Nope. Same king. That entry is just a commentary on a yet future event.So the Artaxerxes in Ezra 4 is not the same as Nehemiah 1, because in Nehemiah 1 he is in his 20th year of reign, which does not fit with Ezra 4 (or your date)
Nope. Same king. That entry is just a commentary on a yet future event.So the Artaxerxes in Ezra 4 is not the same as Nehemiah 1, because in Nehemiah 1 he is in his 20th year of reign, which does not fit with Ezra 4 (or your date)
Nope?Nope. Same king. That entry is just a commentary on a yet future event.
Nope. That particular entry was a future event. It was simply added into the commentary at some point for reference.Nope?
Ezra 4 is quite unequivocal. in 537BC the work stops on account of a letter sent to 'King Artaxerxes', and does not recommence until the second year of Darius, 521BC.
The 20th year of King Artaxerxes can therefore be no later than 501BC.
Nope. That particular entry was a future event. It was simply added into the commentary at some point for reference.
Nothing added, not a huge page of added info
So a king is not allowed to change his mind?Nope?
Ezra 4 is quite unequivocal. in 537BC the work stops on account of a letter sent to 'King Artaxerxes', and does not recommence until the second year of Darius, 521BC.
The 20th year of King Artaxerxes can therefore be no later than 501BC.
I am finding it very hard to give credibility to the dates you propose.538 - 515BC - Ezra 1-6.......First return.
483 - 473BC - Esther and book of Esther
457BC - Ezra 7-10.....Second return
444 - 425BC - Nehemiah, Book of Nehemiah........Third return.
The period between the first seige of Nebuchadnezzar 606BC and the decree of Cyrus 537BC is precisely 25,200 days, or exactly 70 - 360 day years.538 - 515BC - Ezra 1-6.......First return.
483 - 473BC - Esther and book of Esther
457BC - Ezra 7-10.....Second return
444 - 425BC - Nehemiah, Book of Nehemiah........Third return.
Nope?
Ezra 4 is quite unequivocal. in 537BC the work stops on account of a letter sent to 'King Artaxerxes', and does not recommence until the second year of Darius, 521BC.
The 20th year of King Artaxerxes can therefore be no later than 501BC.
So you are clearly telling me I need something outside scripture to understand scripture? Can you not see a problem with this? Do you not think that's a red flag?Hi Jimbone.
All you need to do is diligently persistent in studying this admittedly complex topic. Give it time. God willing one of these days that lightbulb is going to go off in your head and you will have your very own eureka moment.
By the way........TheDivineWatermark is undoubtedly correct in this matter. Just to let you know I agree with everything he is stating with no dispute whatsoever.
As for me Scripture is like a 3D model (30 year engineering background). It is like an assembly, a series of patterns, of codes, of elements. One and only one assembly fits together perfectly! There are no missing pieces, no square pegs in round holes, and no leftover pieces.
And that "model" is the 69 weeks to TE/Church age "gap"/pre-trib rapture/70th week tribulation/Second Coming-premillennial-reconstitution of Israel iteration.
Nothing else even comes to this level of perfection because nothing else is correct!
Who was taken off the world in the flood? The righteous or the wicked? No matter how you try to spin the water lifting the arc into the "air" like us in the rapture, but the FACT is the wicked were removed and the righteous stayed on earth. Why do you flip this to keep your "3D model like thinking" to make it fit the pre trib view?
Nothing about Ezra 4 is unequivocal! It appears to be a brief history, overall, of the opposition to the work of rebuilding the temple up until the time of Darius. The only problem is, Artaxerxes, and opposition in his time, is mentioned too, even though his reign *followed* Darius.
So the answer may be that the history of Artaxerxes is simply "fit" into the history up to Darius, to include some of the later history of opposition to the building, and then returning to the end point at Darius' reign. Or, the kings named may have had more than one name.
I remain confident that Artaxerxes followed the reign of Darius, even though in this chapter his history is listed in the accounts of opposition. After all, opposition continued well after the reign of Darius. And even though Artaxerxes may have seen this opposition, and even participated in it, he ultimately determined to continue the original mandate of Cyrus, to decree the completion of the city of Jerusalem. That decree was apparently in 456 or 457 BC.
Here's how one author addresses that chapter (Ezra 4)... brief excerpt:
"The chapter then closes with the statement, “Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezra 4:24). This last verse, however, connects itself with verse 5, and gives the result of the enemy’s opposition of which verses 4 and 5 contain a general summary. The parenthesis [which he's calling vv.6-23, I think] gives the details of the way in which Artaxerxes was prevailed upon to issue his decree."
--Edward B. Dennett, Bible Truth Publishers - https://www.bibletruthpublishers.co...on-ezra-4/edward-b-dennett/e-dennett/la146718 [bracketed insert mine]
[and from an earlier paragraph...]
"It will be perceived that these two verses (4 and 5) are a summary of the activity of the foes of Israel during the reigns of Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes; and that therefore verse 24 is connected with verse 5 [re: v.3's "build an house unto our God"], the intervening passage being a parenthesis which gives an account of the way in which the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin succeeded in their designs. Moreover it would seem, from a careful comparison of the prophecies of Haggai with this chapter that the children of Israel ceased to build long before the prohibition was obtained; for it is evident from Haggai 2:15 that they had made but little, if any, progress after the foundation was completed."
--Edward B. Dennett, Bible Truth Publishers [same article; bracketed insert mine]
[the way I understand it is that Cyrus's decree had to do with "build A HOUSE" / "the house of the Lord"]
But that is not even stretching a point - it goes really against the text
...5 And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia..........
24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
Well its bugging me now. lol
Josephus (effectively) says Artaxerxes is Cambyses which makes total sense in the context ....... to me
Nah... I see it more like this:
"...to frustrate their purpose, all the days of President Ford, even unto the reign of [era of] President G.W. Bush"
...since it's talking about a spans of time (that this problem existed), it's not exactly making the point like: "up until G.W. Bush was ELECTED and BECAME President"... it's saying, this problem existed a long spans of time... and then v.24 is giving the actual point in time [/time-stamp], see. "... it ceased unto the second year OF the reign of Darius king of Persia."
I'm not sure myself of all this. Artaxerxes is a royal title, as well as a specific name of a king. So the word "Artaxerxes" could be applied to some king between Cyrus and Darius. But I don't believe Artaxerxes--THE Artaxerxes, was Cambyses, unless the word "Artaxerxes" is only being applied as a title to him.
The context in Ezra 4 seems to be about preventing building of the temple. Artaxerxes was involved in perpetuating the temple restoration, as well as overseeing the building of the walls of Jerusalem, including various buildings afterwards. He could, conceivably, be fit parenthetically back into the history of temple opposition between the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, since he also had to overcome opposition to the temple worship.
Ezra 7.12 Artaxerxes, king of kings, To Ezra the priest, teacher of the Law of the God of heaven: Greetings.
13 Now I decree that any of the Israelites in my kingdom, including priests and Levites, who volunteer to go to Jerusalem with you, may go...
17 With this money be sure to buy bulls, rams and male lambs, together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and sacrifice them on the altar of the temple of your God in Jerusalem.