Thoughts on the Book of Daniel.
CHAPTER IX. (VERSES 25-27, CONTINUED.)
THERE are but four events which can be taken as answering to the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. These are, 1. The decree of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the house of God, B. C. 536. 2. The decree of Darius for the prosecution of that work which had been hindered, B. C. 519. 3. The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra, B. C. 457, Ez. 7, and 4. The commission to Nehemiah from the same king in his twentieth year, B. C. 444. Neh. 2. Dating from the first two of these decrees, the seventy weeks, being weeks of years, 490 years in all, would fall many years short of reaching even to the Christian era; besides, these decrees had reference principally to the restoration of the temple and the temple-worship, of the Jews, and not to the restoration of their civil state and polity, all of which must be included in the expression, “to restore and to build Jerusalem.” These made a commencement of the work. They were preliminary to what was afterward accomplished. But of themselves they are altogether insufficient both in their dates, and in their nature, to meet the requirements of the prophecy; and thus failing in every respect, they cannot be brought into the controversy as marking the point from which the seventy weeks are to date. The only question now lies between the decrees which were granted to Ezra and to Nehemiah. The facts between which we are to decide here, are briefly these: In 457 B. C., a decree was granted to Ezra by the Persian emperor, Artaxerxes Longimanus, to go up to Jerusalem with as many of his people as were minded to go with him. The commission granted him an unlimited amount of treasure, to beautify the house of God, procure offerings for its service, and to do whatever else might seem good unto him. It empowered him to ordain laws, set magistrates and judges, and execute punishment even unto death; in other words to restore the Jewish state, civil and ecclesiastical, according to the law of God and the ancient customs of that people. Inspiration has seen fit to preserve this decree; and a full and accurate copy of it is given in the seventh chapter of the book of Ezra. In the original this decree is given, not in Hebrew, like the rest of the book of Ezra, but in the Chaldaic (or Eastern Aramaic), the language then used at Babylon; and thus we are furnished with the original document by virtue of which Ezra was authorized to restore and build Jerusalem. Thirteen years after this, in the 20th year of the same king, B. C. 444, Nehemiah sought and obtained permission to go up to Jerusalem. Neh. 2. Permission was granted him, but we have no evidence that it was anything more than verbal. It pertained to him individually, nothing being said about others’ going up with him. The king asked him how long a journey he wished to make, and when he would return. He received letters to the governors beyond the river, to help him on his way to Judah, and an order on the keeper of the king’s forest for timber for beams, &c. When he arrived at Jerusalem, he found rulers, priests, and nobles and people already engaged in the work of building Jerusalem. Neh. 2: 16. These were, of course, acting under the decree given to Ezra thirteen years before. And finally, Nehemiah, having arrived at Jerusalem, finished the work he came to accomplish, in fifty-two days. Neh. 6: 15. Now which of these commissions, Ezra’s or Nehemiah’s, constitutes the decree for the restoration of Jerusalem, from which the seventy weeks are to be dated? It hardly seems that there can be any question on this point. 1. The grant to Nehemiah cannot be called a decree. It was necessary that a Persian decree should be put in writing, and signed by the king. Dan. 6: 8. Such was the document given to Ezra; but Nehemiah had nothing of the kind: his commission being only verbal. If it be said that the letters given him constituted the decree, then the decree was issued not to Nehemiah, but to the governors beyond the river; besides, these would constitute a series of decrees, and not one decree, as the prophecy contemplates. 2. 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, that the wall of Jerusalem was also broken down and the gates thereof burned with fire. Neh. 1. 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 by Nebuchadnezzar, 144 years previous to that time, would have been reported to Nehemiah as a matter of news, nor 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. 3. If any should contend that Nehemiah’s commission must be a decree, because the object of his request was that he might build the city, it is sufficient to reply as shown above, that gates and walls had been built previous to his going up; besides the work of building which he went to perform was accomplished in fifty-two days; whereas the prophecy allows for the building of the city, seven weeks, or forty-nine years. 4. There was nothing granted to Nehemiah, which was not embraced in the decree to Ezra; while the latter had all the forms and conditions of a decree, and was vastly more ample in its provisions. 5. It is evident from the prayer of Ezra, as recorded in chap. 9: 9, of his book, that he considered himself fully empowered to proceed with the building of the city and the wall; and it is evident that he understood, further, that the conditional prophecies concerning his people were then fulfilled, from the closing words of that prayer in which he says, “Should we again break thy commandments and join in affinity with the people of these abominations, wouldst thou not be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping?” 6. 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 sixty-nine 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 was heard from Heaven declaring him his Son, in A. D. 27, thirteen years before. According to this calculation, the midst of the last, or seventieth, 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. As it is, it only proves that theory a failure, which dates the seventy weeks from Nehemiah’s commission in the twentieth of Artaxerxes. 7. Will these dates harmonize if we reckon from the decree to Ezra? Let us see. In this case 457 B. C. is our starting-point. Forty-nine years were allotted to the building of the city and the wall. On this point, Prideaux, Connec., Vol. I, p. 322, says: “In the fifteenth year of Darius Nothus, ended the first seven weeks of the seventy weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. For then the restoration of the church and State of the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea was fully finished, in that last act of reformation which is recorded in the thirteenth chapter of Nehemiah, from the twenty-third verse to the end of the chapter, just forty-nine years after it had been commenced by Ezra, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus.” So far all is harmony. Let us apply the measuring-rod of the prophecy still further. Sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, were to extend to Messiah the Prince. Dating from B. C. 457, they end in A. D. 27. And what took place then? Luke thus informs us: “Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also, being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from Heaven which said, ‘Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.’ Luke 3: 21, 22, margin A. D. 27. After this, Jesus came ‘into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled.’ The time here mentioned must have been some specific, definite, and predicted period; but no prophetic period can be found then terminating, except the sixty-nine weeks of the prophecy of Daniel, which were to extend to Messiah the Prince. The Messiah had now come; and with his own lips he announced the termination of that period which was to be marked by his manifestation.