Synopsis of the Present Truth
By Uriah Smith
SYNOPSIS OF THE PRESENT TRUTH.
NUMBER FIFTEEN. IT is a familiar saying that the surest way to root out error, is to plant in the truth; and as we have found a decree which in its extent, fully includes the work contemplated in the prophecy, and makes the most perfect harmony in the commencement, intermediate dates and termination of the seventy weeks which were to be dated from it, it would hardly seem necessary to dwell further on this point. But as the commission of Nehemiah in the twentieth of Artaxerxes, thirteen years after the decree to Ezra, has been by some zealously and confidently claimed as the starting point of the seventy weeks and 2300 days, it demands a passing notice. Far be it from us to say anything derogatory of Nehemiah or of his work. He was a holy man, and his work an important one; but the utter impropriety of making it the date for the commencement of the prophetic periods will be seen when we consider that it was but a continuation of the work with which Ezra had been commissioned, and which he had commenced thirteen years before. And that it was but a continuation of that work is evident from the following facts:— 1. The occasion of Nehemiah's petition to the king for permission to go up to Jerusalem was the report which certain ones, returning, had brought from thence, that those in the province were in great affliction and reproach, and the wall of Jerusalem also was broken down, and the gates thereof burned with fire. Neh. i. Whose work were these walls and gates that were broken down and burned with fire? Evidently the work of Ezra and his associates; for it cannot for a moment be supposed that the utter destruction of the city of Nebuchadnezzar, 144 years previous to that time, would have been reported to Nehemiah as a matter of news, or that he would have considered it, as he evidently did, a fresh misfortune calling for a fresh expression of his grief. A decree therefore authorizing the building of these, had gone forth previous to the grant to Nehemiah. 2. Those who contend for this decree, lay much stress on the phrase, "to build," as though the literal building of the city was all that was involved in the prophecy, and this Nehemiah got express permission to perform. But we have already seen that walls and gates were built and broken down previous to his going up. We have also seen that if we are confined to the literal building of the city, the decree of Cyrus has the preference to all others; and this is a sufficient refutation of the idea. But further, we find in Nehemiah, chap, 6:15, that the work of building which he went to perform was all accomplished in fifty two days;188whereas for the building of the city in the sense of the prophecy there are allowed seven weeks or forty-nine years. 3. There is not a specification in the grant to Nehemiah which is not included in the decree to Ezra; while the latter is much more full. It is therefore utterly inadmissible to pass over the greater event, and fix upon a subsequent one of less importance, to mark the commencement of an important era in prophecy. 4. Reckoning from the commission to Nehemiah, B. C. 444, the dates throughout are entirely disarranged; for from that point the troublous times which were to attend the building of the street and wall did not last seven weeks or forty-nine years. Reckoning from that date the 67 weeks or 483 years which were to extend to the Messiah the Prince, bring us to A. D. 39-40; but Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan and the voice of his Father had been heard from heaven declaring him his Son, in A. D. 27, thirteen years before. According to this calculation, the midst of the week which is marked by the crucifixion is placed in A. D. 44; but the crucifixion took place in A. D. 31, thirteen years previous. And lastly the 70 weeks or 490 years, dated from the twentieth of Artaxerxes, extend to A. D. 47, with absolutely nothing to mark their termination. Hence if that be the year, and the grant to Nehemiah the event, from which to reckon, the prophecy has proved a failure. 5. We have no evidence that the permission given to Nehemiah was anything but verbal. We have no record of there being anything given to him but certain letters to the keeper of the king's forest, the governors beyond the river, &c.; and if these constitute the decree, the prophecy should read decrees; for there were more than one. But these letters were not addressed to Nehemiah; and of so little importance were they considered by the sacred historian, that he has seen fit to preserve no copy of them, but simply to state their import. While on the other hand, the decree to Ezra was one decree, it was expressly called a decree, it was addressed directly to Ezra, and the Holy Ghost has thought proper to transmit a copy of the original document to the present time. With these facts in view, no one can long hesitate between the respective commissions of Ezra and Nehemiah, as to which properly marks the commencement of an important prophetic period. Previous to 1844 no Advent believer thought of contending for the latter commission, but since the passing of that time, there has existed in some minds a seeming necessity for the removal of the original dates; and as "necessity is the mother of invention," so it gives some the power of magnifying molehills into mountains, when they are in need of the mountain. The application of the argument, thus far, on the 70 weeks and 2300 days remains for our next. U. S.
(To be Continued.)