Did you know that the Book of Daniel is a book which is based on God's love for us? We read, "Oh Lord ... God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments." Dan. 9:4.

As we learned, Daniel 8 describes the Persian ram in the first vision, conquering the north, west, and south. The Grecian goat with its principle horn appears next, and by defeating the Persian ram becomes the dominant power. However, the principal horn of the goat was broken and four horns which extended out of the four winds of heaven came up in its place (Dan. 8:8). So far the identity of these images is quite straight forward and it is not difficult to see that the great horn is Alexander the Great and the four replacement horns, his four generals taking over his realm.

Variant views arose in the interpretation of the subsequent visionary details. Another horn that came either from one of the four winds or one of the four horns appeared on the scene of action next. The attack that this little horn launched was not directed so much against other beasts or kingdoms as it was against God's people, identified here as the stars of the host, Dan. 8:10,24, against God's work of redemption [5] in the form of the `tamid' or "daily" and the temple (Dan. 8:11-12), and finally against God's principal representative, the Prince of the host, the Prince of princes (Dan. 8:11,25).

Daniel then heard two heavenly beings discussing what he had seen. One asked the other,

"For how long is the vision concerning the `tamid', the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?"

The answer given was,

"Unto 2300 evening-mornings, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Dan. 8:14.

It becomes crucial now to identify the little horn power who or which was to do all these things against God and His people. Three main interpretations of the little horn have been advanced and these identifications are characteristically held by commentators who belong to three different schools of prophetic interpretation.

The apparent origin of the little horn from one of the divisions of Alexander's empire, and its activities, identify it as

Antiochus Epiphanes and Antiochus Epiphanes alone for the preterist.

Since a flow of history appears to be involved here, especially when this chapter is compared with the previous one, the historicist holds that

Alternately some historicists have identified the little horn as

Islam, but this is still in the context of the flow of history since the 7th century A.D.

a gap in this prophecy and the little horn has not appeared yet.

Some commentators have overlapped these positions to some extent. Some futurists, for example, have seen Antiochus Epiphanes as a prototype of the great antichrist that is yet to come.

Just as there are three main identifications for the little horn, so three main applications have been made of the time period referred to in this passage. Preterists have proposed that the 2300 evening-mornings should be interpreted as 2300 or 1150 literal days and applied to some events in the career of Antiochus Epiphanes in the 2nd century BC. Utilizing the day-for-a-year principle, historicists have held that this datum refers to a period of 2300 years which began sometime in the 2nd half of the first millennium BC and they have thus extended into the second half of the second millennium AD. Futurists have interpreted the evening-mornings as literal evenings and mornings or days but they have not yet begun, according to this scheme, because the final antichrist has not appeared yet.

In addition we must discuss the event which has occurred or is to occur at the end of this 2300 evening-mornings time period. Preterists apply this to the purification of the temple in Jerusalem from Antiochus' pollution of it. Since the earthly temple was destroyed in 70 AD and this prophetic time extends beyond that year, according to the historicist view, this is taken as a reference to the temple in heaven. As the principal representatives of historicist thought, Seventh-day Adventists have taken this cleansing as referring to the heavenly antitype of the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary that occurred in ancient Israel on the Day of Atonement. Since this was a day of judgment in Israel, the antitypical cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary has been taken as the time for a pre-Advent investigative judgment of God's people. During the final seven years of earth's history the temple restored in Jerusalem will be polluted by antichrist, according to futurists, but it will be cleansed or restored when Christ comes and puts an end to antichrist's reign.

These three views are outlined below.

From this brief review of these interpretations it is evident that they come out with considerably different conclusions about the nature of the events predicted in this passage of prophecy. Of particular importance here is the nature of the event this prophecy predicted would occur at the end of the 2300 days.

If one follows the first school of thought, the prescribed purification was all completed before January 1, 164 BC.

If one follows the second line of interpretation, it refers to a judgment that is going on in heaven now.

None of this has happened yet, according to the third view and when it does, events in Jerusalem, Israel will be involved.

Considering the magnitude of these differences in interpretation, and the importance of the events to which they refer, the passages in Daniel which need to be examined in evaluating them demand our careful attention.

Evaluating the contents of the passages referring to the little horn in Daniel 8 and its context obviously are important in examining these different interpretations. Because the prophecies of Daniel parallel each other to a considerable extent, however, it is also necessary to examine the other prophecies of the book that are particularly relevant here.

The prophecies of chapter 7, 8 11-12 must, therefore, also be included in this study. That being the case it seems best to follow the order of the book itself in evaluating the aspects of its prophecies relevant to this topic.

The argument from Daniel 7 that bears upon the identification of the little horn in Daniel 8 is one drawn from the parallel use of prophetic symbols. Two problems are involved in utilizing this line of argument. The 1st has to do with the identification of the little horn in Daniel 7 and the 2nd has to do with how legitimate it is to transfer that application to the little horn of Daniel 8.

Taking these problems in order, one can again see that the historical applications made of the beasts in Daniel 7 divide up according to the different schools of prophetic interpretation. All are agreed that the lion represents Babylon, v.4. The historicist and futurist schools identify the bear as Medo-Persia, however, while the preterist or critical school identifies it as Media only, v.5, the historicist and futurist schools continue on together in identifying them as Persia and Greece. vv. 6-7. Historicists and futurists finally diverge when they come to the little horn for the former identify it as the papal horn out of pagan Rome while the latter, holding to a gap in the flow of prophetic history, identify it as the final and still future antichrist, v. 8. [800] Ending up with the 4th beast as Greece, preterists have thus identified the little horn out of it as Antiochus Epiphanes.

There naturally are variations in the application made by individual commentators within each of these schools or prophetic interpretation, but these variations are not of significant concern to us here. The important difference for our present purposes is the divergence that has developed over the interpretation of the 2nd beast and the consequences that flow from that divergence in the interpretation of the subsequent beast-nations.

By dividing Media off from Persia, preterists have shortened this prophetic scheme down to a point where Antiochus Epiphanes developed out of the Grecian beast as the little horn in the 2nd century BC. The other main scheme which identifies the 2nd beast as a joint symbol for the combined kingdom of Media and Persia ends up one historical step farther down the road, with Rome as the 4th beast. These schemes and this particular difference can be outlined as follows:

One of the principal supporting arguments relied upon by preterists here is that the author of Daniel committed a historical blunder when he referred to Darius the Mede in Daniel 5:31 to 6:28 and 9:1. Since no such figure is known from history yet, he is supposed to have allowed thereby for a separate Median kingdom between the Neo-Babylonian rulers Nabonidus and Belshazzar on the one hand and the Persian king Cyrus on the other as discussed by H.H. Rowley. [1000]

Rowley's classical conclusion is that, "there is no room in history for Darius the Mede."

Unfortunately, he could have done better with this subject had he studied the relevant cuneiform sources directly rather than relying upon secondary treatments of them. As I have pointed out in my study of the royal titles used in Neo-Babylonian contract tablets written early in the reign of Cyrus [1500], there is room in history for Darius the Mede and the amount of room available for him is delimited quite precisely. The title king of Babylon was not used for Cyrus in the contract tablets dated to him there during the first year after its conquest in October, 539 BC. Only the title `King of Lands' was used for him then and this referred to him in his capacity of king of the Persian empire. Late in 538 BC, however, the scribes added the title, King of Babylon' to his titulary and it continued in use through the rest of his reign and those of his successors down to the time of Xerxes.

There are only two possibilities here: Either

1) there was an interregnum and the throne of Babylon went unoccupied for a year, or
2) somebody else besides Cyrus occupied that throne for that period of time.

The prime candidate for this other king of Babylon is, of course, Ugbara the general whose troops conquered Babylon for Cyrus.

According to the Nabonidus Chronicle he appointed governors in Babylonia (cf. Dan. 6:1) and he resided in Babylon until he died there a year later, one month before the title king of Babylon was added to Cyrus' titulary. He could well have been reasonably advanced in age by the time of his death, which could fit with the age of 62 for Darius the Mede in Daniel 5:31.

Cuneiform sources do not provide us with any information about his father, Ahasuerus according to Daniel 9:1, or his ethnic origin as a Mede. Darius could have been Ugbaru's throne name as the use of throne names is known both in Baylon and Persia. The logical explanation why the dates in Daniel progress from the 1st year of Darius the Mede (9:1) to the 3rd year of Cyrus (10:1) is that Darius died in the interval, which harmonizes satisfactorily with this cuneiform evidence.

While the case has not been proved conclusively because we lack a direct reference to Darius the Mede in a cuneiform text, it should be kept in mind that by far the greater portion of Neo-Babylonian contract tablets still are unpublished, 18,000 or more of them from Sippur in the British Museum. Even without the publication of these tablets a reasonable hypothesis can be made out of the published tablets for him, and one must also keep in mind how very fragmented the picture of the past still is that has been recovered thus far from the Ancient Near East. Thus the critical view that the author of Daniel blundered in identifying a Median king of Babylon has not been sustained by the historical sources of the 6th century BC. On the contrary, the detailed knowledge of the history of Babylon in this period revealed in this and other passages in the book argue strongly that the author was an eyewitness to those events.[1600]

Lacking historical support for their interpretation of the 2nd beast of Daniel 7, preterists must fall back upon the interpretation of the symbols themselves. What has commonly been done here, as in the recent Anchor Bible volume on Daniel by Hartman and Di Lella [1700], is to emend the text by transposing the phrase about the three ribs in the mouth of the bear forward so that the ribs end up in the mouth of the lion instead. In this way the bear receives the heart of a man and stands on his hind legs, not on one side. This then is supposed to refer to the only ruler of the fictitious Median kingdom that the author of Daniel supposed that he knew, Darius the Mede.

In contrast to this garbling of history and garbling of the text in support of a theory, the historicist interpretation of these symbols seems pre-eminently reasonable. The bear being raised up on one side can be seen quite naturally as a reference to the composite nature of the kingdom formed by a fusion of the Medes and Persians. When left in the bear's mouth, the three ribs may reasonably be taken as representing the three major conquests of the combined forces of the Medes and Persians, Lydia in 547, Babylon in 539, and Egypt in 525 BC.

Support for this interpretation in Daniel 7 can be found in working back from the interpretation of the ram in Daniel 8. Its two disproportionate horns are specifically identified as the kings of Media and Persia (v. 20), expressing the same duality that is found in the prophet's view of the bear in chapter 7. The tripartite nature of the ram's conquests also parallels the three ribs in the mouth of the bear since it expanded to the north (Lydia), to the west (Babylon), and to the south (Egypt). The parallels between these two beasts supports the interpretation of the former already arrived at from its context in Daniel 7, that the bear represents Medo-Persia. This means that the non-descript beast, the 4th in order there, must represent Rome and the little horn that came out of it cannot, therefore, represent Antiochus Epiphanes.

From this conclusion about the little horn in Daniel 7 the next question is,

`What is the little horn's (Dan. 7) relationship to the little horn in Daniel 8?'

Among historicist and futurist interpreters there have been a significant number who have opted for different interpretations of these two figures. Virtually all of the pre-Millerite [1750] interpreters of the historicist school from the 18th and 19th century that were collected by Froom [1800] identified the little horn of Daniel 7 as the papacy while only half of them identified the little horn in Daniel 8 the same way. The other half interpreted it as Mohammedanism. A similar split can be seen among futurist interpreters of our time. Some of them identify the little horn of Daniel 7 as the future antichrist and the little horn of Daniel 8 as Antiochus Epiphanes. Thus the possibility should be left open and not ruled out a priori that these two prophetic symbols could refer to different historical entities.

On the other hand, there are significant arguments in favor of identifying the little horns in these two chapters as the same historical entity. In the 1st place,

1) the fact that the same terminology was used for both of them, whether in Aramaic in chapter 8 or in Hebrew in chapter 8, suggests at the outset that there could well be a connection between them. If a historical distinction had been intended here the best way in which to have made such a distinction would have been to have used a different symbol, but the symbol remained the same.

2) On the other hand, the powers represented by this same prophetic symbol both engage in similar actions. Both appear to arise at a somewhat similar time in history. Both start out small and become great, Dan. 7:8 & 8:9. Both are blasphemous powers (7:8,25 & 8:11,25), both persecute the saints of God (7:21,25 & 8:11,25), both appear to endure for protracted periods of prophetic time (7:25 & 8:14), and both eventually suffer similar fates (7:26 & 8:25).

Thus when two powers represented by the same prophetic symbol arise and carry out the same kinds of actions, the probabilities appear to be on the side of these commentators who have identified them as the same historical entity. Some of the aspects of the work of the little horn in chapter 7 are not mentioned in chapter 8 and vice versa, but the number of correspondences between them is greater than those aspects of their work not mentioned in both passages. None of these individual characteristics are of so mutually exclusive a character as to rule out the possibility that they could refer to the same power.

3) We can now say that the Book of Daniel indicates that its later prophecies were intended to be explanations of its earlier prophecies. This is evident from their parallel order, the interpretations given in them that deal with the same world powers, their similar imagery, their similar phraseology, and the book itself specifically states this in at least two instances (9:22-23 & 10:1,14). Not only has the principle of amplification or expansion upon materials from the earlier visions in the later visions been recognized by virtually all commentators on the book, but it also provides a potential explanation for some of the differences between those prophecies.

The prophecy conveyed by way of a dream in Daniel 2 was given primarily to Nebuchadnezzar. While the same vision was given to Daniel so that he could explain it to the king (2:19), he functioned primarily in that context as a wise man who interpreted the dream of the king. It is with the vision of chapter 7 that was given directly and personally to Daniel half a century later, therefore, that Daniel came to serve God as a full-fledged prophet in his own right. As the first of the four main prophecies that were given to Daniel, it is quite natural that the vision of chapter 7 stands as the major outline of the future that was given to him. Thus all of the subsequent prophecies given to him, not just one or the other, can be seen as amplifying this main original prophetic outline.

In this context the vision of chapter 8 can be seen quite naturally as amplifying the vision of chapter 7. Even the datelines on the prophecies support that point. The visions of chapters 7 and 8 came together as one pair grouped two years apart and the prophecies of a more didactic nature in chapters 9 and 10-12 came together in a second pair grouped two years apart. But the second pair of didactic prophecies came a decade later than the original pair of visionary prophecies. Thus the vision of chapter 8 elaborates upon the vision of chapter 7 while the explanations given in chapter 9 and 10-12 elaborate upon the visions and their explanations already begun in chapters 7 and 8. This is another way of saying that all of the prophetic imagery that God wished to convey was in place by the time the vision of chapter 8 had been received. The final supplement to the basic vision had been given and no further vision in terms of prophetic symbols were necessary.

With the vision of chapter 8 standing in this relation to the vision of chapter 7, this means that certain details of the basic vision could be elaborated, but it also means that certain details in the basic vision did not have to be repeated. The clearest case of this comes from the fact that there is no beast to represent Babylon in the vision of Daniel 8. The common explanation for this is that the Neo-Babylonian empire was drawing near to its destruction and therefore it didn't need to be represented in vision again. This is not entirely accurate, at least not from the human point of view.

The Harran inscriptions of Nabonidus state that he spent a decade at Tema in Arabia before he returned to Babylon to defend it against the onslaught of Cyrus. The Verse Account of Nabonidus states that he trusted the kingship of Babylon to his son Belshazzar when he took off on that journey. It was early during this regency of Belshazzar in Babylon that Daniel received both of these visions. The precise date when Nabonidus returned to Babylon is not known, but it could not have been any later than 540 BC, the year before Babylon fell to the Persians. He could have returned there earlier, but this point cannot be determined with accuracy because of the damaged condition of the Nabonidus Chronicle.

We might estimate, therefore, that the vision of chapter 7 was given to Daniel around 550 BC and the vision of chapter 8 around 548 BC. Even by the time this second vision was given Nabonidus still felt his empire was sufficiently safe to spend another 7 years in Tema. This it was not at all clear that the Neo-Babylonian empire was passing off the scene of action by the time Daniel's vision of chapter 8 was given, as far as the population in Baylonia was concerned. This may have been true from the divine point of view, but it was not yet evident in terms of human political circumstances as far as Daniel and others living in Babylon were concerned.

Instead of deleting Babylon from the vision because it was passing off the scene of action, it could just as well have been deleted because there was no further need to elaborate upon the prophetic imagery used for Babylon in the 1st vision. Suppose the case were the reverse, that Babylon appeared in chapter 8 and did not appear in chapter 7. We might say that it appeared there to fill out the picture of what preceded the Persian symbol. Turning this around into the order in which God gave these elements of these visions we can suggest that Babylon was deleted from the 2nd vision not so much because human political circumstances had changed that much already, but because God desired to elaborate upon other parts of the primary vision. Medo-Persia had already been introduced as the successor to Babylon in the 1st vision and it was not necessary to repeat this point in the 2nd.

A similar point can be made from the prophecy of chapter 11. When one comes to the Persian kings there it is stated, "behold, three more kings shall arise in Persian and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them; and when he has come strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece." Daniel 11:2.

The 4th king here clearly is Xerxes and it was his invasion of Greece that stirred that kingdom up. The next verse clearly describes the actions of Alexander the Great and the succeeding verse describes the breakup of his kingdom in terms similar to Daniel 7:6 and 8:8,22. The question then is, what happened to the rest of the Persian kings? Seven kings ruled Persia after Xerxes; Artaxerxes I, and Darius II, Xerxes II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, Arses, and Darius III. Why are not these seven other kings mentioned in this prophecy?

Is this the case that, as some critical scholars would have it, that the author of Daniel only knew of four Persian kings because only four of them are mentioned in the Bible? In the first place, the number is wrong. The vision was dated in the reign of Cyrus and there were to be four "more" kings after him, so he should have known of at least five. It is probable that any reasonably well informed citizen of Palestine in the 2nd century would have known about some of the later Persian kings. The papyrii from the Wadi Daliyeh indicate that the people in Samaria were dating documents there to the last two Persian kings at least. Thus this information probably should have been common knowledge a century and a half later and so this criticism of Daniel is not an adequate explanation for this problem.

What is involved here is rather a point in the hermeneutic of Daniel's apocalyptic. That point is this. It is only necessary to continue with one kingdom or line of kings until the new one of importance is introduced in the scene of action. It is not necessary to describe the whole history of the earlier kingdom. The reason why the Persian kings are only listed down to Xerxes is that it was he who stirred up Greece to the extent that it came on the horizon of action in the Near East. After this critical turning point in history the rest of the Persian kings no longer hold any great prophetic significance and thus they were not mentioned.

The same point can be made about the Seleucids and Ptolemies in the same prophecy. Regardless of which school of interpretation one follows for the balance of Daniel 11 it is very unlikely that all of the kings of the houses of Seleucus and Ptolemy are referred to in this prophecy. They are only listed down to the point at which the next and more significant power is introduced, Antiochus Epiphanes according to one school of thought and Rome according to the other. Thus the same hermeneutic can be applied here. Power A is only of interest and significance in the visions or their applications up to the point at which power B is introduced on the scene of action. The prophecy then takes up with the details about Power B, it was not necessary to run out Power A's line of rulers or history completely.

The setting in which the little horn arose in Daniel 8 may now be viewed in the light of these parallels from earlier in the same chapter and from chapter 11. There is not one beast or kingdom missing from this vision, there are two: Babylon and Rome. From the full vision in chapter 7 with four beasts and a little horn a reduction has taken place down to two beasts and the little horn. Evidently, further details concerning the two deleted beasts were not considered to be necessary and the details added here concentrate on the little horn. As with the transitions in Daniel 11, the four horns' expansion to the four winds was considered to be an adequate basis upon which to introduce the same little horn into the scene of action in this supplementary vision. The transition having been made in this way, what follows thereafter concentrates on elaborating details about the little horn. This point is emphasized by the fact that the vision was labeled with a title that is related to the activity of that horn in verse 26.

The information available from Daniel 7 that bears upon the question of whether or not the little horn of Daniel 8 should be identified as Antiochus Epiphanes may now be summarized. In the first place the historicist position which identifies the 4th beast of Daniel 7 as Rome seems quite sound. This means that the little horn coming out of it cannot be Antiochus Epiphanes. If the little horns of Daniel 7 and 8 refer to the same historical entity, therefore, the little horn in Daniel 8 cannot be Antiochus Epiphanes either.

Three lines of evidence support that identification. The

first is that the same terminology is applied to both. The
second is that they both are described as carrying out very similar activities. The
third derives from the general consideration that the later prophecies in Daniel amplify his earlier prophecies.

That being the case, the treatment of the little horn in Daniel 8 should amplify what is said about the little horn in Daniel 7, not talk about some other entity. This relationship also explains why it was not necessary to repeat all of the details of the vision in Daniel 7 in chapter 8. These three related aspects concerning the little horns in these two chapters make it probable that they refer to the same historical entity, but they do not prove that point definitely.

To arrive at that degree of proof the little horn of Daniel 8 must be studied in the context of the vision in which it was seen and also by relating to it information that is available from the later prophecies of Daniel.

Since Antiochus Epiphanes is so commonly identified with the little horn in Daniel 8, the arguments in favor of this identification should be considered first.

I Arguments in favor of Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn.

1) As one of the Seleucid kings he could be considered to have come from that horn of the four, if that is where this little horn came from.
2) If the phrase "but not with his power ( "w^elô b^ekohô")", at the beginning of Daniel 8:24 is original with the Masoretic Translation (MT) [1850] and not a dittography from the end of verse 22, then it could suggest that the little horn came to power historically through an irregular succession. One of the sons of Seleucus Philopater should have succeeded him when he was assassinated by his courtier Heliodorus. His brother Antiochus came to the throne instead, however, when he was aided by the armies of Pergamos when he returned from Athens. It is possible to apply the phrase "but not his own power" to this course of events, but Revelation 13:2 applies a very similar phrase to a power described in very similar terms in a prophecy which had only just been given and had not yet been fulfilled late in the 1st century AD.

3) Antiochus is known to have persecuted the Jews.

4) Antiochus also polluted the temple in Jerusalem and disrupted its services, but it remains to be seen whether he did all of the things against the temple that Daniel 8 says the little horn did.

Thus there are two reasonably straightforward arguments in favor of identifying the little horn as Antiochus Epiphanes, his irregular succession and his persecution of the Jews, and there are two other arguments which may possibly support that identification but that must be qualified to some extent,

his origin, and
his desecration of the temple.

The question here is, are these four points (1-4), two reasonably straight forward and two qualified, sufficient grounds upon which to make this identification?

On the other side of this question there are a number of arguments from Daniel 8 against equating Antiochus Epiphanes with the little horn. Most of these are relatively well known but they are all repeated here and some of them still require some amplification.

II Arguments against Antiochus as the little Horn.

1) The nature of the little horn

a) Here we discuss the horn as a symbol for king/kingdom. Daniel 8:23 identifies the little horn as a "king," but the question here is whether or not that "king" was intended to stand in turn for a "kingdom." Several points suggest this possibility. Since the four preceding horns are identified as kingdoms in verse 22, one might expect them to be succeeded by another kingdom rather than an individual king. The two horns on the Persian ram, for example, represented the "kings of Media and Persia," i.e. the dynastic houses that ruled those nations (v. 20). Going back to chapter 7, the historicist interpretation of the little horn there discussed above is that it represents the papacy which came up among the horn-nations of Europe that resulted from the break up of the Roman empire-beast.

b) The same type of idea is evident as early as chapter two where Nebuchadnezzar was told that he was the head of gold but that he was to be succeeded by another kingdom (vv.38-39). The only place among these symbols where one can clearly point to the identification of a horn as an individual king is in the case of Alexander who is represented by the great horn of the Grecian he-goat in chapter 8. But Alexander's horn did not come up from the other horns of the goat. If the little horn of Daniel 8 came out of another horn and it is interpreted as a king, then such an interpretation is unique among this series of symbols. Although this point is not definitive when it is studied in isolation, it seems more likely that this horn should be interpreted as representing a corporate kingdom rather than an individual king.

2. The comparative greatness of the little horn

a) Daniel 8:4 says the Persian ram magnified himself ( "higdîl"). Daniel 8:8 says the Grecian goat magnified himself exceedingly ( "higdîl ^cad-m^e' od"). Daniel 8:9-11 says the little horn magnified itself exceedingly ( "tigdal-yeter") in different directions, it exalted itself ( "tigdal") up to the host of heaven, and it was even exalted up to Prince of the host ( "higdîl").
b)The verb "to be great," gadal, occurs only once with Persia and Greece, but it appears three times with the little horn. In view of this verbal usage and the adverb for "exceedingly" which accompanies it in the first instance, it is evident that this is a progression from the comparative to the superlative. Translating that into historical terms means that Antiochus should have exceeded the Persian and Greek empires in greatness, but this obviously was not the case since he ruled one portion of the latter and did not do too well with it at that.
c) This point can be emphasized by returning to the parallel with the little horn in Daniel 7. Another argument against identifying the little horn there as Antiochus is that it seems unlikely that the heavenly court would have had to have assembled on so grand a scale just to judge Antiochus Epiphanes. Something more on the scale of what Micaiah ben Imlah described in the case of Ahab in 1.Kings 22 should have sufficed for Antiochus. Thus the description of the heavenly court in session in Daniel 7 is out of proportion for the political and religious importance of the party being judged there if that little horn is Antiochus. Given the parallels between the little horns of Daniel 7 and 8, this merely emphasizes the disparity between Antiochus and the superlative greatness of the little horn in Daniel 8.

3. The activities of the little horn.

a) Conquests. Daniel 8:9 states that the little horn "grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land."

aa) To the south Antiochus III was the king who added Palestine to the territory ruled by the Seleucids when he defeated the Ptolemaic forces at Paneas in 198 BC. Antiochus III attempted to extend his southern frontier into Egypt with the campaigns of 170 - 168 BC. He was successful in conquering most of the Delta in 169 BC, but when he marched on Alexandria in 168 in order to undertake its siege, he was turned back by the Roman diplomatic mission and had to abandon all of his Egyptian conquests. Thus his brief success in Egypt was transitory and it is doubtful that he really did "grow exceedingly great toward the south" thereby.
bb) To the east. Antiochus III subjugated the east with his victorious campaigns of 210-206 BC that took him to the frontier of India. Most of the territories involved rebelled and became independent however, after the Romans defeated him at Magnesia. Antiochus IV attempted to regain some of this territory during the eastern campaigns he conducted during the last two years of his reign. After some initial diplomatic and military successes in Armenia and Media, however, he found himself unable to make any further headway against the Parthians. He died during the course of this campaign, apparently from natural causes in the winter of 164/163. While Antiochus IV did have some initial successes in the course of this project, he did not accomplish nearly as much in this area as Antiochus III did, and this project was left incomplete with his death. It is open to question, therefore, just how much these partial and incomplete successes qualify as "growing exceedingly great towards the east."
cc) To the glorious land. Antiochus Epiphanes is noted in 1.Maccabeans 1-6 as the Seleucid ruler who desecrated the temple and persecuted the Jews. This did not occur because of any conquest of his own but because Antiochus III had already taken Palestine away from the Ptolemys in 198 BC. He could not have "grown exceedingly great towards the glorious land," Judea presumably, in any sense of conquest or acquiring control of it. This he could only have done in the sense of exercising or abusing his control over it since it was already part of his kingdom when he came to the throne.
Not only was Antiochus IV not the conqueror of Palestine, but it was the defeats that his forces suffered there towards the end of his reign that began the course of events that eventually led to complete independence of Judea from the Seleucids. While he was campaigning in the east his forces suffered defeats at Emmaus (1.Macc. 3:57) and Beth-zur (1.Macc. 4:29) in Judea, and by the end of 164 BC the Jews had liberated the temple from Seleucid hands and rededicated it from his pollutions (1.Macc. 5:52). Antiochus then died in the east shortly thereafter, early in 163 BC (1.Macc. 6:15).
dd) Summary
Although Antiochus did not capture the capital of Alexandria he did enjoy military successes in Lower Egypt during his campaigns there from 169 to 167 BC. He had to forsake these ill-gotten gains, however, under diplomatic pressure from the Romans. Only the first part of his campaign towards the east was successful and he died there before he had carried out his plans for that region or consolidated his control over it. Although he bore down harder on the Jews than his predecessors, he was not the one who brought Judea into the Seleucid kingdom since it was already a part of that kingdom when he came to the throne. The three defeats his forces suffered there shortly before he died signaled developments which ultimately led to Judea's independence. The net results of what Antiochus accomplished in these three geographical spheres was rather negligible and even negative in some cases. Thus he does not fit very well with the specification of this prophecy that states the little horn was to "grow exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land."

b) Anti-temple activities. It is fair to say that Antiochus took away the tamîd, the "daily" or "continual," if this is applied to the continual burnt offering that was offered twice daily on the altar of the temple, or it is applied to the ministration of the priestly through which those and other sacrifices were offered. What does not fit with Antiochus is what was done to the temple building itself by the little horn according to Daniel 8:11,

"the place of his sanctuary was cast down."

The Hebrew of this sentence is "hušlak m^ekôn miqdašô". The word used for "place" here, Hebrew `makôn', is both interesting and important. It occurs in the Hebrew Bible 18 times and every time but once it refers to the place where God dwells or the site upon which His throne rests.[2000]

This word appears first in the Bible in the `Song of the Sea' which the Israelites sang on the shore of the Red Sea after they had been delivered from Pharaoh's army (Ex. 15:17). In that song God's `makon' is identified as the place of His abode where he would establish His sanctuary in the promised land. The term appears four times in the address that Solomon gave when the temple was dedicated according to 1.Ki. 8 and its parallel passage of 2.Chr. 6. An interesting difference in the usage of this word shows up in this context since Solomon used it once to refer to the place where God was to abide here on earth, in the temple that was being dedicated (1.Ki. 8:13), and three times to refer to the place where God dwelt in heaven (vv, 39,43 and 49).

Psalm 33:14 is the other text in which this word is used for God's dwelling in heaven. Three other texts employ this word to refer to the place of God's dwelling on earth. It occurs twice in Isaiah, once referring to the location of God's earthly abode on Mount Zion (Is. 4:5), and once referring to the place from which God looked upon Ethiopia in judgment (Is. 18:4), presumably the earthly temple again. In Ezra 2:68 it was used more specifically for the place upon which God' earthly temple was to be rebuilt. In Ps. 89:14 and 97:2 this word was used in the metaphorical sense, as the "foundation" for God's throne upon justice and righteousness.

Aside from this occurrence in Daniel, therefore, `makôn' is used for the place of God's dwelling in heaven seven times, the place of His earthly dwelling six times, and the place of the foundation for His throne twice in the metaphorical sense. The only instance in which this word was not used for God's dwelling place, whether earthly or heavenly, is Ps. 104:5 where it is used for the foundation upon which the earth was set.

It was this "place" of God's sanctuary that was to be cast down by the little horn according to Daniel 8:11. One could apply this to what the Romans did to the temple in 70 AD, but Antiochus never did anything to the temple that would qualify as casting down its `makôn' or place. Desecrate it he did, but as far as is known he did not damage its architecture in any significant way. On the contrary, it would have been to his advantage to have done so, since he turned it over to be used for the cult of Zeus.[3000] Thus while it is fair to say that Antiochus suspended the daily or continual sacrifices/ ministration of the temple, there is no sense of the word in which he cast it down from its place or cast down its place. This aspect of this prophecy, therefore, stands in opposition to interpreting the little horn as Antiochus Epiphanes.

c) Time factors for the little horn.

aa) Time of Origin. The rise of the little horn is dated by Daniel 8:23 in terms of the four kingdoms that came out of Alexander's empire. It was to come up "at the latter end" of their rule ("b^e·ahrît malkûtam"). The Seleucid dynasty consisted of a line of more than twenty kings who ruled from 311 to 65 BC. Antiochus IV was the 8th in line and he ruled from 175-164/3. Since more than a dozen Seleucids ruled after him and less than a dozen ruled before him he can hardly be said to have arisen "at the latter end of their rule." The middle would have been more like it. Chronology bears out the same point. The Seleucids ruled for a century and a third before Antiochus IV and a century after him, which puts him within two decades of the midpoint of the dynasty. Thus Antiochus IV did not arise "at the latter end of their rule."

bb) Duration. The chronological datum given in the question and answer of Dan. 9:13-14 has been interpreted as giving the length of time that Antiochus IV was to have desecrated the temple or persecuted the Jews. Precise dates are available for the disruption of the temple services and its pollution. The pagan idol was set up on the altar of burnt offering on the 15th day of the 8th month of the 145th year of the Seleucid era and pagan sacrifices began there 10 days later (1.Macc. 1:54 and 59). On the 25th day of the 9th month in the 148th year of the Seleucid era the newly rebuilt altar was reconsecrated and the celebrations continued for eight days thereafter (1.Macc. 4:52,54). Thus a period of 3 years or 3 years and 10 days was involved here. Neither the 2300 literal days (=6 years, 4-2/3 months) nor the 1150 days that are made by pairing the evenings and mornings to make full days fit this historical period since even the shorter of the two is 2 months too long.

Various attempts have been made to explain this discrepancy, none of them satisfactorily. The troops of Antiochus did sack the temple on their way back from Egypt two years earlier but that still falls 1-1/2 years short of the longer period. Since a connection between this time period and the temple is lacking it has been suggested that it should be interpreted as referring to persecution instead.

Manelaus talked Andronicus, an official of Antiochus, into killing Onias (2.Macc. 4:34). This might have occurred in 170 (2.Macc. 4:23), or 6-1/2 prophetic years (2300 days) before the cleansing of the temple late in 164 BC. When he heard about it, Antiochus executed Andronicus 2.Macc. 4:38). Thereafter Menelaus and his brother Lysimachus led a fight against some of the Jews who opposed them. This was not Seleucid persecution, it was partisan Jewish in-fighting, and Antiochus executed his own official for his part in the affair. Thus, neither the 2300 nor the 1150 days fit either Antiochus' desecration of the temple or his persecution of the Jews, as some of the more candid commentators readily acknowledge.

The other way to look at the relationship of this time period to Antiochus is by taking the historicist view of its interpretation into account. That school of prophetic interpretation utilizes the day-for-a-year principle for time periods found in apocalyptic contexts. If this position that is discussed further below is correct, it means that we are dealing with an overall period of 2300 years here, not 2300 literal days. Regardless where one starts them in the BC period, it is obvious that they must extend far, far beyond the narrow chronological confines of Antiochus' one decade reign in the 2nd century BC.

cc) The end. When Gabriel came to Daniel to explain the vision of chapter 8 he introduced his explanation with the statement,

"Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end." Daniel 8:17.

At the beginning of his actual explanation Gabriel emphasized this point by stating, "Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation; for it pertains to the appointed time of the end." Daniel 8:19. The phrase of particular interest that was repeated twice here was the statement that the vision was "for" (`l<sup>e</sup>') or "for the appointed" (`l^emô^ced') "time of the end" (`^cet qes').

Since the 3rd and final section of this vision was mainly concerned with the little horn and its activities, it seems reasonable to conclude that of the elements involved in the vision it in particular related most directly to the time of the end. Its end should, therefore, coincide in one way or another with the time of the end. At a bare chronological minimum Daniel's time prophecies had to extend to the time of the Messiah in the 1st century AD on the basis of Dan. 9:24-27. The time of the end could only have come sometime after the fulfillment of that prophecy. Thus there is no way that Antiochus' death in 164/3 BC can by any stretch of the prophetic imagination be dated in the time of the end when the little horn was to come to its end.

4. The nature of the end of the little horn

Daniel 8:25 indicates that the little horn was to come to its end in a particular way, "but by no human hand, he shall be broken." This phraseology sounds somewhat similar to the fate described for the king of the north in Daniel 11:45, "he shall come to his end, with none to help him." The end to the little horn in Daniel 7 was to come about not so much as a result of the force of human arms as by a decision of God in the heavenly court. In Daniel 2 the image was brought to an end by a stone that smote the image on its feet and that stone was cut without the assistance of any human hand (Dan. 2:45).

Thus the conclusion to the prophecies in Daniel 2, 7 8, and 11 were all to be brought about by God's direct intervention in human history. Given the nature of the statement in Dan. 8:25 and its parallels in the other prophecies of Daniel, it is difficult to see how Antiochus could fulfill that specification. As far as is known (cf. 1.Macc. 6:8-17), he died of natural causes -- not in battle nor from extraordinary circumstances -- during the course of his eastern campaign of 164/3 BC.

5. The origin of the little horn.

A major question about the little horn in Daniel 8 is whether it came out from one of the four precedeing horns or from one of the four winds to which those horns extended. The obvious reason why this is important is that if the little horn came out of the Seleucid horn then it could have been a Seleucid king like Antiochus Epiphanes. If it came from one of the winds instead, however, then it did not come from the Seleucid horn and it could not, therefore, represent Antiochus Epiphanes since he should have come out of that horn. Given the importance of this point the syntax of the statement on the origin of the little horn in Daniel 8:8-9 should be carefully examined. Any commentary which does not do this is treating lightly or ignoring its exegetical duty. When this juncture is examined carefully we encounter a problem.

This problem is translational in nature and it involves the agreement in gender between a pronominal suffix at the beginning of Daniel 8:9 and the antecedents proposed for it in the preceding verse.

Verse 8 concludes: "and instead of it (the great horn of Alexander that was broken) there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven."

Drawing upon this picture and relating to it verse 9 continues,

"Out of one of them came forth a little horn, ..."

The question then is, What does "them" in verse 9 refer to in verse 8, the horns or the winds?

The reason why this is a problem is that the pronominal suffix "them" in verse 9 is masculine plural, whereas "horn" is always feminine and "wind" generally is feminine, as it is written here, even though "winds" can occasionally be written in a masculine form.

Not only is there no agreement in gender between the pronominal suffix of verse 9 and either of its potential antecedents in verse 8, but this problem is compounded by the form of the numerals used in these two verses. The numeral "four" at the end of verse 8 and the numeral "one" at the beginning of verse 9 are both feminine in form. Thus this masculine pronominal suffix does not agree with the gender of either of its potential antecedent nouns nor does it agree with the gender of the numerals used with it and them. The nature of this problem, but not its final solution, has been summarized well in the SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, pp. 840-841.

9. `Out of one of them.' In the Hebrew this phrase presents confusion of gender. The word "them", hem, is masculine. This indicates that, grammatically, the antecedent is "winds" (v. 8) and not "horns," since "winds" may be either masculine or feminine, but "horns" only feminine. On the other hand the word for "one" `achath', is feminine, suggesting "horns" as the antecedent. `Achath' could, of course, refer back to the word for "winds", which occurs most frequently in the feminine. But it is doubtful that the writer would assign two different genders to the same noun in such close contextual relationship. To reach grammatical agreement, either `achath' should be changed into a masculine, thus making the entire phrase refer clearly to "winds," or the word for "them" would be changed into a feminine, in which case the reference would be ambiguous, since either "winds" or "horns" may be the antecedent.'

It is not necessary to resort to emending the text to get agreement in gender here, in my opinion, once the syntax of this statement is understood. Verse 8 tells of the four horns that appeared in the place of the great horn that was broken and the last phrase of that verse indicates those horns extended "to the four winds of the heavens," l^e·arba^c rûhôt hašamayim.

Verse 9 begins with the prepositional phrase, "out of one of them," and it goes on to tell about how the little horn went forth and grew up to a position of great exaltation.

The English translation "out of one of them," however, does not render the Hebrew literally. The opening prepositional phrases of verse 9 should be translated literally as "from one from them", min-ha·ahat mehem. The reason why it is important to notice this literal construction is that it provides a precise parallel to the gender of the elements found in the last phrase of verse 8. This can be shown best by transposing the first phrase of verse 9 to line up underneath the last phrase of verse 8 with these elements:

l^e·arba rûhôt hašamayim, "to the four winds of the heavens."
min-ha · ahat .... mehem, "from one ... from them."

When this procedure is carried out it can be seen that the gender of the two elements from the beginning of verse 9 line up perfectly with the gender of the last two elements at the end of verse 8. In verse 8 the numeral four and the word for winds are both feminine in form, but the word for heavens that occurs in a construct relationship with them is masculine. The 1st preposition of verse 9 has a feminine form of the numeral connected with it while the 2nd preposition has the masculine plural pronoun suffixed to it. Thus the feminine-masculine order of the elements at the end of verse 8 is paralleled precisely by the feminine masculine order of the elements at the beginning of verse 9.

What the writer did here was to break up the construct chain at the end of verse 8 and distribute its two elements to two separate propositions at the beginning of verse 9. This is not poetic parallelism, it is syntactical parallelism in which the gender of the elements in the 2nd statement parallels the gender of the elements in the 1st or preceding statement. The arrangement of the thematic elements involved here thus follows the pattern of A + B, then A alone, then B alone. A similar arrangement of such elements can be found in the Messianic prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27. In 9:25 the Messiah is known as the `mašîah nagîd', "the Messiah Prince," or A + B, whereas in 9:26a he is known only as the `mašîah', "the Messiah" or A alone, and in 9:26b he is known only as the `nagîd', "the Prince" or B alone.

A somewhat similar arrangement in the use of prepositions can be found in the Messianic prophecy of Micah 5:2:

lihyôt môšel b^eyisra·el "one who is to be ruler in Israel"
ûmôsa · otâw miqedem "and his going forth is from of old"
mîmê ^côlam "from the days of eternity."

The difference here is, of course, spatial versus temporal. Nonetheless the 1st bicolon contains a prepositional phrase beginning with `lamed', as does the last phrase of Daniel 8:8, and the 2nd bicolon contains two prepositional phrases beginning with `min', as does Daniel 8:9.

Thus the antecedent of "them" in "from them," mehem, is neither winds nor horns but heavens. Since "heavens" is masculine by gender and treated as a plural in Biblical Hebrew according to the verbs and adjectives used with it, there is perfect agreement in gender and number here and it is not necessary to resort to emendations to bring the text into line with one's preconceptions about where the little horn came from. The text states that clearly enough, it came from one of the four winds of the heavens. The word for `winds' is understood as accompanying the feminine numeral with the preposition in the first phrase of verse 9 on the basis of syntactical parallelism. That is why a feminine numeral was used here in contrast to the masculine plural pronoun suffixed to the succeeding preposition.

From this understanding of the syntax of Daniel 9:8-9 it is evident that the little horn came on to the scene of action in the vision of Daniel 8 from one of the four winds of the heavens and not from the Seleucid horn or any of the other four horns. Thus it is syntactically impossible for the little horn of Daniel 8 to represent Antiochus Epiphanes.

---

The bearing of the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 upon the question of whether the little horn of Daniel 8 is Antiochus Epiphanes is twofold. 1.) Some commentators have found Antiochus of the prophecy in Daniel 9 too. If he is there then that could lend some support to such an interpretation we discussed in the previous chapter. But if he is absent from this chapter, as it is interpreted below, that generally lessens the strength of such an interpretation of chapter nine, although it does not eliminate it as possibility. Antiochus could still be present in chapter 8 and not in chapter 9. Just as he could be present in chapter 8 and not in chapter 7. The way in which to determine whether Antiochus is present in chapter in Daniel 9:24-27 or not is to do a verse-by-verse exegesis of the passage and see whether he appears there or not. The results from carrying this procedure out below, are negative. Beyond answering this preliminary question, however, there is input from Dan 9:24-27 that bears upon the problem of Antiochus in another area. This has to do with the terminology applied to the Messiah here. This can be compared with the reference to the Messiah in Dan 11, and that reference can be related in turn to Antiochus in that prophecy. This is a more indirect approach to the problem of Antiochus, but ultimately it is more important and definitive.

1. The form of Daniel 9:24-27.

Various interpreters have noted how even certain portions of this passage were written, but they have not followed those observations through to the final conclusion which they imply, that this prophecy was written in poetry. This is not entirely unexpected since other passages in Daniel, both in the historical narratives and in the prophecies, were written in poetry too. Examples of the former may be found in Dan 2:20-23; 4:3, 34-35; and 6:26-27. Three examples of the latter may be found in the poetic passages of the prophecy in chapter 7, i.e. vv. 9-10, 13-14, and 23-27. Since much of prophecy throughout the Old Testament was written in poetry, Daniel was only following standard prophetic practice here.

This aspect of the prophecy in Dan 9 can be seen most easily in its opening verse. The extra metrical chronological label with which this passage begins is followed in verse 24 by a series of six infinitives with their nominal objects. These are grouped in two series of three each. The first series stresses the negative side of what was to happen during this period. The nominal objects of these infinitives were written with one Hebrew word each, all words for man's sin. The objects which stress the positive aspect of this prophecy, the bringing in of God's righteousness, were all written with the Hebrew words joined to the second series of infinitives. What this produces from the standpoint of prosodic analysis is a couplet of two even tricola written in 2:2:2::3:3:3 meter.[4000] The same procedure can be followed through the rest of the prophecy and it is occasionally of assistance in exegeting the passage. Differentiating between the time periods of 7 and 62 weeks in the second half of verse 25 is an example of where this type of analysis can be helpful.

2. The exegesis of Daniel 9:24-27.

a) Verse 24:

'70 weeks are cut off upon your people and upon your holy city." For the interpretation of the 70 prophetic weeks as a period of the 490 historical years see the discussion of the year-for-a-day principle here. For the translation of the verb `nehtak' (or `chatak') as "cut off" see here.

Two main points should be made about this time period here.

First, it encompasses all of the succeeding subdivisions of time in the elaboration of the prophecy that follows. Since the 7 weeks, the 62 weeks, and the 1 week all add up to the 70 weeks with which the discussion of this prophecy began, these subdivisions should be immediately contiguous within the overall time period of 70 weeks delimited here. Just as the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks must be immediately contiguous to extend down to the times of the Messiah historically, just so the 70th week should be immediately contiguous to the 69th week. The 70th week cannot be split off from this overall time period as that would leave the 70th week of the 70 prophetically vacant. The relationship of the Messiah to this 70th week emphasizes the same point when it is viewed in the light of his historical appearance and experience.

Second, the presence of the reference to the holy city in this opening statement should be emphasized. In the context of Daniel's prayer which immediately precedes the giving of this prophecy this obviously refers to the desolated Jerusalem about which Daniel was praying (vv. 2,7,16-20). Gabriel thus brought an answer to Daniel's plea with his statements about the future of that city. After the initial series of infinitival statements concerning what was to be accomplished during those 70 weeks, the rest of the prophecy is bounded by the fate of that city. The construction of that city is foretold in verse 25 and its subsequent destruction of that city is foretold in verse 25 and its subsequent destruction is foretold in verses 26b and 27b. The fate of the city thus forms a historical inclusio around the events of this prophecy and delimits, i.e. locates within that period, what was to happen to its people, its temple, and the Messiah that was to come to it. There is no indication from this prophecy that any of its events were to extend beyond the destruction of the city.

This second aspect of this opening statement of this prophecy emphasizes what has already been said about it previously, that the 70th week cannot be split off from the other 69 for it must precede or lead up to that destruction of the city. Dispensationalists are correct to the extent that they apply the events of the 70th week and its consequences to literal Jerusalem, but they are incorrect in splitting that week off from the preceding 69 weeks.

"To bring to an end the rebellion." The verb written here in the Masoretic Translation is `kl', "to withhold, restrain." During his long career as an official under the Babylonian and Persian governments, Daniel probably wrote in Aramaic much of the time. Final (Hebr. aleph) can be alternate with final (Hebr. final He) in the written form of that language.[5000]

Daniel's Hebrew, which he probably used much less frequently, may have been influenced by his Aramaic here and elsewhere. Thus `klh', "to finish, complete, and", may also be considered as the verb involved here. While "restrain" could have been intended, "to end" appears to bring better sense to the passage. The use of the infinitive in this and in the succeeding five statements of this verse connects these actions directly to the time period referred to in the preceding phrase. This connection indicates these actions were to be accomplished within or by the end of that time span.

The word used for `transgression' here, peša^c, carries the particular connotation of sin as rebellion against God. It can be translated directly as "revolt, rebellion" as has been done here. The article is used with it which makes it definite. The article is not used with the nominal objects that follow the five succeeding infinitives and it is used rather sparingly throughout this entire passage. This may have occurred because the article is used less frequently in poetry than in prose or because Daniel's Hebrew was under the influence of his Aramaic, which used the post positive article. The absence of the article is not, therefore, conclusive evidence for the indefiniteness of any of the nouns that occur throughout this passage.

The exceptional use of the article with rebellion here may be taken at least as placing stress upon it. Although the word does not occur in Daniel's prayer which preceded the giving of this prophecy, it was evident that Jerusalem had been destroyed and was desolate at the time Daniel was praying because of the rebellion of the people of Judah. In earthly political terms this rebellion was against Nebuchadnezzar as their suzerain, but more than that it was because of their rebellion against God and the messages He had sent them through his prophets such as Jeremiah mentioned in Daniel 9:2. The intent of this phrase should have been, therefore, to warn against the repetition of following a similar course of action in the future. Thus the opening phrase of this prophecy delimits a period of probation during which God's people were to manifest their loyalty and not their rebellion towards Him. Unfortunately, this did not turn out to be the case when the Messiah finally came at the end of this period of probation.

"To seal up sins." The verb used here, a form of `hatam', means "to seal up." An infinitive of the same root appears in the middle colon of the second tricolon of this verse. This parallelism provides a poetic link between these two tricola and thus the tendency of the Masoretic Text `Qere' and the [other] versions to interpret this verb as coming from `tamam', "to complete," should be resisted. "To seal up" can mean, `to stop up, shut up," more often, when it is used in the derived conjugations. This appears to be the meaning intended here. The word for sin used here is the common, "miss-the-mark" type of sin. It is used in the plural and without the article which means that it refers to sins and not sin offerings.

This word for sin and that used for "evil, wickedness," awôn, in the next colon of this tricolon are linked together in Daniel's preceding prayer in which he was confessing the sins of his people. This word for sin occurs seven times in Daniel's prayer (vv.5,8,11,15,16, and twice in v.20). The following word for `evil' occurs three times in Daniel's prayer (vv.5,13,16), and in two of these instances these words for sin and evil are linked together and they occur in the same order as that in which they appear in this prophetic passage (cf. vv. 5,16). Thus there is a link between the sin and evil in past Israelite society confessed by Daniel and what was to become of that sin in the future society of God's people envisioned by Gabriel. As with the rebellion in the preceding prophetic statement, those sins were to be sealed up or brought to an end.

This statement should not be pressed so far that it is taken to mean that not one member of that future society would ever commit a sin again. It probably refers more generally to the development of future people. This is what we called for and envisioned by this classical prophets who brought God's message to Israel and Judah in the 8th and 7th centuries BC. A certain note of word play or paronomasia could be involved here. If these sins were not sealed up or brought to an and as practiced on a wide scale by that future society, they could be sealed up or bound over to a time of judgment upon that society, if it resisted this prophetic call and refused to abandon its unrighteous practices.

"To atone for iniquity." The word for iniquity used here has been discussed above and the verb that occurs here, `kapper', is commonly used in the Old Testament for making atonement. What is implied here transcends the ordinary everyday round of sacrifices for sin that was carried on in the temple on a regular and hence recurring basis. A once-for-all element is implied for the particular atonement referred to here in this prophetic context and, given the chronological framework within which this atonement was to be made, it should be linked directly to Christ's atoning death on the cross.

"The bring in righteousness for the ages." This infinitive is a causative form of `bô·', "to come," hence "to bring" here. `Sedeq' or righteousness is a singular noun in construct relationship with the plural form of `^côlam', "age, everlasting." Literally this phrase translates "to bring in righteousness of ages." The absence of the article here is not so significant, as discussed above, and the ages involved obviously are the ages to come.

As the first colon of the second tricolon of this verse there are two ways in which it can be related to the elements in the preceding tricolon. The middle cola of these two tricola are related to each other as B and B' by their common verbs. Thus the other elements in these tricola can be related to each other as directly parallel, A:B:C::A':B':C', or chiastically, A:B:C::C':B':A'. In the first instance the everlasting righteousness can be related to the rebellious society referred to previously. In the second instance the everlasting righteousness is juxtaposed directly to the atonement that was to be made. Placing emphasis upon this latter relationship seems preferable, although it does not eliminate any connection with the former. In terms of historical fulfillment, therefore, it was Christ's atonement on the corss that brought in this righteousness for ages and ages to come.

"To seal up vision and prophet." The same infinitive occurs in this and the middle colon of the preceding, tricolon, as has already been mentioned, and there is also some alliteration between their objects since the middle consonants of both `hatta·ôt' and `hazôn' are dental phonemes. There are three main ways in which this difficult phrase can be interpreted. One question here is whether this verb was used in a sense similar to its preceding occurrence or a word play upon it was intended.

Thus the first way in which to take this phrase is that there was a word play intended. In this case the contrasting significance of "authenticate" can be suggested for this second occurrence.

The second way in which this verb can be interpreted is with the more similar meaning of closing or shutting up. If that was the idea intended then the prophet could be Daniel and the vision his visions. Since he was twice told to shut up the words ( `s<sup>e</sup>tom hadd<sup>e</sup> barîm') and seal the book (`h^atom hasseper') until the time of the end (Dan. 12:4,9), that might be what was referred to here. When the events of the shorter prophecy of Daniel 9 had come to pass then the unfulfilled portions of the visions of Dan 7 and 8 would be sealed until the time of the end (cf. 8:17,19 &26).

The third way in which this phrase can be interpreted employs the meaning of sealing or shutting up in the sense of bringing to an end, as this verb appears to have been used in the preceding case. This could be applied in the more immediate contextual sense, as something relating directly to the city and its people with which the balance of this passage is concerned. This could have been either for their weal or woe. If they developed the righteous society which Daniel and the other prophets called for and envisioned, then the restoration of the kingdom with all the peace, prosperity, and righteousness seen flowing from it could have been brought about. Vision and prophet would no longer have been necessary then because all that the classical prophets had talked about would have been fulfilled. If they did not comply with the desired conditions, however, then the prophetic voice and vision among them would cease since God would no longer speak to them in this way. I currently favored this third interpretation and an internal word play could have been intended here based upon these two possibilities.[6000]

"And to anoint a holy of holies." The way in which this type of language is used in the Old Testament indicates this phrase here refers to a holy place, a temple or sanctuary, not a holy person. Without the article, as this phrase stands in the Masoretic Text, it may refer simply to a temple as a whole. Written with the article it would refer more specifically to the most holy place of the temple in question. As has been noted above, the absence of the article with nouns in this passage is not necessarily a clear indication that they have to be taken as indefinite. Thus either of these two interpretations is possible.

The more important question about this holy place has to do with its location. It could not have been the second temple built in Jerusalem since it was dedicated for use when its construction was completed in 515 BC (Ezra 6:15-18). The destruction of that temple was predicted two verses later in this passage and it contains no further reference to any subsequent reconstruction of it after its destruction. Thus the temple to be anointed according to this prophecy was not the second temple and no third temple in Jerusalem was envisioned. By a process of elimination, therefore, the holy place or temple referred to here must be in heaven and its anointing must have taken place when Christ ascended to heaven to minister there on behalf of the human race for which he had died.

b) Verse 25:

After Gabriel's opening extrametrical imperatives addressed to Daniel, to know and understand, this verse continues with a delineation of two subdivisions of the overall time period of 70 weeks. The beginning and end of these two subdivisions are identified first, their respective time periods are given second, and then the events that were to transpire during the first of them are described in more detail. The events that were to transpire at the end of the second of these subdivisions of time are given in the next verse.

The event with which the overall time period and its first subdivision commenced is given as the going forth of the "word," i.e., decree, for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Regardless of which specific decree of which specific king this is connected with this event obviously has to be connected with one or the other of the Persian kings who ruled in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. The more specific connections of this decree and its date are discussed in the chapter below on the chronology of Daniel 8.

The event with which the end of the second time period referred to here is given as the coming of the Messiah Prince. Literally this individual is described as "an anointed one, a prince." It is particularly important to note the word used for prince here, `nagid' because of its relations later in this passage and in the prophecy of Daniel 11. What has already been said above about the use of the article with nouns in this passage can be applied here also. Thus it is legitimate to identify this individual as "the" Messiah, i.e., Christ.

A translational problem that has arisen in this verse is, should the 7 weeks be connected with the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the 62 weeks with the coming of the Messiah, or vice versa? Following the punctuation of the Massorets some modern translations have connected the coming of the Messiah with the 7 weeks and the rebuilding of Jerusalem with the 62 weeks. I have dealt with this point in more detail than can be described here in the spring, 1980 issue of Andrews University Seminary Studies. This problem can be solved most directly, in my opinion, by attention to the poetic structure of this passage.

Daniel 9:25 can be analyzed as follows:

If one prefers the `maqqephs' of the opening tricolon can be retained and it can be scanned as 2:3:2 instead of 3:3:3, but this is immaterial to the point at issue. The poetic structure of this verse is that it begins with a linked couplet in which the opening tricolon gives the events and the following bicolon gives their respective time periods. Located as it is between two tricola, there is no way this bicolon with its existential chronological statements can be broken up to have its time periods redistributed in another fashion.

If this passage is poetry, as I have argued above and in more detail in the AUSS study, these two chronological statements belong together in a bicolon and they should be applied in the same order as the events which precede and follow them. This means that the 7 weeks in the first colon of this bicolon belongs with the building of the city that is described in the following tricolon, and the 62 weeks of the second colon of this bicolon is connected in order with the 62 weeks with which the next verse begins. The Messiah referred to here was, therefore, to come after 69 prophetic weeks had passed. Modern translations which have reversed the order of these events should be rejected. Little is know about the completion of the first half-century phase of Jerusalem's reconstruction, but that it took place in troublous times is evident from Nehemiah 1-6.

c) Verse 26.

"Then after the 62 weeks the Messiah shall be cut off." The preposition "after," `ahre', used here could refer precisely to the end of the 62 weeks or to some less precisely defined point in time during the 70th week. The latter interpretation is preferred for several reasons. First, if the precise end of the 62 weeks had been intended, the word for "end," `qes', that appears later in this verse would have been a more accurate word to have used here also. Second, if the death of the Messiah is related through the atonement for iniquity in verse 24 to the cessation of the sacrifice and offering that was to occur during the 70th week according to verse 27, that would located the death of the Messiah during the 70th week, not just at the end of the 62 weeks. Third, there is the pragmatic test of matching the chronology of this prophecy with historical dates. Those dates that are discussed in more detail in the chapter below on chronology suggest that as the Messiah Jesus died during the 70th prophetic week, not at the very end of the 69th week.

The appearance of the 62 weeks here indicates that the time periods referred to in the bicolon of the preceding verse have been broken up and distributed to their respective events. Though it is not restated, the order of the text suggests the 7 weeks is understood as recurring with the statement about the rebuilding of Jerusalem at the end of the preceding verse. Here the explicit mention of the 62 weeks takes up the second of those time elements and describes the events to be connected with it. This is another case in which the A + B elements joined together in a preceding passage of the prophecy have been broken up and distributed to their respective events in the first A, then B pattern. Earlier this was encountered in the case of a construct chain (cf. p.65). Here this pattern of distribution was carried out with the time elements previously expressed as a poetic pair, in the respective cola of a bicolon. The article occurs with the 62 weeks here which makes its connection with the 62 weeks in the preceding verse more definite and direct.

The phraseology employed in the reference to the cutting off of the Messiah refers to his death. The fact that the verb is used in the `niphal' or passive conjugation here indicates that someone else would cause his death, he was not to die naturally. Historically this was certainly the case in the death of Christ the Messiah.

"And no one shall be for him." That is, when he was cut off. This statement is terse in the extreme. It consists of just the negative form of the existential particle, `en', and the preposition "to, for" suffixed with the third person singular masculine pronoun, `lo'. From this, the question is, what wasn't the Messiah going to have? The RSV translates this phrase as if it refers to material possessions, "an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing." But God is more interested in people than things or material possessions. Thus the NEB apppears to capture the sense of this phrase better with its somewhat free, "with no one to take his part." It can be translated more literally as, "no one shall be for him." The choice of no "one" over no "thing" is also favored by the connections of this phrase with the next statement in this verse which refers to people (see below).

When Christ the Messiah died no one was for him in the sense stated by John 1:11, "He came to his own home, and his own people received him not (RSV)." Even his disciples fell into this category when they fled from the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:56), denied him in the courtyard of Caiaphas (Matthew 26:74), and wondered around the foot of the cross and afterwards whether he was the one who would redeem Israel (Luke 24:21). Thus a reference to the rejection of the Messiah is strongly implied in this succinct statement about him.

"And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and tha sanctuary." Commentators who have interpreted this prophetic statement in terms of what happened to Jerusalem in the first and second centuries A.D. have commonly identified this people as the Roman army that destroyed the city and temple in 70. Thus a Roman prince has come into view here. While these historical events do appear to be related to what is referred to here, the avenue through which they may be related differs to some extent from this customary interpretation.

To introduce a Roman prince in this passage does so at the expense of its lexical relations within its own context. That is what should be considered first, before our ideas of historical fulfillment are superimposed upon this passage. When context is consulted first it can be seen that the word used for prince here, `nagid', occurred in the preceding verse where it was joined with the word for Messiah. Messiah was used in turn at the beginning of this verse, prior to this reference to the prince. Thus the pattern of the distribution of these lexical elements is:

This pattern suggests the person referred to in all three of these instances was one and the same individual. His titles that occur in apposition in the first instance have been broken up and distributed individually in the two succeeding references to him. This is the same literary pattern that was found in Daniel 8:8-9 in the case of nouns in construct and that was found in Daniel 9:25 in the case of a poetic pair. Since the same elements were involved in both of those previous cases, the use of that literary pattern here suggests the same individual was referred to here by all of these titles.

Moreover, the prince in 26b is referred to as the prince "who shall come (haba)." Since the `nagid' referred to in 25b is identified as the one who would come or appear at the end of the 62 weeks, there is good reason why this same `nagid' should be identified with such a qualifying phrase in 26b. This is in contrast to any Roman nagid who has not appeared in the passage previously. In addition, if the Roman army really was the people that was to destroy the city and the sanctuary here `saba', "host, army," would have been the more appropriate term to have used here (cf. Daniel 8:10-13). From these considerations it seems unlikely that any Roman `nagid' was introduced here. The `nagid' mentioned in 26b should be interpreted as the same person as the Messiah `nagid' mentioned in 25b and the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary should be identified as the people of the Messiah.

Looking at the historical fulfillment of these predictions in this light puts a somewhat different complexion upon them. While the Roman army was the military power that carried out the actual attack upon and destruction of the city and its temple, the Romans were not the ultimate cause that brought on that destruction and assured its inevitability. The reason why the Romans attacked Jerusalem was because the Jews had rebelled against their suzerainty. Had the Jews remained loyal and subservient vassals, the Romans would never have had to attack Jerusalem. It was the Jews themselves, therefore, that precipitated the chain of events which ultimately led to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies.

The situation here was rather similar to that which occurred in the 6th century BC. Nebuchadnezzar's troops had laid siege to Jerusalem for the third time, beginning in 589 BC. Under these dire circumstances Zedekiah, king of Judah, went to the prophet Jeremiah to inquire if there was any word from Yahweh. Jeremiah replied with the message that,

"Thus says Yahweh, the God of hosts, the God of Israel. If you will surrender to the princes of the king of Babylon, then your life shall be spared, and this city shall not be burned with fire, and your house shall live. But if you do not surrender to the princes of the king of Babylon, then this city shall be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and you shall not escape from their hand. ... All your wives and your sons shall be led out by the Chaldeans, and you yourself shall not escape out of their hand, but shalt be seized by the king of Babylon; and this city shall be burned with fire." Jeremiah 38:17-18,23.

Unfortunately, foolish Zedekiah harkened instead to the advice of his counsellors at the court and continued to resist the Babylonian siege. As a consequence, the city fell and the Babylonians destroyed it and they exiled the population that survived the siege. For their stubborn resistance to the Babylonians in the 6th century BC, Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed and the Jews were exiled. For their stubborn resistance to the Romans in the 1st century AD, Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed and the Jews were exiled again. Their leaders in the 1st century AD did not learn from the failure of their leaders in the 6th century BC. It appears to be in this sense that the "people of the prince," the Jews in the time of Jesus the Messiah, were the ultimate cause of the destruction of their city and its temple.

"Its end shall come with a flood." Cities were feminine in Hebrew (i.e., "Jerusalem and her daughter towns") but the word "city" was treated as masculine, as "sanctuary" was also treated. Thus the antecedent of the masculine pronoun "its" (literally, "his") is ambiguous. It could be the city or the sanctuary or both, but in any event the net result is the same, they both were destroyed.

The reference to a flood appears to be an example of a case in which the language of nature has been borrowed for the imagery of war. This usage occurs elsewhere in the Bible. The forces of Egypt are compared to the flooding of the Nile in Jeremiah 46:6-7. The same prophet compares Nebuchadnezzar's onslaught against Philistia to a flood from the north (Jer 47:2). In an apocalyptic context the dragon of Revelation 12 is described as pouring a flood out of his mouth to sweep away the woman in the wilderness (vv.15-16), which could also be interpreted in military terms. In Daniel 11:22, the parallel passage to this one, the same word for flood is amplified by describing it as one of "arms" (`z^ero^côt'), which conveys even more of a military nuance.

This imagery draws upon the picture of an enemy breaking into a besieged city, and as such the description of it as a flood is particularly apt. When the city wall is finally breached, the attacking troops pour in like a flood through that opening. In May of 70 AD the Romans took the first wall of Jerusalem and a week later they took its second wall. By the end of July the Tower of Antonia had fallen to them and the temple finally was burnt, contrary to Titus' orders, on Thursday the 30th of August. The Romans then burned the upper and lower cities and tore down its walls. Except for the three towers of Herod's palace, all of Jerusalem was destroyed. Epiphanes gave an account of what Jerusalem still looked like when Hadrian visited it in 130 AD., "He found the temple of God trodden down and the whole city devastated save for a few houses and the church of God." [8000]

Dio indicates that it was Hadrian's projected building of a new pagan city and a new pagan temple which provoked the revolt of Bar Kokhba.[8500]

"At the end of the war desolations shall be decreed." Since the idea of an end is rather definite the proposition `^cad', "unto, until," might be translated best as "on, at" in this case. "End" appears to stand in construct relationship with "war" so this phrase refers either to "an end of war" or, with the article understood but not written, "at the end of the war." The former would refer to war in the generic sense while the latter would refer to a specific war, which appears to be more what is in mind here. The singular participle "decreed" and its plural object "desolations" obviously do not agree in number. This disagreement may be resolved either by repointing the participle as a plural or by taking this statement as existential, "it is decreed (that there shall be) desolations." The desolations referred to here have just been described above and both the city and the temple were involved in those desolations. d) Verse 27:

"He shall strengthen the covenant for many one week." Since the `nagîd' of the [revious verse is not a Roman prince according to the interpretation advanced here it is evident that the antecedent subject of this verb should be the Messiah Prince, or Christ historically. It is unusual for the verbal root which occurs in the causative here to have covenant as its subject. The versions have translated this phrase as "he shall make a firm covenant." This idea has been expressed in the Hebrew text with a verbal notion, however, not an adjective. Employing adjectival phraseology here could imply that a new covenant has been made whereas the verbal notion could just as well refer to the strengthening of a covenant that was already in existence. The difference lies in translating this phrase "he shall make a strong covenant," as opposed to "he shall make a covenant strong." The latter verbal notion comes close to what is in the text.

This brings up the question, in terms of historical fulfillment what covenant is referred to here? The article can be implied here as it has been elsewhere in this passage, which would make this a reference to a specific covenant.

There are two alternatives here:

1) Either the period referred to here was the last prophetic week of the old covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai, or
2) it was the first week of the new covenant which belongs primarily to the era of the church.

The verbal usage discussed above suggests the old covenant is in view here. The Messiah was to confirm God's covenant with the people he originally elected from among the nations for this last prophetic week of their probation.

Christ did not abolish God's covenant with His people simply by virtue of fulfilling the types contained therein. More than this was required to accomplish that. It took their rejection of Him to whom the sacrificial system of the covenant pointed. Occurring during the last of the 70 weeks as this strengthening or confirming does, therefore, it appears to apply best to God's confirmation through Christ of all that the old covenant could ultimately have stood for if His people had fulfilled both the letter and the spirit of its stipulations. Thus the "many" mentioned here should refer particularly to those among His people who entered into that confirmation of the covenant accomplished by the Messiah. According to the chronology developed below this prophetic week of 7 historical years extended well beyond the time that Christ died on the cross, which is another indication of the mercy that God extended to His people.

"And for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease." That is, beginning with the approximate mid-point of the 70th week, the same week during which the Messiah was to confirm the covenant according to the immediately preceding phrase in this verse. The use of the article with week in this present phrase emphasizes that relationship. As with the preceding phrase the antecedent subject should also be taken here as the Messiah Prince. The word for sacrifice, `zebach', comes from the verbal root which means to slaughter and thus refers to animal sacrifices as a class in general. The word for offering, `minchah', `to present', is used in Leviticus (Lev. 2 & 4) to refer to cereal offerings and thus here it probably refers to non-animal sacrifices as a class. Together these two words encompass all animal and non-animal sacrifices, the sacrificial system as a whole.

Physically, these sacrifices did not come to an end until the temple where they were offered was destroyed in 70 AD. Spiritually. however, the meaning had gone out of those sacrifices because Christ the great antitype had already fulfilled their ultimate meaning with his death on the cross four decades earlier. Since it was he and not the Romans who ultimately brought the sacrificial service to an end, its termination in the sense of its loss of meaning should be understood here. Up to the time that Christ died those sacrifices were full of a meaning that they drew from him, but once he had died that meaning had gone out of them and they became a mere round of physical ceremonies. This happened in the midst of the week when he was crucified according to the chronology of this prophecy developed below.

"And upon the wing of abominations shall come a desolator." The word `abominations' is in the plural here, in contrast to its occurrence in the singular in Daniel 11:31 and 12:11. "Upon the wings of" appears to be an idiom which expresses relatively immediate consequence, i.e., something would follow shortly thereafter. It is important to notice the relationship between the abominations and the desolator here. If this idiom has been understood correctly the abominations were to come first and then the desolating first and then setting up an abomination upon that desolation. Cause and effect could also be implied in this idiom, in addition to its temporal relations. In other words, it could have been because of the abominations that the desolator was permitted to come and do his work.

Historically this desolation obviously was carried out by the Romans. Since the Jews were in possession of the city until that time, and since these abominations were to precede that desolation, they -- not the Romans -- should have been the ones responsible for those abominations. In what sense could this have been the case? The preceding statement of the prophecy gives one possible answer to this question. When he came, the Messiah was to bring the sacrifices to an end. Historically, however, those sacrifices continued to be offered for forty years after the Messiah's death that emptier those sacrifices of any significance. In one sense the continued offering of those sacrifices served to deny that their antitypical, reality had come and fulfilled them. They were worse than empty, therefore, they denied the ultimate truth about themselves. These offerings of the wrong kind of sacrifices might be the abominations referred to here.

Another possibility here is linked more directly with the final fate of the temple and the use that was made of it as a fortress, a final bastion of resistance against the Romans as they seized the city. This pollution and perverted use away from the original intention that the temple was to be used as a place of worship and ministration before God could easily fall into this category of abominations. The verb "to come" was not written out here but its presence may be implied from the existential nature of this statement, "there shall be," hence, "there shall come." The "desolator" is a participle from the same root as the plural noun "desolations" that appears at the end of the preceding verse. Thus this desolator can be identified as the cause of those desolations both lexically and historically. As far as the translation of the idiom here is concerned, the NEB appears to have captured its sense reasonably well though somewhat freely with, "And in the train of these abominations shall come an author of desolation."

"And at the end what has been decreed concerning desolation shall be poured out." This is a difficult phrase to translate and the best place from which to obtain assistance in this task is from its parallels in verse 26d. There the phrase <sup>`c</sup>ad qes' occurs with the meaning of "at the end" (See above) and here the phrase `^cad kalah' occurs with the same meaning, taking `kalah' as a noun rather than a verb. Given the parallels between this phrase and 26d, "war" probably should be understood as following the end here, "at the end (of the war)." The words kl' and klh form an inclusio around this prophecy, the former occurring as the first infinitive in verse 24 and the latter occurring here at the end of this passage. Thus the people of the city were to make an end or restrain their rebellion, or an end would come upon that city.

This phrase about the end is set off with waws or conjunctions before and after it, just as the phrase `w^cqissô baššetep is in 26d. With a variant spelling, the same passive participle that occurs in 26d follows the second of these conjunctions, "it is (shall be) decreed." The imperfect verb tittak which follows the participle raises the question of what was to be "poured out". Since a "flood" is referred to in the same context in 26d, and since a flood can be "poured out," that appears to be the preferable element to be understood as the subject of the verb. This verb is feminine but the six occurrences of "flood" in the Old Testament do not give any clear indication of its gender. It might be feminine in this context in particular because it is linked with the feminine noun "arms", z^ero^côt, in the parallel passage of Daniel 11:22.

Since the range of meaning of prepositions is broad the particular meaning assigned to the final preposition of this verse, ^cal, should be selected from that range according to the interpretation given to the word which follows it. Should šomem be related to the "desolator" earlier in this verse or to the "desolations" in the previous verse? "Desolator" is written with a mêm-preformative, however, while "desolation/s" is not. Since this word occurs in a form and context that is closer to those "desoaltions" it is perable to take it as "desolation" rather than "desolator." This interpretation suggests the translation of "concerning" for the preposition rather than "upon."

The parallels discussed thus far between 26d and 27c can now be seen when they are aligned with each other:

There are two major interpretations that can be given to this final phrase of this prophecy. Either it refers to the decreed end being poured out upon the desolator (RSV), Rome in terms of historical fulfillment, or it refers to the decreed and being poured out upon the city (NEB), as described earlier in the prophecy. Given the grammatical relations developed above, the latter interpretation seems more likely.

Looking at the structure of this passage from verse 26 through verse 27 a similar distribution of their elements can be seen after the initial chronological demarcation of the 70th week in 26a:

v. 26 A. .The Messiah is rejected and killed (26b)
.........A'. The Messiah's people destroy the city (26c)
...............B. The end and desolation of the city is decreed (26d)
v. 27 A. .The Messiah strengthens the covenant (27a)
.........A'. The Messiah brings the sacrifices to an end (27b)
...............B. The end and desolation of the city is decreed (27c).

Chronologically it should be noted that it is not the desolation of the city that was to take place by the end of the 70th week, it was the decree for its desolation that was to be made by that time. Thus the fate of the city and its people was to be sealed one way or another by the end of this period of 70 weeks of probations. The actual carrying out of that decree -- in the event of negative results during that period -- was to be done sometime after the end of the 70 weeks. The emphasis within this time frame is upon decreeing its fate and the decreeing of that fate is expressed twice by the use of the same feminine participle.

e) Summary

The interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 adopted here is historicist and Messianic. For an excellent review and critique of other methods of interpreting this passage see Gerhard Hasel's `The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27', and insert in The Ministry magazine for May, 1976. The type of interpretation which dates the prophecy of this passage from the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 BC to Antiochus Epiphanes, the historical-critical or preterist interpretation, is related to dating the composition of Daniel in the 2nd century BC. When the actual phraseology of this prophecy is examined in detail, however, there is very little in it that can be applied to Antiochus Epiphanes.

The only phrase which comes reasonably close to fulfillment in his time is the statement that someone would cause the sacrifices and offerings to cease for half of the last prophetic week. If this is taken as only approximate, three years instead of three and a half years, then Antiochus did that. To find some sort of covenant or siding by him with one party of the Jews as far back as 172 BC, applying the one week of verse 26 from 172 - 165 BC, is -- on the other hand -- very difficult. In this passage the cutting off of an anointed one would only have to have been accomplished during his reign, he would not have to have done it directly himself. The partial passage in Dan 11:22 suggests his more direct involvement in causing this individual's death since he was to be broken "before him" (mill^epanaw). A common application made of this passage is that it refers to the death of the high priest Onias III. Antiochus had nothing to do with the death of Onias, however, since the whole affair was engineered by the Jew Menelaus and Antiochus executed his governor Andronicus for his part in the affair (2.Macc. 4:33-38).

Finally, and most importantly, there are three references to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in verse 26 and there are two more in verse 27. Antiochus did not destroy either Jerusalem or the temple. Whatever damage he did to Jerusalem certainly cannot be classified as desolating it and it would not have served his purpose to have damaged the temple since he usurped it in order to install the cult of another god there. In contrast to the way in which this prophecy must be strained in order to apply it to Antiochus Epiphanes (only one phrase really fits), a ready historical fulfillment of every statement in this prophecy can be found in the 1st century AD without any strain at all. Thus the pragmatic test of the compatibility of this prophecy with history dates its fulfillment quite naturally in the 1st century AD.

It is interesting to note in this connection how the successive statements of this prophecy lead progressively through those events in a related manner. Jesus the Messiah came and he was cut off. Not only was he cut off but no one was for him when he went through that dreaded experience. This rejection led naturally to the consequences whereby his people who rejected him were the ultimate cause for the destruction of their own city. With that rejection that desolation was decreed by the end of the 70 weeks. The Romans then carried out that sentence subsequently with such thoroughness that the city and its temple certainly were turned into a desolation by the time the war in which these events took place came to an end. This covers the historical fulfillment of the predictions of verse 26.

Verse 27 concludes on the same note but prior to that conclusion two more specifications are made about the Messiah. He was to strengthen the covenant with his people duri