Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
Daniel prays for the liberation of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, whence, at verse 21, Gabriel is sent to him, signifying that not only the captivity of the Jews would be dissolved, but also that of the entire human race, through Christ after 70 weeks of years.
Vulgate Text: Daniel 9:1-27
1. In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who reigned over the kingdom of the Chaldeans: 2. In the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood from the books the number of years concerning which the word of the Lord had come to Jeremiah the prophet, that seventy years should be completed for the desolation of Jerusalem. 3. And I set my face toward the Lord my God, to pray and make supplication in fasting, sackcloth, and ashes. 4. And I prayed to the Lord my God, and I confessed, and said: I beseech Thee, O Lord God, great and terrible, who keepest covenant and mercy toward those who love Thee and keep Thy commandments. 5. We have sinned, we have committed iniquity, we have acted impiously, and we have departed and turned aside from Thy commandments and judgments. 6. We have not obeyed Thy servants the prophets, who spoke in Thy name to our kings, our princes, our fathers, and to all the people of the land. 7. To Thee, O Lord, belongs justice; but to us belongs confusion of face, as it is this day, to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far off, in all the lands to which Thou hast cast them out, because of their iniquities in which they sinned against Thee. 8. O Lord, to us belongs confusion of face, to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, who have sinned. 9. But to Thee, the Lord our God, belong mercy and forgiveness, because we have departed from Thee: 10. and we have not hearkened to the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in His law, which He set before us through His servants the prophets. 11. And all Israel have transgressed Thy law, and have turned aside so as not to hear Thy voice, and the curse and the execration which is written in the book of Moses, the servant of God, has been poured out upon us, because we have sinned against Him. 12. And He has confirmed His words
which He spoke against us, and against our princes who judged us, that He would bring upon us a great evil, such as never was under all heaven, according to what has been done in Jerusalem. 13. As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil has come upon us; and we did not entreat Thy face, O Lord our God, that we might turn back from our iniquities and consider Thy truth. 14. And the Lord watched over the evil and brought it upon us; the Lord our God is just in all His works which He has done, for we did not hearken to His voice. 15. And now, O Lord our God, who brought Thy people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and made Thyself a name as it is this day: we have sinned, we have committed iniquity. 16. O Lord, against all Thy justice: let, I beseech Thee, Thy anger and Thy fury be turned away from Thy city Jerusalem and Thy holy mountain. For because of our sins, and the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Thy people are a reproach to all around us. 17. Now therefore hear, O our God, the prayer of Thy servant and his supplications, and show Thy face upon Thy sanctuary which is desolate, for Thine own sake. 18. Incline, O my God, Thy ear and hear; open Thy eyes and see our desolation, and the city upon which Thy name is invoked; for we do not present our prayers before Thy face on account of our own justifications, but on account of Thy manifold mercies. 19. Hear, O Lord, be appeased, O Lord; attend and act, delay not, for Thine own sake, O my God, for Thy name is invoked upon the city and upon Thy people. 20. And while I was yet speaking and praying, and confessing my sins and the sins of my people Israel, and prostrating my prayers in the sight of my God for the holy mountain of my God: 21. while I was yet speaking in prayer, behold the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, flying swiftly, touched me at the time of the evening sacrifice. 22. And he instructed me, and spoke to me, and said: Daniel, I have now come forth to teach you and give you understanding. 23. From the beginning of your prayers the word went forth; and I have come to declare it to you, because you are a man of desires. Give heed therefore to the word, and understand the vision. 24. Seventy weeks are shortened upon your people and upon your holy city, that transgression may be consummated, and sin may have an end, and iniquity may be blotted out, and everlasting justice may be brought in, and vision and prophecy may be fulfilled, and the Holy of Holies may be anointed. 25. Know therefore and take note: From the going forth of the word for Jerusalem to be built again, until Christ the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be built again, and the walls, in straitness of times. 26. And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain; and the people that shall deny Him shall not be His. And a people with their leader that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be desolation, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation. 27. And He shall confirm the covenant with many in one week; and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail; and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation; and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation and the end.
Verse 1: In the first year of Darius
1. In the first year of Darius — that is, when Babylon had been captured, Darius began to reign as monarch, which was the 70th and last year of the Babylonian captivity, and the same was the year of the world 3420; before the birth of Christ it was the year 529. In this year, therefore, Daniel learned that these 70 weeks until Christ the Prince, that is, until the baptism of Christ, still remained. This Darius was a Mede, the son of Ahasuerus.
Note: Ahasuerus, or as it is in Chaldean, achasueros, is composed of achas, that is, 'great,' and veros, that is, 'head,' as if to say: Great captain, great prince. Thus the Turks call their emperor the Great Lord, and the Tartars the Great Khan. And so Ahasuerus was not so much a proper name as a common surname, which was appropriated to certain illustrious kings of the Medes and Persians. Whence, first, the husband of Esther is called Ahasuerus. Second, Cambyses the son of Cyrus is called Ahasuerus, 1 Ezra IV, 6. Third, this Ahasuerus, the father of Darius the Mede, was Astyages, the grandfather of Cyrus, as I said at chapter v, 31.
Verse 2: In year one
2. In year one — that is, in the first year; for in the Hebrew manner the cardinal number is used in place of the ordinal.
Note: Darius the Mede, in the 70th and last year of the Babylonian captivity, together with Cyrus, who was his nephew by his sister, or rather through Cyrus, captured Babylon, and reigned in it for only one year; for as the same year was passing, Cyrus succeeded him alone, and in the same year he released the Jews from captivity, as is clear from 1 Ezra I, 1. Therefore in this same year, shortly
before Cyrus freed the Jews, Daniel, seeing that the 70 years of the captivity foretold by Jeremiah were now being fulfilled, and seeing that the end and release from it was at hand, prays that God might fulfill His promises and in this very 70th year free the Jews from captivity. God heard the prayers of the holy Prophet and man of desires, and not only granted what was asked, but moreover imparted to him a new consolation and revelation, greater than all hope, namely concerning Christ the Prince and Liberator who was to come after 70 weeks. For thus God, who is magnificent in mercy, surpasses the pious prayers of His own, as His grace and beneficence exceeds the merits and wishes of those who supplicate.
Morally, learn here that the Church and the faithful often suffer persecutions from unbelievers on account of their sins: because when living in peace they fell into luxury, ambition, and avarice, which God punishes and avenges through tyrants. Thus under the two Philips, who were Christian emperors, the virtue and vigor of the faithful languished in peace; hence God sent Decius and Valerian, who by their persecution would rouse and sharpen it. For St. Cyprian teaches that this was the cause of that persecution, in his sermon On the Lapsed: "Because," he says, "a long peace had corrupted the discipline divinely given to us, heavenly censure raised up the prostrate and nearly sleeping faith. There was no devout religion in the priests, no sound faith in the ministers, no mercy in works, no discipline in morals." Indeed, he learned this very thing by divine revelation, as he himself recounts in Book IV, Epistle 4: "It was shown," he says, "that a father of the household was sitting with a young man sitting at his right: this young man, anxious and somewhat sad with a certain indignation, sat holding his cheek in his hand with a mournful face; but another on the left side stood holding a net, which he threatened to cast to capture the people standing around. And when he wondered what this meant, it was said to him who saw it:" that the young man "who sat thus on the right was grieving and sorrowful because his precepts were not being observed; but the one on the left was exulting because an occasion was given him to obtain from the father of the household the power to rage. And we see it fulfilled
I understood from the books — I understood from reading Jeremiah, chapter xxv, 11, and chapter xxix, 10; for so great a Prophet did not disdain to read another. It is credible that the Jews, especially Daniel, diligently read Jeremiah during the captivity, and yearning for liberation, were accustomed to count and reckon individual years, indeed days and hours, up to the 70th year in which the captivity was to be dissolved. When therefore Daniel saw that the seventieth year was already at hand, and yet the Jews were not yet being freed, he feared lest God might extend the time of liberation on account of the new sins of the Jews, and therefore he confesses his sins and those of his people, and from the depths of his heart beseeches and implores the mercy of God, to obtain pardon and freedom for his people.
Seventy years. — Concerning these years, where they are to begin and where to end, I have spoken at Jeremiah xxix, 10.
Verse 3: And I set my face toward the Lord
3. And I set my face toward the Lord — I turned my face toward Jerusalem and toward the temple, in which the Lord is accustomed to dwell.
To pray and make supplication — that is, so that I might pray and make supplication.
In fasting, sackcloth, and ashes. — Daniel here, for a grave cause, offers to God prayers armed with fasting and hairshirts. "This violence is pleasing to God," says Tertullian.
Verse 4: I confessed
4. I confessed — both my own sins and those of the people, and also the mercy of God, and I implored it. Thus the poor confess their own misery and the mercy of the rich, and celebrate it, in order to obtain alms: for this is the art of praying and begging.
Covenant and mercy — that is, a covenant mercifully entered into; or mercy covenanted, that is, promised by covenant: it is a hendiadys.
Verse 5: We have sinned
5. We have sinned. — Note here the sentiment of penitence and humility, by which the holy prophet joins himself as if a sinner to the sinful people, and confesses his own sins and those of his people from the deepest feeling of the soul. Hence the Council of Mileve, canon VII, defines that even the Saints have and confess their sins, not only those of the people: "The holy and just Daniel," it says, "did not wish to say 'our sins'; but he said those of his people and his own: because as a Prophet he foresaw those future ones (the Pelagians) who would understand so badly." Again St. Augustine fittingly
in his Sentences, no. 161: "Better," he says, "is equity of soul than health of body, and more fittingly does the just man grieve in punishment than he rejoiced in sin."
Verse 7: To Thee, O Lord, Belongs Justice
7. To Thee, O Lord, belongs justice (that is, it belongs to Thee, Thou art just, and most justly dost Thou punish us for our sins); but to us belongs (and is owed) confusion of face — we are suffused with shame and blush with our whole face, when we behold our crimes as well as our scourges. The Seventy translate: In Thee is our justice, but to us belongs confusion of face.
As it is this day — as the reality itself demonstrates today, that by this captivity we pay the penalties of our crimes.
See Canon XXX.
what had been shown. And know, dearest brethren, that through this vision we are reproached because we drowse in our prayers and do not pray watchfully." And further: "Tell him to be secure, because peace is coming. But we are also admonished by divine favors concerning sparing food and sober drink, namely lest worldly enticement weaken the breast already exalted by heavenly vigor, or lest the mind, weighed down by more lavish feasts, be less alert to prayers." In a similar way Eusebius, Book VIII of his History, chapter I, assigns as the cause of Diocletian's persecution the corrupted morals of both clergy and laity, from a long peace and freedom: "While we envy one another," he says, "while princes stir up seditions and conflicts with princes, peoples with peoples, while pretense is on the face, deceit in the heart, falsehood is uttered in words, etc., the Lord in His anger has darkened the daughter of Zion, and has cast down the glory of Israel from heaven."
Verse 9: But to Thee, the Lord our God, belong mercy and forgiveness
9. But to Thee, the Lord our God, belong mercy and forgiveness — that is, it belongs to Thee, it befits Thee to have mercy on us; because Thou art full of compassions, and we are most wretched, in need of all compassion: therefore the abyss of our misery calls upon the abyss of Thy mercy. Come! Pour out the abyss of Thy mercy into the abyss of our misery, so that that abyss of Thine may be celebrated by all.
Because we have departed from Thee. — In Hebrew, because we have rebelled against Thee. This refers back to what was said above in verse 5; for it gives the reason why confusion of face belongs to them. Truly St. Augustine, Sentence 187: "He runs well," he says, "toward the remission of sins, who is displeased with himself; for before a just and merciful judge, he who accuses himself excuses himself."
Verse 10: We did not hearken
10. We did not hearken — we did not obey the voice of the Lord.
They turned aside (their ears) so as not to hear Thy voice — as if to say: They refused to hear Thy law or to heed it.
Verse 11: And There Has Dripped upon Us the Curse
11. And there has dripped (in Hebrew tittach, that is, 'has been poured out') upon us the curse (which Thou didst threaten us with, Leviticus xxvi, 16) and the execration — that is, the imprecation which Moses pronounced against those who violated the law, Deuteronomy xxvii, 14. Our translator renders it 'dripped,' because God, tempering His wrath with mercy, poured it out drop by drop, according to Canon XLVIII.
Verse 12: And He confirmed His words
12. And He confirmed His words. — "Confirmed," that is, He made good on them by fulfilling and sending the plagues which He had threatened.
Verse 13: And that we might consider Thy truth
13. And that we might consider Thy truth — that is, that we might apply ourselves to justice, that is, to Thy law: for this is practical truth; or truth, that is, justice of life.
Verse 14: And the Lord watched over the evil
14. And the Lord watched over the evil — over the affliction, to afflict and chastise us. Note the beautiful antithesis: The Jews had fallen asleep in their sins; but God is watchful, to hasten the punishments He had threatened. Thus in Jeremiah chapter i, 11, he saw a watching rod; and in Lamentations i, 14, it says: "The yoke of my iniquities has watched," that is, the captivity came swiftly, which I merited by my sins.
Verse 15: And now, O Lord
15. And now, O Lord. — This is the second part of the prayer, in which he implores the mercy of God through His former beneficence toward the Jews.
According to this day — as we see today that Thou hast and retainest such a name, that Thou gloriously didst free our fathers from Egypt.
Verse 16: O Lord, against all Thy justice
16. O Lord, against all Thy justice. — Supply: we have sinned, because we have violated all Thy justices, that is, Thy just laws. Secondly, "against," that is "according to," "all Thy justice," supply: we are punished and justly suffer these evils of captivity, so that these words are referred to what precedes.
But since a new verse begins here, these words are rather to be referred to what follows, as if to say: According to Thy mercy and fidelity, remit both the guilt and the punishment to us who are penitent. Justice here, therefore, is the same as mercy. Thus in Psalm CXLII, 1, it says: "Hear me in Thy justice," that is, in Thy mercy. Hence the Seventy here translate: In Thy mercy let Thy fury be turned away. Again, justice is the same as fidelity, by which God promised pardon to the penitent, not on account of merits, but on account of His own clemency. Fourthly, Vatablus explains it thus: As Thou art just, so also be merciful, and turn Thy anger from us. But the third sense is the genuine one.
Verse 17: Show Thy face
17. Show Thy face. — In Hebrew it is: Make Thy face to shine, that is, look upon Thy temple with a bright, serene, benign, and friendly face, so as to restore it.
For Thine own sake — for Thy immense goodness and clemency, not for our merits, because Thou art most good and most merciful, not because we deserve this grace.
Verse 18: And the city upon which Thy name is invoked
18. And the city upon which Thy name is invoked. — Look graciously upon Jerusalem, which was and was called Thy city, in which Thou hadst Thy temple, as it were Thy house and palace, in which Thou wast worshipped and invoked.
Verse 21: While I was yet speaking
21. While I was yet speaking. — Note here the power of prayer: "Through prayers, visions are revealed to Daniel, flames are put to sleep, wild beasts are blunted, foes and enemies are conquered," says St. Chrysostom, Sermon on Moses, vol. I.
Furthermore, if you wish your prayer to be efficacious, and that God may do your will, first, together with Daniel, fear God and carry out the will of God: for He Himself will do the will of those who fear Him. Moses prayed many times to the Lord to remove the plagues from the Egyptians, and he was heard, even though they were wicked, Exodus vii, viii, ix, and x. Why? Because Moses did the will of God.
After the worship of the golden calf, the Lord seemed to wish to destroy the people; but Moses by the urgency of his prayer obtained pardon for them, Exodus xxxii.
When the children of Israel were against the Philistines, they said to Samuel: "Do not cease to cry to the Lord our God for us, that He may save us from the hand of the Philistines." And he cried to the Lord, and was heard, 1 Samuel viii.
When the crowds rising up against Moses and Aaron were perishing by a divinely kindled fire, at Moses' bidding Aaron offered incense, went into the midst, and when he had prayed, the flame stopped and the slaughter ceased, Numbers xvi.
St. Wilfrid, Bishop of York, as Bede attests, Book V of his History, chapter xx, in the year of the Lord 703, was freed from death by the prayers of his own people. For when he was laboring under a terminal illness, St. Michael stood by him, saying: "For this reason I have been sent, to call you back from death. For the Lord has granted you life through the prayers and tears of your disciples and brethren, and through the intercession of His blessed mother and ever-virgin Mary. Wherefore I say to you: For now indeed you will be preserved from this illness; but be prepared, because after four years I shall return and visit you. Upon reaching your homeland, you will receive back the greatest part of your possessions which were taken from you, and you will end your life in tranquil peace."
A certain dean of France, journeying to Rome, saw Blessed Dominic preaching at Modena. After the sermon he approaches him, and consults with him about the salvation of his soul: among other things he sorrowfully mentions as a kind of inevitable shipwreck that he cannot bridle the lust of the flesh, which forces him, as one desperate, to abstain from other good works. The man of God, having compassion on him, confirms him with the faith of which he was full, saying: "Go, henceforth act manfully, despairing nothing of God's immense mercy. I will obtain for you continence of the flesh." He spoke, and so it was done. For he who before had been impure and unchaste was made chaste and modest. Behold how much the prayer of a just man avails! So it is recorded in his Life, Book IV, chapter vi.
St. Catherine of Siena by her prayers brought about the repentance of two blasphemous and obstinate robbers. The same saint obtained by her prayers before God pardon and salvation for Palmerina, her calumniator, and she saw her soul adorned with wondrous beauty, and Christ saying: "Who would not rightly endure every labor, in order to gain a creature of such great beauty? If I was so seized by love of souls that I shed My blood for them, how much more ought you to take care that such beautiful creatures do not perish?" So her Life records.
The man (having the appearance of a man) Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning. — Namely, in the first vision in which I saw the four beasts, which he explained to me, chapter vii, verses 15 and 16; for although he did not name him there, here however he names him.
Note first: The same Gabriel who was sent to Daniel is the one who was sent to the Blessed Virgin, Luke I, 26; because this embassy of his concerning the 70 weeks, as also his other embassies, was ordered to the mystery of the coming and incarnation of Christ, of whom he was the messenger, Luke I; St. Jerome, on Daniel viii; Irenaeus, Book V, chapter xxv; St. Ambrose, Sermon 63; Andrew of Jerusalem, Sermon on the Annunciation; Suarez, III Part, Question LXXXII, article 1, disputation 9, section 1.
Second, Proclus of Cyzicus, in a homily delivered at the Council of Ephesus, interprets Gabriel as 'God-man'; Theophylact on Luke I interprets it as 'man of God' or 'man of God,' for geber signifies 'man,' and el 'God.' St. Jerome however, and Bernard and others generally, interpret Gabriel as 'the strength' or 'the mighty one of God': because he announced the mighty wars and deeds of God, especially of the incarnation of God, whose name is 'the Mighty One,' Isaiah IX, 6, and who most mightily freed us from the hand of the devil, sin, and hell.
Third, although St. Gregory, Homily 34 on the Gospels; St. Bernard, Book V On Consideration; Abulensis on Matthew xviii, Question LX; St. Thomas, Cajetan, and from them Suarez at the place cited; Barradius and Toletus on Luke I, 26, and Vasquez, Part I, disputation ccxliv, chapter II, no. 11, hold that Gabriel is not a Seraph but belongs to the lowest hierarchy, and is the head and prince of the second order in it, which is called the Archangels — the reason for which view is that from St. Dionysius, chapters ix and xiii of the Celestial Hierarchy, they think that the attending angels, such as those of the first hierarchy, are never sent but always stand before God, while the ministering ones, such as those of the last hierarchy, are sent — nevertheless others hold that Gabriel is a Seraph. For all angels "are ministering spirits sent to serve," as the Apostle says, Hebrews I. If Seraphim are sometimes sent, surely Gabriel is a Seraph, both because the supreme embassy of the incarnation of the Word was entrusted to him, and because he was sent to instruct the Virgin, who in dignity and grace was superior to all the orders of angels. Hence St. Gregory, Homily 34: "For this ministry," he says, "it was fitting that the highest angel should come, since he was announcing the highest of all things." Therefore Hesychius, Homily 2 On the Blessed Virgin, calls Gabriel the prince of the angels; Andrew of Jerusalem calls him one of the first angels. And the Master of the Sentences expressly teaches that he was a Seraph, in Book II, distinction x; Scotus at the same place, sole Question; Durandus, Question I; Molina, Part I, Question CXII; Gregory of Valencia, Part I, On the effect of divine providence, disputation viii, Question VI, point 2; Salmeron, volume III, chapter III, where he asserts that Gabriel is the first after Michael, and the second among the highest Seraphim, sent by God, since the Son of God Himself was sent to men, indeed assuming their flesh, He lived among them for 34 years. He adds that Gabriel signifies, first, 'the strength of God,' because he announces to Daniel the mighty battles and victories of the Persians, Medes, and Greeks; and because he was about to announce to Zechariah the birth from the barren Elizabeth, and to the Blessed Virgin the conception by the Holy Spirit. Second, that Gabriel is the same as 'my man is God,' so that by his very name he might declare what he was coming to announce, namely the birth from her who, being a virgin, would give birth, and instead of a man would have God, that is, the Holy Spirit,
who would bring about this conception. Francis Lucas on Luke I agrees, asserting that Gabriel is among the first angels, most familiar to God and standing nearest to Him, and that his name signifies gabri, that is, 'man, lord, my prince'; el, that is, 'God,' or 'my strong God.' Maldonatus likewise asserts that he is among the first angels; indeed Damascene, in his Sermon on the Dormition of the Mother of God, says he is the first among the angels, and Cedrenus in his Compendium says he is the prince of the angels, that is, one of the first. This therefore seems more true than what St. Bonaventure and some others say, that Gabriel belongs to the middle hierarchy, namely to the order of Principalities, which preside over kingdoms, because he announced Christ the Mediator.
Moreover, although some, such as Toletus on Luke chapter I, hold that Gabriel belongs to the penultimate order, which is that of the Archangels, because he is called an Archangel: yet it seems more true that he belongs to the first order, which is that of the Seraphim, and is therefore one of the first princes of the heavenly court. Indeed, there are some who hold that among the Seraphim he is the very first of all. So holds Cardinal Marcus Viguerius in the Christian Decachord, chord I, chapter II; and he proves it with eight reasons, or rather fitting arguments. For it was fitting, he says, that the one who announced the supreme mystery of the incarnation of Christ to both the Blessed Virgin and Daniel should be the first and highest. First, so that, just as the first angel formerly, so now the first
But this reasoning does not entirely convince. For kings often, when dealing with the greatest business with the Pope or Emperor, send as legate not the absolutely highest, but someone from among the greater and first princes of their court. Besides, Gabriel was sent not only for the supreme business with the Blessed Virgin, but also for lesser matters: concerning the birth of St. John with Zechariah, Luke I, and concerning the wars of the Maccabees with Daniel, chapter x. Finally, the common opinion is that not Gabriel but Michael is the first of all the angels, about which more in chapter xii.
You will say: Gabriel is called an Archangel by St. Athanasius in his Gospel on the Holy Mother of God; by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter xxi; by Ambrose, Book I On the Holy Spirit, chapter vii; by Leo, Sermon 2 On the Nativity; by Augustine, Sermon 18 On the Seasons; by Gregory, Homily 34 on the Gospels: therefore he is of the order of Archangels. I respond: He is called an Archangel, that is, a primary Angel and prince, because he is one of the first and highest angels. Hence Gabriel is called the prince of the Angels by Hesychius, Homily 2, and by Cedrenus cited above.
So Gabriel Vasquez, Part I, volume II, disputation ccxliv, no. 10, where at no. 3 he also considers it probable that the angel who strengthened Christ in the agony of the Passion was Gabriel; for just as Gabriel has his name from strength, so he also has the office of strengthening. He adds that he strengthened Christ not by reinforcing His weakness, but by the extraordinary
because you are most desirable and lovable, you are entirely longing and love: God, the Saints, desire you uniquely, love and long for you. Thus Christ is called the desire of the everlasting hills, Genesis xlix, 26. Hence Symmachus translates it as aner epipothetos, 'a man beloved.'
Verse 24: Seventy weeks are shortened
24. Seventy weeks are shortened. — Note first: A 'week' (hebdomas), that is, a set of seven, is sometimes of days and sometimes of years, as the seven weeks were, that is, 49 years before the jubilee, Leviticus chapter xxv, verse 8. So also here it is taken in this way, as all Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins agree. Seventy weeks, therefore, are 490 years: for multiply 70 by 7, and you will find 490. Therefore Origen errs in Treatise 29 on Matthew when he says a week is not seven but ten years.
More gravely err certain Rabbis who take a week to mean a jubilee, that is, 49 years. For these, they say, make seven small jubilees of 7 years: for seven times seven makes 49. Therefore these 70 weeks, being of jubilees, make 3,430 years, at the completion of which the Messiah will come. But first, nowhere in Scripture is 'week' taken for a jubilee or for 49 years, but at most for a group of seven years. Second, because Daniel says these weeks are 'shortened,' that is, brief and of short duration, as also the other Prophets, and especially Haggai, chapter ii, 7, says the Messiah would come after a short time. But 3,430 is not a short time but the very longest. Third, because Daniel at verse 26 says that at the end of these 70 weeks the temple with the city would be destroyed. But this was already done by Titus: therefore the 70 weeks have long since been completed. Again, therefore, these weeks are of seven years and make in total 490 years. For shortly after they were completed, the temple with the city was destroyed by Titus, and it remains and will remain desolate. Hence the Rabbis also consistently teach that this second temple stood for only 420 years. Fourth, because the Talmud, which all Jews believe, teaches that 70 weeks make only 490 years, in the Tractate Sanhedrin, chapter Chelec, from R. Saadia and other Rabbis. Finally Daniel says at verse 27 that in the half of the week the victim and sacrifice shall fail, and there will be in the temple the abomination of desolation, which will last to the end of the world.
Symbolically Alcazar notes on Apocalypse XI, verse 2, note 4, that the number 490 was celebrated and quasi-sacred among the Hebrews, because it is the tenfold jubilee, or the tenth jubilee. For the jubilee began and was proclaimed every 49th year (for this is seven times seven): multiply 49 by ten, and you get 490. By this number, therefore, it was signified that in this year Christ would bring the full and perfect jubilee. For the number ten is a symbol of perfection.
Note second: These 70 weeks are said to be 'shortened,' and as the Seventy render it, 'cut off,' that is, precisely determined and defined (for this is what the Hebrew nectach signifies) — not that at the prayers of Daniel and the Prophets they were curtailed and made shorter than God had previously decreed, as some wish; nor that these weeks are of lunar rather than solar years (for a lunar year is shorter than a solar one by 11 days), as Theodoret, Bede, and Pererius hold; but that a brief, that is, a few number, have been defined until Christ, whereas God could have appointed far more, and this on account of the prayers and sighs of Daniel and of Isaiah, chapter xlv, verse 8, and of others foreseen by God. Thus in Matthew xxiv, 22, the days of the persecution of the Antichrist are said to be 'shortened,' that is brief, that is few, decreed by God.
Hence most Doctors, including the Scholastics, teach that Daniel, Isaiah, and the other Prophets and Patriarchs merited by congruent merit, not the incarnation itself in substance, but its acceleration and other circumstances, for example, that Christ would be born from David and his descendants. So hold Bonaventure in Book III, distinction IV, article 2, Question I; Gabriel, article 4, doubt 3; Richard, article 3, Question 1; Almainus, Question I, doubt 3; Marsilius, Question V,
article 1, conclusion 3; Alensis, Part III, Question VIII, member III, article 2. To this also inclines St. Thomas; Scotus, and from them Francis Suarez, Part III, Question II, article 10, disputation 10, section vi, and they gather this from this passage. For Gabriel says: "From the beginning of your prayers the word went forth. And I have come to declare to you, because you are a man of desires, etc. Seventy weeks are shortened upon your people, that sin may have an end and everlasting justice may be brought in." For Daniel had prayed, at verses 2, 4 and following, in fasting, sackcloth, and ashes, not only for the return of the Jews from Babylon, but also for the abolition of the sins of the people: and he knew that these could not be abolished except through Christ. So Rupert on Daniel, chapter xvi.
Others say these weeks were shortened because the last one was cut off, not full: for in the middle of it Christ was slain; for in the death of Christ all of them seem to end.
That transgression may be consummated. — The sense is, first, as if to say: Until impiety grows to its summit, so that it can be increased no further — that is, until our Christ is slain, which was the greatest sin. Hence Tertullian, in his book Against the Jews, reads: "Until the offense grows old." So Theodoret, Eusebius, Book VIII of the Demonstration, and St. Chrysostom, Oration 2 Against the Jews. Thus a physician waits for the crisis of the disease, so that it may fully manifest itself and grow to its height; and then he begins the cure when the disease, once fully known, begins to decline.
Second, a simpler and truer sense, as if to say: That Christ may come, who like a lamb on the altar of the cross may consume all the sins of men and utterly blot them out. Hence it follows by way of explanation: "And sin may have an end." For 'consummated' the Hebrew has lehatem, that is, 'that it may be ended.' Some, like Pagninus, reading he instead of cheth, read lachatom instead of lehatem, that is, 'that it may be sealed,' meaning, they say, that it may be hidden and as it were enclosed under a seal so that it no longer appears — which is the same as sin receiving an end. So Pineda on Job xxxvii, 7. But the genuine Hebrew reading has lehatem, not lachatom. Note: Although many sins are committed after Christ, here nevertheless they are said to have received an end: first, because Christ satisfied for all, and thus imposed as it were an end to all our debts, and as far as His part is concerned abolished them. Second, because Christ opened heaven for us, removed idolatry, overcame the devil, and conferred upon us grace and sacraments so efficacious that, if we wish, we can most easily overcome every sin, as holy men and all true Christians do overcome it. For Christianity is "the death of crimes, the life of virtues," as Cyprian says, Book III, Epistle 2 to Donatus.
And everlasting justice may be brought in. — In Hebrew it is tsedec olamim, 'the justice of the ages,' that is, Christ, who like a sun of justice poured out His rays upon the people of all ages, both before and after Himself, and established the Church as an eternal kingdom of justice, that is, of those who live justly and piously. So the Interpreters, and indeed the Talmudists and the Rabbis generally, understand by this justice the Messiah. See them in Finus, Book V of the Flagellum, chapter v.
Second, the justice of the ages, that is, eternal justice, is our justification and justice received through Christ: for Christ "was made unto us justice," 1 Corinthians I, 30. For this justice in general is directly opposed to the iniquity which He destroyed. This justice is called eternal because it is begun here through grace, and will be perfected by Christ in heaven through eternal glory.
Hence third, Pintus says: Eternal justice is the Gospel, which teaches all justice; hence Isaiah says, chapter xlv, 23: "From My mouth goes forth the word of justice." This sense is not the direct one, but derived from the first and second.
And vision may be fulfilled. — For Christ, being born and dying, fulfilled this vision of Daniel and the visions, that is, the prophecies, of all the other Prophets. In Hebrew it is lachtom, that is, 'to seal the vision.' So the Seventy, Vatablus, and others. But 'to seal' means 'to fulfill.' Thus St. Chrysostom, Oration 2 Against the Jews: "It was necessary," he says, "that prophecies cease after Christ: for this is to seal, that is, to bring to a stop the vision. Hence Christ said: The Law and the Prophets were until John." Likewise Tertullian, in his book Against the Jews, adds the reason, saying: "For He (Christ) was the seal of all the Prophets, fulfilling all that the Prophets of old had announced concerning Him. For after the coming of Christ and His passion, there is no longer a vision or a Prophet to announce that Christ is to come, etc. Hence he most truly says that His coming confirms vision and prophecy." For 'to seal' here is the same as 'to put a seal upon': for when a thing is completed and perfected, it is customarily sealed; for a seal is a sign of the completion and perfection of a thing. Thus documents, letters, testaments, cloths, and other things are sealed when they are finished, lest anything be added to or taken from them by anyone. Hence by catachresis, to seal is the same as to fulfill, to complete, to perfect. Therefore Aquila translates: 'to consummate the vision and the prophet.'
And the Holy of Holies may be anointed — that is, that Christ may be consecrated by the Holy Spirit as the most holy priest, king, prophet, teacher, lawgiver, and redeemer of the world. The Hebrews, as I shall presently say, translate: And the holiness of holinesses shall be anointed, or the Holy of Holies; or the sanctuary of sanctuaries — who is none other than the Messiah Himself, sanctified from the sons of David, says R. Barnahaman in Finus, Book V of the Flagellum, chapter v, and R. Moses Gerundensis: "The Messiah," he says, "is called the Sanctuary of sanctuaries, because it was to be that in Him according to His humanity all the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of God would rest; and He Himself was to be anointed above every creature with the oil of grace and the good pleasure of God. Hence He is rightly called in Hebrew 'Messiah'; in Greek 'Christos,' in Latin 'the Anointed.' So he himself says in Gala-
tinus, Book IV, chapter xviii. Therefore Aquila translates: 'to anoint the Sanctified One of the sanctified.' The Syriac renders: 'Seventy weeks shall rest upon your people, and to complete the vision and the Prophets, and unto Christ the Holy of Holies.' Here the word 'Holy' is not adjectival but substantival, as if to say: 'Who is the holy thing' or 'the holy of holies.' Hence both Arabic versions translate: 'Unto Christ, who is the purity of purities,' or 'the holiness of holinesses.' Hence the Roman Pontiff is called 'Our Most Holy Lord,' or 'His Holiness,' both because he represents Christ, who is the Holy of Holies, and because by this title he is reminded of what he ought to be who is the pastor and bishop of so many millions of souls, that he may lead them all to the holiness and salvation won by Christ.
Note: The nature of holiness consists in the conformity and agreement of the will and works with the eternal law, which is in the mind of God; for he is holy, that is, just and perfect, who conforms his conduct to this law. Hence holiness is purity from every stain, says St. Dionysius, chapter xii of the Divine Names. Likewise it is love and union with God; for the more one turns his mind away from earthly and impure things and lifts it up to God, the holier he becomes.
Now Christ as God is uncreated, immense, and essential holiness itself; but as man He is most holy, not only through the grace infused into His soul, by which He far surpasses and transcends all angels and holy men, but also through the grace of the hypostatic union, by which in the humanity of Christ the fullness of both divinity and holiness dwells bodily. This is an admirable and incomprehensible sanctification, inasmuch as He has been appointed by God as the fountain of expiation and sanctification for the human race. From His fullness we have all received, and what remains still suffices for washing away the sins of a thousand worlds and for sanctifying infinite souls. Hence from eternity we have been predestined in Christ, that we should be holy and immaculate in the sight of God, Ephesians I. The holiness of Christ, therefore, is the efficient, meritorious, exemplary, and final cause of all human holiness. For all our holiness must be conformed to the holiness of Christ as its exemplar, and directed to His glory as to its end, so that He may be honored, praised, and glorified forever in all those whom He has redeemed and sanctified. Furthermore, He was anointed by this grace of union, that is, sanctified and consecrated in the incarnation, but was anointed publicly, that is, declared and proclaimed to the whole world, in His baptism. Hence we owe to Christ the highest reverence, gratitude, love, obedience, following, and submission.
Verse 25: From the going forth of the word for Jerusalem to be built again
25. From the going forth of the word for Jerusalem to be built again — from the time when from Artaxerxes the word and edict shall go forth by which he shall permit and give to Nehemiah and the Jews leave to rebuild Jerusalem. Behold, here the angel tacitly acknowledges that Daniel's prayer has been heard: for when he says Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, he implies that the Jews will return from captivity to Jerusalem; and moreover he foretells that from this year until Christ (who was the desire of Daniel's desires and of all the Prophets) there would be seventy weeks. Hence in Hebrew, literally, it reads: From the going forth of the word to cause to return (or, to restore) and to build, that is, to cause the building to return, that is, to bring about a return to the building of Jerusalem; which our translator clearly renders, "for Jerusalem to be built again." On which phrase more below. For Nehemiah, having obtained a decree from Artaxerxes, arranged that the Jews might return with him freely and safely from Persia to Judea for the rebuilding and restoration of Jerusalem.
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks — that is, sixty-nine weeks: add one, which he treats of in the next verse, and you will have seventy.
This is a famous passage concerning the coming of the Messiah, whose birth, baptism, passion, and death are here precisely marked out in detail. Therefore from this passage the Jews are manifestly convicted, and it is clearly demonstrated that the Messiah came long ago and is Jesus Christ, because in Him these 70 weeks are completed.
The Talmudists, R. Solomon, and the Hebrews generally, in order to evade this weapon, so sharp and certain, bring forward here an exposition that is plainly forced and violent, indeed involving a contradiction, and destroying both itself and the Jews themselves. For they hold that the passage does not treat of Christ but of the temple: for instead of 'Holy of Holies' the Hebrew has 'holiness of holinesses,' that is, the temple. They say therefore that these weeks are to be divided into two parts, and that by them the state and duration of the two temples of Jerusalem is signified: namely, that the first part consists of the first ten weeks, which make 70 years, which they say begin from the destruction of the temple of Solomon, accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar, and end in the rebuilding of the second temple, which was accomplished by Zerubbabel with the permission of Darius Hystaspes, in the sixth year of his reign, as is stated in 1 Ezra vi, 15; for from that destruction of the first temple up to the rebuilding of the second temple under
Darius, they say, ten initial weeks elapsed, that is, 70 years. The latter part of them, they say, are the remaining 60 weeks, which make 420 years, during which they assert the second temple lasted, namely: under the reign of the Persians for 43 years; then under the reign of the Greeks for 180 years; then under the Maccabees for 103; then under Herod and his successors for 103 years — which all together make 420 years, that is, the 60 weeks already mentioned. And so they begin these 70 weeks at the destruction of the first temple and end them at the destruction of the second temple. So Finus, Book V of the Flagellum, chapter v, and Peter Galatinus, Book IV of the Secrets of the Faith, chapters xiv ff., report in the very words of the Talmudists and R. Solomon.
But that these claims are frivolous, false, and contradictory is clear, first, because these weeks are introduced by the angel to measure out, not the duration of the temple, but the time of the coming of the Messiah; namely that after 70 weeks, that is, after 490 years, Christ would be born, would die, and would be immolated for the salvation of the world; for His words clearly signify this when he says: "Seventy weeks are shortened, that transgression may be consummated and sin may have an end, etc., and the Holy of Holies may be anointed." And again: "Know therefore and take note: From the going forth of the word for Jerusalem to be built again, until Christ the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks."
R. Solomon meets this and responds: for 'the Holy of Holies shall be anointed,' in Hebrew it reads 'kodes kadascim shall be anointed,' that is, 'the Holiness of holinesses,' meaning 'the most holy temple.' Therefore the passage treats of the temple, not of Christ. I respond that this cannot be said, first, because at the end of the 70 weeks the temple was not anointed, that is, consecrated, but profaned and burned by the Romans, as R. Solomon himself admits: therefore these words cannot be taken of the temple, but of Christ, who is the holiness of holinesses, that is, the Holy of Holies, that is, the most holy and the supreme holiness, as Leo the Hebrew translates. Thus we call the Pontiff 'His Holiness,' that is, 'Most Holy Lord.' Thus we say to a prince, 'His Highness'; to a king, 'His Majesty.' That this is so is clear because Daniel thus explains it when he adds: "Until Christ the Prince, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." Second, it is better read in Hebrew with other vowel points as kedos kedoscim, that is, 'Holy of Holies,' as our translator reads it, which applies to Christ alone, not to the temple. In the same way, if you read 'Holiness of holinesses,' it is certain that Christ is meant, not the temple. For Christ brought in justice, abolished sin, and expiated it as a sacrificial victim. Hence for 'iniquity shall be blotted out,' the Hebrew has lecapper avon, that is, 'to make propitiation for sin,' and as Aquila translates, 'to expiate sin,' like a sacrifice for sin, which is the expiation of sin — such was Christ; for this is called copher. Third, neither the temple, nor Cyrus, nor Nehemiah, nor Zerubbabel, nor Agrippa,
nor any other person was anointed at that time, because that oil was lacking in the second temple according to the Rabbis. Hence in the book of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, chapter Elluben huggolim, that is, 'These are the captives,' R. Samuel says: "Five things were lacking in the second temple which were in the first, namely: the fire, the ark, the urim and thummim (that is, the Breastplate of Judgment with the ephod), the oil of anointing, and the Holy Spirit." The same is found in the Midrash on the Song of Songs, that is, in the Exposition of the Canticle of Canticles.
You will say: In Hebrew kodes means 'temple' in verse 26, where it says: "And the city and the sanctuary (in Hebrew kodes) a people with their leader that shall come will destroy"; therefore here too it means temple, not Christ. I respond by denying the consequence; for there it is joined to the city and is said to be destroyed together with it by Titus, which is clearly to be taken of the temple; especially because the angel already foretold that Christ was to be slain before the destruction of the city and temple: hence it is clear he is speaking of the temple, not of Christ. It is different here, where he foretells the anointing of the holiness of holinesses, which will bring in everlasting justice, and abolish sin, and fulfill the visions of the Prophets: for these things Christ did, not the temple.
Finally, R. Moses Gerundensis, R. Ozia in the Seder Olam, R. Joshua at the same place, R. Barnahaman, R. Barachias, R. Moses Tironensis, R. Hioces, R. David, R. Abraham, R. Chaldias, who were the authors of the Talmud, whom Finus and Galatinus cite above — even granting that they think these 70 weeks denote the time of the temple's duration — nevertheless they all with one voice assert that at the end of these 70 weeks the Messiah will come, and they understand by the everlasting justice the Messiah.
Second, because here the angel consoles Daniel, who is afflicted and beseeching for the liberation of the people, saying that after 70 weeks the people will be freed from all captivity through Christ: therefore he does not here define the time of the duration of each temple — namely that the desolation of the first will last 70 years, and the second will endure 420 years and then be destroyed forever; for these things are sad, not joyful and consolatory. But it is established that this angel is consoling Daniel and bringing him the glad tidings that his prayers have been heard.
Third, these 70 weeks are to be begun from the going forth of the word for Jerusalem to be built again, already destroyed by the Chaldeans, as the angel says: therefore wrongly, indeed contrary to the angel's words, the Jews begin them from the destruction of the temple, already accomplished by the Chaldeans. For the angel does not say: From the going forth of the destruction, but of the building of Jerusalem are they to be begun.
Fourth, the destruction of the temple, which is here predicted as future — as the Jews claim, at the end of the 70 weeks — was not the taking away of sin, the bringing in of everlasting justice, or the anointing of the Holy of Holies, which the angel nevertheless here asserts of the same period; but rather it was the overthrow of all these things, and of the entire religion and nation of the Jews.
Fifth, the Rabbis err in their computation of years. For the Talmudists in Megillah, chapter I, teach that from the destruction of the first temple to the building of the second, 78 years elapsed. But the second temple stood not merely 420 years, but at least 583 years; for that is the number from the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes, in which this temple was completed, as is stated in 1 Ezra vi, 16, up to the year 72 after the death of Christ, in which it was destroyed by Titus. Again, according to the Jews' reckoning, the 70 weeks, that is 490 years, begin from the destruction of the first temple, which occurred in the last year of Zedekiah, which was the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and end at the destruction of the second temple, which Titus and the Romans accomplished 38 years after the death of Christ, slain by the Jews. But from Josephus and from all other historians the contrary is established, namely that not merely 490 but far more years elapsed, namely 668. Indeed Josephus counts even more. For in Book VII of the Jewish War, chapter xviii, he says: "From King David to Titus (by whom Jerusalem was destroyed), 1,179 years. And from the time it was founded (Jerusalem) to its destruction, 2,177 years." Now from David to the last year of Zedekiah, in which Jerusalem with the temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, there are 470 years, as is clear from the years of David, Solomon, and their successors, which are recorded in the Books of Kings: therefore 709 years remain to complete the total of 1,179 years which Josephus says elapsed from David to the destruction of Jerusalem. And so according to Josephus's reckoning, from Zedekiah to Titus not 490 years, as the Jews claim, but 709 years elapsed. And lest you say there is an error in Josephus's numbers, the same Josephus collects and reckons the same number by parts in Book XX of the Antiquities, chapter viii.
Sixth, the Jews agree that these weeks terminate at the destruction of the second temple, accomplished by Titus and the Romans: but according to the angel's meaning, these weeks terminate in Christ and His death; for the words clearly signify this: "Until Christ the Prince, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain." Therefore from the Jews' own position it follows that the Messiah, namely Christ, has already come and lived around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and was therefore Jesus Christ. For no other can be imagined, unless someone says that Titus, in whom these weeks end, is the Messiah. But not even the Jews themselves would accept him, since they execrate him as the destroyer of their temple and nation.
R. Solomon responds that by 'Christ' here Cyrus is meant, who released them from the Babylonian captivity. For Isaiah, chapter xlv, calls him 'Christ,' saying: "Thus says the Lord to My anointed Cyrus." But this involves a contradiction: first, because what Daniel says here about Christ does not apply to Cyrus — namely, that He would be the Holy of Holies, that He would consummate
transgression, would put an end to sin, and would bring in everlasting justice, and therefore would be nagid, that is, the leader of the faithful and Christian people; for nagid among the Hebrews is the name for one who presides over the people in either political or ecclesiastical affairs, namely a prelate, governor, leader, prince; or one who goes before and leads the company, as a captain and commander of an army. For nagid is derived from neged, that is, 'before'; hence nagid is the same as predecessor, leader, commander: and this is what the Greek hegoumenos signifies, as the Seventy here translate it. And such a leader of the faithful people was Christ, not Cyrus, who was an unbeliever.
Thus in Jeremiah chapter xx, 1, Pashhur is called nagid, that is, prince in the house of the Lord. And in Nehemiah chapter xi, 11, Seraiah the priest is called nagid, that is, prince of the house of God, that is, the chief prelate, as Marinus of Brescia translates in his Lexicon. And King Solomon, 3 Kings I, 13, is called nagid, that is, leader over Israel. And Saul, 1 Samuel ix, 15, is commanded by Samuel to be anointed as nagid, that is, king and leader, to save the people from the hand of the Philistines.
Second, these weeks begin many years after Cyrus, namely from Artaxerxes: for it was he, not Cyrus, who gave the Jews the power to rebuild the city, as is clear from Nehemiah II, 5. For from that point the angel teaches they are to be begun, saying: "From the going forth of the word for Jerusalem to be built again, weeks," etc. Add to this: Cyrus was already reigning when Daniel receives this vision, and in this very year he dismissed the Jews from Babylon. It is therefore false that the 70 weeks, that is 490 years, are to be counted up to Cyrus, which this angel asserts are to be counted up to Christ. Therefore Aben-Ezra admits that by 'Christ' here is not meant Cyrus but Nehemiah. Others take it as Zerubbabel, others as Herod Agrippa the younger, who was a patron and protector of the Jews. But these are refuted by the same arguments. Besides, none of them was slain, which Daniel here says of Christ.
Other Rabbis respond that the passage does indeed treat of Christ, but that by these 70 weeks the time of His coming is not defined — as though He would come in the seventieth and last — but rather that during them the Jews would merit that He should come in His own time. But to say nothing of the fact that they rather merited the destruction which the Romans inflicted on them, the very words of the angel exclude this interpretation; for he says: "Until Christ the Prince, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain." Therefore the weeks define the time of Christ's coming. Hence R. Solomon admits that the Jews did not merit this coming of the Messiah during the time of the 70 weeks; but that after they were finished, during this long and interminable captivity, they would merit it. But this too is said absurdly: for during 1,500 years no fruit of this merit has appeared, so that either the Messiah or some Prophet announcing the Messiah might show himself. Furthermore, the Jews, addicted to usury, fraud, and sorcery, are now just as wicked, or more so, than they were of old, so that they seem to merit not the coming of the Messiah but rather His hatred, their reprobation, and extreme desolation.
Wrongly, therefore, R. Solomon explains the angel's words thus: "that transgression may be consummated" means that the Jews should desist from their transgressions, and by this merit before God that their iniquity be blotted out through their present captivity. Similarly, "that justice may be brought in" means, he says, that the Messiah may come, through whom the Jews may be justified forever, and then finally the vision and prophecy may be fulfilled, so that through the merits of the Jews the promises made by the prophets concerning Christ may be fulfilled. Wrongly, I say; for the Hebrew literally reads: It is cut off, determined, and defined (that there shall be) upon your people and upon the city of your sanctuary seventy weeks, for consummating transgression, and for finishing sin, and for blotting out iniquity, and for bringing in the justice of the ages, and for fulfilling the vision and the prophecy, and for anointing the Holy of Holies. So translate the Seventy, Leo the Hebrew, Galatinus, and others; by which words it is clearly signified that precisely 70 weeks have been decreed by God until the consummation of sin and the bringing in of justice, so that when they are finished, sin is immediately consummated, justice is brought in, and the Holy of Holies is anointed. For to all these things the angel assigns the time of the 70 weeks: therefore all those things must necessarily be fulfilled within the 70 weeks; for to this end (namely, that all those things may happen) these weeks have been cut off and defined, as the Hebrew words state. Hence the angel, explaining this very point, adds: "Know therefore and take note: from the going forth of the word for Jerusalem to be built again, until Christ the Prince, seven weeks, sixty-two weeks," etc.
Second, the angel says that in the middle of the 70th week the victim and sacrifice, which were customarily offered for sin, would fail; therefore much more does he presuppose that the private merits and satisfactions of the Jews would fail: for these depend on public worship of God, on sacrifices and sacraments. Now since it is established that the victim and sacrifice failed at the destruction by Titus, it follows that at that time the 70 weeks also were completed, along with all the merit and all the good of the Jews. For what do the Jews now merit before God, who have been consigned by Him to oblivion, cast off, and exposed to the servitude of all nations for sixteen centuries?
Third, the angel says here that the 70 weeks have been precisely decreed and defined by God. I ask: for what purpose, or for what thing are they defined? Surely so that when they are completed, "the Holy of Holies may be anointed," as the angel says, namely the Messiah; and at the same time, so that through Him transgression may be consummated, iniquity may be blotted out, justice may be brought in, and the vision may be fulfilled. For these things in the Hebrew are set down and joined together in the same tenor and syntax, by the conjunction 'and,' without any article (as is clear from the Hebrew words already cited), so that they cannot be separated from one another. There are established here, therefore, the time and the limit — namely 70 weeks — after which Christ should come, who would accomplish these three things: first, the propitiation, expiation, and abolition of sin; second, the bringing in of everlasting justice; third, the fulfillment of all visions and prophecies, as the Talmudists and other Rabbis already cited acknowledge. Hence the angel says: "Upon your people and upon the holy city"; because it was to the Jews specifically, not to the Gentiles, that the Messiah was promised by God through the Prophets and was also sent at the end of the weeks.
R. Solomon objects that the 62 weeks are divided by Daniel from the seven weeks; for he says: "Until Christ the Prince, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," as if to say: Seven weeks
the first weeks, during which the Jews under Nehemiah built Jerusalem with great labor, poverty, and fear of enemies; hence it follows that these weeks, the seven and the 62, are not to be separated or divided, but joined together. Nor should anyone suspect that the Hebrew reads differently. For literally it reads: Until Christ the Prince, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It shall return, and the street shall be built (not 'it shall stand' or 'it shall endure,' as R. Solomon wrongly explains) and the ditch, or the moat and wall, and that in straitness of times. So translate the Seventy, Leo the Hebrew, Galatinus, and others generally, and it is clear to anyone looking at the text. Moreover, why the angel counts the seven weeks and the 62 separately, I shall explain below.
And so from the Hebrew text it is clear that the seven weeks are not to be separated from the 62, but joined to them; for they are joined to them by the conjunction ve, that is 'and,' and both lack the article, by which the Hebrews customarily signify a change of case. For if what R. Solomon wants were intended, the article lamed or the preposition beth would have had to be added, in this way: lescissim or bescissim, that is, 'in sixty-two weeks it shall return,' that is, 'the street shall again be built'; and instead of 'shall be built,' it should have said 'shall stand' or 'shall endure.'
They object secondly that the beginning of this verse should be translated differently from the Hebrew; namely, instead of 'from the going forth of the word,' they translate 'concerning the going forth of the word,' as if here not the terminus from which the 70 weeks are to be begun is denoted, but only the subject matter about which the angel was speaking. For he had said above: "From the beginning of your prayers the word went forth," so that the meaning would be: You, Daniel, know and take note concerning the going forth of the word for Jerusalem to be built again — that is, pay attention and understand how the word gone forth from the Lord concerning the building of Jerusalem is to be understood: because, namely, until Christ the Prince, that is, until Cyrus, there will be seven weeks. But that this is false is clearly demonstrated. First, because the angel here designates not the subject matter but the beginning and end of the 70 weeks, so that we may know where to begin them and where to end them. Otherwise it would be ridiculous and nonsensical — namely, to say that there would be 70 weeks without indicating when they would occur, when they are to be begun and when ended. Therefore R. Solomon and the Jews are trifling and ridiculous, who, in order to evade this weapon concerning the coming of Christ, truncate these 70 weeks at both head and tail, at beginning and end, so as to thrust them back into darkness, and it cannot be known where we should begin them or where we should end them.
Second, when the angel says: "Until Christ the Prince, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," he clearly designates the end of the weeks, namely that they are to be completed in Christ the Prince. Therefore the earlier part must be translated "from the going forth of the word," not "concerning the going forth," so as to indicate their beginning and starting point. Otherwise the angel would reveal to Daniel in vain that Christ would come at the end of the 70 weeks. For Daniel would say: O angel! you reveal nothing to me about the time of Christ — it is still just as obscure to me as before; for what do I know whether these seventy weeks will occur after some thousands of years, since you do not indicate to me their beginning? Again, if you translate "concerning the going forth," the words do not cohere; but they do cohere if you translate "from the going forth." For what sense is there in: concerning the going forth of the word until Christ the Prince? For the angel joins these words together, although the Jews by their perverse interpretation separate them, but wrongly. If you translate: "From the going forth of the word for Jerusalem to be built again, until Christ the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks" — the words cohere perfectly and are most clear: for they indicate where Daniel should begin the 70 weeks, namely from the going forth of the word for Jerusalem to be built again; and where the same are to end, namely in Christ the Prince — so that each person, counting them by individual years from their starting point up to the 70th and last, may have and know precisely the time when the Messiah, so longed for by all, would come: which was unknown and hidden before this prophecy. For this is what the angel here reveals to Daniel, and through him makes known to all.
Third, the Seventy translate thus: apo exodou logou tou apokrithēnai, kai tou oikodomēsai Ierousalēm heōs christou hēgoumenou, hebdomades hepta kai hebdomades hexēkonta duo, that is, 'from the going forth of the word that it be answered, and that Jerusalem be built, until Christ the leader, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.' Likewise Leo the Hebrew, Galatinus, Pagninus, and other Hebrews generally. Indeed even the Talmudists themselves and the more recent Rabbis, compelled by the truth, at length acknowledge that it should be translated "from the going forth of the word," not "concerning the going forth," and that the starting point of the weeks is indicated here; which they say is the year of Zedekiah, or the last year in which Jerusalem with the temple was destroyed by the Chaldeans, and from there they count seven weeks, which the angel names separately, that is, 49 years, up to Cyrus, or the fourth year in which Jeremiah, chapter xxix, prophesied, and the word went forth from the mouth of God that after 70 years of the Babylonian captivity Jerusalem would be rebuilt; and from there up to the building of the second temple under Darius, they count their first ten weeks, that is, 70 years, although they themselves admit there were 78. Likewise, while they count 49 years to Cyrus, they themselves admit there were more, namely 52. For they say the 49 extended only to Belshazzar, who preceded Cyrus. And so the Jews, driven into straits here, in order to escape this Christian argument, twist themselves in every direction, but do not extricate themselves; and in many ways they contradict themselves and cut their own throats, as liars are accustomed to do.
Therefore Lyra truly says here at the end of the chapter: "There remains," he says, "no excuse for the Jews from the diversity of computations, since the time of the seventy weeks, which is treated here, however it may be computed, has passed into the past by a thousand (indeed 1,600) years and more. Therefore only malicious obstinacy keeps them in their perfidious expectation of the Messiah."
It is therefore a fabrication and a paradox that R. Solomon here invents two Christs, namely a first, of whom it is said: "Until Christ the Prince," and this one is Cyrus; and a second, of whom it is said: "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain," and this one is Herod Agrippa, who is called Messiah because he was a patron and protector of the Jews. For that this Herod was not slain, as R. Solomon pretends, but was allied with the Romans and exalted by them, Josephus teaches, Book III of the Jewish War, chapters iii, v ff. And Cornelius Tacitus, Book V, says that Agrippa in the Jewish War followed the side not of the Jews but of the Romans, and therefore was held in great honor and favor among the Romans. Moreover, the very connection of the weeks and the words, and the same number, plainly prove that one and the same thing, one and the same Christ, is treated of here.
And so since it is certain and clear that what follows — "And the street shall be built again and the walls in straitness of times" — cannot be joined to what immediately preceded, namely: "And there shall be sixty-two weeks," but must be referred somewhat earlier, to "the seven weeks"
will extend to Cyrus, who will be favorable to the Jews, and as it were their Christ; then there will be 62 weeks, during which Jerusalem will be built and will stand, but in straitness, because it will be harassed by the Persians, Greeks, and Romans; and at the end of them another of the Jews' Christs will be slain by the Romans, namely Herod Agrippa.
But this cannot be said: for it is false that "from the going forth of the word," that is, from the edict to rebuild Jerusalem, until Christ the Prince, there were only seven weeks; for soon the angel counts 70. Indeed R. Solomon himself, dividing these weeks into two parts, assigns to the first part not seven but ten weeks: for he says that so many elapsed from the destruction of the first temple up to the building of the second temple, namely up to the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes, as I said at the beginning. Again, elsewhere he himself and other Rabbis generally say that not 70 but 78 years elapsed up to this year of Darius: therefore they contradict themselves here, as in many other matters.
Second, it is false that during 62 weeks the street and the walls of Jerusalem were built in straitness of times. For these walls were restored by Nehemiah in a few days, namely 52, as is stated in Nehemiah vi, 15. For this straitness of times lasted only a few days, namely until the death of Sanballat, who was impeding this building of the walls, as is stated in the same place.
Third, that these 62 weeks do not refer to the building of the temple but to Christ is clear from the fact that he immediately adds: "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain." Where it is plainly understood as Christ, of whom he said shortly before: "Until Christ the Prince, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." As is clear both from the name of Christ and from the same number of sixty-two weeks.
Finally, Daniel here predicts that the Jews would be adversaries of Christ, indeed His killers, when he says: "And the people that shall deny Him shall not be His" (how these words are derived from the Hebrew I shall show below), and therefore "in the half of the week (the 70th and last, in which they will kill Christ) the victim and the sacrifice shall fail, and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation, and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation and the end," as the Seventy, our translator, Galatinus, Leo the Hebrew, and others render it. What could be clearer? In vain, therefore, the Jews await the restoration of their temple and nation through their Messiah: and so we see them suffering a heavier captivity now for 1,600 years than their fathers or any other nations have ever endured. For they perpetually lack a city, a republic, a temple, sacrifices, and Prophets; and they seem to have been plainly consigned by God to oblivion, neglected, cast out, and rejected, until they acknowledge our Christ as their own. Hector Pintus reports in Ezekiel xvi, 27, that he disputed with Jews at Rome, and when he clearly convicted them, they passed on as obstinately as if they had been insensible and deranged in mind; indeed, they were so pertinacious that one of them said to him: Even if you show me more clearly than the noonday sun that Christ is the Messiah, I still will not believe.
Now the difficult question among interpreters is how these 70 weeks are to be precisely computed. I knew a noble man, a Catholic and a man of letters, who spent many years investigating this question, and when he could not extricate himself from it, and entangled himself more day by day, he unhappily fell into madness and insane Judaism. The principal difficulty concerns the starting point of these weeks, namely in which year precisely we should begin them. There are many and varied opinions here, which I shall reduce to a few main positions.
First, some begin them from the 13th year of Josiah, when Jeremiah began, at chapter I, II, to prophesy concerning the destruction and calamities of Jerusalem. Second, Lyra, Burgensis, Vatablus, and Galatinus, Book IV, chapter xvi, following the Hebrews, hold they should be begun before the Babylonian captivity, namely from the 4th year of Zedekiah, when the word and promise of the Lord went forth through Jeremiah, chapter xxix, concerning the restoration of Jerusalem. Third, others following other Hebrews begin them from the 11th year of Zedekiah, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Chaldeans. Fourth, St. Hippolytus, as St. Jerome attests here, begins them from the 20th year of the Babylonian captivity, namely fifty years before Cyrus, who relaxed it in the 70th year. Fifth, Origen, as St. Jerome attests here, and Tertullian in his book Against the Jews, begin them from the first year of Darius the Mede, one year before Cyrus. Sixth, Clement of Alexandria, Book I of the Stromata, and Eusebius, Book VIII of the Demonstration, begin them from the first year of Cyrus. Seventh, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 12, begins them from Darius Hystaspes, under whom the temple was rebuilt. Eighth, Sulpicius Severus, Book II of his History, whom Scaliger follows, Book VI On the Emendation of Times, begins them from Darius Nothus, whom
because, although the Hebrews used lunar years, nevertheless every third year they added a month from the days that had accumulated, and thus through intercalations they equalized lunar years with solar ones, both to accommodate themselves and their affairs to the chronicles and chronology of other nations, and on account of Passover and Pentecost, so that they might always celebrate them at the fitting time established by the law, namely after the vernal equinox on the 14th day of the first month: for otherwise, since a lunar year is shorter than a solar one, they would often have had to celebrate Passover either before the vernal equinox, or in a different month than the first. Hence Lyranus, who was of Hebrew origin and extremely well-versed in Hebrew matters, says: "Those are mistaken who think the Hebrews ever used such (lunar) years; otherwise the whole sequence of the Old Testament falters." Galatinus asserts the same, book IV, chapter XIV, and in chapter XV he attempts to compute these years by solar years, beginning from the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and reckoning them through the years of each successive king up to Christ; hence
I say secondly: It is more probable that these 490 years are common, that is, solar years, and since when computing backwards from Christ according to these years, the first of them falls in the 7th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, I say it appears certain a posteriori that these 70 weeks must be begun from this 7th year of Artaxerxes; for if you begin from elsewhere, you will not fill out the number of 490 common or solar years, as all agree. Therefore since this 7th year of Artaxerxes coincides with the 4th year of the 80th Olympiad, and with the year 297 from the founding of the City; and Christ's baptism fell in the 15th year of Tiberius, which year coincides with the 4th year of the 201st Olympiad, and with the year 781 of the City; it follows that from this year of Artaxerxes up to Christ the Leader, that is, up to this time of Christ's baptism, when Christ was established and declared the leader of God's people, the guide and teacher of the Church (God the Father saying: "This is My beloved Son, hear Him") there had elapsed 69 weeks, that is, 483 years. Then in the middle, as the angel says, of the seventieth and last week, that is in the year 487, which was the 18th of Tiberius Caesar, Christ was slain, and three years after Christ's death the 70 weeks end, that is, 490 years. For this is more true than what Africanus, Rupertus, and Bede think, namely that the 70 weeks end precisely in the very year of Christ's Passion. For then Gabriel should have said: At the end (not in the middle) of the week, with Christ slain, the sacrifice and offering shall fail. I compute by Olympiads, because this computation is the most certain, precise, and expeditious; while computation by kings is often interrupted and uncertain, as well as varied and lengthy.
You will object: In the 7th year of Artaxerxes, no decree went out concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem; but the angel declares that these weeks must be begun from this decree: therefore they are not to be begun from this seventh year. Some distinguished chronologists respond ingeniously and aptly that that 20th year of Artaxerxes,
But setting aside these manifold opinions as either manifestly false or improbable, from those things which I have already argued and demonstrated against the Jews, I presuppose with the common opinion of all interpreters, Fathers, and orthodox Doctors that from these 70 weeks it is sufficiently and certainly proven against the Jews that the Messiah, or Christ, has long since come, and was Jesus, whom Christians worship: because by the opinion of all, these weeks end and have ended under that time when Christ lived, although because of the obscurity and variety of so ancient a chronology, it is difficult to assign precisely the first and last year of them, and in this the interpreters vary: for 70 weeks make 490 years, which were long ago completed at the time when Jesus lived. Again, the consecration, leadership, preaching, and slaying of Christ, distributed and assigned here by Daniel through years, fit no one other than Jesus Christ. Finally, the desolation of Jerusalem after the death of Christ, the destruction of the temple, the perpetual ruin of the Jews, and the other things which Daniel here predicts would happen in the last week, were fulfilled at the time of the Passion of Jesus Christ; as is very well known from both sacred and profane histories. See Francisco Suarez, III part., disp. 1, sect. II. Now
I say first: It is probable that these 70 weeks should be begun from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. This is proved: for only in this year do we read that a decree went out from him, and that authority was given to Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem, as is clear from Nehemiah II, 5 and 6.
You will object: This 20th year of Artaxerxes was the 4th year of the 83rd Olympiad; but Christ suffered in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad. Therefore from this 20th year to the Passion of Christ only 477 years elapsed, or excluding on both sides the incomplete final years, 475, for you will find this many if you multiply the intermediate Olympiads by four; for each Olympiad contains four years: but 70 weeks make not 475, but 490 years. Therefore these weeks must be begun 13 years earlier, namely not from the 20th, but from the 7th year of Artaxerxes. I respond that the Jews used lunar years, each of which contains 12 lunations, or lunar months: a lunar month consists of 29 and a half days: for that is the number from one new moon to the next. Whence it follows that a lunar year is 11 days shorter than a solar one: for it has 354 days, while a solar year has 365; therefore 475 solar years make 490 lunar years, and Daniel is speaking of these; hence he also says these weeks are abbreviated. So Julius Africanus, book V of the Annals, Chrysostom, Rupertus, Pererius, Torniellus, Gordonus, and many others.
But, because Scripture throughout uses not lunar but common and solar years; and
he himself calls Ochus; for he thinks that this one restored the temple, not Darius Hystaspis. See St. Jerome and Pererius, who refutes all these things at length throughout book XI.
in which he gave Nehemiah the authority to rebuild Jerusalem, Nehemiah II, 1, was not the 20th from the time when he alone reigned after his father; but from the time when he, while his father Xerxes was still living, began to reign together with him, namely when Xerxes set out for war against the Greeks, which seems to have been in the fifth year of Xerxes: for then the war against the Greeks seems to have broken out. This opinion is gathered from Josephus: for he himself asserts that in the 25th year of Xerxes, that is, the 25th year from the time when Xerxes began to reign, Nehemiah was sent, and that he completed the walls of Jerusalem in the 28th year of Xerxes, that is, the 23rd year of Artaxerxes, from the time when he began to reign with his father Xerxes, which year was the seventh of Artaxerxes reigning alone: for his father Xerxes reigned only 20 years. Therefore, although in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, as Nehemiah says, the decree went out, that is, the command concerning the building of Jerusalem, yet in his 23rd year (which Josephus calls the 28th of Xerxes, that is, the 28th from the beginning of Xerxes' reign), from which he began to reign with his father Xerxes, which was the seventh year of Artaxerxes reigning alone, this decree and command had its issue, that is, its effect; because then according to his prescription the walls of Jerusalem were restored and completed by Nehemiah. Whence it is clear that this issue, that is, the effect, fell in
be built," or, as it is in Hebrew, to build Jerusalem. For thus the Prophets commonly say, "a word went forth," or "a word from the Lord," that is, the Lord began to speak and command. Thus a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the world should be enrolled, that is, when he himself ordered it to be enrolled.
Third, because Scripture seems to count the years of Artaxerxes reigning alone, and to mark the chronology in Ezra and Nehemiah by his seventh, twentieth, and thirty-second years: therefore this 20th year of Artaxerxes is that of his sole reign, not his joint reign with his father, and so Eusebius and others record these years of his.
Fourth, because it is very uncertain whether Artaxerxes began to reign so early with his father, namely in the fifth year of Xerxes: for at that time Artaxerxes seems to have been a boy, and unfit for ruling; indeed after his father's death he barely and with difficulty obtained his father's kingdom. For Artabanus the prefect, after the death of Xerxes, seized the kingdom and held it for seven months. Moreover, Artaxerxes was the youngest of Xerxes' sons; Darius was the elder, whom therefore Xerxes would more likely have left as administrator of the kingdom when going to war rather than Artaxerxes. Hence Artabanus first killed Darius, then plotted against Artaxerxes, so that with him removed he might seize the kingdom, as Justin reports, book III.
Finally, since Scripture wills that the 70 weeks begin from this going forth of the decree of Artaxerxes, it must have recorded this year of the going forth somewhere. For whence otherwise shall we know the beginning of these weeks? It therefore willed that this going forth be sought not from a secular man of doubtful reliability, namely Josephus, but from itself. Wherefore more readily and easily the argument can be answered; and so
the 7th year of Artaxerxes, from which I asserted in the conclusion that the 70 weeks must be begun.
This opinion has been subtly devised, and St. Chrysostom favors it, but it is not without difficulty; for first, it rests entirely on Josephus: but Josephus here, as elsewhere, manifestly errs when he attributes 28 years to the reign of Xerxes, and when at the end of the chapter he asserts that all these things took place during the reign of Xerxes. If during his reign, then also during his lifetime: for Eusebius, Orosius, Diodorus Siculus, Severus Sulpitius, Bede, and others assign to Xerxes only 20 or 21 years. Again, Ezra, chapter VII, and Nehemiah, chapter I, assert that not Xerxes, as Josephus would have it, but Artaxerxes sent both Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem. The cause of Josephus's error seems to have been that historians sometimes confuse these names, Xerxes and Artaxerxes, as if they were one and the same. Hence Thucydides and Charon in Plutarch's Life of Themistocles, Cicero, book XX, epistle to Atticus, Philostratus, book I of the Life of Apollonius, and Probus in the Life of Themistocles, report that Themistocles, condemned to death by the Greeks, fled to Artaxerxes; while Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, and Heraclides in Plutarch above, assert that he fled to Xerxes. For Xerxes in Persian means warrior. Accordingly the name is the same: in Hebrew Achasueros, in Latin Assuerus; in Persian Ochus, Carces, Axurxes, Artaxerxes; in Greek Oxyares, that is, fierce Mars, as I said in chapter XIX on the Pentateuch.
Second, because this opinion seems to somewhat distort the phrase from the going forth of the decree. For this phrase among the Hebrews signifies not the end, nor the execution, but the beginning of speaking, namely the very command of the one speaking and decreeing, especially because there follows: "That
Pererius says that near the end of these seven weeks Queen Esther and Mordecai flourished, who liberated the Jews destined for destruction by Haman, which occurred around the 12th year of Artaxerxes Mnemon, whom Pererius thinks was the husband of Esther, although others think it was Artaxerxes, others Xerxes, others Darius Hystaspis: which must be decided in the book of Esther. Scaliger adds, in book VI of De Emendatione Temporum, that the 62 weeks begin from the 5th year of Artaxerxes Mnemon: for from him Ezra and Nehemiah were sent to Jerusalem. But he errs, for the common opinion is that they were sent by Artaxerxes Longimanus, so surnamed because he had one hand longer than the other.
Moreover, within the 62 weeks four notable events occurred. First, that Alexander came to Jerusalem, sacrificed there to the true God, and honored the high priest Jaddus. Second, the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the wars and victories of the Maccabees against him. Third, the transfer of the scepter and kingdom of the Jews to Herod the foreigner. Fourth, the birth of Christ.
Now by Christ the Leader, all commonly understand Jesus Christ, who at the age of 30, when He was baptized, was established by God as the leader of the faithful people. Therefore it is surprising that Eusebius alone, in book VIII of the Demonstratio, whom Theodoret favors, takes this leader to mean John Hyrcanus, who was the last legitimate high priest of the Jews: for what Gabriel says here about Christ does not fit Hyrcanus, namely that through Him sin shall come to an end, and everlasting justice shall be brought in. Again, Christ was constituted leader in the 69th week, which fell in the 201st Olympiad. But Hyrcanus was constituted high priest by Pompey in the 179th Olympiad; therefore he is not the one whom Daniel here designates.
More foolishly err the Jews, who take this Christ to mean Cyrus, or Herod Agrippa the younger. For what is said here about Christ fits these persons far less than Hyrcanus, as I showed above.
From what has been said it follows that Christ was born in the 65th week, as the Roman Martyrology has (therefore Onuphrius is wrong to place His birth in the 68th week), namely in the 5th year of that same week ending; for from there count the two remaining years of that same week and the 4 following weeks up to the 69th, at the end of which Christ was baptized and constituted leader and teacher of the faithful, and you will have 30 years, which Christ had completed when He was baptized: for four weeks make 28 years. Add to these the two remaining years from the 65th week, and you will have 30 years of Christ the Leader. Therefore it is surprising that certain ancient Martyrologies assign Christ's birth on December 25th to the 63rd week. For thus Christ would have been baptized and made leader in the 67th week, and slain in the 68th, which is false.
Jerusalem," and its streets and walls: even though they are now completely destroyed and desolate. For 'and' here is causal, meaning the same as 'because.' For Daniel here prophesies two things: first, the time when the Messiah will come; second, the restoration of Jerusalem, which belonged to his own time, and which Daniel had so urgently petitioned for. For thus the Prophets, lifted up in God, fly from one time to another, according to chapter IV. The Hebrew literally has: She shall return, and the street shall be built, and the moat; namely around the wall, that is, the wall; she shall return, that is, her citizens shall return from Babylon, namely those of Jerusalem, the Jerusalemites and Jews. But thus he should rather have said: They shall return. Better therefore: She shall return and be built, that is, she shall be built again. This is a frequent Hebraism in Scripture, in which a verb is used for an adverb: 'shall return' for 'again,' 'anew.' So the Septuagint, Leo Hebraeus, and others. See our Ribera on Hosea V, no. 7. The angel repeats and confirms this, both because Daniel had desired and implored the same thing with the deepest prayers, and to indicate the reason why he named seven weeks separately before the 62, namely to indicate that during them the city was to be rebuilt. Moreover, 'street' means the streets of Jerusalem, although Galatinus thinks that the city of Jerusalem itself is called a street on account of its breadth.
In the distress of times. — So the Complutensian Septuagint translates, but the Roman edition reads: And the times shall be emptied; Tertullian: The times shall be renewed. And this first, because the Jews rebuilding Jerusalem were pressed by so many hardships from enemies that they were forced to carry a sword in one hand to defend themselves, and a trowel in the other for building, Nehemiah IV, 17. The same happened under Ezra, as is clear from the fact that the building of the city was impeded until Nehemiah; and from the fact that Nehemiah says he found the wall destroyed and the gates burned. Second, because on account of enemies continually harassing the Jews, Nehemiah and the Jews completed the walls hastily in the most constrained and shortest time, namely 52 days.
After sixty-two weeks. — Supply by Hebraism, after 7 weeks and 62 weeks, that is, after 69 weeks Christ shall be slain; otherwise this verse would contradict the preceding one. Therefore Driedo errs, who in book III of De Sacra Scriptura, chapter V, teaches that Christ was slain in the 62nd week. For Daniel is speaking of the 62 weeks which he shortly before joined with the other seven, as if to say: After the 62 weeks already mentioned, which are joined to the other seven.
Christ shall be slain. — A certain Rabbi in Finus foolishly translates 'shall be cut off,' that is, shall be rejected from the Synagogue, separated, and as it were excommunicated; and R. Levi says, 'shall be cut off,' that is, the Messiah shall be truncated, because the priesthood and pontificate shall be ended by Titus. For the Hebrew כרת (carat) means to cut off, to cut down, to kill, and so Leo Hebraeus and the other Rabbis translate it here.
Hence R. Hosea in Galatinus, book IV, chapter XV, weeping said: "Woe to them, woe to them, woe to those wicked and impious murderers of Israel, for love of whom, that God might forgive their sin, He will send His holy Son, and He will put on human flesh! Woe to them, because on account of their wicked deeds they will rebel against this Messiah! They will not heed the words by which He will command them to be cleansed with the water of purification to atone for their sins; they will not walk in ways pleasing to God, nor do His will; but inflamed with great wrath they will kill Him." Therefore it is surprising that the Septuagint translates 'the anointing shall be destroyed,' that is, the pontifical dignity in the high priest Hyrcanus, who shall be killed, says Theodoret. For in Hebrew it is Masiach, that is, Christ in the concrete, not mesech, that is, anointing in the abstract; and so the Talmudists and Rabbis themselves read. Perhaps the Septuagint did not understand the mystery of the slaying of Christ, or rather they wished to conceal it from the Jews who would not believe it.
Verse 26: And his People shall not be the People who shall Deny Him
26. AND HIS PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE THE PEOPLE WHO SHALL DENY HIM. — In Hebrew ואין לו (veen lo), that is, 'not to Him,' which R. Solomon explains as if to say: Christ, that is, King Agrippa, shall be slain, and he himself shall not be, nor any other king (of the Jews), until the Messiah comes. But it should have been said: And not He himself; but the text says: And not to Him. Moreover, it is false that Agrippa was killed by the Romans, since he was rather increased in petty kingdoms and wealth by them, as I showed above from Josephus and Tacitus. The Septuagint translates: And there shall not be judgment for Him, as if to say: Without judgment, unjustly, and in tumultuous fashion Christ shall be killed by the Scribes and Jews; or rather, as if to say: With the anointing, that is, the pontificate, the government shall perish (for it belongs to it to judge) and the commonwealth. Vatablus: And there shall not be, namely anyone to bring Him help, to free Him from death and from the hands of the Jews. Hence the Arabic: And there is no defender for Him; the Syriac: There is not for Him, namely in such great evils any remedy or escape. Galatinus, book IV, chapter XVIII: And there shall not be for Him, namely what the Jews think, that is, that He shall fall nailed to the cross and completely perish, but He shall rise from death. Our translator renders: And His people shall not be the people who shall deny Him and kill Him. For this is what Hosea clearly says of the same, chapter I: "Call his name, Not my people, for you are not my people, and I am not your God." Hence they themselves, before Pilate who wished to release Christ, denied Him, and shouted against Him: "We have no king but Caesar, crucify Him, crucify Him." Hence Finus, book V of the Flagellum, chapter V, suspects that these words have fallen out of the Hebrew text, or were expunged by the Jews. For it is not likely, he says, that our translator added these from himself. The ancient Hebrews, as St. Jerome testifies, translated and explained it as if to say: His kingdom shall not be what He thought He would redeem, that is, Christ will abandon and completely reject the kingdom of the Jews, to the spiritual repair and restoration of which He had principally come: which in substance is the same as what our translator renders: "And His people shall not be the people who shall deny Him."
AND THE CITY AND THE SANCTUARY SHALL BE DESTROYED BY THE PEOPLE WITH THEIR LEADER WHO SHALL COME. — "The people," that is, the Roman army, under the leadership of Titus and Vespasian, in vengeance for the death of Christ, shall destroy and utterly overthrow the city of Jerusalem and the holy temple that was in it; so that it shall never be rebuilt, but shall remain desolate forever; for this is the complete "devastation and decreed desolation" that follows.
Note: The angel attributes the destruction of the temple to the Roman people and army, because the leader himself, namely Titus, wished to preserve it, as Josephus testifies. So Vatablus.
AND ITS END SHALL BE DEVASTATION. — In Hebrew, they shall be cut down, namely the Jews, as in a flood; Tertullian says, as in a cataclysm, so that few, like Noah, may survive such a great disaster. So the Septuagint. Vatablus translates: Its end shall be by a flood, or with an inundation, as if to say: The Romans shall rush upon Jerusalem with all their force and multitude. He compares the force and violence of war to a flood. So Theodoret.
AND AFTER THE END OF THE WAR. — R. Solomon translates: Until the end of the war, as if to say: Although all the adversaries of the Jews shall finally be destroyed and laid waste by the coming Messiah, yet the devastation and desolation of His city, namely Jerusalem, has been decreed and determined by God through Titus until the end of the war of Gog and Magog, of which Ezekiel XXXVIII speaks, who shall be conquered by the Messiah, and Jerusalem, namely the city, temple and kingdom, shall be restored to them (that is, to the Jews); certainly at the end of the world: for then Gog and Magog shall come with the Antichrist, whom the Jews will accept as Christ. But the subject here is not the war of Gog and Magog, but of the leader who shall come shortly after the 70 weeks, that is, Titus. The Septuagint translates obscurely: And until the end of the war he shall set in order those cut down (the Roman edition reads 'in order': for the Greek τάξα can, first, be taken as a noun, and then it means 'in order'; second, as the future of the verb τάττω, and then it means 'he shall set in order') with desolations. Perhaps there is a textual error, and instead of συνεστμημέναι τάξει ἀφανισμοῖς, one should read συντετμημέναι τάξεις ἀφανισμῶν, that is, 'the orders, or series, of desolations have been decreed.' Pagninus translates: And until the end of the war, desolations have been determined, as if to say: Jerusalem, being besieged, will gradually be exhausted and desolated by continual slaughter and killing until the end of the war, at which point it will be utterly destroyed and desolated: which desolation will last to the end of the world, as follows. Vatablus translates: At the end of the war, complete devastation, or: it shall be destroyed by desolations, that is, by seditions and killings, as if to say: Yet throughout the entire time of the siege its strength will be undermined by civil wars and internal seditions. For John and Simon, leaders of the sedition, killed very many in the city.
The Hebrew literally has: At the end of the war, desolations have been decreed, at the end, that is, toward the end, at the end: hence our translator most clearly and excellently renders 'after the end,' both because this desolation and solitude of Jerusalem followed not during the war but after the end of the war, with the Jews killed or carried away from it: and because there follows: "And until the consummation and the end the desolation shall continue," which Jerusalem still suffers even now: therefore this happened after the end of the war, and still continues, and will last to the end of the world. For 'desolation' in Hebrew is שממות (scomemot), that is, desolations, blastings, siderations: for when something is blasted by lightning, or by fire, or by the breath of a serpent, it is called scomem, that is, to be blasted, to be smitten, to be desolated; for the root scamam alludes to נשם (nascam), that is, to breathe, to blow, to blast. Therefore it is signified here that Jerusalem, on account of its abominations, will be as it were blasted by God, and from heaven as by a thunderbolt smitten, so that like Sodom it will be reduced by the Romans to ashes and cinders and vanish. Thus Josephus, describing the slaughter of Jerusalem, ascribes it not to Titus but to God, as will be evident below from his words.
Note: This devastation of Jerusalem is not contained within the span of the 70 weeks; for those end in the third year after the death of Christ, but this devastation occurred in the 38th year after the death of Christ: therefore this devastation happened not long after the 70 weeks. For the view of Origen, Eusebius, and Hippolytus that this 70th week is not continuous with the others, but is 60 or 70 years later, contradicts their connection and context in Daniel. Therefore Daniel mentions here the devastation of Jerusalem to show with what grave vengeance God avenged the death of Christ upon the Jews, inasmuch as on account of it He completely destroyed Jerusalem and the entire Jewish nation and commonwealth.
Note second, that this devastation of the Jews is most grievous: first, because they have been without a temple for 1600 years; second, they lack Prophets; third, they lack learned men; fourth, they are wanderers throughout the whole world; fifth, this desolation of theirs will be perpetual, as Gabriel here predicts, and Isaiah and the other Prophets, and experience itself teaches.
Verse 27: And He Shall Confirm the Covenant
27. AND HE SHALL CONFIRM (so read with the Roman edition, not 'confirmed,' as some read) THE COVENANT (Septuagint, διαθήκην, that is, testament, namely the new) WITH MANY IN ONE WEEK. — Gabriel returns to Christ, of whom he treated in verses 25 and 26. Therefore R. Solomon wrongly explains it thus, as if to say: Titus, the leader of the people coming against Jerusalem, will make a truce with the Jews, which the Jews will not keep; hence they will be cut off and desolated by him. For this fiction of his is clearly refuted. For neither Josephus, nor Josippus son of Gorion, nor Hegesippus, nor any other narrator of the destruction of Jerusalem, mentions these truces; but rather on the contrary, all unanimously assert that the Jews most obstinately rejected all conditions of peace offered by the Romans, up to the final destruction of the city. Moreover, Titus besieged Jerusalem not for a full year, but only for half: for he began the siege in April, namely at Passover; and took the city the following October: therefore he did not "confirm a covenant with many for one week," which encompasses several years. Therefore it is certain from the common opinion of interpreters that these things are said of Christ the Savior. For Christ in the last week, namely the seventieth, preached during its first three and a half years, as ancient tradition holds, according to Eusebius, VIII Demonstratio (which matter must be treated in the Gospels. Meanwhile see Baronius, year of Christ 34, Pererius here Question VII, and Suarez, III part., Question L, art. 6, dist. 40, sect. I.), and then He established the covenant and testament between God and men, especially at the Last Supper, and ratified it by His death; and gave the sacrifice and sacrament of the Eucharist as its symbol and perpetual pledge.
Moreover, Christ confirmed this testament with many, that is, with very many people, with whom He entered this covenant. Hence Vatablus translates, toward many, לרבים (larabbim), namely 'many' in the dative. But it is better to take 'with many' in the ablative, with many, namely reasons and arguments (for the article lamed, which is in larabbim, often serves the ablative, as those skilled in Hebrew know), namely: first, by miracles, especially those which the Prophets had predicted He would perform to confirm this. Hence when Christ was asked by John in the name of his disciples: "Are you He who is to come (the Messiah), or shall we expect another?" He answered: "Go and report to John what you have heard and seen; the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise, the poor have the Gospel preached to them." For Isaiah had predicted in detail that Christ would perform these miracles, chapter XXXV, 5, and chapter LXI, 1. And so from these things the Jews were convinced, or ought to have believed, that He was the Messiah. Hence they also said, John VII: "When Christ comes, will He work more signs than this man does?" For Christ worked these signs for this purpose, that by them He might prove and demonstrate to the Jews that He was the Messiah promised by the Prophets. Second, by prophecies: for Moses and all the Prophets foretold this testament of Christ, and whatever was predicted by them, Christ accomplished and fulfilled, as St. Peter and Paul frequently show in the Acts of the Apostles. Third, by the testimonies of angels, who announced Him at His birth to the shepherds, and indicated Him to the Magi through a star, as it were the tongue of the heavens, says St. Augustine, sermon 2 On Epiphany; who also testified that He had risen from death, Matthew XXVIII, 2 and following. Indeed even the demons, cast out by Christ from the bodies of men, cried out that He was Christ and the Son of God. Fourth, by the testimony of St. John the Baptist, whom the Jews honored as a prophet and a divine man: for John preached nothing else than that this was the Messiah, and pointing to Him with his finger said: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who takes away the sins of the world." Fifth, by the testimony of Moses and Elijah, who at the Transfiguration before Peter, James, and John testified that He was the Messiah. Sixth, by His most blameless and holy life as well as teaching. For Christ led a life
angelic, indeed divine, so that no prudent person could doubt that He was truthful and preached true things: for He preached by word and example to despise earthly things, to love heavenly things, that the poor in spirit are blessed, the meek, the chaste, the peacemakers, the patient, etc. Seventh, by His Passion, death, and redemption: for by this Christ fulfilled the prophecies of David, Psalm XXI, Isaiah chapter LIII, Jeremiah chapter XI, Daniel in this passage, when he says: "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain," and of other prophets, who 500 and 600 years before had predicted that Christ would suffer, be crucified, and by His death redeem mankind. Eighth, by the prodigies that occurred at His death. For the sun was darkened, the earth trembled, the veil of the temple was torn, the dead rose; so that all the elements seemed to feel the death of their Creator, to be disturbed and to mourn; hence the Centurion, seeing these things, said: "Truly this was the Son of God." Ninth, from Christ's own predictions, which we see all truly fulfilled. For, first, He predicted His own death and cross, and then His resurrection and ascension; second, the destruction of Jerusalem; third, the preaching of His Gospel throughout the whole world, the conversion of the Gentiles, the unbelief of the Jews; fourth, the miracles that the Apostles would perform with His help, likewise the persecutions they would suffer; fifth, that His Church, though assailed on all sides by the arms and devices of tyrants and heretics, would nevertheless endure and last to the end of the world, and many other things, all of which we see fulfilled to the letter. Tenth, by His glorious resurrection from death on the third day, and on the fortieth day His public ascension into heaven, and on the fiftieth day the sending of the Holy Spirit upon His disciples; finally, God Himself, all creatures, and the whole world proclaimed Him to be the Messiah, the Redeemer of the world, and the founder of the New Testament. For at His baptism the eternal Father said to Him: "This is My beloved Son, hear Him," and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove. Angels and demons testified to the same, as I have already shown, and heaven, when it gave the star as His sign to the Magi; and the air, when through it He gloriously ascended into heaven; and the sea, when it offered itself to be trodden upon by Him as by its Lord, and subjected itself to His feet; and the earth, when at His death it was shaken; and death, when it gave back the dead whom Christ called back to life; and hell, when it restored the souls of the Fathers; and the sun and moon, when at His death they shone darkened; and water, when at the wedding feast it was changed by Him into wine; and bread, when it was multiplied by Him, also when it was converted by Him into His own Body, as He proved by many miracles; and light, when at His Transfiguration it clothed Him, so that His face shone like the sun, and His garments like snow; and the rocks, when at His death they were split; and fire, when it sent tongues of flame upon the Apostles at Pentecost; and the winds, when He calmed them on the sea so that they said of Him: "Who is this, that the winds and the sea obey Him?" Moreover, every sex, every age, every condition testified to the same. For the aged Simeon, and Anna the widow, and Nicodemus the Pharisee, and many Gentiles, and even the children and infants themselves proclaimed the same. The infants who were killed by Herod in Bethlehem (for these were killed on account of Christ, so that Christ too might be killed among them), what else did they profess by their death and martyrdom than that Christ had already been born, by whom Herod feared he would be stripped of his kingdom? The children who, when the Messiah was brought into Jerusalem as it were in triumph on Palm Sunday, with one voice at God's prompting acclaimed: "Hosanna to the Son of David, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!"
You will object: Christ preached for only half of the 70th week, namely for its first three and a half years, after which He was killed by the Jews; how then does the angel say here: "He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week," when He confirmed it by preaching for not one full week but only half? Theodoret responds that Christ, by preaching in person, confirmed the covenant for half of the 70th week, but committed the remaining half of the same week to be completed by the Apostles. The Apostles therefore remained in Jerusalem for three years, preaching the faith of Christ to the Jews, in order to complete the half of the 70th week begun by Christ, and when this was done, with this prophecy of Daniel about the confirmation of the covenant, namely the New Testament, now fulfilled among the Jews, at Christ's command they transferred themselves to the Gentiles, to preach and confirm the same testament to them, and St. Jerome here, and Eusebius, book VIII of the Praeparatio Evangelica, write things in agreement with this.
AND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WEEK THE SACRIFICE AND OFFERING SHALL CEASE. — As a sign of this, when Christ was then suffering and offering Himself to God for the salvation of mankind, and thus fulfilling the types of all the ancient victims and sacrifices, the veil of the temple was torn, and the Holy of Holies, closed until then, lay open, as the Apostle teaches, Hebrews IX; and all the wonderful things that were in the temple came to an end. Apollinaris of Laodicea, Hilary, Canon XXV on Matthew, and Hippolytus wrongly refer these things to the Antichrist in the literal sense (for that he is allegorically and typically prefigured here is not in doubt, and all acknowledge it), since he will take away the sacrifice of the Eucharist, and will set the abomination of desolation in the temple, namely himself and his idol, to be worshipped there as God: for Apollinaris, as St. Jerome testifies here, thought there were two sets of 70 weeks, and that the first were completed in the first coming of Christ; the latter in the second, namely at the end of the world and in the time of the Antichrist. But this is a clear error: for Daniel records only one set of 70 weeks, and asserts that they terminate at the death of Christ, whence he rashly invents a second set terminating in the Antichrist. In the death of Christ therefore all the sacrifices and victims of the old law, and all ceremonial observances were entirely abrogated and antiquated and became dead, though not immediately deadly;
deadly; because as St. Leo says, homily 8 On the Passion: "Now one offering of the body and blood of Christ fulfills all the different kinds of sacrifices." Thus therefore Christ by His death caused to cease (for this is what the Hebrew ישבית iasbit means) and abolished, as Vatablus translates, all legal victims and rites. So St. Jerome and commonly the Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins.
Wherefore a recent chronologist is incorrect in thinking that Christ preached at the end of the 70th week; yet in such a way that through His resurrection, ascension into heaven, and the preaching of the Apostles, He confirmed His law and covenant in a 71st week; for thus there would be not 70 but 71 weeks, and the sacrifice would have ceased not in the middle, as is said here, but at the end of the 70th week.
AND THERE SHALL BE IN THE TEMPLE THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. — For 'of desolation' the Hebrew is משמם (mescomem), making desolate, desolating, or also causing astonishment, as if to say: an astounding abomination. Refer these words to the end of verse 26; for Gabriel here intermingles the death of Christ with the destruction and devastation of Jerusalem, because the former was the cause of the latter. The Antiochene Arabic translates: And upon the sides of the abomination shall be destruction (desolation). The Alexandrian Arabic: The victims and offerings shall cease, and corruption and profanation shall come upon it; the Syriac: And upon the sides of uncleanness (defilement, abomination) corruption (subversion, confusion).
Note first: For 'in the temple,' the Hebrew is על כנף (al kenaph), that is, upon the wing. 'Wing' here denotes the temple, as both the Septuagint and Christ translate, Matthew XXIV: "Standing, He says, in the holy place." First, because the temple had pinnacles like wings; hence Tertullian, in his book Against the Jews, reads: And he shall destroy the pinnacle even unto destruction. For some translated into Greek πτερύγιον, which means wing, and hence pinnacle in Luke IV, 9; second, because the temple on both sides had wide and long porticoes, like outstretched wings, so that it seemed to be winged, or a bird spreading its wings; and finally, because the wicked and abominable Zealots first occupied one side and one portico, as it were one wing of the temple, and there they committed the abomination of desolation of which Daniel speaks here, and raged against their own citizens, as I shall soon say. Hence literally you may explain it thus: upon the wing, namely of the sanctuary and the city, of which he said shortly before: "And the city and the sanctuary shall be destroyed by the people with their leader who shall come." For he is looking back to that, and these words pertain to it. Others translate differently, namely: And upon the wing of abominations he shall cause astonishment; and Vatablus: On account of the wing of abominations it shall be destroyed, that is, he says, Jerusalem shall be destroyed on account of the great abominations of the Jews, which they will commit by crucifying Christ: for the wing, or extension of abominations, he calls the long series of abominations, or manifold abominations.
Note second: The Hebrew literally has, and upon the wing (that is, upon the temple, in the temple) abominations desolating, or desolation, that is, of desolating ones
of the Jews and Romans; or 'of the desolating one,' that is, of desolation; for the participle, or participial noun mescomem, i.e. 'of the desolating one,' is used for the abstract scomem, i.e. 'of desolation,' as learned Hebraists note. Hence both the Septuagint and Christ, Matthew XXIV, and others translate 'the abomination of desolation,' or of blasting and blighting, as I explained shortly before.
Note third: There is here a double Hebraism. For first, 'abomination' is used for a foul, shameful, execrable, and abominable thing. Second, 'of desolation,' that is, desolating, and bringing utter destruction upon the temple, the city, and the Jews; or by hypallage, 'the abomination of desolation' is 'the abominable desolation,' says Vatablus.
A weighty question arises here: what is this abomination of desolation? First, Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXV, Hilary, and the Author of the Imperfect Work in Chrysostom, on Matthew XXIV, 13, think it is the Antichrist, who will be worshipped in the temple as God; for it seems to treat of his time from what follows: "And until the consummation and the end the desolation shall continue:" for this suits the Antichrist. And from what St. Mark writes, chapter XIII; for when in verse 14 he had said: "When you shall see the abomination of desolation," etc., he adds in verse 25: "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars of heaven shall be falling, and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken. And then they shall see the Son of Man coming in clouds." For all these things regard the times of the Antichrist, and the end of the world. But Daniel here treats of the destruction not of the world, but of the city and the temple of Jerusalem; which shall happen soon after the end of the 70 weeks, and after the death of Christ slain by the Jews, as is clear from his very words, and the other interpreters agree: and accordingly Christ too treats of the same, Matthew XXIV; for there He alludes to, indeed cites this passage of Daniel, saying: "When you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place." Therefore Calvin wrongly denies this. And so the literal subject here is not the Antichrist; yet allegorically this abomination that occurred in the time of Titus was a type and prelude of the abomination that the Antichrist will bring about. Hence Christ, Matthew XXIV and Mark XIII, interweaves both, since from the destruction of the city of Jerusalem He suddenly passes to the destruction of the world, and so intermingles the latter with the former that they seem to be one and the same, just as the type is the same as the antitype, not physically, but typically and representatively.
Second, others take this as the abomination of the temple committed by Antiochus Epiphanes, by placing an idol in it and giving it the name of Jupiter Olympius, as Josephus testifies, XII Antiquities. But they err; for this Antiochus preceded Christ by two centuries: therefore his abomination was already done and past. But Christ speaks of this abomination as still future, saying: "When you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains," etc.
Third, St. Jerome and Thomasetus on Matthew chapter XXIV, take the abomination as an idol placed in the temple in the time of Christ: for an idol in Scripture is called שקוצים (scikkutsim), that is, abominations, meaning things supremely abominable; "and 'of desolation' is added because the idol was placed in the desolate and destroyed temple," says St. Jerome, who with Theodoret thinks this idol was an image of Caesar which Pilate secretly brought into the temple by night. But this occurred 40 years before the destruction, and had already happened when Christ said these things, Matthew XXIV. Moreover, Pilate, when the Jews protested, soon removed this statue from the temple. Read Josephus, XVIII Antiquities, chapter IV and following. Accordingly, St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, and Euthymius think this idol was a statue of Titus. But regarding it, namely that it was placed in the temple, Josephus says nothing, nor do the ancient historians: and if it existed, it was after the destruction, not before. Hence again St. Jerome takes it as the statue of the Emperor Hadrian that was placed in Bethlehem, and the statue of Adonis that was placed on Mount Calvary. But these were not on Mount Zion and in the temple, and occurred long after the destruction of the city and temple by Titus: but this abomination occurred before the destruction. For, upon seeing it, Christ warns them to flee to the mountains, to escape the impending destruction.
Fourth, Maldonatus on Matthew XXIV thinks this abomination is the destruction of Jerusalem, as if Christ said: When you see Jerusalem devastated, know and understand that Daniel's prophecy about it has been fulfilled. But the objection is that Christ gives this abomination as a sign of the future destruction, so that, upon seeing it, the faithful may flee and escape it; therefore it will precede the destruction.
Fifth, others by the abomination understand the sins of the priests, especially those committed in the temple. But these were longstanding and committed in every age: unless one should say that the pontificates in Christ's time were for sale; and so that impious high priests buying the pontificate with money, and thrust in by Roman governors, were this abomination, and hence it is said of it: "Standing in the holy place;" for that was the station of the high priest. But 'the abomination of desolation' signifies something more: yet this can be taken as part of that abomination.
Sixth, the Scholastic History here, chapter X, takes the abomination as the Aaronic sacrifices, which Christ abolished, and which therefore would soon become abominable, desolate, and abolished, and consequently, as the Carthusian says, in the temple there would be "not the true worship of God, but the sport of the devil." For this is what was predicted: "In the middle of the week the sacrifice and offering shall cease." But these things could not serve as a sign of impending destruction either for the Jews, who did not believe in Christ, or for the Christians, both because this destruction would come after 38 years; and because the Jews converted to Christ still observed the legal rites and Aaronic sacrifices until the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated. This was to bury the Synagogue with honor, and to avoid giving offense to the Jews; for those rites were dead at the death of Christ, but not immediately deadly, except after the full promulgation of the Gospel.
Seventh, St. Augustine, epistle 80 to Hesychius, and Origen, homily 29 on Matthew, Cajetan and Salmeron on Matthew XXIV, Pererius here, and Suarez, III, part. Question LIX, art. 6, disp. 54, sect. V, think the abomination of desolation is the Roman army besieging Jerusalem, which was about to occupy and desolate the city. This is called an abomination, both because it was gentile: for the Jews abominated the Gentiles; and because it worshipped and venerated abominable idols, and carried them on its standards. This opinion is proved from the fact that for the abomination of desolation which St. Matthew places, chapter XXIV, 5; Luke, chapter XXI, 20, narrating the same discourse of Christ, says: "When you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with an army;" therefore this army is the abomination of which St. Matthew speaks. It can be answered with Euthymius that Christ assigned two signs of the impending destruction: the first, the abomination of desolation, and St. Matthew narrates this; the second, the Roman army, and St. Luke narrates this: for these two occurred at the same time.
Again, it could be objected to this opinion that this army was not "in the temple," but around the city: but Daniel says this abomination would be in the temple. If however this opinion is suitably explained, and this army is taken as a partial abomination predicted here by Daniel, it is probable and admissible, as I shall shortly explain.
Eighth therefore, very probably Sebastian Barradius, the Abulensian, Jansenius and Hesselius on Matthew chapter XXIV, and Baronius, year of Christ 68, volume I of the Annals, think this abomination is the profanation of the temple committed by seditious, murderous, and wicked Jews, who out of impious zeal for their country and the law called themselves Zealots: or that the abomination was the Zealots themselves, who occupied and profaned the temple, when they fortified it after the manner of a camp, and from there sallied forth against their own citizens, raging with plunder and slaughter. The seditious, I say, and Zealots, both in the time of Titus, and rather others a little earlier under Cestius, governor of Judea, who, when the Jews began to rebel, was the first to besiege Jerusalem in the year of Christ 68, the 12th of Nero. For this was the sign and cause of the destruction: for when Cestius had been routed and put to flight by the Jews, Nero, to subdue and punish the Jews, immediately sent Vespasian in his place, who soon devastated and subjugated all of Galilee and Judea, and finally besieged Jerusalem through his son Titus, captured and devastated it, and burned the temple in the year of Christ 72, which was the first of Vespasian's reign. This opinion is proved, first, because this abomination was properly in
the temple, as Daniel says here; and in the holy place, as Christ says, Matthew XXIV, and Daniel here properly treats of the profanation and desolation of the temple, and the cessation of sacrifices; therefore this is the abomination of desolation. Second, unless we refer to this time, the words of Christ: "When you shall see the abomination," etc., do not cohere with what follows: "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." For when Titus besieged Jerusalem, no one could flee from Jerusalem; for the siege was extremely tight, to such a degree that Titus surrounded the entire city with a wall within the space of three days, which was like a miracle: nor from Judea, because it, together with Galilee, had already been devastated and subjugated by Vespasian. Third, because Josephus, book V of the Jewish War, chapter II, says: "There was an ancient saying that the city would be captured when sedition had arisen in it and the hands of the Jews themselves had violated the temple of God," and therefore he adds that soon after the defeat of Cestius and the Romans, many who conjectured the impending destruction of the Jews fled from the city and migrated to other regions. That Christians were among these is testified by St. Epiphanius, Heresies 29 and 30, and Eusebius, book III of the History, chapter V, who says they withdrew, divinely admonished, to the city of Pella. This is clear regarding St. Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem: for he succeeded St. James the brother of the Lord, who was killed by the Jews in the year of Christ 63, the seventh of Nero, as Baronius correctly proves from Josephus, and he remained until the times of Trajan, under whom he suffered martyrdom; indeed Eusebius teaches, book VII of the History, XIV, that his episcopal chair (undoubtedly along with the other furnishings of the Church) was placed in safety by the Christians, where he says it was preserved up to his own times. All of which corresponds perfectly to Christ's warnings to flee upon seeing the abomination, because it would be the sign, indeed the cause, of the impending desolation and destruction.
Ninth, the explanation will be full and perfect if you combine both senses, namely the seventh and eighth. For the abomination of desolation means the profanation of the temple, on account of which and through which it was desolated and destroyed, namely the abominable crimes of the Jews, which they themselves perpetrated in the temple: by which they provoked against themselves, the city, and the temple the abominable slaughter and devastation of the Romans. For one cannot conceive of an attacking army (as the Roman one was) without also conceiving of a defending one (as the Jewish one was), just as when the agent is named, the patient is understood; and vice versa, when the patient is named, the agent is understood: for these are correlatives. Therefore what Christ says: "When you shall see the abomination," etc., the meaning is, as if to say: When, or as soon as, you see the city and temple besieged and attacked from outside by this abominable army; and no less occupied and defended from inside by an abominable army, the one abominable for its idols, the other for its crimes openly committed; both threatening nothing but desolation; the former by its proud vehemence, the latter by its crimes, seditions, and slaughters: "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." Hence in Hebrew it is called the abomination of desolation, that is, of those who desolate, both Jews and Romans; for both the former and the latter equally devastated and desolated both the city and the temple. Hence Daniel, verse 26, calls it scommemot, that is, desolations in the plural, and Luke uses ὑπὸ στρατοπέδων, that is, by armies, in the plural.
You will object: The Roman army was not in the temple, in which Daniel places this abomination. I respond first: It was in the holy place, as Christ says, that is, around Jerusalem the holy city and the temple. Second, it was properly in or at the temple; for the Romans, in attacking the Jews, undermined the temple, into which the Zealots had withdrawn as into a citadel, as Josephus teaches. Christ preferred to say "in the holy place," to include the city along with the temple; for what Daniel says here in Hebrew, 'upon the wing,' can be understood of both the wing, that is, the extremity, of the city and of the temple. The holy place is set in contrast to the abomination, because if from any place, certainly from a holy one, abomination ought to be far removed. So Francisco Lucas, Matthew XXIV.
Moreover, this abomination of desolation, namely the profanation of the temple, began under Cestius, grew under Titus, and was completed by the Romans when the city and temple were destroyed. For then they slaughtered the Jews in the temple itself, and there they placed their standards bearing images of Jupiter, Mars, and their other gods and idols, which in Scripture are called abominations, as Josephus teaches, book VII of the Jewish War, chapter XIII. For this was the supreme desolation of the temple and city, that is, so great as both the guilt of the Jews (namely the sacrileges committed against Christ and the temple) and the anger of the Romans demanded. Daniel comprehends all these things under the abomination of desolation: but Christ looks only to the first, namely its beginning: for He warns that, upon seeing it, they should flee, as it is the sign of the impending disaster and destruction of the city and temple. For what prudent man would not conclude that the place was rejected by God, and its desolation was imminent, a place that had hitherto been held most holy, when he saw it now polluted by the slaughters and crimes of execrable men? For although from the death of Christ onward that place was no longer held holy by God, yet because it had been so considered for many centuries, and was still so considered by the Jews, and even by the Christians: for they (as is clear about St. Peter and John, Acts III, 1) went up to the temple to pray, and God worked miracles through them there; hence it was still called Holy, such that these crimes were considered to profane it, and were taken as an omen that desolation and destruction would befall it, and this was foretold by Christ. For the Jews by their own arms and by the slaughters, even of the Romans, perpetrated there, provoked the Romans to the destruction of the city and temple.
Therefore Christ, as Baronius and Francisco Lucas especially note, seems to speak of the beginning of the Jewish rebellion, when Cestius, governor of Syria, hearing that the Jews had killed the Roman garrison soldiers, gathered an army, defeated the Jews, captured Joppa and other towns, and besieged Jerusalem: and when the seditious Jews had taken refuge in the inner part of the temple, Cestius attacked it with soldiers undermining the walls and attempting to set fire to the temple gates. But when Cestius recklessly recalled his soldiers and withdrew in shameful flight, the prudent Jews, especially the Christians, following Christ's warning, took counsel in flight. Hence Josephus, book VIII of the Jewish War, chapter XXV: "After the reverses of Cestius," he says, "many of the noble Jews, as from a ship about to sink, swam out of the city." And wisely so. For soon the Emperor Nero, learning of Cestius's flight, after six months sent Vespasian, who first devastated and captured Galilee, then Samaria, and all of Judea except the city of Jerusalem: and when Nero was killed, being made Roman Emperor, he departed, leaving behind his son Titus, who unexpectedly besieged Jerusalem at Passover, and after six months captured it, with the temple first of all stormed and burned by the soldiers against Titus's wishes, as Josephus teaches, books VI and VII of the Jewish War. Hence at that time it was not possible to flee from Jerusalem or carry out one's possessions, especially because, with Galilee occupied by Vespasian, the Zealots so tightened their control of Jerusalem with guards that no one had the opportunity of escaping unless he had ransomed it by giving money to the guards. Moreover, the leader of a new conspiracy and sedition of the Jews arose, Simon of Gerasa, who besieged Jerusalem, and being admitted by the citizens in hope of receiving help against the Zealots, he raged no less than the Zealots and afflicted the citizens, until Titus besieged the city. So Josephus, book V, chapters VI and following. Therefore Christ warned that, upon seeing this abomination, they should immediately flee; for this is what those phrases mean: "Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything from his house; and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his tunic." For these phrases are proverbs meaning nothing other than that one must flee as quickly as possible, lest the way of escape be cut off, as happened here.
Moreover, how impious, murderous, and wicked these Zealots were, profaners of the temple, fighting among themselves, slaughtering one another as well as citizens and enemies, Josephus narrates at length both in book VI, 1 and following, and in book VII, IV: "Not only the city," he says, "but the entire temple was filled with corpses," etc. Hence in the same place he narrates that Titus, besieging the city and temple, rebuked the Zealots for violating it and said: "Why do you even trample upon the dead in the temple, O most wicked men! Or why do you pollute the temple with the shedding of foreign and gentile blood? I call to witness the gods of our fathers, I will not compel you to violate these things. I will even preserve the temple for you, if your battle line changes its location." For the Zealots were hurling missiles from the temple as from a citadel at the Romans. The same author, book VI of the Jewish War, chapter I: "Missiles," he says, "propelled by the force of the siege engines, reaching even the altar and temple, fell upon the priests celebrating the sacred rites, and many who had come to the temple from the furthest ends of the earth fell before the very sacrifices, and drenched the altar with blood. The dead of foreign nations were mixed with the natives, and the profane with the priests; and the blood of various corpses had made a pool through the divine courts. What great things you have suffered from the Romans, O most wretched city! They who entered with flames to purge your internal crimes! For you were no longer the place of God, nor could you remain so, having become the sepulcher of your own household dead, and you who had made the sanctuary a tomb through civil war." The same, book VI, XVI: "I think," he says, "that if the Romans had delayed in coming against such noxious men of our nation, either the city would have been swallowed up by a gaping of the earth, or would have perished by a flood, or would have suffered fires like Sodom's lightnings. For it bore a far more impious generation than the one that had endured those punishments." Behold, this is the abomination of desolation.
Morally, the abomination of desolation is heresy, especially iconoclasm, and sacrilege. For heresy is an idol abominable to God, on account of which He brings desolation upon kingdoms and nations, and the Turkish yoke, as we already see imposed upon Africa, Greece, Syria, Asia, etc. See Barradius, volume III, book IX, chapter VIII, in the Moral section. For when heretics, especially iconoclasts, violate sacred things and temples, break the images of the Saints, and profane holy places, then certain disaster and desolation threatens the commonwealth. To pass over Scotland, England, Germany, France, etc., let our own Belgium serve as an example, which, after the iconoclasm of the year 1566, was so devastated by more than sixty years of continual wars that more than two million men perished in them, and Belgium itself, which was once a paradise and the delight of the world, now seems to be nothing but a valley of sorrows and tears. Thus God avenges sacrilege and the violated majesty, worship, and religion of the Deity.
AND UNTIL THE CONSUMMATION AND THE END THE DESOLATION SHALL CONTINUE. — The Septuagint: And until the consummation of time, consummation shall be given upon the desolation. They seem to have read תתן (titten), that is, 'shall be given,' for תתך (tittach), of which presently; for nun and final coph are written with almost the same character. The Hebrew literally has: and until the consummation and end it shall continue, or be melted, or liquefied (for this is what the Hebrew tittach means), it (Jerusalem, or the desolation and wrath of God) upon the desolation of Jerusalem. So Galatinus above, as if to say: Just as in Etna and the cauldron of Vulcan, fire, sulfur, rocks, ashes, and other things blasted and burned by the fire of Etna are perpetually smelted and boil; so in the wrath of God Jerusalem shall be smelted, so that it, as it were, continually boils over and displays the ashes of its desolation, with which it has been blasted by God through the Romans, and will continue to be blasted until the end of the world, as happens in Sodom and the Pentapolis.
Therefore R. Solomon wrongly translates and explains it, as if to say: Titus shall place a desolation, that is, an idol of himself, in the temple, and until the consummation and destruction of the desolater himself by the hands of the Messiah
shall the desolation continue, as if to say: Until the Messiah at the end of the world shall consume and destroy the enemies of the Jews who desolated Judea, this desolation of the Jews shall last. But Titus did not live to the end of the world, nor is he to be slain by Christ then. Vatablus translates and explains it, as if to say: Titus shall destroy Jerusalem, until a consummation, and indeed a certain one, descends upon the astonished or stupefied people, on account of the desolation of the city and temple.
How true this prophecy is, the experience of 1600 years teaches, during which the Jews have repeatedly attempted to rebuild themselves and the temple, but with futile effort and in vain; so that from this one may certainly conjecture that this desolation of theirs will be perpetual until the end of the world, as Daniel here prophesies. To omit other examples, Julian the Apostate, wishing to restore the sacrifices of idols, urged the Jews to perform similar temple sacrifices according to the custom of their ancestors: they replied that it was not lawful for them under the law to sacrifice outside Jerusalem and its temple. Therefore Julian ordered the temple to be rebuilt for them, and gave from his own treasury the funds and workmen for this purpose, to the great joy of the Jews and the grief and fear of the Christians. But Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, encouraged them, showing from this oracle of Daniel and from the words of Christ, Matthew XXIV, that God would not permit this temple to be restored. He was a true prophet, indeed a teacher. For God deterred them from the construction with three portents. First, when the foundations were being laid, He stirred up a great earthquake that destroyed the foundations. Second, by fire sent from heaven, He consumed all the tools of the workers, all the wood and stones, and all the building materials: this fire lasted for an entire day. Third, the following night He impressed upon their garments the figure of the cross, marked with the splendor of rays, which when the Jews saw as day dawned, and wished to wash off and erase, they were in no way able to do so. So Socrates reports, book III, XVII, and Rufinus, book I, chapter LVII, and Chrysostom, oration 2 Against the Jews: "Of this matter," he says, "we are all witnesses; for in our own age, twenty years ago, these things occurred; consider therefore the remarkable victory of truth."
Therefore Daniel here predicts the perpetual desolation, both of the temple and the city, to be accomplished by Titus; so that the city of Jerusalem would no longer be the royal city of David and his posterity, and of the Jews; but the servant and, as it were, the slave of the Gentiles, namely of the Romans, and then of the Christians, and afterwards of the Turks, as it now is and will be until the end of the world, when the Antichrist, king of the Jews, will establish the seat of his kingdom in Jerusalem, as is clear from Revelation XI, 8. Accordingly, the Emperor Hadrian, 64 years after the destruction by Titus, namely in the year of Christ 104, brought a colony of Gentiles to Jerusalem and called it Aelia Capitolina, and had a temple to Jupiter built in it: and when the Jews, resenting this, took up arms, they were so slaughtered by him that "few escaped," says the Epitome of Dio on Hadrian, "and
fifty of their most strongly fortified citadels, and 985 of their most famous and noble villages were utterly destroyed. In raids and battles 580,000 men were slain; and of those who perished by famine, disease, and fire, the number was infinite, so that nearly all of Judea was deserted." He adds the portents that presaged this: "For the monument of Solomon, which they venerate with the greatest reverence, had of its own accord split and collapsed; moreover many wolves and hyenas had entered their cities, roaring and howling." Therefore the temple of the Jews will not be rebuilt except at the end of the world by the Antichrist, who will sit in it and be worshipped, as I said on II Thessalonians II, 4. Hence even then the abomination and desolation will remain in the temple, namely the idol of the Antichrist: for although the Antichrist at first may perhaps pretend to the Jews that he wishes to rebuild this temple to their God, yet in reality he will build it not for God, but for himself: for he will intend to make this temple his seat, in which he will sit and be worshipped as a deity. So Francisco Suarez, and generally the others cited above.