BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 24
April, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons
John the Baptist is presented in the gospels as the fulfillment of the Old Testament promise that God would send His messenger to prepare the way for the coming of the glory of the Lord (Is. 40), and the promise to send Elijah before Him to turn the people to repentance (Mal. 4). Thus, Matthew’s gospel tells us that John wore a leather belt, just as Elijah did (cf. 2 Ki. 1:8), and that John wore a garment of camel’s hair, apparently a traditional prophetic garment (cf. Zech. 13:4). Matthew also quotes from Isaiah 40, and tells us that John fulfills that prophecy.
But there are elements in the description of John that do not seem to fit easily into these typologies. In particular, John is said to live on a diet of locusts and wild honey. This diet does not, at first glance, appear to be part of the Elijah typology; nowhere in the Old Testament is Elijah said to eat these things. Moreover, though Isaiah described the Messiah as one who eats "curds and honey" he did not mention either locusts or honey in connection with the "voice in the wilderness." We might well ask, then, what was the significance of John’s diet? How does his odd diet fit with John’s place in redemptive history?
It is striking that in most of Old Testament passages that mention them, locusts are comsumers, not consumables. True, the Israelites were permitted to eat locusts (Lev. 11:22). But generally, locusts appear not as food but as eaters. Egypt was visited with a plague of locusts, which consumed "every plant of the land and all the fruit of the trees that the hail had left" (Ex. 10:15). God threatened to send locusts to consume the seed of the field if His people disobeyed Him (Dt. 28:38), and the prophets described the fulfillment of that threat (cf. Joel 1-2, Nah. 3:15-17).
Significantly, in several passages the Gentile enemies of Israel are compared to locusts. The particular similarity between Israel’s enemies and locusts is the vast number of each (Jud. 6:5; 7:12). In Jeremiah 51:14, similarly, the Lord swore that Israel would be filled with locusts that would cry in triumph over them, and in Jeremiah 46:23, we find the prophecy that the Egyptians, though numerous as locusts, would someday be no more.
It is not simply in numerical strength that nations are comparable to locusts. More particularly, locusts are likened to armies. Proverbs 30:27 compares locusts to an army that advances rank upon rank, and this comparison is picked up in Joel 1:4, where different ranks of locusts — gnawing, swarming, creeping, and stripping — are distinguished, and compared to an invading army (cf. 1:6). The analogy of locusts and armies is even more explicit in Nahum, who compares the swarming locust to the guardsmen, and the marshals to grasshoppers (3:15-16). Isaiah 33:4 refers to locusts that rush onto spoils.
The symbolism of locust armies is employed in Jeremiah 51:27, where the horses of the nations against Babylon are compared to "bristly locusts." The apostle John seems to be alluding to this passage when, in Revelation 9, he describes locusts coming from the Abyss and receiving power (9:3). John goes on to describe in detail the appearance of the "locusts": They are like horses prepared for battle; they wear crowns on their heads; their faces are like the faces of men, their hair like women’s, their teeth like lion’s; they wear breastplates; and the sound of wings is like sound of chariots, or of horses running to battle (9:7ff.).
David Chilton notes that the locusts in Revelation 9 come from the Abyss, and thus are demons; their sound is like that of the glory-chariot of God. (Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation [Fort Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987].) The locust army is a demonic parody of the glory of God, an "anti-glory cloud," if you will. This casts new light on all the references to locust plagues and locust-armies in the Old Testament. It suggests that the real enemies behind Israel’s enemies were the demonic armies of Satan, just as the hosts of Israel were accompanied into battle by hosts of angels. The warfare of Israel and her enemies was a type and a visible working-out of the warfare of Michael and Satan.
Given this background, are we in a better position to understand why John would live on locusts? In his Studies in Food and Faith, James B. Jordan has explained that eating in Scripture signifies incorporation; the Lord "ate" the sacrifices on the altar of burnt offering to show His acceptance of the worshiper into the fellowship of the Godhead, and when we eat the bread and wine of the eucharist, we participate in the flesh and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). John’s eating of the locusts, then, may signify the incorporation of the demonically-dominated nations into the new Israel of God.
What about the other component of John’s diet? Honey is associated with the land throughout the Old Testament (Ex. 3:8, 17; 13:5; etc.). Honey in fact is said to flow out from the land. Similarly, Psalm 81:16 records God’s promise to feed Israel with honey from the rock. In 1 Samuel 14, Jonathan eats honey from the ground. The fact that John ate locusts with honey (and perhaps dipped in honey) again might be taken to signify the incorporation of the locust-nations into the blessings of the land. It is significant that John embarked on this ministry from the wilderness; in the waste places, he held out the promise of the blessings of a new Garden.
Putting all these considerations together, it seems that John’s diet indeed symbolized his role in redemptive history. Luke informs us that John gave counsel to what we can assume are Gentile soldiers (3:14), thereby "eating" the soldiers into the kingdom. And, it seems that John’s diet is a part of the Elijah typology by which the NT explicates John’s ministry. Elijah’s ministry was full of contacts with Gentiles, and was a foreshadowing of the coming of a new Israel; John’s ministry marks the beginning of the fulfillment of that type, the beginning of a new Israel in which there is neither Jew nor Greek.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 24
April, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons
24. Four things are small on the earth, But they are exceedingly wise; 25. The ants are not a strong folk, But they prepare their food in the summer; 26. The coneys are not a mighty folk, Yet they make their houses in the rocks; 27. The locusts have no king, Yet all of them go out in ranks; 28. The lizard you may grasp with the hands, Yet it is in kings’ palaces.
Proverbs 30:21-23 concerns what happens when a small person becomes great: He becomes unbearable. Verses 24-28 concern what happens when a small person becomes wise: He becomes powerful. If there is any passage in the Bible that is designed to provide political wisdom for Christians, this is it. It concerns four ways in which the weak become strong, the humble influential.
The first two cases concern the wise actions of weak people in society at large, while the last two cases concern the wise actions of weak people in political life.
First, the ants are said to be weak, yet they lay up food in the summer in preparation for a time of distress. Consider how ants work together. They walk in single file, and each ant gets just a tiny bit of food to carry back to the nest. They cooperate with each other. They don’t try to do too much.
Have you every tried to stop a line of ants that is going for a jar of jam? You can put obstacles in their way, and they will scatter for a minute, but soon they will have found a way around the obstacle and will be lined up to the jar again. You can take a broom and sweep them away, but when you come back in a half hour, they will be back at the jar. Ants are persistent.
Ants show wisdom because they make provision for the future. They show us what it means to think about what is coming. They don’t try to get rich quick; instead, they just work a little at a time, and accumulate riches.
Second, the coney is a weak animal, like a bunny rabbit. To look at him, you would never guess that he makes his home in rocks. Yet, the coney has the wisdom to locate his sanctuary in a place where he cannot be reached by wild beasts. He admits to his weakness, and finds a place of shelter.
Similarly, we are to hide ourselves in the Rock, who is the Lord God. Like the coney, we need to confess our weakness and look to Him for protection.
Third, the locusts are said to have no king, yet they go out in ranks. They also are small and weak, but because they have order in their community, they are collectively powerful.
Agur says that locusts go out in ranks, because armies of locusts conquer nations. An individual locust is no match for a man, but an army of locusts easily defeats and destroys nations of men. Similarly, if Godly humble people form themselves into communities, they will have political influence and conquer kingdoms.
I believe that this applies to the Church. The Head of the Church is not visible, and so as far as politics is concerned, it appears the Christians have no king. Yet if Christians unite and work together, they are unstoppable.
Fourth, the lizard (a better translation than "spider") is found in the palaces of kings, even though it is small and soft. This points to the virtue of boldness, of audacity. The lizard is found everywhere. Like the prophet, he goes anywhere he pleases.
There is even a hint that the lizard has become the king!
Remember the first lizard ever found in a palace? It was the serpent in the Garden, and he wound up ruling this world. Jesus tells us to be wise as serpents (but, unlike Satan, also harmless as doves). The serpent was the wisest of the beasts, and he became the ruler through his wisdom.
These four examples go together in one proverb, and they display a progression of thought. They are stages of social action. Too often, Christians are lured by the world of politics and try to change society directly. They form political action committees, run people for office, and pretend to be lions and tigers. There may be some place for this kind of activity, but this proverb shows a better, wiser way.
All of these animals are silent. Have you ever waked up and heard ants at work in your kitchen? Have you ever heard the voice of a bunny rabbit? Does a single locust make much noise? Have you ever heard a lizard moving about? These are creatures that pervade society, yet are silent.
First, Christians must be ants. Ants are persistent and thrifty. They don’t bite off more than they can chew. They work bit by bit. If Christians want influence in society, that is how we must be.
Second, Christians must be coneys. We must build our home in the Rock. The heart of the Kingdom is built out of sight. Like the coney, we may go out into the woods to gather twigs and food, but our home is out of the sight of men. So, if we lose a battle here and there, we don’t panic, because our home is secure.
Third, Christians must be locusts. Locusts have no king, and thus no leader to kill or defame. They don’t engage in conflicts with the existing power structures. When the locusts invade, they completely bypass politics. You see, if you have a leader and you want to go head-to-head with the power structure, they can stop you easily. They need only shoot your leader, or defame him publicly. But if you have no one visible human leader, there is not much they can do.
Fourth, if Christians start out as ants and coneys, and move as locusts, they will wind up lizards, present in the palaces of kings. Through their serpentine wisdom they will have influence at court, like Joseph, Daniel, and Mordecai; indeed, they may even wind up on the throne.
If Christians follow the pattern of humble persistence in Proverbs 30:24-28, they will ascend to become the four stately things of verses 29-31.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 24
April, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons
21. Under three things the earth quakes. And under four, it cannot bear up. 22. Under a slave when he becomes king, And a fool when he is satisfied with food, 23. Under an odious woman when she gets a husband, And a maidservant when she supplants her mistress.
The words of Agur the Sojourner, who is perhaps Jacob, concern humility and arrogance. Proverbs 30:21-23 point to the arrogance that often comes over a person of humble estate when he gets what he wants. It is the arrogance that often comes over a person who has been insecure, and who finally becomes secure.
The "earth" in verse 21 is society. The analogy seems to be this: When a giant stalks the land, the earth quakes from the impact of his heavy feet. Similarly, society quakes and shakes when a small person becomes great.
First, society is wrecked when a slave becomes a king. This may not seem very democratic, but the Bible is not democratic, and we should not be either. The Bible recognizes that every society has an elite, and that if a society is to be well governed, that elite must govern with justice and charity. People who are raised as aristocrats are raised with a sense of propriety, and in a Christian land they are often raised with a sense of restraint. They are, or should be, aware of the value of tradition and form as social cement.
Every aristocracy abuses its power sometimes, but the Bible teaches us here that when revolutionaries come to rule, they abuse power all the time. It is better to live with the traditional and occasional abuses of an aristocracy than to live with the unpredictable and continual abuses of revolutionaries.
History certainly bears this out. When the thugs came to power in France in 1789 and in Russia in 1917, society suffered far more than it had previously. What preserved the United States from something similar was the fact that the leaders of the American Revolution were themselves aristocrats: gentry, not slaves. When Cromwell came to power in England, he as a responsible member of the gentry had to contend constantly with irresponsible commoners in the New Model Army, and wound up being forced by their foolishness to make himself a benevolent despot, the last thing he ever intended.
It is not that slaves, serfs, and proletarians are worse in God’s eyes, or in the eyes of the Church, than aristocrats. Rather, it is that aristocrats are trained in the proper use of power, while serfs and proletarians are not.
The reason poor people don’t commit great crimes is often because they have no opportunity to do so. We think about all the adultery and fornication that takes place in Washington, D.C., among the leaders of our nation. The sad fact is that most people, if they had the money, security, and power to get away with such deeds, would do them also. Once a slave comes to power, he can get away with a great deal, and the restraints that constrain the nobility, minimal as they often are, do not operate in his case.
We have seen that Agur is probably Jacob. Jacob would be familiar with this principle from the history of his family. God, through Noah, had said that the Canaanites were slaves, but at this time in history, Canaanites were ruling in the land of promise. Canaanites had been kings in Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, and the land had certain quaked as a result of their rule! Check out Genesis 14:1-4, 21; and Genesis 19. Consider also the story recorded in Judges 9.
Second, when a fool becomes full of food (and drink), he becomes unbearable. He opens his mouth, and pours out all kinds of boasting and threats (cp. again Judges 9:27-29). He no longer feels insecure and threatened, and so what is in his heart comes out.
A fool is a man with no sense of the past or the future. He has no sense of heritage, and no sense of consequences. It does not occur to him that what he says has an impact on other people, and an impact on how he is perceived. When a man like this is released from constraint, such as the constraint of having to work for food, society suffers.
Jacob knew all about this, because Esau was a fool. Genesis 25:27-34 records the story of Esau’s sale of his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of lentils. Esau cared for nothing but his immediate comfort, and thought nothing of the consequences of his foolish action. Though he sought for the blessing later on, with tears, he did not receive it. The only thing that saved the "earth" from trauma was that Godly Jacob took up the mantle Esau was so ready to discard.
Third, when an odious woman gets a husband, she becomes unbearable. "Odious" literally means "hated." It may imply that she is ugly, or that she has a nasty personality. Nobody wants to marry her. She may try to behave herself because of the censure of society, but when she finally gets a husband, she has no reason to restrain herself any longer.
Jacob regarded Leah as odious because her eyes were bad, and because she conspired with her father to trick him into marriage. We can imagine that she was pretty difficult to live with; Rachel certainly thought so. Yet, Genesis 29:31-35 shows us that in her misery Leah finally turned to the Lord, and found in Him a Husband who loved her and gave her many children.
Finally, when a maidservant supplants her mistress, she becomes arrogant. Hagar’s behavior toward Sarah is an example from Jacob’s own family background. Sarah could not have children, and so Hagar was given to Abraham to bear a child for Sarah to adopt. When the child was born, however, the adoption somehow never took place. Hagar lorded it over Sarah, until finally Sarah drove her out.
It is, of course, possible that a slave will become a good ruler, that a maidservant will not become arrogant when she ascends to glory, that an unloved woman will not become unbearable when she gets a husband — but such transformations are relatively rare.
Let us, in closing, consider the structure of this proverb. The first and last cases match each other. Both are instances of revolution, the first by a male in the world of politics and the last by a female in the world of the family. The wisdom of Agur is this: The status quo, with all its problems, is usually better than revolution. If revolution must come, then, as the Protestant Reformers insisted, it must be led by members of the nobility, "lesser magistrates."
The second and third cases also match each other. Both are instances of satisfaction, the first by a male in the realm of social life, and the second by a female in the realm of marriage. The wisdom of Agur is this: Be very careful about removing restraints from people who seem to need them, lest you bring about disorder and trauma in society.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 3, No. 4
April, 1991
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1991
By James B. Jordan
We have looked at the prima facie evidence for a short chronology in Ezra-Nehemiah, a chronology that assumes that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7ff. and Nehemiah is in fact Darius. This month we examine the argument against the short chronology. There is only one argument, and that is that the Artaxerxes referred to must be Artaxerxes Longimanus, who lived after Xerxes, who followed Darius. If this is true, then the data that seems to indicate a short chronology must be reinterpreted along the lines of all modern commentaries.
Though we know little about the Persian empire, culture, and history, the chronology of the early emperors seems fairly well established. Cyrus was succeeded by his son Cambyses in 529 B.C. (I shall use conventional B.C. dates in this essay), who reigned for seven and a half years. Cambyses had apparently put his brother Smerdis to death in order to secure the throne, but upon Cambyses’ death, a certain "Smerdis" claimed the throne. Evidently this Pseudo-Smerdis was a Magian priest named Gomates or Gaumata. He reigned for half a year until being deposed by Darius.
Darius reigned 36 years (521-486 B.C.) and was followed by Xerxes, who reigned for 21 years (485-465 B.C.). He was followed by Artaxerxes Longimanus ("the Long-Handed"), who reigned for 40 years (464-423 B.C.). His successors, according to secular sources, were Darius II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, Arogus, and Darius III.
Most expositors of Ezra and Nehemiah take it that Haggai, Zechariah, Jeshua, and Zerubbabel rebuilt the temple and altar in the early years of Darius I’s reign, as recorded in Ezra 1-6. This carries us down to 515 B.C., the sixth year of Darius. Then we skip 57 years down to 458 B.C., the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezra 7:1, 8). The events of Nehemiah take us down to the 33d year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 13:6), 431 B.C.
Bible chronologists such as Lightfoot, Anstey, and Faulstich and some of the older commentators (like John Gill), have criticized this approach. First, it looks a bit suspicious to move from the sixth year of Darius to the seventh of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezra 6-7). Second, names like Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes were held by more than one person.
What’s in a Name?
Beyond this, third, we don’t know that the Jews called these rulers by the same names the Greeks did. After all, the Israelites called Tiglath-Pileser (a formal name) by his personal name Pul (2 Ki. 15:19, 29). The Israelite king called Uzziah by Isaiah and the Chronicler is called Azariah in 2 Kings 15. Darius king of Persia is called the king of Assyria in Ezra 6:22. All of this indicates a certain fluidity of identification, especially when it comes to royal figures.
Names are frequently used significantly in the Bible. For instance, the name Melchizedek, king of Salem (Gen. 14:18-20), is explained and exegeted by the author of Hebrews: "first of all, by translation [of `melchi-zedek’] King of Righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which means King of Peace." The use of various names on different occasions would be for literary and theological reasons. Thus, it is possible that the Jews called Darius by the name Artaxerxes on some occasions, and indeed possible (yea, likely) that they also called him Ahasuerus.
These names are not necessarily personal names, but are most likely throne names or even titles. It used to be thought that Xerxes means "king" and Artaxerxes means "high king." This is based on a statement in Herodotus, "In Greek, the name Darius means the Doer, Xerxes means the Warrior, and Artaxerxes means the Great Warrior" (Herodotus, The History 6:98; trans. David Grene; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987; p. 448). The Persian for Xerxes is Khshyarsha or Ksharsa, "which seems to correspond to the modern Persian shyr-shah, lion-king" (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature I:116). Artaxerxes "is a compound, the first element of which, arta — found in several Persian names — is generally admitted to mean great; the latter part being the Zend Khshethro, king" (ibid., I:440).
J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire (New York: Schocken, 1983; p. 45), says that Xerxes perhaps means "hero among kings," clearly a throne name. Artaxerxes means "kingdom of justice," again clearly a throne name (idem). We can compare this word "Artaxerxes" with the Egyptian "Pharaoh," which means "great house."
Darius (Persian Dareyavesh) means "he who holds firm the good" (Cook, idem). Others give something like "he who enjoys good things" (Richard Frye, The Heritage of Persia; New York: World, 1963; p. 92).
According to Carey Moore (Esther, Anchor Bible 7B, Garden City: Doubleday, 1971; p. 3), Ahasuerus means "chief of rulers." Ahasuerus is generally thought to be the same word as Xerxes. Thus, it is very likely that Darius could have been called Artaxerxes and also Ahasuerus (Xerxes).
In summary:
Darius = The Doer of Good
Xerxes = Hero Among Kings
Artaxerxes = King of Justice
Ahasuerus = Chief of Rulers
It is interesting to note that the Inscription of Xerxes at Persepolis reads in part as follows: "I am Xerxes the great King, the King of kings, the King of the land where many languages are spoken; the King of this wide earth, far and near, the son of King Darius the Achaemenian. Says Xerxes the great King: By the grace of Ormazd I have made this portal. . . . Says Darius the King: May Ormazd protect me and my empire, and my work and my father’s work." Here we see that Xerxes calls himself Darius. This proves that these Persian monarchs were sometimes called by different names. (Full inscription found in Martin Anstey, Chronology of the Old Testament; Grand Rapids: Kregel, [1913] 1973; p. 262.)
The fact that a given king called himself and was called by more than one name sheds light on the fact that the Apocrypha and Josephus call these kings by various names. Josephus calls the "Artaxerxes" of Ezra-Nehemiah "Xerxes," but says he reigned 28 years, which was not the case with the second Xerxes, who attacked Greece; he reigned only 21 years. Similarly, Josephus calls Esther’s king "Artaxerxes." (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 11; for a full and helpful discussion, see Anstey, Chronology of the Old Testament, pp. 263ff.) In the Apocryphal additions to Esther, her king is called "Artaxerxes."
What all of this shows can be summarized as three points:
1. The Persian monarchs used more than one name for themselves, and these were all throne-names having descriptive meanings.
2. The Greeks called these monarchs by one name each, but this is no reason to assume that anyone else did.
3. In interpreting the Bible, we have to be open to the fact that the Jews had their own names for these kings, and that the Jews lived much closer to Persian culture than did the Greeks. It is very likely that the Jews used these throne-names with the same kind of fluidity as the Persians.
4. Thus, it is simplistic to read Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther in the "light" of Greek historical records regarding the Persians.
5. We have to take the Biblical references in their Biblical contexts, and on that basis try to ascertain which monarch is in view.
Darius-Artaxerxes
Ezra 6:14 says that the Jews finished building "according to the command of the God of Israel and the decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia." The problem with this verse is that the only decree of "Artaxerxes" mentioned in Ezra to this point is in 4:7-23, which was a decree to stop building the temple! Moreover, if the Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14 is Longimanus, it is curious that he is mentioned here because the rest of Ezra says nothing about any decree of his to rebuild the temple. Of course, if Nehemiah is considered part of Ezra, then we can say that this is a decree to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, but then the question is: Why is this mentioned here in Ezra 6:14?
A far simpler solution is found in Hebrew grammar itself, which allows for "and" to mean "even" or "to wit." In that case, Ezra 6:14 would read, "according to . . . the decree of Cyrus and Darius, to wit: Artaxerxes." Here is Gesenius’s explanation of this use of the connective "and" in Hebrew: "Frequently vav copulativum [the connective `and’] is also explanatory (like isque, et – quidem, and the German und zwar, the English to wit), and is then called vav explicativum [the explicative `and’]. For instance, Isaiah 17:8 reads, "Nor will he look to that which his fingers have made, to wit: the Asherim and incense stands." Similarly, Nehemiah 8:13 reads, "the [people] gathered around Ezra the scribe, to wit: to give attention to the words of the Law." In Proverbs 3:12: "For whom the Lord loves He reproves, even [to wit] as a father the son in whom he delights." (See Gesenius’s Hebrew Grammar, second English ed., Oxford U. Press, p. 484, note 1b.)
This reading of Ezra 6:14 is not new. John Gill, in his commentary (late 18th c.) writes, "I am most inclined to think, with Aben Ezra [noted Jewish commentator], that he [Artaxerxes] is Darius himself; and the words to be read, Darius, that is, Artaxerxes, king of Persia; Artaxerxes being, as he [Aben Ezra] observes, a common name [throne name] of the kings of Persia, as Pharaoh was of the kings of Egypt . . . and I find Dr. Lightfoot [eminent chronologist] was of the same mind."
Remembering that the Bible often uses names meaningfully, we can interpret Ezra and Nehemiah in terms of the meaning of the names Darius and Artaxerxes. Ezra 6 would use the name Darius to focus on the fact that the king was doing good: "Then King Do-good issued a decree" (Ezra 6:1). Ezra 7 would shift to the name Artaxerxes to focus on the justice and universality of the king’s reign. Notice the end of Darius’s letter in 6:12, "I Darius (the Doer) issue decree; let it be done diligently." Now compare the end of Artaxerxes’ letter in Ezra 7:25-26, "Set magistrates and judges who may judge . . . all such as know the laws of your God. . . . Whoever will not observe the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily on him." The emphasis on justice is in keeping with the meaning of the name Artaxerxes (King of Justice).
Similarly, the use of Ahasuerus (Chief of Rulers = Xerxes, Hero Among Kings) is appropriate for Esther, because of the emphasis on his rule over 127 other lands (Esth. 1:1). As we have seen, since Mordecai was active already in the days of Jeshua and Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2), it is very unlikely that Esther’s king was (the second) Xerxes. He almost certainly was Darius the Great.
Since the genealogical and name-list evidence strongly indicates a short chronology for Ezra and Nehemiah, there is every reason to assume that Darius and Artaxerxes are the same person.
(to be continued)
