Daniel was praying to God for the liberation of the people, and the angel Gabriel was sent to him to teach him that after seventy weeks of years Christ would come to truly liberate the people.
Dan 9:1. In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus.
We read that there were many kings of the Medes and Persians named Darius. Three however were distinguished by different achievements: Darius the son of Astyages, by the conquest of the Babylonian kingdom; Darius the son of Hystaspis, the nephew of Cyrus, by the benefit of the permission granted to the Jews to return and restore the temple, Ezra 1, 6; and the last, more celebrated for the loss of his kingdom in Persia than for having obtained it, and because he was defeated by Alexander than because he ruled over three of the greatest kingdoms. It is of that first Darius, therefore, that the Prophet speaks, and for this reason he says he was of the seed of the Medes, to distinguish him from the others who were of Persian stock, since secular writers call Astyages his father, while Daniel calls him the son of Ahasuerus. One must believe either that the father of Darius was called by both names, or that Astyages was a common surname of the kings of the Medes. For Daniel himself in chapter 13, verse 65, calls this very Darius Astyages, while Xenophon and the other Greek writers are accustomed to call Darius Cyaxares. There are those who think that this Ahasuerus, the father of Darius, was the one who took Esther as his wife. But we have treated of that matter in our commentary on the book of Esther. For now let us hold to what pertains to this passage: that the Prophet, who was about to prophesy concerning time, wished most diligently to indicate the very time at which he received the prophecy, noting each circumstance individually. To this end it serves that he says this happened to him in the first year — not indeed the first in which Darius reigned among the Medes as one king among others, but the first in which, with the Babylonian kingdom added, he began to reign as sole monarch. To this end it serves that he says he was the son of Ahasuerus, that he was of the seed of the Medes, and that he ruled over the kingdom of the Chaldeans.
Now it may be asked why he designated the first year of Darius rather than that of Cyrus, since it was the same year, and since Cyrus by his own valor and skill took Babylon, and since Ezra in book 1, chapter 1:1 names not the first year of Darius but of Cyrus. We responded to this already above in chapter 5, verse 31, on the basis of Jerome's opinion — that this was given to the age and kinship of Darius. For as Josephus says, when Babylon was taken, Darius was over sixty years old, while Cyrus was still a young man; and Cyrus was at once his nephew and son-in-law; and what touches the cause more nearly, Cyrus had conducted the Babylonian war called in under the name of Darius to his aid. Ezra moreover was dealing with the reign of Cyrus alone, Darius being already dead.
Dan 9:2. In one year.
In the first year, I say, of Darius — the Hebrew phrase anno uno for anno primo is well known, just as dies una for prima in Genesis 1:5, and una sabbatorum, the first day of the week, in Mark 16:2.
I understood from the books. I learned from reading Jeremiah chapters 25:11–12 and 29:10; for so great a Prophet, even after he had held conversations with angels, did not disdain to read another Prophet, but read him with all the greater diligence because he knew that Jeremiah had prophesied concerning that most longed-for end of the Jewish captivity. For it is credible that those who were held captive were accustomed to count the time by the most minute moments.
Concerning which the word of the Lord was given — concerning which the Lord spoke through Jeremiah the Prophet — that the desolations of Jerusalem should be completed — that is, that Jerusalem should be restored — namely the number of seventy years. He indicates that he had understood from the reckoning of the times that seventy years had already elapsed, and that he had supposed that the time of liberation had been postponed on account of the fresh sins of the Jews accumulated upon the old ones during the captivity itself, and that for this reason he had turned to prayer.
The Hebrews think that Daniel was mistaken in his reckoning of the years and had not understood the prophecy before being instructed by Gabriel, because although he was both a prophet and the wisest man of his age, yet in this matter he was speaking not as a prophet or as a wise man but as a reader and disciple of Jeremiah, and his desire for liberty was persuading him that the number of years was completed. They note moreover two errors in him: one, that he thought those seventy years were to be reckoned from the first captivity under Jehoiakim, whereas according to the Talmudic tradition they were to be reckoned from the captivity under Zedekiah; the other, that he thought Jeremiah said in chapter 25:12 when the seventy years are completed I will visit you, whereas what it says is I will visit upon the king of Babylon and upon that nation. And so the time for the transfer of the Babylonian kingdom had already elapsed, but the time for the return of the Jews to their homeland had not yet run out, as Rabbi Abraham says.
I would not say it is permissible to think that a Prophet was deceived, even as a private individual and even as a disciple; but if anyone says so I will not rebuke him, since I know that the Apostles, after many miracles had been performed and after long companionship with Christ, were rebuked by Him in words for not understanding the Scriptures. But for the interpretation of this passage it is superfluous to dispute about the number of the seventy years, since Daniel does not say he understood that the number of years was completed, but only indicates that the end was at hand — if anyone wishes to press the letter to its fullest extent. However, what I said in the previous verse seems to me more probable — that he supposed the number of years to have been completed.
As to where the starting point of the reckoning is to be taken, I see there are almost as many opinions as there are authors, which I judge it useful neither to refute nor to enumerate, being content with my own view. For I judge that the number of years is to be derived not from the Hebrews, who themselves disagree among themselves, nor from our own authors, but from Sacred Scripture. The words of Scripture are in Jeremiah chapter 25, verses 11–12: And all this land shall be a desolation and a horror, and all these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years; and when the seventy years are completed I will visit upon the king of Babylon and upon that nation, says the Lord, their iniquity, and upon the land of the Chaldeans, and I will make it perpetual desolations. And chapter 29:10: When seventy years in Babylon begin to be completed, I will visit you and raise up over you my good word, to bring you back to this place. Here both the beginning and the end of the seventy years are designated by God Himself. The beginning is: All these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years — where the beginning of the Babylonian servitude and of the seventy years is indicated as the same. But because the Babylonian servitude was twofold — one by which the Jews were made tributary to the Babylonians before they were led away captive by them (4 Kings 24:1), another by which they were led away captive to Babylon, and this three times: first under Jehoiachin (4 Kings 24:15), second under Zedekiah (4 Kings 25:11 and Jeremiah 39:9), and third, a few years later, those who remained were also led away (Jeremiah 52:30) — this variety in the Jewish servitude produced variety of opinions as well. For some think the beginning of the years is to be taken from the time when the Jews were made tributary to the Babylonians, others from the first captivity, others from the second, others from the third. I follow the middle path and think the time is to be reckoned not from when the Jews were made tributary, nor from the second or third, but from the first captivity. And this because not tribute but captivity is properly called servitude, even if tribute is sometimes called servitude as in 4 Kings 24; and because Jeremiah threatens something greater than tribute; and because already when Jeremiah uttered that prophecy the Jews were tributary to the Babylonians. For that prophecy belongs to the fourth year of Jehoiakim, as is noted at the beginning of the same chapter — in which year, as the Hebrews report, though this is not established from Scripture, the Jews were compelled to the condition of paying tribute to the Babylonians. Now Jehoiakim was tributary to the king of Babylon for three years, then rebelled (4 Kings 24:1), and the Hebrews also teach that the rebellion lasted three more years, as I explained above — so that the years of Jehoiakim's reign are now ten, and in the eleventh the first captivity took place. Certainly he was already paying tribute to the Egyptians before that (4 Kings 23:35). But Jeremiah does not reproach past or present calamity but threatens a future one; and no reason persuades us to take the beginning of the servitude from the second or third captivity rather than from the first, since in the first captivity far more men and men of greater authority than in the second and third were led to Babylon. For in the first, three thousand and twenty-three men were led away, among whom were the king and all the princes (4 Kings 24:12 and Jeremiah 52:28); in the second captivity only eight hundred and thirty-two were carried off (Jeremiah 52:29); and in the third, seven hundred and forty-five (Jeremiah 52:30).
We have therefore established the beginning. The end is also clearly noted by Jeremiah at chapter 25:12: When the seventy years are completed I will visit upon the king of Babylon — for nothing could have been said more clearly. And so I marvel that the commentators, leaving aside what was plain in Scripture, have fixed other limits — some the edict of Cyrus, others the return of the Jews, others the building of the temple, others I know not what else — concerning which Scripture makes no mention. Since then we have both the beginning and the end of the seventy years in Scripture, it remains to be seen whether between the first captivity and the death of Belshazzar — which was the true visitation upon the king of Babylon, as Scripture speaks — there are seventy years. This too we must learn partly from Scripture and partly from history. Scripture teaches that the first captivity fell in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 52:28); the same Scripture teaches that Jehoiachin, who had been led to Babylon in the first captivity, was brought out of prison by Evil-Merodach, the successor of Nebuchadnezzar, immediately at the start of his reign, in the thirty-seventh year of his captivity (4 Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31). Nebuchadnezzar therefore reigned seven years before the first captivity and thirty-seven after — making forty-four. The Hebrews, not having noticed this, record that he reigned forty-five years. Evil-Merodach is said — if we follow the more numerous and better authorities — to have reigned twenty years, although the Hebrews assign only twenty-two and Josephus only eighteen to him. If you add these to the thirty-seven which his father Nebuchadnezzar reigned after the first captivity, you get sixty-seven. Add the three years which it is established that Belshazzar reigned (Daniel 8:1) — for he did not reign more, although Josephus, deceived most shamefully in this as in many other matters pertaining to the kings of Babylon, gives him seventeen years — and you arrive at seventy years, and you find that God visited Babylon at the very moment that the seventy years were completed, just as He had promised through Jeremiah. Since Daniel therefore knew that seventy years had already elapsed, it is not without cause that he prays with greater zeal than before for the liberty of his people.
There is only one scruple in this position — that God promised not only to visit the king of Babylon but also the Jews (Jeremiah 29:10): When the seventy years begin to be completed, I will visit you and raise up over you my good word, to bring you back to this place. The answer is not difficult: God at the same time, but in different respects, visited both the king of Babylon and the Jews — visiting the king by killing him, and the Jews by liberating them from the tyranny of the slain king and transferring them into the power of Darius and Cyrus, who, if not immediately, yet not much later, were to give them their liberty. For since Jeremiah repeats the same thought in those two passages and in one says I will visit upon the king of Babylon and in the other I will visit you, this is an argument that God by visiting the king of Babylon also visited the Jews, and that the king's death was the liberty of the Jews. And in the same way what Daniel says here must be understood — that the desolations of Jerusalem should be completed — for it does not signify that the time for restoring the city had elapsed, but that it was at hand, since the seventy years had already run out and God had visited the king of Babylon. For as Theodoret aptly noted, full liberty was not granted to all the Jews at the same time, but just as the captivity was threefold, so the liberation was threefold: the first through Cyrus, the second through Darius the son of Hystaspis, the third through Artaxerxes.
Dan 9:3. And I set my face toward the Lord — that is, I turned myself to pray to the Lord, turning toward Jerusalem as above in chapter 6:20. To pray and to make supplication — that I might pray and make supplication. In Hebrew: לבקש תפילה ותחנונים — to seek prayer and supplication — that is, that I might seek God through entreaties and prayers, as though He were far away, and placate Him, with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes — that is, with greater zeal than I was accustomed. For although he was accustomed to pray three times each day as we saw in chapter 6, verse 10, he did not always bring to his prayers the weapons of fasting, sackcloth, and ashes; for on behalf of a more weighty cause he offers prayers armed, as it were, to God. This force, as Tertullian says, is pleasing to God.
Dan 9:4. I prayed and made confession. He sets forth two parts of his prayer — petition and confession. For he first made confession and then asked for liberty for the people. This word of confessing in this place comprises two things: the accusation of his own sins and the praise of divine justice and mercy, as is evident from the confession itself which follows.
I beseech Thee, O Lord — אנא is an adverb of beseeching, as in Latin amabo. Great and terrible God — this pertains to the second part of the confession, by which he praises God. He praises Him moreover in a manner suited to the matter at hand, and therefore does not adorn Him with all epithets but only with those that pertain to the cause in question — such as calling Him great and terrible. For God is accustomed to punish men so that they may acknowledge and confess His greatness and power, which He says He did in the case of Pharaoh (Exodus 9:26). Daniel therefore confesses in the name of the people that from those very punishments themselves they have sufficiently come to know His greatness and power, and therefore there is no reason for Him to punish them further. Similar is his calling Him one who keeps covenant and mercy — alluding to that promise by which God had pledged Himself to liberate the Jews from captivity after seventy years (Jeremiah 29:10). For he calls every promise a covenant — as if to say: It is Thy custom to keep Thy covenants and promises; grant us therefore that liberty which Thou hast promised, for the time Thou hast prescribed has run out. This simplicity moreover has a rhetorical art to it, for the rhetoricians bid us praise those from whom we ask something especially in the very matter which we are requesting.
Now that he joins mercy with covenant is equivalent to saying keeping the covenant of Thy mercy — that is, by which Thou hast promised to liberate us not by our merits but by Thy mercy, as is explained in Ezekiel 20:9 and 36:22, 36. He takes covenant and mercy therefore as the same thing, so that the first particle is explanatory of the second.
With those who love Thee and keep Thy commandments. He adds the condition which in all of God's promises is either expressed or understood. For God says in Jeremiah chapter 18:9: Suddenly I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom to build and to plant it; if it does evil in my sight so as not to hear my voice, I will repent of the good that I spoke of doing to it. Now Daniel does not say this in order to boast that he and his people love God and keep His commandments, but rather in order to confess that he believes it is not God's fault that He does not liberate the people from servitude, but that the people's sins retard the fulfillment of the divine promise and divine mercy. That in Hebrew the person changes in the suffixes, no one ought to marvel at. Our translator expressed not the words but the sense.
Dan 9:5. We have sinned. This is the second part of the confession, by which, after praising God, he accuses himself and the people. This abundance of words of the same meaning which he employs proceeds from great emotion of the soul and penitence, and makes the confession the better and adds weight to the prayers for obtaining what is requested. A similar prayer is found in Baruch chapter 2:12. And we have turned away — מררנו — we have rebelled. Now that Daniel throughout this whole prayer joins himself with the people, though he was of singular holiness, he does this modestly and hands on an example to Christian teachers.
Dan 9:6. We have not obeyed Thy servants the Prophets. Even the Prophets themselves, with grave exceptions, had sinned and had been the cause of the captivity (Jeremiah 6:13: From prophet to priest all deal falsely; and chapter 8:10: From prophet to priest all practice deceit; and chapter 12:10: Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard, they have trampled my portion). But reverence for their dignity does not allow him to accuse the Prophets but the people — which our own preachers too ought to do. For he already knew what Christ afterward said: The scribes and Pharisees sit on the chair of Moses; what they say, do; but according to their works, do not do. The people on the contrary were doing the opposite — imitating the wicked ways of the Prophets while despising through them the divine threats. Jeremiah 7:24–25: And I sent to them all my servants the Prophets, rising early and sending, and they did not hearken to me nor incline their ear. Similarly Baruch 1:21.
Dan 9:7. To Thee, O Lord, justice. It is established that justice belongs to Thee; the ignominy of our sins belongs to us; it is established that Thou art just, while we are covered with shameful sins. A similar form of expression in the same cause appears in Baruch 1:15 and 2:6. This verse comprises both parts of the confession — for he both praises God and accuses himself and the people. As it is this day — ביום חזה — according to this day — a common Hebraism, as in Baruch 1:15, 20 and 2:6, 26 and Jeremiah 44:6, 22, 24 — equivalent to saying in Latin: as the matter itself makes plain, or as is evident from the present state of affairs. To those who are near and those who are far away — to all who are dispersed throughout the lands wherever they are.
Dan 9:8. O Lord, to us confusion of face. This repetition also indicates emotion and adds weight to the prayer. Who have sinned — אשר חטאנו לך — because we have sinned against Thee, as Theodotion translates.
Dan 9:9. But to Thee, O Lord our God — לאדוני אלהינו — to the Lord our God. Our translator took the dative to Thee which was at the end of the previous verse and placed it here. Mercy and forgiveness — הרחמים והסליחות — mercies and forgivenessess — that is, there are many ways of pitying and sparing; Thou art full of all compassion. For we have departed from Thee — we have rebelled, we have been rebellious toward Thee, as in verse 5. These words ought not to be referred to what immediately follows but to what preceded in the verse above, for he is giving the reason why confusion of face belongs to them.
He gives the reason why confusion of face belongs to them.
Dan 9:10. We have not hearkened. We have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God — that is, Thy voice, O Lord our God; he changes the person after the manner of the Hebrews. That to hear stands for to obey is also a well-known Hebraism: 1 Kings 2:25, Isaiah 1:19 and 28:12.
Through His servants the Prophets — through Moses the Prophet His servant. This is a syllepsis, because what belongs to one alone is said of many — just as the disciples are said to have murmured at the pouring out of the ointment (Matthew 26:8), when it was Judas alone who murmured (John 12:4); and just as the thieves are said to have blasphemed Christ (Matthew 27:44), when only one of them blasphemed (Luke 23:39). Or else he means that the law was given through the Prophets, because it was set forth and explained to the people through them — and when it is set forth and expounded it is in some manner given. This is what the Hebrew phrase signifies: אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְפָנֵינוּ — which He placed before our face — for to place before the face among the Hebrews means to expound and explain most clearly, just as among the Latins to place before the eyes or to bring under view.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment