To answer the previous question, we will begin by reviewing the historical progression of the interpretation of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. Julius Africanus, in the 2nd century, was one of the first to count the 70 weeks from the reign of Artaxerxes I to the crucifixion. He calculated the 70 weeks using lunar years, starting them in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes’ reign in 444 BC. Later, Eusebius of Caesarea, in the 4th century, proposed that the 490 years of the prophecy unfolded from Persia to the Lord Jesus. Augustine of Hippo, in the 5th century, extended the 70 weeks to the crucifixion. The Venerable Bede, in the 8th century, followed Julius Africanus’s interpretation, placing the 490 years from the 20th year of Artaxerxes to the baptism of the Lord Jesus. Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century, proposed that the 70 weeks were 490 lunar years, running from the 20th year of Artaxerxes to the baptism of the Lord Jesus, halfway through the 70th week. During the Reformation, Johann Funck began the 70 weeks in the year 457 BC and ended them in the year 34 AD. Heinrich Bullinger, in the same century, counted the 490 years from the seventh year of Artaxerxes to 33 AD. Isaac Newton, in the 18th century, ended the 70 weeks in the year 34 AD.
As we have reviewed, up until the 15th century, the trend among scholars of the prophecy was to interpret the counting of the 70 weeks using lunar years, starting that prophetic period in 444 BC. From the Reformation onwards, it was proposed that the prophecy of the seventy weeks had begun in 457 BC, the year when Ezra traveled to Jerusalem. After considering the brief historical development of the interpretation of the prophecy of the seventy weeks, it is important to ask ourselves: Did the prophecy of the 490 years begin in 457 BC with Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem as a priest and diligent scribe in the law of God, or in 444 BC when Nehemiah, commissioned by King Artaxerxes, traveled to Jerusalem as governor of that region (Nehemiah 5:14), with the purpose of rebuilding Jerusalem, starting with its walls (Nehemiah 2: 5, 8)? Which of the two dates has a greater biblical and historical foundation?
To answer the previous questions, it is important to highlight that the year 457 BC arose from a post facto calculation, starting from the baptism of the Lord Jesus in the year 27 AD, aligning it with Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem, regardless of the fact that the events indicated by Daniel 9:25 for the beginning of the prophecy did not find their fulfillment in 457 BC. In our literature, we find the following quote: “The angel declared that the 70 weeks date from the moment when the decree was issued to rebuild Jerusalem… that decree is found in chapter seven of Ezra (see 12-26). It was issued in its most complete form by Artaxerxes, king of Persia, in the year 457 BC…” The problem with the above statement is that, no matter how much we search in Ezra chapter 7, we do not find the decree or order to rebuild Jerusalem. What we do find is the order to allow the return to Jerusalem of anyone from the people of Israel who wished to; to bring the silver and gold that the king, his counselors, and the Hebrew people voluntarily offered to the God of Israel; to bring the utensils of the temple that were still in Babylon; and to appoint judges and governors to lead the Jewish people. Since we do not find in the aforementioned texts the order to rebuild Jerusalem, beginning with its walls for security reasons, to later allow for the rebuilding of houses and the rest of the city, some of our scholars interpret that the order to restore and rebuild Jerusalem did not refer to the physical restoration and rebuilding of the city, but rather to the restoration of the civil and religious order of Jewish society, for which judges and governors would be appointed.
The aforementioned interpretation presents the following inconveniences: 1- When Ezra arrived in Jerusalem, the Israelites were already organized, with their princes and governors (Ezra 9:2) and their elders and judges (Ezra 10:14). On the other hand, Ezra did not promote or initiate significant changes in Hebrew society; except for the expulsion of foreign women, by the initiative of some local Jewish leaders who supported the implementation of that measure. Regarding the religious restoration, the temple had been completed, dedicated, and had celebrated the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, more than fifty years before Ezra arrived in Jerusalem. 2- Another inconvenience is the inadequate translation of Daniel 9:25 that we find in the Reina Valera and King James versions; because the word “restore” in that text comes from the Hebrew word “shub,” which primarily means to return, so the correct translation of that text is the one offered by the Peshitta Bible, which is a translation of ancient Aramaic manuscripts that reads: “… from the decree to RETURN and REBUILD Jerusalem…” 3- The last inconvenience is that the order has two components: one, “to restore” or return, and the other, to rebuild Jerusalem. Regarding this latter component, we find no mention or allusion in Ezra 7, much less the implementation of such a measure.
At this point, we must ask ourselves: We find recorder in Ezra 7, the command to restore Jerusalem, prophesied in Daniel 9:25? If we do not find it, and resort to deductions and assumptions from what is recorded in the aforementioned chapter: Does it make sense to continue affirming that the prophecy of the seventy weeks began in 457 BC when Ezra traveled to Jerusalem? Blessings.
Comments