Ezra records that Persian king Cyrus II (538-529), in his first regnal year, issued a proclamation to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. In the context of Ezra 1:1-4, cf Ezra 6:1-5, II Chronicles 36:22, is there any basis for us to construe this proclamation to rebuild the Temple as one authorizing rebuilding of the city? There is no language in his proclamation suggesting his call for the rebuilding of the city.

Cyrus II ordered the rebuilding of many temples in an effort to gain popular support for his government. The cuneiform Cyrus Cylinder records that Cyrus II returned foreign exiles to their former homes and established sanctuaries for their images in place of ruined ones (Finegan 1998:266; Pritchard 1955:315-316). In 539 BCE, for example, "all the effigies of the Assyrian gods which had been captured by the Babylonians were returned to their native cities and their temples were rebuilt" (Armstrong 1996:91).

The data imply that the intent of the decree issued by Cyrus II was to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. It was not permission to rebuild the city per se nor its walls but limited specifically to Temple reconstruction. Consequently it was not the one spoken of in Daniel 9:25. This does not rule out, however, that the act of Jews moving to Jerusalem, taking up residence there, and commencing reconstruction of the Temple was not participation in a slow, de facto rebuilding of the city that predated the decree by several decades. Therefore, we must reject Research Hypothesis 1 based on these data.

Decree for Temple Construction to Continue
(Research Hypothesis 2)

During the reign of Darius I provincial officials wrote to the king that the Jews were rebuilding the Temple, not the city nor its walls, and that they claimed their authorization to do so was the decree of Cyrus II (Ezra 5:8; 5:14-17). Upon review of a record from the Cyrus II administration, noting the issuance of a royal decree authorizing the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem, Darius I ordered, "leave this work on the house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews rebuild this house of God on its site" (Ezra 6:7). The rebuilding of Jerusalem was not in issue for its wall was not being rebuilt. During the reign of Darius II the Jews finished rebuilding the Temple and dedicated it.

The decree called for the local opposition to stand down and not to interfere with the building of the house of God. Moreover, the provincial powers that be were to provide resources for the project out of local taxes. While the Jews had begun construction of the Temple during the reign of Cyrus II (538-529) they accomplished little until the beginning of the second year of Darius I (521-485). Four years later, in his sixth regnal year, in 516 BCE, the builders finished construction of the Temple. Ezra records:

This temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar; it was the sixth year of the reign of King Darius. And the sons of Israel, the priests, the Levites and the rest of the exiles, celebrated the dedication of this house of God with joy. (Ezra 6:15 NASB.)

There is no indication in the context of Ezra 6 that Darius I issued a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, its plaza, or moat, or that there was any additional stressful interference by detractors. In context, this decree simply ordered financing for Temple reconstruction and a halt to local interference with the project. The weight of the evidence suggests that the decree by Darius I at Ezra 6:8-12 is not the one spoken of in Daniel 9:25. Therefore, we reject Research Hypothesis 2 based on these data.

Decree for Temple Beautification
(Research Hypothesis 3)

Another generation, about 60 years later, decided they would restore the city's fortifications and commenced to rebuild its walls. The question is when did this occur? The answer has to do with the nature of Ezra 4.

The organization of Ezra is not strictly chronological but topical as well. The account in Ezra 4:6-23, dealing with king Ahasuerus and describing happenings during he time of Artaxerxes I, are insets. The chronological story flow of Ezra 4 ends at Ezra 4:5 with the beginning of the reign of Darius and picks up again at Ezra 4:24 with the second regnal year of king Darius.

Ezra 4:1-23, as a literary unit, summarizes and tells of some the opposition the Jews faced in rebuilding the Temple and the city. This inset section is in chronological order from Cyrus to Artaxerxes I. It ends with governmental halting of the Jewish attempt to rebuild the city by "force of arms" at the order of Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:23).

Paul Kroll, who argues that Ezra 7 is a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, holds that this effort to rebuild Jerusalem occurred before the seventh regnal year of Artaxerxes I (Kroll 1966:10, 19). The account in Ezra 4:7-23, however, does not record when this happened. It could have been before or after the decree of Ezra 7. Kroll assumes the stop order did in fact occur prior to the decree of Ezra 4:7. He also would have us believe that somehow the decree of Ezra 7 has to be the one authorizing rebuilding the city. Artaxerxes I, however, did not issue a decree to rebuild the city until his 20th regnal year 444 (445) BCE (Nehemiah 2:1-8).

The salient question is, who were the Jews who came from Artaxerxes I to Jerusalem and began rebuilding the city? The answer should be no great surprise. Ezra records only one set of Jews early in the king's reign who came up to Jerusalem from Artaxerxes. They were the priest Ezra and those who, in 458 (457) BCE, went with him to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:13). Apparently, this group got caught up in the fervor of their reformed Judaism allowed their zealousness got the best of them and they intentionally committed an ultra vires act. Artaxerxes made it quite clear that he did not want the city rebuilt unless he ordered it so by a decree. This requires the Ezra 4 stop order to follow the Ezra 7 decree.

Charles Voss, in a particularly hash attack on an article by William Dankenbring (Dankenbring 1965), claims that the decree of Ezra 7, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, "was given to Ezra to beautify the Temple" not to rebuild Jerusalem. He argues that Nehemiah 2:1-3, in the context of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, deals with the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Voss 1997). Hoeh, Dankenbring, Kroll, and others linked the decree of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 with the starting date of the prophecy recorded in Daniel 9:25-26 (Hoeh 1959:16-17, 30-31; Dankenbring 1965:9-11, 2003b:40-42; Kroll 1966:9-19, 18-20).

Ezra 7:10 explains why Ezra traveled to Jerusalem in the seventh regnal year of Artaxerxes I:

For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD, and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel. (Ezra 7:10.)

With him traveled a number of people who could help him accomplish his mission. Ezra 7 describes his party:

And some of the sons of Israel and some of the priests, the Levites, the singers, the gatekeepers, and the temple servants went up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes. (Ezra 7:7.)

The trip lasted four months. They departed Susa on Nisan 1 and arrived at Jerusalem on Ab 1. Ezra describes the trip in Ezra 8:1-34 and provides a detailed account of the people putting their religious affairs in order in Ezra 9-10. There is no indication in these passages that Artaxerxes I ordered the Jews to restore the city of Jerusalem.

Consider now the decree of Artaxerxes as set forth in Ezra 7:12-26. The text framed at the right is from the NASB with the text reformatted for readability.

Where in this passage do you read that Artaxerxes I decreed that the city of Jerusalem was to be rebuilt? Where in Ezra 7-10 do you find the king either ordering or authorizing Ezra to restore and rebuild Jerusalem? The silence is deafening. All we have in Ezra 7-10 is the circumstance of the Persian king Artaxerxes issuing a decree permitting the Jewish people in his empire to return to Jerusalem to beautify the Temple and to worship God.

The weight of the evidence suggests that the decree of Artaxerxes I at Ezra 7:12-26 is not the one spoken of in Daniel 9:25. There is no language of rebuilding. While many Christian writers claim that Ezra 7 marks the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem a detailed examination of Ezra 7-10 shows no language whatsoever in support of that claim. The context shows that Ezra simply received permission to beautify the Temple and intensify its worship system. Therefore we must reject Research Hypothesis 3 based on the data.

Decree to Rebuild City Walls and Gates
(Research Hypothesis 4)

Nehemiah, who served as royal cupbearer to Artaxerxes I, was in Shushan (Susa) in the month of Kislev (Chisleu or Chislev) in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I (Nehemiah 1:1). He records that he had received a report from Judah that "the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are burned with fire" (Nehemiah 1:3).

Nehemiah 2:1 reports that in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I a downcast Nehemiah appeared before the king in the month of Nisan. He explained to the curious king that he could not be other than sad when "the city, the place of my fathers' tombs, lies desolate and its gates have been consumed by fire?" (Nehemiah 2:3). He said to the king "send me to Judah, to the city of my father's tombs, that I may rebuild it" (Nehemiah 2:5). He also asked for a supply of timber for the beams for the gates of the fortress which is by the temple, for the wall of the city, and for the house to which he would will go (Nehemiah 2:5, 2:8). The king granted his requests and issued the necessary letters (Nehemiah 2:8).

The conclusion is inescapable. Here there is specific language dealing with rebuilding the city. It is the only decree of Artaxerxes that suggests the rebuilding of the city. Therefore, some writers claim that this is the decree spoken of in Daniel 9. The problem, however, is that the language of this passage in Nehemiah does not suggest that this was the launch of the effort to rebuild Jerusalem. Rather, it implies that it was Nehemiah's request to join the ongoing building of Jerusalem by bringing the necessary materials specifically for construction of walls, gates, and an official residence for the governor.

In context, this decree by Artaxerxes I did not commission the rebuilding of Jerusalem per se. At best it permitted the establishment of fortifications through the rebuilding of city walls and gates and the construction of an official residence for the governor. The king appointed Nehemiah to the task.

The weight of the evidence suggests that the decree of Artaxerxes I at Nehemiah 1 is not the one spoken of in Daniel 9:25. It is certainly plausible, but not more probable than not, as we cannot rule out the plausibility, that this order to rebuild is the decree of Daniel 9. Therefore we must reject Research Hypothesis 4 based on the data.

Summary and Conclusion

The incidental resettlement of the city by Jews constituted a de facto rebuilding of the city, an evolutionary process, extending over many decades. It began long before Artaxerxes issued his two decrees. The decrees in Ezra and Nehemiah either hindered or advanced the process but there is no clear and convincing evidence that any of the four decrees considered in this analysis commissioned the launch of the rebuilding of the city.

Ezra and Nehemiah do not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, any decree specifically to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. What the texts do show is a Jerusalem being built through a process of continuous resettlement from the time of Cyrus the Great and a series of public projects with the support of Persian emperors. The progression of these public projects was the building of the Temple, beautifying it, and the raising up of city walls and erection of gates for protection, in a milieu of local opposition. 

Whatever the intended meaning of Daniel 9, the evidence shows that beyond a reasonable doubt that of the decrees of Ezra and Nehemiah concerning Jerusalem not one qualifies as the one spoken by Daniel the prophet. We must look elsewhere for a solution of the meaning of Daniel 9 and the time and nature of its decree to initiate the rebuilding of the city.