Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezra 2:1
Now these [are] the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;
1. Now these are the children of the province ] ‘Now’, as in chap. Ezr 1:1: the beginning of a new document. ‘The province’ here and in Neh 1:3; Neh 11:3, is the same as ‘the province of Judah’ (Ezr 5:8), i.e. the particular district of which Jerusalem was the centre and of which Zerubbabel was governor or ‘pekhah’. ‘The children of the province’ are the Jews inhabiting Jerusalem and its vicinity as distinct from the Jews that were left in Babylon. The phrase is perhaps an indication of the register having been transcribed at Babylon.
out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away ] The comma in the A.V. tends to confuse the meaning. The R.V. better, out of the captivity of those which had been carried away. The English fails to give the sense of the passage. The words ‘those which had been carried away’ translate the one Hebrew word rendered in chap. Ezr 1:11 and elsewhere ‘the captivity’ (hag-glah). This was the technical abstract noun used to designate the Jews that had been carried away into foreign lands. The words here used are more nearly reproduced in the Greek version . ‘From the captivity of the Glah’ means therefore ‘out of the condition and scene of captivity which was the lot of ‘the deportation’, i.e. of those who had been forcibly removed from their homes’. Cf. Ezr 1:11, Ezr 6:20.
Nebuchadnezzar ] R.V. margin, ‘Heb. Nebuchadnezzor ’. This spelling represents the preferable reading of the original in this verse. It again indicates the different origin of this section from chap. Ezr 1:7, where the Hebrew has ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ without any variant spelling. ‘Nebuchadnezzor’ attempts more nearly to reproduce the final syllable of the Assyrian ‘Nab-kudur-uur’ i.e. ‘Nebo, defend the crown’. He is called ‘Nebuchadrezzar’ in several places. Once in Jer 49:28 (C’thib) ‘Nebuchadrezzor’.
The great king of Babylon reigned 43 years (605 562). The two chief ‘deportations’ took place (1) in 598, when Nebuchadnezzar carried away king Jehoiachin and all the principal inhabitants of Jerusalem; (2) in 587 6, when the city was destroyed.
every one unto his city ] It is impossible to take these words as literally applicable to the year of the Return. The Jews on their return to their own land at first only occupied Jerusalem and the country immediately adjacent. The work of settling into their own cities was the work of years. But the process was complete at the time when this heading was attached to the register of names. The writer summarizes the movement, which in his own time was long past, cf. Ezr 2:70, Ezr 3:1.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The province – Judaea was no longer a kingdom, but a mere province of Persia. The children of the province are the Israelites who returned to Palestine, as distinct from those who remained in Babylonia and Persia.
Every one unto his city – That is, to the city whereto his forefathers had belonged. Of course, in the few cases where this was not known Ezr 2:59-62, the plan could not be carried out.
Two other copies of the following list have come down to us – one in Neh. 7:7-69, and the other in 1 Esdras 5:8-43. All seem to have been taken from the same original document, and to have suffered more or less from corruption. Where two out of the three agree, the reading should prevail over that of the third.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Ezr 2:1-2
Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity.
Going up out of captivity
I. The deliverance from captivity.
1. This captivity had been–
(1) A degradation;
(2) a subjection;
(3) a transformation;
(4) a retribution.
The most deplorable degradation and the most real and terrible subjection are those of sin.
2. This deliverance–
(1) Originated in the favour of God;
(2) was effected by an unlikely agent;
(3) was permissive and not compulsory.
Salvation from the bondage of sin is freely offered in the gospel, but no one is compelled to accept the offer.
II. The journey home. This journey was–
1. A restoration.
2. A restoration to their own home.
3. A restoration to religious privileges. The salvation of Jesus Christ restores man to his true condition and to his forfeited inheritance.
III. The subordination to leaders. Society could not exist without leaders and rulers. They are necessary–
1. For the maintenance of order.
2. For insuring progress.
3. Because of the differences in the characters and abilities of men. (William Jones.)
Emancipation
The Rev. J. Jackson Fuller, of the Cameroons, a coloured missionary, said at the Young Peoples Meeting of the Baptist Centenary: Although our fathers in my country were born under the British flag, yet we were nothing more and nothing else than the chattels of the Englishman. We were British slaves, and it was partly by the missionaries going to our country–the island of Jamaica–and telling us of the love of Jesus Christ that their vivid description of our oppressed condition aroused the English nation, and in the year 1834, after paying twenty millions of money, you set us all free. The very day you passed the Emancipation Act in England, I was made free. You young people would have been glad, or your fathers before you would have been glad, had they the opportunity of seeing that morning in the year 1884 when thousands of children and their fathers and mothers gathered together during the evening, waiting for that morning of the 31st of July to dawn. At eleven oclock at night they gathered in mass and waited for the hour to pass when the clock should strike twelve. And then you would have been glad to see that mighty mass of human beings rise on their feet and sing the Doxology–Praise God, from whom all blessings flow. I was among that number that gathered that night. I heard the Doxology sung. I am one of the boys that were rescued when you paid twenty millions of money and set our fathers free.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER II
An account of those who returned from Babylon, 1-35.
The children of the priests who returned, 36-39.
Of the Levites, 40.
Of the singers, 41.
Of the porters, 42.
Of the Nethinim, and the children of Solomon’s servants, 43-58.
Others who could not find out their registers, 59-62.
The number of the whole congregation, 63, 64.
Of their servants, maids, and singers, 65.
Their horses and mules, 66.
Their camels and asses, 67.
The offerings of the chief men when they came to Jerusalem,
68, 69.
The priests, Levites, singers, porters, and Nethinim, betake
themselves to their respective cities, 70.
NOTES ON CHAP. II
Verse 1. These are the children of the province] That is, of Judea; once a kingdom, and a flourishing nation; now a province, subdued, tributary, and ruined! Behold the goodness and severity of God! Some think Babylon is meant by the province; and that the children of the province means those Jews who were born in Babylon. But the first is most likely to be the meaning, for thus we find Judea styled, Ezr 5:8. Besides, the province is contradistinguished from Babylon even in this first verse, The children of the province-that had been carried away unto Babylon.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The children of the province, i.e. the Israelites, called the children of the province, either,
1. Of Babylon, of which province we oft read, as Ezr 7:16; Dan 2:48; Dan 3:1,2,30, called the province by way of eminency; of which they are called children, because of their birth and habitation in it for a long time, it being usual to call the inhabitants of any city or place its children. Or rather,
2. Of Judea, called a province, Ezr 5:8. And he calls it thus emphatically, to mind himself and his brethren of that sad change which their sins had made among them, that from an illustrious, independent, and formidable kingdom, were fallen to be an obscure, servile, and contemptible province, first under the Chaldeans, and now under the Persians. Every one unto his city; either unto those cities or towns which belonged to their several ancestors; or rather, to those which were now allotted to them, and from this time possessed by them. For their former cities were either demolished. or possessed by other persons, which they were not now in a capacity of disturbing.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. children of the provincethatis, Judea (Ezr 5:8), so calledas being now reduced from an illustrious, independent, and powerfulkingdom to an obscure, servile, tributary province of the Persianempire. This name is applied by the sacred historian to intimate thatthe Jewish exiles, though now released from captivity and allowed toreturn into their own land, were still the subjects of Cyrus,inhabiting a province dependent upon Persia.
came again unto Jerusalem andJudah, every one unto his cityeither the city that had beenoccupied by his ancestors, or, as most parts of Judea were theneither desolate or possessed by others, the city that was rebuilt andallotted to him now.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now these are the children of the province,…. Either of the province of Babylon, as Aben Ezra, where they were either born, or had dwelt for many years; or else rather, according to Jarchi, of the province of Judea, as it is called, Ezr 5:8 once a flourishing kingdom, but reduced to a province of the Babylonian monarchy, now in the hands of the Medes and Persians, of which province they and their fathers originally were:
that went out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon; who either in person, or in their parents, were carried captive by him, and who were the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; and they are only mentioned, because they were the principal that returned, though there were some of the other tribes that also came up with them:
and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, everyone unto his city; that he dwelt in before, or was now assigned to him by lot, see Ne 11:1, &c.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The title. – “These are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of the carrying away (i.e., of those which had been carried away), whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, every one to his city.” In Neh 7:6 is omitted, through an error of transcription caused by the preceding ; and stands instead of , which does not, however, affect the sense. is the province whose capital was Jerusalem (Neh 11:3), i.e., the province of Judaea as a district of the Persian empire; so Ezr 5:8; Neh 1:2. The Chethiv is similar to the form Nebucadrezor, Jer 49:28, and is nearer to the Babylonian form of this name than the usual biblical forms Nebucadnezzar or Nebucadrezzar. For further remarks on the various forms of this name, see on Dan 1:1. They returned “each to his city,” i.e., to the city in which he or his ancestors had dwelt before the captivity. Bertheau, on the contrary, thinks that, “though in the allotment of dwelling-places some respect would certainly be had to the former abode of tribes and families, yet the meaning cannot be that every one returned to the locality where his forefathers had dwelt: first, because it is certain (?) that all memorial of the connection of tribes and families was frequently obliterated, comp. below, Neh 7:61-64; and then, because a small portion only of the former southern kingdom being assigned to the returned community, the descendants of dwellers in those towns which lay without the boundaries of the new state could not return to the cities of their ancestors.” True, however, as this may be, the city of each man cannot mean that “which the authorities, in arranging the affairs of the community, assigned to individuals as their domicile, and of which they were reckoned inhabitants in the lists then drawn up for the sake of levying taxes,” etc. (Bertheau). This would by no means be expressed by the words, “ they returned each to his own city.” We may, on the contrary, correctly say that the words hold good potiori , i.e., they are used without regard to exceptions induced by the above-named circumstance. , Ezr 2:2, corresponds with the of Ezr 2:1; hence in Neh 7:7 we find also the participle . They came with Zerubbabel, etc., that is, under their conduct and leadership. Zerubbabel ( , or , probably abbreviated from , in Babylonia satus seu genitus ) the son of Shealtiel was a descendant of the captive king Jehoiachin (see on 1Ch 3:17), and was probably on account of this descent made leader of the expedition, and royal governor of the new settlement, by Cyrus. Jeshua ( , the subsequently abbreviated form of the name Jehoshua or Joshua, which is used Neh 8:17 also for Joshua the son of Nun, the contemporary of Moses) the son of Josedech (Hagg. Jos 1:1), and the grandson of Seraiah the high priest, who was put to death by Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, was the first high priest of the restored community; see on 1Ch 6:15. Besides those of Zerubbabel and Joshua, nine (or in Nehemiah more correctly ten) names, probably of heads of families, but of whom nothing further is known, are placed here. 1. Nehemiah, to be distinguished from the well-known Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah, Neh 1:1; 2. Seraiah, instead of which we have in Neh 7:7 Azariah; 3. Reeliah, in Nehemiah, Raamiah; 4. Nahamani in Nehemiah, in 1 Esdras 5:8, omitted in the text of Ezra; 5. Mordecai, not the Mordecai of the book of Esther ( Est 2:5.); 6. Bilshan; 7. Mispar, in Nehemiah Mispereth; 8. Bigvai; 9. Rehum, in 1 Esdras ; 10. Baanah. These ten, or reckoning Zerubbabel and Joshua, twelve men, are evidently intended, as leaders of the returning nation, to represent the new community as the successor of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is also unmistakeably shown by the designation, the people of Israel, in the special title, and by the offering of twelve sin-offerings, according to the number of the tribes of Israel, at the dedication of the new temple, Ezr 6:16. The genealogical relation, however, of these twelve representatives to the twelve tribes cannot be ascertained, inasmuch as we are told nothing of the descent of the last ten. Of these ten names, one meets indeed with that of Seraiah, Neh 10:3; of Bigvai, in the mention of the sons of Bigvai, Ezr 8:14; of Rehum, Neh 3:17; Neh 12:3; and of Baanah, Neh 10:28; but there is nothing to make the identity of these persons probable. Even in case they were all of them descended from members of the former kingdom of Judah, this is no certain proof that they all belonged also to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, since even in the reign of Rehoboam pious Israelites of the ten tribes emigrated thither, and both at and after the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, many Israelites might have taken refuge and settled in Judah. The last words, Ezr 2:2, “The number of the men of the people of Israel,” contain the special title of the first division of the following list, with which the titles in Ezr 2:36, Ezr 2:40, Ezr 2:43, and Ezr 2:55 correspond. They are called the people of Israel, not the people of Judah, because those who returned represented the entire covenant people.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Return of the Captives. | B. C. 536. |
1 Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city; 2 Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: 3 The children of Parosh, two thousand a hundred seventy and two. 4 The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy and two. 5 The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five. 6 The children of Pahath-moab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve. 7 The children of Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four. 8 The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five. 9 The children of Zaccai, seven hundred and threescore. 10 The children of Bani, six hundred forty and two. 11 The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty and three. 12 The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two. 13 The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six. 14 The children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty and six. 15 The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four. 16 The children of Ater of Hezekiah, ninety and eight. 17 The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and three. 18 The children of Jorah, a hundred and twelve. 19 The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty and three. 20 The children of Gibbar, ninety and five. 21 The children of Beth-lehem, a hundred twenty and three. 22 The men of Netophah, fifty and six. 23 The men of Anathoth, a hundred twenty and eight. 24 The children of Azmaveth, forty and two. 25 The children of Kirjath-arim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred and forty and three. 26 The children of Ramah and Gaba, six hundred twenty and one. 27 The men of Michmas, a hundred twenty and two. 28 The men of Beth-el and Ai, two hundred twenty and three. 29 The children of Nebo, fifty and two. 30 The children of Magbish, a hundred fifty and six. 31 The children of the other Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four. 32 The children of Harim, three hundred and twenty. 33 The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred twenty and five. 34 The children of Jericho, three hundred forty and five. 35 The children of Senaah, three thousand and six hundred and thirty.
We may observe here, 1. That an account was kept in writing of the families that came up out of captivity, and the numbers of each family. This was done for their honour, as part of their recompence for their faith and courage, their confidence in God and their affection to their own land, and to stir up others to follow their good example. Those that honour God he will thus honour. The names of all those Israelites indeed that accept the offer of deliverance by Christ shall be found, to their honour, in a more sacred record than this, even in the Lamb’s book of life. The account that was kept of the families that came up from the captivity was intended also for the benefit of posterity, that they might know from whom they descended and to whom they were allied. 2. That they are called children of the province. Judah, which had been an illustrious kingdom, to which other kingdoms had been made provinces, subject to it and dependent on it, was now itself made a province, to receive laws and commissions from the king of Persia and to be accountable to him. See how sin diminishes and debases a nation, which righteousness would exalt. But by thus being made servants (as the patriarchs by being sojourners in a country which was theirs by promise) they were reminded of the better country, that is, the heavenly (Heb. xi. 16), a kingdom which cannot be moved, or changed into a province. 3. That they are said to come every one to his city, that is, the city appointed them, in which appointment an eye, no doubt, was had to their former settlement by Joshua; and to that, as near as might be, they returned: for it does not appear that any others, at least any that were able to oppose them, had possessed them in their absence. 4. That the leaders are first mentioned, v. 2. Zerubbabel and Jeshua were their Moses and Aaron, the former their chief prince, the latter their chief priest. Nehemiah and Mordecai are mentioned here; some think not the same with the famous men we afterwards meet with of those names: probably they were the same, but afterwards returned to court for the service of their country. 5. Some of these several families are named from the persons that were their ancestors, others from the places in which they had formerly resided; as with us many surnames are the proper names of persons, others of places. 6. Some little difference there is between the numbers of some of the families here and in Neh. vii., where this catalogue is repeated, which might arise from this, that some who had given in their names at first to come afterwards drew back–said, I go, Sir, but went not, which would lessen the number of the families they belonged to; others that declined, at first, afterwards repented and went, and so increased the number. 7. Here are two families that are called the children of Elam (one v. 7, another v. 31), and, which is strange, the number of both is the same, 1254. 8. The children of Adonikam, which signifies a high lord, were 666, just the number of the beast (Rev. xiii. 18), which is there said to be the number of a man, which, Mr. Hugh Broughton thinks, has reference to this man. 9. The children of Bethlehem (v. 21) were but 123, though it was David’s city; for Bethlehem was little among the thousands of Judah, yet there must the Messiah arise, Mic. v. 2. 10. Anathoth had been a famous place in the tribe of Benjamin and yet here it numbered but 128 (v. 23), which is to be imputed to the divine curse which the men of Anathoth brought upon themselves by persecuting Jeremiah, who was of their city. Jer 11:21; Jer 11:23, There shall be no remnant of them, for I will bring evil upon the men of Anathoth. And see Isa. x. 30, O poor Anathoth! Nothing brings ruin on a people sooner than persecution.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Ezra – Chapter 2
Returning Families, Verses 1-35
Ezra – Chapter 2, relates the families who were carried captive from, Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the exile, whose descendants chose to return to Jerusalem under the decree issued by Cyrus. Verse 2 records that they returned under the leadership of Zerubbabel, who was the grandson of Jeconiah, the king of Judah, who also was carried away captive. Presumably Zerubbabel would have been king had there been still a Jewish kingdom.
The mention of Zerubbabel here as the Jewish leader, while Sheshbazzar is said to have been their leader in Ezr 1:8 has provoked controversy among the commentators. Attempts have been made to show that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are the same person, the first name being that given the prince by the Babylonians and the second being his Hebrew name. There is not much evidence to support this position. That there were two different princes involved is not to be considered unlikely, although Sheshbazzar is scarcely mentioned later, and Zerubbabel becomes the governor of the people. Perhaps the position of some that Sheshbazzar led an initial emigration, followed by a larger second group under Zerubbabel is the best explanation.
Of the many names listed here in these verses it is impossible to identify any persons of prominence elsewhere in the Scriptures. It is to be noted that they are not the names of those who returned, but the names of their fathers who were carried away by Nebuchadnezzar in the dispersions some seventy years earlier. Not all the returnees are listed by the family of their fathers. Verses 21 through 35 list the people by towns and cities from which their fathers came. Probably all those in the first twenty verses had come from Jerusalem.
The number of souls from each family or town is given, the largest being the family of Pahath-moab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve (v. 5), and the fewest being the twenty-eight men of Anathoth (v. 23).
It should also be noted from verse 2 that there were ten other chief men who joined Zerubbabel in the leadership of the emigrants. Of these Jeshua is surely to be identified with the high priest, prominently mentioned in the Books of Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah as well as Ezra. His name is also written “Joshua.” Of the other names none is further identifiable, though they were prominent names of the times. Nehemiah is not to be thought the same as the nobleman who rebuilt the walls, for he did not arrive in Jerusalem until some ninety years later. Neither is there any evidence that Mordecai is the same person as the cousin of Queen Esther, who came to prominence as the prime minister of Persia about forty years later.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE BUILDING ORDER
Ezra, Chapters 1 and 2.
THE relationship of Ezra to Chronicles is evident. There is not a hint of break between them. Chronicles ends,
Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord God of Heaven given me; and He hath charged me to build Him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all His people? The Lord his God be with him, and let him go up (2Ch 36:23),
and Ezra opens,
Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the Word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,
Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and He hath charged me to build Him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah (Ezr 1:1-2).
If it were not for the name Ezra, here introduced, one would never know that he had changed Books. In fact, Ezra is additional chronicle. It is the record of temple-building and involves the revival of the national spirit and the quickening of religious interest. Ordinarily, such revivals originate with prophet or priest. Here, however, it originates with the king, and, strange to say, with a king who was no Israelite, but who seems to have been a monotheist.
Beyond all question, if we knew the Divine reasons for doing things, we would discover that they are always perfect reasons.
A king was the best adapted man to originate and see carried to a successful issue this particular revival, since it was a revival that began on the material rather than on the spiritual side and looked to the creation of a housea physical assembly placefor Gods people, rather than to a soul-quickening; although it must forever be accepted as a fact that the material was but a means to spiritual ends.
In considering this building order, we are impressed by the following facts!
First, Cyrus received it from God,
Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and He hath charged me to build Him an house (Ezr 1:2).
This order, then, came from God. When did a revelation ever come from any other? When did a revival ever originate with any other? If men are inspired, God inspires them. In matters of revelation this is doubtless done in two ways:First, a direct message from the lips of the Lord, and second, a stirring of the spirit in the heart of His chosen medium. It would seem in the text that the latter was the method here employed. But the language is, The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing. However, it is not at all certain that God did not speak audibly to Cyrus, for, by the pen of inspiration, we are told in the last verse of Chronicles, The Lord God of Heaven * * hath charged me to build Him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah.
It is not at all unusual to have special revelation attended by a special revival. In fact, we should say that that was the method God commonly employeda revelation and a revival. In truth, these can never be separated. Present-day revival, when it takes place, is always the product of revelation. It is the answer to the preaching of the revealed Word. It is the fulfilment of the Divine promise,
As the rain cometh down, and the snow from Heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth (Isa 55:10-11).
There are people who seem to think that a revival will surely result if the Spirit of God falls upon the people. Possibly, and yet, let it not be forgotten that His coming assures a fresh proclamation of the Word. Witness Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. In the early part of the chapter, the Spirit of God has fallen. This is evidenced by a sound from Heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, filling all the house where they were sitting, and further proclaimed in the tongues of fire that sat upon each of them. And yet, it was an answer to the preaching of the Word in a tongue wherein each was born, and the mighty proclamation at the lips of Peter that thousands were convicted and twenty-five hundred were immediately converted.
There is never a revival apart from revelation. They have a common origin. They both come from God and they commonly come together.
This revelation came to the king. Cyrus was able to say, The Lord God of Heaven * * hath charged me to build Him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and the record of it in Ezra is, The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing (Ezr 1:1).
There are people who seem to think that God has nothing to do with world governments, or world governors. They overemphasize certain features of revelation and remind us that the humble are commonly made the subjects of His revelation, and the agents of His will, saying, that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called (1Co 1:26), but it is well not to forget the qualifications of Scripture here. Not many is not to be read, not one. Again and again in Old Testament times, God appeared to Kings. In fact, He seldom ignored that honored official if he happened to rule over Gods people.
There are those who seem to think that no building program that looks to spiritual ends can ever be accomplished save by a consecrated people. On the other hand, Gods great building programs have often been wrought out by the will and work of the poorly consecrated, the imperfectly yielded, and sometimes the imperfectly instructed. Solomons temple will forever remain the sample construction of the ages for spiritual purposes, and yet Solomon was a very deficient saint.
The period through which we are passing at the present is particularly a building period. Never in the history of Christianity have such expensive and attractive temples been erected as during the last ten years, and yet, it is confessedly a time of apostasy from the faith. To be sure, these temples are put up, most of them, with the intention of making them the mediums of a modernistic message. But who can tell what God may have in store for them?
A few years, if the Lord delay, and all this folly of modernism will have passed; men will have seen the end of their own philosophies and have sickened at the sight of the same, and the very buildings that are being constructed for false propagation may yet be filled with audiences that seek His face and find His favor.
In material progress, the kings of the earth are the most capable contributors. Cyrus could do here what no other living man could do, and God stirred him up to accomplish the same. The kings of finance in America today are being equally stirred to lay their money on the altar of building enterprises. They may not know the whole of the Divine purpose; they may not see the Divine objective, but God knows and sees, and may be the very one who has stirred them up to these marvelous undertakings.
This action was in fulfilment of prophecy. A student of the Bible needs to keep chronology before his face. He needs to relate history to prophecy and prophets to kingly periods. A student of this particular part of the Bible needs to know that Jeremiah preceded Cyrus by three-quarters of a century. His word was even then written and accepted as Divine, and the Book of Ezra calls attention to that fact in the language,
Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the Word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing (Ezr 1:1).
Turn, now, to Jer 25:12, and you read,
And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolation.
And in Jer 29:10-14, we read again,
For thus saith the Lord, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform My good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.
For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
Then shall ye call upon Me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.
And ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall search for Me with all your heart.
And I will be found of you, saith the Lord: and I mil turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the Lord; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.
God never forgets a promise, nor permits a prophecy to fail of fulfilment.
ISRAEL GAVE AUDIENCE TO CYRUS
They knew a building was required; they understood the place was appointed, and they knew the program included them.
They knew a building was required. That was the thing that had been charged upon Cyrus. There are people who cant understand why God wants to limit Himself to a house. Knowing, as they do, that He dwelleth in all space, they repudiate any thought of location for Him. But let it be understood that God Himself suggests these limitations. They are not the thought of the king. They are a part of revelation Divine, and they are also an essential to human understanding. God does dwell in infinite space, but man cannot follow Him there, or even find Him. It is in answer to their limitations that He locates Himself, and it is to make them sensible of His presence, in the midst, that He appoints their assemblies. Who shall ever reckon the number or character of benefits bestowed on assemblies and sanctuaries? Who will ever compute the importance of church houses in Christian progress?
The place of this temple was appointed. In Jerusalem, which is in Judah.
Who will say that the location of a house is a matter of minor concern? The tragedy of Christianity is at this point. Visit any city you will in America and one-half its church houses were evidently located by men who never consulted God. They are off to one side; they are around the corner; they are in the untraversed district; they are where lots could be bought cheaply; they are not where the people are congested, where the throngs pass! What a shame! What a crime! Take the hearts of the great metropolises of America. They are black holes. Churches have moved away from them, and business has moved on to the very cite where the sanctuary should stand, and once did stand. Some trustee of the church, in order to relieve himself from making larger contributions, possibly from making any at all, lead the forces that determined the cheap location.
How many times the central down-town church lot has been sold for a sufficient sum to construct a house in some out-of-the-way section! The plethoric purse has been left untouched, and the Divine appointment of place has been despised. It is Gods right to say where His house shall stand, and as God, in the olden day, located the temple at the very center of all Israels interests, so God now would do if designing men would but let Him.
The builders also were Divinely selectedthe willing workers of Gods people.
Who is there among you of all His people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel, (He is the God,) which is in Jerusalem.
And whosoever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem (Ezr 1:3-4).
How beautiful the record!
Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all them whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem.
And all they that were about them strengthened their hands with vessels of silver, with gold, with goods, and with beasts, and with precious things, beside all that was willingly offered (Ezr 1:5-6).
This is a better report than usually characterizes the history of building enterprises. There are professed Christians, supposed spiritual descendants of Judah and Benjamin, who think that the world ought to build the church, and who proceed straightway to put on a lecture course, thereby to inveigle the cash out of non-Christian pockets, or to hold a series of oyster suppers and thereby take away silver in turn for thin soup; or, if you please, employ picture shows and approach as nearly the putrid as public opinion will tolerate, that money may be made for Gods building.
When did such a program ever find in revelation a defense of itself? When and where did God ever approve of such procedure? No! when Gods house is to be builded, Gods people are to do it. The old menfathers of Judah and Benjaminand the young men, strong in the faith, are to unite their endeavors; the priest and the Levite, they are to join with the laymen in laying the foundation, and in putting in place the finial. The silver and the gold with which God has blessed them is to be. willingly brought, and the altar of sacrifice is to receive only gifts of love. Such is the procedure here suggested, surely!
But, in finishing this chapter, and in considering the next, let us see
THE KING AND ISRAEL UNITED
Cyrus made the first contribution. This contribution represented two essential features of Christian experiencerepentance and faith. These vessels had been in the hands of his predecessor and had been godlessly employed. They belonged, however, to the house of the Lord, and had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar out of Jerusalem, out of the holy sanctuary and prostituted to the ends of personal employment, as with Belshazzar (Dan 5:1-4), or devoted to the service of idols, as intimated in verse 7. This iniquity Cyrus evidently repented and turned from the worship of gods to faith in the true Godthe God of Israel. It was no mean contribution:
thirty chargers of gold, a thousand chargers of silver, nine and twenty knives,
Thirty basons of gold, silver basons of a second sort four hundred and ten, and other vessels a thousand.
All the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand and four hundred. All these did Sheshbaszar bring up with them of the captivity that were brought up from Babylon unto Jerusalem (Ezr 1:9-11).
Oh, how many men there are who have taken away from Gods sanctuary what belonged in it; who have kept for their own use, or have employed in the service of Venus, or Gambrinus, and other unclean gods, that which belonged originally to Jehovah, and which should now be in His service.
And yet, what is there that does not belong to Jehovah? What of wealth that He did not create; what of talent that He did not give? Joseph Parker thinks that in the day of the restoration of all things, men will bring back gold, art, music, miracles, reason, sciencethey all belong to Him; they should all be on His altar.
Oh, young man, matchless in your ability to touch the business world with a magic wand, and make it yield great heaps of gold, remember the silver and the gold are the Lords. And oh, young woman, blessed with a brilliant intellect, or sacredly endowed with rhythmic sense that makes music as natural to you as breath, or art as easy as vision; dont carry off these sacred gifts and lay them on unclean altars, devoting them to false gods, but bring them to Him whose they were and whose they are and whose you are.
Kings are not to be exceptions here, but to be examples rather. When Gods house is in need, kings of finance are not to lag back, but to lead the procession; they are not to wait and see what the people can do without them, but they are to set an inspiring example and prove what the people will attempt with them. Watch that, then, and take your next step.
Israel came quickly to Cyrus help. This statement covers the whole of Ezra 2. Let not the student stumble over this genealogical list; over the long difficult names of the children of the province that went up out of captivity and came again unto Jerusalem. They are set down that you might see who they were, and how many, and that you might appreciate the great procession as it marched toward Jerusalem. This genealogical table shows their heads of families, and enumerates descendants. It also involves more than numbers; it records talents. The Levites are there; the singers are there.
Forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore.
Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women.
Their horses were seven hundred thirty and six; their mules, two hundred forty and five;
Their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty.
And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem, offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place (Ezr 2:64-68).
How marvelous the statement, they gave after their ability! Thats the very law of the New Testament. And how beautiful the collaboration of labors,
So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities (Ezr 2:70).
But, there is also a suggestion here that we cannot pass over in silence. It is found in the Nethinims.
A building enterprise proves a genealogical touchstone to them.
These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.
And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim (Ezr 2:62-63);
in other words, until a priest arose who had at his command the instruments of decision, the sacred stones that were supposed to tell for or against any proposition. But let us see this clear lesson in the text. Every time a building enterprise of any considerable proportions is undertaken, it will prove the people, those whose genealogy is fully established, who have been begotten by the Holy Spirit and thereby made children of the King; they will come and gladly lay their offerings upon the altar to the Lord. That same building enterprise will prove those who have another spirit, but who have never known regeneration, and who, therefore, belong not to the family of God, but to the house of the flesh, and who, in self-love, will refuse to make sacrifices.
There are many ministers who hesitate to undertake a building enterprise because they know this truth. They know that when a great load is to be lifted and a great undertaking is to be carried through, division, discussion, controversy, contention are certain. Some will want to go forward; others will want to stand still, and bitterness ensues. On that account, the fearful minister draws back and often consents to give up an enterprise that he believes to be in the interest of truth and for the honor of God.
But is there not another side to this same proposition? Is it not worthwhile for the pastor to find out who of his people are the Lords? Is it not better to have it openly understood who they are, also, that cannot establish their spiritual genealogy? Is not a smaller church better than a larger mixed multitude? Are not a few hundred consecrated Christians more to be coveted in church fellowship than a few thousand of the godly and unregenerated, mixed?
There have been a few building enterprises in America devoted exclusively to spiritual ends that have exceeded in extent or expense those of the First Baptist Church, Minneapolis, and the Northwestern Bible School. At this, the end of thirty-one years as pastor of the church, and twenty-five in the presidency of the school, I bear truthful testimony to the fact that these building enterprises have brought, among other blessings, this, as one of great value. They have tested my people; they have proven the loyal; they have uncovered the disloyal. And in these great buildings, that cover almost two blocks, there stands an eternal memorial to the spiritual genealogy of the men who have made them possible. And while it is a history not written in stone, doubtless the Divine archives have kept a perfect record of it, namely, the history of the Nethinimsmen who were once with us, but who, when the enterprise came, preferred another dwelling place and left the true Israel to carry the load Divinely appointed, and come eventually into the blessing Divinely bestowed.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.] In this chapter we have the list of those who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel, and their contributions for rebuilding the Temple. The contents may be arranged thus
1. The description of the chapter (Ezr. 2:1), with the names of the leaders of the exodus (Ezr. 2:2).
2. The numbers of the people who returned, arranged
(1) according to families (Ezr. 2:3-19;
(2) according to cities (Ezr. 2:20-35).
3. The numbers of the priests and Levites who returned, arranged according to families (Ezr. 2:36-42).
4. The numbers of the Nethinim and the descendants of Solomons servants (Ezr. 2:43-58).
5. People and priests who could not produce their genealogy (Ezr. 2:59-63).
6. The sum total of the persons who returned, with their servants and beasts of burden (Ezr. 2:64-67).
7. The offerings of those who returned for the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezr. 2:68-69), and a concluding statement (Ezr. 2:70). This catalogue appears also in the Book of Nehemiah (chap. Ezr. 7:6-28), he having found the document (Ezr. 2:5), and incorporated it in his work. It also appears in the apocryphal book, 1Es. 5:7-45. The three texts differ to some extent in the names, and yet more in the numbers. The differences, however, are unimportant, and arose probably from the mistakes of copyists, to which there is great liability in transcribing long lists of names and numbers.
Ezr. 2:1. The province] i.e. the province of Judea as a district of the Persian Empire; so chap. Ezr. 5:8, Neh. 1:3.Keil. Every one unto his city] All who returned did not settle in Jerusalem. Many were located in neighbouring cities and villages.
Ezr. 2:2. Zerubbabel] = born in Babylon. His Chaldean name was Sheshbazzar (chap. Ezr. 1:8). Jeshua] A later and abbreviated form of Jehoshua. He was the son of Jehozadak (1Ch. 6:14), or, as it is written in Hag. 1:1, Josedech; was probably born in Babylon; and was the first high priest of the restored community. A man of earnest piety, patriotism, and courage. The names of nine other persons are given in this verse. Nehemiah (chap. Ezr. 7:7) gives the name of Nahamani, which is not mentioned here, and makes twelve in all. Of these ten persons we know nothing except their names, and that, with Zerubbabel and Jeshua, they were probably the twelve heads of twelve divisions into which the new community was arranged. Nehemiah] is not Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah (Neh. 1:1); Seraiah] is Azariah; Reelaiah] is Raamiah; Mizpar] is Mispereth; and Rehum] is Nehum, in Neh. 7:7; Mordecai] not Mordecai the cousin and foster-parent of Esther (Est. 2:7). The number of the men of the people of Israel] is the special title of the first division (Ezr. 2:3-35) of the following list, with which the titles in Ezr. 2:36; Ezr. 2:40; Ezr. 2:43; Ezr. 2:55 correspond. They are called the people of Israel, not the people of Judah, because those who returned represented the entire covenant people.Keil. Although, as we before stated, those who returned were almost all from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi.
Ezr. 2:3-35] It is not necessary for us to enter into a comparison of the names and numbers here given and those of the corresponding passage in Nehemiah.
Ezr. 2:36-39. The priests] This brief catalogue corresponds exactly with Neh. 7:39-42.
Ezr. 2:40-42. The Levites] were of three classes
1. Those who assisted the priests in Divine worship.
2. The singers.
3. The porters. (Comp. 1Ch. 24:20-31; 1Ch. 24:25; 1Ch. 26:1-19)
Ezr. 2:43-54. The Nethinims] Nethinim = given or dedicated ones; from = to give, dedicate, &c. They were captives of war, who were given to the Levites to be employed in the rougher and more laborious duties of their offices (Num. 31:47; Jos. 9:27). The Nethinims, whom David and the princes had appointed (Heb. given) for the service of the Levites (chap. Ezr. 8:20). Keil briefly designates them temple-bondsmen.
Ezr. 2:55-57. The children of Solomons servants] were, according to Plumptre (Bibl. Dict.) and Rawlinson, the descendants of the remnant of the ancient Canaanites, upon whom Solomon levied a tribute of bond-service (1Ki. 9:20-21; 2Ch. 8:7-8). But, according to Keil and Schultz, they were prisoners of war from some other nations, whom Solomon made to do services similar to those of the Gibeonites (Jos. 9:27). In rebuilding the Temple their services would be of great importance.
Ezr. 2:58. Three hundred ninety and two] So also Neh. 7:60.
Ezr. 2:59-60. Could not show their fathers house, and their seed] Margin: pedigree. Although they could not prove their Israelite origin, they were permitted to go up to Jerusalem with the rest, the rights of citizenship alone being for the present withheld.Keil.
Ezr. 2:61-63. Children of the priests] who could not prove that they belonged to the priesthood.
Ezr. 2:61. Which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai] &c. Keil and Schultz think that the daughters of Barzillai were heiresses, and that the priest who married one of them assumed her name in order to take possession of her inheritance. But this, to say the least, is very questionable, seeing that they had brothers (1Ki. 2:7); and daughters, according to Jewish law, did not inherit any of their fathers property except in those cases in which he had no son (Num. 27:8). It is more probable that the name of the wifes family was preferred because of the honourable associations of that name; for Barzillai the Gileadite was a very great man, and distinguished by reason of his relations to king David (2Sa. 17:27-29; 2Sa. 19:31-39; 1Ki. 2:7). The change of name would not invalidate the claim of the descendants of the family to the priesthood; but in process of time it might have occasioned doubts as to their priestly origin.
Ezr. 2:62. Therefore, were they, as polluted] &c. Margin: Heb., they were polluted from the priesthood. They were pronounced unclean, and so excluded from the priesthood.
Ezr. 2:63. Tirshatha] Margin: Or, governor. It is the Persian title of the civil governor, and is here given to Zerubbabel. It was afterwards applied to Nehemiah (Neh. 8:9; Neh. 10:1). Not eat of the most holy things] (comp. Lev. 2:3; Num. 18:9). This prohibition involved their exclusion from the discharge of priestly functions. A portion of the general fees which were offered to the priests was not denied them, since their right to the priesthood was not expressly denied, but left in suspenso.Schultz. Till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim] Zerubbabel expected that when the altar and Temple were rebuilt, Jehovah would again grant them some special manifestation of His presence, and would restore the privilege of obtaining direct answers from Him by means of Urim and Thummim. His expectation, however, was never fulfilled.
Ezr. 2:64] The number here given agrees exactly with that given both in Nehemiah and in 1 Esdras. The sum total being alike in all three texts, we are obliged to assume its correctness.Keil.
Ezr. 2:65. Their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven] In Neh. 7:67 the same number of servants is given. Two hundred singing men and singing women] These singers were employed to increase the delight of the festivities, and to chant dirges in times of mourning (2Ch. 35:25; Ecc. 2:8); and as they were hired and paid, and were probably not of Israelite origin, they are here classed with the servants.
Ezr. 2:66-67] With these verses Neh. 7:68-69, exactly agree.
Ezr. 2:68. When they came to the house of the Lord] i.e. to the site of the Temple. Probably considerable ruins of the Temple were yet remaining.
Ezr. 2:69] The account of the offerings given in Neh. 7:70-72 differs from that in this verse, and is held both by Keil and by Schultz to be more correct. Threescore and one thousand drams, or darics, of gold] According to Rawlinson, the daric was worth 1, 1 Samuel 10d. of our money. The 61,000 darics were therefore equal to 66,718, 15s. Five thousand pound, or mina, of silver] The Greek silver mina was worth a little over 4 of our money; and the value of the Hebrew silver manch, according to Rawlinson, was probably not very different from the Greek. Thus the offering in silver would be worth over 20,000; and the entire offering in money worth nearly 90,000. Keil, however, reckons the 61,000 darics of gold to be worth 68,625, and the 5000 mina of silver, 30,000, and the entire offering nearly 99,000.
GOING UP OUT OF CAPTIVITY
(Ezr. 2:1 and part of 2)
We have here presented to our notice
I. The deliverance from captivity. These are the children of the promise that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away into Babylon. The captivity from which they were escaping was
(1.) A degradation. It was the loss of their power and independence.
(2.) A subjection. It was the loss of their freedom. They were brought under the power of their conquerors.
(3.) A transportation. Nebuchadnezzar the king carried them away unto Babylon. From their own land, with all its hallowed and inspiring memories and associations, they were forcibly removed unto the land of their heathen conquerors.
(4.) A retribution. Their captivity was the punishment of their numerous, heinous, and long-continued sins against God, and especially their forsaking Him by the adoption of dolatrous customs. Nebuchadnezzar was the rod of God for their chastisement.
The most deplorable degradation and the most real and terrible subjection are those of sin.
But now many of the Jews are going up out of the captivity. The offer of release has been made, and they who are mentioned in this chapter have accepted it.
Concerning this deliverance, notice:
1. It originated in the favour of God (chap. Ezr. 1:1).
2. It was effected by an unlikely agent. Cyrus.
3. It was permissive, not compulsory. The Jews were quite free to accept or to decline the offer of Cyrus.
Salvation from the bondage of sin is freely offered in the Gospel, but no one is compelled to accept the offer. All who accept it do so willingly, of their own accord.
II. The journey home. And came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city. It is here suggested that this journey was:
1. A restoration. And came again. They were going unto the land which God had given to their fathers; to the scenes of the most sacred and stirring events in their national history.
2. A restoration to their own home. Came again every one unto his city. It seems to us that where it was practicable the returning Jews would settle in the cities where their ancestors had resided, and take possession of the inheritances which they had held. They went back to the scenes amid which their forefathers lived and laboured, to the lands which they had cultivated, to the places where they had prayed and worked, rejoiced and wept, loved and suffered, lived and died. There must have been in this a very strong and tender attraction to many hearts. (a).
3. A restoration to religious privileges. Came again unto Jerusalem. Jerusalem was not only the metropolis of the nation, but the holy city, the place where the Temple had been and was to be again. This Mount Zion, wherein Thou hast dwelt (Psa. 74:2). Jerusalem whither the tribes go up, &c. (Psa. 122:4).
The salvation of Jesus Christ restores man to his true condition and to his forfeited inheritance. When divine grace, said Legh Richmond, renews the heart of the fallen sinner, Paradise is regained, and much of its beauty restored to the soul.
But they were not returning with complete independence. They were still the children of the province. Judea remained a province of the Persian Empire. Full religious freedom was granted unto them, but politically they remained subject to Persian rule. Sin, even when it is forgiven, blotted out, always leaves some detriment, or loss, or pain behind it. (b).
III. The subordination to leaders. Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mizpar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanab. Zerubbabel prince of Judah was bead over all. Jeshua was the head of the party as regards its religious duties; and in addition to these there were ten recognised leaders. Society could not exist without rulers and leaders. They are necessary
1. For the maintenance of order. The authority of law must be maintained; its sanctions must be enforced, or the bands of society would be utterly dissolved, &c. And for this purpose rulers or magistrates are necessary.
2. For insuring progress. The growth and improvement of a community are impossible apart from the exercise of wise leadership.
3. Because of the differences in the characters and abilities of men. By their native faculties, their character, and their training, some men almost inevitably become the rulers and leaders of others. (c).[1]
[1] These points are treated in a less fragmentary manner in the Hom. Com. on Numbers, p. 12.
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) There is a sanctity in a good mans house which cannot be renewed in every tenement that rises on its ruins: and I believe that good men would generally feel this; and that having spent their lives happily and honourably, they would be grieved at the close of them to think that the place of their earthly abode, which had seen, and seemed almost to sympathise in, all their honour, their gladness, or their sufferingthat this, with all the record it bare of them, and all of material things that they had loved and ruled over, and set the stamp of themselves uponwas to be swept away, as soon as there was room made for them in the grave; that no respect was to be shown to it, no affection felt for it, no good to be drawn from it by their children; that though there was a monument in the church, there was no warm monument in the hearth and house to them; that all that they ever treasured was despised, and the places that had sheltered and comforted them were dragged down to the dust. I say that a good man would fear this; and that, far more, a good son, a noble descendant, would fear doing it to his fathers house. I say that if men lived like men indeed, their houses would be templestemples which we should hardly dare to injure, and in which it would make us holy to be permitted to live; and there must be a strange dissolution of natural affection, a strange unthankfulness for all that homes have given and parents taught, a strange consciousness that we have been unfaithful to our fathers honour, or that our own lives are not such as would make our dwellings sacred to our children, when each man would fain build to himself, and build for the little revolution of his own life only.
When men do not love their hearths, nor reverence their thresholds, it is a sign that they have dishonoured both, and that they have never acknowledged the true universality of that Christian worship was indeed to supersede the idolatry, but not the piety, of the pagan. Our God is a household God, as well as a heavenly One; He has an altar in every mans dwelling; let men look to it when they rend it lightly and pour out its ashes It is one of those moral duties, not with more impunity to be neglected because the perception of them depends on a finely toned and balanced conscientiousness, to build our dwellings with care, and patience, and fondness, and diligent completion, and with a view to their duration at least for such a period as, in the ordinary course of national revolutions, might be supposed likely to extend to the entire alteration of the direction of local interests.John Ruskin, M.A.
Home! angels encamp about it. Ladders are let down from heaven to every pillow in that house. Over the childs rough crib there are chantings as sweet as those that broke above Bethlehem. It is home! home! The children of the family will grow up, and though they may get splendid residences of their own, they will never forget that homely place, the place where their father rested, and their mother sang, and their sisters played. If you wanted to gather up all tender memories, all lights and shadows of the heart, all banquetings and reunions, all filial, fraternal, paternal, conjugal affections, and had only just four letters with which to spell out that height, and depth, and length, and breadth, and magnitude, and eternity of meaning, you would write it out with these four capital letters: H-O-M-E.T. de Witt Talmage, D.D.
(b) Even pardoned sins must leave a trace in heavy self-reproach. You have heard of the child whose father told him that whenever he did anything wrong a nail should be driven into a post, and when he did what was good he might pull one out. There were a great many nails driven into the post, but the child tried very hard to get the post cleared of the nails by striving to do right. At length he was so successful in his struggles with himself that the last nail was drawn out of the post. The father was just about to praise the child, when stooping down to kiss him, he was startled to see tears fast rolling down his face. Why, my boy, why do you cry? Are not all the nails gone from the post? Oh yes! the nails are all gone, but the marks are left. That is a familiar illustration, but dont despise it because of that. It illustrates the experience of many a grey old sire, who, looking upon the traces of his old sins as they yet rankle in his conscience, would give a hundred worlds to live himself back into young manhood, that he might obliterate the searing imprint of his follies. Have you never heard of fossil-rain? In the stratum of the old red sandstone there are to be seen the marks of showers of rain which fell centuries and centuries ago, and they are so plain and perfect that they clearly indicate the way the wind was drifting, and in what direction the tempest slanted from the sky. So may the tracks of youthful sins be traced upon the tablet of the life when it has merged into old agetracks which it is bitter and sad remorse to look upon, and which call forth many a bootless longing for the days and months which are past.A. Mursell.
(c) In the long run leadership resolves itself into a question of personal qualification. For a time men may arise who claim commanding positions who are unable to discharge the duties which their ambition has coveted. In such instances there would seem to be a miscarriage of the natural law and order of things; yet it is only temporary; sooner or later unqualified men have to resign positions which they ought never to have assumed.Joseph Parker, D.D.
In a great leader many elements of qualification are combined. Other men may excel him in detached points, but taken as a whole he rules not perhaps by one dominant faculty, but by a noble proportion of natural and acquired gifts. The position of a leader is not so easy as it may appear to be to unreflecting observers. Men see the elevation, not the strain and responsibility which that elevation involves. The only sound rule for promotion to influential positions in the Church is, that wisdom, wheresoever found, in the rich or the poor, the old or the young, should be recognised and honoured.Ibid.
A SUGGESTIVE RECORD
(Ezr. 2:2 (last clause)64: The number of the men of the people of Israel: The children of Paresh, &c.)
Consider:
I. The significance of the fact of the record.
1. It was an honour to the pious and patriotic ones who returned. In going back to their own land at this time, and for the purpose of rebuilding the Temple, they acted very religiously and courageously; and to their praise their names were recorded, and in the providence of God the record has been preserved to this day. Them that honour Me I will honour.
2. It is an illustration of the Divine record of Gods spiritual Israel. The name of every true believer in Jesus Christ is written in the Lambs book of life (Rev. 21:27). Rejoice, because your names are written in heaven (Luk. 10:20; comp. Exo. 32:32; Psa. 69:28; Php. 4:3; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 13:8). The Lord knoweth them that are His. (a).
3. It suggests that every one of His people is precious in the sight of God. A book of remembrance was written before Him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name. And they shall be Mine, saith the Lord of Hosts, in that day when I make up My jewels. He knows the number of His people, and the name of every one of them. He calleth His own sheep by name. He will not lose any one of them. He has not only written their names in His book of life, but has graven them upon the palms of His hands (Isa. 49:16). (b).
II. The significance of the contents of the record. We have in this list
1. Significant persons.
(1.) Zerubbabel, the prince of Judah, an ancestor of the Messiah (Mat. 1:12; Luk. 3:27). It was important that his name should be recorded, that no link might be absent from the chain of evidence which shows that our Lord was of the family of king David (comp. Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5; Mat. 1:1-17; Mat. 22:42).
(2.) Jeshua, who was a distinguished type of Jesus Christ (Zechariah 3, Zec. 6:11-13).
2. A significant place. Bethlehem (Ezr. 2:21). This place must be rebuilt, and reinhabited by Jews; for in the Divine purposes a great destiny awaited it (Mic. 5:2; Mat. 2:1). Here, then, in this record we have two persons and one place which sustained close relations to the Messiah.
3. Significant numbers.
(1.) The number of those who settled in Bethlehem was smallan hundred twenty and three. Bethlehem was little among the thousands of Judah. Yet how illustrious and universal is its renown! Size and populousness are utterly unsatisfactory tests of worth and greatness. (c).
(2.) The number of those who settled in Anathoth was also smallan hundred twenty and eight (Ezr. 2:23). In this we have an illustration of the fulfilment of the Divine threatenings (Jer. 11:21-23). The word of the Lord, whether it be a promise or a menace, shall surely be accomplished in due season.
(3.) The number of the whole was comparatively small. The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand, three hundred and threescore (Ezr. 2:64). What a small number as compared with the 603,550 men that were able to go forth to war in Israel, who were numbered in the desert of Sinai! How small, too, as compared with the 601,730 men able to go to war in Israel, who were numbered in the plains of Moab, before the entrance into the Promised Land! The smallness of the number of those who returned to their own land may be viewed(i.) As a discredit to those who remained in Babylon. In them the love of material prosperity was stronger than the love of country. They had neither piety nor patriotism enough to inspire them to make the sacrifices and encounter the perils which the return to their own land involved. (ii.) The greater honour to those who returned. They acted with a noble faithfulness and independence in doing what they deemed to be their duty and privilege, though they were in a minority, and though the course they followed involved loss and danger. They had the courage of their convictions; they were heroes in their fidelity to their country and to their God. (iii.) An element which contributed to the success of their undertaking. To settle down again in the deserted land, and to rebuild the ruined Temple in the face of difficulty and opposition, demanded men of the right quality rather than men in great multitude. It was force of character, and not force of numbers, that was needed for the success of the returning exilesmen of sincere piety and fervent patriotism. As the victory of Gideon over the Midianites was achieved not by the 32,000, some of whom were fearful and others lacking zeal, but by the 300 eager and heroic ones; so with this company under Zerubbabel, success was to be achieved by their faith and courage, not by their multitudinousness. (d).
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) God knows the persons of all His own. He hath in His infinite understanding the exact number of all the individual persons that belong to Him (2Ti. 2:19): The Lord knows them that are His. He knows all things, because He hath created them; and He knows His people because He hath not only made them, but also chose them. He could no more choose He knew not what, than He could create He knew not what. He knows them under a double title; of creation as creatures in the common mass of creation, as new creatures by a particular act of separation. He cannot be ignorant of them in time whom He foreknew from eternity. His knowledge in time is the same as He had from eternity; He foreknew them that He intended to give the grace of faith unto; and He knows them after they believe, because He knows His own act in bestowing grace upon them, and His own mark and seal wherewith He has stamped them. No doubt but He that calls the stars of heaven by their names (Psa. 147:4), knows the number of those living stars that sparkle in the firmament of His Church. He cannot be ignorant of their persons when He numbers the hairs of their heads, and hath registered their names in the book of life. As He only had an infinite mercy to make the choice, so He only hath an infinite understanding to comprehend their persons. We only know the elect of God by a moral assurance in the judgment of charity, when the conversation of men is according to the doctrine of God. We have not an infallible knowledge of them, we may be often mistaken; Judas, a devil, may be judged by man for a saint till he be stripped of his disguise. God only hath an infallible knowledge of them; He knows His own records, and the counterparts in the hearts of His people; none can counterfeit His seal, nor can any raze it out. When the Church is either scattered like dust by persecution, or overgrown with superstition and idolatry, that there is scarce any grain of true religion appearing, as in the time of Elijah, who complained that he was left alone, as if the Church had been rooted out of that corner of the world (1Ki. 19:14; 1Ki. 19:18); yet God knew that He had a number fed in a cave, and had reserved seven thousand men that had preserved the purity of His worship, and not bowed the knee to Baal. Christ knew His sheep, as well as He is known of them; yea, better than they can know Him (Joh. 10:14). History acquaints us that Cyrus had so vast a memory that be knew the name of every particular soldier in his army, which consisted of divers nations; shall it be too hard for an infinite understanding to know every one of that host that march under His banner? May He not as well know them as know the number, qualities, influences, of those stars which lie concealed from our eye as well as those that are visible to our sense? Yes, He knows them, as a general to employ them, as a shepherd to preserve them. He knows them in the world to guard them, and He knows when they are out of the world to gather them, and call out their bodies though wrapped up in a cloud of the putrefied carcasses of the wicked. As He knew them from all eternity to elect them, so He knows them in time to clothe their persons with righteousness, to protect their persons in calamity, according to His good pleasure, and at last to raise and reward them according to His promise.Stephen Charnocke, B.D.
(b) Our God has a particular notice of us, and a particular interest in our personal history. And this was one of the great uses of the incarnation; it was to humanise God, reducing Him to a human personality, that we might believe in that particular and personal love in which He reigns from eternity. For Christ was visibly one of us, and we see in all His demonstrations that He is attentive to every personal want, woe, cry of the world. When a lone woman came up in a crowd to steal, as it were, some healing power out of His person, or out of the hem of His garment, He would not let her off in that impersonal, unrecognising way; He compelled her to show herself and to confess her name, and sent her away with His personal blessing. He pours out everywhere a particular sympathy on every particular child of sorrow; He even hunts up the youth He has before healed of his blindness, and opens to him, persecuted as he is for being healed, the secrets of His glorious Messiahship. The result, accordingly, of this incarnate history is that we are drawn to a different opinion of God; we have seen that He can love as a man loves another, and that such is the way of His love. He has tasted death, we say, not for all men only, but for every man. We even dare to say, for mewho loved me and gave Himself for me. Nay, He goes even further than this Himself, calling us friends, and claiming that dear relationship with us,friends because He is on the private footing of friendship and personal confidence: The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth, but I have called you friends. He even goes beyond this, promising a friendship so particular and personal, that it shall be a kind of secret, or cipher of mutual understanding open to no othera new white stone given by his King, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
His Saviour and Lord is over him and with him, as the Good Shepherd calling him by name; so that he is finally saved, not as a man, or some one of mankind led forth by his Lord in the general flock, but as the Masters dear Simon, or James, or Alpheus, or Martha, whose name is so recorded in the Lambs book of life.Horace Bushnell, D.D.
(c) The moral magnitude of things has no relationship to the physical. What if a man should say that Washington was not a great man because he was not a ten-thousandth part as great as the Alleghany Mountains, comparing moral magnitude with physical? What has the size of a man, or the duration on earth of a man, or his physical powers, to do with the moral measurement that belongs to the understanding, the reason, or the moral sentiments? Is a battle great by the size of the nation that fought it, or the field that it was fought in? Or is it great by the skill and the bravery enacted, and by the long-reaching sequences that flow from it? The part which this world is to play in the far future, the experiment of human life, the story of Divine sacrifice and love, the part which redeemed men are to enact in their translation into the heavenly spherethese all give a moral grandeur to this world, and utterly overcome the objection that God would not be likely to give minute personal thought to the evolutions of individual life.H. W. Beecher.
(d) Gideons army, we see, must be lessened. And who so fit to be cashiered as the fearful? God bids him, therefore, proclaim licence for all faint hearts to leave the field. God will not glorify Himself by cowards. As the timorous shall be without the gates of heaven, so shall they be without the lists of Gods field. Reader! does but a foul word, or a frown, scare thee from Christ? Doth the loss of a little land or silver disquiet thee? Doth but the sight of the Midianites in the valley strike thee with terror? Home then, home to the world; thou art not for the conquering band of Christ. If thou canst not resolve to follow Him through infamy, prisons, racks, gibbets, flames, depart to thy house, and save thyself to thy loss.Bishop Hall.
RELIGIOUS SERVICE
(Ezr. 2:36-58)
This section of the record suggests the following observations concerning service in the Church of God:
I. There are various spheres of service in the Church of God. In the verses before us there are several classes of persons, and each of these classes had its own proper duties to discharge. The priests (Ezr. 2:36-39), the Levites who assisted the priests (Ezr. 2:40), the Levitical choir or choirs (Ezr. 2:41), the Levitical porters or gate-keepers (Ezr. 2:42), the Nethinim, who performed the more menial and laborious duties (Ezr. 2:43-54), and the children of Solomons servants, who were a grade lower even than the Nethinim, and did the humblest work of all. In these we have an illustration of the various spheres of religious work in this Christian dispensation. He gave gifts unto men. And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; &c. (Eph. 4:11-12). In our own day we have pastors, preachers, evangelists, conductors of prayer-meetings, Sunday-school teachers, tract distributors, visitors of the sick and sorrowful, leaders of the psalmody of the church, and managers of its financial and other business arrangements. In the work of the Lord Jesus amongst men there is scope for every kind and degree of faculty. The feeblest power may be beneficially employed; and the greatest gifts may find spheres of service which demand their utmost exercise. This fact deprives the idlers in the Church of God of any legitimate excuse for their indolence. There is work for every one, and suited to every capacity; and the obligation of service rests upon every one. Let every one, then, be up and doing, &c. (a).
II. The humblest sphere of service in the Church of God is a place of privilege and honour. This seems to us to be fairly deducible from the fact that the Nethinim and the children of Solomons servants are here recorded and numbered. Even the bondsmen taken from alien and conquered peoples, being employed in the most menial services in connection with the Temple, find a place in this sacred record of the returning people of God. That we are permitted to do anything for Jesus our Lord, if it be the very lowest and humblest service, should be regarded as a precious privilege and a high honour. Is it not an honour that we may aid in any way, and in any degree, in the conversion, education, or progress of a soul immortal and redeemed by the precious blood of Christ? Is it not an honour that we are permitted, nay, called to be co-workers with our Lord and Saviour in His great redemptive undertaking? (b).
III. The privilege of service in the Church of God is not limited to any particular races or classes of men. Neither the Nethinim nor the children of Solomons servants were Israelites; but they were not excluded from the privilege of employment in connection with the Temple and its services. In this Christian age no races or classes are privileged to share in this service to the exclusion of others. All men may participate in the blessings of Christs salvation; and every true Christian may serve in some sphere of holy work, and ought so to serve. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him. In the Christian life there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free; but Christ is all, and in all. Neither is there any exclusive sacerdotal class with special privileges and powers. Every sphere of Christian service is open to every Christian who possesses the qualifications for efficiently discharging the duties of such sphere. (c).
Let every Christian, then, promptly undertake and faithfully discharge some service in the cause of our Lord and Saviour. Son, go work to-day in My vineyard. Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Every Christian who wants to have a blessing for himself or for others, must set to work by active exertion. Some of you young men might preachyou have the ability, you have the time for study; I want you to lay out your talents in that holiest of enterprises: in the street corners, anywhere, proclaim Christ. Some of you ought to be teaching in Sabbath-schools, but you are putting that talent by; it is rusting, it is spoiling, and you will have no interest to bring to your Master for it. I want that Sabbath-school talent to be used. Many of you might do good service by teaching senior classes at your own houses. This work might be most profitably extended. If our intelligent Christian brethren and matrons would try to raise little classes, of six, eight, ten, or twelve, at home, I know not what good might come of it. You would not be interfering with any one else; for in such a city as this, we may all work as hard as we will, and there is no chance of interfering with each others labours. This sea is too large here for us to be afraid of other folks running away with our fish. Some of you, perhaps, will do best in tract distribution: well, do itkeep it up; but mind there is something in the tractand that is not always the casemind there is something worth reading, which will be of use when read. Do not give away somnolent tracts, which are more likely to send the readers to sleep than to prayer. Some of them might be useful to physicians, when they cannot get their patients to sleep by any other means. Get something useful, interesting, telling, scriptural, and give it away largely out of love to Jesus. And if these labours do not suit your taste, talk personally to individuals. Christ at the well! What a schoolmaster for us! Talk to the one woman, the one child, the one carter, the one labourer, whoever he may be. He who makes one blade of grass grow that would not otherwise have grown, is a benefactor to his race; and he who scatters one good thought which would not else have been disseminated, has done something for the kingdom of Christ. I cannot tell you what is most fit for everybody to do; but if your heart is right, there is something for each one. There are so many niches in the temple, and so many statues of living stone to fill those niches, to make it a complete temple of heavenly architecture. You and I must each find our own niche. Remember, Christian, your time is going. Do not be considering always what you ought to do, but get to work; shut your eyes and put your hand out, and Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might. The very first Christian effort will do, only do it with your might; do it in the name and strength of God.C. H. Spurgeon.
(b) I know of no service that can be more distinguished than the doing of good, the scattering of blessings among the sons of men. Methinks the very angels before the throne might envy us poor men who are permitted to talk of Christ, even though it be but to little children. I reckon the humblest ragged-school teacher to be more honoured than even Gabriel himself, in being commissioned to tell out the story of the Cross, and to win youthful hearts to the Saviours service. You are not employed as scullions in your Masters kitchen, though you might be content with such a service; you are not made as His hired servants, to toil in meanest drudgery, you are not sent to be hewers of wood and drawers of water; but you are His friends, the friends of Jesus, to do such work as He did; and even greater works than He did are you enabled to do, because He hath gone to His Father. This honour have all the saints, the honour of being gentlemen-at-arms under Jesus, the Captain of their salvation.Ibid.
(c) The work of conversion is not to be the exclusive prerogative of the pulpit. There is no sacerdotalism in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We have a great High Priest, but it is Jesus. There is a holy priesthood, but it is no privileged caste, it is no modern tribe of Levi; it is the whole community of the faithful, the Church of God which He has purchased with His own blood. That figment of old Popery, which restricts all endeavour to spread the Gospel of Christ to the clergy merely, is alien from Apostolic teaching, and would leave the harvest to rot, neglected in the field, because of the miserable fewness of the reapers to gather it in. Though I yield to no man under heaven in respect for the office of the Christian ministry; though I would rather, far rather if I know myself, have the seal of its baptism upon my brow than the coronet of any earthly-patented nobility, I do feel that I am but fulfilling one of its most solemn vocations, when I summon every member of the sacramental host to participate in the glorious war. God forbid that I should trespass upon the crown rights of any of the blood royal of heaven. I should feel as if that were for a guardian to squander his wards inheritance, or for a father to paralyse the growing manhood of his children, to deprive you, the very poorest of you, the luxury of doing good. The highest honour in this world, the honour of bringing souls to Christ, may be the common privilege of you all. The child with the linen coat, who listens, as did little Samuel, when the Master speaks; the love-watchers of the paralytic, who, if they can do nothing else, can take him and let him down through the roof to the room where Jesus is; the little servant-maid that waits upon Naamans wifeall, all may have an apostolical commission, and may share in the glories of an apostolical reward. There is not a single member of a single church in the world that is exempt from this service. All are summoned to the labour, and all, oh! infinite condescension! may be workers together with God.W. M. Punshon, LL.D.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A CLEAR SPIRITUAL PEDIGREE
(Ezr. 2:59-63)
Consider:
I. The doubtful pedigree amongst the people as an illustration of uncertainty as to our spiritual state. Ezr. 2:59-60 suggest concerning such uncertainty
1. That it may consist with association with the people of God. Those who could not show their fathers house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel, were permitted to go up to Jerusalem with those whose Israelitish descent was beyond question. And they whose evidences as to their spiritual lineage are not clear and conclusive, may have a name and a place amongst Gods spiritual Israel. And more than this, they may really be true members of that Israel. Sincere believers in the Lord Jesus Christ do not always realise the blessedness of Christian assurance. Sometimes even he that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of His servant, walketh in darkness, and hath no light. (a).
2. That it must involve spiritual loss. Those persons of doubtful pedigree who journeyed with the Jews to Jerusalem, could not enjoy the full rights of citizenship until they proved their Israelitish descent. And doubt as to our spiritual lineage must involve loss
(1.) Of spiritual joy. Such doubters are strangers to the strong consolation which they enjoy who can say, I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day; and who can utter the triumphant challenge, Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, &c. (Rom. 8:35-39). (b).
(2.) Of spiritual usefulness. Lacking Christian assurance, our testimony for Christ would be likely to be deficient in clearness and attractiveness, in fervour and force; it would especially fail to set forth the joyful character of true religion. And thus our religious usefulness would be diminished. (c).
II. The doubtful pedigree amongst the priests as an illustration of uncertainty as to our ministerial calling and condition. A mans ministerial pedigree in the Church of Christ may be said to be unquestionable when he possesses
1. The Divine vocation. The true minister is assured that he is called of God to his work. He can enter into the feeling of the Apostle, who said, Necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel!
2. The Divine qualification. If a man is unfitted for the sacred duties of the ministry, his ministerial pedigree is ruinously defective.
3. The Divine sanction. That a ministry is blessed to the conversion of sinners and the edification of Christian believers is an evidence that it is approved by God.
The verses under consideration (6163) suggest
1. That a ministerial pedigree may be lost by reason of worldliness. The children of the priests who could not find their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, were descendants of one who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name. Now Barzillai was a great man in his day, and the priest who married his daughter seems to have esteemed his alliance with that distinguished family more highly than the dignity of his priesthood, and so he adopted the name of Barzillai for his family, and his family register was with the house of Barzillai, and not with the house of Aaron, and in this way it seems to have been lost His preference for worldly distinction issued in the suspension, if not the total loss, of the sacerdotal heritage of his descendants. We regard this as an illustration of the effect of worldliness on the character and influence of a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The eager pursuit of either the possessions or the distinctions of this present world tends to despoil the Christian minister of spiritual powerto render his perceptions of truth less quick and clear, his spiritual sympathies and susceptibilities less true and active, his spiritual zeal less fervent, his spiritual aspirations less intense and constant, &c. (d).
2. The loss of ministerial pedigree involves a corresponding loss of ministerial power and reward. The priests whose pedigree could not be found were prohibited from discharging certain priestly functions, and from receiving certain emoluments of that office. They were polluted from the priesthood; and the Tirshatha said unto them that they should not eat of the most holy things, &c. If a minister of the Gospel, from worldliness or any other cause, suffer personal spiritual deterioration or loss, it will tell sadly upon his influence for good, and upon the joy and spiritual reward which he finds in his work. (e).
3. The final decision as to the standing of a minister of uncertain pedigree must be given by God Himself. And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim. The high priest in former times sought to know the will of God by means of Urim and Thummim, and the decisions which were given by this medium were regarded as those of God Himself. So the case of the priests of uncertain pedigree was left for the decision of God. Doubtless there are certain questions of ministerial character and qualification with which Church courts and councils are competent to deal. But when a mans ministerial pedigree is merely doubtful or uncertain, the final decision must be left to the great Searcher of hearts. To his own Master he standeth or falleth.
All to the great tribunal haste,
The account to render there;
And shouldst Thou strictly mark our faults,
Lord, how should we appear?
Doddridge.
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Faith, let us remember, is the root, and assurance is the flower. Doubtless you can never have the flower without the root; but it is no less certain you may have the root and not the flower. Faith is that poor trembling woman who came behind Jesus in the press, and touched the hem of His garment (Mar. 5:25); assurance is Stephen standing calmly in the midst of his murderers, and saying, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God (Act. 7:56). Faith is the penitent thief, crying, Lord, remember me (Luk. 23:42); assurance is Job sitting in the dust, covered with sores, and saying, I know that my Redeemer liveth (Job. 19:25). Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him (Job. 13:15). Faith is Peters drowning cry, as he began to sink, Lord, save me! (Mat. 14:30); assurance is that same Peter declaring before the council, in aftertimes, This is the Stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved (Act. 4:11-12). Faith is the anxious, trembling voice, Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief (Mar. 9:24); assurance is the confident challenge, Who shall lay anything to the charge of Gods elect? Who is he that condemneth? (Rom. 8:33-34). Faith is Saul praying in the house of Judas at Damascus, sorrowful, blind, and alone (Act. 9:11); assurance is Paul the aged prisoner, looking calmly into the grave, and saying, I know Whom I have believed. There is a crown laid up for me (2Ti. 1:12; 2Ti. 4:8). Faith is life. How great the blessing! Who can tell the gulf between life and death? And yet life may be weak, sickly, unhealthy, painful, trying, anxious, worn, burdensome, joyless, smileless to the very end. Assurance is more than life. It is health, strength, power, vigour, activity, energy, manliness, beauty.Bishop Ryle.
Suppose thou hast not yet attained so much as to this inward peace, yet know thou hast no reason to question the truth of thy faith for want of this. We have peace with God as soon as we believe, but not always with ourselves. The pardon may be past the princes hand and seal, and yet not put into the prisoners hand. Thou thinkest them too rash (dost not?) who judged Paul a murderer by the viper [that fastened on his hand. And who art thou, who condemnest thyself for an unbeliever, because of those troubles and inward agonies which may fasten for a time on the spirit of the most gracious child God hath on earth?W. Gurnall.
(b) A man may praise God for the redemption of the world, &c., who has no consciousness of having secured an interest in it, but not like him who feels he has a property in it. How different will be their feelings! Just as great will be the difference of interest which will be felt by a stranger passing through a beautiful estate, and by the owner of it. One may admire the richness of the soil, the beauty of its crops, and the stateliness of its trees; but his interest in it will fall very far short of his who has the title and property in it.H. G. Salter.
(c) Christianity did not in its beginning succeed by the force of its doctrines, but by the lives of its disciples. It succeeded first as a light, in accordance with the Masters command, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Make religion attractive by the goodness that men see in you; so sweet, so sparkling, so buoyant, so cheerful, hopeful, courageous, conscientious and yet not stubborn, so perfectly benevolent, and yet not mawkish or sentimental, blossoming in everything that is good, a rebuke to everything that is mean or little; make such men of yourselves that everybody that looks upon you may say, That is a royal good fellow; he has the spirit that I should like to lean upon in time of trouble, or to be a companion with at all times. Build up such a manhood that it shall be winning to men. That is what the early Church did.H. W. Beecher.
(d) What the astronomers say of the eclipse of the sun, that it is occasioned by the intervening of the moon between the sun and our sight, is true in this case: if the world get between Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, and our sight, it will darken our sight of Jesus Christ, and bring eclipses upon our comforts and graces. Again, those men that dig deep into the bowels of the earth, they are oftentimes choked and stifled by damps that come from the earth. So is it with Christians, those that will be ever poring and digging about the things of this world, it is a thousand to one that if from worldly things a damp doth not arise to smother their comforts and quench their graces. Lastly, a candle, though it may shine to the view of all, yet put it under ground, and, though there be not the least puff of wind, the very damp will stifle the light of the flame; and so it is that men may shine like candles in their comforts, yet bring them but under the earth, and a clod of that will stifle their candle, will damp their spiritual comforts, and bereave them of those joys that are in themselves unspeakable.John Magirus.
(e) A true minister is a man whose manhood itself is a strong and influential argument with his people. He lives in such relations with God, and in such a genuine sympathy with man, that it is a pleasure to be under the influence of such a mind. Just as, lying on a couch on a summers evening, you hear from a neighbouring house the low breathing of an instrument of music, so far away that you can only hear its palpitation, but cannot discern the exact tune that is played, and are soothed by it, and drawn nearer to hear more; so the true man, the true Christian minister, is himself so inspiring, so musical, there is so much of the Divine element in him, rendered homelike by incarnation with his disposition, brought down to the level of mans understanding, that wherever he goes, little children want to see him, plain people want to be with him; everybody says when he comes, Good; and everybody says when he goes away, I wish he had stayed longer; all who come in contact with him are inclined to live a better life. Manhood is the best sermon. It is good to fill the mind with the goodness and sweetness of the thing itself to which you would fain draw them. Go, preach, was no more authoritative than Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.H. W. Beecher.
POSSESSIONS AND OFFERINGS
(Ezr. 2:65-70)
These verses present the following homiletical topics, which may be considered with advantage:
I. The completion of their journey. They came to the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem. No account of the journey is given by the historian. It is, however, certain that the journey was
(1) long, the distance was more than one thousand miles, and Ezra and his company (who went up many years afterward) were four months on the way (chap. Ezr. 7:9);
(2) difficult, by reason of their uncertainty as to the best way, and the comparatively small number of beasts of burden;
(3) perilous, as we see from chap. Ezr. 8:22. The country through which their course lay was infested by Bedouin Arabs, who frequently plundered and assaulted travellers. But the returning Jews were sustained, guided, and guarded by the Lord their God. It was by His blessing that they reached their destination in safety. So will He lead and keep all those who forsake sin, seek to do His will, and set their faces Zion-ward. An highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called, The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but He Himself shall be with them, walking in the way; and the foolish shall not err therein. No lion shall be there, &c. (Isa. 35:8-10).
II. The extent of their possessions. Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven, &c. (Ezr. 2:65-67). There might have been some wealthy men amongst them; but viewed as a whole this company was certainly poor. Their reduced and impoverished condition is indicated by the number of servants and beasts of burden in relation to the number of persons. They had only one slave to every six persons, one horse to every fifty-eight persons, one mule to every one hundred and seventy-three persons, one camel to every ninety-eight persons, and one ass to every seven persons. Sin always impoverishes and degrades the sinner. Some forms of it lead to temporal poverty, e.g., drunkenness, indolence, wastefulness. For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty; and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags (Pro. 23:21). I went by the field of the slothful, &c. (Pro. 24:30). But the worst poverty to which sin leads is that of the spirit. It despoils man of high and holy thoughts, of pure and pious aspirations, of generous and noble purposes; it tends to make him wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked; and to render him unconscious of his destitution and degradation.
III. The presentation of their offerings. And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the Lord, &c. (Ezr. 2:68-69). Notice:
1. The object of their offerings. They offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place. Their contributions were for the rebuilding of the Temple. In this way they sought to promote the honour of God; and they were faithful to the purpose for which they were permitted to leave Babylon. Offerings for the building of temples for the worship of the Most High are both prudent and pious; they are encouraged both by philanthropy and by religion; they promote the good of humanity and the glory of God.
2. The spirit of their offerings.
(1.) They offered promptly, without delay; soon as they came to the house of the Lord, which is at Jerusalem. If they could not begin to rebuild the Temple at once, they could contribute towards the expenses of rebuilding, and they did so.
(2.) They offered spontaneously, without constraint. They offered freely for the house of God. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart; not grudgingly, or of necessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver. It is probable that gratitude for the mercies received during the journey, and for their safe arrival at their destination, would prompt them to present hearty offerings. (a).
3. The measure of their offerings. They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work, &c. This seems to imply
(1.) Proportion; that they gave according to their means, the rich according to his riches, and the poor according to his poverty. If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, not according to that he hath not. (b).
(2.) Liberality; that each one who gave, gave as much as he could. The total amount contributed was, at least, about 90,000; which gives an average of about 2 per person, including servants. An example worthy of imitation by many congregations in our day which are far more favourably circumstanced. (c).
IV. The settlement in their cities. So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities. Two ideas are suggested
1. Home after exile. Dwelt in their cities. Their cities; not the cities of their conquerors. The cities were to a great extent ruined and desolate; but they were their own. It was the land of their fathers, and their own land. (d).
2. Rest after a long and tedious journey. The toils and perils of their pilgrimage were over. Rest in their own cities would be sweet to their weary feet, but sweeter still to their spirits.
But rest more sweet and still,
Than ever nightfall gave;
Our yearning hearts shall fill,
In the land beyond the grave.
There shall no tempests blow,
No scorching noontide beat;
There shall be no more snow,
No weary, wandering feet.
So we lift our trusting eyes
From the hills our fathers trod,
To the quiet of the skies,
To the Sabbath of our God.
Mrs. Hemans.
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) She hath done what she could. The costliness of her gift in proportion to her means, while it was nothing to Him she would honour, was a guarantee that she was not trifling. Had it been far less than it was, and had it been all she could bring, His blessing would have been the same. For mind, He does not say, Stop, consider, this alabaster box really cost a good deal of money; it could not have been bought for less than three hundred denarii. No; but He says, She hath done what she could; that is, she hath demonstrated the deep and tender attachment of her soul. She believes on her Lord. She loves the Saviour for His holiness, His mercy, His Divine benignity. One pennys worth, if it is only the utmost that self-denial can do, is as good for that as ten thousand shekels. Did He not declare as much, in what He said of the two mites that the poor widow cast into the Temple treasury? Nay, did He not equally accept, and bless with the same favour, another woman, poorer and frailer still, who had nothing to give Him but tears and kisses for His feet? The whole spiritual meaning of gifts consists in the disposition of the giver. Distinctions of weight and measure, standards of currency, tables of value, rates of exchange, calculations of outlay, colour, material, and shape, vanish before that simple and royal touchstone in the breast. It is felt to be so, even in the presents of human friendship; and spiritual sincerity does not pass for less in the eyes of Him who searches and sees the heart.F. D. Huntington, D.D.
(b) Hohannes, the blind missionary of Harpoot, tells of a place where the Board had spent much money with little result, where he was sent. It was a poor place. The people were to raise six hundred piastres; and the Board was to pay the balance of his salary. The people said they could not raise that sum; a neighbouring pastor said it was impossible, they were so poor. After much anxiety, the missionary laid the case before God in prayer, when it was impressed upon him that each should give his tenth. He proposed it to the people, and they agreed to it. The money was easily raised, and amounted to more than the entire salary. That people never prospered so much before; their crops were abundant, and their satisfaction great. They not only supported their preacher and school-teacher, but gave two thousand piastres to other purposes.Dict. of Illust.
(c) If there be any principle in our religion; if our obligation to worship be anything more than a seemly form, or an irksome impost upon time and thought; if the idea of God within us be not a remote and impersonal divinity, but a Being warm, near, watchful, provident, the living God of our clinging heart and of our crying soul, then surely it were mockery to render any homage but the truest at His footstool, and to offer any gifts but the chiefest on His altar. The old heathen understood this matter better. Their eyes were blinded and their rites were cruel, but they never erred in this. The goodliest spoil, the most fragrant libation, the fairest in the stall, the nearest to the heart, were reserved to be devoted to their gods; and shall we, heirs of all the ages and of all the economies, we on whom God has caused to shine a sun in His meridian of privilegeshall we anger our God against us by our selfish indifference to His claims, or by our unfilial withholding of His honour? We to whom He has given every faculty which makes us capable of God, shall we withhold from Him the hearts which He asks only to brighten and redeem? We to whom He has allotted a day so clear and so brilliant, shall we insult Him by the offer of the refuse of our time? We who are gifted by Him alike with our wealth and with our power to amass it, shall we deal out our niggard pittance in His cause like the coarse miser churl who parts with coin like blood? Brethren, I summon you, with all possible solemnity, to answer this invocation. If there has been indifference in the past, let our penitence mourn it, and let our consecration atone it, to-day. It is but little at the best that we can offer; our collective wealth would be absorbed by one single citys needs. Our influence, even at its widest, is contracted within a narrow span. The shadows gather swiftly upon the noon of our very longest day. We are feeble, and half our time must be spent in sleep that we may recruit our strength. We are frail, and Death standing by laughs at our arithmetic when we calculate on future years. We receive unfinished labours from our fathers, and we transmit them unfinished to our children. Watchmen in the night, it is not given to us to tarry until the morning. Guardians of the battle-flag, we can but wave it gallantly for awhile; but we know full well that our hands will stiffen, and that our comrades will bury us before the work is done. But the present is ours. We have room to work; we have light to work in. There are ample opportunities, and there are passionate needs, and there are strong encouragements, and there are facilities such as no age ever possessed, for honest work for God. Now who, then, is willing to consecrate his service this day unto the Lord? Give Him your hearts, dear brethrenyour costliest and most acceptable offering. The sordid and the worldly may despise your choice, but there awaits you on earth Gods palpable smile, and the blessing of those that are ready to perish; and in heaven the angels welcome, and the conquerors palm, and the Kings palace as the souls home, and the King Himself in His beauty as your exceeding great rewardW. M. Punshon, LL.D.
(d) No bricks and mortar and timber can make a home. No marble, however fine and polished, can make a home. No gold, or silver, or tapestry, or painting, can make a home. It is that which makes heaven which makes a home even on this earth. It is love that makes a home. To love, and to be loved, though it be in the peasants cot, though it be in the rudest barn through the fissures of which the wind makes music, is to be at home; and often you find homes in the rudest dwellings, and none in the most splendid palaces. But where love is likely to be disturbedwhere some rude hand can take the threads that love is ever spinning and tying and fastening, and cut them and sever them, the home feeling must of course be partial. And we long for a place and a state where those whom we love will never be taken from us, and where we shall know that we shall abide eternally in the presence of those who love us. We seek one to come. A higher and a settled dwelling-place, a final home, a permanent state of being.Samuel Martin.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
TEXT AND VERSE-BY-VERSE COMMENT
B. This is a list of the leaders and groups among the returnees
1. The introduction of the list gives the names of their leaders.
TEXT, Ezr. 2:1-2 a
1
Now these are the people of the province who came up out of the captivity of the exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away to Babylon, and returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his city.
2a
These came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah.
COMMENT
Ezr. 2:1 Now, these are the people, refers to the total list, to Ezr. 2:63. The phrase, people of the province, reminds us that the returnees were not free, nor were they returning to a free land. The Judah to which they returned was still a province of Persia, and the people still subjects of the Persian king. Judah was one subdivision of the Fifth Persian Satrapy.[9]
[9] See The Interpreters Bible, Vol. III, p. 576.
The significance of this migration contrasted sharply with the Israelites original coming into the land of Egypt, from slavery to freedom. The first exodus witnessed the birth of a nation: the second saw only a migration within the boundaries of an empire, sanctioned by the ruler because it did not include the deliverance of the subject people from servitude.[10]
[10] W. F. Adeney, Expositors Bible: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, p. 37.
Yet the Prophets had emphasized it as something that would surpass even their coming up out of bondage in Egypt (Isa. 43:18-21, for example)! But it is still a remarkable story; how many other examples can be given of a people so completely subjugated, who became a significant nation again?
No account is given of the people who had been left in the land, and who may or may not have been on hand to greet those now returning. The ones who had come through the experience of the Captivity preferred to ignore those who had remained in Judah, and to treat them as inferiors.
Their return to Jerusalem, and Judah, each to his city, would indicate that Jerusalem was the end of the expedition: the first center at which they arrived, and which they restored to habitable condition.
The phrase, each to his own city, need not be taken absolutely literally. It may indicate the pattern which they followed next, of proceeding as far as possible to restore and settle in many of the individual towns of their ancestry, Or it may indicate that they had been assigned to repopulate certain areas before they left Babylon.
Many of the ancient settlements were not reoccupied at this time, judging from archaeological remains. Even if every returnee actually sought out his ancestral town and settled there, it would be unlikely that every ancient town would have enough representatives among the returnees to receive a significant settlement. They were a pitifully small number compared with the population when the land had been conquered and its people carried off by Nebuchadnezzar.
Ezr. 2:2. Here we plunge into a long list of names and statistics. We are tempted to ask, Why are such lists frequently included in the Bible? Didnt the authors realize how boring these tend to become? This doesnt make for easy reading, or especially rewarding either, from the standpoint of Spiritual enrichment.
Three things could be cited to justify this list, and all such lists in general, in the Bible.
1) Names and events are a part of the fabric of history, and their inclusion is a reminder that the events were historical: that one generation at least could have verified or questioned their authenticity. Judaism and Christianity share the distinction of being historical religions; there is a finality and decisiveness to historical events. Books of pretended history may also contain such lists, but they would have little value if the books did not exist during or shortly after the lifetime of the persons involved in the making of the events and statistics which they record.
2) Archaeologists, philologists, and other technicians in the study of history find these to be amazingly informative; the fact, for example, that few of the names resemble those from the earlier parts of the Bible may indicate the completeness of the break with the past which the Hebrew people underwent in the Captivity. The philologist will note that many of the names actually contain foreign words; this speaks eloquently of the foreign surroundings in which the previous generation had grown up. Many of the names are more Babylonian than Hebrew.[11]
[11] A detailed treatment of this list, with the foreign components of some of the names, is available in Keil and Delitzschs Commentary on The Old Testament, on this chapter of Ezra.
3) If your name and the names of your intimate friends or relatives were on this list, you would find it quite interesting. We tend to minimize the importance of church rolls, but the Holy Spirit of God may value them quite highly. Judging from these Biblical examples, He obviously feels that such memorials have their place, possibly to teach respect for the significant makers of history in the past, and to remind us of His concern for the individual.
Having noted this, however, we will not call further attention to most of the names, but will only point out some patterns that occur.
Ezr. 2:2. These are the names of their leaders. The omission of two names may be as significant as the eleven which are included. First, we had heard of Sheshbazzar (Ezr. 1:8); though he was referred to previously as the prince of Judah to whom the holy articles were committed by the Persian treasury, his name is not included here. Has he died in the interim? Or is he simply called by another name, i.e., Zerubbabel? We will hear Sheshbazzar mentioned again in Ezr. 5:16; his omission in the verse before us now strengthens the likelihood that the one person was known by either name.
Secondly, an almost identical list of names appears in Neh. 7:7. One difference is that Nehemiah includes a twelfth character, Nahamani. Why is he omitted here? The verse before us ends with a reference to the people of Israel (not merely Judah). Twelve names, reminders of the twelve original tribes, would be so appropriate here. Was this one mans name dropped because of some action which he took later on? Then what was the thing which he did, which caused Ezra to drop his name? Did he fail to complete the trip, or forsake the returnees soon after the return to Babylon? Or are we being reminded that it is an incomplete list, and there may be many reasons why some individuals are not mentioned?
The first explanation for the omission that would come to mind is a copyists error; at some time in antiquity when all copies were produced by hand, someone left out this name inadvertently. Of course this is a possibility; almost no one would say all these copyists were inspired against error; except that we feel this explanation is made use of much too often, where no evidence for it exists, either to avoid some difficulty in the text or to get rid of something that doesnt fit the commentators theories. Other explanations, where they can reasonably be made, are certainly preferable.
The most natural explanation, or guess, is that he died or was incapacitated before completing his full round of duties.
Whatever the reason, he was one of the leaders and Nehemiah gives us adequate justification for including him. An omission of a name is not necessarily an error or discrepancy; such omissions occur even in genealogical lists.[12] It apparently was not regarded as important to include every detail in every instance.
[12] Amaziahs name is omitted by Matthew in the genealogy of Jesus; cf. Mat. 1:8, 2Ch. 25:25; 2Ch. 26:23.
Further comment on the significance of the twelve names to the twelve tribes of Israel, and on the difference in these names in Ezra and Nehemiah will be reserved till we arrive at Nehemiah seven. For the present, each difference can be accounted for as a normal variation in spelling.
Another question that arises about verse two is its punctuation, and therefore the relationship between these names. The King James Version (KJV) has a semicolon after Zerubbabel, thus indicating his primacy in leadership. Many of the more recent translations have a comma, suggesting the equal share which all of this group had in leadership, though Zerubbabels name still heads the list. It is a subtle distinction, but it does say something. (The Hebrew text can be translated either way, with equal accuracy.)
For example, is this a list of contemporaries, or does it include leaders of later expeditions? Some note the names of Nehemiah and Mordecai, which would fit a later period. Also, Ezras name may be hidden in a longer form, Seraiah; and Bigvai is the name of a governor of Judah under Darius II.[13] However, it is more likely that the persons in verse two are other men of the same name, and not the persons better known to us from later times. The flow of the narrative itself, eventuating in the observance of a religious festival in Ezr. 3:1 ff., suggests that we have here a description of one historic event, at one point in time, and that these were the leaders who shared in that one event.
[13] The Interpreters Bible, Vol. III, p. 577.
WORD STUDIES
ZERUBBABEL: a seed of Babylon: a reminder that God preserved a seed of His people through the Babylonian Captivity, from which His nation would once again spring to life,
TEMPLE SERVANTS (Ezr. 2:43): literally, the Nethinim: those given. The word is a plural form; it comes from the word Nathan. These were the persons given to the priests to assist with the menial tasks of preparing for sacrifice and worship.
JESHUA, or its variant, JOSHUA: Jehovah is Salvation, or Salvation from Jehovah. This is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek name, Jesus.
MINA: the basic meaning is to divide out, or measure out, or number. Money originally had to be measured, or weighed, at each transaction. This is the word Mene in the handwriting on the wall, in Dan. 5:25 f. Note that the consonants are the same as those in our word money, and in reverse order, the first two consonants in number. Can you find the two letters hidden in the denomination of a bill? In numismatics? Now you are looking at the building blocks of language!
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) The children of the province that went up out of the captivity.They came from the captivity, which was now as it were a generic nameChildren of the captivity in Babylon (Dan. 2:2), in Judah (Ezr. 4:1)and became children of the province, the Judan province of Persia.
Every one unto his city.So far, that is, as his city was known. The various cities, or villages, are more distinctly enumerated in Nehemiah.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1. Children of the province By the province the district of Judah is meant, which had Jerusalem for its capital. The children or sons of this province, like “sons of Greece,” “sons of Italy,” were those to whom that province was the fatherland. Some of them had probably been born in exile, but doubtless a large proportion of them had been children or youths when their fathers were led into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. Some were “ancient men that had seen the first house,” (Ezr 3:12😉 so that this list was largely composed of the same individuals whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away unto Babylon. Every one unto his city With most of those in this list it was probably easy to ascertain their native city, and as far as possible the returning exiles would naturally seek their ancestral homes again. Such as “could not show their father’s house,” (Ezr 2:59,) were probably assigned to special districts or towns.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Introductory Material ( Ezr 2:1-2 ).
The listing reproduced in this chapter is of male Jews ‘in the administrative district/province’ who returned from Babylonia.
Ezr 1:11 to Ezr 2:2
‘All these did Sheshbazzar bring up, when they of the captivity were brought up from Babylon to Jerusalem, and these are the males (sons) of the province/administrative district, who went up out of the captivity of those who had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away to Babylon, and who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, every one to his city, who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah.’
Putting these three verses together brings out why Sheshbazzar’s name is not mentioned in Ezr 2:2. Sheshbazzar has already been mentioned in Ezr 1:11. It was he who brought them all up out of the captivity, commencing with the other leaders, and then going on to the full details of the whole. Ezr 1:11 clearly links with Ezr 2:1. Note the repetition of ‘the captivity’; the ‘bringing up’ and the ‘coming up’; and the reference to being ‘brought up from Babylon’, having been ‘carried away to Babylon’. There is a deliberate linking of the two verses.
The list that follows is a list of those who were brought up by Sheshbazzar from Babylon to Jerusalem. It is an open question whether ‘the province’ mentioned is the province from which they came in Babylonia, or the province to which they came in Palestine. The list is a list and numbering of the adult males of those who had returned from exile in Babylon, (to which they had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar), and had taken up residence in their own cities, taking possession of their own land. They would be sharing these cities with those who had not gone into captivity who would mainly be syncretistic in their worship.
‘The administrative district/province’ may refer to the province from which they came, that is, Babylonia, for while both Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are called ‘governor’ it is questionable what they governed. For they appear only to have taken responsibility for the returnees, and not for all the people who lived in Judah, the large proportion of whom were tainted by idol worship. There must have been a good number of such people living there prior to the return.
Ezr 2:2
‘Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah.’
The comparable list in Neh 7:7 is ‘Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahamani, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispereth, Bigvai, Nehum, Baanah.’ With the exception of Nahamani, where the names differ it would appear to be due to alternative names. Variations in names were a common feature of life in those days, where names were seen to express what a person was. The names are closer in Hebrew than in English. Thus sryh (Seraiah) compares with ‘zryh (Azariah); r‘lyh (Reeliah) compares with r‘myh (Raamiah), mspr (Mispar) compares with msprth (Mispereth) the ‘th’ being a feminine ending; rhm (Rehum) compares with nhm (Nehum). Such changes might well have been made shortly after returning in order to emphasise a new beginning. Both Seraiah and its replacement Azariah are well attested names and comparison between 1Ch 9:11 and Neh 11:11 demonstrates a similar substitution. It would appear that Seraiah and Azariah were interchangeable. The replacing of ‘n’ by ‘r’ (Nehum/Rehum) is also well attested (compare Nebuchadrezzar/Nebuchadnezzar). Thus suggesting copying errors should be a last resort although they undoubtedly occurred.
Some of the names occur elsewhere, Seraiah in Neh 10:2; Bigvai in Ezr 8:14; Rehum in Neh 3:17; Neh 10:25; Neh 12:3; and Baanah in Neh 10:27, although not necessarily referring to the same people. Nehemiah and Mordecai were well known Jewish names. Thus only Reelaiah, Bilshan and Mispar (or Mesapper) in the list in Ezra are names which are unattested elsewhere.
As suggested above, if we include Sheshbazzar in the Ezra list, (omitted by the writer as having already been mentioned in Ezr 1:11 as ‘bringing up to Jerusalem’ those who were named), the number of leaders comes to twelve. It is possible that he died within months of arrival with the result that Nahamani (see Neh 7:7) replaced him in the list in order to maintain the twelve as representing the twelve tribes of Israel. His early death, after having laid the foundation stone of the Temple (Ezr 5:16), may indeed partly explain why work on the new Temple did not progress. It was he who had directly received the charge to build the Temple.
Zerubbabel certainly at some early stage took over from Sheshbazzar (although not necessarily at that stage officially), for it is he who was responsible for the building of a new altar (Ezr 3:2), which must have been early on, almost certainly during the first year of the return, and who was prominent when the work of building the new Temple recommenced for a short while in the second year of their return (Ezr 3:8). He was later described as ‘governor’ when the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah resulted in the final rebuilding of the Temple, but we do not know when the appointment was made, nor over precisely what he governed. Some therefore see Sheshbazzar as an alternative name for Zerubbabel. But while for a Jew to have two names, a Jewish one and a Babylonian one, was common, for one Jew to have two Babylonian names was not.
Zerubbabel (a grandson of Jehoiachin – 1Ch 3:9) and Jeshua (Joshua the High Priest – Zec 3:1) are well known to us as a result of their future prominence (Ezr 3:2; Ezr 4:3; Ezr 5:2; Hag 1:1; Hag 1:12; Hag 1:14; Hag 2:2; Hag 2:4; Hag 2:21; Hag 2:23; Zec 3:1-10; Zec 4:6-10), but the remainder are unidentifiable on the basis of the information we have. Familiar names like Nehemiah, Seraiah and Mordecai simply indicate the popularity of those names in Jewish circles. They do not refer to those known to us by those names. Bigvai would appear to be a Persian name, but Jews in exile undoubtedly took foreign names, and it may simply indicate that for certain purposes, such as trading with Persia, he had found it useful. Apart from Zerubbabel and Jeshua we have no means of knowing their tribal connection as by the time of the earlier destruction of Jerusalem Judah contained families from all twelve tribes. But the fact that this information is not given suggests that it was not seen as important in context.
Ezr 2:2
‘The number of the men of the people of Israel.’
This heading probably covers Ezr 2:3-35, being subsequently followed by further headings, ‘The Priests’ (Ezr 2:36); ‘the Levites’ (verse Ezr 2:40) etc. Note that the number given is ‘the number of the men of the people of Israel’, which probably indicates the mature males (those over twenty years of age as in Exo 30:14). It is probable that the sum total in Ezr 2:64 (of 42,360) also includes women, which would explain why it is so much higher than the sum of the ages given (in Ezra amounting to 29,818). In view of the numbering of female slaves and female singers, and even of domestic animals, the women of the assembly could hardly have been excluded.
‘The men of the people of Israel’ is a proud claim. It is stressing that they saw themselves as the ‘true Israelites’, in contrast with those who were still in the land. It may, however, be that those of the Israelites who were still in the land who could demonstrate their genuine loyalty to YHWH and their true genealogy were incorporated in their number (compare Ezr 6:21).
Ezr 2:3-20
Enrolled By Family Association.
Some submitted their numbers in terms of their family name. Those named were probably heads of families who had lived centuries before, to whom the particular group looked back with respect and awe (compare the descent from Immer (Ezr 2:37) in Neh 11:13), and there are indications elsewhere (e.g. Ezr 3:9 with Ezr 2:40; and in the names in the list of those who sealed the sure covenant of Nehemiah in chapter 10), that there was a tendency for prominent returnees to take the names of their ancestors in order to stress the continuity of the old Israel. Others, mainly Benjamites, were described in terms of their domicile. The list begins with those who were described in terms of family association. Many of these names reoccur in later lists. See, for example, Ezra 8; Nehemiah 10.
Ezr 2:3 ‘The sons of Parosh, two thousand, one hundred and seventy two.’
A further group of this clan/family returned under Ezra (Ezr 8:3). Some of the family were among those who would have foreign wives (Ezr 10:25). One descendant, Pedaiah, helped to rebuild the city walls (Neh 3:25). One of their number, along with others, “sealed” the covenant of Nehemiah as ‘chiefs of the people’ (Neh 10:1; Neh 10:14)
Ezr 2:4 ‘The sons of Shephatiah, three hundred and seventy two.’
A well attested Jewish name meaning “Yah has judged”. See 2Sa 3:4 ; 1Ch 3:3; 1Ch 9:8; 1Ch 12:5; 1Ch 27:16; 2Ch 21:2; Ezr 2:57; Neh 7:59; Neh 11:4; Jer 38:1. A further group of this family would return under Ezra (Ezr 8:8).
Ezr 2:5 ‘The sons of Arah, seven hundred and seventy five.’
For the name compare 1Ch 7:39; Neh 6:18. In Nehemiah 7 the number given is six hundred and fifty two. This might suggest that some had returned to their fellow-Jews in Babylon, or that one hundred and twenty three men had died prematurely, possibly through pestilence or violence, requiring an adjustment to be made in the list used in Nehemiah. The exactness of the difference suggest that the submitter in this case calculated the numbers accurately.
Ezr 2:6 ‘The sons of Pahath-moab, of the sons of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand, eight hundred and twelve.’
The sons of Pahath-Moab (‘governor of Moab’) were divided into two families, those of Jeshua and Joab who had possibly been actual sons of Pahath-Moab. Both names were common in Israel/Judah. The ancestor of these returnees had seemingly been governor of Moab when it was under Israel’s jurisdiction. Further members of the clan would return with Ezra (Ezr 8:4), while Hashub, a “son of Pahath-moab,” is named among the repairers of both the wall and the “tower of the furnaces” at Jerusalem (Neh 3:11). Pahath-Moab is the name of one of the signatories who sealed the “sure covenant” of Neh 9:38 (Neh 10:14), although the signatory may have signed in the name of the clan. Some of the sons of Pahath-Moab would take “foreign wives” (Ezr 10:30)
In Nehemiah 7 the number given is two thousand, eight hundred and eighteen. The increase is explicable in terms of sons coming of age in the period between the two lists, possibly as set off against some who had died. Alternately a few members of the family may have returned in a party which arrived after this first list was made, a party that was mainly made up of members of the family of Azgad.
Ezr 2:7 ‘The sons of Elam, one thousand, two hundred and fifty four.’
The name as such is attested elsewhere in Israel in 1Ch 8:24; 1Ch 26:3; Neh 12:42. Further members of the family returned with Ezra (Ezr 8:7). Others were involved with foreign wives (Ezr 10:26), and one of their number, Shecaniah, was prominent in dealing with the matter (Ezr 10:2). An Elam connected with the family was a sealant of the sure covenant of Nehemiah (Neh 10:14).
Further on in the list Elam Acher (or ‘the other Elam’) is mentioned (Ezr 2:31), although there it appears to represent a town. Coincidentally the number returning there is also one thousand, two hundred and fifty four, and this is repeated in Nehemiah 7 demonstrating that if it is incorrect the error occurred very early on prior to the lists being used in Ezra and Nehemiah. But such remarkable coincidences have occurred in history so the number may well be correct. However, the Greek versions have a larger number in Ezr 2:31. On the other hand this may simply have been influenced by their not being willing to accept the coincidence. There are a number of possible explanations:
1). That it is simply a remarkable coincidence 2). That the compiler of the list wanted to enter the same clan/family in two places, one under family name and the other under district, indicating that he had done this by using the term ‘the other’. (The numbers were not intended to be added up). 3). That the compiler had asked for lists from both the family of Elam and from the town of Elam, with the submitter achieving this either by numbering the Elamites and halving the total, applying one half to the family and the other half to the town, or by submitting the same total in respect of each. 4). That a copy of the list was made very early on (prior to its use in these records) with the copyist consulting the original list and in one case selecting the wrong total as his eye ran down looking for Elam.
Ezr 2:8 ‘The sons of Zattu, nine hundred and forty five.’
Sons of Zattu were involved in marrying foreign wives (Ezr 10:27) and one was a signatory to Nehemiah’s covenant (Neh 10:14). In Nehemiah 7 the number is eight hundred and forty five. Once again this may be the consequence of some becoming disillusioned and returning to a securer life in Babylon, or the result of deaths by pestilence or violence. The round ‘one hundred’ might suggest that in this case the one who submitted the alteration used ‘a hundred’ in the regular way of signifying a fairly large group, without being exact (compare Exo 18:25; Deu 1:15), this being subtracted from the original total.
Ezr 2:9 ‘The sons of Zaccai, seven hundred and sixty.’
This may be the same as the family of Zabbai (qere Zaccai) in Neh 3:20, relating to the repairing of the wall, and the family of Bebai, one of whose sons was named Zabbai, who were involved with foreign wives in Ezr 10:28.
Ezr 2:10 ‘The sons of Bani, six hundred and forty two.’
The name is used of one of David’s mighty men, a Gadite (2Sa 23:36); of a Levite whose son was appointed for service in the tabernacle in David’s time (1Ch 6:46); of a Judahite whose descendant lived in Jerusalem after the captivity (1Ch 9:4); of one of the builders in Neh 3:17 who was named Rehum, the son of Bani; of one who helped the people to understand the Law in Neh 8:7; of a Levite involved in worship in Neh 9:4 ff.; of a Levite who sealed the sure covenant of Nehemiah (Neh 10:13); of a chief of the people who did the same (Neh 10:14); and of one whose son was an overseer of the Levites at Jerusalem (Neh 11:22). It was thus a popular name.
The sons of Bani were involved in taking foreign wives (Ezr 10:29), as were other ‘sons of Bani’ (Ezr 10:34), one of those sons was named Bani and another Binnui (Ezr 10:38). Nehemiah 7 calls them the sons of Binnui and numbers them at six hundred and forty eight. The difference in name is minimal, the one being an alternative of the other. The numbered members of the family had clearly increased by six.
Ezr 2:11 ‘The sons of Bebai, six hundred and twenty three.’
Nehemiah 7 has six hundred and twenty eight, indicating another increased family, this time by five. A further group of the sons of Bebai arrived with Ezra (Ezr 8:11), while one who was named Bebai sealed the sure covenant of Nehemiah (Neh 10:15). There would later be a town called Bebai ( Jdt 15:4 ).
Ezr 2:12 ‘The sons of Azgad, one thousand, two hundred and twenty two.’
The name means “strong is Gad”. Nehemiah 7 has two thousand, three hundred and twenty two, an increase of eleven hundred. This suggests that a further party of the sons of Azgad had arrived after this list in Ezra was made, but prior to Nehemiah’s list. Further sons of Azgad arrived with Ezra (Ezr 8:12). Azgad was among the leaders who sealed Nehemiah’s sure covenant (Neh 10:15).
Ezr 2:13 ‘The sons of Adonikam, six hundred and sixty six.’
The name means “my lord has risen up”. In Nehemiah 7 there is an increase of one, possibly due to someone coming of age. Further sons of Adonikam arrived with Ezra (Ezr 8:13).
Ezr 2:14 ‘The sons of Bigvai, two thousand, and fifty six.’
Compare Ezr 2:2. Nehemiah 7 has two thousand and sixty seven, an increase of eleven. Once again the increase could be through men coming of age, and/or as a result of some who had come with the later arrival of sons of Azgad. A further seventy two males would arrive later under Ezra (Ezr 8:14). Bigvai was one of those who sealed Nehemiah’s sure covenant.
Ezr 2:15 ‘The sons of Adin, four hundred and fifty four.’
The name means ‘adorned’. Again in Nehemiah 7 there is an increase of one, probably as a result of a coming of age (or a combination of deaths and comings of age). A further group, led by Ebed, the son of Jonathan, arrived with Ezra (Ezr 8:6). Adin also was one of those who sealed the covenant of Nehemiah (Neh 10:16).
Ezr 2:16 ‘The sons of Ater, of Hezekiah, ninety eight.’
‘Of Hezekiah’ distinguishes the sons of Ater here from the sons of Ater who were gatekeepers (Ezr 2:42). We cannot identify the Hezekiah. Ater was a sealant of the covenant of Nehemiah (Neh 10:17).
Ezr 2:17 ‘The sons of Bezai, three hundred and twenty three.’
Ezra Bezai was a sealant of the covenant of Nehemiah (Neh 10:18). In Nehemiah 7 there is an increase of one, presumably through a coming of age, and Bezai, along with Jorah/Hariph, comes after Hashum.
Ezr 2:18 ‘The sons of Jorah, a hundred and twelve.’
In Nehemiah 7 these are given the family name of Hariph. Hariph was a sealant of the covenant of Nehemiah (Neh 10:19). Jorah (‘autumn rain’) was probably Hariph’s (‘harvest time’) alternate name.
Ezr 2:19 ‘The sons of Hashum, two hundred and twenty three.’
Nehemiah 7 gives a number of three hundred and twenty eight, an increase of one hundred and five. Possibly some had arrived with the later arrival of sons of Azgad, or they may have come in their own party. Sons of Hashum were involved with foreign wives (Ezr 10:33).
Ezr 2:20 ‘The sons of Gibbar, ninety five.’
Gibbar means ‘hero’. In Nehemiah 7 the family is called Gibeon. This may have been because of their connection with Gibeon, in which case Nehemiah 7 appears to transfer them to the list of those enrolled by domicile which now commences. But that that is not so is indicated by his continued use of ‘sons of’ in this verse. (He then changes to ‘men of –’).Thus Gibeon would appear to be an alternative name to Gibbar.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
A List Of Those Who Returned From Babylon To Jerusalem In The Initial Stages ( Ezr 2:1-70 ).
In this chapter we are provided with a list of those who returned from Babylon, taking advantage of Cyrus’ edict. This list must have been recorded early on and deposited in a recognised official place (compare Neh 7:5). Whilst it might be our tendency to take a quick look at the list of names and move on we should not disregard its spiritual lessons. We should recognise that:
1) It indicates that God is interested in individuals. He knew the tribal names of everyone who returned. It is a reminder to us that, if we are truly His, we are all numbered by God, and that our names are written in Heaven (Luk 10:20). He has chosen us individually in Christ before the world began (Eph 1:4) and recorded our names in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev 13:8; Rev 21:27). We are ‘written with the righteous’ (Psa 69:28; Mal 3:16).
2) This was a record of those who were most faithful among God’s people, and not one of them was forgotten before God, even down to the lowliest slave. It is the Old Testament equivalent to the roll of honour in Hebrews 11. Out of zeal for God, and a desire for His glory, these people left their comfortable lives in Babylonia for a country that many of them had never seen, in order to rebuild there God’s Temple, and re-establish God’s people. It was not an easy way that they chose. They would face famine and hardship, disease and violence. They would be reduced as a consequence almost to poverty, in spite of their grand houses. But they did it because they felt that God had called them. They knew that it was what He wanted them to do..
3) To the Jews such a list was of deep interest. It stressed the connection of the new Israel with the old, and the preservation of family names and descent. Indeed, it is probable that many took new names, based on the past, connecting them with their history. It was bringing out that God was restoring His people to the land, a people whose antecedents had been clearly demonstrated. These were the very people who had been removed from the land decades before.
It is interesting that Sheshbazzar’s name does not occur in the list of leaders in Ezr 2:2 but this may simply be because, having already been mentioned by the writer as ‘bringing up’ these people to Jerusalem (Ezr 1:11), the writer omits it in Ezr 2:2 because those mentioned are the people ‘brought up’, and this even though Sheshbazzar’s name may well have been in the original list. For along with the eleven prominent men named in Ezr 2:2, he would then have made the number of leaders up to twelve, indicating that the returnees were seen as representing the twelve tribes of Israel. (The comparable list in Neh 7:7 does have twelve names).
Following these names we find listed the names of the families which returned from Babylon around this time. These were all able to demonstrate from their genealogies that they were true Israelites, i.e. could trace themselves back to pre-exilic times. This is in contrast with those who could not do so (Ezr 2:59-60). One importance of this would come out when they sought to claim back family land.
A comparable list can be found in Neh 7:5-73. There are, however, interesting differences and in our view it is difficult to explain them all simply in terms of copying errors, although the possibility of those in some cases must not be discounted. A far better explanation for some, if not all, of the differences is that the two lists represent the list of returnees as prepared on different dates during the first months of arrival, the second one being updated as a result of information submitted from the various clans, because of the arrival of further exiles (e.g. the sons of Azgad). In this updated listing account would be taken of deaths and comings of age, and further arrivals and departures. If Sheshbazzar died in the period between the two lists we have a good explanation as to why his name was replaced in the twelve by Nahamani (Neh 7:7). Indeed, his death and the subsequent appointment of Zerubbabel may have been a major reason for the updating of the list as the position of the new Israel was consolidated. This would suggest that the original list was the one in Ezra, with that in Nehemiah being the updated one. (Compare also how ‘men of –’ and ‘sons of –’ is regularised in the list in Nehemiah in contrast with the list in Ezra). It is probable, however, that the writer in Ezra made slight adjustments when copying the list. One example is the omission of the name of Sheshbazzar in Ezr 2:2 because he had already mentioned him as bringing these people up to Jerusalem. Note how, in order to demonstrate this, we have below carried forward Ezr 1:11 to also open chapter 2.
Such a detailed list should not surprise us. It was normal practise in ancient days for cities to keep a roll of its citizens, a roll which was constantly updated due to both deaths and births, or coming of age. What is more likely then than that the returnees would decide to maintain a comparative list of adult males who were seen as true Israelites, and subsequently update it, although in the summary form shown here? (That at least one such list was made is demonstrated by Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7). In this case the same basic framework would be retained from list to list as it was encompassing those who had returned from Babylon, with the original list being updated, no doubt on the basis of submissions from the different family groups. That being so the cases where comparative numbers differ by a small amount, something which occurs a number of times, could simply indicate that meanwhile some men had died, or some had come of age, or a combination of the two. The larger differences could mainly be explained, either in terms of new arrivals (e.g. in the case of Azgad), or in terms of departures due to dissatisfaction with the situation pertaining, or in terms of pestilence or violence which in some cases gave a high proportion of deaths. Where numbers alter by a round 100 this could simply be due to a group of new arrivals (or departees) being assessed by some submitters as ‘a hundred’, i.e. a fairly large unit, this being used for convenience in some cases (different approaches may have been taken by different submitters), without there being a strict count, or it may have been a convenient approximation (not all groups would have people in them capable of dealing with large numbers). The final total numbers (which are well above the sum of the individual numbers in all sources), would remain sacrosanct and would not be altered. (It should, however, be pointed out that many scholars assume both lists to be the same, with differences mainly accounted for by scribal errors).
The Pattern Of The List.
The list follows a clear pattern:
Introductory material (Ezr 2:1-2).
Number of the men of the people of Israel, enrolled by family association (Ezr 2:3-20), and enrolled by place of domicile (Ezr 2:21-35).
Number of priests (Ezr 2:36-39).
Number of Levites (Ezr 2:40).
Number of singers (Ezr 2:41).
Number of gate-keepers (Ezr 2:42).
Number of the Nethinim and number of the children of Solomon’s servants (Ezr 2:55-57).
Number of those whose genealogies could not be proved (Ezr 2:59-60).
Number of the priests whose genealogies could not be proved (Ezr 2:61-63).
Sum Totals (Ezr 2:64-67).
Summary of gifts for the building of the Temple (Ezr 2:68-69).
Conclusion (Ezr 2:70).
As to when the list was compiled there are indications, such as the listing of some by residence, and the reference to ‘every one to his city’ (Ezr 2:1), that it was certainly after they had arrived in Judah and settled down. Furthermore the Tirshatha (ruler) is already seen as active in Ezr 2:63. It may well, therefore have been a few months after the arrival of the first group, once others had joined them. But the fact that no priest had arisen with Urim and Thummim (Ezr 2:63) might be seen as confirming its early date, in that Jeshua would shortly become such a ‘priest’ (High Priest). We do not, however, know if Urim and Thummim were used after the Exile. We have no evidence of it. But we do know that decisions were made by lots, which was a similar method (Neh 10:34; Neh 11:1), and it is very probable that this was done by the priests. This therefore demonstrated that they had again begun to discover God’s guidance by sacred lot. The list would appear to have been compiled by asking the different groups to submit their numbers. This would explain the different designations and descriptions as each group defined themselves in their own way.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Ezr 2:1-70 The Registry of the First Return of Jews from Captivity Ezr 2:1-70 records the registry of the first return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity. This registry is recorded in again in Neh 7:5-72 /73.
Ezr 2:62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.
Ezr 2:62
Mat 22:12-13, “And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Rev 20:15, “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
Ezr 2:63 And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.
Ezr 2:63
Ezr 2:63 Comments – The Urim and Thummim were stones kept in a pouch on the high-priest’s breastplate, used in determining God’s decision in certain questions and issues. Adam Clarke cites the Latin poet Ovid, who writes of just such a casting of stones. In the ancient custom of casting lots, two stones of black and white were used in casting a vote. The white stone was a symbol of good fortune or of innocence while the black stone symbolized bad luck or guilt.
“It was the custom in ancient times to use white and black pebbles, the black for condemning prisoners and the white for freeing them from the charge. At this time also the fatal vote was taken in this way; and every pebble that was dropped into the pitiless urn was black! But when the urn was turned and the pebbles poured out for counting, the colour of them all was changed from black to white; and so, by the will of Hercules, the vote was made favourable, and Alemon’s son was freed.” ( Metamorphoses 15.41) [33]
[33] Ovid, Metamorphoses, vol. 2, trans. Frank J. Miller, in The Loeb Classical Library, eds. T. E. Page, E. Capps, and W. H. D. Rouse (London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1958), 367-368. See Adam Clarke, Revelation, in Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1996), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Revelation 2:17.
Listed are all uses of the Urim and Thummim in the Holy Bible:
Exo 28:30, “And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim ; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.”
Lev 8:8, “And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the
breastplate the Urim and the Thummim .”
Num 27:21, “And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the LORD: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation.”
Deu 33:8, “And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;”
1Sa 28:6, “And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim , nor by prophets.”
Ezr 2:63, “And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim .”
Neh 7:65, “And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim .”
Ezr 2:69 They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold, and five thousand pound of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments.
Ezr 2:69
[34] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Daric,” and “Money of the Bible.”
Ezr 2:69 “and five thousand pound of silver” Word Study on “pound” – Gesenius says the Hebrew word “pound” “ mo-neh ” ( ) (H4488) means, “a portion, a number, a mina,” which was equivalent to one hundred shekels.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Household of the People
v. 1. Now, these are the children of the province v. 2. which came with Zerubbabel v. 3. the children of Parosh, two thousand an hundred and seventy and two.
v. 4. The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy and two.
v. 5. The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five. v. 6. The children of Pahath-moab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve.
v. 7. The children of Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four.
v. 8. The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five.
v. 9. The children of Zaccai, seven hundred and threescore.
v. 10. The children of Bani (or Binnui), six hundred forty and two.
v. 11. The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty and three.
v. 12. The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two.
v. 13. The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six.
v. 14. The children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty and six.
v. 15. The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four.
v. 16. v. 17. The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and three.
v. 18. The children of Jorah v. 19. The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty and three.
v. 20. The children of Gibhar, ninety and five v. 21. The children of Bethlehem, v. 22. The men of Netophah, v. 23. The men of Anathoth, v. 24. The children of Azmaveth v. 25. The children of Kirjath-arim v. 26. The children of Ramah and Gaba, v. 27. The men of Michmas, v. 28. The men of Bethel and Ai v. 29. The children of Nebo v. 30. The children of Magbish, an hundred fifty and six.
v. 31. The children of the other Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four.
v. 32. The children of Harim, three hundred and twenty.
v. 33. The children of Lod, v. 34. The children of Jericho, v. 35. The children of Senaah, three thousand and six hundred and thirty.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
THE NUMBER OF THOSE WHO RETURNED FROM CAPTIVITY WITH ZERUBBABEL, AND THE NAMES OF THE CHIEFS (Ezr 2:1-64). It has been argued that the whole of this chapter is out of place here, and has been transferred hither from Nehemiah (Neh 7:6-73), where it occupies its rightful position (Bishop A. Hervey). According to this view, the list is one embodying the results of the census made by Nehemiah, not a list of those who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel But it seems strange that such a theory should ever have been seriously maintained, since not only does Ezra declare the list to be a catalogue of those “which came with Zerubbabel“ (verse 2), but Nehemiah himself warns us that it is “a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first“ (Nell 7.5). The Jews, like other Semitic races, especially the Arabs, set great store by their genealogies; and, to secure a sound basis for these in the restored community, it was essential that a correct record should be kept of the families by which the state was re-established. Already there was a large number of Jews among the captives “which could not show their father’s house, or their pedigree, whether they were of Israel” (verse 59). It was essential, according to Jewish ideas, that such ignorance should, at the least, be arrested, and not spread through the nation. Hence the elaborate genealogies with which the first Book of Chronicles opens (1Ch. 1-8), and hence also the present list.
The list may be divided into ten parts:
1. Enumeration of the leaders (verse 2).
2. Numbers of those who returned, arranged according to families (verses 3-19).
3. Numbers of those who returned, arranged according to localities (verses 20-35).
4. Numbers of the priests, arranged according to families (verses 36-39).
5. Numbers of the Levites, arranged similarly (verses 40-42).
6. Families of the Nethinim (verses 43-54).
7. Families of “Solomon’s servants” (verses 55-57).
8. Number of these last two classes together (verse 58).
9. Account of those who could not show their genealogy (verses 59-63).
10. General summation (verse 64).
Ezr 2:1
These are the children of the province. i.e. of Judaea, which was a province of Persia, distinguished here from Babylon, which was one of the capitalsa mode of speech indicating the foreign standpoint of Ezra. Unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city. Jerusalem was not the only site occupied by the people on their return. Many took up their abodes in the neighbouring towns and villages, such as Jericho, Tekoah, Gibeon, Mizpah, Zanoah, etc. (see Neh 3:2-19, and Neh 7:20-35). These were chiefly persons whose families had belonged to those places.
Ezr 2:2
Zerubbabel, Jesbua, etc. In the corresponding verse of Nehemiah (Neh 7:7) there are twelve names, one of which (it is probable) has accidentally fallen out here. The twelve are reasonably regarded as either the actual heads of the twelve tribes, or at any rate as representing them. Notwithstanding the small number among the returned exiles who belonged to other tribes than those of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, there was a manifest wish on the part of the chiefs to regard the return as in some sort that of all the tribes (see Ezr 2:70; Ezr 6:17; Ezr 8:35, etc.). The number of the men. The lists in Nehemiah and the apocryphal Esdras differ in many details, and furnish strong evidence of the corruption to which numbers are liable from the mistakes of copyists, and the facility of error when there is no check from the context. Of the forty-two numbers here given by Ezra (verses 3-60), as many as eighteen differ from the corresponding numbers in Nehemiah. The difference, however, is mostly small; and even the sum of the differences is trivial (see comment on verse 64).
Ezr 2:20
The children of Gibbar. For “Gibbar” we should probably read “Gibeon,” which occurs in the corresponding passage of Nehemiah (Neh 7:25). The writer at this point passes from persons to places, making the latter portion of his list topographical. Gibeon was a well-known town in Benjamin (Jos 18:25). Other Benjamite towns in the list are Anathoth, Ramah, Gabs, Michmas, Bethel, and Jericho. It would seem that the descendants of the captives carried off from these places retained a traditional knowledge of the locality to which they belonged.
Ezr 2:36
The priests. Four priestly families went up with Zerubbabel. Of these, three traced their descent to persons who had been heads of the priestly courses in the reign of David, viz; Jedaiah, Immer, and Hardin (1Ch 24:7, 1Ch 24:8, 1Ch 24:14). The other family had for founder a priest named Pashur, who was not otherwise distinguished. The numbers assigned to the priests by Ezra are identical with those in Nehemiah (Neh 7:39-42). Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua. To whose house, that is, Jeshua, the existing high priest, belonged. Hence, no doubt, the precedency given to the house of Jedaiah, which numerically was the least important.
Ezr 2:40
The Levites. The non-priestly Levites are divided into three classes:
1. Ordinary Levites (Ezr 2:40);
2. Choral Levites (Ezr 2:41);
and Levites descended from those who had had the charge of the temple gates (Ezr 2:42). Compare 1Ch 24:20-31; 1Ch 25:1-31; and 1Ch 26:1-19. Of the first class, only two families seem to have returnedthose of Jeshua and Kadmiel, both of which traced their descent to a certain Hodaviah, or Judah (Ezr 3:9).
Ezr 2:41
The singers, the children of Asaph. See 2Ch 25:1. It is remarkable that no descendants of either Heman or Jeduthun (ibid.) took part in the return.
Ezr 2:42
The porters. Six families of doorkeepers returned; three of which bear old names, those of Shallum, Talmon, and Akkub (1Ch 9:17), while the other three have names that are new to us. One hundred and thirty-nine. The smallness of this and the two preceding numbers is remarkable. While the returning priests numbered 4289, the returning Levites of all classes were no more than 341 (350, Nehemiah). It would seem as if some jealousy of the priests, like that which animated Korah and his followers (Num 16:1-10), must have grown up during the captivity (comp. below, Ezr 8:15).
Ezr 2:43
The Nethiaims. See note on 1Ch 9:2.
Ezr 2:55
Solomon’s servants. Solomon formed the remnant of the Canaanitish population which survived at his day into a separate servile class, which he employed in forced labours (1Ki 9:20, 1Ki 9:21). It would seem that the descendants of these persons, having been carried into captivity by the Chaldaeans, continued to form a distinct class, and had become attached to the sacerdotal order, as a body of hieroduli inferior even to the Nethinims. We may account for their special mention at this time by the importance of their services, when such a work as that of rebuilding the temple was about to be taken in hand.
Ezr 2:59
Tel-melah is probably the Thelme of Ptolemy (‘Geograph.,’ 5.20), a city of Lower Babylonia, situated in the salt tract near the Persian Gulf. Hence the name, which means “Hill of Salt.” Cherub is no doubt Ptolemy’s Chiripha, which was in the same region. The other places here mentioned are unknown to us, but probably belonged to the same tract of country. Tel-Harsa means “Hill of the Wood.” They could not show their father’s house. It is more surprising that so many of the returning exiles had preserved their genealogies than that a certain number had omitted to do so. Considering the duration of the exile, its hardships, and the apparent improbability of a restoration, there could have been no cause for wonder if the great majority had forgotten their descent.
Ezr 2:61
Of the children of the priests. Some of those who claimed to be descendants of Aaron, and therefore priests, had also lost the evidence of their descent. This loss was held to disqualify them from the exercise of the priestly office (Ezr 2:62).
Ezr 2:63
The Tirshatha. As “Shesh-bazzar” was the Babylonian name of Zerub-babel (Ezr 1:8), so “the Tirshatha” seems to have been his Persian title. The word is probably a participial form from tars or tarsa, “to fear,” and means literally “the Feared.” It is used only by Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh 7:65; Neh 8:9). Haggai calls Zerubbabel uniformly pechah, “governor (Hag 1:1, Hag 1:14; Hag 2:2, Hag 2:21). They should not eat of the most holy things. The priests’ portion of the offerings, called “most holy” in Le Hag 2:2, Hag 2:10, is intended. Of this no “stranger” might eat (Le 22:10). Till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim. Zerubbabel evidently expected that the power of obtaining direct answers from God by means of the Urim and Thummim, whatever they were (see note on Exo 28:30), which had existed in the pre-captivity Church, would be restored when the Church was re-established in its ancient home. The doubt whether the families of Habaiah and Coz (or Haccoz) belonged to the priestly class or no might then be resolved. But Zerubbabel’s expectation was disappointed. The gift of Urim and Thum-mira, forfeited by disobedience, was never recovered.
Ezr 2:64
The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore. Ezra’s numbers, as given in detail (verses 3-60), produce when added together a total of only 29,818; Nehemiah’s items (Neh 7:8-62) give a total of 31,089; those of the apocryphal Esdras a total of 33,950. The three authorities agree, however, in their summation, all alike declaring that the actual number of those who returned with Zerubbabel was 42,360. Esdras adds that children under twelve years of age are not included. If this were so, the entire number must have exceeded 50,000an enormous body of persons to transport a distance of above a thousand miles, according to Western experience, but one which will not surprise those acquainted with the East. In the East caravans of from ten to twenty thousand souls often traverse huge distances without serious mishap, and migrations frequently take place on a much grander scale. In the year 1771, 50,000 families of Torgouths, reckoned to number 300,000 souls, arrived on the frontiers of China, after a journey of 10,000 leagues through a most difficult country, and were given lands in the Chinese empire. They were followed in the next year by 180,000 Eleuths and others, who had accomplished a similar distance. Jenghis Khan is said to have forced 100,000 artisans and craftsmen to emigrate in a body from Khiva into Mongolia. The transplantation of entire nations was an established practice among the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians.
Ezr 2:65-67
THE NUMBER OF THE SLAVES, HORSES, MULES, CAMELS, AND ASSES OF THOSE WHO RETURNED (Ezr 2:65-67). It may seem strange that matters of this trivial character should be recorded with such exactness in Holy Writ; but enumerations similar in character are not unfrequent (see Gen 23:14, Gen 23:15; 2Ch 17:11; Job 42:12). They may perhaps be viewed as teaching the lesson that with God nothing is too trivial for exact knowledge, even “all the hairs of our head” being “numbered” (Mat 10:30). In the present passage the enumeration is not altogether without a further historical value, since it is indicative of the general poverty and low estate of the returning exiles, who had but one slave and one ass to every six of their number, one horse to every sixty, one camel to every hundred, and one mule to every one hundred and seventy-five.
Ezr 2:65
Two hundred singing men and singing women. Nehemiah says two hundred and forty-five, and so the apocryphal Esdras. Perhaps, in the great default of Levites, the services of these persons may have been used to swell the sacred choruses of the time (Ezr 3:10). Hence, it may be, the mention of this otherwise unimportant fact.
Ezr 2:67
Their asses. The ass (we see) is still, as in the earlier times, the chief beast of burden employed by the Israelites. Horses are rare, camels and mules still rarer; but most emigrant families had, it would seem, one ass.
sted, and into which they will never enter.
V. THAT AT SUCH TIDIES SPIRITUAL THINGS ARE RESTORED TO THEIR RIGHTFUL SERVICE (verse 7). The vessels of God were brought from the heathen temple and given to the returning Jews. In times of religious revival money, talents, children, all are brought from the possession of sin and placed in the service of God. Heaven now proclaims liberty to the captive!E.
HOMILETICS
Ezr 2:1-67
The muster-roll.
The last chapter gave us a catalogue of the sacred vessels returned. In that portion of the present chapter which concludes with the above verses we have a similar catalogue of the sacred people returned (see Lam 4:2). The first verse seems to show us where this catalogue was made out, viz; in the land of their exile, where Judaea was constantly spoken of as “the province” (comp. Ezr 5:8; Neh 1:3; Neh 11:3). If the nearly identical catalogue which Nehemiah (Neh 7:5) describes himself as having found at Jerusalem, about 103 years afterwards, were the same catalogue as corrected and laid up after the arrival of the exiles at Jerusalem, this might account for the various minor differences which are discoverable between them. Many enrolled to start might never start, or never arrive; some not enrolled to start might join afterwards and be enrolled then. At any rate it is easier to suppose something of this kind than to suppose, in connection with such careful and formal documents of state, so many glaring “mistakes.” See also the very curious coincidences with regard to numbers in this case adduced by Wordsworth in loc.; coincidences hardly to be accounted for except on the supposition of some secret but perfect method of numerical reconciliation. We may take the catalogue before us, therefore, very much as it stands. Not improbably, according to its own methods of interpretation, it is quite correct as it stands. Can we regard it as being also instructive from a moral point of view? Perhaps if we merely regard it in a general way, and as setting before our notice, first, the kind of men, and second, the number of men, that came up, we shall find even this apparently barren Scripture not without some sacred use to us. Some lessons can also be gathered from the very names we find here.
I. THE KIND OF MEN THAT CAME UP. They appear to have been men, in the main, loving the old state of things. They were conservatives, e.g; in politics, keeping still, in the person of Zerubbabel as their chief civil ruler, to the ancient dynasty, that of David. They are also thought by some, comparing the names in verse 2 with the probably correcter account in Neh 7:7, and with Ezr 6:17; 1Ki 18:31, to have shown the same spirit touching the ancient twelve-fold “constitution” of Israel. In Church matters, again, so to call them, the returning exiles showed their strong respect for precedents and the past by submitting to Jeshua as chief priest (see 2Ki 25:18-21; 1Ch 6:15; Hag 1:1, Hag 1:14). Also we see another branch of this Church conservatism of theirs in the especial importance attached by them to the question of genealogy. While, further yet, on this last-mentioned matter, the only proposal made for settling the doubts that beset it was by an ancient method again (verse 63). Nor is it altogether unworthy of remark in this connection that they also appear to have been men showing great attachment to race and place, and assembling together for their proposed return to Jerusalem in family groups. In most cases these groups are described as “the children” of some one man. This is the case of 1Ki 18:1-17, and again of 1Ki 18:33-35. In other cases (1Ki 18:18-33) the groups are described as being connected with particular towns, which, considering how necessarily near of kin all Israelitish fellow-townsmen had formerly been, comes to much the same thing (see Num 36:7; 1Ki 21:3). All the priests also who returned amongst them are in similar groups, being all described as belonging to four “courses” or family lines (1Ki 18:36-39). The same kind of thing, again, is true of the Levites (1Ki 18:40-42), and even of those Nethinims and children of Solomon’s servants who appear to have been the “hewers of wood” and “drawers of water” for the congregation at large. A strong “clannish” spirit, a great desire to be and do as in” the old times before them,” seems to have prevailed among all; the same spirit which afterwards degenerated into that false conservatism, the conservatism of mere human traditions (comp. Jer 6:16 and Jer 18:15), found in Pharisaism and Rabbinism. Meanwhile, however, and while still uncorrupted, it made them just the men for their work: returned refugees, not colonists; men called upon merely to rebuild and restore, and not, like Moses before and the apostles of Christ after them, to devise and create.
II. The NUMBER of those who returned is also worthy of note. They were only a few, all told; some 50,000, of all sorts, including, so it would seem from comparing the items, about 10,000 souls of some kind not mentioned in the detailed catalogue. How different from the 600,000 “that were men,” beside women and children and many others, that had come up out of Egypt so many generations previously! How many others must have been left behind (as some indication of the state of things on this point, see Est 9:16)! Counting also by the number of families or groups that returned, what are thirty-five, the whole number mentioned here, out of the many thousands of Israel! Moreover, a comparison of this chapter with what we read in 1Ki 8:1-66. of such names as Pharosh, Pahath-Moab, Adin, Shephatiah, and others, shows that all the members even of these thirty-five families did not come back at the first. So also, although the proportion of priests returning was very considerable (about one tenth of the whole), only four courses out of the twenty-four (1Ki 8:36-39; 1Ch 24:1-31.) were represented among them; whilst some 341 Levites of all three descriptions, as against 38,000 in David’s time, and some 392 Nethinims and others, comprised in forty-five groups, complete the catalogue given, except of cases of doubt. Yet even these few appear to be many, viewed from a different point. Of beasts of burden of all kinds they had rather more than 9000 amongst them (about one to every six travellers); but of these only 736 were horses; and of camels, the animals so especially required by them in the desert journey before them, there were only 435a very different proportion indeed to that which we read of in Gen 24:10, where ten camels appear to have been provided for one traveller’s use. Altogether it may well be questioned whether caravans of greater apparent importance in every way do not annually cross the deserts of the East without leaving any visible trace behind them on the history of the day. The secret of the difference was in the “blessing” that went with them. In those holy vessels, in the duty before them, and in the presence among them of the prophets and priests of Jehovah, and of the ancestor of the coming Saviour, they were indeed “bearing precious seed” (Psa 126:6). That being so, their small number was just the proper one for God’s use; sufficient to form a nucleus and make a beginning, but not sufficient to give them the appearance of being more than instruments in his hands (comp. Jdg 7:2, Jdg 7:4; and in connection with the very people and time we are speaking of, Zec 4:6).
III. A word or two may be added, finally, as to the special NAMES we find here. It cannot surely be a mere coincidence that we find this second entrance into Canaan, this return from Babylonian captivity, headed (ecclesiastically) by one bearing the greatest of Jewish names. Are not such truths as we find in Psa 68:18; Act 7:45; Col 2:15, etc. pointed to here by this name of Jeshua? See further, as to the typical relation between this “Jeshua” and the man Christ “Jesus,” Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5; Zec 3:8; Zec 6:11-13, etc. Also let the name of Bethlehem in verse 21 of this chapter be noted. Was not the fact there recorded, the return, viz; of certain Bethlehemites to their ancestral home in Judah, one step in the many steps taken to fulfil the prophecy of Mic 5:2, and to make this town of Bethlehem in after ages the exact spot where heaven came nearest to earth? When we remember, indeed, yet further, as before noted, that we have in the name of Zerubbabel the name of a direct ancestor of Messiah himself (Mat 1:13,Mat 1:16), as also what we read in Heb 7:9, Heb 7:10, can we not, in these three names of Jeshua, Zerubbabel, and Bethlehem, prophetically see the Lord Jesus himself leading his people back to their land? And can we not also, in the march of that little company, as it were, hear the very sound of his feet? How true, therefore, and how much to be remembered by us, what we read of as declared on this subject by apostles, by angels, by himself (Joh 5:1-47 :89, 46; Act 10:43; Rev 19:10).
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Ezr 2:1, Ezr 2:2
The restoration of Israel.
This is an important subject. Great portion of Scripture occupied with it. Events of the utmost moment connected with it.
I. AS THE SCATTERING OF ISRAEL WAS GRADUAL, SO MAY HIS GATHERING BE.
1. His tribes became distributed into two kingdoms.
(1) United until the evil days of Rehoboam (see 1Ki 12:20).
(2) Thence distinguished as Judah and Israel. Under the name of Judah is comprehended also the small tribe of Benjamin, with priests and others of the tribe of Levi.
2. The ten tribes were first carried captive by the Assyrians. This was in two detachments.
(1) By Tiglath-pileser, b.c. 739 (see 2Ki 15:29).
(2) By Shalmaneser eighteen years later, when the deportation was complete (see 2Ki 17:6, 2Ki 17:18).
3. The Jews were afterwards carried away to Babylon. This was 130 years later, and was also accomplished in two detachments, viz.
(1) That, b.c. 599, when Nebuchadnezzar removed the principal people (see 2Ki 24:14).
(2) That eleven years later, when the remnant was removed (see 2Ki 25:11).
(3) Then, six centuries later, came the dispersion by the Romans. Prophecy views the scattering as a whole, without breaking it up into its details, and so it views the restoration; and as the scattering was accomplished at long intervals by instalments, so may the gathering be.
II. THIS RESTORATION BY EZRA WAS NOT THE FULL ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PROPHECIES.
1. The ten tribes were not included in it.
(1) They were the “children of the province.” Not of Babylon, as some think, for Babylon is contrasted with it here. But of Judaea, now a province of the Persian empire (see Ezr 5:8). Behold the goodness and severity of God!
(2) Further specified as “those whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away.” No mention made of those before carried into Assyria.
(3) Further, as “the number of the men of the people of Israel.” Given in detail in this chapter. Here we find children of Judah, of Benjamin, of Levi and the priests, and even of the Gibeonites, but no mention of Ephraim and his associates.
(4) But the restoration of the ten tribes is promised (see Eze 11:15-17). (What a rebuke to those who repeat this conduct of Judah in exclusively claiming for themselves as Christians the promises made to Israel!) Therefore there is yet a grand restoration for Israel.
2. This restoration did not reunite the divided nation.
(1) This fact already shown.
(2) But prophecy requires this (see Eze 37:21, Eze 37:22). “Therefore,” etc.
3. This restoration was not permanent.
(1) Even the Jews were subsequently scattered by the Romans. Have since been kept scattered by Romanists and Mahomedans.
(2) But prophecy requires this (see Jer 31:10; Eze 34:27, Eze 34:28; Amo 9:14, Amo 9:15). “Therefore,” etc.
III. THIS RESTORATION WAS A PLEDGE OF THE GREATER EVENT.
1. It answered great purposes of prophecy.
(1) Those connected with the incarnation. To take place while the tribe-rod was yet with Judah (see Gen 49:10). While the family of David yet had their genealogies; while yet they dwelt near Bethlehem (see Mic 5:2).
(2) Those connected with the atonement. Jerusalem the place of sacrifices. Zion the place from whence the gospel law should issue (see Isa 2:3; Joe 2:32).
2. There is a prophecy in accomplished predictions.
(1) The preservation of the Jews amongst the nations. Without a parallel in history. What for (see Jer 30:11)? “Full end” of Assyria, Babylon, Rome. Anti-christian nations doomed.
(2) History of the land as remarkable as that of the people. No permanent settlers. Romans, Greeks, Saracens, Papists, Turks!
3. The Jews expect their restoration.
(1) Good reason, for the word is sure.
(2) Their faith is patient. Centuries of disappointment. Is our faith so patient under trials?J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Ezr 2:1-67
Spiritual significances.
What signifies to us, it may be asked, the exact number of the children of Parosh and Shephatiah (Ezr 2:3, Ezr 2:4)? What does it signify to us that the heads of the returning families bore such and such a name? Why record this? What is
I. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS RECORD OF NAMES AND NUMBERS? The pains which the children of Israel took to keep a strict record of their families in Persia may have been
(a) an act of faith: it may have been the expression of their belief that God’s word of promise spoken by Jeremiah (Jer 1:1)would be fulfilled, and that the hour would come when they or their children would lay claim to their ancestral inheritance. Or it may have been
(b) a habit of obedience, which itself is suggestive enough. It was the will of their Divine Sovereign that everything, however minute, which pertained to his people should be scrupulously cared for. Nothing was unimportant that pertained to the people of God. It was worth while to chronicle every birth in every household of every family of every tribe of the holy nation. It was important to count every head of every division and rank of those who came out of Babylon, the “ransomed of the Lord.” This striking particularity has no little interest to us. Things which the great and good among men would overlook as unimportant, are accounted not unworthy of regard by the Highest and the Best One. He who redeems us from a worse captivity than that of Babylon, and leads us to a better heritage than the earthly Jerusalem, counts everything of consequence that relates to his redeemed ones. He writes their names in the palms of his hand; he counts their tears; he hears their sighs; he orders their steps. Not one is overlooked; every name is entered in the book of life; every liberated soul has a place in the heart of the Redeemer.
II. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LOSS OF THE RECORD (verses 59, 62, 63). “These could not show their father’s house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel” (verse 59). “These sought their register …. but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood,” etc. (verses 62, 63).
(a) Some of the Jews had not taken sufficient pains to prove that they were of the people of God.
(b) Others, who believed themselves (rightly, no doubt) to be descendants of Aaron had lost their register; perhaps some of these may have more cared to claim and prove descent from the “honourable” house of Barzillai (verse 61), esteeming such secular rank of greater value than the more sacred lineage. The descendants of both of these classes suffered through their neglect; the latter more particularly, for they were separated from the priesthood for an uncertain and, as it turned out, an indefinitely long period. The retention of our claim to be of the “Israel of God,” or to be of those who” minister in holy things” in the gospel of Jesus Christ, does not depend on any documentary evidence; no revolutions here can affect the roll that is “written in heaven;” but carelessness about our own spiritual life, negligence in the worship of God, inattention to the claims of our spirit, indifference to the work and the want of other soulsthis may lead to our name being “blotted out from the book of life,” or to our being counted all unworthy to “speak in the temple the words of this life” to others.
III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PAUCITY OF THEIR NUMBER (verse 64). “The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and three score.” Counting children they may have amounted to 50,000. This was but a small number compared with that of the exodus from Egypt, a feeble nucleus of a renewed nation! But the slenderness of their number was fitted
(a) to bind them the more to the service of God, and
(b) to knit them together in closer bonds of union.
A small number, devoted to Christ and united to one another, is far more powerful than an undevout and inharmonious multitude.
IV. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SCANTINESS OF THEIR RESOURCES (verses 65-67). Their “servants and maids,” and their “singing men and singing women” (verse 65), their “horses and mules” (verse 66), their “camels and asses” (verse 67), made but a small show of property for the ransomed people. Doubtless there were amongst them men “well to do,” if not wealthy. But the greater part of the rich members of the community remained behind. They who had the most to lose were least likely to accept the invitation to go up to Jerusalem. They who had least to leave behind them were most easily convinced of the wisdom of returning. “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven.” “Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven.”C.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Ezr 2:61-63
The privileges of the priesthood.
We are here forcibly reminded
I. THAT THE PRIESTHOOD HAD ITS PRIVILEGES. These were
1. They were sanctified to the service of God.
(1) Distinguished from the tribes whose inheritance was in the soil (see Num 18:20).
(2) Distinguished among the Levites. They were sons of Aaron. Were served by the Levites. While they served in the holy places, at the altar, within the veil (see Num 18:7).
2. They ate of the most holy things.
(1) As Levites, they had tithes from the nation.
(2) As priests, they had tithes from the Levites (Num 18:20, Num 18:21, Num 18:26-28).
(3) They partook of the altar (see Le Ezr 6:16, 26; Ezr 7:6, etc.).
(4) They ate the shew-bread of the Presence, viz; of the Shekinah, the visible glory of God. All this symbolically expressed near fellowship with God.
II. THE LAW PRIESTS WERE TYPES OF TRUE CHRISTIANS.
1. In their birth, as sons of Aaron.
(1) Aaron was a type of Christ. See arguments in Epistle to the Hebrews.
(2) Christians are of the family of Christ (see Eph 3:14, Eph 3:15; Gal 4:4-7). Have we the spiritual birth?
2. In their office, as priests of God.
(1) Christians are a spiritual priesthood (see Isa 61:6; 1Pe 2:5, 1Pe 2:9; Rev 1:6).
(2) They have a spiritual consecration (see 2Co 1:21; 1Jn 2:20, 1Jn 2:27).
(3) They offer spiritual sacrifices. Themselves (Rom 12:1). Sacrifices of prayer, of praise, of service (see Hos 14:2; Heb 13:15).
3. In the privileges of their office.
(1) They draw nigh to God. The law priest entered the holy place. We enter the most holy (see Heb 10:19-22).
(2) They feast with God. This glorious fellowship is now expressed in the Lord’s Supper.
III. THOSE WHO ASPIRE TO THESE PRIVILEGES MUST BE ABLE TO SHOW A VALID TITLE,
1. As to the priesthood under the law.
(1) Case of the children of Habai and Koz. These not elsewhere otherwise mentioned. Here acknowledged as sons of Aaron. Their reputed descendants could not show their genealogy from them.
(2) Case of the children of Barzillai’s daughter. Honourable mention made of Barzillai (see 2Sa 17:27-29; 2Sa 19:31-39). This accounts for descendants of his daughter assuming his name rather than that of their father.
(3) They were therefore excluded (Hebrews, polluted) from the priesthood. Lost the sanctity; also the privileges.
2. As to the priesthood under the gospel.
(1) As with the aspirants through Habai and Koz, the reputation of being of the family of Jesus will not avail. Have you evidence of spiritual birth?
(2) As with the aspirants bearing the honourable name of Barzillai, respectability will not avail in place of a spiritual title. We must be real.
(3) The Tirshatha will scrutinize our claims. We must all pass the scrutiny of the judgment.
3. But is it possible for us to make up a valid title?
(1) What does the Tirshatha say (see Ezr 2:68)?
(2) The Urim and Thummim were wanting then. These were used in the breastplate of the high priest for obtaining responses from the Shekinah of God in the temple. Neither these “lights and perfections” nor the Shekinah to illuminate them were found in the second temple.
(3) We have an High Priest who stands up with these, even Jesus, who ministers in the grander temple. Through his glorious Spirit, the true Shekinah, we have in our breasts the most perfect illuminations. By these we ascertain our spiritual birth with its titles. Have we this most sacred, this most indubitable assurance?J.A.M.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Ver. 1. The children of the province i.e. Of Babylon; for they are here spoken of, whom Nebuchadnezzar had brought captive to Babylon; and not those of the ten tribes, who had been dispersed before by the kings of Assyria into various provinces, and who afterwards returned to Jerusalem in separate companies. Zerubbabel was in the province of Babylon; and to him those captives joined themselves who lived nearest in the same province. This is the reason why those of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin returned first, though a liberty of returning was granted to all the tribes. Another reason is, because the rebuilding of the temple principally concerned them, as Jerusalem was within their dominion. Houbigant.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
B.THE CATALOGUE OF THE RETURNING EXILES AND THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE
Ezr 2:1-67. (Comp. Neh 7:6-73.)
I. The catalogue of the families and households of the people. Ezr 2:1-35
1Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city; 2Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mizpar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: 3The children of Parosh, two thousand a hundred seventy and two. 4The children of Shephatiah, there hundred seventy and two. 5, 6The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five. The children of Pahathmoab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve. 7, 8The children of Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four. The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five. 9The children of Zaccai, seven hundred and 10, threescore. 11The children of Bani, six hundres forty and two. The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty and three. 12The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two. 13The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six.
14the children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty and six. 15The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four. 16The children of Ater of Hezekiah, ninety and eight. 17The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and three. 18The children of Jorah, a hundred and twelve. 19The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty and 20 three. The children of Gibbar, ninety and five. 21The children of Beth-lehem, 22a hundred twenty and three. 23The men of Netophah, fifty and six. The men of Anathoth, a hundred twenty and eight. 24The children of Azmaveth, forty and two. 25The children of Kirjath-arim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred and forty and three. 26The children of Ramah and Gaba, six hundred twenty and one. 27The men of Michmas, a hundred twenty and two. 28The men of Beth-el and 29Ai, two hundred twenty and three. 30The children of Nebo, fifty and two. The children of Magbish, a hundred fifty and six. 31The children of the other Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four. 32The children of Harim, three hundred and twenty. 33The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred twenty and five. 34The children of Jericho, three hundred forty and five. 34The children of Senaah, three thousand and six hundred and thirty.
II. The catalogue of the Priests, Levites, and Servants of the Temple Ezr 2:36-58
36The priests: the children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred seventy 37and three. 38The children of Immer, a thousand fifty and two. The children of Pashur, a thousand two hundred forty and seven. 39The children of Harim, a thousand and seventeen. 40The Levites: the children of Jeshua and Kadmiel, ofthe children of Hodaviah, seventy and four. 41The singers: the children of Asaph, a hundred twenty and eight. 42The children of the porters: the children of Shallum, the children of Ater, the children of Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children 43of Hatita, the children of Shobai, in all a hundred thirty and nine. The Nethinim: 44the children of Ziha, the children of Hasupha, the children of Tabbaoth, The children of Keros, 45the children of Siaha, the children of Padon, The children of Lebanah, 46the children of Hagabah, the children of Akkub, The children of Hagab, thechildren of Shalmai, 47the children of Hanan, The children of Giddel, the children of Gahar, 48the children of Reaiah, The children of Rezin, the children of Nekoda, 49the children of Gazzam, The children of Uzza, the children of Paseah, the children of Besai, 50The children of Asnah, the children of Mehunim, the children of Nephusitn, 51The children of Bakbuk, the children of Hakupha, the children of Harhur, 52The children of Bazluth, the children of Mehida, the children of Harsha, 53, 54 The children of Barkos, the children of Sisera, the children of Thamah, The children of Neziah, 55the children of Hatipha. The children of Solomons servants:56the children of Sotai, the children of Sophereth, the children of Peruda, The childrenof Jaalah, 57the children of Darkon, the children of Giddel, The children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, the children of Pochereth of Zebaim, the children 58of Ami. All the Nethinim, and the children of Solomons servants, were three hundred ninety and two.
III. The members of the People and the Priests without Genealogy Ezr 2:59-64
59And these were they which went up from Tel-melah, Tel-harsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their fathers house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel: 60The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two. 61And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name: 62These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood. 63And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.
IV. Sum total of those who returned, their Servants and Beasts of Burden. Ezr 2:64-67
64The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and 65 threescore, Besides their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing 66men and singing women. Their horses were seven hundred thirty and six; their mules, two hundred forty and five; 67Their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty.
V. Contributions for the Building of the Temple, and Closing Remarks Ezr 2:68-70
68 And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem, offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place: 69They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold, and five thousand pounds of silver, and one hundred priests garments. 70So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinim, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The same catalogue as that here given is likewise found in Neh 7:6-73. The two texts differ, to some extent, in the names, and especially in numbers. This is not so remarkable, considering the long list; at the bottom these differences are insignificant enough. This is clear from the notes made in connection with the translation. We have passed over some very trifling deviations, which are manifestly to be regarded as due to oversight of the copyist. The peculiarities of Esdras are scarcely anywhere of such a character that we can find in them an evidence of the original reading. This catalogue of the constituents of the new community may be placed in parallelism with that of the constituents of the ancient community, Num 1:5 sq.
Verses 1 and 2 give the individual members connected with the names of their heads.And these are the children of the province,etc., from , properly, judicial or official district, is here the province given in charge to the judge or governor of Jerusalem (Neh 11:3), just as in Ezr 5:8; Neh 1:2. [ The children of the province are the Israelites who returned to Palestine, as distinct from those who remained in Babylon or Persia (Rawlinson).Tr.] Instead of the usual form Nebuchadnezzar (with a in the last syllable), the Kethib has Nebuchadnezzor (with o), a form which, to a certain extent, is nearer to the Chaldee pronunciation of the name. Another approximation is the form Nebuchadrezzar (with r in the penult) in Jer 21:2; Jer 21:7; Jer 32:1; Jer 35:11; Jer 39:11, etc.; Eze 26:7; Eze 29:18 sq.; Eze 30:10,and both approximations are combined in that of Nebuchadrezzor. The name in Chaldee, according to Mnant, Grammaire Assyrienne, 1868, p. 327, is nabu kadurri usur; according to Schrader, die Keilinschriften, etc., S. 235, is Nabiuvkudurrinsur and means Nebo protect, or protect the crown. That in Hebrew a is usual in the penult, instead of is connected with the fact that the primitive form of usur is nasar.Every one unto his city. is apparently used from the subsequent standpoint of the author of the document. It certainly does not mean, according to the city, which was already theirs from the time of the fathersfor only a small portion of the former southern kingdom was taken possession of by the new community. Thus many did not return to the cities where their ancestors had dwelt, but to the city which subsequently was their own when this catalogue was prepared (with Bertheau against Keil [Rawlinson]). Comp. 5:70.
Ezr 2:2. Which came with Zerubbabel.Whilst in Ezr 2:1 is conceived as merely a continuation of is in Ezr 2:2, a parallel, co-ordinate clause. Hence it again has the preterite. Nehemiah in Ezr 2:1 uses the participle corresponding with the in Ezr 2:1.Zerubbabel, now , and sometimes is formed not from (scattered), as would seem at first sight, but from (sowed) and (that is born in Babylon). Comp. also Ezr 1:11 Jeshua (later form of comp. Neh 8:17) is here the first high-priest of the new community, the son of Jehozadak, the grandson of the high-priest Seraiah, 1Ch 6:14, whom Nebuchadnezzar put to death at Riblah, in the land of Hamath, 2Ki 25:18 sq. Comp. Ezr 3:2, and Ezr 5:2. In Hag 1:2; Hag 1:14, and Zec 3:1, we find the older form of his name Jehoshua. The other men here named who come into consideration as chiefs are unknown to us. For Nehemiah and Mordecai are not at all to be identified with the later persons who bore these names. Instead of Seraiah, Nehemiah 7. gives Azariah; but in Neh 10:2 both names are found alongside of one another as names of families of priests in the time of Nehemiah, so that we may conjecture that both names were then favorites and in frequent use in the families of the priests, and therefore would be easily interchanged. If we count here the name of Nahamani, who is named in Neh 7:7, but is missing here, we have just twelve heads which, without doubt, refers to a new division of the community into twelve divisions. That the idea at the basis of this catalogue was that the new community represented entire Israel and its twelve tribes, is clear from the title that directly followsnumber of the men of the people of Israelespecially however from the twelve sin-offerings in Ezr 6:1. Notwithstanding this fact it may be that the twelve were all from the three tribes to which almost all those that returned belonged, Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. The last words of the verse, the number of the men of the people of Israel, constitute the special title of the first section of the catalogue after the analogy of Ezr 2:36; Ezr 2:40; Ezr 2:43; Ezr 2:55.
Ezr 2:3-35. The families and households of the people. Many of the names mentioned in Ezr 2:3-19 and Ezr 2:32 meet us again in the register of the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, thus the children Parosh, Pahath-Moab, Adin, Elam, Shephatiah, Joab, Bebai, Azgad, Adonikam, Bigvai, and according to the original reading, the children of Zattu and Bani, in Ezra 8, in the catalogue of those returning with Ezra; so likewise men of the sons of Parosh, Elam, Zattu, etc., in Ezra 10, among these, who had strange wives, and also in Neh 10:15 sq., from which we see, a) that of many families only a part returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua; another part followed under Ezra; b) that heads of the fathers houses are not mentioned for the sake of their personal names, but for the names of the houses of which they were fathers originating without doubt from more ancient times (Keil). Since in vers, 3035 the inhabitants of the other cities are mentioned according to the names of their localities, so probably the most or all which bear the names of their fathers houses are to be regarded as inhabitants of Jerusalem.
The names in Ezr 2:3-19 are beyond question names of families or households, and those in Ezr 2:20-29; Ezr 2:33-35 are just as surely names of cities. This order seems, however, to be interrupted by Ezr 2:30-32, in that perhaps Harim, according to Ezr 10:21, the other Elam, after the analogy of Ezr 2:7, and perhaps also Magbish, are names of persons, not of places. Yet Ezr 10:21 is not entirely decisive for Harim as the name of a person, since in Neh 10:15 sq., likewise, names of places, as for example Anathoth, occur in Ezr 2:19 in the middle among names of families. Besides it is possible that the text in Ezr 2:30-32 may have been corrupted; it seems strange that with the other Elam here the same number, 1254, occurs as with the Elam of Ezr 2:8, and that the name Magbish is not found either in Nehemiah or Esdras. In Esdras the other Elam is passed over, and instead of the children of Harim three hundred and twenty, there is (Ezr 5:16) in the corresponding place, that is, among the names of families, A, thirty-two. The cities mentioned in Ezr 2:20-35 occur for the most part in other parts of the Old Testament: Gibeon, which, according to Neh 7:25, is to be read for Gibbah, already in Jos 9:3; Bethlehem in Rth 1:2; Mic 5:1; Netopha (apparently in the vicinity of Bethlehem) in 2Sa 23:38 sq.; 2Ki 25:23; 1Ch 2:54; Anathoth in Jos 21:18; Jer 1:1; Kirjath arim, Chephira and Beeroth as cities of the Gibeonites, Jos 9:17; Rama and Geba already in Jos 9:25 sq., and then especially in the history of Samuel and Saul; Michmas in 1Sa 13:23; Isa 10:28; Bethel and Ai in Jos 7:2 and Jericho in Jos 5:13, etc.; all situated in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and first of all taken possession of by those who returned. On the other hand Azmaveth or Bethazmaveth, Neh 7:28, occurs besides only in Neh 12:29. Accordingly it was situated apparently in the neighborhood of Geba. It has not yet been discovered. Ritters conjecture (Erdk. 16. S. 519) that it is El-Hizme in the vicinity of Anata has nothing in its favor. Nebo, which has nothing to do with the mountain of this name, Num 32:32, has been identified with Nob, or Nobe, 1Sa 21:2, whose situation would certainly suit, especially as in Neh 11:31 sq., among many other places named here Nob, but not Nebo, is mentioned. Besides the sons of Nebo occur again in Ezr 10:43. Bertheau thinks of Nuba or Beit-Nuba (Robinson, New Biblical Researches, III. page 144). Lod is Lydda, where Peter healed the paralytic (Act 9:32 sq.), at present Ludd, comp. 1Ch 8:12. Ono, which occurs again in Neh 11:35 and 1Ch 8:12, must have been situated in the vicinity of Lydda. There also we must seek Hadid, now El Haditheh (Robinson, B. R., p. 143), according to 1Ma 12:38; 1Ma 13:13. Senaah was regarded by the more ancient interpreters as which, according to Jerome, was situated as terminus Jud in septimo lapide Jerichus contra septentrionalem plagam (Onom. ed. Lars, et Parth., p. 332), and which is hardly to be identified, as Robinson (b. r. III. p. 295), with Mejdel, which is too far distant, four German miles north of Jericho, situated on a lofty mountain-top. At the building of the walls of the city, Nehemiah 3., there are mentioned besides the men of Jericho, Senaah and Gibeon, inhabitants also of Tekoah, Zanoah, Bethhaccerem, Mizpah, Bethsur and Keilah, and a still greater number of cities occurs in Neh 11:25-35. From this it is clear that gradually the cities of Judah and Benjamin were taken possession of, and more and more of them inhabited.
Ezr 2:36-39. The priest-classes. Of the four names mentioned here three agree with the names of three classes of priests, which were among the twenty-four classes introduced by David, 1Ch 24:7 sq.; Jedaiah was the second, Immer the sixteenth, Harim the third class. It is very probable, therefore, that the divisions here are connected with such classes. For additional remarks upon this subject, vid. notes upon Neh 12:1 sq. The house of Jeshua, however, may very properly refer to the house of the high-priest Jeshua, to which the children of Jedaiah belonged. This view is favored by the fact that among those who returned, in all probability, this family was more numerously represented perhaps by a class of priests belonging to it. It is true the high-priest Jeshua belonged to the line of Eleazar; the class of Jedaiah, on the other hand, it is supposed, we must seek as the second in the line of Ithamar, and yet the order of classes was determined by lot, 1 Chronicles 24., and it is a very natural supposition, since there is some uncertainty in the passage as to the method of the lot, that the second class was of Eleazars line. Else Jeshua might also be the name of an ancient head of the family; in 1Ch 24:11 it is the name of the ninth class of priests.The children of Pashur constitute a new class, which does not occur in 1 Chronicles 24., as a class of priests, and this name does not occur among the nine classes subsequent to the exile, Nehemiah 12. They occur again, however, in Ezr 10:18-22 among the priests who had married strange wives, alongside of the sons of Jeshua, Immer and Harim. The name Pashur is besides found even in more ancient times, 1Ch 9:12; Neh 11:12 Jeremiah 20, 21.
Ezr 2:40-58. The Levites, servants of the temple (Nethinim), and servants of Solomon The Levites fall into three divisions according to their different official duties; the first was the Levites in the narrower sense, the assistants of the priests in the divine worship, the second was the singers, the third the porters, 1Ch 24:20-31; 1 Chronicles 25 and 1Ch 26:1-19. The children of Jeshua and Kadmiel are mentioned in Ezr 2:40 as Levites in the narrower sense. The additional clause: of the children of Hodaviah, belongs probably only to the last family, the children of Kadmiel, comp. notes on Ezr 3:9; the name is not found in the lists of Levites in Chronicles.Of the singers (Ezr 2:41) only the members of the choir of Asaph returned with the first company. Yet in Neh 11:17 three classes are mentioned again as in times before the exile.Of the six classes of porters (Ezr 2:42) three, Shallum, Talmon and Akkub, are mentioned 1Ch 9:17 as those who dwelt in Jerusalem already before the exile. Thirty-five families of the Nethinim are mentioned (Ezr 2:43-54), of the servants of Solomon ten families (Ezr 2:55-57). In Nehemiah the children of Akkub, Hagab and Asnah have fallen out, and some names are written differently, partly through oversight, partly on account of another method of writing them. The most of the families of the Nethinim may have descended from the Gibeonites, Jos 9:21-27. The children of Mehunim, however, in Ezr 2:50, belonged, as the plural form of the name shows, to the tribe or people of the Mehunim, and were probably prisoners of war,perhaps after the victory of the king Uzziah over that people (2Ch 26:7) they had been given to the sanctuary as bondsmen. The children of Nephusim might have been prisoners of war from the Ishmaelite tribe of , Gen 25:15. The children of the servants of Solomon, who are mentioned again in Neh 11:3, elsewhere connected with the Nethinim, with whom they are here arranged in the enumeration, were certainly not the descendants of those Amorites, Hethites, etc., whom Solomon, 1Ki 9:20 sq.; 2Ch 8:7 sq., had made tributary and bondsmen [Rawlinson], but apparently prisoners of war from tribes that, were not Canaanites. The name in Ezr 2:57 probably denotes: catcher of gazelles.
Ezr 2:59-60. Fellow-countrymen, who could not show their ancestry. They went up from Tel Melah (salt-hill), Tel Harsa (bush or wood-hill), Cherub, Addan and Immer. The last three words are probably not names of persons, they are first mentioned in Ezr 2:60, but still as names of places. Like Tel Harsa, they might likewise be connected without . Perhaps they may designate one district, that is, three places situated close to one another in the same district. We have then perhaps three districts for the three families named in Ezr 2:60.[Rawlinson regards these as villages of Babylonia, at which the Jews here spoken of had been settled. The first and third he regards as really identified with the Thelm and Chiripha of Ptolemy.Tr.]They could not show their fathers house, that is, could not prove to which of the fathers houses of Israel their forefathers, after whom they were called, Delaiah, Tobiah and Nekoda, belonged.And their seed, that is, their family-line, whether they were of Israelite origin or not. Clericus properly remarks: Judaicam religionem dudum sequebantur, quamobrem se Judos censebant: quamvis non possent genealogicus tabulas ostendere, ex quibus constaret, ex Hebris oriundos esse. It is possible that there was a doubt whether the children of Nekoda here mentioned did not belong to the Nethinim family of the same name in Ezr 2:48, and with respect to the other two families, there were similar doubts (Bertheau). Since we do not find any of these names again in the enumeration of the heads of the people and fathers houses in Neh 10:15-28, or in the list of Ezr 10:25-43, it seems that although they were not expelled, yet the right of citizenship was withheld from them.
Ezr 2:61-63. Priests who could not show that they belonged to the priesthood, the children of Habaiah, Hakkoz and Barzillai. Whether these children of Hakkoz claimed to belong to the seventh class of priests of the same name, 1Ch 24:10, is uncertain. The name occurs also elsewhere, comp. Neh 3:4.The children of Barzillai were descended from a priest who properly bore another name, but who married a daughter of the Gileadite Barzillai, well-known in the history of David (2Sa 17:27; 2Sa 19:32-39; 1Ki 2:7). It is conjectured that she was an heiress (Numbers 36), and to obtain possession of her inheritance, he assumed her name. Comp. Num 27:4. The name Barzillai and membership in a family of Gilead might have subsequently rendered the priestly origin of his posterity doubtful, although they would by no means have lost the right of the priesthood, if they could have proved in any way their priestly origin. The suffix with must be referred back to . For the masc. form for the fem., comp. Gesen., 121, Anmerk. 1. Their register in Ezr 2:62 is their , Neh 7:5, their writing of genealogy, their register of their descent; this writing had the title of , those registered as to genealogy; for this word is in apposition with , and refers back to this plural, for which in Neh 7:64 the sing., , referring back to , is found, as we say in Germany, not to be able to find their forefathers, instead of the register of their forefathers.They were as polluted put from the priesthood. is a pregnant term=they were declared polluted, so that they were excluded from the priesthood. The more definite decision respecting them was given according to Ezr 2:63 by the Tirshatha, the civil governor of the community, according to Neh 7:65, comp. with Ezr 2:70, Zerubbabel, who, Hag 1:1; Hag 1:14; Hag 2:2; Hag 2:21, is called . In Neh 8:9; Neh 10:2 Nehemiah bears this title, who besides in Neh 12:26 likewise has the title , Tirshatha is without doubt the Persian designation of the governor. It is probably not connected with taras, fear = the one feared [Rawlinson, who regards it as the Persian tarsata, past part, of tars=to fear=the feared, a title which well might be given to one in authority. He compares the German gestrenger Herr and our title of Reverend.Tr.], or with tarash, acer, auster=the severe lord, but is from the Zend thuorestar (nom. thuoresta)=prfectus, penes quem est imperium, Gesen., Thes., p. 1521; Benfey, die Monatsnamen, S. 196. The reason why the name of Zerubbabel is not added, and why he is not mentioned in Neh 7:65-70 in connection with this title, is that there is no importance to be ascribed here to the person, but only to the position expressed by the title. It is not strange that the civil governor made this decision with reference to the priesthood, because of the close connection between the civil and religious affairs of the community at Jerusalem. Their prohibition from eating of the most holy things, that is, of those that were consecrated to the Lord, of which none but the priests could partake, and these only of certain prescribed parts in the holy place (comp. Lev 2:3), excluded them from participation in those revenues that were immediately connected with priestly occupations, and therefore without doubt likewise from the priestly occupations themselves. The children of Habaiah, etc., were not to come near the most holy things, e. g. the altar of burnt-offerings (Exo 29:37; Exo 30:10), and especially were not to enter the most holy places (Num 28:10). A portion of the general fees which were offered to the priests was not denied them, since their right to the priesthood was not expressly denied, but left in suspensoTill there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim. is according to later usage for (comp. Dan 8:23; Dan 11:2, etc.). The question arises why the high-priest Jeshua could not have given the desired decision by means of Urim and Thummim, for the use of which we are to compare Exo 28:30. The reason could hardly have been of such a personal and external character as Ewald, Gesch. Isr. 4:95 conjectures, as if Jeshua was perhaps not the eldest son of his father, and therefore not entirely suited to the high-priesthood. It is probable that in the times subsequent to the exile there was no longer as formerly any more decisions by means of Urim and Thummim. Little importance is to be given to the opinion of Josephus Arch. 3, 8, 9, that its use had not ceased till two hundred years before his time, since he acts upon the opinion that it had been used for the purpose of predicting victory. The Rabbins reckon this method of divine revelation among the five things which from the beginning were lacking in the second temple. Comp. Buxtorf, exercitt. ad historiam Urim et Thummim, cap. 5, and Vitringa observatt., s. VI., cap. 6, p. 324 sq. We are rather to suppose that they believed that they must wait until such a time when the high-priest would again be able to fulfil his entire calling. The temple must first arise again, and the Lord must declare His presence again in some special practical and unmistakable manner, without which indeed a revelation through Urim and Thummim was inconceivable.
Ezr 2:64-67. The sum-total of those that returned, their servants and maid-servants and beasts of burden. The sum of 42,360 is given in our passage in Nehemiah and Esdras, for the whole congregation together (so manifestly here , (it is otherwise in Ezr 3:9; Ezr 6:20); a number which is not gained by adding the detailed numbers together, either here or in Neh. or Esdras, for the sum total is much too great for the detailed numbers, which amount to only 29,818 here, in Nehemiah 31,089, in Esdras 30,143. How then did this difference arise? Even Keil is convinced that it is due only to mistakes of copyists. Any attempt to explain them (the differences) in any other way cannot be justified. But if this were really so, there would be greater differences between the detailed numbers as they are given here and in Nehemiah; and reckoned together they would, in accordance with one or the other texts, approximately make out the sum total of 42,360. If such essential mistakes as these occurred in copying, then the fact that the result of reckoning together the numbers agrees, at least in the main, and that each text is about the same number behind the sum total of 42,360, could not be possible unless the mistakes were above all in this sum total, which however is inconceivable in connection with the exact agreement which everywhere prevails. It is certainly clear that the sum total was not meant to embrace any others, such as those who returned of the ten tribes (Seder Olam, Raschi, Usserius, J. H. Mich., et al.) but only the constituent parts contained in the previous verses. But perhaps it was understood of itself according to the fundamental notions and ideas of the time that there were others still belonging to the 2172 sons of Parosh, etc., who properly were not reckoned with them, but who yet united with them in constituting the entire congregation, , and were given with them in summing it up. It depends upon the idea of . Possibly if the number of the children of Parosh, etc., were to be given, only the independent people, especially the heads of families, came into consideration; whilst in the entire congregation there were, counted perhaps likewise the larger sons, who had reached the age of discretion, Neh 8:2-3. If in Esdras 5:41 our Ezr 2:64 reads all of Israel from twelve years old and upwards, besides the servants and maid-servants, were 42,360, this addition, from twelve years and upward, is indeed critically worthless, yet it might rest upon a correct knowledge of ancient customs, although perhaps the age of twelve years corresponds only with latter circumstances. If the servants and maid-servants were reckoned to the , whose number is given in Ezr 2:65, they might have been counted in the sum total, although they were not taken into consideration in the detailed, numbers.
Ezr 2:65. Besides their servants and maids., which is properly connected with the subsequent words by the accents, is explained as referring to the following sum, 7337=besides their servants, etc., who make out the following numbers. The additional clause: And they had two hundred singing men and women, can only mean: and they who returnedfor the suffix , certainly refers to those to whom the suffix of , etc., also refers,had singing men and women, who because they were hired and paid, stood upon the same footing as the servants and maids, and since they were probably not of Israelite origin, did not belong to the congregation. They served, however, doubtless to increase the joy of the feasts, and for singing dirges in connection with sorrowful events, comp. Ecc 2:8; 2Ch 35:25. At any rate these singing people are to be distinguished from the Levitical singers and musicians who took part in divine worship. J. D. Mich. would change these singing men and women into oxen and cows (as if were for ) since we would rather expect these here, after the domestics, and in connection with the horses, mules, camels, and asses. But it may be that the returning exiles only took with them beasts of burden, or at least chiefly of these, and obtained their cattle rather on their arrival in Canaan. If animals were intended here, we would not have , but the suffix as in the following verse.
Ezr 2:68-70. Contributions for the building of the temple and closing remarks.
Ezr 2:68. And of the heads of the people = some of them. Comp. in Ezr 2:70. Neh. uses instead , a part, as Dan 1:2, etc., they freely offered gifts, and indeed for the house of God. Comp. notes upon Ezr 1:6. , = in order to erect it, rebuild it=, comp. Ezr 2:63.
Ezr 2:69. They gave to the treasure of the work, that is, into the treasure that was collected for the work of the temple 61,000 darics of gold, ( here and Neh 7:70 sq., for which , with , prosthetic. 1Ch 29:7, and Ezr 8:27, the Greek, , a Persian gold coin worth twenty-two German marks, [shillings, English] or seven and a half German thalers [five and a half American dollars], comp. 1Ch 29:7) = 457,500 German thalers, and 5,000 pounds of silver (above 200,000 German thalers) and 100 priests garments. It seems that our author has here abbreviated the list that was before him, and given the figures in round numbers. We recognize here, as Bertheau properly points out, expressions peculiar to the author: house of Jehovah, which is in Jerusalem, comp. chapter Ezr 1:4; Ezr 3:8; comp. chapter Ezr 1:6; Ezr 3:5 :1Ch 29:5-6; , comp. 1Ch 16:16; 2Ch 9:8; Ezr 9:9; , comp. 1Ch 29:2; they gave into the treasure, comp. 1Ch 29:8, etc. In Nehemiah the text of the document has been more faithfully retained.In accordance with this some of the heads of fathers houses contributed to the work, viz., the Tirshatha (who comes into consideration as the first of these heads, and is mentioned by himself, with his contribution, which was probably especially large) gave to the treasure 1000 darics of gold, 50 sacrificial bowls, and 30 priests garments, and 500, probably pounds, of silver). It cannot mean 530 priests garments, for then the hundreds should stand first. Perhaps the things numbered have fallen away before the 500, in all, probably, . Some (viz., others besides the Tirshatha) heads of fathers houses gave 20,000 darics of gold, 2200 pounds of silver, and the rest of the people gave 20,000 darics of silver, 2000 pounds of silver, and 67 priests garments. Accordingly the sum total amounted to 41,000 darics of gold, 4700 pounds of silver, 97 priests garments, and 50 sacrificial bowls. An important difference between these statements and our text of the book of Ezra is found in 41,000 darics, for which Ezra has 61,000. Since this cannot be balanced by the 50 sacrificial bowls, which are passed over in our text, the 61,000 must be ascribed to a copyists error.
Ezr 2:70. Here, in the closing remarks, the hand of our author may be recognized. The original text read somewhat thus: And the priests and Levites and some of the people and entire Israel dwelt in their cities.But the author would in his own way specify the persons who took part in the divine worship, and adds therefore after those of the people, the singers and door-keepers and temple servants, and in connection therewith perhaps also that which directly followed the former, in their cities, which is missing in Nehemiah. In Nehemiah this statement is improved in this way, that he lets the Levitical singers and porters follow immediately after the Levites, and indeed the porters first, notwithstanding their office was less honorable than that of the singers, because he is not concerned with the dignity of their office, but with their membership among the Levites. It is true he had the disadvantage of being obliged to separate the Nethinim, whom he could not very well place before those of the people, by from the porters and singers. at any rate does not mean some, many of the people; the meaning cannot be that at first only some of them took possession of their cities, against which is the concluding statement and all Israel were in their cities,1 but the others of the people, besides the priests and Levites. Respecting the in their cities, comp. remarks on Ezr 2:1. Our author in a similar manner, as in the closing verse of the first chapter, passes over many things that would have seemed worthy of mention under other circumstances, as in what condition they found the cities, where they settled, whether they contended with the inhabitants of the laud for them, how they accomplished their organization and the like. The reason is the same as that adduced in our notes upon Ezr 1:11.
THOUGHTS UPON THE HISTORY OF REDEMPTION
Ezr 2:2. Since the people formed the new congregation no longer as a nation, or according to their external membership in the nation,since all depended upon the free choice of particular families,there is no longer any mention of the ancient distinction of tribes which was based on merely natural laws. But the congregation, notwithstanding, again has its heads, and indeed again exactly twelve, as the people in the times before the exile had had twelve elders of tribes. Doubtless they needed them still just as much, if not even still more, since indeed the Persian king and his officers did not occupy themselves so immediately, and in so many ways, in their affairs as the previous royal government had done. The restoration of the temple and its worship was imposed directly and pre-eminently upon them, and they certainly had pre-eminently to take care that the law of God should prevail as thoroughly as possible in the life of the congregation. Hence there is sufficient reason that they should be placed foremost here just as the twelve elders of tribes had been in the time of Moses, Num 1:15-16. There must always be office-holders, ranks, and a corresponding subordination in the congregation of God, as surely as it ever needs guidance and training. And if the officials are no longer given by natural rank, or appointed by the state, if the relation to them is thus a more tender one, then they ought to meet them as those who have been freely chosen to positions of trust, with all the more respect, yea, reverence.
Ezr 2:36-39. The priests were disproportionately numerous in the new congregation. They made up about the seventh part of the whole. If in consequence of this they were obliged to be all the more discreet to maintain themselves, since the offerings falling to them hardly sufficed for their support,if therefore it could not be permitted them to acquire land for themselves, work them, or to learn trades and practice them, then it was without doubt the very reverse of what they ought to have done, when they, in consequence of this, became conformed to the world and helped to favor the mingling with heathenism, as we observe to be the case even in the high priestly family itself. Comp. Ezr 10:18. They ought, owing to their great numbers, to have offered to the congregation all the greater support against the worship of idols and apostasy from the law, and at any rate they should have been a living, practical reminder of their most appropriate and highest tasks. They should have more and more impressed upon the entire congregation a priestly, spiritual character. The universal priesthood, which the worldly Christians claim, in a false sense, should be imparted more and more decidedly to the true congregation in the true sense.
Ezr 2:64-67. The new congregation must have appeared to themselves extraordinarily small and weak, when they compared themselves with the first beginnings in the time of Moses, when the men of war were about 600,000. (Comp. Num 1:46; Num 26:51.) It was all the more incumbent upon them to maintain themselves as far as possible in unity with those who remained behind in exile, and cultivate the bond of communion with them, accordingly widen their views, and keep themselves from narrow-heartedness,or, if their relation to them proved again to be only a loose one, to consider themselves as a mere remnant, that had been preserved from the divine judgment by grace, accordingly to let themselves be reminded by their weakness of the divine holiness as well as compassion. The weaker they were in themselves, the more were they prompted, at all events, to seek their strength in the Lord, and expect their help from Him. Moreover we may conclude from their small numbers that it is not the great multitude to which the development of the church leads; rather those by whom Gods thoughts of redemption are to realize themselves chiefly and most immediately, constitute naturally only a small minority. Besides, we may conclude from Ezr 2:65-67 that among those who returned there were likewise men who were quite wealthy, that therefore the idea is not at all correct that only those had sought out Jerusalem again who had nothing to lose in Chaldea (Talm. bab. tract. Kidduschim). Without doubt God was able already in the Old Testament times to awaken a living zeal for His cause, not only among the poorer, but also, at the least, of making here and there also the rich, with their possessions, serviceable to His cause.
Ezr 2:68-69. By offering gold and the other gifts which had reference to the restoration of worship, the new congregation showed their earnest desire to really become what was incumbent upon them to be. Christianity should never fall behind them; but although its task is mainly the internal and spiritual offerings, they should be ready to prove the truth of their spirituality, where it is necessary, by external offerings likewise.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Ezr 2:1-2. Take care that thou and thy house above all belong to those who constitute the congregation of the Lord. Only they are named and numbered in the book of life.
Ezr 2:68-69. Let not thy house, but Gods house, be thy chief care. With reference to the statements respecting the riches of the returned exiles in Ezr 2:65 sq. Brentius appropriately remarks: Ejecti erant Judi e Hierusalem propter scelera sua. Nihilominus fovit eos inter gentes et locupletavet eos. Unde Jerem vigesimo nono dicilur: Ego scio cogitationes, quas cogito super vos, cogitationes pacis et non afflictionis, ut dem vobis finem. With the same appropriateness Starke: The Lord killeth and maketh alive, leadeth into Sheol and again out of it, 1Sa 2:6. Let no one, therefore, utterly lose courage in enduring crosses, suffering, poverty and misery, persecution and imprisonment. God extends His church amidst crosses and persecutions all the more, and causes it to bloom as a palm-tree, Psa 92:13; Mat 16:18; Act 11:19-21. Upon Ezr 2:68 : Whatever we give to the glory of God, we should give willingly, for God loveth a cheerful giver. Upon Ezr 2:70 : My God, if Thou wilt redeem me some day out of this body in the world, then remove me likewise to the eternal and true fatherland and Canaan, the right to which our first parents lost by their disobedience for themselves and all men, but which, Christ has regained for us. [Scott: Our gracious Lord will carry us through those under takings which are entered on according to His will with an aim to His glory, and in dependence on His assistance; and then we shall be made superior to all difficulties, hardships and dangers.Henry: Tis an honor to belong to Gods house, though in the meanest office there.Let none complain of the necessary expenses of their religion, but believe that when they come to balance the account, they will find it quit costTr.
Footnotes:
[1][All Israel is interpreted by Rawlinson as referring to representatives of the ten tribes.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter contains the record of the number which returned of the people from Babylon. Of certain priests, which could not show their pedigree.
Ezr 2:1
We are not to suppose that these were individually the very same persons which were carried away and all lived to return. Seventy years must have produced both deaths and births in the several tribes. But I rather conceive, by this register, is meant the exact number of those in each tribe that survived to return.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Ezr 2
1. Now these are the children of the province [Judea] that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, unto Babylon [as into a lion’s den, see Nah 2:10 ], and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city [the cities and villages are more distinctly enumerated by Nehemiah];
43. The Nethinims [the lowest order of the ministry (Num 31:47 ; Jos 9:23 )]: the children of Ziha, the children of Hasupha, the children of Tabbaoth,
55. The children of Solomon’s servants [formed of the residue of the Canaanites, supposed to be inferior to the Nethinims]: the children of Sotai, the children of Sophereth, the children of Peruda,
59. And these were they which went up from Tel-melah [hill of salt] Tel-harsa [hill of the wood], Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not show their father’s house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel [those who had lost the records of their lineage. Even of the priests there were three families without genealogy]:
60. The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two.
61. And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai: which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite [ 2Sa 18:27 ], and was called after their [her] name:
62. These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood [Levitically disqualified].
Melancholy Records
WHATEVER the local incident may have been and into that it may not be wholly profitable to inquire the great principle remains in operation to-day, and is pathetically and painfully illustrated in many a living instance. The idea is that the people who are referred to sought their register expecting to find their names recorded, and when the scroll was searched the names were not found there. Here is the picture of men seeking a register, and finding nothing in it; looking up old family papers, and their names are not found in the tender record.
A man not known at home! He may have been born there, and have lived a good many years of his early life there; but to-day he has no record on the hearthstone, no place at the table, no portion in the family memory: it would be a breach of courtesy to name his name; his health may not be inquired after; even the most delicate and well-calculated solicitude must not be expressed. The man in question is not; he is living, he has a place somewhere on the earth, but those who gave him birth do not know where, and those who once cared for him never mention him even in prayer. Something must have happened. There is an ineffable sadness about this: all nature seems to be violated; instincts have been rooted out; natural affection seems to have been burned down and utterly destroyed: how is this? Events of this kind do not come about without explanation. Children are not cast out for small offences, for venial transgressions; these are forgotten by the hundred, and the great substantial affection is untouched. But here is an instance of a man taking you to his home to prove his nativity and his own home saying, in effect I never knew you: you are as if you had never been. Consider the tremendous possibility of outliving one’s natural rights, or forfeiting birthright, inheritance, paternal blessing, all the wealth of home’s true love. Talk of falling from grace! What is this but an apostacy from the best grace a fall from childhood’s trust, the wilful obliteration of the name from the scroll whose meaning is nothing but love?
Here is a child who is not named in the will. He says, My progenitors are dead: the will is to be read to-day. I will be in good time to hear it, because my name is certain to occur in the will. The document is read, and no mention is made of the person in question. Men are not treated thus for trivial offences, let us say again and again. We must get at the root of this, or we shall trifle with facts, and shall heap opprobrium unjustly upon the memories of the dead. Consider what you have done. How infinite in detestation must have been the character which resulted in this issue! Surely they might have left you something at the last, and would have done so but that your conduct touched the point of unpardonableness. There is an unpardonable sin in social life: why all this ado about an unpardonable sin in higher spheres? The unpardonableness is not with God; but the utterness of the corruption, the completeness of the blasphemy, is with man. The testator halted at one point; he thought he would leave you something, but considerations crowded upon his memory, and not upon his memory only but upon his conscience, his sense of justice, and he felt at the very last, when men are most melted in heart, most clement and tender in feeling, that he could not overlook the tremendous transgression. He may have been wrong; we are not concerned now to rectify cases of that kind or inquire into them; but here is the principle, that it has been as a matter of fact found possible for a man to obliterate his name at home, and so to live that those who gave him birth have in effect forgotten his existence in shame.
Take more general ground, and the principle still applies. Here is a man who is unknown in the community; his name may be written upon certain official papers, but it is not inscribed on the scroll of the heart, on the memory of gratitude; it is not to be found anywhere put up as a thing most prized and loved. He is but a figure in the community, but a tax-payer, but an occupier of a house; he is not a living presence in any sense of beneficence, comforting the friendless, blessing the poor, assisting the helpless, and doing all ministries of love and tenderness. He is not known! When he is buried no one will miss him in the heart. His name is not written upon the register of trust, affection, or benevolent interest.
Seeing that all these things are possible there must be a reason for them: what is it? It is always a moral reason, where it touches any conception of general justice. Not because the child was deaf, dumb, blind, was he left out of the will never; human nature rises to protest against the infamous suggestion. Not because the child was ill-shaped, wanting in fairness and loveliness of form and colour, was he forgotten at home: nay, contrariwise, he may have been the fairest of the whole flock, the very flower of all the family, bright in mind and invested with a thousand charms; but somehow his heart got wrong, his best nature was poisoned, perverted, turned downwards towards ruin; all natural feeling was extinguished; the man became as a beast in fierceness: he dispossessed himself by moral processes. That is the only dispossession that is possible. A man may overget everything else, but when he has forfeited confidence, trust, love, moral veneration, no matter how keen his wit, how vast his learning, how charming his personal manners, he is looked upon as twice dead, plucked up by the roots, something to be avoided, a life that spreads pestilence in the air. At the last shall we go to the book of life, and not find our names there? The answer is in our own lives. No man, be he ever so great a foe, can remove our names from God’s book of life there the enemy has no power; but we must have first so related ourselves to God as to have had a name written amongst the blessed, the pardoned, the pure. Let every man answer the question for himself. To-day it is of little or no consequence; but the time will come when registers will be looked up, when histories will be read, when old archives will be searched; and no matter where our names may be written if they are not written in the book of life, our fame will be infamy, our elevation will mark the spot from which our fall shall be the most tremendous. Sad to turn away from the record, saying, My name is not there! But, blessed be God, the humblest, least, vilest may, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, the whole mystery of the priesthood of Christ, have their names written in heaven. Compared with that, all other fame is noise, all other reputation is a bubble or a shadow.
We find the next point in the sixty-third verse
“And the Tirshatha [the Feared] said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things [make a gain of the priesthood], till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.” ( Ezr 2:63 ).
That principle still operates. It is the principle of regard to technicality, form, established stipulation, and regulation; it is the principle of mechanical piety or mechanical service. The rule was that religious privilege was to be denied until certain mechanical arrangements were re-established “till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.” No matter how great the hunger for it was a question of hunger they should not eat of the most holy things; until the technical arrangements were completed the eager appetite must be held in check. Blessed be God, there is nothing technical on the way to the enjoyment of God’s love. Let us beware of man-made gates and locks and passwords. They are but human inventions, and they have done incalculable mischief to the very Church which they were intended in some general way to serve. Who are we that we should limit the number to be saved? By what authority do we stand at any house we have built and say, Only such and such shall enjoy the franchise of this dwelling of God? If we limit our attendances by certain regulations of our own invention, let those regulations be known, but never call the house by the name of God. You cannot have a great God and a little charity; an infinite Redeemer and a small prey taken from the spoiler by his mighty hand. By what names are our houses called? Call them by our own names, and then every magnitude may be measured by the scale of our personality; but call them by the name of God, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him; call them by the name of Christ, and he would have all the world evangelised and saved; call them by the name of the Holy Spirit, and who may limit the Holy One of Israel, saying, He shall dwell here, but not there, when his presence shineth as the lightning from the east even unto the west? There are ironies that cannot be tolerated even in social speech, but no irony can compare with a house called by the name of God, and yet limited as to its spiritual accommodation by the selfishness or the prejudice of man. But may not many come in unworthily? We answer, Many come in unworthily now. You never can keep the unworthy out; they will find some method of climbing over the wall or forcing their way. The people we keep out are the true, the honest, the modest, the simple, the self-distrustful. No wall ever built by human hands could keep a hypocrite out of the visible Church. No catechism, creed, or standard, could keep the bad man from the altar, if he wished to be there: his oath is ready, his signature is always within call; whatever the terms are he is ready to comply with them. The liar has great capacity; the vicious man has in some respects greater liberty of action than the virtuous man, for nothing stands in his way: he can run, or leap, or wait, or lie, or play the cunning trick, or speak the true word with an untrue emphasis; he can win his end, for a moment at least. On the other hand, how many are kept away from eating the most holy things because some priest has set up a gate through which the hungry ones must come, or must not come at all. All inventions of this kind must give way before the hunger of the heart. When the spiritual life is considered to be equivalent to the heart-hunger, conscious heart-need, then what freedom, even to the point of infinity and glory, shall be realised within the tabernacle and kingdom of God! This participation of the holy things is not a question of science, theology, formulated dogma, stipulated creed; it is a question of burning thirst, devouring hunger, holy desire after the living God. Where men are conscious of such thirst, such hunger, such desire, they may come into God’s house, though there be no priest there in human form, no blazing stones worn by consecrated men: by the very sun that shines in the heavens, by the copious rain that falls on the just and on the unjust, they have a right to reason their way upward into the infinity of God’s hospitality. If you are turned out of any church because of human regulations, then draw near to one another outside, on the common street, in the green field, under the shadowing tree, and there begin to exemplify the true idea of the Church: only learn from your own exclusion not to exclude other people, who do not see things precisely as you see them: the substantial requisite is, desire after the living God, conscious need of all that heaven means, self-distrust, and the outgoing of the heart towards the blessed cross of Christ, find these, and you find a Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.
Now the great procession moved on towards the appointed place to accomplish the divinely-appointed work. Some kind of inventory is given of numbers and of possessions
64. The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and three score [the same as in Nehemiah].
65. Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women [hired for lamentation as well as joy].
66. Their horses were seven hundred thirty and six; their mules, two hundred forty and five;
67. Their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty [in early Hebrew history the asses are the chief and most numerous beasts of burden].
There was mechanical arrangement, there was formality, there was order in the whole procession. Men who are going up to build God a house must in the very process of their going show at least some measure of equipment and qualification for their work. We cannot leap instantly out of disorder into order; we cannot live a slovenly, unformulated life six days in the week, and on the seventh become very patterns of piety and system and consecration. Even in going to his business a man shows somewhat of his qualification to discharge it; the very first step he takes out of his house towards the scene of labour shows him a man of precision, energy, determination. Do not despise the preliminary, the initial, the alphabetical. Numbers were used because every one was then accounted of value. Nothing was brought into great lumps and masses, so to speak, but everything was individualised, so that every man, woman, child, and animal had a place upon the record. Some with too critical an eye might observe that amongst the beasts that went up with the people the asses were the greatest in number “their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty,” and every one was counted. How does it come that this is always the same throughout the world? It is inexplicable, and yet it involves a principle which ought to be detected and applied, if we would touch some of the vital points in the great economy of God. How is it that the most of men are incapable, wanting in faculty, having a positive genius for doing things the wrong way? It is incredible but for facts a thousand thick, one coming in after the other to tell the tale of incapableness. The men are not altogether wanting in good qualities; they are civil, obliging; they are not indolent; and yet they always miss the point, or their arrow falls invariably within six inches of the target; they are if not industrious at least busy, often busy wearing themselves out, throwing buckets into empty wells, and bringing them up again; they often perspire more than men who are doing ten times the work. You cannot charge them with indolence, but somehow there is a marked incapableness about them. Have they no fingers? Do they not take hold of things properly? We cannot tell. We must not be severe upon them; they may have been given in charge to society; they may have been meant to play a wonderful part in the education of the world. God despises none: how much better, then, is a man than a sheep: if God take care of oxen will he not take care of men: if he take note of the way of the fowls of the air, will he be heedless regarding the steps of his children? Christ is a good shepherd; he will leave none of his sheep behind; he will cause the whole flock to halt until the weariest shall be recruited a little; yea, if need be, he will carry the lambs in his bosom. He knows our frame, he remembers that we are dust; he knows that he did not invest us all with ten talents; to some he gave two, and to some but one talent; he has not given an equality of genius to the human race: what if he has made the strong in order that they may help the weak; what if he has created the great that they may make themselves greater by taking benevolent interest in the weak and feeble and little? Thus is society consolidated and educated. “Ye that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak”; and, brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault if one of his joints, literally, should be dislocated, stop and put the limb in its place again, for time so spent is not time wasted but time doubly improved, as holy disposition would improve it. There is a majority of quality as well as a majority of number. Some are to be weighed rather than counted, even when they come together in their hosts. God is judge. It is not for us always to say, These belong to horses, these to camels, these to mules, these to asses. We should abstain from all scornful and contemptuous names, and realise the great socialism of God which is suggested in the words we belong to one another. There is not a poor man in the world that does not belong to the rich man; there is not a helpless creature on God’s earth who has not, supposing character not to have been forfeited and blasted, some claim upon general human attention.
68. And some [and only some] of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house [ rather, the site of the house] of the Lord which is at Jerusalem, offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place:
69. They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams [a dram was little more than an English guinea] of gold, and five thousand pound [the pound was rather more than 4] of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments.
70. So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities [thus the revival was national, and not confined to Judah and Benjamin].
How delightful it is to read about the generosity of other people; is there any poetry equal to a subscription list filled with names of benevolent persons of whom we never heard? How charming to learn that a church has been opened free of debt; and how double the delight when we know that we did not subscribe one halfpenny to the result! To read of ancient generosity why, it transports the feeling, it delights and ravishes the soul of man. So it may be in your little village: the people were poor, but they put their pennies together and struggled bravely with the burden, and at last threw it off, and you presided at the thanksgiving meeting, having subscribed nothing to it but a speech. At the same time, what can be more touching and more edifying than to read of the generous deeds of others? and how beautiful to recite chivalric poetry; how extremely entertaining for a young man who is afraid of the tiniest dog that ever barked to stand up and repeat heroic lines about illustrious ancestors. Let us get rid of this folly. We must ourselves be generous. We must ourselves be heroic. It is nothing but a mischief when a man has to live upon the reputation of his forefathers, either for generosity or chivalry. Our ancestors should re-live their lives in us, should double themselves in our personality; and we should try to take one step in advance of the most advanced forefather we ever had. But the building of God’s house goes up; give who may, withhold who may, up goes the great temple of God. He will build if we desist: if we hold our peace the very stones will cry out, and God shall receive hallelujahs from unexpected tongues if the tongues of his children are silent. How great might be the house of God, how high, making the whole neighbourhood sacred; we ought to be able to say, The people in this or in that locality will be high-minded people, ennobled by religious veneration, because the church is in the midst of the neighbourhood, and that church could never be anywhere without elevating, ennobling, refining, the whole district in which it stands: its doctrine is so noble, its charity so sweet, its temper so benevolent; the eloquence of that house is so personated in actual life that it sanctifies the whole locality. How broad might be the Church, including all lawful amusement, recreation, entertainment; being a real family-house, an enlarged home, a place of hospitality, and music, and trust, and love. How enchanting might be the house of God, having within it all beauty, all loveliness, everything that can appeal to the highest sensibilities, and satisfy the best desires of sanctified human nature. To have had a hand in building God’s house, that is fame enough; to have been allowed to put just one little stone in God’s temple surely is sufficient renown for any man. Here is a work in which we can all engage: we can teach a little child; we can help a blind man across a thoroughfare; we can divide our loaf with some hungering and unfortunate fellow-creature; we can lend a hand where the burden is too heavy for the back; we can speak a word of cheer even where we cannot fulfil a sacrifice. Broad is the horizon, infinite the sphere and the opportunity of labour. Shame on him who stands back and declares that no man hath hired him. God asks for our service. In condescension he allows us to work. When we work we are happy. When we are indolent we lose our faculty, and our hope dies in cloud, in night.
Prayer
Almighty God, come to us with a voice of joy and hope, saying unto us in our loneliness and fear, The winter is over and gone; now the summer is coming with all its broad warm light; and the voice of birds is heard in the air. Some are weary with waiting; they are full of sadness; their vision is one of gloom and dread, and they know not what shall be on the morrow except there be some deeper darkness. Our life itself is spent in the nighttime; we call some part of it by the name of day: but what can we tell of light? What do we know of thy meaning when thou callest men into the land of the morning? We have never seen the light as thou hast seen it; we have beheld that which is but a dim type of it, a grey outline of an infinite majesty. Help us to believe that the light cometh, and also the morning, and whilst we look forward to the dawn we shall forget the midnight, and remember our sorrows no more. What is thy gospel of love but a voice of hope, an assurance that we do not see everything now, and that what we do see is not beheld in all its reality and beauty? Hast thou not promised a sweet, bright by-and-by for those who put their trust in the living God and confidently wait upon him in all patience? Thou wilt surprise such by thy wealth of light; thou wilt astonish with a great astonishment of joy those who have been trusting thee in the nighttime, and walking onward, sometimes hesitatingly, sometimes stumblingly, yet always with their hand in thy hand, thou Parent and King of all. For all such hopes we bless thee: they make us patient: they give us victory over death and the grave; they enable us to mock our afflictions, calling them light and enduring but for a moment, when compared with the eternal weight of glory which is in reserve for those who through Christ Jesus walk steadfastly in the way of thy grace. Thou wilt not forget us; thou hast graven our names upon the palms of thy hands; the walls of Zion are continually before thee; thou dost beset us behind and before, and lay thine hand upon us, and no good thing dost thou withhold from us, except it be to quicken our hunger and make more intense our thirst for the living God and all his truth. Surely thou hast been with us all these days in the desert. Thou hast wrought within us a strange miracle: now time has no dread for us; time cannot threaten us with long duration; we have lived to see that time is nothing; the days are fleeting shadows and the end will be here presently, and all the twilight will depart and the full shining of the sun will come. Thou hast delivered us from one oppression after another. We bless thee for emancipating us from the prison of time. Once we counted the days, and thought them long; in our childhood the years were ages, and the ages were incalculable: now days come and go, and we know not the one from the other, and behold the earth has rolled through its little circle before we have had time to consider: eternity is nearer than time; heaven is closer upon us than is the earth, for the earth is slipping away from under our feet, and all heaven is enclosing us with an atmosphere of warmth, and filling our senses with peculiar and all-satisfying delight. Now deliver us from the bondage of the letter. We thank thee that we have somewhat escaped from that enslavement. We begin to see the meaning of the spirit, to know that the letter was but a signal pointing to something beyond itself and infinitely larger than itself: to that other and grander something we would come as the elders came to Mount Zion. May we grow from the bondage of service into the liberty of obedience, so that obedience shall no longer be a task, an effort, or an aspect of discipline, but shall be our supreme joy, the very beginning and pledge of heaven within us; we shall turn thy statutes into songs in the house of our pilgrimage. Thou hast set each of us to do some work: enable each worker to find out what his work really is, and then to do it with both hands earnestly, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, for daily inspiration, for daily succour. May our attitude be one of service and of expectation, knowing how blessed is that servant who shall be found watching and waiting when his Lord cometh. Blessed Saviour of the world, come to us in all thy gracious power and complete thy ministry in our hearts. We would be purified, elevated, ennobled, made holy and perfect as our Father in heaven. Thou only, Son of God, thou alone canst work in us all the perfectness of thy purpose. May there be nothing left in us that is untrue, unfaithful, but may the whole soul be transfigured; by the transforming power of thy grace may we reflect the image of the triune God. Pity us in all our littlenesses and unworthy thoughts, and conscious or unconscious infirmities; give us eyes that see everything aright; work in us that spirit of judgment that cannot be deceived; bless us with that discernment which knows wickedness afar off and hates it with infinite detestation. Give us power in prayer; may we be more than conquerors when we come before the throne to utter our supplications and wrestle with God for victory. Thou dost accommodate thine omnipotence to our weakness, so that in our wrestlings we are permitted to overthrow and to receive from thee a new name, significant of largeness and victory. Look upon all men, women, and children. Shed upon the world’s weariness some balm that will help the world to recover its energy. Pity those who sit in darkness and fill the night with tears; have compassion upon those who know not the right hand from the left because of some sudden stroke which has thrown them into bewilderment. Save us from despair; save us from ourselves; give us consciousness of thy nearness and thy power: then shall our poor life work out its little tale of days, knowing that at the end the reward will come. Forgive us every sin; yea, the whole multitude of our sins do thou pardon, through Jesus Christ our Lord, who loved us and gave himself for us, and redeemed us with his own precious blood. We always await thine answer: we know how thou canst whisper to the heart; we know how thou canst assure us of all thy love. Come in thine own way, and at thine own time; only give us confidence that thou wilt come: then we can wait with the assurance of those who have no doubt, with the dignity of men who know that already the King is at the door and heaven is about to dawn. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXI
THE RETURN AND REORGANIZATION UNDER ZERUBBABEL
Ezra 1-6
This section embraces the return unto the dedication of the Temple, 536-516 B.C. (Ezra 1-6). First, we have the decree of Cyrus, Ezr 1:1-4 , issued 536 B.C. In this remarkable decree Cyrus gives his authority for issuing it, as Jehovah, the God of Israel. This does not imply that Cyrus was a monotheist or a believer in the God of Israel, but it does imply that he recognized the existence of the God of the Hebrews and acknowledged him as the promoter of their welfare.
There are five remarkable things about this decree, viz: (1) It was promulgated by a heathen king. (2) It recognized Jehovah as the dispenser of the kingdoms of the world, saying, “All the kingdoms of the earth hath Jehovah, the God of heaven, given me.” (3) It declares that the supreme God had “charged” him to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. (4) It originated in a “stir” of the king’s spirit by God himself. (5) It provided for money and free will offerings for the Temple. All this may have been brought about as tradition says, by Daniel showing Cyrus the prophecy of Isaiah, thus causing him to issue this decree. However this may be, we have here some great lessons on God’s government of the world, viz: First, God’s universal sovereignty over the kings of the earth. Second, these heathen people had some light of the true God which perhaps, they received from the Jews. Third, God’s prophecy cannot fail and his promise is made sure, as in the case of Caesar Augustus, who issued the decree that all the world should be enrolled, fulfilling a prophecy of Micah some five hundred years before. It may be added that all this shows that the Persians during this period recognized the one supreme God, though they worshiped others gods, and that Isaiah had foretold this decree giving the very name of the king and bringing us the lesson that God’s foreknowledge is unlimited making possible all predictive prophecy.
Next follows the first return and genealogy, Ezr 1:5-2:67 . The company was composed of those whom the Spirit of God stirred up, which was not large comparatively speaking, perhaps, because the larger part of them were engaged in commerce and did not wish to take chances on transferring their business interests. He charged their friends to help them freely, which has a parallel in the case of the children of Israel leaving Egypt, though without order from the king. Cyrus was honest in his decree. All the vessels that had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar were returned. They numbered in all 5,400. A partial list of them is given, but only the best materials are mentioned, such as the silver and the gold.
The genealogy in the second chapter gives only the heads of the various tribes or representatives of them: this list had been carefully preserved through the Exile. This company of returning pilgrims is the “remnant” so frequently spoken of by the prophet Isaiah. The total number was 42,360 Jews, and 7,337 servants. Their beasts numbered 736 horses, 250 mules, 435 cattle, 6,720 asses a large caravan. The mention of the actual heads of the tribes in Ezr 2:2 and Neh 7:7 , gives evidence that the twelve tribes were represented in this return, the prophetic proof of which is found in Jer 3:18 ; Jer 16:15 ; Jer 30:3 ; Eze 11:15 ; Eze 11:17 . These prophecies show that Israel and Judah both were to return to their land. There is also abundant historical proof that Israel returned with Judah. After the division of the kingdom and before the captivity ‘of Israel there were four defections from Israel to Judah. Then the history of the Jews after their return proves it (See Zec 11:14 ) ; the twelve tribes were there in Christ’s day, and James addresses the twelve tribes. This exact numbering here in Ezra has the historical value of preserving the genealogy and the details here given show the poor and insignificant beginning they had upon their return.
The first attempt was to rebuild the Temple, Ezr 2:68-3:13 . There was a considerable amount of wealth among those who returned in this company. The larger part of them settled in the various cities of Judah, comparatively few of them in the city of Jerusalem. We have an account of the first offering toward the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezr 2:69 ) amounting to about $450,000.00. In the seventh month they gathered together under the leadership of Joshua and Zerubbabel and erected an altar; the starting of the worshiping of God in sacrifices. They had learned in the Exile that it was impossible to have a religion without a temple. It is probable that the stone upon which this altar was erected is the stone now under “The Dome of the Rock.” They offered their burnt offerings and then kept the “Feast of the Tabernacles” as best they could. In the next year under the direction of the leaders they laid the foundation of the Temple. This probably occurred in 535 B.C. It was attended with joyful ceremonies as recorded in Ezr 3:10 . It is possible that the song they sang then was the whole or part of Psa 136 . There were those present who remembered the former Temple and they thought of the destruction of that grand building and doubtless they lived over again the fifty years intervening. The younger members of the congregation were overjoyed at the present success, and the old men as truly were grateful, but gave vent to their feeling with a wailing of sorrow at the memory of the former Temple. Fifty years had passed since their former beautiful Temple had been destroyed, and they could not but think over the awful past, when it went down in ruins. So the younger men rejoiced but the older men wept and wailed.
We find the first hindrance to the work in Ezr 4:5-24 . This is by the Samaritans) that mixed race to the north of Judah. Their first offer was friendly, to co-operate with and help the Jews build the Temple, and from Ezr 4 we see that Zerubbabel did not accept their offer, but promptly rejected it because they saw the outcome of such an alliance; then, they showed that the decree of Cyrus had appointed them to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The refusal angered the Samaritans and they succeeded in putting a stop to the work of erecting the sacred edifice. In Ezr 4:24 we are told that the work on the house of the Lord ended until the second year of the reign of Darius the king of Persia. This would be 520 or 519 B.C.
In Ezr 4:4-5 we have a general statement of the opposition in this language: “Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, and hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.” Then follows the opposition in particular: In a letter to Ahasuerus (Cambyses) they bring an accusation against Judah and Jerusalem, but there are no particulars given. Then in a second letter to Artaxerxes (Pseudo-Smerdis), they brought an accusation against Jerusalem with the following particulars: (1) they are building the rebellious and bad city; (2) they have finished the walls; (3) the people are preparing to avoid tribute, custom and toll; (4) the records show this to be a rebellious and hurtful city, and there should be an investigation to see if these things are so; (5) this means that Persia will have no portion beyond the river Euphrates. The result was that Artaxerxes responded that he had examined and found records as they had charged, and therefore he ordered the work stopped, and did stop it by force.
There are some critical matters just here that call for consideration: (1) “Ahasuerus” and “Artaxerxes” are royal titles and are applied to various monarchs of Persia; (2) these are not the “Ahasuerus” and “Artaxerxes” of Esther and Nehemiah, making Ezr 4:6-23 parenthetical as some say, but they refer to “Cambyses” and “Pseudo-Smerdis” as indicated above, and Ezr 4:6-22 connects directly with the preceding and following verses; (3) “the rebellious city” has a certain basis of truth in three instances: It rebelled (a) in the reign of Jehoiakim, (b) in the reign of Jehoiakin, and (c) in the reign of Zedekiah; (4) the statement, “have finished the walls,” is an Oriental exaggeration (Ezr 5:3 ) ; (5) “no portion beyond the river” has basis of truth in the reigns of Solomon and Menahem.
The work was stopped, for probably seventeen or eighteen years, and apparently no efforts were made to continue it. At this time there appeared two prophets upon the scene, Haggai, an older prophet, and Zechariah a younger one. They aroused the people to activity by a series of prophecies which we find recorded in their books. Haggai says, “The time has come for you to build God’s house.” The trouble was they had taken time to build houses for themselves and neglected God’s house. He says they ought to consider their ways; that the present drought and hard circumstances existed because they had neglected the building of the house of God (Hag 1:7-11 ). Zechariah by a series of visions co-operates with Haggai and the people are at length aroused to a genuine effort to build, or rather rebuild the Temple.
As they were rebuilding the Temple the matter was reported to Tattenai, the Satrap, who had charge of all this part of the Persian Empire. It caused him some apprehension. He wished to know for certain whether the Jews had authority to rebuild the Temple or not. They answered that the decree of Cyrus was their authority. Then Tattenai entered into correspondence with the king about the matter.
The history of the old Temple, the Jews’ disobedience and captivity, and the decree of Cyrus was all recited in the correspondence between Tattenai and Darius. The king ordered a search for the Cyrus decree, the decree was found, and the work was ordered to go forward. This decree granted all that the Cyrus decree did and added the help of the governor with gifts of various kinds and for various purposes. The date of this decree was 519 B.C. If we compare this letter of Tattenai to Darius with the former one, we find that there is a vast difference. The former was characterized by bitterness and false accusations, while the latter was a fair statement and a legitimate inquiry into the merits of the case.
We note here that credit is given to the prophets for the success of the work, though it was four years, five months, and ten days after they began to prophesy before the work was completed. It is well to note here also the points made by the prophets bearing directly on the work of rebuilding the Temple. Haggai reproves them for excusing themselves from the building under the plea that it was not time to build and refers to their building themselves houses to live in and neglecting the house of God. Zechariah by a series of visions confirms Haggai’s work and encourages them to undertake the great task of building. (Here the student should read Haggai and Zechariah they will be interpreted later in the course).
The Temple was finished and dedicated 516 B.C. (Ezr 6:13-22 ). This great event occurred about seventy years after the destruction of the first Temple by Nebuchadnezzar. The nation now had a religious center. A new era for Judaism dawned. This Temple remained until A.D. 70, when it was destroyed by the Romans. Haggai promised that the desire of all the nations should come into it. In the courts of this same building Jesus of Nazareth walked and talked. There was a note of joy in this dedication. They offered sacrifices as they did at the dedication of Solomon’s Temple, but this exercise did not compare with Solomon’s in magnificence. There was also a resetting here of the priests and Levites in the service of the Temple. Then followed a great celebration of the Passover. Few other such celebrations of this feast are recorded in sacred history. Along with this one may be named the one in Egypt at its institution, the one at Gilgal upon the entrance into the land, another in the days of Hezekiah, yet another in the days of Josiah, and the last one in the days of Jesus when he instituted his Supper to take the place of the Passover.
QUESTIONS
1. By whose decree did the first exiled Jews return to their country and what was the date of this decree?
2. What five remarkable things about this decree and how brought about?
3. What great lessons here on God’s government of the world?
4. What light does this give us on the religious condition of Persia during this period?
5. What great prophet had foretold this decree giving the very name of this king and what the lesson?
6. What, in general, was the response to this decree, what kindness shown to them by the Persians, what parallel found in earlier Jewish history and why was the response so small?
7. Who were the men named in Ezr 2:2 (cf. Neh 7:7 ), counting the regular Israelites, the Nethinim, the servants and singers, how many people and how many beasts of burden in this first return, and what evidence that all the twelve tribes were represented in this return?
8. What prophetic proof that the ten tribes were not wholly lost?
9. What historical proof?
10. Why this exactness in numbering and detail?
11. What was the first thing they did upon their arrival in Jerusalem and what was the amount of this offering?
12. When did they set the altar and inaugurate regular service, who were the leaders, what was the first feast kept, what was the next step, what steps did they take now toward rebuilding the Temple, and where did they get their material? (See your Bible.)
13. When did they lay the foundation, what correspondence here (see 1Ki 6:1 ), what the ceremonial on this occasion, what Psalm did they sing; how did they sing it and how did the people give expression to their emotion?
14. From whom did opposition come to the work of rebuilding the Temple, what proposition did they make, what the subtlety of it, how was it met and why?
15. Where do we have a general statement of the opposition, in what form does the opposition appear in particular, what points made, what result and what critical matters in this connection?
16. How long did the work of building cease, who stirred them up to renew the work, what new opposition arose, what form did it take, what history was recited in the correspondence, what was the result, what enlargement of this decree over the Cyrus decree, what was the date of this decree and how does the correspondence here compare with the former letter to the king?
17. What credit is here given to the prophets for the success of the work, and how long after they began to prophesy to the completion of the work.?
18. What were the points made by these prophets bearing directly upon the work or rebuilding the Temple?
19. Describe the dedication service, contrast it with Solomon’s dedication of his Temple and note the resetting here in the service of this Temple.
20. What great Jewish festival did they keep at this time and how many great occasions of a like celebration in the history of Israel can you name?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Ezr 2:1 Now these [are] the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;
Ver. 1. Now these are the children of the province ] That is, of Judaea, now a province, though formerly a princess; now solitary and tributary that was once populous and great among the nations, Lam 1:1 . Medinah, the word here rendered province, sometimes signifieth Metropolis, aliis ius dicens, a place that giveth laws to other places, and so Judaea in her flourish had been. See Ezr 4:20 . But now it was otherwise, and so it is at this day, not only with Judaea, but with other renowned empires and kingdoms not a few, all which (together with most of those Churches and places so much mentioned in Scripture) are swallowed up in, the greatness of Turkish Empire. That Medina, a city in Arabia (where Mahomet lieth buried, and where his sepulchre is no less visited than is Christ’s sepulchre at Jerusalem), holdeth this Medina in hard subjection; making her children pay for the very heads they wear; and so grievously afflicting them, that they have cause enough to take up anew Jeremiah’s elegy over their doleful captivity.
That went up out of the captivity
Which had been carried away
Whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon
Had carried away unto Babylon
Every one unto his city
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Ezra Chapter 2
Ezr 2
It may accomplish some particular principle of them. For instance, now under the gospel we see, “Whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Well, that will be accomplished, nay fulfilled, when Jerusalem shall be the earthly centre of God. But is anything we know now the fulfilment of that prophecy of Joel? Not so. It is an accomplishment of it; but the fulfilment of it will be when Jerusalem shall come directly under the power and glory of God; and then in that mount of Zion it will be universal. Whoever shall call upon the name of Jehovah shall be saved, and the Lord shall extend the blessing to all flesh. The principle is true now, but the actual fulfilment of it will be then.
This, then, is very important – that the prophets look not merely to the remnant but to the nation. Prophets look not merely to an accomplishment, but to the fulfilment. In Christianity we get a remnant and we get an accomplishment and nothing more. We have the principle; but the full accomplishment awaits the future.
Well, now, in the second chapter we have most clearly this essential to understanding the prophecies of the Old Testament – that it was only a remnant, and an inconsiderable remnant – some 43,000 or rather less – between 42,000 and 43,000 of the people, chiefly Judah and Benjamin, that were brought back out of the captivity of Babylon; only ‘stragglers out of the ten tribes. The great mass of the ten tribes had been carried into Assyria a long time before. These were chiefly Jews who had been carried to Babylon, not to Assyria, so that we have thus, both in the numbers and in the persons – the tribes out of whom the remnant came – proof that it was not the fulfilment of the prophecies, but only a partial accomplishment, and we know the reason why. It was to leave room for the Lord’s coming in humiliation. The prophets looked for the Lord’s coming in glory. It was necessary that a remnant should go up to Jerusalem, and that the Lord should meet them in as much humiliation on His part, and a great deal more than that humiliation of which they ought to have taken the place on their part. That is, it was but a little remnant, and the Lord came Himself in the deepest humiliation, as fully entering into their circumstances, meeting them where they were in order that He might show that, let things come to the worst, He was going down below the deepest of all shame and the most complete ruin in point of all circumstance. Nay, further, He was going down under sin and judgment itself, in order that He might deliver after a truly divine sort, in all the fulfilment of the grace of God, As this alone could be in humiliation, so do we see that their feeble return was directly suitable to the coming of the Lord in humiliation.
I do not dwell on the details. Indeed this is not at all my object in the present course of lectures. It is to give a general sketch to help souls in reading profitably this portion of the word of God for themselves. But I may mention one or two interesting facts, before I pass on. One is the care that was taken, as we see in the case of the priests. Their genealogy was insisted upon.
It is said, “And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name: these sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha (or governor) said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things” – that is, they should not have the full enjoyment of priestly privilege – “till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.” That is, till the Lord Jesus comes by and by who will, no doubt, be the King, and will also act in the full power of priesthood, the power of Urim and Thummim in the lights of perfections of God, and will then disentangle all the confusion, and supply all that is lacking.
But what I call your attention to is the principle that although it was a day of weakness and humiliation it was not to be a day of negligence but of the greatest care. It was to be a day when God’s people were to be as watchful and vigilant for His name as when things were in the full power and beauty of divine order. This I hold to be very precious for ourselves now. In the present confusion of Christendom we are called to exercise the greatest care with regard to those who bear the name of the Lord – those that take the place of being near to God, which, of course, ought to be in all that are accepted as members of Christ’s body – as true worshippers that come together in His name. And therefore we are entitled to demand that they shall prove their genealogy. The reason is plain, because now people generally take the place of Christians without reality. We are bound to require that there shall be the proof that they really are what they profess to be, that is, we are not to yield to the mere general profession. While owning it as a fact, we are to demand that there shall be the adequate proof to carry conviction.
This was not so necessary in the earliest days. Then the Spirit of God came down in power. There was novelty in it, and a seriousness for man to break off all his old associations and to come together in the name of the Lord Jesus. And the danger was such that, as a rule, men would not come unless they were truly led of God. When there was some person with penetration but without conscience who saw the power that might be turned to his own selfish purposes he might come on false ground. I refer now to Simon Magus; yet, as a rule, I repeat, people did not come unless they were real. But in these days it is not so, and we know well that people deceive themselves – that people may not know what it is really to be converted to God – what it is to be members of Christ’s body. They have been wrongly taught: they have been brought up in an unhealthy and corrupting atmosphere; and, therefore, it is necessary, I repeat, that we should require that the genealogy should be proved; that is that there should be full evidence that they really are Christ’s in the true and proper sense of the word – that they are brought to God.
Now, there may be persons at the present time who, though they will be in heaven, yet are such whom we should not accept on earth. There may be persons to be declined because they cannot prove their genealogy. The Lord may see, in the midst of a great deal that is very painful, what is real, but we must look to God simply according to the measure of discernment that He gives.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Ezr 2:1-2 a
1Now these are the people of the province who came up out of the captivity of the exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away to Babylon, and returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his city. 2These came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum and Baanah.
Ezr 2:1 Now these are the people of the province The same list in Neh 7:7 has twelve names listed (possibly symbolic of the twelve tribes returning). It was very important for the Jews who returned from the Exile to be able to prove their lineage. Their Jewish lineage involved inheritance rights in Judah (each to his city) as well as covenant renewal promises from YHWH.
Ezr 2:2 Zerubbabel This name (BDB 279) means begotten in Babel or offspring of Babel from the root, sowing (BDB 283), or NIDOTTE, shoot of Babylon, Ezr 2:4, p. 1312. Apparently this man was a grandson of Jehoachin, the exiled king of Judah (cf. 1Ch 3:19). He led the second wave of returnees to Judah.
Jeshua This name (BDB 221) means YHWH is salvation, YHWH brings salvation or salvation is of YHWH. The names Jeshua (Aramaic), Joshua (Hebrew, cf. Hag 1:1) and Jesus are exactly the same word combination (cf. Mat 1:21). He is also a relative of Ezra (i.e., the tribe of Levi, family of priests, cf. Ezr 7:1-5).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
these are. This chapter is parallel with Neh 7:69. See the Structure, p. 617, and App-58.
children = sons.
the Province: i.e. the Persian province of Judah. Compare Neh 1:3.
and Judah. Some codices read “and unto Judsea”. Compare Neh 7:6.
one. Hebrew ‘Ish. App-14.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 2
So here they are returning to Jerusalem, as I said, some fifty thousand. And in chapter two it gives you the names of the people and the families that came and the numbers that came with them. Beginning in, or in verse thirty-six to thirty-nine, you have the priests that returned. Then beginning with verse forty, the Levites that returned. Then Solomon’s servants that returned.
Now in verse sixty-one, there were some of the Levites that were returning who could not find their names in the register. Among those that were reckoned by genealogy, they just could not find their names there. That is, they could not accurately trace their family history. They could not trace themselves back to the tribe of Levi.
Therefore they were as polluted, and they were put out of the priesthood ( Ezr 2:62 ).
They were not allowed to minister or to function as a priest or to receive the offerings, the tithes, or the dues that were given to the priests in those days, because they could not prove their pedigree. They could not trace their names in the records. And they were kept out of the priesthood until such a time as they could find a priest with the Urim and the Thummim in order that they might inquire of the Lord and determine if these men really belonged to the priesthood or not.
Now the Urim and the Thummim are the thing that the high priest wore upon his chest, and the words mean light and perfections. Just what they were, we really don’t know. But they would use the Urim and the Thummim to inquire of the will of God. Now the common theory is that it was a little pouch with a black stone and a white stone. And they would ask a question and the priest would say, “Lord, give us a perfect lot.” You know, and he would reach in to the little bag and pull out a stone. If it was the black stone, then the answer was no. If it was the white stone, the answer was yes. And they used this method to ascertain the will of God in certain things. Keep asking questions, keep pulling out the stones, and if you pulled out the white stone, that answer yes. If you pulled out the black stone, the answer no. And so this is what some have theorized the Urim and the Thummim to be. Just what it was, we don’t know. It was a method by which the high priest received God’s answer for the people and God’s directions for the people. It was some type of device by which divine guidance was given to the people.
Now, though we don’t know exactly what it was, I do know exactly what it wasn’t. It wasn’t a pair of glasses that Joseph Smith found with the twelve golden tablets that when he put them on, he could magically decipher the hieroglyphics by putting on these glasses, which he said were the Urim and the Thummim. That is not so. During the time of Moses they didn’t even know how to make glass. And it wasn’t a magic pair of spectacles to read the hieroglyphics on the golden tablets. But as I say, what it was, I don’t know. But I do know what it wasn’t.
So there were about fifty thousand who returned at this first repatriation under Cyrus. And going back to build the temple, plus they had seven hundred and thirty-six horses, and two hundred and forty-five mules, and four hundred and thirty-five camels and all.
And some of the chief fathers, when they came to the house of the LORD which is at Jerusalem, they offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place: and they gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams [or sixty-one thousand drams] of gold, five thousand pounds of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments. So the priests, the Levites, and some of the people, and all the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities ( Ezr 2:68-70 ).
So they returned and they took up an offering. Some of the wealthier families and all gave as was their ability for the rebuilding of the temple there in Jerusalem. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Ezr 2:1
Introduction
THE REGISTER OF THE RETURNED EXILES
Very little comment is needed on this chapter. The purpose of the sacred author was that of establishing the continuity of the nation of God’s chosen people; and, just as the return itself was presented by him as a “Second Exodus,” so this list of names was designed to link the present company of returnees with the glorious names of their previous history, with the implied teaching that they were still the Chosen People and that God would continue to bless them.
“This same list of names appears in Neh 7:6-73 and in Ezr 5:4-17. It is not easy to account for the discrepancies.” In fact, we have never seen any attempt by any scholar to harmonize the lists. They satisfied the people who returned from Babylon; and that is really all that matters.
“Seven distinct groups of people are mentioned.” These are: (1) the leaders; (2) the men of Israel; (3) the priests; (4) the Levites; (5) the temple servants; (6) the sons of Solomon’s servants; and (7) those of uncertain genealogy.
The return from exile was not an “all at once” experience. It went on somewhat gradually over a period of years; and this list might have been revised or corrected from time to time; and some scholars believe that it included some who had never been in captivity at all, “but who were in full sympathy with the returnees.”
It is amazing that Sheshbazzar to whom Cyrus’ treasurer counted out the sacred vessels is not mentioned here; and it is not at all impossible, as suggested by Hamrick, that the author of Ezra here identified him and Zerubbabel as the same person.
Regardless of our questions, many of which are impossible of any perfect solution, these names are of abiding interest in their own right. These are the names of those who kept alive the sacred hope, who did not give up, even when it seemed that all was lost, and whose children lived to turn their backs upon their shameful humiliation in Babylon, cross the burning sands of the desert, and return to that sacred elevation in Jerusalem where they built again the altar of Jehovah and faithfully resumed the worship of the God of their fathers.
“This chapter is certainly among the most uninviting portions of the Bible for the modern reader both because of its tedious nature and because of its overtones of racial exclusivism and pride.” However, the importance of the chapter lies in the evidence it presents concerning the development of that priestly heirarchy that came to be, in time, the total ruin of Israel.
Ezr 2:1
THE LIST OF THE LEADERS
“Now these are the children of the province, that went up out of the captivity of those that had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezar the king of Babylon had carried away into Babylon, and that returned unto Jerusalem and Judah, everyone into his city; who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah.”
“The children of the province” (Ezr 2:1). “This expression indicates that the Jewish exiles, although now released from captivity and allowed to return to their own land, were nevertheless still under the sovereignty of Cyrus, occupying a tributary province of the Persian empire.” This was a dramatic contrast with the glory days of David and Solomon.
“Who came with Zerubbabel” (Ezr 2:2). “Here Zerubbabel appears as the leader of the return to Jerusalem. The name means seed of Babylon, indicating that he was born there. He is usually described as the son of Shealtiel (Ezr 3:2); but 1Ch 3:19 shows him to have been the son of Shealtiel’s brother Pedaiah. Probably Shealtiel died childless, whereupon a Levirate marriage (Deu 25:5 ff) resulted in the birth of Zerubbabel, who was thus the actual son of Pedaiah but the legal son of Shealtiel.
E.M. Zerr:
Ezr 2:1. Province is from MEDIYNAH, and Strong defines it, “properly a judgeship, i, e. jurisdiction; by implication a district (as ruled by a judge); generally a region.” The land of Judah had been taken over by the Babylonians, and they in turn had lost it to the Persians, who had the “jurisdiction” over it at the time of which we are studying. That is why it is referred to as a “province.” The statement means that the “children” or people who are about to be named, belonged to the province of Judah. A record was kept of births, making a notation of the city where the birth was registered. And when this exodus of former citizens took place out of the land of their captivity, each man returned unto his city.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Chapter two contains the register of those who, taking advantage f Cyruss decree, turned their faces toward Jerusalem. The list proceeds in a definite order, from the leaders downward. First, the names of those immediately associated with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:1-2). Then follow the names of families, with the numbers in each case (Ezr 2:3-20) ; names of the members of the priesthood (Ezr 2:36-39) ; following these the list and numbers of the Levites (Ezr 2:40-42); after these the Nethinim (Ezr 2:43-54); next the children of Solomon’s servants (Ezr 2:55-58) ; beside these, a number who had lost their genealogy (Ezr 2:59-63). Verses Ezr 2:64-65 give the totals of the people, and then come the lists of the cattle. The whole ends with the statement of the gifts of the people, and the declaration of their settlement in the cities of the land.
An examination of this list is remarkable principally from the small number of Levites who returned. Nearly ten times as many priests as Levites went back to the land. This, of course, was an inversion of the original order. Dr. Ryle says that perhaps this may be explained by the Levites having been especially concerned in the worship at the high places, and the idolatrous forms of worship which the reformation of Josiah had sought to abolish. Another point of interest is the Nethinim. They seem to be prominent in these books of the return, for they are mentioned only once elsewhere. Their origin it is almost impossible to determine. In all probability they were of foreign extraction, but had been admitted to some of the minor forms of service in connection with Levitical work.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Chapter 2:
Back To The Place Of The Name
It is to a sample-page from the books of eternity that we are next introduced. A leaf out of Gods memorial record is spread before us for our inspection. Similar specimen lists are given us in other parts of the book of God. Gen. 49 is one. The two accounts of Davids mighty men, as set forth in 2 Sam. and in 1 Chron., are of the same character. In Neh. 3 (and also in 7, where this 2nd of Ezra is duplicated), God shows how carefully He was taking note of each individual, each family, and the work they accomplished for Him. Rom. 16 is much on the same line, though at first sight only a chapter of apostolic greetings, and in Heb. 11 we have an honor-roll that shall yet be consulted at the judgment-seat of Christ. There is something peculiarly solemn about records such as these. Many, yea, most of the names in them are for us only names, but God has not forgotten one of the persons once called by these names on earth, and in that day He will reward according to the work of each. Some too must suffer loss for opportunities neglected, or half-hearted service. Nothing of good or ill shall be overlooked by Him who seeth not as man seeth, who looks not on the outward appearance but on the heart. How little did any of these devoted Jews of Ezras day think that God would preserve a registry of their names and families for future generations to read, and thus to learn how highly He values all that is done from devotion of heart to Himself and for the glory of His name!
Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city (ver. 1). And then follows the long list of forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty, besides their servants and two hundred choristers (vers. 64, 65). Even the number of their beasts of burden is recorded, for God takes note of all that may be connected with His people, if only in a temporal way (vers. 66, 67).
As ones eye runs down the list of Hebrew names, there are many that stand out in a special way, and some have most suggestive comments attached.
In verse 2 we read both of a Nehemiah and a Mordecai: but the first must not be confounded with the writer of the next book, who came up later, after the re-building of the temple, and in accordance with the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, mentioned as the starting point of the seventy heptads of Dan 9:24. Nor should the record be identified with the aged consin of Queen Esther, who remained in the city of Shushan, and so far as we know, never went up to Jerusalem after being carried away as a child (Est 2:5, 6).
The men of Anathoth, of verse 23, recalls Jeremiahs purchase of the field of Anathoth, so long before, and the sealed title-deeds awaiting their lawful claimant. It looked, like the height of folly to purchase a field in a doomed district; but faith looked on to the restoration, and now the long-expected day had come when the sealed scroll would prove of real value (Jer. 32).
It is noticeable that so few Levites went up at this time (ver. 40). Only seventy-four! A small company indeed, and what wonder if we look only at the human side of it. They were to have no inheritance save in the Lord. He alone must be their portion. But it took genuine faith to enable these dear servants of God to count upon His abundant resources at a time when neither wealth nor prestige were found among His remnant people. That a time of testing had soon to be faced we may see by consulting Neh 13:10. If Gods people are going on with Him His servants will not be neglected, however little there may seem to be for sight to look upon. And on the other hand, if the people of the Lord do prove forgetful, it is for the servant to realize the more his dependence on God Himself-not on saints, however amiable and benevolent.
There were more of the children of Asaph, the temple singers, than of the Levites in Zerubbabels company (ver. 41). Of them one hundred and twenty-eight went up. The spirit of praise supports the soul and easily passes over rough ways.
Some there were who could not show their genealogy. These were they that went up from Tel-melah, Tel-harsa, Cherub, Addan and Immer: but they could not show their fathers house and their seed, whether they were of Israel: the children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two (vers. 59, 60). They formed a large company, but there was an uncertainty about their origin which was perplexing indeed. And, alas, of how many in Christendom to-day is this the case! Characterized by zeal and earnestness often, they are yet quite unable to give a clear, scriptural answer for the hope that is in them. We .need to beware of passing hasty judgment on such people; but, on the other hand, a degree of care and caution is needed, that is often resented, but which godly concern for what is dear to Christ demands.
Even of the priests, of whom more than a thousand went up (vers. 36-39), were there found some who could not fully establish their title to serve in Jehovahs temple. Of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name: these sought their register among those that were recorded by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood, and the Tirshatha (Governor) said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim (vers. 61-63). These were not declared positively to be laying false claim to the priestly title; they were simply set to one side because they could not prove it, until an inspired priest should rise up who could speak with authority.
So we may well treat some now, who cannot trace their genealogy, but nevertheless insist on the Christian place as rightfully theirs. We dare not say they are not born of God-and those who do so essay to speak are guilty, of gross presumption; but we cannot own them as such till they can give clear evidence of being indeed of the priestly company and partakers of the divine nature. We can in such case but fall back upon the word, The Lord knoweth them that are His, and wait until our Great Priest shall Himself pronounce authoritatively as regards them. Till then, we dare not give them the full Christian place; and if they resent the seeming discourtesy, it but indicates a state of soul that calls for self-judgment and repentance.
The 68th and 69th verses show that God was taking note of what was given with a willing heart for the house of God to set it up in its place. And when the journey was ended, and the returned company stood upon the site of the ruined city where the Lord had set His name, the desolation did not lead to despair, but stirred afresh the hearts of some of the chief of the fathers, who gave after their ability of both silver and gold and garments for the priests. And all this ere even the altar had been set upon its base. It was a gracious work, surely, and evidenced the healthful spiritual state of these aged men, who longed to see the temple rise from its ashes ere being called hence.
It is to be feared that very few Christians are faithful in giving after their ability. The rule laid down in 1Co 16:2, Upon the first day of the week, let each one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him, is one that seldom claims a second thought with many. At the weekly gathering a coin is dropped in the box, often with no previous forethought, and certainly not as a result of a prayerful laying by at home according as God has prospered the giver during the past week. Were this generally acted upon, there would be no dearth of means to carry on the work of the Lord in the home and foreign fields, nor any lack of provision for the poor among the saints. God will never forget that these fathers of old gave according to their ability. Will He forget that many have done nothing of the kind?
Verse 70 closes the chapter with the statement that the priests and Levites, the singers and porters, and the Nethinims2 dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities. Who would have expected to read of all Israel at such a time as this! Yet God sees in this weak and feeble remnant a company occupying the ground of all Israel, and He refuses to consider the nation other than in its unity.
So to-day, it is not possible to re-gather the whole Church of God in one outward visible unity. But it is possible for a feeble few to meet on the ground of the Church of God, refusing all sectarian names and ways, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The last phrase must never be forgotten. When strife and discord come in the unity of the Spirit is at once violated. It can never be forced. It is a practical thing, maintained alone as believers walk in the Spirit and recognize in each other all that is of God, while each one individually seeks to follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
In no other way can the unity of the Spirit be truly kept. The unity of the body of Christ is in no sense in our keeping. There is one body-only one; and no failure on mans part can alter that. But we are responsible to act on the ground of that one body, in accordance with the Word, The loaf which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (1Co 10:16.) Thus in the very act of breaking bread at the table of the Lord, we set forth our unity as members of the one body. Why should we then recognize any other body-any narrower circle?
In principle, christian fellowship, to be scriptural, must embrace all believers; but just as of old there were those whose register could not be found, so now there are many whom one dare not say are not believers, with whom those who would maintain the truth of God cannot have fellowship, because of their doctrine or manner of life. And under this latter heading must be included the being partakers of other mens sins, by associating with what is unholy and defiling. It is here that faith is tested; for only godly discernment can enable saints to act consistently without human rules and regulations, owning all fellow-members of Christs body, but walking only with those who, following righteousness, faith, love, peace, call on the Lord out of a pure heart (2Ti 2:19-22).
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
CHAPTER 2
1. The leaders (Ezr 2:1-2)
2. The names of the returning exiles (Ezr 2:3-35)
3. The priests (Ezr 2:36-39)
4. The Levites and singers (Ezr 2:40)
5. The porters and Nethinim (Ezr 2:42-54)
6. Solomons servants (Ezr 2:55-58)
7. Those of doubtful descent (Ezr 2:59-63)
8. The number of the whole company (Ezr 2:64-67)
9. The offering of the house of God (Ezr 2:68-70)
Ezr 2:1-2. This chapter contains the names of the returning remnant. It is a specimen page of the records which God keeps, and from which we may learn that He remembers His people, whom He knows by name and whose works are not forgotten by Him. In the book of Nehemiah this list is repeated (chapter 7) with an additional record of those who helped in building the wall. He has a book of remembrance (Mal 3:16); and the apostle reminded the Hebrew believers of this fact when he wrote: For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love, which ye have showed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints and do minister (Heb 6:10). There were twelve leaders. Only eleven are given by Ezra; in Nehemiahs record we find an additional name (Nahamani), making twelve in all. Zerubbabel was the leader of the returning captives. His name means seed of Babylon. He is called the son of Shealtiel, the son or grandson of Jeconiah, and was therefore a descendant of David. His name appears in the two genealogies of Matthew (Mat 1:12) and Luke (Luk 3:27). In 1Ch 3:19 he is called the son of Pedaiah, who was Shealtiels brother. This double ascription of parentage may probably be accounted for by Pedaiah having contracted a levirate marriage with Shealtiels widow. The second leader was Jeshua, also called Joshua. He was a son of jehozadak and grandson of the high priest Seraiah. Zerubbabel, the princely leader, son of David, and Joshua, the high priest, are types of Christ. (See Zech. 4 and 6.) Nehemiah is not the Nehemiah who led the other expedition years later, nor is Mordecai the uncle of Queen Esther, who was an old man and evidently remained in Shushan (Est 10:3). The names Nehemiah and Mordecai were quite common among the Jews. The names of some of the others appear in a slightly changed form in Nehemiah; it was a Jewish custom to call a person by different names.
Ezr 2:3-35. The descendants of the different persons are now given. In all we find 24,144 descendants. Their individual names are not recorded but the Lord knows them all, and cared for each member and sustained them in the journey homeward. Even so He knows all His sheep and keeps every member of His body, leading them home to glory. If some of the numbers do not agree with Nehemiahs record, there is no doubt a good reason for it. For instance, the descendants of Arah are here 775 and in Nehemiah we find only 652 recorded. Probably 775 had enrolled their names but only 652 went. All the names recorded may be traced in other portions of the Scriptures.
Ezr 2:36-39. The different temple officials are recorded next. These are priests, Levites, singers, porters and Nethinim. The priests are first mentioned. In 1 Chronicles 24 there are mentioned twenty-four courses. Jedaiah, Immer and Harim are found in the record of the Chronicles. In all there were 4,289 priests who went back. And these constituted four courses only.
Ezr 2:40-41. Only seventy-four Levites returned. This was a very small number. (Hodaviah should be read Judah; chapter 3:9.) There were more singers than Levites. The children of Asaph, that sweet and blessed singer in Israel, were one hundred and twenty-eight. No doubt they encouraged the returning exiles in song, by the spirit of praise and worship. The Babylon experience, so beautifully expressed in Psalm 137, was passed. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the LORDs song in a strange land? All was changed now. God was working. Deliverance had come and singing no doubt was heard again among the returning hosts. But why were so few Levites ready to go back? According to the divine instruction in the Law they were to have no inheritance save in the LORD. It was a test of faith to return under these circumstances, and for this reason many Levites must have tarried in Babylon, where things were abundant. Those who returned were tested (Neh 13:10).
Ezr 2:42-54. The names of the porters and Nethinim. There were in the company one hundred and thirty-nine porters. The Nethinim were temple servants. The word means given or devoted, i.e., to God. We find this name in only one other passage (1Ch 9:2). According to Ezr 8:20 this order originated with King David. Jewish tradition identifies them with the Gibeonites, whom Joshua appointed as helpers to the Levites (Jos 9:3-27). Whatever their origin, they were devoted servants of God assigned to certain duties in the temple.
Ezr 2:55-58. Then comes the record of the children of Solomons servants. These with the Nethinim were three hundred and ninety-two. Nothing certain is known of these additional servants, whose duty seems to have been similar to that of the Nethinim. Some regard them as the descendants of the strangers whom Solomon had enlisted in the building of the temple (1Ki 5:13).
Ezr 2:59-63. These verses tell us of the great caution exercised by the people not to tolerate one in their midst whose origin was in any way doubtful. They were determined that Israel should be an unmingled Israel. Therefore they were most careful in examining the genealogies to exclude all who could not be clearly established as true Israelites, for none but such should engage in the work. The true family of God was now marked out and all who could not clearly prove their connection were set aside. There were six hundred and fifty-two who had joined the company from the Babylonish places Tel-melah, Tel-harsa, Cherub, Addan and Immer. They were the children of Delaiah, of Tobiah and Nekoda. These could not show their descent. They were allowed to return with the rest, but their names are not found in Ezr 10:25-43 or in Neh 10:15-28. And also children of priests sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found; they were therefore counted as polluted and put from the priesthood. Tirshatha is the governor (a Persian title meaning your severity); his name was Sheshbazzar, the official title of Zerubbabel, the prince (chapter 1:8). Nehemiah also had that title (Neh 8:9). Zerubbabel, the governor, ruled that those uncertified priests should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim. And how many are there today in the professing Church who are in the same uncertainty. While making an outward profession, they have no assurance, they have no clear title and do not know that they belong to the holy priesthood into which grace brings all who have been born again. The Church has become a great house (2Ti 2:20-21) in which we find the true children of God and those who are such only in profession. If there is to be a return from the Babylon which Christendom is today, the same principle of separation must be maintained. Only those who are born again, who can show their fathers house, constitute the members of the body of Christ.
Ezr 2:64-67. The number of the whole congregation was 42,360. There were also 7,337 servants and maids, among them two hundred singers; the latter must be distinguished from those mentioned in verses 41 and 70. Singing was evidently a very prominent occupation on the journey towards the homeland! Their groans were ended. The captivity was behind and freedom before. How beautiful the chanting of their great psalms must have been as they journeyed on. But greater still will be the time when the wandering remnant, so long scattered among the nations, turns homeward; when through the coming of their King their groans will end forever, and when they sing the Hallelujah chorus in the kingdom of righteousness and peace.
There were likewise 736 horses, 245 mules, 435 camels and 6,720 asses.
Ezr 2:68-70. These last verses tell us of what happened when they came to Jerusalem. They must have sought at once the ruins of the former temple, for that is the spot they loved. Significant it is that though it was razed to the ground, it still existed in the mind of God, and also in the thoughts of the people. It does not say when they came to the ruins, but when they came to the house of the LORD. And then the hearts of the fathers were touched, and they gave after their ability unto the treasurer of the work 61,000 drams of gold and 5,000 pounds of silver and one hundred priests garments. They were faithful in their giving, not according to the Law, the tenth part, but after their ability. And in the New Testament the rule for the Church as to giving is stated in 1Co 16:2, Upon the first day of the week, let each one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
are the children
Probably individuals from all of the tribes returned to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah, but speaking broadly, the dispersion of the ten tribes (Ephraim- Israel) still continues; nor can they now be positively identified. They are, however, preserved distinct from other peoples and are known to God as such, though they themselves, few in number, know Him not Deu 28:62; Isa 11:11-13; Hos 3:4; Hos 8:8.
The order of the restoration was as follows:
(1) The return of the first detachment under Zerubbabel and Jeshua (B.C. 536), Ezra 1-6, and the books of Haggai and Zechariah;
(2) the expedition of Ezra (B.C. 458), seventy-eight years later (Ezra 7-10);
(3) the commission of Nehemiah (B.C. 444), fourteen years after the expedition of Ezra. Neh 2:1-5.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
the children: Ezr 5:8, Ezr 6:2, Neh 7:6-73, Est 1:1, Est 1:3, Est 1:8, Est 1:11, Est 8:9, Act 23:34
whom Nebuchadnezzar: 2Ki 24:14-16, 2Ki 25:11, 2Ch 36:1-23, Jer 39:1-18, Jer 52:1-34, Lam 1:3, Lam 1:5, Lam 4:22, Zep 2:7
Reciprocal: Neh 1:3 – the province Neh 7:17 – Azgad Neh 11:3 – the chief Neh 12:1 – the priests Psa 85:1 – thou hast Jer 33:26 – I will
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
CHAPTER TWO, with the exception of the last three verses, is taken up with details as to the number of those who answered to the proclamation, named under the heads of their families. The heads are named and the families counted. God took note of them and put their names into His record, while those, whose hearts did not stir them up to go, are passed over in silence. Let us take note of this.
The first name mentioned is Zerubbabel, who became the ‘Tirshatha’, or civil Governor: the second, that of Jeshua, the priest called Joshua in the books of Haggai and Zechariah. These were the leaders in the migration of 42,360 people, besides some servants and other possessions. There was no re establishment of the kingdom, as though the times of the Gentiles had ceased. They were still under Gentile suzerainty.
Still there was a definite revival, and the first mark of it was this: they got back to God’s original centre. Compared with the total number of dispersed Jews they were but few, and many of the worldly sort may have nicknamed them ‘Zerubbabelites’, still they were not that, but simply a few who cared for their God, and sought His original centre.
In the second place, there was no claim to powers they did not possess, since they had been forfeited by previous failure, as we see in verses Ezr 2:59-63. Awkward questions arose, as to whether some were truly children of Israel, and whether others were really children of priests, their genealogies being lost. In earlier days these points might have been settled by an appeal to God through the ‘Urim and with Thummim’. This had been lost and they were humble enough to acknowledge it. When God grants a revival after grievous failure. He may not be pleased to restore everything – especially as to outward manifestations of power – just as things were at the first. Let us take note of this – we again would say. Certain manifestations of power, that were seen in apostolic days, are not in evidence today.
A third mark of true revival is seen in the spirit of devotion, that marked some of the ‘chief fathers’ of the people, when back in the land, as recorded in the closing verses of chapter 2. This spirit may not have continued for long, but it was evidently there at the start. When God begins to work there is always a devoted response on the part of some of His people.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Ezr 2:1. The children of the province That is, of Babylon, for they are here spoken of whom Nebuchadnezzar had brought captive to Babylon, and not those of the ten tribes, who had been dispersed before, by the kings of Assyria, into various provinces; and who afterward returned to Jerusalem in separate companies. Zerubbabel was in the province of Babylon, and to him those captives joined themselves who lived nearest in the same province. This is the reason why those of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin returned first, though a liberty of returning was granted to all the tribes. Another reason is, because the rebuilding of the temple principally concerned them, as Jerusalem was within their dominion. Houbigant. That went out of captivity By the words captivity and captives, when applied to the Jews being carried to Babylon, we are not to understand that they were made slaves to private persons, and bought and sold from one to another, as captives generally were: for they seem to have been transported to Babylon as a colony, to serve the king only. And we do not find that they ever became the property of private persons in Babylon, but lived there free; only subject, as is probable, to some services for the king. Otherwise Cyrus must have redeemed them from the masters, whose property they were, or at least have made a proclamation that every one should let them go free; of neither of which is any mention made. And besides this, when liberty was given to all, of returning to their own land, we find that but few, comparatively speaking, accepted of it, which would scarce have been the case had they been slaves to private persons. Every one unto his city Either those cities and towns which had belonged to their several ancestors; or rather, those which were now allotted to them, and from this time possessed by them. For their former cities were either demolished, or possessed by other persons, whom they were not now in a capacity to disturb.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ezr 2:1. The children of the province. Judea under Zedekiah was reduced to a province of the Babylonian empire; or the phrase may import, the children of Israel who resided in the province of Babylonia.
Ezr 2:2. Came with Zerubbabel. These, eleven in number, were nobles and governors. Among them was Jeshua, the highpriest, called Joshua, who ranked next to the governor. Zec 3:1. Nehemiah was then young, and returned to Babylon again to encourage more of the Jews to leave that country.
Ezr 2:21. The children of Bethlehem, is supposed to mean the people who were carried away from that town.
Ezr 2:43. The Nethinims. These were the ancient Gibeonites, devoted to the inferior service of the temple. 1Ch 9:2.
Ezr 2:55. The children of Solomons servants. These were either descendants of the artists who came to build the temple, or of captives in war employed as the Nethinims.
Ezr 2:63. Tirshatha, that is, Nehemiah the governor, as the Chaldaic reads. The Hebrew and the Gothic being sister tongues, ter designates the superlative degree, as tircadig, most blessed. Saxon Gram. So in our compound names, Tyrconnel, the most knowing or enlightened; tyrant, ruling above law. This title is given also to Zerubbabel.Till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim. The question he accounted too sacred for civil courts to determine. The present high-priest seemed not eligible to consult the oracle, for the two stones, which import light and perfection, were lost when Seraiah was put to death. 2Ki 25:18-21.
REFLECTIONS.
From the small number which returned to Jerusalem, we cannot but be deeply affected with the consequences of forsaking the Lord. Disease, famine, and the sword, followed by a languishing captivity, made an awful waste of human flesh. While in a state of exile, marriages had been discouraged by the sufferings of captivity, and the severity of their treatment. Thus while pursuing the Hebrew history, fresh arguments continually occur to warn the christian world to abide in covenant with God.
We see the faithfulness of God in bringing his people back at the appointed time; and then they sought him, as Daniel, by unfeigned repentance. Thus the characters of divine justice and mercy are everywhere discovered for the instruction and comfort of the church.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ezr 2:1-67. A List of the Exiles who Returned under Zerubbabel.See the Greek Ezra (1 Esdras) 1Es 5:7-45 and Neh 7:6-73 a, where this list also occurs, though with some variations.
Ezr 2:1-2 a. province: Heb. medinah, equivalent to the Persian satrapy. It refers here to the tract of country, with Jerusalem as its centre (cf. Ezr 5:8, Neh 1:3; Neh 11:3), over which Zerubbabel was governor, the province of Judah.Zerubbabel: seed of Babel; according to 1Ch 3:16-19 the grandson of Jehoiakim; he was thus of royal blood, but though chosen as leader of the returned exiles the idea of re-establishing the monarchy does not find expression.Jeshua: = Joshua (cf. Hag 1:1, Zec 3:1, etc.), grandson of Seraiah the high priest (2Ki 25:18), and son of Jehozadak (1Ch 3:2; 1Ch 6:14). In this list he is not yet spoken of as high priest.Nehemiah: not, of course, the Nehemiah who rebuilt the walls of the city nearly a century later.
Ezr 2:2 b Ezr 2:35. The list of the men of Israel who returned; it includes the names of clans and cities as well as personal names, though it is not possible to determine in every case whether a name is that of a city or an individual.
Ezr 2:36-39. The families of the priests; these coincide with the corresponding lists given in Neh. and the Greek Ezra.
Ezr 2:38. Pashhur: cf. Jer 20:1 ff., where it is told how Pashhur, the son of Immer the priest smote Jeremiah the prophet, and put him in the stocks.
Ezr 2:39. Harim: in Ezr 2:32 this name occurs among those of the men of Israel, i.e. the laymen; it means consecrated, and would thus be more appropriate for a priest.
Ezr 2:40-42. The families of the Levites; these include the Levites proper, the singers, and the porters. For the Levites, cf. Neh 10:9, 1Ch 24:20-31; for the singers 1Ch 25:1-7; 1Ch 25:9-31; and for the porters (better door-keepers), 1Ch 26:1-19. The very small number of the Levites is surprising; cf. Ezr 8:15 ff., where the number, although small, is much greater than here; it is probable that the list given here is fragmentary. It is also noteworthy that the priests and Levites are reckoned as distinct classes; by the end of the pre-exilic period all Levites were priests although they might be differentiated (see Eze 48:11 ff.); but now a Levite was not necessarily a priest. A partial explanation, at any rate, of this is to be found in Neh 13:10, according to which the Levites gave up their calling because there was nothing for them to live on; but the tendency for them to enter a purely secular life must have arisen during the Exile.
Ezr 2:43-54. The Nethinim; the name means given, i.e. to the sanctuary. They constituted an inferior grade of Temple slaves; they were originally captives of war (cf. Jos 9:23, Num 31:28; Num 31:30) and therefore not Yahweh worshippers (cf. Eze 44:7 ff.); their foreign origin is clear from the names Meunim, Nephisim; but they were reckoned as belonging to the Israelite community (see Neh 10:29) because of their having been circumcised, so that on their return from the Exile they were no more regarded as slaves, but as free men who received their share from the Temple revenues. It is probable that ultimately the Nethinim were absorbed by the Levites.
Ezr 2:50. Meunim:=Minans (cf. Hommel, The Ancient Hebrew Tradition, pp. 271274).Nephisim: cf. 1Ch 13:1; 1Ch 5:18-22.
Ezr 2:55-58. Solomons servants; these formed a subdivision of the Nethinim, as is implied by one number being given for both classes; cf. Neh 10:28, and see also Neh 7:60; Neh 11:3.
Ezr 2:59-63. Israelites and priests who were unable to trace their descent; as these were on this account not regarded as genuine members of the community they do not figure in the lists in Ezr 10:25-43, Neh 10:1-27.
Ezr 2:62. were they . . . priesthood: cf. Neh 7:64.
Ezr 2:63. the Tirshatha: = him that is feared (Lagarde, Symmicia, i. p. 60); a representative of the king of Persia; cf. Neh 7:65; Neh 7:70; Neh 8:9; Neh 10:1; it is equivalent to the Bab. Pekhah (Neh 12:26).the most holy things: i.e. those things which only a priest might touch (cf. Num 18:9-11).till there . . . Thummim: i.e. until there appeared one who understood the ritual (cf. 1Ma 4:46).Urim and Thummim: (pp. 100f.) Heb. forms of the Ass. words Urtu and Tamitu, Decisions and Oracles, the Tablets of Destiny, often mentioned in the Babylonian story of the Creation; to possess these meant the attainment of supremacy among the gods. Babylonian priests gave oracles by means of the power accorded to them by Ea and his son Marduk; to the latter belonged the Tablets of Destiny (see Muss-Arnolt, in the American Journal of Semitic Languages, July 1900).
Ezr 2:64-67. A summary of what has preceded; the total of the returned exiles, 42,360, is the same as that given in Neh 7:66 and in the Greek Ezra 5:41, but the numbers, when reckoned up, give a different total.
Ezr 2:65. singing men and singing women: cf. Neh 7:67; either () professional singers employed to sing at feasts and banquets (cf. 2Sa 19:35, Ecc 2:7 f.), this is, however, improbable in this case in view of Neh 5:2-5, from which it would appear that the people were scarcely able to procure the bare necessaries of life; moreover, luxurious ideas such as possessing singers of this kind would scarcely have been in the minds of the returning exiles. Or (b) Temple singers; it is true, singers of this kind have already been mentioned in Ezr 2:41, but the section before us is a summary, and a repetition is the less surprising when it is remembered that the Chroniclers main interest is centred in the Temple cultus. That there were women-singers in the Temple is evident from the references given above (1Ch 15:20*).
Ezr 2:67. their camels four hundred thirty and five: this number seems excessive for those who were so poor as the returned exiles; either the text is faulty or the Chronicler has exaggerated.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
LIST OF RETURNED CAPTIVES
(vv. 1-58)
This chapter shows the definite interest God had in every individual who returned from the captivity, so that the number from each city is recorded, and the total number. We are reminded in verse 1 that it was Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon who had taken these captive. Babylon means “confusion,” so that Judah is pictured as being captives to a state of confusion, as is repeated in the history of the professing church. It is only by the power and grace of God that any measure of recovery can be accomplished. No full recovery will be made in Israel until the Lord Himself come in power and glory, and similarly, there will be no full recovery of the church’s condition until in the presence of the Lord. Yet certain small measures of recovery have taken place from time to time by the clear intervention of the Spirit of God.
Verse 2 speaks of leaders who came with Zerubbabel, the first Jeshua, the high priest. The Nehemiah mentioned here cannot be the Nehemiah whose book follows Ezra, for he did not come at first, nor with so large a company (Neh 2:9).
From verse 3 to verse 35 the people of various cities are enumerated, then from verse 36 to 39 priests are mentioned as being included in the number of those returning. Levites then are spoken of in verse 40 and singers in verses 41-42. Verse 43 introduces the Nethinim, whose total number was 392 (v.58). The Nethinim are referred to in Ezr 8:20 as having been appointed by David for the service of the Levites, probably Gibeonites who had been received by Joshua (Jos 9:23).
We have remarked that the Nethinim were likely Gibeonites who had entered the congregation at the time of Joshua, who told them, “There shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God” (Jos 9:23). We do not read of any of them refusing this place of submission to Israel, and their willingness to return to Judah indicates a remarkable allegiance to the God of Israel, since they were Gentiles and had been away from Judah for 70 years. After so long an absence, not all of the Jews were prepared to return to their own country, so that the faith of their Gentile adherents shines out the more brightly.
SOME OF WHOM THERE WAS DOUBT
(vv. 59-63)
On the other hand, there were some whocame from Tel Melah, but could not prove that they were really Israelites (vv. 59-60). Do they not remind us of some today who would like to be regarded as Christians, yet do not present a clear testimony that they are saved? It is not told us what was done concerning these people; but verses 61-63 refer to sons of the priests who came, but their names were not found registered in the genealogy. In this case, the governor decreed that they should not be permitted to act as priests until a priest with Urim and Thummim would pronounce them fit for this service. The Urim and Thummim (meaning “lights and perfections”) were 12 jewels set in the breastplate of judgment (Exo 28:30; Lev 8:8) attached to the ephod of the high priest. It was used for the discerning judgment of God’s mind concerning any problems in Israel. The 12 stones speak of the unity of the tribes of Israel, indicating that all questions must be considered from the viewpoint of that unity of all. But since the 10 tribes had been separated from Judah and Benjamin, there is no mention of any priest having the Urim and Thummim; consequently, proper discernment according to God was lacking. Actually, this will only be restored when the Lord Jesus comes in power and glory to reunite Judah and Israel. He is the High Priest who has the Urim and Thummim.
It is important to apply these principles in the present day. In the professing church it has been the practice for many years to welcome anyone who claims to be a Christian to every Christian privilege of fellowship, including the breaking of bread. Many of these were not saved, and many proved to be enemies of the cross of Christ; some denying the deity of Christ and other basic doctrines of scripture. Just as in the return from Babylon, so when God brings His saints to realize the truth of His Word, there must be concern to know that those who gather in fellowship with the saints are truly saved by the grace of God. If there is any doubt about this matter, their being received to break bread should be delayed until no doubt remains.
If some should protest that this is too rigid, there is a clear scriptural answer for this, “Whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23). If it is not faith that moves a person to desire to break bread, then it is sin. Should we encourage any person to sin? Therefore, it is only proper care for souls that we should seek to make sure they are acting by faith in so serious a matter.
TOTALS OF PEOPLE, LIVESTOCK, ETC.
(vv. 64-70)
The whole assembly totaled 42,360, plus servants and singers adding 7,537 to the number. This was only a small percentage of Judah and Benjamin, but the Lord took account of every one. Their livestock numbered 736 horses, 245 mules and 6,720 donkeys. As to the number of horses alone, this was as nothing compared to Solomon’s 40,000 stalls of horses (1Ki 4:26). But at least Judah did have “a little strength” (Compare Rev 3:8).
As to the money necessary for rebuilding, there were those of the heads of the fathers’ houses who offered freely, according to their ability, so that the treasury was benefited by 61,000 gold drachmas, 5000 minas of silver and 100 priestly garments. The gold and silver too was nothing compared to the amount that came to Solomon in one year (1Ki 10:14; 1Ki 10:17), but God records this because of His appreciation of the faith of these givers. The Lord Jesus said of Mary of Bethany, “She has done what she could” (Mar 14:8). These also had done what they could, and the Lord valued this. What more could be expected of anyone?
Not all of these who returned to Judah were engaged in rebuilding the temple: for the most part the priests and Levites, some of the people, the gatekeepers and Nethinim, dwelt in their cities. The temple would have had little significance if there were no residents in any of the cities of Judah. Though the numbers in the cities would be small in comparison to their size before the captivity, yet each city would be a testimony to the restoring grace of God. Today also, each little assembly that God restores is a testimony to His grace and faithfulness, though such testimonies are far from being an occasion for our own pride. While we are thankful for God’s goodness, we are only humbled by our own weakness.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
2:1 Now these [are] the children {a} of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;
(a) Meaning Judea, which was a province that is, a country which was in subjection.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The leaders 2:1-2a
The "province" referred to was probably Judah, [Note: Kidner, p. 37.] rather than Babylonia, [Note: F. Charles Fensham, "Medina in Ezra and Nehemiah," Vetus Testamentum 25:4 (October 1975):795-97.] in view of the context. Zerubbabel was the grandson of King Jehoiachin and the nephew of Sheshbazzar, the leader of this return (1Ch 3:17-19). Zerubbabel assumed leadership later in Judah. Evidently Sheshbazzar was the official Persian governor and Zerubbabel the popular leader (cf. Ezr 3:8-11). [Note: Sara Japhet, "Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel-Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982):66-98.] Sheshbazzar may have been about 55 to 60 years old at this time and Zerubbabel about 40. [Note: Jacob M. Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 28.] Jeshua was the high priest (Zec 3:1) who later led in the re-establishment of temple worship. This Nehemiah must have been a different person from the Nehemiah in the book that bears that name. The second Nehemiah did not return to Judah until almost 100 years later, in 444 B.C. (Neh 2:9). Likewise, this Mordecai was not Esther’s cousin (Est 2:5), since the latter Mordecai remained in Susa, one of the capitals of the Persian Empire, and lived about 50 years later than this Mordecai.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE SECOND EXODUS
Ezr 2:1-67
THE journey of the returning exiles from Babylon has some points of resemblance to the exodus of their fathers from Egypt. On both occasions the Israelites had been suffering oppression in a foreign land. Deliverance had come to the ancient Hebrews in so wonderful a way that it could only be described as a miracle of God; no material miracle was recorded of the later movement; and yet it was so marvellously providential that the Jews were constrained to acknowledge that the hand of God was not less concerned in it.
But there were great differences between the two events. In the original Hegira of the Hebrews a horde of slaves was fleeing from the land of their brutal masters; in the solemn pilgrimage of the second exodus the Jews were able to set out with every encouragement from the conqueror of their national enemy. On the other hand, while the flight from Egypt led to liberty, the expedition from Babylon did not include an escape from the foreign yoke. The returning exiles were described as “children of the province” {Ezr 2:1} – i.e., of the Persian province of Judaea-and their leader bore the title of a Persian governor. {Tirshatha. Ezr 2:63} Zerubbabel was no new Moses. The first exodus witnessed the birth of a nation; the second saw only a migration within the boundaries of an empire, sanctioned by the ruler because it did not include the deliverance of the subject people from servitude.
In other respects the condition of the Israelites who took part in the later expedition contrasts favourably with that of their ancestors under Moses. In the arts of civilisation, of course, they were far superior to the crushed Egyptian bondmen. But the chief distinction lay in the matter of religion. At length, in these days of Cyrus, the people were ripe to accept the faith of the great teachers who hitherto had been as voices crying in the wilderness. This fact signalises the immense difference between the Jews in every age previous to the exile, and the Jews of the return. In earlier periods they appear as a kingdom, but not as a Church; in the later age they are no longer a kingdom, but they have become a Church. The kingdom had been mainly heathenish and idolatrous in its religion, and most abominably corrupt in its morals, with only a thin streak of purer faith and conduct running through the course of its history. But the new Church, formed out of captives purified in the fires of persecution, consisted of a body of men and women who heartily embraced the religion to which but few of their forefathers had attained, and who were even ready to welcome a more rigorous development of its cult. Thus they became a highly developed Church. They were consolidated into a Puritan Church in discipline, and a High Church in ritual.
It must be borne in mind that only a fraction of the Jews in the East went back to Palestine. Nor were they who tarried, in all cases, the more worldly, enamoured of the fleshpots. In the Talmud it is said that only the chaff returned, while the wheat remained behind. Both Ezra and Nehemiah sprang from families still residing in the East long after the return under Zerubbabel.
It is in accordance with these conditions that we come across one of the most curious characteristics of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah-a characteristic which they share with Chronicles, viz., the frequent insertion of long lists of names.
Thus the second chapter of Ezra contains a list of the families who went up to Jerusalem in response to the edict of Cyrus. One or two general considerations arise here.
Since it was not a whole nation that migrated from the plains of Babylon across the great Syrian desert, but only some fragments of a nation, we shall not have to consider the fortunes and destinies of a composite unity, such as is represented by a kingdom. The people of God must now be regarded disjunctively. It is not the blessing of Israel, or the blessing of Judah, that faith now anticipates; but the blessing of those men, women, and children who fear God and walk in His ways, though, of course, for the present they are all confined to the limits of the Jewish race.
On the other hand, it is to be observed that this individualism was not absolute. The people were arranged according to their families, and the names that distinguished the families were not those of the present heads of houses, but the names of ancestors, possibly of captives taken down to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. As some of these names occur in later expeditions, it is plain that the whole of the families they represented were not found in the first body of pilgrims. Still the people were grouped in family order. The Jews anticipated the modern verdict of sociology, that the social unit is the family, not the individual. Judaism was, through and through, a domestic religion.
Further, it is to be noted that a sort of caste feeling was engendered in the midst of the domestic arrangement of the people. It emerges already in the second chapter of Ezra in the cases of families that could not trace their genealogy, and it bears bitter fruit in some pitiable scenes in the later history of the returned people. Not only national rights, but also religious privileges, come more and more to depend on purity of birth and descent. Religion is viewed as a question of blood relationship. Thus even with the very appearance of that new-born individualism which might be expected to counteract it, even when the recovered people is composed entirely of volunteers, a strong racial current sets in, which grows in volume until in the days of our Lord the fact of a mans being a Jew is thought a sufficient guarantee of his enjoying the favour of Heaven, until in our own day such a book as “Daniel Deronda” portrays the race-enthusiasm of the Israelite as the very heart and essence of his religion.
We have three copies of the list of the returning exiles-one in Ezr 2:1-70, the second in Neh 7:1-73, and the third in RAPC 1Es 5:1-73. They are evidently all of them transcripts of the same original register; but though they agree in the main, they differ in details, giving some variation in the names and considerable diversity in the numbers-Esdras coming nearer to Ezra than to Nehemiah, as we might expect. The total, however, is the same in every case, viz., 42,360 (besides 7337 servants)-a large number, which shows how important the expedition was considered to be.
The name of Zerubbabel appears first. He was the lineal descendant of the royal house, the heir to the throne of David. This is a most significant fact. It shows that the exiles had retained some latent national organisation, and it gives a faint political character to the return, although, as we have already observed, the main object of it was religious. To fervent readers of old prophecies strange hopes would dawn, hopes of the Messiah whose advent Isaiah, in particular, had predicted. Was this new shoot from the stock of David indeed the Lords Anointed? Those who secretly answered the question to themselves in the affirmative were doomed to much perplexity and not a little disappointment. Nevertheless Zerubbabel was a lower, a provisional, a temporary Messiah. God was educating His people through their illusions. As one by one the national heroes failed to satisfy the large hopes of the prophets, they were left behind, but the hopes still maintained their unearthly vitality. Hezekiah, Josiah, Zerubbabel, the Maccabees all passed, and in passing they all helped to prepare for One who alone could realise the dreams of seers and singers in all the best ages of Hebrew thought and life.
Still the bulk of the people do not seem to have been dominated by the Messianic conception. It is one characteristic of the return that the idea of the personal, God-sent, but human Messiah recedes; and another, older and more persistent Jewish hope comes to the front-viz., the hope in God Himself as the Saviour of His people and their Vindicator. Cyrus could not have suspected any political designs, or he would not have made Zerubbabel the head of the expedition. Evidently “Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah,” to whom Cyrus handed over the sacred vessels of the temple, is the same man as Zerubbabel, because in Ezr 5:16 we read that Sheshbazzar laid the foundation of the temple, while in Ezr 3:8 this work is ascribed to Zerubbabel, with whom the origin of the work is again connected in Ezr 5:2.
The second name is Jeshua. The man who bears it was afterwards the high-priest at Jerusalem. It is impossible to say whether he had exercised any sacerdotal functions during the exile; but his prominent place shows that honour was now offered to his priesthood. Still he comes after the royal prince.
Then follow nine names without any description. Nehemiahs list includes another name, which seems to have dropped out of the list in Ezra. These, together with the two already mentioned, make an exact dozen. It cannot be an accident that twelve names stand at the head of the list; they must be meant to represent the twelve tribes-like the twelve apostles in the Gospels, and the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem in the Apocalypse. Thus it is indicated that the return is for all Israel, not exclusively for the Judaean Hebrews. Undoubtedly the bulk of the pilgrims were descendants of captives from the Southern Kingdom. {See Ezr 1:5} The dispersion of the Northern Kingdom had begun two centuries earlier than Nebuchadnezzars invasion of Judaea; it had been carried on by successive removals of the people in successive wars. Probably most of these early exiles had been driven farther north than those districts which were assigned to the Judaean captives; probably, too, they had been scattered far and wide; lastly, we know that they had been sunken in an idolatrous imitation of the manners and customs of their heathen neighbours, so that there was little to differentiate them from the people among whom they were domiciled. Under all these circumstances, is it remarkable that the ten tribes have disappeared from the observation of the world? They have vanished, but only as the Goths have vanished in Italy, as the Huguenot refugees have vanished in England-by mingling with the resident population. We have not to search for them in Tartary, or South America, or any other remote region of the four continents, because we have no reason to believe that they are now a separate people.
Still a very small “Remnant” was faithful. This “Remnant” was welcome to find its way back to Palestine with the returning Judaeans. As the immediate object of the expedition was to rebuild the temple at the rival capital of Jerusalem, it was not to be expected that patriots of the Northern Kingdom would be very eager to join it. Yet some descendants of the ten tribes made their way back. Even in New Testament times the genealogy of the prophetess Anna was reckoned from the tribe of Asher. {Luk 2:36} It is most improbable that the twelve leaders were actually descendants of the twelve tribes. But just as in the case of the apostles, whom we cannot regard as thus descended, they represented all Israel. Their position at the head of the expedition proclaimed that the “middle wall of partition” was broken down. Thus we see that redemption tends to liberalise the redeemed, that those who are restored to God are also brought back to the love of their brethren.
The list that follows the twelve is divisible into two sections. First, we have a number of families; then there is a change in the tabulation, and the rest of the people are arranged according to their cities. The most simple explanation of this double method is that the families constitute the Jerusalem citizens.
The towns named in the second division are all situated in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The only part of Palestine as yet restored to the Jews was Jerusalem, with the towns in its vicinity. The southern half of Judaea remained in the hands of the Edomites, who begrudged to the Jews even the resumption of the northern portion-and very naturally, seeing that the Edomites had held it for half a century, a time which gives some assurance of permanent possession. This must be borne in mind when we come across the troubles between the returned exiles and their neighbours in Palestine. We can never understand a quarrel until we have heard both sides. There is no Edomite history of the wars of Israel. No doubt such a history would put another face on the events-just as a Chinese history of the English wars in the East would do, to the shame of the Christian nation.
After the leaders and the people generally come the successive orders of the temple ministry. We begin with the priests, and among these a front rank is given to the house of Jeshua. The high-priest himself had been named earlier, next to Zerubbabel, among the leaders of the nation, so distinct was his position from that of the ordinary priesthood. Next to the priests we have the Levites, who are now sharply separated from the first order of the ministry. The very small number of Levites in comparison with the large number of priests is startling-over four thousand priests and only seventy-four Levites! The explanation of this anomaly may be found in what had been occurring in Chaldaea. Ezekiel declared that the Levites were to be degraded because of their sinful conduct. {Eze 44:9-16} We see from the arrangement in Ezra that the prophets message was obeyed. The Levites were now separated from the priests, and set down to a lower function. This could not have been acceptable to them. Therefore it is not at all surprising that the majority of them held aloof from the expedition for rebuilding the temple in sullen resentment, or at best in cool indifference, refusing to take part in a work the issue of which would exhibit their humiliation to menial service. But the seventy-four had grace to accept their lowly lot.
The Levites are not set in the lowest place. They are distinguished from several succeeding orders. The singers, the children of Asaph, were really Levites; but they form a separate and important class, for the temple service was to be choral-rich and gladsome. The door-keepers are a distinct order, lowly, but honourable, for they are devoted to the service of God, for whom all work is glorious.
“They also serve who only stand and wait.”
Next come the Nethinims, or temple-helots. These seem to have been aborgines of Canaan who had been pressed into the service of the old Jerusalem temple, like the Gibeonites, the hewers of wood and drawers of water. After the Nethinims come “the children of Solomons servants,” another order of slaves, apparently the descendants of the war captives whom Solomon had assigned to the work of building the temple. It shows what thorough organisation was preserved among the captives that these bondsmen were retained in their original position and brought back to Jerusalem. To us this is not altogether admirable. We may be grieved to see slavery thus enlisted in the worship of God. But we must recollect that even with the Christian gospel in her hand, for centuries, the Church had her slaves, the monasteries their serfs. No idea is of slower growth than the idea of the brotherhood of man.
So far all was in order; but there were exceptional cases. Some of the people could not prove their Israelite descent, and accordingly they were set aside from their brethren. Some of the priests even could not trace their genealogy. Their condition was regarded as more serious, for the right of office was purely hereditary. The dilemma brought to light a sad sense of loss. If only there were a priest with the Urim and Thummim, this antique augury of flashing gems might settle the difficulty! But such a man was not to be found. The Urim and Thummim, together with the Ark and the Shekinah, are named by the rabbis among the precious things that were never recovered. The Jews looked back with regret to the wonderful time when the privilege of consulting an oracle had been within the reach of their ancestors. Thus they shared the universal instinct of mankind that turns fondly to the past for memories of a golden age, the glories of which have faded and left us only the dingy scenes of everyday life. In this instinct we may detect a transference to the race of the vaguely perceived personal loss of each man as he reflects on those far-off, dream-like child-days, when even he was a “mighty prophet,” a “seer blest,” one who had come into the world “trailing clouds of glory.” Alas! he perceives that the mystic splendours have faded into the light of common day, if they have not even given place to the gloom of doubt, or the black night of sin. Then, taking himself as a microcosm, he ascribes a similar fate to the race.
Nothing is more inspiriting in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ than its complete reversal of this dismal process of reflection, and its promise of the Golden Age in the future. The most exalted Hebrew prophecy anticipated something of the kind; here and there it lit up its sombre pages with the hope of a brilliant future. The attitude of the Jews in the present instance, when they simply set a question on one side, waiting till a priest with Urim and Thummim should appear, suggests too faint a belief in the future to be prophetic. But like Socrates hint at the possibility of one arising who should solve the problems which were inscrutable to the Athenians of his day, it points to a sense of need. When at length Christ came as “the Light of the World,” it was to supply a widely felt want. It is true He brought no Urim and Thummim. The supreme motive for thankfulness in this connection is that His revelation is so much more ample than the wizard guidance men had formerly clung to, as to be like the broad sunshine in comparison with the shifting lights of magic gems. Though He gave no formal answers to petty questions such as those for which the Jews would resort to a priest, as their heathen neighbours resorted to a soothsayer, He shed a wholesome radiance on the path of life, so that His followers have come to regard the providing of a priest with Urim and Thummim as at best an expedient adapted to the requirements of an age of superstition.
If the caravan lacked the privilege of an oracle, care was taken to equip it as well as the available means would allow. These were not abundant. There were servants, it is true. There were beasts of burden too-camels, horses, asses; but these were few in comparison to the numbers of the host-only at the rate of one animal to a family of four persons. Yet the expedition set out in a semi-royal character, for it was protected by a guard of a thousand horsemen sent by Cyrus. Better than this, it possessed a spirit of enthusiasm which triumphed over poverty and hardship, and spread a great gladness through the people. Now at length it was possible to take down the harps from the willows. Besides the temple choristers, two hundred singing men and women accompanied the pilgrims to help to give expression to the exuberant joyousness of the host. The spirit of the whole company was expressed in a noble lyric that has become familiar to us:-
“When the Lord turned again the captivity of Zion,
We were like unto them that dream.
Then was our mouth filled with laughter,
And our tongue with singing;
Then said they among the nations,
The Lord hath done great things for them.
The Lord hath done great things for us;
Whereof we are glad.” {Psa 126:1-3}