Courier New;
It appeareth then that Zerubbabel and Joshua, with the people, did resolve on the matter quickly; for in three weeks and three days they are at the work, as is evident; on the first day Haggai preached, Haggai 1:1, on the twenty-fourth day of the month the people are at work, Haggai 1:15. Darius: see Haggai 1:1. Now this Darius was not Darius Nothus, but Darius Hystaspes, as will appear by considering well the following scheme of years, from the captivity to the particular years of each of these two Dariuses. Suppose we therefore the computation of these years, according to either of these schemes, it will appear that there is no likelihood this Darius in the text should be Darius Nothus. Helvicus. Usher. Captivity 3350 3398. Temple burnt 3360 3416. Cyrus's decree 3420 3468. The decree of Darius, Nothus 3529 Hystaspes 3485. This latter account begins the captivity at the fourth year of Jehoiakim. the former begins it at the first of Jeconiah's reign, as Ezekiel also doth, Ezekiel 1:2, Ezekiel 40:1. Hence that difference which is in the account of the years between the beginning of the captivity and the burning of the temple; the former account makes it eleven years, the latter makes it eighteen, for it begins seven years sooner. In what follows, we shall find both agreeing well enough to clear the unlikelihood of Darius Nothus being the king intended here. Both accounts make the captivity to end in the seventieth year, according to the Scripture. But now the former account makes it one hundred and nine years between Cyrus's decree and Darius's decree; all which time the temple by this account lay desolate, without a prophet to stir them up to their duty of building the temple. Now is this probable? can it be reasonably supposed that the temple should so long lie waste after they were sent out of Babylon purposely to build it? or that they should be so long in that condition without a prophet? But now the latter account reckons seventeen years between Cyrus's and Darius's decree for building the temple, a space of time easily conceived likely to pass while the Jews did not build; nay, were forbidden by Cambyses, (in Scripture called Artaxerxes,) viceroy to his father Cyrus, (engaged in foreign wars,) all the time Cyrus lived after he gave out the decree, which some make more, some less, but those who make the likeliest guess, for aught I know, make it five years. Whether Cyrus, taken up with these wars, did know of this prohibition, or thought not good to take it off till he returned conqueror, I know not; but he died and left this bar on the work, which continued all Cambyses's reign, and unto the second year of his successor Darius Hystaspes. Now if this were seventeen the most, some say but fifteen, others but twelve years, it is very probable, whereas one hundred and nine years is utterly improbable. Besides this, let us view what age those many or few were of, by these different accounts, who lived to see the temple re-edified. If in Darius Nothus's time, they could be no less than one hundred and eighty-five, allowing them to be sixteen at the burning of the temple, thus; sixteen when the temple was burnt, thence sixty to Cyrus's decree, and thence one hundred and nine to Darius Nothus's decree. But by the latter account their age amounts but to ninety-five years, which appears thus; sixteen at the time the temple was burnt, thence sixty to Cyrus's decree, thence seventeen to Darius Hystaspes's decree; in all ninety-five, which though a great age, yet not improbable at that time, though the other (one hundred and eighty-five) be improbable. Besides, how few through one hundred and sixty-nine years can distinctly remember what they saw and took notice of at sixteen, or could make that judgment of the disproportion between the two temples! Haggai 2:3. Or can it be supposed that Zecaraiah Zec 1:12) would have accounted but seventy years desolation, when he might have more than doubled the years, and have reckoned one hundred and sixty-nine years? would not the argument thus have been more moving?