1. Chronological computation of the times determined in Daniel's weeks— Difficulty thereof acknowledged. 2. Beginning before the reign of Cyrus rejected. 3. Double beginning of the kingdom of Cyrus; that over Persia; that over the Babylonian monarchy. 4. Foreign accounts to be suited unto the Scripture. 5. Beginning of the reign of Cyrus over Persia, when; over the whole empire, when—The space of time from thence to the destruction of Jerusalem five hundred and ninety-nine years. 6. Duration of the Persian empire; of the empire of the Seleucidae, to the rule of Jonathan among the Jews. 7. Duration of the Egyptian kingdom, or reign of the Ptolemies. 8. Rule of the Asmonaeans and Herod the Great—From the birth of Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem. 9. From the first decree of Cyrus to the destruction of Jerusalem, five hundred and ninetynine years. 10. Precise end of Daniel's weeks, the death of the Messiah. 11. Thirty-seven years taken from the former account—Opinion of Reynolds; 12. Examined and rejected—Meaning of נֶחְתַּךְ, "cut off;" limited, not abbreviated—Vulgar Latin and Montague noted. 13. Opinion of the Jews rejected. 14. Account of Beroaldus, Broughton, Genebrard, Willet—The decree of Cyrus not intended in the prophecy. 15. Of the life and age of Nehemiah—He came not up with Zerubbabel. 16. Another decree than that of Cyrus must be sought. 17. The decree of Darius—What Darius that was—Hystaspes—Not the decree intended. 18, 19. This Darius not Nothus; proved against Scaliger. 20. The decrees of Artaxerxes to Ezra and Nehemiah examined. 21. Longimanus, not Memor, intended. 22. Decree unto Ezra proved to be the decree mentioned.
1. THIRDLY, THAT there is some difficulty in finding out the true and exact computation of the time here limited all chronologers and expositors do confess; neither is there any thing that belongs unto the account of the times mentioned in the Scripture that hath been debated of old or of late with more difference of opinion or diligence of endeavour. And the Holy Ghost himself by the angel seems to intimate this difficulty unto Daniel in the double caution given him about it in the preface of the revelation made unto him, chap. 9:23, בַּדָּבָר בִין, and בַּמַּרְאֶה וְהָבֵן, declaring that not ordinary wisdom, diligence, consideration, and understanding, are to be used in the investigation of the time here determined; nor is it necessary to suppose that Daniel himself exactly understood the beginning and ending of the time or weeks mentioned. The hiding of the precise time intended was also greatly subservient unto the providence of God, in the work he had to do by the Messiah, and what the people were to do unto him. The general notation of it sufficed for the direction of the godly and the conviction of unbelievers; as it doth unto this day. And it may be we shall not find any computation that will exactly answer in all particulars and fractions to a day, month, or year; and that either because of the great darkness and confusion of some of the times falling under the account, or else because perhaps it was not the mind of God that ever the time should be so precisely calculated, or that any thing which he revealed for the strengthening of the faith of his church should depend on chronological niceties. It shall suffice us, then, to propose and confirm such an account of these weeks, which, infallibly comprising the substance of the prophecy, contains nothing in it contrary to the Scripture, and is not liable unto any just and rational exception. And herein I shall not examine all the several accounts and computations that by learned men of old or of late have been given (being eleven or twelve in number), but only mention those which carry the fairest probability, and the greatness of whose authors or abettors calls for our consideration.
2. In the first place, we may wholly lay aside the consideration of 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 return from it at the end of seventy years; indeed the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and not of Zedekiah, as is apparent, Jer. 25:1, 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 reedification 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 דָבָר מִן־מֹצָא יְרוּשָׁלַםִ וְלִבְנוֹת לְהָשִׁיב,—"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. Besides, Ezra 1:1, 2, where it is said that he made his decree in the first year of his reign, himself plainly declares that he had obtained the eastern monarchy, by the conquest of Babylon: "The LORD 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. 9:24. 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.
4. Some, I confess, there are who contend that there is no consideration 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 it 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 therefore 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.
And herein I shall not scrupulously bind myself unto days, or months, or seasons of the year, in any single account, but only consider the full and round number of years, which in such computations, according to the custom of holy writ, is to be observed. And indeed, what through the silence, what through the disagreement, of ancient historians, it is utterly impossible to state exactly, as to those lesser fractions, the times that are past of old; and we seek for no more certainty in these things than the condition of them will naturally bear.
5. It is generally agreed by all historians and chronologers that Cyrus began his reign over Persia in the first year of the fifty-fifth Olympiad; probably the same year that Nabonidas or Darius Medus began his reign over Babylon. And this was the year wherein Daniel set himself solemnly to seek the Lord for the delivery of the people out of captivity, he being now come to a kingdom who was so long before prophesied of to be their deliverer, Dan. 9:1–3. In the twenty-seventh year of his reign, or the first of the sixty-second Olympiad, having conquered the Babylonian empire, he began the first year of his monarchical reign, from whence Daniel reckons his third, which was his last, chap. 10:1; and therein he proclaimed liberty unto the people of the Jews to return to Jerusalem, and to build the temple, Ezra 1:1. The city and temple were destroyed by Titus in the third year of the two hundred and eleventh Olympiad. Now, from the first year of the sixty-second Olympiad unto the third of the two hundred and eleventh Olympiad, inclusive, are five hundred and ninetynine years; and within that space of time are we to inquire after and find the four hundred and ninety years here prophesied of and foretold.
6. Of this space of time, the Persian empire, from the twenty-seventh of Cyrus, or first of the whole monarchy, and the first of the sixty-second Olympiad, continued two hundred and two years, as is generally acknowledged by all ancient historians, ending on and including in it the second year of the one hundred and twelfth Olympiad, which was the last of Darius Codomannus. For Cyrus reigned after this three years; Cambyses and Smerdis Magus, eight; Darius Hystaspes, thirty-four; Xerxes, with the months ensuing of Artabanus, twenty-one; Artaxerxes Longimanus, forty-one; Darius Nothus, nineteen; Artaxerxes Mnemon, forty-three; Ochus, twenty-three; Arses, three; Darius Codomannus, seven. In all, two hundred and two years.
After his death, Alexander, beginning his reign in the third year of the one hundred and twelfth Olympiad, reigned six years. From him there is a double account, by the two most famous branches of the Grecian empire. The first is by the Syrian, or era of the Seleucidae, which takes its date from the tenth year after the death of Alexander, when, after some bloody contests, Seleucus settled his kingdom in Syria, and reigned thirty years. After him reigned Antiochus Soter, twenty-one years; Antiochus Theos, fifteen; Seleucus Callinicus, twenty; Seleucus Ceraunus, two; Antiochus Magnus, thirty-seven; Seleucus Philopator, twelve; Antiochus Epiphanes, twelve; Eupator, two; Demetrius Soter, ten. In the second year of this Demetrius, which was the one hundred and fifty-third of the account of the Seleucidae, was Judas Maccabaeus slain, being the one hundred and sixty-ninth year after the death of Darius Codomannus, or end of the Persian empire, allowing six years to the reign of Alexander, and ten more to the beginning of the kingdom of the Seleucidae. Demetrius Soter, in the tenth year of his reign, was expelled out of his kingdom by Alexander Vales [Balas]; in the second year of whose reign, ten years after the death of Judas, Jonathan his brother took upon him the supreme government of the people of the Jews, and began the rule or reign of the Asmonaeans. So that the time of the Grecian empire in Syria, from the death of Darius Codomannus unto the liberty of the Jews and erection of a supreme government amongst them, was one hundred and seventynine years; which, being added unto two hundred and two years of the Persian empire, makes up three hundred and eighty-one years.
7. To the same issue comes also the account by the other branch of the Grecian empire in Egypt: for Alexander reigned, as we said, after the death of Darius, six years; Ptolemaeus Lagus, thirty-nine; Philadelphus, thirty-eight; Euergetes, twenty-four; Philopator, nineteen; Epiphanes, twenty-three; Philometor, thirty, in which thirtieth year began the rule of the Asmonaeans.
8. The rule of the Asmonaeans, with the reign of Herod the Great, who obtained the kingdom by means of their divisions, continued until the birth of Christ, one hundred and forty-eight years: for Jonathan began his rule in the second year of the one hundred and fifty-seventh Olympiad, as may be seen by adding the Seleucian era to the one hundred and fourteenth Olympiad, wherein Alexander died; and our Lord Christ was born in the second year of the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad, in the last year, or the last save one, of Herod the Great. This sum of one hundred and forty-eight years being added to the fore-mentioned, from the beginning of the empire of Cyrus, which is three hundred and eightyone years, makes up in all five hundred and twenty-nine years. From the birth of our Lord Christ, in the second year of the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad, to the destruction of the city and temple, in the third year of the two hundred and eleventh Olympiad, are seventy years; which make up the whole sum before mentioned of five hundred and ninety-nine years, from the first of the empire of Cyrus unto the destruction of Jerusalem. Petavius and our Montague reckon from the first of Cyrus unto the eighteenth of Tiberius, wherein our Lord Christ suffered, five hundred and ninety-four years, which differs very little from the account we have insisted on; for take from them twenty-seven years of the reign of Cyrus before the first of his empire, and add unto them thirty-seven for the continuance of the city and temple after the death of Christ, and the sum remaining will exceed our account only four years, or five at the most. But the computation we have fixed on being every way consistent with itself and the stated eras of the nations, and abridging the time to the shortest size that will endure the trial, we shall abide by it. Now, the number of five hundred and ninety-nine years exceeds the time limited in this prophecy, of four hundred and ninety, the whole space of one hundred and nine years.
9. Hence it evidently appears that the seventy weeks of Gabriel, or the four hundred and ninety years, are not commensurate to the whole space of time between the first decree of Cyrus, in the first year of his general empire, and the final desolation of city and temple by Titus. One hundred and nine years must be taken from it, either at the beginning or at the ending, or partly at the one, partly at the other.
10. We shall first consider the end of them, which, being clear in the prophecy, will regulate, fix, and state the beginning. Two things in general are insisted on in this prophecy:—first, The coming of Messiah the Prince, his anointing unto the work which he had to do, and his cutting off, as we before declared; secondly, The ceasing of the daily sacrifice, with the destruction of the city and temple by war and a flood of desolations. Now, these things happened not at the same time, for the city and sanctuary were destroyed thirty-seven years after the cutting off or death of the Messiah. We are to inquire, therefore, which of these it was that the time mentioned was determined for and was to expire withal. Now, it is the coming, anointing, and cutting off of the Messiah that is the thing chiefly intended in this prophecy. This we have proved undeniably before, manifesting that the vision was granted unto Daniel, and given out by him, for the consolation of himself and the church, as was the way of the Holy Ghost in all his dealings with the fathers of old. Hereunto the desolation and destruction of the city and temple was only a consequent, a thing that should follow and ensue on what was principally foretold and promised. And, [First,] It is doubtless unreasonable to extend the duration of the time beyond the principal subject-matter treated of, and on the account whereof alone the computation is granted, unto that which is only occasionally mentioned as the consequent of the accomplishment of the prophecy itself. Besides, [Secondly,] The computation itself is pointed directly by the angel unto the Messiah and his cutting off: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people. Know therefore that from the going forth of the commandment unto Messiah the Prince shall be," etc. "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off." But there is no guidance or direction of the time limited unto the desolation of the city and sanctuary, which is only said to ensue thereon. Thirdly, It is expressly said that the time limited extends itself only unto the death of the Messiah, or a very few years further; for he was to come after seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, which are the whole time limited within one week, or seven, of years. Now, his coming here intended is not his incarnation, but the time of his unction in his baptism, which fell out at the end of sixty-nine weeks. After these sixtynine weeks, or seven and sixty-two, he is to be cut off,—that is, in the middle or towards the end of the last week,—when he had confirmed the covenant by preaching three years and a half of that seven years which remained. And if we shall say that his unction being to be after the seven weeks and sixty-two, we must grant it to be in the first or second year of the last week, whereunto add the three years and a half of his preaching, the remnant fraction of one year or two can no way disturb the account, there being nothing more frequent than the casting in of such parcels of time to complete and fill up an entire and round number. Here, then, must we fix the end of the four hundred and ninety years, in the death of the Messiah; and so wholly lay aside the account of them who would extend the time determined unto the desolation of the city and temple.
11. We must, therefore, in the first place, abate from the whole account of five hundred and ninety-nine years, before stated, the sum of thirty-seven years, which ensued after the death of our Saviour until the destruction of Jerusalem; and the remnant is five hundred and sixty-two years. Now, five hundred and sixty-two years exceed the number of four hundred and ninety stated in Daniel's vision by seventy-two years. It appears, then, that the beginning and ending of the seventy weeks cannot be the decree of Cyrus and the death of our Saviour, there being seventy-two years between them more than the weeks contain or can be extended unto. The end we have already fixed from the text, and therefore it doth not appear that their date and rise can be taken from the decree of Cyrus. Sundry things are offered to disentangle us from this difficulty.
The most learned Reynolds, in his prelections on the apocryphal books, allowing our account above mentioned, as to the substance of it, especially that which concerneth the Persian empire, about which alone there is any considerable difference, yet resolves at length that the number of seventy weeks, which is a round complete number, is put for an uncertain number, thereabouts, more or less, over or under, not much varying from it. And on this supposition, he dates the beginning of the weeks in the decree of Cyrus. To confirm his opinion, he giveth sundry instances of this kind of computation in the Scripture, and contends that the particular reason of limiting the whole time unto seventy weeks, was to make it answer unto the seventy years' captivity that immediately preceded it, the time to follow being declared to be just seven times as much.
12. This interpretation of the words, might it be admitted, would, I confess, solve all difficulties, and entirely preserve the sacred and profane accounts from all appearance of interfering. But there are two reasons upon the account whereof I cannot assent unto it. The first is, Because indeed there is no other instance in the Scripture to give countenance unto it, namely, wherein a number of years coming so far short of the true and exact account as this doth is yet put for the whole, especially considering this number is given out for this very purpose, that men might aright compute it, and so come to know the time of its expiration. But to name four hundred and ninety for five hundred and sixty-two seems rather to be a conjecture than a prophecy. This may be the condition, then, of some few odd years that may be cast in unto a full round number, but, of so considerable a part of the whole as seventy-two is, there is no reason to suppose it so disposed of. Secondly, The word used by the angel to express the limitation of this time, נֶחְתַּךְ, plainly proves that a precise duration of time and number of years is signified. The Vulgar Latin renders that word "abbreviatae," "shortened," or cut short; and a learned man of our own approves of that interpretation of it, in opposition unto our own translation and that of Junius. "De annis," saith he, "porro loquitur signanter propheta quod sint, non decisi" (as Junius), "non 'determinati' " (as ours), "apud Deum statuti (quod tamen verum erat), sed quod erant 'abbreviati' quemadmodum transtulit doctissimus interpres vetus," Mon. App. ad Orig. Eccl., and thereon disputes at large how the years are said to be "shortened;" and yet concludes, "Dicuntur autem abbreviatae hebdomadae, eo quod erant decisae et determinatae;" as though "shortened" or "abbreviated" were the proper sense of the word, only it might be interpreted "determined," or that the days are said to be shortened because they were determined. But the truth is, חָתַךְ doth not signify "to abbreviate" or make short, and all the reasons given to show why the times here are said to be shortened are perfectly cast away. It is in this place only used in the Scripture, and that in the singular number, joined with a noun of the plural, to intimate that every week of the whole number was limited, and determined, and cut out; as is usual in the Hebrew. Among the rabbins it is "to cut off," and from it is חתיכה, "a piece cut off;" as, בשר של חתיכה, "a piece of flesh cut off;" and חתך is "a cutting," or incision. So that the word in its precise signification is "cut out," or "cut off," that is, set apart, limited, or determined,—a portion of time "cut out," limited, and apportioned unto the end, for the accomplishment of the work foretold. Now, there is nothing more contrary unto a precise determination of time than that a certain number of years should be named to signify an uncertain, and that so exceeding distant from the exact account as four hundred and ninety years are from five hundred and sixty-two. So that here is no place for the conjecture of that most learned and renowned person.
13. The Jews take another course to solve this difficulty, as also to give some countenance unto their computation in dating the weeks from the destruction of the temple by the Chaldeans, and ending them in the desolation of the second house by the Romans; for they will allow no more kings of Persia than are mentioned in the Scripture, nor that they reigned any longer than they find mention therein of the years of their reign; as though, whether they did good or evil towards Jerusalem, it was fatal unto them, so that they must needs die immediately upon it. Thus they allow not above four or five kings of Persia at most, and thereby take in the duration of that empire from two hundred years and upwards unto fifty years at the most! But this supposition stands in open contradiction to all generally-allowed computations of time in the world; and not only so, but it excludes all consideration of things done, as notorious to mankind as that ever there was such a thing as the Persian empire. Of this nature are the transactions and wars with other nations, especially the Grecians, which fell not out in the days of any of the kings mentioned in the Scripture, especially that famous expedition of Xerxes, which the whole world looked on, and waited for its event. And yet I acknowledge that this imagination might deserve consideration, could it be pretended that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah did intentionally give us an account and history of the Persian empire, and the reign of the kings thereof, as some books do of the kings of Israel and Judah. But whereas it is evident that their design is quite otherwise, and that they only occasionally mention some of the kings of Persia, and some years of their reign, as they related unto the state and actions of the people of the Jews, it is no less madness and folly to contend from thence that there were no more kings of Persia than are mentioned in them, and that they reigned no longer than is in them expressed, than it would be to say that there were never above three or four kings of the Assyrian empire, because there are no more mentioned in the Scripture, and so many of them are spoken of. This ἀνιστορησία is beneath all consideration.
14. Others there are, men learned and pious, who, resolving to date these weeks from the first of Cyrus, and to make four hundred and ninety years the exact measure of the time from thence unto the death of the Messiah, and not being able to disprove the computation from Alexander unto that time, fall also upon the Persian empire, and cut it short above fifty years of the true account of its duration, to fit it unto the place and measure provided for it. To this end they reject the accounts of the Chaldeans, Grecians, and Romans, concerning the time of its continuance, as fabulous, and give us a new, arbitrary account of the reign of those kings whom they will allow.
This course steers Beroaldus, Broughton, Genebrard, and Willet, with sundry others. And the truth is, were the supposition once cleared, that the decree or commandment mentioned by Gabriel must needs be given out by Cyrus, there were some colour for offering of this violence unto all consent of time, with accounts of things done, though written by men prudent and sober in their own days. But this is so far from being a basis or foundation sufficient to warrant such a procedure, that take it nakedly of itself, without the burden upon it, and it is destitute of all probability. The word, decree, or commandment, mentioned unto Daniel, is that for the building of Jerusalem; that is, the restoring of it into a condition of rule and government; that is, the building of a city, and not only the setting up of houses. Consequent unto this, their building of the walls also for the defence of the people is mentioned. Of this it is said that it should fall out in a troublesome time, or a time of straits; as accordingly it did fall out, in the days of Nehemiah. In the whole there is not the least mention of building the temple, which, had it been intended, could not, I suppose, have been omitted. But in the decree of Cyrus, the principal thing mentioned and aimed at is the re-edification of the temple, the city and the walls thereof being not spoken of in it; as may be seen in the first of Ezra at large.
It seems evident, then, that the decree mentioned by Daniel for the building of the city and walls, and not the temple, and that given out by Cyrus for the building of the temple, and not the city and walls, were diverse. Besides, this decree of Cyrus, although foretold long before, and made famous because it was the entrance into the people's return and settlement, yet took effect for so short a space of time, being obstructed within less than three years, and utterly frustrated within four or five, that it is not likely to be the date of this prophecy, which seems to take place from some good settlement of the people. That alone which is pleaded with any colour for this decree of Cyrus is the prediction recorded, Isa. 44:28. It is prophesied of him, that he should "say to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." But yet neither is it here foretold that Cyrus should make any decree for the building of Jerusalem, nor that it should be done in his days; and, indeed, it was not until an hundred years after, as is evident from the story in Nehemiah. The whole intention of this prophecy is only that he should cause the people to be set at liberty from their captivity, and give them leave to return to Jerusalem; which he did accordingly, and thereupon both the building of the city and temple ensued, though not without the intervention of other decrees; of which afterwards.
15. The only argument wherewith this opinion of the duration of the Persian empire, [as] not above one hundred and fifty years at the most, maintains itself, is taken from the life and age of Nehemiah. In Ezra 2:2 he is reckoned among them that came up with Zerubbabel unto Jerusalem in the first year of Cyrus. Then he may rationally be supposed to have been at least twenty or twenty-five years of age. And it seems, from the last chapter of Nehemiah, that he lived unto the reign of Darius Codomannus: for Sanballat the Horonite assisted Alexander in his wars; and Jaddua, whom he mentions chap. 12:11, was high priest when Alexander came to Jerusalem, as appears from Josephus. Now, if the Persian empire continued for the space of two hundred years, which we have allotted unto it, then he who went to Jerusalem in the first year of Cyrus, and continued unto the reign of Codomannus, must needs live two hundred and twenty years at the least, which is not credible that any one should do in those days; and therefore the space of time must needs be shorter than is pretended by at least fifty or sixty years.
But, indeed, there is no force in this exception: for,—First, There is no necessity why we should conclude that Nehemiah wrote that genealogy, chap. 12, where mention is made of Jaddua, who was afterwards high priest, verse 11; for he ends his story in the high-priesthood of Eliashib, chap. 13:28, who was great grandfather unto Jaddua, as appears chap. 12:10, 11. Or, however, if he did, Jaddua might then be a child, and, it may be, not come unto the high-priesthood until fifty or sixty years after, after the death of Eliashib, Joiada, and Jonathan, his great grandfather, grandfather, and father. So that no evidence can be taken from hence for the continuance of his life unto the end of the Persian monarchy. And for that Sanballat mentioned by Josephus in the time of Alexander, it is not improbable but that he might name him as the head of the Samaritans, there being no name of any other after him left upon record. Secondly, There is no reason to think that the Nehemiah mentioned, Ezra 2:2, who came up with Zerubbabel, was that Nehemiah who was afterwards governor of Judah, and whose actions we have written probably the most part by himself, no more than there is to think that the Seraiah there mentioned was the Seraiah that was slain at the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The Daniel mentioned, Ezra 8:2, was not Daniel the prophet; nor Baruch, Neh. 10:6, that Baruch who was the scribe of Jeremiah; nor that Jeremiah mentioned, Neh. 12:12, Jeremiah the prophet. Besides, Ezra is said to come up with Zerubbabel, Neh. 12:1, which either must not be that Ezra the great scribe, or he must be said to come up with Zerubbabel, because he followed him on the same errand and account. It cannot be denied but that there were sundry men at the same time of the same name. As the same person had sundry names, much more might several men have the same name in successive generations. Thus, after Joshua was high priest, there was another Joshua chief of the Levites, Neh. 12:7, 8. And that about this time there were two Zerubbabels,—one of the house of Nathan, the other of the posterity of Solomon,—we shall make it appear, in the consideration of the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Thirdly, That this was not the Nehemiah that went up with Zerubbabel, the sacred story itself gives us sufficient evidence; for,—(1.) He was ignorant of the state and condition of Jerusalem when he lived in the court of Persia, chap. 1. Had he been there before and seen their condition, and but newly returned unto Shushan, he could not have been so surprised as he was, verse 4, upon the account then given him thereof. (2.) Chap. 7:5, 6, he speaks of it as a great matter that he should find a roll or register of them that came first up to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel in the days of Cyrus, amongst whom that Nehemiah was one. Now, if this had been himself, what reason had he to mention it as a great discovery, which he could not but by his own knowledge be full well acquainted withal? Unto what time soever, then, the period of his life was extended, there is no colour to surmise that he was amongst them who returned from captivity in the days of Cyrus.
16. The account, therefore, before laid down being established, it is certain enough that the decree mentioned by Gabriel, from the going forth whereof the seventy weeks are to be dated, was not that of the first of Cyrus for the return of the captivity and building of the temple; for from thence the period would issue long before the just time allotted unto it, yea, before the beginning of the reign of Herod the Great, where Eusebius would have it to expire. We must therefore inquire for some other word, decree, or commandment, from whence to date the four hundred and ninety years inquired after.
17. The second decree of the kings of Persia in reference unto the Jews was that of Darius, made in his second year, when the work of the building of the temple was carried on through the prophecy of Haggai and Zechariah. This is the decree or commandment mentioned in Ezra 6, granted by Darius, upon appeal made unto him from the neighbouring governors; and it was a mere revival of the decree of Cyrus, the roll whereof was found in Achmetha, in the province of the Medes, verse 2. And this is that which Haggai and Zechariah relate unto, dating their prophecies from the second year of Darius, Hag. 1:2, 15; Zech. 1:1. Upon the roll of the kings of Persia we find three called by the name of Darius, or Darianes, as the Jews term him:—(1.) Darius Hystaspes, who succeeded Cambyses, by the election of the princes of Persia, upon the killing of Smerdis Magus the usurper. (2.) Darius Nothus, who succeeded Artaxerxes Longimanus; (3.) Darius Codomannus, in whom the Persian empire had its period by Alexander the Great. That the last of these can be no way concerned in the decree is notorious. The two others are disputed. Most learned men grant that it was Darius Hystaspes which was the author of this decree; and indeed that it was so, at least that it can be ascribed unto no other Darius, we shall afterwards undeniably prove. And it is not unlikely that he was inclined unto this favour and moderation towards the Jews by his general design to relieve men from under the oppressions that were upon them during the reign of Cambyses, and to renew the acts of Cyrus their first emperor, who was renowned amongst them, to ingratiate himself unto mankind, and confirm himself in that kingdom whereunto he came not by succession. And it is not improbable but that this was he who was the husband of Esther; though if so, it was not until after this decree made in the second year of his reign, the putting away of Vashti happening in his third, Esth. 1:3. Now, Cyrus reigned after his first decree three years; Cambyses with Smerdis, eight; whom succeeded this Darius, who issued out this decree in the second year of his reign,—that is, at most, thirteen years after the decree of Cyrus; or if with some we should grant Cyrus to have reigned twenty years over the whole empire, it was but nineteen or twenty years at the most. Now, the whole sum of years from the first of Cyrus to the cutting off of the Messiah, we have manifested to have been five hundred and sixty-two. Deduct thirteen years from five hundred and sixty-two, and there yet remain five hundred and forty-nine years, which exceed the number of years inquired after fifty-nine years. Neither doth the addition of seven years to the reign of Cyrus make any alteration in this general account; for on that supposition, his first year must be taken seven years backwards, and the space of time from thence unto the end of the weeks will be five hundred and sixty-nine years, and the remnant from Darius, as we declared before, five hundred and forty-nine years. So that neither can this be the commandment intended, there being from the going forth of it unto the cutting off of the Messiah, not four hundred and ninety years, but, as is declared, five hundred and forty-nine. Besides, indeed, this decree of Darius was no new command, nor had any respect unto the restoration of Jerusalem, but was a mere renovation or a new acknowledgment of the decree of Cyrus about the re-edifying of the temple; and so, doubtless, was not designed as the signal epoch of the time here limited and determined.
18. The great Scaliger, who would date the weeks from this decree of Darius, knowing that the time would not suit with the reign of Darius Hystaspes, contends that it was Nothus, who succeeded Longimanus, that was the author of it, and extends the whole time or space of four hundred and ninety years to the destruction of the city and temple, that space of time, according to his computation, being elapsed from the second year of Darius.
But the truth is, as may be seen from our former account, from the second year of Darius Nothus to the destruction of the city was but four hundred and eighty years, [being] short of the whole sum. Besides, we have before proved from the text that the time determined was to expire in the death of the Messiah. And there are sundry other circumstances which plainly evince the inconsistency of this computation; for from the first of Cyrus, when the first command went forth for the building of the temple, whereupon the work of it was begun, unto the second year of Nothus, are fully an hundred and eight years. And it is not credible that the work of building the temple should so long be hindered, and then come to perfection by them who first began it; for on this supposition Zerubbabel and Joshua must live at Jerusalem after their return above an hundred years, and then take in hand again the work which they had so long deserted. And this is yet more incredible upon his own opinion, that Xerxes was the husband of Esther, about fifty years before the reign of Nothus, when it is not likely but the Jews would have attempted, and not have been denied, their liberty of going on with their work.
Neither is it consistent with the prophecy of Jeremiah that the temple should lie waste so long a space, that is, about a hundred and seventy years. Again, Haggai doth plainly declare that when the work of the temple was carrying on, in the second year of Darius, many were yet alive who had seen the first temple, chap. 2:3, as multitudes were upon the laying of its foundation in the days of Cyrus, Ezra 3:12. And this was impossible had it been in the days of Nothus, an hundred and sixty, or an hundred and seventy years after it was destroyed. And Scaliger doth plainly wrest the words of the text, when he would have them pronounced by way of supposition, "If any were then alive who saw the first house in its glory;" for Haggai doth plainly relate unto the distemper of the people upon the laying of the foundation of the house mentioned in the forenamed place of Ezra. And the words themselves will bear no other sense: הַוֶּהִ אֶת־הַבַּ תּ רָאָה אֲשֶׁר הַנִּשְׁאָר בָכֶם מִי בִּכְבוֹדוֹ;—"Who is among you that is left, that saw this house in her glory?" He speaks of them who were yet left and remaining; and spake to them to remove and take away their complaint and repinings. Moreover, that Artaxerxes in whose days Ezra and Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem was Longimanus, who reigned before Nothus, and not Memor, who succeeded him, as will afterwards appear. Now, this Artaxerxes was long after that Darius upon whose warranty the building of the temple was finished, Ezra 7:1, 11–26, which certainly could not be Nothus, who was his successor.
19. It appears, then, that Darius Nothus was not the author of the decree mentioned; as also, that the times of the weeks cannot be dated from the second year of Darius Hystaspes, who was the author of it.
20. After this there is mention made of two other commands or decrees relating to the temple and people, both granted by the same Artaxerxes,— one in the seventh year of his reign, unto Ezra, chap. 7:7; the other in the twentieth year of his reign, unto Nehemiah, chap. 2:1–9. And from one of these must the account inquired after be dated. Now, supposing that one of these decrees must be intended, it is evident that it was Longimanus, and not Memor, who was the author of it; for from the seventh year of Memor, which was the second of the ninety-fifth Olympiad, unto the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, wherein our Saviour suffered, being the third year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, are only four hundred and twenty-eight years, sixty-two years short of the whole, or four hundred and ninety. Now, these sixty-two years added to the beginning of the account from the seventh of Memor fall in exactly on the seventh of Longimanus. From the seventh of Longimanus, then, to the seventh of Memor are sixty-two years, and from the seventh of Memor to the eighteenth of Tiberius are four hundred and twenty-eight years; in the whole, four hundred and ninety,—the whole number inquired after.
21. It was this decree of Longimanus, then, that was intended by the angel Gabriel; for from the seventh year, wherein he sent Ezra unto Jerusalem, unto that work which he afterwards commissionated Nehemiah to carry on and perfect, unto the cutting off of the Messiah, are exactly seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, as may appear from the accounts formerly insisted on and declared. From the first of Cyrus, supposing him to reign but three years over the whole empire, unto the death of Christ, there were, as we have proved, five hundred and sixtytwo years. From the first of the same Cyrus, unto the seventh of Longimanus, were seventy-two years, which being deducted from the whole of five hundred and sixty-two years, the remainder is four hundred and ninety; which space of time, how it was apportioned between the Persian, Grecian, Asmonaean, Herodian, and Roman rule, we have before declared.
22. And there wants not reason to induce us to fix on this decree rather than any other, being indeed the most famous and most useful to the people of all the rest. By what means it was obtained is not recorded. Evident it is that Ezra had great favour with the king, and that he had convinced him of the greatness and power of that God whom he served, chap. 8:22. Besides, it was not a mere proclamation of liberty, like that of Cyrus, which was renewed by Darius, but a decree, a law, made by "the king and his seven counsellors," chap. 7:14,—the highest and most irrefragable legislative power amongst the Medes and Persians. Moreover, with the decree he had a formal commission, when he is said not only to have leave to go, but to be sent by the king and his council. Besides, the former decrees barely respected the temple; and it seems that in the execution of them the people had done little more than build the bare fabric, all things as to the true order of the worship of God remaining in great confusion, and the civil state utterly neglected. But now in this commission of Ezra, he is not only directed to set the whole worship of God in order, at the charge of the king, chap. 7:16–23, but also that he should appoint and erect a civil government and magistracy, with supreme power over the lives, liberties, and estate of men, to be exercised as occasion required, verses 25, 26: which alone, and no other, was the building of the city mentioned by Gabriel; for it is not walls and houses, but polity, rule, and government, that makes and constitutes a city.
23. And it is very considerable what a conviction of the necessity of this work was then put upon the spirits of the governors of the Persian empire. For the king himself, he calls Ezra the "scribe of the law of the God of heaven," owning him therein for the true God; for he who is the God of heaven is God alone, all others are but the dunghill gods of the earth, verse 12. Again, he declares that he was persuaded that if this work were not done, there would be wrath from heaven upon himself, his kingdom, and his sons, verse 23. The "seven counsellors" join in that law, verse 14; and the "mighty princes" of the kingdom assisted Ezra in his work, verse 28. So that no command that concerned that people before or after was accompanied with such solemnity, or gave such glory unto God as this did. Besides, the whole work of the reformation of the church, the restitution of the worship of God, the re-collection and recognition of the sacred oracles, was begun, carried on, and finished, by this Ezra, as we have elsewhere at large declared. All which considerations, falling in with the account before insisted on, make it manifest that it was this and no other decree that was intended by the angel Gabriel; and from thence unto the death of the Messiah was seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, the just and true limitation of which time we have been inquiring after.
24. I declared at the entrance of this discourse, that the force of our argument from this place of Daniel against the Jews doth not depend on this chronological computation of the time determined. All then that I aimed at was to vindicate it in general from such perplexities as whereby they pretend to render the whole place inargumentative; and this we have not only done, but also so stated the account as that they are not able from any records of times past to lay any one considerable objection against it, or which may not be easily solved. Return we now to what remains of our former designed discourse.
