Continued: Chapter XIV-The Period Of The Restoration

We have three versions of this decree: II Chronicles 36:22,23; Ezra 1:1-4; 6:1-5. There is an echo of it in the letter of Tattenai, the governor beyond the River, to King Darius in Ezra 5:6,17. That part which reflects this proclamation is found in verses 13-15. The various accounts of this decree differ in detail, one mentioning certain facts omitted by the others, and another speaking of some things not found in the versions of the rest. This fact shows us that we do not have the full account of the original; therefore, wisdom would dictate that one should be very slow in saying that this proclamation did not authorize the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The necessity of this warning is seen from the fact that God foretold the issuing of the decree by Cyrus, not only to construct the temple, but also to rebuild the city. We who believe that God said what He meant and meant what He said, and that He fulfils His Word literally, accept the proposition that Cyrus actually issued the proclamation which authorized the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem. From this position there is no possibility of escape.

The second chapter of Ezra gives the account and the numbering of the families of the Israelites who returned under the leadership of Zerubbabel. This same list appears, in a corrected form, in Nehemiah 7:5-73. The total number of pilgrims given in both chapters is the same, but it was necessary for Nehemiah to revise and bring the list up to date in order to serve his purpose. They erected an altar upon which they offered burnt offerings and sacrifices according to the law of Moses and, at the proper time, observed the feast of tabernacles (Ez. 3:1-7). In the second month of the second year of their return, which was the second of Cyrus' sole rexship, the faithful exiles began to make preparation for the reconstruction of the temple. This information is given in 3:7-9. In verse 10 we read,

"And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of Jehovah they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise Jehovah, after the order of David king of Israel."

This was an occasion of joy mingled with sadness, because there was no comparison between the former house and the one being constructed. If we had this account alone, we would conclude that the foundation of the temple was laid in the second year of Cyrus, but from Haggai 2:18 we learn that it was not laid until the 24th day of the ninth month of the second year of Darius Hystaspes, which, as we shall see, was exactly 15 years later. Between Ezra 3:9 and 10, therefore, there is a gap of 15 years. As we see from this chapter, preparation was made for the beginning of the work, but it was hindered by the enemies of Israel.

This opposition is given in detail in chapter 4, which proves to be a parenthesis in the narrative. Chapter 5, therefore, resumes the account where chapter 3 leaves off. As we shall presently see, the prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, were the human agents used of God to stimulate the discouraged exiles to a renewal of their efforts in building the temple and the city wall. Chapter 4:1-3 tells from whom this opposition came; namely, those immigrants placed in the land by Esar-haddon king of Assyria, who mounted the thrones of both Assyria and Babylon in the year 3445 A.H. or 680 B.C.E., and reigned for 12 years. They approached Zerubbabel and Joshua, asking that they might have some participation in the reconstruction of the temple. They did this upon the grounds that they had worshiped the God of Israel since their coming into the land. But these astute Jewish leaders saw the hypocrisy of the claim and avoided any alliance with them. Then these enemies of Israel came out into the open and opposed them very strenuously by misrepresenting them at the Persian court.

From verse 5 we learn that this opposition began in the days of Cyrus and continued to the reign of Darius king of Persia. This is a blanket statement which gives the entire duration of this particular opposition. The following verse begins to explain in detail this protracted trouble. By some means, not stated, these enemies thwarted and frustrated the work all during the days of Cyrus, although he had issued the decree authorizing it. We are told that this hostility continued in the reign of the Ahasuerus of verse 6. What monarch is here called Ahasuerus? From profane history we learn that Cambyses, son of Cyrus, succeeded his father. Evidently then this ruler is indicated. In verses 7-22 we find a letter that was written against the Jews to Artaxerxes. Obviously this monarch was not Ahasuerus of verse 6, because in the beginning of verse 7 we read, "And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam" et al. In this letter we see the word kings in the plural (vs. 13); us is also used in the reply (vs. 18). The epistle concludes with kings. This use of the plural number is quite significant, appearing at this part of the historical account. Following Cambyses upon the throne were Pseudo-Smerdis and his brother, who seized the reins of government during the king's absence in his conquest of Egypt and his war against Ethiopia. These usurpers held the power for 7 months. In view of these facts then we can be absolutely certain that those referred to by the use of the plural number were none other than these two usurpers who followed Cambyses.

According to verse 23, when the letter from Pseudo-Smerdis was read before the opponents of Israel, they caused the work on the house of God at Jerusalem to cease until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia (vs. 24). This statement is in absolute accord with that found in Haggai to which attention has already been called, and which states that the foundation of the Lord's house was laid in the ninth month of the second year of Darius. From these facts we see that chapter 4 is a divine explanation of the opposition which caused the work of rebuilding the temple to cease from the second year of Cyrus to the second year of Darius Hystaspes.

From this survey which we have made of chapter 4, we see that Ahasuerus of 4:6 was the Cambyses of profane history.

We have also seen from an examination of chapter 4 that the Artaxerxes of verses 7 and 23 is none other than Pseudo-Smerdis with his brother as associate on the throne, which they usurped during Cambyses absence.

When we come to the reign of Darius Hystaspes, we encounter the greatest difficulty in the chronological problem of the Persian period, which arises from the false identification of certain characters. It becomes necessary, therefore, to investigate all the relevant data which we find in the records. In doing this, we must study most minutely and carefully Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. The vital issues proving the identity of Darius under different names come up at various times in this discussion. Several points, however, must be made clear before we can proceed. One important matter is the method of reckoning the reigns of the Persian sovereigns.

Up to this time the years mentioned in the Scriptures have been reckoned according to the regular Jewish method, beginning with the first of Nisan. The data which we find embedded in the Hebrew text of these three post-exilic books show that these years are reckoned on a different basis. As proof of this position one needs to look no further than Nehemiah 1. In this chapter we learn that certain Jews went from Jerusalem to Babylon, with whom Nehemiah engaged in conversation. This was in the twentieth year (1:1). To his questions regarding the condition of the Jews in Palestine and the state of affairs at Jerusalem, they stated that the city wall was broken down, that the gates thereof were burned with fire (vs. 3), and that the remnant was in great affliction. This report was given to Nehemiah in Chislev, which was the ninth month, in the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes. Naturally it was very depressing to Nehemiah, who had a heavy burden for his brethren in Palestine. At this time he held the high position at the Persian court known as cupbearer. In his official capacity he had to appear before the king constantly. According to 2:1 Nehemiah came before his master in the month Nisan of the same twentieth year of Artaxerxes. The monarch noted an expression of distress and gloom upon his countenance and asked concerning the reason. After the customary formalities on such occasions, Nehemiah divulged the secret of his sadness. The king generously asked this man of God what he desired. After prayer he replied that he wished to go, to Judah, the city of the sepulchres of his fathers, that he might build it. In 2:6 appears a very significant statement, "And the king said unto me (the queen also sitting by him), For how long shall thy journey be?" Permission being granted, Nehemiah, armed with imperial authority, left on scheduled time for Palestine.

The news concerning the distressed condition of the returned captives was brought to Nehemiah when he was in Shushan the palace in the ninth month of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. The burden was so very heavy upon him that he could no longer conceal his sorrow of heart; hence in the first month, Nisan, of that same twentieth year, he told the whole matter to the king. It is clear, therefore, that the first month was later than the ninth of that same twentieth year of Artaxerxes. How is this to be explained? There, is but one satisfactory answer; namely, the Persian years were not reckoned as the Jewish and the Assyrian, but were dated from the year of the accession of the reigning monarch.

In speaking of the method of reckoning adopted by the Persians, Martin Anstey has the following to say:

"The method of reckoning adopted is not the Assyrian method, for with them also New Year's Day is always the 1st day of Nisan.

"The method of reckoning adopted is not that of the vague Egyptian or Chaldean year of Ptolemy's Canon, the 365-day year, whose New Year's Day or 1st Thoth, or as we should say 1st January, fell back one day every four years, and travelled the entire circle of the four seasons in the course of the Sothic cycle of 1,460 years, for in the 20th of Artaxerxes, B.C. 502, the 1st Thoth or New Year's Day of the Egyptian or Chaldean year was on December 27th, and December was the 10th month, so that in passing from the 9th month Chisleu to the 1st month Nisan, a New Year would have been entered.

"The same would hold good if this Artaxerxes were identified with Longimanus, for in his twentieth year, B.C. 445, the 1st Thoth of the Egyptian or Chaldean year was December 12th.

"The New Year did not begin with the summer solstice, about the 21st day of the 4th month, for the 1st day of the 1st month, and the 1st day of the 5th month of Artaxerxes, were both in the same 7th year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7-9)

"The New Year did not begin with the autumnal Equinox, about the 21st day of the 7th month, for the 6th, 7th, and 9th months are all in the same 2nd year of Darius (Hag. 1:1, 2:1-10).

"The, New Year did not begin at the winter solstice, about the 21st day of the 10th month, for some part of the 9th month, and the following 1st month were both in one and the same 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh 1:1; 2:1).

"And it has already been shown that the New Year did not begin at the spring Equinox or about the 1st Nisan.

"The solution probably lies in the fact that the Persians, being like ourselves, members of the Aryan or Japhetic, and not members of the Semitic race, reckoned as we do, and in that case the years of the King's reign would be reckoned not by calendar years, as with the Jews and the Assyrians, but from the day on which the King ascended the throne. Or, it may be that New Year's Day was immediately connected with the day on which the foundation of the Temple was laid, viz., the 24th day of the 9th month of the 2nd year of Darius (Haggai 2:18).

"The data supplied by the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai and Zechanah, require, and are satisfied with, a New Year's Day commencing sometime after the 24th day of the 9th month (about Nov. 24th), because the 24th day of the 9th month was in the same year as the 1st day of the sixth (Hag. 1:1; 2:10), and sometime before the last day of the 9th month (Nov. 20th), because some part of the 9th month was in the same 20th year of Artaxerxes as the succeeding 1st month.

"The years of the reign of Darius Hystaspes, or Artaxerxes, or Ahasuerus then, began somewhere between the 24th and the 30th days of the 9th month of the year.

"If this be so, then the 24th day of the 11th month of the 2nd year of Darius precedes the 8th month of the 2nd year of Darius, and the prophecy of Zech. 1:7, which reads as if it were the opening verse of the book, precedes Zech. 1:1.

"It is difficult to understand why the fact that Zechariah was the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo, should be repeated in Zech. 1:7, if this verse were not originally the first verse of his Book of prophecy, the present arrangement being that of some critic who thought that the 8th month must necessarily precede the 11th month of the 2nd year of Darius." Romance of Bible Chronology, Vol. I, pp. 248, 249.

From this concise statement of Mr. Anstey we conclude that the Persian year began sometime between the 25th of the ninth month and the first of the tenth month. Having this understanding we are in a position to proceed with our study.

One other preliminary consideration must be examined before we can understand the events by years of the reign of Darius Hystaspes. This is the matter of the preaching ministries of Haggai and Zechariah in this second year of Darius, when the work on the temple was resumed. We must bear in mind that Ezra, chapter 4, is parenthetical; hence, chapter 5 connects immediately with 3:10-13. With this understanding we can see why this work was resumed after a lapse of 15 years of indifference and neglect. Ezra 5 connects, therefore, immediately with chapter 3, since 4 is parenthetical.

The leaders of the returned exiles are enumerated in Ezra 2:2. They were Zerubbabel, Joshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah. Whenever we see the names, Zerubbabel or Joshua, anywhere in the book of Ezra, we understand that reference is made to the men by these names enumerated in this list. That is natural and logical. Seraiah is also called Azariah in Nehemiah 7:7. It is quite likely that this one was Ezra, whose father was called by that name. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah originally constituted one work, and, since Nehemiah stands third in this list, it is logical to believe that he is the one who is the leading figure of the present book of Nehemiah. Furthermore, it is logical to believe that Mordecai appearing in this list of names is the same Mordecai of the book of Esther. With all the facts favoring the identification of those outstanding leaders as the ones known in these books by such names, we shall take this as a working hypothesis, as one does in geometry, and see if all the facts justify the assumption.

Before proceeding further, I wish to state that the great chronological difficulty of this section of the Scriptures lies in the incorrect identification of the Artaxerxes of the book of Nehemiah with Artaxerxes Longimanus, who, according to the generally accepted chronology, reigned a century later (464-424). This error has led to another; namely, the creation of two Nehemiahs: the one of Ezra 2:7, and another, the cupbearer and the governor mentioned in Nehemiah 1:11 and 8:9. Another mistake which has contributed to the general confusion of this period is the incorrect identification of Ahasuerus of the book of Esther with the Xerxes of profane history who reigned 485-465 B.C.E., whereas this Ahasuerus is Darius Hystaspes (521-485 B.C.E.). This same blunder has also led to the creation of two Mordecais; the one of Ezra 2:2 and another of the book of Esther. In order to carry this theory out, a false construction has been placed upon Esther 2:5,6. The original text and also our English translation clearly state that Mordecai of the book of Esther was taken with Jeconiah king of Judah to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. This Mordecai is one of the leading characters of the book. But since a different theory has been accepted, this passage has been distorted to make it say that it was Kish, the great-grandfather of Mordecai, who went into captivity, whereas the record plainly states that it was Mordecai of the book of Esther. Further investigation will show the fallacy of the current view.

In the fifth chapter we read of the ministries of Haggai and Zechariah the prophets, who stirred up the returned exiles to resume the work on the construction of the house of God. Haggai was older than Zechariah. These prophets have dated, especially Haggai, the time of their receiving the revelations which they uttered. Since the years of the Persian period are given in terms of the accession year of the reigning monarchs, and since Darius mounted the throne between the 24th day of the ninth month and the first of the next, we must be very careful in studying these Oracles, because a knowledge of the sequence of events contributes largely to the proper understanding of the prophecies.

We have already seen that the returned exiles at the time of their arrival at Jerusalem in 536 B.C.E., the first year of Cyrus, immediately inaugurated the worship of God by erecting the altar of sacrifice. Having seen the ruins of the temple of Jupiter at Baalbek, Syria, I can, in my fancy, picture the situation of the temple area when the captives cleared away sufficient debris of the ruined house of God in order to erect the altar. Thus were reinaugurated the divine services. They continued to be observed daily. The worshipers being on fire with a holy zeal made contributions of money and food in order that the work might continue, but, as we have already seen, it was hindered by opposition from the Samaritans.

During the 15 years intervening from the second year of Cyrus to the second of Darius, the zeal for the house of the Lord on the part of the exiles had cooled considerably. Instead of putting God and divine services foremost, they had during this period built ceiled houses and had settled down in a mood of complacency, believing that they could do nothing to change the situation.

Where there is no vision the people perish. This statement is true with reference to a divine revelation and also with respect to the natural insight of men of vision. Every successful business or movement was first conceived by someone who bent all of his energies for the materialization of his vision. The same psychological principle obtains in the spiritual realm. God understands man's psychology far better than he himself does; hence the Lord in the 24th day of the eleventh month of the second year of Darius granted to Zechariah a series of visions in which he presented the future of Jerusalem and the Hebrew people. When one takes into consideration all the facts, he is led to the conclusion that Zechariah received these visions in one night. They are contained in 1:7-6:8 and are followed by the symbolic acts of making crowns and placing them upon the head of Joshua, the high priest (chapter 6:9-15). Hope spurs men to trials of endurance and to heroic action. Not only the immediate future for Israel was presented in these visions, but also the coming golden age, when Israel will be placed at the head of the nations, was vividly painted. God's great love for the Chosen People is shown throughout the entire series of visions.

It is difficult to stir those who have fallen into a state of spiritual lethargy. Unbelief is very subtle. It veils the eyes and shuts out all light. Doubtless these wonderful visions of rhapsody and glory appeared to many of the prophet's audience as idle dreams; hence the message fell largely upon deaf ears.

The Lord always uses men and means, but He invariably selects faithful men as His spokesmen. When the oral word is unheeded, He resorts to other measures. The messages delivered by Zechariah in the eleventh month were, of course, delivered in January of our calendar year. The exiles paid little attention to them. The spring came on, the crops were planted and cultivated, and finally the time for harvest arrived, but the outlook for that year was very gloomy, because the Lord had withdrawn His favor from the land. There was an all-but-complete crop failure. The situation was doubtless very discouraging.

On the first day of the sixth month of the second year of Darius, which corresponds roughly to our August 1st, the Spirit of God came upon Haggai, who faithfully delivered the message to Israel. This old prophet, having the experience of years as a background and the infallible illumination of the Spirit of God, explained the situation to the returned captives. He declared that the reason of their crop-failure was their indifference toward God and His worship. A person or nation cannot fling defiance into the face of God and go unpunished. One cannot neglect the Lord and divine service and still receive the blessings of the Almighty. God is unchangeable and deals with people upon the same principles today as always. May I venture to say that the present situation in America is due in the final analysis to the fact that the people have neglected God and have hurled defiance in His face by disregarding His Word and doing the things which they choose? God always punished Israel and the nations of antiquity, and He will do the same today.

It is impossible for one to be dogmatic and to say what was the immediate response to the prophet's message. On the 24th day of this same month--3 weeks and 3 days later--a genuine revival broke out in Israel. From verse 12, however, it appears that they began to obey the Lord at once. Judging this case from others, it would seem probable that the people began to pray and in response to this attitude the Lord stirred their hearts. Then they started the work on the house of God. It is quite likely that what was done was the removal of the debris from the temple area.

About a month later, i.e., on the 21st day of the seventh month, a new revelation came to the prophet, in which he foretold the events which we know from other Scriptures will occur at the final consummation of the age when God shakes, not only the heavens above, but the earth beneath and establishes His reign of righteousness upon the earth. This is seen in 2:6-8. Whenever men turn their hearts toward the Lord and endeavor to do His will, He always gives fresh illumination and renewed courage; hence this vision was evidently for that purpose.

The next message came through Zechariah and constitutes 1:1-6, which is dated in the eighth month of the second year of Darius. According to some conservative scholars of highest academic attainments, this message has been misplaced. If this is true, which seems to be the correct view, the changing of the position is due to a misunderstanding concerning the years of Darius. As we have already seen, the regnal year of Darius began somewhere between the 24th day of the ninth month and the first of the tenth month. Thus the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth months of the regular solar year were at the beginning of the regnal year of this Persian monarch. The first month of the regular Jewish year followed the twelfth, unless there was an intercallated month to correct the calendar as was often done. Since this first paragraph of Zechariah was delivered in the eighth month of the second year of Darius, we may be certain that it was spoken at the time corresponding to our October. In this oracle Zechariah called the people to genuine repentance and to a heeding of the words which God had spoken through the former prophets. "To obey is better than sacrifice" is a principle which always obtains. The one concern with us should be: "What has the Lord spoken? Regardless of all circumstances we will do that and that alone."

The final message of this year seems to have been delivered on the 24th of the ninth month. On this day, according to Haggai 2:18, the foundation of the temple was laid. The time corresponds roughly to the latter part of November of our calendar. We learn from Ezra 3:10-13 that there was great joy on the part of some because of the fact that the work had been resumed on the house of God. At the same time there were those who wept because the structure which they were attempting to build was insignificant in comparison with that which had been erected by Solomon. The words which Zechariah had spoken in chapter 4 of his prophecy were intended to encourage Zerubbabel whose hands had already laid the foundation stone. Doubtless this message was given after the opposition from the Samaritans had begun. This is seen by a glance at the first nine verses of Ezra 5. As soon as Zerubbabel had got the work well under way, Tattenai, the governor beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai, and their companions again acted in opposition. A mountain of difficulty was erected before Zerubbabel. The situation was so very critical that the average person would have faltered and given up; hence, the message was delivered to encourage him.

The question which they asked, according to 5:3, was, "Who gave you a decree to build this house, and to finish this wall?" Evidently the walls of the city had already been finished when this opposition arose. This is abundantly clear from the facts stated in the letter, written by Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and their companions, which they sent to Pseudo-Smerdis, called Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7), in the year 522 B.C.E. From verse 12 of this chapter we see that the accusers wrote to the Persian monarch that the Jews were building the rebellious and bad city and had "finished the walls, and repaired the foundation." The walls here can refer to nothing but the city walls; hence they were built and completed by 522 B.C.E., two years before the laying of the foundation for the temple. It is necessary to understand this fact if one is to comprehend the subsequent events.

In 520 B.C.E., Tattenai, Shethar-bozenai, and their companions, after having inquired of the Jews concerning the purpose of their building program and their reasons for the same, wrote to Darius Hystaspes, reporting what they had learned.

Darius made a decree, and a search was made in the archives at Babylon to find the original proclamation of Cyrus authorizing the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem and their holy temple. When it could not be located, the hunt was continued at Achmetha, which was in the province of Media. There a record was found in which appeared an account of the decree which Cyrus had issued for the rebuilding of the temple. Having learned the fact that Cyrus had actually issued the decree, Darius reaffirmed it, enlarged the grant made to the Jews, and issued a most solemn warning that no further interference should be made against the completion of this house of God.

When Tattenai, the governor, and his associates received this official communication, they ceased their opposition, and the work of the construction of the temple continued to completion.

The third year of Darius is not mentioned in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah, but it appears in the book of Esther.

At this point of our investigation it becomes necessary to examine the data presented in the Scriptures bearing upon the identification of King Ahasuerus of the book of Esther. It is as one noted author says, "Almost every Medo-Persian king from Cyaxares I (B.C. 611-571) to Artaxerxes III Ochus (B.C. 358-338), has in turn been advanced as the Ahasuerus of Esther." From this fact it would appear that the data are very uncertain.

Concerning King Ahasuerus of Esther, we read this statement:
"Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus (this is Ahasuerus who reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces), that in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace, in the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him" (Esth. 1:1-3).

Let us remember that the word Ahasuerus seems to have been a common name with the Persian monarchs. From Ezra 4:6 we saw that Cambyses was called by this name. In view of the general usage of the term, the writer of Esther identified the king mentioned in his book by informing us that, "(this is Ahasuerus who reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces)." From this statement we may conclude that there was but one Ahasuerus who reigned over the territory here designated. This parenthetical expression is equivalent to a restrictive clause placed here for the identification of the monarch around whom this narrative is to center. According to the Greek historian Herodotus (Books III and IV), Darius Hystaspes invaded and conquered India in 506 B.C.E. Moreover he inherited the territory of Cambyses who conquered Egypt and Ethiopia. The former yielded to Cambyses in the fifth year of his reign, i.e., in 525 B.C.E., whereas the Ethiopians later submitted. (See Book III of Herodotus.)

Another quotation bearing upon this subject is Esther 10:1: "And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea." Herodotus tells us (Book VI) that Darius with his fleet took Samos, Chios, and Lesbos and the rest of the islands in the year 496 B.C.E. He gives a list of the nations which paid tribute to Darius (Book III, chap. 89-97). Among these are included Egypt and India, the island of Cyprus, and the islands of the Erythraean Sea. In summing up the situation the historian said, "Later on in his reign the sum was increased by the tribute of the islands and of the nations of Europe as far as Thessaly" (Herodotus, Book III, chap. 96). Anstey informs us that among the peoples who did not pay a regular settled tribute, but brought gifts to Darius, were "the Ethiopians bordering upon Egypt, who were reduced by Cambyses."

Continued on the next page