Daniel 9:25

The “Starting Point” of the Seventy Weeks

            The proverb that says that: “It is better to start off on the right foot than to rush ahead” is no more truer than with the starting point of the Seventy Weeks. This is because the exactness of all of the other chronological points in the prophecy greatly depends on its starting point in order to have a precise chronological fulfillment. All of  the information for determining this starting point was given here in verse 25 of the Seventy Weeks, and in order to determine what it is exactly, an accurate translation and understanding of the key expressions that are found in this verse will have to first be done here. The deciding factor in determining the proper meaning of these key terms will be how they are generally used in the Old Testament, and then, if applicable, how they are specifically used in the immediate context of Dan 9:24-27.   
                            

            The key Hebrew expressions from verse 25 that will be examined here are namely: mōşā^⊃, dābār, l^ehašib, w^elibnôt, tāšûb, w^enibn^etāh, r^ehôb, and w^ehārûş.  These expressions have been  translated by four major English versions of the Bible- the NKJV, NIV, NRSV & NASB- in the following ways:

         

            Expressions       NKJV        NIV        NRSV     NASB

              mōşā^⊃                    going forth   issuing     went out    issuing 

            dābār                    command     decree          word         decree  

            l^ehašib                   to restore      to restore to restore  to restore

            w^elibnôt                build             rebuild     rebuild      rebuild

            tāšûb                     again            rebuilt      again        again      

            w^enibn^etāh            be built        rebuilt       be built     be built

            r^ehôb                     street            streets       streets       plaza

            w^ehārûş                wall              trench        moats       moat

                                                           

                                                                       

The Expression "mōşā^⊃"

            The first key word that is to be examined in Dan 9:25 is the expression mōşā^⊃. It is used to specifically indicate the pivotal point for the chronology of the prophecy as the angel Gabriel said that it would be: "From the mōşā^⊃ of a dābār to restore and to build Jerusalem" that the 490-year period would begin. What then is to be understood by this Hebrew expression?

            The term mōşā^⊃ is derived from the Hebrew verb "yasa"^B1 which literally means “to go out” or “go forth.”^B2  Here, in Dan 9:25, mōşā^⊃ is grammatically identified as a noun.^R3 This noun form of mōşā^⊃ occurs 27 other times in the Old Testament and has been translated to mean: (1) a "place of departure" (2) an "exit" or  a "way out" and (3) a "pronouncement" (4) a "coming forth" or "an appearance." ^B4 What is significant about these OT uses of the noun mōşā^⊃ is that they consistently refer to the point where something actually originates from, or begins to take place. For example it is used in this sense: (1) in reference to the  "starting point" and "starting places" of the different stages of the journeys of the children of Israel during their wilderness days (Num 33:2 [NRSV]); (2) to designate the origin of the horses that Solomon had imported from Egypt; (1 Kgs 10:28; 2 Chr 1:16); (3) to designate the source of a pool of water, i.e., its spring (2 Kgs 2:21; 2 Chr 32:30; Isa 41:18; 58:11; Psa 107:33-35^S5

); (4) to indicate the point where an exiting action actually takes place, i.e., an exit (Ezek 43:11, 44:5); and (5) to indicate the point in time when the sun actually sets or dawns (Psa 65:8, 9). Also, when mōş^⊃ is used in reference to a "spoken word," it refers to the point or the place of the pronouncement of that word, like the lip, or the mouth, of a person.^S6  Therefore we can see from all of these uses and meanings of mōş^⊃ as a noun that it specifically identifies the "inceptive point" of something, i.e., the actual point where something begins to take place. Therefore we should expect that the mōş^⊃ of the Seventy Weeks’ chronology would be the very beginning of something specific in the prophecy, which in this case is a "dābār."

            With this understanding, the opening statement in Dan 9:25 would then read as:

            “From the "starting point" of a dābār to restore and to build Jerusalem . . . ”

                                   

                       

                                                 The Expression "dābār" in Dan 9:25

            The expression dābār occurs over 1400 times in the Old Testament but with varying meanings depending on the context that it is used in.^R7  Based on its most frequent uses in the Old Testament, lexicographers^R8 have defined this expression with the main meanings of a "word or a speech,"^S9 a "thing,"^S10 a "matter, an affair, a case or a cause." ^S11 Of all of these main meanings, it is the meanings of: (1) an (authoritative) "word" and (2) a "matter" which are the ones that more related to the overall (covenant) context of the Seventy Weeks, so it will be these two that will be closely examined here in order to determine which is the one that is the most accurate for this passage here.

            The meaning of dābār in Dan 9:25 as some kind of an “authoritative word” is found in most major English versions of the Bible. The RSV and the NRSV have simply rendered dābār as “word,” while the NKJV and KJV respectively have the translation of “command” and “commandment.” The NIV and the NASB have preferred a more formal translation for dābār here by rendering it as a “decree,”^N12 but this latter translation is linguistically ruled out here because of the fact that the actual expression for a "decree" is ţ ^e⊂ēm.^S13 So if the angel Gabriel, actually, if God Himself, since the angel Gabriel was just relaying this message from heaven as the angelus interpretus ("explaining messenger"), specifically had a formal and official "decree" in mind here, then He would have specified that this is the expression that would have been used here. Therefore, from the list of  "authoritative words" that dābār could be translated as, we are left with the possibility of it being a somewhat less formal "authoritative word" than a decree such as simply a "word" or a "command/commandment."

            The meaning of dābār as a "matter" (i.e., a legal/judicial "matter") is also a translation that is to be considered here based on the way that this expression is used in other "covenant-making/breaking/restoration" contexts of the Old Testaments similar to this one. For example, dābār was used to mean a legal/judicial "matter" when it was used in the setting of a formal agreement between two parties such as the oath between Abraham and his oldest servant concerning the selection of a wife for his son Isaac (Gen 24:9). It was also used as such to describe the solemn covenant agreement that was made between the fugitive David and his soul-mate Jonathan (1 Sam 20:23, 39). This meaning of dābār was also used to refer to very significant judicial proceedings that implicated the Law of God or the law of an earthly king. This was seen in: (1) the incident of Israel's problem of mix marriages and idolatry at Peor (Num 31:16; cf. 25:1-9); (2) the sin of Moses (Deut 3:26); (3) the wrong done against Uriah the Hittite by King David (1 Kgs 15:5); (4) the worship of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image (Dan 3:16); and (5) the plot that was made against King Ahasuerus [Xerses] (Esth 2:21-23).^S14 

            This meaning of "matter"for dābār is also used to refer to formal court cases or judicial proceeding in the Israelite camp. For example, it is used three times in Exod 18 as Moses was explaining to his father-in-law Jethro the great responsibility that he has as Israel's lone judge by saying:

"When they have a matter [dābār],^N15 they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and His laws."  Exod 18:16 [KJV].

                                                                                                                                   

            Jethro then advised Moses to share this great judging responsibility with other men of his appointment (vs. 21), and then said:

"Then it will be that every great matter [dābār] they shall bring to you, and every small matter [dābār] they themselves [the other judges] shall judge." Vs. 22 (cf. vs. 26 and also Deut 17:8).^N16

             This use of dābār in reference to a formal court proceeding is also seen in other legal incidents in the Old Testament such as: (1) the story of Boaz's efforts to legally redeem the widow Ruth in agreement with the Law (See Ruth 3:18); (2) Ezra's formal sessions to resolve the problem of various “abominations” and mix marriages among the Israelites returnees (Ezra 10:4, 9, 14-16); and (3) the public reading of the Law mentioned in Neh 8. It is said in this latter passage that a special platform^N17 of wood was made for this “dābār” (Neh 8:4).^N18

            Now all of these judicial matters were resolved at the public square of the city that was usually located near the city’s gate (See Ruth 4:1; 2 Sam 15:2; Ezra 10:9; Neh 8:1). This was an open and broad place that was reserved to publicly discussed and settle judicial matters since the streets in Jerusalem were too narrow to accommodate large gatherings.^R19 So if the dābār in Dan 9:25 was to be understood as a judicial "matter," then the angel Gabriel would have been specifically indicating the "very beginning" (the mōşā^⊃) of this judicial "matter" or "court case proceeding" as the starting point for the chronology of the Seventy Weeks.

            So, to summarize all of this, we now actually have here two possible interpretations for dābār in Dan 9:25 to consider: one as an authoritative "word" that is not as formal as a "decree;" and the other as a "legal/judicial matter" which would somehow involve the Law of God since this "matter" in Dan 9:25 concerned God's covenant people who were subject to His theocratic laws. Now it will be: (1) the interpretation of the other key words in Dan 9:25; (2) the Hebraic syntax in this verse; and then (3) actual historical development that will help us to select and anchor one of these two possible translations.

            The next two expressions that need to be examined in Dan 9:25 are the two Hebrew infinitive verbs l^ehašib and w^elibnôt. They need to be understood in comparison to each other, but they will first be examined separately here.

The Expression "l^ehašib"

            The expression l^ehašib is a combination of the prefixed preposition [l^e] (lamedh) and the performative prefix  [ha] which are both attached to a form of the verb šub -[šib] which literally means "to return,"-in the sense of a180̊degree turn that leads back to an original starting point.^S20 This Hebraic expression has been best expressed at times in English by the expression “to restore.”Especially when it is used without implying one’s physical motion (i.e., "returning" somewhere).^S21 In its use in Dan 9:25 with the object Jerusalem, this verbal expression has almost unanimously been translated by the major English versions as “to restore,”^R22 with the only exceptions being the JB and the NJB which have translated it as “to return;” but as Dr. Owusu-Antwi has pointed out, such a translation creates its own object for l^ehašib instead of the given object of “Jerusalem.”^B23 Such an incorrect translation would then have to make the direct object for this verb to be a supplied "people" or "exiles" and Jerusalem would then have to function here as, what is known as, a directional in order to indicate where these "people" or "exiles" would be returning. If this was the case the infinitive l^ehašib would then have been preceded by the Hebraic preposition ^⊃l [la]^R24 since it is this preposition that is used to indicate "movement towards" something.^R25 But since this was not the case in Dan 9:25, then the accurate translation of this infinitive is indeed “to restore.”

            The infinitive expression l^ehašib is also here grammatically identified as a Hiphîl stem,^R26 and since it would also have an object in the Qal stem and thus be transitive, it is then forming here a causative Hiphîl and is therefore literally saying that the "dābār" in Dan 9:25 would cause Jerusalem to completely "turn from" (i.e., be restored) from it present state of “desolation.”

                                                                       

The Expression "w^elibnôt"

            The other infinitive verb in Dan 9:25 is “libnôt.” It is a combination of the prefixed preposition [li] and a form of the verb bnh [bnôt] which literally means "build."^R27 A waw-conjunction (w^e) has been attached to it to form the complete expression w^elibnôt and it has unanimously, and rightly been literally translated in Dan 9:25 as “(and) to build.”

The Meaning of "l^ehašib w^elibnôt" in Dan 9:25.

            The interesting question that now needs to be answered now is: Do these two expressions-"to restore" and "to build"- allude to one and the same action when used in reference to Jerusalem or do they refer to two distinct actions. It is clear that libnôt ("to build") refers to the physical rebuilding of Jerusalem, but does l^ehašib ("to restore") also refer to the same event?

 The Meaning of "to restore"

             The Hiphîl infinitive l^ehašib appear a total of 51 times in the Old Testament^N28 but what is significant about these 51 infinitive occurrences is that they never apply to the physical reconstruction of the structures of a city.^R29  This can be seen in the following Biblical examples where the root verb šub in the Hiphîl stem ("to restore") is used in reference to a land, a city, or a Kingdom.^R30

           

“To Restore” in reference to 'land'

            There are two verses that provide an example where a Hiphîl of šub is used with a direct object of "land." In Judges 11:13, the king of the Ammonites answered the messengers of Jeptah by saying:

            “Because Israel on coming from Egypt took away my land, from the Arnon

            to the Jabbok and to the Jordan; now therefore restore it peaceably.” (RSV)

            In this verse the king of the Ammonites is demanding that the control or ownership of his land be given back to him. This verse is not referring at all to the development of the land but rather to the rights or control of the land.

            A similar use of the Hiphîl of šub and a "land" is also found in 2 Sam 9:7. In this verse King David said in an act of kindness to one of Jonathan's son, Mephiboshet (see 2 Sam 9:1):

            “I will restore to you all the land of Saul your father; and you shall eat at my

            table always.”

            In this case also, it is the ownership and the control of the land that is being restored.

            So based on these examples here it can be seen that when the Hiphîl of šub has "land" or "territory" as its direct object, the meaning is to give back the control or ownership to the indirect object, i.e., the former owners.

            Now how about when the Hiphîl of šub is used with a city as its direct object?

                       

“To Restore” in reference to a 'city'

            In 1 Kings 20:34, it was said after Israel had defeated Syria (Aram), that the king of Syria, Ben Hadad, offered to give up his control over the cities that Syria had taken from Israel by saying to Ahab, the king of Israel:

           

“The cities which my father took from your father I will restore, and you shall make streets (or possibly: ‘[market] squares’) for yourself in Damascus as my father made in Samaria.” NASB.

           

            This restoration meant a return of these cities to their former governance. This then led to, as some commentators say, the building of streets with commercial businesses, an economic center.

            A similar example of the governance of a city being "restored" to its former owner is found in 2 Kings 13:25 where it says that:

           

“... Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz took again from the land of Ben-hadad the son of Hazael the cities which he had taken in war from the hand of Jehoahaz his father.”

            Then was added that:

            “Three times Joash defeated him and recovered [wayyāšeb] the cities of Israel.”

                                                                                                           

            Both of these examples show that when the Hiphîl of šub is used with a city it refers to a return of the control or governance of the city to its former owner.

                       

“To Restore” in reference to 'kingdom'

           

            When a kingdom serves as the direct object of the Hiphîl of šub, it too, like the references to a land or a city, indicates a return of control or governance to the indirect object. This is seen in the following passages like 2 Sam 16:3, where Ziba, a servant of Mephibosheth, declared to David:

            “... Today the house of Israel will restore the kingdom of my father to me.”

            And also in 2 Chronicles 11:1 where it was said that:

            “Now when Rehoboam had come to Jerusalem, he assembled the house of

            Judah and Benjamin, 180,000 chosen men who were warriors, to fight

against Israel to restore the kingdom to Rehoboam the son of Solomon.”

            (See also 1 Kings 12:21).

            The context of this last passage is the separation of the ten tribes of Israel from the two tribes of Judah following the reign of Solomon and Rehoboam’s attempt to reunite the kingdom under one government.

Also in 2 Sam 8:3, David was said to have:

            “... fought Hadadezer son of Rehob, king of Zobah, when he went to him to

            restore [l^ehašib] his control along River Euphrates.”

            One of the closest OT parallels to the verb pair l^ehašib w^elibnôt in Dan 9:25, with "to restore" being a Hiphîl stem and "to build" being a Qal stem and both having a city as a direct object, is found in 2 Kings 14:22 where it says that:

“He (King Azariah) built Elam and restored it to Judah after the king (Amaziah) slept with his fathers.” NASB.

            In this example, the restoration of Elam is depicted as a different activity from the actual rebuilding of the city as the "restoration" referred specifically to the political control/governance of the city.

            So all of these examples of the use of the Hiphîl of šub in reference to either a "land," "city," or "kingdom" clearly indicate a repossession of control; mostly political or governmental control. This therefore would mean that the "restoration of Jerusalem" that was predicted in Dan 9:25 would also have to be a reference to the political and governmental restoration of the city and not to the rebuilding of its physical structures.

            This conclusion is further supported by two other linguistic points. First of all it was not every time in the Old Testament when Jerusalem was mentioned that the actual physical city was being referred to. As Dr. Owusu-Antwi has pointed out^B31 the name “Jerusalem” appears about 660 times in the Old Testament.^R32 Most of these occurrences refer to the actual, physical city, (see e.g., Judg 1:7, 21; 2 Sam 8:7; 15:37; Jer 14:16) but at times, the term "Jerusalem" was also used (1) “a reference to the epitome (a type) of the presence of Yahweh on earth” i.e., “Yahweh dwells in Jerusalem.”^S33 and, (2) it is sometimes used to represent the state–the people of God as a religious and organized political community.”^S34 This extended meaning of Jerusalem would then explain some verses like 2 Kgs 24:14 that says, in describing the result of the siege that was laid on Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C., that 'Jerusalem was taken into captivity.' Surely the physical city was not being referred to here, but rather the people who had made up this organized community. This is later specified in vss. 14-16 where it is said that it was ‘the king, the king's mother and wives, his officers, the mighty men of the land and the gifted workers, etc’ who were taken into captivity at that time.

            A contemporary illustration that may help to illustrate this extended meaning of Jerusalem, could be the modern-day allusions to the national capital cities of Ottawa and Washington, D.C. in North America. It is not every time that these cities are mentioned in the news or elsewhere that the actual, physical cities are being referred to. Most times this is used with the meaning of: 'the Political Headquarters of Canada and the United States, respectively.'  That is why when it is said that  a "report" or "an announcement" came from "Ottawa" or "Washington," what is actually meant is that a "report" or "an announcement" came from decision-makers of these countries, housed in the "Parliament" and in the "Capitol Building;" and located on "Parliament Hill" and on "Capitol Hill," respectively.

            A second linguistic reason that further shows that "to restore" in Dan 9:25 is specifically referring to the political restoration of the city, is the fact that the predicted 70 years of desolation of Jerusalem extended over a period of years that included more than just the physical destruction of the city. As we have seen, Daniel began to reckon the 70 years of "desolation" from 605 B.C.^R35 when he and other noblemen of Israel were taken captive to Babylon (Dan1:1), yet at that point, the city and its structures were left intact by the Babylonian armies. The actual destruction of the city took place in 587 B.C.^S36 which was 18 years after this initial siege. All that Israel had lost at that time was its independence in political affairs. So based on this, we can see that the "desolation" of Jerusalem also included the breaking up of its organized community or society.

            Although the Hebrew word that spoke of Jerusalem 70 years of “desolation” is -horbh- which literally means: "to lay waste, to devastate," the study of O. Kaiser^B37 on the use further supports the conclusion that it entailed more than just physical destruction as he points out that the object of this verb does not only includes structures, buildings, cities, and lands, but also populations, in whole or in part.^N38 So the meaning of this expression also implies the "breaking up" of something; in this case- an organized community.

           Furthermore the expression horbh occurs 10 times in the book of Jeremiah but it is not once used solely to refer to the physical destruction of the city of Jerusalem.^R39 The closest that it apparently comes to refer only to a physical destruction is in Jer 27:17 where it says: “Serve the king of Babylon and live. Why should this city become a desolation?” (NRSV), however the context of this verse is a reference to the punishment of the nations that will not allow themselves to be put under the proverbial yoke or control of the King of Babylon (vs. 8; cf. 11), and what will cause the desolation of these rebellious nations will be the death of the people by the "sword, famine and pestilence " (vs. 8, 12, 13).^N40 This symbolic "drying up" of the society would then consequently lead to the destruction of the physical structures of the city.^N41  Since (1) the "devastation" or "breaking up" of Jerusalem in the context of Jeremiah's prophecy was a break up of first, all of its organized political society which in turn led to the physical destruction of the city and (2) since Daniel's prayer for "restoration" was based on this understanding (cf. Dan 9:2), then as Owusu-Antwi remarked: "the reversal of desolation [i.e., breaking up] would require the repopulation and reorganization of the political society which in turn would require the rebuilding of the physical structures."^B42 

            In his prayer, Daniel had clearly emphasized that the “breaking up”of Jerusalem was caused by a faulty organized society, namely by the wrongs of "the kings, the officials and the fathers and all the people of the land" (Dan 9:6; cf. vs. 8). In verse 12, he clearly states that what has been done to Jerusalem (its breaking up) was specifically done to against the people and the judges who judged them. Therefore a "restoration" of Jerusalem would indeed have to first start with, and deal with, the political aspect of this community.^{R43, N44}     

            As we have seen, the Jewish exiles were historically given the right to return to their homeland in 537 B.C. near the end of the prophesied 70-year period, when the Persian Empire was now in power, but the nation of Israel did not, at that time, also regain complete political autonomy. It was a policy of the Persian empire to try to accommodate, as much as possible, the different people groups that made up their empire by giving them as much political autonomy and religious freedom as possible. They therefore allowed these nations to live according to their local laws while still being under the ultimate control of the Persian Empire and to freely worship their own gods according to their own customs.^R45 Such privileges had been granted to Egypt  when, during the reign of Darius I Hytaspes (522-486 B.C.), it had been ordered that some wise men from among the warriors, the priests and the scribes of Egypt be assembled “so that they may set down in writing the ancient Laws of Egypt.”^R46 Unlike this grant, the Jewish returnees under Zerubbabel were not given such autonomy. They were only given the right to return to their homeland and rebuild the Temple of God.^S47

                                   

The Syntactical Features in the Expressions "l^ehašib w^elibnôt"

            Since it is clear that the restoration of Jerusalem is an event that is separate from its rebuilding the it can be seen here the syntactical relationship that exist between these two as revealed in the expression "l^ehašib w^elibnôt" which are both in the infinitive construct form.

            First of all, in regards to the expression l^ehašib since it is an infinitive construct that is prefixed by a lamedh preposition, it could be functioning as the equivalent of a finite (conjugated) verb.^R48 It could also have several uses,^R49 but the one use that could be supported by the immediate context here is that it is carrying the notion of indicating a purpose (‘in order to’).^R50 In other words it is indicating that the dābār here (thus far either: ‘a judicial matter,’ or ‘an authoritative word’) has the purpose of restoring Jerusalem (politically). So its accurate English translation would then be:

            “From the starting point of a dbr for the purpose of restoring ... Jerusalem.”

            Now in regards to the other infinitive construct statement w^elibnôt, since it (1) has a lamedh preposition attached to it, and (2) since this lamedh is in turn combined with a waw-conjunction, and thus is in the waw-lamedh+infinitive construct form, and follows (the equivalent of) a finite verb (l^ehašib-‘restoring’), then it, like the last five infinitives statements in Dan 9:24, would also be best understood as: (1) functioning as a finite (conjugated) verb;^R51 (2) representing a situation that is successive to that represented by a finite verb;^R52 and (3) indicating a resulting or consequential action.^R53 All of this would mean in Dan 9:25, that the physical "rebuilding" of Jerusalem was here being said to be an event that would be successive and resulting from or consequential to its political "restoration." Therefore a literal translation of this statement would be:

“From the starting point of a dābār for the purpose of restoring and thus then building Jerusalem.”

           

            This temporally successive and consequential relationship between the "restoration" and the "rebuilding" of Jerusalem is also indicated and also elaborated on, by syntactical features found in a parallel expression to l^ehašib w^elibnôt that occurs in Dan 9:25; namely tāšûb w^enibn^etāh.

                                   

The Expression "tāšûb w^enibn^etāh"

            The expression tāšûb w^enibn^etāh is again a pairing of a conjugated form of the verbs šub ("to restore") and bānāh (" to build"). These two verbs are here also used to emphasize the two distinct motifs of a political restoration and a physical rebuilding which was previously also indicated by the verbal expression l^ehašib and libnôt. These two distinct meanings have been lost in the translation of most of the English versions as this verb pair has been translated adverbially as: “it shall be built again” or “it shall be rebuilt.” Such a translation would then mean that the verbs tāšûb and nibn^etāh would be both referring to the physical building of Jerusalem with the verb tāšûb functioning as the adverb "again" or substituted with the prefix -re, but these translations are grammatically inaccurate here because of the syntactical features that are found in this verbal pair which do not support an adverbial translation for the expression tāšûb.

            First of all the verb tāšûb in Dan 9:25 is in the Qal imperfect form and although this verb stem is used in the Hebrew without any notion of causation and could be understood to have an adverbial function,^R54 there are examples in the Old Testament where this same root verb šub in the Qal stem has been translated with a similar "restoration-of-original-control" meaning as the Hiphîl "to restore" in the first part of Dan 9:25. For example in 1 Kgs 13:6  it was said:

           

"...Please entreat the Lord your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored [w^etāšōb] to me.  So the man entreated the LORD, and the king's hand was restored [wattāšob] to him, and it became as it was before. NASB.       

            The use of the Qal of šub here is very similar to the restoration to a former state as expressed by the Hiphîl infinitive l^ehašib in Dan 9:25.

           

            In Duet 28:31, a Qal imperfect conjugation of šub is used to say that:

           

"Your donkey shall be torn away from you, and shall not be restored [yāšub] to you." NASB.

            And in 1 Sam 7:14, this same Qal imperfect conjugation of šub is used in reference to cities just like in Dan 9:25 in the statement:

"And the cities which the Philistines had taken from Israel were restored [wattāšōb^enāh] to Israel, from Ekron even to Gath." NASB.   

           

            So just as the Qal imperfect is used many times in the Old Testament with the translation and meaning of "restoring original possession," so the Qal imperfect of the same verb in Dan 9:25 should be understood in a similar way and therefore rendered as "restored."^S55 So in this statement it would also be representing a different action than "to build."^R56

            Also the parallel sequence of the verbal pair tāšûb w^enibn^etāh to the previous l^ehašib w^elibnôt suggests here again that the political restoration would occur before the physical rebuilding. This last point is concretely supported by a couple of other syntactical points.

            With the verb tāšûb being a Qal imperfect and the verb nibn^etāh being a Niphal perfect a temporal relationship therefore exists between them because of the presence of a waw-conjunction [w^e] that joins them together, and is attached to the perfect conjugation, nibn^etāh. Since both of these verbs refer only to the future and are in an imperfect-perfect order, then the waw-conjunction that is between them is identified as a waw-consecutive or  waw-relative.^R57 This would initially first suggest that the first verb mentioned is temporally followed by the second. Furthermore, the perfect conjugation in the Hebrew is used to represent a state flowing from or related to an earlier situation [in the immediate text],^R58 and a waw+perfect conjugation combination is also subordinate to a primary verb (or an equivalent). In this imperfect-waw+perfect connection (and in non-past, and non-present time) this structure then represents a situation that is logically and/or temporally consequential to an immediate, previous situation.^R59 All this then meant that (1) the action of political restoration was being predicted here to occur before the action of physical rebuilding, and (2) that the rebuilding of the city is greatly dependent on a prior political restoration.^N60  

            The greater emphasis that is persistently placed on Jerusalem’s political restoration over its physical rebuilding is also indicated by the fact that this "restoration" is expressed in an imperfect tense while the physical building is expressed in a perfect tense. Since the imperfect tense focuses on ‘the internal distinctions of various, separate phases that make up a situation,’^B61 while the perfect tense views a situation as a whole without regards to its internal distinctions,^R62 this then meant that the political restoration of Jerusalem was expressed with a greater attention to its internal details and process than the physical rebuilding. The Imperfect vs. Perfect distinction here also indicates that the future political restoration was being considered as a more targeted or planned event while the physical building was being seen as a more “by the way” or “accidental” event. Therefore all of this show that the “restoration” of Jerusalem was viewed and considered as a more significant action and event than the building of it.

            So based on these above arguments, and also based on the syntactical facts that (1) the expression w^enibn^etāh is an waw+imperfect form in the non-causative Qal stem and (2) is related to and follows a previous infinitive statement (l^ehašib w^elibnôt), and that the statement here is functioning as a summary of what had preceded,^R63 then this statement would, in summary, be pointing to a “[future] definite perfective [i.e., completed] situation.”^R64 Therefore the full and syntactically accurate translation of tāšûb w^enibn^etāh in Dan 9:25 actually is:

           

             “And so (in this way), it (Jerusalem) will naturally, and definitely, be restored,

                and then (as a result of this) it will also come to be built.”

           Furthermore, the imperfect expression which occurred after the infinitive expressions here indicates that the preceding expression (l^ehašib w^elibnôt) had provided “‘a starting point for a development’and represents the circumstances in which the narrative unfolds.”^R65 So it is indeed the beginning actions for the fulfillment of this restoration (and building) purposes that is the main focus of this passage and not the eventual (though sure) final “restored (and built)” state.

           Now the last two key expressions that follow in Dan 9:25 will help to further verify, and solidify the greater importance that is revealed here in regards to the political-restoration of Jerusalem over its dependent, and successive, physical rebuilding. This all will in turn help to precisely identify the starting point of the Seventy Week prophecy.

The Expression "r^ehôb" in Dan 9:25

            The expression r^ehôb is the first term in the word pair "r^ehôb w^ehārûş" found in Dan 9:25. It has been translated by the major English Bible versions mainly as “street(s)” (cf. e.g., NKJV, NIV and NRSV). The NASB has translated r^ehôb as “plaza,” while the RSV, JB and the NJB prefer the translation “square.”

            Based on the way r^ehôb is mostly used in the OT, and since it is derived from the root word rhb which is a verb that literally means to "be or grow wide or large,"^B66 lexicographers have defined the expression r^ehôb as: a "broad open place"^R67 An example in Deut 13:12-16, explicitly demonstrates this meaning as r^ehôb was depicted there as an area that was large enough to be a place where the Israelites could gather together all of the belongings of an idolatrous city to burn them. This could not be referring to a simple street because, as we have already pointed out, the streets in ancient cities in Palestine we generally narrow.^R68 That is why the expression r^ehôb here is translated as an "open square"(cf. NASB). Also, as we have already mentioned, the "open square" was usually located near the gate of a city^S69 and served as a place of public gatherings for the making of official proclamations, or giving instruction,^S70 and as a place to discuss and decide issues involving the Law and/or (Prophetic) Word of God.^N71  In the story of Boaz and the Moabite widow Ruth (Ruth 4:1-12), Boaz gathered some men together at the square of the city, located near the gate, in order to discuss the implications of the law concerning the redemption of a property and the marriage of a relative's widow.^S72 This complicated case was discussed and settled at that square and Boaz ended up having the right to redeem the land and marry Ruth. So based on these Biblical examples, it can be seen that, in essence, the square in Ancient Israel's time functioned as a "courthouse." There are also other statements in the Old Testament concerning the condition of the square during some periods of Israel's apostasy, that shed some more light on its judicial function. For example Isa 59:14 says:

"Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands at a distance; for truth stumbles in the public square [r^ehôb] and uprightness cannot enter. NRSV.

            And in Jeremiah 5:1, God challenged anyone from the rebellious city of Jerusalem to:

"Run to and fro through the streets [b^ehûşôt] of Jerusalem, look around and take note. Search its squares [r^ehôb] and see if you can find one person who acts justly and seeks truth so that I may pardon Jerusalem." NRSV. (See also Psa 55:10, 11).

            As it is revealed in this latter example, there are passages wherein r^ehôb is used to refer to a "square" and at the same time in that passage, a more specific Hebrew word -hûş- is used to designate "a street" or "streets."(See also Prov 1:20; 7:12; Isa 15:3; Jer 9:21; Amos 5:16; Nah 2:4). This indicates that there was indeed a difference in meaning between the two expression.^N73   A further argument that helps to clinch that the meaning of r^ehôb in Dan 9:25 should be understood as "a public square" is the fact that r^ehôb appears here is in the singular form,^R74 so its grammatically correct translation could only be referring to either a single street, or one "public square;" and not the plural streets or squares. Since, in the context of Dan 9:25, the "restoration" of one street would be rather insignificant in relation to the overall political restoration theme that is being emphasized here, it then would seem that the choice of r^ehôb as a "public square" would indeed make more contextual sense as it would contribute to the overall "political-restoration" meaning of this passage.

            Based on this meaning of r^ehôb as the "public square" where general assemblies were held and judicial matters were resolved and settled; and also since Israel was a theocentric ("God-centered" or "God-ruled") community wherewith the Law of God covered every aspect of their life -moral, civil and religious- we can therefore see the importance for a “restored” Israel to also have a properly functioning public or judicial square that was governed by the Dictates of God. This promise of the restoration of the public square would signal and symbolize to the Jewish community, a restoration of their political autonomy^R75 as they could not have enjoyed this while they were under the direct control of another nation as it had been the case since the time the Babylonians took away their governing autonomy back in 605 B.C.

            So now, having determined that the meaning of the first expression in the word pair r^ehôb w^ehārûş, is actually a  "public square," we can now turn our attention to the second expression- hārûş.

           

The Expression "hārûş" in Dan 9:25^R76

            The expression hārûş in Dan 9:25 has been translated to either mean a “wall” (KJV; NKJV), a “trench” (NIV), a “moat” (RSV, NRSV, NASB, and NJT), a “rampart” (JB, NJB), or a “conduit” (NEB; REB), but it must immediately be pointed out that none of these meanings have any Biblical precedence or support. The translation of hārûş as a "wall" seems to follow the Greek translation/interpretation of this expression in the Theodotion version of the Bible (ca.180 A.D.) which had translated/interpreted it as teichos “wall.” This meaning continued to be used later on by Church Father^E77 Jerome in his Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, as he translated this expression with the Latin muri. This translation of hārûş as "wall" could have been influenced by Isa 26:1, or by the story of Nehemiah’s reform activities which were highlighted by the repairing of Jerusalem's walls, but there is in reality no linguistic support there for such an interpretation.^N78 In both Isa 26:1, and in the book of Nehemiah, a different expression, namely hômāh-is specifically used to designate a "wall."^S79 This expression is used 36 times as such in the book of Nehemiah alone and is also consistently used in a similar way in the rest of the Old Testament.^S80 So the rendering of hārûş as a "wall" in Dan 9:25 would, strangely enough, be the only time that it would be used in the OT with this meaning. Based on this observation, we can see that this translation/interpretation of hārûş as a "wall" in Dan 9:25 is indeed not accurate.

            In recent attempts to find the actual meaning of hārûş in Dan 9:25, interpreters have almost unanimously opted for the related translations of hārûş as either: a “trench,”^N81  a “moat,”^R82 an “entrenchment,”^R83 or a “conduit.”^R84 The main basis used by these interpreters for these modern translations of hārûş has been an Aramaic Inscription called the Zakir Inscription (from the 8^th century B.C.) where the root hrş is found and is used with the meaning of a "moat" or a "trench,"^N85 since the expression hārûş is also derived from the root hrş (hārûş). But there are several problems with such a conclusion and subsequent translation as Dr. Owusu-Antwi has pointed out.^B86

            First of all this Zakir Inscription is from the eighth century B.C., and is written in Aramaic, so as Owusu-Antwi points out “the question of an early Aramaic terminological link to the Hebrew of Dan 9:25 remains hypothetical.”^B87

            Secondly, this is not the only ancient inscription with the root hrş; and neither is "moat" the only meaning of this root as it is seen from its use in other ancient inscriptions. The root word hrş occurs in a number of inscriptions ranging from the 8^th to the 1^st centuries B.C., in various cognate (related as in a family) languages to Hebrew such as Phoenician,^E88  Neo-Punic,^E89 and Ugaritic^E90 with meanings such as "gold,"^R91 "Gravierung, Inzision ("engraving or incision")"^R92 and "decision."^B93 In Akkadian,^E94 the root hrş has the basic meaning of (1) "to cut down, to cut off,"^B95 (2) "to set, determine,"^R96 (3) "to incise, to cut in deeply,"^R97 (4) "to make clear, to clarify,"^R98 (5) "to adjust,"^R99 and (6) "to cut off."^R100 What all of these various uses and meanings of the root hrş in these cognate languages show is that none of them, including the meaning "moat" can exclusively be chosen to be the meaning of hārûş in Dan 9:25 just because it happens to be the meaning of an occurrence of hrş in one of the ancient inscriptions or texts^R101 as some interpreters have supposed.^R102   

            What may have favored the choice of "moat" for hārûş in Dan 9:25 was the then generally accepted, but yet supposed understanding, that the "restoration" of Jerusalem was synonymous to its physical rebuilding but as we have seen this is not the case in this verse. Furthermore the rebuilding of a moat is rather insignificant in the overall rebuilding of Jerusalem or for its protection and as Gerhard Pfdahl has pointed out, the building of a moat for a hilltop city like Jerusalem is not likely.^B103 That may explain why historically, Jerusalem's moat did not even go around the entire city.^R104 Furthermore if God, through the angelus interpretus Gabriel, had in mind here the future protection of Jerusalem, the natural symbol would have been a "wall" rather than a "moat" or a "trench." ^R105

So then, what is to be the meaning of hārûş in Dan 9:25?

            The Hebrew term hārûş is derived from the verbal root hrş^R106 (Akkadian harāşu^R107) for which the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon have listed the three main meanings of: (1) "cut, mutilate," (2) "sharpen," and (3) "decide."^B108 While the basic meaning of this word seems to be "cut," there is however, as Z.W. Falk has pointed out, “a semantic relation between cutting, dividing and rendering a legal decision.”^B109 The use of hārûş with the extended meaning of "decide" and of the underlying notion of making or taking a decisive action is frequent in the Old Testament, as the following examples^S110 demonstrate:

            As hārûş appears in Dan 9:25, it has the identical verbal form as an occurrence in Lev 22:22. While in that passage, it has the literal meaning “maimed” (KJV), there is still indicated by this meaning, an implicit "decisive decision" that had to be made before the final and irreversible amputation action takes place.

            In Exod 11:7 and in Josh 10:21, the verbal root hrş is used in the expression: “to move a tongue against” [yeh^eraş and hāraş, respectively] and this expression actually indicates here a  "decisive speech."^R111 Also in 2 Sam 5:24 David is told in essence to "act decisively" [teh^erāş] (i.e., to attack) when he hears "the sound of marching at the tops of the balsam trees."^R112        

            The other uses of hārûş with the extended meaning of "decide" are all found in a context of judgement.

            In 1 Kgs 20:40, it is used to say: “So shall your judgement be; you yourself have decided [hārāştā] it.” (NASB); and Job 14:5 seems to be an allusion to the time when God, in a judgement brought upon the earth after the fall of man, had limited the number of days for sinful man to about 120 years (Gen 6:3; cf. 3:19) as this passage says that man's days are "determined" [h^arûşîm -lit. "firmly decided"].

            The verbal root hrş is also occurs twice more in the very text of the Seventy Week as in Dan 9:26 and 27, it is used to say about a future “firmly decided” destruction there: “desolations will have been determined” [neh^ereşet] (vs. 26); and “that which has been decreed (the utter destruction) [w^eneh^erāşāh]” (vs. 27).

            Along the same contextual line of Dan 9:25 of a return of a remnant and a firmly decided destruction, the verbal root hrş is similarly used in Isa 10:22, 23 as it is said there that "a destruction is determined"  [hārûş] (vs. 22, (NASB), and "a complete destruction, one that is decreed" [w^eneh^erāşāh] (vs. 23, (NASB)). In both of these passages, the meaning of "to decide" is used with reference to the judgement that has been decided due to the breach of the covenant stipulations by Israel.^N113

            One the best examples in the OT of the use of the root hrş in the sense of a "judgement" is found in Joel 3^N114 where it is spoken there of the time when God will judge all nations. It is there said that they will be gathered in the valley of Jehoshaphat and there God will enter into judgement with them on behalf of Israel (3:2; cf. vs.12). This place is twice called “the Valley of Decision” [the "b^e⊂ēmeq hehārûş"] in vs. 14.^R115 It should also be noted here, as Owusu-Antwi has pointed out, that since hārûş is paired in Dan 9:25 with a place of judgement [the "public square"], then this meaning of  "decision" therefore “parallels the decisions made at public courts held in public squares.”^B116        

            All of these examples of hārûş and its varying derivative forms in the Old Testament show that its dominant usage is with the meaning of "decision-making" meaning the making and enforcement of decisions pertaining to legal judgements.^R117

            Indeed, when this underlying meaning for the expression hārûş as a final or decisive "decision/judgement" is considered for Dan 9:25 in the light of the themes of "political restoration" and the reestablishment of the "public square" [r^ehôb] that we have thus far repeatedly seen, it then becomes self-evident here that the expression hārûş here should indeed be translated here with such a meaning of "legal decisions." So the word pair r^ehôb w^ehārûş in Dan 9:25 would then be accurately translated as "(public) square and decision-making;" and a full translation of this statement would therefore say:

"“And so (in this way), it (Jerusalem) will naturally, and definitely, come to be restored,

                and then (as a result of this) it will also be built,” with (public) square and                           

                decision-making"

            So this would mean here that the Israelites would not only regain their privileges of trying their own court cases according to their own laws at this time; but also that they would have the right to decide them and mete out their own sentences and judgements without having to consent with another ruling body (i.e., the Persian Empire).^R118

           

Finding the “dābār” that ‘restored and then built’ Jerusalem

            In order to find the "dābār" that historically ‘restored and then so built’ Jerusalem we have to look through the two historical Biblical books that covered the period of Israel’s restoration; namely the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The book of Ezra starts off with a number of official Persian decrees and proclamation that all related to the rebuilding of the temple. The events related in Ezra 4:7-23 are said to be the only exception as commentators^R119 across the board agree that these verses actually tell about an event that took place sometime after the 21 historical years that Ezra 1-6 cover (537-516 B.C.). This passage was placed here into the text as a sort of parenthesis. Then,  following a 60-year historical gap between chapters 6 and 7 of Ezra, we find, starting with ch. 7, a detailed account of the political restoration of the Jewish exiles following the second return under the leadership of Ezra in 457 B.C.^N120 is given . Chapter 7 of Ezra begins with an introduction to Ezra's story written by the composer of the book, and then what follows is a very significant edict that was given by King Artaxerxes Longimanus to the Priest-Scribe Ezra in regards to his mission to Jerusalem. (Ezra 7:11-26). This edict contained two formal decrees (vss. 13-20 & 21-24) and one command (vss. 25, 26).

            The first decree (vss.13-20) authorized the priest and the Levites who were in the province of Babylon to leave with Ezra and return to Jerusalem and “to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem,” with regard to ‘the Law of your God which was in Ezra’s hand.’ (Ezra 7:12-14). This decree also authorized some volunteer Israelites to leave Babylon and return to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:13-20; cf. 27), and made provision for Ezra and the returnees to “beautify the house of the Lord” since it apparently had been almost 60 years since any official work had been done on the now rebuilt temple.^N121 The decree also allowed the Jews to take with them “all the silver and the gold that they could find in all the province of Babylon” along with other offerings so that they could “freely be offered for the house of their God in Jerusalem.” (Ezra 7:15-20).

            The second decree found in this edict of Artaxerxes (vss. 21-24) was specifically addressed  to Artaxerxes’s treasurers who were “in the region beyond the River” (Ezra 7:21). It ordered them to assist Ezra financially in the temple work, up to a certain specified limit (vss. 21-23), and it also strictly forbade these treasurers from imposing a tax on the workers of the Temple (vs. 24).^N122

            Now after stating these two decrees, King Artaxerxes turns his attention to Ezra and says:

“And you, Ezra, according to your God-given wisdom, set magistrates and judges who may judge all the people who are in the region beyond the River, all such as know the laws of your God; and teach those who do not know them. Whoever will not observe the laws of your God and the law of the king, let judgement be executed speedily on him, whether it be death, or banishment, or confiscation of goods, or imprisonment.” Ezra 7:25, 26.^N123      

           

            The full political-restoration implications and significance of this command by Artaxerxes can be seen when it is understood that the act of "judging" in Ancient Israel was viewed as the act of "ruling,"and also that one of the predominant aspects of the "breaking up" of Israel would be  that they would be judged according to the laws of other nation as indicated by the Exilic prophet Ezekiel. (see Ezek 23:24). The prophet Daniel also demonstrated this understanding when, in his prayer for restoration (Dan 9:4b-19),  he equated the "judges" of Israel with their "rulers" (Dan 9:12), as the NKJV translation of Dan 9:12 says: “And He [God] has confirmed His words, which He spoke against us and against our judges who judged us, by bringing upon us disaster.” The expression šōpţênû is rendered here as “our judges” (so KJV) but the NASB, RSV and NIV render it as “our rulers.” This is actually not a contradiction, but rather shows that these two terms indeed interchangeable.^N124  That is why: (1) in 1 Sam 8:5, 6 the Israelites had asked to be given a king to judge them, (2) why it was said in Hos 13:10 that the judges were the rulers (kings and princes) of Israel, (3) why in 1 Chr 17:6, 7, 10, David is called a nāgîd -“a ruler” (vs.7) which is then paralleled to him being called a šōpţê and šōp^eţîm (vss. 6 & 10), that is “a judge;”and (4) why, later on, Solomon viewed his role as king to be that of a judge of the entire nation (1 Kgs 3:8, 9).^N125

            A prior similar "restoration" that is mentioned in Isa 1:21, 26 also adds to the significant restoration implications that is implied in the command of Ezra 7:25, 26. In that passage in Isaiah, God described the rebellious state of Jerusalem as having become: “full of injustice” and that “righteousness” once “lodged in it; but now murderers.” (vs. 21). But then God goes on to promise a restoration by saying that He would “restore your judges as at first,” and their “counselors as at the beginning.” The result of this restoration would be that the city would now be called “the city of righteousness, the faithful city.” (vs. 26). Interestingly enough, this last promise of a new and righteous name parallels what Daniel had focused on in his prayer of restoration. (see esp. Dan 9:16-19).

            Also, in the book of Lamentations, an emphasis is added to the view that the restoration of Jerusalem had much to do with autonomous political organization. In Lam 5:14, a lamentation over the loss of freedom in Jerusalem specifies that “the elders have ceased from the city-gate.” The Lamentations end with a plea to God for restoration (Lam 5:21) using also similar Hiphîl stem form of the verb šub as in Dan 9:25.^R126 In support of this understanding,  B. S. Easton has remarked that “the seat 'among elders'  'in the gate' (Prov 31:23) was a high honor, while 'oppression in the gates' was a synonym for judicial corruption. (Prov 22:22; Isa 29:21; Amos 5:10; cf. 2 Sam 3:27).”^B127 Since the foundation of the Jewish political system was solely based on the Law of God as it was expressed in the Mosaic Law, this command in Ezra 7:25, 26 by King Artaxerxes, now in essence gave to the Jewish people full authorization to once again become an independent people although they would still be  under the ultimate rule of the Persian Empire. This authorization given to Ezra to fully enforce the Law of God by any punishment that he saw fit clearly gave the Jews again the full autonomy to fully decide judicial matters based on their God-given laws.^N128

            It may now be asked what would cause Artaxerxes and the Persian Empire to now suddenly give the Jews such great  autonomy after they had been under their direct control and supervision for then over 80 years. For an answer, commentators have all pointed to an historical, extra-biblical development in the Western part of the Persian Empire that was occurring at that time. Historical records shows that about a couple of years prior to Artaxerxes’s commission to Ezra, a revolt had erupted in the western part of the Persian empire and in an attempt to end this revolt, King Artaxerxes had sent an army of 300,000 men against Egypt.^R129 So as Blenkinsopp concludes, Ezra's mission could have been “an attempt on the part of the central government to assure stability in an area [the western part of the Empire] which was, in the circumstances of those years, strategically crucial”^B130 as the more accessible "gateway" from Babylon to Egypt and the western part of the Persian Empire was the route that went around the Arabian Desert and then down through the Palestine area. [See on Map#1].

            Another interesting conclusion can also be arrived at here, and merged with this latter one, as it was particularly said of Ezra that he had “prepared his heart to seek the Law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach statutes and ordinances in Israel (and not only to Israel^N131)” Ezra 7:10. The specific preposition “in” is particularly indicated in the Hebrew text by the prefix preposition “beth” that was attached to the proper noun “Israel.”^B132 Since this preposition was indicating  a “location”(the land of Israel), it was then being used here to “qualify the realm {a kingdom, domain, province or region} with regard to which the verbal action [“to teach”] obtains {reaches}”^N133  Since, at that time, a significant part of  “Israel” was in Palestine, as these events took place after the first major return under  Zerubbabel, Ezra therefore clearly had in his mind now to not only teach and establish the teachings of God’s Law with the Jews who were still in Babylon, but primarily with those who already back in Palestine. It is therefore very probable that he was the one who brought this restoration idea to the attention of  King Artaxerxes’s^R134 (like Nehemiah would similarly do later on with this same King [see Neh 2:1-8]),^N135 as a reasonable solution to help stabilize the now troubled Western part of the Persian Empire. Based on Ezra 7:6 which says that King Artaxerxes granted Ezra his request “because^N136 of the hand of the Lord his God was upon him,” as he would similarly later do with Nehemiah (see Neh 2:8), it therefore appears that the king recognized the [providential?] hand of the God of Israel here, and decided to allow this suggestion to be carried out. So in the proposal of Ezra, the Persian Empire would have found a timely solution for their national unrest, and in the devout and skilled Ezra, they also would have found a trustworthy man who was willing and able to accomplish this important task.

            So in summary of all of these observations, it is therefore clear that the command by Artaxerxes to Ezra in Ezra 7:25, 26 gave the Jewish exiles the right to once again enjoy the political autonomy that they had before the captivity.

            Now, since at this point all of the information that is necessary to determine what the precise meaning of the expression dābār have been given, it is time to decide between an "authoritative word" or a "judicial matter."

            Since the expression mōşā^⊃("starting point") is in a construct relationship^N137 to the expression  dābār (i.e., the mōşā^⊃ “of a” dābār), if this dābār was understood as an "authoritative word," then the opening statement in Dan 9:25 would be saying: "From the pronouncement of an authoritative word . . . " or "From the issuing of a command. . . . " If on the other hand it was understood as a "judicial matter" then this statement would be saying: "From the start of a judicial matter." If the first meaning is used, it would then seem that the command of Artaxerses in Ezra 7:25, 26 would be the looked-for dābār; if the second meaning is used then there is a very interesting  event in the historical books of Ezra-Nehemiah that neatly fulfills this prediction and that is when  the people of Jerusalem convened in the public square and Ezra proceeded to teach them the Law, (Neh 8) just as Artaxerxes had told him to (Ezra 7:25). Since, after this judicial matter, the Israelites now would then know and understand their Law, they would then be in a position to govern themselves. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, this was an event that was pointedly called a “dābār” = “judicial matter” (Neh 8:4). The reading of the Law was indeed the basis of Israel’s restoration and this fact perfectly harmonizes with the fact that in the focus of a Hiphîl stem verb (l^ehašib-“to restore”) is on the causing of this action,^R138 and not on the state that would result.^R139 So the focus in this prediction in Dan 9:25 was on an event that would eventually lead to Jerusalem come to be in a state of being completely “restored” (i.e., “returned” to its original autonomous state).^N140 Based on this application the statement in Dan 9:25 would then read as:

“From the start of a judicial matter for the purpose of restoring and thus then building  Jerusalem . . .” 

            This event is not only an accurate contextual fulfillment, but it is also a better choice chronologically because while we know that  Ezra traveled to Jerusalem in the "seventh year" of King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:8) as a result of this command, we really have no indication as to the exact date when this command was "pronounced" or  "issued." It is literally said in Ezra 7:9 that: “on the first of the first month [Nisan 1] (Ezra) made a foundation to go up from Babylon.” This implies that Ezra had planned this departure prior his Nisan 1 starting date, so he apparently  received his permission from the King some time before this date, i.e., in, at least, the winter of 457 B.C. It could also be that he had did not want to undertake his 4-month journey during the winter season and so chose to  wait out the winter in Babylon and then set out for Jerusalem once the Spring season came. So he could also have  received his permission sometime in the Fall/Winter of 458 B.C. Therefore dating the “pronouncement” of this “command” of Artaxerxes would at best have to be an reasonable guess. On the other hand, the choice of ‘the start of a "judicial matter"’ best fulfills this crucial chronological part of the Seventy Week prediction.

            Now while the event in Neh 8 clearly fulfills the prediction of Dan 9:25, there is a major chronological problem that occurs with it due to its present apparent historical location. As this event appears in Neh 8, it then indicates that it occurred in the seventh Jewish month (Sept/Oct) of 444 B.C. (cf. Neh 2:1; 8:2 ) and therefore suggests that, strangely enough, Ezra waited 13 years to fulfill the command given to him by King Artaxerxes back in about 457 B.C. In recent years, scholars and commentators have tried to resolve this strange development by taking a careful look at this passage, and they have come to detect some key syntactical, textual, contextual and historical inconsistencies in the text of this passage that has led them to the conclusion that this passage is not now located in its original context, and thus chronological location. This subject and these inconsistencies are quite significant for the overall chronology of the Seventy Weeks, so they are fully discussed in the following chapter. The resolving of this dilemma will then help to firmly establish the correct date for this event, and thus the accurate starting point of the prophecy.

                                               

Notes to "Verse 25"

1. HCL, 852.

2. See HAL, 425.

3. Cf. Zodhiates, TCWS-OT, 2128; Owens, Analytical Key OT, 4:743.

4.  HAL, 559.

5.  See also Psa 75:7 and Job 28:1.

6. See Num 30:12; Deut 8:3; 23:23; Psa 89:34; Jer 17:16.

7. Cf. Earl S. Kalland, "dābār," TWOT, 1:399.

8. See HAL, 202-203; KBL, 201-202; BDB, 182-184; CHAL, 67; AHCL, 144; HCL, 187; Klein, 114; G. Gerleman, "dābār," THAT,  1:434-443; Werner H. Schmidt, "dābhar, dābhār," TDOT, 3:84-124; Kalland, "dābār," TWOT,  1:180.

9. See e.g., Exod 24:4; Jer 42:15; Zech 7:4; etc

10. See e.g., Gen 20:10; Lev 5:2; Eccl 8:1; etc.

11. See e.g., 1 Sam 10:16; 17:23; 2 Chr 1:15; Ezra 5:5, 17; Neh 6:13; Psa 45:1; Dan 1:14; etc.

12. Nevertheless, the NIV has still left open the possibility of the translation of a "word" through the use of a footnote.

13. See Ezra 5:13, 17; 6:1, 3, 8, 11, 12; 7:13, 21; Dan 3:10, 29; 4:6; 6:26; Jonah 3:7.

14. See also other examples in e.g., 1 Sam 10:16; Ezra 5:5, 17; Neh 6:13; Dan 1:14; etc.

15. Most translation (e.g., the NIV RSV, NRSV, and NASB) prefer the word "dispute" here instead of "matter," (the NKJV has "difficulty") but since this dābār here is clearly referring to a formal and legal "dispute" that had to be heard and ruled over by a judge,  it would then be more accurately translated in the sense of an official/formal “judicial matter.”

16. Along this same line of something pertaining to judgement, dābār is also used for some judicial terms such as a "charge" [Exod 23:7] or a "verdict" [Deut 17:9 (NIV)].

17. This platform may have been similar to the one mentioned in 2 Chr 6:13 that King Solomon had built during the dedication ceremonies of the first temple since it was 4½ feet high as Ezra here in Neh 8 was said to be “high and elevated” (verse 5).

18. The common translation for this dābār in Neh 8:4 has usually been a “purpose”(cf. KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV) or “occasion” (NIV) but because neither of these translations are normal ones for dābār in the Old Testament (cf. HAL, 202-203), and because the context of this dābār matches the judicial proceedings of other passages in the OT, then this "dābār" would also be better understood and translated as a judicial "matter."

19. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 150.

20. See e.g., Gen 18:33; Deut 30:3; Jer 29:14; 50:19; Ezek 3:19; 18:26; Psa 60:1; etc.

21. See e.g., Gen 3:19 (2x); 16:9; Exod 4:18 (2x), 33:11; 1 Sam 1:19; 2 Kgs 2:18; etc

22.  See the KJV, RSV, NASB, NEB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, REB, and ASB.

23. See Owusu-Antwi, 132.

24. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 133.

25. See Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 193 [11.2.2a].

26. Cf. Owens, Analytical Key OT, 4:743; Zodhiates, TCWS-OT, 2128.

27. Cf. HAL, 133; KBL, 134; BDB, 124; CHAL, 42.

28. Forty-four times as an infinitive construct and seven times as an infinitive absolute.

29. See S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922),  138. See also the study of W. L. Holladay, The Root šûbh in the Old Testament, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958), 87-105.

30. Most of these examples are cited by Owusu-Antwi (131-136). Italic emphasis in these verses are supplied.

31. Owusu-Antwi, 145, 146[@].

32. See Helmer Ringgren and M. Tsevat, "y^erûšālēm/y^erûšālayim," TDOT,  6:348; Georg Fohrer and E. Lohse, "Siōn, Ierousalēm, Ierosoluma, Ierosolumitēs,*" TDNT, 7:295.

33. 1 Kgs 12:27; 2 Kgs 21:4, 7; 1 Chr 6:32; 2 Chr 3:1; 6:34; Psa 102:21.

34. See e.g., 2 Kgs 21:16; 1 Chr 21:15-17; Ezra 4:20; Isa 3:1, 2; 3:8; Jer 2:2; 15:5 Ezek 5:5; 14:21; Zech 1:14, 15; cf. Rinngren and Tsevat, TDOT, 6:349; Fohrer and Lohse, TDNT, 308, 309.

35. Cf. Avigdor Orr, "The Seventy Years of Desolation--A Rejoinder," VT 7 (1956): 304-306; Gerhard Larsson, "When Did the Babylonian Captivity Begin?" JTS 18 (1967): 417-423. (Their 586 B.C. starting year is rightly 587 B.C.). Contrary to C. F. Whitley, "The Term Seventy Years’s Captivity," VT 4 (1954): 60-72, the seventy years cannot be reckoned from the physical destruction of the temple in ca. 586 B.C. to its restoration in about 516 B.C. as some state because of the scriptural mention in Jer 25:12 that the end of the seventy years of desolation would coincide with the fall of Babylon, which took place in 539 B.C.

36.. Jer 39:1-10; 52:12-30.

37. O. Kaiser, "hrab I," TDOT,  5:152-153.

38. See this meaning in 2 Kgs 19:17; Isa 60:12, and the apocryphal passage Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 16:4 where it literally says: “For by one who has intelligence shall a city be united, but by one who is lawless shall a nation be desolated.” The word “united” is from the future passive of the verb sunoikizo- “sunoikistheisetai” and literally means to “live together as in a marriage union.” This then meant here that the inhabitants of that city will “live together” in peace and in harmony.

39. Cf. the exposition of Owusu-Antwi (139-148 [@]).

40. For examples of how these elements of destruction do cause a "breaking up" of a community see Jer 11:22; 14:12, 16; 16:1-4; 18:21; cf. Ezek 5:16, 17; 14:21.

41. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 140. This meaning of horbh as the desolation, of primarily, the organized society, is also seen in its other uses in the book of Jeremiah such as Jer 7:30-34; 22:5; 33:10, 11; 34:22b; 44:2, 6, 22 and 49:10-13.

42. Owusu-Antwi, 143.

43. Cf. Ibid., 143-144.

44. Since it is the political and physical aspects of "Jerusalem" are both being emphasized here in this opening statement in Dan 9:25, it can further be seen how the object "Jerusalem" is here functioning as a simultaneous reference to both the organized political community and to the physical city as mentioned earlier.

45. Cf. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 256, 257.

46. A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs  (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 366ff . See also R. N. Frye, “Institutions," in Beitrge zur Achmenidengeschichte,* ed. G. Walser (Wiesban: Franz Steiner, 1972), 92.

47. See Ezra 1:1-4; cf. Ezra 6:3-12.

48. See Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 605-610 [36.2.3a-g].

49. See Ibid., 605-610 [36.2.3a-g].

50. See Ibid., 606, 607 [36.2.3d].

51. See Ibid., 600 [36.1.2a]

52. See Ibid., 611 [36.3.2a]; also: Joüon and Muraoka, 364 [#124]; GKC, 351 [#114p].

53. See Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 607 [36.2.3d].

54. See GKC, 385-387 [#120a-g].

55. See other examples of this translation and meaning of the Qal of šûb (in esp. NIV and RSV) Job 39:12 (“bring”); Psa 85:4; Jer 33:26; Joel 3:1; Nah 2:2.

56. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 148, 149.

57. See Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 483, 484 [30.3a-b].

58. See Ibid., 484 [30.3b].

59. Ibid., 525 [32.1.3e].

60. This notion was also indicated in the earlier parallel phrase in Dan 9:25 as the expression “to restore” was expressed with a Hiphîl stem while the expression “to build” was expressed with a Qal stem. This then meant, as we have repeatedly seen before, that the "restoration" of Jerusalem would be an action that would have to be caused while its "building" would be a natural action.

61. Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 480 [30.1c].

62. Ibid., 480 [30.1b].

63. Ibid., 550 [33.2.1d]; GKC, 328 [§111k].

64. Ibid., 562 [33.3.5d].

65. Cf. Ibid., 553 [33.2.4a].

66. BDB, 931.

67. BDB, 932.

68. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 150.

69. See 2 Chr 29:4; 32:6; Job 29:7; Ruth 4:1, 2, 11.

70. See 2 Chr 29:4; 32:6.

71. See Ruth 4:1, 2, 11 also used for such during Monarchial times (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10). Also, in 1 Sam 31: 8-10 & 2 Sam 21:12 we read that after the Philistines had found the dead bodies of King Saul and his sons after their battle with Israel they took them back to their city and hung them on a wall in the "square" [r^ehôb] of their city.

72. See Ruth 4:1-14; cf. Lev 25:23-25; Deut 25:5-10.

73. See also Song of Solomon 3:2 were r^ehôb also appears with another Hebrew root that is used for "streets"-šûq.

74. Cf. Owens, Analytical Key, 4:743.

75. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 151.

76. Based on the exegetical and historical research of Owusu-Antwi (159-161).  

77. The title for a "Bible Scholar" of that time.

78. Montgomery (380) describes the Theodotion and the Vulgate rendition of hārûş with "wall" as guesswork.

79. See e.g., Neh 2:13, 4:7; 6:1; 12:27, 30; etc. Cf. Walvoord, 227.

80. See e.g., (Exod 14:22, 29); Josh 2:15 (2X); 6:5, 20; 1 Sam 25:16, 34; 31:12; 2 Sam 11:20, 21(2X), 24; 18:24; 20:15, 21; 1 Kgs 3:1; 9:15; 20:30; etc.   

81. Montgomery, 380; Also Young (206) who says that “the word 'moat' means a trench.”

82. Hartman and Di Lella, 244, 245. Gerhard Maier, Der Prophet Daniel* (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus Verlag, 1982), 337; Wood, 254; Carl H. Cornill, "Die siebzig Jahrwochen Daniels." Theologische Studien und Skizzen aus Ostpreussen* 2 (1889): 5.

83. André Lacocque, Daniel in His Time. Translated by Lydia Cochrane (Columbia, SC:    University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 188.

84. Norman W. Porteous, Daniel, A Commentary. The Old Testament Library  (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), 142; Towner, 143.

85. See KAI, 202.A 10; Charles C. Torrey, "The Zakar and Kalamu Inscriptions," JAOS 35 (1915): 354-356. This inscription is transliterated from the Aramaic as:

                       

                                     whrmw šr mn šr hzrk whš^⊂mqw hrş mn hr[şh]

[The last expression hr[şh] was cut off after the hr and therefore the consonants [sh] have been supplied here, and rightly so, to form the probable complete spelling of this expression. (cf. Owusu-Antwi, 153)].

            Torrey, (ibid., 356) translates this phrase as: “and raised a wall  higher than the wall of Hazrek, and dug a trench [hrş] deeper than its moat [hr(şh)];” Cf. KAI, 205;  John C. L. Gibson, Textbooks of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 2:9. ([ ] is supplied into Torrey’s translation).

86. Owusu-Antwi, 152-155.

87. Ibid., 153.

88. The language of former inhabitants of Canaan after they were pushed into Phoenicia  by the Hebrew invasion of Canaan. Phoenicia was a long and narrow strip of northern coastal territory that was bordered by the Mediterranean Sea and the Lebanon Mountains [See Map#1].  

89. The language of Phoenicians colonies living in North Africa.

90. The language of the Canaanites [See Map#1 for the location of Ugarit].

91. ANET, 662; CIS, 1:327 line 5; KAI, 2:11, 3:9, 13.5, 24.12, 38, 145 II line 10; DISO, 96; NSI, 19, 24, 26, 59A line 10, 98. Gibson, 101-105, 132. Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook. Analecta Orientalia, no. 38. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), 257- Texts: 5:10, 13; 259- Texts: 51:I:27, 28, 33, 38, II:28, IV:37; 275- Texts 1122:2; 277- Texts: 1155:8; 1156:7; 1157:6.

92.  KAI, 60; 2:74; P. Magnanini, Le iscrizioni fenicie dell' oriente* (Roma: Instituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, 1976), 39; cf. Gibson, 150.

93. Georg Hoffman, Ueber einige phönikische Inschriften* (Göttingen Dieterischsche  Verlags-Buchhandlung, 1889), 4, 10, 11.

94. The language of the Babylonians and Assyrians living in Mesopotamia.

95. CAD, 92.

96. CAD, 92; AHw, 324, "genau bestimmen" (determine/decide exactly); HAL, 342, "bestimmen"(decide, determine); KBL, 336, "decide."

97. CAD, 92; AHw, 324, "einschneiden (cut into, incise)."

98. CAD, 94; AHw, 324, "klaren (become clear, settle) genau feststellen (establish/determine/confirm exactly)," cf. defn. #2.

99. CAD, 92, 94.

100.  CAD, 92, 94; KBL, 336, "cut off;" HAL, 342.

101. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 154, 155.

102. Montgomery, 380; Judah J. Slotki, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Soncino Books of the Bible (London: Soncino Press, 1951), 78; Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1977), 120; Young, 206; Lacocque, The Book of Daniel 188; Hartman and Di Lella, 244, 245; G. Maier, 337; Wood, 254.

103. Gerhard Pfdahl, The Time of  the End (Berrien Springs, MI: ATS Publications, 1992),  279 note 96.

104. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 152.

105. Cf. Ibid.

106. HAL, 336; KBL, 336; AHw, 323, 324; CAD  6:92-95.

107. D. N. Freedman and J. R. Lundbohm, ["hraş, hrûş, hrîş," TDOT, 5:216], states that "the verb hraş has a range of meanings closely comparable to those in Akkadian cognate harşu." Cf. Aage Bentzen, Daniel.  Handbuch zum Alten Testament* (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1952), 68.

108. BDB, 358.

109. Z. W. Falk, Hebrew Legal Terms: III," JSS 14 (1969): 39.

110. Exod 11:7; Lev 22:22; Josh 10:21; 2 Sam 5:24; 1 Kgs 20:40, Job 14:5; Isa 10:23; 28:22; Dan 9:26, 27; 11:36; Joel 3:14.

111.108. D. N. Freedman and J. R. Lundbohm, "hraş, hrûş, hrîş," TDOT, 5:217; Cf. Leonard J. Coppes, "hraş," TWOT, 1:326.

112. Cf. Freedman and Lundbom, 5:219.

113. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 157. See also Dan 11:36 where the verbal root hrş is used in a similar way in the phrase: "for that which is decreed [neh^erasah] will be done"(NASB.) and Isa 28:22 where "decisive destruction"[w^eneh^erasah] are said to have been set on all the earth.

114. Joel 4 in the Hebrew Bible.

115. Cf. BDB, 358; HAL, 338; CHAL, 116, 336; Freedman and Lundbom, 5:217.

116. Owusu-Antwi, 157.

117. Cf. Ibid.

118. Cf. Ibid.

119. See among others, H. G. M Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 16 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), 61.

120. For a brief proof for this date of 457 B.C., since some commentators have suggested that Ezra’s return occurred in 458 B.C., see Appendix A.

121. It is more than likely that this particular decree is the "decree of Artaxerxes" that is mentioned in Ezra 6:14 as one of the decrees that “built and  finished” the work on the house of the Lord. [i.e.s].

122. This apparent genuine concern on the part of the Persian Kings about seeing the House of God and the worship of Israel's God continued is not only demonstrated by these two decrees by Artaxerxes and those of Cyrus and Darius I Hystaspes in previous years (cf. Ezra 6:14), but also by a letter that was sent by King Darius II Ochus in 419 B.C. to a Jewish Military Colony stationed in Egypt. The letter actually ordered them to observe the Jewish Feast of Passover and of the Unleavened Bread and that by even telling them exactly when and how they were to do it. [See A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), Aramaic Papyri #21].  Even before the time of Darius II (Ochus) there were records of prior Persian Kings going out of their way to see that the laws of other religions were strictly enforced and observed by their followers. For example, in about 538 B.C. King Cyrus held a court session in Babylon to resolve some priestly thefts and corruptions in the Bel Marduk cult. (Bel Marduk was the chief god of the Babylonian gods [cf. Isa 46:11; Jer 50:2)- see A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 71-73). Also King Darius I Hytaspse went ahead and disciplined his satraps (governors), of probably the province of Sparda (modern-day Turkey) which was over 1000 miles from the capital city Babylon, for limiting the privileges of the priests of Apollo at the nearby city of Magnesia [see J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire (New York: Schoken, 1983), 71-72; for the text see R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the end of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), 20-22].

The two decrees in Ezra 7 that also show an apparent genuine Persian concern for the proper worship of the God of Israel may actually have primarily been a hope of the Persians that they would receive some favors from the God of Israel in return. They themselves did not follow the laws of Israel or of the other religions that they "supported." The official Persian god (at least from the time of King Darius I (Hytaspes) and onwards (522 B.C. ff)) was Ahura-Mazda [Cf. Derek Kidner, Ezra and Nehemiah. The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Madison, WI: InterVarsity Press, 1979), 17]. In commanding the people of other religious faiths to properly observe the rituals and regulations of their religions, the Persian Kings would thus ensure and encourage these people to seek the welfare of the king and the kingdom [Ibid., 9; See also in Ezra 6:10; cf. 7:23)].

123. It must be noted that the phrase "all such as know the laws of your God" limited Ezra’s newly found authority to only on the Jews who lived in the region beyond the River.

124. E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AB, vol. 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1964), 134, states that: “the basic sense of the stem  špţ is 'to exercise authority' in various matters, hence 'govern, decide,' and the like.” Cf. Werner H. Schmidt, Konigtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel,* BZAW 80 (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1961), 27-34; Shalom M. Paul, Amos.  Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991), 51, 52.

125. Similarly, when Absalom, the son of David, rose up against David and wanted to make himself King of Israel, he started his coûp d’état by making himself a judge of all Israel at the city’s gate and rendering judgement decision. This was to demonstrate to the people that he make a great king. (see 2 Sam 15:2-6).

126. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 160.

127. B. S. Easton, "Gate," ISBE, (Fully rev. ed., 1979), 2:408.

128. The specific mention of these rights and privileges to Ezra at this time of the second return of Jewish exiles is a strong, though implicit, indication that the returnees under  Zerubbabel in 537 B.C. did indeed not have such privileges.

129. See Diodorus Siculus 11:75.1; Cf. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 254.

130. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 65.

131. If the meaning “to Israel” was intended here, then a lamedh (l) preposition would have been used here instead of a beth (b) preposition. (Cf. Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 205 [11.2.10a]).

132. Zodhiates, TCWS-OT, 1238, [2271]; cf. Owens, Analytical Key OT, 3:26.

133. See Zodhiates, "Prefixed Preposition," TCWS-OT, 2281 and Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 198 [11.2.5e]. The words in the { } parentheses are supplied from Webster’s Dictionary into Waltke and O’Connor’s definition.

134. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 11:5.1 [#122]; and E. G. White, ["Ezra the Priest and Scribe"] Prophets and Kings  (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1917), 607-611.

135. Cf. also Josephus (Ant. 11:5.1 [#121]) who says that Ezra was “well acquainted with [this] King [Arta]Xerses.”

136. See the NASB for this accurate translation of this article maz here, and also in Neh 2:8, as “because.”

137. This construct relationship is indicated internally here by the fact that the expression mōşā^⊃ when it is in a non-construct form (i.e., an absolute form) is spelt as môşā^⊃ [Heb.-ax/;m], but here it is spelt in the construct form as mōşā^⊃ [Heb.-ax;mo]. (Cf. C. L. Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 116-122).

138. Cf. Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 433, 434 [27.1b, d].

139. Cf. Zodhiates, "Hiphil Stem," TCWS-OT, 2274.

140. Interestingly enough, if the dābār in Dan 9:25 is understood as such a judicial matter, then it would be seen as the implementation (i.e., the “going forth”) of the command of the King in Ezra 7:25, 26.as the KJV and NKJV translations indicate.