|
|
The Coming Prince
CHAPTER VII: THE MYSTIC ERA OF THE WEEKS
THE conclusions arrived at in the preceding chapter suggest
a striking parallel between Daniel's earlier visions and the prophecy
of the seventy weeks. History contains no record of events to satisfy
the predicted course of the seventieth week. The Apocalypse was not even
written when that period ought chronologically to have closed, and though
eighteen centuries have since elapsed, the restoration of the Jews seems
still but a chimera of sanguine fanatics. And be it remembered that the
purpose of the prophecy was not to amuse or interest the curious. Of necessity
some mysticism must characterize prophetic utterances, otherwise they
might be "fulfilled to order" by designing men; but once the prophecy
comes side by side with the events of which it speaks, it fails of one
of its chief purposes if its relation to them be doubtful. If any one
will learn the connection between prophecy and its fulfillment, let him
read the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, and compare it with the story
of the Passion: so vague and figurative that no one could have acted out
the drama it foretold; but yet so definite and clear that, once fulfilled,
the simplest child can recognize its scope and meaning. If then the event
which constitutes the epoch of the seventieth week must be as pronounced
and certain as Nehemiah's commission and Messiah's death, it is of necessity
still future.
And this is precisely what the study of the seventh chapter of Daniel
will have led us to expect. All Christian interpreters are agreed that
between the rise of the fourth beast and the growth of the ten horns there
is a gap or parenthesis in the vision; and, as already shown, that gap
includes the entire period between the time of Christ and the division
of the Roman earth into the ten kingdoms out of which the great persecutor
of the future is to arise. This period, moreover, is admittedly unnoticed
also in the other visions of the book. There is therefore a strong a
priori probability that it would be overlooked in the vision of the
ninth chapter.
More than this, there is not only the same reason for this mystic foreshortening
in the vision of the seventy weeks, as in the other visions,[1] but that
reason applies here with special force. The seventy weeks were meted out
as the period during which Judah's blessings were deferred. In common
with all prophecy, the meaning of this prophecy will be unmistakable when
its ultimate fulfillment takes place, but it was necessarily conveyed
in a mystical form in order to shut up the Jews to the responsibility
of accepting their Messiah. St. Peter's inspired proclamation to the nation
at Jerusalem, recorded in the third chapter of Acts, was in accordance
with this. The Jews looked merely for a return of their national supremacy,
but God's first purpose was redemption through the death of the great
Sin-bearer. Now, the sacrifice had been accomplished, and St. Peter pointed
to Calvary as the fulfillment of that "which God before had showed by
the mouth of all His prophets"; and he added this testimony, "Repent
ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that
so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord;
and that He may send the Christ, who hath been appointed for you, even
Jesus." (Acts 3:19, 20, R.V.) The realization of these blessings
would have been the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, and the seventieth
week might have run its course without a break. But Judah proved impenitent
and obdurate, and the promised blessings were once again postponed till
the close of this strange era of the Gentile dispensation.
1. See pp. 44-47, ante.
But it may be asked, Was not the Cross of Christ the fulfillment
of these blessings? A careful study of the Angel's words (Daniel 9:24) will
show that not so much as one of them has been thus accomplished. The sixty-ninth
week was to end with Messiah's death; the close of the seventieth week was
to bring to Judah the full enjoyment of the blessings resulting from that
death. Judah's transgression has yet to be restrained, and his sins to be
sealed up. The day is yet future when a fountain shall be opened for the
iniquity of Daniel's people, (Zechariah 13:1) and righteousness shall be
ushered in for them. In what sense were vision and prophet sealed up at
the death of Christ, considering that the greatest of all visions was yet
to be given, (The Revelation.) and the days were still to come when the
words of the prophets were to be fulfilled? (Luke 21:22) And whatever meaning
is to be put upon "anointing the most holy," it is clear that Calvary was
not the accomplishment of it.[2]
2. All these words point to practical benefits to be
conferred in a practical way upon the people, at the second advent of
Christ. Isaiah 1:26 is a commentary on "bringing in righteousness."
To take it as synonymous with declaring God's righteousness (Romans
3:25) is doctrinally a blunder and an anachronism. To any whose views
of "reconciliation" are not based on the use of the word in Scripture,
"making reconciliation for iniquity" will seem an exception. The Hebrew
verb caphar (to make atonement or reconciliation) means literally
"to cover over" sin (see its use in Genesis 6:14), to do away
with a charge against a person by means of bloodshedding, or otherwise
(ex. gr. by intercession, Exodus 32:30), so as to secure his
reception into Divine favor. The following is a list of the passages
where the word is used in the first three books of the Bible: Genesis
6:14 (pitch); 32:20 (appease); Exodus 29:33, 36, 37; 30:10,
15, 16; 32:30; Leviticus 1:4; 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13, 16, 18;
6:7, 30; 7:7; 8:15, 34; 9:7; 10:17; 12:7, 8;14:18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 31,
53; 15:15, 30; 16:6, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 27, 32, 33, 34; 17:11;
19:22; 23:28. It will be seen that caphar is never used of the
expiation or bloodshedding considered objectively, but of the results
accruing from it to the sinner, sometimes immediately on the victim's
death, sometimes conditional upon the action of the priest who was charged
with the function of applying the blood. The sacrifice was not the atonement,
but the means by which atonement was made. Therefore "the preposition
which marks substitution is never used in connection with the word caphar"
(Girdlestone's Synonyms O. T., p. 214.) Making reconciliation,
or atonement, therefore, according to the Scriptural use of the word,
implies the removal of the practical estrangement between the sinner
and God, the obtaining forgiveness for the sin; and the words in Daniel
9:24 point to the time when this benefit will be secured to Judah. "In
that day there shall be a fountain opened to the inhabitants
of Jerusalem for sin and uncleanness" ( Zechariah 13:1); that is, the
blessings of Calvary will be theirs; reconciliation will be accomplished
for the people. In keeping with this, transgression will be restrained
(see use of the word in Genesis 8:2; Exodus 36:6); i. e., they
will cease to transgress; sins will be sealed up, — the ordinary
word for securing a letter (1 Kings 21:8), or a purse or bag of treasure
( Job 14:17); i. e., sins will be done with and put away in a
practical sense; and vision and prophet will likewise be sealed up,
i. e., their functions will be at an end, for all will have been
fulfilled.
But is it consistent with fair argument or common-sense to
urge that an era thus chronologically defined should be indefinitely interrupted
in its course? The ready answer might be given, that if common-sense and
fairness — if human judgment, is to decide the question, the only
doubt must be whether the final period of the cycle, and the blessings promised
at its close, be not for ever abrogated and lost by reason of the appalling
guilt of that people who "killed the Prince of life." (Acts 3:15) There
exists surely no presumption against supposing that the stream of prophetic
time is tided back during all this interval of the apostasy of Judah. The
question remains, whether any precedent for this can be discovered in the
mystical chronology of Israel's history.
According to the book of Kings, Solomon began to build the temple in the
480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt.
(1 Kings 6:1) This statement, than which none could, seemingly, be more
exact, has sorely puzzled chronologers. By some it has been condemned as
a forgery, by others it has been dismissed as a blunder; but all have agreed
in rejecting it. Moreover, Scripture itself appears to clash with it. In
his sermon at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:18-21) St. Paul epitomizes thus
the chronology of this period of the history of his nation: forty years
in the wilderness; 450 years under the judges, and forty years of the reign
of Saul; making a total of 530 years. To which must be added the forty years
of David's reign and the first three years of Solomon's; making 573 years
for the very period which is described in Kings as 480 years. Can these
conclusions, apparently so inconsistent, be reconciled?[3]
3. According to Browne (Ordo Saec., §§. 254
and 268) the Exodus was on Friday the 10th April, B. C. 1586; the passage
of Jordan was the 14th April, B. C. 1546; the accession of Solomon was
B. C. 1016, and the foundation of the Temple was the 20th April, B.
C. 1013. He therefore accepts St. Paul's statements unreservedly. Clinton
conjectures that there was an interval of about twenty-seven years before
the time of the Judges, and another of twelve years before the election
of Saul, thus fixing on B. C. 1625 as the date of the Exode, extending
the whole period to 612 years. Josephus reckons it 621 years, and this
is adopted by Hales, who calls the statement in Kings "a forgery." Other
chronologers assign periods varying from the 741 years of Julius Africanus
to the 480 years of Usher, whose date for the Exode — B. C. 1491
— has been adopted in our Bible, though clearly wrong by ninety-three
years at least. The subject is fully discussed by Clinton in Fasli
Hell., vol. 1., pp. 312-313, and by Browne, reviewing Clinton's
arguments, in Ordo Scec., §. 6, etc. Browne's conclusions
have much to commend them. But if others are right in inserting conjectural
periods, my argument remains the same, for any such periods, if they
existed, were obviously excluded from the 480 years on the same principle
as were the eras of the servitudes. (This subject is discussed further
in App. 1.)
If we follow the history of Israel as detailed in the book
of Judges, we shall find that for five several periods their national existence
as Jehovah's people was in abeyance. In punishment for their idolatry, God
gave them up again and again, and "sold them into the hands of their enemies."
They became slaves to the king of Mesopotamia for eight years, to the king
of Moab for eighteen years, to the king of Canaan for twenty years, to the
Midianites for seven years, and finally to the Philistines for forty years.[4]
But the sum of 8 +18+ 20+ 7+ 40 years is 93 years, and if 93 years be deducted
from 573 years, the result is 480 years. It is obvious, therefore, that
the 480 years of the book of Kings from the Exodus to the temple is a mystic
era formed by eliminating every period during which the people were cast
off by God.[5] If, then, this principle were intelligible to the Jew in
regard to history, it was both natural and legitimate to introduce it in
respect of an essentially mystic era like that of the seventy weeks.
4. Judges 3:8, 14; 4:2, 3; 6:1; 13:1. The servitude
of Judges 10:7, 9 affected only the tribes beyond Jordan, and did not
suspend Israel's national position.
5. The Israelites were nationally God's people as no other nation ever
can be; therefore they were dealt with in some respects on principles
similar to those which obtain in the case of individuals. A life without
God is death. Righteousness must keep a strict account and sternly judge;
or grace may pardon. And if God forgives, He likewise forgets the sin
(Hebrews 10:17); which doubtless means that the record is wiped out,
and the period it covers is treated as though it were a blank. The days
of our servitude to evil are ignored in the Divine chronology.
But this conclusion does not depend upon argument however
sound, or inference however just. It is indisputably proved by the testimony
of Christ Himself. "What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end
of the world?" the disciples inquired as they gathered round the Lord on
one of the last days of His ministry on earth. (Matthew 24:3) In reply he
spoke of the tribulation foretold by Daniel,[6] and warned them that the
signal of that fearful persecution was to be the precise event which marks
the middle of the seventieth week, namely, the defilement of the holy place
by the "abomination of desolation," — some image of himself probably,
which the false prince will set up in the temple in violation of his treaty
obligations to respect and defend the religion of the Jews[7] That this
prophecy was not fulfilled by Titus is as certain as history can make it;[8]
but Scripture itself leaves no doubt whatever on the point.
6. thlipsis, Matthew 24:21;
Daniel 12:1 (LXX)
7. kai epi to hieronn bdelugma ton eramoseon,
Daniel 9:27; to bdelugma eramoseos,
Daniel 12:11 (LXX.); hotan oun idate to
bdelugma tas eramoseos to rhathen dia Danial tou prophatou, estos en
topo hagio, Matthew 24:15. Comp.
1 Maccabees 1:54, okodomasan bdelugma eramoseos
epi to phusiastapion. This passage
in Matthew affords an unanswerable proof that all systems of interpretation
which make the seventy weeks end with the coming or death of Christ,
and therefore before the destruction of Jerusalem by Tiffits,
are wholly wrong. And that that event was not in fact the terminus of
the era is plain from Matthew 24:21-29, and Daniel 9:24.
8. Making all allowance for the contemptible time-serving of Josephus
and his admiration for Titus, his testimony on this point is too full
and explicit to admit of doubt (Wars, 6., 2, §. 4).
It appears from the passages already quoted, that the predicted
tribulation is to last three and a half years, and to date from the violation
of the treaty in the middle of the seventieth week. What is to follow is
thus described by the Lord Himself in words of peculiar solemnity: "Immediately
after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon
shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the
powers of the heaven shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of
the Son of man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,
and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power
and great glory." (Matthew 24:29) That it is to the closing scenes of the
dispensation this prophecy relates is here assumed.[9] And as these scenes
are to follow immediately after a persecution, of which the era is
within the seventieth week, the inference is incontestable that the events
of that week belong to a time still future.[10]
9. I am aware of systems of interpretation which flitter
away the meaning of all such scriptures, but it is idle to attempt to
refute them in detail. (See chap 11 post, and App. Note
C.)
10. Such was the belief of the early Church; but the question has been
argued at length out of deference to modern writers who have advocated
a different interpretation of Daniel 9:27. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr,
who wrote at the beginning of the third century, is most definite on
the point. Quoting the verse, he says: "By one week he meant the last
week, which is to be at the end of the whole world; of which
week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half; for they
will preach 1, 260 days, clothed in sackcloth" (Hip. on Christ and
Antichrist). According to Browne (Ordo Saec. p. 386, note),
this was also the view of the father of Christian chronologers, Julius
Africanus. That half of the last week has been fulfilled, but the remaining
three and a half years are still future, is maintained by Canon Browne
himself (§ 339), who notices, what so many modern writers have missed,
that the events belonging to this period are connected with the times
of Antichrist.
We may conclude, then, that when wicked hands set up the
cross on Calvary, and God pronounced the dread "Lo-ammi" (Romans
9:25, 26; cf. Hosea 1:9, 10) upon His people, the course of the prophetic
era ceased to run. Nor will it flow on again till the autonomy of Judah
is restored; and, with obvious propriety, that is held to date from the
moment their readmission into the family of nations is recognized by treaty.[11]
It will, therefore, be here assumed that the former portion of the prophetic
era has run its course, but that the events of the last seven years have
still to be accomplished. The last point, therefore, necessary to complete
the chain of proof is to ascertain the date of "Messiah the Prince."
11. i. e., the covenant mentioned in Daniel
9:27.
| | |
