|
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. ."--2 Pet. 3:3-4 |
The Berean Christadelphians |
||||||||
Index
Chronological Charts |
Daniel's 70 Weeks 20th Year of Artaxerxes 
I doubt if any mystery has fascinated the worlds Biblical archeologists/chronologists like the question of how to resolve Daniel's prophesy concerning 70 weeks. Daniel wrote:
This prophesy was very clear. There would be a command to rebuild Jerusalem. There would be 69 weeks, after which Messiah would be cut off. That in the final week, Messiah would cause the sacrifices and oblations to cease. Upon those points, most agree. But the first problem was a big one. From what decree? There were four Persian decrees relevant to the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and none of them appear on the surface, to fit the dates correctly. The end is very clear. It ends with the crucifixion of Christ. So whatever date the starting point is, must be 490 years before the any possible date of Christ's crucifixion, which would be between 27 - 34 AD. The time for the decree must correspond from 457 - 464 BC. The first two decrees, one by Cyrus the Great in 534 BC, and the other decree by Darius the Persian in 519 BC clearly do not fit. This leaves us with the two decrees of Artaxerxes Longimanus, one in the 7th and the other in the 20th. Ataxerxes began his reign after the murder of his father (by Artaxerxes' brother) in 465 BC. There is a large body of corresponding evidence which fixes the date at this point, both Persian and Greek. The seventh of Artaxerxes would be 458 - 457 BC, certainly close enough to satisfy the crucifixion of Christ in 34 AD. But as we have shown elsewhere, the 34 AD date is really quite impossible, since Herod's death is easily pin pointed to have been in March, 4 BC, and Jesus' birth had to precede this date. Further the specific command concerning the building of the wall were in the decree given to Nehemiah in the 20th year of King Artaxerxes (Neh. 2:1). But the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes (as the New King James translates it) would be impossible for that date would be 445 - 444 BC, requiring the crucifixion in 55 - 56 BC. There is no end to the suggestions to establish this date, and still make the crucifixion happen at the correct time. Very sophisticated and complicated formulas using 365 days vs. 360 day years, plus adding leap years etc. have been advanced. Still others (especially those believing in the rapture) separate the last seven years, and claim that they are still to come at some different date, eliminating seven years, with other very difficult formulas to make the times fit. All this is quite needless. As we said, it is all but certain that Christ was crucified in 27 AD. 490 years previous to that is 464 AD, the second year of Artaxerxes' reign, when the King was 20 years old. That is the simple and straight forward solution. The German Historian Dr. Arno Peters, (the summary of whose work can be found at HyperHistory.com) set the birth of Artaxerxes at 484 BC. In 464 BC, he would have been in the 20th year of the King, though only starting his second year of power. This idea is further supported by internal information in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra, in the seventh chapter, verse 8 receives his decree from Artaxerxes to carry great amounts of wealth to Jerusalem. This Ezra does, and while there, he prays to God:
The question is how can Ezra thank God for a wall, unless Nehemiah had
already built the wall? And on a practical point, would Artaxerxes send
great amounts of wealth to a distant temple in a city which had no wall to
defend itself against the marauders?
This would seem to be an unusual thing for Nehemiah to have said, if the faithful Ezra had preceded him as governor of the land. Did Ezra not fear God? And certainly Ezra came with enough money from the King to not require any more from the war ravaged and poverty stricken people. Next we have the listing of the peoples who had left Babylon for Jerusalem. Ezra lists those who came with Zerubbabel in the days of Darius (Ezra 2:2), and those who came with him (Ezra 8). Nehemiah lists only those that came with Zerubbabel (Neh 7:7), this indicating that those who came with Ezra had not yet come. Finally, we consider the spiritual state of Jerusalem when Nehemiah arrives. Nehemiah finds he can trust no one. The city does not observe the Sabbath. Marriages with the native population are common, even to the point where Tobiah, a hated enemy, is Father in law to a priest, and allowed within the temple. Now, if Ezra came to the city with great wealth in the seventh of Nehemiah, and can be presumed to have stayed at least a little while, how did such wickedness occur in a period of time that couldn't have been more than 12 years? On the other hand, Ezra does show up in the record in the 8th chapter of Nehemiah, and he comes on the scene as a a great religious transformation occurs in Jerusalem. Would Ezra not have forced this same type of transformation on his first visit? From this it would seem that Nehemiah went first to Jerusalem to lay the foundation for the rebirth of Jerusalem, while Ezra followed him, after the foundation had been laid, to teach the righteous ways of God. Other writers have observed these discrepancies, and have also suggested that Ezra followed Nehemiah, rather than preceded him. These have sought to resolve these difficulties by suggesting that the seventh of Artaxerxes was the seventh of a different Artaxerxes, Artaxerxes Mnemon, who reigned 46 years from 404 BC, and whose reign began 20 years after the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. But this sets up many difficulties, as the seventh of A. Mnemon would occur 47 years after the 20th year of A. Logimanus' reign, requiring Nehemiah to be quite old (late 70s) during Ezra's visit. While not impossible, it is unlikely. |
||||||||
