Tag: Darius I

ABSTRACT: The 490 years begin with a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. To restore a city means to return all rights to the previous owner. To restore a capital city, such as Jerusalem, means to give the nation the right to rule itself. This article evaluates five possible decrees in terms of whether they: (1) Restored the city, (2) Allowed the city to be rebuilt, and (3) Fit the time of Christ

The green blocks are summaries of the various sections.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

This article evaluates the decrees proposed by different schools of thought and identifies the decree that best fits the prophecy.

The 70 weeks (490 years) of Daniel 9 begin with a decree:

“FROM the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (Dan 9:25)

Correctly identifying the decree is crucial for an accurate interpretation of the 490 years. Scholars have proposed various historical decrees, each with distinct dates. For example, in Dispensationalism, the decree was Artaxerxes’ second decree in 445/4 BC (Neh 1-2). 

Restore does not mean Rebuild.

The right decree will both ‘restore’ and ‘rebuild’ Jerusalem. These two terms are related but are very different actions. While ‘rebuild’ means physical reconstruction, ‘restore’ means to return ownership of a city to the previous owner. Since Jerusalem was the capital, it means allowing the Jews to rule themselves.

Rebuild means physical reconstruction.

Restore – The word translated as “restore” (shûb) does not mean the same as “rebuild.” To restore a city means to return ownership to the previous owner, for example:

The Aramean king once said to Ahab, king of Israel: “I will return (shûb, “restore”) the cities my father took from your father“ (I Kings 20:34).  These cities have not been destroyed and were simply returned (given back) to Israel.

Azariah, king of Judah, rebuilt and restored the city Elath to Judah (2 Kings 14:22). This verse contains both verbs in Daniel 9:25; ”rebuild” and “restore.”  The city had been in ruins. After it was rebuilt, it was restored (returned or given back) to Judah to rule as their own (cf. 1 Kings 12:21).

Therefore, restoring (shûb) Jerusalem in Daniel 9:25 does not include rebuilding. It also means more than merely allowing the Jews to live in the city. “Restore” means that the Israelites would again own Jerusalem. And since Jerusalem was the judicial and executive capital of the nation, restoring it means returning ownership to the Jews to serve as their capital from where they would govern themselves according to their own laws.

POSSIBLE DECREES

Jeremiah’s prophecy

Critical scholars do not accept Daniel as divinely inspired. They propose that the antichrist in Daniel 9 is the Greek king Antiochus IV, around 165 BC. To fit 490 years between the ‘decree’ and 165 BC, they identify Jeremiah’s prophecy as that decree. However, that is still 50 years short.

Critical scholars are academics who do not accept the divine inspiration of Daniel. They do not believe that Daniel 9 refers to Jesus but rather propose that Daniel was written during the persecution of the Jews by the Greek king Antiochus IV (around 165 BC) and that that crisis is also the crisis in Daniel. In other words, they propose that Daniel is history written as a prophecy.

Since such scholars have to fit 490 years between the decree and the time of Antiochus, they select the earliest possible decree. For this reason, they propose that the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem is a ‘decree of God’ via the prophet Jeremiah.

But even if they take the very first mention by Jeremiah of the coming destruction and restoration of Jerusalem, in about 605 BC, they still only have 440 years until the time of Antiochus; not the required 490 (70×7) years. They usually explain the difference as a mistake made by the uninspired writer of the Book of Daniel. But people who accept Daniel as supernaturally inspired, and particularly those who accept the Messiah in Daniel 9 as referring to Jesus Christ, reject the proposal that the announcements by Jeremiah was the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

Four Persian Decrees

The books by Ezra and Nehemiah mention four different “decrees”, issued by three different Persian monarchs over 93 years, that deal with the return of the exiles and the rebuilding of the temple and city. One of these must be the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

1. 1. 

      538/7 BC: Cyrus allowed Jews to return to Judah and to rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:1-4; cf. Isa 45:1).

   2. About 520 BC: Darius I reaffirmed and expedited the order of Cyrus (Ezra 6:1-12).
   3. 457 BC: Artaxerxes I granted a decree to Ezra (Ezra 7:12-26) to re-establish the autonomy of Judah.
   4. 445/444 BC: Artaxerxes I permitted Nehemiah to repair Jerusalem.

Cyrus – 538/7

The decree by Cyrus in 538/7 allowed the Jews to return to Judea and to rebuild the temple, but it did not “restore” Jerusalem, for it did not allow the Jews to rule themselves. They were still under Persian rule.

More than a century before Cyrus was born, God inspired Isaiah to write:

“Who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose’; saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid’“ (Isa 44:28).

“He (Cyrus) shall build my city and set my exiles free“ (Isa 45:13).

In 538/7 BC, Cyrus decreed as follows:

“The Lord, the God of heaven … has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you … let him go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the Lord, the God of Israel” (Ezra 1:2-4).

The decree by Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Judea and to rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:1-4; cf. Isa 45:1). It also implies the right to rebuild their cities, including Jerusalem. But that decree did not “restore” Jerusalem as required by Daniel 9:25, for it did not allow the Jews to rule themselves. It did not give Jerusalem back to the nation to serve as their national capital; to make their own laws, to govern themselves. They were still ruled directly by Persian laws.

Isaiah predicted that Cyrus “shall build my city and set my exiles free“ (Isa 45:13), but Cyrus did not set the Israelites free to rule themselves; only to return to Judea. Nevertheless, Cyrus did initiate a process that ultimately led to the decree to restore Jerusalem to the Jews, to serve as their judicial capital.

Darius I – 520 BC

The royal decree of Darius I mentions only the rebuilding of the temple. It simply confirmed Cyrus’ edict. Therefore, it also did not restore Jerusalem as Israel’s legislative and executive capital so that they may govern themselves.

In response to Cyrus’ edict, the Jews slowly began to return to their homeland (Ezra 3). More than 15 years later, Haggai and Zechariah (their ministry began around 520 BC) tell us that instead of prioritizing the temple’s rebuilding, the returnees set about their own business. While the affluent built luxury homes, most returned exiles lived in and around the ruined city and suffered crop failures and droughts, while the temple remained in ruins (Haggai 1:1-11).

Zerubbabel and Joshua, under the influence of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, again started to rebuild the temple seventeen years after the decree of Cyrus, but experienced resistance (Ezra 5). Israel’s old enemies—the Samaritans—complained to the authorities. In response, the local governor inspected the work and wrote a letter to Darius to verify the rights of the Jews. An investigation was made and the decree of Cyrus was found. Darius confirmed Cyrus’ decree through an additional edict (ca. 520 BC) (Ezra 6:3-12). The temple was finished and dedicated in March, 515 BC (Ezra 6:13-18).

Note that the Samaritans appealed to the Persian authorities, which confirms that Jerusalem has not yet been “restored,” as defined above.

Since Darius’ decree did not restore Jerusalem as Israel’s legislative and executive capital, we must choose between the two decrees issued by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 (Ezra 7:1-26) and 445/4 BC (Neh 1-2) respectively:

Artaxerxes – 458/7 BC

The decree in 458/7 was issued about 60 years after the temple had been completed. It allowed, for the first time, Israel to rule themselves according to their own laws under the larger overlordship of Persia.

The decree in 458/7 (Ezra 7:12-26), about 60 years after the temple had been completed, granted permission to the exiles to return to Jerusalem, assigned funds for the support of the temple in Jerusalem, and exempted the temple and temple personnel from tax. These are not different from the previous decrees. But what was added is that the decree established a legal system based on the Torah for all the Jews in Judea. This included appointing magistrates and judges to enforce the law. Judea was to enjoy significant judicial and civil autonomy under the larger overlordship of Persia. Of particular importance is Ezra 7:26:

“Whoever does not obey the law of your God and the law of the king must surely be punished by death, banishment, confiscation of property, or imprisonment.”

In this way, the Persian king made the Mosaic law part of his own law and granted the Jews authority to govern themselves based on the law of God. It provided a measure of judicial autonomy unknown since the Babylonian desolation of Jerusalem and Judea about 130 years earlier (Ezra 7:25-26).

In response to this decree, Ezra, with a considerable company of people (priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, and temple servants), went up from Babylon in Mesopo­tamia to Jerusalem in the seventh year of his reign (Ezra 7:6-7, 11-17). After a journey lasting several months, they arrived at Jerusalem.

All historical sources point unanimously and harmoniously to the fact that the seventh regnal year of Artaxerxes I extended from March/April of 458 BC to March/April of 457 BC. However, the Jews did not use the Persian-Babylonian March/April calendar. Their Jewish calendar began in September/October:

Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1 provide specific evidence for this. Both verses date events to Artaxerxes’ twentieth year, but to different months. In Neh 1:1, it is the “month Chislev.” In Nehemiah 2:1, it is the “month Nisan.” But in the Persian-Babylonian calendar, Chislev was the ninth month and Nisan was the first. If Nehemiah had used the Persian-Babylonian calendar, Nehemiah 2:1 should have been dated to Artaxerxes’ twenty-first regnal year. The fact that the regnal year number did not change shows that Nehemiah used the Jewish calendar, which used the same names for months but started the year in a different month.

Since Ezra was a contemporary of Nehemiah, we may apply the same Jewish calendar to the dates in Ezra. This would mean that the decree recorded in Ezra 7 was issued sometime in the year that began in September/October of the year 458.

Artaxerxes – 445/4

In 445/4, after Nehemiah had heard that Jerusalem is still is a very poor condition, he requested and obtained permission from Artaxerxes to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city.

In the king’s twentieth year (Neh 2:1) (445/4 BC) Nehemiah, cupbearer to Artaxerxes I, received a report from a group of Jews who had arrived in the Persian capital from Jerusalem:

“The survivors there in the province who escaped exile are in great trouble and shame; the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates are destroyed by fire” (Neh 1:3; cf. 2:3).

Nehemiah then requested and obtained permission from Artaxerxes to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city (Neh 2:5).

THE 458/7 DECREE

We have to choose between the two decrees of Artaxerxes. For the following reasons, it is proposed that the 458/7-decree is the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem because it fits the time of Christ and because it “restored” Jerusalem to the Jews.

Fits the Time of Christ.

In the prophecy, the Messiah will appear (not disappear) 483 years after the decree.

Daniel 9:25 continues:

“from the issuing of a decree …
until Messiah the Prince
there will be seven weeks
and sixty-two weeks.“

In other words, the Messiah would appear (7+62)x7 = 483 years after the decree.

Dispensational View

Dispensationalism identifies the decree of 445/4 as the intended decree but that decree does not take us to Christ’s time. To make it fit, Dispensationalism assumes that these are ‘prophetic’ years of 360 days each. However, the prophecy is based on Israel’s Sabbath years cycle, which uses literal years.

Dispensationalism identifies this Messiah Prince as Jesus Christ and the decree of 445/4 BC as the decree mentioned in Daniel 9. If this is correct, the first 483 years after the decree should bring us to the time of Christ. But it takes us to about AD 39/40; about 7 years AFTER Christ’s death. Dispensationalism attempts to solve this discrepancy by interpreting the 483 years as ‘prophetic years’ consisting of 360 days each. This reduces the 483 years by about 7 years, bringing us to the year Jesus was crucified, assuming He died in AD 33 or 32. More specifically, Dispensationalism claims that it brings us to His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, a few days before His death.

However, as discussed here, the prophecy of “seventy weeks” (Dan 9:24) is based on Israel’s seven-year cycle, where every seventh is a Sabbath year. Therefore, the “seventy weeks” are weeks of literal years; not ‘prophetic years’. Therefore, Artaxerxes’ second decree in 445/4 was too late to fit the time of Christ.

Traditional View

The decree of 458/7 aligns well with the time of Christ. We are not sure exactly when He died but counting 483 years from 458/7 brings us to His baptism, interpreted as His appearance, in 26/7.

The traditional view also identifies the “Messiah the Prince,” who appears at the end of 483 years, as Jesus Christ. It further identifies His appearance to Israel as His anointment by the Holy Spirit at His baptism:

John the Baptist said, “so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water” (John 1:31).

“God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power” (Acts 10:38; cf. Mark 1:9-11; Psa 2:6, 7).

This was the beginning of His ministry (Mark 1:11-14; Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38).

He was baptized in the fif­teenth year of the Roman emperor Tiberius (Luke 3:1, 5, 21). Different chronologists give different years for His baptism; from 26 to 29 AD. A quick Google search came up with the following dates:

(1) During the winter solstice in 26 AD
(2) AD 25-28, with the most likely date being AD 27
(3) January 6, 28
(3) About 28–29 AD
(4) The fall of 29

Artaxerxes’ first decree was in 458/7. If we add 483 years to 458/7 BC, we arrive at AD 26/27. (457 + 27 – 1 = 483; Remember, no year nil. From 1 BC to 1 AD is one year, not two.) Artaxerxes’ first decree, therefore, aligns well with the possible dates of Jesus’ baptism and we can assume 26/27 to be the correct date, as, for instance, in Finegan (Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Princeton, 1964, p265).

‘Restored’ Jerusalem.

The decree of 458/7, for the first time, “restored” the city to the Jews by allowing the Jews to rule themselves from their capital.

Artaxerxes’ second decree did not “restore” Jerusalem because Artaxerxes’ first decree (458/7) already “restored” the city to the Israelites. As stated above, his first decree made the Mosaic law part of the Persian law and granted judicial autonomy to Judah to govern themselves based on the law of God (Ezra 7:26).

Authorize Rebuilding.

One possible objection against the decree in 458/7 is that it did not specifically authorize the rebuilding of Jerusalem. However, the previous decrees, allowing the Jews to return, to rebuild the temple, and to govern themselves, implicitly allowed the Jews to rebuild their cities. Furthermore, there is evidence in the Book of Ezra that construction began before Nehemiah arrived. That Nehemiah was distraught by the lack of progress also implies that he expected progress, which implies that permission was granted.

Dispensationalism claims that Artaxerxes’ second decree for the first time authorized Jerusalem’s rebuilding. But that is not true. The previous decrees by Cyrus (538/7 BC), Darius I (520 BC), and Artaxerxes I (458/7 BC), by allowing the Jews to return to Judah, to rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:1-4; cf. Isa 45:1) and to govern themselves, implicitly allowed the Jews to rebuild their cities.

The following also proves that the construction of the walls began before Nehemiah arrived.

(1) When Nehemiah arrived, he inspected the wall (Neh 2:15). The next verse refers to “the priests … who did the work” (Neh 2:16). This must have been ‘work’ on the wall as the temple was completed 70 years earlier in 515 BC (Ezra 6:13-18).

(2) Nehemiah repaired the walls in only 52 days (Neh 6:15). This implies that work has been done before, for it is unlikely that the damage caused in 586 BC, together with the neglect of the next 150 years, could be reversed in less than two months, while constantly battling opposition.

(3) Some Persian officers complained to Artaxerxes that “the Jews … are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city; they are finishing the walls” (Ezra 4:12). The letter requested the king to put a stop to the work, which he did (Ezra 4:23). Since no such interruption is recorded in the book of Nehemiah and because Nehemiah completed the walls of the city within 52 days, this was not an interruption of Nehemiah’s work on the walls. Since Nehemiah finished the walls, this interruption, and therefore this work on the walls, occurred before Nehemiah arrived.

The following is further evidence that the previous decrees of Cyrus and Darius already implicitly authorized the Jews to rebuild their cities:

(a) About 13 years after Ezra arrived at Jerusalem—in 445/4 BC—Nehemiah is informed that “the walls of Jerusalem” were broken down and the gates destroyed by fire (Neh 1:3). Nehemiah was deeply troubled by the news—he wept for days (Neh 1:4). The fact that Nehemiah was devastated by the news implies that he expected to hear that the walls and gates have been completed. This means that permission to rebuild the walls and gates was already granted and that Nehemiah knew about people who went to Jerusalem for that purpose.

(b) Nehemiah did not ask for permission to rebuild the city. He only asked for permission to go to Jerusalem (Neh 2:5) and for wood to build the walls (Neh 2:8). These requests imply that permission has already been granted for reconstruction of the walls.

In summary, Artaxerxes’ first decree fits the description in Daniel 9:25 better than his second because it: (a) Fits the time of Christ; (b) “Restored” Jerusalem as judicial capital to the Jews, and: (c) Implicitly authorized the Jews to “rebuild” the city.

OTHER ARTICLES

• • • List of articles on Daniel 9
    • List of all articles on this Site