Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 12:5-13
5 Then I, Daniel, looked, and behold, two others stood, one on this bank of the stream and one on that bank of the stream. 6 And someone said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream, “How long shall it be till the end of these wonders?” 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream; he raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven and swore by him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished. 8 I heard, but I did not understand. Then I said, “O my lord, what shall be the outcome of these things?” 9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand. 11 And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days. 13 But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.”
____________________________________________
This takes us to the end of The Book of Daniel – at least the Protestant version of The Book of Daniel – and it’s kind of an abrupt and enigmatic ending. The book appears to give the reader a timeframe regarding when its vision will be fulfilled, but it is difficult to understand. We’ll look at the commentaries and then look at the vision as a whole to see if we can come up with some good overall understanding of chapters 10 through 12. We’ll start by jumping into The Pulpit Commentaries and its note for verse 5:
Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. The versions do not require remark, save that the Septuagint and the Peshitta do not repeat “river.” The abrupt introduction of “two other’ is another proof that the long eleventh chapter, as we have it now, is an interpolation. We must go back to Daniel 10:18 to get the person from whom these two mentioned are distinguished. The two new dramatis personae are, as Professor Bevan remarks, in all likelihood angels, and the river in question is the Tigris. In Daniel 10:1-21. Hiddekel is nahar; here the word used is yeor, a word very often used of the Nile, but not exclusively (see Isaiah 33:21). Hitzig asserts that יאֹר (y’or) is an Egyptian appellative, made by the Hebrews into the proper name of the Nile. The example just given disproves this statement, and from this false premise he deduces that the Book of Daniel was written in Egypt. They may be angels of countries. There seems nothing to justify the idea that Michael and Gabriel are the two here intended—the word “other” excludes this. The reason of this introduction of two angels is, Professor Bevan thinks, as witnesses to the oath of the angel. But an oath, to be binding, did not need witnesses; e.g. when David sware to Jonathan, there were no witnesses. Another idea may be hazarded—the Tigris may be looked upon as the boundary of the East and the West; and the two other angels may be the angelic guardians of these two regions.
As we see from the note, there are some theories about who the 2 new persons are, but no certainties as to their identity. Continuing on to verse 6, this time from Ellicott’s Bible Commentary note on that verse:
(6) And one said.—The speaker is evidently one of the persons just mentioned, but the LXX. and St. Jerome suppose Daniel to address the man clothed in white linen, who is obviously the same person who has already spoken (Daniel 10:5, &c.). The position which he occupies is striking. He appears “upon” or (see margin) from above, i.e., hovering over the waters of the Tigris. If, as is frequently the case in the symbolical language of Scripture (see Isaiah 8:6-7, Psalms 93:4), waters or streams are the emblems of nationalities, the Hiddekel will represent the Persian Empire, in the third year of which Daniel had this vision, and the position of the person implies his power to protect his people from all the assaults of the Persians. But at the same time, the remarkable word used for “river” recalls the Nile, and seems to be employed for the purpose of assuring the readers of the book that “He who smote the waters of the Nile” will restrain all earthly powers which war against His people.
How long . . . end.—The end is that which has been frequently spoken of (Daniel 11:40 to Daniel 12:3). The question asks, “How long will the end of these wonders continue? The end always appears to be at hand, yet it never comes. How long will this continue?”
This verse sets up getting an answer and an end point, regarding the vision discussed from Chapters 10-12. It is interesting to consider that if the two people mentioned are the Princes of Greece and Persia (as is one theory) then those two people seem to be present for the answer, given to and recorded by Daniel, that is to follow. I suppose it makes sense for them to be there when it happened and was announced. It’s not a secret. Daniel wrote it all down and then published it. Are they are confused as everyone else? It’s likely. Continuing on to verse 7, again with a note from Ellicott:
(7) Held up his right hand . . .—In general, a person when swearing lifted up the right hand only (see Genesis 14:22; Deuteronomy 32:40). Both hands are represented here as being raised up, so as to give greater importance to the words. (See Note on Revelation 10:5, and comp. Daniel 4:34.)
A time, times . . .—See Note on Daniel 7:25; and observe that any reference to the period of the persecution under Antiochus is impossible, on account of the difference between the measures of time. (See Daniel 7:14.)
To scatter.—The ancient versions (not the LXX., however) appear to have understood this to mean the dispersion of Israel (see Deuteronomy 7:6), and seem to have connected the “end,” of which Daniel speaks, with the cessation of the dispersion of Israel, or, in other words, to have regarded it as a prediction of the re-gathering of Israel, which would immediately precede the coming of Elias. (See the remarks of Theodoret on the passage.) But by the “holy people” are meant, more probably, those who shall suffer in the last days (comp. Daniel 7:25, “the saints”), and the word “scatter” means to break in pieces, as Psalms 2:9, &c. So that the words imply that the end will not come till “the shattering of the power of the saints” has been accomplished, or till persecution appears to have stamped out all that remains of godliness. This makes the prophecy accord with Daniel 7:25 and the parallel passages in the New Testament.
The word from the note translated as “scatter” is “shatter” in the ESV. They both indicate a breaking into pieces and a spread out dispersal.
For Christians, one interpretation regarding the end of this scattering relates to the notion that all of humanity will be gathered to the Church (i.e. Israel.) This would by necessity include all of those people from the tribes of Israel who accept Christ.
For Jews or Christian Zionists, this is usually meant to indicate that at some point in the future, the lost tribes of Israel will be found and restored to their ancient faith. We’ll cover this a bit more at the end.
Daniel does not understand and asks for clarification, and he gets an answer at verse 9. (From TPC)
And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. The Septuagint omits the last clause, and completes this verse from that which succeeds, “And he said, Depart, Daniel; for the commands are veiled and sealed until many shall be tried and shall be sanctified.” Theodotion renders, “Come, Daniel, because the words are fenced and sealed till the time of the end.” The Peshitta and the Vulgate agree with the Massoretic. Go thy way, Daniel. This is a refusal to grant Daniel’s prayer, but in the refusal no condemnation of Daniel is implied. The oracles were sealed until circumstance broke the seal. The purpose of prophecy was not to enable men to write history beforehand. It is to be a sign that, recognized in its fulfilment, may afford evidence of the Divinity of the message or person to whom it referred. Closed up and sealed. This verse gives us the real meaning of these words. Daniel’s oracles were not concealed and sealed from being read, but because they were not interpreted they were not understood. For even to Daniel they are “closed up and sealed.” Till the time of the end. This is omitted, as may be seen above, from the Septuagint. Although this has a satisfactory meaning, yet it seems better to connect this verse more directly with that which follows.
The note here gives an explanation regarding prophecy. Not all of it was intended to be so obvious that you could write history ahead of time. Often it is intended to be evidence of divine power at the time when it is being fulfilled, and then after. You don’t necessarily want the bad guys to know all of the details of your plans before you execute them. However, it is pretty powerful to build up faith, to demonstrate in hindsight that you knew what was coming. Verse 10 builds on that idea, too. (From the note in Ellicott)
(10) Many shall be purified.—See Notes on Revelation 22:11, and comp. Daniel 11:35. The words imply that all shall be fulfilled, the time of persecution shall certainly arise, the righteous will be purified, while the wicked will become apostates. The wise (see Daniel 11:33), and they only, will understand the true meaning and profit of tribulation as it is set forth in this prophecy.
Prophecy is thus to be understood by the wise and perhaps to be misunderstood by the wicked. The idea of refining comes to mind. Purity survives a refining fire and impure things are burned up.
Continuing in Ellicott at its note for verse 11:
(11) From the time.—It appears as if at this verse the prophecy recurs to the more immediate future, and that these words point to the same subject as Daniel 11:31. The language used respecting the “abomination” is almost verbally the same as that in Daniel 8:3; Daniel 8:11; Daniel 9:27, and prevents us from arriving at any other conclusion. The great and apparently insoluble difficulty is the relation which the 1,290 or the 1,335 days occupy with regard to the 2,300 days, or the time, times, and the dividing of a time. Assuming that these four periods all commence at the same epoch (see Note on Daniel 8:14), the death of Antiochus closes the 1,290 days, and the 1,335 days point to some event which occurred forty-five days, or a month and a half, later. The principal objection to this view is that the exact date of the death of Antiochus is uncertain, and therefore all calculations based upon the precise day of his death must be untrustworthy. It is obvious that neither of the two periods mentioned in this and the following verse can be made to agree with three years and a half without setting the rules of arithmetic at defiance. Also the obscurity which rests over the greater portion of the history of Israel should guard us against assuming that we can explain all the contents of the last three chapters by means of what occurred in those times, and also against assuming our historical facts from Daniel, and then making use of them to illustrate his prophecies.
Here we get the specifics, though understanding the specifics is a different issue. Ellicott seems relatively stumped. I am not certain that TPC provides us with much more direction, but we’ll look at its note for verse 11 also:
And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. The Septuagint is, “From the time the sacrifice is taken away for ever, and the abomination of desolation is prepared to be set up, are a thousand two hundred and ninety days.” The translator must have had עֹלַת (‛olath) before him, and read it עלָה (‛olah), else he could not have translated hsilgnE:egaugnaLתָּמֻיד} “for ever,” and written “sacrifice” also. The Hebrew copyist, following the usage of Palestine, which makes “sacrifice” understood after “continual,” had omitted it in the text followed by the Massoretes. Theodotion’s rendering is, “From the time of the change of the daily sacrifice (ἐν δελεχισμός) and the abomination of desolation set up (“given,” δοθήσεται) is a thousand two hundred and ninety days.” The Peshitta and Vulgate do not call for remarks. This verse is a veritable cruz interpretum. From the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away. This event is referred to in Daniel 11:31. Whether the eleventh chapter is earlier or later is in our opinion scarcely doubtful. Also in Daniel 8:11 we have the taking away of the daily sacrifice mentioned as one of the deeds of Antiochus. While the reference in Daniel 11:1-45. and Daniel 8:1-27. is to the action of Antiochus, it is not necessary to maintain that this refers to him; other oppressors might take away the daily sacrifice. This clause certainly seems to give the terminus a quo, but it is difficult to fix the date m question. Certainly from the fact that the words used here are used by the writer of the eleventh chapter to describe the actions of Antiochus, and that in 1 Macc. 1:54 there is also a similar identification, we might be inclined to take the event here mentioned as the starting-point of the twelve hundred and ninety days. But the acknowledged impossibility of fitting the days to the chronology militates against this view. And the abomination that maketh desolate set up. At first sight the reader is inclined to follow Wieseler, and regard this as a statement of the terminus ad quem. The grammatical difficulties against this view are forcible. Although לְ … מִן, “from” and “to,” are sometimes used for עד … מִן, “from … until,” it is rare, and the intrusion of וְ, “and,” is strong against this interpretation. Yet it seems strange that two termini a quo should be assigned and no terminus ad quota. A thousand two hundred and ninety days. While this seems to be the same period as that reckoned in the seventh verse, “a time, times, and half a time,” yet it is not absolutely coincident. It is thirty days more than three and a half times the prophetic year of three hundred and sixty, and eleven days more than three and a half mean solar years. As we have already said, if we take the profanation of the temple, 25th Casleu, 145 Seleucid era, as our starting-point, it is impossible to fix any great deliverance or any event of importance which happened some three years and seven months after. Antiochus may have died seven months after the news arrived of the reconsecration of the temple; but we have no data. As above stated, the death of Antiochus wrought but little alteration in the condition of the Jews. If we regard the days as literal days, there is one period that nearly coincides with the twelve hundred and ninety days—our Lord’s ministry upon the earth. It is difficult to understand how our Lord’s commencing his ministry was the removing of the daily sacrifice. Yet in the “heavenlies” it might be so. Further, we sometimes reckon “from” a period to come, as we can say, “We are yet—weeks from harvest, midsummer, or Christmas.” So the Crucifixion as the fulfilment of all the sacrifices of the Law may be regarded as their removal. Certainly in his crucifixion was the real abomination which maketh desolate set up. It suits the next verse. From our Lord’s crucifixion to his ascension there would be exactly forty-five days if, as is commonly believed, his ascension, as his resurrection, took place on a Sunday. This, however, is merely a thought thrown out. If we take the date indicated by our Lord, the war against the Jews, dating from Vespasian’s march to Ptolemais in the beginning of a.d. 67 to the capture of the temple and the cessation of the daily sacrifice (Josephus, ‘Bell. Jud.,’ 6.2. 1), is not far off twelve hundred and ninety days. From this to the final capture of the city is close upon forty-five days. If we, however, take a day for a year, then another series of possible solutions are before us, all more or less faulty. One has the merit of postponing the solution to a date still future. The capture of Jerusalem by the Arabs in a.d. 637 is made the starting-point; if we add to that twelve hundred and ninety years, we have a.d. 1927. The Mohammedan power may have fallen by that time; anything may have happened then. All these various solutions, all more or less unsatisfactory, prove that no solution is possible. If the fulfilment is yet in the future, circumstances may convey to us the interpretation. We must remember the vision was sealed to “the time of the end.” Professor Fuller suggests that Babylonian discovery may at some future date throw light on Daniel’s use of numbers.
TPC gives us a lot more in terms of interpretive options, but very little with respect to certainty. We’ll look at this some more at the end, but first we’ll finish the study of the text. Continuing in TPC at verse 12:
Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. None of the versions occasion any remark. Blessed is he that waiteth. It might be rendered, Oh the blessednesses of him that waiteth! This implies that forty-five days or years after the unknown event that terminates the twelve hundred and ninety days, another event of yet more surpassing interest, and fraught with yet greater benefit, shall occur. It seems most natural to regard this period as including in it that which precedes, though there is no grammatical reason why this period should not commence at the expiry of the twelve hundred and ninety days. In the latter case we are fully more at sea than before.
It’s really fun to speculate here about the 45 days. The time period doesn’t quite fit with respect to the space between the Crucifixion and Pentecost. If we interpret this period of time as representing a period of years, then reasonable speculation is even more open.
The “lot” referred to in verse 13 appears to be a reference to the lots assigned to the 12 tribes at the time of the Conquest. We’ll see if TPC agrees:
But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days. The Septuagint Version here differs considerably from the Massoretic, “Go thy way and rest, for there are days and hours till the fulfilment of the end; and thou shalt rest and arise to thy glory at the end of days.” Theodotion closely resembles the LXX. in his rendering of this verse, “But go thou and rest, for there are yet days and hours to the fulfilment of the end, and thou shalt arise in thy lot at the end of days.” The Pesbitta renders, “Go, Daniel, to the end, rest and arise at thy time at the end of days.” The Vulgate agrees with the Massoretic text. As to the additional clause which appears in the version of the LXX. and in Theodotion, Origen has appended the mark which indicates that these words were only found in the LXX; or, at all events, had nothing corresponding to them in the Hebrew text of his day. Go thou thy way. Daniel is dismissed in peace, without having his question answered. Before Daniel was a course, and on that course he was to go, without occupying his thoughts with this secret thing. There is no word for “way” in the Hebrew or in any of the older versions. Till the end. The versions transpose this clause with that which follows. “The end” is not naturally the end of Daniel’s life, for that ought to be “thy end;” still, the next clause seems to necessitate this. Hitzig would interpret the word qaytz as “goal” (ziel); but it is not the usual meaning of the word, and is not so used elsewhere in this passage. Professor Robertson Smith’s suggestion, that the word קֵץ (qaytz) is due to a mistake of a copyist, who has inserted it wrongly, is worthy of consideration. For thou shalt rest. This is rendered by Hitzig, “und magst ruhig sein”—”and you may be at rest.” The fulfilment of the prophecy was fur a time long future, and Daniel need not disturb himself. Against this interpretation is the fact that the verb נוַּה (nuah), here translated “rest,” never has the subjective meaning which Hitzig here attaches to it. The natural view is that of Ewald and most interpreters—”rest” in the grave. And strand in thy lot at the end of the days. In Jeremiah 13:25 “lot” is used for what is assigned by the judgment of God. “Standing in the lot” primarily suggests one taking possession of what has been assigned by Divine judgment. It is objected by Hitzig that the verb “to stand” does not mean to rise from the dead, which is true; but the connection necessitates this meaning, and as the idea of resurrection had not received theological definition, no technical word would have the exclusive claim to be used. Even now we do not always use “resurrection,” and in poetry rarely do. “The end of days” must mean the end of time after the resurrection.
So we are now at the end of the Protestant / Jewish version of The Book of Daniel. Along the way, we covered most if not all of the Catholic and Orthodox verses also (though those verses are not included in the Commentaries which we used.)
Taking a big picture view of the Book of Daniel… what does it all mean? I’ll share some interpretations below: I am not endorsing any interpretation, but I do want to share some of those that are relatively interesting.
Here are a few additional videos regarding the recovery of the “lost tribes” of Israel:
And for a good solid overview of the entire book’s prophetic visions, in the form of charts:
That brings us to the end of this study. I hope that if you’ve followed along, you’ve found it informative. And if we find ourselves in the End Times, I hope that you are wise and hold fast to the faith even when things grow difficult.
