Daniel 9 Explained

By Daniel Gregg —

The history here is divided into sections:

Daniel 9 Explained

Daniel 9:25-26 counts Seven Sevens and Sixty-Two Sevens from the word to rebuild Jerusalem (Ezra 4:21; Nehemiah 2:1) until after which Messiah is cut off. Up until the present, the chances are that few Christians or Jews have ever laid eyes on a correct calculation of this prophecy. This is because Christians and Jews have rejected the truths necessary to calculate it, and have removed or moved every boundary marker of historical chronology to smash it into a doctrinal system without regard for actual history.

The word of promise to make a decree was given in the first year of a Sabbatical cycle, in 451.T/450.T BC (Ezra 4:21). The promised word was made an active decree in the sixth year of that same cycle 446.T/445.T (Nehemiah 2:1). The walls were completed before the beginning of the first Sabbath year in the prophecy 445.T/444.T. The active decree was given in the month of Nisanu in the 20th year of Artaxerxes I of Persia. Per standard Persian regnal years this was in 445 BC. The walls were finished in the following month of Elul just before the the first Sabbath year in the series began. We fast forward the seven sabbath cycles and another sixty two sabbath cycles, and we come to the first Passover immediately after their termination point (Tishri 1, AD 33) in the spring of AD 34. Messiah Yeshua was crucified on March 24, AD 34 (Nisan 14) and raised from the dead on March 27, AD 34 (Nisan 17). Between these two points fit the seven sevens and the sixty two sevens, measured as a total number of Sabbath years, or counted inclusively from the first sabbath year period coming up to immediately after the sixty-ninth sabbath year period. Or counted as a complete 483 years from 451.T to 33.T, exactly 69 sabbath year cycles leading up to AD 34. It does not matter which of three ways one counts this time period (1) complete sabbath cycles from the date of Ezra 4:21 in 450 BC, (2) completed Sabbath cycles between the wall building and the crucifixion, or (3) inclusively counted sabbath cycles from the decree to rebuild leading up to AD 34. Whichever way, the result is the same in all three cases.

This was followed by a proto-typical anticipation of the 70th Sabbath year in AD 39.T/40.T, during which the Roman Emperor Caligula hatched his plan to install his statue in the Jerusalem Temple. But he was stopped when the Roman Governor of Syria, Publius Petronius, delayed the orders. If the plan had gone through, the defilement of the Temple with a statue of the Emperor would have been sufficient to cause the sacrifice and offering to cease. But by a divine intervention, a faction of the Roman Senate and other officials conspired against him, and Praetorian Guard brutally assassinated him. Herod Agrippa I then negotiated the transition of power to Claudius and secured his kingdom. Therefore, like the situation during Antiochus IV, the final fulfillment of Daniel was cut away to a later time.

What Actually is a Seven?

A "seven" is a period of seven years, or the seventh year at the end of a period of seven years. The period is called a sabbatical year period. The seventh year is called the sabbatical year. The first mistake calculators make is to assume that any arbitrary stretch of seven years is a sabbatical period. They proceed to calculate with no regard for when the historical sabbath year periods fall in the calendar. For this reason they can never achieve the proper precision with the calculation. They dismiss the necessity out of not knowing when the proper periods fall.

It should be noted that the Hebrew language may at times use the same cardinal number to stand for both a cardinal and an ordinal number. For example, fortieth and forty are the same Hebrew word; fifty and fiftieth are the same Hebrew word. This is especially the case with plurals of seven. In the singular שְׁבִיעִי means seventh. The plural is spelled שְׁבִיעִים sevenths and then appears in defective spelling as שִׁבְעִים. In this form it may also mean sevens or seventy.

We may therefore interpret Daniel 9:24a as "Seventy Sevens" or "Seventy Sevenths" (שִׁבְעִים שִׁבְעִים). We will find that both interpretations work. We can bypass the gender rules here because this is two substantives, "Seventy [ones], Seventh [ones]." All that is required is to discard the traditional Masoretic vowels on the first word so that the corrected vowels appear exactly as in the second word.

This is an exact mirror of מְנֵא מְנֵא תְּקֵל וּפַרְסִין, Daniel 5:25, "Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin." Thy kings life is numbered in the first Mene. The king dies in 539 BC. The kingdom is numbered in the second Mene. Babylon came to a global ending point at 66 1/2 years, and still has to complete 3.5 years for its final end, which are yet in the future. Daniel 9 is the same kind of puzzle.

How to apply "Seventy Sevenths." The sevenths are the seventh years. There are seven sevenths and sixty two sevenths. The first seventh year is 445.T/444.T BC and the last seventh year is AD 32.T/33.T. And after the last one of the sixty and two sevenths, the Messiah is cut off. And this is on March 24, AD 34. But if we interpret as "Seventy Sevens," which is seven year periods, then the first seven year period is from 451.T to 444.T. and the last one is from AD 26.T to AD 33.T. Walls were built in the first seven. Messiah is cut off after the last of the sixty and two. The counting is inclusive. This is just as if three days are counted, we do not need to count from the first hour of the day, which would be equivalent to counting from the first year of the Sabbath year cycle. We can count from any point in the first cycle, and still count the total sum of sixty nine sabbatical cycles. (Note. .T stands for Tishri 1).

The AD 34 Stumbling Block

Now as soon as the defenders of tradition see AD 34, they are going to say the the crucifixion must have been on Friday, April 3, AD 33, or Friday, April 7, AD 30. However, they are not defending the first tradition. They are defending a new narrative after the old one fell apart in the late 1500's due to developing astronomical science. The first traditon was Friday, March 25, AD 29. When around AD 725 Bede applied Dionyisus' 19 year cycle, it was proven false. Bede then pointed to a tradition in Rome which specified AD 34, and so the date became March 25, AD 34. The AD 34 tradition apparently goes back to a continuous count of years since the Passion, kept by priests who wrote the year of the Passion Era down on the Paschal Candles every year. Since March 25, AD 34 was a Thursday, Bede cleverly worded his comments so that the common reader would think it was Friday. That year, Nisan 15 was March 25. It is confirmed by astronomical calculation. But it was not Friday. It was a Thursday.

Now we know that Messiah Yeshua died on the 14th of Nisan and not on the 15th. If anyone questions this, the same dilemma occurs in Exodus 12:15. There is the first day of unleavened bread (the 15th), and then there is the headmost day of unleavened bread upon which leaven is removed (the 14th). Rishon in Hebrew is intensive, and protos in Greek may be superlative. So the correct date is one day before the date Bede cited. It is March 24, AD 34, on a Wednesday, the 4th day of the week.

The final and perhaps biggest stumbling block for AD 34 is that three days and three nights terminate at dawn on the weekly Sabbath, March 27th, AD 34. But it was the Church that created the problem in the first place by changing the day of the resurrection from Sabbath to Sunday. The texts actually do not say it was on "the first day of the week." Rather, they say it was "on the first day of the Sabbaths" or "una sabbatorum," "one of the Sabbaths" (אַחַת הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת). If one wishes to study this more, then you can see the Good News of Messiah, online for free on this site. Every relevant text is explained, and if needed the standard translation is corrected in the GNM.

Scholars are hyper dogmatic about translating, "first day of the week." Their first line of defense is to claim that day is implied by the grammar, because some unwise defenders of a Sabbath resurrection have made much of its absence. But admitting that the word day is properly implied is doom for these scholars, because it only shows that the Greek stands for "one [day] of the Sabbaths." And it is well known, at least among scholars of the Greek NT, that ἡμέρα τῶν σαββάτων, "day of the Sabbaths" means the seventh day. Prefixing the phrase with "one" or "first" simply counts a particular one of the Sabbaths.

Their second line of defense is to reduce the meaning of σαββάτων to "week," or to point out that they have reduced it there. But an examination of the manner of counting days of the week in the DSS and the Mishnah with respect to the Sabbath demonstrates that "week" is not the intended meaning of Shabbat. It is rather, "one day in connection to the Sabbath," then two, three, four, five (in connection to the Shabbath), and then erev Shabbat for the sixth day, and Shabbat for the Sabbath. The word "in" ב in Hebrew does not signify that the weekday is contained "in" the Sabbath as a locative usage, but it is a relational usage, "in connection to" or "with regard to."

Their dogmatism at shutting out the possibility of "first of the Sabbath days" dies when one examines the various wordings of the "first [day] of unleavends" passages. For whatever logic they try to use will make it impossible to count the days of unleavened bread in the same fashion. The syntax of those passages is identical to the resurrection passages.

If after realizing the possibility here, the reader seeks to understand the chronology of Passion week consistently, he will find that tradition absolutely does not fit together without contradiction. But what I am saying here does. In fact, we can map out the entire chronology of the Scripture working back from Passion Week, and that in return only confirms what I told you.

The Timing Doesn't Matter

Next, they will turn to theology and tell you it does not matter when it happened, but only that it did happen. This of course is only to hand a hangman's noose to the secularists who want to tear down any notion that the Scripture can validate its own chronology. Given enough bad theology and inconsistent history, an increasing number of people also leave that fact that he did die and rise from the dead behind also.

But matters are much much worse. It is a comparatively trivial matter to lie about when the cross and the resurrection happened. It is a wholly new level of corruption to explain the theology of the cross wrongly. What I am saying is that corrupting the timeline is just the start of the corruption. Because by corrupting it, they have removed all the necessary background for understanding why the cross happened and what it means. If by showing you that they lied about the appointed times, then I might be able to show you that the lied about the message of the cross also.

The opportunity to hear the truth does not remain forever. In this world, it is a privilege granted by the Most High. He who holds fast will be given more, but he who does not, even what he has will be taken from him. Use your time and resources wisely. Take care whom you listen to.

The problem with most religious scholars is that they are not free to speak honestly. They are bound in chains to the very institutions that promote false traditions. Those institutions do not sit down to ask what is fair, reasonable, or logical when their power and influence are challenged. They effectively cut off anyone who depends on them. And the rest they slander. And if need be they mobilize the emotional attachments of their parishioners and turn them into an angry mob.

The Message Matters

Doubtless, I should write more on this later. I have written considerably, and you will find most of it at this point in the pages of The Good News of Messiah. So I will try to keep it short here. I cannot correct every matter in a focused article. The Western Church has evolved a model of atonement since Anselm which has morphed into an appeasement system. The sacrifice of Messiah on the cross is explained as necessary to pay off the wrath of God on behalf of the sinner.

Messiah did die "for our sin" or "for sin," but this is not a transaction. "For sin" means for purging sin from the sinner. Messiah cleanses us from all sin. The blood shed at the cross contained the divine life. And it is this divine life that was raised again that through his blood purges our sins. And he is the purging not only of our sin, but of the sins of the whole world, because anyone who will not cooperate with Messiah and seek purging will find themselves purged along with their sin. Think of it as cosmic cleansing. Either be cleansed by Messiah or you get purged when he comes to judge the nations.

So we must be faithful and purify ourselves just as he is pure. Atonement is not appeasement. Atonement is not a payment to the Most High. It is not a compensation for sin. At—one—ment originally meant to create harmony. If you want harmony or reconciliation with the Almighty, then you have to remove the sin from your life. You cannot do it all by yourself. You need the purgation of Messiah Yeshua. Because that is what the Hebrew verb kippur means, to "purge"; a synonym of to "cleanse."

The Seventy Sevenths Cut Apart

"Seventy sevenths — it has been cut apart...seven sevenths and sixty-two sevenths...and one seven—cycle." The the third word in our text is the Hebrew verb nechtak (נֶחְתַּךְ). It means "it has been cut apart"; it is a hapax legomenon (a word that occurs only once in the Hebrew text). This uniqueness means one cannot do a word study to see how the word is used in other contexts in the bible. But there are outside Hebrew sources. In those sources the common meaning is to cut something physically apart, like literally carving up a piece of meat. Alternatively, in a legal context, it can refer to cutting short the arguments in a court so that the judge may make a final decision or determination. The repetition of שִׁבְעִים שִׁבְעִים, would indicate the absolute firmness of the final decision. So there are two senses. Seventy Sevenths — it as been cuttingly decided. This is a dynamic sense. The judge has cut off all argument and gives the final decision. Or straightly and literally, Seventy Sevenths — it has been cut apart. Once again, we find that the text employs a profound double entendre.

Verse 24 of the text provides a literal laundry list of things that must be taken out, cleansed, or finished in the specified time period. It reads like an itemized list of sub paragraphs in a final judicial decree. The courtroom argument has been cut short, and here is the decision list. But also the subsequent verses literally cut the total time period down into three blocks: seven sevenths, and sixty-two sevenths, and one seven cycle. There is no denying that the whole of the Seventy Sevenths has been carved apart into three distinct numbers, denoting three specific periods of time.

The Partial Decipherment Trap

It is human nature to want final knowledge on an important matter. People yearn for certitude, so when a reporter only knows a fraction of the facts, they still present a headline that reflects complete certainty. In the rush to get to press, no one hangs around the scene long enough to collect all the data. If you happen to be fortunate enough to hear a follow-up report later, then to your chagrin you learn you were deceived by the first reporter. Audiences will actively choose a flawed, certain answer over an accurate, uncertain one simply to stop the mental discomfort. It is even worse nowadays. The reporter is often more interested in what they want you to think than in the truth of the matter.

Interpreters universally recognize that this passage is cryptic. Yet, upon partial decipherment they rush forward to tell you that the sevens are merely years, completely overlooking the deeper sabbatical year connection. Like an amateur trying to translate a Babylonian tablet fresh from the ruins, they publish their assumed interpretation before the archaeologist has finished cross-referencing the ancient archive for vocabulary usage. Because viewing the timeline as cut up is even more complicated, and risks cognitive overload, they completely overlook the connection between cut apart and the actual cut-apart segments standing in the text. Instead, they zero in on the judicial sense of 'determination' and assume that the time period must be one continuous, unbroken block of time. They take for granted that 70 is simply meant to be multiplied by seven to equal 490 years. But anyone who genuinely studies prophecy knows it is anything but that easy. The interpreters have rushed forward with their absolutely-certain decipherment before they know the whole matter. They have sandwiched the whole matter between their own pious-narrative additions just to maintain the holy aura of being right.

The Sabbatical Year Connection

"In the first year of his kingdom, I Daniel had understood through the books the number of years which had been; the word of Yahweh unto Jeremiah the prophet to make being filled for the desolations of Jerusalem: seventy years" (Daniel 9:2). One should notice the jarring stop in the Hebrew text at אֲשֶׁר הָיָה, "which had been." Furthermore, we note that the time index is the first year of Darius the Mede (aka Cyrus)—right after the fall of Babylon, but before the 70 years of exile had completely run out. Further, we must notice that Daniel did not just derive his understanding from Jeremiah alone; because he says he understood "through the books." "Books" sepharim (סְּפָרִים) is plural. Daniel did not just possess the single scroll with Jeremiah. He also had the Torah scroll containing Leviticus. Daniel is not speaking of seventy years which were not finished yet with the odd words "which had been," but of the years upon which the seventy year judgement was based.

The key passage is Leviticus 26:34-35, "At that time, the land shall be satisfied with her Sabbaths, all the years of her being made desolate, and ye [are] in the land of your enemies. At that time, the land will rest, and she will have made satisfaction for her Sabbaths. All the years of her being desolated, she shall cease that which (אֵת אֲשֶׁר), she had not ceased during the Sabbaths when ye were dwelling upon her." The verb ratzah (רָצָה) means 'to be satisfied' or 'to be pleased with.' The verb root is stative, expressing a state of being satisfied. In the Hiphil causative stem hehirzat (הִרְצָת), it means "she will have made be satisfaction"; it takes on a technical, legal sense of forcing an exact compensation. The words אֵת אֲשֶׁר "for that which" denote a strict equivalent relation between the specific Sabbaths the land did not observe while Israel was in it and the restorative Sabbaths it would observe on its own while Israel was exiled.

Daniel uncovered this judicial principle in the book of Leviticus. When coupled with the announced duration of the judgement— seventy years—one may logically conclude that the actual number of sabbath years Israel failed to keep, when they followed false gods, was precisely seventy. This is exactly why the prophet Daniel refers to these years in Daniel 9:2, saying "which had been." This establishes that the seventy years are based on an ironclad ledger of seventy unobserved sabbatical years.

We will find out that the Seventy Sevens (or Sevenths) are also based on the actual Sabbatical years.

When is the Sabbatical Year?

Queen Amestris

In the biblical account of Esther, Vashti is deposed from her royal position, and Esther becomes Queen in the 7th year of Xerxes (Ahasuerus) in 479 BC. In the Greek Histories of Herodotus and Ctesias she goes by the name of Amestris. Herodotus and Ctesias mistakenly projected Amestris backwards into the time of Vashti and attributed the principal royal heirs to Amestris. But this was a mistake, and here is the probable reason why:

When Esther became Queen she entered upon a precarious position. But God gave her wisdom. She resolved not to promote any royal aspirations for her own son because she knew the Torah forbade her from promoting her son over the previous sons of Xerxes (Deuteronomy 21:15–17). When Vashti was deposed, she had been the long standing first wife, and first Queen of Xerxes. She left behind three sons, Crown Prince Darius, Hystaspes, and Artaxerxes I. Amestris then became their adopted mother. Vashti was stripped of her title of royal mother, and the position of royal mother was given to Amestris. And because Artaxerxes I was the youngest, she nurtured an intimate motherly relationship with him, as Queen Consort. She avoided the typical harem plotting and maneuverings to promote the interests of her own sons, making it genuinely plain that she loved Xerxes' rightful heirs and would see to it that they were protected.

In the 8th or 9th years of Xerxes a harem plot was formed to unseat Amestris right at the beginning of her elevation to the role of Queen Consort and Mother. And this was before Haman's plots. Masistes, the brother of Xerxes gave his daughter Artaÿnte in marriage to the Crown Prince Darius, so that she would become the next Queen of Persia. But, Xerxes allowed it because he wanted to seduce his brother's wife by getting her into the palace, but he was rebuffed. However, in the process he fell for his niece, the wife of the Crown Prince. It is more than likely that her mother put her up to it in order to get to Esther out of the way. Xerxes asked the daughter what she wanted for a gift, and swore it could be very great. She asked for the robe he was wearing.

Now this robe was not just any robe. It was a robe that had been specially made for Xerxes by Amestris. With great regrets Xerxes gave it to her, fearing the whole situation was now doomed. She proved him right by wearing the robe in public shaming Amestris. However, Amestris did nothing about it at first, and bided her time until the king's birthday, whereupon it was the king's custom to grant requests. So Amestris bypassing Artaÿnte asked Xerxes to put her mother, the wife of Masistes, Xerxes' brother, into her power. Amestris had her guards mutilate her and then sent her back home. Masistes was just being warned of the danger from Xerxes, but he was too late. Amestris got to his wife first. Masistes found out what happened and fled with his whole family to Bactria. But Xerxes sent an army after him because Masistes was planning to revolt, and so his brother and family were wiped out.

The second son Hystaspes was made Satrap of Bactria. The Crown Prince Darius stayed at court and so also Artaxerxes. In 465 BC, the 21st year of Xerxes, in the late summer, Artabanus murdered Xerxes and framed the Crown Prince Darius for the murder. Artaxerxes had Darius put to death discovering Artabanus hand in the matter too late. Artabanus was planning to kill him also. Artaxerxes took the throne. But his remaining older brother in Bactria revolted and tried to seize the kingdom. Artaxerxes sent an army and eliminated the threat.

As a result of this Amestris ended up as the dominant Queen Mother, and Artaxerxes' wife Damaspia, though technically Queen, remained a relative nobody. Amestris had defended Artaxerxes interests at every stage of the succession crisis. As a result Artaxerxes listened to her, and included her as a chief advisor. After some years, Amestris' son Achaemenes was appointed as the satrap of Egypt and surrounded with senior military advisors. Then, Egypt revolted in 460 BC under an Egyptian prince named Inaros, who allied with Greeks from Athens. Amestris' son Achaemenes was killed by them on the battlefield. The war dragged on for six years, until Megabyzus, Artaxerxes' General in the field, promised in the name of the king that Inaros and the Greeks would be spared if they surrendered their garrison. So they surrendered and were captured alive. However, Amestris fiercely demanded they be put to death for the murder of her son.

But Artaxerxes wanted to uphold Megabyzus' word. For five years Amestris pleaded with Artaxerxes to execute the rebels. And finally, he did. In 450 BC, in the spring, Inaros was executed, and the Greek mercenaries were beheaded. At the same time the Greeks attacked Cyprus on the western front, and Megabyzus learned that he had been shamed. He went back to his satrapy in Syria to revolt.

At this time, the enemies of Judea saw their chance. Amestris and Mordecai had been unofficially backing the building of the city of Jerusalem. The Samaritans therefore wrote a letter to the king accusing the Jews there of plotting to revolt in view of the looming chaos in Syria and Cyprus. But this action backfired on them. Without a doubt, Amestris intervened, and reasoned with the king that on the one hand, a stop-work order was needed to keep Megabyzus from using Jerusalem, but on the other hand she supported the work, and that it ought to resume later when the political situation improved. So the king gave his word to make an official decree later to complete the rebuilding with the legal sanction of the crown.

Then Artaxerxes sent two armies against Megabyzus and both were defeated. In the midst of all of this, the enemies of Judea struck at Jerusalem and razed the walls of the city and burned its gates with fire. Finally by the summer of 446 BC both sides were exhausted, and the king saw that continuing the war would divide the empire. Amestris, her daughter Amytis (the wife of Megabyzus), and other high officials were sent to Megabyzus with an offer of peace. Megabyzus was pardoned and accepted back at court, considering that he had done enough to make satisfaction for the breaking of his oath to the Greeks.

During all of this time, Judea had been cut off from the court at Susa. When the treaty was concluded in the autumn of 446 BC, Nehemiah's brother was able to inspect the welfare of the Jews in Judea, and he came back with bad news. The walls had been torn down and the gates burned with fire.

The Giving of the Word to Rebuild Jerusalem

While I have in the past connected the "word" in Daniel 9:25 to rebuild Jerusalem with the "word" to Nehemiah to rebuild the city, I have been given occasion and opportunity to add an additional explanation. In the past, I have explained the text by counting Sabbath years, and by counting seven-cycles inclusively. Additional research has shown that the seven-cycles can be counted completely whole. The reason why is that the Scripture apparently has been designed with wheels within wheels, which is fitting for a prophet with a reputation for understanding mysteries.

Someone's word (דָבָר) can also mean a promise to do something. Significantly, the Hebrew text in Daniel 9:25 literally reads, "From the going forth of the WORD to cause to restore, and to build Jerusalem unto the Anointed Ruler, seven seven-cycles...." There are two words here. One to cause to restore, which is a word of promise, and one that is an actual commandment to build. One can thus separate in time the initial promise, and the later deployment of the promise. And it so happens that we have the one in 450 BC, on the first year of the sabbath cycle, and one in 445 BC in the sixth year of the sabbath cycle. This is the whole of the reason that I put down the history of Amestris, as interesting as the history is in itself!

Esther and Mordecai were providing the patronage and support from the court of Xerxes and Artaxerxes to allow the city of Jerusalem to be unofficially rebuilt. They were operating under the favor and consent of the two kings, but there was no formal legal commandment or decree from the crown. When Amestris shortsightedly demanded that the murderers of her son be brought to justice, the result was a total disaster for Persia when Artaxerxes finally gave in to his adopted mother's pleading for justice. This led Artaxerxes' top general Megabyzus, the satrap of the province beyond the river, to revolt over the personal matter of giving his word that the surrendered rebels would not be harmed.

The fallout was immediate. Megabyzus revolted, and at the same time the southern and western fronts of Persia destabilized. The enemies of the Jews in Judea, the Samaritans, used that moment to legally pounce. They wrote a letter to the king claiming that the Jews might revolt if they completed the city, because they had a history of revolting. Artaxerxes gave them a concession, because he was facing a three-front war, one over Cyprus, one over Egypt, and another from Megabyzus. But the most powerful woman in the empire was also standing at his side, as his counselor. Judea was Amestris's concern, and she was the patron of the project, and also the adopted Queen Mother, who had proven her loyalty and worth to Xerxes and Artaxerxes. When the Samaritans wrote their letter, she managed to turn the tables by getting an official word of promise from the king, to issue an additional decree to resume building the city when all the geopolitical threats to Persia were settled and taken care of. Consequently, when Artaxerxes' letter went back to Judea, it contained the word to cause to restore the city. It was a promise, as subtle as it appears in text, which stops the work on the city, but only "until a decree is made" to restart it! Thus, the promise, the word, is implicit in the text.

Ezra 4:21 says, "Now enact a command to make being ceased these men, that this city may not make being built itself until from me the command itself makes being enacted." This verse is actually a promise to issue the command for building the city. The word command here, טַעְמָ֥א is in the determinate state in Aramaic; the aleph on the end corresponds to the definite article. The king is saying he already has the command in mind, but he just has not given it yet. From an official point of view this is a promise to make a command, just as Daniel 9:25 reads, "From the going forth of the word to cause restoration, and to build Jeruslaem." Let's expand this to its dual senses, "From the going forth of the word [of promise] to cause to restore, that is to build Jerusalem." And the second sense is "From the going forth of the word [of command] to cause to restore, that is to build Jerusalem." The interesting thing about an agent where the Hiphil is concerned is that the subject (the king) can promise to cause something even while being the initial cause of the final action, and the final cause of the action. Consequently, the Samaritan complaint regarding the unofficial building of the city backfired completely, springing a royal trap upon them. The immediate result was an official, written WORD of Promise (דָּבָר / davar) from the crown ensuring that Jerusalem would be rebuilt. Because it was committed to writing as an official imperial decree, it carried the full weight of Persian legal permanence.

Gender Rules and Seventy Sevenths or Seven Cycles

At this point it would be helpful to revisit gender rules. Gender polarity is one of those things that even native speakers of Hebrew mess up all the time. The father away one gets from pristine Canaanite Hebrew the more increasingly the rules are messed up. It is almost as if the rule ceases to be a rule in some cases. If we allow two pointings of Daniel 9:24, "Seventy Seven-periods" or "Seventy Sevenths," I must note that Seventy itself does not obey any polarity rule. It is always in the masculine no matter if it is counting a feminine thing or a masculine thing. If we point the text as "seventh thing" in the masculine, and spell it defectively, it looks exactly like the word for Seventy in the consonant text. But it is still pronounced as the ordinal seventh with a masculine plural on it. Why the masculine plural? Because this seventh is the seventh part of a heptad cycle, i.e. a week of years, called a shavua, which is a masculine word, and as a period of seven years is regarded as masculine. When the rules are lax in the vernacular, the tendency is to make the gender agree with the concept you are thinking of and to ignore gender polarity. The key here is that the text may be understood two ways, as counting both cycles and the seventh part of the cycle itself, i.e. the seventh years. In the chronology, I explain the counting math both ways, and arrive at the same result whichever way you pick.

Now we come to Daniel 9:25, "seven sevenths" or "seven seven-cycles." The reasoning here for the feminine seven שִׁבְעָה (Shiv'ah) is on account of the Sabbatical year itself being a year which is feminine, and also the Sabbath part of it being feminine. The colloquial breakdown is gender agreement with the Sabbath year. But again "sevenths" may be taken as a masculine plural of the ordinal number "seven" spelled defectively. Why is it masculine? Because it is speaking of a seventh part of a heptad (shavua), which is masculine in gender — despite the fact that alone it takes a feminine plural. So plainly while the text on one level counts seven sabbatical weeks on a gender polarity basis, it can cryptically count seven Sabbath years, the seventh parts, on a colloquial level. And again the math of counting deployed in the actual history may be explained both ways. And our final phrase is like it, "seventh-parts, sixty and two" or "seven-cycles, sixty and two." Sixty is one of those numbers always put in the masculine. And two also is declined in the masculine, which points more clearly to seventh-parts or seven-cycles with non-polarity, but to the Sabbath year with polarity. Please note that my convention is to refer to the gender of words according to their morphological structure and not how they operate under gender polarity.

So once again we have two paths for the seven cycles and the sixty-two cycles. But for the final shavua we have only one path, which is a seven-cycle. This cannot refer to just a Sabbath year. The word includes a waw which prevents it from meaning anything but a seven year period. It is operating under the masculine form because it is regarded as a masculine structural unit: the seven year period. It does, however, end with the Sabbatical year.

The Queen's Demand and the King's Command

The Queen Mother, Amestris (aka Esther) wanted to avenge her only kindred son. In this regard she is a prototype of Messiah. She was willing to sacrifice herself for her people, and her maids mourned for her in fasting until on the third day she went up to the king, and her life was saved. But like Miryam, her only kindred son was slain in the wilderness of Egypt. If at the beginning of the prophecy she received her due justice, then how much more will faithful Israel receive justice at the end of it. As noted, with regard to Artaxerxes, she was the adopted Queen Mother, and not the literal mother of the king. But Vashti had been deposed and her royal prerogative had been given to Amestris. And she had not neglected that duty, because she had nurtured a relationship with the king that could not be broken.

Besides taking it as an article of faith that Ezra 4:21 was issued in the first year of the cycle, we have outside chronological evidence to prove it. The chain of reasoning is as follows. Inaros II was executed. Then Persia destabilized by being attacked again in Egypt, attacked at Cyprus, and revolted against by Megabyzus; all at once. Jerusalem was isolated, and the Samaritans struck with a nasty letter to legally assault the work on the city. Artaxerxes was in a difficult position, and could not afford to let a fully fortified Jerusalem fall into the hands of enemies. He probably would have listened to Amestris anyway if she had simply told him to trash the complaint. That is what it deserved. But she saw the opportunity to make amends for the fallout her demand for justice had caused. Amestris at this time in her life went through a remarkable transition from taking revenge to peacemaking.

We have to sandwich the date of Ezra 4:5 using several chronological factors provided by Greek authors. Firstly, the attack on Cyprus was under the archonship of Euthydemos (450/449). Secondly, Inaros was defeated and captured during a low water period on the Nile when Megabyzus drained the river to ground the Greek triremes in Egypt, which was in the winter or early spring of 454 BC, before the spring equinox and the archon year of Ariston. As soon as the Archon year turned over, or the spring equinox, the treasury of the Delian League was moved off a vulnerable island to the safety of Athens, with the first name on the Athens list being the archon Ariston (454/453). Thirdly, Thucydides tells us that three whole years passed between the defeat of Inaros and the Five Year Truce, which would consume AM 3686, 3687, and 3688, and put the treaty in AM 3689 (see charts). This brings the date of the Five Year Truce to the archonship of Antidotus. Finally, Ctesias tells us that Amestris begged Artaxerxes to slay Inaros for five years, and that after the five years he had. But in this case the count is inclusive starting with AM 3685 equal to year one. The year after year five comes to 3690. So Nisan 1 in AM 3690 (450 BC), and year one of the Sabbatical cycle is the moment that Artaxerxes slew Inaros and the Greek prisoners. Immediately Megabyzus returns to his satrapy. By the end of Nisan or in Iyyar, Artaxerxes, having sent an army against him, is defeated. This is when the Ezra 4:21 decree is put out. Sometime in August of that same year, the Greeks attack Cyprus.

The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus places the Athenian attack on Cyprus in the archonship of Euthydemos (450/449). The archon was an official appointed to rule for one year, from the beginning of summer in one year to the beginning of summer in the next. The Greeks kept lists of their archons carved in marble. A new archon was added to the slab each year. The archons operated almost exactly like Roman consuls and Assyrian eponyms for the purposes of dating. During this period the sequence of archons is especially secure, and is better than Roman consular lists.

The Five Year Truce has to go in the archon year of Antidotus, which was from the summer of 451 to the summer of 450. This is when Athens and Sparta ended their war with each other. And shortly afterward they were able to renew their war with Persia. In the following year, in the high summer of 450 BC, under the archonship of Euthydemos, at the beginning of the archon year, they sent a fleet of 200 triremes against Persia. The fleet split and 140 ships were sent against Cyprus and the other 60 were sent to Egypt to support a new revolt after Inaros. Despite the fact that their fleet commander had died of disease or wounds, the matter was kept secret, and the Greek fleet managed to ambush the Persian fleet and destroy it.

Since the Persians were taking advantage of Artaxerxes defeat by Megabyzus, Amestris' justice took place as soon as the year turned in the spring, and the revolt began immediately after. In the high summer of 450 BC, the Greeks had learned the news and dispatched their fleet against Cyprus. Meanwhile, earlier in the summer, the Samaritans had gotten their letter to Susa, and received the reply and returned. While the Samaritan messengers could get through, the local governors controlled the information flow. The Jews in Judea were unable to get any information out short of a concerned member of the Persian court coming to check on their welfare. Using their control of the surrounding governors, and suppressing the information flow, they riled up Jerusalem's enemies to go up and tear down the walls, burn the gates with fire, and scatter the population. Ironically, the last line of Artaxerxes letter in Ezra 4:21 had probably angered them all the more.

Ezra 4:21 and Rabbinic Interpretation of Daniel 9:25

I have given the meaning of dabar (דָבָר) in Daniel 9:25 as a promise, "a word to cause restoration" (דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב). And I have cited Ezra 4:21 as this exact promise, "until from me the commandment itself being enacted." Jewish interpreters have taken the word דָבָר in the exact same meaning as I have here, but they link it to a prophetic word of Yahweh by Jeremiah and not to Ezra 4:21. By interpretive sorcercy they connect Jeremiah's two prophecies of 70 years concerning the exile of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 29:10) and the dominion of Babylon (Jeremiah 25:11—12 ) to the destruction of the first Temple in 587 BC. However, the starting point for the dominion of Babylon is 605 BC; and the starting point for the exile of Jerusalem is 597 BC. I call it sorcery, because none of the 70 year prophecies by Jeremiah pertain to the destruction of the first Temple in 587 BC. I also call it divination because no prophecy or promise was going out (מֹצָא), Daniel 9:25, from Jeremiah when the city and Temple were destroyed. Jeremiah had given those two prophecies years earlier, which were meant to start from different dates. If one wants a count of 70 years dating from the destruction of the Temple, then one must look in the book of Zechariah, where one will be found, and another dating from the 9th year of Zedekiah. And even in that case the word did not go out when the Temple and city were destroyed. In fact, no word concerning any 70 years went out then.

But the Rabbis are obligated by the Seder Olam fraud to find the word at the time of the destruction of the First Temple, i.e. the promise to cause a restoration and to rebuild the city, because Seder Olam calculates Daniel 9 from that point. But no promise connected to the 70 years went out then. Obviously no decree went out either. They have just wrung their hands, waved their magical exegetical wands, and decreed is so. But there is a small grain of truth here. If the Rabbis said that the word in Daniel 9:25 can be a promise, then so can I.

For this we refer to Ezra 4:21, where the king does indeed give his word that a decree will be made. And as I have just proven, this word of promise went forth in year one of the seventy sevens (450 BC). And in the sixth year thereof (445 BC), the king kept his promise and issued the active decree he had promised as recorded in Nehemiah 2:1 and the following text. Both the promise and the active decree must fall into the first Sabbath year cycle. The Rabbis' "promise" argument is valid so long as we cut out their tricky shifting of the boundaries to points where they do not belong.

Another point I would like to make is that the Rabbis like to claim that no detail or differentiation in the Torah is without its own meaning. The truth of this must be attenuated quite a bit by Hebrew parallelism. Phrases are placed in apposition to explain the same thing, just in other words. This means the principle of finding different meanings in every detail is false. However, I will humor them a bit here. In Daniel 9:25 we read, "from the going forth of the WORD to cause to restore, and to build Jerusalem...." Since we read two details here, "to cause to restore" and "to build," then they are not without meaning. The second phrase is not just a vain repetition of the first. Rather, the word "to cause to restore" refers to the imperial promise in Ezra 4:21, and the word "to build" refers to the letters in Nehemiah chapter 2. So by recognizing the promise in the word, and the principle against pure redundancy, we can use what the rabbis know in the proper way.

The Game of Throne Names, Isaiah, and The Rabbis

A common objection to identifying Artaxerxes for the command to rebuild Jerusalem is that "he is not Cyrus," and that he must be because Isaiah says, "—the one saying to Cyrus, My Shepherd, and all My delight he will complete, even saying to Jerusalem, she will be rebuilt, and Temple, she will be founded" (Isa. 44:28). And also Isaiah 45:13, "I, I have stirred him up in justice, and all his ways I will make being straightened. He will build My city, and My captives, he will make being sent out, not for a price, and not for a bribe, says Yahweh of Hosts." Also, "Thus says Yahweh of Hosts, according to the saying, 'Behold the man, the Branch is His Name. And from his place, he will branch out, and he will have build the Temple of Yahweh" (Zech. 6:12).

If one dissects the passages in Hebrew, it may be observed that all of them are Messianic, positioning the Messiah as the more distant, definitive target of the prophecy; the historical Cyrus represents only a near-term, partial fulfillment. Consequently, the Cyrus passages are framed as a deliberate double entendre. Linguistically, the original Elamite word behind the name Cyrus has been obscured by ancient scribal habits. Because Elamite scribes consistently used the Sumerogram for 'shepherd' (SIPA) as a conceptual shorthand rather than spelling the word out phonetically, the native Elamite term for 'shepherd' was never recorded and remains lost to history. Prominent onomastic scholars (such as Zadok, Tavernier, and Henkelman) propose that the Elamite name Kuraš carries the sense of 'protector' or 'he who bestows care.' While this translation remains tentative due to the lack of native contextual data, it is accepted by top scholars and stands as a dynamic equivalent to 'shepherd.' Given this missing Elamite data, it is best to view the Isaiah derivation of 'shepherd' as a definitive wordplay—one firmly established enough to render the title 'Cyrus' a profound double entendre for both the historical Persian king and the Messiah himself.

Isaiah 45:1 declares, "Thus has said Yahweh to his Anointed (Messiah), to Cyrus..." Even if we lack the full Elamite lexicon, it must be that the word meaning was suitable for representing Messiah and Cyrus. We will find firstly that Cyrus is denoted a "surname" (Isa. 45:4, KJV), given to the future king around 150 years before he ruled. The actual Hebrew word here (כָּנָה) means to be given a "title," and is not a surname in the English sense. It is a title, and not a personal name either. As such a title can be handed down. As it turns out Cyrus is a title from the biblical point of view, and indeed must be shared by Persian kings beyond the standard Greek designations, which appear to be one or another of a selection from the multiple titles used by all the Persian kings. That is all the Persian kings had all the titles, but the Greeks adopted a separate title for each one, and then treated it like a unique personal name, which now has stuck as the standard designation. Isaiah 45:14 prophesied that Cyrus would conquer Egypt, "Thus has said Yahweh, 'The labor of Egypt, and market of Cush and the Sabeans, men of measure, shall cross over unto thee, and they will belong to thee; behind thee they will walk; in chains they will pass by; and unto thee they will make themselves bowed down. Unto thee they will make themselves pray, 'Surely in thee [is] God, and none yet, except the Almighty.'" So we see here that there is a Messianic reference to the divinity of Messiah on the one hand. But there is also a prototypical reference to Cambyses under the title of Cyrus, because it was Cambyses that conquered Egypt in 525 BC. So Cambyses is Cyrus from the point of view of the prophecy. And if one cannot accept that, then one has to accept Messiah having the title of Cyrus.

The Isaiah prophecy is not the first example of a prophetic advance-naming. The prophet of Bethel prophesied Josiah by name long before he fulfilled the prophecy (1 Kings 13:2). It is quite clear that the Most High picked out the name. We should not expect the name to have an idolatrous meaning when, if ever, it is discovered. Also the fact that Messiah is called Cyrus by the prophecy should clue us in that the title is suitable for every other Persian ruler. Since "Cyrus" acts as a grand, divinely appointed theological category (a Shepherd-King), it serves as a dynamic corporate title that blankets the entire Achaemenid dynasty in history while finding its ultimate target in the Messiah.

Josephus does not seem to have any problem calling Artaxerxes, Cyrus: ""After the death of Xerxes, the kingdom came to be transferred to his son Cyrus, whom the Greeks called Artaxerxes" (Book 11, Chapter 6, Section 184). Josephus does not use the fraudulent Seder Olam Chronology, which reduced the history of Persia to a mere 52 years or less. Josephus' history is closer to the actual truth. He has 200 or more years. So we cannot blame Josephus' usage of Cyrus on Seder Olam, which comes after his time in any case.

We now come to the Rabbis. In order to justify their collapse of Persian history they collapsed all the names now to just a few individuals. In the Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 3b, it is recorded, "It was taught in a baraita: All three names are referring to the same person: He is Cyrus [Koresh], he is Darius [Daryavesh], and he is also Artaxerxes [Artachshasta]. He was called Cyrus because he was a virtuous [kasher] king; he was called Artaxerxes after his kingdom [as a royal title]; and what was his real name? Darius was his name." So we see that Judaism has removed itself from the objection that Artaxerxes is not Cyrus. We can play also. We can play the game of throne names also. Only in our case, it is going to match the actual history, and not a rabbinical excuse for collapsing it.

In conclusion, we find that Artaxerxes is acting as Cyrus. No doubt he had that title also. The Greeks just did not use it. If the reader looks at my chronology, they will see that I start the exile in 597 BC. And this is indeed the exile as referred to in Jeremiah 29:10. Clearly the seventy years expires in the first year of Cambyses, and not Cyrus the Great. And so that must be when the seventy years end. Once again, we see that Cambyses must be Cyrus according to Scripture. Cyrus the Great could not have released the Jews. The Seventy year exile was not up! We have to keep in mind that the seventy years in Jeremiah 25 pertains to the dominion of Babylon, and not to the exile. The dominion of Babylon begins in 605 BC. Jeremiah 29:10, on the other hand refers to exiles taken in 597. And that seventy years expires in 528 BC. It may be correctly said that the release order was given by Cambyses (aka Cyrus) when the seventieth year was only partially complete. However, the Jews did not start building the Temple until the 7th month, and the first day of this month was the end of the seventy years.

What about the oft cited Cyrus Cylinder? While this mentions the Persian policy of restoring temples and peoples, it does not actually mention the Jews. Evidently, the policy did not instantly affect every people with a Temple to restore or to repatriate. But the Jews did not have to wait long. Cyrus the Great's reign ended after nine years, and the seventy years ended on the second year of Cambyses. But the orders for the return were given in the first year, probably near the end of it. It should also be noted that Daniel never called Cyrus the Great by that title. He always calls the first Persian king of Babylon "Darius the Mede," and in Daniel Darius the Mede is followed by Cyrus, when Daniel retired.