Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

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 was 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 excλoßgotos, 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 of Trajan, as Justus the Tiberian assures us in his History, whose words are reported by Photius in his Bibliotheca. So that sou y, there is nothing of truth, no colour of probability in this desperate figment.

year

$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 Eusebius, 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 any thing 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, unto Messiah the Prince. I desire therefore to know whether that space of time was passed before they had any such magistrates or priests, as they pretend afterwards were cut off. This is so far from truth, that before that time, the rule of the Hasmonæans, 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 the 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 consi dered and stated in the ensuing Exercitation.

EXERCITATION XV.

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. § 4. Foreign ac counts 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 Persian empire. 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 Hasmoneans 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 former account. Opinion of Reynold's § 12. Examined, rejected. Meaning of 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. § 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. THAT 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

והבן במראה and בין ברבי .23 .revelation made unto him, ver

declaring that not ordinary wisdom, diligence, consideration and understanding, is to be used 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 comprizing 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 comprize 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;

מן מצא דבר להשיב ולבנות ורושלם the seventy weeks are

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

« ForrigeFortsæt »