The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 1619 (from Josephus).
[46] Gill, p. 210.
[47] Walvoord, p. 231.
[48] Wood, p. 256.
[49] Archer, p. 116.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Whitcomb, p. 133.
[52] E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1978 [1885]), p. 192, as pointed out by Tommy Ice, Pre-Trib Perspectives, August 2001, p. 7.
[53] Walvoord, p. 231.
[54] John S. and Paul D. Feinberg, Tradition & Testament, p. 203.
[55] Pentecost, p. 1369.
[56] Wood, p. 299.
[57] Barnes, p. 181.
[58] Walvoord, p. 233.
[59] Wood, p. 257.
[60] Ibid, p. 258.
[61] Walvoord, p. 233.
[62] Goldingay, p. 230.
[63] Walvoord, p. 234.
[64] Barnes, p. 181.
[65] Miller, p. 268.
[66] Pre-Trib Perspectives, August 2001, p. 7.
[67] Ibid.
[68] Pentecost, p. 1363.
[69] Ibid., p. 1364.
[70] Barnes, p. 186.
[71] Wood, p. 257.
[72] Walvoord, p. 235.
[73] Barnes, pp. 182-184.
[74] Miller, p. 270.
[75] Wood, p. 261.
[76] Hoehner, p. 131.
[77] Wood, p. 260.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Archer, pp. 116, 117.