This doesn't seem exactly right either...
because in 4:7,8,11,12-16, some bad dudes write a letter "to Artaxerxes the king" telling him [likely embellishing (i.e.
LYING)] "that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem
building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations." Then the letter goes on to say, "Let it now be known to the king that
if that city is rebuilt and its walls are restored, they will not pay tribute, duty, or toll, and the royal treasury will suffer. Now because we are in the service of the palace and it is not fitting for us to allow the king to be dishonored, we have sent to inform the king that a search should be made of the record books of your fathers. In these books you will discover and verify that the city is a rebellious city, harmful to kings and provinces, inciting sedition from ancient times. That is why this city was destroyed. We advise the king
that if this city is rebuilt and its walls are restored, you will have no dominion west of the Euphrates."
The the king responds to that letter by saying (in part), "The letter you sent us has been translated and read in my presence. I issued a decree,
and a search was conducted. It was discovered that this city has revolted against kings from ancient times, engaging in rebellion and sedition. And mighty kings have ruled over Jerusalem and exercised authority over the whole region west of the Euphrates; and tribute, duty, and toll were paid to them.
Now, therefore,
issue an order for these men to stop, so that this city will not be rebuilt
until I so order. See that you do not neglect this matter. Why allow this threat to increase and the royal interests to suffer?"
And then the last verse of this chapter says, "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." See that? There was no evidence that
the city was actually being rebuilt (only "bad guys spreading falsehoods, in order to get them in trouble and prevent what it was they *
were* accomplishing re:
"the work of the house of God" at that point); and the whole context is worded in such a way that it sounds to me as though the king was being *informed* of such a thing re: "the city" (even tho it wasn't actually the case that "the city" was being rebuilt...
only "the house of God")... and that the king says, "[no more build]
UNTIL a commandment be given by me"... which is what we see at the
later time. Does that make sense? (I'm kinda tired atm
)
IOW, the letter would not need to start out (as it does) by saying anything like it is informing the king that they are rebuilding the city, etc, but it does start out that way... If he had decreed that, then just start off the letter by saying, "Uh, mr. king, that was dumb what you just did... and here's why..." but it doesn't in any way acknowledge that he was the initiator... and the last verse only gives evidence on "what we already know" *WAS* decreed (re: "the house of the Lord") up to that point... (work on IT is what "ceased" at that point, per v.24, clearly stated as fact).
1
