We pause at verse 26 to consider the reference there to 'The Messiah',

for while most commentators see in this term a reference to Christ, this

interpretation has been denied.  'The Jews of the Talmud age say, that the

end of the Messiah was spoken of in the Book of the Chetubim arriving at this

place; but how the latter generations turn off such a sense'; see R. Saddras

and Rab. Solomon.  In like manner, Isaiah 53 is interpreted of Hezekiah or

even of the nation of Israel, but thank God we have New Testament witness

that 'The Messiah' Himself is the subject of that prophecy.  In the time of

our Lord, the name 'Messiah' was on the lips of the common people.  The

ignorant Samaritan woman knew that 'Messiah cometh' (John 4:25).  Andrew told

his brother, 'we have found the Messiah', to which John adds for our benefit,

'which is being interpreted the Christ' (John 1:41).  Old Simeon expected to

be spared long enough to see 'The Lord's Christ' i.e. the Messiah (Luke

2:26), and when the angels announced the birth of the Saviour to the

Shepherds, they spoke of Him as 'Christ the Lord', i.e. The Messiah (Luke

2:11).  When the crowd of common people said, 'If thou be the Christ, tell us

plainly' they make it clear that the common people as well as the Rabbins

themselves used this title with knowledge.  The paraphrase of Jonathan uses

the title, 'The Messiah', in explaining 26 passages of the prophets

concerning Him (see Buxtorf Lex. Chald. Col. 1270 -2).  Others, in order to

retain their own theories, have interpreted The Messiah of Daniel 9, of

Cyrus, of Xerxes, or Alexander the Great and even of Zedekiah.

One would have felt with Acts 4:25 -28, that no child of God believing

the Scriptures to be inspired could ever have put forward a teaching that

necessitated the denial that Psalm 2:2 referred to Christ!  The objection is

based upon the fact that inasmuch as 'The Lord' of the Old Testament is the

Saviour and the Christ of the New, then when we read 'Against the Lord, and

against His Anointed', the Anointed cannot refer to Christ.  But this places

the apostles in a queer position.  Those who quote Psalm 2 in Acts 4, were

endued with miraculous gifts, and 'with one accord' they could quote Psalm 2,

and comment immediately, 'For of a truth against Thy holy child Jesus, Whom

Thou Hast Anointed ...'.  The combination of 'The Lord' and 'His Anointed'

apparently was no stumbling to them.  Old Simeon also had no such problem,

for he said without reserve, 'The Lord's Christ' (Luke 2:26).  If we can

possibly allow a mistake to have crept into Luke 2:26 and Acts 4, are we, to

be consistent, going to rule out Christ from Psalm 110, in spite of the fact

that the Saviour Himself endorsed it?  If the Messiah can be ruled out of

Psalm 2, because the words occur 'Against the Lord, and against His Anointed'

what shall we do with Psalm 110:1, 'The Lord said unto my Lord', and how

shall we react to the Lord's own question:

'What think ye of Christ? whose son is He?' (Matt. 22:42).

Shall we say that the Saviour Himself stood in need of correction?  It

is good to see that even the Pharisees did not adopt that attitude, and it is

a sad thing to find a child of God taking such a line of teaching.

We return to Daniel 9, being convinced that 'the Messiah' here, is none

other than He Who in fulness of time was born at Bethlehem, at the time

indicated in this prophecy.  In the text of Daniel 9:26 the Hebrew is

'inverted', reading: 'And the people of the prince, the one that is to come,

shall destroy the city and the sanctuary', the intention being to connect the

future prince with the word 'confirm' showing that neither Antiochus, Titus

nor Christ can be that prince, who finds 'his end' in an overflowing

destruction.  Nowhere does Christ in the New Testament confirm a covenant for