Bible Commentaries
Daniel 9

Verse 1

V

THE HISTORY OF DARIUS THE MEDE

Daniel 5:31; Daniel 6:1-28; Daniel 9:1

The testimony of Daniel concerning Darius the Mede is found in Daniel 5:31; Daniel 6:1-28; Daniel 9:1. The Jewish Bible properly places the last verse of Daniel 5 at the beginning of Daniel 6. From these passages we gather the following facts:

1. Darius is here said to be the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Modes.

2. Darius, like Pharaoh and Caesar, is a title rather than a name.

3. He "received the kingdom," i.e., from another. He "was made king," i.e., by another.

4. He was an old man, "about three score and two."

5. Only one year of his reign is mentioned (Daniel 9:1).

6. As elsewhere throughout the book, the Medes and Persians are considered jointly as one government (Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15).

7. The reigns of Cyrus and of Darius were contemporaneous (Daniel 6:28).

On this testimony the following observations are submitted:

1. It is difficult from outside history, whether sacred or profane, to determine definitely the real name and place of this Darius. If we adopt the Jewish method of dividing the chapters so as to make the last verse of Daniel 5 the first verse of Daniel 6 then there is nothing in Daniel’s account to connect closely in time the death of Belshazzar with the accession of Darius, king of Persia, so often named in the book of Ezra. But while we may accept the chapter division, the conclusion deduced, identifying this Darius with the Darius of Ezra, is every way improbable, not to say impossible. The deduction creates far greater difficulties than it removes – difficulties in this book as well as in Ezra, and even greater difficulties in Persian history. So our conclusion is that Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, in this book, is not the Darius, the Persian, the son of Hystaspes, so prominent in the book of Ezra. The testimony of Daniel, even if wholly unsupported from the outside, should be accepted as trustworthy unless better testimony should show it to be impossible. A probable explanation of this history when compared with others is all that we need to show.

The famous Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus, upon which the radical critics so confidently rely, itself alone furnishes the probable explanation. That tablet shows that a certain general of Cyrus, Gobryas by name, led the night assault in which Belshazzar was slain, and was made governor of the province of Babylon by Cyrus, and then as governor appointed all the subordinate rulers in the realm, which harmonizes perfectly with Daniel’s account that (1) Darius "received the kingdom," "was made king," and (2) that "it pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps." Professor Sayce, though so adverse to the historicity of Daniel, thus reads a part of the Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus: "Cyrus entered Babylon. Dissensions were allayed before him. Peace to the city did Cyrus establish, peace to all the province of Babylon did Gobryas, his governor, proclaim. Governors in Babylon he (i.e., Gobryas) appointed." Professor Driver thus renders another part of the tablet: "Gubaru (same as Gobryas) made an assault, and slew the king’s son." The king’s son was Belshazzar. Then the tablet goes on to show the national mourning for the king’s son.

Defenders of the historical trustworthiness of the book of Daniel need not commit themselves irrevocably to this identification of Daniel’s Darius with the tablet’s Gobryas. It suggests all that is necessary, a probable explanation. Mr. Pinches, who brought the Annalistic Tablet to light, and many others are quite confident of this identity. Mr. Thomson ("Pulpit Bible," Daniel) adopts this theory in his exposition. There are several other theories concerning the identity of Daniel’s Darius most plausibly argued by learned men who fully accept the trustworthiness of the history in the book of Daniel. It is not at all necessary to recite them here.

2. It is quite in line with all the probabilities in the case that Cyrus, ruler over two united nations, Medes and Persians, should appoint a Mede as subking over the conquered province of Babylon, while he attended to the general affairs of the whole empire. The reference to both Cyrus and Darius in Daniel 6:28 indicates a contemporaneous reign, Darius as subking at Babylon, Cyrus as supreme king over the whole empire.

3. Darius, being an old man when he "received the kingdom," or "was made king," did not probably reign long, Daniel specifying only his first year (Daniel 9:1).

4. The contention of the radical critics that, in Daniel’s mind, the empire of the Medes precedes and is distinct from the empire of the Persians is contradicted flatly by the whole tenor of the book. While everywhere recognizing them as distinct peoples, the book throughout knows them only as a conjoined nation, one government. The laws of the one government are the laws of the Medes and Persians (Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15). This unity in duality is manifested in the symbolic features: the silver beast and two arms of Nebuchadnezzar’s image (Daniel 2:32); the bear with one side higher than the other (Daniel 7:5); the ram with the two horns, one higher than the other (Daniel 8:20). This last symbol is expressly interpreted as a unity in duality and named "Medes and Persians."

This absurd contention of the radical critics is evidently intended to hedge against any possible prophecy in the book concerning Rome, as the fourth world empire, and so to make the prophetic forecast of history culminate in Antiochus Epiphanes, and then by arbitrarily dating the book after his reign, to deny all prophetic element in it. In no other radical criticism do they so utterly betray their atheistic presuppositions, and so clearly manifest their utter untrustworthiness as biblical expositors. The very exploit which they regard as their greatest achievement most overwhelmingly exposes their disqualifications and advertises their shame.

THE CONTENTS OF DANIEL 6
1. On the fall of Babylon and the death of Belshazzar, Cyrus appoints Darius the Mede, subking over the province of Babylon.

2. Darius districts the kingdom under his jurisdiction and appoints 120 satraps over the several districts. Over these satraps he appoints three presidents, Daniel, one of the three, to whom all the satraps must give account of the king’s matters in their several satrapies. This division of authority and responsibility was common then and is yet common in Oriental countries. The three presidents would constitute the king’s cabinet. From this place Farrar gets his "board of three," but his arbitrary attempt to transfer it back to a preceding regime in order to break the force of "third ruler in the kingdom" (Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15) is merely puerile and amusing. Daniel’s age, wisdom, experience, administrative capacity and character so easily make him the dominant spirit over the two other presidents and over all the satraps that Darius purposes to set over the whole realm a grand vizier.

3. And now comes a development so true to the life and character of Oriental despotism, with their large delegation of powers to subordinates, that its absence from the story would have discounted its credibility. Envy, jealousy, and disappointed greed on the part of the two other presidents and all the satraps, lead them to conspire against Daniel. It was bad enough, in their minds, to have him one of three presidents, but if he be made grand vizier, then there would be no hope of successful fraud and loot. Daniel here brings to mind that great commoner, the elder William Pitt, who, as secretary, stood alone in a corrupt age, whose spotless character and imperious will dominated an unwilling king and a venal ministry, before whom all fraud in politics and peculation in office fled affrighted. One such man in a thousand years is about all the world can produce. And when he appears he is like a solitary, huge, cloud-piercing granite mountain in an almost boundless plain.

What a tribute to Daniel’s purity of life, official integrity and sublimity of character, is their confession that nothing could be found against him except his alien religion! But just here these jackals were most sure of their lion. His record was unequivocal and univocal. Not even the mighty Nebuchadnezzar could shake him in a matter of conscience and religion, but rather bowed before him. On this point he was as God himself before the white-faced, pale-lipped, knee-shaking Belshazzar. Hence the low scheme of cunning, the short-sighted trick of engineering on the unsuspecting Darius the signing of a blasphemous law that for thirty days no man should offer prayer or petition to any god, but to the king alone. To polytheistic Orientals, or even to a Roman Caesar, who was ex officio not only pontifex maximus, but was himself divine, such temporary suspension of empty religious services except through the ruler himself, was a light matter enough. But to a pious Jew recognizing one only true God it was every way blasphemous and horrible.

In all the world history of legislative folly this statue stands unique – "without a model and without a shadow." The suspension of the law of gravitation, the suspension of either the centripetal or the centrifugal force, whose joint powers produce the circling orbits of heavenly bodies, would not introduce more confusion in the material universe than such a law, if capable of execution, would produce in the moral and spiritual realm.

NO PRAYER TO GOD FOB THIRTY DAYS

All connection between the throne of mercy and grace and helpless, hungering, thirsting, dying men, severed for thirty days! For a whole month travailing mothers may not cry to God; cradles must remain unblessed; youth helpless before temptation; widows and orphans at the mercy of oppressions and without appeal; human life unguarded in the presence of assassins; property at the mercy of the thief, the burglar and the incendiary; sinners dying unabsolved and unforgiven, an earthly embargo against angel ministrations or heavenly mercies – such a law, if enforceable, would be the climax of insanity. What an ocean-sweeping dragnet to catch one fish!

How clearly the record brings out the weakness of Darius I The mind instantly calls up, in association, Herod’s vain regret for his oath when called upon to surrender John the Baptist to the murderous woman, and Pilate vainly washing his hands as he surrenders Jesus to crucifixion, as if consistency were more than righteousness.

Daniel’s attitude was calm, inflexible. Though he knew that the law was signed, and could not have been ignorant of either its malicious purpose or its result to himself, he kept right on praying to God at the three regular Temple hours of prayer, morning, noon, and evening.

He kept his window open toward Jerusalem. How well he bears in mind the words of Solomon’s great intercession at the dedication of the Temple, preserved in the sacred history of his people: If thy people go out to battle against their enemy, whithersoever thou shalt send them, and shall pray unto the Lord toward the city which thou hast chosen, and toward the house that I have built for thy name: then hear thou in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause. If they sin against thee (for there is no man that sinneth not), and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near; yet if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and make supplication in the land of them that carried them captive, saying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed wickedness; and so return unto thee with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies, which led them away captive, and pray unto thee toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, toward the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name: then hear thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven thy dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive thy people that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee, and give them compassion before them who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them. – 1 Kings 8:44-50.

But by espionage on his private devotions in his own domicile – the most accursed method of tyranny – his infraction of human law is clearly established. Peter and John when charged by human authority "not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus" boldly replied: "Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things we saw and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). So Daniel here.

DANIEL IN THE LION’S DEN
This miraculous preservation of Daniel, though its miracle sorely grieves the radical critics, is, like the preservation of his three friends in the fiery furnace, certified in the New Testament book of Hebrews, which records among the achievements wrought by Israel’s ancient worthies: "By faith they quenched the violence of fire – by faith they stopped the mouths of lions." The fate of Daniel’s accusers when he was vindicated is fully in line with the history of Oriental nations as well as the law of Moses. The consequent proclamation of Darius is not incredible per se, because in keeping with his character, his times, and his people. It is in line with other proclamations in this book, in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.

I must again call attention to this fact concerning the text: The accepted Hebrew text, Theodotion’s Greek version in the second century A.D., and the Peshito Syriac version of the same century are generally agreed. The important variant readings are in the Septuagint Greek version. That version, for example, makes only the two other presidents (not the satraps) accuse Daniel, and they alone, with their families (not the satraps) are cast in the lions’ den when Daniel is vindicated. I have not thought it necessary to give all the Septuagint variations.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the affirmations in Daniel 5:31; Daninel 6; Daniel 9:1 concerning Darius?

2. Is he the same as the Darius of the book of Ezra? What the proof?

3. State the archaeological proof that he was probably Gobryas.

4. Give the reply to the radical critic contention that, in Daniels mind the kingdom of the Medea was distinct from the Persian kingdom and preceded it. .

5. By whom and why a conspiracy against Daniel, and what their method of destroying him?

6. State the comparison of Daniel with William Pitt.

7. Show the folly of the statute Darius was induced to sign.

8. What the weakness of Darius and with whom compared?

9. From what texts and versions must we get a true text of Daniel, and which of these are in agreement and which one variant?

10. State the most important variations in the Septuagint.

Verses 1-27

X

THE MARVELOUS NINTH CHAPTER OF DANIEL (CONTINUED)

Daniel 9:1-27

In this chapter we consider seriatim the items of the exegetical analysis already submitted.

I. God’s great decree concerning the Jewish nation. This decree is the whole prophecy, and by its terms has all the force of an inexorable judicial decision. It covers a long period of time, subdivided into such particular sections, each to be filled with its own appropriate events, these events of such number, magnitude, order and correlation, the parts assigned to particular nations so extraordinary as to defy the inventive audacity of an impostor. On its face are registered the marks of its divine origin. As a phenomenon it is easier to philosophically account for it as a prophecy written by Daniel at the time and under the circumstance claimed, than to stagger credulity by attributing it to an impostor of the Maccabean days An attribution of this prophecy to a pseudo Daniel of the second century before Christ necessitates an incredible miracle.

II. Meaning or duration of the seventy weeks. This means seventy weeks of years, a symbolism already familiar to the Jewish mind, as it afterward became to both Greek and Latin philosophers. It is weeks of years, not days. Laban said to Jacob, "Fulfil her week also," meaning seven years, and through Daniel’s contemporary, the delivery of the prophecy, and necessarily after its fulfilment, if it be prophecy. It is a characteristic of prophecy to both veil and reveal. Its terms are not those of accomplished history, and there is room for difference of opinion about the time when the matter is to be fulfilled before this fulfilment comes, as is evident from the history of all previous prophecies. But there is a law which finally determines the genuineness of the prophetic element, that is, it must be fulfilled. A prophecy that does not come to pass is no prophecy. This is the definite test. We therefore are acting strictly within the rules governing prophecy when from our late standpoint we seek in the history of the past for historical facts verifying the fulfilment of what is here foretold.

Hence we would be perfectly justified in rejecting any interpretation as a reasonable exegesis of this prophecy which left out the great matters set forth in Daniel 9:24, which is a summary of the greater events of the period. And what are the items of this summary? We must find a rounded and connected period of 490 years. In this period must be located the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, the finishing of the transgression of the Jewish people, the making an end of sin, the making reconciliation for iniquity, the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, the sealing up of vision and prophecy and the anointing of a most holy. These are all extraordinary events. It was one of the matters that gravely troubled Daniel, as evidenced by his prayer, that the transgression of his people had been continuous from the beginning of their history to his time. He was not alone disturbed by the offenses immediately preceding the servitude to Babylon, but on his conscience was an unbroken series of transgressions under Moses, under the judges, under the kings, against the law, and against the messages of the prophets. There must be, in any correct interpretation, a filling up of the measure, or a finishing of the transgression of the Jewish people.

Moreover, up to his time no end to sins had been made by atonement. They were merely passed over through typical animal sacrifices. Yet again, this end of sins, not in figure, but in fact, must be brought about by a real reconciliation for iniquity, i.e., a genuine and permanent atonement. Following this necessarily would be brought in an everlasting righteousness Not a tattered patchwork, such as the best of their worthies in ancient times offered in their lives, but a righteousness whiter than snow and so flawless that not even the omniscience of God when holding it in the light of immaculate holiness could find a spot on it – a righteousness that would envelop its subject soul and body and would be impervious to the thrust or stroke of the flaming sword of divine justice. Moreover, a just interpretation would demand the coming of a person on whom all the rays of past prophecy would focus, so that it could be said that up to this date "were the law and the prophets" and since that time a new order of things. Moreover, as the prophecy foretells the total abrogation of sacrifices and offerings, the interpretation must find not some temporary cessation of these offerings but a decree of final annulment, so that an end is made to them forever. Yet again, as the prophecy foretells the destruction of the city and sanctuary and the rejection of the people, any thorough interpretation must find the incoming of a new covenant, the anointing of a new most holy place and a new and spiritual Israel.

All controversies about the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quern are mere byplays, unless within these terminals can be shown fulfilment of the great particulars of the prophecy. That man’s views of the beginning of the period or of the end of it are lighter than air unless within his terminal points he can show the fulfilment of the great events which are to his terminal points as the building is to the scaffolding. Not only must the true interpretation find all of the great particulars of the summary in Daniel 9:24, but it must find the particular things for the subdivision of the period, something definite to occur in forty-nine years, and something more important 434 years later, and again a continuous event for seven years, and yet again the remarkable particulars of each half of the seven years when divided in the middle. And as the prophecy foretells the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary some time after the seventy weeks, or 490 years, and then a long period of wrath upon the rejected people, the true interpretation must find a binding relation between this doom and the cutting off of the Anointed One in the last seven years of the period. This must be the relation of cause and effect. The destruction of the city and sanctuary and rejection of the people must be the result of the cutting off. If an interpreter be unprepared to show such fulfilment, then he ought to refrain from attempting any exposition of the passage. Yet again, two persons at least, neither of them human, must have known about the facts and the dates set forth in the prophecy. These two persons are the angel Gabriel, who brought the prophecy to Daniel, and the God of heaven, who sent it as an answer to Daniel’s prayer. Their testimony as to the fulfilment would be intensely valuable. An interpretation not corroborated by the testimony of Gabriel or of God, the Father, who sent the prophecy, could not stand by mere human argumentation. One more point in this connection: It is not denied that this book and, particularly, this prophecy, exercised a marvelous influence on the subsequent periods of Jewish history. Some definite impression was created by its language, and this impression would naturally take the shape of expectation. We ought to be able to find, therefore, a widespread expectation of fulfilment, generated by the prophecy itself, in the day of its fulfilment, or in the near time preceding its fulfilment. The people generally, without any claims to special scholarship, would receive impressions, ripening into expectation, from the prophecy’s definite time revelation. A date of fulfilment, therefore, without antecedent expectations, would hardly meet the conditions of this prophecy.

III. When the seventy weeks began, or the terminus a quo. The beginning is thus expressed in the text: "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Anointed One, the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks; it shall be built again with street and moat, even in troublous times." Here begins the subdivision of the seventy weeks, with appropriate events assigned to each section, namely, seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, one week; and just here comes the battle on punctuation which determines the exegesis. According to the radical higher critics, whom the Canterbury revision, after much debate, consented to follow) the punctuation is as follows: "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Anointed One, the Prince, shall be seven weeks; and three score and two weeks, it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times." This punctuation assigns the first subdivision of forty-nine years to the coming of the Anointed One, the Prince. And the second subdivision, the three score and two weeks, or 434 years, to the building of the city, and logically necessitates that the Anointed One, who comes at the end of the forty-nine years, shall live 434 years through all the second subdivision, and afterward be cut off. Here are two unspeakable absurdities that not even the pseudo Daniel would perpetrate: (1) That 434 years are required for building Jerusalem, and (2) that the Anointed One is 434 years old before he is cut off. No man in Maccabean times, one degree removed from idiocy, would have made either statement. It is a mere expedient to say that the Anointed One of Daniel 9:26 must be a different person from the Anointed One of Daniel 9:25. There is absolutely no warrant in the text for making the Anointed One who is cut off a different person from the Anointed One who comes. A very few words only intervene, and no break in the sense or connection between the Anointed One in Daniel 9:25 and the Anointed One in Daniel 9:26. The Anointed One who comes is the Anointed One who is cut off. But what is served by this punctuation murder? It seems to be an effort to make the Anointed One in Daniel 9:25 mean Cyrus, and to fix the beginning of the 434 years just forty-nine years before the coming of Cyrus, which of course requires the finding of some one to serve for another Anointed One. True, indeed, in Isaiah 45:1, 176 years before his time, Cyrus is called an anointed one, but the trouble with the punctuation is to find a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem just forty-nine years before Cyrus, whose first year is 536 B.C., and then to find another anointed one who is cut off just 434 years plus 3.5 years later, i.e., in 98 or 99 B.C. In other words, this absurd punctuation puts both ends of the 490 years out in the air with nothing to mark its coming or exit. Don’t misunderstand me. I am not ignorant of the various expedients of the radical critics in dealing with the prophecy of Daniel, but have studied profoundly in many books their attempts at its exposition. It would be impossible to generalize their contentions, since they are as variant as the number of critics, but doubtless the best and strongest that can be said on their part is to be found in Dr. Driver’s commentary on Daniel in the "Cambridge Bible." In order to be as fair to him as a brief statement will permit, I will here summarize his interpretation of the matter in hand:

1. He proceeds upon the theory that the book of Daniel was written by some unknown person in the Maccabean days in some part of the second century before Christ, and that the book was written from the standpoint of history, shaped in prophetic form and attributed to Daniel.

2. That the 490 years corrects, interprets, and paraphrases Jeremiah’s seventy years. In other words, that Jeremiah’s seventy years are explained to Daniel as meaning weeks of years, that is to say, that the seventy weeks must commence with Jeremiah’s seventy years.

3. His terminus a quo is Jeremiah 30:18, which contains a promise to rebuild Jerusalem, which he dates, probably, 458 B.C.

4. That it is only forty-nine years later, 409 B.C., until Cyrus conquered Babylon, and therefore he is the anointed one, the prince of verse 24.

5. That sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, are devoted to rebuilding the city.

6. The anointed one of Daniel 9:26 is Onias, the high priest, who, in the apocryphal book, 2 Maccabees, is said to have been assassinated.

7. That the coming prince of Daniel 9:26 is Antiochus Epiphanes, who in the period of seven years sets up the abomination of desolation, takes away the daily sacrifice and confirms a covenant with many Jews.

Dr. Driver frankly admits that the time of Onias and Antiochus falls sixty-seven years short of the prescribed date in the prophecy. Nor does he explain how a writer of that very time, and who is simply shaping historical fact in a prophetic form, should have made such an awful mistake in the length of time. We might be willing to accept his probable date of prophecy in Jeremiah 30:18, but must object to his making the fifty-two years before Cyrus mean forty-nine years, and we find it impossible to accept his 434 years as devoted to the building of the city and his trying to make the time of Onias and Antiochus fit the end of the period. Moreover, it is impossible to find in the period of Antiochus any expectation of the Coming One warranted by this and many other prophecies. Nor do we find the temporary interruption of the sacrifices by Antiochus at all equal to the total abrogation implied in the terms of this prophecy. Indeed, no one of the great particulars of the summary in Daniel 9:24 can be identified in the days of Antiochus. Not only does his exposition put both terminal points in the air, without mark of beginning or exit, but it furnishes no body of great extraordinary events to fill in between the dates.

I thought it needful to call attention to this higher critic method of dealing with Daniel, but for ourselves we feel constrained to seek an interpretation more accordant with the terms of the prophecy. The text demands as a starting point, the going forth of a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. The context clearly shows that the restoration here expressed is the restoration from the destruction accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar (605 B.C.)

"The commandment" cannot mean a divine decree, because we have no means of dating God’s purposes. "The going forth" of the commandment cannot refer to a mere prediction of the restoration and rebuilding, for a prediction is not a commandment. It is true Dr. Driver so styles Jeremiah’s prediction Jeremiah 30:18): "Behold, I will turn again the captivity of Jacob’s tents and have compassion on his dwelling places; and the city shall be builded up, her heap, and the palace shall remain after the manner thereof." But his is less definite than the prediction in Isaiah 44:28: "That saith of Cyrus, he is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying of Jerusalem, she shall be built; and to the temple thy foundation shall be laid." Both of these predictions are pertinent to the matter in hand, and equally show that God’s purpose is the divine original of the commandment whenever and by whomsoever sent forth. But Isaiah’s prediction (712 B.C.) precedes even the destruction of Jerusalem by more than one hundred years.

On this point Dr. Pusey well says, "The decree spoken of was doubtless meant of a decree of God, but to be made known through his instrument, man, who was to effectuate it. The commandment went forth from God, like that, at which, Gabriel had just said, using the same idiom, he himself came forth to Daniel. But as the one was fulfilled through Gabriel, so the other remained to be fulfilled through the Persian monarch, in whose hands God had left for the time the outward disposal of his people."

When, therefore, we look for "the going forth of a commandment" of a Persian monarch we find four recorded in the Bible as follows:

1. The Decree of Cyrus (fulfilling Isaiah 44:28), and recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-2, a copy of which was found later among the archives by Darius Hystaspes (Ezra 6:2-5). The date of this decree was 536 B.C. The prediction in Isaiah would lead us to expect some reference to the building of Jerusalem, but all the records of it limit it to the building of the Temple.

2. The decree of Darius Hystaspes (Ezra 6), reviving the decree of Cyrus, which had been frustrated by the enemies of the Jews and annulled by the Artaxerxes, who was the pseudo Smerdis (Ezra 4). The date of this decree is 519 B.C. But the record limits it also to the rebuilding of the Temple, which was accomplished in the sixth year of Darius.

3. The first decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezra 7). The date of this decree was the seventh year of Artaxerxes, 457 B.C. The record shows here an enlargement of powers much beyond the former decrees. This decree has nothing to say of building the Temple (already accomplished) but of beautifying it, nor in itself, as recorded, any reference to building the city, yet in another place this latter is evidently a part of Ezra’s work, but confers on Ezra extraordinary powers in restoring the Jewish polity, both civic and ecclesiastical, according to the law of Moses.

4. The second decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Neb. 1-2). The date of this decree is the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, 445 B.C. The terms of this decree are express in their reference to building Jerusalem.

Now as a starting point for the beginning of the 490 years, we are shut up to the acceptance of one of these four decrees. And candor compels the concession that a priori any one of the four meets the requirements of the terms of the prophecy.

While the record of the Cyrus decree seems limited to the rebuilding of the Temple, the Isaiah prophecy (Isaiah 44:28) demands the inclusion of the building of the city. Especially must this be conceded when we read the letter sent to Artaxerxes, or the pseudo Smerdis, by the enemies of the Jews. (See Ezra 4:11-14.) And as Darius Hystaspes, the author of the second decree, distinctly revived and ratified the Cyrus decree, which had been frustrated, this, too, would include the building of the city.

For the third decree, the evidence is stronger still, the one issued to Ezra by Artaxerxes Longimanus, 457 B.C. This restores Jerusalem to a civil polity under their own laws and included the country west of the river (Ezra 7:25). There are two ideas in the prophecy, "to restore and to build," and restoration is more important than rebuilding.

The restoration of the civil polity was a necessary preliminary to the entrance of the people on their new probation of 490 years. Without it they could not be responsible. They must be under their own judges and magistrates, with powers of imprisonment, confiscation, banishment, and death, and charged with the administration of their own Mosaic law, in order to enter upon this probation or responsibility. This restoration was more essential than the building of the walls of the city, since it conferred a political status, while the walls only conferred a defense.

The fourth decree (Neh. 1-2), 445 B.C., only carries on the third as the second carried on the first. That is to say, if Artaxerxes Longimanus confers restoration on Jerusalem, in its civil polity, in his first decree, it was but a logical outcome that the city must have walls to protect its status from the encroachment of its bitter enemies. Those 490 years of probation are determined on both the people and on the city. It does not seem that a just probation could commence until the restoration of their civil polity, under their own magistrates and judges, charged with the administration of their own Mosaic law and empowered to enforce it with penalties of confiscation, imprisonment, banishment, and death. These powers came with the restoration of the city under Ezra, and arose from a commandment going forth from Artaxerxes Longimanus, 457 B.C.

Moreover, it is certain, from Ezra 6:14, that the obstructions to the building, general and special, continued to the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and were removed at his commandment. This building was not limited to the Temple, for that was finished in the sixth year of Darius. The Artaxerxes of Daniel 6:14, is Longimanus, who followed Darius, and not the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7-24, who preceded Darius and was Gaumata, the pseudo Smerdis. This passage (Daniel 6:14) directly connects Ezra with both restoration and building, and confers on this third decree additional probability as the one of the four which best meets the terms of the prophecy. But if any one of the four might reasonably meet the terms of the prophecy, we are justified in allowing the fulfilment to designate which one was intended. This is the final and critical test of prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:21-22). We have therefore, from our viewpoint of 2,500 years after the prophecy, only to apply the dates of these four decrees, in order to arrive at the coming of

IV. Messiah, the Prince. To the decree of Cyrus, 536 B.C., we add the seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, or 483 years, and it brings us to 53 B.C., and no "Messiah, the Prince" in evidence. This might naturally be expected, since the Cyrus decree was expressly annulled by Artaxerxes who was Gaumata, the pseudo Smerdis (Ezra 4:17-24), and permission to build the city expressly withheld until new commandment is ordered.

To the Darius decree, 519 B.C. (which renewed the order of Cyrus to build the Temple), we add the 483 years, and it brings us to 36 B.C., with no "Messiah, the Prince," in evidence, because this decree does not restore civil polity, so necessary to probation.

To the first decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus, 457 B.C., which dowered Ezra with such extraordinary powers (Ezra 7:25-26), including commandment to build the city (Ezra 6:14), we add the 483 years and it brings us to the remarkable scene at the baptism of Jesus, when he was anointed as Prophet, Sacrifice, Priest and King by the Holy Spirit, and was witnessed by the voice of the Father from heaven: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." By this anointing, John the Baptist recognizes the Messiah, and himself witnesses: "Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world!" He is the Messiah that himself so remarkably verifies this very prophecy of Daniel (Matthew 24:15). His is the one who so many times assumes the Daniel title, "Son of man," whose life and words and death so amazingly expound this prophecy. It was Gabriel who carried the revelation of the Messiah to Daniel, and it was this very Gabriel and other angels who so remarkably identified this Jesus as the Messiah (Luke 1:17-19; Luke 1:26-38; Matthew 1:18-22; Luke 2:8-15; Matthew 2:13-14). It was God the Father who sent Gabriel to carry the revelation of the Messiah to Daniel, and it was the Father who three times from the most excellent glory identified him when he came.

We may therefore feel assured that we find the terminus a quo, or beginning of the 490 years, in the going forth of the commandment of Artaxerxes Longimanus, 457 B.C. And what kind of Messiah does Dr. Driver find 483 years from his terminus a quo? None whatever, by his own confession. But allow him to arbitrarily strike off seventy years of his time, and then who? Onias, a high priest, whose cutting off is unknown to history, except in an apocryphal book whose testimony on this point is flatly contradicted by Josephus.

When we come to apply the fourth decree (Neh. 1-2) we have two notable explanations:

1. Sir Robert Anderson, who has two remarkable books on Daniel, The Coming Prince and Daniel in the Critics’ Den, and who accepts the usual date 445 B.C., insists that the Jews reckoned by lunar years of 360 days, instead of 3651/4. In this way, by a very precise calculation, he adds 483 years of 360 days each to 445 B.C., which culminates on the very Palm Sunday when Jesus makes his triumphant entry into Jerusalem and is publicly received as Messiah the King. Sir Robert Anderson’s argument is strong, and particularly his chronological arrangement evinces profound knowledge and skill. In many respects his review of Farrar and Driver surpasses in excellence any other contribution toward the defense of the book of Daniel from the assaults of destructive criticism.

2. Hengstenberg, on the other hand, while agreeing with Sir Robert Anderson in making the Nehemiah decree the terminus a quo of the 490 years, controverts the theory of a year of 360 days, and contests the date usually accepted, 445 B.C. By an elaborate historical argument of great plausibility he seeks to prove that the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus falls upon the date 455 B.C., and then by adding the 483 years he reaches his acknowledgment by the Father as the true coming of Messiah, the Prince. Dr. Hengstenberg’s dissertation on Daniel and his treatment of the Messianic elements of Daniel’s book in his great work, "The Christology of the Old Testament," are indispensable to the student of the book of Daniel.

For the reasons already given, this author accepts the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus, in the seventh year of his reign, as given to Ezra and with the date 457 B.C., as the terminus a quo or beginning point of the 490 years, and that the coming of the Messiah refers to his public entrance upon his messianic office, which occurred at his baptism.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the nature of God’s decree concerning the Jewish nation?

2. What is the meaning of the seventy weeks? Illustrate.

3. What are two other equal periods of Jewish probation?

4. What must be the characteristics of a satisfactory exposition?

5. What declaration marks the beginning of the seventy weeks?

6. What is the punctuation, what is the theory and what is the difficulty of the theory of the radical critics?

7. What is a summary of Driver’s theory and wherein does it fail?

8. What are the four decrees, from one of which we must date the beginning of the 490 years, and which is accepted?

9. Test each one and show by adding 490 years its end.

10. What are the views of Sir Robert Anderson and Hengstenberg respectively?

XI

THE MARVELOUS NINTH CHAPTER OF DANIEL (CONTINUED)

Daniel 9:1-27

This chapter concludes the exposition of Daniel 9:24-27. Commencing where the last chapter ends, we now consider

V. The seven weeks, or forty-nine years. "From the going forth of a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Anointed One, the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again with street and moat, even in troublous times."

From this language we gather three things concerning Jerusalem: (1) The issuance of a commandment to restore and build. (2) It shall be built again in troublous times. (3) The time assigned for the restoration and building. Had the coming of the Messiah been the first great event of the future, the language would have been, "It shall be sixty-nine weeks (or 483 years) to Messiah, the Prince." But the time to the Messiah is subdivided into two periods, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, plainly setting apart the first period, or forty-nine years, to the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem.

In our work of verification, therefore, we have two conditions to meet. (1) It devolves upon us to show that from the terminus a quo, 457 B.C., the work of restoration and building was accomplished in forty-nine years; and, (2) we must prove that these were troublous times.

There is no difficulty in identifying the troublous times. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah furnish abundant evidence. There was trouble with the people themselves in keeping them up to the necessary labor and sacrifice, and to the required conformity in morals.

Their neighbors also were ceaseless in hostility and obstructions. The builder had to carry both trowel and sword, and be ready at a moment’s notice for either war or work. Our Colonial fathers had such a time, when every man carried his rifle to the field and to the church.

But we cannot verify the time – forty-nine years – with such exact precision, and yet the verification can be made reasonably certain. These are the items of the argument: In the book of Ezra we have the statement that he had been in Jerusalem prosecuting the work thirteen years before Nehemiah came. Again, it is stated explicitly that Nehemiah remained in Jerusalem twelve years on his first visit, prosecuting the work, thus making twenty-five years of the required time. It is then shown that he returned to Babylon and remained there a long time before returning to Jerusalem to complete his work. The precise date of his absence in Babylon is not given, but other circumstances are cited which enable us to make out, with reasonable assurance, that this absence was twenty years, during which time Ezra worked alone. This brings up the time to forty-five years, which lacks four years of the full period required. But the work of Nehemiah goes on after his return for a short time, before all the items of the restoration of the Jewish polity and all the regulations of the city life are complete. If, then, we consider this work after his return, and the loss of time from the going forth of the commandment, consumed by Ezra in organizing and conducting his caravan from Babylon to Jerusalem, we need not be troubled to account precisely for the four years needed to fill up the period. The prophecy says forty-nine years, and forty-nine years it must have been.

VI. One week, or seven years, as a whole, proclaiming a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34) and confirming it with many Jews. There has been some difference of opinion with reference to the covenant referred to in this prophecy, some holding that it is the old covenant, but this position is certainly untenable. That covenant had long since been confirmed with all the Jews. We take it, therefore, that the covenant in question is the one predicted by Jeremiah in connection with this whole subject. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, -and their sin will I remember no more. – Jeremiah 31:31-34.

That this is the covenant of our context is manifest by Hebrews 8-9, where this text is cited from Jeremiah, with the following comment: But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance, – Hebrews 9:11-15.

The heading of the present division shows that Christ must confirm this new covenant with many Jews for seven years, but the context also shows that he himself dies in the middle of the seven years, so that this confirmation as to the first half of the time is by Christ’s personal ministry. And that the confirmation of the covenant by him extends beyond his death is evident from the beginning of the Acts of the apostles, where Luke affirms that his Gospel was an account of what Jesus began both to do and to teach until the day in which he was taken up) with the intimation that Acts, or the second treatise by him, is to give an account of what Jesus began both to do and to teach after his ascent into heaven. So that it will remain for us to show, in proper connections later, that Christ, after his death, continued to confirm this covenant with many Jews for three and one-half years longer.

VII. One week, or seven years, divided in the middle. The first half of the seven years, commencing with Christ’s baptism, is crowded with the most of the great events foretold in this prophecy of Daniel. The following particulars must be made to fit into this time:

1. As we have already shown, during his public ministry, which lasted three and one-half years, he did confirm the covenant with many Jews.

2. The finishing of the transgression: This refers to the transgression of the Jews as a people, and by "finishing" is meant the filling up of the measure of their sins, just as the Canaanites, their predecessors in the Holy Land, retained it until the measure of their sins was full; so) according to Moses, it would be with the Jews, that when the measure of their iniquities is full, they shall be cut off, lose their title to the land, and be scattered over the whole world.

It is evident from Daniel’s prayer that he realized the magnitude and growing character of the national sins. Now, when we turn to the New Testament, the evidence of the finishing of the transgression is complete. This language of our Lord is decisive: Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up, then, the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily, I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not I Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

This is further evident by the two fig trees. Toward the close of his ministry he publishes the parable concerning the barren fig tree, closing with this language: Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none; cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him. Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it; and if it bear fruit, well, and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down. – Luke 13:7-9.

The signification of the parable finds its confirmation at the end of his ministry. When he had entered the city in triumph and had been publicly proclaimed as the Messiah, and had a second time cleansed the Temple, the following event took place: Now, in the morning, as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth forever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, how goon ia the fig tree withered away! – Matthew 21:18-20.

This clearly shows that the day of probation for the Jewish nation is about to end. This is further confirmed thus: And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, if thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace I but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground and thy children with thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. – Luke 19:41-44.

And still more notably confirmed by the parable of the vineyard, which closes thus: Then said the Lord of the vineyard, what shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. But when the husbandmen saw him they reasoned among themselves, saying, this is the heir; come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What, therefore, shall the Lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid – Luke 20:13-16.

Language could not express more forcibly the culmination of the Jewish sins, and from the day these words were uttered to the present time there has been no suspension of the sentence against the Jews. Their last period of probation commenced with the baptism of Christ and closed three and one-half years later, when he entered the city as the Messiah, though for many elect the period lasted three and one-half years longer.

3. The cutting off of the Messiah. The crowning act of their transgression was the cutting off of the Messiah. The language of our prophecy is very significant: "Messiah shall be cut off and shall have nothing," that is to say, when they betrayed, condemn-ed, and surrendered their Messiah to the ignominious death on the Roman cross, not only was he cut off, but they were cut off. From henceforth he was to have nothing in them or their city until after thousands of years; until they should, in fulfilment of other prophecies, say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." The city remained, indeed, for a little while, but sentence had been passed; the sanctuary remained for a, short period, but it was an empty and desolate house.

4. Making an end of sin. This language refers to the inefficient character of the Jewish sacrifices. Though for ages hecatombs of victims had been sacrificed upon Jewish altars, no sin was actually brought to an end. Because it was impossible, says the letter to the Hebrews, that the blood of bullocks and goats could take away sin; they typified that which would make an end of sin, and passed the transgressions over until the antitype should come. In his prayer, Daniel seems to have a keen sense of the fact that the sins from the days of Moses to his time remained. While the penalty had not been executed, the account had been simply carried or passed over for the time being. He felt that no absolute end had been found for any of the offenses from the beginning of the world until his day. There had been many promises not yet fulfilled – many hopes that had not yet reached fruition, and therefore the intense agony of his prayer: “O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not; for thine own sake, O my God, because thy city and thy people are called by thy name." The letter to the Hebrews, in a remarkable way, shows the shadowy nature of the old covenant which could make nothing perfect, and particularly it could make no end of sin.

5. Making reconciliation for iniquity. The making an end of sin was to be accomplished by a real and not a typical atonement. There was to be an absolute expiation. This expiation, as foreshadowed in the types, was to be through a vicarious sacrifice. There would come a true Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. This atonement was not to be affected by many offerings, but by one offering. As it is expressed in the letter to the Hebrews, "But now, once in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and as it is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." This bearing of sin is further set forth in the prophecy of Isaiah:

He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed; all we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . He was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people was he stricken. It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands. . .. by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities. . . . he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bear the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors. – Isaiah 53:5-12.

6. Bringing in everlasting righteousness. All the righteousness that Daniel had ever seen was very imperfect, and all the atonements were only shadows, but this coming Messiah, according to Jeremiah, was to be called "The Lord, Our Righteousness." In him alone was no deceit or guile ever found. His life on earth was perfect from his conception by the virgin to his ascent into heaven. The righteousness that he was to bring in by his expiatory sacrifice of himself was to be a righteousness for his people, and it would be perfect, spotless, eternal! The goodness of the best of the Jews was like the morning dew or the passing cloud, but this righteousness brought in by him was to be so perfect that one justified by it might stand under the unsheathed and flaming sword of divine justice and challenge, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. It is Christ that died." Hence the remarkable language in the letter to the Corinthians: "God made him to be sin who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

7. Sealing up vision and prophecy. This sealing up seems to mean a closing up by fulfilment, and also to signify the termination of the obligations of the covenant under which these visions and prophecies were given. Therefore our Lord uses the following language: "The law and the prophets were until John and since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached."

8. Causing sacrifice and oblation to cease, or the rejecting of the old, typical Temple and covenant (Matthew 27:51, and Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 7-10). The Temple was the house of sacrifice and oblation, but it is recorded that at the very moment that Jesus cried, "It is finished!" and yielded up his spirit – at that precise moment, by supernatural power, "The veil of the Temple was rent in twain from top to bottom." In that death he blotted out the handwriting of all Old Testament ordinances that were against us and contrary to us, and took the whole covenant out of the way, nailing it to his cross. And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them. From that time on the imperious regulations of the Jewish festivals lost their legal force, hence it was said, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of the holy day or of the new moon or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." The seventh day sabbath, the monthly sabbath, the annual sabbath, the jubilee sabbath, were all taken away, and the institutions of the new covenant take their place. Upon this point let any interested student carefully read the letter to the Hebrews, and particularly Hebrews 7-10.

9. Anointing the most holy, or the consecration of the new antitypical temple (Acts 2): Upon this point commentators have been hard pressed. They seem to think it necessary for them to prove that this anointing is the anointing of a person, and therefore labor to show that it was fulfilled at Christ’s baptism when he was anointed by the Holy Spirit. It is possible to make a plausible showing in this direction) and the Hebrew would admit, by strained argument, this application. For many reasons, however, I am myself convinced that we should follow the clearer meaning of the Hebrew that it was the anointing of a holy place – not a person. When the tabernacle was built, Moses was required to anoint it. Now, as both tabernacle and Temple are superseded, the question arises, has God no temple on earth, no sanctuary? The New Testament is clear that the antitype on earth of the Jewish tabernacle and Temple is the church of Jesus Christ. Paul says to the Corinthians: "Ye are God’s building; ye are the temple of the living God." And in the letter to the Ephesians he says, with reference to every church: "In Christ each several building fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord." And concerning the church at Ephesus, he says: "In whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the spirit." Jesus himself instituted his church. He took the material that John had prepared for him and added to it other material prepared by himself in confirming the covenant with many Jews during his ministry, established its ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, ordained ita apostles, set them in the church, gave to the church its laws, but said to them, "Tarry ye in Jerusalem until ye are endued with power from on high." Just as the tabernacle, when it was completed by Solomon became also an habitation of God through the infilling cloud, so now, having condemned and emptied and made desolate the old Temple, it becomes necessary to anoint a new most holy to take its place. This was fulfilled, as recorded in Acts 2, when the church was anointed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Second half. – Confirming a new covenant with many Jews for 3% years more, i.e., up to the time of the Gentile, which is the terminus ad quern.

The prophecy would not be complete in its fulfilment unless we were able to show that the confirmation of the new covenant with many Jews continued for three and one-half years after the death of Christ. But here the record is exceptionally clear. On the day that the new most holy was anointed 3,000 Jews were converted. In that three and one-half years it is stated more than once that great multitudes of the Jews, including the priests, were converted. In that three and one-half years one might safely conclude that 100,000 Jews were converted and brought to the knowledge of the truth in the remarkable protracted meeting, which lasted from the day of Pentecost to the persecution under Saul of Tarsus.

But now comes a most significant thing. With that persecution the church is scattered abroad, leaving only the apostles. They go in their dispersion to many lands and preach the gospel of Christ. Philip leads multitudes of the Samaritans to the acceptance of Christ. He also baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch, and he in turn carries the gospel to his own country. Some of them went as far as to Antioch, and there preached the gospel to the Gentiles. From this time on there are no records of great multitudes of Jews being converted. The week is ended: the seven years have reached their terminus. Since Christ’s public ministry commenced, after his baptism, to the end of these seven years, a vast multitude of Jews have been confirmed in the new covenant. From this time on the conversion of a Jew will be the exception, and not the rule. The Bible history itself turns now to the Gentiles, and the close of the three and one-half years of this wonderfully successful Jewish evangelization is the terminus ad quern of Daniel’s 490 years.

VIII. After the seventy weeks. It has been objected by some critics that this prophecy of Daniel points to the destruction of Jerusalem, and that this destruction should be included in the seventy weeks, or 490 years. The answer is obvious. The sentence upon the Jewish people was passed at the death of Christ, but the execution of the penalty upon the city and the sanctuary is another matter, and will soon come. The prophecy itself seems to put that execution in the future beyond the seventy weeks. It notes the fact that "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." It does not say that this Prince will come in the seventy weeks. We may notice, therefore, the following items of the prophecy to be fulfilled after the seventy weeks:

1. The coming of the prince. This prince is Titus. Our Lord himself directs the attention of the condemned Jews to his coming. He tells them that Jerusalem shall be encompassed with armies, and that the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel, in this prophecy, shall be set up. He gives them a detailed description of the destruction of their city and sanctuary, and compares it, as does Daniel, to a flood: "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the Son of man." The flood came suddenly and took them all away.

2. The prophecy also shows that this flood of wrath on the Jewish people is determined unto the end, i.e., until the times of the fulness of the Gentiles. Nearly 2,000 years have passed away. His words yet receive confirmation. Jerusalem is still trodden under foot by the Gentiles. The kingdom of heaven, taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, is still prosented in power by that missionary people, to whom the oracles of the New Testament are committed. So that we may agree that the marvelous ninth chapter of Daniel is the most remarkable prophecy of the Old Testament.

QUESTIONS

1. Into what divisions is the seventy weeks apportioned?

2. What must be done in the seven weeks, or forty-nine years?

3. What is the proof that this was done?

4. Who comes at the end of the sixty-two weeks following the seven, what does he do, and what the proof?

5. How is the last week, or seven years, divided, and what the culmination marking the division?

6. In the first half of the last week what, says the prophecy, is to be done?

7. What is the meaning of "confirming the covenant with many Jews" in this first half?

8. What is the meaning of "finishing the transgression"? Proof?

9. What is the meaning of "cutting off the Messiah"?

10. What is the meaning of "making an end of sin"?

11. What is the meaning of "making reconciliation for inquiry"?

12. What is the meaning of "bringing in everlasting righteousness"?

13. What is the meaning of "sealing up vision and prophecy"?

14. What is the meaning of "causing the sacrifice, etc., to cease"?

15. What is the meaning of "anointing the most holy"?

16. In the second half of the last week what is done, and when does it end?

17. What events follow the seventy weeks?

Verses 24-27

VI

THE RELATED PROPHETIC SECTIONS OF DANIEL

Having completed the historical sections of this book, we now consider the related prophetic sections. It is here we find the crux of the opposition of the atheistic critics. Their presupposition is: There can be no prophecy in any supernatural sense. Therefore they refuse to see any reference in the book to matters beyond the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. He to them is the culmination of the book. The unknown writer, as they claimed, lived after his times, and cast well-known history into the form of prophecy, attributing its authorship, through a license accorded to writers of novels, to a fictitious Daniel supposed to be living in the period between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.

A complete answer to both their premise and conclusion would be the proof of even one real prediction in the book, fulfilled after their own assigned date for the author. Any one who really believes the New Testament will find that proof in the words of our Lord: "When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the Holy Place (let him that readeth understand) then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains."

But as our purpose it to expound the prophetic sections of this book, and not merely to reply to the contentions of atheists, we now take up our work. These are the prophetic sections:

1. Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream of the great and luminous image, or the five world empires (Daniel 2:31-45).

2. Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream of the great tree, or what befell the great king of the first world empire (Daniel 4:10-27).

3. The handwriting on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast, or what befell the last king of the first world empire and how the second empire comes to the front (Daniel 5:25-28).

4. The vision of the four great beasts arising from the sea, representing in another form the four secular world empires and the enthronement of the King of the fifth world empire (Daniel 7:1-28).

5. The vision of the ram and the he-goat, or the fortunes of the second and third world empires (Daniel 8:1-27).

6. The seventy weeks, or the coming and sacrifice of the Messiah, the King of the fifth world empire (Daniel 9:24-27).

7. The vision of the Son of man (Daniel 10).

8. Revelation of the conflicts between two of the divisions of the third world empire) and the transition to the final advent of the Messiah, the King of the fifth world empire (Daniel 11-12).

On these eight prophetic sections let us give careful attention to the following observations:

OBSERVATIONS ON THE EIGHT PROPHECIES TAKEN TOGETHER

1. The most casual glance at this grouping of the several prophetic sections reveals both the unity of the book and the relation of its prophetic parts and the design of all.

2. Any man who looks carefully at this group and finds its culmination in Antiochus Epiphanes, a ruler of a fourth fragment of the third world empire, either is devoid of common sense and should receive the charity accorded to those unfortunates afflicted with mental aberration, or is so blinded with prejudice he cannot see. In the case of the latter alternative this much of Paul’s words apply: "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them whom the god of this world has blinded lest they should see," or our Lord’s words, "Having eyes they see not." An unbiased child can see that the culmination of the book as to a person is in the King of the fifth world empire, and the culmination as to a fact is in the Messiah’s final advent for resurrection and judgment.

3. Following the characteristic Bible method and plan, secular governments in this book are considered only as they relate to the supremacy of the divine government and to the kingdom of God. All the rest concerning them is left in silence.

4. The relation between the parts of the prophecy is manifest throughout: The first prophecy is the basis of all the following sections. They only elaborate some detail concerning one or the other of the five world empires set forth in the first dream of Nebuchadnezzar, the four-pointed image and the conquering stone. For example, the first prophecy tells in general terms of four successive world empires to be followed by a fifth and spiritual world empire. The second and third sections of prophecy elaborate some details of the first great secular monarchy, telling us what befell its first and last king and the transition to the second monarchy. The fourth prophecy presents under different imagery the same five world empires, but gives some detail of every one not stated in the general terms of the first prophecy.

The fifth prophecy confines itself to details not before given of the second and third monarchies, how sovereignty passes from one to the other, how the third is dismembered, to prepare the way for the fourth, and how both are related to the kingdom of God. The sixth prophecy speaks only of the King of the fifth monarchy in his humiliation and sacrifice, as the third had spoken of his glory and exaltation, and the seventh is the vision of the Son of man.

The eighth deals only at first with the strifes between two of the parts of the dismembered third monarchy, incidentally alluding to the coming power of the fourth monarchy, glides, by easy transition, from the first antichrist, Antiochus, to a second antichrist in the far distant future, an antichrist already foreshown in the little horn of the fourth beast, and concludes with the final advent of the king of the fifth monarchy. No other book in all literature, sacred or profane, more clearly evidences greater unity, one consistent plan, more order in treatment, or a more glorious climax.

Of very great interest to us and to all who love God and his cause is the development of the messianic thought as the hope of the world. It concerns us much to fix in our minds this development.

The first prophecy tells of the divine origin and ultimate prevalence of Messiah’s kingdom.

The sixth tells of Messiah’s first advent in his humiliation and sacrifice.

The fourth tells of his exaltation and enthronement after the humiliation.

The eighth tells of his final advent for resurrection and judgment.

And so we need to note the coming of the first antichrist. Antiochus, in the little horn of the third beast (Daniel 8:9) and the second antichrist in the little horn of the fourth beast (Daniel 7:8) identical with John’s antichrist, (Revelation 13:1-8) with its papal head (Revelation 13:11-18). And so we find reference to the third antichrist in Daniel 11:34-45 who is not the same as Paul’s man of sin. (2 Thessalonians 2:8 and Revelation 20:11), but this third antichrist comes at the beginning of the millennium and wages a conflict against the Jews, at which time they will be converted and the millennium will be ushered in. Daniel does not see Paul’s man of sin.

How clearly and with what precious comfort do all these prophecies reveal the supreme government of God over nations and men, the universal sweep of his providence, both general and special!

5. Finally how well we can understand, in the light of these great prophecies, the influence of the man and his book on all subsequent ages. His apocalyptic style and symbolism reappear in Zechariah’s visions, and form the greater part of the basis of John’s New Testament apocalypse.

His Son of man creates a messianic title which our Lord adopts. His unique prophecy of the exact time of Messiah’s first advent creates a preparation in the hearts of the pious to expect him just then. We could not understand old Simeon at all if Daniel hadn’t fixed the time. Other prophets had foretold his lineage, the place of his birth, his great expiation and consequent enthronement, but no other showed just when he would come. His stress on "the kingdom of God and its certain coming and prevalence" put the titles of this divine government in the mouths of John the Baptist, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. His sublime character as evidenced in his temperance, wisdom, incorruptible integrity, audacity of faith, indomitable courage, and inflexible devotion to God, has fired the hearts of a thousand orators and created a million heroes. His words have become the themes of a thousand pulpits. His righteous administration of public affairs has created a thousand reformers in politics and supplied the hope of all subsequent civic righteousness. "Dare to be a Daniel" has become the slogan of the ages.

His distinction between duty to the human government and duty to the divine government prepared the way for the reception of our Lord’s great dictum, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s." He laid the foundation of the doctrine that the state cannot intrude into the realm of conscience, and so was the pioneer, piloting a burdened world to its present great heritage of religious liberty. This man was not a reed shaken by the wind. He was no Reuben, unstable as water. We can’t even think about him without wanting to sing:

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,

is laid for your faith in his excellent word. Born in the reign of good Josiah, thy childhood remembering the finding of the lost book of Moses, thy youth passed in the great reformation and thy heart warmed in the mighty revival that followed, student of Jeremiah, prime minister of two world empires and beloved of God – thou art a granite mountain, O Daniel, higher than Chimborazo, Mount Blanc or Dwa Walla Giri! Snarling little critics, like coyotes, may grabble their holes in the foot-hills that lean for support against thy solidity, but their yelping can never disturb thy calm serenity nor the dust they paw up can ever dim the eternal sunshine of the smiles of God that halo thy summit. – SELECTED.

Having now considered these eight prophetic sections in group, let us give attention to their exposition in severalty.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S FIRST DREAM
God’s sovereignty extends to men asleep as well as to men awake. Often his spirit has made revelation through dreams. Dreams of indigestion are chaotic, without form, plan, or coherence. But dreams sent by the Spirit awaken after-thought, appeal to the intelligence and vividly impress the dreamer. So Jacob’s dream at Bethel of the ladder reaching from earth to heaven, on which the angels of God ascended and descended, or Pharaoh’s dreams interpreted by Joseph, and the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar. No human system of psychology has ever explained the subtle and direct impact of Spirit on spirit. It is quite possible that there may have been some connection between Nebuchadnezzar’s waking thoughts and the dream which follows. We can at least conceive of previous reflections on his part full of questionings to which this dream would be a pertinent answer.

He may well have meditated upon the worldwide empire he had established and wondered if it would last, and if not what other government would succeed, and would it last. He may have pondered the causes of stability in human government, or the elements of decay and disintegration, and have wondered if human history would always be a record of the successive rising and falling of nations, or would the time ever come when the earth would know a universal and everlasting kingdom, and if so, who would be its author and what the principles of its perpetuity. Nebuchadnezzar was a truly great man, a thinker and organizer, and he was a pious man according to the requirements of his religion. So he may have been the waking subject of thoughts and questionings to which God sends an answer in a dream by night. Anyhow, he had the dream, and this was the dream: He saw a great and terrible image, a silent and luminous colossus in human form, standing upon the level Babylonian plain. Its several parts were strangely incongruous. The head was gold, the chest and arms were silver, the lower body and thighs were brass, the legs were iron, ending in feet with ten toes whose iron was mingled with clay.

Did this image reveal the highest attainment of human government and prophecy, its inevitable deterioration from gold to silver, from silver to brass, from brass to iron, from iron to crumbling clay? Or did it suggest a succession of governments, the first with the greatest unity and the greatest excellency, one head and that gold? The second dual in composition with its two arms, third commencing one, but dividing into two thighs, the fourth standing dual in it he saw a little stone cut out of a mountain without human hands, falling to the plain and intelligently rolling toward the image, and rolling gathering bulk and momentum until it smites the image on its feet of mixed iron and clay, overthrows it, crushes it, pulverizes it, and rolling on in resistless power, ever growing as it rolls, until it becomes a mountain in bulk and fills the whole earth. Such the dream.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DREAM
The dream foretells five great world empires:

The first is identified as the Babylonian.

The second is identified in the prophecy as the Medo-Persian.

The third is identified in the prophecy as the Grecian.

The fourth by a suggestion in the eighth prophecy as the Roman.

The fifth is the kingdom of God set up by the God of heaven and without hands in the days of the fourth empire.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE EMPIRES
This is the characteristic of the first: Thou, O king, art king of kings unto whom the God of heaven hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength and the glory, and wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven hath he given into thine hands and hath made thee to rule over them all, and thou art that head of gold.

The characteristic of the second one is, so far as this chapter tells us, that it is inferior to the first. This chapter, in identifying the second world monarchy, simply tells us that it succeeds the Babylonian, the first, but in the later prophetic sections when this vision is elaborated it is expressly said to be a kingdom of the Modes and of the Persians. I say that the book of Daniel identifies the second world government as the Medo-Persian Empire just as plainly and explicitly and exactly as it identifies the first with the Babylonian.

Now when we come to the third, "another third kingdom of brass which shall bear rule over all the earth," is all this chapter says about this one, but when we take up the subsequent prophetic section it is explicitly said to be the Grecian Empire, the thighs indicating subsequent division of the empire. One man said to me, "If the third empire is unquestionably the Greek Empire, how can it be represented as the lower body and two thighs divided into four parts?" My answer is that this book tells us that it did divide into four parts, but deals only with the two parts which touched God’s people. This book has nothing in detail to say about the divisions of Alexander’s empire beyond the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, one of them getting Syria and the other getting Egypt.

When he comes to speak of the fourth this is what he says: And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things, and as iron that crusheth, all these shall it break in pieces and crush. Whereas, thou sawest the feet and the toes, a part of potter’s clay and part of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom. But there shall be in it of the strength of the iron forasmuch as thou sawest iron mixed with the miry clay, and as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so shall the kingdom be partly strong and partly broken; and whereas, thou sawest the iron mingled with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another even as iron does not mingle with clay.

This book in this chapter does not name that fourth government, but when we come to consider the visions of the four beasts which is the same as this vision in another form, but with other details, we get a still clearer idea of the characteristics of this government; and when we come to chapter 2, when we are considering the last prophetic revelation, we have a suggestion where this fourth government comes in and holds Antiochus Epiphanes at bay, that place where the representative of Rome made a little circle in the sand around Antiochus and said, "You must answer before you step outside of that circle." We know it also to be Rome because Rome with two legs divided into the Eastern and Western Empires, Constantine establishing Eastern Rome at Byzantium on the Bosporus while the Western Empire continues at Rome. We also know it by its divisions into ten kingdoms as its imperial supremacy passed away.

Here is what he says about the last kingdom:

1. He gives its origin: "I saw a little stone cut out without hands." Those other four stood in the form of a man because man was the author of them all. This fifth one is divine, this fifth kingdom is set up by the God of heaven, and we should never lose sight of that fact.

2. The second thought that he presents is as to the time when the God of heaven would set up this kingdom; that it would be in the days of the fourth monarchy – the Roman monarchy: "In the days of these kings will the God of heaven set up a kingdom." So when a man asks when was the kingdom of heaven set up, and that, of course, means in its visible form, as the Babylonian kingdom was visible, the Medo-Persian kingdom was visible, the Greek kingdom was visible, the Roman kingdom was visible, and as God all the time had a spiritual kingdom, but now he is to set up a visible kingdom and it is to be just as visible as any of these others – then, as a Baptist, I answer: Jesus set up the kingdom in his lifetime, as the Gospels abundantly show.

3. The third thought in this description of this kingdom is its beginning, its gradual progress, its prevalence over the whole earth, Just a pebble falling, and as it falls getting bigger, rolling, and as it rolls getting bigger, smiting these other governments, becoming a mountain, becoming as big as the world. And when we get to thinking about that progress of this kingdom, we should remember what our Lord said, that in its eternal working it is like leaven which a woman puts in three measures of meal and ultimately it leavens the whole lump; and when we think about its external development, it is like a grain of mustard seed which a man planted and it grew and grew and grew until it became a tree.

Whenever we hear a pessimist preaching an idea of a kingdom like a tadpole, that commences big at first and tapers to a very fine tail, getting smaller and smaller and worse and worse, then that is not the kingdom Daniel spoke of.

His kingdom commences small and gets bigger and bigger, and mightier and mightier, and I thank God that I don’t have to preach concerning a kingdom that is continually "petering out." I am glad that I can preach a gospel that is growing in power and extending in domain and that has the promise of God that it shall fill the whole world and be everlasting. It always did give me the creeps to hear one of those pessimists. They get their ideas from an inexcusable misinterpretation of certain passages of the Scriptures.

I heard one of them say, "Doesn’t our Lord say in answer to the direct question, ’Are there few that will be saved?’ that ’Straight is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find if ?" I said, "Yes, but to whom did he say that?" To the Jews of his day, and then to prevent a misconstruction, while only a few Jews of his day would be saved, he says, "But I say unto you that many shall come from the east and the west and the north and the south and shall recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob." The thought reappears in Revelation where John sees the host of the redeemed. He introduces us first to 144,000 Jews and then he shows us a line that no man can see the end of: "I saw a great multitude that no man could number out of every nation and tribe and tongue and kindred." So if the kingdom which Jesus Christ in the days of his flesh set up on this earth is narrowing, that is cause for sadness, but if it is spreading out, growing bigger and bigger, and has perpetuity, that is a cause for gladness.

This visible kingdom of Jesus Christ will be perpetual. Perpetuity is its heritage.

We need not be afraid to preach its perpetuity and its visibility, with visible subjects, with visible ordinances, with a visible church charged with its administration. It will not be sponged off the board, any of it, neither the kingdom nor its gospel nor its church nor its ordinances. They will stand until the rivers shall be emptied into the sea. As Dr. Burleson used to say: "It will be standing when grass quits growing, and we should not be afraid to preach perpetuity." Let us not be too sure that we can take a surveying chain and trace that perpetuity through human agencies and human history, but we may certainly stand on the declaration of God’s Word that this kingdom is everlasting: Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.

Over and over again in this book, Daniel holds out, as he explains the thought of this first dream as a light that gets bigger and bigger and brighter and brighter, that the saints shall possess the kingdoms of the world.

I expect to see (in the flesh or out of the flesh – it matters not – ) every mountain of this earth or mountain range and every valley between and every plain, whether rich red land like the Panhandle or dry sand like the Sahara Desert; and every zone, Arctic, Temperate, or Torrid: every iceberg shivering in the Aurora Borealis around the North Pole or South Pole, have floating over it the great white conquering banner of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We are to have every bit of it, and the time will come when no fallen angel will flap his wing and make a shadow on any part of it and when no wicked man shall crush beneath his feet any of its beautiful or sweet flowers, but when the meek shall inherit the earth, and throughout the whole earth, after its regeneration, there shall dwell eternal righteousness.

QUESTIONS

1. Give, in order, the prophetic sections of the book of Daniel.

2. Show the unity of the book from these sections.

3. Show the culmination of the book in person and fact.

4. In what respect only are secular governments considered in this book and throughout the Bible?

5. Show the relations of the prophetic sections to each other and how all the rest are developments of the first.

6. Give, in order, all the developments of the messianic thought.

7. Give the several antichrists, citing passages for each.

8. What great doctrine of special comfort do all these prophecies show?

9. Give particulars to show the influence of the man and the book on later ages.

10. Name the five world empires of Daniel 2.

11. What are the characteristics of the fifth, who its author and when set up?