Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Daniel 9:25

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Daniel 9:25. From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem — The foregoing events being all accomplished by Jesus Christ, they of course determine the prophecy to him. And if we reckon back four hundred and ninety years, we shall find the time of the going forth of this command.

Most learned men agree that the death of Christ happened at the passover in the month Nisan, in the four thousand seven hundred and forty-sixth year of the Julian period. Four hundred and ninety years, reckoned back from the above year, leads us directly to the month Nisan in the four thousand two hundred and fifty-sixth year of the same period; the very month and year in which Ezra had his commission from Artaxerxes Longimanus, king of Persia, (see Ezra 7:9,) to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. See the commission in Ezra, Ezra 7:11-26, and Prideaux's Connexions, vol. ii. p. 380.

The above seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, are divided, in Daniel 9:25, into three distinct periods, to each of which particular events are assigned. The three periods are, -

I. Seven weeks, that is, forty-nine years.

II. Sixty-two weeks, that is, four hundred and thirty-four years.

III. One week, that is, seven years.

To the first period of seven weeks the restoration and repairing of Jerusalem are referred; and so long were Ezra and Nehemiah employed in restoring the sacred constitutions and civil establishments of the Jews, for this work lasted forty-nine years after the commission was given by Artaxerxes.

From the above seven weeks the second period of sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years more, commences, at the end of which the prophecy says, Messiah the Prince should come, that is, seven weeks, or forty-nine years, should be allowed for the restoration of the Jewish state; from which time till the public entrance of the Messiah on the work of the ministry should be sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, in all four hundred and eighty-three years.

From the coming of our Lord, the third period is to be dated, viz., "He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week," that is seven years, Daniel 9:27.

This confirmation of the covenant must take in the ministry of John the Baptist with that of our Lord, comprehending the term of seven years, during the whole of which he might be well said to confirm or ratify the new covenant with mankind. Our Lord says, "The law was until John;" but from his first public preaching the kingdom of God, or Gospel dispensation, commenced.

These seven years, added to the four hundred and eighty-three, complete the four hundred and ninety years, or seventy prophetic weeks; so that the whole of this prophecy, from the times and corresponding events, has been fulfilled to the very letter.

Some imagine that the half of the last seven years is to be referred to the total destruction of the Jews by Titus, when the daily sacrifice for ever ceased to be offered; and that the intermediate space of thirty-seven years, from our Lord's death till the destruction of the city, is passed over as being of no account in relation to the prophecy, and that it was on this account that the last seven years are divided. But Dean Prideaux thinks that the whole refers to our Lord's preaching connected with that of the Baptist. וחצי vachatsi, says he, signifies in the half part of the week; that is, in the latter three years and a half in which he exercised himself in the public ministry, he caused, by the sacrifice of himself, all other sacrifices and oblations to cease, which were instituted to signify his.

In the latter parts of Daniel 9:26-27 we find the THIRD PART of this great prophecy, which refers to what should be done after the completion of these seventy weeks.

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

“Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times. And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing: 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 even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.”

THE FAMED PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS

There is not a single word in this prophecy that is not disputed; and we shall note some of these opinions; however, in the overall sense, there is not anything very hard about this prophecy. First we shall notice some of what we hold to be impossible interpretations of it.

(a)    The critics who deny the trustworthiness and dependability of the holy Bible refer this prophecy to Antiochus Epiphanes in the Maccabean period about the year 160 B.C. The desolation is caused by Antiochus, and the anointed one is Onias III; and the passage is robbed of any reference whatever to the Messiah. “The objections to this type of interpretation are so serious that it cannot possibly be regarded as correct.”Edward J. Young, The New Bible Commentary, Revised, Daniel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 700.

(b)    A second school of interpreters (the dispensationalists) has many shades of beliefs; but generally, they deny that the six things to be accomplished in Daniel 9:24 were achieved by Christ in his First Advent. They interpose a gap between the 69th and 70th week and suppose that at the 2nd Advent of Christ, following the Church Age, the Christ will return and the seventieth week will resume at that time. The Scofield Bible gives a general presentation of this interpretation. We cannot possibly accept such notions about this prophecy, principally because they nullify the great work of Christ in his atoning death, burial and resurrection. Also, Christ gave his blood for the church (Acts 20:28), which is ample proof of the absolute necessity and importance of the Church. Such premillennial theories as these are guilty of downgrading the Church and of stripping it of its genuine place in the economy of redemption.

THE TRUE INTERPRETATION

As Keil said, “Most of the church fathers and the older orthodox interpreters find prophesied here the appearance of Christ m the flesh, His Death, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70.”C. F. Keil, op. cit., p. 336. That this is indeed the true interpretation is plainly indicated by the words of Jesus Christ who definitely applied “the abomination” spoken of by Daniel as an event that would occur in the siege of Jerusalem, as prophesied by Christ repeatedly in Matthew 24; Mark 13; and Luke 21. Furthermore, Christ warned the Christians that, “When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains” (Matthew 24:15-16). Many Christian commentators have pointed out that the Christians indeed heeded that warning. Eusebius tells how the Christians fled from Jerusalem when the Romans most unpredictably lifted their siege, a fact that even Josephus noted.Flavius Josephus, Life and Works of, translated by William Whiston (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p. 700. No Christian is said to have lost his life in the final destruction of Jerusalem.

Now, for the believer in Christ, one such indication from our Lord and Redeemer is worth more than thousands of human opinions. Since, therefore, Jesus Christ himself related this vision to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, that settles it; and we may therefore reckon the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. as an event that was indeed accomplished within the prescribed “seventy weeks” of this vision. That is what these verses actually say.

WHAT THE PROPHECY SAYS

Note that six things are to be accomplished within the seventy weeks:

1.    To finish transgression.

2.    To make an end of sins.

3.    To make reconciliation for iniquity.

4.    To bring in everlasting righteousness.

5.    To seal up vision and prophecy.

6.    To anoint the most holy. (as in Daniel 9:24).

“To finish transgression” is a reference to the fairness of Israel’s sins culminating in their rejection of the Messiah. As a result of that “finishing” of their transgressions, they were judicially condemned and hardened, their city and religious economy destroyed, and the people scattered all over the world. For almost 2,000 years they disappeared as a nation; and, even with the revival of a modern “Israeli” today, it has no legitimate connection whatever with ancient Israel.

“To make an end of sins” This was accomplished when Christ “condemned sin in the flesh.” Only in Jesus Christ has there ever been any such thing as the absolute forgiveness of sins. This line alone makes it certain that Christ’s coming is here foretold.

“To make reconciliation for iniquity” “This means `to pardon, to blot out by means of a sin-offering, i.e., to forgive.’“C. F. Keil, op. cit., p. 342. Here is a certain reference to the atonement for human transgression wrought by Jesus Christ on Calvary, as a result of which “reconciliation of men to God” could occur. This is precisely the thing that restored the broken fellowship between man and his God. We are indebted to Thomson who tells us that the word used here, “`To make an atonement,’ is the technical word used fifty times in Leviticus for the offering of atoning sacrifice.”J. E. H. Thomson, op. cit., p. 268.

“To bring in everlasting righteousness” The only righteousness our poor world ever saw was the righteousness wrought by Christ. He is indeed “the righteousness of God”; there cannot possibly be any other source of it. The notion that this bringing in of everlasting righteousness could pertain to any other person that Christ is impossible of acceptance. This righteousness came from above; it did not rise out of the earth; Jesus brought it.

“To seal up vision and prophecy” We regard this as a figure referring to the confirmation of the ancient prophecies by their most marvelous fulfillment in the events of the ministry of Jesus Christ. Some 333 prophecies of the Old Testament pointing to the coming of Jesus Christ were most circumstantially fulfilled in his life, death, resurrection, etc.

“To anoint the most holy” This is so obviously a reference to Jesus Christ that we still marvel that the expression Most Holy is not capitalized, as in KJV or as in Douay which reads it, “Saint of saints may be anointed.” As we noted above, however, every word of this prophecy is disputed, and even Keil did not allow that this expression can refer to a person, making it a reference to some thing, not a person. Keil could not have so misunderstood this if he had consulted 1 Chronicles 23:23, where without the article (the basis of Keil’s rejection) the phrase applies to an individual. “It is indeed applied most frequently to persons: to Aaron (Exodus 40:13), to Saul (1 Samuel 10:10), and to David (1 Samuel 16:3);”C. F. Keil, op. cit., p. 347. Therefore the ancient renditions of this place are correct. “This understanding of it was accepted by the Jews, and the old Syriac translates this text, `To the Messiah, the Most Holy.’“C. F. Keil, op. cit., p. 345.

The shenanigans of the critical community regarding the interpretation of this anointing were discussed by Keil. He noted that they refer all of this to the times of Maccabees or a little earlier, alleging that the “anointing” here refers to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering which was restored by Zurabbel and Joshua, or to the consecration of the altar following its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes. Keil stated categorically that, “None of these interpretations can be justified.”Ibid. To begin with, there were not any anointings during the era of the 2nd temple! “According to the definite uniform tradition of the Jews, the holy anointing oil did not even exist during the times of the second temple!”J. E. Thomson, op. cit., p. 269.

These six things therefore pertain exclusively to the times of the First Advent of Christ and the setting up of his eternal kingdom.

Daniel 9:25 advances the prophecy by giving the “terminus a quem” for the seventy weeks, namely from the date of the commandment to restore and to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. This of course was somewhat subsequent to the end of the Babylonian captivity; and the difficulty is compounded by our ignorance of just exactly when that commandment went forth. It is not even known if this means the commandment “from God” or by some kingly edict. There are several proposals as to just exactly when we should begin counting the seventy weeks. There is another problem. The weeks, understood as “weeks of years” theory is widely accepted and generally taken for granted; and yet it has not been actually proved. The nearest thing we have to proof that these 490 days should actually be understood as 490 years derives from the fact that Christ identified this prophecy as reaching to 70 A.D., which definitely favors the day for a year understanding of it.

The big message in Daniel 9:25, from Daniel’s viewpoint was that God definitely promised that “The city shall be built again… in troublous times.” For a city that had already lain in desolation for the better part of a century, this must have been welcome news indeed to the grieving prophet.

The whole seventy weeks were not to pass before Messiah came; that event would occur at the expiration of 69 weeks, interpreted by many as 483 years. Here again is the difficulty of any certainty as to what part of Jesus’ life is reached by this calculation. His anointing (baptism) took place in A.D. 26; his death, burial, and resurrection in April of A.D. 30. Added to the uncertainty as to the “terminus a quem”, it is almost impossible to be dogmatically certain as to the exact times specified. Nevertheless there is great utility in the prophecy.

Thomson calculated the starting point of the “seventy weeks” as 445 B.C., relating it to a positive command for Nehemiah to build “the walls.” Allowing this, the 490 years would bring us to 32. A.D. (about the time, but not exactly the time, of Christ’s Ascension); and the sixty-nine weeks would bring us to A.D. 25 (about the time of Christ’s baptism, that is, his anointing).J. E. Thomson, op. cit., p. 267 No one can fail to be impressed with how nearly these calculations correspond to sacred occasions in the life of Our Lord. Allowing for the fact, that the seventy years of Israel’s captivity turned about to be only about 68 or 69 years, one can see that such calculations as these commend themselves to many people.

Daniel 9:26 begins with the statement, “After the threescore and two weeks”; and the interesting thing is that there has been no previous mention of any “threescore and two weeks.” There is a mention of the seven weeks and three-score and two weeks (69 weeks); and therefore it is hard to resist the conclusion that perhaps a word has fallen out of the text here, thus making the meaning to be, “Now after the sixty nine weeks.” Some scholars have raised the question of a defective text here; and we are not personally able to evaluate such claims. Nevertheless, it is perfectly clear that the 69th week takes us to “The Prince” who can be none other than the Christ. The cutting off of “the prince” followed quickly upon the appearance of Christ in his ministry; and although the destruction of Jerusalem which is mentioned in Daniel 9:26 as something to be accomplished within the seventy weeks, it is not necessary to suppose that the seventieth week needed to be extended unduly to reach the actual terminal date of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Christ indeed prophesied the total destruction of the city repeatedly, declaring that not one stone should be left on top of another within the temple complex itself, that her enemies would come and cast a trench about her and dash her little ones in pieces within her. True to the language of all the prophets, what God (or Christ) prophesied would happen was spoken of in the past tense, as something already done. That is why the destruction of Jerusalem was to be accomplished (in that sense) within the actual terminus of the seventy weeks.

It is apparent that in this interpretation, we have ignored altogether the “sixty and two weeks,” there being no way that we can discover any meaning in them. That they are indeed a part of the seventy weeks, and that they do not constitute a gap and an extension of the seventieth week to some far off end of time appearance, has been discerned by many scholars.

The destruction of Jerusalem is here plainly included in the seventy weeks; and we have interpreted this to mean that within that time, Christ indeed condemned the city to total destruction, a prophecy actually fulfilled nearly forty years after Christ spoke. “Even unto the end” would appear to be a reference to the end of the Jewish nation. That there could also be overtones of the final termination of human probation in this is also freely admitted.

Now, the prophecy in Daniel 9:27, to the effect that Christ should make the covenant firm with many for one week is a clear reference to the public ministry of Jesus Christ. It is here called “a week,” indicating a seven year period; but with this limitation! He the Messiah was cut off “in the midst of the week,” that is after three and one half years, which corresponds exactly to the facts. The further references to the destruction of Jerusalem, “the flood,” and “the war,” etc. are prophecies of the great tribulations that should overwhelm Jerusalem at the times when her doom was executed by the armies of Vespasian and Titus in the year 70 A.D.

CONCERNING THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION

Jesus Christ interpreted this as an event that would be openly visible to all, saints and sinners alike; he associated it with the destruction of Jerusalem; and in the light of the fact that the destruction of that city was itself a type of the final holocaust on the eternal Judgment Day, and that many of the conditions existing in God’s Israel prior to that event would also be manifested a second time in the New Israel prior to final Judgment, it appears that a second abomination of desolation shall occur in the final days of Adam’s race on earth.

Exactly what was this “abomination of desolation?” Notice that there are two things in this, namely, abomination, and desolation.

The abomination referred to the gross pollution of the “holy place,” a reference to the temple sanctuary, or more properly, the Holy of Holies itself. This was to be the signal that indicated the approaching “desolation,” thus it is said that the desolation was to come upon the “wing” of abominations (note the plural), indicating that the desolations would be a direct result of the gross pollution of the holy place.

What happened? The Jewish people requested that a robber, named Barabbas, should be released to them instead of Christ (Mark 15:11); and it was appropriate that the consequences of such a choice should have been received by them making it. Josephus devotes twenty pages to a description of the sordid details of how a band of ruthless outlaw robbers took complete charge of the city, along with the entire temple complex, long before the Romans came, and who committed wholesale barbarity, rapines, plunderings, and murders, “over 12,000 of the nobility being brutally put to death, along with countless thousands of the common people. They even filled up the Holy of Holies itself with dead bodies! The robbers fell upon the people as upon a flock of profane animals and cut their throats in what place soever they caught them!”Flavius Josephus, op. cit., pp. 745, 755, etc. Josephus commented on this thus: “I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, that he cut off those great defenders, namely, the nobility.”Ibid., p. 755. In this connection Josephus also related how:

“There was a certain ancient oracle of those men (the Jews), that the city should be taken and the sanctuary burnt, by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews, and their own hands should pollute the temple of God.”Ibid., p. 758.

Bickersteth’s discerning comment on this is that, “Their outrages against God were the special cause of the desolation of Jerusalem… theirs was the abomination that filled up the measure of their iniquities and caused the avenging power of Rome to come down upon them and crash them.”E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 16, Mark (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 199. Thus the Jews made the holy place desolate morally; and the Romans made it (and the city) desolate by their ruthless destruction of them.

Almost certainly, here is the portion of this prophecy that may be applied to the end of all things culminating in the Final Judgment. Just as the Old Israel finally turned totally against God; so also shall it be in the final days of the New Israel when “the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled.” Revelation 16 describes a time when the moral environment of the whole earth shall be corrupted in a near-total degree. It is of that period that Jesus asked, “When the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth” (Luke 18:8). In Christ’s multiple prophecy of the end of the world (Matthew 24:9-11), Christ warned that the ordinary upheavals of history such as wars and rumors of wars, floods, earthquakes, famines, etc. were not to be understood as “signs” of the end. The significant thing was what was happening among God’s people themselves! When the time comes that the Church herself has forsaken the fundamentals of her faith in Christ, the abomination that makes desolate shall again appear in the “holy place,” in the last instance of it, in the Church herself. There are many shameful developments in the visible Christendom of our own times that are frightening!

All of this prophecy appears to this writer as clearly understandable except the matter of the 62 weeks which we cited above. What ever this may mean, granted that it could indeed be a faithful record of the sacred text, we have been unable to discover any means of arriving at a scriptural explanation of it. There remains the strong possibility that “the sixty two weeks” was not originally a reference to a period of sixty-two weeks (no such period having been mentioned previously in the whole Bible), but rather to the “seven weeks and threescore weeks and two weeks” just mentioned in the previous verse, namely, the 69 weeks. Certainly, we are justified in the rejection of the irresponsible millennial views that are imported into the passage. Some things are simply not revealed; and, as far as we can discern, the matter of these alleged 62 weeks is one of them.

One thing stands out - these seventy weeks were about to be completed, as indicated by Christ’s reference to the abomination that makes desolate, which was soon to be fulfilled. This was clearly stated by Christ. Therefore, when Christ charged the Pharisees with being weather prophets who were nevertheless unable to “discern the signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3), it was most likely that one of the signs the Pharisees could not discern was that of the “seventy weeks” of Daniel approaching their termination.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

Know, therefore, and understand - Hengstenberg renders this, “and thou wilt know and understand;” and supposes that the design of Gabriel is to awaken the attention and interest of Daniel by the assurance that, if he would give attention, he would understand the subject by the explanation which he was about to give. So also Theodotion renders it in the future tense. The Hebrew is in the future tense, and would probably convey the idea that he might, or would know and understand the matter. So Lengerke renders it, “Und so mogest du wissen,” etc. The object is doubtless to call the attention of Daniel to the subject, with the assurance that he might comprehend the great points of the communication which he was about to make respecting the seventy weeks. In the previous verse, the statement was a general one; in this, the angel states the time when the period of the seventy weeks was to commence, and then that the whole period was to be broken up or divided into three smaller portions or epochs, each evidently marking some important event, or constituting an important era. The first period of seven weeks was evidently to be characterized by something in which it would be different from what would follow, or it would reach to some important epoch, and then would follow a continuous period of sixty-two weeks, after which, during the remaining one week, to complete the whole number of seventy, the Messiah would come and would be cut off, and the series of desolations would commence which would result in the entire destruction of the city.

That from the going forth of the commandment - Hebrew, “of the word” - דבר dâbâr. It is used, however, as in Daniel 9:23, in the sense of commandment or order. The expression “gone forth” (מצא môtsâ') would properly apply to the “issuing” of an order or decree. So in Daniel 9:23 - דבר יצא yâtsâ' dâbâr - “the commandment went forth.” The word properly means a going forth, and is applied to the rising sun, that goes forth from the east, Psalms 19:6 (7); then a “place” of going forth, as a gate, a fountain of waters, the east, etc., Ezekiel 42:11; Isaiah 41:18; Psalms 75:6 (7). The word here has undoubted reference to the promulgation of a decree or command, but there is nothing in the words to determine “by whom” the command was to be issued. So far as the “language” is concerned, it would apply equally well to a command issued by God, or by the Persian king, and nothing but the circumstances can determine which is referred to. Hengstenberg supposes that it is the former, and that the reference is to the Divine purpose, or the command issued from the “heavenly council” to rebuild Jerusalem. But the more natural and obvious meaning is, to understand it of the command’ actually issued by the Persian monarch to restore and build the city of Jerusalem. This has been the interpretation given by the great body of expositors, and the reasons for it seem to be perfectly clear:

(a) This would be the interpretation affixed to it naturally, if there were no theory to support, or if it did not open a chronological difficulty not easy to settle.

(b) This is the only interpretation which can give anything like definiteness to the passage. Its purpose is to designate some fixed and certain period from which a reckoning could be made as to the time when the Messiah would come. But, so far as appears, there was no such definite and marked command on the part of God; no period which can be fixed upon when he gave commandment to restore and build Jerusalem; no exact and settled point from which one could reckon as to the period when the Messiah would come. It seems to me, therefore, to be clear, that the allusion is to some order to rebuild the city, and as this order could come only from one who had at that time jurisdiction over Jerusalem, and Judea, and who could command the resources necessary to rebuild the ruined city, that order must be one that would emanate from the reigning power; that is, in fact, the Persian power - for that was the power that had jurisdiction at the close of the seventy years’ exile. But, as there were several orders or commands in regard to the restoration of the city and the temple, and as there has been much difficulty in ascertaining the exact chronology of the events of that remote period, it has not been easy to determine the precise order referred to, or to relieve the whole subject from perplexity and difficulty. Lengerke supposes that the reference here is the same as in Daniel 9:2, to the promise made to Jeremiah, and that this is the true point from which the reckoning is to be made. The exact edict referred to will be more properly considered at the close of the verse. All that is necessarily implied here is, that the time from which the reckoning is to be commenced is some command or order issued to restore and build Jerusalem.

To restore - Margin, “build again.” The Hebrew is, properly, “to cause to return” - להשׁיב l^ehâshı̂yb. The word might be applied to the return of the captives to their own land, but it is evidently used here with reference to the city of Jerusalem, and the meaning must be, “to restore it to its former condition.” It was evidently the purpose to cause it to return, as it were, to its former spendour; to reinstate it in its former condition as a holy city - the city where the worship of God would be celebrated, and it is this purpose which is referred to here. The word, in Hiphil, is used in this sense of restoring to a former state, or to renew, in the following places: Psalms 80:3, “Turn us again - השׁיבנוּ hăshı̂ybēnû - and cause thy face to shine.” So Psalms 80:7, Psalms 80:19. Isaiah 1:26, “And I will “restore” thy judges as at the first,” etc. The meaning here would be met by the supposition that Jerusalem was to be put into its former condition.

And to build Jerusalem - It was then in ruins. The command, which is referred to here, must be one to build it up again - its houses, temple, walls; and the fair sense is, that some such order would be issued, and the reckoning of the seventy weeks must “begin” at the issuing of this command. The proper interpretation of the prophecy demands that “that” time shall be assumed in endeavoring to ascertain when the seventy weeks would terminate. In doing this, it is evidently required in all fairness that we should not take the time when the Messiah “did” appear - or the birth of the Lord Jesus, assuming that to be the “terminus ad quem” - the point to which the seventy weeks were to extend - and then reckon “backward” for a space of four hundred and ninety years, to see whether we cannot find some event which by a possible construction would bear to be applied as the “terminus a quo,” the point from which we are to begin to reckon; but we are to ascertain when, in fact, the order was given to rebuild Jerusalem, and to make “that” the “terminus a quo” - the starting point in the reckoning. The consideration of the fulfillment of this may with propriety be reserved to the close of the verse.

Unto the Messiah - The word Messiah occurs but four times in the common version of the Scriptures: Daniel 9:25-26 : John 1:41; John 4:25. It is synonymous in meaning with the word “Christ,” the Anointed. See the notes at Matthew 1:1. Messiah is the Hebrew word; Christ the Greek. The Hebrew word (משׁיח mâshı̂yach) occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and, with the exception of these two places in Daniel, it is uniformly translated “anointed,” and is applied to priests, to prophets, and to kings, as being originally set apart to their offices by solemn acts of anointing. So far as the “language” is concerned here, it might be applied to anyone who sustained these offices, and the proper application is to be determined from the connection. Our translators have introduced the article - “unto the Messiah.” This is wanting in the Hebrew, and should not have been introduced, as it gives a definiteness to the prophecy which the original language does not necessarily demand.

Our translators undoubtedly understood it as referring to him who is known as the Messiah, but this is not necessarily implied in the original. All that the language fairly conveys is, “until an anointed one.” Who “that” was to be is to be determined from other circumstances than the mere use of the language, and in the interpretation of the language it should not be assumed that the reference is to any particular individual. That some eminent personage is designated; some one who by way of eminence would be properly regarded as anointed of God; some one who would act so important a part as to characterize the age, or determine the epoch in which he should live; some one so prominent that he could be referred to as “anointed,” with no more definite appellation; some one who would be understood to be referred to by the mere use of this language, may be fairly concluded from the expression used - for the angel clearly meant to imply this, and to direct the mind forward to some one who would have such a prominence in the history of the world.

The object now is merely to ascertain the meaning of the “language.” All that is fairly implied is, that it refers to some one who would have such a prominence as anointed, or set apart to the office of prophet, priest, or king, that it could be understood that he was referred to by the use of this language. The reference is not to the anointed one, as of one who was already known or looked forward to as such - for then the article would have been used; but to some one who, when he appeared, would have such marked characteristics that there would be no difficulty in determining that he was the one intended. Hengstenberg well remarks, “We must, therefore, translate “an anointed one, a prince,” and assume that the prophet, in accordance with the uniform character of his prophecy, chose the more indefinite, instead of the more definite designation, and spoke only of AN anointed one, a prince, instead of the anointed one, the prince - κατ ̓ ἐξοχήν kat' exochēn - and left his hearers to draw a deeper knowledge respecting him, from the prevailing expectations, grounded on earlier prophecies of a future great King, from the remaining declarations of the context, and from the fulfillment, the coincidence of which with the prophecy must here be the more obvious, since an accurate date had been given.” - Christol. ii. 334, 335.

The Vulgate renders this, Usque ad Christum ducem - “even to Christ the leader,” or ruler. The Syriac, “to the advent of Christ the king.” Theodotion, ἕως Χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου heōs Christou hēgoumenou - “Christ the leader,” or ruler. The question whether this refers to Christ will be more appropriately considered at the close of the verse. The inquiry will then occur, also, whether this refers to his birth, or to his appearance as the anointed one - his taking upon himself publicly the office. The language would apply to either, though it would perhaps more properly refer to the latter - to the time when he should appear as such - or should be anointed, crowned, or set apart to the office, and be fully instituted in it. It could not be demonstrated that either of these applications would be a departure from the fair interpretation of the words, and the application must be determined by some other circumstances, if any are expressed. What those are in the case will be considered at the close of the verse.

The Prince - נגיד nāgı̂yd. This word properly means a leader, a prefect, a prince. It is a word of very general character, and might be applied to any leader or ruler. It is applied to an overseer, or, as we should say, a “secretary” of the treasury, 1 Chronicles 26:24; 2 Chronicles 31:12; an overseer of the temple, 1 Chronicles 9:11; 2 Chronicles 31:13; of the palace, 2 Chronicles 28:7; and of military affairs, 1 Chronicles 13:1; 2 Chronicles 32:21. It is also used absolutely to denote a prince of a people, any one of royal dignity, 1 Samuel 9:16; 1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 13:14. - Gesenius. So far as this word, therefore, is concerned, it would apply to any prince or leader, civil or military; any one of royal dignity, or who should distinguish himself, or make himself a leader in civil, ecclesiastical, or military affairs, or who should receive an appointment to any such station. It is a word which would be as applicable to the Messiah as to any other leader, but which has nothing in itself to make it necessary to apply it to him. All that can be fairly deduced from its use here is, that it would be some prominent leader; some one that would be known without anymore definite designation; someone on whom the mind would naturally rest, and someone to whom when he appeared it would be applied without hesitation and without difficulty. There can be no doubt that a Hebrew, in the circumstances of Daniel, and with the known views and expectations of the Hebrew people, would apply such a phrase to the Messiah.

Shall be seven weeks - See the notes at Daniel 9:24. The reason for dividing the whole period into seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week, is not formally stated, and will be considered at the close of the verse. All that is necessary here in order to an explanation of the language, and of what is to be anticipated in the fulfillment, is this:

(a) That, according to the above interpretation Daniel 9:24, the period would be forty-nine years.

(b) That this was to be the “first” portion of the whole time, not time that would be properly taken out of any part of the whole period.

(c) That there was to be some event at the end of the forty-nine years which would designate a period, or a natural division of the time, or that the portion which was designated by the forty-nine years was to be distinctly characterized from the next period referred to as sixty-two weeks, and the next period as one week.

(d) No intimation is given in the words as to the nature of this period, or as to what would distinguish one portion from the others, and what that was to be is to be learned from subsequent explanations, or from the actual course of events. If one period was characterized by war, and another by peace; one in building the city and the walls, and the other by quiet prosperity; one by abundance, and the other by famine; one by sickness, and the other by health - all that is fairly implied by the words would be met. It is foretold only that there would be something that would designate these periods, and serve to distinguish the one from the other.

And threescore and two weeks - Sixty-two weeks; that is, as above explained Daniel 9:24, four hundred and thirty-four years. The fair meaning is, that there would be something which would characterize that long period, and serve to distinguish it from what preceded it. It is not indeed intimated what that would be, and the nature of the case seems to require that we should look to the events - to the facts in the course of the history to determine what that was. Whether it was peace, prosperity, quiet, order, or the prevalence of religion as contrasted with the former period, all that the words fairly imply would be fulfilled in either of them.

The street shall be built again - This is a general assertion or prediction, which does not seem to have any special reference to the “time” when it would be done. The fair interpretation of the expression does not require us to understand that it should be after the united period of the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks, nor during either one of those periods; that is, the language is not such that we are necessarily required to affix it to any one period. It seems to be a general assurance designed to comfort Daniel with the promise that the walls and streets of Jerusalem, now desolate, would be built again, and that this would occur some time during this period. His mind was particularly anxious respecting the desolate condition of the city, and the declaration is here made that it would be restored. So far as the languages - the grammatical construction is concerned, it seems to me that this would be fulfilled if it were done either at the time of the going forth of the commandment, or during either of the periods designated, or even after these periods.

It is, however, most natural, in the connection, to understand it of the “first” period - the seven weeks, or the forty-nine years - since it is said that “the commandment would go forth to restore, and to build Jerusalem;” and since, as the whole subsequent period is divided into three portions, it may be presumed that the thing that would characterize the first portion, or what would first be done, would be to execute the commandment - that is, to restore and build the city. These considerations would lead us, therefore, to suppose that the thing which would characterize the first period - the forty-nine years - would be the rebuilding of the city; and “the time” - a time which, considering the extent and entireness of the ruins, the nature of the opposition that might be encountered, the difficulty of collecting enough from among the exiles to return and do it, the want of means, and the embarrassments which such an undertaking might be supposed to involve, cannot, probably, be regarded as too long.

The word rendered “street” - רחוב r^echôb - means a “street,” so called from its “breadth,” and would properly, therefore, be applied to a wide street. Then it denotes a market-place, or a forum - the broad open place at the gates of Oriental cities where public trials were held, and things exposed for sale, 2 Chronicles 32:6. In Ezra 10:9, the word refers to the area or court before the temple: “And all the people sat in the street (ברחוב bı̂r^echôb) of the house of God,” etc. Compare Nehemiah 8:1, Nehemiah 8:3, Nehemiah 8:16. The reference in this place, therefore, may be to that area or court; or it may be to any place of concourse, or any thoroughfare. It is such language as would be naturally used to denote that the city would be restored to its former condition. The phrase “shall be built again” is, in the margin, “return and be builded.” This is in accordance with the Hebrew. That is, it would be restored to its former state; it would, as it were, come back and be built up again. Hengstenberg renders it “a street is restored and built.” The phrase properly implies that it would assume its former condition, the word “built” here being used in the sense of “made,” as we speak of “making a road.” Lengerke renders it, wird wieder hergestellt - “shall be again restored.” Theodotion renders it, ἐπιστρέψει epistrepsei - “it shall return,” understanding it as meaning that there would be a return, to wit, from the exile. But the more correct meaning undoubtedly is, that the street would return to its former state, and be rebuilt.

And the wall - Margin, “ditch.” Hengstenberg renders this, “and firmly is it determined;” maintaining that the word חרוּץ chârûts here means fixed, determined, resolved on, and that the idea is, the purpose that the city should be rebuilt was firmly resolved on in the Divine mind, and that the design of what is here said was to comfort and animate the returned Hebrews in their efforts to rebuild the city, in all the discouragements and troubles which would attend such an undertaking. The common interpretation, however, has been that it refers to a ditch, trench, or wall, that would be constructed at the time of the rebuilding of the city. So the Vulgate, “muri, walls.” So Theodotion, τεῖχος teichos - wall. The Syriac renders it, “Jerusalem, and the villages, and the streets.” Luther, Mauren, walls. Lengerke renders it, as Hengstenberg does, “and it is determined.” Maurer understands the two expressions, “street and wall,” to be equivalent to “within and without” - meaning that the city would be thoroughly and entirely rebuilt.

The Hebrew word חרוּץ chârûts means, properly, what is cut in, or dug out, from חרץ chârats - to cut in. The word is translated “sharp-pointed things” in Job 41:30; “gold, fine gold, choice gold,” in Psalms 68:13; Proverbs 3:14; Proverbs 8:10, Proverbs 8:19; Proverbs 16:16; Zechariah 9:3; a threshing instrument, Isaiah 28:27; Amos 1:3; sharp (referring to a threshing instrument), Isaiah 41:15; “wall,” Daniel 9:25; and “decision,” Joel 3:14. It does not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures. The notion of “gold” as connected with the word is probably derived from the fact of its being dug for, or eagerly sought by men. That idea is, of course, not applicable here. Gesenius supposes that it here means a “ditch or trench” of a fortified city. This seems to me to be the probable signification. At all events, this has the concurrence of the great body of interpreters; and this accords well with the connection. The word does not properly mean “wall,” and it is never elsewhere so used. It need not be said that it was common, if not universal, in wailed cities to make a deep ditch or trench around them to prevent the approach of an enemy, and such language would naturally be employed in speaking of the rebuilding of a city. Prof. Stuart renders it, “with broad spaces, and narrow limits.”

Even in troublous times - Margin, “strait of.” Hengstenberg, “in a time of distress.” Lengerke, Im Druck der Zeiten - in a pressure of times. Vulgate, In angustia temporum. Theodotion, in the Septuagint, renders it, “And these times shall be emptied out” (Thompson) - καὶ ἐκκενωθήσονται οἱ καιροί kai ekkenōthēsontai hoi kairoi. The proper meaning of the Hebrew word (צוק tsôq) is, distress, trouble, anguish; and the reference is, doubtless. to times that would be characterized by trouble, perplexity, and distress. The allusion is clearly to the rebuilding of the city, and the use of this language would lead us to anticipate that such an enterprise would meet with opposition or embarrasment; that there would be difficulty in accomplishing it; that the work would not be carried on easily, and that a considerable time would be necessary to finish it.

Having gone through with an investigation of the meaning of the words and phrases of this verse, we are now prepared to inquire more particularly what things are referred to, and whether the predictions have been fulfilled. The points which it is necessary to examine are the following: - To whom reference is made by the Messiah the Prince; the time designated by the going forth of the commandment - or the “terminus a quo;” the question whether the whole period extends to the “birth” of him here referred to as the Messiah the Prince, or to his assuming the office or appearing as such; the time embraced in the first seven weeks - and the fulfillment - or the question whether, from the time of the going forth of the commandment to the appearing of the Messiah, the period of the four hundred and ninety years can be fairly made out. These are evidently important points, and it need not be said that a great variety of opinions has prevailed in regard to them, and that they are attended with no little difficulty.

I. To whom reference is made as the Messiah the Prince. In the exposition of the meaning of the words, we have seen that there is nothing in the language itself to determine this. It is applicable to anyone who should be set apart as a ruler or prince, and might be applied to Cyrus, to any anointed king, or to him who is properly designated now as the Messiah - the Lord Jesus. Compare the notes at Isaiah 45:1. It is unnecessary to show that a great variety of opinions has been entertained, both among the Jewish rabbis and among Christian commentators, respecting the question to whom this refers. Among the Jews, Jarchi and Jacchiades supposed that it referred to Cyrus; Ben Gersom, and others, to Zerubbabel; Aben Ezra to Nehemiah; rabbi Azariah to Artaxerxes. Bertholdt, Lengerke, Maurer, and this class of expositors generally, suppose that the reference is to Cyrus, who is called the Messiah, or the “Anointed,” in Isaiah 45:1.

According to this interpretation, it is supposed that the reference is to the seventy years of Jeremiah, and that the meaning is, that “seven weeks,” or forty-nine years, would elapse from the desolation of the city until the time of Cyrus. See Maurer, in loc. Compare also Lengerke, pp. 444, 445. As specimens of the views entertained by those who deny the reference of the passage to the Messiah, and of the difculties and absurdities of those views, we may notice those of Etchhorn and Bertholdt. Eichhorn maintains that the numbers referred to are round numbers, and that we are not to expect to be able to make out an exact conformity between those numbers and the events. The “commandment” mentioned in Daniel 9:25 he supposes refers to the order of Cyrus to restore and rebuild the city, which order was given, according to Usher, A.M. 3468. From this point of time must the “sevenweeks,” or the forty-nine years, be reckoned; but, according to his view, the reckoning must be “backward and forward;” that is, it is seven weeks, or forty-nine years, backward to Nebuchadnezzar, who is here called “Messiah the Prince,” who destroyed the temple and city, A.M. 3416 - or about fifty-two years before the going forth of the edict of Cyrus. From that time, the reckoning of the sixty-two weeks must be commenced.

But again, this is not to be computed literally from the time of Nebuchadnezzar; but since the Jews, in accordance with Jeremiah 25:11-12, reckoned seventy years, instead of the true time, the point from which the estimate is to begin is the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and this occurred, according to Usher, A.M. 3397. Reckoning from this point onward, the sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, would bring us to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (A.M. 3829). At the end of the sixty-two weeks, in the first year of Antiochus Epiphanes, the high priest, Onias III (the Messiah of Daniel 9:26), was displaced - “cut off” - יכרת yı̂kârēth - and Jason was appointed in his place, and Menelaus the year after removed him. Titus Onias had properly no successor, etc. This absurd opinion Bertholdt (p. 605, following) attempts to set aside - a task which is very easily performed, and then proposes his own - a hypothesis not less absurd and improbable. According to his theory (p. 613, following), the seventy years have indeed a historical basis, and the time embraced in them extends from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is divided into three periods:

(a) The seven first hebdomads extend from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar to king, Cyrus, who gave the exiles permission to return to their land. This is the period during which Jerusalem must lie waste Daniel 9:2; and after the close of this, by the favor of Cyrus Daniel 9:25, the promise of Jeremiah (Daniel 9:25 - דבר dâbâr - “commandment”), that Jerusalem shall be rebuilt, goes forth.

(b) The following sixty-two weeks extend from the return of the exiles to the beginning of the troubles and persecutions under Antiochus. This is the period of the rebuilding of Jerusalem Daniel 9:25.

(c) The last period of one week extends from the time of the oppressions and wrongs commenced under Antiochus, to the death of Antiochus. See this view fully explained and illustrated in Bertholdt, “ut supra.” The great mass of Christian interpreters, however, have supposed that the reference is to the Messiah properly so called - the promised Saviour of the world - the Lord Jesus. In support of this opinion, the following considerations may be suggested, which seem to me to be conclusive:

(1) The language itself is such as is properly applicable to him, and such as would naturally suggest him. It is true, as we see in Isaiah 45:1, that the term Messiah may be applied to another, as it is there to Cyrus (see the note at the meaning of the word in that place, and in the exposition of this verse), but it is also true that if the term stands by itself, and with no explanation, it would naturally suggest him who, by way of eminence, is known as the Messiah. In Isaiah 45:1, it is expressly limited to Cyrus, and there can be no danger of mistake. Here there is no such limitation, and it is natural, therefore, to apply it in the sense in which among the Hebrews it would be obviously understood. Even Bertholdt admits the force of this. Thus (p. 563) he says: “That at the words נגיד משׁיח mâshı̂yach nāgı̂yd (Messiah the Prince) we should be led to think of the Messiah, Jesus, and at those, Daniel 9:26, לו ואין משׁיח יכרת yı̂kârēth mâshı̂yach v^e'ēyn lô (shall be cut off but not for himself), of his crucifixion, though not absolutely necessary, is still very natural.”

(2) This would be the interpretation which would be given to the words by the Jews. They were so much accustomed to look forward to a great prince and deliverer, who would be by way of eminence the Anointed of the Lord, that, unless there was some special limitation or designation in the language, they would naturally apply it to the Messiah, properly so called. Compare Isaiah 9:6-7. Early in the history of the Jews, the nation had become accustomed to the expectation that such a deliverer would come, and its hopes were centerd on him. In all times of national trouble and calamity; in all their brightest visions of the future, they were accustomed to look to him as one who would deliver them from their troubles, and who would exalt their people to a pitch of glory and of honor, such as they had never known before. Unless, therefore, there was something in the connection which would demand a different interpretation, the language would be of course applied to the Messiah. But it cannot be pretended that there is anything in the connection that demands such a limitation, nor which forbids such an application.

(3) So far as the ancient versions throw any light on the subject, they show that this is the correct interpretation. So the Latin Vulgate, usque ad Christum ducem. So the Syriac, “unto Messiah, the most holy” - literally, “holy of holies.” So Theodotion - ἔως Χριστοῦ heōs Christou - where there can be little doubt that the Messiah was understood to be referred to. The same is found in the Arabic. The Codex Chisianus is in utter confusion on this whole passage, and nothing can be made of it.

(4) All the circumstances referred to in connection with him who is here called “Messiah the Prince” are such as to be properly applicable to the work which the Lord Jesus came to do, and not to Cyrus, or Antiochus, or any other leader or ruler. See the notes at Daniel 9:24. To no other one, according to the interpretation which the passage in that verse seems to demand, can the expressions there used be applied. In that exposition it was shown that the verse is designed to give a general view of what would be accomplished, or of what is expressed more in detail in the remaining verses of the vision, and that the language there used can be applied properly to the work which the Lord Jesus came to accomplish. Assuredly to no one else can the phrases “to restrain transgression,” “to seal up sins,” “to cover over iniquity,” “to bring in everlasting righteousness,” “to seal up the vision and prophecy,” and “to consecrate the most holy place,” be so well applied. The same is true of the language in the subsequent part of the prophecy, “Messiah shall be cut off,” “not for himself ... shall confirm the covenant ... cause the oblation to cease.” Any one may see the perplexities in which they are involved by adopting another interpretation, by consulting Bertholdt, or Lengerke on the passage.

(5) The expression used here (“prince” - נגיד nāgı̂yd - is applied to the Messiah beyond all question in Isaiah 4:4 : “I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader - נגיד nāgı̂yd - and a commander to the people.”

(6) The perplexity attending any other interpretation is an additional proof of this point. In full illustration of this, it is necessary only to refer to the views of Bertholdt and Eichhorn as above exhibited. Whatever may be said about the difficulties on the supposition that it refers to the Lord Jesus - the true Messiah - no one can undertake to reconcile the applications which they have proposed with any belief of the inspiration of the passage. These considerations seem to me to make it clear that the prophecy had reference to the Messiah properly so called - the hope and the expectation of the Jewish people. There can be no doubt that Daniel would so understand it; there can be no doubt that it would be so applied by the Jews.

II. The next question is, From what point are we to reckon in computing the time when the Messiah would appear - the “terminus a quo?” It is important to fix this, for the whole question of the fulfillment depends on it, and “honesty” requires that it should be determined without reference to the time to which four hundred and ninety years would reach - or the “terminus ad quem.” It is clearly not proper to do as Prideaux does, to assume that it refers to the birth of Christ, and then to reckon backward to a time which may be made to mean the “going forth of the commandment.” The true method, undoubtedly, would be to fix on a time which would accord with the expression here, with no reference to the question of the fulfillment for in that way only can it be determined to be a true “prophecy,” and in that way only would it be of any use to Daniel, or to those who succeeded him. It need hardly be said, that a great variety of opinions have been maintained in regard to the time designated by the “going forth of the commandment.” Bertholdt (pp. 567, 568) mentions no less than thirteen opinions which have been entertained on this point, and in such a variety of sentiment, it seems almost hopeless to be able to ascertain the truth with certainty. Now, in determining this, there are a few points which may be regarded as certain. They are such as these:

(a) That the commandment referred to is one that is issued by some prince or king having authority, and not the purpose of God. See the notes above on the first part of the verse.

(b) That the distinct command would be to “restore and build Jerusalem.” This is specified, and therefore would seem to be distinguished from a command to build the temple, or to restore that from its state of ruin. It is true that the one might appear to be implied in the other, and yet this does not necessarily follow. For various causes it might be permitted to the Jews to rebuild their temple, and there might be a royal ordinance commanding that, while there was no purpose to restore the city to its former power and splendor, and even while there might be strong objections to it. For the use of the Jews who still resided in Palestine, and for those who were about to return, it might be a matter of policy to permit them to rebuild their temple, and even to aid them in it, while yet it might be regarded as perilous to allow them to rebuild the city, and to place it in its former condition of strength and power.

It was a place easily fortified; it had cost the Babylonian monarch much time, and had occasioned him many losses, before he had been able to conquer and subdue it, and, even to Cyrus, it might be a matter of very questionable policy to allow it to be built and fortified again. Accordingly we find that, as a matter of fact, the permission to rebuild the temple, and the permission to rebuild the city, were quite different things, and were separately granted by different sovereigns, and that the work was executed by different persons. The former might, without impropriety, be regarded as the close of the captivity - or the end of the “seventy years” of Jeremiah - for a permission to rebuild the temple was, in fact, a permission to return to their own country, and an implied purpose to aid them in it, while a considerable interval might, and probably would elapse, before a distinct command was issued to restore and rebuild the city itself, and even then a long period might intervene before it would be completed.

Accordingly, in the edict published by Cyrus, the permission to rebuild the temple is the one that is carefully specified: “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” at 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 God of Israel” (he is the God), which is in Jerusalem,” Ezra 1:2-3. In this order there is nothing said of the restoration of the city, and that in fact occurred at a different time, and under the direction of different leaders. The first enterprise was to rebuild the temple; it was still a question whether it would be a matter of policy to allow the city to be rebuilt, and that was in fact accomplished at a different time. These considerations seem to make it certain that the edict referred to here was not what was issued by “Cyrus,” but must have been a subsequent decree bearing particularly on the rebuilding of the city itself. It is true that the command to rebuild the temple would imply that either there were persons residing amidst the ruins of Jerusalem, or in the land of Palestine, who were to worship there, and that there would be inhabitants in Jerusalem, probably those who would go from Babylon - for otherwise the temple would be of no service, but still this might be, and there be no permission to rebuild the city with any degree of its ancient strength and splendor, and none to surround it with walls - a very material thing in the structure of an ancient city.

(c) This interpretation is confirmed by the latter part of the verse: “the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” If the word rendered “wall” means “trench or ditch,” as I have supposed, still it was a trench or ditch which was designed as a “defense” of a city, or which was excavated for making a wall, for the purpose of fortifying a walled city in order to make it stronger, and the expression is one which would not be applied to the mere purpose of rebuilding the temple, nor would it be used except in a command to restore the city itself. We are, then, in the fair interpretation of the passage, required now to show that such a command went forth from the Persian king to “restore and rebuild” the city itself - that is, a permission to put it into such a condition of strength as it was before.

In order to see how this interpretation accords with the facts in the case, and to determine whether such a period can be found as shall properly correspond with this interpretation, and enable us to ascertain the point of time here referred to - the “terminus a quo” - it is proper to inquire what are the facts which history has preserved. For this purpose, I looked at this point of the investigation into Jahn’s “Hebrew Commonwealth,” (pp. 160-177), a work not written with any reference to the fulfillment of this prophecy, and which, indeed, in the portion relating to this period of the world, makes no allusion whatever to Daniel. The inquiry which it was necessary to settle was, whether under any of the Persian kings there was any order or command which would properly correspond with what we have ascertained to be the fair meaning of the passage. A very brief synopsis of the principal events recorded by Jahn as bearing on the restoration of the Jews to their own country, will be all that is needful to add to determine the question before us.

The kings of the Persian universal monarchy, according to Ptolemy, were ten, and the whole sum of their reign two hundred and seven years - from the time of Cyaxares II to the time of Alexander the Great. But Ptolemy’s specific object being chronology, he omitted those who continued not on the throne a full year, and referred the months of their reign, partly to the preceding, and partly to the succeeding monarch. The whole number of sovereigns was in reality fourteen, as appears by the following table:

Under the reign of this last prince, 331 b.c., the kingdom was entirely subdued by Alexander the Great.

In respect to the question whether any order or command was issued pertaining to the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem that corresponds with the meaning of the prediction as above explained, the following facts will probably furnish all the knowledge which can be obtained:

(a) Cyaxares II Of course there was nothing in the time of Cyaxares II, the Darius of Daniel Daniel 6:1; Daniel 9:1, as it was under him that Babylon was conquered, and there was no movement toward a restoration of the Jews to their own land commenced by him, the first movement of that kind being under Cyrus.

(b) Cyrus. What was the nature of the order issued by him we have seen above. It was a command to build the temple, and was limited to that, and involved no reference to the city. The command, as we have seen above, did not extend to that, and there were probably good reasons why it was not contemplated that it should be rebuilt in its former strength, and fortified as it was before. The purpose to fortify the city, or to encompass it by a wall or ditch, or even to build it at all, could not have been brought within the order of Cyrus, as recorded in Ezra, and that is the only form of the order which we have. The language of Daniel, therefore, seems to have been chosen of design when he says that the command would be issued to rebuild the city, not the temple. At any rate, such is the language, and such was not the order of Cyrus.

(c) Cambyses. After the death of Cyrus the Samaritans wrote to Cambyses (called, by Ezra, Ahasuerus) against the Jews. We are not informed what effect this letter produced, but we can easily judge from the character of this degenerate son of Cyrus, as it is represented in history. He was a “thoughtless, gluttonous, furious warrior, who was considered as raving mad even by his own subjects.” - Jahn. He madly invaded Egypt, and on his return learned that Smerdis, his brother, had usurped the throne in his absence; and died of a wound received from the falling of his sword from its sheath, as he was mounting his horse. No order is mentioned during his reign pertaining to the rebuilding either of the city or the temple.

(d) Smerdis. He retained the throne about seven months. In the Bible the has the name of Artaxerxes. Compare, respecting him, Ctesias, x.; Justin, i. 9; Herod. iii. 61-67. “To this monarch the Samaritans again addressed themselves, complaining that the Jews were building (that is, fortifying) the city of Jerusalem, which they had never thought of doing; and in consequence of this false accusation, Smerdis issued a positive prohibition of their work.” - Jahn. Two things, therefore, may be remarked respecting this reign:

(1) the order or commandment referred to by Daniel could not have been issued during this reign, since there was an express “prohibition” against the work of building and fortifying the city; and

(2) this confirms what is said above about the improbability that any order would have been issued by Cyrus to rebuild and fortify the city itself.

It could not but have been foreseen that such an order would be likely to excite opposition from the Samaritans, and to cause internal dissensions and difficulties in Palestine, and it is not probable that the Persian govenment would allow the rebuilding of a city that would lead to such collisions.

(e) Darius Hystaspis. He reigned thirty-six years. He was a mild and benevolent ruler. “As Smerdis was a mere usurper, his prohibition of rebuilding the temple was of no authority.” - Jahn. In the second year of his reign, Haggai and Zechariah appeared, who plied the governor Zerubbabel, the high priest Joshua, and the whole people, with such powerful appeals to the Divine commands, that the building of the house of God was once more resumed. Upon this, Tatnai, the Persian governor on the west side of the Euphrates, came with his officers to call the Jews to an account, who referred him to the permission of Cyrus, and the Jews were suffered to proceed. The whole matter was, however, made known to Darius, and he caused search to be made among the archives of the state in reference to the alleged decree of Cyrus. The edict of Cyrus was found, which directed that a temple should be built at Jerusalem at the royal expense, and of much larger dimensions than the former. A copy of this was sent to Tatnai, and he was commanded to see that the work should be forwarded, and that the expenses should be defrayed from the royal treasury, and that the priests should be supplied with whatever was necessary to keep up the daily sacrifice. The work was, therefore, pressed on with renewed vigour, and in the sixth year of his reign the temple was completed and consecrated. The remainder of his reign was spent in unnecessary wars with Scythia, Thrace, India, and Greece. He suffered an overthrow at Marathon, and was preparing for a more energetic campaign in Greece when he died, and left his dominion and his wars to Xerxes. No order was issued during his reign for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. All his edicts pertain to the original grant of Cyrus - the permission to build the temple.

(f) Xerxes I. The career of Xerxes is well known. He was distinguished for gluttony, voluptuousness, and cruelty. He is celebrated for his invasion of Greece, for the check which he met at Thermopylae, and for the overthrow of his naval forces at Salamis by Themistocles. In the twenty-first year of his reign he was murdered by Artabanus, commander of his life-guard. He died in the year 464 b.c. According to Jalm, it is probable that “the Artaxerxes of Ezra, who is mentioned next after Darius Hystaspis, and the Ahasuerus of Esther, are names of Xerxes I.” If so, it was under him that the second caravan of Jews went to Judea, under the direction of Ezra Ezra 7:0 Xerxes, if he was the prince referred to, gave Ezra an ample commission in regard to the temple at Jerusalem, granting him full power to do all that was necessary to maintain public worship there, and committing to him the vessels of gold and silver in Babylon, pertaining to the temple, etc. The decree may be found in Ezra 7:13-26. This decree, however, relates wholly to the temple - the “house of God.” There was no order for rebuilding the city, and there is no evidence that anything material was done in building the city, or the walls. Respecting this reign, John remarks, “The Hebrew colony in Judea seems never to have been in a very flourishing condition. The administration of justice was particularly defective, and neither civil nor religious institutions were firmly established. Accordingly, the king gave permission anew for all Hebrews to emigrate to Judea,” p. 172. Ezra made the journey with the caravan in three months; deposited the precious gifts in the temple, caused the Scriptures to be read and explained; commenced a moral reformation, but did nothing, so far as appears, in reconstructing the city - for his commission did not extend to that.

(g) Artaxerxes Longimanus. According to Jahn, he began to reign 464 b.c., and reigned forty years and three months. It was during his reign that Nehemiah lived, and that he acted as governor of Judea. The colony in Judea, says Jahn, which had been so flourishing in the time of Ezra, had greatly declined, in consequence of the fact that Syria and Phoenicia had been the rendezvous of the armies of Artaxerxes. “Nehemiah, the cup-bearer of Artaxerxes, learned the unhappy state of the Hebrews, b.c. 444, from a certain Jew named Hanani, who had come from Judea to Shushan with a caravan. Of the regulations introduced by Esra b.c. 478 there was little remaining, and, amid the confusions of war, the condition of the Jews continually grew worse. This information so affected Nehemiah that the king observed his melancholy, and inquiring its cause, he appointed him governor of Judea, “with full power to fortify Jerusalem,” and thus to secure it from the disasters to which unprotected places are always exposed in time of war.

Orders were sent to the royal officers west of the Euphrates to “assist in the fortification of the city,” and to furnish the requisite timber from the king’s forest; probably on Mount Libanus, near the sources of the river Kadisha, as that was the place celebrated for its cedars. Thus commissioned, Nehemiah journeyed to Judea, accompanied by military officers and cavalry,” pp. 175, 176. Jahn further adds, “as soon as Nehemiah, on his arrival in Palestine, had been acknowledged governor of Judea by the royal officers, he made known his preparations for fortifying Jerusalem to the elders who composed the Jewish council. All the heads of houses, and the high priest Eliashib, engaged zealously in the work. The chiefs of the Samaritans, Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem, endeavored to thwart their undertaking by insults, by malicious insinuations that it was a preparation for revolt, by plots, and by threats of a hostile attack. The Jews, notwithstanding, proceeded earnestly in their business, armed the laborers, protected them still further by a guard of armed citizens, and at length happily completed the walls of their city.”

We have reached a point, then, in the history of the kings of Persia, when there was a distinct order to restore and fortify Jerusalem, and when there was an express expedition undertaken to accomplish this result. In the history of these kings, as reported by Jahn, this is the first order that would seem to correspond with the language of Daniel - “the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem,” and the assertion that “the street should be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” It may be well, therefore, to pause here, and to look more distinctly at this order of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and inquire into its conformity with the language of Daniel. The circumstances, then, as stated in the book of Nehemiah, are these:

(a) Nehemiah learned from Hanani the state of his brethren in Judea, and the fact that the “walls of the city were broken down, and that the gates were burned with fire,” and that the people who were at Jerusalem were in a state of “great affliction and reproach,” and gave himself to weeping, and fasting, and prayer, on that account, Nehemiah 1:1-11.

(b) On coming into the presence of Artaxerxes, to perform the usual duty of presenting the wine to the king, the king saw the sadness and distress of Nehemiah, and inquired the cause, Nehemiah 2:1-2. This, Nehemiah Nehemiah 2:1 is careful to remark occurred in the twentieth year of his reign.

(c) He states distinctly, that it was because Jerusalem was still in ruins: “Why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?” Nehemiah 2:3.

(d) The request of Nehemiah, in accordance with the language in Daniel, was, that he might be permitted to go to Jerusalem and “rebuild the city:” “And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favor in thy sight, that thou wouldst send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it,” Nehemiah 2:5.

(e) The edict of Artaxerxes contemplated the same thing which is foretold by the angel to Daniel “And 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 pertained to the house, and for the wall of the city,” etc., Nehemiah 2:8.

(f) The work which Nehemiah did, under this edict, was what is supposed in the prediction in Daniel. His first work was to go forth by night to survey the state of the city: “And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, etc., and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire,” Nehemiah 2:13. His next work was to propose to rebuild these walls again: “Then said I unto them, Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach,” Nehemiah 2:17. The next work was to rebuild those walls, a full description of which we have in Nehemiah 3:1-32; Nehemiah 4:1-23. The city was thus fortified. It was built again according to the purpose of Nehemiah, and according to the decree of Artaxerxes. It took its place again as a fortified city, and the promised work of restoring and rebuilding it was; complete.

(g) The building of the city and the walls under Nehemiah occurred in just such circumstances as are predicted by Daniel. The angel says, “The wall shall be built again, even in troublous times.” Let anyone read the account of the rebuilding in Nehemiah - the description of the “troubles “which were produced by the opposition of Sanballat and those associated with him Nehemiah 4:0, and he will see the striking accuracy of this expression - an accuracy as entire as if it had been employed after the event in describing it, instead of having been used before in predicting it.

It may confirm this interpretation to make three remarks:

(1) After this decree of Artaxerxes there was no order issued by Persian kings pertaining to the restoration and rebuilding of the city. Neither Xerxes II, nor Sogdianus, nor Darius Nothus, nor Artaxerxes Mnemon, nor Darius Ochus, nor Arses, nor Darius Codomanus, issued any decree that corresponded at all with this prediction, or any that related to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. There was no occasion for any, for the work was done.

(2) A second remark is, that, in the language of Hengstenberg, “Until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, the new city of Jerusalem was an open, thinly inhabited village, exposed to all aggressions from its neighbors, sustaining the same relation to the former and the latter city as the huts erected after the burning of a city for the first protection front rain and wind do to those which are still uninjured, or which have been rebuilt.” - Christ. ii. 381. This is quite apparent from the remarks which have been already made respecting the state of the city. The want of any permission to rebuild the city and the walls; the fact that the permission to return extended only to a right-to rebuild the temple; the improbabilities above stated, that the rebuilding of the city in its strength would be allowed when they first returned, and the account which Nehemiah gives of the condition of Jerusalem at the time when he asked leave to go and “build” it, all tend to confirm this supposition. See Hengstenberg, as above, pp. 381-386.

(3) A third remark is, that a confirmation of this may be found in the book of Ecclesiasticus, showing how Nehemiah was regarded in respect to the rebuilding of the city: “And among the elect was Neemias, whose renown is great, who raised up for us the walls that were fallen, and set up the gates and the bars, and raised up our ruins again,” Ecclesiasticus 49:13. On the other hand, Joshua and Zerubbabel are extolled only as rebuilders of the temple: “How shall we magnify Zorobabel? even he was as a signet on the right hand:” “so was Jesus the son of Josedec: who in their time builded “the house” and set up a “holy temple” to the Lord,” Ecclesiasticus 49:11, 12. These considerations make the case clear, it seems to me, that the time referred to - the “terminus a quo” - according to the fair interpretation, was the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. To this we are conducted by the proper and necessary exposition of the language, and by the orders actually issued from the Persian court in regard to the temple and city.

If it should be objected - the only objection of importance that has been alleged against it - that this would not meet the inquiry of Daniel; that he was seeking for the time when the captivity would cease, and looking for its termination as predicted by Jeremiah; that it would not console him to be referred to a period so remote as is here supposed - the time of the rebuilding of the city; and, still more, that, not knowing that time, the prophecy would afford him no basis of calculation as to the appearing of the Messiah, it may be replied:

(a) That the prediction contained all the consolation and assurance which Daniel sought - the assurance that the city “would be rebuilt,” and that an order “would go forth” for its restoration.

(b) That the angel does not profess to answer the precise point of the inquiry which Daniel had suggested. The prayer of Daniel was the occasion of uttering a higher prophecy than the one which lie had been contemplating.

(c) It is not necessary to suppose that the design was that “Daniel” should be able to compute the exact time when the Messiah would appear. It was sufficient for him if he had the assurance that he would appear, and if he were furnished with a basis by which it might be calculated when he would appear, after the order to rebuild the city had gone forth.

(d) At any rate, the prophecy must have appeared to Daniel to have a much more important meaning than would be implied merely by a direct answer to his prayer - pertaining to the close of the exile. The prophecy indubitably stretched far into future years. Daniel must have seen at once that it contained an important disclosure respecting future events, and, as it implied that the exile would close, and that the city would be rebuilt, and as he had already a sufficient intimation when the exile would close, from the prophecies of Jeremiah, we may suppose that the mind of Daniel would rest on this as more than he had desired to know - a revelation far beyond what he anticipated when he set apart this day for special prayer.

The only remaining difficulty as to the time referred to as the beginning of the seventy weeks - “the terminus a quo” - is that of determining the exact chronology of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes - the point from which we are to reckon. The time, however, varies only a few years according to the different estimates of chronology, and not so as materially to affect the result. The following are the principal estimates:

It will be seen from this, that the difference in the chronology is, at the greatest, but ten years, and in such a matter, where the ancient records are so indefinite, and so little pains were taken to make exact-dates, it cannot perhaps be expected that the time could be determined with exact accuracy. Nor, since the numbers used by the angel are in a sense “round” numbers - “seventy weeks,” “sixty-two weeks,” “one week,” is it necessary to suppose that the time could be made out with the exactness of a year, or a month - though this has been often attempted. It is sufficient if the prediction were so accurate and determinate that there could be no doubt, in general, as to the time of the appearing of the Messiah, and so that when he appeared it should be manifest that he was referred to. Hengstenberg, however, supposes that the chronology can be made out with literal accuracy. See Christ. ii. 394-408.

Taking the dates above given as the “terminus a quo” of the prophecy - the time from which to reckon the beginning of the sixty-nine weeks to the “Messiah the Prince” - or the four hundred and eighty-three years, we obtain, respectively, the following resuits:

The period of b.c. 414, the period of Jahn and Hales, would extend to a.d. 39.

That of b.c. 455, the period od Hentstenberg and Usher, to a.d. 29.

That of b.c. 449, the period of Calmet, to a.d. 31.

It is remarkable how all these periods terminate at about the time when the Lord Jesus entered on his work, or assumed, at his baptism, the public office of the Messiah - when he was thirty years of age. It is undeniable that, whichever reckoning be correct, or whatever computation we may suppose to have been employed by the Jews, the expectation would have been excited in the public mind that the Messiah was about to appear at that time. Perhaps the real truth may be seen in a stronger light still by supposing that if a sagacious impostor had resolved to take upon himself the office of the Messiah, and had so shaped his plans as to meet the national expectations growing out of this prediction of Daniel, he would have undoubtedly set up his claims at about the time when the Lord Jesus publicly appeared as the Messiah. According to the common chronologies, there would not have been a variance of more than nine years in the calculation, and, perhaps, after all, when we consider how little the chronology of ancient times has been regarded or settled, it is much more to be wondered at that there should be so great accuracy than that the time is not more certainly determined. If, notwithstanding the confusion of ancient dates, the time is so nearly determined with accuracy, is it not rather to be presumed that if the facts of ancient history could be ascertained, the exact period would be found to have been predicted by the angel?

III. The next point properly is, what is the time referred to by the phrase “unto the Messiah the Prince” - the “terminus ad quem.” Here there can be but two opinions - what refers it to his birth, and that which refers it to his public manifestation as the Messiah, or his taking the office upon himself. The remarks under the last head have conducted us to the probability that the latter is intended. Indeed, it is morally certain that this is so, if we have ascertained the “terminus a quo” with accuracy. The only question then is, whether this is the fair construction, or whether the language can properly be so applied. We have seen, in the interpretation of the phrase above, that the grammatical construction of the language is such as might, without impropriety., be applied to either event. It remands only to look at the probabilities that the latter was the design. It may be admitted, perhaps, that before the event occurred, there might have been some uncertainty on the subject, and that with many, on reading the prophecy, the supposition would be that it referred to the birth of the Messiah. But a careful consideration of all the circumstances of the passage might even then have led to different expectation, and might have shown that the probabilities were that it was the public manifestation of the Messiah that was intended. Those may be regarded as stronger now, and may be such as to leave no reasonable doubt on the mind; that is, we may now see what would not be likely to have been seen then - as in the case of all the prophecies. Among these considerations are the following:

(a) Such an interpretation may be, after all, the most probable. If we conceive of one who should have predicted the appearance or coming of Jenghis Khan, or Alaric, or Attila, as conquerors, it would not be unnatural to refer this to their public appearing in that character, as to the time when they became known as such, and still more true would this be of one who should be inaugurated or set apart to a public office. If, for example, there had been a prophecy of Gregory the Great, or Leo X, as “Popes,” it would be most natural, unless there was a distinct reference to their birth, to refer this to their election and consecration as Popes, for that would in fact be the period when they appeared as such.

(b) In the case of this prophecy, there is no allusion to the birth of the Messiah. It is not “to his birth,” or “to his incarnation,” but “unto the Messiah the Prince;” that is, most manifestly, when he appeared as such, and was in fact such. In many instances in the prophecies there are allusions to the birth of the Messiah; and so numerous and accurate had they become, that there was a general expectation of the event at about the time when he was actually born. But, in the passage before us, the language is what would be used on the supposition that the designed reference was to his entering as Messiah on the functions of his office, and not such as would have been so naturally employed if the reference had been to his birth.

(c) His taking upon himself the office of the Messiah by baptism and by the descent of the Holy Spirit on him was, in fact, the most prominent event in his work. Before that, he had passed his life in obscurity. The work which he did as Messiah was commenced at that time, and was to be dated from that period. In fact, he was not the Messiah, as such, until he was set apart to the office - anymore than an heir to a crown is king until he is crowned, or an elected chief-magistrate is president before he has taken the oath of office. The position which he occupied was, that he was designated or destined for the office of the Messiah, but had not, in fact, entered on it, and could not as yet be spoken of as such.

(d) This is the usual method of recording the reign of a king - not from his birth, but from his coronation. Thus, in the table above, respecting the Persian kings, the periods included are those from the beginning of the reign, not from the birth to the decease. So in all statutes and laws, as when we say the first of George III, or the second of Victoria, etc.

(e) To these considerations may be added an argument stated by Hengstenberg, which seems to make the proof irrefragable. It is in the following words: “After the course of seventy weeks shall the whole work of salvation, to be performed by the Messiah, be completed; after sixty-nine weeks, and, as it appears from the more accurate determination in Daniel 9:27, in the middle of the seventieth, he shall be cut off. As now, according to the passage before us, sixty-nine weeks shall elapse before the Messiah, there remains from that event to the completion of salvation only a period of seven, until his violent death, of three and a half years; a certain proof that ‘unto the Messiah’ must refer, not to his birth, but to the appearance of the Messiah as such.” - Christ. ii. 337.

IV. The next question then is, whether, according to this estimate, the time can be made out with any degree of accuracy. The date of the decrees of Artaxerxes are found to be, according to the common reckoning of chronologists, either 444, or 454, or 449 b.c. The addition of 483 years to them we found also to reach, respectively, to 39 a.d., to 29 a.d., and to 34 a.d. One of these (29) varies scarcely at all from the time when the Saviour was baptized, at thirty years of age; another (34) varies scarcely at all from the time when he was put to death; and either of them is so accurate that the mind of anyone who should have made the estimate when the command to build the city went forth, would have been directed with great precision to the expectation of the true time of his appearance; and to those who lived when he did appear, the time was so accurate that, in the reckoning of any of the prevailing methods of chronology, it would have been sufficiently clear to lead them to the expectation that he was about to come. Two or three remarks, however, may be made in regard to this point.

(a) One is, that it is now, perhaps, impossible to determine with precise accuracy the historical period of events so remote. Time was not then measured as accurately as it is now; current events were not as distinctly recorded; chronological tables were not kept as they are now; there was no uniform method of determining the length of the year, and the records were much less safely kept. This is manifest, because, even in so important an event as the issuing of the commend to rebuild the city in the time of Artaxerxes - an event which it would be supposed was one of sufficient moment to have merited an exact record, at least among the Jews. There is now, among the best chronologists, a difference of ten years as to the computation of the time.

(b) There is a variation arising from the difference of the lunar or the solar year - some nations reckoning by the one, and some by the other - and the difference between them, in the period now under consideration, would be greater than what now occurs in the ordinary reckonings of chronology.

(c) Until the exact length of the year, as then understood, is ascertained, there can be no hope of fixing the time with the exactness of a month or a day; and if the usual and general understanding of the length of the year be adopted, then the time here referred to would be so intelligible that there would be no difficulty in ascertaining at about what time the Messiah was to appear, or when he did appear in determining that it was he. This was all that was really necessary in regard to the prophecy.

(d) Yet it has been supposed that the time can be made out, even under these disadvantages, with almost entire accuracy. The examination in the case may be seen at length in Hengstenberg, Chris. ii. 394-408. It is agreed on all hands that the commencement of the reign of Xerxes occurred in the year 485 before Christ, and that Ariaxerxes died in 423. The difference concerns only the beginning of the reign of Ariaxerxes. If that occurred in the year 464 b.c., then the problem is solved, for then the decree of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes would occur 444 b.c.; and if 483 be added to that, the result is 29 a.d. - a difference, then, even in reckoning whole years and round numbers, of only one year between that and the time when Jesus was baptized by John. The full proof of this point, about the beginning of the reign of Ariaxerxes, may be seen in Hengstenberg, as above. The argument, though long, is so important, and so clear, that it may without impropriety be inserted in this place:

“According to the prophecy, the “terminus a quo,” the twentieth year of Ariaxerxes, is separated from the “terminus ad quem,” the public appearance of Christ, by a period of sixty-nine weeks of years, or four hundred and eighty-three years. If, now, we compare history with this, it must appear, even to the most prejudiced, in the highest degree remarkable, that, among all the current chronological determinations of this period, not one differs over ten years from the testimony of the prophecy. This wonder must rise to the highest pitch, when it appears from an accurate examination of these determinations, that the only one among them which is correct makes the prophecy and history correspond with each other even to a year.

“Happily, to attain this end, we are not compelled to involve ourselves in a labyrinth of chronological inquiries. We find ourselves, in the main, on sure ground. All chronologists agree, that the commencement of the reign of Xerxes falls in the year 485 before Christ, the death of Artaxerxes, in the year 423. The difference concerns only the year of the commencement of the reign of Ariaxerxes. Our problem is completely solved, when we have shown that this falls in the year 474 before Christ. For then the twentieth year of Ariaxerxes is the year 455 before Christ, according to the usual reckoning. :

“We should probably have been saved the trouble of this investigation, had not the error of an acute man, and the want of independence in his successors, darkened what was in itself clear. According to Thucydides, Ariaxerxes began to reign shortly before the flight of Themistocles to Asia. Deceived by certain specious arguments, hereafter to be examined, Dodwell, in the “Annal. Thucydides,” placed both events in the year 465 before Christ. The thorough refutation of Vitringa, in the cited treatise, remained, strange as it may appear, unknown to the philologians and historians, even as it seems to those of Holland, as Wesseling. The view of Dodwell, adopted also by Corsini in the “Fasta Attica,” became the prevailing one, at which we cannot wonder, when we consider how seldom, in modern times, chronological investigations in general have been fundamental and independent; when e. g., we observe that Poppo, a generally esteemed recent editor of Thucydides, in a thick volume, entitled, “In Thucydidem Commentarii politici, geograph., chronologici,” furnishes, in reference to the last, nothing more than a reprint of the school edition of the chronological tables collected from Dodwell, excusing himself with an “odio quodam inveterato totius hujus disciplince”! Clinton also (“Fasti Hellenici, lat. vert. Kruger,” Leipz., 1830), though he clearly perceives that Dodwell has confused the whole chronology of this period (compare, e. g., p. 248-253), has not been able to free himself from him in the most important points, though he successfully opposed him in several; and thus the confusion only becomes still greater, since now neither the actual chronological succession of events, nor the one ingeniously invented by Dodwell, any longer remains.

Nevertheless, the truth is advanced by this increased confusion. For now the harmony introduced by Dodwell into the fictitious history is destroyed. The honor, however, of having again discovered the true path, belongs to Kriiger alone, who, after more than a hundred years, as an entirely independent inquirer, coincides with Vitringa, in the same result, and in part in the employment of the same arguments. In the acute treatise, “Ueber den Cimonischen Frieden (in the Archiv f. Philologie und Padagog. von Seebode,” I. 2, p. 205, ff.) he places the death of Xerxes in the year 474 or 473, and the flight of Themistocles a year later. This treatise may serve to shame those who reject in the mass the grounds of our opinion (to the establishment of which we now proceed), with the remark, that the author has only found what he sought. Whoever does not feel capable of entering independently upon the investigation, should at least be prevented from condemning, by the circumstance, that a learned man, who has no other design in view than to elucidate a chronologically confused period of Grecian history, gives, for the event which serves to determine the “terminus a quo” of our prophecy, the precise year, which places prophecy and fulfillment in the most exact harmony.

“We examine first the grounds which seem to favor the opinion, that the reign of Artaxerxes commenced in the year 465.

(1) ‘The flight of Themistocles must precede the transfer of the dominion of Greece from Athens to Sparta by several years. For this happened during the siege of Byzantium, when the treasonable efforts of Pausanias first commenced; the flight of Themistocles, however, was a consequence of the complaint, which was raised against him, out of the documents found after the death of Pausanias. But Isocrates says, in the “Panathenaikos,” that the dominion of the Lacedemonians had endured ten years. The expedition of Xerxes, taken as the “terminus a quo,” this transfer falls in the year 470.’ But we may spare ourselves the labor which Vitringa takes to invalidate this alleged testimony of Isoerates, since all recent scholars, in part independent of one another, agree that Isocrates speaks of a ten years’ dominion, not before, but after that of the Athenians; compare Corny on “Pan.” c. 19; Dahlmann, “Forschungen,” I. p. 45; Kruger, p. 221; Clinton, p. 250, ff.

(2) That Themistocles in the year 472 was still in Athens, Corsini infers (Fasti Att. III. p. 180) from AEl. lib. 9, c. 5. According to this, Themistocles sent back Hiero, who was coming to the O ympic games, asserting that, whoever had not taken part in the greatest danger, could not be a sharer of the joy. (The fact is also related by Plutarch.) Now as Hiere, Ol. 75, 3 (478), began to reign, only the Ol. 77 (472) could be intended. But who does not at once perceive that the reference to the games of the Ol. 76 (476) was far more obvious, since the occurrence pre-supposed that the μέγιστος τῶν κινδύνων megistos tōn kindunōn was still fresh in remembrance?

(3) According to this supposition, Xerxes would reign only eleven years; Artaxerxes, on the contrary, fifty-one. This is in opposition to the testimony of the “Can. Ptolem.” (compare thereon Ideler, I. p. 109, ff.), which gives to Xerxes twenty-one, and to Artaxerxes forty-one years, and of Ctesias, who gives to Artaxerxes forty-two years, and of some other writers; compare the passages in Bahr on Ctesias, p. 181. “Ceteris paribus,” this argument would be wholly decisive. But when other weighty authorities are opposed to it, it is not of itself sufficient to outweigh them. The canon has high authority, only where it rests on astronomical observations, which is here not the case. Otherwise it stands on the same ground as all other historical sources. The whole error was committed, as soon as only an ιά ia in an ancient authority was confounded with a κά ka; for when a reign of twenty-one years had thus been attributed to Xerxes, the shortening of the reign of Artaxerxes to forty-one years necessarily followed. Wesseling (on Diod. 12, 64) attributes forty-five years to Artaxerxes, thus without hesitation rejecting the authority of the canon. To these arguments, already adduced by others, we subjoin the following.

(4) It seems to be evident from Ctesias, chapter 20, that Artaxerxes was born a considerable time after the commencement of the reign of Xerxes. Ctesias, after relating it, proceeds - γαμεῖ δὲ Ξέρξης Ὀνόφα θυγατέρα Αμιστριν καὶ γίνεται αὐτῷ παῖς Δαρειαῖος, καὶ ἕτερος ματὰ δύο ἔτη Υ̓στασπης, καὶ ἔτι Ἀρταξέρξης gamei de Xerxēs Onofa thugatera Amistrin kai ginetai autō pais Dareiaios, kai heteros meta duo etē Ustaspē, kai eti Artaxerxēs. If he relates the events in the true chronological order, Artaxerxes in the year 474 b.c. could at most have been seven years old. On the contrary, however, all accounts agree, that at the death of Xerxes, although still young (compare Justin, 3, 1), he was yet of a sufficient age to be capable of reigning himself. We must not be satisfied with the answer that it is very improbable that Xerxes, who was born at the beginning of the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Darius (compare Herod. 7, 2), and was already thirty-four or thirty-five years old at his death, was not married until so late a period. Ctesias himself frees us from the embarrassment into which we were thrown by his inaccuracy. According to chapter 22, Megabyzus was already married, before the expedition against Greece, with a daughter of Xerxes, who, already mentioned (chapter 20), if Ctesias is there chronologically accurate, could not have been born before that time. According to chapter 28, Megabyzus, immediately after the return of Xerxes from Greece, complained to him of the shameful conduct of this wife of his.

(5) There can be no doubt that the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther is the same as Xerxes. But the twelfth year of this king is there expressly mentioned, Esther 3:7, and the events related in the following context fall, in part, about the end of the same year. But this difficulty vanishes, as soon as we include the years of the co-regency of Xerxes with Darius. According to the fall account in Herodotus 7, chapters 2-4, Xerxes, two years before the death of Darius, was established by him as king: compare e. g., chapter 4 - ἀπέδεξε δὲ βασιλῆα Πέρσῃσι Δαρεῖος Ξέρξεα apedexe de basilēa Persēsi Dareios Xerxea. Of the custom of the Hebrew writers to include the years of a co-regency, where it existed, we have a remarkable example in the account concerning Nebuchadnezzar (compare Bietr. I. p. 63). But we find even in the book of Esther itself plain indications of this mode of reckoning. The account of the great feast Esther 1:0 is placed in its true light by this supposition. The occasion of it was the actual commencement of the reign of Xerxes, though we need not on this account exclude, what has hitherto been regarded as the exclusive object, consultations with the nobles respecting the expeditions about to be undertaken. What is related Esther 2:16 then falls precisely in the time of the return of Xerxes from Greece, while otherwise, and this is attended with difficulty, about two years after that event.

“We now proceed to lay down the positive grounds for our view; and in the first place, the immediate, and then the mediate proofs, which latter are far more numerous and strong, since they show that the flight of Themistocles, which must precede the reign of Artaxerxes, cannot possibly be placed later than 473 before Christ.

“To the first class belong the following:

1. It must appear very strange to those who assume a twenty-one years’ reign of Xerxes, that the whole period from the eleventh year is a complete “tabula rasa.” The Biblical accounts stop short at the close of the tenth year. Ctesias relates only one inconsiderable event after the Grecian war (chapter 28), which occurred immediately after its temination. No later writer has ventured to introduce anything into the ten years, which, according to our view, the permutation of an ι (i) and κ (k) adds to his age.

“2. We possess a twofold testimony, which places the return of Xerxes from Greece, and his death, in so close connection, that, without rejecting it, we cannot possibly assume a fifteen years’ reign after this return, but are rather compelled to place his death not beyond the year 474. The first is that of AElian, Var. Hist. 13, 3: εἶτα ἐπανελθὼν, αἴσχιστα ἀνθρώπων ἀπέθανεν, ἀποσφαγεῖς νύκτωρ ἐν τῇ ἐυνῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ ὑιοῦ eita epanelthōn, aischista anthrōpōn apethanen, aposphageis nuktōr en tē eunē hupo tou huiou. The second, that of Justin, 3, 1: ‘Xerxes rex Persarum, terror antea gentium, bello in Graeciam infeliciter gesto, etiam suis contemtui essecoepit. Quippe Artabanus proefectus ejus, deficiente quotidie regis majestate, in spem regni adductus, cum septem robustissimis filiis,’ etc.

“3. The testimonies of Justin, I. c., respecting the age of his sons at his death, are not reconcilable with the twenty-one years’ reign of Xerxes: ‘Securior de Artaxerxe, puero admodum, fingit regem a Dario, qui erat adolescens, quo maturius regno potiretur occisum.’ If Xerxes reigned twenty-one years, his firstborn, Darius, according to a comparison of Ctesias (chapter 22), could not at his death have been an adolescens, but at least thirty-one years old. On the contrary, if eleven years’ reign be assumed, these determinations are entirely suitable. Darius was then toward twenty-one years old; Artaxerxes, according to Ctesias (chapter 20), near four years younger than Darius, about seventeen. This determination shows also that it cannot be objected against a fifty-one years’reign of Artaxerxes that it would give him too great an age. The suggestion can be refuted by the simple remark, that the length of his life remains exactly the same, whether he reigned fifty-one or forty-one years. If he ascended the throne at seventeen, his life terminated at sixty-eight.

“4. According to the most numerous and weighty testimonies, the peace of Cimon was probably concluded after the battle of the Eurymedon (before Christ 470). Now, as all agree that this peace was concluded with Artaxerxes, the commencement of his reign must, in any event, be placed before 470. Compare Kruger, 1. c., p. 218.

“5. The history of Nehemiah is scarcely reconcilable with the supposition that Artaxerxes reigned only forty-seven years. After Nehemiah had accomplished all that is related in Neh. 1–12, he returned to Persia to discharge the duties of his office, at court. This happened, according to Nehemiah 13:6, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes. The time of his return is not accurately determined. It says merely, after a considerable time, the ימים לקץ l^eqēts yāmı̂ym. That his absence, however, must have continued a whole series of years, appears from the relation of that which took place in the meantime. The law against marriage with foreign women, to the observance of which the people had bound themselves anew, Nehemiah 10:30, was first violated during his absence; then again, by a decree of the people, executed in all severity, Nehemiah 13:1-3; and then again broken, as appears from the fact that Nehemiah, at his return, according to Nehemiah 13:23, found a great many foreign women in the colony.

That these marriages had already existed for some time appears from Nehemiah 13:24, where it is said that the children of them had spoken half in the language of Ashdod, and could not speak Hebrew. A long absence is also implied in the other abuses which Nehemiah, according to Nehemiah 13:10, following, found on his return. He saw the fruits of the former labors almost destroyed. The same is also evident from the prophecies of Malachi, which were delivered exactly in the time between the two periods of Nehemiah’s presence at Jerusalem: compare Vitringa’s excellent Dissert. de AEtate Mal., in his Obss. ss. vi. 7, t. 2, p. 353, following The condition of the people appears here, as it could have been only after they had already been deprived, for a considerable time, of their two faithful leaders, Ezra, who, having arrived thirteen years earlier, had cooperated for a considerable time with Nehemiah, and Nehemiah himself.

But, if we consider barely the first-mentioned fact, the marriages with foreign women, it will be evident that a longer period than nine years would be required. For each change there will then only three years be allowed; and as this is undeniably too little for the third, according to Nehemiah 13:24, the two first must be still more shortened, which is inadmissible. Besides, we do not even have nine years for these events, if the reign of Artaxerxes is fixed at forty-one years. For the relation of Nehemiah pre-supposes that Artaxerxes was yet living at the time of its composition. This, however, cannot be placed in the time immediately after the return of Nehemiah, since it must have been preceded by the abolition of all these abuses. If, however, we are conducted by the authority of Nehemiah, which is liable to no exception, since he was contemporary and closely connected with Artaxerxes, a few years over forty-one, we have gained much. For then the only objection to our determination, the testimony of the canon, is completely set aside.

“We must premise a remark, before we bring forward our indirect proofs, in order to justify the connection in which we place the commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes with the flight of Themistocles. This connection has not, indeed, the unanimous testimony of the ancient writers in its favor. The vouchers for it are, Thucydides (chapter 137), where it is said of Themistocles, who had come into Asia, ἐσπέμπει γράμματα ἐς βασιλέα Ἀρταξέρξην τὸν Ξέρξου, νεωστὶ βασιλεύοντα espemtei grammata, es basilea Artaxerxēn ton Xerxou, neōsti basileuonta, and Charon of Lampsacus, who, according to Plutarch (Them. chapter 27), makes him in like manner fly to Artaxerxes. On the contrary: others, as Ephorus, Dinon, Klitarch, and Heraclides (compare Plut. 1. c.), represent him as going to Xerxes. If, now, we examine these testimonies, according to the authorities of the witnesses the decision will unquestionably be in favor of that of Thucydides and Charon. Thucydides was contemporary with Ariaxerxes, and was born about the time of the flight of Themistocles. This prince of Greek historians gives (chapter 97) as the cause why he relates the events between the Median and Peloponnesian war, that all his predecessors had passed over these events in silence, and that the only one who touched upon them, Hellanicus, βραχέως τε καὶ τοῖς χρὸνοις οὐκ ἀκριβῶς ἐπεμνήσθη bracheōs te kai tois chronois ouk akribōs epemnēsthē them, from which it is evident, first, how little certain are the accounts of this period in later authors, because they can have no credible contemporary voucher, since he could not have been unknown to Thucydides; and, secondly, that Thucydides himself claims to be regarded as a careful and accurate historian of this period, and therefore must be esteemed such, because so honest a man would assume nothing to himself which did not belong to him. The other witness, Charon, was the less liable to err, since, at the very time of this event, he was a writer of history, and even lived in Asia. On the other hand, the oldest witnesses for the opposite supposition lived more than a century after the event. Ephorus (see on his Akrisic, Dahlmann) out-lived the dominion of Alexander in Asia; Dinon was father of Kiltarch, who accompanied Alexander.

“In weighing these grounds, the authority of Thucydides and Charon was unhesitatingly followed in ancient times. Plutarch (1. c.) does this, with the remark, that the testimony of Thucydides agrees better with the chronological works. Nepos says: ‘Scio plerosque ita scripsisse, Themistoclem Xerxe regnante in Asiam transiisse: sed ego potissimum Thucydidi credo, quod aetate proximus de his, qui illorum temporum historias reliquerunt et ejusdem civitatis fuit.’ Suidas, and the Scholiast on Aristoph. “Equites,” from which the former borrowed verbatim his second article on Themistocles, makes him flee, πρὸς τὸν Ἀρταξέρξην, τὸν Ξέρξου τοῦ Πέρσον παῖδα pros ton Artaxerxēn, ton Xerxou tou Persou paida, without even mentioning the other supposition. And in this respect, we have the less fear of contradiction, since, as far as we know, all modern critics, without exception, follow Thucydides and Charon. We only still remark that the opposite view can the more easily be rejected, since its origin can so readily be explained, either from the fact that this event fell on the border of the reign of Xerxes and of Artaxerxes, or from a simple confounding of the two names, the assumption of which is more easy the more frequently it occurs; we find it even in Aristotle, the contemporary of those writers, Pol. 5, 8, and twice in Ctesias, chapter 35, where Bahr would make a change in opposition to all the manuscripts, and chapter 44. Compare Bahr on the passage, and Reimarus on Dio Cass. II. p. 1370. Finally, the error might arise also from the circumstance that the flight of Themistocles was placed in the right year; but twenty-one years were attributed to Xerxes, from which it necessarily follows that he took refuge with Xerxes. This last opinion is favored by the coincidence of several contemporary writers in the same error, which presupposes some plausible reason for it.

“We now proceed to lay down our indirect proofs.

(1) we begin with the testimony which gives precisely the year of the flight of Themistocles, that of Cicero, Lael. chapter 12. It is true, Corsini, 1. c. 3, p. 180, asserts, that Cicero speaks of the year in which Themistocles was banished from Athens; but we need only examine the passage to be convinced of the contrary: ‘Themistocles - fecit idem, quod viginti annis ante apud nos fecerat Coriolanus.’ The flight of Coriolanus to the Volci falls in the year 263 u. c., 492 b.c. The flight of Themistocles is accordingly placed by Cicero in the year 472, a year later than by us, which is of no importance, since the round number twenty was the more suitable to the object of Cicero, as the more accurate nineteen, for the chronologists. If Dodwell’s view were correct, there would be the space of twenty-seven years between the two events.

“2. Diodorus Siculus, who (11, 55) places the flight of Themistocles in Ol. 77, 2 (471 b.c.), in any event favors our determination, which ascends only two years higher, far more than the opposite one. We remark, however, that he also places in the same year the residence of Themistocles at Magnesia, and his death; and thus it is evident that, whether by mistake or design, he compresses the events in the life of Themistocles, which filled up some years, into the year of his death. If this took place in the year 471, the flight must be dated at least as far back as 473. Our determination differs only a single year from that of Eusebius, who relates the flight of Themistocles in Ol. 77, 1.

“3. But what forms the chief argument, the whole series of transactions, as they have been recorded in accurate order, especially by Thucydides, compels us without reserve to place the flight of Themistocles not be. low the year 473. That the expedition of the allied Greeks under the direction of Pausanias, against Cyprus and Byzantium, the capture of the latter city, and the transfer of the supremacy from the Lacedemonians to the Athenians, occasioned by the insolence of Pausanias, fall in the year 477, we may regard as established beyond dispute by Clinton, p. 270, following. The view of O. Muller (Dorier, ii. p. 498), who distributes these events into a period of five years, is contradicted by the expression ἐν τῇδε τῇ ἡγεμονίᾳ en tēde tē hēgemonia of Thucydides, chapter 94, whereby the capture of Byzantium is brought into the same year with the expedition against Cyprus. That these words cannot be connected with what follows, without a change of the text in opposition to all critical authority, is shown by Poppo. Moreover, the very last of these events is placed, by the unanimous testimony of antiquity, in the year 477.

Clinton shows, p. 249, that all reckonings of the time of the supremacy of the Athenians, setting out from this, year, differ from one another only in reference to the assumed termination. Also, Thucydides chapter 128, the expedition against Cyprus, and that against Byzantium, are connected as immediately succeeding each other. If, however, Dodwell were compelled by the force of the arguments to acknowledge that these events, which he compresses into one year, do not, as he assumes (p. 61), belong to the year 470, but to the year 477, he would surely be compelled, perceiving it to be impossible to lengthen out the thread of the events until the year 465, to give up the whole hypothesis. The dissatisfaction of the allies was followed by the recal of Pausanias. That this belongs still to the same year plainly appears, partly from the nature of the case itself, since it pre-supposes a continuance of supremacy, partly from Thucydides, chapter 95: ἐν τούτῳ δε οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι μετεπέμποντο Παυσανίαν ἀνακρινοῦντες ὧν περὶ ἑπυνθάνοντο en toutō de hoi Lakedaimonioi metepemponto Pausanian anakrinountes hōn peri epunthanonto.

Pausanias having come to Sparta, and been there set at liberty, now betook himself privately in a galley to Byzantium. This cannot have happened long afterward, for Thucydides, chapter 128, immediately subjoins it, and what is of the most importance, Pausanias finds the fleet still at Byzantium. That his residence there did not long continue appears from the account of Thucydides, chapter 131, that he was forcibly expelled thence by the Athenians. He now retired to the colony in Troas; from there he was recalled to Sparta, after it had been reported that he kept up an understanding with the barbarians. The Ephori threw him into prison, but soon after released him. At this time his intercourse with Themistocles look place, who, being at the time already expelled from Athens, resided at Argos, and thence made excursions into the rest of the Peloponnesus. That Pausanias then for the first time drew Themistocles into his plan, when the latter had been driven from Athens, is asserted by Plutarch, and a personal intercourse between them is rendered certain by all accounts.

That there was no considerable period between this release of Pausanias and his death is clear. Pausanias was not condemned, because there was no certain proof against him. It is, however, psychologically improbable that he did not soon afford it, that he prudently kept himself from giving open offence for a series of years, when we consider that he was deprived of all prudence by his haughtiness, arising to madness; that he himself rendered the execution of his treasonable plan impossible; that, according to Thucydides, chapter 130, he went about in a Median dress, and caused himself to be accompanied on a journey through Thrace with Median and Egyptian satellites, spread a Persian table, made difficult the access to his person, gave free course to his passions, of whom Thucydides himself very significantly remarks, καὶ κατέχειν τὴν διάνοιαν οὐκ ἡδύνατο ἀλλ ̓ ἔργοις βραχέσι προύδήλου, ἅ τῇ γνώμῃ γνώμῃ μειζόνως ἐρέπειτα ἔμελλε πράξειν kai katechein tēn dianoian ouk ēdunato all' ergois brachesi proudēlou, ha tē gnōmē meizonōs erepeita emelle praxein, and of whose senseless arrogance the same historian, chapter 132, gives an example, even out of the time immediately after the battle of Platea. The discovery was effected by him who was to bring to Artabazus the last letters to the king.

With what haste the transactions were carried on, and that by no means a space of four years was consumed, is evident from the fact that the king, in order to accelerate them, had expressly sent Artabazus to Asia Minor. His death immediately followed the discovery (compare Thucydides 133). We surely do not assume too little when we give to these events a period of three years. That we need not go beyond this is shown by Dio. dorus, who compresses all these events into the year 477 (Ol. 75, 4). How could he have done this, or how could such an error have arisen, if the beginning and end had been separated from each other by a period of eight or nine years?. How impossible it was for him, with his sources, to place the destruction of Pausanias far beyond this time appears from his fiction, which can in no other way be explained, of a twofold accusation of Themistocles. If, now, we must place the death of Pausanias about the year 474, and in no event later, the flight of Themistocles cannot be placed farther back than the year 473.

For Themistocles, at the death of Pausanias, had already been a considerable time in the Peloponnesus. His accusation followed immediately after the event (compare Thucydides, I. 135); and the combined interests of the Lacedemonians, to whom nothing could be more desirable than to have the Athenians share their disgrace, and of the enemies of Themistocles at Athens (Plut. Them. c. 23: κατεβόων μὲν αὐτοῦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, κατηγόρουν δ ̓ οἱ φθονοῦντες τῶν πολιτῶν kateboōn men autou Lakedaimonioi, katēgoroun d' hoi phthonountes tōn politōn, would cause the decision to be hastened as much as possible. Themistocles, persecuted both by the Athenians and Lacedemonians, now flees from the Peloponnesus to Corcyra. Being denied a residence there, he retires to the opposite continent. In danger of being overtaken by his persecutors (Thucydides chapter 136: καὶ διωκόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν προστεταγμένων κατὰ πύστιν ᾖ χωροίη kai diōkomenos hupo tōn prostetagmenōn kata pustin ē chōroiē, he sees himself compelled to flee to Admetus, the king of the Molossians. Nor can he have long resided there, for, according to Thucydides, chapter 137, he was sent forward by Admetus, as soon as his persecutors came. And how can we suppose that they would have been long behind him? How long could his place of residence have remained a secret? It is expressly said by Thucydides, that the coming of his persecutors, and the flight of Themistocles to Asia, very soon happened (ὕστερον ου ̓ πολλῷ husteron ou pollō). It is true, that if we could credit the account of Stesimbrotus, in Plut. chapter 24, we must assume that the residence of Themistocles with Admetus continued some months, for he related that his friends brought to him there his wife and children, whom they had secretly conducted out of Athens. But that no dependence is to be placed upon this is evident from the absurd fiction of Stesimbrotus that immediately follows, which to the surprise even of Plutarch (εἶτ ̓ οὐκ οἶδ ̓ ὅπως ἐπιλαθόμενος τούτων, η τὸν Θεμιστοκλέα ποιῶν ἐπιλαθόμενον, πλεῖσαι φησιν, κ.τ.λ. eit' ouk oid' hopōs epilathomenos toutōn, ē ton Themistoklea poiōn epilathomenon, pleisai phēsin, etc.) he brings forward, without observing that the one fable does away the other - namely, that Themistocles was sent by Admetus to Sicily, and had desired of Hiero his daughter in marriage, with the promise to bring Greece under subjection to him.

Plutarch designates Stesimbrotus as a shameless liar, Pericles, chapter 13. That the sons of Themistocles remained in Athens is manifest from a relation in Suidas, and the testimony of Thucydides, chapter 137, and of Plutarch, that the gold was first sent to Themistocles by his friends after his arrival in Asia, to enable him to reward the service of the captain who brought him to Asia, shows at the same time the incorrectness of the assertion of Stesimbrotus, and confirms the opinion that Themistocles remained in no one place of his flight long enough for his friends to send to him there the necessary gold. Themistocles was conducted by Admetus to Pidna, and from there he betook himself in a boat directly to Asia. This, accordingly, since between the death of Pausanias, and the coming of Themistocles into Asia there could at most be only a year, can at latest have happened in the year 473, perhaps in 474; and even in the former case we are completely justified in placing the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes, which still cannot have immediately coincided with the coming of Themistocles, in the year 474.

“4. On the supposition that the commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes, and the flight of Themistocles, fall in 465, an extravagant old age must be attributed to Charon of Lampsacus. According to Suidas, he was still flourishing under the first Darius, Ol. 69, 504 b.c. Since now, in his history, he mentions the flight of Themistocles to Artaxerxes, this being placed in 465, he must have been employed in writing history at least forty years. This is not, indeed, absolutely impossible; but, in a doubtful case, it must be rejected as the more improbable alternative. ‘Historice enim, non sunt explicandae - says Vitringa (Proll. in, Zach. p. 29) - ex raris et insolentibus exemplis, sed ex communi vivendi lege et ordine. Si res secus se habeat, in ipsa historia ascribitur ne fallat incautos.’ Compare his farther excellent remarks on this subject. That this argument is not without force, is evident even from the efforts of some advocates of the false chronology to set it aside by cutting the knot. Suidas, after he has cited the above-mentioned determination of the time of Charon, as he found it in his more ancient authorities, subjoins, μᾶλλον δὲ ἦν ἐπὶ τῶν Περσικῶν mallon de ēn epi tōn Persikōn. Creuzer, on the Fragm. Historr. Groec., p. 95, rejects this date without farther examination, because it gives too great an age to Charon.

“5. According to Thucydides 1, 136, Themistocles, on his passage to Asia, fell in with the Athenian fleet, which was besieging Naxos. This siege of Naxos, however, according to the testimony of Thucydides, chapter 100, which makes all other arguments superfluous, happened before the great victory of the Athenians on the Eurymedon, which, according to Diodorus, belongs to the year 470, and cannot be placed later, because this was the first considerable undertaking of the Athenians against the Persians, the war with whom formed the only ground for the important requisitions which they made upon their allies. Compare Thucydides i. 94. Hitherto, since the supremacy had passed over to the Athenians, scarcely anything had been done against the Persians, except the taking of the unimportant AEgon. Thucydides also leads us to about the same year as that given by Diodorus, who connects the defection of Thasos (467) with χρόνῳ ὕστερον chronō husteron, which cannot stand where events immediately succeed each other. Even for these reasons, the siege of Naxos and the flight of Themistocles, do not fall after 471. If, however, we consider that Naxos was the first confederate city with which the Athenians were involved in discord (compare Thucydides, p. 1, 98) - which, from the nature of the case, as is rendered especially clear by the remarks of Thucydides and a comparison of the later historians, could scarcely have first happened after seven years - and if we farther consider the way in which Thucydides (chapter 98) connects the events, from the transfer of the supremacy until the capture of Naxos, with one another, we shall, without hesitation, place the latter some years earlier, in the year 474 or 473.

“6. The flight of Themistocles falls at least three years earlier than the battle on the Eurymedon, because in all probability he was dead before the latter event. His death, however, must have been some years subsequent to his coming into Asia (compare Thucydides chapter 138). One year passed in learning the language, and some time, in any event, was required for what is implied in ταύτης ἦῤχε τῆς χώρας, δίντος, κ.τ.λ. tautēs ērche tēs chōras, dontos, etc. Thucydides relates that, according to the account of some, Themistocles took poison, ἀδύνατον νομίσαντα εἶναι ἐπιτελέσαι βασιλεῖ α ὑπέεσχετο adunaton nomisanta einai epitelesai basilei a hupescheto. This pre-supposes that Themistocles was compelled to fulfill his promises; and had this not been the case at his death, the report that Thucydides only in this instance relied upon himself could not have arisen. Plutarch expressly connects the death of Themistocles with the expedition of Cimon. This is done by several writers, with the mention of the most special circumstances (compare the passages in Staveren on Nep. Them. 10) all of which may be regarded, as they are by Cicero (Brut. chapter 11) and Nepos, as fictitious, and yet the historical basis on which alone everything depends, “the fact” that Thucydides died before the battle on the Eurymedon is firmly established.

“7. Kruger (1. c. p. 218) has shown that the account of Plutarch, that Themistocles reached an age of sixty-five years, forbids us to place his death beyond the year 470, and therefore his flight beyond the year 473. According to an account which has internal evidence of credibility, in AElian, Var. Hist. iii. 21, Themistocles, as a small boy coming from school, declined going out of the way of the tyrant Pisistratus. Assuming that this happened in the last year of Pisistratus, 529 b.c., and that Themistocles was at that time six years old, he must have been born in 535, and died in 470. Nor is it a valid objection that, according to Plutarch, Themistocles was still living at the time of the Cyprian expedition of Cimon (449 b.c.), and was still young at the battle of Marathon. For the former rests on a manifest confounding of the former event with the victory over the Persian fleet at Cyprus, which is supposed to have immediately preceded the victory on the Eurymedon (compare Diodor. 11, 60; Dahlmann, Forschungen, i. p. 69), and the latter merely on a conclusion drawn from this error. ‘Whoever,’ remarks Dahlmann, p. 71, ‘reads without prejudice the passage, Thucydides 1, 138, will perceive that the death of Themistocles followed pretty soon after his settlement in Persia; probably in the second year, if Thucydides is worthy of credit.’

“Until all these arguments are refuted, it remains true that the Messianic interpretation of the prophecy is the only correct one, and that the alleged pseudo-Daniel, as well as the real Daniel, possessed an insight into the future, which could have been given only by the Spirit of God; and hence, as this favor could have been shown to no deceiver, the genuineness of the book necessarily follows, and the futility of all objections against it is already manifest.”

V. The only remaining point of inquiry on this verse is, as to the division of the whole period of sixty-nine weeks into two smaller portions of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; that is, of the four hundred and eighty-three years into one period of four hundred and thirty-four years, and one of forty-nine years. This inquiry resolves itself into another, Whether, after the issuing of the command in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, there was a period of forty-nine years that was in any manner distinguished from what followed, or any “reason” why an epoch should be made there? If the command in the twentieth of Artaxerxes was in the year 454 b.c., then the subtraction of forty-nine years from this would make the year 405 b.c. the marked period; that is, about that time some important change would occur, or a new series of affairs would commence which would properly separate the previous period from what followed.

Now, the fair interpretation of this passage respecting the seven weeks, or forty-nine years, undoubtedly is, that that time would be required in rebuilding the city, and in settling its affairs on a permanent foundation, and that, from the close of that time, another period of sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, would elapse to the appearing of the Messiah. It is true that this is not distinctly specified in the text, and true that in the text the phrase “the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times,” is not limited expressly to either period, but it is also said in the next verse, that the period of sixty-two weeks would be terminated by the appearing of the Messiah, or by his being cut off, and, therefore, it is fair to presume that the previous period of seven weeks was to be characterized particularly as the “troubleus times” in which the street and the wall were to be built again. The inquiry now is, Whether that time was actually occupied in rebuilding and restoring the city? In regard to this, it may be remarked,

(1) That there is a strong “probability” that a considerable time would be necessary to rebuild the walls of the city, and to restore Jerusalem to a condition like that in which it was before the captivity. We are to remember that it had been long lying in ruins; that the land was desolate; that Jerusalem had no commercial importance to make its growth rapid; that there were few in the city on whom reliance could be placed in rebuilding it; that a large portion of the materials for rebuilding it was to be brought from a distance; that the work was opposed with much determination by the Samaritans; that it was necessary, as Nehemiah informs us, in building the walls, that the workmen should have a weapon of defense in one hand while they labored with the other, and that those who were engaged on it were mostly poor. When these things are considered, it is at least not improbable that the period of forty-nine years would be required before it could be said that the work was fully completed.

(2) A more material question, however, is, whether the facts in the case confirm this, or whether there was such a termination of the rebuilding of the city at about that period, that it could be said that the time occupied was seven weeks rather than, for example, six, or five, or nine. It may not be necessary so to make this out as to determine the precise year, or the termination of forty-nine years. but in a general division of the time, it is necessary, undoubtedly, so to determine it as to see that that time should have been designated, rather than one equally general at the close of one week, or two, or six, or nine, or any other number. Now that that was the period of the completion of the work contemplated by the decree issued under Artaxerxes, and the work undertaken by Nehemiah, it is not difficult to show:

(a) It is reasonable to presume that the time referred to in the seven weeks would be the rebuilding of the city, and the restoration of its affairs to its former state - or the completion of the arrangements to restore the nation from the effects of the captivity, and to put it on its former footing. This was the main inquiry by Daniel; this would be a marked period; this would be that for which the “commandment would go forth;” and this would constitute a natural division of the time.

(b) As a matter of fact, the completion of the work undertaken by Nehemiah, under the command of the Persian kings, reached to the period here designated; and his last act as governor of Judea, in restoring the people, and placing the affairs of the nation on its former basis, occurred at just about the period of the forty-nine years after the issuing of the command by Artaxerxes Longimanus. That event, as is supposed above, occurred 454 b.c. The close of the seven weeks, or of the forty-nine years, would therefore be 405 b.c. This would be about the last year of the reign of Darius Nothus. See the table above. Nehemiah was twice governor of Judea, and the work of restoration which he undertook was not completed until his being the second time in that office. The first time he remained twelve years in office, for he received his commission in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and in the thirty-second year he returned again to him, Nehemiah 13:6. This, according to the computation above, would bring it down to 442 b.c. How long he then remained with the king of Persia he does not definitely state himself, but says it was “certain days,” Nehemiah 13:6. After this, he again obtained permission of the king to return to Jerusalem, and went back the second time as governor of Judea, Nehemiah 13:6-7. The time from his first return to Persia, after the twelve years that he spent in Judea to the year 405 b.c., would be thirty-seven years. According to this, the close of the “seven weeks,” and the completion of the enterprise of “rebuilding and restoring” the city, must have been at the end of that thirty-seven years. In reference to this, it may be remarked,

(1) That Nehemiah is known to have lived to a great age (Josephus); yet, supposing he was thirty years old when he was first appointed governor of Judea, and that the time referred to at the close of the “seven weeks,” or forty-nine years, was the completion of his work in the restoration of the affairs of Jerusalem, the whole period would only reach to the seventy-ninth year of his age.

(2) The last act of Nehemiah in restoring the city occurred in the fifteenth year of the reign of Darius Notbus - according to Prideaux (Con. II. 206, following) - that is, 408 b.c. This would make, according to the common computation of chronology, a difference from the estimate above of only three years, and, perhaps, considering that the time of “seven weeks” is a reckoning in round numbers, this would be an estimate of sufficient accuracy. But, besides this, it is to be remembered that the exact chronology to a year or a month cannot be made out with absolute certainty; and taking all the circumstances into consideration, it is remarkable that the period designated in the prophecy coincides so nearly with the historical record. The only remaining inquiries, therefore, are, whether the last act of Nehemiah referred to occurred at the time mentioned - the 15th of Darius Nothus, or 408 b.c. - and whether that was of sufficient prominence and importance to divide the two periods of the prophecies, or to be a proper closing up of the work of restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem. What he did in his office as governor of Judea, at his second visitation to Jerusalem, is recorded in Nehemiah 13:7-31.

The particular acts which he performed consisted in removing certain abuses which had been suffered to grow up in his absence respecting the temple service, by which the temple had become greatly polluted Nehemiah 13:7-14; in restoring the Sabbath to its proper observance, which had become greatly disregarded Nehemiah 13:15-22; and in constraining those Jews who had contracted unlawful marriages to separate themselves from their wives Nehemiah 13:23-31. These acts were necessary to put the affairs of the temple, and the condition of the city, on their former basis. The last of these acts - the separation of those who had contracted unlawful marriages from their wives, is that which designates the close of the “seven weeks,” and respecting which the date is to be sought. This is stated in the book of Nehemiah Nehemiah 13:28 to have occurred in the time of “one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite.” That is, it occurred when Joiada was high priest.

But, according to the “Chr. Alexandrinum,” Joiada succeeded his father in the office in the eleventh year of Darius Nothus, and Prideaux supposes, without improbability, that this event may have occurred as long as four years after he entered on the office of high priest, which would bring it to the fifteenth of Darius Nothus, or 408 b.c. Compare Jahn, Heb. Com. pp. 179-182; and Prideaux, Con. ii. 206-210. The time, then, if this be the event referred to, is sufficiently accurate to make it coincide with the prophecy - sufficiently so to divide the previous period from what succeeded it. The event itself was of sufficient importance to have a place here. It was, in fact, finishing what was necessary to be done in order to a completion of the purpose to “restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” It was in fact “the restoration of Jewish affairs under the Persian edict,” or what was accomplished in fact under that edict in placing the Jewish affairs on the proper basis - the basis on which they were substantially before the captivity.

This was the termination of that captivity in the fullest sense, and divided the past from the future - or constituted a “period or epoch” in the history of the Jewish people. It remains only to add, on this verse - and the remark will be equally applicable to the exposition of the two remaining verses of the chapter - that on the supposition that this had been written after the coming of the Messiah, and it had been designed to frame what would seem to be a prophecy or prediction of these events, the language here Would be such as would have been appropriately employed. From the time of the going forth of the command to rebuild the city, the whole duration would have been accurately divided into two great portions - that requisite for the completion of the work of restoring the city, and that extending to the coming of the Messiah, and the former would have been made to terminate where it is now supposed the period of “seven weeks,” or forty-nine years, did actually terminate. If this would have been the correct apportionment in a “historic” review, it is correct as a “prophetic” review.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

Daniel here repeats the divisions of time already mentioned. He had previously stated seventy weeks; but he now makes two portions, one of seven weeks, and the other of sixty-two. There is clearly another reason why he wished to divide into two parts the number used by the angel. One portion contains seven weeks, and the other sixty-two; a single week is omitted which will afterwards be mentioned. The Jews reject seven weeks from the rule of Herod to that of Vespasian. I confess this to be in accordance with the Jewish method of speech; instead of sixty-two and seven, they will say seven and sixty-two; thus putting the smaller number first. The years of man (says Moses) shall be twenty and a hundred, (Genesis 6:3) the Greeks and Latins would say, shall be a hundred and twenty years. I confess this to be the common phrase among the Hebrews; but here the Prophet is not relating the continuance of any series of years, as if he were treating of the life of a single man, but he first marks the space of seven weeks, and then cuts off another period of sixty-two weeks. The seven weeks clearly precede in order of time, otherwise we could not sufficiently explain the full meaning of the angel.

We shall now treat the sense in which the going forth of the edict ought to be received. In the meantime, it cannot be denied that the angel pronounces this concerning the edict which had been promulgated about the bringing back of the people, and the restoration of the city. It would, therefore, be foolish to apply it to a period at which the city was not restored, and no such decree had either been uttered or made public. But, first of all, we must treat what the angel says, until the Christ, the Messiah Some desire to take this singular noun in a plural sense, as if it were the Christ of the Lord, meaning his priests; while some refer it to Zerubbabel, and others to Joshua. But clearly enough the angel speaks of Christ, of whom both kings and priests under the law were a type and figure. Some, again, think the dignity of Christ lessened by the use of the word נגיד, negid, “prince” or “leader,” as if in his leadership there existed neither royalty, nor scepter, nor diadem. This remark is altogether without reason; for David is called a leader of the people, and Hezekiah when he wore a diadem, and was seated on his throne, is also termed a leader. (2 Samuel 5:2; 2 Kings 20:5.) Without doubt, the word here implies superior excellence. All kings were rulers over the people of God, and the priests were endowed with a certain degree of honor and authority. Here, then, the angel calls Christ, leader, as he far surpassed all others, whether kings or priests. And if the reader is not captious, this contrast will be admitted at once.

He next adds, The people shall return or be brought back, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and that, too, in the narrow limit of the times. Another argument follows, — namely, after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be cut off. This the Jews understand of Agrippa, who certainly was cut off when Augustus obtained the empire. In this they seek only something to say; for all sound and sensible readers will be perfectly satisfied that they act without either judgment or shame, and vomit forth whatever comes into their thoughts. They are quite satisfied when they find anything plausible to say. That trifler, Barbinel, of whom I have previously spoken, thinks Agrippa has just as much right to be called a Christ as Cyrus; he allows his defection to the Romans, but states it to have been against his will, as he was still a worshipper of God. Although he was clearly an apostate, yet he treats him as by no means worse than all the rest, and for this reason he wishes him to be called the Christ. But, first of all, we know Agrippa not to have been a legitimate king, and his tyranny was directly contrary to the oracle of Jacob, since the scepter had been snatched away from the tribe of Judah. (Genesis 49:10.) He cannot by any means be called Christ, even though he had surpassed all angels in wisdom, and virtue, and power, and everything else. Here the lawful government of the people is treated, and this will not be found in the person of Agrippa. Hence the Jewish arguments are altogether futile. Next, another statement is added, he shall confirm the treaty with many. The Jews elude the force of this clause very dishonestly, and without the slightest shame. They twist it to Vespasian and Titus. Vespasian had been sent into Syria and the East by Nero. It is perfectly true, that though a wish to avoid a severe slaughter of his soldiers, he tried all conditions of peace, and enticed the Jews by every possible inducement to give themselves up to him, rather than to force him to the last extremity. Truly enough, then, Vespasian exhorted the Jews to peace, and Titus, after his father had passed over to Italy, followed the same policy; but was this confirming the covenant? When the angel of God is treating events of the last importance, and embracing the whole condition of the Church, their explanation is trifling who refer it to the Roman leaders wishing to enter into a treaty with the people. They attempted either to obtain possession of the whole empire of the East by covenant, or else they determined to use the utmost force to capture the city. This explanation, then, is utterly absurd. It is quite clear that the Jews are not only destitute of all reason when they explain this passage of the continual wrath of God, and exclude his favor and reconciliation with the people, but they are utterly dishonest, and utter words without shame, and throw a mist over the passage to darken it. At the same time their vanity is exposed, as they have no pretext for their comments.

I now come to the Ancient Writers. Jerome, as I stated shortly yesterday, recites various opinions. But before I treat them singly, I must answer in few words, the calumny of that impure and obstinate Rabbi, Barbinel. To deprive the Christians of all confidence and authority, he objects to their mutual differences; as if differences between men not sufficiently exercised in the Scriptures, could entirely overthrow their truth. Suppose, for instance, that I were to argue against him, the absence of consent among the Jews themselves. If any one is anxious to collect their different opinions, he may exult as a conqueror in this respect, as there is no agreement between the Rabbis. Nay, he does not point out the full extent of the differences which occur among Christians, for I am ready to concede far more than he demands. For that brawler was ignorant of all things, and betrays only petulance and talkativeness. His books are doubtless very plausible among the Jews who seek nothing else. But he takes as authorities with us, Africanus and Nicolaus de Lyra, Burgensis, and a certain teacher named Remond. He is ignorant of the names of Eusebius, ⁽¹¹⁹⁾ Origen, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Apollinaris, Jerome, Augustine, and other similar writers. We here perceive how brazen this prater is, who dares to babble about matters utterly beyond his knowledge. But as I have stated, I allow many differences among Christians. Eusebius himself agrees with the Jews in referring the word “Christ” to the priests, and when the angel speaks of the death of Christ, he thinks the death of Aristobulus, who was slain, is intended here. But this is altogether foolish. He is a Christian, you will say; true, but he fell into ignorance and error. The opinion of Africanus is more to the point, but the time by no means accords with that of Darius the son of Hystaspes, as I shall afterwards show. He errs again on another chapter, by taking the years to be lunar ones, as Lyranus does. Without doubt, this was only a cavil of his; through not finding their own years suit, they thought the whole number might be made up, by using intercalary years together with the 490. For before the year was adjusted to the course of the sun, the ancients were accustomed to reckon twelve lunar months, and afterwards to add another. The whole number of years may be made up according to their imagination, if we add those additional periods to the years here enumerated by the Prophet. But I reject this altogether. Hippolytus also errs in another direction; for he reckons the seven weeks as the time which elapsed between the death and resurrection of Christ, and herein he agrees with the Jews. Apollinaris also is mistaken, for he thinks we must begin at Christ’s birth, and then extends the prophecy to the end of the world. Eusebius also, who contends with him in a certain passage, takes the last week for the whole period which must elapse till the end of the world shall arrive. I therefore am ready to acknowledge all these interpretations to be false, and yet I do not allow the truth of God to fail.

How, therefore, shall we arrive at any certain conclusion? It is not sufficient to refute the ignorance of others, unless we can make the truth apparent, and prove it by clear and satisfactory reasons. I am willing to spare the names of surviving commentators, and of those who have lived during our own times, yet I must say what will prove useful to my readers; meanwhile, I shall speak cautiously, because I am very desirous of being silent upon all points except those which are useful and necessary to be known. If any one has the taste and the needful leisure to inquire diligently into the time here mentioned, Oecolampadius rightly and prudently admonishes us, that we ought to make the computation from the beginning of the world. For until the ruin of the Temple and the destruction of the city, we can gather with certainty the number of years which have elapsed since the creation of the world; here there is no room for error. The series is plain enough in the Scriptures. But after this they leave the reader to other sources of information, since the computation from the overthrow of the Temple is loose and inaccurate, according to Eusebius and others. Thus, from the return of the people to the advent of Christ 540 years will be found to have elapsed. Thus we see how impossible it is to satisfy sensible readers, if we only reckon the years in the way Oecolampadius has done. ⁽¹²⁰⁾

Philip Melancthon, who excels in genius and learning, and is happily versed in the studies of history, fakes a double computation. He begins one plan from the second year of Cyrus, that is, from the commencement of the Persian monarchy; but he reckons the seventy weeks to be finished about the death of Augustus, which is the period of the birth of Christ. When he arrives at the baptism of Christ, he adds another method of reckoning, which commences at the times of Darius: and as to the edict here mentioned, he understands it to have been promulgated by Darius the son of Hystaspes, since the building of the Temple was interrupted for about sixty-six years. As to this computation, I cannot by any means approve of it. And yet I confess the impossibility of finding any other exposition of what the angel says — until Christ the Leader, unless by referring it to the baptism of Christ.

These two points, then, in my judgment, must be held as fixed; first, the seventy weeks begin with the Persian monarchy, because a free return was then granted to the people; and secondly, they did not terminate till the baptism of Christ, when he openly commenced his work of satisfying the requirements of the office assigned him by his father. But we must now see how this will accord with the number of years. I confess here, the existence of such great differences between ancient writers, that we must use conjecture, because we have no certain explanation to bring forward, which we can point out as the only sufficient one. I am aware of the various calumnies of those who desire to render all things obscure, and to pour the darkness of night upon the clearest daylight. For the profane and the skeptical catch at this directly; for when they see any difference of opinion, they wish to shew the uncertainty of all our teaching. So if they perceive any difference in the views of various interpreters, even in matters of the smallest moment, they conclude all things to be involved in complete darkness. But their perverseness ought not to frighten us, because when any discrepancies occur in the narratives of profane historians, we do not pronounce the whole history fabulous. Let us take Grecian history, — how greatly the Greeks differ from each other? If any should make this a pretext for rejecting them all, and should assert all their narrations to be false, would not every one condemn him as singularly impudent? Now, if the Scriptures are not self-contradictory, but manifest slight diversities in either years or places, shall we on that account pronounce them entirely destitute of credit? We are well aware of the existence of some differences in all histories, and yet this does not cause them to lose their authority; they are still quoted, and confidence is reposed in them.

With respect to the present passage, I confess myself unable to deny the existence of much controversy concerning these years, among all the Greek and Latin writers. This is true: but, meanwhile, shall we bury whatever has already past, and think the world interrupted in its course? After Cyrus had transferred to the Persians the power of the East, some kings must clearly have followed him, although it is not evident who they were, and writers also differ about. the period and the reigns of each of them, and yet on the main points there is a general agreement. For some enumerate about 200 years; others 125 years; and some are between the two, reckoning 140 years. Whichever be the correct statement, there was clearly some succession of the Persian kings, and many additional years elapsed before Alexander the Macedonian obtained the monarchy of the whole East. This is quite clear. Now, from the death of Alexander the number of years is well known. Philip Melancthon cites a passage from Ptolemy which makes them 292; and many testimonies may be adduced, which confirm that period of time. If any object, the number of years might be reckoned by periods of five years, as the Romans usually did, or by Olympiads, with the Greeks, I confess that the reckoning by Olympiads removes all source of error. The Greeks used great diligence and minuteness, and were very desirous of glory. We cannot say the same of the Persian empire, for we are unable accurately to determine under what Olympiad each king lived, and the year in which he commenced his reign and in which he died. Whatever conclusion we adopt, my previous assertion is perfectly true, — if captious men are rebellious and darken the clear light of history, yet, they cannot wrest this passage from its real meaning, because we can gather from both the Greek and Latin historians, the whole sum of the times which will suit very clearly this prophecy of Daniel. Whoever will compare all historical testimony with the desire of learning, and, without any contention, will carefully number the years, he will find it impossible to express them better than by the expression of the angel — seventy weeks. For example, let any studious person, endued with acuteness, experience, and skill, discover whatever has been written in Greek and Latin, and distinguish the testimony of each writer under distinct heads, and afterwards compare the writers together, and determine the credibility of each, and how far each is a fit and classical authority, he will find the same result as that here given by the Prophet. This ought to be sufficient for us. But, meanwhile, we must remember how our ignorance springs chiefly from this Persian custom; whoever undertook a warlike expedition, appointed his son his viceroy. Thus, Cambyses reigned, according to some, twenty years, and according to others, only seven; because the crown was placed on his head during his father’s lifetime. Besides this, there was another reason. The people of the East are notoriously very restless, easily excited, and always desiring a change of rulers. Hence, contentions frequently arose among near relatives, of which we have ample narratives in the works of Herodotus. I mention him among others, as the fact is sufficiently known. When fathers saw the danger of their sons mutually destroying each other, they usually created one of them a king; and if they wished to prefer the younger brother to the elder, they called him “king” with the concurrence of their council. Hence, the years of their reigns became intermingled, without any fixed method of reckoning them. And, therefore, I said, even if Olympiads could never mislead us, this could not be asserted of the Persian empire. While we allow much diversity and contradiction united with great obscurity, still we must always return to the same point, — some conclusion may be found, which will agree with this prediction of the Prophet. Therefore I will not reckon these years one by one, but will only admonish each of you to weigh for himself, according to his capacity, what he reads in history. Thus all sound and moderate men will acquiesce, when they perceive how well this prophecy of Daniel agrees with the testimony of profane writers, in its general scope, according to my previous explanations.

I stated that we must begin with the monarchy of Cyrus; this is clearly to be gathered from the words of the angel, and especially from the division of the weeks. For he says, The seven weeks have reference to the repair of the city and temple No cavils can in any way deprive the Prophet’s expression of its true force: from the going forth of the edict concerning the bringing back of the people and the building of the city, until Messiah the Leader, shall be seven weeks; and then, sixty-two weeks: afterward he adds, After the sixty-two weeks Christ shall be cut off When, therefore, he puts seven weeks in the first place, and clearly expresses his reckoning the commencement of this period from the promulgation of the edict, to what can we refer these seven weeks, except to the times of the monarchy of Cyrus and that of Darius the son of Hystaspes? This is evident from the history of the Maccabees, as well as from the testimony of the evangelist John; and we may collect the same conclusion from the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, as the building of the Temple was interrupted during forty-six years. Cyrus permitted the people to build the Temple; the foundations were laid when Cyrus went out to the war in Scythia; the Jews were then compelled to cease their labors, and his successor Cambyses was hostile to this people. Hence the Jews say, (John 2:20,) Forty-six years was this Temple in building, and wilt thou build it in three days? They strive to deride Christ because he had said, Destroy this Temple, and I will rebuild it in future days, as it was then a common expression, and had been handed down by their fathers, that the Temple had occupied this period in its construction. If you add the three years during which the foundations were laid, we shall then have forty-nine years, or seven weeks. As the event openly shews the completion of what the angel had predicted to Daniel, whoever wishes to wrest the meaning of the passage, only displays his own hardihood. And must we not reject every other interpretation, as obscuring so clear and obvious a meaning? We must next remember what I have previously stated. In yesterday’s Lecture we saw that seventy weeks were cut off for the people; the angel had also declared the going forth of the edict, for which Daniel had prayed. What necessity, then, is there for treating a certainty as doubtful? and why litigate the point when God pronounces the commencement of this period to be at the termination of the seventy years proclaimed by Jeremiah? It is quite certain, that these seventy years and seventy weeks ought to be joined together. Since, therefore, these periods are continuous, whoever refers this passage to the time of Darius Hystaspes, first of all breaks the links of a chain of events all connected together, and then perverts the whole spirit of the passage; for, as we yesterday stated, the angel’s object was to offer consolation in the midst of sorrow. For seventy years the people had been miserably afflicted in exile, and they seemed utterly abandoned, as if God would no longer acknowledge these children of Abraham for his people and inheritance. As this was the Almighty’s intention, it is quite clear that the commencement of the seventy weeks cannot be otherwise interpreted than by referring it to the monarchy of Cyrus. This is the first point.

We must now turn to the sixty-two weeks; and if I cannot satisfy every one, I shall still content myself with great simplicity, and I trust that all sound and humble disciples of Christ will easily acquiesce in this exposition. If we reckon the years from the reign of Darius to the baptism of Christ, sixty-two weeks or thereabouts will be found to have elapsed. As I previously remarked, I am not scrupulous to a few days or months, or even a single year; for how great is that perverseness which would lead us to reject what historians relate because they do not all agree to a single year? Whatever be the correct conclusion, we shall find about 480 years between the time of Darius and the death of Christ. Hence it becomes necessary to prolong these years to the baptism of Christ, because when the angel speaks of the last week, he plainly states, The covenant shall be confirmed at that time, and then the Messiah shall be cut off As this was to be done in the last week, we must necessarily extend the time to the preaching of the Gospel. And for this reason Christ is called a “Leader,” because at his conception he was destined to be king of heaven and earth, although he did not commence his reign till he was publicly ordained the Master and Redeemer of his people. The word “Leader” is applied as a name before the office was assumed; as if the angel had said, the end of the seventy weeks will occur when Christ openly assumes the office of king over his people, by collecting them from that miserable and horrible dispersion under which they had been so long ground down. I shall put off the rest till to-morrow.

(119) See this verse quoted in Euseb., Hist. Ecc., lib. 1, chapter 6 and the Dissertations at the end of this volume, for an account of these writers. — Ed.

(120) See his Chronology at full length in his comment on this verse, lib.2. Edit. fol. 1567. The Editor ventures to recommend the readers of Calvin’s Daniel, to peruse the judicious comments of CEcolampadins. They are worthy of more attention than they have received in England. See our Dissertations throughout. — Ed.

Smith's Bible Commentary

This time let's turn in our Bible to the book of Daniel, chapter 9.

In the beginning of chapter 9, we have a very keen insight to this man Daniel. And we understand why God has declared of him that was he was greatly loved by God. For Daniel greatly loved God and he loved the Word of God. And his obvious knowledge and love for the Word is revealed here in the ninth chapter. As he understands the plight of the nation Israel and the reason for their plight. He sees behind the issues that caused their being destroyed and now being captives in the Persian Empire, which has supplanted at this point the Babylonian Empire. But yet also, because that he was a man of the Word and studied the scriptures, he realized that the time of their captivity was about over.

The first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made the king over the realm of the Chaldeans; In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by the books the number of years whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem ( Daniel 9:1-2 ).

So Daniel was reading the prophecy of Jeremiah. Now you'll remember that Jeremiah was one of the last prophets in Judah prior to the Babylonian captivity. In fact, he was still prophesying when Nebuchadnezzar came. And Jeremiah in his prophecy was telling the people that God was going to give them into the hand of the king of Babylon, and the reason was, they had forsaken God and that they had forsaken the law of God, and the commandments of God. And therefore, they were going to be captives in Babylon for seventy years. And that particular prophecy was in Jeremiah, chapter 25, verses Daniel 9:11 , and Daniel 9:12 . And there the Lord said, "And the whole land shall be a desolation and astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon for seventy years. And it shall come to pass when the seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations."

So the Lord declared that, inasmuch as they had been in the land from the time of Joshua, 490 years, and under the law God had told them that every seventh year they were to let the land rest. The land was to have its own sabbath every seventh year. They were not to plant it, but they were only to eat that which grew wild and so forth and gather up in the sixth year. The Lord would give them such an abundant harvest in the sixth year it would carry them through the seventh.

The people did not obey this law of God. They did not give the land rest. But they planted it every year. And so God said, "You've been in the land for 490 years, you've never given it its sabbath. It's got seventy years coming, so I'm going to kick you out of the land for seventy years so that it can have its Sabbaths. And then after seventy years you can come back into the land." So the seventy years of captivity prophesied by Jeremiah are about over. Daniel realizes this. He's been reading the prophecy of Jeremiah. He realizes that the time of the captivity is about over.

And so he set himself his face unto the LORD, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes ( Daniel 9:3 ):

So he set himself aside for a period of intensive prayer and waiting upon God and seeking God for the nation.

Now the prayer of Daniel is remarkable. And in it he surely sets forth the clear understanding that he has of the ways and the purposes of God, and it is interesting that he does not seek to condemn God at all for the calamities that have befallen the people. But he acknowledges that, "These things have happened unto us because we were guilty, we turned aside from You, we went our own wicked ways."

Now so many times people want to blame God for the judgments that fall upon them for their own wickedness. As we pointed out a week or so ago, God tells us not to do a particular thing; if you do it, God said you're going to hurt. So we do it, and then we get hurt, and then we say, "Oh God, that isn't fair to hurt me." Well, God didn't hurt you. He just told you what would be the consequence of a particular action. Now if you want to just defy God and go ahead and do it, then don't blame God for the fact that you got hurt. And yet, this is what people are so often doing.

Now Daniel did not have any of this recrimination against God. But acknowledged that everything that had happened to them happened to them because they were guilty before God. They had forsaken God. Notice,

I prayed unto the LORD my God, made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments; We have sinned ( Daniel 9:4-5 ),

Now Daniel isn't pointing the finger at others in a holier-than-thou kind of a thing, and said, "God, they're horrible sinners. They did this." But he places himself, "We have sinned," and identifies with God's people who had sinned against God. "We as a nation have sinned." And surely as we pray, we need to acknowledge the sin of the nation. We as a nation have sinned against God.

we've committed iniquity, we've done wickedly, we've rebelled, even by departing from your precepts and from your judgments: Neither have we hearkened unto your servants the prophets ( Daniel 9:5-6 ),

Now, he had of course have been reading Jeremiah. And he read how that when Jeremiah came and prophesied to them, they threw him in the dungeon. And he recognizes how that they so totally failed to listen to the warnings of God. "We have not hearkened to your servants, the prophets,"

which spake in your name to our kings, and our princes, and our fathers, and to all of the people of the land. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces ( Daniel 9:6-7 ),

Lord, you're all right, but we're the ones that are confused.

as at this day; to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all of Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all of the countries where you have driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee. O Lord, unto us belongs the confusion of face, and to our kings, and princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee. To the Lord our God belongs mercies and forgiveness, though we have rebelled against him; And neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. Yes, all of Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured out upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him ( Daniel 9:7-11 ).

So he was familiar with the books of Moses and the law of God. He'd been reading them. He says, "God, we've transgressed and now You've done those things that You said You would do in the law of Moses." And, of course, the Lord in the law of Moses did declare that if they would turn away from God and seek other gods that He would allow them to be driven out of the land and all. So Daniel recognizes it. "All of these things have happened to us because we are guilty; we have failed."

You've confirmed your word, which you spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us the great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done unto Jerusalem ( Daniel 9:12 ).

Actually, no city has been so devastated as was Jerusalem.

As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil has come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth ( Daniel 9:13 ).

In spite of all of this, we didn't turn from our sins.

Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice ( Daniel 9:14 ).

Not charging God at all. Accepting the responsibility and the guilt, a very important thing. Not crying out against God when the judgments have befallen us. But to acknowledge honestly, "Hey, God, it's my fault. I am guilty. You are righteous." God is a God of judgment, but even in judgment He is so right in His judgments.

In the midst of the Great Tribulation when God is pouring out His judgments upon the earth, there are voices that come from the throne of God declaring, "Holy and righteous and true are Thy judgments, O Lord." There are a lot of people that are concerned about God not being fair. They say, "But what about the poor people who have never heard about Jesus Christ? Is God going to damn them eternally and all?" I don't know. I do know God is fair. I do know that God will be righteous in His judgment. And when God makes the disposition of those particular cases, God will be absolutely fair. And when He does it, I'll say, "All right, I'd never thought of that. Man, that is so right on." Because God will be fair. Abraham challenged the Lord when he said, "Shall not the Lord of the earth be fair, be just? Lord, would You destroy the righteous with the wicked?" But the whole issue was the righteousness of God in judgment. And yes, God will be righteous in His judgment.

And now, O Lord our God, that thou hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and you've gotten renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly. O Lord, according to all your righteousness, I beseech thee, let your anger and your fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for ours sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all of those that are round about us. Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake ( Daniel 9:15-17 ).

Lord, not for our sake, but for Your sake, for the Lord's sake, O God. Shine Thy face upon the sanctuary that is so desolate.

O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies ( Daniel 9:18 ).

God, I don't plead this because I'm such a holy guy, but just because You're so merciful. I'm asking You to do this.

Fabulous prayer of Daniel. It does give to us a keen insight into the spiritual depth of this man. No wonder the Lord said, "O Daniel, you greatly beloved of God."

And then the final plea:

O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thy own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name ( Daniel 9:19 ).

Lord, people call us by Your name, and we're such a mess. God, hear, do something. For Your name's sake, because these people are called by Your name.

Now Daniel said,

While I was speaking, and praying, [while he was in the midst of] confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God; Yes, while I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation ( Daniel 9:20-21 ).

Gabriel, one of the chief angels of God, named in Daniel, named also in the book of Luke as the angel that appeared to Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, and later appeared unto Mary, the mother of Jesus. Gabriel came,

And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give you skill and understanding. At the beginning of your supplications 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 ( Daniel 9:22-24 )

And the word weeks there in Hebrew is just sevens. The translators translated it weeks because of seven days in the week, but literally,

Seventy sevens are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city ( Daniel 9:24 ),

Notice there are seventy seven-year cycles that are determined upon the nation Israel, thy people and upon the city of Jerusalem. And so this is a prophecy that relates to God's dealing with the nation of Israel. It will be accomplished in seventy seven-year cycles. And in these seventy sevens, the work of God will be fully established as far as the nation Israel is concerned. Because within the seventy sevens there will first of all be the

finishing of the transgression, making an end of sins, and making reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision in prophecy [or to complete the vision in prophecies], and to anoint the Most Holy ( Daniel 9:24 ),

And probably "the most holy place," the new temple in the kingdom of God. So there are seventy sevens in which all of the prophetic aspects of the nation Israel will be complete. During which time there will be reconciliation made for sins, for iniquities. Finishing of the transgressions, making an end of sins, bringing in the everlasting kingdom of righteousness, and completing the whole prophetic scene.

Now he divides these seventy sevens.

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince, will be seven sevens, and sixty-two sevens: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times ( Daniel 9:25 ).

So there's to be, first of all, seven sevens and sixty-two sevens from the time the commandment goes forth to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to the Messiah the Prince. Daniel wrote this in the first year of Darius, the year 538 B.C. About ninety-five years later, in the year 445 B.C., the commandment was finally given by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Earlier, Ahasuerus and the other Persian kings had given commandments to Ezra to go back and to rebuild the temple. But this prophecy was to be from the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Though the temple was rebuilt, the walls of the city were still torn down and the houses were still destroyed. And you remember that Nehemiah said, "I was a cupbearer to the king." And the king said, "How come you look so sad?" And Nehemiah said, "How can I be happy when the city that I love lies in ruins?" And so the king gave commandment unto Nehemiah to take a contingent of people and to go back and to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, 445 B.C. In fact, according to records that were found by Sir Rawlinson in the Palace of Shushan, that order was given in March 14, 445 B.C. Now, it is an important date in history because according to the promise here and the prophecy here, from the time that commandment goes forth to restore and rebuild Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince will be seven sevens and sixty-two sevens, or sixty-nine seven-year cycles, or 483 years. And so from the year March 14, 445 B.C., according to the prediction here, the Messiah should have come in 483 years from the time of this commandment.

Now the years in the prophecies of Daniel are 360-day years which was predicated upon the Babylonian calendar of a 360-day year. We, of course, compute now with a Julian calendar of 365 and a quarter days a year. But Daniel's prophecies were predicated upon the Babylonian calendar 360 days a year. And so it would be best to transpose the 483 years into days in order to figure out the time of the coming of the Messiah the Prince. And transposed into days, 483 times 360 would give you 173,880 days. And if you take and then work that out on our calendar, you find it comes out to the date April 6, 32 A.D.

On April 6, 32 A.D., Jesus said to His disciples, "Go over into the city and on a corner you'll find a colt that is tied. Untie him and bring him to me. And if while you are untying him the master say, 'What are you doing untying my colt?' just tell them that the Lord has need of him." They went over and just where Jesus told them they saw the donkey tied and they untied it. The owner said, "Why are you untying my donkey?" And they said, "Lord the needs him." And so they brought the donkey to Jesus and they began to lay their garments in the path between Bethany and Jerusalem. And they began to wave palm branches as they cried, "Save now, save now, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord," Psalm 118 . Psalms 118:0 is a Messianic Psalm. Psalms 118:0 declares, "This is the stone which was rejected by the builders, but the same has become the chief cornerstone. This is the Lord's work and it is glorious in our eyes. Hosanna, hosanna, blessed is He who comes in the name of Lord. This is the day that the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." We so often get up on a beautiful morning and look out and see the sunrise and say, "Oh, this is the day that the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." That was not written for any beautiful morning. That was written for one special day--the day of God's salvation for the world, the day that the Messiah would come.

Prior to this day, Jesus had never allowed public worship of Himself. When they sought by force to make Him king, He disappeared from their midst. But on this day, He not only set the scene, He is encouraging His disciples. And when the Pharisees said, "Lord, You better cause them to shut up, because they are being blasphemous," Jesus said, "I'm going to tell you something, fellows, and I want you to get it straight. If these men would at this point hold their peace and be silent, these very stones would start crying out." This is the day that the Lord hath made. The day of redemption for the world. The day the Messiah would come; 173,880 days from the commandment of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Right on schedule. And as Jesus came on the Mount of Olives, and He looked at the city of Jerusalem, He began to weep and cried, "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, if thou had only known at least in this thy day the things that belong to your peace, but now they are hid from your eyes. And they're gonna come and they're gonna encircle the city. They're gonna destroy you and your children are going to be dashed in the streets." And He tells of the desolation that is going to transpire upon them for their ignorance, not knowing the day of God's deliverance.

And so this prophecy of Daniel is one of the most remarkable of all of the prophecies concerning the coming of Jesus Christ, because Daniel here is declaring the very day that the Messiah is to come. "The wall will be built in troublous time." Read the book of Nehemiah. As they were building the wall they had a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other. Because there were guys constantly, guerrilla attacks against them and the PLO was constantly trying to defeat them in their attempts.

Now after the sixty-two seven-year periods [notice,] the Messiah will be cut off ( Daniel 9:26 ),

Not, "The Messiah will be acclaimed and accepted and salvation will come and all of the prophecies will be complete and the everlasting kingdom will come in." No, "The Messiah will be cut off." But,

not for himself ( Daniel 9:26 ):

That phrase, "but not for himself" is literally, "and receive nothing for himself." Or, the Messiah will be cut off without receiving this everlasting kingdom at that time. Of course, we know that Jesus was crucified that very week. He was cut off. He was not given the kingdom at that time. He was rejected as was predicted by Isaiah. He is despised and rejected by men.

and the prince of the people that shall come ( Daniel 9:26 )

That is, the Roman army that was going to come, which did come--Titus, under the edict of Nero, who died before Jerusalem actually fell completely.

the prince of the people that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof will be with [the dispersion] a flood [or a dispersion] ( Daniel 9:26 ),

So here Daniel predicts that the Messiah would come, the Messiah would be cut off, and that a nation would come and destroy the city and the Jews would be dispersed. You read history and you find that's exactly, of course, what did happen. Christ was crucified, the Roman armies came, the temple and the city of Jerusalem were destroyed. As Jesus said, not one stone was left standing upon another and the Jews at that point were dispersed and remained dispersed throughout the world until 1948. So this portion of the prophecy literally, completely fulfilled. "And unto the end thereof, wars are determined,"

desolations are determined ( Daniel 9:26 ).

Now, we have one seven-year cycle that is not yet transpired. Seventy sevens are determined upon the nation Israel. These seventy sevens were to begin at the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, 445 B.C. They were to culminate in the coming of the Messiah. That is, sixty-nine of them. But the Messiah would be cut off. Now in a sense you might say that at that point God's prophetic time clock was stopped and has remained stopped. But now we have another event which will signal the beginning of the time clock once again, the beginning of the seventieth seven or the last seven-year cycle.

Verse Daniel 9:27 ,

he ( Daniel 9:27 )

Who? The prince of the people that shall come or the ruler of the revived Roman Empire that would be represented by ten nations federating together which were once a part of the Roman Empire. You have to go back in Daniel, chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar's vision of the great image, the legs of iron representing the Roman Empire and the feet of iron and clay with ten toes. Iron representing still the Roman Empire but mixed with clays showing that it is not as strong as the Roman Empire was in an autocratic sense, but it was weakened because it was a democracy, nations that were joined together with treaties. Also, you find the same parallel vision of Daniel as he sees them as a beast with ten horns in chapter 7. And this other little horn coming up and devouring three of the horns. So the leader that will arise over this ten-nation confederacy related to the Roman Empire are called by many Bible scholars as a revival of the Roman Empire.

will confirm the covenant with many for one week ( Daniel 9:27 ):

Not with all of Israel, but with many of them.

Now there are today in Israel a very divided feeling as far as God is concerned and religion is concerned among the people of Israel. It is not really a religious state, though they do have religious laws and though they do observe religious laws. And though they keep the dietary laws where they will not eat meat with dairy products, and they keep the sabbath, yet the people for the most part are not religious people. The reason why these laws are in effect is because of the whole political setup in Israel with two major parties, the Labor party and the Likud parties. But neither of them strong enough to form a coalition in the government on their own. And in order for either the Labor or the Likud to remain in power, just like this last week they had another meeting in which they sought to oust Begin because he dared to speak out against the big brother who's trying to control him. I like this spunky little guy. You've got to admire him. And they had a vote of confidence. And any time some issue comes up they can call a vote of confidence, and if Begin does not pass in the vote of confidence, then a new election has to be called.

Now to form a coalition in order that he might have a government, because the Likud party does not have a clear majority, they have to depend upon the religious party and its ten votes to be cast with them in order that they might remain in power and have a majority. And the religious men in the Knesset, those from the religious party, charge a high price for their support. They force them to make certain laws that govern the religious aspects of the people. Now for the most part the people hate these religious laws. But there's something that they realize they have to live with in order to keep a government in power, and so they live with it. But the people really are not wild about the religious aspects of their government. There are only about ten percent of the Jews that are really religious. And, of course, they are divided into reformed, conservative, and orthodox. And, of course, then in the Mea Shearim you have the ultra orthodox. But even they are of the Hasidic or the Sefardim or the Yemenites and they... it's really a divided issue.

So when he makes his covenant it will not be with everyone in support of it, but with many the leader that arises out of Western Europe is going to make a covenant. Now the covenant, or he's going to confirm a covenant, not make one; confirm a covenant. No doubt confirming the covenant that God established with the nation whereby they could relate to Him by basis of the sacrifices that they would offer. Now the ultra orthodox desire to rebuild the temple and begin the sacrifices again. But if you ask the most of the Jewish people about rebuilding the temple they'll say, "Oh, I hope they don't." Because if they rebuild the temple then some fool is gonna want to offer a lamb as a sacrifice and that would be horrible." And that's the general opinion of the general public, but the ultra-orthodox are desiring greatly to rebuild the temple and to begin sacrifices again. And so that's a very divisive issue. And so he will confirm the covenant. That is, will allow them the right to rebuild the temple.

Now how can he do that with the Dome of the Rock Mosque? No problem. It would appear that the sight of Solomon's temple was not there at the Dome of the Rock Mosque as we dealt with Ezekiel, chapter 42. But the Dome of the Rock Mosque sets over what was the outer court of Solomon's temple.

North of the Dome of the Rock Mosque a large vast flat area, perhaps as much as ten acres, in which they can easily rebuild their temple and never disturb the holy Moslem sight. I'm certain that this will be the suggestion. In John's vision of the new temple, Revelation, chapter 11, where John is ordered to measure it, the Lord said, "Don't measure the outer court; it's been given to the pagans." In Ezekiel, when he sees the temple, he says, "And there was a wall, five hundred meters to separate the holy place from the profane." And so I believe that a wall will be put up along the north porticoes of the Dome of the Rock Mosque, and the Jews will be allowed to rebuild their temple and will begin their sacrifices again. And when that covenant is confirmed by this European leader, at that point the last seven-year cycle will begin. The seventieth seven, the final seven-year cycle, which at the end will bring in the everlasting kingdom. It'll complete the whole prophetic picture and the most holy place will be anointed and the kingdom of God established upon the earth.

So he will make, or he will confirm the covenant with many for one week, the seventieth week or one seven-year cycle.

and in the midst of this seven-year period [or after three and a half years], he shall cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, [or the final consummation of the age] and that which is determined shall be poured upon the desolate ( Daniel 9:27 ).

And so this remarkable prophecy of Daniel that deals specifically with the day of the coming of the Messiah and then the seventieth week takes us out to the end of this age in the last twenty-seventh verse.

"

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

5. The revelation of Israel’s future in 70 sevens 9:24-27

"In the concluding four verses of Daniel 9, one of the most important prophecies of the Old Testament is contained. The prophecy as a whole is presented in Daniel 9:24. The first sixty-nine sevens is described in Daniel 9:25. The events between the sixty-ninth seventh and the seventieth seventh are detailed in Daniel 9:26. The final period of the seventieth seventh is described in Daniel 9:27." [Note: Walvoord, Daniel . . ., p. 216.]

Renald Showers demonstrated that these verses imply a pretribulation Rapture of the church. [Note: Renald E. Showers, Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church, pp. 230-44. See also Alva J. McClain, Daniel’s Prophecies of the Seventy Weeks, pp. 53-55.]

"Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks (Daniel 9:24-27) provides the chronological frame for Messianic prediction from Daniel to the establishment of the kingdom on earth and also a key to its interpretation." [Note: The New Scofield . . ., p. 913.]

"Probably no single prophetic utterance is more crucial in the fields of Biblical Interpretation, Apologetics, and Eschatology." [Note: McClain, p. 9.]

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

There are four decrees concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem that Scripture records. The first was Cyrus’ decree to rebuild the temple in 538 B.C. (2 Chronicles 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4; Ezra 6:2-5). The second was Darius I’s decree in 512 B.C. confirming Cyrus’ earlier one (Ezra 6:1; Ezra 6:6-12). The third was Artaxerxes’ decree in 457 B.C. (Ezra 7:11-26). [Note: See William H. Shea, "Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date for the 2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):89-96.] The fourth was Artaxerxes’ decree authorizing Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem in 444 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1-8). Chisholm suggested a fifth possibility, namely, that the decree in view was Jeremiah’s prophecy, sometime between 597 and 586 B.C., that Jerusalem would be rebuilt (Jeremiah 30:18). He took the seventy weeks as symbolic of completeness. [Note: Chisholm, pp. 314-17.]

The first two of these decrees authorized the rebuilding of the temple, and the third provided for animal sacrifices in the temple. Only the fourth one gave the Jews permission to rebuild Jerusalem, and it seems to be the one in view here. The Jews encountered opposition as they sought to rebuild and refortify their ancient capital, as the Book of Nehemiah records. The date 444 B.C., then, probably marks the beginning of this 490-year period.

Seven sevens plus sixty-two sevens equals 483 years. Gabriel predicted that after 483 years, Messiah would be cut off. Detailed chronological studies have been done that show that Jesus Christ’s death occurred then. If one calculates 483 years from 444 B.C., one might conclude that the date for Messiah being cut off is A.D. 39. However, both the Jews and the Babylonians observed years of 360, rather than 365 days per year. If one calculates the number of days involved in the Jewish and Babylonian calendar year, the year Messiah would be cut off comes out to A.D. 33 with a 365-day year, the modern Julian calendar year. One scholar, Sir Robert Anderson, calculated that the day Jesus entered Jerusalem in his triumphal entry was the last day of this long period. [Note: Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince, p. 128. McClain, p. 25-26; and H. W. Hoehner, "Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and New Testament Chronology," Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):64; came to the same conclusion.] The Triumphal Entry was significant because it was the last public event during Jesus’ first advent that demonstrated a positive popular reaction to Him. After it, the nation of Israel rejected Him. Whether or not the chronology is that exact, almost all expositors agree that the death of Christ is in view and that it occurred at the end of the sixty-ninth week. J. Paul Tanner showed that there was a strong consensus among the early Church fathers that this passage is messianic, though they varied greatly in their understanding of the details. [Note: J. Paul Tanner, "Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic?" Bibliotheca Sacra 166:662 (April-June 2009):181-200.]

Even Young, a representative amillennialist, supported this basic chronology, though he held that the numbers (7 and 62) were symbolic, not literal numbers. [Note: Young, pp. 191-206, 220-21.] He believed the decree in Daniel 9:24 was Cyrus’ decree of 538 B.C., that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 occurred toward the end of the 70^th week, and that the prince to come (Daniel 9:26) was Titus.

What happened after 49 years that justifies breaking this period of 69 weeks into two parts? Perhaps it was the end of the Old Testament revelation through the writing prophets. Another, more probable view, is that it took seven weeks (49 years) to clear out all the debris from Jerusalem, and to restore it fully as a thriving city with streets and moat. [Note: Walvoord, Daniel . . ., p. 227; Pentecost, "Daniel," p. 1363; Campbell, p. 110; Ironside, p. 165; J. Randall Price, "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts," in Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 151-52.]

"This perfectly describes the work of Nehemiah and under what difficult circumstances he performed his tasks." [Note: Feinberg, p. 130.]

The reference to Jerusalem being rebuilt "with plaza and moat" (NASB), or "with streets and a trench" (NIV), has confused some readers, since Jerusalem never had a typical moat or trench around it. However, the valleys of Hinnom and Kidron, on Jerusalem’s east, south and west sides, resemble a moat or trench around most of the city. In heavy rains they did and still do carry water and function as a moat or trench.

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

Know, therefore, and understand,.... Take notice and observe, for the clearer understanding of these seventy weeks, and the events to be fulfilled in them, what will be further said concerning them, the beginning of them, their distinct periods, and what shall be accomplished in them:

that from the time of the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem; this commandment is the beginning of the seventy weeks or four hundred and ninety years, and from it they are to be reckoned; and which designs not the proclamation of Cyrus in the first year of his reign, which was only to rebuild the temple, and not the city of Jerusalem, Ezra 1:1, nor the decree of Darius Hystaspes, which also only regards the temple, and is only a confirmation of the decree of Cyrus, Ezra 6:1 and for the same reasons it cannot be the decree in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes; which only confirmed what his predecessors had granted concerning the temple, and provision for sacrifices, and exemption of the priests from toll, tribute, or custom, Ezra 7:7, but has not a word of building the wall and streets of Jerusalem, as that has, which was made in the twentieth year of his reign; and seems therefore to be the commandment or decree here referred to, Nehemiah 2:1, and this is the general epoch of the seventy weeks, and where the first seven begin; though Gussetius a thinks that the word דבר does not signify any edict or decree, but a "thing"; and designs the thing itself, restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem; and that the following date is to be reckoned, not from any order to rebuild that city, but from the thing itself, from the moment when it first began to be rebuilt: and as singular is the notion of Tirinus b, who is of opinion that this is to be understood of the going out, or the end of the word; not whereby the holy city was ordered to be built, but when it was really built; and so begins the account from the dedication of the new city, in the twenty third year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah 12:27. There are others who suppose that not any human word, decree, commandment, or order, is here meant, but a divine one; either the word of the Lord to Jeremiah, foretelling the seventy years' captivity of the Jews, and their deliverance from it; and reckon these four hundred and ninety years from the destruction of the first temple, to the destruction of the second temple, as Jarchi, Saadiah, Jacchiades, and others; but between these two destructions was a course of six hundred and fifty six or six hundred and fifty seven years: others take the beginning of the seventy weeks to be from the going forth of the commandment to the angel, at the beginning of Daniel's prayers, as Aben Ezra; and to end at the destruction of the second temple; but, for a like reason, this must be rejected as the other; since this space of time will outrun the seventy weeks near one hundred and twenty years: it is best therefore to interpret this of a royal edict, the order or commandment of a king of Persia to rebuild Jerusalem; and it seems correct to reckon the number given, either from the seventh, or rather from the twentieth, of Artaxerxes Longimanus before mentioned; and either these reckonings, as Bishop Chandler c observes, are sufficient for our purpose, to show the completion of the prophecy in Christ:

"the commencement of the weeks (as he remarks) must be either from the seventh of Artaxerxes, which falls on 457 B.C. or from the twentieth of Artaxerxes; (add to 457 B.C., twenty six years after Christ, which is the number that four hundred and eighty three years, or sixty nine weeks, exceeds four hundred and fifty seven years); and you are brought to the beginning of John the Baptist's preaching up the advent of the Messiah; add seven years or one week to the former, and you come to the thirty third year of A.D. which was the year of Jesus Christ's death or else compute four hundred and ninety years, the whole seventy weeks, from the seventh of Artaxerxes, by subtracting four hundred and fifty seven years (the space of time between that year and the beginning of A.D.) from four hundred and ninety, and there remains thirty three, the year of our Lord's death. Let the twentieth of Artaxerxes be the date of the seventy weeks, which is 455 B.C. and reckon sixty nine weeks of Chaldean years; seventy Chaldee years being equal to sixty nine Julian; and so four hundred and seventy eight Julian years making four hundred and eighty three Chaldee years, and they end in the thirty third year after Christ, or the passover following d'';

the several particulars into which these seventy weeks are divided:

unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; by whom is meant, not Cyrus, as Jarchi and Jacchiades; who, though called Messiah or anointed, Isaiah 44:28, cannot be intended; for this prince was to be cut off after seven, and sixty two weeks, or four hundred and eighty three years; whereas Cyrus died ages before this, and even died before the expiration of the seven weeks, or forty nine years; nor Joshua the high priest, or Zerubbabel, as Ben Gersom and others nor Nehemiah as Aben Ezra; nor Artaxerxes, which R. Azariah e thinks probable; for to none of these will this character agree, which denotes some eminent person known by this name; nor the work ascribed to him, Daniel 9:24, nor can it be said of either of them that they were cut off, and much less at such a period as is here fixed: it is right to interpret it of the promised and expected Saviour, whom the Psalmist David had frequently spoken of under the name of the Messiah, and as a King and Prince; see Psalms 2:2 and who is David, the Prince Ezekiel before this had prophesied of, Ezekiel 34:24, and is the same with the Prince of peace in the famous prophecy of him in Isaiah 9:6. The Syriac version, though not a literal one, gives the true sense of the passage, rendering it,

"unto the coming of the King Messiah;''

unto which there were to be seven, and sixty two weeks, or sixty nine weeks, which make four hundred and eighty three years; and these being understood of eastern years, used by the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Persians, consisting of three hundred and sixty days, reckoning thirty days to a month, and twelve months to a year, there were just four hundred and eighty three of these from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to the thirty third of the vulgar era of Christ, and the nineteenth of Tiberius Caesar, in which he suffered. Sir Isaac Newton f thinks the seven weeks unto Messiah, which he detaches from the sixty two, respects the second coming of Christ, when he shall come as a Prince, and destroy antichrist, and that it takes in the compass of a jubilee; but when it will begin and end he does not pretend to say; but the true reason of the sixty nine weeks being divided into seven, and sixty two, is on account of the particular and distinct events assigned to each period, as follows:

the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times; that is, within the space of seven weeks, or forty nine years, reckoning from the twentieth of Artaxerxes; when the Jews had a grant to rebuild their city and wall, and were furnished with materials for it; and which was done in very troublesome times; Nehemiah, and the Jews with him, met with much trouble from Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem the Arabian, while they were setting up the wall of the city, and filling the streets with ranges of houses, Nehemiah chapters four and five for which the space of seven weeks, or forty nine years, were cut out and appointed; and that this event belongs solely to this period is clear from the Messiah's coming being appropriated to the period of the sixty two weeks; which leaves this entirely where it is fixed.

a Ebr. Comment. p. 177, 329. b Chronolog. Sacr. p. 44. c Answer to the Grounds and Reasons, &c. p. 139. d See these seventy weeks more largely considered, in a Treatise of mine, concerning the prophecies of the Old Testament respecting the Messiah, &c. p. 64-78. e Meor Enayim, c. 41. fol. 134. 2. f Observations on Daniel, p. 132, 133, 134.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      20 And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God;   21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.   22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.   23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.   24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and 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.   25 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.   26 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.   27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

      We have here the answer that was immediately sent to Daniel's prayer, and it is a very memorable one, as it contains the most illustrious prediction of Christ and gospel-grace that is extant in all the Old Testament. If John Baptist was the morning-star, this was the day-break to the Sun of righteousness, the day-spring from on high. Here is,

      I. The time when this answer was given.

      1. It was while Daniel was at prayer. This he observed and laid a strong emphasis upon: While I was speaking (Daniel 9:20; Daniel 9:20), yea, while I was speaking in prayer (Daniel 9:21; Daniel 9:21), before he rose from his knees, and while there was yet more which he intended to say.

      (1.) He mentions the two heads he chiefly insisted upon in prayer, and which perhaps he designed yet further to enlarge upon. [1.] He was confessing sin and lamenting that--"both my sin and the sin of my people Israel." Daniel was a very great and good man, and yet he finds sin of his own to confess before God and is ready to confess it; for there is not a just man upon earth that does good and sins not, nor that sins and repents not. St. John puts himself into the number of those who deceive themselves if they say that they have no sin, and who therefore confess their sins,1 John 1:8. Good men find it an ease to their consciences to pour out their complaints before the Lord against themselves; and that is confessing sin. He also confessed the sin of his people, and bewailed that. Those who are heartily concerned for the glory of God, the welfare of the church, and the souls of men, will mourn for the sins of others as well as for their own. [2.] He was making supplication before the Lord his God, and presenting it to him as an intercessor for Israel; and in this prayer his concern was for the holy mountain of his God, Mount Zion. The desolations of the sanctuary lay nearer his heart than those of the city and the land; and the repair of that, and the setting up of the public worship of God of Israel again, were the things he had in view, in the deliverance he was preparing for, more than re-establishment of their civil interests. Now,

      (2.) While Daniel was thus employed, [1.] He had a grant made him of the mercy he prayed for. Note, God is very ready to hear prayer and to give an answer of peace. Now was fulfilled what God had spoken Isaiah 65:24, While they are yet speaking, I will hear. Daniel grew very fervent in prayer, and his affections were very strong, Daniel 9:18; Daniel 9:19. And, while he was speaking with such fervour and ardency, the angel came to him with a gracious answer. God is well pleased with lively devotions. We cannot now expect that God should send us answers to our prayer by angels, but, if we pray with fervency for that which God has promised, we may by faith take the promise as an immediate answer to the prayer; for he is faithful that has promised. [2.] He had a discovery made to him of a far greater and more glorious redemption which God would work out for his church in the latter days. Note, Those that would be brought acquainted with Christ and his grace must be much in prayer.

      2. It was about the time of the evening oblation,Daniel 9:21; Daniel 9:21. The altar was in ruins, and there was no oblation offered upon it, but, it should seem, the pious Jews in their captivity were daily thoughtful of the time when it should have been offered, and at that hour were ready to weep at the remembrance of it, and desired and hoped that their prayer should be set forth before God as incense, and the lifting up of their hands, and their hearts with their hands, should be acceptable in his sight as the evening-sacrifice,Psalms 141:2. The evening oblation was a type of the great sacrifice which Christ was to offer in the evening of the world, and it was in the virtue of that sacrifice that Daniel's prayer was accepted when he prayed for the Lord's sake; and for the sake of that this glorious discovery of redeeming love was made to him. The Lamb opened the seals in the virtue of his own blood.

      II. The messenger by whom this answer was sent. It was not given him in a dream, nor by a voice from heaven, but, for the greater certainty and solemnity of it, an angel was sent on purpose, appearing in a human shape, to give this answer to Daniel. Observe,

      1. Who this angel, or messenger, was; it was the man Gabriel. If Michael the archangel be, as many suppose, no other than Jesus Christ, this Gabriel is the only created angel that is named in scripture. Gabriel signifies the mighty one of God; for the angels are great in power and might,2 Peter 2:11. It was he whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning. Daniel heard him called by his name, and thence learned it (Daniel 8:16); and, though then he trembled at his approach, yet he observed him so carefully that now he knew him again, knew him to be the same that he had seen at the beginning, and, being somewhat better acquainted with him, was not now so terrified at the sight of him as he had been at first. When this angel said to Zacharias, I am Gabriel (Luke 1:19), he intended thereby to put him in mind of this notice which he had given to Daniel of the Messiah's coming when it was at a distance, for the confirming of his faith in the notice he was then about to give of it as at the door.

      2. The instructions which this messenger received from the Father of lights to whom Daniel prayed (Daniel 9:23; Daniel 9:23): At the beginning of thy supplications the word, the commandment, came forth from God. Notice was given to the angels in heaven of this counsel of God, which they were desirous to look into; and orders were given to Gabriel to go immediately and bring the notice of it to Daniel. By this it appears that it was not any thing which Daniel said that moved God, for the answer was given as he began to pray; but God was well pleased with his serious solemn address to the duty, and, in token of that, sent him this gracious message. Or perhaps it was at the beginning of Daniel's supplications that Cyrus's word, or commandment, went forth to restore and to build Jerusalem, that going forth spoken of Daniel 9:25; Daniel 9:25. "The thing was done this very day; the proclamation of liberty to the Jews was signed this morning, just when thou wast praying for it;" and now, at the close of this fast-day, Daniel had notice of it, as, at the close of the day of atonement, the jubilee-trumpet sounded to proclaim liberty.

      3. The haste he made to deliver his message: He was caused to fly swiftly,Daniel 9:21; Daniel 9:21. Angels are winged messengers, quick in their motions, and delay not to execute the orders they receive; they run and return like a flash of lightning,Ezekiel 1:14. But, it should seem, sometimes they are more expeditious than at other times, and make a quicker despatch, as here the angel was caused to fly swiftly; that is, he was ordered and he was enabled to fly swiftly. Angels do their work in obedience to divine command and in dependence upon divine strength. Though they excel in wisdom, they fly swifter or slower as God directs; and, though they excel in power, they fly but as God causes them to fly. Angels themselves are to us what he makes them to be; they are his ministers, and do his pleasure,Psalms 103:21.

      4. The prefaces or introductions to his message. (1.) He touched him (Daniel 9:21; Daniel 9:21), as before (Daniel 8:18; Daniel 8:18), not to awaken him out of sleep as then, but to give him a hint to break off his prayer and to attend to that which he has to say in answer to it. Note, In order to the keeping up of our communion with God we must not only be forward to speak to God, but as forward to hear what he has to say to us; when we have prayed we must look up, must look after our prayers, must set ourselves upon our watch-tower. (2.) He talked with him (Daniel 9:22; Daniel 9:22), talked familiarly with him, as one friend talks with another, that his terror might not make him afraid. He informed him on what errand he came, that he was sent from heaven on purpose with a kind message to him: "I have come to show thee (Daniel 9:23; Daniel 9:23), to tell thee that which thou didst not know before." He had shown him the troubles of the church under Antiochus, and the period of those troubles (Daniel 8:19; Daniel 8:19); but now he has greater things to show him, for he that is faithful in a little shall be entrusted with more. "Nay, I have now come forth to give thee skill and understanding (Daniel 9:22; Daniel 9:22), not only to show thee these things, but to make thee understand them." (3.) He assured him that he was a favourite of Heaven, else he would not have had this intelligence sent him, and he must take it for a favour: "I have come to show thee, for thou art greatly beloved. Thou art a man of desires, acceptable to God, and whom he has a favour for." Note, Though God loves all his children, yet there are some that are more than the rest greatly beloved. Christ had one disciple that lay in his bosom; and that beloved disciple was he that was entrusted with the prophetical visions of the New Testament, as Daniel was with those of the Old. For what greater token can there be of God's favour to any man than for the secrets of the Lord to be with him? Abraham is the friend of God; and therefore Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?Genesis 18:17. Note, Those may reckon themselves greatly beloved of God to whom, and in whom, he reveals his Son. Some observe that the title which this angel Gabriel gives to the Virgin Mary is much the same with this which he here gives to Daniel, as if he designed to put her in mind of it--Thou that art highly favoured; as Daniel, greatly beloved. (4.) He demands his serious attention to the discovery he was now about to make to him: Therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision,Daniel 9:23; Daniel 9:23. This intimates that it was a thing well worthy of his regard, above any of the visions he had been before favoured with. Note, Those who would understand the things of God must consider them, must apply their minds to them, ponder upon them, and compare spiritual things with spiritual. The reason why we are so much in the dark concerning the revealed will of God, and mistake concerning it, is want of consideration. This vision both requires and deserves consideration.

      III. The message itself. It was delivered with great solemnity, received no doubt with great attention, and recorded with great exactness; but in it, as is usual in prophecies, there are things dark and hard to be understood. Daniel, who understood by the book of the prophet Jeremiah the expiration of the seventy years of the captivity, is now honourably employed to make known to the church another more glorious release, which that was but a shadow of, at the end of another seventy, not years, but weeks of years. He prayed over that prophecy, and received this in answer to that prayer. He had prayed for his people and the holy city--that they might be released, that it might be rebuilt; but God answers him above what he was able to ask or think. God not only grants, but outdoes, the desires of those that fear him, Psalms 21:4.

      1. The times here determined are somewhat hard to be understood. In general, it is seventy weeks, that is, seventy times seven years, which makes just 490 years. The great affairs that are yet to come concerning the people of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem, will lie within the compass of these years.

      (1.) These years are thus described by weeks, [1.] In conformity to the prophetic style, which is, for the most part, abstruse, and out of the common road of speaking, that the things foretold might not lie too obvious. [2.] To put an honour upon the division of time into weeks, which is made purely by the sabbath day, and to signify that that should be perpetual. [3.] With reference to the seventy years of the captivity; as they had been so long kept out of the possession of their own land, so, being now restored to it they should seven times as long be kept in the possession of it. So much more does God delight in showing mercy than in punishing. The land had enjoyed its sabbaths, in a melancholy sense, seventy years, Leviticus 26:34. But now the people of the Lord shall, in a comfortable sense, enjoy their sabbaths seven times seventy years, and in them seventy sabbatical years, which makes ten jubilees. Such proportions are there in the disposals of Providence, that we might see and admire the wisdom of him who has determined the times before appointed.

      (2.) The difficulties that arise about these seventy weeks are, [1.] Concerning the time when they commence and whence they are to be reckoned. They are here dated from the going forth of the commandments to restore and to build Jerusalem,Daniel 9:25; Daniel 9:25. I should most incline to understand this of the edict of Cyrus mentioned Ezra 1:1, for by it the people were restored; and, though express mention be not made there of the building of Jerusalem, yet that is supposed in the building of the temple, and was foretold to be done by Cyrus, Isaiah 44:28. He shall say to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built. That was, both in prophecy and in history, the most famous decree for the building of Jerusalem; nay, it should seem, this going forth of the commandment (which may as well be meant of God's command concerning it as of Cyrus's) is the same with that going forth of the commandment mentioned Daniel 9:23; Daniel 9:23, which was at the beginning of Daniel's supplications. And it looks very graceful that the seventy weeks should begin immediately upon the expiration of the seventy years. And there is nothing to be objected against this but that by this reckoning the Persian monarchy, from the taking of Babylon by Cyrus to Alexander's conquest of Darius, lasted but 130 years; whereas, by the particular account given of the reigns of the Persian emperors, it is computed that it continued 230 years. So Thucydides, Xenophon, and others reckon. Those who fix it to that first edict set aside these computations of the heathen historians as uncertain and not to be relied upon. But others, willing to reconcile them, begin the 490 years, not at the edict of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1), but at the second edict for the building of Jerusalem, issued out by Darius Nothus above 100 years after, mentioned Ezra 6:1-12 Others fix on the seventh year of Artaxerxes Mnemon, who sent Ezra with a commission, Ezra 7:8-12. The learned Mr. Poole, in his Latin Synopsis, has a vast and most elaborate collection of what has been said, pro and con, concerning the different beginnings of these weeks, with which the learned may entertain themselves. [2.] Concerning the termination of them; and here likewise interpreters are not agreed. Some make them to end at the death of Christ, and think the express words of this famous prophecy will warrant us to conclude that from this very hour when Gabriel spoke to Daniel, at the time of the evening oblation, to the hour when Christ died, which was towards evening too, it was exactly 490 years; and I am willing enough to be of that opinion. But others think, because it is said that in the midst of the weeks (that is, the last of the seventy weeks) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, they end three years and a half after the death of Christ, when the Jews having rejected the gospel, the apostles turned to the Gentiles. But those who make them to end precisely at the death of Christ read it thus, "He shall make strong the testament to the many; the last seven, or the last week, yea, half that seven, or half that week (namely, the latter half, the three years and a half which Christ spent in his public ministry), shall bring to an end sacrifice and oblation." Others make these 490 years to end with the destruction of Jerusalem, about thirty-seven years after the death of Christ, because these seventy weeks are said to be determined upon the people of the Jews and the holy city; and much is said here concerning the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. [3.] Concerning the division of them into seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks, and one week; and the reason of this is as hard to account for as any thing else. In the first seven weeks, or forty-nine years, the temple and city were built; and in the last single week Christ preached his gospel, by which the Jewish economy was taken down, and the foundations were laid of the gospel city and temple, which were to be built upon the ruins of the former.

      (3.) But, whatever uncertainty we may labour under concerning the exact fixing of these times, there is enough clear and certain to answer the two great ends of determining them. [1.] It did serve them to raise and support the expectations of believers. There were general promises of the coming of the Messiah made to the patriarchs; the preceding prophets had often spoken of him as one that should come, but never was the time fixed for his coming until now. And, though there might be so much doubt concerning the date of this reckoning that they could not ascertain the time just to a year, yet by the light of this prophecy they were directed about what time to expect him. And we find, accordingly, that when Christ came he was generally looked for as the consolation of Israel, and redemption in Jerusalem by him, Luke 2:25; Luke 2:38. There were those that for this reason thought the kingdom of God should immediately appear (Luke 19:11), and some think it was this that brought a more than ordinary concourse of people to Jerusalem, Acts 2:5. [2.] It does serve still to refute and silence the expectations of unbelievers, who will not own that Jesus is he who should come, but still look for another. This prediction should silence them, and will condemn them; for, reckon these seventy weeks from which of the commandments to build Jerusalem we please, it is certain that they have expired above 1500 years ago; so that the Jews are for ever without excuse, who will not own that the Messiah has come when they have gone so far beyond their utmost reckoning for his coming. But by this we are confirmed in our belief of the Messiah's being come, and that our Jesus is he, that he came just at the time prefixed, a time worthy to be had in everlasting remembrance.

      2. The events here foretold are more plain and easy to be understood, at least to us now. Observe what is here foretold,

      (1.) Concerning the return of the Jews now speedily to their own land, and their settlement again there, which was the thing that Daniel now principally prayed for; and yet it is but briefly touched upon here in the answer to his prayer. Let this be a comfort to the pious Jews, that a commandment shall go forth to restore and to build Jerusalem,Daniel 9:25; Daniel 9:25. And the commandment shall not be in vain; for though the times will be very troublous, and this good work will meet with great opposition, yet it shall be carried on, and brought to perfection at last. The street shall be built again, as spacious and splendid as ever it was, and the walls, even in troublous times. Note, as long as we are here in this world we must expect troublous times, upon some account or other. Even when we have joyous times we must rejoice with trembling; it is but a gleam, it is but a lucid interval of peace and prosperity; the clouds will return after the rain. When the Jews are restored in triumph to their own land, yet there they must expect troublous times, and prepare for them. But this is our comfort, that God will carry on his own work, will build up his Jerusalem, will beautify it, will fortify it, even in troublous times; nay, the troublousness of the times may by the grace of God contribute to the advancement of the church. The more it is afflicted the more it multiplies.

      (2.) Concerning the Messiah and his undertaking. The carnal Jews looked for a Messiah that could deliver them from the Roman yoke and give them temporal power and wealth, whereas they were here told that the Messiah should come upon another errand, purely spiritual, and upon the account of which he should be the more welcome. [1.] Christ came to take away sin, and to abolish that. Sin had made a quarrel between God and man, had alienated men from God and provoked God against man; it was this that put dishonour upon God and brought misery upon mankind; this was the great mischief-maker. He that would do God a real service, and man a real kindness, must be the destruction of this. Christ undertakes to be so, and for this purpose he is manifested, to destroy the works of the devil. He does not say to finish your transgressions and your sins, but transgression and sin in general, for he is the propitiation not only for our sins, that are Jews, but for the sins of the whole world. He came, First, To finish transgression, to restrain it (so some), to break the power of it, to bruise the head of that serpent that had done so much mischief, to take away the usurped dominion of that tyrant, and to set up a kingdom of holiness and love in the hearts of men, upon the ruins of Satan's kingdom there, that, where sin and death had reigned, righteousness and life through grace might reign. When he died he said, It is finished; sin has now had its death-wound given it, like Samson's, Let me die with the Philistines. Animamque in vulnere ponit--He inflicts the wound and dies. Secondly, To make an end of sin, to abolish it, that it may not rise up in judgment against us, to obtain the pardon of it, that it may not be our ruin, to seal up sins (so the margin reads it), that they may not appear or break out against us, to accuse and condemn us, as, when Christ cast the devil into the bottomless pit, he set a seal upon him,Revelation 20:3. When sin is pardoned it is sought for and not found, as that which is sealed up. Thirdly, To make reconciliation for iniquity, as by a sacrifice, to satisfy the justice of God and so to make peace and bring God and man together, not only as an arbitrator, or referee, who only brings the contending parties to a good understanding one of another, but as a surety, or undertaker, for us. He is not only the peace-maker, but the peace. He is the atonement. [2.] He came to bring in an everlasting righteousness. God might justly have made an end of the sin by making an end of the sinner; but Christ found out another way, and so made an end of sin as to save the sinner from it, by providing a righteousness for him. We are all guilty before God, and shall be condemned as guilty, if we have not a righteousness wherein to appear before him. Had we stood, our innocency would have been our righteousness, but, having fallen, we must have something else to plead; and Christ has provided us a plea. The merit of his sacrifice is our righteousness; with this we answer all the demands of the law; Christ has died, yea, rather, has risen again. Thus Christ is the Lord our righteousness, for he is made of God to us righteousness, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. By faith we apply this to ourselves and plead it with God, and our faith is imputed to us for righteousness,Romans 4:3; Romans 4:5. This is an everlasting righteousness, for Christ, who is our righteousness, and the prince of our peace, is the everlasting Father. It was from everlasting in the counsels of it and will be to everlasting in the consequences of it. The application of it was from the beginning, for Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; and it will be to the end, for he is able to save to the uttermost. It is of everlasting virtue (Hebrews 10:12); it is the rock that follows us to Canaan. [3.] He came to seal up the vision and prophecy, all the prophetical visions of the Old Testament, which had reference to the Messiah. He sealed them up, that is, he accomplished them, answered to them to a tittle; all things that were written in the law, the prophets, and the psalms, concerning the Messiah, were fulfilled in him. Thus he confirmed the truth of them as well as his own mission. He sealed them up, that is, he put an end to that method of God's discovering his mind and will, and took another course by completing the scripture-canon in the New Testament, which is the more sure word of prophecy than that by vision,2 Peter 1:19; Hebrews 1:1. [4.] He came to anoint the most holy, that is, himself, the Holy One, who was anointed (that is, appointed to his work and qualified for it) by the Holy Ghost, that oil of gladness which he received without measure, above his fellows; or to anoint the gospel-church, his spiritual temple, or holy place, to sanctify and cleanse it, and appropriate it to himself (Ephesians 5:26), or to consecrate for us a new and living way into the holiest, by his own blood (Hebrews 10:20), as the sanctuary was anointed,Exodus 30:25, c. He is called Messiah (Daniel 9:25; Daniel 9:26), which signifies Christ-Anointed (John 1:41), because he received the unction both for himself and for all that are his. [5.] In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isaiah 53:8. Hence, when Paul preaches the death of Christ, he says that he preached nothing but what the prophet said should come,Acts 26:22; Acts 26:23. And thus it behoved Christ to suffer. He must be cut off, but not for himself--not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good,--not for any advantage of his own (the glory he purchased for himself was no more than the glory he had before, John 17:4; John 17:5); no; it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off. [6.] He must confirm the covenant with many. He shall introduce a new covenant between God and man, a covenant of grace, since it had become impossible for us to be saved by a covenant of innocence. This covenant he shall confirm by his doctrine and miracles, by his death and resurrection, by the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, which are the seals of the New Testament, assuring us that God is willing to accept us upon gospel-terms. His death made his testament of force, and enabled us to claim what is bequeathed by it. He confirmed it to the many, to the common people; the poor were evangelized, when the rulers and Pharisees believed not on him. Or, he confirmed it with many, with the Gentile world. The New Testament was not (like the Old) confined to the Jewish church, but was committed to all nations. Christ gave his life a ransom for many. [7.] He must cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. By offering himself a sacrifice once for all he shall put an end to all the Levitical sacrifices, shall supersede them and set them aside; when the substance comes the shadows shall be done away. He causes all the peace-offerings to cease when he has made peace by the blood of his cross, and by it confirmed the covenant of peace and reconciliation. By the preaching of his gospel to the world, with which the apostles were entrusted, he took men off from expecting remission by the blood of bulls and goats, and so caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. The apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews shows what a better priesthood, altar, and sacrifice, we have now than they had under the law, as a reason why we should hold fast our profession.

      (3.) Concerning the final destruction of Jerusalem, and of the Jewish church and nation; and this follows immediately upon the cutting off of the Messiah, not only because it was the just punishment of those that put him to death, which was the sin that filled up the measure of their iniquity and brought ruin upon them, but because, as things were, it was necessary to the perfecting of one of the great intentions of his death. He died to take away the ceremonial law, quite to abolish that law of commandments, and to vacate the obligation of it. But the Jews would not be persuaded to quit it; still they kept it up with more zeal than ever; they would hear no talk of parting with it; they stoned Stephen (the first Christian martyr) for saying that Jesus should change the customs which Moses delivered them (Acts 6:14); so that there was no way to abolish the Mosaic economy but by destroying the temple, and the holy city, and the Levitical priesthood, and that whole nation which so incurably doted on them. This was effectually done in less than forty years after the death of Christ, and it was a desolation that could never be repaired to this day. And this is it which is here largely foretold, that the Jews who returned out of captivity might not be overmuch lifted up with the rebuilding of their city and temple, because in process of time they would be finally destroyed, and not as now for seventy years only, but might rather rejoice in hope of the coming of the Messiah, and the setting up of his spiritual kingdom in the world, which should never be destroyed. Now, [1.] It is here foretold that the people of the prince that shall come shall be the instruments of this destruction, that is, the Roman armies, belonging to a monarchy yet to come (Christ is the prince that shall come, and they are employed by him in this service; they are his armies,Matthew 22:7), or the Gentiles (who, though now strangers, shall become the people of the Messiah) shall destroy the Jews. [2.] That the destruction shall be by war, and the end of that war shall be this desolation determined. The wars of the Jews with the Romans were by their own obstinacy made very long and very bloody, and they issued at length in the utter extirpation of that people. [3.] That the city and sanctuary shall in a particular manner be destroyed and laid quite waste. Titus the Roman general would fain have saved the temple, but his soldiers were so enraged against the Jews that he could not restrain them from burning it to the ground, that this prophecy might be fulfilled. [4.] That all the resistance that shall be made to this destruction shall be in vain: The end of it shall be with a flood. It shall be a deluge of destruction, like that which swept away the old world, and which there will be no making head against. [5.] That hereby the sacrifice and oblation shall be made to cease. And it must needs cease when the family of the priests was so extirpated, and the genealogies of it were so confounded, that (they say) there is no man in the world that can prove himself of the seed of Aaron. [6.] that there shall be an overspreading of abominations, a general corruption of the Jewish nation and an abounding of iniquity among them, for which it shall be made desolate,1 Thessalonians 2:16. Or it is rather to be understood of the armies of the Romans, which were abominable to the Jews (they could not endure them), which overspread the nation, and by which it was made desolate; for these are the words which Christ refers to, Matthew 24:15, When you shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, stand in the holy place, then let those who shall be in Judea flee, which is explained Luke 21:20, When you shall see Jerusalem encompassed with armies then flee. [7.] That the desolation shall be total and final: He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, that is, he shall make it completely desolate. It is a desolation determined, and it will be accomplished to the utmost. And when it is made desolate, it should seem, there is something more determined that is to be poured upon the desolate (Daniel 9:27; Daniel 9:27), and what should that be but the spirit of slumber (Romans 11:8; Romans 11:25), that blindness which has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in? And then all Israel shall be saved.