CHAPTER IV. SECTION IV. The Interpretation and Accomplishment of the 26. AND AFTER THE SIXTY AND TWO WEEKS MESSIAH SHALL BE CUT OFF, AND NO ONE WILL BE ON HIS SIDE; AND HE SHALL DESTROY THE CITY AND THE SANCTUARY WITH THE LEADER THAT COMETH; AND HIS END SHALL BE WITH AN INUNDATION, FOR UNTIL THE END SHALL BE THE WAR, THE DETERMINED JUDGMENT OF DESOLATIONS. It has been proved*, that the word after in the beginning of this verse does not signify immediately after, but may, and does extend to all the events, which are to follow in the sixty second week, and which are noticed in this verse. * See chapters 2 and 3, pages 79 and 185. It has also been proved*, that the Hebrew word, rendered in our English version, shall be cut off, is properly so rendered, and that even if the alteration in the vowel points proposed by Dr. Blaney and Mr. Faber were adopted, the meaning would remain the same. The Hebrew word rendered cut off is said by Rabbinical writers to signify properly such a cutting off as is the consequence of a judicial sentence. This nicety of signification may be nothing better * Chapter 2, page 80. + Dr. Hales, in his analysis of Chronology, vol. 2, page 563, has accused Dr. Blaney of "conspiring with Dathe and Michaelis to set aside the prophet Daniel's testimony to the violent death of Messiah." I think the learned author would hardly have brought forward such a heavy charge, if he had recollected the solemn and decided confession of the late Regius Professor of Hebrew; Dissertation, page 58. Far, very far am I from wishing to weaken any part of that evidence, which is afforded us for the confirmation of any of those sacred truths which are most surely believed among us. But if the doctrine of our Saviour's death for the sins of mankind be not here to be met with in reality, as I am persuaded it is not, who can be justly blamed for acknowledging the truth? Nor do I think the credibility of the doctrine in the least degree shaken by the want of such an attestation. For if the illustration of this prophecy tends to the confirmation of the gospel truth in general, it tends also to the confirmation of every particular article which that gospel teaches. And I know not what it doth teach, if it doth not teach with the greatest plainness and perspicuity, that "Christ Jesus died for our sins, and not for his own, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God." The same I am sure would be said, and truly said, by Mr. Faber also. See chap. 2, page 82, in the note. than a subtle, and fanciful refinement, and probably is no other, since it derives little support from the frequent use of the word in the old testament; but if it could be firmly maintained, the prediction would only agree in a greater number of particulars with that in the fifty third chapter of Isaiah, and with the real state of facts recorded in the new testament. There is no occasion in this instance for exposition, where every thing is plain, or for formal proof, where every thing is admitted. Our Lord Jesus was certainly CUT OFF, and that by CRUCIFIXION, the consequence of a judicial sentence, unjustly pronounced and barbarously executed upon him in the thirty fifth year of his age, and in the thirty first year of the vulgar Christian era, coinciding with the third year of the sixty fifth week of Daniel. But although there can be no doubt, that the crucifixion of our Lord took place, as here predicted, after the expiration of the sixty two weeks, yet since the prophecy is substantially of a chronological cast, and some of the most important and difficult points in its interpretation consist in the settlement and verification of fixed terms; it is advisable here, and will prevent the necessity of doing the like hereafter, to determine with as much accuracy, as the case admits of, the period of Messiah's excision. It has been shewn before*, that Christ was born about autumn, probably at the time when the feast of tabernacles was celebratedt, in the year of Rome 749, or of the Julian period 4709, hardly six months before the death of Herod the great. St. Luke, after relating his baptism by John, informs us, that he "was beginning to be about thirty years old;" that is to say, he was just on the point either of beginning, or of completing his thirtieth year. Thus the phrase may possibly be extended over one whole year of our Lord's life; but it is difficult to see, how it can be made to take in more, except by such violent methods as would extend it to a whole decade of years. The period then intended by St. Luke, cannot be later than the autumn of the year of Rome 779, when our Lord had completed his thirtieth year. Now John, as St. Luke * Section 3, page 316. †This is the more probable, since we find that the two other great Jewish festivals are distinguished by correspon ding events in the christian history; the passover by the sacrifice of the Redeemer, the pentecost by the descent of the Holy Ghost. It is thought by Kepler, (cited by Lardner in his Credibility, part 1, b. 2, chap. 3,) that by the use of the indefinite term wo, about, any part of the age of Christ may be signified between his twenty fifth and thirty fifth year. But, unless it can be proved, that nv apxoμevoc is the same thing as my by itself, the signification is limited to nearly one of two periods, when he was just entering upon his thirtieth year, or when he was just thirty years old, a little before or after. relates, began to baptize in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, which, reckoning from his accession to the empire on the death of Augustus, agrees with the year of Rome 781, and with A. D. 28; consequently, with the close of the true year of Christ's age thirty two, so that the two accounts are at variance; but we learn from the Roman historians*, that another, and that an earlier, date, was given to the reign of Tiberius, according to which it was reckoned, not from the death of Augustus, but from a period not less than two years before that event, when he was associated with Augustus, as his colleague in the empire, in the command of the armies, and the administration of the Imperial * Velleius Paterculus, 1. 2, c. 121. Suetonius in Tiberio, c. 21. Tacitus in Annal. 1. 1, c. 3. Dio Cassius, 1.56 and 57. That this mode of computing the reign of Tiberius was known to the early christians, is plain from the saying common among them, that Christ suffered in the fifteenth year of that emperor; (see the citations given by Lardner, Works, vol. 1, p. 382;) for since they could not but be aware, that St. Luke had dated John's baptism from the same year, they must have contradicted him, which it is impossible to suppose they could mean to do, by making that the year of the crucifixion, unless it were a matter of notoriety, that there were two dates of Tiberius's reign, of which they adopted one and the evangelist the other. Still indeed there is a mistake in their chronology; but that is easily accounted for it arose from the persuasion they entertained, that the first three evangelists allotted one year only to our Saviour's ministry; either forcing St. John's account into an agreement therewith, or entirely overlook ing it. |