Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
Ezra 6:13-18
The Decree Is Carried Out And The Work On The Temple Is Completed Accompanied By Due Ceremony (Ezra 6:13).
‘Then Tattenai, the governor of Beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai, and their companions, because Darius the king had sent, did accordingly with all diligence.'
The carrying out of the decree is summarised in one verse. Because Darius had sent his decree, Tattenai and his associates, responded with due diligence and fulfilled all that was required.
‘And the elders of the Jews built and prospered, through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they built 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.'
And the consequence was that the elders of the Jews both built and prospered (succeeded admirably) as a result of the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah. The writer concludes where he began (Ezra 5:1). In the end the construction of the Temple was the result of the activities of God's prophets, and the commandment of God, whatever assistance might have been given by the Persians. However, that was not to be overlooked, and so he concludes with the fact that it was ‘in accordance with the decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.' All three therefore worked in harmony, the prophets of God, the God of Israel Himself, and the kings of Persia. God was in control.
At first sight the mention of Artaxerxes might appear unusual. It was Cyrus and Darius who had made the decrees that were carried out. But it was Artaxerxes who made the decree (Ezra 7:13) which resulted in Ezra himself arriving in Jerusalem, with further provision for the Temple (Ezra 7:15; Ezra 8:24), establishing the Law of Moses (Ezra 7:25; compare Ezra 7:1; Ezra 7:6; Ezra 7:10). The writer rightly saw that as the seal on the building of the Temple. Indeed, if it was Ezra who collected together the information in 1-6 and wrote it down, we can perfectly understand why he would want to include mention of his patron and his generosity to the Temple. The order in which the names of the kings are written makes quite clear that the writer knew that Artaxerxes came subsequent to Cyrus and Darius.
‘And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.'
And the building of the house was finally completed on the third day of the month of Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of Darius. Adar was the twelfth month (roughly February/March). The date was presumably on record (it was from the point of view of the Jews a world shaking event), and may well have been engraved on the stones of the Temple. The sixth year of Darius was 516 BC. So the Temple had taken four and a half years in building, commencing from the first preaching of Haggai (Haggai 1:1), a remarkable achievement.
Some have sought to see in this event the end of the ‘seventy years' of Jeremiah 25:12 (destruction of the Temple 587 BC to restoration of the Temple 516 BC) but that was not what Jeremiah said. He was speaking of the destruction of the Babylonian empire. The seventy years was a divinely perfect round number. But if it is to be applied ‘literally' it is far more likely that it was referring to the length of the rule of the Babylonian empire over ‘the nations' including Judah, viz c.605 BC to 539 BC.
‘And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy.'
At the completion of the Temple, a symbol to them that YHWH's rule was once again firmly established over them, the ‘children of Israel' (compare Ezra 3:1; and see Ezra 2:2), who consisted of the priests, the Levites and the rest of the former exiles, observed the day of the dedication of the Temple as a holy day, a day of great joy. YHWH once again ruled in His land, over His people. It should be noted that they saw this as the restoration of the whole of Israel. This is made clear in the next verse where sin offerings are offered for the twelve tribes of Israel. For the equivalent of ‘the priests, the Levites and the rest of the people' compare Ezra 1:5; Ezra 2:70; Ezra 3:8; Ezra 7:7; Ezra 9:1; Ezra 10:5; Nehemiah 8:13; Nehemiah 10:28; Nehemiah 10:34.
‘And they offered at the dedication of this house of God a hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin-offering for all Israel, twelve he-goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel.'
The offerings may appear large, but we must remember that they would be used to provide for the feasting of the people. It was to be a time of great celebration. Bullocks, rams and lambs were the regular sacrificial offerings in Israel (see Leviticus 1-7). It will be noted that seven hundred in all are offered, the number of divine perfection intensified. And together with these were offered as a sin offering for ‘all Israel' (which would probably not be eaten, and would certainly not be eaten by the people) twelve he-goats representing a sin offering for the twelve tribes of Israel. ‘All Israel' were seen as being present at the dedication.
We can compare how at the dedication of the tabernacle in the days of Moses twelve he-goats were offered as a sin offering (each for one tribe of Israel over a twelve day period), along with twelve he-goats for the dedication of the altar (Numbers 7:87). The same would be offered by Ezra on behalf of those who returned with him to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:35).
‘And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem, as it is written in the book of Moses.'
Servicing of ‘the service of God' which is in Jerusalem in readiness for the coming Passover now being required the priests were separated into their divisions and the Levites into their courses for this very purpose. The idea is that the priests and Levites were set apart for the service of God in the same way as they had been by Moses.
The Hebrew equivalent of ‘divisions' only occurs once in 2 Chronicles 35:5 where it refers to the ‘the divisions of the fathers' houses' to which groups of Levites would be allocated in preparation for the Passover under king Josiah. Its application to the priests is therefore unique in Scripture. The Levites were ‘set in their courses', that is, in their families, by David in 1 Chronicles 23:6 ff. Moses had done the same thing with the Levites in Numbers 3:6; Numbers 3:15; Numbers 4:1.
‘As it is written in the book of Moses'. This mainly has in mind the ‘setting -- for the service of God' (and explains the unusual phrase). The new service of God being required the priests and Levites were ‘set for' it as they had been in the book of Moses. The Levites were set apart ‘to do their service in the Tent of Meeting' in Numbers 8:19; Numbers 8:22. They were separated into their courses for their specific tasks in Numbers 3:6; Numbers 3:15; Numbers 4:1. Moses separated the priests to ‘minister in the priests office' in Exodus 28:1; Exodus 29:1. He spoke to the priests of ‘your service in the Tent of Meeting' in Numbers 18:31. The tasks of the priests were also allocated in Numbers 4:16; Numbers 4:28; Numbers 4:33. Thus in a more refined way they were now doing the same thing.
Some suggest that ‘house' should be ‘restored' here reading ‘for the service of the house of God in Jerusalem', but it is not only unnecessary but also takes away somewhat from the pregnant meaning of the phrase. They were appointed to the service of God, not to the service of the Temple, something which in the spiritual thrill of the moment they were fully aware of. And they were so set apart in readiness for the Passover which was to follow.