Proof #4:

This proof will examine the language of the original prophecy and then match it against the decrees found in Ezra. Here the author relies on the research put together by three authors: first, that done by Ted Noel (see chapter three in his book for more information about this particular topic); second, that done by author Donald Ernest Mansell; third, that done by Roy Gane, PhD, professor of ancient languages in the seminary at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, USA.

The author will now proceed with proof #4.

When Daniel had the vision recorded in Daniel 8, he evidently became so upset with the vision that he fainted (Daniel 8:27), so the angel left. When the vision of Daniel 9 came along (Some 8-10 years later), it is natural that the angel Gabriel would wish to complete the vision of Daniel 8. That in fact is what Gabriel proceeds to do. Gabriel continues talking about the vision of Daniel 8 almost as if nothing had interrupted him before.

The English word "vision" translators derive from two Hebrew words, which Daniel uses when writing about the vision in Daniel 8.  These words are marah and chazon.  Here is the basic information about these two words in this chapter: here are the verses in Daniel 8 where this word is used:

Dan 8:15  It happened, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, that I sought to understand it; and, behold, there stood before me as the appearance (marah) of a man.

Dan 8:16  I heard a man's voice between the banks of the Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision (marah)

Dan 8:26  The vision (marah) of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true: but seal up the vision; for it belongs to many days to come.

Dan 8:27  I, Daniel, fainted, and was sick certain days; then I rose up, and did the king's business: and I wondered at the vision (marah), but none understood it.

Note that verse 15 translates the Hebrew word marah as "appearance," even though it means, "vision," the term "appearance" certainly is reasonable given the context. This seems to be the one exception to how translators interpreted this word.

A Hebrew-English dictionary defines the meaning of "marah" as:

1)  sight, appearance, vision

1a)  sight, phenomenon, spectacle, appearance, vision

1b)  what is seen

1c)  a vision (supernatural)

1d)  sight, vision (power of seeing)

Part of Speech: noun masculine

The other Hebrew word for "vision" in Daniel 8 is the word "chazon." Here are the verses in Daniel 8 where this word occurs:

Dan 8:1  In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision (chazon) appeared to me, even to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first.

Dan 8:2  I saw in the vision; (chazon) now it was so, that when I saw, I was in Shushan the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, (chazon) and I was by the river Ulai.

Dan 8:13  Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who spoke, How long shall be the vision (chazon) concerning the continual burnt-offering, and the disobedience that makes desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Dan 8:15  It happened, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, (chazon) that I sought to understand it; and, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.

Dan 8:26  The vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true: but seal up the vision; (chazon) for it belongs to many days to come.

A Hebrew-English dictionary defines the meaning of "chazon" as:

1)  vision

1a)  vision (in ecstatic state)

1b)  vision (in night)

1c)  vision, oracle, prophecy (divine communication)

1d)  vision (as title of book of prophecy)

Part of Speech: noun masculine

In the vision recorded in Daniel 8, Daniel is told that there would be 2300 evening-mornings and that the vision (as a whole) would extend to the time of the end (Daniel 8:19, 26 second occurrence.)  Also the 2300 evening-mornings was said to extend to the end of days (Daniel 8:16 where the word "marah" is used).  Daniel was then told what would transpire between his time and down through the ages towards our time, which is evidently what made him upset and caused him to faint.  In explaining the 2300 evening-mornings part of the vision, the angel used the Hebrew word "marah" for "vision," which he was supposed to help Daniel understand.  However, Daniel said he did not understand the marah at the end of the chapter.  In Daniel 9, the angel tells Daniel that he had come to help Daniel understand the marah - the same word, thereby indicating he had come to help him understand the rest of the information that the angel would have provided as part of the vision of Daniel 8, but the angel did not because Daniel fainted.  Therefore, Daniel 9 is merely a continuation of Daniel 8, and the 70-week prophecy is, therefore, simply a part of the 2300 evening-mornings that the angel did not get to explain.  This must be so since the word marah refers to the 2300 evening-mornings.  That is the only logical conclusion that one can draw.

Of course, which part of the 2300 evening-mornings the 70 weeks is part of - the beginning, middle, or end - is very important.  If the 70 weeks starts at the same time as the 2300 evening-mornings, then all we have to do is determine the beginning date for one, and you have automatically determined it for the other.  If the 70 weeks ends at the same time as the 2300 evening-mornings, then we have a problem because it is obvious that the 69 weeks ends with the arrival of Jesus as the Messiah.  That would contradict the vision of Daniel 8 because it said the 2300 evening-mornings would extend to the end.  The time of Jesus was not the time of the end, so the logical conclusion is that the 70 weeks and the 2300 evening-mornings cannot end together.  Therefore, they must begin together so that the 69 weeks ends with the arrival of the Messiah and the 2300 evenings-mornings extends down to near the end of time.

The information in the previous two paragraphs comes from the Bible and Mansell's excellent book.

The 70 weeks are not from the middle of the 2300 days/years prophecy because then there would be no way to determine when one or the other of these prophetic periods actually starts.  It seems illogical that God would cut off time from the 2300 days (evening-mornings) in such a way that one cannot determine from where it is cut off, so logically that must mean that God intended that the time be cut off from one end or the other.  Only in that way can one determine the starting or ending dates for both prophecies.

The angel told Daniel that the 70 weeks were "determined", "decreed", "fixed", "decided", "apportioned", "shortened", "set", or "assigned" for his people and to bring in righteousness, with the choice of words used depending on which version of the bible one is reading.  Most versions use the words "determined" or "decreed."  According to Noel, the original Hebrew word translated as "determined" or "decreed" in most versions, originally meant, "Cut off" as if to amputate a limb.  The fact that it means to cut off as if to amputate a limb seems to rule out the possibility that the 70 weeks begins somewhere in the middle of the 2300 days.  You do not amputate the middle of a limb without taking the entire limb below the cut nearest the body.  It is simply not possible to do otherwise.  Therefore, as explained above, it is obvious that the 70 weeks comes from the beginning of the 2300 days since cutting it off from the end creates contradictions with the text of the prophecy regarding the 2300 days extending towards the end of time.

Here again is what Daniel says about the prophecy concerning the city of Jerusalem:

Dan 9:25  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.

Try as you might, you will not find an exact decree that appears to fit this text in the English version of the Bible anywhere.  There are three decrees from the Persian kings regarding the return of Jews to Judah.  None of them contains language that APPEARS to fulfill this prophecy.  So, what are we to conclude?  The following options are possible:

• We misunderstand the language of the prophecy itself
  
  
• There is a decree that the Bible does not record.  This is extremely unlikely given its importance, but this is the position taken by those favoring 444 B.C. as the starting date.
  
  
• God goofed and got the prophecy wrong?   That is impossible!  God does NOT make mistakes.
  
  
• We do not have the entire text of the three decrees
  
  

The second option is extremely unlikely.  God specifically sent his angel to be sure that Daniel understood the 70 weeks prophecy, and given that it was about when the Messiah would come, this would be given the highest priority to be sure people did NOT misunderstand when he was to come.  Therefore, it seems incredibly unlikely that God would fail to be sure, that people could not mistake the starting date for the prophecy.

The third option is clearly not the answer since God does not make mistakes.  He would know what is coming so would be able to make sure the prophecy exactly fit the facts. 

The fourth option is possible, but very improbable because the Bible says that the texts of the decrees are included.  It does not suggest that these are abbreviated copies of the actual decrees.  Therefore, we must turn to option 1 - somehow we misunderstand the language of the original prophecy because of the way Bible translators translated the text.

Nehemiah's trip to Jerusalem in 444 B.C. would appear to fulfill the prophecy because he made that trip specifically to rebuild the city and gate.  Here the appearance of things is deceiving, for several reasons.  First, Nehemiah's trip did not have a decree attached to it.  The king gave Nehemiah letters for safe travel and allowing him to procure materials to rebuild the city, but he gave no published decree.  Second, Nehemiah said nothing about any of the letters giving him power to create autonomy for the Jews.  It seems that for such an important event, he would have at least copied in THAT LETTER (the actual decree) into his book, and yet he did not.  His failure to mention it or even to copy such a letter into his book speaks volumes about the lack of a decree or even a letter about autonomy for the Jews.  Third, Nehemiah's trip fails to fit within the periods demonstrated in the proofs given above.  However, we must and can do better. 

Several things must happen to fulfill the prophecy of Daniel 9:25, these are:

• There must be a decree and
  
  
• The decree must in some way restore Jerusalem to reverse what God had done to the Jews before, and
  
  
• The decree must fit the language of the prophecy in exact detail.
  
  

For God to restore Jerusalem in such a way as to reverse what He had done to the Jews, means one must analyze what happened originally. God let Babylon capture their king and civilians, they lost the freedom they once had, they lost their right to self govern themselves and were subject to the will of a pagan king and pagan government, and their citizens were forcibly taken to Babylon - if they were lucky enough to live through the ordeal. In addition, the Babylonians destroyed the city and the temple.

To determine if God restored the Jewish state requires us to understand that Jewish society was to live by the Law of God. For God to restore the Jewish state means that restoration must include living by the Law of God. As you will see below the decree in 457 B.C.  by Artaxerxes I restored this basic element of the Jewish state. God did not obviously restore the lives of those who died, so that cannot be what He was to restore. Getting their right to self-government back would give those basic freedoms and God’s Law rather than the law of the pagan Persian king off in faraway Babylon would at least govern them. If the king’s decree restores these basic elements, the only question left is when the fulfillment of the remaining parts of the prophecy took place.

It would appear that none of the decrees by the various kings matches the prophecy of Daniel 9:25, however many base this idea on way that the translators translate the prophecy. Looking at the Hebrew-English dictionary for the meaning of the Hebrew words that translators typically translate as "restore" and "build" (from the prophecy in Daniel 9:25), you find the following:

restore -

1)  to return, turn back

1a)  (Qal)

1a1)  to turn back, return

1a1a)  to turn back

1a1b)  to return, come or go back

1a1c)  to return unto, go back, come back

1a1d)  of dying

1a1e)  of human relations (figuratively)

1a1f)  of spiritual relations (figuratively)

1a1f1)  to turn back (from God), apostatize

1a1f2)  to turn away (of God)

1a1f3)  to turn back (to God), repent

1a1f4)  turn back (from evil)

1a1g)  of inanimate things

1a1h)  in repetition

1b)  (Polel)

1b1)  to bring back

1b2)  to restore, refresh, repair (figuratively)

1b3)  to lead away (enticingly)

1b4)  to show turning, apostatize

1c)  (Pual) restored (participle)

1d)  (Hiphil) to cause to return, bring back

1d1)  to bring back, allow to return, put back, draw back, give back, restore, relinquish, give in payment

1d2)  to bring back, refresh, restore

1d3)  to bring back, report to, answer

1d4)  to bring back, make requital, pay (as recompense)

1d5)  to turn back or backward, repel, defeat, repulse, hinder, reject, refuse

1d6)  to turn away (face), turn toward

1d7)  to turn against

1d8)  to bring back to mind

1d9)  to show a turning away

1d10)  to reverse, revoke

1e)  (Hophal) to be returned, be restored, be brought back

1f)  (Pulal) brought back

Part of Speech: verb

build -

1)  to build, rebuild, establish, cause to continue

1a)  (Qal)

1a1)  to build, rebuild

1a2)  to build a house (for example, establish a family)

1b)  (Niphal)

1b1)  to be built

1b2)  to be rebuilt

1b3)  established (of restored exiles) (figuratively)

1b4)  established (made permanent)

1b5)  to be built up (of childless wife becoming the mother of a family through the children of a concubine)

Part of Speech: verb

In a personal communication to the author, Roy Gane, Ph.D., relates the following facts about the Hebrew words for return (the Hebrew is "shub") and the Hebrew word for build (the Hebrew is "bnh," which may be for "banah "):

In Dan 9:25 the verbs are:

• Hiphil (causative) of shub, literally "cause to return" or less literally "restore."
  
  
• Qal (simple stem) of bnh, literally "build," or less literally "establish," etc.
  
  

Note that Roy Gane's definitions are very similar to that taken from the dictionary, as shown above.

Looking over the definitions of the Hebrew words for "build" and "restore" shown above, it is clear that the term "restore" could actually mean to "return." While the word "build" could actually mean to establish or build up, referring to the family. However, maybe here it could mean to build up the people - Jeremiah uses this same verb in Jeremiah 12:14-16 to mean just that - see Ted Noel's book, page 46. Therefore, the actual meaning could be to "return and establish or build up the people of Jerusalem." Does this make sense?

Now, did the three decrees of the Persian kings allow the Jews to return and establish or build up the people?   The answer to this question is YES, the decrees did in fact allow that.  The first decree allowed the people to return.  That would allow them to return to live there, which means they would have to build homes to live in.  Thus, the fulfillment of the "return" part of the prophecy occurred with the very first decree of Cyrus.  However, it would not be correct to date the prophecy from the first decree because the self-government was not established. 

Self-government, which to them meant the Jewish leaders, would govern by the laws of God and would have judges and magistrates to enforce those laws, meant that it would be necessary to "establish" Jerusalem.  That is only logical because without self-government, they are simply a collection of people living in an area and would still be subject to the pagan laws of the Persian king.  In general, we do not consider a city "established" unless they have a government of their own where things are organized. 

The point of this is that they became an established city when they got self-government, which the decree of 457 B.C. by Artaxerxes I restored to Jerusalem.  This allowed them to reverse the effects of the original capture and destruction of Jerusalem.  Therefore, the fulfillment of the terms of the "restore" and "build" parts of the prophecy happened with the decree in 457 B.C. and the previous decrees.

Now, let us turn to the part of the prophecy in Daniel 9:25 that the King James Version translates as "streets" and "walls."

You can read about the decree of Cyrus II in the book of Ezra, chapter 1. The decree of Cyrus II simply allowed the Jews to return home and rebuild their temple to God. He also returned many of the articles taken from the sanctuary by Nebuchadnezzar. Obviously, he allowed them to build homes to live in since they were going home. However, from historical records it appears that King Cyrus II did not allow the Jews to govern themselves, but were to be subject to the king of Persia and his judges and governors. You will find evidence of that in Ezra and Nehemiah. However, in all, the decree of Cyrus II says nothing about rebuilding the streets and walls.

The next decree was that of Darius I in 519. You can read this decree in Ezra 6. In this decree, Darius I decreed that Jews were to complete the work on the new temple without troubles from the surrounding people. In addition, this decree restores the remaining vessels taken by Nebuchadnezzar to the Jews. Therefore, it still says nothing about rebuilding the streets and walls.

The temple was eventually finished, before 457 B.C. as far as historical records indicate.  This completion reversed another punishment of God on the Jews, the destruction of their temple.

The last decree was that of Artaxerxes I in 457 B.C.  This decree states the following:

• Jews may return to Jerusalem as they desire
  
  
• Ezra was to check out the situation in Judah for the king
  
  
• They are to use the silver and gold to buy offerings for use at the new temple
  
  
• Whatever is left of the money they may use as they saw fit within the will of God
  
  
• Whatever they needed in the new temple, pay for it out of the king's treasury
  
  
• The king's treasurers in the region were to cooperate in providing money as needed
  
  
• The king's treasurers may not impose taxes on the priests and Levites
  
  
• Ezra may appoint judges and magistrates to judge and enforce laws of God
  
  
• Decree of punishment for those who disobey God's Laws
  
  

You can read the entire decree in Ezra 7.

Again, looking at this decree, you can see that there is no explicit decree to rebuild the streets and walls.

At this point, some go to Nehemiah and claim that his going to Jerusalem in 444 B.C. fulfilled this prophecy because they cannot find an answer to the prophecy in the three decrees mentioned above.  However, the problem is that, as said before, there is no decree in Nehemiah 2.  Therefore, his trip cannot be the direct fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel 9:25.

This next part is where Ted Noel's book is most helpful.  A Hebrew-English dictionary is also most helpful.

According to Ted Noel, the original language, which is usually translated as rebuilding the streets and walls, should instead be translated as giving the Jews "a square and decision making," which is a Jewish idiom telling us that the Jews would be given full ability to govern their lives.  In other words, the decree would restore some self-government.  In addition, it would make sense that the Babylonians deprived the Jews of living under a government potentially directly under God's control during the 70 years captive in Babylon.   They had to live under pagan laws.  The decree of Artaxerxes I fully restored the law of God as the law of the land.  The judges Ezra was to appoint were to apply the law of God, so it is clear that this is what in fact actually restored the city of Jerusalem and therefore fulfills the prophecy of Daniel 9.

Here is what the original words mean from a Hebrew-English dictionary for the words commonly translated as "street" and "wall" in Daniel 9:25:

Street - broad or open place or plaza (Part of Speech: noun feminine)

Wall -

• sharp-pointed, sharp, diligent (adjective),



• strict decision, decision (noun masculine),



• trench, moat, ditch (noun masculine),



• gold (poetical) (noun masculine).

Now the street being a broad or open place or plaza you could consider a square in the center of a town, which in many towns of the world is where meetings of citizens’ takes place, formally or informally.

The wall is another issue. The meaning of being sharp-pointed, sharp, or diligent, probably does not apply. The meaning of having a moat or trench would not apply either because Jerusalem never had a moat around it. Gold would be an unlikely interpretation, so it too we can discard. The remaining interpretation is that of decision. Combining that with the meaning of street as an idiom, one can see that the decree gave them the right to govern themselves or make decisions about their lives, something that likely done by judges and magistrates. Like many cultures of the world in the past, it would take place in the open plaza of the city. That is the very likely final confirming factor of the meaning of the prophecy. It says they will get their autonomy back. Did the decree of Artaxerxes fulfill these criteria?

Artaxerxes gave Ezra the right to set up judges and magistrates.  Surely that does fulfill the prophecy because it certainly gave them the right to decide the fate of those who violated the laws, be they God's laws or the king's laws.  That clearly implies a degree of autonomy, which they did not have before.  Therefore, this truly was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel 9. 

It is a fact that people in Old Testament times often went to the rulers of the area to have decisions rendered for them.  It appears this took place in public places, usually near the city gate.  Here are a couple of verses from the bible that illustrate this fact of life back in Old Testament times:

Deut 22:15  Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate

Josh 20:4  And when he that doth flee unto one of those cities shall stand at the entering of the gate of the city, and shall declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city, they shall take him into the city unto them, and give him a place, that he may dwell among them.

2Ch 32:6  And he set captains of war over the people, and gathered them together to him in the street of the gate of the city, and spoke comfortably to them, saying,

The last verse above is less about decision making and more about a speech by king Hezekiah, but the point of that verse is that they often did meet near the city gates for public reasons, including decision making as Deuteronomy 22:15 and Joshua 20:4 make clear.  In addition, kings commonly were involved in decision making for others as they acted as the final court of justice.  Therefore, getting a wide place (plaza) and decision is telling you that they are going to be able to govern their lives by their own rules, which in this case will be the rules of God, just as king Artaxerxes I actually declared in his decree of 457 B.C.

Perhaps a better rough rendition of Daniel 9:25 would be:

Dan 9:25  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to return and establish and build up the people of Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: a plaza and self government shall return, even in troublous times.

You can read more details of this by reading the Bible and, buying and read Ted Noel's book. In addition, you can download an electronic Bible, which contains a built in Strong's Hebrew-English dictionary and Greek-English dictionary, at http://www.e-sword.net.  The author of this excellent software does allow you to download this free, but he does have expenses and does appreciate donations.  Ted Noel's book will give you good insight into this language translation problem so that you can properly understand this verse in Daniel 9:25. 

Neither of the decrees of Cyrus II nor of Darius I meet all the criteria of Daniel 9:25, but Artaxerxes’ I decree meets the criteria.  Moreover, for sure, since there was no decree for Nehemiah, what Artaxerxes I did in 444 B.C. cannot meet the requirements at all.  Given that the 457 B.C. decree does fulfill the prophecy, why vainly go to a date that does not meet the criteria (444 B.C?)

Therefore, the conclusion of proof #4 is that the original Hebrew language of Daniel 9:25 requires that the decree of Artaxerxes I, which was issued in 457 B.C, must be the correct fulfillment of Daniel 9:25.  There is no other decree that matches the requirements for restoration of what God began to take away from the Jews in 605 B.C. and completed in 586 B.C.