The Sanctuary | AdventAI

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 28, 1863

The Sanctuary.

(Continued.)

THE COMMISSIONS OF NEHEMIAH AND EZRA.

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 them. 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.

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. ii. 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. ii, 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. vi, 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. vi, 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. 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 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. If any should contend that Nehemiah's commission must be the 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. ix, 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 extend to 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 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 the 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 iii, 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 announced the termination of that period which was to be marked by his manifestation.

Here again is indisputable harmony. But further: Messiah was to confirm the covenant with many for one week. This would be the last week of the seventy, or the last seven years of the 490. In the midst of the week, the prophecy informs us, he should cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. These Jewish ordinances, pointing to the death of Christ, could only cease at the cross; and there they did virtually end, though not literally till A. D. 70. After three-score and two weeks, according to the record, the Messiah was to be cut off. It is the same as if it had read, And after three-score and two weeks, in the midst of the seventieth week, shall Messiah be cut off and cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. Now, as the word, midst, here means middle, according to abundance of authority which we might produce, if necessary, the crucifixion is definitely located in the middle of the seventieth week.

It now becomes an important point to determine in what year the crucifixion took place. This question is decided by the following testimony: "The Saviour attended but four passovers, at the last of which he was crucified. Jno. ii, 13; v, 1; vi, 4; xiii, 1. This could not bring the crucifixion later than A. D. 31, as recorded by Aurelius Cassiodorus, a respectable Roman senator, about A. D. 514; 'In the consulate of Tiberius Cæsar Aug. v, and Ælius Sæjanus [U. C. 784, A. D. 31], our Lord Jesus Christ suffered on the eighth of the calends of April.' In this year and in this day, says Dr. Hales, agree also the council of Cæsarea, A. D. 196 or 198, the Alexandrian Chronicle, Maximus Monachus, Nicephorus Constantius, Cedrenus; and in this year but on different days, concur Eusebius and Epiphanius, followed by Keeler, Bucher, Patinus and Petavus." "It is recorded in history that the whole time of our Saviour's teaching was three years and a half, which is the half of a week of years."

Here, then, are thirteen creditable authorities, locating the crucifixion of Christ in the spring of A. D. 31. We may therefore set this down as a fixed fact, as the most cautious or the most skeptical could require nothing more. This being in the middle of the last week, we have simply to reckon backward three and a half years to find where the 69 weeks ended, and forward from that point, three and a half years, to find the termination of the whole period. Thus, going back from the crucifixion, A. D. 31, spring, three and a half years, we find ourselves in the autumn of A. D. 27, where, as we have seen, the 69 weeks ended and Christ commenced his public ministry. And going from the crucifixion forward three and a half years, we are brought to the autumn of A. D. 34, as the grand terminating point of the whole period of the seventy weeks. This date is marked by the martyrdom of Stephen, the formal rejection of the gospel of Christ by the Jewish Sanhedrim in the persecution of his disciples, and the turning of the apostles to the Gentiles. Acts ix, 1-18. And these are just the events which we should expect to take place, when that period which was cut off for the Jews, and allotted to them as a peculiar people, should fully expire.

A word respecting the date of the seventh of Artaxerxes, and the array of evidence on this point is complete. Was the seventh of Artaxerxes, B. C. 457? For all those who can appreciate the force of facts, the following testimony will be sufficient here:

"The Bible gives the data for a complete system of chronology, extending from the creation to the birth of Cyrus—a clearly ascertained date. From this period downward we have the undisputed canon of Ptolemy, and the undoubted era of Nabonassar, extending below our vulgar era. At the point where inspired chronology leaves us, this canon of undoubted accuracy commences. And thus the whole arch is spanned. It is by the canon of Ptolemy that the great prophetic period of seventy weeks is fixed. This canon places the seventh year of Artaxerxes in the year B. C. 457; and the accuracy of this canon is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses. This date we cannot change from B. C. 457, without first demonstrating the inaccuracy of Ptolemy's canon. To do this it would be necessary to show that the large number of eclipses by which its accuracy has been repeatedly demonstrated have not been correctly computed; and such a result would unsettle every chronological date, and leave the settlement of epochs and the adjustment of eras entirely at the mercy of every dreamer, so that chronology would be of no more value than mere guess work. As the seventy weeks must terminate in A. D. 34, unless the seventh of Artaxerxes is wrongly fixed, and as that cannot be changed without some evidence to that effect, we inquire, What evidence marked that termination? The time when the apostles turned to the Gentiles harmonizes with that date better than any other which has been named. And the crucifixion in A. D. 31, in the midst of the last week, is sustained by a mass of testimony which cannot be easily

invalidated."—Adventist Herald.

From the facts above set forth, we see that reckoning the 70 weeks from the decree given to Ezra in the 7th of Artaxerxes, B. C. 457, there is the most perfect harmony throughout. The important and definite events of the manifestation of the Messiah at his baptism, the commencement of his public ministry, the crucifixion, and the turning away from the Jews to the Gentiles with the proclamation of the new covenant, all come in, in their exact place, and like a bright galaxy of messengers of light, cluster around to set to their seal to the prophecy and make it sure.

With the seventy weeks we are now done; but there remains a longer period and other important events to be considered. The seventy weeks are but the first 490 years of the 2300. Take 490 from 2300, and there remain 1810. The 490, as we have seen, ended in the autumn of A. D. 34. If to this date we now add the remaining 1810 years, we shall have the termination of the whole period. Thus, to A. D. 34, autumn, add 1810, and we have A. D., autumn, eighteen hundred and forty-four. Thus speedily and surely do we find the termination of the 2300 days, when once the 70 weeks have been located.

The query may here arise in some mind, how the days can be extended to the autumn of 1844, if they commence in 457 B. C., as it requires only 1843 years more, to make the whole number of 2300. Attention to one fact will clear this point of all difficulty; and that is, that it takes 457 full years before Christ, and 1843 full years after, to make 2300; so that if the period commenced with the very first day of 457, it would not terminate till the very last day of 1843. Now it will be evident to all that whatever part of the year 457 had passed away before the 2300 days commenced, just so much of the year 1844 must pass away before they would end. We therefore inquire, at what point in the year 457, are we to commence to reckon? From the fact that the first 49 years were allotted to the building of the street and wall, we learn that the period is to be dated, not from the starting of Ezra for Babylon, but from the actual commencement of the work at Jerusalem; which it is not probable could be earlier than the seventh month (autumn) of 457, as he did not arrive at Jerusalem till the fifth month of that year. Ezra vii, 9. The whole period would therefore extend to the seventh month, autumn, Jewish time, of 1844.

The question respecting the time has now been examined. The first answer returned to the question of our disappointment in 1844, namely, that we were mistaken in the time, has been reviewed. We have seen that those have fallen into egregious error who have endeavored to disconnect the 70 weeks from the 2300 days, or to remove their date from B. C. 457. The 70 weeks are an inseparable part of the 2300 days. To endeavor to disconnect them is to outrage every principle of interpretation, and to brand a portion of the word of God as aimless and absurd. Railers at God, and despisers of his word, may take such a position as this, but Christians, never!

We have found the decree for the restoration of Jerusalem, and the date at which it went forth; and no system of sophistry exists on earth by which it can be made to appear that the 2300 days did not commence at that point and end in 1844.

Thus the original dates come forth vindicated from every encounter; their armor of defense is not marred or broken, but only polished to a brighter luster, by every conflict; and they still stand, as they heretofore have stood, sole and absolute masters of this field of controversy.

Our opponents on this view of the prophetic periods, have been wont in years past to meet us like this: "The 2300 days have not ended because the time has passed. Why the time passed in 1844, without the consummation of our hopes, we acknowledge to be a mystery, but the passing of the time is proof that the 2300 days have not ended."

Time, however, is no respecter of persons nor of theories; and with the formidable scythe which he is represented as carrying, he sometimes demolishes in the most summary manner the grotesque and gossamer theories of men, however dear they may be to their authors and defenders. It is so here. Heedless of the

wild contortions of those who would fain compel him to stop and fulfill their darling predictions, he has kept on the swift but even tenor of his way until—what! every limit is passed to which the 2300 days can be extended; and thus he has demonstrated that those days have passed. Let not this point be overlooked. Setting aside for a moment the arguments by which they are shown to have ended in 1844, and letting them date from any point where there is the least shadow of ground for thus placing them, or from which any one has ever dreamed of dating them, and the utmost limit to which they would extend has gone by. They cannot possibly be dated at any point which would bring their termination so late as the present time. We therefore say again, Those days have ended!

Adventists! Have you been wont to say, we know that the days have not ended, because the time has passed? It is now our turn to speak. Time has at length arrayed himself on our side of the controversy, and we reply, We know that the days have ended, because time has passed—passed beyond the utmost limits that can be assigned for those days. All then that we ask is that you accede to facts, and admit that those days, as revelation, and history, and time, have demonstrated, are in the past.

But perhaps you are thinking of the conclusion that immediately follows from this admission; for if the days are in the past, and the prophecy holds good, the sanctuary, whatever it is, is being cleansed. But if that is so, the earth cannot be the sanctuary; for no physical change has come over the earth, except, perhaps, increasing signs of infirmity and old age; and no moral change, except a deeper plunge into wickedness and sin, on the part of its fast degenerating sons and daughters.

If time has demonstrated that the days are in the past, it has also demonstrated that the earth is not the sanctuary—the very point claimed by those who offer this fact as the explanation of our disappointment in 1844. The inquiry then, What is the sanctuary? is now fairly in hand.

(To be Continued.)