WBC-14-The Seventy Weeks of Daniel

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel THE "SEVENTY WEEKS" OF DANIEL – WHEN DO THEY BEGIN AND END?

Some questions of deep interest arise in connection with the period covered by our last chronological table; but they are questions of interpretation of Scripture, rather than questions of chronology. All expositors are agreed (so far as we are aware) that the message brought by Gabriel to Daniel gives the measure of years, from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah, the Prince, as sixty-nine sevens of years, that is, 483 years. But there is much difference of opinion as to, first, what decree it was from which the time began to run, and second, what event it was in the lifetime of our Lord to which the 483 years brings us. It is manifest that, unless those two points (the beginning and the ending of the 483 years) can be established with certainty, we cannot continue our chronology down to the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, and the consequences would be that the dated line, so carefully preserved for 3500 years, would fail to reach its objective. But, after much study of the entire subject, we are convinced that the Scriptures do not leave us in uncertainty as to those essential matters of fact. Indeed, it will be seen by what follows that, on the contrary, both events are marked and dated with unusual exactitude. Furthermore, it has become quite clear to us that the differences of opinion, to which we have referred, have arisen altogether from the fact that some of our able and painstaking chronologers and expositors have adopted the mistaken estimates of Ptolemy as the foundation of their systems of dates, instead of grounding themselves upon the chronology of the Bible itself. Having committed themselves to a chronological scheme which makes the era of the Persian Empire about 80 years too long, they have been compelled to construe the statements of Scripture in such wise as to force them into agreement with that scheme; and inasmuch as the measure of 483 years from the first year of Cyrus would, if Ptolemy’s table be accepted, come short, by many years, of any event in the lifetime of Christ, one must either abandon that table, or else must search for a decree of a Persian King, many years nearer to Christ, to serve as the starting point of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel. The trouble, therefore, is not that there is any uncertainty in the Scriptures, but that expositors have turned aside from the Scriptures, and have accepted, for the 500 years immediately preceding the coming of Christ, a defective chronology based upon heathen traditions. In another place we have discussed at considerable length* the many interesting questions that have arisen concerning the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, so we shall not go extensively into that subject here. It is appropriate, however, that the main reasons for the conclusions we have reached should be set forth with sufficient fu]ness to enable the readers of this book to examine them in the light of Scripture. Our main conclusions are:

First, that the canon of Ptolemy is untrustworthy as a basis for a system of chronology, its statements being not authenticated in any way; and that, Therefore, it should be rejected as unworthy of our confidence, even if it did not come into conflict with the statements of Scripture;

Second, that "the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem," from which the prophetic period of Seventy Weeks began to run (Daniel 9:25), was the decree of Cyrus the Great, referred to in Ezra 1:1-4;

Third, that the 483-year period of Daniel 9:25, reaching "unto the Messiah, the Prince," ended at the baptism of our Lord, in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, when He was thirty years of age.

[See The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation S. F. Roberts Publishers).] I. The Canon of Ptolemy In chapter II of this book we have pointed out that Ptolemy was not a contemporary historian of the events of the Persian Empire, whose chronology he attempts to set forth, but flourished more than six centuries after that Empire began. Therefore he cannot be accepted as an authority for the events of that period. Nor does he claim that he had access to any records contemporary with those events. We have also pointed out that, not only are the chrono­logical statements of Ptolemy entirely uncorroborated, but they are contradicted by authorities which are more entitled to confidence than he. Thus, whereas Ptolemy estimates that there were ten Persian kings in all, Josephus, an earlier writer and one who has a stronger claim upon our confidence, gives only six. Moreover, this agrees much better with the statement of the angel to Daniel, in the 3rd year of Cyrus, that there were yet four kings of Persia to stand up, the fourth being plainly identified as the great and wealthy Xerxes, whose expedition against "the realm of Grecia" ended, as is known from secular history, so disastrously. Those who accept the canon of Ptolemy must believe there were eight kings between Cyrus and Xerxes, the last of the Persian kings, and must accept the length of years which Ptolemy assigns to their respective reigns, and which he figures out to be a total of 205 years. In contrast with Ptolemy’s estimates, the Jewish and Persian tradi­tions make the period of the Persian Empire a period of 52 years (Anstey p. 232). We do not accept the estimates of Josephus any more than those of Ptolemy, and have no need of either; but the statements of the former do serve to show that those of the latter are not to be relied upon.

Further Anstey says:

"There are no contemporary chronological records whatever to fix the dates of any of the Persian monarchs after Darius Hystaspes. The clay tablets of Babylon fix the chronology, for the reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes; but they do not determine the date of any subsequent Persian king. The dates which have reached us, and which are now generally received as historical, are a late compilation made in the 2nd century A. D. and found in Ptolemy’s canon. They rest upon the calculations or guesses made by Eratosthenes, and certain vague, floating traditions, in accordance with which the period of the Persian empire was mapped out as a period of 205 years." The Futility of Eclipses and Other Astronomical Phenomena as Aids to Chronology The attempt to supply missing links in the chain of chronology by means of eclipses, and astronomical calculations, is utterly futile. It is a simple matter, indeed, for astronomers to make a perfect chart of all solar and lunar eclipses, and to fix the time of their several occurrences with great exactitude. But that does not help matters in the least; for the trouble is that, when a historical fragment is found which contains a reference to an eclipse, it is impossible to tell which of the charted eclipses, within say a century, is the one referred to. And even could that be done it would serve only to fix the date of one event.

It must be remembered that chronology is not merely or chiefly a matter of intervals of time. It is primarily a matter of historical events, their sequence, and the number of years from one known event to another. Astronomers can indeed give us the precise order and dates of all eclipses which occurred between the days of Cyrus and those of Alexander the Great, or of any other period. But eclipses are events which occur in the heavens, whereas chronology has to do with happenings on earth. Astronomers cannot tell us the succession of the Persian kings, or the length of their several- reigns. That information is what is needed to make a chronology, and without it, a perfect chart of all the eclipses is of no more value for the purpose than a map of the moon.

Therefore, as regards the events of sacred history prior to the conquest of Asia by Alexander the Great, there are no sources of information, apart from the Bible itself, whereby the chronology thereof can be established. But none are needed, because the chronology of the Bible is complete in itself. Manifestly, it was no more a part of God’s plan of revelation that we should be dependent upon human sources for the completion of sacred chronology, than that we should be dependent upon such sources for the completion of any part of essential truth or doctrine.

II. The Commandment to Restore and to Build Jerusalem.

Daniel 9:25 The going forth of the commandment (lit. word) to restore and to build Jerusalem is one of the most important of the chronological landmarks of Scripture; for from it stretches the measuring line of 483 years "unto the Messiah, the Prince." This is a matter that Daniel was specially charged by the angel to "know" and to "understand." Unless the time of the going forth of that word be known, and unless its relation with the entire chronological scheme of the Bible be understood, the divinely-given measuring line will be of no avail for the very purpose for which it was given. We believe, however, and will seek now to show, that the Scriptures give, and with a clearness which leaves nothing to be desired, both the decree referred to, and also the date of its "going forth." Indeed it is not likely there would ever have been a question about it, were it not that some able and learned men have gone to the Bible with a ready-made chronology, based on the miscalculations of Ptolemy, and have sought to make the statements of Scripture agree thereto, instead of pursuing the true method, namely, finding in the Bible, the monumental events which mark respectively the beginning and the end of the prophetic period, and then permitting the Scripture itself tell them the number of years (483) between those terminal events.

Let it be noted that the time specified by the angel was to begin, not at the restoring and building of the city, but at the going forth of the "word," or decree, to restore and to build. That "word" went forthC~ in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia," and, moreover, its going forth was for the express purpose "that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled" (Ezra 1:1). To that end the Lord Himself " stirred up the spirit~ of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a proclamation (lit, caused a voice to pass, see marg.) throughout all his kingdom." Here certainly was a royal "word" or proclamation going forth. And the express object of it was to release the captives of Judah that they might "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" (Ezra 1:2-3). The immediate effect of the going forth of this word was that a large number of Israelites (42,370 besides 7,337 servants and maids) "went up out of the captivity ...and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah" (Ezra 2:1; Ezra 2:64-65); and other companies came later. This was precisely what Daniel was praying for and looking for. It was the ending of the captivity of his people, and the beginning of a new term of existence for the nation and the city. He had prayed: "0 my God, incline Thine ear, and hear; open Thine eyes and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by Thy Name;...defer not for Thine own sake, 0 my God; for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy Name" (Daniel 9:19). To "restore" means, in all occurrences of the Old Testament word, to "turn back," and hence to replace what had been taken away. In this case it plainly meant to restore the people to the city, and thus re-constitute the latter. That such was the purport, and also the immediate effect, of the decree of Cyrus is left in no doubt whatever; for it is written that the captives released by the decree of Cyrus "came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city" (Ezra 2:1); and again that they "dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities" (2:70). This includes, of course, and pre-eminently, the chief city, Jerusalem.

Isaiah’s Prophecy Concerning Cyrus In the Book of Ezra the matter, concerning which we are inquiring, is stated historically, and with all necessary clearness. But, to put it beyond all doubt, and to show, moreover, how surpassingly important was this official action of king Cyrus in the eyes and in the purposes of God, we call attention to the remarkable fact that God had also declared it prophetically by His prophet Isaiah, more than 150 years previously, even calling by name the king who was to fulfill His pleasure. For Isaiah had prophesied concerning Cyrus, saying, "Thus saith the Lord ...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 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 44:24-28).

Thus we have God’s own word for it that Cyrus, and none other, was to speak the "word" to restore and to build Jerusalem, even "saying, Thou shalt be built."

Furthermore, Cyrus was made aware of this prophecy of Isaiah, doubtless by Daniel; for in his decree he said, " The God of heaven hath charged me to build Him an house at Jerusalem" (Ezra 1:2); and it will be observed that the same "charge" included both the building of the temple, and the building of the city (Isaiah 44:28).

Furthermore, in the next chapter (Isaiah 45:13) God speaks of Cyrus, saying, "He shall build My city, and he shall let go My captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts." Here the letting go, or restoring, of the captives is coupled with the building of the city.

We are taking pains to point out fully the proof that it was from Cyrus that the word to restore and to build the city went forth, because those who wish to make the statements of Scripture conform to the mistaken chronology of Ptolemy point to the fact that the building of the city is not expressly spoken of in Ezra 1:1-4. Ezra does not indeed quote the entire decree, and the city is not specifically mentioned in the part quoted. But he does make perfectly clear that this was the "word to restore and to build Jerusalem"; for Jerusalem was the objective point of the decree; its former inhabitants were permitted, and even commanded, to return to it, and they did return to it; and that command, coupled with the command to "build the house of the Lord," would necessarily involve building habitations for the inhabitants of the city. The Building of the City

Furthermore it is recorded that in the 7th month (of the 1st year of Cyrus), "the people gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem" (Ezra 2:1). Of course their first necessity would be to erect houses for themselves; and this would explain why it was not until "the second year of their coming to the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month" that Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and "all they that were come out of the captivity into Jerusalem" began "to set forward the work of the house of the Lord" (Ezra 3:8). That interval of seven months would be needed to build houses for the people, and defenses for the city. From that time onward, in the historical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and in the prophecy of Zechariah, Jerusalem is spoken of as an existing city. The temple was finished "in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king" (Ezra 6:15); and the children of Israel which were come again out of the captivity kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days (Ezra 6:21-22). This implies that the city was capable of accommodating great numbers of people. In chapters 7 and 8 of Ezra, we read of the coming of Ezra himself, with a company of people, including women and children, to Jerusalem (8:32). In chapter 9 Ezra prays to God, and extols His goodness in giving them favour in the sight of the kings of Persia "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" (Ezra 9:9). In chapter 10 it is recorded that Ezra and the leaders "made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem" (v. 7), which they did. Yet there be some who would ask us to believe that not only was there no rebuilding of the city up to that time, but that the word for the restoring and building thereof did not go forth until the 20th year of Artaxerxes, referred to in the second chapter of Nehemiah.

Nehemiah’s Work

Some who accept as correct the chronology of Ptolemy, based upon the guesses of Eratosthenes, date "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" from "the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king," basing their conclusion upon what is recorded in Nehemiah, chapter 2, and particularly upon Nehemiah’s petition to the king, "that thou wouldest send me unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it" (Nehemiah 2:5). From this it is assumed that there had been up to that time no rebuilding of the city, and no previous word to rebuild it. This "Artaxerxes" is assumed, by those who require a late date for the decree of Daniel 9:25, to be Longimanus, whose 20th year would be nearly 80 years from the accession of Cyrus, during all of which time it is supposed (in order to suit this theory) that there had been given no permission to build the city, although permission to rebuild the temple had been granted and acted upon, and although the inhabitants of Jerusalem had been commanded to return to it. The first chapter of Nehemiah states that tidings were brought to Nehemiah by Hanani and certain men of Judah concerning the Jews which had returned out of captivity, and concerning Jerusalem (Nehemiah 1:2). Those brethren had reported that the returned captives were in great reproach, and that "the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire" (v. 3). This message was clearly occasioned by a fresh damage, recently done by the "adversaries" of the Jews, to the walls and gates of the rebuilt city. It was news to Nehemiah; for it caused him to weep, to mourn, to fast, and to pray (v. 4). The wording of the record makes it impossible to suppose that the damage reported by the messengers, who were just come from Judah, was that which had been perpetrated by Nebuchadnezzar more than a hundred years previously. Nehemiah had not beforetime been sad in the king’s presence, but now his grief could not be controlled or concealed (2:1, 2), which makes it certain that it was a new and unexpected calamity that had befallen the beloved city. This, moreover, agrees perfectly with Nehemiah’s petition that he might return and " build " the city; for that word is of broad signification, one of its common meanings being to repair (see Strong’s Conc.). Such is its meaning here, as is evident from the detailed account of the work in chapter 3, where the only building spoken of is the repairing of the walls and gates, the very parts reported by Hanani as having been injured. The word "repaired" is used over thirty times in that chapter, being used interchangeable with "builded." Moreover, the existence of houses is referred to incidentally in the chapter (vv. 10, 16, 20 &c.). That the work was comparatively a small one is evident from the fact that it was completed within the short space of 52 days (6:15). But we have also to explain the statement of chapter 7:4, "Now the city was large and great (broad in spaces, see marg.) and the houses not builded." This, however, is easily explained. To begin with, the passage describes a state of things which existed after Nehemiah’s work was completed, and hence it cannot, in any view of the matter, be taken to mean that the city had not been rebuilt. The meaning is evidently that there were yet wide unoccu­pied spaces wherein the houses had not been erected.

We would at this point bring to mind again the fact that the Seventy Weeks were to start "not from the building of the city (much less from its completion) but "from the going forth of the word to restore and to build it." In Ezra 1:1-4 we have the record of a word going forth, which word perfectly fulfilled the prophecies both of Isaiah and Jeremiah, which also perfectly answered the prayer of Daniel, and which perfectly corresponds with the words of Gabriel. Moreover, the Scripture gives great prominence to this decree of Cyrus, and the date thereof is stated in two passages (2 Chronicles 36:22, and Ezra 1:1). On the other hand, in Nehemiah 2, there is nothing that answers at all to the words of the angel, no commandment or decree going forth; but merely letters given to Nehemiah granting him safe conduct as far as Jerusalem (v. 7); and to the keeper of the king’s forest, that he give timber for the gates, and for the wall of the city, and for the house which Nehemiah was to enter into.

Finally, the epoch-making decree of Cyrus is related to the entire scheme of Bible chronology; for it was seventy years from the beginning of the captivity; whereas the 20th year of Artaxerxes, mentioned in Nehemiah 2, is an uncertainty. The word "Arta­xerxes " is a title (meaning chief-ruler) given to all the Persian kings. Some think the ruler referred to in Nehemiah is Darius (Hystaspes), and the same as the Ahasuerus of Esther. Others think he was Longimanus, who followed Xerxes and Artabanus. In the present state of knowledge this question cannot be settled. But, as to Cyrus, there is no uncertainty at all.

There are other points of interest connected with the decree of Cyrus, but for a discussion of these we must refer our readers to the book mentioned above, THE SEVENTY WEEKS AND THE GREAT TRIBULATION.

III. " Unto the Messiah" The words "unto the Messiah the Prince" define the goal toward which the long chronological line of the Bible had been steadily extending itself. In the days of Daniel the voice of prophecy was about to cease, and the inspired history of God’s ancient people was about to come to an end. But, before the sacred record closed, the last stage of the chronology of the Old Testament was made known to "Daniel the Prophet" and by him was recorded in "the Scriptures of Truth." From the going forth of the decree of Cyrus, unto the greater Deliverer, of whom Cyrus was a remarkable type, was to be a stretch of sixty-nine "sevens" of years. The words "unto the Messiah" tell us with all requisite clearness and certainty to just what point in the life-time of Jesus Christ the measure of 69 sevens (483 years) reaches. The word Messiah (equivalent to the Greek Christos) means "the Anointed." We ask, therefore, where, in the earth-life of our Lord, was He anointed and presented to Israel? The answer is clearly given in the Gospels and Acts. It was at His baptism in Jordan; for then it was that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily shape as a dove; and then it was that John the Baptist bore witness to Him as the Son of God, and the Lamb of God. As the apostle Peter declared: "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power" (Acts 10:38); and from that time He gave Himself to His public Messianic ministry as a "minister of the circumcision." To this important matter we have also the Lord’s own testi­mony. For, after His return in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, where, according to Isaiah 9:1-2, the "Great Light" was to arise (see also Matthew 3:12-16), He went on the Sabbath day into the synagogue in Nazareth, and read from the prophet Isaiah these memorable words:"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor"; and then, having sat down, and the eyes of all being fastened intently upon Him, he said, "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Lu. 4:16-21). Thus the Lord declared Himself to be at that time the "Anointed" One, that is, the Messiah.

John the Baptist was sent to "bear witness" of Christ, and "that He should be made manifest to Israel" (John 1:6-7; John 1:31). This special ministry of John was discharged by him at the time of Christ’s baptism. When, therefore, the Lord Jesus had been "anointed" with the Holy Spirit, and had been "made manifest to Israel" by the witness of John, then the words of the prophecy "unto the Anointed One " were completely fulfilled. From that great and wonderful event, down to the day of His death, He was constantly before the people of Israel in His Messianic character, and was devoting Himself continuously to the fulfilling of His Messianic service, in going about doing good, manifesting the Father’s Name, doing the Father’s works, speaking the Father’s words, healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, cleansing the lepers, raising the dead, and preaching the glad-tidings of the Kingdom of God.

Indeed, even before He announced Himself in the synagogue in Nazareth as God’s "Anointed One," He had plainly said to the woman of Samaria (when she spoke of "Messiah, Who is called Christ")"I that speak unto thee am He" (John 4:25-26). More­over, to the Samaritans who came out to see Him upon hearing the woman’s report and her question " Is not this the Messiah?", He so fully revealed Himself that they were constrained to confess Him, saying, "We have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ (the Anointed One), the Saviour of the world" (v. 42).

Again, the purpose, as well as the effect, of the ministry of John the Baptist’s public testimony to Christ is clearly revealed by the words of those who, upon hearing that testimony, followed Him. We read that "One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him (Jesus) was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first findeth his own brother and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ" (John 1:40-41). In these Scriptures the Holy Spirit has caused the important fact that Jesus was the Anointed One to be stated both in Hebrew and in Greek, so that the significance of it should not be lost. That "this Jesus is the Christ" is the great point of apostolic testimony (Acts 17:3); and it is the substance of "our faith," for "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 John 5:1; 1 John 5:4-5). It is also the Rock-foundation upon which He builds His church (Matthew 16:18; 1 Corinthians 3:11).

Thus the Spirit of God has been pleased to give us proof upon proof that, from our Lord’s baptism and manifestation to Israel, He was, in the fullest sense, the Messiah or the Anointed of God. Manifestly there was no previous event in the earthly lifetime of our Lord which could be taken as meeting in any way the words of Gabriel. And it is equally clear that no subsequent event could be taken as the fulfillment of those words. For there was, and could be, no subsequent occasion when the Lord was any more the "Anointed One" than when the Spirit descended upon Him at His baptism. Thus the Scriptures absolutely shut us up to the Lord’s baptism, as the occasion when He was Anointed, and presented to Israel in His Messianic office. His baptism then marked the termination of the 69 weeks of Daniel 9:25, and the beginning of the last of the seventy weeks.

Furthermore, in addition to the foregoing evidences, we have the culminating proof found in the fact that this epoch (His Baptism), and this alone, is formally dated in the Scriptures and that His age at the time is stated. For in Luke 3:1-3 the era of the preaching and baptism of John is given with extraordinary particularity, which certifies to us that that era has a place of special importance in connection with the chronology of Scripture as a whole. It is an impressive fact that both the decree of Cyrus, and the baptism of John "that is to say, both the beginning and the ending of the sixty-nine weeks "are set forth with the greatest particularity, and that they are given with reference to the reigns of Gentile rulers. One is given as occurring "in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia," and the other "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar." This is a clear indication that the things which were to be consummated within the "determined" period of seventy weeks were matters which concerned, not the Jews only, but all mankind, having to do with the salvation of Gentiles as well as Jews. God’s dealings theretofore had been matters of Jewish history; but now, beginning with the voice of one crying in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord," a new era was beginning, one in which God’s dealings were to be matters of world-history. It is appropriate, therefore, that we should have at this precise point a change from terms of Jewish to terms of Gentile chronology.