THE PROTESTANT FUNDAMENTAL PROPHETS GET THEIR TEACHING OF DANIEL 9 FROM THE SCOFIELD BIBLE, THAT HE PUBLISHED EARLY IN THE 20TH CENTURY. HE CAME UP WITH A WILD WILD TEACHING THAT PUTS THE 70TH WEEK INTO THE LAST YEARS OF THIS AGE; EVER SINCE THE PROTESTANTS, WEEEELLLL JUST SOME OF THE FUNNY-MENTAL ONES HAVE RUN WITH SCOFIELD'S IDEA; THEY ADDED A "SECRET" RAPTURE, TWO PHAZED COMING OF JESUS' SECOND COMING, AND ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT---- ALSO ALL VERY WRONG!!! Keith Hunt
Barnes on Daniel 9 #4
The 70 Week Prophecy
FROM THE ALBERT BARNES BIBLE COMMENTARY The Prince 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 Chron. xxvi. 24; 2 Chron. xxxi. 12; an overseer of the temple, 1 Chron. ix. 11; 2 Chron. xxxi.13; of the palace, 2 Chron. xxviii. 7; and of military affairs, 1 Chron. xiii. 1; 2 Chron. xxxii. 21. It is also used absolutely to denote a prince of a people, any one of royal dignity, 1 Sam. ix. 16; x. 1; xiii. 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 any more definite designation; some one on whom the mind would naturally rest, and some one 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 Notes on ver.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 fulfilment, is this (a) That, according to the above interpretation (ver.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 some-thing 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 (ver.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 that which 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 I 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. In so far as the language--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 that which 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 - (Heb.) 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 Chron. xxxii. 6. In Ezra x. 9, the word refers to the area or court before the temple: "And all the people sat in the street (Heb.) of the house of God," &c.; Comp. Nehe. viii. 1,3,16. 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, "wind wieder hergestellt" - "shall be again restored." Theodotion renders it, (Greek) "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. Marg., "ditch." Hengstenberg renders this, "and firmly is it determined;" maintaining that the word 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, Greek--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 (Heb.) means, properly, that which is cut in, or dug out, from (Heb.) -- to cut in. The word is translated sharp-pointed things in Job xli. 30; gold, fine gold, choice gold, in Psa. lxviii. 13; Prov. iii. 14; viii. 10, 19; xvi. 16; Zech. ix. 3; a threshing instrument, Isa. xxviii. 27; Amos i. 3; sharp (referring to a threshing instrument), Isa. xli. 15; wall, Dan. ix. 25; and decision, Joel iii. 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 he said that it was common, if not universal, in walled 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. Marg., "strait of." Hengstenberg, "in a time of distress." Lengerke, "Im Druck der Zeiten" in a pressure of times." Vulg., "In angustia temporum." Theodotion, in the Septuagint, renders it, "And these times shall be emptied out" (Thompson)--(Greek) "and these times shall be emptied out." The proper meaning of the Hebrew word (Heb.) 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 embarrassment; 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 fulfilment - 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. (There really should be no difficulty. We are being told a leader would come, that had the power and right to bot out sin, who would come at the last week of the 70 weeks to confirm the covenant of God with people, but also be cut off in the half of the week. You also had the prophecy in the prophets that someone would come BEFORE this prince Messiah to announce the coming of the Messiah. You had the end of the Jewish captivity of 70 years, which ended in 516 B.C. From that time onward all here told to Daniel would come to pass. The main point and event being the coming of the Messiah at the last week of years. While some could get themselves into all kinds of trouble with dates and commands on rebuilding Jerusalem, God would make sure His people could know the time, for one was to come who was to "prepare the way" for the Messiah. And sure enough John the baptist was on the scene, a miraculous birth, told by the angel to his father, that he would be the "Elijah to come" to prepare the way for the Messiah. He was already doing his ministry work, his disciples knew that he John was not the Messiah, but that John himself had said he was not, but one was to come whose shoes he was not worthy to unlatch. John's disciples and the true people of God were looking for the true Messiah to appear on the scene as spiritual leader. They knew 69 weeks of years had gone by since the command to build Jerusalem. They knew it was the time for the Messiah prince to appear. they were looking for Him, and they indeed found Him, as the early parts of the Gospels record. Jesus began His ministry in 26 A.D. He was born in 5 B.C. as another study on this Website proves from historical records etc. Keith Hunt) 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 any one 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. Comp. Notes On Isa. xlv. 1. It is unnecessary to show that a great variety of opinions has been entertained, both among the Jewish Rabbins and among Christian commentators, respecting the question to whom this refers. Among the Jews, Jarchi and Jacchiades supposed that it referred to Cyrus; Den Gersom, and others, to Zerubbabel; Aben Ezra to Nehemiah; Rabbi Azariah to Artaxerxes. Bertholdt, Lengerke, Maurer, and this c'ass of expositors generally, suppose that the reference is to Cyrus, who is called the Messiah, or the "Anointed," in Isa. xlv. 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 till the time of Cyrus. See Maurer, in loc. Comp. 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 Eichhorn 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 ver.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 "seven weeks," or the forty-nine years, be reckoned; but, according to his view, the reckoning must be "backwards and forwards;" 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 xxv. 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 111. (the Messiah of ver.26), "was displaced" "cut off "-- Jason was appointed in his place, and Menelaus the year after removed him. Thus Onias had properly no successor. This absurd opinion Bertholdt (p.605, s seq.) attempts to set aside - a task which is very cosily performed, and then proposes his own - a hypothesis not less absurd and improbable. According to his theory (p.613, seq.), the seventy years have indeed a historical basis, and the time embraced in them extends from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuehadnezzar 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 (ver.2); and after the close of this, by the favour of Cyrus (ver. 25), the promise of Jeremiah (ver.25 - "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 (ver.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: (The ideas of men are amazing at times. The people of God and the disciples of John the baptist knew the simple truth. 69 weeks of years brings you to the end of John the baptist's ministry and the start of the Messiah Savior's ministry, the start of the last week of years. It was not just relying on "dates" but also on the one that was to come before the Messiah, who would announce and prepare the way for the Messiah - John the baptist, and people in tune with God acknowledged that he was the one to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah. The truth of the "Elijah to Come" can be found in a study on this Website. People can get messed up on "dates" on "history" on "decrees" on "commands" but an Elijah was to come before the Messiah came, the first time, and so again at the time of the end, to restore all things, then Jesus will return - Keith Hunt) (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 Isa. xlv. 1, that the term Messiah may be applied to another, as it is there to Cyrus (see the Notes on 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 Isa. xlv. 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 (Heb.) [Messiah the Prince] we should be led to think of the Messiah, Jesus, and at those, ver.26, (Heb.) [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. Comp. Isa. ix. 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 centred 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 honour, 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--(Greek)--where there can be little doubt that the Messiah was understood to be referred to. The same is found in the Arabic. The "Codex Chis." 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 on ver.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 proplicey," 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 here used ("prince applied to the Messiah beyond all question iii Isa. Iv. 4: "I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader - (Heb.)--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. (And that is exactly the truth of the matter as the disciples of John the baptist well knew. They were looking for ONE, the Messiah, to replace the ministry of John, to supercede him, as John himself said, "I must deminish so he can increase" or such words as made it clear that the true Savior Messiah was to come, was near at hand, was alive and was to start His ministry. Also as John said when Jesus came to him for baptism, "It is I would need to be baptized of you." This is a clear prophecy that John, his disciples, and the true people of the Lord, knew was about the true Messiah coming after 69 weeks of years from the command to rebuild the city. Whatever else may be the technicalities of the three sections to this 70 week prophecy, the main true fact is 69 weeks of years or 483 years had transpired from that command bring us to the ministry of Jesus Christ, the Messiah that all God's people were seeking and looking to appear in the last year or so of John the baptist's ministry - Keith Hunt) 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 fulfilment depends on it, and honesty requires that it should be determined without reference to the tune to which four hundred and ninety years would reach - or the "terminus ad quern." 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 tune which would accord with the expression here, with no reference to the question of the fulfilment - 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." Dertholdt (pp. 561,568) 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 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 splendour, 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 bath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he bath 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 i.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 that which 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 splendour, 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 defence 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 tune 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 fulfilment 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. (Barnes then give page after page of "history" per se. But never does come up with the right answer. The technicality of it all, when Christ was born and hence when His ministry began is all covered in detail in the study on this Website called "Christ was Born 5 B.C." The command to rebuild the city was given in 458 B.C. Then move forward with 69 weeks of years = 483 years and you arrive at 26 A.D. [adding a year for there is no year "0" going from B.C. to A.D.]. Jesus died or was killed in 30 A.D. and 40 years later in 70 A.D. Jerusalem was destroyed by the armies of Rome under Titus - Keith Hunt) And after threescore and two weeks. After the completion of the last period of four hundred and thirty-four years, The angel had shown in the previous verse what would be the characteristic of the first period of "seven weeks" that during that time the wall and the street would be built in circumstances of general distress and anxiety, and he now pro- ceeds to state what would occur in relation to the remaining sixty-two weeks. The particular thing which would characterize that period would be, that the Messiah would be cut off, and that the series of events would commence which would terminate in the destruction of the city and the temple. He does not say that this would be immediately on the termination of the sixty-two weeks, but he says that it would be "after"--(Heb.) - subsequent to the close of that period. The word does not mean necessarily immediately, but it denotes that which is to succeed - to follow - and would be well expressed by the word afterwards: Gen. xv. 14; xxiii. 19; xxv. 26, et al. See Gesenius, Lex. The natural meaning here would be, that this would be the next event in the order of events to be reckoned; it would be that on which the prophetic eye would rest subsequent to the close of the period of sixty-two weeks. There are two circumstances in the prophecy itself which go to show that it is not meant that this would immediately follow: (a) One is, that in the previous verse it is said that the "sixty-two weeks" would extend "unto the Messiah;" that is, either to his birth or to his manifestation as such; and it is not implied anywhere that he would be "cut off" at once on his appearing, nor is such a supposition reasonable, or one that would have been embraced by an ancient student of the prophecies; (b) the other is, that, in the subsequent verse, it is expressly said that what he would accomplish in causing the oblation to cease would occur "in the midst of the week;" that is, of the remaining one week that would complete the seventy. This could not occur if he were to be "cut off" immediately at the close of the sixty-two weeks. The careful student of this prophecy, therefore, would anticipate that the Messiah would appear at the close of the sixty-two weeks, and that he would continue during a part, at least, of the remaining one week before he would be cut off. This point could have been clearly made out from the prophecy before the Messiah came. Shall Messiah. Notes, ver.25. Be cut off The word here used (Heb.) means, properly, to cut, to cut off, as a part of a garment, 1 Sa. xxiv. 5 (6), 11 (12); a branch of a tree, Numb. xiii. 23; the prepuce, Exod. iv. 25; the head, 1 Sa. xvii. 51; v. 4; to cut down trees, Deut. xix. 5; Isa. xiv. 8; xliv. 14; Jer. x. 3; xxii. 7. Then it means to cut off persons, to destroy, Deut. xx. 20; Jer. xi. 19; Gen. ix. 11; Psa. xxxvii. 9; Prov. ii. 22; x. 31, et al. scepe. The phrase, "that soul shall be cut off from his people," "from the midst of the people," "from Israel," "from the congregation," &c.;, occurs frequently in the Scriptures (compare Gen. xvii. 14; Lev. vii. 20,21; Num. xv. 30; xix. 13,20; Exod. xii. 19, et al.), and denotes the punishment of death in general, without defining the manner. "It is never the punishment of exile."--Gesenius, Lex. The proper notion or meaning here is, undoubtedly, that of being cut off by death, and would suggest the idea of a violent death, or a death by the agency of others. It would apply to one who was assassinated, or murdered by a mob, or who was appointed to death by a judicial decree; or it might be applied to one who was cut down in battle, or by the pestilence, or by lightning, or by shipwreck, but it would not naturally or properly be applied to one who had lived out his days, and died a peaceful death. We always now connect with the word the idea of some unusual interposition, as when we speak of one who is cut down in middle life. The ancient translators understood it of a violent death. So the Latin Vulgate, "occidetur Christ us;" Syriac, "the Messiah shall be slain," or put to death. It need not be here said that this phrase would find a complete fulfilment in the manner in which the Lord Jesus was put to death, nor that this is the very language in which it is proper now to describe the manner in which he was removed. He was cut off by violence; by a judicial decree: by a mob; in the midst of his way, &c.; If it should be admitted that the angel meant to describe the manner of his death, he could not have found a single word that would have better expressed it. But not for himself. Marg., and shall have nothing. This phrase has given rise to not a little discussion, and not a little diversity of opinion. The Latin Vulgate is, "et non exit ejus populus, qui Cum negaturus est" "and they shall not be his people who shall deny him." Theodotion (in the Sept.), (Greek) "and there is no crime in him." Syriac, "And it is not with him." The Hebrew is (Heb.)--and the interpretation turns on the meaning of the word (Heb.) Hengstenberg maintains that it is never used in the sense of (not), but that it always conveys the idea of nothing, or non-existence, and that the meaning here is, that, then, "there was nothing to him;" that is, that he ceased to have authority and power, as in the cutting of of a prince or ruler whose power comes to an end. Accordingly he renders it, "and is not to him;" that is, his dominion, authority, or power over the covenant people as an anointed prince, would cease when he was cut off, and another one would come and desolate the sanctuary, and take possession. Bertholdt renders it, "Ohne Nachfolger von den Scinigen zu haben" - "without any successors of his own" - meaning that his family, or that the dynasty would be cut off, or would end with him. He maintains that the whole phrase denotes "a sudden and an unexpected death," and that it here means that he would have no successor of his own family. He applies it to Alexander the Great. Lengerke renders it, "Und nicht rat vorhanden, der ihm angehoret" -- and explains the whole to mean, "The anointed one [as the lawful king] shall be cut off, but it shall not then be one who belongs to his family [to wit, upon the throne], but a Prince shall come to whom the crown did not belong, to whom the name anointed could not properly belong." Maurer explains it, "There shall be to him no successor or lawful heir." Prof. Stuart renders it, "One shall be cut off, and there shall be none for it" (the people). C.B. Michaelis, "and not to be will be his lot." Jacch. and Hitzig, "and no one remained to him." Rosch, "and no one was present for him." Our translation - "but not for himself" -- was undoubtedly adopted from the common view of the atonement - that the Messiah did not die for himself, but that his life was given as a ransom for others. There can be no doubt of that fact to those who hold the common doctrine of the atonement, and yet it maybe doubted whether the translators did not undesignedly allow their views of the atonement to shape the interpretation of this passage, and whether it can be fairly made out from the Hebrew. The ordinary meaning of the Hebrew word (Heb.) is, "undoubtedly, nothing, emptiness" -- in the sense of there being nothing (see Gesenius, Lex.); and, thus applied, the sense here would be, that after he was cut off, or in consequence of his being cut off, that which he before possessed would cease, or there would be "nothing" to him; that is, either his life would cease, or his dominion would cease, or he would be cut off as the Prince - the Messiah. This interpretation appears to be confirmed by what is immediately said, that another would come and would destroy the city and the sanctuary, or that the possession would pass into his hands. It seems probable to me that this is the fair interpretation. The Messiah would come as a "Prince." It might be expected that he would came to rule - to set up a kingdom, but he would be suddenly cut off by a violent death. The anticipated dominion over the people as a prince would not be set up. It would not pertain to him. Thus suddenly cut off, the expectations of such a rule would be disappointed and blasted. He would in fact set up no such dominion as might naturally be expected of an anointed prince; he would have no successor; the dynasty would not remain in his hands or his family, and soon the people of a foreign prince would come and would sweep all away. This interpretation does not suppose that the real object of his coming would be thwarted, or that he would not set up a kingdom in accordance with the prediction properly explained, but that such a kingdom as would be expected by the people would not be set up. He would be cut off soon after he came, and the anticipated dominion would not pertain to him, or there would be "nothing" of it found in him, and soon after a foreign prince would come and destroy the city and the sanctuary. This interpretation, indeed, will take this passage away as a proof-text of the doctrine of the atonement, or as affirming the design of the death of the Messiah, but it furnishes a meaning as much in accordance with the general strain of the prophecy, and with the facts in the work of the Messiah. For it was a natural expectation that when he came he would set up a kingdom - a temporal reign - and this expectation was extensively cherished among the people. He was, however, soon cut off, and all such hopes at once perished in the minds of his true followers (comp. Luke xxiv. 21), and in the minds of the multitudes who, though not his true followers, began to inquire whether he might not be the predicted Messiah the Prince to sit on the throne of David. But of such an anticipated dominion or rule, there was "nothing" to him. All these expectations were blighted by his sudden death, and soon, instead of his delivering the nation from bondage and setting up a visible kingdom, a foreign prince would come with his forces and would sweep away everything. Whether this would be the interpretation affixed to these words before the advent of the Messiah cannot now be determined. We have few remains of the methods in which the Hebrews interpreted the ancient prophecies, and we may readily suppose that they would not be disposed to embrace an exposition which would show them that the reign of the Messiah, as they anticipated it, would not occur, but that almost as soon as he appeared, he would he put to death, and the dominion pass away, and the nation be subjected to the ravages of a foreign power. And the people of the prince that shall come. Marg., "And they (the Jews) shall be no more his people; or, the Prince's (Messiah's) future people." This seems to be rather an explanation of the meaning, than a translation of the Hebrew. The literal rendering would be, "and the city, and the sanctuary, the people of a prince that comes, shall lay waste." On the general supposition that this whole passage refers to the Messiah and his time, the language here used is not difficult of interpretation, and denotes with undoubted accuracy the events that soon followed the "cutting off" of the Messiah. The word people (Heb.) is a word that may well be applied to subjects or armies - such a people as an invading prince or warrior would lead with him for purposes of conquest. It denotes properly (a) a people, or tribe, or race in general; and then (b) the people as opposed to kings, princes, rulers (comp. (Greek), the people as opposed to chiefs in Homer, ll. ii. 365, xiii. 108, xxiv. 28): and then as soldiers, Judg. v. 2. Hence it may be applied, as it would be understood to be here, to the soldiers of the prince that should come. Of the prince that shall come. The word prince here (Heb.) is the same which occurs in ver.25, "Messiah the Prince." It is clear, however, that another prince is meant here, for (a) it is just said that that prince - the Messiah - would be "cut off," and this clearly refers to one that was to follow; (b) the phrase "that is to come" (Heb.) would also imply this. It would naturally suggest the idea that be would come from abroad, or that he would be a foreign prince - for he would "come," for the purposes of destruction. No one can fail to see the applicability of this to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman power, after the Lord Jesus was put to death. If that was the design of the prophecy, or if it be admitted that the prophecy contemplated that, the language could not have been better chosen, or the prediction more exact. No one can reasonably doubt that, if the ancient Hebrews had understood the former part of the prophecy, as meaning the true Messiah would be put to death soon after his appearing, they could not fail to anticipate that a foreign prince would soon come and lat waste their city and sanctuary. ..................... To be continued Albert Barnes on Daniel 9 #5The 70 week Prophecy
|
No comments:
Post a Comment