| |
MESSIAH: HIS FIRST COMING SCHEDULED Page 398
CHAPTER XIV THE PERIOD OF THE RESTORATION
WHATEVER God says, He will perform. In the first warnings which He gave
to the Jews relative to their disobeying Him and His scattering them
among the nations, He declared that He would bring them back to their
own land and use them in blessing the world. (See such passages as
Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 4:25-31; and 28.) The prophets, especially
Isaiah, foretold their final reestablishment in the land of the fathers.
Jeremiah, however, spoke very specifically concerning the Babylonian
captivity and their return after a period of 70 years. Such a prophecy
is found in Jeremiah 25.
Being faithful to His Word, the Lord, as He had promised (Isa.
44:24-45:13), moved upon the heart of Cyrus king of Persia, who issued
the decree permitting the Jews to return to their land. The accounts of
this period are found in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai,
and Zechariah.
Since a number of false theories concerning this era have been accepted
without question, and since there is much confusion in regard to a
number of problems connected with it, the unraveling of the tangle will
require much detailed information and tedious labor. But to the task we
shall now address ourselves.
I. BIBLICAL EVIDENCE Since the Bible is the Word of God, we take its
statements at face value, using ordinary intelligence and common sense.
A. Statement of the Problem of the Persian Period
As has already been seen in 538 B.C.E. we pass from the consideration of
Babylonian history to that of the Medes and the Persians. Darius the
Mede and Cyrus the Persian reigned jointly for two years, namely, in 538
and 537. Upon the passing of Darius, Cyrus became sole rex in 536 B.C.
Thus far the evidence is very clear. But at this point we begin to
experience difficulties. The Persian period of universal history is the
darkest era of ancient times on
page 399
this side of the Exodus, since the records of the time have either not
been preserved to us, or have not been discovered.*
Our principal sources of information are the books of Ezra, Nehemiah,
and Esther. It is true that we have inscriptions from the times of
Darius the Mede, Cyrus, Cambyses, Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes. The
Behistun inscription in the Zagros Mountains which was written either in
the fifth or the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes gives us quite a bit of
information of contemporary events. No assistance of value can be
gathered from this source.
We obtain no help from the Jewish, the Greek, or the Persian histories.
According to Persian and Jewish traditions, the Persian Empire lasted 52
years. According to Martin Anstey, clay tablets unearthed help to assist
in establishing the chronology for the reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses,
Pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes, but after Darius we do not have
any that will aid us in determining the date of a single reign.
The generally-received chronology is based upon the canons of Ptolemy,
an astronomer and historian of the second century of the present era. He
depended upon calculations and guesses made by Eratosthenes and vague
floating traditions. According to Ptolemy the Persian period was 205
years long. Assuming that the chronology is correct as far back as the
conquest of Alexander in 331 B.C.E., we shall see that the Persian
period was of only 123 years duration, whereas, according to Ptolemaic
reckoning, it was 205 years. We have, therefore, a real problem in
ascertaining the exact facts in the case.
B. The Received Chronology of the Persian Period I will give the
received chronology for this period as Anstey has presented it in The
Romance of Bible Chronology, Vol. II, p. 233:
--------
* An article in the daily papers announce the fact that in recent months
the archaeologists digging at Persepolis, the ancient capital of Persia,
have unearthed 150,000 tablets. If this report is correct, it may be
that much new and startling light might burst forth, not only on the
Persian period, but also upon the preceding as well as following
centuries. Let us hope that such will be the case. Before it is known
what they may contain, I am bold to go on record, affirming my belief
that not one fact which might be brought to light will contradict
anything the Scriptures say. Nothing thus far has been discovered that
can in the least throw doubt upon these Sacred Oracles. Neither can
anything be found that will.
page 400
Cyrus, as Co-Rex with Darius the Mede.................B.C. 538
Cyrus, as sale
King..................................................B.C. 536
Cambyses
...............................................................B.C. 529
(Pseudo-Smerdis, 7 mos.)
Darius Hystaspes
....................................................B.C. 521
Xerxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ………………... . . . B.C. 485
(Artabanus, 7 mos.)
Artaxerxes Longimanus .........................................B.C. 464
(Xerxes II, 2 mos.)
(Sogdianus, 7 mos.)
Darius II, Nothus.....................................................B.C.
423
ArtaxerxesII, Mnemon............................................B.C. 404
Artaxerxes III, Ochus..............................................B.C.
358
Arogus or Arses......................................................B.C.
337
Darius III, Codomannus, reigned 335-331, slain....B.C. 330
"The generally received opinion is that Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis are
not mentioned in Scripture, that Xerxes is the Ahasuerus of Esther, and
that Artaxerxes Longimanus is the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1 and Nehemiah
2:1, 5:14 and 13:6."
We shall turn to the Hebrew text of the books of Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Esther and scrutinize them microscopically to ascertain
the facts in the case.
C. Correcting the Chronology of the Persian Period
The present state of the received chronology is in such great confusion
that it is utterly impossible for one to arrive at the historical facts
unless he is willing to investigate all the factors involved. A strained
interpretation has been forced upon the records of Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Esther in the interest of a preconceived theory;
therefore, we shall in this investigation discard all conventionalities,
presuppositions, and hypotheses and look at the text, accepting it at
its face value. Furthermore, we must be very careful in our study of the
different monarchs mentioned in this section of the Word of God. By
patience and close attention to details we can arrive at the facts. The
task is hard, but the results accruing from solving the problem will
well repay all our labor.
1. RULES TO BE OBSERVED
Mr. Anstey lays down three very important rules that must be observed in
our investigation of this section of the Word. They are as follows:
(a) Never adopt any rule which is inconsistent with other data.
(b) Never frame any hypothesis, or entertain any conjecture, which
cannot be verified or supported by positive evidence. And
(c) Never identify different persons bearing the same name, and never
fail to identify the same person bearing different names.
page 401
These principles which are axiomatic are absolutely essential in our
investigation of these books.
2. SOURCES OF OUR INFORMATION
As stated before, we are compelled to rely entirely upon the books of
Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. The book of Daniel throws some
light upon the situation.
The books of Chronicles were originally one and are so reckoned in the
listing of the Divine Oracles by Josephus in his polemic "Against Apion."
Scholars, I think, are agreed that the diction, style, and general
features prove the original unity of these two books. They begin with
the creation of Adam and trace the history in the form of genealogical
tables to the time of David. At this point the record is enlarged,
giving the details of his reign. Chapters 11-29 are devoted to his life
and labors as King of Israel. The first nine chapters of the second book
of Chronicles are devoted to Solomon's administration. From chapter 10
to the close appears the record of the Chosen People from the disruption
of the kingdom at the death of Solomon to the Babylonian captivity. Thus
the history is carried forward in a majestic manner.
A casual reading of the Chronicles account and a comparison of it with
that given in Kings impress one with the fact that the writer of the
former record had, as his direct objective, the presentation of the
history from the divine standpoint. In other words, he has given us the
divine philosophy of history-the interpretation of God's providential
dealings with both individuals and nations.
Ezra is a continuation of Chronicles, as is seen by comparing the first
paragraph of the former with-the last of the latter. The same style,
diction, and interpretation of history continue through the books of
Ezra and Nehemiah, That these constituted a single work originally is
shown by the Masoretic note at the end of Nehemiah, which makes Nehemiah
3:31 the middle of these books. The number of verses listed and other
data presented by the Masoretes prove conclusively that these two books
were anciently considered as a single work. They were never divided into
two volumes until Origen arbitrarily separated them into two distinct
books.
We must recognize the fact that Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah
constitute one sweeping survey of history, and that the book of Esther
is a separate work, in which is reflected a crisis in the history of
Israel. It does not, therefore, continue the account which comes
page 402
to a close with the ending of Nehemiah, but is a sidelight on the times
of Darius Hystaspes. This point will be proved later.
3. THREE SEVENTY-YEAR PERIODS
Three periods of 70 years are mentioned in the prophetic word. It,
therefore, behooves us to notice each passage and its context
microscopically in order to differentiate one from the other.
a. The Seventy Years of Jerusalem's Desolations
As stated before, Jeremiah 25 is one of the most important passages in
the Scriptures from a chronological standpoint. Its significance is
heightened by the fact that it blends the Babylonian captivity of the
children of Israel with world-affairs which, as we know from other
passages, will develop in the end time. Jeremiah began his prophetic
ministry in the thirteenth year of Josiah king of Judah, which was 3499
A.H. (626 B.C.E.). That was a crucial year for Judah. Speaking in
familiar terms, I would say that the die had all but been cast, the
Rubicon crossed when Jeremiah began his ministry. The oracle presented
in this chapter was uttered in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, 23 years
after the prophet had begun his public ministry. As we have seen,
Nebuchadnezzar had already come against Jerusalem, had removed some of
the vessels from the temple of Jehovah, and had taken certain of the
seed royal to Babylon in the previous year (Dan. 1:1f). In this fourth
year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah was given the vision concerning the
servitude of the nations in western Asia to Babylon. The guarantee of
this political bondage was in evidence already by Nebuchadnezzar's
conquest the year previous.
There is but one period of 70 years of captivity referred to by
Jeremiah.
"11 And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and
these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 And it
shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will
punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith Jehovah, for their
iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it desolate
forever. 13 And I. will bring upon that land all my words which I have
pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book, which
Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations" Jer. 25:11-13).
Let us note the fact that the prophecy foretells the desolation of the
land of Israel and Judah's captivity in Babylon for 70 years. According
to this prediction God said that at the expiration of this 70-year
period He would punish the king of Babylon. This is the
page 403
terminal date of the epoch. This fact must be kept clearly in mind as we
continue our studies.
The same epoch is again referred to in a letter which Jeremiah wrote to
the exiles in Babylon after the deportation of Jeconiah and the nobility
who were taken into bondage with him in 3528 A.H. (597 B.C.E.). There
had arisen in Babylon false prophets who were telling the captives that
they would remain there only a short time, and that they then would be
brought back to their native soil. In this communication the Lord
reiterated the fact that, after 70 years were accomplished for Babylon,
He would visit Israel and perform His good word toward her in causing
her to return to the land of the fathers. This letter constitutes
chapter 29 of Jeremiah's book and clearly refers to the 70 years of
desolation mentioned in chapter 25. About this position there can be no
doubt.
This same time is mentioned again in Daniel 9:1, 2:
"In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the
Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans, 2 in the first
year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of the
years whereof the word of Jehovah came to Jeremiah the prophet for the
accomplishment of the desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years."
If one studies Daniel: 1-7 in connection with Jeremiah 25:1-14, he
immediately sees that this prediction began in the third year of
Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar invaded the country. That it ended with
the accession to power of Cyrus king of the Medo- Persian empire is
clear from a reading of II Chronicles 36:20-23:
"20 And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon;
and they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the
kingdom of Persia: 21 to fulfill the word of Jehovah by the mouth of
Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths: for as long as it lay
desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill threescore and ten years. 22 Now in
the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word of Jehovah by the
mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah stirred up the spirit
of Cyrus, king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all
his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, 23 Thus saith Cyrus,
king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath Jehovah, the God of
heaven, given me; and he hath charged me to build him a house in
Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whosoever there is among you of all his
people, Jehovah his God be with him, and let him go up."
From this quotation it is very clear that the decree which Cyrus issued
brought to a close the period of desolation of Jerusalem foretold by
Jeremiah.
In the first year of Darius the Mede (3587 A.H. or 538 B.C.E.), which
was the 68th of the 70 years of desolation, Daniel was reading the
prophecy of Jeremiah. He states that he understood from
page 404
the books the significance of Jeremiah's prediction. This prophet wrote
only one book, but Daniel understood from the books. What books would
throw light upon Jeremiah's statement? Since Chronicles and Kings give
us the account of the reigns of various rulers of Israel and Judah, it
is highly probable that Daniel was referring to them. It is also quite
likely that the book of Isaiah was included in this collection. Daniel
was a student of prophecy. Isaiah, whose ministry fell something like a
century and a half before that of Daniel, foretold that God would use
Cyrus to restore His people to the land of their fathers.*
At the time when Daniel read Jeremiah's prophecy, Cyrus was associated
with Darius in the government of the Medo-Persian empire. Since the
prophet was a high official at the Persian court, he doubtless knew the
trend of things and could see naturally that sooner or later Cyrus, if
he lived, would grasp the power of the empire. He could, therefore, in
the light of Isaiah's prediction and the trend of affairs, recognize
Cyrus as the one of whom Isaiah by inspiration had spoken as the
deliverer of Israel.
It did not take special inspiration by the Spirit for him to come to
this conclusion, because he had studied the books (Kings, Chronicles,
Jeremiah, and Isaiah) and knew that within 2 years the 70 years of
Jerusalem's desolations would expire. Being acquainted with the trend of
events and being associated with Cyrus personally, he would recognize in
him the fulfillment of Isaiah's
----
* The book of Isaiah has been dissected by the rationalistic critics
into a number of various documents, which, they assert, came from
different times. Especially has the latter half of it suffered at their
hands. The principal argument for such vivisection is based upon
differences of style, diction, concepts, and teaching. The evidence
cited in support of the theory is indeed insufficient. In fact, for
every particle of so-called evidence indisputable facts can be brought
forward, which render the claim null and void.
The principal reason motivating the dissection of the book is a desire
to break the force of predictive prophecy. The mention of Cyrus by name
in this passage, if uttered by Isaiah in the latter half of the eighth
century B.C.E., approximately two centuries before the birth of Cyrus,
proves the reality of verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Rationalism
will not admit the possibility of a special revelation by the Spirit of
God. Hence the bold claim is made that Isaiah did not utter this
prediction. Then the theory is advanced that some unknown prophet of the
late exilic period, who saw the trend of events and the gains which were
being made by Cyrus, and who knew his kindly disposition and political
policies, made the shrewd prophecy that he would permit the Jewish
captives to return to their land. For this position there is not one
particle of evidence.
Many of the utterances of the prophets have been fulfilled to the letter
through the centuries. To the open-minded person there can be no
question concerning the pure Isaianic character of this prediction.
page 405
prediction. Anyone who will take God's Word at its face value, as Daniel
did, and not attempt to force an unnatural meaning upon it, and who will
pray for spiritual insight into the present situation, can recognize the
fulfillment of certain predictions even today.
Isaiah foretold that Cyrus was the one who would issue the decree for
the building of Jerusalem and the laying of the foundation of the
temple. Did Cyrus do this thing? The decree which he actually issued is
recorded in II Chronicles 36:22, 23; Ezra 1:1-4; 6:1-5. Though in these
different accounts of the decree nothing is said of the building of the
city, we may be certain that Cyrus did give permission, because
Zerubbabel and the leaders of the Jews armed with authority from him
went back to Jerusalem and actually built the city and finished the
walls. This fact is seen from a statement in a letter which the enemies
of the Jews wrote to Artaxerxes (Pseudo-Smerdis) in 522 B.C.E.
"Be it known unto the king, that the Jews that came up from thee are
come to us unto Jerusalem; they are building the rebellious and the bad
city and have finished the walls, and repaired the foundations" (Ez.
4:12). But later we shall investigate this phase of the question more
fully.
b. The Seventy Years of Indignation against Jerusalem
"Then the angel of Jehovah answered and said, O Jehovah of hosts, how
long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah,
against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?"
(Zech. 1:12)
Here reference is made to 70 years of indignation against Jerusalem and
the cities of Judah. In answer to the question asked, the Lord said, "I
am returned to Jerusalem with mercies; my house shall be built in it,
saith Jehovah of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth over
Jerusalem" (Zech. 1:16).
This query was raised and the answer given in the second year of Darius
Hystaspes, in 3605 A.H. (520 B.C.E.). When we count backward 70 years
from this date we reach the ninth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin
and the eighth of Zedekiah's reign. In Ezekiel 24:1-14 we find the
prediction of the seething caldron which symbolized God's wrath at
boiling temperature against His people. Evidently, therefore, this
70-year period began in 3536 A.H. (589 B.C.E.) The first year of this
epoch of indignation was the seventeenth of the 70 years of Jerusalem's
desolations.
c. The Seventy Years of Fasting
A third period of 70 years, mentioned in the Scriptures, is
characterized by the fasts of the fifth and seventh months. The people
page 406
of Bethel sent a delegation to Jerusalem in the fourth year of Darius
(518 B.C.E.) to inquire whether or not they should continue to fast as
they had done for so many years. Evidently the reason for their making
this inquiry was the fact that the foundation of the temple had already
been laid 2 years prior to this time. See such passages as Haggai 2:10,
15, 18, 20. The fast of the fifth month was to commemorate the fall and
destruction of Jerusalem in 3539 A.H. or 586 B.C. This question was
asked in the fourth year of Darius Hystaspes, which, as we shall see,
was the 69th year from the destruction of the city. An immediate answer
was given by Zechariah saying,
"Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying, When
ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month, even these
seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, even to me?" (Zech. 7:5).
As stated above, this event occurred in the 69th year of this period,
during which the people of Israel had fasted because of the destruction
of the city, but the prophet said that they had been fasting 70 years.
To the casual observer there seems to be a discrepancy of one year, but
the facts will show that there is no contradiction. We shall shortly see
that the Persian method of reckoning time was not that of the Assyrians
and the Hebrews. Instead of numbering the years of the reign of a king
from the first New Year's day after his coronation, the Persians dated a
man's reign from his actual accession to the throne. We shall see that
the ninth month was the time when Darius received the crown. This
delegation made these inquiries in the ninth month and on the 24th day.
They were, therefore, at the very end of the 69th year of this period.
Thus a day or two would put them into the next year. A careful reading
of Zechariah 7 and 8 will disclose the facts that the prophet
remonstrated with the people for doing their own pleasure in their
fasting, instead of really seeking God. Furthermore, he exhorted them to
obey the Word of the Lord. After this, but we cannot say how long, the
Word of the Lord came to the prophet (8:1) telling of the great future
that awaits Jerusalem. In verse 18 of this chapter the final answer is
given, and the prediction is made that all of the fasts of the nation
will eventually be turned into a period of rejoicing. This 70-year epoch
ended the fifth year of Darius, or 517 B.C.E.
The 70-year period of desolations of Jerusalem enables us to check the
Biblical chronology with that of Babylon and her kings who succeeded
Nebuchadnezzar, showing that our count is abso-
page 407
lutely correct. The era of the 70 years of indignation, starting in the
seventeenth year of the period of desolations, runs parallel with it for
54 years and extends beyond it for 16 years. This period enables us to
check the time between the first year of Cyrus and the third of Darius
Hystaspes. The third period, relative to the fall of Jerusalem, simply
confirms and corroborates the reckoning based upon the second era of 70
years. Thus by these checks and double checks we may be certain that the
chronology as it is worked out is absolutely correct to the very year.
4. THE PERSIAN KINGS FROM CYRUS TO DARIUS HYSTASPES
As has already been stated, Daniel occupied an official position in the
third year of the reign of Belshazzar, 539 B.C.E. (Dan. 8:1). In 538
B.C.E., when the authority of the empire passed from the Babylonians to
the Medes and the Persians, Darius may have had the priority over Cyrus.
This monarch appointed a satrap over each of the 120 provinces of the
kingdom. He also appointed presidents, or chief men, over these leading
officials, and in this small higher committee Daniel was given the
preeminence. (See Daniel 6.) This was in 538 B.C.E. Daniel held this
high position until the third year of Cyrus' sole kingship (Dan. 10:1),
at which time the Lord granted him the final vision constituting
chapters 10-12 of his book.
a. Cyrus
From Ezra 1:1-4 it seems quite apparent that someone had pointed out to
Cyrus the prediction referring to him which Isaiah had made two
centuries prior to his day. (See Isaiah 44:24-45:13.) In his decree
Cyrus said that God had commanded him to build Him a house in Jerusalem.
Since Cyrus was a heathen king, since God usually uses men and means to
communicate His truth to the unsaved, and since Daniel was occupying a
position of influence and power at the court of Cyrus, it seems most
likely that he was the one who pointed out to the king the role he was
to play in the unfolding of God's plan relative to Israel. According to
Isaiah 44:28, Cyrus would perform all God's pleasure, saying that
Jerusalem should be built, and that the temple foundation should be
laid. In 45:13 we also find the thought repeated that Cyrus should build
"my (God's) city," i.e., Jerusalem, "and let my exiles (Israelites) go
free" without price or reward. We are, therefore, justified in believing
that the decree of Cyrus included the authority
page 408
to build the city of Jerusalem as well as to reestablish the temple and
its worship.
This position is confirmed by a statement from Josephus, which reads as
follows:
"This (the knowledge concerning God's purposes concerning Cyrus) was
known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of
the prophecies; for this prophet said that God had spoken thus to him in
a secret vision: 'My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be
king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own land,
and build my temple.' This was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty
years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read
this, and admired the Divine power, an earnest desire and ambition
seized upon him to fulfill what was so written; so he called for the
most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave
them leave to go back to their own country, and to rebuild their city
Jerusalem, and the temple of God, for that he would be their assistant,
and that he would write to the rulers and governors that were in the
neighborhood of their country of Judea, that they should contribute to
them gold and silver for the building of the temple, and besides that,
beasts for their sacrifice" (Ant. Book XI, chap. 1, 2).
In the first year of his reign as sole rex, Cyrus, according to the
prediction uttered by Isaiah, issued the decree for the return of those
captives who desired to go back to the homeland. Only a small number,
comparatively speaking, 42,360, accepted the offer and under the
leadership of Zerubbabel, prince of the house of David, and Joshua, the
high priest, went back. Judging from the time it took Ezra and his
company to return from Babylon to Palestine, we should conclude that
these pilgrims made the jo11rney in 4 or 5 months. We see them, however,
in the land on the first day of the seventh month of Cyrus' first year (Ez.
3:1).
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
page 409
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
page 410
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 at. 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 0.£ 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.
page 411
b. Ahasuerus = Cambyses
From this survey which we have made of chapter 4, we see that Ahasuerus
of 4:6 was the Cambyses of profane history.
c. Artaxerxes = Pseudo-Smerdis
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.
d. Darius, Artaxerxes, and Ahasuerus = Darius Hystaspes
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
Nison. 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 Nison of the same twentieth
page 412
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, Nison, 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 Nison.
"The method of reckoning adopted is not that of the vague Egyptian or
Chaldean year of Ptolemy's Canon, the 36S-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 traveled 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. S02, 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 Nison, 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).
page 413
"And it has already been shown that the New Year did not begin at the
spring Equinox or about the 1st Nison.
"The solution probably lies in the fact that the Persians, being like
ourselves, members of the Aryan or Japhetic, and hot 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
Zechariah, 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 month (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
Zerubbabe1, 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,
page 414
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
page 415
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 mot:1archs, 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.
(1.) EVENTS OF 520 B.C.E., THE SECOND YEAR OF DARIUS HYSTASPES
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 re-inaugurated 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
page 416
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
page 417
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
page 418
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 6f 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 111ost solemn
warning that no further interference should be made against the
completion of this house of God.
page 419
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.
(2.) EVENTS OF 519 B.C.E., THE THIRD YEAR OF DARIUS HYSTASPES
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
page 420
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."
According to Pliny, Darius Hystaspes built, or rather enlarged and
beautified, Shushan as his official residence. There he kept his
treasures (Herodotus Book V, chap. 49). From all this extracanonical
evidence it is clear that Darius Hystaspes did reign from India to
Ethiopia and over the isles of the sea just as the book of Esther
affirms.
Anstey gives us the following historical information:
"Thucydides (Book 1) and Plato (Menexenus) tell us that Darius Hystaspes
subdued all the islands in the Aegean Sea, and Diodorus Siculus (Book
12) tells us that they were all lost again by his son Xerxes before the
12th year of his reign, but it was after the 12th year of the reign of
Ahasuerus that he imposed his tribute upon the Isles, and the successors
of Xerxes held none of them except Clazomene and Cyprus (Xenophon,
Hellenics, Book 5). "From all which it is clear that the Ahasuerus of
Esther cannot be Xerxes, in fact that he can be none other than Darius
Hystaspes, for his predecessors, Cyrus and Cambyses, never took tribute
but only received presents. Polyenus (Stratagem, Book 7) says Darius was
the first that ever imposed a tribute upon the people. For this reason
Herodotus tells us (Book 3, Chap. 89) the Persians called Cyrus a
father, and Cambyses a master, but Darius a huckster, 'for Darius looked
to making a gain in everything.'"
With this understanding then we note the outstanding event of the third
year of this mighty monarch. It was in this year that he made a great
feast for the nobility of the realm. From now on we read of "Persia and
Media" instead of "Medes and Persians." It was at this time that Queen
Vashti was deposed, because she refused to expose herself in an indecent
manner before the drunken and inflamed guests at Darius' debauching
feast.
(3.) EVENTS OF 518 B.C.E., THE FOURTH YEAR OF DARIUS
In the fourth year of King Darius a delegation was sent by the people of
Bethel to Jerusalem to inquire as to whether or not they
page 421
should continue to fast in the fifth and seventh months as they had done
for so many years. The prophet replied by asking this pertinent
question, "When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh
month, even these seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, even to
me?" (Zech. 7:5). The fast of the fifth month was to commemorate the
fall of the city and the burning of the temple which occurred, as we
have already seen, in 586 B.C.E. The fast of the seventh month was in
memory of the slaying of Gedaliah the governor. The young prophet called
attention to the fact that men should obey the words of God which He had
spoken to the former generation. Then he held up as an example those to
whom the word 0.£ God had come on former occasions, and who had hardened
their hearts like an adamant against the message. Hence upon them came
judgment for rebellion and disobedience. Later, however, the word of the
Lord came to the prophet, and he foretold the glorious future in the
kingdom age when old men and women will be in Jerusalem leaning on their
staffs for very age, while the children will play in the streets.
Finally, the answer was given relative to the fasts, the substance of
which was that those which had been fast days will eventually be turned
into occasions of great joy (Zech. 8:18-23).
(4.) EVENTS OF 517 B.C.E., THE FIFTH YEAR OF DARIUS
Nothing of importance is recorded in the Biblical account concerning the
events of the fifth year of Darius. The one outstanding incident which
demands our attention is Darius' Behistun inscription in the Zagros
Mountains that is usually supposed to have been executed in the fifth,
or possibly the sixth, year of his reign. This historical record, carved
in the rock, tells of his having reconquered the provinces which had
revolted; namely, Elam, Souciana, Sargotia, Media, Babylonia, Parthia,
and Armenia. He moreover speaks of his having overthrown nine pretenders
to the throne, among whom was Pseudo-Smerdis, his immediate predecessor.
Having disposed of his opponents, having conquered the revolting
territories, and having restored peace to his realm, Darius felt quite
secure and, it is needless to say, considered himself as a great prince.
Hence he became known as "Arta-xerxes," which means "great shah" (Ez.
6:14; 7:1). He was also recognized as "the king of Assyria." Evidently
this title was given to him because of the fact that the territory which
formerly constituted the Assyrian empire had been incorporated into the
Medo-Persian realm. His
page 422
assumption of this title, again, is seen in his calling himself "king of
kings" in his letter recorded in Ezra 7: 11-26. He also bore the name
"king of Babylon" (Neh. 13:6). This acquisition of new titles becomes
quite obvious as we pass from the fourth chapter of Ezra to the seventh
and succeeding ones.
Further proof of the position which I am now advocating is to be found
in Ezra 6:14b: "And they builded and finished it, according to the
commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the decree of Cyrus,
and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia." If we take this statement as
it is rendered in the English, we would suppose that the reconstruction
of the temple was accomplished, according to the commandment of God, and
according to the decrees issued by three different rulers; namely,
Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes. When we turn back to the first chapter of
Ezra and study carefully every verse up to this one, we see that there
were only two men who issued decrees relative to the temple. Cyrus made
the first proclamation [V.1:2-4], granting permission to all Israelites
who wished to return to the land of the fathers to do so, and
authorizing the reconstruction of the temple. As we have seen from
chapter 4, opposition arose on the part of the inhabitants of the land
who made representation at the foreign office in Shushan and thus
stopped the work until the second year of the reign of Darius. At this
time they pursued the same course. Upon investigation Darius found that
Cyrus had issued the original proclamation concerning this permission.
[V. 6:6-12] He in turn issued a second decree confirming the one
published by Cyrus and enlarging upon the grants conferred upon the
Hebrew people. There were, therefore, only two decrees made by Persian
kings concerning the reconstruction of the temple. If we accept the
English translation of Ezra 6:14, we would think that a king by the name
of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Darius, either immediately or later, also
issued a decree for building it; but we know that the sacred structure
was completed in the sixth year of the reign of Darius. The word
Artaxerxes following Darius in this quotation, therefore, cannot refer
to another king. Evidently something is wrong with the usual translation
of this verse. When we look at the Hebrew, we see that the conjunction
translated and also means even. In many instances its only significance
is that of but. The translator has to select that definition which
accords with all the facts of the context. Since we know that this
little Hebrew conjunction means and, but, and even, we must select that
connotation which accords with all the known, facts. Since it means
page 423
even in many connections, since the word Artaxerxes signifies great shah
or prince, and since we see from the history of the times that -fie was
assuming to himself great and impressive titles, as many monarchs have
done and continue to do, the only conclusion to which we can come is
that the proper rendering of this conjunction in this context is even.
With this understanding of the situation I submit this translation: "And
they builded and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of
Israel, and according to the decree of Cyrus, and Darius, even
Artaxerxes king of Persia." This rendering is grammatical and is in
accord with all known facts.
In view of all these historical circumstances there is but one
conclusion to which we can come; namely, that the Ahasuerus of the book
of Esther was none other than Darius Hystaspes of profane history.
Further confirmation of this position is seen in the fact that in the
Apocryphal book, I Esdras, the Ahasuerus of the canonical book of Esther
and the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1 are both identified as Darius Hystaspes.
For instance, in I Esdras 3:1, 2, we read, "Now king Darius made a great
feast unto all his subjects, and unto all them that were born in his
house, and unto all the princes of Media and Persia, and to all the
satraps and captains and governors that were unto him, from India unto
Ethiopia, in the hundred twenty and seven provinces." A comparison of
this quotation with Esther 1:1-4 shows that the Apocryphal account was
taken from our canonical Esther. 'the latter uses the word Ahasuerus
whereas the former substitutes the word Darius in the narrative. In the
Apocryphal book, The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther,
Ahasuerus is everywhere called Artaxerxes. In our canonical Esther we
read that the two keepers of the threshold sought to take the life of
Ahasuerus; but in The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther we are
told that these eunuchs attempted to lay hands upon Artaxerxes the king
in order to take his life. Here again the Ahasuerus of our canonical
Esther is identified as Artaxerxesin the Apocryphal writing. In Esther
10:1 we read of Ahasuerus who laid tribute upon the isles of the sea,
whereas in The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther it was the
great king Artaxerxes who wrote to the princes and governors of the 127
provinces from India to Ethiopia. These facts show that the writers of
the Apocryphal books understood that Ahasuerus was the Artaxerxes or
Darius of our canonical Ezra.
Archbishop Usshur, author of the chronology that bears his name,
identified Darius Hystaspes as the Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus of the
page 424
books of Ezra and Esther. But Joseph Scaliger, one of the most profound
scholars in modern times, repudiated the correct Scriptural
identification of this one ruler who bore these various names and
identified the Ahasuerus of Esther with Xerxes, successor of Darius
Hystaspes. This mistake threw the chronology into hopeless "confusion.
Only by discarding it and studying the facts anew can we arrive at the
truth on this point.
With the atmosphere thus cleared, we are in a position to understand
that Darius Hystaspes is the same ruler who is called Artaxerxes in the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and Ahasuerus, in the book of Esther.
In this connection may I call attention to the fact that the word
Artaxerxes with the Persian rulers had a significance similar to that of
Pharaoh in Egypt? Such writers as Abraham Zacutus in the fifteenth
century, who was astronomer to Emanuel, King of Portugal, David Ganz of
Prague, and the Sedar Olam Zeutah., or the lesser chronicle of the Jews,
tell us that "Artaxerxes among the Persians was the common name of their
king as that of Pharaoh was among the Egyptians." The title Ahasuerus
likewise appears to have had a similar significance.
In the light of the evidence which we have gleaned, we may be certain of
the following facts: In Ezra 4 : 24 we read of the second year of this
King Darius, or Artaxerxes; in Ezra 6: 15 we see that the temple was
completed in his sixth year; in Ezra 7: 1 f. we read of Ezra's leaving
Babylon in his seventh year; and in Nehemiah 1 : 1 and 2: 1 we learn of
his twentieth year; and finally in Nehemiah 5: 14 and 13: 6 we read of
his thirty-second year. As we have seen, this same monarch is known in
the book of Esther as Ahasuerus; hence in this roll we read of his
third, sixth, seventh, and twelfth years; but in the prophecies of
Haggai we find several predictions made in his second year, and in
Zechariah, others spoken in his second and fourth years.
(5.) EVENTS OF 516 B.C.E., THE SIXTH YEAR OF DARIUS
As we have already seen, the temple was completed in this year (Ez.
6:15). Another outstanding event of far-reaching consequences was that
of the selection and preparation of Esther to become queen of the
empire. (See Esther, chapter 2.)
(6.) EVENTS OF 515 B.C.E., THE SEVENTH YEAR OF DARIUS
The next stated event in the reign of Darius Hystaspes is found in Ezra
7. According to verses 7 and 8, Ezra, a faithful priest,
page 425
left Babylon on the first day of the first month of the seventh year of
his reign to be present, it seems, at the dedication of the temple. With
him came 1,754 exiles to join those who had already returned to the
land. At the river, which runs to Ahava, they observed a fast from the
ninth to the eleventh day of the first month of the seventh year of
Artaxerxes (Ezra 8:15-21), praying God's protection and blessing upon
them as they journeyed to the homeland. On the next day they resumed
their journey, starting for Jerusalem. At Jerusalem the returned exiles
observed the Passover at the regular time, the fourteenth day of the
first month, which was followed by the feast of unleavened bread (Ez.
6:19-21).
It took about four months for Ezra's journey; hence the pilgrims arrived
in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month. Three days later the
sacred vessels which they brought back to the homeland were deposited
with the proper officials at the temple. Upon learning the conditions
which obtained in the land, Ezra the Scribe was very much depressed, for
many of the children of the captivity had married heathen wives;
nevertheless, he was indeed thankful that the temple had already been
restored and the debris, which had been in evidence on every hand had,
to a certain extent, been removed. In the ninth chapter we find recorded
the wonderful prayer which he by the Spirit of God poured out in behalf
of the nation because of its wickedness. On the twentieth day of the
ninth month of this same year the people were gathered together. This
faithful scribe pled with them to confess their sins, to separate
themselves from their heathen wives, and to maintain a life of
separation unto God. In 10:16 we read of the events of the first day of
the tenth month and in verse seventeen of the first day of the first
month. Of course, we cannot be dogmatic, but in all probability these
months fall in the same seventh year of Darius.
(7.) EVENTS OF 510 B.C.E., THE TWELFTH YEAR OF DARIUS
Now leaving the book of Ezra we turn to Esther. We have already seen
that the Ahasuerus of this book is the same Darius or Artaxerxes of the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In Esther 3:7 we learn that in the first
month of the twelfth year lots were cast for the slaughter of the Jews.
This plot against the Chosen People had been, as we have seen, concocted
by Haman. On the thirteenth of the first month posts were dispatched at
the king's commandment in order to carry out this decree against the
Jews (Esth. 3:12). Two days later Esther gained audience with the king
and invited
page 426
him and Haman to her banquet. That night the king could not rest (Esth.
6:1-14). On the following day Esther gave her banquet, at which Haman
was accused and hanged, and Mordecai became the prime minister (Esth.
5:8-7:2-10).
On the twenty-third day of the third month scribes wrote letters which
were dispatched by every means available-horses, mules, camels,
dromedaries-in order that they might overtake the posts who had been
sent out by Haman. The second decree counteracted the first. Finally, on
pogrom day, the thirteenth of the twelfth month, the Jews defended
themselves against their adversaries. The Lord by His overruling
providence turned the darkness of Israel's night into day and delivered
her from being exterminated. Let us remember that He still loves her and
that He will,
in her darkest of all nights yet in the future, turn the tables and will
deliver her, i.e., those who turn to him with all their hearts.
(8.) EVENTS OF 502 B.C.E., THE TWENTIETH YEAR OF DARIUS
As we have already seen, the last thing which occurred in Jerusalem, and
which is recorded in the book of Ezra, was in the seventh year of
Artaxerxes. Nothing, so far as our records go, of any importance
transpired in the land of Palestine until the twentieth year of
Artaxerxes, when Hanani went to Shushan, the Persian capital, and
reported to Nehemiah the conditions that obtained at Jerusalem.
During the thirteen years while the veil of obscurity was resting over
Palestine, a distressing situation had developed in which the Jews were
being vigorously opposed. In addition to this persecution the wall at
Jerusalem had been broken down, and the gates burned. We are not told
how this was brought about, but undoubtedly there had been some attack
against the city.
Ezra, who led the second deputation of captives back to the land in the
seventh year of Artaxerxes, in all likelihood remained in Jerusalem
during this period of silence, for he was a man always active in God's
cause. When we get our next glimpse of Palestine in the twentieth year
of Artaxerxes, we find him cooperating with Nehemiah. Joshua, as we have
already learned, was the high priest who came back with the first
company of exiles under the leadership of Zerubbabel. The Scriptures do
not give us any information as to his death, but Josephus asserts that
it occurred about the time Ezra arrived in Jerusalem, namely, 515 B.C.E.
There is no external
page 427
evidence that would throw doubt upon the historian's record; hence we
shall accept it at face value. Accordingly, Joiakim, his son, succeeded
to the high priesthood in the seventh year of the Persian king who is
called Artaxerxes by Ezra, but whom Josephus calls Xerxes. In this
connection let us remember that this term together with others was a
common title of the Persian monarchs. Those who have read the Greek
papyri and have glanced at official documents especially know that the
Roman Caesars seemed to vie one with the other in an effort to add
pretentious titles to their names. This seems to have been the custom
with the Persian rulers. Joiakim died and was succeeded by his son
Eliashib about the time of the death of Ezra.
This little historical survey of the situation, drawn from non Biblical
sources, is in perfect accord with the facts as they are presented in
the sacred text. For instance, from Nehemiah 3:1, 20 we learn that
Eliashib was called the high priest in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes;
i.e., in the year when Nehemiah came back to Jerusalem. There is no
reason so far as the text goes for doubting this statement. His father
Joiakim may have died or he may have been incapacitated on account of
age or sickness to perform the priestly functions; hence, it was natural
that Eliashib, his son, should succeed to the priesthood under such
conditions.
Another bit of confirmatory evidence of the position just stated is that
the grandson of Joiakim was Jehohanan who was sufficiently old in the
seventh year of Artaxerxes to have a chamber in the house of God (Ez.
10:6). According to Nehemiah 12:26, Joiakim was functioning in the
capacity of high priest either immediately before or at the time of
Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest. The situation becomes
clear by our glancing at the priests and Levites who returned with
Zerubbabel and those who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah in the
twentieth year of Artaxerxes. This tabular form is presented by Anstey.
It appears below:
Column A
Column
B
"Priests and Levites who returned Priests
and Levites who sealed
with Zerubbabel in the 1st year of with
Nehemiah in the 20th year
Cyrus, B.C. 536. Neh. 12: 1-9 of
Artaxerxes, BC502, Neh.10:1-10
1. PRIESTS
1. Seraiah ...........................
Seraiah
2. Jeremiah...........................
Jeremiah
3. Ezra..... . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Azariah)
4. Amariah ............... ... .. . .
Amariah
5. Malluch (Melicu)..................
(Malchijah)
6. Hattush .................. . . .
.. Hattush
7. Shechaniah (Shebaniah).............
Shebaniah
page 428
1. PRIESTS (continued)
8. Rehum (Harim).......................
Harim
9. Meremoth .............. . . . . . .
Meremoth
10. Iddo...............................
-----
11. Ginnetho ..........................
Ginnethon
12. Abijah ............................
Abijah
13. Miamin ............................
Mijamin
14. Maadiah ...........................
(Maaziah)
15. Bilgah
...........................
Bilgai
16. Shemaiah ..........................
Shemaiah
17. Joiarib ...........................
-----
18. J edaiah
..........................
-----
19. Sallu (Sallai).....................
-----
20. Amok...............................
-----
21. Hilkiah ...........................
-----
22. Jedaiah ...........................
-----
Neh. 12:7, “These were the chief of Neh.10:8, “these (with Zidkijah),
the priests and of their brethren in Pashur Malluch, Obadiah, Daniel,
the days of Jeshua.” Baruch and Meshullan, were the
priests that sealed with Nehemiah
2. LEVITES
1. Jeshua
....................
Jeshua the son of Azaniah
2. Binnui
....................
Binnui of the sons of Henadad
3. Kadmiel ..................
Kadmiel
4. Sherebiah .................
(Shebaniah)
5.
Judah.....................
(Hodijah, cp. Ezra 2:40; 3:9
6. Mattaniah (over the choirs)
-----
7. Bakbukiah ( over the
watches) -----
8. Unni (over the watches) ....
-----
(and 12 others)
A glance at the tabulation above shows that 15 of the 22 chief priests
of 536 B.C.E. affixed their names to the covenant in the twentieth year
of Artaxerxes. Looking at the table of the Levites, we see that eight
are listed as having come back with Zerubbabel and the captives, and of
these five affixed their names to the covenant in the twentieth year of
Artaxerxes. Thus we see that 20 of these 30 men were living when the
covenant was made. Since it is inconceivable that two-thirds of them
could be living and actively engaged in the ordinary functions of their
life's work 91 years later in 445 B.C.E. where the popular theory places
them, we are driven irresistibly to conclude that the Artaxerxes of the
book of Nehemiah was none other than Darius Hystaspes, who is called
Artaxerxes. Let us remember in this connection that this name is simply
a title indicating "great shah, or ruler."
page 429
In view of all the facts which we have thus far learned, we may be
positive that the Artaxerxes mentioned in Nehemiah 2:1, 5:14, and 13:6
cannot possibly, under any conditions, be Artaxerxes Longimanus; "nor
can he be any other Persian monarch of later date, and as the only
Persian monarch of earlier date who reigned as long as 32 years (Neh.
5:14; 13: 6) was Darius Hystaspes, the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah 2:1, 5:14,
and 13:6 can be no other than Darius Hystaspes himself."
(9.) THE EVENTS OF THE YEAR 490 B.C.E., THE THIRTY-SECOND YEAR OF DARIUS
Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Darius
Hystaspes. He assumed by imperial decree the office of Governor and
continued in this capacity until the 32nd year of this monarch. During
these 12 years he lived at his own charges, fulfilling his duties as the
leader of the people of God. (See N eh. 5:14-19. ) In the 32nd year,
however, he returned to Babylon and after certain days he came back to
Jerusalem. Upon his arrival he learned that there had been a plunge, on
the part of his brethren, into sin and a departure from God (Neh. 13 6).
The last things recorded of this great man of God were the reforms which
he instituted at this time. This date brings us, from a historical
standpoint, to the close of Hebrew history as set forth in the divine
Oracles.
The situation which we see reflected in the last chapter of Nehemiah
corresponds to a certain extent to that which is in evidence throughout
the book of Malachi. Some scholars have judged, and I think correctly
so, that Malachi's ministry fell about this time, namely, around 490
B.C.E.
S. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT DARIUS HYSTASPES IS THE ARTAXERXES OF
EZRA 7 AND OF THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH
Since a proper understanding of the chronological question depends upon
a clear knowledge as to who Darius Hystaspes was, I shall give a summary
of the proof which identifies him positively as the Artaxerxes of the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
a. Unity of the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah
The books of Ezra and Nehemiah constituted one single history until it
was divided by Origen, the critic, in the third century of the present
era. This is clearly shown by the summary statement
page 430
found in the Hebrew Bible concerning the number of verses constituting
the book and the middle passage of it together with other data. Nehemiah
3:31 is recognized as the center of this work. From this and all the
data found in this Masoretic note, it is very evident that these two
books originally constituted one single work.
The narrative in these two books is continuous, the only exception being
that of Ezra 3:10-13, which is separated from chapter 5 by the
parenthetical account of the opposition to the Jews as related in
chapter 4. The work of the laying of the foundation of the temple was
started in the second year of Cyrus, but was interrupted by the
Samaritans and never begun again until the second year of Darius, 15
years later.
A tabular form of the data in these books shows the continuity of the
narrative. On this point I will quote from Anstey:
THE CONTINUITY OF THE EZRA-NEHEMIAH NARRATIVE
Ezra 4:24 2nd year of
Darius-Temple begun.
Ezra 6:15 6th year 01
Darius-Temple finished.
Ezra 7:8, 9 7th year of Artaxerxes-Ezra
comes to Jerusalem.
Neh. 1:1 20th year of (Artaxerxes)-Hanani's
Report.
Neh. 2:1 20th year of Artaxerxes-Nehemiah
goes to Jerusalem. Neh. 5:14, 13:6 32nd year
of Artaxerxes-Nehemiah returns to Babylon.
According to the popular theory in vogue at the present time, the temple
at Jerusalem was completed in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes, 516
B.C.E. Between chapters 6 and 7, we are told, is a gap of 58 years.
Chapter 7 narrates the going of Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem in the
seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus in 458 B.C.E. The things narrated
in Ezra 7-10 are, upon this hypothesis, an account of the reforms
instituted by Ezra in 458. The book of Nehemiah relates events of the
twentieth year of Artaxerxes, 445 B.C.E.
As we have already noted, the temple was completed in the sixth year of
Darius Hystaspes in 516 B.C.E., according to the commandment of the God
of Israel and according to the decrees of Cyrus and Darius, even
Artaxerxes (the great shah, or ruler) king of Persia. Cyrus issued the
original proclamation for the reconstruction of the temple. Darius in
the second year of his reign confirmed this original decree by a similar
one. These are the only two Persian rulers issuing decrees pertaining to
the reconstruction of the temple. The word Artaxerxes simply means
"great ruler." Darius, according to the Behistun inscription, executed
it either in the fifth or sixth year of his reign, conquered his foes,
and consolidated
page 431
his empire, assuming to himself titles of great dignity. Since the term
Artaxerxes signifies Great Shah or Ruler, it is in perfect keeping with
all the facts that he should at this time assume this title also. No
other construction can be placed upon the facts as they are embedded in
the Hebrew text.
Further confirmation of the continuity of the narrative is seen in the
last statement of Ezra 6. According to verses 19-21 the children of the
captivity together with their brethren who had remained in the land, and
who had separated themselves from the filthiness of the nations,
observed the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread with unusual
joy. The basis of this joy was that God had "turned the heart of the
king of Assyria (Darius Hystaspes, into whose kingdom the former
Assyrian empire had been incorporated) unto them, to strengthen their
hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel." At this
Passover, therefore, the Hebrew people rejoiced before God because He
had turned the heart 0.£ Darius to confirm the decree of Cyrus, thus
permitting them to complete the work of reconstruction of the house of
God. This last statement of verse 22 is a reference to God's overruling
providence in turning the heart of Darius toward the Jewish people in
the second year of his reign. From this position there can be no escape.
It is a very unfortunate matter that the Scriptures were divided into
chapters and verses, because these frequently destroy the continuity of
the thought. Chapter 7:1 begins this way, "Now after these things, in
the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, Ezra, the son of Seraiah . . ."
As we have seen, the title "Artaxerxes" in 6:14 refers to Darius
Hystaspes. Since this chapter concludes with the events of the sixth
year of Darius or Artaxerxes, it is natural to suppose that the
Artaxerxes mentioned in 7:1 is the same monarch, because in the seventh
chapter Ezra tells us that Artaxerxes was favorable to him and his
company in permitting them to return to the land of the fathers. These
facts naturally weld chapters 7 to 10 with chapter 6. Only clear,
unmistakable, positive proof to the contrary could ever break this
natural continuity of thought; therefore, the idea that a gap of 58
years intervened between the events of chapter 6 and those of chapter 7
is simply a myth. In chapter 6 we are reading of the completion of the
temple in the sixth year of Darius and in chapter 7 of the events of
the seventh year of the same ruler. As we shall see later, the book of
Nehemiah recounts the events of the twentieth and the 32nd years of this
same Darius Hystaspes.
Page 432
b. The Age of Ezra
Should we assume that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 is Artaxerxes Longimanus
(464-424 B.C.E.) , we must concede that Ezra was 128 years old when he
returned from Babylon to Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes.
Proof of this position is found in the facts that are embedded in the
genealogical table of the high priest (I Chron. 6:3-15) and the abridged
one appearing in Ezra 7:1-5. According to the Chronicles passage, Israel
had 22 high priests from Aaron to Seraiah, who was slain by
Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah at the time of the captivity in 586 B.C.E. The
genealogy appearing in Ezra 7:1-5 is an abridged one which omits six
names from the list-those between Merioth and Azariah. The only other
difference between the two genealogies is this: The chronicler began
with Aaron and traced the lineage to Seraiah, whereas Ezra began with
himself and went backward to Aaron. From the Chronicles passage we see
that Seraiah was the father of Jehozadak, but in the Ezra genealogy
attention is called to the fact that Ezra was the son of Seraiah;
therefore, Jehozadak and Ezra were brothers.
Since Seraiah was slain by Nebuchadnezzar in his nineteenth year, i.e.,
586 B.C.E. (II Kgs. 25:8, 18-21), Ezra was born either in that year or
shortly before. The seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus was 458 B.C.E.
of the current chronology. If, therefore, the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 was
Artaxerxes Longimanus, Ezra then was 128 years old when he led his
deputation of captives back to Jerusalem in that seventh year of
Artaxerxes Longimanus. Furthermore, he was, upon this hypothesis, 141
years old when he walked in the procession at the dedication of the wall
with Nehemiah in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Who can
accept such an absurdity as this? Reason absolutely rejects such an
hypothesis.
But if we are willing to take all the evidence and accept the natural
deduction to be drawn from the data, we conclude that the Artaxerxes of
Ezra 7 was none other than Darius Hystaspes whose seventh year was 515
B.C.E. In this year Ezra was at least 71 years old. A man of such an age
could do the things that are mentioned here.
c. The Lists of Priests and Levites
Proof of the contention here set forth is to be found in the lists of
priests who came back vrith Zerubbabel and Joshua and those who sealed
the covenant in the days of Nehemiah. In Nehemiah 12:1-7
page 433
appears the list of the names of the 22 priests who returned with
Zerubbabel. In verses 12-21 we have a second list of their names given
in connection with their sons administering the priestly office in the
days of Joiakim the son of Joshua. There is one difference, however, in
the two lists: Hattush is mentioned in the first list but is omitted
from the second.
In these same verses, Nehemiah 12:12-21, appear the names of the sons of
the chief priests who came back with Zerubbabel, and who functioned in
their priestly offices with Joshua; but their sons functioned in the
same capacity in the days of Joiakim, the high priest, who, as we have
already seen, succeeded his father about the time of Ezra's return from
Babylon. It is quite likely that they held office along with Joiakim,
Ezra, and Nehemiah. (See Nehemiah 12:26.) If the second generation of
chief priests was contemporaneous with Ezra and Nehemiah, then we would
date their ministration from 502-490 B.C.E.
When one compares the list of 22 priests and 8 Levites who returned with
Zerubbabel and Joshua and the captives with the register of the chief
priests and the Levites who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah in the
twentieth year of Artaxerxes, he will see that 20 out of the 30 coming
back with Zerubbabel affixed their seal to this document. Zerubbabel and
Joshua led the captives back in 536 B.C.; the twentieth year of Darius
Hystaspes was 502 B.C.E. or 34 years later. It is quite in keeping with
human life and affairs to believe that 20 out of 30 of these men who
returned with Zerubbabel were living 34 years later and sealed the
covenant with Nehemiah. This is only reasonable and in accordance with
facts as we know them in human experience. But let us suppose, as
practically all scholars today assume, that the Artaxerxes in the
twentieth year of whose reign Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem was
Artaxerxes Longimanus whose reign began, according to the accepted
chronology in 464 B.C.E. and continued to 424. The twentieth year of his
reign would be 445 B.C.E. In this case we have 20 out of 30 men who were
performing the functions of chief priest and Levites in 536 B.C.E. still
alive and filling the same positions in 445 B.C.E., 91 years later. Is
this supposition possible? Longevity existed before the Flood, but the
span of life was cut down most drastically immediately after it. In the
days of Moses the life of the average individual was further reduced to
threescore and ten and "if by reason of health and strength four score"
(Ps. 90). It seems that the life of a generation has been constantly
lowered
page 434
as time passes by. One or two men in a given community might reach the
century mark; such cases are the exception and not the rule. It was
certainly not the case in the days of Ezra. Daniel was very young when
he was taken into captivity at the beginning of the 70-year period of
Babylonian exile. He lived through it and to the third year of Cyrus
king of Persia. Thus we can account for 73 years of his life. We are
bound to assume that he was a young man, probably in his teens, when he
was taken to Babylon. Let us, for the sake of investigation, assume that
he was 17 years of age at that time. Upon this basis he was, at the time
of his passing away, around 90. Evidently he was an exception to the
rule as may be seen in many cases. One, or possibly two, who returned
with Zerubbabel and Joshua, and who were sufficiently old to perform the
priestly functions at that time, might have lived until the twentieth
year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, i.e., 445 B.C.E.; but it is incredible to
think that 20 out of 30 of those listed in 536 B.C.E. were continuing
their priestly function 91 years later. In view of these facts it is
unthinkable to conceive of the position that the Artaxerxes of the book
of Nehemiah was Artaxerxes Longimanus. On this point I wish to quote
Martin Anstey:
"Some valuable chronological information is contained in the
genealogical and other lists in these Books. The list of those who
sealed the covenant with Nehemiah, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh.
10:1-13) is almost identical with the list of those who returned to
Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and Joshua, given in Neh. 12:1-9.
"This is the crowning argument for the identification of the Artaxerxes
of Nehemiah with Darius Hystaspes."
d. The Age of Nehemiah
In Ezra 2:2 and Nehemiah 7:7 the third in the list of the leaders who
brought the captives back from Babylon is Nehemiah. This man undoubtedly
was one of the outstanding characters of the time, as is indicated by
the position which he holds in the narrative. The first presumption,
then, is that Nehemiah, the cupbearer, the leading character in the book
of Nehemiah, is the same individual. Unless there is positive proof
indicating otherwise, we must accept this presupposition. For instance,
there are many Roosevelts in the country today. Whenever we read in the
paper anything about Mr. Roosevelt, we instantly think of the President
of the United States, since he stands out from all other Roosevelts in
prominence. So it was with this |
