In this article, we will continue to consider the question: Why do we assert that the prophecy of Daniel 9:25 finds its fulfillment in the year 457 BC during the time of Ezra without any biblical basis, when in reality in the book of Nehemiah, we find categorical statements that show that Nehemiah in 444 BC, not only received authorization to REBUILD THE WALLS AND RECONSTRUCT JERUSALEM, but also ORGANIZED AND DIRECTED SAID CONSTRUCTIONS? After having considered in the previous article the possibility that the prophecy of Daniel 9:25 may have been fulfilled in the year 444 BC during Nehemiah’s time, we will also proceed to review the feasibility that said prophecy may have started in the year 457 BC during Ezra’s time. To begin with, it is important to highlight that, unlike what is recorded in the book of Nehemiah regarding the authorization to build the walls and rebuild the city in 444 BC, which is biblically and historically verifiable; the year 457 BC comes from a posterior calculation, subtracting 483 years from the baptism date of the Lord Jesus in the year 27 of our era, and searching in history for a relevant event close to the proposed date, such as Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem. The problem with this approach is that the EVENTS mentioned in the prophecy do not find their FULFILLMENT on the calculated date. An example of this is that in Daniel 9:25, it is prophesied that the seventy weeks would begin with the issuance of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Unfortunately, in the book of Ezra and particularly in chapter 7, no decree to rebuild Jerusalem is found, much less the measures that led to the implementation of said decree. It is important to note that our sincere pioneers, due to their lack of education and ignorance of the Scriptures, adopted the interpretation that the prophecy began in the time of Ezra because it was the prevailing interpretation at that time, proposed by the majority of prestigious scholars from past centuries, so they did not see the need to review if it had a basis. If they had the interpretative tools that we have now, they would have rectified it. J.N. Andrews could not have expressed it better when he stated that he would exchange “a thousand errors for one truth.” The current problem is that our scholars, well aware that we are wrong, try to cover the sun with one finger, trying to defend the “truth” while lacking in truth. Due to this, our theologians resort to subterfuge and hermeneutical acrobatics, such as the following: 1-That Ezra did not receive a decree to physically rebuild Jerusalem, but a mandate to restore the civil and religious order of the Jewish nation, for which he would appoint judges and governors. The aforementioned forced interpretation presents the inconvenience that in Ezra 9:22, it is recorded that when Ezra arrived in Jerusalem, the Jewish society was already organized with its princes and governors; and in 10:14, it is mentioned that they had their elders and judges, which does not support the conjecture that the decree given to Ezra was to restore the civil order of the Jewish nation, because there was already an administrative structure in place that allowed for an adequate and organized interaction among its inhabitants. On the other hand, Ezra did not initiate or promote any significant changes within Hebrew society; except for the expulsion of foreign women married to Israelites; an initiative that arose from some local leaders, whom Ezra supported. It was Nehemiah who promoted and carried out an important reform in Jewish society, opposing and abolishing usury and slavery stemming from the loans taken by the poorest to buy grain for food and to pay tribute to the king by mortgaging their homes, olive groves, and lands; and subjecting their daughters to servitude, which they could not redeem later. 2- Since we do not find any decree from Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 to begin the construction of the walls and the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, we resort to the third decree of Artaxerxes recorded in Ezra 6:14, which supposedly orders the start of the mentioned constructions. The problem is that this decree has no relation to the construction of Jerusalem but exclusively to the building of the TEMPLE, as confirmed in Ezra 6:12, 14-15, where it is recorded the following: “And the God that hath caused His name to dwell there overthrow all kings and peoples, that shall put to their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem… They built and finished it according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia. And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius”, that is, in 508 BC, approximately 51 years before Ezra arrived in Jerusalem. After the temple was finished, its dedication took place, followed by the celebration of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It is important to note that after the completion of the temple, Nehemiah was the greatest reformer and restorer of the religious order of the Jewish nation. In chapters 10 and 13, it is recorded that Nehemiah promoted and encouraged the Jews to observe the Sabbath again, ordering that the gates of Jerusalem be shut before the Sabbath. He rebuked, beat, and pulled out the hair of some who had married foreign women; he rebuked the priestly leaders who had not given their portion of food to the Levites who served in the temple, who had withdrawn to their inheritances; and ordered them to bring back to the temple the tithe of grain, wine, and oil. Considering all the above, it is evident that the categorical biblical account recorded in the book of Nehemiah related to the order to build the walls and the city of Jerusalem has a greater biblical and historical foundation than the interpretations based on assumptions recorded in the book of Ezra. If the above is correct, why do we continue to uphold an interpretation that we know is not based on the Scriptures? The only and main reason is that if we discard the year 457 BC, we must necessarily discard the year 1844, exposing the fact that we have been wrong and that we are not, nor have been, a prophetic church, but rather another agency of the Lord to reach the world, which in itself is a privilege that should make us less pretentious and more humble. Blessings.
Comments