“And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God … even the man [angel] Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation” (Daniel 9:20,21).

The events of this portion of Daniel’s prophecy took place toward the close of the Prophet’s life. Almost seventy years had been spent at Babylon. The record of his early years clearly implies that he could not have been far from sixteen years of age when, with others of the most intelligent of the youthful Hebrews, he was carried a captive to this great idolatrous city. At the time the wonderful revelation contained in this chapter was given, he must have been long past fourscore years of age. Nebuchadnezzar, whose faithful servant the Prophet had been for over forty years, had been dead a quarter of a century. Evil-Merodach, Belshazzar, and the other weak, unworthy successors of Nebuchadezzar had all met untimely deaths. The mighty empire of Babylon had been overthrown, and Darius the Mede had assumed the reins of authority in the great city.

It is supposed by some historians that as yet Cyrus the Great had not ascended the throne, but was commanding the immense forces of the Medo-Persian army; others suppose that he was ruling conjointly with Darius. However this may be, this latter king could scarcely have reigned a full year; and this seems all sufficient to account for the fact that he is not mentioned by secular historians, and that his name does not appear in Ptolemy’s canon.

“Ptolemy’s specific object being chronology, he omitted those [names] who continued not on the throne a full year, and refitted the months of their reigns, partly to the preceding and partly to the succeeding monarch.”

A thing which reveals a remarkable trait of character possessed by the aged Prophet, is that notwithstanding the long years he had resided in Babylon, and the distinguished honors that had been conferred upon him, Daniel had not in any measure lost his interest in and love for his beloved fatherland, though he had been exiled from his boyhood. His longing for the restoration of his people was purely unselfish, for he could not possibly have hoped that he himself could ever return to his beloved country; the journey being too difficult to undertake for one of his advanced years. He must have realized at this time that his life work was drawing to a close, and that he would soon sleep with his fathers. His last resting place would have to be by the banks of the Euphrates, where he had spent the greater part of his life. In the language of the revealing angel, he would there “rest and [by resurrection] stand in his lot at the end of the days.”

The events recorded in Chapter Nine are naturally divided into three parts. In verses 1-3 it is recorded that Daniel had been engaged in the study of what God had foretold through other prophets, particularly Jeremiah, concerning the Divine purpose to restore his people to the land of their fathers. He had been studying a time prophecy. The prophecy was that of the seventy years of his people’s captivity, servitude, and the desolations of Jerusalem. Through his studies he had reached the conclusion that these seventy years had nearly run their full course.

Some today seem to have the idea that it would not require much study to reach such a conclusion; that all he would need to do was to reason, “I have now been almost seventy years in Babylon, therefore the seventy years must be nearly over.” The most, however, that he could gather from his studies was that an approaching crisis, a great turning point in the history of his beloved people and land was near at hand. He had learned this, not by any special revelation, but by a study of books.

The predictions which more specially engaged his attention were the two references to the seventy years recorded in Jeremiah 25 and 29. Doubtless he had come to see as he compared these predictions with the records of the events that occurred in his younger days, that the servitude, captivity, and desolations did not all begin to take place at one and the same date, but that they began at different times and had been accomplished by stages, during a period of about nineteen years. The question for him to decide was which of the dates in the several stages of the captivity, servitude, and desolations was the critical one, the one from which to begin to calculate?

“Was it in the third year of Jehoiakim, 606 BC, when Daniel had himself been brought to Babylon? or was it the following year, BC 605, when Judah had for the first time become thoroughly tributary to Nebuchadnezzar? or was it seven years later, BC 598, when in his eighth year that monarch a second time successfully attacked Judah and Jerusalem, carrying captive Jehoiachin with his treasures, and all the principal men of the kingdom? or was it yet again eleven years later still, BC 588, when Zedekiah, the uncle of Jehoiachin, who had been placed on the throne of Judah as a sort of Babylonian viceroy, having rebelled against his master, Nebuchadnezzar, in the nineteenth year of his reign, once more besieged and took Jerusalem? On this occasion the city was finally broken up, and Zedekiah, after seeing his sons slain before his face, and having his own eyes put out at Riblah, was carried away to languish and die in exile. Later in that same year Nebuzaradan burned the temple, razed Jerusalem to the ground, and carried off to Babylon the rest of the people. This was the last stage of the long process of the decay and fall of Jewish monarchy, and the record of it terminates with the fateful words, ‘so Judah was carried away out of their land.’ Now here was a period of [nearly] twenty years, more than a fourth part of the predicted seventy, during which the captivity had been slowly accomplished by stages! Daniel had consequently need to pray, and to study carefully, before he could discern whether the restoration of his people, and of that temple worship for which his soul yearned, were still [nearly] twenty years distant, or even then close at hand.

“Moreover, as he pondered the expression, ‘seventy years,’ the question could hardly have failed to occur to him, What sort of years — sacred years or secular? The sacred year of the Jews was lunar, for the intervals between the feasts and the fasts of the Levitical calendar were all strictly lunar; but they also used a longer tropical year, as did the Babylonians, while the Egyptians employed a retrograde solar one. The true length of the years intended must therefore have been a point on which Daniel reflected, and that perhaps without being able to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion, though he must have perceived that the actual duration of the captivity would vary to the extent of two years, according to the calendar employed.

“As he studied, the thought, proved by the result to be a true one, could scarcely fail to be suggested to his mind, that the restoration might probably be as gradual and as much by stages as the captivity had been, and so occupy an era, rather than a year. His people had not all come to Babylon at one time. Was it likely they would all leave at one time? Jerusalem and its temple had not fallen in a day, nor in a year, but by stages. The temple had been first despoiled of its treasures, and then consumed with fire eleven years later. Was its reconstruction and its rededication to be similarly interrupted? The national overthrow had been gradual; was it not likely that the national restoration would also be gradual? As he pondered, the question would arise in his mind, ‘If so, which will be the principal stage?’ Already the first was past. Babylon the overthrower had been overthrown; the city still stood, but its power was gone. The Median monarch occupied the palace of Nebuchadnezzar, and the Persian Empire had succeeded the Babylonian.

“This fact would greatly confirm the faith of Daniel as to the nearness of the restoration of his people, because Jeremiah had said, ‘This whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations’ (Jeremiah 25:11,12). ‘Therefore all they that devour thee shall be devoured; and all thine adversaries, every one of them, shall go into captivity; and they that spoil thee shall be a spoil, and all that prey upon thee, will I give for a prey’ (Jeremiah 30:16).

“Daniel’s studies of chronological prophecy were at a time when one of the salient points of the Divine prediction had already been accomplished. Not only had the time run out, but one part of the thing predicted had happened. How confirmed must his faith have been, and how confident his hopes, though the restoration itself had not come! Yet there were difficulties through which he could not quite see. The promised deliverer was not yet on the throne; Cyrus was there, but he was not sole monarch, not yet in a position to make the predicted decree. Darius was the ruling monarch, and prophecy had, two hundred years before his birth, named Cyrus as the deliverer. Would Darius soon die then, and Cyrus succeed him? There was probably no immediate prospect of this, but Daniel doubted not that in some way God would make His promise good, fulfilling His own predictions, and that speedily. Cyrus would become supreme ruler, and would restore Israel, and rebuild Jerusalem. Knowing this, he bowed himself in confession and prayer, and in humble supplication that the promise of restoration might come to pass, even as the threats of judgment had done” (H. G. Guinness).

Many expressions in the prayer seem to indicate deep sorrow of heart on the part of the devout Prophet. May it not have been because he failed to see that fervent, holy enthusiasm to return to their native land and resume again the worship of Jehovah, that ought to have characterized the chosen people? It seems that many of the Hebrews had settled down and become contented with their condition and had little desire to return to Palestine. This most naturally would cause the devoted servant of Jehovah sadness of heart; and this to some extent may account for his words: “And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.” Next there is recorded his remarkable prayer; and finally he tells of the angel Gabriel’s appearance, and the prophetic revelation of the “seventy weeks.”

His interest in and love for his homeland were deep and fervent; but it was not so much this that moved him to offer up the petition which is recorded in verses 4-19. This prayer, which in many respects is the most remarkable one recorded in the Sacred Writings, more than anything else discloses to our view the inner life of this venerable prophet.

One significant thing disclosed in his prayer is that in all the cares of state, in all the pressing duties of his office, he was ever faithful to his God. His life was a living exemplification of the exhortation of the great Apostle, “Pray without ceasing.” This characteristic proves conclusively that his remarkable wisdom and ability to fill so ably the responsible positions entrusted to him was the result of his genuine piety. Close personal communion with God, and a constant leaning upon Him for wisdom and strength, are the sources from which spring man’s greatest dignity and truly grand successes. Daniel could not possibly “have been the man that he was — so honored a premier, so wise a prophet, so beloved a favorite of heaven, but for his having been so earnest a believer and so devout and fervent a suppliant” at the throne of Jehovah. If the responsible places in our present governments were filled with men whose inner lives were characterized by the humble, dependent, and reverent state of mind that is disclosed in this wonderful prayer of the Prophet, there would cease to be the shame and scandal which we see exhibited in the administration of public affairs today. During Daniel’s illustrious career, in which he filled positions of public trust, no plots to undermine his character, no misrepresentations of his motives and acts, no subtle attacks to draw him away from his morning and evening devotions and his private communion with the great Jehovah, from whom he obtained the wisdom to perform his private and public tasks, were successful.

Value of Study of Time Prophecy

It is by a consideration of the various elements that are contained in his prayer that we are enabled to get a deep insight into the innermost feelings of the man greatly beloved of God. Concerning this prayer, one has said: “I know not that there is in the Bible a sublimer litany than that which is contained in this chapter; or clauses more appropriate as channels of a Christian’s prayers, than these earnest, beautiful, yet simple petitions.” In the first place we may learn what constituted the innermost desires of the Prophet’s heart; what it was that moved him to express himself so earnestly; what it was that inflamed, and fed his desires; for holy desire is the first element of all true prayer. As already intimated, Daniel, while himself a prophet, was also a student of prophecy, and particularly chronological prophecy.

Is there not much reason to believe that one great cause of the departure from the Bible as a Divine revelation on the part of so many in the professed Church of Christ today, as also the leanness of modern piety, is that there is such a lamentable lack of searching to discover what the Prophets have written concerning “things to come.” Referring to those who neglect or despise the sure word of prophecy, one has said, “Let such study as Daniel studied, and discover the Divine providential administrations of God in the affairs of men, and they would then partake more of Daniel’s spirit of wisdom and unction and true devotion.” The Apostle Peter informs us that the prophets of old inquired and searched diligently concerning the time and (note carefully) the manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow. Daniel is surely one of those referred to by the Apostle.

Many tell us that the study of prophecy is unprofitable; indeed, that such studies are barren of good results; and some even go so far as to say that such studies are detrimental to spirituality. How common it is to hear Christian people say that we are not authorized to pry into what they call the secrets of unfulfilled or fulfilled predictions. But Daniel was not of this mind. He took delight in what God had said concerning things to come, and particularly in those things that concerned his own people in future times. Instead of working harm to his piety, it had the effect only of kindling the flame of love and devotion to God and His cause. Notwithstanding all the duties and cares of state, and notwithstanding the much time required to attend faithfully to these matters, he found time to study the “sure word of prophecy,” and instead of unfitting him for his daily tasks, he was able to attend more diligently to the “king’s business.” Where in history do we read of a better public servant than Daniel? His qualities as such were tested for a period of seventy years, and through at least three administrations of state; and his eminent fitness to fill these responsible positions was fully acknowledged, even by those who hated him most.

Daniel’s service to the king, let it be remembered, while faithfully performed, was only a secondary affair in his life. His chief interest was all the time in the plans and purposes of God for His people and the relationship these would eventually sustain to the world. He was desirous of learning all that God had revealed concerning these things. He was deeply interested in the people of God and the city that was called by His name, and the sanctuary, the temple, in which He had chosen to make Himself known. This at the time was lying desolate in ruins. As long as it lay in this desolate condition, the aged Prophet felt keenly that it was a dishonor, a reproach to the great Jehovah.

But that which grieved Daniel more than anything else, that which constituted the chief feature of his prayer, was that which caused this punishment and these desolations. He realized keenly that the cause was the sins of his countrymen. A study of this prayer discloses an abundance of material most worthy of our consideration, and material which may be made use of to our profit. This fervent petition, this pouring out of the Prophet’s soul to God was not the result of a sudden, spasmodic feeling that would subside almost as quickly as it came; rather it was the result of much thought and study.

It is most significant that before offering up his prayer, Daniel humbled himself under the mighty hand of God by fasting in sackcloth and ashes.

This was no formal fasting. It had an end to be accomplished. It was by this that he was made to feel his own littleness, his own unworthiness from the natural standpoint, to approach the infinite God. It caused him to realize how undeserving either he or his fellow-countrymen were, of receiving the Divine favor. It brought him into a state of mind in which he would be able to appreciate more the long-suffering and tender mercy of Jehovah toward himself and his people. His mind thus became filled with a deeper consciousness of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and the wickedness that had brought upon his nation and his countrymen this long and severe punishment; and, as measurably blameless and holy and pleasing to God as his own life had been, he still felt most deeply his own natural unworthiness; and on this account he identified himself with his fellow-countrymen and their sins, not only with those who had been the cause of this punishment, but also with those who had lived through the period of the captivity. He felt that even then, when the time was near for God’s favor to be shown in their deliverance, that deliverance would not be because of their worthiness, but because of God’s great mercy. He confesses with deep and heartfelt contrition the righteousness of God in inflicting this severe judgment on His people.

While deeply concerned in the matter of his people’s restoration for their own sake, he was particular to express his chief concern as being that the worship of Jehovah might be established again and thus the reproach upon His cause, which had long prevailed, be removed. His greatest desire, as expressed in his prayer, was for forgiveness of sin, and the restoration of his nation to obedience and fellowship with God. He longed that his people might receive the blessings that could come only from heaven — the blessings of pardon, peace, and purity.

His prayer was not “a mere outcry under the miseries which sin had brought, but an unreserved confession of inherent evilness and ill-desert, and a thorough acquiescence in the righteousness of God’s punishments which He visits upon them.” It avails but little, if anything, that afflictions be removed, that a release from punishment be effected, if the inner cause of the punishment be not healed. Therefore the plea upon which the prayer of Daniel was based is the only one that avails with God. It was not that his people merited any right or claim to Jehovah’s clemency, but entirely that He would show mercy for the sake of the honor of His great and holy Name.

The prayer expressed both pathos and importunity. It was a tax upon all the feelings and energies of the aged Prophet’s being. It was a prayer that the Prophet felt deeply must be answered, and these characteristics in a marked degree are disclosed in his concluding words: “O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for Thine own sake, O my God; for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy Name.”

Who can doubt that such praying, such confession, such earnest pleading and supplication, could but reach the ear of the infinite, gracious, and merciful God! It contained all the elements that constituted true prayer. It came from the humble and contrite heart, and it was inspired by a desire that Jehovah should be honored. Such a prayer God cannot fail to hear and answer. It was founded, like all true prayer must be, upon the promises of God, and upon the fact that the time appointed was near for Jehovah to fulfil His promise to His people. He had foretold through Jeremiah that such a prayer would be offered up, and had promised to answer such a prayer.

Daniel had discovered by studying the sacred records that the due time had come to plead the promise. This shows us the close connection that prayer has with the unfolding of God’s purposes for His people and for the world. When the time comes for Him to fulfil His promises — to introduce a new feature in His dealings with humanity, there is always found one individual at least, to plead the fulfilment of His promises. Some seem to have the impression that because God has promised to perform a certain thing and has set the time for such a performance, that there is no need to pray. This is not true. The soul that is closely watching the unfolding of the Divine purposes — who has a knowledge of the times and seasons of God’s Plan, instead of being deterred from pleading with God, is rather encouraged and inspired to do so.

Daniel’s next words reveal to us how heaven and its holy inhabitants were affected by his prayer. It caused a great sensation there. It reached the throne of Him who rules the universe, and one of heaven’s mightiest angels was sent on a special mission to earth to answer the aged Prophet’s pleadings. Closely examining the prayer we discover that its great burden was not so much for his people’s restoration; he knew that that had already been foretold, and he believed the time was near at hand for its fulfilment. That which most deeply exercised his mind, and caused him to be so earnest, so importunate in his supplication was, as we have noted, the forgiveness of sin; and the gracious answer addressed itself to this great desire of his heart. The veil of futurity was lifted, and he was permitted to behold that which no previous revelation had disclosed — that of the exact time of the First Advent of the Messiah “to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

Israel had long been looking and waiting for the great Messiah King. Previously no definite information in regard to the exact time had been given. But the time appointed had come to make this known, and Daniel who had for seventy long years stood loyal to his God, Daniel the beloved one of Jehovah, was to be the honored recipient of this knowledge, and to be the recorder of it for the benefit of coming generations. Daniel informs us that he had scarcely ceased praying, when the mighty angel of God, Gabriel, whom he saw once before in a vision, touched him at about the time of the evening oblation.

“And he informed me [said Daniel] and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved [in heaven] therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. Seventy 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.”

Sixty-nine Weeks to Messiah the Prince

“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” (Daniel 9:25).

The prediction of the First Advent contained in this chapter was communicated by the angel Gabriel to the Prophet Daniel while he was in the natural state of consciousness. The matters revealed, except the brief statement of verse 25, concerning the building of the city, wall, and street, at the time in ruins, and the statement of verse 27, concerning the desolations to come upon the Jewish land and people after their rejection of the Messiah, all took place in the brief period of a “week,” that is, a week of years. The word “heptades” translated weeks would be better rendered “sevens.” The fulfilment, however, discloses that seventy “sevens” of years (490 years) are referred to.

The general statement, “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,” shows that the prophecy relates to Daniel’s people and land. The words, “to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,” were indeed “a response to Daniel’s deepest yearnings,” and brought strong consolation to the aged saint of God. The prophetic curse pronounced upon the seed of the serpent, and the covenant with Abraham, had not been forgotten by Jehovah, and were approaching their fulfilment. Sin was to be atoned for and put away; through the Messiah redemption was to be brought to the world, and God’s everlasting righteousness was to be brought within the reach of mankind. “This,” observes another, “was a renewal of all the highest and holiest hopes of the nation, through whom the redemption of the world was to come; and, for the first time, the period of Messiah’s coming was indicated.”

It will not be our purpose to consider particularly the meaning of these expressions. They are frequently referred to as meeting their fulfilment in Christ in the New Testament writings. To recall their oft repeated occurrence we cite a few passages. In Hebrews 9:26 we read that there was to be a putting away of sin by the sacrifice of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:19 we learn that he was to make reconciliation for iniquity. In Romans 10:3,4 it is stated that there would be introduced by Christ the righteousness of God. The Book of Hebrews makes frequent reference to the confirmation of a covenant.

There is probably no prophetic Scripture that has excited so much attention, and concerning which, in several of its features, there has been so many different interpretations. Prof. Stuart, a writer on prophecy, who lived during the first half of the nineteenth century, has thus referred to these varied interpretations:

“It would require a volume of considerable magnitude even to give a history of the ever-varying and contradictory opinions of critics respecting this locus vex a tissimus; and perhaps a still larger one to establish an exegesis which would stand. I am fully of opinion that no interpretation as yet published will stand the test of thorough grammaticohistorical criticism; and that a candid, and searching, and thorough critique here is still a desideratum. May some expositor, fully adequate to the task, speedily appear!”

Another writer of more recent years has stated:

“There is some obscurity as to certain points of this great prediction, though the drift of the whole is perfectly clear. The extreme condensation and brevity which mark it are one cause of the difficulty, and an occasional ellipsis in the Hebrew affords room for alternate constructions in one or two of the expressions. An immense amount of controversy has for ages been carried on about this prophecy-controversy attributable to several causes: first, its absolute clearness as a whole combined with its difficulties in minor points; secondly, the inveterate determination of the Jews to silence its glorious witness to the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth; thirdly, the equal anxiety of infidels to blunt the edge of a prophecy which establishes indubitably Divine inspiration; and lastly, the intrinsic difficulties of sacred chronology.”

Most writers begin their studies of it with an attempt to fix the date of our Lord’s birth — this, because it is generally and correctly believed that he began his ministry at the age of thirty; and therefore calculating just thirty years from his birth, would reach the date when he began his official work, at which point the sixty-nine weeks would end. There is a very general agreement among scholars at the present time that our Lord was born somewhere about the first of October, whatever may have been the year. The Divine prediction reads, “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and [plus] threescore and two weeks.” The divinely authorized way to begin the study of this prophecy then, according to these words, would be to discover first the date of its commencement, instead of that of its ending.

Now there is one thing that must not be overlooked in regard to this, and that is that while the Scriptures do not give sufficient data to establish the exact year when this commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem went forth, they do give us the exact Jewish month. This was the sacred month, Nisan, which corresponds with the period from about the middle of March until the same in April. It matters not whether we begin to reckon these sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, in solar time, with Ezra’s going up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, as many do, or with Nehemiah’s going up in the twentieth year of the same Persian king — 483 years end in the month Nisan. It was in the month Nisan in both instances that these events occurred.

Does it not seem, then, that in this fact we have the key to open the way to understand the kind or manner of time the revealing angel had reference to? It seems evident from the expression, “unto Messiah the Prince,” that the sixty-nine weeks, 483 years, must end with the beginning of Christ’s official ministry. This ministry did not begin in Nisan, in the spring, but in the fall, when he had reached the age of thirty. The significant thing to be noted about this is that sixty-nine weeks, 483 years, reckoned in solar time from Nisan in the spring cannot possibly be made to terminate in the fall.

On this account, if we are to look for exactness, as it would seem we should, and if we believe what is scarcely questioned by any one, that Christ’s ministry began some time about October first, then is it not a fact that to solve the problem we shall have to discard solar calculations? In other words, no matter what year we begin the sixty-nine weeks, they will end in the spring and not in the autumn — that is, 483 solar years from the spring must end in the spring. There can be no doubt about this. May it not be that in this fact we have the fuller meaning of St. Peter’s words, that the Prophets searched diligently concerning the “manner of time,” whether solar or lunar, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when it testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ? And may it not be true then, that the hidden feature of these seventy weeks is discovered in the fact that they are calculated in lunar instead of solar time?

Does it not seem from the foregoing that we are compelled to believe one of two things — either that the Lord did not intend to fix the exact dates of the ending of these prophetic periods or that they are not to be calculated by solar time measures? Solar measures must of necessity be defective six months, no matter what year the commandment went forth to restore and to build Jerusalem.

The angel states that the period begins with a commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, and not a commandment or decree permitting the Jews to return from their captivity; nor with one granting permission to rebuild the temple, and restore the temple worship.

In the Book of Ezra three decrees relating to the Jews are recorded. In the opening verses of Ezra we have the decree of Cyrus; but this one specifies very definitely that it was the building of the “house [temple] of the Lord God of Israel,” that is referred to. At the time this decree was made, the seventy years of servitude to Babylon ended (Jeremiah 27:6-17, 28:14, 29:10). It will be recalled that another judgment was predicted by Jeremiah, to begin in Zedekiah’s reign — that of the seventy years of desolation, because of continued disobedience and rebellion on the part of the nation. This prediction was made in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, after the servitude had begun. The desolations continued after the servitude had ended, until the second year of Darius Hystaspes, when the second decree relating to the Jews went forth — some sixteen years after they began to return under Cyrus. Nothing had been done up to this time to build the city — a city with walls for defense, as the Hebrew word means (see Ezra 4).

A third decree was issued by the Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus in his seventh year, and this is understood by some writers to be the one referred to. A careful examination of this decree will discover that it had reference to the beautifying of the house of the Lord (see Ezra 7:16,23,27). The temple had been completed long years before; the city, however, was still in ruins thirteen years after the decree in Artaxerxes’ seventh year (Nehemiah 2:1,3).

No mention is made of a decree to “restore and to build Jerusalem” anywhere in the Book of Ezra. The Book of Nehemiah, however, opens with a record of such a decree. Chapter One relates that Nehemiah, who was occupying the position of cup-bearer to the Persian king, a place of no mean honor, was visited by some of his Jewish brethren who had just returned from Jerusalem, and he “asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem.” The answer they gave was: “The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire” (Nehemiah 1:1-3).

The effect of this news on Nehemiah is described in his words: “And it came to pass, when I heard these words, that I sat down and wept, and mourned certain days, and fasted, and prayed before the God of heaven.” This prayer is recorded in Chapter One. The prayer closes with a petition that the Lord would move upon the Persian king to grant him favor. The second chapter shows how this prayer was answered. We are told that in the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, as Nehemiah was performing the duties of his office, his countenance betrayed to the king the sadness of his heart, and the king requested him to make known the cause of his grief. Nehemiah replied: “Let the king live forever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire? Then the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request?” As bearing on the beginning of the sixty-nine weeks, Nehemiah’s reply should be carefully noted: “If it please the king,” he said, “and if thy servant have found favor in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it” (Nehemiah 2:5).

The record states that Artaxerxes granted the petition, and immediately issued the necessary order or command to give it effect. The account of Nehemiah’s visit to the city, his viewing the ruins, his being recognized by the discouraged Jews as their leader or governor, the commencement of the building of the walls, the opposition and difficulties encountered, and the completion of the work are next recorded. Some have said that this decree of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes is but an enlargement of his first decree, made in the king’s seventh year. One writes regarding this:

“If this assertion had not the sanction of a great name [Dr. Pusey], it would not deserve even a passing notice. If it were maintained that the decree of the seventh year of Artaxerxes was ‘but an enlargement and renewal of his predecessors’ [Cyrus’ and Darius’] edicts, the statement would be strictly accurate. The decree of Artaxerxes in his seventh year was mainly an authority to the Jews ‘to beautify the house of God, which is in Jerusalem’ (Ezra 7:27), in extension of the decrees by which Cyrus and Darius permitted them to build it [the temple]. The result was to produce a gorgeous shrine in the midst of a ruined city. The movement in the seventh of Artaxerxes was chiefly a religious revival (Ezra 7:10), sanctioned and subsidized by royal favor; but the event of his twentieth year was nothing less than the restoration of the autonomy of Judah. The execution of the work which Cyrus authorized was stopped on the false charge which the enemies of the Jews carried to the palace, that their object was to build not merely the temple, but the city. ‘A rebellious city’ it had ever proved to each successive suzerain, ‘for which cause’ — they declared with truth — its destruction was decreed. ‘We certify to the king’ they added, ‘that if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof be set up, thou shalt have no portion on this side the river [the Euphrates — Ezekiel 4:16].’ To allow the building of the temple was merely to accord to a conquered race the right to worship according to the law of their God, for the religion of the Jews knows no worship apart from the hill of Zion. It was a vastly different event when that people were permitted to set up again the far-famed fortifications of their city, and entrenched behind those walls, to restore under Nehemiah the old polity of the Judges. This was a revival of the national existence of Judah, and therefore it is fitly chosen as the epoch of the prophetic period of the seventy weeks.”¹

The Date Marked in Secular History

A comment by Tregelles on this matter is interesting:

“This last decree, which we find recorded in Scripture, relates to the restoring and building of the city. It must be borne in mind that the very existence of a place as a city depended upon such a decree; for before that [time], any who returned from the land of captivity, went only in the condition of sojourners; it was the decree that gave them a recognized and distinct political existence.”

We quote the words of Milman, the historian, as showing that this permission to build the walls and fortify the city was more a political matter with Artaxerxes than the personal influence of Nehemiah over the king:

“On a sudden, however, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah, a man of Jewish descent, cup-bearer to the king, received a commission to rebuild the city with all possible expedition. The cause of this change in the Persian politics is to be sought, not so much in the personal influence of the Jewish cup-bearer, as in the foreign history of the times. The power of Persia had received a fatal blow in the victory obtained at Cnidos by Conon, the Athenian admiral. The great king was obliged to submit to a humiliating peace, among the articles of which were the abandonment of the maritime towns, and a stipulation that the Persian army should not approach within three days’ journey of the sea. Jerusalem, being about this distance from the coast, and standing so near the line of communication with Egypt, became [to the Persian king] a [military] post of the utmost importance.”

A further confirmation of this is found in the Apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus, which reads: “And among the elect was Nehemias, whose renown is great, who raised up for us the walls that were fallen, and set up the gates and the bars, and raised up our ruins again.” On the other hand Joshua and Zerubbabel are extolled as builders of the temple: “How shall we magnify Zerubbabel? even he was as a signet on the right hand. So was Joshua the son of Josedec, who in their time builded the house, and set up a holy temple to the Lord” (Ecclesiasticus 49:11,12,13).

Two important points regarding the beginning of the sixty-nine weeks seem thus to be established by the Scriptures alone. One is that the month date to begin the reckoning was that of Nisan; and the other is that it was in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, king of Persia. That which next needs to be discovered is the year BC in which this event occurred. It is a fact admitted by all that the Scriptures furnish no data whereby this may be discovered. We are, therefore, dependent upon the records of secular history. Concerning one very important record of ancient history the following words of an eminent Christian expositor are worthy of consideration:

“The uncertainty which attaches to remote periods of secular chronology disappears at the date of the accession of Nabonassar [the first king of Babylon]… From this time forward we are able to verify the chronological records of the past; and the dates of ancient history are confirmed by astronomic observations. The astronomical records of the ancients, by whose means we are able to fix with certainty the chronology of the earlier centuries of the ‘times of the Gentiles,’ are contained in the ‘Syntaxis,’ or ‘Almagest’ of Ptolemy.

“In the existence of this invaluable work, and in its preservation as a precious remnant of antiquity, the hand of Providence can clearly be traced. The same Divine care which raised up Herodotus and other Greek historians to carry on the records of the past from the point to which they had been brought by the writings of the Prophets at the close of the Babylonish captivity; the Providence which raised up Josephus, the Jewish historian, at the termination of New Testament history, to record the fulfilment of prophecy in the destruction of Jerusalem, raised up also Ptolemy in the important interval which extended from Titus to Hadrian, that of the completion of Jewish desolation, to record the chronology of the nine previous centuries, and to associate it in such a way with the revolutions of the solar system as to permit of the most searching demonstration of its truth” (H. G. Guinness).

That there were several kings named Artaxerxes is well known. Concerning which one is referred to in Ezra and Nehemiah, the following is to the point:

“The position and period of the Artaxerxes I, of the Canon of Ptolemy, correspond with those of the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7, and the Book of Nehemiah. The forty-one years assigned by the Canon to the reign of Artaxerxes I, give room for the events and dates in Ezra and Nehemiah. The missions of these reformers took place in the seventh, twentieth, and thirty-second years, and fell within these forty-one years. The reigns of Artaxerxes’ predecessor and of his successor, were respectively twenty-one and nineteen years, and therefore shorter than that of the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah.”

The seventh year of Artaxerxes as fixed by Ptolemy’s Canon is BC 457; that of the twentieth, which of course is thirteen years later, is 444 BC. It will be of interest at this point to note how these dates are established by the Canon of Ptolemy. This may be done in two ways: first, by beginning with the date of the accession of Nabonassar, the grandfather of Nebuchadnezzar, the first king of Babylon. That this date was February 26, 747 BC is a fact that has never been questioned by any noted historian and chronologist. Ptolemy gives the names of all the kings of Babylon, and the years of their reign, as also the same of the Persian kings, their successors. The sum total of the reign of the Babylonian kings is 209 years. The Persian kings up to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes as given by Ptolemy are:

Cyrus 9 years — Cambyses 8 years — Darius Hystaspes 36 years Xerxes 21 years — Artaxerxes to his 20th year 20 years — Sum 303 years 747 – 303 = 444 BC, as the date of the “commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.”

Another method of determining this date is as follows: Artaxerxes is said to have begun his reign 465 BC; his twentieth year would be from 445 to 444 BC. Now it is very evident that as the command to build Jerusalem was given in the month Nisan, 483 solar years from this time must end in the month Nisan. If we should say that they must end with the event of Christ’s assuming his Messiahship, which occurred in or about October (and this is the place that they should end) is it not evident that there would be six months defection, regardless of what year they began? That the 483 years must end in the autumn is apparent not only from the fact that Christ began his ministry in the autumn, at the age of thirty, but also from the fact that it was in the midst (middle) of the seventieth week that the angel said, he should cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease by his sacrificial death; and this, as is plainly stated in all Scripture accounts, took place on the occasion of a passover in the month Nisan, which would be in the middle of the seventieth week. And as Christ suffered death three years and a half after the sixty-ninth week, or 483 years ended, it is plain that 4862 years from this commandment bring us to the death of Christ, which would be the middle of the seventieth week. And as this is the greatest event of human history, it will not be thought remarkable that the ending of these 4862 years brings us that which solves the problem — what kind of time is referred to in the angel’s words.

The Supreme Week of the World’s History

“And He shall confirm a covenant with many for one seven [literal rendering]; and in the middle of the seven He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease” (Daniel 9:27).

Concerning this prophecy of the seventy sevens of years, there was no question until modern times that these years were continuous, that is that they represented 490 successive years. The Futurist theory is that the events of the seventieth week, the last seven of these four hundred and ninety years, meet their fulfilment in the period of the Second Advent, instead of the First, and relate to the experiences of the Jewish peoples after they have gathered in their land, at the close of this Gospel Age. It is during this period, and in connection with their occupation of Palestine that the Futurists believe the Jews will be deceived by a false Messiah. It will not be our purpose to consider this interpretation except to say that it is largely based upon their understanding of who the person is that is referred to in the words, “In the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” The Futurists understand this person to be the Antichrist, and that the Jews will be deceived into thinking him to be the true Christ, their Messiah. The Historical interpretation is that the person mentioned in this verse is the true Christ, and that the causing of the sacrifice and oblation to cease was accomplished by his sacrificial death in the middle of the seventieth week at his First Advent. This latter interpretation seems clearly to us to be the correct one.

Furthermore, it is our conviction that in this utterance lies hidden the secret that opens to view the whole chronological problem of the seventy weeks. This week of years stands not only pre-eminent among the seventy, but amongst all the weeks of the world’s history. It included in its wonderful events the ministry of Christ, his death, resurrection, and ascension, the establishment of the Church by the descent of the holy Spirit at Pentecost, and the early proclamation of the Gospel to the Jews of Palestine. The last half of the week was the period in which the special favor was shown to the Jews as a people. This favor was the invitation to them to enter into a covenant with their Messiah — a covenant of sacrifice to follow in his steps, to attain joint-heirship with him in his Kingdom.

Coming now to calculate the ending of this chronological prediction we would remind the reader again of the fact — a fact that should not be overlooked — that no matter what year in history we decide to be the one in which the commandment went forth to restore and to build Jerusalem, if we reckon in solar years, the sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, cannot possibly be made to end at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, which must have occurred in the autumn, when he reached the age of thirty, for the reason that the commandment was given in the Jewish month Nisan, which, of course, was in the spring. The Scriptures also state that this occurred in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, but give us no data for determining the exact year. We are therefore dependent upon the secular historian to discover the year BC in which this occurred.

In searching the records of the historian we discover that “Artaxerxes I, surnamed Longimanus, the second son of Xerxes, ascended the throne in 465 BC, his long reign extending to 425 BC” (International Encyclopedia). In the International Bible Dictionary we read: “Artaxerxes Longimanus … reigned from 464 to 425 BC.” The twentieth year, according to the first authority, would be 445 BC, and according to the second, 444 BC. The latter date is the one most generally accepted today as the correct one. Indeed, under the heading Nehemiah, the International Encyclopedia also makes the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to be 444 BC. Sir Isaac Newton, summing up an exhaustive examination of this matter, says:

“After Artaxerxes, reigned his son, Xerxes, two months, and Sogdian seven months; but their reign is not reckoned apart [by Ptolemy] in summing up the years of the kings, but is included in the forty or forty-one years’ reign of Artaxerxes; omit these nine months, and the precise reign of Artaxerxes will be thirty-nine years and three months. And, therefore, since his reign ended in the beginning of winter (BC 425), it began between midsummer and autumn (BC 464).”

Thus, according to Ptolemy, Artaxerxes’ twentieth year would be 444 BC. It will be proper, however, to say that two writers are quoted by Albert Barnes as fixing 454 BC as the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. These are Usher and Hengstenberg.

Our Futurist friends see clearly that it is absolutely impossible to make the sixty-nine weeks or 483 solar years which the Scriptures plainly state begin in the month Nisan, end in the fall, and on this account end these years at Christ’s death in the spring. They say it is at this point that the prediction, so far as it relates to the First Advent ends; and that the last or seventieth week will only begin to count when the Gospel Age is ended.

Holding with all writers of the Historic school that the middle of the seventieth week marks the exact date of Christ’s sacrificial death, and believing that the angel Gabriel was sent to fix not the approximate but the exact time of that greatest of all events of redemption, we find it necessary to discard solar reckoning and employ the lunar scale. It will easily be seen that sixty-nine and a half weeks is 4862 years. Therefore 4862 years must end at Christ’s death. The consensus of opinion is that Christ’s death occurred somewhere between 28 and 33 AD. If we reckon 4862 solar years from 444 BC, they will end at a time much beyond the date given by any Scripture expositor as marking Christ’s death. It would seem that this fact has influenced many to conclude that 444 BC is too late a date for the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and to hastily conclude that the eminent astronomer and chronologist, Ptolemy, must be wrong, and that the seventh of Artaxerxes must be the date of beginning. It does not seem to us proper to reject the testimony of this most reliable of ancient historians and chronologists. Instead of doing this, we inquire, may it not be possible that lunar reckoning is the one that solves the problem, since there will of necessity be an error of six months, whatever year we may choose, whether the seventh or the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, if we reckon according to solar time.

This seems most reasonable, because all the notable events of redemptive history are typified by Jewish ceremonies, sacrifices, and feasts, and are all fixed by lunar measures. The whole period of our Lord’s ministry was occupied in fulfilling the. Levitical types, which were calculated on the lunar scale.

“The feasts of the Lord, representing the history of redemption, were connected with certain days of lunations and phases of lunar fulness; as the passover with the tenth and fourteenth day of the first month; the feast of unleavened bread with the fifteenth; the feast of trumpets, the day of atonement, and the feast of tabernacles, with the first, tenth, and fifteenth day of the seventh month. Lunar revolutions were the chronometric wheels measuring the intervals of the Levitical calendar.”

The date assigned for our Lord’s death by the earlier writers, that is, those who lived the nearest to its occurrence, is that of Nisan 29 AD. It is also quite generally believed, and seems clearly to be taught in the types of redemption, that this event occurred on Friday. As we have already noted, the year of our Lord’s passion must lie somewhere between 28 and 33 AD. “In all these years,” says Mr. Guinness, “there is only one in which the fourteenth of Nisan [which according to the type marked our Lord’s death] coincides with a Friday, the year 29 AD; and this is the year in which the death of Christ is placed by Lactantius, Augustine, Sulpicius, Origen, Jerome, and Tertullian.” Brown in his work, Ordo Saeclorum, says that “the consular date assigned almost with one consent by the Latin Fathers is the year of the two Gemini U.C. 782 — AD 29.”

There are two things in connection with this prediction that cannot be successfully disproved. The first is that calculating the 4862 years on the solar scale from the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Nisan 457 BC), they end in the fall and not in the spring of 29 AD. The second is that calculating from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Nisan 444 BC on the lunar scale they do end in Nisan 29 AD, the month in which Christ was crucified. Continuing, Mr. Guinness makes the following statement:

“This chronological prediction was fulfilled [within six months] on the solar scale from the first edict of Artaxerxes, and on the lunar scale to a day from the second. A simple calculation shows this. Seventy weeks are 490 years, but sixty-nine and a half weeks are only 4862 years; this is therefore the number of the years predicted to elapse between Artaxerxes’ decree and the death of Christ. Nehemiah commenced his journey to Jerusalem in accordance with the decree given in the twentieth of Artaxerxes, during the passover month, the month of Nisan, BC 444; and, as we know, our Lord was crucified at the same season, the Passover, AD 29. From Nisan, BC 444, to Nisan, AD 29-472 ordinary solar years only elapsed, not 4862. But 472 solar years are exactly 4862 lunar. Hence sixty-nine and a half weeks of lunar years, from Passover to Passover, did extend between Artaxerxes’ decree in the twentieth year of his reign, and the crucifixion, or cutting off of ‘Messiah the Prince,’ AD 29, and the prophecy was accurately fulfilled, even to a day, on the lunar scale.”

Christ’s death occurring in the middle of the seventieth week, together with the fact that his ministry began when he was thirty years of age, is evidence that his ministry lasted just three and a half years. It also settles the matter that the sixty-nine weeks, or 483 lunar years, ended when he began his ministry at the age of thirty. His death occurring in Nisan, also establishes the fact that the anniversary of his birth was in October, six months earlier. His ministry beginning three and one half years prior to his death, perfectly harmonizes the angelic declaration that there would be exactly sixty-nine weeks or 483 years elapse until Messiah the Prince. He became the Messiah when he was anointed by the holy Spirit at Jordan in the beginning of his ministry, in the autumn. The last half of the week or the three and one half years which followed his death, relate to events in connection with the special Jewish favor, prior to the offering of favor to the Gentiles. In the language of another, we ask,

“Who but He who foresees the end even from the beginning could thus have foretold the exact time of Christ’s crucifixion, five hundred years in advance? Let the date of Daniel be as late as any [higher] critic has ever placed it, we still have here prediction — and that of the most exact chronological kind.”

The concluding words of the angel Gabriel are, “And for the overspreading of abominations, He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” The Revised Version renders these words, “And upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the consummation, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolator.”

These words should be interpreted in connection with those of verse 26, “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.” The meaning seems to be that after the Messiah has been rejected, “cut off,” both Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed, and this would be as a consequence of that act. This we know is what followed the rejection by the Jews of the Messiah, as predicted also by our Lord just before His rejection. In the year 70 AD the Roman armies under Titus laid siege to the city, captured it, and against the wishes and orders of their leader, and the Roman emperor, the beautiful temple was razed to the ground, and in a short time after, the Jews were banished from their land, which has been under the control of the Gentile powers even up to the present time.

Josephus records very particularly the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and unconsciously not only sets a seal upon this prediction but also upon the peculiar expression: “And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” He concludes his account with the words, “and thus, the holy house was burnt down without Caesar’s approbation.”

Forty years prior to this event, in the middle of the last week, Messiah established a covenant, and caused the sacrifices of the Law to no longer be acceptable. Thus did Messiah cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease; in other words, He made all other sacrifices meaningless; and the fact that the veil of the temple was rent in twain at His death, proved conclusively that the old things of the Law Covenant had passed away.

Thus far in this interpretation we meet no difficulty. Following the revealing angel’s instructions we began our study of the prediction by locating the date when the commandment went forth to restore and to build Jerusalem. We have found that on the solar scale we could not possibly end the sixty-nine weeks or 483 years in the autumn, when Christ began His ministry, and of course the 4862 years reckoned in solar time would end in the autumn, whereas the reverse is required by the prophecy. To insist upon exactness in fulfilment would require then the discarding of solar measurement. We have found, however, in harmony with the requirements of the prediction, that by lunar measurement the 4862 years do reach the exact time of Christ’s crucifixion. It then of course follows that sixty-nine weeks or 483 lunar years terminate in the autumn at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, thus in every feature meeting exactly the full requirements of the prophecy.

However, when we come to the New Testament record we meet with a difficulty. This we must not ignore. The difficulty is that in Luke 3 the statement is made that John the Baptist commenced his ministry in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. According to the secular historians Tiberius Caesar began his reign August 19, 14 AD, one day after Augustus Caesar’s death. The fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar would, according to this, be 29 AD, which would be six months before Christ began his public ministry. This would necessitate fixing the date of Christ’s birth about 1 BC, and as he lived thirty-three and a half years, his death would be in 34 AD. Now we are informed by Josephus that Herod the Great died in 4 BC. It would seem then that there is a mistake somewhere in these records, because the Herod mentioned is the Herod who sought to take away Christ’s life (Matthew 1). Christ according to this account must have been born prior to 4 BC.

We inquire, How are the statements of Luke and Matthew made to harmonize with these records? In reply to this query the explanation by another seems entirely satisfactory:

“The fifteenth year of the sole principate of Tiberius began August 19, U.C. 781 (AD 28), and reckoning backwards thirty years from that time (See Luke 3:23), we should have the birth of our Lord in U.C. 751, or about then. But Herod the Great died in the beginning of the year 750 (BC 4), and our Lord’s birth must be fixed some months, at least, before the death of Herod. If, then, it be placed in 749, He would have been at least thirty-two at the time of His baptism, seeing that it took place some time after the beginning of John’s ministry. This difficulty has led to the supposition that this fifteenth year is not to be dated from the sole but from the associated principate of Tiberius, which commenced most probably at the end of U.C. 764 (AD 11). According to this the fifteenth of Tiberius will begin at the end of U.C. 779” (Dean Alford).

It is of course well known that our Lord was born before the present Christian era.

“Our present era for the nativity, or that in popular use, is not of Apostolic or even of early origin. It is that which was fixed upon by Dionysius Exiguus, in the sixth century, and is proved to be erroneous by the fact that it places the birth of Christ no less than four years after the death of Herod — of the Herod who, when our Lord was born, sought ‘the young child to destroy him.’ Our Lord was certainly born before the death of Herod, and the time of Herod’s death is ascertained by means of an eclipse of the moon recorded by Josephus (Antiquities xvii. 4). Just before his death Herod burnt alive, along with his companions, one Matthias, who had been made high priest, ‘And that very night,’ says Josephus, ‘there was an eclipse of the moon.’ The Pass- over occurred immediately after the death of Herod, and before this came the funeral feast of some days’ duration, which Archelaus appointed in honor of his father. ‘Such an eclipse of the moon, visible at Jerusalem, as Ideler and Wurm have proved, actually occurred at that time, in the night between the twelfth and thirteenth of March, and according to Ideler beginning at 1 h. 48 m., and ending at 4 h. 12 m. The full moon of Nisan, that is, the fifteenth day of Nisan, occurred in 750 A.U.C. (BC 4) on the twelfth of April. If, therefore, as we have seen above, Herod died some days before this, and consequently at the beginning of April, this note of time would harmonize most excellently with the date of the eclipse of the moon.’

“ ‘Wurm, considering that an astronomical datum furnished a basis superior to all doubt, undertook the praise worthy labor of calculating all the lunar eclipses from 6 BC to 1 BC, and has tabulated the results. He shows that in the year U.C. 750 (BC 4), the only lunar eclipse visible at Jerusalem was that already mentioned, and that in the only other year which can enter into consideration for the year of Herod’s death, there was not one.’ ”¹

“O Time by holy prophets long foretold,
Time waited for by saints in days of old,
O sweet, auspicious morn
When Christ, the Lord, was born!

“We think about the shepherds, who, dismayed,
Fell on their faces, trembling and afraid,
Until they heard the cry,
Glory to God on high!

“Yea, crucified Redeemer, who didst give
Thy toil, Thy tears, Thy life, that we might live,
Thy spirit grant, that we
May live one day for Thee!”