Commentary on Daniel, Chapter 9 · Doctrines 1 · Question 47 – Question 48
47. Quest. That Daniels 70. weekes were determined neither before Christs passion… nor at the destruction of the citie.
1. Euseb. lib. 8. de demonstr. Euangel. in his first account beginneth the 70. weekes in the first of Cyrus, and endeth 69. of them about Hyrcanus time, when Pompey the great tooke Ierusalem, and defiled the Temple.
2. In an other account he beginneth the 69. weekes in the 6. of Darius, when the Temple was reedified, and maketh them to ende at Herod: the last weeke he beginneth at Christs haptisme, 60. yeares after, and endeth it 3. yeares and an halfe after his passion. Both these accounts of Eusebius O…cal…mpadius indifferently followeth.
But neither of these r…ckonings can stand. 1. because Daniel saith, that after 7. weekes, and 62. weekes the Messiah shall be slaine, that is, in the 70. weeke next after: but in the first account the Messiah was slaine aboue 90. yeares, in the second aboue 60. after the expiring of the 69. weekes. 2. the 70. and last weeke must immediatly follow the other, because they are made one whole number of 70. weekes, vers. 24. though afterward they be diuided.
3. Some ende these 70. weekes at the natiuitie of Christ: as Origen, beginning them in Darius, raigne: others beginne at the instautation of the Temple vnderunder Darius, and end the 69. weekes at the birth of Christ, counting vntill then 483. yeares: Tertullian. But both these opinion… are contrarie to the text, which ende these 69. weekes at the passion and death of Christ, not at his birth, after 62. weekes the Messiah shall be slaine: beside, as the first account commeth short aboue 30. yeares of the 490. so the other ouerreacheth aboue 60. yeares, as shall be showed in the particular account.
4. Some ende these weekes at the baptisme of Christ, Melancth. but the text will not heare it▪ for before these weekes are expired; or togither with the expiration of them shall the Messiah be slaine.
5. As these ende Daniels weekes somewhat too soone: so some extend them somewhat too farre, as to the destruction of Ierusalem by Titus and Vespasian: wherein not withstanding they do much differ. Tertullian, beginneth the account at Darius the Mede, and endeth at the subuersion of Ierusalem: so also Clem. Alex. beginning at Cyrus: Chrysostome there ending beginneth at the 20. yeare of Darius Longimanus: Some beginne form the 2. yeare of Darius Nothus, and ende at the destruction of the citie by the Romanes, Iun. Bulling. Polan. M. Lively. But the first beginning right, ouershoote the 70. weekes almost 40. yeares, from the passion of Christ to the taking of the citie by the Romanes: The other neither beginne right,Whether Daniel, weeks must ende the, destruction of Ie…lem seeing it is prooued before, that the beginning of the weeks must be from the first going forth of the word vnderunder Cyrus, qu. 43. neither doe they ende well: for immediatly after the 69. weekes, the Messiah must be slaine in the last weeke, then can it not be extended 40. yeares after Christs death to the destruction of the citie: these words, after 69. weekes the Messiah shall be slaine, are otherwise expounded by Iunius and Polanus, which shall be further examimed, when we come vntounto the handling of that verse.
Now the reasons that these weekes must be extended to the finall destruction of Ierusalem, are these.
1. The Angel saith, Seuentie weekes are determined ouer the people, and ouer the holy citie: that is, within which time there shall be a destruction of both. Iun. an…otat.
2. Our blessed Sauiour doth apply this prophesie of Daniel vntounto the desolation and destruction of Ierusalem, Matth. 24. 15. Polan.
3. Daniel first maketh mention of the destruction of the citie and Sanctuarie, and then speaketh of the confirming of the couenant in one weeke, and of the ceasing of the sacrifices in the middes of the weeke: which if it be vnderstood of Christs death, it were a preposterous order, that after the destruction of the citie, which happened 40. yeares after, he should returne to speake of the Messiahs death. M. Lively Persian Monarch. p. 225.
4. To what purpose should mention be made here of the destruction of Ierusalem, if it be not within the compasse of these weekes.
Ans. 1. The Angel expoundeth himselfe afterward, how these words are to be vnderstood, vponupon thy people, that is, to finish their sinnes, and to seale vp their iniquities, by the annointing of the Messiah: this was the speciall intendment and scope of these weekes, yet so, as if they reiected this gratious offer, then destruction should come vponupon them: see more of the meaning of these words, qu. 19. before.
2. Our blessed Sauiour speaketh not there of Daniels propheticall weekes, but onelyonly of the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet: it followeth not, because it is here spoken of, that therefore necessarily it should be comprehended within the compasse of the 70. weekes.
3. There is no disorder at all in the prophesie: for Daniel hauing propounded briefly and ioyntly together, the slaying of the Messiah, and destruction of the citie, afterward commeth to handle them seuerally in the next verse, and more fully: so did the Prophet before, v. 25. for hauing spoken of the 7. weekes and 62. weekes ioyntly, he afterward returneth to the 7. weekes, after the which the streete and wall should be built, and then to the 62. weekes.
4. Lyranus well expresseth the reason, why the destruction of Ierusalem i… mentioned, though it be not within the compasse of the 70. weekes, quia factum fuit in poenam mortis Christi, ponitur immediate, &c because it happened and came as a punishment for the death of Christ, it is put immediatly after.
48. Quest. That the 70. weekes ende not after the destruction of Ierusalem.
1. Eusebius ending the 69. weekes in the first yeare of Herod, beginneth the 70. and last weeke at the baptisme of Christ, and extendeth it 70. yeares to the time of the Emperour Traian, for so long the Apostolical preaching continued, Iohn the Euangelist suruiuing till then: But here Eusebius committeth two great errours: first, in diuiding the 70. weeke so farre by the space of 60. yeares from the 69. weekes: secondly, in giuing 70. yeares to the last weeke, whereas he accounted eueryevery of the formet weekes but at 7. yeares a peece.
2. Some Hebrewes (as Hierome in his commentarie vponupon this place rehearseth their opinion) beginning the 70. weekes from Darius the Mede, doe end 62. of them in the destruction of the citie by Titus, the other 8. weekes they extend vntounto the destruction of the Iewes, and of their citie vnderunder the Emperour Adrian. Here they manifestly commit two errours: 1. they count the 7. weekes last, after the 62. weekes, which must be counted first: 2. the yeares from Darius to the Emperour Adrian, make aboue 600.
3. Some set the ende of these weekes further off, toward the ende of the world at the comming of Antichrist, who after three yeares and an halfe should be destroyed, and then the euerlasting kingdome of Christ should be set vp: So Hyppolitus, and Apollinaris: who notwithstanding make two beginnings of the weekes; Hyppolitus 50. yeares before Cyrus, and Apollinaris at the natiuitie of Christ. But these doe manifestly faile in their account: for 1. the weekes must neither beginne so sonne, nor so late, as hath beene before shewed. 2. Hyppolitus continuing 69. weekes to the birth of Christ, referreth the 70. weeke to the ende of the world, whereas it must followe the other weekes immediately. 3. from Christs birth there are alreadie past aboue a 1600. yeares: therefore Apollinaris account of the 70. weekes hath no shewe of reason at all.