Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:23, 8 October 2006

The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks appears in verses 24–27 in the ninth chapter of the Book of Daniel, a work included in both the Christian and Jewish Bible. The prophecy is part of both Jewish eschatology and Christian eschatology. In chapter nine Daniel records that an Angel appears to him in response to his prayer and makes a proclamation regarding the timing of important events in the future of the Jews.

New English Translation

'Seventy weeks have been determined concerning your people and your holy city to finish the transgression, to bring sin to completion, to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the prophetic vision, and to anoint a most holy place. So know and understand: from the going forth of the message to return and build Jerusalem until the anointed one, the Prince, there are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will again be built, with plaza and moat, but in distressful times. Now after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off and have nothing. As for the city and the sanctuary, the people of the coming prince will destroy them. But his end will come speedily like a flood, until the end of the war that has been decreed, there will be desolations. He will confirm a covenant with many for one week. But in the middle of that week he will bring sacrifice and offering to a halt on the wing of a desolating abomination, until the decreed end is poured out on the one who makes desolate.'

Context

According to the Book of Daniel, the vision takes place soon after Darius (who may or may not be the same person as Cyrus II, the Persian who controlled Babylon either at the time of the prophecy or shortly later) began his rulership over Babylon. Prior to this, Babylon had been ruled over by Belshazzar, and prior to him Nebuchadnezzar, who had besieged Jerusalem while Daniel was a youth. At the beginning of the scene, Daniel relates that he had read the prophecy foretold by the prophet Jeremiah. The oracle was that after the holy city of Jerusalem, considered God's home by Jews, lay in desolation for 70 years and Judah had endured 70 years of captivity, the king of Babylon would be punished and the Jews would return to Jerusalem (Jer 25:11–12, 29:10 , strictly speaking, are two separate prophecies both of which speak of the same 70 years of Babylonian captivity).

Daniel, being aware of this writing and believing that the fulfillment was near at hand describes how he prayed for the Kingdom of Israel, asking God to have mercy on His rebellious people. Chapter 9 verses 20–23 describe an encounter in which the angel Gabriel came to share the vision.

There are several interpretations which could constitute the 70 years period mentioned in Jeremiah 25 & 29. There are several events that may signify the beginning of "desolation" as well.

The following are three separate starting points in the captivities of Judah.

• The 1st captivity of Judah started around 605 - 604 BC, in the aftermath of the Battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar takes a party of Jews captive, signalling the beginning of the destruction of Jerusalem. This is the captivity mentioned in Daniel 1:1 when Daniel and his companions were taken captive.

• The 2nd captivity of Judah started in 597 BC, Nebuchadnezzar conquers Jerusalem, but leaves it standing, taking only certain groups of people captive after the Judaeans refuse to pay taxes or tribute to Babylonia and then he appoints Zedekiah, the previous king's uncle, as the governor, signalling the beginning of Babylonian control over Judea. This 2nd captivity started the period of Ezekiels captivity. (Eze. 40:1)

• The 3rd captiviy of Judah started in about 587 BC, when Jerusalem and the Temple were burned down by Nebuchadrezzar's army, leaving them in complete desolation. Only a few of the poor were left in Jerusalem at this time. This destruction took place in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.(Jeremiah 52:12-16)

There are several periods of 70 years during this captivity time frame. Only one likely fulfilles the criteria of Jeremiah 25 & 29. That fulfilment is the 70 years period of time between the 1st captivity of Judah and the release of the Judean captives by Cyrus of Persia. (2 Chr. 36:22; Ezr. 1:1, 7; 3:7; 4:3, 5; 5:13, 17; 6:3, 14; Isa. 44:28; 45:1;)

• This 70 years counts from the Battle of Carchemish (1st captivity of Judah) until Jerusalem was allowed to be reconstructed by the Decree of Cyrus around 538 BC. To make up for the several years' difference (605 to 538 is 67 years) some propose adjusting of the chronology slightly, or count 70 lunar years (lunar years being slightly shorter than solar years), or propose that 70 was a rounded number under inclusive reckoning. Others shift the termination event until the rebuilding actually began, one or two years later.

It should be noted here that the date of 538 B.C. for the first year of Cyrus is based on the work of Ptolemy. Ptolemy does not give specific astronomical data to fix the date of the 1st year of Cyrus as he does with many of the other Babylonian and Persian kings. The Babylonian dynastic tablet gives 194.3 years from Yukin-Zira to the overthrow of Nabonidos. The 1st year of Yukin-Zira is astronomically fixed to the year 731 B.C. This then would make the overthrow of Nabonidos in the year 537 B.C. and the 1st year of Cyrus as ruler of Babylon in the year 536 B.C. Which would then would make the 2nd year of Cyrus (when the 2nd Temple foundation was laid-- Ezra 3:8) 70 years from the 1st captivity of Judah.

• Some other 70 year periods are as follows:

1. From the destruction of Jerusalem in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar until the Temple was fully rebuilt in the sixth year of Darius I(Hystaspes), producing a time frame of 586-516 BC or 70 years.(Jer. 52;12-14; Ezra 6:15)
2. The 70 year period of Divine indignation mentioned in Zechariah 1:12. This period of 70 years ended in the 2nd year of Darius I (Hystaspes) 520 B.C. This Divine anger began when the glory of God left the Temple and Jerusalem. According to Ezekiel 8-10 this took place in the 6th year and 6th month of his captivity or the 2nd captivity of Judah, which would have been the year 590 B.C.

Debate on Weeks

One principal debate regarding the words in the prophecy deals with the meaning of Weeks. The Hebrew word shebu`ah or "week" is also the word for "seven." Secondly, in this instance the Hebrew word is in the male gender when normally the female version is used. There are three interpretations.

1. Skeptical scholars like J.A. Montgomery claim that the weeks are really the same as the years previously decreed. This allows for the fulfillment of the prophecy to reside in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes. He and other skeptics believe that the book was written as a later forgery in an effort to engender resistance against the oppression of Antiochus.
2. Various commentators (e.g., some conservative amillennialists, Orthodox Jews) believe that the seventy weeks represent, to one degree or another, an indefinite time scale that cannot be used for definite prediction. Some Orthodox Jews hold the fulfillment to be in the 70 destruction of the temple. Philip Mauro believed the first 69 weeks to be 69 sevens of years, but the last to be an indefinite period.
3. A large majority of sacred theologians believe each seven represents seven years. Amillennialists who hold this believe the final fulfillment to have already happened; premillennialists hold that an anacoluthon exists between the first 69 weeks and the last. Some believe that the gap is over now that the nation of Israel has gained Jerusalem as its capital.

Few hold that the weeks in question are sets of 7 days. Some Christians have proposed such theories, but no such theory has gained any degree of acceptance.

Timing of the decree

One aspect of the 70 weeks prophecy is that it specifies a specific starting point in history before the countdown, as it were, begins. In this case it is an edict to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple in Jerusalem. Five edicts concerning reconstruction in Judaea are recorded in the Bible.

• A decree permitting rebuilding of the 2nd Temple(Ezra 1:2-4) issued by Cyrus in the first year of his reign (539-536 BC, depending on reckoning system)
• A decree restarting the construction of the 2nd Temple after a lull and confirming Cyrus' earlier decree (Ezra 6:3-12) granted by Darius in his second year (520-518 BC for Darius Hystaspes, 422-420 BC for Darius Nothus)
• A decree authorizing the use of certain articles for the temple rites and giving certain rights to Ezra and the Jews (Ezra 7:12-26) issued by an "Artaxerxes" in his seventh year. (517-515 BC for Darius Hystaspes; 459-457 BC for Artaxerxes Longimanus, 398-397 BC for Artaxerxes Memnon)
• A decree authorizing the reconstruction of the city of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:4-9), granted by an “Artaxerxes” in his 20th year. Since the term “Artaxerxes” is a title not a specific name, this title in Nehemiah 2 could also be in reference to two other Persian rulers. In all there are only three Persian rulers with reigns of more than 32 years who would qualify as the Persian “Artaxerxes” in Nehemiah(Nehemiah 5:14). Those three rulers are “Darius” (Hystaspes), “Artaxerxes” (Longimanus) and “Artaxerxes” (Memnon).
• A divine decree issued by YHWH (God) in the 2nd year of Darius I (Hystaspes) commanding Joshua and Zerubabbel to restart construction on the Temple and Jerusalem. This divine command was witnessed by the two prophets Haggai and Zechariah. (Ezra 6:14) Zechariah 1:16 "16 Therefore thus saith YHWH; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith YHWH of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem."

Most Christian interpreters, following Sir Robert Anderson and/or Harold W. Hoehner, have held that only the decree of "Artaxerxes" Longimanus explicitly allows for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. However, this particular idea does not actually have strong scriptural support. The Bible itself is arguably more directly supportive of the decree of Cyrus or Darius(Hystaspes) being the key initiating edict (see Isa. 44:28;45:18 Zech.1:16, Ezra 6:14), with many Jews adhering to this same belief. A rigorous Christian interpretation of the 70 Weeks prophecy that begins the prophecy with the decree of Cyrus (rather than with Artaxerxes Longiminus' letters of support to Nehemiah) has recently been written by T.T. Schlegel (see external link below).

Other authors have speculated the decree, in a divine prophecy, could be a divine command, which God's responses to Ezra's (several months after his decree was issued) or Nehemiah's prayer (in the month of Kislev the year before his decree was issued) would presumably represent. Jeremiah's prophecies of desolation at the fall of Jerusalem are also supplied as an opening date. Here it is said that the first seven weeks end at the Cyrus decree (exactly 49 years after the Fall of Jerusalem).

The Scriptural case for "Artaxerxes"

As all who have study Daniel’s Seventy “Weeks” vision are aware the starting point is the “commandment to restore and build Jerusalem.” (Daniel 9:25) What many people disagree on is what constitutes the "commandment to restore and build” as well as when it was given. The majority today believe that this commandment was given sometime during the reign of “Artaxerxes” (Longimanus). Whether it be the 7th year (Ezra 7) or the 20th year (Neh. 2 & 5) of this “Artaxerxes”. The problem with this theory is that the Scripture does not seem to support this as a fact.

In order to determine which “Artaxerxes” is meant by Ezra 7 and Nehemiah 2 we must somehow synchronize these men with their Persian king counterparts. The book of Nehemiah is more help in this regards because in Nehemiah 5:14 it states that Nehemiah was governor from the 20th to the 32nd year of “Artaxerxes”. This statement helps us weed out all but three of the Persian rulers because only 3 Persian kings had reigns of 32 or more years. These Persian kings are as follows:

Table 6.2

• Darius I (Hystaspes) ruled 36 years from 521-485 BC
• Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) ruled 41 years from 464-423 BC
• Artaxerxes II (Memnon) ruled 46 years form 404-358 BC

At this point it should be mentioned that “Artaxerxes” as is used in the Scripture is not a proper name of any Persian king. It is a title given to them. Some claim it is a title given to them only after they have become established in their rule. Any one of the above three candidates could be considered an “Artaxerxes”. The clues to which historical “Artaxerxes” is meant are found in Nehemiah. Consider the following:

Nehemiah 12:25-26 25 Mattaniah, and Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon, Akkub, were porters keeping the ward at the thresholds of the gates. 26 These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest, the scribe.

Mattaniah, Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon and Akkub all lived in the days of Joiakim, Nehemiah and Ezra. Joiakim was the son of Jeshua (Joshua) the high Priest. This was the same Joshua who came up with Zerubbabel under the decree of Cyrus in 536 BC. In Nehemiah 8, it states that Akkub help explain the law to the people with Ezra and Nehemiah. (Nehemiah 8:6-9)

Akkub and Talmon were chief of the Porters who returned from the Babylonian captivity. That these two were actual men who lived during this time and were not just the names of the head of their familys is clear from the text. In Nehemiah 11:1-19 it names Akkub and Talmon as part of the 172 porters who lived in the city of Jerusalem proper.

Nehemiah 11:19 19 Moreover the porters, Akkub, Talmon, and their brethren that kept the gates, were an hundred seventy and two.

Not only did Akkub and Talmon live during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah but they and their children came up from the Babylonian captivity with Joshua and Zerubbabel according to Ezra 2. This could also be said for Shallum the porter.

Ezra 2:42 42 The children of the porters: the children of Shallum, the children of Ater, the children of Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children of Hatita, the children of Shobai, in all an hundred thirty and nine.

Ezra 10:24 24 Of the singers also; Eliashib: and of the porters; Shallum, and Telem, and Uri.

In Ezra 2 it lists the people who came up out of Babylon and return to Jerusalem under the decree of Cyrus. Notice in Ezra 2:42 above it states that children of Shallum the porter came up out of the captivity. Then in Ezra 10:24 it lists Shallum the porter as one of the men who took strange wives at the time of Ezra. What this likely shows is that Shallum and his descendents came up out of the Babylonian captivity and that they were contemporaries with Nehemiah and Ezra. Also note that if the children of Shallum came up with Shallum he was likely well over 30 years old. The same goes for the Akkub and Talmon. This information places Nehemiah’s governorship in the 1st and 2nd generation of the captives who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon. Further strengthening this is Nehemiah 12:47.

Nehemiah 12:47 47 And all Israel in the days of Zerubbabel, and in the days of Nehemiah, gave the portions of the singers and the porters, every day his portion: and they sanctified holy things unto the Levites; and the Levites sanctified them unto the children of Aaron.

Nehemiah 12:47 links Zerubbabel and Nehemiah with the action of giving portions to the singers and the porters. Zerubbabel was the governor of Jerusalem under Cyrus starting around the year 536 BC. Nehemiah was governor under one of the “Artaxerxes” of Persia listed in Table 6.2 above. The verse suggests the possibility that these two governors ruled consecutively. This possibility strengthens to the point of a conclusion when this information is compared to the Persian kings list. We know that Nehemiah ruled as governor of Jerusalem during the reign of one of the 3 Persian kings listed above. We also know that Nehemiah was a contemporary of the Porters: Mattaniah, Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon and Akkub. We have also established that Talmon and Akkub not only came up out of Babylon in 536 BC but were still alive contemporaneously with Nehemiah and Ezra. Ezra 2 also states that the children of Talmon and Akkub came up out of the Babylonian captivity. If Akkub and Talmon had descendants that came out of the captivity they were likely at the least 30 years of age. Using this information we can now determine which Persian ruler was likely the “Artaxerxes” of Nehemiah. Table 6.3 gives the age of Talmon and Akkub in the 20th year of each of the 3 potential “Artaxerxes”. These calculations are based on the assumption that both Talmon and Akkub as fathers would have been a minimum of 30 years old in 536 BC at the exodus from Babylon.

Table 6.3

• 20th year of Darius I (Hystaspes) fell in 501 BC ----Talmon & Akkub at least 66 yrs. old.
• 20th year of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) fell in 444 BC --- Talmon & Akkub at least 122 yrs. old.
• 20th year of Artaxerxes II (Memnon) fell in 384 BC--- Talmon & Akkub at least 182 yrs. old.

While it is within the realm of possibility that Talmon and Akkub were 122 years or old it is not likely. From the evidence above Darius (Hystaspes) is the most likely candidate for the “Artaxerxes” of Nehemiah 5:15. Darius (Hystaspes) as the “Artaxerxes” of Nehemiah is the only Persian ruler that congruently fits all the evidence above. This allows for Nehemiah and Zerubbabel to be consecutive governors of Jerusalem. (Neh. 12:47) This allows for Joiakim (son of Joshua the high priest) to be contemporaries with Nehemiah and Ezra. (Neh.12:25-26) This requires no exceptions, special rules or gaps in the chronology of Nehemiah.

Further supporting this conclusion is the following. In Nehemiah 10 there is a list of Priests and Levites who were sealed at the dedication of the wall in Jerusalem sometime around the 20th year of an “Artaxerxes” of Persia. In Nehemiah 12 there is a list of the Priests and Levites who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel in the 1st year of Cyrus of Persia in 536 BC. Nehemiah 10 shows that in fact many of the men who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel were still alive in the 20th year of “Artaxerxes”.

Nehemiah 10:1-27 Now those that sealed were, Nehemiah, the Tirshatha, the son of Hachaliah, and Zidkijah, 2 Seraiah, Azariah, Jeremiah, 3 Pashur, Amariah, Malchijah, 4 Hattush, Shebaniah, Malluch, 5 Harim, Meremoth, Obadiah, 6 Daniel, Ginnethon, Baruch, 7 Meshullam, Abijah, Mijamin, 8 Maaziah(?), Bilgai, Shemaiah: these were the priests. 9 And the Levites: both Jeshua the son of Azaniah, Binnui of the sons of Henadad, Kadmiel; 10 And their brethren, Shebaniah, Hodijah, Kelita, Pelaiah, Hanan, 11 Micha, Rehob, Hashabiah, 12 Zaccur, Sherebiah, Shebaniah, 13 Hodijah, Bani, Beninu. 14 The chief of the people; Parosh, Pahathmoab, Elam, Zatthu, Bani, 15 Bunni, Azgad, Bebai, 16 Adonijah, Bigvai, Adin, 17 Ater, Hizkijah, Azzur, 18 Hodijah, Hashum, Bezai, 19 Hariph, Anathoth, Nebai, 20 Magpiash, Meshullam, Hezir, 21 Meshezabeel, Zadok, Jaddua, 22 Pelatiah, Hanan, Anaiah, 23 Hoshea, Hananiah, Hashub, 24 Hallohesh, Pileha, Shobek, 25 Rehum, Hashabnah, Maaseiah, 26 And Ahijah, Hanan, Anan, 27 Malluch, Harim, Baanah.

Nehemiah 12:1-9 Now these are the priests and the Levites that went up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, 2 Amariah, Malluch, Hattush, 3 Shechaniah (Shebaniah), Rehum (Harim), Meremoth, 4 Iddo, Ginnetho(Ginnethon), Abijah, 5 Miamin, Maadiah(?), Bilgah, 6 Shemaiah, and Joiarib, Jedaiah, 7 Sallu, Amok, Hilkiah, Jedaiah. These were the chief of the priests and of their brethren in the days of Jeshua. 8 Moreover the Levites: Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, and Mattaniah, which was over the thanksgiving, he and his brethren. {the thanksgiving: that is, the psalms of thanksgiving} 9 Also Bakbukiah and Unni, their brethren, were over against them in the watches.

These Priests and Levites who came up with Zerubbabel and Joshua in the 1st year of Cyrus (536 BC) were, according to Nehemiah 12 “chief of the Priests and their brethren”. The Table 6.4 below gives the age of these “chief” of people corresponding to the 20th year of each of the Persian “Artaxerxes” who qualify. Their ages are calculated based on the assumption that they were only 30 years of age in the 1st year of Cyrus at the exodus from Babylon (i.e. 536 BC). As “chief” of the people they were likely 40-60 years of age if not older.

Table 6.4

• 20th year of Darius I (Hystaspes) fell in 501 BC ----Priests & Levites at least 66 yrs. old.
• 20th year of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) fell in 444 BC --- Priests & Levites at least 122 yrs. old.
• 20th year of Artaxerxes II (Memnon) fell in 384 BC--- Priests & Levites at least 182 yrs. old.

As you can see from Table 6.4, using the most conservative estimation of their age at the exodus from Babylon, the only realistic Persian ruler who would qualify for the 20th year of “Artaxerxes” is Darius I (Hystaspes). All other Persian rulers require the men of this time to have lived to an unrealistic old age. While it is not impossible for men of that time to live into their hundreds it is highly unlikely that a majority of the people listed in both these lists lived well into their hundreds. Also remember that only the most conservative age was used as a basis. King David who lived hundreds of years before these men, talked about the length of mans time on earth.

Psalm 90:9-10 9 For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend our years as a tale that is told. 10 The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

Based on the above evidence, Nehemiah was likely a contemporary of Ezra, Joiakim (son of Joshua) and Darius I (Hystaspes). That Nehemiah’s governorship lasted from the 20th – 32nd year of Darius I (Hystaspes)(i.e. 501 – 489 BC). This also means that Nehemiah’s governorship closely followed that of Zerubbabel’s governorship thus confirming Neh. 12:47. Further that Nehemiah’s governorship lasted almost to the end of the reign of Darius I. This also places the completion of the wall of Jerusalem in the year 501-500 BC just 14 years after the completion of the 2nd Temple.

Ezra

The book of Ezra also provides valuable information regarding the chronology of this time. Ezra 7 gives the genealogy of Ezra all the way back to Aaron the brother of Moses. This genealogical record is helpful in pinpointing the time in which Ezra lived. Ezra 7 states that Ezra’s father was Seraiah. We know from I Chron. 6:3-15 that this Seraiah was one of the high priests. In 2 Kings 25:8-21 we learn that this Seraiah was the last high priest of the 1st Temple. Interestingly we also learn that he was killed sometime around the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. The death of Ezra’s father at least gives us a minimum date for the age of Ezra. The following table gives the age of Ezra based on the 7th year of each of the Persian “Artaxerxes” assuming Ezra was only 1 years old at the death of his father Seraiah.

• 7th year of Darius I (Hystaspes) in 514 BC Ezra was at least 72 years old.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) in 457 BC Ezra was at least 129 years old.
• 7th year of Artaxerxes II (Memnon) in 397 BC Ezra was at least 189 years old.

Based on the above calculations Darius I Hystaspes is the only Persian king who legitimately qualifies as the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 7.

In Ezra 6:14-15 we find a interesting statement. It reads as follows:

Ezra 6:14-15 14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. 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. 15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.

From the chronology related in Ezra 1-6 we know that the only secular rulers who help and encouraged the Jews in building the 2nd Temple were Cyrus and Darius I (Hystaspes). We know that the “Artaxerxes” Cambyses (Ezra 4) did not help but in fact stopped construction on the 2nd Temple. In most English translations of the Ezra 6:14 it states that YHWH (God), Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes gave commandments to build the 2nd Temple. We know from close examination of Ezra chapters 1-6 that in fact only YHWH ,Cyrus and Darius gave actual commandments that helped to build the Temple. Who then is this “Artaxerxes”. We also know for a fact from Ezra 4 that Cambyses was an “Artaxerxes” even though he is not recognized historically as an “Artaxerxes”. The confusion lies in the translation. In the English translation of this verse the word “and” preceding Artaxerxes is the Hebrew letter "vav" which is used as a conjunction or an introductory particle. This letter is connected directly to the title “Artaxerxes”. Here is what the TWOT Hebrew lexicon says concerning this Hebrew letter.

_____________________________________________________________________________

"vav" particle conjunction; noun proper no gender no number no state 0519.0 w" (w¹), w> (w®), W (û) and, so, then, when, now, or, but, that, and many others. (ASV and RSV similar.) The vocalization varies.

This is an inseparable prefix which is used as a conjunction or introductory particle which can usually be translated "and.".

The fundamental use of the prefix is that of a simple conjunction "and," connecting words ("days and years," Gen 1:14), phrases ("and to divide" Gen 1:18), and complete sentences (connecting Gen 2:11 with verse 12). However it is used more often and for a greater variety of constructions than is the English connector "and.".

It is often used at the beginning of sentences, for which reason the KJV begins many sentences with an unexplained "and." This use may be explained as a mild introductory particle and is often translated "now" as in Exo 1:1 where it begins the book (KJV, ASV; the RSV ignores it completely; cf. Gen 3:1; Gen 4:1).

The item following the prefix is not always an additional item, different from that which preceded: "Judah and Jerusalem" (Isa 1:1), pointing out Jerusalem especially as an important and representative part of Judah; "in Ramah, and in his own city" (1Sam 28:3), the two being the same place, hence the translation "even" as explanatory. When the second word specifies the first the construction is called a "hendiadys," i.e., two words with one meaning. For example, "a tent and a dwelling" in 2Sam 7:6 means "a dwelling tent.".

_____________________________________________________________________________

This letter "vav" is translated based on the context of the idea in which it is found. The translators in this case did not base their translation on the context. Had they translated according to context they would not have used the "vav" as a conjunction denoting a separate idea but as a hendiadys i.e. two words with one meaning. According to Ezra 1-6 there were no other separate “Artaxerxes” who gave a commandment that helped build the Temple. Based on the context a more accurate translation of the letter "vav" would read “even” Artaxerxes. This immediately clears up confusion. The verse would better read this way:

” And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius (even) Artaxerxes king of Persia.”

Translated based on the context of the preceding chapters this verse shows that in Ezra 6, Darius I (Hystaspes) is considered an “Artaxerxes” by the author of Ezra. This also confirms the evidence developed above which shows that Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries of Darius I (Hystaspes) not “Artaxerxes” I (Longimanus).

This understanding of Ezra clears up the confusion surrounding a supposed "gap" between Ezra 6 and 7. In Ezra 6 it states that the Temple was completed in the 6th year of Darius. Then in Ezra 7 it states that Ezra left for Jerusalem in the 7th year of "Artaxerxes". The "Darius" of Ezra 6 and the "Artaxerxes" of Ezra 7 are one and the same ruler. These titles are only used to emphasize a particular aspect of the Persian ruler "Darius" (Hystaspes).

So in conclusion the Scripture does not support the claim that the “commandment to restore and build Jerusalem” was given during the reign of “Artaxerxes” I (Longimanus) regardless of which "commandment" is used. This “commandment” could only have been given during the reign of Cyrus or Darius I (Hystaspes).

Division between the periods

In the prophecy the 69 weeks prior to the last are separated into a chunk of seven sevens and another chunk of sixty-two sevens. There is little description in the prophecy to enlighten one as to why the division is there in the first place. Some, such as Edward Young, suggest that the first set of 49 years represents the gap between one decree and another. His viewpoint is that the first decree by Cyrus represents the beginning of the prophecy, and the decree by Darius is represented by the second part of the prophecy (admittedly, this would force 49 years to lie between 538 BC and 520 BC, but Young does not hold that the years are definite measures of time).

Another viewpoint is that the first seven set of seven years represents the time it took to clean out Jerusalem and restore the city. This is John Walvoord's supposition, but he does not consider it particular important in the grand scheme of things.

A composite interpretation involves the identification of the Ezra decree's progenitor with Artaxerxes Memnon. Then, there are 49 years between Nehemiah's decree and Ezra's decree. Since Nehemiah's decree was followed by a start to rebuilding and Ezra's decree was followed by the end of the temple building and the dedication of the new temple, the two events can also stand as the endpoints of the restoration period.

Fulfillment

A variety of opinion is present as to possible fulfillment of the prophecy. This passage has caused great concern for Jews as it suggests through any cursory calculation that their Messiah should already have come. It is for this reason that a curse was placed on any who attempt to calculate the end times. Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon, better known as "Maimonides", is one of the most prominent exegetes in Jewish history, and he wrote of this exact concern in his Igeret Teiman. His viewpoint was that the timing was sealed up so that none should attempt to calculate when the Messiah was coming, and he was concerned that the "untutored" would be led astray upon finding that the Messiah's time had already come. Rabbi Judah haNasi, one of the most respected teachers in Rabbinical Judaism for his work in assemblage of the Talmud, had a less hopeful viewpoint on the matter, indicating that the time of the fulfillment of the prophecy was long past. (Sanhedrin 98a and 97a)

Secular historians who hold that Daniel is a 2nd century BCE forgery generally hold that Antiochus Epiphanes is the fulfillment of the pseudo-prophecy found therein. Many conservative scholars believe that Antiochus is the fulfillment of other prophecies in Daniel without being the fulfillment of this one.

Some critics on both sides believe that no intelligible specific fulfillment exists. Among these are J.A. Montgomery and Edward Young. Conservatives respond that the words "Know and understand" in the prophecy imply an achievable solution.

One traditional chronology of the 69 weeks has been done from Ezra's decree in 458 BC to AD 26, the alleged date of Christ's baptism, a span of 483 solar years. The problem is that the prophecy is accurate only to the year, and even then very roughly. Some have used other methods to determine the chronology, some exact to the day.

Sir Robert Anderson used lunar data to fix the date of the first day of the first month of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (the day implied in Nehemiah) to March 14, 445 BC. He showed that, based on various apparent refererences to the Great Tribulation both as three and a half years and also as 1260 days, 360 days could be fixed as the length of what he called a "prophetic year". He fixed the end date to April 6, 32, which he offered as the date of the Triumphal Entry. Alva McClain and others have since concurred with this viewpoint. There have been objections raised to some of Anderson's calculations, with debate on both sides. For instance, later calculations have confirmed that Anderson was off by two days, as the opening date was a Friday, but the closing date a Sunday, something that could not happen in a whole number of seven-time periods. Also, Babylonian records appear to show a leap month in 445 BC (so Nisan 1, the date of the decree, should be one month later on April 13). Moreover, Sunday, April 6 was almost certainly not Nisan 10, and more likely Nisan 6, with Passover eight days later on Monday the 14th.

Harold Hoehner set forth revisions to Anderson and gave an opening date of March 4, 444 BC (the one year shift being due to a different accession date of Artaxerxes) with the end of the 69 weeks on March 30, 33. The same errors with Anderson's calculations also plague Hoehner's, for he miscalculated the length of a year. The leap month means that Nisan 1 probably occurred on April 3 or 4. Ron Bigalke Jr. set forth revisions to Anderson and Hoehner based on the year of Artaxerxes succession as August 465 BC which Hoehner timed as December 465 BC. According to Bigalke, the end of the 69 weeks may be March 26, 33. However, this event loses its significance as the Triumphal Entry, for it does not occur on Sunday as church tradition dictates, nor on Monday as some new interpretations report. Bigalke did indicate the problem of a 26 March date since it would be too soon before Jesus' arrival in Bethany and the Passover. He stated that Hoehner did admit the possibility that Artaxerxes may have given permission to Nehemiah later than 1 Nisan. Bigalke's conclusion was if the starting date was 5 Nisan (which Hoehner left possible) then the number of days would be an exact 173,880 days.

The 19th century theologian Nathaniel West offered a completely different Christian solution and utilized strong internal biblical evidence to begin the prophecy with the decree of Cyrus (see Isa. 44:28, 45:13) and end the 69th week with the birth of Jesus' rather than with Jesus' Triumphal Entry. The recent work by T.T. Schlegel further builds upon West's original scholarship and adds additional historical, hermeneutical and textual support.

Another interpretation can be found at a Christian apologetics ministry, The Moorings. It dates the decree to the divine command in response to Nehemiah's prayer in chapter 1 of his book, on November 24, 446 BC. Counting 173 880 days results in December 15, 31, which is given as the date of the Transfiguration. An extension is then added counting off 62 weeks (Dan. 9:26), but this time, in ordinary seven-day periods, to February 20, 33 (depending on reckoning), which is postulated to be the date of Lazarus' resurrection (and the subsequent warrant of arrest to Jesus, John 11:45-57). They back this up with a Talmudic passage citing approximately 40 days between a warrant of arrest and a crucifixion of a certain "Yeshu", deemed to be a corruption of the Hebrew form of Jesus. There are 42 days from the condemnation to the crucifixion, if the latter is placed on the traditional date of April 3, 33.

More on the fringes, Michael Travesser, spiritual leader of the self-proclaimed cult, Strong City, calculated 490 years, or 70 "weeks of years" from October 31, 1517, the date traditionally given for Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the door of Castle Church. Thus he predicts the fulfillment of Daniel's prophesy for late 2007!

See also

• Book of Revelation
• Christian eschatology

External links

• Articles on Sir Robert Anderson's calculations and similar chronologies
  • Thoughts on the Seventy Weeks
  • The 69 Weeks with calculations using the lunar cycles in Sir Robert Anderson's scheme
  • A chart of the future 70th Week of Daniel showing possible connections to the yet unfulfilled Fall Feasts of Israel.
  • Prophecy Watch
  • An article with a focus on Anderson
  • A page purporting many objections to Anderson's calculations and suggesting an interesting other interpretation
  • A tribute to Anderson and an online copy of the text.
• Link to an alternative Christian solution that builds upon the original work of the respected 19th century theologian Nathaniel West
  • T.T. Schlegel's recent book
• Other Articles
  • A discussion of Jewish thought on the endtimes

References

• Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince (ISBN 0-8254-2115-2)
• Ron J. Bigalke Jr., "Government of the Future," in One World (ISBN 0-9749811-8-4)
• Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (ISBN 0-310-26211-9)
• Clarence Larkin, The Book of Daniel (ISBN 0-7661-8573-7)
• John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key To Prophetic Revelation (ISBN 0-8024-1753-1)
• T. T. Schlegel, Know Therefore and Understand: A Biblical Explication of the First 69 Weeks of Daniel 9 (ISBN 0-9704330-9-3)

• Christian eschatology
• Ketuvim
• Old Testament books