DANIEL IN THE CRITICS DEN
Chapter 9
THE FULFILMENT OF THE VISION OF
THE "WEEKS"
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.
See Chapter 10