Daniel Chapter 8 & 9The Vision of a Warring Ram and Goat - Daniel 8:1–14 The Ram with Two Horns (8:1–4, 15–20) The Goat with the Horn Between His Eyes (8:5–8, 21–22) The Little Horn (8:9–14, 23–27) 1-2Two years after Daniel’s visions of the four beasts, he saw another vision which gave additional information on some key questions. The time of this vision was at the end of Belshazzar’s reign (approximately 547 bc.) and corresponds to the dramatic events of the 5th chapter of Daniel. The earlier, historical section, Daniel 2:4 through 7:28, was written in Aramaic, the commercial language of the Gentile world of that day. Perhaps the prophet used Aramaic here to emphasize the destinies of the Gentile nations: their rise, progress, decline, and collapse. Daniel 8–12, however, emphasizes the destiny of the Hebrew people. These chapters focus on human history as it relates to the Jews; and the original language of the text is appropriately Hebrew. In the vision of Daniel 8:1–14, Daniel is taken to the palace at Shushan (or Susa), the winter capital of the Persian kings, about 230 miles east of Babylon. The “River Ulai” (v. 2) was actually an irrigation canal that flowed northwest to the city between the Kerkha and the Abdizful Rivers. There he sees a battle between a two-horned ram and a one-horned goat. 3–14recall the content of Daniel’s vision; 15–27record the interpretation of it given by Gabriel. 3–4Within the Old Testament leaders are often symbolized by animals such as the ram and the goat. These two, which are singled out in Ezek 34:17, are both clean animals; contrast the unclean hybrids—and fierce predators—that represent nations in Dan 7 and in I Enoch 89–90. The ram might be readily identifiable as a symbol for Persia. According to Ammianus Marcellinus (fourth century ad.) 10.1, on the march Persian kings carried a gold ram’s head. The two horns on the single ram then suggest Media and Persia, here recognized to be one yet distinguishable. 4probably described Medo-Persia’s initial triumphs under Cyrus in Asia Minor and Babylon than later victories over Egypt (Cambyses), Scythia and Greece (Darius), and Athens itself (Xerxes), since Daniel suggests the order “west and north and south.” Cyrus’s victories to the east are omitted: from a Palestinian perspective he is the ruler of the east (Isa 41:2). 5–8The opening heralds a new development. The goat is a less frequent symbol for leadership than the ram (see Isa 14:9; Zech 10:3), but goats are fierce creatures, more powerful than sheep (cf. Jer 50:8). The imperial leadership more powerful than that of Persia will be Alexander’s. The goat might suggest the post-Alexandrian Greek empire of the Seleucids, because as the zodiac placed Persia under the ram, so it placed Syria under the horned goat, Capricorn. The goat is also the symbol of the god Amurru. The notion of the unicorn may derive from the reliefs that merge two horns as one. The description of Alexander’s flying advance recalls that of Cyrus in Isa 41:3 and the winged leopard of Dan 7:6 (cf. 1 Macc 1:1–4). Over a period of four years between 334 and 331 bc. Alexander demolished the Persian empire and established an empire of his own extending from Europe to India. 8“The breaking of the notable horn” was a reference to the untimely death of Alexander in 323 bc. at the apex of his strength. His kingdom was divided among his four generals (called the diadochi, Gk., ‘successors’) Ptolemy, Cassander, Lysimachus, and Seleucus 1, the four horns which arose in place of Alexander. These sub-empires fought each other on a regular basis for the next 200 plus years. Lysimachus received Thrace and Bithynia, Cassander took Macedonia and Greece, Seleucus 1 received Syria, Babylonia, and the East as far as India, while Ptolemy staked out Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia.” Syriacame to Antiochus IV, surnamed Epiphanes (Gr. “God manifest”). He ruled Syria from 175 bc. to 163 bc. Antiochus Epiphanes IV Antiochus wanted to annex all of Egypt with the Seleucid Empire. This was partly due to his wanting to imitate Alexander, but a greater urgency loomed in that he couldn’t have Rome gain a major foothold on his southern flank. This left no course for Antiochus to follow but to plan the inevitable war with Egypt and possibly Rome. The prominence and importance of Judea, to the Syrian kingdom, resided in the geographical fact that Judah lay as the last staging field and the site of demarcation for any invasion of Egypt. Judah’s importance was amplified by Antiochus’ fear that the Ptolemies of Egypt were trying to establish an alliance with the Jews and against Syria. So he persecuted the Jews and profaned their temple, becoming known as the Old Testament Anti-Christ. Judah’s powerful priesthood was led by a pious, highly respected, but decidedly pro-Egyptian high priest by the name of Onias III. In reprisal against the Jews, Antiochus attacked Jerusalem, killing 50,000 men, women, and children. He sold an additional 40,000 people into slavery. The temple was dedicated to Jupiter Olympus; and on the great bronze altar a sow was offered, the juices of which were spread throughout the temple precincts. He used harlots in the temple to celebrate Saturnalia (the pagan origin of December holiday now called Christmas) and forbade the observance of the Sabbath, the reading of Scripture, and circumcision. The answer to Antiochus’ dilemma with the Jews came from Jason, whose Hebrew name was Joshua, the brother of the High Priest Onias. Jason, a confirmed Hellenist, was fully aware of Antiochus’ position and needs, so his offer was straight forward and to the point. Jason proposed that he would transfer, to Antiochus, a huge sum to finance Antiochus’ campaigns against the Ptolemy’s of Egypt and Rome in exchange for Onias being deposed from the status of High Priest with that position then being transferred to Jason. Well it didn’t take Antiochus long to accept Jason’s proposal and in 174 BC Jason became high priest and the head of the Jewish Sanhedrin. Jason, without consulting Antiochus, built a Greek gymnasium in Jerusalem. Here he hosted the nude Greek athletic games, which were opened by Hellenistic ceremonies and included sacrifices to the heathen gods. Jason’s leadership also saw many Jews, who were convinced of the Hellenistic ideals, undergo a painful reverse circumcision. Jason honoured his contract and paid Antiochus what he had promised. Antiochus, now armed with the beginnings of a substantial war chest, continued with his preparations for an invasion of Egypt. Meanwhile, Judah was in the initial throws of chaos. Normal Jewish religious life continued unabated but the Hellenistic and pagan ideals of Jason were having a telling effect. Many traditional Jews began to leave Jerusalem while a group lead by a greedy upstart named Menelaus, who had the backing of the extremely wealthy and powerful Jewish family of Tobiad, thought Jason’s efforts in Hellenizing the Jews weren’t radical enough. Menelaus, in 172 BC, went to seek an audience with King Antiochus, in which he laid out his plan for forcefully Hellenizing the Jewish people. Like Jason’s, Menelaus’ plan was extremely simple. Menelaus wanted to be High Priest and he was willing to pay Antiochus another huge sum from the Jewish treasury to make him high priest. Once again, a pledge of gold was the only catalyst Antiochus needed to act, so he sent Menelaus back to Jerusalem with a garrison of soldiers who were to arrest Jason. However, Jason received word that his life and position were in danger and he fled into what is now called the state of Jordon. Jason’s departure left the position of high priest vacant and in 171 BC the vacancy was filled by Menelaus, with Antiochus’ blessing. This act sent the Jewish community into complete turmoil; for the first time since the second Temple had been built, with the blessing and protection of the Persian Empire, the title of High Priest was held by someone who was not of the tribe of Levi nor had he even been a priest. This constituted an act of the greatest heresy in the minds of many pious Jews. However, Menelaus was not to be deterred. His plan wasn’t to abolish Jewish Law; he wanted to liberalize it. If the Jews were going to live in the world they had to be pushed, even if kicking and screaming, into the modern times. Menelaus sought to drop rules that traditionally forbid or interfered with Jewish participation in Greek culture, like the ban on nudity. He wanted to reduce the law to an ethical commonality by combining the Greek idea of the polis(city) with the Jewish ethical and moral God. This proposed marriage between Greek culture and Jewish universal monotheism, he thought, would usher in a universal utopia. Thus, the Temple in Jerusalem became an ecumenical place of worship. In keeping with the idea of the commonality of all faiths, it would be Menelaus who would introduce a statue of Zeus and have it placed in the Temple. This act symbolically related the union of Greek universalism with the universal god of the Hebrews. One of Menelaus’ problems was that the Greeks were polytheists and their concept of god was, for the most part, very different from that of the Jews. Greek gods were successful and renowned ancestors who had undergone an apotheosis (transformed into gods). For the Greeks and those who adhered to the Hellenistic ideals it was a natural step for them to deify a monarch, a concept that pious Jewry found anathema. However this did not keep the reformers from continuing to push towards a greater embrace of the Greek city-state culture. Menelaus second problem was not a philosophical religious argument over the loss of the Jewish identity, but lay in the fact that the Hellenistic reformers were of the wealthy elite, who had levied excessive taxes. This had resulted in the hardships and a poor standard of living which was increasing. among the general population. Menelaus’ greatest problem arose when he learned, in 169 BC, he had no means of paying Antiochus what he had promised. The year (170 BC) before Antiochus had invaded Egypt, conquering all but the Egyptian city of Alexandria. Antiochus’ little war was financed on the back of the Jewish people, but even more disturbing was that Rome hadn’t said a word but had taken an ‘ah-well’ attitude towards another Greek war. Antiochus allowed Ptolemy VI to continue to reign as Egypt’s king but as a Syrian puppet. Antiochus summoned Menelaus to Antioch in 169 BC. Knowing that he was in real trouble Menelaus plundered some of the Temple’s gold vessels and took them with him in the hopes of appeasing, if not fully pacifying Antiochus’ rage. As a means of hedging his bets while in Antioch, Menelaus had his brother Lysimachus raid the Jewish Temple a second time taking a good deal of the gold that was sacred to the Jewish faithful. However, Menelaus’ initial payment seems to have had soothing effect on Antiochus for while. The legendary pious High Priest Onias III was murdered. When the Jewish people learned of the second raid on their gold and the death of their beloved High Priest they were enraged and petitioned Antiochus to remove Menelaus from the position, but their anger and petition were in vain and Antiochus reinstated Menelaus. Along with Antiochus’ renewed support, Menelaus took back to Judah an edict from the king which was to go into effect in 167 BC. This law placed a prohibition on male circumcision, made it mandatory that sacrifices be made to Hellenistic deities, required that Antiochus IV be worshiped as the god Zeus, and forbade any religious worship on the Sabbath or traditional Jewish holidays. Also, the image of Zeus was to become a permanent addition in the Jewish Temple at Jerusalem, ritual prostitution was to be instituted and pork was to become part of the new Jewish diet. In the month of Kislev (November and December) 167 BC, Antiochus’ decree went into effect. The Jewish temple was immediately dedicated to the god Zeus, an image of the god Zeus was permanently installed on the sacrificial alter and all traditional Jewish items of worship were removed from the Temple. Then, on the 25th day of the month of Kislev, sacrificial offerings of pigs began, with their blood being sprinkled on the Holies of Holies. This was followed by temple prostitutes being introduced on the Temple mount. The psalmist describes a similar (but perhaps less awful) situation: O God, the nations have come into Your inheritance; Your holy temple they have defiled; They have laid Jerusalem in heaps. The dead bodies of Your servants They have given as food for the birds of the heavens, The flesh of Your saints to the beasts of the earth. Their blood they have shed like water all around Jerusalem, And there was no one to bury them. We have become a reproach to our neighbours, A scorn and derision to those who are around us. Psalm 79:1–4 So began a reign of terror and war between the Hellenists and pious Jews which was to last for 3 long years, ending finally with the defeat of the Syrian forces and the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Jewish revolt which followed, led by Judas Maccabaeus (“the hammer”), is described in two Apocryphal books, 1and 2 Maccabees. Finally, in December, 165 bc., the Jewish patriots cleansed and rededicated the temple Antiochus had defiled. It is interesting to note that working backwards 2300 days (Dan. 8:14), one arrives at the season in 171 bc. when Antiochus began his harassment of the Jews. The celebration of this cleansing of the temple later became a Jewish holiday known as the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22). Today it is known as Hanukkah or the Feast of Lights. The story of Antiochus Epiphanes has lessons for today. It was a “man of the church” who compromised with the world because of money and power. His aim was compromise of faith in order to attain assimilation. One world faith, adopt the world’s view of morality, a message of universalism, etc. 9The small horn growing from the Seleucid line is Antiochus IV, an insignificant person compared with Alexander, and the youngest of several brothers who had no right to the throne. A hostage in Rome through much of his earlier life, and a king who would treat Judea ignobly—even if from a broader historical perspective he was an impressive ruler. On his expeditions and deeds, see 11:21–45. “The fairest”, is a term for the land of Israel, the land flowing with milk and honey, in Ezek 20:6, 15. 10–12apparently refers to all of this. Small wonder that Antiochus was called Epimanes, i.e., ‘Antiochus the madman,’” instead of “Epiphanes” (Revelation from Epiphany to show)) 13-14“Desolating rebellion” , like “desolating abomination”, (9:27; 11:31; 12:11), parodies the name of the god (Ba˓al Šamem, “Lord of heaven”) “Rebellion” or “abomination” replaces “Baal,”. v 12). “Desolating” replaces “heaven,” using similar letters, and indicating the effect these innovations have had on Jerusalem and its sanctuary (cf. vv 24–25; 9:26; 1 Macc 1:39; 3:45; 4:38). In both Biblical and rabbinical Hebrew abomination is a familiar term for an idol. In an earlier period, “Lord of heaven” was a foreign title for the highest God, but one which Jews could utilize as entirely appropriate for the true God. The title is now, however, one the Seleucids especially use. Its Greek equivalent is (Olympian Zeus): This is the title 2 Macc 6:2 gives the god to whom Antiochus dedicated the Jerusalem temple. According to 1 Macc 1:54, the abomination was erected on the altar of sacrifice, and this has usually suggested it was an image of Zeus (and of Antiochus, according to some). The rabbis mostly consider that the expression refers to the desecration of the Temple by the erection of a Zeus statue in its sacred precincts by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. 1 Macc 1:59, however, speaks of there being a pagan altar erected on the altar of sacrifice (cf. Josephus, Anitquities. 12.5.4). This implies rather that the setting up of the abomination consists in the rebuilding of the altar for it to serve a different cult (as in Judg 6:25–26): Antiochus had it turned into an old-fashioned high place. The 2,300 evenings and mornings before this takes place is usually taken to denote 2,300 occasions when an evening or a morning whole offering was not sacrificed—that is, 1,150 days. The period from the erection of the pagan altar in the temple to the rededication of the sanctuary was three years and ten days (1 Macc 1:54; 4:52–53), and orthodox rites had been suspended a little before the first of these dates. If it were necessary to relate 2,300 days to an actual period of approximately this chronological length, it might still begin with the cessation of sacrifice in late 167AD and go on to the prospect of complete victory over the Seleucid power and release of the temple area from foreign over-lordship or the threat of it. This might be reckoned to have come about in 160AD with the victory described in 1 Macc 7, though this was soon followed by the death of Judas Maccabaeus and the triumph of the Hellenizing party (1 Macc 9). The figure 23 occurs in I Enoch 90.5. Of the 70 shepherds who have oversight of the Jews during the gentile domination, 23 have this responsibility for the early Hellenistic period. By implication, another group of 23 is responsible during the Persian period. The first 69 of the 70 weeks of years from the exile to Antiochus (Dan 9:24–27) might also be seen as three times 23. The 2,300 days may, then, suggest a fixed “significant” period, which might or might not denote a chronological period in the region of 6 or 7 years. 15-16The voice that commissions Gabriel (v 16) is described as a human one; that recalls the description of God’s own appearance when he speaks in Ezek 1:26. Gabriel is a “man of God” and is himself addressed by a “human” voice, that is, the voice of God. He addresses Daniel as “mortal man” (בן אדם, lit. “son of man”), using God’s characteristic form of address to Ezekiel (e.g., 2:1, 3). It suggests both solemnly and encouragingly the awesomeness and the honour of an ordinary human being hearing this man of God address him. 16-19It is of central importance that Daniel should “understand the vision” (v16). This is emphasized several times: by the man’s voice (v16) and by the appearance of Gabriel and his exhortation (“Understand, son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end” (v. 17) and his insistence that Daniel be aware that the vision reveals to him “what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation; for at the appointed time the end shall be” (v. 19). What is the “end” to which Gabriel refers (vv17, 19)? A common view is that it must be the end of the age and the return of Christ. If this is the case, however, then the vision not only foresees nations and rulers displaying some of the characteristics of the Anti-Christ, but it actually envisages the time of the final Anti-Christ. 17-20As Daniel’s gaze came into focus he saw a two-horned ram. Its horns grew up, one after the other. The second one grew taller than the first. 20The identity of the ram is revealed: “the ram which you saw, having the two horns—they are the kings of Media and Persia.” The second, higher horn, represents the Persian kingdom, perhaps expressing the same idea as the bear raised on one side (Dan. 7:5). Cf v4. Daniel saw the ram butting its way “westward, northward, and southward … no animal could withstand him … he did according to his will and became great” Its conquest was all-embracing and irresistible. The Persian Empire was to spread to Babylonia, Syria, and Asia Minor in the west, to Armenia and the area of the Caspian Sea in the north, and into Africa in the south. In all likelihood it is the authoritative interpretation of this vision that helps to explain the boldness of Daniel’s words to Belshazzar on the last day of his reign (Dan. 5:17–28). For some time before that day Daniel had already known (at least in general terms) that the Babylonian Empire would collapse. The writing on the wall was simply an indication to him of the divine timing. He was not taken by surprise. He spoke boldly because he knew that his God was ruling over the affairs of the world. We do not know the details of individual life stories nor God’s exact plan for the future, but we do know that neither life story nor history is governed by individuals alone or by chance. We know that God is in control. 21Daniel had observed the ram then another animal came into view—a goat. It “came from the west across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground” (v5). This second beast obviously represented an empire achieving tremendous expansion swiftly. Gabriel reveals, it is “the kingdom of Greece” (v21). The “large horn” is a clear reference to Alexander the Great. The vision describes the totality and speed of his conquest of the nations prior to his early and corrupt death at the age of 33. A general of the Greek army at 21, he had virtually conquered the world by the age of 26. Daniel witnessed the confrontation between the ram and the goat. The goat “ran at [the ram]with furious power. … There was no power in the ram to withstand him” (vv. 6–7). Nothing could more eloquently summarize the overwhelming defeat Alexander visited upon the Persian forces in a battle at the Granicus River in 334 bc. With only thirty-five thousand men, Alexander’s forces plunged through the river attacking Darius’s one hundred thousand footmen and ten thousand horsemen, reportedly killing twenty thousand at a loss of only one hundred Greek troops. Complete victory was assured at the battles of Issus the following year and at Guagamela in 331 bc. 22“four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power”. The “large horn was broken”(v20), however, suddenly and unexpectedly. Alexander’s empire was divided into four regions, although it is possible that the expression “four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven” indicates simply that the empire was fragmented (“to the four winds”). Of these four kingdoms, one takes centre stage in Daniel’s vision. It is the “little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land”(v9). The little horn not only takes a position of prominence; it becomes the centrepiece of the vision, and its activity is described in great detail. This little horn represents the climax of the revelation. Why should this kingdom—which does not have the power of Alexander’s empire —be given top billing instead of Alexander? Isn’t there a distortion of history here? No. What we have here is history viewed from a particular point of view. World events and people’s lives are always researched and understood from a particular perspective. The point of view envisaged here is God’s. What is significant about the little horn is that it turns “toward the Glorious Land,” (v9) that is, the land of God’s covenant people - Israel. This understanding of history focuses the judgment of God on one issue: How did that nation respond to My chosen people? Jesus intimates that this will be the perspective of the final judgment of the nations (Matt. 25:31–46). Alexander proved to be a confused and evil man, but the little horn here is singled out because its evil is directed with hatred against the people of God and all that they represent. Who is the little horn? 23-25Two key aspects of Daniel’s portrait of Antiochus are summarized in v 23 and expanded in vv 24 and 25, his ruthless boldness and his artful cleverness. These are not merely randomly observed aspects of a particular person’s character. Nor does the seer imply that Antiochus only looks fierce and compensates for lack of real strength by trickery. Used for evil ends, Antiochus’s two characteristics are both key elements in the standard portrayal of a tyrant. What did it mean for Daniel to “understand the vision” (v16)? Clearly it could not mean that he would be able to see the future as though he were reading an advance copy of a history book. No names are given and no dates are set. The timetable for the events contains very little specific chronology. The description of the little horn’s psychology in verses 23–27 gives us the answer. It means to have some insight into the nature and causes of the conflict. Thus Daniel’s vision will give him some understanding of the nature of evil and the reasons that it must be destroyed if the kingdom of God is to last forever. The little horn has “fierce features”. There is a streak of insolence about it, not unrelated to its intellectual abilities, for it “understands sinister schemes” (v23). It has called evil its good and finds attractive what is offensive to God precisely because it is an offense to God. It is in its own way an apocalyptic figure because the real nature of sin is unveiled in it. It is here a figure for humanity, twisted out of its original character and direction, standing unrepentantly in opposition to God. The little horn also expresses the power of sin. Yet not even its power to sin or the power of its sin is autonomous. “His power shall be mighty,” but it will not be “by his own power” (v. 24). Even for the breath it breathes to sin against God it is dependent upon the One against whom it sins. The little horn’s desire to attain autonomy only reveals that there is no such thing as human autonomy. It may appear to possess a measure of autonomy—to the point of being able to “destroy the mighty, and also the holy people” (v24)—but nowhere does it step beyond the borders God has set for its activity. What is true of this Anti-Christ is true of all Anti-Christs. It will also be true of the final Anti-Christ. Even Satan is a created being, accountable to God. 25“He shall cause deceit to prosper”. What would be true of the little horn of chapter 7 is also true here: Its sin corrupts the very foundation of all human relations, namely, honesty and integrity. In Scripture, the great deceiver is Satan himself (Gen. 3:13; 1 Tim. 2:14; Rev. 12:9), and all who belong to the kingdom of the dragon share in this moral corruption. The unveiling of sin in all its evil also underscores the fact that sin is essentially self-centred and self-glorifying, never God-centred or God-glorifying. The horn “shall magnify himself in his heart” (v25). It not only deceives others; ultimately it will deceive itself. It is against God. It exchanges the truth of God for the lie (Rom. 1:25) and falls foul of the oldest of all temptations: “You will be like God” (Gen. 3:5). It “shall even rise against the Prince of princes” (v25). The folly of its sin lies in the fact that it could do none of this “by its own power” (v24). This is the true nature of sin. 26–27The vision is for the 160s bc. In connection with chapter 7 the little horn that emerged from the fourth beast is not identical with the little horn that emerges out of the fragmented empire of the goat. The former appears to represent the final anti-Christ; the latter clearly represents Antiochus Epiphanes. It may well be that there is some significance in the common designation of a little horn for Antiochus Epiphanes and the anti-Christ. The final anti-Christ will not appear on the scene of world history without predecessors. Its personal characteristics have long been shared by others who may be seen as the “many anti-Christs” who have already appeared (cf. 1 John 2:18). Later in Daniel reference is made to the “abomination of desolation”(cf note on v13-14 & 11:31, cf. 9:27). This refers in the first instance to an activity of Antiochus Epiphanes, but that activity is the embryonic form of an evil that all anti-Christs perpetrate in one form or another. Hence Jesus uses the expression in Mark 13:14, and further allusions to it appear in the New Testament’s teachings on the last things. Daniel was told clearly that his vision related to events “many days in the future” (v26). His reaction was twofold. He was overwhelmed by what he had seen and heard: “I … fainted and was sick for days. … I was astonished by the vision” (v27). He did not respond indifferently just because he had learned that he would not personally face these days of unmitigated evil. Instead he was deeply burdened for the future of the kingdom of God, just as he was grieved and troubled by his earlier vision (7:15). Here was a man whose zeal for the kingdom of God was not—as zeal so easily can be—restricted to his own time frame and the events in which he himself would participate. What distinguishes Daniel’s spiritual leadership from so many spiritual leaders of our own day is very simple: He was seeking to build God’s kingdom, not his own kingdom. From a personal point of view he would have been satisfied with obscurity so long as the work of God was not obscured. Are there general spiritual principles of common importance enshrined here? Three may be suggested. (1) Evil always and inevitably has a tendency to overstep itself. Gabriel explained to Daniel that the little horn would arise “When the transgressors [perhaps “transgressions”] have reached their fullness.” The statement is reminiscent of the statement that “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Gen. 15:16). When it was, judgment fell. Sin in individuals, nations, or rulers persists in stretching itself only to fall under the judgment of God. The kingdom that is built on principles that are contrary to the kingdom of God will always be toppled by another similar kingdom. We see that here in verses 4–5, 8, and 11–12. The same is true of individuals (for example, compare the lives of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar). Sin is transgression. It involves overstepping the boundaries God has set. It leads to our lives being broken by forces we cannot control—or more accurately—being broken against the laws of God. Sometimes the wicked prosper. That was a problem with which the Old Testament saints often wrestled. In Psalm 73, Asaph recalls how he envied the prosperity of the wicked (v. 3). They seemed to sin and profit, contrary to all he felt to be right. Yet he observed, “I went into the sanctuary of God; then I understood their end. Surely you set them in slippery places; You cast them down to destruction” (Ps. 73:17–18). He realized that the wicked eventually overstep themselves. Just when they think they have the world at their feet, everything is lost. They hear the terrible words: “Fool, this night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?” (Luke 12:20). We see the same principle at work in the New Testament. In the Great Sin—Satan’s plot to destroy Jesus—it must have seemed as though evil was victorious. Jesus died in the hour of the power of darkness (Luke 22:53), but Satan had overstepped himself. Through the death in which he sought to destroy the Christ, Jesus was able to “destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb. 2:14–15). The same principle is illustrated in Paul’s life. During his ministry he was frequently imprisoned. No doubt the powers of darkness against which he constantly wrestled believed that they had overcome him. With their leader silenced, surely Christians throughout the Roman world would become discouraged. Paul knew that some might be and wrote to them: “I ask that you do not lose heart at my tribulations for you” (Eph. 3:13). Evil appeared to be prospering, but Paul knew that it was overstepping itself. One day that would become clear. Paul did not have to wait too long. When he penned other prison letters to the Philippians, to Philemon, and to the Colossians, it was clear that God had allowed the forces of evil to overstep themselves once again. As a result of his imprisonment, Paul had been able to share the gospel with the entire prison guard, and his fellow believers had taken such heart from his example that they were witnessing with even greater boldness (Phil. 1:12–14). Satan should have learned his lesson from the Damascus Road, when under his inspiration the young Saul had planned slaughter and persecution against the early Christians, only to discover that his chief agent was actually marked for the service of the Lord. The knowledge that evil will inevitably overstep itself also has a vital role to play in our contemporary Christian lives. It is the groundwork of a spirit of patience in the face of trial, unrighteousness, and persecution. Evil will always overstep itself. We can therefore wait patiently on the Lord’s judgment without seeking vengeance ourselves. The prophet Habakkuk learned this in the face of the evil of his day. The Lord urged him to be patient until the day of His judgment (Hab. 2:8). This brought not only patience but a fresh perspective on life. Habakkuk anticipated the Pauline injunction to “glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance [patience]” (Rom. 5:3). This enabled him to say: Though the fig tree may not blossom, Nor fruit be on the vines; Though the labour of the olive may fail, And the fields yield no food; Though the flock may be cut off from the fold, And there be no herd in the stalls— Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation. —Habakkuk 3:17–18 (2) Daniel’s vision underlines the weakness of the strongest and greatest of men without God. Alexander the Great was the empire builder of his day; Antiochus exerted ruthless and irresistible power against the Jews of his kingdom. Yet these ambitious men were not masters of themselves; neither was able to control his fate. Alexander was the victim of a fever, Antiochus of his uncontrolled passions that flared in hatred first against the people of God and ultimately against God Himself. We are never so vulnerable as when we believe ourselves to be strong by our own strength. Uzziah, the eleventh king of Judah, was an example of this: “When he was strong his heart was lifted up, to his destruction, for he transgressed against the Lord his God by entering the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense” (2 Chr. 26:16). When he was discovered, “Uzziah became furious” (2 Chr. 26:19), and was struck with leprosy. Sin and guilt render us incapable of self-control. Daniel stands in marked contrast. He confesses freely that he is nothing apart from God (27–28). With God’s power, however, his whole life is one of remarkable self-control under the most arduous tests. Why is this? It is because the Spirit of God that dwells in him (5:11) is a spirit of self-discipline (2 Tim. 1:7 [niv]). Only those who are submitted to God’s Spirit can ever ultimately be in control of their own lives. This is because only those whose whole lives are controlled by the Lord will be motivated to grow in control of the whole of their lives (Rom. 8:5–18). When we are motivated by self-glory we will be prepared to make considerable sacrifices to control certain aspects of our lives. Control of only part of life for the glory of self is not self-control at all. It is self-serving and ultimately becomes self-slavery. Pride can motivate us to have a well-controlled body, but only grace can produce a self-controlled life. (3) Daniel’s vision of the little horn teaches us a consistent pattern of satanic opposition to the work of God among His people. The little horn’s activities are summarized in a threefold manner: “By him the daily sacrifices were taken away”; “the place of [the Lord’s]sanctuary was cast down”; and it “cast truth down to the ground” (vv. 11–12). These were prophecies of specific historical acts on the part of Antiochus, but they also illustrate three areas of spiritual life that Satan consistently attacks in the Lord’s people. 1. The daily sacrifices were part of the liturgical discipline of the Mosaic covenant. They no longer exist for Christians, but they were inaugurated on a daily basis in order to teach the necessity of sacrifice if the people were to enjoy fellowship with God. They may have also taught the people that sacrifice was a daily part of their lives before God. No wonder Antiochus—as the enemy of God and His people—sought to put an end to this. 2. Just as Antiochus sought to cast down the sanctuary, Satan seeks to destroy the new temple of God, the living fellowship of God’s people. At times he does so by means of persecution; at other times his devices are more subtle. He may try to introduce false teaching in the pulpit, lethargic worship in the pew, or simply discord and dissension in the fellowship. How easily Satan is able to blind many Christians to the necessity of maintaining the peace and unity of the local Christian fellowship. Sometimes he appears as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). Under the guise of a right principle, someone will cause disharmony in the church. Their concern will be stated as “truth” or “righteousness,” but despite appearances the real motivation will be “self.” This dissension will be rooted in pride, or lust for power and personal influence, or a refusal to submit to the principles of Scripture. (Col. 3:15). 3. Satan is very skilled at introducing wrong thinking and doctrinal controversy into the church—deceitful teaching is always a mark of the Anti-Christ. So conscious was Paul of this that he warned the elders of the Ephesian church: “I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember….”(Acts 20:29–31). If this could happen in the church where Paul, Apollos, John, and Timothy all served in ministry, can we doubt that it could happen in our church too? These things will reach their climax in the days of the man of sin or lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:3–10). That final, future, apocalyptic figure and his actions have an older, deeper, more sinister origin. Antiochus’s attack on these three features of life with God are not only reminiscent of the last days, but they are also rooted in the temptation of the first days. In the Garden of Eden, Satan sought to undermine that sense of self-denial that is fitting for us as God’s children and servants. “Assert yourself, and deny God” was his blatant attack. He thus began to spread the seed of disunity in the harmony of the family-church to which Adam and Eve (and later their children) belonged. The parents were set against each other (Gen. 3:12, 16) and the children likewise (Gen. 4:6–8). At the root of all this, the truth of God was denied (Gen. 3:1–5). Indeed there is nothing new under the sun. “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by your brotherhood in the world” (1 Pet. 5:8–9). 70 Weeks Daniel 9:1–27 It might be that Daniel 9 was intended to clarify issues raised in chap. 8; it takes up the question of the fate of the temple and seeks light from Scripture on what dream and vision left unclear. Daniel’s prayer - The object of prayer is God (Elohim). But this most general word appears only once, in the introduction to the prayer (v 3). Even here it is combined with the title “Lord” (Adonai, also vv 4, 7, 9, 15, 19, 19). Chapter 9 takes on special significance. In this chapter that we learn who Daniel really was and discover the secret of his usefulness in God’s kingdom. Daniel, as we have seen (2:17–18; 6:10), was a man of prayer. He prayed in times of crisis, but such prayer was the expression of a life of regular, disciplined praying. Here in chapter 9 Daniel recognizes that a critical time has come for God’s people, and that realization grew out of his regular times of study, meditation, and prayer. Structure Inspired to Pray (9:1–3) The Inspirer of Prayer (9:4–19) The Hearer of Prayer (9:20–23) The Seventy Weeks (9:24–27) The chapter three times refers to the people to whom God’s word came and for whom Daniel prays as “Israel” (vv 7, 11, 20). Daniel’s description of them as “my people Israel” (v 20) is striking. When Israel is “my people,” the pronoun normally refers to Yahweh. In prayer, they would normally be “your people”: so vv 15, 16, 19 (in a similar way, Daniel speaks of “your city” and “your sanctuary” in vv 16, 17, 19). Such an expression indicates the special relationship Yahweh has with Israel. Sometimes, however, Yahweh speaks to their representative in terms of “your people” (Exod 32:7; 34:10; contrast 32:11, 12; 33:13, 16). He is then dissociating himself from them. Daniel has a special focus on Judah, Jerusalem, and its sanctuary (vv 7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20). It was Judah that remained faithful to David and to Zion; it was Judah (and Benjamin) that continued to be the embodiment of the actual Israel after the exile (cf. the list in Neh 11). Administratively, Judah was a separate area from that of the old northern kingdom, Samaria; the arrival of the Persians meant it became a province of the Persian empire, ruled by its own provincial governor (see Hag 1:1; Ezra 2:1, 63; Neh 1:3; 5:14–15; 8:9. In the Hellenistic period, the Ptolemies treated it as part of the larger major province of Syria and Palestine; within that Judah (Judea) remained a distinguishable unit over against Samaria to the north and Idumea to the south. There are also both theological and political reasons for special mention of the city of Jerusalem in the prayer (vv 7, 16, 18, 19). Yahweh’s city, centred on Mount Zion, is the perfection of beauty, the joy of all the earth; it is the place where Yahweh has made himself known in the history and the worship of his people (Pss 48; 50:2). It is the city Yahweh chose as the dwelling place of his name (Neh 1:9, identifying Jerusalem as the place denoted by Deut 12:5). Admittedly, Daniel emphasizes rather that it is the city that bears Yahweh’s name—that is, the city he owns. Nor does Daniel specifically speak of it as Zion, the name which carries the most theological freight and which thus most often features in the praise and prayer of the Psalms, though he does refer to it as “my God’s sacred mountain”, v 20, cf. v 16. The Babylonians’ desolation of Jerusalem put a question mark by the theological claims that had been made for Zion (Lam 2:15). The restoration of the city is of key importance for prophets and leaders of the exilic and postexilic community, but even in the time of Nehemiah the city lacks inhabitants and requires a semi-compulsory repopulation (Neh 11:2). Within the city, Daniel is specifically concerned for the sanctuary. In 587 bc. and in the 160s bc. the sanctuary was despoiled and emptied of its worshipers: “[Jerusalem’s] sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness, her feasts were turned into mourning, her sabbaths into reproach, her honor into contempt”; sacrifices were suspended and the building defiled (1 Macc 1:39, 45–47; cf. Lam 1:4, 10; 2:6, 7). INSPIRED TO PRAY God’s sovereign purposes are never revealed in Scripture as excuses for our personal lethargy but as incentives for action. The fact that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Jesus did not mean that His disciples could sit back and relax. To the contrary, it obligated them to go throughout the world with the Good News. So here, Daniel saw that since God had given this promise about the duration of the captivity, it was his responsibility to ask the Lord to fulfil His purpose. He recognized that God employs means to achieve His ends. The preaching of the gospel is the means by which Christ’s sovereignty over the nations will be fulfilled. Prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem—with all the labour that would demand—was the means by which the Lord’s word through Jeremiah would be fulfilled. What follows is one of the longest and most instructive prayers recorded in Scripture. Several general features of it call for comment before its content is discussed. Why should Daniel have recorded this prayer at all?Jesus calls us to pray in secret so that “your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly” (Matt. 6:6). Why, then, does Daniel make his prayer a matter of public knowledge? Jesus did not, of course, mean that we should never pray when others are present. He was contrasting prayer that is directed to men rather than to God with prayer that is truly God-centred and God-honouring. Daniel’s prayer obviously fulfils this, he set his face toward the Lord (v3).
The same connection is made in the New Testament apocalypse: “Another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended before God from the angel’s hand. Then the angel took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar, and threw it to the earth. And there were noises, thunderings, lightnings, and an earthquake” (Rev. 8:3–5). The prayers offered before the heavenly throne becomes the instrument of God’s activity on the earth. This is the divine principle that Daniel’s intercession unveils for us.
The history of of revivals often trace the origin of the move of God to one individual or a small group who set their faces toward the Lord to make request by prayer and supplication.
In the Christian life there are no “gains” without “pains.” 1The angelic revelation in Dan 9 presupposes reading Jer 25:11/29:10 in the light of other passages as well as Lev 25–26. Although Zech.1 links Jeremiah’s 70 years prophecy with the events of 519BC, which are close to seventy years after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 bc., the Darius by whose reign chap. 9 is dated must be not Darius I (Porphyry) but the Darius of Median birth introduced in 6:1. It was the first year of the rule of Darius the Mede. Belshazzar was gone. It was a time of transition, and Daniel was engaged in Bible study. He was looking for the answer to the cry of the people of God in exile: “How long, O Lord?” (cf. 8:13; Is. 6:11; Rev. 6:10). He was reading the books of Jeremiah’s prophecies to find an answer—which he did: “ ‘And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity,” says the Lord; “and I will make it a perpetual desolation’ ” (Jer. 25:11–12). “Seventy years” suggests a human lifetime (cf. Isa 23:15; Ps 91:10; also Esarhaddon’s inscription, “Seventy years as the period of its desolation he [Marduk] wrote down [in the book of fate]” [D. D. Luckenbill, “The Black Stone of Esarhaddon,” America Journal of Semitic Languages & Literature 41 (1924–25) 167]). “Although Daniel was an interpreter of dreams, he was not so elated with confidence or pride as to despise the teaching delivered by other prophets.”(John Calvin) Now he felt that he understood the significance of those “seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem” (v. 2). Daniel’s reaction is of great significance. It reveals his practical sensitivity to the biblical teaching on divine sovereignty and human responsibility. He knew what God had foreordained. Jeremiah’s prophecy was not conditional in character (that is, God will do x if man will do y). 2It was an unconditional and specific statement of intention (“the number of the years specified by the word of the Lord”). Yet rather than say: “Well, if God is going to do it, there is no need for me to labour or pray for restoration,” Daniel devoted himself to prayer. Nor was it ordinary prayer. 3His “supplications” were accompanied by the rigorous discipline and devotion of “fasting, sack-cloth, and ashes”. He uses one of the most beautiful descriptions of true prayer to be found anywhere in Scripture: “I set my face toward the Lord God to make request by prayer and supplications”. (cf. 2 Chron.7:14) THE INSPIRER OF PRAYER (4-19) 4-20- Practically every phrase in these prayers can be paralleled in Ezra 9; Neh 1; 9, or in the traditions that underlie these four prayers: the prose of Deuteronomy, 1 Kgs 8, and Jeremiah. The prayer is composed in good literary Hebrew 5Daniel’s opening confession adds four other images of failure. “We have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws.” 6“Our fathers” are those who rule in the local community by virtue of an authority associated with their seniority and age; this authority is reinforced by describing their relationship to the community in kinship terms: they have the kind of authority in the community that a father has in the family. Strictly, then, fathers are those who stand at the head of an (extended) family. “fathers” later appears in a different sense, in v 16, “fathers,” is apparently here a more general term, for ancestors. God’s word through Jeremiah encouraged Daniel to pray. God had promised the end of the desolation of Jerusalem. Yet Daniel realized in the “first year of Darius” (v1) that this promise lay as yet unfulfilled. God’s word must be fulfilled, and so Daniel engaged in prayer. Notice the kind of prayer that Daniel offered:
Two things lie at the heart of all mature praying: a recognition of God’s “God-ness” (He is the covenant Lord) and a realization of the nature of our relationship to Him (we are in covenant relationship to Him). Both of these elements distinguish Daniel’s prayer. (1) True prayer is based on the fact that God is a God who speaks. It was “the word of the Lord given through Jeremiah the prophet”(v. 2) that drove Daniel to seek the Lord’s face in the first place. God had not been silent. He was a “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets” (Heb. 1:1). Throughout his prayer Daniel refers to God’s word in a variety of ways. It expresses His “covenant” and His “commandments” (v. 4); it contains His “precepts” and His “judgments.” It was written by “Your servants the prophets who spoke in Your name” (v. 6). It is “the voice of the Lord our God” (vv. 10, 11, 14) and contains His “law” (vv. 10, 11). In it are found “the curse and the oath written in the Law of Moses the servant of God” (v. 11). They are God’s own “words” (v12). This is significant for our understanding of prayer because the basis for all prayer is what God has promised to do. The prayer of faith that James describes (James 5:15) is prayer that rests on what God has promised to do in His Word. In the same way this particular prayer was inspired by the promise of restoration from exile that God had given in His Word. Furthermore, Daniel’s prayer is an expression of trust in a God who keeps His word. This explains why Daniel constantly refers to what God has promised to do. He had already seen the fulfilment of the divine threats of judgment. Now he was praying that God would keep His promise of deliverance and restoration. In simple language, he spoke to God just as a child would speak to a parent: “Lord, you promised …” Much has been said about the secret of prayer. Almost as much has been made of the prayer of faith. The secret of prayer is that we should ask in accordance with God’s will. The prayer of faith asks in unwavering trust for what God has already promised to do. Faith is not a matter of looking within ourselves to see how much we feel capable of requesting. What faith does is search the Scripture to see what God has promised to do. That was what Daniel did. The prayer of faith is the outworking of our covenant relationship with God. This is why James chose Elijah as the classic Old Testament illustration. When his prayers closed and later opened the heavens, bringing drought and then producing rain, he was not working up his faith to see how much he believed God would do. The very opposite was true. He was beginning, like Daniel, with what God had promised to do. God had said He would close the heavens in response to the persistent disobedience of His people (see Deut. 28:15, 9:23–24 for God’s specific promise in His covenant with the people through Moses). Elijah had come to God and said, “Lord, You promised. I believe this is Your word. It must be so. Let it be so in answer to my prayers.” Daniel’s praying was of the same pattern as his appeal to the “righteousness” of God eloquently testifies (vv. 7, 16). The Old Testament term “righteousness” has a specifically covenantal orientation. The young Martin Luther could not see this when he struggled to understand what Paul meant by “the righteousness of God” (Rom. 1:17). Luther was not helped by the fact that his Latin Bible translated Paul’s Greek word dikaiosune (righteousness) as justitia (justice). It is clear from this passage, however, that this is to reduce the full biblical meaning of God’s righteousness. Daniel sees the righteousness of God both as the basis for God’s judgment of the people (v. 7) and also as the basis for his own prayer for forgiveness (v. 16). Daniel underlines God’s faithfulness to His covenantal promise to punish the covenant-breaking of His people: “O Lord, righteousness belongs to You, but to us shame of face. … Yes, all Israel has transgressed Your law, and has departed [from the covenant]so as not to obey Your voice; therefore the curse and the oath written in the Law of Moses… has been poured out on us because we have sinned against Him. … Therefore the Lord has kept the disaster in mind, and brought it upon us; for the Lord our God is righteous in all the works which He does, though we have not obeyed His voice” (vv. 7–14). In contrast, the same righteousness of God is made the basis for Daniel’s appeal for mercy because he knows that God has promised to receive His penitent people and to restore them to fellowship with Himself. His covenant righteousness holds out the hope of His forgiveness, and Daniel clings to this with his whole heart: “O Lord, according to all Your righteousness … let Your anger and Your fury be turned away … because for our sins … Your people are a reproach to all those around us” (v. 16). Daniel trusted what God had said. He realized that God’s word is a covenant word, and he prayed accordingly. That had been true of him in his youth when he had resolved not to breach his covenant with God. It remained true in these times of testing. It was true now toward the end of his life as he set his face toward the Lord in prayer. (2) True prayer always seeks the glory of God. Our age has come to believe that real familiarity with God is best expressed in a casual approach or in language that expresses how easily and informally we have entered His presence. If only we could know God as Daniel did and live as he lived—to the glory of God. Daniel’s prayer is a mark of a heart conscious of the glory of the Lord and wholly devoted to Him.
The Old Testament word for glory (kabod) has the basic sense of heavy or weighty. The weight of an individual’s riches was an expression of personal value or worth. God’s worth or weight is expressed in the display of His attributes.
Daniel’s ultimate motive for prayer was the glory of God because it was his great motive for living. Daniel clearly saw the need of the people. His praying was clearly people-oriented, but it was God-centred. The bottom line of his heart cry was: “Save your people, Lord, ‘for Your own sake’ ” (v. 19). Daniel’s spiritual vision was both strong (he penetrated to the glory of God) and clear (he saw devotion to God’s glory was the only way of joy). God in His infinite glory has devoted Himself to the salvation of His people. Paul noted: “For all things are for your sakes, that grace, having spread through the many, may cause thanksgiving to abound to the glory of God” (2 Cor. 4:15). 3)True prayer appeals to the mercy of God.Several decades had passed since the beginning of the Exile. Most of Daniel’s generation rested with their fathers in the graves of an alien land. Exile must have seemed to many of the Jews to be “normal.” They had learned to live with it. Perhaps some of them prospered. The Exile had been unfortunate, but once again they had made the best of a bad situation. They missed their homeland, but otherwise they had need of little. How different was Daniel’s attitude.
So Daniel appealed to the covenantal righteousness of God for mercy: “we do not present our supplications before You because of our righteous deeds [they had none], but because of Your great mercies” (v. 18). God would surely respond to this plea because He was and is a God who “delights in mercy” (Mic. 7:18).
So Daniel spreads before God
All of this was their own responsibility. Daniel had also learned that the Lord is not indifferent to the self-caused needs of His people. He is a true Father. Isaiah had recalled how, at the time of the Exodus, God said, “Surely they are My people…. So He became their Saviour. In all their affliction He was afflicted” (Is. 63:8–9). Now in the second “exodus” that Isaiah had foreseen (Is. 40:1ff.), Daniel believed that God was still concerned to deliver and save His needy children. Like Hezekiah, he spread the needs of God’s kingdom before Him and waited for a response (see 2 Kin. 19:14–19). This is what it means to have faith in the covenant Lord and to know Him as the inspirer of prayer. Both Leviticus and Deuteronomy envisage the relationship between Yahweh and Israel being fundamentally disturbed by Israel’s faithlessness and disobedience, yet see Yahweh’s response in punishing Israel as stopping short of finally terminating the covenant. If those in exile acknowledge their wrongdoing and the justice of Yahweh’s punishment of them, he will remember his covenant with them (Lev 26:39–45); if they return to Yahweh, he will restore them (Deut 30:1–10; cf. 1 Kgs 8:46–53; Jer 29:10–14). 17and v18 (“give ear and listen”), 19adds a plea to “hear”. Each verse in the prayer offers some motivation for God to hear, forgive, and act. The exiles were inclined to think that God was indifferent to his people’s cries in their distress (Isa 40:27; 49:14; cf. 58:3) THE HEARER OF PRAYER 9:20–27Seventy weeks - The New Testament nowhere clearly refers to the contents of this prophecy. Even the reference to “the abomination of desolation” in Mark 13:14 is from Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 and not strictly from 9:27. If the seventy weeks of this prophecy were fundamental to a biblical theology (as, for example, Isaiah 53 obviously is), there would undoubtedly be clearer exposition of the passage in the apostolic writings. To look immediately for an explanation of the 70 weeks of verse 24 is to ignore the significance of the rest of this chapter. It is unfortunate in this context that controversy over the interpretation of these verses leads some commentators to devote more space to the last 4 verses than they do to the rest of the chapter. This prophecy is set in the context of Daniel’s further encounter with Gabriel (v. 21). While he was pouring out his heart in prayer (vv. 9:1–19), Gabriel was “caused to fly swiftly” to him (v. 21). The expression is an anthropomorphism of sorts to indicate the dramatic swiftness with which Gabriel was sent. His coming is full of significance.
Why, then, was an assurance that his prayer had been heard given so instantaneously to Daniel? His prayer seems to have been cut off in midsentence. Was it partly to assure him that all his prayers were heard by God as soon as they were spoken? If so, that was not the only reason.
Presumably he needed help in understanding verses 9:24–27. While Gabriel’s greeting is mysterious, it provides a major clue to this section. The reason for his appearance at that time was the way in which Daniel’s prayer had focused on the end of the seventy-year period prophesied by Jeremiah. The Lord wanted His faithful servant to see those seventy years in a new and sharper focus. Spiritually, Daniel is like those whose eyes have been fixed on a mountain peak, which, as they approach it, has obliterated everything else from view. When they ascend that peak they discover they are not yet at the summit. There is a further peak to climb. In general terms Daniel already knows this (see Dan. 2 and 7). Now he is to see the path of ascent for the people of God with greater detail. He must look not at the seventy years described by Jeremiah but at the seventy weeks (that is, seventy sevens) prophesied by Gabriel. An interchange takes place during the course of this conversation that illuminates a further reason for the angelic visitation.
That seems an unremarkable statement until we remember that it had been many decades since Daniel had been in Jerusalem where the evening offering was made (roughly mid-afternoon). Yet his thinking was still regulated by the life and worship of Jerusalem. Already seventy years had passed away, during which Daniel had never observed any sacrifice offered; and yet he still mentions sacrifices as if he were in the habit of attending daily in the Temple, which was not really in existence. Whence it appears how God’s servants, though deprived of the outward means of grace for the present moment, are yet able to make them practically useful by meditating upon God, and the sacrifices, and other rites, and ceremonies of his institution. Daniel’s experience was nothing less than a foretaste of this. THE SEVENTY WEEKS Like the earlier prophetic passages in Daniel, the 70 weeks has given rise to (or been interpreted in the light of) several schools of thought: (1) as applying to the period of Antiochus (2) as pointing forward first to the coming of Christ and then to the events of the end (3) as referring to the coming of Christ, the completion of His sacrificial work, and the destruction of Jerusalem that followed His rejection. By the time the seventy sevens end, six things are to be achieved for people and sacred city. The concern of v 24 is thus Israel and Jerusalem. It does not have a worldwide perspective; it is not speaking of the end of all history, or of the sin of the whole world. Daniel is returning to “salvation history” from the secular history that dominated chaps. 7–8 and will dominate chaps. 10–12. 24The period of ruin and desolation comprises seventy years during which the land is uncultivated, to make up for the approximately 490 sabbathless years of the monarchic period. 25“Anointed One” could conceivably refer to a non-Israelite ruler: the first term denotes Cyrus in Isa 45:1, the second the ruler of Tyre in Ezek 28:2. But both are more characteristically used of Israelite leaders, and there is something out-of-the-ordinary about the exceptions in Isa 45:1; Ezek 28:2. It is usually applied to prophets, priests and kings. If the seventy sevens commence about the time when the exile begins, and the anointed ruler appears after the first seven sevens, then the term likely refers either to Zerubbabel or Joshua. 26 It is probably the same “anointed” as in v 25, one who appears after seven plus sixty-two sevens. Those who connect the seventieth week with the Antiochene crisis generally identify this “anointed” with the high priest Onias III, who seems to be the one referred to as “a covenant prince” in 11:22. On the accession of Antiochus in 175 bc., Onias was displaced as high priest by his brother Jason. In 172 bc. Jason in turn was displaced by Menelaus, brother of another of Onias’s opponents; in 171 Menelaus had Onias killed (see 2 Macc 4). Presumably the “ruler to come” is also a representative of the high-priestly line, one who follows Onias. The reference will then be to Onias’s successor Jason, who both corrupted and devastated the people of Jerusalem (see 2 Macc 4–5). 27“a wingof the temple” of the desolating sacrilege lay on the altar within the temple. Now the altar had “wing-like” top corners, usually described as horns. Perhaps Gabriel speaks of wings rather than horns because “winged one” is a title of Baal The fact that the End is described by reference to prophecy (v 27), as in 11:40–45, suggests that this is still future for the seer. The prayer also suggests a Jerusalem setting (vv 7, 16); its perspective implies the period of the exile. (As against those who argue for a later date) “seventy weeks,” or (literally) “seventy sevens” (v24). The point about a period of seven sevens is that it constitutes one jubilee. By the end of this period six things will take place. 1. Transgression will be finished 2. Sins will be brought to an end 3. Reconciliation will be made for iniquity 4. Everlasting righteousness will be established 5. Vision and prophecy will be sealed 6. The Most Holy will be anointed It is almost instinctive to the New Testament Christian to see in these statements a prophecy of the work of Christ. He came to die for our sins that through Him we might die to sin and be raised to a new life of righteousness (Rom. 6:2, 18). It is because these things have been accomplished by Him that grace reigns “through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 5:21). Christ does more than this. He came “to seal up vision and prophecy” (v. 24). He is God’s last word (Heb. 1:1ff.). In Him all the promises of God receive their “yes” and “Amen” (2 Cor. 1:20). In Him alone is found the vision of God and His purpose; In Him. prophecy and prophet are united. How do the words “anoint the Most Holy” (v. 24) find fulfilment? The Most Holy is a reference to the holy of holies, the tabernacle and all the furniture of which were consecrated to God by careful ritual. Jesus came to fulfil all that the holy of holies represented. John tells us He “became flesh and dwelt [literally, “tabernacled”] among us, and we beheld His glory [the shekinah glory of God which was manifested in the tabernacle]” (John 1:14). John’s Gospel also records the remarkable words spoken by Jesus when, as our high priest, He entered into the presence of His Father to pray for us. As He did so, He said, “For their sakes I sanctify Myself” (John 17:19). Jesus Himself was and is the Most Holy.
Verse 24 covers the entire period; Verse 25 divides the first sixty-nine sevens; Verse 26 describes the final seven in indefinite terms; Verse 27 describes the final seven in more detail. If this understanding of the structure is correct, then the first half of verse 27 refers to Christ, the second half to the destruction of the city and the abominations involved in its downfall at the hands of Titus Flavius Vespasianus in ad. 70. In the middle of the final week Christ died for His people. He brought all sacrifice to an end (as the Letter to the Hebrews underlines) Within four decades from the Messiah’s rejection, the soil on which the temple was built would once again be defiled by pagans. Jerusalem would again be desolate. If this is the correct interpretation, it is not too difficult to see what it was that heaven was so anxious to communicate to Daniel, its representative on earth. It was right that he should long to see the people delivered from captivity; it was right that he should long to see Jerusalem rebuilt and the temple worship reinstituted. Yet the Lord wanted Daniel to see beyond these things to what they foreshadowed, however painful that might be. God’s ultimate purpose was not a temple made with hands and a holy place entered but once each year. His Son was the place in which men were to approach God; His sacrifice was the one which would bring forgiveness. Then if men still clung to the shadows and symbols of the old order, rejecting what they symbolized, there was only one terrible prospect: judgment and destruction of the most terrible kind. Daniel, for once, does not record how fearful this vision was to him. We are left to guess. He had climbed one mountain peak only to see another on the horizon. In the distance he saw the outline of a cross where the Messiah would suffer death, “but not for Himself” (v. 26). Beyond he saw the clouds of gathering gloom as the judgment of God rolled on to sweep away Daniel’s beloved city. Did he now recall Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the stone that crushed the kingdoms built by human hands and grew until it became a mountain that filled the whole earth (Dan. 2:44–45)? Did he remember his vision of the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven to receive His kingdom from the Ancient of Days and to receive dominion over His people (Dan. 7:13)? Did he gasp with awe that his God should show him what his Saviour-Messiah would accomplish for him—all to show him how much He loved him (v. 23)? Perhaps there was a special reason why this message came to him “about the time of the evening offering.” Believing that Jesus is God’s anointed, and that his birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and appearing are God’s ultimate means of revealing himself and achieving his purpose in the world, they are also his means of ultimately achieving what the symbols in vv 24–27 speak of. It is this point that is made in traditional categories by speaking of a typological relationship between the events and people of the Antiochene crisis and deliverance and those of the Christ event and the End we still await. |
