THE SEVENTY WEEKS by Uriah Smith

Publishing Committee · ROCHESTER, N. Y. · Apr 25, 1854

THE SEVENTY WEEKS.

By Uriah Smith

LETTER TO B. CLARK.

DEAR BROTHER :—In presenting your objections to dating the seventy weeks of Dan. ix, from the 7th of Artaxerxes, B. C. 457, you say : "As the margin of my polyglot Bible says (by what authority I know not) that the 'Seventy weeks' begin from the 20th of Artaxerxes, [Dan. ix, 24; Neh. ii, 1,] 446 years before Christ, I confess that I am not able to see from Bro. Miller and all other late writers on the subject, why this date is not correct."

It will not be claimed, of course, that the marginal readings are anything but the work of man. As testimony of equal weight therefore I will introduce an extract from a "Table of Remarkable Events," according to the "best Authors, ancient and modern." Speaking of the 7th of Artaxerxes, it says: "Ezra arrives at Jerusalem with enlarged powers from the Persian monarch, accompanied by a great multitude of his countrymen, bringing with them vessels of gold and silver, and other rich presents from the king and his princes. From this year, being the seventh of Artaxerxes Longimanus, Daniel's seventy prophetical weeks, or 490 years are reckoned." As far, therefore, as the "margin" of the "polyglot Bible" is concerned, we have as good authority for the 7th of Artaxerxes as that presents for the 20th.

But this is a question which is not dependent for settlement on such authority. Says the sacred record, "From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem;" to that same record, then, we will look for that commandment, and the time of its promulgation.

You say that the seventh chapter of Ezra shows that he "was appointed by a 'decree' to 'go up to Jerusalem' [not to 'build Jerusalem'] but as a 'priest' and 'scribe' of that law of God; to minister the offerings and service of God in the new temple, &c."

If you intend to convey by the expression "Not to build Jerusalem," that Ezra had no power to build Jerusalem, we deny the assertion. We claim that the decree to Ezra gave him unlimited power, and this claim is supported by the record itself. Mark well the 18th verse: "And whatsoever shall seem good to thee, and to thy brethren, to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, that do after the will of your God." Now supposing that it had "seemed good" to Ezra and his brethren, and also that it had been the "will of his God," (?) that the street and the wall should be built, was he not clothed with the power to do it?!

You say that he was appointed "to minister the offerings and service of God in the new temple," &c. If you mean by that, that his work was limited to that service, we question again your conclusion. It is true that he was to restore the worship of the temple, but he was to do more. Read verses 25 and 26: [Ez. vii:] "And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not. And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment." Was this setting magistrates and judges, to judge the people, and executing the penalties of broken laws, particularly connected with the offerings and services of the temple? Verily not: it had to do with the civil and political affairs of the country; not with the ecclesiastical: it had to do with those things which would relate to them a distinct people and an independent nation.

Ezra doubtless understood his mission and the power that was conferred upon him. We will let him bear his own testimony. Chap. ix, 9. This passage probably refers to that series of providences by which they were gradually liberated from the Babylonish captivity and their desolations as a people repaired. He says: "For we were bondmen; (more particularly during the 70 years' captivity;) yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, (commencing with the proclamation of Cyrus for the return of the Jews at the end of the 70 years' captivity, B. C. 536, Ez. i, 1-3,) to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, (this was accomplished in the 6th year of Darius, king of Persia, B. C. 516, Ez. vi, 14, 15.) and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem." This wall was not yet built; and Ezra never would have uttered those words, if the decree had not already gone forth authorizing its construction; or if he had not considered himself vested with full power to build the street and the wall. This evidence is conclusive that the decree to Ezra authorized him not only to restore but to rebuild, or to build again [Dan. ix, 25, margin] Jerusalem. But hear him further. Verse 14. "Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations, wouldst not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping?" Ezra, then, understood that they had then escaped from those calamities brought on them by their gross violations of the commandments of God, and that their only safety then lay in not again transgressing, so as again to bring his frown upon them. Now would Ezra have thus spoken, if the decree for the restoration and building of Jerusalem was yet to go forth in the 20th of Artaxerxes, 13 years in the future? Would he have thus spoken, I say, under those circumstances? Never! He understood himself better!

Again, you remark: "Artaxerxes commanded that the 'city be not builded until another commandment' should be given from him. Ez. iv, 21-23. Now I cannot find this 'another commandment' to build the city, given anywhere to Ezra, or that he did the least thing about building the city or the 'wall in troublous times.' But Nehemiah did have this 'another commandment' to build the city and the wall, otherwise he did build contrary to this first commandment of the king. Compare Ez. iv, 21-23, with Neh. ii, 4-9."

If you mean by this that the same Artaxerxes who commanded that the "city be not builded" gave Nehemiah the other commandment to build it, we will only reply that that Artaxerxes only reigned seven months, B. C. 521, 57 years before Artaxerxes Longimanus commenced his reign, by whom the decree was given to Ezra. But what was prohibited by the command mentioned above? It was the work on the house of God. Ez. iii, 11, 12; iv, 1, 3. It was this work which did cease by that command. Ez. iv, 24. If then that work depended on another command from him, that other command must have been given before the building of the house could go on. But we learn that the house was builded and finished in the 6th of Darius, five years later, "according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia." Ez. vi, 14, 15. This Artaxerxes must be the one referred to in chap. iv; therefore that other "commandment" must have gone forth previous to that time, which was B. C. 516, 72 years before Nehemiah gained the king's permission to go up to Jerusalem. Thus you see that your argument on this point avails you nothing.

That Nehemiah did build the wall, &c., as recorded, Neh. iii, we are ready to admit; but that the commandment to build Jerusalem was given to him, we do not admit. If no decree to that effect had been previously given, would it not have been necessary for Nehemiah to have obtained express authority from the king to authorize him to build? Certainly it would. Yet he got no such authority and he requested none; neither was it necessary that he should; as that authority had already been given 13 years before. The burden of Nehemiah's request was simply permission to go up to Jerusalem; for he well understood, in view of Ezra's decree, that if that permission was granted, it would follow as a matter of course that he would have liberty to engage in the work. News had reached him from his brethren in Judah, that the remnant were "in great affliction and reproach;" that the "wall" was "broken down" and "the gates" burned with fire." Neh. i, 2, 3. The object of his request was therefore permission to go up, so as to assist his brethren, and build the wall that was broken down. So the king asked him how long his journey should be, and when he would return; and it pleased the king to send him; and he set him a time; [Neh. ii, 6;] that is, he promised the king when he would return; and according to that agreement he did return 12 years later, and by earnestly requesting the king a second time, again obtained permission to go up to Jerusalem. Neh. xiii, 6. Margin.

Thus Nehemiah, in the 20th of Artaxerxes, went up to Jerusalem, having, by request, obtained the kings verbal consent to go, and having obtained, by request also, letters to the governors beyond the river, and one to the keeper of the king's forest for timber. Yet you contend that this was the famous decree which was to restore and build Jerusalem! a decree which was the object of a special prophecy, and which was to mark the commencement of one of the most important prophetic periods anywhere given in the Sacred Record! Surely those who can make such simple permission fill the place of that decree, must possess the power of magnifying mole-hills into mountains. If your view be correct, the mere appointment of Ezra to minister the services in the temple, required the authority, not only of the king, but also of his seven counselors, [Ez. vii, 14; see also Esth. i, 13, 14,] and was honored with a special decree given in all the pomp and dignity of the Persian court; but the decree to build Jerusalem, which all will admit is a much more important event, is passed by with no such marks of distinction, and is dependent on the verbal consent of the king! There is no consistency in such a view. Thus much for the respective commissions of Ezra and Nehemiah. We see that there was a decree given to Ezra, clothing him with unlimited power; but there was no decree given to Nehemiah, and he possessed his authority only in virtue of the decree given to Ezra. You say further:

"As you make out sixty-nine weeks to the Messiah, and sixty-nine and a half to the cross, I would ask, according to this calculation, why the angel did not, in giving the exact time, say to Daniel, 'After three score and two weeks' (and a half) 'shall Messiah be cut off?'"

I reply, He did. The angel first states, "Unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and three-score and two weeks." Dan. ix, 25. In verse 26, he informs Daniel that after that period the Messiah should be cut off, but does not there tell him how long after: in the next verse however he gives him the exact time; namely, in the midst of the week: consequently three and a half years after. The plain import of these three verses, then, stands thus: At the expiration of sixty-nine weeks the Messiah the Prince should be revealed; and at the end of sixty-nine weeks and a half, the Messiah should be cut off. Nothing can be plainer than this.

You say, “Seven weeks and threescore and two weeks’ are measured off by the angel ‘unto the Messiah the Prince; and for the building of the street, &c.; and then this same threescore and two weeks is measured off again by the angel, to the cross; showing that sixty-nine weeks would reach, 1st, to his public manifestation, as the Messiah and Prince, (‘Prince of the kings of the earth,’) and, 2d, to his cross where he gave himself for us. (Worthy is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.) ‘They feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.’ Thus at the end of sixty-nine weeks he is manifested as the Messiah and Prince, (a King’s Son,) and crucified at the same time.”

I am not a little surprised at such a theory as this. The supposition that the sixty-nine weeks extend to the cross is a slight mistake of three years and a half; for the idea that the Messiah was not manifested till his crucifixion is contrary to his own testimony. In proof of your view of this point you quote the words of the centurion and others, who said, "Truly this was the Son of God;" but which is the most important, the testimony of these men who "greatly feared" amid the awful manifestations of the crucifixion-day, or the testimony of that voice which was heard from heaven at the time of Christ's baptism, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matt. iii, 17. Jesus told the woman at Jacob's well, plainly, that he was the Messiah. Jno. iv, 25, 26. You say that the covenant was to be confirmed by the apostles; but I would ask if Christ was not confirming the covenant, when, immediately after his baptism, three and a half years previous to his crucifixion, he came into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God and saying, The time is fulfilled? And if the sixty-nine weeks were not then fulfilled, I would ask what he meant by saying, The time is fulfilled?

Placing the crucifixion at the beginning of the week, you say as a fulfillment of the prediction that the sacrifice and oblation should cease in the midst of the week, that he caused them to cease by taking the kingdom of God away from the Jews and giving it to the Gentiles, A. D. 41. What were the sacrifice and oblation? They were the sacrifices and offerings connected with the Jewish worship. They were types of the great sacrifice, which was to be offered up; consequently they did cease, and could only cease at the cross; for their antitype had then come. This fact alone is enough to place the crucifixion in the midst of the week and not at the beginning.

A word with you now on chronology. The 20th of Artaxerxes according to the canon of Ptolemy, the accuracy of which is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses, was B. C. 444. From this point sixty-nine weeks would extend to A. D. 39-40; where you place the crucifixion; but Dr. Hales has demonstrated that the crucifixion took place in the Spring of A. D. 31; and with this agree the council of Cæsarea, A. D. 196, or 198, the Alexandrian Chronicle, Maximus Monachus, Nicephorus Constantinus, Cedrenus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Kebler, Bucher, Patimus, and Petavius. Now how is it that you run at least eight years beyond all authorized dates? Allowing that the crucifixion is in the midst of the week where the Angel placed it, [Dan. ix, 27,] and this calculation would not admit of its coming earlier than A. D. 43, which is still farther from the true date. The seventy weeks cannot thus terminate earlier than A. D. 46-7, and the 2300 days would extend to A. D. 1856-7, and not, as you say, end this year. But reckon from the true date when the decree went forth, and admit that the Messiah was revealed at the commencement of his ministry, for which there is abundant testimony, and there is a beautiful harmony between the events themselves, and the prophetic records by which they were marked. Yours, in love of the truth. Rochester, Apr. 21st, 1854. U. S.