the Jews, gives the same translation,' and he and Dr Williams point out that in other places in the scripture the phrase is applied to Nimrod, Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, the men of Moab, &c. But however rendered, the passage cannot be accepted as applying to Jesus until he may be exhibited " upon the throne of David." In the Christian scriptures, attempts are made to support the pretensions of Jesus to a divine parentage by means of the older records. These I proceed to notice. "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" (Matt. xxii. 41-45). The reference is to the 110th psalm. The object was to show thereby that the Messiah was spoken of by David as his "Lord," and therefore could not be his son, or descendant, upon which the inference was to be raised of Christ's superiority to David in his origin, so claiming for him a divine origin. If this be the true import of the phrase, it is singular that so weighty a doctrine should be left to be discovered by a mere inference. "The Davidic authorship of the psalm," says Dr Davidson, "cannot be sustained; some contemporary poet addressed it to him, on the basis of a divine oracle which the monarch had received as he was setting out on a warlike expedition. 'Jehovah said to my lord,' i.e., to the poet's sovereign.' In the Hebrew, distinct terms are used for those who are represented by the word "Lord" in the English translation, as if both were of like degree, divine beings. There it is "Jehovah. said to my adonai," the first divine and the second here obviously human. And if the Messiah was in truth the personage spoken of as addressed, then Jesus did not occupy the position described. The subject of the psalmist is one who is enemies and to put forth "the rod of his strength out of Zion." It is the Jewish warlike Messiah who is here depicted, not the humble and suffering Jesus. to trample upon his 1 Sermons (on the alleged Messianic Prophecies), 23. 2 Introduction to the Old Testament, II. 285. "2 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be a Father, and he shall be to me a son ? And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.-But unto the son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" (Heb. i. 5-8). Several passages are here appealed to as establishing the divinity of Jesus, namely Ps. ii. 7; lxxxix. 26, 27; xlv. 6, 7. The first of these relates to the martial "king" established upon the "holy hill of Zion." This was not Jesus. The second passage relates also to a warrior king whose "foes" were to be "beaten down before his face." This is apparently David himself. In neither instance does the sonship to God imply of necessity more than belongs to all who own his fatherly care. In the last passage there is nothing pointing to any one who may be called "the firstbegotten into the world," or in fact to the "bringing in" of any one. It is a phrase introduced by the apostle to sustain his representations elsewhere that Jesus was such a first-born (Col. i. 15, 18). The person in question in the psalm is again a martial monarch whose "sword" and arrows are brought to view. "The sixth verse," observes Dr Davidson. of the passage as it stands in the psalm, "which is rendered, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, should be translated, 'thy God's throne, i.e., thy throne given and protected by God, is for ever and ever.'" 1 "As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec" (Heb. v. 6). This involves a resemblance to one, respecting whom the statement of the apostle is, that he was "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life" (Heb. vi. 3); a being, in effect, with the attributes of the eternal God. Where the apostle got his marvellous information concerning Melchisedec is not apparent. Jesus, at all events, had a mother, whatever may be said of his parentage on the father's side, and the parallel so far does not hold good. The apostle's reference is to the 110th Psalm, which, as already pointed out, relates to a warlike personage ruling in Zion. 1 Introduction to the Old Testament, II., 283. Q The seventy weeks of Daniel. (26.) Seventy weeks, Daniel was informed through an angel, were appointed to bring to an end the dispensation for his people and city. "Know therefore," it was said to him, "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, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself" (Dan. ix. 24-26). The term "Messiah the Prince," Dr Adler gives as "the anointed prince." Mr Desprez points out that the definite article is not used in the original, and that the phrase should be "an anointed, a prince," so that it is not indisputably clear that the Messiah is here intended, though the presumption, from the tenor of the prophecy, which embraces the consummation of God's dealings with the Jews, is that he is the prince pointed to. Jesus, however, has not fulfilled the exigencies of the designation. "My kingdom," he said, "is not of this world" (John xviii. 36); and he presents himself not as a prince, a dignity and position he neither emulated nor attained, but "humbled himself" and "took upon him the form of a servant" (Phil. ii. 7, 8). Nor was he ever anointed. Hengstenberg assumes that when Jesus was recognized at his baptism by the descent upon him of the dove, and by the voice from heaven, this was "his consecration as Messiah by the anointing from above," but he is not supported by any statement to such effect in the gospel narratives, and baptism, and the anointment of a crowned head, are two very different things. The term of the seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, is divided into three periods of seven, sixty-two, and one week, representing respectively forty-nine, four hundred and thirty-four, and seven years. The events associated with these periods are the restoration of Jerusalem, the appearance of the anointed prince, such an one being cut off, and the events of the last week, which, being subsequent to the cutting off of the prince, need not be entered upon. The rebuilding of Jerusalem, "the street" and "the wall" "in troublous times," introduced in the text after the second of these 1 Adler's Sermons, 107. 3 2 Desprez's Daniel, 177. Christology of Old Testament, III. 137. periods, is commonly placed by interpreters between the first mandment to restore Adopting, however, the ordinary acceptation of the arrange- The comments of the prophecy, it has to be seen whether even then its fulfilment can be said to have been established. This turns Jerusalem. upon the ascertainment of the date from whence the prophetic period had its course. It was to begin when the commandment for the restoration of Jerusalem went forth. There are four edicts recorded in the scripture, the claims of which to represent the initiatory period have to be considered. The earliest is that issued by Cyrus in his first year (Ezra i. 1); the next is that of Darius in the second year of his reign (Ezra iv. 24; vi. 1); and the third and fourth are by Artaxerxes in his seventh and his twentieth years (Ezra vii. 8, 11; Neh. ii. 1-8). The edict of Cyrus is this. "Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, the Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord 1 Christology, III. 141. 2 Adler's Sermons, 107, 108, 110. God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem." The terms here attributed to Cyrus, in acknowledgment of the God of Israel, are obviously the offspring of the mind of the Jewish writer who thus represents them. The work so sanctioned having been obstructed by ill-disposed persons, the Gentile authority was again appealed to. Search was then made in the records, and the above edict of Cyrus being produced, Darius re-enforced it. He said, "Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations. thereof be strongly laid." The first edict of Artaxerxes was to allow the exiled Jews freely to accompany Ezra to Jerusalem. Whatsoever," it said, "is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven." Furthermore, Ezra was enjoined to "set magistrates and judges, which may judge the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God." Nehemiah learned that the city was still lying waste, and asked the king to be allowed to go and build it. His particular request was that he might have "a letter unto Asaph, the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into. And the king," it is added, "granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me." The view commonly insisted on is that this, which is the last of these edicts, is the one from which to date the course of the prophetic period of the seventy weeks, as it is the only one in which the building of the city is actually mentioned, the others having reference to the reconstruction of the temple. The bearing of these several edicts has therefore to be examined. The author of the prophecy represents himself to have been considering Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years' captivity, the close of which period was approaching. He set himself, "by prayer and supplication," to learn when the happy deliverance at the end of the term was to be (Dan. ix. 2, 3). On this the present prophecy was communicated to him, one measure of seventy being matched by another of the same sacred number. Some connection between these prophecies. appears pointed to, and this is secured if the terminating period of the one is the opening period of the other. Just |