SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
UNFULFILLED PROPHECY
Unfulfilled Prophecy and "The Hope of the Church"
BY SIR ROBERT ANDERSON, K.C.B., LL.D.
PREFACE
I responded with real pleasure to a request from the
Prophecy Investigation Society to write a manual on the prophecy of "The
Seventy Weeks." But I soon found that such a book would be a mere abridgment of
The Coming Prince, or The Seventy Weeks of Daniel. And as the narrow limits of
space prescribed for me would preclude my citing authorities, or noticing any
of the numerous incidental questions involved in the inquiry, I felt that the
result would neither satisfy students of prophecy, nor appeal to Christians
generally. I sought permission, therefore, to vary the proposed scheme; and,
instead of making Daniel ix. the burden of these pages, to use it as the basis
for a brief treatise upon unfulfilled prophecy, giving prominence to the
well-nigh forgotten truth of that Coming of Christ which is the distinctive
hope of the present dispensation-" the Hope of the Church," Bengel calls it.
A "special subject" in a school curriculum is often ignored, as not being
essential to "a liberal education"; and prophecy is neglected by many a
Christian as being unnecessary to "assurance of salvation." But such neglect is
perilous in these days of subtle and sustained attacks upon the Bible; when we
are confronted both by the sceptical crusade of the Higher Criticism, and the
steadily increasing influence of Romanism. And the study of prophecy will prove
a safeguard against both these apostasies. For no Christian who pursues it
intelligently, and understands the Divine "plan of the ages," which it unfolds,
will be imposed upon by "the learned ignorance" of the Critics. And the
present-day decline of Protestantism in England is due to no change in the
historic apostasy of Christendom, but to a weakening of faith in Holy Writ. For
when the devout religionist begins to lose confidence in the Bible, he is apt
to fall back upon "the Church."
"All God-breathed Scripture is profitable."
And prophecy fills a large proportion of its pages. The study is a fascinating
one; and it will save us from being entrapped either by the Christianised
Infidelity of Germany, or by the Christianised Paganism of Rome. I may add
that, although The Coming Prince .has been under the search-light of criticism
for so many years, not a single point in my scheme of the Seventy Weeks has
been refuted or disturbed. Professor Driver's only disparaging criticism (in
his "Daniel," Cambridge Bible, page 149) is that my scheme is based on that of
Julius Africanus (a fact of which I boast!), and that it leaves the seventieth
week unexplained (which suggests that he mislaid his copy of my book when he
had read only half of it !). R.A.
CHAPTER ONE
Many years ago one of the leading Rabbis of the London
Synagogue published a volume of sermons to refute the Christian interpretation
of certain Messianic prophecies. The Seventy Weeks of Daniel received prominent
notice; and he accused Christian expositors of tampering, not only with
chronology, but with the language of Scripture, in their effort to make it
apply to the Nazarene. My indignation at such a charge led me to enter upon an
extensive course of reading to enable me to refute it. But to my great surprise
and distress I found that it was by no means a base-less libel. And this again
led me to take up the study of Daniel ix. with an open mind, and a settled
determination to accept the words of the prophecy at their face value, and to
adopt the standard chronology of the eras and events involved in the inquiry.
The error of the received view, that the Captivity era was the basis of the
prophecy, was one of my earliest discoveries. And this blunder, trifling though
it may seem, has afforded both Jews and Infidels a vantage ground in their
attacks upon these Scriptures. There was no "seventy years' Captivity." Because
of national sin a judgment of seventy years servitude to Babylon was Divinely
imposed upon Judah. This judgment fell in the third year of King Jehoiakim
(B.C. 606), when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judea and captured Jerusalem. But his
purpose was merely to hold the land as a vassal State, and he left the Jews in
undisturbed possession of their City, Daniel and his companions being carried
to Babylon to adorn his court as vassal princes.
After three years
Jeboiakim revolted; and five years later Nebuchadnezzar returned to enforce his
conquest (B.C. 598). And the youthful King Jehoiachin surrendered almost
without a struggle. On his first invasion the King of Babylon had proved
magnanimous and lenient. But now he had to punish rebellion; and he "carried
away all Jerusalem," leaving none behind "save the poorest sort of the people
of the land. This was what, in the opening words of his book, Ezekiel terms "
King Jehoiachin's captivity," the prophet himself being numbered among the
captives.
Jehoiachin's uncle, Zedekiah, was placed upon the throne as
vassal king, having sworn allegiance to his suzerain. In common with "the
residue of Jerusalem that remained in the land," he had ever before him
Jeremiah's warnings that a refusal to submit to the Divine decree which brought
them under servitude to Babylon would bring upon them a far more terrible
judgment. Nebuchadnezzar would again return to "destroy them utterly," and to
make the land" a desolation and an astonishment." But they gave heed to false
prophets who pandered to the national vanity by predicting a speedy restoration
of their independence; and having obtained a promise of armed support from
Egypt, the Jews again revolted. Nebuchadnezzar thereupon invaded Judtea for the
third time; and when, after a siege of eighteen months, he captured Jerusalem,
the city was given up to fire and sword. The last chapter of 2 Chronicles
contains the sad story of Judah's sin and of the Divine judgments it brought
upon them.
Three several judgments, distinct, though in part concurrent,
thus befell that stiff-necked people. And it was this third judgment of the
"Desolations" that filled the thoughts and bowed the heart of Daniel, as he
prayed the prayer which brought him the great prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. No
words could be plainer or more definite. "I Daniel understood by the books the
number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet,
for the accomplishing of the Desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years."
And by those same "books" he would have understood also that the seventy years
of the "Servitude" were on the point of expiring. And, of course, the return of
the exiles would bring to an end the judgment of the" Captivity," which thus
lasted sixty-two years. But as Daniel had already passed his fourscore years of
life he would scarcely hope to outlive the Desolations, seventeen years of
which had still to run. And I confidently offer the suggestion that his prayer
was an appeal that God would cancel those years, and remit the still unexpired
portion of the judgment. The circumstances of the time, and the whole tenor of
the prayer, seem to point to this. The closing words are specially explicit: "0
Lord forgive; 0 Lord hearken and do; defer not, for Thine own sake, 0 my God;
for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy name."
What more there was in
his heart to utter we know not; for "while he was speaking in prayer" the angel
Gabriel appeared to him - the same heavenly messenger who heralded in later
times the Saviour's birth in which should be read as in Bethlehem, and from him
the prophet received, in answer to his supplication, the great prophecy of the
Seventy Weeks. Here are the words:-
"Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy
people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of
sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting
righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.
Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to
restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven
weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and
moat, even in troublous times. And after the threescore and two weeks shall
Messiah be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the Prince that
shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall
be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are
determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for
the half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,
and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate, even
until the consummation, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the
desolator."
CHAPTER II.
The Hebrew Scriptures contain no Messianic prophecy that is simpler and
more definite than this of the Seventy Weeks, and none better fitted to silence
the infidel and convince the Jew. But its meaning and evidential value are lost
in a bewildering maze of forced or fanciful interpretations. And this is the
evil work of Christian expositors! The meaning of the language of the prophecy
may be deemed matter for discussion; but no intelligent reader, whether he be
Christian or Jew or Infidel, who will study it with an unbiassed mind, can
entertain an honest doubt as to what it says. Echoing the words of Daniel's
prayer, the angel's message told him that not seventy years, but seventy weeks
of years were decreed upon his people and his holy city, before they would
enter into full Divine blessing.
This era is divided into three portions,
of seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week, respectively. It dates from the
issuing of a decree to build Jerusalem. From that event "unto Messiah the
prince" there were to be 7+ 62 weeks. And after "the sixty-two weeks" the
Messiah would be "cut off." The seventieth and last week of the era would be
signalised by the advent of another Prince, who would make a seven years'
covenant (or treaty) with the Jews; and iii the middle of the week (i.e., after
three years and a half), he would violate that treaty and suppress their Temple
worship and the ordinances of their religion.
All this is so plain that any
intelligent child could understand it. We must remember, however, that with the
Jews in ancient times it was as natural to speak of a week of years as of a
week of days. And further, that their year was one of three hundred and sixty
days. Such was the year in use in Babylon, where the prophecy was given. And,
moreover, it was the year by which the judgment of the "Desolations" to which
the prophecy referred, was reckoned. That era dated from the day on which the
city was invested; namely, the 10th Tebeth in the ninth year of Zedekiah -a day
that for four and twenty centuries has been observed as a fast by the Jews in
every land. And, as the Prophecy of Haggai so explicitly records, it ended on
the twenty-fourth day of Chisleu in the second year of Darius Hystaspes. Now
from the 10th Tebeth B.C. 589 to the 24th Chisleu, B.C. 520, was a period of
25,200 days, or seventy years of 360 days.
The first question then which
claims attention relates to the "decree" to rebuild the city. And at this point
most expositors proceed to discuss various recorded edicts for the return of
the exiles, or for building or adorning the Temple. But if we refuse to treat
Divine prophecy in the loose and careless way we read a newspaper or a novel,
we shall seize upon the fact that Jerusalem was rebuilt in pursuance of an
edict issued by King Artaxerxes of Persia in the twentieth year of his reign;
and that history, sacred and profane, knows nothing of any other "decree" for
the rebuilding of the holy city.
Nehemiah was cupbearer to the King-"an
office of high honour in Persia," and his Book opens by mentioning that certain
Jews arrived at the Persian capital bringing him grievous tidings of the
condition of Jerusalem. The second chapter narrates that, while discharging the
duties of his office, the King taxed him with showing signs of private grief in
the royal presence. "Why should not my countenance be sad?" he pleaded, "when
the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates
thereof are burned with fire?" "For what dost thou make request?" the King
demanded; and Nehemiah answered, "That thou wouldest send me to Judah, unto the
city of my father's sepulchres, that I may build it." The King thereupon
authorised Nehemiah to undertake the work of restoration; and before the next
Feast of Tabernacles Jerusalem was again a walled city, secured by gates and
ramparts.
Our next enquiry is whether sixty-nine weeks of years, measured
from the date of that edict, ended with any event to satisfy the words, "unto
Messiah the Prince." And here we must remember that the Cross, and not the
Incarnation, was the world's great "crisis." And while Scripture nowhere
records the Saviour's birth date, the epoch of His ministry is given, 'with
absolute definiteness, as occurring in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar.
Now (pace the "reconcilers" and expositors) "the reign of Tiberius, as
beginning from the 19th Augustus A.D. 14, was as well-known a date in the time
of Luke as is the reign of Queen Victoria in our own day; and no single case
has ever been produced in which his regnal years were reckoned in any other
manner.'
We can thus definitely fix upon Nisan A.D. 29 as the date of the
first Passover of our Lord's ministry. And as His ministry ex-tended over four
Passovers, it is as certain as inspired Scripture and human language can make
it that the date of the Crucifixion was the Festival of Nisan, A.D. 32.
In
accordance with Jewish custom, the Lord went up to Jerusalem "six days before
the Passover," i.e., on Friday, the 8th Nisan. Presumably He spent the Sabbath
in Bethany; and in the evening, when the Sabbath was ended, there took place
the supper in Martha's house. And upon the following day, the 10th Nisan, He
made His "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem. No careful student of the narrative
can fail to recognise that this was, both in intention and in fact, a crisis in
His ministry. After the great Council of the nation had decreed His death He
charged His Apostles not to make Him known; and from that time He shunned all
public recognition of His Messiahship. But now He welcomed the acciamations of
"the whole multitude of the disciples," and silenced the remonstrances of the
Pharisees by declaring that "if these held their peace the stones would
immediately cry out."
For on that day was fulfilled Zechariah's prophecy:
"Rejoice greatly, 0 daughter of Zion! Shout, 0 daughter of Jerusalem! Behold
thy King cometh unto thee, lowly and riding upon an ass." And when the
disciples raised the triumphant shout, "Hosanna to the son of David! Blessed is
the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord," the Saviour looked off
toward the Holy City, and exclaimed, "If thou also hadst known even on this
day, the things that belong to thy peace! but now they are hid from thine
eyes!" "Even on this day," for it was the fateful day on which the sixty-nine
weeks of the Daniel prophecy expired. And it was the only occasion in all His
earthly sojourn on which He was acclaimed as Messiah the Prince, the King of
Israel.
There is no vagueness in Divine reckoning. As the Jewish year was
regulated by the Paschal moon, we can calculate the Julian date of any Nisan.
The 1st Nisan in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, when the decree to restore
and build Jerusalem was issued, was the 14th March, B.C. 445. And the era
intervening between that day and the 10th Nisan (or 6th April), A.D. 32, was
173,880 days, or sixty-nine weeks of years, to the very day.(See Ch. x. of
The Coming Prince.)
The Artaxerxes date was calculated for me by the
Astronomer Royal; and the dates of the years of the Ministry will be found in
various standard works upon the subject.
The scheme here unfolded was
foreshadowed by Julius Africanus in his Chronography: the detailed elucidation
of it is a part of my personal contribution to the interpretation of Daniel.
And the result may well give food for thought both to the Christian and the
Critic. The sceptical crusade of the Higher Criticism claims to have
discredited the Book of Daniel as being either a pseud-epigraph or a romance.
But how then can it account for the fulfilment of this particular prophecy? If
someone announced that the distance, say, from the main door of St. Paul's
Cathedral to some well-known rural landmark, was exactly 173,880 yards, and the
statement was found to be absolutely accurate, what estimate should we form of
anyone who dismissed the result as being a mere coincidence or a happy guess?
Should we not brand him as either knave or fool? And unless we are to allow our
respect for Professors and pundits to outweigh our reverence for God and His
holy Word, this must be our estimate of those who either champion or accept the
"assured results of the Higher Criticism" respecting the prophecy of Daniel.
CHAPTER THREE
Literature | Photos | Links | Home