John Calvin Commentary Daniel 9:26

"And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined." — Daniel 9:26 (ASV)

Here Daniel deals with the sixty-two weeks that elapsed between the sixth year of Darius and the baptism of Christ, when the Gospel began to be proclaimed. At the same time, he does not neglect the seven weeks which he had mentioned. For they cover the space of time that intervened between the Persian monarchy and the second edict that again granted liberty to the people after the death of Cambyses.

After the sixty-two weeks that were to follow the previous seven, Messiah shall be cut off, he says. Here the angel predicts the death of Christ. The Jews refer this to Agrippa, but this, as we have already observed, is utterly worthless and foolish. Eusebius and others refer it to Aristobulus, but this is equally without reason.

Therefore, the angel speaks of the only Mediator, as in the previous verse he had said, until Christ the Leader. The extension of this to all the priesthood is both forced and absurd. The angel rather means this: Christ would then be revealed to undertake the government of his people; or, in other words, until Messiah shall appear and commence his reign.

We have already remarked upon those who erroneously and childishly explain the name “Leader,” as if it were inferior in dignity to that of a king. As the angel had used the name “Christ” in the sense of Mediator, so he repeats it in this passage in the same sense. And surely, as he had previously discussed those distinctive marks of God’s favor by which the new Church was to surpass the old, we can only understand the passage as referring to Christ alone, of whom the priests and kings under the Law were equally a type.

The angel, then, here asserts, Christ should die, and at the same time he specifies the kind of death by saying, nothing shall remain to him. This short clause may be understood in various ways, yet I do not hesitate to state the angel’s meaning as this: Christ would die in such a way as to be entirely reduced to nothing.

Some explain it this way: the city or the people shall be as nothing to him, meaning, he shall be divorced from the people, and their adoption shall cease, since we know the Jews had so fallen away from true piety by their perfidy as to be entirely alienated from God and to have lost the name of a Church. But that interpretation is forced.

Others think it means it shall be neither hostile nor favorable, and others that nothing shall remain to him in the sense of being destitute of all help. However, all these comments appear to me too unconvincing.

The genuine meaning, I have no doubt, is as follows: the death of Christ would be without any attractiveness or loveliness, as Isaiah says (Isaiah 53:2). In truth, the angel informs us of the ignominious character of Christ’s death, as if he would vanish from human sight through want of comeliness. Nothing, therefore, shall remain to him, he says; and the obvious reason is because people would think him utterly abolished.

He now adds, The leader of the coming people shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Here the angel inserts what rather concerns the end of the chapter, as he will return to Christ later. He here mentions what would happen at Christ’s death, and purposely interrupts the order of the narrative to show that their impiety would not escape punishment, as they not only rejected the Christ of God but killed him and tried to erase his memory from the world.

And although the angel was specifically referring to the faithful alone, still unbelievers needed to be admonished in order to leave them without excuse. We are well aware of the negligence and brutality of this people, as displayed in their putting Christ to death, for this event occasioned a triumph for the priests and the whole people.

Therefore, these points ought to be joined together. But the angel consulted the interests of the faithful, as they would be greatly shocked at the death of Christ, which we have alluded to, and also at his ignominy and rejection. As this was a way of perishing so very horrible in the opinion of mankind, the minds of all the pious might utterly despond unless the angel had come to their relief.

Therefore, he proposes a suitable remedy, The leader of the coming people shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; as if he had said: There is no encouragement for the unbelievers to please and flatter themselves because Christ was reduced to nothing in a carnal sense; vengeance shall instantly overtake them. The leader of the coming people shall destroy both the city and the sanctuary. He names a coming leader, to prevent the unbelievers from resting secure through self-flattery, as if God would not instantly stretch forth His hand to avenge Himself upon them.

Although the Roman army that would destroy the city and sanctuary did not immediately appear, yet the Prophet assures them of the arrival of a leader with an army that would cause the destruction of both the city and the sanctuary. Without the slightest doubt, he here signifies that God would inflict dreadful vengeance upon the Jews for their murder of His Christ.

That trifler, Barbinel, in his desire to refute the Christians, says that more than two hundred years elapsed between the destruction of the Temple and the death of Christ. How ignorant he was! Even if we were to place no confidence in the evangelists and apostles, secular writers would soon convict him of folly.

But such is the barbarity of his nation, and so great their obstinacy, that they are ashamed of nothing. As far as we are concerned, we gather with sufficient clearness from the passage how the angel briefly touched upon the future slaughter of the city and the destruction of the Temple, so that the faithful would not be overwhelmed with trials as a result of Christ’s death, and so that the unbelievers would not be hardened by this event.

The interpretation of some writers regarding the people of the coming leader, as if Titus wished to spare the most beautiful city and preserve it untouched, seems too elaborate to me. I understand it simply as a leader about to come with his army to destroy the city and utterly to overthrow the Temple.

He afterwards adds, Its end shall be in a deluge. Here the angel removes all hope from the Jews, whose obstinacy might lead them to expect some advantage in their favor, for we are already aware of their great stupidity when in a state of desperation.

So that the faithful would not indulge in the same feelings as the apostates and rebellious, he says, The end of the leader, Titus, should be in a deluge; meaning, he would overthrow the city and national polity, and utterly put an end to the priesthood and the race, while all God’s favors would at the same time be withdrawn.

In this sense, his end should be in a deluge. Lastly, at the end of the war a most decisive desolation. The word נחרצת, nech-retzeth, “a completion,” can scarcely be understood otherwise than as a substantive noun. A plural noun follows, שממות, shem-moth, “of desolations” or “devastations;” and taken as a verb, it means “definite or terminated laying waste.” The most skilled grammarians allow that the first of these words may be taken as a substantive for “termination,” as if the angel had said: Even if the Jews experience a variety of fortune in battle, and have hopes of being superior to their enemies, and of sallying out and preventing their foes from entering the city; indeed, even if they repel them, still the end of the war shall result in utter devastation, and their destruction is clearly defined.

Two points, then, should be noted here:

1. All hope is to be taken from the Jews, as they must be taught the necessity of their perishing.
2. A reason is ascribed for this, namely, the determination of the Almighty and His inviolable decree.

It afterwards follows: —