Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Daniel 9:27

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Daniel 9:27 - 9:27

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Daniel 9:27 - 9:27

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

This verse contains four statements. - The first is: “He shall confirm the covenant to many for one week.” Following the example of Theodotion, many (Häv., Hgstb., Aub., v. Leng., Hitzig, Hofm.) regard אֶחָד שָׁבוּעַ אֶחָ as the subject: one week shall confirm the covenant to many. But this poetic mode of expression is only admissible where the subject treated of in the statement of the speaker comes after the action, and therefore does not agree with בְּרִית הִגְבִּיר, where the confirming of the covenant is not the work of time, but the deed of a definite person. To this is to be added the circumstance that the definitions of time in this verse are connected with those in Dan 9:25, and are analogous to them, and must therefore be alike interpreted in both passages. But if, notwithstanding these considerations, we make אֶחָד שָׁבוּעַ the subject, the question then presses itself upon us, Who effects the confirming of the covenant? Hävernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen regard the Messias as the subject, and understand by the confirming of the covenant, the confirming of the New Covenant by the death of Christ. Ewald, v. Lengerke, and others think of Antiochus and the many covenants which, according to 1 Macc. 1:12, he established between the apostate Jews and the heathen Greeks. Hitzig understands by the “covenant” the O.T. Covenant, and gives to הִגְבִּיר the meaning to make grievous: The one week shall make the covenant grievous to many, for they shall have to bear oppression on account of their faith. On the other hand, Hofmann (Schriftbew.) renders it: The one week shall confirm many in their fidelity to the faith. But none of these interpretations can be justified. The reasons which Hengstenberg adduces in support of his view that the Messias is the subject, are destitute of validity. The assertion that the Messias is the chief person spoken of in the whole of this passage, rests on the supposition, already proved to be untenable, that the prince who was to come (Dan 9:26) was the instrument of the Anointed, and on the passages in Isa 53:11; Isa 42:6, which are not parallel to that under consideration. The connection much more indicates that Nagid is the subject to הִגְבִּיר, since the prince who was to come is named last, and is also the subject in the suffix of קִצּוֹ (his end), the last clause of Dan 9:26 having only the significance of an explanatory subordinate clause. Also “the taking away of the daily sacrifice combines itself in a natural way with the destruction (Dan 9:26) of the city and the temple brought about by the הַבָּא נָגִיד;” - further, “he who here is represented as 'causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease' is obviously identical with him who changes (Dan 7:25) the times and usages of worship (more correctly: times and law)” (Kran.). “The reference of הִגְבִּיר to the ungodly leader of an army, is therefore according to the context and the parallel passages of this book which have been mentioned, as well as in harmony with the natural grammatical arrangement of the passage,” and it gives also a congruous sense, although by the Nagid Titus cannot naturally be understood. בְּרִית הִגְבִּיר means to strengthen a covenant, i.e., to make a covenant strong (Hitzig has not established the rendering: to make grievous). “Covenant” does not necessarily mean the covenant of God (Old Testament or New Testament Covenant), since the assertion that this word occurs only in this book with reference to the covenant of God with Israel (Hgstb.) does not also prove that it must here have this meaning; and with expression בְּרִית הִגְבִּיר with לְ is analogous to בְּרִית כָּרַּת [icere faedus] with לְ; and the construction with לְ signifies that as in the forming of a covenant, so in the confirming of a covenant, the two contracting parties are not viewed as standing on an equality, but he who concludes or who confirms the covenant prevails, and imposes or forces the covenant on the other party. The reference to the covenant of God with man is thus indeed suggested, yet it is not rendered necessary, but only points to a relation analogous to the concluding of a covenant emanating from God. לָרַבִּים with the article signifies the many, i.e., the great mass of the people in contrast with the few, who remain faithful to God; cf. Mat 24:12. Therefore the thought is this: That ungodly prince shall impose on the mass of the people a strong covenant that they should follow him and give themselves to him as their God.

While the first clause of this verse announces what shall happen during the whole of the last week, the second treats only of the half of this period. הַשָׁבוּעַ חֲצִי we cannot grammatically otherwise interpret than the definition of time mentioned immediately before, and thus, for reasons give above, cannot take it as the subject of the clause, but only as the accusative of the duration of time, consequently not in the sense of the ablative: in the midst of the week. The controversy whether חֲצִי here means half, or midst, has no bearing on the matter, and acquires significance only if we interpret חֲצִי, in opposition to the context, as synonymous with בַּחֲצִי, or with Klief., which is equally untenable and impossible in this context, regard הַשָׁבוּעַ חֲצִי as an absolute definition. חֲצִי signifies only half, not midst. Only where the representation of an extent of space or period of time prevails can we render it, without a change of its meaning, by the word midst. In the half of the night is the same as in the middle of the night, at midnight, Exo 12:29; in the half of the firmament, Jos 10:13, is the same as in the middle of the space of the heavens across which the sun moves during day; in the half of the day of life is the same as in the middle of the period of life, Psa 102:25. But during the half of the week is not the same as: in the middle of the week. And the objection, that if we here take חֲצִי in the sense of half, then the heptad or cycle of seven would be divided into two halves (Klief.), and yet of only one of them was anything said, is without significance, because it would touch also the explanation “and in the midst of the heptad,” since in this case of the first, before the middle of the expiring half of the week, nothing also is said of what shall be done in it. If Kliefoth answers this objection by saying that we must conceive of this from the connection, namely, that which brings the power of Antichrist to its height, then we shall be able also, in the verbally correct interpretation of הַשָׁבוּעַ חֲצִי, to conceive from the connection what shall happen in the remaining period of the שָׁבוּעַ. Yet weaker is the further objection: “that which is mentioned as coming to pass הַשָׁבוּעַ חֲצִי, the causing of the offering of sacrifice to cease, is something which takes place not during a period of time, but at a terminus” (Kliefoth); for since הִשְׁבִּית does not properly mean to remove, but to make to rest, to make quiet, it is thus not conceivable why we should not be able to say: The sacrifice shall be made to rest, or made still, during half a week.

In the verbally correct interpretation of הַשָׁבוּעַ חֲצִי, the supposition that the second half of the heptad is meant loses its support, for the terminus a quo of this half remains undefined if it cannot be determined from the subject itself. But this determination depends on whether the taking away of the sacrifice is to be regarded as the putting a complete termination to it, or only the causing of a temporary cessation to the service of sacrifice, which can be answered only by our first determining the question regarding the historical reference of this divine revelation. וּמִנְחָה זֶבַח, bloody and unbloody sacrifice, the two chief parts of the service of sacrifice, represent the whole of worship by sacrifice. The expression is more comprehensive than הַתָּמִיד, Dan 8:11, the continuance in worship, the daily morning and evening sacrifice, the cessation of which does not necessarily involve the putting an end to the service of sacrifice.

The third clause of this verse, מְשֹׁמֵם שִׁקּוּצִים כְּנַף וְעַל, is difficult, and its interpretation has been disputed. The lxx have rendered it: καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων ἔσται. Theodotion has given the same rendering, only omitting ἔσται. The Vulgate has: et erit in templo abominatio desolationis. The church interpreters have explained the words in accordance with these translations, understanding by שִׁקּוּצִים כְּנַף the abomination of idols in the temple, or the temple desecrated by the abomination of idols. Hävernick explains the words of the extreme height of abomination, i.e., of the highest place that can be reached where the abominations would be committed, i.e., the temple as the highest point in Jerusalem; Hengstenberg, on the contrary, regards the “wing of the abominations” as the pinnacle of the temple so desecrated by the abomination that it no longer deserved the name of a temple of the Lord, but the name of an idol-temple. Auberlen translates it “on account of the desolating summit of abominations,” and understands by it the summit of the abominations committed by Israel, which draws down the desolation, because it is the desolation itself, and which reached its acme in the desecration of the temple by the Zealots shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. But no one of these interpretations is justified by the language here used, because כָּנָף does not signify summit, highest point. This word, it is true, is often used figuratively of the extremity or skirt of the upper garment or cloak (1Sa 15:27; 1Sa 24:5; Hag 2:12), of the uttermost part, end, of the earth, Isa 24:16, and frequently in the plur. of the borders of the earth, in the rabbin. also of the lobes of the lungs, but demonstrably never of the summit as the highest point or peak of an object; and thus can mean neither the temple as the highest point in Jerusalem, nor the pinnacle of the temple desecrated by the abomination, nor the summit of the abomination committed by Israel. “It is used indeed,” as Bleek (Jahrbb. v. p. 93) also remarks, “of the extreme point of an object, but only of that which is extended horizontally (for end, or extremity), but never of that which is extended perpendicularly (for peak).” The use of it in the latter sense cannot also be proved from the πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ, Mat 4:5; Luk 4:9. Here the genitive τοῦ ἱεροῦ, not τοῦ ναοῦ, shows that not the pinnacle, i.e., the summit of the temple itself, is meant, but a wing or adjoining building of the sanctuary; and if Suidas and Hesychius explain πτερύγιον by ἀκρωτήριον, this explanation is constructed only from the passages of the N.T. referred to, and is not confirmed by the Greek classics.

But though πτερύγιον may have the meaning of summit, yet this can by no means be proved to be the meaning of כָּנָף. Accordingly שִׁקּוּצִים כְּנַף cannot on verbal grounds be referred to the temple. This argument from the words used is not set aside by other arguments which Hengstenberg brings forward, neither by the remark that this explanation harmonizes well with the other parts of the prophecy, especially the removal of the sacrifice and the destruction of the temple, nor by the reference to the testimony of tradition and to the authority of the Lord. For, with reference to that remark, we have already shown in the explanation of the preceding verses that they do not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and thus are not reconcilable with this interpretation of שִׁקּוּצִים כְּנַף. But the testimony of tradition for this interpretation in Josephus, De bello Jud. iv. 6. 3, that by the desecration of the temple on the part of the Zealots an old prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple was fulfilled, itself demonstrates (under the supposition that no other passage occur in the book of Daniel in which Josephus would be able to find the announcement of bloody abomination in the temple which proceeded even from the members of the covenant people) nothing further than that Josephus, with many of his contemporaries, found such a prophecy in this verse in the Alexandrine translation, but it does not warrant the correctness of this interpretation of the passage. This warrant would certainly be afforded by the words of our Lord regarding “the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place” (Mat 24:15.; Mar 13:14), if it were decided that the Lord had this passage (Dan 9:27) alone before His mind, and that He regarded the “abomination of desolation” as a sign announcing the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. But neither of these conditions is established. The expression βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως is found not only in Dan 9:27 (where the lxx and Theod. have the plur. ἐρημώσεων), but also in Dan 11:31 (βδ. ἐρημώσεως) and Dan 12:11 (τὸ βδ. τῆς ἐρημώσεως), and thus may refer to one of these passages. The possibility of this reference is not weakened by the objection, “that the prophecy Daniel 11 and Dan 12:1-13 was generally regarded as fulfilled in the Maccabean times, and that the fulfilling of Daniel 9 was placed forward into the future in the time of Christ” (Hgstb.), because the Lord can have a deeper and more correct apprehension of the prophecies of Daniel than the Jewish writers of His time; because,moreover, the first historical fulfilling of Daniel 11 in the Maccabean times does not exclude a further and a fuller accomplishment in the future, and the rage of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jewish temple and the worship of God can be a type of the assault of Antichrist against the sanctuary and the church of God in the time of the end. Still less from the words, “whoso readeth, let him understand” (Mat 24:15), can it be proved that Christ had only Dan 9:27, and not also Dan 11:31 or Dan 12:11, before His view. The remark that these words refer to בַּדָּבָר בִּין (understand the matter), Dan 9:23, and to וְתַשְׂכֵּל וְתֵדַע (know, and understand), does not avail for this purpose, because this reference is not certain, and בִּין אֶת־הַדָּבָר dna ,n (and he understood the thing) is used (Dan 10:1) also of the prophecy in Daniel 10 and 11. But though it were beyond a doubt that Christ had, in the words quoted, only Dan 9:27 before His view, yet would the reference of this prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans not be thereby proved, because in His discourse Christ spake not only of this destruction of the ancient Jerusalem, but generally of His παρουσία and the συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος (Mat 24:3), and referred the words of Daniel of the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως to the παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

On these grounds we must affirm that the reference of the words under consideration to the desecration of the temple before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is untenable.

But also the reference of these words, as maintained by other interpreters, to the desecration of the temple by the βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως (1 Macc. 1:54), built on the altar of burnt-offering by Antiochus Epiphanes, is disproved on the verbal ground that כָּנָף cannot designate the surface of the altar. In favour of this view the מְשֹׁמֵם הַשִּׁקּוּץ, Dan 11:31 (the abomination that maketh desolate), is principally relied on, in order to establish the connection of מְשֹׁמֵם with שִׁקּוּצִים; but that passage is of a different character, and the difference of number between them opposes the connecting together of these two words. The singular מְשֹׁמֵם cannot be connected as an adjective with שִׁקּוּצִים. But the uniting of מְשֹׁמֵם with the noun כְּנַף gives no meaning, and besides has the parallels Dan 11:31 and Dan 12:11 against it. In this passage before us מְשֹׁמֵם can only be the subject; and the clause is neither to be connected with the preceding nor with the following, but is to be interpreted as containing an independent statement. Since in the preceding context mention is made of a Nagid who shall make desolate the city and the sanctuary, and shall take away the bloody and the unbloody sacrifice, it is natural to regard the מְשֹׁמֵם, desolater, as the Nagid, and to identify the two. The circumstance that it does not refer to it by the article (הַמְּשֹׁמֵם) is no valid objection, because the article is in no way necessary, as מְשֹׁמֵם is a participle, and can be rendered as such: “on the wings of abomination he comes desolating.” כָּנָף עַל can, without ingenuity, be rendered in no other way than on wings. שִׁקּוּצִים signifies not acts of abomination, but objects of abomination, things causing abomination, and is constantly used of the heathen gods, idol-images, sacrifices to the gods, and other heathen abominations. The connection of שִׁקּוּצִים permits us, however, with Reichel, Ebrard, Kliefoth, and Kranichfeld, to think on nothing else than that wings (כָּנָף) are attributed to the שִׁקּוּצִים. The sing. כְּנַף does not oppose this, since it is often used collectively in a peculiar and figurative meaning; cf. e.g., כָּנָף בַּעַל, Pro 1:17, with כְּנָפַיִם בַּעַל, Ecc 10:20, the winged, the bird; and הָאָרֶץ dna ;drib כְּנַף (from the uttermost part of the earth), Isa 24:16, is not different from הָאָרֶץ כַּנְפֹות, Job 37:3; Job 38:13, just as אֶבְרָה, wing, plumage, Psa 91:4; Deu 32:11, is found for אֶבְרוֹת (wings), Psa 68:14. But from such passages as Deu 32:11; Exo 19:4, and Psa 18:11, we perceive the sense in which wings are attributed to the שִׁקּוּצִים, the idolatrous objects.

(Note: The interpretation of J. D. Michaelis, which has been revived by Hofmann, needs no serious refutation. They hold that שִׁקּוּצִים כְּנַף signifies an idol-bird, and denotes the eagle of Jupiter of Zeus. Hofm. repeats this interpretation in his Schriftbew. ii. 2, p. 592, after he had abandoned it.)

In the first of these passages (Deu 32:11), wings, the wings of an eagle, are attributed to God, because He is the power which raises up Israel, and lifting it up, and carrying it throughout its history, guides it over the earth. In P. 18 wings are attributed to the wind, because the wind is contemplated as the power which carries out the will of God throughout the kingdom of nature. “Thus in this passage wings are attributed to the שִׁקּוּצִים, idol-objects, and to idolatry with its abominations, because that shall be the power which lifts upwards the destroyer and desolater, carries him, and moves with him over the earth to lay waste” (Klief.).

(Note: Similarly, and independently of Kliefoth, Kranichfeld also explains the words: “The powerful heathen enemy of God is here conceived of as carried on (עַל) these wings of the idol-abomination, like as the God of the theocracy is borne on the wings of the clouds, and on cherubim, who are His servants; cf. Psa 18:11; Psa 104:3.”)

The last clause, וגו וְעַד־כָּלָה, is differently construed, according as the subject to תִּתַּךְ, which is wanting, or appears to be wanting, is sought to be supplied from the context. Against the supposition of Hävernick and Ebrard, who take תִּתַּךְ as impersonal: “it pours down,” it is rightly objected that this word is never so found, and can so much the less be so interpreted here, since in Dan 9:11 it is preceded by a definite subject. Others supply a subject, such as anger (Berth.), or curse and oath from Dan 9:11; the former is quite arbitrary, the latter is too far-fetched. Others, again (Hengstenberg, Maurer), take וְנֶחֱרָצָה כָלָה (the consummation and that determined) as the subject. This is correct according to the matter. We cannot, however, so justify the regarding of וְעַד as a conjunction: till that; for, though עַד is so used, וְעַד is not; nor, once more, can we justify the taking of וְנֶחֱרָצָה כָלָה as a whole as the subject (Hofmann), or of וְנֶחֱרָצָה alone as the subject (v. Leng., Hitzig, Kliefoth), since וְעַד is not repeated before וְנֶחֱרָצָה on account of the ו(with v. Leng.), nor is וְנֶחֱרָצָה alone supplied (with Hitz.), nor is the וbefore נֶחֱרָצָה to be regarded (with Klief.) as a sign of the conclusion. Where וintroduces the conclusion, as e.g., Dan 8:14, it is there united with the verb, and thus the expression here should in that case be נֶחֱרָצָה וְתִּתַּךְ. The relative interpretation of תִּתַּךְ is the only one which is verbally admissible, whereby the words, “and till the consummation and that determined,” are epexegetically connected to the foregoing clause: “and till the consummation and that determined which shall pour down upon the desolater.” The words וְנֶחֱרָצָה כָלָה remind us of Isa 10:23 and Isa 28:22, and signify that which is completed = altogether and irrevocably concluded, i.e., substantially the inflexibly decreed judgment of destruction. The words have here this meaning, as is clear from the circumstance that נֶחֱרָצָה points back to שֹׁמֵמוֹת נֶחֱרֶצֶת (Dan 9:26, desolations are determined), and כָלָה עַד corresponds to קֵץ עַד (Dan 9:26). In Dan 11:31 מְשֹׁמֵם is not in a similar manner to be identified with שֹׁמֵם, but has the active signification: “laying waste,” while שֹׁמֵם has the passive: “laid waste.” Both words refer to the Nagid, but with this difference, that this ungodly prince who comes as the desolater of the city and the sanctuary will on that account become desolate, that the destruction irrevocably decreed by God shall pour down upon him as a flood.

Let us now, after explaining the separate clauses, present briefly the substance of this divine revelation. We find that the Dan 9:25-27 contain the following announcement: From the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the appearance of the Messias seven weeks shall pass away; after that, during threescore and two weeks the city shall be restored and built up amid the oppressions of the times; but after the sixty-two weeks the Messias shall be cut off, so that to Him nothing remains, and the city, together with the sanctuary, shall be destroyed by the people of a prince who shall come, who shall find his end in the flood; but the war shall continue to the end, since destruction is irrevocably decreed. That prince shall force a strong covenant for one week on the mass of the people, and during half a week shall take away the service of sacrifice, and, borne on the wings of idol-abominations, shall carry on a desolating rule, till the firmly decreed judgment shall pour itself upon him as one desolated. - According to this, the first seven weeks are determined merely according to their beginning and their end, and nothing further is said as to their contents than may be concluded from the definition of its terminus a quo, “to restore and to build Jerusalem,” namely, that the restoring and the building of this city shall proceed during the period of time indicated. The sixty-two weeks which follow these seven weeks, ending with the coming of the Messias, have the same contents, only with the more special definition, that the restoration and the building in the broad open place and in the limited place shall be carried on in oppressive times. Hence it is clear that this restoration and building cannot denote the rebuilding of the city which was destroyed by the Chaldeans, but refers to the preservation and extension of Jerusalem to the measure and compass determined by God in the Messianic time, or under the dominion of the Messias, since He shall come at the end of the seven weeks, and after the expiry of the sixty-two weeks connected therewith shall be cut off, so that nothing remains to Him.

The statements of the angel (Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27) regarding the one week, which, because of the connection, can only be the seventieth, or the last of the seventy, are more ample. The cutting off of the Messias forms the beginning of this week; then follows the destruction of the city and of the sanctuary by the people of the coming prince, who shall find his end in the flood, not immediately after his coming, but at the end of this week; for the war shall continue to the end, and the prince shall take away the service of sacrifice during half a week, till the desolation determined as a flood shall pour down upon him, and make the desolater desolated. If we compare with this the contents of Dan 9:24, according to which seventy weeks are determined to restrain transgression, to make an end of sin and iniquity, partly by atonement and partly by shutting up, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to consecrate a new most holy, we shall find that the reciprocal statements are so related to each other, that Dan 9:25-27 present what shall be done in the course of the seventy weeks, which are divided into three periods, but Dan 9:24 what shall be the result of all these things. The seventieth week ends, according to Dan 9:27, with the judgment on the destroyer of the city and the sanctuary of God; but with this judgment shall be the conclusion of the divine counsel of salvation, or the kingdom of God shall be consummated. This was revealed to the prophet in Daniel 7, and thus does not need to be here expressly repeated. If that which, according to Dan 9:24, shall happen with the expiry of the seventy appointed weeks stood after Dan 9:27, then would the connection of the judgment on the last enemy of God with the consummation of the kingdom of God appear here also distinctly to view. But it was not necessary after Daniel 7 to give express prominence to this connection here; and Gabriel here first mentions the positive aim and end of the divine plan of salvation with Israel, because he gives to the prophet a comforting answer to remove his deep distress on account of his own sins, and the sin and guilt of his people, and therein cannot conceal the severe affliction which the future would bring, because he will announce to him that by the sins of the people the working out of the deliverance designed by God for them shall not be frustrated, but that in spite of the great guilt of Israel the kingdom of God shall be perfected in glory, sin and iniquity blotted out, everlasting righteousness restored, the prophecy of the judgment and of salvation completed, and the sanctuary where God shall in truth dwell among His people erected. In order to establish this promise, so rich in comfort, and firmly to ratify it to Daniel he unveils to him (Dan 9:25-27), in its great outlines, the progress of the development of the kingdom of God, first from the end of the Exile to the coming of the Messias; then from the appearance of Christ to the time far in the future, when Christ shall be cut off, so that nothing remains to Him; and finally, the time of the supremacy and of the victory of the destroyer of the church of God, the Antichrist, and the destruction of this enemy by the irrevocably determined final judgment. If, now, in this he says nothing particular regarding the first period of this development, regarding the time from the Exile to Christ, the reason is, that he had already said all that was necessary regarding the development of the world-kingdom, and its relation to the kingdom and people of God, in the preceding revelation in Daniel 8. It is the same angel Gabriel who (Daniel 8) comforted Daniel, and interpreted to him the vision of the second and third world-kingdom, and who here brings to him further revelations in answer to his prayer regarding the restoration of the holy city, which was lying in ruins, as is expressly remarked in Dan 9:21. - Also regarding the second long period which passes from the appearance of the Messias to His annihilation (Vernichtung), i.e., the destruction of His kingdom on the earth, little is apparently said, but in reality in the few words very much is said: that during this whole period the restoration and building shall proceed amid the oppressions of the times, namely, that the kingdom of God shall be built up to the extent determined by God in this long period, although amid severe persecution. this persecution shall during the last week mount up to the height of the cutting off of Christ and the destruction of His kingdom on the earth; but then with the extermination of the prince, the enemy of God, it shall reach its end.

But if, according to what has been said, this revelation presents the principal outlines of the development of the kingdom of God from the time of Daniel to its consummation at the end of this epoch of the world, the seventy שָׁבֻעִים which are appointed for it cannot be year-weeks, or cycles of seven years, but only symbolically defined periods of measured duration. This result of our exposition contradicts, however, the usual interpretations of this prophecy so completely, that in order to confirm our exposition, we must put thoroughly to the test the two classes of opposing interpretations - which, however, agree in this, that the definitions of time are to be understood chronologically, and that under the שָׁבֻעִים year - weeks are to be understood-and examine whether a chronological reckoning is in all respects tenable.

The first class of expositors who find the appearance of Christ in the flesh and His crucifixion, as well as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, prophesied of in this passage, adduce in support of their view, partly the agreement of the chronological periods, partly the testimony of Christ, who referred Dan 9:27 to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. How does it now stand with these two arguments?

The first Hengstenberg (Christol. iii. 1, p. 137) introduces with the remark, “The predominant view in the synagogue and in the church has always been, that the seventy weeks, as well as the shorter periods into which the whole period is divided, are closely fixed and limited. The opposite supposition becomes very suspicious by this, that it is maintained only by such as come into conflict with the chronology by their hypotheses, or take no interest in chronological investigations.” He then seeks first to confute the arguments brought forward in favour of the supposition that the chronological definitions are only given in the lump (in Bausch und Bogen), and then to present the positive arguments for the definiteness of the chronological statements. But he has in this identified the definiteness of the prophecy in general with its chronological definiteness, while there is between these two ideas a noticeable difference. Of the positive arguments adduced, the first is, that the seventy weeks stand in closer relation to the seventy years of Jeremiah, in so far as regards chronological definiteness, when the seventy years of Jeremiah are understood as strictly chronological and as chronologically fulfilled. But the force of this argument is neutralized by the fact, that in Jeremiah a chronologically described period, “years,” is in this prophecy, on the contrary, designated by a name the meaning of which is disputed, at all events is chronologically indefinite, since weeks, if seven-day periods are excluded by the contents off the prophecy, can as well signify Sabbath or jubilee periods, seven-year or seven times seven-years epochs. Still weaker is the second argument, that all the other designations of time with reference to the future in the book of Daniel are definite; for this is applicable only to the designations in Dan 8:14 and Dan 12:11-12, in which evening-mornings and days are named, but not to the passages Dan 7:25; Dan 12:7, and Dan 4:13 (16), where the chronologically indefinite expression, time, times, occurs, which are arbitrarily identified with years.

There remains thus, for the determination of the time spoken of in this prophecy, only the argument from its fulfilment, which should give the decision for the chronological definiteness. But, on the contrary, there arises a grave doubt, from the circumstance that among the advocates of the so-called “church Messianic interpretation” the terminus a quo of the prophecy is disputed; for some of these interpreters take the edict of Cyrus (b.c. 536) as such, while, on the other hand, others take the edict which Artaxerxes issued on the return of Ezra to Jerusalem for the restoration of the service of God according to the law, in the seventeenth year of his reign, i.e., in the year b.c. 457, and others, again, among whom is Hengstenberg, take the journey of Nehemiah to Jerusalem with the permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, i.e., b.c. 445, or according to Hengstenberg, b.c. 455, as the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks - a difference of eighty-one years, which in chronological reckoning is very noticeable.

In our interpretation of Dan 9:25, we have given our decided opinion that the וגו לְהָשִׁיב דָּבָר, from the going forth of which seventy years are to be reckoned, refers to the edict of Cyrus permitting the Jews to return to their fatherland, and the arguments in favour of that opinion are given above. Against this reference to the edict of Cyrus, Hävernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen have objected that in that edict there is nothing said of building up the city, and that under Cyrus, as well as under the succeeding kings, Cambyses, Darius Hystaspes, and Xerxes, nothing also is done for the building of the city. We find it still unbuilt in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezr 9:8; Ezr 10:13; Neh 1:3; Neh 2:3; 5:34; Neh 4:1; Neh 7:4). Although from the nature of the case the building of the temple supposes the existence also of houses in Jerusalem (cf. Hag 1:4), yet there is not a single trace of any royal permission for the restoration of the people and the rebuilding of the city. Much rather this was expressly forbidden (Ezra 4:7-23) by the same Artaxerxes Longimanus (who at a later period gave the permission however), in consequence of the slanderous reports of the Samaritans. “There was granted to the Jews a religious, but not a political restoration.” For the first time in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus the affairs of Israel took a favourable turn. In that year Artaxerxes granted to Ezra permission to go to Jerusalem, entrusting him with royal letters of great importance (Ezra 7:11-26, particularly Ezr 7:18, Ezr 7:25.); in his twentieth year he gave to Nehemiah express permission to rebuild the city (Neh 2). Following the example of the old chronologist Julius Africanus in Jerome and many others, Häv., Hgstb., Reinke, Reusch, and others regard the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, while Auberlen, with Valovius, Newton, M. Geier, Gaussen, Pusey, and others, regard the seventy years, as the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks. But that the arguments derived from the absence of any mention being made in the edict of Cyrus of the building of Jerusalem against the reference of וגו דָּבָר מֹצָא to that edict are not very strong, at least are not decisive, is manifest from what Auberlen has advanced for the seventh and against the twentieth year. Proceeding from the proposition, correct in itself, that the time of Ezra and that of Nehemiah form one connected period of blessing for Israel, Auberlen thence shows that the edict relating to Nehemiah had only a secondary importance, as the sacred narrative itself indicates by the circumstance that it does not mention the edict at all (Neh 2:7-8), while the royal letters to Ezra (Ezra 7) are given at large. Since it was the same king Artaxerxes who sent away Ezra as well as Nehemiah, his heart must have been favourably inclined toward Israel in his seventh year. “Then must the word for the restoration and building of Jerusalem have gone forth from God.” The consciousness of this is expressed by Ezra himself, when, after recording the royal edict (Ezr 7:27), he continues: “Blessed be Jehovah, the God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem; and hath extended mercy to me before the king and his counsellors, and before all the king's mighty princes.”

But, we must reply, wherein does the mercy extended to Ezra before the king consist? Is it in the permission to build up Jerusalem? Certainly not, but in the beautifying the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem. And to that alone the royal authority granted to Ezra (Ezra 7) refers. Of the building of the city there is not a word said. Only the means, as it appears, of restoring the temple-worship, which had fallen into great decay, and of re-establishing the law of God corresponding thereto, were granted to him in the long edict issued by the king.

(Note: Auberlen, it is true, remarks (p. 138): - ”The authority given to Ezra is so extensive that it essentially includes the rebuilding of the city. It refers certainly, for the most part [rather wholly,] to the service of the sanctuary; but not only must Ezra set up judges (Ezr 7:25), he is also expressly permitted by the king to expend as it seems good to him the rest of the silver and gold (Ezr 7:18). How he then understood the commission, Ezra himself says clearly and distinctly in his prayer of repentance: 'Our Lord hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof (of our God), and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem.' The argument from this passage lies not merely in the גָּדֵר (encircling wall), but especially in this, 'to repair the desolations thereof.' This could not be the desolations of the temple, which had been long before this rebuilt, and therefore we may understand by it the desolations of Jerusalem.” But the strength of this argumentation rests merely on a verbally free rendering of the verse referred to (Ezr 9:9). The circumstance that Ezra speaks of the kings (in the plur.) of Persia, who showed favour to the Jews, indicates that he meant not merely that which Artaxerxes had done and would yet do in the future, but that he refers also to the manifestation of favour on the part of kings Cyrus, Darius Hystaspes, and Artaxerxes; thus also the expression, “to give us a wall,” cannot refer to the permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, which Artaxerxes some years later first granted to Nehemiah. Moreover, the expression, “to give us a גָּדֵר in Judah and Jerusalem,” shows that by גָּדֵר cannot be understood the fortified walls of Jerusalem; for גָּדֵר never denotes the walls of a city or fortress as such, but always only the encompassing wall of a vineyard, which meaning is found in Mic 7:11; Eze 13:5. גָּדֵר is therefore to be understood here figuratively: encompassing wall in the sense of divine protection; and the meaning is not this: “that the place protected by the wall lies in Judah and Jerusalem; but in Judah and Jerusalem the Persian kings have given to the new congregation of the people a secure dwelling-place, because the power of the Persian kings secured to the Israelites who had returned from captivity the undisturbed and continued possession of their land” (Bertheau). The objection also, that חָרְבֹתָיו cannot be the ruins of the temple, because it was already built, is set aside as soon as we express the infinitive לְהַעֲמִיד, as it is rightly done, by the praeterite, whereby this word refers to the completed building of the temple. Cf. with this Hengstenberg's extended refutation of this argument of Auberlen's (Christol. iii. 1, p. 144).)

If the clause, “from the going forth of the commandment,” etc., cannot refer to the edict of Cyrus, because in it there is no express mention made of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, so also, for the same reason, it cannot refer to that which was issued by Artaxerxes in favour of Ezra. Auberlen's remark, however, is correct, when he says that the edict relating to Nehemiah is of secondary importance when compared with that relating to Ezra. Strictly speaking, there is no mention made of an edict relating to Nehemiah. Nehemiah, as cup-bearer of Artaxerxes, entreated of the king the favour of being sent to Judah, to the city of his fathers' sepulchres, that he might build it; and the king (the queen also sitting by him) granted him this request, and gave him letters to all the governors on this side the Euphrates, that they should permit him undisturbed to prosecute his journey, and to the overseers of the royal forests, that they should give him wood “for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city” (Neh 2:4-8). However important this royal favour was in its consequences for Jerusalem, - for Nehemiah built the walls of the city, and thereby raised Jerusalem to a fortified city guarded against hostile assaults, - yet the royal favour for this undertaking was not such as to entitle it to be designated as 'מֹצָא דָצָר וגו, a going forth of a commandment of God. But if, in favour of the reference of דָּבָר מֹצָא to the edict of Ezra, Auberlen (p. 128ff.) attaches special importance to the circumstance that in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are recorded two periods of post-exilian history, the first of which - namely, the time of Zerubbabel and of the high priest Joshua under Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes - we may designate the period of the building of the temple, the second - namely, the time of Ezra the priest, and Nehemiah the Tirshatha, under Artaxerxes Longimanus - we may designate the period of the restoration of the people and the building of the city, - the former the time of the religious, and the latter that of the political restoration; and, in seeking to establish this view, he interprets the first part of the book of Ezra as a whole in itself, and the second as a whole taken in combination with the book of Nehemiah; - if this is his position, then Hengstenberg has already (Christol. iii. p. 149) shown the incorrectness of this division of the book of Ezra, and well remarks that the whole book of Ezra has the temple as its central-point, and views with reference to it the mission of Ezra as well as that of Zerubbabel and Joshua. There is certainly an inner connection of the mission of Ezra with that of Nehemiah, but it consists only in this, that Ezra's religious reformation was secured by Nehemiah's political reform. From the special design of the work of Ezra, to describe the restoration of the temple and of the service of God, we must also explain the circumstance that nothing is said in it of the building of the city of Jerusalem. Besides, this building, before Nehemiah's arrival in Judah, had not further advanced than to the re-erection of houses for the returned exiles who had settled in Jerusalem. Every attempt to restore the walls was hindered and frustrated by the enemies of Judah, so that the gates and the walls were yet lying burnt and in ruins on Nehemiah's arrival (Neh 1:3; Neh 2:3, Neh 2:5). Therefore neither the absence of any mention in the decree of Cyrus of the building of the city, nor the fact that the rebuilding of the city walls was first effected by Nehemiah, forms a decisive argument against the reference of וגו דָּבָר מֹצָא to this edict; and we must maintain this reference as the only correct one, because this edict only, but not that which gave permission to Ezra or that which gave authority to Nehemiah to build the city walls, formed an epoch marking a crisis in the development of the theocracy, as this is connected in the announcement of Gabriel with the going forth of the word to restore Jerusalem.

Not less doubtful is the matter of the definition of the terminus ad quem of the seventy שָׁבֻעִים, and of the chronological reckoning of the whole period. As for the terminus ad quem, a sharply defined factum must form the conclusion of the sixty-ninth week; for at this point the public appearance of Christ, His being anointed with the Holy Ghost, is named as the end of the prophecy. If this factum occurred, according to Luk 3:1, in the year of Rome 782, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes - i.e., the year 455 b.c., according to the usual chronology - would be the year 299 A.U.C.; if we add to that sixty-nine weeks = 483 years, then it gives the year 782 A.U.C. In the middle of this last week, beginning with the appearance of the Anointed, occurred His death, while the confirming of the covenant extends through the whole of it. With reference to the death of Christ, the prophecy and its fulfilment closely agree, since that event took place three and a half years after His baptism. But the terminus ad quem of the confirming of the covenant, as one more or less moveable, is capable of no definite chronological determination. It is sufficient to remark, that in the first years after the death of Christ the ἐκλογή of the Old Covenant people was gathered together, and then the message of Christ was brought also to the heathen, so that the prophet might rightly represent the salvation as both subjectively and objectively consummated at the end of the seventy weeks for the covenant people, of whom alone he speaks (Hgst. pp. 163f., 180). Thus also Auberlen, who, however, places the end of the seventy weeks in the factum of the stoning of Stephen, with which the Jews pressed, shook down, and made full to the overflowing the measure of their sins, already filled by the murder of the Messias; so that now the period of grace yet given to them after the work of Christ had come to an end, and the judgment fell upon Israel.

We will not urge against the precise accuracy of the fulfilment arrived at by this calculation, that the terminus a quo adopted by Hengstenberg, viz., The twentieth year of Artaxerxes, coincides with the 455th year b.c. only on the supposition that Xerxes reigned but eleven years, and that Artaxerxes came to the throne ten years earlier than the common reckoning, according to which Xerxes reigned twenty-one years, and that the correctness of this view is opposed by Hofm., Kleinert, Wieseler, and others, because the arguments for and against it are evenly balanced; but with Preiswerk, whose words Auberlen (p. 144) quotes with approbation, considering the uncertainty of ancient chronology on many points, we shall not lay much stress on calculating the exact year, but shall regard the approximate coincidence of the prophetical with the historical time as a sufficient proof that there may possibly have been an exact correspondence in the number of years, and that no one, at all events, can prove the contrary. But we must attach importance to this, that in this calculation a part of the communication of the angel is left wholly out of view. The angel announces not merely the cutting off of the Messias after seven and sixty-two weeks, but also the coming of the people of a prince who shall lay waste the city and the sanctuary, which all interpreters who understand מָשִׁיחַ יִכָּרֵת of the death of Christ refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple by the Romans; he also says that this war shall last till the end of the seventy weeks. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans followed the death of Christ, not after an interval of only three and a half years, but of thirty years. Accordingly, the seventy weeks must extend to the year 70 a.d., whereby the whole calculation is shown to be inaccurate. If we yet further remark, that the advocates of this exposition of the prophecy are in a position to give no sufficient reason for the dividing of the sixty-nine weeks into seven and sixty-two, and that their reference of the seven weeks to the time of the rebuilding of Jerusalem under Nehemiah, and of the sixty-two weeks to the period from the completion of this building to the appearance of Christ in the flesh, stands in open contradiction to the words of the text; finally, that the placing of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes as the terminus a quo of the reckoning of the דָּבָר מֹצָא cannot be correct, - then may we also regard the much commended exact concord of the prophecy with the actual events of history derived from this interpretation of the verse as only an illusion, since from the “going forth of the word” to restore Jerusalem to the destruction of that city by Titus, not seventy weeks or 490 years elapsed, but, according as we date the going forth of this word in the year 536 or 455 b.c., 606 or 525 years, i.e., more than eighty-six, or at least seventy-five, year-weeks, passed. This great gulf, which thus shows itself in the calculation of the שָׁבֻעִים as year-weeks, between the prophecy and its chronological fulfilment, is not bridged over by the remark with which Auberlen (p. 141) has sought to justify his supposition that Ezra's return to Judah in the year 457 b.c. formed the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks, while yet the word of the angel announcing the restoration and the building up of Jerusalem first finds its actual accomplishment in the building of the city walls on Nehemiah's return - the remark, namely, that the external building up of the city had the same relation to the terminus a quo of Daniel's seventy year-weeks as the external destruction of Jerusalem to that of Jeremiah's seventy years. “The latter begin as early as the year 606 b.c., and therefore eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem, for at that time the kingdom of Judah ceased to exist as an independent theocracy; the former begin thirteen years before the rebuilding of the city, because then the re-establishment of the theocracy began.” We find a repetition of the same phenomenon at the end of the seventy weeks. “These extend to the year 33 a.d. From this date Israel was at an end, though the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans did not take place till the year 70 a.d.” For Jeremiah did not prophesy that the destruction of Jerusalem should last for seventy years, but only that the land of Judah would be desolate seventy years, and that for so long a time its inhabitants would serve the king of Babylon. The desolating of the land and Judah's subjugation to the king of Babylon did not begin with the destruction of Jerusalem, but with the first siege of the city by Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e., in the year 606 b.c., and continued till the liberation of the Jews from Babylonian bondage by Cyrus in the first year of his reign, in the year 536 b.c., and thus after seventy years were fully accomplished. Jeremiah's chronologically definite prophecy is thus accurately fulfilled; but Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks is neither chronologically defined by years, nor has it been altogether so fulfilled as that the 70, 7, 52, and 1 week can be reckoned by year-weeks.

The New Testament also does not necessitate our seeking the end of the seventy weeks in the judgment the Romans were the means of executing against the ancient Jerusalem, which had rejected and crucified the Saviour. Nowhere in the N.T. is this prophecy, particularly the מָשִׁיחַ יִכָּרֵת, referred to the crucifixion of our Lord; nor has Christ or the apostles interpreted these verses, 26, 27 of this chapter, of the desolation and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. However general the opinion may be that Christ, in speaking of His παρουσία, Matt 24; Mar 13:1, and Luke 21, in the words ὅταν ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως τὸ ῥηθὲν Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου κ.τ.λ. (Mat 24:15, cf. Mar 13:14), had before His eyes this prophecy (Dan 9:26-27), yet that opinion is without foundation, and is not established by the arguments which Hävernick (Daniel p. 383f.), Wieseler (die 70 Wochen, p. 173ff.), Hengstenberg (Beitr. i. p. 258f., and Christol. iii. 1, p. 113f.), and Auberlen (Daniel p. 120f.) have brought forward for that purpose. We have already, in explaining the words שִׁקּוּצִים כְּנַף עַל, Dan 9:27, shown that the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, found in the discourse of Christ, is not derived from Dan 9:27, but from Dan 11:31 or Dan 12:11, where the lxx have rendered מְשֹׁמֵם שִׁקּוּץ by τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως. For the further confirmation of the arguments in behalf of this view there presented, we wish to add the following considerations. The appeal to the fact that Josephus, in the words (Antt. x. 11. 7) Δανιῆλος καὶ περὶ τὴς τῶν ̔Ρηωμαίων ἡγεμονίας ἀνέγραψε καὶ ὅτι ὑπ ̓αὐτῶν ἐρημωθήσεται, referred to the prophecy Daniel 9, and gave this interpretation not only as a private view of his own, but as (cf. De Bell. Jud. iv. 6. 3) παλαιὸς λόγος ἀνδρῶν, i.e., represented the view of his people, as commonly received, even by the Zealots, - this would form a valid proof that Daniel 9 was at that time commonly referred to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, only, however, if besides this no other prophecy of the book of Daniel could be apparently referred to the destruction of the Jewish state by the Romans. But this is not the case. Josephus and his contemporaries could find such a prophecy in that of the great enemy (Dan 7:25) who would arise out of the fourth or Roman world-kingdom, and would persecute and destroy the saints of the Most High. What Josephus adduces as the contents of the παλαιὸς λόγος ἀνδρῶν, namely, τότε τῆν πόλιν ἁλώσεσθαι καὶ καταφλεγήσεσθαι τὰ ἅγια νόμῳ πολέμου, occurs neither in Daniel 9 nor in any other part of the book of Daniel, and was not so defined till after the historical fulfilment. Wieseler, indeed, thinks (p. 154) that the words τὴν πόλιν καταφλεγήσεσθαι κ.τ.λ., perfectly correspond with the words of Daniel, יַשְׁחִית וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ וְהָעִיר, Dan 9:26 (shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, E. V.); but he also concedes that Josephus interpreted the kind of desolation, perhaps with reference to Dan 11:33 (? 31), after the result, as a total desolation. It is thus granted that not only in Daniel 9, but also in Daniel 11, Daniel predicted a desolation of the city and the sanctuary which could be interpreted of their destruction by the Romans, and the opinion, that besides Daniel 9, no other part of Daniel can be found, is abandoned as incorrect. But the other circumstances which Josephus brings forward in the passage quoted, particularly that the Zealots by the desecration of the temple contributed to the fulfilling of that παλαιὸς λόγος, are much more distinctly contained in Dan 11:31 than in Dan 9:26, where we must first introduce this sense in the words (Dan 9:27) כְּ נַף שִׁקּוּצִים מְשֹׁמֵם עַל (on the wing of abominations one causing desolation). Similarly the other passages are constituted in which Josephus speaks of ancient prophecies which have been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. No one specially points to Daniel 9.

But if the proof from Josephus could be made more valid than has yet been done, that the Jews of his time referred Daniel 9 to the overthrow of the Jewish commonwealth by the Romans, yet thereby it would not be proved that Christ also shared this Jewish opinion, and set it forth in His discourse, Matt 24, as an undoubted truth. In favour of this view it has indeed been argued, “that the ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ fully corresponds to ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων ἔσται (lxx, Dan 9:27):” Hengstenberg, Christol. p. 117. But it is still more inconsistent with the proof from the Alexandrian translation of the verses before us than it is with that from Josephus. In the form of the lxx text that has come down to us there are undoubtedly two different paraphrases or interpretations of the Hebrew text off Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27 penetrating each other, and therein the obscure words of Daniel (after Dan 11:31 and Dan 12:11) are so interpreted that they contain a reference to the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus.

(Note: That the Septuagint version (Dan 11:31; Dan 12:11; Dan 9:24-27) is not in reality a translation, but rather an explanation of the passage as the lxx understood it, is manifest. “They regard,” as Klief. rightly judges, “Dan 9:24 and the first half of Dan 9:25 as teaching that it was prophesied to Daniel that Israel would soon return from exile, that Daniel also would return, and Jerusalem be built. The rest they treat very freely. They take the second half of Dan 9:25 out of its place, and insert it after the first clause of Dan 9:27; they also take the closing words of Dan 9:26 out of their place, and insert them after the second clause of Dan 9:27. The passage thus arranged they then interpret of Antiochus Epiphanes. They add together call the numbers they find in the text (70 + 7 + 62 = 139), and understand by them years, the years of the Seleucidan aera, so that they descend to the second year of Antiochus Epiphanes. Then they interpret all the separate statements of the times and actions of Antiochus Epiphanes in a similar manner as do the modern interpreters. C. Wieseler, p. 200 .”)

The עַל כנַף , incomprehensible to the translators, they interpreted after the חִלְּלוּ, Dan 11:31, and derived from it the ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν. But Christ derived the expression τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως as well as the ἐστὼς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ from Dan 11:31, cf. with Dan 12:11, but not from Dan 9:27, where neither the original text, “on the wings of abomination shall the desolater come,” nor the lxx translation, ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων ἔσται - ”over the sanctuary shall the abomination of the desolations come,” leads to the idea of a “standing,” or a “being placed,” of the abomination of desolation. The standing (ἐστώς) without doubt supposes the placing, which corresponds to the וְנָתנוּ (δώσουσι, lxx), and the וְלָתֵת (ἑτοιμασθῇ δοθῆναι, lxx), and the ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ points to הַמִקְדָּשׁ, Dan 11:31, since by the setting up of the abomination of desolation, the sanctuary, or the holy place of the temple, was indeed desecrated.

The prophecy in Daniel 11 treats, as is acknowledged, of the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus Epiphanes. If thus the Lord, in His discourse, had spoken of the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρ. ἑστὼς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίω| as a sign of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, it would not remotely follow that He referred this prophecy (Daniel 9) to that catastrophe. Much more would He then, as Kliefoth (p. 412) has well remarked, “represent that which Antiochus Epiphanes did against Jerusalem as an historical type of that which the Romans would do.” He would only say, “As once was done to Jerusalem by Antiochus, according to the word of Daniel, so shall it again soon be done; and therefore, it ye see repeating themselves the events which occurred under Antiochus in the fulfilment of Daniel's word, then know ye that it is the time for light.” But regarding the meaning which Christ found in Dan 9:26 and Dan 9:27, not the least intimation would follow therefrom.

But in the discourse in question the Lord prophesied nothing whatever primarily or immediately of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, but treated in it, as we have already remarked, generally of His παρουσία and the συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος, which He places only in connection with the destruction of the temple. The occasion of the discourse, as well as its contents, show this. After He had let the temple, never to enter it again, shortly before His last sufferings, while standing on the Mount of Olives, He announces to His disciples, who pointed to the temple, the entire destruction of that building; whereupon they say to Him, “Tell us πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος?” for they believe that this destruction and His παρουσία take place together at the end of the world. This question the Lord replies to in a long discourse, in which He gives them the wished-for information regarding the sign (σημεῖον, Matt 24:4-31), and regarding the time (πότε) of His παρουσία and the end of the world (Mat 24:32). The information concerning the sign begins with a warning to take heed and beware of being deceived; for that false messiahs would appear, and wars and tumults of nations rising up one against another, and other plagues, would come (Mat 24:4). All this would be only the beginning of the woes, i.e., of the affliction which then would come upon the confessors of His name; but the end would not come till the gospel was first preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations (Mat 24:8). Then He speaks of the signs which immediately precede the end, namely, of the abomination of desolation in the holy place of which Daniel prophesied. With this a period of tribulation would commence such as never yet had been, so that if these days should not be shortened for the elect's sake, no one would be saved (Mat 24:15). To this He adds, in conclusion, the description of His own παρουσία, which would immediately (εὐθέως) follow this great tribulation (Mat 24:29). He connects with the description of His return (Mat 24:32) a similitude, with which He answers the question concerning its time, and thus continues: “When ye see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, this γενεά shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Mat 24:33, Mat 24:34, Mat 24:36).

From this brief sketch of the course of the thought it clearly appears that the Lord speaks expressly neither of the destruction of Jerusalem, nor yet of the time of that event. What is to be understood by βδέλυγμα τ. ἐρ He supposes to be known to the disciples from the book of Daniel, and only says to them that they must flee when they see this standing in the holy place, so that they may escape destruction (Mat 24:15). Only in Luke is there distinct reference to the destruction of Jerusalem; for there we find, instead of the reference to the abomination of desolation, the words, “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that its ἐρήμωσις is nigh” (Luk 21:20). According to the record of all the three evangelists, however, the Lord not only connects in the closest manner the tribulation commencing with the appearance of the βδέλυγμα τ. ἐρ, or with the siege of Jerusalem, with the last great tribulation which opens the way for His return, but He also expressly says, that immediately after the tribulation of those days (Mat 24:29), or in those days of that tribulation (Mar 13:24), or then (τότε, Luk 21:27), the Son of man shall come in the clouds in great power and glory. From this close connection of His visible παρουσία with the desolation of the hol