Five Pebbles from the Brook

by George Bethune English

There appears to me to be a mistranslation at the root of the prophecy, which vitiates and confounds all the systems of interpretation; applied to it that I know of. I conceive that the prophecy should be translated thus.

"Seventy times seven [fn71] are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteoussness, and to seal [up] the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy things."

"Know therefore, and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore, and to build Jerusalem, unto the anointed Prince, shall be seven weeks; and [in] [fn72] threescore and two weeks the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times." [fn73]

"And after threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have no successor; and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the city, and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end desolations are determined."

"And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the [or, a] week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined be poured upon the desolate." Dan., ch. ix. 24, 27.

Whatever may be the true sigification of this prophecy, it is not, I conceive, favourable to the purpose to which Mr. Everett applies it, for the following reasons. 1. That in supposing what is commonly translated "seventy week's," to signify four hundred and ninety years, the prophecy would be falsified; for certainly the expiration of this period did not "finish transgression," nor "make an end of sins," nor "make reconciliation for iniquity," nor "bring in everlasting righteous," nor "anoint the most holy things," i.e. as I understand it, the new and eternal temple and its altar, predicted by Ezekiel in the last chapters of his prophecies. On the contrary, the Jews became more wicked than ever, and the temple then standing was destroyed to its foundations.

2. It follows from what is allowed by Mr. Everett himself, p. 159 of his work, that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem, to the birth of Jesus Christ, was not seven weeks and sixty and two weeks, i. e. sixty-nine weeks, but EIGHTY-FOUR weeks, for he says there, that the duration of the second temple was "NINETY-FOUR weeks," i. e. six hundred and fifty-nine years. Now if my memory does not deceive me, Jerusalem was taken and the temple destroyed by Titus about the year seventy after the birth of Christ, which is equal to the prophetic weeks; therefore take ten weeks from the ninety-four weeks, (the time Mr. Everett states to have elapsed from the building of the second temple, to its destruction) and there remains EIGHTY-FOUR weeks, and not SIXTY-NINE. Which circumstance, appears to me to vitiate entirely the interpretation of Mr. Everett, who supposes the annointed one," spoken of as to be cut off after the sixty-nine weeks, to be Jesus Christ.

As to who the "annointed ones" were, the first I think entirely refers to Cyrus, and the last who was to be "cut off" and have no successor, may either mean the pious and good Onias mentioned in the book of Maccabees, who was the last I think of the legitimate Jewish High Priests, [for after his time History testifies that several, who had not the right of primogeniture as descendants of Aaron, obtained the priesthood by force, by intrigue, and by bribery;] or the last Jewish High Priest, Joshua [fn74] who perished during the siege of Jerusalem, according to Josephus. At any rate the anointed one who was to be cut off, cannot mean Jesus of Nazareth; because this anointed one was to be cut off in that same week of seven years, in which the city was destroyed, whereas Jesus was crucified forty years before that event; a circumstance I insist which excludes any application of this prophecy to Jesus.

The claims set up for Jesus of Nazareth are moreover evidently rejected by Daniel's prophecy, even according to Mr. Everett's interpretation, forasmuch as he did not appear at the expiration of sixty-nine weeks, but of EIGHTY-FOUR.

And to conclude this discussion, I would observe that Daniel, ch. iii, in his account of the image [seen in a vision by Nebuchadnezzar] whose head was of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly of brass, legs of iron, and feet and toes of iron and clay, is predicting the empires which have most influenced the fate of the Hebrew nation; i. e. the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman, the last represented by "the iron legs," which did indeed bestride the world; these "iron legs" are represented as terminating in feet and toes part of iron and part of clay, which have no natural coherence; i. e. the Roman empire shall be divided into several kingdoms, partly strong and partly weak: a prophecy remarkably fulfilled in the history and condition of the kingdoms of Europe. The prophet goes on to say in ch. ii, that in the latter days of those kings or kingdoms, [which are yet subsisting] "the God of Heaven, would set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed," that of the Messiah. Of course the kingdom of the Messiah was not to be—not only not till after the destruction of the Roman empire—but not till the latter days of the kingdoms which grew up out of the ruins; whereas Jesus Christ was born in the time of Augustus, i. e. when the Roman empire itself was in the height of its splendour and vigour. Mr. Everett in p. 201, endeavours to escape the strong gripe of the prophet Daniel, by maintaining that these strong and weak parts, into which the Roman empire was to be divided, meant that it should be divided into "strong and weak institutions." Now to turn this sensible interpretation head over heels, [fn75] it appears to me to be only necessary to observe, that these strong and weak parts into which the Roman empire was to be divided, were, according to the prophet, ch. ii. 4.3. of Daniel, to "mingle themselves with the seed of men," i. e. make intermarriages; which, it appears to me to be a thing that "strong and weak institutions" cannot do. This, however has remarkably, been the case among the royal families of Europe, who intermarry too with the avowed design of cementing union and promoting peace and harmony. Nevertheless, agreeable to the prophet's prediction, they have not "cleaved together, but on the contrary have been almost constantly at war with each other.