Ezra 6-7

I want to echo Ezra’s words from the closing of chapter 7: ²⁷ Praise be to the Lord, the God of our ancestors, who has put it into the king’s heart to bring honor to the house of the Lord in Jerusalem in this way ²⁸ and who has extended his good favor to me before the king and his advisers and all the king’s powerful officials. Because the hand of the Lord my God was on me, I took courage and gathered leaders from Israel to go up with me.

While the king over the land is not a jewish king, the ruler over the land is as effective as one, even performing better than many.

Chapter 6

⁸ Moreover, I hereby decree what you are to do for these elders of the Jews in the construction of this house of God: Their expenses are to be fully paid out of the royal treasury, from the revenues of Trans-Euphrates, so that the work will not stop.

¹¹ Furthermore, I decree that if anyone defies this edict, a beam is to be pulled from their house and they are to be impaled on it. And for this crime their house is to be made a pile of rubble. ¹² May God, who has caused his Name to dwell there, overthrow any king or people who lifts a hand to change this decree or to destroy this temple in Jerusalem.

Chapter 7

¹⁵ Moreover, you are to take with you the silver and gold that the king and his advisers have freely given to the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem,

What an awesome work by God. Master of hearts and director of all paths, placed in the heart of a foreign king;

Furthermore, the Lord spoke through Haggai, in Haggai 2: ⁶ “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. ⁷ I will shake all nations, and what is desired by all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the Lord Almighty. ⁸ ‘The silver is mine and the gold is mine,’ declares the Lord Almighty. ⁹ ‘The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house,’ says the Lord Almighty. ‘And in this place I will grant peace,’ declares the Lord Almighty.”

Whether the glory spoken refers to Jesus or that the temple would be bigger even than Temple 1, this awesome work came true.

At the beginning of the book, we are told that the Israelites were terrified of the people around them. What would it take to keep such people going? Yes, faith, but there would need to be encouragement. This book mentions 2 prophets Haggai and Zachariah; fortunately, these books were chosen to be saved for us to peer into the encouragement God prepared for them:

Zachariah 3 a vision is shared of Satan accusing Joshua of being unclean, but the Lord declares he is clean and new holy garments are placed on him – he was validated to be worth of being High Priest.

Zachariah 4 a vision is shared of the Lord speaking to a mountain before Zerubbabel, that it will, not by might or power but by the spirit of God, be made a level ground!

And as final note, the lord declares that these two are anointed to serve.

Chapter 5 speaks of clearing the land by a curse on thieves and liars, and of wickedness being taken from the land and sent to Babylon

The lord had his eyes, hands, and presence with the people. Their resolve was not theirs, just as the Cyrus and Darius did not come up with the kind gesture to the jews, but this was the power of God, the Father of Glory.

There is some confusion in Ezra and the chronology of Persian kings. Many readers may not even notice this, but the careful and astute reader will wonder about it. The following article gives the two most likely explanations for the lack of exact chronology:

Kingly Chronology in the Book of Ezra

As if the spelling and pronunciation of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes were not problematic enough for the average Bible student, one must also consider these Persian kings in light of the order in which they are mentioned in the book of Ezra. According to history, the Persian kings reigned in the following order: Cyrus (560-530 B.C.), Cambyses (530-522), Smerdis (522), Darius I (522-486), Ahasuerus (486-465), Artaxerxes I (465-424), Darius II (423-405), and Artaxerxes II (405-358) [see Cook, 1983, p. 350]. The difficulty that presents itself in the book of Ezra is that events surrounding letters which King Artaxerxes received from, and wrote to, the enemies of the Jews (see Ezra 4:7-23) are mentioned before the reign of Darius I (Ezra 4:24-6:15). If it is a proven fact that Darius served as king before Artaxerxes, why is the kingship of Darius recorded in the book of Ezra subsequent to the reign of Artaxerxes (recorded in Ezra 4:7-23)?

First, it needs to be pointed out that the Darius of the book of Ezra was in fact Darius I and not Darius II. The second Darius lived too late in history to have been contemporary with the rebuilding of the temple. Thus, one cannot solve the question at hand simply by suggesting that the Darius cited in Ezra was really Darius II, who lived after Artaxerxes I.

Second, some may attempt to solve this difficulty by alleging that Artaxerxes II was the king who reigned during the days of Ezra and Nehemiah’s return to Jerusalem, while Artaxerxes I was the king mentioned prior to Darius’ reign (Ezra 4:7-23). This solution is unacceptable, however, since Artaxerxes II lived several years after the events recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah.

So what is the answer? Why is the kingship of Darius recorded in the book of Ezra following events connected with the kingship of Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7-23)—a king who is thought to have reigned after Darius? One possible solution to this difficulty is that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:6,7-23 were respectively Cambyses (530-522) and Smerdis (522)—kings of Persia (listed above) who reigned before Darius I. Since Persian kings frequently had two or more names, it is not unfathomable to think that Cambyses and Smerdis also may have gone by the names Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes (see Wilson, 1996; see also Fausset, 1998).

Another explanation to this perceived dilemma is that the information concerning the kings of Persia in Ezra 4 is grouped according to theme rather than by chronology. Instead of having a record where everything in chapter four is in sequential order, it is reasonable to conclude that verses 6-23 serve as a parenthetical comment and that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes (4:6-7) are indeed Ahasuerus (486-465) and Artaxerxes I (465-424) of history (rather than the aforementioned Cambyses and Smerdis).

Bible students must keep in mind that just as there is more than one way to write a book in the twenty-first century, ancient writers frequently recorded events chronologically while occasionally inserting necessary non-sequential material (e.g., Genesis 10-11; Matthew 28:2-4). It would have been natural for the writer of the book of Ezra to follow a discussion of the problems related to rebuilding the Jerusalem temple (4:1-5) with information on a similar resistance the Jews encountered while rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem (4:6-23). Although the details in verses 6-23 initially may puzzle our chronologically preconditioned mindset, they actually fit very well in their arrangement with the overall theme of the chapter. In verse 24, the story picks up where it left off in verse 5. The writer returns to his focus on the problems with the rebuilding of the temple, which lingered until “the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezra 4:24).

Regardless of which explanation one accepts for the inclusion of verses 6-23 in Ezra 4, they both provide a sufficient answer to the perceived difficulty. It is my judgment that the second of these two possibilities serves as the best, and most logical, explanation.

Cook, J.M. (1983), The Persians (London: The Orion Publishing Group).

Fausset, A.R. (1998), Fausset’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Wilson, R. Dick (1996), “Artaxerxes,” International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia(Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes (Proverbs 21:1 NASB).

The hearts of three kings in Persia, namely, Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, were turned by the LORD to strongly support the rebuilding of the Temple of the LORD in Jerusalem by the post-exilic community of Jews. This is what we read in these chapters of Ezra 4-7.

Let us understand that while Biblical history remains narrowly focused on God's working among His people, after the Exile, the larger history of world powers becomes a greater a part of the biblical story. After the exile, there would be no more kings of Israel, for Israel would pass from one world power to the next as a vassal state. Only in the 20th century, specifically May 14, 1948, has Israel gained independence from this status. This very milestone has persuaded many theologians to surmise that the time of the end is near.

But that is not my interest here. Today, I would like to encourage you not only to be a student of the Bible but also of ancient world history. Many of you know how much importance I put to the understanding of context. I have repeatedly preached that without context, everything is merely pretext (i.e. A reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason). Only by understanding context can the student of the Bible rightly understand the message of Scripture. Context protects us from reading our own mind into the Bible rather than seeking to discern the author's meaning. Context can mean life or dreath, eternal life or eternal damnation, because it provides the essential ingredient for the understanding of words and ideals by which we perceive the message of our eternal salvation. Without context, every world religion would be right and every cult justified. 

That said, let us understand that context does not merely exist in the relationship of words with words (e.g. a verse in the context of a chapter, a chapter in the context of a book) but also in the relationship of biblical accounts to the larger world history. Every biblical event is narrated in the context of world history, with its various languages, politics, cultures and events. While this historical context does not determine meaning, it does advance our understanding. It widens and sharpens our perception of biblical events.

Thus, understanding the rule of the various kings of Babylon and Medo-Persia widens and sharpens our perception of the events surrounding the rebuilding of the Temple of the LORD in Jerusalem. Understanding the hierarchy of governance by various world powers over their vassal states helps us to better understand the hopes and fears of the post-exilic community, as they sought to rebuild their lives and restore worship in keeping with the Law of God that was given through His servant Moses. 

Our understanding of our present reading can be enhanced by taking time to discern its larger context in ancient world history. You can find a lot of this information by searching the internet. As many of you know, I like the site bible.org. It provides sound, biblical scholarship. From time to time it also provides some well-researched historical information. For instance, with respect to today's reading, here is what I found. Dr. Eugene Merrill, my seminary professor, who also wrote an excellent book on the history of Israel, writes on the history of the events surrounding the rebuilding of the Temple of the Lord. Here's an excerpt from one of his articles (full article here: http://bible.org/seriespage/haggai). The following chart may also be helpful in associating the correct Persian King to their biblical counterpart (note: there is some disagreement among historians on these):

Less than four decades after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586 B.C., it was evident that the balance of power in the eastern world was beginning to shift. As early as the accession of Nabo-polassar as king of the Neo-Babylonian empire, Cyaxares (625-585) had become ruler of Media and all of northern Mesopotamia. He then conquered Persia (in southwest Iran) placing Cambyses over it as governor. Upon the death of Cyaxares, his son Astyages (585-550) succeeded him. The daughter of Astyages was the mother of Cyrus II, vassal of Astyages and ruler of the Persian province of Anshan. Cyrus soon antagonized his grandfather by making an alliance with Nabonidus, king of Babylonia and Astyages’s bitter enemy. The result was a rupture between Astyages and Cyrus and the eventual conquest of Media by the young Persian upstart in 550 B.C.

Meanwhile, Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562), who had conquered and destroyed Jerusalem and deported its leading citizens in July of 586 B.C., had passed from the scene to be followed by Amel-Marduk (562-560), Neriglissar (560-556), and Labashi-Marduk (556). Nabonidus (556-539), whose north Mesopotamian roots and devotion to the moon god Sin were to alienate him from his Babylonian subjects, then took over. Preoccupied as he was by his cult and by foreign travel and trade, Nabonidus left the responsibility of government largely in the hands of his son Belshazzar. It was the latter, as the Bible clearly intimates (Dan. 5:1-31), who fell to Cyrus when Babylon finally capitulated to the Persians on October 12, 539 B.C.

Beginning in 555, the year Cyrus defeated his Median grandfather, he had incorporated Media, Lydia, and Babylonia into his rapidly expanding Persian empire. At last only the city of Babylon itself remained. Its surrender to Cyrus was a foregone conclusion since, according to the so-called “Verse Account of Nabonidus” and other texts, Nabonidus had so offended Marduk, chief deity of Babylon, by his impious devotion to Sin that Marduk had determined to turn his estate over to a “shepherd” who would better tend it. That shepherd, of course, was Cyrus.

The biblical version of the rise of Cyrus is quite different, for it is Yahweh, not Marduk, who raised him up (Isa. 44:24—45:7) and who called him to deliver His captive people from Babylonian bondage. That Cyrus was indeed called to do so is clear from the famous Cylinder of Cyrus. That it was Yahweh who provided the impulse is attested to in the Old Testament by both the Chronicler (2 Chron. 36:22-23) and Ezra (Ezra 1:1-4).

In 538 B.C. Cyrus issued his decree that the Jews and all other captive peoples could return to their respective homelands. He had begun to organize his vast domain into a system of satrapies further subdivided into provinces, and the satrapy of special relevance to the Jewish community was known as Babili eber nari (“Babylon beyond the river”), a huge jurisdiction between the Euphrates River and the Mediterranean Sea. Within that satrapy were entities such as Galilee, Samaria, Ashdod, Ammon, and especially Yehud (or Judah). Each of these was under a governor who reported directly to the satrap, or administrator of the district of eber nari.

The picture is not entirely clear, but it seems that Yehud, though weak and impoverished compared to its provincial neighbors such as Samaria, was independent of them and not a subdivision. Thus the various Jewish governors could carry their case directly to the satrap in times of difficulty. The first of these governors was Sheshbazzar, leader of the first return from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ezra 1:5-11; 5:14). It is likely that he is the same as Shenazzar, a son of Jehoiachin, the last surviving king of Judah (1 Chron. 3:18). He held his position evidently for only a brief time, for already in the second year after Cyrus’s decree (536 B.C.) Zerubbabel appears as the governor (Ezra 3:2, 8; cf. Hag. 1:1).

The relationship of Zerubbabel to Sheshbazzar and to the Davidic dynasty is somewhat obscure. He is usually described as the “son of Shealtiel” (Ezra 3:2, 8; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 23; Matt. 1:12), but in the Chronicler’s genealogy he is the son of Pedaiah (1 Chron. 3:19). Both Shealtiel and Pedaiah were sons of Jehoiachin—along with Shenazzar (= Sheshbazzar?)—so either Zerubbabel was the levirate son of Pedaiah on behalf of Shealtiel or (more likely) Shealtiel had died before he could become governor, his younger brother Sheshbazzar taking that role instead. Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel and nephew of Sheshbazzar, then succeed Sheshbazzar upon his death. Pedaiah possibly served as foster father for Zerubbabel until he reached his maturity.

Sara Japhet argues that Sheshbazzar was the first governor of Judah but denies that he was related to Zerubbabel or, indeed, to the royal family at all. F. C. Fensham says that it is not acceptable to identify Sheshbazzar with the Shenazzar of 1 Chron. 3:18 and that his identification as “prince” (ayc]N`j^ hannas) in Ezra 1:8 proves nothing more than that he was a person raised to a position of authority. This is the view also of Joseph Blenkinsopp who admits that Sheshbazzar’s title would be unassailable evidence of his Davidic lineage were it possible to connect Sheshbazzar with Shenazzar. With most modern scholars he concludes that nothing can be known of Sheshbazzar’s identity. 

What is important is that Zerubbabel was a grandson of Jehoiachin and therefore the legitimate heir of the Davidic throne. His appointment as governor allowed his Judean royal descent to coincide with his Persian political appointment. How long he served in that capacity cannot be determined, but he was still governor by 520 B.C. The recent discovery of bullae and seals bearing the names of Judean governors suggests that Zerubbabel may be dated to c. 510, Elnathan c. 510-490, Yeho ‘ezer c. 490-470, and Ahzai c. 447-445. Nehemiah, of course, commenced his governorship then and continued on to 433 B.C.

Little is known of the period between the decree of Cyrus (538 B.C.) and the ministry of Haggai and Zechariah (520 B.C.). Evidently Cyrus had laid down a firm political and social foundation, and until his death in 530 B.C. the Persian empire, including Yehud, enjoyed tranquillity and prosperity. Ezra provides the information that in the seventh month of the first year back (537 B.C.) the people, under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua the priest, built an altar on the temple ruins and celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles (Ezra 3:1-7). In the second month of the next year (536) the foundations of the new temple were laid (Ezra 3:8-10). After this the record is virtually silent except for the statement that the adversaries of the Jews began a campaign of harassment, seeking to prevent reconstruction of the house of the Lord. This continued throughout the reign of Cyrus and Cambyses (530-522) into that time of Darius (522-486).

Cambyses, son of Cyrus, was noted particularly for his conquest of Egypt and its absorption into the Persian hegemony. Cambyses also left a negative legacy of mismanagement that left the Empire in a near shambles. His mysterious death was followed by an attempted usurpation of the Persian throne by Gaumata, an official who claimed to be a brother of Cambyses hitherto thought to be dead. Before Gaumata could seize control he was assassinated by Darius Hystaspes and some collaborators, and Darius placed himself in power on September 29, 522. 

The chaotic reign of Cambyses without doubt contributed to the ability of the Jews’ enemies to interdict their work and otherwise make life miserable for them. The succession of Darius changed all that, however, for after he put down various rebellions attendant to his rise to power, he implemented far-ranging and effective political and fiscal policies that brought stability throughout his realm. Within two years all was at peace, except for Egypt. Darius therefore made plans to invade that intractable satrapy and bring it into line, an action that took place in 519-518 B.C. 

Meanwhile, Judah’s foes, including even Tattenai, governor of the entire eber nari province, hoped to capitalize on Darius’s newness to office by sending a letter warning him about Jewish rebellion (Ezra 5:6-17). Darius immediately made a search of the archives of Cyrus at Ecbatana and verified that the Jewish claims that reconstruction of the temple and city was authorized by Cyrus himself were true. Without further ado the work was resumed and completed by 515 B.C. (6:15). The anticipated march of Darius through Palestine on his way to Egypt in 519 may have done as much as anything to encourage the Jews and frustrate the evil intentions of their neighbors.

This, then, is the setting of the ministries of Haggai and Zechariah. First appearing in the biblical record in 520 B.C., two years after Darius’s accession, they took advantage of the Pax Persiaca to urge their compatriots on to the noble task of Temple building (Hag. 1:2; cf. Ezra 5:1-2). Joyce Baldwin is correct in asserting (contrary to many scholars) that Haggai’s exhortation to build was not a sign of rebellion against a Persian government in disarray, for he was already many months too late for that; rather, he was taking advantage of the peace that ensued after Darius was established. From a political standpoint the prospects were never more bright and, said the prophets, never were times more propitious to reestablish the theocratic community so that Yahweh’s ancient covenant promises to His people could find fulfillment.

The biblical texts, though scanty, make it quite clear that the restoration community was small and demoralized. Ezra reckons the number of returnees under Sheshbazzar (or Zerubbabel) to have been 42,360 in addition to 7,337 slaves and 200 singers (Ezra 2:64-65). The number of indigenous Jews is unknown but could not have numbered more than that. John Bright argues that the total population of Judah in 522 B.C. could not have exceeded 20,000, but his estimate is based on a denial that the list of returnees in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 refers to the return under Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, a denial that is without foundation. That it is an account of early return (between 538 and 522) is put beyond dispute by H. G. M. Williamson. Some rebuilding must have been undertaken in the Judean towns and villages since their destruction at Babylonian hands, but Jerusalem remained mostly in ruins (Ezra 5:3, 9).

The repopulation of the land, at least outside Jerusalem, gave rise to the rebuilding of houses and storage buildings and to the clearing and cultivation of the farmlands. In fact, it was the rapidity and conviction with which this was done that caused Haggai to lament that, by comparison, the house of the Lord was neglected. His burden then was that this inequity be redressed and that the people do all they could in spite of their still rather limited resources to erect a house of the Lord that could provide a suitable expression of His presence among them. Until this was done the restoration would remain incomplete and the gracious promises of the Lord unfulfilled.

I see the opposition from the neighboring people to stop the rebuilding of the Lord's temple. The opposition was successful and the project of the temple was stopped for 14 years. God sent His Word to the remnants through His prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, to resume the work when they were discouraged. I asked this question many times in the past: "How come I keep failing even though I do it for His Name sake?" How come God didn't miraculously remove the opposition when the Israelites were trying to do the right thing to do? No miracles any more here! Today's text says the Lord's hands were with them when they tried to persuade king Darius to allow reconstruction of the temple, but no mysterious dream, vision or anything of that nature. Once again I realized that outcome of any work we do belongs to the Lord and that our job is to be faithful to Him trusting His character. Let us confess this verse in Psalm 127:1,

 Unless the LORD builds the house,
the builders labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city,
the guards stand watch in vain.

 and show our faithfulness to the Lord today!

 Let us return to the LORD with wholehearted devotion and re-examine where our priorities are.

While rebuilding the Temple they were confronted by the govenor and asked who gave permission.  They were not intimidated but boldly replied "We are the servants of God of Heaven & earth.

This is a good example for us.  In this unbelieving world it is not always easy to speak up for our faith.  If we try to offend no one or please everyone our effectiveness will be stopped.  God is our leader so let others know by our words & actions who we really serve.