The Decrees of Artaxerxes I and the Seventy-Weeks Prophecy–Part One
Can the beginning date for the seventy-weeks prophecy be determined from the historical narrative presented in Scripture? Can the seventy-weeks prophecy be explained by a day-for-a-year principle based on a supposed decree issued by Artaxerxes I? During the reign of Xerxes I the Egyptian satrapy was devastated by the Persians, and the satrapy of Babylon was subjected to years of repression that effectively impoverished the Babylonians. This expectedly led to revolts against the Persian Empire, and an even greater repression that would set the background for two decrees issued by Artaxerxes I in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. So let’s see why that was. From the biblical account we learn that Ezra the scribe left Babylon on the first day of the first month of the year, which was in the spring of the year, and it would seem apparent that on that day Ezra was in possession of a letter from Artaxerxes I. And in that “copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra,” we have Ezra’s official commission, which made Ezra the king’s representative to enquire into the affairs of Judah and to deliver the king’s offerings to the “God” who was in Jerusalem (Ezra 7:11). (See also, Ezra 4:11.) Such was the intent of the letter. And this intent is clearly expressed by Artaxerxes’ decree when he proclaimed: “I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee. Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king, and of his seven counsellors, to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God which is in thine hand; And to carry the silver and gold, which the king and his counsellors have freely offered unto the God of Israel, whose habitation is in Jerusalem, And all the silver and gold that thou canst find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem” (Ezra 7:13-16). [Author’s emphasis throughout.] Obviously then the focus of this decree was to establish freewill offerings in addition to the offerings given by the king and his counselors, and these offerings were to be given at the temple in Jerusalem. But given that there were several years of Persian repression in the satrapy of Babylon under Xerxes I, it is reasonable to conclude that there was not much silver and gold remaining in Babylon, considering also that the Persians had taken and melted down the gold statue of Marduk. We get the sense of this from Artaxerxes’ proclamation as he offered the returning people of Israel “all the silver and gold that thou canst find” in the province of Babylon. Which brings us to another decree of Artaxerxes. This decree was directed to the treasurers of the provinces beyond the river—that is the Euphrates—and it instructed the treasurers to supply Ezra with the necessary offerings on behalf of the king, which we have verified in the letter given to Ezra. And so we read that: “I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily, Unto an hundred talents of silver, and to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of wine, and to an hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much. Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?” (Ezra 7:21-23.) Plainly then these provisional offerings were to be given at the temple, along with whatever was “commanded by the God of heaven,” and these provisions were not intended to supply the needs of those who traveled with Ezra on a four-month journey to Jerusalem. But even then the king had limited the amount of the offerings—particularly the salt offering—which was a precious commodity in the Middle East. Summarily then what we have in Ezra’s letter—preserved for us in Scripture—is the verification of two decrees given by Artaxerxes I. The first decree established a collective offering, which further depleted the wealth of Babylon, and the second decree provided provisional offerings from some of the provinces, all of which would be given at the temple by Ezra on behalf of the king and the king’s sons—his successors—with the hope of assuring the favor of the “God” in Jerusalem (Ezra 7:19). So the impression is—in view of these decrees—is that Ezra’s commission had little to do with a revival of the religion of ancient Israel. And even though Ezra planned to reinstitute a civil government based on the law, Ezra’s commission from the king—as understood from the decrees—strongly reflected a political strengthening and attempted revival of the Persian Empire, which had been in decline since the Babylonian repression in the latter years of Xerxes I. Consequently, Artaxerxes I issued more than one decree to promote the continuing restoration of the temple, but he did not issue a decree initiating a restoration or reestablishment of the city-state of Jerusalem. And this gives us something to consider. The letter that Ezra received from the court of Artaxerxes I makes reference to two decrees, and this letter was in Ezra’s possession by the first day of the first month, which implies that the decrees were issued prior to the day Ezra left Babylon. So let’s examine this a little more. The decrees of the Persian rulers became effective at the time they were signed and sealed in front of the court officials who witnessed the establishment of the decrees, and we find that this was the case when Daniel was cast into a