In view of the proofs adduced in the preceding chapter, it
may now be accepted as a demonstrated fact that the unit of the prophetic era
of the seventy weeks is the luni-solar year of the ancient world. Our next
inquiry must be directed to ascertaining the epoch of that era.
The
language of the vision is simple and clear: "From the going forth of the
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince, shall be
seven weeks and threescore and two weeks." Here at least we might suppose that
no question could arise. But with Professor Driver, following the lead of the
wildest and worst of the foreign sceptical expositors, "the commandment to
rebuild Jerusalem" becomes the prophecy that Jerusalem would be rebuilt;
"Messiah, the Prince" becomes "Cyrus, King of Persia;" and by a false
punctuation which divides the sentence in the middle, the sixty-two weeks
become the period for which the city was to be restored. I appeal to the reader
to reject this nightmare system of interpretation, and to follow the early
fathers and the best of the modern expositors in accepting the words in their
plain and natural meaning.
What then was the "commandment," or edict, or
firman to build Jerusalem? The Book of Ezra records three several decrees of
Persian kings, relating to the Jews. The opening verses record the edict of
Cyrus, which authorised the return of the exiles. But this decree mentioned
only the temple and not the city; and moreover it referred to the era of the
Servitude, and not of the Desolations, which later era it was that Daniel had
in view. The sixth chapter records a decree issued by Darius Hystaspis to
confirm the decree of Cyrus, but this in no way extended the scope of the
earlier edict. The seventh chapter records a third decree, issued by Artaxerxes
Longimanus in his seventh year, but this again related merely to the temple and
its worship. The Book of Ezra therefore will be searched in vain for what we
seek, but the book which follows it gives it fully and explicitly.
The Book
of Neherniah opens by relating that while at Susa, where he was in attendance
as cupbearer to the king, "an honour of no small account in Persia," he learned
from certain of his brethren who had just arrived from Judea that the Jews
there were "in great affliction and reproach;" "the wall of Jerusalem also was
broken down, and the gates thereof were burned with fire."' The next chapter
relates that while discharging the duties of his high office, Artaxerxes
noticed his distress, and called for an explanation of it. "Let the king live
for ever," Nehemiah answered, "why should not my countenance be sad, when the
city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof
are burned with fire?" " For what dost thou make request?" the king demanded.
To which Nehemiah answered, "That thou wouldest send me unto Judab, unto the
city of my fathers' sepulchres, THAT I MAY BUILD IT." Artaxerxes forthwith
granted the petition, and issued an edict to give effect to it. This occurred
in the beginning of the Jewish year; and before the Feast of Tabernacles, in
the seventh month, Jerusalem was once more a city, enclosed by gates and
ramparts.
Of course there must have been many streets of inhabited houses
in Jerusalem ever since the first return of the exiles. But, as Dr. Tregelles
justly says, "the very existence of the place as a city depended upon such a
decree" as that of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. Once, at an earlier
period, work which the Jews were executing under the decree of Cyrus had been
stopped on the false charge that its design was to restore the city. "A
rebellious city" it had ever proved, the local officials declared in reporting
to the king; and they added, "If this cily be builded, and the walls thereof
again, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river." The
edict of Cyrus was in keeping with the general policy of toleration, to which
the inscriptions bear testimony: it was a wholly different matter to allow the
conquered race to set up again the famous fortifications of Jerusalem, and to
restore under Nehemiah the old polity of the Judges. This was a revival of the
political existence of Judah; and therefore no doubt it was that the event was
divinely chosen as the beginning of the prophetic era of the seventy weeks. It
is certain, moreover, that this edict of Artaxerxes is the only "commandment to
restore and build Jerusalem" recorded in history, and that under this
"command-ment" Jerusalem was in fact rebuilt. Unless, therefore, the nightmare
system of interpretation must prevail, we may accept it, not as a plausible
theory or a happy guess, but as a definite fact, that the seventy weeks are to
be computed from the date of the issuing of this decree. The date of it is
expressly recorded by Nehemiah. It was made in the beginning of the Jewish year
in the twentieth year of the king's reign. And the Julian date of the first
Nisan in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes is the 14th March B.C.
Here let
me quote the words of the vision once again. "From the going forth of the
commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be
seven weeks and threescore and two weeks. And after the threescore and two
weeks shall the Messiah be cut off." If, therefore, the vision be a Divine
prophecy, an era of" sixty-nine weeks," that is, of 483 prophetic years,
reckoned from the 14th March B.C. 445, should close with the public
presentation and death of "Messiah the Prince."
No student of the Gospels
can fail to see that the Lord's last visit to Jerusalem was not only in fact
but in intention the crisis of His ministry. From the time that the accredited
leaders of the nation had rejected His Messianic claims, He had avoided all
public recognition of those claims. But now His testimony had been fully given,
and the purpose of His entry into the capital was to openly proclaim His
Messiahship and to receive His doom. Even His apostles themselves had again and
again been charged that they should not make Him known; but now He accepted the
acclamations of "the whole multitude of the disciples." And when the Pharisees
protested, He silenced them with the indignant rebuke, "I tell you that if
these should hold their peace the stones would immediately cry out." These
words can only mean that the divinely appointed time had arrived for the public
announcement of His Messiahship, and that the Divine purpose could not be
thwarted.
The full significance of the words which follow is lost in our
Authorised Version. As the cry was raised by His disciples, "Hosanna to the Son
of David, blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord,"
He looked off towards the Holy City and exclaimed, "If thou also hadst known,
even ON THIS DAY, the things that belong to thy peace - but now they are hid
from thine eyes ! " The nation had already rejected Him, but this was the
fateful day when their decision must be irrevocable. And we are expressly told
that it was the fulfilment of the prophecy, "Shout, 0 daughter of Jerusalem;
behold thy King cometh unto thee." It was the only occasion on which His kingly
claims were publicly announced. And no other day in all His ministry will
satisfy the words of Daniel's vision.
And the date of that first "Palm
Sunday" can be ascertained with certainty. No year in the whole field of
ancient history is more definitely indicated than that of the beginning of our
Lord's public ministry. According to the Evangelist it was "the fifteenth year
of Tiberius Caesar." Now "the reign of Tiberius, as beginning from 19th August,
A.D. 14, was as well known a date in the time of Luke as the reign of Queen
Victoria is in our own day." The Evangelist, moreover, with a prophetic
anticipation of the perverseness of expositors and "reconcilers," goes on to
name six prominent public men as holding specified positions in the fifteenth
year of Tiberius, and each one of these is known to have actually held the
position thus assigned to him in the year in question. As, therefore, the first
Passover of the Lord's ministry was that of Nisan, A.D. 29, the date of the
Passion is thus fixed by Scripture itself. For it is no longer necessary to
offer proof that the crucifixion took place at the fourth Passover of the
ministry. According to the Jewish custom, our Lord went up to Jerusalem on the
8th Nisan,2 which, as we know, fell that year upon a Friday. And having spent
the Sabbath at Bethany, He entered the Holy City the following day, as recorded
in the Gospels.
The Julian date of that 10th Nisan was Sunday the 6th
April, A.D. 32.1 What then was the length of the period intervening be-tween
the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and this public advent of"
Messiah the Prince "- between the 14th March, B.C. 445, and the 6th April, A.D.
32? THE INTERVAL WAS EXACTLY AND TO THE VERY DAY 173,880 DAYS, OR SEVEN TIMES
SIXTY-NINE PROPHETIC YEARS OF 360 DAYS.
From B.C. 445 to AD. 32 iS 476
years 273,740 days (476 X 365)+116 days for leap years. And from 14th March to
6th April (reckoned inclusively according to Jewish practice) is 24 days. But
173,740+116+24=173,880. And 69 X 7X 360= 173,880.
It must be borne in mind
here that in reckoning years from B.C. to A.D. one year must always be omitted;
for, of course, the interval between B.C. I and A.D. 1 is not two years but one
year. In fact B.C. 1 ought to be called B.C. 0; and it is so described by
astronomers, with whom B.C. 445 is - 444 (see App. V., p. 274, 75ost). And
again, as the Julian year is 11m. 20.46 s., or about the 129th part of a day,
longer than the mean solar year, the Julian calendar has three leap years too
many in every four centuries. This error is corrected by the Gregorian reform,
which reckons three secular years out of four as common years. For instance,
2700, 1800, and 2900 were common years, and 2000 will be a leap year.