Daniel 9:26

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(26) After threescore and two weeks.—These words can only mean that in the seventieth week the Anointed one shall be cut off. Observe the care with which the seventy weeks are arranged in a series of the form 7 + 62 + 1. During the period of seven weeks Jerusalem is to be rebuilt. The “troublous times” are not to be restricted to this period, but may apply to the sixty-two weeks which follow. After the end of the sixty-nine weeks Messiah is to be cut off. By “Messiah” we must understand the same person who is spoken of in Daniel 9:25. It should also be observed that the word “prince,” which is applied to Messiah in Daniel 9:25, is here used of another person—some secular prince, who stands in opposition to the Messiah. The Greek versions render “unction” instead of “anointed,” whence Jacob of Edessa explains “the cutting off” to mean “the cessation of the unction by which judgment and sovereignty were established.” The word “to cut off,” however, applies to a person more appropriately than to a thing. It is frequently used of excommunication, e.g., Exodus 30:33; Exodus 30:38, Psalm 37:9, and must not be mistaken for the word “to cut off” (Isaiah 53:8).

But not for himself.—On the marginal rendering comp. John 14:30. Literally the words mean, and He has not, but what it is that He loses is left indefinite. Taking the sense according to the context, the meaning is either that He has no more a people, or that His office of Messiah amongst His people ceases.

That shall come.—These words imply coming with hostile intent, as Daniel 1:1; Daniel 11:10. Two such princes have been already mentioned (Daniel 7:23, &c., Daniel 8:23, &c.), the one being Antiochus, the other his great antitype, namely, Antichrist. Are we to identify this “prince” with either of these? Apparently not. Another typical prince is here introduced to our notice, who shall destroy the city and the sanctuary after the “cutting off” or rejection of the Messiah. But it must be noticed that the work of destruction is here attributed to the “people,” and not to the “prince.”

The end thereof.—It is not clear what end or whose end is signified. According to grammatical rules, the possessive pronoun may either refer to “sanctuary, the last substantive, or to “prince,” the chief nominative in the sentence. The use of the word “flood” (Daniel 11:22) (comp. “overflow,” Daniel 11:26) makes it, at first sight, more plausible to think of the end of a person than of a thing. (Comp. also Nahum 1:8.) But upon comparing this clause with the following, it appears that by “the end” is meant the whole issue of the invasion. This is stated to be desolation, such as is caused by a deluge.

Unto the end.—That is, until the end of the seventy weeks, desolations are decreed. The words recall Isaiah 10:22-23.

Benson Commentary

Daniel 9:26. After threescore and two weeks (counting from the expiration of the first interval) shall Messiah be cut off — “This long interval extends from the 93d Olympiad to the 202d Olympiad, or four hundred and thirty- four years; ending with the sixty-ninth [prophetic] week, and with the commencing of our Lord’s ministry. No prophetic characters are here given of the long interval; but they are supplied from other predictions of this great prophet, which respect the Roman people and empire, the Persian monarchy, Alexander and his successors; particularly by that circumstantial prophecy in the eleventh chapter, respecting the Lagidæ and Seleucidæ, and extending to the antichristian persecutions and idolatries typified by those of Antiochus Epiphanes. These four centuries include the most interesting periods of profane history, and their chronology is so well ascertained as to make the computation of Daniel’s weeks mathematically exact. For sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, added to seven weeks, or forty-nine years, are equal to four hundred and eighty- three years. After which period, or in the last one week, containing seven years, the Messiah should be cut off. The title of MESSIAH is, by way of eminence, peculiar to Christ. It was first used in this prophecy in that appropriate sense. No other application of this title ever obtained among the ancient Jews. Nor can it, without absurdity, be applied to any civil or ecclesiastical prince, much less to a succession in the high-priesthood. It is here used personally, proper to some one anointed; and to whom it is proper is decided by that emphatic circumstance, Messiah shall be CUT OFF, an expression used in Scripture to denote a judicial sentence and a violent death; BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF — Isaiah gives an exact comment on both these expressions, Isaiah 53:8. HE WAS CUT OFF out of the land of the living; FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF MY PEOPLE was he stricken.” — Dr. Apthorp.

And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city, &c. — Thus to the death of Christ the angel immediately subjoins the excision of Jerusalem. The people here spoken of are the Romans, and the prince that should come, may mean, as some think, the Messiah; the Romans being called his people, both on account of their present subserviency to his will, and their future conversion to his faith; HE sent forth HIS armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city, Matthew 22:7. Or, the prince that should come may be understood of Titus Vespasian, of whom the Roman writers speak as if his military glory chiefly resulted from the taking of Jerusalem. “The actions of this prince, in the conduct of this memorable siege, are related in the fifth and sixth books of Josephus; the most tragical event in history was effected by a prince whose clemency made him ‘the delight of human-kind,’ and who saw, with generous reluctance, the horrors of his own victory. — Jos., 7:5. 2. It is thus Divine Providence distinguishes its counsels and instruments; and the victor himself acknowledged that ‘God was his assistant, that none but God could have ejected the Jews from so strong fortifications,’ Josephus Daniel 6:9. 1. They shall destroy the CITY and the SANCTUARY — The specification is remarkable; as Jerusalem, in effect, sustained two separate sieges; one, of the lower city; the other, of the temple, or sanctuary of strength, as our prophet elsewhere styles it, chap. Josephus Daniel 11:31, as being not only a magnificent temple newly rebuilt, but a strong fortress, which was consumed by their own fires, against the intention and efforts of their conqueror. — Josephus Daniel 6:4, 7.” The end thereof shall be with a flood — The symbol of invading armies:

— — Aggeribus ruptis cum spumeus amnis Exiit, oppositasque evicit gurgite moles, Fertur in arva furens cumulo, camposque per omnes, Cum stabulis armenta trahit. VIRG. ÆN. 2:496.

Not with so fierce a rage the foaming flood Roars, when he finds his rapid course withstood; Bears down the dams with unresisted sway, And sweeps the cattle and the cots away. DRYDEN.

And unto the end of the war desolations are determined — “Which marks the irrevocable decree of Heaven, and the completeness of the devastation, after a continued war of more than seven years.” — Dr. Apthorp.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

9:20-27 An answer was immediately sent to Daniel's prayer, and it is a very memorable one. We cannot now expect that God should send answers to our prayers by angels, but if we pray with fervency for that which God has promised, we may by faith take the promise as an immediate answer to the prayer; for He is faithful that has promised. Daniel had a far greater and more glorious redemption discovered to him, which God would work out for his church in the latter days. Those who would be acquainted with Christ and his grace, must be much in prayer. The evening offering was a type of the great sacrifice Christ was to offer in the evening of the world: in virtue of that sacrifice Daniel's prayer was accepted; and for the sake of that, this glorious discovery of redeeming love was made to him. We have, in verses 24-27, one of the most remarkable prophecies of Christ, of his coming and his salvation. It shows that the Jews are guilty of most obstinate unbelief, in expecting another Messiah, so long after the time expressly fixed for his coming. The seventy weeks mean a day for a year, or 490 years. About the end of this period a sacrifice would be offered, making full atonement for sin, and bringing in everlasting righteousness for the complete justification of every believer. Then the Jews, in the crucifixion of Jesus, would commit that crime by which the measure of their guilt would be filled up, and troubles would come upon their nation. All blessings bestowed on sinful man come through Christ's atoning sacrifice, who suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. Here is our way of access to the throne of grace, and of our entrance to heaven. This seals the sum of prophecy, and confirms the covenant with many; and while we rejoice in the blessings of salvation, we should remember what they cost the Redeemer. How can those escape who neglect so great salvation!

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

And after threescore and two weeks - After the completion of the last period of four hundred and thirty-four years. The angel had shown in the previous verse what would be the characteristic of the first period of "seven weeks" - that during that time the wall and the street would be built in circumstances of general distress and anxiety, and he now proceeds to state what would occur in relation to the remaining sixty-two weeks. The particular thing which would characterize that period would be, that the Messiah would be cut off, and that the series of events would commence which would terminate in the destruction of the city and the temple. He does not say that this would be immediately on the termination of the sixty-two weeks, but he says that it would be "after" אחרי 'achărēy - "subsequent" to the close of that period. The word does not mean necessarily immediately, but it denotes what is to succeed - to follow - and would be well expressed by the word "afterward:" Genesis 15:14; Genesis 23:19; Genesis 25:26, et al. See Gesenius, Lexicon The natural meaning here would be, that this would be the "next event" in the order of events to be reckoned; it would be that on which the prophetic eye would rest subsequent to the close of the period of sixty-two weeks. There are two circumstances in the prophecy itself which go to show that it is not meant that this would immediately follow:

(a) One is, that in the previous verse it is said that the "sixty-two weeks" would extend "unto the Messiah;" that is, either to his birth or to his manifestation as such; and it is not implied anywhere that he would be "cut off" at once on his appearing, nor is such a supposition reasonable, or one that would have been embraced by an ancient student of the prophecies;

(b) the other is, that, in the subsequent verse, it is expressly said that what he would accomplish in causing the oblation to cease would occur "in the midst of the week;" that is, of the remaining one week that would complete the seventy. This could not occur if he were to be "cut off" immediately at the close of the sixty-two weeks.

The careful student of this prophecy, therefore, would anticipate that the Messiah would appear at the close of the sixty-two weeks, and that he would continue during a part, at least, of the remaining one week before he would be cut off. This point could have been clearly made out from the prophecy before the Messiah came.

Shall Messiah - Notes, Daniel 9:25.

Be cut off - The word used here (כרת kârath) means, properly, to cut, to cut off, as a part of a garment, 1 Samuel 24:5 (6), 11 (12); a branch of a tree, Numbers 13:23; the prepuce, Exodus 4:25; the head, 1 Samuel 17:51; 1 Samuel 5:4; to cut down trees, Deuteronomy 19:5; Isaiah 14:8; Isaiah 44:14; Jeremiah 10:3; Jeremiah 22:7. Then it means to cut off persons, to destroy, Deuteronomy 20:20; Jeremiah 11:19; Genesis 9:11; Psalm 37:9; Proverbs 2:22; Proverbs 10:31, et al. scepe. The phrase, "that soul shall be cut off from his people," "from the midst of the people," "from Israel," "from the congregation," etc., occurs frequently in the Scriptures (compare Genesis 17:14; Leviticus 7:20-21; Numbers 15:30; Numbers 19:13, Numbers 19:20; Exodus 12:19, et al.), and denotes the punishment of death in general, without defining the manner. "It is never the punishment of exile." - Gesenius, Lexicon The proper notion or meaning here is, undoubtedly, that of being cut off by death, and would suggest the idea of a "violent" death, or a death by the agency of others.

It would apply to one who was assassinated, or murdered by a mob, or who was appointed to death by a judicial decree; or it might be applied to one who was cut down in battle, or by the pestilence, or by lightning, or by shipwreck, but it would not naturally or properly be applied to one who had lived out his days, and died a peaceful death. We always now connect with the word the idea of some unusual interposition, as when we speak of one who is cut down in middle life. The ancient translators understood it of a violent death. So the Latin "Vulgate, occidetur Christus;" Syriac, "the Messiah shall be slain," or put to death. It need not be here said that this phrase would find a complete fulfillment in the manner in which the Lord Jesus was put to death, nor that this is the very language in which it is proper now to describe the manner in which he was removed. He was cut off by violence; by a judicial decree: by a mob; in the midst of his way, etc. If it should be admitted that the angel meant to describe the manner of his death, he could not have found a single word that would have better expressed it.

But not for himself - Margin, "and shall have nothing." This phrase has given rise to not a little discussion, and not a little diversity of opinion. The Latin Vulgate is, "et non erit ejus populus, qui eum negaturus est" - "and they shall not be his people who shall deny him." Theodotion (in the Septuagint), καὶ κρίμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἀυτῷ kai krima ouk estin en autō - "and there is no crime in him." Syriac, "And it is not with him." The Hebrew is לו ואין ve'ēyn lô - and the interpretation turns on the meaning of the word אין 'ēyn. Hengstenberg maintains that it is never used in the sense of לא lo' (not), but that it always conveys the idea of "nothing," or "non-existence," and that the meaning here is, that, then, "there was nothing to him;" that is, that he ceased to have authority and power, as in the cutting off of a prince or ruler whose power comes to an end.

Accordingly he renders it, "and is not to him;" that is, his dominion, authority, or power over the covenant people as an anointed prince, would cease when he was cut off, and another one would come and desolate the sanctuary, and take possession. Bertholdt renders it, Ohne Nachfolger von den Seinigen zu haben - "without any successors of his own " - meaning that his family, or that the dynasty would be cut off, or would end with him. He maintains that the whole phrase denotes "a sudden and an unexpected death," and that it here means that he would have no successor of his own family. He applies it to Alexander the Great. Lengerke renders it, Und nicht ist vorhanden, der ihm, angehoret - and explains the whole to mean, "The anointed one (as the lawful king) shall be cut off, but it shall not then be one who belongs to his family (to wit, upon the throne), but a Prince shall come to whom the crown did not belong, to whom the name anointed could not properly belong."

Maurer explains it, "There shall be to him no successor or lawful heir." Prof. Stuart renders it, "One shall be cut off, and there shall be none for it" (the people). C. B. Michaelis, "and not to be will be his lot." Jacch. and Hitzig, "and no one remained to him." Rosch, "and no one was present for him." Our translation - "but not for himself" - was undoubtedly adopted from the common view of the atonement - that the Messiah did not die for himself, but that his life was given as a ransom for others. There can be no doubt of that fact to those who hold the common doctrine of the atonement, and yet it maybe doubted whether the translators did not undesignedly allow their views of the atonement to shape the interpretation of this passage, and whether it can be fairly made out from the Hebrew. The ordinary meaning of the Hebrew word אין 'ēyn is, undoubtedly, "nothing, emptiness" - in the sense of there being nothing (see Gesenius, Lexicon); and, thus applied, the sense here would be, that after he was cut off, or in consequence of his being cut off, what he before possessed would cease, or there would be "nothing" to him; that is, either his life would cease, or his dominion would cease, or he would be cut off as the Prince - the Messiah. This interpretation appears to be confirmed by what is immediately said, that another would come and would destroy the city and the sanctuary, or that the possession would pass into his bands.

It seems probable to me that this is the fair interpretation. The Messiah would come as a "Prince." It might be expected that he would come to rule - to set up a kingdom. But he would be suddenly cut off by a violent death. The anticipated dominion over the people as a prince would not be set up. It would not pertain to him. Thus suddenly cut off, the expectations of such a rule would be disappointed and blasted. He would in fact set up no such dominion as might naturally be expected of an anointed prince; he would have no successor; the dynasty would not remain in his hands or his family, and soon the people of a foreign prince would come and would sweep all away. This interpretation does not suppose that the real object of his coming would be thwarted, or that he would not set up a kingdom in accordance with the prediction properly explained, but that such a kingdom as would be expected by the people would not be set up.

He would be cut off soon after he came, and the anticipated dominion would not pertain to him, or there would be "nothing" of it found in him, and soon after a foreign prince would come and destroy the city and the sanctuary. This interpretation, indeed, will take this passage away as a proof-text of the doctrine of the atonement, or as affirming the design of the death of the Messiah, but it furnishes a meaning as much in accordance with the general strain of the prophecy, and with the facts in the work of the Messiah. For it was a natural expectation that when he came he would set up a kingdom - a temporal reign - and this expectation was extensively cherished among the people. He was, however, soon cut off, and all such hopes at once perished in the minds of his true followers (compare Luke 24:21), and in the minds of the multitudes who, though not his true followers, began to inquire whether he might not be the predicted Messiah - the Prince to sit on the throne of David. But of such an anticipated dominion or rule, there was "nothing" to him.

All these expectations were blighted by his sudden death, and soon, instead of his delivering the nation from bondage and setting up a visible kingdom, a foreign prince would come with his forces and would sweep away everything. Whether this would be the interpretation affixed to these words before the advent of the Messiah cannot now be determined. We have few remains of the methods in which the Hebrews interpreted the ancient prophecies, and we may readily suppose that they would not be disposed to embrace an exposition which would show them that the reign of the Messiah, as they anticipated it, would not occur, but that almost as soon as he appeared, he would be put to death, and the dominion pass away, and the nation be subjected to the ravages of a foreign power. "And the people of the prince that shall come." Margin, "And they (the Jews) shall be no more his people; or, the Prince's (Messiah's) future people." This seems to be rather an explanation of the meaning, than a translation of the Hebrew. The literal rendering would be, "and the city, and the sanctuary, the people of a prince that comes, shall lay waste." On the general supposition that this whole passage refers to the Messiah and his time, the language used here is not difficult of interpretation, and denotes with undoubted accuracy the events that soon followed the "cutting off" of the Messiah. The word "people" (עם ‛am) is a word that may well be applied to subjects or armies - such a people as an invading prince or warrior would lead with him for purposes of conquest. It denotes properly

(a) a people, or tribe, or race in general; and then

continued...

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

26. after threescore and two weeks—rather, the threescore and two weeks. In this verse, and in Da 9:27, Messiah is made the prominent subject, while the fate of the city and sanctuary are secondary, being mentioned only in the second halves of the verses. Messiah appears in a twofold aspect, salvation to believers, judgment on unbelievers (Lu 2:34; compare Mal 3:1-6; 4:1-3). He repeatedly, in Passion week, connects His being "cut off" with the destruction of the city, as cause and effect (Mt 21:37-41; 23:37, 38; Lu 21:20-24; 23:28-31). Israel might naturally expect Messiah's kingdom of glory, if not after the seventy years' captivity, at least at the end of the sixty-two weeks; but, instead of that, shall be His death, and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem.

not for himself—rather, "there shall be nothing to Him" [Hengstenberg]; not that the real object of His first coming (His spiritual kingdom) should be frustrated; but the earthly kingdom anticipated by the Jews should, for the present, come to naught, and not then be realized. Tregelles refers the title, "the Prince" (Da 9:25), to the time of His entering Jerusalem on an ass's colt, His only appearance as a king, and six days afterwards put to death as "King of the Jews."

the people of the prince—the Romans, led by Titus, the representative of the world power, ultimately to be transferred to Messiah, and so called by Messiah's title, "the Prince"; as also because sent by Him, as His instrument of judgment (Mt 22:7).

end thereof—of the sanctuary. Tregelles takes it, "the end of the Prince," the last head of the Roman power, Antichrist.

with a flood—namely, of war (Ps 90:5; Isa 8:7, 8; 28:18). Implying the completeness of the catastrophe, "not one stone left on another."

unto the end of the war—rather, "unto the end there is war."

determined—by God's decree (Isa 10:23; 28:22).

Matthew Poole's Commentary

After the threescore and two weeks. i.e. after the seven before, and after the sixty-two that followed them, which all make up sixty-nine, referring the angel’s seventy weeks, which is nothing though no week more be described, because it makes up the number a round number, after the Jewish manner of calculation, and there might be some fragments in the particular reckoning to make up the sum, or it might be finished in the seventieth week, and that was enough to call it seventy weeks, Daniel 9:24.

Shall Messiah be cut off; which word trk signifies cutting off, or cutting down, as a tree, Isaiah 44:14 Jeremiah 10:3. Secondly, it is used for cutting off by capital punishment, Exodus 12:15 30:33,38; whether this be by the signal hand of God, or by the magistrate, for some heinous offence, Leviticus 18:29 20:17 Psalm 37:34. This foreshows that the death of Christ should be as of a condemned malefactor sentenced to death, and that justly. So did the Jews, Christ’s executioners, proclaim that he died for blasphemy, and that he was a devilish impostor, &c. Yea, God himself charged sin upon him and the curse, Isaiah 53:4 2 Corinthians 5:21 Galatians 3:13.

But not for himself; wl Nyaw which being abrupt, is variously rendered and read; some referring it to Christ, and some to the people: and others to both, and all with very probable conjectures, Psalm 22:6,7 Isa 53:3: i.e. not to him: There was none to succour him; or that they would none of him for their Messiah; they set him at nought, and would not have him live, and therefore he would not own them for his people, but cast them off, for thus dying is expressed in short, not to be. Thus Enoch, Genesis 5:24, Joseph, Genesis 42:36, and Rachel’s children, Jeremiah 31:15 Matthew 2:17,18. But our English translation seems to hit the truest sense, i.e. not

for himself. He was innocent and guiltless, he died for others, not for himself, but for our sakes and for our salvation.

The people of the prince that shall come; the Romans under the conduct of Titus Vespantianus. Some will include Christ’s people here, whom he should chiefly gather out of the Roman empire, should ruin that church, and polity, and worship. Desolations are determined; God hath decreed to destroy that place and people by the miseries and desolations of war, i.e. sword, famine, sickness, scattering. All this is signified by

shomemoth: also the profaning of the temple by idols, which are called abominations that make desolate; this was done by the Greeks and Jews before, and the Romans at their siege, and after.

Quest. But some will query, why the angel who was sent to comfort Daniel should insert here this tragical business of destruction and desolation, being beyond the space of seventy weeks?

Answ.

1. That Daniel might be informed of the judgments of God upon that place and people, and the reasons of it, viz. their rejecting and killing Christ.

2. That the spirit of God’s people should not fail when these tragedies were acted; being foretold, thereby they were prepared and fortified against it, and to expect it, and not to be surprised by it when it came.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And after threescore and two weeks,.... To be reckoned from the end of the seven weeks, or forty nine years, which, added to them, make four hundred and eighty three years:

shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; by whom is designed the same with Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9:25, not Onias the high priest, as a late writer (g) would have it, an upright person, and of great holiness, taken off by an unjust death; since he was dead many years before the expiration of these weeks; nor Hyrcanus the high priest, slain by Herod, as Eusebius (h) thinks; in whom the succession of the ancient priests terminated, and with whom the priestly unction perished; which indeed bids fairer than the former; but he was not a person of so much note as to be pointed at in such a prophecy; besides, the priesthood continued much longer: nor is King Agrippa intended, as Jarchi and Abarbinel, who, they say, was the last king of the Jews, and was slain by Vespasian at the destruction of Jerusalem; which is not true; he was not properly king of the Jews, having only Galilee for his jurisdiction; was not slain by Vespasian; was a confederate of the Romans, lived some years after the destruction of the city, and at last died in peace; but Jesus the true Messiah is intended, with whom the character, dates, and death, and the manner of it, entirely agree: now to his death were to be four hundred and eighty three years; which years ended, as we have observed, in the thirty third year of the vulgar era of Christ, and the nineteenth of Tiberius; when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation; see Isaiah 53:8, or "he is not", as Jarchi, no more in the land of the living, is dead; see Jeremiah 31:15, or "there is", or "will be, none for him", or "with him" (i), to help and assist him in his great work, Isaiah 63:5. The Vulgate Latin version is, "they shall not be his people"; the Jews rejecting him shall have a "loammi" upon them, and be no more the people of God. Gussetius (k) better renders it, "he hath not"; or he has nothing, so Cocceius; all things were wanted by him, that is, by Christ; he had neither riches, nor clothes, nor any to stand by him, or to accompany him:

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; that is, the people of the Romans, under Vespasian their prince, emperor, and general, should, in a little time after the cutting off of the Messiah, enter into the land of Judea, and destroy the city of Jerusalem, and the temple that stood in it; though some understand this of Messiah the Prince that should come in his power, and in a way of judgment upon the Jewish nation, and destroy them for their rejection of him; whose people the Romans would be, and under whose direction, and by whose orders, all these judgments should be brought upon the Jews; but many of the Jewish writers themselves interpret it of Vespasian, as Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Abarbinel, and Jacchiades:

and the end thereof shall be with a flood: the end of the city and temple, and of the whole nation, should be by the Roman army, which, like a flood, would overspread the land, and carry all before it. It denotes the number, power, and irresistible force of the enemy, and the sad devastation made by them:

and unto the end of the war desolations are determined; from the beginning of the war by the Romans with the Jews, to the end of it, there would be nothing but continual desolations; a dreadful havoc and ruin everywhere; and all this appointed and determined by the Lord, as a just punishment for their sins.

(g) Scheme of literal Prophecy, &c. p. 183. (h) Demonstrat. Evangel. l. 8. p. 396, 397. (i) "et non erit ei", Pagninus; "et nullus erit pro co", Vatablus. (k) Comment. Ebr. p. 33.

Geneva Study Bible

And after threescore and two {x} weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but {y} not for himself: and the people of the {z} prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

(x) In this week of the seventy, will Christ come and preach and suffer death.

(y) He will seem to have no beauty, nor to be of any estimation; Isa 53:2.

(z) Meaning Titus, Vespasians's son, who would come and destroy both the temple, and the people, without any hope of recovery.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

26. And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and shall have no …] The ‘anointed one’ cannot be the same as the ‘anointed one’ of Daniel 9:25; for he lives 62 ‘weeks’ (i.e. 434 years) after him. The language is intentionally allusive and ambiguous. The term ‘anointed’ (see on Daniel 9:25) is used sometimes of the high-priest; and the reference, it seems, is here to Onias III. Onias III. was high-priest till b.c. 175, when he was superseded by his brother Jason, who by the offer of 440 talents of silver purchased the office from Antiochus for himself (2Ma 4:7-9). Jason held office for three years, at the end of which time a certain Menelaus, whom he had employed as his agent to carry the 440 talents to the king, took advantage of the occasion to secure the high-priesthood for himself by offering Antiochus 300 talents more. The money promised by Menelaus not being paid, he was summoned before the king. When he arrived he found Antiochus absent in Cilicia and a courtier named Andronicus representing him at Antioch. Menelaus, anxious to secure Andronicus’s favour, presented him with some golden vessels which he had stolen from the Temple. Onias, who was in the neighbourhood, hearing of what he had done, rebuked him sharply for his sacrilege; and Menelaus, resenting the rebuke, prevailed upon Andronicus to assassinate Onias. Antiochus, upon his return home, was vexed with what had occurred, and (according to 2 Macc.) had Andronicus put to death at the very spot at which he had murdered Onias (2Ma 4:7-9; 2Ma 4:23-38). The assassination of one who was the lawful high-priest was an occurrence which might well be singled out for mention in the prophecy; and how the godly character of Onias, and his unjust end, impressed the Jews, appears from what is said of him in 2Ma 3:1-2; 2Ma 4:2; 2Ma 4:35-37; 2Ma 15:12[339]. On the chronological difficulty involved in the verse, see below, p. 146 f.

[339] This account of the end of Onias III. is accepted generally by historians (e.g. Ewald, v. 295; Schürer2, i. 152; Grätz ii. 2, 303): but 2 Macc. (which alone records it) is known to contain much that is not historical; and Josephus not only does not mention the assassination of Onias, but, while he sometimes (Ant. xii. ix. 7, xiii. iii. 1–3, xx. x.) speaks of Onias’ son as fleeing to Egypt, and founding there the temple at Leontopolis, elsewhere (B. J. i. i. 1, vii. x. 2–3) says that Onias himself, after Antiochus attack upon Jerusalem in 170 (Introduction, p. xliii.), fled to Egypt, and founded the temple at Leontopolis (cf. Bäthgen, ZATW., 1886, pp. 278–282). On, these and some other grounds, Wellhausen (Gött. Gel. Anz. 1895, pp. 950–6; Isr. u. Jüd. Gesch.3, 1897, pp. 244–7), partly following Willrich (Juden u. Griechen vorder Makkab. Erhebung, 1895, pp. 77–90), regards the account of Onias’ murder in 2 Macc. as apocryphal: see, however, on the other side, Büchler, Die Tobiaden u. die Oniaden (1899), pp. 106–124, 240 f., 275 f., 353–6, whose conclusion on this subject has the weighty support of the historian Niese, Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher (1900), p. 96 f. If Wellhausen’s view is correct, the reference in this verse of Dan. will be to the cessation of the legitimate high-priesthood, when Jason was superseded by the Benjaminite (2Ma 4:23; cf. 2Ma 3:4; Büchler, p. 14) Menelaus.

and shall have no.…] The clause is difficult; though the same text (ואין לו) was perhaps already read (but rendered incorrectly) by the LXX. (καὶ οὐκ ἔσται), and is distinctly implied by Aq., Symm., and the Pesh. The rendering ‘and shall have nothing’ may be defended by Exodus 22:3 [Hebrews 2], though, it is true, the ‘thing’ lacking is there more easily supplied from the context than is the case here; but the sense obtained is not very satisfactory, and the sentence (in the Heb.) reads also incompletely; we should have expected, ‘and shall have no [helper].’—as Grätz would actually read, comparing Daniel 11:45,—or ‘[successor],’ or ‘[seed],’ or something of the kind. Still, if the text be sound, this, it seems, must be the meaning: the ‘anointed one,’ when he is ‘cut off,’ will have nought, i.e. he will be left with nothing,—no name, no house, no legitimate successor. (LXX. and be no more, would be the correct rendering of ואיננו; but this reading is suspiciously easy.) The rendering of A.V., ‘but not for himself,’ is an impossible one: אין is not a synonym of לא, but always includes the substantive verb, ‘there is not,’ ‘was not,’ ‘shall not be’ (the tense being supplied according to the context).

the people of a prince that shall come] viz. against the land, the verb being used in the same hostile sense which it has in Daniel 1:1, Daniel 11:13; Daniel 11:16; Daniel 11:21; Daniel 11:40-41. The allusion is to the soldiery of Antiochus Epiphanes, who set Jerusalem on fire, and pulled down many of the houses and fortifications, so that the inhabitants took flight, and the city could be described as being ‘without inhabitant, like a wilderness’ (1Ma 1:31-32; 1Ma 1:38; 1Ma 3:45)—‘people’ being used as in 2 Samuel 10:13, Ezekiel 30:11, &c., of a body of troops. On the treatment which the Temple received at the same time, see above on Daniel 8:11.

but his end (shall be) with a flood] he will be swept away in the flood of a Divine judgement. The word (cf. Daniel 11:22) may be suggested by Nahum 1:8; cf. the cognate verb (also of an overwhelming Divine judgement) in Isaiah 10:22 (‘overflowing with righteousness,’ i.e. judicial righteousness, judgement), Isaiah 28:2; Isaiah 28:15; Isaiah 28:17-18, Isaiah 30:28.

and until the end (shall be) war, (even) that which is determined of desolations] until the end (i.e. until the close of the seventieth week,—the period pictured by the writer (see on Daniel 8:17) as the ‘end’ of the present dispensation), the war waged by Antiochus against the saints (Daniel 7:21) will continue, together with the accompanying ‘desolations,’ determined upon in the Divine counsels. The word rendered ‘that which is determined,’ which recurs in Daniel 9:27, and Daniel 11:36, is a rare one; and is manifestly a reminiscence of Isaiah 10:23; Isaiah 28:22. For ‘desolations,’ comp. 1Ma 1:39; 1Ma 3:45; 1Ma 4:38 (quoted in the notes on Daniel 8:11).

26, 27. The 70th week (b.c. 171 to 164).

Daniel 9:26

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

After the threescore and two weeks, i.e., in the seventieth שׁבוּע, shall the Messiah be cut off. - From the אחרי (after) it does not with certainty follow that the "cutting off" of the Maschiach falls wholly in the beginning of the seventieth week, but only that the "cutting off" shall constitute the first great event of this week, and that those things which are mentioned in the remaining part of the verse shall then follow. The complete designation of the time of the "cutting off" can only be found from the whole contents of Daniel 9:26, Daniel 9:27. נכרת, from כּרּת, to hew down, to fell, to cut to pieces, signifies to be rooted up, destroyed, annihilated, and denotes generally a violent kind of death, though not always, but only the uprooting from among the living, or from the congregation, and is therefore the usual expression for the destruction of the ungodly - e.g., Psalm 37:9; Proverbs 2:22 - without particularly designating the manner in which this is done. From יכּרת it cannot thus be strictly proved that this part of the verse announces the putting to death of an anointed one, or of the Messiah. Of the word Maschiach three possible interpretations have been given: 1. That the Maschiach Nagid of Daniel 9:25, the Maschiach of Daniel 9:26, and the Nagid of Daniel 9:26, are three different persons; 2. that all the three expressions denote one and the same person; and 3. that the Maschiach Nagid of Daniel 9:25 and the Maschiach of Daniel 9:26 are the same person, and that the Nagid of Daniel 9:26 is another and a different person. The first of these has been maintained by J. D. Michaelis, Jahn. Ebrard understands by all the three expressions the Messiah, and supposes that he is styled fully Maschiach Nagid in Daniel 9:25 in order that His calling and His dignity (משׁיח), as well as His power and strength (נגיד), might be designated; in Daniel 9:26, משׁיח, the anointed, where mention is made of His sufferings and His rejection; in Daniel 9:26, נגיד, the prince, where reference is made to the judgment which He sends (by the Romans on apostate Jerusalem). But this view is refuted by the circumstance that הבּא (that is to come) follows נגיד, whereby the prince is represented as first coming, as well as by the circumstance that הבּא נגיד, who destroys the city and the sanctuary, whose end shall be with a flood, consequently cannot be the Messiah, but is the enemy of the people and kingdom of God, who shall arise (Daniel 7:24-25) in the last time. But if in Daniel 9:26 the Nagid is different from the Maschiach, then both also appear to be different from the Maschiach Nagid of Daniel 9:25. The circumstance that in Daniel 9:26 משׁיח has neither the article nor the addition נגיד following it, appears to be in favour of this opinion. The absence of the one as well as the other denotes that משׁיח, after that which is said of Him, in consideration of the connection of the words, needs no more special description. If we observe that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary is so connected with the Maschiach that we must consider this as the immediate or first consequence of the cutting off of the Maschiach, and that the destruction shall be brought about by a Nagid, then by Maschiach we can understand neither a secular prince or king nor simply a high priest, but only an anointed one who stands in such a relation to the city and sanctuary, that with his being "cut off" the city and the sanctuary lose not only their protection and their protector, but the sanctuary also loses, at the same time, its character as the sanctuary, which the Maschiach had given to it. This is suitable to no Jewish high priest, but only to the Messias whom Jehovah anointed to be a Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek, and placed as Lord over Zion, His holy hill. We agree therefore with Hvernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and Kliefoth, who regard the Maschiach of this verse as identical with the Maschiach Nagid of Daniel 9:25, as Christ, who in the fullest sense of the word is the Anointed; and we hope to establish this view more fully in the following exposition of the historical reference of this word of the angel.

But by this explanation of the משׁיח we are not authorized to regard the word יכּרת as necessarily pointing to the death of the Messias, the crucifixion of Christ, since יכּרת, as above shown, does not necessarily denote a violent death. The right interpretation of this word depends on the explanation of the words לו ואין which follow - words which are very differently interpreted by critics. The supposition is grammatically inadmissible that לו אין equals איננּוּ (Michaelis, Hitzig), although the lxx in the Codex Chisianus have translated them by καὶ οὐκ ἔσται; and in general all those interpretations which identify אין with לא, as e.g., et non sibi, and not for himself (Vitringa, Rosenmller, Hvernick, and others). For אין is never interchanged with לא, but is so distinguished from it that לא, non, is negation purely, while אין, "it is not," denies the existence of the thing; cf. Hengstenberg's Christol. iii. p. 81f., where all the passages which Gesenius refers to as exemplifying this exchange are examined and rightly explained, proving that אין is never used in the sense of לא. Still less is לו to be taken in the sense of לו (<) אשׁר, "there shall not then be one who (belongs) to him;" for although the pronomen relat. may be wanting in short sentences, yet that can be only in such as contain a subject to which it can refer. But in the אין no subject is contained, but only the non-existence is declared; it cannot be said: no one is, or nothing is. In all passages where it is thus rightly translated a participle follows, in which the personal or actual subject is contained, of which the non-existence is predicated. לו (<) אין without anything following is elliptical, and the subject which is not, which will not be, is to be learned from the context or from the matter itself. The missing subject here cannot be משׁיח, because לו points back to משׁיח; nor can it be עם, people (Vulg., Grotius), or a descendant (Wieseler), or a follower (Auberlen), because all these words are destitute of any support from the context, and are brought forward arbitrarily. Since that which "is not to Him" is not named, we must thus read the expression in its undefined universality: it is not to Him, viz., that which He must have, to be the Maschiach. We are not by this to think merely of dominion, people, sanctuary, but generally of the place which He as Maschiach has had, or should have, among His people and in the sanctuary, but, by His being "cut off," is lost. This interpretation is of great importance in guiding to a correct rendering of יכּרת; for it shows that יכּרת does not denote the putting to death, or cutting off of existence, but only the annihilation of His place as Maschiach among His people and in His kingdom. For if after His "cutting off" He has not what He should have, it is clear that annihilation does not apply to Him personally, but only that He has lost His place and function as the Maschiach.

(Note: Kranichfeld quite appropriately compares the strong expression יכּרת with "the equally strong יבלּא (shall wear out) in Daniel 7:25, spoken of that which shall befall the saints on the part of the enemy of God in the last great war. As by this latter expression destruction in the sense of complete annihilation cannot be meant, since the saints personally exist after the catastrophe (cf. Daniel 9:27, Daniel 9:22, Daniel 9:18), so also by this expression here (יכּרת) we are not to understand annihilation.")

In consequence of the cutting off of the משׁיח destruction falls upon the city and the sanctuary. This proceeds from the people of the prince who comes. ישׁחית, to destroy, to ruin, is used, it is true, of the desolating of countries, but predicated of a city and sanctuary it means to overthrow; cf. e.g., Genesis 19:13., where it is used of the destruction of Sodom; and even in the case of countries the השׁחית consists in the destruction of men and cattle; cf. Jeremiah 36:29.

The meaning of הבּא נגיד עם depends chiefly on the interpretation of the הבּא. This we cannot, with Ebrard, refer to עם. Naturally it is connected with נגיד, not only according to the order of the words, but in reality, since in the following verse (Daniel 9:27) the people are no longer spoken of, but only the actions and proceedings of the prince are described. הבּא does not mean qui succedit (Roesch, Maurer), but is frequently used by Daniel of a hostile coming; cf. Daniel 1:1; Daniel 11:10,Daniel 11:13, Daniel 11:15. But in this sense הבּא appears to be superfluous, since it is self-evident that the prince, if he will destroy Jerusalem, must come or draw near. One also must not say that הבּא designates the prince as one who was to come (ἐρχόμενος), since from the expression "coming days," as meaning "future days," it does not follow that a "coming prince" is a "future prince." The הבּא with the article: "he who comes, or will come," denotes much rather the נגיד (which is without the article) as such an one whose coming is known, of whom Daniel has heard that he will come to destroy the people of God. But in the earlier revelations Daniel heard of two princes who shall bring destruction on his people: in Daniel 7:8, Daniel 7:24., of Antichrist; and in Daniel 8:9., 23ff., of Antiochus. To one of these the הבּא points. Which of the two is meant must be gathered from the connection, and this excludes the reference to Antiochus, and necessitates our thinking of the Antichrist.

In the following clause: "and his end with the flood," the suffix refers simply to the hostile Nagid, whose end is here emphatically placed over against his coming (Kran., Hofm., Kliefoth). Preconceived views as to the historical interpretation of the prophecy lie at the foundation of all other references. The Messianic interpreters, who find in the words a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and thus understand by the Nagid Titus, cannot apply the suffix to Nagid. M. Geier, Hvernick, and others, therefore, refer it (the suffix) to the city and the sanctuary; but that is grammatically inadmissible, since העיר (the city) is gen faem. Aub. and others refer it, therefore, merely to the sanctuary; but the separation of the city from the sanctuary is quite arbitrary. Vitringa, C. B. Michaelis, Hgstb., interpret the suffix as neuter, and refer it to ישׁחית (shall destroy), or, more correctly, to the idea of destroying comprehended in it, for they understand שׁטף of a warlike overflowing flood: "and the end of it shall be (or: it shall end) in the flood." On the other hand, v. Lengerke and Kliefoth have rightly objected to this view. "This reference of the suffix," they say, "is inadmissibly harsh; the author must have written erroneously, since he suggested the reference of the suffix to עם or to נגיד. One cannot think of what is meant by the end of the destruction, since the destruction itself is the end; a flood may, it is true, be an emblem of a warlike invasion of a country, but it never signifies the warlike march, the expedition." There thus remains nothing else than to apply the suffix to the Nagid, the prince. קץ can accordingly only denote the destruction of the prince. Hitzig's interpretation, that קצּו is the result of his coming, refutes itself.

In בּשׁטף the article is to be observed, by which alone such interpretations as "in an overflowing" (Ros., Roed., and others), "vi quadam ineluctabili oppressus" (Steudel, Maurer), "like an overflowing," and the like, are proved to be verbally inadmissible. The article shows that a definite and well-known overflowing is meant. שׁטף, "overflowing," may be the emblem of an army spreading itself over the land, as in Daniel 11:10,Daniel 11:22, Daniel 11:26; Isaiah 8:8, or the emblem of a judgment desolating or destroying a city, country, or people; cf. Psalm 32:6; Nahum 1:8; Proverbs 27:4; Psalm 90:5. The first of these interpretations would give this meaning: The prince shall find his end in his warlike expedition; and the article in בּשׁטף would refer back to הבּא. This interpretation is indeed quite possible, but not very probable, because שׁטף would then be the overflowing which was caused by the hostile prince or his coming, and the thought would be this, that he should perish in it. But this agrees neither with the following clause, that war should be to the end, nor with Daniel 7:21, Daniel 7:26, according to which the enemy of God holds the superiority till he is destroyed by the judgment of God. Accordingly, we agree with Wieseler, Hofmann, Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth in adopting the other interpretation of שׁטף, flood, as the figure of the desolating judgment of God, and explain the article as an allusion to the flood which overwhelmed Pharaoh and his host. Besides, the whole passage is, with Maurer and Klief., to be regarded as a relative clause, and to be connected with הבּא: the people of a prince who shall come and find his destruction in the flood.

This verse (Daniel 9:26) contains a third statement, which adds a new element to the preceding. Rosenmller, Ewald, Hofm., and others connect these into one passage, thus: and to the end of the war a decree of desolations continues. But although קץ, grammatically considered, is the stat. constr., and might be connected with מלחמה (war), yet this is opposed by the circumstance, that in the preceding sentence no mention is expressly made of war; and that if the war which consisted in the destruction of the city should be meant, then מלחמה ought to have the article. From these reasons we agree with the majority of interpreters in regarding מלחמה as the predicate of the passage: "and to the end is war;" but we cannot refer קץ, with Wieseler, to the end of the prince, or, with Hv. and Aub., to the end of the city, because קץ has neither a suffix nor an article. According to the just remark of Hitzig, קץ without any limitation is the end generally, the end of the period in progress, the seventy שׁבעים, and corresponds to סופא עד in Daniel 7:26, to the end of all things, Daniel 12:13 (Klief.). To the end war shall be equals war shall continue during the whole of the last שׁבוּע.

The remaining words, שׁממות נחרצת, form an apposition to מלחמה, notwithstanding the objection by Kliefoth, that since desolations are a consequence of the war, the words cannot be regarded as in apposition. For we do not understand why in abbreviated statements the effect cannot be placed in the form of an apposition to the cause. The objection also overlooks the word נחרצת. If desolations are the effect of the war, yet not the decree of the desolations, which can go before the war or can be formed during the war. שׁממות denotes desolation not in an active, but in a passive sense: laid waste, desolated. נחרצת, that which is determined, the irrevocably decreed; therefore used of divine decrees, and that of decrees with reference to the infliction of punishment; cf. Daniel 9:27; Daniel 11:36; Isaiah 10:23; Isaiah 28:22. Ewald is quite in error when he says that it means "the decision regarding the fearful deeds, the divine decision as it embodies itself in the judgments (Daniel 7:11.) on the world on account of such fearful actions and desolations," because שׁממות has not the active meaning. Auberlen weakens its force when he renders it "decreed desolations." "That which is decreed of desolations" is also not a fixed, limited, measured degree of desolations (Hofm., Klief.); for in the word there does not lie so much the idea of limitation to a definite degree, as much rather the idea of the absolute decision, as the connection with כלה in Daniel 9:27, as well as in the two passages from Isaiah above referred to, shows. The thought is therefore this: "Till the end war will be, for desolations are irrevocably determined by God." Since שׁממות has nothing qualifying it, we may not limit the "decree of desolations" to the laying waste of the city and the sanctuary, but under it there are to be included the desolations which the fall of the prince who destroys the city and the sanctuary shall bring along with it.