CHAPTER V. Back to
Top
THE ANGEL' S MESSAGE
SUCH was the message entrusted to the angel in response to the prophet's
prayer for mercies upon Judah and Jerusalem.
To whom shall appeal be made for an interpretation of the utterance? Not to the
Jew, surely, for though himself the subject of the prophecy, and of all men the
most deeply interested in its meaning, he is bound, in rejecting Christianity,
to falsify not only history, but his own Scriptures. Nor yet to the theologian
who has prophetic theories to vindicate, and who on discovering, perhaps, some
era of seven times seventy in Israel's history, concludes that he has solved the
problem, ignoring the fact that the strange history of that wonderful people is
marked through all its course by chronological cycles of seventy and multiples
of seventy. But any man of unprejudiced mind who will read the words with no
commentary save that afforded by Scripture itself and the history of the time,
will readily admit that on certain leading points their meaning is unequivocal
and clear.
The first question, therefore, which arises is whether history records any
event which unmistakably marks the beginning of the era.
Certain writers, both Christian and Jewish, have assumed that the seventy weeks
began in the first year of Darius, the date of the prophecy itself; and thus
falling into hopeless error at the very threshold of the inquiry, all their
conclusions are necessarily erroneous. The words of the angel are unequivocal:
"From the issuing of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Messiah
the Prince, shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." That Jerusalem was in
fact rebuilt as a fortified city, is absolutely certain and undoubted; and the
only question in the matter is whether history records the edict for its
restoration.
When we turn to the book of Ezra, three several decrees of Persian kings claim
notice. The opening verses speak of that strange edict by which Cyrus authorized
the building of the temple. But here "the house of the Lord God of Israel" is
specified with such an exclusive definiteness that it can in no way satisfy the
words of Daniel. Indeed the date of that decree affords conclusive proof that it
was not the beginning of the seventy weeks. Seventy years was the appointed
duration of the servitude to Babylon. (Jeremiah 27:6-17; 28:10; 29:10) But
another judgment of seventy years' "desolations" was decreed in
Zedekiah's reign, [8]
because of continued disobedience and rebellion. As an interval of
seventeen years elapsed between the date of the servitude and the epoch of the
"desolations," so by seventeen years the second period overlapped the first. The
servitude ended with the decree of Cyrus. The desolations continued till the
second year of Darius Hystaspes. [9]
And it was the era of the desolations, and not of the servitude
which Daniel had in view. [10]
The decree of Cyrus was the Divine fulfillment of the promise made to the
captivity in the twenty-ninth chapter of Jeremiah, and in accordance with that
promise the fullest liberty was granted to the exiles to return to Palestine.
But till the era of the desolations had run its course, not one stone was to be
set upon another on Mount Moriah. And this explains the seemingly inexplicable
fact that the firman to build the temple, granted to eager agents by Cyrus in
the zenith of his power, remained in abeyance till his death; for a few
refractory Samaritans were allowed to thwart the execution of this the most
solemn edict ever issued by an Eastern despot, an edict in respect of which a
Divine sanction seemed to confirm the unalterable will of a Medo-Persian king.
[11]
When the years of the desolations were expired, a Divine command was
promulgated for the building of the sanctuary, and in obedience to that command,
without waiting for permission from the capital, the Jews returned to the work
in which they had so long been hindered. (Ezra 5:1, 2, 5) The wave of political
excitement which had carried
Darius to the throne of Persia, was swelled by religious fervor against the
Magian idolatry. [12]
The moment therefore was auspicious for the Israelites, whose worship of
Jehovah commanded the sympathy of the Zoroastrian faith; and when the tidings
reached the palace of their seemingly seditious action at Jerusalem, Darius made
search among the Babylonian archives of Cyrus, and finding the decree of his
predecessor, he issued on his own behalf a firman to give effect to it. (Ezra 6)
And this is the second event which affords a possible beginning for the seventy
weeks. [13]
But though plausible arguments may be urged to prove that, either
regarded as an independent edict, or as giving practical effect to the decree of
Cyrus, the act of Darius was the epoch of the prophetic period, the answer is
clear and full, that it fails to satisfy the angel's words. However it be
accounted for, the fact remains, that though the "desolations" were
accomplished, yet neither the scope of the royal edict, nor the action of the
Jews in pursuance of that edict, went beyond the building of the Holy Temple,
whereas the prophecy foretold a decree for the building of the city; not
the street alone, but the fortifications of Jerusalem.
Five years sufficed for the erection of the building which served as a shrine
for Judah during the five centuries which followed. [14]
But, in striking contrast with the temple they had reared in days when
the magnificence of Solomon made gold as cheap as brass in Jerusalem, no costly
furniture adorned the second house, until the seventh year of Artaxerxes
Longimanus, when the Jews obtained a firman "to beautify the house of the Lord."
(Ezra 7:19, 27.) This letter further authorized Ezra to return to Jerusalem with
such of the Jews as desired to accompany him, and there to restore fully the
worship of the temple and the ordinances of their religion. But this third
decree makes no reference whatever to building, and it might be passed unnoticed
were it not that many writers have fixed on it as the epoch of the prophecy. The
temple had been already built long years before, and the city was still in ruins
thirteen years afterwards. The book of Ezra therefore will be searched in vain
for any mention of a "commandment to restore and build Jerusalem." But we only
need to turn to the book which follows it in the canon of Scripture to find the
record which we seek.
The book of Nehemiah opens by relating that while at Susa,
[15]
where he was cup-bearer to the great king, "an honor of no small account
in Persia," [16]
certain of his brethren arrived from Judea, and he "asked them concerning
the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning
Jerusalem." The emigrants declared that all were "in great affliction and
reproach," "the wall of Jerusalem also was broken down, and the gates thereof
were burned with fire." (Nehemiah 1:2) The first chapter closes with the record
of Nehemiah's supplication to "the God of heaven." The second chapter narrates
how "in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes," he was
discharging the duties of his office, and as he stood before the king his
countenance betrayed his grief, and Artaxerxes called on him to tell his
trouble. "Let the king live for ever," Nehemiah answered, "why should not my
countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchers, lieth
waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire!" "For what dost thou make
request?" the king demanded in reply. Thereupon Nehemiah answered thus: "If it
please the king, and if thy servant have found favor in thy sight, that thou
wouldest send me unto Judah, unto THE CITY of my fathers'
sepulchers, THAT I MAY BUILD IT." (Nehemiah 2:5) Artaxerxes fiated the
petition, and forthwith issued the necessary orders to give effect to it. Four
months later, eager hands were busy upon the ruined walls of Jerusalem, and
before the Feast of Tabernacles the city was once more enclosed by gates and a
rampart. (Nehemiah 6:15)
But, it has been urged, "The decree of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes is but
an enlargement and renewal of his first decree, as the decree of Darius
confirmed that of Cyrus." [17]
If this assertion had not the sanction of a great name, it would not
deserve even a passing notice. If it were maintained that the decree of the
seventh year of Artaxerxes was but "an enlargement and renewal" of his
predecessors' edicts, the statement would be strictly accurate. That decree was
mainly an authority to the Jews "to beautify the House of the Lord. which is in
Jerusalem," (Ezra 7:27) in extension of the decrees by which Cyrus and Darius
permitted them to build it. The result was to produce a gorgeous shrine
in the midst of a ruined city. The movement of the seventh of Artaxerxes was
chiefly a religious revival, (Ezra 7:10) sanctioned and subsidized by royal
favor; but the event of his twentieth year was nothing less than the restoration
of the autonomy of Judah. The execution of the work which Cyrus authorized was
stopped on the false charge which the enemies of the Jews carried to the palace,
that their object was to build not merely the Temple, but the city. "A
rebellious city" it had ever proved to each successive suzerain, "for which
cause" – they declared with truth, – its destruction was decreed. "We certify
the king" (they added) "that if this city be builded again, and the
walls thereof set up, thou shalt have no portion on this side the river."
[18]
To allow the building of the temple was merely to accord to a conquered
race the right to worship according to the law of their God, for the religion of
the Jew knows no worship apart from the hill of Zion. It was a vastly different
event when that people were permitted to set up again the far-famed
fortifications of their city, and entrenched behind those walls, to restore
under Nehemiah the old polity of the Judges. [19]
This was a revival of the national existence of Judah, and therefore it
is fitly chosen as the epoch of the prophetic period of the seventy weeks.
The doubt which has been raised upon the point may serve as an illustration of
the extraordinary bias which seems to govern the interpretation of Scripture, in
consequence of which the plain meaning of words is made to give place to the
remote and the less probable. And to the same cause must be attributed the doubt
which some have suggested as to the identity of the king here spoken of with
Artaxerxes Longimanus. [20]
The question remains, whether the date of this edict can be accurately
ascertained. And here a most striking fact claims notice. In the sacred
narrative the date of the event which marked the beginning of the seventy weeks
is fixed only by reference to the regnal era of a Persian king. Therefore we
must needs turn to secular history to ascertain the epoch, and history dates
from this very period. Herodotus, "the father of history," was the
contemporary of Artaxerxes, and visited the Persian court.
[21]
Thucydides, "the prince of historians," also was his contemporary. In the
great battles of Marathon and Salamis, the history of Persia had become
interwoven with events in Greece, by which its chronology can be ascertained and
tested; and the chief chronological eras of antiquity were current at the time.
[22]
No element is wanting, therefore, to enable us with accuracy and
certainty to fix the date of Nehemiah's edict.
True it is that in ordinary history the mention of "the twentieth year of
Artaxerxes" would leave in doubt whether the era of his reign were reckoned from
his actual accession, or from his father's death; [23]
but the narrative of Nehemiah removes all ambiguity upon this score. The
murder of Xerxes and the beginning of the usurper Artabanus's seven months'
reign was in July B.C. 465; the accession of Artaxerxes was in February B.C.
464; [24]
One or other of these dates, therefore, must be the epoch of Artaxerxes'
reign. But as Nehemiah mentions the Chisleu (November) of one year, and the
following Nisan (March) as being both in the same year of his master's reign, it
is obvious that, as might be expected from an official of the court, he reckons
from the time of the king's accession de jure, that is from July B.C.
465. The twentieth year of Artaxerxes therefore began in July B.C. 446, and the
commandment to rebuild Jerusalem was given in the Nisan following. The epoch of the
prophetic cycle is thus definitely fixed as in the Jewish month Nisan of the
year B.C. 445. [25]