For the better opening and computation of Daniel’s seventy weeks, both with regard to their beginning and their true expiration, it behooves to have a little understanding concerning the calendars in use among the ancients, particularly the Jews, them being the recipients of this prophecy with which we have to do. I will also briefly treat of the Babylonian, Julian, and Gregorian calendar.
(1) The calendar of the Jews is based upon the lunar cycles, which take approximately 29 and a half days for their full completion. In Scripture, a day is 24 hours, as it is for us today. “In that day I smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt” (Num. 8:17); and in Exodus 12:19 it is said, “that at midnight the Lord smote the firstborn of Egypt”; showing that the midnight is included in the whole day. Before the Jews came out of Egypt, they likely reckoned and computed their months according to the manner of the Egyptians whom they served, that is, according to the course of the sun and its movements. To the last month of Tishrei, the Egyptians had what they called epagomenal days—five days which were added to account for the difference between the Egyptian year, consisting of 12 months with 30 days each, and the astronomical year which followed the course of the sun. Since the Egyptians did not have a leap year, their calendar drifted off about 1 day every 4 years. But the Lord did institute a new calendar with the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.” (Ex. 12:2)
First, how the Jews reckon their days. The rabbis say that the nighttime begins when three stars of intermediate size are visible in the sky (Berakhot 2b; Shulchan Arukh: Orach Chayim 261). “Until three stars appear. Small ones are not considered, large ones are still visible in the day—only medium ones count.” (Shabbat 35b)
And concerning the number of days in each month, the Jews do typically reckon it to be 29 or 30. The Talmudists say אין חדש פחות מעשרים ותשעה יום ואין חודש יותר משלשים יום; “There is no month with fewer than 29 days or more than 30 days.” (Rosh Hashanah 20a); And Maimonides says, "The number of days in a lunar month is either twenty-nine or thirty... for the time between two new moons is 29 days, 12 hours, and 793 parts [of an hour]." (Hilchot Kiddush Ha-Chodesh, 6:1; cf. Rosh Hashanah 25a, in which R. Gamliel carries the same ruling)
In the time of Christ, it appears that the New Moons were determined by the Sanhedrin. They used a courtyard in Jerusalem known as the Beit Ya’azel, in which they would usually convene on the 30th day of the month. Those who may have testified to seeing the new moon were cross-examined by the elders. When evidence was accepted for the genuine sighting of the new moon, the elders cried Mekudash! (“Sanctified!”)
As is well known, the Jews do at times add an intercalary month to their lunar calendar so that it may be adjusted to the solar year. The leap years are decided according to a cycle of 19 years. The Tosefta states “The year may be intercalated on three grounds: aviv [i.e.the ripeness of barley], fruits of trees, and the equinox. On two of these grounds it should be intercalated, but not on one of them alone.” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:2).
The Jews have two “beginnings” for their years: Nisan and Tishrei. The month of Nisan is the first month from which the festivals are celebrated (one might call it an “ecclesiastical calendar”), since Scripture mandates that Passover must be celebrated during the springtime. And their years ended in the month of Elul, in which the ancient kings warred with each other (2 Sam. 11:1). From the month of Tishrei, they begin counting their 7-year Sabbatical cycles (שמיטה; shmita), and the year of the Jubilee. This is also summarized by the mishnaic rabbis: “The 1st of Nisan is the new year for kings and festivals. The 1st of Elul is the new year for the cattle tithe, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say on the first of Tishrei. The 1st of Tishri is the new year for years, of the Shmita and Jubilee years, for planting and for vegetables. The 1st of Shevat is the new year for trees—so the school of Shammai, but the school of Hillel say: On the 15th thereof.” (Mishnah Rosh Hashanah, 1:1).
(2) The calendar of the Romans was proposed by Julius Caesar in 46 BC, making an average year the length of 365.25 days. Being a solar calendar, the Julian calendar gains an additional leap day every 4 years. “Caesar was aided in his reform by the astronomer Sosigenes of Alexandria … introduced the Egyptian solar calendar, taking the length of the solar year as 365¼ days.” (Pliny the Elder, Natural History 18.210–212). Caesar also abolished the intercalary month, in order that the festivals would occur at their set times (Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars, 1.40). However, a more exact Julian calculation of the solar year places it as 365.242 days, and the lunar year at 354 days. From what I have read, some of the early Roman emperors made mistakes in their calculations and reckonings of the leap years, such as adding the leap day every three years rather than four. Gradually the misalignments grew larger, and the Julian calendar kept gaining a day every 128 years.
(3) The errors of the old Julian system were corrected by the promulgation of the Gregorian calendar by its namesake, Pope Gregory XIII, in 1582. In order for the months and days to be realigned with their proper seasons once again, this required this new calendar, which even resulted in 10 days being removed from the month of October, with days 4 and 15 of that month being right next to each other in 1582! The Julian calendar ended up being a bit longer than the real solar year, which is exactly 365.2422 days. Due to this discrepancy, the seasonal dates of that calendar moved out of their alignment; March 21, for example, did not match up with the actual spring equinox, which was needed for calculating the date of Easter.
(4) The Babylonians which conquered the Israelites and took them into captivity, being the arm of God’s judgment against them, were known among the ancients for their practices of astronomical research and observation. And to this end we have the testimony of the pagan historians. “In toto Oriente Babylones clarissimi sunt astronomiae studiosi; ab ipsa origine, per DCCXX annos motus siderum observatos habuisse fertur”;–—“In the whole of the East, the most famous [for astronomy] are the Babylonians, who for 720 years have notes on the movements of the stars.” (Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 6.30); “The Chaldaeans devote themselves to astronomy and claim to have preserved observations covering a period of 473,000 years... They study the stars with great accuracy, and predict future events by the motions of celestial bodies.” (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 2.30); καὶ ἀρχαίοτάτους εἶναι τῶν ἀστέρων παρατηρητάς, καὶ τὰ ἔτη ἑπτακαίδεκα μυριάδων;—–“They are reputed to be the most ancient observers of the stars and they have kept records for 720,000 years, according to them.” (Strabo, Geographica, 16.1.6)
The Babylonian year consisted of lunar months, each of which began when the thin crescent of the moon was visible at sunset. The year itself began with the spring equinox. Intercalary months were added about 7 times within a 19-year cycle, since there was an 11-day difference between the lunar year and the solar year. Some have suggested that during the reign of Nabonassar (747 BC) that 235 lunar months have a near exact timespan of days as in solar years (Richard A. Parker & Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology: 626 B.C. – A.D. 75 [Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1956], pg. 1). The specific years and months in which the intercalations were to be made is a matter of dispute. However, the actual records of the Babylonians (specifically, VAT 4956) confirm that there were alternations of months with 29 or 30 days.
It remains, then, for us to consider how these things apply to the calculation of Daniel’s weeks. Concerning the time period between the destruction of the first temple and the beginning of the rebuilding for the second, the Jews have traditionally said that it is 490 years. For the Jews are keen on making the 70 weeks expire with Titus’ destruction of the second temple in AD 70. And to this end, we have the testimony of Maimonides: “Nevertheless, all of the Geonim have said that they have received a tradition, transferred from teacher to student, that in the seventy years between the destruction of the First Temple and the building of the Second Temple, they counted only Sabbatical years, not the Jubilee year. Similarly, after the destruction of the Second Temple, they did not count the fiftieth year. Instead, they counted only sets of seven from the beginning of the year of the destruction. This interpretation is also apparent from the Talmud in Avodah Zarah. This reckoning is a received tradition.” (Hilchot Shemittah, 10:5). And based upon their calculations from the Seder Olam, the Jews do divide the Second Temple period and the time therein in the following manner: “The Persian Empire, which ruled the world before the construction of the Temple, continued to do so for 34 years in the presence of the Temple, i.e., after the Temple was built; the Greek Empire ruled for 180 years in the presence of the Temple; the Hasmonean dynasty ruled for 103 years in the presence of the Temple; and the Herodian dynasty likewise ruled for 103 years.” (Avodah Zarah 9a). And R. Saadia Gaon says that the time period in question is to be counted before the rebuilding of the temple. “Now the sum total is 490 years. Of this number 70 years were taken up by the period preceding the building of the second Temple, and 420 by that of its existence.” (Emunot ve-Deot, book VIII, ch. 9)
III. The true chronology and proper calculation of Daniel’s 70 weeks, vindicated against the Jews and their vain twistings of it. The Jews agree with us that the time period herein delineated by Gabriel is 490 years. However, the chief disputes are when this time period begins its reckoning (terminus a quo), and when it expires (terminus ad quem). By God’s assistance, I hope it will be fully demonstrated that the proper beginning of these 70 weeks takes place during the time of Ezra and Artaxerxes, and terminates in the ministry and crucifixion of our Lord. Antecedent thereunto, it is proper to first say something concerning the 70 years of exile which are delineated in Jer. 25:12 and 29:10. The Jews do say that these are two separate periods, albeit overlapping with each other by about 18-19 years (for it was in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar that the temple was razed and destroyed; 2 Kings 25:8). As seen above, it appears that these 70 years of exile are to be counted from the captivity of Jechoniah, it being the one in which the majority of the Jews were carried away (2 Kings 24:14).
The Jews do have 2 main ways of alleviating their perplexity and distress at this prophecy of Daniel. First, they do utterly throw out many decades of the Persian history, reducing it down to only a little over 50 years! And this they do on the pretence that there can be no more kings and rulers of Persia than are mentioned expressly in the Scripture, allowing only about 4 of 5 kings therein. The absurdity of this is obvious to any that are in the least acquainted with ancient histories. And the end of this miscalculation of theirs is plainly so that the 70 years would not add up to the time of Christ. Secondly, they say that the decree mentioned in verse 25 is that of Cyrus’ allowal of the Jews to return back to Jerusalem after he conquered the Babylonians (Ezra 1:1-4; Isaiah 45:1). In doing this, the Jews contradict themselves and each other; for some of them say the 70 weeks are to be counted beginning with the destruction of the first temple (which appears to have been the opinion of the Amoraim, as I will state below); these 490 years then expire in AD 70. And others among them wish that the counting began with the time of Cyrus. And we shall hear overthrow both of these foundations of theirs, that they may be without excuse. These arguments, if duly weighed, shall expose the many inventions by which the Jews, contrary to both Scripture and reason, have distorted the set times given by the Lord in Daniel 9, in order that they might escape the force of so clear a testimony to the messiahship of our Lord Jesus Christ:—
[1]. Many of the Jews and their rabbis follow the absurd and ahistorical chronology of the Seder Olam, and date the destruction of the First Temple at 3338 Anno Mundi, which corresponds to 422 BC within a conventional chronology of the Persian period. Obviously, this is way off from the date of 586 BC, which is what is accepted by the academic consensus. The discrepancy lies in a difference over the length of the Persian reign over Israel. The Seder Olam limits it down to 52 years with only 3-5 kings (Cyrus, Darius I, Xerxes I, and Artaxerxes I), while the secular historians (including the ancient Greeks) expand this Persian period to 208 years, with a total of 10 kings.
And by doing this, they make the 490 years of Daniel 9 expire with the destruction of the Second Temple, and begin the countdown at the destruction of the First Temple; giving no heed to the fact that we must begin counting the 70 weeks with a decree to rebuild the city, and not with the destruction of that first temple, which occurred some 70 years prior. So the Talmudists; “Abaye said: And did they not know when? But isn’t it written: ‘Seventy sevens are decreed upon your people and upon your sacred city’ (Daniel 9:24), which indicates that the Second Temple would be destroyed seventy Sabbatical cycles of seven years after the destruction of the First Temple, which is 490 years.” (Nazir 32b)
And the Jews have always said that the Second Temple stood for 420 years, which also necessitates the shortening of the Persian period: “The Jewish people counted 17 Jubilee years from the time they entered [Eretz Yisrael] until they departed. The year they departed, when the Temple was destroyed the first time, was the year following the Sabbatical year and the 36th year in the Jubilee cycle. For the First Temple stood for 410 years. When it was destroyed, this reckoning ceased. After it ceased, the land remained desolate for seventy years. Then the Second Temple was built and it stood for 420 years. In the seventh year after it was built, Ezra ascended [to Israel]. This is referred to as the second entry. From this year, they began another reckoning. They designated the thirteenth year of the Second Temple as the Sabbatical year and counted seven Sabbatical years and sanctified the fiftieth year. Although the Jubilee year was not observed in [the era of] the Second Temple, they would count it in order to sanctify the Sabbatical years.” (Maimonides, Hilchot Shemittah, 10:3). This is also stated in the Tosefta, Zevahim 13:3.
Some Jews have even admitted of their own accord that the chronology of Seder Olam is particularly strange and enigmatic when it comes to the Persian era: “It should have been possible that our Sages—for some unknown reason—had ‘covered up’ a certain historic period and purposely eliminated and suppressed all records and other material pertaining thereto. If so, what might have been their compelling reason for so unusual a procedure? Nothing short of a Divine command could have prompted...those saintly ‘men of truth’ to leave out completely from our annals a period of 165 years and to correct all data and historic tables in such a fashion that the subsequent chronological gap could escape being noticed by countless generations, known to a few initiates only who were duty-bound to keep the secret to themselves.” (Rabbi Simon Schwab, ‘Comparative Jewish Chronology’, Dr. Joseph Breuer: Jubilee Volume [NY: Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch Publications Society, Philipp Felheim Inc., 1962], pg. 188). And what cause there is for the Jews to distort their own histories and records is known to all, namely to conceal the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy in Jesus Christ our Lord, the true Messiah.
The collection of the 45 tablets known as the Babylonian Chronicles (which were published in 1956 by the Assyriologist Donald Wiseman) date Nebuchadnezzar’s initial siege of Jerusalem to 2 Adar (March 16), 597 BC, after which King Zedekiah was installed as the 20th and final ruler of Judah. The specific Babylonian tablet in question is labeled in historical archives as BM 21946. According to 2 Chronicles 36:11, “Zedekiah was one and twenty years old when he began to reign, and reigned eleven years in Jerusalem.” If the second siege of Israel occurred in the 11th year of Zedekiah, then that places it at 587/586 BC. And this destruction of the First Temple occurred during the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (Jeremiah 52:12).
The opening of Dan. 9:1-2 indicates that the exile lasted for 70 years, as is in accordance with the foretelling of the prophet Jeremiah: “And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.” (Jer. 25:11-12); “For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.” (Jer. 29:10); “To fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.” (2 Chron. 36:21). In order for the chronology of the Seder Olam to be accurate, there has to be 70 years between the destruction of the First Temple and the rebuilding of the Second. However, this is nowhere indicated in the words of Jeremiah. What the Lord said to Jeremiah was that the Jews would return to Israel after the Persian conquest after 70 years, not that the temple would immediately be rebuilt at that time. Indeed, it was not completed for many years due to opposition from the surrounding nations (Ezra 4).
Concerning these 70 years allotted to the Babylonian exile, the Talmud says that Belshazzar erred in his calculation herein—giving 45 years to Nebuchadnezzar, 23 years to Evil-Merodach, and 2 years for his own; which add up to 70 years (Megillah 19b). The Seder Olam allots 3 years for the reign of Cyrus, 14 for Ahasuerus, 2 for Darius the Mede, and 35 years for Darius Hystapses, with the rebuilding of the temple put in the 2nd year of Darius (352 BC, in the rabbinic calculation).
Recording only five Persian monarchs, the Seder Olam gives the following chronology for its timespan of the Persian rule for only 52 years (albeit using the more popular dating system for the years). This is also based on the chart produced by Rabbi Tovia Singer in Let’s Get Biblical, Vol. 1, pgs. 224-225.
I now lay down the ensuing considerations, which will serve to overthrow this error of the Jews, being repugnant to Scripture, the ancient secular historians, and the testimony of archaeology:
(2) The ancient historians, both Jews and heathens, do say that there were many kings of Persia besides those expressly mentioned in the Scripture; and they do not do so in contradiction to the Scriptures, for the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were not intended to give a history of the Persians, but of the Jews and the Lord’s gracious dealings with them in their return to the land of Israel. The Persian kings that are spoken of are those who directly relate to the history of Israel’s return from exile; so also in Dan. 11:2, as will be more fully opened later. And the following testimonies in particular will serve to yield us further assurance on this point: Josephus lists the following rulers of Persia: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes, Artaxerxes Longimanus, another Artaxerxes, and the last Darius (Antiquities of the Jews, book 11). And Ctesius of Cnidus (4th century BC), in his Persica, does say that there 205 years to the Persian empire (as he is quoted by Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, book II, ch. 32). Manetho (3rd cent. BC) gave only 8 kings to the Persians, presumably as part of the 27th Dynasty of Egypt; his list is preserved by Eusebius in his Chronicle. And Diodorus Siculus says ‘τὴν δὲ τῶν Περσῶν βασιλείαν διὰ διακοσίων ἐτῶν ἐτελέσθη’; — “And the rule of the Persians was completed in two hundred years.” (Bibliotheca Historica, 31.19.1). Though he shortens the reign of Cyrus down to 9 years, and stretches Artaxerxes II’s reign to 46 years, the regal list of Claudius Ptolemy (AD 100-160/170) as 207 years for the sum total of the Persian reign. A piece of inferential evidence may be justly gathered out of Thucydides, who relates that a treatise between Darius II Nothus and the Spartans occurred in the 20th year of the war (History of the Peloponnesian War, 8.58), which is 411 BC, which Thucydides says was the 13th year of Darius Nothus’ reign.
And the individual reigns of the Persian kings are longer than what the rabbis say:—1st, Cyrus reigned for three decades; Καὶ ὁ Κῦρος ἡνίκα μὲν ἀπέθανεν, ἔφη λέγεται ἑβδομηκοντούτης γεγονέναι· ἐβασίλευσεν δὲ τριάκοντα ἔτη—“Cyrus died at the age of seventy, having reigned for thirty years.” (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 8.7.1); 2nd, Cambyses ruled for seven years according to Herodotus (Histories, 3.66), Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca Historica, 17.17), and the list of Claudius Ptolemy. 3rd, Xerxes reigned for about 20 years, according to Josephus (Antiquities, 11.6), Herodotus (Histories, 7.1), and again Diodorus (Bibliotheca Historica, 11.19). 4th, Darius Hystaspes is generally given 36 years by historians today—which opinion seems to agree quite well with the biblical history; for it is said that he had fathered sons at some point during his reign (Ezra 6:10).
(3) The archaeological evidence does testify beyond all doubt that there were more than 3 or 4 kings of Persia. A letter of Darius II Nothus relates his regnal succession to the throne of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 72 [1952]).
Being that these testimonies of antiquity are of so great damage to the Jewish cause, some of their rabbis have altogether forbidden the reading thereof, so that the Jews would not discover their lies; as R. Jacob Emden (1697-1776) in Mitpachat Sefarim [Altona, 1761–68], pg. 83).
R. David Hayyim ibn Shalosh maintains the correctness of the rabbinic chronology in spite of the archaeological evidence and the testimony of ancient historians, chiefly on the grounds of their alleged reliability, especially that of Herodotus, who was notorious for lying about many of the things he reported. However, it does not follow from this that Herodotus or the ancient historians were wrong about the duration of the Persian Empire in particular. For as we have already seen, Herodotus and the other pagan historians tell us with one voice how many years the Persian Empire reigned. And, of course, he cites Dan. 11:2—which will be more fully opened later on. One of his pretenses is that many of the rulers listed as Persian kings by the conventional historians were in fact merely local governors (Mitchell First, Jewish History in Conlift: A Study of the Major Discrepancy between Rabbinic and Conventional Chronology, pg. 38). This explanation will not hold, for the number of such provincial governors is far more than that of the kings: “It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom.” (Dan. 6:1)
And the remarks of Abarbanel are of particular interest; for in seeing the great crisis which the Jews defend against the world in their record of the Persian rulers, he says that there were ten Persian kings before Cyrus! (Abarbanel, Ma'yanei ha-Yeshu'ah, pg. 384). And he also dismisses the testimony of Josephus on the grounds that he was following a mistaken Roman chronology. Yet, Abarbanel does not align with the rabbinic chronology exactly, for he lists the Persian kings as follows: Cyrus, Cambyses, Ahasuerus, Darius, and Artaxerxes (Ma'yanei ha-Yeshu'ah, pg. 289). He also elsewhere teaches that the Second Temple stood for 428 years, in contrast to the typical number of 420 (Zevah Pesach [Lvov, 1872], pg. 76)
And the Jews do plead but a few pretenses which they make against the rest of the world and their historians in defense of their rabbinical chronology of the Persian era and the centuries preceding the life of our Lord:
(1) They do say that Darius and Artaxerxes are but different names for one and the same king of Persia. And this pretense is also codified and taught by the Talmudical rabbis: “Are Rav Yosef’s objection and Rabbi Abbahu’s resolution comparable? There, Rabbi Abbahu speaks of Cyrus, whereas here, the verses speak of Darius, and it was never said about Darius that he was a virtuous king. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as the Sages taught in a baraita: All three names are referring to the same person: He is Cyrus; he is Darius; and he is also Artaxerxes. He was called Cyrus [Koresh] because he was a virtuous [kasher] king; he was called Artaxerxes after his kingdom, i.e., this was his royal title; and what was his real name? Darius was his name.” (Rosh Hashanah 3b). And the Tosafists seem also to take this one step further, and make Cyrus and Artaxerses one and the same too, וארתחשסתא על שם מלכותו. ואף כורש הראשון שנקרא ארתחשסתא כדפרישית לעיל כמו כן היינו על שם מלכותו: “And likewise, the first Cyrus who was also called Artaxerxes, as I explained above - so too, that was a name [he was called] by virtue of his kingship.” R. Jacob Emden does reject this conceit at the least in page 88 of his commentary on the Seder Olam. Response: 1st, this lie may be safely rejected at the outset on the grounds that the two Persian kings are explicitly distinguished from one another by the Scripture; “And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.” (Ezra 6:14); 2nd, The synchronous mention of the three kings within the context of the same story (Ezra 4:5-7). gives no ground for identifying Darius with Artaxerxes Longimanus. In Ezra 4:8-23, the letter to Artaxerxes ought to be taken in a parenthetical structure within the rest of the passage. Hence, it is placed by the sacred writer before the mention of Darius in Ezra 4:24. 3rd, the stories of the two occasions in which the nations surrounding the Jews complained to the Persian king concerning the rebuilding of the temple are separate and not to be identified with one another. One was given during the days of Artaxerxes (Ezra 4), and the other in time of Darius Hystaspes (Ezra 5). That the same king is not being spoken of here is clear from the names of the respective counselors and governors. In the case of Artaxerxes, it was Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel (Ezra 4:7), while it was Tatnai and Shetharboznai that appealed to Darius against the Jews (Ezra 5:6). The one group in common during both narratives are the Apharsathchites (Ezra 4:9; 5:6). 4th, Between Ezra 6:15—which mentions the 6th year of Darius—and Ezra 7:1—which takes place in the 7th year of Artaxerxes—there is a much bigger lapse of time than just one year than the Jews would have it, identifying the two kings with each other. Some gleaning as to the true reckoning of years between chapters 6 and 7 is indicated by the phrase used in verse 1 of the latter chapter; “Now after these things [וְאַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה], in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia…” For there are instances in which אַחַר is used to indicate a longer transition of years between the events in question (Gen. 22:20). Esther 3:1 uses אַחַר to mark a time lapse of four or five years after the events of the preceding chapter (Esther 2:16). And similarly, 2 Chron. 32:1 uses the same word to begin a transition into the time of Sennacherib’s invasion, which took place in King Hezekiah’s 14th year (2 Kings 18:13), with the events of 2 Chron. 29-31 takes place in the first year of his reign (29:3). Thus, אַחַר may be used to denote the passage of many years from the events preceding. Therefore, this alone does not give any pretence to those who would equate Darius with Artaxerxes Longimanus. 5th, ancient archaeological evidence affirms this traditional Christian interpretation of Ezra and Nehemiah, with words attributed to Artaxerxes on a royal inscription from Persepolis: “I am Artaxerxes, the great king, the king of kings, the king of countries with all kinds of men, the king in this earth far and wide, the son of king Xerxes, the grandson of Darius, the Achaemenid.” (A1Pa, as found in Pierre Lecoq, Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide [Paris, 1997], pg. 265). 6th, Ibn Ezra himself admits the absurdity of this Jewish fable: “The author of Seder Olam stated that Koresh [Cyrus] is the same as Artahshasta [Artaxerxes] who is the same as Daryvesh [Darius]...Any person with sense will understand that these were three separate kings.” (Ibn Ezra, Safah Berurah, fol. 8a). So also R. David Kimchi on Hag 2:21; האלה היו בימי דריוש זה או בימי ארתחשסתא המולך אחריו או נאמרה נבואה זו על; “This is what is meant by, ‘I will take you and set you as a signet.’ And these wars occurred in the days of Darius, or in the days of Artaxerxes who reigned after him.”
(2) They bring forth Daniel 11:1-4; “Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.” And the pretence of the Jews upon this place is that the angel teaches to Daniel that there will only be 3 more Persian kings after Darius, until their defeat and conquest by Alexander the Great (which they say was in 321 BC), which appears to be the “mighty king” mentioned in verse 3, for it is stated of him that he comes from the kingdom of Greece, and that his kingdom was divided into four among his general, whom the historians call the Diadochi; Ptolemy I Soter reigned in Egypt to the south; Lycimachus ruled over Asia Minor and Thrace; Seleucus I Nicator ruled over Babylon and Syria to the east (stretching over to present day places such as Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan); and Cassander reigned over Macedonia in the west; all of which is more fully related in Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, book 19. Therefore, it does seem that Alexander is the Greek warrior mentioned by Daniel here, and that there were only 3 Persian kings after Darius. This is the argument of R. Moshe Shulman and R. Saadia Gaon (The Book of Daniel: The Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon: Edition and Translation, trans. Joseph Alobaidi [Peter Lang, 2006], pgs. 193-94; Emunot ve-Deot, book VIII, ch. 9) Response: As shown already above, the ancient historical and archaeological evidence attest to the longer duration of the Persian period, with about 9-10 kings in sum. However, this is easily reconcilable with the angel’s statement that there “shall yet arise three kings in Persia” (Dan. 11:2), the fourth of whom was conquered by Alexander. For; 1st, this is not to be interpreted to mean that there were only 4 kings of Persia in total, but that the “three” here mentioned are those who had special dealings with the Jews and/or their return from exile. And those kings are Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, and Xerxes; it is worth noting that some have included Cambyses in this as well. 2nd, this fourth king is likely a reference to Xerxes, who invaded Greece (480 BC), and was widely known for his wealth and riches (Herodotus, Histories, 3.36; 6.27-29). And it was this invasion of Greece during the reign of Xerxes which “stirred up” the king of Greece; as appears from the words of Alexander himself in correspondence with Darius, if Arrian’s account may be trusted: ἡ δὲ ἐπιστολὴ ἡ Ἀλεξάνδρου ἔχει ὧδε: οἱ ὑμέτεροι πρόγονοι ἐλθόντες εἰς Μακεδονίαν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄλλην Ἑλλάδα κακῶς ἐποίησαν ἡμᾶς οὐδὲν προηδικημένοι: ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἡγεμὼν κατασταθεὶς καὶ τιμωρήσασθαι βουλόμενος Πέρσας διέβην ἐς τὴν Ἀσίαν, ὑπαρξάντων ὑμῶν; —“Your ancestors came into Macedonia and the rest of Greece and treated us ill, without any previous injury from us. I, having been appointed commander-in-chief of the Greeks, and wishing to take revenge on the Persians, crossed over into Asia, hostilities being begun by you.” (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, 2.14.4). Yet Xerxes was not that king whom Alexander conquered, and therefore this perfectly allows for other kings of Persia after Xerxes not mentioned in Daniel 11. 3rd, Xerxes’ enumeration as the fourth king here is to be taken in reference to the beginning of the decline of the Persians, and he is therefore the last king of the Persian prosperity. For in his reign, he was hated by his own people upon return from Greece, and assassinated by his vizier Artabanus in 465 BC; 4th, that these words of Daniel are not to be taken as providing a formal and complete list of the Persian kings is evident from the exclusion of certain rulers that all agree did rule during the period enumerated by the angel; as the silence concerning Smerdis the impostor, who comes between Cambyses and Darius. 5th, the summary plea of our interpretation may be seen in the commentary of John Calvin upon this text;—“For at that period [Xerxes], when the power of the Persians declined, a longer period of rest and relaxation was afforded to the people of God. This is the reason why the angel omits and passes over in silence all the kings from Artabanus to Darius the son of Arsaces.”
(3) They plead from the life and age of Nehemiah as evidence that the reign of the Persians did not last much longer than some 50 years. In Ezra 2:2, he is enumerated amongst the group of exiles which came to Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel during the reign of Cyrus. By way of simple reason, it could be presumed that Nehemiah was at least a young adult by this time. From Neh. 12:11, Jaddua is mentioned—who was the high priest in the time of Alexander the Great. Therefore, the Jews argue that Nehemiah lived to the time of Darius III, since it is not conceivable that a man who went up to Jerusalem during Cyrus’ reign should live 200 years to the reign of Darius III; therefore, the duration of the Persians must be shortened. And to these things, there are two replies: 1st, it is not necessary that Nehemiah wrote the genealogy contained in chapter 12. Rather, Nehemiah’s life is concluded during the priesthood of Eliashib (Neh. 13:28), who was the great-grandfather of Jaddua (Neh. 12:10-11). Jaddua must not have been alive yet during Nehemiah’s lifetime—or if he was, he was but a small child then. 2nd, it is likely that the Nehemiah mentioned in Ezra 2:2 is not the same one who was governor of Judah and aided the construction of the wall in Jerusalem. Just as the person named Daniel in Ezra 8:2 is not the prophet Daniel; nor is the prophet Jeremiah to be identified to the one listed in Neh. 12:12; so also with Baruch (Neh. 10:6). It is known to all that there are many men in the sacred biblical history with the same name, albeit with decades between them. After Joshua was the high priest, there was yet another Joshua who was chief of the Levites (Neh. 12:7-8). 3rd, the governor Nehemiah, formerly the king’s cupbearer, was altogether ignorant of the state and condition of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:2-4), which would not be the case if he was the same person mentioned in Ezra 2:2 who had already come with Zerubbabel. 4th, he speaks of it as a remarkable event that he found the genealogy list of those who came with Zerubbabel (Neh. 7:5-6), with his own name listed therein (Ezra 2:2; Neh. 7:7). If he himself was in this genealogy, why does it appear that he had no prior knowledge of it?
It is also to be noted that this precise chronology of the Seder Olam is not universally accepted by all of the Jews, but does also have its opponents who devise a different reckoning of the period of Persian rule over Israel. As R. Zerachiah ha-Levi of Girona (born ca. 1115), who said that there were indeed several rulers with the name of Artaxerxes, rejecting the rabbinic chronology of the Persians; and R. Abraham ben David railed against him for opposing the Jewish traditions. As Azariah dei Rossi (1511-1578) in his Me’or Enayim does utterly reject the dates provided in the Seder Olam, for which he was bitterly opposed by Judah Loew ben Bazalel (the rabbi of Prague), and also R. David Ganz (1541-1613) in his treatise Tzemach David, published in 1592 And some writers do record that R. Joseph Karo recommended the burning of the Me’or Enayim. Others amongst the Jews make the chronology into a secondary matter of difference, but indirectly concede its significance for the proper sense of Dan. 9; לאותו הדור היה ודו"ק ואינני כחולק על התלמוד שהרי אין בו נפקותא לא לחיובא ולא לפטורא ואין זה אלא למשיחא וק"ל;—“And I do not intend to dispute the Talmud, since this matter has no practical halakhic consequence — neither for obligation nor exemption — and this is relevant only for [the days of] the Messiah.” (R. Solomon Luria, on Sanhedrin 52b) And in the earlier rabbinical texts themselves, we find such disputes among them. In chapter 49 of the Pirke deRabbi Eliezer, it is related that R. Yonason taught that Artaxerxes was the last king of Persia, and R. Tanchum says that the fourth king mentioned in Daniel 11:1-3 is Ahasuerus. In Esther Rabbah 1:3, R. Levi claims that Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus are the same person.
And those Jews that may reject the rabbinical chronology (whom I have seen very few of) do have another dream which they have devised in order to evade the true sense of Daniel’s prophecy. And this is that Cyrus is the anointed one spoken of by Daniel, and this they allege from Isaiah 45:1 and Ezra 1. It remains, then, to consider of this and sundry arguments which they use in their desperation, and in doing so, the decree intended as the terminus a quo of the 70 weeks will become clear and evident to all, by God’s help:—
[1]. The Jews plead that the decree from which the 70 weeks are to be counted is that of Cyrus, mentioned in Ezra 1:1-4: “Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? His God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem. And whosoever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.” And it ought to be obvious to all that the “first year” of Cyrus here mentioned is that in which he conquered the Babylonians, which the historians date to 539 BC, although some place it a year or two after, as does Claudius Ptolemy. However, there is also a case to be made that the “first year” of Cyrus is actually 537 BC, since he was still under the more dominant rule and influence of Cyaxares II, who died in the latter part of 538 BC (Xenophon, Cyropedia, 8.7.1). A twofold “beginning” of Cyrus’ reign may be reckoned, as either when he became king of Persia (559 BC), or when he conquered the Babylonians (539 BC). It is the latter with which we are concerned.
However, it is clear to any attentive reader of Scripture that this decree of Cyrus had nothing to do with the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, but only of the Temple. And this is clear from the words of the decree itself, and also from the manner in which it was understood by the Israelites; “Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all them whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem.” (Ezra 1:5). Whereas the decree of which Gabriel spoke to Daniel is that in which instructions were given to rebuild the city itself, “the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troubled times.” (Dan. 9:25). Furthermore, this decree of Cyrus did only take effect for a short period of time, being frustrated by the neighboring peoples (Ezra 4), whereas the decree spoken of in Daniel appears to have reference to a settled state of the Jews in their rebuilding of the city and the government therein. And the decree of Cyrus is characterized by the sacred writers only as with respect to the temple’s reconstruction. “But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.” (Ezra 4:3); “But in the first year of Cyrus the king of Babylon the same king Cyrus made a decree to build this house of God.” (Ezra 5:13); “Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let there be search made in the king's treasure house, which is there at Babylon, whether it be so, that a decree was made of Cyrus the king to build this house of God at Jerusalem, and let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter.” (verse 17). And so also in King Darius’ description of it (Ezra 6:3). It is said in Neh. 7:4 that most of the houses had not yet been rebuilt in Jerusalem.
And this same truth of the biblical history is confessed by a few of the rabbis themselves, as R. Meir Leibush ben Yechiel (1809-1879) says upon Ezra 6:3;—שבשנת אחת לכורש המלך, נתן המלך פקודה, א] שבית ה' בירושלים יבנה והוא רשות לבנות הבית, ב] אתר שיזבחו שם זבחים, ג] ואשוהי מסובלין, שיסודות הבית יהיו חזקים לסבול הבנין, ד] הגביל מדת הבית וגם זה היה בהשגחה שלא שינה מדתו מכפי הראוי ולא היו יכולים לבנותו כמו שכתוב הכל בכתב מיד ה' עלי השכיל, ה] שיהיו. “In the first year of King Cyrus, the king issued a decree: (a) that the House of the Lord in Jerusalem be rebuilt — and he gave permission to build the Temple; (b) a place where sacrifices should be offered; (c) and that its foundations be made strong — that the foundations of the House be strong enough to support the structure; (d) he specified the dimensions of the Temple — and this too was by divine providence, so that he did not alter its measurements from what was proper, for they would not have been able to build it otherwise, as it is written: ‘All this in writing, by the hand of the Lord upon me, He gave me insight.’” And also R. Levi ben Gershon (1288-1344): בשנת אחת לכורש המלך כורש המלך צוה על דבר בית האלוה אשר בירושלים שביתו יבנה המקום שזובחים בו הזבחים וכותליו יהיו מקושרים וחזקים רומו ששים אמות רחבו ששים אמות: “In the first year of King Cyrus, King Cyrus gave a command concerning the House of God which is in Jerusalem: That the House be rebuilt — the place where sacrifices are offered — and its walls should be joined and strong; its height sixty cubits, its width sixty cubits.”
[2]. The time period from the decree of Cyrus unto the destruction of the temple (which most of the Jews do take to be the expiration of the 70 weeks) is a little over 600 years, which is far beyond that period of time which is said to be “cut out” and determined in the words of Gabriel. For, it is 490 years wherewith we are concerned. As has already been demonstrated, the Persians reigned for about 200 years or so. After the death of Darius III (Codomanus), Alexander the Great ruled for 6 years (beginning in 331 BC). After Alexander, the following centuries may be reckoned in two ways: (1) the Seleucid era: the kingdom of Alexander being divided amongst his generals, Seleucus I Nicator ruled 24 years; Antiochus I Soter, 20 years; Antiochus Theos, 15 years; Seleucus II Callinicus, 21 years; Seleucus III Ceraunus, 2 years; Antiochus the Great, 36-37 years; Seleucus IV Philopator, 12 years; Antiochus Epiphanes (known for his cruelty towards the Jews, which became the occasion of the Maccabean revolt) reigned 11-12 years; Antiochus Eupator, 3 years; Demetrius I Soter, 10-11 years. In 150 BC, Alexander Balas defeated and expelled Demetrius Soter, taking control of Syria. In 141 BC, the Hasmoeans assumed power with the reign of Simon Maccabeus. From the death of Darius III to the rise of the Hasmonean Dynasty, there are approximately 189 years. (2) This time span may also be calculated by the reign of Ptolemaic dynasty: Ptolemy I Soter, 23 years; Ptolemy Philadelphus, 36 years; Ptolemy Euergetes, 24 years; Ptolemy (IV) Philapator, 18-19 years; Ptolemy Epiphanes, 24 years; Ptolemy Philometor, 35 years—in whose 30th year the Hasmonean state was established amongst the Jews (141 BC).
The civil division and war between the Hasmonean rulers Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II led to their eventual conquest by the Roman general Pompey in 64 BC, in which year the Roman province of Judea was established. Between the beginning of the Roman rule over Judea and the destruction of the second temple, we have 134 years.
But the Jews do point to Isaiah 45:1 in their defense, in which God calls Cyrus His anointed, and therefore they allege that he must be the one spoken of in Dan. 9:24-25. The text in question read “That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the Lord to his anointed [לִמְשִׁיחו], to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut.” (Isaiah 44:28-45:1). And upon this verse I have three ensuing observations which I hope shall, by the Lord Jesus’ assistance, work further in our defense: [1]. The words in verse 28 to Jerusalem “Thou shalt be built” are not to be understood as having been spoken by Cyrus (as the Jews may contend), but by God, and the accomplishment thereof occurring during the days of Artaxerxes; and this is clear when v. 28 is seen within the broader context of chapters 44-45 as a series of statements by God: “That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof: That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers: That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” (Isaiah 44:26-28). [2]. The mere use of the title “anointed” for Cyrus does not prove that his decree is the one mentioned by Daniel, for the reasons given above. [3]. Some have appealed to Isaiah 45:13, in which God says of Cyrus—הוּא־יִבְנֶה עִירִי; “He shall build my city." To this I answer, that although Cyrus indeed gave permission to the Jews for the renewal of the city, yet it was not written by him in his formal decree to them, as it was by Artaxerxes. Hence, no word may be said to have “gone forth” from him unto that purpose. And that this may be further evinced, the following points will suffice to that end: —
First, in the time of Cyrus the walls and city still lay in utter ruins (Neh. 1:3; 2:3; 7:4), having no official authorization to rebuild them, as they had for the temple. Second, in the complaint which was issued to Artaxerxes, it is said by the enemies of the Jews of the disastrous rebellion which the supposed would have taken place, “if (הֵן) this city be built, and the walls thereof set up again” (Ezra 4:13, 16); the true import of this being that the city had not yet been rebuilt up to that time. Third, the decree spoken of by Daniel to rebuild the city is that with which we are searching, and not merely the time in which minor reconstruction had already begun to take place during the latter years of Cyrus, and perhaps also of Cambyses and Darius Hystaspes. For in the complaint of the Rehum and Shimshai to Artaxerxes, there is no mention made at all of the temple—for they knew that the restoration thereof had already been approved by Cyrus, but it is the restoration of the city against which they contended (Ezra 4:13-16, 21), since they knew as well as we do today that the decree of Cyrus had made no such provision for the city and its renovation. The only way in which the Jews henceforth could have begun rebuilding the city was the “going forth” of a new and distinct decree to that end. For Cyrus’ written proclamation could not have been altered (Esther 1:19; Dan. 6:8).
Another decree made by a Persian king in reference to the Jews and their restoration in the Land of Israel was that of King Darius (Ezra 6:1-12), the occasion whereof was the obstruction of the rebuilding by the Cutheans. It is first to be observed that this letter of Darius ought not be be considered as a separate decree, but rather a revival and reaffirmation of Cyrus’ original proclamation; that which Darius sent Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai was a scroll from the archives of Ecbatana which contained Cyrus’ decree (Ezra 6:2), along with the commentary and enforcement thereof by Darius. It is this decree in Darius’ second year that Haggai 1:2 and Zech. 1:1 count from. This Darius was him who is known as Hystaspes, reigning from 522-486 BC. It was not Darius II (surnamed Nothus), since Haggai declares that while the work of the temple was carrying on in the days of Darius, many were still alive who were present during the time of the first temple (Ezra 3:12)—the days of Darius II were 160-170 years after the first temple was destroyed.
There are also some, even Christian commentators, who take the decree from which the 70 weeks are counted to that given in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, in which permission was given to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (Neh. 2:1-8). Traditionally, some have given 445 BC as the date for the 20th year of Artaxerxes, however many have argued that it should be dated back about 10 years earlier to 454 BC. If Thucydides is correct in playing the coming of Themistocles to the court of Artaxerxes in 474 BC, then the 19th or 20th year of Artaxerxes’ reign would indeed be 454 BC. It seems that most historians today tend to favor Thucydides’ account, although other historians, such as Cicero, place this event in 472 BC (Laelius de Amicitia, ch. 12). However, there are good reasons from the biblical history to suppose that the Persian king in 474 BC was actually Xerxes: First, If we are to redate Artaxerxes’ reign in this manner, then this would give only 12 years to the reign of Xerxes, when Scripture explicitly places it at 14 (Esther 3:7; 9:1). Second, There is a tablet with a business contract which is dated to the 21st year of Xerxes (Julia Neuffer, “The Accession of Artaxerxes I,” AUSS 6.1 [1968], pg. 62).
There are many who would take the decree to Nehemiah (dated as 445/444 BC) to be the terminus a quo for the 490 years, due to its concern with rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. This was the interpretation of commentators such as Robert Anderson (The Coming Prince: The Last Great Monarch of Christendom [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1881]) and Harold Hoehner (Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977]). The problem, of course, was that they utilized the concept of the prophetic year, consisting of 360 days each, so as to make it line up with the life of Christ. However, it seems that Daniel’s prophecy is using a lunisolar calendar for the computation of the weeks, as it does in 9:1-2 concerning the word of Jeremiah concerning the duration of the exile in Babylon. Furthermore, that decree given in the 20th year of Artaxerxes was to continue the rebuilding of the walls which had since been damaged by the enemies of Israel; it was not that decree which marked the initial sanction by the Persians for the building of the wall. A more plausible view is that of Floyd N. Jones, who dates the crucifixion of Christ in AD 30, and justifies counting the 70 weeks from the 20th year of Artaxerxes, since he identifies him with Xerxes (The Chronology of the Old Testament: A Return to the Basics [Master Books, 1993], pgs. 267-269)
The next decree concerning Jerusalem is that given by Artaxerxes, who is not to be identified with Xerxes (as Josephus maintains in Antiquities, 11.6.1). For Xerxes reigned for only 21 years or thereabouts, whereas we read that Artaxerxes ruled into his 32nd year (Neh. 13:6).
It is the opinion of the author that that year from which Daniel’s weeks are to be most properly computed is the decree of Ezra in which he had official instructions to rebuild Jerusalem; this was during the 7th year of Artaxerxes’ reign (Ezra 7:8). The precise date of this year will be given later, but the following reasons withstand scrutiny and show it to be the decree mentioned by Daniel. The description of this decree is given in verse 25: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem (דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנֹ֤ות יְרֽוּשָׁלִַם֙) 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.” This alone shows the futility of the Jewish objection that the decree of Cyrus is that which is intended here, for that was not to rebuild Jerusalem, but the temple therein. This decree announced by the angel Gabriel is that which is concerned with the rebuilding of the city itself, with its רְחֹוב וְחָרוּץ, “street and wall.”
[1]. Ezra received authority from Artaxerxes to rebuild the wall(s) of Jerusalem. “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.” (Ezra 7:18); “And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily” (7:21); “For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem.” (9:9). That Ezra had been granted such an authority is seen also by the manner of accusation which the Cutheans brought before Artaxerxes: “Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations. Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings.” (Ezra 4:12-13). And upon this place, there is yet more to be opened and proven.
[2]. In Ezra 4:7-23, the reconstruction of the temple is put to a halt due to the malicious conspiracies and frustrations of the surrounding nations, particularly the Cutheans. These adversaries send a letter to Artaxerxes complaining that “the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations.” (Ezra 4:12). It is very important for us to understand that there were two complaints at two times: Ezra 4:1-7 records the cessation of the rebuilding of the temple, which took places during the reigns of Cyrus and Darius the Persian (4:5). However, what is recorded in 4:7-23 takes place many decades later during the time of Artaxerxes. The initial rebuilding of the walls is long before the time of Nehemiah, since he came to Jerusalem during the 20th year of Artaxerxes, while the incident of the Cutheans’ complaint came earlier. Therefore, the original decree to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem was the one given to Ezra during Artaxerxes’ 7th year. As the historian Israel Eph’al has summarily written,—“Thus during the years of tension in Palestine under Artaxerxes I—i.e., before Nehemiah’s time—the reconstruction of the wall of Jerusalem was suspended (by the ‘army of Samaria’?) after the letter of accusation from the ‘adversaries of Judah and Benjamin’ had elicited an explicit command to that effect from the king (Ezra 4:8–23).” (“Syria-Palestine under Achaemenid rule,” in The Cambridge Ancient History [1988], 4:155)
[3]. The manner in which the decree of Ezra is enumerated does evince that it is to be identified with that decree prophesied by Gabriel, for it is called “the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.” (דָבָ֗ר לְהָשִׁיב֙ וְלִבְנֹ֤ות יְרֽוּשָׁלִַם֙) The going forth of the word is derived from יָצָא, which is used to mean “to go out, depart, go forth, bring forth.” Though the manner of speaking be different as it is translated in English, the meaning is one and the same throughout. And it is used in many places by the Holy Spirit to refer to the publication and commission of a decree or revelation; “for out of Zion shall go forth [תֵּצֵא] the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:3; cf. Micah 4:2). Though the word is of the Lord, the “going forth” refers to an actual event when the messengers of God left Zion to proclaim His revelation unto them. And so is it also in the case of Artaxerses’ decree to Ezra. That year in which Ezra “went forth” from Babylon with official mandate by Artaxerxes to begin rebuilding Jerusalem is that from which the 490 years are to be counted.
In order to calculate the seventh year of Artaxerxes’ reign in which Ezra went forth to rebuild Jerusalem, the obvious next step is to figure out what the first year of his reign was, and to count from there. According to the study of Parker and Dubberstein (Babylonian Chronology: 626 B.C. – A.D. 70, pg. 17), the ancient evidence dates it to June 11, 464 B.C. (George G. Cameron, Persepolis Treasury Tablets, Oriental Institute Publications 65 [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948], 4:441). Counting seven years from this, we arrive at 458 BC (Parker & Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, pg. 32). This year is that with which are we concerned, for it is in this that Ezra went up to Jerusalem. And counting 490 years from this time, we get to AD. 33. And therefore, with this decree given to Ezra being established as the starting point for Daniel’s seventy weeks, it is proved beyond all doubt that these weeks do expire with the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Concerning the final week and the half of the week mentioned in Dan. 9:27, some dispensationalists today have insisted that a gap be posited here within which we are currently living. However, as stated above, the entire chronology of these 70 weeks is to be governed by the limits set by Gabriel in verse 24: the terminus a quo is when a decree goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem with its street and wall, while the terminus ad quem is when the Messiah is cut off. Therefore, everything which follows is to be interpreted within these chronological boundaries.
First, the destruction of the second temple by Titus is not the time in which the 70 weeks are expired, but only something ensuing after that expiration. Rather, as just stated, the time frame is “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince”, there will be 69 weeks (483 years). And in the final week, the Messiah will be cut off—which is that time wherein the new covenant is begun and the efficacy of the sacrificial system comes to an end. In half of the final week (three and a half years) is when the Messiah is cut off. In the reckoning of John Owen, Christ was baptized at the end of the 69 weeks, and he was cut off toward the end of the last weeks, his ministry lasting 3 and a half years. As to remaining years left over, he says “if we shall say that his unction being to be after the seven weeks and sixty-two, we must grant it to be in the first or second year of the last week, whereunto add the three years and a half of his preaching, the remnant fraction of one year or two can no way disturb the account, there being nothing more frequent than the casting in of such parcels of time to complete and fill up an entire and round number.” (John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1:339)
There are yet a few further objections pleaded by the Jews against all of the preceding; anything will be done by them to evade the teaching of their prophets and twist the true sense of the Scriptures to their own destruction. And for the further removing of excuses and pretenses to this place, the following objections shall be answered:—
First, they say that it is said of this anointed one that he must bring an end to sacrifice and offering (verse 27), whereas the services of the temple did continue for many years after the death of Christ until its final destruction by Titus in 70 AD. Response: (1) The cessation here spoken of concerning the animal sacrifices is with peculiar regard to their de jure efficacy and acceptance before God, while the de facto observance thereof continued until 70 AD. And indeed, the rabbis themselves speak of the many apparitions and strange occurrences in the temple in the years leading up to its destruction, that evinced that the judgment of God had fallen upon them (Yoma 39b). (2) This work of Titus and the Romans is already expressed in Daniel 8:11, “Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down”; And again, Dan. 11:31—“And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.” (3) The starting and ending points of the 490 years are expressly set by Gabriel: beginning with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the cutting off of the Messiah.
Second, they say that Daniel’s weeks are nowhere to be found or alluded to in the New Testament. If this prophecy which computes the time of the Messiah’s arrival and death is truly found here, then why do none of the apostles quote it or allude to it in the Scriptures? Response: (1) Just because the particular testimonies are not always individually delineated by Christ or His apostles does not give any grounds for saying that they are not speaking of Him. For Christ tells the Jews, the Scriptures “testify of me.” (John 5:39). And after His resurrection, He said to His disciples “that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” (Luke 24:44) Though the particular places upon which Christ expounded here are not recorded for us by the Holy Spirit, does this mean therefore that we are not therefore to search the Scriptures as Christ has commanded us? (2) The Lord Jesus Christ does make explicit use of this prophecy when speaking of the coming destruction upon Jerusalem and the last days. “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains.” (Matt. 24:15-16). The “abomination of desolation” herein spoken of is described three times by the prophet Daniel: 9:27; 11:31; 12:11. The question which therefore remains is, to which of these verses was Christ particularly alluding? And the interpretation of Christ’s words make it clear which place in Daniel is being spoken of. “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.” (Luke 21:20). Thus it fits best with the text to infer that the prophecy of Daniel references the Roman destruction that Christ is speaking of, while Dan. 11:31 is agreed upon by many to refer to the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, the cruel persecutor of Israel.
IV. The work of the Messiah described herein, and the effects thereof. - Not only the computation of the 490 years, but also the descriptions given by Daniel of the anointed one’s work make it clear that it is the Messiah who is being spoken of and foretold. Notwithstanding this, the Jews wrest this place to speak of two anointed ones, the former of whom they say is Cyrus; the latter figure is where the rabbis depart amongst themselves in their various commentaries and midrashim. Some would have it to be Agrippa (who was killed by Vespasian), or the last high priest of the second temple. But the best answer to these vain imaginations is that the work herein ascribed to the anointed one, is most truly and properly given only unto Jesus Christ the Messiah. And this is seen in the following things spoken of by Gabriel: —
(1) The anointed one will כַלֵּא הַפֶּשַׁע, “finish the transgression.” כָּלָא is put for “to restrain, shut up, hold back.” As in Psalm 119:101—“I have restrained [כָּלִאתִי] my feet from every evil way”; Hag. 1:10—“Therefore the heaven over you is stayed [כָּלְאוּ] from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit.” Cf. Psalm 40:12; 88:9; Jer. 51:63; 1 Sam. 3:12. And perhaps from it is כֵּלֵא derived, i.e. a “jail”, wherein men are shut up and restrained from exiting. And herein did Christ fulfill this, for in no other time since the flood of Noah has the sin of man been under greater restraints than then. The meaning is not that sin will no longer occur, but that it will not be to such depths of wickedness and depravity (and frequency) as formerly. Cf. Heb. 1:3; 7:11-16; Rom. 8:1-5.
(2) The second thing described is לְהָתֵם חַטָּאֹות, “to seal up sin.” In the language of the Old Testament, to “seal up” is put for pardoning forgiveness and the gracious non-imputation of sin; “My transgression is sealed up [חָתֻם] in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity.” (Job 14:17). And I ask, did the death of Agrippa or the last high priest bring in such consequences? Did it not rather serve for the increase of wickedness amongst the Jews when their temple was destroyed by Rome?
(3) The next thing designed is that the Messiah will לְכַפֵּר עָוֹן, “make reconciliation for iniquity.” The apostles interprets this place as ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ; “making propitiation for the sins of the people.” (Heb. 2:17). The prophecy of this work of Christ is herein delineated, and the narrative of how He did so for our salvation is proclaimed by the Gospel.
(4) “To bring in everlasting righteousness”; לְהָבִיא צֶדֶק עֹֽלָמִים. This place well accords with the title of the Messiah, the Branch—“the LORD our Righteousness.” (Jer. 23:6). And that Christ brought in this everlasting righteousness is the confession of the Church and her apostles: “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” (1 Cor. 1:30). Once again, how can these things be applied to any other than the Messiah?
(5) “To seal up the vision and prophecy”; לַחְתֹּם חָזֹון וְנָבִיא. In the language of the sacred authors, “to seal” חָתַם, is put for “finishing” and “completing.” Cf. Jer. 32:44; Isaiah 8:16; John 3:34; Rom. 4:11. And here it is put for the Messiah’s confirmation and fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, which is to be sought and found only in Christ Jesus, as the rest of this treatise shall demonstrate with the Lord’s assistance.
No comments:
Post a Comment