J. N. Darby.

<44020E> 159

(Notes and Comments Vol. 4.)

The way in which God is spoken of in Daniel is remarkable, and I note it here. His early first relationship, before the evil is manifested, is "the God of heaven," both to his companions and to the king. This was as natural as it is instructive. God was "the God of the earth" at Jerusalem. "The God of heaven" had given Nebuchadnezzar a kingdom. Daniel 3 is the God of the faithful Remnant. In judgment He is the Most High; Daniel 4. This is found again in Daniel 7:25. With Belshazzar He is merely God as God. In Daniel 6 He is again with the Remnant; only for Darius, He is "the Living God."

In none of the visions of Daniel is God introduced in any way whatever, which is remarkable - Messiah is. "Ancient of days" stands apart, identifying the supreme Jehovah with Him that comes, verse 22, compare Apocalypse 1:11-16. In the prayer of Daniel 9, Daniel's faith rises to the true relationship of God with Israel, and we get the name "Jehovah" - so good is confession! And all the chapter proceeds on, and gives the fruits of this relationship at the close, though with the judgment connected with it. But all is connected with promise, blessing, and Jehovah's relationship with His people, though judgment and sorrow may be there.

It may be thought that Daniel 7 introduces God in a vision of Daniel, but it is only so far as to show the secret source from which all judgment flows. The judgment itself is spoken of generally. "Most High" is only spoken of as characterising the blasphemy. Though faith owns Him, in Daniel 9, as Jehovah, yet there is no relationship with Israel, nor can be. The "God of heaven" characterises Him, generically, all through the Book. There is, at most, the mysterious intimation of a time when the Ancient of days will sit in heaven, and then that He will come. But when He comes, we know it is as "Son of Man." In fact we know that it is Christ's coming which destroys the beast; Apocalypse 19. The setting of the thrones - assumption of power in judgment - is only an epoch in the vision of the beasts. The third vision is of the new kingdom - the Son of Man, verse 13.

In the first six chapters of Daniel, we have, first, the faithfulness which keeps apart from all association with the defilement of Babylon. Faithfulness leads to wisdom. Then we have prayer, and, when answered, thanksgiving. Then the historical scheme of Gentilism, and its character. At the end, the God of the Remnant of Israel is owned. Gentilism makes its religion, and persecutes those who do not submit, but God preserves the residue of His people through the fire, and the God of the residue is owned of the Gentile power. It becomes, for the whole Gentile period, a beast - unintelligent. The Most High, the God of the millennium, from Abraham and Melchisedek, is owned, but here the earthly power. Then the final apostate idolatry, and despite of Jehovah, 'the most High God' (for so Daniel speaks of Him, as revealed to Nebuchadnezzar - the Lord of heaven) His sovereignty was despised, and idol-gods praised. Finally, no God allowed, but man set up as God. These are the two closing characters. This results in the whole world being subjected to the God of the residue of Israel who had kept them (Daniel) through the tribulation. The previous cases (Nebuchadnezzar) the general history, though going to the close, these last two the final characteristic. For Daniel, He is now the 'God of Heaven,' though Ruler of all, as Most High.

160 In the first chapter we have what represents the faithful Remnant in the time of the beast's power - the mas-kilim (wise) of the last days. Then the general historical succession of the Gentile powers, and the substitution of Christ's kingdom by judgment, and the exaltation of the mas-kilim. The idolatrous departure from God, unintelligent condition of heart - at the end of the former the God of the Remnant owned, of the latter, the Most High.

Then in the fifth and sixth chapters, the two final characters, idolatrous blasphemy against Jehovah, and setting up as God at the end. The former judged of God, the second leading to the universal recognition of the God of the Remnant.

Daniel 1

- 1. I do not see any difficulty in the chronology of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar takes the city, but leaves Jehoiakim there Daniel goes to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar dreams in the second year. Daniel was three years under inspiration, Nebuchadnezzar not counting till after his father's death. If he took Jerusalem on his way down to Egypt, as is said, Daniel was sent there, and the chronology fits in exactly. In his second year of reign, Daniel would have filled his three years.

161 Thus, Jehoiakim's eleven years were as follows: he reigns three years, served three years (2 Kings 24:1) rebels after the six years, and reigns for five years harassed by inroads. Jehoiachin reigns three months. Nebuchadnezzar was king in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, so that Jehoiachin, in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar is taken captive, Jehoiakim reigning seven of those years, and it being the first year of Jehoiachin; 2 Kings 24:12. Thus: Jehoiakim reigns eleven years. In his third year, Jerusalem is taken, Daniel led away, and Nebuchadnezzar goes on to Egypt. In the first year of Jehoiakim's servitude, Nebuchadnezzar was king at the end. In the second year Nebuchadnezzar dreams. Jehoiakim then rebels, and reigns five years harassed by inroads. Jehoiachin reigns three months, when Jerusalem is taken. In the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, Jehoiachin is taken captive.

- 1. "Besieged it," closed up against it, besieged it in the sense of shutting up, as was then done.

- 2. Mik-tzath (some) used for 'all,' but here for a part; see Nehemiah 7:70, and 2 Chronicles 36:7.

- 3. Par-t'mim (chiefs) Persian as in Zend and Sanskrit, Magnates, Primi.

- 4. Se-pher (book) letters, book-learning; see verse 17.

162  - 5. Mip-path-bag (of dainties - 'of the king's meat'). Persian, pad bah; bah food, and pad lord. Sanskrit, pitri, father.

- 6. Note here the recognition of the distinction; see above, verse 3. Both are noticed in this Book afterwards. If we do not take notice of this distinction, we shall never understand the prophecies, for the whole order of their accomplishment hangs on it - sometimes both, which is the final thing - sometimes one, which has its proper place - and sometimes the other. Elsewhere we shall see the entire importance of this.

- 10. K'ghil-chem (of your age).

Daniel 2

- 1. Nih'y'thah (left, quitted); compare chapter 8:27. His sleep failed him.

- 4. The language of the Chaldaeans was different from the language of the king. The Chaldaean seems the sacred language.

- 5. "The word is gone forth from me."

- 38. I am disposed to think this passage excludes the sea, as carrying under it the subjection merely of the organised earth to Nebuchadnezzar, the golden head of the image of alienated empire of the world.

Daniel 3

- 8. This is a remarkable expression; compare James. But I note it here that only the Jews are noticed here, and not Daniel. At the same time, I cannot doubt that the great principle of the golden image is brought in. And note the place of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, and where they were (consequently) put, and of Daniel, and of verses 37, 38 of chapter 2, for this is the form and perversion of royal universal dominion. Therefore it is not "the God of the earth" there, nor in chapter 2:19, but "the God of heaven," quod nota. I have no doubt Daniel stood as the representative of the Jews (Remnant) in such sort, however, that he should be the type of Jesus as so identified with the Remnant. Hence, prophetically, he does not appear in this, though its moral application is left in full force, and the ultimate result will doubtless be brought about in them. Therefore it is "the Most High God." It is also dameh l 'var Elohim (like unto the Son of God - not Adam).

- 14. Hats-da, "Is this designedly" rather than "Is this true"?  

Daniel 4

- 34. We have still, in these chapters, only "the king of heaven," "the God of heaven," and "the Most High God," so chapter 5: 23. The Jews being out of Jerusalem, He could not, in dispensation, call Himself "the God of the earth," or "whole earth." But then, being set up in earth, His supremacy over them, "the God of heaven" dealing with them as He would, was shown for the Gentile times, and the infatuation, of the bestial character of the seven times, shown to be from God. We shall see the use of it in the Revelation; see Ezekiel

Daniel 5

- 11. There are times when people become unknown, except in the testimony of judgment.

163 Daniel 6

In this chapter, and chapter 5, we have a distinct break in the Book. Previously, it has been the dreams or open judgment of the Gentiles, though Daniel was the interpreter. Now we have revelations to him, in the character in which we have been noticing, and this so much so that some of the things happened previously, as chapter 7, and also the previous trial was of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, now of Daniel, of which, I think, we shall find the correspondent character of the two - Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel's associates, and Darius and persecution, i.e., Darius mystical and Daniel. One, I think, Gentile or Christian, the other Jewish quoad hoc, though there may be other characters.

Daniel 7

This chapter is evidently, though relative to things on earth, more connected with what the beast was towards God, and in pride, than of Jewish history as to it. He speaks great words against the Most High. He seeks to change times and laws, and they are delivered into his hand. At the same time by reason of that, it is not his general power, but his last evil condition in rebellion, and oppression of the saints who recognise God and His ways, but in reference to the kingdom, not to the Church, properly so called, which does not appear. Hence generally, the saints of the el-yo-nin (heavenly places) shall take the kingdom (no doubt this is true of those who form the Church, but it is not its speciality). Hence we find, in general, the horn makes war with the saints, not merely the saints of the el-yo-nin, but with the saints as such on the earth, and prevails. That is true of those who flee, as of those who go on high. This wearing out the saints of the el-yo-nin may apply to those who come out of the great tribulation.

There are then three points noticed as closing this - the Ancient of days comes - judgment is given to the saints of the el-yo-nin - and, thirdly, the saints possess the kingdom. The Most High, note, has the character of 'Possessor of heaven and earth.' (It is not a question of children with the Father.) Hence we have the historical circumstances of this horn, as relating to the earth, at the end. Ten horns arise out of the kingdom, another, different, arises after, among them, which plucks up three. In chapter 8, on the other hand, we have a Jewish, historical picture. In Revelation, we have nothing of the plucking up of three, because it is not properly there so historical or earthly.

164 I suspect that the passage of Jordan is a type of the ultimate deliverance of the last day, of the whole Remnant, specially exhibited in the Jews. I do suspect, not herein rejecting larger or more general analogies, that the deliverance from Egypt implies their exodus from their present state, when the sea shall be a wall upon their right hand, and a wall upon their left - the two great divisions of powers, Northern and Western, Assyrian and Antichristian, letting them out between them, no matter why God so willed it. But then they only get into a wilderness state with, indeed, many marks of being God's people, and so formally, but not really, heritors of the promises then. On passing Jordan, they were coming into collision here. I pass over the pre-Jordan conquests, because I am sure there is something in them which I do not fully understand. The waters were not so, but the lower stream, which went toward Sodom, failed, and those above were restrained. I believe this to mark the setting aside the Antichristian power, while the Northern is arrested. Also the priests bore the ark - not the custom, but here they did - in the midst of the stream, and this I believe to be the type of the place and office of the saints of the Most High fulfilling their service on behalf of Israel. And, as we have noted, the manna continued until the morrow after, and also then the congregation were circumcised - they that fell in the wilderness were not.

Note here, in Daniel, the 'saints of the Most High,' and 'the Most High,' are not the same. The saints of the Most High are manifestly ton epouranion (of the heavenlies) which clears that passage manifestly.

This and the chapter following give the Western and Eastern horns; Daniel 9, 10 and 11 give the condition of Daniel's people under the power of the Western Empire, and under the power of the Eastern, including the wilful king who is in Palestine. Daniel 12 is the closing result in deliverance.

In the first place, the distinction of Most High (il-la-ya) and heavenly places (el-yo-nin) is manifest - the first being "the Most High," and the other "the heavenlies" (epouranion).

This chapter, I think, plainly opens out, or alludes to, the order of the whole mystery which Ephesians develops, but closing in its Jewish portion. Abraham, the representative of both seeds, having overcome all the enemies that prevailed against worldly Lot, is blessed of Melchizedek, the type of the Son of God in royalty of priesthood, i.e., as He shall be manifested and blessed of the Most High God, Possessor of heaven and earth. This is a mystical representation of the great, final blessing. Now, in Jesus, in whom we have received an inheritance, all things in heaven and on earth are to be gathered together in one, and we are made to sit in the heavenlies, or, as the Revelation expresses it, "them that dwell in heaven." Here again, accordingly, we have the "Most High"; compare verse 4, where earthly dominion is judged or spoken of, and therefore obscurely, because the mystery was not revealed - both the heavenly and the earthly people.

165 The visions are verses 2, 7, 13 - three distinct ones of the four beasts, the last great apostate beast, and the bringing in of the Son of Man - a distinct vision from the judgment of the apostate beast, quod nota. Now the kingdom is given to the Son of Man - the Jewish, or earthly title of Christ, the Son. He has the kingdom. The next is, that the saints of the heavenlies shall take the kingdom. We say, 'They shall reign'; compare Ephesians 1, last verse. Verse 21, I understand of these saints, the saints of the heavenlies properly. The next verse contains three periods - as it seems to me, distinct periods, though one in another sense - but all short of the Son of Man's taking the kingdom. What he does is in Revelation also, chap. 13:6. As far as I see, it is the times and laws, not the saints which are given into his hand. The destruction of his dominion goes on to the end. Verse 27, seems to me the Jewish, earthly dominion. Verse 26 is connected with verse 9, verse 27 with verse 13. The kingdom, under the whole heaven, is given to the am kad-di-shey el-yo-nin (the people of the saints of the heavenly places), i.e., the Jews. They are called so, because they are now brought into union and identity with (as in Ephesians) the kad-di-shey el-yo-nin (saints of the heavenlies), This is so much the case, that it is often difficult to distinguish between the sanctuary and the (glorified) saints, for they become, as it were, the real sanctuary of Christ, where He dwells, His Body, His Temple of which He is the light, when i.e., the people's dominion under the Son of Man is as His - an everlasting dominion. What further sense this may have, I will not say, but I think it fully bears this, and declares the mystery which it was given to the Apostle to reveal, but in terms such as should hold it in unrevealed character till, by the Spirit, the mystery was revealed in and by the ascension of the Lord into heaven, the Son of Man, thus making both one.

166 Looking to the Son of Man's dominion over the Jews, this chapter also, I think, is made, in substance plain.

- 8. 'I considered the horns.' The little horn (the word 'little' - z'e-rah - is different from, but analogous to the "little horn" of chapter 8:9 - mitz-tzi-rah) here springs up among, but is o-khori (another). And here observe there is no connection with the taking away, or otherwise acting against the Tamid (continual burnt-offering). In chapter 8:9, the little horn springs up out of one of them, and is not o-khori, but was keren-akhath (one horn) and by it the Tamid was raised up (huram). Ought it not, however, to be translated 'from him' - scilicet, the prince of the host, 'from him the Tamid was lifted away'? Mim-men-nu is 'from,' as causative or abstractive, but always, as far as I see, it means 'from.' Chapter 9:27 is of quite a different character - yash'bith ze-vakh u-min' khah (he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease). In chapter 11:31 we have a different word again, v'he-si-ru (and shall take away) the Tamid, i.e., uz'ro-im mim-men-nu (and arms on 'his part'), where mim-men-nu (on his part) I believe again to have been unjustly translated The arms, or seed which shall arise from him, or of which he shall be the occasion or cause, which shall take their rise from him, shall do so and so. It returns to the singular in verse 32, but I refrain from commentary as yet. I reserve the rest for the consideration of the structure of Daniel.

- 9. "Till the thrones were set," not "cast."

- 13. I think it pretty clear the 'Son of Man' presents the Lord as Heir of what belongs to man, according to the counsels of God. Thus here He comes to take the kingdom, and in Psalm 8 headship over all things is given Him. Meanwhile, coming, as He did, to give His life a ransom for many, He had not where to lay His head. He ever takes this name. The disciples own Him to be the Christ, the Son of God, or of the living God. But the proper place of the Son of Man is displayed glory. He has both the kingdom, and headship over all things. But when His glory is in view, the corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die. There was a moral necessity for this. But as to the coming of the Lord, its connection with the Son of Man is His appearing, because it is the kingdom and universal headship. It is the natural title of the Lord. His specially receiving us to be joint heirs, is sovereign grace, and to be specially revealed. It is only found in the Gospels, and in Christ's mouth - save the enquiry of the people thereon. It is not in the Acts, nor in the Epistles; it is found in Revelation again. But then such passages as that in Luke 12 are not the less heavenly for that; verses 39, 40 are a warning apart, viewing the disciples as down here. So verse 46 is the effect down here. Verses 37 and 44 are special for the watchers who have their treasure in heaven.

167  - 17. Is there not distinction between the beasts (min ar'a, out of the earth) and the saints of the high places (kad-di-shey el-yo-nin)?

- 18. I cannot understand why, in this verse, and in verses 22 and 25, "the saints of the Most High," is given as the translation of kad-di-shey el-yo-nin (saints of the high places, or heavenlies). It is manifestly the epouranion of the New Testament, which, indeed, is the revelation of this. 'The Most High,' is the character given to God in Abraham, as contrasted with all false deities, which might bear rule on earth, as 'Possessor of heaven and earth.' All power is given to Jesus in heaven and earth, and these are the places where the saints sit down with Him; so in verse 22. In verse 25 we have two distinct words translated 'Most High.' He shall speak great words against the Most High (l'tsad il-la-ya) and then the same word as before, connected with the saints, and in the same sense of course. This I suspect to be the force of Revelation 13:6. They are always treated as dwelling there - indeed, this seems clear; for the rest, though my mind is clearing up much upon Daniel, I reserve it to fuller opportunity.

Heavenly hopes belong to all saints save those who are to be delivered, and stand before the God of the earth, and that from Abraham on, aye! from Enoch too; but here we have to do with the kingdom. The Church are heavenly saints, but it has a special place. The dying "in the Lord" closes only when He who sits on the clouds is just coming in to judgment; compare verse 22, and Apocalypse 14:13-14. But the "dead which die in the Lord" are always saints (el-yo-nin).

168  - 25. The first "Most High" is il-la-ya, the second is el-yo-nin. But note, applied to God, it brings the earth under His jurisdiction, and Him into connection with it. It is His Name of millennial title and government, but it brings the saints into heaven. The knowledge and owning of Jehovah is the secret place of the Most High, not of the Father and of the Son; compare Proverbs 8, where it is Jehovah. But then it shows there will be those who, in God's mind, are associated with Him in His heavenly place of government, who come under the destroying power of the little horn. And this the Psalms and Apocalypse provide for, as Psalms 16, 17, and Apocalypse 6, 15 and 21, perhaps others. Indeed the "God of heaven" is Daniel's natural expression where He was not Jehovah (see the beginning) and, till He takes His place on earth, the saints, by grace, must have this character - they own God when He is not on earth.

Daniel 8

This is not the sad pride of the world, the apostate Gentility against God, and His, as on high. It is the representative or successor of the Grecian monarchy against those who stood as God's authorities and signs on the earth. The first general idea is, that this little horn shall attack and trample on the host of heaven, and the stars. It shall cast down (or out) the truth, shall practise and prosper. Secondly, he shall stand up against the prince of the host. Thirdly, the daily sacrifice is taken away from the prince of the host, the place of his sanctuary cast out or down, not, I think, physically (materially) and the daily sacrifice subjected, for a given period (viz., 2,300 days) to oppression. Only the two former are spoken of as accomplished at the end of the indignation. The king, understanding dark sentences, shall stand up, be powerful, destroy mighty ones and the people of the saints. He shall stand up against the Prince of princes. All that regards the daily is not the least applied to the little horn in the interpretation given, but as all relating to the action of the horn against the saints is, while chapter 7 being a collateral, accessory subject, so here omitted, because the historical type is not explicitly carried out here. The only allusion to it is verse 26, the last words of which might give occasion to further enquiry.

169 It is well to remark that in this chapter, it (the explanation) is declared to be at the end of the indignation, and at the time appointed - the end. In chapter 7, this is not the case - the history and explanation is left open and general, though I doubt not the full accomplishment is at the close. In general, the horn makes war against the saints till the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of 'the high places,' and the time came that 'the saints possessed the kingdom.' Then, there are three characters - great words against the Most High - wearing out the saints of the high places - and changing times and laws. He acts, or speaks, against the Most High, against the heavenly saints, and against the Jewish order. The period, up to which he acts against the heavenly saints, is not stated. He made war with the saints 'until.'

We have here, i.e., in the explanation, what happens in the end of the indignation. The wilful king prospers till the indignation is, I apprehend, fulfilled (ad-kalah, until the completion). In verse 8, we have merely one of the nations which burden themselves with Jerusalem, even all the nations, and act in different ways against the sanctuary, not honouring God in it. Now the staff in the Assyrian's hand is God's indignation. He is sent against the hypocritical nation, and the people of His wrath. I should suspect then that, in their connection with Antichrist, they are filling up the position of indignation. And, till this was done, he prospered; chapter 11:36. Then the indignation came in the Assyrian fully, and ceased; but there is more to be learned of this. Ta-mam (to complete) is used in this sense, in verse 23, below.

- 9. This has distinct local, or national identity.

- 11. Query is Mim-men-nu, "from him," or "by him"? The last word in the verse, mi-k'dosho (from his sanctuary) would say "from." Surely it is "from him," as in the margin, and not "by him."

Huram (he took away) is distinct; yash-bith (he made to cease) chapter 9:27.

Why is this Antichrist at all? I do not believe it is. What is there to show it is? Does it appear anywhere that the "place of the sanctuary" is cast down by Antichrist? He sits in it perhaps, defiling it - that is different from throwing it down. Further, this arises out of one of the four kingdoms of the Grecian monarchy, and, as to its explanation specifically, it is "at the time of the end." Next, it is in the last end of the indignation. The indignation ceases (za-am, 'indignation,' in both cases) in the destruction of the Assyrian. The destruction in verse 25, and in Isaiah 30:30 is not dissimilar, but I cannot identify them, nor do I know as yet that they are identified. It appears to me that it is with the enemies; Psalm 74, O-yev (enemy) and tsor-rey-ka (thy adversaries) - the difference of which, as contrasted with Antichrist, I had noticed, without reference to this at any rate. This is a Jewish, Grecian, enemy I think, and not Antichrist. I should suspect from Isaiah 10:5, 25, compared with this, and Daniel 11:36, 44, that Antichrist will continue until the Assyrian comes up against, and he, and his allies, "the enemies," take Jerusalem - the punishment of their union with Antichrist. As soon as this is done, and there is none shut up or left, the Lord takes up the matter, but I have much to learn here yet; for this, we must consult from Isaiah 28 to 35.

170 Observe that, in the explanation of what happens at the end of the indignation, there is nothing about the Sanctuary or daily sacrifice, quod nota. I do not believe this king is Antichrist.

- 11-14. "Yea, he magnified even to the prince of the host, and from him the daily [sacrifice] was taken away," literally "lifted" "was raised up" (he-rim*) as a crown off the head, "and the place of his sanctuary was cast out," rather than "cast down," "and a set time of trouble was appointed to the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it" (the horn) "cast down" (the same as of the sanctuary) "the truth to the ground; and it practised and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and one saint said to the certain saint which spoke," Until when" (how long) "the vision of the daily [sacrifice], and the wickedness which causeth desolation, to give the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said to me 'Until' (or 'during') evening, morning, 2,300, and then the sanctuary shall be vindicated." Note in the end of the chapter, in the explanation, there is nothing given at all as to the sanctuary cast down, nor the daily sacrifice; only he destroys mighty ones, and the people of the saints, and at last stands up against the Prince of princes. But note verse 26; and note, it is just what I had put in a parenthesis, which is left out. All the rest, before and after, is in the interpretation; then verses 13, 14, must be considered, which connect the two.

{* He-rim is the Kh'thiv in verse 11.}

171 These verses calculate the seventy weeks, because its subject then began to exist, abstracting perhaps the seven. I think it very highly probable that the three days and a half, not here noticed, may be the three years and a half, the 1,260 days during which Antichrist shall be in oppressive possession of Jerusalem, Messiah appearing again at the close of that period. This calculation may be stated thus: 490 from 2,300 leaves 1,810. But this goes to the Lord's death. Therefore we must add 33.5 for our Lord's life, that makes it 1,843.5. Sanctuary cleansed. Then there is a further question as to the epoch, i.e., they say the epoch is generally counted four years too late.

I have come to the conclusion that Antichrist is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation, though the formal power that he heads is, but not as such, not him, though it is; and, as this is most important, so it clears up a great deal. So neither is the reign of Christ, which leads us further into the subject and structure of the Book. I do not mean that it is not adverted to, but the saints reign with Him, but they are not the subjects but companions of His reign. And, inasmuch as the saints, as such, are the subject of the Book, this is merely stated as the result, and their happiness in the New Jerusalem stated, and the fact of the subjection and blessing of the world, as connected with it, not the earthly estate as subject - that, you must look for in the prophets, which is the subject of them, the kingdom of the Son. We are to reign with Him, but the blessings are the state in which we are derivatively, not imperially, i.e., New Jerusalem. Nothing can be more important than this, as showing the position in which the saints are taken up in this Book - that it is the very opposite to the coming of Christ, as such, that closes the subject of the Book. It is the saints as spiritual inmates of the Father's kingdom, but in the Son's which is not assumed, but in which they are not when it comes, and therefore in patience among those who have the possession of it, and brought in the New Jerusalem blessing of the Father's kingdom, when the Son with them takes the place; hence see Revelation 11, et seq. There the general view ends, and His taking the kingdom is noticed - the earthly kingdom, etc., and the whole is recognised in the thanks of the twenty-four elders, reward to the saints, and destroying them that destroy the earth - yet the blessings of earthly Jerusalem do not follow. Hence we see the moral difficulties, and the new Jerusalem blessings are the subject of the Book, not the reign of Christ and the personal power of Antichrist. The moment the Son of Man takes the kingdom, the position of the Book ceases, for then the saints are to be His agents in it, and reign with Him. Hence the subsequent part of the Book is the development of the systems which lead up to this. As to the personal Antichrist, the saints are agents of destruction, not themselves destroyed. They have refused the mark of the image, and therefore are not under his reign, but reign with Christ, on his destruction delivering the Remnant (of the Jews) whom he held under thraldom. The comparison of chapter 11:18-19, and 21 plainly opens out this part of the subject. The subsequent part, from chapter 11, opens out, in just order, the subject of that in which the saints are involved, the mystic arrangements and progress of evil to that which formed Babylon and the power it rode, and the deliverance of the saints in and out of it, with the agencies of the latter day which developed and set it aside, and then the marriage of the Lamb, and then the bringing of His wife into the house He had prepared for her, as married, in her dignity, as brought by Him into the glory. Blessings may flow from this, and all the nations bring their glory and honour here, but this is not the kingdom of the Son, save as the Throne is the kingdom, therefore it is mentioned as we 'shall reign with Him.'

172 I think we have the intention of the Books, as to their object, thus: Daniel gives the powers that deal with the Jews, especially the last; there is therefore, but inasmuch as the Jews properly were the subject definitely, he who holds the Jews in tribulation, i.e., Antichrist. Therefore in Daniel, we have Antichrist dealing with the Jews. The other prophets give the Assyrian with the Land, Immanuel's Land, though they speak of the Antichrist collaterally or partially.

The Book of Revelation gives the moral operations of Antichrist among and over the Gentiles, as far as he is the chief object, and his destruction. The spiritual, moral Antichrist, the spirit of evil, rules in the Gentile world, and acts against the spiritual, moral body, the Christian believers. The personal Antichrist is opposed to the personal Christ, but anticipatively, i.e., he sets up over Jerusalem, and would show himself as God. The Gentiles, I do not doubt, will be so afraid of the Gog, that they will throw themselves into the hands of the personal Antichrist, and thus be the opponents of the Lord at Jerusalem. The same of the Jews there, as to His power. The Assyrian is the grand opponent of the nation, and is involved in the catastrophe, being found coming up when the Lord has destroyed the Antichrist. He thinks he has found it as a nest, but he knows not the Lord, nor the thoughts of His heart, and is broken to pieces against the Rock of their salvation. Antichrist is against Christ, as the spirit of Antichrist is against those led of the Spirit of Christ, but the Assyrian is looking for power, universal power, earthly power, and this brings him into atheism. The Jews in Christ's hand, when He has taken to Him His power, are the instruments of his destruction in measure, for they destroy each other also, but it is as acting for and with the Jews, the Remnant. The saints who have suffered with Christ during the period of the deceitful power, then in Christ's hand are the avengers against Antichrist. The Christ mystical, Christ and all His Saints, in Daniel, are to look for Antichrist, and the Jews in Revelation for his covert working and forming of the body for judgment - in the prophets, generally, for the Assyrian against the temporal power of God set up in the Jews, of course under the Son on the throne of David; then there is an interesting question.

173  - 12. It appears that here the translation might well be, "And an appointed time of misery, or subjection, to the rule of strangers is set over the daily [sacrifice] because of transgression." The point here is the effect of the transgression; it has nothing to do with the "abomination of desolation," though that may be collaterally included in it, but the continuance of the effect of the transgression which made desolate.

'And an host was given against the daily by reason of transgression' (v'tza-va tin-na-then al-hat-ta-mid b'pha-sha). Unnecessary difficulty seems to have been thrown on this passage, by want of attention to a very ordinary use of the word tza-va (host). It is in the first verse of chapter 10 emeth haddavar v'tza-va ga-dol (the thing was true, but the time appointed was long). It is translated 'the time appointed.' This however, I think, is an imperfect sense of the word. Job 7:1, seems to give an entrance into the force of the word, 'Is there not an appointed time to man? His days also as the days of an hireling?' So chapter 14:14, and Isaiah 40:2, whence I gather that its force is 'an appointed time' of subjection to evil. Further, I believe the force of tin-na-then al (shall be given … against) is properly 'to set over.' The translation then would simply be 'an appointed [time] of subject misery,' or 'subjection to the rule of strangers is appointed over the daily, because of transgression,' giving the general subject of the prophecy.

174 The next point I would notice is the calculation of 2,300 days for the cleansing the sanctuary, and here, as I have ever found, extrinsic enquiry obscures Scripture. The Scripture itself affords the basis of the chronology. Four hundred and ninety days, or seventy weeks, were from the going forth of the decree to restore and rebuild; this, taken from 2,300, leaves 1,810. If we take the seven weeks for the period during which the wall, etc., should be rebuilt, then, adding forty-nine years, the close of the period 1859. At any rate Daniel's date is the one to be relied on, for it is the Lord's, for the purpose of the period up to Messiah the Prince. We might have to add twenty-nine years for the period of our Lord's ministry. These questions of detail are not now, however, the point I would rest on at large. In connection with the former word tza-va (host) does ga-dol ever mean 'long' as in Daniel 10:1?

I cannot help thinking that, while Romanism, and especially popery, have been the Antichristian power during the time of the Spirit's testimony while Christianity, i.e., the Church of God, subsists on the earth, that afterwards other powers will come on the scene, i.e., the civil, imperial power in the empire (in the West, I suppose), and as power in Palestine in the East, which associates itself with the designs of the imperial power of the West, and recognises it, but will act in an independent way in its own sphere - will have its own character, and deceive the Jews, and have the fullest private character of religious iniquity, and Jewish Antichristianism or AntiMessiahship setting up there, and, in fine, acting with the devil's power. This will characterise the Beast, but it is it that will so act. There is another question: What is Daniel 8 in this scene? This will of course end in the denial, not merely of the Father and the Son, but in the full Jewish form of infidelity denying that Jesus is the Christ.

- 24. "The mighty and the holy people" is surely not the sense. It is "And the people of the saints," not "the holy people," see chapter 7:27. "He shall destroy mighty ones, and the people of the sanctuary." Am kad-di-shey (the people of the saints) is evidently a definite word, as in chapter 7:27, though there el-yo-nin (the heavenly places) is added, because of its connection with that. This I believe to be Antichrist, strictly in connection with the Jews that act so, but in more general bearings, in the Roman empire. See note above; but, with the exception of its being Antichrist, this note is true.

175  - 26. It certainly appears to me that this is the identity of Grecian, national evil against the Jews, Assyrian or Grecian-Syrian enmity, and, I suspect, while the final enmity is what he explains at the end, the vision includes all. It may be a question, though characteristic, whether the detail of verses 10, 11, etc., applies to the time of the end. The explanation is clearly (v. 19) the end, but it was for many days, identifying, at any rate, the local power as restored to act at the end. Then chapter 7 would be the general statement of the judgment and results; chapter 8 the Grecian or little horn which casts down the sanctuary when the transgressors are come to the full; chapter 9 the appointment of the time to Messiah the Prince - the Anti-Messiah character, in Jerusalem, of the Antichrist. Chapter 11 I believe to be the secular actings of Antichrist, as head of the Roman power. If Antichrist goes down to Egypt, if the king of the South pushes at him, then hears of the attacks from the North and East, and returns, and perishes, with none to help him - he had previously filled up iniquity in Jerusalem - the order would be plain.

I return, after enquiry to the thoughts already expressed on this chapter. It is another hostile power, having its birthplace in the limits of the Grecian empire, which, after many exploits, attacks and oppresses the Jews - has prolonged intercourse with them - is not a mere pagan enemy, but furnished with wisdom of its own kind, not divine indeed perhaps, but Solomonic in its pretension. Policy and craft shall be there, as well as war; finally he shall stand up against the Prince of princes. This is the interpretation, and it is all that is positively prophesied at the end. I cannot doubt that God has so ordered these prophecies as to suit them to the partial accomplishments - say in the time of the Grecian power for instance, and Mahomet, and that we have to use spiritual discernment for the application, only the Lord has taken care that it is perfect, while useable for faith in each time of need. There is nothing here of the abomination of desolation - we are on other ground. It is friendly and deceitful relationships or attacks from without, but connected with this, a time of desolation as to the other state of things. It is not the transgression causing, but the desolation caused, quod nota, though the enemy's pride is noticed. I hold, 'And from him the daily was taken away' ('through him,' not 'by,' if insisted on, but 'from him' I believe correct) 'and the place of his sanctuary was cast down, and a time of distress appointed to the daily, by reason of transgression,' to be the rendering, and, in parenthesis, describing the state of the Jewish sanctuary and worship at that time generally.

176 Hence the enquiry is as to the duration of the desolation - how long the vision of the daily, and the transgression which desolates, to give the sanctuary and host to be trampled on? The abomination is not noticed. It is the transgressors which bring on the desolation here. This enemy will attack and harass, and deceive the transgressing people. It is very probable that, up to the beginning of the last half week, the apostate power will associate with the Jews; Isaiah 28 seems to demonstrate it. This will not save them from the desolator neither, as that passage shows. The earlier attacks are before the taking away the daily, and the placing of the abomination of desolation. That is clear because there are 1,290 days from these latter weeks, and 2,700 of the time of distress - the transgression which gives up the sanctuary and the host to be given up to idolatry, I suppose, according to Isaiah 65 will have been introduced (as in Ahaz's time) along with the sacrifices; see Isaiah 65:11 and chap. 66:1-3. Hence distress from the Assyrian, or this horn of chapter 8. Then at the middle of the week, the state of things changes - the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation set up.

Note in Isaiah 57 we have idolatry and going to "the king," and in chapter 30 the Assyrian and the king plunged into Tophet.

Note also, here, that Isaiah 24 is a signal instance how the narrower objects of prophecy spread out in the divine vision, into larger, for, in a considerable part of it eretz is evidently 'the Land' (and, I doubt not, Palestine is looked at as a centre of gathering) but, to say nothing of intimations of a wider bearing, because it is the true centre of God's earth (compare the connection of Isaiah 2 and 3) verse 21, and the following, clearly show that 'earth' reaches out to 'the world' beyond Palestine. Indeed another thing shows it, because evidently Nebuchadnezzar's inroad gives occasion to much of it. Yet the fall and destruction of Babylon is included in it. It may be alleged indeed that the successes of the Assyrian empire, which began with Sargon, are referred to, for Babylon was conquered, and Esarhaddon reigned there without a viceroy, but this would not alter the great principle, only the argument drawn from supposing it was Nebuchadnezzar.

177 Note, as to oikoumene, besides other passages, it is used for eretz (earth) in Isaiah 24:1, and for te-vel (habitable earth) in verse 4. It is also used for te-vel in the Septuagint in Psalms 18:4 (Heb. 19:5); 92:1 (Heb. 93:1); 95:10 - 13 (Heb. 96:10-13) - and in Psalm 97:9 (Heb. 98:9), where it is translated 'world,' and where, note, eretz answers to ge, and oikoumene to te-vel. So indeed in Psalm 18 (Septuagint) 19 (English). This, in certain reasonings, clearly decides the use of oikoumene in the New Testament.

Daniel 9

This chapter rests on the Mosaic deliverance, and the intercession of Solomon which does not go beyond it, and hence refers to the dealings with Israel, in captivity, for their sins, and looking towards Jerusalem. Thus Daniel, in his prayer (chapter 6:10) turns towards Jerusalem. And hence it is still the 'holy mountain' of his God, though Israel be captive, His sanctuary that is desolate, verses 16, 17, 19 and 20, and so called (verse 24) by the Angel Gabriel. They are called Daniel's people, and his holy city. Then seventy weeks are determined on them - sixty-nine as is known, to Christ who has nothing, for it is Jerusalem and earth which is in question, and then the people of the prince to come destroy the city and the sanctuary de novo. But this prince then comes in view, and, it would seem, in translating simply, his end that is with a flood. He establishes or enters into covenant for a week, makes the sacrifice and oblation cease, the idols or abominations of him who desolateth are set up, whether you translate ka-naph (wing) 'protection' or 'battlement,' and al (upon) 'because of' or 'upon,' and until all be fulfilled that is decreed, ruin and misery are poured forth upon the desolate.

These then are the relations of God with Israel and Jerusalem, when she is not owned, but still called, in the faith and desire of the saint and the answer of God, 'the holy city,' yet desolate, yet her children also many.

178 It seems to me clear enough that this chapter refers more particularly to chapter 7, or Western power, and chapters 10, 11 and 12 to chapter 8, or North Eastern. Both, note, are in the favourable time of the Persian empire, either Darius the Mede, or Cyrus.

It seems to me that chapter 11:32-35 can in no way, as some have supposed, apply to the times of Antichrist. Verse 3 I then presents a difficulty, for it would seem to be the success of the forces acting on the part of the king of the North; and so I suppose it must be, primarily. Verse 36 begins properly the wilful king, as he is called. I think I have noticed that he is only introduced here by the bye. But then from that verse, we are clearly in the time of the end, and then we have the time, times and half a time, and the abomination of desolation, and the daily taken away, the date of 1,260 days, and so 1,335 days. He will have accomplished scattering the power of the holy people, and that will be the end. We have the same date for the delivery of the times and laws into the hand of the blasphemous horn of the beast of the seventh chapter. I suppose in chapter 9:27, we have the same in the form of dividing of the week. In Isaiah 28 we have the scornful men at Jerusalem, on the other hand, making a covenant with death and hell that the scourge may not reach them. Hence, though a sure and tried foundation, and true, blessed be the God of all grace, is laid in Zion, yet when the scourge passes through they will be trodden down by it (there will be a flood - the same word, Isaiah 28:17-18, as Daniel 9:27, as is indeed the 'treading down,' Isaiah 28:18, compare verses 2 and 3, and Daniel 8:10) and this, Isaiah 28:22, is because ka-lah v'ne-che-ratzah (the completion, and that which has been decreed) is to be executed on all the Land. Compare the language in the Lord's judgment at the end of the chapter 30. All these chapters of Isaiah give the fullest illustration of the two parties brought forward in Daniel. Tophet is for "the king," as well as for the Assyrian. I question whether chapter 33 may not introduce Gog, but this is a further question, and compare Micah 5. Chapter 34 would also seem to say it was the Assyrian, comparing Psalm 83 and the history of Sennacherib, with chapter 33:8.

Note, the horn of Daniel 8 is not strong by his own power, so that though geographically, perhaps, the Assyrian, the latter may remain behind in the judgment of God, and come up after all, finally, as Gog. Psalms 82 and 83 give the Lord rising up to judge those who were called elohim once, but Adam, and the last confederacy in which judgment sets up the name of Jehovah Elion; compare Isaiah 8:9.

179 Further, we cannot but conclude, I think, from Isaiah 10 and 28 that the consumption decreed falls on Israel, whatever it may involve as to others. If this be so, it would go far to show that, Daniel 9:27, the consumption decreed was on the same, and sho-mem would be taken in its usual sense of 'desolate.' The consumption decreed - there will be a desolator till the decreed judgment be fully executed on the desolate, the oikos eremos (house desolate) of Matthew 23. If this be so, the question becomes important, if the m'sho-mem ('desolation' or 'desolator,' chaps. 9:27 and 11:31) and sho-mem (desolate, chaps. 9:27 and 12:11) be not intentionally different in chapters 11 and 12. The abomination of the desolator of chapter 11 being, though generally typical, different from the abomination of the desolate or desolation of chapter 12 - in the former, the violence of the desolator being noticed, whereas in the abomination of chapter 12 the desolate herself is engaged. All through Isaiah, idolatry is marked as stamping the iniquity of the Jews of the latter day. The Lord's testimony as to the unclean spirit, I doubt not, confirms it. Sho-mem, in Jeremiah, is several times used for Jerusalem desolate. M'sho-mem is used in Ezra, for his state, it is true, but I should judge from the passage, in a reflective sense, like etaraxen heauton (He troubled Himself) John 11: 33, margin. In this case the abomination of desolation, of which the Lord speaks, would be that of chapter 12.

It appears to me that this expression, kalah v'ne-che-ratzah refers always to the final judgments. But it would appear here that it was what fell on the apostate body desolator, as well as the Jewish part, for certainly here the marginal reading, as far as I can see, must be right - Sho-mem (desolate) - the other places where this is used are Isaiah 28:22, and 10:23. The use of the word may be seen, 2 Samuel 13:20. As far as I judge, it applies to all, indiscriminately, as done, in the righteousness of His abstract character, as against all inconsistent with that, in the exercise of its power. The difficulty of Daniel 9:27, seems to me to flow from k'naph (wing). My ignorance of the force of this word bars me from any confidence in interpretation, or I should think the prophetic order ran thus: confirm a covenant with many, one week. In the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering (min-khah) to cease, and upon the k'naph (wing) of the abominations of him that desolateth, and even until the consumption, and short work (of the Lord) shall be poured on the desolator, see also Daniel 11:36, where we find the same principles developed in their actual effects, bringing the things together, as indeed in Isaiah 18:25; but note this seems to cloud the evidence of the difference of the Assyrian and the antichristian king. This however would need enquiry. This last supposed difficulty is merely a mistake. All this happens in Jerusalem - the Assyrian never enters there.

180 It is well to keep in mind the way in which Daniel is given a sort of mediatorial character, like Moses, the Lord saying, 'Thy people,' as in verse 24, also chapters 10:14, 11:14, and 12:1. It is in verses 15, 16 of this chapter, that, as Moses, Daniel calls them, to the Lord, 'Thy people.' This gives a distinct character to chapters 7 and 8, and to chapters 9-12, which also should be studied.

- 15, 16. Daniel's faith outreaches their sin, and rests on God's faithfulness, so did that of Moses - only here he goes back to Moses and Egypt; Moses also goes back to the fathers.

- 23. Note Daniel stands in a very peculiar place, something analogous to Moses. God says to him "thy people," just as He said to Moses as mediator. Only Daniel stands as representative, and securer of the hopes of the people, in the midst of Israel, and more especially as the witness of God's mind when the Jews were in captivity - Moses, as a deliverer in power. So remark that God gives what is needed to His people at all times. He may not, when sorrow, and captivity, and Babylonish trial, is their place according to His government, give the delivering power which would take them out of it, but He gives fully and perfectly what is wanted for them in it, and that is what they need. A Moses, as such, would have thrown all into confusion in Daniel. A Daniel, in the prosperity of Israel, would have had no place. So he does not even return when the Remnant of the Captivity went back.

Note, in this place, faithfulness in not defiling himself with the Gentiles, among whom he dwelt, was the foundation of all. Then God gives him wisdom, and he is made the depository of the mind of God for Israel, in that state of things. So he confesses and intercedes like Moses, and gets the answer of a better blessing - answering to the Jews' state in grace - than Moses ever got. Babylon to the first year of Cyrus, is his moral position as first placed as a witness there, for he continued longer. Chapter 6 is peculiar. Darius is favourable to the Remnant under God, and yet he sets up to have no petition addressed to any but himself, exclusively of every God. Daniel prospered after Babylon. Chapter 12 is like Revelation 14, God's dealings in the time of the great subject of the previous part of the prophecy.

181 I give here the end of this chapter, "Seventy weeks are appointed to (or for) thy people, and for thy holy city, to stop the transgression, to close sins, and pardon iniquity, and to bring in the righteousness of ages, and to close up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. And know, and consider [that] from the going forth of the word to restore [return] and to [re-]build, or build again, Jerusalem, to Messiah Prince, seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks, shall return and be rebuilt the street and the fosse, and in trouble of times. And after sixty and two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the city and the sanctuary shall the people of a prince to come destroy: and its [or his] end with a flood (an inundation), and to the end (of the) war decreed desolations. And he shall confirm covenant with the many one week: and the dividing of the week he shall cause to cease sacrifice and offering, and because of (or upon) the wing (protection) of abominations (there shall be) a desolator, and until the completion, and that which is decreed shall be poured on the desolator."

- 24. First, note that the seventy weeks are determined upon "thy people"; compare verse 7 (there is never in Messiah's interference, anything short of "All Israel," though Judah and Jerusalem may be the scene of it) but this, we may learn, reaches therefore to the end, as Matthew 24, "The end is not by and bye." But the coming of the Messiah is the point of intervention. The coming of Messiah and the end therefore coalesce - the Gentile dispensation being passed over as not concerned in "thy people." This is habitually the case in Old Testament prophecy, being the mystery hidden. We are therefore to speak of all Jewish transactions as consequent on each other, omitting all from one coming to the other, save only the tribulation, of the facts of Jerusalem's destruction, which I believe are taken up in Scripture in the latter day, and then the prophecy proceeds. This opens this prophecy, I think, much.

182 "Seventy weeks are determined on thy people, and upon thy holy city." L'ha-them (in order to complete) is the keri form, from ta-mam (to complete) - so to 'complete' or 'finish.' Then from the going forth of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, which I take of the ordinary decree, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It is mere nonsense to talk of seventy, sevens being neither Hebrew nor sense. We have then two persons, 'Messiah the Prince,' and (the people of) 'the prince that shall come' (to wit, Antichrist, the head of the Roman power); but it is not in the first instance 'the prince,' but 'the people of the prince' - they destroy the city and the sanctuary. This was true, but its reality was cut off in Christ. Well! after the sixty-two weeks, i.e., including the previous seven, sixty-nine, to wit, in the last week, Messiah shall be cut off. Afterwards (time is no longer reckoned) the people of the prince to come, the people of Antichrist, shall destroy the city and sanctuary. Then, I believe, comes the mystery of the two princes - Jesus Messiah, the Prince (not owned indeed) did confirm the covenant; compare Romans 15:8. But this was, in fact, or effect rather, only with the Remnant. He came in His Father's name, and the nation abhorred Him. If another should come, the prince that should come, in his own name (magnifying himself above all) him they would receive. Antichrist then became to the people of the Jews, unbelieving, who would have no king but Caesar, what Jesus was indeed to the remnant people of God. He confirms covenant with the many, one week. I believe it is said, 'covenant,' and not ha-b'rith ('the' covenant), that it may apply to both. I suspect also the word 'many' is introduced, to leave it open, as compare Isaiah 53:12. But here it more particularly applies to Antichrist, with the multitude of the Jews. But as Jesus, for His people, caused sacrifice and oblation to cease in the midst of the week, so I believe Antichrist, having beguiled the multitude for as long as Jesus was rejected, will, in wilful injury, make all their forms cease - the sacrifice of the restored temple and city - and then he will persecute the Jews bitterly, and shed their blood like water.

Surely there will be also a rebuilding and restoring in the latter day. The expression v'en lo (and not to Him, i.e., He shall have nothing) is most plain for Messiah's labouring in vain. His end - the prince's as well as the people's - shall be with a flood. The accents in Hebrew then give the end of the war, otherwise one might have been tempted to have read 'until the end,' but this flood is indeed a scene of conflict - Jerusalem is encompassed with armies, and, till the end of this, there is a decree of desolations - upon making the offering and the sacrifice to cease. The sacrifice is a matter of continual circumstance, not including burnt offerings. The abominations of the desolator are (set) upon the edge or pinnacle, but note the accents, in Hebrew, read 'upon the wing,' or edge, 'of abominations is the desolator,' quod nota. Indeed it would be in the common translation "abominable things" (shikkutsim), so that the sense must be quite different, I suppose. The common English version is surely the right one, al (upon) being used as "for," "because of," but I should rather take k'naph (wing), etc., as the false protection of Antichrist, the protection of abominations, which indeed was a desolator. Because of that, there was a desolator, i.e., they were given up to him. I apprehend, however, that it is not the protection of Antichrist, but given up to Antichrist because of the other; compare Isaiah 65 and 66.

183 It would appear that the unbelieving Jews would be given up to utter abominations, or it is the recapitulation of all their evil, for the Lord is retrospective in judgment nationally (compare Acts 7, Stephen) and this certainly is included, but our Lord's words seem to imply a return of that evil spirit, and seven worse ones, and 'the last state worse than the first.' And there will be a m'shomem (desolation or desolator) even until the consumption decreed (the technical term for God's bringing things to a conclusion) shall be poured upon the desolator. There will be no desolator, I suppose, after this. The rest of Solomon may not be come, but there will be an end of desolations. The Lord will be the protection (k'naph, wing) of His people in Jerusalem, and take them up for His glory, making Judah His 'goodly horse,' etc. On the whole the difficulty of this passage seems cleared up, though more may be to learn.

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city." This is the subject - the thing to be accomplished, to complete or make an end of transgression - to seal up or finish sin - to make expiation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up, or finish the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. The 'making expiation,' if we trust the points it is in Pihel,* and 'anointing the Most Holy,' seem to affix the application to the first coming of the Lord, which did accomplish, in His Person, prophecy, however wide a scene might then open before Him. Besides, if the suffering of the Jews, by which they received at the Lord's hand double of all their sins, be taken as the sense of kapher (to make reconciliation), though I think it forced, then the whole period of tzava (host), I apprehend should be included, and not the seventy weeks in any shape. On the whole then, though it looks out to the future as we shall see, and that especially, the primary object of this prophecy is the Lord's first coming, though that embraces, in its results, the second. But it is also hard to suppose that, if it meant to define the time of the second blessing, there should be no sort of reference to it, if it spoke of the seven weeks as the special period of the evil upon Jerusalem in the latter day, or in which the city should be built, nothing should be spoken of the great consummation, when this, in some shape, is the whole matter of the prophecy, expiation, sealing up prophecy, bringing in righteousness, and anointing the Most Holy - but not a word of anything relating to this, if taken as relation to the latter day.

{* Pthel is the intensive species or conjugation of the verb.}

184 Then comes the period. The last thing mentioned was 'anointing the Most Holy,' or as the original carries it, that we may be aware of the association to M'sho-ah (anoint) (the 'o' being the infinitive) the Most Holy. 'Therefore from the going forth of the decree to Messiah the Prince.' This seems at once to identify and mark the association of the period - anointing, especially, was then. But there were, as it were, two subjects given - the city and the end of the period making an end of transgression, etc. The period is divided therefore with this reference, 'and know and understand, from the going forth of the word or decree to restore,' rebuild 'Jerusalem' (I think this is rather the sense, than the return from the captivity, but it includes the return of the people then) 'to Messiah the Prince, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. The street shall be built again' (return and be rebuilt - it is the same word as 'restore' before) 'and the trench in trouble,' or strait, 'of times.' There, I apprehend, is the period of the seven weeks, and the city being built. 'After sixty-two weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, and has,' or 'shall have,' 'nothing' - for He had nothing. 'Thou, O Israel, my servant, in whom,' etc. 'Then I said, I have laboured in vain, and spent my strength for nought,' and this relates only to Israel as a nation, the city and people, etc. On the Cross, alone, in that day, from a Gentile, in derision, he received the name of the 'King of the Jews.' There was nothing for Him, 'not to Him' (en lo).

185 Then come the consequences. 'The people of a prince to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.' (This is the general acting of the Roman power all through) and his 'or' the end thereof in a flood,' i.e., the end of this state of things shall be in a complete breaking up of judgment or destruction, or overwhelming of peoples - a flood, a well-known, and very intelligible expression in Scripture - 'and until the end, a war of decreed desolations,' or 'till the end of the war' (at any rate, this end previously spoken of) 'decreed desolations.' All this is 'no time,' for after these things again is true what ought to have been true before, so to speak, as was, in Jesus but not in them, but is now in effect, namely finishing transgression, etc. Messiah the Prince appearing, there were to be sixty-two weeks to this. Now this is the end of the final period of all. The things therefore which coalesce, are Messiah and Messiah, and that is all. The intermediate time is merely generally ad-ketz (until the end).

Remember there are two subjects - the city, and the sanctuary - Daniel's city and sanctuary, and that which we may symbolise by 'anointing the Most Holy.' Now the Anointed, the Messiah, was cut off after the sixty-two weeks, then the city and sanctuary then given up to the people of the prince that should come, and the end of him, or of this desolation there were decreed desolations. Then is the fate of the city and sanctuary. He that endures to the end, the same shall be saved. This same final end, when Messiah shall be revealed, putting an end to the corruption, and destruction of them that destroy the earth.

Then comes Messiah's part. 'He shall confirm covenant with many' or 'fully,' 'one week, and in the dividing of the week he shall make the sacrifice and offering cease. And the abominations of the desolator shall be set up on the high place.'

186 And this will be so, i.e., the prevalence of this hostile power until the ka-lah v'ne-che-ratzah (completion, and that which has been decreed) be poured upon the desolator - the consummation determined. I am certainly of opinion that the person to confirm (hig-bir) is Messiah, Jesus in His first advent. Verse 26 finishes one subject; primâ facie, confirm (hig-bir) would seem to refer to yash-khith (shall destroy) but I think the subject of the prophecy is Messiah, verse 27 being distinct and definite. I have no objection from system to refer it to Antichrist. I have no doubt he will be confederate with the ungodly Jews, as may be seen in notes elsewhere, and that he will set up abomination that maketh desolate. Whether he will do this, and make the sacrifices cease in the midst of a week, might be well settled by this passage, if it meant so, but I do not see this. It does not seem to me to be its subject.

I use k'naph (wing) generally, because I think purposely so used, but my mind at once turns to epi to pterugion tou hierou - on the pinnacle of the Temple, literally 'the little wing of the Temple' - which there seems a known definite expression, and so others, I believe, as Gesenius, compare Matthew 4:5. However, I am not quite satisfied as to the force of k'naph.

- 26. Clearly not "but not for Himself," but "And shall have nothing," i.e., not take the kingdom and promises.

I apprehend Messiah should have been received at once, on His presenting Himself. We must remember all the witness there was in the hill-country of Judaea, the Simeons, and the Annas, and those 'who waited for redemption in Israel.' So, when He presented Himself as in Nazareth, Samaria, and so as to awaken the enquiry everywhere, when He had, as it is said, told them plainly, they ought to have received Him. If they did not, they would die in their sins. Hence, I apprehend, the moment He came out publicly, the sixty-two weeks were over. The rest of His life was patience, not going on to the time He ought to be received. Hence 'after the sixty and two weeks, Messiah shall be cut off.' There was no time noticed after, because the sixty-two weeks to Messiah the Prince were fulfilled. Hence the time does not count after, to the last week. After the sixty-two weeks, He was cut off, the time of His patience was only grace, and calling out the poor of the flock to know that it was the word of the Lord.

187  - 26, 27. 'And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, and shall have nothing, and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and his (its?) end with a flood, and until the end of the war, decreed' (decree of) 'desolations, and he shall establish' (confirm or enter into) 'covenant with the many, one week, and in the dividing of the week, he shall cause to cease sacrifice and offering, and because of the protection of the idols' (on the pinnacle, the idols of the desolator) 'a desolator, and until the complete destruction and the decree' (all that is decreed that is - ruin or wrath) (it) 'shall be poured out on the desolate.'

- 27. We have here one who confirms covenant with the many one week, and in the midst of the week he causes sacrifice and offering to cease. Specifically, we have here the abomination, not, in general, abominations, idols. I know not if authorities deem it admissible, but 'because of the protection of abominations' seems more natural - k'naph (protection) is 'wing,' I apprehend, in the sense of summit, without a characterising substantive of which it is the summit. 'There is one who desolates.' It is the history of Jerusalem here, not of the horns or hostile powers. We must keep this in mind. Still the agents are marked out, Messiah comes and has nothing (for it is a question of Jews). Then the prince that shall come is pointed out, and supplants, takes the place of Messiah, as to whom en lo (not to Him). And note, Daniel never goes beyond the verge of Gentile domination, under which he was. It is that, including its destruction, which he tells of. This prince then is allied with the mass of the Jews all the week, therefore before the 2,700 commences. There is idolatry, and, in the middle of the work, he stops all sacrifice.

Daniel 10

Paul's comparisons are practically like Daniel's in this chapter. In a measure Paul also like Daniel when the vision came - only Paul's was a heavenly vision; Daniel's on earth, and of a glorious man on earth, but I note it for this. When Paul is caught up to the third heaven, there is no such confusion and terror. He knows not, it is true, if he be in the body or out of the body; he hears things not allowed to man to utter; that we can understand, but there is no terror, no confusion. This characterises heaven and a heavenly state. Glory surely is there - infinite glory - but we are at peace and free there, and that with God Himself. It is a blessed state. Being in Christ (for it was a man in Christ he knew there) what is in God is our rest, and he can rest and does morally in Christ - yea, is glorified in Him. As to the mere glory, we are part of it. But there is no thought of dismay or confusion there, and that is the important point.

188 Daniel 11

In this chapter we have not merely the history of the Grecian successors of the great horn, by the relationships of the ships of Chittim with them; compare Numbers 24:24. It is neither merely the character of the fourth beast, nor the actings of the great horn of the third, but the intrusion of the fourth into the territories of the third, associated with the consequences of this for the Jews. From verse 29, it is not as the former nor latter affairs regulated between the two, but the ships of Chittim come against the king of the North. This is a general idea (though I do not doubt as to the special circumstance commonly alluded to) thereon he returns, and has intelligence with those that forsake the holy covenant. Thereon comes in the passage which we know to be at the end, and which is, in any case parenthetical; verses 31, 30, and 32 following one on the other, and 'arms' being the nominative to all the acts done in verse 31. The difficulty lies in the words mim-men-nuya-a-modu (shall stand on his part). These 'arms' or 'material power' (see verse 6) shall stand up from him. They shall pollute and they shall take away the daily, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. It is not 'he,' but 'they.' Verses 32-35 continue the course of 'his' conduct, and the condition of the Jews in general, thence on to the end, of which we have here to notice that there are 'the intelligent, who instruct the many, and, besides the apostates who had forsaken the holy covenant, such as do wickedly against the covenant, who were corrupted by flatteries - that the people fall by the sword, etc., days - that there fall of the intelligent, that these may be tried through them, to the time of the end. These two facts - the separate fact of verse 31, and the condition of the Jews morally, and as to trial through to the end, constitute the revelation as to them in these chapters.

This chapter seems to me as simple as possible, as soon as we apply verses 30-35 to Antiochus Epiphanes, the Romans, and then the general state to the last days - its natural interpretation. Then the king in the last days comes in, naturally, in his place. Chapter 8 is more difficult for me. Still my impression is that it is not Antichrist, though I have nothing against it. My difficulty is the effect of the language. As a mere simple theory, it would make it easy. The force of "standing up against the Prince of princes" is to be considered; but it seems to me more earthly than Revelation 19.

189  - 24. 'He shall enter into the peaceable and fat places,' etc., as in the margin.

- 30, etc. 'For the ships of Chittim shall come,' etc. 'And arms shall rise up from him,' either as a successor, or a constituted lieutenant; see verses 7 and 20. It is not al can-no (in his place); 'And they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall remove' (he-si-ru, they shall remove) - take away, that it ceases to exist, as in Ezekiel 21:31, 26; this and Daniel 8:11, are used together. 'And they shall place the idol of the desolator,' or 'that desolateth.' 'And such as do wickedly [as to] the covenant, he shall seduce to apostasy by flatteries' (or favours). 'And the people that know their God shall be strong and act. And the intelligent' (instructed) 'of the people shall cause the many to understand, and they shall fall by the sword,' etc., 'days.' 'And some of the intelligent shall fall, to try by them,' etc., 'to the time of the end.'

- 31. I apprehend this is literally, or rather historically, still Antiochus Epiphanes, or, however, the king of the North who is despised or vile. 'Arms' or 'forces' from him, acting under or for him, take their stand and pollute the sanctuary, etc. Here we have something definite. These do not destroy it - that was the work of another; see Psalms 74 and 83. They do not confirm covenant - they desolate.

Note, the only epoch directly recognised of the Lord, as a division of time, is the "Abomination of desolation, or the last three and a half years." If there be a first three and a half, it does not enter into this part of the subject. It is placed, generally, among "the beginning of sorrows," not being of warning; as reply to the disciples' question, there may of course be special revelation in another point of view.

We must remark here that it is "the forces" (z'roim, literally 'arms'). They, I suppose, who pollute the sanctuary of strength, and remove, or set aside, the daily. It appears to me that this passage opens out the Roman succession to Antiochus Epiphanes, the wilful king among those who typically answered to him, and who was not the king of the North (which he was), nor the king of the South, but held the antitypical place to him.' Hence the introduction of them in verse 35. He it was who brought the Romans into this position. They spring from him providentially, and he represented their final agency, and, to make this clear, it is said 'They shall pollute,' etc. The final accomplishment, I doubt not, shall be in Antichrist. Chapter 8, I conceive to be the literal Northern Antitype to him. Note here, accordingly, though the Romans did so in their original capacity, it is not said, they cast down the place of the sanctuary, for it is not their part in their ultimate character, though the abomination of desolation may be set up, and every dishonour done to the Jews. This also, as compared with chapter 9, seems the secular power of the Roman, Antichristian set, whereas chapter 9 seems to be the Jewish aspect, as holding the place, to their opinions, of Messiah the Prince. Here, he is the king, doing according to his will, laying his hand, etc. There it is about the covenant and the like, though he may be identified in act, in either character.

190  - 33. Ya-vi-nu la-rab-bim (will teach the multitude). The only case, I am aware of, of the dative of persons without accusative of thing; compare Job 6:24.

Then comes verse 36 - the speciality of revelation, as to the depository of power in that day, the king; see the difference of chapter 12:6 and 8:13. It is the concentring of apostate power in an individual, acting in its energy, not merely as in chapter 7 morally rising up, but his acting as an earthly power in this character, or who had this character.

36. 'The' king, not 'this' king. Also compare Isaiah 30:33, and 57:9.

The king is mentioned there three times in prophecy - Isaiah 30:33; chap. 57:9, and here. In Isaiah 30:33, it would seem a distinct person from the Assyrian who is there also. In chapter 57:9, he is named also without explanation, but it is probably, as to the letter, Egypt, see Hosea 12:1, but that is not the object of the prophecy. 'The king' seems someone recognised in that position, either as the one to whom God had entrusted empire or power in His place, or one whom the Jews have connected with themselves on that principle, and this I suppose to be the case here, and hence called 'the king.' That he may be in possession of Babylon, and the territories of the king of the North, so as to come in in succession here in the subjects this chapter treats of, is highly probable. Also he will seize Egypt, but this is not his principal character, though it takes its place here. He is the king. He prospers - not exists merely - till the indignation be accomplished. But cessation of indignation is not yet restoration; compare Isaiah 10:5, 25 and chap. 28:14-15; compare also chap. 20:6, and Daniel 8:19. I cannot doubt that this is the last character of the king who exalts himself above all, but, though characterised thus, it is his actings as a conqueror, specially in the countries bordering on Judaea.

191 Here we have the full character of 'the king' at the end, who, in effect, has fully accomplished verse 31, as we see from chapter 12:11. He sets aside all true and traditional religion or hope, even as a Jew, of Messiah. But he sets up a false god - he will make a new religion. He will establish his instruments (not named, but connected with eloah mauzzim - the god of forces, A.V.) over the land.

The question then arises, Is it the same as the little horn of chapter 7? He certainly has the same character of self-aggrandisement and blasphemy, and it would seem that he is the wicked one of 2 Thessalonians 2. In Daniel 7:26, the dominion is considered as his, though he be not the beast, because we are in connection with Jews. It was he persecuted the saints. One would be led to think that the second beast of Revelation 13 is the same personage. The first beast having the public corporate imperial power of the West set up by Satan as the vessel of power, and subsequently object of adoration. God being abandoned, it is no wonder, no more than the emperors did before, only apostasy will do it more decidedly.

It might seem difficult to suppose that he, who set up as God in the Temple, should come to worship another, but it would appear from Daniel 11 that these two features do exist. He exalts himself against the true God, and, though he may act as Darius, for awhile, some sort of religion is necessary for his followers. And he practises with this, though as between himself and God, it is blasphemy. Satan is habitually forced to keep up appearance of worshipping some other known object.

- 45. 'Between the sea and the mountain.'

192 Daniel 12

- 2. Note the interpretation of this verse is confirmed by Matthew 25:46, and vice versa.

- 3. Note that 'the many' are spoken of at the end of this Book, in this verse, and in chapter 11:33, 39, and chapter 9:27.

- 7. The fact that the witness of the two witnesses, of Revelation 11 is not coincident in time with the Beast, and that their sufferings have finished, they have overcome before the time, times, and half a time of this verse, has not been sufficiently applied to the long period. That system requires the coincidence of the testimony and the persecution, whereas here the whole force of their respective characters is that they are not. During their testimony the witnesses bring judgment and death on those who would touch them, though in sackcloth like Elias. Afterwards the Beast reigns, and there are none such. It is not that there may not have been analogous facts - I do not doubt it - but the period of 1,260 days of the Beast is not the period of the testimony. In Revelation 12 joyful triumph, on the close of their trials, accompanies the introduction of the 1,260 days of the woman's flight into the wilderness. This renders the order of the facts clear enough.

193 Note, all the miraculous power of the two witnesses is judgment on the earth, not of the character of evangelic miracles, the powers of the world to come, where all is the power of Jesus, the blessing of the new Creation in power, but judgment on enemies on the earth, either as against those who held the people of God captive, or the professing people of God in apostasy, Egypt and Israel worshipping Baal, away from the Temple. It is not only in their testimony that they stand before the God of the earth, but in all that they do, the judgments that they execute. Moses and Elias acted thus in judgment and severity for the manifestation of the power of God, whereas the miracles of the Apostles in testimony, that which accompanied their ministry, were the exercise and manifestation of the power of Christ in blessing by the Holy Ghost, earnest of the inheritance of the new state of things, where Christ should reign in power of blessing as Head (Son of God) of the new Creation, in the blessing of the Second Adam. This throws much light also on the position of these two witnesses and is exceedingly interesting as throwing light on the two dispensations.

Note too, the tribulation comes after the placing the abomination of desolation. If it be referred to Titus, as some would, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, then the placing it closed the tribulation. It is merely one among many reasons which show that this application of the passage is impossible.

Note further, the horn is raised up in the 'house of David' (Luke 1:69, 73), but all the expectation, and testimony of the Spirit of God, is connected with the promise to Abraham when Christ is born, not Moses. Note, too, the Angel only speaks of the fact. The least of the saints recognises the fulfilment of the promise and covenant with Abraham.

- 11. 'And from the time that the daily [sacrifice] shall be taken away' (removed) as in chapter 11 'and the abomination that desolateth' (or 'of the desolate') 'set up' (or 'given') 'a thousand two hundred and ninety days.' It may be well to remark here that 'maketh desolate' has not the same form as in chapter 11:3. There, it is, I suppose, without controversy, the abomination of the desolate, or, at any rate, a full active sense, M'sho-mem (desolation). In Daniel 12:11, the form which almost universally has a neuter or passive signification, 'to be desolate,' sho-mem (that makes desolate). At any rate the former is more properly 'desolator,' as I suppose chapter 9:27, m'sho-mem ('desolator' or 'desolations') the rather because ka-lah v'ne-che-ratzah (the completion, and that which is decreed) are technical words it would seem: see Isaiah 10:23, speaking of this very time. And note also here that the indignation of Daniel 11:36 (where we have the same words, ka-lah and v'ne-che-ratzah, and Daniel 8:19, where the Grecian King at the end is spoken of, is to end in the destruction of the Assyrian (Isaiah 10:25) who is (v. 5) the 'indignation.'