Chapter 6

1 Darius, finding the decree of Cyrus, maketh a new decree for the advancement of the building. 13 By the help of the enemies, and the directions of the prophets, the temple is finished. 16 The feast of the dedication is kept, 19 and the passover.

1. Then Darius. The request of Tatnai, deputy satrap of “Beyond the River,” received the immediate attention of Darius (ch. 5:17).

Made a decree. Preferably, “gave an order,” since a “decree” was not necessary in order to have a search made in the royal archives for the document.

House of the rolls. Literally, “in the house of the books,” that is, the royal library or archives. On the observation that the “treasures” were kept there, see on ch. 5:17.

In Babylon. Tatnai seems to have received the impression from the Jews during his visit in Jerusalem that the original document would probably be found in the royal archives at Babylon. He had suggested, therefore, that Babylon was the place where the search should be made (ch. 5:17). Darius followed this suggestion and had a search made at Babylon, which, however, proved to be fruitless.

2. Found at Achmetha. When the document referred to in Tatnai’s letter was not found, a further order was apparently given to extend the search to the royal archives of the other Persian capital cities, Ecbatana and Susa. This indicates a sincere effort on the part of the king and his officials to be fair, and to make a thorough investigation before reaching a decision. This places the Persians in a most favorable light. They could easily have discontinued the search upon finding, at Babylon, no decree of Cyrus regarding the Jews. In extending the search to other places where it was apparently known that official documents of Cyrus’ first year were deposited, these officials did everything possible to arrive at a fair and unbiased conclusion.

Achmetha was the old Median capital. In Old Persian it was called HagmataЖna, and in Greek, Ecbatana. Today the city is called HamadaЖn. Lying in the western Iranian mountains, 6,000 ft. (1,829 m.) above sea level, the Persian kings made it one of their summer capitals. Babylon, situated in the river valley, became uncomfortably hot in summer. The present population of HamadaЖn is more than 100,000.

The fact that the document was found in Ecbatana and not in Babylon indicates that Cyrus resided there when the decree was issued. The relation of this fact to the date of issuance of the decree has already been noted in comments on ch. 1:1.

A roll. All documents of the Persian Empire period which have been recovered from the region of Mesopotamia and Persia are cuneiform tablets. Owing to the climatic conditions prevailing in these lands, Persian records written on perishable material such as papyrus or leather have not survived. However, Persian documents on papyrus and leather from that period have been preserved in Egypt, proving the accuracy of the statement here made that the official decree of Cyrus was written on a scroll, not on a clay tablet. Since the official, universal language of the Persian Empire was Aramaic, as the documents found in Egypt testify, it can be taken for granted that Cyrus’ decree was written in Aramaic.

3. A decree. See on ch. 1:1–4. The superficial differences between this copy of the decree and that recorded in ch. 1:1–4 are due to the fact that this copy was for official use only, whereas the other was published. The decree made public contained a permit to return to Palestine, to rebuild the Temple there, and to collect money for that purpose, but it made no mention of the decision of Cyrus to support the erection of the Temple with public funds (see on ch. 1:4). However, the copy of the decree that served as a directive for the officers of the realm clearly stated that the cost was to be met by the royal treasury (ch. 6:4). Exact specifications as to methods of construction were given in this copy.

The height thereof. The figure here given for the height of the new Temple is twice that of the Temple of Solomon, and its width three times as great (see 1 Kings 6:2). The length of the new structure is not given; that of Solomon’s Temple was 60 cu. Yet the new edifice is said to be “as nothing” in comparison with that of Solomon’s (Haggai 2:3), and those who had seen the Temple of Solomon wept they saw the foundation of the new building, because of the obvious inferiority of the latter (Ezra 3:12; cf. PK 564). It is not impossible that the length of the cubit measure of Cyrus’ decree differs somewhat from that of the Jews, though it is hardly possible that the difference should have been so great as to reconcile the apparent discrepancy between the facts noted. It is more reasonable to think that Cyrus gave permission for a much larger edifice than the Jews actually built. But with a royal subsidy (see on ch. 1:4) it is difficult to think that they would have been content with a structure so much inferior to that of Solomon. It may be that the dimensions given in Cyrus’ decree are for the front of the Temple only, which was of more magnificent proportions than the rest of the building.

4. A row of new timber. See on ch. 5:8.

The expenses. See on chs. 1:4 and 6:3.

5. The golden and silver vessels. See on ch. 1:7–11.

6. Tatnai. Concerning Tatnai and the other men here mentioned, see on ch. 5:3, 6.

Be ye far from thence. It may be that the author of the official report incorporated in Ezra 6 has abbreviated or condensed the letter of Darius, and given only the essential parts of it—a rйsumй of the decree of Cyrus, and the confirming decree of Darius. The first important point of Darius’ letter is a warning to the officers of the satrapy “Beyond the River” against interfering with the work at Jerusalem. The language of the whole letter shows that a strong and determined king ruled the state. Some of the decrees of other Persian rulers, as recorded in Ezra and Esther, clearly reveal vacillation on the part of the issuing monarchs.

8. I make a decree. Darius was not content to send a copy of Cyrus’ decree to Tatnai, to inform him of the right of the Jews to continue working on the Temple. He confirmed the former decree by a new one of his own, one that surpassed even the generous provisions of the former one (see on ch. 1:7).

Expenses. Cyrus had decreed that the reconstruction of the Temple at Jerusalem be subsidized with public funds (v. 4). This part of the decree had probably never been carried out (see ch. 4:4, 5), because the Samaritans seem to have successful in frustrating the good intentions of Cyrus. When Darius learned from the copy of Cyrus’ decree found at Ecbatana that financial support had been promised the Jews, he probably inquired of the royal treasurer as to how much money had been spent on the Temple since the first decree was issued. His annoyance upon receiving the information that either little or nothing had been paid so far is implied by the strong language of his letter to Tatnai—“be ye far from thence” (v. 6), “let the work … alone” (v. 7), “that they be not hindered” (v. 8), “without fail” (v. 9), and especially the threats in v. 11 in case this decree should be ignored.

Cyrus had only vaguely defined the source of financial help as “the king’s house” (v. 4), which could mean that the funds were to come from the royal purse, though all public money was disbursed at the discretion of the king. Darius, however, ordered that the expenses of the men employed on the Temple be paid by the satrap of “Beyond the River” from the royal tribute of the province. Thus, presumably, no additional burden was laid upon the taxpayers.

Many modern commentators have doubted the genuineness of this part of the decree, declaring it unthinkable that a Persian king could be so much interested in the Temple of a distant and insignificant nation. However, secular history presents us with parallel cases. This was Cyrus’ policy not only in regard to the Temple at Jerusalem but also in regard to many other sanctuaries (see on ch. 1:2). It is reported that after conquering Egypt, Cambyses, Cyrus’ son, had the temple of Neith at Saпs cleaned, assured its priesthood of their customary income, and favored it with royal gifts—as the Egyptian kings had done before. Even Antiochus the Great gave the Jews large gifts of wine, oil, incense, wheat, and salt for sacrifices, and money for the completion of the Temple (Antiquities xii. 3. 3), in appreciation of their loyalty early in his reign.

9. Bullocks, and rams, and lambs. These were the chief sacrificial animals of the Jews—a lamb being required every morning and evening, 2 more on the Sabbath, 7 at each of the great feasts and at the beginning of each month, and 14 on every day during the Feast of Tabernacles. This would be altogether more than a thousand in the course of a year. Rams and bullocks were added to the lambs on the more solemn occasions. The only other ordinary sacrificial animal was “a kid of the goats.”

Wheat, salt, wine, and oil. These commodities were needed for the “meat offerings” by which every burnt offering was accompanied (Ex. 29:40, 41; see on Lev. 2:13).

According to the appointment. It was a most extraordinary concession to the Jews to allow their priests to fix the amount of support they should receive from the satrap. Darius must have had confidence that the Jews would not abuse his generosity. The integrity of men such as Daniel, Mordecai, Ezra, Nehemiah, and perhaps others, doubtless had made a deep impression on the monarchs under whom they served. It seems probable that some influential Jews were employed in the state department of the Persian Empire. The hand of one of these men probably had part in the preparation of this decree of Darius.

10. Pray. The requirement that the good will and generosity of the king be repaid by sacrifices and prayers on his behalf is closely paralleled in the clay barrel inscription of Cyrus already mentioned (see on ch. 1:2). There the king states that he had restored the cult of the Babylonian gods that the Babylonians might daily ask Bel and Nabu to bless him and his son Cambyses with long life. That the Jews were not opposed to carrying out such a request can be concluded from the practice in the time of the Maccabees to offer sacrifices on behalf of the Seleucid kings (1 Macc 7:33).

11. Hanged. Not hanging as we know it, but impaling, a cruel form of execution practiced extensively by the Assyrians. Many of their reliefs depict impaled men, mostly captured enemies. Two ways of impaling were known. In each, a stake with a sharp point was set up in the ground. The victim, nude, was then impaled by piercing him through his body, either from his buttocks upward or through his chest.

Threats such as those Darius attached to this decree are common in ancient documents. In the light of the practice of absolute rulers in ancient times the threats in this decree do not seem extraordinary. People reading royal decrees in the ancient Orient were used to them, and often witnessed their execution. For example, the famous code of Hammurabi contains some 250 lines of imprecations against any who should alter its provisions. Darius felt that his decree was in need of strong language. The Samaritans had shown themselves clever in the art of defying royal commands. The decree was intended to frighten them, and thereby restrain them from doing further harm.

13. Tatnai. Concerning the men here mentioned, see on ch. 5:3, 6.

So they did speedily. Having no enmity toward the Jews, as is evident from their former actions and their letter to Darius, Tatnai and his fellow officers revealed no reluctance in carrying out the royal command. The king’s will had been made known to them in unmistakable words, and they proceeded to carry it out with zeal. In part, the rapid completion of the Temple must be attributed to their good will. This must have required Tatnai and his retinue to visit Jerusalem again and make a survey of the financial needs of the Jews and the number of sacrificial animals considered necessary for the Temple service (see on v. 9).

14. They prospered. The Jews, who had experienced so many troubles and disappointments during recent years, could have expected no greater or more joyful surprise than the message of Darius’ new decree. Suddenly were fulfilled the prophecies of Haggai, who had reminded them that their God was the owner of silver and gold, and that it would be easy for Him to supply the necessary means to complete the task they had begun in faith (Haggai 2:8). On the day when the new foundation had been laid, the Lord had promised, “From this day will I bless you” (Haggai 2:19). Marvelous was the fulfillment. In fact, the blessings in view must have exceeded their most daring hopes.

The other prophet of those days had asked, “Who hath despised the day of small things” (Zech. 4:10)? How miserable and poor their efforts seemed to be when they began a second time to build the house of their God. Although they had obeyed the prophets, and had started to build, there was fear in their hearts. They were surrounded by enemies. However, they had trusted in the word of the prophet, who emphatically stated that “the hands of Zerubbabel,” which had “laid the foundation of this house,” should “also finish it,” and that in this way they would know that the Lord of hosts had sent him to them (Zech. 4:9).

Artaxerxes. Some older commentators who identified the Artaxerxes of ch. 4:7 as the false Smerdis, naturally identified Artaxerxes of ch. 6:14 also as the false Smerdis. But the king here mentioned is Artaxerxes I, and for two reasons: 1. It is hardly conceivable that Smerdis would have issued a favorable decree, after having been hostile—all within the 7 months of his reign. 2. Because the Artaxerxes here mentioned is listed in order after Darius. By the time of Ezra, Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes had all issued decrees regarding the Temple and its services. There appears to be a contradiction between the statement that Artaxerxes’ decree was required for the completion of the Temple and the statement in v. 15 that the Temple “was finished” during the reign of Darius. This apparent contradiction may be resolved on the reasonable assumption that Artaxerxes’ beautifying of the house of the Lord (ch. 7:27) was in a very real sense of the word a final finishing of the building of the Temple. Hence Ezra felt justified in including Artaxerxes as the third of three kings whose decrees made possible the restoration of the Temple and of Jerusalem (see chs. 7:27; 9:9).

Mention of the king Artaxerxes in this verse is evidence that the book of Ezra was written, not in the time of Zerubbabel, but in that of Ezra, probably during the reign of Artaxerxes.

15. Finished. The exact day of the completion of the Temple is given, probably also the day of dedication described in vs. 16–18. Adar 3 in the 6th regnal year of Darius I was about March 12, 515 b.c., six weeks before the Passover.

The rebuilding of the Temple from the time the foundation stone had been laid a second time (Kislev 24, 2d year of Darius) to its completion, had therefore occupied about 4 years and 3 months, some 2 years and 3 months shorter than it had taken Solomon to build his Temple. The reason for this difference probably lies in the fact that Solomon had first to prepare a flat surface on which to erect the various buildings belonging to the Temple complex, a task of no small size. Although the present substructures of the Temple area at Jerusalem date from Herodian times or later, as far as they are visible, they reveal the tremendous efforts that must have been made by the early builders to construct a foundation platform on which the Temple and its many auxiliary buildings could be erected. When the exiles returned they probably found that great parts of this substructure were still good enough to use without expensive, time-consuming repair work. Furthermore, the buildings seem to have been less elaborate and numerous than in Solomon’s time, and probably much less lavishly decorated (see ch. 3:12). Also, a certain amount of building had been carried on since the time that the first decree was issued. Some or all of these reasons may have been responsible for the comparatively short period required to build the second Temple.

Concerning the size of the new Temple, the number of subsidiary buildings, their arrangement and outer form, we are completely without information. The Temple of Solomon, or perhaps the ideal temple of Ezekiel (Eze. 40–42), may have served as a pattern for some parts. That this Temple, like Solomon’s, possessed auxiliary buildings, is evident from such texts as Ezra 8:29; Neh. 12:44; 13:4, 5, where certain rooms are mentioned in connection with the Temple. In some of these chambers Temple treasures were kept; others served as offices for certain priests. According to 1 Macc. 4:38 the Temple was surrounded by several courts.

16. Kept the dedication. The report of this feast of dedication is brief, containing only the information that (1) it was a feast of joy, (2) a great number of sacrifices were offered, and (3) the Temple servants, priests, and Levites carried out the services prescribed by the law of Moses from that day forth. Music no doubt played a major role in the activities of the day of dedication, inasmuch as there had been much singing connected with similar occasions in earlier times (see 1 Chron. 16:4–36; 2 Chron. 29:25–29).

17. An hundred bullocks. The number of sacrifices offered during this dedication service is small in comparison with similar services celebrated during the reigns of Solomon (1 Kings 8:63), Hezekiah (2 Chron. 30:24), and Josiah (2 Chron. 35:7). Hundreds now take the place of the thousands previously offered.

All Israel. In v. 16 the congregation is referred to as “the children of Israel.” The writer is careful to present the returned exiles as “Israel,” not merely as “Judah” (see chs. 2:70; 3:1; 4:3; 5:1). The number of he-goats offered was 12 (ch. 6:17), the number of tribes in the undivided kingdom. We may assume that representatives of every tribe had returned with Zerubbabel, and that consequently it was possible to regard the re-established people as “Israel” (see Neh. 11:20; Jer. 50:4; Eze. 37:15–19; Zech. 8:13; Mal. 1:1). However, the great majority of the repatriated exiles were of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and were accordingly more commonly spoken of as “Judah” (Ezra 4:1, 6; 5:1; Zech. 8:15). Desirous of emphasizing the nobler and grander view, of seeing in the congregation the remnants of the whole people of God, Zerubbabel ordered this solemn sin offering of 12 he-goats, one for each of the tribes. Ezra followed the same procedure when he arrived in Jerusalem with the second group of exiles some 60 years later (Ezra 8:35).

18. Priests in their divisions. The completion of the new Temple was naturally followed by an arrangement of the ministers of the Temple, corresponding to that originally made by David (see 1 Chron. 23:6–23; 24:1–9). This arrangement was based upon the ordinances of the law concerning the respective offices of the two orders—priests and Levites—as given in the book of Numbers (chs. 3:6–10; 8:6–26), but the “courses” themselves were not established till David’s time.

19. Kept the passover. It should be noted that wish this verse the author returns to the use of Hebrew, and continues in Hebrew till ch. 7:11. That Ezra wrote parts of his book in Hebrew and parts in Aramaic may probably be most simply explained by the fact that both languages were well known to the Jews. Aramaic was the language common to the Persian Empire. Official decrees were written in it.

A number of particularly solemn Passovers were celebrated in Jewish history, and these were accorded special attention by the writers of the Bible. Such are the Passover celebrated by Hezekiah after his cleansing of the Temple (2 Chron. 30), and that celebrated by Josiah after the completion of his reform (2 Chron. 35). Both of these Passovers accompanied a revival of Temple worship after a period of apostasy. Ezra places in the same category the Passover following the dedication of the new Temple. This does not mean that the exiles had not celebrated the Passover prior to the year 515 b.c., since Ezra 3:5 contains the information that they observed “all the set feasts of the Lord” as soon as they arrived in their homeland. However, this first Passover after the completion of the building of the new Temple marked the full re-establishment of the regular ordinances of religion, more or less interrupted from the time of the destruction of the first Temple.

Fourteenth day. The day fixed by the law of Moses (see Ex. 12:6). This was about April 21, 515 b.c.

20. Purified together. The translation of v. 20 as given in the KJV and RSV is probably correct, though the following has been defended by a number of commentators: “For the priests had purified themselves, while the Levites were all pure, as one man.” Those who follow the latter translation believe that the Levites are the ones referred to in the second half of v. 20 as killing the Passover for both priests and laymen, being more completely sanctified than the priests. Such a situation is described in 2 Chron. 29:34, where the Levites in the time of Hezekiah are described as being more upright in heart than the priests. However, most translators follow the KJV reading. This reading makes no difference between the priests and Levites, holding that both classes of Temple attendants were equally prepared for this solemn occasion, and presents priests and Levites as working together in the slaying of the Passover lambs.

21. Separated themselves. Having mentioned the returned exiles, Ezra here refers to a second group of Israelites as taking part in the celebration of the Passover. These must have been some of “the poor of the land,” left behind by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 b.c. “to be vinedressers and husbandmen” (2 Kings 25:12). During the long years of exile, when the priests and religious leaders were in Babylon, these ignorant, poor people seem to have accepted many pagan practices. The exiles had gained a new religious experience in the school of tribulation under the wholesome influence of men like Daniel and Ezekiel. Accordingly they required those who had not been to Babylon to reform their lives in order to belong to the new state. Some of those here referred to may have been foreigners who wholeheartedly accepted the religion of the Jews, and were received into the congregation of the Jews as equals. As at the time of the Exodus, provision was made for all of those who desired to join God’s people, to do so.

22. Feast of unleavened bread. This was observed for one week, as required by the law (Ex. 12:15; 13:7; Lev. 23:6). On the spiritual meaning of the feast see 1 Cor. 5:8.

King of Assyria. It is generally understood that Darius is meant here, and it is surprising to find him called “king of Assyria.” It is true that the Persian kings never called themselves “King of Assyria,” although from Cyrus until Xerxes they bore the title “King of Babylon” in addition to their other titles. Since Babylon had been part of Assyria for centuries, but had finally replaced that empire, occupying all its former possessions, it is possible that the name Assyria is here used as a synonym for Babylonia (see on 2 Kings 23:29).

According to another interpretation, Assyria here is simply a designation for the great power of Western Asia, whether at the time the statement was made this power might be Babylonia, Persia, or some other power. Support for this view is found in recently discovered documents of the intertestament period, in which the Seleucid kings are called Assyrians.

Ellen G. White comments

1, 2 PK 579

3–5PK 558

7–10, 12PK 579

8–12PK 598; TM 203

14   DA 233; GC 326; PK 607, 698

14–17, 19PK 596