1. THERE remains yet one place more, giving evident testimony unto the truth under demonstration, to be considered and vindicated.. And this is the illustrious prediction and specification of time granted unto Daniel by the angel Gabriel. Ch. ix. 2427. “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression and_ to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off; but not for himself: 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 unto the end of the war, desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate.” So our translation reads the words, how agreeably unto the original, we shall consider and examine particularly in our progress. 5 § 2. As Christians in general are aware of the importance of this testi-
mony in our present argument, so the Jews are also in a.great measure sensible of this; as we shall see in considering the manifold evasions which they have invented to avoid the efficacy of it. But before we engage in the consideration of this passage, we must remove out of our way a mistaken apprehension, which not only opposes our views, but which also is opposed to the whole design, intention, and subject-matter of the prophecy itself. A reverend and learned person ina late exposition of the visions and prophecies of Daniel, endeavours to refer them all to the state of the churches of Christ in these latter days of the world, with their sufferings under, and deliverance from the power of antichrist.: And he contends expressly, that this prophecy, prediction, and computation, amongst the rest, doth not relate unto the coming and suffering of the Messiah, but only unto the state of the churches before mentioned. Hence he who published those discourses, declareth in the title of the book, that «A new way is propounded in it, for the finding out of the determinate time signified unto Daniel in his seventy weeks, when it did begin, and when we are to expect the end thereof. And a NEW way it is indeed, not only diverse from, but upon the matter, contrary unto the catholic faith of the church of God, both Judaical and Christian, ever since the first giving out of the prophecy. And such a way it is, as is not only groundless, as we shall discover in the examination of it, but also dangerous unto the Christian faith if received. Yet because the author of it (if he be yet alive) is a person holy, modest, and learned, and proposeth his conjectures with submission unto the judgment of others, not peremptorily determining what he says, (page 51,) his discourse deserves our consideration, and it ought to be answered with a sobriety suited to that wherewith it is proposed. And herein we shall attend unto the method chosen by himself, which is first to give reasons and arguments to prove, that this prophecy cannot be applied unto the coming of the Messiah, and then those which countenance, as he supposes, the application of it unto these latter days, both which shall be examined in their order.
δ 3. That which in general he first insisteth on, as a reason why this prediction should be considered as not applicable to the times of the Messiah, is the difference that is among learned men about the chronological computation of the time here limited. The variety of opinions in this matter he terms monstrous, and the difficulties that attend the several calculations ineatricable. But whether this reason suit his purpose, it is easy to determine; yea, it seems to have strength on the other side. For notwithstanding the difficulties of the exact computation pretended, not one of them whom he mentions, nor scarce any other person, ancient or modern, before himself, or a very few besides, did ever doubt, or call in question, whether the time designed, did concern the coming of the Messiah or not. And it seems to be a greater evidence of the truth thereof, that no difficulty in the computation did ever move them to question the principle itself.
Besides, this is indeed no tolerable argument, namely, that learned men cannot agree in the exact computation of any time appointed unto such an end, to prove that it was not designed unto that end, as is evident from other instances in the Scriptures to the same purpose. Thus God tells Abraham that his seed should sojourn in a strange land four hundred years, Gen. xv. 13, which Stephen repeats, Acts vii. 6. After this, Moses, with some difference in the years themselves, affirms that their sojourn in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years, Exod. xii. 40, which St. Paul repeats,
Gal. iii. 17. Now learned men greatly differ about the right stating of this account, as from what time precisely the computation is to be dated: and that on the very same reason which divides their judgments in the stating of these weeks in Daniel. For as in this place of Daniel, the angel fixes the beginning of the time limited unto the going forth of the decree to build Jerusalem, and there being several decrees at several seasons, made as it should seem to that purpose, they are not agreed from which of them precisely to begin the account. So Paul affirming, that the four hundred and thirty years began with the giving of the promise unto Abraham, it having been several times, and at several seasons solemnly given unto him, there is great question from which of them the computation is to take its date and beginning. And yet, as notwithstanding this difficulty, no man ever doubted, but that the years mentioned
-contained the time during which Abraham and his posterity were in Egypt;
so, notwithstanding the difficulties and difference pleaded about the computation of these weeks of Daniel, no man ever doubted but that the time limited in them, was that allotted unto the Judaical church and state, until the coming of the Messiah. The like difference there is amongst learned men about the beginning and ending of the seventy years in Jeremiah, allotted unto the Babylonish captivity; and that because the people were carried captive at three different times by the Babylonians.
There is, therefore, indeed, no weight in this exception, which is taken merely from the weakness and imbecility of the minds of men, not able to make a perfect judgment concerning some particular points in this divine account. And as we shall afterwards manifest, itis of no great importance to the principal, yea, only end of the prediction itself, whether we can do so orno. But yet that this difficulty is not so inextricable as is pretended, but as capable of a fair solution, as any computation of time so far past and gone, we shall, I hope, sufficiently evidence in the account that shall be subjoined unto our exposition and vindication of the prophecy itself.
§ 4. From this general consideration, the learned author proceeds to give five particular reasons to prove his opinion, which we shall examine in their order. And the first is as followeth:—
‘Because,’ saith he, in no place of the New Testament is this prophecy used against the Jews to prove the Messiah already come.’
Answ. If this reason should be allowed to be cogent, it would disarm
_ the Christian church of the principal testimonies from the Old Testament on which it hath always rested, as proofs that the Messiah is long since. come, and that Jesus of Nazareth is he. For as evidences of that nature are sparingly recorded in the writings of the gospel, so of the most evident and illustrious unto that purpose, there is no mention at all therein. And it is most evident, that both in dealing with the Jews, and in the instruction of his own disciples, the Lord Jesus made use of innumerable other testimonies, besides those which are recorded in the books of the New Testament. So also did his apostles, and other primitive teachers of the gospel. Hence they are said to prove Jesus to be the Christ out of Moses and the prophets, and he is said to have instructed his disciples out of Moses and all the prophets in the things concerning himself; and yet the particular places whereby the one and the other was performed, are not recorded. Besides, this reason laboureth under another unhappiness, which is, that it is grounded upon a mistake. For, indeed, this prophecy is expressly made use of in the New Testament, to denote the time by us allotted unto it; add that by our Lord Jesus Christ himself. For Matt. xxiy. 15,
‘speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, which, according unto this prediction was immediately to succeed upon his coming and suffering, he says unto his disciples, ‘When ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place, (whoso readeth let him understand,) then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains.’ That which here is called βδελυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, or των ἐρημωσεων, (as the words of the evangelist are inserted into the version of the LXX. in this place,) is, DAWA D’SIpW H29 dy, the ‘desolater’ or ‘waster over a wing of abominations; that is, as Luke interpreteth the words, an army compassing Jerusalem unto the desolation thereof, chap. xxi. 20. Wherefore, our Saviour expressly applying this prophecy of Daniel to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the consequence of his passion, he plainly declares, that in his suffering, and the desolation that ensued on the Jews, this whole prediction and limitation of time is fulfilled, and ought not to be sought after in any other season of the church. And this is abundantly sufficient, not only to render the foregoing reason utterly useless, but also to supersede all the following considerations and arguments, as being arguments which contend directly against the interpretation of this prophecy, given us by the Lord Christ himself. But yet, having made this entrance, we shall examine also the ensuing reasons, in their order.
§ 5. It is added, therefore, Secondly, ‘If the restoration of the city, ver. 25, is of the material Jerusalem after Nebuchadnezzar’s captivity, it must begin in the first year of Cyrus, from which time seventy weeks of years will fully expire long before the birth of Christ.’
Answ. There are sundry learned men who despair not of making good the computation from the first year of Cyrus, whose arguments it will not be so easy to overthrow, as to make their failure in chronology to be the foundation of so great an inference as that here proposed, namely, that the coming of the Messiah is not intended in this prophecy. But we shall afterwards prove that there is not only no necessity that the decree mentioned for the restoration of Jerusalem, ver. 25, should be thought to be that made in the first year of Cyrus, but also that it is indeed. impossible that any such decree should be intended, seeing no such was made by him, but only one about the re-building of the temple, to which there is here no respect. Another decree, therefore, express to what the angel here affrmeth, we shall discover, from which unto the sufferings of Christ, the seventy weeks are an exact measure of time.
§ 6. He adds, Thirdly, ‘ the first division of the seventy weeks is seven weeks of years, ver. 25. The end whereof is expressly characterized by the setting up of a Messiah governor, which cannot be verified in the setting up of the first governor of the Jews after the captivity, much less of Christ. For Zerubbabel was set up in the beginning, and Christ long after the end of all. No other governor can be meant after the first; because the setting up of one pointeth at the first. Therefore, if the seven weeks end not in the setting up of Zerubbabel or Christ, as they cannot, then they cannot be verified in the material state of Jerusalem after the captivity of Babylon.’
Answ. This exception fixeth on one of the greatest difficulties in the text, which yet is not such as to bear the weight of the inference that is here made from it. or the argument from the division of the time in the text, 1s of this import; because it is said, ‘that from the going forth of the decree to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks the street shall be built again, and the wall in troublous times; therefore, if the seven weeks end not in the setting up of Zerubbabel or Christ, they cannot be verified in the material state of _derusalem after the captivity. Now, I see not the force of this argument; for the words may have another interpretation, and the separating of the seven weeks from the sixty-two, as all of them from the seventy before mentioned, excluding one out of the distribution, may be to another end than to denote either the setting up of Zerubbabel, which assuredly they did not, or the coming of Christ, which they extend not unto. In brief, they do not precisely assert that at the end of the seven weeks Messiah the Prince should be; for although they are distinguished from the other for some certain purpose not expressed, yet, as to the determination of the coming of the Messiah, they are to be joined with the sixty-two weeks, as is expressly affirmed in the following words. Now, not to prevent myself in what is more largely afterwards to be insisted on, in the exposition of the several passages of this prophecy, after a full consideration of what sundry learned men have offered for the solving of this difficulty, [shall here briefly propose my apprehension concerning it, which I hope the candid and judicious reader will find to answer the scope of the context, and the design of the place.
§ 7. First, I fix it here as unquestionable, that the whole space of seventy weeks doth precisely contain the time between the going forth of the decree, and the unction of the Most Holy, with his passion that ensued, some few years of the last week remaining, not reckoned on, to keep the computation entire by weeks of years. This is so expressly affirmed, ver. 24, that the interpretation of all that ensues is to be regulated thereby. And this, which we shall afterwards prove, we here take for granted, as the hypothesis on which the present difficulty is to be solved. There is, then, a distribution of these seventy weeks into seven, sixty-two, and one; upon the account of some remarkable events, happening at the distinct expiration of those several parcels of the whole season, ver. 25. We have two portions of this time expressed, namely, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and two events attending them, Messiah the Prince, and the building of the street and wall. ‘From the going forth of the decree to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks the street shall be built again, and the wall in troublous times,’ The two events here mentioned, did follow the two distinct parcels of time limited, but not in the order which the words at first view seem to represent, as is evident from the context. For as the Messiah did come at the expiration of the seven weeks, so the sixty-two weeks were not expired before the building of the city; nor is that mentioned as the event designed by the whole space of sixty-nine weeks, but as that which should fall out in some interval of it; for the prophecy issues not in the restoration, but in the desolatiqn of the city. Ἷ
The angel, therefore, expresseth the distinct divisions of time, and the principal distinct events of them, but not the order of their accomplishment. For the natural order of these things is, that in seven weeks the building of the city, wall, and street should be finished, and in sixty-two weeks after, the Messiah should be cut off. And this is evident from the text; for as the building of the city can no way be said to be after the sixty-two weeks, but in and after the seven, which was the season wherein the decree was executed; so the cutting off the Messiah is expressly said in the next verse, to be after those sixty-two weeks, which succeeded unto the seven weeks wherein the restoration of the city was finished. And to suppose the Messiah, in ver. 25, not to be the same with the Messiah, ver. 26, and the
Most Holy, ver. 24, is to confound the whole order of the words, and to leave no certain sense in them. For the single remaining week, the use of it shall be afterwards declared. This distinction, therefore, of the several portions of the whole time limited, doth rather confirm our application of this prophecy, than any way impeach the truth or evidence of it.
§ 8. It is added, fourthly, That ‘the cutting off the Messiah here spoken of, is expressly joined with the destruction of the city in one week, to be accomplished the last seven years; whereas Christ suffered above thirty years before the destruction of the material Jerusalem,’ ver. 26, 27.
Answ. There appears no such thing in the text. The destruction of the city and people, is only mentioned as a consequent of the cutting off and rejection of the Messiah, without any limitation of time wherein it should be performed; and de facto it succeeded immediately in the causes of it, and in the direct tendency of things thereunto.
§ 9. In the last place, he says, “ Those phrases, ver. 24, ‘to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to purge*iniquity, and‘ to bring in everlasting righteousness, are manifest characters of the time of the end, as shall be shown.”
Answ. But why are not the other ends expressed in the prophecy, namely, ‘to seal up vision and prophecy,’ and ‘to anoint the Most Holy,’ here mentioned also? Why is that phrase, JY qp0, translated, ‘ to purge iniquity; whereas, it rather signifies, ‘to make atonement or reconciliation for ini- ᾿ quity? Is it not because it would be very difficult to make any tolerable application of these things unto the season, which is called, ‘the time of the end? In brief, these things are so proper, so peculiar unto the Lord Christ, and the work of his mediation, that in the first, direct, and proper sense, they cannot be ascribed to any other things or persons, without some impiety. And there is no reason why we should here wrest them from their native and genuine signification; all which will be fully manifested in our ensuing exposition of the words themselves.
§ 10. I shall not here insist on those reasons and arguments whereby we prove the true and only Messiah to be intended in this prophecy. For as they are needless unto Christians, who are universally satisfied with the truth hereof, so we shall from the context and other evidences, immediately confirm them against the modern Jews and their masters. In the meantime, wholly to remove this unexpected objection out of our way, I shall show the inconclusiveness of those pretences, which the same learned author makes use of, to countenance his application of this whole angelical message unto the Christian churches of these latter days, which are these that follow:—
§ 1]. First, saith he, ‘Because the effects characterizing the end of those years, the consuming of transgression, and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, are effects to be accomplished in the Christian church at the fali of antichrist. Isa. 1. 25—28, and xxvii. 19; Apoe. mat 7.
Answ. These are but some of the effects mentioned, and one of them not rightly expressed; there are others in the prophecy, as ‘ the anointing of the Most Holy,’ and ‘cutting off the Messiah, that can with no colour of probability be applied unto that season. 2. However, something analogous unto what is here spoken of as an effect and product of it, may be - wrought at another time in the conformity of the church unto its head, yet properly and directly, as here intended, they are the immediate effects of the anointing, death, and sufferings of Jesus Christ. 3. The places quoted out of Isaiah have no respect unto the churches of the latter days, other than all Scripture hath which is written for their instruction. 4. The things mentioned, Apoc. xxi. 27, are effects of this work of Christ in and towards his church, not the work itself here expressed, as the first view of the place will manifest.
Answ. I know not what is understood by ‘represented in the like types.’ There are no types in this prophecy, but a naked continuance of the Judaical church, until the coming of the Messiah, and of the work that he should accomplish at his coming, with the effects and consequences thereof. To allow types in these things, is to enervate all the prophecies which we have of him in the Old Testament. 2. The places directed unto in Isaiah and Jeremiah, intend not the deliverance of the Christian churches, unless it be kara δευτερον σκοπον, and in those places the expressions are in no way coincident with, or suited unto,this prophecy. 3. Where any thing is represented in a type, there must be an accomplishment of somewhat, answerable unto it in the type itself; and such was the deliverance of the Israelites from Babylon of old insisted on by those prophets. But here our author allows no such type, but refers the whole prophecy directly and only unto the ‘Christian churches. 4. In the Revelation, indeed, the deliverance of the churches of Christ from antichristian persecution is foretold; but this cannot prove that the coming and suffering of the Messiah may not be immediately intended, as undoubtedly it is in this place.
§ 13. He says, thirdly, ‘In all other prophecies of Daniel, the main subject of them is the history of antichrist, the Waldensian saints, and their successors, restored and reduced out of antichristian captivity. See chap. vil. 2, viii. L1O—12.:
Answ. This is Petitio Principii, and hath no foundation but the arbitrary hypothesis of our author; and it seems strange that there should be so many prophecies of the churches of Christ, and none amongst them of Christ himself. But this is far from the geniusand strain of the Old Testament, all the principal prophecies whereof directly respect him, and the church only as built on him. 2. Grant therefore (for we will not needlessly contend) that some of those prophecies may concern these latter times, it doth not at all follow that this also must so do, considering the great variety of Daniel’s visions; and there are arguments unanswerable to prove that this prophecy does not relate to the latter times, as will afterwards appear. ἢ us 14. It is added, fourthly, That ‘the parallel’ proportion of phrase argueth the anointed Prince, ver. 25, to be the Prince of the covenant, ch. xi. 22, which there doth signify the princes of the Waldenses.’
Answ. 1. That expression, 7°22 TM, ver. 25, is not well rendered the anoined Prince.’ It is Messiah, the Prince, King, or Leader, as all translations whatever agree. And indeed this is, if not the only, yet far the most signal place in the whole Old Testament, wherein the promised Redeemer is directly called the Mrsstan, whence his usual appellation in both churches, Judaical and Christian, is taken. For there is not above one place more where he is immediately and directly so called, and not in his types: neither is that place without controversy. ΤῸ interpret this expression, therefore, in this place otherwise, is to take away the foundation of that name of our Redeemer, by which the Holy Ghost, in the New Testament, doth principally propose him unto our faith and obedience; which certainly would be in prajudicium fidei Christiane. 2. The Prince of the covenant, ch. xi 22, in those wars of Antiochus Epiphanes, or persecutions of antichrist, (1 determine not whether,) may be another from Messiah the Prince here promised.
Answ. They do more fitly agree to the times of the building of Jerusalem, and last destruction thereof, concerning which they are spoken. All streights and destructions have somewhat alike in them, wherein they may seem to agree; but it doth not thence follow, that one is intended in the prediction of another.
δ 16. Itis further urged, ‘The effects of the last weeks are parallel with the antichristian persecution, described Apoc. xi. For as the Chris-: tian church is in both places signified by the holy city, Apoc. xi. 2, with Dan. ix. 26, and streights of time said in both places to go before the last afflictions, Apoc. xi. 5, iii. 7, with Dan. ix. 25, so the last afflictions are also proposed with marvellous agreement; those three years-and a half of tyranny over the conquered saints, in the end of the persecution; here half a week of years, that is precisely three years and a half, cut out for the same end. The war immediately preceding the foresaid triumph, Apoc. xi. 7, here in like manner.’
_Answ. 1. The likeness of phrases and expressions in setting out different events which agree only in some general points, (especially in the predictions that concern Christ and his church, which is predestinated to be conformed unto him,) is so frequent in the prophecies of the Old Testament, that nothing unto the purpose of this learned author can be concluded from such an observation concerning these places. 2. The Christian church is not intended by the holy city, Dan. ix. 26, but expressly that city which was to be built by the decree of the king of Persia, whose condition was revealed unto Daniel upon his prayer for it, and about it. 3. It is no wonder that there should be streights before desolations, at all seasons of them whatever. 4. The half week cut off from the rest of the weeks, is not to be three years and a half of persecution, tyranny, and triumph; but on the contrary, it is designed for the confirmation of the covenant, by the preaching of the gospel; so that here is nothing of the parallelism pretended in the places compared.
§ 17. He proceeds: ‘From the beginning of the second half of the last week, or of the three years anda half, a prince is said to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, ver. 27, a phrase ascribed unto antichrist, ch. Wis hg xi 31.”
Answv. I have shown before, that the similitude of phrases in different places, is no ground to conclude that the same things are intended. 2. The phrases are not the same, nor alike in the places compared. Concerning him who it is spoken of, ch. viii. 11, it is said, Tanm DT, and of them, ch. xi. 31. tant 107, they shall take or remove away the continual offering; that is, hinder the observation of it, and attendance unto it, when it ought to be observed. Of the Prince, ch. ix. 27, it is said, M3} Mawr m7}, he shall cause to cease sacrifice and offering; so that de jure, they ought no more to be observed.
for the overspreading of abominations to make desolate; a phrase attributed unto antichrist, ch. viii. 12, 13. xi. 31, there said to set up the abominations making desolate.’
Answ. As great desolations and destructions are treated of in all these places, it would not be strange if the same author should express the like events in the same terms; yet those which we are referred unto, are not the same in the original, nor of any considerable correspondency. And the like may be said of another instance, which he adds in the ninth place, between an expression, ch. ix. 27, and ch. xi. 36, wherein is no agreement at all, and the places treat directly of things different, yea contrary.
§ 19. Itis added, in the last place, ‘That as in the seventy weeks, the division of the seven from the sixty, and of both from the one week, are inapplicable to the material restoration out of real Babylon, so they will exactly and precisely agree to the restoration out of antichristian Babylon, as shall be shown.’
Answ. That the distribution of the seventy weeks mentioned in the text, is applicable unto the continuance of the Jewish church and state, with the coming of the Messiah, and the accomplishment of his work, hath been already shown, and shall be fully cleared in our ensuing exposition of the place. 2. Unto the exact answering of it unto the restoration of the church from antichristianism, I shall only say, that if men may be allowed to fix epochs arbitrarily at their pleasure, and to make application of what is spoken in any place of Scripture unto what things and persons they please, there is no doubt but that they may make their own imaginations adhere and agree well enough together.
ὃ 20. This brief view we have taken of the reasons of this reverend author; both of those whereby he endeavours to prove, that in this prophecy the coming of the Messiah is not intended, and those whereby he would induce a persuasion, that the whole of it is not only applicable unto, but also doth directly intend the state and condition of the church in these latter days. And now, whether he hath proved his assertion, and whether his arguments are sufficient to deprive us of the catholic faith of the church in all ages, concerning the import of this angelical message unto Daniel, is left unto the judgment of sober and learned men. For my part, I shall take it for granted that all his arguments are so far removed out of our way, as that we may proceed with our designed explication and vindication of this prophecy from the exceptions of the Jews, without any disturbance from them.
§ 21. There are three things that in this illustrious prophecy offer them selves unto our consideration. j
First, The general testimony given unto the coming of the Messiah, and the limitation of time wherein he should so come.:
Secondly, The especial sense of the words in the several passages of it, and the distinct prophecies contained in them.
Thirdly, The chronological computation of the time designed, in an exact account of the space of time limited from the beginning unto the end.
The first of these is that wherein principally we have to do with the Jews; namely, to prove from hence that there was a time limited and determined for the coming of the Messiah, which is long since expired. And all things herein we shall find clear and evident. Both the space of time limited, and the several coincidences of its expiration, are sufficiently. manifest. In the second. also, we have to deal with them, in order to the confirmation of the former. In both these, their latter masters have studiously endeavoured to involve the words in difficulty and perplexity, which must be removed by the consideration of the use and genuine import of these words, as also by considering the scope of the prophecy, and by the help unto the understanding of it, which is contributed from other places of Scripture. The third is attended with sundry entanglements, which although they are not absolutely inextricable, yet are such in respect of some minute parts of calculation, as will not suifer us to hope, that we can adduce such demonstrative proof, as that all men should be compelled to acquiesce therein. This is sufficiently manifested in the different calculations of the most learned, both of the ancient and modern writers, who have laboured in this subject. In reference therefore hereunto, I shall do these two things: First, Manifest that our argument from this place is not at all concerned in the exact chronological computation of the times to which the accomplishment of this prophecy relates. And, secondly, Shall demonstrate that this difficulty may be removed, by giving a clear and satisfactory account of the time specified and limited, such as is not liable unto any material objection.
§ 22. First, It is evident in general, that, in this passage, the Holy Ghost reveals the time wherein the Messiah was to come, and to perform the work allotted unto him. And from this arises the argument which we now insist upon. No small part this was of the church’s treasure of old, and a blessed guide it would have been unto the faith and obedience of them concerned therein, had it been diligently attended unto. But having sinfully neglected it in its season, they have ever since wickedly opposed it. To Daniel, it was granted as a great favour, relief, and privilege, upon his deep humiliation, and fervent supplication, as himself records. ‘ Whilst, saith he, ‘I was speaking and praying, (with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes, yer. 3,) and confessing my sins, and the sins of my people Israel, and presenting my supplications before the Lord my God, for the holy mountain of my God; yea, whilst I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation; and he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplications, the commandment came forth, and I am now come to show thee, for thou art greatly beloved; therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision: Seventy weeks, &c. ver. 20—23. This was the answer that God gave him upon his great and fervent prayer for the church, and that for his relief, comfort, and support; whence it is evidently manifest, that the great blessing of the’ church was enwrapped in it. And the specification of time mentioned, was granted as a light to guide the Jews, that they might not make shipwreck of their souls at the appointed season. But when the time of its accomplishment drew nigh; they being generally unenlightened and carnal, and filled with prejudices against the proper work of the Messiah, wholly disregarded it. And since the misery that has come upon them for not discerning this time and judgment, most of them do cry out against’ all computations of time about the coming of the Messiah, although they are plainly called and directed thereunto by God himself. Neither can they conceal the vexation which from hence they receive, by finding the design of the prophecy so directly against them. Hence this place of Daniel, for -the time of the coming of the Messiah, and the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, for his office and work, are justly esteemed the racks and tortures of the Rabbins. It may not therefore be amiss, in our way, to take a little prospect of their perplexity in this matter.
§ 23. In the Talmud. Tractat. Sanedrin, they have laid down this general’rule, Male pereant qui temporum articulos suppetunt quibus venturus est Messiah. Or, as they express it, by a solemn curse in the name of Rabbi Jonathan, a great man among them, }-S*p ‘arm bw jroxy ΠΌΤ, ‘let their bones rot who compute the times of the end.’ And in Shebet Jehuda, (wherein they follow Maimonides in Jad. Chazekah, Tractat. de Regib. cap. 12,) they give a particular account of that solemn malediction against the computers of times. ‘It was invented,’ they say, ‘because upon the mistakes of their reckonings, or failings of their calculations, the people are apt to despond, and begin to suspect that he is already come.’ So openly do they own it to be an invention to defend their unbelief against their convictions. Yet this hath not hindered some of their chief doctors, when they hoped to make some advantage of it, (as when they saw their disciples under any distress inclining to Christianity,) to give out their conjectures, without any respect unto the Talmudical curse. So the author of Shalscheleth Hakkabala assigns the year for the coming of the Messiah to be the 5335th from the creation, which, according to their computation, fell out about the year of the Lord, by our account, 1575. Another would have it to be in the year 5358, that is twenty-three years after, in the year 1598. Abarbinel, in his Comment on Isaiah, comes short of these, assigning it to the year 5263, or 5294 at the farthest; for he had great expectations from the issue of the wars between the Christians and Saracens that were in his days. Their utmost conjecture in Zohar is upon the year 5408, which, with their wonted success, fell out in the year of our Lord 1648, or thereabouts. All these calculations were invented to serve some present exigency.
But the Talmudical curse is pointed directly against them that would conclude any thing from the account of Gabriel given unto Daniel in this place. This they plainly acknowledge, in a disputation which they had with a converted Jew, before the bishop of Rome, recorded in their Shebet Jehuda. Only they would except Daniel himself, affirming that he was not DWM, a computer of the time, but TN, a seer; as though the question were about the way and means whereby we attain a just computation of the time, and not about the thing itself. Daniel received the knowledge of this time by revelation, as he did the time of the accomplishment of the captivity, though he made use of the computation of time limited in the prophecy of Jeremiah; but in both he gives us a perfect calculation of the time, and so cannot be exempted from the Talmudical malediction. I mention these things in the entrance of our considerations of this prophecy, to manifest how. far the Jews despair of any tolerable defence of their cause, if the things recorded in it be duly weighed. This then we see in ~ general, that the Holy Ghost directed the church to compute the time of — its spiritual deliverance by the coming of the Messiah, no less evidently than he did that of their temporal deliverance from the Babylonish captivity. Neither are there more differences among Christians about the precise beginning and ending of Daniel’s seventy weeks, than were and are about the beginning and ending of the seventy years of Jeremiah amongst the Jews. This rule was given them by God himself, to direct and guide them, if they would have attended unto it, in that darkness, and undet those prejudices, with which the coming of the Messiah was attended.
§ 24. ‘And it is observable, that although it was not the will of God that they should exactly know the year and day of the accomplishment of this promise, or although they could not attain unto it, or had lost the tradition of the true sense of it, yet about the end of the time pointed unto in this computation, they were all of them raised up to a great expectation of the coming of the Messiah. And this is not only evident from the gospel, wherein we find, that upon the first preaching of John Baptist, they sent unto him to know whether he were the Messiah or not, and were all of them in expectation and suspense about it, until he publicly disavowed any such character, and directed them to him who was so indeed; but also from sundry other testimonies, to which they can make no exception. Their own historian tells us, that what principally moved and instigated them to undertake an unequal war with the Romans, was the ‘ambiguity (as he thought) of the oracle, that about that time one of their nation should obtain the monarchy of the world.’ Joseph. de Bell, Judaic. lib. 7, cap. 12, which he, to promote his own interest, wrested unto Vespasian, who was far enough from being one of their nation. Now they had no divine oracle about the coming of the Messiah at that season, but this of Daniel. And 80 renowned was this oracle in the world, that it is taken notice of by both the famous Roman historians, who wrote the occurrences of those days. ‘ Pluribus persuasio inerat antiquis Sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore ut valesceret oriens, prefectique Judee rerum potirentur, saith Tacitus, Histor. lib. 5. ‘ Many had a persuasion, that there was a prophecy in the ancient sacred books, that at that time the east should prevail, and that the governors of Judea should have the empire of the world’ And Suetonius, in the life of Vespasian; ‘Percrebuerat toto oriente vetus et constans opinio, ut eo tempore Judeee preefecti rerum potirentur. ‘An ancient and constant persuasion was famous all over the east, that at that time governors of Judea should have the empire; and this, as he adds, drew the Jews into their rebellion and war against the Romans.
Now this oracle was no other but this prophecy of Daniel, whose accomplishment at that time the Jews all over the east expected. And they acknowledge in their Talmud, that they were made prodigiously obstinate in the war they had undertaken against the Romans, by their continual expectation every day and moment, that their Messiah who was to come about that time, would appear for their relief; for because of some expressions in this prophecy, they always looked for his coming in some time of great distress. But this through their lusts and blindness was hid from them, that their distress indeed arose from their rejection of him, who was come, and had actually called them unto that repentance, which alone would have prevented it. And this persuasion, that the Messiah was to come about the end of Daniel’s weeks, and that those weeks were now come to an end, was so fixed in their minds, that when they found that he came not as they thought according unto their expectation, they attempted to make a Messiah themselves, even the famous Barcosbi, which proved the means and cause of their utter extirpation out of the land of Canaan, as hath been declared. Thus was it with them of old, whose posterity, through obstinacy in their unbelief, do now curse all that compute the time of his coming, and confounding it with his second appearance at the end of the world, re- ἊΣ it to the last day, or to a small proportion of time immediately preceding τί.
§ 25. The prophecy itself, that we may return to its consideration, contains a mixture of things good and desirable, with those that are terrible and dreadful. That there is a prediction of things penal, in destructions and désolations upon or after the close of the seventy weeks, is both plain in the text, and acknowledged by the Jews. That there is any thing of mercy, love, and grace, contained in the words, some of them deny. This course takes Abarbinel in his MYWT “Py, ‘springs or fountain of salvation.’
But this figment is directly contrary to the whole prophecy, the context, and the express words of the text. The vision itself was granted unto Daniel in answer unto his prayer. That the design of his solemn supplication was to obtain mercy and grace for Israel, is also plainly declared. The answer is given him in a way of mercy and love, and for his consolation in his great distress. And is it not strange, that the Spirit of God should direct him to pray solemnly for grace and mercy, and should give him a blessed answer, designed for his support and comfort, which should contain nothing at all of the mercy prayed for, but fitted only to distress him with wars, desolations and destructions? As such an apprehension hath nothing in the Scripture to warrant it, so it is altogether dissonant from reason. Besides, the things mentioned and summed up, ver. 24, contain the very substance of all the good things that ever were promised unto the church from the foundation of the world; and which it had for many ages been nourished with the expectation of. But these things will be more particularly evinced in our ensuing discourse.
§ 26. For the computation itself, the Jews universally acknowledge, that the Sevens here denote sevens of years; so that the whole duration of the seventy sevens, compriseth four hundred and ninety years. ‘This is granted by R. Saadias Haggaon, Jarchi, and Kimchi, on the place. Here we have no difference with them, nor others. For it were lost labour to divert unto the consideration of the fancy of Origen, who (Homil. 29, on Matthew) would have every seven to contain seventy years, ten years to each day, and the account to begin at the creation of the world, making the whole sum of years to be 4900, which expired, as he thought, at the coming of Christ. Apollinaris also indulged a more vain imagination, supposing the prophecy to give an account of the whole space of time, from the death of our Saviour unto the end of the world.
But these fancies are exploded by all. Both Jews and Christians are generally agreed, that the precise duration of the time determined, is four hundred and ninety years, and that it does not extend farther than the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus; whether it reach so far or no, shall afterwards be discussed. That which we have to prove and establish from this prophecy against the Jews, is first, That the true and only Messiah promised unto the fathers, is here spoken of; and the time of his coming limited. Secondly, That he was to come, and to discharge his work before the expiration of the seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years from their proper date; that is, before the sacrifice and oblation were caused to cease in the destruction of the city and temple. These things, if we clearly evince from the text, we have satisfied our argument, and confirmed that the Messiah is long since come. Neither are we, as to the import of the testimony itself, concerned in that chronological computation of the time limited, which we shall afterwards inquire into. The first thing incumbent on us, is to prove that it is the true and only Messiah, and his coming that is here spoken of. And this we shall do, 1. From the context and scope of the prophecy. 2. The name whereby he is called. 3. The work assigned unto him. 4. The general confession of the Jews of old. 5. The follies and open mistakes of the latter Jews in substituting any other thing or person in his stead. 9
§ 27. First, The context and scope of the place evidence him to be intended. This in general was before declared. It was about the greatest concern of that people, that Daniel had newly made his supplications. The answer given him is, as the angel declares, suited unto his desires and requests; and it contained an account of their state and condition, until the consummation of all things that concerned them. The end of that people, or that for the sake of which they were a church and people, was, as we have demonstrated, the bringing forth of Him, in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Until this was accomplished, it was impossible, from the decree and promise of God, that they should fall under an utter rejection, or final desolation. But this is plainly foretold, as that which should come to pass at the end of the time here determined, or instantly upon it. Jy) Dawn DB pw AID by) pM) MAT Maw Daw dy gan ms) 25. ‘He shall cause the oblation and sacrifice to cease; that is, utterly and everlastingly, putting thereby a period and final end unto their church state and worship. But what then shall become of the people? ‘By a wing of abominations he shall make them desolate, or cause them to be wasted and laid desolate by overspreading armies, either in themselves abominable, or abhorred by them. And in both these senses were the Roman armies, Ὁ 429, ‘a wing of abominations. Neither was this to endure for a season only, but unto a consummation of the whole, ver. 27. Now it was inconsistent with all the promises of God, and the sole end of his wisdom in all that he had to do with that people, that this desolation should happen before the production of the Messiah. It being therefore expressly said in‘the text, that the Messiah should come before all this were accomplished, who can be intended thereby, but he who was promised unto the fathers from the foundation of the world?
Secondly, This whole revelation was granted unto Daniel for his relief in the prospect that he had of the ensuing calamities of the church; and recorded by him for the support thereof in those distresses, as were also those prophecies of Haggai and Malachi, before insisted on. Now, the only general promise, which God, for the consolation of his church of old, renewed unto them in all ages, was this concerning the Messiah, wherein all their blessedness was enwrapped, This we have already manifested from Moses, and all the prophets who ensued in their several generations. And he is therefore here no less intended.:
Thirdly, Whatever benefit, privilege, or advantage the church had any ground or reason to expect from the promises of God at the coming of the Messiah, they are all here expressed, as we shall immediately declare. And we may truly say, that if the things mentioned, ver. 24, were to be wrought by any other than the Messiah, the church had much - more reason to desire him, than the Messiah himself, as for any other work which remained for him to do.
Fourthly, Unless the Messiah and his blessed work be here intended, there is not one word of comfort or relief unto the church in this whole prophecy. For those who deny his coming here to be foretold, are forced violently to wrest the expressions in ver. 24, unto things utterly alien and foreign from the plain and only signification of the words. And how inconsistent this is with the design of this angelical message, we have before manifested. The context therefore evidently bespeaks the true Messiah to be here intended.
§ 28. Secondly. That the names and titles given unto the person spoken of, declare who he is that is designed. He is called τ, Messiah, and that κατ᾽ εἕοχην, by way of eminence, and absolutely. Indeed, the very name of the Messiah, as appropriated unto the promised seed, is taken from this place alone; for it is no where else used of him absolutely. His Messiah, or the Messiah, of the Lord, that is his Anointed, is often used; but absolutely THe Messtau here only. And is it not probable, that the name being used but once absolutely in the Scripture, any other should be intended, but he alone whose name absolutely alone it is? The name therefore sufficiently denotes the person.
The addition of 7°93, ver. 25, 722 Mw, ‘ Messiah the Prince, makes it yet more evident. For as this word is often used to denote a supreme ruler, one that goeth in and out before the people in rule and government, as 2. - Sam. vil. 8; 1 Kings i. 35; 1 Kings xiv. 7, and in sundry other places, so it is peculiarly assigned unto the Messiah, Isa. lv. 4. 122 Wn} pend Ty 7 DAND M871, ‘ Behold I have given him a witness unto the people, a leader, or prince, and commander unto the people.’ And those words are thus paraphrased by Jonathan, nmdn 55 by wd Jd mn ΝΘ 27 NF, ‘Behold, I have appointed him a Prince to the people, a King and Ruler over all kingdoms.’ This is T’2377 Tw, ‘ Messiah, the Prince, Leader, or Ruler over all.” And 2) is the same with >w17, Mic. vy. 1, ‘the Ruler? and my, Ezek. xxxiv. 23, ‘the Shepherd; and ΝΣ, ‘ the Prince, or 18, Mal. iii. 1, the Lord.’ And to ascribe this name of 23 Mwy, ‘ Messiah the Prince,’ absolutely unto any but the promised seed, is contrary to the whole tenor of the Old Testament.
Moreover, he is called, ver. 24, DSWIP WIP, ‘the Holiest of the Holies the Most Holy: Sanctitas Sanctitatum, in the abstract, the Holiness of Holinesses.’ The most holy place in the tabernacle and temple was so called; but that-cannot be here intended. The time is limited, wtp Ὁ DWP, ‘to anoint or tomake a Messiah of the Most Holy.’ But by the confession of the Jews, the holy place in the second temple was never anointed, because it was not lawful for them to make the holy oil. But suppose it was anointed, it must have been so long before the expiration of these weeks, which ended, as they suppose, in its final destruction; and in truth not long before. It must therefore be the person typified by the holy place, in whom the fulness of the Godhead was to dwell, that is here said to be anointed. Had there been any Targum on the Hebrew chapters of Daniel, we should have better known the sense of the ancient Jews in this matter than we now do. Some of them in after ages agree with us. Nachmanides tells us, MWA NIT DwWIP wap, ‘this Holy of Hollies is the Messiah, wWipmy 77 3372, ‘who is sanctified from amongst the sons of Dayid.’ So he on the place.;
§ 29. Thirdly. The work assigned to be done in the days of this Messiah here spoken of, and consequently by him, declares who it is that is intended. Sundry things there are in the text belonging unto this head; as, 1. ‘ Finishing of transgression. 2. ‘The making an end of sin. 3. ‘ Making reconciliation for iniquity. 4. ‘The bringing in of everlasting righteousness.’ 5. ‘The sealing up of vision and prophecy. 6. ‘ His being cut off, and not for himself’ 7. ‘Confirming the covenant with many. 8. ‘Causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease.’ All these, especially as coincident, demonstrate the person of the Messiah. He that shall call to mind what hath been evinced concerning the nature of the first promise, the faith of the ancient Judaical church, the person, office, and work of the Messiah, will, upon the first consideration of these things conclude that this is he. For we have in these things a summary of the Old Testament, the substance of all temple
‘institutions, the centre of all promises, a brief delineation of the whole work of the promised seed. Wherefore, although it be not an exposition of the place that we have undertaken, but merely a demonstration of the interest of the Messiah therein; yet because the consideration of the particular expressions above mentioned will give light into the strength of the present argument, I shall in our passage briefly unfold them.
§ 30. The first thing designed is, pwr Nd. The time determined for the coming of the Messiah is also limited, ywor x>2>, ‘ad cohibendam preevaricationem; to restrain, forbid, coerce, make an end of transgression. n>, is to shut, to shut up, to forbid, to coerce, to refrain, or restrain, Psal. exix. 101. ΠΝ 55, ‘Ihave refrained,’ or kept my feet from every evil way, Psal. xl. 12. ‘Thou Lord, xd2n xd, wilt not withhold, or restrain thy mercy from me.’ So also to shut up, or put a stop unto, as Jer. li. 3; Haggai i. 10; 1 Sam. xxv. 33; Psal. Ixxxviii. 9. Thence is N52, ‘ carcer, a prison, wherein men are put under restraint. From the similitude of letters and sound in pronunciation, some suppose it to have an affinity in signification with 125, ‘to consummate, to end, to finish.’. But there is no satisfactory instance of this coincidence. For although 155 do sometimes signify to restrain or shut up, as Psal. Ixxiy. 1]. yet 823 no where signifies to consummate, finish, or complete. The first thing therefore promised with the Messiah, which he was to do at his coming, was to coerce and restrain transgression, to shut it up from overflowing the world so universally as it had done formerly. Transgression from the day of its first entrance into the world, had passed over the lower creation like a flood. God would now set bounds unto it, coerce and restrain it, that it should not for the future overflow mankind as it had done. This was the work of the Messiah. By his doctrine, by his Spirit, by his grace, and the power of his gospel, he set bounds to the rage of wickedness, rooted out the old idolatry of the world, and turned millions of the sons of Adam unto righteousness. And the Jews who deny his coming, can give no instance of any other restraint laid upon the prevalence of transgression within the time limited by the angel; and thus they directly deny the truth of the prophecy, because they will not apply it unto him unto whom alone it doth belong.
§ 31. The second thing to be done at the season determined, is onm MNur, ‘to seal up sins; Tov σφραγισαι, ‘to seal, or to seal up. The expression is metaphorical. ΤῸ seal, is either to keep safe, or to hide, cover, and conceal. ‘The former can have no place here, though the word seem once to be used in that sense, with reference unto sin, Job xiv. 14. But this sense hath a perfect inconsistency with what is spoken immediately before, and what follows directly after in the text. And the most proper sense of the word is to cover or conceal, and thence to seal, because thereby a thing is hidden, Cant. iv. 12. Now to hide sin or transgression in the Old Testament, is to pardon it, to forgive it. As then the former expression respecteth the stop that was put to the power and progress of sin by the grace of the gospel, as Titus ii. 11, 12, so doth this the pardon and removal of the guilt of it, by the mercy proclaimed and tendered in the gospel. And in this way of expression is God said to ‘ cast our sins behind his back, to cover them, and to cast them into the bottom of the sea. That this was no way to be done but by the Messiah, we have before evinced. Neither can the Jews point out any other way in which this part of the prediction was accomplished within the time limited. For setting aside this one consideration of the pardon of sin procured by the mediation of the Messiah, and there was never any age wherein God did more severely bring forth sin unto judgment, as themselves had large experience.
§ 32. Thirdly, This season is designed, ἽΝ sad, to make reconciliation for iniquity. To reconcile iniquity; so our apostle, pntwc, renders this expression, Heb. ii. 17, ἱλασκεσϑαι rag apapriac, to reconcile iniquities. That is, ἱλασκεσϑαι τὸν Θεὸν περι των ἁμαρτιων, to make reconciliation with God for iniquity, to make atonement. The sense of the word 753, when applied unto sin, is known and granted. If it be spoken of God, it is to hide, to cover, to pardon sin, to be gracious unto sinners; if of men in the use of any of his institutions, it is to propitiate, appease, atone, make atonement or reconciliation, as I have elsewhere at large declared. How this was to be done by the Messiah, hath been already evinced. This was that work for which he was promised unto our first parents from the foundation of the world. That he was to do it, we are taught in the Old Testament; how he did it, we are taught by the gospel. To expect this atonement for sin from any other, or to look for its being wrought by any other ways or means, is fully to renounce the first promise, and the faith of the fathers from the foundation of the world.
§ 33. That which in’the fourth place is mentioned, answers the former. To make reconciliation for iniquities, and Dvady prs amd, to bring in everlasting righteousness. There was a legal righteousness amongst the people before, consisting partly in their blameless observation of the institutions of the law, and partly in their ritual atonements for sin, made annually and occasionally. Neither of these could constitute their everlasting righteousness. Not the former, for ‘by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified; that is, not absolutely, whatever they might be as to the possession of the promised land. Not the latter; for as our apostle observes, the annual repetition of legal sacrifices did sufficiently manifest that they could not make perfect them that came unto God by them.
In opposition to these, an everlasting righteousness, such as is absolute, perfect, and enduring for ever, is promised to be brought in by the Messiah; the righteousness which he wrought in his life and death, doing and suffering the whole will of God, being imputed unto them that believe. And this pnby prs, “ everlasting righteousness, procureth and endeth in the nyywn ondy, ‘everlasting salvation’ mentioned, Isa. xlv. 17, both opposed unto the ritual righteousness, and temporal deliverance of the law. To declare the nature, and the way of bringing in this righteousness, is the design of the gospel, Rom. i. 16,17. And I desire to know of the Jews, how it was brought in within the time limited. According unto their principles, the time here determined, was so far from being a season of bringing in everlasting righteousness, that by their own confession it brought in nothing but a deluge of wickedness in the sins of their nation, and oppressions of the Gentiles. This, therefore, is the proper work of the Messiah, foretold by the prophets, expected by all the fathers, and not denied by the Jews themselves at this day, though they would shamefully avoid the application of it unto him in this place. But he, whoever he be, that brings in everlasting at ρόαι He, and no other, is the promised seed, the true and only
§ 34. The fifth thing here foretold, is in those words, 8°33) PNM pnm, ‘to seal vision and prophet.’ x°2) for M123, prophet for prophecy; the concrete for the abstract. The expression being metaphorical, is capable of a triple interpretation or application, every one of them proper unto the Messiah, to his work, and to the times wherein he came, and to no other. 1. To seal, is to consummate, to establish, and confirm. Things are perfected, completed, established, and confirmed, by sealing, Jer. xxxiv. 44; Isa. viii. 16; John iii. 34; Rom. iv. 11. In this sense, vision and prophecy were sealed in the Messiah. They had all of them respect unto the coming of the just One, the promised seed. God had spoken of him by the mouths of his holy prophets, from the foundation of the world. In the bringing of him forth, he sealed the truth of their predictions by their actual accomplishment. The law and the prophets were until John, and then they were to be fulfilled. This was the season wherein all vision and prophecy centred, this the Person who was the principal subject and end of them: He, therefore, and his coming, is here foretold. 2. To seal, is to finish, conclude, and put an end unto any thing, Isa. xxix. 1]. Thus also were vision and prophecy then sealed among the Jews. They were shut up and finished. The privilege, use, and benefit of them, were no more to be continued in their church. And this also fell out accordingly. By their own confession, from that day to this, they have not enjoyed either vision or prophet. That work, as unto them, came wholly to an end in the coming of the Messiah. 3. By sealing the confirmation of the doctrine concerning the Messiah, his person and office, by vision and prophecy, may be intended. The visions and prophecies that went before, by reason of their darkness and obscurity, left the people, in sundry particulars, at great uncertainty. Now all things were cleared and confirmed. The spirit of prophecy accompanying the Messiah, and by him given unto his disciples, foretold by Joel, ch. 11. 28, 29, was in his revelations express, clear, and evident, directing unto, and confirming every thing belonging unto his person and doctrine. Neither had these words any other accomplishment but what is contained in these things.
§ 35. Sixthly, It is affirmed that mw m5, ‘ Messiah shall be cut off: not occidetur, shall be slain, as the vulgar Latin renders the word, but excidetur, shall be cut off; that is, penally, as one punished for sin. For the word m3, when it includes death, constantly denotes a penal excision, or cutting off for sm; see Gen. xvil. 14; Exod. xii. 15; Numb. xv. 30. This the Jews themselves acknowledge to be the meaning of the word. So Rab. Saadias Gaon in Heemunoth, cap. 8, MAND TIS TIT Ν ὙΤΩΞ MID ΠΡ nia. pox 55 ἼΩΝ 1D: P73 ΣΤ ~ by oN oD, “It is not used for slaying, unless it be of him who is slain by the sentence of the Judge,’ or is judicially cut off, ‘as it is said, Every one that eats of it shall be cut off, Ley. xvii. 14. It is then foretold, that the Messiah shall be cut off penally for’sin; which he was, when he was made a curse for sin, all our iniquities meeting upon him.
And this also is intimated in the ensuing particles, > PN, ‘and not to him.’ For an objection is prevented that might arise about the penal excision of the Messiah; for how could it be, seeing he was every way just and righteous. ‘To this it is answered by way of concession, that it was not on his own account, not for himself, but for us, as is at large declared, Isa. hi, Or, 12 8, ‘not to him,’ may be a farther declaration of his state and condition; namely, that notwithstanding those carnal apprehensions which the Jews would have of his outward splendour, glory, wealth, and riches, yet in truth he should have nothing in or of this world, none to stand up for him, not where to lay his head. And this is that part of the prophecy, for the sake whereof the Jews so pertinaciously contend, that the true Messiah is not here intended. For, say they, he shall not be penally cut off. But who told them so? Shall we believe the angel or them? Will they not suffer God to send his Messiah in his own way, but they must tell him that it must not be so? To cast off prophecies when, and because they suit not men’s carnal lusts, is to reject all authority of God and his word. This is that which hath proved their ruin, temporal and eternal: they will not receive a Messiah that shall suffer, and be cut off for sin, though God foretold them expressly that it must be so.
§ 36. It is added, seventhly, concerning the person here spoken of, and whose coming is foretold, ὈΣΞ 9 mya 727, ‘he shall confirm,’ or strengthen, ‘the covenant unto many. The covenant spoken of absolutely, can be none but that everlasting covenant which God made with his elect, in the promised seed; the great promise whereof was the foundation of the covenant with Abraham. And hence God says, that he will ‘ give him for a covenant unto the people,’ Isa. xlii. 6; chap. xlix. 8. And the salvation which they looked for through him, God promiseth through the blood of the covenant, Zech. ix. 11. This covenant he strengthened unto many in the week wherein he suffered, even unto all that believed in him. ‘This everlasting covenant was ratified in his blood, Heb. 1x. 15, and after he had declared it in his own ministry, he caused it to be proclaimed in and by his gospel. At the time here determined, the especial covenant with Israel and Judah was broken, Zech. xi. 10, and they were thereon cast off from being a church or people. Nor was there at that season any other ratification of the covenant, but only what was made in the death of the Messiah.
§ 37. Then also, eighthly, did he cause to cease the sacrifice, and gift or offering. First, He caused it to cease, as unto force and efficacy, or any use in the worship of God, by his own accomplishment of all that was prefigured by it, or intended in it. Hereby it became as a dead thing, useless, unprofitable, and made ready to disappear, Heb. vii. 13. And then shortly after, he caused it utterly to be taken away, by a perpetual desolation brought upon the place where alone sacrifices and offerings were acceptable unto God, according unto the law of Moses. And this is the third evidence that this prophecy affords unto our assertion; namely, that it is the true promised Messiah, and none other, whose coming and cutting off is here foretold. The great things here mentioned, were fulfilled in him alone; nor had they ever the least respect unto any other. And the Jews do not in any thing more evidently manifest the desperateness of their cause, than when they endeavour to wrest these words unto any other sense or purpose.
§ 38. Moreover, besides the confession of the ancient Jews, consenting unto the truth contended for, we have for our confirmation therein, the woeful perplexities of their later masters in their attempts to evade the force of this testimony. For some ages, they have abhorred nothing more than that the true Messiah should be thought to be here intended. For if that be once granted, they know that it brings an instant ruin on the pretences of their infidelity; and that not merely on account of the proof of his having come, against which they have invented a sorry relief, but also on account of what is here foretold respecting his being penally cut off, which can no way be reconciled unto their presumptions and expectations. But if he be not here intended, it is incumbent on them to declare who is. For. the utmost extent of the time limited in the prediction being long since expired, the prophecy hath certainly had accomplishment in some one or other; and it is known, or may be known who, or otherwise the whole angelical message never was, nor ever will be, of any use to the church
But here our masters are by no means agreed amongst themselves; nor do they know what to answer unto this inquiry. And if they do guess at any one, it is not because they think it possible he should be designed, but because they think it impossible for them to keep life in their cause, and not to speak when the sword of truth lies at the heart of it. Some of them therefore, affirm the Messiah spoken of to be Cyrus, whom God calls Mw, ‘his anointed,’ Isa. xlv. 1. But what the cutting off, or death of Cyrus should make in this prediction, they know not. Nor do they endeavour to show that any thing here mentioned, as connected with the cutting off the Messiah, hath the least relation unto Cyrus or his death. And if because Cyrus is once called the anointed of the Lord, he must be supposed to be intended in that place, where no one word or circumstance 15 applicable unto him, they may as well say, that it is Saul the first king of Israel who is spoken of, seeing he also is called 77 rw, ‘the anointed of the Lord,’ 1 Sam. xxiv. 6, as was Zedekiah also, Lam. iv. 20. But it must needs be altogether incredible unto any, (unless they are Jews that can believe-what they please that serves their ends,) that because the Lord calleth Cyrus his anointed, in reference unto the especial work of destroying the Babylonian empire, in which sense the term of anointing, namely for a designation unto any employment, is obvious and familiar in the Old Testament, should therefore be esteemed the promised Messiah of the people of God, who is here evidently described. But that which sinks this fancy beneath all consideration, is the time allotted to the cutting off of the Messiah.
Those among the Jews themselves, who begin the account of the weeks. from the most early date imaginable, fix their epoch in the giving of the promise unto Jeremiah, concerning their return from captivity, which was in the days of Jehoiakim. Now from thence unto the death of Cyrus, no computation will allow above eighty years; which comes short somewhat above four hundred years of the season here allotted for the cutting off the Messiah. And the same is the case with Joshua, Zerubbabel, and Nehemiah, whom some of them would have to be designed. For neither were any of them penally cut off, nor did they cause in any sense the sacrifices to cease, but endeavoured to promote the observance of them in a due manner; nor did they live within some hundred years of the time determined, nor mas any other thing which is here foretold, wrought or accomplished in their days.
§ 39. Abarbinel, and after him Manasseh Ben Israel, with some others of them, fix on Agrippa, the last king of the Jews, who, as they say, with his son Monabasius, was cut off or slain at Rome by Vespasian. A learned man in his Apparatus ad Origines Ecclesiasticas, mistakes this Agrippa for Herod Agrippa, who was σκοληκοβροτος, Acts xii. But he who died long before the destruction of the city is not intended by them, but the younger Agrippa, the brother and husband of Berenice. Neither is there any colour of probability in this fancy. For that Agrippa was never properly king of the Jews, having only Galilee under his jurisdiction, nor was he ever anointed to be their king, nor designed of God unto any work on the account whereof he might be called his anointed, nor was he of the posterity of Israel, nor did by any thing deserve an illustrious mention in this prophecy. Besides, in the last fatal war, he was still of the Roman side and party; nor was he cut off or slain by Vespasian, but after the war lived at Rome in honour, and died in peace. Yea, he did not only outlive Vespasian, but Titus and Domitian, his sons, also; and continued unto the third year of Trajan, as Justus the Tiberian assures us in his History, whose words
§ 40. Their last evasion is, that by ‘Messiah the Prince,’ the office of magistracy and priesthood, and in these all anointed unto authority, are intended. These, they say, were to be cut off in the destruction of the city. And herein they have the consent of Africanus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Kusebius, among the ancients, who are also followed by some latter writers. But this evasion also is of the same nature with the former, yea more vain than these, if any thing may be allowed so to be. The angel twice mentioneth the Messiah in his message. First, His coming and anointing, ver. 25, and then his cutting off, ver. 26. If the same person or thing be not intended in both places, the whole discourse is equivocal and unintelligible, no circumstance being added to mark a difference between them, who are called by the same name in the same place. And to suppose that the Holy Ghost, by one and the same name, within a few words, continuing his speech of the same matter without any note of difference or distinction, should signify things diverse from one another, is to leave no place for the understanding of anything that is spoken by him. The Messiah therefore who was to come, and to be anointed and cut off, is one and the same individual person. Now, it is expressly said that there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks, that is four hundred and eighty-three years, from the going forth of the decree, untvu Messiah the Prince. I desire, therefore, to know whether that space of time was passed before they had any such ma~ gistrates or priests, as they pretend afterwards were cut off. This is so far from truth, that before that time, the rule of the Hasmonzans, the last supreme magistrates of their own nation, was put to an end. This pretence, therefore, may pass with the former. And this perplexity of the modern Jews, in their attempts to apply this prophecy unto any other thing or person besides the true Messiah, confirms our exposition and application of it. There is no other person that they can imagine, unto whom any one thing here mentioned may seem to belong; much less can they think of any, in whom they should all centre and agree. It is then the promised Messiah, the hope and expectation of the fathers, whose coming and cutting off is here foretold.
§ 41. That which remains for the full confirmation of our argument from this place, is, that according unto this prophecy the promised Messiah was to come whilst the temple was standing, and the daily sacrifice continued, before the expiration of the seventy weeks of years limited by the angel. This is put beyond all question in the text itself; nor is it denied by the Jews, all whose exceptions lie against the person spoken of, whom we have proved to be the Messiah. Seventy weeks are assigned by the angel for the accomplishment of the whole prophecy, and all things contained in it. After seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, that is, in the beginning or middle of the last week, the Messiah was to be cut off. When this was past, and the covenant confirmed with many, upon the expiration of the whole time limited, the daily sacrifice was to cease, and an overflowing desolation was to come upon the city and temple. This, the Jews themselves acknowledge to be the destruction brought upon them by the Romans, nor do any of them extend the four hundred and ninety years any farther. It remains, therefore, that the Messiah came before that desolation, which is that we undertook to demonstrate from this place.
§ 42. There are yet some arguments to the same purpose with those foregoing that remain. But, before we proceed unto them, it will be necessary to consider the computation of the times, which we are here directed unto by the angel. I have already manifested, that our argument from this place is not concerned in the exact chronological computation of the time here limited, as to its precise beginning and ending, with the commensuration of it unto the times, seasons, and accounts of the nations of the world. For, whenever the time mentioned began, all men agree that it is long since expired, namely at, or before, the desolation of the city and temple. Now, all that we undertook to prove, which also is sufficient unto our present purpose, is, that before that season the Messiah was to come, and to be cut off, which we have done, and cleared our argument from all further concernment in this account. But yet that it may appear that this testimony is not embarrassed by the chronological difficulties which occur in the computation of time here determined, as also that there are no such difficulties therein, but what are fairly reconcileable unto all that is affirmed in the text, before we proceed to the consideration of our remaining arguments, these difficulties shall also be considered and stated in the ensuing exercitation.
§ 1. Chronological computation of the times determined in Daniel’s weeks. Difficulty thereof acknowledged. § 2. Beginning before the reign of Cyrus rejected. § 3. Double beginning of the kingdom of Cyrus. That over Persia. That over the Babylonian monarchy. ᾧ 4. Foreign accounts to be suited unto the Scripture. § 5. Beginning of the reign of Cyrus over Persia, when. Over the whole empire, when. The space of time from thence to the destruction of Jerusalem, 599 years. § 6. Duration of the Persianempire. Of the empire of the Seleucide to the rule of Jonathan among the Jews. § 7. Duration of the Egyptian kingdom, or reign of the Ptolomey’s. § 8. Rule of the Hasmonzans and Herod the Great. From the birth of Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem. § 9. From the first decree of Cyrus, to the destruction of Jerusalem, 599 years. § 10. Precise end of Daniel’s weeks, the death of the Messiah. § 11. 37 years taken from the formeraccount. Opinion of Reynold’s. ὁ 12. Examined, rejected. Meaning of nm) cut off; limited; not abbreviated. Vulgar Latin, and Montacue noted. § 13. Opinion of the Jews rejected. § 14. Account of Beroaldus, Broughton, Genebrand, Willet. The decree of Cyrus not intended in the prophecy. § 15, 16. Of the life and age of Nehemiah. He came not up with Zerubbabel. ὁ 17. The decree of Darius. What Darius that was. Hystaspes. Not the decree intended. § 18, 19. This Darius not Nothus; proved against Scaliger. § 20. The decrees of Artaxerxes to Ezra and Nehemiah examined. § 21. Longimanus, not Memor, intended. § 22. Decree unto Ezra proved to be the decree mentioned.
§ 1. Twat there is some difficulty in finding out the true and exact computation of the time here limited, all chronologers and expositors do confess. Neither is there any thing that belongs unto the account of the times mentioned in the Scripture, that hath been debated of old, or of late, with more difference of opinion, or diligence of endeavour. And the Holy Ghost himself, by the angel, seems to intimate this difficulty unto Daniel, in the double caution given him about it in the preface of the revelation made unto him, ver. 23, 7272 Pa and 7NW2 JAM declaring that not ordinary wisdom, diligence, consideration, and understanding, is to be uséd in the investigation of the time here determined. Nor is it necessary to suppose that Daniel himself exactly understood the beginning and ending of the time or weeks mentioned. The hiding of the precise time intended, was indeed greatly subservient unto the providence of God, in the work which he had to do by the Messiah, and in what that people were to do unto him. The general notation of it sufficed for the direction of the godly, and the conviction of unbelievers, as it doth unto this day. And it may be, we shall not find any computation that will exactly answer in all particulars and fractions to a day, month, or year. And, that either because of the great darkness and confusion of some of the times falling under the account, or else because perhaps it was not the mind of God that ever the time should be so precisely calculated, or that any thing which he revealed for the strengthening of the faith of his church, should depend on chronological niceties. It shall suffice us then to propose and confirm such an account of these weeks, which infallibly comprising the substance of the prophecy, contains nothing in it contrary to the Scripture, and is not liable unto any reasonable exception. And herein I shall not examine all the accounts and computations that by learned men of old, or of late, have been given, (being eleven or twelve in number,) but only mention those which carry the fairest probability, and the names of whose authors or abettors call for our consideration.
§ 2. In the first place, we may wholly lay aside the consideration of them, who would date the weeks from any time whatever before the first year of the reign, and first decree of Cyrus. Among these are Lyra, Burgensis, Galatinus, and he from whom he borrowed his computation, Raymandus Martini. These fix the beginning of the weeks on the fourth year of Zedekiah, as they say, when Jeremiah gave out his prophecy about the Babylonish captivity, and the return from it at the end of seventy years; indeed, the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and not of Zedekiah, as is apparent, Jer. xxv. 1—11,
Of the like nature is the account of Solomon Jarchi, among the Jews, who dates the time limited from the destruction of the temple by the Chaldeans. But both these accounts are expressly contrary to the words of the angel, fixing the beginning of the time designed, on the going forth of a decree for the building of Jerusalem. To these we may add, all that would extend these weeks beyond the destruction of the city and temple by Titus, as some of the Jews would do, to comprise the prophecy of their second fatal destruction by Hadrian, which is no way concerned in it.
§ 3. The seventy weeks then mentioned, we must seek for, between the first year of Cyrus, when the first decree was made for the re-edification of the temple, and the final destruction of it by the Romans. This space we are confined unto by the text; the seventy weeks are awd 727 RBA} pdwr nad), ‘from the going forth of the word to cause to return and build Jerusalem,’ ver. 25. Now, the kingdom of Cyrus had a double first © year. The one absolutely of his reign over Persia, the other of his rule over the Babylonian monarchy, which he had conquered after the death of Darius Medus. Now, it is the first year of this second date of the kingdom of Cyrus, which has relation unto the time here limited; for whilst he was king of Persia only, he could have nothing to do with the Jews, nor make any decree for the building of the temple, both the people and place being then under the dominion of another. Besides, in Ezrai. 11, where it is said, that he made his decree in the first year of his reign, himself plainly declares that he had obtained the eastern monarchy by the conquest of Babylon. The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; which words can in no sense be applied unto the kingdom of Persia, supposing the monarchy of Babylon still to continue. The whole space of time then, here limited, is seventy weeks, ver. 24. The beginning of these seventy weeks is the going forth of the decree or word to restore or build Jerusalem, ver. 25. The first decree or command that could have any relation unto this matter, was that made by Cyrus in the first year of his empire. We must, then, in the first place, find out the direct space of time between the first year of Cyrus, and the destruction of the temple, and then inguire whether the whole or what part of it, is denoted by these seventy weeks.
§ 4. Some, I confess, there are, who contend that there is no consideration to be had of that computation of time, which we find amongst the heathen writers, nor of those stated epochs by which they limited and distinguished their computations. For whereas, say they, we have certainly the term of this duration of time, its beginning and end fixed, namely, the first of Cyrus, and the death of Messiah, it is thus positively determined, that between them were seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, unto which all other accounts are to be squared, and made proportionable. Indeed, the conclusion were unquestionable, if the premises were certain. If the terms be rightly fixed in the first of Cyrus, and the death of the Messiah, there must be but 490 years between them: for whether we understand the reason of it or not, all foreign accounts must be suited unto the infallible truth which is stated in the Scripture. |
But these things are much questioned; for some doubt whether the time Jimited do absolutely expire in the death of the Messiah, and be not rather to be extended unto the destruction of the city and temple, and there be many more that do peremptorily deny that it is to take its date from the first decree of Cyrus. And so must we also, unless it can be proved that the times mentioned are justly commensurate from thence unto the death of Messiah. For, seeing there were other decrees, as we shall find to the same purpose, which might be respected as well as that; there is no reason why we should offer violence unto other approved computations, to force them to submit unto the Scripture account, when we first offer violence unto that Scripture account, to make it serve our own opinion. I shall, therefore, proceed in the way proposed, and first give a just computation of the time from the first year of the empire of Cyrus, unto the destruction of the city and temple, and then inquire whether the seventy weeks, or 490 years here determined, be commensurate unto the whole, or only unto some part of it; and if to some part only, then to what part of it, and how we are directed by the text to the beginning and end of the computation.
And herein, I shall not scrupulously bind myself unto days, or months, or seasons of the year in any single account, but only consider the full and and round number of years, which, in such computations, according to the custom of holy writ, is to be observed. And indeed, partly through the silence, and partly through the disagreement of ancient historians, it is utterly impossible to state exactly, as to those lesser fractions, the times that are passed of old. And we seek for no more certainty in these things, than the condition of them will naturally bear.
§ 5. It is generally agreed by all historians and chronologers, that Cyrus began his reign over Persia in the first year of the fifty-fifth Olympiad; probably the same year that Nabonidus, or Darius Medus began his reign over Babylon. And this was the year wherein Daniel set himself solemnly to seek the Lord for the delivery of the people out of captivity, he being now come to a kingdom who was so long before prophesied of to be their deliverer, Dan. ix. 1. In the twenty-seventh year of his reign, or the first of the sixty-second Olympiad, having conquered the Babylonian empire, he began the first year of his monarchical reign, from whence Daniel reckons his third, which was his last chap. x. 1. And therein he proclaimed liberty unto the people of the Jews, to return to Jerusalem, and to build the temple, Ezra i. 1. The city and temple were destroyed by Titus, in the third year of the two hundred and eleventh Olympiad; now from the first year of the sixtysecond Olympiad, unto the third of the two hundred and eleventh Olympiad inclusive, are five hundred ninety-nine years, and within that space of time are we to inquire after, and find the four hundred and ninety years here prophesied of, and foretold.
§ 6. Of this space of time, the Persian empire from the twenty-seyenth of Cyrus, or first of the whole monarchy, and the first of the sixty-second Olympiad, continued two hundred and two years, as is generally acknowledged by all ancient historians, ending on, and including in it, the second year of the one hundred and twelfth Olympiad, which was the last of Darius Codomanus. For Cyrus reigned after this three years: Cambyses and Smerdes Magus eight; Darius Hystaspis, thirty-four; Xerxes, with the months ensuing of Artabanus, twenty-one; Artaxerxes Longimanus, fortyone; Darius Nothus, nineteen; Artaxerxes Mnemon, forty-three; Ochus, twenty-three; Arses, three; Darius Codomanus, seven; in all two hundred and two years.
After his death Alexander, beginning his reign in the third year of the 112th Olympiad, reigned six years: from him there is a double account, by the two most famous branches of the Grecian empire. The first is by the Syrian or Era of the Seleucidze, which takes its date from the tenth year after the death of Alexander, when after some bloody contests, Seleucus settled his kingdom in Syria, and reigned thirty years. After him reigned Antiochus Soter twenty-one years, Antiochus Theos fifteen, Seleucus Callinicus twenty, Seleucus Ceraunus two, Antiochus Magnus thirtyseven, Seleucus Philopater twelve, Antiochus Epiphanes twelve, Eupator two, Demetrius Soter ten. In the second year of this Demetrius, which was the 153d of the account of the Seleucidee, was Judas Maccabeeus slain, being the one hundred and sixty-ninth year after the death of Darius Codomanus, or end of the Persian empire, allowing six years to the reign of Alexander, and ten more to the beginning of the kingdom of the Seleucide. Demetrius Soter in the tenth year of his reign was expelled out of his kingdom by Alexander Vales (Balas); in the second year of whose reign, ten years after the death of Judas, Jonathan his brother took upon him the supreme government of the people of the Jews, and began the reign of the Hasmoneans. So that the time of the Grecian empire in Syria from the death of Darius Codomanus, unto the liberty of the Jews and erection of a supreme government amongst them, was one hundred and seventy-nine years, which being added to two hundred and two years of the Persian empire, makes up three hundred and eighty-one years.
§ 7. To the same issue comes also the account by the other branch of the Grecian empire in Egypt. For Alexander reigned, as we said, after the death of Darius, six years, Ptolemeeus Lagus thirty-nine, Philadelphus thirty-eight, Euergetes twenty-four, Philopater nineteen, HEpiphanes twenty-three, Philometor thirty, in whose thirtieth year began the rule of the Hasmonzans.
§ 8. The power of the Hasmoneans, with that of Herod the great, who obtained the kingdom by means of their divisions, continued until the birth of Christ one hundred and forty years. For Jonathan began his reign in the second year of the one hundred and fifty-seventh Olympiad, as may be seen, by adding the Seleucian Aira to the one hundred and fourteenth Olympiad, wherein Alexander died; and our Lord Christ was born in the second year of the one hundred and ninety -fourth Olympiad, in the last year, or the last save one of Herod the great. This sum of one hundred and forty eight years, being added to the forementioned, from the beginning of the empire of Cyrus, which is three hundred and eighty-one years, makes up in all five hundred and twenty-nine years. From the birth of our Lord Christ in the second year of the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad, to the destruction of the city and temple, in the third year of the two hundred and eleventh Olympiad, are seventy years; which makes up the whole sum before mentioned of five hundred and ninety-nine years, from the first of the empire of Cyrus, unto the destruction of Jerusalem. Petavius and our Montacue reckon from the first of Cyrus, unto the eighteenth of Tiberius, wherein our Lord Christ suffered, five hundred and ninety-four years, which differs very little from our account. For take from them twentyseven years of the reign of Cyrus, before the first of his empire, and add unto them thirty-seven for the continuance of the city and temple after the death of Christ, and the sum remaining will exceed our account only four years, or five at the most.
But the computation we have fixed on, being every way consistent with itself, and the stated eras of the nations, and abridging the time to the shortest duration that will endure the trial, we shall abide by it. Now the number of five hundred and ninety-nine years, exceeds the time limited in this prophecy of four hundred and ninéty, the whole space of one hundred and nine years.
§ 9. Hence it evidently appears, that the seventy weeks of Gabriel, or the four hundred and ninety years, are not commensurate to the whole space of time between the first decree of Cyrus in the first year of his general empire, and the final desolation of the city and temple by Titus. One hundred and nine years must be taken from it, either at the beginning or at the ending, or partly at the one, partly at the other.
§ 10. We shall first consider the end of them, which being clear in the prophecy will regulate, fix, and state the beginning. Two things in general are insisted on in this prophecy. Ist. The coming of Messiah the Prince, his anointing unto the work which he had to do, and his cutting off, as we before declared. 2d. The ceasing of the daily sacrifice, with the destruction of the city and temple by war and a flood of desolations. Now these things happened not at the same time; for the city and sanctuary were destroyed thirty-seven years after the cutting off, or death of the Messiah. We are therefore to inquire to which of these it was that the time specified in the prophecy hath respect. Now it is the coming, anointing, and cutting off of the Messiah, that is the thing chiefly intended in this prophecy. This we have proved undeniably before; manifesting that the vision was granted unto Daniel, and given out by him for the consolation of himself and the church, as was the way of the Holy Ghost in all his dealings with the fathers of old. Hereunto the desolation and destruction of the city and temple was only a consequent, a thing that should follow and ensue on what was principally foretold and promised. And itis doubtless unreasonableto extend the duration of the?time beyond the principal subject, on the account whereof alone the computation is granted, unto that which is only occasionally mentioned as the consequent of the accomplishment of the prophecy itself. Besides the computation itself is pointed directly by the angel to the
. Messiah, and his cutting off. ‘Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people; know therefore, that from the going forth of the commandment, unto the Messiah the Prince shall be, &c. And after sixty-two weeks shall Messsiah be cut off. But there is no guidance or direction of the time limited unto the desolation of the city and sanctuary, which is only said to ensue thereon.
_ Thirdly. It is expressly said, that the time limited extends itself only to the death of the Messiah, or a very few years farther. or he was to come after seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, which are the whole time limited within one week or seven years. Now this coming here intended, is not his incarnation, but the time of his anointing in his baptism, which fell out at the end of sixty-nine weeks. After these sixty-nine weeks, or seven, and sixty-two, he is to be cut off; that is, in the middle, or towards the end of the last week; when he had confirmed the covenant by preaching three years and a half of that seven years which remained. And if we shall say that his unction being to be after the seven weeks, and sixty-two, we must grant it to be in the first or second year of the last week, whereunto add the three years and a half of,his preaching, and the remaining fraction of one year or two can no way disturb the account, there being nothing more frequent, than the casting in of such parcels of time to complete an entire and round number. Here then must we fix the end of four hundred and ninety years, in the death of the Messiah, and so wholly lay aside the account of them, who would extend the time determined unto the desolation of the city and temple.
§ 11. We must therefore, in the first place, abate from the whole account of five hundred and ninety-nine years before stated, the sum of thirtyseven years, which ensued after the death of our Saviour, until the destruction of Jerusalem; and the remnantis five hundred and sixty-two years. Now five hundred and sixty-two years exceeds the number of four hundred and ninety, stated in Daniel’s vision, by seventy-two years. It appears then, that the beginning and ending of the seventy weeks cannot be the decree of Cyrus, and the death of our Saviour; there being seventy-two years between them, more than the weeks contain, or can be extended unto. The end we have already fixed from the text, and therefore it doth not appear that their date and rise can be taken from the decree of Cyrus. Sundry things are offered to disentangle us from this difficulty.
The most learned Reynolds, in his Prelections on the Apocryphal books, allows our account above mentioned, as to the substance of it, especially that which concerneth the Persian empire, about which alone there is any considerable difference. But he resolves at length, that the number of seventy weeks, which is a round complete number, is put for an uncertain number, thereabouts, more or less, over or under, not much varying from it. And on this supposition, he dates the beginning of the weeks in the decree of Cyrus. To confirm his opinion, he gives sundry instances of this kind of computation in the Scripture, and contends that the particular reason of limiting the whole time to seventy weeks, was to make it answer unto the seventy years captivity that immediately preceded it; the time to follow being declared to be just seven times as much.
§ 12. If this interpretation of the words might be admitted, it would, 1 confess, solve all difficulties, and entirely preserve the sacred and profane accounts from all appearances of interfering. But there are two reasons, on account of which I cannot assent unto it. The first is, because indeed there is no other instance in Scripture in which a number of years coming so far short of the true and exact account, as this doth, is put for the whole; especially considering that this number is given out for this very purpose, that men might aright compute it, and so come to know the time of its expiration. To name 490, for 562, seems rather to be a conjecture than a prophecy. It may be supposed that some few odd years may be added to. make a full round number, but that so considerable a part of the whole as 72 is, should be thus accounted for, there is no reason to imagine.
Secondly. The word used by the angel to express the limitation of this time 4nmM plainly proves that a precise duration of time, and number of years is signified. The vulgar Latin renders that word abbreviate, shortened, or cut short. And a learned man of our own approves of that interpretation of it, im opposition unto our own translation, and to that of Junius. ‘De annis (saith he) porro loquitur signanter Propheta quod sint, non decisi, (as Junius) non determinati (as ours) apud Deum statuti, (quod tamen verum erat) sed quod erant abbreviati, quemadmodum transtulit doctissimus interpres vetus. Mon. App. ad Orig. Eccl. And then he disputes at large, how the years are said to be shortened; and yet concludes, ‘ dicuntur autem abbreviate hebdomade, eo quod erant decise et determinate; as though shortened or abbreviated was the proper sense of the word, only it might be interpreted, determined; or that the days are said tobe shortened, because they were determined.
But the truth is 7NM doth not signify to abbreviate or make short; and all the reasons given to show why the times are here said to be shortened, are perfectly cast away. It is used only in this place of Scripture, and that in the singular number joined with a noun of the plural, to intimate that every week of the whole number was limited and determined, and cut out, as is usual in the Hebrews. Among the Rabbins, it is to cut off; and from it is ΣΤ ΠΙΤ a piece cut off, as Wa dw MINN, ‘a piece of flesh cut off, and ἼΠΠ, is a cutting, or incision. So that the word in its precise signification, is cut out, or cut off, that is set apart, limited, or determined. And here it means a portion of time cut out, limited, and apportioned for the accomplishment of the work foretold. Now there is nothing more contrary unto a precise determination of time, than that a certain number of years should be used to signify an uncertain, and that so exceedingly distinct from the exact account, as 490 years are from 562. So that here is no place for the conjecture of that most learned and renowned person.