Page 36 - bv19

36 Daniel’s “Seventy Weeks”

this it is assumed that the city had not been rebuilt up to that time, and that there was no previous
word to rebuild it. This “Artaxerxes” is assumed, by those who insist on a late date for the decree of
Daniel 9:25, to be Longimanus -- who was, as we have already seen, none other than Xerxes and not
a separate ruler as most have imagined! This blows the whole theory right out of the water! It is sup-
posed (in order to substantiate this theory) that during all of this time no permission was given to
build the city, even though permission to rebuild the Temple had been granted and acted upon, and
although the inhabitants of Jerusalem had been commanded to return to it.

Many, including Dankenbring, have relied on the chronology of James Ussher (Archbishop
of Armagh, Ireland), who was born in Dublin in 1581 A.D. Although Ussher was a man of conspic-
uous ability and a profound scholar, his system of chronology has been revised and amended by
others -- including Bishop Lloyd who published, in 1701, an edition of the Bible which was the first
to have marginal dates. Then, in 1850, Henry Fynes Clinton made further revisions. Although an
able scholar and chronologist he, like all his predecessors (including Ussher) adopted the erroneous
figures of the canon of Ptolemy instead of the sure word of YEHOVAH God in the Bible.

The very first chapter of Nehemiah records that tidings were brought to Nehemiah by
Hanani and certain men of Judah about the Jews which had returned from captivity, and concerning
Jerusalem (Nehemiah 1:2). These brethren reported to Nehemiah that the returned captives were in
great distress, and that “the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned
with fire” (verse 3). This message was clearly the result of FRESH DAMAGE, recently inflicted by
the “adversaries” of the Jews, to the walls and gates of the REBUILT city. This was news to
Nehemiah because it caused him to weep, to mourn, to fast and to pray (verse 4). The wording of the
record makes it impossible to believe that the damage reported by the messengers (who had just ar-
rived from Judah) was that which had been inflicted by Nebuchadnezzar more than one hundred
years previously! Nehemiah had not been sad in the king’s presence before, but now his grief could
not be controlled or concealed (2:1-2). This makes it absolutely certain that it was a NEW and unex-
pected calamity that had befallen the Jews’ be-
loved city. Also, this agrees perfectly with
Nehemiah’s petition to the king that he might re-
turn to Jerusalem and “build” the city -- this
word is of broad significance, one of its more
common meanings is to REPAIR (see Strong’s
Concordance). This is obviously its meaning
here, as is evident from the detailed account of
The Cyrus Cylinder the work performed in chapter 3, where the only
building spoken of is the repairing of the walls
and gates -- the very parts reported by Hanani as having been damaged. Please note that the word
“repaired” is used over 30 times in that chapter, being used interchangeably with “builded.” Also
note that the existence of houses is referred to incidently in the same chapter -- verses 10, 16, 20 &c.
It is evident that the work was a comparatively small one since it was completed within the short
space of 52 days (6:15).

There is, however, a statement in chapter 7 that needs to be explained: “Now the city was
large and great (broad in spaces, see margin, Cambridge Bible) and the houses not builded.” This is
easily explained. The passage describes a state of affairs that existed AFTER Nehemiah’s work was

The Berean Voice March-April 2003