Continued: Chapter XIII-The Seventy Weeks Of Daniel

"In addition to this, there is the verbal argument that the words קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים are not used of a single holy vessel which alone could be thought of. Not only the altar of burnt-offering is so named, Ex. xxix. 37, xl. 10, but also the altar of incense, Ex. xxx. 10, and the two altars with all the vessels of the sanctuary, the ark of the covenant, shew-bread, candlesticks, basins, and the other vessels belonging thereto, Ex. xxx. 29, also the holy material for incense, Ex. xxx. 36, the shew-bread, Lev. xxiv. 9, the meat-offering, Lev. ii. 3, 10, vi. 10, x. 12, the flesh of the sin-offering and of the expiatory sacrifice, Lev. vi. 10, 18, x. 17, vii. 1, 6, xiv. 13, Num. xvii. 9, and that which was sanctified to the Lord, Lev, xxvii. 28. Finally, the whole surroundings of the hill on which the temple stood, Ezek. xliii. 12, and the whole new temple, Ezek. xlv. 3, is named a 'most holy'; and according to I Chron. xxiii. 13, Aaron and his sons are sanctified as קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים." -- The Book of Daniel, p. 346.

In view of the great latitude of this expression, it behooves one to be cautious in taking a position with a dogmatic tone. The most scientific way for ascertaining its meaning in this case, however, is to see which of the usages given in the quotation above fits most perfectly into this special context that we are studying. Since the angel was talking about Daniel's people and the city of Jerusalem with reference to the final abolition of all sin and the introduction of righteousness, it becomes most highly probable that this expression refers to the holy temple which will be in the glorious kingdom age, built by the Lord Himself (Zech. 6:12,13) in Jerusalem. The specific description, plans, and specifications for this future temple are given in Ezekiel 40-48; therefore, when this fact is taken into consideration, it appears to me that the only logical conclusion to which we can come is that this promise implies the rebuilding of the temple on the magnificent scale foreseen by the prophet and its dedication.

When the things here foretold are accomplished, the golden era concerning which the prophets constantly spoke will become a reality. As has been suggested above, Daniel read, in connection with the prediction concerning the Babylonian captivity, other promises relative to a final and glorious restoration of Israel to the land of the fathers and to fellowship with God. From Jeremiah and other prophets it is clearly seen that, when Messiah re-establishes the throne of David and mounts the same, He will establish a world-wide kingdom of righteousness. Under His sovereign power, transgression and sin there will be none, for the glory of the Lord shall encircle the globe as the waters cover the sea. Therefore, this twenty-fourth verse of our chapter, read in the light of the various predictions of the prophets, is obviously a forecast of the establishment of the kingdom of God upon earth in all its glory.

"Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks; it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times" (Daniel 9:25). (chart)

The initial date of this seventy-week period of years, according to this verse, is the year in which the commandment goes forth to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem. Can we ascertain the time when a decree was issued for the restoration of the Jewish people to the homeland? In order to answer this question properly, it is necessary for us to examine very carefully a prediction found in Isaiah, chapters 44 and 45. Chapter 44:24-28 reads as follows:

"Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb... that confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith of Jerusalem, She shall be inhabited; and of the cities of Judah, They shall be built, and I will raise up the waste 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 of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid."

The statement to which I wish to call attention is verse 28. In this prediction Isaiah spoke relative to Cyrus the Great* in the following language: "He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid."

The Lord foretells that Cyrus will perform two things with reference to the Hebrew people: "and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." This prediction says that Cyrus will speak concerning Jerusalem and declare, "She shall be built"; and concerning the temple, "Thy foundation shall be laid." To everyone who accepts the genuineness of this passage, it is clear that Isaiah foresaw the career of Cyrus and knew that he would issue a decree relative to the rebuilding of the city and of the temple. Confirmatory evidence that he would issue the decree concerning the rebuilding of the city is found in 45:13:

"I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will make straight all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let my exiles go free, not for price nor reward, saith Jehovah of hosts."

The words "he shall build my city" are clear and unmistakable to everyone who will accept this language at its face value. It is abundantly evident that Cyrus would issue a decree authorizing the building of the city of Jerusalem. Thus from Isaiah 44 and 45 it is evident that Cyrus would make the decree authorizing the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem and of the temple.

The predictions in these two chapters presuppose the destruction of the city and of the temple. From the history found in the books of Kings and Chronicles, together with the prophecies of Jeremiah, we gather the information relative to the fall of Jerusalem and its destruction at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. Thus the implication of this prediction of Isaiah was fulfilled in the career of Nebuchadnezzar.

Did Cyrus the Persian do the two things foretold by Isaiah approximately 200 years prior to his career? We who accept the Bible as the Word of God must answer this question in the affirmative. What historical evidence have we that Cyrus issued the decree?

"1 Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word of Jehovah by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, 2 Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath Jehovah, the God of heaven, given me; and he hath charged me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3 Whosoever there is 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 Jehovah, the God of Israel (he is God), which is in Jerusalem. 4 And whosoever is left, 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, besides the freewill-offering for the house of God which is in Jerusalem" (Ezra 1:1-4).

Part of this decree constitutes verses 22 and 23 of II Chronicles 36. An examination of these passages shows that Cyrus actually issued the command for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. In fact, according to Ezra 1:4, the decree of Cyrus permitted the neighbors of the Jews who desired to return to the fatherland to assist them with gifts of silver and gold and other things as freewill-offerings to the God of the Hebrews. Concerning the matter of Cyrus and of his issuing the decree for the rebuilding of the temple, therefore, there is no question.

But there are those who tell us that he said nothing about the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. In fact, we are informed that Cyrus issued no decree relative to the rebuilding of the city. Thus there is a clear issue between the prophet Isaiah, inspired by the spirit of God, and those who say that Cyrus never gave the Jews permission to rebuild Jerusalem. The Word of God is such that I believe every word spoken by the inspired men of God either has been fulfilled in the past or will be in the future. Since this prediction referred to Cyrus, an historical personage of the latter half of the sixth century before the common era, then I know that this prophecy has been fulfilled literally and completely.

To this position one may reply by calling attention to the fact that nothing is said in the decree, as recorded by Ezra, concerning the rebuilding of the city. At first this objection seems to be plausible. Upon further consideration it becomes evident that it is based upon the fallacious argument of "silence", which form of reasoning is recognized by all logicians as being most dangerous. There is nothing in the text of this decree which would preclude the authority to rebuild the city. Furthermore, when one remembers the fact that the temple was the one institution in which all the interests and activities of the community were headed, he may correctly conclude that, since the lesser is included in the greater, the authority to rebuild the temple also permitted the reconstruction of the city. This inference must be accepted as the necessary one in view of Isaiah's prediction that Cyrus would issue the decree concerning the rebuilding of both the temple and the city.

From this position there is no possible escape. Further absolute and positive proof of this position is found in the letter to Artaxerxes which Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel wrote, and which is found in Ezra 4:7,11-16. Note especially verse 12:

"Be it known unto the king, that the Jews that came up from thee are come to us unto Jerusalem; they are building the rebellious and the bad city and have finished the walls, and repaired the foundations."

From this statement as one sees, the opponents of the Jews in Palestine reported to the Persian king that those who came up from the captivity were building the city of Jerusalem, which they called "the rebellious and the bad city." Furthermore, they claimed that they had finished the walls and had repaired the foundations.

To this letter the king sent a reply in which he instructed Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe saying, "Make ye now a decree to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until a decree shall be made by me" (Ezra 4:21). When Ezra 4:7-22 is read in the light of Persian history, the conclusion is forced upon one that the Artaxerxes to whom this letter was written was none other than the usurper, Pseudo-Smerdis, who, with his brother, upon the death of Cambyses, seized the government. In view of these facts we can see the significance of the word "kings" in verse 22. Thus the work upon the temple and the city was brought to a standstill in the year of Pseudo-Smerdis, who held the authority for about 7 months in the year 522 of the Ptolemaic chronology.

According to Ezra 4:23,24, the work of building the house of God ceased until the second year of Darius king of Persia, who is known in secular history as Hystaspes. In the second year of his reign, namely, 520 B.C.E., the prophets Haggai and Zechariah began their ministry and stimulated Zerubbabel and Joshua to undertake the work which had been laid down 15 years prior. Immediately opposition began in the form of a protest of Tattenai, the governor beyond the River, and Shethar-bozenai, and their companions who said to the prophets and to the leaders of the Jews, "Who gave you a decree to build this house, and to finish this wall?" (Ezra 5:3). The wall in this question referred to evidently was the city wall. The Jews under the leadership of these two great prophets of God would not be intimidated by the opposition of the governor and others, but prosecuted the work with all dispatch.

The enemy once more sent a letter of protest to the Persian court. In it they recounted what the Jews had told them relative to the history of the temple and the decree of Cyrus to rebuild the same. They closed their communication by asking the king to investigate the records and to see whether or not the report given by the Jews was correct.

Upon receipt of this official communication from his subordinates, Darius issued an order that an investigation be made in the official archives of the reign of Cyrus in order that he might know the facts. Those who were assigned this task reported to the king that the Jews were right in making this claim; hence he issued a proclamation (Ezra 6:6-12) giving instructions that they should be permitted to continue their work and should be assisted by his officials.

Since the protest was against the building of the house and the wall, and since Darius after his investigation issued an order that the Jews be not hindered, it is evident that the decree of Cyrus included permission to rebuild Jerusalem. Therefore from this point of view it is absolutely certain that King Cyrus did what the inspired prophet Isaiah foretold that he would accomplish. In the light of these facts we are irresistibly driven to the conclusion that it was Cyrus who issued the decree for the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem as foretold by the angel Gabriel to Daniel the prophet (Daniel 9:25). The initial date, therefore, of the seventy weeks decreed upon the Jewish people and the holy city of Jerusalem was the year in which Cyrus issued his famous decree.

Though the facts presented in the Scriptures show that Cyrus did issue this decree, there are many excellent brethren who, overlooking some of the facts, assume that Cyrus gave the order to rebuild the temple only. According to these scholars, it was the year 536 B.C.E. They also take the position that it was Artaxerxes Longimanus who, in the twentieth year of his reign and in the month Nisan, issued the decree for the rebuilding of the city. Sir Robert Anderson and those of the same school of thought claim that the calendar year 445 B.C.E. was the twentieth year of Artaxerxes when he issued this decree. According to these scholars, the proclamation authorizing the rebuilding of the city was ordered 91 years after Cyrus gave the command for the building of the temple. Since Isaiah said that Cyrus would issue a decree for the rebuilding of both the city and the temple, and since the facts which we have seen in the book of Ezra show that he actually did what was foretold, we are forced to accept the position that the decree mentioned by the angel Gabriel was that which was issued by Cyrus in the year 536 B.C.E., according to the Ptolemaic chronology. This position being true, it is impossible for one to accept a contrary proposition that Artaxerxes Longimanus 91 years later issued a decree for the rebuilding of the city.

What was the origin of this latter theory? The answer must be sought by an investigation into the Ptolemaic chronology. The real status of this system of dating events is succinctly put by that prince of chronologers, Martin Anstey, in the following quotation:

"The Chronology of this period has never yet been accurately determined. The received Chronology, though universally accepted, is dependent on the list of the Kings, and the number of years assigned to them in Ptolemy's Canon. Ptolemy (A.D. 70-161) was a great constructive genius. He was the author of the Ptolemaic System of Astronomy. He was one of the founders of the Science of Geography. But in Chronology he was only a late compiler and contriver, not an original witness, and not a contemporary historian, for he lived in the 2nd Century after Christ. He is the only authority for the Chronology of this period. He is not corroborated. He is contradicted, both by the Persian National Traditions preserved in Firdusi, by the Jewish National Traditions preserved in the Sedar Olam, and by the writings of Josephus.

"It has always been held to be unsafe to differ from Ptolemy, and for this reason. His Canon, or List of Reigns, is the only thread by which the last year of Darius Hystaspes, B.C. 485, is connected with the first year of Alexander the Great, thus:

"From these 207 years of the Medo-Persian Empire, we must deduct the first two years of the Co-Rexship of Cyrus with Darius the Mede. This leaves seven years to Cyrus as sole King, the first of which, B.C. 536, is the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia (2 Chron. 36:22), in which he made his proclamation giving the Jews liberty to return to Jerusalem. That leaves 205 years for the duration of the Persian Empire proper.

"In Ptolemy's Table of the Persian Kings, all the Julian years from Xerxes to Alexander the Great inclusive, are connumerary. Therefore, each requires to be raised a unit higher to give the Julian years in which their reigns began. Ptolemy reckons by the vague Egyptian year of 365 days. The Julian year is exactly 365¼ days. Had Ptolemy never written, profane Chronology must have remained to this day in a state of ambiguity and confusion, utterly unintelligible and useless, nor would it have been possible to have ascertained from the writings of the Greeks or from any other source, except from Scripture itself, the true connection between sacred Chronology and profane in any one single instance, before the dissolution of the Persian Empire in the 1st year of Alexander the Great. Ptolemy had no means of accurately determining the Chronology of this period, so he made the best use of the materials he had, and contrived to make a Chronology. He was a great astronomer, a great astrologer, a great geographer, and a great constructor of synthetic systems. But he did not possess sufficient data to enable him to fill the gaps, or to fix the dates of the Chronology of this period, so he had to resort to the calculation of eclipses. In this way then, not by historical evidence or testimony, but by the method of astronomical calculation, and the conjectural identification of recorded with calculated eclipses, the Chronology of this period of the world's history has been fixed by Ptolemy, since when, through Eusebius and Jerome, it has won its way to universal acceptance. It is contradicted (1) by the national traditions of Persia, (2) by the national traditions of the Jews, (3) by the testimony of Josephus, and (4) by the conflicting evidence of such well-authenticated events as the Conference of Solon with Croesus, and the flight of Themistocles to the court of Artaxerxes Longimanus, which make the accepted Chronology impossible. But the human mind cannot rest in a state of perpetual doubt. There was this one system elaborated by Ptolemy. There was no other except that given in the prophecies of Daniel. Hence, whilst the Ptolemaic astronomy was overthrown by Copernicus in the 16th century, the reign of the Ptolemaic Chronology remains to this day. There is one, and only one alternative. The prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 fixes the period between the going forth of the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem (in the first year of Cyrus) to the cutting off of the Messiah (in the year A.D. 30) as a period of 483 years. If this be the true Chronology of the period from the first year of Cyrus to the Crucifixion, it leaves only 123 years instead of the 205 given in Ptolemy's Canon, for the duration of the Persian Empire.

"Consequently the received or Ptolemaic Chronology, now universally accepted, must be abridged by these 82 years. The error of Ptolemy has probably been made through his having assigned too many years, and perhaps too many Kings, to the latter part of the period of the Persian Empire, in the scheme which he made out from various conflicting data.

"We have to choose between the Heathen Astrologer and the Hebrew Prophet.

"Other interpretations have been given of the date of 'the going forth of the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem' (Dan. 9:25).

"Bishop Lloyd, the author of the Bible dates in the margin of the Authorized Version, reckons the 483 years from the leave given to Nehemiah to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, whom he identified with Artaxerxes Longimanus (Neh. 2:1), and to make the fulfillment fit the prophecy on the erroneous Ptolemaic reckoning of the Chronology he has to curtail the interval by reckoning in years of 360 days each.

"Dr. Prideaux reckons the 483 years from the date of Ezra's return in the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Longimanus), Ezra 7:1-28.

"Scaliger reckoned the 70 weeks of Daniel as commencing in the 4th year of Darius Nothus, B.C. 420, and ending at the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70.

"Others have reckoned the 483 years from the going forth of the commandment in the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspes (B.C. 519) to build the Temple (Ezra 4:24, 5:1-6:15).

"But the true point of departure for the 70 weeks, and therefore, for the 483 years also, is unquestionably the 1st year of Cyrus (Dan. 9, 2 Chron. 36:20-23, Ezra 1-4, Isa. 44:28; 45:1-4, 13), and no other epoch would ever have been suggested but for the fact that the count of the years was lost, and wrongly restored from Ptolemy's conjectural astronomical calculations.

"It would be far better to abandon the Ptolemaic Chronology and fit the events into the 483 years of the Hebrew prophecy.

"The one great fundamental truth to be remembered is the fact that modern Chronology rests upon the calculations of Ptolemy as published in his Canon or List of Reigns. And since the foundation of Greek Conjectural Computation Chronology, upon which Ptolemy's Canon rests, is unstable, the superstructure is likewise insecure. Ptolemy may be called as a witness. He cannot be allowed to arbitrate as a judge. He cannot take the place of a Court of Final Appeal. He cannot be erected into a standard by which to correct the Chronology of the text of the Old Testament."

From the data assembled and presented in this lengthy quotation it is quite evident that the chronology for the Persian period from which Ptolemy made his computation was in utter confusion. The conclusions which he drew, therefore, are just as uncertain as the sources from which he gathered his information. Anstey, therefore, is correct in saying that "Ptolemy may be called as a witness. He cannot be allowed to arbitrate as a judge. He cannot take the place of a court of final appeal. He cannot be erected into a standard to correct a chronology of the text of the Old Testament."

The chronological scheme of Sanchoniathon "is a confused, unintelligible jargon, culled from (1) the mythologies of Egypt and Greece, and (2) a corrupt tradition of the narrative in Genesis. It may well have been forged by Porphyry, or by Philo Pyblius, in order to prosper the sinking cause of Paganism and to retard the rapid spread of Christianity in the second and third centuries of the Christian era."




Footnote:

* Isaiah the prophet lived in the latter half of the eighth century before the common era. Cyrus, concerning whom this prophecy is spoken, lived approximately two hundred years later, i.e., in the latter half of the sixth century.

The rationalistic critics who on a priori grounds reject the possibility of miracles and of divine inspiration naturally reject this passage as a genuine one by Isaiah. This prediction relative to Cyrus and some other facts presented in the second half of the book of Isaiah are advanced by the rationalists as evidence that Isaiah did not write this prediction. Of course, if we reject the possibility of miracles and of divine inspiration, then we are forced to the conclusion that Isaiah did not utter this prophecy. Hence we would be forced to believe that this prediction was uttered by someone who was living in the time of Cyrus, and who saw the possibilities of his advancing career.

On the other hand, if we accept the possibility of miracles and inspiration, we can very
easily accept the Isaianic origin of this prediction.

For one to deny on philosophical grounds the possibility of miracles and inspiration is to assume omniscience on his own part, for only an omniscient being could survey the fields of the past and the future and make such a generalization as this one. The modernistic critic, therefore, being blinded by a philosophical deduction, is illogical in denying to Isaiah the authorship of this wonderful prediction.

Continued on next page