future rebuilding of Jerusalem and restoration of the Jews, leaves every other period without date. Hence, according to this scheme, I can see no reason why the seventy weeks should begin from the seventh year of Artaxerxes rather than from any other era: still less can I discover, why the sixty two weeks should be reckoned from the completion of the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem--3. But, even if there were a clear reason for thus reckoning the sixty two weeks, I cannot find that Nehemiah gives any warrant for placing the completion of the wall in the Julian year 4278, the latter part of which Sir Isaac, agreeably to his general arrangement of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, makes to coincide with the 28th year of that prince. Nehemiah tells us, that the king granted him permission to go to Jerusalem, and to superintend the rebuilding of it, in the first Jewish month Nisan in the twentieth year of his reign *. A certain time must be allowed for his journey and for his delivering his letters to Asaph and the governors beyond the river. This, arguing from the similar journey of Ezra †, we may estimate at about four months. Immediately upon his arrival, that is to say, after waiting no more than three days, he seems to have Nehem. ii. 1, 6. + Ezra vii. 8, 9. begun begun the business of rebuilding the wall. And we are at length taught, that it was finished on the 25th day of the sixth month Elul, its rebuilding having taken up the space of fifty two days †. Thus it appears, that, from Nehemiah's setting out on his journey in the month Nisan to the completing of the wall at the latter end of the month Elul, there was a period of not quite half a year; which will just allow about four months for his journey and 52 days for the building of the wall. Accordingly, both Abp. Usher and Dr. Prideaux very naturally place the completion of the wall in the same year that Nehemiah set out from Babylon, namely in the year that he received his commission from Artaxerxes: on what grounds Sir Isaac places it in the 28th year of Artaxerxes, eight years later, I know not-4. So again: it is difficult to conceive, why our Lord should be said to have confirmed the covenant with many during the first seven years after his death, rather than during any subsequent period. Through the instrumentality of his word and sacraments, he has surely been confirming the covenant with many, not merely for seven years, but down even to the present day-5. Lastly, according to our common English translation, which in this instance Sir Isaac Newton follows, Messiah is to be cut off at the end of the sixty two weeks; for such, as I have already observed, must (unless the phraseology of Daniel be altogether lax and indefinite) be the import of the word after: Sir Isaac places his birth at the end of the sixty two weeks, and consequently his death long after their expira tion. 2. The hypothesis of Dr. Prideaux seems to me to be much more consistent than that of Sir Isaac, though neither is it altogether unexceptionable. He observes, that the first clause of the prophecy* contains an enumeration of six particulars, for the accomplishing of which the seventy weeks are said to be determined. Hence he infers, that all these six particulars must alike mark the termination of the seventy weeks, the weeks expiring precisely when all the particulars were accomplished. But all these particulars he maintains to have been accomplished in the crucifixion of our Lord. Hence he necessarily concludes, that the seventy weeks expired when our Lord was crucified. Having thus ascertained that the seventy weeks terminated with the death of Christ, he reckons back from that era 490 years in order to arrive at their commencement. Now the crucifixion took Dan. ix. 24. place place in the Nisan of the Julian year 4746. Consequently 490 years, reckoned back from that time, bring him to the Nisan of the Julian year 4256. But that year coincides with the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus: and, in that very month of that year, Ezra received his commission to execute the king's decree in favour of the Jews. The chronology of the larger period being settled, he proceeds to inquire into the proper arrangement of the smaller periods, which he considers as subdivisions and component parts of the larger period-The seven weeks or 49 years he allots to the rebuilding of Jerusalem: but the whole of this rebuilding he understands figuratively; and supposes it to relate, not to the rebuilding of the literal Jerusalem, but to the reformation of the desolate Levitical Church and the restoration of the divinely ordained civil polity of Judah by Ezra and Nehemiah. At the end of the seven weeks he places Nehemiah's last act of reformation; by which the mystic holy city, here described (in metaphorical language familiar to the sacred writers) under the name of Jerusalem, was completed, the work of its allegorical reëdification being carried on (as we repeatedly learn from the scriptural history of it) in troublous times and amidst great opposition from enemies-To the seven weeks he adds the sixty two weeks; the sum of which, or sixty nine weeks, reaches reaches, according to the prophet, unto Messiak the Prince. These sixty nine weeks then, or 483 years, reckoned from the seventh year of Artaxerxes, in which their including period of seventy weeks commences, are made, in the scheme of Dr. Prideaux, to bring us exactly to the coming of Christ in his official capacity: for, the seventh year of Artaxerxes coinciding with the year 4256 of the Julian period, 483 years calculated from that time will carry us down to the year 4739 of the same period, which the Dean maintains to be that fifteenth year of Tiberius Cesar mentioned by St. Luke as being the year in which the ministry of the Gospel commenced by the preaching of John the Baptist our Saviour's forerunner *--The one week, during which the Messiah was to make firm a covenant with many, and the half week, in which he was to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, now remain to be accounted for. This single week Dr. Prideaux arranges immediately consecutive to the sixty nine weeks: and supposes it to commence with the first preaching of the Gospel by John the Baptist in the Julian year 4739; and to expire at the crucifixion in the Julian year 4746, synchronically (as it necessarily must do, being the last week) with the seventy weeks. It was divided exactly into Luke iii. 1. two |