444 BC, not 457 BC, the beginning 'bookend' date of Daniel's prophecy

[markedward]

The problem is, people are reading backward into Daniel 9 what they expect it to say, and then digging up any Bible verses that 'prove' their already-decided upon conclusion...

We should be reading Scripture forward, starting with the older books (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.), so that by the time they get to Daniel 9 in God's historically progressive revelation... it should be obvious to any reader that Daniel is referring to Cyrus as the one who would rebuild Jerusalem and the temple.

[jeffweeder]

The Hebrew word for 'cut off' is kareth, which to my knowledge is a specific type of punishment found in the Law, defined as something like excommunication: being spiritually 'cut off' from the Covenant community. The anointed one who is to be 'cut off and have nothing' is someone suffering a justified punishment, rather than someone suffering an unjustified martyrdom.

Doesnt that same anionted one atone for sins and bring in everlasting righteousness?

"Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.

[markedward]

Daniel 9 begins with Daniel wondering over the prophecy of Jeremiah, when Cyrus would brings the Jews out of their exile. Cyrus, Isaiah said, would bring about the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. Gabriel both confirms to Daniel that the second temple will be built, but that it would also be desecrated by one who brings 'abominations' of 'desolations'. The 'Most Holy Place' that is to be 'anointed' refers to the event we call the first Chanukah: when the faithful Jews anointed the Most Holy place of the second temple after it had been desecrated by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

The text of Daniel 9 doesn't refer to a singular 'anointed one' who would atone for sins. The series of things listed in verse 24 is what Gabriel is telling Daniel the Jews need to do by the time their spiritual exile comes to completion. (I say 'spiritual exile', because although the Jews had returned from Babylon to Judah, ending their physical exile, they were still spiritually under exile because they were still under the dominion of the Persians, then the Greeks, then the Syrians.)

[jeffweeder]

The text of Daniel 9 doesn't refer to a singular 'anointed one' who would atone for sins. The series of things listed in verse 24 is what Gabriel is telling Daniel the Jews need to do by the time their spiritual exile comes to completion. (I say 'spiritual exile', because although the Jews had returned from Babylon to Judah, ending their physical exile, they were still spiritually under exile because they were still under the dominion of the Persians, then the Greeks, then the Syrians.)

The way I understand it is that our spiritual exile would end when the veil was rent, and this is something the Jews couldnt do themselves. we need the blood of the redeemer to atone and put away sin forever, bringing in everlasting righteousness.

[Daniel Gracely]

cyberseeker states:
We will go round and round in circles until we realise they were all the same decree – Cyrus’s decree of 538 BC. As for Darius in 520BC, Artaxerxes in 457 and 444, they are really ratifications of the first one - not separate decrees. So, which decree is the right one? They all are. It is even said as much in Ezra 6:14:

"And the elders of the Jews built and prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. They finished their building by decree of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia."

This clear statement of scripture cuts right through the endless arguments, disagreements, wrangling, books and debates claiming one decree is the ‘rightest’ and all others are wrong etc. etc. When we acknowledge this simple fact, we come to a better answer than the usual guff about who said what concerning temples, streets, moats, fulfillment in Antiochus, disconnected 70th weeks, and so on.

Hi cyberseeker,

Your attempt to cut the Gordian knot by quoting Ezra 6:14 is an unfortunate one for your case. Apparently, you’re not reading the verse closely enough. It says “they finished their building by the decree of the God of Israel and by decree [Strong’s H2942] of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia.” According to you, all four are decrees, including what Artaxerxes commanded in 444 BC. But Daniel’s prophecy was about a command [Strong’s H1697] that went forth. In Hebrew the words “command” and “decree” are technically not synonyms. For while in one sense all monarchial decrees are also commands, commands as such are not formal, solemnized decrees. (I will come back to this point later.) And so there were only three decrees, not four. And even these three pertained only to the building of the house of the Lord:

Ezra 5:13 But in the first year of Cyrus the king of Babylon the same king Cyrus made a decree to build this house of God.

Ezra 6:8-12 Moreover I [Darius the Great] make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king's goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered. ^6:9And that which they have need of, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the appointment of the priests which are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail: ^6:10That they may offer sacrifices of sweet savours unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king, and of his sons. ^6:11Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this. ^6:12And the God that hath caused his name to dwell there destroy all kings and people, that shall put to their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have made a decree; let it be done with speed.

Ezra 7:11-23 Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the LORD, and of his statutes to Israel. ^7:12Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time. ^7:13I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee. ^7:14Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king, and of his seven counsellors, to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God which is in thine hand;^7:15And to carry the silver and gold, which the king and his counsellors have freely offered unto the God of Israel, whose habitation is in Jerusalem, ^7:16And all the silver and gold that thou canst find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem: ^7:17That thou mayest buy speedily with this money bullocks, rams, lambs, with their meat offerings and their drink offerings, and offer them upon the altar of the house of your God which is in Jerusalem. ^7:18And whatsoever shall seem good to thee, and to thy brethren, to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, that do after the will of your God. ^7:19The vessels also that are given thee for the service of the house of thy God, those deliver thou before the God of Jerusalem. ^7:20And whatsoever more shall be needful for the house of thy God, which thou shalt have occasion to bestow, bestow it out of the king's treasure house. ^7:21And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily, ^7:22Unto an hundred talents of silver, and to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of wine, and to an hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much. ^7:23Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?

Now, note again that there is no “decree” mentioned anywhere in Nehemiah, regarding the word/letter sent to the king’s forester to provide wood for the building of the city. Again, the point is, while in one sense all decrees are commands, not all commands are decrees, which is why, technically, these two are not synonyms of each other. They have different etymological origins, and, most importantly, they demonstrate different lexical usage. To suppose Nehemiah received a “decree” is simply wrong. (Incidentally, though one might argue that Ezra 6:14 implies Artaxerxes was building the city, since the house of the Lord is said to have been completed in the 6^th year of (his grandfather) Darius, this is disproven by Ezra’s prayer in 7:27. It shows that, though the basic structure of the Temple had been finished and dedicated for service, work still proceeded on the Temple pertaining to its beautification (NASB adorn-ing.)

Furthermore, it is misguided to suppose that a decree to build a Temple was tantamount to receiving permission to build a city. In fact, no one understood this better than the enemies of the Jews, who formed their entire complaint on the obvious difference. The difference lay in how much more costly in men and materials and support lines it could take for a king to subdue a rebellious, fortified city, in some region far away from home and hearth and palace. This explains why Josephus states that the enemies of the Jews naturally made no such fine distinction between the great height of the Temple walls and the building of a citadel. In other words, they well understood that the Jews had no authorization to build the city, which is why they lodged complaint against them upon that very basis. For they believed the Jews were taking license with Cyrus’ decree, and were instead attempting to build a fortress-like structure rather than a simple temple. This is why there is so much discussion about whether or not Cyrus’ decree authorized the great height and breadth of the walls (Ez. 6:3), which seemed unusual for a temple.

And so, however much you wish to conflate the building of the Temple with the building of the City, as even Josephus does at times (following what appears to be nationalistically-motivated oral traditions about how Cyrus and Darius decreed cedar trees for the building of the city), it should be noted that in the 5^th century BC both Ezra and Nehemiah could hardly have taken greater pains to emphasize their difference. That Josephus missed this rather obvious distinction of what it meant to a foreign king to authorize one but not the other, is no credit to him. Indeed, doubtless, Ezra repeatedly stated that the building activity pertained to the HOUSE of the Lord, to demonstrate Jewish obedience to the original decree, to prove they were not in rebellion to the king.

In short, it appears to me you have been assuming the Jews had permission to build both the Temple and the City, but that the Jews simply prioritized the former over the latter out of preference. But, in fact, the Scriptures give no indication of this, but draws very strict lines between the two. Put another way, the clear statement of scripture cuts right through the “guff”—the endless arguments, disagreements, wrangling, books and debates which make the mistaken claim that 444 BC is not the correct date for marking the beginning of Daniel’s 69 weeks, after which Messiah would be cut off.

[Fenris]

Hi cyberseeker,

*Your attempt to cut the Gordian knot by quoting Ezra 6:14 is an unfortunate one for your case. Apparently, you’re not reading the verse closely enough. .... In Hebrew the words “command” and “decree” are not synonyms.

Speaking of not reading the verses closely enough, Ezra 6 and Daniel 9 are written in Aramaic, not Hebrew.

Furthermore, you cite mistranslations as noted above:

Hebrew says "an anointed prince" not "the messiah the prince".

Hebrew says "and be no more" or "and have nothing" not "but not for himself."

[divaD]

Speaking of not reading the verses closely enough, Ezra 6 and Daniel 9 are written in Aramaic, not Hebrew.

Furthermore, you cite mistranslations as noted above:

Hebrew says "an anointed prince" not "the messiah the prince".

Hebrew says "and be no more" or "and have nothing" not "but not for himself."

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Mainly out of curiosity, how exactly are you understanding this part...And after threescore and two weeks? Most are concluding this means 69 weeks based on what verse 25 says, and what verse 27 states. Are you coming to that same conclusion as well, that verse 26 is meaning after 69 weeks?

[markedward]

What would be the point of Gabriel dividing the 70 sevens into three periods of time (seven, sixty-two, one), when Christians always clump the first two together, as if it's only two periods of time (sixty-nine, one)?

[Fenris]

What would be the point of Gabriel dividing the 70 sevens into three periods of time (seven, sixty-two, one), when Christians always clump the first two together, as if it's only two periods of time (sixty-nine, one)?

Exactly.

...from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto an anointed prince, shall be seven weeks;

The Temple was destroyed in 586 BCE. 7 "weeks" or 49 years later, Cyrus "an anointed prince" gives the order to rebuild.


Rather than assuming it's Jesus and trying to find a happy start date, why don't people just do the math and see where it leads?

[divaD]

What would be the point of Gabriel dividing the 70 sevens into three periods of time (seven, sixty-two, one), when Christians always clump the first two together, as if it's only two periods of time (sixty-nine, one)?

For the longest, that's exactly what I have been wondering as well. When I read verse 26 I tend to see it meaning after 62 weeks just like it says. Is that the way you are seeing it as well? It seems that you are, but wanted to ask so that I could know for certain.

[markedward]

Yes. Each link helps explain my thoughts.

The 7 sevens correspond to the period that began with Jerusalem's and the temple's destruction, and ended with the coming of Cyrus, who was the 'anointed ruler' that God had chosen to rebuild the city and temple.

The 62 sevens correspond to the period that began with Jerusalem / the temple being rebuilt, but faced trouble in the building process, and ended with the an 'anointed', the high priest, being 'cut off' for the priesthood's corruption under Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

The 1 seven corresponds to the period that began with the forming of a covenant between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Hellenized Jews, who abandoned the Holy Covenant. The period was was marked by Antiochus IV Epiphanes' persecution of the saints of Israel for keeping the Holy Covenant, the abomination of desolation that Antiochus IV set up in the temple. It ended with the reconsecration of the temple and Antiochus IV's sudden demise.

[Cyberseeker]

And so, however much you wish to conflate the building of the Temple with the building of the City, as even Josephus does at times (following what appears to be nationalistically-motivated oral traditions about how Cyrus and Darius decreed cedar trees for the building of the city), it should be noted that in the 5^th century BC both Ezra and Nehemiah could hardly have taken greater pains to emphasize their difference. That Josephus missed this rather obvious distinction of what it meant to a foreign king to authorize one but not the other, is no credit to him. Indeed, doubtless, Ezra repeatedly stated that the building activity pertained to the HOUSE of the Lord, to demonstrate Jewish obedience to the original decree, to prove they were not in rebellion to the king.

Oh Nora! If national oral traditions are not going to impress you, how will I? Has it ever occurred to you, if the temple had been built without the city infrastructure around it, it would have been destroyed again? The emperor would have understood that, surely.

In short, it appears to me you have been assuming the Jews had permission to build both the Temple and the City, but that the Jews simply prioritized the former over the latter out of preference. But, in fact, the Scriptures give no indication of this ...

Artaxerxes gave authority and jurisdiction to Ezra far beyond only building the temple. (Ezra 7:25) If that is not an "indication" I dont know what is.

I'll stand with my previous statement about "the guff.”

[markedward]

Artaxerxes gave authority and jurisdiction to Ezra far beyond only building the temple. (Ezra 7:25) If that is not an "indication" I dont know what is.

I'll stand with my previous statement about "the guff.”

Not to mention that it was God himself who said (in Isaiah 44) Cyrus would bring about the rebuilding of the city along with the temple.

[divaD]

Yes. Each link helps explain my thoughts.

The 7 sevens correspond to the period that began with Jerusalem's and the temple's destruction, and ended with the coming of Cyrus, who was the 'anointed ruler' that God had chosen to rebuild the city and temple.

The 62 sevens correspond to the period that began with Jerusalem / the temple being rebuilt, but faced trouble in the building process, and ended with the an 'anointed', the high priest, being 'cut off' for the priesthood's corruption under Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

The 1 seven corresponds to the period that began with the forming of a covenant between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Hellenized Jews, who abandoned the Holy Covenant. The period was was marked by Antiochus IV Epiphanes' persecution of the saints of Israel for keeping the Holy Covenant, the abomination of desolation that Antiochus IV set up in the temple. It ended with the reconsecration of the temple and Antiochus IV's sudden demise.

Thanks for taking the time to make this post and to provide those links. I plan on looking into your links a little later when I have some extra time. The book of Daniel fascinates me, yet there is so much in it that seems to confuse me. I think a lot of the confusion comes from other's interpretations, and it just kind of gets lodged into your mind. I'm mainly only aware of how the majority seem to see it, that it 's related to Christ's first coming. But I am somewhat aware of how you see it, since I have read many of your posts in the past here and there, tho I can't say I exactly understood where you were coming from. But of course, I didn't invest any time to try and understand where you were coming from. So I guess that matters then, if we're expecting to know where someone is coming from, then we need to invest some time in order to do so.

[Daniel Gracely]

In the following quote markedward defends his prior statements, claiming (1) that Gabriel’s prophecy to Daniel says that the city AND TEMPLE would be rebuilt, and (2) that GABRIEL states that the [inauguration of the] going forth of the command would be by an ‘anointed’ one. Says markedward:

Daniel speaks of the 'sanctuary' and the 'most holy place'. These are terms referring to the temple.

The 'anointed prince' is the one who gives the decree. This is what Cyrus did, the one whom God calls his 'anointed' in Isaiah 45.1.

Before explaining why I disagree with markedward, here are the relevant verses from Daniel 9:24-27:

^9:24Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. ^9:25Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. ^9:26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. ^9:27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Note that verse 24 is a summary of what shall take place with the completion of Daniel’s 70^th week: i.e. things a, b, c, d, e, and f. That the temple is present at some point by the end of the 70^th week has nothing to do with Gabriel SAYING that the command to which he is referring (i.e. to rebuild) is authorizing the rebuilding of the Temple. Such an idea is something you’re simply reading into the text. After Gabriel states what shall take place with the completion of the 70^th week, he then begins in verse 25 to detail certain things during and after the first 69 weeks. He begins by speaking of a command that will go forth to rebuild Jerusalem. And observe that there is nothing stated in this command involving the rebuilding of the Temple.

Secondly, incredibly, you seem to think that because ISAIAH in 45:1 calls Cyrus God’s ‘anointed’, that therefore this means GABRIEL said it in DANIEL’S PROPHECY! The most you could have ‘properly’ claimed, even given your view, is that you believe that Gabriel’s reference to a command that would go forth to rebuild would be by the same ‘anointed’ one which ISAIAH mentions in Isaiah 45:1. But that is a far cry from saying that GABRIEL is saying the same thing in the prophecy given by Daniel! In fact, it is a complete fabrication to claim that Gabriel has stated this. It troubles me considerably that you’re still defending yourself on what is probably the most self-evident falsehood I have ever personally seen online. I hope Grand Master or someone else here will love you enough to point out your blatant adding unto Scripture, for your own sake, even if they disagree strongly with everything else I say.

Finally, you say:

Might I ask that you please get rid of the condescending tone you decided to lace your post with? It's immature. It is possible to have a kind, caring discussion about Scripture - even if we disagree - without making accusations about the other person's reading comprehension, or unloading faux-sadness as a way of emotional manipulation.

In fact, what is immature is persons who have been Christians more than a few years but who make such unbelievably naive and foolish statements about Scripture, to a point where I have to wonder if they really have read the text, or else are merely parroting someone’s else’s ideas (while evidently not giving the Scriptures more than a cursory glance). If you are a new Christian who has gotten sucked up into these kind of debates, then I do sincerely apologize. In fact, I would urge you to be under the care and guidance for some extended time of someone properly seasoned in rightly dividing the word of God, before engaging in these kind of debates.

But if you have been a Christian long enough so that you should have matured beyond the kind of twisted eisegesis I see, then I absolutely do not apologize at all. Or are you among those who think Christ in John 3 should have soft-pedaled his response to arrive at something more palatable?, e.g., “Now, Nicodemus, once you really grasp the heart of God and these spiritual principles, you and your hearers will greatly benefit”? Rather, Christ rhetorically asked: “You’re a teacher in Israel and don’t know these things?! But how can you understand spiritual things if you don’t understand earthly things?” That doesn’t sound particularly charitable, does it? But the point is that Jesus made time for the man, while telling him He shouldn’t have needed to. From what is implied later about Nicodemus, Christ’s approach in shaming him seems to have worked. As for my own approach…well, …if people only knew what a sheep I am in wolves’ clothing.

So if you still think I’m “immature” because of calling you on the carpet because of your outrageous statements, I see little reason why you would wish me to continue this conversation.

On the other hand, though I've replied from the assumption that you're a Christian, perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps you don't even claim to be. In that case, I'm not sure what to say, except that your approach to Scripture is ill-advised, and that I apologize for not having shown more patience.

One other thing. The slicing and dicing of another person’s response, in order to give some kind of form to your own response, does not impress, and perhaps even implies a certain co-dependency on your opponent. IMO it is more respectful to the art of discussion/debate to state your views in either simple paragraph form or brief essay. I once had an atheist attempt to bully me through this tactic, thinking to intimidate me by getting me to expect that every future sentence of mine would be split up by him like so much mince meat. In much stronger sarcasm than anything I have aimed at you, I shamed him into stopping. Now, I don’t necessarily think your motivation was that of the atheist. But, really, now; for the benefit of all I think paragraph writing makes for better reading.