2. In the first place, we may wholly lay aside the consideration of
? See for the division to which this numeral belongs, page 8316.—Ep,
334 COMPUTATION OF DANIEL’S WEEKS. _—_[EXERC. XV.
them who would date the weeks from any time whatever before the first year of the reign and first decree of Cyrus. Among these are Lyra, Brugensis, Galatinus, and he from whom he borrowed his computation, Raymundus Martini. These fix the beginning of the weeks on the fourth year of Zedekiah, as they say, when Jeremiah gave out his prophecy about the Babylonish captivity, and the re- turn from it at the end of seventy years; indeed the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and not of Zedekiah, as is apparent, Jer. xxv. 1, 11. Of the like nature is the account of Solomon Jarchi among the Jews, who dates the time limited from the destruction of the temple by the Chaldeans. But both these accounts are expressly contrary to the words of the angel, fixing the beginning of the time designed on the going forth of a decree for the building of Jerusalem. To these we may add all that would extend these weeks beyond the destruction of the city and temple by Titus, as some of the Jews would do, to comprise the prophecy of their second fatal destruction by Hadrian, which is no way concerned in it.
3. The seventy weeks mentioned, then, we must seek for between the first year of Cyrus, when the first decree was made for the re- edification of the temple, and the final destruction of it by the Romans. This space we are confined unto by the text. The seventy weeks are D2vAN nisae\ 2vine 121 NYO}, —“ from the going forth of the word to cause to return and build Jerusalem,” verse 25. Now the kingdom of Cyrus had a double first year,—the one absolutely of his reign over Persia, the other of his rule over the Babylonish monarchy, which he had conquered after the death of Darius Medus. The first year it is of this second date of the kingdom of Cyrus which may have any relation unto the time here limited; for whilst he was king of Persia only, he could have nothing to do with the Jews, nor make any decree for the building of the temple, both the people and place being then under the dominion of another. Be- sides, Ezra i. 1, 2, where it is said that he made his decree in the jirst year of his reign, himself plainly declares that he had obtained the eastern monarchy, by the conquest of Babylon: “The Lorp God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth;” which words can in no sense be applied unto the kingdom of Persia, supposing the monarchy of Babylon still to continue. The whole space of time, then, here limited is seventy weeks, Dan. ix. 24. The beginning of these seventy weeks is “the going forth of the decree” (or “ word”) “to restore and to build Jerusalem,” verse 25. The first decree or command that could have any relation unto this matter was that made by Cyrus in the first year of his empire. We must, then, in the first place, find out the direct space of time between the first year of Cyrus and the destruction of the temple, and then inquire whether the whole, or what part of it, is denoted by these seventy weeks.
SECT. 3-5. } COMPUTATION OF DANIEL’S WEEKS. 335
4, Some, I confess, there are who contend that there is no consi- deration to be had of that computation of time which we find amongst the heathen writers, nor of those stated epochs by which they limited and distinguished their computations; for whereas, say they, we have certainly the term of this duration of time, its beginning and ending fixed,—namely, the first of Cyrus and the death of the Messiah, —it is positively determined that between them were seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, unto which all other accounts are to be squared and made proportionable. Indeed, the conclusion were unquestionable, if the premises were certain. If the terms be rightly fixed in the first of Cyrus and the death of the Messiah, there must be but four hundred and ninety years between them; for, whether we understand the reason of 1t or no, all foreign accounts must be suited unto what of infallible truth is stated in the Scripture.
But these things are much questioned. For whereas some do doubt whether the time limited do absolutely expire in the death of the Messiah, and be not rather to be extended unto the destruction of the city and temple, there be many more that do peremptorily deny that it is to take date from the first decree of Cyrus. And so must we also, unless it can be proved that the times mentioned are justly commensurate from thence.unto the death of the Messiah; for seeing there were other decrees, as we shall find, to the same purpose, which might be respected as well as that, there is no reason why we should offer violence unto other approved computations, to force them to submit unto the Scripture account, when we first offer violence unto that to make it serve our own opinion. I shall there- fore proceed in the way proposed, and first give a just computation of the time from the first year of the empire of Cyrus unto the destruction of the city and temple; and then inquire whether the seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, here determined, be commensurate unto the whole, or only unto some part of it; and if to some part only, then to what part of it; and how we are directed by the text to the beginning and end of the computation.