Assuming then, that this is the correct date, we turn again to the prophecy and we find, as previously noticed, that the sixty-nine weeks terminate with Messiah the Prince. The Hebrew word “Nageed” properly means a “leader,” a “prince.” It is also used absolutely to denote a prince of a people—anyone of royal dignity. And the word is applied to the Messiah beyond all question in Isa. 55:4, “Behold I have given him for a witness to the peoples, a ruler and commander to the peoples.” Thus there seems to be no excuse for applying the prophecy to some other prince—Cyrus for instance—as is sometimes done. If, then, the Lord Jesus is referred to in the words “unto Messiah the prince,” to what period of His earthly sojourn does the word “unto” apply? Now there seems to be no occasion in the Lord's ministry when He was owned and saluted by the people, as their King, except at the time of His last entry into Jerusalem (John 12:12-15). He was born “King of the Jews,” but was only publicly owned as such at the time above mentioned. For the word declares “He came to His own (world) and His own (people) received Him not.” Thus then it seems we may safely conclude that the word “unto” refers to a period six days before the Lord's death, when the King being owned, the sixty-nine weeks ended. Hence follow the words “After the threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off and have nothing,” signifying that He should have nothing of all that belonged to him as King. This has no reference to the effect of His work on the cross, but to His rights and possessions as David's Heir. At that time an usurper occupied the throne of David, and, moreover, murdered the true Heir.
The next step then, is to seek to ascertain the exact date of the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. Now, most chronologists are agreed that His birth took place at least four years earlier than our common era, A.D., and that His death occurred in the month Nisan, A.D. 29. This, indeed, is contrary to the prevailing custom of dating the crucifixion A.D. 33, but it is the conclusion arrived at by Clinton, Lardner, Adam Clarke, and Canon H. Browne in his “Ordo Sæclorum” —all men of learning and ability.
Further evidence as to this may be gathered from early writers. Tertullian, in the second century, says— “In the fifteenth year of his reign [Tiberius], Christ suffered,... whose sufferings were completed within the time of the seventy hebdomads, under Tiberius Caesar, Rubellius Geminus and Rufus Geminus being consuls, in the month of March at the time of the Passover” (Adv. Judaeos, c. viii.) Lactantius, at the beginning of the fourth century, writes: “Who [Herod] was under the empire of Tiberius Caesar; in the fifteenth year of whose reign, that is, during the consulship of the two Gemini;.. the Jews affixed Christ to the cross” (Instit. iv. 10). Augustine also, writing in the fourth century, says— “Christ died in the consulship of the Gemini” (De. Civ. Dei. 18. 54).
Thus may be seen that the Fathers (so called) seem agreed respecting the names of the consuls at the time of the crucifixion. In fact, so nearly unanimous were they in this, that one writer remarks— “Nowhere in the first five centuries do we find any other consular date of the death of Christ than the year of the two Gemini, except in the Greek writer, Epiphanius.” Now, with such strong evidence before us it seems we may safely conclude that our Lord suffered in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign (A.D. 29), when two persons bearing the same surname—the two Gemini—were consuls of Rome. This latter circumstance is said to be unprecedented in the annals of that city. It gives, therefore, additional proof to the accuracy of the above date.
Assuming then, that this date is the correct one, we have, reckoning from the month Nisan, B.C. 455, to the same month, A.D. 29, (deducting one year for adjusting the eras) exactly 483 years, the very time required by the 69 weeks of the prophecy.
Perhaps, however, you, like others, may object that the date here given for the twentieth year of the Persian monarch's reign does not agree with that placed in the margin of our Bibles. True, but these dates have rather a curious history. About two hundred years ago, “Bishop Lloyd undertook to affix the dates of Archbishop Usslier's scheme of chronology to our English Bibles; but in this instance he made a considerable alteration, and substituted another date of his own, so as to adapt the reign of Artaxerxes to his own theory.” Had he followed Ussher there would have been no difficulty, for he gives 454 B.C. as the date in question. Dates differing from the above are given by other chronologists, but it is not a little remarkable that the difference in any case is not more than ten years.
Such being the case, the question arises—How comes it, that there is such approximate agreement between this prophecy and profane history? Supposing, for instance, the Book of Daniel were written circa B.C. 100, would that account for it? Is a person more competent to tell what will happen fifty years hence than five hundred? Scarcely. The impugners of the book saw this, hundreds of years ago, and in order to evade its force, declared the writer must have lived after the occurrence of the events he described so accurately. And the higher critics have followed in their wake. For is it not significant that they have produced nothing new?
But this subterfuge will not meet all the requirements of the case. The cutting off of the Messiah, for instance, is the central event of this prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27), but I have not yet met anyone bold enough to affirm that the book was written after the Lord's death. If then it were in existence before He assumed human form, how comes it that His death, and even the very nature of it, is so minutely described? The Hebrew word translated, “cut, off,” when applied to death, is said never to mean a natural, but always a violent, death, either by the hand of God or by man—a death for guilt (cf. Num. 15:30 et passim). Does not this show that the writer had a full and correct knowledge of the subject about which he was writing. By what means, then, did he obtain this intimate acquaintance with the future? Surely it must be clear to any simple mind that a man does not, and cannot, know intuitively what preceded his existence here on earth, or what will follow the moment actually present. It is only by a divine communication the future can be known.
It follows, therefore, that the Spirit of God was as much needed to dictate the prophecy a hundred years, as five hundred, before-hand. God alone can see the end from the beginning; and He only can describe future events and the exact time when they will happen. Further, since “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” it is evident He is in nowise restricted by length of time. The future, as well as the past, lies open before Him, and He is fully cognizant of all the intended developments of His sovereign will.
Now in conclusion. You will have seen, I trust, (a) that this “chronological prophecy” is not wrong after all, in its computation of time, as the critics would have us believe; (b) that, even, by lessening the age of the prophecy four hundred years, all the predictions are not thereby accounted for, the most important one being left out, and thus the argument based upon the supposition that the book of Daniel was written after the events, is not sound. It is clear, therefore, that when taken on their own ground these learned men are not infallible. What a comfort to know this, and to rest assured that we can still cling to the “old-fashioned notion” that the Spirit of God was needed to unfold the future, and that it was He who dictated the whole Bible (2 Tim. 3:15)! And may our hearts and actions be molded and guided by it till the Lord comes! W.T.H.
(Concluded).