Page:06.CBOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.B.vol.6.LesserProphets.djvu/393

prophecy, on the contrary, designated by a name the meaning of which is disputed, at all events is chronologically indefinite, since weeks, if seven-day periods are excluded by the contents off the prophecy, can as well signify Sabbath or jubilee periods, seven-year or seven times seven-years epochs. Still weaker is the second argument, that all the other designations of time with reference to the future in the book of Daniel are definite; for this is applicable only to the designations in Dan 8:14 and Dan 12:11-12, in which evening-mornings and days are named, but not to the passages Dan 7:25; Dan 12:7, and Dan 4:13 (16), where the chronologically indefinite expression, time, times, occurs, which are arbitrarily identified with years.
There remains thus, for the determination of the time spoken of in this prophecy, only the argument from its fulfilment, which should give the decision for the chronological definiteness. But, on the contrary, there arises a grave doubt, from the circumstance that among the advocates of the so-called “church Messianic interpretation” the terminus a quo of the prophecy is disputed; for some of these interpreters take the edict of Cyrus (b.c. 536) as such, while, on the other hand, others take the edict which Artaxerxes issued on the return of Ezra to Jerusalem for the restoration of the service of God according to the law, in the seventeenth year of his reign, i.e., in the year b.c. 457, and others, again, among whom is Hengstenberg, take the journey of Nehemiah to Jerusalem with the permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, i.e., b.c. 445, or according to Hengstenberg, b.c. 455, as the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks - a difference of eighty-one years, which in chronological reckoning is very noticeable.
In our interpretation of Dan 9:25, we have given our decided opinion that the וגו להשׁיב דּבר, from the going forth of which seventy years are to be reckoned, refers to the edict of Cyrus permitting the Jews to return to their fatherland, and the arguments in favour of that opinion are given above. Against this reference to the edict of Cyrus, Hävernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen have objected that in that edict there is nothing said of building up the city, and that under Cyrus, as well as under the succeeding kings, Cambyses, Darius Hystaspes, and Xerxes, nothing also is done for the building of the city. We find it still unbuilt in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezr 9:8; Ezr 10:13; Neh 1:3; Neh 2:3; 5:34; Neh 4:1; Neh 7:4). Although from the