Dan 12:1 | KD | STEP | ההיא וּבעת points back to קץ בּעת ( ). 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, ), i.e., totally to outroot them ( ), the great angel-prince Michael shall come forth and fight for the people of God against their oppressor. Regarding Michael, see under , 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, ; ), describes Michael, who carries on his work as Israel’s שׂר ( ). That Michael, fighting for Daniel’s people, goes forth against the hostile king ( ), 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, and Dan 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 (C. B. Michaelis, Hengstenberg); but that which is there said is here heightened by the relative clause (cf. ), which enlarges the thought, , Exo 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, Dan 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, , Dan 7:25., 14, Dan 9:24.” Thus Kranichfeld rightly remarks. He also rightly identifies the continued victorious deliverance of Israel from the oppression ( ) with the setting up of the Messianic kingdom, described in , , and finds in this verse ( ) 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 , 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, -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 2Ki 3:6; ; , 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 ), , refers back to the עם משׂכּילי who helped may to knowledge, and who lost their lives in the persecution ( ), and now are raised to eternal life. Hävernick, however, was right, in opposing those who refer 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 or from , 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 from , , which undoubtedly treat of the resurrection from the dead. According to Auberlen, who has rightly conceived that the משׂכּילים, , allude to the משׂכּילים, and , the הרבּים מצדּיקי to the לרבּים יבינוּ, , , 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 , every designation of time is wanting, while in 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.

‏ Daniel 12:1

Dan 12:1 ההיא וּבעת points back to קץ בּעת (Dan 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, Dan 11:44), i.e., totally to outroot them (Dan 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 Dan 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, Est 8:11; Est 9:16), describes Michael, who carries on his work as Israel’s שׂר (Dan 10:21). That Michael, fighting for Daniel’s people, goes forth against the hostile king (Dan 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, Dan 10:13 and Dan 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 Jer 30:7 (C. B. Michaelis, Hengstenberg); but that which is there said is here heightened by the relative clause (cf. Joe 2:2), which enlarges the thought, Exo 9:18, Exo 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, Dan 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, Dan 7:18, Dan 7:25., 14, Dan 9:24.” Thus Kranichfeld rightly remarks. He also rightly identifies the continued victorious deliverance of Israel from the oppression (Dan 12:1) with the setting up of the Messianic kingdom, described in Dan 7:2, Dan 7:9, and finds in this verse (Dan 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 Dan 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, Mat 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 2Ki 3:6; Isa 28:5; Gen 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), Dan 12:3, refers back to the עם משׂכּילי who helped may to knowledge, and who lost their lives in the persecution (Dan 11:33-34), and now are raised to eternal life. ^{▼▼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 Dan 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 Dan 9:26 or from Mat 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 Dan 12:1 from Dan 12:2, Dan 12:3, which undoubtedly treat of the resurrection from the dead.

According to Auberlen, who has rightly conceived that the משׂכּילים, Dan 12:3, allude to the משׂכּילים, Dan 11:33 and Dan 11:34, the הרבּים מצדּיקי to the לרבּים יבינוּ, Dan 11:33, Dan 12:2, Dan 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 Dan 12:2, Dan 12:3 every designation of time is wanting, while in Dan 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.