Having thus reached the close of my subject, I now, in the form of an Appendix, desire to add a few words on one prominent point in the foregoing pages; namely, the question as to the precise time of the ministry of John and of Jesus. This, as I have said, was SEVEN YEARS, or A WEEK—that is, one of the Jewish Levitical weeks—divided, as we have seen, into two equal parts.
But how, it may be asked, is this proved? What chronological data have we in scripture on which to ground this assertion? None, I unhesitatingly answer—none, at least, that I am aware of; nor do I believe it is to be settled in this way. Being, as I feel assured, rather a moral than a chronological question, it does not depend for its proof on any knowledge of dates. Hence I would ask my reader, should he be disposed to require a proof of this kind, to suspend his judgment awhile, and, assuming the truth of this statement, to follow the argument contained in the foregoing pages, viewing the subject, not in detached parts, but as a whole. Having done this, he will be better prepared to come to a decision. And, supposing him to be generally acquainted with prophetical truth, and therefore competent to form a judgment upon it, I have no doubt whatever as to the result. Let him only trace the connection between one part and another, the beautiful harmony, the wondrous consistency which runs through the whole, and he will, I believe, be unable to withstand the conviction that the period in question must have been just what I stated—A WEEK. This I believe to be true; and hence it has been my object to prove that the prophecy of the seventy weeks involves a deep moral principle connected with the character and government of God. This fact, however, is not commonly recognized; and hence it is treated as little more than a mere chronological question. This I believe lies at the root of the objection made to "THE Canceled WEEK." Some object to it because of the want (to their mind) of scripture proof on my part. Now I, for my part, do not hesitate to say that the subject, when viewed—not in detached parts, but as a whole (the subject presented in the two charts together I mean), and judged of, moreover, by the spiritual mind, in the light of the sanctuary,—will be found to be a great moral chain, so consistent in every part, so aptly fitted together, that it is absolutely impossible that it can be a human invention, or anything less than the work of HIM who is the Parent of all that is harmonious and beautiful. This is not my judgment alone, but that also of many deeply taught in the word, to whom I have submitted my views of "The Cycles," together with those on the "Seventy Weeks of Daniel." Well, then, this week forms an integral part of this chain: take that away and the chain falls asunder. Some, however, would set the whole thing aside, allowing, it is true, that it is an ingenious fabric on my part, and thus showing that they are conscious of something consistent therein, but still rejecting it. And why? because, in the first place, no actual notice is taken in the Gospels of the length of John's ministry; and secondly, because it conflicts with the views of certain chronologists as to the time of Christ's death. This is surely not a true principle: this is using human chronology as a test whereby to interpret the word, instead of keeping human chronology in subservience to scripture. Now, a true interpretation of scripture I believe to be the very thing to set chronologists right in many a question of this kind, and enable them to—
"Correct, erroneous oft,
The clock of history, facts and events
Timing more punctual.”
And what if it be so with regard to this prophecy? What, too, if the canceled week be actually needed in order to fill out the purpose of God with regard to His ancient people the Jews, and make them fully responsible for their rejection of Christ? And what, let me add, if the enemy, in order to hinder this week from being perceived, thereby preventing this important portion of scripture from being understood, has intentionally con, fused the minds of men with regard to chronology? This of course he could easily do in the case of so brief a period as a week, or seven years, so far back as nearly two thousand years. I believe all this to be the case. I therefore again ask my reader to suspend his judgment awhile; to come to no conclusion, till he has patiently, impartially, prayerfully considered this and the following paper; and, I may add, if he has them at hand, till he has studied my charts: having done this he will be able to form a judgment about it, and not (I trust I am not presumptuous in saying) till then. And now, having said this much, I turn to remind my reader of three leading points.
FIRST I have endeavored to show that between the birth of Abraham and Christ there were four dispensational cycles of seventy weeks. Does this, let me ask, commend itself to my reader? If it does, and he at the same time views the last week of Daniel as future, then let me remind him that the week in question is needed, in order to fill up the period—to complete the last of the three cycles between Moses and Christ.
SECONDLY; when Christ offered Himself to the Jews as their King, is it to be supposed that He did so otherwise than just at the time when they had been taught to look for the kingdom—AT THE TERMINATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS? Accordingly we read, "When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son:" and again, "The time is fulfilled," said His messenger John. This of necessity brings in A WEEK, which, though unnamed and unmeasured, both in the four Gospels and Daniel, must, in order to perfect "the time," have existed and so, uninterruptedly following the seven and threescore and two weeks of our prophecy, completed the period of seventy weeks between Nehemiah's return and the cutting off of Messiah.
Then, THIRDLY, the correspondence, and at the same time the contrast, between the two weeks— namely, the last week of grace and the week of retributive judgment, both as to the time, the twofold and equal division of each, the events, and the persons connected therewith,—is so evident, that it is wholly impossible that such an analogy can be fortuitous. At this I have, however, hinted before: I will therefore merely observe, that to me the future existence of one leads to the thought that the other must have also existed.
These, then, are the points to which I allude. And now let me ask, though no week can chronologically be traced in any one of the Gospels, whether there is not a moral necessity why such a period, and that too divided in the way I have shown, must have come in at this point.
It is a principle allowed on all hands, that when in reasoning we admit certain facts to be true, we are bound to receive as truth any inference deducible from these acknowledged truths, unless is can be clearly or equally proved to the contrary, I for my part do not ask for further proof of the question. True, if there be indeed any chronological point in scripture which would corroborate my statement, I shall be thankful to anyone who will direct my attention thereto: but in the meantime I feel perfectly satisfied, believing that the more strictly the whole subject is canvassed by the intelligent reader, judging of things in the light of the Lord, the more fully persuaded he will be on the subject.
And here let me add, that whatever discoveries I may have made with regard to other matters discussed in the foregoing pages (the cycles, for instance, and so on) began with that which I made about thirty-three years ago with regard to THIS VERY WEEK: the others originated with this.
This may be compared to the first circle caused by a stone cast into water; the others were like circle after circle succeeding the first. To use a different figure, this may I term the keystone on which the whole theory rests, so coherent in every respect as this theory is, so aptly fitted together, without effort on my part to work out a system. If this then once be removed as untrue, the whole fabric falls to the ground. Nothing else in these charts could stand for a moment, I believe, if this view of the canceled week should be proved to be a fiction on my part. But it is not so, I feel fully persuaded. The Lord in His goodness has shown it to met; and through me, I humbly trust, He will show it to others, who, willing to judge of all things in the light of His presence, are dependent, not on their own understanding, but on the teaching of God's blessed Spirit. Such will see that these are not matters of curious inquiry or chronological interest; not the imaginations of the natural mind, which, with regard to the things of God, is at best only a chaos of endless confusion; but, on the contrary, that they are the deep and wonderful secrets, the "witty inventions," of Him whose mind is the source of all that is harmonious and beautiful. Happily for us, it is with Him that our souls have to do; and these things are treasured up in His word for our instruction, our comfort, and blessing: His object therein being nothing less than to display His infinite wisdom, His justice, His grace; and in this way to teach us how fully, on our way through this stormy and sorrowful world, we may rest in His love; what a rich and inexhaustible store of blessing and gladness He has in reserve for the heart that thus reposes in Him.