Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament · 다니엘 12장

ההיא וּבעת points back to קץ בּעת (Daniel 11:4). At the time of the end, in which the hostile persecutor rises up to subdue the whole world, and sets up his camp in the Holy Land to destroy many in great anger and to strike them with the ban ( החרים , Daniel 11:44), i.e., totally to outroot them (Daniel 11:40-45), the great angel-prince Michael shall come forth and fight for the people of God against their oppressor. Regarding Michael, see under Daniel 10:13, p. 771. “Who stands over the sons of thy people,” i.e., stands near, protecting them (cf. for על עמד in the sense of coming to protect, Esther 8:11; Esther 9:16), describes Michael, who carries on his work as Israel's שׂר (Daniel 10:21). That Michael, fighting for Daniel's people, goes forth against the hostile king (Daniel 11:45), is, it is true, not said expressis verbis , but it lies in the context, especially in the עמך ימּלט ( they people shall be delivered) of the second half of the verse, as well as in the expressions regarding Michael, Daniel 10:13 and Daniel 10:21.

But the people of God need such powerful help for their deliverance, because that time shall be one of oppression without any parallel. The description of this oppression seems to be based on Jeremiah 30:7 (C. B. Michaelis, Hengstenberg); but that which is there said is here heightened by the relative clause (cf. Joel 2:2), which enlarges the thought, Exodus 9:18, Exodus 9:24. This צרה עת ( time of distress) is the climax of the oppression which the hostile king shall bring upon Israel, and occurs at the same time as the expiry of the last (the seventieth) week, Daniel 9:26. “The salvation of Israel ( ימּלט ), which is here thought of as brought about under the direction of Michael, coincides essentially with the description, Daniel 7:18, Daniel 7:25., 14, Daniel 9:24.” Thus Kranichfeld rightly remarks. He also rightly identifies the continued victorious deliverance of Israel from the oppression (Daniel 12:1) with the setting up of the Messianic kingdom, described in Daniel 7:2, Daniel 7:9, and finds in this verse (Daniel 12:1) the Messianic kingdom dissolving the world-kingdoms.

With this the opposers of the genuineness of the book of Daniel also agree, and deduce therefrom the conclusion, that the pseudo-Daniel expected, along with the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes, the appearance of the Messianic kingdom of glory. This conclusion would be indisputable if the premises from which it is drawn, that ההיא בּעת ( at that time) is the time of Antiochus, were well founded. All attempts of believing interpreters, who, with Porphyry, Grotius, Bleek, v. Lengerke, Hitzig, and others, find the death of Antiochus prophesied in Daniel 11:45, to dismiss this conclusion, appear on close inspection to be untenable. According to Hävernick, with ההיא וּבעת ( and at that time) a new period following that going before is introduced, and that ההיא בּעת means at some future time. The appearance of Michael for his people denotes the appearance of the Messiah; and the sufferings and oppressions connected with his appearance denote the sufferings which the people of Israel shall endure at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, but which shall be most fully realized only at the second coming of the Lord, Matthew 24:21-22. But this explanation is shattered against the ההיא בּעת , which never has the meaning “at some time,” i.e., in the further future, and is refuted by the following remark of Hitzig: - ”Not once,” says he, with good ground, “can the words ההוּא בּיּום be proved by such passages as 2 Kings 3:6; Isaiah 28:5; Genesis 39:11, to have the meaning of at that day; in ההיא בעת we may not by any means seek such a meaning, and the copula here puts a complete barrier in the way of such arbitrariness. Moreover, if the epoch of Antiochus Epiphanes was indeed a time of oppression, who could a reader then not refer this ההיא to the time of that king described in the foregoing chapter?” Finally, משׂכּילים ( intelligentes ), Daniel 12:3, refers back to the עם משׂכּילי who helped may to knowledge, and who lost their lives in the persecution (Daniel 11:33-34), and now are raised to eternal life.

(Note: These arguments extend also to the overthrow of Ebrard's view, that the expression “to this time” refers to the time after Antiochus Epiphanes shall have died.)

Hävernick, however, was right, in opposing those who refer Daniel 12:1 to the period of persecution under Antiochus, in arguing that the statement of the unheard-of greatness of the affliction is far too strong for such a period, and at the same time that the promise of the deliverance of those that shall be found written in the book does not accord with that Syrian oppression, although he is in error when he interprets the appearance of Michael of the first appearance of Christ. This interpretation receives no support either from Daniel 9:26 or from Matthew 24:21-22, because both passages treat of the coming of Christ in glory. But if the reference of this verse to the appearance of Christ in the flesh is inconsistent with the words, still more so is its reference to the period of Antiochus. Those interpreters who advance this view are under the necessity of violently separating Daniel 12:1 from Daniel 12:2, Daniel 12:3, which undoubtedly treat of the resurrection from the dead.

According to Auberlen, who has rightly conceived that the משׂכּילים , Daniel 12:3, allude to the משׂכּילים , Daniel 11:33 and Daniel 11:34, the הרבּים מצדּיקי to the לרבּים יבינוּ , Daniel 11:33, Daniel 12:2, Daniel 12:3 do not intimate any progress in the development of the history, but by mentioning the resurrection only, are referred to the eternal retribution which awaits the Israelites according to their conduct during the time of great persecution under Antiochus, because, as C. B. Michaelis has said, ejus (i.e., of the resurrection) consideratio magnam vim habet ad confirmandum animum sub tribulationibus . As to the period between the time of trial and the resurrection, nothing whatever is said; for in Daniel 12:2, Daniel 12:3 every designation of time is wanting, while in Daniel 12:1 the expression “at this time” twice occurs. Thus Hengstenberg ( Christol. iii. 1, p. 6) has remarked, “Whether there be a longer or a shorter time between the tribulation of the Maccabean era and the resurrection, the consolation from the fact of the resurrection remains equally powerful. Therefore it is so connected with the deliverance from the persecution as if the one immediately followed the other.” But with this it is conceded that the resurrection from the dead is so associated with the deliverance of Israel from the tyranny of Antiochus as if it came immediately after it, as the opponents of the genuineness of the book affirm. But this interpretation is obviously a mere make-shift.

return to '

With Daniel 12:4 the revelation might have concluded, as that in Daniel ends with the direction to shut up the vision. But then a disclosure regarding the times of the events prophesied of, which Daniel might have expected according to the analogy of the visions in Daniel 8 and 9, would have been wanting. This disclosure is given to him in Daniel 12:5-12, and that in a very solemn, impressive way. The appearance which hitherto he has seen is changed. He sees two other angels standing on the banks of the river, the one on this side and the other on that side. והנּה ... וראיתי ( then I looked, and lo) does not, it is true, indicate a new vision so much as a new scene in the vision, which still continued. The words אהרים שׁנים , two others, sc. heavenly beings or angels (without the article), show that they now for the first time became visible, and were different from the one who was hitherto seen by him and had spoken with him. Therefore the supposition that the one of these two angels was Gabriel, who had communicated to him the revelation, fails, even if, which is according to our exposition, not the case, the speaker in Daniel 11 and Daniel 12:1-13 were this angel.

return to '

Daniel heard his answer, but he understood it not. To שׁמעתּי , as to אבין לא , the object is wanting, because it can easily be supplied from the connection, namely, the meaning of the answer of the man clothed in linen. Grotius has incorrectly supplied quid futurum esset from the following question, in which he has also incorrectly rendered אלּה אחרית by post illiu triennii et temporis semestris spatium . Hävernick has also defined the object too narrowly, for he has referred the non-understanding merely to the mysterious number (a time, two times, etc.). It was, besides, not merely the double designation of time in Daniel 12:7 which first at the hour of his receiving it, but while it was yet unintelligible to the hearer, compelled Daniel, as Hitzig thinks, to put the further question. The whole answer in Daniel 12:7 is obscure. It gives no measure for the “times,” and thus no intelligible disclosure for the prophet regarding the duration of the end, and in the definition, that at the time of the deepest humiliaton of the people the end shall come, leaves wholly undefined when this shall actually take place.

(Note: As to this latter circumstance L'Empereur remarks: Licet Daniel ex antecedentibus certo tempus finiendarum gravissimarum calamitatum cognoverit, tamen illum latuit, quo temporis articulo calamitas inceptura esset: quod ignorantiam quandam in tota prophetia peperit, cum a priori termino posterioris exacta scientia dependeret. Initium quidem variis circumstantiis definitum fuerat: sed quando circumstantiae futurae essent, antequam evenirent, ignorabatur .)

Hence his desire for a more particular disclosure.

The question, “what the end of these?” is very differently interpreted. Following the example of Grotius, Kliefoth takes אחרית in the sense of that which follows something which is either clearly seen from the connection or is expressly stated, and explains אלּה אחרית of that which follows or comes after this. But אלּה is not, with most interpreters, to be taken as identical with כּל־אלּה of Daniel 12:7; for since “this latter phrase includes all the things prophesied of down to the consummation, then would this question refer to what must come after the absolute consummation of all things, which would be meaningless.” Besides, the answer, Daniel 12:11, Daniel 12:12, which relates to the things of Antiochus, would not harmonize with such a question. Much more are we, with Auberlen (p. 75f.), to understand אלּה of the present things and circumstances, things then in progress at the time of Daniel and the going forth of the prophecy. In support of this interpretation Auberlen adds, “The angel with heavenly eye sees into the far distant end of all; the prophet, with human sympathies, regards the more immediate future of his people.” But however correct the remark, that אלּה is not identical with כּל־אלּה , this not identical with all this, there is no warrant for the conclusion drawn from it, that אלּה designates the present things and circumstances existing under Antiochus at the time of Daniel. אלּה must, by virtue of the connection in Daniel 12:7, Daniel 12:8, be understood of the same things and circumstances, and a distinction between the two is established only by כּל . If we consider this distinction, then the question, What is the last of these things? contains not the meaningless thought, that yet something must follow after the absolute consummation, but the altogether reasonable thought, Which shall be the last of the פּלאות prophesied of? Thus Daniel could ask in the hope of receiving an answer from which he might learn the end of all these פּלאות more distinctly than from the answer given by the angel in Daniel 12:7. But as this reference of אלּה to the present things and circumstances is excluded by the connection, so also is the signification attributed to אחרית , of that which follows something, verbally inadmissible; see under Daniel 8:19.

Most other interpreters have taken אחרית as synonymous with קץ , which Hävernick seeks to establish by a reference to Daniel 8:19, Daniel 8:23, and Deuteronomy 11:12. But none of these passage establishes this identity. קץ is always thus distinguished from אחרית , that it denotes a matter after its conclusion, while אחרית denotes the last or the uttermost of the matter. A distinction which, it is true, may in many cases become irrelevant. For if this distinction is not noticed here, we would be under the necessity, in order to maintain that the two questions in Daniel 12:6, Daniel 12:8 are not altogether identical, of giving to מה the meaning qualis (Maurer), of what nature (Hofmann, v. Lengerke, and others); a meaning which it has not, and which does not accord with the literal idea of אחרית . “Not how? but what? is the question; מה is not the predicate, but the subject, the thing inquired about.” Thus Hitzig, who is altogether correct in thus stating the question: “What, i.e., which even its the uttermost, the last of the פּלאות , which stands before the end?”

return to '

The answer, לך , go thy way, Daniel, is quieting, and at the same time it contains a refusal to answer; yet it is not wholly a refusal, as is clear from Daniel 12:11, Daniel 12:12. The disclosure regarding the end which is given to him in these verses shows distinctly that the end of the things is not so revealed as that men shall be able to know it beforehand with certainty.

(Note: On this Calvin has well remarked: Quamvis Daniel non stulta curiositate inductus quaesierit ex angelo de fine mirabilium, tamen non obtinet, quod petebat, quia scilicet voluit Deus ad modum aliquem intelligi quae praedixerat, sed tamen aliquid manere occultum usque dum veniret maturum plenae revelationis tempus. Haec igitur ratio est, cur angelus non exaudiat Danielem. Pium quidem erat ejus votum (neque enim optat quicquam scire plus quam jus esset), verum Deus scit quod opus sit, ideo non concessit quod optabat .)

לך signifies neither go hence, i.e., depart, die (Bertholdt, Hävernick), nor go away, instead of standing waiting for an answer (Hitzig), for the angel does give him an answer; but as the formula dimittentis ut excitantis ad animi tranquillitatem (C. B. Michaelis), it has the meaning: vade Daniel, h. e. mitte hanc praesentem tuam curam . “Be at peace, leave this matter alone” (Geier and others, and similarly v. Lengerke, Kranichfeld, Kliefoth). The clause assigning the reason for the command כּי ( for the words are shut up, etc.), is chiefly interpreted as referring the closing and sealing up to the incomprehensibility of the prophecy. Thus e.g., Ewald explains it: “For hidden and sealed up are the words, all the things contained in these prophecies, till the time of the end; then shall they be easily unsealed and deciphered.” But since, according to Daniel 12:4, Daniel himself must shut up and seal the book, the participles in the clause, assigning the reason for the command לך , cannot have the meaning of the perfect, but only state what is or shall be done: shut up - they shall be (remain) till the time of the end; thus they only denote the shutting up and sealing which must be accomplished by Daniel. But Daniel could not make the prophecy unintelligible, since (Daniel 12:8) he himself did not understand it; nor could he seal it up till the time of the end, since he did not live to see the end. The shutting up and sealing which was commanded to the prophet can therefore only consist in this, that the book should be preserved in security against any defacement of its contents, so that it might be capable of being read at all times down to the time of the end, and might be used by God's people for the strengthening of their faith; cf. Daniel 8:26. “Thus Daniel is calmed in regard to his not understanding it by the fact that this whole prophecy ( הדּברים as in Daniel 12:4) shall be guarded and placed in safety, and shall continue through all times down to the end” (Kliefoth). For the use of it in all times is supposed in Daniel 12:10.

return to '

The first clause of this verse is interpreted from Daniel 11:35. The being purified is effected through tribulation and affliction, which the people shall endure to the end. The prophecy shall serve for the gaining of this object. It is true, indeed, that this perfection shall not be attained by all; they that are ungodly shall remain ungodly still, and therefore they do not come to the understanding of the words which all the wise shall gain. יבינוּ and יבינוּ לא stand in such distinct relation to the אבין לא ( I understood not), Daniel 12:8, that they must be taken in the same sense in both places, i.e., not to have insight in general, but by supplying הדּברים as the object from Daniel 12:8, to have understanding of the prophecy. This is denied of the wicked or the godless. Only the wise shall gain it. Thus the angel says to Daniel for the purpose of calming him regarding his non-understanding: - Calm thyself, Daniel, if thou dost not understand these words. The prophecy shall be preserved for all times to the end of the days. These times shall bring many tribulations, to purify thy people; and though by these afflictions all shall not be converted, but the wicked shall remain wicked still and shall not understand the prophecy, yet the wise shall be purified and made white by the afflictions, and the longer they are tried the better shall they learn to understand the prophecy. Thus, though thou thyself understandest it not, yet it shall be a source of great blessing to the people of God, and in all times, even unto the end, they shall have more and more an understanding of it.

Thus has Kliefoth rightly presented the meaning of both verses, and in confirmation of this interpretation has referred to 1 Peter 1:10, 1 Peter 1:12, where, with reference to the passage before us (cf. Hengstenberg, Beitrag. i. p. 273f.), it is said that the prophets received the prophecies of the end not for themselves alone, but much rather for “ us,” for those who come after.

return to '