Commentary on Daniel
But they which hold Xerxes to be this Ahasuerus, will answer, that Darius mentioned, Ezr. 6. 10. was Darious Nothus, not this Artaxerxes Longimanus: now this is after proved to be otherwise, because to the building of the Temple from the going forth of the word, are but 7. weeks, that is, 49. years: but there were in their own reckoning an 100. years from Cyrus to Darius Nothus: see hereof further, qu. 58. following.
6. Bullinger thinketh this Ahasuerus to be Cyaxares the father of Darius the Mede, who with Cyrus surprised Babylon, Dan. 9. 1. But this cannot be: 1. in Esther's time the Monarchy of the Persians and Medes was joined together, Esth. 1. 3. 2. Ahasuerus chief sear was at Susis. ibid. but Ecbatane was the chief city of Media. 3. while the Monarchy of Babel stood, the Jews were held in captivity under the Babylonians, not under the Medes.
7. Wherefore it is most probable that this Ahasuerus was Darius Hystaspes, which is the second opinion before rehearsed, for it is shown before that he was neither Cambyses, nor Longimanus, Mnemon, or Xerxes: who is he then more like to be then this Darius? the arguments brought for Xerxes may be answered by applying them to Darius. 1. the name Ahasuerus might be a common name to them both: and it seemeth that by Ahasuerus is meant Darius the next to Cambyses, who is that Artashasht named Ezr. 4. 6. 2. Darius was also of great riches and power. 3. his Queens name Atossa cometh nearer Hadassa the other name of Esther, then Amestris to Esther. 4. that Artashasht mentioned Ezr. 4. 7. was not Longimanus Xerxes son, but Cambyses rather.
It being thus shown that Mordecai lived in Darius time, the third king of Persia, neither could his age be so great, as Lyranus at the first seemed to think, that is, 259. or as Annius Viterbiens. 198. nor yet so small, as Lyranus in his second computation counteth, giving unto Mordecai but 93. years. But his age might be an 110. or thereabout: whereof 70. years were spent in the captivity, and about 30. year from Cyrus first: H. Br. in prolegom. and he might be 10. year old when he went into captivity.
45. Quest. Which of the Persian kings it was that renewed the decree for the reedifying of the Temple.
1. The most received opinion is, that it was Darius the son of Hystaspes the third king of Persia, who renewed the edict for the building of the Temple, in whose sixth year it was finished, Ezr. 6. 15. of this opinion is Josephus, with whom Pererius consenteth: so also M. Calvin, and M. Lydyat de emendat. tempor. ann. 3485. their special reason is taken from that place, John. 2. where the Jews affirm that the Temple was 46. years building: which time Pererius reckoneth thus, Cyrus reigned 30. years, Cambyses. 8. and in the sixth year of Darius the Sanctuary was finished, but 3. years after in the ninth, the outward Court, and all was made an end of, as Josephus writeth, lib. 11. antiq. so from the 2. of Cyrus, when they began to lay the foundation, unto the sixth of Darius, are 46. years.
Contra. 1. But seeing Ezra saith, that the house was finished in the sixth year, Josephus conceit is not to be admitted, who in this matter is contrary to himself, lib. 1. cont. Appion. where he saith, that the Temple was reedified in the second year of his reign: Then must Pererius hold him to the sixth year: as Theodoret also and Jansen do there ende the 46. years, which the Jews speak of: whom Pererius for that misliketh: but unto this 6. year by his own computation are but 43. years.
2. M. Calvin will have these 46. years, and the 7. weeks, which here are severed from the rest, v. 25. to agree together, and to make the number even 49. years, he alloweth three years for the first laying of the foundation: and herein he is so confident, that he thus writeth, quisquis hic tergiversari velit, no • ne prodet suam impudentiam, he that will here wind away, the matter being so evident, shall but bewray his impudency. But if from Cyrus 2. to the 6. of Darius Hystaspes are in the largest reckoning but 43. or 44. years, where will those three other years be found out over and above, to make up the 49. year? Touching the agreement between Daniel's 7. weeks and these 46. years, more shall be said, qu. 59. following. But M. Lydyat though he agree with them, that the Temple was reedified in the 2. of Darius Hystaspes, yet he dissenteth in the casting of the time: for he counteth but 12. years from Cyrus to the 2. of Darius, all which time, the work of the Temple was intermitted: but this hath no agreement at all with Daniel's 70. weeks severed from the rest, because of the intermission of the work of the Temple.
2. Junius in his first edition, annot. in Ezr. 4. 24. was of opinion, that this Darius that sent Ezra, was Artaxerxes Longimanus son of Darius Hystaspes by •• sther: so also Melancthon. And this is most like: for if the building of the Temple be driven further off then unto this kings days, Daniel's 7. weeks set apart for the building of the Temple, will no ways agree: see more, qu. 59. following.
3. Junius in his last edition thinketh otherwise, that it was Darius Nothus in whose sixth year the house of God was finished, which Josephus Scalliger would prove by this argument; because this Darius hath an Artaxerxes next before him, Ezr. 4. 7. and another next after him, Ezr. 7. 1. and so hath no other, Darius among the kings of Persia: But the first Artashasht was Gambyses, who was not the next before Longimanus, and the other Artashassht is the same with Darius, called also Artaxerxas Longimanus, as is further shown, qu. 59. following.
46. Quest. What Artaxerxes it was, in whose senenth year Ezra was sent, and in his 20. Nehemiah.
1. Iosrphus thinketh, lib. 11. Antiquit▪ that this was Xerxes, by whom Ezra first, and afterward Nehemiah was sent: but this cannot be: for Xerxes is not held to have reigned above 20. or 32. years: now mention is made of the 32. year of this Artaxerxes, Ezr. 5. 14. Beside Josephus manifestly erreth in two other points: 1. he saith that Nehemiah was sent in the 25. year of this Artaxerxes, whereas it is evident, that it was the 20. year, Nehem. 2. 1. 2. he saith the walls were finished in two years and 3. months, whereas they were repaired in the space of 52. days, Ezr. 6. 15.
2. Pererius, therein consenting with some ancient writers, holdeth this to be Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son of Xerxes; wherein he thinketh right, saving that this cannot agree with his former opinion, that it was Darius Hystaspes, in whose sixth year the Temple was built: which Darius in truth was Artaxerxes Longimanus, as is further declared, qu. 58. following. M. Lydyat also thinketh well, that this was Artaxerxes Longimanus, by whom Ezra and Nehemiah were sent, in ann. 3553. but from hence he doth not well begin Daniel's 70. weeks, as is shown before▪ qu. 42.
3. Some think that this was Artaxerxes Muemon, which gave liberty unto Ezra and Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem, and repair the city; because no other Artaxerxes but he of the kings of Persia immediately succee d • da Darius: Joseph. Scall • g. Iun. The Art • shasht mentioned, Ezr. 7. 1. who sent Ezra, and afterward Nehemiah, succeeded not Darius, but was that Darius in whose 6. year the Temple was built • See qu. 58. following.
47. Quest. That Daniel's 70. weeks were determined neither before Christ's passion • nor at the destruction of the city.
1. Euseb. lib. 8. de demonstr. Evangel. in his first account beginneth the 70. weeks in the first of Cyrus, and endeth 69. of them about Hyrcanus time, when Pompey the great took Jerusalem, and defiled the Temple.
2. In another account he beginneth the 69. weeks in the 6. of Darius, when the Temple was reedified, and maketh them to ende at Herod: the last week he beginneth at Christ's haptisme, 60. years after, and endeth it 3. years and an half after his passion. Both these accounts of Eusebius O • cal • mpadius indifferently followeth.
But neither of these r • ckonings can stand. 1. because Daniel saith, that after 7. weeks, and 62. weeks the Messiah shall be slain, that is, in the 70. week next after: but in the first account the Messiah was slain above 90. years, in the second above 60. after the expiring of the 69. weeks. 2. the 70. and last week must immediately follow the other, because they are made one whole number of 70. weeks, verse. 24. though afterward they be divided.
3. Some ende these 70. weeks at the nativity of Christ: as Origen, beginning them in Darius, reign: others begin at the instautation of the Temple under Darius, and end the 69. weeks at the birth of Christ, counting until then 483. years: Tertullian. But both these opinion • are contrary to the text, which ende these 69. weeks at the passion and death of Christ, not at his birth, after 62. weeks the Messiah shall be slain: beside, as the first account cometh short above 30. years of the 490. so the other overreacheth above 60. years, as shall be showed in the particular account.
4. Some ende these weeks at the baptism of Christ, Melancth. but the text will not hear it▪ for before these weeks are expired; or together with the expiration of them shall the Messiah be slain.
5. As these ende Daniel's weeks somewhat too soon: so some extend them somewhat too far, as to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and Vespasian: wherein not withstanding they do much differ. Tertullian, beginneth the account at Darius the Mede, and endeth at the subversion of Jerusalem: so also Clem. Alex. beginning at Cyrus: Chrysostom there ending beginneth at the 20. year of Darius Longimanus: Some begin form the 2. year of Darius Nothus, and ende at the destruction of the city by the Romans, Iun. Bulling. Polan. M. Lively. But the first beginning right, ouershoote the 70. weeks almost 40. years, from the passion of Christ to the taking of the city by the Romans: The other neither begin right, seeing it is proved before, that the beginning of the weeks must be from the first going forth of the word under Cyrus, qu. 43. neither do they ende well: for immediately after the 69. weeks, the Messiah must be slain in the last week, then can it not be extended 40. years after Christ's death to the destruction of the city: these words, after 69. weeks the Messiah shall be slain, are otherwise expounded by Junius and Polanus, which shall be further examimed, when we come unto the handling of that verse.
Now the reasons that these weeks must be extended to the final destruction of Jerusalem, are these.
1. The Angel saith, Seuentie weeks are determined over the people, and over the holy city: that is, within which time there shall be a destruction of both. Iun. an • otat.
2. Our blessed Savior doth apply this prophesy of Daniel unto the desolation and destruction of Jerusalem, Matth. 24. 15. Polan.
3. Daniel first maketh mention of the destruction of the city and Sanctuary, and then speaketh of the confirming of the covenant in one week, and of the ceasing of the sacrifices in the middes of the week: which if it be understood of Christ's death, it were a preposterous order, that after the destruction of the city, which happened 40. years after, he should return to speak of the Messiahs death. M. Lively Persian Monarch. p. 225.
4. To what purpose should mention be made here of the destruction of Jerusalem, if it be not within the compass of these weeks.
Ans. 1. The Angel expoundeth himself afterward, how these words are to be understood, upon thy people, that is, to finish their sins, and to seal up their iniquities, by the annointing of the Messiah: this was the special intendment and scope of these weeks, yet so, as if they rejected this gracious offer, then destruction should come upon them: see more of the meaning of these words, qu. 19. before.
2. Our blessed Savior speaketh not there of Daniel's prophetical weeks, but only of the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet: it followeth not, because it is here spoken of, that therefore necessarily it should be comprehended within the compass of the 70. weeks.
3. There is no disorder at all in the prophesy: for Daniel having propounded briefly and jointly together, the slaying of the Messiah, and destruction of the city, afterward cometh to handle them severally in the next verse, and more fully: so did the Prophet before, v. 25. for having spoken of the 7. weeks and 62. weeks jointly, he afterward returneth to the 7. weeks, after the which the street and wall should be built, and then to the 62. weeks.
4. Lyranus well expresseth the reason, why the destruction of Jerusalem i • mentioned, though it be not within the compass of the 70. weeks, quia factum fuit in poenam mortis Christi, ponitur immediate, &c because it happened and came as a punishment for the death of Christ, it is put immediately after.
48. Quest. That the 70. weeks ende not after the destruction of Jerusalem.
1. Eusebius ending the 69. weeks in the first year of Herod, beginneth the 70. and last week at the baptism of Christ, and extendeth it 70. years to the time of the Emperor Trajan, for so long the Apostolical preaching continued, John the Evangelist surviving till then: But here Eusebius committeth two great errors: first, in dividing the 70. week so far by the space of 60. years from the 69. weeks: secondly, in giving 70. years to the last week, whereas he accounted every of the formet weeks but at 7. years a piece.
2. Some Hebrews (as Jerome in his commentary upon this place rehearseth their opinion) beginning the 70. weeks from Darius the Mede, do end 62. of them in the destruction of the city by Titus, the other 8. weeks they extend unto the destruction of the Jews, and of their city under the Emperor Adrian. Here they manifestly commit two errors: 1. they count the 7. weeks last, after the 62. weeks, which must be counted first: 2. the years from Darius to the Emperor Adrian, make above 600.
3. Some set the ende of these weeks further off, toward the ende of the world at the coming of Antichrist, who after three years and an half should be destroyed, and then the everlasting kingdom of Christ should be set up: So Hyppolitus, and Apollinaris: who notwithstanding make two beginnings of the weeks; Hyppolitus 50. years before Cyrus, and Apollinaris at the nativity of Christ. But these do manifestly fail in their account: for 1. the weeks must neither begin so son, nor so late, as hath been before shown. 2. Hyppolitus continuing 69. weeks to the birth of Christ, referreth the 70. week to the ende of the world, whereas it must follow the other weeks immediately. 3. from Christ's birth there are already past above a 1600. years: therefore Apollinaris account of the 70. weeks hath no show of reason at all.
Quest. 49. That the 70. weeks must ende at the passion of Christ.
Here there are two opinions. 1. Some will have the 70. weeks ende 3. years and an half after the passion of Christ, which time is allowed for the preaching of the gospel; and so they begin the last week at the baptism of Christ. 2. Others think that the 70. weeks must precisely ende at the passion and death of the Messiah.
1. Of the first opinion are Theodoret, and Zonaras 1. tem. Annal. which begin at the 20. yearo of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and end the 62. weeks at the death of Hyrcanus, from whence to Christ's baptism, they count 7. weeks more: and then in the middes of the last week, the Messiah was slain: so there remained afterward 3. years and an half for the preaching of the Gospel: Eusebius beginneth the 69. weeks in the 6. year of Darius Hystaspes, and endeth 69. of them in the first of Herod, about the death of Hyrcanus, the 70. week he beginneth at the baptism of Christ, and endeth 3. years and an half after: Johannes Lucidus lib. 7. de emendat. tempor. beginneth at the 20. year of Artaxerxes, and endeth four years after Christ's passion, so also before him Lyranus: Pererius concurreth with them, who maketh the 69. weeks to ende at the baptism of Christ, beginning at the 20. of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and the seventh week then to begin, which was finished 3. years and an half after Christ's passion: so also M. Lydyat in his book de emendat. tempor. pag. 75. and 173. But Osiander goeth beyond all these, and will have the 70. week begin after Christ's passion. Pererius reason is this, because 69. weeks must be counted unto Messiah, which ende in Christ's baptism, when he was declared to be the son of God from heaven, whereas he lived before a private life, therefore from thence the last week must begin. And the better to uphold his opinion of his so beginning and ending these 70. weeks, he use • h these three helps. 1. he counteth these 70. weeks after the years of the Moon, which consist of 12. months and no more, whereof 490. make but 475: years of the Sun, wherein 13. months go to the year. 2. these 70. weeks are so called, though there want half a week to the passion of Christ, to make up a round number, the odd years are omitted, as the like is to be seen in other places of Scripture, as Gen. 15. the Lord telleth Abraham his seed should soiorne 400. years, which were indeed 405. from Isaac's birth till their coming out of Egypt. Junius also in his first edition upon this place, thinketh the odd years to be omitted, to make the 70. weeks answerable in proportion to the 70. years of captivity. 3. his third evasion is, that whereas from the 20. of Artaxerxes are found to be 477. sun years, which exceed the 490. moon years more by then two; he saith there are two kinds of numbering, inclusively, when as the numbers, where the account beginneth and endeth are included, and exclusiuely, when as they are excluded: as Matthew saying that after six days Christ was transfigured, c. 17. and Luke after eight days, c. 9. the first numbereth exclusiuely, not reckoning the days where the account beginneth and endeth, the other includeth both.
Contra. First, the Angel expoundeth himself how the 69. week must be understood: until the Messiah should be slain in the last week: they determine then not at his Baptism, but at the week wherein he should be slain.
Secondly, concerning his cautels. 1. the Scripture useth not to count according to the moon years, but according to the course of the Sun: otherwise by this reason the 70. years of the captivity must likewise be cut short: see before, quest. 17. 2. in great numbers sometime odd yeaes are omitted, but so it is not here, because these seventy weeks are said to be cut our, that is, precisely they shall fall out to be so many weeks of years.
3. That distinction hath no place here: for seeing the account is made by weeks, if any part thereof should be reckoned inclusively, or exclusiuely, it must be done by weeks of years, not by single years, as M. Lively well observeth, pag. 187.
2. It remaineth then that these years must take their ende precisely at the time of the death and passion of Christ: as Julius, Africanus, Beda, Ruperius, Bullinger, H. Br. do determine them: and then whereas it is said, in the middes or half week the sacrifice shall cease, the sense is, that Christ by the sacrifice of himself in the latter half of the week, shall abolish all other sacrifices in right: and whereas it is said, he shall confirm the covenant in one week, the meaning is, not that all the last week this covenant should be in confirming: but the covenant shall be confirmed first by the preaching, and then by the death of Christ, in the last week, which was done in the last middle or half part thereof, Bulling. Now for this precise determining of these weeks in the very passion of the Messiah, the reasons are these.
1. The last week endeth at the confirmation of the covenant or Testament, as the Prophet saith, he shall confirm the covenant with many in one week: the week then must end with that confirmation, for not the beginning, but the ende is counted for the week. But the Testament was ratified by the death of Christ, Hebr. 9. 17. the Testament is confirmed when men be dead, therefore this last week endeth in Christ's death, Bulling. 2. The death of Christ was to fall out in a year of Jubilee, that the body may answer unto the figure, therefore it is called the acceptable year of the Lord, Isaiah. 6102. the great year of remission of sins, and of the redemption of prisoners and captives: And so the year wherein Christ died, was a Jubilee year; being the 28. Jubilee by just computation from the 8. year of Joshua, when the first Jubilee was kept, for so many Iubilies fall but in 1400. years. It is most probable then, that Daniel's 70. weeks should ende with the last Jubilee, H. Br. in 9. Daniel. 3. M. Lively though he ende not the 70. weeks in the passion of the Messiah, yet he holdeth so many weeks preeisely, gathering so much by the Hobrewe phrase, Sexentie weeks is cut out, where a verb of the singular number being put to a word of the plural, showeth, that everyone of the weeks particularly from the first to the last, shall be precisely and absolutely complete, Persian Mon. pag. 159. 4. If any of these weeks should be extended beyond Christ's death, it is more like they should reach to the destruction and desolation of the di • ie, which is by name expressed: for there is no other cause to extend them further: the preaching of the Gospel continued longer then three year and a half after Christ: therefore in that regard, the half week is not to be extended beyond Christ's death. 5. Burgens. allegeth this reason, to show that the last ende of these weeks must concur with the passion of Christ, nam deletie iniquitatis, consummatio praevaricationis, &c. the taking away of iniquity, and the finishing of transgression, which are propounded by the Angel, in his first speech, are the proper effects of Christ's passion, &c. upon this reason Burgens. is so confident, that he concludeth, the ende then of these weeks, est nobis notus de fide, is known unto us, as of faith (that is) certainly. Thus then the argument may be framed: the finishing of iniquity and taking away of sin, were accomplished in the passion of Christ: but seventy weeks are determined for the finishing of iniquity: therefore 70. weeks are determined at the passion of Christ. 6. Mel • ncthon addeth further, that the 70. weeks must not extend beyond Christ's passion, because the Jews rejecting of him, were no longer his people, neither took he protection of them.
Thus having the beginning of these 70. weeks at Cyrus, and the ende at the passion of Christ, it remaineth then to be shown, how by a just computation these 70. weeks may be brought from Cyrus unto Christ.
Quest. 50. Of the just and exact computation of years, from Cyrus first unto the passion of Christ.
1. Tertullian beginning in the first of Darius counteth but 490. years to the destruction of Jerusalem: the 62. weeks and an half he would have ended at Christ's nativity, which make 437. years, and from thence to the destruction of Jerusalem he reckoneth 7. weeks and an half more, that is 53. years. But Tertullian committeth diverse errors in this account. 1. he maketh but 5. kings of Persia. 2. he giveth but an 106. years to the whole Monarchy of the Persians. 31 he faileth in the particular account of the years of the kings of Persia: he alloweth unto Darius the Mede 19. years, whereas he reigned but one, and to the last Darius 22. years, who reigned but six in all: and to Alexander be giveth 12. years after, who lived but six years after Darius ouerthowe. 4. he counteth but 53. years from Christ's nativity to the destruction of Jerusalem, which in true account were 70. years at the least: for Christ was borne in the 4. year of the 194. Olympiad, and the city was taken by Titus, in the 4. year of the 212. Olympiad.
2. Lyranus beginning his account the 5. year of Zedekiah, when as Jeremiah promised deliverance after 70. years, reckoneth from that year to the destruction of Jerusalem, 6. years, from thence the Hebrews to the first of Cyrus count 52. years: then to Cyrus and Cambyses he giveth 9. years, to Ahasuerus and Darius, in whole 6. year the Temple was built, 45. years between them: all these years make being put together, 112. years, then the second Temple is held by the Hebrews to have stood unto the second destruction by Titus, 420. years: all make 532. from whence 42. years being diducted, which come between the blessed passion of our Lord, and the destruction of Jerusalem, there will remain just 490. years. Paulus Burgens. agreeing with Raimundus beginning and ending as Lyranus doth, yet proceedeth another way from the 4. of Zedekiah, which was in the 12. year of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned in all 45. years, there remained of his reign 34. years, and of Evilmerodachs 32. and 3. years of Balthazars reign: all these make 60. years: then Darius reigned two, Cyrus 30. Ahasuerus 14. Darius his son had reigned 6. when the Temple was finished: these years make 52. and the second Temple stood 420. years: as is the general opinion of the Hebrews: these years joined together make 532. from whence must be diducted 42. years, from the passion of Christ to the destruction of the city.
But beside the disagreement in these two accounts, between the number of years before Cyrus, and the number of the years of the kings of Persia, which breedeth a great uncertainty, these manifest errors are committed. 1. whereas the captivity ending in Cyrus first, had continued 70. years, this term cannot stand with either of the former accounts: for if the beginning of the captivity be set in the 8. year of Nebuchadnezzar's raigue, when Iechoniah went into captivity, where it ought to begin, there will want by Lyranus account, who reckoneth but 58. years from the 5. of Zedekiah, which was 4. years after Iechoniahs captivity, 8. years; by Burgensis, who counteth from thence 60. years, there will want six of 70. years. 2. They both between Cambyses and Darius set one Ahasuerus, whereas the first Darius the son of Hystaspes, immediately succeeded Cambyses. 3. whereas they make Darius the first, son of Ahasuerus, the truth is, that Darius the first was that Ahasuerus himself, as is before shown, quest. 44. 4. whereas they make Darius, under whom the Temple was finished but the fourth king of Persia, as Cyrus, Cambyses, Ahasuerus, and then Darius, it is evident that the 4. king of Persia, was the rich king of Persia, which was Xerxes, Dan. 11. 3.
3. Pintus, who beginneth the 70. weeks right, at Cyrus first, and endeth them well in the passion of our Savior, doth make the 70. weeks, and the term of years to agree by two several accounts. One way he casteth up his reckoning thus: the Perfians reigned 191. years, the Greeks to the beginning of Julius Caesar's Empire 220. years, from thence to the passion of Christ, are 76. years and 3. years and an half after Christ's death do the 70. weeks ende: all these years make just 490. and an half, which is omitted: But these exceptions may be taken to this reckoning: 1. that the Persian Monarchy could not possibly continue an 191. years, as is proved before, quest. 43. 2. the Greek Empire continued 300. years as Lyranus, and H. Br. and most consent: so also Junius in his annotations, and Polanus: as it shall further appear in the 54. quest. following.
4. Pintus hath beside this another reckoning: from the going forth of the word, unto the finishing of the Temple, which began two years after the return of the people (and it was 46. years in building) are 48. years, and the Temple stood 480. years, from the second building thereof to the second destruction, the whole sum is 528. from which sum must be diducted 38. years and an half from the ende of the 70. week, which was three years and an half after the passion of Christ, unto the destruction of the city, and there will remain 490. years.
But thus this account also may be accepted against. 1. he showeth not how from Cyrus first, unto the finishing of the Temple, there were but 48. years, the 7. weeks mentioned, v. 25. make 49. years, which were expired at the finishing of the Temple in the sixth of Darius, seequeth 58. following. 2. The second Temple might stand so long, though the Hebrews generally held that it continued but 420. years: but the 70. weeks ending in Christ's passion, as is shown before, there must be diducted 40. as some think 42. years, which came between the passion of Christ, and the destruction of the city: so that this account of Pintus cometh short in the first part one year, and in the second two: for he reckoneth but 48. years to the finishing of the Temple, whereas 49. even 7. prophetical weeks were expired then, and he alloweth but 38. years in the last number, which should be 40. or 42. years.
5. But the account of R. Solomon is much more short, who reckoneth but 490. years from the destruction of the first temple by Nebuchadnezzar, to the destruction of the second by Titus, whereof to Cyrus first he counteth 52. years. Not much differing is the account of other Hebrews, who from Cyrus first unto the destruction of Jerusalem make reckoning but of 430. years, allowing to the Persian Monarchy but 50. years, to the reign of the Greeks, an 175. to the Maccabees 103. to the Herodians an 103. as Montanus setteth it down in his apparat, in Daniel.
But here are manifest errors in this account. 1. they begin the 70. weeks 52. year▪ before the Angel delivered this prophesy. 2. they give unto the Persian Monarchy but 50. years, whereas so many years save one were expired at the finishing of the Temple; and after that Nehemiah maketh mention of 32. years of the reign of Artaxerxes, c. 5. 14. 3. from the ende of the Persian Monarchy to the destruction of Jerusalem, are years 400. which are thus gathered 300. years of the kingdom of the Greeks, 60. years of the Roman Empire to the death of Christ, and about 40. thence to the overthrow of the city.
6. This then is resolved upon as the best account: the Persian Monarchy continued from the first of Cyrus 130. years, the Macedonians reigned 300. the Romans unto the death of Christ 60. But for the more evident proof and demonstration hereof, it shall not be amiss to set down the particular account of the years of the Persian and Grecian Monarchy, to fulfill this number of years.
Quest. 51. Of the years of the Persian kings in particular, to make up the said sum of an 130. years, and first of the years to the finishing of the Temple.
For the more evident manifestation hereof, we will divide the Persian Monarchy into two parts: the time before the reedifying of the Temple, and the time that followed thence to the ende of the Persian Monarchy: for the first. It is evident in that the Angel divideth 7. weeks from the 62. weeks, that 7. weeks making 49. years are set apart for that time, while the work of building the Temple and city was interrupted, unto the 6. of Darius, when the Temple was finished: But in the casting of these years there is some difference.
1. Lyranus giveth unto Cyrus and Cambyses 9. years, to Ahasuerus 40. and then followeth Darius in whose sixth the Temple was finished. Here the time somewhat agreeth: but then one king is here committed, for Artaxerxes Longimanus, who was also Darius, was the fifth king of Persia.
2. Burgensis thus accounteth out of Raimundus, Darius the Mede reigned 2. years, Cyrus 30. Cambyses his son called also Ahasuerus 14. years, and then Darius 6. years, which make 52. years, in whose 2. the Temple began to be built, and so we have 48. years to the beginning of the reedifying of the Temple: But here one king is likewise omitted as before: for Darius in whose 6. year the Temple was finished, called also Artaxerxes Longimanus, was not the fourth, but the fifth king of Persia: again, if Ahasuerus the husband of Esther, reigned but 14. years, who in the 7. year married Esther, c. 2. 16. how could Darius supposed to be her son by Ahasuerus in the 2. of his reign have wife and children, as Ezra. 6. 10. the Jews are willed to pray for the kings life and his sons.
3. Bullinger counteth but 30. years from Cyrus first, unto the 6. of Darius: but herein is his error, he taketh this Darius for Darius the son of Hystaspes, the third king of Persia, whereas this Darius was the fifth.
4. Junius likewise affirmeth, that the Temple began to be built 30. years before the 2. of Darius, annotat. in 2. Hag. edition. 1. But there could not be so few years to Darius Longimanus: and Junius to make his account good, omitteth Xerxes, who is famously known to have been king of Persia.
5. The same Junius in his annotations upon the same place, in his last edition, counteth 106. years frō Cyrus to the 3. of Darius Nothus: but that cannot be: for seeing some were alive then, which had seen the first Temple, Hagg. 2. 4. they must then be at the least an 180. year old: 106. from Cyrus, and 70. year before from the beginning of the captivity in the 8. year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, in whose 19. year the Temple was destroyed: the sum will be 176 years: and they could not be of fewer years then 10. or 12. to remember anything of the first Temple: But this was too great an age for those times.
6. Some giving but an 130. years in all to the Persian Monarchy, do count 30. years from Cyrus first unto Xerxes war against the Grecians, which was six years after Darius death, and from thence Artaxerxes Longimanus began to reign 42. years, partly alone, & partly together with his father before: and afterward followed Darius Nothus, whom some call Darius Ochus, H. Br. proleg. in Dantel: but by this reckoning, there will not be 49. years to the 6. of Darius who was Artaxerxes Longimanus.
7. Beroaldus finding so great uncertainty in the years of the Persian kings, thinketh that though the particular years cannot be set down, yet the whole time of the Persian Monarchy could not exceed an 130. years.
8. But though I consent therein to Beroaldus, for the exact scanning of the particular years, yet some conjectural guess may be made of the years of some of the Persian kings put together: as it is agreed upon by the most, that Cyrus and Cambyses reigned together 9. years, then Darius Hystaspes and Xerxes might have the first 14. the other 20. which with Darius six, and Cyrus and Cambyses nine make 49. years: but how these years should be exactly divided among these 3. kings, it cannot be certainly set down, because the son reigned with the father: and as Xerxes reign ran within his fathers, so Artaxerxes his son reigned also in his fathers time: this shall be further shown in the question following.
Quest. 52. Xerxes reign was intermingled with his fathers in the beginning, and with his sons in the ende.
1. Some do give unto Xerxes no several reign at all, but give unto his father Darius only 20. years: because they hold that in his fathers life time he warred with Greece for 7. years together, and then flying away cowardly, was afterward slain by Artabanus, Darius yet being alive, so Iun. following Beroaldus, annotat. in Ezra. 4. v. 5. edition. 1. But it is clear that those wars against Grecia, were after Darius death 6. years, as H. Br. in his proleg. in Daniel. and M. Lively proveth that Darius was dead before, by the poet Aeschyl •• living in those times: who in his tragedy called Persa, raifeth Darius long before dead out of his grave to tell news.
2. Some give unto Darius 36. years, and to Xerxes 22. Junius in his sum of years set before Ezra in the Last edition: But seeing that Darius lived in all but 43. years, as H. Br. showeth out of Ctesias; and he was at man's estate, when he was elected king, being before one of the seven governors, he could not anything near reign so long.
3. Some will admit no intercliange or mingling together of the father and sons reign; and stand upon it, that it cannot be shown in all the Persian Monarchy, that the father and the son reigned together, M. Li •• lie, Persian Monarchy, pag. 195.
Answ. The contrary may be proved both out of sacred and profane histories. 1. In the reign of the kings of Judah it is found to be an usual thing, for the sons to begin their reign while their fathers yet lived: as Ieh • r • m was viceroy in Jehoshaphat's time 4. years: for Jehoshaphat reigned 25. years, 1. king. 22. 42. now in the 18. year of Jehoshaphat, began Iehor •• king of Isr •• l to reign 12. years, 2. king. 3. 1. And in the 5. year of this Iaram, which was the 2 • . year of Iehosahat, began Jehoram of Judah to reign 8. years, 2. king. 8. 16. when as there remained ye • 4. years of his fathers reign. So Ahaz was viceroy under Jotham his father, 2. or 3. years: for Jotham began to reign in the 2. of Pekah king of Is • ae • and reigned 16. years, 2. king. 15. 32. And in the 17. of Pekah began Ahaz to reign, 2. king. 16. 1. the like instance may be given of other kings of Judah and Israel: And the like custom might be among the kings of Persia, as Junius thinketh that Artaxerxes Mnemon reigned in his father Darius time, annot. in Ezr. 6. 14.
2. For forre • stories, Temporariu • and Mercator do allege out of Plutarke in the life of Themistocles, that he being b •• ished Greece, fled unto Artaxerxes son of Xerxes, his father yet livings, as Th • cidides testifieth, and Charon Lampsacenus: Ae •• lius Probus i • in the same mind, and Philostratus lib. 1. de vit. Apollon. c. 19. And that Xerxes was then living as is further shown, because they set the beginning of Artaxerxes reign in the first year of the 79. Olympiad: But Themistocles died in the 1. year of the 77. Olympiad, as Diodorus Sicu • us, lib. 11. and Euseb. in Chron.
But 1. M. Lively answereth, that Xerxes having three sons, Darius, Hystaspes, and Artaxerxes, would have nominated in all likelihood, the eldest of these heir apparent before the other: and Justin saith, that when Xerxes died, Artaxerxes, was admodum pure, a very child. 2. diverse grave authors, as Cleitarehus Heraclides, Diodorus Siculus, do write that Themistocle fled unto Xerxes, not unto Artaxerxes, to this purpose M. Linely, pag. 195. M. Lydyat is also of the same mind, that Artaxerxes, reigned alone at this time, de emendat. pag. 73. 3. Pererius further answereth, that if Artaxerxes had been joined with his father in his kingdom, Artabanus who first killed Xerxes, and afterward set upon Darius his eldest son, would rather have shot at Artaxerxes, who was appointed to the kingdom, whom it is not like his father would have preferred before his eldest son.
Contra. 1. If Artaxerxes were the youngest, either the other two might be first dead, or not of so good parts as the youngest was, who might therefore be nominated to the kingdom; as Xerxes was made heir apparent to his father Darius, his elder brother Artabazanes being omitted, as M. Lydyat acknowledgeth, pag. 67.
2. Though these authors so write, yet Ae •• lius Probus preferreth the restimonie of Thucydides, as living nearest to those times, and so best to be credited, that Themistocles fled to Artaxerxes.
3. Artabanus might have opportunity to kill Xerxes fleeing from the Grecians, as Bessus killed Darius Codomannus fleeing away from Alexander: and Darius being one of the kings sons, he might kill likewise the occasion so serving, whereas Artaxerxes being possessed of the kingdom, was better defended against him, and afterward was revenged upon him for his fathers death.
4. But none of these answers do take away the former objection, that Artaxerxes reigned 8. years at the least before his fathers death, a • i • gathered by the Olympiad reckoning.
4. It remaineth then, that Xerxes is the latter part of his reign, joined his son Artaxerxes with him, as he reigned together with his father Darius: and therefore he is named next after Cyrus, Ezra. 4. 7. As there Cyrus reign is named only for his and Cambyses: so Ahasuerus reign (who is thought to be Darius Hystaspes ) standeth there for the joint reign of Darius and Xerxes. By reason then of this intermingling of years, the foresaid years cannot be particularly assigned to the former kings.
Quest. 53. Of the particular year •• of the second part of the Persian Mona •• hi • 〈◊〉 the finishing of the Temple to the ende thereof.
1. Junius in his first edition summeth these years to 90. or thereabout, giving unto Longimanus 37. in whose 6. the Temple was finished, to Darius Nothus 18. to M • emon 10. to Ochus 22. to Arsen 3. and Darius the 〈◊〉 reigned 6. years: wherein he misseth not greatly the general some of the Persian years, but he counteth only 36. to the finishing of the Temple in Longimanus 6. year, and 90. afterward: whereas so few as 30. years, cannot be given to the four former kings. Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius the son of Hystaspes; and Xerxes, which raig • ed before Longimanus.
2. Oecolampadous counteth an 160. years after the reedifying of the Temple to the ende of the Persian Monar • hie, which he collect •• th • s: Darius in his account reigned 4. years after the temple and city repaired, Xerxes 〈◊〉 Artehanus 7. months; A • taxerxes Longhand 40. years, Xerxes the 〈◊〉 months, Segdia • us 8. months, Darius Nothus 19. years, 〈◊〉 40. years. 〈◊〉 26. Arseo. 4. Darius the last 6. But here beside that he counteth three among the Persian kings. 〈◊〉 , Xgrxes the 2. Segdi •• s whose years of reign are not reckoned but the best historians, as is shown before, quest. 37. he erreth in referring the reedifying of the Temple to Darius Hystaspes reign, the third king of Persia; whereas there are reckoned in Ezra, after Cyrus, Ass ••• us, Artaxerxes, and then Darius, under whom the Temple was built, Ezra. 4. 7. and 24.
3. Tertullia • first setteth down Darius to have 〈◊〉 19. years, then A • taxerxes 41. after him Ochus 24. then Argus one, and the last Darius 21. So he seemeth in all to account but an 106. years for the persian Monarchy: whereof 49. being expired at the reedifying of the Temple, there will remain but 57. to the ende of that Monarchy. But herein is Teriullian deceived, in making but five kings of Persia in all.
4. Junius in his third edition, in his annotations upon this place, summeth the years from the 2. of Nothus to the ende of the Persian Monarchy, to 93. for Nothus he, counteth 19. years in all, and from his second 18. for Mnemon 43. Ochus 23. Arses 3. Darius the last 6. so also Polanus: which years being added to the 106. which he thinketh were expired from Cyrus first, at the 2. of Nothus, make 200. save one. But the age of Nehemiah, who saw the beginning and ende of that Monarchy, will not permit, that so many years be allowed unto it.
5. Pintus giving unto the Persian Monarchy 191. years, and counting 48. unto the sinishing of the Temple, must leave an 143. years or thereabout, for the time of that Monarchy, after the finishing of the Temple: But upon the former reason of Nehemiah's age, this cannot be admitted.
6. Pererius from the 1. of Cyrus to the 2. of Nothus, counteth an 140. years, and from thence to the ende of that Monarchy some 94. years: M. Lively also agreeth with him in the same account, Pers. Monarch. p. 53. they differ but in 2. years: Pererius allotteth to the Persian Monorchie 232. years, lib. 13. in Dan. M. Lively 230. But it is sufficiently shown before, that the Persian Monarchy could not continue so long, qu. 43.
7. But Montanus counting by the high Priests goeth beyond them in all in his reckoning for the latter part of the Persian Monarchy: for he giveth unto Eliashib 41. years, in whose 14. year he saith Nenemiah returned to the king of Persia after the city was repaired, which was in 32. year of Mnemons reign, Nehem. 5. 14. there remain then of Eliashibs years 27. then Ioiada succeeded 25. years, Johanan 24. years, Iaddua, to the time of Alexander 27. thus there shall be an 103. years from the 32. year of Mnemon, to the ende of the Persian Monarchy; unto the which add the 32. years of Mnemon, and 7. years of Darius, there will arise an 142. years from the finishing of the Temple to the ende of the Persian Monarchy, which Nehemiah's age will by no means endure.
8. This then is the best resolution, that although in such great variety and difference, the particular years cannot well be assigned unto the several kings of Persia, which succeeded after the finishing of the Temple, yet the whole sum is must not extend beyond 80. or 81. or thereabout: so that thus the whole sum is made up: 49. years are counted from Cyrus 1. to the 6. of Darius, when the Temple was finished: and thence to the ende of the Persian Monarchy, if 81. years more be added, we shall have the whole sum of an 130. years: this account followeth Beroaldus, Junius in his annotations, edit. 1. H. Broughton in his proleg. in Dan. who last named doth thus parcel out the years: from Cyrus to Xerxes 6. when he warred against Grecia, he giveth 30. years, to Artaxerxes with his father and alone, 42. to Ochus, called also Darius Nothus, alone 8. with his father 16. to Mnemon 42. to Ochus 3. to Darius the last 5. or 6. the whole sum is an 130.
54. Quest. Of the just computation of the years of the Grecian Monarchy.
Having the certainty of the years of the Persian Monarchy in general, the next part of the 490. years, deciphered in the 70. weeks, consisteth in the due examination of the years of the kingdom of the Grecians: where there are five several accounts. 1. by the reign of the kings of Syria, 2. by the years of the high Priests, 3. by the years of the captains and Princes of the Jews, 4. by the years of the kings of Egypt, 5. by the Olympiades.
1. By the Syrian kings, the account is vncerten: there are numbered of them in all from Seleucus Nicanor, the first king and founder of the family of the Seleucians, to Seleucus the son of Gryphus 19. kings: their particular names, with the years of their reign, it is not needful here to set down: we shall have further occasion to deal with them in particular in the 11. chapter. But the reason why the account taken by them is not certain; is this: because the kingdom of Syria, began 15. years after Alexanders death, and after the kingdom of Egypt, and it ended above 50. years before the kingdom of the Herodians began in Judea, about which time the reign of Cleopaora, the last Queen and Regent of Egypt, expired.
2. Likewise there is small certainty in the account taken by the years of the high Priests. Montanus setteth them down in this order unto the time of Herod.
| High Priests | years. |
| Onias after Iaddua | 27 |
| Simon Iustus | 13 |
| Eleazar | 20 |
| Manasseh | 27 |
| Simon Iustus | 28 |
| Onias Simon's son | 39 |
| Jason | 3 |
| Menelaus | 12 |
| Ionathas | 18 |
| Simon | 8 |
| Johannes Hircanus | 31 |
| Aristobulus | 1 |
| Jannes Alexander | 27 |
| Alexandra the widow of Alexander high Priest. | 9 |
| Hircanus her son | 3. months. |
| Aristobulus Hircanus brother | 3 |
| Hircanus restored | 22 |
| Antigonus | 5 |
The whole sum ariseth to 293. years or thereabout: in which account we want 7. years of the full number, which is allowed to the Greek Monarchy, which is 300. years: and beside there is some variance in the particular account: for unto Eleazar the third in the foresaid number, Philo giveth but 20. years, Eusebius 23. to Onias Bullinger appointeth but 25. years, Montanus 27. And the like difference may be found in the rest: as Oecolampad. giveth but 26. to Johannes Hircanus, Montanus and Bullinger allow him 31. to Aristobulus and Hircanus he giveth 34. years, the other two count but 26. between them, So then this reckoning by the years of the high Priests is vncerten, and the rather, because the times were corrupt, and confused: they were made high Priests for money, and sometime one was up, and another down.
3. The third kind of reckoning is by the years of the Princes and captains, joined with the years of the kings of Syria. Oecolampad. thus setteth down the years of the kings of Syria unto the time of the Maccabees, and then the years of the Maccabees in this order.
| The kings of Syria. | The Maccabees. | ||
| Alexander reigned years | 5 | Judas Macchabeus governed years. | 3 |
| Seleucus Nican • r | 44 | ||
| Antiochus Sother | 19 | Ionathas | 19 |
| Antiochus Theos | 15 | Simon | 8 |
| Seleucus Callinicus | 20 | Johannes Hircanus | 26 |
| Seleucus Ceraunius | 3 | Aristobulus | 1 |
| Antiochus Megas | 36 | Ianneus Alexander | 27 |
| Seleucus Philopater | 12 | Alexandra | 9 |
| Antiochus Epiphanes | 11 | Aristobulus and Hircanus | 34 |
| the sum is an 165 | the sum is an 127 |
Both these sums put together make 292. there wanteth 6. to make up 300. years. And beside, there is great variance and difference about the sum of these years: Montanus setteth down another account of the Hebrews, who allow unto the kingdom of the Grecians 175. years, before the time of the Maccabees, to whose government they assign but an 103. years, which make in all but 278. here want 22. years of 300. Melancthon much differeth not from the last account: he giveth unto Alexander 7. years, to the Seleucians unto Judas Macchabeus 146. to the Maccabees from Judas unto Herod 127. the whole sum is 280. there yet are wanting 20. years. The former of these numbers agreeth with the account of years in the book of the Maccabees, where it is said, that Antiochus died in the 149. year, 1. Macchab. 6. 16. and three year before that Judas Macchabeus began to oppose himself against the tyranny of Autiochus Epimanes. Hitherto then we can have no certainty for the just number of these years.
4. The fourth way is to proceed by the account of the years of the Ptolomes of Egypt: for Ptolomeus Lagi began his government immediately after Alexanders death: and Cleopatra the daughter of Ptolemy Auletes reigned in Egypt to the beginning of Herod's reign in Jewry, and somewhat after: their years are set down thus, according to the computation of Clemens Alexandrinus, which M. Br. followeth:
| Alexander | 6 |
| Ptolomeus Lagi | 40 |
| Pto. Philadelph. | 37 |
| Pto, E • ergetes. | 25 |
| Pto. Philopater. | 17 |
| Pto. Epiphanes | 24 |
| Ptolom, Philometer | 35 |
| Physcon | 29 |
| Lathurus | 36 |
| Aul • tes | 29 |
| Cleopatra | 22 |
| the whole sum is 300. |
| Alexander | 12 |
| Sother in Alexandria reigned | 35 |
| Philadelphus | 38 |
| Euergetes | 25 |
| Philopator | 17 |
| Epiphanes | 24 |
| An other Euergetes | 37 |
| An other Sother | 38 |
| Ptolemy | 37 |
| Cleopatra | 22 |
| the sum is 285. |
5. The last way then to know the just number of years for the kingdom of the Greeks, is by the Olympiads, which is a sure reckoning, as is before declared, qu. 35. for the Greek affairs. Alexander died in the 1. year of the 114. Olympiad, as Arrianus, and most Chronologers do hold: and our blessed Savior suffered in the 1. of the 203. Olympiad, Joseph. Scallig. the years between these two Olympike years amount to 356. and with Alexanders 6. years, 362. Iun. annotat. from whence 62. must be aba • ed from the ende of Cleopatraes reign, unto the passion of our blessed Savior: so there will remain just 300. years within two for the Greek Monarchy. Polanus much differeth not counting by the years of the building of Rome: Alexander died in the 430. year of the age of Rome, and Jerusalem was destroyed in the 822. year: then diducting 38. years from thence backward to the passion of Christ, (which Bullinger maketh 40. placing the destruction of Jerusalem 2. years later. in the 824. year of Rome) and 60. or 61. to the ende of Cleopatraes government: and there will by this account also remain 300. years for the kingdom of the Grecians.
So then we have toward the number of 490. years, first from Cyrus 1. to the ende of the Persian Monarchy, an 130. years, and then 300. years for the government of the Grecians: there remain 60. years from the ende of Cleopatra her reign, in the 4. year of Herod, in whose 30. Christ was borne, unto the passion of Christ in the 34. of his age, but 33. complete, which make up the 60. years▪ And so riseth the just sum of 490. years, contained in Daniel's 70. weeks. Thus by God's gracious assistance have I waded through this bottomless depth of Daniel's 70. weeks, which I hold to be simply the most difficult and inextricable question in the old Testament. Now it is time, that I proceed to discuss the words of the text: but first I will lay together in one view the sundry interpretations of these 70. weeks, which have been dispersedly handled before.
55. Quest. The several interpretations of Daniel's 70. weeks, dispersedly handled before, summed together.
The sundry opinions and diverse interpretations of the numbering of Daniel's weeks, may be sorted out in this manner into these 6. orders or ranks. 1. Some begin the account too soon, and ende too soon. 2. Some begin too late, and ende too late. 3. Some begin too soon, and ende too late. 4. Some begin too late, and ende too soon. 5. Some begin well▪ and ende not right, and they either ende too soon, or too late. 6. Some ende well their account, but begin not right, and that either too soon or too late: the first four do err both in the beginning and ende, the other two fail but in the one, either in the beginning or ende.
1. Of the first sort is Orige • , who beginneth from Adam, and endeth 69. weeks of the account at the nativity of Christ, the 70. weeks he extendeth thence to the destruction of the city▪ see this opinion confuted before, qu. 40.
2. Of the second sort are diverse. 1. all they which begin the account after the reign of Cyrus, as Chrysostom, who beginneth at the 20. year of Darius Longimanus, and endeth at the subversion of Jerusalem: so Eusebius beginneth at Darius Hystaspes, and endeth at Trajan the Emperor: and Junius, Josephus Scalliger, M. Lively, begin at the 2. year of Darius Nothus, and ende with the ruin of the city: see their opinions more at large, quest. 47. Likewise Apollinaris beginneth at Christ's nativity, and endeth at the coming of Antichrist toward the ende of the world: see qu. 34. and 48.
3. Some begin too soon, and ende too late, as Hyppolitus, beginning 50. years before Cyrus, and ending toward the dissolution and ende of the world: and R. Solomon, who beginneth at the destruction of the first Temple, and endeth at the destruction of the second: see qu. 40. and 48.
4. Some begin too late and ende too soon, as Melancthon, that beginneth his second reckoning from Longimanus, and endeth at the baptism of Christ: see before, qu. 47.
5. Some begin well, and ende too soon, as Origen, who in one account beginneth a • Darius the Mede, and endeth at the nativity, qu. 47. before: so also Melancthon in one accoun • . Eusebius also in one account beginneth at Cyrus, and endeth in Hyrcanus time. Some beginning right, ende too late: as Tertullian beginning at Darius, and Clemens Alexandrinus at Cyrus, ende at the subversion of Jerusalem: qu. 47. before. And some Hebrews begin at Darius the Mede, but extend the years to the reign of Adrian the Emperor: see quest. 48.
6. Some ende right, namely at the passion of Christ, but begin too soon, as Lyranus and Burgensis, who begin in the 4. or 5. year of Zedekiah, see qu. 41. some ending there also, begin too late; as they which begin at the 20. year of Longimanus, and end at the passion of Christ: of which opinion are Theodoret, Zonaras, Johannes Lu • idus, Pererius, Bullinger, with others: see before, qu. 49.
Then the best account of these weeks, is to pitch the beginning and ende both right: and that is to begin them at Cyrus, at the first going forth of the word for the return of the people, as is proved before at large, quest. 43. and to determine and conclude them at the most holy passion of our blessed Savior, as is likewise before proved at large, qu. 49. of this chapter. Now I will return to examine the words, as they lie in the text.
56. Quest. Why the 7. weeks are severed from the 62. v. 25. Unto the Messiah shall be 7. weeks, and 62. weeks.
1. Some think that no other reason is to be given hereof, but that the Angel of purpose thus speaketh, that the prophecy should be uttered in dark and obsture terms: as Jerome to this purpose saith upon the 45. of Ezekiel, Scriptura difficultatem habet in numeris, vt intentum faciat animum auditoris, the Scripture useth some difficulty in numbers, to make the mind of the hearer more intent: But it is evident, by the dividing of the last week from the rest, wherein some special matters are delivered, concerning the death of the Messiah, and the confirming of the covenant, and ceasing of the sacrifices, that there is some special intendment in the setting apart also of the 7. weeks from the rest.
2. Some do think, that it is only an Hebrew phrase, who use to set the less number before the greater: as we would say, speaking of Abraham, he lived an 175. years, but the Scripture saith, he lived 5. and 70. and an 100. years: so Jerome. But to this Calvin answereth, non continuat seriem annorum, &c. he continueth not here the course of years, as in setting down the age of man, &c. for the reason in setting down of numbers in that manner is, because they are of diverse kinds: when the years are numbered by hundreds, ten's, and unions: but here the number is all of the same kind, 70. in all. And if the Hebrew phrase should be here observed, he should have said, nine; and sixty, or 7. 2. and 60. two should not be put after 60. And why is the 70. week put last of all? it should after that manner of speaking be put first: as to say thus, 1. and 7. and 62. There is then more here to be con • idered then the phrase only.
3. Some make no matter at all of this division, but put the 7. weeks and 62. weeks together: that after 69. weeks the Messiah shall be slain, Melancth. Vatab. Osiander. but then this division made of purpose by the Angel should seem to be idle.
4. Pererius therefore giveth this reason of this division, because in these seven weeks, which make 49. years, there were two notable accidents; the repairing of the city by Nehemiah, and in the ende of this term fell out that notable history of Mordecat and Esther under Artaxerxes Mnemon. But Pererius is here deceived: for as it shall afterward appear, the repairing of the city by Nehemiah, was without the compass of these 7. weeks: and the other story fell out in the space of this term, but not under Mnemon: that Ahasuerus is most like to be Darius Hystaspes, as is before shown, qu. 44.
5. Some give a mystical reason of it, as Burgens. addit. 4. Antiqua lex dicitur septenana, nova octonaria, the old law is signified by seven, the new law by eight: to show hereby that the Messiah should bring in a new law, and abolish the old. But the Messiah was not to come in those 7. weeks, but after 62. weeks more.
6. So then in that the 7. weeks are divided from the rest, it doth not so much show what notable accidents should fall out therein, as it doth prescribe the very number of years, after the which from the going out of the word, the Temple and city should again be repaired and reedified; which accordingly came so to pass, as shall be shown afterward.
57. Quest. Whether these 7. weeks must be counted before the 62. weeks, or after.
It being then agreed upon, that there was some special cause in severing these 7. weeks from the rest, yet there is some question, wh • n these 7. weeks should begin, before or after the 62. weeks.
1. Tertullian putteth them after: for the 62. weeks he extendeth from Darius to the birth of Christ, and then 7. weeks and an half, that is, 53. years, he counteth from thence to the destruction of Jerusalem. But from Christ's birth, who suffered in the 34. year of his age, to the destruction of the city, some 40. years after, was above seven weeks, they make 10. weeks, 70. years at the least.
2. Some Hebrews, whose opinion Jerome rehearseth in his commentary upon this place, do ende the 62. years at the taking of the city by Titus, and from thence to the final destruction by Adrian the Emperor, they count 8. weeks more, which maketh 56. years. But beside that there are found from Darius to Adrian the Emperor, above 600. years, whereas 72. weeks make but 490. years: the 7. weeks must be counted to the Messiah, as is evident, v. 25. not after.
3. Theodoret bringeth the 69. weeks to Hyrcanus death, and from thence to the baptism of Christ, he counteth 7. weeks, that is 49. years: But he is much deceived in his account: for from Hyrcanus death to the baptism of our Savior, are about 60. years: for after Hyrcanus in the 32. year of Herod, or thereabout, was Christ borne, who was baptized in the 30. year of his age.
4. Now that these 7. weeks are to be counted before the 62. weeks, not to be cast after them, 1. the order of the words declare: there shall be seven weeks to the Messiah, and 62. weeks. 2. and beside it is said, that not after 69. weeks, but after 62. weeks Messiah shall be slain: so that unless the 62. weeks be put to the 7. weeks, the years will not bring us to the Messiah. 3. the accidents that fell out after that time, the building of the city, and the wall, which were done after the term of these 7. weeks, which things accordingly came to pass, will bring back these 7. weeks into the first place. 4. And beside the Angel directly beginneth the 7. weeks from the going forth of the word, v. 25.
58. Quest. When this term of 7. weeks, that is, 49. years began, and when it ended.
1. R. Solomon, whom Lyranus seemeth herein to incline unto, beginneth these seven weeks from the destruction of the first Temple by Nebuchadnezzar, and endeth them at Cyrus, which time by his account maketh 52. years. But in this number of 52. years, there are 3. years above 7. prophetical weeks, that is, 49. years, which the Rabbin is constrained (to make his account even) to put off to the beginning of the 62. weeks: but then is not the Angels division just and true, that cutteth off only 7. weeks from the rest: and beside, these 7. weeks must begin from the going forth of the word for the people to return, they take not then beginning so long before.
2. M. Calvin beginneth these years in the first of Cyrus, and endeth them in the sixth year of Darius the son of Hystaspes, the 3. king of Persia: but this cannot be: for they that give the most years unto Cyrus and Cambyses, allow but unto the one 30. to the other 7. excepting only Luther, who following Euseb. l. de demonstr. Euang. giveth to each of them 20. years: then add the 6. years of Darius, they will make but 43. how then can the seven weeks here be fulfilled? Beside, that Darius, in whose sixth the Temple was reedified, called Darius of Persia, was not Darius Hystaspes, the 3. king of Persia, but before this Darius three other kings are named, Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artashasht, Ezr. 4. 6, 7.
3. Oecolampadius proceedeth another way: for thus he casteth up the reckoning: he alloweth unto Cyrus 9. years, and to Cambyses 8. or to Cyrus 14. and to Cambyses 3. and then he putteth hereunto 20. of Darius, when Nehemiah was sent to Jerusalem, in whose 32. year the building of the city was finished. But in this account diverse errors are committed. 1. in giving 17. years to Cyrus and Cambyses, therein he differeth from other Chronologers: the Hebrews give unto them both 9. years jointly: the most 37. years: Bullinger to Cyrus 16. to Cambyses 8. If it shall be free for men, to allot unto the reign of kings more or fewer years at their pleasure, wheresoever they begin their account, they may make it agree. 2. Darius in whose time the Temple was built, was not Darius the son of Hystaspes, who immediately succeeded Cambyses: for before this Darius are named three other kings, as is shown before out of Ezr. 4. 6, 7. but Darius Hystaspes was the third king of Persia.
4. Bullinger will have these 7. weeks begin in the 7. year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when Ezra was sent with a new commission to Jerusalem, Ezr. 7. from thence counting 49. years we shall come to the 11. year of Darius Nothus; counting as he doth to Longimanus reign 44. years: and in this time was the city repaired by Nehemiah, but with much trouble. But this account also faileth: 1. The Temple was, after many years intermission, built and finished before Ezra was sent, in the 6. year of Darius, Ezr. 6. 15. which intermission is signified, in the dividing of these 7. weeks from the rest, as shall afterward appear, qu. 59. 2. He beginneth the 7. weeks, where they should ende, namely at the finishing of the Temple, as shall be shown afterward.
5. They likewise which begin these 7. weeks at the 20. year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, as Pererius, with diverse others, can show no reason, why these 7. weeks should be cut off from the rest, saving that because in this time Nehemiah was sent: and in the ende of this term, in the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon, he thinketh the history of Esther and Mordecai fell out. But Pererius is much deceived. 1. he beginneth the 7. weeks after the time, wherein they should ende, namely, at the finishing of the Temple, as followeth to be shown. 2. And it is before proved, that Mordecai lived not under Artaxerxes Mnemon, but under Darius Hystaspes, who is called Ahasuerus, as is shown before, qu. 44. 3. But though they seem to allege some reason for the beginning of these 7. weeks in the 20. of Artaxerxes, there can be no probable cause shown, of the ending of these weeks, which by Pererius account will bring us to the 10. year of Artaxerxes Mnemons reign, whom he supposeth to be Esters Ahasuerus: for in that story, there is no special note made of the 10. year, but of the 3. year, wherein he made a feast to his nobles, Esth. 1. 3. of the 7. year, when he married Esther, c. 2. 16. and of the 12. year, when Haman procured the decree against the Jews, c. 3. 7.
6. Some begin these 7. weeks at the 20. year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and ende them at the 2. of Artaxerxes Memor, M. Lydyat, pag. 78.
But beside the difference in this computation between him and Pererius, who bringeth the 7. weeks from the 20. of Longimanus, to the 10. of Memor, or Mnemon, no reason can be assigned of the breaking off and dividing those 7. weeks from the other: he saith, that other cities of Judea began then to be built, but with much trouble: but Daniel maketh mention only of building Jerusalem in this place.
7. Josephus Scalliger lib. 6. de emendat. tempor. M. Junius, M. Lively in his Persian Monarchy, and Polanus begin these 7. weeks in the 2. year of Darius Nothus, and ende them in the 32. of Artaxerxes Mnemon, when Nehemiah returned, after he had finished the building of the city unto the king of Persia, Nehem. 5. 14. there remained 17. years after Darius second, whom they held to have reigned 19. years: which make the sum of 49. years: in which space of time, both the Temple and city were built.
But against this opinion it may thus be objected. 1. the 7. weeks, and the 70. weeks have the same beginning from the going forth of the word, which is before proved at large to have been in the first of Cyrus, quest. 43. 2. they begin these weeks where they should ende: for these 7. weeks were the time of the intermission and breaking off of their work, in building the city and Temple: the Angel showeth how long that work should be interrupted, after the which they should begin to build.
8. M. Junius then in his former edition beginneth these weeks in the first of Cyrus, and endeth them in the 20. year of Longimanus, when Nehemiah had his commission given him▪ so also H. Br. in his commentary: But from Cyrus 1. to the sending of Nehemiah in the 20. Artaxerxes Longimanus, must needs be above 49. years in account: for the four former kings of Persia, Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius the son of Hystaspes, and Xerxes, had more then 30. years among them.
9. Wherefore the best reckoning of these 7. weeks is this: to begin them with M. Calvin, Oecolampad. M. Br. in Cyrus first, and to ende them in the 6. of Darius Longimanus, when the Temple was finished: and in the 7. year was Ezra sent, and in the 20. by the same king, Nehemiah: my reasons are these. 1. from the first going forth of the word, which was in Cyrus time; must these 7. weeks take beginning, which make 49. years: the time is too short to end them in the reign of Darius Hystaspes, which was within 49. years, and too long to extend them to Darius Nothus, who was the sixth king of Persia, which was about 70. years from Cyrus first: therefore one must be taken between them, and that was Darius Artaxerxes called Longimanus, who was next before Nothus: Longimanus is held by the most to have reigned 40. years, which years added to the reign of 4. kings before Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes, will make too many for the account of 49. years, to the 2. of Nothus. 2. The Temple was 46. year in building as the Jews say, John. 2. which years must be accounted from the 3. of Cyrus, when the building began to be hindered, for the which cause Daniel was in heaviness 3. weeks of days, Dan. 10. 3. so we shall have the sum of 46. years from Cyrus 3. and of 49. from Cyrus 1. to the finishing of the Temple.
But it will be objected, that it was Darius Nothus, in whose 6. the Temple was built, because he had an Artaxerxes going before him, Ezra. 4. 7. and another after him, Ezr. 6. 14. and 7. 1. and so he was in the middes between two Artaxerxes, Longimanus and Mnemon, and that must needs be Nothus, Joseph. Scalliger lib. 6. de emendat. temp.
Answ. That Artashasht mentioned, Ezra. 4. 7. who sent a rescript to hinder the building of the city and Temple, was not Artaxerxes Longimanus, but Cambyses, who was a chief hinderer of the building of the Lord's house. 1. Longimanus is held of all to have been a friend unto the Jews. 2. In the accusation sent to Artashasht they say, that the Jews did build and lay the foundation of the walls, Ezr. 4. 12. they speak, as of a thing then in doing, which could not be so many years (more then 40) after in Longimanus time: for the work was intermitted unto the time of Darius. Ezra. 4. 5. this complaint then was made to Artashasht, prince under Cyrus, namely, Cambyses his son, who had the administration of the kingdom, his father being occupied in foreign wars abroad: so Iun. edition. 3. Vatab. H. Br. Though Ahasuerus be mentioned before v. 6. which was Darius Hystaspes, how in the beginning of his reign an accusation was made against them; that proveth not the Artashasht following to be Longimanus: but the story returneth to show the original of that accusation, which formerly had been made.
3. That place, Ezr. 6. 14. proveth not another Artashasht to have succeeded Darius: there are diners opinions. 1. Some think, that Artaxerxes Mnemon caused such things to be finished, which belonged to the ornament of the Temple, which was made an ende of in his fathers time: ex Vatabl. but here the finishing of the Temple is ascribed to Darius and Artashasht together, not to one after another. 2. Junius thinketh, that Artashasht reigned together with his father: but it is not like that in the second year of Darius, when the work began, that Darius son was so old, as to take the administration of the kingdom upon him. 3. Some by Darius understand Darius the Mede, who jointly with Cyrus gave that commandment at the first; and by Artashasht they understand Longimanus, Iun. annot. edit. 1. 4. Some thus read, Darius, that is, Artashasht, Vatab. and M. Br. nameth him Darius Artashasht, which seemeth to have been a common appellation to most of the Persian kings, Iun. Genevens. annotat. in Ezra 7. 1. I prefer this latter, for in the first commandment which was given unto the Jews to return, only mention is made of Cyrus, 2. Chron. 36. 32. Ezra. 1. 1. Darius then called king of Persia, which was Longimanus, Ezra. 4. 24. the same is Artashasht called here king of Persia, and Ezra. 6. 22. king of Ashur, and Nehem. 13. 6. king of Babel: a part of the kingdom being by the figure Synecdoche taken for the whole: for all was under the government of the kings of Persia.
4. Some think that the first Artashasht or Artaxerxes mentioned Ezra. 4. 7. was Smerdes, which usurped the kingdom after Cambyses, for 7. months: and the other Artaxerxes spoken of Ezra. 6. 14. and 7. 1. was Artaxerxes Longimanus, and Darius there mentioned was Darius Hystaspes called the king of Ashur, Ezra. 6. 22. because he snbdued Babylon and Assyria, so M. Lydyat de emendat. tempor. pag. 64, 65. 73.
But 1. it is not like that Smerdes being king not above 7. months, and not thoroughly settled, could be such an hinderer of the building of Jerusalem: or that in so short a time, there could be such intercourse by letters to and fro from the king of Persia to Jerusalem being far distant, even 4. months journey, Ezra. 7. 9. the other Artaxerxes, was indeed Longimanus, as is before shown, and the same was the Darius also there mentioned, Ezra. 6. 14. for how could the temple be said to be finished by the commandment of Artashasht, who yet reigned not, but is mentioned by anticipation, as be thinketh: and as Darius is here called king of Ashur, fo is Artashasht called king of Babel, Nehem. 13. 6. they were both the same as is before shown, a part of the kingdom is taken for the whole.
59. Quest. Whether that place, John. 2. 20. that the Temple was 46. years in building, have any agreement with these 7. weeks.
1. Oecolampadius utterly rejecteth that saying of the Jews, nobis illud dictum Iudaorum, quod per inuidiam loquebantur, non est tantae authoritatis, &c. to us that saying of the Jews is not of so great authority, that we should set it against so evident places of the Scripture. Likewise Bullinger thinketh that the Jews might ouerlash in this speech, as they did when they said to Christ, Thou art not yet fifty year old, John. 8. 57. and yet he never saw forty. But, although where the Jews speak upon their blind traditions contrary to Scripture, they are not to be regarded; yet when we see the received opinion to concur with Scripture, and the event to be answerable thereunto, it is not to be rejected: as here the 46. years by them mentioned, being counted from Cyrus third, when the work ceased, do agree with this prophesy of 7. weeks, that is 49. years from Cyrus first.
2. Josephus Scalliger likewise rejecteth this testimony of the Jews, lib. 6. de emendat. tempor. upon this reason, because these 7. weeks are appointed for the building of the city and street, and not of the Temple: But by the one the other must be understood: the building of Jerusalem includeth also the building of the Temple: for otherwise no mention is made at all here of the building of the Temple, which notwithstanding was principally intended, both in the prophesy of Isaiah concerning Cyrus, c. 44. 28. and in the fulfilling thereof, Ezra. 1. 1.
3. Pintus applieth that term of 46. years to the building of the Temple, but he doth not make it agree with these 7. months: for he reckoneth but 48. years in all to the finishing of the Temple, which began two years after the going forth of the word: so that from the beginning of the building were 46. years, but from the going forth of the word 48. Contra. But neither were two years expired from the going forth of the word unto the beginning of the Temple, but only one year complete and somewhat more: for they began to set forward the work in the 2. year the second month, Ezra. 3. 8. And thus the prophesy of 7. weeks from the going forth of the word should not be fulfilled.
4. Some think, that the Jews put diverse time • together, of the second building of the Temple in their teturne from captivity, and of the third by Herod, so that they add 20. years, which Herod spent in enlarging the edifices about the Temple, Oecolamp. But the Jews speak only of the time spent in the building of the second Temple: for Solomon's Temple was finished in 7. years, 1. king 6. and Herod's work about the Temple in 10. years, as Josephus witnesseth, lib. 15. antiquit.
5. Pererius thinketh the Jews computation to be true, which he beginneth in the 2. year of Cyrus, when they laid the foundation of the Temple, and endeth in the 9. of Darius Hystaspes, when all the work, the outward Court and all were finished: and thus he casteth the sum; from Cyrus 2. there remain 29. years of Cyrus reign, Cambyses, and the Magi reigned 8. and Darius 9. But the 7. weeks he beginneth from the 20. year of Longimanus.
Contra. 1. Beside that, Cyrus and Cambyses reigned not so long over the Persian Monarchy: Cyrus is held to have reigned in all 30. but over the whole Monarchy, after the overthrow of Babel, but three. 2. another error is, that Pererius taketh the ninth year of Darius, following therein Josephus, whereas Ezra. 6. 14. the Temple was finished in the 6. year of Darius. 3. neither was this Darius Hystaspes, but Darius Longimanus, under whom the Temple was finished, as before is shown, quest. 45. 4. the seven weeks must begin from the 1. of Cyrus, not from the 20. of Longimanus, as is also before proved; quest. 43. and quest. 58.
6. M. Calvin, whom the Genevens. follow in their annotation here, do give unto the building of the Temple 46. year, and to the laying of the foundation 3. years, which make 49. in all: but this account cannot stand neither, for the 7. weeks must begin from the going forth of the word, which was in the 1. of Cyrus: the foundation of the Temple was laid in the 2. year, then cannot the 7. weeks and these 49. years, wherein the Temple was built, ende together, not beginning together.
7. Some think that the Jews speak not of the Temple built by Zerubbabel, but of Herod's Temple which he began to enlarge in the 18. year of his reign, which was 46. years before, and was not yet finished, M. Lydyat de emendat. tempor. p. 174.
8. But the more received and probable opinion is, that the Jews speak of the Temple built after their return out of captivity, and finished, not then in building; and thus the 7. weeks, and the 46. years are made to agree together: the 7. weeks, which make 49. years, begin at Cyrus 1. and the 46. years must be counted from the third of Cyrus, when the work of the house was hindered: and so the 7. weeks and the 46. years shall ende together at the finishing of the Temple in Darius 6. year, H. Br. in his Concent.
Quest. 60. Unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, ver. 25. Who is here understood by the Messiah.
1. R. Selam • who beginneth the 7. weeks at the destruction of the first Temple, will have this Messiah, or anointed, to be Cyrus, as he is called, Isaiah. 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to Cyrus his anointed: and from the desolation of the Temple unto Cyrus he counteth 52. years.
Paulus Burgensis thus confuteth this assertion, because none are simply in Scripture calleth anointed, but those which were anointed either with material oil, as the kings and Priests, or with spiritual, as the Prophets; but Cyrus was neither of these ways anointed. And whereas this place is urged of Cyrus, he saith it is not to be understood of Cyrus, but of the Messiah: this answer of Burgens. is very weak: for in that the Prophet saith, Cyrus, his anointed, what is more evident, then that he speaketh of Cyrus, being expressed by name? Pererius answer also is insufficient, that Cyrus was long before the beginning of these weeks; whereas it hath been already shown, that the weeks began in Cyrus time.
1. Thus therefore is this opinion rather refelled. 1. because he himself counteth 52. weeks unto Cyrus, which make above 7. weeks of years, Burgens. 2. Afterward by Messiah that should be slain, he understandeth Agrippa king of the Jews; and so he changeth the person, taking the Messiah for two diverse persons: whereas it is evident, that the Prophet speaketh of one and the same Messiah, Lyranus. 3. he is called Messiah the governor, or principal, for so the word nagid signifieth: but none is called the principal Messiah but only Christ, of whom the Prophet speaketh, Isaiah. 55. 4. I have given him for a witness to the people, for a Prince, &c. the word is nagid, Burgens.
2. Some by the Messiah understand Nehemiah, as Ab. Ezra, some Zerubbabel, some Joshua the high Priest, as R. Levi, Ben Gerso • . But these were in the beginning of the 7. weeks, at the return of the captivity, Ezr • 2. 2. it cannot be therefore said, that there should be 7. weeks unto them: And again, the office of this Messiah was to finish sin, and reconcile iniquity, which none of these could do.
3. Some by Messiah, taking the singular for the plural, do understand the anointed governors, whom Eusebius taketh to be the Maccabees, who were both Priests and kings: but unto the beginning of the reign of the Maccabees, were above 7. weeks from the beginning of the 70. weeks, wheresoever they begin them: for the regiment of the Maccabees began above an hundred years after the ende of the Persian Monarchy.
4. M. Lively therefore in his Persian Monarchy, p. 205. taketh the word Messiah somewhat more largely, for the chief rulers and kings of the Jews commonwealth, unto the beginning of whose settled estate are counted 7. weeks: for from the 2. of Darius Nothus when the Temple began to be reedified, of whose reign there remained 17. years, to the 32. of Arrashasht, are just 49. years, in whose 32. year the city being built, and set form of government established, Nehemiah returned unto the king, Nehem. 13. 6. of this his opinion he yieldeth two special reasons. 1. from the Hebrew point athnah, after 7. weeks, which being a perfect distinction, doth suspend it from the sentence following: so that he would have these 7. weeks to the Messiah, taken by themselves, and not to be joined with the 62. weeks following. 2. these two things began together, the city built, and the anointed governor thereof: as Samballat in a letter to Nehemiah joineth them both together, Nehem. 6. 6. thou and the Jews think to rebel, for the which cause thou buildest ihe wall, and thou wilt be the king thereof, to this purpose M. Lively, p. 209.
Answ. 1. Oecolampadius to that objection of the points, maketh this answer: we had rather follow in this place the Greeks and Latins, quam Iudaeos pro sua libidine punctum constituentes, then the Jews setting the points according to their pleasure: but this is a dangerous answer: for if we make question of the Hebrew pricks and points, we shall have no certainty of the Scripture: therefore I rather answer with Polanus, that although the perfect distinction athnah, be there set, yet the rest must be joined in sense, as the Angel at the first maketh but one whole number of 70. weeks.
2. It followeth not, because when the city was built, the settled government began, that therefore the governors were this Messiah: And if Nehemiah were the first gouerno • r, as it cannot be denied, after the building of the city: to the beginning of his government, there were not 7. weeks of years; seeing he was sent in the 20. of Artaxerxes, and there continued to the 32. year, when according to his account the 49. years expired.
5. Wherefore the best and most received interpretation is, that by Messiah here, we are to understand our Blessed Savior Christ Jesus; as it may thus appear. 1. one and the same Messiah is spoken of through this prophesy: but the Messiah which should be slain, and confirm the covenant for one week, was Christ: therefore this Messiah here spoken of was Christ. 2. the weeks before spoken of, to finish sin, and reconcile iniquity, could only be performed by Christ.
6. Some do understand by Messiah, Christ, and make this the sense, that 7. weeks, that is, 49. years he should be their governor, and afterward cast them off: But it is evident, that the Lord did not only during those 7. weeks take upon him the protection of that people, but many years after also.
7. Some object, that in that Messiah is called here a captain or governor, if it were meant of Christ, it would extenuate his dignity: M. Calvin answereth, that therein the dignity and excellency of Christ is set forth, who was a captain over all other kings and Princes: and this title is given also to kings, and to the chief earthly states; as David is called the captain of the people, 2. Sam. 3. 2. and Hezekiah, 2. king. 20. 5. Pererius addeth further, that this title, nagid, captain, Prince, is particularly given unto Christ, as Isaiah. 55. 4. I have given him for a prince or captain: for he was our captain, 1. to lead us by his holy example of life. 2. in teaching the way unto salvation. 3. in gathering together his church, and conducting them to eternal life, Perer. lib. 10. quest. 17.
Quest. 61. v. 25. The streets shall be built again in a troublesome time: how this was fulfilled.
1. Some do refer this troublesome time to the 62. week, immediately before spoken of: which containeth 434. years to be counted, unto the Messiah from the ende of the 7. weeks: and then the meaning is this, that during all the continuance of that time, the commonwealth of the Jews should have much ••• uble: so Iun. Polan, and M. Lively out of Saadiah giveth this sense, pag. 172. that Jerusalem being built, shall continue 434. years before the desolation: but in that mention is made of building the streets again, that is, the city, the words seem to have special reference to these troublesome times in the first 7. weeks, wherein the work of the Temple and city were intermitted.
2. Some by the streightnes of time, understand the short time, wherein the city was built: for after it began to be reedified in the 2. year of Darius, it was finished in four year, Hug. Cardinal. but it is shown before, that it was from the first to the last 46. year in building, and therefore the 7. weeks are fingled from the rest, to note the streightnesse and troubles of those times.
3. Some having special reference unto the 7. weeks, do understand, only the troublesome building of the city, because they hold the Temple to have been built before the 7. weeks began, so Bullinger, Josephus Scalliger, Osian. as mention is made, Nehem. 4. how they built with one hand, and held their swords in the other: But seeing the building of the Temple was the principal work, and was intermitted 46. years, it is not like that it should be omitted in this prophesy.
4. Wherefore by building here in a trouble some time, is understood the building of the Temple and the city: as Junius in his commentary, understandeth the building of Jerusalem: that both of them should be in a troublesome time: So that as afterward the Angel showeth what should happen after the 7. and 62. weeks: so here specially is intended what memorable thing should befall within the compass of these 7. weeks in the building of the Temple: and after in the building of the city, H. Br. Concent. as also thereby is signified, that their whole state should remain troublesome still, as the book of the Maccabees showeth, Lyranus. that they should not look for any perfect outward estate, but be stirred up to look for their spiritual redemption by the Messiah.
Quest. 62. Of the 62. weeks, how they are to be understood.
1. Pererius observeth upon this place, that in some copies of the Complutense edition, for 62. weeks, there are put 64. weeks: which he noteth to be a manifest error, seeing that in the original, and the best translated copies, there is mention made only of 62. weeks, which make 434. years.
2. Josephus Scalliger doth not begin these 62. weeks, where the first 7. ende, but doth give a diverse beginning unto them: the 7. weeks he would have begin in the 2. of Darius Nothus, and ende in the 32. of Artaxerxes Mnemon: the 62. weeks he thinketh to begin in the 5. year of Mnemon, and to ende at the passion of Christ.
But 1. in that the Angel putteth all these weeks together in one whole sum of 70. it is evident, that the 62. weeks must follow immediately after the 7. weeks, and the 70. and last week after the 62. 2. seeing that Ezra was sent in the 7. year of Artaxerxes, Ezra. 7. 1. Scalliger thinketh that the decree was made for his return in the 5. year, but he spent one year in his preparation: But M. Lively answereth that one year will not serve his turn: for from the last yere of the 202. Olympiad, counting 434. backward, we come to the second year of the 94. Olympiad, which falleth into the 3. year of Artaxerxes reign by Scalligers own confession: but by Bullingers tables, the 2. year of the 94. Olympiad, bringeth us to the 15. year of Darius N • thus, 5. years before Artaxerxes began to reign: so that Scalliger misseth of his reckoning 3. or 4. years after his own account: thus M. Lively p. 231.
3. Some begin these 7. weeks and 62. weeks, in the 65. Olympiad, which was in the beginning of Darius Hystaspes reign, and bring them to the 186. Olympiad, which make 483. years, at such time as Hyrcanus was killed, in whom the line of the anointed Priests ceased, and then Herod a stranger usurped the kingdom, Euseb. in Chronicis. but in this account we want above 60. years to the death of the Messiah, who after these 62. weeks was to be slain.
4. Theod • ret beginneth the 62. weeks at the building of the city in the 20. of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and endeth with Eusebius at Hyrcanus death, and thence to Christ's baptisrne he counteth the other 7. weeks. But this account cannot stand: for as Pererius casteth the time; from the 20. of Longimanus which was in the 4. year of the 83. Olympiad, to Hyrcanus death, which was as Josephus reckoneth, lib. 15. antiquit. in the 187. Olympiad, are not 62. weeks, or 434. years, but only 59. weeks, which make 414. years: And from Hyrcanus death in the 187. Olympiad, to the baptism of Christ in the beginning of the 202. Olympiad, are not only 7. weeks, that is 49. years: but almost 9. weeks, even 60. years.
5. Bullinger beginneth these 62. weeks in the 11. year of Darius Nothus, and endeth them in the passion of Christ: whereas the 62. weeks must begin after the 7. weeks, which as is shown before, begin at Cyrus first, and ende in the 6. of Darius Longimanus.
6. Pererius beginning the 7. weeks at the 20. of Longimanus, and ending them by his own account about the 10. year of Artaxerxes Mnemon, there beginneth the 62. weeks, and endeth them at the baptism of Christ: but the 7. weeks were ended in the 6. year of Longimanus, as is proved before quest. 58. then can they not begin at the 20. year of Longimanus.
7. But Osiander is further wide, who beginning the 7. weeks at the 20. of Longimanus, and putting unto them 62. weeks more, which make 483. years, bringeth them to the very time of Christ's passion, and there beginneth the 70. and last week: he varieth 3. years and an half from all the rest, who beginning as he doth, yet determine the 69. weeks at Christ's baptism. How further these 62. weeks are yet diversely interpreted by some other both for their beginning and ende, see before, quest. 57.
8. Then it remaineth, that these 62. weeks must begin where the 7. weeks ende, in the 6. of Darius, and they ende at the last seventy week, which began three years and an half before the baptism of Christ; and the other half is set apart for the holy preaching and Blessed passion of Christ. Bulling. H. Br. who both agree for the ende of these 62. weeks: but they differ in the beginning: M. Bullinger reckoneth the 62. weeks from the 11. of Darius Nothus, and the 7. weeks from the 20. of Longimanus.
9. Melancthon beginneth the 7. and 62. weeks, which make 69. in all, in the 2. of Longimanus, when the Temple began to be reedified, and endeth them at Christ's baptism: But as is shown before, quest. 58. the 7. weeks must ende in the sixth of Darius Longimanus: wherefore the meaning is this, that after 62. weeks joined with the former 7. the Messiah shall be slain, not immediately after those 69. weeks, but in the 70. and last week following after the 69. Bullinger. Vatabl. Lyranus.
Quest. 63. Shall Messiah be slain, v. 26. who this Messiah was, that should be slain.
1. R. Selomo taketh this Messiah to be king Agrippa, that should be slain by the Romans a little before the destruction of Jerusalem: But this is a fabulous conceit. 1. for Agrippa was not slain, but as Cornelius Tacitus writeth, lib. 5. Agrippa was confederate with the Romans: and Josephus also testifieth, that he took part with the Romans, after be could not persuade the Jews to give over their intended war: and that the said Agrippa suruiued after the destruction of the city. 2. Beside here is a great error in Chronology; for from the beginning of the 70. weeks, which he maketh 52. years before Cyrus, to the destruction of Jerusalem, are in the most compendious reckoning almost 600. years.
2. Theodoret and Eusebius by the Messiah understand Hyrcanus, who was the last anointed governor of the Priests, and after him the Herodians usurped the kingly authority unto the destruction of the city: But the Messiah here spoken off, must reconcile iniquity, and finish sin, but so could not any of the anointed Priests.
3. M. Lively by Messiah, taking the singular for the plural, would have meant the anointed governors: for all lawful rule and authority ceased a little before the taking of the city by the Romans: there was havoc made of the rulers and Elders, and a general disorder and Anarchy brought in first under Albinus, then Florus: Persian Monarchy, pag. 212. and p. 241. And this reason he urgeth why the Messiah is not here Christ: because it were an improper speech, to take the last week for the Messiah: as they are forced thus to interpret these words: after 62. weeks shall the Messiah be slain, that is, in the 70. and last week.
Contra. 1. Whereas the Prophet here speaketh of one Messiah, by this interpretation we shall have many, and a succession rather of governors, then any one certain governor, in which sense, I think, it cannot be shown, that the word (Messiah) is taken throughout the whole Scripture. 2. and by this exposition of (Messiah) we are deprived of one of the most pregnant prophesies of Christ's holy passion. 3. neither doth it follow, that the 70. week in that sense should be taken for the Messiah, no more then he himself taketh it, where he saith, that after 69. weeks counted from the commandment, th • Messiah (whom he interpreteth the anointed governor) should be cut off, the city and Temple destroyed, leaving the last week of the seventy, for the accomplishment thereof, pag. 224. for doth not he likewise understand the 70. week after the 69. wherein the Messiah should be cut off? 4. even to admit his own sense, the lawful anointed governors ceased in Jerusalem long before the destruction of Jerusalem, about the birth of Christ, in the 30. year of Herod, when that tyrant slew all the Sanhedrin, as the L. of Plessie showeth out of Philo: whereupon he inferreth that to be the time, wherein the sovereignty and Jurisdiction of Iudsh did cease. And so was Jacob's prophesy fulfilled, Gen. 49. 10. that the sc • pt • r should not depart from Judah, nor a law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come: M. Lively hereunto answereth, that this prophesy was rather fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, which he calleth the beginning of Christ's second coming to judgment, the ende and accomplishment whereof shall be in the last day of judgment: and therefore all the time afterward is called the last days: and this is the reason why our Savior, Matth. 14. treateth in the same place of the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the end of the world. So M. Lively, p. 251.
But 1. this is a strange exposition, to understand Christ's coming in the flesh, when he was gone out of the world, and to make his going his coming. 2. Jacob prophesieth of the first coming of Christ in the flesh, as Junius noteth out of the word Shilob▪ which he interpreteth, her son, the word properly signifying the matrice or womb: because Christ was borne of a woman without the help of man, Iun. annot. in Gen. 49. 3. The reason why our Savior treateth of both those questions together is, because the Apostles had propounded two questions, both of the time of the destruction of the city and Temple, and of the ende of the world: for thus they say, Tell us, when these things shall be, and what sign shall be of thy coming, and of the ende of the world, Matth. 24. 3. therefore our Savior satisfieth them in both their demands. 4. These very words last rehearsed show, that the second coming of Christ, and the ende of the world should be joined together.
4. Junius, who understandeth this place of the true Messiah, yet referreth the ende of these 70. weeks to the destruction of the city, is forced to use a kind of zeugmatical construction, as he calleth it, by supplying the word after in this sense, after 62. weeks, after, the Messiah is slain: so also Polanus: which words they thus interpret, not that after the 62. weeks the Messiah should be cut off: but after such time as the Messiah should be slain, which was within the 69. weeks, and after the said 62. weeks, then should follow the destruction of the city. But who seeth not, how in this exposition the text is strained: for the nominative is turned into the accusative, after the Messiah slain, or the ablative, the Messiah being slain: and the word after is inserted, which is not in the text. And the very first reading of the words, after 62. weeks the Messiah shall be slain, do evidently give this sense, that after that time, and not before, he should be slain.
5. Junius hath another interpretation in his annotations, showing the accomplishment hereof in the members of Christ, how that after the Messiah himself was slain, his members were persecuted: for in the ende of the 69. week, about the 7. year of Nero, James was put to death, and a grievous persecution was raised against the Church: But the members and servants of the Messiah, cannot be the Messiah: and this cutting off must be after the 69. weeks, not in any part of them: neither as is shown before, doth the 69. week extend to the 7. of Nero, being expired before the baptism of Christ.
6. Oecolampad. yieldeth this as a reason, why this cutting off cannot in his judgment be referred to the death of Christ; because the word signifieth, so to cut off, as the thing cut off be in a manner extinguished and perisheth: but so was not Christ cut off, who hanging upon the cross, was written in the superscription king of the Jews: But M. Calvin. answereth this objection well, qu • ad communem sensum, quia putabant homines prorsus esse abolitum, this was true according to the common sense, because men thought that Christ was wholly abolished: So that he was in the opinion of men, as quite cut off, as the Prophet Isaiah faith, c. 53. 8. he was cut out of the land of the living. 2. And the word here used ca • ath, signifieth to cut off either by death or banishment, as Amos. 1. 5. I will cut off the inhabit a • ts of Bikeath-auen, &c. the sense then is no more but this, that the Messiah shall be an off, that is, slain.
7. Wherefore the plain and proper meaning of these words is, that after these weeks the Messiah out Blessed Savior should be put to death for our sins: And this is an evident proof of this sense: because it is said, v. 27. He shall confirm the conenant, which even in M. Liuelies judgment is understood of the Messiah, p. 218. Then the Messiah, to whom this word (he) hath reference unto, must be expressed, and spoken of before.
Quest. 64. Of the meaning of these words, and he shall have nothing, or rather not for himself.
1. There are diverse expositions of these words. 1. Oecolampad, referreth them to the people of Jerusalem, nothing to him, that is, the people shall have neither king nor Priest, nothing shall be left unto them: but the Messiah being spoken of immediately before, these words, veen • o, and not to him, must have reference to the Messiah.
2. Junius in his first edition thus interpreteth, nihil ad illum, nothing to him, that is, death shall have no power upon him, neither for all this, shall his judgments be stayed, which he purposed to bring upon the city.
3. In his last edition, in his annotations, and in his commentary, he thus expoundeth: that all shall depart from him, he shall not have in Jerusalem any disciple: for a little before the besieging of the city, they of the Church were admonished by revelation to go out of Jerusalem unto a town in Petrea called Pella. Euseb. l. 3. hist. Eccl. c. 5.
4. Not much differing here-from, is the interpretation of Lyranus, Hugo, Pintus, with others, following the Latin translation: non erit ei populus qui eum negaturus est, they shall not be his people, which denied him: for the Jews said they had no king but Caesar, John: 19. 15. and as for this man (say they) we know not whence he is, John. 9. 29.
5. M. Calvin thus interpreteth, nihil ei erit, he shall have nothing: so also Genevens. that is, he shall have a contemptible death, and be counted as nothing: as the Prophet Isai saith, c. 53. 3. He hath neither form not beauty.
6. Vatablus thus expoundeth, there shall be none to help him or deliver him.
7. But the fittest and best sense is this: the Messias shall be slain, but not for himself, Bulling. B. translation, H. Br. upon Daniel. And this sense best agreeth to the prophesy of Christ, Isa. 53. 4. We did judge him as plagued, and smitten of God, but he was wounded for our transgressions, &c. And to the Apostles doctrine, 2. Cor. 5. 25. He hath made him sin for us, that knew no sin, that we should be made the righteousness of God in him. But seeing here mention is made of the death of Christ, before we go any further, it shall not be amiss briefly to handle the questions of the time both of the birth, baptism, and passion of our blessed Savior.
65. Quest. Of the year of the nativity of our blessed Savior.
There are three accounts to find out the birth of Christ: 1. by the Roman Chronology, 2. by the Greek Olympiads, 3. by the Hebrews computation.
1. The Roman account of years, is either by the years of the building of Rome, by the Consuls, or by the years of the Emperors: for the years of the city, Pererius casteth the time of Christ's birth into the 752. year, which he proveth out of Dions Chronology, who placeth the 15. year of Tiberius, when Christ at 30. years was baptized, in the 782. year. But therein he is somewhat deceived: for setting the 1. year of Christ in the 752. of the city, in the 782. beginneth the 31. year of Christ, as M. Bullinger casteth it: and the 15. year of Tiberius was in the 781. year. M. Lively in his table setteth down the birth of Christ in the 751. year: but the received opinion is, that it was in the 752. year. which was the 42. of Augustus reign.
Concerning the computation by the years of the Consuls, it is uncertain. Sulpitius thinketh, that Sabinus and Ruffinus were then Consuls, lib. 2. sacr. histor. Cassiodorus nameth C. Lentulus, and M. M • ssalinus: but these are placed by others in the 749. year, not the 752. of the city. Onuphrius in chronie. and Epiphanius in hares. 51. and Eusebius in chronic. do hold, that Augustus was the 13. time Consul, and Syllanus; when Christ was borne: which Carolus Sigonius in his commentaries agreeth unto, as the most probable: yet M. Lively setteth them in the year of the city 750. the year before he supposeth Christ to have been borne. This account then by Consuls we leave as uncertain.
The surer way then by the Roman computation, is to count by the years of the reign of the Emperors. Augustus Caesar is held to have lived 75. years, and 10. months, and 20. days, being borne as Dio doth cast his nativity, in the year of the city 691. and ending his life in the year 767. But others do place his birth in the year of the city 689. as Eutropius lib. 6. and Orosius lib. 6. when Cicero and Antony were Consuls together, which was in the year 689. Bulling. M. Lively. by this latter account Augustus should be two year elder: and so lived in all 77. years, and odd months. But Pliny is wide, who placeth the Consulship of Cicero and Antony, in the 700. year, which should be above ten years after, lib. 9. c. 39.
Now for the time of his government: he reigned alone after he had overcome Antony at Actium, 44. years: 12. he had the joint government with Antony: so that from the beginning of his first Consulship and regiment, he governed 56. years, some say 58. years, Tacit. dialogue. de clar. oratorib. some 57. as Josephus counteth, l. 18. c. 3. but the most Chronologers agree that he reigned in all 56. years, 6. months: so Epiphan. in Anchorat. and Beda, lib. de 6. at • tib. Fererius thinketh he reigned not full out 56. the difference is not great.
The year then of Christ's birth compared with Augustus reign, being in the 752. year of the city, falleth out to be in the 42. year of Augustus sole government, the 62. of his age, and the 30. year after the conquest of Antony. Beda thinketh it was the 27. year: so also Joseph. Scalig. Clemens the 28. lib. 1. stromat. Onuphrius the 29. but it was the 30. year just from the victory of Antony: which was the 42. year from the beginning of Augustus first Consulship, as it may be thus gathered: Christ in the 15. year of Tiberius Caesar, was 30. year old, Luk. 3. 1. 23. then put unto that number 15. more of Augustus 56. and we shall come just to the 42. year of Augustus. Thus much of the Latin computation.
2. By the computation of the Greek Olympiads, Christ's birth fell out in the 3. year of the 194. Olympiad, as Eusebius in chronic. and Beda, lib; de 6. aetat. and Iosep. Scalig. so also M. Lively: but other cast it to be in the 4. year of the 194. Olympiad, Bulling. Perer. and their reason is this, because they hold Christ to have died in the 33. year of his age, in the 4. year of the 202. Olympiad: by which account his birth will fall out in the 4. of the 194. Olympiad. Here Cyril. Hycrosol. is found to be in a great error, who affirmeth, catech. 12. that Christ was borne in the 4. year of the 186. Olympiad, which was above 30. years before, so that by this reckoning Christ in the 15. year of Tiberius, when he was baptized, should be above 60. years old.
66. Quest. Of the computation of years from the creation to the the nativity of our blessed Savior.
3. We will come now to the Jews computation, which is either by the casting of the year of the world, or by the years of their kings and governors: other ways they have to reckon by, but these are most pertinent to this business in hand.
1. Pererius counteth from the beginning of the world, to the birth of Christ 4022. years, which sum he thus collecteth by parcels.
From the creation to the flood, were years a 1656. as may be gathered, Gen. 5. by the age of the fathers: then he reckoneth from the flood, to the birth of Abraham, counting 30. years for Cainan, 322. from the birth of Abraham unto the Promise 75. Gen. 12. from the Promise to the giving of the Law, 430. Gal. 3. frō thence to the building of Solomon's Temple 480. 1. king. 6. 1. then to the beginning of the Olympiads in the 8. year of Ahaz, 283. and from the 1. Olympiad to the 4. year of the 194. Olympiad, wherein Christ was borne 776. years: all these sums laid together from the beginning of the world, to the birth of Christ, he summeth to 4022. years in all.
But Pererius diversely faileth in this his reckoning. 1. for in the second sum from the flood to Abraham's birth, he committeth two great errors: for 1. he counteth 30. years for Caynan, which is not in the original, but only in the Septuagint. 2. and beside, he reckoneth but 292. years, supposing Abraham to have been borne in the 70. year of his fathers age, whereas he was borne in the 130. year: for he was but 75. year old when his father was 205. so that from the flood to Abraham's birth, were 352. years: he then with forged Cainans 30. making but 322. years, wanteth yet 30. more of the just reckoning. 3. further, he setteth the beginning of the Olympiads in the 8. year of Ahaz, whereas it is more probable they began 23. years before, in the 2. year of Jotham: here then he cometh 23. years too late. 4. and in his last sum of 776. he overreacheth above an 100. years, for from Ahaz 8. year to the 11. of Jehoiakim, when the captivity began, are but an 134. years, as may be gathered by the several years of the reigns of the kings of Judah: from thence to Cyrus 70. from Cyrus first to the passion of Christ 490. from which sum must be diducted 33. years from the passion of Christ to his birth; the whole sum is but 661.
2. Let us then further see, how these years from the beginning of the world, unto the birth of Christ, are otherwise summed. The chronologie and computation of years, added in the ende of the Genevean translation, counteth from Adam to Christ's incarnation 4017. years, which they gather thus:
From the creation to the flood, 1656. from the flood to Abraham's departing from Chaldee 423. from Abraham's departing thence to the departing of Israel out of Egypt, 430. from thence to the building of the Temple, 480. from thence to the captivity of Babylon in the 11. year of Zedekiah, 441. then to the building again of Jerusalem, 143. from thence to Christ's death, 478. The whole sum is 4051. from whence 33. years and an half being diducted, there will remain 4017. years and an half.
But this account may be thus excepted against. 1. they count from the 4. year of Solomon, when the Temple began to be built, to the 11. year of Zedekiah 441. years, whereas from the 1. of Solomon, to the last of Zedekiah, by Junius computation there are but 412. years, or thereabout: by some others, not above 430. Oecolampad. H. Br. Concent. 2. they count form the first destruction of Jerusalem, to the passion of Christ, 621. years: whereas there are at the most but thence to Cyrus first, 59. which with the 11. years from Ieconias captivity, make up the 70. years, and 490. which put together, make 549. So that they do exceed in these two last sums, almost 90. years: but they differ more in the whole sum from the creation to the nativity, as shall be shown in the true computation.
3. But they are far wide, which do reckon from Adam unto the birth of our Savior 5199. years, which sum they do gather by these particulars: From the creation to the giving of the Law, they account 3689. years, from thence to the nativity of Christ 1510. which make the said sum of 5199. wherein this is a great oversight committed: for from the creation of the world, to the giving of the Law, there are not above 2500. and odd years: which are counted thus: from the creation to the death of Joseph, are 2368. years, from thence to Moses birth 60. years, who was 80. years old at their departure out of Egypt when the Law was given: all make but 2508. years: which sum wanteth of the foresaid number of 3689. a 1181. years.
4. There is another account made by the years contained in the several historical books of Scripture, as Junius hath summed them, thus:
| Genesis containeth the history of | 2368. years. |
| Exodus. | 142 |
| The other books of the Pentateuch to the death of Moses. | 40 |
| Joshua. | 17 |
| Judges. | 299 |
| The 1. of Samuel. | 80 |
| The 2. of Samuel. | 40 |
| The 1. of Kings. | 118 |
| The 2. of Kings to the destruction of Jerusalem in the 11 of Zedekiah. | 294 |
| Thence to Cyrus 1. | 59 |
| To the building of the Temple. | 106 |
| Thence to the destruction of Jerusalem. | 490 |
2. In that Junius counteth an 106. years from Cyrus 1. to the 2. of Darius, when the Temple began to be reedified, and so extendeth the Persian Monarchy 199. years, therein he exceedeth (by 69. years) the years of the Persian Monarchy, which were an 130. as is before shown, qu. 43. So that I rather approou • Junius judgment in his first edition, not allowing above an 130. years to the Persian Monarchy.
5. Oecolampad. thus casteth the years from the creation of the world, unto the Messiah:
| from the creation to the flood | 1656 |
| from thence to the departing of the Israelites out of Egypt. | • 13 |
| from the departure unto the destruction of the first Temple in the 11. yere of Zedekiah. | 910 |
| from the destruction to the building again of the Temple and city. | 94 |
| from the Temple and city reedified in the 32. of Darius unto Alexander. | 160 |
| from Alexander to the Macch. | 165 |
| from the Maccabees to Herod. | 127 |
| frō the beginning of the reign of the Herod's, to the ende thereof at the final destruction of Jerusalem. | 103 |
In the next sum from the 11. of Zedekiah, unto the destruction of Jerusalem, which maketh 649. these errors ar • found. 1. He counteth but 70. years from the first destruction of the Temple, unto the reedifying thereof in the 2. of Darius: whereas in the least reckoning, there remained 50. years of the captivity from the destruction of the Temple, to the first of Cyrus: and from thence 7. weeks, that is, 49. years more to the building and finishing of the Temple, as is shown before, qu. 58. 2. He giveth unto the Persian Monarchy 160. years after the 32. of Darius Hystaspes, whom he thinketh to have reigned 36. years, and to Cyrus and Cambyses he giveth between them 17. years: so he extendeth the whole Persian Monarchy to 214. years: which must be cut short to an 130. as is likewise declared before, qu. 43. 3. He numbereth but 292. years for the kingdom of the Grecians and Maccabees, which made 300▪ qu. 54. so that here he wanteth 8. years. 4. This whole last sum of 649. years, 73. being abated from the last destruction of the city, to the birth of Christ, maketh 576. which joined to the fo • mer number of 3379. maketh 3955. whereas the just sum to Christ birth from the creation, is 3927. or rather 3935. or thereabout: so that here is an overplus of 20. years in the whole sum, or there about.
6. Bullingers, account is this: he setteth • he 11. of Zedekiah, in the year of the world 3365. the ende of the Persian Monarchy in the year 3640. the ende of the kingdom of the Macedonians, which was in the 22. of Cleopatra, in the year 3940. and the birth of our blessed Savior in the year 3970.
1. But in the first sum of 3365. he cometh short by 55. years, the just number being in Zedekiahs 11. year, • 420. which odds is like to arise, because Bullinger following the common account, setteth Abraham's birth in the 70. year of Terah, which was in the 130. year, and there faileth of 60. years • the 5. odd years he might make up in adding to the years of the reign of the kings.
2. In the next sum of 3640. he exceedeth, giving unto the Persian Monarchy 215. years, (which he beginneth at Cyrus in the year of the world 3425.) whereas the whole exceedeth not 130. years.
3. In the next sum he accounteth right, numbering 300. years from Alexanders first, unto the last of Cleopatra.
4. But in the last sum, placing Christ's, birth in the year 1970. he exceedeth about 35. years: it was by just account 3927. or rather 3935. years, as now shall be made to appear.
7. Thus then may the year of the world be found out, wherein our blessed Savior was borne: first we take the number before set down by Iun. artic. 4. unto the destruction of Jerusalem in the 11. of Zedekiah, which is just by true account found to be 3398. years, saving that there wanteth 22. to be added, which Junius cutteth off from the reign of Amaziah, to whom he giveth but 17. years, whereas he reigned 29. and from the time of vacancy of the kingdom which was 11. years, as is there shown: add these 22. years to the former sum, and we shall have just 3420. years, from the creation to the desolation of Jerusalem in the 11. of Zedekiah: from hence to the death of our blessed Savior there are two accounts: Some counting the beginning of the captivity in the 1. year of Nebuchadnezzar, and the 4. of Jehoiakim, when Daniel was carried away captive, (and Jerusalem was destroyed in the 19. year of Nebuchadnezzar) do make reckoning but of 50. years more to Cyrus 1. and thence to Christ's death 490. years: so that the year of the world by this account was 3960. at the holy passion of Christ: and 33. years being abated for the age of Christ, his nativity shall be in the year of the world 3927. or thereabout, H. Br. in his Concent. But because the better opinion is and more probable, to begin the 70. years in the captivity of Iechoniah in the 8. year of Nebuchadnezzar, from whence Jeremiah beginneth it, c. 29. 10. as Josephus Scaliger showeth, lib. 6. de emendat. tempor. we must add 8. years more to the foresaid number, because we begin the captivity later, and so these 8. years being added, we have the 3935. year of the world for the birth of our blessed Savior.
But it will be objected, that whereas the year wherein our blessed Savior suffered, is held to have been a year of Jubilee, the 28. Jubilee being cast up to fall in the year of the world 3960. his birth being placed in the year 3927. we shall by adding of 8. years more miss of a year of Jubilee in the year of Christ's passion. We answer, that they which cast the 28. Jubilee to be in the year 3960. begin the first Jubilee in the 8. year of Joshua's government, H. Br. which may better take beginning 8. years after in the 16. of Joshua, when he gathered all Israel to Shechem, and made a covenant with them: for then the people had rest from their enemies, Josh. 24. 1.
8. M. Lydyat placeth the birth of Christ in the year of the world 4007. and so exceedeth the former reckoning by 72. years: the reason of which difference is, because he giveth 204 years to the Persian Monarchy, beginning the same in the year 3471. and ending in the year 3675. whereas it is proved before, that the Persian Monarchy could not exceed an 130. years, or thereabout, qu. 43.
67. In what year of the reign of Herod our blessed Savior was borne.
An other account of years, which the Jews make, is by the years of the reign of their kings: now then because Herod a stronger had obtained from the Romans the kingdom of the Jews, it most be examined in what year of Herod's reign our blessed Savior was borne. And here three things must be inquired, when Herod began his reign, how many years he reigned, and in which of them the nativity of our Savior was.
1. Josephus thinketh, that Herod was cre ••• ed king by the Romans in the 184. Olympiad, Cn. Domitius Calvinus, and C. Asin ••• Pollio being Consuls: and that 3. years after he took Jerusalem, and slew Antigonus, and so ••• oyed the kingdom peaceably: from his first creation are counted 37. years, but from the death of Antigonus only 34. Thus Joseph. lib. antiqu. 14. & 17.
But this opinion of Josephus cannot stand. 1. for if Herod began to reign in the 184. Olympiad, he must die in the 193. Olympiad, which was 37. years after: and then should Christ be borne 7. or 8. years after the reign of Herod, namely in the 4. year of the 194. Olympiad, which is contrary to the history of the Gospel, Matth. 2. for Herod died after Christ was borne, and fled into Egypt. 2. Josephus again is contrary to himself, for lib. 16. antiquit. cap. 9. he placeth the 28. year of Herod in the 192. Olympiad: but if Herod began his reign in the 184. Olympiad, his 28. year will fall out not in the 192. but in the beginning of the 191. Olympiad. 3. Dio lib. 48. and Onuphrius in chron. do place the Consulship of Cn. Calvinus, and Asiaius Pollio. in the 2. year of the 185. Olympiad, which was the 714. year of the building of Rome.
2. Onuphrius in chronic. assigneth the beginning of Herod's reign to the 3. year of Augustus Caesar: Beda lib. de 6. aetatibus, to the 11 year: But Eusebius more truly in the 10. year of Augustus Caesar: so also Bullinger.
3. It is agreed with most historians, that Herod reigned 37. years complete; only Beda appointeth unto him 36. years.
4. But there is great difference about the year of Herod, wherein Christ should be borne: Beda nameth the 31. year, lib. de 6. aetatib. Eusebius the 32. Bullinger, Epiphanius heres. 51. and Sulpitius lib. 2. the 33. so also M. Lydyat, pag. 135. Onuphrius the 36. Su • lyga and Keplerus about the 35. Perorius in this uncertainty leaveth the matter in doubt, not resolving in what year of Herod Christ was borne.
5. Josephus Scaliger is confident, that Christ was borne in the 37. year of Herod, which he would prove thus. 1. the beginning of Herod's reign was in the next year after the Consulship of Calvinus and Pollio (which was in the 714. year of the city, as Dio and Onuphrius cast it) this was in the 15. year of Augustus, which was the 715. year of Rome: from hence to the 42. year of Augustus, are 37. years: then by this reckoning the 37. of Herod, and the 31. of Augustus, and the 3. year of the 194. Olympiad shall concur together.
2. Christ was then newely borne, when the wisemen came to worship, for as yet the time of purification was not come according to the law: for to what ende else should Marie stay in Bethlehem? the star appeared before the conception of Christ, 1. year before Christ's birth, and they so cast their journey, as that they came presently after the birth of Christ: Now Christ immediately after his mother was purified, was carried into Egypt, and after a while Herod died, and then he returned out of Egypt: to this purpose, Joseph. Scalig. lib. 6. de emendat. tempor.
Contra. 1. There were two beginnings of Herod's reign, one from the time of his creating king, which might be in the 4. or 5. of Augustus reign, in the 714. or 15. year of Rome: but another beginning was after the death of Antigonus, when he took possession of his kingdom, which was as Eusebius setteth it, in the 10. year of Augustus, as Beda in the 11. year: from this latter beginning must the 37. years of Herod's reign be counted, and not from the first.
2. Concerning the time of the appearing of the star, and of the coming of the wisemen: 1. I neither think that Christ was two year old at such time as the infants were killed, as Aretius thinketh in his commentaries upon Matthew, and M. Calvin, that Herod deferred the execution of his malice almost two years: for by the text it appeareth, that as soon as Herod saw himself mocked of the wisemen, he forthwith in his rage caused the infants to be killed, Matth. 1. 16. 2. neither is it like that the star appeared 1. year; or 2. before Christ's nativity: for how then should the wisemen have known when to set forward, and to come just against the natiutie of Christ, if the star had appeared so long before, and not at, and after the birth of Christ. 3. Therefore it is more probable, that the wisemen upon the • ight of the star, which appeared not before Christ was borne, came toward the ende of the days of Mary's purification, and returned back again, Christ being then newly borne; for otherwise Marie would not have stayed in Bethlehem: she might continue there 40. days; in the ende whereof the wisemen might come from the East, not from Chaldea, which was North, from Jerusalem, nor from Persia, which was too far off, being four months journey, Ezra. 7. 9. But as Pelican thinketh, they might come from some nearer country, as Sabea, which was counted in the East countries toward the South: so that toward the ende of the 40. days of purification, they might well accomplish their journey: and in the mean time as they returned, while Herod expected their return, Marie went to Jerusalem to be purified. 4. neither doth it follow, that they fleeing into Egypt, should make abode there but certain months: some think they might stay there 5. years, Emman. Sa. some 7. ex Pellicano. there is no certainty of the time of their abode there, they stayed till Herod was dead. 5. And whereas Herod in his rage caused the infants to be killed, from two year old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wisemen, it followeth not, that this was the second year of the appearing of the star, as Josephus Scaliger inferreth: But Herod to be sure, that the child should not escape, putteth all to the sword from a day old to two year old, so Pelican. so that these words, according to the time, may as well be referred to those which were under two year old, though they were but a day, or a month, or two old, as to those which were fully two year old.
5. Wherefore although there be no certainty of this, in what year of Herod's reign Christ was borne, neither is it necessary for the understanding of Daniel's weeks; yet it is most probable, that our Blessed Savior was borne about the 30. of Herod complete, and the 31. begun, which falleth into the 41. year of the reign of Augustus Caesar complete, and the 42. begun, as it may be thus gathered: the Herodians are held to have continued in the government of Judea, to the destruction of Jerusalem 103. years, which may be counted thus by the particular account of the years of the Herodians: Herod the son of Antipater, reigned 37. Herod Archelaus 9. Herod the Tetrach 24. Herod Agrippa 7. Agrippa the son of Agrippa, 26. Oecol. these years ending at the destruction of Jerusalem in the 2. of Vespasian, make an 103. Then counting backward from the destruction of Jerusalem 73. years, we shall come just to the 42. of Augustus, and to the 31. year of Herod, as may evidently appear to those, that will compare the years of the Emperors, and lay them together. I therefore think Beda his opinion of the rest most probable, who placeth the beginning of Herod's reign in the 11. year of Augustus, and the birth of Christ in 31. of Herod, which by this reckoning falleth into the 41. of Augustus complete, or the 42. year begun.
And as there is small certainty in what year of Herod Christ was borne, so neither is it agreed upon by all, into what year of Augustus reign Christ's birth should fall. Cassiodorus assigneth the 40. year, Irenaeus and Tertullian the 41. but the most resolve upon the 42. year of Augustus: as Eusebius in chron. Epiphanius haeres. 51. Beda. But these may be understood to speak of the 42. initiate only and begun, the other of the 41. complete: for if Christ being held to have been baptized, and begun to preach, in the 15. of Tiberius, Luk. 3. 1. there must be 15. years remaining of Augustus, who reigned in all 56. to make up 30. years, in which year of his age Christ was baptized.
Quest. 68. In what year of his age Christ was baptized.
1. Some are of opinion, that Christ was 30. years complete before he was baptized: of which opinion was Beda, that Christ was baptized the 6. of January, 13. days after he was full 30. year old, lib. de ration. temp. c. 41. So also Chrysostom hom. 10. in Matth. Euthymius in 3. c. Matth. Bernard serm. 1. de Epiphania. do think that Christ came to be baptized after he was full thirty year old: the same is the opinion of Josephus Scaliger, lib. 6. de emendat. tempor. But this opinion is thus refelled. 1. because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , quasi, as it were 30. year old, Luk. 3. 23. showeth that he was not full 30. year old. Scaliger answereth, that sometime this is not a word of doubting, but of affirming, as John. 1. 14. we saw the glory thereof, as the glory of the only begotten, &c. But he should have given us an instance, where this word is used in numbering otherwise, then uncertainly and by way of geffe. 2. the words are, Jesus was about 30. year old 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beginning: the meaning of which words must be, that he began to be about 30. year old: Euthymius to make his opinion good, readeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, entering or proceeding, referring it to his preaching: but the words is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , beginning, Josephus Scaliger thinketh, that the word is not referred to the 30. years but put absolutely, after the phrase of the Hebrews, as he giveth instance of that place, Gen. 9. 20. Noah began to be an husbandman: But this instance is against him: for Noah began then first after the •• ood to be an husbandman: and this word beginning, cannot stand absolutely in any good sense, unless there should be relation to something in respect whereof this beginning is.
2. An other opinion is, that Christ when he was baptized was only entered into his 30. year, about some 13. days: so Pererius urging the strict words of Luke, that Christ began then to be about 30. year old: and maketh Irenaeus with others to favor this opinion; the first thus writeth, lib. 2. adverse. haeres▪ c. 39. Ad baptismum venit, &c. he came to baptism not having yet fulfilled 30. years, but beginning to be about 30. year old, as S. Luke signifieth. Pererius judgment here is agreeable to the words of the text, saving that he holdeth Christ to have been borne in December, whereas there must be 3. years and an half between Christ's baptism and his passion, as is shown afterward.
3. A third opinion is of Epiphanius, haeres. 50. that Christ was 30. years old within two months: whom he holdeth to have been borne upon the sixth day of January, and to have been baptized in his 30. year, two months before the ende thereof about the sixth of November: But the word, beginning, which S. Luke useth, showeth that he was toward the beginning rather then the ende of his 30. year.
4. Wherefore it is more probable, that Christ was baptized in the beginning, not in the ende of his 30. year, in the sixth month Tisri, whereof this reason may be yielded out of Daniel, because Christ's death ended half of a week, wherein the covenant was confirmed, which began at his preaching, immediately after his baptism, H. Br. Concent. And if the 70. weeks must ende just at the death of Christ, as is proved before quest. 49. and Christ beginning to preach immediately after his baptism, preached 3. years and an half, it must follow, that he was baptized in the beginning of his 30. year: And in this sense Christ is said in proper speaking to be thirty year old, when he was but entering into his thirty year, see more hereof quest. 71. and 72. following.
5. M. Lydyat thinketh that Christ dimidia ex parte exegerat annum aetatis tricesimum, had passed the half of his 30. year, when he was baptized, and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , beginning, he referreth to his preaching, not to his age. But I incline rather to the former opinion. 1. for there is no mention made at all of Christ's preaching, in respect whereof he should be said to begin: the words do thus stand in the text, and Jesus himself was as it were of thirty years beginning, &c. 2. neither did Christ immediately after his baptism begin to preach: he was first tempted. 40. days in the wilderness, next after his baptism, as S. Luke showeth in the next chapter. 3. and if Christ were baptized in the midst of his 30. year, and after that lived 3. years and an half, being put to death in the spring, it will follow, that he was also borne about that time of the year, which is also M. Lydyats opinion, which is very improbable, as shall be shown afterward quest. 71. following.
6. But M. Lydyat hath yet a more strange opinion: he thinketh that John the Baptist began to preach 4. years before Christ was baptized, in the 15. year of Tiberius reign; and that Christ was baptized in the beginning of the 19. year of Tiberius, and suffered in the 22. year: his chief reasons are these.
1. There are 30. years, at what age Christ was baptized, from the 41. of Augustus, wherein Christ was borne, to the 19. of Tiberius.
2. The Temple was in building 46. years, John. 2. which began to be built in the 18. year of Herod, whence unto the 15. year (he would say 19. year) of Tiberius are 47. years.
3. John was not imprisoned and put to death before the 20. and 21. of Tiberius, for presently after John's beheading, followed the battle between Herod and Aretas king of Arabia, for repudiating his daughter, and marrying Herodias his brothers wife, which was in the beginning of Vitellius government: which was in the 21. year of Tiberius, as Cornel. Tacitus testifieth, lib. 6. Annal.
4. The year wherein Christ began to preach was a sabbatical year, as appeareth Luk. 4. but there was no sabbatical year, after the 15. year of Tiberius, till the 20. To this purpose M. Lydyat lib. de emendat. tempor. from p. 169. to p. 176.
Contra. Though I will not of purpose oppose myself to so excellent a Chronologer, who hath taken great pains in this kind of study, which I profess not; yet because that his opinion is singular, I hope I may without offense examine his reasons, to give him occasion further to consider of them, least the common adversary might take advantage thereby.
1. The 30. years of Christ's age were expired in the 15. year of Tiberius, from the 41. of Augustus wherein Christ is held to have been borne: and M. Lydyat maketh mention of one Petavius a learned Chronologer of Paris, who proveth that Christ must be borne 30. years before the 15. year Tiberius, p. 153.
2. That place in John. c. 2. must be understood of the building of Zerubbabel's Temple, not of Herod's, as hath been shown before, quest. 58.
3. John's troubles began before the 20. year of Tiberius, for when Herod took his brother Philip's wife Herodias, his brother was then living, at what time John reproved him: but Philip died in the 20. year of Tiberius, Joseph. lib. 18. c. 6. and the war upon that occasion might follow some year after.
4. That year wherein Christ preached was not a sabbatical year: Christ prepareth them by his preaching against the acceptable year, which was that wherein he suffered, which was both a sabbatical and Jubilee year: for the Jubilee being a type of Christ, in whom we should enjoy the true Jubilee, in the remission of sins, the figure and shadow and the body must agree together.
5. But that Christ was baptized in the 15. year of Tiberius, S. Luke putteth it out of doubt, c. 3. 1. M. Lydyat answereth that the Evangelist assigneth that year for the beginning of John's preaching, not for Christ's baptism: for John must have a longer time given him then so to prepare the way for Christ's to preach and baptize, p. 171. But as John Baptists birth was but 6. months before Christ's, so the like time might suffice for his forerunning in preaching: the Evangelists set down the baptism of our Blessed Savior, as following immediately upon the preaching of John: yea S. John saith, that the next day after his solemn baptizing, he saw Jesus coming unto him, John. 1. 29.
Quest. 69. How many years Christ lived on earth, and in what year of his life Christ was put to death.
1. Some were of opinion, that Christ lived 46. years at the least, that the body may answer to the shadow, the substance to the figure, because the material Temple, which was a figure of the true Temple Christ Jesus, is said to have been 46. year in building: Irenaeus thinketh that Christ lived 50. years, because of that place, John. 8. where the Jews say unto Christ, thou art not yet 50. year old, &c. And he further addeth this reason, that it was not fit that Christ should begin to preach in his youth, but should take that grave function upon him, when he grew in years, Irenaeus lib. 2. adverse. haeres. cap. 39.
But 1. the Jews words (speaking but by guess) are not much to be weighed, though some in that place do read forty for fifty, Chrysost. 2. there may be as great gravity in young years, as in age: for not years, but the graces and gifts of God's spirit do bring authority. 3. And if Christ had lived so many years, it is not like that the Evangelists would have passed over in silence the great works which Christ did in that time, whereas they only set down those things, which Christ spake and did unto the 4. Passover after his baptism, which was in the 30. year of his age. 2. If Christ had lived above 40. toward 50. years, he could not have suffered under Tiberius, in whose 18. year he is generally held to have died, being baptized in his 15. year, Luk. 3. 1. for Tiberius reigned but 23. years in all.
2. An other opinion is that Christ died the same year, namely the 30. complete wherein he was baptized, and so preached but one year, so Tertullian lib. adverse. Iudaeos, and Clemens Alexandrin. lib. 1. stromat. who groundeth his opinion upon that place taken out of the Prophet, Luk. 4. 19. that he should preach the acceptable year of the Lord: But 1. it followeth not, because mention is made of the acceptable year in the singular, that Christ peached but one year in all: year is here taken either generally for the acceptable time, or it hath special reference to that true Jubilee, the year of remission wherein Christ suffered for our sins. 2. in the Evangelists there is mention made of four several Passeouers after Christ's baptism, as shall be even now shown: therefore Christ lived and preached above a year after his baptism.
3. Some other think that Christ lived but 31. years, and preached but two years after his baptism: of this opinion was Apollinaris Bishop of Laodicea, as Jerome reporteth in 9. Daniel. and Cyrillus Alexandrin. seemeth to affirm the same, in 29. c. Isaiae, Seuerus Sulpitius also lib. 2. sacr. histor. seemeth to be of the same judgment, who writeth that Christ lived 4. years of Herod's reign, and 9. years of Archelaus, and then died in the 18. year of Herod the Tetrach, all which make but 31. years. This opinion is refelled by the former reason: because the Evangelists make mention in the Gospel of 4. Passeouers after Christ's baptism, which could not be in the space of two years.
4. Josephus Scaliger is of opinion that Christ suffered in the 35. year of his age, holding that Christ was baptized in the beginning of his 31. year, and after his baptism mention is made of five Pasches, the first John. 2. 13. the second John 5. 1. the third, Matth. 12. 1. and Luk. 6. 1. when the Apostles plucked the ears of corn, which was as S. Luke saith, the second Sabbath, namely after the Pasche, for then the ears of corn began to be ripe: the fourth is mentioned, John. 6. 4. when he fed the five thousand: the 5. was the last Pasche, wherein our Blessed Savior suffered: S. Paul also speaketh of the perfect age of Christ at his resurrection, Ephes. 4. 13. which is at 35. years.
Contra. 1. That Christ was not 30. years complete, when he was baptized, is shown in the former question, and the words of the text are against it, that Christ was then beginning to be 30. year old. 2. that Christ suffered after the 18. year of Tiberius, which will follow if Christ died in his 35. year, is against the common received opinion, which assigneth the 18. year for Christ's passion: which is gathered by the account of the Olympiads, for Christ is held to have been borne in the 4. year of the 194. Olympiad, and to ha • e suffered in the 4. year of the 202. Olympiad; the distance of years is just 33. and no more. 3. That Pasche which John speaketh of, cap. 5. 1. is like to be the same mentioned, Math. 12. 1. and Luk. 6. 1. as Pererius well observeth, when after the Pasche the Apostles pulled the ears of corn; which may be the reason, why John passeth over in silence all that was done between the second and third Pasche, which immediately he speaketh of c. 6. 4. because the the other Evangelists do set forth at large what happened between the second and third Pasche, Matth. c. 12. toc. 13. Mark, from the second to the 6. Luke, from the 6. to the 9. If five Passeouers could have been assigned out of the same Evangelist, then he said somewhat: But out of diverse Evangelists, who do not follow the same order of time, the number cannot so certainly be gathered. 4. that is but a weak reason taken from the fullness and perfection of Christ's age: Augustine by the same reason thinketh that we shall rise again about the age of thirty, because Christ died in that age, lib. 22. de ciuitat. Dei, c. 15. And indeed at that age men are in their strength, being fit for any employment either of the body or mind: as Joseph at that age stood before Pharaoh, and David at that age began to reign.
5. Some think that Christ died in the 34. year of his age, not complete, but only begun some 3. months and certain days, so Beda lib. de ration. tempor. c. 45. Albertus Magnus in commentar. epistol. Dyonis. Onuphrius in Chronicis. Beda his reason is, because he thinketh Christ to have been baptized, when he began to be 31. year old, and from, thence preached 3. years and an half: But this opinion is contrary to the text, which saith he began to be 30. not 31. year old: and by this means Christ's death is cast into the 19. year of Tiberius (which also Onuphrius thinketh) contrary to the received opinion; that Christ was borne in the 42. year of Augustus, and died in the 18. year of Tiberius.
6. An other opinion yet is, that Christ was baptized in the beginning of his 30. year, but began not to preach until the beginning of his 31. year, when he wrought that miracle by changing water into wine, which is thought to have been done the same day twelve-month after he was baptized: and yet the time of his preaching was 3. years and an half: so Pererius lib. 11. in Daniel. quest. 7. opinion. 4. But 1. it is not like, that Christ being baptized, and then publicly called by his fathers voice from heaven to be a teacher of men, and therefore they are charged from heaven to hear him, would so long defer the execution of his holy function. 2. Pererius in this assertion is contrary to himself: for if Christ died as he proveth at large in the 33. year of his age, and preached three years and an half, then could not his preaching be deferred unto the beginning of his 31. year, for 3. years and an half counted from thence will fall into his 34. year: But concerning the time, when Christ began to teach, more shall be said, when we come to speak of confirming the covenant, v. 27.
7. M. Lydyat thinketh that Christ died in the 33. year of his age almost complete, pag. 176. But then it would follow, that he was borne about the same season of the year, wherein he suffered, about the vernall equinoctiall, or spring time, which opinion is refused as improbable, quest. 71. following.
8. Wherefore the best resolution is this, that Christ died in the 33. year of his age not complete, but about the midst thereof, not after 3. months, as Pererius, but 6. months after his 32. year complete. The first part of this assertion that Christ suffered in his 33. year is thus proved. 1. because by the Roman Chronology, he is held to have been borne in the 42. of Augustus inch • a • e or begun, and to have died in the 18. of Tiberius: the distance of years is just 33. for Augustus reigned 56. and then Tiberius succeeded. 2. the same is proved by the Olympiads, as is before shown, Christ was borne in the 4. year of the 194. Olympiad, and died in the 4. year of the 202. Olympiad. 3. Pererius further proveth that Christ died in the 33. year of his age, by this astronomicall calculation: It is agreed upon that Christ suffered upon the 15. day of the month, having eaten the Passover upon the 14. day at even according to the law, the next evening before. Again Christ died upon the Jewish Sabbath eve, which is our Friday, for otherwise he had not risen again upon the Lord's day, which was the third day after: But in none of the years of • hrists age from the 30. to the 37. did the 15. day of the month fall out upon the sixth day of their week, our friday, but only in the 33. for in the 31. year the 15. day of the moon was upon the 27. of March upon tuesday: in the 32. on the 15. of April upon tuesday likewise: in the 34. on the 23. of March on wedensday: in the 35. on the 11. day of April on monday: But in the 33. year only within this compass (for of the other years before the 30. or after the 35. there is no question) the 15. day of the moon concurred with the 3. of April upon friday, as may be gathered counting the year of the Lord by the Dominicall letter: therefore Christ only suffered in the 33. year of his age.
4. After Christ was baptized, and began to preach, there were only four Pasches, which he kept, in the last whereof he died: as may be gathered out of the Gospel of S. John: the first Pasche is mentioned, cap. 2. 13. the second c. 5. 1. the third John. 6. 4. and the last when he suffered: to the which belong the 11. 13. and 18. chapters of S. John's Gospel: these 4. Pasches were kept in three years, and odd months, which were between the baptism of Christ and the first Pasche: But about the number of these Pasches there is some doubt, as now shall be further shown in the next question following.
The other part of the assertion, that there must be 6. months between the season or time of the baptism of Christ and of his blessed passion, is thus proved: because Daniel ending the 70. weeks in the death of Christ precisely, speaketh of half a week set apart for the confirming of the covenant, which began at Christ's baptism, and causing all other sacrifices to cease: we must then have half a seven of years exactly from the baptism of Christ unto the time of his passion.
Quest. 70. Of the number of Pasches, which Christ solemnized in the days of his flesh, whereby the time and years of his preaching is certainly gathered.
1. Whereas in the ende of the former question four Pasches are assigned, the second whereof should be mentioned John. 5. 1. yet it is not expressly said to be the Pasche, but generally a feast of the Jews: there are diverse opinions conceived hereof. 1. some think it was the feast of the Pentecost, which immediately followeth after the Pasche, which John spake of before, c. 2. v. 13. of this opinion are Cyril, Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylaect, Thomas, Lyranus, i • the explanation of that place: But this cannot be: 1. after that Pasche John 2. our Savior stayed a while in the city: then he left the city and Judea, and returned into Judea again, and stayed there a good while, John 3. 23. after that he departed out of Judea, and went by Samaria to go into Galilee, at what time there were yet 4. months to harvest, John. 4. 35. All these things could not be done in the space of fifty days between the Pasche and Pentecost: and beside the time of harvest is in the month Iiar, the next unto Nisa • , which answereth unto our March: wherefore this could not be the feast of Pentecost, which is not two months from the Pasche. 3. when a feast of the Jews is named simply without any addition, it is usually taken for the feast of the Passover, which was their chief and principal feast, as is evident, Matth. c. 26. Luk. 22. John. 13. 2. An other opinion is, that this was one of the winter feasts, which were three, one of the dedication of the Temple, instituted by Judas Macchabeus, lib. 1. Macchab. c. 4. which was kept the 25. day of the 9. month Cisleu: the second was the feast of the reedifying of the second Temple under Zerobabel, which was upon the 3. day of the last month Adar, whereof see Ezra. 6. 15. the third was the feast of lots ordained by Mordecai and Esther, upon the 14. and 15. of the same month Adar, as is declared Esther. 9. someone of these three feasts, some think this to have been: so Cajetan in 5. c. John. Melchior Cano lib. 11. de loc. Theolog. But this is not like: for these were none of the principal feasts which were instituted by Moses at the Lord's appointment: But this was a principal feast of the Jews, because it is simply called a feast without any other addition, as is shown before. 3. Wherefore upon the former reasons, this was likely to be the feast of the Passover, after the which in the next month immediately followeth harvest: and in the former chapter it is said, there were 4. months then to harvest, c. 4. 35. And although in the next chapter following, c. 6. 4. mention is made of the Pasch, that letteth not, but that this may be the Pasch also: for it is usual with the Evangelists to join things together which were done far asunder, omitting many things coming between: as Matthew immediately after the baptism and 40. days fast of our blessed Savior, treateth of the calling of the Apostles, which was done a good while after: So John here omitteth those things which were done by our Savior between the 2. and 3. Pasch, especially because they are handled at large by the other Evangelists, Matth. c. 12. to 14. Mark. 2. to the 6. Luk. 6. to the 9.
2. As some would thus abridge the number of the feasts, and bring them to three: so some others would enlarge the number of them: as they which think that there passed a year between the baptism of Christ, and the first miracle which he did in Cana of Galilee: so that they think one of the Passeouers, which followed next after the baptism of Christ, to be passed over in silence: to this opinion inclineth Pererius, and holdeth it to be an ancient received tradition. But this is confuted before, qu. 69. artic. 6.
3. Ios. Scal. also thinketh that there were five Passeouers between the baptism of Christ, & his passion, making that mentioned, Matth. 12. 1. & Luk. 6. 1. to be the 3. Passover▪ beside those other 4. mentioned by the Evangelist S. John: as is noted before, quest. 69. opinion the 4. But what small ground there is of this assertion, there it is likewise shown.
Wherefore this remaineth as the best resolution, that because Christ only kept 4. Passeouers, neither more nor less after his baptism, (as M. Lydyat well collecteth pag. 177.) that he lived only 3. years and so much as was from his baptism to his first Passover, and so was put to death in the 33. year of his age: Now for the further manifestation hereof, before we proceed, it shall not be amiss briefly to touch the very time of the year when Christ was borne, and the very day of his passion.
71. Quest. At what time of the year Christ was borne.
1. Epiphaenius opinion was, that Christ was borne upon the 6. day of January, upon which day he thinketh he wrought his first miracle in Cana of Galilee, and before that 60. days he was baptized: whereof he maketh this demonstration: after his baptism he fasted 40. days, then he went to Nazareth, and there stayed 15. days: then one day which was the 56. he stayed with John, who being absent, gave that singular testimony of Christ: and the 57. John being present called Christ the lamb of God, that took away the sins of the world: the 58. day Andrew followed Christ, and the 59. Christ called unto him Philip: and the 60. day was there a marriage in Cana of Galilee, as upon which day Christ was borne. But here diverse things are vncertenly alleged, as of Jesus staying in Nazareth 15. days: and some of those things, which Epiphanius thinketh to have been uttered by John of our Savior after his baptism, John. 1. were spoken before, as v. 26. there is one among you, &c. whose shoes latchet I am not worthy to unloose: these words were uttered by John-before the baptism of our blessed Savior, Matth. 3. 11. And seeing the Evangelist calleth it the 3. day, wherein that miracle was done in Cana, c. 2. 1. how can he make it the 60. day, and the next day, after Christ had that conference with Philip; whereas it seemeth to be called the 3. day frō thence.
2. M. Lydyat agreeth with their opinion, whom Clemens Alexander. mentioneth, who held Christina • ale verna tempestate anni, Christ's birth day to have been in the spring: and he allegeth Keplerus who leaveth it uncertain, whether Christ were borne the 6. of January, or the 19. of April or May. M. Lydyats conjecture is, because the shepherds are said to have watched their sheep by night, which more agreeth with the spring time, when the lambes were young, and the ravenous beasts have then their young also, and so are more greedy and desirous of their pray, p. 157. Contra. 1. But seeing there must be half a year between the season wherein Christ was baptized, & wherein he suffered, because he preached 3. years & an half after his baptism, which was in the beginning of his 30. year, as S. Luke saith, c. 3. 23. then will his passion fall out in the middle, not in the ende of his last year, and the time of his birth must be half a year before, qu. 68. 2. The shepherds might watch their flocks as well at other times of the year, when they kept their sheep abroad, as in the spring, because that country was full of wolves: the reason is given of their watching, because of their flock, Luk. 2. 8. not of their young only.
3. The common and received opinion is, that our blessed Savior was borne about the 25. of December, and baptized 13. days after that season, in the beginning of his 30. year, about the 6. of January. But beside these conjectures, 1. that is not like that in the deep of winter, the edict should come forth from Augustus to have men called together to me chief city of their tribe to be taxed: as Joseph and Marie came to Bethlehem to be taxed, Luk. 2. 6. 2. or that in the cold time of winter the people went into the waters of Jordan to be baptized of John. 3. beside these conjectures, this is an evident argument, that Christ's birth was not so near the Passover, because by Daniel's prophesy here, there must be half a Prophetical week from the time of confirming the covenant, by the preaching of the Gospel, which was immediately upon the baptism of Christ, who was then entering into his 30. year, Luk. 3. 23. from the baptism then of Christ, about which season he was borne, we must count. 3. years 6. months to the time of his passion.
4. Upon this reason Ber • aldus thinketh, that Christ was borne about the 14. or 15. of September, because 6. months after he suffered upon the 15. of the first month. Beside he taketh another argument from the custom of the Grecians and Egyptians, who in memory of Christ's birth began their year in September, and the Imperial indictions began then also: and this third reason he urgeth; there were 24. courses of the Priests, 1. Chron. 24. who served every month by couples: Abiahs course, of the which Zechariah was, was the 8. single course, 1. Chron. 24. 10. and the 4. double: these courses began in March: then Abiahs course fell out to be in June, the 4. month: immediately after was John the Baptist conceived, and 6. months after our blessed Savior, as may be gathered, Luk. 1. 26. 36. John being then conceived in June, must be borne 9. months after in March: And our blessed Savior must be conceived in December, and his birth will fall out in the ninth month after, namely September: this reason also is pressed by Joseph. Scalig.
M. Lively in his Persian Monarchy from p. 144. to p. 151. doth make this answer to Beroaldus reasons. 1. he answereth to the first reason taken from that place in Luk. 1. that Christ's age cannot be gathered out of that place, because it is said, he was about, or as it were 30. years old, which word importeth a doubtful and imperfect number. 2. that place of Daniel is by some referred not to Christ's preaching, but to the destruction of Jerusalem. 3. neither is it certain that Christ preached just 3. years and an half: Joseph. Scaliger maketh the time of his preaching four years: some make it less, as is shown before, qu. 69.
2. The Grecians and Egyptians began their year in September, in remembrance of Alexanders victory against Darius: and the Imperial indictions began then, because Constantine at that time began his reign.
3. In the third reason many things are vncerten. 1. whether the Priests courses began in March. 2. whether they served by weeks or months. 3. in the Jews ancient chronicle, called Seder olam, in the last chap. it is affirmed, that Iehoiaribs course, which was the first, after the destruction of the first & second Temple, fell out in the 5. month Ab, which is in some part answerable to our July. M. Lydyat also here answereth, that the courses of the Priests were changed after the captivity, p. 157. Ans. Though I am loath to contradict so general & received an opinion concerning Christ's birth, neither will I take upon me to set down anything positively & affirmatively therein: yet I will show the insufficiency of this answer, and propound certain doubts out of the Scripture, which I will leave to the Readers consideration.
The 2. argument alleged by Beroaldus, taken from the Grecians beginning of their year, and the Imperial indictions, receiveth full satisfaction, and therefore I will not reply. To the 3. argument also a reasonable answer is made, saving that it is not to be doubted, but that the month Nisau, answering in part to our March was the beginning of their year for all Ecclesiastical business, as was appointed by Moses, Exod. 12. 1. and it is most like, that the 24. courses went over every year, and so two served monthly: and notwithstanding that testimony out of the Jewish chronicle, the authority of the Scripture is more to be weighed, which testifieth, that the orders of the Levites were renewed after their return frō the captivity in Nehemiah's time, according to the ordinance of David the man of God.
But the first reason taken from the age of Christ, when he was baptized, is not in mine opinion sufficiently answered: 1. whereas S. Luke saith, that Jesus began to b • about thirty years of age, that particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Josephus Scaliger taketh to be here, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a word of doubting, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a word of asseveration, and affirming: and what doubt can be here made, but that Jesus began then to be 30. year old, according to the very words? 2. that this prophesy of Daniel of the 70. weeks determineth in Christ's death, is shown before, quest. 49. neither can it have any other meaning, without much wresting, as either with Junius to read, after 62. weeks, after the Messiah is slain: whereas the words are, after 62. weeks, the Messiah shall be slain: or with M. Lively, to say that Messiah in this prophesy is not to be taken for Christ: both which may seem in any man's judgment▪ to be hard constructions of the text. 3. If this place then be understood of the Messiah, there must of necessity be half a week allowed for his preaching: and it is the general received opinion of old and new, that Christ preached 3. years and a half: and it is more inconvenient to deny that, then that Christ was borne in December.
Now then, though for mine own part, in a matter indifferent and probable, I am loath to go against antiquity; yet this first reason I must confess, grounded upon the authority of Daniel for the space of 3. years and an half from Christ's beginning to preach unto his death, and of S. Luke for Christ's entering into 30. years when he was baptized, hath so prevailed with me, that I think it very probable, that Christ's birth was nearer September, then December: And howsoever it is, there must needs be some error in the account of time, in keeping Christ's nativity day the 25. of December, seeing in the reuolution of 16. hundred years, there may well be lost so many days of the just reckoning: from hence now may be gathered the true distance between the baptism and the passion of Christ, which shall be distinctly handled in the next question.
72. Quest. Of the space and distance of time that was between Christ's baptism and his passion.
1. Epiphanius, whose opinion was seen in the beginning of the former question, maketh the baptism of Christ 60. days before that season of the year wherein he was borne: the day of Christ's birth he thinketh to have been borne the 6. of January: and 60. days before that falleth out in the beginning of November. But herein is Epiphanius error, he placeth Christ's baptism toward the ende of the year, whereas it was in the beginning of Christ's 30. year: and again, he setteth Christ's baptism in this account but 4. months distant from his passion.
2. Some bring the baptism of Christ nearer unto the Passover by 73. days then Epiphanius: as they hold Christ to have been upon the 25. of December, and then his baptism to have been solemnized about 13. days after the season of his birth, about the sixth of January, in the beginning of Christ's 30. year: so Pererius, as before is shown, qu. 68. And to this purpose he allegeth Maximus, hom. 1. de Epiphan. ferunt Christum hodie, vel stella duce à gentibus adoratum, &c. they say that Christ this day (namely the Epiphany) was either adored of the Gentiles by the leading of a star, or being invited to the marriage, to have turned water into wine, or to have received John's baptism, and to have consecrate the flood of Jordan, &c. So August. serm. 27. de tempor. maketh mention of these 3. opinions, that some held the wise men to have come upon that day to worship Christ, some that he turned water into wine, some that he was upon that day baptized, &c.
But 1. these Fathers speak hereof vncertenly, not determining anything, as Maximus in the former place concludeth, quid potissimum praesenti hac factum sit die, noverit ipse qui fecit, but what was chiefly done upon this day, he knoweth that did it: so then this tradition had no certain ground. 2. Pererius himself thinketh with others, that the half week which Daniel speaketh of, wherein the Messiah should cause the sacrifices to cease, began at Christ's baptism: then must there be just 6. months from the time of Christ's baptism unto the Passover, for how else shall the half year be made up?
3. Josephus Scaliger, lib. 6. de emendat. tempor. bringeth Christ's baptism yet nearer unto the Passover: for he thinketh that the miracle of converting the water into wine, was done 3. days after Christ's baptism: the 1. day after, Andrew and Peter followed Christ, the 2. day Philip was called, and Nathaniel, John. 1. then the 3. day after was the marriage in Cana of Galilee, John. 2. 1. and then it is said, v. 13. that the Jews Passover was at hand. But this opinion cannot hold. 1. Christ after he was baptized, presently was tempted in the wilderness, as S. Mark saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness, Mark. 1. 12. And S. Luke thus writeth, c. 4. 1. Jesus being full of the holy Ghost returned frō Jordan, and was led by the spirit into the wilderness: the first thing then, that fell out after Christ's baptism, was his temptation, which continued 40. days▪ how then could that miracle be 3. days after Christ's baptism. 2. Therefore it is to be understood, that it was the 3. day either after he came into Galilee, or rather the 3. day after he had that conference with Philip & Nathaniel.
4. Wherefore the best resolution is, that Christ was baptized about the beginning of September, when he began to be 30. year old, and the reason hereof is grounded upon Daniel's half week: for whether we begin the 70. and last week from the baptism of Christ, or the latter half week (for there are of both opinions, as is shown before, but the latter is more probable) we must, to make up this half week have 6. months from the season, wherein Christ was baptized, to the time of the Passover.
73. Quest. Upon what day of the week Christ suffered, and whether upon a festival day.
To know upon what day of the week Christ suffered, we must find out when he did eat his Passover. 1. Epiphanius thinketh that he did eat it upon the third day of the week at even, when the fourth day begun with the Jews, who reckon their civil day from the evening. But this cannot be: for then if Christ are his Passover either upon the 3. or 4. day, he must have suffered the 5. which was the day following, and then he must have risen again just upon the Jews Sabbath, not on the morrow after the Sabbath, as the history of the Gospel showeth. 2. Ios. Scaliger thinketh that Christ did eat the Passover in the eve of the 6. day, and the day following, which was part of the 6. day, he suffered. But this cannot be: for the Passover was to be killed upon the 14. day of the Moon between the two euenings: which was, as Scaliger well observeth out of Josephus, from the time of the evening sacrifice, which was about the ninth hour, to the going down of the Sun, which was the space of 3. hours: but the 15. day began not till after Sun-set: therefore that space between the two euenings, was the ende of the 14. day, which was at this time, the fifth day of the week, not the beginning of the 15. day, which was the sixth of the week.
Now further Josephus Scaliger holdeth, that Christ and the Jews did eat their Passover both at the same instant upon the 14. day at even according to the law: and that the next day he suffered, which was the first day of unleavened bread. And for the better maintenance of this assertion, he presseth these arguments: 1. Otherwise the Jews should have advantage against us, who object, that Christ suffered not upon any festival day, wherein they kept the Passover, and so the type and the substance agreed not together. 2. the Grecians to uphold their opinion, that the Eucharist must be ministered with leavened bread, because Christ gave unto his disciples leavened bread, do also affirm, that Christ did eat the Passover one day sooner, then the Jews did eat it. 3. he urgeth that place of S. Mark. 14. 12. the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover, his disciples said unto him: hence he inferreth, that at the same time, the Passover was generally eaten, when Christ also did eat it.
1. Ans. In this question Bellarmine with other Romanists, concur with Ios. Scalig. but Bellarmine is answered else where, and therefore I will only examine Scaligers arguments.
1. If the Jews upon a blind tradition deferred the Pasch to avoid the concurrence of two Sabbaths, which should have been this year, wherein Christ suffered, if the first solemn day of the Pasch had been kept according to the law upon the 15. day, for their ordinary Sabbath followed the next: & yet Christ kept it, as the law prescribed; & so suffered that day wherein the Pasch should have been solemnized: the typical lamb & the true lamb (this notwithstanding) agreed together, because Christ was sacrificed at that time, when the first day of the Passover should have been kept by the law, though the Jews by a corrupt custom & usage kept it not. 2. The Grecians may ground an error upon a true position: it followeth not, because Christ prevented the common eating of the Passover, that therefore he eat the Passover with leavened bread, for that had been against the law, Exod. 12. 8. for although leavened bread were not yet put out of the Jews houses, yet Christ sending his disciples before, might provide unleavened bread for his paschal supper: and as the Grecians hereupon ground their opinion, that the Eucharist is only to be ministered with leavened bread: so the Romanists on the other side do as stiffly maintain their superstition, that unleavened bread only must be used, holding that Christ at the same time did eat the Passover with the rest of the Jews. 3. S. Mark respecteth the right time appointed by the law for the Passover, not the corrupt usage which the Jews had taken up: so then that day was the first of unleavened bread at even by right of the institution, though it were not so in practice among the Jews: and therefore S. Luke saith, then came the day of unleavened bread, wherein the Passover ought to be sacrificed. But now the contrary is evident out of the Gospel, that the Jews received not the Passover generally until the eve after Christ was crucified. 1. It is said, they themselves came not into the common hall, least they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover: They did not then eat the Passover till the evening after Christ's passion. Josephus Scaliger answereth, that the sacrifices which were offered in the feast of the Passover, were called the Passover, as well as the Paschal lamb: alleging that place, Deut. 16. 2. Thou shalt offer the Passover to the Lord thy God, of sheep, and bullocks, &c. But here the phrase is to sacrifice the Passover, which was as well referred to the offering of the other sacrifices, as the paschal lamb. Contr. Yet to eat the Passover is not otherwise used in the Gospel, then of the eating of the Paschal lamb.
2. If the Jews had eaten the Paschal lamb the same night with Christ, then the next day should have been a solemn festival day, wherein they should have done no servile work, as is appointed Exod. 12. 16. But they did much servile work upon this day, as in carrying the cross, pitching of it into the ground, raising of it up, nailing Christ unto it: And indeed they themselves also resolved not to put Christ to death upon the feast day, Mark. 14. 2. Joseph. Scaliger here answereth, that the day wherein Christ suffered was the first day of unleavened bread, but not of the paschal solemnity: But this distinction is contrary to the place before alleged out of Exodus, where the 15. day, which was the first of unleavened bread, as likewise the seventh and last, are named to be days of solemn assemblies wherein no servile work should be done, saving about that which they did eat.
3. The day wherein Christ suffered is called the preparation of the Passover, John. 19. 14. it was not then the day of the Passover it self. Joseph. Scaliger answereth, that the preparation was not the whole day, but only after the ninth hour: as he allegeth out of a certain Edict of Augustus. But 1. it appeareth, that the preparation was the whole day, at the least from the sixth hour: as in the same place the Evangelist saith, it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. 2. If then it were the preparation of the Passover, then was not that day the first of the Passover.
4. Paulus Burgens. somewhat to help out this tradition of the Jews his countrymen, who deferred the Pasch, if it fell out upon the 6. day of the week, to avoid the concurrence of two festival days, saith there was a double account of the 14. day of the Moon, vna vera & legitima secundum veram computationem Christi, &c. one was the true and lawful day according to the true computation of Christ, who knew all the mysteries of the law: the other was legitima secundum communem & assuetam computationem aliorum, lawful also according to the common and accustomed computation of others, &c. M. Lydyat also showeth that the difference between the observation of the Pasch between our blessed Savior, and the Jews, did arise hereupon; because Christ reckoned the days according to the computation of the natural years, but the Jews followed the Syro-Grecian account, found out by Callippus, beginning the months, not as the Hebrews, at the new Moon, but as the Grecians began their months: so that the Jews began their month Nisan, as the Grecians did their month Xanthicus, which that yere began one day after the new Moon. Lyd. de emend. temp. p. 179. Both these might very well concur together, that the Jews did keep another day of the Passover, then Christ and his disciples, both upon a blind tradition, to avoid the concurrence of two Sabbaths, and because they followed a strange computation. But it is evident hereby, that they did not eat the Passover the same day with Christ, and that they did break the law of Moses in receiving a foreign computation of their months, which was not lawful, howsoever Burgensis, in favor of his countrymen, excuse it by the usual custom.
74. Quest. Who are meant by the people of the Prince to come, v. 26.
There are diverse expositions of these words: 1. Some do put the people in the accusative case, he shall destroy the city and Sanctuary, the people of the Prince to come. 2. Some do make it the nominative, the people of the Prince to come shall destroy the city, and of either of these interpretations there are diverse kinds.
Of the first. 1. Some read thus, he shall destroy the city with the captain to come, Sept. but the word ( with ) is not in the original. 2. Junius thus interpreteth, he, that is, the Messiah, the Prince, shall destroy the people of the Prince, his own people, which shall come, that is, which shall be then. So also M. Br. he shall destroy the people of the Prince, in the next generation. But 1. it should seem not to be so proper a speech, he, that is (the Messiah the Prince) should destroy the people of the Prince, that is, his own people: 2. and in the original there is no conjunction to couple them together: the words standing thus; and the city and the Sanctuary shall destroy the people, &c. but in this sense a conjunction must be supplied, and the people, &c. 3. and though the word nagid, prince, were before joined with Messiah, yet here being put alone, it is not necessary so to understand it of the Messiah. 4. neither were the Jews then the people of the Messiah, whom they had rejected and crucified.
2. Of the second sort are these interpretations. 1. Polanus giveth this sense: the people of the Prince to come, that is, the Gentiles, who should become the people of Christ being converted to the Gospel, shall destroy the city: But the Romans were not at that time, when they sacked Jerusalem, converted to the faith of Christ, and so not his people.
2. M. Lively by this word to come, understandeth the strangers and comers which are opposite to inhabitants, as the word is used, Gen. 42. 5. the sons of Jacob came to buy food among those that came: so his meaning is, that the city and Sanctuary should be surprised by strangers and comers: but the word haba, to come, seemeth rather to be referred unto the time following, then to the condition of the people: though it be true, that Jerusalem was spoiled by forreners and strangers.
3. Some read, the principal people of the Prince or captain to come, Vatab. and he thinketh the destruction of the city to be imputed unto the people rather then their captain, because Titus would have defended the Sanctuary, from the spoil of the soldiers: but the word is nagid, which signifieth a Prince, not principal, and the other observation seemeth to be somewhat too near and curious.
4. Oecolampadius by this captain understandeth Pompey the great, who took Jerusalem, and slew 12000. Jews, and afterward Crassus robbed the Temple, and then Herod and Sosius made havoc of the city: But this captain with his people, were to come after the Messiah was slain, which was spoken of immediately before.
5. Wherefore by the Prince and people to come, are signified Vespasian and Titus his son, with the Roman army, which should besiege the city, and destroy both it and the Temple, as Bulling. Calv. Osiander do well understand it: so also Lyranus: and this is agreeable to that prediction of our Blessed Savior, Luk. 19. 43. The days shall come upon thee, when thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, &c. and shall make thee even with the ground, &c. here the destruction of the city is ascribed to the enemies, not to the Messiah their Prince.
6. Hugo thinketh it may be applied also to that destruction of the city which was after this by the Emperor Elius Adrianus: But our Savior appointeth the time, when all this should be fulfilled, Matth. 24. 34. This generation shall not pass, till all these things be done: but the destruction by Adrianus was well nigh an 100. years after Christ spake those words, 60. years after the first ruin of the city by Titus: it was therefore without the compass of that generation.
Quest. 75. How long after the Messiah was slain, this destruction happened by Titus.
1. Barbinel, that ignorant and railing Rabbi, as M. Calvin reporteth his opinion, saith there passed 200. years between the death of Christ, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans: But herein he showeth his blind folly: for unto the second destruction by Adrian, there were not from Christ's death above an 104. years, which happened in the 18. year of the reign of the Emperor Adrian; the first destruction was according to the saying of our Savior, within the memory of that generation, then living.
2. Lyranus and Paulus Burgens. think that the city was taken by the Romans about 42. years after the death of Christ: but it cannot be so much, as shall afterward be shown by the computation of the years of the Emperors. Pintus also concurreth with Lyranus, counting 38. years and an half from the ende of the half of the 70. week, that is, 3. years and an half, which he reckoneth after Christ's passion to the destruction of Jerusalem.
3. But Junius cometh more years too short, then these do ouershoote: he maketh it but 36. years from the passion of Christ, to the destruction of the city: annotat. in 9. Dan.
4. Josephus Scaliger holding that Christ suffered in the 35. year of his age, whereas he commonly is held to have suffered in the 33. year, bringeth Christ's passion nearer by two years to the destruction of the city, then the ordinary account is: and so he must make the time 38. years or thereabout, from the death of Christ to the ruin of the city.
5. M. Lydyat bringeth Christ's passion within 34. years of the final overthrow and destruction of the city by the Romans: for he setteth Christ's passion in the year of the world 4040. or in the 22. year of Tiberius, and the destruction of the city in the 4074. year: the reason of which alteration is, for that he maketh the passion of Christ to have been 4. years later, then usual; namely, in the 22. year of Tiberius: whereas our blessed Savior is commonly held to have suffered in the 18. year of Tiberius: see this opinion examined before, qu. 69.
6. But the just time was 40. years, as may be shown by a threefold computation. 1. by the distance of the Olympiads. 2. by the years of the Emperors. 3. by the years of the kings of Judea the Herodians.
1. Christ is held to have suffered in the 4. year of the 202. Olympiad: and the destruction of the city fell into the 4. year of the 212. Olympiad: which distance maketh just 40. years. Perer. Bulling.
2. The years of the Emperors are thus counted: Tiberius reigned in all 23. Christ then suffering in his 18. year, there remained 5. years more: then Caligula reigned 4. Claudius 14. Nero 14. Galba, Otho, Vitellius, 1. Vespasian 2. these sums make 40. years: Bulling. But the precise and exact reckoning is this, as Eusebius in his Chronicle setteth them down: All these years, with the months and days, being summed together, 18. years being diducted of Tiberius reign, will make 40. years and sum odd days.
| years | months | days | |
| Tiberius reigned | 22 | 11 | 14 |
| Caligula | 3 | 10 | 18 |
| Claudius | 13 | 8 | 20 |
| Nero | 14 | ||
| Galba | 7 | 2 | |
| Otho | 3 | 2 | |
| Vitellius | 8 | 5 | |
| Vespasian | 2 |