The Historical Background of Haggai and Zechariah. 

        Though Cyrus was a man of most enlightened character, it was as a world conqueror that he impressed himself on the history of his time, and his conquest of Babylon in 539 B.C. was only an incident in continuous fighting that did not end until his death in the field in 530 B.C. Most of the short reign of Cambyses, his son (530-522 B.C.) was spent in the conquest and breaking of Egypt. So it was not until the reign of Darius I (522-486 B.C.) that the Persian empire was really organized.

        It is easy then to see how the much stronger neighbours of the Jews found it easy to frustrate the decree of Cyrus about the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 4:4f), especially in the matter of covering the expenses (Ezra 6:4). This worked in with the very real material difficulties the returned exiles had to face, and so they acquiesced saying, “It is not yet the time for the building of the house of Jehovah” (Hag. 1:2). It is quite typical that the priestly Chronicler should mention only the outside opposition, the prophet Haggai only the inner unwillingness. The truth is a combination of both.

        By the second year of Darius the main rebellions that threatened to rend the Persian empire asunder had been crushed, and it was clear that strong rule might be expected. The excuse of external opposition had now collapsed, and so the prophets Haggai and Zechariah arose to deal with the real spiritual reasons that had held up the rebuilding of the Temple. How right they were in ignoring the excuse of external oppo­sition is seen by the fact that as soon as the rebuilding of the Temple was officially challenged (Ezra 5:3), the central govern­ment reaffirmed and strengthened the original edict of Cyrus (Ezra 6:6-12), which was then obeyed by the local authorities (Ezra 6:13) (The above picture of events is seriously challenged by a leading group of Old Testament scholars. As the subject is hardly relevant to the purpose of this book, and since the latest scholarly commentary on Ezr.-Neh. by Rudolph (in German) seems completely to support the main outline of the view given above, we see no point in discussing the matter. Those interested are referred to Oesterley & Robinson: A History of Israel, Vol. II, chs. VII. VIII.).