Daniel 9:27

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. The verse in the Septuagint corresponding to this is evidently mixed up with confluent readings and notes as to earlier verses, "And the covenant shall be strong upon many, and again he shall turn ('repent') ἐπιστρέψει ), and it shall be built in breadth and length, and according to the end of times until the end of the war, and after seven and seventy times and sixty-two years until the end of the war; and the desolation shall be taken away in confirming (or 'when he shall confirm') the covenant to many weeks; and in the end of the week the sacrifice and the oblation shall be taken away, and upon the temple shall be the abomination of desolation until the end, and an end shall be given to the desolation." In this mass of confusion this much is clear—the clause, "the covenant shall be strong ( δυναστεύσει ) upon many," is a doublet of the clause, "when he shall confirm the covenant to many weeks." The clause, "and after seven and seventy times and sixty-two years," is a doublet of the beginning of the twenty-sixth verse; "Till the end of the war, and the desolation shall be taken away," is an alternative version of the last clause of the twenty-sixth verse. When those extraneous elements are got rid of, we have left a rendering of the twenty-seventh verse, which may afford us light as to the text. "The covenant shall be strong upon many" is a possible rendering of the Hebrew (see Psalms 12:5 ). The alternative reading, "when he shall confirm ( ἐν τῷ κατισχῦσαι ) the covenant during many weeks," implies the infinitive with the preposition בְ , and "weeks" in the plural, and one omitted—the latter is omitted, indeed, by both. "And in the end of the week"—reading קֵץ ( qaytz ) instead of חֲצִי ( hatzee ) — "sacrifice and offering shall be taken away, and upon the temple shall be the abomination of desolation"—reading קֹדֶשׁ ( qodesh ), "holy," instead of זֶבַח ( kenaph ), "wing," "outspreading," or it may be tendered "wing of temple"—"until the end, and an end be given to desolation"—reading תֻּתַּן ( toottan ), "is given," or "appointed," instead of תִּתַּךְ ( tittak ), "poured out." Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic, "And one week shall confirm ( δυναμώσει ) a covenant to many, and in the middle ( ἡμίσει ) of the week my sacrifice and offering shall be taken away"—reading זִבְחִי ( zebeḥee ) instead of זֶבַח ( zebaḥ ), and possibly minḥath , instead of minḥah— "and upon the temple (shall be) the abomination of desolations, and till (at) the end of the time an end is set (given) to the desolation." It will be observed that Theodotion agrees with the LXX . in reading קֹדֶשׁ ( qodesh ) instead of כֵּנַף ( kenaph ), and תֻּתַּן ( toottan ) instead of תִּתַּךְ ( tittak ) £ The Peshitta is closer still to the Massoretic, but the last verb the translator seems to have read as tanah , "shall rest." Tertullian, in his quotation from the Vetus, shows that in this verse it follows Theodotion, or rather the version which he made his basis. He, however, connects "half a week" with "one week." The Vulgate rendering is, "One week also shall confirm the covenant to many, and in the middle of the week sacrifice and offering shall cease"—reading יִשׁבַת : ( yishbath ) — "and in the temple shall be the abomination of desolation"—therefore reading with the Greek versions and the Vetus, קדֶשׁ instead of כָנָף —"and even to the consummation and end shall the desolation continue"—reading, therefore, תֵּשֵׁב instead of תִּתַּךְ , and omitting the preposition עַל ( ‛al ), "upon"—the latter is not a probable reading. From this examination of the versions one thing is clear—we must accept, with all its difficulties, "confirms." Gratz would change one letter, and translate, "he shall cause many to transgress the covenant." The wilder supposition of Professor Bevan, which would change two letters, and translate, "the covenant shall be annulled for many," is equally out of court. The next point is kenaph , "expansion." Here the Greek and Latin versions, including that in Matthew 24:15 , but excluding the doublet mixed up in the text of the Vatican and Alexandrian Codices, have read קֹדֶשׁ . The Peshitta and the author of the reading intruded into the Alexandrian Codex have read כְּנַף . ( kenaph ) . However, these two are not agreed as to the interpretation. The Peshitta renders "wings," the Vatican and Alexandrian scribes render πτερύγιον , the word used ( Matthew 4:5 ) for a pinnacle of the temple. There is, whichever is preferred, not the slightest justification for the suggestion of Kuenen that we should read כּנּוֹ instead of כְּנַף Professor Bevan thinks "this emendation is well-nigh certain." If that is so, any suggestion of any critic may be equally commended. We have practically four Greek versions here, two Syriae if we include Paulus Tellensis, two Latin, and not one of them gives the slightest hint that this "well-nigh certain" reading was in existence. The balance of evidence is decidedly in favour of קֹדֶשׁ fo ru ( qodesh ), especially so in the light of our Lord's words. Had the text with which his hearers were familiar contained the suggestive word כִּנַף , "wing," it was impossible, speaking as he did of the setting up of the Roman eagles in the temple, to have avoided remarking on the word used. Our Lord in this case must have had the Hebrew before him, as he does not render as the Greek versions do, ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερόν , but ἐν τόλῳ ἁγίῳ . We must thus hold קֹדֶשׁ to have been the original text. And he shall confirm the covenant with many. What is the subject of the verb here? Hengstenberg, Hitzig, and yon Lengerke make the one week the nominative of the verb. Professor Bevan objects that to represent a week making a covenant, or making it burdensome, is without analogy. Both Hitzig and Hengstenberg appeal to Ma 3:19; Isaiah 22:5 ; Job 3:3 , where a "day" is represented as acting. Theodotion translates thus. The natural meaning, according to the Hebrew, if we do not pass beyond the clause before us for the subject of the verb, is בְּרִית , ( bereeth ), "covenant . " Thus we ought naturally to render either—taking the hiphil in its causative sense—"a covenant," or "the covenant shall confirm;" i.e. secure "one week to many," or—and this is better, as supported by Psalms 12:5 (4), in the sense given to the hiphil of גָבַר ( gabar ) — "the covenant shall prevail for many during one week." This agrees with the first version we find in the Septuagint, The covenant—God's covenant with Israel, and this it must be here—"prevails with many;" his covenant to send a Messiah, a part of the eternal covenant with Israel, would prevail with the hearts of many of Israel during one week. If we reckon our Lord's ministry to have begun in the year a.d. 30, and the conversion of St. Paul a.d. 37, we have the interval required. After the conversion of St. Paul, the Gentiles more than the Jews were brought into the Church. Another theory is that it is the coming prince who is referred to. This is assumed by critics to be Antiochus; e.g. Ewald. Moses Stuart, who adopts this view, refers to the covenant made with Antiochus by many of the Jews. But bereeth thus absolute, is used not of alliances, but of the Divine covenant. The theory that the coming prince is Jason the brother of Onias does not suit with the idea of confirming the Divine covenant, so the interpreters that hold this view— e.g. Bevan—do not make "the prince" the subject of the verb. If bereeth is the Divine covenant, as by usage it is, then the prince whose people were to lay waste the temple and city cannot be he that confirms the covenant. We might take the last clause of verse 26 as in a parenthesis, and regard the subject of the verb " confirm " as the Messiah who was cut off. It seems, however, preferable to take the construction as we have done above, and make bereeth the subject of the verb. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. In accordance with our interpretation of the previous clause, we would interpret this, "The covenant shall cause offering and oblation to cease." What covenant is this? The new Messianic covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31 . The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ( Jeremiah 8:8 ) quotes this passage as Messianic, and as proving that sacrifice and offering had ceased with Christ ' s sacrifice of himself. Interpreters of the critical school are reduced to considerable difficulties in their endeavours to square this passage with their preconceived notions Bevan admits that the natural subject of the verb yashbeeth is the "prince who shall come;" but having come to the conclusion that this coming prince is Jason, he could not be said to make sacrifice and offering cease. Professor Bevan is constrained to change the reading from hiphil into the kal. He has certainly the justification that the Septuagint and Theodotion both make the word passive. Ewald regards the coming prince as Epiphanes. If so, then he must be the subject all through. In that case we are obliged to contradict usage and maintain that the covenant confirmed refers to an alliance made with apostate Jews; but this, as we have said, contradicts the usage in regard to "covenant" in this absolute position. Further, we have, in the end of Jeremiah 31:26 , the "end of the war" referred to. Yet, according to this interpretation, after the war is over the prince is making sacrifice and offering to cease. Ewald, recognizing the difficulties of his interpretation,declares, "As soon as the discourse touches upon the man and his projects, it is at once agitated with the profoundest disorder." The midst of the week. On the ordinary Christian interpretation, this applies to the crucifixion of our Lord, which took place, according to the received calculation, during the fourth year after his baptism by John, and the consequent opening of his ministry. Hitzig and many critical commentators see a reference in the half-week to the time, times, and half a time, and they identify that with the time during which Antiochus had set up the heathen altar in the temple. It is to be observed that this view has the support of 1 Macc. 1:54, which applies the next clause to Antiochus. If the traditional view is correct—that the prophecy published in the days of Cyrus applied to the coming Romans—then it was but natural that a writer in the clays of John Hyrcanus should be prone to interpret the prophecy of events in his own time. As we have already seen, the reference cannot be to Antiochus. The extreme popularity of Daniel by the time 1 Maccabees was written, probably about b.c. 100, is to be observed. For the overspreading of abominations , he shall make it desolate. This is rendered in the Revised Version, "And upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate;" in the margin the rendering is, "upon the pinnacle of abominations." We have seen that the great balance of evidence was in favour of inserting קֹדֶשׁ , "holy place," instead of כָּנָף , "wing." Even if we take the Massoretic reading, and render it according either to the text or the margin, we have difficulties. We have no instance of a bird supporting itself by one wing. If כְּנָף . ( konaph ), "wing," is retained, the reference to the Roman eagles can scarcely be resisted. The word has several derivative meanings: "The edge" of the earth, as Isaiah 24:16 ; from this is derived the rendering in the Revised. In the present passage, Gesenius, Furst, and Wirier regard it as equivalent to πτερύγιον ; but no such meaning is elsewhere found in Hebrew. " He shall make it desolate." In Hebrew, this is only one word, meshomaym , the participle. The word occurs twice in Ezra 9:1 , Ezra 9:4 , and there means "astonished," "stupefied." It is imitated in Daniel 11:31 , but the preceding word, שִׁקּוּץ ( shiqqootz ), is in the singular, and agrees with meshomaym. Here we have the noun shiqqootzeem in the plural while the participle is in the singular. In Daniel 12:11 we have another variation, שִׁקוּץ שֹׁמֵם . The versions translate as if the word had been in the singular; hence we may doubt whether the noun was not originally singular, all the more that in the parallel passage ( Daniel 11:31 ) we have the singular used. An accidental reduplication of the , מ which begins מְשׁמֵם , would explain the present reading. Professor Bevan suggests that we read מֻשָׁמִים , the hophal participle plural from שׂוּם , "to sit;" but the evidence of the versions is decisive against this. The rendering of the clause would be thus, "and upon the temple the abomination of desolation." The usage of shiqqootz leads us to think of heathen idols, as 1 Kings 11:1 , Chemosh, the abomination of Moab; Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon, 2 Kings 23:13 ; As - toreth, the abomination of the Zidonians. More important is Jeremiah 32:34 , "They set their abominations in the house that is called by my name, to defile it." We have here the combination suggested by Professor Bevan. From the fact that Daniel seems to have been saturated with Jeremiah, his suggestion might have had weight; but the utter want of any hint in the versions that the reading was even doubtful, compels us to be against this view. There is no case where shiqqootz means "altar," but many where it means" idol." So the setting up of a heathen altar is not what would naturally be thought of in this connection. The traditional opinion, that this refers to the Roman eagle standards, which were in a sense "idols," and were regarded especially as such by the Jews, is certainly at least plausible on grammatical grounds, and may be regarded as certain from other reasons; e.g. its suitability to the meaning of the other verses. Even until the consummation , and that determined shall be poured out upon the desolate. The Revised Version is very different here, "And even unto the consummation, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolator." We have already seen that תִּתַּךְ ( tittak )," poured out," must be abandoned, as not present in any of the versions. Most of them have read תֻּתַּן . We must, in the first instance, assume the nominative in the sentence to be the subject of the verb. In that case we should render in accordance with the rendering of the two Greek versions, "Until an end and a limit be set to the desolation." The reading of Jerome in the Vulgate, as we have seen, seems to have read תַּשֵׁב ( tayshayb ), "to dwell," "to remain," for he renders persecerabit ; and must not have had the preposition עַל , ( ‛al ), "upon," for he makes desolation the nominative of the verb. Jerome's interpretation points to the end of the world, and the reading we adopt points also to the same terminus ad quem , the more indefinitely. The end set to the desolation may be the end of time; but it may be some earlier period; but that is not revealed. The meaning of kalah is assumed to be "end," not "ruin," as asserted by many commentators. Where the word does mean "destruction," it is simply as an utter end of a person or nation—it is that person's or nation's destruction; but it never does mean" destruction "apart from this. In connection with this question, two passages in Isaiah have to be considered ( Isaiah 10:23 ; Isaiah 28:23 ), where kalah and neheretzeth occur in connection. Our interpretation implies that we take עד as a conjunction, and not as a preposition. Professor Bevan would make it absolute, that when עד introduces a verbal clause, the verb takes the precedence of the subject, and would therefore point עֹד , not עַד ; but in opposition to this dictum is 1 Samuel 2:15 . The generality of the phenomenon is due to the normal structure of the Hebrew clause. An end shall be set some time to the desolation of Zion, although that end may coincide with 'the end of all things.

HOMILETICS