|
(Continued from vol. vi., page 508.)
Dias’s Letters.
Letter XXIV.
Extraordinary are the pains which have been taken,
and the stress laid by Christian commentators on the
famous prophecy of Daniel’s seventy weeks, as if
Christianity could not subsist without it; or, as if
the very being of religion depended on the
application of this prophecy to Jesus; whom they
make to be the Messiah, or Anointed, there
mentioned. It is thus translated in the English
Bible:
“At the beginning of the supplications,” (says the
angel to Daniel,) “the commandment came forth, and I
am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved:
therefore, understand the matter, and consider the
vision. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy
people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the
transgression, and to make an end of sins, 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 the Messiah, the Prince, shall be
seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; the
street shall be built again, and the wall, even 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
abominations he shall make it desolate, even until
the consummation, and that determined shall be
poured upon the desolate.”*
The computations which are made of these seventy
weeks, by the most learned, are so different and
contradictory to each other, and the calculations do
so vary from one another’s hypothesis, as ought, one
would think, to convince them of the
impracticableness of making the application of it
to Jesus, and consequently, of the impossibilities
of making it answer their purpose. Its obscurity is
confessed by all, and you’ll hardly find two
intelligent persons who agree in their computations;
difficulties surrounded them whichever way they
take; how to make or <<411>strike out Jesus for the
Messiah or Anointed, who was to be cut off, is the
thing they aim at; but where to begin the
computation of the weeks, how to continue them, and
what time to end them,—so that, every period may
have a proper epoch, are matters of the greatest
difficulties and differences amongst the
expositors. To make the prophecy answer the event
they would apply it to, they shorten or lengthen the
chronology of those times, (which of itself is dark
and perplexed,) extending or diminishing the reigns
of the Persian monarchs, as may best square with
their different hypotheses, which, after all the
trouble and pains they take, are liable to most
potent objections and insurmountable difficulties.
The authors of the Universal History, after
mentioning in very contemptuous terms, (as is their
custom,) the differences which subsist among the
Jewish authors, and asserting their ignorance as
chronological calculators, proceed to give us the
following account:—
“The Christians (say they) are not exactly agreed,
either in the placing the beginning or end of these
weeks, or in the calculations of those lunar or
Jewish years; both differences, however, are
inconsiderable if duly attended to; the former is
entirely owing to our imperfect knowledge of the
chronology of those times; had we a sure guide in
it, the points would not be long unsettled; but,
whilst in this uncertainty, one author will place
the beginning at the decree of Cyrus, another at
that of Darius, a third at that of Artaxerxes
Longimanus, and each of them endeavours to stretch
or shorten the chronology of each interval, as best
suits with his hypothesis, it is no wonder there is
so little agreement among them, and so little
certainty to be gathered from the whole dispute.”*
If
these things are thus, can the Jews be blamed in
rejecting their application of this prophecy,
computed as is acknowledged “both without any
perfect knowledge of the chronology of those times,
or any sure guide in it?” Upon what grounds, then,
can they pretend either to fix or urge this
prophecy? and does it not betray pitiful shifts (or
something worse) in thus shortening and stretching
each interval as best suits their different views,
and is it not using unfair and unwarrantable means?
Here let me observe, that what in Jewish authors
betrayed their ignorance, and showed their pitiful
shifts,† passes unanswered in the others; though
one should think that design (for ignorant they must
not be supposed) deserved not less rebuke than
ignorance.
These authors having made mention of lunar years, by
which some reckon in order to bring the time nearer
to the event, to <<412>>which they endeavour to make
application of this prophecy: it will be sufficient
to observe with the judicious Prideaux, “when Daniel
had this prophecy revealed unto him, by the angel
Gabriel, there was not any form of year purely lunar
any where in use; but of the ancients, we find none
who followed this form; and who can think, then,
that in the collective sum of seventy weeks or four
hundred and ninety years of them, the angel should
intend a computation, which was then nowhere in
practice the whole world over?”* “Waving (what these
authors call) some minute differences” they proceed
to give us the system most universally received, and
they tell us, that, “The difference of time is
trifling at most, but nine or ten years between
those who make it longest and those who make it
shortest;” and who can wonder at it or urge it as an
objection against this prophecy, &c?†
Against the prophecy none will; neither will the
Jews wonder at the difference, and will give this
reason, because the event, to which it is applied,
could not be that intended by the angel; for
whatever trifling difference they may think of nine
or ten years, yet where there is a determined
portion of time fixed, the accomplishment must be
exact; otherwise, instead of seventy weeks, the
angel ought to have said seventy-one weeks and a
half; therefore, it is a very material difference;
for it makes the time extend farther than the
determined bounds set by the angel. Their hypothesis
is to begin the seventy weeks from the decree
granted to Nehemiah, by Artaxerxes, in the twentieth
year of his reign, and end them at the death of
Jesus; but to this computation, there are great
objections, for it exceeds the four hundred and
ninety years by ten years, as their historians
acknowledge, or rather thirteen as Dean Prideaux
makes it appear.
“And therefore, (says he,) if the four hundred and
ninety years of the seventy weeks be computed from
thence, they will over-shoot the death of Christ
thirteen years, which being the grand event to be
brought to pass at the conclusion of these weeks, it
is certain they can never there have their beginning
from whence they can never be brought to this
ending.” ‡
To
remedy this evil, some have invented (though without
the least foundation or authority) that Artaxerxes
reigned ten years with his father, and so pretended
it to be only the tenth of his reigning alone,
making up by invention what is wanting in exactness;
but there is nothing (says Prideaux) in the history
of those times that can give countenance to this
conjecture.§ Besides, according to this hypothesis,
they make <<413>>one continued series of time
without making any epochs to the division as made
by the angel, and notwithstanding, the angel
declares, the commandment to have gone forth, yet
they contradict him and make that commandment to be
one that was given near ninety years after.
I
suppose, with Prideaux, that the commandment
mentioned by the angel to be that of Cyrus, which he
very learnedly proves to be the decree literally
meant by the angel, declaring that it “can be
applicable to no other restoring and rebuilding of
Jerusalem, than that which was decreed and commanded
by Cyrus, at the return of the captivity;* and
therefore, if these words of the prophecy to restore
and rebuild Jerusalem are to be understood in a
literal sense, they can be understood of no other
restoring and building of that city, than that which
was accomplished by virtue of that decree; and the
computation of the seventy weeks must begin, from
the granting and going forth thereof.Ӡ According to
which, the literal accomplishment of this prophecy
must have its completion from the going forth of
that decree; and whoever begins them from any other,
cannot pretend to make it a literal prophecy. Other
difficulties there are which arise from this
hypothesis in common with others, such as the
confirmation of the covenant with many for one week,
(to which they are entirely silent,) the time of the
Messiah’s being cut off, the overspreading of
abominations, which shall be taken notice of in my
observations on the
next hypothesis, that of the learned Prideaux, which
these historians recommend.
The doctor very judiciously objects to the
calculations and hypotheses which terminate in Jesus
different from his, showing their absurdity, and the
impossibility of terminating them in that event; and
therefore begins his own computation of the seventy
weeks, from the 7th of Artaxerxes, when Ezra began
to execute his commission.‡ For reckoning or
calculating the time backward, he finds, from the
death of Jesus to the execution of the said
commission, just four hundred and ninety years:§ he
therefore takes the commandment of the seventy weeks
or four hundred and ninety years, not literally, but
in a figurative sense,|| and this he does for a very
obvious reason; for having proved, as before
observed, that the commandment for restoring and
building Jerusalem, could be no other but Cyrus’s
decree.
“If (says he) the computation be began so high, the
four hundred and ninety years of the said seventy
weeks, cannot come low enough to reach any
<<414>>of
the events predicted by the prophecy, (he means
those to which Christians would extend the
prophecy); for from the first of Cyrus to the death
of Christ, were five hundred and sixty eight years;
and, therefore, if the said four hundred and ninety
years be computed from thence, they will be expired
a great many years either before the cutting off, or
the coming of the Messiah.”*
As
he sets out, or begins his computation from a
supposed figurative prediction of the angel, so he
continues the events in the same sense, making the
streets and city to mean figuratively, church and
state.† And the Ditch, he makes a figurative
expression, for good constitutions and
establishment.‡ Indeed, he is not silent (as the
authors of the Universal History are), concerning
the confirming the covenant with many for one week,
he says this “was done by Jesus confirming for one
week,” that is, for the space of seven years, the
covenant of the gospel with many of the Jews.§
Now how, or from what authority he does this, when
Christians as well as himself, declare and assert
that his gospel “was not a temporal law, as was that
of Moses; but to last for ever, and to be a guide
unto all righteousness as long as the world should
last,”|| and yet reduce it to only a seven years
covenant, seems very strange and contradictory. They
find it not less difficult how to make out the
fulfilling of that part of the prophecy, which
declares that the sacrifice and oblations should
cease in the midst of the last week, which none in
fact pretended did literally happen, because they
continued for a long time after, even to the
destruction of the city.
This difficulty is got over, not by pretending they
actually did cease, for it is acknowledged that they
did not so “till the destruction of the temple,
about forty years after; but by pretending that they
lost their efficacy, and became useless and
insignificant, after the grand sacrifice of the
saviour of the world;Ӧ but for this you must take
their word. Most remarkable is the fulfilling this
part of the prophecy, as made out by Prideaux; he
has not the patience to wait till the death of
Jesus, but anticipates by half a week; for he tells
us “that he should in the half past week, that is,
in the latter half part of it, cause the sacrifice
and oblations of the temple to cease, and in the
conclusion of the whole, that is, in the precise
ending of the said seventy weeks, be cut off and
die, and accordingly (this he asserts with great
assurance) all this was exactly fulfilled, and was
brought to pass;”** so that according to him, they
must have lost their efficacy before the death of
Jesus; and if this be so, what becomes of all the
types of Christ’s sacrifice, which they are
<<415>>made to prefigure.
They pretend, by what rule of language I know not,
that the overspreading of abominations,
“Sufficiently prefigures the Roman eagles set up in
the temple;”* which is false in fact, none being set
up there, as the same was in flames before it was
taken;† neither did the Romans set up there any
idolatry at all. They are all so greatly perplexed
how to make out and apply that part of the prophecy
which mentions, “the people of the prince that shall
come,” some applying the passage to the Romans under
Titus, others to Jesus himself. But the first it
cannot be, because the whole extent of the prophecy
terminates at the death of Jesus, and all the events
mentioned, were to happen within that space;
consequently, Titus with the Romans, who laid siege
to Jerusalem many years after, cannot be the person
intended; neither can it be of Jesus who had been
cut off long before.
The prophecy declared positively, that the Messiah
or Anointed was to be cut off after the sixty second
week; whereas the authors of the Universal History
stretch it to the sixty-ninth week, and Prideaux to
the seventieth, which is a contradiction to the
prophecy; for if the Messiah was not to be cut off
till the sixty-ninth or seventieth week, that period
would undoubtedly have been fixed by the angel, and
not the sixty-second.
In
short, considering their assertions made without the
least foundation, and contrary not only to the
prophecy, but also to facts, you will have less
cause to be surprised at what is generally asserted
by them concerning the finishing transgression,
making an end of sins, reconciliation for
iniquities, and the bringing in everlasting
righteousness; on which, and the sealing up the
vision and prophecy, and the anointing the Most
Holy, they run out and descant most notably; an
instance of this you have in Prideaux, all which he
makes to be accomplished, “in the great work of our
salvation, undertook by Jesus, fully completed by
his death, passion, and resurrection. Being born
without original sin, and living without actual sin,
he was the most holy of all—he was anointed with the
Holy Ghost, and with power to be king, priest, and
prophet, which offered himself a sacrifice upon the
cross, making thereby an end of sin, in so doing he
did work reconciliation for us with our God.”
It
is pity that the learned author had not proved every
one of these particular points; for it is impossible
that any one can consider all these events thus put
together, and think that they came to pass, or were
brought about by Jesus. A transition of our
thoughts, and a little reflection on the wickedness
of the times in which he lived, the perpetual
divisions, and continual crimes or unrighteousness
<<416>>of the church from the beginning down to this
time, must surely make it not only impossible, but
ridiculous to pretend to do it; the contradictions
must appear so glaring to any person anywise
acquainted with the history of the church, and its
proceedings, as must occasion (force) a
conclusion entirely opposite; for it must naturally
lead him to think, that nothing like that which is
pretended ever happened, and that consequently the
prophecy could never terminate in Jesus.
I
am, &c.
(To be
continued.) |
