Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezra 5:3

At the same time came to them Tatnai, governor on this side the river, and Shethar-boznai, and their companions, and said thus unto them, Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall?

3 17. The Complaint against the Jews

3. And ] Omit R.V. Not in the original.

Tatnai, governor on this side the river ] R.V. Tattenai, the governor beyond the river. Tattenai appears as Sisinnes in 1Es 6:3, as in the LXX. The name is not found except in this connexion. He was governor (probably satrap) of the whole district of Syria and Cilicia on the west of the Euphrates. There were twenty satrapies in the Persian kingdom (Herod. III. 89). Tattenai was therefore a man of the greatest eminence in Syria, next to the king himself. The expression ‘governor beyond the river’ is not due to the writer living on the eastern or Babylonian side of the river. It was the technical title of the governor of that satrapy. It appears on the coins of the Persian empire. Thus upon one coin appears the inscription “Maydi who is over the ‘Abhar Nahara’ (country beyond the River) and Cilicia”.

Tattenai was the superior official, to whom Zerubbabel, the pekhah or governor of the small district of Jerusalem and its neighbourhood, would have to give account upon any report being made of treacherous action.

Shethar-boznai ] R.V. Shethar-bozenai. 1Es 6:3, ‘Sathrabuzanes’, LXX. , has been conjectured to be the Persian ‘Chitrabarschana’ (cf. a Persian name, ‘Satibarzanes’, in Arrian). His position is not described. Perhaps a ‘secretary’ to Tattenai, as Shimshai to Rehum (Ezr 4:8).

Who hath commanded you ] R.V. gave yon a decree. The original requires the more weighty and official ‘decree’. Cf. Ezr 4:21, Ezr 5:13.

to build this house ] referring to the Temple: the first subject of complaint: very different from the passage in Ezr 4:8-23.

and to make up this wall ] R.V. ‘ and to finish this wall ’. 1Es 6:4, ‘By whose appointment do ye build this house and this roof, and perform all the other things? ’

We may assume that complaints from the Samaritans induced the satrap to inquire what authority the Jews had received to undertake the work. Seventeen or eighteen years had elapsed since Cyrus issued his decree. Two other kings had succeeded him. The third, Darius, was only just assuring his position upon the throne after two years of incessant warring. During this interval the affairs of a comparatively unimportant city in Syria may well have been almost forgotten.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Governor on this side the river – Compare Ezr 4:10 note. Tatnai was apparently satrap of Syria, which included the whole tract west of the Euphrates from Cilicia to the borders of Egypt. Zerubbabel must have been, to some extent, under his authority.

Who hath commanded you to build? – There was no doubt a formal illegality in the conduct of Zerubbabel and Jeshua: since all edicts of Persian kings continued in force unless revoked by their successors. But they felt justified in disobeying the decree of the Pseudo-Smerdis (see the Ezr 4:7 note), because the opposition between his religious views and those of his successor was matter of notoriety.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Ezr 5:3-5

At the same time came to them Tatntia.

The great work investigated and continued

The sacred work investigated by the secular authorities.

1. The nature of the investigation.

2. The spirit of the investigation.

The eye of the world is upon the work of the Church to-day. Let the members see to it that it shall be apparent to all unprejudiced persons that their work tends to promote truth and righteousness, purity and peace, piety and patriotism.

II. The sacred wore carried on through the divine blessing, But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, etc. This suggests–

1. The Divine interest in the work.

2. The Divine oversight of the work.

3. The Divine inspiration of the workers.

4. The Divine protection of the workers. (William Jones.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 3. Tatnai, governor] He was governor of the provinces which belonged to the Persian empire on their side of the Euphrates, comprehending Syria, Arabia Deserta, Phoenicia, and Samaria. He seems to have been a mild and judicious man; and to have acted with great prudence and caution, and without any kind of prejudice. The manner in which he represented this to the king is a full proof of this disposition.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Tatuai and Shethar-boznai; not Rehum and Shimshai &c., who were either dead, or removed from their offices by the new emperor Darius, as is very usual.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

3, 4. At the same time came to themTatnai, governor on this side the riverThe Persian empire westof the Euphrates included at this time Syria, Arabia, Egypt,Phoelignicia, and other provinces subject to Darius. The empire wasdivided into twenty provinces, called satrapies. Syria formed onesatrapy, inclusive of Palestine, Phoelignicia, and Cyprus, andfurnished an annual revenue of three hundred fifty talents. It waspresided over by a satrap or viceroy, who at this time resided atDamascus. Though superior to the native governors of the Jewsappointed by the Persian king, he never interfered with theirinternal government except when there was a threatened disturbance oforder and tranquillity. Tatnai, the governor (whether this was apersonal name or an official title is unknown), had probably beenincited by the complaints and turbulent outrages of the Samaritansagainst the Jews; but he suspended his judgment, and he prudentlyresolved to repair to Jerusalem, that he might ascertain the realstate of matters by personal inspection and enquiry, in company withanother dignified officer and his provincial council.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

At the same time came to them Tatnai, governor on this side the river, and Shetharboznai, and their companions,…. These were new governors and officers under the king of Persia in those parts, the old ones, Rehum, Shimshai, c. being either dead, or removed upon this new king coming to the throne: these came to the Jews,

and said thus unto them, who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall? for it seems by this time they had raised up the walls of the temple from its foundation to some height for of these it must be understood, see Ezr 4:8 for it can hardly be thought they were as yet enclosing it with a wall round about it; now they asked them by what authority they did this? who set them to work? and what were their names? for that this question was asked, though not here expressed, is clear from Ezr 4:10 and to which an answer is given in the next verse.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

When the building was recommenced, the governor on this side Euphrates, and other royal officials, evidently informed of the undertaking by the adversaries of the Jews, made their appearance for the purpose of investigating matters on the spot. , came to them, to the two above-named rulers of the community at Jerusalem. Tatnai (lxx ) was , viceroy, in the provinces west of Euphrates, i.e., as correctly expanded in 1 Esdras, of Syria and Phoenicia, to which Judaea with its Pecha Zerubbabel was subordinate. With him came Shethar-Boznai, perhaps his secretary, and their companions, their subordinates. The royal officials inquired: “Who has commanded you to build this house, and to finish this wall?” The form here and Ezr 5:13 is remarkable, the infinitive in Chaldee being not , but ; compare Ezr 5:2, Ezr 5:17, and Ezr 6:8. Norzi has both times , as through the Dagesh forte were compensating for an omitted . which occurs only here and Ezr 5:9, is variously explained. The Vulgate, the Syriac, and also the Rabbins, translate: these walls. This meaning best answers to the context, and is also linguistically the most correct. It can hardly, however, be derived (Gesenius) from , but rather from , in Chaldee , firm, strong-walls as the strength or firmness of the building. The form has arisen from , and is analogous to the form .

(Note: The interpretations of the lxx, , meaning these building materials, and of 1 Esdr. 6:4, , this roof and all besides, for which Bertheau decides, without considering that may mean to complete, and not to prepare for anything, are but conjectures.)

Ezr 5:4

Then told we them after this manner ( , Ezr 4:8), what were the names of the men who were building this building. From , we said, it is obvious that the author of this account was an eye-witness of, and sharer in, the work of building. These is not a shadow of reason for altering into , or into the participle (Ew., Berth., and others); the of the lxx being no critical authority for so doing. The answer in Ezr 5:4 seems not to correspond with the question in Ezr 5:3. The royal officials asked, Who had commanded them to build? The Jews told them the names of those who had undertaken and were conducting the building. But this incongruity between the question and answer is merely caused by the fact that the discussion is reported only by a short extract restricted to the principal subjects. We learn that this is the case from the contents of the letter sent by the officials to the king. According to these, the royal functionary inquired not merely concerning the author of the command to build, but asked also the names of those who were undertaking the work (comp. Ezr 5:9 and Ezr 5:10); while the rulers of the Jews gave a circumstantial answer to both questions (Ezr 5:11-15).

Ezr 5:5

Tatnai and Shethar-Boznai had power to prohibit them from proceeding; they allowed them, however, to go on with their work till the arrival of an answer from the king, to whom they had furnished a written report of the matter. In these dealings, the historian sees a proof of the divine protection which was watching over the building. “The eye of their God was over the elders of the Jews, that they should not restrain them (from building) till the matter came to Darius; and they should then receive a letter concerning this matter.” Bertheau incorrectly translates : until the command of King Darius should arrive. is only used as a paraphrase of the genitive in statements of time; otherwise the genitive, if not expressed by the status construc., is designated by or . , fut. Peal of , formed by the rejection of , construed with , signifies to go to a place (comp. Ezr 7:13), or to come to a person. ( ) does not here mean commandment, but the matter, causa, which the king is to decide; just as , Ezr 6:11, means thing, res. The clause still depends upon : and till they (the royal officials) then receive a letter, i.e., obtain a decision.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

The Case Represented to Darius.

B. C. 519.

      3 At the same time came to them Tatnai, governor on this side the river, and Shethar-boznai, and their companions, and said thus unto them, Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall?   4 Then said we unto them after this manner, What are the names of the men that make this building?   5 But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, that they could not cause them to cease, till the matter came to Darius: and then they returned answer by letter concerning this matter.   6 The copy of the letter that Tatnai, governor on this side the river, and Shethar-boznai, and his companions the Apharsachites, which were on this side the river, sent unto Darius the king:   7 They sent a letter unto him, wherein was written thus; Unto Darius the king, all peace.   8 Be it known unto the king, that we went into the province of Judea, to the house of the great God, which is builded with great stones, and timber is laid in the walls, and this work goeth fast on, and prospereth in their hands.   9 Then asked we those elders, and said unto them thus, Who commanded you to build this house, and to make up these walls?   10 We asked their names also, to certify thee, that we might write the names of the men that were the chief of them.   11 And thus they returned us answer, saying, We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house that was builded these many years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and set up.   12 But after that our fathers had provoked the God of heaven unto wrath, he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this house, and carried the people away into Babylon.   13 But in the first year of Cyrus the king of Babylon the same king Cyrus made a decree to build this house of God.   14 And the vessels also of gold and silver of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took out of the temple that was in Jerusalem, and brought them into the temple of Babylon, those did Cyrus the king take out of the temple of Babylon, and they were delivered unto one, whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor;   15 And said unto him, Take these vessels, go, carry them into the temple that is in Jerusalem, and let the house of God be builded in his place.   16 Then came the same Sheshbazzar, and laid the foundation of the house of God which is in Jerusalem: and since that time even until now hath it been in building, and yet it is not finished.   17 Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let there be search made in the king’s treasure house, which is there at Babylon, whether it be so, that a decree was made of Cyrus the king to build this house of God at Jerusalem, and let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter.

      We have here, I. The cognizance which their neighbours soon took of the reviving of this good work. A jealous eye, it seems, they had upon them, and no sooner did the Spirit of God stir up the friends of the temple to appear for it than the evil spirit stirred up its enemies to appear against it. While the people built and ceiled their own houses their enemies gave them no molestation (Hag. i. 4), though the king’s order was to put a stop to the building of the city (ch. iv. 21); but when they fell to work again at the temple then the alarm was taken, and all heads were at work to hinder them, Ezr 5:3; Ezr 5:4. The adversaries are here named: Tatnai and Shethar-boznai. The governors we read of (ch. iv.) were, it is probable, displaced at the beginning of this reign, as is usual. It is the policy of princes often to change their deputies, proconsuls, and rulers of provinces. These, though real enemies to the building of the temple, were men of better temper than the other, and made some conscience of telling truth. If all men have not faith (2 Thess. iii. 2), it is well some have, and a sense of honour. The church’s enemies are not all equally wicked and unreasonable. The historian begins to relate what passed between the builders and those inquisitors (Ezr 5:3; Ezr 5:4), but breaks off his account, and refers to the ensuing copy of the letter they sent to the king, where the same appears more fully and at large, which he began to abridge (v. 4), or make an extract out of, though, upon second thoughts, he inserted the whole.

      II. The care which the divine Providence took of this good work (v. 5): The eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, who were active in the work, so that their enemies could not cause them to cease, as they would have done, till the matter came to Darius. They desired they would only cease till they had instructions from the king about it. But they would not so much as yield them that, for the eye of God was upon them, even their God. And, 1. That baffled their enemies, infatuated and enfeebled them, and protected the builders from their malicious designs. While we are employed in God’s work we are taken under his special protection; his eye is upon us for good, seven eyes upon one stone in his temple; see Zec 3:9; Zec 4:10. 2. That quickened them. The elders of the Jews saw the eye of God upon them, to observe what they did and own them in what they did well, and then they had courage enough to face their enemies and to go on vigorously with their work, notwithstanding all the opposition they met with. Our eye upon God, observing his eye upon us, will keep us to our duty and encourage us in it when the difficulties are ever so discouraging.

      III. The account they sent to the king of this matter, in which we may observe,

      1. How fully the elders of the Jews gave the Samaritans an account of their proceedings. They, finding them both busy and prosperous, that all hands were at work to run up this building and that it went on rapidly, put these questions to them:–“By what authority do you do these things, and who gave you that authority? Who set you to work? Have you that which will bear you out?” To this they answered that they had sufficient warrant to do what they did; for, (1.) “We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth. The God we worship is not a local deity, and therefore we cannot be charged with making a faction, or setting up a sect, in building this temple to his honour: but we pay our homage to a God on whom the whole creation depends, and therefore ought to be protected and assisted by all and hindered by none.” It is the wisdom as well as duty of kings to countenance the servants of the God of heaven. (2.) “We have a prescription to this house; it was built for the honour of our God by Solomon many ages ago. It is no novel invention of our own; we are but raising the foundations of many generations,” Isa. lviii. 12. (3.) “It was to punish us for our sins that we were, for a time, put out of the possession of this house; not because the gods of the nations had prevailed against our God, but because we had provoked him (v. 12), for which he delivered us and our temple into the hands of the king of Babylon, but never intended thereby to put a final period to our religion. We were only suspended for a time, not deprived for ever.” (4.) “We have the royal decree of Cyrus to justify us and bear us out in what we do. He not only permitted and allowed us, but charged and commanded us to build this house (v. 13), and to build it in its place (v. 15), the same place where it had stood before.” He ordered this, not only in compassion to the Jews, but in veneration of their God, saying, He is the God. He also delivered the vessels of the temple to one whom he entrusted to see them restored to their ancient place and use, v. 14. And they had these to show in confirmation of what they alleged. (5.) “The building was begun according to this order as soon as ever we had returned, so that we have not forfeited the benefit of the order for want of pursuing it in time; still it has been in building, but, because we have met with opposition, it is not finished.” But, observe, they mention not the falsehood and malice of the former governors, nor make any complaint of them, though they had cause enough, to teach us not to render bitterness for bitterness, nor the most just reproach for that which is most unjust, but to think it enough if we can obtain fair treatment for the future, without an invidious reference to former injuries, v. 16. This is the account they give of their proceedings, not asking what authority they had to examine them, nor upbraiding them with their idolatry, and superstitions, and medley religion. Let us learn hence with meekness and fear to give a reason of the hope that is in us (1 Pet. iii. 15), rightly to understand, and then readily to declare, what we do in God’s service and why we do it.

      2. How fairly the Samaritans represented this to the king. (1.) They called the temple at Jerusalem the house of the great God (v. 8); for though the Samaritans, as it should seem, had yet gods many and lords many, they owned the God of Israel to be the great God, who is above all gods. “It is the house of the great God, and therefore we dare not oppose the building of it without orders from thee.” (2.) They told him truly what was done, not stating, as their predecessors did, that they were fortifying the city as if they intended war, but only that they were rearing the temple as those that intended worship, v. 8. (3.) They fully represented their plea, told him what they had to say for themselves, and were willing that the cause should be set in a true light. (4.) They left it to the king to consult the records whether Cyrus had indeed made such a decree, and then to give directions as he should think fit, v. 17. We have reason to think that if Artaxerxes, in the foregoing chapter, had had the Jews’ cause as fairly represented to him as it was here to Darius, he would not have ordered the work to be hindered. God’s people could not be persecuted if they were not belied, could not be baited if they were not dressed up in bears’ skins. Let but the cause of God and truth be fairly stated, and fairly heard, and it will keep its ground.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

(3) Tatnai, governor on this side the river.Satrap, or Pechah, of the entire province of Syria and Phnicia, and therefore with a jurisdiction over Judaea, and over Zerubbabel its Pechah or sub-Satrap. What Shimshai was to the Samaritan Pechah, Rehum, Shethar-boznai seems to be to Tatnaihis secretary.

Who hath commanded you?It is obvious that the overthrow of Smerdis, the Magian hater of Zoroastrianism and destroyer of temples, had encouraged the builders to go on without fearing molestation from the Court of Darius. Moreover, the two prophets had made their duty too plain to be deferred. Still, the decree of the preceding chapter had never been expressly revoked.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

(3-17) Tatnais appeal to Darius.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

INTERFERENCE OF TATNAI THE GOVERNOR, Ezr 5:3-17.

3. Tatnai Probably the successor of Rehum “the chancellor.” Chapter Ezr 4:8.

Governor on this side the river Literally, Governor of beyond the river. Compare note on Ezr 4:10, and on beyond Jordan at Jos 1:14. The country beyond the river in the Persian usus loquendi comprised especially Syria and Palestine, and seems to have been one of the satrapies of the Persian empire. According to Herodotus (iii, 89) Darius Hystaspes “established twenty governments of the kind which the Persians call satrapies, assigning to each its governor, and fixing the tribute which was to be paid him by the several nations. And generally he joined together in one satrapy the nations that were neighbours, but sometimes he passed over the nearer tribes, and put in their stead those that were more remote.” Tatnai seems to have been the governor of one of the subdivisions of the satrapy west of the Euphrates, commonly called beyond the river, as above described. The Hebrew word for governor is , pechah, a term of Persian origin, and kindred to the Sanscrit paksha and Turkish pasha. See note on 2Ki 18:24.

Shethar-boznai He was probably the secretary or scribe of Tatnai, sustaining to him the same relation that Shimshai did to Rehum. Ezr 4:8.

Their companions Compare Ezr 4:9.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

EXPOSITION

RENEWAL OF OPPOSITION ON THE PART OF THE NEIGHBOURING HEATHEN. LETTER WRITTEN BY THEM AND SENT TO DARIUS (Ezr 5:3-17). Once more opposition showed itself. Tatnai, a high officer, called “governor on this side the river” (Ezr 5:3), perhaps satrap of Syria, and Shethar-boznai, or Sitrabarzanes, a Persian noble probably, at this time took the lead, and learning that the building was making progress, came in person to Jerusalem, and demanded to know by what authority the temple and city were being restored. Zerubbabel seems to have answered, “By the authority of a decree of Cyrus, issued in the year that he became king of Babylon” (Ezr 5:13); whereupon a second question was asked, “What are the names of the men responsible for carrying on the work?” Zerubbabel answered that he was alone responsible, giving his name as Sheshbazzar, and declaring himself to be acting under a commission received from Cyrus (Ezr 5:15), and never revoked. Thereupon Tatnai and Shethar-boznai seem to have proposed a cessation of the building until reference could be made to Darius and his pleasure learnt (Ezr 5:5); but Zerubbabel declined to agree to this, and the work proceeded without intermission (ibid.). Meanwhile, a letter was written to Darius, not unfairly stating the case, and suggesting that the state archives should be searched for the decree ascribed to Cyrus, that it might be seen what exactly it was that the decree sanctioned, and further that the king should expressly declare what his own pleasure was in the matter (Ezr 5:17). This letter Tatnai, in his capacity of satrap, despatched to the court by special messenger, and so left the business to the decision of Darius and his counsellors, without further seeking to influence him. Remark the strong contrast between this despatch and that of the Samaritans. In the Samaritan letter private pique and enmity show themselvesJerusalem is “the rebellious and the bad city” (Ezr 4:12), “hurtful unto kings and provinces” (Ezr 4:15); its intention to revolt is assumed (Ezr 5:13); the king is warned that his dominion and revenue are in danger (Ezr 5:16); no hint is given of there having ever been any such document as the decree of Cyrus; no reference is made to Sheshbazzar or the royal commission that he had received; altogether, the case is stated as strongly as possible against the Jews, with great and manifest unfairness. Here, on the contrary, where the person who takes up the matter is the Persian governor, a dispassionate tone prevails; no charges are made; no abuse uttered; the letter is confined to a statement of facts and an inquiry; the Jews are allowed to give their own account of their proceedings, nearly half the letter being their statement of their own case (Ezr 5:11-15); the decree of Cyrus is brought into prominence, asserted on the one hand, not denied on the other; that it should be searched for is suggested; and finally there is a simple request that the king will declare his will in respect of the building.

Ezr 5:3

Tatnai, governor on this side the river. The title given to Tatnai is the same which is assigned to Zerubbabel, both in Ezr 6:7 and in Haggai (Hag 1:1, Hag 1:14, etc.), viz; pechah, which is a somewhat vague term of authority, translated sometimes “captain” (1Ki 20:24; Dan 3:2, Dan 3:3, etc.), sometimes “deputy (Est 8:9; Est 9:3), but generally, as here, “governor.” The etymology is uncertain, but seems not to be Semitic. The respective rank of Tatnai and Zerub-babel is indicated, not by this term, but by what follows it. Tatnai was pechah “beyond the river,” i.e. governor of the whole tract west of the Euphrates; Zerubbabel was pechah of Judah only. A Greek writer would have called the one “satrap of Syria,” the other “sub-satrap of Judaea.” It was the duty of Tatuai to watch the proceedings of his sub-satraps.

Ezr 5:4

Then said we unto them. It is impossible that the existing text can be sound here. Ezra must have written, “Then said they to them.” Tatnai and Shethar-boznai followed up their first question by a second, “What are the names of the men that make this building?” (comp. below, verses 9, 10).

Ezr 5:5

The eye of their God was upon the elders. “The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous” (Psa 34:15) with a jealous watchfulness, which never for a moment slackens. “He withdraweth not his eyes from them” (Job 36:7). Nothing happens to them that he does not know and allow. At this time the elders, who pre-aided over the workmen employed in the restoration, were a special subject of God’s watchful care, so that those who would fain have hindered them could not. The work of rebuilding went on uninterruptedly during the whole time that the messengers were away.

Ezr 5:6

The Apharsachites recall the “Apharsites” and the “Apharsathchites” of Ezr 4:9. Possibly all the three forms are provincial variants of the more correct Parsaya, which appears in Daniel (Dan 6:28) as the Chaldaean equivalent of “Persian.“ Here the Apharsachite “companions” of Tatnai and Shethar-boznai are perhaps the actual Persians who formed their body-guard and their train.

Ezr 5:8

We went into the province of Judaea. It has been supposed, on the strength of a doubtful passage in Nehemiah (Neh 3:7), that Tatnai ordinarily resided at Jernsalem. But this expression indicates the contrary. Most probably the satrap of Syria held his court at Damascus. The house of the great God is a remarkable expression in the mouth of a heathen. It has some parallels, e.g. the expressions of Cyrus in Ezr 1:2, Ezr 1:3, and of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 2:47 and Dan 3:29; but they were persons who had been brought to the knowledge that Jehovah was the one true God, under very peculiar and miraculous circumstances. Tatnai, on the other hand, represents the mere ordinary Persian official; and his acknowledgment of the God of the Jews as “the great God” must be held to indicate the general belief of the Persians on the subject (see the comment on Ezr 1:2). Which is builded. Rather, “being builded.” With great stones. Literally, “stones of rolling,” which is commonly explained as stones so large that they had to be rolled along the ground. But the squared stones used in building neither were, nor could be, rolled; they are always represented as dragged, generally on a rough sledge. And it is not at all probable that in the “day of small things” (Zec 4:10) the Jews were building with very large stones. The LXX. translate “choice stones;” the Vulgate “unpolished” or “rough stone.” Some of the Jewish expositors suggest “marble.” And timber is laid. A good deal of timber had been employed in the old temple, but chiefly for the floors of chambers (1Ki 6:10), for the internal lining of the walls (1Ki 6:9, 1Ki 6:15), and probably for the roofing. In the new temple, timber seems to have been employed also as the main material of the party-walls. Here again we have a trace of the economy necessary in the “day of small things.”

Ezr 5:11

We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth. Instead of doing as they were requested, and giving in a long list of names and titles of office, the elders merge their individuality in this general phrase; as though they would say, “As individuals, we are nothing; as men of mark in our nation, we are nothing; what we do, we do simply as servants of God, directed by him (Hag 1:8), bound to obey him, answerable only to him for our conduct.” They speak of God as “the God of heaven and earth”a very rare titlepartly in humble acknowledgment of his universal and absolute dominion, as Christians speak when they call God “the Maker of heaven and earth;” partly to impress favourably those to whom they speak, persons accustomed to regard God primarily as the Being who “gave mankind earth and heaven”. And build. That is “rebuild.” The house that was builded these many years ago. The old house, begun more than 400, finished nearly 400 years previously, and only just beginning to rise again from its ruins, after lying waste for nearly seventy years. Which a great king of Israel builded and set up. Solomon, the greatest of the Jewish monarchs, if we consider the extent and prosperity of his kingdom, and the position that it occupied among the other kingdoms of the eartha “great king” under whatever aspect we view him, though one who sowed the seeds of that corruption which ultimately sapped the national life, and provoked God to bring the monarchy to an end.

Ezr 5:12

Our fathers provoked the God of heaven unto wrath. Mainly by their long series of idolatries, with the moral abominations that those idolatries involvedthe sacrifice of children by their own parents, the licentious rites belonging to the worship of Baal, and the unmentionable horrors practised by the devotees of the Dea Syra. For centuries, with only short and rare intervals, “the chief of the priests, and the people, had transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen,” and had even “polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem” (2Ch 36:14). Therefore, he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon. He punished, as he always does, national apostasy with national destruction. Making an idolatrous people, but a less guilty one, his sword, he cut off Judah, as he had previously cut off Israel, causing the national life to cease, and even removing the bulk of the people into a distant country. Not by his own power or might did Nebuchadnezzar prevail. God could have delivered the Jews from him as easily as he had delivered them in former days from Jabin (Jdg 4:2-24), and from Zerah (2Ch 14:11-15), and from Sennacherib (2Ki 19:20-36). But he was otherwise minded; he “gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar”. He divided their counsels, paralysed their resistance, caused Pharaoh Hophra to desert their cause (2Ki 24:7), and left them helpless and unprotected. Nebuchadnczzar was his instrument to chastise his guilty people, and in pursuing his own ends merely worked out the purposes of the Almighty.

Ezr 5:13

In the first year of Cyrus the king of Babylon. Recent discoveries of contract tablets have shown that at Babylon Cyrus bore the title of “king of Babylon” from the date of his conquest of the city. The same title was passed on to his successors, Cambyses, Darius, etc. Hence we find Artaxerxes Longimanus called “king of Babylon” by Nehemiah (Neh 13:6).

Ezr 5:14

The vessels also of gold and silver. See Ezr 1:7-11. On the great importance attached to these vessels, see the comment on Ezr 1:7. So long as they remained at Babylon they were a tangible evidence of the conquest, a glory to the Babylonians, and a disgrace to the Jews. Their retention was a perpetual desecration. Their restoration by Cyrus was an act at once of piety and of kindliness. On the temple of Babylon, out of which Cyrus took them, see the comment on Ezr 1:7.

Ezr 5:15

Let the house of God be builded in his place. i.e. upon the old holy sitethe place where Abraham offered his son Isaac, in a figure (Heb 11:17-19), where the angel stood and stayed the pestilence in David s time (2Sa 24:16-18), and where “the glory of the Lord descended and filled the house” under Solomon (2Ch 7:1).

Ezr 5:16

Since that time even until now hath it been in building. It is not quite clear whether these words are part of the answer given by the Jews to Tatnai, which he reports to Darius (see Ezr 5:11), or Tatnai’s own statement of what he believes to have been the fact. Perhaps the latter view is the more probable; and we may suppose Tatnai not to have been aware that from the second year of Cyrus to the commencement of the reign of Smerdis, and again during the latter part of this reign and the first eighteen months of the reign of Darius, the work had been suspended.

Ezr 5:17

Let there be search made in the king’s treasure house. The Vulgate has “in the king’s library;” and this, though not the literal rendering, is probably what was intended by Tatuai. Libraries or record chambers were attached to the royal residences under the old Assyrian and Babylonian kings; and the practice was no doubt continued by the Persians. Some of these record offices have been recently found, and their stores recovered. In the year 1850 Mr. Layard came upon the royal library of Asshur-bani-pal at Koyunjik, and obtained from it several hundreds of documents. More recently, in 1875-6, some Arab explorers happened upon a similar collection near Babylon, which yielded from 3000 to 4000 tablets. It is quite possible that the “decree of Cyrus” may still exist, and be one day recovered.

HOMILETICS

Ezr 5:3-17

Opposition revived.

We have in these verses a twofold account of two different things. In Ezr 5:3, Ezr 5:4, in the first place, we have the historian’s account of the revived opposition called out by the revival of the work of temple-building on the part of the Jews. In Ezr 5:6-10 we have an almost identical but slightly fuller account of the same matter in the letter sent by the opponents themselves to Darius. In Ezr 5:5, in the next place, we have the historian’s account of the amount of success to which that revived opposition attained, viz; to obtaining the consent of the builders, whilst still justifying and continuing their operations, to refer the whole subject to King Darius. In Ezr 5:11-17 that same letter of the same opponents to Darius gives us a fuller account of this point also. Altogether, we cannot help seeing how very marked is the difference, so far as the question of result is concerned, between this attempt and that made before. In that other case, while the appeal was pending, the work on the spot almost expired of itself (Ezr 4:4). In this case, although the appeal is consented to, the work on the spot, meanwhile, thrives to perfection (Ezr 5:5, Ezr 5:8). What are the reasons of this striking difference? So far as second causes go, they will be found, we believe, in two things, viz; I. In comparatively greater moderation on the part of the attack; and, II. In comparatively greater vigour on the part of the defence. Let us proceed to see how the whole story illustrates these two points.

I. A WEAKER ATTACK. For example, it was

(1) apparently not so general. Names we read of before Ezr 4:7, Ezr 4:9), such as Bishlam, etc; the Dinaites, etc; are now mentioned no more. Tatnai and Shethar-boznai are acting, if not in ignorance, yet in independence, of native ideas. So much so, that the only “companions” mentioned in this case, the Apharsachites, are supposed by some to be themselves “Persians” of some sort. At any rate, all the other previous “companions” are only conspicuous now by their absence. The present movement is less formidable than the previous one both in numbers and names. Also the attack is

(2) less vital. There is no such plausible yet utterly fatal proposal for co-operation in this instance as that we read of before; only certain not unnatural and, all things considered, not disrespectful inquiries are addressed to those engaged in so evidently important a work. “Where is your authority for operations such as these? Who are the persons who hold themselves really responsible for them.” These deputy rulers would have failed in their duty if they had asked any less; even if we infer, as we must, from Ezr 4:5, that their object in so doing, at any rate in the first instance, was to “cause” the Jewish elders to “cease” for the time. Such opposition, even so, is very different from that settled intention to “frustrate” the Jewish “purpose” entirely of which we find traces before (iv. 5). Once more, the attack is

(3) less unreasonable and malignant. The answer of the elders to the official inquiries put to them is heard with candour, and reported with truth. Nor are any charges made, as before, of treachery or sedition. Nor is anything more proposed to the king than a due hearing and examination of the appeal which the Jews have made to a previous edict of Cyrus in justification of their conduct (Ezr 4:17). Meanwhile, moreover, though apparently with some reluctance, the chief authorities of the province in which Judaea was situated have consented to treat that justification as being, till proved otherwise, sufficient and valid, by allowing that work to go on without endeavouring to stop it by menace or force. In all this, if there is something of opposition, as there undoubtedly is, it is not like that of the previous occasionnot a wide conspiracy, not a deadly aim, not a malignant effort, like that before.

II. A STRONGER DEFENCE. The answer of the Jewish elders was a good one

1. On the score of principle. “We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (Ezr 4:11). In other words, “Do you ask our names? We are named after the great God (see Ezr 4:8), the God of heaven and earth. Do you ask why we are thus labouring? Because in doing so we serve him” (comp. Act 27:23). It was well for them to put this first, like soldiers displaying the flag they fight under on entering into the battle. “Before all things we wish you to understand that this is a question with us of religion.”

2. On the score of precedent. This was no novel idea that they were engaged in promoting. They were not beginning, but restoring, the temple. Many successive centuries (though these officials were perhaps not aware of it) a glorious temple to the great God had stood on that place. Not only so, the man who had originally “built” and “set it up” had been one of the greatest of their kings. This was also a wise line to adopt. If they were permitted to be Jews at all (as they certainly were), they might not only be allowed to worship their own God (as already touched on), but also to worship him according to so long-established and truly national a manner.

3. On the score of necessity. Their national welfare and even existence depended on the work they were engaged on. Long experience and heavy affliction had brought home this truth to their hearts. Why had their fathers gone into captivity? Why had the original house been destroyed? Because their “fathers” had “provoked the God of heaven” for years in connection with the worship of that house (Ezr 4:12; also 2Ch 36:14-20; Jer 7:1-15, Jer 7:30). On the restoration, therefore, of the true worship of Jehovah, and, as a first step towards that, on the restoration of this his house, depended, nationally, their very life. The very permission, in fact, to rebuild it at all was a kind of token of restored animation which it would be double death to neglect.

4. On the score of authority. In all this they were acting, furthermore, as good subjects of Persia. One of the first decrees of that king of Persia who conquered “Babylon” and became its “king” (see Ezr 4:13) was a decree to rebuild this house. Also, one of his first appointments the appointment by name (Ezr 4:14) of a Jewish “governor” to see to this work. Also, one of his first actions the very significant action of restoring the temple vessels.

5. In the way of conclusion. All these things being so, was it to be wondered at that “the same Sheshbazzar,” thus empowered and equipped, had come to Jerusalem and begun the work? Was it not rather to be wondered at that a work of such amazing importance should have remained on hand for so long (Ezr 4:16)? Even “yet it is not finished!” What a master-stroke was that to end with. “You ask why we have done so much. As Persian officials, speaking to us as Jews, rather ask why we have done so little.” Observe, in all this

1. The secret of spiritual deliverance. God delivers his people sometimes by restraining their adversaries (Psa 76:10; Pro 16:7); sometimes by giving themselves special wisdom and courage (Luk 21:15; Act 6:10); sometimes, as here, by doing both. How comparatively tame these adversaries. How bold and wise these defenders. How complete, therefore, even so far, the deliverance granted (comp. Act 4:8-14, Act 4:21).

2. The secret of spiritual courage. Why is it we fear man so much? Because, as a rule, we fear God too little (Luk 12:4, Luk 12:5). How different the case when, as here, we feel the “eye of our God” to be “upon” us (Ezr 4:5). See also, in case previously referred to, Act 4:19, and Act 5:29; also Isa 51:12, Isa 51:13. Many feel a difficulty in speaking for Christ. If they were more often in the habit of speaking with him the difficulty would greatly diminish. Possibly it might even be found on the opposite side (see once more Act 4:20).

3. The secret of dealing with honest doubt; viz.,

(a) listen to it, do not repel it;

(b) confront it, do not avoid it;

(c) enlighten it, do not despise it.

The reason why many are “sceptics”i.e. (if they are so honestly) merely “inquirers”is because they do not know the strength of the believer’s position. If you know it, as the true strength of their position was known by the Jews before us, and can make it known in turn to such “inquirers” with like courage and wisdom, you will at least obtain their respect. It may also please God to cause your effort to do even more (see 2Ti 2:24, 2Ti 2:25).

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD

Ezr 5:3-5

The eye of God.

The “people of the land” procured authority from the Persian king to stop the rebuilding of the city and wall of Jerusalem, and used it to stop the rebuilding of the temple as well. After an interval of nine years, through the incitement of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the great work was resumed, and with the resumption the old hostility was revived. So the text, etc. The eye of their God was upon them

I. To GIVE THEM ASSURANCE AND COMFORT.

1. This figure expresses his watchful care.

(1) His eyes are everywhere (see Job 28:24; Pro 15:3). He observes us in the work of the sanctuary. When working in the city. When working on the wall.

(2) His vision searches the heart (see 1Sa 16:7). He fully comprehends the hypocrite. So the sincerity of the innocent. How assuring! How nerving to moral courage!

2. It also expresses loving favour.

(1) As pity is expressed by the human eye, so, etc. Thus used to express the compassion of God for his suffering people in Egypt (Exo 3:7-10). Also, for the tears of Hezekiah (2Ki 20:5). So he pitied his people in Babylon, and his eye of pity is over them here.

(2) As the eye also expresses satisfaction, so the complaisancy of God, etc. Thus favour towards the holy land (Deu 11:12). Towards the holy temple (1Ki 8:29). Towards the holy people (Psa 34:15; Jer 24:4). What comfort to the faithful!

II. TO GIVE THEM WISDOM AND DISCRETION.

1. They need this in the presence of their inquisitors.

(1) They are people of influence. There is “Tatnai, the governor on this side the river.” If the “river” here be the Euphrates, then he would be over the provinces of Syria, Arabia Deserta, Phoenicia, and Samaria. If the Jordan, then still a great personage. There was Shethar-boznai, probably the secretary appointed by the Persian crown, as was customary, to act as a check upon the governor. There were “their companions,” probably magistrates.

(2) They put questions which imported mischief. By whose authority do you build (verse 3)? Expressed again, verse 9. Who are your leaders in this questionable business? Implied, verse 4 (see verse 10).

2. Their answers were guided by a watchful wisdom.

(1) That they acted as the “servants of the God of heaven and earth” (see verse 11). No authority could be higher. QueryDo we always and adequately recognise that authority?

(2) That they claimed a prescriptive right in the temple which was originally built by one of their great kings (see verse 11).

(3) That their captivity did not forfeit them that right. For God banished them into captivity for their sin: Nebuchadnezzar was but his servant; and God now favours their restoration (see verses 11, 12). We should never be ashamed to avow our connection with God and his work.

III. To DEFEND THEM FROM THEIR ENEMIES.

1. By moderating the opposition.

(1) Their former unscrupulous foes are not mentioned (see Zec 4:7-9). Changes in the supreme government often involve changes of provincial rulers. Possibly the judgment of God may have overtaken them.

(2) The temper of these men is better. They state facts honestly.

2. By sustaining them at their work.

(1) Tatnai proposed that, until the question of their right should be determined by Darius, the work should cease. But they saw the eye of their God, and declined (verse 5).

(2) The prophets kept this vision vividly before them. They came forth from the presence of God, having witnessed his visions and heard his words, which, under the strongest sense of the reality, they so communicated that the people saw as it were the very eye of God upon them, and went on with his work. QueryShould not ministers, as coming from the very presence of God, so deliver the gospel message that? etc.

3. By bringing good out of the evil.

(1) The attention of Darius was thus called to the decree of Cyrus (see verse 17).

(2) The king issued instructions accordingly (Ezr 6:6-12).

(3) These instructions were carded out, and the good work was carried on to its completion (Ezr 6:13-15).J.A.M.

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON

Ezr 5:3-17

Wisdom in trial.

Hardly had the Jews recommenced their work, when they again found themselves subjected to a

I. TRIAL OF FAITH. “At the same time,” etc. (Ezr 5:3). Again their unfriendly neighbours came to the attack. They challenged their right to build up the walls: “Who hath commanded you to build?” “By whose authority do ye these things?” The names of the leading men were demanded (Ezr 5:4), with a view of sending them on to the Persian court. Pressure was evidently to be brought to bear on them to compel them to desist. Accusations would certainly be made against them; ill feeling would inevitably be fostered; prohibition would probably be issued; and, not unlikely, there would be forfeiture of privileges if not loss of goods, perchance of liberty. What, now, should they do? Should they again lay down the saw and the trowel, leave the woodwork and the walls till a more favoured time, and content themselves with using the altar they had reared, as hitherto? They were enjoying freedom in their own land, with liberty to worship the Lord according to their ancient law; perhaps they would lose everything by striving after more than they had. Should they yield to these alarms presenting themselves in the form of prudence? or should they dismiss them as cowardly fears, and go on with their work, confiding in the help of Jehovah? Such distractions must have agitated and perplexed their minds. Such trials of faith we may expect when we have entered the path of piety or the field of Christian work. Inexperience might imagine that in a path so sacred and Divine the adversary would not be allowed to enter. But experience knows that it is not so; that “there are many adversaries” we must expect to encounter. Not only from “them that are without,” but also from those that are within the Church do obstacles, hindrances, discouragements arise. We may look for sympathy, help, success, victory; and, behold l there meets us conflict, disappointment, defeat. Shall we, we ask ourselves, retire as unfitted for what we have undertaken? or shall we hold on our way, still grasp our weapon, trusting that the insufficiency which is of man will he more than made up by the sufficiency which is of God? But in this trial of faith we have, as they had

II. A TWOFOLD INCENTIVE. “The eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, that they could not cause them to cease” (Ezr 5:5). Here was

(1) a spiritual force working within them. They felt that their work was marked of God. The active participation of his prophets in the work (Ezr 5:2) would help them to this. They realised that they were being Divinely guided, and were engaged in the most sacred cause: “We are servants of the God of heaven” (Ezr 5:11). They were wisely conscious that past misdoings had led to penalty and suffering (Ezr 5:12). They lived and wrought “as ever in the great Taskmaster’s eye;” and because they felt that he who “looketh from heaven and beholdeth all the sons of men” (Psa 33:13) was continually regarding them, accepting their service, recording their negligence and distrust, prepared to reward or to rebuke, they were incited to continue, let their enemies say or do what they please. The thought of God’s all-seeing eye, of his all-searching glance, is one of the strongest spiritual forces which can work within us. Man sees and blames. Man sees and threatens. Yes; but God is an on-looker also, and an in-looker too. What does he see? What does he think? What judgment is he forming? What does he purpose? If he is for us, who can be against us? But here was also

(2) a Divine power working upon them. There is suggested here a prompting, controlling influence exerted upon them from on high. God saw them, and, beholding their difficulty and their need of his Divine help, interposed to sustain their courage, to strengthen their hand, to uphold them in their work. This is a power to be earnestly sought, and found, in believing prayer, when we are passing through the time of trial.

III. A TIME OF SUSPENSE (Ezr 5:13-17). Their adversaries now laid their case before the Persian authorities. They gave a fair representation of the answer of the Jews to the royal court, and begged that steps should be taken to confirm or disprove this their reply. “Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let there be search made in the king’s treasure house whether it be so” (Ezr 5:17). We may presume that the Jews knew the tenor of this communication. We can picture to ourselves their anxiety to know the result of the appeal. What if the record should not be found in the Persian archives I What if some ignorant librarian failed to know where it was kept l What if some venal officer should be bribed to get at it and destroy it I etc; etc. Should they win or lose their case? It might, after all, go ill with them and their work. It was a time of suspense. A very hard time to go through. Souls that can endure all else know not how to he tranquil then. Then is the time to trust in God, to cast ourselves on him. When we can do nothing else, we can look up to heaven and wait the issue calmly, because all issues are in the hands of the holy and the mighty One. “What time I am afraid I will trust in thee” (Psa 56:3).C.

HOMILIES BY J.S. EXELL

Ezr 5:5

The providence of God over the Church.

I. THAT THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD EXERCISES A STRICT WATCH OVER THE ENEMIES OF THE CHURCH (Ezr 5:5). As soon as the Israelites commenced to build the temple their enemies began to trouble them; but while the eye of “Tatnai,” “Shethar-boznai, and their companions” was upon them, “the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews.”

1. The Divine providence is cognisant of the first motion of the enemies of the Church; this should cause them to pause in their unholy task.

2. The Divine providence watches the men who would oppose themselves to the enterprise of the Church; they cannot escape the Omniscient eye.

3. The Divine providence watches the Church earnestly in the midst of its enemies. The look sends light, means love, indicates help, should inspire trust. Let the eye of the Church be toward God. The Church must remember that the eye of God is upon it, and not yield to the enemy. History proves that God’s eye is upon the Church; the Bible asserts it; reason suggests that the heavenly Father will watch over his troubled children and workers.

II. THAT THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD IS CALCULATED TO DEFEAT THE ENEMIES OF THE CHURCH. “That they could not cause them to cease” (Ezr 5:5). The providence of God sustained the Israelites in their work of building, notwithstanding the hostility of their enemies.

1. Providence awakens a persistent spirit in the Church. “They could not cause them to cease.”

2. Providence inspires the Church with right views of its citizenship. “Till the matter came to Darius.” The people of God have citizen rights, and are not to cease their work at the bidding of unauthorised men.

3. Providence uses the incidental processes of life for the welfare of the Church. The letter in those days was a slow process; before it could be answered the building would be well advanced. This delay was useful to Israel. God causes all the little processes of life to work for the good of his people. Thus God’s aid renders the Church victorious over enemies.

III. THAT THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD DOES NOT ALWAYS ALLOW THE CHURCH TO EXPERIENCE THE FULL SEVERITY OF TRIAL. The opposition of Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions (Ezr 4:7) was much more inveterate than that of Tatnai; the hostility now is feeble. Heaven does not always allow the furnace into which the Church is cast to be seven times hotter than is wont; in wondrous and kindly manner it restrains the wrath of man, that spiritual work may be completed. The worst passions of men are controlled by God; the old enmity of the serpent is limited and often subdued.

IV. THAT THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD OFTEN WINS KINDLY HELPERS FOR THE CHURCH. “Let the work of this house of God alone” (Ezr 6:7). God can raise up a Cyrus to commence the work, and a Darius to conserve and complete it; kings are within the plan of Providence. Let the Church take hope, for the eye of God is upon it.E.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD

Ezr 5:6-17

The letter to Darius.

The occasion of this letter was the resumption of the work of rebuilding the temple of the Lord at Jerusalem after an interval of sixteen years. The authors of it are Tatnai, the governor, probably of all the provinces west of the Euphrates, and Shethar-boznai, who may have been the scribe or secretary associated with him, as Shimshai was with Rehum (see Ezr 4:8). Or possibly Shethar-boznai was the leading man of the Apharsachites; for these are mentioned as more particularly “his companions.” The Apharsachites probably called the attention of Tatnai to the matter, who attended to it in a spirit of fairness which favourably contrasts with the conduct of the former leaders of these instigators (see Ezr 4:1-24.). Having authenticated the letter, the writers proceed to state

I. WHAT THEY DID.

1. They surveyed the building.

(1) They describe it as “the house of the great God. The renown of his wonderful works in Egypt, in the wilderness, in Canaan had filled the world. They were judgments upon the little gods of the nations (see Exo 8:10; Exo 9:14; Exo 12:12; Exo 18:12; Num 33:4).

(2) They noted the importance of the building. “Great stones” (Mar 13:1; Luk 21:5, Luk 21:6). “Timber laid in the walls.” Beams of cedars from Lebanon. All work for God should be nobly done.

(3) They also noted the rapid progress of the work.

2. They interrogated the elders.

(1) Who commanded you to build this house? This question is radical. Not, Who hath authorised you to resume the building? but, Who authorised the commencement of the work?

(2) By whose authority do you “make up this wall”? Probably referring to their repairing of breaches in it made by the “people of the land” (see Ezr 3:1-13 :23).

(3) “What are the names” of the chiefs? Those who work for God with his approval need not fear the scrutiny of inquisitors.

II. WHAT THEY LEARNED.

1. That the builders professed themselves servants of the God of heaven and earth.

(1) What a glorious Being!

(2) What a noble service! QueryAre we his servants? This honour not limited now to Israelites It is common to all true builders of the spiritual temple.

2. That they were engaged in no novel business.

(1) “We build the house that was builded these many years ago.” About five centuries had elapsed. But even Solomon’s temple replaced the tabernacle which had been set up about five centuries still earlier. True religion may have external changes, but remains essentially the same.

3. That its ruin was occasioned by the rebellion of their fathers.

(1) God gave it up to desolation. The outward splendours of religion are nothing to him when the spirit of it is dead (see Mat 23:37; Mat 24:1, Mat 24:2). The temple of Solomon in ruins was a fit emblem of humanity degraded by sin.

(2) Guilt is hereditary. “Our fathers had provoked,” etc. They suffered; we suffer.

4. That the building is in process of restoration.

(1) “In the first year of Cyrus.” Memorable for the termination of the seventy years of Jeremiah (2Ch 36:21; Jer 25:11, Jer 25:12; Jer 29:10; Dan 9:2). In this memorable year “the king made a decree,” etc.

(2) Vessels of the house also restored. These had been desecrated “in the temple of Babylon.” This was the temple of Belus or Bel. This desecration of the vessels a figure of the condition of backsliders from God (see Act 9:15; Rom 9:22; 2Ti 2:21).

5. The prominent place occupied by Sheshbazzar.

(1) Cyrus trusted him with the custody of the sacred treasure. Made him governor. He was of the seed royal of Judah.

(2) His people honoured him. He laid the foundation-stone. Conducts the work.

(3) Type of Christ.

III. THE RECOMMENDATION.

1. To test the question as to whether Cyrus authorised the work as alleged. Nothing to object to the fairness of this. It could only prejudice the Jews if found untrue.

2. To signify the king‘s pleasure to his servants that they might carry it out. It were well if all who oppose God’s people were as reasonable as Tatnai. Opponents so honest and free from prejudice may have the honour, like Tatnai, of promoting the work of God (see Ezr 6:13).J.A.M.

HOMILIES BY J.S. EXELL

Ezr 5:11-17

Things a Church should understand concerning itself.

I. THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN THE SERVICE OF HEAVEN. “We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (Ezr 5:11).

1. An exalted service. It is the service of God.

2. An extensive service. It reaches in its influence throughout heaven and earth.

3. An arduous service. It is to rebuild a ruined temple in the midst of enemies.

4. A humble service. At best the Church is but a servant.

II. THAT IT HAS SUFFERED MUCH THROUGH THE COMMISSION OF SIN. “But after that our fathers had provoked the God of heaven unto wrath, he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon” (Ezr 5:12). This is the best confession a Church can have; the Church is alone responsible for its weakness.

1. Its degradation. Israel is subject to a heathen power.

2. Its suffering. Israel is in captivity.

3. Its destruction. “Who destroyed this house.” All this was attributable

(1) Not to the Divine inability to help.

(2) Not to the Divine lack of interest.

(3) But to the Divine displeasure on account of sin.

Let the Church understand and acknowledge that her sad condition before the world is due to her lack of fidelity; she must take the discredit of her broken temples.

III. THAT IT IS CONNECTED WITH THE HISTORY OF A WONDROUS REDEMPTION. “But in the first year of Cyrus” (Ezr 5:13).

1. The fact of redemption. The Israelites were delivered from Babylonian captivity. The Church has been set free by Christ.

2. The history of redemption. The history of Israel’s deliverance was written in the records of Babylon. The history of redemption by Christ is written in the Bible; it is an earthly record as well as a heavenly history. It is in the annals of Babylon as well as in the annals of God.

3. The research of redemption. “Let there be search made” (Ezr 5:17; 1Pe 1:12).

4. The pleasure of redemption. “And let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter.” God’s pleasure is man’s freedom.

IV. THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN A YET UNFINISHED ENTERPRISE. “And since that time even until now hath it been in building, and yet it is not finished” (Ezr 5:16). It is indeed true that the Church is as yet engaged in an unfinished enterprise; all its temples are not built; its walls are not erected; Jesus does not yet see all things put under him.

1. The reason. Why is the work of the Church unfinishedis it from lack of energy or fidelity?

2. The duration. How long is it to remain unfinished? only God can tell. How long, O Lord?

3. The reproach. With so many workmen, and with the aid received, the work of the Church ought to be more advanced. The half finished walls are a rebuke to us.

4. The requirement. We must go with new determination and more fervent prayer to complete the work of the Church.

5. Caution. We cannot judge the temple till it is finished; the work of God will appear best at the end.

6. The anticipation. When the top stone of the great temple shall be brought on with joy. Let us build to completion.E.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

I think it an object of considerable moment to remark on this part of the history, that the enemies of Israel made no interruption to their building houses for themselves, though this was contrary to the king’s commandment; but no sooner were their hands engaged to the work of the Lord’s house, than the adversaries came forth to oppose them. Ezr 4:21 . And is it not exactly the same now, and in all ages particularly concerning the chief features of the gospel. Satan never rages at the preaching of a flimsy morality, for he well knows that this never did nor ever will, make a man moral, or form the foundation even for morality in the heart. It is by the Spirit only that sinners can mortify the deeds of the body and live. Rom 8:13 . But the moment the cross of Christ is held up, and atonement by the blood of Jesus is declared to be the only salvation for a poor sinner, all hell is up in arms to interrupt the spiritual building.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Ezr 5:3 At the same time came to them Tatnai, governor on this side the river, and Shetharboznai, and their companions, and said thus unto them, Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall?

Ver. 3. At the same time ] So soon as ever they began but to build God’s house they meet with opposition; which is still Evangelii Genius, guardian spirit of the truth, saith Calvin, the bad angel that haunts the cause of God, and dogs it at the heels. Satan, out of his inveterate envy and enmity, can in no wise brook the propagation of the truth and dilatation of Christ’s curtains. No sooner is Israel out of Egypt, but Pharaoh pursueth them. No sooner had Hezekiah kept that solemn passover, but Sennacherib comes up against him. Esau began to jostle Jacob in the womb, that no time might be lost; and when he set his face homewards, Laban follows him with one troop, Esau meets him with another; both with hostile intentions. Dream not of a delicacy in God’s ways, but suffer hardship, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

And their companions ] Cum collegio suo (Junius), a company of captives combined to do mischief. See Ezr 4:9 . See Trapp on “ Ezr 4:9 “

Who hath commanded you to build this house? ] Their own houses they built, and were never once questioned. All the while our Saviour lay in his father’s shop, and meddled only with carpenter’s chips, the devil and his imps never troubled him; but when he was entering upon his ministry he is sharply assaulted in the wilderness. And when he took upon him to purge the temple, and better inform the people, presently the leaders came upon him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?” Mat 21:23 . Like unto these were the questions put by the Papists to those noble reformers, Luther, Zuinglius, &c. Farellus was at his first coming to Geneva more harshly handled, and by the bishop and his clerks thus accosted: Quid tu, diabole nequissime, ad hanc civitatem perturbandam accessisti? What a devil makest thou here to make this disturbance &c., and so was driven out of the city, where afterwards he wrought a glorious reformation (Scultet. Annal.).

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Ezr 5:3-5

3At that time Tattenai, the governor of the province beyond the River, and Shethar-bozenai and their colleagues came to them and spoke to them thus, Who issued you a decree to rebuild this temple and to finish this structure? 4Then we told them accordingly what the names of the men were who were reconstructing this building. 5But the eye of their God was on the elders of the Jews, and they did not stop them until a report could come to Darius, and then a written reply be returned concerning it.

Ezr 5:3 Tattenai, the governor This seems to be a technical name (BDB 1108, KB 1955) for the governor of the Persian province west of the Euphrates River (cf. TEV). It is uncertain if he was the satrap of this province (cf. Ezr 8:36) or a lesser official appointed by the king (cf. 2Ki 18:24; Dan 3:2; Neh 2:7; Neh 2:9).

The reason for the ambiguity of the term for governmental officials is that during Darius I’s reign he reorganized the Persian Empire from 522 regions into 20 (Herodotus 3.89). This reorganization and simplification was based on race and geography.

Both Zerubbabel (cf. Hag 1:1; Hag 1:14; Hag 2:2; Hag 2:21) and Nehemiah (cf. Neh 12:26) are also called by this term (i.e., governor of Judah).

‘Who issued you a decree to rebuild this temple’ Either our text leaves out some of the dialogue (cf. TEV) or the Jews purposefully did not answer this question but instead gave the name of the builders (the LXX and Peshitta have they said, rather than the MT’s we said’). This is surprising since the book of Ezra records the decree of Cyrus to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem twice, once in Hebrew (Ezr 1:1-4) and once in Aramaic (Ezr 6:1-5).

Ezr 5:10 shows the purpose of the Persian leader’s second question. It was for the purpose of intimidation and fear directed towards the Jewish leadership (i.e., head, BDB 1112).

NASBto rebuild this temple and to finish this structure

NKJVto build this temple and finish this wall

NRSVto build this house and to finish this structure

TEVto build this Temple and equip it

NJBto rebuild this temple and complete this structure

It is obvious from the above translations that the Aramaic term structure (BDB 1083, KB 1827) is ambiguous, but the general sense is clear.

Ezr 5:5 the eye of their God was on the elders of the Jews This is an anthropomorphic idiom for God’s attentive presence and care (cf. Psa 32:8; Psa 33:18; Psa 34:15; Job 36:7; 1Pe 3:12). A similar idiom is used in Ezr 7:6; Ezr 7:28 (i.e., the hand of the LORD).

God does not have a human body, but mankind’s only vocabulary is related to the physical aspects of creation.

SPECIAL TOPIC: The Problems and Limitations of Human Language

elders The Septuagint has captivity, which reflects a different way to interpret the Hebrew consonantal text. Elders were central in the leadership structure of Moses’ day (e.g., Exo 18:13-27) as well as the pre-monarchial period. During the Monarchy their leadership was on a tribal and local level, not national. The post-exilic period restored their place of central leadership.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

governor. Chaldee. pechah (modern “Pasha”). Tatnai was governor in Syria, Zerubbabel was governor in Judah. Compare verses: Ezr 5:6, Ezr 5:14, Ezr 5:6, Ezr 7:13; Ezr 8:36. Dan 3:2, Dan 3:3, Dan 3:27; Dan 6:7; and Hag 1:1, Hag 1:14; Hag 2:2, Hag 2:21.

companions = colleagues or associates.

commanded you = made a decree to you; given a firman.

make up = build. So the wall had already been built by Nehemiah. See the Chronological Structure, p. 617, and notes on p. 618; and App-58.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Ezr 5:3-5

Ezr 5:3-5

THE GOVERNOR TATTENAI INVESTIGATES

“At the same time came to them Tattenai, the governor beyond the River, and Shethar-bozenai, and their companions, and said unto them, Who gave you a decree to build this house, and to finish this wall? Then we told them after this manner, what the names of the men were that were making this building. But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, and they did not make them cease, till the matter should come to Darius, and then answer should be returned by letter concerning it.”

“At the same time … came Tattenai” (Ezr 5:3). “The Persian Empire at that time was divided into twenty satrapies, presided over by governors under the authority of Darius. The territory ruled by Tattenai included Syria, Palestine, Phoenicia and Cyprus.” This satrapy was called Syria, and Tattenai’s capital was Damascus. We do not have to wonder how he happened to appear at that particular time when the Jews had taken up work on the temple. That evil racial mix of ten strains of people under the title of Samaritans had run like the tattletales they were to inform the governor against Israel. They found a governor who was fair-minded and who refused to become their instrument of hatred against Israel. He allowed the work to proceed until he could consult Darius the king.

“The governor beyond the River” (Ezr 5:3). “Beyond the River” in Ezra is always a reference to the territory west of the Euphrates. The perspective is from that of Darius’ capital in Babylon, or Shushan.

“Shethar-bozenai” (Ezr 5:3). This man was apprently the secretary of Tattenai, just as, at a later time, Shimshai was the secretary of Rehum.

“The eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews” (Ezr 5:4). The providence of God most certainly entered into this new development; however, God’s instrument of blessing Israel here was in His appointment of Tattenai, a governor who would not be controlled or manipulated by the evil Samaritans.

E.M. Zerr:

Ezr 5:3. This side the river means west of the Euphrates. The Persian Empire had spread out over the civilized world which included the territory from the great river to the land of Palestine. Such a vast country could not be personally supervised by the king or any other one man, but had to be “sublet” to other rulers. All of them would be subject to the chief. Tatnai was one of those rulers, and Shetharboznai was an officer under him. These men had some companions as helpers, and they were all concerned with the interests of their king in the territory placed under them. Their attention was called to the work going on in Jerusalem, and felt called upon to investigate. The circumstances show that it was a better motive that prompted these men in their activities than that of the ones in chapter 4. Those persons were envious, and did not make a sincere effort to get the right thing done. These last were true servants of their king, and were honest in their performances. They approached the group engaged in the work of the temple and asked for their authority in the building project.

Ezr 5:4. The wording of this verse in the A. V. might be a little confusing. It sounds as if we were asking for the names of the workmen, but certainly that would not be true. Whoever the “we” represents personally, it means the ones connected with the work, and they had no reason for asking such a question. Instead, they were asked the names of the workmen, and the verse means to say what they told Tatnai in their answer. The American Standard translation words it, “then we told them,” etc. The thought is, Tatnai not only wanted to know the authority for the work going on, but also the personnel of the men in charge of the work.

Ezr 5:5. Tatnai and his fellows did not presume to interfere further with the work until they had communicated with their king. The eve of God was upon, the elders. This accounts for the conduct of the Persian officers as stated in the beginning of this paragraph. So the work was to continue, pending word from the king.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Tatnai: Tatnai was governor of the provinces which belonged to the Persian empire west of the Euphrates, comprehending Syria, Arabia Deserta, Phoenicia, and Samaria. He seems to have been a mild and judicious man, and to have acted with great prudence and caution, and without any passion or prejudice. Ezr 5:6, Ezr 6:6, Ezr 6:13, Ezr 7:21, Neh 2:7-9

Who hath commanded you: Ezr 5:9, Ezr 1:3, Mat 21:23, Act 4:7

Reciprocal: Zec 1:19 – scattered

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Ezr 5:3-4. Tatnai and Shethar-boznai These were probably new governors, or prefects, whom Darius had sent; for it was usual with new kings to change the governors of provinces. Who hath commanded you to build this house? No sooner did the Spirit of God stir up the friends of the temple to appear for it, but the evil spirit stirred up its enemies to appear against it. While the people builded and ceiled their own houses, their enemies gave them no molestation, (Hag 1:4,) though the kings order was to put a stop to the building of the city, Ezr 4:21. But when they fell to work again at the temple, then the alarm was taken, and all heads were at work to hinder it. Then said we unto them We Jews; What are the names, &c. Certainly there ought to be no interrogation in this verse, but the words should be rendered, Then we told them accordingly (that is, according to what they asked) what were the names of the men that made this building; that is, who were the chief undertakers and encouragers of the work. For it appears, from Ezr 5:10, that Tatnai and his companions inquired who were the chief promoters of the work, to which a true answer was immediately given.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Tattenai’s question 5:3-5

The text does not say if the Jews’ antagonistic neighbors had provoked Tattenai, the governor of the Persian province in which Jerusalem stood, to ask to see the Jews’ temple building permit. It simply says he asked to see it. The Jews kept the construction work going while Tattenai determined whether they had authority to build.

Tattenai had reason to question the Jews’ actions without prodding from the Samaritans. The Persian Empire had undergone political upheaval since Cyrus’ death in 530 B.C. Cyrus’ son and successor, Cambyses, had to put down several rebellions against his authority. This involved his executing his brother, Smerdis. An Egyptian nobleman, Gaumata, then claimed to be the true Smerdis and revolted against Cambyses. Popular opinion swung behind Gaumata, and Cambyses committed suicide in 522 B.C. However, the Persian army supported a distant cousin of Cambyses named Darius I (Hystaspes). Darius was able to overthrow Gaumata and to put down several other claimants to the throne, as well as rebellions in many different parts of the empire. [Note: A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, pp. 107-16.] In view of these events, it is easy to see why Tattenai would have been suspicious of any attempt to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, and why he wrote to Darius for instructions.

Another reason for Tattenai’s concern may very well have been what Zechariah was prophesying. He said that the "Branch," the long-expected descendant of David’s line, would soon appear and sit on David’s throne (Zec 3:8; cf. Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5-6). What Zechariah predicted of Messiah seemed to fit Zerubbabel to a tee (Zec 6:9-15).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

NEW DIFFICULTIES MET IN A NEW SPIRIT

Ezr 5:3-17; Ezr 6:1-5

IT is in keeping with the character of his story of the returned Jews throughout, that no sooner has the chronicler let a ray of sunshine fall on his page-in his brief notice of the inspiriting mission of the two prophets-than he is compelled to plunge his narrative again into gloom. But he shows that there was now a new spirit in the Jews, so that they were prepared to meet opposition in a more manly fashion. If their jealous neighbours had been able to paralyse their efforts for years, it was only to be expected that a revival of energy in Jerusalem should provoke an increase of antagonism abroad, and doubtless the Jews were prepared for this. Still it was not a little alarming to learn that the infection of the anti-Jewish temper had spread over a wide area. The original opposition had come from the Samaritans. But in this later time the Jews were questioned by the Satrap of the whole district east of the Euphrates-“the governor beyond the river,” {Ezr 5:3} as the chronicler styles him, describing his territory as it would be regarded officially from the standpoint of Babylon. His Aramaic name, Tattenai, shows that he was not a Persian, but a native Syrian, appointed to his own province, according to the Persian custom. This man and one Shethar-bozenai, whom we may assume to be his secretary, must have been approached by the colonists in such a way that their suspicions were roused. Their action was at first only just and reasonable. They asked the Jews to state on what authority they were rebuilding the temple with its massive walls. In the Hebrew Bible the answer of the Jews is so peculiar as to suggest a corruption of the text. It is in the first person plural-“Then said we unto them,” etc. {Ezr 5:4} In the Septuagint the third person is substituted” Then said they,” etc., and this rendering is followed in the Syriac and Arabic versions. It would require a very slight alteration in the Hebrew text. The Old Testament Revisers have retained the first person-setting the alternative reading in the margin. If we keep to the Hebrew text as it stands, we must conclude that we have here a fragment from some contemporary writer which the chronicler has transcribed literally. But then it seems confusing. Some have shaped the sentence into a direct statement, so that in reply to the inquiry for their authority the Jews give the names of the builders. How is this an answer? Possibly the name of Zerubbabel, who had been appointed governor of Jerusalem by Cyrus, could be quoted as an authority. And yet the weakness of his position was so evident that very little would be gained in this way, for it would be the right of the Satrap to inquire into the conduct of the local governor. If, however, we read the sentence in the third person, it will contain a further question from the Satrap and his secretary, inquiring for the names of the leaders in the work at Jerusalem. Such an inquiry threatened danger to the feeble Zerubbabel.

The seriousness of the situation is recognised by the grateful comment of the chronicler, who here remarks that “the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews.” {Ezr 5:5} It is the peculiarity of even the driest records of Scripture that the writers are always ready to detect the presence of God in history. This justifies us in describing the Biblical narratives as “sacred history,” in contrast to the so-called “secular history” of such authors as Herodotus and Livy. The narrow conception of the difference is to think that God was with the Jews, while He left the Greeks and Romans and the whole Gentile world to their fate without any recognition or interference on His part. Such a view is most dishonouring to God, who is thus regarded as no better than a tribal divinity, and not as the Lord of heaven and earth. It is directly contradicted by the Old Testament historians, for they repeatedly refer to the influence of God on great world monarchies. No doubt a claim to the Divine graciousness as the peculiar privilege of Israel is to be seen in the Old Testament. As far as this was perverted into a selfish desire to confine the blessings of God to the Jews, it was vigorously rebuked in the Book of Jonah. Still it is indisputable that those who truly sought Gods grace, acknowledged His authority, and obeyed His will, must have enjoyed privileges which such of the heathen as St. Paul describes in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans could not share. Thus the chronicler writes as though the leaders of the Jews in their difficulties were the special objects of the Divine notice. The eye of God was on them, distinctively. God is spoken of as their God. They were men who knew, trusted, and honoured God, and at the present moment they were loyally carrying out the direction of Gods prophets. All this is special. Nevertheless, it remains true that the chief characteristic of Biblical history is its recognition of the presence of God in the affairs of mankind generally, and this applies to all nations, although it is most marked among those nations in which God is known and obeyed.

The peculiar form of Providence which is brought before us in the present instance is the Divine observation. It is difficult to believe that, just as the earth is visible to the stars throughout the day while the stars are invisible to the earth, we are always seen by God although we never see Him. When circumstances are adverse-and these circumstances are only too visible – it is hard not to doubt that God is still watching all that happens to us, because although we cry out in our agony no answer breaks the awful silence and no hand comes out of the clouds to hold us up. It seems as though our words were lost in the void. But that is only the impression of the moment. If we read history with the large vision of the Hebrew chronicler, can we fail to perceive that this is not a God-deserted world? In the details His presence may not be discerned, but when we stand back from the canvas and survey the whole picture, it flashes upon us like a sunbeam spread over the whole landscape. Many a man can recognise the same happy truth in the course of his own life as he looks back over a wide stretch of it, although while he was passing through his perplexing experience the thicket of difficulties intercepted his vision of the heavenly light.

Now it is a most painful result of unbelief and cowardice working on the consciousness of guilt lurking in the breast of every sinful man, that the “eye of God” has become an object of terror to the imagination of to many people. Poor Hagars exclamation of joy and gratitude has been sadly misapprehended. Discovering to her amazement that she is not alone in the wilderness, the friendless, heart-broken slave-girl looks up through her tears with a smile of sudden joy on her face, and exclaims, “Thou God seest me!” {Gen 16:13} And yet her happy words have been held over terrified children as a menace! That is a false thought of God which makes any of His children shrink from His presence, except they are foul and leprous with sin, and even then their only refuge is, as St. Augustine found, to come to the very God against whom they have sinned. We need not fear lest some day God may make a miserable discovery about us. He knows the worst, already. Then it is a ground of hope that while He sees all the evil in us God still loves His children-that He does not love us, as it were, under a misapprehension. Our Lords teaching on the subject of the Divine observation is wholly reassuring. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without our Fathers notice, the very hairs of our head are all numbered, and the exhortation based on these facts is not “Beware of the all-seeing Eye!” but “Fear not.” {Luk 12:7}

The limitation of the chroniclers remark is significant. He speaks of the eye of God, not of Gods mighty hand, nor of His outstretched arm. It was not yet the time for action; but God was watching the course of events. Or if God was acting, His procedure was so secret that no one could perceive it. Meanwhile it was enough to know that God was observing everything that was transpiring. He could not be thought of as an Epicurean divinity, surveying the agony and tragedy of human life with a stony gaze of supercilious indifference, as the proud patrician looks down on the misery of the dim multitude. For God to see is for God to care; and for God to care is for God to help. But this simple statement of the Divine observation maintains a reserve as to the method of the action of God, and it is perhaps the best way of describing Providence so that it shall not appear to come into collision with the free will of man.

The chronicler distinctly associates the Divine observation with the continuance of the Jews in their work. Because the eye of God was on them their enemies could not cause them to cease until the matter had been referred to Darius and his answer received. This may be explained by some unrecorded juncture of circumstances which arrested the action of the enemies of Israel; by the overruling Providence according to which the Satrap was led to perceive that it would not be wise or just for him to act until he had orders from the king; or by the new zeal with which the two prophets had inspired the Jews, so that they took up a bold position in the calm confidence that God was with them. Account for it as we may, we see that in the present case the Jews were not hindered in their work. It is enough for faith to perceive the result of the Divine care without discovering the process.

The letter of the Satrap and his secretary embodies the reply of the Jews to the official inquiries, and that reply clearly and boldly sets forth their position. One or two points in it call for passing notice.

In the first place, the Jews describe themselves as “servants of the God of heaven and earth.” Thus they start by mentioning their religious status, and not any facts about their race or nation. This was wise, and calculated to disarm suspicion as to their motives; and it was strictly true, for the Jews were engaged in a distinctly religious work. Then the way in which they describe their God is significant. They do not use the national name “Jehovah.” That would serve no good purpose with men who did not know or acknowledge their special faith. They say nothing to localise and limit their idea of God. To build the temple of a tribal god would be to further the ends of the tribe, and this the jealous neighbours of the Jews supposed they were doing. By the larger title the Jews lift their work out of all connection with petty personal ends. In doing so they confess their true faith. These Jews of the return were pure monotheists. They believed that there was one God who ruled over heaven and earth.

In the second place, with just a touch of national pride, pathetic under the circumstances, they remind the Persians that their nation has seen better days, and that they are rebuilding the temple which a great king has set up. Thus, while they would appeal to the generosity of the authorities, they would claim their respect, with the dignity of men who know they have a great history. In view of this the next statement is most striking. Reciting the piteous story of the overthrow of their nation, the destruction of their temple, and the captivity of their fathers, the Jews ascribe it all to their national sins. The prophets had long ago discerned the connection of cause and effect in these matters. But while it was only the subject of prediction, the proud people indignantly rejected the prophetic view. Since then their eyes had been opened by the painful purging of dire national calamities. One great proof that the nation had profited by the fiery ordeal of the captivity is that it now humbly acknowledged the sins which had brought it into the furnace. Trouble is illuminating. While it humbles men, it opens their eyes. It is better to see clearly in a lowly place than to walk blindfold on perilous heights.

After this explanatory preamble, the Jews appeal to the edict of Cyrus, and describe their subsequent conduct as a direct act of obedience to that edict. Thus they plead their cause as loyal subjects of the Persian empire. In consequence of this appeal the Satrap and his secretary request the king to order a search to be made for the edict, and to reply according to his pleasure.

The chronicler then proceeds to relate how the search was prosecuted, first among the royal archives at Babylon-in “the house of books.” {Ezr 6:1} One of Mr. Layards most valuable discoveries was that of a set of chambers in a palace at Koyunjik, the whole of the floor of which was covered more than a foot deep with terra-cotta tablets inscribed with public records. A similar collection has been recently found in the neighbourhood of Babylon. In some such record-house the search for the edict of Cyrus was made. But the cylinder or tablet on which it was written could not be found. The searchers then turned their attention to the roll-chamber at the winter palace of Ecbatana, and there a parchment or papyrus copy of the edict was discovered.

One of the items of this edict as it is now given is somewhat surprising, for it was not named in the earlier account in the first chapter of the Book of Ezra. This is a description of the dimensions of the temple which was to be built at Jerusalem. It must have been not a little humiliating to the Jews to have to take these measurements from a foreign sovereign, a heathen, a polytheist. Possibly, however, they had been first supplied to the king by the Jews, so that the builders might have the more explicit permission for what they were about to undertake. On the other hand, it may be that we have here the outside dimensions, beyond which the Jews were not permitted to go, and that the figures represent a limit for their ambitions. In either case the appearance of the details in the decree at all gives us a vivid conception of the thoroughness of the Persian autocracy, and of the perfect subjection of the Jews to Cyrus.

Some difficulty has been felt in interpreting the figures because they seem to point to a larger building than Solomons temple. The height is given at sixty cubits, and the breadth at the same measurement. But Solomons temple was only thirty cubits high, and its total breadth, with its side-chambers, was not more than forty cubits. {1Ki 6:2} When we consider the comparative poverty of the returned Jews, the difficulties under which they laboured, the disappointment of the old men who had seen the former building, and the short time within which the work was finished-only four years-{Ezr 4:24; Ezr 5:15} it is difficult to believe that it was more than double the size of the glorious fabric for which David collected materials, on which Solomon lavished the best resources of his kingdom, and which even then took many more years in building. Perhaps the height includes the terrace on which the temple was built, and the breadth of the temple adjuncts. Perhaps the temple never attained the dimensions authorised by the edict. But even if the full size were reached, the building would not have approached the size of the stupendous temples of the great ancient empires. Apart from its courts Solomons temple was certainly a small building. It was not the size, but the splendour of that famous fabric that led to its being regarded with so much admiration and pride.

The most remarkable architectural feature of all these ancient temples was the enormous magnitude of the stones with which they were built. At the present day the visitor to Jerusalem gazes with wonder at huge blocks, all carefully chiselled and accurately fitted together, where parts of the old foundations may still be discerned. The narrative in Ezra makes several references to the great stones-“stones of rolling” {Ezr 5:8} it calls them, because they could only be moved on rollers. Even the edict mentions “three rows of great stones,” together with “a row of new timber,” {Ezr 6:4} -an obscure phrase, which perhaps means that the walls were to be of the thickness of three stones, while the timber formed an inner pannelling; or that there were to be three storeys of stone and one of wood; or yet another possibility, that on three tiers of stone a tier of wood was to be laid. In the construction of the inner court of Solomons temple this third method seems to have been followed, for we read, “And he built the. inner court with three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar beams.” {1Ki 6:36} However we regard it-and the plan is confusing and a matter of much discussion-the impression is one of massive strength. The jealous observers noted especially the building of “the wall” of the temple. {Ezr 5:9} So solid a piece of work might be turned into a fortification. But no such end seems to have been contemplated by the Jews. They built solidly because they wished their work to stand. It was to be no temporary tabernacle, but a permanent temple designed to endure to posterity. We are struck with the massive character of the Roman remains in Britain, which show that when the great world conquerors took possession of our island they settled down in it and regarded it as a permanent property. The same grand consciousness of permanence must have been in the minds of the brave builders who planted this solid structure at Jerusalem in the midst of troubles and threatenings of disaster. Today, when we look at the stupendous Phoenician and Jewish architecture of Syria, we are, struck with admiration at the patience, the perseverance, the industry, the thoroughness, the largeness of idea that characterised the work of these old-world builders. Surely it must have been the outcome of a similar tone and temper of mind. The modern mind may be more nimble, as the modern work is more expeditious. But for steadfastness of purpose the races that wrought so patiently at great enduring works seem to have excelled anything we can attain. And yet here and there a similar characteristic is observable-as, for example, in the self-restraint and continuous toil of Charles Darwin, when he collected facts for twenty years before he published the book which embodied the conclusion he had drawn from his wide induction.

The solid character of the temple-building is further suggestive, because the work was all done for the service of God. Such work should never be hasty, because God has the leisure of eternity in which to inspect it. It is labour lost to make it superficial and showy without any real strength, because God sees behind all pretences. Moreover, the fire will try every mans work of what sort it is. We grow impatient of toil; we weary for quick results; we forget that in building the spiritual temple strength to endure the shocks of temptation and to outlast the decay of time is more valued by God than the gourd-like display which is the sensation of the hour, only to perish as quickly as it has sprung up.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary