The Prayer of a
Prophet
The Identity of “Darius
the Mede”
The prophet Daniel begins his
account of the Seventy Weeks by making an allusion to the year when he received
this prophecy as he said in Dan 9:2a that it was “in the first year of his
reign.” Since this phrase was apparently not specific enough, the (not known)
"arranger/biographer of the prophet Daniel and his prophecies"E1,
as it has been his custom to do (See Dan 10:1 & 2, cf. Dan 8:1 & 2a),
introduced the first person account of Daniel’s writings concerning his visions
with a more accurate and detail indication as to the time period which Daniel
was in or had referred to (see second verses of Dan 8/9/10), as he specified
that it was:
"In the first year of Darius, the son of
Ahasuerus, of the seed [lineage] of the Mede, who was caused to be made kingN2 over the realm of
the Chaldeans." Dan 9:1
This more precisely dated statement
that was added here really helps to reveal to us today the interesting
historical context and background setting of the prophecy, but even as more
precise and direct as this statement may now seem, it is one that has troubled
scholars and commentatorsN3 for years since the information that it
added had not been that readily reconcilable with the historical data that is
known today about the Medo-Persia Empire. Much research has been done in order
to accurately indicate what this statement was actually referring to and
several significant contributions have been made by various commentators over
the years. Corroborating parts from these suggestions will be brought together
here in order to help reasonably approximate the actual date when Daniel
received this prophecy, and thus reveal its historical context.
First of all, several unsuccessful
attempts have been made to concretely identify the “Darius” that is mentioned
here,R4
but several corroborating factors can help to determine who this mysterious
figure actually was. Based on the facts that: (1) Greek historian Herodotus of
HalicarnassusN5 indicated the that name "Darius" was actually a
surname that meant “Doer/Worker,”N6 (2) that this “Darius”
is also said to have reigned right after the fall of Babylon (Dan 5:30, 31) and
that (3) the only historically-proven king of Medo-Persia that reigned after
the fall of Babylon was King Cyrus; then
this “Darius,” that is also mentioned in Dan 6:28 and 11:1, would be more
rightly identified as King Cyrus who is being referred to here by his regnal
surname.N7 Based on this understanding, the text in Dan 6:28
would then accurately read as:
"So this
Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, that isN8 in the reign of
Cyrus the Persian." (cf. Dan 1:21)N9
This identification for the title “Darius”
here as King Cyrus is immediately challenged by the fact that Cyrus was
actually not the “son of Ahasuerus, of the lineage of the Mede ” as the English
translation of Dan 9:1 indicates, but he was rather the son of Cambyses
I, the Persian.R10 This apparent contradiction is resolved
simply by the fact that the semitic expression “son of” does not necessarily
mean the immediate son of a father, but many times also refers to a “descendant.”
This expression is repeatedly used in the Bible’s genealogical accounts (e.g., Gen 5 and 11),
and is the reason why when Jesus was said to be “the son of David”S11
or the “son of Abraham,”especially by believers in His Messiah-ship (cf. Matt.
1:1).N12 This obviously did not mean that this King David and the
Patriarch Abraham were Jesus’ immediate “father,” but rather that He was a
direct descendant of them. So, in the case of Cyrus, it was an ancestor
of his, of Median descent, who was being referred to in Dan 9:1. So this “Ahasuerus”
did not have to be the immediate father of Cyrus.N13
Now since the name “Ahasuerus” is
actually the transliterated Hebrew equivalent of the Greek title “Xerxes” which
meant “Warrior,”N14 and since it was this title of “Xerxes”
that was used in the old Greek version of Daniel (ca. 150 B.C.?) in Dan 9:1 (cf. NIV), instead of the transliterated: “Ahasuerus,”
which came to be used later in the Theodotion version of Daniel (ca.180 A.D.), then the Median ancestor of Cyrus was then being referred to here by
his surname/title of “Ahasuerus/Xerxes,” and not by his actual name. Who then
was this “Xerxes/Ahasuerus of the lineage of the Medes?”
In the Jewish Historical/Apocryphal
book Tobit, there is a brief mention in the final verse (14:15), of the
destruction of the Assyrian capital city-Nineveh. This is a historical event
that had taken place in 612 B.C.R15 It is also said in
this passage that at that time the king of Babylon united with the king of the
Medes in order to overthrow this great city. What is significant in this
passage is that the names of these two kings who united together are given in
the (standard version) Greek manuscripts of this text as “Nebuchadnezzar and
Asuerus [=Ahasuerus],”B16 but historically, the Babylonian and
Median kings that had united to overthrow Nineveh were cited as being: “Nabopolassar
and Cyaxares.” Most scholars and commentators have had no trouble in
understanding that “Nebuchadnezzar” was the throne name for Nabopolassar,E17
but most have had trouble in reconciling the name Ahasuerus with Cyaxares.
They then have declared this latter mention to have been an error of confusion
by a scribe of that time,R18 but what actually appears to have been
the case here is that, as commentator F. Zimmerman has said: “[The Greek
scribes] indulged their fancy by substituting more familiar names as
Nebuchadnezzar and Asuerus [=Ahasuerus] for the unfamiliar ones in the
Gk.[=Greek] texts.B|E19 Indeed this is a practice that was
recognized to be common with the Greeks as Greek historian Herodotus says that:
“The Greeks would rightly call their kings thus [i.e., Darius, Xerxes,
Artaxerxes] in their language.”B|N20 A couple of interesting
examples of this “Grecian substitution”, and the way that such a surnaming
would all but eclipse a king’s birth name is found in the writings of (1)
Plutarch of Chaeronea who says that King Artaxerxes II (Mnemon) 405-359 B.C. was named Arsicas at birth but received the new name “Artaxerxes” upon
his being named king;B21 and (2) Flavius Josephus, who states in
his introductory mention of Esther’s husband King Xerxes (although he wrongly
calls him ‘Artaxerxes’ throughout his account, similarly to (or “following” the LXX) that his given name was Cyrus,
but the Greeks called him Artaxerxes.B22 This helps to show
how easily ‘Darius’ could have been the throne name of Cyrus the Great
(559-530), and he could easily be known as such.
So based on this more accurate understanding
here, it can now be concluded with certainty that the historical Median king
-Cyaxares (I) (625-585 B.C.)- was the King who was being
referred to here by the author of Tobit, and that by his title of “Ahasuerus,”
which was the transliterated equivalent of the Greek title “Xerxes.”N23
Now a look at Cyrus’s family treeR24
will help to fully resolve the identity question in Dan 9:1 since this same
Cyaxares I (“Ahasuerus/Xerxes”) was actually the great-grandfather of King
Cyrus on the side of Cyrus’ Median mother Mandane!
 |
| Genealogy of Cyrus the Great |
So it can be concluded here with
certainty that it was Cyaxares I, the “Ahasuerus/Xerxes of the seed of the Mede”
mentioned in Dan 9:1, was the ancestor of King Cyrus.N25
A significant argument against Darius
(the Mede) and Cyrus (the Persian) being one and the same person has been that
if this indeed the case then why is he referred in two, and sometimes
(apparently) opposite, ways in the book of Daniel, namely and mainly as “Cyrus,
the Persian” and as “Darius the Mede.”R26 First of all, what
explains why "Darius/Cyrus" could be sometimes referred to as
being a "Mede" (Dan 5:31, 11:1N27) and other times as being
a "Persian" (Dan 6:28) is actually the fact that Cyrus’ mother,
Mandane, was of Median descent, and his father, Cambyses I, was a Persian.N28
So it actually was not incorrect to refer to him in either way.29
Secondly, the additional identification label: "the Mede" occurs with
the throne name "Darius," while the other label: "the
Persian" occurs with the personal name "Cyrus." This is
apparently because Cyrus derived his regnal authority from his Median side and
while his personal ancestry naturally was traced through his paternal (thus
Persian) side. So in summary here the title "Cyrus the Persian" was
Cyrus’ full and accurate personal title, while the title
"Darius the Mede" was his full and accurate regnal
title.N30, E31, E32
The question that could now be asked is why
was it specifically this ancestor of Cyrus that was mentioned here rather than
Cyrus’s immediate father: 'Cambyses I, the Persian?' This apparently was due to
the fact that since Cyrus was the first king of the Persians,R33
that then meant that he did not have a regnal ancestor on his father’s side,
-his Persian side. In fact, as seen in the writings of Herodotus, Cyrus’s
ascension in the Medo-Persian coalition came to provide ‘“sovereignty” to the
Persians (indeed presumably, in relation to the Medes).’R|N34
So the arranger/biographer of Daniel probably realized that naming the unknown
Cambyses I here would be rather insignificant, especially to his present
audience and the later readers of his book, so he then went over to Cyrus’s
mother’s side, his Median side, in order to find a (would be more significant)
regnal ancestor for him. Interestingly enough, he did not name Cyrus’s
grandfather Astyages even though Astyages had been King of Media from 585-550 B.C.R35
Instead he named Astyages’s father: Cyaxares
I, Cyrus’s great-grandfather. This was apparently because Cyaxares I was
no doubt much more recognized than Astyages as it has been noted of him that he
was the first king of the Medes, and the one who “established the Medes’
universal empire,”R36 and thus has been said to be the one who “saw
the ascendancy of the Medes to their greatestN37 heights.”N38
So (again) in summary, the added
opening statement in Dan 9:1a which said that “Darius, was the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed [lineage] of
the Mede,” was actually a reference to King Cyrus who was the descendant of
the great Median King: Cyaxares I.N39
The Return of the
Exiles
Now it was also said in Dan 9:1
about this "Darius” (Cyrus), that he “was caused to be made king
over the realm of the Chaldeans.” As it was already pointed out (see Note #2), this verbal
expression was saying here that there ‘eventually came a future point at which
the subject [Cyrus] entered the state described.’B40 So what this
statement was actually saying was that when Daniel prayed his intercessory
prayer, King Cyrus was indeed in his first regnal year, but he had not yet
become king over the realm of the Chaldeans, i.e., King in Babylon. This
statement does indeed accurately describe the circumstances in the reign of
Cyrus because history reveals that after he “received the kingdom” of Babylon
(Dan 5:30, 31) from his conquering general Ugbaru (a.k.a. Gobryas), 17 days
after Ugbaru had seized it for himR41 (on what works out to be
October 29, 539 B.C. on the Julian CalenderN42)
he did not make himself king in Babylon, but rather apparently decided to
reserve this throne for his son Cambyses II. So on the upcoming New Year’s Day,
March 24, 538 B.C., Cambyses II was officially installed on the throne
in Babylon.R43 The title headings of economic documents
of Medo-Persia of that time demonstrate that Cyrus and Cambyses II ruled
together for the next ten months, from March 24, 538 to about December 14, 538 B.C., with Cyrus being referred in these documents as “King of the [Two]
Lands”(i.e., Media and Persia)N44 while his son Cambyses II
was being referred to as the “King of Babylon.”B45 Then in
mid-December of 538 B.C., Cambyses II was
suddenly demoted from his position of king in Babylon (no doubt by Cyrus
himself since only he in the Empire had the power to do thisR46)
and from then on Cyrus took over the control of Babylon.
So this would then be the specific
future time when, as Dan 9:1 indicated, Cyrus “caused to be made king over the
realm of the Chaldeans [Babylon].” Therefore the event of Daniel’s prayer and
his prophecy (Dan 9:4b-19, 24-27) that were said to have fallen in “the first
year of Darius [Cyrus]”N47 not only took place sometime during the
first year of King Cyrus, but more specifically before he became installed as
king in Babylon. That is, sometime between Mar. 24 and Dec. 14 in 538 B.C. So it would have been at some point within this time period in 538 B.C. that Daniel ‘came to fully understand by the books the number of years
that had been specified by God through the prophet Jeremiah that Jerusalem
would be desolated for 70 years.’ (Dan 9:2- based on Jer 25). He would then
have realized that this ‘time of desolation’ was now about to expire as he
apparently also understood that it was being counted from the time of the first
siege of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar, when he himself was brought as a
captive to Babylon (Dan 1:6).
This original siege of
Nebuchadnezzar was said to have taken place in the “third year of Jehoiakim”N48
(Dan 1:1), and since Jehoiakim’s first “official” regnal year was in 608-607 B.C.,N49 then his official “third year was in 606-605 B.C. Therefore Daniel
would have seen that the 70 years of Jerusalem’s desolation would expire in
about one year, in 537-536 B.C. as it is seen in the
following chart:
70-Year Babylonian
Captivity
# ---
Year # --- Year # --- Year # --- Year
1 --- 606-605 B.C. 18 --- 589-588 B.C. 35 --- 572-571 B.C. 52 --- 555-554 B.C.
2 --- 605-604 B.C. 19 --- 588-587 B.C. 36 --- 571-570 B.C. 53 --- 554-553 B.C.
3 --- 604-603 B.C. 20 --- 587-586 B.C. 37 --- 570-569 B.C. 54 --- 553-552 B.C.
4 --- 603-602 B.C. 21 --- 586-585 B.C. 38 --- 569-568 B.C. 55 --- 552-551 B.C.
5 --- 602-601 B.C. 22 --- 585-584 B.C. 39 --- 568-567 B.C. 56 --- 551-550 B.C.
6 --- 601-600 B.C. 23 --- 584-583 B.C. 40 --- 567-566 B.C. 57 --- 550-549 B.C.
7 --- 600-599 B.C. 24 --- 583- 582 B.C. 41 --- 566-565 B.C. 58 --- 549-548 B.C.
8 --- 599-598 B.C. 25 --- 582-581 B.C. 42 --- 565-564 B.C. 59 --- 548-547 B.C.
9 --- 598-597 B.C. 26 --- 581-580 B.C. 43 --- 564-563 B.C. 60 --- 547-546 B.C.
10 - 597-596 B.C. 27 --- 580-579 B.C. 44 --- 563-562 B.C. 61 --- 546-545 B.C.
11 - 596-595 B.C. 28 --- 579-578 B.C. 45 --- 562-561 B.C. 62 --- 545-544 B.C.
12 - 595-594 B.C. 29 --- 578-577 B.C. 46 --- 561-560 B.C. 63 --- 544-543 B.C.
13 - 594-593 B.C. 30 --- 577-576 B.C. 47 --- 560-559 B.C. 64 --- 543-542 B.C.
14 - 593-592 B.C. 31 --- 576-575 B.C. 48 --- 559-558 B.C. 65 --- 542-541 B.C.
15 - 592-591 B.C. 32 --- 575-574 B.C. 49 --- 558-557 B.C. 66 --- 541-540 B.C.
16 - 591-590 B.C. 33 --- 574-573 B.C. 50 --- 557-556 B.C. 67 --- 540-539 B.C.
17 - 590-589 B.C. 34 --- 573-572 B.C. 51 --- 556-555 B.C. 68 --- 539-538 B.C.
69 --- 538-537 B.C.
70 --- 537-536 B.C.
Also,
in studying the prophecies of Jeremiah, Daniel would have seen that God had
also promised His people that:
“When seventy years
have been completed at Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, and cause you to
return to this place. For I know the intentions that I am planning for you,
declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for calamity, to give you a future
and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will
listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with
all your heart.” Jer 29:10-13N50
'Calling upon God' and 'searching
for Him with all of his heart' is exactly what Daniel set out to fervently do
at this point through a momentous
intercessory prayer as, in the face of such a promise of restoration he sensed
the great unworthiness of his people and also his own.N51
He “turned to God” with “fasting, sackcloth and ashes” (Dan 9:3), and then
following this he then “resolutely made himself to offer up a prayer of
confession” (vs. 4)N52 and entreated the Lord to have mercy on
His chosen people. Judging from the fact that God had promised that He
would restore Israel when they would come to call upon Him at then end of the
predicted seventy years, Daniel’s prayer is all the more remarkable as he did
not presume upon the mercy and love of God for Israel and say in his heart that
God would fulfill this promise despite the present unworthy condition of His
people. Instead he rightly considered this promise to be conditional upon the
people being in a state of being ready to receive it and he set out to make
sure that they would be through his priestly intercessory prayer and in doing
so, he actually came to fulfill the “calling upon God” prediction. This action
of Daniel was also probably motivated by, and based on, the “condition for restoration”
that had been stated in the writings of Moses (see Lev 26:40-45), where God had
said:
“If they confess
their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their unfaithfulness in
which they were unfaithful to Me, and that they also have walked contrary to
Me, ... if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled, and they accept their guilt-
then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My
covenant with Abraham... I will remember the land.” (vss. 40-42).
God had also promised here that His
judgements on Israel would not “utterly destroy” them and break His covenant
with them,” (vs. 44), but even with these great promises in mind, Daniel still
did not presume upon God’s mercy, but instead he earnestly sought the unmerited
favor of the Lord in behalf of the people. It is then no wonder that Daniel is
later informed by the angel Gabriel that he is “greatly beloved” in heaven.
(Dan 9:23; cf. 10:12). As author Mervyn Maxwell once said: Daniel’s prayer was “a
prayer that God could answer.”B/N53 And answer it God did.
Indeed, it is true that “The effective prayer [margin: supplication] of
a righteous man can accomplish much”S54 for it was in this same
first year of King Cyrus 538/537 B.C.,
which was the 69th year of Israel’s 70-year judgement captivity,
that God began to act favorably towards Israel in order to fulfill His promise
of restoration which He had spoken through the prophet Jeremiah.* Jewish
historian Flavius Josephus seems to recount in his historical writings of this
eventR55 an actual, extra-biblical, Jewish story that stated that
at one point King Cyrus was shown that he had been mentioned in the Bible by
God, by name, in the prophecies found in the book of Isaiah. (Isa 44:28-45:8).
It was prophesied in there of Cyrus that he would be the one that God would use
to overthrow the kingdom of Babylon (Isa 45:1-3a), and also that he would be
the one who would free the captive Israelites in Babylon (Isa 44:28). Josephus
says that:
“When Cyrus read
this and admired the divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon
him to fulfill what had been written.”B56
This realization, and zeal of Cyrus
was also reflected in the Biblical account of this event as in Ezra 1:1, 2, it
was said that “the Lord caused the spirit of Cyrus to be stirred up,” and also
that Cyrus himself claimed that it was ‘the God of heaven who had given him all
the kingdoms of the earth.’S57
So based on all of this, the way the
events leading up to the return of the Jewish exiles more than likely unfolded
were that: (1) Sometime after March 24, 538 B.C., Daniel would have
fully understood that the time of Jeremiah’s prophecy was about to expire and
he would have then started to make intercession on behalf of his people. (2)
Sometime after this, some of the Jews would have gone to Cyrus and shown him
the prophecies in Isaiah concerning the return of the exiles and his prophesied
role in this event. (3) This then led Cyrus to passing his liberation decree,
and then (4) the subsequent major return
of exiles under the leadership of the governor Zerubbabel (See Ezra 1 and 2),
took place, in apparently that upcoming spring of 537 B.C.
So, as it can be seen, the more
specific information that was stitched on to the personal account of Daniel and
the Seventy Weeks by the arranger/biographer of this book in Dan 9:1 does
indeed help us to closely sketch the historical circumstances surrounding the
giving of this significant prophecy.
 |
| Events Leading Up to the Return of the Exiles |
"AUSS 29 (1991)" = Shea, William H.. "Darius the Mede in His Persian-Babylonian Setting." Andrews University Seminary Studies (AUSS) 29.3 (1991)
*With the 70 year timeline for the
Babylonian Captivity ending with a return of Jews to their land, it can also be
seen that the early start of God to turn events made it that the Jews did not
spend any extra time in Babylon beyond their decreed 70 year sentence. So
evidently God was seeking to have this timely and complete turning of
events.
The Prayer
The actual intercessory prayer of
Daniel (vss. 4b-19) also adds to the overall understanding of the background of
the prophecy as it provides an excellent thematic context that will also help
in understanding the subsequent message in verses of the revelation (vss.
24-27). As Commentator Carl A Auberlen once said:
“We must ...
endeavor to enter vividly and fully into the thoughts and feelings which form
the basis of Daniel’s prayer in order to understand the words of the angel.” B58
The prayer, first of all, alludes to
some major expressions and themes that were previously mentioned by the prophet
Jeremiah. These are:R59
The “Seventy years”
(Dan
9:2/Jer 25:11, 12)
The “desolation”
(Dan
9:2/Jer 25:9, 11, 18)
The “men of Judah,
its kings and its officials” (i.e., its ruling corp)
(Dan
9:7, 8/Jer 25:18)
The “city called by
God’s name” (Jerusalem)
(Dan
9:19/Jer 25:29)
The city and people
becoming objects of scorn
(Dan
9:19/Jer 25:29)
The bringing of
disaster upon people and city
(Dan
9:12/Jer 25:29)
Most of these themes and expressions
from the prayer are again reiterated in the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks in
similar and related ways, like:R60
“your [God’s]
people”
(Dan
9:6, 15, 19, 20, 24, 26)
“your [God’s]
city”
(Dan
9:16, 18, 19, 24, 26)
“sins”
(Dan
9:16, 20{2X}, 24)
“iniquity”
(Dan
9:5, 13, 16, 24)
“righteousness”
(Dan
9:7, 16, 18, 24)
“sanctuary”
(Dan
9:17, 26)
“desolations”
(Dan
9:17, 18, 26, 27{2X})
“covenant”
(Dan
9:4, 27)
Since
a reading of the entire prayer before moving to the interpretation of the
prophecy is quite beneficial, the following thematic outline of the prayerR61
has been provided to help to fully grasp the structure and significance of the
prayer.
Also, since an in-depth
understanding of the feelings of Daniel in this prayer can be seen by an
analysis of the Hebraic syntax found some expressions in this prayer, then such
an analysis has been done in the bolded (i.e., must-read) notes.R62
It is also significant to keep in
the background here that Daniels’ prayer was probably “directed” by the “recommendation”
by King Solomon in 1 Kgs 8:46-50ff, if ever Israel should ever come into such a
‘foreign captivity due to their sins’ situation.
Confession of Sin
(Dan 9:4b-11a)
Faithfulness of God
(4b)
"I beseech Thee Lord, the great
and to be feared Mighty One,
who keeps the covenant and mercy
with those who love Him,
And with those who keep His
commandments,
Israel's Sin (5-11a)
5:
We have sinned and committed iniquity;
And we have thus been caused to act
wickedly and rebelled,N63
Even by departing from Your
commandments
and from Your judgments.
6:
Neither have we hearkened Your servants the prophets,S64
Who spoke in Your name to our kings
and our princes,
to our fathers and all the people of
the land
7:
To thee, O Lord, does righteousness belong,
But to us shame of faces, as it is
this day--
To the men of Judah, to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Israel,
those near and those far off in all
the countries
withersoever You have caused them to
be banished,
Because of the trespass
which they have trespassed against
You.
8:
Jehovah, to us belongs shame of faces, to our kings,
our princes, and our fathers,
Because we have sinned against You.
9:
To the Lord our God belong tender mercies and forgiveness,
Though we have rebelled against Him.
10:
We have not obeyed the voice of the Jehovah our God,
To walk in His laws, which He set
before us
by the hand of His servants the
prophets.
11a: Yes, all Israel has gone outside of
Your law,
and has departed so as not to obey
Your voice;
Effects of Sin (Dan
9:11b-14)
Disaster
11b: Therefore the curse and the oath that
is written in the Law of MosesN65 the servant of God
Have been poured out on us,N66
Because we have sinned against Him.
12:
And He has caused His words to arise (in judgement) on us,
That which He spoke against us and
against our judges who judged us,
In order to cause a great evil to be
brought upon us;
For under the whole heaven such has
never been done
as what has been allowed to be done
to Jerusalem.
13:
As it is written in the Law of Moses,N67
All this evil has been brought upon
us;
Yet we have not made ourselves
entreat the face of the Jehovah our God,
So that we might (naturally) turn
from our iniquities and cause us to have insight into Your truth.
Stubbornness
14: Therefore Jehovah has overseen this
calamity,
And has caused it to be brought upon
us;
For Jehovah our God is righteous in
all the works which He has done,
For we have not listened to His
voice.
Intercession for
Sinners (Dan 9:15-19)
Acknowledgment of
God's power and the sins of the people
15:
And now, Lord our God,
Who had caused Your
people to be brought forth out of the land of Egypt
with a mighty hand,N68
Then made Yourself a name, as it is
this day--
We have sinned, we have done
wickedly!N69
Fourfold pleadings
for God's Mercy
16: "My Lord, according to all Your
righteousness, I pray Thee,
Let Your anger and Your fury be
turned away from Your city Jerusalem,
Your holy mountain;
Because, for our sins, and for the
iniquities of our fathers,
Jerusalem and Your people are a
reproach to all those around us.
17: Now therefore, our God, I urge you to
HEARKENN70 to the prayer of Your servant,
and his supplications,
And for the Lord's sake, I urge you
to CAUSE Your face TO SHINE on Your sanctuary,
which is desolate.N71
18:
My God, I urge you to CAUSE Your ear TO BE INCLINED,N72
and do LISTEN;
I urge you to OPEN Your eyes, and
do BEHOLD our desolations,
And the city which has been (allowed
to be) called by Your name;
For we do not cause our
supplications to be cast down before You
because of our righteous deeds,
But because of Your great mercies.
19:
My Lord, may You to HEARN73!
My Lord, may You FORGIVE! My Lord, may You CAUSE [YOURSELF] TO GIVE
HEED,N74 so that you would (urgently) ACT!N75
I urge You not to (MAKE) A DELAYN76
for Your own sake, my God,
For (the likes or
situation that) Your city and Your people
So with this historical and thematic
background for the Seventy Week prophecy in mind, we can now turn to an in
depth, verse-by-verse analysis and interpretation of the prophecy, but before
we do, the entire four-verse prophecy is printed here (NKJVN79)
for an initial reading, for the purpose of having the overall context in mind.
Dan 9:24
Seventy weeks are
determined
For your people and
for your holy city,
To finish the
transgression,
To make an end of
sins,
To make
reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in
everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision
and prophecy
And to anoint the
Most Holy.
Dan 9:25
Know therefore and
understand,
That from the going
forth of the command
To restore and
build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the
Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and
sixty-two weeks
The street [Or, open
square] shall be built again,
and the wall [Or, moat],
Even in troublesome
times.
Dan 9:26
And after the
sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be
cut off,
but not for
Himself;
And the people of
the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the
city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall
be with a flood,
And till the end of
the war desolations are determined
Dan 9:27
Then he shall
confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle
of the week
He shall bring an
end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of
abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the
consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on
the desolate.
Notes to “Prayer”
1.What is meant here by the “arranger/biographer
of the prophet Daniel and his prophecies” is the person who gathered together
the writings of the prophet Daniel and arranged them into a book about the life
and the prophecies of Daniel. This arranger/biographer theory is self-evident
from the predominant third-person accounts that are found in the book of Daniel
(Dan 1:1-7:2a; 9:1; 10:1) that include, surround, and introduce Daniel’s own
first person accounts and his prophecies. Based on the testimony of
Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in Antiquities 11:8.5 [#329-#337],
this later composition of the actual Book of Daniel (or probably
more accurately called: ‘The Book About the Prophet Daniel and His
Prophecies’) may have been authored in its final form before the end of the
Persian empire (331 B.C.) since he says
that when Alexander the Great was on his World-Conquering mission he made a
stop in Jerusalem and was surprisingly grandiosely greeted by the Jewish
priesthood (as God had instructed the high priest to do (11:8.5 [#329-#336])),
and then he was also shown in “the Book/Scroll (Gk.-biblou) of Daniel”
that “one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians” (Dan 7:6;
8:3-8; 20-22; 11:3) and, as Josephus recounts, Alexander “supposed that he
himself was the person intended.” (Ibid., [#337] (vs. 21)). (However see
below in Note #22 -
Only individual scrolls of Daniels prophecies may have existed by that time.).
Others who also see this
arranger/biographer theory are, e.g., S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the
Literature of the Old Testament. reprint ed. (New York, 1965), 497-514; idem., The Book of
Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922), 62-65; O. Eissfeldt, The
Old Testament: An Introduction (New York, 1965), 527; S. B. Frost, "Daniel," IDB
(Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1962), 1:764-767; H. H. Rowley, "The Unity
of the Book of Daniel," in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on
the OT, 2nd rev. ed.(Oxford, 1965), 260-280.
2. Cf. Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 482
[30.2.1d] for my literal/wooden translation here: “caused to be made king.”
They have translated this verb as “being made king” but say that it is a telic
perfect tense which “represents the end of the internal situation to which
the action is pointing,” and that: “there eventually comes a point at which the
subject enters the state described.” Meaning that this “Darius” would
eventually indeed come to be made king over the realm of the Chaldeans
at a specific future time.
3. Not to mention objectors to the Book of Daniel,
Prophecy, the Bible and God. (See e.g., American Atheists - “Daniel in the
Debunker’s Den” @ tinyurl 1. All of the objections that are raised on that page
are themselves “debunked” here in this very chapter.)
4. For a brief summary overview of the proposed
identifications, arguments and contra-arguments that have been advanced by
bible scholars see: Hasel, "Establishing A Date," 111-117.
5. Herodotus, The Histories, 6:98.3. Herodotus lived during the
times of the Persian Empire as he lived between ca. 484-425 B.C.E. He wrote his “Histories” around ca.
431-425 B.C.E.
6. Since this surname was repeatedly given to
Medio-Persian monarchs, it has then been understood to be actually a throne
name or regnal title. This was quite similar to the other regnal titles such
as "Pharaoh" and
"Caesar" which were respectively used by the Egyptians and the Romans
for their ruler. (Cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 8:6.2
[#155-158]).
7. Cf. Wiseman, 9-18;
William H. Shea, "Darius the Mede in His Persian-Babylonian
Setting," AUSS 29 (1991): 235-257.
8.6. Since the waw-conjunction in the Hebrew
here relates two clauses in which the second clause repeats the content of the
first but adds more detail to it, it is therefore understood to be an expegetical
waw-conjunction and is translated as “that is.” (See Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS,
652-653 [39.2.4a-c]).
9. This would then mean that the righteous Persian
King who, a little time after he had “received the kingdom” and organized it
(Dan 5:30-6:2), had to send Daniel into the lion’s den against his will (see
Dan 6:6, 14, 16, 18-23, 25-27) was actually King Cyrus.
12. See e.g., Matt 1:1; Luke 19:9.
See also in John 8:39 where the Jews in Christ’s day claimed that Abraham was
their “father,” which actually meant that the were claiming that he was their “ancestor.”
This ancestral nominal claim was also made for women in Israel (Luke 13:16).
Unbelievers in Jesus, simply saw Him as: ‘the son of Joseph (the carpenter)’
John 6:42 (Matt 13:55=Mark 6:3); & Luke 4:22 (23).
13. A similar way of expressing a
king’s ancestor was used in: (1) Dan 5:2 where it was said that the Babylonian
king Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazar, but Nebuchadnezzar was
actually the grandfather of Belshazzar. It was a certain “Nabonidus” who
was the father of Belshazzar. (See John E.
Goldingay, Daniel. Word
Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989), 113); and (2) in 2
Kgs 9:2, 14, 20 where King Jehu (the 11th king of Israel) is
referred in vss. 2 & 14 as ‘the son of Jehosaphat who was himself the son
of Nimshi,’ but in vs. 20 (and also in 1 Kgs 19:16 & 2 Chr 22:7) is
actually referred as: “the son of Nimshi.”
One may wonder if the expression “son
of” was also used/understood in this way amongst Babylonians and Medo-Persians,
but it must be kept in mind that this idiom here is found in a book intended
for a Jewish audience, which was no doubt authored by a Jew. Therefore
expressions that were common and easily understood by this intended audience
would have been used. Nonetheless, with the Babylonians, the Medes and the
Persians being a part of the larger Semite family (i.e, descendants of Shem
living/originating from the Middle East and northern Africa), which had very
similar (cognate) languages (Hebrew ~ Aramaic ~ Ugaritic, etc), it is very
likely that this idiom was also understood as such among these people. (The
closeness of the Hebrew and Aramaic language is easily seen in the fact that
the book of Daniel itself, while being mostly in Hebrew, still contains large
sections (55% of verses) in Aramaic (Dan 2:4-7:28; also Ezra 4:7-6:18;
7:12-26), the “lingua franca” (common/official language) of the Medo-Persian
empire. (See SDABD, 68-70 "Aramaic"; 266 "Book of Daniel").
14. Herodotus 6:98.3. In addition to defining the
apparent Persian throne name of “Darius,” and “Xerxes” as “Doer” and “the
Warrior,” respectively, Herodotus goes on to say in this same passage that the
name “Artaxerxes” was also a title that meant: "the Great Warrior." In the history of the Persian Empire there
were four kings who became known by the title of "Darius":
"Darius the Mede" (King Cyrus) 559-529; Darius II (Hytaspes) 522-486;
Darius III (Ochus) 424-405 (the "Darius the Persian" of Neh 12:22);
and Darius IV (Codomannus) 336-331; two Persian kings became known by the title
of "Xerxes": Xerxes I (Esther's husband) 486-465; Xerxes II 425-424;
and five other kings became known by the title of "Artaxerxes":
Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) 465-425 (the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra-Nehemiah);
Artaxerxes II (Mnemon) 405-359; and Artaxerxes III (Ochus) 359-338; Artaxerxes
IV (Arses) 338-336; Artaxerxes V (Bessus) 330-329. [These names of Persian
kings during the empires world supremacy (i.e., 538-331 B.C.) and their regnal
dates are based on I. Gershevitch, ed. The Cambridge History of Iran,
vol. 2 (Cambridge: University Press, 1985) with an update of the Roman numeral
title numbering because of this newly established identification of “Darius the
Mede” as King Cyrus.].
15. Cf. André Parrot, Nineveh and
the Old Testament. Translated by B. E. Hooke (New York: Philosophical
Library, 1955), 78.
16. See Frank Zimmerman, The Book
of Tobit (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), 122 (footnote marginal
reading for verse 15).
17. This title “Nebuchadnezzar” was
more precisely a ‘prayer-to-a-god name’ (a “theophoric” name) which was
written in Babylonian as: Nabu-kudurri-usur and has been translated as: “Nabu
[a Babylonian god] protect my child.” (See Ronald H. Sack, Images of
Nebuchadnezzar: The Emergence of a Legend (London: Associated University
Press, 1991), 13). The people of Israel also used similar “God” names (although
they were more theological than “theophoric”) as nearly every Hebrew
name contains the name of God or the
Godhead by using (e.g.,) the syllable “yah”
from “Yahweh” as in Isaiah :‘Yahweh has saved’, Jeremiah:
‘Yahweh strikes’, Micah: ‘who is like Yahweh?’ Nehemiah: ‘Yahweh
has comforted’, Obadiah: ‘the servant of Yahweh’, Zecheriah: ‘Yahweh
has remembered’, Zepheniah: ‘Yahweh has protected’, etc; or the syllable “el” from “Elohi” as in Michael:
‘who is like Elohi’, Daniel: ‘Elohi is judge’, Ezekiel:
‘Elohi will strengthen’, Samuel: ‘Elohi has heard’, etc; or the
combined: Joel : ‘Yahweh is Elohi (God).’
18. See e.g., Carey A. Moore, Tobit.
Anchor Bible. Vol. 40A. (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1996), 297; Charles C. Torrey, The Apocryphal Literature (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1945), 87, 88.
20. Herodotus 6:98.3. Cf. Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 11:6.1 [#184]) who
states that the actual name of the Persian monarch who was Esther’s husband was
“Cyrus.” (Josephus actually reverses the Biblical testimony on the surnames of
two Persian kings by referring to the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra-Nehemiah as Xerxes
(see Antiquities, 11:5.1-8 [#120-#183] and to Esther’s husband (Xerxes
in the Bible) as “Artaxerxes.”
22. Josephus, Antiquities of the
Jews, 11:6.1 [#184]. Greek writer
Diodorus Siculus (flourished between 60-30 B.C.) also makes a naming statement
using the same explanation as he says: “When Astibaras [=Cyaxares I ??], the
king of the Medes, died of old age in Ecbatana, his son Aspandas, whom the
Greeks call Astyages, succeeded to the throne. And when he had been defeated by
Cyrus the Persian [=by Cyrus the Great in 550 B.C.], the kingdom passed to the Persians.” (Library, Book 9, chapter
20, section 4).
The fact that authors even as
late as Josephus in the late First Century A.D., ca. 200 years after the Greeks
had been conquered by the Romans, continue to refer to Greek namings should not
be seen as odd given the readily observable great, and also lasting, impact
that the Greek culture and especially language had, and continues to have in
many ways, upon the world. The New Testament and Old Testament translations in
Greek from, respectively Aramaic and Hebrew are prime examples of this. It also
very well may be that the “arranger/biographer of the prophet Daniel and his
prophecies” (See above in Note
#1), may have been writing after the Alexander the Great, the having
conquered and ruling the then known world (i.e., 331 B.C. ff) had made Greek the
lingua franca of his empire. And so referring to, and/or explaining what
would be foreign names with those common Greek ones, or even Greek
imposed/altered ones, was the normative thing for him, as well as other
authors, to do.
23. Some commentators have also
realized that the name “Ahasuerus” here was actually a Hebrew transliteration
of the Greek “Xerxes,” (See e.g., Heinrich Gross, Die Neue Echter Bibel.
Kommentar Zum Alter Testament mit der Einheitsübersetzung* (Würzburg:
Echter Verlag, 1987), 54; John Craghan, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Jonah, Ruth.
Old Testament Message. Vol. 16. (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier Inc, 1982),
162), but what they had failed to realize was that these names of “Ahasuerus” and “Xerxes” were actually not the actual
names of someone but were rather their surnames and titles, as it
has been shown here.
24. Based on the reconstruction of
William Shea in: "Darius the Mede in His Persian-Babylonian Setting,"
252.
25. Others who previously had
suggested this identification, but without any concrete evidences were: Shea,
"Darius the Mede in His Persian-Babylonian
Setting," 254; Torrey, The Apocryphal Literature, 88.
27. It may have been the direct
mention by an angel of this same “Darius the Mede” in one of Daniel’s later
prophecies, who was also said at that time to be
“in his first year,” that prompted the arranger/biographer of Daniel to also
provide this more elaborate identification in Dan 9:1. This Darius the Mede in
11:1 could not have been a reference to Darius II (Hytaspes) who reigned from
522-486 B.C. since the vision
here had been given to Daniel “in the third year of King Cyrus” (Dan 10:1) which was 535 B.C., and which was therefore 13 years before the reign of Darius II.
28. See Xenophon, Cyropaedia,*
1:2.1; Cf. idem 1:3.2; 1:4.25 and 1:5.4. Cf.
Shea, "Darius the Mede in His Persian-Babylonian Setting," AUSS 29
(1991): 251-252.
29. The fact that the Medo-Persian
empire was a coalition of two people may also have made this double
identification a convenience as some people in the empire may not be familiar with one or the other
name. The same can be said about the intended Jewish readers of this book. An
example today that may illustrate this is if a person was to make mention of
the name Karol J. Wojtyla, many people may not have any idea who is being
referred to here although this person was arguably the most prominent figure of
the past 25+ years. However if this person if this same person is referred to
by his given name: Pope John Paul II, then many other would readily recognize
him.
30. It is also not certain when this ‘arranger
and biographer of Daniels Life and Prophecies’ did this work for this book of
Daniel, however this “Darius the Mede” titling may have been to distinguish him
(Cyrus) in this regnal appellation from a known “Darius the Persian”, mentioned
in Nehemiah’s Memoirs (Neh 12:22) (Memoirs which were written in 433ff B.C.
(Neh 13:6; cf. 5:14).
31. Interestingly enough, in the
Apocryphal book ‘Bel and the Dragon’ which involves, a least in character, the
prophet Daniel, it is begun by this datum: “When King Astyages was laid to rest
with his ancestors, Cyrus the Persian [i.e., Cyrus the Great] succeeded
to his kingdom.” (Bel 1:1 see NRSV). This
not only matches the identification in Dan 6:28b, but also shows that the King
considered to have preceded (actually overlapped) Cyrus [559-529 B.C.] in this “Supreme Power” was Astyages [585-550 B.C.].
As stated in passing above in Note #22, this
appellation/titling of “Cyrus the Persian was also made by Greek writer
Diodorus Siculus as he says: “And when he [Astyages] had been defeated by Cyrus
the Persian [=by Cyrus the Great in 550 B.C.], the kingdom
passed to the Persians.” (Library, Book 9, chapter 20, section 4). Just
a few sentences before, Siculus had also made a relatable statement saying: “and
after him [=Cyaxares I] each of his successive descendants extended the kingdom
by adding a great deal of the adjoining country, until the reign of Astyages,
who was conquered by Cyrus and the Persians”.
32. Also keep in mind in all of this
that there were no “surnaming” last/family names, per se, back then, i.e.,
according to the naming convention and use today. So such distinct, quasi-ad
hoc, secondary identifiers were quite crucial to differentiate people who
had the same first name. That also applied to reused throne names such as “Darius”.
34. Herodotus, The Histories,
7:8A.1. Probably leading to the current fact
that this World Empire is now best known as the “Persian Empire” due to this
latter part ascendency of the Persians vs. the early Median, even regnally,
domination.
37. Probably up until this comparably great
achievement of this Darius the Mede/Cyrus the Great in his overthrow, and
capture of the world hegemony of the Babylonians for the Medo-Persians.
38. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible,
53 (based on Herodotus 1:106). In a somewhat similar way, as we saw earlier,
this is the same reason why Jesus was repeatedly called the “son of David” or
the “son of Abraham,” rather than the “son of Joseph,” or (e.g.) “the son of
Melchi” (Luke 3:24) or even (e.g.) the son of King Hezekiah (Matt 1:9, 10),
because “Father” Abraham and King David were obviously of more renown than
these other two in Christ’s human ancestral line. Cf. Luke 1:32b.
(Interestingly enough, Joseph himself was also given this same ‘ancestral-immediate-association’
honor as the angel that appeared to him similarly hailed him as the “son of
David” (Matt 1:20b) instead of simply calling him the ‘son of Jacob’ (Matt
1:16),...or was Joseph’s immediate (i.e., “non-honorary” as in Matthew’s
genealogy) father actually “Heli” Luke 3:23b???
Similarly, a Jewish person who may
want to emphasize his Jewishness would have specifically claimed to be a “son
of Abraham” (cf. Luke 19:9); but if he wanted to establish a regnal claim, he,
if applicable would emphasize that he was a “son of David”, as it was
repeatedly, purposely done with Jesus, mostly by those who believed in him or
even those who so questioned him (see Mat 1:1, 20; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30,
31; 21:9, 15; 22:42; Mar 10:47, 48; 12:35; Luke 3:31; 18:38, 39).
Indeed this was effectively the
whole purpose of reckoning and painstakingly keeping track of genealogies (cf.
1 Tim 1:4; Tit 3:9), no doubt overshadowing its practical (i.e.,
records-keeping) function. (cf. e.g., 1 Ch 9:1; Neh 7:5).
39. It should be stated here that
this identification of Darius (the Mede) as Cyrus contradicts (actually
corrects) the ancient identification of first century A.D. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews,
10:11.4 [#248]) who had identified this Darius as a kinsman of Cyrus.
41. Nabonidus Chronicle in James B.
Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 2d
ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955). Cf. Shea, "Darius
the Mede in His Persian-Babylonian
Setting," 244-245.
42. This Julian date was converted from the date
given in the Nabonidus Chronicles as the the 17th regnal year of
Nabonidus, on 3rd day of the
month of Marchesvan, [See the reprint of the Nabonidus Chronicles in A. K.
Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley: J. J.
Augustin, 1975), 110; the year is in Chronicle #7:3 line 5 and the month and
day is in Chron. #7:3 ln. 18]. The conversion to the Julian Calender is based
on the calender reconstruction of Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian
Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75. 2nd ed. (Providence, RI: Brown University Press,
1956), 29.
44. Since 559 B.C. Cyrus had been reigning as King in Persia, but now, after his conquest
of Babylon, he was also made king over Media by his uncle Cyaxares II (the
brother of his mother Mandane), because Cyaxares II did not have a son that
would be his natural successor to the throne in Media [See Xenophon,
8.5.19].
47. Since Cyrus actually started to rule the Medes
and the Persians back in 559 B.C., then this “first
year” (Dan 9:1) would be his first year since he became, basically, the King of
the World after defeating the world power of the Babylonians in 539 B.C.
48. This Jehoiakim is not to be confused, as some
have done, with Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin (cf. e.g., 2 Kgs 24:6; a.k.a.
Jeconiah/Coniah [see e.g., Jer 22:24, 28; 24:1; 27:20; 28:4; 37:1]) who
actually only reigned in Judah for 3 months and 10 days (2 Chr
36:9), from about late December, 598 B.C. to about
mid-March, 597 B.C. [See E. Thiele, A
Chronology of the Hebrew Kings, 69, 70, 75; idem. The Mysterious
Number of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House,
1983), 186].
49. Following an “accession year” (a “zero
year”) that lasted from sometime after Tishri 1 (September 21), 609 B.C. to Tishri 1 (September 10), 608 B.C. (Cf. Ibid.,
68.) (See Appendix A for a full
explanation of this “accession year” system). This accession year is
counted as “year one” of this King in the book of Jeremiah and thus the year of
the siege (606/605 B.C.) is considered as
his “4th year” (Jer 25:1; 36:1).
51. Daniel’s own sense of
unworthiness is based on the “we”/ “us” confession statements in Dan 9:5-11a
and also his statement at the end of his prayer that said: “Now while I was
speaking, praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people, ...”
(Dan 9:20 [i.e.s]). This does negate the fact that Daniel was very
humble here (Comp. Dan 9:3 and 10:12) and that he chose to fully identified
with his rebellious people here who were apparently not all also “seeking the
Lord with fasting, sackcloth and ashes.”
52. This understanding of Daniel ‘then
resolutely making himself offer his prayer and his confessions’ is
indicated clearly by the choice of verbal stem and tense here as a: first
person cohortative Hithpael Imperfect was used here (see
John J. Owens, Analytical Key to the Old Testament, 4 vols. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989), 4:739) to express Daniel’s actions
of prayer and confession.
-the first person
cohortative indicates the personal “encouragement” or i.e., resolution;
-the Hithpael,
which is a reflexive/reciprocal form for the intensive Piel stem,
indicates the action being
intensively made to be brought about by the subject himself;
-and the waw+imperfect
conjugation here indicates that these actions are a consecutive and consequential outflow of an earlier
situation, i.e., Daniel’s period of fasting with sackcloth and ashes. (see Waltke and O’Connor,
IBHS, 573 [34.5.1a] for the explanation of the cohortative conjugation).
53. C. M. Maxwell, God
Cares-Daniel, 200. For excellent practical
expositions on this prayer see idem. 200-204; Robert Duncan Culver, The
Histories and Prophecies of Daniel (Winona Lakes, IN: BMH Books, 1980),
137-145; DeHaan, 233-250; Geoffrey R. King, Daniel-A Detailed Explanation of
the Book (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1966), 153-167; among others. See also the various
online sermons on Dan 9:1-19 in the Audio/Video Commentaries section of the Blue
Letter Bible website: www.blueletterbible.org (Follow the
instructions and links).
58. Carl A. Auberlen, The
Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation of St. John (Edinburgh: T & T
Clarke, 1857), 94, 95.
62. The verbal stems and syntactical
identifications mentioned here are from: Owens, Analytical Key, 4:739-743;
cf. Spiros Zodhiates, TCWS-OT, (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers,
1994), 2125-2127.
63. What is interesting about the
sequence of actions here is that Daniel used a Qal stem to say: “we have
sinned,” and “we have done wrong,” but he used a causative Hiphîl stem
to say: “and we have thus been caused to act wickedly.” It was as if
Daniel was here trying to somehow “excuse” the wicked way in which Israel had
acted by implying that they were caused to act that way, meaning that
these “wicked acts were not in their “natural” disposition. Interestingly
enough, he does not continue to use this causative “excuse” throughout
his prayer as, in the very next section in which he confesses the sinful
actions of Israel, he again go back to using the Qal stem to say: “we
have (naturally) rebelled; even by (naturally) departing from
Your commandments and Your judgements.” So, apparently here, while Daniel was
consistently laying the blame completely on the people for having “sinned,” “done
wrong,” and “rebelled,” he tried to point out to God that the “wicked” actions
that inevitably resulted from their sin of rebellion had not really been their
intention. In other words, they had been “caused” to act this way, even if it
had been a result of their own disobedience.
Now, interestingly enough, Daniel
continues to use the non-causative Qal form as he continues to confess
the sins of Israel in this prayer (Dan 9:5- “departing;” 9:6- “not hearkened;”
9:7- “trespassed;” 9:8- “sinned;” 9:9- “rebelled;” 9:10- “not obeyed;” 9:11- “gone outside
of,” “departing,” “not to obey,” “sinned;” 9:14- “not obeyed;” 9:15- “sinned”);
but as he reaches the end of this confession segment of his prayer (vss. 5-15),
he again states that Israel had “done wickedly” (vs. 15), but interestingly
enough, this time he doesn’t use a causative
Hiphîl as he did before, but rather the non-causative Qal stem. It
was almost as if Daniel had come to realize by this time in his prayer that
Israel was also fully responsible for the wicked acts they had
committed, and he was now fully admitting it.
65. Daniel is here referring to the
severe curses for disobedience that were stated by God in the writings of Moses
in Lev 26:14-46 and Deut 28:15-68.
66. Since Israel had not learned from the many
previous warnings and judgements of God that preceded this period of
desolation, the full, but gradual, fury of God had now been poured out on them
in the gradual way in which He had said they would be poured out. (See Lev
26:14ff; 18ff; 21ff; 23ff; 27ff). The gradualness of this “pouring out” action
is particularly emphasized by the Hebrew tense of this verb as it was expressed
in an imperfect tense, which is a tense that “directs attention to the
internal distinctions of various separate phases making up the [whole]
situation.” (Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 480 [30.1c]).
68. Daniel is
here probably purposely restating a reason for restoration that God had stated
in making His promise of restoration in Lev 26:45 when He said that it would
also be because He had once brought Israel out ot Egypt “in the sight of all
nations” that He might be their God.
69. See in Note #58 for the meaning of the Qal stem verb
that was used here instead of a causative Hiphîl stem for the same
action as in 9:5.
70. This capitalized statement, along
ones following are used to reflect the fact that Daniel has now begun to
express his requests in the imperative. What is interesting about the
Biblical Hebrew imperative (see also GKC, 325 [§110]; Waltke and O’Connor,
IBHS, 571, 572 [34.4]) is that there is always an underlying notion of some
kind of threat involved in the situations that it is relating. Hence the need
to heighten the force with which a request, a wish, a promise or a command is
made in order to make sure, or to strongly recommend that it be heeded and
acted upon. Therefore, as boldly as it sounds,
Daniel was using this form of commandeering expression to point out to God that
‘it would be better that,’ or also ‘he strongly recommends Him,” to heed to
what he was now saying because if he didn’t the underlying threat which regards
Him and who He is would come to pass.
71. It is interesting to note that when Daniel had
previously asked God to: ‘Let his anger and fury turn away’ (vs. 16a) and “Hear”
his prayer (vs. 17a), he had used a Qal stem expression, but here, when
he is asking God to once again favor Israel, he used a causative Hiphîl
to literally say: “cause your face to shine on your sanctuary which
is desolate.” It was almost as if Daniel understood that even if God would
forgive Israel, and even if His anger towards them would relent (vs. 16a), and
even if He now heard Daniel’s prayer (17a), it was still probable that He would
not, as He did not have to, naturally respond to them with acts of favor
by once again dwelling amongst them in the sanctuary. He would indeed have to “cause”
Himself to do this, and only if He now
wanted to. Therefore the reversal of the desolation Israel’s
sanctuary was not an automatic result but it would rather be dependent on what
God would ultimately choose to do. So even a physically rebuilt sanctuary did
not automatically mean that God’s ‘face was shining upon it.’
72. The same causative notion
that was seen in the phrase “cause to shine” in verse 17 (cf. Note #65), is again present
here as Daniel asked God to “cause His ear to be inclined” to his
supplications. This is a humble request by Daniel as he realized that God could
have easily, and justifiably, turned a deaf-ear to his supplications for
Israel. Daniel doesn’t use this causative
Hiphîl stem when he, later in this verse would ask God to: ‘Open His eyes
and see their desolation.’ He was aware that God was already fully “seeing”
all of this and was fully knowledgeable of all that He had caused to befall
upon Israel (cf. vs. 9:7b & 14). So Daniel realized that it was not that
God was not “seeing” what had happened, but that He actually just didn’t
care at that time! Israel had fully deserved their punishment and their
present condition.
A statement in a prophetic passage in
Ezek 8:18 does indeed show that this could have been a very possible choice of
reaction by God as He said there to the prophet Ezekiel concerning the future
cries of repentance of a rebellious Israel as they would be receiving their
well-deserved punishment: “My eye will have no pity nor shall I spare;
and though they cry in My ears with a loud voice, yet I shall not
listen [or hearken] to them.” [i.e.s.] (See also Isa 1:15; 42:25 for a
similar reaction and decision by a righteous God).
73. This italicized and capitalized
form is used to reflect the fact that Daniel is now using the even more
forceful “cohortative” form to “encourage”
God to heed to his requests as this form “expresses the will or strong desire
of the speaker.” (Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 573 [34.5.1a]; cf. Owens, Analytical
Key, 4:742, for form identification).
74. Again here, as in vss 17 and 18 (see Notes #65, 66) Daniel
uses some non-causative Qal forms to say: “O Lord hear,” and “O
Lord forgive,” but he again demonstrates his realization that God did
not have to respond favorably to his request now, even if He had forgiven
Israel, by using a causative Hiphîl form
to say: “O Lord cause [yourself] to give heed;” meaning: ‘cause
yourself ‘to pay attention,’ or ‘to care,’ or ‘to concern Yourself’ with Israel’s
present condition!’
75. Daniel uses a non-causative
Qal form to express this request here and right after he had asked God to “cause”
Himself to give heed to his supplication. He probably realized that if God did
indeed ‘cause Himself to give heed’ [meaning:‘to pay attention,’ ‘to care,’ or ‘to
concern Himself’ with Israel’s present condition’], then His naturally merciful
and compassionate heart and His “everlasting love for Israel” (Jer 31:3 [cf.
vss. 4-14]) would then lead Him to naturally act towards them in a
favorable way.
What is also interesting here is that
Daniel does not expressed this request (along with the next one) with the same
intensity as his previous (3) as he does not use the cohortative mode of
expression. Since this expression is a waw (conjunctive)+imperative that
is dependent on a prior (in this case) cohortative form, then this “serves
to express the distinct assurance ... than an action or state will ensue as the
certain consequence of a previous action.” (GKC, 324, 325 [§110f]). So Daniel
here had enough faith in the mercifulness of God here and felt that if God
would indeed “listen” to his requests; “forgive” Israel its sins; and then
cause Himself to “give heed,” then He would, of His own resolve, come to
naturally act in behalf of Jerusalem. So no “encouragement” by him was
needed here.
76. Again the cohortative is
not used in this request, this is apparently because the reason that Daniel is
about to give is motivation enough. And indeed it is.
77. The emphasis of the city having
been “allowed to be called” by God’s name is mostly based on the fact that the
verbal expression here is in the Niphal perfect conjugation. It
therefore indicates that (1) this is an action that has been done by an agent
outside of Jerusalem, i.e., by God Himself; and (2) this was not an action that
was not a ‘logical consequence of anything, i.e., God allowed this most
favorable action of direct association "out of the clear blue," so to
speak, and just because He wanted to.
78. This strong “predicament”
statement by Daniel brings to mind the similar “last gap” plea by Moses when
God’s chosen nation, Israel, was in a similar state of being threatened by the
great rejection of God (See Exod.
32:{11}, 12{-14}; Num 14:13-19).
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blog aims to be factual and, at the very least, implicitly documented. Therefore if applicable, any comment which contains unsubstantiated/unsupportable ideas will not be allowed to be published on this blog. Therefore make the effort to be Biblical, truthful and factual.
-It typically takes 1-2 days for an accepted submitted comment to be posted and/or responded to.
[If you leave an "anonymous" comment and, if applicable, would like to know why it may not have been published, resend the comment via email (see profile) to receive the response.]