Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

(comp. Is. 42: 25, 1987 as a composite noun, "his glowing anger,") pours itself, and burns in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, and they become a ruin and desolation;" comp. still, Nah. 16, Lam. 2: 4, Is. 42:25. From these parallel passa

ges it appears, that the violent rain of the divine anger was the constant designation of the judgment, which caused the destruction of the covenant people, and so usual that it occurred even in the simplest historical prose. Daniel, who had himself, as a contemporary, lived to witness such a rain, (comp. v. 11,) who had even interceded for the awful ruins of the fire, receives here the intelligence, that when they have been rebuilt, and the anger of God shall again be called forth against them, more fearful than before, a new rain of fury will convert them again into ashes and desolation. The expression always implies a total annihilation, and for this reason alone cannot be referred to the time of the Maccabees. In order to evade this unpleasant consequence, recent interpreters, taking D actively, divert the glowing anger from the covenant people to their enemies, "over the destroyer." In this, as might easily be supposed, they are not without predecessors among the Jewish interpreters, although these unanimously maintained the reference of the prophecy to the destruction by the Romans. Abarbanel: "Præterea desolationis meminit adhuc ventura super ipsas gentes, quæ et ipsa erit usque ad perditionem." The choice of this unphilological explanation shows, that no other resource was left, and its refutation therefore is a confession, on the part of the Rationalist interpreters, of the untenableness of their interpretation. The verb D is without exception intransitive, never transitive, "to destroy." We prove this by an examination of all the passages cited in favor of the transitive meaning. Ezek. 36: 3, niny (comp. on this infin. form, Ewald, p. 473,) is commonly translated by, "propterea, quod devastant vos." It must, however, rather be translated, "because ye are laid waste, and because they are jealous against you, that ye may become a possession for the heathen." This is undeniably evident from v. 4, where in like manner, as a cause of the active interposition of the divine compassion, first the desolation by the Chaldees is cited, and then the sufferings, which the miserable people had to endure from their haughty neighbours, in like manner as both are constantly united in the complaints of those times. With nipy, "the desolate ruins," nipp in exactly correspond, and "the deserted cities." In the whole prophecy, the wasting of the land of

Israel is never charged upon the surrounding nations, but only cruel scorn and plundering. The desolation is constantly that caused by the Chaldees. An appeal is farther made to Dan. 8: 13, where Dywan is said to mean, "abomination of the destroyer." But the grammatical objection to this interpretation is so obvious, that Gesenius and Winer have been led thereby to substitute Down ywḥ, thus testifying themselves, that they cannot venture to explain according to their view, what actually stands in the text. We showed

already, p. 364, that we must interpret, "how long endures the vision, that which is constant (the sacred service) and the sin, (the covenant people appear personified as sin; comp. a similar personification Zech. 5:8, where the Israelitish people is represented as a woman, ungodliness, and also Mal. 1: 4,) as laid waste." The passive interpretation of D is required even by pan. For what would this mean, "how long endures that which is constant," since according to the context, the discourse must relate to the continu ance of its abolition? Therefore, "how long endures that which is constant, as a thing laid waste," precisely as in the parallel and explanatory sentence D belongs to both, to wp, answering to

שְׁקוּץ שֹׁמֵם ",taken

-

, and to 2, a host, a designation of the covenant people, answering to yan. Finally, an appeal is still made, — Is. 42: 14, cited by the older interpreters, is not to be mentioned, because it is now conceded that the form on does not there occur, but D, to Dan. 12: 11, “And from the time that that which is constant is taken away," op rape nn, which, as lastly by Rosenm., — is translated," and that the desolating abomination is given up," so that the words still belong to the determination of the terminus a quo. But this interpretation involves the difficulty, that, according to it, the terminus ad quem is entirely wanting, and besides it is difficult not to perceive the manifest antithesis of "they give the abomination as a destroyed," D, 11:31. We must, therefore, take the words. as a designation of the terminus ad quem, "from the time when that which is constant was taken away," and afterwards, "when the abomination is given up, as a thing destroyed," when the abomination, which had been before set up, as author of the desolation, as drawing this after it, according to the law of retribution is now itself laid waste; and as it is said in the parallel passage, 8: 14, "the sanctuary is justified." This interpretation is confirmed by v. 7, where likewise stands as a designation of the terminus ad quem. From these remarks, it is evident, that no one, without subjecting

[blocks in formation]

himself to the charge of entire capriciousness, will hereafter translate D in the passage before us, by destroyer, and especially as the manifest antithesis of D and D, as of the agens and the patiens, forbids us to identify them, and as the part. D occurs again in this portion, v. 26, and in the rest of the chapter, also in an intransitive sense.

THE DEFINITENESS OF THE DATES.

[ocr errors]

THE prevailing view in the synagogue and church has ever been, that the 70 weeks, as well as the smaller periods into which they are divided, are accurately determined, and strictly limited. The opposite supposition is liable to suspicion even for being found among those, who had involved themselves in chronological difficulties by false hypothesis, or who had no relish for chronological investigations. Although it is seldom done, yet we must accurately distinguish between an objective and subjective indefiniteness. The latter, which Sack, 1. c. p. 291, seems chiefly to assert, when, among other things, he says, It is one thing to assume an exact coincidence in the view of the divine wisdom, and another to maintain, that this is susceptible of proof," must, in order to its being rendered certain, produce evidence that the chronology of the times from the terminus a quo to the terminus ad quem is uncertain. As this proof, however, cannot be produced, as the divine wisdom is especially manifest in the circumstance, that the chronological determination of the appearing of the Messiah is first given in a time, in which the chronology, by the comparison, which it is in our power to make of various data and numerous contemporary writers in different nations, rests on the surest foundation, this supposition is to be rejected without farther consideration. In favor of the objective indefiniteness, the supposition that the chronological determination is only given in general, the following arguments have been urged.

1. "It is evident that D'ya, used as a measure of time, is chosen chiefly on account of its similarity in form with the numeral Dy, in the two prophecies of Jeremiah." 2. "It is clear, that the number of these D'ya is made up to 70, for no other reason, than because the absolutely necessary agreement of the 70 years of Jere

miah required this number, and excluded every other." So Bertholdt, p. 610. It is certainly correct, that the 70 weeks of the restoration stand in a close relation to the 70 years of the desolation. But what follows from this? The terminus a quo is so chosen, that such a relation would accurately coincide with the result. Precisely this difference of the terminus a quo of the 70 weeks from the terminus ad quem of Jeremiah, shows that the time should be accurately determined. 3. Cocceius remarks, "Non credibile esse, deum voluisse fidem suspendere a chronologia." But from the argument which lies at the foundation of this view, we might prove that every translation of Holy Scripture must be inspired. For otherwise would faith depend on philology; in like manner, that all historical inquiries respecting the canonical authority of the biblical writings, would be useless. The argument is no more valid against this prophecy, than against all others whose chronology is determined. If only one such is shown to exist, it is at the same time proved, that the argument must rest on an erroneous principle. Do those, who are unable or unwilling to engage in chronological investigations, receive the less benefit, because regard has been paid to those who are? May they not still enjoy here the same advantage as in the case of the other Messianic prophecies? Are not all outward proofs of the divine origin of Christianity to be perceived in an independent manner only by him, who possesses the knowledge necessary for their examination? And can this examination of any one of these proofs be made without a sufficient knowledge? And is not this also required in order to know about the time of the fulfilment? And shall we undertake to decide the limit beyond which God must not proceed? Are all proofs of Christianity for all, or has not rather the divine wisdom and love provided, that every one, who will suffer himself to be convinced, shall find them in his own sphere? Need he, who is not at home in any particular department, in which God has left the evidences of his truth, be envious because God is so good? Need any one, e. g., envy the Christian historian, because the proof, from the powerful effects of Christianity, unfolds itself to him far more clearly and fully, than to one, who, in respect to history, is more or less an uneducated man? And, finally, are not the zagiouara in the church for the good of the whole? Do not the results, gained by learned investigations, guided by the Spirit of God, and incorporated with the tradition of the church, benefit the unlearned, who embrace them with confidence?

But in proportion to the weakness of the argument against, is the strength of those for, the definiteness of the chronological dates.

1. The 70 weeks stand in the most exact relation to the 70 years of Jeremiah. The evidence of the chronological definiteness of the latter, applies equally to that of the former. This proof, however, may be easily produced. That Daniel regarded the 70 years as definite, is shown even by his prayer in the 69th. Had there been any doubt on this point, before the fulfilment, still that would have entirely removed it. That the first year of Cyrus is precisely 70 years from the terminus a quo of Jeremiah, the 4th year of Jehoiachim, has already been proved in the Beitr. I. p. 181. That the Syrian chronology also gives the same result, will be shown in a "Dissertatio de Tyro a Nebucadnezare capta," which is soon to appear.

2. All the remaining dates of Daniel concerning the future are definite. That those in chap. 8 and 12, concerning the time of the Maccabees, are so, not merely to the year, but even to the day, is generally conceded. Also the determination of the time of Nebuchadnezzar's madness is proved to be chronologically exact by chap. 4:31, "In the end of the (definite) days, although the length of the measure of time must first be determined by the fulfilment."

3. The prophecy itself bears all the marks of chronological definiteness. That this is even indicated by the expression ann, has already been shown in the interpretation. The terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem are not fluctuating, but designated by strictly limited events. The whole period of 70 weeks is not only divided into three parts of 7, 62, and 1 week, but also this latter into two halves. How could this happen, if no regard was paid to Half a hundred years, more or less? God himself would have given occasion to doubt his word, if a prophecy, bearing all the marks of chronological definiteness, were proved by the fulfilment to be indefinite. 4. Were the case not completely decided by these arguments, the fulfilment must turn the scale, and an interpretation, which has this on its side, must undoubtedly be the true one.

It is self-evident, that the assertion of this definiteness cannot be extended beyond the limits belonging to the subject itself. It can naturally take place in its full extent, only in respect to those dates, which, as most of those in the prophecy before us, fall in a definite and strictly limited moment. As to events, which are more protracted in their nature, as the completion of the building of the city, and

« FöregåendeFortsätt »