Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary

Daniel 9:27

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."
New American Standard

Bible Study Resources

Nave's Topical Bible - Angel (a Spirit);   Atonement;   Covenant;   Daily Offering;   Day;   Israel, Prophecies Concerning;   Jerusalem;   Jesus, the Christ;   Jesus Continued;   Law;   Scofield Reference Index - Abomination of Desolation;   The Topic Concordance - Abomination;   Jesus Christ;   Torrey's Topical Textbook - Atonement, the;   Daily Sacrifice, the;   Temple, the Second;   Weeks;   Years;  
American Tract Society Bible Dictionary - Abomination of Desolation;   Daniel;   Bridgeway Bible Dictionary - Antichrist;   Gabriel;   Vision;   Baker Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Vision(s);   Charles Buck Theological Dictionary - Messiah;   Reconciliation;   Easton Bible Dictionary - Abomination;   Desolation, Abomination of;   Gabriel;   Prophecy;   Week;   Fausset Bible Dictionary - Abomination of Desolation;   Daniel, the Book of;   Jerusalem;   Matthew, the Gospel According to;   Nehemiah;   Number;   Pinnacle;   Week;   Zechariah, the Book of;   Holman Bible Dictionary - Abomination, Abomination of Desolation;   Consummation;   Daniel, Book of;   Ezekiel;   Seventy Weeks;   Tribulation;   Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible - Abomination of Desolation;   Consumption;   Covenant;   Olympius;   Prayer;   Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the;   Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament - Abomination of Desolation ;   Numbers (2);   Reader;   Morrish Bible Dictionary - Abomination of Desolation;   Offerings, the;   Prophets, the;   Roman Empire;   Seventy Weeks of Daniel;   The Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary - Abomination;   Smith Bible Dictionary - Abomination of Desolation,;   Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary - Prophecy;   Temple;  
Condensed Biblical Cyclopedia - Babylonish Captivity, the;   International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Abomination of Desolation;   Asmoneans;   Canon of the Old Testament;   Consummation;   Covenant, in the Old Testament;   Eschatology of the New Testament;   Make;   Number;   Seventy Weeks;   Week;   Kitto Biblical Cyclopedia - Abomination of desolation;   The Jewish Encyclopedia - Abomination of Desolation;   Abraham Ha-Levi ben Eliezer Ha-Zaḳ;   Antichrist;   Gabriel;   Numbers and Numerals;   Sheshbazzar;  

Adam Clarke Commentary

And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate - This clause is remarkably obscure. משמם שקוצים כנף kenaph shikkutsim meshomem, "And upon the wing of abominations causing amazement." This is a literal translation of the place; but still there is no determinate sense. A Hebrews MS., written in the thirteenth century, has preserved a very remarkable reading here, which frees the place from all embarrassment. Instead of the above reading, this valuable MS. has שיקוץ יהיה ובהיכל ubeheychal yihyey shikkuts ; that is, "And in the temple (of the Lord) there shall be abomination." This makes the passage plain, and is strictly conformable to the facts themselves, for the temple was profaned; and it agrees with the prediction of our Lord, who said that the abomination that maketh desolate should stand in the holy place, Matthew 24:15, and quotes the words as spoken δια Δανιηλ του φροφητου, by Daniel the prophet. That the above reading gives the true sense, there can be little doubt, because it is countenanced by the most eminent ancient versions.

The Vulgate reads, Et erit in templo abominatio, "And in the temple there shall be abomination."

The Septuagint, Και επι το ἱερον βδελυγμα των ερημωσεων, "And upon the temple there shall be the abomination of desolation."

The Arabic, "And upon the sanctuary there shall be the abomination of ruin."

The above reading is celebrated by J. D. Michaelis, Epist. De Ebdom. Dan., p. 120: Vix insignius exemplum reperiri posse autumem, ostensuro in codicibus Hebraeis latere lectiones dignissimas quae eruantur, etc. "A more illustrious example can, I think, hardly be found, to show that various readings lie hid in Hebrew MSS., which are most worthy of being exhibited." Vid. Bib. Hebrews Kennicott, Dis. Gen.

I have only to add that this mode of reckoning years and periods by weeks is not solely Jewish. Macrobius, in his book on Scipio's dream, has these remarkable words: Sed a sexta usque ad septimam septimanam fit quidem diminutio, sed occulta, et quae detrimentum suum aperta defectione non prodat: ideo nonnullarum rerumpublicarum hic mos est, ut post sextam ad militiam nemo cogatur; Somn. Scip., lib. 1 c. vi., in fine. "From the sixth to the seventh week, there is a diminution of strength; but it is hidden, and does not manifest itself by any outward defect. Hence it was the custom in some republics not to oblige a man to go to the wars after the sixth week, i.e., after forty-two years of age."

Various Readings of Daniel 9:24-27;

Having now gone through the whole of this important prophecy, and given that interpretation which the original seemed best to warrant, I shall next proceed to notice the principal various readings found in the Collections of Kennicott and De Rossi, with those from my own MSS., which the reader may collate with the words of the common printed text.

Daniel 9:24;

קדשך עיר ועל עמך על נחתך שבעים שבעים

חטאות ולחתם הפשע לכלא

עלמים צדק ולהביא עו ולכפר

קדשים׃ קדש ולמשח ונביא חזו ובצלחתם

Daniel 9:25;

ותשכל ותדע

ירושלם ולבנות להשיב דבר מצא מן

שבעה שבעים נגיד משיח עד

תשוב ושנים ששים ושבעים

העתים׃ ובצוק וחרוץ רחוב ונבנתה

Daniel 9:26;

ושנים ששים השבעים ואחרי

לו ואין משיח יכרת

הבא נגיד עם ישחית והקדש והעיר

בשטף וקצו

שממות׃ נחרצת מלחמה קץ ועד

Daniel 9:27;

אחד שבוע לרבים ברית והגביר

ומנחה זבח ישבית השבוע וחצי

משמם שקוצים כנף ועל

שומם׃ על תתך ונחרצה כלה ועד

Houbigant's Translation of Daniel 9:24-27;

Of the whole passage Houbigant gives the following translation: -

Daniel 9:24;

    Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and the city of thy sanctuary:

    That sin may be restrained, and transgressions have an end;

    That iniquity may be expiated, and an everlasting righteousness brought in;

    That visions and prophecies may be sealed up, and the Holy of holies anointed.

Daniel 9:25;
    Know therefore and understand: -

    From the edict which shall be promulgated, to return and rebuild Jerusalem, there shall be seven weeks.

    Then it shall be fully rebuilt, with anxiety, in difficult times.

    Thence, to the Prince Messiah, there shall be sixty-two weeks.

Daniel 9:26;
    And after sixty-two weeks the Messiah shall be slain, and have no justice.

    Afterwards he shall waste the city and the sanctuary, by the prince that is to come.

    And his end shall be in straits; and to the end of the war desolation is appointed.

Daniel 9:27;
    And for one week he shall confirm a covenant with many;

    And in the middle of the week he shall abrogate sacrifice and offering; And in the temple there shall be the abomination of desolation,

    Until the ruin which is decreed rush on after the desolation.

    In this translation there are some peculiarities.

Instead of "the street shall be built again, and the wall," Daniel 9:26, he translates וחרוץ רחוב (with the prefix ב beth instead of ו vau in the latter word), "it shall be fully (the city and all its walls) rebuilt with anxiety."

Instead of לו ואי "but not for himself," he translates, "Nor shall justice be done him;" supposing that די "justice" was originally in the verse.

Instead of "the people of the prince," Daniel 9:26, he translates "by the prince," using עם im as a preposition, instead of עם am, "the people."

Instead of "and for the overspreading," he translates כנף ועל "in the temple;" following the Septuagint, και επι το ἱερον . This rendering is at least as good as ours: but see the marginal readings here, and the preceding notes.

Houbigant contends also that the arrangement of the several members in these passages is confused. He proposes one alteration, which is important, viz., From the promulgation of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem shall be seven weeks; and unto Messiah the prince, sixty-two weeks. All these alterations he vindicates in his notes at the end of this chapter. In the text I have inserted Houbigant's dots, or marks of distinction between the different members of the verses.

Various Readings

Daniel 9:24;

שבעים שבוים weeks written full, so to prevent mistakes, in thirteen of Kennicott's, four of De Rossi's, and one ancient of my own.

שבעים Seventy-one of Kennicott's, and one of De Rossi's, have שבועים "weeks, weeks, weeks;" that is, "many weeks:" but this is a mere mistake.

לכלא "to restrain." לכלח "to consume," is the reading of twenty-nine of Kennicott's, thirteen of De Rossi's, and one ancient of my own.

ולחתם "and to seal up." Forty-three of Kennicott's, twelve of De Rossi's, and one of my own, have ולחתם "to make an end." One reads ולחתום , more full.

חטאות "sins." חטאת "sin," in the singular, is the reading of twenty-six of De Rossi's; and so, in the second instance where this word occurs, two of my MSS.

עלמים "everlasting." Two of my oldest MSS read שלמים , and so in the next instance.

ונביא "and the prophet." The conjunction is omitted by two of Kennicott's.

ותשכל "and understand." One of my MSS. has ותשכיל .

Daniel 9:25;

מוצא מן "from the publication." One MS. of De Rossi's omits the מן "from," and instead of either, one of my oldest MSS. has למוצא "to the publication."

משיה "Messiah." Nine MSS. read the word with the point sheva, which makes it read, in regimine, "the anointed of the prince." But this is evidently the effect of carelessness, or rather design.

שבעה "seven." Two MSS. add the conjunction ו vau, "and."

ולבנות "and to build." One of mine omits the conjunction.

שבעה שבעים "seven weeks." One of Kennicott's has שבה שבעים "seventy years."

ושבעים "and weeks." One of Kennicott's has ושבוע and a week."

ששים "sixty." A few add the conjunction ו vau, "and sixty;" and another has ששה "six;" and another שבעים "seventy." Wherever this word signifies weeks, two of my oldest MSS. write it full שבועים . In one of my MSS. ששים השבועים are omitted in the text, but added by a later hand in the margin.

וחרוץ "and the ditch." One MS. has העיר "the city." And for רחב "street," one of mine has רחוב of the same meaning, but more full.

ובצוק "and in straits," or anxiety. One MS. without and, as the Vulgate and Septuagint.

Daniel 9:26;

והקדש "and the holy place or sanctuary." But two of my most ancient MSS., and four of Kennicott's, leave out the ו vau, and read הקדש והעיר "and the holy city," or "city of holiness," instead of "the city and sanctuary." In one MS. ו is omitted in והעיר .

וקצו "and its end." One MS. omits the conjunction ו and; one omits the following קץ "the end;" reading thus:" and unto the war." But a more singular reading is that of one of my own MSS. written about a.d. 1136, which has וקיצו "and its summer."

ששים "sixty." But one of Kennicott's MSS. has שבעים ששים "sixty weeks;" and another adds the conjunction, And sixty.

ישחית shall destroy." But one of De Rossi's has ישחת "shall be destroyed."

עם "the people." עם im, "with," is the reading of one of Kennicott's, with the Septuagint, Theodotion, Syriac, Hexapla, Vulgate, and Arabic.

בשטף "with a flood." One MS. has השטף "the flood."

כנף ועל "and upon the wing." Nearly twenty MSS. have ועד "and unto," etc.

Daniel 9:27;

קץ ועד "and unto the end." עד־ "to the end;" and one has ועל "and upon."

קץ "the end." One has עת "the time;" and another both, קץ עת "the time of the end."

שקוצים כנף ועל "and upon the wing (or battlement) abomination." Instead of this, one of the Parisian MSS. numbered three hundred and thirteen in Kennicott's, has שיקוץ יהיה ובהיכל "and in the temple there shall be abomination." See the preceding notes. This is a similar reading to Theodotion, the Vulgate, Septuagint, Syriac, Hexapla, and the Arabic; and is countenanced by our Lord, Matthew 24:15. After all that has been said on this reading, (which may be genuine, but is less liable to suspicion, as the MS. appears to be the work of some Christian; it is written from the left to the right hand, and is accompanied by the Vulgate Latin), if this be an attempt to accommodate the Hebrew to the Vulgate, it should be stated that they who have examined this MS. closely, have asserted that there is no evidence that the writer has endeavored to conform the Hebrew to the Latin text, unless this be accounted such. The ancient versions give this reading great credit.

שקוצים "abominations." One of mine has less fully שקצים .

משמם "desolation." One of mine has more fully משימם .

ועד "and unto," is wanting in one of mine;

ועל "and upon" is the reading in one other.

שומם על "until the desolation." שומם "the desolation." One of mine has שמם without the ו vau . על is wanting; but is added in the margin, by a later hand, in another of these ancient MSS.

I have thus set down almost all the variations mentioned by Kennicott and De Rossi, and those furnished by three ancient MSS. of my own, that the learned reader may avail himself of every help to examine thoroughly this important prophecy. Upwards of thirty various readings in the compass of four verses, and several of them of great moment.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliographical Information
Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "The Adam Clarke Commentary". 1832.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

And he shall confirm the covenant - literally, “he shall make strong” - והגביר vehı̂gebı̂yr The idea is that of giving strength, or stability; of making firm and sure. The Hebrew word here evidently refers to the “covenant” which God is said to establish with his people - so often referred to in the Scriptures as expressing the relation between Him and them, and hence used, in general, to denote the laws and institutions of the true religion - the laws which God has made for his church; his promises to be their protector, etc., and the institutions which grow out of that relation. The margin reads it, more in accordance with the Hebrew, “a,” meaning that he would confirm or establish “a covenant” with the many. According to this, it is not necessary to suppose that it was any existing covenant that it referred to, but that he would ratify what was understood by the word “covenant;” that is, that he would lead many to enter into a true and real covenant with God. This would be fulfilled if he should perform such a work as would bring the “many” into a relation to God corresponding to what was sustained to him by his ancient people; that is, bring them to be his true friends and worshippers.

The meaning of the expression here cannot be mistaken, that during the time specified, “he” (whoever may be referred to) would, for “one week” - pursue such a course as would tend to establish the true religion; to render it more stable and firm; to give it higher sanctions in the approbation of the “many,” and to bring it to bear more decidedly and powerfully on the heart. Whether this would be by some law enacted in its favor; or by protection extended over the nation; or by present example; or by instruction; or by some work of a new kind, and new influences which he would set forth, is not mentioned, and beforehand perhaps it could not have been well anticipated in what way this would be. There has been a difference of opinion, however, as to the proper nominative to the verb “confirm” - הגביר hı̂gebı̂yr - whether it is the Messiah, or the foreign prince, or the “one week.” Hengstenberg prefers the latter, and renders it, “And one week shall confirm the covenant; with many.”

So also Lengerke renders it. Bertholdt renders it “he,” that is, “he shall unite himself firmly with many for one week” - or, a period of seven years, ein Jahrsiebend lang. It seems to me that it is an unnatural construction to make the word “week” the nominative to the verb, and that the more obvious interpretation is to refer it to some person to whom the whole subject relates. It is not usual to represent time as an agent in accomplishing a work. In poetic and metaphorical language, indeed, we personate time as cutting down men, as a destroyer, &e., but this usage would not justify the expression that “time would confirm a covenant with many.” That is, evidently, the work of conscious, intelligent agent; and it is most natural, therefore, to understand this as of one of the two agents who are spoken of in the passage. These two agents are the “Messiah,” and the “prince that should come.”

But it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter is referred to, because it is said Daniel 9:26 that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to “destroy the city and the sanctuary.” He was to come “with a flood,” and the effect of his coming would be only desolation. The more correct interpretation, therefore, is to refer it to the Messiah, who is the principal subject of the prophecy; and the work which, according to this, he was to perform was, during that “one week,” to exert such an influence as would tend to establish a covenant between the people and God. The effect of his work during that one week would be to secure their adhesion to the “true religion;” to confirm to them the Divine promises, and to establish the principles of that religion which would lead them to God. Nothing is said of the mode by which that would be done; and anything, therefore, which would secure this would be a fulfillment of the prophecy. As a matter of fact, if it refers to the Lord Jesus, this was done by his personal instructions, his example, his sufferings and death, and the arrangements which he made to secure the proper effect of his work on the minds of the people - all designed to procure for them the friendship and favor of God, and to unite them to him in the bonds of an enduring covenant.

With many - לרבים lârabı̂ym Or, for many; or, unto many. He would perform a work which would pertain to many, or which would bear on many, leading them to God. There is nothing in the word here which would indicate who they were, whether his own immediate followers, or those who already were in the covenant. The simple idea is, that this would pertain to “many” persons, and it would be fulfilled if the effect of his work were to confirm “many” who were already in the covenant, or if he should bring “many” others into a covenant relation with God. Nothing could be determined from the meaning of the word used here as to which of these things was designed, and consequently a fair fulfillment would be found if either of them occurred. If it refers to the Messiah, it would be fulfilled if in fact the effect of his coming should be either by statute or by instructions to confirm and establish those who already sustained this relation to God, or if he gathered other followers, and confirmed them in their allegiance to God.

For one week - The fair interpretation of this, according to the principles adopted throughout this exposition, is, that this includes the space of seven years. See the notes at Daniel 9:24. This is the one week that makes up the seventy - seven of them, or forty-nine years, embracing the period from the command to rebuild the city and temple to its completion under Nehemiah; sixty-two, or four hundred and thirty-four years, to the public appearing of the Messiah, and this one week to complete the whole seventy, or four hundred and ninety years “to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,” etc., Daniel 9:24. It is essential, therefore, to find something done, occupying these seven years, that would go to “confirm the covenant” in the sense above explained. In the consideration of this, the attention is arrested by the announcement of an important event which was to occur “in the midst of the week,” to wit, in causing the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, showing that there was to be an important change occurring during the “week,” or that while he would be, in fact, confirming the covenant through the week in some proper sense, the sacrifice and oblation would cease, and therefore the confirming of the many in the covenant must depend on something else than the continuation of the sacrifice and oblation. In regard to this language, as in respect to all the rest of the prophecy, there are, in fact, just two questions: one is, what is fairly to be understood by the words, or what is the proper interpretation, independent of anything in the result; the other is, whether anything occurred in what is regarded as the fulfillment which corresponds with the language so interpreted.

(1) The first inquiry then, is, What is the fair meaning of the language? Or what would one who had a correct knowledge of the proper principles of interpretation understand by this? Now, in regard to this, while it may be admitted, perhaps, that there would be some liability to a difference of view in interpreting it with no reference to the event, or no shaping of its meaning by the event, the following things seem to be clear:

(a) that the “one week,” would comprise seven years, immediately succeeding the appearance of the Messiah, or the sixty-two weeks, and that there was something which he would do in “confirming the covenant,” or in establishing the principles of religion, which would extend through that period of seven years, or that that would be, in some proper sense, “a period” of time, having a beginning - to wit, his appearing, and some proper close or termination at the end of the seven years: that is, that there would be some reason why that should be a marked period, or why the whole should terminate there, and not at some other time.

(b) That in the middle of that period of seven years, another important event would occur, serving to divide that time into two portions, and especially to be known as causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease; in some way affecting the public offering of sacrifice, so that from that time there would be in fact a cessation.

(c) And that this would be succeeded by the consummation of the whole matter expressed in the words, “and for the overspreading of abomination he shall make it desolate,” etc. It is not said, however, that this latter would immediately occur, but this would be one of the events that would pertain to the fulfillment of the prophecy. There is nothing, indeed, in the prediction to forbid the expectation that this would occur at once, nor is there anything in the words which makes it imperative that we should so understand it. It may be admitted that this would be the most natural interpretation, but it cannot be shown that that is required. It may be added, also, that this may not have pertained to the direct design of the prophecy - which was to foretell the coming of the Messiah, but that this was appended to show the end of the whole thing. When the Messiah should have come, and should have made an atonement for sin, the great design of rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple would have been accomplished, and both might pass away. Whether that would occur immediately or not might be in itself a matter of indifference; but it was important to state here that it would occur, for that was properly a completion of the design of rebuilding the city, and of the purpose for which it had ever been set apart as a holy city.

(2) The other inquiry is whether there was that in what is regarded as the fulfillment of this, which fairly corresponds with the prediction. I have attempted above (on Daniel 9:25) to show that this refers to the Messiah properly so called - the Lord Jesus Christ. The inquiry now is, therefore, whether we can find in his life and death what is a fair fulfillment of these reasonable expectations. In order to see this, it is proper to review these points in their order:

(a) The period, then, which is embraced in the prophecy, is seven years, and it is necessary to find in his life and work something which would be accomplished during these seven years which could be properly referred to as “confirming the covenant with many.” The main difficulty in the case is on this point, and I acknowledge that this seems to me to be the most embarrassing portion of the prophecy, and that the solutions which can be given of this are less satisfactory than those that pertain to any other part. Were it not that the remarkable clause “in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” were added, I admit that the natural interpretation would be, that he would do this personally, and that we might look for something which he would himself accomplish during the whole period of seven years. That clause, however, looks as if some remarkable event were to occur in the middle of that period, for the fact that he would tense the sacrifice and oblation to cease - that is, would bring the rites of the temple to a close - shows that what is meant by “confirming the covenant” is different from the ordinary worship under the ancient economy. No Jew would think of expressing himself thus, or would see how it was practicable to “confirm the covenant” at the same time that all his sacrifices were to cease. The confirming of the covenant, therefore, during that “one week,” must be consistent with some work or event that would cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease in the middle of that period.

(b) The true fulfillment, it seems to me, is to be found in the bearing of the work of the Saviour on the Hebrew people - the ancient covenant people of God - for about the period of seven years after he entered on his work. Then the particular relation of his work to the Jewish people ceased. It may not be practicable to make out the exact time of “seven years” in reference to this, and it may be admitted that this would not be understood from the prophecy before the things occurred; but still there are a number of circumstances which will show that this interpretation is not only plausibIe, but that it has in its very nature strong probability in its favor. They are such as these:

(1) The ministry of the Saviour himself was wholly among the Jews, and his work was what would, in their common language, be spoken of as “confirming the covenant; “that is, it would be strengthening the principles of religion, bringing the Divine promises to bear on the mind, and leading men to God, etc.

(2) This same work was continued by the apostles as they labored among the Jews. They endeavored to do the same thing that their Lord and Master had done, with all the additional sanctions, now derived from his life and death. The whole tendency of their ministry would have been properly expressed in this language: that they endeavored to “confirm the covenant” with the Hebrew people; that is, to bring them to just views of the character of their natural covenant with God; to show them how it was confirmed in the Messiah; to establish the ancient promises; and to bring to bear upon them the sanctions of their law as it was now fulfilled, and ratified, and enlarged through the Messiah. Had the Saviour himself succeeded in this, or had his apostles, it would have been, in fact, only “confirming the ancient covenant” - the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the covenant established under Moses, and ratified by so many laws and customs among the people. The whole bearing of the Saviour‘s instructions, and of his followers, was to carry out and fulfill the real design of that ancient institution - to show its true nature and meaning, and to impress it on the hearts of men

(3) This was continued for about the period here referred to; at least for a period so long that it could properly be represented in round numbers as “one week,” or seven years. The Saviour‘s own ministry continued about half that time; and then the apostles prosecuted the same work, laboring with the Jews for about the other portion, before they turned their attention to the Gentiles, and before the purpose to endearour to bring in the Jewish people was abandoned. They remained in Jerusalem; they preached in the synagogues; they observed the rites of the temple service; they directed their first attention everywhere to the Hebrew people; they had not yet learned that they were to turn away from the “covenant people,” and to go to the Gentiles. It was a slow process by which they were led to this. It required a miracle to convince Peter of it, and to show him that it was right to go to Cornelius Daniel 9:25.

(4) When this occurred; when the apostles turned away from the Hebrew people, and gave themselves to their labors among the Gentiles, the work of “confirming the covenant” with those to whom the promises had been made, and to whom the law was given, ceased. They were regarded as “broken off” and left, and the hope of success was in the Gentile world. See the reasoning of the apostle Paul in Exodus 24:6; Numbers 12:12; then the middle, or the midst, Judges 16:3. The Vulgate renders it, in dimidio; the Greek, ἐν τῳ ἡμίσει en tō hēmisei Hengstenberg, “the half.” So Lengerke, die Halfte; Luther, mitten. The natural and obvious interpretation is what is expressed in our translation, and that will convey the essential idea in the original. It refers to something which was to occur at about the middle portion of this time, or when about half of this period was elapsed, or to something which it would require half of the “one week,” or seven years, to accomplish. The meaning of the passage is fully met by the supposition that it refers to the Lord Jesus and his work, and that the exact thing that was intended by the prophecy was his death, or his being “cut off,” and thus causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease.

Whatever difficulties there may be about the “precise” time of our Lord‘s ministry, and whether he celebrated three passovers or four after he entered on his public work, it is agreed on all hands that it lasted about three years and a half - the time referred to here. Though a few have supposed that a longer period was occupied, yet the general belief of the church has coincided in that, and there are few points in history better settled. On the supposition that this pertains to the death of the Lord Jesus, and that it was the design of the prophecy here to refer to the effects of that death, this is the very language which would have been used. If the period of “a week” were for any purpose mentioned, then it would be indispensable to suppose that there would be an allusion to the important event - in fact, the great event which was to occur in the middle of that period, when the ends of the types and ceremonies of the Hebrew people would be accomplished, and a sacrifice made for the sins of the whole world.

He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease - The word “he,” in this place, refers to the Messiah, if the interpretation of the former part of the verse is correct, for there can be no doubt that it is the same person who is mentioned in the phrase “he shall confirm the covenant with many.” The words “sacrifice” and “oblation” refer to the offerings made in the temple. The former word more properly denotes “bloody” offerings; the latter “offerings” of any kind - whether of flour, fruits, grain, etc. See these words explained in the notes at Isaiah 1:11, Isaiah 1:13. The word rendered “cease” (ישׁבית yashebı̂yt ) means, properly, to rest (from the word Sabbath), and then in Hiphil, to cause to rest, or to cause to cease. It conveys the idea of “putting an end to” - as, for example, “war,” Psalm 46:9; “contention,” Proverbs 18:18; “exultation,” Isaiah 16:10. - Gesenius. The literal signification here would be met by the supposition that an end would be made of these sacrifices, and this would occur either by their being made wholly to cease to be offered at that time, or by the fact that the object of their appointment was accomplished, and that henceforward they would be useless and would die away.

As a matter of fact, so far as the Divine intention in the appointment of these sacrifices and offerings was concerned, they “ceased” at the death of Christ - in the middle of the “week.” Then the great sacrifice which they had adumbrated was offered. Then they ceased to have any significancy, no reason existing for their longer continuance. Then, as they never had had any efficacy in themselves, they ceased also to have any propriety as types - for the thing which they had prefigured had been accomplished. Then, too, began a series of events and influences which led to their abolition, for soon they were interrupted by the Romans, and the temple and the altars were swept away to be rebuilt no more. The death of Christ was, in fact, the thing which made them to cease, and the fact that the great atonement has been made, and that there is now no further need of those offerings, is the only philosophical reason which can be given why the Jews have never been able again to rebuild the temple, and why for eighteen hundred years they have found no place where they could again offer a bloody sacrifice. The “sacrifice and the oblation” were made, as the result of the coming of the Messiah, to “cease” for ever, and no power of man will be able to restore them again in Jerusalem. Compare Gibbon‘s account of the attempt of Julian to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem: Dec. and Fall, ii. 35-37.

And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate - The marginal reading here is very different, showing clearly the perplexity of the translators: “Upon the battlements shall be the idols of the desolator.” There is great variety, also, in the ancient versions in rendering this passage. The Latin Vulgate is, “And there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation.” The Greek, “And upon the temple shall be an abomination of desolations.” The Syriac. “And upon the extremities of the abomination shall rest desolation.” The Arabic, “And over the sanctuary shall there be the abomination of ruin.” Luther renders it, “And upon the wings shall stand the abomination of desolation.” Lengerke and Hengstenberg render it, “And upon the summit of abomination comes the destroyer.” Prof. Stuart, “And the water shall be over a winged fowl of abominations.” These different translations show that there is great obscurity in the original, and perhaps exclude the hope of being able entirely to free the passage from all difficulties. An examination of the words, however, may perhaps enable us to form a judgment of its meaning. The “literal” and “obvious” sense of the original, as I understand it, is, “And upon the wing of the abominations one causing desolation” - משׁמם שׁקיצים כנף ועל ve‛al kenap shı̂qqytsı̂ym meshomēm The word rendered “overspreading” (כנף kânâp ) means, properly, a “wing;” so called as “covering,” or because it “covers” - from כנף kânap ), to cover, to hide. Then it denotes anything having a resemblance to a wing, as an extremity, a corner, as

(a) of a garment, the skirt, or flap, 1 Samuel 24:4 (5), 11 (12); Numbers 15:38, and hence, as the outer garment was used by the Orientals to wrap themselves in at night, the word is used for the extremity or border of a bed-covering, Deuteronomy 22:30 Deuteronomy 23:1; Rth 3:9 .

(b) It is applied to land, or to the earth - as the earth is compared with a garment spread out, Isaiah 24:16; Job 37:3; Job 38:13.

(c) It is used to denote the highest point, or a battlement, a pinnacle - as having a resemblance to a wing spread out.

So the word πτερύγιον pterugion is used in Matthew 4:5. See the notes at that passage. It would seem most probable that the allusion by the word as applied to a building would not be, as supposed by Gesenius (Lexicon), and by Hengstenberg and Lengerke, to the “pinnacle or summit,” but to some roof, porch, or piazza that had a resemblance to the wings of a bird as spread out - a use of the word that would be very natural and obvious. The extended porch that Solomon built on the eastern side of the temple would, not improbably, have, to one standing on the opposite Mount of Olives, much the appearance of the wings of a bird spread out. Nothing certain can be determined about the allusion here from the use of this word, but the connection would lead us to suppose that the reference was to something pertaining to the city or temple, for the whole prophecy has a reference to the city and temple, and it is natural to suppose that in its close there would be an allusion to it.

The use of the word “wing” here would lead to the supposition that what is said would pertain to something in connection with the temple having a resemblance to the wings of a bird, and the word “upon” (על ‛al ) would lead us to suppose that what was to occur would be somehow upon that. The word rendered “abominations” (שׁקוּצים shı̂qqûtsı̂ym ) means “abominable” things, things to be held in detestation, as things unclean, filthy garments, etc., and then idols, as things that are to be held in abhorrence. The word שׁקוּץ shı̂qûts is rendered abomination in Deuteronomy 29:17; 1 Kings 11:5, 1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 23:13, 2 Kings 23:24; Isaiah 66:3; Jeremiah 4:1; Jeremiah 7:30; Jeremiah 13:27; Jeremiah 32:34; Ezekiel 5:11; Ezekiel 7:20; Ezekiel 20:7-8, Ezekiel 20:30; Daniel 9:27; Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11; Hosea 9:10; Zechariah 9:7; abominable idols in 2 Chronicles 15:8 (in the margin abominations); “detestable” in Jeremiah 16:18; Ezekiel 11:18, Ezekiel 11:21; Ezekiel 37:23; and “abominable filth” in Nahum 3:6. It does not occur elsewhere.

In most of these places it is applied to “idols,” and the current usage would lead us so to apply it, if there were nothing in the connection to demand a different interpretation. It might refer to anything that was held in abomination, or that was detestable and offensive. The word is one that might be used of an idol god, or of anything that would pollute or defile, or that was from any cause offensive. It is not used in the Old Testament with reference to a “banner or military standard,” but there can be no doubt that it might be so applied as denoting the standard of a foe - of a pagan - planted on any part of the temple - a thing which would be particularly detestable and abominable in the sight of the Jews. The word rendered “he shall make IT desolate” - משׁמם meshomēm - is “he making desolate;” that is, “a desolator.” It is a Poel participle from שׁמם shâmēm - to be astonished, to be laid waste; and then, in an active sense, to lay waste, to make desolate. - Gesenius. The same word, and the same phrase, occur in Daniel 11:31: “And they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate,” or, as it is in the margin, “astonisheth.”

There, also, the expression is used in connection with “taking away the daily sacrifices.” The word would be more properly rendered in this place “desolator,” referring to some one who would produce desolation. There is great abruptness in the entire expression, and it is evident that it was not the intention to give so clear a prediction in this that it could be fully understood beforehand. The other portions of the prophecy respecting the building of the city, and the coming of the Messiah, and the work that he would accomplish, are much more clear, and their meaning could have been made out with much more certainty. But, in reference to this, it would seem, perhaps, that all that was designed was to throw out suggestions - fragments of thought, that would rather hint at the subject than give any continuous idea. Perhaps a much more “abrupt” method of translation than what attempts to express it in a continuous grammatical construction capable of being parsed easily, would better express the state of the mind of the speaker, and the language which he uses, than the ordinary versions.

The Masoretic pointing, also, may be disregarded, and then the real idea would be better expressed by some such translation as the following: “He shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. And - upon the wing - the porch of the temple - abominations! And a desolator!” That is, after the ceasing of the sacrifice and the oblation, the mind is fixed upon the temple where they had been offered. The first thing that arrests the eye is some portion of the temple, here denoted by the word “wing.” The next is something abominable or detestable - an object to be hated and loathed in the very temple itself. The next is a desolator - one who had come to carry desolation to that very temple. Whether the “abomination” is connected with the “desolator” or not is not intimated by the language. It might or might not be. The angel uses language as these objects strike the eye, and he expresses himself in this abrupt manner as the eye rests on one or the other. The question then arises, What does this mean? Or what is to be regarded as the proper fulfillment? It seems to me that there can be no doubt that there is a reference to the Roman standard or banners planted on some part of the temple, or to the Roman army, or to some idols set up by the Romans - objects of abomination to the Jews - as attracting the eye of the angel in the distant future, and as indicating the close of the series of events here referred to in the prophecy. The reasons for this opinion are, summarily, the following:

(a) The “place or order” in which the passage stands in the prophecy. It is “after” the coming of the Messiah; “after” the proper cessation of the sacrifice and oblation, and at the close of the whole series of events - the termination of the whole design about rebuilding the city and the temple.

(b) The “language” is such as would properly represent that. Nothing could be more appropriate, in the common estimation of the Jews, than to speak of such an object as a Roman military standard planted in any part of the temple, as an “abomination,;” and no word would better denote the character of the Roman conqueror than the word “desolator” - for the effect of his coming, was to lay the whole city and temple in ruins.

(c) The language of the Saviour in his reference to this would seem to demand such an interpretation, Matthew 24:15: “When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place,” etc. There can be no reasonable doubt. that the Saviour refers to this passage in Daniel (see the notes at Matthew 24:15), or that events occurred in the attack on Jerusalem and the temple that would fully correspond with the language used here. Josephus, for instance, says, that when the city was taken, the Romans brought their ensigns into the temple, and placed them over the eastern gate, and sacrificed to them there. “And now the Romans,” says he, “upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns into the temple, and set them over against its eastern gate; and there they did offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus “Imperator” with the greatest acclamations of joy.” - “Jewish Wars,” b. vi. ch. vi. Section 1. This fact fully accords with the meaning of the language as above explained, and the reference to it was demanded in order that the purpose of the prophecy should be complete. Its proper termination is the destruction of the city and temple - as its beginning is the order to rebuild them.

Even until the consummation - Until the completion - ועד־כלה ye‛ad -kâlâh That is, the series of events in the prophecy shall in fact reach to the completion of everything pertaining to the city and temple. The whole purpose in regard to that shall be completed. The design for which it is robe rebuilt shall be consummated; the sacrifices to be offered there shall be finished, and they shall be no longer efficacious or proper; the whole civil and religious polity connected with the city and temple shall pass away.

And that determined - ונחרצה venechĕrâtsâh See this word explained in the notes at Daniel 9:24, Daniel 9:26. See also the notes at Isaiah 10:23. There seems to be an allusion in the word here to its former use, as denoting that this is the fulfillment of the determination in regard to the city and temple. The idea is, that what was determined, or decided on, to wit, with reference to the closing scenes of the city and temple, would be accomplished.

Shall be poured - תתך tı̂ttak The word used here means to pour, to pour out, to overflow - as rain, water, curses, anger, etc. It may be properly applied to calamity or desolation, as these things may be represented as “poured down” upon a people, in the manner of a storm. Compare 2 Samuel 21:10; Exodus 9:33; Psalm 11:6; Ezekiel 38:22; 2 Chronicles 34:21; 2 Chronicles 12:7; Jeremiah 7:20; Jeremiah 42:18; Jeremiah 44:6.

Upon the desolate - Margin, desolator. The Hebrew word (שׁומם shômēm ) is the same, though in another form (כל kal instead of פל pēl ) which is used in the previous part of the verse, and rendered “he shall make it desolate,” but which is proposed above to be rendered “desolator.” The verb שׁמם shâmēm is an intransitive verb, and means, in “Kal,” the form used here, to be astonished or amazed; then “to be laid waste, to be made desolate” (Gesenius); and the meaning in this place, therefore, is that which is desolate or laid waste - the wasted, the perishing, the solitary. The reference is to Jerusalem viewed as desolate or reduced to ruins. The angel perhaps contemplates it, as he is speaking, in ruins or as desolate, and he sees this also as the termination of the entire series of predictions, and, in view of the whole, speaks of Jerusalem appropriately as “the desolate.”

Though it would be rebuilt, yet it would be again reduced to desolation, for the purpose of the rebuilding - the coming of the Messiah - would be accomplished. As the prophecy finds Jerusalem a scene of ruins, so it leaves it, and the last word in the prophecy, therefore, is appropriately the word “desolate.” The intermediate state indeed between the condition of the city as seen at first and at the close is glorious - for it embraces the whole work of the Messiah; but the beginning is a scene of ruins, and so is the close. The sum of the whole in the latter part of the verse may be expressed in a free paraphrase: “He, the Messiah, shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” by having fulfilled in his own dcath the design of the ancient offerings, thus rendering them now useless, and upon the outspreading - upon the temple regarded as spread out, or some wing or portico, there are seen abominable things - idolatrous ensigns, and the worship of foreigners. A desolator is there, also, come to spread destruction - a foreign army or leader. And this shall continue even to the end of the whole matter - the end of the events contemplated by the prophecy - the end of the city and the temple. And what is determined on - the destruction decreed - shall be poured out like a tempest on the city doomed to desolation - desolate as surveyed at the beginning of the prophecy - desolate at the close, and therefore appropriately called “the desolate.”

After this protracted examination of the meaning of this prophecy, all the remark which it seems proper to make is, that this prediction could have been the result only of inspiration. There is the clearest evidence that the prophecy was recorded long before the time of the Messiah, and it is manifest that it could not have been the result of any natural sagacity. There is not the slightest proof that it was uttered as late as the coming of Christ, and there is nothing better determined in relation to any ancient matter than that it was recorded long before the birth of the Lord Jesus. But it is equally clear that it could have been the result of no mere natural sagacity. How could such events have been foreseen except by Him who knows all things? How could the order have been determined? How could the time have been fixed? How could it have been anticipated that the Messiah, the Prince, would be cut off? How could it have been known that he would cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease? How could it have been ascertained that the period during which he would be engaged in this would be one week - or about seven years? How could it be predicted that a remarkable event would occur in the middle of that period that would in fact cause the sacrifice and oblation ultimately to cease? And how could it be conjectured that a foreign prince would come, and plant the standard of abomination in the holy city, and sweep all away - laying the city and the temple in ruins, and bringing the whole polity to an end? These things lie beyond the range of natural sagacity, and if they are fairly implied in this prophecy, they demonstrate that this portion of the book is from God.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliographical Information
Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible". 1870.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week,.... Sixty nine of the seventy weeks being accounted for, and the several events observed to be fulfilled in them; the angel proceeds to take notice of the remaining "one" week, or seven years, and what should be done within that space of time: a covenant should be confirmed with many; which is not to be understood of the Messiah's confirming the covenant of grace with many, or on account of all his people, by fulfilling the conditions of it, and by his blood and sacrifice, through which all the blessings of it come to them; for this is not for one week only, but for ever; but this is to be interpreted of the Roman people, spoken of in the latter part of the preceding verse; who, in order to accomplish their design to destroy the city and temple of Jerusalem, made peace with many nations, entered into covenant and alliance with them, particularly the Medes, Parthians, and Armenians, for the space of one week, or seven years; as it appears they did at the beginning of this weekF12See Marshall's Chron. Treat. p. 271. :

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; the daily sacrifice of the Jews, and all their other offerings; and which was literally fulfilled "in the half part"F13וחצי השבוע "et in dimidio hebdomadis", Montanus, Michaelis; "dimidio septimanae", Cocceius. of this week, as it may be rendered; towards the close of the latter half of it, when the city of Jerusalem, being closely besieged by Titus, what through the closeness of the siege, the divisions of the people, and the want both of time and men, and beasts to offer, the daily sacrifice ceased, as JosephusF14De Bello, Jud. l. 6. c. 2. says, to the great grief of the people; nor have the Jews, ever since the destruction of their city and temple, offered any sacrifice, esteeming it unlawful so to do in a strange land:

and at the same time, in the same half part of the week,

for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate; that is, the Roman people shall make the land of Judea desolate, for the overspreading of their abominations or idolatries in it. The words may be rendered, as by some, "upon the wing", the battlements of the temple,

shall be the abominations, or "idols of the desolator", or "of him that makes desolate"F15ועל כנף שקצים משומם "desolator", Piscator, Gejerus; "desolans", Covveius; "stupefaciens", Montanus. ; so Bishop Lloyd; meaning either the ensigns of the Roman army, which had upon them the images of their gods or emperors; and being set up in the holy place, and sacrificed to, nothing could be a greater abomination to the Jews; or else the blood of the zealots slain on these battlements, by which the holy place was polluted; see Matthew 24:15,

even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate; that is, either these abominations shall continue in the place where they are set until the utter destruction of the city and temple; or the desolation made there should continue until the consummation of God's wrath and vengeance upon them; until the whole he has determined is poured out on this desolate people; and which continues unto this day, and will till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, Luke 21:24. Some, as Bishop Lloyd, render it, "upon the desolator"F16על שומם "super obstupescentem", Montanus; "in stupendem", Cocceius, ; meaning the Romans; and the sense they take to be is, that this vengeance shall continue upon the Jews until it is turned upon the head of those who have made them desolate: now this "one week", according to the sense given, must begin in the sixty third year of the vulgar era of Christ, about thirty years after the expiration of the sixty nine weeks; since it ends in the seventieth year of the same era, in which was the destruction of Jerusalem, the grand event assigned to it in this famous prophecy; when it might have been expected it should have begun at the end of the sixty nine weeks, and run on in a direct line from them. The true reason of its being thus separated from them is the longsuffering and forbearance of God to the people of the Jews, who gave them, as to the old world, space to repent; but his grace and goodness being slighted, things began to work at the beginning of this week towards their final ruin, which, in the close of it, was fully accomplished: from the whole of this prophecy it clearly appears that the Messiah must be come many hundred years ago. The Jews are sensible of the force of this reasoning; so that, to terrify persons from considering this prophecy, they denounce the following curse, "let them burst, or their bones rot, that compute the times"F17T. Bab. Sanhedrin. fol. 97. 2. . R. Nehemiah, who lived about fifty years before the coming of Christ, declared the time of the Messiah, as signified by Daniel, could not be protracted longer than those fifty yearsF18Apud Grotium de Ver. Rel. Christ l. 5. sect. 14. . The Jews also say the world is divided into six parts, and the last part is from Daniel to the MessiahF19Caphtor Uperah, fol 17. 2. .

Copyright Statement
The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Modernised and adapted for the computer by Larry Pierce of Online Bible. All Rights Reserved, Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario.
A printed copy of this work can be ordered from: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1 Iron Oaks Dr, Paris, AR, 72855
Bibliographical Information
Gill, John. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible". 1999.

Geneva Study Bible

And he a shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to b cease, c and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible". 1599-1645.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

he shall confirm the covenant — Christ. The confirmation of the covenant is assigned to Him also elsewhere. Isaiah 42:6, “I will give thee for a covenant of the people” (that is, He in whom the covenant between Israel and God is personally expressed); compare Luke 22:20, “The new testament in My blood”; Malachi 3:1, “the angel of the covenant”; Jeremiah 31:31-34, describes the Messianic covenant in full. Contrast Daniel 11:30, Daniel 11:32, “forsake the covenant,” “do wickedly against the covenant.” The prophecy as to Messiah‘s confirming the covenant with many would comfort the faithful in Antiochus‘ times, who suffered partly from persecuting enemies, partly from false friends (Daniel 11:33-35). Hence arises the similarity of the language here and in Daniel 11:30, Daniel 11:32, referring to Antiochus, the type of Antichrist.

with many — (Isaiah 53:11; Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:28; Romans 5:15, Romans 5:19; Hebrews 9:28).

in  …  midst of  …  week — The seventy weeks extend to a.d. 33. Israel was not actually destroyed till a.d. 79, but it was so virtually, a.d. 33, about three or four years after Christ‘s death, during which the Gospel was preached exclusively to the Jews. When the Jews persecuted the Church and stoned Stephen (Acts 7:54-60), the respite of grace granted to them was at an end (Luke 13:7-9). Israel, having rejected Christ, was rejected by Christ, and henceforth is counted dead (compare Genesis 2:17 with Genesis 5:5; Hosea 13:1, Hosea 13:2), its actual destruction by Titus being the consummation of the removal of the kingdom of God from Israel to the Gentiles (Matthew 21:43), which is not to be restored until Christ‘s second coming, when Israel shall be at the head of humanity (Matthew 23:39; Acts 1:6, Acts 1:7; Romans 11:25-31; Romans 15:1-32). The interval forms for the covenant-people a great parenthesis.

he shall cause the sacrifice  …  oblation to cease — distinct from the temporary “taking away” of “the daily” (sacrifice) by Antiochus (Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31). Messiah was to cause all sacrifices and oblations in general to “cease” utterly. There is here an allusion only to Antiochus‘ act; to comfort God‘s people when sacrificial worship was to be trodden down, by pointing them to the Messianic time when salvation would fully come and yet temple sacrifices cease. This is the same consolation as Jeremiah and Ezekiel gave under like circumstances, when the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was impending (Jeremiah 3:16; Jeremiah 31:31; Ezekiel 11:19). Jesus died in the middle of the last week, a.d. 30. His prophetic life lasted three and a half years; the very time in which “the saints are given into the hand” of Antichrist (Daniel 7:25). Three and a half does not, like ten, designate the power of the world in its fullness, but (while opposed to the divine, expressed by seven) broken and defeated in its seeming triumph; for immediately after the three and a half times, judgment falls on the victorious world powers (Daniel 7:25, Daniel 7:26). So Jesus‘ death seemed the triumph of the world, but was really its defeat (John 12:31). The rending of the veil marked the cessation of sacrifices through Christ‘s death (Leviticus 4:6, Leviticus 4:17; Leviticus 16:2, Leviticus 16:15; Hebrews 10:14-18). There cannot be a covenant without sacrifice (Genesis 8:20; Genesis 9:17; Genesis 15:9, etc.; Hebrews 9:15). Here the old covenant is to be confirmed, but in a way peculiar to the New Testament, namely, by the one sacrifice, which would terminate all sacrifices (Psalm 40:6, Psalm 40:11). Thus as the Levitical rites approached their end, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, with ever increasing clearness, oppose the spiritual new covenant to the transient earthly elements of the old.

for the overspreading of abominationsOn account of the abominations committed by the unholy people against the Holy One, He shall not only destroy the city and sanctuary (Daniel 9:25), but shall continue its desolation until the time of the consummation “determined” by God (the phrase is quoted from Isaiah 10:22, Isaiah 10:23), when at last the world power shall be judged and dominion be given to the saints of the Most High (Daniel 7:26, Daniel 7:27). Auberlen translates, “On account of the desolating summit of abominations (compare Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11; thus the repetition of the same thing as in Daniel 9:26 is avoided), and till the consummation which is determined, it (the curse, Daniel 9:11, foretold by Moses) will pour on the desolated.” Israel reached the summit of abominations, which drew down desolation (Matthew 24:28), nay, which is the desolation itself, when, after murdering Messiah, they offered sacrifices, Mosaic indeed in form, but heathenish in spirit (compare Isaiah 1:13; Ezekiel 5:11). Christ refers to this passage (Matthew 24:15), “When ye see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place” (the latter words being tacitly implied in “abominations” as being such as are committed against the sanctuary). Tregelles translates, “upon the wing of abominations shall be that which causeth desolation”; namely, an idol set up on a wing or pinnacle of the temple (compare Matthew 4:5) by Antichrist, who makes a covenant with the restored Jews for the last of the seventy weeks of years (fulfilling Jesus‘ words, “If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive”), and for the first three and a half years keeps it, then in the midst of the week breaks it, causing the daily sacrifices to cease. Tregelles thus identifies the last half week with the time, times, and a half of the persecuting little horn (Daniel 7:25). But thus there is a gap of at least 1830 years put between the sixty-nine weeks and the seventieth week. Sir Isaac Newton explains the wing (“overspreading”) of abominations to be the Roman ensigns (eagles) brought to the east gate of the temple, and there sacrificed to by the soldiers; the war, ending in the destruction of Jerusalem, lasted from spring a.d. 67 to autumn a.d. 70, that is, just three and a half years, or the last half week of years [Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6.6].

poured upon the desolate — Tregelles translates, “the causer of desolation,” namely, Antichrist. Compare “abomination that maketh desolate” (Daniel 12:11). Perhaps both interpretations of the whole passage may be in part true; the Roman desolator, Titus, being a type of Antichrist, the final desolator of Jerusalem. Bacon [The Advancement of Learning, 2.3] says, “Prophecies are of the nature of the Author, with whom a thousand years are as one day; and therefore are not fulfilled punctually at once, but have a springing and germinant accomplishment through many years, though the height and fullness of them may refer to one age.”

Copyright Statement
These files are a derivative of an electronic edition prepared from text scanned by Woodside Bible Fellowship.
This expanded edition of the Jameison-Faussett-Brown Commentary is in the public domain and may be freely used and distributed.
Bibliographical Information
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.; Fausset, A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible". 1871-8.

Keil & Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary

This verse contains four statements. - The first is: “ He shall confirm the covenant to many for one week .” Following the example of Theodotion, many (Hהv., Hgstb., Aub., v. Leng., Hitzig, Hofm.) regard אחד שׁבוּע אח 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 בּרית הגבּיר, 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 Daniel 9:25, and are analogous to them, and must therefore be alike interpreted in both passages. But if, notwithstanding these considerations, we make אחד שׁבוּע 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 הגבּיר 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 (Daniel 9:26) was the instrument of the Anointed, and on the passages in Isaiah 53:11; Isaiah 42:6, which are not parallel to that under consideration. The connection much more indicates that Nagid is the subject to הגבּיר, since the prince who was to come is named last, and is also the subject in the suffix of קצּו ( his end ), the last clause of Daniel 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 (Daniel 9:26) of the city and the temple brought about by the הבּא נגיד ;” - further, “he who here is represented as 'causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease' is obviously identical with him who changes (Daniel 7:25) the times and usages of worship (more correctly: times and law)” (Kran.). “The reference of הגבּיר 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. בּרית הגבּיר 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 בּרית הגבּיר with ל is analogous to בּרית כּרּת [ icere faedus ] with ל ; and the construction with ל 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. לרבּים 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. Matthew 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. השׁבוּע חצי 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 חצי here means half, or midst, has no bearing on the matter, and acquires significance only if we interpret חצי, in opposition to the context, as synonymous with בּחצי, or with Klief., which is equally untenable and impossible in this context, regard השׁבוּע חצי as an absolute definition. חצי 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, Exodus 12:29; in the half of the firmament, Joshua 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, Psalms 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 חצי 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 השׁבוּע חצי, to conceive from the connection what shall happen in the remaining period of the שׁבוּע . Yet weaker is the further objection: “that which is mentioned as coming to pass השׁבוּע חצי, 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 השׁבּית 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 השׁבוּע חצי, 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. וּמנחה זבח, 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 התּמיד, Daniel 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, משׁמם שׁקּוּצים כּנף ועל, 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 שׁקּוּצים כּנף 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 כּנף 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 (1 Samuel 15:27; 1 Samuel 24:5; Haggai 2:12), of the uttermost part, end, of the earth, Isaiah 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, Matthew 4:5; Luke 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 כּנף . Accordingly שׁקּוּצים כּנף 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 שׁקּוּצים כּנף . 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” (Matthew 24:15.; Mark 13:14), if it were decided that the Lord had this passage (Daniel 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 Daniel 9:27 (where the lxx and Theod. have the plur. ἐρημώσεων ), but also in Daniel 11:31 ( βδ. ἐρημώσεως ) and Daniel 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 Daniel 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” (Matthew 24:15), can it be proved that Christ had only Daniel 9:27, and not also Daniel 11:31 or Daniel 12:11, before His view. The remark that these words refer to בּדּבר בּין ( understand the matter ), Daniel 9:23, and to ותשׂכּל ותדע ( know, and understand ), does not avail for this purpose, because this reference is not certain, and בּין את־הדּבר dna,n ( and he understood the thing ) is used (Daniel 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 Daniel 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 (Matthew 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 כּנף cannot designate the surface of the altar. In favour of this view the משׁמם השּׁקּוּץ, Daniel 11:31 ( the abomination that maketh desolate ), is principally relied on, in order to establish the connection of משׁמם with שׁקּוּצים ; 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 משׁמם cannot be connected as an adjective with שׁקּוּצים . But the uniting of משׁמם with the noun כּנף gives no meaning, and besides has the parallels Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11 against it. In this passage before us משׁמם 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 משׁמם, desolater, as the Nagid, and to identify the two. The circumstance that it does not refer to it by the article ( המּשׁמם ) is no valid objection, because the article is in no way necessary, as משׁמם is a participle, and can be rendered as such: “on the wings of abomination he comes desolating.” כּנף על can, without ingenuity, be rendered in no other way than on wings . שׁקּוּצים 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 שׁקּוּצים permits us, however, with Reichel, Ebrard, Kliefoth, and Kranichfeld, to think on nothing else than that wings ( כּנף ) are attributed to the שׁקּוּצים . The sing. כּנף does not oppose this, since it is often used collectively in a peculiar and figurative meaning; cf. e.g., כּנף בּעל, Proverbs 1:17, with כּנפים בּעל, Ecclesiastes 10:20, the winged, the bird ; and הארץ dna ;drib כּנף ( from the uttermost part of the earth ), Isaiah 24:16, is not different from הארץ כּנפות, Job 37:3; Job 38:13, just as אברה, wing, plumage, Psalms 91:4; Deuteronomy 32:11, is found for אברות ( wings ), Psalms 68:14. But from such passages as Deuteronomy 32:11; Exodus 19:4, and Psalms 18:11, we perceive the sense in which wings are attributed to the שׁקּוּצים, the idolatrous objects.

(Note: The interpretation of J. D. Michaelis, which has been revived by Hofmann, needs no serious refutation. They hold that שׁקּוּצים כּנף 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 (Deuteronomy 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 שׁקּוּצים, 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 ( על ) 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. Psalms 18:11; Psalms 104:3.”)

The last clause, וגו ועד־כּלה, is differently construed, according as the subject to תּתּך, 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 תּתּך 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 Daniel 9:11 it is preceded by a definite subject. Others supply a subject, such as anger (Berth.), or curse and oath from Daniel 9:11; the former is quite arbitrary, the latter is too far-fetched. Others, again (Hengstenberg, Maurer), take ונחרצה כלה ( the consummation and that determined ) as the subject. This is correct according to the matter. We cannot, however, so justify the regarding of ועד as a conjunction: till that ; for, though עד is so used, ועד is not; nor, once more, can we justify the taking of ונחרצה כלה as a whole as the subject (Hofmann), or of ונחרצה alone as the subject (v. Leng., Hitzig, Kliefoth), since ועד is not repeated before ונחרצה on account of the ו (with v. Leng.), nor is ונחרצה alone supplied (with Hitz.), nor is the ו before נחרצה to be regarded (with Klief.) as a sign of the conclusion. Where ו introduces the conclusion, as e.g., Daniel 8:14, it is there united with the verb, and thus the expression here should in that case be נחרצה ותּתּך . The relative interpretation of תּתּך 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 ונחרצה כלה remind us of Isaiah 10:23 and Isaiah 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 נחרצה points back to שׁממות נחרצת (Daniel 9:26, desolations are determined ), and כלה עד corresponds to קץ עד (Daniel 9:26). In Daniel 11:31 משׁמם is not in a similar manner to be identified with שׁמם, but has the active signification: “laying waste,” while שׁמם 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 Daniel 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 (Daniel 9:26, Daniel 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 Daniel 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 Daniel 9:25-27 present what shall be done in the course of the seventy weeks, which are divided into three periods, but Daniel 9:24 what shall be the result of all these things. The seventieth week ends, according to Daniel 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 Daniel 9:24, shall happen with the expiry of the seventy appointed weeks stood after Daniel 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 (Daniel 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 Daniel 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 שׁבעים 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 שׁבעים 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 Daniel 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 Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 12:11-12, in which evening-mornings and days are named, but not to the passages Daniel 7:25; Daniel 12:7, and Daniel 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 Daniel 9:25, we have given our decided opinion that the וגו להשׁיב דּבר, 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 (Ezra 9:8; Ezra 10:13; Nehemiah 1:3; Nehemiah 2:3; 5:34; Nehemiah 4:1; Nehemiah 7:4). Although from the nature of the case the building of the temple supposes the existence also of houses in Jerusalem (cf. Haggai 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 Ezra 7:18, Ezra 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 דּבר מצא 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 (Nehemiah 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 (Ezra 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 (Ezra 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 (Ezra 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 גּדר ( 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 (Ezra 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 גּדר in Judah and Jerusalem,” shows that by גּדר cannot be understood the fortified walls of Jerusalem; for גּדר 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 Micah 7:11; Ezekiel 13:5. גּדר 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 חרבתיו cannot be the ruins of the temple, because it was already built, is set aside as soon as we express the infinitive להעמיד, 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” (Nehemiah 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 ' מצא דצר וגו, a going forth of a commandment of God . But if, in favour of the reference of דּבר מצא 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 (Nehemiah 1:3; Nehemiah 2:3, Nehemiah 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 דּבר מצא 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 שׁבעים, 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 Luke 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 משׁיח יכּרת 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 דּבר מצא 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 שׁבעים 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 משׁיח יכּרת, 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; Mark 13:1, and Luke 21, in the words ὅταν ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως τὸ ῥηθὲν Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου κ.τ.λ. (Matthew 24:15, cf. Mark 13:14), had before His eyes this prophecy (Daniel 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 שׁקּוּצים כּנף על, Daniel 9:27, shown that the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, found in the discourse of Christ, is not derived from Daniel 9:27, but from Daniel 11:31 or Daniel 12:11, where the lxx have rendered משׁמם שׁקּוּץ 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 (Daniel 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, ישׁחית והקּדשׁ והעיר, Daniel 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 Daniel 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 Daniel 11:31 than in Daniel 9:26, where we must first introduce this sense in the words (Daniel 9:27) כּ נף שׁקּוּצים משׁמם על ( 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, Daniel 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 Daniel 9:26, Daniel 9:27 penetrating each other, and therein the obscure words of Daniel (after Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11) are so interpreted that they contain a reference to the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus.

(Note: That the Septuagint version (Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11; Daniel 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, “Daniel 9:24 and the first half of Daniel 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 Daniel 9:25 out of its place, and insert it after the first clause of Daniel 9:27; they also take the closing words of Daniel 9:26 out of their place, and insert them after the second clause of Daniel 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 על כנף, incomprehensible to the translators, they interpreted after the חלּלוּ, Daniel 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 Daniel 11:31, cf. with Daniel 12:11, but not from Daniel 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 ונתנוּ ( δώσουσι, lxx), and the ולתת ( ἑτοιμασθῇ δοθῆναι, lxx), and the ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ points to המקדּשׁ, Daniel 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 Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 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 (Matthew 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 (Matthew 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 (Matthew 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 (Matthew 24:15). To this He adds, in conclusion, the description of His own παρουσία, which would immediately ( εὐθέως ) follow this great tribulation (Matthew 24:29). He connects with the description of His return (Matthew 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” (Matthew 24:33, Matthew 24:34, Matthew 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 (Matthew 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” (Luke 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 (Matthew 24:29), or in those days of that tribulation (Mark 13:24), or then ( τότε, Luke 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 holy place or the siege of Jerusalem, it does not, it is true, follow that “by the oppression of Jerusalem connected with the παρουσία, and placed immediately before it, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans cannot possibly be meant;” much rather that the discourse is “of a desecration and an oppression by Antichrist which would come upon the τόπος ἅγιος and Jerusalem in the then future time, immediately before the return of the Lord, in the days of the θλῖπσις μεγάλη ” (Kliefoth). But just as little does it follow from that close connection - as the eschatological discourse, Matt 24, is understood by most interpreters - that the Lord Himself, as well as His disciples, regarded as contemporaneous the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and His visible return in the last days, or saw as in prophetic perspective His παρουσία behind the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and thus, without regard to the sequence of time, spoke first of the one event and then of the other. The first conclusion is inadmissible for this reason, that the disciples had made inquiry regarding the time of the destruction of the temple then visibly before them. If the Lord, in His answer to this question, by making mention of the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρ. ἑστὼς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίω, had no thought of this temple, but only of the τόπος ἅγιος of the future, the temple of the Christian church, then by the use of words which the disciples could not otherwise understand than of the laying waste and the desolation of the earthly sanctuary He would have confirmed them in their error. The second conclusion is out of harmony with the whole course of thought in the discourse. Besides, both of them are decidedly opposed by this, that the Lord, after setting forth all the events which precede and open the way for His παρουσία and the end of the world, says to the disciples, “When ye see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors” (Matthew 24:33), and solemnly adds, “This γενεά,” i.e., the generation then living, “shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled” (Matthew 24:34). Since the πάντα ταῦτα in Matthew 24:33 comprehends all that goes before the παρουσία, all the events mentioned in Matthew 24:15-28, or rather in Matt 24:5-28, it must be taken also in the same sense in Matthew 24:34. If, therefore, the contemporaries of Jesus and His disciples - for we can understand nothing else by ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη - must live to see all these events, then must they have had a commencement before the destruction of Jerusalem, and though not perfectly, yet in the small beginnings, which like a germ comprehended in them the completion. Hence it is beyond a doubt that the Lord speaks of the judgment upon Jerusalem and the Jewish temple as the beginning of His παρουσία and of the συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος, not merely as a pre-intimation of them, but as an actual commencement of His coming to judgment, which continues during the centuries of the spread of the gospel over the earth; and when the gospel shall be preached to all nations, then the season and the hour kept in His own power by the Father shall reach its completion in the ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ (2 Thessalonians 2:8) to judge the world.

(Note: This view of the parousia of Christ has been controverted by Dr. A. Christiani in his Bemerkungen zur Auslegung der Apocalypse mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die chiliastische Frage (Riga 1868, p. 21), - only, however, thus, that notwithstanding the remark, “Since the words πάντα ταῦτα, Matthew 24:34, plainly refer back to Matthew 24:33, they cannot in the one place signify more than in the other,” he yet refers these words in Matthew 24:34 to the event of the destruction of Jerusalem, because the contemporaries of Jesus in reality lived to see it; thus giving to them, as they occur in Matthew 24:34, a much more limited sense than that which they have in Matthew 24:33.)

According to this view, Christ, in His discourse, interpreted the prophecy of Daniel, Daniel 11, of the abomination of desolation which should come, and had come, upon Jerusalem and Judah by Antiochus Epiphanes, as a type of the desolation of the sanctuary and of the people of God in the last time, wholly in the sense of the prophecy, which in Matthew 24:36 passes over from the typical enemy of the saints to the enemy of the people of God in the time of the end.

Thus the supposition that Christ referred Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27 to the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Romans loses all support; and for the chronological reckoning of the seventy weeks of Daniel, no help is obtained from the New Testament.

We have now to take into consideration the second view regarding the historical reference of the seventy weeks prevailing in our time. The opponents of the genuineness of the book of Daniel generally are agreed in this (resting on the supposition that the prophecies of Daniel do not extend beyond the death of Antiochus Epiphanes), that the destruction of this enemy of the Jews (Ant. Ep.), or the purification of the temple occurring a few years earlier, forms the terminus ad quem of the seventy weeks, and that their duration is to be reckoned from the year 168 or 172 b.c. back either to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, or to the beginning of the Exile. Since now the seventy year-weeks or 490 years, reckoned from the year 168 or 172 b.c., would bring us to the year 658 or 662 b.c., i.e., fifty-two or fifty-six years before the commencement of the Exile, and the terminus a quo of Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years, a date from which cannot be reckoned any commencing period, they have for this reason sought to shorten the seventy weeks. Hitzig, Ewald, Wieseler, and others suppose that the first seven year-weeks (= forty-nine years) are not to be taken into the reckoning along with the sixty-two weeks, and that only sixty-two weeks = 434 years are to be counted to the year 175 (Ewald), or 172 (Hitzig), as the beginning of the last week filled up by the assault of Antiochus against Judaism. But this reckoning also brings us to the year 609 or 606 b.c., the beginning of the Exile, or three years further back. To date the sixty-two year-weeks from the commencement of the Exile, agrees altogether too little with the announcement that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem during sixty-two weeks it shall be built, so that, of the most recent representatives of this view, no one any longer consents to hold the seventy years of the exile for a time of the restoring and the building of Jerusalem. Thus Hitzig and Ewald openly declare that the reckoning is not correct, that the pseudo-Daniel has erred, and has assumed ten weeks, i.e., seventy years, too many, either from ignorance of chronology, “or from a defect in thought, from an interpretation of a word of sacred Scripture, springing from certain conditions received as holy and necessary, but not otherwise demonstrable” (Ewald, p. 425). By this change of the sixty-two weeks = 434 years into fifty-two weeks or 364 years, they reach from the year 174 to 538 b.c., the year of the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus, by whom the word “to restore Jerusalem” was promulgated. To this the seven weeks (= forty-nine years) are again added in order to reach the year 588 or 587 b.c., the year of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, from which the year-weeks, shortened from seventy to sixty, are to be reckoned.

This hypothesis needs no serious refutation. For a reckoning which places the first 7 weeks = 49 years aside, and then shortens the 62 weeks by 10 in order afterwards again to bring in the 7 weeks, can make no pretence to the name of a “scientific explanation.” When Hitzig remarks (p. 170) “that the 7 weeks form the πρῶτον ψεῦδος in the (Daniel's) reckoning, which the author must bring in; the whole theory of the 70 year-weeks demands the earlier commencement in the year 606 b.c.” - we may, indeed, with greater accuracy say that the πρῶτον ψεῦδος of the modern interpretation, which needs such exegetical art and critical violence in order to change the 70 and the 62 weeks into 60 and 52, arises out of the dogmatic supposition that the 70 weeks must end with the consecration of the temple under Antiochus, or with the death of this enemy of God.

Among the opponents of the genuineness of the book this supposition is a dogmatic axiom, to the force of which the words of Scripture must yield. But this supposition is adopted also by interpreters such as Hofmann, Reichel ( die 70 Jahreswochen Daniel 9:24-27, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit . 1858, p. 735ff.), Fries, and others, who recognise the genuineness of the book of Daniel, and hold the announcement of the angel in these verses to be a divine revelation. These interpreters have adopted this view for this reason, that in the description of the hostile prince who shall persecute Israel and desecrate the sanctuary, and then come to his end with terror (Daniel 9:26, Daniel 9:27), they believe that they recognise again the image of Antiochus Epiphanes, whose enmity against the people and the sanctuary of God is described, Daniel 8:9., 23f. It cannot, it is true, be denied that there is a certain degree of similarity between the two. If in Daniel 9:26, Daniel 9:27 it is said of the hostile prince that he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and put an end to the sacrifice and the meat-offering for half a week, then it is natural to think of the enemy of whom it is said: he “shall destroy the mighty and the holy people” (E. V. Daniel 8:24), “and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away” (Daniel 8:11), “and he shall take away the daily sacrifice” (Daniel 11:31), especially if, with Hofmann, we adopt the view ( Schriftbew . ii. 2, p. 592) that between the expressions “take away the daily sacrifice” ( התּמיד [ הסיר, remove ] הרים ), and “he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease” ( וּמנחה זבח ישׁבית ), there “is no particular distinction.”

(Note: We confine ourselves here to what Hofm. in his Schriftbew . has brought forward in favour of this view, without going into the points which he has stated in his die 70 Wochen, u. s. w. p. 97, but has omitted in the Schriftbew ., and can with reference to that earlier argumentation only refer for its refutation to Kliefoth's Daniel, p. 417ff.)

But the predicate “ particular ” shows that Hofmann does not reject every distinction; and, indeed, there exists a not inconsiderable distinction; for, as we have already remarked, התּמיד denotes only that which is permanent in worship, as e.g., the daily morning and evening sacrifice; while, on the other hand, זבה וּמנחה denotes the whole series of sacrifices together. The making to cease of the bloody and the unbloody sacrifices expresses an altogether greater wickedness than the taking away of the daily sacrifice. This distinction is not set aside by a reference to the clause משׁמם שׁקּוּצים כּנף ועל (Daniel 9:27) compared with משׁמם השּׁקּוּץ ונתנוּ (Daniel 11:31). For the assertion that the article in משׁמם השּׁקּוּץ (Daniel 11:31, “ the abomination that maketh desolate”) denotes something of which Daniel had before this already heard, supplies no proof of this; but the article is simply to be accounted for from the placing over against one another of התּמיד and השּׁקּוּץ . Moreover the משׁמם השּׁקּוּץ is very different from the משׁמם שׁקּוּצים כּנף על . The being carried on the wings of idol-abominations is a much more comprehensive expression for the might and dominion of idol-abominations than the setting up of an idol-altar on Jehovah's altar of burnt-offering.

As little can we (with Hofm., p. 590) perceive in the הבּא, closely connecting itself with בּשׁטף וקצּו (Daniel 9:26), a reference to the divine judgment described in Daniel 8, because the reference to the enemy of God spoken of in Daniel 7:8, Daniel 7:24 is as natural, yea, even more so, when we observe that the enemy of God in Daniel 7 is destroyed by a solemn judgment of God - a circumstance which harmonizes much more with קצּו בשּׁטף than with ישּׁבר יד בּאפס, which is said of the enemy described in Daniel 8. Add to this that the half-week during which the adversary shall (Daniel 9:27) carry on his work corresponds not to the 2300 evening-mornings (Daniel 8:13), but, as Delitzsch acknowledges, to the 3 1/2 times, Daniel 7:25 and Daniel 12:7, which 3 1/2 times, however, refer not to the period of persecution under Antiochus, but to that of Antichrist.

From all this it therefore follows, not that the prince who shall come, whose people shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and who shall cause the sacrifice to cease, is Antiochus, who shall raise himself against the people of the saints, take away the “continuance” ( = daily sacrifice ), and cast down the place of the sanctuary (Daniel 8:11), but only that this wickedness of Antiochus shall constitute a type for the abomination of desolation which the hostile prince mentioned in this prophecy shall set up, till, like Pharaoh, he find his overthrow in the flood, and the desolation which he causes shall pour itself upon him like a flood.

This interpretation of Daniel 9:26, Daniel 9:27 is not made doubtful also by referring to the words of 1 Macc. 1:54, ᾠκοδόμησαν βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, as an evidence that at that time Daniel 9:27 was regarded as a prophecy of the events then taking place (Hofm. Weiss . i. p. 309). For these words refer not to Daniel 9:27, where the lxx have βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεων, but to Daniel 11:11, where the singular βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως stands with the verb καὶ δώσουσι (lxx for ונתנוּ ), to which the ᾠκοδομήσεται visibly refers.

If, therefore, the reference of Daniel 9:26, Daniel 9:27 to the period of Antiochus' persecution is exegetically untenable, then also, finally, it is completely disproved in the chronological reckoning of the 70 weeks. Proceeding from the right supposition, that after the 70 weeks, the fulfilling of all that was promised, the expiating and putting away of sin, and, along with that, the perfect working out of the divine plan of salvation for eternity, shall begin - thus, that in Daniel 9:24 the perfecting of the kingdom of God in glory is prophesied of, - Hofmann and his followers do not interpret the 7, 62, and 1 week which are mentioned in Daniel 9:25-27 as a division of the 70 weeks, but they misplace the first-mentioned 7 weeks at that end of the period consisting of 70 such weeks, and the following 62 + 1 in the time reaching from the beginning of the Chaldean supremacy in the year 605 to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in the year 164, which makes 441 years = 63 year-weeks; according to which, not only the end of the 62 + 1 weeks does not coincide with the end of the 70 weeks, but also the 7 + 62 + 1 are to be regarded neither as identical with the 70 nor as following one another continuously in their order, - much more between the 63 and the 7 weeks a wide blank space, which before the coming of the end cannot be measured, must lie, which is not even properly covered up, much less filled up, by the remark that “the unfolding of the 70 proceeds backwards.” For by this reckoning 7 + 62 + 1 are not an unfolding of the 70, and are not equal to 70, but would be equal to 62 + 1 + some unknown intervening period + 7 weeks. This were an impossibility which the representatives of this interpretation of the angel's communication do not, it is true, accept, but seek to set aside, by explaining the 7 weeks as periods formed of 7 times 7, or jubilee-year periods, and, on the contrary, the 62 + 1 of seven-year times of Sabbath-periods.

This strange interpretation of the angel's words, according to which not only must the succession of the periods given in the text be transposed, the first 7 weeks being placed last, but also the word שׁבעים in the passages immediately following one another must first denote jubilee (49 year) periods, then also Sabbath-year (7 year) periods, is not made plain by saying that “the end of the 62 + 1 week is the judgment of wrath against the persecutor, thus only the remote making possible the salvation; but the end of the 70 weeks is, according to Daniel 9:24, the final salvation, and fulfilling of the prophecy and consecration of the Most Holy - thus the end of the 62 + 1 and of the 70 does not take place at the same time;” and - ”if the end of the two took place at the same time, what kind of miserable consolation would this be for Daniel, in answer to his prayer, to be told that Jerusalem within the 70 weeks would in troublous times again arise, thus only arise amid destitution!”' (Del. p. 284). For the prophecy would furnish but miserable consolation only in this case, if it consisted merely of the contents of Daniel 9:25, Daniel 9:26, and Daniel 9:27, - if it said nothing more than this, that Jerusalem should be built again within the 70 weeks in troublous times, and then finally would again be laid waste. But the other remark, that the judgment of wrath against the destroyer forms only the remote making possible of the salvation, and is separated from the final deliverance or the completion of salvation by a long intervening period, stands in contradiction to the prophecy in Daniel 7 and to the whole teaching of Scripture, according to which the destruction of the arch-enemy (Antichrist) and the setting up of the kingdom of glory are brought about by one act of judgment.

In the most recent discussion of this prophecy, Hofmann ( Schriftbew . ii. 2, p. 585ff., 2 Aufl.) has presented the following positive arguments for the interpretation and reckoning of the period of time in question. The message of the angel in Daniel 7:25-27 consists of three parts: (1) A statement of how many heptades shall be between the going forth of the command to rebuild Jerusalem and a Maschiach Nagid ; (2) the mentioning of that which constitutes the contents of sixty-two of these periods; (3) the prediction of what shall happen with the close of the latter of these times. In the first of these parts, דּבר with the following infinitive, which denotes a human action, is to be taken in the sense of commandment, as that word of Cyrus prophesied of Isaiah 44:28, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem is to be interpreted as in this passage of Isaiah, or in Jeremiah's prophecy to the same import, and not as if afterwards a second rebuilding of Jerusalem amid the difficulty and oppression of the times is predicted; then will the sixty-two heptades remain separated from the seven, and not sixty-nine of these, but only seven, be reckoned between the going forth of the command to build Jerusalem again and the Maschiach Nagid, since in Daniel 9:26 mention is made not of that which is to be expected on the other side of the sixty-nine, but of the sixty-two times; finally, the contents of the seven times are sufficiently denoted by their commencement and their termination, and will remain without being confounded with the building up of Jerusalem in troublous times, afterwards described.

All these statements of Hofmann are correct, and they agree with our interpretation of these verses, but they contain no proof that the sixty-two weeks are to be placed after the seven, and that they are of a different extent from these. The proof for this is first presented in the conclusion derived from these statements (on the ground of the correct supposition that by Maschiach Nagid not Cyrus, but the Messias, is to be understood), that because the first of these passages ( Daniel 9:25 ) does not say of a part of these times what may be its contents, but much rather points out which part of them lies between the two events in the great future of Israel, and consequently separates them from one another, that on this account these events belong to the end of the present course of the world, in which Israel hoped, and obviously the seven times shall constitute the end of the period consisting of seven such times. This argument thus founds itself on the circumstance that the appearing of the Maschiach Nagid which concludes the seven weeks, and separates them from the sixty-two weeks which follow, is not to be understood of the appearance of Christ in the flesh, but of His return in glory for the completion of the kingdom which was hoped for in consequence of the restoration of Jerusalem, prophesied of by Isaiah (e.g., Isaiah 55:3-4) and Jeremiah (e.g., Jeremiah 30:9). But we could speak of these deductions as valid only if Isaiah and Jeremiah had prophesied only of the appearance of the Messias in glory, with the exclusion of His coming in the flesh. But since this is not the case - much rather, on the one side, Hofmann himself says the וגו להשׁיב דּבר may be taken for a prediction, as that Isaiah 44:28, of Cyrus - but Cyrus shall not build the Jerusalem of the millennial kingdom, but the Jerusalem with its temple which was destroyed by the Chaldeans - and, on the other hand, here first, if not alone, in the prophecies Jer. 25 and 29, by which Daniel was led to pray, Jeremiah has predicted the return of Israel from exile after the expiry of the seventy years as the beginning of the working out of the divine counsel of salvation towards Israel, - therefore Daniel also could not understand the וגו להשׁיב דּבר otherwise than of the restoration of Jerusalem after the seventy years of the Babylonish exile. The remark also, that nothing is said of the contents of the seven weeks, warrants us in no respect to seek their contents in the time of the millennial kingdom. The absence of any mention of the contents of the seven weeks is simply and sufficiently accounted for from the circumstance, as we have already shown, that Daniel had already given the needed information (Daniel 8) regarding this time, regarding the time from the end of the Exile to the appearance of Christ. Still less can the conclusion be drawn, from the circumstance that the building in the sixty-two weeks is designated as one falling in troublous times, that the restoration and the building of Jerusalem in the seven weeks shall be a building in glory. The ולבנות להשׁיב ( to restore and to build, Daniel 9:25 ) does not form a contrast to the העתּים וּבצוק ונבנתה תּשׁוּב (= E.V. shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times, Daniel 9:25 ), but it is only more indefinite, for the circumstances of the building are not particularly stated. Finally, the circumstance also, that after the sixty-two heptades a new devastation of the holy city is placed in view, cannot influence us to escape from the idea of the second coming of Christ in the last time along with the building of Jerusalem during the seven heptades, since it was even revealed to the prophet that not merely would a cruel enemy of the saints of God (in Antiochus Epiphanes) arise out of the third world-kingdom, but also that a yet greater enemy would arise out of the fourth, an enemy who would perish in the burning fire (Daniel 7:12, Daniel 7:26.) in the judgment of the world immediately before the setting up of the kingdom of glory.

Thus neither the placing of the contents of the seven weeks in the eschatological future, nor yet the placing of these weeks at the beginning instead of at the end of the three periods of time which are distinguished in Daniel 9:25-27, is established by these arguments. This Fries ( Jahrb.f. deutsche Theol . iv. p. 254ff.) has observed, and rightly remarked, that the effort to interpret the events announced in Daniel 9:26. of the tyranny of Antiochus, and to make this epoch coincide with the close of the sixty-two year-weeks in the chronological reckoning, cannot but lead to the mistake of including the years of Babylon in the seventy year-weeks - a mistake which is met by three rocks, against which every attempt of this kind must be shattered. (1) There is the objection that it is impossible that the times of the destruction and the desolation of Jerusalem could be conceived of under the same character as the times of its restoration, and be represented from the same point of view; (2) the inexplicable inconsequence which immediately arises, if in the seventy year-weeks, including the last restoration of Israel, the Babylonish but not also the Romish exile were comprehended; (3) the scarcely credible supposition that the message of the angel sent to Daniel was to correct that earlier divine word which was given by Jeremiah, and to make known that not simply seventy years, but rather seventy year-weeks, are meant. Of this latter supposition we have already shown that it has not a single point of support in the text.

In order to avoid these three rocks, Fries advances the opinion that the three portions into which the seventy year-weeks are divided, are each by itself separately to be reckoned chronologically, and that they form a connected whole, not in a chronological, but in a historico-pragmatical sense, “as the whole of all the times of the positive continuance of the theocracy in the Holy Land lying between the liberation from Babylonish exile and the completion of the historical kingdom of Israel”; and, indeed, so that the seven year-weeks, Daniel 9:25, form the last part of the seventy year-weeks, or, what is the same, the jubilee-period of the millennial kingdom, and the sixty-two year-weeks, Daniel 9:26, represent the period of the restoration of Israel after its liberation from Babylon and before its overthrow by the Romans - reckoned according to the average of the points of commencement and termination, according to which, from the reckoning 536 (edict of Cyrus), 457 (return of Ezra), and 410 (termination by the restoration), we obtain for the epoch of the restoration the mean year 467 b.c.; and for the crisis of subjection to the Roman power A.U.C. 691 (the overthrow of Jerusalem by Pompey), 714 (the appointment of Herod as king of the Jews), and 759 (the first Roman procurator in Palestine), we obtain the mean year 721 A.U.C. = 33 b.c., and the difference of these mean numbers, 467 and 33, amounts exactly to 434 years = 62 year-weeks. The period described in v. 26 thus reaches from the beginnings of the subjection of Israel under the Roman world-kingdom to the expiry of the time of the diaspora of Israel, and the separate year-week, v. 27, comprehends the period of the final trial of the people of God, and reaches from the bringing back of Israel to the destruction of Antichrist (pp. 261-2;66).

Against this new attempt to solve the mystery of the seventy weeks, Hofmann, in Schriftbew . ii. 2, p. 594, raises the objection, “that in Daniel 9:26 a period must be described which belongs to the past, and in Daniel 9:27, on the contrary, another which belongs to the time of the end; this makes the indissoluble connection which exists between the contents of the two verses absolutely impossible.” In this he is perfectly right. The close connection between these two verses makes it certainly impossible to interpose an empty space of time between the cutting off of the Anointed, by which Fries understands the dispersion of Israel among the heathen in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and the coming of Antichrist, a space which would amount to 1800 years. But in opposition to this hypothesis we must also further remark, (1) that Fries had not justified the placing of the first portion of the seventy year-weeks (i.e., the seven weeks) at the end, - he has not removed the obstacles standing against this arbitrary supposition, for his interpretation of the words נגיד משׁיח עד, “till Messias the prince shall be,” is verbally impossible, since, if Nagid is a predicate, then the verb יהיה could not be wanting; (2) that the interpretation of the משׁיח יכּרת of the abolition of the old theocracy, and of the dispersion of the Jews abandoned by God among the heathen, needs no serious refutation, but with this interpretation the whole hypothesis stands or falls. Finally, (3) the supposition requires that the sixty-two weeks must be chronologically reckoned as year-weeks; the seven weeks, on the contrary, must be interpreted mystically as jubilee-periods, and the one week as a period of time of indefinite duration; a freak of arbitrariness exceeding all measure, which can on longer be spoken of as scripture interpretation .

Over against such arbitrary hypotheses, we can regard it as only an advance on the way toward a right understanding of this prophecy, that Hofmann (p. 594) closes his most recent investigations into this question with the following remarks: - ”On the contrary, I always find that the indefiniteness of the expression שׁבוּע, which denotes a period in some way divided into sevens, leaves room for the possibility of comprehending together the sixty-three and the seven weeks, in one period of seventy, as its beginning and its end .... What was the extent of the units of which the seventy times consist, the expression שׁבוּע did not inform Daniel: he could only conjecture it.” This facilitates the adoption of the symbolical interpretation of the numbers, which, after the example of Leyrer and Kliefoth, we regard as the only possible one, because it does not necessitate our changing the seventy years of the exile into years of the restoration oaf Jerusalem, and placing the even weeks, which the text presents as the first period of the seventy weeks, last.

The symbolical interpretation of the seventy שׁבעים and their divisions is supported by the following considerations: - (1) By the double circumstance, that on the one side all the explanations of them as year-weeks necessitate an explanation of the angel's message which is justified neither by the words nor by the succession of the statements, and do violence to the text, without obtaining a natural progress of thought, and on the other side all attempts to reckon these year-weeks chronologically show themselves to be insufficient and impossible. (2) The same conclusion is sustained by the choice of the word שׁבוּע for the definition of the whole epoch and its separate periods; for this word only denotes a space of time measured by sevens, but indicates nothing as to the duration of these sevens. Since Daniel in Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 12:11 uses a chronologically definite measure of time (evening-mornings, days), we must conclude from the choice of the expressions, seven, seven times (as in Daniel 7:25 and Daniel 12:7 of the like expression, times), which cannot be reckoned chronologically, that the period for the perfecting of the people and the kingdom of God was not to be chronologically defined, but only noted as a divinely appointed period measured by sevens. “They are sevens, of that there is no doubt; but the measure of the unit is not given:” thus Lämmert remarks ( Zur Revision der bibl. Zahlensymb. in den Jahrbb.f. D. Theol. ix. 1). He further says: “If the great difficulty of taking these numbers chronologically does not of itself urge to their symbolical interpretation, then we should be led to this by the disagreement existing between Gabriel's answer (Daniel 9:22) and Daniel's question (Daniel 9:2). To his human inquiries regarding the end of the Babylonish exile, Daniel receives not a human but a divine answer, in which the seventy years of Jeremiah are reckoned as sevens, and it is indicated that the full close of the history of redemption shall only be reached after a long succession of periods of development.”

By the definition of these periods according to a symbolical measure of time, the reckoning of the actual duration of the periods named is withdrawn beyond the reach of our human research, and the definition of the days and hours of the development of the kingdom of God down to its consummation is reserved for God, the Governor of the world and the Ruler of human history; yet by the announcement of the development in its principal stadia, according to a measure fixed by God, the strong consolation is afforded of knowing that the fortunes of His people are in His hands, and that no hostile power will rule over them one hour longer than God the Lord thinks fit to afford time and space, in regard to the enemy for his unfolding and ripening for the judgment, and in regard to the saints for the purifying and the confirmation of their faith for the eternal life in His kingdom according to His wisdom and righteousness.

The prophecy, in that it thus announces the times of the development of the future consummation of the kingdom of God and of this world according to a measure that is symbolical and not chronological, does not in the least degree lose its character as a revelation, but thereby first rightly proves its high origin as divine, and beyond the reach of human thought. For, as Leyrer (Herz.'s Realenc . xviii. p. 387) rightly remarks, “should not He who as Creator has ordained all things according to measure and number, also as Governor of the world set higher measures and bounds to the developments of history? which are to be taken at one time as identical with earthly measures of time, which indeed the eventus often first teaches (e.g., the seventy years of the Babylonish exile, Daniel 9:2), but at another time as symbolical, but yet so that the historical course holds and moves itself within the divinely measured sphere, as with the seventy weeks of Daniel, wherein, for the establishing of the faith of individuals and of the church, there lies the consolation, that all events even to the minutest, particularly also the times of war and of oppression, are graciously measured by God (Jeremiah 5:22; Job 38:11; Psalms 93:3.).”

(Note: Auberlen, notwithstanding that he interprets the seventy שׁבעים chronologically as year-weeks, does not yet altogether misapprehend the symbolical character of this definition of time, but rightly remarks (p. 133f.), “The history of redemption is governed by these sacred numbers; they are like the simple foundation of the building, the skeleton in its organism. These are not only outward indications of time, but also indications of nature and essence.” What he indeed says regarding the symbolical meaning of the seventy weeks and their divisions, depends on his erroneous interpretation of the prophecy of the appearance of Christ in the flesh, and is not consistent with itself.)

To give this consolation to the faithful is the object of this revelation, and that object it fully accomplishes. For the time and the hour of the consummation of the kingdom of God it belongs not to us to know. What the Lord said to His disciples (Acts 1:7) before His ascension, in answer to their question as to the time of the setting up of the kingdom of Israel - ”It belongs not to you to know χρόνους ἤ καιροὺς οὕς ὁ πατὴρ ἔθετο ἐν τῇ Ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ “that He says not only to the twelve apostles, but to the whole Christian world. That the reason for this answer is to be sought not merely in the existing condition of the disciples at the time He uttered it, but in this, that the time and the hour of the appearance of the Lord for the judgment of the world and the completion of His kingdom in glory are not to be announced beforehand to men, is clear from the circumstance that Christ in the eschatological discourse (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32) declares generally, “Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” According to this, God, the Creator and Ruler of the world, has kept in His own power the determination of the time and the hour of the consummation of the world, so that we may not expect an announcement of it beforehand in the Scripture. What has been advanced in opposition to this view for the justifying of the chronological interpretation of Daniel's prophecy of seventy weeks, and similar prophecies (cf. e.g., Hengstb. Christol . iii. 1, p. 202ff.), cannot be regarded as valid proof. If Bengel, in Ordo Temporum , p. 259, 2nd ed., remarks with reference to Mark 13:32 : “ Negatur praevia scientia, pro ipso duntaxat praesenti sermonis tempore, ante passionem et glorificationem Jesu. Non dixit, nemo sciet, sed: nemo scit. Ipse jam, jamque, sciturus erat: et quum scientiam diei et horae nactus fuit, ipsius erat, scientiam dare, cui vellet et quando vellet ,” - so no one can certainly dispute a priori the conclusion “ Ipse jam ,” etc., drawn from the correct statements preceding, but also every one will confess that the statement “ Ipsius erat ,” etc., cannot prove it to be a fact that Jesus, after His glorification, revealed to John in Patmos the time and the hour of His return for the final judgment. Bengel's attempt to interpret the prophetical numbers of the Apocalypse chronologically, and accordingly to reckon the year of the coming again of our Lord, has altogether failed, as all modern scientific interpreters have acknowledged. So also fails the attempt which has been made to conclude from what Christ has said regarding the day of His παρουσία, that the Scripture can have no chronologically defined prophecies, while yet Christ Himself prophesied His resurrection after three days.

Copyright Statement
The Keil & Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary is a derivative of a public domain electronic edition.
Bibliographical Information
Keil, Carl Friedrich & Delitzsch, Franz. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". 1854-1889.

Wesley's Explanatory Notes

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

He shall confirm — Christ confirmed the new covenant, 1. By the testimony of angels, of John baptist, of the wise men, of the saints then living, of Moses and Elias2. By his preaching3. By signs and wonders4. By his holy life5. By his resurrection and ascension6. By his death and blood shedding.

Shall cause the sacrifice to cease — All the Jewish rites, and Levitical worship. By his death he abrogated, and put an end to this laborious service, for ever.

And that determined — That spirit of slumber, which God has determined to pour on the desolate nation, 'till the time draws near, when all Israel shall be saved.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain and are a derivative of an electronic edition that is available on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library Website.
Bibliographical Information
Wesley, John. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible". 1765.

Scofield's Reference Notes


(Cf) Matthew 24:15. The expression occurs three times in Daniel. In; Daniel 9:27; Daniel 12:11 the reference is to the "Beast," "man of sin"; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and is identical with Matthew 24:15. In Daniel 11:31 the reference is to the act of Antiochus Epiphanes, the prototype of the man of sin, who sacrificed a sow upon the altar, and entered the holy of holies.

Copyright Statement
These files are considered public domain and are a derivative of an electronic edition that is available in the Online Bible Software Library.
Bibliographical Information
Scofield, C. I. "Scofield Reference Notes on Daniel 9:27". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)". 1917.

Hawker's Poor Man's Commentary


GRACIOUS God! what praises hath the Church of the Lord Jesus to offer for the illustrious prophecy contained in this Chapter! Blessed be God, in that he left not himself without witness, when for the transgressions of Israel he gave them over into the band of the enemy! Blessed be God, in sending his Prophets Ezekiel and Daniel with the Church, that the law should not perish from the priests, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet. Blessed be God, that enabled Daniel to read the word of the Lord, in a strange land, and gave him grace, and wisdom, to understand by this blessed Book of God, the number of years to be accomplished in the desolations of Jerusalem. And blessed be God, for handing down to the Church in succeeding generations, and so on to the present hour, the records both of the prophecy and the accomplishment; whereby we behold the exact correspondence; and can, and do, trace our mercies to their source, and discover the Lord presiding over and appointing all. And now, O Lord! as we have here seen thy grace and mercy magnified to thy servant the Prophet; so we beseech thee, that thou wouldest go on to display all the riches of thy grace to the Church at large, in the person, work, blood-shedding, and glory of thy dear Son. We behold, Lord, in this glorious scripture, the features of Jesus very plainly and clearly drawn. And we have seen in the Gospel, how truly the original answers to the portrait. Yea! blessed Jesus, thou wast indeed in the days of thy flesh, anointed as the most holy, to seal up the vision and prophecy, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in an everlasting righteousness. Heavenly Redeemer! let this righteousness be unto all, and upon all thy people, for there is no difference. And, oh! Lord! grant to thy servants now, as to thy Daniels of old, such revelations of thine holy will as may suit the wants of thy Church now, as the ministration of thy Prophets were needed then. And may every enlightened eye, like that of Daniel, be always on the lookout in the expectation of thy second coming; that when the weeks appointed for the desolations of thy people be run out, Jesus may come to take his people home to himself, that where he is, there they may be also. Amen.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Hawker, Robert, D.D. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "Hawker's Poor Man's Commentary". 1828.

John Trapp Complete Commentary

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Ver. 27. And he (Messiah) shall confirm the covenant {see Daniel 9:24} with many.] Heb., With his Rabbis, that is, with his elect. Compare Isaiah 53:11, Job 32:9, Jeremiah 41:2.

For one week,] i.e., In the last seven years of the seventy.

And in the midst of the week,] i.e., In three years and a half he shall, by his passion, disannul the Jewish sacrifices and services.

And for the overspreading (or wing) of abominations,] i.e., For the abominable outrages committed by the seditious Jews, those zealots, as they called themselves, who filled the temple with dead bodies. Others, from Matthew 24:15-16 cf. Luke 20:20-21, think the Romans to be meant, who set up their eagles (their ensigns) in the temple, together with the images, first of Caligula, and then of Titus, their emperors.

Even until the consummation.] Until the end, and to the utmost. The Jews have often attempted, but could never yet recover their country, nor are like to do. Perpetua et consummatissima consumptione urgentur.

Shall be poured.] As if the windows of heaven were opened, as once they were at the flood. See Daniel 9:26.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Trapp, John. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". John Trapp Complete Commentary. 1865-1868.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible

He: this

he is not Titus making truce with the Jews, which he did not, though he endeavoured to persuade them that he might spare them. I say then with Graser, Mede, and others, that this he is the Messiah, and the covenant he confirms is the new testament or covenant, called therefore the covenant of the people, Isaiah 42:6 49:8; and the Angel of the covenant, Malachi 3:1; and the Surety of the covenant, Hebrews 7:22; and the ancient rabbins called the Messias xrk a middle man, or middle man between two.

Quest. How did Christ confirm the covenant?

Answ. 1. By testimony,

(1.) Of angels, Luke 2:10 Mt 28;

(2.) John Baptist;

(3.) Of the wise men;

(4.) By the saints then living, Luke 1:2;

(5.) Moses and Elias, Matthew 17:3;

(6.) Pharisees, as Nicodemus, John 3:2;

(7.) The devils that confessed him.

2. By his preaching.

3. By signs and wonders.

4. By his holy life.

5. By his resurrection and ascension.

6. By his death and blood shed.

Shall confirm the covenant; rybgh he shall corroborate it, as if it began before his coming to fail and be invalid.

With many; noting hereby the paucity of the Jewish church and nation, compared with the great increase and enlargement by believing Gentiles throughout all nations and ages of the world, Isaiah 11:9 49:6 53:11,12 54:2,3 Mr 16:15 Acts 13:46: q.d. With many Jews first and last, and with many more of the nations, yea, with the many whom the rabbins and Pharisees despise as the rabble, the common people, Isaiah 42:3 Matthew 21:31 John 7:48,49 1 Corinthians 1:26,27.

For one week; by a figure, take the greater part of the whole, he shall, though rejected by the chief and bulk of the Jewish nation, yet make the new testament prevail with many in that time, i.e. at the latter end of the seventy weeks.

The sacrifice and the oblation to cease; zebach and mincha, bloody and unbloody, to cease. i.e. all the Jewish rites, and Levitical ceremonious worship, i.e. by the burning of the temple before the city was taken, for they were only to offer sacrifice in the temple, nor had they wherewithal in the siege. Yet is there more in it than this, viz. that the Lord Jesus, by his death, and by the execution of his wrath, and abrogate and put an end to this laborious service, and made it to cease for ever.

For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate; desolate

for the wing, for the manifold and great abominations stretching, and our text hath it well overspreading. This abomination was the Roman army with their eagles, and with their superstitious rites in approaching to besiege and subdue any place; and this is executed by Christ upon them, Matthew 22:7, when he is called a King sending forth his armies, and destroying the murderers that destroyed him, and burning their city, and their coming is Christ’s coming, Malachi 3:1,2 John 21:22 James 5:7; therefore it is said here,

he shall make it desolate. Even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate: here all this is made the effect of God’s decree, and therefore irrevocable. This word shomen notes that this people were bewitched, sottishly superstitious, wanderers, banished, the astonishment and scorn of the world; all which did justly and dreadfully befall them, and they verify it to this day.

They that will curiously search further into the seventy weeks and other numbers in Daniel, and have leisure and skill, let them read Graserus, L’Empereur, Wasmuth, Mede, Willet, Wichmannus, Sanctius, Rainoldus, Pererius, Derorlon, Broughton, Liveleius, Helvicns, Calovius, Geierus. &c. Read also Joseph Med. p. 861, &c., and Bail. p. 180, &c. This scripture shows the coming of the Messiah so clearly, his sufferings, and the wrath of God so severely upon the Jews for it, that it thoroughly confutes their unbelief; and fully confirms our faith in Jesus Christ.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Poole, Matthew, "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible. 1685.

Whedon's Commentary on the Bible

27.And he shall confirm — R.V. reads, “And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week.” Expositors of the old school generally make the “Messiah” (Daniel 9:26) the subject here. He shall make strong his new covenant of grace (Hebrews 9:13) during his life, in his death and resurrection, and for a short time afterward — this “week” being variously estimated as running to Pentecost, to the conversion of St. Paul, or farther still into the Christian era. But according to this method of interpretation it is not easy to find a period of seven years or thereabouts which could be naturally described as the week during which our Lord made firm his covenant. Some expositors make the “one week” refer to “the last period of the Jewish dispensation;” but is it consistent to make the sixty-ninth week end with the death (the “cutting off”) of the Messiah (Daniel 9:26), and then to consider the week following as a part of the Jewish dispensation? It is one of the difficulties of this theory that the “cutting off” of Christ (Daniel 9:26) should have occurred seemingly before the crisal week opens in which “he shall make a firm covenant with many” (Daniel 9:27). For fuller discussion, see Introduction, II, 10. The newer interpretation is that Antiochus, by his many alliances with other princes and the covenant made with apostatizing Jews, was able to keep himself strong for one week (the first seven years of his reign, 175-168 B.C.), and during this period he was confirmed in his heartless persecutions of the Jews. Although the Hebrew word “covenant” usually refers to God’s covenant with Israel, this usage is not universal. (See Hosea 12:1; Amos 1:9.) By a very slight change, however, the phrase may be rendered, “he shall cause many to transgress the covenant;” which was indeed sadly true of Antiochus, for we have independent Jewish testimony that “many Israelites” turned heathen at his command, consenting to profane the Sabbath, and even to set up altars to idols and sacrifice to them swine’s flesh and other unclean offerings (1 Maccabees 1:10-15).

And in the midst of the week, etc. — R.V. reads, “and for the half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation [meal offering] to cease.” The older school of expositors refer this to the cessation of the temple sacrifices, when Christ through the eternal Spirit offered himself as a Lamb without spot to bear the sins of the world (compare Hebrews 8-10). But was it only for half a week that these temple sacrifices were to cease? Or, if the A.V. is preferred, is it historical truth to say that in the middle of the week following the one in which the Christ was “cut off” (Daniel 9:26) these sacrifices came to an end? Their typical virtue ended with the crucifixion, not half a week later; while beast sacrifices actually continued to be offered on the temple altar down to the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. Scholars who favor the new interpretation see in this half week a clearer allusion to the “time, times, and half a time” mentioned previously by Daniel, during which the saints were delivered into the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes (see note Daniel 7:25) and the sacrifices (as all acknowledge) were abolished for some three and a half years; from perhaps June, 168 B.C., to December, 165 B.C.

And for the overspreading of abominations, etc. — The R.V. (which is accepted in substance by scholars of all schools) reads, “and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate.” R.V., margin, “upon the pinnacle of abominations.” The older commentators generally explain this as having reference to the idolatrous eagle standards of the Roman armies, which spread desolations wherever they came. The newer school explains it in harmony with the similar but clearer phrase found in Daniel 11:31, Daniel 12:11, where it evidently has an allusion to the heathen altar built by Antiochus Epiphanes on the temple altar of Jehovah, and where on Chislev (December) 25, B.C. 168, sacrifice was offered to the Olympic Zeus. This altar is actually called (1 Maccabees 1:51; 1 Maccabees 1:54; 1 Maccabees 6:7) “the abomination of desolation.” This sacrilege certainly caused desolations and made even the most sacred altar of Jehovah an “abomination.” Although Farrar suggests that the heathen altar may have seemed to overshadow the great altar of burnt offering “like a wing,” it is not best to press any vivid pictorial meaning out of the word “wing,” as the exact thought of the Hebrew is uncertain. For the possible connection of this winged abomination with the Babylonian representations of evil genii see Speaker’s Commentary, in loco. The Greek version used by our Lord (Matthew 24:15) seems to favor the modern view that this abomination specially referred to the desecration of the “holy place.”

Even until the consummation, etc. — The R.V. reads, “and even unto the consummation, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolator (margin, ‘desolate’).” There are various readings of this very difficult phrase, but the general meaning certainly is that the desolations shall come to the divinely determined end and the desolator shall be punished. If we read “desolate,” with R.V., margin, instead of “desolator,” as the last word of the chapter, this would refer plainly to Jerusalem and would emphasize the statement that up to the very week of Messianic triumph desolations and afflictions should overwhelm the holy city. For this picture of Messianic triumph see Daniel 12:1-3. We cannot think that there is here any direct prophecy of the second coming of Christ or the end of the world; neither can we think that the passage as a whole has direct and primary reference to the coming and crucifixion of our Saviour and the destruction of the temple by the Romans. We have given our reasons for doubting this, and might add the suggestive fact that “neither our Lord nor his apostles nor any of the earliest Christian writers once appealed to the evidence of this prophecy” (Farrar), which would be superlatively astonishing if this were a direct chronological proof that Jesus was indeed the Christ. On the other hand, we must never forget that in all prophecy the future is pictured in the present with an historic exit point in the background. It has been said that the seers of God were not “children of their time but were exalted above their time.” Whether that was true or not of the prophets as individuals, it certainly was true of their Messianic visions. They often spake better than they knew. Daniel’s vision does not stop with Antiochus; the picture which he paints fits upon him only as the forerunner of an enemy of the theocracy still more dreadful. As Professor Simcox has written in the Cambridge Bible, “If the Book of Daniel be accepted as a really inspired prophecy, the visions admit of but one explanation. The oppression of Antiochus is foretold in part for its own sake, as an important episode in the temporal and religious history of God’s people; in part also as a type of a greater and still more important oppression” (The Book of Revelation, p. 21).




Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Whedon, Daniel. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "Whedon's Commentary on the Bible". 1874-1909.

Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible

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

It should be noted that there is no clear indication here of any break between the sixty nine sevens and the seventieth seven. The natural interpretation if we were not trying to fit it into history would be that the seventieth seven follows on immediately after the sixty ninth seven.

It will be observed immediately that it is suggested that the singular verbs could be translated in the plural. And the reason that this is has been done is because the obvious antecedent to the he/they is ‘the people of the coming prince’, for they are the subject of the previous sentence. This is because the word for ‘people’ is a collective singular noun and therefore requires a singular Hebrew verb, although in English we translate as a plural. The translation is therefore a correct rendering of the Hebrew if the people are being referred to.

Many see the subject of the verbs as being ‘the coming prince’ of Daniel 9:26 or the ‘anointed one, the prince’ of Daniel 9:25. Both are possible. But neither are grammatically the most likely. Indeed the genitive ‘of the prince’ is extremely unlikely as an antecedent, for the emphasis of the phrase is on the people and the prince is only an identifying factor, and it is extremely unusual in Hebrew for the subject of a verb to indicate a previous genitive. On the other hand the mention of the ‘other’ prince is too far away really to be an antecedent, and besides, as the ‘other’ prince has been cut off, the idea of him confirming a covenant could only be derived from elsewhere. Neither is a totally insuperable objection but they do make either interpretation extremely unlikely. An alternative suggestion is that the initial ‘he’ is referring to God. The sudden introduction of God as ‘he’ without any other identification is something that occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament. But the undeniable fact is that Hebrew verbs with no subject usually look back to the subject of the previous sentence. And as that makes complete sense in this case we can see no reason why should we look elsewhere, especially as ‘the covenant’ in Daniel always means the holy covenant.

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

The people of the prince who has been cut off, will at some stage recognise their rebellion for what it was and, realising that they have by their actions breached their holy covenant, will come to renew it before God, (as many such as Paul did) including within that renewal the ‘many’ who had not breached it, the true Israel of God, Gods true people. The word ‘many’ is regularly used by Daniel when referring to people of an uncertain number and identity (Daniel 8:25; Daniel 11:14; Daniel 11:18; Daniel 11:26; Daniel 11:33-34; Daniel 11:39; Daniel 11:41; Daniel 11:44; Daniel 12:3-4; Daniel 12:10, compare also its use in Isaiah 53:11). This is a picture of the widespread conversion of Jews to their Messiah, to Christ, and of their rapprochement with the true people of God, something which did happen in the early days of the church prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Such a conversion is seen as having taken place in the early chapters of Acts when large numbers of Jews responded to the preaching of the Apostles and the followers of Jesus, and it continued as the message went out into the wider world, with many Jewish Christians (including Paul) preaching the Gospel in the synagogues around the know world.

This period may be seen as immediately following the cutting off of the prince, as ‘the many’ of His followers are joined by large numbers of other repentant Jews in the confirming of God’s covenant through Christ, resulting in the new Israel, and then in the bringing in to the new Israel of the Gentiles who are converted to Christ (Romans 11:17-20; Galatians 3:29; Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:12; Ephesians 2:19-22).

The ceasing of true worship in the midst of the seven may then be seen as referring back to the reference to the destruction of the sanctuary, or alternatively it may refer to apostasies that will occur as a result of persecutions, such as those referred to in the letter to the Hebrews.

It should be noted in this regard that Daniel 9:26 a and 27 can be seen as parallel. Each commences at the time when the anointed prince is cut off, and each goes up to ‘the end’. Thus we may see in them two reactions of ‘the people of the Prince’. The one the reaction of those who rejected Him, and continued to do so, the other the reaction of those who after His death (and resurrection) responded to him. The whole of Israel rarely acted as one.

But some consider it the more natural reading to see Daniel 9:27 as following the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. That would not, however, require a ‘gap’ for the destruction of city and sanctuary could well be directly connected with the cutting off of the prince, and be seen as occurring within the sixty ninth ‘seven’. Nevertheless they try to argue that this must be seen as occurring towards ‘the end’, when a great turning back of Israel to God through Christ is to be expected (Joel 2:15-17; Joel 2:32; Zechariah 8:21-23; Romans 11:23; Romans 11:26-32). This is especially the case for those who wish to treat the ‘sevens’ as years (in order to make the years fit). On this basis it would refer to a wholesale conversion in the end days. But the interpretation has to be ‘read in’. it is not a natural interpretation of the passage.

This idyllic final ‘seven’ will be interrupted, for in the midst of the ‘seven’ the sacrifices and oblations will be caused to cease. In context this should probably be seen as another way of indicating the destruction of the Temple already mentioned in the previous verse. This was a blow to both unbelieving Jews and to believing Christian Jews who still engaged in Temple worship. Alternately it can be seen as indicating that, after the renewal of the covenant, many will again turn away from Christ, probably as a result of the activities of persecutors, and possibly following some proscription of Jewish Christians (or all Christians) by the powers that be, and especially finally by the horn, the small one, of chapter 7 who is to ‘wear out the saints of the Most High’ (Daniel 7:25 compare Revelation 11). Thus they will cease to worship and honour God, and will renege on their commitment to Christ. They will cease to honour His sacrifice on their behalf. They will ‘cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease’, not literally, for there will be no literal sacrifices (no new temple has been posited), but the spiritual sacrifices of worship, praise and thanksgiving through Christ’s own sacrifice of Himself ( Romans 12:1; Hebrews 13:15; 1 Peter 2:5; Mark 12:33). Given a further chance they will have once again failed. Either way desolation is to follow, something which has occurred regularly throughout subsequent history.

(It must always, however, be recognised that throughout all these failures of Israel there have always been a remnant who have carried on the purposes of God. God has never been left without a witness. And it was this remnant which became the new true Israel and which Jesus used for the spreading of the Gospel incorporating into it converted Gentiles who thus themselves became part of the true Israel. Thus were God’s promises for Israel fulfilled even when Israel as a whole failed).

‘And on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate.’ ‘Abominations’ regularly refers to idolatry and ungodliness. Thus the reference here may be to the Roman armies who continued to wreak desolation throughout Palestine. Or it may signify persecution wrought by idolatrous emperors against the people of God. Thus desolation is a keynote of what follows the cutting off of the Messiah, and the destruction of the Temple, and it will especially affect Palestine. Such desolations certainly resulted in Palestine later becoming bereft of Jews. But they tie in with Jesus’ warning of what the future held for the world (‘wars and rumours of wars’). And this will go on until the final consummation determined by God, at which point judgment will be poured out on the desolator (see Daniel 12:1-3; Revelation 19:11-21).

‘The wing of abomination.’ The thought of the singular ‘wing’ may be that false religion can only offer half of what it pretends. It flies with one wing, and is therefore deficient and lacking. It, as it were limps, along. (This is a vision so that the question of whether it is possible to fly with one wing is irrelevant, and anyway it could be argued that it flies like an injured bird). There may here be a deliberate contrast with the One Who carries His people on eagles’ wings, on two wings (Exodus 19:4; Deuteronomy 32:11). Others refer it to the wing of the temple, as an indication that the desolator is parodying the temple, or indeed replaces the Temple. The singular may, however, just be similar to our use when we speak of ‘a bird on the wing’.

Some see the seventieth seven as referring to the time when Christ was on earth, with the renewing of the covenant then taking place through the ministry of Jesus, and the ceasing of sacrifices and offerings coming about through His death. This is then followed by an indeterminate period, the final part of God’s plans of unknown duration, in which the people of God have to face the tribulations ahead until God’s final judgment. The problem with this interpretation in my view is that it here treats the cessation of sacrifice and offering as a good thing, whereas elsewhere in Daniel it is a bad thing (Daniel 8:11-12; Daniel 12:10-11). Nor does it lead up to the final consummation.

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

Finally the troubles must cease, for the full end is coming as determined by God, and then wrath will be poured out on the desolator. We are left to recognise that the consummation indicates the great blessings of Daniel 9:24 will become true for God’s own people. For the final destruction of evil coincides with the triumph of the people of God. Both are sides of the same coin, and the latter was the central purpose of the vision.

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

The fact of such a gap has been seen by some as suggested by the phrase ‘to the end’. Elsewhere in Daniel we have examples of history foretold and then of a sudden jump to ‘the end’. Contrast Daniel 11:29-35 with Daniel 11:36-45. In chapter 11 the contrast between those two sections is so remarkable that two different periods of activity appear to be in mind, and the latter takes us on to ‘the time of the end’. This phenomenon is found in all the prophets. Regularly there is a gap between the near fulfilment and the far fulfilment.

Compare and contrast also the ‘small horn’ (a small horn is an indication of a horn that is starting to grow) of the third empire in Daniel 8:20-26 with that of the fourth empire in Daniel 7:20-25 where the contrasts are far more than the similarities. The former deals with Antiochus’ persecutions, the latter with the time of the end. But there is no real reason for seeing a gap here in chapter 9, which reads like a continuous sequence, while ‘to the end’ would seem to indicate what it says, something that will occur to the very end, not something which will be followed by a further ‘seven’.

Certainly, if the seventy sevens is taken to mean seventy sevens of years (on no really satisfactory grounds, for in context the seventy ‘sevens’ are contrasted with Jeremiah’s seventy ‘years’) then there must be a gap, for the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple did not take place within seven years of the death of Christ. This would, of course, depend on what the ‘seventieth seven’ means. If it is ‘a divinely perfect time of unknown length’, as we believe, then all that is described in Daniel 9:26-27 can be encompassed in that ‘seven’. It simple represents ‘the end of the ages’ which began at the time of Christ’s death (1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 9:26; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 Peter 4:7). When we are dealing with God time is irrelevant. To him a thousand years, or even ten thousand, could be accomplished within a ‘seven’, His final perfect activity.

Furthermore, here in chapter 9 Daniel sums up what follows the cutting off of the Messiah by ‘their end will be with a flood’. Whose end? Why, surely the people of the coming Prince (a singular noun in Hebrew followed by a singular verb). They will be destroyed by a flood of invaders (compare Daniel 11:22). And the phrase that follows, ‘and even to the end shall be war, desolations are determined’ is an indefinite and vague phrase that can cover many situations. Mankind will continue to face suffering and hardship because they are the result of their own sin.

That such a history would be theirs is actually confirmed by Jesus in Luke 21:24 where He speaks of the coming in of the invaders, the times of the Gentiles, and the terrible and long exile of the Jewish people (described in Matthew as included in the ‘great tribulation’ which they would suffer under the invasion of Titus and the mad antics of their own fanatical leaders), which would commence with the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, when ‘the times of the Gentiles’ would begin. Thus the ‘seventy sevens which are determined upon your people’ (Daniel 9:24) could possibly be seen as suspended, but there are no grounds in the text for suggesting it.

The idea of a gap in the history of the Jews may also be seen as suggested by Paul in Romans 11:15-24. Indeed that is exactly his argument. He is dealing with the problem of God turning away from His people and setting them aside and answers it along two lines.

1) That not all Jews have been rejected. An examination of the past reveals that God has always chosen out some and rejected others. Thus this position is no different.

2) That the temporary rejection of the nation as a whole is in order that God might bless the Gentiles, but there is the suggestion that when this purpose is accomplished the Jewish nation itself may expect a new final offer of deliverance (Daniel 9:25-27).

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

But while we agree that such a gap is ‘possible’, (anything is possible with interpreters) it is really taking what Paul is saying too far, for he nowhere connects it with prophetic interpretation, and such a gap is not obvious from this passage. Furthermore Paul is not indicating a gap, he is indicating the individual response to Christ of both Jews and Gentiles to make up the sum total of the elect, and the continuation of Israel. It therefore seems far more realistic to see the seventieth seven as immediately following the sixty ninth, and therefore as including all that will then happen from the end of the sixty ninth seven until the end of time. It then encompasses within it conversion, apostasy and tribulation, and all the continual experience of the people of God, the true Israel, as well as the destruction of Jerusalem because of the unbelief of those who continually reject Him. Taken in this way it ties in with the apocalyptic message of Jesus in Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21, which also have in mind the death of Christ, people responding to the covenant who will be persecuted, the destruction of the Temple, and continuing desolations.

Note. Is This the Period of the Great Tribulation?

We ask this question because of the use made of this passage by many, not because there is anything in the passage to suggest it. It is this popular usage that makes it a violable question.

Firstly, however, we must question the phrase ‘the Great Tribulation’. It is the invention of Bible students not of the Bible. The Bible does speak of ‘great tribulation’ which would come on parts of the church in the time of the Apostle John (Revelation 2:22), and ‘great tribulation’ which the Jews would face when Titus destroyed Jerusalem (which could be avoided by fleeing to the mountains, thus it is a tribulation limited to the Jews) with its aftermath in the dispersion of the Jews to face tribulation through the centuries (Matthew 24:21; Luke 21:24). There is also a mention of great tribulation which the people of God would suffer through the ages (Revelation 7:14), possibly referring back to the great tribulation of Revelation 2:22, but never is there mention of a period called ‘the Great Tribulation’.

Secondly we should note that here in Daniel war and desolations are promised right from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:26), so that what is described in Daniel 9:27 is not unusual. Certainly Daniel 9:27 may be seen as suggesting that the people of God will be persecuted so that some turn aside from the covenant, but if it is to be restricted to a seven year period at the end of time that might be limited to Palestine, and anyway the people of God are persecuted in all ages, and never more so than in parts of the world today, especially in Muslim countries. We must not over-exaggerate the picture.

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

So this modern huge emphasis by some on a seven year tribulation period cannot be obtained from Daniel. Nor, we believe, can it be found in Revelation (see our commentary on Revelation). That is not to deny that at the end there will be great troubles and persecution. Such have always been the lot of Christians and it is very likely that they will intensify as Satan realises that his time is short. It is only to reject the idea that it can be summed up in a seven year period on the basis of this passage.

End of note.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Pett, Peter. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible ". 2013.

Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable

"In contrast to the rather clear fulfillment of Daniel 9:25-26, Daniel 9:27 is an enigma as far as history is concerned; and only futuristic interpretation allows any literal fulfillment." [Note: Ibid.]

The nearest antecedent of "he" is "the prince who is to come" ( Daniel 9:26). Titus made no covenant with Israel, so who is in view? Apparently a future ruler of the revived or reorganized Roman Empire, the little horn of chapter7, is in view. This seems preferable to taking the antecedent of "he" as Messiah, since Jesus Christ did not do the things predicted of the prince here. Young held that Christ is the prince, and He fulfilled what Daniel predicted, in that He put the covenant of grace into effect at the time of His death, and abolished the sacrifices of the old dispensation. [Note: Young, pp213-17, 220-21.] If the little horn of chapter7 is in view, as seems preferable, this means that the seventieth week does not follow the sixty-ninth week immediately. Such a break in prophetic chronology has precedent in the predictions of Messiah"s first and second advents ( Isaiah 61:1-2). Another evidence of a break between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks, is the fact that there was a37-year gap, between Messiah"s cutting off in A.D33, and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D70. Yet Daniel presented both of these events as after the sixty-ninth week and before the seventieth week. Thus there must be a break in the chronology after the sixty-ninth week. [Note: See McClain, pp31-45, for additional proofs of a gap.]

This future ruler, according to Gabriel, will make a covenant with "the many" for one week (seven years). "The many" evidently refers to Daniel"s people ( Daniel 9:24), ethnic Jews (cf. Daniel 11:39; Daniel 12:2). After three and one-half years, this Antichrist will terminate the sacrifices and offerings that he permitted these Jews to offer. Their ability to offer these sacrifices indicates that they will be back in the land worshipping at a rebuilt temple.

"The wing of abominations" may be a reference to a wing of the temple that is particularly abominable because of idolatry, possibly the pinnacle or summit of the temple. [Note: Young, p218; Whitcomb, p134.] Another interpretation takes "wing" figuratively, and sees Antichrist descending vulture-like on his prey. [Note: Archer, " Daniel," p118.] Perhaps the simplest explanation is to take "on the wing of" in the sense of "with." Apparently the prince will appear in the Jerusalem temple when he ends the sacrifices.

Daniel 12:11 refers to a future stopping of the Jewish sacrifices, forty-two months before Messiah returns to the earth. Revelation 13:4-7 also describes this future ruler in harmony with what Gabriel revealed here. Jesus warned of him, too, in Matthew 24:15-28, as did the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, and the Apostle John in 1 John 2:18. The complete destruction decreed by God and poured out on this prince will come, according to these passages, when Messiah returns to the earth.

Students of this passage who do not take this verse as predicting future events usually adopt one of the following interpretations. [Note: See also Baldwin"s additional note on some interpretations of the seventy sevens, pp172-78.] Liberal commentators believe that the events in the seventieth seven, as well as those in the preceding sixty-nine sevens, happened in a loose sense after the Maccabean persecution of the second century B.C. [Note: E.g, Montgomery, pp400-401.] Orthodox Jewish scholars usually take the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D70 as the fulfillment of this verse. Many amillennialists understand the seventieth week to represent what has happened since Jesus Christ"s first advent and what will continue until His second advent. [Note: E.g, Young, pp208-209; and Leupold, pp431-40.] Some amillennialists take the seventieth seven as seven literal years beginning with Jesus" public ministry and ending about three and one-half years after his death. [Note: E.g, Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, pp70-71.] Dwight Pentecost articulated the standard premillennial, pretribulational interpretation.

"This seven-year period will begin after the Rapture of the church (which will consummate God"s program in this present Age). The70th "seven" will continue till the return of Jesus Christ to the earth. Because Jesus said this will be a time of "great distress" ( Matthew 24:21), this period is often called the Tribulation." [Note: Pentecost, " Daniel," p1364. See also The New Scofield ...., p913.]

The strongest argument for a literal fulfillment of the events predicted in Daniel 9:27, is that the events predicted in Daniel 9:24-26 were fulfilled literally.

"The "abomination of desolation" set up by Antiochus is not the ultimate fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 because (a) Antiochus does not fit the time sequence given in that verse, and (b) long after the time of Antiochus, Jesus said Daniel"s prophecy of the abomination of desolation was still future ( Matthew 24:15-16)." [Note: Dyer, in The Old . . ., p719.]

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Constable, Thomas. DD. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable". 2012.

Joseph Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments

Daniel 9:27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many — “The covenant to be confirmed by the Messiah is not a civil, but a religious compact, as such, styled by Daniel himself, the holy covenant, Daniel 11:28; Daniel 11:30; Daniel 11:32, the covenant of grace; which, after the infraction of the first divine law of strict obedience, was, of mere clemency, granted to all mankind by the mediation of Christ. He not only expiated the sins of the world by his death, which was the chief article of the federal system; but in person, by the energy of his miracles, by the efficacy of his doctrine, and, soon after his resurrection, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, he induced many myriads of the Jews to accede to this covenant, which the Prophet Jeremiah so admirably describes, Jeremiah 31:33-34 : compare Hebrews 8:6-13. He shall confirm this covenant with MANY, not with ALL, which marks the exclusion of the obstinate and impious Jews, whose fate is predicted in the preceding and following clause. By an obvious analogy, the Christian covenant, though offered to all, is still confirmed with many; namely, those only who, by a rational faith and moral subjection, having his law written in their hearts, attain to that exalted privilege.”

For one week — “Christ’s personal ministry continued to its fourth year. St. John (John 2:13; John 5:1; John 6:4; John 11:15;) distinctly reckons four passovers; the first, A.D. 30, Feb. 15, and the first year of his ministry; the second, A.D. 31; the third, A.D. 32; the fourth, A.D. 33. The half year precedes the first passover from his baptism. The first half week of Daniel is from the beginning of Christ’s first preaching, Mark 1:15, Repent ye, and believe the gospel, A. 30, to his death, April 3, A. 33; or rather, to the pentecost following, when all the Christian mysteries were completed. The duration of Christ’s ministry is so ascertained by St. John; and is so suitable to the great events of his life as well as to this prophecy, that, as it needs not to be protracted, so it cannot be shortened with any degree of probability. The second half week is from the feast of pentecost, (when St. Peter with so much energy converted three thousand of the Jews,) to the conversion of Cornelius, and the first-fruits of the Gentiles, by the same apostle. The best chronologers place the vision of St. Peter, and the conversion of Cornelius, in the fourth year after the passion; and in the same year we may place the foundation of the church of Antioch, where the disciples were first called CHRISTIANS, Acts 11:26. Thus a prediction, which began with the happy event of rebuilding the earthly Jerusalem, sublimely terminates with the structure of the heavenly, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, JESUS CHRIST himself being the chief corner-stone, Ephesians 2:20-22. The confirmation of the Christian covenant in one week, or seven years, includes its full effect, both in the conversion of many myriads of the Jews, and in the first-fruits of the Gentile Church.”

And in the MIDST of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease — “The sacrifice here specified, with its attendant bread-offering, was eucharistical, as well as propitiatory, being a slain victim, on which the offerers feasted in token of amity and reconciliation with God. When Christ, in the MIDST of the week, offered his own body, that great sacrifice for the expiation of sin, to reconcile sinners to God; by that most holy and acceptable victim, he completed and abolished all the typical sacrifices of the law. The legal sacrifices, indeed, continued to be offered at the temple, for thirty-six years after Christ’s death; but, in effect, they ceased, at that instant their efficacy was no more, after that Christ had given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour, Ephesians 5:2. Hence forward the Christian religion abrogated the Levitical sacrifices, as was accurately foretold by the psalmist, Psalms 40:6, as commented by the inspired writer to the Hebrews 10:5-10.”

And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate —

Or, more literally, And he shall be a desolator by the wing of abominations. Or, And being a desolator, he shall command over a wing of abominations. The desolator is the Roman army of sixty thousand men: Jos., B. J. 3:4. 2. The wing, as well as the flood, is the Hebrew metaphor for great armies. Abominations, in the Jewish style, are idols. The word is so used by Daniel 11:31, for the idol of the Olympian Jupiter, which Antiochus placed on God’s altar, 1 Maccabees 1:57. In this prophecy, it denotes the standards of the Roman legions. To every legion was a golden eagle with expanded wings, grasping a thunder-bolt. The eagles, with the standards of the cohorts, ten in each legion, adorned with the image of the reigning Cesar, were deified, adored, and sworn by; each eagle was placed in a little temple, or shrine; and there was a chapel in the camp where all the eagles were adored. At Rome they were deposited in the temple of Mars. Such deified ensigns were an abomination to the Jews: see Joshua 17:7; Joshua 17:2; Joshua 18:8. The prediction was minutely verified when the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the temple and adjacent buildings, brought the ensigns to the holy place, fixed them against the eastern gate, offered sacrifices to them, and hailed Titus Imperator, Joshua 6:6. 1. The allusion to the Roman standards is observable in that prediction of Moses; The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle flieth, a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand, Deuteronomy 28:49 : see also Matthew 24:15-16. The eagles, and the language, and the distance from Rome, discriminate the Romans from the Chaldeans, whose tongue was only a dialect of the Hebrew.”

“The concluding clause, Even until the consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate, is elliptical. It may be thus literally translated, and the ellipses supplied; Even until the consummation and excision, the divine wrath shall be poured on the desolate city, temple and people; which expresses so complete a devastation, as cannot be described but in the emphatic words of Christ, when his disciples beheld with admiration the recent magnificence of Herod’s temple. See ye not all these things? Verily, I say unto you, there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And, Daniel 9:21, Then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Christ’s own prediction was memorably verified against the attempt of the apostate emperor, Julian, expressly to defeat it: an attempt which confirms the principle of prophecy, that the designs and counsels of God are independent of the projects of men, either to frustrate or fulfil them.” The war of Adrian, A.D. 133, may be also intended in this last clause of the prophecy; and the re-duplication of images and expressions, rising one above another, may relate to the two completions. “It is worthy of attention, that the ancient prophecies, prior to this of Daniel, have no such exact specification of the time of their completion. Chronology was not reducible to historic certainty prior to the Olympiads. When that era became the authentic measure of time, God was pleased to give this singular credential to the Christian religion; whose author and original could not be more precisely ascertained than by a measure of time, adapted to the ideas of the Jewish law, including ten jubilees, or seventy sabbatic years, nearly commencing with the war of Peloponnesus [between the Athenians and Lacedemonians;] in the recital of which, the unexampled accuracy of Thucydides led the example of the most exact notation of time to other historians. If chronology for six hundred years after Cyrus had been as perplexed as it was for six hundred years before, it would not have been possible to ascertain the completion of a prophecy, specifying so many particular dates.” — Dr. Apthorp. The reader will observe, that several false and evasive systems have been advanced on the subject of this prophecy; but it has not been judged proper to embarrass this exposition of the passage with a refutation of them.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Benson, Joseph. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". Joseph Benson's Commentary. 1857.

George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary


Many. Christ seems to allude to this passage. (Matthew xxvi. 28.) He died for all; but several of the Jews particularly, would not receive the proffered grace. (Calmet) --- Of the week, or in the middle of the week, &c. Because Christ preached three years and a half: and then, by his sacrifice upon the cross, abolished all the sacrifices of the law. (Challoner) --- Temple. Hebrew: "the wing," (Calmet) or pinnacle, (Haydock) the highest part of the temple. (Calmet) --- Desolation. Some understand this of the profanation of the temple by the crimes of the Jews, and by the bloody faction of the zealots. Others, of the bringing in thither the ensigns and standard of the pagan Romans. Others, in fine, distinguish three different times of desolation: viz. that under Antiochus; that when the temple was destroyed by the Romans; and the last near the end of the world, under antichrist. To all which, as they suppose, this prophecy may have a relation. (Challoner) --- Protestant: "For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even unto the consummation; and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate." (Haydock) --- The ruin shall be entire. (Calmet)

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Haydock, George Leo. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary". 1859.

E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes

he shall confirm the covenant = make a firm covenant: i.e. the little horn will do this at the beginning of the last seven years. See note below on "one week". It may even be the beginning of the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14. Compare Daniel 11:21-24.

the covenant = a covenant.

many = the many.

one week. This is the last seven years which completes the "seventy" of Daniel 9:24; the time when action commences in connection with Daniel"s "city" and "People" (i.e. Jerusalem and Israel). These have been in abeyance since Daniel 9:26. Israel is "Lo-ammi" (= not my people, Hosea 1:9, Hosea 1:10). For the present interval between, Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27, see Luke 4:18-20; Luke 21:24. App-50; also App-63. This fills the first half of the "week" (see Revelation 11:3-11).

the midst of the week = the middle of the week (i.e. at the end of the first three and a half years).

the sacrifice and the oblation to cease = sacrifice and oblation to cease. This is the action of "the little horn" (See Daniel 8:11, Daniel 8:12, Daniel 8:13; Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11). This belongs to the time of the end, and will be accompanied by the setting up of the abomination mentioned below and by our Lord in Matthew 24:15. See App-89and App-90.

for the overspreading of = on the wing, or battlement of; but Ginsburg suggests "al kanno (instead of "al kanaph) = in its stead [shall be]: i.e. in place of the daily sacrifice. Compare Daniel 11:7.

abominations he shall make it desolate = the abomination that maketh desolate. See App-90. This is certainly future. See Matthew 24:15. Our Lord tells us where it will stand "in the holy place": i.e. in the Temple at Jerusalem: and we have the same admonition to "understand" (compare verses: Daniel 9:23, Daniel 9:25, above). Antiochus, the type of "the little horn", defiled the sanctuary, but he did not destroy it. He cannot therefore be the fulfiller of this prophecy, though he foreshadowed him.

abominations. Jehovah"s name for an "idol", as being what he detests. Hebrew. shakaz = to be abominable. The "of" in this connection being the Genitive (of the Origin), App-17.: i.e. which causes the desolation. Compare 2 Kings 23:13. Isaiah 44:19, &c. Daniel 12:11 is conclusive.

until the consummation = unto a full end. The reference is to Isaiah 10:22, Isaiah 10:23.

determined. See note on "the wall", Daniel 9:25 above.

shall be poured upon = shall come pouring upon. For the fulfillment, compare Revelation 16:1, Revelation 16:2, Revelation 16:3, Revelation 16:4, Revelation 16:8, Revelation 16:10, Revelation 16:12, Revelation 16:17.

desolate = the causer of desolation. See Daniel 12:11. Then the consummation of Daniel 9:24 will be fulfilled.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Bullinger, Ethelbert William. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "E.W. Bullinger's Companion bible Notes". 1909-1922.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

And he shall confirm the covenant - Christ. The confirmation of the covenant is assigned to Him also elsewhere, (Isaiah 42:6, "I will give thee for a covenant of the people" - i:e., He in whom the covenant between Israel and God is personally expressed; cf. Luke 22:20, "the new testament is my blood;" Malachi 3:1, "the angel of the covenant;" Jeremiah 31:31-34 describes the Messianic covenant in full). Contrast Daniel 11:30; Daniel 11:32, "them that forsake the holy covenant," "such as do wickedly against the covenant." The prophecy as to Messiah's confirming the covenant with many would comfort the faithful in Antiochus' times, who suffered partly from persecuting enemies, partly from false friends (Daniel 11:33-35). Hence, arises the similarity of the language here and in Daniel 11:30; Daniel 11:32, referring to Antiochus, the Old Testament Antichrist, the type of the final Antichrist.

With many - (Isaiah 53:11; Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:28; Romans 5:15; Romans 5:19; Hebrews 9:28).

In the midst of the week - the 70 weeks extend to 33 AD Israel was not actually, destroyed until 79 AD, but it was so virtually, 33 AD, about three or four years after Christ's death, during which the Gospel was preached exclusively to the Jews: When the Jews persecuted the Church and stoned Stephen (Acts 7:1-60), the respite of grace granted to them was at an end (Luke 13:7-9). Israel having rejected Christ, was rejected by Christ, and henceforth is counted dead (cf. Genesis 2:17, "In the day that thou eatest thereof (of the tree of knowledge of evil) thou shalt surely die:" from the day of his fall he was counted dead, and yet Adam did not actually die until he was 930 years old; (Daniel 9:5 ; Hosea 13:1-2): its actual destruction by Titus being the consummation of the removal of the kingdom of God from Israel to the Gentiles (Matthew 21:43), which is not to be restored until Christ's second coming, when Israel shall be at the head of humanity (Matthew 23:39; Acts 1:6-7; Romans 11:25-31; Romans 15:1-33.) The interval forms for the covenant-people a great parenthesis.

He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease - distinct from the temporary "taking away" of "the daily" (sacrifice) by Antiochus (Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31). Messiah was to cause all sacrifices and oblations in general to "cease" utterly. There is here an allusion only to Antiochus' act, to comfort God's people when sacrificial worship was to be trodden down, by pointing them to the Messianic time, when salvation would fully come, and yet tropic sacrifices cease. This is the same consolation as Jeremiah and Ezekiel gave under like circumstances, when the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was impending (Jeremiah 3:16; Jeremiah 31:31; Ezekiel 11:19). Jesus died in the middle of the last week, 30 AD His prophetic life lasted three and a half years; the very time in which "the saints are given into the hand" of Antichrist (Daniel 7:25, "a time and time, and the dividing of time"). Three and a half does not, like ten, designate the power of the world in its fullness, but (while opposed to the divine, expressed by seven, of which three and a half is the half) broken and defeated in its seeming triumph; for immediately after the three and a half times, judgment falls on the victorious world-powers (Daniel 7:25-26).

So Jesus' death, after His three and a half years of ministry, seemed the triumph of the world, but was really its defeat (John 12:31). The rending of the veil marked the cessation of sacrifices through Christ's death: for the veil had always been associated with the typical sacrifices, so that, when it was torn, the sacrifices and it together gave place to the one antitypical sacrifice once for all consummated on Calvary, (Leviticus 4:6; Leviticus 4:17; Leviticus 16:2; Leviticus 16:15; Hebrews 10:14-22, "Having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having an High Priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart," etc.) There cannot be a "covenant" without sacrifice (so Noah was taken into covenant with God with sacrifice, and Abraham, Genesis 8:20-22; Genesis 9:1-17; Genesis 15:9, etc.; Hebrews 9:15). But here the old covenant is to be confirmed, but in a way special to the new testament-namely, by the one sacrifice, which would terminate all sacrifices (Psalms 40:6; Psalms 40:11). Thus as the Levitical rites approached their end, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, with ever-increasing clearness, oppose the spiritual new covenant to the transient earthly elements of the old.

And for the overspreading of abominations - on account of the abominations committed by the unholy people against the Holy One. He shall not only destroy the city and sanctuary (Daniel 9:26), but shall continue its desolation until time of the consummation "determined" by God (the phrase is quoted from Isaiah 10:22-23), when at last the world-power shall be judged, and "dominion be given to the saints of the Most High" (Daniel 7:26-27). Auberlen translates, 'on account of the desolating summit of abominations (cf. Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11; thus the repetition of the same thing as in Daniel 9:26 is avoided), and until the consummation which is determined, it (the curse Daniel 9:11, "the oath that is written in the law of Moses") will pour on the desolated.' Israel reached the summit of abominations, which drew down desolation (for "wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together," Matthew 24:28) - nay, which is the desolation itself-when, after murdering Messiah, they offered sacrifices, Mosaic, indeed, in form, but paganish in spirit, because they had lost all their meaning when He had been once for all sacrificed; and because, also, they offered them not in faith, but in formalism and hypocrisy (cf. Isaiah 1:13; Ezekiel 5:11).

Christ refers to this passage, as also to Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11 (Matthew 24:15), "When ye see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place" (the latter words being tacitly implied in "abominations" as being such as are committed against the sanctuary). Tregelles translates, 'upon the wing of abominations shall be that which causeth desolation'-namely, an idol set up on a wing or pinnacle of the temple (cf. Matthew 4:5) by Antichrist, who makes a covenant with the restored Jews for the last of the 70 weeks of years (fulfilling Jesus' words, John 5:43, "If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive"), and for the first three and a half years keeps it; then in the midst of the week breaks it, causing the daily sacrifices to cease. It was "on a pinnacle of the temple in the holy city" that Satan tempted Jesus, and failed: and the same place may be the scene of Satan's coming temptation of Israel by Antichrist. Tregelles thus identifies the last half week with the time, times, and a half of the persecuting little horn (Daniel 7:25). But thus there is a gap of at least 1,830 years put between the 69 weeks and the 70th week! Sir Isaac Newton explains the wing ('overspreading') of abominations to be the Roman ensigns (eagles) brought to the east gate of the temple, and there sacrificed to by the soldiers: the war, ending in the destruction of Jerusalem, lasted from spring 67 AD to autumn 70 AD - i:e., just three and a half years, or the last half week of years (Josephus, 'Bellum-Judaicum,' 6: 6).

And that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. Tregelles translates, ' ... shall be poured upon the causer of desolation'-namely, Antichrist. Compare "abomination that maketh desolate" (Daniel 12:11). Perhaps both interpretations of the whole passage may be in part true; the Roman desolater, Titus, being a type of Antichrist, the final desolater of Jerusalem. Bacon ('Advancement of Learning,' 2: 3) says, 'Prophecies are of the nature of the Author, with whom a thousand years are as one day; and therefore are not fulfilled punctually at once, but have a springing and germinant accomplishment through many years, though the height and fullness of them may refer to one age.'


(1) It was the general impression of the Jews in exile that after the 70 years of captivity foretold should end, Messiah would come in glory to vindicate the cause of Israel, and to set up His kingdom in Jerusalem. Daniel is therefore commissioned in this chapter to inform them that 70 times 7 years must elapse after their return before Messiah would come, and that even then Messiah would not come as yet in the glory foretold by the earlier prophets, and anticipated prematurely by the Jews, but would come to die for the making an end of sins (Daniel 9:24). Daniel studied the revelation given from God in the letters of Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2), in order to know the times and events foretold. Herein we see his teachableness and humility. Though he was so great a prophet, and had been honoured with the converse of angels, and even of the Lord Himself, he did not think it beneath him to read Jeremiah's prophecies; nay more, instead of relying on his own thoughts, or on human calculations, he consulted the inspired letters of that prophet, which, with the other Scriptures, he regarded as the only infallible source of information. Let us similarly draw all our spiritual knowledge from that only well-spring of unmixed truth.

(2) God had promised to restore the Jews, after a 70 years' captivity, to their own land. This promise did not cause Daniel to restrain prayer, as if it were unnecessary, seeing that God's promise must come to pass, but was rather his incentive to greater carnestness in supplications, as having the strongest ground of assurance that his prayers would be heard. He who hath ordained the promised consummation, hath ordained also His people's prayers as means and forerunners to that consummation. We also are similarly to make God's Word the ground of our petitions. And when the time of performance of God's premises draws nigh, then in particular we are to plead them earnestly before God.

(3) Confession of sin should alway be the first element in prayer. Like Daniel, we should make our confession personal and particular, as well as general, and in common with others: "I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my confession" (Daniel 9:4). At the same time we should, as the prophet, mourn over and confess our nation's sins as our own. "We have sinned ... neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, who spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers and to all the people of the land" (Daniel 9:5-6). God had promised, if Israel in captivity would confess her sin, and accept the punishment of her iniquity (Leviticus 26:39-44), He would remember for her the covenant made with her fathers. Daniel accordingly accepts the Babylonian exile and the unparalleled evils brought upon Jerusalem (Daniel 9:12) as not exceeding what was her due, but as altogether consonant to the righteousness of God (Daniel 9:7-11; Daniel 9:13-14). But he pleads God's "covenant" (Daniel 9:4), and God's "mercies and forgivenesses," which "belong to Him" in accordance with that covenant (Daniel 9:9). Let us imitate him in this respect when we are in sore trouble, and pray for relief; let us justify God as righteous (Daniel 9:14) in all His dealings with us, however trying; and let our sole plea he His own everlasting covenant of mercy in Christ to all true and believing penitents. The spiritual restoration must precede the literal and external restoration. Without the former, the latter would be of no real benefit: soon the same sins, recurring through the unhumbled state of the heart, would render necessary again an infliction of the same, or even of a more severe chastisement.

(4) Moreover, Daniel's confession of sin precedes immediately the revelation as to the coming of Messiah. So it ever is. The Spirit first convicts the soul of its sin, and next points to Christ "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). While we are constrained to have reverent fear before God as "the great and dreadful God" (Daniel 9:4), and while we humbly confess our sins of ignorance, infirmity, and willful and habitual rebellion (Daniel 9:5), we may boldly and confidently cast ourselves on the grace and mercies of God in Christ.

(5) The sin of Israel had been universal-all had transgressed God's law, though it had been with the greatest plainness "set before" them by the servants and ministers of God. Their sin had been therefore inexcusable; and God, by the punishments which He inflicted, showed that His words were no idle threats. The curse had been poured out upon them to the dregs, in consonance with the oath of Yahweh (Daniel 9:11). Yet such had been the awful infatuation of the Jews, that they were not even by punishment brought to repentance. They possibly prayed that God would turn from His wrath; but they did not pray that "they might turn from their iniquities, and understand the truth of God" (Daniel 9:13). How often do those spiritually sick spurn the healing medicine, and prefer to leave sin to its deadly workings in them! But our prayers for deliverance from trouble can only be heard when we are willing to be delivered also from sin. If men believed God's fait hfulness to His threats, they would not go on, as they do, madly braving them. While the Jews were slumbering in spiritual apathy, God was all the time incessantly "watching upon the evil" Daniel 9:14). Like a vigilant watchman, He did not allow one of their sins to escape His all-seeing cognizance and the consequent punishment. Though ungodly men slumber spiritually, their "damnation slumbereth not" (2 Peter 2:3). (6) Daniel, however, pleads God's ancient favour in delivering Israel out of Egypt, whereby He had attested to the whole world His covenant-relation to the Israelites as his ground of hope that God would now again deliver them, turn His anger away, and cause His face to shine upon His own sanctuary as in the days of old (Daniel 9:16-17). He appeals to the Lord's regard to His own honour, and endeavours to show that the Lord's glory was at stake, before the Gentile nations, in the cause of His own covenant-people. So our most effectual plea with God will be, "For the Lord's sake (Daniel 9:17) ... for thy great mercies ... O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God; for thy people are called by thy name" (Daniel 9:18-19). Intense fervour and vehement earnestness, flowing from a lively sense of the urgency of our needs, and of the power and willingness of God to supply them, are the fire which will kindle the holy flame of true devotion.

(7) Whiles the prophet was yet speaking, yea, whiles he was speaking in prayer (Daniel 9:20-21), the angel Gabriel, from God, flew swiftly to him, to assure him that, at the very beginning of his supplications, the commandment went forth from God (Daniel 9:20-23) in answer to his petition. The prayer had power with God because it was offered in connection with the typical evening oblation (Daniel 9:21). So it is only in so far as our prayers are presented through our great antitypical sacrifice that they will bring to us an answer of peace. Then shall we, like Daniel, be "greatly beloved" for the sake of the Son of God's love. Before we call, God will answer; and while we are yet speaking, He will hear (Isaiah 65:24).

(8) Still the faith and patience of the servants of God were to be exercised. He, in common with his countrymen, from a misapprehension of the earlier prophecies, had expected the advent of Messiah in connection with the restoration from Babylon, after the 70 years of exile that had been foretold. But now he is informed that not the completion of 70 years, but the completion of 70 times seven years after that epoch, is to be the time wherein Messiah is to be looked for. Then indeed would the transgression be finished, an end be made of sins, and reconciliation be made for iniquity, everlasting righteousness be brought in, and the Most Holy be anointed (Daniel 9:24).

Moreover, he is told, whereas he and his countrymen looked for the manifestation of Christ's glorious kingdom at His advent, that, on the contrary, Messiah would then be "cut off," and their anticipations of His temporal kingdom, and the glory of Israel with Him, would at that time come to nothing (Daniel 9:26, note). The whole period from the downfall of the theocracy, at the Babylonian captivity, until its re-establishment at Messiah's second coming, was to constitute "the times of the Gentiles," which were to be "troublous times" (Daniel 9:25). In them the street and wall of Jerusalem were rebuilt. But no recovery of the full freedom and glory of the theocracy was thereby realized for the Jews, nor has been ever since. But to compensate for it, it was in this period that the Saviour came, in whom is summed up all that is good of all preceding ages. He came in great lowliness, reflecting in His person the humiliation and sufferings which are the portion of His covenant-people, Israel, during the whole period of the troublous times of the Gentiles. Till sin was "made an end of," by a full and perfect propitiation, "ever-lasting righteousness" could not be brought in. But now that "iniquity" has been "covered" (note, Daniel 9:24) by the atonement of Christ, the antitypical "Most Holy" place is anointed and consecrated; and by that new and living way which he has consecrated through the veil, that is, His flesh, believers may come boldly before God, accepted and justified in the everlasting righteousness of their divine surety.

(9) In the long period of the Gentile times, a beginning period of a half millennium was marked off-70 weeks of years, divided into 7 weeks of years at the beginning, and one week of years at the close, during both of which periods God was to vouchsafe revelations (in the latter period the greatest of all revelations, even God manifest in the flesh), and 62 weeks of years intervening, in which there was to be none; as also there is none in the long Gentile times, from the age of Christ and the apostles until the coming millennium. The full measure of Israel's guilt was to be filled up at the close of this period of 70 weeks of years. She not only was the guilty instrument of cutting off Messiah, but afterward hardened herself against the Holy Spirit, speaking through the apostles, and persecuted them; "forbidding them to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway" (1 Thessalonians 2:16). From that epoch she was counted as dead before God.

Therefore Messiah, who by His death would have brought salvation even to the nation which was His murderer, came in the person of the Roman "prince," Titus (Daniel 9:26), His representative, and destroyed the Jewish "city and sanctuary" with an overwhelming "flood" (Daniel 9:26). Thenceforth the kingdom of God has been transferred to the Gentiles, and shall be so until the King of Israel shall come again to "restore the kingdom to Israel" (Acts 1:6-7). Then shall Israel, in a preeminent sense, occupy the place to which, from her first election, she was ordained by God-namely, to be head of regenerated humanity. Messiah died in the midst of the prophetic week, for the confirmation of His covenant with the "many" who believe on Him: by His one sacrifice all other sacrifices are done away with: and by the fact that the 490 years have long since elapsed, the falsity of the Jews' expectation of Messiah, as if he had not yet come, is unanswerably proved. Desolations are to continue upon Israel, and are to be wound up with the last and greatest tribulation to her during the three and a half years of Antichrist, the counterpart of the three and a half years of Christ's ministerial manifestation. Then shall the determined time come for judgment on the God-opposed world-powers. The desolater shall be desolated, and God Himself shall plead the cause of His ancient people: and Israel's restoration by Her Messiah and King shall be the signal for blessings to the whole world. May we be found watching patiently, prayerfully, and believingly, for the blessed consummation, and for the coming of our Lord!

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.; Fausset, A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged". 1871-8.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(27) And he shall confirm.—The subject of the sentence is ambiguous. Theod. makes it to be “one week.” LXX. “the covenant;” others take it to be the Antichristian prince spoken of in the last verse, an opinion which derives some support from Daniel 7:25. According to this interpretation, the covenant refers to the agreement which the prince makes with the large number of persons who become apostates. But (1) the word “covenant” does not apply to any such agreement, but rather to a covenant with God, and (2) in Daniel 9:26 it is the people of the prince, and not the prince, which is the subject of the sentence. It is therefore more appropriate to take Messiah as the subject. During the last closing week of the long period mentioned, Messiah, though cut off, shall confirm God’s covenant (comp. Daniel 11:22; Daniel 11:28; Daniel 11:30; Daniel 11:32) with many, that is, with those who receive Him.

In the midst of the week.—Or, during half the week (the latter half of the week, according to the LXX.), he will cause to cease all the Mosaic sacrifices (possibly those mentioned in Daniel 8:11), whether bloody or unbloody. The verb “cause to cease” is used here as in Jeremiah 36:29.

And for the overspreading . . .—The Greek versions agree in translating this as follows, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδελυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων, which St. Jerome follows, “et erit in templo abominatio desolationis. However, it is not possible to obtain any such meaning from our present Hebrew text without omitting the last letter and altering the last vowel of the word translated “abominations.” As the text stands it can be literally translated only as follows, “and upon the wing of abominations is a desolator.” The desolator, of course, is the person who causes the desolations mentioned in Daniel 9:26. But what is meant by the “wing of abominations?” The language is without parallel in the Old Testament, unless such passages as Psalms 18:10; Psalms 104:3 are adduced, where, however, the plural “wings,” and not the singular, is used. If the number is disregarded, the words before us are explained to mean that “the abomination” or idolatry is the power by which the desolator accomplishes his purposes. He comes riding on the wings of abominations, using them for his ministers as God does the winds or the cherubim. As it appears decisive against this interpretation that Daniel has written “wing,” and not “wings,” it is better to explain the words as referring to the “sanctuary” spoken of in the last verse. The sense is in that case, “and upon the wing—i.e., the pinnacle of the abominations (comp. the use of πτερύγιον,, Matthew 4:5) is a desolator. The Temple is thus called on account of the extent to which it had been desecrated by Israel.

Until the consummation.—These words refer back to Daniel 9:26, and mean that these abominations will continue till the desolation which God has decreed shall be poured upon that which is desolated. Though the word “desolate” is active in Daniel 8:13; Daniel 12:11, it appears in this passage to be used in a passive sense, as also in Daniel 9:18. That which is foretold by Daniel is the complete and final destruction of the same city and temple which evoked the prophet’s prayer. There is no prophecy that the desolator himself is destined to destruction. Of his doom nothing is here stated. The “prince” appears merely as the instrument pre-ordained by God, by whose people both city and sanctuary are to be destroyed.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Ellicott, Charles John. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers". 1905.

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Isaiah 42:6; 53:11; 55:3; Jeremiah 31:31-34; 32:40-42; Ezekiel 16:60-63; Matthew 26:28; Romans 5:15,19; 15:8,9; Galatians 3:13-17; Hebrews 6:13-18; 8:8-13; Hebrews 9:15-20,28; 10:16-18; 13:20,21
the covenant
or, a covenant. cause.
Matthew 27:51; Hebrews 10:4-22
for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate
or, upon the battlements shall be the idols of the desolator.
8:13; 11:36; 12:11; Isaiah 10:22,23; 28:22; Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20,24; Romans 11:26
that determined
Leviticus 26:14-46; Deuteronomy 4:26-28; 28:15-68; 29:18-29; 30:17,18; 31:28,29; Deuteronomy 32:19-44; Psalms 69:22-28; 1 Thessalonians 2:15,16
upon the desolate
or, upon the desolator. Reciprocal: Exodus 29:38 - two lambs;  Leviticus 15:31 - that they;  Numbers 7:62 - GeneralNumbers 24:24 - and shall afflict Eber;  2 Kings 16:15 - the morning;  Psalm 74:3 - all;  Isaiah 28:18 - when;  Isaiah 64:10 - GeneralJeremiah 7:30 - they;  Jeremiah 42:18 - As mine;  Jeremiah 51:51 - for strangers;  Ezekiel 7:8 - pour;  Ezekiel 16:62 - I will;  Daniel 8:11 - and the place;  Daniel 8:17 - at;  Daniel 8:19 - the last;  Daniel 11:31 - shall take;  Daniel 11:35 - even;  Hosea 3:4 - without a sacrifice;  Haggai 1:4 - and;  Zechariah 5:9 - for;  Zechariah 11:6 - into the;  Zechariah 13:8 - two;  Malachi 4:6 - lest;  Matthew 24:2 - There;  Mark 12:9 - he will;  Luke 13:35 - your;  Luke 17:37 - wheresoever;  Luke 19:43 - the days;  Luke 21:6 - there;  Luke 21:22 - all;  John 11:48 - and the;  Acts 13:41 - for;  Romans 9:28 - and cut;  Hebrews 7:22 - of a;  Hebrews 10:11 - daily

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Torrey, R. A. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge".

Arthur Peake's Commentary on the Bible

Daniel 9:27. (a most difficult verse) he shall make a firm covenant: if the reference is to Antiochus, as seems absolutely certain, the words can only mean that "he made a covenant with apostate Jews in order to secure their help in extirpating the Jewish religion." Some scholars emend the text and translate, the covenant shall be annulled for the many," i.e. there shall be a period of general apostasy.—one week: 7 years.—half of the week: the 3½ years during which the sacrifices were suspended by Antiochus (cf. Daniel 7:25, Daniel 8:14).—upon the wing of abominations: another difficult and obscure phrase. As it stands, it can only be explained on the analogy of Psalms 18:10, "and he (i.e. Yahweh) rode upon a cherub and did fly." Many scholars, however, prefer to emend the text and translate "in its stead," i.e. in place of the sacrifice. "In its stead shall be the abomination that maketh desolate, i.e. the heathen altar set up by Antiochus (Daniel 11:31*).—and even unto the consummation: the best rendering of the last clause is that of Driver, "and that until the consummation and that which is determined be poured upon the desolation," i.e. the abomination will continue until doom is poured out upon Antiochus.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Peake, Arthur. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "Arthur Peake's Commentary on the Bible ". 1919.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

The angel now returns to Christ. We have explained why he made mention of the coming slaughter; first, to shew the faithful that they had no reason for remaining in the body of the nation in preference to being cut off from it; and next, to prevent the unbelievers from being satisfied with their obstinacy and their contempt of their inestimable blessings, by their rejecting the person of Christ. Thus this clause was interposed concerning the future devastation of the city and temple. The angel now continues his discourse concerning Christ by saying, he should confirm the treaty with many for one week This clause answers to the former, in which Christ is called a Leader. Christ took upon him the character of a leader, or assumed the kingly office, when he promulgated the grace of God. This is the confirmation of the covenant of which the angel now speaks. As we have already stated, the legal expiation of other ritual ceremonies which God designed to confer on the fathers is contrasted with the blessings derived from Christ; and we now gather the same idea from the phrase, the confirmation of the covenant. We know how sure and stable was God’s covenant under the law; he was from the beginning always truthful, and faithful, and consistent with himself. But as far as man was concerned, the covenant of the law was weak, as we learn from Jeremiah. (Jeremiah 31:31.) I will enter into a new covenant with you, says he; not such as I made with your fathers, for they made it vain. We here observe the difference between the covenant which Christ sanctioned by his death and that of the Jewish law. Thus God’s covenant is established with us, because we have been once reconciled by the death of Christ; and at the same time the effect of the Holy Spirit is added, because God inscribes the law upon our hearts; and thus his covenant is not engraven in stones, but in our hearts of flesh, according to the teaching of the Prophet Ezekiel. (Ezekiel 11:19.) Now, therefore, we understand why the angel says, Christ should confirm the covenant for one week, and why that week was placed last in order. In this week will he confirm the covenant with many But I cannot finished this exposition just now.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliographical Information
Calvin, John. "Commentary on Daniel 9:27". "Calvin's Commentary on the Bible". 1840-57.