THE SANCTUARY by Uriah Smith

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 24, 1876

THE SANCTUARY.

By Uriah Smith

Eighth Paper.—The Seventy Weeks.

It has now been proved, 1. That there is the clearest connection between the 8th and 9th chapters of Daniel. 2. That the seventy weeks are consequently a part of the 2300 days. 3. That these weeks are cut off from those days. 4. That the seventy weeks are the first 490 days of the 2300 days. 5. That, consequently, where the seventy weeks begin, there the 2300 days begin.

Respecting the time, therefore, we have now only to inquire further, From what point are the seventy weeks to be reckoned? The data which the Bible furnishes on this point are found in the further instruction which the angel gave to Daniel in chapter 9. After informing him that seventy weeks were cut off from the 2300 days, and allotted to his people and the city of Jerusalem, he proceeds immediately to tell him in the following language where they begin, and what events would mark their termination:—

“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” Dan. 9:25–27.

From this testimony respecting the seventy weeks we learn, 1. That a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem marks their beginning. 2. That seven weeks or 49 years were allotted to the work of restoration. 3. That sixty-nine weeks or 483 years would span the interval to the time when the Messiah the Prince should appear upon the earth, or when our Lord should commence his public ministry here among men. 4. That during the last or seventieth week, the Messiah should confirm the covenant (the new covenant) with many. 5. That in the midst or middle of that last week, he should be cut off, and cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease; expressions which must be considered as referring to his crucifixion, and the effect which his thus offering himself upon the cross would have upon the Jewish sacrifices and ceremonies, in causing them virtually to cease. When the seventy weeks, therefore, are correctly located, we shall find the seventieth week falling at such a time that the commencement of Christ’s ministry will stand at the beginning, and his crucifixion, three and a half years later, in the middle, of that last week. The whole question might therefore be left to an argument on the date of the crucifixion of Christ, since this has as much bearing upon the point at issue as even the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem from which this period is to be dated.

But it is not difficult to find the commandment to restore Jerusalem, and to ascertain that it went forth at the precise time to render the prophecy harmonious in all its parts.

There are four events which have by different ones at different times been regarded as 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. Ez. 1:1–4. 2. The decree of Darius for the prosecution of that work which had been hindered, B. C. 519. Ez. 6:6–12. 3. The decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus 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.

1. Respecting this last, we find no feature about it necessary to constitute it a Persian decree. It was essential that such decree should be put in writing, and signed by the king. Nehemiah had nothing of the kind. His commission was only verbal. If it be said that the letters granted him constituted a decree, then the decree was issued not to Nehemiah, but to the governors beyond the river; and moreover these would constitute a plurality of decrees, 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. What wall and gates were those that were broken down and burned with fire? Evidently some which had been built by the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem under one, or all, of the preceding decrees, of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes; 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, 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.

3. Should any contend that the commission to Nehemiah must be the decree in question, because the object of his request was that he might build the city, it is sufficient to reply as 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, not embraced in preceding decrees, while those decrees had already granted vastly more privileges than his commission.

5. 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 only 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 was to be 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 seventy weeks or 490 years, dating from the 20th 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. But such a conclusion is simply an overwhelming proof that that theory which dates the seventy weeks from the commission to Nehemiah in the 20th of Artaxerxes, is an utter failure.

We may therefore dismiss this commission, and this date, from consideration. The question now lies between the decrees of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes. Which one, if only one, and how many, if more than one, of these did it take to make that decree to which the prophecy refers as the starting point of the seventy weeks?

U. S.