The _precise_ meaning attached in the writer's mind to the events which are to mark the close of the four hundred and ninety years--namely, (α) the ending of transgression; (β) the sealing up of sins; (γ) the atonement for iniquity; (δ) the bringing in of everlasting righteousness; and (ε) the sealing up of the vision and prophet (or prophecy[609])--cannot be further defined by us. It belongs to the Messianic hope.[610] It is the prophecy of a time which may have had some dim and partial analogies at the end of Jeremiah's seventy years, but which the writer thought would be more richly and finally fulfilled at the close of the Antiochian persecution. At the actual time of his writing that era of restitution had not yet begun.
But (ζ) another event, which would mark the close of the seventy year-weeks, was to be "the anointing of a Most Holy."
What does this mean?
Theodotion and the ancient translators render it "_a_ Holy of Holies." But throughout the whole Old Testament "Holy of Holies" _is never once used of a person_, though it occurs forty-four times.[611] Keil and his school point to 1 Chron. xxiii. 13 as an exception; but "_Nil agit exemptum quod litem lite resolvit._"
In that verse some propose the rendering, "to sanctify, as most holy, Aaron and his sons for ever"; but both the A.V. and the R.V. render it, "Aaron was separated that he should sanctify _the most holy things_, he and his sons for ever." If there be a doubt as to the rendering, it is perverse to adopt the one which makes the usage differ from that of every other passage in Holy Writ.
Now the phrase "most holy" is most frequently applied to the great altar of sacrifice.[612] It is therefore natural to explain the present passage as a reference to the reanointing of the altar of sacrifice, primarily in the days of Zerubbabel, and secondarily by Judas Maccabæus after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes.[613]
2. But in the more detailed explanation which follows, the seventy year-weeks are divided into 7 + 62 + 1.
(a) At the end of the first seven week-years (after forty-nine years) Jerusalem should be restored, and there should be "an Anointed, a Prince."[614]
Some ancient Jewish commentators, followed by many eminent and learned moderns,[615] understand this Anointed One (_Mashiach_) and Prince (_Nagîd_) to be Cyrus; and that there can be no objection to conferring on him the exalted title of "Messiah" is amply proved by the fact that Isaiah himself bestows it upon him (Isa. xlv. 1).
Others, however, both ancient (like Eusebius) and modern (like Grätz), prefer to explain the term of the anointed Jewish high priest, Joshua, the son of Jozadak. For the term "Anointed" is given to the high priest in Lev. iv. 3, vi. 20; and Joshua's position among the exiles might well entitle him, as much as Zerubbabel himself, to the title of _Nagîd_ or Prince.[616]
(β) After this restoration of Temple and priest, sixty-two weeks (_i.e._, four hundred and thirty-four years) are to elapse, during which Jerusalem is indeed to exist "with street and trench"--but in the straitness of the times.[617]
This, too, is clear and easy of comprehension. It exactly corresponds with the depressed condition of Jewish life during the Persian and early Grecian epochs, from the restoration of the Temple, B.C. 538, to B.C. 171, when the false high priest Menelaus robbed the Temple of its best treasures. This is indeed, so far as accurate chronology is concerned, an unverifiable period, for it only gives us three hundred and sixty-seven years instead of four hundred and thirty-four:--but of that I will speak later on. The punctuation of the original is disputed. Theodotion, the Vulgate, and our A.V. punctuate in ver. 25, "From the going forth of the commandment" ("decree" or "word") "that Jerusalem should be restored and rebuilt, unto an Anointed, a Prince, are seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks." Accepting this view, Von Lengerke and Hitzig make the seven weeks run _parallel_ with the first seven in the sixty-two. This indeed makes the chronology a little more accurate, but introduces an unexplained and a fantastic element. Consequently most modern scholars, including even such writers as Keil, and our Revisers follow the Masoretic punctuation, and put the stop after the seven weeks, separating them entirely from the following sixty-two.