“At the beginning of your supplications the word went forth, and I have come to tell you, for you are greatly beloved. Therefore consider the matter and understand the vision.”
Gabriel assures him that ‘the word went forth' for the fulfilment of his hopes right from the beginning of his prayer. He was not heard for his much speaking but because of the graciousness of God towards a beloved servant. The idea of ‘the word going forth' is powerful. God makes His decree and sends forth His word to bring it about. The exact phraseology is paralleled in Daniel 9:25. Thus Daniel 9:25 must also be seen in similar terms. The word that goes forth there, is the word that has gone forth here. It is God's word bringing about His purpose (compare Isaiah 55:11). We are not therefore left to hazard as to when the seventy sevens commences. It commences in 539/8 BC in the first year of Darius the Mede, when Daniel put forth his intercession for the rebuilding of the city and the Temple.
Here we learn the vital lesson that God's response is prompt and not dependent on the volume of our prayers, as Jesus Himself would make clear (Matthew 6:7-8). But Daniel had not wasted his time. It had brought him nearer to God. Now he would learn what God was going to do in the future. His prayer had been the final touch to the prayers of all the faithful throughout the world. And he was to hear, and consider and understand.
The Great Vision.
We have come now to what is probably one of the most crucial passages in eschatology. It is the passage on which is based the idea of the ‘seven year' tribulation, a concept which must be very seriously questioned. The Bible knows nothing of a seven year tribulation period, for as we shall see it is not in mind here, and the suggestion of seven years occurs nowhere else. And yet it is pivotal to many schemes. On the other hand this passage in Daniel is often also interpreted to fit in with those schemes with scant regard to the niceties of the Hebrew in this passage. I would therefore suggest that in view of the importance of the passage the first thing that we need to ask ourselves is, ‘what does the Hebrew actually say?' And as we look at these verses that will be the first priority that we keep in mind.
So as a preliminary to our study let us consider some of the niceties of the Hebrew, and the first one that leaps to our attention is that the word for ‘prince' in both cases is nagid. Elsewhere Daniel uses a number of words for ‘prince' but the only time that he uses nagid is when he is speaking of an Israelite prince, a ‘prince of the covenant' (Daniel 11:22). And in Daniel 9:25 it is also clear that it is an Israelite prince that is in mind. The only possible ambiguous use is in Daniel 9:26 where it speaks of ‘the prince who is coming'. But as the coming of a prince (nagid) has been mentioned in Daniel 9:25 it seems reasonable to see ‘the coming prince' in Daniel 9:26 as the same prince, that is, as the one previously referred to in Daniel 9:25 as coming, and thus as an Israelite prince. There are, however, those who seek to make it signify an foreign unknown prince who is coming. But if the latter was intended why did Daniel not use sar as he normally does?
This is especially so in that, outside Daniel, nagid as a title is a regular term for the anointed rulers of Israel. It is only once used in the singular of a ruler outside Israel, and then specifically of him as an ‘anointed one', probably in ironic contrast to the son of David. Let us consider the facts.
From the earliest days nagid was a regular term applied to rulers of Israel, to Saul, David and Solomon (1 Samuel 9:16; 1Sa 10:1; 1 Samuel 13:14; 1 Samuel 25:30; 2Sa 5:2; 2 Samuel 6:21; 2 Samuel 7:8; 1 Kings 1:35) and to early rulers of Israel and Judah after Solomon (1 Kings 14:7; 1 Kings 16:2; 2 Kings 20:5). Saul was anointed ‘nagid' (1 Samuel 9:16; 1 Samuel 10:1). David was to replace him as ‘nagid' (1 Samuel 13:14), as David himself acknowledged (2 Samuel 6:21). And it was a title of honour recognised by others (1 Samuel 25:30; 2Sa 5:2; 2 Samuel 6:21; 2 Samuel 7:8) And even though David later saw Solomon as king, he still recognised that in his becoming king Solomon would be appointed ‘nagid' (1 Kings 1:35). God was King, each king was His chosen nagid, His anointed representative and war leader. It will further be noted that in all the verses except one (2 Kings 20:5) it is used of the initial appointment of the king. However, 2 Kings 20:5 is probably not to be seen as an exception, for there it is used by God of Hezekiah, and we may therefore well see that reference as also having the fact that he was a God-appointed king in mind.
In the remainder of the Old Testament there is only one use of nagid where it refers to a foreign prince, and that is when it is applied by Ezekiel to the king of Tyre at the point where he is claiming to be a god. This is found in Ezekiel 28:2. There is, however, very good reason for seeing its use there as deliberately derisive, contrasting him with his grand claims with God's chosen princes. The contrast is between on the one hand him as a self-proclaimed ‘nagid', one who claims to be the chosen of the gods (see Daniel 9:2), an ‘anointed' cherub (Daniel 9:14), and on the other hand the true nagid of the people of God, who are the true anointed of God, and adopted as His sons (Psalms 2:7; 2 Samuel 7:14; Psalms 89:26-27). It is derisive of his great and blasphemous claims. He thinks he is a ‘nagid' but he is only a king. Later in the passage he is in fact called ‘the king of Tyre' (Ezekiel 28:12). Thus nagid in its use here also points to one anointed and divinely chosen.
Daniel maintains this emphasis when he speaks of ‘the prince of the covenant' in Daniel 11:28 and when he speaks in Daniel 9:25 of ‘an anointed one, a nagid', clearly connecting the use of nagid with one who is anointed by God.
In the plural, but only in the plural, it is also used of important men in authority in Israel and Judah, for example of ‘rulers over the house of God', of rulers of priestly courses, and of grand viziers of Judah and Israel, once kingship was fully established, who all represented God under the king. In the plural it is also used more generally in Psalms 76:12, but even there it may actually signify princes of Israel in contrast with the kings of the earth. The only time it is ever definitely applied outside Israel and Judah is in 2 Chronicles 32:21, where it is used in the plural of the king of Assyria's war leaders. Thus even in the plural it is almost always used of leaders of Israel, although not totally exclusively.
In the singular, however, its only certain use of a foreign prince, even outside Daniel, is in Ezekiel 28:2, and there it is as one chosen of the gods, and whose anointing is mentioned in context (Daniel 9:14), and as we have suggested, the idea of the nagid of Israel is in mind as a contrast. It is being used ironically while keeping its basic meaning in mind. He is being seen as imitating the true nagids of YHWH.
That being so there is overwhelming reason for seeing nagid in the singular as being a unique title referring exclusively to princes of Israel as representatives of God, a title used when they are appointed, adopted as His sons and anointed in His name. If this be so it means that we should then see ‘the people of the nagid who is coming' as referring to Israel as the people of an Israelite prince, and it would seem sensible to parallel it with ‘the coming prince' whom they had rejected and killed. This explains fully why the action is referred to the people and not to the prince. The prince was dead. And as we shall see later there are other reasons also why we should interpret it in this way.
The second thing we should note is that ‘the covenant' mentioned in Daniel 9:27 is ‘confirmed' not made. Now the only covenant mentioned elsewhere in Daniel is in Daniel 9:4; Daniel 11:22, (where there is reference to Israel's ‘nagid' as ‘the prince of the covenant'); Daniel 11:28; Daniel 11:30; Daniel 11:32. Thus in Daniel ‘covenant' always means ‘the holy covenant with God'. It is God's covenant with His people, closely connected with His nagid. We should note in this regard that the idea of the covenant has already been introduced in this chapter (Daniel 9:4), and is clearly continually in mind.
The third thing that we should note is that there is no mention anywhere of ‘years'. Indeed the seventy ‘sevens' are contrasted with the seventy ‘years' prophesied by Jeremiah. Deliverance for Judah will come after seventy years, but God's full and final deliverance will only come after seventy ‘sevens'. There are therefore no real grounds for applying the idea of ‘years' to the seventy ‘sevens'.
The more detailed niceties we will refer to as we come to them.