Biblical Theology Bulletin Volume 50 Number 2 Pages 77–82
© The Author(s), 2020. Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0146107920913792
Religious Tolerance Based on Ezra 5–6
Nelci Nafalia Ndolu and Ezra Tari
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to seek the reading of Ezra 5–6 from the perspective of religious tolerance by paying
attention to the characteristics of religious tolerance in the decision of Darius I concerning the Construction of the
Temple. The authors use the Reader Response analysis method in describing the text of Ezra 5–6 by using Dianne
Tilman’s theory of the characteristics of religious tolerance supported by historical research from researchers of Old
Testament texts. The result of the study is that Darius I emerges as a tolerant and persistent leader, consistent in
fighting for the religious rights of everyone as experienced by Israelitess in the Old Testament era.
Key words: Darius I, religious tolerance, Ezra 5–6, Zarubabel Temple
T
he term tolerance derives from the Latin tolerantia, meaning leniency, gentleness, lightness, and patience (As: 67). In
the Indonesian dictionary, the word tolerance means respect,
and allows the establishment of opinions and views, beliefs,
habits, behaviors different from and contrary to one’s own
stand. Religious tolerance includes freedom for a person to
believe in the religion he chooses and to show appreciation
and respect for the construction of places of worship and the
implementation of religious rituals according to their faith.
According to the opinion of Diannne Tillman, the characteristics of religious tolerance are peace and respect for differences and aspects of consciousness (Tillman: 91–95). Peace
in the Indonesian Dictionary means a situation where there
is no war, there are no riots—a safe, peaceful, calm, harmonious, not hostile situation (Indonesia: 105). Indicators of
peace include caring, courage, and love as seeds of tolerance.
Care is concerned with helping—helping people who have
difficulty, understanding how they talk, and listening to their
complaints. Love allows for differences in ways of worship
and helps others who are not liked in their environment. Respecting differences among individuals includes accepting the
establishment other religions’ of places of worship.
Casram’s research shows that there are two kinds of religious societies that play a dominant role in religious tolerance:
the religious society of educated people and that of ordinary
people (Casram: 190). Educated people tend to understand
religious teachings rationally and avoid intuitive and symbolic understanding. These people tend to be easily invited
to tolerate adherents of other religions. But ordinary people
understand religious teachings without reasoning and tend to
Nelci Nafalia Ndolu, M.Th. (Theological Seminary of Eastern
Indonesia, Makassar) and Ezra Tari, M.Th. (Jaffray Theological College, Makassar), are Lecturers at Kupang Christian College, Cak doko street, no. 76. Kupang, Indonesia. Their email
addresses are, respectively, nelcinafaliandolu@gmail.com and
tariezra@gmail.com.
77
Ndolu and Tari, “Religious Tolerance Based on Ezra 5–6” “
like symbolism. This group is easily aroused by emotions and
finds it very difficult to tolerate other religions. They are easily
driven by political and socio-cultural power.
According to Wibisono and Taufik (5–9), fundamentalism
plays a significant role in religious intolerance. Based on Herawati and Paskarina’s research, social prejudice that is the assessment of certain basic stereotypical attitudes towards individuals and groups with different religious identities also influences
the occurrence of intolerance (Hermawati & Paskarina: 115).
The Book of Ezra presents the exclusivity of the Israelite
religion. The Israelites as a minority in Babylon strove to maintain their identity as God’s people who faithfully observed and
implemented the law religiously and socially. During the reign
of the Persian Empire, they fought to get permission to return
to Jerusalem to fulfill the prophecies of the prophets, namely
rebuilding the Temple and establishing a cult of worship. The
hope of the Israelites was realized when King Cyrus issued a
notice that allowed them to return to Jerusalem to rebuild their
Temple. Not only was permission given, but the Persian government also participated in supervising and financing the construction. The construction of the Temple had been hampered
and even stopped in the days of Cyrus’ leadership because of the
Samaritans’ opposition. Persian officials were weakened with
bribes as was the culture that developed under Persian rule
(Frye: 110). The intolerant tactics of the Samaritans continued
when King Artaxerxes came to power as king of Persia. He
was also unable to establish tolerance for the Israelites as in the
early vision of Cyrus because there were many rebellions against
the Persian Empire. The issue of a bad city and the Israelites
unwilling to pay taxes was stressed by the Samaritans enough
to influence Artaxerxes as an inevitable possibility that would
destroy the Persian empire (Fensham: 90).
However, the struggle of the Israelites to continue the construction of the Temple got a boost when Darius I afforded
attention to the legality of building the Temple based on the
Tatnai letter by giving permission and order that Tatnai as a
Persian royal official in Jerusalem to resolve all issues related
to the construction of the Temple so that the Temple could
be completed during his reign. The writer of the book of Ezra
describes Darius as a Persian king who managed to shape the
history of the Persian empire as a tolerant kingdom. Myers
explained that the principle of religious tolerance was greatly
emphasized in the Zoroastrian religion adopted by the Persian kings (Myers: 29). According to Ezra 5: 1–17, intolerance arose among the Israelites who were building the Temple,
78
directed at Samaritans who tried to cancel the construction.
Furthermore, the narration of Ezra 6: 1–12 presents Darius’s
attitude in dealing with the Samaritans’ intolerant radicalism.
The two texts should be read in a meditative atmosphere, with
an effort not to overstress the brutality of Samaritan intolerance
against the Israelites. The main point is Darius I’s effort to resolve the conflicts between Samaritans and Israelites and create
a peaceful atmosphere for the two peoples. Here, readers can
find a model for toleration. In particular, Christian readers can
become aware of their own intolerance and at the same time
be able to ward off the seeds of intolerance in themselves and
their community so they can seek religious tolerance for unity
in diversity. Thus the problem of intolerance can be minimized
and a harmony be created in religious life, nation and state.
Research Methods
Ezra 5–6 is analyzed with the hermeneutic method, namely the analysis of Reader Responses; the text of Ezra 5–6 is
interpreted by using Dianne Tilmann’s theory of tolerance.
The aim is to produce a fresh and profound meaning to the
text Ezra 5–6 about the use of religion (Schmitz: 87–88).
The Awareness of Darius I about
Religious Tolerance (5: 1–6: 5)
Ezra 5 begins by showing the positive leadership of Darius
I. Efforts to reject the construction of temple ended (McCon­
ville: 32). The Israelites started to rebuild the temple. Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua, the son of Jozadak,
who led the construction, were accompanied and supported
by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. Haggai and Zechariah played their role as reliable motivators for Zerubbabel
and the Israelites to stay focused on their mission. Zerubbabel,
as the leader of the construction of the Temple, performed his
duty without hesitation despite efforts to stop the construction
from Tattenai, regent of satrap, Babel, and his commander,
Shethar-Boznai. Zerubbabel and the elders. They interrogated Zerubbabel with two questions: “Who gave you the command to build this temple and finish this wall?” and “What
are the names of the people who built this building?” Tattenai
questioned the validity of the law enabling construction and
sought the names of the Israelites who built the Temple. Tattenai’s question was closely related to the termination of the
construction of the Temple in the time of Artaxerxes’s reign.
B I B L I C A L T H E O LO GY B U L L E T I N • VO LU M E 4 9 • 2 0 1 9
The root of the problem of intolerance is fundamentalism,
social prejudice and individual personality; Zerubbabel and
the Israelites considered themselves to be, unlike the Samaritans, a generation of holy and devout worshipers of God. At
the same time they emphasized the differences in religious
practices between them and the Samaritans. The discrimination and rejection of the cooperation from Zerubbabel and
the Israelites against the offer of the Samaritans to build the
temple caused a propaganda of the discontinuation of the construction of the temple (Ezra 4: 1–4). In a Samaritan letter to
the king Artaxerxes strongly emphasized the social prejudice
of the Samaritans against Zerubbabel and the Israelites who
returned from Babylon to carry out their mission. They were
considered ungodly and dissidents of the Persian government
who would not pay taxes. Jerusalem, in fact, was declared a
“bad city” (Ezra 4: 12–13).
It is interesting that Zerubbabel and the Israelites learned
from the incident and did not react to the presence of Tattenai
and Shetar Boznai. It seems that they accepted the presence
of Tattenai and Shetar Boznai and answered their questions
well. It is clear that Tattenai and Shetar Boznai accepted the
explanation of Zerubbabel and the elders of Israel so that
they both sought confirmation of permission to rebuild the
Temple by official letter to Darius I. The contents of Tattenai’s letter strongly emphasized the historical data of the
kingdom of Israel and the Persian kingdom; Israel was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar and some of the Israelites were
exiled to Babylon, but after King Cyrus ruled Babylon, some
Israelites were assigned to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the
temple, where the foundation of the temple was started by the
first group led by Sheshbazzar (5:6–16). Tattenai questioned
the legality of Cyrus’s decree permitting the construction of
the temple, at the same time asking for official an statement
from Darius I about the royal archives (Excell & Jones: 95).
Tattenai’s letter greatly helped the Israelites to obtain legal
clarity regarding the construction of the Temple. Construction
ceased a year before Darius 1 published an official decree
concerning the building of the Temple (Pfeiffer: 100). Darius
responded to Tattenai’s letter by ordering an investigation of
the manuscript of the Decree in Babylon. The inquiry order
shows the attitude of Darius I openly accepting suggestions
to resolve opposition and conflicts that arise. He was willing
to accept Tattenai’s and Shetar Boznai’s advice to ascertain
the legality of building the Temple. The order of inquiry became the concrete form of Darius I in respecting differences
of opinion between the Israelites who continued to build the
temple according to Cyrus’ decree and the negative opinion of
the Samaritan community regarding the construction of the
Temple. According to Ezra 5:17, Tattenai and Shetar Boznai
wanted an investigation into the truth of the information from
the Israelites concerning the Temple. Darius I tried to create a
sense of comfort in himself when relating to others by making
official royal decrees to investigate the manuscripts of the Persian Empire in Babylon. Investigating the Persian documents
was a good way to allay all public unrest and helped Darius
I to take an elegant political stance before his political opponents who opposed the construction of the Temple. The investigation was successful with the discovery of Cyrus’s decree in
Ecbatana, Ahmeta Fortress, a center for storing manuscripts
about the Persian colonies, including Judah. Cyrus’s Decree,
published in the Persian kingdom, provided that Temple be
rebuilt so that the Israelites could worship God. The temple
was to have a height of 60 cubits (27 meters) and a width of
60 cubits (27 meters). The funding came from the Persian
empire, and all the gold and silver equipment of the temple
which Nebuchadnezzar had confiscated was returned and put
back into the Temple (6: 3–5). Cyrus’s Decree was a permanent and clear royal legal protection for the construction of
the Temple.
Darius’s leadership emphasizes respect
for individual differences (6: 6–10)
Based on Scroll’s testimony of that Cyrus’ decree, Great
Darius I published the official decision of the Persian Empire
concerning the construction of the Temple as contained in a
reply to Tattenai, Shetar Boznai. Darius’s reply provided that
Tattenai and Shetar Boznai no longer had the obligation to
take care of Judah’s territory. They no longer had the right to
intervene in the continuation of the construction of the Temple.
The territory of Judah was formed as a separate province with
Zerubbabel in charge (Perdue: 477). The entire plan regarding
the completion of the temple construction was the responsibility
of Zerubbabel as the new regent, assisted by Jewish elders. The
mention of Jewish elders suggests the construction of the temple
according to the design of Solomon’s temple. The election of
Zerubbabel as regent of Judah proved his personal desire to
open a close relationship with the Israelites. They were welcomed into the Persian government system. The inauguration of
Zerubbabel as regent of Judah confirmed him as King Darius’
79
Ndolu and Tari, “Religious Tolerance Based on Ezra 5–6” “
political colleague. at the same time ensuring the presence of the
Israelites in the government of the Persian Empire.
The financing of the rebuilding of the Temple became the
responsibility of the Persian Empire, Tattenai was the ruler
or Satrap across the Euphrates River in charge of managing
provincial tribute to the Euphrates to finance the entire cost
of building the Temple. Tribute was the obligation of each
province in the form of gold and silver (Shahbazi: 47)—the
tribute which had been focused on the development of the Euphrates River. This decision shows that Darius did not object
to the reconstruction of Israelite’s Temple, tolerating a religion
different from his own. His very clear decision ensured that
the construction of the temple was completed during his tenure. In addition, Tattenai was also tasked with ensuring the
fulfillment of the Israelites’ daily needs for sacrifices: bulls,
rams, lambs, wheat, salt, wine, olive oil. Darius acknowledged and accepted the concept of the rules for offerings in
the religious teachings of the Israelites. (The Zoroastrian religion also knew sacrificial offerings, such as vows as a form of
gratitude and remorse for sin—Niagosian: 81). The Temple
sacrifices at were to be carried out continuously in honor of the
presence of gods (Keene: 175).
Darius used the phrase “according to the instructions of
the Jerusalem priests” in relation to the provision of the burnt
offering and sacrifice above, thus indicating the need for Tattenai to obey the priests. This means that Tattenai had to
communicate and coordinate well with Israelite priests in carrying out their duties. Thus Darius I showed an attitude of
respect for the clergy of Israel and all the rules of sacrifice. He
wanted the Israelite worship situation to proceed smoothly.
Religious celebrations and sacrificial offerings were to be carried out properly in a proper place of worship (cf Ezra 4–6a).
The construction of the temple guaranteed the renewal of the
Israelites’ relationship with their God.
The most interesting thing in the official decision was that
Darius wanted the Israelites to pray for him and his family “so
that they always offer sacrifices that please God of the heavens
and pray for the king and his children.” The God of Israel is
called the God of the heavens, Eloah syammayim. This has
two implications:
• Darius acknowledged the existence of the Israelites as
descendants of Abraham who called God by the name El. The
God called El chose Abraham and blessed and cared for the
Israelites according to his promise to Abraham.
• The God worshiped by the Israelites is the God of
80
the universe, who created and ruled the heavens and everything in them.
This corresponded to the Ahura-Mazda concept of God as
the creator of the heavens and rulers of the universe of heaven
(Hintze: 228–29). Darius was aware of the differences between
the Israelite and Persian religions, but he thought the Israelites
believed in the true God (Zchmutzer: 68)—the God who created and ruled heaven and earth and its contents, who taught
goodness and demanded good behavior from His people.
In fact, Darius expected prayers from the Israelites when
they offered offerings to God. Darius acknowledged the fundamental differences in doctrine and ritual between his and
Israel’s religion..The Israelites worshiped the supreme being
called eloah syamamayim in various religious ceremonies
such as Easter celebrations. whereas Darius had a god named
Ahura Mazda as the highest deity with different religious
celebrations. But Darius I did, as a religious person, believe
that the supreme being worshiped by the Israelites had wisdom, kindness, and mercy—that He nurtured and blessed all
well-behaved people (Arifin: 20–24).
Characteristics of Peace in Darius 1
Leadership (6: 11–15)
Darius’s official decision about the construction of the
Temple shows his concern for the people of Israel. Through
this official decree, Darius helped the Israelites who had difficulty continuing the construction of the Temple. He had understood the way they talked and listened to their complaints
to Tattenai and Shetar Boznai.
Darius’s attitude in upholding the law of temple building
bespoke his own character as one who obeyed the teachings of
Ahura-Mazda: namely, “do good and avoid evil.” Zoroastrianism emphasizes good thoughts, good words and good deeds
(Morgan). Humans deserve to choose to side with good or bad
things during their lives (Dhavamony: 124). Darius believed
that if he obeyed Ahura-Mazda by behaving well, helping others, Ahura-Mazda would always support him as king (Boyce:
55–57). His love for the divine, Ahura-Mazda, enabled him
to love the Israelite, wieh their different faith, places of worship, and rituals. The results of the investigation of the legality
of the temple building law which greatly helped to resolve the
legal case of temple construction truly reflected how much he
approved of the construction of a Temple for the Israelites and
acknowledged and respected their way of worship.
B I B L I C A L T H E O LO GY B U L L E T I N • VO LU M E 4 9 • 2 0 1 9
Darius I showed courage in helping the Israelteis, who were
not liked in their environment. As he wrote: “Every person
who violates this decision, a pole will be removed from his
house, to make it at the end of the pole and to make the house
ruined. . . .” This decision strongly emphasizes the principle of
lex talionis, namely that people who obstruct the construction
of the Temple in Israel will have their houses destroyed. Even
King Darius showed his firmness by bringing the man to the
pole of his house which had been revoked. In Ancient Persian
law, this rule was the highest punishment for anyone who tried
to oppose the king’s decision. According to Hallock (37),
Darius had a character that contrasted with his bad political
opponents about the construction of the Temple. Through the
command of Darius’ manuscript investigation and official decision, Darius I showed himself to be courageous in opposing
corruptors and radicals and upholding the rules of the kingdom, which guaranteed the rights of worship of every resident
of the Persian Empire (Hanna).
Darius successfully eradicated corruptors and radicals because he had a military that was very strong and loyal to him
(Atkinson). His courage was based on his belief in the power
of the Divine. It appears in the narrative “So God who has
made His name dwell there, let Him break down every king
and every Nation who raises his hand to violate this decree and
destroy the Temple in Jerusalem.” Darius asserted himself as
the representative of the Divine, Ahura Mazda and Yahweh
(Heaster: 66–67). The King’s decision was the divine decision. Whoever violates the king’s decision was punished not
only by the king but also by God. Larson and Dahlen (70)
explain that the ancient Persians believed that God protected
every sanctuary of his residence and would oppose all kings
and nations who wanted to destroy it.
The Darius I Memorandum was an attempt to create peace
during his reign. He wanted all the inhabitants of the Persian
Empire to live safely and comfortably, offering sacrifices and
praying in their respective places of worship. This is important
in determining the level of loyalty of the entire Persian royal
population and specifically the Israelites towards their leadership. The rebuilding of the temple was Darius’s way of guaranteeing the Israelites’ loyalty to him.
In accord with the official decree, the construction of the
Temple was completed and it was dedicated in March 515
bce in the sixth year of Darius’ Dynasty (Perdue: 478). Tattenai, Shetar, and Bozbai obeyed the king’s orders. Apart
from the punishment that bound the decision but because
Darius guarantees the welfare of all the Persian elite (Poebel:
142–65). Darius established the Persian Empire as a tolerant
empire by allowing the Israelites to worship in the house of
worship they built. They could celebrate the Passover and
Unleavened Bread Day comfortably according to the rules
of Israelite ritual law. The situation illustrates how Darius
was able to stem intolerance by transforming Samaritans who
belonged to the category of ordinary people who were easily ignited by emotions and found it very difficult to tolerate
the followers of other religions, easily moved by political and
sociocultural forces to become educated people who wanted
to understand the universal values of a belief so they could
tolerate Israel.
Conclusion
Darius was able to solve the problem of religious intolerance during his reign by applying the principle of tolerance,
namely being aware of the importance of tolerance by guaranteeing the right of the Israelites to their own Temple. The
dispute about the building of the Temple was resolved with a
love for the Divine creator of the diversity of the beliefs and
care of the lives of all humanity. The Israelites and Samaritans lived in peace during his reign.
Works Cited
Arifin, H. M. 1986. Menguak Misteri Agama-Agama Besar.
Golden Trayon.
As, H. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner” Dictionary. Oxford,
UK: University Printing House.
Atkinson, K. M. T. 1956. The Legitimacy of Cambyses and Darius as Kings of Egypt.” Journal of the American Oriental Society
76/3: 177. https://doi.org/10.2307/596288.
Boyce, M. 2001. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. 1st ed.. London, UK: Rouledge.
Casram. 2016. Membangun Sikap Toleransi Beragama dalam
Masyarakat Plural. Wawasan: Jurnal Ilmiah Agama Dan Sosial Agama.
Dahlen, Kathy & Knute Larson. 2005. Holdmans Old Testament
Commentary : Ezra, Nehemiah, edited by Esther M. Anders,
ed.. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group.
Dhavamony. 1995. Fenomenologi Agama. Jogakarta: Kanisius.
Excell, J. S., & H. D. M. Spence-Jones. 2013. The Complete Pulpit Commentary: A Exposition, Homiletics, And Homilies Com-
81
Ndolu and Tari, “Religious Tolerance Based on Ezra 5–6” “
mentary on the Bible. America: Delmarva Publications.
Fensham, F. C. 1982. The Book of Ezra and Nehemia. Michigan:
William B Eerdmans.
Frithjof Schuon. 2005. Religion, the Transcendent Unity of Religion. Wheaton: Quest Book Theosophical Publishing House.
Frye, Richard N. 1984. The Heritage of Persia. Costa Mesa, CA:
Mazda.
Hallock, R. T. 1992. “The ‘One Year’ of Darius I.” Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 19/1: 37.
Hanna, M. 2017. “Darius 1 as Victor: a Question or Legacy?“
Prandium—The Journal of Historical Studies 1/1: 2.
Heaster, D. 2018. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther: A Christaldelphian
Commentary. Australia: Carelinks.
Hermawati, Rina & Caroline Paskarina. 2016. Toleransi Antar
Umat Beragama di Kota Bandung. UMBARA : Indonesian Journal of Anthropology, 1(2), 105–24. Retrieved from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BnJH04BYyq8J:journal.unpad.ac.id/umbara/article/download/10341/4829+&cd=2&hl=id&ct=clnk&gl=id
Hintze, A. 2014. Monotheism the Zoroastrian Way. Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society, 24(02 April 2014, 228–229. https://doi.
org/DOI: 10.1017/S1356186313000333,
Indonesia, P. B. 2016. Kamus Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Kemendikbud.
McConville, J. G.. 1985. Nehemiah, Ezra and Esther. America:
Westminster Jhon Knox Press.
Keene, M. 2006. Agama-Agama Dunia. Jogakarta: Kanisius.
Meiza, A. 2018. Sikap Toleransi dan Tipe Kepribadian Big Five
82
pada Mahasiswa UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung. Psympathic : Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi, 5(1), 245. Retrieved from http://
journal.uinsgd.ac.id/index.php/psy/article/view/1959/1738
Morgan, Diane. 2001. The Best Guide to Eastern Philosophy and
Religion. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Myers, Jacob M. 1965. The Anchor Bible – Ezra and Nehemiah.
New York, NY: Doubleday.
Niagosian, S. . 1990). World’s Faiths. New York, NY: St.Martin’s
Press.
Perdue, Thomas H. 2011. Passover & Sukkot. Bloomington, IN:
Authorhouse.
Pfeiffer, Charles & Everett Harrison, eds. 1990. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary : A Phrase by Phrase Commentary Of Bible.
Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.
Poebel, A. 1938). Chronology of Darius’ First Year of Reign. The
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 55/2:
142–65.
Schmitz, T. A. 2007. Modern Literary Theory and Ancient Texts:
An Introduction. USA: Blackwell Publishing.
Schmutzer, Andrew J. & D. J. Nykolaishen. 2018. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group.
Shahbazi, S. 1996. “ Darius I the Great.” P. 47 in Encyclopedia
Iranica 7th ed. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Tillman, D. 2004). Living Values Activities for Young Adults:
Pendidikan Nilau untuk Kaum Dewasa-Muda. Jakarta: PT.
Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia.
Wibisono, S., & M. Taufik. 2017. “Orientasi Keberagamaan Ekstrinsik dan Fundamentalisme Agama pada Mahasiswa Mus-