Ezra 6: 1 – 22
Original Intent
6 Then King Darius issued a decree, and a search was made in the archives, where the treasures were stored in Babylon. 2 And at Achmetha, in the palace that is in the province of Media, a scroll was found, and in it a record was written thus: 3 In the first year of King Cyrus, King Cyrus issued a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem: “Let the house be rebuilt, the place where they offered sacrifices; and let the foundations of it be firmly laid, its height sixty cubits and its width sixty cubits, 4 with three rows of heavy stones and one row of new timber. Let the expenses be paid from the king’s treasury. 5 Also let the gold and silver articles of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple which is in Jerusalem and brought to Babylon, be restored and taken back to the temple which is in Jerusalem, each to its place; and deposit them in the house of God”— 6 Now therefore, Tattenai, governor of the region beyond the River, and Shethar-Boznai, and your companions the Persians who are beyond the River, keep yourselves far from there. 7 Let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God on its site. 8 Moreover I issue a decree as to what you shall do for the elders of these Jews, for the building of this house of God: Let the cost be paid at the king’s expense from taxes on the region beyond the River; this is to be given immediately to these men, so that they are not hindered. 9 And whatever they need—young bulls, rams, and lambs for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the request of the priests who are in Jerusalem—let it be given them day by day without fail, 10 that they may offer sacrifices of sweet aroma to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and his sons. 11 Also I issue a decree that whoever alters this edict, let a timber be pulled from his house and erected, and let him be hanged on it; and let his house be made a refuse heap because of this. 12 And may the God who causes His name to dwell there destroy any king or people who put their hand to alter it, or to destroy this house of God which is in Jerusalem. I Darius issue a decree; let it be done diligently. 13 Then Tattenai, governor of the region beyond the River, Shethar-Boznai, and their companions diligently did according to what King Darius had sent. 14 So the elders of the Jews built, and they 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 command of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia. 15 Now the temple was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius. 16 Then the children of Israel, the priests and the Levites and the rest of the descendants of the captivity, celebrated the dedication of this house of God with joy. 17 And they offered sacrifices at the dedication of this house of God, one hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs, and as a sin offering for all Israel twelve male goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. 18 They assigned the priests to their divisions and the Levites to their divisions, over the service of God in Jerusalem, as it is written in the Book of Moses. 19 And the descendants of the captivity kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month. 20 For the priests and the Levites had purified themselves; all of them were ritually clean. And they slaughtered the Passover lambs for all the descendants of the captivity, for their brethren the priests, and for themselves. 21 Then the children of Israel who had returned from the captivity ate together with all who had separated themselves from the filthof the nations of the land in order to seek the LORD God of Israel. 22 And they kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with joy; for the LORD made them joyful and turned the heart of the king of Assyria toward them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.
Original intent is a theory in law concerning constitutional and statutory interpretation. It is frequently used as a synonym for originalism; while original intent is indeed one theory in the originalist family, it has some notable differences which has led originalists from more predominant schools of thought such as original meaning to distinguish original intent as much as legal realists do.
Original intent maintains that in interpreting a text, a court should determine what the authors of the text were trying to achieve, and to give effect to what they intended the statute to accomplish, the actual text of the legislation.
Despite the potential confusion of terms between the original Intent and originalism, other schools of Originalist thought have been as critical of original intent as non-Originalists.
Original intent presumes that there is a single, unified intent behind a text. In the case of the United States Constitution, the Philadelphia Convention was composed of over fifty men, who spent an entire summer compromising and arguing over provisions that were interpreted very differently the moment the Constitution's text became public. It is far from clear, therefore, that those fifty-plus men had – i.e., agreed upon – a single original intent of the text, or whether their purposes in drafting the Constitution were predicated on personal self-interest. (There is no meaning from an originalist perspective without intent. That is, it is impossible to interpret anything which has no intent, according to originalism. Lawmakers either have no intent, one intent, or multiple intents. But these multiple intents are always consistent, otherwise the law can have no meaning.)
Even if the Convention did have a single, unified intent, it is unclear how it could reliably be determined from two centuries' distance. (That may be, but what can often be determined is that an interpretation being considered is inconsistent with the original intent even though the exact intent is not known.)
Many of the clauses of the Constitution are relative, and thus specifically defy any claim that it is possible to divine a single, indisputable outcome to any specific problem or dispute. Key passages in the Constitution were originally cast as flexible evaluations, such as "due process," a phrase that suggests the definitions, requirements and dimensions of court or other governmental proceedings enough in any given context to permit citizens to be deprived of their rights were never intended to be fixed forever. (A single indisputable decision is never the outcome using any other jurisprudence. This is an argument against making any decision at all. The judge must merely make his best effort to decide in a manner which is consistent with the intent of the framers or authors of legislation, so far as he can ascertain it.)
In the case of US Federal Law, law is made by majority vote in two chambers, and is then signed by the President. 536 people are therefore potentially involved in this process, and not one of them needs to share the same intentions as any other of them to play their part in ratifying the bill. They need only vote; their vote will count the same if they share the same intent as their colleagues, if they do not share the intent of their colleagues, and indeed, if they have no particular intention, and are voting solely because their party whip handed them a note saying "be on the Senate floor at 9:36pm and say 'Aye'." Their vote will count even if they have not even read the bill under consideration. All of which is to say that giving effect to the intent of the legislature not only presumes that there is a singular intent – no less dubious an assertion where statutes are concerned than where the Constitution is – but, worse yet, the very diversity of these bodies may permit a judge to corrupt his inquiry by finding a floor statement or committee report which suggests an intent that the Judge thinks would be a good result. (The intent can be ascertained so far as the authors of the legislation or other less authoritative contemporary sources said what it was)
Original intent may fall afoul of formalist theories of law, which explicitly decline interest in how a law is made, an inquiry which is obviously at the core of an original intent inquiry.
Original intent cannot be reconciled against Textualism. Most of those who are originalists in Constitutional matters are also textualists in statutory matters, and textualism rejects the value of the intentions of the legislature in passing a text. If one adopts originalism as an "error-correcting lens which fits over textualism to account for the passage of time," one cannot adopt an originalist theory which is incoherent with the underlying textualism
Now I know you know what ‘original intent’ is, right? The answer is ‘of course not’. But living in a cursed world something must be done in order to provide some kind of protective measures.
Today we are going to see this term in action. As you remember Cyrus the Persian ruler declared that the Israelites were free to go back home and to rebuild their Temple. Now time has passed, and other kings have arisen to sit on the throne. This motivated evil folk to come and challenge that the edict was not interpreted correctly. The trouble maker influenced Tattenai, governor of the region to make the inquirer to Darius the current ruler of the known world. At first I thought Tattenai was a bad guy but as we study the chapter we find out that he was just doing his job. Once Darius searched the archives and found the original edict by his Persian ancestor Cyrus, the original intent was accurate and after being informed Tattenai fully obeyed the follow-up directions.
6 Then King Darius issued a decree, and a search was made in the archives, where the treasures were stored in Babylon.
In response to Tattenai’s suggestion Darius initiated a search for the decree concerning the building of the Temple in Jerusalem and gave orders that it be discovered. But a search of the house of archives in the treasure house of Babylon seemingly produced no result.
2 And at Achmetha, in the palace that is in the province of Media, a scroll was found, and in it a record was written thus:
So, attention was turned to the palace at Achmetha (Ecbatana). Ecbatana was a magnificent city (see Judith 1.1-4) and the former capital city of the Median Empire. It had become the summer residence of the Persian kings and was in the province of Media In its archives was found a scroll in which was recorded the decree which was being sought. What follows was presumably recorded in Darius’ reply to Tattenai.
3 In the first year of King Cyrus, King Cyrus issued a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem: “Let the house be rebuilt, the place where they offered sacrifices; and let the foundations of it be firmly laid, its height sixty cubits and its width sixty cubits, 4 with three rows of heavy stones and one row of new timber. Let the expenses be paid from the king’s treasury.
These words were probably taken from the preamble to the decree. It made clear that the decree in question was made in the first year of Cyrus, and thus within a short time of his conquest of Babylon.
Large numbers of scholars now agree that this decree was genuine. It was written in Aramaic and bears all the hallmarks of a Persian document of the time. It was a different decree from the one mentioned in 1.2-4. That was for public consumption. This one was to be filed away as a record and recorded the details of what Cyrus required with respect to the building of the Temple.
In it Cyrus declared that ‘concerning the house of God at Jerusalem’, the house was to be rebuilt on its holy site, the place where sacrifices had been offered, and its foundations were to be fixed, that is, in the same place as the previous foundations. His concern was to make use of the ancient sacredness of the site for the benefit of his realm. He wanted sacrifices to be offered there as a sweet savour to the God of Heaven while the priests and people prayed for the life of the king and for his sons (verse 10). The sacredness of the site would ensure God’s response. He made a similar request to Marduk, the god of Babylon, and to other gods throughout his realm. He was seeking to get the gods on his side and keep the people happy at the same time.
The building of the Temple was not, however, just a vague command. He wanted to have some say in how large it would be. So some details of how it was to be built were recorded, although the main detail was left to the builders who could call on the knowledge of people who had seen Solomon’s Temple (3.12). It was to have a height of sixty cubits, and a breadth of sixty cubits. In other words, it was to be twice as large as Solomon’s Temple, as befitted a Persian king. (Solomon’s Temple was thirty cubits high and twenty cubits broad (1 Kings 6.2) but with side rooms at each side of five cubits (1 Kings 6.6), making thirty cubits in all). It was to be built with three courses of stones followed by one of timber, the same pattern presumably being repeated again and again. It would thus be massive, while protected against earthquakes. The courses of timber would enable it to respond to earth movement. The details of the whole were left for the builders to decide.
This was not intended to be a detailed building plan and we need not therefore ask why its length is not given. That was already determined by the length of Solomon’s Temple (sixty cubits in length (1 Kings 6.2) plus additional for the porch and the back rooms (1 Kings 6.3, 16). This might be having the intention of making a perfect cube, 60 x 60 x 60. It may simply be symbolic with no intention of carrying it out. The cost of the whole was to be borne by the Persian treasury. Cyrus undoubtedly expected that the benefits that would accrue to him and his house for honouring the God of Heaven would far outweigh the cost of building. This generosity towards the restoration of Temples is paralleled elsewhere. The kings of Persia were prepared to pay generously for the support of the gods.
5 Also let the gold and silver articles of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple which is in Jerusalem and brought to Babylon, be restored and taken back to the temple which is in Jerusalem, each to its place; and deposit them in the house of God”—
Furthermore the Temple vessels of gold and silver, which had been appropriated by Nebuchadnezzar, were to be restored to the house of God in Jerusalem. All was to be restored as formerly. The God of Heaven was to be fully satisfied that His house and everything in it was as before, courtesy of the kings of Persia. The minutiae of ritual were to be scrupulously followed, thus ensuring maximum benefit for the realm. Following the correct ritual would have been important.
Having established what was in the decree of Cyrus, king Darius now issued his instructions to Tattenai and his colleagues on how they are to proceed. Not only were the returnees to be allowed to complete the building of the house of God, but they were to be assisted out of state revenues. Furthermore, they were to be provided with everything that was necessary in order to fully satisfy the God of Heaven, in the form of offerings and sacrifices, and all that pertained to them. Darius was clearly well informed concerning the requirements. He would have had many Jewish advisers.
6 Now therefore, Tattenai, governor of the region beyond the River, and Shethar-Boznai, and your companions the Persians who are beyond the River, keep yourselves far from there.
Note the formal nature of the address. It follows exactly the pattern of the original letter addressed to Darius (5.6). And it informed Tattenai and his assistants that they were to leave the builders alone to get on with what they were doing. That would not, of course, mean that they were not to check up on how the work was going, but that they should not interfere in any way while it was going smoothly.
7 Let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God on its site.
The enemies of the Jews now found themselves confounded. Darius expressly states that the work is to be carried out by his duly appointed governor (Zerubbabel) and by the elders of the Jews. And they were to be left alone to carry on with the work, which now had the sanction of the current monarch. It thus had double sanction.
The building was to be built ‘In its place.’ That is on the long revered holy site of the Temple. There is a constant requirement that it be built on the very site of the original Temple. This was holy ground and would, in Persian eyes, ensure that the God of Heaven was well pleased.
8 Moreover I issue a decree as to what you shall do for the elders of these Jews, for the building of this house of God: Let the cost be paid at the king’s expense from taxes on the region beyond the River; this is to be given immediately to these men, so that they are not hindered.
What was more the elders of the Jews had to be given all financial assistance for the work out of the tribute, customs duties and rents which were gathered for the king’s treasury in the district of Beyond the River, so that nothing would hinder its completion. This went beyond what Cyrus had offered in 1.4.
The importance of this comes out when we compare the situation at the commencement of the construction of the Temple. Both Haggai and Zechariah emphasize that the work is to be carried on even in the face of financial hardship. But as God had said, ‘the silver is Mine and the gold is Mine’ (Haggai 2.8). And now He was proving it. They had commenced in poverty, but now they would complete the work with plenty. It is a reminder to us that if we are faithful to God with what we have, He will often supply a hundredfold.
9 And whatever they need—young bulls, rams, and lambs for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the request of the priests who are in Jerusalem—let it be given them day by day without fail, 10 that they may offer sacrifices of sweet aroma to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and his sons.
Furthermore, not only were they to be given financial assistance for the building of the house of God, but also in order that all sacrifices and offerings considered necessary by the priests might be offered. They were to be provided with young bullock, rams and lambs to make whole burnt offerings to the God of Heaven, along with all the grain, salt, wine and oil that was necessary. The king clearly had well informed advice. These sacrificial requisites were unfailingly to be provided day by day, so that their sweet savor might reach the God of Heaven, ensuring the success of their prayers for the lives of the king and his sons.
11 Also I issue a decree that whoever alters this edict, let a timber be pulled from his house and erected, and let him be hanged on it; and let his house be made a refuse heap because of this.
Darius then enforces his decree by calling for severe penalties on any who seek to prevent it being carried out or who seek to water it down. The idea may be of impalement, a recognized form of Persian punishment. The taking of the beam out of his house would ensure the collapse of the house, and this is confirmed by the fact that it is to become a dunghill. Thus, would he be punished for hindering the work on God’s house.
12 And may the God who causes His name to dwell there destroy any king or people who put their hand to alter it, or to destroy this house of God which is in Jerusalem. I Darius issue a decree; let it be done diligently.
We have here a further indication of self-interest. The only kings and peoples who would put forth their hands to destroy Jerusalem, in view of his decrees, would be those who were enemies of Persia, and he is seeking God’s help in their overthrow. At the same time, he is demonstrating to God his own deep concern for His house. Surely in the light of this God will look kindly on the house of Darius.
Darius ends his decree by emphasizing that it is one that he has made (contrast 4.21) and that it should therefore be carried out with due diligence. The instruction is clear. There is to be no delay in carrying it out.
13 Then Tattenai, governor of the region beyond the River, Shethar-Boznai, and their companions diligently did according to what King Darius had sent.
The carrying out of the decree is summarized in one verse. Because Darius had sent his decree, Tattenai and his associates, responded with due diligence and fulfilled all that was required.
14 So the elders of the Jews built, and they 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 command of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
The elders of the Jews both built and prospered because of the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah. 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 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 (7.13) which resulted in Ezra himself arriving in Jerusalem, with further provision for the Temple (7.15-23; 8.24-30), establishing the Law of Moses (7.25).
15 Now the temple was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.
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). 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.
16 Then the children of Israel, the priests and the Levites and the rest of the descendants of the captivity, celebrated 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’, 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.
17 And they offered sacrifices at the dedication of this house of God, one hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs, and as a sin offering for all Israel twelve male 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. It will be noted that seven hundred in all are offered, the number of divine perfections 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 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 (8.35).
18 They assigned the priests to their divisions and the Levites to their divisions, over the service of God in Jerusalem, as it is written in the Book of Moses.
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.
This would not have been the first Passover celebrated since the return, it would have been observed every year. But this was an unusually joyous one, for it was the first Passover that they had celebrated in connection with their new Temple. Now they really felt that Israel was established in the land. They now met as a pure people free from the taints of foreign surroundings, and with their worship established. It was now over a month since the Temple had been dedicated.
19 And the descendants of the captivity kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month.
As was required in the book of Moses they who had returned from exile observed the Passover on the fourteenth day of Nisan, the first month of their religious calendar, along with all in the land who had maintained their pure worship of YHWH (verse 21).
20 For the priests and the Levites had purified themselves; all of them were ritually clean. And they slaughtered the Passover lambs for all the descendants of the captivity, for their brethren the priests, and for themselves.
It had become the custom at this time for the Levites to have a part to play in the celebration of the Passover. This comes out in 2 Chronicles 35 where Josiah called on them to sanctify themselves in readiness for their service at the Passover. In readiness for this service the priests and Levites here purified themselves together. This would partly be through avoiding all that was unclean, and partly by washing their clothes and abstaining from sex. The result was that all of them were pure. Thus they were in a position to kill the Passover lambs for all those who had returned from exile, and for any of their brothers the priests who were not in a state to be able to kill the lambs, for example the ones who had not been able to prove their ancestry, and those who were disabled.
21 Then the children of Israel who had returned from the captivity ate together with all who had separated themselves from the filthof the nations of the land in order to seek the LORD God of Israel.
Thus all the returned exiles partook of the Passover, along with all in the land who had either remained faithful to YHWH, and all, either Jew or Gentile, who had forsaken their unclean ways and their idolatry in order to seek YHWH, the God of Israel. All such ate of the Passover.
22 And they kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with joy; for the LORD made them joyful and turned the heart of the king of Assyria toward them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.
And following the Passover they observed the seven days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread as was the usual practice (Leviticus 23.4-8). And they did it with especial joy because they had been enabled to complete the building of the Temple and were now able to use it for worship. And this was because YHWH had ‘turned the heart of the king of Assyria’, namely Darius.
But why should he be called the King of Assyria here? We have seen Cyrus called, in this book, the King of Persia (1.1, 2). And he is also called King of Babylon (5.13) because he righted what the former king of Babylon had done. And this did, of course, mean that he was the King of Assyria, for he ruled over the former Babylonian empire which had conquered Assyria. He was also in non-Biblical records called King of Egypt, King of Sumer and Akkad, and King of Anshan to name but three. However, we still must ask the question, why the writer should use this title of Darius here? One probable reason is that it was the kings of Assyria who had initially defiled the Temple. It was they who had ‘persuaded’ Ahaz to introduce a false altar into it, certainly connected with false gods (2 Kings 16.10-15; 2 Chronicles 28.23, 25). Equally certainly it was the Assyrians who had caused Manasseh to install the worship of the host of heaven in the Temple (2 Kings 21.3-5; 2 Chronicles 33.3). Furthermore, the kings of Assyria are mentioned in Nehemiah as ones who had initially ‘brought trouble on Israel’ (Nehemiah 9.32). Thus, comparing the situation with that of Babylon in 5.13, it would have been only poetic justice that a king who was ‘King of Assyria’, should be the one who assisted in the building of a new pure Temple. It revealed the hand of God.
There are also grounds for thinking that at this time Assyria had become the symbol of great and proud empire (as Babylon would later), and certainly the Persian kings saw themselves as successors to both the Assyrian and the Babylonian empires.
