ALBERT BARNES ON DANIEL 9 AND THE 70 WEEKS #3
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
The word righteousness here also (Heb.) is of a general
character.
The fair meaning would be, that some method would be introduced
by which men would become righteous. In the former part of the
verse, the reference was to sin - to the fact of its existence -
to the manner in which it would be disposed of - to the truth
that it would be coerced, sealed up, covered over. Here the
statement is, that, in contradistinction from that, a method
would be introduced by which man would become, in fact, righteous
and holy. But the word implies nothing as to the method by which
this would be done. Whether it would be by a new mode of
justification, or by an influence that would make men personally
holy, whether this was to be as the result of example, or
instruction, or an atoning sacrifice - is not necessarily implied
in the use of this word. That, as in the cases already referred
to, could be learned only by subsequent developments. It would
be, doubtless, understood that there was a reference to the
Messiah - for that is specified in the next verse; and it would
be inferred from this word that, under him, righteousness would
reign, or that men would be righteous, but nothing could be
argued from it as to the methods by which it would be done. It is
hardly necessary to add, that, in the prophets, it is constantly
said that righteousness would characterize the Messiah and his
times; that he would come to make men righteous, and to set up a
kingdom of righteousness in the earth. Yet the exact mode in
which it was to be done would be, of course, more fully explained
when the Messiah should himself actually appear. The word
"everlasting" is used here to denote that the righteousness would
be permanent and perpetual. In reference to the method of
becoming righteous, it would be unchanging - the standing method
ever onward by which men would become holy; in reference to the
individuals who should become righteous under this system, it
would be a righteousness which would continue for ever. This is
the characteristic which is everywhere given of the righteousness
which would be introduced by the Messiah. Thus in Isa.li. 6-8:
"Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth
beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the
earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein
shall die in like manner but my salvation shall be for ever, and
my righteousness shall not be abolished. Hearken unto me, ye that
know righteousness, the people in whose heart is iny law; fear ye
not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.
For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall
eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and
my salvation from generation to generation." So Isa. xlv. 17:
"But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting
salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded, world without
end.", Compare Jer. xxxi. 3. The language used in the passage
before us, moreover, is such as could not properly be applied to
anything but that righteousness which the Messiah would
introduce. It could not be used in reference to the temporal
prosperity of the Jews on their return to the holy land, nor to
such righteousness as the nation had in former times. The fair
and proper meaning of the term is, that it would be eternal--that
which would endure for ever--(Heb.) It would place
righteousness on a permanent and enduring foundation; introduce
that which would endure through all changes, and exist when the
heavens would be no more. In the plan itself there would be no
change; in the righteousness which any one would possess under
that system there would be perpetual duration--it would exist for
ever and ever. This is the nature of that righteousness by which
men are now justified; this is that which all who are interested
in the scheme of redemption actually possess. The way in which
this "everlasting righteousness" would be introduced is not
stated here, but is reserved for future revelations. Probably all
that the words would convey to Daniel would be, that there would
be some method disclosed by which men would become righteous, and
that this would not be temporary or changing, but would be
permanent and eternal. It is not improper that we should
understand it, as it is explained by the subsequent revelations
in the New Testament, as to the method by which sinners are
justified before God.
And to seal up the vision and prophecy. Marg., as in the Heb.,
prophet.
The evident meaning, however, here is prophecy. The word "seal"
is found, as already explained, in the former part of the verse -
"to seal up sins." The word vision (for its meaning, see Notes
on Isaiah i. 1) need not be understood as referring particularly
to the visions seen by Daniel, but should be understood, like the
word prophecy or prophet here, in a general sense - as denoting
all the visions seen by the prophets - the series of visions
relating to the future, which had been made known to the
prophets. The idea seems to be that they would at that time be
all sealed, in the sense that they would be closed or shut up -
no longer open matters--but that the fulfilment would, as it
were, close them up for ever. Till that time they would be open
for perusal and study; then they would be closed up as a sealed
volume which one does not read, but which contains matter hidden
from the view. Comp. Notes on Isa. viii. 16 "Bind up the
testimony; seal the law among my disciples." See also Dan. viii.
26; xii. 4. In Isaiah (viii. 16) the meaning is, that the
prophecy was complete, and the direction was given to bind it up,
or roll it up like a volume, and to seal it. In Dan. viii. 26,
the meaning is, seal up the prophecy, or make a permanent record
of it, that, when it is fulfilled, the event may be compared with
the prophecy, and it may be seen that the one corresponds, with
the other. In the passage before us, Gesenius (Lex.) renders it,
"to complete, to finish"--meaning that the prophecies would be
fulfilled. Hengstenberg supposes that it means, that "as soon as
the fulfilment takes place, the prophecy, although it retains, in
other respects, its great importance, reaches the end of its
destination, in so far as the view of believers, who stand in
need of consolation and encouragement, is no longer directed to
it, to the future prosperity, but to that which has "appeared."
Lengerke supposes that it means to confirm, corroborate,
"ratifybekraftigen, bestatigen;" that is, "the eternal
righteousness will be given to the pious, and the predictions of
the prophets will be confirmed and fulfilled." To seal, says he,
has also the idea of confirming, since the contents of a writing
are secured or made fast by a seal. After all, perhaps, the very
idea here is, that of making fast, as a lock or seal does - for,
as is well known, a seal was often used by the ancients where a
lock is with us; and the sense may be, that, as a seal or lock
made fast and secure the contents of a writing or a book, so the
event, when the prophecy was fulfilled, would make it fast and
secure. It would be, as it were, locking it up, or sealing it,
forever. It would determine all that seemed to be undetermined
about it; settle all that seemed to be indefinite, and leave it
no longer uncertain what was meant. According to this
interpretation the meaning would be, that the prophecies would be
sealed up or settled by the coming of the Messiah. The prophecies
terminated on him (comp. Rev. xix.10); they would find their
fulfilment in him; they would be completed in him - and might
then be regarded as closed and consummatedas a book that is fully
written and is sealed up. All the prophecies, and all the
visions, had a reference more or less direct to the coming of the
Messiah, and when he should appear they might be regarded as
complete. The spirit of prophecy would cease, and the facts would
confirm and seal all that had been written.
And to anoint the Most Holy.
There has been great variety in the interpretation of this
expression. The word rendered anoint (Heb.) - infinitive from
(Heb.) (Heb.) (whence the word Messiah, ver.25), means, properly,
to strike or draw the hand over anything; to spread over with
anything, to smear, to paint, to anoint. It is commonly used with
reference to a sacred rite, to anoint, or consecrate by unction,
or anointing to any office or use; as, e.g., a priest, Exod.
xxviii. 41; xl. 15; a prophet, 1 Kings xix. 16; Isa. lxi. 1; a
king, I Sam. x. 1; xv. 1; 2 Sam. ii. 4; 1 Kings i. 34. So it is
used to denote the consecration of a stone or column as a future
sacred place, Gen. xxxi. 13; or vases and vessels as consecrated
to God, Exod. xl. 9,11; Lev. viii. 11; Numb. vii. 1. The word
would then denote a setting apart to a sacred use, or
consecrating a person or place as holy. Oil, or an unguent,
prepared according to a specified rule, was commonly employed for
this purpose, but the word may be used in a figurative sense - as
denoting to set apart or consecrate in any way without the use of
oil - as in the case of the Messiah. So far as this word,
therefore, is concerned, what is here referred to may have
occurred without the literal use of oil, by any act of
consecration or dedication to a holy use. The phrase, "the Most
Holy" (Heb.) has been very variously interpreted.
By some it has been understood to apply literally to the most
holy place - the holy of holies, in the temple; by others to the
whole temple, regarded as holy; by others to Jerusalem at large
as a holy place; and by others, as Hengstenberg, to the Chris-
tian church as a holy place. By some the thing here referred to
is supposed to have been the consecration of the most holy place
after the rebuilding of the temple; by others the consecration of
the whole temple; by others the consecration of the temple and
city by the presence of the Messiah, and by others the
consecration of the Christian church, by his presence. The phrase
properly means "holy of holies," or most holy. It is applied
often in the Scriptures to the inner sanctuary, or the portion of
the tabernacle and temple containing the ark of the covenant, the
two tables of stone, &c.; See Notes on Matt. xxi. 12. The phrase
occurs in the following places in the Scripture: Exod. xxvi. 33,
34; xxix. 37; xxx. 29,36; x1.10; Lev. ii. 3,10, et all-in all, in
about tw" It is not necessarily limited to the inner sanctuary of
the temple, but may be applied to the whole house, or to anything
that was consecrated to God in a manner peculiarly sacred. In a
large sense, possibly it might apply to Jerusalem, though I am
not aware that it ever occurs in this sense in the Scriptures,
and in a figurative sense it might be applied undoubtedly, as
Hengstenberg supposes, to the Christian church, though it is
certain that it is not elsewhere thus used. In regard to the
meaning of the expressionan important and difficult one, as is
admitted by all - there are five principal opinions which it may
be well to notice. The truth will be found in one of them. (1.)
That it refers to the consecration by oil or anointing of the
temple, that would be rebuilt after the captivity, by Zerubbabel
and Joshua. This was the opinion of Michaelis and Jahn. But to
this opinion there are insuperable objections: (a) that,
according to the uniform tradition of the Jews, the holy oil was
wanting in the second temple. In the case of the first temple
there might have been a literal anointing, though there is no
evidence of that, as there was of the anointing of the vessels of
the tabernacle, Exod. xxx. 22, &c.; But in the second temple there
is every evidence that there can be, that there was no literal
anointing. (b.) The time here referred to is a fatal objection to
this opinion. The period is seventy weeks of years, or four
hundred and ninety years. This cannot be doubted (see Notes on
the first part of the verse) to be the period referred to; but it
is absurd to suppose that the consecration of the new temple
would be deferred for so long a time, and there is not the
slightest evidence that it was. This opinion, therefore, cannot
be entertained. (2.) The second opinion is, that it refers to the
re-consecration and cleansing of the temple after the
abominations of Antiochus Epiphanes. See Notes on ch. viii. 14.
But this opinion is liable substantially to the same objections
as the other. The cleansing of the temple, or of the sanctuary,
as it is said in ch. viii. 14, did not occur four hundred and
ninety years after the order to rebuild the temple (ver.25), but
at a much earlier period. By no art of construction, if the
period here referred to is four hundred and ninety years,
can it be made to apply to the rededication of the temple after
Antiochus had defiled it. (3.) Others have supposed that this
refers to the Messiah himself, and that the meaning is, that he,
who was most holy, would then be consecrated or anointed as the
Messiah. It is probable, as Hengstenberg (Christ. ii. 321, 322)
has shown, that the Greek translators thus understood it, but it
is a sufficient objection to this that the phrase, though
occurring many times in the Scriptures, is never applied to
persons, unless this be an instance. Its uniform and proper
application is to things, or places, and it is undoubtedly so to
be understood in this place. (4.) Hengstenberg supposes (pp. 325-
328) that it refers to the Christian church as a holy place, or
"the New Temple of the Lord," "the Church of the New Covenant,"
as consecrated and supplied with the gifts of the Spirit. But it
is a sufficient refutation of this opinion that the phrase is
nowhere else so used; that it has in the Old Testament a settled
meaning as referring to the tabernacle or the temple; that it is
nowhere employed to denote a collection of people, any more than
an individual person - an idea which Hengstenberg himself
expressly rejects (p.322); and that there is no proper sense in
which it can be said that the Christian church is anointed. The
language is undoubtedly to be understood as referring to some
place that was to be thus consecrated, and the uniform Hebrew
usage would lead to the supposition that there is reference, in
some sense, to the temple at Jerusalem. (5.) It seems to me,
therefore, that the obvious and fair interpretation is, to refer
it to the temple - as the holy place of God; his peculiar abode
on earth. Strictly and properly speaking, the phrase would apply
to the inner room of the temple - the sanctuary properly so
called (see Notes on IIeb. ix. 2); but it might he applied to the
whole temple as consecrated to the service of God. If it be
asked, then, what anointing or consecration is referred to here,
the reply, as it seems to me, is, not that it was then to be set
apart anew, or to be dedicated; not that it was literally to be
anointed with the consecrating; oil, but that it was to be
consecrated in the highest and best sense by the presence of the
Messiah--that by his coming there was to be a higher and more
solemn consecration of the temple to the real purpose for which
it was erected than had occurred at any time. It was reared as a
holy place; it would become eminently holy by the presence of him
who would come as the anointed of God, and his coming to it would
accomplish the purpose for which it was erected, and with
reference to which all the rites observed there had been
ordained, and then, this work having been accomplished, the
temple, and all the rites appertaining to it, would pass away. In
confirmation of this view, it may be remarked, that there are
repeated allusions to the coming of the Messiah to the second
temple, reared after the return from the captivity as that which
would give a peculiar sacredness to the temple, and which would
cause it to surpass in glory all its ancient splendour. So in
Hag. ii. 7, 9: "And I will shake all nations, and the desire of
all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory,
saith the Lord of hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be
greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this
place will I give peace, saith the Lord of hosts." So Mal. iii.
1,2: "The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple,
even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in: behold, he
shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of
his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like
a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap," &c.; Comp. Matt. xii. 6
" ut I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the
temple." Using the word anoint, therefore, as denoting to
consecrate, to render holy, to set apart to a sacred use, and the
phrase holy of holies to designate the temple as such, it seems
to me most probable that the reference here is to the highest
consecration which could be made of the temple in the estimation
of a Hebrew, or, in fact, the presence of the Messiah, as giving
a sacredness to that edifice which nothing else did give or could
give, and, therefore, as meeting all the proper force of the
language used here. On the supposition that it was designed that
there should be a reference to this event, this would be such
language as would have been not unnaturally employed by a Hebrew
prophet. And if it be so, this may be regarded as the probable
meaning of the passage. In this sense, the temple which was to be
reared again, and about which Daniel felt so solicitous, would
receive its highest, its truest consecration, as connected with
an event which was to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to
seal up the vision and the prophecy.
Know, therefore, and understand.
Hengstenberg renders this, "and thou wilt know and understand;"
and supposes that the design of Gabriel is to awaken the
attention and interest of Daniel by the assurance that, if he
would give attention, he would understand the subject by the
explanation which he was about to give. So also Theodotion
renders it in the future tense. The Hebrew is in the future
tense, and would probably convey the idea that he might or would
know and understand the matter. So Lengerke renders it, "Und so
mogest du wissen," &c.; The object is doubtless to call the
attention of Daniel to the subject, with the assurance that he
might comprehend the great points of the communication which he
was about to make respecting the seventy weeks. In the previous
verse, the statement was a general one; in this, the angel states
the time when the period of the seventy weeks was to commence,
and then that the whole period was to be broken up or divided
into three smaller portions or epochs, each evidently marking
some important event, or constituting an important era. The first
period of seven weeks was evidently to be characterized by
something in which it would be different from and threescore and
two weeks the street shall be built again, that which would
follow, or it would reach to some important epoch, and then would
follow a continuous period of sixty-two weeks, after which,
during the remaining one week, to complete the whole number of
seventy, the Messiah would come and would be cut off, and the
series of desolations would commence which would result in the
entire destruction of the city.
That from the going forth of the commandment. Heb., "of the
word"--(Heb.)
It is used, however, as in ver.23, in the sense of commandment or
order. The expression "gone forth" would properly apply to the
issuing of an order or decree. So in ver.23--(Heb.) ---"the
commandment went forth." The word properly means a going forth,
and is applied to the rising sun, that goes forth from the east,
Psa. xix. 6 (7); then a place of going forth, as a gate, a
fountain of waters, the east, &c.;, Ezek. xlii. 1; Isa. xli. 18;
Psa. lxxv. 6 (7). The word here has undoubted reference to the
promulgation of a decree or command, but there is nothing in the
words to determine by whom the command was to be issued. So far
as the language is concerned, it would apply equally well to a
command issued by God, or by the Persian king, and nothing but
the circumstances can determine which is referred to.
Hengstenberg supposes that it is the former, and that the
reference is to the Divine purpose, or the command issued from
the "heavenly council" to rebuild Jerusalem. But the more natural
and obvious meaning is, to understand it of the command actually
issued by the Persian monarch to restore and build the city of
Jerusalem. This has been the interpretation given by the great
body of expositors, and the reasons for it seem to be perfectly
clear: (a) This would be the interpretation affixed to it
naturally, if there were no theory to support, or if it did not
open a chronological difficulty not easy to settle. (b) This is
the only interpretation which can give anything like definiteness
to the passage. Its purpose is to designate some fixed and
certain period from which a reckoning could be made as to the
time when the Messiah would come. But, so far as appears, there
was no such definite and marked command on the part of God; no
period which can be fixed upon when he gave commandment to
restore and build Jerusalem; no exact and settled point from
which one could reckon as to the period when the Messiah would
come. It seems to me, therefore, to be clear, that the allusion
is to some order to rebuild the city, and as this order could
come only from one who had at that time jurisdiction over
Jerusalem and Judea, and who could command the resources
necessary to rebuild the ruined city, that order must be one that
would emanate from the reigning power; that is, in fact, the
Persian power - for that was the power that had jurisdiction at
the close of the seventy years exile. But, as there were several
orders or commands in regard to the restoration of the city and
the temple, and as there has been much difficulty in ascertaining
the exact chronology of the events of that remote period, it has
not been easy to determine the precise order referred to, or to
relieve the whole subject from perplexity and difficulty.
Lengerke supposes that the reference here is the same as in ver.
2, to the promise made to Jeremiah, and that this is the true
point from which the reckoning is to be made. The exact edict
referred to will be more properly considered at the close of the
verse. All that is necessarily implied here is, that the time
from which the reckoning is to be commenced is some command or
order issued to restore and build Jerusalem. To restore. Marg.,
build again. The Hebrew is, properly, to cause to
return--(Heb.) The word might be applied to the return of the
captives to their own land, but it is evidently here used with
reference to the city of Jerusalem, and the meaning must be, to
restore it to ifs former condition. It was evidently the purpose
to cause it to return, as it were, to its former splendour; to
reinstate it in its former condition as a holy city- t he city
where the worship of God would be celebrated, and it is this
purpose which is referred to here. The word, in Hiphil, is used
in this sense of restoring to a former state, or to renew, in the
following places: Psa. lxxx. 3, "Turn us again and cause thy face
to shine." So vers. 7,19, of the same Psalm. Isa. i. 26, "And I
will restore thy judges as at the first," &c.; The meaning here
would be met by the supposition that Jerusalem was to be put into
its former condition. And to build Jerusalem. It was then in
ruins. The command, which is referred to here, must be one to
build it up again--its houses, temple, walls; and the fair sense
is, that some such order would be issued, and the reckoning of
the seventy weeks must begin at the issuing of this
command. The proper interpretation of the prophecy demands that
that time shall be assumed in endeavouring to ascertain when the
seventy weeks would terminate. In doing this, it is evidently
required in all fairness that we should not take the time when
the Messiah did appear or the birth of the Lord Jesus, assuming
that to be the "terminus ad quem " the point to which the seventy
weeks were to extend - and then reckon backward for a space of
four hundred and ninety years, to see whether we cannot find some
event which by a possible construction would bear to be applied
as the terminus a quo, the point from which we are to begin to
reckon; but we are to ascertain when, in fact, the order was
given to rebuild Jerusalem, and to make that the terminus a quo
the starting point in the reckoning. The consideration of the
fulfilment of this may with propriety be reserved to the close of
the verse.
(With correct history we can figure it all. Jesus was born 5 B.C
[an article on this Website proves that]. His MINISTRY began in
the fall of 26 A.D. Going back 483 years would bring us to 458
The decree [in whatever form was to allow the Jews freedom to
rebuild] the freedom of the Jews to return to Jerusalem and start to
rebuild.
Obviously the first thing to rebuild would be the Temple. The city
itself would take much longer, but in 516 B.C. the Jews had their freedom,
the 70 year captivity was over, they could start the return to Palestine
and Jerusalem. But many things would conflict with them for decades.
Add 483 years to 458 B.C. when the command to rebuild went forth
and you have 26 A.D. Jesus died after 3 and 1/2 years in the Passover Spring
of 30 A.D.[which many a scholar have agreed that was the year of his death].
Then 40 years later - 70 A.D. [40 is the number God uses for trial and
testing] Jerusalem was destroyed by the armies of Titus the
Roman, allowed by God, even foretold by Christ, so in
that sense under the prince Messiah that was to come, Messiah God
takes reponsibility in allowing these armies of Rome to destroy
the Temple and Jerusalem. The years I have give all fit in the
typology of the numbers 7, 30, and 40 with 7 x 7 weeks. Barnes
here starts to make things way too complicated, the prophecy is not
that complicated. There was also in prophecy a person to come who
would "introduce" the Messiah. The true people of God knew the
one to come before the Messiah was John the baptist, the Elijah
to come [just as the Pharisees also proclaimed it, only they would
not acknowledge John the baptist fulfilling that prophecy], hence they
were looking at that time for the Messiah, whom John said would come to
replace him. The true people of God knew the 483 or 69 weeks of years
was in their life, very near completion, so they expected the Messiah to arise
on the scene; this we see from the very words of the disciples
and John the baptist in the Gospels - Keith Hunt)
Unto the Messiah.
The word Messiah occurs but four times in the common version of
the Scriptures: Dan. ix. 25,26 John i. 41; iv. 25. It is
synonymous in meaning with the word Christ, the Anointed. See
Notes on Matt. i. 1.
Messiah is the Hebrew word; Christ the Greek. The Hebrew word
(Heb.) occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and, with the
exception of these two places in Daniel, it is uniformly
translated anointed, and is applied to priests, to prophets, and
to kings, as being originally set apart to their offces by solemn
acts of anointing. So far as the language is concerned here, it
might be applied to any one who sustained these offices, and the
proper application is to be determined from the connection. Our
translators have introduced the article--"unto the Messiah."
This is wanting in the Hebrew, and should not have been
introduced, as it gives a definiteness to the prophecy - which
the original language does not necessarily demand. Our
translators undoubtedly understood it as referring to him who is
known as the Messiah, but this is not necessarily implied in the
original. All that the language fairly conveys is, "until an
anointed one." Who that was to be is to be determined from other
circumstances than the mere use of the language, and in the
interpretation of the language it should not ho assumed that the
reference is to any particular individual. That some eminent
personage is designated; someone who by way of eminence would be
properly regarded as anointed of God; some one who would act so
important a part as to characterize the age, or determine the
epoch in which he should live; some one so prominent that he
could be referred to as "anointed," with no more definite
appellation; some one who would be understood to be referred to
by the mere use of this language, maybe fairly concluded from the
expression used - for the angel clearly meant to imply this, and
to direct the mind forward to some one who would have such a
prominence in the history of the world. The object now is merely
to ascertain the meaning of the language. All that is fairly
implied is, that it refers to some one who would have such a
prominence as anointed, or set apart to the office of prophet,
priest, or king, that it could be understood that he was referred
to by the use of this language. The reference is not to the
anointed one, as of one who was already known or looked forward
to as such - for then the article would have been used; but to
some one who, when he appeared, would have such marked
characteristics that there would be no difficulty in determining
that he was the one intended. Hengstenberg well remarks, "We
must, therefore, translate an anointed one, a prince, and assume
that the prophet, in accordance with the uniform character of his
prophecy, chose the more indefinite, instead of the more definite
designation, and spoke only of an anointed one, a prince, instead
of the anointed one, the prince--(Greek) --and left his hearers
to draw a deeper knowledge respecting him, from the prevailing
expectations, grounded on earlier prophecies of a future great
King, from the remaining declarations of the context, and from
the fulfilment, the coincidence of which with the prophecy must
here be the more obvious, since an accurate date had been
given."--Christol. ii. 334,335. The Vulgate renders this, "Usque
ad Christum ducem" - "even to Christ the leader," or ruler. The
Syriac, "to the advent of Christ the king." Theodotion, (Greek)
-- "to Christ the leader," or ruler. The question whether this
refers to Christ will be more appropriately considered at the
close of the verse. The inquiry will then occur, also, whether
this refers to his birth, or to his appearance as the anointed
one - his taking upon himself publicly the office. The language
would apply to either, though it would perhaps more properly
refer to the latter - to the time when he should appear as such -
or should be anointed, crowned, or set apart to the office, and
be fully instituted in it. It could not be demonstrated that
either of these applications would be a departure from the fair
interpretation of the words, and the application must be
determined by some other circumstances, if any are expressed.
What those are in the case will be considered at the close of the
verse.
The Prince. (Heb.)
This word properly means a leader, a prefect, a prince. It is a
a word of very general character and might be applied to sny
leader or ruler.
...........................
To be continued
|
