Click here to send us Questions or Comments
Copyright �
1997-2004
High Top Media
All Rights Reserved.
For
October-December 2003
Volume 6 Number 4
The Seventy Weeks Prophecy: Does It Lead to Jesus?
It was Yahweh, not Cyrus, who commanded the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem. Isaiah recorded that Yahweh intended a Cyrus, a yet unborn gentile Persian king, to release the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem who would embark on rebuilding the Temple and Jerusalem.
PART II The Prophecy Fulfilled
The hypothesis, or theory if you prefer, that the 70 Weeks Prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth is traditional Christian teaching. There exists some quibbling which specific year his ministry began but that is irrelevant for purposes of the current analysis. Based on the findings in Part I The Removal of Sin I tentatively rejected this hypothesis. Note that I said tentative. The question is whether or not additional data of significance would falsify or support the hypothesis.
The Decree of Artaxerxes
|
We are often told that Ezra 7:11-26 tells of the decree of Artaxerxes, ca. 458 or 457 BCE, permitting the Jews to return to Eretz Israel to restore and build Jerusalem and to engage in worship there. While the general Protestant view is that this decree occurred in BCE 458 (following a Nisan-to-Nisan year) a few, such as Herman L. Hoeh, argue it occurred a year later in BCE 457 following a Tishri-to-Tishri year (Hoeh 1959b:16-17).F1 The year is important as many use this date as the beginning point of the Seventy-Weeks Prophecy of Daniel (Daniel 9:25) to determine from the Hebrew Scriptures when a messiah was to appear.
They hold that from the issuance of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem, in the early spring of the 7th year of Persian king Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7), then 69 (the 7+62 weeks of Daniel 9:25) prophetic weeks (in which a prophetic day equals a year), or 483 years in literal time, would pass until the Messiah would come. The decree issued in Nisan (Mar.-Apr.). Counting 483 years from spring BCE 458 or spring 457 brings us to spring of CE 26 or CE spring 27 (because of the crossover from BCE to CE one must add one year), which was when Jesus being about 30 years old began His ministry (Luke 3:23. The chart (Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Analysis) below summarizes the matter.
The Gospels, in the traditional Protestant view, show that his crucifixion was on the fourth Passover of His ministry, which would be by this reckoning in the spring of 30 CE (the conventional date for the Crucifixion) or 31 CE (the date favored by Adventists and some of the Churches of God). The seventieth week then defines a seven year ministry of Jesus Christ� a 3�-year ministry during his first coming (wherein he was cut off or crucified in the middle of the week) and a 3�-year ministry at his second coming. William Dankenbring, however, writes that the "last seven days or final week of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy refer to the final seven years of this present age, which culminate in the return of the Messiah" (Dankenbring 2003b:48). He holds that Jesus' preached the gospel for "three years, from the spring of 27 A.D. until the spring of 30 A.D." (Dankenbring 2003b:43). Ernest Martin argues that the ministry of Jesus, beginning at the Passover of A.D. 28 and ending with his crucifixion at Passover A.D. 30, was only of 2 years duration (Martin 1996b:428-430). Others suggest the ministry began in the fall A.D. 27 and lasted 3� years (4 Passovers). There are other views as well. Nevertheless, this analysis yields years 29-31 as possible candidates for the year of the Crucifixion..
The analysis rests upon three basic assumptions:
-
The first assumption is that the decree of Artaxerxes issued in Nisan (Mar.-Apr.) BCE 458 or 457 is the decree to rebuild Jerusalem spoken of in Daniel 9:25.
-
The second assumption is that the passage is dealing with the appearance of Messiah the Prince meaning it defines when Jesus of Nazareth was to begin his ministry ca. 26 or 27 CE.
-
The third assumption is that 69 prophetic weeks (read 69 X 7 or 483 actual years) lie from this particular decree to when Jesus of Nazareth began his ministry.
Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Analysis
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You can see that there are various ways of overlaying the Seventy Weeks Prophecy on the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. There is no clear and convincing scenario. There is no exact factual fit. The reason is that the Seventy Weeks Prophecy has nothing to do with Jesus' ministry. It had to do with the Maccabees and the temple. Its tempting to apply Daniel 9 to Jesus of Nazareth as a proof of his being the Messiah but it is illusory and eisogesis not exegesis. The evidence of his being the Messiah was the Resurrection not the Seventy Weeks prophecy. Please take the time to read my article The Decree of Artaxerxes: Is It a Key to the Date of the Crucifixion?
Who Issued the Decree to Restore and Rebuild Jerusalem?
Recall that Daniel 9:25 refers to "the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" as the key beginning point for fulfillment of the 70 Weeks Prophecy. Here is where we encounter a major problem. Those who use this line of reasoning by and large employ the Decree of Artaxerxes, dated BCE 458/457, of Nehemiah 2:1-8 as the decree required by Daniel 9:25. It is the only decree of record in the Hebrew Scriptures that can square the numbers in the Seventy Weeks Prophecy with Jesus of Nazareth beginning his ministry in 26/27 CE.
Nehemiah 2:1 reports that in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I a downcast Nehemiah appeared before the king in the month of Nisan. He explained to the curious king that he could not be other than sad when "the city, the place of my fathers' tombs, lies desolate and its gates have been consumed by fire?" (Nehemiah 2:3). He said to the king "send me to Judah, to the city of my father's tombs, that I may rebuild it" (Nehemiah 2:5). He also asked for a supply of timber for the beams for the gates of the fortress which is by the temple, for the wall of the city, and for the house to which he would will go (Nehemiah 2:5, 2:8). The king granted his requests and issued the necessary letters (Nehemiah 2:8).
Here there is specific language dealing with rebuilding in the city. Indeed, it is the only decree of Artaxerxes that suggests any rebuilding in the city. The language of this passage in Nehemiah does not suggest, however, that this was the launch of an effort to rebuild Jerusalem. Rather, it implies that it was Nehemiah's request to join the ongoing building of Jerusalem by bringing the necessary materials specifically for construction of walls, gates, and an official residence for the governor.
In context, this decree by Artaxerxes I did not commission the rebuilding of Jerusalem. At best it permitted the establishment of fortifications through the rebuilding of city walls and gates and the construction of an official residence for the governor. The king appointed Nehemiah to the task. The weight of the evidence shows that the decree of Artaxerxes I, at Nehemiah 1, is not the one spoken of in Daniel 9:25. For further information refer to the article The Decree of Artaxerxes: Is it the Key to the Date of the Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth?
Where then lies the "issuing of a decree to restore and to build Jerusalem"? Consider Daniel's words in Daniel 9:2 and Daniel 9:23.
9.2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was {revealed as} the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, {namely,} seventy years. (Daniel 9:2.)
29:10 "For thus says the LORD, 'When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place. (Jeremiah 29:10.)
In 605 BCE Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem and besieged it (Daniel 1:1). Judah's king, Jehoiakim, changed his loyalty to the Babylonians rather than the Egyptians and he became Nebuchadnezzar's vassal king (II Kings 24:1). The Babylonians seized temple vessels as booty, and along with Daniel and other captives, brought to Babylon (Daniel 1:3-4 thereby beginning the 1st phase of the Babylonian Captivity. Taking 70 years from 605 BCE brings us to 535 BCE [605/604 BCE less 70 years = 535/534 BCE]. This year saw the Return of the Jews under Zerubbabel (70 years, inclusive, from 1st phase of captivity in 605 BCE). Reconstruction of the Temple begun.
The NASB at Daniel 9:25 refers to "Messiah the Prince" but the Tanakh renders this "anointed Leader." Can the Hebrew accommodate either translation? There can be multiple meaning in words and phrases as is the case here. Is prophetic type and antitype involved here? Can the "anointed leader" be the type and "Messiah the Prince" the antitype within the meaning of the ancient Hebrew words? If so, then there is a dual meaning in this prophecy as it could be a direct answer to Daniel's prayer dealing with the rebuilding of Jerusalem and restoration of the Temple, and also be a prophecy concerning the appearance of the Messiah. Translators use the words "anointed leader" (TANAKH), "Messiah the Prince" (KJV), "the Anointed One, the Prince" (Rhm), "an anointed Prince" (Jerus), and "a Prince, a Messiah" (Ber). The Hebrew can refer to an anointed leader or to a Messiah Prince to be killed. Resolution of this issue requires further analysis of the context and details of the passage. The ambiguity of the Hebrew allows multiple meaning.
The 70 Weeks Prophecy Fulfilled in the Maccabees
The hypothesis that the 70 Weeks Prophecy depicts the Maccabean liberation of Jerusalem from the Seleucids is held by a small minority of scholars. In the modern-critical view the prophecy is not seen as a command of a man, but as God's promise to not leave Jerusalem desolate and that his people would go back there. Moreover, minimalists argue that the book of Daniel is an ex post facto work, that is, it is a fraud written after the occurrence of the events it foretells. The few scholarly expositions advancing these views typically point to the 434-year period from 605 BCE (Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Jerusalem) to 171 BCE (the death of Onias III) as fulfillment of the set of 62 prophetic weeks of Daniel 9:25-26. They fail, however, in that they offer weak explanations for the 49 years preceding 605 BCE. Some critics of the theory enjoy pointing out that nothing of prophetic significance occurred 49 years earlier in 654 BCE. Indeed, pursuing through the extant literature of advocates and critics alike reveals little tangible evidence. So then, let's embark on a different approach.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Isaiah quotes Yahweh at Isaiah 44:28. The question is�Who is it that declares of Jerusalem "She will built" and of the temple "Your foundation will be laid"? Is it a declaration of Yahweh or Cyrus? It is true that Cyrus, in his first regnal year, issued a proclamation for the Jews to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. Is that decree, in the context of Ezra 1:1-4, cf. Ezra 6:1-5, II Chronicles 36:22, sufficient basis for us to construe this proclamation to rebuild the Temple as one authorizing the specific rebuilding and restoration of Jerusalem? There is no specific language in the proclamation by Cyrus suggesting his call for the rebuilding of the city.
For political reasons Cyrus II ordered the rebuilding of many temples throughout the empire in an effort to gain popular support for his government. The cuneiform Cyrus Cylinder records that Cyrus II returned foreign exiles to their former homes and established sanctuaries for their images in place of ruined ones (Finegan 1998:266; Pritchard 1955:315-316). In 539 BCE, for example, "all the effigies of the Assyrian gods which had been captured by the Babylonians were returned to their native cities and their temples were rebuilt" (Armstrong 1996:91).
Strategically it was not in Cyrus' interest to rebuild conquered cities thereby enabling them capable of resisting Persian dominance. In both Ezra and Nehemiah lie the accounts of continued resistance to any attempts to rebuild Jerusalem continuing for over eight decades beyond Cyrus' death. There was no Persian royal decree to rebuild Jerusalem until 445 BCE, 93 years after Cyrus' decree to rebuild the Temple, that Artaxerxes I issued it to Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2:1-5).
|
||||||
Who was it then at Isaiah 44:28 who declares of Jerusalem "She will built" and of the temple "Your foundation will be laid"? It was Yahweh's command! It was Yahweh, not Cyrus, who commanded the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem.
Isaiah 45:13 further records Yahweh's promise that Jerusalem will not remain desolate. The logical consequence of freeing Jewish exiles commissioned to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem is the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Creating living spaces, clearing the Temple site, and opening commercial ventures are acts of building the city. They are consequences. Yahweh can say at Isaiah 45:13 that he, Cyrus, will rebuild my city and let the exiles go free. This does not mean that Cyrus commanded for the city to be rebuilt. He commanded the Temple to be rebuilt.
Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Fulfilled in the Maccabees
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The majority of Christians should not find fault with this analysis. They argue that it was Artaxerxes not Cyrus who ordered the city rebuilt for they understand the Seventy Weeks Prophecy as pointing to when the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, would appear. Sixty-nine prophetic weeks, 483 years, from Cyrus' proclamation for the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple would place Jesus' appearance too early. Consider, Cyrus' reigned 539−530 BCE so the passing of 483 years from this period would be 56−47 BCE. This is at least eight decades before Jesus commenced his ministry.
The evidence suggests that during the reign of Manasseh (Archer 1985:107), Isaiah learned that Yahweh intended a Cyrus, a yet unborn gentile Persian king, to release the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem who would embark on rebuilding the Temple and Jerusalem. Note that this Cyrus would have no freedom of choice in this matter for Yahweh decreed that it would be so. This prophecy does not record a prediction but rather a declaration. It was the prophetic command of Yahweh, in 654 BCE, that was "the issuance of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Daniel 9:25 Tanakh) not the later release of Jewish exiles by Cyrus II (538-529) and their 535 BCE return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple.
These data imply that the intent of Cyrus II was to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem not the city. It was not permission to rebuild Jerusalem per se nor its walls but specifically limited to Temple reconstruction. Consequently it was not the one spoken of in Daniel 9:25. This does not rule out, however, that the act of Jews moving to Jerusalem, taking up residence there, and commencing reconstruction of the Temple was not participation in the slow, de facto rebuilding of the city that predated the decree by several decades.
It is from this point in 654 BCE, during Manasseh's reign, when the Babylonians captured the wicked king and took him to Babylon in a mini-Babylonian captivity (the pre-phase), that Yahweh issued the commandment for the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem (Isaiah 44:28, 45:13). Without any financial inducement to Cyrus the rebuilding of Jerusalem would result and its people freed from exile (Isaiah 45:13).
Forty-nine years later, in 605 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem and besieged it (Daniel 1:1). At that point Judah's king, Jehoiakim switched his loyalty from the Egyptians to the Babylonians. He became Nebuchadnezzar's vassal king (II Kings 24:1). The Babylonians seized various Temple vessels as booty, and along with Daniel and other captives, brought them to Babylon (Daniel 1:3-4) thereby beginning the 1st phase of the Babylonian Captivity. The desolations of Jerusalem spoken of in Daniel 9:2 commence and run for 70 years [605−535 BCE]. In 535 BCE, exactly 70 years later (654 BCE - 70 years = 535 BCE), Cyrus allowed the return of the Jews under Zerubbabel to resettle Jerusalem and build the Temple.
Summary and Conclusion
Based on these data that whether Artaxerxes I issued a decree in 458 or 457 BCE is irrelevant with respect to Daniel 9 for the prophecy dealt with the Maccabeans not Jesus Christ. The incidental resettlement of the city by Jews constituted a de facto rebuilding of the city, an evolutionary process, extending over many decades. It began long before Artaxerxes issued his two decrees. The decrees in Ezra and Nehemiah either hindered or advanced the process but there is no clear and convincing evidence that any of the four decrees considered in this analysis commissioned the launch of the rebuilding of the city.
F1The chronological challenge arises from Nehemiah 1:1 and Nehemiah 2:1. Taken literally these two verses suggest that the twentieth year of Artaxerxes in Nehemiah was reported on a fall-to-fall (Tishri-to-Tishri) calendar. If so, then the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes I was from the fall 458 to the fall of 457. The decree would date to Nisan in 457 BCE. For a scholarly discussion of this matter see Edwin M. Yamauchi's "Ezra-Nehemiah: Introduction" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Yamauchi 1988:572).
Page last edited: 03/13/05 07:36 AM
|
starting web/internet resource by the
