|
(Continued from vol. vii., p. 416.)
Dias’ Letters.
Letter XXV. The 70 Weeks of Daniel
We are told by Father Calmet that there are many
different hypotheses concerning Daniel’s seventy
weeks, even among Christian writers—some begin them
from the first year of Darius, the Mede, which is
the epoch of Daniel’s prophecy, and make them
determine at the profanation of the temple, which
happened under the persecution of Antiochus
Epiphanes. Others begin them from the first year of
Cyrus at Babylon, and place the end of them at the
destruction of the Temple by the Romans. Others fix
the beginning at the first year of Darius the Mede,
in which the revelation was made to Daniel, and put
the end at the birth of Jesus Christ; Julius
Africanus begins the seventy weeks at the second
year of Artaxerxes, and makes them terminate at the
death of the Messiah.*
Thus Julius Africanus flourished in the third
century, and, if I mistake not, was the first that
calculated the seventy weeks to apply them to Jesus,
which none of the New Testament writers, or any
other had yet done, or found out any such meaning,
though they lived long enough, every one having
written after their pretended accomplishment at
Jesus’ death. Thus you see nothing is left
unattempted to make out the accomplishment of this
prophecy. But “let them understand by week, weeks of
years (though there be no foundation in the Old
Testament for the use of the word), or what other
portion of time they think fit; let them understand
by a year the Jewish or Chaldean, a lunar or a solar
year; let them begin the weeks in the year of Cyrus,
or Darius, or Xerxes, or in the seventh or twentieth
of Artaxerxes Longimanus, or when Daniel had his
vision; let them fix the time of Jesus’ birth, or
beginning to preach, or death, when they please; and
let them assign the time of the expiration of the
seventy weeks, which is variously fixed, when they
please: yet cannot this prophecy be made to square
to the event they would refer it, and will after all
be subject to great difficulties.Ӡ
Many other writers (says Mr. Woolston) besides
the Bishop of Litchfield, such as Dr. Clarke,
<<38>>Dr. Marshall, Mr.
Whiston, and Mr. Sykes, have to their power urged
this prophecy against the author of the Grounds; and
indeed it was unavoidable, and not to be passed over
in silence by them, since that author, by his
insinuations, had objected to the obscurity of this
prophecy, the difficulty of its application, and the
difference amongst expositors in the computation of
the time mentioned in it; and therefore the said
writers against the Grounds were in the right it, on
almost every one to contend for the truth of this
prophecy, and to illustrate it, and if they had all
jumped in their numerical and chronological notions
with the least show of exactness, they had done
somewhat to the purpose. But alas! they are as
unhappily divided amongst themselves as any before
them in their way of arithmetic and chronology: and
good Mr. Whiston is so offended with the Bishop of
Litchfield and Dr. Clarke for their computation of
Daniel’s weeks, that he could not forbear writing
against them.”*
These differences are enough to make us say, that
where there is so little agreement, little certainty
can be expected;† and you will less wonder at
finding some of the most eminent Christian
chronologers and expounders give up the application
of this prophecy, and its accomplishment in Jesus,
and endeavour at a different computation and
application, ending the seventy weeks, and the
events therein mentioned in the times of Antiochus
Epiphanes, this being the epoch assigned the
prophecy, also by some of the best Jewish authors,
the other event being neither satisfactory nor
literally fulfilled. For the truth of this we may
appeal to almost every Christian commentator. I
shall instance in this the judicious Prideaux, who,
after the great trouble and pains he had been at to
fix his own, and overthrow all other hypotheses,
concludes by declaring, “that there are many
difficulties in it, must be acknowledged; the
perplexities which many learned men have been led
to, in their explications of it, do sufficiently
prove it; and the understanding in a literal sense,
what is there meant in a figurative, hath not been
the least cause thereof.”‡ Let them give up all
pretensions, and not lay any stress or urge it
against the Jews, unless they are able to clear it
of the many difficulties with which it is clogged,
and experience ought to convince them of the
impracticability of doing it. I shall now give you
that explanation and application of this prophecy
which to me appears the best.
I was once of opinion that no person could ever
be able to know or <<39>>ascertain
the true meaning and import of this prophecy; it
always appeared to me to be a particular revelation
made to Daniel, who was favoured with the
foreknowledge of many future events, particularly
with some remarkable transactions which should
within a limited space of time befall his people;
and as it was not necessary that any other person
should have, or attain to, the like knowledge, it
was for that reason revealed in such terms as should
evade the conjectures of all inquirers.
The divisions amongst expositors who hardly agree
in any one circumstance, helped to confirm me in
this opinion, and their endeavouring to apply and
extend the prophecy to a favourite event, or a
particular hypothesis, rather than sincerely
endeavour to find out its true meaning, greatly
increases the difficulties. I have already shown the
impossibility of extending it to one event to which
it has, with great pain and labour, been endeavoured
to make answer. It now remains that I make it square
with a very different event, to which I think it
better corresponds. Probability is in my opinion the
highest degree we can arrive at.
It was the angel indeed who made Daniel to know
and understand (with a fixed certainty no doubt) its
import, meaning, and application; but as no other
person was ever favoured with the like privilege, it
would appear presumptuous to attempt it. As this
prophecy is largely and fully handled by many
express expositors, both Jews and Christians, who
apply it to the same event, with little variation,
in their hypothesis, I shall refer you to them, and
therefore shall be very short.
It appears, from Daniel’s prayer, and also from
the angel’s revelation and answer, that he prayed,
not only for the return of his people, but likewise
for the complete restoration and righteous times*
described by Jeremiah and the other prophets, of
which he, from their wickedness, judged there was
but little prospect† at that time. These were his
supplications. To this prayer the angel answers that
seventy weeks were shortened, reduced, or
abbreviated (for so nechtach signifies), that
his people might finish their transgressions, make
an end of sins, and reconciliation for iniquities,
that so they might return to God, and bring in
everlasting righteousness, for which he prayed, and
seal or fulfil the prophecy, which foretold this
event, and annoint the (Kodesh Hakkodashim)
sanctum sanctorum.
The angel then describes, or makes Daniel to know
and understand some extraordinary events that should
happen to or befall his people during that space of
time. But it does not follow that, because there was
seventy weeks decreed or abbreviated before his
nation should be restored,
<<40>>the same should take effect at that
period, because this, according to all the
prophecies, is made to depend on their turning to
God and making themselves worthy of it. All,
therefore, which the angel intimates, is that the
time given being accomplished, they were entitled to
it, should they be deserving of it.
There is a very great difference concerning the
promises relating of the duration of the Egyptian
bondage and Babylonish captivity, to that
restoration prayed for by Daniel; the first two were
absolute and unconditional, but that which was to be
the fulfilling of the prophecies, the restoration
which Daniel prayed for, had no time fixed;
therefore, what the angel reveals is, that after
such a time it depended on his people’s rendering
themselves deserving by their reformation, which was
only to be obtained by the finishing of
transgression, making an end of sin, and
reconciliation of iniquity, which would bring in
everlasting righteousness, the completion of
prophecies, and restoration of divine service, or
anointing the kodesh hakkodashim, that is,
the restoration of the Jews, an event expected both
by Jews and Christians.
I shall now proceed to mark out the events which
the angel declares to Daniel should happen during
the limited time and divisions. The first division
is that, “from the going forth of the word or
prophecy (for so dabar signifies) to restore
and build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince shall
be seven weeks.” Here then we have a beginning and
ending of this epoch, which is, that from the word
or promise made to Jeremiah of a return from
captivity, in the fourth of Johiakim,* where the
weeks begin, unto Cyrus, called by Isaiah the Lord’s
anointed, Messiah, or Christ,† where they end, are
seven weeks, or forty-nine years. Then beginning
from the same time, the sixty-two weeks (for they
are abbreviated), that is four hundred and
thirty-two years, they end or terminate in Judas
Maccabeus, during which space, “the streets and
walls were to be built even in troublous times;” and
that it did so happen, is evident from history, the
people and city undergoing sundry revolutions and
changes. After this epoch, that is, after the
sixty-two weeks, shall Messiah (Christ or Anointed)
be cut off, that is, Onias, who was the legal
anointed high priest, an upright person, and of
great holiness, was cruelly put to death, just after
the sixty-second week.‡
Here, then, we find the two Christs or Messiahs;
the first is Cyrus, the Prince Messiah, to whom,
from the going forth of the prophecy, revealed to
Jeremiah, was to be seven weeks, he having the
honour of that denomination from God himself; the
second Messiah is Onias, the legal high priest, and
in fact anointed, <<41>>to
Messiah, a person of great sanctity,* and of whom it
is said, that there are few persons to whom the
Scriptures give greater praises,† who was to be
killed after the sixty-two weeks, or four hundred
and thirty-four years, “without help.” The words
ve-en lo can never be made to mean, not for
himself, it is much more proper, as they are in the
margin of the English Bible “and shall have
nothing;” they are very exactly rendered in the
Spanish Ynoael. To make ve-en lo
significative, something ought to be added, and
nothing so proper, as I have rendered them, or unto
him no help, or he had none to help him; so that in
these two Messiahs, we have a most literal
accomplishment of the prophecy. They were to be
different, since to the first was to be seven weeks,
or forty-nine years, and the other was to be put to
death, or cut off, after sixty-two weeks, or four
hundred and thirty-four years.
Nothing can be more contradictory to the text,
than to make the angel say (as those do who would
extend the prophecy to Jesus), that there shall be
seven weeks and sixty-two weeks unto the Messiah
Prince; for if the angel meant sixty-nine weeks, it
must have been absurd thus to divide the time and
make two reckonings, where he meant but one,
contrary to all the rules of language and modes of
speech. My meaning, therefore, is not only most
agreeable to the text, but also conformable to
chronology; besides which, Cyrus and Onias have both
an inherent right of being termed or called
Messiahs. But Jesus’s right to that title is not so
evident; for it will not be admitted as an adequate
proof, what they assert, “That he was anointed with
the Holy Ghost,” which is a phrase, when it comes
rightly to be considered, will amount to an empty
sound, without any meaning at all.
But to proceed. The next part of the prophecy is,
“And the people of the Prince that shall come, shall
destroy the Holy City, and the sanctuary, and the
end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end
of the war desolations are determined,” which is a
description of the persecution and transactions of
Antiochus Epiphanes and his army, who laid the city
and temple waste, and like a flood, overpoured
everything, causing great desolation during the
war.‡ “And he shall confirm the covenant with many
for one week.” This is the covenant made with many
who left the law, to follow the ordinances of the
heathen.§ “And in the midst of the week, he shall
cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease, and for
the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it
<<42>>desolate, even
until the consummation,” which, happened
accordingly; for he forbid in the middle of the
week, “burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and
drink-offerings, in the temple; and that they should
profane the Sabbath and festival days.”* “Now in the
fifteenth day of the month Kislev, in the one
hundred and forty-fifth year, they set up the
abomination of desolation upon the altar, and
builded idol altars throughout the cities of Judah
on every side,Ӡ so that this part of the prophecy
received the literal accomplishment; and the author
plainly alludes to this circumstance in his
description, and that “determined shall be poured
out upon the desolate.”
This last part seems to want some word to make up
the sentence, and may with propriety be thus made
up: “And in the end desolator shall have vengeance
poured on him,” that is, in the end the Jews shall
take vengeance on their enemies; which did so
happen, under the conduct of the valiant Judas
Maccabeus, who overthrew their forces, and recovered
the city and temple, and restored the temple
service, in commemoration of which deliverance, a
feast was ordained, which has ever since been
religiously kept.‡
Thus, sir, have I expounded and explained this
famous prophecy, which ends with the war and
persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. The whole
prophecy seems throughout a representation of the
events which happened during that space, as the
events themselves are a literal fulfilling of it,
and in every respect agree with the history of those
times. But whatever your opinion may be of this
performance, one thing I may venture to assert, and
that is, that it can be no prophecy of Jesus; for to
him it cannot be applied without doing the utmost
violence to the prophecy, and departing from its
plain meaning; and if a figurative explanation and
application be admitted, I doubt not such a one may
be made out as will be much disliked by Christians;
and why it should not be admitted, or be on the same
footing, as those which they invent, will be hard
for them to show a sufficient cause.
I am, &c. |
