This letter was originally sent to Allen off the list.
But since he posted his reply to it on the list, I
thought I would also post the letter which he replied
to on the list, so his reply could be read in context.
Hello Allen,
My regular E mail server seems to be down. So I am
using a different server. Thus my different E mail
address.
Thanks for your letter. I have a greater appreciation
for your position after reading it than before.
However, I am still not convinced of its validity.
Though I might be if I was not aware of what I believe
is a better solution. Before sharing that solution
with you I will comment on some of what you wrote.
You wrote: Money was no problem, they were given Cart
Blanch. They could have all the money they wanted for
anything they wanted.
This statement is obviously an exaggeration. If it
were completely true, Ezra would have had no trouble
doing whatever he set out to do. He could have
completely rebuilt the city, if that was his intent,
by hiring large regimens of mercenary guards to
protect his workers or simply paying off all who
opposed his rebuilding efforts.
You wrote: There is one possible reference to the work
Ezra did. ... Neh 1:3 "... The wall of Jerusalem is
broken down, and its gates have been burned with
fire." ... This breaking down of the wall and burning
of the gates with fire could not be from the time of
Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem. That would
hardly have been news. ... Ezra [was] the only one who
could have built the wall and put in the gates.
I don't think the condition of the wall and the gate
were being reported as "news." What was being reported
was the low moral of the people living in Jerusalem,
due to their city's continuing state of disrepair.
Considering the fact that 2 Kings 25 tells us that the
Babylonian armies broke down the wall of Jerusalem and
set fire to everything in it that would burn, and the
fact that we have no record in scripture of any
subsequent acts of arson or wall destruction, I think
it is poor exegesis to say that the wall and gate that
was then being described to Nehemiah must have been
new ones which were recently built by Ezra.
You wrote: And we know that when Nehemiah came to
inspect the city, he did so in secret so as not to let
their enemies know what his plans might be. If the
walls had been broken down and burned nearly a century
before by Nebuchadnezzar, why was Nehemiah so
cautious? This tells us that those that broke down
and burned the walls were still harassing the Jewish
people.
No, it only tells us that someone was then harassing
the Jewish people.
You wrote: Ezra was to restore Jerusalem as a place of
government and justice. How
could that be done with no governmental or judicial
buildings? There had to be rebuilding to allow for
restoring of the government.
That's a stretch. The American Indians had
governmental and judicial systems for centuries
without buildings. So did Israel in the wilderness for
forty years. Ezra may have done some building. But, in
the opinion of most who have studied this subject
matter, not enough to make his meager efforts in that
regard the object of Daniel's prophecy. Besides, we
have no record that Ezra ever gave "the word" to begin
rebuilding the city. Nehemiah gave just such an order.
(Neh. 2:17) Artaxerxes' decrees merely gave Ezra and
Nehemiah permission to do what they wanted to do.
Artaxerxes' decrees did not order any work to be done.
Nehemiah gave that order.
You wrote: And again, just rebuilding the wall and
habitations does not fulfill the second part of the
prophecy -- to restore Jerusalem.
That depends on your definition of the word "restore."
I understand it to mean restore Jerusalem to its
former glory. We could spend some time debating the
exact meaning of this word with Hebrew lexicons at
hand. I doubt such a discussion would prove decisive.
You wrote: And another interesting point is that while
the people were first rebuilding
the Temple, God said through Zechariah (see Ezra 5:1):
ZEC 2:3 "Then the angel who was speaking to me left,
and another angel came to meet him 4 and said to him:
"Run, tell that young man, `Jerusalem WILL BE A CITY
WITHOUT WALLS because of the great number of men and
livestock in it. 5 And I MYSELF WILL BE A WALL OF FIRE
around it,' declares the LORD, `and I will be its
glory within.'" ... So we need to ask, just how
important to God was a wall around Jerusalem anyway?
Well, considering the fact that the prophecy we are
discussing, Dan. 9:24-27, said that the city would be
rebuilt with a "plaza and moat" (NAS), with a "wall"
according to the King James Version, for a "moat" is a
trench that exists outside of a city's wall, I think
it is very important.
You wrote: Finegan [who dates Ezra's return to 458,
not 457] makes the typical mistake of trying to date
the decree and Ezra's trip according to the
Babylonian-Persian calendar which went from spring to
spring rather than the Jewish calendar which went from
fall to fall.
This is too debatable an issue for us to answer here
with any certainty.
You wrote: [Concerning the 15th year of Tiberius
Caesar] Again the problem here is trying to use the
Roman calendar and the Roman system of counting regnal
years and claiming that that is what Luke used.
Luke wrote his gopel to a Roman army officer. (Luke
1:3) Thus it is highly doubtful that he would have
dated the year of Christ's baptism in a way that would
have cauused him to think it occurred two years later
than it actually did.
You wrote: The death of Christ in AD 33 is very
unlikely ...
I'll take the opinion of those who have studied this
subject matter far more than you and I have. And I've
studied this subject matter very thoroughly for years
now. Finegan says AD 33. As do most other New
Testament historians today.
Something we should keep in mind is that if we hope to
use the "70 weeks" prophecy as a means of convincing
people that Jesus was the promised Messiah, it is
helpful to be able to have our dates for the baptism
and death of Jesus match up with those we can show
them in common reference books. AD 29 is the date we
will there find listed as the 15th year of Tiberius
Caesar. AD 33 is the date we will find most often
listed today for the death of Christ.
In case you are curious, I'll tell you how now
understand Daniel's "70 Weeks" prophecy.
I believe that Daniel's "70 Weeks" began to run when
Nehemiah ordered the work to begin on the rebuilding
of Jerusalem's wall after Artaxerxes issued a decree
in his 20th year which permitted Nehemiah to return to
Jerusalem to rebuild that Holy City. (Neh. 2)
Some see a problem with this understanding. For
Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" are widely understood to
refer to a period of 490 years, and all historians now
assure us that Artaxerxes' 20th year of ruling Persia
took place in 445 BC. And 490 years after 445 BC
brings us to 46 AD, which was quite a few years after
the death of Christ.
How then can I understand that Artaxerxes' decree in
his 20th year as king has anything to do with Daniel's
"Seventy Weeks" prophecy? Because I am convinced that
Nehemiah did not return to Jerusalem and give his
command to begin rebuilding that city until the year
440 BC, even though the Bible tells us that Nehemiah
had been granted permission by Artaxerxes to issue
such a command in Artaxerxes' 20th year as king of
Persia, which historians assure us took place in 445
BC. (Neh. 1:1-6)
I believe this because the first century Jewish
historian, Josephus, tells us that Nehemiah "came to
Jerusalem" not "in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes"
as the Bible seems to say, but in his "twenty and
fifth year." (Ant. XI, 5, 7) The fact is that the
Bible does not actually say that Nehemiah returned to
Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' 20th year. It only tells us
that Artaxerxes then gave Nehemiah permission to do
so. While Josephus, on the other hand, tells us of the
time that Nehemiah actually "came to Jerusalem." (It
is also possible that Nehemiah reckoned the reign of
Artaxerxes in a substantially different manner than
historians do today and Josephus did in his day. I'll
explain this later.)
Concerning this matter, in his book, "History Of
Israel" (third edition, 1981, pg. 381) John Bright
tells us, "The Bible gives us the impression that
Nehemiah set out at once, accompanied by a military
escort (Neh.2:9). But Josephus (Ant. XI, 5, 7), who
follows the Septuagint text, the first part of which
is preserved in 1 Esdres, places his arrival only in
440. Though assurance is impossible, this may be
correct. If Nehemiah first went to Babylon and
collected Jews to accompany him, as Josephus has it,
and then having presented his credentials to the
satrap of Abah-nahara, attended to the procurement of
building materials before proceeding to Jerusalem, as
he possibly did since work was begun soon after his
arrival, the date is not unreasonable."
Some who harmonize the accounts of Nehemiah and
Josephus in this way point out that it took Solomon
nearly four years to procure similar kinds of building
materials before he was able to begin building the
Temple. (2 Chr. chapters 1 and 2 and chapter 3, verses
1 and 2) And Solomon was much better funded than
Nehemiah, and unlike Nehemiah, Solomon was able to
conscript all the labor he needed for his building
project, rather than having to spend time finding
volunteers.
Other scholars agree with Bright's assessment of
Josephus' probable accuracy in this matter. For
instance, Sigmund Mowinckel, a highly regarded
Scandinavian Bible scholar, believes that Josephus
used a separate Greek version of Nehemiah that in
several respects differed from that preserved in the
LXX. He argues that Josephus' chronological
information on the Persian kings did not result from
his own calculations, or from any mistakes some say he
must have made in this matter. Mowinckel argues that
Josephus must have been quoting from a now lost Greek
version of Nehemiah. On Josephus' statement about the
25th year of Artaxerxes, Mowinckel maintains that
Josephus' figures are most likely the original ones.
He writes, "In my opinion the balance [of evidence] is
in favor of [the figure] '25'." (Vol. 3, p.45 of
Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehema, Vols. 1-3, Oslo,
1964)
But how does the fact that Nehemiah did not give his
order to begin rebuilding Jerusalem until 440 BC help
us to make sense of Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" prophecy?
As most students of Bible prophecy know, Daniel's
"seventy weeks" are generally understood as referring
to seventy weeks of years (seventy sets of seven
years) totaling a period of 490 solar years. But the
Jews used a lunar calendar! Their years were lunar
years, not solar years. So a week of years to the Jews
would have meant seven lunar years. And seventy weeks
of years to the Jews would have meant 490 lunar years,
not 490 solar years.
At the time of Daniel, on average about every three
years, the Jews added an extra month to the end of
their lunar calendars to make sure that they never
fell too far out of sync with the solar year. But at
the time Daniel wrote his "Seventy Weeks" prophecy the
Jews had no set system of doing so. When they decided
that it was time to add an extra month to their
calendars they called this extra month "second Adar."
However, the fact that they then sometimes added an
"intercalary" month to their lunar calendars does not
change the fact that, to the Jews, a "year" normally
meant 354 days. For that is the number of days which
one of their calendars most often contained. Their
calendars usually consisted of six 29 day months and
six 30 day months. So, to the Jews who lived at the
time Daniel wrote his "Seventy Weeks" prophecy, a
ìyearî would have been understood to mean a lunar
year, and a "week" of years (literally a ìsevenî of
years) would have been understood to mean seven lunar
years. And ìseventy weeksî of years would have been
understood to mean 490 lunar years, none of which were
then either automatically or routinely solar-adjusted.
Now, since one lunar year contains 354.367 days, 490
lunar years contain 173,639.83 days. And 173,639.83
days divided by 365.2425 (the number of days in a
solar year) equal 475.40 solar years. With these
things in mind, I have come to conclusion that
Daniel's "seventy weeks" were a period of 475.4 years
which ran from 440 BC to 36 AD. I believe those 475.4
years began at the time Nehemiah gave his "commandment
to restore and to build Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:25 KJV;
Neh. 2:17,18). And I believe those 475.4 years ended
at the time God acted to "confirm the [new] covenant
with many" by pouring His Holy Spirit out on Gentiles
for the first time (Dan. 9:27 KJV; Acts 10). I believe
the "many" here referred to were the "many nations"
God promised Abraham that he would one day become the
father of. (Gen. 17:4)
As anyone who has thoroughly studied the history of
this prophecy's interpretation knows, this is by no
means a new idea or a novel one. In the year 221 AD
Julius Africanus in his work entitled "Chronographia"
argued that the 490 years were lunar years of 354 days
each, which he converted into 475 solar years. He
counted them from the 20th year of Artaxerxes, which
he correctly dated to the 4th year of the 83rd
Olympiad (=445/444 BC). From this date, he said, to
"the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (30/31
AD, his date for the death of Christ), there are
reckoned 475 years, which take 490 according to the
Hebrew numeration, as they measure the years by the
course of the moon; so that, as is easy to show, their
year consists of 354 days, while the solar year has
365 1/4 days." (Africanus' Chronographia XVI, 3
translated in The Ante-Nicence fathers, Vol. VI ed. A.
Roberts & J. Donaldson, p. 135) Many later expositors
followed Africanus in doing this.
I believe that the facts of history, together with a
knowledge that the Jews used a lunar calendar, combine
to show that the Messiah (meaning "anointed one") was
first presented to Israel in the year 29 AD by John
the baptist, after sixty-nine weeks of lunar years had
passed, when John anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the
waters of his baptism in "the 15th year of Tiberius
Caesar." (Luke 3:1,21). At that time Jesus Christ was
"cut off" from his people and, quite literally, "had
nothing for himself." (Dan. 9:26) For he then began a
forty day long fast in the wilderness. Then, after
three and a half years, in the middle of Daniel's
seventieth week, in the spring of 33 AD, Christ's
sacrificial death brought an end to the Jewish system
of sacrificial offerings. (Dan. 9:27) Finally, three
and a half years later, at the end of Daniel's
"Seventy Weeks," in the early fall of 36 AD, Christ
"confirmed a covenant with many" (Dan. 9:27) when he,
for the first time, poured out his Holy Spirit on
non-Jewish people. (Acts 10)
Doing so confirmed the fact that God, from that time
forward, would give everyone who put their faith in
Jesus Christ, both Jews and Gentiles, complete
forgiveness of their sins and eternal life. With this
fact in mind, the good news of what Jesus Christ had
done for mankind then began to be preached to all
people on earth, just as Christ said that it would be.
(Math. 24:14)
There is another solution to this ancient puzzle that
also fits all the facts of history. This solution
eliminates the problem of Nehemiah taking five years
to get to Jerusalem, which some people have a hard
time accepting. Historians tell us that Artaxerxes did
not gain legal control of Persia's throne until six
years after the assassination of his father Xerxes.
Because he did not, it is very possible that Nehemiah
did not count the first six years of Artaxerxes' reign
during which its legality was being contested. Those
who have thoroughly studied the way in which Bible
writers reckoned the reigns of Israel's and Judah's
kings tell us that they apparently employed this
"legal count" system of reckoning.
If this is true, then when Nehemiah referred to
Artaxerxes' 20th year he would have been referring to
the same year Josephus referred to when he told us
Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' 25th year,
440 BC.
The historical information which strongly suggests
that Nehemiah very likely employed this "legal count"
system of reckoning is contained in the works of
several ancient historians. I'll here give you a
condensed version of it.
Artaxerxes came to the throne of Persia in August of
465 BC following the murder of his father Xerxes. To
gain the throne for himself Artaxerxes and his
supporters, the real murderers, blamed Xerxes' murder
on the rightful heir to the throne, Artaxerxes' older
brother crown prince Darius. They then had Darius
unjustly executed. For the next six years Artaxerxes'
legal right to rule Persia was hotly disputed. Why?
Because ancient Persia was not a "banana republic" in
which anyone willing to assassinate their country's
head of state and then take his place with the support
of several armed friends had just as much a legal
right to run their country's government as anyone else
did. Ancient Persia was then governed by a hereditary
monarchy. In that monarchy, upon the death of a king,
the right to rule legally passed from a father to his
first born son. If that first born son was, for some
reason, legally disqualified from becoming king, the
right to rule then passed to the king's next oldest
son. If a king had no son who was legally qualified to
inherit the throne, upon his death the right to rule
passed to his oldest brother.
Following king Xerxes' murder and the execution of
crown prince Darius, Artaxerxes' older brother
Hyspases was legally next in line to inherit Persia's
throne. However, Hyspases was then away governing the
Persian Provence of Bactria. Because he was,
Artaxerxes was able to sit on his father's throne. It
is said that for the next few years Hyspases rightly
maintained that he held the legal right to rule
Persia. Sometime during the first few years of
Artaerxes' legally disputed reign as king, he and his
older brother Hyspases met on the field of battle to
resolve this issue, and some others. In Artaxerxes'
effort to suppress what historians call "the Bactrian
revolt," he then killed his older brother Hyspases.
However, when Artaxerxes killed Hyspases he did
nothing to remove the cloud of illegitimacy that then
hung over his rulership of Persia. If anything, he
only darkened that cloud. For a son or a brother of a
king who killed the king was not legally allowed to
inherit the kingdom from the king he had killed. So,
at the time Artaxerxes killed Hyspases, the right to
rule Persia legally passed to Xerxes full brother,
Achamenes, who was then away governing Egypt.
It was not until the year 459 BC that Artaxerxes
finally gained the legal right to rule the Persian
empire, an empire he had been illegitimately ruling
since 465 BC. For it was in that year that Artaxerxes'
uncle Achamenes was killed in a battle in Egypt. It
was only at that time, in 459 BC, that Artaxerxes was
finally able to legally wear the crown of the king of
Persia.
Nehemiah serving at the King's court would have been
aware of these legal matters which put the legality of
the first six years of Artaxerxes' reign in question.
If Nehemiah, like other Bible writers who recorded
chronological information, did not count years of a
king's rule in which their right to rule was legally
in question, he would have counted 459 BC as
Artaxerxes' first year as Persia's king. And if
Nehemiah counted 459 BC as Artaxerxes' first year, he
would have counted 440 as Artaxerxes' 20th year.
In other words, we have strong reason to believe that
Nehemiah reckoned the reign of Artaxerxes differently
than the way in which it was then commonly reckoned,
the way in which Josephus' sources reckoned it, and
the way in which it is commonly reckoned today. When
Nehemiah wrote of Artaxerxes' "20th year" it appears
likely that he was not referring to the year 445 BC,
as has long been thought, but to 440 BC, just as
Josephus clearly was when he told us that Nehemiah
came to Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' "25th year."
And sixty-nine "sevens" of years (483 lunar years)
after 440 brings us to AD 29, the year Jesus became
the Messiah.
My verse by verse commentary of Dan. 9:24-27 (NAS) is
[in brackets.]
24 "Seventy weeks [490 lunar years] have been decreed
for your people and your holy city, to finish the
transgression, to make an end of sin, to make
atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting
righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to
anoint the most holy place.
25 "So you are to know and discern that from the
issuing of a decree ["from the going forth of the
commandment" - KJV] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem
[Nehemiah's on site order to begin rebuilding
Jerusalem's wall, upon his return to Jerusalem in
Artaxerxes' 25th year, as per Josephus, which
historians identify for us as 440 BC] until Messiah
the Prince [Jesus Christ] there will be seven weeks
and sixty-two weeks [7 x 7 lunar years + 62 x 7 lunar
years = 483 lunar years. 483 lunar years from 440 BC =
29 AD, which was "the fifteenth year of Tiberius
Caesar," in which year Jesus was baptized]; it will be
built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of
distress. [The first "seven weeks" - 49 lunar years -
ran from July of 440 BC until January of 392 BC,
during which time the city of Jerusalem was completely
rebuilt, despite great opposition from neighboring
nations.]
26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be
cut off and have nothing [Following Christ's baptism
he cut himself off from all human contact while he
literally "had nothing," as he then fasted in the
wilderness for forty days.], and the people [Rome's
armies] of the prince who is to come [General Titus,
the son of the Roman Emperor Vespasian, thus a
"prince"] will destroy the city and the sanctuary
[Rome's destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple in 70
AD]. And its end will come with a flood [the hoards of
soldiers who then descended upon the city]; even to
the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
[All of the words in verse 26, following its reference
to "the Messiah" being cut off and having nothing,
should be read parenthetically. For they refer to
events which would occur 30 - 34 years after the
"seventy weeks" came to an end.]
27 "And he [the Messiah] will make a firm covenant
with the many ["confirm a covenant" - NIV - referring
to the "New Covenant" which was established by the
death of Christ and confirmed with "many" by the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the gentiles, as
recorded in Acts chapter 10. Romans 15:8-12 tells us
that the covenant promises which Christ "confirmed"
were those God made to the patriarchs concerning the
Gentiles. The "many" here referred to are all the
nations of the earth, Jews and Gentiles. God told
Abraham, in Gen. 17:4, that he would become the father
of "many nations."] for [The word "for" here is absent
from the Hebrew. I believe the context strongly
suggests that the word "after" should instead be here
inserted.] one week [at the end of the 70th "week"
which ended in 36 AD], but in the middle of the week
[again the 70th "week," the middle of which was the
spring of 33 AD] he [the Messiah] will put a stop to
sacrifice and grain offering [which Jesus Christ's
sacrificial death brought an end to]; and on the wing
of abominations will come one who makes desolate [In
Mark 13:14 and its parallel passage, Luke 21:20, Jesus
himself clearly identified the "abomination of
desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet" as the
"armies" which he said would "surround Jerusalem"
prior to its destruction in 70 AD.], even until a
complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured
out on the one who makes desolate." [Jerusalem's
desolator, General Titus, became Emperor of Rome in 79
AD. Within months Mount Vesuvius erupted burying
Pompeii. The following year, 80 AD, a fire destroyed
much of Rome. Titus uttering "the fire has ruined me"
was forced to sell or strip all of his imperial
estates to hasten Rome's recovery. Then, in the fire's
wake, one of the worst plagues on record descended
upon Italy. Finally, on September 1, 81 AD, for
reasons unknown, Titus fell painfully ill and died,
only two years after gaining Rome's throne.]
Mike Satterlee
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 29 2002 - 14:47:18 EDT