Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezra 2:68
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:
68. some of the chief of the fathers ] R.V. some of the heads of fathers’ houses, see note on Ezr 1:5.
when they came to the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem ] i.e. on their arrival at Jerusalem, where they were to rebuild the Temple. ‘The house of the Lord’, the site and the building are identified by the writer; if still in ruins, the house was about to be rebuilt, cf. Ezr 1:4-5, Ezr 3:8-9. In the writer’s mind ‘the house of the Lord’ is always standing at Jerusalem.
offered freely ] R.V. offered Willingly. There was no reason for the A.V. to alter the rendering given in Ezr 1:6. The freewill offering was offered willingly (see Ezr 3:5); the adverb ‘freely’ introduces an ambiguity.
to set it up ] lit. ‘to cause it to stand’ = to restore; the expression recurs chap. Ezr 9:9.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
68, 69. This passage is given in greater accuracy of detail in Neh 7:70-72.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
To the house of the Lord, i.e. to the ruins of the house; or to the place where that house stood.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
68. some of the chief of thefathers, when they came to the house of the Lord offered freely forthe house of God, &c.The sight of a place hallowed by themost endearing and sacred associations, but now lying in desolationand ruins, made the wellsprings of their piety and patriotism gushout afresh. Before taking any active measures for providingaccommodation to themselves and their families, the chief among themraised a large sum by voluntary contributions towards the restorationof the temple.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the Lord that is at Jerusalem,…. That is, when they came to the place where it formerly stood, and where were still the ruins of it:
offered freely for the house of God, to set it up in its place; to rebuild it upon the spot where it formerly stood; this they did besides the freewill offerings they brought with them from Babylon.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Contributions towards the rebuilding of the temple, and concluding remarks. Comp. Neh 7:70-73. – Some of the heads of houses, when they came to the house of Jahve, i.e., arrived at the site of the temple, brought free-will offerings ( ; comp. 1Ch 29:5) to set it up in its place ( , to set up, i.e., to rebuild; identical in meaning both here and Ezr 9:9 with ). After their ability ( ; comp. 1Ch 29:2) they gave unto the treasure of the work, i.e., of restoring the temple and its services, 61,000 darics of gold = 68,625, and 5000 mina of silver, above 30,000, and 100 priests’ garments. The account of these contributions is more accurately given in Neh 7:70-72, according to which some of the heads of houses gave unto the work ( as Dan 1:2 and elsewhere); the Tirshatha gave to the treasure 1000 darics of gold, 50 sacrificial vessels (see on Exo 27:3), 30 priests’ garments, and 500 … This last statement is defective; for the two numbers 30 and 500 must not be combined into 530, as in this case the hundreds would have stood first. The objects enumerated were named before 500, and are omitted through a clerical error, “and silver (500) mina.” And some of the heads of houses (others than the Tirshatha) gave of gold 20,000 darics, of silver, 2200 mina; and that which the rest of the people gave was-gold, 20,000 darics, silver, 2000 mina, and 67 priests’ garments. According to this statement, the Tirshatha, the heads of houses, and the rest of the people, gave together 41,000 darics in gold, 4200 mina in silver, 97 priests’ garments, and 30 golden vessels. In Ezra the vessels are omitted; and instead of the 30 + 67 = 97 priests’ garments, they are stated in round numbers to have been 100. The two other differences have arisen from textual errors. Instead of 61,000 darics, it is evident that we must read with Nehemiah, 41,000 (1000 + 20,000 + 20,000); and in addition to the 2200 and 2000 mina, reckon, according to Neh 7:70, 500 more, in all 4700, for which in the text of Ezra we have the round sum of 5000. The account of the return of the first band of exiles concludes at Ezr 2:70, and the narrative proceeds to the subsequent final statement: “So the priests, etc … .dwelt in their cities.” , those of the people, are the men of the people of Israel of Ezr 2:2, the laity as distinguished from the priests, Levites, etc. In Nehemiah the words are transposed, so that stand after the Levitical door-keepers and singers. Bertheau thinks this position more appropriate; but we cannot but judge otherwise. The placing of the people, i.e., the laity of Israel, between the consecrated servants of the temple (the priests and their Levitical assistants in the sacrificial service) and the singers and door-keepers, seems to us quite consistent; while, on the other hand, the naming of the before the in Nehemiah seems inappropriate, because the performance of the choral service of the temple was a higher office than the guardianship of the doors. Neither can we regard Bertheau’s view, that , which in the present verse follows , should be erased, as a correct one. The word forms a perfectly appropriate close to the sentence beginning with ; and the sentence following, “And all Israel were in their cities,” forms a well-rounded close to the account; while, on the contrary, the summing up of the different divisions by the words in Nehemiah, after the enumeration of those divisions, has a rather heavy effect.
(Note: In 1 Esdr. 5:46, this verse, freely carrying out the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah, with regard also to Neh 12:27-30, runs thus: ”And so dwelt the priests, and the Levites, and the people, in Jerusalem and in the country, the singers also and the porters, and all Israel in their villages.”)
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
8. Their offerings for restoring the Temple are recorded.
TEXT, Ezr. 2:68-69
68
And some of the heads of fathers households, when they arrived at the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem, offered willingly for the house of God to restore it on its foundation.
69
According to their ability they gave to the treasury for the work 61,000 gold drachmas, and 5,000 silver minas, and 100 priestly garments.
COMMENT
It is interesting that the drachma in particular is a Persian coin (another subtle reminder of their contact with Persia):[18] the mina is a unit of weight used in Israel, Babylon, and Persia. We may see a hint that coins are beginning to be used to simplify monetary exchange, but their use has not become universal.
[18] An example is portrayed in G. A. Bartons Archaeology and The Bible, Plate 63, Figure 189.
According to the Living Bible on this passage, the 61,000 drachmas would be $300,000, and the 5,000 minas, $170,000. This would average out to almost $10 each; Ezr. 2:68 tells us however that this amount came from only some of the leaders, and Ezr. 2:69 says that they gave according to their ability. Perhaps the others would have given equally if they had been able; the trip must have been a severe financial drain on many of them. Or perhaps those who wished to give were not discouraged by the failure of others to share in the contributions.
It is impossible to make any accurate judgments of the actual value of these sums; we are only comparing amounts of metal in the coins or measures. We know how rapidly money can change its value, even within one lifetime, and especially in a country undergoing great social change. It could be helpful, however, to think of their average as a generous half a months wages.
In contrast, the travelers accompanying Moses had contributed $1,250,000, by some estimates, for the building of the Tabernacle, and had to be restrained from giving more (Exo. 35:21-29; Exo. 38:24-31). That would average out to $2! But then, those who left Egypt were going out from a house of bondage; these were leaving established businesses and had gained a significant measure of wealth and freedom.
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
(68) They came to the site of the house not yet built, and offered for the building.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Contributions Towards The Building Of The Temple ( Ezr 2:68-69 ).
The description of these differs considerably from that in Neh 7:70-72, which does not mention the Temple, but gives greater detail concerning the gifts, especially distinguishing those made by the Tirshatha. The reference to the Temple may well have been because the writer here deliberately altered the text of the original list in order to prepare for what is to follow in the next four chapters, the attempts to erect, and the final success in erecting, the Temple of YHWH. The non-mention of the specific contribution of the Tirshatha may well have been true of the original list, and may have been deliberate on the part of the Tirshatha so that mention of his contribution did not take away honour from YHWH. As a humble and godly man he may well not have wanted his contribution to be magnified. Later when he was dead, those who followed him would feel that they should honour his name as the one who had brought them out of the captivity to the land of their fathers. Alternately the writer behind Ezra 2 may have abbreviated (without altering the substance) in order to make the description tally more closely with the parallel descriptions of the giving at the Exodus, and the giving towards the building of the Temple in the time of David.
Ezr 2:68
‘And some of the heads of fathers’ (houses), when they came to the house of YHWH which is in Jerusalem, offered willingly for the house of God to set it up in its place,’
Note the dual emphasis on ‘the house of YHWH’, ‘the house of God’. This is what the next four chapter will be all about, the erection of the house of YHWH. ‘They came to the house of YHWH.’ By this time the Temple mount was seen as so sacred that it could be described as ‘the house of YHWH’, even though His house, as the ‘house of God’ had not yet been erected. Sacrifices and offerings had continued to be made here by dedicated priests even during the Exile. Compare how Jacob could speak of the place where he had his vision and made his offering to God as ‘the house of God’ (Gen 28:17) even though there was no building there.
‘Some of the heads of the fathers’ (houses) — offered willingly’ for the purpose of erecting the Temple. The writer possibly amended what was originally written in order to make a deliberate comparison with the freewill giving of the people the Exodus, and the freewill giving to the Temple in the time of David. Thus we can compare how the people of Israel had offered willingly towards the making of the Tabernacle and its furniture (Exo 25:2; Exo 35:21-22). This may well have been in mind in this description, for we have already seen in Ezr 1:4 how the writer seeks to portray this arrival of the exiles as a second Exodus. Furthermore also in mind might be the source behind 1Ch 29:6-9; 1Ch 29:29, where gifts were offered willingly for the building of the first Temple. Thus he saw history as repeating itself in the parallel with both the Exodus and the reign of David
Ezr 2:69
‘They gave in accordance with their ability into the treasury of the work, sixty one thousand darics (or drachmas – Hebrew: darkemonim) of gold, and five thousand minas (maneh) of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments.’
What was given ‘into the treasury of the work’ (the Temple building fund) was ‘in accordance with their ability’. This is a reminder that God never requires of us more than we are able to give. And the sum total of the giving, in round numbers, was ‘sixty one thousand darics (darkemonim) of gold, and five thousand minas (maneh) of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments’. (Darkemonim is found only here and in the parallel in Nehemiah 7. It may not represent darics. Darics were not introduced until the time of Darius I (521-486 BC). Alternately the writer may have updated the weights). The giving of the priests’ garments was apposite as they would in fact be required immediately at the coming ‘seventh month celebrations, from the first day of the month to the Feast of Tabernacles (Ezr 3:1-6).
Nehemiah 7 details this giving in more depth, providing more precise information. The abbreviation here from what was possibly in the original record (if it was so) may well have been with a view to not spoiling the parallels with Exo 25:2; Exo 3:21-22 and the sources behind 1Ch 29:6-9. On the other hand the original record might have given the figures here, with the figures becoming more detailed in the records compiled once the Tirshatha was dead. The figures in Nehemiah amount to forty one thousand drachmas of gold; four thousand seven hundred minas of silver, and ninety seven priests’ garments. Thus the figures in Ezr 2:69 are clearly round numbers. There is, however, a discrepancy with regard to the amount of gold. It is possible, however, that the figure here in Ezra 2 includes the gold contributed by those who had remained in Babylonia (Ezr 1:4). (Alternately it may include the grant made by Cyrus – Ezr 3:7).
Ezr 2:70
‘So 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.’
This confirms what was said in Ezr 2:1 that all returned to their own cities. The people are listed in terms of previous designations, the priests, the Levites, some of the people (this my have in mind that the remainder were still in exile, or simply that some did not choose to dwell in cities, or that some could not dwell in their cities because they were already fully occupied (e.g. by the Edomites in the south) or more likely that some could not identify which were their own cities e.g. those who were unsure of their ancestry), the singers and the gatekeepers and the Nethinim (with the son of Solomon’s servants included with the Nethinim, as they were in the totals). All these, apart from those who chose not to do so, or could not identify them, dwelt in their cities. Thus ‘all Israel’, as summed up in the previous descriptions, were in their cities. The return was complete. Israel was once more in place in accordance with God’s allocation after the conquest. The summary is a cry of triumph. Israel has been restored!
Whether this verse was in the original list is impossible to state categorically. It may simply be a summary added by the original writer who utilised the list. With Ezr 2:1 it forms an inclusio. But it also appears, with slight differences, in Nehemiah 7, which might suggest otherwise. However as what follows in the next verse (Ezr 3:1) indicates that the writer of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 were either using a common source, or one was copying the other, and it is doubtful if that verse would have been part of the list, the fact that the contents of Ezr 2:70 is cited in both is not conclusive. If Ezra 1-6 had once been a unit on its own, available to both writers, this would serve to explain the parallels, with Nehemiah preferring to use in the main the list that he himself had discovered in the archives.
The emendation made by some English translations of ‘in Jerusalem’ after ‘some of the people’ (in accordance with 1 Esdras) is unnecessary. It goes without saying that some would take up residence in Jerusalem if they ‘returned to their own cities’, but the emendation was made simply because of a failure to understand the phrase ‘some of the people’, so that it was felt that it needed to be explained.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
EXPOSITION
THE OFFERINGS MADE BY THE RETURNED EXILES ON THEIR ARRIVAL AT JERUSALEM (Ezr 2:68-70). It has been customary among the pious of all ages and countries to make thank-offerings to the Almighty on the accomplishment of any important or dangerous work. The long journey of the exiles from Babylonia to Jerusalem involved considerable risk (see Ezr 8:22, Ezr 8:31), and its successful termination naturally called forth their gratitude. The character of the offerings made is indicative of the fact, otherwise probable, that the exiles had turned all that they possessed into money, and had brought to Jerusalem a considerable amount of coin.
Ezr 2:68
Some of the chief of the fathers. That is, “Some of the heads of families.” Each family went up under a recognized head or chief, the number of such heads being, as it would seem, nearly a hundred (Ezr 2:3-61). When they came to the house of the Lord. No doubt considerable ruins of Solomon’s temple existed when the exiles returned, and were easily to be recognized, both by their situation and by the size of the stones employed (1Ki 5:17). The place occupied by these rums was that whereto the emigrants flocked, and about which they, in the first instance, located themselves. Offered freely for the house of God, to set it up in its place. The first object of the returned exiles was the rebuilding of the temple, and their offerings were consequently given expressly towards the expenses of this costly work.
Ezr 2:69
After their ability. As each was able; the richer more, the poorer less. Threescore and one thousand drams of gold. The word translated “dram” is darkemon, which appears to be the Hebrew representative of the Persian word which the Greeks rendered by dareikos, or “daric.“ This was a gold coin, stamped with the figure of a Persian king, wearing his crown, and armed with a bow and arrow. According to the most exact computation, each such coin contained somewhat more pure gold than an English guinea, and was worth 1 1s. 10.5d. of our money. The 61,000 darics would therefore have been equal to 66,718 15s. Five thousand pounds of silver. The word translated “pound” is maneh, an equivalent of the Greek tuna and the Latin mind. In Greece the silver mind was worth a little more than 4 of our money. The value of the Hebrew silver munch is uncertain, but probably was not very different from the Greek. Thus the sum contributed in silver may be estimated at above 20,000, and the entire contribution at nearly 90,000. It must be noted, however, that Nehemiah’s estimate (Neh 7:71, Neh 7:72) is less. One hundred priests’ garments. Nehemiah says ninety-seven (Neh 7:70, Neh 7:72), whence we may conclude that Ezra uses a round number.
Ezr 2:70
In their cities. Not in Jerusalem only, but in the neighboring towns also, e.g. Bethlehem, Anathoth, Ramah, Gaba, Michmash, Bethel, Ai, Nebo, and Jericho (see above, comment on Ezr 2:1). All Israel. Ezra very determinately puts forward this aspect of the returnthat it was participated in by all the tribes (see Ezr 2:2; Ezr 3:1; Ezr 6:16, Ezr 6:17; Ezr 7:13; Ezr 8:29, Ezr 8:35, etc.). He does not, however, exclude the other aspect, that it was especially a return of Judah, or “Judah and Benjamin” (see Ezr 5:1; Ezr 10:9).
HOMILETICS
Ezr 2:68-70
The arrival.
After the muster-roll, as described to us in Ezr 2:1-67 of this chapter, the next thing, naturally, is the expedition itself. In the present instance, however, this is disposed of in a couple of syllables. “They came.” In these modern daysso some one has noticedin consequence of the great comparative ease and rapidity of the means of locomotion, we speak rather of arriving at than of travelling to our destinations. There is something parallel here. Nothing is related of this journey except that it was duly brought to an end. It does not follow from this, however, that it is unworthy of note. Often, where little is said, all the more is implied. How far this is the case in the present instance will be our first branch of inquiry. What we are afterwards told of the doings of these pilgrims immediately on their arrival at Zion will be our second and last.
I. BEFORE THE ARRIVAL. These travellers “came.” That is all. What does this show as to their method of coming? The route traversed, it must be remembered, was by no means a short one. Babylon was always considered a long way from Jerusalem (Isa 39:3). Ezra, afterwards (Ezr 7:9), was four months on the road, a time, in these days, more than sufficient to travel round the whole globe. The road also at that time, viz; during the subsequent reign of Artaxerxes, was by no means a safe one (Ezr 8:22; see also Neh 2:9). On the other hand, such travellers as these were, returning with spoils which had evidently seemed precious even to Nebuchadnezzar in all his pride (Dan 1:2), would be especially liable to attack; to say nothing of the fact that their very errand would rouse the hatred of not a few. At the same time, the character of their company, as being a collection of families intending to “settle” again in Palestine, would itself put very great difficulties, in their case, in the way of defence; as also in regard to progress, and commissariat too. It is not every man who could have conducted even an army in safety so far; much less so large a household, so mixed a multitude, a caravan at once so vulnerable, so feeble, and yet so rich. It is something to be able to say of such that they did arrive at Jerusalem. Perhaps we shall see the significance of this brevity more plainly still in the way of contrast. “When Israel came out of Egypt” and travelled to Canaan before, they had a very much shorter journey before them, and their numbers were so vastly larger that they were able in some measure, even at first, to defend themselves (Exo 17:8-13). Yet how much we are told, and how copiously, of their difficulties, their dangers, their deliverances, their many murmurings, rebellions, and judgments, and all the long succession of marvellous vicissitudes that betel them by the way (Num 20:14). That first journey of theirs to Canaan is the most adventurous journey on record. Never were any travellers so guided, so fed, so protected, so often so near to destruction and so triumphantly rescued from it. Nowhere, at any rate, are we told so much of any other journey on earth. The absolute silence of Scripture, therefore, respecting all the incidents of this second journey of the same people to the same land seems well worthy of note. We can only account for it by supposing that there was nothing notable to be told. But how much this implies, as we said. How much,
1. As to the character of the pilgrims. How unlike the Israelites in the desert, how quietly persevering, how free from “murmurings and disputings” these Israelites must have been. Considering how many occasions for disputing fellow travellers are known to find, the fact that in this four months’ journey on the part of 50,000 people there was nothing of the kind worth mentioning is not without weight. Do we see in it one wholesome result of the heavy discipline of their long captivity? Like the singular post-captivity freedom of Israel from idolatry, that constant pre-captivity sin (see Psa 119:67)? How much,
2. As to God‘s rule in this world. It was certainly by God’s “good hand upon them” (Ezr 8:31, Ezr 8:32; Psa 107:7; Jas 4:13-15) that they had come where they were, just as much so as in the case of those addressed in Jos 23:14. How complete, therefore, in both cases, his faithfulness to his promise I How constant and effectual his providence! How all-ruling his power. Yet how exceedingly opposite his modes of operation! In the one ease by a succession of miracles which Israel never forgot. In the other case without a single incident that left any trace of its path; unless, indeed, we consider such consummate finish and ease of operation to be a kind of miracle in itself the standing miracle of his rule (see Col 1:17; Heb 1:3 : “upholding,” etc.).
II. AFTER THE ARRIVAL. The journey thus happily accomplished, what was first taken in hand? As far as possible, their first duty. They had come up specially to build the LORD‘S house. It was necessary, of course, in order to do this, that they should have homes of their own. Before, however, they see to this second point in any way, they do all they can for the first. They cannot yet, whilst themselves homeless and unsettled, actually begin the LORD‘S house. But they can lay aside of their substance for that purpose, and so show their desire; they can make their “offerings” (verse 68) and put them into the “treasury” (verse 69), adding thus to that which they had already collected in various ways (see Ezr 1:4, etc.) for that end. And this they do, it seems, first. Such is the Scriptural, such the politic, plan (see Deu 26:1-11; 1Ki 17:13; Mat 6:33; Luk 11:41). It is also to be observed that they do so “freely”the Scriptural spirit (see Exo 25:2; Exo 35:5; Deu 15:10; 2Co 9:7). And that they do so, once more, sufficientlythe Scriptural proportion. “They gave after their ability”. It would almost seem, indeed, as though 2Co 8:2 had been fulfilled in this case; so large, considering their numbers and probable condition, is the computed value of their contributions. For example, if the 61,000 drams or dareics of gold = 66,718 15s; and the 5000 pounds or minae of silver = 20,000, we have a total contribution of about 90,000, which, for a congregation of not quite 50,000 (children and poor and servants included, as it would seem), is nearly two pounds per head. Well would it be if no other “congregations” ever did any less. This additional provision thus made for God’s house, they next see to their own; the result being as briefly summed up to us in verse 70. Comparing this verse with Neh 7:73, which seems to relate to the same transaction, we find that in both cases, with some diversity on other points, God’s ministers are named first. If this means that they were attended to first, it harmonises well with what went before. God’s house before their own houses; God’s ministers before themselves. In any case we seem invited to notice that all his ministers of all ranks were attended to; not the “priests” only, but all the divisions of the “Levites” (Levites proper, singers and porters), and even their assistants, the “Nethinims,” too. Indeed, however we are to understand the peculiar expression, found both in Ezra and Nehemiah, “[some] of the people,” it would seem, from the special subsequent mention in both cases of “all Israel” as “dwelling” “in their cities,” that the laity also of all tribes, and probably also of all classes, including those mentioned in Ezr 2:59-63, were duly provided for in like manner. And if so, the picture is one of a very beautiful kind. All these pilgrims, down to the humblest, were pilgrims no more. All these once banished ones both arrived now and settled. In their true country; in their proper “cities;” in their respective homes! In all which we may see an illustration of the wonderful variety, order, and completeness of God’s ways. In creation (Psa 104:27; Psa 136:25; Psa 145:15, etc.). In providence (Act 27:43, Act 27:44). In grace (Joh 10:28; Joh 17:12). In the “dispensation of the fulness of times” (Dan 12:13, as contrasted with Psa 1:5; Luk 21:36, etc.). Happy, indeed, who can say, “We are journeying home to God” (Num 10:29).
HOMILIES BY J.S. EXELL
Ezr 2:1-70
Men forsaking the worldly life.
We regard the people returning from Babylon as typical of men going out of the worldly life into the life and work of the kingdom of God. Observe
I. THAT MEN FORSAKE THE WORLDLY LIFE FROM CHOICE. Cyrus compelled no man to leave the land of captivity. The Jews left Babylon in the exercise of their own free will. Israel as a nation went out of Egypt; but as individuals they come out of Babylon. Heaven compels no man to forsake sin.
1. It was a good choice. It was better to build the temple than to work in Babylon; the spiritual is better than the servile; it is good to serve God.
2. It was a wise choice. They would be honoured as the heroic builders of the second temple; and how would they be blessed in their holy toil. It is wise to choose the unworldly life.
3. It was a self-denying choice. They had to leave friends and companions behind; they had to forsake vested interests, and enter an unknown future. The unworldly life necessitates self-denial, but the reward is a hundredfold.
4. It was a believing choice. They believed that God would be with them, and that his angel would go before them. There are great duties in the pursuit of an unworldly life; there are many temples to erect, but God is an infinite resource.
II. THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS ENCOURAGEMENTS TO MEN FORSAKING THE WORLDLY LIFE.
1. They have encouragements of a spiritual nature. “The priests” are with them (Ezr 2:36). All that belongs to heaven’s priesthood goes along with the unworldly life in its march from Babylon.
2. They have encouragements of a social nature (Ezr 2:64). The companionships of the unworldly life are helpful.
3. They have encouragements of a joyful nature. “The singers” are with them (Ezr 2:41). And men who seek to live an unworldly life are accompanied by many celestial joys.
4. They have encouragements of a varied nature. There were many to aid in unnumbered ways the people in their new work.
III. THAT IN FORSAKING THE WORLDLY LIFE MEN MUST BE SOLICITOUS AS TO THE EVIDENCES OF THEIR MORAL REALITY. “But they could not show their father’s house” (Ezr 2:59-63). These were with the returning people, and to all appearance as loyal as any of them, but they could not prove their oneness with them.
1. There is a register within. Are the dispositions of a renewed life within us? have we the testimony of a good conscience?
2. There is a register around us. Whom do men say that we are? Are our lives such as become the builders of God’s temple?
3. There is a register above us. God’s witness is true. The register is soon lost by sin. Let us not sacrifice it to temporal gain; let us not sacrifice it by marriage (Ezr 2:61). If we lose it we shall be morally unclean, spiritually depraved, and eternally cast out (Ezr 2:62, Ezr 2:63). We must prove our religion as well as possess it.
IV. THAT IN FORSAKING THE WORLDLY LIFE MEN MUST GIVE THEMSELVES ENTIRELY TO THE NEW TOILS THAT DEVOLVE UPON THEM (Ezr 2:68-70).
1. They came to the work. “They came to the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem.” Sight quickens activity. The ruined temple would awaken a sense of duty.
2. They gave to the work. “They gave after their ability.” Ability is the universal law of service. Men who enter upon the unworldly life must be ready for all the work of the Lord.E.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Ezr 2:68-70
Social and spiritual gradations.
The company that came out of Babylonian captivity was by no means a disorderly or unorganized multitude. It was well officered, and was divided and subdivided into ranks. It probably marched in regular order. Under the “Tirshatha” Zerubbabel, Jeshua the high priest, and Mordecai (probably the honoured deliverer), with other natural leaders, came (Ezr 2:70), priests, Levites (a singularly and disproportionately small number of these), the people (typical Israeliteslaymen, citizens), the singers, the porters, the Nethinims. There were
I. VARIOUS RANKS IN THE HOST OF THE LORD (Ezr 2:70). “The priests, and Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims,” etc. Each man of the 42,000 had a part to play in this exodus as well as in the settlement and the building which should follow; but some had more difficult and responsible posts than others. No service was without value of its kind. They could not have carried their treasures without help from the porters, nor conveyed the sacred vessels without the Nethinims; nor could they well have spared the singing men and women, whose sweet songs of Zion must have beguiled the way and helped them on over rough places and up steep heights towards the site of the city of their hopes. Much less could they have spared the priests and the leaders, who by their clear head and commanding will were to do more than the others with their hand and tongue. One is our Master, even Christ: we all take the truth which we hold and teach from the words of the great Teacher himself. But many are the parts we take, and varied the services we render, as we journey toward the heavenly Jerusalem, as we build the house and kingdom of the Lord. In our Christian ranks are great leaders, like Luther, and Calvin, and Knox, and Chalmers, and Wesley; great writers and apologists, like Augustine, and Butler, and Baxter; great preachers and missionaries whose name is legion; and below these in spiritual rank and influence are ministers, teachers, officers, “sweet singers,” and all the company of those that help in the service of the sanctuary, in the work of the Lord, down to the “doorkeeper of the house.” Each man in his place renders valued service: service which, if not marked “valuable“ by the handwriting of man, is yet truly and really valued by the observant and discerning Master. He who does well, working conscientiously and devoutly, the work for which he is fitted, is rendering a service to his race and to his God which is not overlooked, and will never be forgotten. Its record is on high, and he who wrought it will hear of it again, when every man (who is anywise praiseworthy) shall have praise of God, and the blessed, heart-satisfying “Well done” shall be spoken by the Son of man.
II. EXCELLENCY OF WORK IN HIS SERVICE (Ezr 2:68, Ezr 2:69). The narrative (Ezr 2:68, Ezr 2:69) anticipates the arrival in Judaea and the work to which they there addressed themselves. It states that some of the chief of the fathers “offered freely for the house of God,” and that they “gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work.” Here were two acceptable elements in all sacred service
(1) cheerfulness, which the Lord loveth (2Co 9:7); and
(2) fulness, according to ability, every one doing the best he can: not the least that can be offered with decency, but the most that present resources will allow. In building up the spiritual house of our Lord’s kingdoma work in which every Christian disciple is to be engagedwe may bring silver and gold to the treasury, or we may bring manual labour, or mental work, or spiritual exercises, or we may contribute the services of the teacher or the organizer. We may help in one of a hundred ways, more or less important. And not only is each one honourable and valuable in its way, but each work admits of being done in varying degrees of excellencymore or less cheerfully, more or less efficiently. We must aim at perfection in every department. When we realize that we are giving to him
(a) who “gave himself for us,”
(b) who is giving his Spirit to us, and
(c) who will give his glory to us, we shall give, not of our weakness, but our strength; not sluggishly and inefficiently, but “after our ability.”
The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive “riches.”C.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Their liberal offerings are taken notice of because they were given with a liberal heart, though compared to former gifts in the building of the first temple, their whole collection was small indeed. There they gave in talents. Now only in drachms. The widow’s mite was a costly offering in the sight of the Lord.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Ezr 2:68 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:
Ver. 68. And some of the chief ] And but some. All were not alike enlarged or enabled.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Ezr 2:68-69
68Some of the heads of fathers’ households, when they arrived at the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem, offered willingly for the house of God to restore it on its foundation. 69According to their ability they gave to the treasury for the work 61,000 gold drachmas and 5,000 silver minas and 100 priestly garments.
Ezr 2:68 offered willingly See note at Ezr 1:6.
Ezr 2:69 According to their ability they gave This becomes a Pauline principle (cf. Act 11:29; 1Co 16:12; 2Co 8:3; 2Co 8:11). The heart, not a percentage, is the key in giving.
drachmas This is a weight of valuable metal serving as a set unit. Here it is spelled daric (alternative form is in 1Ch 29:7), later it will become drachma (Greek word). It is a loan word from a Semitic root earlier than Hebrew. See Special Topic: Ancient Near East Weights and Volumes .
minas The term (BDB 584) means a part or to count. This weight of valuable metal took 50 (cf. Eze 45:12) or 60 to make a shekel. See Special Topic: Ancient Near East Weights and Volumes .
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
some = a portion. Ezra mentions what one portion gave. Nehemiah (Ezr 7:70) mentions what he and two other portions gave. Hence the numbers “perforce” cannot be the same, and there is no “discrepancy”.
chief = heads.
the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah.
God. Hebrew. Elohim.(with Art.) = the [true] God. App-4.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Ezr 2:68-70
Ezr 2:68-70
CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TOWARD REBUILDING THE TEMPLE
“And some of the heads of fathers’ houses, when they came to the house of Jehovah which is in Jerusalem, offered willingly for the house of God to set it up in its place: they gave after their ability into the treasury of the work threescore and one thousand darics of gold, and five thousand pounds of silver, and one hundred priests garments. So 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.”
“Threescore and one thousand darics of gold” (Ezr 2:69). During the years when this writer was in college, the radical critics were shouting to high heaven that, “The daric was a Greek coin that could not possibly have been current in Palestine until after the conquests of Alexander the Great. And upon the basis of their false allegations declared that Ezra, Nehemiah and the Chronicles could not possibly have been written prior to 250 B.C.”
“Archaeological evidence now shows that the Attic (Greek) drachma (the daric of this passage) was in use as a standard coin in Palestine from the middle of the fifth century B.C. and afterward. Archaeologists have actually unearthed specimens of these coins near Jerusalem; and this daric became the official Jewish coinage, and specimens inscribed with the Aramaic name of Judah have been discovered.”
E.M. Zerr:
Ezr 2:68. Gratitude at least would have prompted these fathers to make this contribution for the Lord’s work. They had been treated very kindly by the Persian government, and the materials furnished them were in order that the Lord’s work in Jerusalem could be advanced
Ezr 2:69. The amount of these offerings is stated which is great. However, that would not entitle them to any special credit were it not for the fact that it was after their ability. That is the basis upon which all of the offerings in the New Testament are to be made. See 1Co 16:2; 2Co 8:12.
Ezr 2:70. After turning over the possessions in their hands to the work for which they had been given them, they retired to their homes. It is interesting to note that the several ranks and grades of the nation respected the assignments belonging to them as to residence, for it says they dwelt in their cities.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
offered freely: Exo 35:5-19, Exo 35:29, Exo 36:3, Num 7:3-89, 1Ch 29:5-17, Neh 7:70-73, Psa 110:3, Luk 21:1-4, 2Co 8:3, 2Co 8:12, 2Co 9:7
in his place: Ezr 3:3, 1Ch 21:18, 1Ch 22:1, 2Ch 3:1
Reciprocal: Exo 25:2 – willingly Exo 35:22 – every man Exo 35:27 – General Lev 23:38 – and beside Num 7:2 – offered Num 7:84 – the dedication 2Ch 35:8 – his princes Ezr 1:4 – the freewill Mar 12:44 – cast in of
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Ezr 2:68. When they came to the house of the Lord That is, to the place in which the temple had stood, and where the ruins still remained. Offered freely Made a new offering, besides that which they had brought out of Babylon, from their brethren there, mentioned Ezr 1:4; Ezr 1:6. By this it appears that the Jews were not made absolute slaves in Babylon, but had liberty to trade and get riches for themselves; some of them being advanced to considerable offices in the kings court. Otherwise they could not have been able to offer such sums as are mentioned in the next verse.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ezr 2:68-70. The Free-will Offerings of the Heads of Families, and the Settlement of the Exiles (cf. Neh 7:70-72).The gifts are, of course, for the Temple and its worship.
Ezr 2:68. when they came to the house of Yahweh: these words would imply that the Temple was already in existence; if not a gloss they are an oversight of the Chronicler, especially in view of the words which follow, to set it up in its place.
Ezr 2:69. This is obviously an exaggeration; all that we learn of the returned exiles shows them to have been poor.
Ezr 2:70. priests garments: these were made of linen (Lev 16:4), and had embroidered work (Exo 28:4; Exo 39:27).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Arrival in Jerusalem 2:68-70
The Israelites contributed to the rebuilding of the temple as they had toward the construction of the Mosaic tabernacle (Exo 25:3-7; Exo 35:2-9). Probably the Greek gold drachma is in view and the Babylonian silver mina (Ezr 2:69). [Note: Fensham, The Books . . ., p. 57. However compare Yamauchi, "Ezra-Nehemiah," p. 620.] If this is so, one Greek drachma was equivalent to one Roman denarius. [Note: The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., s.v. "Money," by A. F. Walls.] In the ancient world, this was one day’s wage for a working man (cf. Mat 20:1-16). Obviously the exiles made a substantial contribution to the rebuilding of the temple that supplemented what Cyrus and the friends of the immigrants had previously donated (Ezr 1:4; Ezr 1:6-11; cf. Exo 25:4-7; Exo 35:2-9; 2Co 8:3; 2Co 9:7).
When this group of Jews returned to the Promised Land in 537 B.C., they went first to Jerusalem (Ezr 2:68). Later they settled in the towns where their ancestors had lived and where some of them had property rights (Ezr 2:70; cf. Ezr 2:21-35).
The record of those who returned that God preserved in this chapter shows His faithfulness in bringing a remnant of His people back to Palestine as He had promised.
"One of the chief objectives of Ezra-Nehemiah was to show the Jews that they constituted the continuation of the preexilic Jewish community, the Israelite community that God had chosen." [Note: Breneman, p. 50.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE NEW TEMPLE
Ezr 2:68-70; Ezr 3:1-13
UNLIKE the historian of the exodus from Egypt, our chronicler gives no account of adventures of the pilgrims on the road to Palestine, although much of their way led them through a wild and difficult country. So huge a caravan as that which accompanied Zerubbabel must have taken several months to cover the eight hundred miles between Babylon and Jerusalem; for even Ezra with his smaller company spent four months on their journey. {Ezr 7:8-9} A dreary desert stretched over the vast space between the land of exile and the old home of the Jews among the mountains of the West; and here the commissariat would tax the resources of the ablest organisers. It is possible that the difficulties of the desert were circumvented in the most prosaic manner-by simply avoiding this barren, waterless region, and taking a long sweep round by the north of Syria. Passing over the pilgrimage, which afforded him no topics of interest, without a word of comment, the chronicler plants us at once in the midst of the busy scenes at Jerusalem, where we see the returned exiles, at length arrived at the end of their tedious journey, preparing to accomplish the one purpose of their expedition.
The first step was to provide the means for building the temple, and contributions were made for this object by all classes of the community-as we gather from the more complete account in Nehemiah {Neh 7:70-72} -from the prince and the aristocracy to the general public, for it was to be a united work. And yet it is implied by the narrative that many had no share in it. These people may have been poor originally or impoverished by their journey, and not at all deficient in generosity or lacking in faith. Still we often meet with those who have enough enthusiasm to applaud a good work and yet not enough to make any sacrifice in promoting it. It is expressly stated that the gifts were offered freely. No tax was imposed by the authorities; but there was no backwardness on the part of the actual donors, who were impelled by a glowing devotion to open their purses without stint. Lastly, those who contributed did so “after their ability.” This is the true “proportionate giving.” For all to give an equal sum is impossible unless the poll-tax is to be fixed at a miserable minimum. Even for all to give the same proportion is unjust. There are poor men who ought not to sacrifice a tenth of what they receive; there are rich men who will be guilty of unfaithfulness to their stewardship if they do not devote far more than this fraction of their vast revenues to the service of God and their fellow-men. It would be reasonable for some of the latter only to reserve the tithe for their own use and to give away nine-tenths of their income, for even then they would not be giving “after their ability.”
After the preliminary step of collecting the contributions, the pilgrims proceed to the actual work they have in hand. In this they are heartily united; they gather themselves together “as one man” in a great assembly, which, if we may trust the account in Esdras, is held in an open space by the first gate towards the east, {RAPC 1Es 5:47} and therefore close to the site of the old temple, almost among its very ruins. The unity of spirit and the harmony of action which characterise the commencement of the work are good auguries of its success. This is to be a popular undertaking. Sanctioned by Cyrus, promoted by the aristocracy, it is to be carried out with the full co-operation of the multitude. The first temple had been the work of a king; the second is to be the work of a people. The nation had been dazzled by the splendour of Solomons court, and had basked in its rays so that the after-glow of them lingered in the memories of ages even down to the time of our Lord. {Mat 6:29} But there was a healthier spirit in the humbler work of the returned exiles, when, forced to dispense with the king they would gladly have accepted, they undertook the task of building the new temple themselves.
In the centre of the mosque known as the “Dome of the Rock” there is a crag with the well-worn remains of steps leading up to the top of it, and with channels cut in its surface. This has been identified by recent explorers as the site of the great Altar of Burnt-offerings. It is on the very crest of Mount Moriah. Formerly it was thought that it was the site of the inmost shrine of the temple, known as “The Holy of Holies,” but the new view, which seems to be fairly established, gives an unexpected prominence to the altar. This rude square structure of unhewn stone was the most elevated and conspicuous object in the temple. The altar was to Judaism what the cross is to Christianity. Both for us and for the Jews what is most vital and precious in religion is the dark mystery of a sacrifice. The first work of the temple-builders was to set up the altar again on its old foundation. Before a stone of the temple was laid, the smoke of sacrificial fires might be seen ascending to heaven from the highest crag of Moriah. For fifty years all sacrifices had ceased. Now with haste, in fear of hindrance from jealous neighbours, means were provided to re-establish them before any attempt was made to rebuild the temple. It is not quite easy to see what the writer means when, after saying “And they set the altar upon his bases,” he adds, “for fear was upon them because of the people of those countries.” The suggestion that the phrase may be varied so as to mean that the awe which this religious work inspired in the heathen neighbours prevented them from molesting it is far-fetched and improbable. Nor is it likely that the writer intends to convey the idea that the Jews hastened the building of the altar as a sort of Palladium, trusting that its sacrifices would protect them in case of invasion, for this is to attribute too low and materialistic a character to their religion. More reasonable is the explanation that they hastened the work because they feared that their neighbours might either hinder it or wish to have a share in it-an equally objectionable thing, as subsequent events showed.
The chronicler distinctly states that the sacrifices which were now offered, as well as the festivals which were established later, were all designed to meet the requirements of the law of Moses-that everything might be done “as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God.” This statement does not throw much light on the history of the Pentateuch. We know that that work was not yet in the hands of the Jews at Jerusalem, because this was nearly eighty years before Ezra introduced it. The sentence suggests that according to the chronicler some law bearing the name of Moses was known to the first body of returned exiles. We need not regard that suggestion as a reflection from later years. Deuteronomy may have been the law referred to; or it may have been some rubric of traditional usages in the possession of the priests.
Meanwhile two facts of importance come out here – first, that the method of worship adopted by the returned exiles was a revival of ancient customs, a return to the old ways, not an innovation of their own, and second, that this restoration was in careful obedience to the known will of God. Here we have the root idea of the Torah. It announces that God has revealed His will, and it implies that the service of God can only be acceptable when it is in harmony with the will of God. The prophets taught that obedience was better than sacrifice. The priests held that sacrifice itself was a part of obedience. With both the primary requisite was obedience-as it is the primary requisite in all religion.
The particular kind of sacrifice offered on the great altar was the burnt-offering. Now we do occasionally meet with expiatory ideas in connection with this sacrifice; but unquestionably the principal conception attached to the burnt-offering in distinction from the sin-offering, was the idea of self-dedication on the part of the worshipper. Thus the Jews re-consecrated themselves to God by the solemn ceremony of sacrifice, and they kept up the thought of renewed consecration by the regular repetition of the burnt-offering. It is difficult for us to enter into the feelings of the people who practised so antique a cult, even to them archaic in its ceremonies, and dimly suggestive of primitive rites that had their origin in far-off barbaric times. But one thing is clear, shining as with letters of awful fire against the black clouds of smoke that hang over the altar. This sacrifice was always a “whole offering.” As it was being completely consumed in the flames before their very eyes, the worshippers would see a vivid representation of the tremendous truth that the most perfect sacrifice is death-nay, that it is even more than death, that it is absolute self-effacement in total and unreserved surrender to God.
Various rites follow the great central sacrifice of the burnt-offering, ushered in by the most joyous festival of the year, the Feast of Tabernacles, when the people scatter themselves over the hills round Jerusalem under the shade of extemporised bowers made out of the leafy boughs of trees, and celebrate the goodness of God in the final and richest harvest, the vintage. Then come New Moon and the other festivals that stud the calendar with sacred dates and make the Jewish year a round of glad festivities.
Thus, we see, the full establishment of religious services precedes the building of the temple. A weighty truth is enshrined in this apparently incongruous fact. The worship itself is felt to be more important than the house in which it is to be celebrated. That truth should be even more apparent to us who have read the great words of Jesus uttered by Jacobs well, “The hour cometh when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth.” {Joh 4:21; Joh 4:23} How vain then is it to treat the erection of churches as though it were the promotion of a revival of religion! As surely as the empty sea-shell tossed up on the beach can never secrete a living organism to inhabit it, a mere building-whether it be the most gorgeous cathedral or the plainest village meeting-house-will never induce a living spirit of worship to dwell in its cold desolation. Every true religious revival begins in the spiritual sphere and finds its place of worship where it may-in the rustic barn or on the hillside-if no more seemly home can be provided for it, because its real temple is the humble and contrite heart.
Still the design of building the temple at Jerusalem was kept constantly in view by the pilgrims. Accordingly it was necessary to purchase materials, and in particular the fragrant cedar wood from the distant forests of Lebanon. These famous forests were still in the possession of the Phoenicians, for Cyrus had allowed a local autonomy to the busy trading people on the northern seaboard. So, in spite of the kings favour, it was requisite for the Jews to pay the full price for the costly timber. Now, in disbursing the original funds brought up from Babylon, it would seem that the whole of this money was expended in labour, in paying the wages of masons and carpenters. Therefore the Jews had to export agricultural products-such as corn, wine, and olive oil-in exchange for the imports of timber they received from the Phoenicians. The question at once arises, how did they come to be possessed of these fruits of the soil? The answer is supplied by a chronological remark in our narrative. It was in the second year of their residence in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood that the Jews commenced the actual building of their temple. They had first patiently cleared, ploughed, and sown the neglected fields, trimmed and trained the vines, and tended the olive gardens, so that they were able to reap a harvest, and to give the surplus products for the purchase of the timber required in building the temple. As the foundation was laid in the spring, the order for the cedar wood must have been sent before the harvest was reaped-pledging it in advance with faith in the God who gives the increase. The Phoenician woodmen fell their trees in the distant forests of Lebanon; and the massive trunks are dragged down to the coast, and floated along the Mediterranean to Joppa, and then carried on the backs of camels or slowly drawn up the heights of Judah in ox-wagons, while the crops that are to pay for them are still green in the fields.
Here then is a further proof of devotion on the part of the Jews from Babylon-though it is scarcely hinted at in the narrative, though we can only discover it by a careful comparison of facts and dates. Labour is expended on the fields; long weary months of waiting are endured; when the fruits of toil are obtained, these hard-earned stores are not hoarded by their owners; they too, like the gold and silver of the wealthier Jews, are gladly surrendered for the one object which kindles the enthusiasm of every class of the community.
At length all is ready. Jeshua the priest now precedes Zerubbabel, as well as the rest of the twelve leaders, in inaugurating the great work. On the Levites is laid the immediate responsibility of carrying it through. When the foundation is laid, the priests in their new white vestments sound their silver trumpets, and the choir of Levites, the sons of Asaph. clang their brazen cymbals. To the accompaniment of this inspiriting music they sing glad psalms in praise of God, giving thanks to Him, celebrating His goodness and His mercy that endureth forever toward Israel. This is not at all like the soft music and calm chanting of subdued cathedral services that we think of in connection with great national festivals. The instruments blare and clash, the choristers cry aloud, and the people join them with a mighty shout. When shrill discordant notes of bitter wailing, piped by a group of melancholy old men, threaten to break the harmony of the scene, they are drowned in the deluge of jubilation that rises up in protest and beats down all their opposition with its triumph of gladness. To a sober Western the scene would seem to be a sort of religious orgy, like a wild Bacchanalian festival, like the howling of hosts of dervishes. But although it is the Englishmans habit to take his religion sombrely, if not sadly, it may be well for him to pause before pronouncing a condemnation of those men and women who are more exuberant in the expression of spiritual emotion. If he finds, even among his fellow-countrymen, some who permit themselves a more lively music and a more free method of public worship than he is accustomed to, is it not a mark of insular narrowness for him to visit these unconventional people with disapprobation? In abandoning the severe manners of their race, they are only approaching nearer to the time-old methods of ancient Israel.
In this clangour and clamour at Jerusalem the predominant note was a burst of irrepressible gladness. When God turned the captivity of Israel, mourning was transformed into laughter. To understand the wild excitement of the Jews, their paean of joy, their very ecstasy, we must recollect what they had passed through, as well as what they were now anticipating. We must remember the cruel disaster of the overthrow of Jerusalem, the desolation of the exile, the sickness of weary waiting for deliverance, the harshness of the persecution that embittered the later years of the captivity under Nabonidas; we must think of the toilsome pilgrimage through the desert, with its dismal wastes, its dangers and its terrors, followed by the patient work on the land and gathering in of means for building the temple. And now all this was over. The bow had been terribly bent; the rebound was immense. People who cannot feel strong religious gladness have never known the heartache of deep religious grief. These Israelites had cried out of the depths; they were prepared to shout for joy from the heights. Perhaps we may go further, and detect a finer note in this great blast of jubilation, a note of higher and more solemn gladness. The chastisement of the exile was past, and the long-suffering mercy of God-enduring forever-was again smiling out on the chastened people. And yet the positive realisation of their hopes was for the future. The joy, therefore, was inspired by faith. With little accomplished as yet, the sanguine people already saw the temple in their minds eye, with its massive walls, its cedar chambers, and its adornment of gold and richly dyed hangings. In the very laying of the foundation their eager imaginations leaped forward to the crowning of the highest pinnacles. Perhaps they saw more; perhaps they perceived, though but dimly, something of the meaning of the spiritual blessedness that had been foretold by their prophets.
All this gladness centred in the building of a temple, and therefore ultimately in the worship of God. We take but a one-sided view of Judaism if we judge it by the sour ideas of later Pharisaism. As it presented itself to St. Paul in opposition to the gospel, it was stern and loveless. But in its earlier days this religion was free and gladsome, though, as we shall soon see, even then a rigour of fanaticism soon crept in and turned its joy into grief. Here, however, at the founding of the temple, it wears its sunniest aspect. There is no reason why religion should wear any other aspect to the devout soul. It should be happy; for is it not the worship of a happy God?
“Nevertheless, in the midst of the almost universal acclaim of joy and praise, there was the note of sadness wailed by the old men, who could recollect the venerable fane in which their fathers had worshipped before the ruthless soldiers of Nebuchadnezzar had reduced it to a heap of ashes. Possibly some of them had stood on this very spot half a century before, in an agony of despair, while they saw the cruel flames licking the ancient stones and blazing up among the cedar beams, and all the fine gold dimmed with black clouds of smoke. Was it likely that the feeble flock just returned from Babylon could ever produce such a wonder of the world as Solomons temple had been? The enthusiastic younger people might be glad in their ignorance; but their sober elders, who knew more, could only weep. We cannot but think that, after the too common habit of the aged, these mournful old men viewed the past in a glamour of memory, magnifying its splendours as they looked back on them through the mists of time. If so, they were old indeed; for this habit, and not years, makes real old age. He is aged who lives in bygone days, with his face ever set to the irreparable past, vainly regretting its retreating memories, uninterested in the present, despondent of the future. The true elixir of life, the secret of perpetual youth of soul, is interest in the present and the future, with the forward glance of faith and hope. Old men who cultivate this spirit have young hearts though the snow is on their heads. And such are wise. No doubt, from the standpoint of a narrow common sense, with its shrunken views confined to the material and the mundane, the old men who wept had more reason for their conduct than the inexperienced younger men who rejoiced. But there is a prudence that comes of blindness, and there is an imprudence that is sublime in its daring, because it springs from faith. The despair of old age makes one great mistake, because it ignores one great truth. In noting that many good things have passed away, it forgets to remember that God remains. God is not dead! Therefore the future is safe. In the end the young enthusiasts of Jerusalem were justified. A prophet arose who declared that a glory which the former temple had never known should adorn the new temple, in spite of its humble beginning; and history verified his word when the Lord took possession of His house in the person of His Son.”