The Four Decrees

The Decree Given to Nehemiah

(Twentieth Year of Darius, 420 BC) This decree given to Nehemiah, is typically the one chosen by those who reject the decree of Cyrus. They erroneously think that this decree concerns itself with the rebuilding of Jerusalem, whereas the decree of Cyrus only deals with the rebuilding of the temple. But as we shall see, this decree given to Nehemiah has nothing to do with the rebuilding of the city, but only gives Nehemiah permission to rebuild the walls and gates of Jerusalem.

Not Artaxerxes Longimanus

This fourth decree is traditionally attributed to Artaxerxes Longimanus (meaning, “Longhand”). However, it is in reality that of Darius, who is this Artaxerxes. It should be noted that, Longimanus appears nowhere in the Biblical text, and there is little to no archaeological evidence for him. This king only seems to exist in the work of Ptolemy.

Most who reject Cyrus’ decree as the starting point for the beginning of the count for the Seventy Weeks, will choose this decree issued to Nehemiah. They do so because they erroneously believe that it commands the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. It does not. There are several problems with this choice of Ptolemy’s Artaxerxes Longimanus as the king who gave the decree to rebuild Jerusalem.

In an article written for Biblical Archaeology Review, entitled “Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible,” Purdue University scholar Lawrence Mykytiuk lists Artaxerxes Longimanus among the 50 who have been confirmed archaeologically. However, he cites Ezra 4:7 as the Biblical reference to this Artaxerxes Longimanus. This creates a real problem.

The problem is that this Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7 gives the command to stop work on building the city (4:21). Yet, it is supposedly this same Artaxerxes (Longimanus), who decrees to Nehemiah to rebuild the city. You cannot have it both ways.

Apart from this, according to Ptolemy’s List of Kings, Artaxerxes Longimanus ruled Persia from 464 BC to 425 BC. The real problem with this is that Artaxerxes Longimanus ruled Persia more than 50 years after Darius the Great ruled Persia.

It is a stated fact that the temple was finished in the sixth year of Darius’ reign, as recorded in Ezra 6:15, which according to Ptolemy’s dates, was in 515 BC. This is 51 years before Artaxerxes Longimanus takes the throne in 464 BC. So how can Longimanus write a letter, prohibiting the rebuilding of the city, which also stops work on the temple, when he doesn’t come onto the scene for another 50+ years?

If one accepts this date of 444 BC for Artaxerxes Longimanus decree to rebuild Jerusalem, as given to Nehemiah, you must do some fancy figuring to make it work. When we subtract 483 years from 444 BC, we arrive at the date of AD 39. Since this date is well outside the acceptable range of dates for the time of Christ, they must do some recalculations. They recalculate the 483 years down to 476 years. They do this by converting the 360 day year they claim was used by the ancient Jews, into our 365.25 day solar calendar. This brings them to AD 32/33, which we will see, is still beyond the dates for the time of Messiah.

So the fact of the matter is, the dates given for Artaxerxes Longimanus, if such a person did exist, are well outside the bounds of being a possible contender for the start of the counting of the Seventy Weeks. Besides the dates being off, this date for the decree of Longimanus is 72 years after the completion of the temple rebuilding, according to Ptolemy’s calendar. The only decree that makes sense and fits the Biblical and historical narrative, is the decree of Cyrus.

Nehemiah’s Artaxerxes is Darius the Great

The identification of this Artaxerxes in Nehemiah with Darius, as well as the Ahasuerus of Esther, is established by the following:

"In Esdras 3:1-2, 2:30, cp. Ezra 4:5, the Ahasuerus of Esther is identified with Darius Hystaspes. This identification is adopted by Archbishop Ussher and by Bishop Lloyd (Esther 1:1 A.V. Margin), the date there given (B.C. 521) being that of the accession of Darius Hystaspes. See Ussher's Annals, sub anno mundi 3484. Ussher identifies the Ahasuerus of Esther with the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1-Neh. 13:6, and also with Darius Hystaspes, Ezra 6:14 (translate Darius even Artaxerxes). There is every reason to believe that this double identification is correct." [Anstey, p. 21]

Nehemiah was the cupbearer of Artaxerxes (Darius Hystaspes). In the 20th year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah had received distressing news from some fellow Jews, who had recently come from Judah. He was told, "The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire."

As stated earlier, something destructive had happened to Jerusalem between the 7th and the 20th year of this Artaxerxes. This is obvious, due to the fact that in the 7th year, Ezra makes mention of the walls of Jerusalem (9:9).

The remnant were in great affliction and reproach, because the wall of Jerusalem was broken down and the gates were burned with fire. This allowed Judah’s enemies unrestricted access to their city. In essence, they did not have a city of their own. They were being dominated by their enemies, which of course, was distressing and a reproach.

Nehemiah had received a report on the condition that those who had returned were living in. Those whho gave him this report, said,

[Neh. 1:3] And they said unto me, The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire.

This report details the condition of the walls and gates of the city, but not the city itself. Nehemiah set himself to pray as to what he should do about the condition of his fellow countrymen in Judah. One day while serving the king, and seeing the sadness in Nehemiah's face, the king asked what was troubling him. Nehemiah responded,

Why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire? [2:3]

Notice Nehemiah says that the city "lieth waste." However, the report that he received said nothing about the condition of the city itself, only that "the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire." This is likely his estimation of the condition of the city without its protective wall and gates. Without the security of the walls and gates, the city was vulnerable to attack.

The Decree Issued

The king asked Nehemiah what he would like to have done. Nehemiah responded,

If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it. [2:5]

Notice, this initial request implies he wants to build the city. However, when he begins to make special request for what he will need to complete the work, he asks that letters of authority be given him, along with, a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into [2:8].

Here, Nehemiah asks for timber to make,

• the gates of the palace, or temple
• the gates of the wall of the city
• the house that would be his own private residence

These are the three areas which Nehemiah concerns himself with. Nehemiah did not go to rebuild the city of Jerusalem.

Once we begin to read the narrative of the actual wall repair and building, we see that the work which Nehemiah concerns himself with, is restoring the stones of the wall to their original place, along with doors, locks and bars [3:3].

However, he did repair the wall of Jerusalem and rebuild the gates of the city, with their locks and security bars. Without the wall and secured doors, the city was open to attack and could not live in security and prosperity, hence it was a city that, "lieth waste.” It would be a city that is shachath, i.e., its purpose had been destroyed, therefore it lies waste.