have some direct proof that it ought to be so referred: but, as far as I am able to judge, the evidence lies wholly on the opposite side of the question. In the 24th verse, before the prophet divides the seventy weeks into their minor constituent periods, he gives us a very full enumeration of the particulars contained within them. If then the de.struction of Jerusalem be the special event which is to designate the termination of the seventy weeks, as Bp. Lloyd and Mr. Marshall suppose, we may naturally expect to find it mentioned in the 24th verse; for it cannot be deemed probable, that Daniel should omit this remarkable, this special, event in what may not improperly be termed his table of contents. Here however we find nothing of the sort alluded to, "Seventy weeks," says the prophet according to our common translation, "Seventy "weeks are determined upon thy people and upon "thy holy city, to finish the trangression, and to "make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation "for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righte

ousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, "and to anoint the Most Holy." Such are the specified contents of the seventy weeks, in which not the slightest hint is given, that the destruction of Jerusalem is either comprehended within them or marks their termination. Surely then we cannot consider ourselves as warranted in separating the

last

last week from the sixty nine weeks, and in applying it thus separated to the age of the Jewish war*.

(3.) So again: we are taught, according to our common translation, that sixty two weeks subsequent to seven weeks are to be reckoned unto Messiah the Prince, and that after those sixty two weeks he is to be cut off. From these terms of the prophecy it is argued in the present hypothesis, that the death of Christ is fixed to the termination of the sixty nine weeks: and, since the same sixty nine weeks are to be reckoned unto the Messiah, it is

"Nor will the case be much improved by a third hypo"thesis; which, assuming a series of shorter, that is, Chaldaic $6 years, of 360 days each, brings down the second period only "to the death of Christ: after which, admitting a considera"ble interval, it begins again to reckon the last week a few

years before the destruction of Jerusalem, so as finally to "terminate in that catastrophè-Not to insist on the several "objections that occur to other particulars, the breaking of "the line of time, on which the whole stress of this hypothesis "lies, must of itself appear in the highest degree exception"able. For, either the limitation of a number of years in a "prediction supposes those years to follow in continued suc"cession; or it is in effect no limitation at all, nor of any use "to ascertain the precise time of the event, On the contrary, "how easily may the very same date be accommodated to the "most distant periods imaginable, provided it be allowable to "discontinue the reckoning at pleasure, and to resume it "again, just where it may suit the turn of a fancied hypothe "sis." Blayney's Dissert. on the seventy weeks. p. 16, 17.

further

further argued, that the phrase unto the Messiah must mean unto the death of the Messiah.

I readily concede to Mr. Marshall, in opposition to Dr. Prideaux, that the death of Christ must occur at the end of the sixty nine weeks, if we understand the expression rendered Messiah shall be cut off to relate to his death: but the question is, how the other expression unto the Messiah can possibly denote unto the death of the Messiah. Be tween the two expressions there is a sufficiently plain distinction: the favourers of the present hypothesis are necessitated to consider them as being of the same import*, Unto the Messiah however cannot, except by a strangely forced and unnatural construction, mean unto his death: it must, by every rule of ordinary phraseology, mean unto his coming either natural or official. But, if his coming be at the end of the sixty nine weeks, as it must be if unto the Messiah mean into the coming of the Messiah, it is plainly impossible that his death should also be at their end. Hence it will follow, either that the phrase unto the Messiah means unto

*Though a pretty plain distinction seems to be made be "tween the time of the Messiah's appearance (ver. 25.), and the 26 cutting off, which is said (ver. 26.) to be after the threescore and two weeks, yet in this hypothesis both are confounded together, as if unto the Messiah the prince, and to his death, mcant the same thing." Ibid. p. 16, 17,

his death, which the construction of no language will warrant; or that the other phrase, rendered Messiah shall be cut off, is improperly rendered. That the latter is the case, I have no doubt: both because the ordinary translation of the phrase confounds his death with his coming, which can only be meant by the expression unto the Messiah; and because it disagrees with the arrangement, which places his death at the end of the seventy weeks, and which (I think) may clearly be proved to be the right one.

The propriety of this arrangement of his death appears from the enumeration of particulars ascribed to the period of the seventy weeks at the very opening of the prophecy. Some one or more of these particulars must be supposed to mark their termination: otherwise it could not be said, that seventy weeks were the precise period within which all those particulars should be accomplished *. The termination however of the seventy weeks must, in that case, be marked by the chronologically latest of the particulars †. And the chronologically latest of the particulars may be proved to synchronize with the crucifixion. Therefore the crucifixion

See this point proved below in Chap. v. § 2. ↑ See Chap. v. § 2, 3. and Chap. vi. § I. 2. See Chap. vi. § I. 1.. (1.) (2.) (3.) 2.

must

must mark the termination of the seventy weeks. But, if the crucifixion marks the termination of the seventy weeks, it cannot likewise mark the termination of the sixty nine weeks. Consequently, the death of Christ is not to be placed at the close of the sixty nine weeks; and the seventieth week, terminating as it does with the death of Christ, can not be referred to the age of the Jewish war.

On these grounds I maintain, that the phrase. rendered Messiah shall be cut off is erroneously rendered *, because such a translation of it places the death of Christ at the end of the sixty nine weeks, and thus makes it synchronize with his coming. Mr. Marshall however maintains, that it is properly rendered; and is thence obliged to understand the other phrase unto the Messiah as meaning unto his death. Yet, apparently as if conscious that it must import a coming of some sort, he labours to shew that unto the Messiah means unto his coming to his death. But I doubt, whether either the Bible or any book in any language will afford him an instance of the expression unto a person denoting unto the coming of that person to his death. If until John† mean unto the commencement of John's

* As I shall hereafter shew, it ought to be actively translated Messiah shall cut off, not passively Messiah shall be cut off. Sce Chap. iv. § II. 8.

Matt. xi. 13. Luke xvi. 16.

5

ministry,