# comment

text:
<p>The children of Israel and Judah, who lived in the cities of Judah, they also brought in the tithe of cattle and sheep, and the tithe of dedicated things which were consecrated to Yahweh their God, and laid them by heaps- </p><p>The command for tithes to be brought had been specifically made in the context of supporting the Jerusalem priesthood (:4). This is why the people from other towns now brought their tithes to Jerusalem. We note that people from "Israel and Judah... lived in the cities of Judah". Continually in the Hezekiah narrative we get the impression of unity between the faithful in both Israel and Judah, based around a common experience of repentance, forgiveness and restoration. This was to be the pattern for the exiles. There was likewise a prophetic vision of a new people of God being formed, from both Israel and Judah, as well as repentant Gentiles. Chronicles was written for the exiles, and so it is being stressed that something like this did [briefly] happen in Hezekiah's time. It was not unthinkable nor impossible:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>In the third month they began to lay the foundation of the heaps, and finished them in the seventh month- </p><p>The idea may be that these piles of food grew over those four months. But we wonder why they stopped after that; and we naturally wonder whether the enthusiasm for tithing waned. Although it may be that after that they began tithing to their local priests and Levites in their own provincial areas. But it should be noted that the grain harvest was in the third month (Pentecost), and harvest continued until the end of the fruit harvest in the seventh month (Tabernacles / ingathering). So the idea may be that they had a good harvest that year and generously tithed it to the Levites.</p>


text:
<p>When Hezekiah and the princes came and saw the heaps, they blessed Yahweh and His people Israel- </p><p>The praise of Israel for their generosity is understandable; note how again the united faithful of Israel and Judah are called "Israel", even though most of the donors were likely from Judah. A new, united Israel was being potentially formed. But why praise Yahweh for the generosity of His people? I conclude that this was because He through His Spirit had given them this desire to be generous and obedient. So again we see God’s direct action upon the human heart, leading us to spirituality- if we are open to it.</p>


text:
<p>Then Hezekiah questioned the priests and the Levites concerning the heaps- </p><p>The size of the heaps was such that Hezekiah wondered why the Levites and priests hadn't used them (:10); and the answer was that they had well eaten, but there was far too much food donated. The exiles were to have a different experience with "heaps" (s:w. <a href='B:440 2:16'>Hag 2:16</a>), and to be rebuked for not being generous with tithes and offerings.</p>


text:
<p>Azariah the chief priest, of the house of Zadok, answered him and said, Since people began to bring the offerings into the house of Yahweh, we have eaten and had enough, and have left plenty; for Yahweh has blessed His people. That which is left is this great store- </p><p>Whenever Israel were specifically asked for contributions, they always responded very generously. But their hearts were often very far from God. Ezekiel 20 says that Israel took the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea; and yet when asked to donate towards the building of the tabernacle, they responded with stellar generosity. We simply learn that generous giving is not necessarily the same as spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Then Hezekiah commanded them to prepare rooms in the house of Yahweh; and they prepared them- </p><p>These chambers around the temple court were where the holy vessels and tithes were stored (<a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a>; <a href='B:140 31:5'>2Ch 31:5</a>; <a href='B:140 31:11-12'>2Ch 31:11-12</a>; <a href='B:160 13:4-9'>Neh 13:4-9</a>). It could be to these rooms which the Lord Jesus alludes when He says that in God’s house / temple, there are many such rooms and He will go to die on the cross to prepare them for our use, as Hezekiah prepared them here (<a href='B:500 14:1-3'>Joh 14:1-3</a>). He clearly has in view the temple as a spiritual house, comprised of people not bricks. The idea is that His death achieved for us not only salvation, but eternal service as priests within God’s "house", being about God’s work and business for the sake of others' salvation and implementing their relationship with God. This is what eternity will be about. And it is in this life which we develop our desire to do these things, so that the Kingdom will be a time when all the frustrations and barriers to such service are removed.</p>


text:
<p>They brought in the offerings, the tithes and the dedicated things faithfully. Conaniah the Levite was ruler over them, and Shimei his brother was second- </p><p>Again we see the prominence of a Levite; for rather than a priest, a Levite was the manager of this work. Not only were the servant class exalted in God’s eyes, but it seems the Levites were more committed than the priests (<a href='B:140 29:34'>2Ch 29:34</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jehiel, Azaziah, Nahath, Asahel, Jerimoth, Jozabad, Eliel, Ismachiah, Mahath and Benaiah were overseers under the hand of Conaniah and Shimei his brother, by the appointment of Hezekiah the king, and Azariah the ruler of God’s house- </p><p>Most of these names have God’s name in them or have some spiritual meaning. Yet they would all have been born in the time of Ahaz. Perhaps these are not their birth names, but names they came to have in reflection of their faith and hope in Yahweh subsequently. In total, there were 12 such overseers- again hinting at the desire to unite all 12 tribes of Israel in this new, reformed and revived kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Kore the son of Imnah the Levite, the porter at the east gate, was over the freewill offerings of God, to distribute the offerings of Yahweh and the most holy things- </p><p>The freewill offerings were tithed to the Levites, but the question was always as to who got what. And so a Levite, not a priest, a humble porter or gatekeeper (<a href='B:230 84:10'>Psa 84:10</a>), was chosen to oversee this. And the spirit of it continues in the charge to appoint the least esteemed to judge in the church (<a href='B:530 6:4'>1Co 6:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Under him were Eden, Miniamin, Jeshua, Shemaiah, Amariah and Shecaniah, in the cities of the priests, in their office of trust, to give to their brothers by divisions, both to the great and small- </p><p>We too have been entrusted with the Gospel, Paul says. The Father and Son have turned over the mission of saving men to the church; and they have truly turned it over. This means that if men and women reject Him because we are the face of Jesus to them, and they don’t think much of it…then this is solely our fault. There is no indication that God will rush in and save us from the mess we have made of His work. He has delegated to us genuine authority and meaningful independence, just as the Levites were given a “trust” to do the Lord’s work (<a href='B:140 31:15'>2Ch 31:15</a>; <a href='B:140 31:18'>2Ch 31:18</a> RVmg:). He is prepared to work with us in assistance, but we are entrusted with the work (<a href='B:550 2:7'>Gal 2:7</a> RV)- just as a naughty pupil may be given a responsible job to do by a teacher, and the sheer wonder of having been thus entrusted makes him perform the duty reliably. This is a thought so demanding and unnerving; for we would all prefer to think that we are just insignificant pawns in a game that is being played out by God against this world, whether or not we chose to participate.</p>


text:
<p>Also under him were those who were reckoned by genealogy of males, from three years old and upward, even each one who entered into the house of Yahweh, as the duty of every day required, for their service in their offices according to their divisions- </p><p>It seems another record of the priests was made, along with the schedule according to which they went up to the temple to serve; so that there would be a just distribution of the tithes amongst them all.</p>


text:
<p>and those who were reckoned by genealogy of the priests by their fathers’ houses; and the Levites from twenty years old and upward, in their offices by their divisions- </p><p>See on :16. Some of the tithes could only be eaten by the priests in the holy place, so it seems this was factored in to the distribution of the tithes amongst the Levites.</p>


text:
<p>and those who were reckoned by genealogy of all their little ones, their wives, their sons and their daughters, through all the congregation. In their office of trust they sanctified themselves in holiness- </p><p>As noted on :16, a list of all Levites and their children was drawn up, to ensure the fair distribution of the tithes amongst them according to the sizes of their families. We could infer that unjust distribution of tithes was a reason why the priesthood had become so dysfunctional.</p>


text:
<p>Also for the sons of Aaron the priests, who were in the fields of the suburbs of their cities, in every city, there were men who were mentioned by name, to give portions to all the males among the priests, and to all who were reckoned by genealogy among the Levites- </p><p>The arrangements for justly sharing out the tithes, considering the number of people in each family, how many of them ate tithes in the holy place when on duty in Jerusalem etc:, is described here somewhat repetitively (:16-19). It is a major emphasis. And yet after some centuries of supposed obedience to the Mosaic law, this seems the first time that this question of equal distribution of tithes amongst the Levites had been considered. It is another indication that the people were so very far from obedience to God’s law, although that was the basis of their covenant relationship with Yahweh. And yet despite that disobedience, He patiently remained their God. Such was and is His earnest desire to build covenant relationship even with a people who didn’t really want to respond to it.</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah did so throughout all Judah; and he worked that which was good and right and faithful before Yahweh his God- </p><p>He did 'truth' (Heb:). To commit violence to others' persons is to live a lie (<a href='B:350 12:1'>Hos 12:1</a>). Truth is not therefore merely a set of doctrines; it refers to an obedient life, and covenant relationship with God. The LXX uses the phrase 'to do truth', which John uses in the NT, in passages like <a href='B:140 31:20'>2Ch 31:20</a> (about Hezekiah's obedience to commandments), or in <a href='B:10 47:29'>Gen 47:29</a>; <a href='B:290 26:10'>Isa 26:10</a> to describe simply doing and living what is right. The fact truth must be done indicates it is not merely correct academic interpretation of doctrine.</p>


text:
<p>In every work that he began in the service of God’s house, and in the law, and in the commandments, to seek his God, he did it with all his heart, and prospered- </p><p>Again, the state of the heart is the basis of God’s judgment of him. The reference to the work "that he began" could hint that all this was just at the beginning of his reign; for it seems in his last 15 years he turned away from God.</p>


text:
<p>After these things, and this faithfulness- </p><p>A parade example of how faithfulness to God doesn't necessarily result in an easy, problem free life- contrary to Pentecostal teaching.</p><p>Sennacherib king of Assyria came, and entered into Judah, and encamped against the fortified cities, and thought to win them for himself- </p><p>He succeeded in taking all of Judah apart from Jerusalem. Isaiah describes the invasion as a flood of waters which engulfed Judah "up to the neck", the surviving head referring to Jerusalem and Hezekiah.</p>


text:
<p>When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come, and that he was set to fight against Jerusalem- </p><p>The fall of Jerusalem at this time in judgment for Judah's sins at the time had been clearly foretold (<a href='B:290 22:14-19'>Isa 22:14-19</a>; <a href='B:290 29:2-4'>Isa 29:2-4</a>). That this didn’t happen was only because of God’s willingness to change His timetable of judgment in response to human faith and repentance, as happened with Nineveh. Hezekiah had tried to buy off the Assyrians with money, even cutting off the gold of the temple to give them (<a href='B:120 18:14-16'>2Ki 18:14-16</a>). But now he sees / realizes that this had all been in vain. Sennacherib intended to take Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>he took counsel with his princes and his mighty men to stop the waters of the springs which were outside of the city- </p><p>Hezekiah's attempts to resist the fall of Jerusalem which had been prophesied (:2) were surely taken in faith that God would ammend those prophecies of judgment. Or we could read this as one more attempt by Hezekiah to bring about salvation by human strength and wit. He is mocked for trusting in such "counsel and strength" (<a href='B:120 18:20'>2Ki 18:20</a>). Isaiah had earlier warned against trust in human "counsel" (s:w. <a href='B:290 5:19'>Isa 5:19</a>; <a href='B:290 19:3'>Isa 19:3</a>). Woe was pronounced upon those (like Hezekiah?) who took counsel from men rather than God (<a href='B:290 30:1'>Isa 30:1</a> s:w:). <a href='B:240 25:28'>Pro 25:28</a> LXX advises doing things with "counsel". As explained on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>, this may be a justification of Hezekiah, who dealt with the Assyrian crisis by saying he trusted in God’s counsel to overcome the Assyrians (<a href='B:120 18:20'>2Ki 18:20</a> AV). Like Solomon, Hezekiah's Proverbs are all Divinely inspired and true, but he seems to insert into them a subtext of self justification.</p><p>And they helped him- </p><p>But Hezekiah's name means strengthened / helped by Yah. So we may get the impression that he was still trying to achieve salvation in his own strength rather than Yahweh's.</p>


text:
<p>So many people gathered together, and they stopped all the springs, and the brook that flowed through the midst of the land saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find much water?- </p><p>LXX "Through the midst of the city". These attempts to defend Jerusalem in his own strength, by the work of "many people", are condemned in <a href='B:290 22:9-11'>Isa 22:9-11</a> as a lack of faith in Yahweh. There appears now to be no such stream, the topography having changed over the centuries.</p>


text:
<p>He took courage- </p><p>AV "strengthened himself", rather than living out the truth of his own name 'Hezekiah', 'Yah will strengthen'. This continues a theme, of the kings of Judah strengthening or fortifying themselves, often when they first became king; but then having that human strength tested by God or removed. The same word is used repeatedly (<a href='B:130 11:10'>1Ch 11:10</a>; <a href='B:140 11:11'>2Ch 11:11</a>; <a href='B:140 11:17'>2Ch 11:17</a>; <a href='B:140 12:13'>2Ch 12:13</a>; <a href='B:140 13:21'>2Ch 13:21</a>; <a href='B:140 17:1'>2Ch 17:1</a>; <a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a>; <a href='B:140 25:3'>2Ch 25:3</a>; <a href='B:140 25:11'>2Ch 25:11</a>; <a href='B:140 26:8'>2Ch 26:8</a>; <a href='B:140 26:15'>2Ch 26:15</a>; <a href='B:140 29:3'>2Ch 29:3</a>; <a href='B:140 32:5'>2Ch 32:5</a>). The lesson of course was that it is God’s Angelic eyes who run to and fro in the land promised to Abraham, "to shew Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is perfect toward him" (<a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a>).</p><p>And built up all the wall that was broken down, and raised it up to the towers, and the other wall outside, and strengthened Millo in the city of David- </p><p><a href='B:290 22:9-11'>Isa 22:9-11</a> specifically condemns this work for being done without looking to Yahweh in faith. The RV of that passage says that two walls were built up [here "the wall that was broken down... and the other wall outside"] with a reservoir for water in between them.</p><p>And made weapons and shields in abundance- </p><p><a href='B:290 22:8'>Isa 22:8</a> says that the people "looked to the armour in the house of the forest" [of Lebanon], but not Yahweh; and when called [by Isaiah?] to repent and fast, instead they feasted (<a href='B:290 22:9-14'>Isa 22:9-14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He set captains of war over the people, and gathered them together to him in the broad place at the gate of the city, and spoke to their hearts saying- </p><p>Presumably the reference is to the gate facing the Assyrian army, perhaps "the gate of Ephraim" or maybe "the comer gate".</p>


text:
<p>Be strong and courageous, don’t be afraid nor dismayed for the king of Assyria, nor for all the multitude who is with him; for there is a greater One with us than with him- </p><p>There is a marked contrast between this call to faith in Yahweh (and the people trusting Hezekiah's words, :8) and the condemnation of the people for their lack of faith at this time (<a href='B:290 22:9-14'>Isa 22:9-14</a>). But this is no contradiction. For faith and unbelief can all too easily be present in the human mind. Being "dismayed and terrified" is the term used of how Israel generally were terrified of Goliath, whereas David by faith wasn't (<a href='B:90 17:11'>1Sa 17:11</a>). The same phrase is also used in urging the people of Judah in Hezekiah's time to consider the Assyrians to be as a Goliath which they like David could vanquish (<a href='B:140 32:7'>2Ch 32:7</a>). The exiles likewise were urged not to be dismayed and terrified at the reproach of men (<a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:300 30:10'>Jer 30:10</a>), very clearly making the history with Goliath relevant to their times.</p>


text:
<p>With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is Yahweh our God to help us, and to fight our battles. The people rested themselves on the words of Hezekiah king of Judah-</p><p>As discussed on :7, this was said when the people generally were not at all really believing in Yahweh but rather in their own strength (<a href='B:290 22:9-14'>Isa 22:9-14</a>). Perhaps having finished all the defensive work, Hezekiah's conscience smote him for not having done it in faith, and now he openly appeals to the people to simply believe in Yahweh to save them.</p><p>Hezekiah's confident assurance that the Assyrians were an arm of flesh compared to Yahweh (2 Chron. 32:7,8) is hard to square with his own apparent lack of faith at this time. One solution is to recognize that faith and unbelief can co-exist in a "believer", and yet when speaking to others, we may give a stronger exhortation to faith than we personally believe ourselves. </p>


text:
<p>After this, Sennacherib king of Assyria sent his servants to Jerusalem, (now he was before Lachish, and all his power with him), to Hezekiah king of Judah, and to all Judah who were at Jerusalem saying- </p><p>"All his power" sets us up for the conflict between human strength and Divine power. We have just read and discussed how Hezekiah had matched this with his human strength, although perhaps observing the superior strength of Assyria, he has just urged the people to throw themselves in faith upon Yahweh alone.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Sennacherib king of Assyria, In whom do you trust, that you remain under siege in Jerusalem?- </p><p>Sennacherib knew full well the very difficult living conditions they were enduring under siege. <a href='B:290 36:5'>Isa 36:5</a> adds: "Now in whom do you trust, that you have rebelled against me?". That Hezekiah was trusting in someone or something else apart from his own strength was so obvious; and there may have been a genuine element of curiosity in the question, as well as it being a rhetorical question. Hezekiah's rebellion against Assyria was because of his trust in Yahweh; Zedekiah rebelled later against Babylon and yet Jerusalem fell (s:w. <a href='B:300 52:3'>Jer 52:3</a>). Zedekiah attempted to copy the external behaviour of Hezekiah but without trust in Yahweh, and so it didn’t work out. And so there abides a lesson for all of us who are tempted to imitate the external faith and action of others without having the same internal faith and trust.</p>


text:
<p>Doesn’t Hezekiah persuade you- </p><p>It seems Hezekiah was singlehandedly seeking to persuade the people to totally trust in Yahweh.</p><p>To give you over to die by famine and by thirst by saying, ‘Yahweh our God will deliver us out of the hand of the king of Assyria?’- </p><p><a href='B:120 18:26-27'>2Ki 18:26-27</a> explain how this appeal was made directly to the ordinary people. Rabshakeh spoke in Hebrew and appears to have been an apostate Jew, for he was well aware of the situation within Jerusalem, and the words of Hezekiah about Yahweh. The Assyrian invasion is used as a basis upon which Jerusalem's latter day invasion will happen, and perhaps Rabshakeh will have his equivalent in the last days.</p><p>Hezekiah's faith that the city wouldn't fall was presumably based upon Isaiah's prophetic words; and yet Isaiah also speaks as if the city would fall, unless there was repentance in Judah. Perhaps Hezekiah really believed that the repentance of a minority would be counted by God as enough, and that their prayers would ensure the salvation of Zion. And this huge faith in Divine grace was rewarded.</p><p><a href='B:290 36:14'>Isa 36:14</a> adds: "Thus says the king, ‘Don’t let Hezekiah deceive you; for he will not be able to deliver you". This was part of his narrative, that the gods of the nations were "not able to deliver" them from the Assyrians (s:w. <a href='B:140 32:15'>2Ch 32:15</a>). He encouraged them to see the one true God as just another god, another source of secular strength as good as anything else. Yahweh the one true God is not, however, just another religious system. There is something awesomely and radically different. Rabshakeh's words recognize that Hezekiah alone was seeking to lead the people to totally trust in Yahweh. His influence was considered hugely significant. As we noted on <a href='B:290 1:1'>Isa 1:1</a>, the reforms of Hezekiah were largely ineffective in encouraging the general populace towards spirituality. In accordance with that, Rabshakeh perceived Hezekiah as effectively seeking alone to persuade the people to trust Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Hasn’t the same Hezekiah taken away His high places and His altars, and commanded Judah and Jerusalem, saying, You shall worship before one altar, and on it you shall burn incense?- </p><p>Rabshakeh argues as if the high places and altars to the idols were actually used for Yahweh worship. And that was true. Judah justified their idol worship by claiming it was a form of Yahweh worship; and that is an abiding temptation for God’s people of all ages. Rabshakeh mocked at the idea of a religion which had only one altar and high place; although that was indeed appropriate to the worship of the one true God who had given one specific way of approach to Him.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t you know what I and my fathers have done to all the peoples of the lands? Were the gods of the nations of the lands in any way able to deliver their land out of my hand?- </p><p>The historical account emphasizes that Rabshakeh continually reminded them of the strength of the hand of the Assyrians; the phrase occurs six times in <a href='B:140 32:13-15'>2Ch 32:13-15</a> alone. The hand of Yahweh is an Angelic title; as if he was really mocking the Angel of Israel:&nbsp; There are also many references in Isaiah to the arm of the Lord delivering Israel at this time, which is again an Angelic title. Similarly, the latter day Assyrian will be destroyed by the arm of the Lord, as manifest in Christ and the Angels with Him.</p>


text:
<p>Who was there among all the gods of those nations which my fathers utterly destroyed, that could deliver his people out of my hand, that your God should be able to deliver you out of my hand?-</p><p>The point of course was made: Who or what indeed were any of those gods compared to Yahweh. And the true Israel of God were unlike any other nation.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore don’t let Hezekiah deceive you, nor persuade you in this way, neither believe him; for no god of any nation or kingdom was able to deliver his people out of my hand, and out of the hand of my fathers. How much less will your God deliver you out of my hand?- </p><p><a href='B:290 36:19'>Isa 36:19</a> gives more detail: "Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Have they delivered Samaria from my hand?". Rabshakeh, knowing the prophecies of Isaiah, may be alluding to the common prophetic theme that Judah were in fact no better than Israel, and would face the same judgment. And he knew that Samaria, the ten tribes, had trusted in the gods of the surrounding nations. Hamath and Arpad were in Syria, and so probably Sepharvaim was likewise. Isaiah 8 and <a href='B:290 10:9-11'>Isa 10:9-11</a> had condemned Israel for their trust in Syria against Assyria, and clearly their covenant with Syria had involved taking on the worship of their gods.</p>


text:
<p>His servants spoke yet more against Yahweh God, and against His servant Hezekiah- </p><p>Hezekiah as Yahweh's servant is contrasted with Rabshakeh and his gang who were Sennacherib's servants. The whole scene is a showdown between Yahweh and Sennacherib, who was playing God.</p>


text:
<p>He also wrote letters insulting Yahweh, the God of Israel, and to speak against Him saying, As the gods of the nations of the lands, which have not delivered their people out of my hand, so shall the God of Hezekiah not deliver His people out of my hand- </p><p>Goliath's defiance of Israel is a major theme (s:w. <a href='B:90 17:10'>1Sa 17:10</a>; <a href='B:90 17:25-26'>1Sa 17:25-26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 17:45'>1Sa 17:45</a>). David’s victory over Goliath was inspirational to other Israelites, just as the Lord's triumph on the cross should be to us. The history of Goliath would have been inspirational when the Assyrians likewise insulted or defied the living God, and again this is a theme of the record (<a href='B:120 19:4'>2Ki 19:4</a>; <a href='B:120 19:16'>2Ki 19:16</a>; <a href='B:120 19:22-23'>2Ki 19:22-23</a>; <a href='B:140 32:17'>2Ch 32:17</a> s:w:). But I suggest the equivalent to David in all this was not Hezekiah but Isaiah. It was his faith and prayers which won the day.</p>


text:
<p>They cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, to frighten them, and to trouble them; that they might take the city- </p><p>This very loud voice becomes the prototype for the great voice of Babylon (<a href='B:300 51:55'>Jer 51:55</a>), akin to the great voice of Goliath the Philistine / Palestinian, which is to be answered by the far greater voice of Yahweh in the last days commanding the Angels to unleash judgment upon the latter day Assyrian confederacy (<a href='B:360 2:11'>Joe 2:11</a>; <a href='B:730 16:1'>Rev 16:1</a>; <a href='B:730 18:2'>Rev 18:2</a>). But in the immediate context, this "loud voice" is that of <a href='B:290 29:6'>Isa 29:6</a> bringing destruction and judgment upon Jerusalem; they were condemned, but were saved by grace and God’s respect of the prayers and repentance of a small minority. The loud voice of the "great king" of Assyria (<a href='B:290 36:13'>Isa 36:13</a>) is being set up as a parody of that of Yahweh, who is the supreme "great king" (s:w. <a href='B:230 47:2'>Psa 47:2</a>; <a href='B:230 95:3'>Psa 95:3</a>; <a href='B:460 1:14'>Mal 1:14</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>They spoke of the God of Jerusalem, as of the gods of the peoples of the earth- </p><p>This is the classic challenge to faith; no other god achieved anything, therefore, the one true God can't either. But the point is that the gods of this world didn’t achieve anything precisely because they are not God. The 'utter destruction' of conquered lands by Assyria is historically well attested. But the word has the sense of 'sanctified' in a religious sense; like the latter day "king of the north", the invader thought that they were serving their God by destroying people, and the barbarity of the destruction was a sign of how far they had devoted people and lands to their God. Jihadist Islam exactly fits this scenario.</p><p>Which are the work of men’s hands-</p><p>Passages like this almost define God by reason of His being uncreate. Whatever is created, is not God. And it follows that if we think that we have truly created anything, or that we are anything that God didn’t create, then we are in fact playing God. Understanding God as creator, in its true, deep and thought-through sense, leads to an understanding of grace. That all we have, are, were, shall ever be, is purely His gift. Likewise, to take for ourselves what is God’s is to play God. Materialism and selfishness are in this sense playing God.</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah the king, and Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz, prayed because of this, and cried to heaven- </p><p>Isaiah 37 records the prayer in more detail; see notes there.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh sent an angel- </p><p><a href='B:290 37:36'>Isa 37:36</a> "The angel of Yahweh went out". He went out from the throne room of heaven, where the case had been as it were considered; see on <a href='B:290 37:4'>Isa 37:4</a>. Isaiah 37 is shot through with allusions to the Angel cherubim destroying the Assyrian host. The Angel went out- perhaps referring to Him physically going forth out of the temple where He dwelt to slay the Assyrians outside the walls of Jerusalem. This phrase 'went out' is nearly always used about literal physical movement, which we have seen is what&nbsp; Angels literally do. Thus in the Ezekiel visions of the cherubim, they and the lightnings "went forth", physically and literally, in performing God’s work. "Let my sentence come forth from Thy presence (Angelic language); let Thine eyes (Angels) behold the things that are equal", seeing they are involved with the 'coming forth', according to the parallelism of this verse. Similarly Job's satan Angel "went forth" from the presence of the Lord (<a href='B:220 1:12'>Job 1:12</a>). And so it happened that there were Angels on earth, as it were. <a href='B:450 2:3'>Zec 2:3</a> also has an Angel going forth to answer the prayers concerning&nbsp; restoring the fortunes of Jerusalem (see <a href='B:450 5:5'>Zec 5:5</a> too). <a href='B:230 81:5'>Psa 81:5</a> describes the Angel going out through the land of Egypt in order to "remove (Israel's) shoulder from the burden". Psalms 81 is 'Angelic', following Psalms 80, which is another such Psalm. <a href='B:650 1:14'>Heb 1:14</a> also offers support: the Angels are "sent forth" to minister to us- by answering prayers offered in the spirit of Hezekiah's prayer here?</p><p>Who cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains, in the camp of the king of Assyria- </p><p>Not all were destroyed. The bodies of those who were, were spoiled by the Jerusalem Jews (<a href='B:290 33:4'>Isa 33:4</a>). The agent of destruction appears to have been fire and hail (<a href='B:290 29:6'>Isa 29:6</a>; <a href='B:290 30:30'>Isa 30:30</a>), both of which may be used in the last days too.</p><p>So he returned with shame of face to his own land- </p><p>This was because "I will put a spirit in him" (<a href='B:290 37:7'>Isa 37:7</a>). Sennacherib retreated because God “put a spirit in him”. The AV has: “I will send a blast / spirit upon him”. Was it not that the Angel who later destroyed his army came upon him and put a spirit / disposition of mind within him that made him want to retreat? We see how God can directly affect the human spirit / mind. He can give a holy spirit, or an evil spirit. The Old Testament sets us up to understand that God can work directly on the human spirit, and then the New Testament says that He can give us a holy spirit, working again directly on the human mind and perception.</p><p><a href='B:290 37:7'>Isa 37:7</a> says that "He will hear news, and will return to his own land. I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land". The "news" could have been of the destruction of Rabshakeh's army; or of the approach of Tirhakah, or some other threat to his empire. The situation points ahead to how the latter day "king of the north" will likewise hear "news" (s:w. <a href='B:340 11:44'>Dan 11:44</a> "tidings"). The Lord 'caused' Sennacherib to fall by the sword in that He put a spirit of jealousy in his sons, resulting in his murder.</p><p>When he had come into the house of his god, those who came forth from his own bowels killed him there with the sword- </p><p>He was killed as he was worshipping (<a href='B:290 37:38'>Isa 37:38</a>), about 20 years later; worshipping a god who had spectacularly failed him. We see here the terrible power of religion in blinding men to spiritual reality.</p>


text:
<p>Thus Yahweh saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, and from the hand of all others, and guided them on every side- </p><p>LXX "gave them rest" from all the surrounding nations (as in <a href='B:140 20:30'>2Ch 20:30</a>). Assyria had not been Hezekiah's only enemy (<a href='B:120 18:7-8'>2Ki 18:7-8</a>). The idea is of the "rest" of the Kingdom of God. There was perhaps the potential possibility for Isaiah's kingdom prophecies to have had fulfilment, just as the destruction of the latter day Assyrian will presage the establishment of the Kingdom of God. But this didn’t happen, because Hezekiah turned away from faith to pride.</p>


text:
<p>Many brought gifts to Yahweh to Jerusalem, and precious things to Hezekiah king of Judah; so that He was exalted in the sight of all nations from thenceforth-</p><p>The Kingdom prophecies of <a href='B:230 68:29'>Psa 68:29</a>; <a href='B:290 18:7'>Isa 18:7</a>; <a href='B:440 2:7-8'>Hag 2:7-8</a> could now have had their fulfilment; but Hezekiah became lifted up in pride and precluded it, leaving them to have their major fulfilment in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>In those days Hezekiah was sick even to death. He prayed to Yahweh; and He spoke to him, and gave him a sign- </p><p>This was in the same year as the invasion, but not necessarily at the same time. In this section we are reading a Divine summary of His take on Hezekiah. See on :25,56. It seems that unlike his father Ahaz, Hezekiah had asked for this sign (<a href='B:120 20:8'>2Ki 20:8</a>). It is apparent that the experiences of believers are often suggestive of those of other believers. Insofar as we appreciate this, we will find strength to go the right way. Consider how Hezekiah was intended to see the similarities between himself and the earlier king Ahaz his father, and learn the lessons. They were both threatened by invasion and tempted to turn to human help (<a href='B:290 7:2'>Isa 7:2</a>; <a href='B:290 37:1'>Isa 37:1</a>); Visited by Isaiah and told to not fear (<a href='B:290 7:4-9'>Isa 7:4-9</a>; <a href='B:290 37:6-7'>Isa 37:6-7</a>). Ahaz was unfaithful by “the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the fuller’s field” (<a href='B:290 7:3'>Isa 7:3</a>); and in just the same place Hezekiah’s faith was tested and he learnt the lessons of Ahaz’ failure (<a href='B:290 36:2'>Isa 36:2</a>). Both were given a sign by God and promised deliverance (<a href='B:290 7:14'>Isa 7:14</a>; <a href='B:290 37:30'>Isa 37:30</a>). Ahaz refused to ask for a sign when offered one (<a href='B:290 7:11'>Isa 7:11</a>); whereas Hezekiah learnt, and asked for a sign (<a href='B:290 38:7'>Isa 38:7</a>; <a href='B:290 38:22'>Isa 38:22</a>). Thus his asking for a sign was not a sign of faithlessness but rather his seeking to not be like Ahaz. “The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform it” was spoken to both Ahaz (<a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a>) and Hezekiah (<a href='B:290 37:32'>Isa 37:32</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But Hezekiah didn’t render again according to the grace done to him. His heart was lifted up; therefore there was wrath on him, and on Judah and Jerusalem- </p><p>This is a similar idea to <a href='B:230 40:5'>Psa 40:5</a>: "Many, Yahweh my God, are the wonderful works which You have done, and Your thoughts which are toward us. They can’t be declared back to You. If I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered". Yet through the Bathsheba Psalms, David is indeed declaring God’s grace to him (see on <a href='B:230 40:10'>Psa 40:10</a>). But he says he does so with a great sense of inadequacy; for he cannot render back to God according to the grace shown him. Hezekiah is criticized for this here. And yet David admits this is how man is, faced with the extent of God’s grace to him. We have here another example of how two men may do the same thing [here, not rendering back according to God’s grace], and yet be judged differently according to their attitude of mind.</p><p>The standard approach in interpretation is to assume that this lifting up with pride was the situation which occurred after the Babylonian ambassadors visited Hezekiah (Isaiah 39). Hezekiah was threatened with God’s wrath, but humbled himself, and so it was delayed until the next generation. <a href='B:290 39:8'>Isa 39:8</a> is then meant to mean that Hezekiah accepted the truth of God’s word of judgment upon him as "good", but rejoiced that there would be peace and truth in his own days: "Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, Yahweh’s word which you have spoken is good. He said moreover, For there will be peace and truth in my days".</p><p>But I suggest that a bit of deeper thought will find this unsatisfactory, and I have suggested throughout Isaiah 39 that Hezekiah 'lost it' spiritually at the time of the visit of the ambassadors. The awful apostasy of his own son Manasseh would then corroborate that. The "But..." with which the verse opens is not in the Hebrew. Translators added it in a mistaken effort to connect with the previous verse. The material here in these concluding thoughts about Hezekiah isn't chronological. Thus <a href='B:140 32:24'>2Ch 32:24</a> is clearly about a time before that of <a href='B:140 32:23'>2Ch 32:23</a>. So I suggest that :25 refers to the reason why wrath came upon Judah, Jerusalem and himself. That wrath wasn't just threatened, it actually "came"(AV), there "was wrath" (NEV). For wrath to 'come' means that it was experienced- not just threatened. And we are specifically told, with the same Hebrew phrase used, that the Assyrians came up against Hezekiah, Judah and Jerusalem because "God’s wrath" was upon them, and Hezekiah's generations were seeing that "with your own eyes" (<a href='B:140 29:8'>2Ch 29:8</a>). And here in <a href='B:140 32:25'>2Ch 32:25</a> we are told that this happened because of Hezekiah's pride and not returning to God what had been given him. That pride, therefore, doesn't apply to the time of the Babylonian ambassadors, but rather his pride in his own strength and devices to defend Jerusalem, as commented upon on :3-6. See on :26. The grace done to Hezekiah was his healing, for the sickness was in the same year as the invasion, but not necessarily at the same time. Because of his lack of adequate response to it, he had to be humbled by the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem. And this elicited the appropriate humility. But when the ambassadors came afterwards, his heart was again lifted up in pride.</p><p>"Render again" is the common Hebrew word for 'repent'. Hezekiah was shown grace, but didn't repent. God shows grace in order to lead us to repentance; but some just take the grace and don't repent. Hezekiah had been told he would die, he arrogantly protested his innocence, but God gave him 15 years. And he then thanks God for casting his sins behind His back. But he still doesn't come to repentance.    </p>


text:
<p>Notwithstanding, Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of Yahweh didn’t come on them in the days of Hezekiah- </p><p>As discussed on :25, I suggest that this pride of heart was before the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem. Hezekiah's dressing in sackcloth when Jerusalem is surrounded (2 Kings 19:1) was a sign of repentance. He humbled himself at that point.  Therefore Jerusalem was surrounded, but Hezekiah's repentance, along with that of "the inhabitants of Jerusalem", meant that the intended "wrath" was deferred. This approach also explains why it was specifically "the inhabitants of Jerusalem" who repented along with Hezekiah. If the reference is to proud attitudes towards the Babylonian ambassadors, then we would rather expect Hezekiah personally to be the one who needed to repent. And if the people needed to repent, then we would expect to read of all Judah repenting, rather than specifically "the inhabitants of Jerusalem".</p><p>The same language of God relenting of disaster is found in the context of Hezekiah's repentance averting the Assyrian destruction of Jerusalem at that time- and not about any repentance concerning his pride afterwards: "Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah and he said to all the people of Judah: “Thus says Yahweh of hosts, ‘Zion will be plowed as a field; Jerusalem will be a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house as a wooded height.’ Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear Yahweh and entreat the favor of Yahweh, and did not Yahweh relent of the disaster that he had pronounced against them? But we are about to bring disaster upon ourselves” (Jer. 26:18,19).</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah had exceeding much riches and honour and he set up treasuries for silver, and for gold, and for precious stones, and for spices, and for shields, and for all kinds of goodly vessels- </p><p>The same terms "spices... gold... precious stones" is used of what the queen of Sheba brought to Solomon, and what was brought to Hezekiah after his healing (<a href='B:140 32:27'>2Ch 32:27</a>). Perhaps the conversion of the queen of Sheba to Israel's God meant that her people continued to be sympathetic to Judah even in Hezekiah's time, and they were the source of these things in his time. But the similarity sets us up to expect that Hezekiah like Solomon would then turn away from God, disallowing the potential of being the king of God’s gloriously established kingdom in Israel; and this is what happened.</p><p>Hezekiah‘s father, King Ahaz, had stripped the Temple of all its silver and gold, as well as all the gold and silver in the palace treasury, and sent it to Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kings 16:8,9). But only 30 years later, Hezekiah was able to give 30 talents (or 900 kg) of gold and 800 talents (or 24,000 kg) of silver to Sennacherib. He had built up considerable wealth quite quickly- especially bearing in mind he is recorded as undertaking huge building and fortification projects, repairing the Temple, providing huge numbers of sacrifical animals for the Passover, funding a campaign against the Philistines and having enough wealth to try to buy Egyptian military support against Assyria. 
This suggests Hezekiah was materialistic and on the look out for wealth. He believed his wealth could save him- he offered money to Egypt to help him, and paid a huge amount to Assyria to leave him alone. All of which was criticized by God through Isaiah. When his wealth revived after the Assyrian defeat, again it was his undoing- because he boasted of it to the Babylonians, who clearly were covetous and thence planned to come and take it by force. Which Isaiah says, God would empower them to do because of Hezekiah's pride. That pride arose from his great and sudden wealth, which was given to him by God: "Hezekiah enjoyed immense riches and honour. He built himself treasuries for gold, silver, precious stones, spices, jewels and every kind of desirable object, as well as storehouses for his returns of grain, new wine and olive oil, and stalls for all kinds of cattle and pens for the flocks. He also provided himself with donkeys in addition to his immense wealth of flocks and herds, since God had made him immensely wealthy" (2 Chron. 32:27-29). The promised blessing upon the land, producing "of itself", seems to have been responsible for the agricultural prosperity. The lands around him had been ravaged by the Assyrian scorched earth policy. They perhaps traded their wealth for food. But we note that this wealth led him to proudly show it off to the Babylonians, who came to find out about "the wonder that was done in the land" (2 Chron. 32:31, i.e. the amazing agricultural blessing). We now understand better why God is careful about giving wealth; because it typically leads to pride and loss of spirituality. </p>


text:
<p>storehouses also for the increase of grain and new wine and oil; and stalls for all kinds of animals, and flocks in folds- </p><p>This recalls the language of Solomon's building store cities for his wealth (see on :27 for another allusion to Solomon). But the connection with Solomon is not a good one; for all this wealth of his was not associated with his spirituality, but rather with his apostacy. And so it was to be with Hezekiah.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover he provided him cities, and possessions of flocks and herds in abundance; for God had given him very much substance- </p><p>This continues the allusion to Solomon, who likewise built store cities for his wealth; but see on :28.</p>


text:
<p>This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper spring of the waters of Gihon, and brought them straight down on the west side of the city of David. Hezekiah prospered in all his works- </p><p>Some manuscripts read "the east side". The current Pool of Siloam is to the South East of modern Jerusalem, but it could have been south west of the old "city of David". "Prospered" is yet another allusion to Solomon's prospering (s:w. <a href='B:130 29:23'>1Ch 29:23</a>; <a href='B:140 7:11'>2Ch 7:11</a>); but see on :28.</p>


text:
<p>However concerning the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent to him to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land- </p><p>Hezekiah's positive comment in his Proverbs (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>) about faithful ambassadors must be read in the context of the fact that <a href='B:240 25:13'>Pro 25:13</a> was one of the Proverbs rewritten in Hezekiah's time. He sinned with regard to the ambassadors of Babylon (<a href='B:140 32:31'>2Ch 32:31</a>), but perhaps he was led into this by willfully misreading this Proverb of Solomon, or at least getting it rewritten with the subtext of justifying what he did. "The wonder done in the land" was I suggest the sun being eclipsed by a greater light, which made the shadow go back. This offered the possibility of fulfilment for Isaiah's prophecies about a great light arising in Zion, to which the Gentiles would come. </p><p>God left him- </p><p>This is the word for 'forsaking', and is used about God forsaking those who turn away from Him (<a href='B:50 31:17'>Deu 31:17</a>). We are left to wonder whether this was in response to Hezekiah forsaking Him. Or perhaps it makes him a type of the Lord Jesus, who was also apparently forsaken by God in order to reveal what was in His heart (<a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a>). There are times when God’s presence does apparently leave us, and He no longer holds us back from sin as He does at other times- in order to reveal to ourselves what is truly in our deepest hearts.</p><p>To try him, that He might know all that was in his heart- </p><p>Hezekiah asks for a sign “to prove” [s:w. test / try] that God’s predicted cure of him was going to happen. And when given the option of the shadow of the sun jumping forward by ten degrees, he almost mocks that as too ‘easy’. Yet this is the man with the accolade that no King believed in God like he did. Perhaps he reached his heights of faith through having these low moments. ‘Putting God to the test’ as it seems Hezekiah did is seen in Scripture as not fully believing in Him (<a href='B:40 14:20-24'>Num 14:20-24</a>; <a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a>; <a href='B:290 7:12'>Isa 7:12</a>; <a href='B:490 11:33-36'>Luk 11:33-36</a>). Maybe God left Hezekiah to test him in the matter of the ambassadors from Babylon as a kind of response- ‘You put me to the test, I’ll put you to the test’. I suggest that the book of Ecclesiastes is Hezekiah's writing down of what he found within his heart- just as here prophesied</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his good deeds, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz, in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel- </p><p>This may refer to some writing of Isaiah which we don't have, and the "book of the kings" may not refer to the books of Kings we have in our Bibles. Or it could mean that the historical record of Isaiah in Isaiah 36-39 is incorporated in the record we have in 2 Kings.</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah slept with his fathers- </p><p>This repeated phrase indicates death is unconsciousness, like sleep; and the idiom surely requires a resurrection of the body to judgment at some future date, which we know to be the time of the Lord's return to earth. If the Bible taught reward at death or an immortal soul [which it doesn't], then this idiom would not be used.</p><p>And they buried him in the ascent of the tombs of the sons of David; and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honour at his death. Manasseh his son reigned in his place- </p><p>That Hezekiah raised such an evil son in the last 15 years of his life is another hint that he would have been better dying when he was intended to, without a descendant, rather than getting more life with which he turned away from God and raised an evil son.</p>


text:
<p>Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign; and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem- </p><p>"Causing to forget" is a strange name for a child unless the father [like Joseph] had a previous life he wanted to forget. Manasseh was born three years into Hezekiah's final 15 years of life in which he turned away from God. So I suggest that his name reflects Hezekiah's desire to 'forget all that God stuff' and get on with 'enjoying' his last 15 years without God. And this was naturally reflected in the way he raised a son who was one of Israel's most evil rulers.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, after the abominations of the nations whom Yahweh cast out before the children of Israel- </p><p>We may wonder why God let such an evil man live and reign for 55 years (:1), the longest reigning of any king. Surely if he had been slain for his wickedness, as other men were, then he would have led fewer people astray? I suggest the answer is that God worked for decades towards this evil man's repentance- and it paid off. He did repent in the end. And we can look forward to eternity together with him. We see in this the huge meaning and value God places upon the individual person, and how He will not give up searching for the lost until He finds them. Manasseh would be the parade example of that.</p>


text:
<p>For he built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down; and he reared up altars for the Baals, and made Asheroth, and worshipped all the army of the sky, and served them- </p><p>This revival of idolatry would not have been possible unless the people generally were eager and willing for it. I suggested previously that Hezekiah's reforms were largely on the cusp of his becoming king. They were partly a psychological reaction against the misery of Ahaz's reign, and the reforms of 2 Chronicles 31 were often a result of group psychology rather than personal reformation of the heart. They were all too sudden and spontaneous, at the same moment, to have been the outcome of all the concerned individuals having the same heart response. There was a group psychology there, a going with the crowd. And so it is unsurprising that they all turned away relatively soon afterwards.</p>


text:
<p>He built altars in the house of Yahweh, of which Yahweh said, My name shall be in Jerusalem forever- </p><p>This was precisely the behaviour of his grandfather Ahaz. I suggest that this was only done by persuading themselves that these altars were in fact a form of Yahweh worship. For there is never any specific statement that Judah formally renounced Yahweh. And this continues to be the abiding weakness of God’s people; to justify wrongdoing by claiming it is part of worshipping God. Such as justifying luxury homes and goods in the name of needing them to serve God with.</p>


text:
<p>He built altars for all the army of the sky in the two courts of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>These were the court of the priests, and the court of the common people (<a href='B:140 4:9'>2Ch 4:9</a>). The priesthood were surely complicit in this. For when Uzziah had tried to offer incense himself, 80 faithful priests resisted him. But there is no record of any such resistance to Manasseh. The priests in Hezekiah's time had been reticent to devote themselves solely to Yahweh . I suggested that this was because they were accustomed to being priests both of Yahweh and of the pagan gods. This means that they took a cut from all the offerings to all the gods.</p>


text:
<p>He also made his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom- </p><p>This would have meant that his surviving children would have hated him for slaying their siblings; although passing through the fire may have been a dedication ceremony rather than actually burning them to death. <a href='B:120 21:6'>2Ki 21:6</a> has "his son", <a href='B:140 33:6'>2Ch 33:6</a> has "his children". As he had more than one son, we are to infer surely that this focus upon "his son" meant that one of his sons in particular passed through the fire, and that could imply that he sacrificed his son [maybe his firstborn]. Israel should have removed from amongst them a man who did this (<a href='B:50 18:10'>Deu 18:10</a>), and the fact they didn’t suggests they therefore passively supported him in his apostacy.</p><p>The valley of Hinnom, Ge Hinnom, was to later be known as Gehenna, and became a symbol used by the Lord for complete destruction (<a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a>). As they burnt their children there, to destruction, so sinners would be burnt to destruction in that same place.</p><p>And he practised sorcery and used enchantments, and practised witchcraft and dealt with those who had familiar spirits, and with wizards- </p><p>AV "a familiar spirit" is misleading, and many of the modern versions give something like "witch" or [ESV, GNB] "a medium". LXX has "a divining spirit". It doesn't mean she did actually have any such spirit; but that she was considered as having this. Such people were thought to be able to be possessed by the spirit of dead people, and to therefore speak in their name. But the Bible clearly teaches that the "spirit returns to God" (<a href='B:230 146:4'>Psa 146:4</a>; <a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a>), and that death is unconsciousness. The spirit of dead persons don't enter other people. I would go so far as to say that the record of the witch at Endor, who supposedly had a "familiar spirit", is deconstructing this belief. For Samuel himself appears, and speaks directly to Saul, and not through the "medium". The woman therefore screamed in shock when Samuel actually appeared. He was resurrected, briefly, in order to give God’s final message to Saul. The people claiming to have "familiar spirits" lay on the ground and mumbled hard to understand words in a voice seeking to imitate the dead person (<a href='B:290 29:4'>Isa 29:4</a>) but Samuel appeared in person and spoke clearly to Saul, directly. We also note that Samuel appeared to Saul standing upright, because Saul bowed before him: "Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and showed respect" (<a href='B:90 28:14'>1Sa 28:14</a>). This was quite different to how the mediums lay on the ground and mumbled words into the dust.</p><p>He worked much evil in the sight of Yahweh, to provoke Him to anger- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p>He set the engraved image of the idol, which he had made, in God’s house, of which God said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put My name forever- </p><p>Manasseh is criticized for placing an idol in the very place where God’s Name of Yahweh was meant to dwell, “the graven image of Asherah” (<a href='B:120 21:7'>2Ki 21:7</a> RV). He replaced the invisible things- the more abstract things of the characteristics of God which the Name speaks of- by something material and visible. We make the same mistake when we turn away from true spirituality and become lost in physical works. If Judah had not forgotten the Name [and this must refer to their lack of appreciation of it rather than forgetting the letters JHVH], then they wouldn’t have served Baal and other gods (<a href='B:300 23:27'>Jer 23:27</a>). It is this particular idol which it seems was returned to the temple just prior to the destruction of the temple (<a href='B:330 8:3'>Eze 8:3</a>), despite Manasseh himself removing it on his repentance.</p>


text:
<p>neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from off the land which I have appointed for your fathers, if only they will observe to do all that I have commanded them, even all the law and the statutes and the ordinances given by Moses- </p><p>This is apparently (:7) a quotation from what God said to David and Solomon. But it appears to be an adaptation about the promises to the singular seed, that he must continue in obedience if the promises were to be fulfilled through him. But just as Abraham's seed is both the Lord Jesus and all those in Him, the true Israel of God, so the promises about David’s seed also have a collective dimension.</p>


text:
<p>Manasseh seduced Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that they did more evil than the nations did whom Yahweh had destroyed before the children of Israel-</p><p>God’s tolerance of Judah in His land was therefore by grace, and in hope of their repentance. Their doing "more evil" than the Gentiles could refer to the fact that as in covenant relationship with God, they were the more responsible for their sins. Or the idea may be that most Gentiles were faithful to their set of gods, only changing them if that was enforced upon them by the military dominance of a neighbour. But Judah went running madly to every god they could, described by Hosea under the figure of sexual addiction.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh spoke to Manasseh, and to his people; but they gave no heed- </p><p>"They gave no heed", or 'did not listen', is a phrase used in the later prophets as they appeal to the exiles (<a href='B:160 9:34'>Neh 9:34</a>; <a href='B:450 1:4'>Zec 1:4</a>). The sins of Manasseh in 'not listening' to God’s word are cited as the main reason for the exile. We note that refusing to listen to God’s word is the essence of all the sins of idolatry etc. It is the spurning of relationship with God which appears to hurt Him even more than the list of sins which Manasseh was also guilty of.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Yahweh brought on them the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh in chains, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon-</p><p>Literally, "in thorns", but the idea is of rings or hooks, probably in his nose. For it was like this that Assyria was to be treated by God, and the latter day Assyrian led by Gog will likewise effectively be Yahweh's captive servant with rings in his nose (<a href='B:120 19:28'>2Ki 19:28</a>; <a href='B:330 38:4'>Eze 38:4</a>). Or it could be that Manasseh was taken "in the thorns", hiding in a thorn bush.</p><p>Albert Barnes notes: "Esarhaddon mentions Manasseh among his tributaries; and he was the only king of Assyria who, from time to time, held his court at Babylon".</p>


text:
<p>When he was in distress, he begged Yahweh his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers- </p><p>There is no lack of evidence that later Bible characters found inspiration in Samson, especially in their weakness. Manasseh is an example (<a href='B:140 33:12-13'>2Ch 33:12-13</a> = <a href='B:70 16:19'>Jdg 16:19</a>; <a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a>). The intensity of Samson's repentance was quite something. It must have inspired Manasseh (<a href='B:140 33:11'>2Ch 33:11</a>), who like Samson was bound (<a href='B:70 16:21'>Jdg 16:21</a>) and humbled (<a href='B:70 16:5'>Jdg 16:5</a>; <a href='B:70 16:16'>Jdg 16:16</a>; <a href='B:70 16:19'>Jdg 16:19</a> AVmg:)- and then repented with a like intensity. And Zedekiah went through the same basic experience, of capture by his enemies, having his eyes put out, his capture attributed to false gods; and he likewise repented (<a href='B:120 25:7'>2Ki 25:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He prayed to Him; and He was entreated by him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that Yahweh was God- </p><p>Manasseh's repentance and forgiveness was associated with his knowing Yahweh. He prayed to Yahweh, but only on experiencing forgiveness did he come to know Him (<a href='B:140 33:13'>2Ch 33:13</a>). To really know the Name elicits forgiveness, and the experience of that forgiveness leads to knowing the Name yet further. Job went through the same; when he truly saw / perceived God, he repented and 'loathed his words' (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a> RVmg:).</p><p>Humanly speaking, the return of Manasseh to Judah would have been because Assyria wanted to turn Judah into a vassal, buffer state between them and the mighty power of Egypt, which they feared. But this coincided with Manasseh's repentance.</p>


text:
<p>Now after this he built an outer wall to the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entrance at the fish gate; and he encircled Ophel with it, and raised it up to a very great height; and he put valiant captains in all the fortified cities of Judah- </p><p>This wall seems to have been on the north east of the city, from the modern Damascus gate across the Gihon valley to the “fish gate” at the north east of the “city of David”. These defensive actions suggest he started to break away from servitude to Assyria, even though that was probably the basis of his return from exile (see on :13). Building projects like these were typically recorded as being done at the beginning of the reigns of kings of Judah, and so it's as if he was born again, and was trying to start out afresh.</p>


text:
<p>He took away the foreign gods, and the idol out of the house of Yahweh, and all the altars that he had built in the mountain of the house of Yahweh, and in Jerusalem, and cast them out of the city- </p><p>This seems largely to have been his personal repentance, because the people continued their idolatry (:17) and were clearly devoted to idols in their hearts. The idols were apparently not destroyed, for in Josiah's time they had to be destroyed. To undo damage caused is a key feature of repentance, and truly Manasseh had fruits appropriate for repentance. He is really a stellar example of repentance. For his sin is repeatedly stated as being of leading Judah to idolatry. To so openly admit he had been wrong was truly a sign of abiding humility:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He built up the altar of Yahweh, and offered thereon sacrifices of peace offerings and of thanksgiving, and commanded Judah to serve Yahweh, the God of Israel- </p><p>This would imply he had at least partially destroyed the altar of Yahweh, in favour of altars to other gods. There are a number of other Old Testament examples of preaching the word after becoming aware of the depth of one's own sins. Consider Jonah preaching the second time, with the marks in his body after three days in the whale, admitting his rebellion against Yahweh, pleading with them to respond to His word. Reflect how when his head was wrapped around with seaweed, at the bottom of the sea at the absolute end of mortal life, he made a vow to God, which he then fulfilled, presumably in going back to preach to Nineveh (<a href='B:390 2:9'>Jon 2:9</a>). His response to having confessed his sins and daring to believe in God’s forgiveness, turning again towards His temple even from underwater, was to resolve to preach to others if he was spared his life. And this he did, although as with so many of us, the pureness of his initial evangelical zeal soon flaked. Or consider Jehoshaphat, <a href='B:140 19:3'>2Ch 19:3</a> cp. 18:31; 19:2; Josiah, <a href='B:140 34:29'>2Ch 34:29</a>; <a href='B:140 34:32'>2Ch 34:32</a>; Nebuchadnezzar, <a href='B:340 3:29'>Dan 3:29</a>; <a href='B:340 4:2'>Dan 4:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless the people sacrificed still in the high places, but only to Yahweh their God- </p><p>The essence of Judah's apostacy, then and now, was to combine service of Yahweh with that of idols. And so this is not a good comment. For sacrifice should have been made in the temple, and not in the idol shrines. We need to constantly ask ourselves whether we are serving our own idolatry in the name of serving God. This mixture of truth and error is seen not only in practical ways but also in the way so many Christian doctrines such as the trinity are in fact a mixture of paganism with truth.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer to his God, and the words of the seers who spoke to him in the name of Yahweh, the God of Israel, behold, they are written among the acts of the kings of Israel- </p><p>Manasseh's prayer is recorded in various uninspired writings. But it is not in the volumes we know as 1 and 2 Kings. I have therefore cautioned that the common concluding statement that the deeds of a king are "written in the book of the kings" should not be taken as necessarily referring to the books of Kings in our Bibles.</p><p>The words of the prophets who appealed to him are recorded in <a href='B:120 21:11-15'>2Ki 21:11-15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>His prayer also, and how God was entreated of him, and all his sin and his trespass, and the places in which he built high places, and set up the Asherim and the engraved images, before he humbled himself: they are written in the history of Hozai- </p><p>This history, presumably written by a prophet called Hozai, isn't preserved. The LXX stresses that this included a geographical inventory of "the spots on which he built the high places, and set there groves and graven images". This list was presumably produced by Manasseh as part of his repentance, and would have been the basis of his practical attempt to put right what he had done wrong. Writing an inventory of people we've hurt or the ways in which others have suffered from our sins is something used in counseling alcoholics in the 12 step program, and it has value for all repentance:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>So Manasseh slept with his fathers, and they buried him in his own house; and Amon his son reigned in his place-</p><p>LXX "in the garden of his house".</p>


text:
<p>Amon was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; and he reigned two years in Jerusalem- </p><p>He had been raised in the spirit of his father’s apostacy, and was apparently unimpressed by Manasseh's amazing repentance.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, as did Manasseh his father; and Amon sacrificed to all the engraved images which Manasseh his father had made, and served them- </p><p>Manasseh had removed the images, but not apparently destroyed them. The history of the kings abounds with such references to idolatry being reformed, and then so quickly revived. The speed of its revival reflects the fact that the heart of the people generally was with the idols. And we must assess our own episodes of apparent repentance in this light. Manasseh had repaired the temple (:16), but by Josiah's time it needed repairing again; so it could be that Amon also desecrated and damaged the temple yet further.</p>


text:
<p>He didn’t humble himself before Yahweh, as Manasseh his father had humbled himself; but this same Amon trespassed more and more- </p><p>Manasseh goes down in the record as the parade example of a man who manages to put the brakes on as he slides downhill to destruction. For the antithesis to Manasseh's humility and repentance is that Amon sinned "more and more". "Humble himself" is parallel with 'repentance' (LXX uses the term 'repentance' here). This is the essence of repentance- self humbling.</p>


text:
<p>His servants conspired against him, and put him to death in his own house- </p><p>There seems a special stigma and shame attached to being murdered in ones' own home, rather than on a battlefield or dying from old age.</p>


text:
<p>But the people of the land killed all those who had conspired against king Amon; and the people of the land made Josiah his son king in his place-</p><p>Josiah means 'foundation of Yah'. It's unlikely this was the name Amon gave him, although a repentant Manasseh may have influenced it. However, at no point did even kings like Amon and Manasseh formally deny Yahweh. They worshipped Him, so they thought, through worshipping idols. So it is not impossible that indeed this was Josiah's birth name. And from that we can take yet another warning, to serve Yahweh with our whole hearts; and not assume that our service of the flesh is serving Him.</p>


text:
<p>Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem-</p><p>Josiah means 'foundation of Yah'. It's unlikely this was the name Amon gave him, although a repentant Manasseh may have influenced it. However, at no point did even kings like Amon and Manasseh formally deny Yahweh. They worshipped Him, so they thought, through worshipping idols. So it is not impossible that indeed this was Josiah's birth name. And from that we can take yet another warning, to serve Yahweh with our whole hearts; and not assume that our service of the flesh is serving Him.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and walked in the ways of David his father, and didn’t turn aside to the right hand or to the left- </p><p>And yet Josiah died in spiritual weakness and at a point of disobedience to God’s word (<a href='B:140 35:20-24'>2Ch 35:20-24</a>). The rubric 'He did what was right…' is found even of kings who clearly departed from Yahweh. The truly righteous ones such as Jehoshaphat have a clause added to their summary, saying that they had followed Yahweh in their hearts. But this is lacking in the case of Josiah. We note too that he raised evil sons. And so we wonder whether the record is acknowledging the good works which he did at some points in his life, and it concludes with this too (<a href='B:140 35:26'>2Ch 35:26</a>). But there is a notable absence of any statement to the intent that he was judged as having a heart right with God. And the state of the heart was and is the critical indicator in God’s final judgment of men.</p>


text:
<p>For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of David his father. In the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the Asherim, and the engraved images, and the molten images- </p><p>Kings places this reformation after the repair of the temple, whereas Chronicles puts it before that. However, Manasseh had repaired the temple just a few years earlier (<a href='B:140 33:16'>2Ch 33:16</a>) and that may be what Kings has in mind. Or the temple may have been repaired in stages. However the chronological problems are avoided if we accept a confusion in copying between "eighth" and "eighteenth" (<a href='B:120 22:3'>2Ki 22:3</a>).</p><p>We note that Amon had revived Manasseh's images in the two years of his reign, and it seems the people worshipped them for the first 12 years of Josiah's reign. Again we have the impression that the removal of idolatry was something done by the reformist kings, but the hearts of the people were generally with the idols. And this was why they were condemned relatively soon after Josiah's time. The timing of Josiah's reformation (<a href='B:140 34:3'>2Ch 34:3</a>) coincides with the prophecies of Jeremiah 2, 3; he heard them, and responded. Hence Jeremiah wept when Josiah died, remembering how as a teenager, Josiah had heard his prophecies and immediately responded to them.</p>


text:
<p>They broke down the altars of the Baals in his presence. He cut down the incense altars that were on high above them. He broke in pieces the Asherim, and the engraved images, and the molten images, and made dust of them, and strewed it on the graves of those who had sacrificed to them- </p><p>We note the contrast between altars being cut down "in his presence", and he himself cutting others down. We get the impression of total personal involvement and commitment, just at the age of 20. He put their dust on the graves of their worshippers who were buried near to the idols, referring maybe to the children offered to them, or to the fact that some were so devoted to idols that they gave their lives to them and were willing human sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p>He burnt the bones of the priests on their altars, and purged Judah and Jerusalem-</p><p>It was done specifically at Bethel (<a href='B:120 23:15-16'>2Ki 23:15-16</a>). This implies he murdered the priests and burnt their hones on the altars, or it could refer to the exhuming of their bodies buried near the altars (:4) and burning their bones. This would have been seen as permanently desecrating the altars. This was done because God said that He would do this if His people broke covenant (<a href='B:30 26:30'>Lev 26:30</a>), and Josiah is recognizing that indeed they had broken covenant and were worthy of such things. However, it would seem from :15 that Josiah was ignorant of those curses for disobedience; so it may be that he intuitively did what was written in them without specifically being aware of them. This is the spirit of <a href='B:520 2:14'>Rom 2:14</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He did this in the cities of Manasseh and Ephraim and Simeon, even to Naphtali, in their surrounding ruins- </p><p>Simeonites lived in Judah (<a href='B:130 4:28'>1Ch 4:28</a>). But even in the ruined northern tribes, ruined because of the Assyrians, they were still worshipping idols and had not been led to repentance. Like Hezekiah, Josiah had a sense of responsibility towards the separated, spiritually weak brethren of the ten tribes. And he also knew that idolatry there would easily seep into Judah, as it had done previously. This sense of responsibility even for separated brethren is another abiding lesson for us. Assyrian power was declining, which is why Josiah was able to enter Israel and do this. It seems Josiah had a vision of a reunited kingdom, centered around Yahweh worship. This was indeed the prophetic potential, but the idolatrous hearts of the people precluded it from coming about.</p>


text:
<p>He broke down the altars, and beat the Asherim and the engraved images into powder, and cut down all the incense altars throughout all the land of Israel, and returned to Jerusalem-</p><p>"All the land of Israel" need not mean that every altar in all Israel was broken down, but that he went throughout "all Israel" on this mission; see on :6.</p>


text:
<p>Now in the eighteenth year of his reign, when he had purged the land and the house, he sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, and Maaseiah the governor of the city, and Joah the son of Joahaz the recorder, to repair the house of Yahweh his God- </p><p>"His God" could imply that he was not widely supported by the people. For as ever, their hearts soon returned to idolatry after this. For the chronological issue on when this repair occurred, see on :3. The "scribe" or historian was a senior advisor in the Hebrew court (<a href='B:100 8:17'>2Sa 8:17</a>; <a href='B:120 18:18'>2Ki 18:18</a>; <a href='B:120 18:37'>2Ki 18:37</a>; <a href='B:140 34:8'>2Ch 34:8</a>) because of the huge value attached to history in the Hebrew mind, and as reflected in the Bible being largely history. Advice on how to act was to be based upon historical, or as we would now say, "Biblical", precedent.</p>


text:
<p>They came to Hilkiah the high priest, and delivered the money that was brought into God’s house, which the Levites, the keepers of the threshold, had gathered of the hand of Manasseh and Ephraim, and of all the remnant of Israel, and of all Judah and Benjamin, and of the inhabitants of Jerusalem- </p><p>AV "And they returned to Jerusalem". We note the generosity of the people even in the northern tribes, as well as the Israelites living in Judah ["the remnant of Israel"]. The way the various sources of income are described suggests a detailed record was made, indeed Kings says that Hilkiah took the sum. The half shekel temple tax was to be paid when a census was taken, and it seems this is what he did.</p>


text:
<p>They delivered it into the hand of the workmen who had the oversight of the house of Yahweh. The workmen who laboured in the house of Yahweh gave it to mend and repair the house- </p><p>Chronicles was written for the encouragement of the exiles to likewise mend and repair the temple, and so they were intended to take encouragement from these men.</p>


text:
<p>even to the carpenters and to the builders they gave it, to buy cut stone, and timber for couplings, and to make beams for the houses which the kings of Judah had destroyed- </p><p>The destruction of the temple by these kings may not have been because they totally rejected Yahweh. The essence of their apostacy, as ours, was to use the things of Yahweh for idolatry, to mix paganism and the way of the flesh with Yahweh worship. So it is likely that when we read of men like Manasseh building other temples or shrines to idols in the vicinity of the temple, what happened was that they took the materials from the temple structure and used them for the idol temples. For materials like cut stone and timber were expensive and hard to source; Solomon had spent huge effort in bringing them from far away to build Yahweh's temple.</p>


text:
<p>The men did the work faithfully; and their overseers were Jahath and Obadiah, the Levites, of the sons of Merari; and Zechariah and Meshullam, of the sons of the Kohathites, to set it forward; and others of the Levites, all who were skilful with instruments of music- </p><p>This could mean that the builders worked to the accompaniment of spiritual music. Or that musicians, not used to manual labour, worked in the rebuilding; just as apothecaries and others unused to such work laboured in rebuilding the wall in Nehemiah's time. And Chronicles was written for their encouragement.</p>


text:
<p>Also they were over the bearers of burdens, and set forward all who did the work in every kind of service. Of the Levites there were scribes, and officers, and porters-</p><p>This is the first time we read of the "scribes" as a distinct body. Although possibly they began in the time of Hezekiah (<a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>). Whilst this was the class which so persecuted the Lord Jesus generations later, the original intention was that they would be responsible for "the writings" and perhaps interpretation of them. But for now, they were to be concerned not with academic study, but in making the word flesh through actually labour in the rebuilding work. </p>


text:
<p>When they brought out the money that was brought into the house of Yahweh, Hilkiah the priest found the book of the law of Yahweh given by Moses- </p><p>All spiritual endeavour leads to the Lord inviting us deeper into that endeavour; thus it was as Barnabas and Paul went about their ministering to the Lord that they were invited to go on a missionary journey (<a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a>). Likewise it was as the Levites were in process of collecting funds for repairing the temple, that they found the book of the law- perhaps because they needed more space in which to store the donations, and whilst making space they found the scroll. In the process of being a deacon, faith is developed (<a href='B:610 3:13'>1Ti 3:13</a>). The very process of service and obedience leads to greater faith in practice.</p><p>There is an apparent parallel between money being found in the temple, and the book of the law being found (<a href='B:120 22:8-9'>2Ki 22:8-9</a>). The idea is that as David often says in Psalms 119, Yahweh's law was the greatest treasure. So much so that the Chronicles record focuses so much on the book of the law being found that no direct mention is made of the money also "found"along with it until :17. Even in Kings, the discovery of the money is only mentioned in passing, as if the greatest discovery was not wealth, but God’s law. And that is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p>Hilkiah answered Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of Yahweh. Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan- </p><p>This book was probably not the entire Pentateuch, but the curses for disobedience in Deuteronomy 28, for Josiah's response is appropriate to someone who had just heard them read. But see on :5. <a href='B:300 15:16'>Jer 15:16</a> refers to this: "Your words were found, and I did eat them... [they] were to me the joy and the delight of my heart: for I am called by Your name, Yahweh". Jeremiah rejoiced in those words of judgment. And as a result, “I am called by Your name”- the language of a woman marrying and taking her husband’s name (<a href='B:290 4:1'>Isa 4:1</a>). The word of God was his “joy [and] delight”- two words used four times elsewhere in Jeremiah, and always in the context of the joy of a wedding (<a href='B:300 7:34'>Jer 7:34</a>; <a href='B:300 16:9'>Jer 16:9</a>; <a href='B:300 25:10'>Jer 25:10</a>; <a href='B:300 33:11'>Jer 33:11</a>). Jeremiah saw his prophetic task as actually a marriage to God, an inbreathing of His word and being, to the point that he could say that he personally was “full of the wrath / passion of God” (<a href='B:300 6:11'>Jer 6:11</a>). Jeremiah's lament that the people had no joy or delight in God’s word (<a href='B:300 6:10'>Jer 6:10</a>) is the basis for this comment that when he found God’s words, they were his joy.</p>


text:
<p>Shaphan carried the book to the king, and moreover brought back word to the king, saying, All that was committed to your servants, they are doing- </p><p>There appears an intentional contrast here. The book of the law contained a list of curses for disobedience, and the people had not being doing according to God’s word. But the message of Shaphan is that the servants are doing all they have been commanded to do. The idea is that Josiah perceived this, and realized that all this rebuilding of the temple was not going to save them of itself. They needed to make a from the heart repentance amongst all the people, in order to truly avoid Divine judgment. And this was so relevant to the exiles, for whom Chronicles was written. Rebuilding the temple alone was not in fact what God primarily wanted. He desired their hearts.</p>


text:
<p>They have emptied out the money that was found in the house of Yahweh, and have delivered it into the hand of the overseers, and into the hand of the workmen- </p><p>The implication is that all was being done honestly. Whenever there was an appeal for materials, money or labour to build the tabernacle or rebuild the temple, God’s people were always very responsive. But the lesson of Judah's history is that material generosity is not the same as true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest has delivered me a book. Shaphan read therein before the king- </p><p>What was read were the curses for disobedience. The harder side of the Father and the Lord Jesus should actually serve as an attraction to the serious believer. Peter knew that if it really was the Lord Jesus out there on the water, then He would bid him walk on the water to Him. Peter knew his Lord, and the sort of things He would ask men to do- the very hardest things for them in their situation. He knew how Jesus could be a demanding Lord. Jeremiah “knew that this was the word of the Lord” when he was asked to do something so humanly senseless- to buy property when he was in prison, when the land was clearly about to be overrun by the Babylonians (<a href='B:300 31:8'>Jer 31:8</a>):&nbsp; When Jeremiah had earlier found the curses for disobedience recorded in the book of the Law which had been lost, He 'ate them', those words of cursings were "the joy and rejoicing of my heart" - they so motivated him (<a href='B:300 15:16'>Jer 15:16</a> = <a href='B:140 34:18-21'>2Ch 34:18-21</a>). When Ananias and Sapphira were slain by the Lord, fear came upon "as many as heard these things" .</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he tore his clothes- </p><p>Although Josiah was personally innocent, he felt so passionately for God’s people. We too need to have hearts that bleed for others, and not be solely concerned with our own standing before God. For our standing before Him involves our attitudes to others and our concern for their salvation, if we truly seek God’s glory and not our own.</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded Hilkiah, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Abdon the son of Micah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king’s servant saying- </p><p>This is the Ahikam of <a href='B:300 26:24'>Jer 26:24</a>; <a href='B:300 40:5'>Jer 40:5</a>. His son Gedaliah appears to have been faithful and to also have cared for Jeremiah after Jerusalem fell (<a href='B:300 40:6'>Jer 40:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Go inquire of Yahweh for me, and for those who are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found. Great is the wrath of Yahweh that is poured out on us, because our fathers have not kept the word of Yahweh, to do according to all that is written in this book-</p><p>"Poured out" is "kindled" in 2 Kings; the sense was that he realized the wrath of God was kindled and was literally about to burn against them, and so repentance must be immediate with no time to lose.</p>


text:
<p>So Hilkiah, and they whom the king had commanded, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tokhath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she lived in Jerusalem in the second quarter), and they spoke to her to that effect- </p><p>"The second quarter" may refer to a newer area of Jerusalem (<a href='B:430 1:10'>Zep 1:10</a> RV), or as AV "the college", implying as a prophetess she had a kind of Bible study centre. "Keeper of the wardrobe" may refer to the priestly garments (cp. <a href='B:120 10:22'>2Ki 10:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>She said to them, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel: ‘Tell the man who sent you to me- </p><p>We see here and in :26 how Josiah had no direct vision from God. He was dealing all the time through the prophetic word relayed to him, and his obedience to it is the more commendable. Because it reflects his humility to God’s revealed word, in a way more impressive than if these words had come directly to him. We are in his position, and should learn from him.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh, Behold, I will bring evil on this place, and on its inhabitants, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah- </p><p>The reference to curses suggests that the scrolls discovered contained at least Deuteronomy 28 and <a href='B:50 27:15-26'>Deu 27:15-26</a>. See on :5.</p>


text:
<p>Because they have forsaken Me, and have burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke Me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore is My wrath poured out on this place, and it shall not be quenched’- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p><p>Idolatrous Israel never consciously&nbsp; tried to provoke Yahweh to anger with their apostasy; the words of the prophets must have seemed to them a gross exaggeration. But this was really how God saw it (<a href='B:140 34:25'>2Ch 34:25</a>).</p><p>Although "it shall not be quenched", Josiah knew God well enough to try to quench it, by getting all His people to make a from the heart commitment to Him. &nbsp;Even though God had told Josiah that His wrath with His people would not be quenched, it would seem that there was still some possibility of "remedy", had the people accepted God’s word in their hearts (<a href='B:140 36:16'>2Ch 36:16</a>). We see here His absolute eagerness for their repentance, and unwillingness that any of His people should have to perish. And that is the same God with whom we have to do.</p>


text:
<p>But to the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of Yahweh, thus you shall tell him, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel: ‘As touching the words which you have heard- </p><p>See on :23 for the significance of Josiah not receiving these words directly.</p>


text:
<p>because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before God when you heard His words against this place, and against its inhabitants, and have humbled yourself before Me and have torn your clothes, and wept before Me; I also have heard you, says Yahweh- </p><p>We see here the mutuality between God and man; He hears the man who hears Him. We see the root of humility as being in having a heart / mind sensitive to Him. But "tender heart" is the same phrase used for being "faint hearted" in time of battle (<a href='B:50 20:3'>Deu 20:3</a>; <a href='B:290 7:4'>Isa 7:4</a>; <a href='B:300 51:46'>Jer 51:46</a>). It was as if Josiah saw the judgment of God coming, as if it had come, and was faint hearted before the soldiers he saw coming against him. And yet even such a tender heart can be given by God (s:w. <a href='B:220 23:16'>Job 23:16</a>), for He can also give attitudes of mind by His sovereign operation&nbsp; .</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, neither shall your eyes see all the evil that I will bring on this place, and on its inhabitants’. They brought back word to the king- </p><p>This is a similar situation to the promise to Hezekiah and Ahab (<a href='B:110 21:29'>1Ki 21:29</a>). It is as if God judged the entire weight of sin to be such that even Josiah's reformation could only delay and not remove the judgment for it. However, if the people had all repented in their hearts, rather than passively allowing a reformer like Josiah to remove the external evidence of idolatry, then surely the outcome could have been different. See on :31.</p><p>The reality was that Josiah died in battle, not in peace (<a href='B:140 35:22-24'>2Ch 35:22-24</a>). Yet he had been promised to be gathered to his grave in peace (<a href='B:140 34:28'>2Ch 34:28</a>). Here we have an example of God making a statement about the future which is conditional upon human behaviour. Thus He stated that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days; but it wasn't, because they repented. There is a gap between the pronouncement and its fulfilment, and in that gap our behaviour can change the outcome. We too must waste so many potential futures.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king sent and gathered together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem- </p><p>Josiah's idea was to bring about a reformation of the ordinary people, as in :30 we read of the people small and great being gathered. So presumably his gathering of the leaders was in order for them to bring their people with them.</p>


text:
<p>The king went up to the house of Yahweh, and all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, both great and small; and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>2 Kings has "prophets" for "Levites". There were clearly prophets actively operating at this time. As noted on :31, Josiah saw the only way to change the threatened judgments as getting the ordinary people to repent in their hearts. Unlike Hezekiah, he was not satisfied with simply avoiding seeing judgment come in his days. Indeed he learned from Hezekiah's mistake in that matter. See on <a href='B:140 35:7'>2Ch 35:7</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The king stood in his place, and made a covenant before Yahweh, to walk after Yahweh- </p><p>Maybe a reference to <a href='B:50 10:12-13'>Deu 10:12-13</a>, which perhaps was in this scroll.</p><p>And to keep His commandments, His testimonies and His statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant that were written in this book- </p><p>Josiah recognizes that Judah have broken covenant with God and must be judged appropriately (see on :5,28). God was unwilling to ultimately avert the judgment upon the people because of their state of heart. And yet Josiah throws himself into trying to persuade the people to totally give themselves to covenant relationship. He realized that in the gap between the pronunciation of judgment, and it being carried out, there was the possibility of repentance and the judgment not being performed. His mentor Jeremiah had made this point in Jeremiah 18, and was also appealing to the people to change their hearts so that the threatened judgment wouldn't happen. This is how open God’s purpose is, and Josiah and Jeremiah perceived that.</p>


text:
<p>He caused all who were found in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it. The inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the covenant of God, the God of their fathers- </p><p>There are a number of Old Testament examples of preaching the word after becoming aware of the depth of one's own sins. Consider Jonah preaching the second time, with the marks in his body after three days in the whale, admitting his rebellion against Yahweh, pleading with them to respond to His word. Reflect how when his head was wrapped around with seaweed, at the bottom of the sea at the absolute end of mortal life, he made a vow to God, which he then fulfilled, presumably in going back to preach to Nineveh (<a href='B:390 2:9'>Jon 2:9</a>). His response to having confessed his sins and daring to believe in God’s forgiveness, turning again towards His temple even from underwater, was to resolve to preach to others if he was spared his life. And this he did, although as with so many of us, the pureness of his initial evangelical zeal soon flaked. Or consider Manasseh, <a href='B:140 33:16'>2Ch 33:16</a>; Jehoshaphat, <a href='B:140 19:3'>2Ch 19:3</a> cp. 18:31; 19:2; Josiah, <a href='B:140 34:29'>2Ch 34:29</a>; <a href='B:140 34:32'>2Ch 34:32</a>; Nebuchadnezzar, <a href='B:340 3:29'>Dan 3:29</a>; <a href='B:340 4:2'>Dan 4:2</a>...</p><p>We note the specific reference to the people of Jerusalem. It seems that Josiah tried to gather together literally all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, all "found" there. And yet Jerusalem particularly was to suffer in the judgments to come, and Jeremiah's prophesies at this time tend to single out Jerusalem for particular judgment for the unspirituality of the population. So again we perceive that this was all the enthusiasm of Josiah; the people's hearts weren't affected. This is the trouble with mass meetings for "revival". Reformation is essentially personal and of the heart.</p>


text:
<p>Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all who were found in Israel to serve, even to serve Yahweh their God. All his days they didn’t depart from following Yahweh, the God of their fathers- </p><p>As noted above, Assyrian power was declining, and the ten tribes although living in ruins, were invited hereby to become Josiah's subjects. His vision was of a reunited kingdom of Israel and Judah, based around solid commitment to Yahweh. For a people accepted the gods of those dominant over them, and Israel were now agreeing to accept Yahweh, which was Judah's God, as theirs. But this was to be experienced only in "his days" as his son Jehoiakim let the ball drop rather dramatically. All this potential was wasted by him.</p><p>Josiah discovered the book of the Law- and he then went on to do something about it in practice. Reflect through what he did:</p><p>Passover kept in Jerusalem (<a href='B:120 23:21-23'>2Ki 23:21-23</a>) = <a href='B:50 16:1-8'>Deu 16:1-8</a>; Removed asherahs (<a href='B:120 23:4'>2Ki 23:4</a>; <a href='B:120 23:6'>2Ki 23:6</a>; <a href='B:120 23:14'>2Ki 23:14</a>) = <a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a>; <a href='B:50 16:21'>Deu 16:21</a>; Star worship removed (<a href='B:120 23:4'>2Ki 23:4</a>; <a href='B:120 23:11'>2Ki 23:11</a>) = <a href='B:50 17:3'>Deu 17:3</a>; The ‘high places’ and cults removed (<a href='B:120 23:8-20'>2Ki 23:8-20</a>) = Deuteronomy 12; Child sacrifice ended (<a href='B:120 23:10'>2Ki 23:10</a>) = <a href='B:50 12:31'>Deu 12:31</a>; <a href='B:50 18:10'>Deu 18:10</a>; The cultic stones / ‘mazzeboth’ removed (<a href='B:120 23:14'>2Ki 23:14</a>) = <a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a>; <a href='B:50 16:22'>Deu 16:22</a>; Conjouring up the dead ended (<a href='B:120 23:24'>2Ki 23:24</a>) = <a href='B:50 18:11'>Deu 18:11</a>.</p><p>Do you notice from where in Deuteronomy he got those ideas? From chapters 12-18. My suggestion is that he maxed out on that part of the ‘book of the law’ which was read to him, and went and did it. The Lord in the wilderness was likewise motivated by Deuteronomy chapters 6 and 8.</p><p>In the first century, when people heard the Gospel, they were generally baptized immediately. This meant that the prison keeper was baptized in the middle of the night, amidst an earthquake… in essence, people heard the message, and responded immediately. We likewise heard of the Bible’s teaching about baptism, and we did something concrete and actual- we got wet. We went under the water. But we must ask ourselves whether we are continuing to be responsive to the word of God which we become increasingly familiar with as we read daily. Our very familiarity with it can militate against a real response. When last did you read / understand something from Scripture, and then get up and do something real, concrete and actual about it?</p>


text:
<p>Josiah kept a Passover to Yahweh in Jerusalem: and they killed the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month- </p><p>Josiah urged the people to keep this (<a href='B:120 23:21'>2Ki 23:21</a>) despite having been told in <a href='B:140 34:25'>2Ch 34:25</a> that the people would indeed to judged for their sons. He had sought to change this by appealing for all the people to enter covenant with Yahweh from their hearts (<a href='B:140 34:30'>2Ch 34:30</a>). And he seeks to confirm this by holding a huge Passover, where he provided the people with the sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p>He set the priests in their offices, and encouraged them to the service of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>This encouragement may have been necessary because they themselves were not so enthusiastic; for as noted on :3, it was their servants the Levites who were teaching Israel, when the priests ought to have been doing so.</p>


text:
<p>He said to the Levites who taught all Israel, who were holy to Yahweh, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel built. There shall no more be a burden on your shoulders. Now serve Yahweh your God and His people Israel- </p><p>The Levites here are distinguished from the priests (:2). But it was the duty of the priests to teach (<a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a>; <a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a>), but we sense the priesthood was not solidly behind the reforms; although their servants the Levites were. This is similar to how the situation was at the time of Hezekiah's reforms (<a href='B:140 29:34'>2Ch 29:34</a>), and it explains why all these reforms were so quickly undone; for the priesthood and people were always still hankering after idols.</p><p>We note that the ark had been carried around on their shoulders for some time, and the temple was therefore devoid of the supreme symbol of God’s presence. The religion of Judah had therefore been hollow for quite some time. Perhaps the ark had been removed from the temple by Manasseh, or by faithful priests who feared he would destroy it or abuse it.</p>


text:
<p>Prepare yourselves after your fathers’ houses by your divisions, according to the writing of David king of Israel, and according to the writing of Solomon his son- </p><p>These writings had been preserved for some centuries, and had presumably been copied out by the scribes. But they had to be urged all the time by Josiah to act in a way which ought to have been natural for them if they from their hearts were really obedient and eager for reformation (see on :3).</p>


text:
<p>Stand in the holy place according to the divisions of the fathers’ houses of your brothers the children of the people, and let there be for each a portion of a father’s house of the Levites- </p><p>"The children of the people" is s:w. "the common people" (<a href='B:120 23:6'>2Ki 23:6</a>). The idea is that each father’s house of the common people was assigned a group of Levites to help them in the preparation of the Passover sacrifices. And we noted in :3 that the Levites had at this time replaced the priests as the teachers, so they presumably also taught them what the law of Moses said about the Passover.</p>


text:
<p>Kill the Passover and sanctify yourselves, and prepare for your brothers, to do according to the word of Yahweh by Moses- </p><p>The Levites were to perceive the common people of Israel as their "brothers" (:5) which is the most effective way of teaching (:3) and spiritually helping people, rather than assuming a position of high authority over them.</p>


text:
<p>Josiah gave to the children of the people of the flock, lambs and young goats, all of them for the Passover offerings, to all who were present, to the number of thirty thousand, and three thousand bulls. These were of the king’s substance- </p><p>The people were intended to bring their own Passover lambs, but they hadn't. And Josiah was hoping that he could bring the hearts of the people back to Yahweh (see on <a href='B:140 34:30'>2Ch 34:30</a>) so that the threatened judgment upon them would be revoked. We recall that Josiah himself had been assured of his personal acceptability with God, and that he would not see judgment come in his days. Unlike Hezekiah, he didn’t shrug at the fate of his people. He of his own substance gave them huge numbers of animals in order that they would each have something personal to offer, in accordance with the law (:6). But again, this was a case of a reformer seeking to impose his vision upon the masses, and it ultimately didn’t work. For they soon returned to idolatry and were judged for that. Hezekiah likewise had given the people the offerings they themselves ought to have brought (<a href='B:140 30:24'>2Ch 30:24</a>) and that too didn’t ultimately work out.</p>


text:
<p>His princes gave for a freewill offering to the people, to the priests, and to the Levites. Hilkiah and Zechariah and Jehiel, the rulers of God’s house, gave to the priests for the Passover offerings two thousand and six hundred small livestock, and three hundred head of cattle- </p><p>Hilkiah is well attested as the one who found the lost book of the law (<a href='B:120 22:8'>2Ki 22:8</a>), helped in Josiah's reforms (<a href='B:120 22:14-20'>2Ki 22:14-20</a>) and arranged the great Passover observance of <a href='B:140 35:1-19'>2Ch 35:1-19</a>. But Hilkiah did all this despite being the son of a High Priest called Shallum (<a href='B:130 6:12-13'>1Ch 6:12-13</a>), whose name can mean 'bribe' (s:w. <a href='B:400 7:3'>Mic 7:3</a> about the corruption of the priesthood). Perhaps this was what he was known for. But his son / descendant rose above that bad background, as we can. "For a freewill offering" may be better as AV "freely", that is these offerings were given willingly and freely.</p>


text:
<p>Conaniah also, and Shemaiah and Nethanel, his brothers, and Hashabiah and Jeiel and Jozabad, the chiefs of the Levites, gave to the Levites for the Passover offerings five thousand small livestock, and five hundred head of cattle- </p><p>This was a major act of generosity, reflecting Hezekiah's desire to as it were make the people acceptable to God by each having something to offer. But sacrifice is ultimately a very personal thing and cannot be forced, nor done using other people as a proxy.</p>


text:
<p>So the service was prepared, and the priests stood in their place, and the Levites by their divisions, according to the king’s commandment- </p><p>This was all done according to the commandment of God through Moses (:6). Josiah was careful that his commandments exactly reflected God’s. He was sincerely doing all he could to make the people acceptable to God through strict obedience. But it didn’t ultimately work because their hearts were untouched and soon returned to idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>They killed the Passover, and the priests sprinkled the blood which they received of their hand, and the Levites flayed them- </p><p>As noted on :10,13 Josiah was being careful to follow the absolute letter of the law.</p>


text:
<p>They removed the burnt offerings, that they might give them according to the divisions of the fathers’ houses of the children of the people, to offer to Yahweh, as it is written in the book of Moses. So they did with the cattle- </p><p>As explained on :5, the animals were carefully given to the common people to offer. But those huge numbers of sacrifices, put into the hands of people to offer, was not the spirit of the law. God had made it clear that He didn’t delight in huge numbers of offerings, but rather sought humble, contrite hearts. Just as David had been taught when faced with death over his sins with Bathsheba. But the hearts of the people were apparently unmoved at this time. It was all the externality of mere ritualism.</p>


text:
<p>They roasted the Passover with fire according to the ordinance. They boiled the holy offerings in pots, in caldrons and in pans, and carried them quickly to all the children of the people- </p><p>"According to the ordinance" reflects the continued stress on the fact they were doing all they could to be obedient to the letter of the law (see on :10). But as noted on :12, what was required was broken hearts, and not rivers of blood and mounds of slain animals. What was offered using pots was the boiled flesh of the peace offerings, offered on the days of unleavened bread (<a href='B:30 23:4-8'>Lev 23:4-8</a>). We get the impression of hyper vigilance to obey the letter of the law; although their hearts were still far from God, and they had not even brought their own Passover sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p>Afterward they prepared for themselves, and for the priests, because the priests the sons of Aaron were busy with offering the burnt offerings and the fat until night; therefore the Levites prepared for themselves, and for the priests the sons of Aaron- </p><p>The priests themselves kept the Passover, despite being so busy, although they needed the help of the Levites to do it. Again we have the impression of careful, all out effort to obey every letter of the law about the Passover. We may take the lesson that we are not to be so caught up with serving others that we neglect personal obedience. But the stronger lesson is that all this legalistic obedience didn’t succeed, as Josiah hoped it would, in averting the judgment coming upon the people. Because their hearts were not changed.</p>


text:
<p>The singers the sons of Asaph were in their place, according to the commandment of David, and Asaph, and Heman, and Jeduthun the king’s prophet. The porters were at every gate: they didn’t need to depart from their service; for their brothers the Levites prepared for them- </p><p>Jeduthun is called Ethan in <a href='B:130 6:44'>1Ch 6:44</a>. As with priests explained on :14, the singers also kept the Passover because the Levites prepared it for them. But we wonder whether this was not a departure from the letter of the law, for each family were to prepare their Passover lamb personally and not have others doing it for them. So in the intense effort to obey the letter of the law (see on :14), they still had to fall back upon keeping the spirit of it.</p>


text:
<p>So all the service of Yahweh was prepared the same day, to keep the Passover, and to offer burnt offerings on the altar of Yahweh, according to the commandment of king Josiah- </p><p>"So the service... was prepared / set in order" is a phrase used only of the time of Hezekiah's reformation (<a href='B:140 29:35'>2Ch 29:35</a>) and of that of Josiah (<a href='B:140 35:10'>2Ch 35:10</a>; <a href='B:140 35:15-16'>2Ch 35:15-16</a>). I suggested on <a href='B:140 29:17-18'>2Ch 29:17-18</a> that this term was used in the context of Hezekiah keeping a kind of Passover. It seems Josiah was inspired by the record of Hezekiah's reformation, and sought to follow it. Just as we too in our own contexts are to be inspired by the spirit of these reformers.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel who were present kept the Passover at that time, and the feast of unleavened bread seven days- </p><p>The number of sacrificial lambs was huge. If each extended family numbered 13 people, there would have been over half a million people present. But that is unrealistic. More like, each head of family offered more than one Passover lamb, in a&nbsp; attempt to cover families not present. It was Josiah's attempt at as it were impressing God by the number of animals offered, and to somehow cleanse all Israel. But he failed to appreciate that numbers of sacrifices were not impressive to God, and He instead was searching for broken hearts as David’s was. And there is no mention of any appeal to the hearts of the people.</p>


text:
<p>There was no Passover like that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; neither did any of the kings of Israel keep such a Passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel who were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem- </p><p>This Passover was unique both in terms of numbers of offerings, and in the strict obedience to all the legislation about it. We note the repeated treatment of "the inhabitants of Jerusalem" as a separate group. And yet Jeremiah, who was the contemporary prophet, specifically criticizes this group above all as being so far from Yahweh in their hearts. And this was the critical dimension which was not addressed by all this ritualistic obedience.</p>


text:
<p>In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah was this Passover kept-</p><p>We have no record of what Josiah did in the last 13 years of his reign (<a href='B:140 34:1'>2Ch 34:1</a>), apart from the note we will now have about how he died in disobedience to God’s word. Perhaps this was the end point of a spiritual slip in that period. Tragically, so many of the kings started well and slipped at the end; truly a warning to us. We would rather hope to read that Judah continued to keep Passovers after this one, but there is no record of that. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Neco king of Egypt went up to fight against Carchemish by the Euphrates; and Josiah went out against him- </p><p>"After all this" may suggest that despite all this external obedience, 13 years later, Josiah came to his end in unfaithfulness to God’s word, despite all his zeal to so carefully obey every part of the rituals commanded by Moses.</p>


text:
<p>But he sent ambassadors to him saying, What have I to do with you, you king of Judah? I come not against you this day, but against the house with which I have war. God has commanded me to make haste. Beware and know that it is God who is with me, that he not destroy you- </p><p>God does use Gentiles to perform His purpose, and even they often get a sense of this, without themselves believing.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and didn’t listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo- </p><p>Going into battle disguised is exactly what Ahab did (<a href='B:140 18:29'>2Ch 18:29</a>), and was slain doing it- having also defied God’s prophetic word to do so. See on :23. Josiah totally failed to hear God’s word at this point, both from the historical precedents and the explicit prophecy given to him. The valley of Megiddo, and mourning in it (:24), will have an equivalent in the latter days (<a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a>). Josiah therefore seems to represent a disobedient Israel, who will be finally saved by grace.</p>


text:
<p>The archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Take me away, because I am seriously wounded!- </p><p>Josiah must have seen the similarities with the death of Ahab, also slain by archers in his chariot (<a href='B:140 18:33'>2Ch 18:33</a>). He died in the same way as Ahab because he too had refused to accept God’s prophetic word, despite previously having been so sensitive to it. We naturally wonder whether Josiah will be saved, despite dying in sin, or at best, at a very low point spiritually. The overall spirit of his life was perhaps acceptable with God (<a href='B:140 34:2'>2Ch 34:2</a>), despite this failure at the end. This may help us more positively hope for those who are weak at the end of their lives, such as those believers who take their own lives.</p>


text:
<p>So his servants took him out of the chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had, and brought him to Jerusalem; and he died, and was buried in the tombs of his fathers. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah- </p><p>Josiah died in battle, not in peace (<a href='B:140 35:22-24'>2Ch 35:22-24</a>). Yet he had been promised to be gathered to his grave in peace (<a href='B:140 34:28'>2Ch 34:28</a>). Here we have an example of God making a statement about the future which is conditional upon human behaviour. Thus He stated that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days; but it wasn't, because they repented. There is a gap between the pronouncement and its fulfilment, and in that gap our behaviour can change the outcome. We too must waste so many potential futures.</p>


text:
<p>Jeremiah lamented for Josiah. All the singing men and singing women spoke of Josiah in their lamentations to this day; and they made them an ordinance in Israel. These are written in the lamentations- </p><p>The timing of Josiah's reformation (<a href='B:140 34:3'>2Ch 34:3</a>) coincides with the prophecies of Jeremiah 2, 3; he heard them, and responded. Hence Jeremiah wept when Josiah died, remembering how as a teenager, Josiah had heard his prophecies and immediately responded to them.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and his good deeds, according to that which is written in the law of Yahweh- </p><p>Josiah died in spiritual weakness and at a point of disobedience to God’s word (<a href='B:140 35:20-24'>2Ch 35:20-24</a>). The rubric 'He did what was right…' used about him (<a href='B:140 34:2'>2Ch 34:2</a>) is found even of kings who clearly departed from Yahweh. The truly righteous ones such as Jehoshaphat have a clause added to their summary, saying that they had followed Yahweh in their hearts. But this is lacking in the case of Josiah. We note too that he raised evil sons. And so we wonder whether the record is acknowledging the good works which he did at some points in his life, and it here concludes with this too. But there is a notable absence of any statement to the intent that he was judged as having a heart right with God. And the state of the heart was and is the critical indicator in God’s final judgment of men.</p>


text:
<p>and his acts, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah- </p><p>As discussed on :26, this puts huge emphasis upon his works rather than the state of his heart. As discussed on <a href='B:140 33:18'>2Ch 33:18</a>, the "book of the kings" apparently included Manasseh's prayer, which is not found in our books of Kings; and so the book referred to here may not be that which we have in our Bibles.</p>


text:
<p>Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and made him king in his father’s place in Jerusalem- </p><p><a href='B:120 23:31'>2Ki 23:31</a> says that Jehoahaz was the son of Hamutal, whereas his brother Eliakim was the son of Zebudah (<a href='B:120 23:36'>2Ki 23:36</a>). So we see that Josiah practiced polygamy- another indication that he was not such a stellar example of spirituality, despite his works of obedience to the Mosaic law; see on <a href='B:140 35:19-20'>2Ch 35:19-20</a>. And the mothers of his sons are blamed in Ezekiel 19 for leading them into very bad behaviour, so these were not good women.</p>


text:
<p>Joahaz was twenty-three years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem- </p><p>It is possible that Josiah was spiritually sliding downwards in the last 13 years of his reign; see on <a href='B:140 35:19-20'>2Ch 35:19-20</a>. So the formative years of his sons may not have been spent under a good parental influence, which would explain their weakness and apostacy. LXX adds: "And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done. And Pharaoh Neco bound him in Deblatha in the land of Hamath, that he might not reign in Jerusalem".</p>


text:
<p>The king of Egypt deposed him at Jerusalem, and fined the land one hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold- </p><p><a href='B:120 23:35'>2Ki 23:35</a> says that Jehoiakim raised the tribute for the Babylonians by imposing a poll tax on the people. And he succeeded in raising the money. Yet such a tax ought to have been paid to the temple, but Jehoiakim hadn't bothered doing that. He was "deposed at Jerusalem" (<a href='B:140 36:3'>2Ch 36:3</a>) but put in bonds at Riblah (<a href='B:120 23:33'>2Ki 23:33</a>), which was on the Orontes river on the road from Babylon to Palestine. This was the same place where Nebuchadnezzar was based during the destruction of Jerusalem, and where the captives were brought to him for judgment (<a href='B:120 25:20-21'>2Ki 25:20-21</a>). The parallel is to show how Judah were intended to learn from their sufferings at the hands of the Egyptians and to repent. But they didn’t, and so the situation repeated with the Babylonians.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Egypt made Eliakim his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem, and changed his name to Jehoiakim. Neco took Joahaz his brother, and carried him to Egypt- </p><p>"Eliakim" means "God will raise", and "Jehoiakim" means the same, only "Yah will raise". Perhaps the king made Eliakim swear by his God Jehovah, that he would be subservient to him. But it could be that the "Jeh" prefix meant something different to the Egyptians, and was effectively a sign of subservience to them; it may even refer to an Egyptian god. Joahaz died in Egypt (<a href='B:120 23:34'>2Ki 23:34</a>) as prophesied in <a href='B:300 22:12'>Jer 22:12</a>. Shallum in Jeremiah 22 is the same as Jehoahaz. Perhaps he is called Shallum because that word means 'The one marked out for judgment'. I explain on <a href='B:330 4:6'>Eze 4:6</a> that potentially, the captivity of Judah need only have lasted for 40 days or years, but this period was extended, just as it could have been reduced. But Jehoahaz was not going to experience this, he had precluded any reduction in his captivity period because of his impenitence at that time. <a href='B:300 22:11-12'>Jer 22:11-12</a> imply that the false prophets were claiming that his exile was going to be very short lived and he would return to establish a Messianic kingdom, thus twisting the prophecies of the restoration which Jeremiah may have already given, along with those of Isaiah which were already extant.</p><p>LXX adds: "And Pharaoh Neco took his brother Joahaz and brought him into Egypt, and he died there: but he had given the silver and gold to Pharaoh. At that time the land began to be taxed to give the money at the command of Pharaoh; and every one as he could borrowed the silver and the gold of the people of the land, to give to Pharaoh Neco.".</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. He did that which was evil in the eyes of Yahweh his God- </p><p><a href='B:300 22:13-18'>Jer 22:13-18</a> gives an example of the sins of Jehoiakim- he built an opulent home for himself and refused to pay the labourers for their work. He also murdered the prophet Urijah who spoke against him (<a href='B:300 26:20-23'>Jer 26:20-23</a>), and burnt the scroll of God’s words and persecuted Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36).</p>


text:
<p>Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon- </p><p>It may not have been Nebuchadnezzar in person. "To carry him to Babylon" means that was the intention, but it may not have happened. <a href='B:300 22:18-19'>Jer 22:18-19</a> says he was to be thrown out onto the garbage tip outside Jerusalem like a dead donkey. 2 Kings says that bands of the Babylonians attacked him at this time, and he may have been slain at this time.</p>


text:
<p>Nebuchadnezzar also carried of the vessels of the house of Yahweh to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon- </p><p>"Of the vessels" means they were not all taken at this time; that was to happen later (:18). Babylon's original plan seemed to have been to make Judah a tributary state, taking away the leadership and seeking to make the youngsters like Daniel completely Babylonian, with a view to them returning and governing Judah. Hence only part of the vessels were initially taken. But this changed to a policy of complete destruction. It would have been at this time that Daniel and his friends went into captivity. <a href='B:340 1:2'>Dan 1:2</a> describes this situation: "He carried them into the land of Shinar to the house of his god: and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god". &nbsp;The captives were paralleled with the temple treasures; they were taken into the temple as evidence that Yahweh and His people had now been apparently dominated. But Isaiah had prophesied that Bel would be rendered helpless and judged (<a href='B:290 46:1-2'>Isa 46:1-2</a>). The faithful captives would have remembered that, even when it seemed their chips were down.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah- </p><p>I have noted earlier that the kings are often described with a double description- of their works, and of their heart. Some of them like Jehoshaphat had imperfect works but good hearts for God; others performed some outstanding works at some times, but their hearts were not devoted to Yahweh. Here we have the same double reference; Jehoiakim's works were abominations, and what was "found in him", by the Divine search of his heart, was also [it is implied] very bad. I have noted before that "the book of the kings" is not necessarily the books we know as 1 and 2 Kings in our Bibles.</p><p>Jehoiachin his son reigned in his place- </p><p>Jeconiah of <a href='B:130 3:16'>1Ch 3:16</a> is Coniah in <a href='B:300 22:14'>Jer 22:14</a>, and Jehoiachin in <a href='B:140 36:8-9'>2Ch 36:8-9</a>; <a href='B:120 24:6'>2Ki 24:6</a>. A reminder that people carried multiple names, explaining some of the apparent contradictions in the genealogies. Ezekiel 19 says that he was effectively made king by his ambitious mother, whose hope was to be the glorious queen mother, teaching her sons to be ambitious, aggressive lions to that end.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem. He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh- </p><p>Jehoiachin of <a href='B:140 36:9'>2Ch 36:9</a> is also called Jeconiah or Jechoniah (<a href='B:130 3:16-17'>1Ch 3:16-17</a>); Coniah (<a href='B:300 22:24'>Jer 22:24</a>), and Jechoniah in <a href='B:140 24:1'>2Ch 24:1</a>. We note that he was judged as a sinner at eight years old, for what he did over a 70 day period. We sometimes tend to excuse ourselves on the basis of only being products of our background. But eight year old Jehoiachin reigned a mere three months and ten days: and God’s comment was that "he did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh". We could, of course, make the excuse that his surroundings, his immediate family, his peers…were all idolatrous. But Yahweh evidently didn’t see this as any real excuse: he, at sweet eight years old, "did that which was evil" and was punished accordingly. Not only does this give an unusual insight into God’s view of responsibility; but it shows that God expects even a child to break away from background influences when they are evil.</p><p>However, <a href='B:120 24:8'>2Ki 24:8</a> says he was 18. Although even so, 18 is very young to be condemned for 70 days' behaviour, and the points made above about God’s sensitivity to sin still stand. Kings also gives "three months" rather than "three months and ten days", and it has been suggested that the "ten" has been misplaced by a copyist, explaining why 18 has been miscopied as 8.</p>


text:
<p>At the return of the year king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the beautiful vessels of the house of Yahweh, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem- </p><p>"Brother" is used in a very wide sense, and more means "uncle" here (<a href='B:120 24:17'>2Ki 24:17</a>). <a href='B:120 24:17'>2Ki 24:17</a> says that Nebuchadnezzar changed the name Mattaniah, 'gift of Yah', to "Zedekiah", 'Yah is right / just'. Perhaps even Nebuchadnezzar perceived that Yahweh was judging Judah justly. But "Zedekiah" is also "Yahweh our righteousness", but his birth name was Mattaniah (<a href='B:120 24:17'>2Ki 24:17</a>). We wonder if this was a pre existing name given him by Josiah, and that Josiah named him this in keeping with his vision of reestablishing the Kingdom of God, based around a united Israel and Judah centered around worshipping Yahweh. For this is the term associated with king of the restored kingdom in <a href='B:300 23:6'>Jer 23:6</a>; <a href='B:300 33:16'>Jer 33:16</a>; <a href='B:300 51:10'>Jer 51:10</a>. But he again was a case of wasted potential.</p>


text:
<p>Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem- </p><p>Hamutal his mother (<a href='B:120 24:18'>2Ki 24:18</a>) is severely criticized in Ezekiel 19 as an ambitious, aggressive and scheming mother lion who set up her young lion sons for destruction by wanting them to be kings. Instead they needed to heed Jeremiah's message and humble themselves before Babylon, realizing they had sinned, rather than trying to break away from Babylon to achieve the independent kingship their mother was so obsessed with.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh his God; he didn’t humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet speaking the words of Yahweh- </p><p>The prophets "spoke from the mouth of Yahweh" Himself; and yet the people scoffed at them (<a href='B:140 36:12'>2Ch 36:12</a>; <a href='B:140 36:16'>2Ch 36:16</a> RV). The power of inspiration was and is so great; and to not heed God’s word is therefore a personal affront to Him. And those words have been recorded. When we read His word, we hear His voice. <a href='B:110 13:21'>1Ki 13:21</a> speaks of us hearing "the mouth of God". Jeremiah spoke "from the mouth of the Lord". His word brings Him that near to us, if we will perceive it for what it is. Jeremiah's appeals for Zedekiah to submit to Babylon were repeated so often (<a href='B:300 21:1-7'>Jer 21:1-7</a>; <a href='B:300 34:8-22'>Jer 34:8-22</a>; <a href='B:300 37:1-10'>Jer 37:1-10</a>; <a href='B:300 37:17'>Jer 37:17</a>; <a href='B:300 38:17-23'>Jer 38:17-23</a>).</p><p>And yet we wonder whether Zedekiah may have finally repented. For <a href='B:330 21:14'>Eze 21:14</a> speaks of Zedekiah as "the deadly wounded", likewise "You, deadly wounded wicked one, the prince of Israel, whose day has come" (<a href='B:330 21:25'>Eze 21:25</a>). The intention was that Zedekiah would die by the sword, but in fact he didn’t. He was blinded, but died peacefully in prison (<a href='B:300 52:11'>Jer 52:11</a>). The wound that ought to have been unto death was in fact not unto death- because God wanted him to be moved by His grace to repent. And the change of judgment upon him would suggest to me that he did repent.</p>


text:
<p>He also rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God; but he stiffened his neck, and hardened his heart against turning to Yahweh, the God of Israel- </p><p>Turning to Yahweh with a soft heart therefore involved his accepting that Judah had sinned, and therefore their servitude to Babylon was the appropriate punishment. But egged on by his mother (see on :11), Zedekiah broke his oath to Nebuchadnezzar, which he had made in the name of Yahweh. He thus despised the Name. The parable of <a href='B:330 17:12-20'>Eze 17:12-20</a> clearly condemns him for doing this (also <a href='B:330 21:25'>Eze 21:25</a>). <a href='B:330 17:14'>Eze 17:14</a> explains the intention of God in all this: "That the kingdom might be base, that it might not lift itself up, but that by keeping his covenant it might stand". The idea may be that it was God’s plan that through keeping the covenant, the royal family and leadership would be humbled, and this would bring about God’s favourite paradox- the brought down could then be exalted, "that... it might stand". See on <a href='B:330 17:24'>Eze 17:24</a>. But they refused to repent, to be humbled, to be ashamed, and instead sought to wriggle out of the covenant by making agreements with Egypt to attack the Babylonian forces, liberate Jerusalem and perhaps later themselves from Babylon itself. Yet all these things had been explicitly promised to Judah; God would do all these things, if they repented. But instead of doing so, they sought by all manner of desperate means to bring about this liberation in the strength of Egypt. This is so typical of human behaviour. It is for us to learn the lesson.</p><p><a href='B:330 17:15'>Eze 17:15</a> commented: "Shall he who does such things escape? Shall he break the covenant, and yet escape?". This is the language of Judah breaking covenant with God, just used in <a href='B:330 16:59'>Eze 16:59</a>. God had designed the covenant between Zedekiah and the Babylonians, for the spiritual growth and repentance of the Jews. To break it was therefore to effectively break covenant with God. Or we could instead perceive that covenant breaking with God is reflected in covenant breaking with men. Our attitude to God becomes our attitude to men. Hence <a href='B:330 17:19'>Eze 17:19</a> specifically states: "Therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh: As I live, surely My oath that he has despised, and My covenant that he has broken, I will even bring it on his own head". Judah were light hearted in their attitude to everything; they "gave the hand" in covenant (<a href='B:330 17:18'>Eze 17:18</a>) in order just to get "bread" (<a href='B:310 5:6'>Lam 5:6</a>). They were in need, and instead of turning to God in repentance, they madly made promises of total loyalty to various peoples and their gods. It is this light hearted, not serious attitude, seeking for the immediate for the total sacrifice of principle, which dominates our age today.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover all the chiefs of the priests, and the people, trespassed very greatly after all the abominations of the nations; and they polluted the house of Yahweh which He had made holy in Jerusalem- </p><p>Their sin with "all" the abominable idols of the nations is in contrast to how those nations were themselves loyal to their gods. But Judah was so desperate for help that she prostituted herself to every possible god of the nations. Hence Hosea describes her with the image of a woman who is sexually addicted:&nbsp; This is what happens when someone goes away from the true God; they will live a sad life of endless drifting between idols, desperately trying to find as much benefit as possible from as many of them as possible. The temple was therefore finally found to be full of various idols and images to various gods.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh, the God of their fathers, sent to them by His messengers, rising up early and sending, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place- </p><p>Several times God speaks of His rising up early in the morning through the ministry of the prophets, every single day since Israel left Egypt (<a href='B:140 36:15'>2Ch 36:15</a>; <a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>). The figure is stressed- God Himself rose up early every day to teach and appeal to His people (<a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>). Alarm clocks have changed our appreciation of this. Have you ever had to make yourself wake up before dawn, without an alarm clock? You can only do it by having a deep internal, subconscious awareness that you must get up early. You don't sleep well, you keep waking up and wondering if it's time to get up. So to make oneself rise up early was easily understood as a figure expressing great mental effort. And God did this every day for centuries... This figure of rising up early is surely the basis for the Lord's parable in <a href='B:470 20:1'>Mat 20:1</a> - where God is likened to a man going out early in the morning to hire labourers. It is through the ministry of His word that God does this- each morning that word calls us to labour for Him in His vineyard. Israel didn’t notice the huge effort God puts into His word- that every day He rose early and taught them. We can also misunderstand Biblical inspiration to mean that God effortlessly inspired "the original autographs" long ago, and moved on; but actually the whole process is an ongoing and incredible outgiving of God’s energy in appealing to us. And... in our mismanaged, weakly disciplined lives, is it so that we don't even make time to read His word daily?</p><p>There is a much repeated characteristic of God’s servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God’s work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Joshua (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>); Samuel (<a href='B:90 15:12'>1Sa 15:12</a>); David (<a href='B:90 17:20'>1Sa 17:20</a>; <a href='B:90 29:11'>1Sa 29:11</a>); Hezekiah (<a href='B:120 19:35'>2Ki 19:35</a>; <a href='B:140 29:20'>2Ch 29:20</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:140 36:15'>2Ch 36:15</a>; <a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p>


text:
<p>But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of Yahweh arose against His people, until there was no remedy-</p><p>"Despised" is the word used for the sin of presumption (<a href='B:40 15:31'>Num 15:31</a>), and yet having been told this, they could still repent; but they did not, until there was no remedy, the implication being that each time they were told what they were doing, they could have repented. It is the word used by Nathan to David of what he had done (<a href='B:100 12:9-10'>2Sa 12:9-10</a>), and he repented in response to the prophetic word of rebuke. Even though God had told Josiah that His wrath with His people would not be quenched (<a href='B:140 34:25'>2Ch 34:25</a>), it would seem that there was still some possibility of "remedy", had the people accepted God’s word in their hearts (<a href='B:140 36:16'>2Ch 36:16</a>) and not despised and imprisoned Jeremiah and murdered Urijah the prophet (<a href='B:300 26:20-23'>Jer 26:20-23</a>). We see here His absolute eagerness for their repentance, and unwillingness that any of His people should have to perish. And that is the same God with whom we have to do.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore He brought on them the king of the Chaldeans, who killed their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion on young man or virgin, old man or gray-headed. He gave them all into his hand- </p><p>The particular anger with the temple was because Judah had promised unique loyalty to Babylon, and had therefore put Babylonian gods in the temple of Yahweh. But when the Babylonians took Jerusalem, they found the temple full of idols to other gods. As the prophets explain, her nakedness was discovered, and she was put to shame before all her lovers. For she had promised each of them unique loyalty and acceptance of their gods. This verse is the fulfilment of the vision of slaughter in <a href='B:330 9:1-11'>Eze 9:1-11</a>.</p>


text:
<p>All the vessels of God’s house, great and small, and the treasures of the house of Yahweh, and the treasures of the king, and of his princes, all these he brought to Babylon- </p><p>These were the vessels remaining after the deportation of :10, and were largely the brass vessels which remained (<a href='B:120 25:13-15'>2Ki 25:13-15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They burnt God’s house and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all its palaces with fire, and destroyed all the beautiful vessels of it- </p><p>Israel were told to "throw down", "break in pieces" and "utterly destroy" the idols and altars of Canaan. There were times during their history when they obeyed this command by purging themselves from their apostasy in this. The Hebrew words used scarcely occur elsewhere, except very frequently in the context of how God "broke down", "threw down" and "destroyed" Israel at the hands of their Babylonian and Assyrian invaders as a result of their not 'breaking down' (etc:) the idols. "Throw down" in <a href='B:20 34:13'>Exo 34:13</a>; <a href='B:50 7:5'>Deu 7:5</a>; <a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a>; <a href='B:140 31:1'>2Ch 31:1</a> is the same word in <a href='B:140 36:19'>2Ch 36:19</a>; <a href='B:300 4:26'>Jer 4:26</a>; <a href='B:300 31:28'>Jer 31:28</a>; <a href='B:300 33:4'>Jer 33:4</a>; <a href='B:300 39:8'>Jer 39:8</a>; <a href='B:300 52:14'>Jer 52:14</a>; <a href='B:330 16:39'>Eze 16:39</a>; <a href='B:410 1:6'>Nah 1:6</a>. "Cut down" in <a href='B:50 7:5'>Deu 7:5</a>; <a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a>; <a href='B:140 31:1'>2Ch 31:1</a> later occurs in <a href='B:290 10:33'>Isa 10:33</a>; Jeremiah 48; Jeremiah 25; <a href='B:310 2:3'>Lam 2:3</a>. So Israel faced the choice: either cut down your idols, or you will be cut down. The stone will either fall on us and destroy us, or we must fall on it and become broken men and women (<a href='B:470 21:44'>Mat 21:44</a>). For the man untouched by the concept of living for God’s glory, it's a hard choice. God will conquer sin, ultimately.</p>


text:
<p>He carried those who had escaped from the sword away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia- </p><p>Being servants to the ruling dynasty of Babylon was the judgment upon all the nations (<a href='B:300 27:7'>Jer 27:7</a>). So God’s people were sharing in the judgments of the world, because they were not separate from the world. And thus the punishment of the apostate amongst the new Israel will be to be "condemned with the world" (<a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a>). The critics claim that the sons or descendants of Nebuchadnezzar ceased to reign at some point before Persia took over. There were three kings of Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar before Cyrus and the Persians took over: Evil-Merodach (Amil-Marduk) (<a href='B:120 25:27'>2Ki 25:27</a>), Neriglissar and Nabonidus. The last two were not "sons" of Nebuchadnezzar but they were both his sons in law. The Hebrew term "sons" is very broad and easily includes this dimension.</p>


text:
<p>to fulfil the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. As long as it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfil seventy years-</p><p>It would seem from <a href='B:140 36:21'>2Ch 36:21</a> that the law concerning the land resting every Sabbath year was hardly ever kept, even by the righteous kings. We can imagine how the thinking developed: father didn’t do it. grandfather didn’t, none of the faithful old kings seemed that interested in it... therefore every time that passage was considered in their study of the Law, it was mentally bypassed. We are all absolutely expert at this kind of bypass.</p><p>The land of Israel had to be rested every Sabbath year. God’s people thought they could quietly ignore this inconvenient requirement of their God, and get away with it. But God has His way, in everything, all the time. Eventually the whole land had to go through 70 years laying desolate, to compensate for the 70 Sabbaths (over 490 years) which His people had ignored to keep (<a href='B:140 36:21'>2Ch 36:21</a>).</p><p>Closer study reveals the variableness of outworking of the time periods. <a href='B:300 25:11-12'>Jer 25:11-12</a> and <a href='B:300 29:10'>Jer 29:10</a> speak of a 70 year period of Babylonian rule over Judah, beginning with the invasion of BC597. But Babylon only ruled over Judah for 49 years, before Babylon fell to the Persians. This would connect with the way that <a href='B:450 4:3'>Zec 4:3</a> speaks of 7 menorah candlesticks each with 7 lamps, making 49 lamps. 49 is the cycle of 7 Sabbath years that culminated in the jubilee year, and the jubilee year, the proclamation of liberty to the land (<a href='B:30 25:8-12'>Lev 25:8-12</a>; <a href='B:30 27:7-24'>Lev 27:7-24</a>) is a figure used so often in Isaiah to describe the freedom of Judah once released from Babylon. <a href='B:30 26:34'>Lev 26:34</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a> speak of the land enjoying her Sabbaths whilst Israel were in exile for their sins- i:e. for 49 years. So it seems that there could have been some restoration after 49 years- but it didn’t happen. But <a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a> and <a href='B:140 36:21'>2Ch 36:21</a> seem to reinterpret those 70 years of Jeremiah's prophecies as speaking of a 70 year period during which Jerusalem and the temple would be desolate. See on <a href='B:330 6:8'>Eze 6:8</a>.</p><p>The prophecy of 70 years exile in Babylon is specifically stated as having been fulfilled in the first year of Cyrus (2 Chron. 36:20-22, "till seventy years were completed... in the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, when the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah was fulilled"). But it is also said to have been fulfilled in the second year of Darius: "O Yahweh of Armies, how long will You not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which You have had indignation those seventy years?" (Zech. 1:12; the rest of Zech. 1 shows that God has indeed had mercy on Jerusalem). Daniel 9 could be reinterpreting the 70 years as 70 'sevens'; or, adding another 70 'sevens' to the 70 years. Clearly fulfilment of time periods can be delayed or made open to various starting and ending points. Such is the open ended nature of such prophecies.  </p>


text:
<p>Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished- </p><p>Daniel understood from Jeremiah’s prophecies that Jerusalem’s fortunes would be revived after the 70 year period was ended. Yet he goes on to ask God to immediately forgive His people, as if Daniel even dared hope that the period might be shortened. Daniel lived into the reign of Cyrus (<a href='B:340 6:28'>Dan 6:28</a>), and so he would have witnessed “the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem” (<a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a>; <a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>). But it seems to me that whilst the prophecy of the 70 years came true in one sense, the Jews didn’t respond as they should, and so the time of Zion’s true freedom in the Messianic Kingdom was delayed. Daniel had been petitioning the Father to not delay beyond the 70 year period in doing this. But in another sense, the prophecy was re-interpreted; Daniel was now told that there was to be a “seventy weeks of years” (<a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a> RSV) period involved in order to gain ultimate forgiveness for Israel as Daniel had just been praying for. The 70 years had become “seventy weeks of years”. The command to rebuild Jerusalem was given in the first year of Cyrus; but Daniel must have watched in vain for any sign that Zion’s glad morning had really come. And so it is recorded that in the third year of Cyrus Daniel was given a vision that confirmed to him that “the thing was true, but the time appointed was long [Heb. ‘extended’; the word is also translated “greater”, “more”]: and he understood the thing” (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>). What was “the thing” that was true, which Daniel sought to understand? Surely it was the vision of the 70 years that he had sought to “understand” in <a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a>. The Hebrew dabar, translated “thing”, is usually translated “word”. He was comforted that the word of prophecy would come true; it was “noted in the scripture of truth” (Dan. 10;21). It was just that it had been extended in its fulfilment; “for yet the vision is for many days” (<a href='B:340 10:14'>Dan 10:14</a>). And this was how he came to “understand the thing / word”. The essential and ultimate fulfilment of the 70 years prophecy would only be after a long time, involving 70 “weeks of years”. Thus Daniel came to “understand” the vision (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>); hence he was so shocked, depressed and disappointed that the fulfilment would not be in his days. But he is set up as a representative of those of us in the very last days who shall likewise “understand” (s:w. <a href='B:340 12:10'>Dan 12:10</a>) the very same prophecies which Daniel studied. Daniel is described as both understanding, and also not understanding (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>; <a href='B:340 12:8'>Dan 12:8</a>). Surely the idea is that he understood the principle of deferment and the outline meaning of the prophecy; but he didn’t understand the details. And so perhaps it is with us who will, or do, likewise “understand” as Daniel did.</p><p><a href='B:330 4:6'>Eze 4:6</a> revealed the variable nature of Divine time periods: "You shall lie on your right side, and shall bear the iniquity of the house of Judah: forty days, each day for a year, have I appointed it to you". Ezekiel was asked to prophecy that Judah would suffer for their sins for 40 years. Perhaps something could've happened after 40 years... And then, the starting point of the 70 or 40 years was somewhat flexible- for <a href='B:330 22:3-4'>Eze 22:3-4</a> records Ezekiel's prophecy that the desolation of Jerusalem by the Babylonians [the starting point of the time periods] was actually being hastened, brought forward, by the terrible behaviour of the Jews living there after the initial Babylon invasion of the land. Closer study reveals the variableness of outworking of the time periods. <a href='B:300 25:11-12'>Jer 25:11-12</a> and <a href='B:300 29:10'>Jer 29:10</a> speak of a 70 year period of Babylonian rule over Judah, beginning with the invasion of BC597. But Babylon only ruled over Judah for 49 years, before Babylon fell to the Persians. This would connect with the way that <a href='B:450 4:3'>Zec 4:3</a> speaks of 7 menorah candlesticks each with 7 lamps, making 49 lamps. 49 is the cycle of 7 Sabbath years that culminated in the jubilee year, and the jubilee year, the proclamation of liberty to the land (<a href='B:30 25:8-12'>Lev 25:8-12</a>; <a href='B:30 27:7-24'>Lev 27:7-24</a>) is a figure used so often in Isaiah to describe the freedom of Judah once released from Babylon. <a href='B:30 26:34'>Lev 26:34</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a> speak of the land enjoying her Sabbaths whilst Israel were in exile for their sins- i:e. for 49 years. So it seems that there could have been some restoration after 49 years- but it didn’t happen. But <a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a> and <a href='B:140 36:21'>2Ch 36:21</a> seem to reinterpret those 70 years of Jeremiah's prophecies as speaking of a 70 year period during which Jerusalem and the temple would be desolate. See on <a href='B:330 6:8'>Eze 6:8</a>.</p><p>Yahweh stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation- </p><p>This is the same word for "noise" in <a href='B:330 37:7'>Eze 37:7</a>: “So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone”. This meant that the “whole house of Israel” was to stand up from their graves and return as a mighty army to the land. Their attitude in Babylon was exactly as in <a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>: “behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts”. These were the very sentiments of Jeremiah in Lamentations, and those who wept by the waters of Babylon when they remembered Zion. They were revived by the gift of the Spirit, the breath / spirit which was blown into them by God’s initiative.</p><p>The stirring up [Heb. 'opening the eyes'] of Cyrus is a parade example of the ability of God to work directly on the human mind, inserting ideas and initiatives, and confirming a person in their responses to various psychological stimuli. This is the nature of the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers today, and it was and will be seen in the revival of the dead bones of Israel. Not visible miracles, but internal mental working. And that Spirit can be resisted, as it was by many of the exiles; for we are not mere puppets in God’s hand. Yet grace means that God takes the initiative; "He first loved us". That initiative is seen through His working on the human heart in calling us to action (s:w. <a href='B:140 21:16'>2Ch 21:16</a>; <a href='B:290 13:17'>Isa 13:17</a>; <a href='B:300 50:41'>Jer 50:41</a>; <a href='B:360 3:9'>Joe 3:9</a>) and Cyrus was a parade example of this (<a href='B:290 41:2'>Isa 41:2</a>; <a href='B:290 41:25'>Isa 41:25</a>; <a href='B:290 45:13'>Isa 45:13</a>). The hearts of the returnees were likewise stirred up (see on :5). But this was not some irresistible manipulation of the human person; Zion was called to be stirred up ["awake"], but she refused to be stirred up (<a href='B:290 51:17'>Isa 51:17</a>; <a href='B:290 52:1'>Isa 52:1</a> cp. <a href='B:290 64:7'>Isa 64:7</a>). Zerubbabel had his mind or "spirit" stirred up to be the king-priest Messianic figure (<a href='B:440 1:14'>Hag 1:14</a>); but he let the baton drop.</p><p>Throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing saying-</p><p>The restoration prophecies speak of how “all nations” are to be gathered to Zion; they are those who scattered Judah amongst the nations; not every literal nation. And who “scattered” Israel? The Hebrew word is used in <a href='B:300 50:17'>Jer 50:17</a> to describe how Babylon scattered Judah amongst the nations. And most significantly, the same word occurs again in <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>: “And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom...". It is quite wrong for us to imagine Judah sitting quietly by the rivers of Babylon, all huddled together. They were scattered throughout all the many provinces / colonies of the Babylonian empire. This was why Cyrus’ decree bidding the Jews return to rebuild Jerusalem had to be published “throughout all his kingdom”, and Jews living “in any place” of that kingdom were included in the invitation. It was Babylon who had “parted my land” by dividing it up amongst the various ‘Samaritan’ peoples who were transported there from other conquered territories. And their being in Babylon is paralleled with being scattered to the four corners of the world as it was known to them: “Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD. Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon” (<a href='B:450 2:6-7'>Zec 2:6-7</a>). And consider <a href='B:450 7:14'>Zec 7:14</a>: “But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them [i:e. this concerns the Babylonian invasion], that no man passed through nor returned”. Indeed, <a href='B:450 8:7-8'>Zec 8:7-8</a> speaks of the restoration as coming from both West and East of Israel, implying that the Babylonians had sold some of the Jews as slaves in Greece and north Africa.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, Yahweh, the God of heaven has given all the kingdoms of the earth to me; and He has commanded me to build Him a house in Jerusalem which is in Judah- </p><p>Cyrus clearly had a sense of relationship with Yahweh, and I have argued that he was one of the potential Messiah figures who could have reestablished the Kingdom at the restoration. <a href='B:290 44:28'>Isa 44:28</a> is crystal clear about this. God "says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure’, even saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be built;’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid’". It was God’s intention that Cyrus repent and become a proselyte, and Yahweh would then use him to save His people "out of all places where they have been scattered". The decree of Cyrus was addressed to "Whoever is left [of the Jews], in any place where he lives" (<a href='B:150 1:4'>Ezr 1:4</a>). "Cyrus" literally means "sun" and so contrasts with the cloudy and dark day. But Cyrus let the ball drop and didn’t carry through the Divine purpose as he might have done and neither did the Jews respond as they should have done. Cyrus was Yahweh's anointed (<a href='B:290 45:1'>Isa 45:1</a>), and so the essence of these prophecies is to come true in the last days in the person of the Lord Jesus. We could say that the prophecies are transferred from Cyrus to the Lord Jesus. LXX "Who bids Cyrus be wise, and he shall perform all my will" suggests Cyrus had a choice; he was commanded, and it seems he partially obeyed, but not enough to the Messiah figure envisaged.</p><p>It is significant that Ezra and Nehemiah speak of the "God of Heaven" (e.g. <a href='B:150 1:2'>Ezr 1:2</a>) whilst Zechariah speaks of the "God of the earth" or 'land' of Israel, perhaps because the Angel of Israel literally went to Heaven when the glory departed from Jerusalem, and returned, in a sense, at the restoration- to depart again&nbsp;at the Lord's death ("Your house is left unto you desolate"; of the Angel that once dwelt in the temple).</p><p>Whoever there is among you of all his people, Yahweh his God be with him, and let him go up- </p><p>"His God..." sounds as if Cyrus had not adopted Yahweh as his own God. And yet he does recognize that "He is God". We can know things about God, without grasping their personal reality. That is the lesson of Cyrus.</p><p><a href='B:370 9:11-15'>Amo 9:11-15</a> is most comfortably interpreted when read as referring to the restoration of Judah and the “remnant” of the ten tribes to the land under Ezra: “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God”. “I will raise up” uses a Hebrew word very commonly featured in the records of the restoration, when the people were exhorted to “rise up and build” (<a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 3:2'>Ezr 3:2</a>; <a href='B:150 10:4'>Ezr 10:4</a>; <a href='B:150 10:15'>Ezr 10:15</a>; <a href='B:160 2:18'>Neh 2:18</a>; <a href='B:160 2:20'>Neh 2:20</a>). The statement that they would “close up the breaches thereof” is exactly the language of <a href='B:160 6:1'>Neh 6:1</a>, which records that the walls were rebuilt so that there was no breach [s:w:] therein. It was after the Babylonian invasion that Zion was “fallen” and ‘ruined’ (s:w. <a href='B:300 31:18'>Jer 31:18</a>; <a href='B:300 45:4'>Jer 45:4</a>; <a href='B:310 2:2'>Lam 2:2</a>; <a href='B:310 2:17'>Lam 2:17</a>). “I will build it” is exactly the theme of the records of the return from Babylon (<a href='B:150 1:2-3'>Ezr 1:2-3</a>; <a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 3:2'>Ezr 3:2</a>; <a href='B:150 3:10'>Ezr 3:10</a>; <a href='B:150 4:1-4'>Ezr 4:1-4</a>; <a href='B:160 2:5'>Neh 2:5</a>; <a href='B:160 2:17-18'>Neh 2:17-18</a>; <a href='B:160 2:20'>Neh 2:20</a>; <a href='B:160 3:1-3'>Neh 3:1-3</a>; <a href='B:160 3:13-15'>Neh 3:13-15</a>; <a href='B:160 4:1'>Neh 4:1</a>; <a href='B:160 4:3'>Neh 4:3</a>; <a href='B:160 4:5-6'>Neh 4:5-6</a>; <a href='B:160 4:10'>Neh 4:10</a>; <a href='B:160 4:17-18'>Neh 4:17-18</a>; <a href='B:160 6:1'>Neh 6:1</a>; <a href='B:160 6:6'>Neh 6:6</a>; <a href='B:160 7:1'>Neh 7:1</a>). Surely Amos 9 is saying that at the rebuilding at the time of the restoration, God’s people could have ushered in the Kingdom age of agricultural plenty and victory over their Arab neighbours. But they intermarried with Edom, and suffered drought because they didn’t fulfill the requirements to rebuild Zion correctly. But the words of Amos were still to come true in some form- they are given an application in <a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a> which may appear to be way out of context, i:e. to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Thus words which could have had a plain fulfilment at the restoration were given a delayed fulfilment; but they were not fulfilled in a literal sense, but in a spiritual one. And so it is with prophecies like Ezekiel 38, and the temple prophecies of Ezekiel. They will be fulfilled in spiritual essence, but probably not in strict literality, although they could have been had God’s people been more ‘fulfilling’ of them.</p>


text:
<e>Ezra: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished- The reference must be to the first year when Cyrus conquered Babylon. Bullinger claims Cyrus was the son of Astyages and Esther, who named him Cyrus in conscious fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecies. That however creates huge chronological difficulties. Daniel understood from Jeremiah’s prophecies that Jerusalem’s fortunes would be revived after the 70 year period was ended. Yet he goes on to ask God to immediately forgive His people, as if Daniel even dared hope that the period might be shortened. Daniel lived into the reign of Cyrus (<a href='B:340 6:28'>Dan 6:28</a>), and so he would have witnessed “the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem” (<a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a>; <a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>). But it seems to me that whilst the prophecy of the 70 years came true in one sense, the Jews didn’t respond as they should, and so the time of Zion’s true freedom in the Messianic Kingdom was delayed. Daniel had been petitioning the Father to not delay beyond the 70 year period in doing this. But in another sense, the prophecy was re-interpreted; Daniel was now told that there was to be a “seventy weeks of years” (<a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a> RSV) period involved in order to gain ultimate forgiveness for Israel as Daniel had just been praying for. The 70 years had become “seventy weeks of years”. The command to rebuild Jerusalem was given in the first year of Cyrus (<a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>); but Daniel must have watched in vain for any sign that Zion’s glad morning had really come. And so it is recorded that in the third year of Cyrus Daniel was given a vision that confirmed to him that “the thing was true, but the time appointed was long [Heb. ‘extended’; the word is also translated “greater”, “more”]: and he understood the thing” (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>). What was “the thing” that was true, which Daniel sought to understand? Surely it was the vision of the 70 years that he had sought to “understand” in <a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a>. The Hebrew dabar, translated “thing”, is usually translated “word”. He was comforted that the word of prophecy would come true; it was “noted in the scripture of truth” (Dan. 10;21). It was just that it had been extended in its fulfilment; “for yet the vision is for many days” (<a href='B:340 10:14'>Dan 10:14</a>). And this was how he came to “understand the thing / word”. The essential and ultimate fulfilment of the 70 years prophecy would only be after a long time, involving 70 “weeks of years”. Thus Daniel came to “understand” the vision (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>); hence he was so shocked, depressed and disappointed that the fulfilment would not be in his days. But he is set up as a representative of those of us in the very last days who shall likewise “understand” (s:w. <a href='B:340 12:10'>Dan 12:10</a>) the very same prophecies which Daniel studied. Daniel is described as both understanding, and also not understanding (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>; <a href='B:340 12:8'>Dan 12:8</a>). Surely the idea is that he understood the principle of deferment and the outline meaning of the prophecy; but he didn’t understand the details. And so perhaps it is with us who will, or do, likewise “understand” as Daniel did.  And yet all this is not to say that the restoration couldn't have then happened. God revealed His foreknowledge to Daniel. But the reality was that Zerubbabel / Sheshbazzar failed to achieve the restoration, the people didn't respond nor repent as they should have done, Cyrus didn't respond as the prophecies about him said, and Ezra's brave attempt at another return from exile in Ezra 7,8 didn't come to anything because the Jews intermarried and as Haggai and Malachi observe- focused on their own houses rather than God's. </p><p><a href='B:330 4:6'>Eze 4:6</a> revealed the variable nature of Divine time periods: "You shall lie on your right side, and shall bear the iniquity of the house of Judah: forty days, each day for a year, have I appointed it to you". Ezekiel was asked to prophecy that Judah would suffer for their sins for 40 years. Perhaps something could've happened after 40 years... And then, the starting point of the 70 or 40 years was somewhat flexible- for <a href='B:330 22:3-4'>Eze 22:3-4</a> records Ezekiel's prophecy that the desolation of Jerusalem by the Babylonians [the starting point of the time periods] was actually being hastened, brought forward, by the terrible behaviour of the Jews living there after the initial Babylon invasion of the land. Closer study reveals the variableness of outworking of the time periods. <a href='B:300 25:11-12'>Jer 25:11-12</a> and <a href='B:300 29:10'>Jer 29:10</a> speak of a 70 year period of Babylonian rule over Judah, beginning with the invasion of BC597. But Babylon only ruled over Judah for 49 years, before Babylon fell to the Persians. This would connect with the way that <a href='B:450 4:3'>Zec 4:3</a> speaks of 7 menorah candlesticks each with 7 lamps, making 49 lamps. 49 is the cycle of 7 Sabbath years that culminated in the jubilee year, and the jubilee year, the proclamation of liberty to the land (<a href='B:30 25:8-12'>Lev 25:8-12</a>; <a href='B:30 27:7-24'>Lev 27:7-24</a>) is a figure used so often in Isaiah to describe the freedom of Judah once released from Babylon. <a href='B:30 26:34'>Lev 26:34</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a> speak of the land enjoying her Sabbaths whilst Israel were in exile for their sins- i:e. for 49 years. So it seems that there could have been some restoration after 49 years- but it didn’t happen. But <a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a> and <a href='B:140 36:21'>2Ch 36:21</a> seem to reinterpret those 70 years of Jeremiah's prophecies as speaking of a 70 year period during which Jerusalem and the temple would be desolate. See on <a href='B:330 6:8'>Eze 6:8</a>.</p><p>Yahweh stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation- This is the same word for "noise" in <a href='B:330 37:7'>Eze 37:7</a>: “So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone”. This meant that the “whole house of Israel” was to stand up from their graves and return as a mighty army to the land. Their attitude in Babylon was exactly as in <a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>: “behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts”. These were the very sentiments of Jeremiah in Lamentations, and those who wept by the waters of Babylon when they remembered Zion. They were revived by the gift of the Spirit, the breath / spirit which was blown into them by God’s initiative.</p><p>We could take a positive view of Cyrus according to his own claims in the Cyrus Cylinder and the Nabonidus Chronicle. But there is a very negative image of Cyrus presented in Herodotus’ The Histories and Xenophon’s Cyropaedia.  The spirit of Cyrus is there presented as despotic and narcissistic, a cruel man who loved blood shedding for the sake of it. If that was indeed so, and it probably was the case, then we are left the more in awe of Yahweh's stirring up of even such a spirit to be gracious to His people. He can work on equally hard spirits today. 
The Babylonian writer of the “Annalistic Tablet” claims that the god Merodach stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, so perhaps Ezra's point is that in fact it was Yahweh who did so: “Merodach … appointed a prince who should guide aright the wish of the heart which his hand upholds, even Cyrus …”. 
The stirring up [Heb. 'opening the eyes'] of Cyrus is a parade example of the ability of God to work directly on the human mind, inserting ideas and initiatives, and confirming a person in their responses to various psychological stimuli. This is the nature of the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers today, and it was and will be seen in the revival of the dead bones of Israel. Not visible miracles, but internal mental working. And that Spirit can be resisted, as it was by many of the exiles; for we are not mere puppets in God’s hand. Yet grace means that God takes the initiative; "He first loved us". That initiative is seen through His working on the human heart in calling us to action (s:w. <a href='B:140 21:16'>2Ch 21:16</a>; <a href='B:290 13:17'>Isa 13:17</a>; <a href='B:300 50:41'>Jer 50:41</a>; <a href='B:360 3:9'>Joe 3:9</a>) and Cyrus was a parade example of this (<a href='B:290 41:2'>Isa 41:2</a>; <a href='B:290 41:25'>Isa 41:25</a>; <a href='B:290 45:13'>Isa 45:13</a>). The hearts of the returnees were likewise stirred up (see on :5). But this was not some irresistible manipulation of the human person; Zion was called to be stirred up ["awake"], but she refused to be stirred up (<a href='B:290 51:17'>Isa 51:17</a>; <a href='B:290 52:1'>Isa 52:1</a> cp. <a href='B:290 64:7'>Isa 64:7</a>). Zerubbabel had his mind or "spirit" stirred up to be the king-priest Messianic figure (<a href='B:440 1:14'>Hag 1:14</a>); but he let the baton drop.</p><p>Throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying-The restoration prophecies speak of how “all nations” are to be gathered to Zion; they are those who scattered Judah amongst the nations; not every literal nation. And who “scattered” Israel? The Hebrew word is used in <a href='B:300 50:17'>Jer 50:17</a> to describe how Babylon scattered Judah amongst the nations. And most significantly, the same word occurs again in <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>: “And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom...". It is quite wrong for us to imagine Judah sitting quietly by the rivers of Babylon, all huddled together. They were scattered throughout all the many provinces / colonies of the Babylonian empire. This was why Cyrus’ decree bidding the Jews return to rebuild Jerusalem had to be published “throughout all his kingdom” (<a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>), and Jews living “in any place” of that kingdom were included in the invitation. It was Babylon who had “parted my land” by dividing it up amongst the various ‘Samaritan’ peoples who were transported there from other conquered territories. And their being in Babylon is paralleled with being scattered to the four corners of the world as it was known to them: “Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD. Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon” (<a href='B:450 2:6-7'>Zec 2:6-7</a>). And consider <a href='B:450 7:14'>Zec 7:14</a>: “But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them [i:e. this concerns the Babylonian invasion], that no man passed through nor returned”. Indeed, <a href='B:450 8:7-8'>Zec 8:7-8</a> speaks of the restoration as coming from both West and East of Israel, implying that the Babylonians had sold some of the Jews as slaves in Greece and north Africa.</p><p>This proclamation was the fulfilment of many prophecies in Isaiah about "the messenger of good tidings" who announces salvation and God's return to Zion (Is. 52:7). "Go you forth from Babylon... proclaim this... make it go out even to the end of the earth [land]; say: The Lord has redeemed His servant Jacob" (Is. 48:20). But this was a Gospel, a message of salvation, that was largely ignored by God's people because they were blindsided by materialism and cozyness in Babylon. Just as we see today.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, ‘Yahweh, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and He has commanded me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah- This fits exactly how Darius I is called in his Persian "display" inscription, erected in Egypt, "The great king, king of kings, king of countries, containing all (kinds) of men, king of this great earth, far and wide". But we note the contradiction with the inscription on Cyrus’ Cylinder which names Marduk as the god who appointed Cyrus as King. The term "God of heaven" is the equivalent of the Zoroastrian deity Ahura Mazda; the implication is that Yahweh and not Ahura Mazda is the God of Heaven. So perhaps here in Ezra 1:2 we have what Cyrus actually thought in his heart; or perhaps in his decree to the Israelites he used terms which they would relate to. Likewise it could be argued that Cyrus had a policy of giving subject peoples religious autonomy and some local political autonomy- in order, so he reasoned, to preserve his power over the empire. Whatever his motives, God worked through this to achieve His purpose. Although I would suggest that it was God's intention that Cyrus did actually become a believer who consciously, willfully served Him. But Cyrus failed in that, just as God's people failed to realize their intended potential at this time.
Cyrus clearly had a sense of relationship with Yahweh, and I have argued that he was one of the potential Messiah figures who could have reestablished the Kingdom at the restoration. <a href='B:290 44:28'>Isa 44:28</a> is crystal clear about this. God "says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure’, even saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be built;’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid’". It was God’s intention that Cyrus repent and become a proselyte, and Yahweh would then use him to save His people "out of all places where they have been scattered". The decree of Cyrus was addressed to "Whoever is left [of the Jews], in any place where he lives" (<a href='B:150 1:4'>Ezr 1:4</a>). "Cyrus" literally means "sun" and so contrasts with the cloudy and dark day. But Cyrus let the ball drop and didn’t carry through the Divine purpose as he might have done and neither did the Jews respond as they should have done. Cyrus was Yahweh's anointed (<a href='B:290 45:1'>Isa 45:1</a>), and so the essence of these prophecies is to come true in the last days in the person of the Lord Jesus. We could say that the prophecies are transferred from Cyrus to the Lord Jesus. LXX "Who bids Cyrus be wise, and he shall perform all my will" suggests Cyrus had a choice; he was commanded, and it seems he partially obeyed, but not enough to the Messiah figure envisaged.</p><p>It is significant that Ezra and Nehemiah speak of the "God of Heaven" (e.g. <a href='B:150 1:2'>Ezr 1:2</a>) whilst Zechariah speaks of the "God of the earth" or 'land' of Israel, perhaps because the Angel of Israel literally went to Heaven when the glory departed from Jerusalem, and returned, in a sense, at the restoration- to depart again&nbsp;at the Lord's death ("Your house is left unto you desolate"; of the Angel that once dwelt in the temple).</p><p>Critics have noted the difference between this decree and the record of it in Ezra 6 when it was it were dug out of the archives. I suggest the document of Ezra 6, which is recorded in Aramaic rather than Hebrew as in Ezra 1, was a memorandum to the king's treasurers.</p>


text:
<p>Whoever there is among you of all His people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of Yahweh, the God of Israel (He is God), which is in Jerusalem- Repeatedly the emphasis is upon the command to "go up to Jerusalem" (:4,11; Ezra 2:68 also). Yet the lament is that the Jews settled in the towns around Jerusalem or ran to reclaim the land and houses of their ancestors. They lost the focus upon Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple, as Haggai and Malachi lament.
"Of all His people" could be read as a hint that all members of Israel, from whatever tribe, were to return and therefore form a 12 tribe kingdom in Israel. This would explain the frequent usage of the term "Israel" in Ezra, rather than simply "Judah". See on Ezra 2:64.
"His God..." sounds as if Cyrus had not adopted Yahweh as his own God. And yet he does recognize that "He is God". We can know things about God, without grasping their personal reality. That is the lesson of Cyrus.</p><p><a href='B:370 9:11-15'>Amo 9:11-15</a> is most comfortably interpreted when read as referring to the restoration of Judah and the “remnant” of the ten tribes to the land under Ezra: “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God”. “I will raise up” uses a Hebrew word very commonly featured in the records of the restoration, when the people were exhorted to “rise up and build” (<a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 3:2'>Ezr 3:2</a>; <a href='B:150 10:4'>Ezr 10:4</a>; <a href='B:150 10:15'>Ezr 10:15</a>; <a href='B:160 2:18'>Neh 2:18</a>; <a href='B:160 2:20'>Neh 2:20</a>). The statement that they would “close up the breaches thereof” is exactly the language of <a href='B:160 6:1'>Neh 6:1</a>, which records that the walls were rebuilt so that there was no breach [s:w:] therein. It was after the Babylonian invasion that Zion was “fallen” and ‘ruined’ (s:w. <a href='B:300 31:18'>Jer 31:18</a>; <a href='B:300 45:4'>Jer 45:4</a>; <a href='B:310 2:2'>Lam 2:2</a>; <a href='B:310 2:17'>Lam 2:17</a>). “I will build it” is exactly the theme of the records of the return from Babylon (<a href='B:150 1:2-3'>Ezr 1:2-3</a>; <a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 3:2'>Ezr 3:2</a>; <a href='B:150 3:10'>Ezr 3:10</a>; <a href='B:150 4:1-4'>Ezr 4:1-4</a>; <a href='B:160 2:5'>Neh 2:5</a>; <a href='B:160 2:17-18'>Neh 2:17-18</a>; <a href='B:160 2:20'>Neh 2:20</a>; <a href='B:160 3:1-3'>Neh 3:1-3</a>; <a href='B:160 3:13-15'>Neh 3:13-15</a>; <a href='B:160 4:1'>Neh 4:1</a>; <a href='B:160 4:3'>Neh 4:3</a>; <a href='B:160 4:5-6'>Neh 4:5-6</a>; <a href='B:160 4:10'>Neh 4:10</a>; <a href='B:160 4:17-18'>Neh 4:17-18</a>; <a href='B:160 6:1'>Neh 6:1</a>; <a href='B:160 6:6'>Neh 6:6</a>; <a href='B:160 7:1'>Neh 7:1</a>). Surely Amos 9 is saying that at the rebuilding at the time of the restoration, God’s people could have ushered in the Kingdom age of agricultural plenty and victory over their Arab neighbours. But they intermarried with Edom, and suffered drought because they didn’t fulfill the requirements to rebuild Zion correctly. But the words of Amos were still to come true in some form- they are given an application in <a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a> which may appear to be way out of context, i:e. to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Thus words which could have had a plain fulfilment at the restoration were given a delayed fulfilment; but they were not fulfilled in a literal sense, but in a spiritual one. And so it is with prophecies like Ezekiel 38, and the temple prophecies of Ezekiel. They will be fulfilled in spiritual essence, but probably not in strict literality, although they could have been had God’s people been more ‘fulfilling’ of them.</p>


text:
<p>Whoever is left, in any place where he lives, let the men of his place help him with silver, with gold, with goods, and with animals, besides the freewill offering for God’s house which is in Jerusalem’-The original could mean that whoever is left because he can't afford to migrate to Judah, the [Gentile] people around him were commanded to assist him to make the journey. Assistance from Gentiles prior to leaving is one of many impressions given that a second exodus is underway. Thus "we are slaves this day" (Neh. 9:36) suggests they were in Egypt and had to leave, even though they were hardly slaves in Babylon / Persia. The same term for "heads of families" is used also in the Exodus record. This command for the Gentiles to help those Jews who couldn't otherwise return would reflect an assumption that the command of :3 would be obeyed by all other Jews who could leave. But Cyrus was so sadly wrong. "Sojourns" is the idea behind "lives"; Cyrus recognized the Jews were only sojourners, temporary residents. The language suggests he accepted the Jews were only temporarily in Babylon. The Divine hope was that Cyrus would accept the Holy One of Israel (Is. 41:25 "I have raised up one from the north...  one who calls on My name...") although initially Cyrus is the one God had called who knew Him not (Is. 45:4 "I have called you by your name... I have surnamed you, though you have not known Me"). Although Cyrus initially didn't know God's Name, he would come to a point when he did "call on My name". That was the hope, but it seems it didn't happen. We could read Is. 45:4 "yet you have not known Me" as a Divine lament that Cyrus did not respond to Yahweh and enter personal relationship with Him. It is repeated again in Is. 45:5.
</p><p> It's surely intentional that the repentance and subsequent witness of Jonah led to the King of Assyria [often paralleled with Babylon in the prophets] making a phenomenally unexpected decree and published it (<a href='B:390 3:7'>Jon 3:7</a>)- which ought to have prepared the faithful in exile for the possibility that such a decree could be forthcoming from the King of Persia, if they like Jonah repented and witnessed their faith to the world. It did in fact happen (<a href='B:150 1:1-4'>Ezr 1:1-4</a>). But it happened by grace, for there seems to have been little true repentance let alone preaching by the Jews in exile.</p><p>God had told His people to flee from Babylon before she fell, to come out of her and return to His land and Kingdom (<a href='B:290 48:20'>Isa 48:20</a>; <a href='B:290 52:7'>Isa 52:7</a>; <a href='B:300 50:8'>Jer 50:8</a>; <a href='B:450 2:7'>Zec 2:7</a>). Babylon offered them a secure life, wealth, a society which accepted them (<a href='B:190 8:17'>Est 8:17</a>; <a href='B:190 10:3'>Est 10:3</a>), houses which they had built for themselves (<a href='B:300 29:5'>Jer 29:5</a>). And they were asked to leave all this, and travel the uncertain wilderness road to the ruins of Israel. They didn’t leave as asked, and so after Babylon fell, Cyrus the Persian was moved still to as it were push them to return to the land. We see here God’s continual effort to get people to respond to His message even if they at first refuse. They are cited in the NT as types of us in our exit from this world (<a href='B:540 6:17'>2Co 6:17</a>; <a href='B:730 18:4'>Rev 18:4</a>). Those who decided to obey God’s command and leave Babylon were confirmed in this by God: He raised up their spirit to want to return and re-build Jerusalem, and He touched the heart of Cyrus to make decrees which greatly helped them to do this (<a href='B:150 1:2-5'>Ezr 1:2-5</a>). And so the same Lord God of Israel is waiting to confirm us in our every act of separation from the kingdoms of this world, great or small; and He waits not only to receive us, but to be a Father unto us, and to make us His sons and daughters (<a href='B:540 6:18'>2Co 6:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then the heads of fathers’ households of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, even all whose spirit God had stirred to go up, rose up to build the house of Yahweh which is in Jerusalem- This fulfilled <a href='B:360 3:7'>Joe 3:7</a> “I will raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them”. The same Hebrew word is used in <a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>; <a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a> concerning how God raised up the spirit of Judah to return to the land. But despite their spirits having been stirred up [also Ezra 9:9 "To give us a reviving"], it is apparent from Haggai  and Malachi that their motives for returning were mixed. They desired to get land for themselves and enjoy good harvests, building ornate houses for themselves rather than building up God's house. We see how as with the Corinthian church, the Spirit can be given and it begins to work on the human spirit, but there has to be further freewill response on the human side. When this is lacking, as in Corinth, those affected are unspiritual. I observed this happening with so many converts after baptism of water and the subsequent work of the Spirit. </p><p>God 'stirred up' the spirit of Cyrus (see on :1) and also of the Jews who returned (<a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>; <a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>). Isaiah uses the same Hebrew term to describe how Israel's saviour would be "raised up" [s:w:]- <a href='B:290 41:2'>Isa 41:2</a>; <a href='B:290 41:25'>Isa 41:25</a>; <a href='B:290 45:13'>Isa 45:13</a>. And yet Isaiah pleads with Zion, i:e. the faithful, to indeed be stirred up- <a href='B:290 51:17'>Isa 51:17</a>; <a href='B:290 52:1'>Isa 52:1</a> appeals to Zion to "Awake!"- the same word translated "stirred up". But Isaiah tragically concluded that there were so few who would 'stir up themselves' (<a href='B:290 64:7'>Isa 64:7</a>). God had given them the potential to be 'stirred up' in their hearts and minds to leave Babylon and return- but they wouldn't respond. And today, the same happens. God is willing to change hearts, to stir up materialistic and complacent spirits- but because we're not robots, we have to respond. And yet, God’s grace still shines through. <a href='B:110 8:47-50'>1Ki 8:47-50</a> had predicted that God would give the exiles compassion in captivity if they repented. They didn’t repent, as passages like Ezekiel 18 make clear (they blamed everything on their fathers and protested their personal innocence)- and yet still God gave them compassion in the eyes of their captors, through the amazing decrees of Cyrus enabling them to return to their land and rebuild the temple at his expense.</p><p>"Rose up / arose" is a word used often of the 'rising up' of the exiles to rebuild Jerusalem (<a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 3:2'>Ezr 3:2</a>; <a href='B:150 9:5'>Ezr 9:5</a>; <a href='B:160 2:18'>Neh 2:18</a>; <a href='B:160 3:1'>Neh 3:1</a>). This was a fulfilment of the command to "Arise... Jerusalem!" (<a href='B:290 51:17'>Isa 51:17</a>; <a href='B:290 52:2'>Isa 52:2</a>; <a href='B:290 61:4'>Isa 61:4</a>). But this 'arising' was to be associated with the dawning of Zion's light in the form of Yahweh's glory literally dwelling over Zion (<a href='B:290 60:1'>Isa 60:1</a>). This didn’t happen at the time, because the appearance of 'arising' by the exiles was only external and wasn't matched by a spiritual revival. Yahweh cut off the “master” [‘the stirred up one’, s:w:] because they divorced their wives and married Gentiles (<a href='B:460 2:12'>Mal 2:12</a>). The potential work of God on men’s hearts was frustrated by their hardness of heart.</p>


text:
<p>All those who were around them strengthened their hands with vessels of silver, with gold, with goods, and with animals, and with precious things, besides all that was willingly offered- The book of Esther has explained how the Jews were popular in captivity. These precious gifts recall those given to Israel when they left Egypt. The whole narrative of their return from Babylon is framed by Isaiah in terms of the exodus from Egypt. As Israel were intended to use these gifts to build the tabernacle, so the exiles were to use them to rebuild the temple. <a href='B:330 40:42'>Eze 40:42</a> speaks of the vessels to be used in the temple [AV “instruments”] with the same word used for the temple vessels which were brought up out of Babylon back to Judah, in fulfilment of several of Isaiah’s ‘Kingdom’ passages (<a href='B:150 1:6-11'>Ezr 1:6-11</a>; <a href='B:150 8:25-33'>Ezr 8:25-33</a> cp. <a href='B:290 52:11'>Isa 52:11</a>; <a href='B:290 66:20'>Isa 66:20</a>). The restoration of the kingdom could potentially have happened at the time of Ezra. But so much potential was wasted.</p>


text:
<p>Also Cyrus the king brought forth the vessels of the house of Yahweh, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought out of Jerusalem, and had put in the house of his gods- This sounds very much like at least some element of repentance, although it has been argued that this was standard Persian practice and policy at this time. For the other captive nations were also bidden return to their homelands with their religious paraphernalia which had been taken into captivity by them.</p>


text:
<p>Even those, Cyrus king of Persia brought out by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and numbered them to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah- Note how “the prince” is very much the language of Ezekiel 40-48 concerning a mortal “prince”, and also Zerubbabel (<a href='B:150 1:8'>Ezr 1:8</a>; there is good reason to think that Sheshbazzar was an official name for Zerubbabel- see Michael Ashton, The Exiles Return). And Isaiah 53 is prefaced in chapter 52 by the command to return from Babylon and to proclaim the good news of the Messianic Kingdom which Cyrus’ decree could have brought in; as if it could have come true then. He shall “grow up” as a root from a dry land (<a href='B:290 53:2'>Isa 53:2</a>) uses the word frequently used about the ‘going up’ from Babylon to Jerusalem.</p><p>There could have been a fulfilment of <a href='B:300 23:5'>Jer 23:5</a> by Sheshbazzar / Zerubbabel: "Behold, the days come says Yahweh, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land". I suggested on <a href='B:300 22:24'>Jer 22:24</a> that the king in view was potentially Zerubbabel, "the branch of God from Babylon". <a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a> interprets this as a reference to Zerubbabel: "the man whose name is the branch... shall&nbsp; build&nbsp; the&nbsp; temple of the&nbsp; Lord". Zerubbabel being a king-priest was in the kingly line, and thus can correctly be called a king in the line of David (<a href='B:470 1:12'>Mat 1:12</a>; <a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a>; 'Sheshbazzar' of <a href='B:150 1:8'>Ezr 1:8</a> is the Babylonian equivalent of 'Zerubbabel'; <a href='B:150 3:8'>Ezr 3:8</a> describes his brothers as "priests and Levites"). Great prince Nehemiah humbly entered Jerusalem incognito on an ass (<a href='B:160 2:11-15'>Neh 2:11-15</a>)- it is a wild speculation that Zerubbabel did the same, and thus provided a primary basis for <a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a> "Thy king cometh unto thee (also unrecognized, in the case of Jesus entering spiritually ruined Jerusalem)... lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass".</p>


text:
<p>This is the number of them: thirty platters of gold, one thousand platters of silver, twenty-nine knives- "Platters" or "chargers" is an unusual word; "Aben Ezra derived it from two words meaning ‘to collect’ and ‘a lamb’, and understood it to be applied to ‘vessels intended to receive the blood of victims’".</p>


text:
<p>thirty bowls of gold, silver bowls of a second sort four hundred and ten, and other vessels one thousand- Of a second sort" is LXX "double".</p>


text:
<p>All the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand four hundred- This is larger than the sum of the vessels listed in :9,10. In addition to the 1000 "other vessels" (:10), there may have been other vessels of gold and silver, perhaps belonging to the royal family rather than to the temple (see <a href='B:140 36:18'>2Ch 36:18</a>); and the total sum is given here.</p><p>Sheshbazzar brought all these up, when the captives were brought up from Babylon to Jerusalem- Those who truly waited upon Yahweh [waiting for the restoration prophecies to be fulfilled] would renew their strength; they would “mount up as eagles” (<a href='B:290 40:31'>Isa 40:31</a>), the s:w. used throughout Ezra and Nehemiah for the ‘going up’ or 'bringing up' to Jerusalem from Babylon to rebuild the temple (<a href='B:150 1:3'>Ezr 1:3</a>; <a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 1:11'>Ezr 1:11</a>; <a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezr 2:1</a>; <a href='B:150 2:59'>Ezr 2:59</a>; <a href='B:150 7:6-7'>Ezr 7:6-7</a>; <a href='B:150 7:28'>Ezr 7:28</a>; <a href='B:150 8:1'>Ezr 8:1</a>; <a href='B:160 7:5-6'>Neh 7:5-6</a>; <a href='B:160 7:61'>Neh 7:61</a>; <a href='B:160 12:1'>Neh 12:1</a>). The idea of mounting up with wings as eagles also connects with Ezekiel's vision of the cherubim, mounting up from the captives by the rivers of Babylon, and returning to the land. This was the strength available to confirm them in their desire to return. But the reality was as in <a href='B:160 4:10'>Neh 4:10</a>: “And Judah said, The strength of the bearers of burdens is decayed, and there is much rubbish; so that we are not able to build the wall”. Examination of the context shows that they had just had plenty of strength; they lost physical stamina because of their spiritual weakness.</p><p>There is no account of the actual journey to Zion of the first exiles in Ezra 1:11, but the apocryphal 1 Esdras 5:1-6 speaks of the returnees playing the restored musical instruments of the temple and singing as they came. This was therefore a primary fulfilment of the restoration prophecies about God's people coming with singing unto Zion (Is. 35:10; 51:11). We note how Ezra 2:65 mentions "singers" as amongst the exiles who returned.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the children of the province, who went up out of the captivity of those who had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away to Babylon- "The province" could refer to Judah, or Babylon. In which case we have a list here specifically only of those who came from Babylon. The majority of Jews preferred to stay in Persia / Babylon. Archaeological and inscription evidence (see Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia), as well as Josephus, suggests there may have been 1 million of them in Persia at the time of Cyrus. <a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezr 2:1</a> may suggest that only a relatively few Jews who lived in the province of Babylon returned (one out of 127 provinces), even though there were significant numbers of Jews in all the provinces, as the book of Esther makes clear (as also does <a href='B:160 1:8'>Neh 1:8</a>, which says that the Babylonian captivity fulfilled God’s prophecy to scatter Israel amongst all nations). The Persian records even suggest that some of those who obeyed the call to 'return' actually only made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and then returned to their homes in Persia. And the mighty political and linguistic changes taking place purely for our sakes are often ignored by us. Like the Jews in Babylon, we figure that surely such huge changes couldn’t have occurred only for us. But they do, and have done. Isaiah frequently shows the folly of worshipping Babylonian idols. And yet it seems that it was Judah’s worship of these idols that kept them in Babylon. See on <a href='B:290 50:10-11'>Isa 50:10-11</a>.</p><p>And who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each one to his city- The purpose of the return was to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. The stress is always that they were to return to Jerusalem. But in reality, the motives of the returnees were mixed. Ostensibly they returned to Jerusalem, but in reality "each one to his city", to reclaim ancestral property. Hence the later problems with getting enough people to dwell in Jerusalem, and the disinterest in rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple when their focus was on building their own "ceiled houses". Haggai is all about this problem. </p><p>Ezekiel’s temple prophecies begin with a man / Angel with a measuring reed, measuring Jerusalem and the temple. This recurs in <a href='B:450 2:1'>Zec 2:1</a>, where the Angel again measures the temple and then promises that Yahweh will be a protecting wall of fire around the city, meaning that the Jews should fearlessly return from Babylon (<a href='B:450 2:5-10'>Zec 2:5-10</a>). There follows a description of God’s Kingdom on earth, with God Himself dwelling in Zion and all nations converting to Him. Yet the Jews returned with fear from Babylon- or some of them did. And they fussed so much about building a wall to protect them, in studied disregard of God’s promise here. God helped them build the wall- He was still so keen to work with them. And He later encouraged them that “I will encamp about mine house because of the army, because of him that passeth by, and because of him that returneth [s:w. used about Judah’s return from captivity, <a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezr 2:1</a>; <a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a>]: and no oppressor shall pass through them any more” (<a href='B:450 9:7-8'>Zec 9:7-8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel- Zerubbabel suddenly appears as the leader. Sheshbazzar was the named leader in Ezra 1, but quite possibly they are the same person. His absence in the record at this point is otherwise strange. Zerubbabel started using his Hebrew name ['stranger in Babylon' or 'born in Babylon'] rather than the paganic Babylonian name he had of Sheshbazzar. As Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were the names given to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (Dan. 1:6,7). Both are called the "governor of Judah" (Ezra 5:14; Hag. 1:1; 2:2,21). The Nehemiah mentioned is probably not the same as the later Nehemiah in the record. </p><p>The mention of 11 leaders perhaps leaves us wondering why not 12; perhaps the implication is that the intention of regathering all 12 tribes was not to be fulfilled completely.</p><p>The way Zerubbabel (<a href='B:150 2:2'>Ezr 2:2</a>; <a href='B:160 7:5-7'>Neh 7:5-7</a>), Ezra (<a href='B:150 7:8'>Ezr 7:8</a>; <a href='B:150 8:32'>Ezr 8:32</a>) and Nehemiah (<a href='B:160 2:11'>Neh 2:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>) are described as ‘coming to Jerusalem’ may hint that they could have fulfilled this coming of Yahweh to Zion; they could have been Messianic figures (<a href='B:160 2:11'>Neh 2:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>):&nbsp; When Nehemiah speaks of them having been redeemed by Yahweh’s “strong hand” (<a href='B:160 1:10'>Neh 1:10</a>). he is using the language of <a href='B:290 40:10'>Isa 40:10</a>, regarding how Yahweh would come to Zion and save Israel from Babylon and restore them to the land “with strong hand”. Nehemiah saw the prophecy could have been fulfilled then.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Parosh, two thousand one hundred and seventy-two- "Children of..." can be understood literally; or the 'children of' a geographical area are the people who live in it. It seems that in :3-19 we have a list of the literal families who returned. Then in :20-35 those who returned, arranged according to geographical localities; in :36-39 the numbers of the priests, arranged according to families, and then according to their localities (:40-42); then the families of the Nethinim (:43-54) and of Solomon's servants (:55-57).</p>


text:
<p>The children of Shephatiah, three hundred and seventy-two- The Persian and Babylon practice was to replace Hebrew names with local names, as we see with Daniel and his friends. The fact some retained their Hebrew names, especially a name like "Yah has judged", may be an indication of faith; although it may also have been mere cultural loyalty.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Arah, seven hundred and seventy-five- "Arah" is 'wandering', perhaps aware that the Jews had been exiled to the east just as Cain was to wander east of Eden.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Pahathmoab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve- 2818 in <a href='B:160 7:11'>Neh 7:11</a>. The numbers in the parallel record in Nehemiah 7 are often higher. I suggest that that was a list of those who began the journey, or expressed interest in it; whereas Ezra 2 is the list of those who completed it. And there was far more interest in starting the journey than actually finishing it, as we see in response to the Gospel of the Kingdom today.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Elam, one thousand two hundred and fifty-four- Elam was the name of a neighbouring nation, so we wonder whether this was a Jew very influenced by secularism who then repented and had a spiritual revival. And he was one of the largest families to return.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Zattu, nine hundred and forty-five- <a href='B:160 7:13'>Neh 7:13</a> says 845. 100 didn’t actually make it. There was far more interest in starting the journey than actually finishing it, as we see in response to the Gospel of the Kingdom today.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Zaccai, seven hundred and sixty- "Pure", perhaps once a Nazirite (<a href='B:310 4:7'>Lam 4:7</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p>The children of Bani, six hundred and forty-two- "Builder", perhaps so named because he was keen to rebuild Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Bebai, six hundred and twenty-three- "Bebai" isn't a Hebrew word; some of the exiles had so assimilated that they only had local Persian names. To leave all they had known was therefore a major challenge.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Azgad, one thousand two hundred and twenty-two- The differing sizes of the families may not simply mean that some were larger than others, but that some families divided more than others over this question of returning to Judah. Some stayed, and others went. And of course many families didn’t respond at all.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Adonikam, six hundred and sixty-six- 'Lord of the sunrise', a pagan, cultic name; again reflecting the extent to which the exiles had assimilated. I have noted on Esther how "Esther" and "Mordecai" were both local names associated with idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Bigvai, two thousand and fifty-six- A relatively large number. We are again faced with the question of why some families and geographical areas responded to the call more than others.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Adin, four hundred and fifty-four- "Adin" is s:w. "given to pleasures" (<a href='B:290 47:8'>Isa 47:8</a>). And yet the message of return to restore the Kingdom was somehow attractive even to such a person.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Ater, of Hezekiah, ninety-eight- "Ater" is 'maimed'. Perhaps he was an invalid, which might account for the relatively small family size. The call of the Kingdom is going to be more attractive to those in such situations.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Bezai, three hundred and twenty-three- Perhaps the same as Besai one of the Nethinim (:49).</p>


text:
<p>The children of Jorah, one hundred and twelve- We note the lack of the 'Yah' prefix or suffix in these names. Those who responded were apparently secular people, not known for their devotion to Yahweh. That may explain why the records of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai and Malachi complain that they were not well motivated and were largely only looking for personal benefit and advantage through returning to Judah. See on :19.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Hashum, two hundred and twenty-three- "Enriched" or 'seeking enrichment'; see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Gibbar, ninety-five- "Children of..." can be understood literally; or the 'children of' a geographical area are the people who live in it. It seems that in :3-19 we have a list of the literal families who returned. Then in :20-35 those who returned, arranged according to geographical localities; in :36-39 the numbers of the priests, arranged according to families, and then according to their localities (:40-42); then the families of the Nethinim (:43-54) and of Solomon's servants (:55-57).</p><p>"Gibbar" is Gibeon in Benjamin (<a href='B:160 7:25'>Neh 7:25</a>), and we note that a disproportionate number of the returnees were from Benjamin.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Bethlehem, one hundred and twenty-three- These are pathetically small numbers, bearing in mind there were around 1 million Jews in the empire (see on :1).</p>


text:
<p>The men of Netophah, fifty-six- Counted together with Benjamin in Nehemiah 7. The majority of those who returned were from Benjamin and Judah. The prophetic vision of all the tribes of Israel returning didn’t come about at the time.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Anathoth, one hundred and twenty-eight- The very existence of "men of Anathoth" who returned was a sign of God’s grace. For because of their persecution of Jeremiah, <a href='B:300 11:21'>Jer 11:21</a>; <a href='B:300 11:23'>Jer 11:23</a> had prophesied: "There shall be no remnant of them, for I will bring evil upon the men of Anathoth". Perhaps like Nineveh some repented and therefore the threatened judgment didn’t come about; or Jeremiah prayed for them his enemies and was heard; or Yahweh simply pitied His people.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Azmaveth, forty-two- The small number was because this was known as literally "fields" near to Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 12:29'>Neh 12:29</a>). And yet 42 people returned from this area. Whereas from far larger settlements, not one.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Kiriath Arim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred and forty-three- They may have been listed together because these villages were close to each other, or they travelled together as if one family. The men of Kirjathjearim (s:w. "Kiriath Arim") had looked after the ark previously (<a href='B:90 7:1-2'>1Sa 7:1-2</a>) and been blessed for it. There had been a faithful prophet there at the time of the captivity (<a href='B:300 26:20'>Jer 26:20</a>); these considerations may account for the relatively large number who returned from that area.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Ramah and Geba, six hundred and twenty-one- "Gaba" is s:w. "Gibeah of Benjamin" (<a href='B:70 20:10'>Jdg 20:10</a>). This was a priestly city, given to the Levites, although very few Levites returned (<a href='B:60 21:17'>Jos 21:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The men of Michmas, one hundred and twenty-two- The order of the towns appears to be geographical, as "Michmas" was close to "Geba" (s:w. "Gibeah") of :26 (<a href='B:90 14:5'>1Sa 14:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The men of Bethel and Ai, two hundred and twenty-three- Mentioned together because they were geographically close (<a href='B:60 7:2'>Jos 7:2</a>; <a href='B:60 8:9'>Jos 8:9</a>). Bethel was in the ten tribe kingdom, so it seems that some of the Israelites did return along with Judah; but not to the extent of the prophetic vision, whereby a repentant Israel and Judah would be united together in a reestablished Kingdom of God in the land.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Nebo, fifty-two- <a href='B:160 7:33'>Neh 7:33</a> "the other Nebo", perhaps to differentiate it from Nebo in Moab; or as LXX "Nabia".</p>


text:
<p>The children of Magbish, one hundred and fifty-six- There is no other reference to this village. The impression is given that those who returned were largely from insignificant villages rather than the larger cities. Perhaps it was in those areas that there was greater faithfulness to Yahweh. Or perhaps the urban dwellers didn’t want to return and rebuild their cities, whereas the rural dwellers guessed that their land would still be there for them to take.</p>


text:
<p>The children of the other Elam, one thousand two hundred and fifty-four- LXX Elamar. We wonder why so many, relatively speaking, should return from an unknown small village. Perhaps there was a community of faithful there.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Harim, three hundred and twenty- Whilst in this section we are reading of the names of towns and not people, this location is unknown, and means 'flat nosed' as if referring to a person. Perhaps the interesting case of the person Harim is being emphasized, in that people from his village also returned with him. See on :39.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred and twenty-five- <a href='B:160 7:37'>Neh 7:37</a> gives 721. The fact is noted that even four people began the journey, or were willing to start it, but didn’t make it. These details show the abiding value to God of every human person.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Jericho, three hundred and forty-five- There was a community of "sons of the prophets" there which may account for this (<a href='B:120 2:5'>2Ki 2:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The children of Senaah, three thousand six hundred and thirty-&nbsp; A relatively large number. We are again faced with the question of why some families and geographical areas responded to the call more than others. The larger cities such as Lachish had apparently not a single one who returned from there.</p>


text:
<p>The priests: the children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred and seventy-three- As noted on :3, in :36-39 we have the numbers of the priests, arranged according to families, and then according to their localities (:40-42). They were not particularly faithful for by the time Ezra came, many of them had married Gentile women. Only four families of priests are mentioned in :36-39, whereas 24 priestly families went into exile.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Immer, one thousand and fifty-two- Only four courses of priests returned, when there were supposed to be 24 of them , namely Pashhur, Jedaiah, Immer, and Hardin (<a href='B:130 24:7-8'>1Ch 24:7-8</a>; <a href='B:130 24:14'>1Ch 24:14</a>). The priesthood had been deeply corrupt at the time of the exile, and it seems most of them preferred to remain in Babylon.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Pashhur, one thousand two hundred and forty-seven- Perhaps descendants of the unfaithful Pashur the priest of <a href='B:300 20:1-3'>Jer 20:1-3</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Harim, one thousand and seventeen- "Harim" means 'snubnosed'; the priest in whom there was a physical defect, such as to exclude him from priestly service. For this is the word used of how a 'flat nosed' man was excluded from priestly service (<a href='B:30 21:18'>Lev 21:18</a>). Perhaps they were eager at the chance to serve in the restored temple, guessing that the regulations would be relaxed due to the relative lack of priests and Levites returning. Or the idea could simply be that the requirements of the law were not followed by the priests who returned.</p>


text:
<p>The Levites: the children of Jeshua and Kadmiel, of the children of Hodaviah, seventy-four- As noted on :3, in :36-39 we have the numbers of the priests, arranged according to families, and then according to their localities (:40-42). These Levites of :40 are the ordinary Levites; :41 refers to the Levites who sung, and :42 to those who kept the gates. But only two families of the ordinary mass of Levites returned- a pathetic response. Only 431 Levites returned compared to 4289 priests, and we note the lack of Levites again in Ezra 8:15. Perhaps nobody wanted to return to the land just to do humble temple service and get no land inheritance- as the Levites had no land inheritance to return to. This underlines how the motive for the returning exiles was land for themselves, rather than a true desire to do Yahweh's service and reestablish His Kingdom. Yet they returned because He stirred up their spirit / heart. But the unspiritual side of their hearts came to dominate. Just as in the movement of the Spirit in many hearts today.</p>


text:
<p>The singers: the children of Asaph, one hundred and twenty-eight- This was very poor response. We note that apparently the famous singing families of Heman and Jeduthin didn’t return (<a href='B:130 25:1'>1Ch 25:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The children of the porters: the children of Shallum, the children of Ater, the children of Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children of Hatita, the children of Shobai, in all one hundred and thirty-nine- This is a very small number for the families of the gate keepers. The number of ordinary Levites compared to priests is very low (4289 priests, and 341 Levites). There were far more Levites than there were priests, but it seems the Levites didn’t want to return and do the dirty work; everyone wanted to be religious leaders. Hence Ezra's problem in finding Levites to return (<a href='B:150 8:15'>Ezr 8:15</a>). We can note that it was this tension between Levites and priests which resulted in Korah's rebellion (<a href='B:40 16:1-10'>Num 16:1-10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The Nethinim: the children of Ziha, the children of Hasupha, the children of Tabbaoth- The Nethinim were grouped beneath the Levites but above "the servants of Solomon" (<a href='B:150 2:55'>Ezr 2:55</a>). "Nethinim" is literally 'those who are given' and many presume they were originally the Gibeonites, who were 'given' by Joshua to the Levites to do their more menial work (<a href='B:60 9:3-27'>Jos 9:3-27</a>). Whenever Gentiles were captured in war, some of them would have been devoted to Yahweh in that they were given to His service through joining the Nethinim (<a href='B:40 31:28'>Num 31:28</a>). Thus in <a href='B:150 8:20'>Ezr 8:20</a> we find&nbsp; mention of some "whom David and the princes had appointed (Heb. ‘given’) for the service of the Levites".</p>


text:
<p>the children of Keros, the children of Siaha, the children of Padon- These names could well be Persian and not Hebrew. The Nethinim were Gentiles (see on :43), and had unsurprisingly adopted Persian names in the exile. But they wanted to return to rebuild Judah. It's hard to guess whether the push or pull factor was strongest. Perhaps they felt they had never been accepted in Persian society just as they hadn't been in Jewish society and therefore felt a 'push' from exile; or perhaps they were truly faithful to the God of Israel they served, and were thereby 'pulled' by that back to His service.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Lebanah, the children of Hagabah, the children of Akkub- "Lebanah" is "the moon"; "Hagabah" is "the locust". These names suggest a high level of assimilation into Persian society.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Hagab, the children of Shamlai, the children of Hanan- We note the lack of the 'Yah' prefix or suffix in these names. Those who responded were apparently secular people, not known for their devotion to Yahweh. That may explain why the records of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai and Malachi complain that they were not well motivated and were largely only looking for personal benefit and advantage through returning to Judah. See on <a href='B:150 2:19'>Ezr 2:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Giddel, the children of Gahar, the children of Reaiah- "Reaiah", 'Yah has seen', is one of the few names which has the 'Yah' suffix. And he was of the Nethinim, a Gentile, who had retained his devotion to Yahweh despite being made a servant of Yahweh's apostate people.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Rezin, the children of Nekoda, the children of Gazzam- "Nekoda" is a female name. This female head of house, a Gentile of the Nethinim, meaning literally "speckled" (s:w. <a href='B:10 30:33'>Gen 30:33</a>; <a href='B:10 30:35'>Gen 30:35</a>), led her family back to Judah when many Jews wouldn't respond.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Uzza, the children of Paseah, the children of Besai- We note that "Uzza" and not "Uzziah" is mentioned; as noted on :46, the 'Yah' suffix or prefix is notably missing in these names. "Paseah" means 'limping', suggesting as noted on :32,48,51,52 that it was those who had some physical infirmity who returned. Thus was fulfilled Jeremiah's prophecy of limping Jacob returning from Babylon to Zion. And today likewise, it is those who are marginalized for whatever reason who are more likely to respond to the Gospel of the restored Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Asnah, the children of Meunim, the children of Nephisim- "Meunim" is literally 'from Maon', a location in the desert where Nabal and Abigail were from (<a href='B:90 25:2'>1Sa 25:2</a>). Perhaps some of their Gentile servants became Nethinim and remained faithful- despite all the bad examples they saw from God’s ethnic people.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Bakbuk, the children of Hakupha, the children of Harhur- "Hakupha" means bent or crooked; "Harhur" means 'inflamed'- suggesting as noted on :32,48,52 that it was those who had some physical infirmity who returned.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Bazluth, the children of Mehida, the children of Harsha- "Bazluth" means 'peeled skin'; see on :32. "Harsha" is 'magician', confirming the impression that those who returned weren't the religious zealous but generally very secular people.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Barkos, the children of Sisera, the children of Temah- These names are all non-Hebrew; the Nethinim were originally Gentile, and these ones appear to have retained that despite returning to the land. The question is whether they were as it were pushed or pulled to return to the land; see on :44.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Neziah, the children of Hatipha- These names could arguably include the 'Yah' suffix, although most of the Nethinim and even the Jews listed here don't have 'Yah' within them. They were of the Nethinim,&nbsp; Gentiles, who had retained&nbsp; their devotion to Yahweh despite being made servants of Yahweh's apostate people.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Solomon’s servants: the children of Sotai, the children of Hassophereth, the children of Peruda- As noted on :43, these appear to have been reckoned beneath the Nethinim. "They have been traditionally understood to be the descendants of those inhabitants of the land ‘that were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites’ of whom Solomon had hired ‘bondservants’ for the work of building his temple (<a href='B:110 5:13'>1Ki 5:13</a>)". It was therefore the most despised classes who responded to the call of the Kingdom. And it is the same today.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Jaalah, the children of Darkon, the children of Giddel- "Jaalah" is the word for "profit" used of the idols whom Israel believed would profit them (<a href='B:290 44:9-10'>Isa 44:9-10</a>; <a href='B:290 47:12'>Isa 47:12</a>; <a href='B:300 2:8'>Jer 2:8</a>; <a href='B:300 2:11'>Jer 2:11</a>; <a href='B:300 16:19'>Jer 16:19</a> etc:). This again rather suggests that the majority of those who returned were secular folks who were not doing so from religious, spiritual motives but for secular reasons.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, the children of Pochereth Hazzebaim, the children of Ami- Shephatiah, "Yah has judged", is one of the few names in these lists which includes 'Yah'. Amongst these largely secular people who returned (judging by their names) there were some who were doing so from spiritual reasons. But they were a minority. And that impression accords with the historical information about their later behaviour in the land as found in Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai and Malachi.</p>


text:
<p>All the Nethinim, and the children of Solomon’s servants, were three hundred and ninety-two- This figure is exactly the same as that given in <a href='B:160 7:60'>Neh 7:60</a>, whereas the numbers in the parallel record in Nehemiah 7 are often higher when it comes to the Jews who returned. I suggest that that was a list of those who began the journey, or expressed interest in it; whereas Ezra 2 is the list of those who completed it. And there was far more interest in starting the journey than actually finishing it, as we see in response to the Gospel of the Kingdom today. But the despised Gentile classes of the Nethinim and Solomon's servants were actually more committed.</p>


text:
<p>These were those who went up from Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Cherub, Addan, and Immer; but they could not show their fathers’ houses, and their genealogy, whether they were of Israel- These people may have included Gentiles; for it is unlikely that many Jews apart from the Levites could prove their descent, and that is why those who returned are not listed according to their tribes. Indeed it would appear that the genealogical records were destroyed when the temple was burnt. So the reference here may be to those who lived near to the original encampments of the exiles who wanted to return with them. This had been the prophetic vision- that Judah and Israel would repent, Babylon would be judged and fall, and the repentant remnant of the Gentiles would return with the repentant ones of God’s people to form a new, multiethnic people of God in His restored Kingdom. But the impenitence of God’s people meant that things didn’t work out like that. Babylon didn’t "fall" in the way that was potentially possible, the majority of God’s people chose to remain in exile. And only a handful of Gentiles returned, probably the poorest of the land, perhaps captives from other nations who had been grouped along with the Jews, and likely motivated by the chance of a better life.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred and fifty-two- As explained on :59, these were likely Gentiles, and their names suggest that. However, "Delaiah" means 'Yah has delivered', so perhaps this was a Gentile who wished to share in Yahweh's deliverance from Babylon / Persia.</p>


text:
<p>Of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz, the children of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name- Barzillai was famous in Israel from the times of David. This priestly family had taken the name of this family, seeking for kudos and prestige; and thereby had lost their priestly lineage.</p>


text:
<p>These sought their place among those who were registered by genealogy- <a href='B:150 2:62'>Ezr 2:62</a> records Judah being ‘reckoned by genealogies’, using the same Hebrew word which is the hallmark of the Chronicles genealogies (<a href='B:130 4:33'>1Ch 4:33</a>; <a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a>; <a href='B:130 5:7'>1Ch 5:7</a>; <a href='B:130 5:17'>1Ch 5:17</a>; <a href='B:130 7:5'>1Ch 7:5</a>; <a href='B:130 7:7'>1Ch 7:7</a>; <a href='B:130 7:9'>1Ch 7:9</a>; <a href='B:130 7:40'>1Ch 7:40</a>; <a href='B:130 9:1'>1Ch 9:1</a>; <a href='B:130 9:22'>1Ch 9:22</a>). And in this context, <a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a> compares God’s ‘bringing out’ of Judah from Babylon with His ‘bringing out’ the stars by their individual names, all wonderfully known to Him. <a href='B:230 87:6'>Psa 87:6</a> had prophesied something similar about the restoration of Zion’s fortunes: “The LORD shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there”. The Kingdom of God was to be the restoration of Israel’s Kingdom- but they had to actually get on and restore it rather than wait for it to come.</p><p>But they were not found: therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood- There is a clear connection here with <a href='B:290 43:28'>Isa 43:28</a>: "Therefore I will profane the princes of the sanctuary; and I will make Jacob a curse, and Israel an insult". They were put forth "as polluted from the priesthood" (<a href='B:150 2:62'>Ezr 2:62</a>). This is tacit proof enough that the restoration from Babylon failed to be the potential restoration prophesied. Indeed, the behaviour of the Jews at that time attracted further curses and judgment.</p>


text:
<p>The governor told them that they should not eat of the most holy things, until there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim- This situation precluded the fulfilment of the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:330 42:13'>Eze 42:13</a>: “Then said he unto me, The north chambers and the south chambers, which are before the separate place, they be holy chambers, where the priests that approach unto the LORD shall eat the most holy things”. The same words are found in <a href='B:150 2:63'>Ezr 2:63</a> and <a href='B:160 7:65'>Neh 7:65</a> - it wasn’t possible for the priests to eat of the holy things [signifying God’s acceptance of His people], because there was no record of their genealogy. Their names were not written in the “register” in fulfilment of <a href='B:330 13:9'>Eze 13:9</a>: “neither shall they be written in the writing [s:w. ‘register’, <a href='B:150 2:62'>Ezr 2:62</a>] of the house of Israel”. Only if a priest stood up with urim and thummim could they eat of the holy things. And this never happened. These were two engraven stones carried in a pouch in the breastplate which flashed out Divine decisions (see H:A. Whittaker, Samuel, Saul And David for an excellent study of this). <a href='B:450 3:9'>Zec 3:9</a> prophesies that Joshua the High Priest would have the engraven stone with seven eyes- the urim and thummim. It would thereby have been possible for a priesthood who had lost their genealogy record during the sacking of the first temple to eat the holy things, and thus fulfill <a href='B:330 42:13'>Eze 42:13</a>. In a restoration context, <a href='B:290 66:21'>Isa 66:21</a> had prophesied that Yahweh would regather Judah, “And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD”. This implies, surely, that He would accept some as Levites who could not otherwise prove they were. <a href='B:450 6:11'>Zec 6:11</a>; <a href='B:450 6:13'>Zec 6:13</a> speaks of Joshua being crowned with the High Priestly mitre and ‘bearing the glory’, i:e. carrying the urim and thummim in the breastplate. But all this was conditional on Joshua’s obedience: “This shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey” (<a href='B:450 6:15'>Zec 6:15</a>). Because Joshua failed, he didn’t have urim and thummim, therefore no decision could be given about who was an acceptable priest, and therefore the ‘Kingdom’ prophecy of <a href='B:330 42:13'>Eze 42:13</a> was left unfulfilled. So much depended upon that man. And likewise, the eternal destiny of many others depends on us. Isaiah’s prophecies of the restoration feature “the servant”- who was a symbol of both the people and a Messianic individual. His success was bound up with theirs. Thus <a href='B:290 65:9'>Isa 65:9</a>: “And I will bring forth a seed [singular] out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor [singular] of my mountains: and mine elect [plural] shall inherit it, and my servants [plural] shall dwell there”. His obedience would enable the peoples’ establishment as the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The whole assembly together was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty- As noted on :1, this was but a tiny minority of the 1 million or so exiles in Babylon / Persia; and the prophetic intention that the ten tribes returned at the same time was not realized, because they too preferred the life of exile from God rather than returning to Him. </p><p>The total number of returned exiles given in Ezra 2:64 is 42360 but this is far greater than the sum of those listed in Ezra 2 as coming from Judah. We conclude that the difference is in the fact that many Israelites from other tribes are within this larger number and they also returned. The chapter begins in Ezra 2:2 with the description of the list as being the number of the children of Israel- rather than simply Judah. Some from Ephraim and Manasseh are specifically mentioned as living in Jerusalem with men of Judah and Benjamin (1 Chron. 9:3). See on Ezra 1:3. Alternatively the larger figure might be some kind of summary of the three waves of the return of the exiles: that during the years of Cyrus and led by Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8-11), the second wave in the early days of Darius I led by Zerubbabel [perhaps another term for Sheshbazzar] (Ezra 2:1-2), and the third wave during the reign of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7-8). </p>


text:
<p>besides their male servants and their female servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven: and they had two hundred singing men and singing women- 7337 servants for 42360 people (:64) suggests that on average each family had a servant. We therefore get the impression that those who returned weren't the poorest of society, although as noted with regards to the meanings of their names above in this chapter, many of them were probably slightly marginalized. They returned seeking material benefit (<a href='B:440 1:9'>Hag 1:9</a>), as lower middle class people often do; rather than seeking to do God’s work. See on :67.</p>


text:
<p>Their horses were seven hundred and thirty-six; their mules, two hundred and forty-five- See on :67. This picture of the Jews returning on various animals is to be connected with the prophecies of the restoration, where the leaders of the nations of their exile were to also make the journey to Zion, carrying the children of the Jews (<a href='B:290 49:22-23'>Isa 49:22-23</a>); and using all the animals here listed in order to bring the Jews back to Zion, and then help them rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (<a href='B:290 60:4-10'>Isa 60:4-10</a>). Especially Is. 66:20 "They shall bring all your brothers out of all the nations for an offering to Yahweh, on horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and on mules, and on dromedaries, to My holy mountain Jerusalem". But there were only 245 mules; this is very different to the scene we have here; of a very few Gentiles returning with a few Jews (see on :59), and those Jews not even having enough animals for each of them to ride on (see on :67). Comparison with the prophecies of what was potentially possible makes for a rather sad impression. So much Divine potential was wasted; just as it is by the millions who refuse the call to the Kingdom today. See on :69.</p>


text:
<p>their camels, four hundred and thirty-five; their donkeys, six thousand seven hundred and twenty- Haggai's criticism of the returnees is more understandable if we understand that most of them were the lower classes, who hadn't 'made it' in Babylon. It would be fair to infer that only the lower class Jews returned from Babylon. The record in <a href='B:150 2:64-70'>Ezr 2:64-70</a> speaks of 42,360 people returning, along with 7,337 servants and 200 singers, making a total of 49,837. And yet only 8,100 animals went with them to transport them. This means that many would have walked. They carried 5,400 vessels for use in the temple- so the picture could be that their more wealthy brethren laded them with goods, but only the poor returned. Further, the list of towns of origin in Ezra 2 suggests it was mainly those who had originally lived in peripheral villages who returned, rather than the inhabitants of Jerusalem and larger cities.</p>


text:
<p>Some of the heads of fathers’ households, when they came to the house of Yahweh which is in Jerusalem, offered willingly for God’s house to set it up in its place- Note the stress on "some"; see on :52. It's stressed twice that only "some" of the returned exiles supported the work of the temple (<a href='B:150 2:68-70'>Ezr 2:68-70</a>)- which was supposed to be the main reason for their return. This hardly sounds like the glorious, positive, confident return of the captives to Zion prophesied in the restoration prophecies.</p>


text:
<p>they gave after their ability into the treasury of the work sixty-one thousand darics of gold, five thousand minas of silver and one hundred priests’ garments- This may sound significant, but it is nothing compared to the entire wealth of the lands of their exile which was intended to be brought to Jerusalem at the restoration (<a href='B:290 60:5-10'>Isa 60:5-10</a>). See on :66. Giving according to ability is alluded to by Paul in 1 Cor. 16:2; and he notes some gave beyond their ability (2 Cor. 8:3).</p>


text:
<p>So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinim, lived in their cities, and all Israel in their cities- The priests in the restored Kingdom were to live in one specific area near the temple (<a href='B:330 45:4'>Eze 45:4</a>), whereas under the Mosaic Law, the priests were given land to live on in each of the various tribes of Israel. And yet the record of the restoration stresses that the priests lived not around the temple, but in various cities throughout Judah (<a href='B:150 2:70'>Ezr 2:70</a>; <a href='B:160 7:73'>Neh 7:73</a>; <a href='B:160 11:3'>Neh 11:3</a>; <a href='B:160 11:20'>Neh 11:20</a>; <a href='B:160 12:44'>Neh 12:44</a>). Note the word "some"; see on :68.</p>


text:
<p>When the seventh month had come and the children of Israel were in the cities- The seventh month could have been the seventh month after they arrived. But at this time they kept the feast of tabernacles (:4), which was to be kept in the seventh month of the Jewish year, so that is probably the month in view here. We note they were in their cities and had to gather to Jerusalem. The intention was that they returned to Jerusalem and rebuilt the temple; but they had gone to their ancestral lands and reclaimed them.</p><p>The people gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem- This seems to imply a strong unity amongst them; the same phrase is found in <a href='B:70 20:11'>Jdg 20:11</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jeshua the son of Jozadak stood up with his brothers the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and his brothers, and built the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God- "Rose up / stood up" is a word used often of the 'rising up' of the exiles to rebuild Jerusalem (<a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 3:2'>Ezr 3:2</a>; <a href='B:150 9:5'>Ezr 9:5</a>; <a href='B:160 2:18'>Neh 2:18</a>; <a href='B:160 3:1'>Neh 3:1</a>). This was a fulfilment of the command to "Arise... Jerusalem!" (<a href='B:290 51:17'>Isa 51:17</a>; <a href='B:290 52:2'>Isa 52:2</a>; <a href='B:290 61:4'>Isa 61:4</a>). But this 'arising' was to be associated with the dawning of Zion's light in the form of Yahweh's glory literally dwelling over Zion (<a href='B:290 60:1'>Isa 60:1</a>). This didn’t happen at the time, because the appearance of 'arising' by the exiles was only external and wasn't matched by a spiritual revival. Joshua and Zerubbabel between them were intended to be the priest and king of the restored kingdom, but when that didn’t work out, Zechariah's prophecies seem to have envisaged the appearance of a singular king-priest. But this too didn’t happen. God was trying by all means to bring about the reestablishment of the Kingdom despite so much human dysfunction and disinterest, just as He is today.</p><p>Note that Zerubbabel was the adopted son of Shealtiel, and only on that basis was reckoned his "son".</p>


text:
<p>In spite of their fear because of the peoples of the surrounding lands- The same word is used of the fear and dread which came upon the peoples of the lands because of the Israelites in Joshua's time (Josh. 2:9 etc.). The hint is that the exiles were wrong to be in fear of those peoples. </p><p>Time and again, Isaiah’s restoration prophecies told Judah that they should not fear, as Yahweh would mightily be with them in their work (<a href='B:290 41:10'>Isa 41:10</a>; <a href='B:290 41:13-14'>Isa 41:13-14</a>; <a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a>; <a href='B:290 43:5'>Isa 43:5</a>; <a href='B:290 44:2'>Isa 44:2</a>; <a href='B:290 44:8'>Isa 44:8</a>; <a href='B:290 44:11'>Isa 44:11</a>; <a href='B:290 54:7'>Isa 54:7</a>; <a href='B:290 54:14'>Isa 54:14</a>; <a href='B:290 59:19'>Isa 59:19</a>). But Judah feared the surrounding nations- Ezra and Nehemiah are full of this theme. Nehemiah refused to be put in fear by the Samaritan opposition because of his faith in Isaiah’s promises (<a href='B:160 6:14'>Neh 6:14</a>). And Isaiah further spoke to Judah’s heart in <a href='B:290 51:12-13'>Isa 51:12-13</a>: “I, even I, am he that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of man which shall be made as grass; And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations [s:w. re. the foundation of the temple being laid] of the earth [‘heaven and earth’ often refers to the temple]; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor?”. The fact they did fear meant that they had forgotten Yahweh who was so eager to re-establish their Kingdom.</p><p>The restoration prophecies had stated clearly that the returned exiles would not be afraid. <a href='B:300 30:10'>Jer 30:10</a>: “Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the LORD; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid”. Isaiah’s restoration prophecies contained not only many clear commands to not fear at the time of the restoration (<a href='B:290 41:10'>Isa 41:10</a>; <a href='B:290 41:13-14'>Isa 41:13-14</a>; <a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a>; <a href='B:290 43:5'>Isa 43:5</a>; <a href='B:290 44:2'>Isa 44:2</a>; <a href='B:290 44:8'>Isa 44:8</a>; <a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:290 54:4'>Isa 54:4</a>), but also a clear statement that if they were truly the re-established Kingdom, they would not fear: “Thou afflicted, tossed with tempest [s:w. <a href='B:450 7:14'>Zec 7:14</a> re. how Judah was ‘tossed around’ by the 70 years captivity] I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires…and all thy borders of pleasant stones. And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children. In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee... and all thy children shall be taught of the LORD” (<a href='B:290 54:11-14'>Isa 54:11-14</a>). But the adversaries to the rebuilding did make the returned exiles afraid (and also <a href='B:160 6:9'>Neh 6:9</a>). Nehemiah exhorted the people not to be afraid perhaps on the basis of Jeremiah’s words (<a href='B:160 4:14'>Neh 4:14</a>). Their fear and problem-oriented view of life stopped the Kingdom bursting forth into their experience. That fear was rooted in an obsessive self-interest that eclipsed a true faith in that which is greater and larger than us as individuals. And so it can be with us.</p><p>They set the altar on its base- That is, they built it on its previous site.</p><p>And they offered burnt offerings on it to Yahweh, even burnt offerings morning and evening- These were the daily offerings commanded for each day under the law of Moses.</p>


text:
<p>They kept the feast of tents, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt offerings by number, according to the ordinance, as the duty of every day required- This was in the "seventh month" (:1). Even with Ezekiel’s prophecies behind him concerning “the prince”, Zerubbabel was easily discouraged in the rebuilding, and needed the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah to encourage him again. He kept the feast of tabernacles (<a href='B:150 3:4'>Ezr 3:4</a>) but without dwelling in booths (<a href='B:160 8:17'>Neh 8:17</a>)- i:e:, half heartedly. He could have been Messiah, perhaps- he may well have been 30/33 at the time of the restoration (<a href='B:470 1:12-13'>Mat 1:12-13</a>). When Judah returned, they could have entered into the new covenant, featuring “nobles [an intensive plural, meaning ‘the great noble’]… and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them” (<a href='B:300 30:21'>Jer 30:21</a>). Zerubabbel the Governor could have fulfilled this; but he flunked out. Yet God lifted up his spirit a second time (<a href='B:440 1:14'>Hag 1:14</a> cp. <a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>); he was given a second chance, such was God’s enthusiasm that he should achieve what was potentially possible for him. But again, he failed. He saw the glory of Babylon as more attractive than the hard work required to bring about Yahweh’s eternal glory in Zion. It is noteworthy how God worked through this man’s failures, and desired to give him (and all Israel) further opportunities.</p><p>The restored kingdom would feature a feast of tabernacles attended by the Gentiles (Zech. 14:16,17), and the restored tabernacle would house the remnant of the Gentile nations (Amos 9:11,12). Indeed, Gentiles were to be invited to participate in the feast of Tabernacles (Dt. 16:14); the 70 bulls sacrificed at the feast represented the acceptance of the Gentiles (Num. 29:12-34). But here, that feast was kept in fear of the surrounding Gentiles (:3). Clearly the restoration was not going as potentially intended. Indeed, as discussed on :11, we see the development of a cult-like dislike of Gentiles in the returnees. At this point, their keeping of the feast of Tabernacles seems to only involve sacrifices. Five times within the first six verses of Ezra 3 we are told that the religious leaders sacrificed the “burnt offerings”, and  “in accordance with the Law". But we read nothing of the other requirements for keeping that feast- the celebration of the harvest, the cessation of work, the reading of the law and the building and inhabiting of booths. It was all about technical obedience rather than the spirit of the feast. And the stress on burnt offerings raises the question as to why they were not preceded by sin offerings, as was usually the case. As Ez. 18 laments, the captives had no sense of repentance. Yet their return [shub] to the land was predicated upon their return [shub] to God. God had forced things through by making them return to the land... but they didn't follow through on that grace by making the required repentance. Haggai presents them as focused solely on their own possible benefit from having returned, with no sense of grace nor repentance. Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel all tried to as it were repent for them in their prayers of penitence (Ezra 9; Neh. 9; Dan. 9). But they were not Jesus. Even they could not get an impenitent people counted as penitent.</p>


text:
<p>and afterwards the continual burnt offering, the offerings of the new moons, of all the set feasts of Yahweh that were consecrated, and of each one who willingly offered a freewill offering to Yahweh- Their technical obedience in offering sacrifice was commendable, but it was not being done according to the commandments for the restored temple in Ezekiel 40-48. They were still attempting to keep the old covenant, the law of Moses; ignoring the plain teaching of Jeremiah that they had broken this, and were being offered a new covenant which was not at all identical to the old covenant. Their motivation was therefore religious, historical and cultural, rather than spiritual and based upon God’s word.</p>


text:
<p>From the first day of the seventh month, they began to offer burnt offerings to Yahweh; but the foundation of Yahweh’s temple was not yet laid- The work was in three stages. First the altar was built, then foundation of the temple laid (:10-13) and then the temple was built on that (Ezra 4-6). It is commendable that they built the altar first, and God accepted it. There was no need for a temple or any structure to as it were sanctify the altar. Offering can be made to God in any context, without any surrounding religious structure. </p><p>The impression given is that they focused upon the sacrifices rather than laying the foundations of the temple, which ought to have been laid out according to the dimensions clearly given in Ezekiel 40-48. The prophets had often reminded God’s people that He was not so interested in sacrifices as in hearts broken in repentance; but their focus upon sacrifice and ritual reflected their lack of repentance.</p>


text:
<p>They also gave money to the masons, and to the carpenters. They also gave food, drink and oil to the people of Sidon and Tyre, to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to the sea, to Joppa, according to the grant that they had from Cyrus King of Persia- Lebanon was not under Persian control so presumably they used "the grant" of 'all expenses met' to order these trees. Again we see how material resources will never be a barrier to serving God. They were consciously trying to imitate how Solomon had built the first temple. But instead they should have been seeking to build according to the dimensions and details of the plans given to them in Ezekiel 40-48. Their attempted replication of Solomon suggests they were rebuilding his temple rather than building the new structure of Ezekiel 40-48. Their motivation was in recreating their national past, following national heroes, rather than moving in line with the Spirit.</p><p>Haggai's prophecy can be dated quite precisely- it was given August-September 520 BC. This was harvest time. And at this very labour intensive season, where all hands had to be on deck out in the fields, the prophet called for a dedication of labour to building up God’s house. Yet Judah were too concerned with their own harvests than the harvest of God’s glory. They were asked to do something counter-instinctive- to take time out from harvest, and spend that time on building up God’s house. And they failed the challenge. But it wasn't that they were simply lazy. <a href='B:440 1:8'>Hag 1:8</a>, a prophecy given 18 years after the decree of Cyrus, orders the people to go up into the hills of Judah and get wood with which to build the temple. And yet according to <a href='B:150 3:7'>Ezr 3:7</a>, the decree of Cyrus 18 years earlier had resulted in cedar wood being brought from Tyre and Sidon, enough for the temple to be built. Where had the wood gone? Is the implication not that the leadership had used it for their own "cieled houses" (<a href='B:440 1:4'>Hag 1:4</a>)? It all seems so petty minded. But this is what we are tempted to do, time and again- build up our own house and leave God’s house desolate and in a very poor second place. And even worse- <a href='B:440 1:9'>Hag 1:9</a> records that the people expected "much" harvest, and were disappointed at the poor yields in Palestine. This would confirm the suggestion that many of those Jews who did return from Babylon were amongst the poor in Jewish exile society, and returned in home for personal betterment- rather than because they wished to obey the call of the prophets and establish God’s glory in the land. That's a sober warning for all of us who may go through an external appearance of zeal for our God, whilst having very selfish and human motives underneath.</p>


text:
<p>Now in the second year of their coming to God’s house at Jerusalem, in the second month, Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the rest of their brothers the priests and the Levites, and all those who had come out of the captivity to Jerusalem, began the work and appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to have the oversight of the work of Yahweh’s house- I noted on Ezra 2 how very few Levites there were who returned. Only 341 members of Levitical families are listed in <a href='B:150 2:40-42'>Ezr 2:40-42</a>; and if only males over 20 were counted, that total number may have been as low as only 30- and that is assuming all the Levites who returned were obedient to this command, none were sick or handicapped etc. Levites were supposed to start work at 25 (Num. 8:24,25; a similar reduction was made by David in 1 Chron. 23:24,27) but they reduced this to 20 because of the lack of Levites- who had no land inheritance and so were less interested in returning to Judah. This is tacit reflection of how the real motive of the returnees was to reclaim their ancestral land, rather than to build the temple and live in Jerusalem. 
Ezra 5:16 says that Sheshbazzar laid the foundations of the temple while Ezra 3:8-10 says that Zerubbabel did. Possibly Sheshbazzar ['glory of the sun god'] was the Babylonian name for the Hebrew 'Zerubbabel'. Or perhaps Sheshbazzar began to lay the foundations, there was a delay, and Zerubbabel completed the work. The delay may have been caused by the famine sent for their lack of zeal to build the temple (Hag. 1:6) as well as the local opposition. Zech. 8:9,10 describes the situation just prior to the foundations of the temple being laid: "...the prophets who were in the day that the foundation of the house of Yahweh of Armies was laid, even the temple, that it might be built. For before those days there were no wages for man, nor any wages for an animal; neither was there any peace to him who went out or came in, because of the adversary. For I set all men everyone against his neighbour". The implication is that the Jewish builders demanded wages for their work and even for the work their animals did; and when they weren't given them, they argued with each other and thus the work stopped. 
</p>


text:
<p>Then Jeshua stood with his sons and his brothers, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, together, having the oversight of the workmen in God’s house: the sons of Henadad, with their sons and their brothers the Levites- "Henadad" means 'the grace of Hadad', a Syrian king. Even the Levites still had their pagan names. This was all a far cry from the restoration prophecies of the Gentiles carrying the repentant Jews back to Judah and then themselves working to rebuild the temple for the Jews (<a href='B:290 60:10'>Isa 60:10</a>; <a href='B:450 6:15'>Zec 6:15</a>). The Jews had to do so themselves, and as noted on :8, there were very few of them doing the work.</p>


text:
<p>When the builders laid the foundation of Yahweh’s temple, they set the priests in their clothing with trumpets, with the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise Yahweh, according to the directions of David king of Israel- They were attempting to restore what had once been, as David had established things, from nationalistic and cultural reasons, just as they tried to replicate Solomon's usage of cedars from Lebanon. Instead they should have been trying to rebuild the temple according to the commands given in Ezekiel 40-48. This would have been why some wept and others shouted for joy in :12. The scene would not have been that impressive, for they only had 100 sets of priestly clothing (<a href='B:150 2:69'>Ezr 2:69</a>). The system of praise instituted by David would have only been very poorly replicated. <a href='B:150 2:41'>Ezr 2:41</a> says that only 128 people from the singing family of Asaph returned, and not all of them would have been adults. This was very poor response. We note that apparently the famous singing families of Heman and Jeduthun didn’t return (<a href='B:130 25:1'>1Ch 25:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They sang to one another in praising and giving thanks to Yahweh: For He is good, for His grace endures forever toward Israel. All the people shouted with a great shout when they praised Yahweh, because the foundation of the house of Yahweh had been laid- The "shouts" with which it was laid were the "shouts" of the foundation ceremony described in <a href='B:450 4:7'>Zec 4:7</a>. This passage describes the Messianic kingdom of God which could have been restored in Israel at the time. But as explained on :12, the shouts were tinged with unreality, because it was clear that what had been built was not in obedience to the dimensions and system of Ezekiel 40-48, and was not even the size of the previous temple which the older men remembered from their youth in Jerusalem. Such great potential was precluded by Judah's limited vision. We notice that the young and old didn’t rejoice together- the old men wept at how small the temple was compared even with Solomon’s, whilst the younger ones rejoiced. Yet the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:300 31:13'>Jer 31:13</a> had spoken of how "Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old together”.</p><p>The refrain "For He is good, for His grace endures forever toward Israel" is based upon the frequent usage of similar words in David's Psalms, which they were using for their praise (:10), and in the restoration prophecy of Jer. 31:11. But those scriptures speak of how "For He is good, for His grace endures forever". They have added "toward Israel", and yet as discussed on :4, the restoration prophecies were all about the Gentiles also worshipping at Zion. Here we see the beginnings of a nationalistic, anti-Gentile stream of thought that was to get progressively worse over time.
These words were an attempt to fulfil the resoration prophecy of Jer. 33:10,11: "Yet again there shall be heard in this place, about which you say, It is waste, without man and without animal, even in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem... the voice of joy and the voice of gladness... the voice of those who say, Give thanks to Yahweh of Armies, for Yahweh is good, for His loving kindness endures forever". But those words are prefaced by the prophecy that the sound of joy would be heard in Jerusalem. This sound was heard, but it was mixed with the sound of weeping that the temple was not going to be built according to the required specifications of Ezekiel.
</p>


text:
<p>But many of the priests and Levites and heads of fathers’ households, the old men who had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice- The weeping was perhaps because the temple foundations were laid and there was the singing of praise, just as had happened at the dedication of the first temple. But then, God's glory had come down. Now, nothing happened. Ezekiel and the restoration prophets repeatedly spoke of that glory descending visibly onto Zion. But nothing happened. They all knew that they had disregarded Ezekiel's commands of the size and structure of the temple, preferring to just replicate Solomon's temple, the structure they were familiar with and which represented their historical and cultural tradition. 
There is the hint in Hag. 2:3-9 that despite the planned temple being smaller than that commanded by Ezekiel, causing some to weep when the foundations were laid rather than rejoice (Ezra 3:12), God was still willing to force through His intention of restoring the Kingdom: "‘Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? How do you see it now? Isn’t it in your eyes as nothing? Yet now be strong, Zerubbabel!’ says Yahweh. ‘Be strong, Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest! Be strong, all you people of the land’, says Yahweh, ‘and work, for I am with you’, says Yahweh of Armies... ‘Don’t be afraid’... ‘The latter glory of this house will be greater than the former’, says Yahweh". Likewise Zech. 4:10 appealing for the faithful not to despise the day of small things.
The language of Israel’s return from captivity as found in Isaiah and Ezekiel all has evident reference to the second coming and the final establishment of the Kingdom. It isn’t just that Israel’s return under Ezra and Zerubbabel was a type of that final homecoming. It could have been the Kingdom- had they obeyed the prophecies. It was all about a potential Kingdom of God. But they were too caught up with their own self-interest, with building their own houses rather than God’s; and so it was all deferred. Using the prophetic perfect, God had prophesied that at the time of the restoration, He would come and dwell in rebuilt Zion (<a href='B:450 8:3'>Zec 8:3</a>)- just as Ezekiel’s prophecy had concluded: “The name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there” (<a href='B:330 48:35'>Eze 48:35</a>). Clearly, Ezekiel’s prophecies could have been fulfilled at the restoration; God was willing that they should be. But human apathy and self-interest stopped it from happening as it could have done. When the foundation stone of the temple was laid, there should have been excited acclamation: “Grace, grace unto it” (<a href='B:450 4:7'>Zec 4:7</a>). But instead the old men wept when the foundation was laid, knowing that the temple was nothing compared to what it ought to be (<a href='B:150 3:12'>Ezr 3:12</a>). The glory of the restored temple was prophesied as being far greater than that of the former (<a href='B:440 2:9'>Hag 2:9</a>); <a href='B:290 60:17'>Isa 60:17</a> alluded to this in prophesying that “For brass [in Solomon’s temple] I will bring gold, and for iron [that was in Solomon’s fixtures] I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron”. The super generous decree of Cyrus had potentially enabled all such valuable metals to be provided. But it simply didn’t happen, because God’s people were satisfied with a small, inglorious temple so that they could get on with building their own “cieled houses” (the same word is used in describing how the temple of Solomon was “covered”, or cieled, with cedar). And the old men wept at the fact that the glory of the new house was less than that of the earlier one.</p><p><a href='B:290 65:17-19'>Isa 65:17-19</a> describes the new creation of Zion as it was possible at the restoration, when the former heavens and earth would not come into mind. The former “heavens” of Solomon’s temple did come to mind, and the old men mourned because of how far superior the former had been (<a href='B:150 3:12'>Ezr 3:12</a>). The voice of weeping was heard in the streets of Zion, as Judah mourned for their sins of marrying the surrounding nations and breaking the Sabbath.</p><p>Many also shouted aloud for joy- The returnees were to lift up their voice with joy at Zion’s restoration. But at the very humble dedication of the temple, the younger people lifted up their voice with joy (<a href='B:290 40:9'>Isa 40:9</a> same words), but the older men wept, as the temple was not even as great as Solomon’s, and certainly not that commanded in Ezekiel and Isaiah.</p>


text:
<p>so that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people; for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard far away- "The people" may refer to the people of the land. They did not get a clear message, for it could not be discerned; when instead the joy of the restored Zion was intended to be a witness to the Gentiles. Instead they heard a sound which was a mixture of weeping and rejoicing.</p>


text:
<p>Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity were building a temple to Yahweh, the God of Israel- This opposition was real and actual; LXX "And they that afflicted Juda and Benjamin...". They were opposed to the newcomers and were against the idea of a temple being built. This opposition was not at all the scenario presented in the restoration prophets. I noted on the preceding <a href='B:150 3:8-12'>Ezr 3:8-12</a> that the returnees had no intention of building the city or temple structure according to the dimensions commanded them in Ezekiel 40-48. And they had rejected the offer of a new covenant deal, instead attempting to still keep the old covenant, however imperfectly, even though they had broken it. And so God as it were reflected His opposition to them through these local adversaries. But as the vision of <a href='B:450 3:1'>Zec 3:1</a> makes clear, if they had faith then even this 'satan' or adversary would have been removed.</p><p>The adversaries included the Israelites already living in Judah as well as the Samaritans, the peoples moved in to live in Judah after the Jews had been deported. The returnees naturally wanted to reclaim their ancestral land and homes- where the Samaritans were living. Samaria was the local capital, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem would suggest this was now going to be shifted to a Jewish-controlled Jerusalem. Hence they claim that if this happens, tax will likely not be collected for the empire (:14) as the capital city was used as a centre for taxation. The Samaritans had a good argument. It was only God's hand that overturned it. Their argument about Jerusalem's history in :15,20 was correct. Her kings like Solomon had indeed dominated territory up to the Euphrates and had tax paid to them. Their suspicion was that the Jews wanted to take control of all land up to the Euphrates (:16). And that was indeed the land promised to Abraham which they felt was rightfully theirs. The subsequent history of the Jews in the time of the Maccabees shows that indeed they did seek to rebel and gain independence.</p><p>Even after the temple had been destroyed, it seems those left in the land still worshipped there and there was some kind of altar there: "there came men from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria... with meal offerings and frankincense in their hand, to bring them to the house of Yahweh" (Jer. 41:5). These were perhaps those who wanted to help rebuild the temple, protesting they had been sacrificing to Yahweh during the captivity. This also shows that the setting up of the altar was more like restoring whatever was already being used.</p>


text:
<p>then they drew near to Zerubbabel, and to the heads of fathers’ households and said to them, Let us build with you; for we seek your God, as you do; and we sacrifice to Him since the days of Esar Haddon king of Assyria, who brought us up here- These people may have been Israelites who were sent to Judah not at the time of the exile of the ten tribes into Assyria, but later Because Esar Haddon was some time after Sennacherib. They ended up being adversarial specifically to Judah and Benjamin (:1), although they were Israelites from other tribes. Or quite possibly these people were sincere proselytes who had been taught the way of Yahweh by the poor Jews who remained in the land after the exile (see on :4). In this case, it was perhaps wrong and elitist to refuse their assistance. The community of returnees would have argued that Cyrus' decree gave them exclusive command and power to rebuild the temple, applying only to those in the list of Ezra 2. I will discuss on :3 as to whether or not this refusal of Gentile help was correct. These people were Gentiles who had been brought to Palestine after the Assyrian deportation of the ten tribes. But the desolated land meant lions running wild, and they assumed this was because they were not worshipping the "god of the land", Yahweh (<a href='B:120 17:26'>2Ki 17:26</a>). And so they had been taught to worship Yahweh as the ten tribes had- which meant worshipping the local idols in the name of Yahweh worship. The Jews in Babylon were doing the same, as Ezekiel's criticisms of them make clear. And we note how later when Persia took over, both Esther and Mordecai had names reflective of idol worship. So indeed they did worship Yahweh "as you do". So the objection to working with them was not on religious grounds.</p>


text:
<p>But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’ households of Israel, said to them- Zerubbabel was the ‘head’ of the house of David (<a href='B:150 4:3'>Ezr 4:3</a>; <a href='B:440 2:23'>Hag 2:23</a>; <a href='B:450 3:8'>Zec 3:8</a>; <a href='B:450 6:12-13'>Zec 6:12-13</a>), as was his descendant Hattush (<a href='B:150 8:1-3'>Ezr 8:1-3</a> cp. <a href='B:130 3:22'>1Ch 3:22</a>). As the grandson of Jehoiachin, Judah's exiled king, Zerubbabel would've been the legitimate king of Judah. Potentially, <a href='B:350 1:11'>Hos 1:11</a> could have come true: “Judah and… Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head [Zerubbabel?]; and they shall go up from the land, for great shall be the day of Jezreel” (RSV). And perhaps as head of the house of David, Zerubbabel was intended to be the “David my servant” who would be the one king and one shepherd who would lead Israel back to the land from exile (<a href='B:330 37:22'>Eze 37:22</a>; <a href='B:330 37:24'>Eze 37:24</a>). Significantly, <a href='B:160 7:7'>Neh 7:7</a> describes Zerubbabel as being at the head of twelve leaders of the returning exiles, who are called “the people of Israel” (cp. <a href='B:150 2:2'>Ezr 2:2</a>). And yet he let the baton drop. The prophecies and potentials were therefore reapplied and rescheduled for fulfilment in the Lord Jesus.</p><p>You have nothing in common with us in building a house to our God; but we ourselves together will build to Yahweh, the God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us- See on :2. It could be that their refusal of Gentile help to build the temple, insisting that only Jews work in it (<a href='B:150 4:3'>Ezr 4:3</a> cp. <a href='B:160 2:20'>Neh 2:20</a>), was actually going too far; by being so exclusive, they were disallowing the fulfilment of the prophecies both in <a href='B:450 6:15'>Zec 6:15</a> and in <a href='B:290 60:10'>Isa 60:10</a>, that Gentiles would help in the final rebuilding of Zion. As with some of us, their refusal to allow “the adversaries of Judah” (<a href='B:150 4:1'>Ezr 4:1</a>) to fellowship with us in the work can lead us to an exclusive approach to fellowship, that actually disallows the essentially outgoing and inclusive spirit of the God we serve. The Jews returned from Babylonian having swung to the opposite extreme from their earlier worldliness; they returned proud and refusing contact with the Gentile world, considering themselves saved by their own strength. And this is perhaps reflected in the way they refused on principle to allow any Gentiles to help them in the building work. <a href='B:290 60:10-11'>Isa 60:10-11</a> had foretold: “And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee [as in the decree of Cyrus]... Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night”; and them as Ezekiel 43 had also described, “I will glorify the house of my glory” (<a href='B:290 60:7'>Isa 60:7</a>).</p><p>The stress perhaps is on "commanded us... you have nothing to do with us". They felt that only the returnees had been commissioned to build the temple, and so they rejected the help offered by the Jews or Israelites who had remained in the land after the deportations. And here we have the seeds of exclusivism that led to the extreme elitism at the Lord's time.</p>


text:
<p>Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building- Hands becoming feeble / weakened is the phrase used of Divine judgment (<a href='B:290 13:7'>Isa 13:7</a>; <a href='B:300 6:24'>Jer 6:24</a>; <a href='B:300 49:24'>Jer 49:24</a>; <a href='B:300 50:43'>Jer 50:43</a>; <a href='B:330 7:17'>Eze 7:17</a>). The restored Zion would not have such weakened hands (<a href='B:430 3:16'>Zep 3:16</a>) "In that day it will be said to Jerusalem, Don’t be afraid, Zion. Don’t let your hands be weak"). The builders were 'terrified' (Heb:). Clearly, the rebuilding was not even beginning with God’s blessing but rather His displeasure.</p><p>“The people of the land” were to have a part in the new system of things in the kingdom of God which could have been restored in Israel (<a href='B:330 45:16'>Eze 45:16</a>; <a href='B:330 45:22'>Eze 45:22</a>; <a href='B:330 46:3'>Eze 46:3</a>; <a href='B:330 46:9'>Eze 46:9</a>), and yet this very phrase is repeatedly used concerning the Samaritan people who lived in the land at the time of the restoration (<a href='B:150 4:4'>Ezr 4:4</a>; <a href='B:150 10:2'>Ezr 10:2</a>; <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a>; <a href='B:160 9:24'>Neh 9:24</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30-31'>Neh 10:30-31</a>). God’s intention was that they should eventually be converted unto Him; it was His intention that Ezekiel’s temple be built at the time of the restoration under Ezra. And yet <a href='B:450 7:10'>Zec 7:10</a>; <a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>&nbsp; criticize the Jews who returned and built the temple for continuing to oppress the stranger / Gentile. Israel would not. >/p><p>It could also be considered that "the people of the land" were not only the Samaritans, but also those very poor Jews who had remained behind in the land after the exile. In this case, the exiles disliked them and didn't want their participation in rebuilding the temple. Perhaps those "people of the land" had inhabited property and land belonging to the exiles who had now returned. If those exiles had lived in Jerusalem as commanded, then this point of conflict would not have existed. We note the phrase is used several times about those Jews left in Judah: "the poorest sort of the people of the land [remained]... people who were left in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had left... the people who were left in the land" (2 Kings 24:14; 25:22; Jer. 40:6). And "the people of the land" is a term used very many times for God's people in Judah. Ezra and Nehemiah make no mention of these people joining in the community of the returned exiles. That community clearly saw themselves as the exclusive people of God- originally because they returned from economic motives and wanted all the land for themselves, perceiving the local Jewish population as poor whereas they had come from the wealth of Persia and Babylon. The closest we get to seeing any acceptance of the other Jews is in Ezra 6:21,22: "The sons of Israel who had returned from the exile ate, along with all those [i.e. other sons of Israel] who had separated themselves from the impurity of nations of the land to them to seek Yahweh God of Israel". This community are specifically referred to multiple times, in titles like "the children of the exile", "those who returned". </p>


text:
<p>And hired counsellors against them to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia- Yahweh “performs the counsel” or "purpose" of rebuilding Jerusalem (<a href='B:290 44:26'>Isa 44:26</a>). But the Samaritan opposition sought to frustrate Judah’s “purpose” / counsel (<a href='B:150 4:5'>Ezr 4:5</a> s:w:), and succeeded. Yahweh allowed Himself to be limited within how His people performed His purpose. His ‘purpose’ is therefore conditional upon those whom He allows to fulfill it. God is so invested in the freewill responses of His people that He even allows His own purpose to be 'frustrated' in the short term. Ultimately His purpose for His Kingdom will of course be fulfilled. We note that Ezra records the opposition from the local people, who naturally resisted the return of the Jews because they feared they would claim the land they were living on as their ancestral inheritance. And want to push them off it and live on it themselves. However, Haggai and to an extent Zechariah emphasize the weakness of the Jews, their poor motivation and unspirituality as being the reason why the restoration was delayed. Ezra 1 began with the idea that God's purpose worked out through the decree of Cyrus, but all the days of Cyrus that purpose was frustrated- ostensibly, visibly, by the adversaries, but only reflecting how God used this or created this opposition in response to the indolence and disinterest of the returnees. </p>


text:
<p>In the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem- RVmg. "Xerxes". The well-known Xerxes, the son of Darius, who reigned 20 years (BC 485–465). He is generally identified with the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther.</p>


text:
<p>In the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his companions, to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in Syrian, and set forth in the Syrian language- This Artaxerxes could have been the son of Ahasuerus / Xerxes of :6; so this would refer to a second letter to that in :6. Or it could be the same king; for 'Arta' means 'great', 'the great Xerxes', of :6 (see note there). The reference to it being "set forth" suggests Ezra saw it and remembered it exactly as seen, as if traumatized by it. Another view is that this Artaxexes is Cyrus, as the names each have the same numerical vakue [520]. In this case, we have a backtrack in order to make the point that complaints were made in the time of Ahasuerus (:6) just as they had been in the time of Cyrus. In this case they sent a letter to Cyrus (:11) and he replied repealing his decree made in Ezra 1:1. He failed to live up to the potential as Judah's deliverer according to the prophecies of Isaiah about him.</p>


text:
<p>Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this way- Rehum and Shimshai were the local Persian officials, who now took the side of the Samaritan opposition of :7, probably having been bribed or manipulated by them. It could be that they wrote separately, or were giving a stamp of approval to the letter of :7.</p>


text:
<p>then Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions, the Dinaites, and the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the Elamites- This list of nine nations along with the local "people of the land" makes ten nations. This is not a literal number because there were other nations there too (:10), but we note a similar ten neighbouring nations against Israel in Psalms 83 and Ezekiel 38, and these are the historical basis for the ten toes of Daniel 2 and the ten horns of the beast. These nations are geographically throughout the Persian and Babylonian empires. It could be argued that had the returnees allowed these nations to be involved with the temple, then the restoration prophecies of all nations worshipping in Zion could have come true. </p>


text:
<p>and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar brought over, and set in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River, and so forth, wrote- Assur-bani-pal, the great Assyrian king, is probably the king in view; for it was he had conquered and deported the peoples of :9. "He was the only Assyrian king who captured Susa and could carry off ‘Susanchites’; no king so fully deserved the titles of ‘great and noble’; this name (‘Assur the father of the son’) by a strong contraction of the middle word, is not so far removed from the sound of ‘Osnappar’, especially if the final ‘l’ of ‘pal’ is changed to ‘r’ (cf. ‘Porus’ for ‘Pul’, or ‘Babiru’ for ‘Babilu’), and the ‘r’ of ‘Assur’ is weakened to ‘n’ (cf. Nebuchadrezzar and Nebuchadnezzar)".</p>


text:
<p>This is the copy of the letter that they sent to Artaxerxes the king: Your servants the men beyond the River, and so forth- <a href='B:450 9:8-10'>Zec 9:8-10</a> is a prophecy of Zerubbabel or Joshua which had to have its real fulfilment deferred until the coming of Jesus: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass [Did Zerubbabel / Joshua like Nehemiah enter Jerusalem on a donkey?]. And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem [the opposing Samaritans], and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth”. This latter phrase contrasts with the repeated reminder that the Persians had dominion “on this side the river” (<a href='B:150 4:10-11'>Ezr 4:10-11</a>; <a href='B:150 4:16'>Ezr 4:16</a>; <a href='B:150 5:3'>Ezr 5:3</a>; <a href='B:150 5:6'>Ezr 5:6</a>; <a href='B:150 6:13'>Ezr 6:13</a>; <a href='B:150 8:36'>Ezr 8:36</a>; <a href='B:160 3:7'>Neh 3:7</a>). The coming King (and Joshua was prophesied as a king) was to free Judah from Persia’s dominion, and establish God’s Kingdom, with boys and girls playing in the streets of Jerusalem (<a href='B:450 8:5'>Zec 8:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Be it known to the king, that the Jews who came up from you have come to us to Jerusalem; they are building the rebellious and the bad city, and have finished the walls, and repaired the foundations- There had been three or four revolts against Babylon (<a href='B:120 24:1'>2Ki 24:1</a>; <a href='B:120 24:9-10'>2Ki 24:9-10</a>; <a href='B:120 24:20'>2Ki 24:20</a>; <a href='B:120 25:1-30'>2Ki 25:1-30</a>) and two against Assyria (<a href='B:120 18:7'>2Ki 18:7</a>; <a href='B:140 33:11'>2Ch 33:11</a>). The walls were not finished until Nehemiah's time, so the accusation was false and exaggerated. It was designed to provoke the Persian authorities, and to give the impression that the Jews were far exceeding the instructions of Cyrus’s decree, which limited them to the rebuilding of the Temple.</p>


text:
<p>Be it known now to the king that if this city is built, and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and in the end it will be hurtful to the kings- "Tribute" = the contribution of provinces / districts to the central budget; "custom" = tax on goods or on agricultural produce; "toll" = travel tolls levied for maintenance of the infrastructure and roads.</p>


text:
<p>Now because we eat the salt of the palace, and it is not right for us to see the king’s dishonour, therefore have we sent and informed the king- Throughout the Biblical record, the kings of Babylon and Persia are presented as naive despots whose pride makes them easy prey for vain flatterers. Those writing the letter had themselves been the enemies of the empire not so long ago, and their complaints surely ought to have led to an investigation which revealed the very recent decree of Cyrus. Persian satraps had no salaries, but taxed their provinces for the support of themselves and their courts. This was another obvious reason why the locals were against any restored Jerusalem. </p>


text:
<p>that search may be made in the book of the records of your fathers: so you shall find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful to kings and provinces, and that they have made rebellion within the same city from old time; for which cause this city was laid waste- "From old time" was only 70 years previously; any serious investigation would have sensed major exaggeration in the complaints, and sought to investigate deeper before making a rash decision. But again the rulers are presented as always acting too hastily and being prone to flattery. For the abiding lesson from them which the Bible presents is their pride.</p>


text:
<p>We inform the king that if this city be built and the walls finished, because of this you shall have no portion beyond the River- We note the contradiction with their statement in :12 that the walls were already finished. Their exaggerations were such that they couldn't be hidden, as with all lies against God’s people.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king sent an answer to Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions who dwell in Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River: Peace, and so forth- We notice that the opposition was based in Samaria, in the former ten tribe area; and they opposed the rebuilding of Jerusalem by the people of Judah. Not all the ten tribes were taken into captivity. Those who remained still may have retained this sectarian spirit, believing Samaria to be the preferred dwelling of God rather than Jerusalem. The Samaritan opposition may well have been fuelled by those local Israelites. This is all so far from the prophetic vision of a repentant Judah and Israel being united together with repentant Gentiles in a new multiethnic people of God in the reestablished Kingdom. Human pride, impenitence and sectarian thinking precluded so much that was possible then, just as it does today.</p>


text:
<p>The letter which you sent to us has been plainly read before me- The Biblical record again seems to emphasize the relative simplicity of these powerful kings; for he was illiterate and needed to have the letter read before him (as in <a href='B:190 6:1'>Est 6:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>I decreed, and search has been made, and it is found that this city of old time has made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made in it- The Babylonian records would only have covered the rebellions of Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah (<a href='B:120 24:1'>2Ki 24:1</a>; <a href='B:120 24:10'>2Ki 24:10</a>; <a href='B:120 24:20'>2Ki 24:20</a>). And these were only around 80 years previously. So the king is presented as making an exaggerated response just as the complaints had been exaggerated. And apparently they didn’t search in the record house in Babylon mentioned in <a href='B:150 5:17'>Ezr 5:17</a>. And yet the accusations were true- highlighting how it was God's hand alone that made this decree to cease be overturned.</p>


text:
<p>There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, who have ruled over all the country beyond the River; and tribute, custom, and toll, was paid to them- Again an exaggeration, as this was only really true in Solomon's time. But the king wishes to give a nod toward the apparent concern about loss of taxation.</p>


text:
<p>Make a decree now to cause these men to cease, and that this city not be built, until a decree shall be made by me- The king is presented as hopelessly proud, speaking of how he made a decree to research the matter (:19) and now decreed the work should stop until he were to make another decree. The decree to rebuild Zion had of course been given by God, and in this we see the word of God and the word of man compared. The very decrees the king so prided himself in making were all subject to God’s decrees, finally.</p>


text:
<p>Take heed that you not be slack herein: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?- The king surely realized that the authors of the letter had their own agenda as to why they wanted the rebuilding to cease. And so this urging of speedy response is clearly tongue in cheek. He knows this is what they are wanting to hear.</p>


text:
<p>Then when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum and Shimshai the scribe and their companions, they went in haste to Jerusalem to the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power- LXX "with horses and force". The broken down state of the walls in Nehemiah's time may partly have been due to this use of force and power, which implies significant military strength. <a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a> is Yahweh's response to this: "Not by might (s:w. "force") nor by power, but by My Spirit". The Jews were not in step with God’s Spirit; for His work cannot be hindered like this. The whole incident was to make the Jews consider their motives in this work and to perceive how they were largely doing it all for themselves and their own religious agendas rather than for God. Our work for the Lord is often likewise paused at times, so that we might consider the same question- as to whether we are doing it in the flesh or in His Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Then ceased the work of God’s house which is at Jerusalem; and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia- see on <a href='B:450 3:1'>Zec 3:1</a>. The statement in <a href='B:150 5:16'>Ezr 5:16</a> that they had been continuously building it would suggest that some faithful ones did continue building after they were told to stop, although the majority gave up. God will confirm us in the way we chose to take. Ezra 4 says that the reason the temple was not further rebuilt was because of the decree of Artaxerxes suspending the building program; then Haggai came and told Israel that the temple wasn’t built because they had preferred to build their ceiled houses (<a href='B:150 5:1'>Ezr 5:1</a>). So God had confirmed the people in the way they chose. They preferred to build their houses rather than His, so He stopped them from building His house altogether until they wholeheartedly recommitted themselves to Him. Throughout this period of their history, Israel knew what they ought to do, and they knew very well their weaknesses. They should all have returned from Babylon; but many remained, although they gave those who returned material support.</p><p>The Rabbis calculate that the first year of Cyrus was 52 years after the exile of Zedekiah. The work revived inthe second year of Darius, which they calculate as 18 years later- when Judah had fully been 70 years in captivity. Yet the 70 years prophecy could have come true in the first year of Cyrus.  It depends whether we start the period with the first deportations, or with the full destruction of the temple. We see here God's flexibility and openness to fulfilment, but always wanting to achieve fulfilment of His word of restoration as soon as possible.</p>


text:
<p>Now the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied to the Jews who were in Judah and Jerusalem; in the name of the God of Israel they prophesied to them- see on <a href='B:150 4:24'>Ezr 4:24</a>; <a href='B:440 1:2'>Hag 1:2</a>. These prophets were critical of the returned exiles, and yet it seems they were responded to; because despite the legal problems, they arose and built. Indeed it seems that the people responded by resuming work on the temple within 23 days of Haggai's prophecy (Hag. 1:15). Although we note Haggai had to appeal to them to keep on building about a month after this (Hag. 2:1). This is a parade example of people hearing God's word, being convicted and seriously responding after a period of reflection.</p><p>Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah returned from Babylon and were intended to be leaders who would crown Joshua / Jesus as the Messiah-Priest-Branch who would rebuild Jerusalem. But nothing is heard of them further. Perhaps it is to them that <a href='B:450 11:8'>Zec 11:8</a> refers: “Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul loathed them… then said I [on God’s behalf], I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die”. They had gone into captivity because of poor shepherds, and now at their return they again lacked men willing to be their Saviours; and God is saying that He would not do the shepherding job which He had delegated to others. It could be that Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah all died in one month as a result of Zechariah’s prophecy at the time of <a href='B:150 5:1'>Ezr 5:1</a>. Or it could be that the three potential shepherds who failed were Zerubbabel, Joshua and Nehemiah.</p><p>We might expect the message of Haggai and Zechariah to have been "Have faith! Keep building although you've been told to stop, God will be with you, all will be good in the end". Instead Haggai focuses upon the spiritual weakness and poor motivation of the Jews and appeals for their repentance. This would suggest that the real reason God allowed the command to cease building was because He was only confirming the Jews in their lack of desire to rebuild the temple and Jerusalem. Zechariah speaks of how the armies of Heaven are operative in the restoration- and perhaps the takeaway message from that was that the Jews were not to fear a mere human command to cease doing God's work, seeing His Spirit was with them.</p>


text:
<p>Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build God’s house which is at Jerusalem; and with them were the prophets of God, helping them- The fact Ezekiel gave prophesies- or what sound like prophesies- of a restored temple doesn’t mean that they would come true regardless of Israel’s obedience. 19th century Christians looked at the prophecies relating to Israel’s return to the land and worked to enable them to happen- by financially supporting the Jews etc. It is therefore no mere coincidence that we read that the prophets who ‘prophesied’ of the rebuilding of the temple also helped physically to rebuild the temple (<a href='B:150 5:2'>Ezr 5:2</a>). They worked for the fulfilment of their prophecies.</p>


text:
<p>At the same time came to them Tattenai, the governor beyond the River, and Shetharbozenai, and their companions, and said thus to them, Who gave you a decree to build this house, and to finish this wall?- Tattenai was in charge of the entire area west of the Euphrates and was based in Damascus. He came specially to Jerusalem to find out first hand what the situation was.</p><p>We know that finally, the work of rebuilding wasn't done in obedience to the commands in Ezekiel 40-48 and the envisioned rebuilt temple and reestablished Kingdom didn’t come about. The essence of the prophecies will come true in the last days, but they were also reapplied and reinterpreted with reference to the building of a spiritual house for God to indwell. We therefore perceive a similarity here with the attempts of local authorities to close down the preaching of the early apostles of the Lord Jesus. They too were asked in whose name they were operating (<a href='B:510 4:7'>Act 4:7</a>) and they likewise continued in God’s work despite being told not to. We conclude that the work of building God’s house was now being understood in terms of preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom and baptizing people into the Lord Jesus. See on <a href='B:150 6:6-7'>Ezr 6:6-7</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then we told them in this way, what the names of the men were who were making this building- It seems from :5 that the names of the "elders of the Jews" were given (see too :9,10).</p>


text:
<p>But the eye of their God was on the elders of the Jews, and they did not make them cease, until the matter should come to Darius, and then answer should be returned by letter concerning it- "The eye of their God" may refer to the Angel giving them power to continue the work. Again we note the similarities with the preaching of the apostles, who refused to cease the work of the new temple when ordered to (see on :3). The elders of the Jews [LXX "those of the captivity", as if referring to all the people] don't present as particularly righteous, and yet God's eye is "on" the righteous: "The eye of the Lord is upon them that fear him... The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous" (Ps. 33:18; 34:15). This was by the grace of imputed righteousness, and again shows God's desire to almost force through His plan of restoring the Kingdom despite human weakness. </p>


text:
<p>This is the copy of the letter that Tattenai, the governor beyond the River, and Shetharbozenai, and his companions the Apharsachites, who were beyond the River, sent to Darius the king- As noted on :3, Tattenai was in charge of the entire area west of the Euphrates and was based in Damascus. He came specially to Jerusalem to find out first hand what the situation was. It seems from <a href='B:150 4:9'>Ezr 4:9</a> that the Apharsachites were a favoured group of exiles who collaborated with the Persians in maintaining order west of the Euphrates.</p>


text:
<p>They sent a letter to him, in which was written thus: To Darius the king, all peace- The inspired author of Ezra apparently had access to this correspondence; it likely was in the public domain, as it were, and not confidential.</p>


text:
<p>Be it known to the king, that we went into the province of Judah, to the house of the great God, which is built with great stones, and timber is laid in the walls; and this work goes on with diligence and prospers in their hands- These impartial observers couldn't but note that despite the command to cease the work, the work was 'prospering'. This prospering was from God (s:w. <a href='B:160 1:11'>Neh 1:11</a>; <a href='B:160 2:20'>Neh 2:20</a>). No device formed against the program of rebuilding the Kingdom would prosper (<a href='B:290 54:17'>Isa 54:17</a> s:w:), , LXX " I will not suffer any weapon formed against thee to prosper; and every voice that shall rise up against thee for judgment, thou shalt vanquish them all; and thine adversaries shall be condemned thereby"), and the Divine word of restoration would prosper (<a href='B:290 55:11'>Isa 55:11</a> s:w:). Any attempt to bring about the intended reestablishment of the Kingdom would be prospered by God; the fact that ultimately didn’t happen was because the exiles ceased to make use of His potential assistance.</p>


text:
<p>Then we asked those elders, and said to them thus, Who gave you a decree to build this house, and to finish this wall?- Again we note the similarities with the preaching of the apostles, who were demanded to provide human authority for their work of building the spiritual temple, and refused to cease the work of that new temple when ordered to (see on :3).</p>


text:
<p>We asked them their names also, to inform you that we might write the names of the men who were at their head- This demand for names was answered, apparently, by the statement that "We are the servants of... God" (:11). It recalls John the Baptist being asked for his name, and responding that he was merely "a voice" in obedience to God’s voice.</p>


text:
<p>Thus they returned us answer saying, We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and are building the house that was built these many years ago, which a great king of Israel built and finished- See on :10. They were unashamed of their connection with the previous Israel, which had been researched as rebellious and the land of "great kings" (<a href='B:150 4:20'>Ezr 4:20</a>). It's almost as if they allude to that. They were unashamedly about reestablishing the Kingdom of God in Israel, and they were not pretending otherwise. They were brave to title their God "God of heaven and earth" because this was the title given to the Persian gods. They were making the point that in fact their God Yahweh was the true God. We note Darius uses this term of Yahweh (Ezra 6:19), perhaps suggesting he was inclined to believe in Yahweh. </p>


text:
<p>But after that our fathers had provoked the God of heaven to wrath, He gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this house, and carried the people away into Babylon- This confession of sin and just punishment was not easily forthcoming. For Ezekiel had argued with the exiles against their view that the whole exile had been due to Yahweh being too heavy handed with His people. But it seems there was at least a minority who recognized the guilt of their fathers, or at least did in words. But it appears there was not the personal repentance required to activate the huge potential plans God had to reestablish His Kingdom at the time.</p>


text:
<p>But in the first year of Cyrus king of Babylon, Cyrus the king made a decree to build this house of God- Cyrus was king of Persia, but they call him "king of Babylon" because he took over Babylon and therefore governance of the Jews.</p>


text:
<p>The gold and silver vessels also of God’s house, which Nebuchadnezzar took out of the temple that was in Jerusalem, and brought into the temple of Babylon, those Cyrus the king took out of the temple of Babylon, and they were delivered to one whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor- This "Sheshbazzar" may be a title, and could refer to Nehemiah or Zerubbabel; for in <a href='B:150 1:8'>Ezr 1:8</a> he is defined as "prince of Judah". The "governor" was Zerubbabel in <a href='B:440 1:1'>Hag 1:1</a> (s:w. "governor"); see on :16.</p>


text:
<p>and he said to him, ‘Take these vessels, go, put them in the temple that is in Jerusalem, and let God’s house be built in its place’- The problem with this command is that it involved building the temple according to the dimensions of Cyrus (see on <a href='B:150 6:3'>Ezr 6:3</a>) which were far smaller than those given in Ezekiel 40-48. Building it "in its place", as if restoring what once was, precluded fulfilling the Kingdom vision of Ezekiel. And so the preference of the word of man (Cyrus) over that of God through Ezekiel precluded the fulfilment of the Kingdom then.</p>


text:
<p>Then the same Sheshbazzar came, and laid the foundations of God’s house which is in Jerusalem: and since that time even until now has it been in building, and yet it is not completed- It was Zerubbabel who laid the foundations in Ezra 3, so it seems he was the Sheshbazzar; see on :14. Their statement that they had been continuously building it would suggest that some faithful ones did continue building after they were told to stop, although the majority gave up (<a href='B:150 4:24'>Ezr 4:24</a>). Ezra 5:16 says that Sheshbazzar laid the foundations of the temple while Ezra 3:8-10 says that Zerubbabel did. Possibly Sheshbazzar ['glory of the sun god'] was the Babylonian name for the Hebrew 'Zerubbabel'. Or perhaps Sheshbazzar began to lay the foundations, there was a delay, and Zerubbabel completed the work. The delay may have been caused by the famine sent for their lack of zeal to build the temple (Hag. 1:6) as well as the local opposition. Zech. 8:9,10 describes the situation just prior to the foundations of the temple being laid: "...the prophets who were in the day that the foundation of the house of Yahweh of Armies was laid, even the temple, that it might be built. For before those days there were no wages for man, nor any wages for an animal; neither was there any peace to him who went out or came in, because of the adversary. For I set all men everyone against his neighbour". The implication is that the Jewish builders demanded wages for their work and even for the work their animals did; and when they weren't given them, they argued with each other and thus the work stopped. </p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let a search be 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- The records quickly searched in <a href='B:150 4:19'>Ezr 4:19</a> would have been kept in a different location. We suspect that Tattenai was in fact aware of the decree of Cyrus. See on <a href='B:150 6:2'>Ezr 6:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was made in the house of the archives, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon- Apparently nothing was found and if Darius was the least bit against the Jews, he would have said so. But he continued the search until the document was found at Achmetha (:2). Darius had married two of the daughters of Cyrus, so he was likely eager to continue the wishes of Cyrus. The internal correspondences within the record (see on :2) are significant, and give the ring of truth to the claim that this is indeed the inspired word of God and not something written by secular men long after the events.</p>


text:
<p>There was found at Achmetha, in the palace that is in the province of Media- It had apparently been moved from the record house in Babylon where it had previously been (<a href='B:150 5:17'>Ezr 5:17</a>).</p><p>A scroll, and therein was thus written for a record- The reference to a scroll fits with what is known from archaeology: that the Persians used parchment or vellum for their records, not baked clay, like the Assyrians and Babylonians, or paper, like the Egyptians.</p>


text:
<p>In the first year of Cyrus the king, Cyrus the king made a decree: Concerning God’s house at Jerusalem, let the house be built, the place where they offer sacrifices, and let its foundations be strongly laid; its height sixty cubits, and its breadth sixty cubits- Ezekiel's temple was 500 cubits by 500 cubits. The problem with this command is that it involved building the temple according to the dimensions of Cyrus&nbsp; which were far smaller than those given in Ezekiel 40-48. Building it "in its place" (<a href='B:150 5:15'>Ezr 5:15</a>), as if restoring what once was, precluded fulfilling the Kingdom vision of Ezekiel. And so the preference of the word of man (Cyrus) over that of God through Ezekiel precluded the fulfilment of the Kingdom then.</p><p>The temple which Cyrus commanded the Jews to build in Jerusalem was of different (smaller) dimensions to that of Ezekiel (<a href='B:150 6:3-4'>Ezr 6:3-4</a>). Two possibilities arise here. Either Israel chose to listen to the words of man rather than those of God through Ezekiel; or (more likely) God reduced the dimensions, knowing that this was within the capability of Israel to achieve. In any case, Israel were encouraged by Divine prophesy in the work of building according to the pattern which Cyrus had given (<a href='B:150 6:14'>Ezr 6:14</a>). God is so eager to work with men that He will work with us on our lower level, even if it is a level lower than what we are capable of. And so we should treat our weaker brethren:&nbsp;See on :9.</p><p>We could also note that Cyrus only defined the height and breadth, but not the length. This may have been purposeful; to allow the Jews to themselves decide upon this.</p>


text:
<p>with three courses of great stones, and a course of new timber: and let the expenses be given out of the king’s house- Great stones are literally rolled stones, stones of greater size than could be carried. The LXX interprets this as meaning four storeys high, three storeys being built of stone, and one of timber. Not all the expenses were in fact met from the king (<a href='B:150 2:69'>Ezr 2:69</a>; <a href='B:150 3:7'>Ezr 3:7</a>). At every moment in the whole story we find potential promises not realized, for whatever reason.</p>


text:
<p>Also let the gold and silver vessels of God’s house, which Nebuchadnezzar took forth out of the temple which is at Jerusalem and brought to Babylon, be restored, and brought again to the temple which is at Jerusalem, each one to its place; and you shall put them in God’s house- The Medo-Persians would have recalled that they captured Babylon at the very moment when the Babylonian king was blasphemously using these vessels in a drunken feast (<a href='B:340 5:2-3'>Dan 5:2-3</a>). Their superstitious thinking would therefore have actually wanted to return these vessels to their appropriate deity. And again, in all these things God’s hand was at work; there is an internal credibility within the entire account, as noted on :2.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, Tattenai, governor beyond the River, Shetharbozenai, and your companions the Apharsachites, who are beyond the River, you must not hinder this matter- This continues the points of similarity with the attempts to stop the apostles building the spiritual house of God. For this is in essence the same advice as Gamaliel gives in <a href='B:510 5:39'>Act 5:39</a>, warning not to hinder God’s work. See on <a href='B:150 5:3'>Ezr 5:3</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Leave the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in its place- The LXX is pretty much quoted by Gamaliel in <a href='B:510 5:38'>Act 5:38</a>: "Refrain from these men and let them alone; if this work be of men, it will come to nothing". As explained on <a href='B:150 5:3'>Ezr 5:3</a>, the work of building God’s house is reinterpreted with reference to the people of God building His spiritual house through preaching in the Christian dispensation. And the apostles who were being persecuted by the elders of the Jews and the leader of the Jewish council in the first century- are thereby presented, in the analogy, to the true elders of the new Israel that the Lord Jesus had founded.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover I make a decree what you shall do to these elders of the Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the River, expenses be given with all diligence to these men, that they be not hindered- Isaiah makes many allusions to Israel's leaving Egypt. The Jews in Babylon were intended to live out the type by leaving Babylon and making the wilderness journey to the land- and God helped them in it. For example, Ezra records how God moved the local authorities to pronounce that the residents around the returning exiles should give them silver, gold and goods. This was an exact re-living of how Israel left Egypt with Egypt's gold and silver (<a href='B:20 12:35'>Exo 12:35</a>). Yet most of the Jews didn’t want to return, they didn’t want to live out the type. </p><p>"Be not hindered" is s.w. Dan. 6:15 of how "no decree… may be changed". The idea clearly is that the decree was changed- and the connection shows that Darius ought to have known this and humbled himself to change the decree about Daniel. Because changing the unchangeable decree was perfectly possible for the emperor, despite the apparent loss of face and suggestion that he was not in fact Divine but fallible. </p>


text:
<p>That which they have need of, both young bulls, and rams, and lambs, for burnt offerings to the God of heaven; also wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the word of the priests who are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail- Absolutely everything physical which was required for obedience to the law was to be provided. The lesson is that if we wish to live the kingdom life and build that kingdom, lack of resources can never ultimately be cited as a reason for disobedience. We must note however that the Jews had broken the old covenant, and had been offered a new covenant deal with God in Jeremiah 33 and Ezekiel 20. They apparently rejected that and still tried to keep the old covenant. And yet clearly God worked with them through that immaturity. He comes over as ever eager to work with His people at whatever level they are at. See on :3."According to the word of the priests" is LXX "whatsoever they shall ask". There is almost a blank cheque offer to hear our requests- if they are in order to do God's will and work. But not merely for ourselves.</p>


text:
<p>that they may offer sacrifices of pleasant aroma to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and of his sons- Let’s remember that the exiles were symbols of us. We in this life are passing through “the time of our exile” (<a href='B:670 1:17'>1Pe 1:17</a> RSV). Paul exhorts us to pray for kings and governors, in the very language of the LXX in <a href='B:150 6:10'>Ezr 6:10</a> about the returnees praying in the new temple for the kings of Babylon. Again, as noted on <a href='B:150 5:3'>Ezr 5:3</a>, the whole narrative of the rebuilding of the temple and Kingdom is applied to the work of the Christian church in this age.</p>


text:
<p>Also I have made a decree, that whoever shall alter this word, let a beam be pulled out from his house, and let him be lifted up and fastened thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this- The condemnation upon those who tried to change the decree was severe, and clearly had in view the local Samaritan opposition to the Jews. However the idea of cursing those who changed the word of a king was still alluding to the paganic idea that kings were divine, and therefore to try to change their word was an act of blasphemy. This paganic concept reveals how far the Persian kings were from Yahweh; and yet He worked their arrogance in order to enable His people to get on with His work- if they wished to.</p><p>The punishment of hanging on a gallows [possibly a form of crucifixion] and his house made a dungheap recalls the judgment of Haman and those who supported him. This confirms our suggestion that the events of the book of Esther had happened around this time. Those events resulted in a "fear of the Jews" which would explain this change of policy about stopping the building of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>and the God who has caused His name to dwell there overthrow all kings and peoples who shall put forth their hand to alter the same, to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have made a decree; let it be done with all diligence- The kings and peoples likely to want to overthrow Jerusalem at that point were those who were going to be opposed to Persia; and so this decree was in its own way a restatement of Persian dominance in the area. To alter the word of Persian command (:11) is seen here (in the AV) as seeking to alter the house of God. They wished to perceive the rebuilding of Yahweh's temple as a function of their word of command concerning it. The rebuilding of the temple was to be the result of Yahweh's prophetic word; but He allowed others to perceive that it was their word which was causing the fulfilment.</p>


text:
<p>Then Tattenai, the governor beyond the River, Shetharbozenai, and their companions, because Darius the king had sent a decree, did accordingly with all diligence- See on :3. Their diligent ('speedy') obedience to the decree of Darius was meant to be an example to the Jews to respond speedily and diligently to the Divine decree to rebuild Jerusalem. For that was what was behind the decrees of Cyrus and Darius. The two decrees, of God and man, are paralleled in :14.</p>


text:
<p>The elders of the Jews built and prospered, through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. They built and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia- As noted on :13, the two decrees, of God and man, are paralleled. As Gentile men like Tattenai diligently responded to the human decree, so God’s people should have done moreso to the Divine decree. The real reason for prospering in fulfilling the decree was through the Divine word through Haggai and Zechariah- which was in fact highly critical of the Jews, with Haggai accusing them of not continuing to rebuild the temple because of their desire to build their own homes, with elegant ceilings, whilst God’s house remained waste. They were only using the command to stop the work as an excuse for their own laziness and lack of commitment. That hard hitting message apparently was responded to. For here we read that the work prospered because of it.</p>


text:
<p>This house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king- <a href='B:440 1:15'>Hag 1:15</a> says that the work began on the 24th of Elul in the second year of Darius. From Zerubbabel’s laying of the foundation (<a href='B:150 3:10'>Ezr 3:10</a>), 21 years had passed. Since the prophets Haggai and Zechariah had challenged the people to repent and get to work, it took exactly four years, five months and ten days to complete it. This shows a commendable speed of response.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy- Clearly seeking to emulate Solomon's grandiose dedication of his temple; but they were missing the point that Isaiah had made, that God doesn't delight in huge numbers of sacrifices as Solomon made, but rather seeks humble hearts. The reference to "Israel" rather than Judah connects with the offering of 12 goats for the 12 tribes in :17. The prophetic vision was that both Israel and Judah would be reunited in this restored Kingdom. But the majority of the ten tribes didn’t return, and relatively few of the 1 million of Judah in Babylon. This feast of dedication is that of <a href='B:500 10:22'>Joh 10:22</a>, and the LXX calls Psalms 145-148 the Psalm of Haggai and Zechariah- so they may have been used at this time. The difference between "the children of Israel" and the returnees may suggest that despite the returnees' dislike of the Israelites who were in the land at their return, they allowed them now to dedicate the temple. But :19 suggests the returnees alone kept the Passover- they didn't let their other brethren as it were 'break bread'. The "joy" may have been in the words of Ps. 148-150, called in the LXX 'Psalms of Haggai and Zechariah'.</p>


text:
<p>They offered at the dedication of this house of God one hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve male goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel- As when the tabernacle was dedicated (<a href='B:40 7:87'>Num 7:87</a>; <a href='B:40 8:17'>Num 8:17</a>). Again they were missing the point- the old covenant was over. And any attempt at emulating Solomon's ridiculously grandiose offering of 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep to dedicate his temple was also being made in the wrong spirit; see on :16. The dedication offerings of Solomon, Josiah and Hezekiah (2 Chron. 30:24; 35:7) involved far more animals- and yet the returnees had the empowerment by the emperor to have as many animals as they wished. </p><p>“The Jews” is used synonymously with “Israelite” (<a href='B:160 2:10'>Neh 2:10</a>; <a href='B:160 4:1'>Neh 4:1</a>; <a href='B:160 5:1'>Neh 5:1</a>; <a href='B:160 5:8'>Neh 5:8</a>; <a href='B:160 7:73'>Neh 7:73</a>; <a href='B:160 12:47'>Neh 12:47</a>). 12 he-goats and 12 bulls were offered for “all Israel” in <a href='B:150 6:17'>Ezr 6:17</a>; <a href='B:150 8:35'>Ezr 8:35</a>. But still Judah and Israel remained divided; and no “prince” arose to fulfill the prophecies. Israel and Judah were to become one nation in the land, “and my servant David shall be a prince in the midst of them” (<a href='B:330 37:16-24'>Eze 37:16-24</a>). This is clearly the same “prince” as referred to in Ezekiel 45-48. The restoration prophecy of <a href='B:300 30:9'>Jer 30:9</a> speaks of a returned Judah serving “David their king, whom I shall raise up unto them”- implying that David would have been resurrected at the restoration, if all had gone according to what was possible. Some of the ten tribes did return with Judah but the scale of prophesied reunion was simply not achieved, and the offering of the 12 goats was therefore but external symbolism.</p>


text:
<p>They set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in the book of Moses- But as noted on Ezra 2, only four of the 24 courses returned. And hardly any Levites. Their attempts to keep the old covenant were compromised; and yet they had been told in Ezekiel and Jeremiah that they had hopelessly broken that covenant, and needed to accept the new covenant, which they stubbornly refused to do.</p>


text:
<p>The children of the captivity kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month- It seems they were proud of their technical obedience to the old covenant; see on :18. At this point, the book of Esther reverts to Hebrew from Chaldee (which began to be used in <a href='B:150 4:18'>Ezr 4:18</a>). I discussed on :16 how the other Israelites were allowed to rejoice at the dedication of the temple, but apparently weren't allowed to keep Passover / break bread. This is stressed in :20 . The Passover was slain only "for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the priests, and for themselves". Despite this God "made them joyful" (:22), just as He still fellowships with the most exclusive of brethren and seeks to work with them.</p>


text:
<p>For the priests and the Levites had purified themselves together; all of them were pure- I suggest this was just a technical purification, just as people may be baptized in water but refuse the birth or cleansing of the Spirit. <a href='B:330 36:24-29'>Eze 36:24-29</a> had prophesied: “For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh”. The captives were taken from among the many nations that comprised Babylon / Persia; they were brought, as many as could be bothered to go, to their own land. They were cleansed there (s:w. <a href='B:150 6:20'>Ezr 6:20</a>; <a href='B:160 12:30'>Neh 12:30</a>). But they became un-cleansed through allowing Tobiah into the temple chambers, by trading on the Sabbath, and by marrying Gentiles (<a href='B:160 13:9'>Neh 13:9</a>; <a href='B:160 13:22'>Neh 13:22</a>; <a href='B:160 13:30'>Neh 13:30</a>). The priesthood needed to be “cleansed” again (<a href='B:460 3:3'>Mal 3:3</a> s:w:). The promise of Ezekiel 36 sounds unconditional- as if, whoosh, God would make His sinful people righteous regardless of their own will. And so some have misunderstood the operation of God’s Spirit in our own days. But although not directly stated, the promise of entry into the new covenant, whereby God would encourage obedience through the work of His Spirit, was conditional. Judah could have entered the new covenant there and then, with all its requirements for a Messiah figure to abrogate the Mosaic law. But they turned back to their uncleannesses, they would not keep God’s statutes, and their potential Messiah figures failed to appear. Yet again, the promise of entry into a new covenant was deferred, to be fulfilled in a new Israel who are sprinkled through the waters of baptism. The promise was fulfilled, but in a far different context to that intended.</p><p>And they killed the Passover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brothers the priests, and for themselves- The Mosaic legislation was that each head of house should kill the Passover. But they now considered that only the clean could kill the Passover, and the Levites were supposed to be super clean- even though we are soon to read that some of them were so uncommitted to Yahweh that they had married Gentiles. So their zeal for technical, casuistic purity meant they ended up breaking the law, as has so often been seen amongst God’s people.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel who had come again out of the captivity- Time and again, Jeremiah had prophesied how Yahweh would bring again His people and the vessels of the temple back to the land (<a href='B:300 28:3-4'>Jer 28:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 28:6'>Jer 28:6</a>; <a href='B:300 30:3'>Jer 30:3</a>; <a href='B:300 30:18'>Jer 30:18</a>; <a href='B:300 31:23'>Jer 31:23</a>); and this all had a fulfilment in the return from captivity under Ezra and Nehemiah. It was then that in some sense Yahweh ‘brought again Zion’ (<a href='B:290 52:8'>Isa 52:8</a>). The very same word used by Joel [translated “bring again”] is to be found in the references to Judah’s return at the restoration (<a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezr 2:1</a>; <a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a>; <a href='B:160 7:6'>Neh 7:6</a>; <a href='B:160 8:17'>Neh 8:17</a>). The same word is to be found in <a href='B:330 38:8'>Eze 38:8</a>; <a href='B:330 39:27'>Eze 39:27</a>, where again, the invasion is to happen once Judah had been ‘brought again’ from captivity. Judah returned, and yet they didn’t rebuild the temple as they were commanded. Therefore the invasion didn’t come, and therefore the Kingdom wasn’t then established. As if knowing this, <a href='B:350 6:11'>Hos 6:11</a> had prophesied [otherwise strangely] that Judah would reap their punishment, when they returned from captivity. They returned [s:w. ‘bring again’], but not to the Most High (<a href='B:350 7:16'>Hos 7:16</a>). Joel 3, however, speaks from the perspective that Judah would be ‘brought again’ from Babylon under Ezra; and then&nbsp; <a href='B:360 3:2'>Joe 3:2</a> “I will also gather all nations…and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land”.</p><p>And all such as had separated themselves to them from the filthiness of the nations of the land, to seek Yahweh, the God of Israel, ate- They separated / purged, and then, within a few years, we read of them doing so again. Initially, the exiles separated from the peoples of the land (<a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a>); by <a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a> they are in need of separating again; and by <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a> likewise; then they separate (<a href='B:150 10:16'>Ezr 10:16</a>), only to need another call to separation by the time of <a href='B:160 9:2'>Neh 9:2</a>; <a href='B:160 13:3'>Neh 13:3</a>. They obviously found it extremely difficult to be separated from the surrounding world unto God’s law (<a href='B:160 10:28'>Neh 10:28</a>).</p><p>But the reference is probably to Gentiles keeping the Passover along with Israel. We notice that there is no mention of their being circumcised to do so. I have suggested elsewhere that the command for only the circumcised to partake of it was relevant only to the first Passover, as later in the Mosaic law and Jewish practice, all of one mind with Israel were welcome to partake of it. And this has relevance to the openness of the breaking of bread service.</p><p>However it is the Jews who are described as needing to separate themselves from the filthiness of the nations of the land (<a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a>; <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a>). Perhaps the category here referred to those Jews who had remained in the land throughout the exile, and now separated themselves from the idolatry of the land. See on Ezra 4:4.</p>


text:
<p>and kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for Yahweh had made them joyful, and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, to strengthen their hands in the work of God’s house, the God of Israel- This verse emphasizes the direct work of God on human hearts (as in <a href='B:110 18:37'>1Ki 18:37</a>; <a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a>): making them joyful, turning the heart of the king, and strengthening their work for Him. Despite their many weaknesses as discussed in the previous commentary, God was eager to work with them. Although they had not accepted the new covenant, with its promise of the Spirit in their hearts, He still worked directly upon their hearts in confirming them in the way they had apparently chosen. We naturally enquire why the king of Persia is called "the king of Assyria". It could be that the Assyrian kings were famed for their hardness and cruelty; and even such a hard heart was turned by God. Just as His Spirit can work today.
 
</p>


text:
<p>Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah- A call to flee Babylon was made by Zechariah in the second year of Darius, at the time of Ezra 5 when the exiles were forbidden to continue rebuilding the temple and Zechariah and Haggai prophesied to them. Soon afterwards, there was another return led by Ezra as recorded in Ezra 7. This may well have been in direct response and obedience to the call to "flee from the land of the north!" made in Zech. 2:6,7. Although Babylon had fallen to Cyrus, he left the city intact. The total destruction of the city envisioned in the prophets didn't happen at that time- perhaps because God's people weren't ready to leave as they should have done. For the exit of the Jews from Babylon was envisaged as preceding Babylon's total destruction. Although the people hadn't left Babylon, God in Zech. 2:6 gives another scenario- they could leave now, and then Babylon would fall as predicted. Ezra leads another group from Babylon in response to this call (Ezra 7), but again there was very limited response to his efforts to get the Jews to leave. We marvel at God's desire to somehow make it all work out...</p><p> A fair case can be made that the book of Esther occurred between Ezra 6 and 7. Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah may well have been contemporaries. We appear to have a gap of 58 years covered by "after these things". Artaxerxes was the son of Xerxes, the king at the time of Esther. The book of Esther closes with the Jews popular and wealthy. This was surely the real reason why so few wanted to return. Ezra is to be commended for perceiving the need to leave that comfortable society and return to Zion.</p><p>Seraiah was High-priest in the days of king Zedekiah and was slain at Riblah by Nebuchadnezzar (<a href='B:120 25:18-21'>2Ki 25:18-21</a>). So immediately we see that generations are omitted here, as often in the Biblical genealogies.  Ezra was however the descendant of the high priest; but he is presented as the scribe of Yahweh's law. He made no attempt to leverage his ancestry to become High Priest, but rather focused on the essence- the teaching of God's word to people.</p>


text:
<p>the son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub- There is reason to think that it could have been possible for the Messianic Kingdom to have been established at the time of the restoration, and the temple prophecies would fit perfectly into this context. Thus Ezekiel emphasized that the sons of Zadok were to organize priestly work in the temple (<a href='B:330 40:46'>Eze 40:46</a>; <a href='B:330 43:19'>Eze 43:19</a>; <a href='B:330 44:15'>Eze 44:15</a>; <a href='B:330 48:11'>Eze 48:11</a>); and it was surely not incidental that Ezra, the leader of the initial restoration, was one of the sons of Zadok (<a href='B:150 7:2'>Ezr 7:2</a>). He was in a position to fulfill those prophecies, although the bulk of his brethren seem to have precluded this. See on :27.</p>


text:
<p>the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth- 15 names are listed between Ezra and Aaron- covering about 1000 years. Clearly many generations were omitted. We note there are 26 names listed between Zerubbabel (a generation or two before Ezra) and Nashon a contemporary of Aaron, in <a href='B:130 2:10-15'>1Ch 2:10-15</a>; <a href='B:130 3:1-19'>1Ch 3:1-19</a>). Some details of the omitted generations are found in <a href='B:130 9:10-11'>1Ch 9:10-11</a>; <a href='B:160 11:11'>Neh 11:11</a>. Why was that information not included here? Perhaps because the intention was to focus upon various individuals who were historically known as involved in temple and priestly work, as if to really emphasize how Ezra was qualified for his work through being part of a long line of such workers. Thus Azariah is mentioned in <a href='B:130 6:10'>1Ch 6:10</a> as ‘having executed the priest’s office in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem’.</p>


text:
<p>the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki- Ezra's genealogy is carefully traced back to Aaron, because there were some who could not prove their genealogy at the time. If indeed the genealogical records were destroyed when the temple was sacked, we wonder how he actually managed to prove such a long genealogy.</p>


text:
<p>the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest- Ezra's great grandfather had been High Priest (:1), and he could trace his descent right back to Aaron. He was really well qualified to be the next high priest. The fact he wasn't could imply there was some degree of internal politics going on, or he failed to rise up to the call; and so the prophecies of a Messianic high priest in the restored Kingdom were left unfulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>this Ezra went up from Babylon: and he was a willing scribe in the law of Moses, which Yahweh, the God of Israel, had given- The Hebrew word for "scribe" doesn't simply mean one who writes down or copies. It carries the idea of publishing, teaching, openly declaring- and is the word used in passages like <a href='B:290 43:21'>Isa 43:21</a> "shew forth My praise". Ezra was an enthusiastic teacher of the law of Moses, and he wanted the returned exiles to be obedient to the old covenant and thereby be blessed. We might note however that Jeremiah and Ezekiel had made clear that the old covenant had been broken with Judah; and they had been offered a new covenant with those who repented, involving the gift of the Spirit and inclusion of any Gentiles who wished to accept it. So Ezra's passion for the old covenant was to some degree zeal not according to knowledge. He was missing the point of the wonderful offer of the new covenant, and not giving due weight to God’s statements in the prophets that the old covenant was effectively over. And yet despite this wrong focus upon law and traditional positions, God clearly worked with Ezra.</p><p>And the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of Yahweh his God on him- The hand of God operating on human hearts is a great theme of Ezra and Nehemiah. It was the outworking of grace and the gift / work of the Spirit. For the human spirit is primarily where God’s Spirit works.</p>


text:
<p>There went up some of the children of Israel, and of the priests, the Levites, the singers, the porters and the Nethinim, to Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king- These are the same six categories who had returned with Zerubbabel initially (<a href='B:150 2:70'>Ezr 2:70</a>). But the order is different. Here, the first category is the ordinary people; whereas before it was the priests and Levites who were listed first. This may be read as positive, in that the ordinary people were now responding; or negative, in that the priests were less responsive than they had been.</p>


text:
<p>He came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king- This was according to Yahweh's "hand" (:6). When Nehemiah speaks of Judah having been redeemed by Yahweh’s “strong hand” (<a href='B:160 1:10'>Neh 1:10</a>), he is using the language of <a href='B:290 40:10'>Isa 40:10</a>, regarding how Yahweh would come to Zion and save Israel from Babylon and restore them to the land “with strong hand”. Nehemiah saw the prophecy could have been fulfilled then. The way Zerubbabel (<a href='B:150 2:2'>Ezr 2:2</a>; <a href='B:160 7:5-7'>Neh 7:5-7</a>), Ezra (<a href='B:150 7:8'>Ezr 7:8</a>; <a href='B:150 8:32'>Ezr 8:32</a>) and Nehemiah (<a href='B:160 2:11'>Neh 2:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>) are described as ‘coming to Jerusalem’ may hint that they could have fulfilled this coming of Yahweh to Zion; they could have been Messianic figures (<a href='B:160 2:11'>Neh 2:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For on the first day of the first month began he to go up from Babylon; and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God on him- The continual reference to the hand of God in Ezra is another way of saying that God was acting through His Spirit. There was (and is) a power higher than that of human endeavour, a hidden hand, which alone makes our way to the Kingdom ultimately prosperous; and our salvation therefore by grace rather than our own device.</p>


text:
<p>For Ezra had set his heart to seek the law of Yahweh, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances- The compelling hand of God (:9) was in response to Ezra's desire in his heart to do God’s law and teach it to others. I discussed on :6 how his zeal for the law of Moses was in fact misplaced, and he ought to have given more attention to the new covenant. But still God worked with him in respect for his misplaced idealism. And his setting of his heart to seek God is clearly wonderfully positive (s:w. <a href='B:140 19:3'>2Ch 19:3</a>). His "set" or 'prepared' heart could be seen as a fulfilment of Solomon's prayer in <a href='B:130 29:18'>1Ch 29:18</a>, where He asks God to keep the hearts of His people focused upon the temple, keeping it "in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of Your people, and prepare their heart unto You". Ezra's set or prepared heart (s:w:) was therefore a result of his willingly allowing God to work directly upon his heart. Again we see the direct working of God upon the human heart or spirit, all performed by His Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave to Ezra the priest, the scribe, even the scribe of the words of the commandments of Yahweh, and of His statutes to Israel- It could be that Ezra was a "scribe" in the court, but more importantly he was a scribe or proclaimer of the words and commandments of Yahweh, and His statutes- as well as those of the king.</p>


text:
<p>Artaxerxes, king of kings, to Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace and so forth- <a href='B:150 1:2'>Ezr 1:2</a> records Cyrus originally defining Yahweh, Israel's God, as "the God of heaven". This was in allusion to the Persian belief in Ormuzd as the mightiest god, in contradistinction to Ahriman, who was lord of the lower regions. The proclamation of Cyrus was effectively a denial of the Persian view of the gods and Ormuzd, although it seems Cyrus didn’t maintain that; but Artaxerxes is more vague, leaving it open to interpretation as to whether the "God of heaven" is Yahweh or Ormuzd.</p>


text:
<p>I make a decree, that all those of the people of Israel, and their priests and the Levites, in my realm, who are minded of their own free will to go to Jerusalem, go with you- Those who left Babylon did so of their own freewill, and yet providential events stirred up their spirits to do this (<a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>); and the way was prepared in miraculous ways. The new covenant offered to the exiles a new heart and spirit from God. His Spirit was eager to work upon their spirit, but still there was required their own freewill desire to return both to their land and to their God. Otherwise they would have been reduced to mere puppets in the Divine hand.</p><p>In Ezra 4, Artaxerxes issues a decree to cease the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Here in Ezra 7 king Artaxerxes issues a decree to begin restoring and building Jerusalem. But the laws of the Medes and Persians were unchangeable (Esther 1:19; Dan. 6:14-16). So we see here how Darius could have changed the fate of Daniel- only his pride stopped him. We also reflect how amazingly strong was God's hand upon him to make him issue this second decree. However another take is that there are two different kings in view here. Even if that is the case, we are still left with the fact that the laws of Medes and Persians were changed by the influence of God's Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Because you are sent of the king and his seven counsellors, to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of your God which is in your hand- The book of Esther (<a href='B:190 1:14'>Est 1:14</a>) likewise mentions these seven counsellors. "To inquire" doesn't necessarily mean here 'to find out information'. The idea could be that he was sent there to pray for Judah and Jerusalem according to the law of God. For this is how prayer must be- according to God’s word.</p>


text:
<p>and to carry the silver and gold, which the king and his counsellors have freely offered to the God of Israel whose habitation is in Jerusalem- The king clearly sees "the God of Israel" as the local god of Jerusalem, who as it were lives there. He doesn't use the term Yahweh, as Cyrus did.</p>


text:
<p>and all the silver and gold that you shall find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem- "That you shall find" doesn't mean he was to just grab whatever silver and gold he could; rather the idea is that he should take with him whatever silver and gold people were willing to give him. This is the king's way of repeating the essence of the decree of Cyrus (<a href='B:150 1:4'>Ezr 1:4</a>; <a href='B:150 1:6'>Ezr 1:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>therefore you shall with all diligence buy with this money bulls, rams, lambs, with their meal offerings and their drink offerings, and shall offer them on the altar of the house of your God which is in Jerusalem- The king appears to have some detailed knowledge of the law of Moses; as an eager scribe or proclaimer, Ezra apparently had shared the details of Yahweh with the king. And he is to be commended for this; for religion is always a difficult subject with powerful employers who have their own religious views.</p>


text:
<p>Whatever shall seem good to you and to your brothers to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, do that after the will of your God- We note the parallel between the will of God, and what Ezra willed or thought good. The king thus accepts that the will of Ezra is that of his God. He perceives congruity between what he preached and what he really stood for himself.</p>


text:
<p>The vessels that are given to you for the service of the house of your God, deliver before the God of Jerusalem- Although the king appears to have seen Israel's God as merely a local entity, he also seems to recognize He had some real presence there in Jerusalem. The original temple vessels taken away from Jerusalem had been restored there already, but there was apparently the need for many more, which were offered voluntarily (:15; <a href='B:150 8:25-28'>Ezr 8:25-28</a>). Perhaps some had been stolen before they were taken into captivity; or some which had been returned had been stolen. Or again, perhaps Ezra wished to operate worship on a far grander scale than previously.</p>


text:
<p>Whatever more shall be needful for the house of your God, which you shall have occasion to grant, grant it out of the king’s treasure house- The treasure house was presumably that in Jerusalem, into which the local taxes were paid.</p>


text:
<p>I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers who are beyond the River, that whatever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done with all diligence- The king seems to have foreseen that the God of Ezra was alive and real enough to give Ezra more commandments which would require material to fulfill them. The inspired writer of Psalms 45 says that his tongue is like the pen of a scribe or writer (<a href='B:230 45:1'>Psa 45:1</a>). The writer is God. God was using the inspired person’s words as His pen, with which to communicate to men. Ezra likewise was a “scribe of the law of the God of heaven” (<a href='B:150 7:21'>Ezr 7:21</a>). The God who is in Heaven wrote through a scribe here on earth. That’s the idea of inspiration.</p>


text:
<p>to one hundred talents of silver, one hundred measures of wheat, one hundred baths of wine, one hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much- The taxes paid to the local treasure house in Jerusalem (:20) would have been paid partly in kind, and wheat, wine and oil were all local products of Judah (<a href='B:120 18:32'>2Ki 18:32</a>). The king had clearly been told about the exact nature of the Jewish sacrifices, including the command to always offer with salt (<a href='B:30 2:13'>Lev 2:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be done exactly for the house of the God of heaven; for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?- It would appear that about this time, the Persians had been driven out of Egypt, and their records describe it in these terms, as "wrath against the realm of the king". But after Ezra returned, Persia recovered Memphis.</p>


text:
<p>Also we inform you, that concerning any of the priests and Levites, the singers, porters, Nethinim, or servants of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose tribute, custom, or toll on them- The Persians didn’t exclude their own priests from taxation, so this was all the more a wonderful kindness. But the lesson from it all is that God was providing absolutely everything for His work to go ahead. And to this day, lack of resources has never been a barrier for the progress of any project which God wills to happen. He will always provide, most generously.</p>


text:
<p>You, Ezra, after the wisdom of your God which is in your hand, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people who are beyond the River, all such as know the laws of your God; and teach him who doesn’t know them- This was giving a huge amount of power to Ezra. We get the impression that there were Jews still scattered through the whole area west of the Euphrates. They had not returned to the land. Ezra was empowered to preach to them, and also to those who didn’t know Yahweh. This was a huge commission; but there is no evidence Ezra fulfilled it.</p><p>Let’s remember that the exiles were representative of us. They failed, and so these things in essence are reapplied to ourselves. We in this life are passing through “the time of our exile” (<a href='B:670 1:17'>1Pe 1:17</a> RSV). They were commanded to spread the knowledge of Israel’s God to all in the dominion of Babylon (<a href='B:150 7:25'>Ezr 7:25</a> LXX), and thus they would have fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecies about the spreading of the Gospel to all peoples. Yet we have a similar commission, and God will provide for us likewise, as He did for Ezra. But we have to learn the lesson of the exiles;&nbsp; for the exiles who returned became so caught up with their own lives that they again failed to be a light to the nations.</p>


text:
<p>Whoever will not do the law of your God, and the law of the king, let judgement be executed on him with all diligence, whether it be to death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment- The law of God and that of the king are paralleled, just as the decree of the king was effectively the fulfilment of God’s decree and commandment.</p>


text:
<p>Blessed be Yahweh, the God of our fathers, who has put such a thing as this in the king’s heart, to beautify the house of Yahweh which is in Jerusalem- See on :2. Ezra was enabled to “beautify” the temple (<a href='B:150 7:27'>Ezr 7:27</a>), the very same word used in <a href='B:290 60:7'>Isa 60:7</a>; <a href='B:290 60:9'>Isa 60:9</a>; <a href='B:290 60:13'>Isa 60:13</a> about how God would “glorify” [s:w:] His temple with merchandise from throughout the Babylonian empire- all of which was willingly offered by Cyrus and Darius. <a href='B:290 60:7'>Isa 60:7</a> prophesied that God would “glorify the house of my glory”. But this was in fact a conditional prophecy, capable of fulfilment through the freewill efforts of the returning exiles. For they were empowered by Artaxerxes “to beautify [s:w. “glorify”] the house of the Lord” (<a href='B:150 7:27'>Ezr 7:27</a>). All their efforts to glorify / beautify the house, therefore, would have had God’s special and powerful blessing behind them. But was the house ultimately glorified? No- for Israel would not. They got sidetracked by beautifying their own homes, building “cieled houses” for themselves (<a href='B:440 1:4'>Hag 1:4</a>). The word for “cieled” occurs in <a href='B:110 6:9'>1Ki 6:9</a>; <a href='B:110 7:3'>1Ki 7:3</a>; <a href='B:110 7:7'>1Ki 7:7</a> to describe the roofing of the first temple- which they were to be rebuilding, rather than building their own houses. The glory would have entered the house of God’s glory as it did at the inauguration of the first temple (<a href='B:140 7:1-3'>2Ch 7:1-3</a>). Ezekiel prophesied that ultimately the glory would fill the temple as it had done then (<a href='B:330 43:4-5'>Eze 43:4-5</a>). But God’s prophesy of this in <a href='B:290 60:7'>Isa 60:7</a>, that He would glorify His house, meant that He was prepared to work through men to glorify it. The fulfilment of Ezekiel’s vision of the cloud of glory entering the temple again could have been fulfilled if the exiles had done what Artaxerxes empowered them to do- to glorify the house of glory. And so the fulfilment was delayed. The glory of the temple the exiles built was tragically less than the glory of the first temple; and so it would only be in the last day of Messiah’s second coming that the house shall truly be filled with glory (<a href='B:440 2:3'>Hag 2:3</a>; <a href='B:440 2:7'>Hag 2:7</a>; <a href='B:440 2:9'>Hag 2:9</a>). And the lesson ought to be clear for us, in the various projects and callings of our lives: it becomes crucial for us to discern God’s specific purposes for us, and insofar as we follow His leading, we will feel a blessing and power which is clearly Divine.</p>


text:
<p>and has extended grace to me before the king, his counsellors and before all the king’s mighty princes. I was strengthened according to the hand of Yahweh my God upon me, and I gathered together out of Israel chief men to go up with me- The extension of grace, or 'gift', was in terms of God working directly upon the king's heart (:27- see too <a href='B:160 2:12'>Neh 2:12</a>; <a href='B:160 7:5'>Neh 7:5</a>; <a href='B:110 10:24'>1Ki 10:24</a>). And this too is how God’s grace can work today- the insertion of ideas into the human heart, intended to bring us to obedience to Him and the advancement of His glory.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the heads of their fathers’ households, and this is the genealogy of those who went up with me from Babylon, in the reign of Artaxerxes the king- Those who truly waited upon Yahweh would renew their strength; they would “mount up as eagles” (<a href='B:290 40:31'>Isa 40:31</a>), the s:w. used throughout Ezra and Nehemiah for the ‘going up’ ["went up with me"] to Jerusalem from Babylon to rebuild the temple (<a href='B:150 1:3'>Ezr 1:3</a>; <a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 1:11'>Ezr 1:11</a>; <a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezr 2:1</a>; <a href='B:150 2:59'>Ezr 2:59</a>; <a href='B:150 7:6-7'>Ezr 7:6-7</a>; <a href='B:150 7:28'>Ezr 7:28</a>; <a href='B:150 8:1'>Ezr 8:1</a>; <a href='B:160 7:5-6'>Neh 7:5-6</a>; <a href='B:160 7:61'>Neh 7:61</a>; <a href='B:160 12:1'>Neh 12:1</a>). The idea of mounting up with wings as eagles also connects with Ezekiel's vision of the cherubim, mounting up from the captives by the rivers of Babylon, and returning to the land. But the reality was as in <a href='B:160 4:10'>Neh 4:10</a>: “And Judah said, The strength of the bearers of burdens is decayed, and there is much rubbish; so that we are not able to build the wall”. Examination of the context shows that they had just had plenty of strength; they lost physical stamina because of their spiritual weakness.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Phinehas, Gershom. Of the sons of Ithamar, Daniel. Of the sons of David, Hattush- We wonder of course why these priests hadn't returned with Zerubbabel. We noted on Ezra 2 that there were so few priests who returned then. It would appear that Ezra had been a good scribe or teacher / proclaimer of the law, and now more priests were willing to return. We also note that the names used here have more reference in them to the name of Yahweh, either as suffix or prefix. It's amazing what one man can do in reviving a community, and Ezra seems to have been an example. But whilst this return of the Aaronic priests may seem commendable, it was a tacit act of disobedience to the commandment that only the Zadokites should serve in the new temple (<a href='B:330 43:19'>Eze 43:19</a>; <a href='B:330 45:15'>Eze 45:15</a>). And thereby the possibility of the Kingdom being reestablished as planned was precluded. It seems Ezra had not paid attention to the prophecies of the restoration and was fixated upon obedience to the letter of the old covenant, which was now intended to be obsolete.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Shecaniah, of the sons of Parosh, Zechariah; and with him were reckoned by genealogy of the males one hundred and fifty- According to <a href='B:130 3:22'>1Ch 3:22</a>, we should read this as meaning "Hattush the son of Shecaniah". This would make him the great-great-grandson of Zerubbabel.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Pahathmoab, Eliehoenai the son of Zerahiah; and with him two hundred males- The family of Pahathmoab also features in those who returned under Zerubbabel (<a href='B:150 2:6'>Ezr 2:6</a>) and were later noted for their work in rebuilding the walls (<a href='B:160 3:11'>Neh 3:11</a>). And yet the founder of this family apparently had Gentile connections- "the pit of Moab". It is tempting to see a connection with the incident in <a href='B:130 11:22'>1Ch 11:22</a>, when one of David’s mighty men slew two lionlike men of Moab along with a lion- in a pit. Perhaps this was name arose from a desire to imitate that great act of faith.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Shecaniah, the son of Jahaziel; and with him three hundred males- LXX "Of the sons of Zattu, Shechaniah, the son of Jahaziel"; this may be the Zattu of <a href='B:150 2:8'>Ezr 2:8</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Adin, Ebed the son of Jonathan; and with him fifty males- The numbers are embarrassingly small, given the presence of around 1 million Jews in the empire (see on <a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>); and therefore the uninspired, apocryphal record tends to always exaggerate the numbers. In this case, 50 is exaggerated to 250 in 1 Esdras.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Elam, Jeshaiah the son of Athaliah; and with him seventy males- Athaliah may be a female name. This unusual mention of a woman in the genealogies could be because she had a particular spiritual influence upon her family.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Shephatiah, Zebadiah the son of Michael; and with him eighty males- Shephatiah was also a family who had partially returned under Zerubbabel (<a href='B:150 2:4'>Ezr 2:4</a>). Out of the 1 million or so Jews in Babylon (see on <a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>), it seems that the interest in the things of the restored Kingdom was confined to only a few families; for instead of as it were fresh blood being converted to the cause by Ezra, those he persuaded to accompany him were largely from families who had already partially returned to the land.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Joab, Obadiah the son of Jehiel; and with him two hundred and eighteen males- This is the Joab of <a href='B:150 2:6'>Ezr 2:6</a>, some of whose family members had already returned under Zerubbabel. As noted on :8, those who returned with Ezra were generally not 'fresh blood' but relatives of those already in Judah; their motives may therefore have been mixed, between a desire for family reunification and yet also a wish to serve God in response to His word.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Shelomith, the son of Josiphiah; and with him one hundred and sixty male- LXX "Of the sons of Bani, Shelomith, the son of Josiphiah." Bani appears as the head of a family in <a href='B:150 2:10'>Ezr 2:10</a>. See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Bebai, Zechariah the son of Bebai; and with him twenty-eight males- Again, this was a family which had already partially emigrated to Judah (<a href='B:150 2:11'>Ezr 2:11</a>); see on :8,9.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Azgad, Johanan the son of Hakkatan; and with him one hundred and ten males- Again, this was a family which had already partially emigrated to Judah (<a href='B:150 2:12'>Ezr 2:12</a>); see on :8,9.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Adonikam, who were the last; and these are their names: Eliphelet, Jeuel, and Shemaiah; and with them sixty males- "The last" may refer to how the other family members had returned with Zerubbabel at the 'first' return.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Bigvai, Uthai and Zabbud; and with them seventy males- The total comes to 1496 males; even if we multiply this several times over to get the total number of Jews who returned with Ezra, the number still isn't that great. The response to the call to flee Babylon and reestablish God’s Kingdom in Israel was still pathetically small, considering there were around 1 million Jews in the Babylonian empire (see on <a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>I gathered them together to the river that runs to Ahava; and there we encamped three days: and I viewed the people and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi- <a href='B:150 2:42'>Ezr 2:42</a> records a very small number for the families of the gate keepers. The number of ordinary Levites compared to priests is very low in Ezra 2 (4289 priests, and 341 priestly workers and 74 Levites). There were far more Levites than there were priests, but it seems the Levites didn’t want to return and do the dirty work; everyone wanted to be religious leaders. Hence Ezra's problem in finding Levites to return (<a href='B:150 8:15'>Ezr 8:15</a>). We can note that it was this tension between Levites and priests which resulted in Korah's rebellion (<a href='B:40 16:1-10'>Num 16:1-10</a>). See on :24.</p>


text:
<p>Then sent I for Eliezer, for Ariel, for Shemaiah, and for Elnathan, and for Jarib, and for Elnathan, and for Nathan, and for Zechariah, and for Meshullam, chief men; also for Joiarib, and for Elnathan, who were teachers- The Hebrew confusion of understanding and teaching is brought out by comparing the AV and RV of <a href='B:150 8:16'>Ezr 8:16</a>: “Men of understanding” (AV), “which were teachers” (RV). To have true understanding is axiomatically to teach it. We can’t hold it passively within ourselves.</p>


text:
<p>I sent them forth to Iddo the chief at the place Casiphia; and I told them what they should tell Iddo, and his brothers the Nethinim, at the place Casiphia, that they should bring to us ministers for the house of our God- The LXX implies Ezra was so desperate that he used a financial incentive to get some Levites to respond: "And I forwarded them to the rulers with the money of the place, and I put words in their mouth to speak to their brethren the Athinim with the money of the place". But for all that, only 38 Levite men responded (:18,19).</p>


text:
<p>According to the good hand of our God on us they brought us a man of discretion, of the sons of Mahli, the son of Levi, the son of Israel; and Sherebiah, with his sons and his brothers, eighteen- Those who returned did so because of God’s hand upon them; even if only 18 Levites and then 20 (:19) responded, this was the result of God’s hand working as it were at the very last minute. And yet according to the LXX of :17 (see note there), their motives must have been very mixed; they had not intended to return, and were only persuaded by a last minute offer of money.</p>


text:
<p>and Hashabiah, and with him Jeshaiah of the sons of Merari, his brothers and their sons, twenty- The numbers of Levites are again pathetically small. Far more priests than Levites wanted to return. The idea of doing humble service wasn't attractive; see on :15,24. And so it has always been; to find real 'workers' for the Kingdom has always been difficult. And yet no matter how small the numbers, God works through them.</p>


text:
<p>and of the Nethinim, whom David and the princes had given for the service of the Levites, two hundred and twenty Nethinim: all of them were mentioned by name- The Nethinim were grouped beneath the Levites but above "the servants of Solomon" (<a href='B:150 2:43'>Ezr 2:43</a>; <a href='B:150 2:55'>Ezr 2:55</a>). "Nethinim" is literally 'those who are given' and many presume they were originally the Gibeonites, who were 'given' by Joshua to the Levites to do their more menial work (<a href='B:60 9:3-27'>Jos 9:3-27</a>). Whenever Gentiles were captured in war, some of them would have been devoted to Yahweh in that they were given to His service through joining the Nethinim (<a href='B:40 31:28'>Num 31:28</a>). Thus here in <a href='B:150 8:20'>Ezr 8:20</a> we find&nbsp; mention of some "whom David and the princes had given for the service of the Levites".</p>


text:
<p>Then I proclaimed a fast there, at the river Ahava, that we might humble ourselves before our God, to seek of Him a straight way for us, and for our little ones, and for all our substance- <a href='B:300 31:9'>Jer 31:9</a> had prophesied of the restoration: “They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble”. A straight way back to Zion had been prepared potentially for them to walk in (<a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a>). Likewise <a href='B:290 63:13'>Isa 63:13</a> reminded the returnees that when they had been led through the wilderness to Canaan under Moses, they did not stumble [s:w:]. But both Ezra and Nehemiah wanted to have a Babylonian military escort on the journey back; they weren’t sure that they would be given “a straight way” with Yahweh’s protection. <a href='B:160 4:10'>Neh 4:10</a> records that “Judah said, The strength of the bearers of burdens is decayed [s:w. “stumble”, <a href='B:300 31:9'>Jer 31:9</a>], and there is much rubbish; so that we are not able to build the wall”. They were easily discouraged by the words of the surrounding world, by the apparent hopelessness of their task; and thus they stumbled. <a href='B:150 8:21'>Ezr 8:21</a> describes how Ezra fasted for them to be given a “straight way”, as Jeremiah had foretold they could have. He saw the need for them to make the effort to fulfill the prophecy. Note how Ezekiel’s vision of the cherubim featured “straight” progress; the wheels on earth surely connect with how Israel should have been, moving in a straight way back to the land, in harmony with the Angel-cherubim above them likewise moving in a straight way. But they failed to “keep in step with the Spirit”... They were to walk “each one straight before him” (<a href='B:290 57:2'>Isa 57:2</a> RVmg:), as each of the cherubim went straight ahead (<a href='B:330 1:12'>Eze 1:12</a>). <a href='B:230 107:2'>Psa 107:2</a>; <a href='B:230 107:7'>Psa 107:7</a> RV speak of Israel being gathered out of the nations and being led in a “straight way” to Zion, as they had [potentially] been enabled to do on their departure from Egypt. Yet then they spent 38 years walking a distance coverable in just 11 days- because they did not walk in the “straight way”.</p><p>The return of the exiles led by Ezra made the journey by a "right way" from Babylon to Zion (<a href='B:150 8:21'>Ezr 8:21</a>). Yet this is the very word used about the "straight" feet of the Cherubim Angels in <a href='B:330 1:7'>Eze 1:7</a>; <a href='B:330 1:23'>Eze 1:23</a>. The return from Babylon involved following in the path of the Angels, walking in step with them. The restoration prophecy of <a href='B:300 31:9'>Jer 31:9</a> spoke of how the returnees would walk "in a straight way" (s:w:) "by the rivers of waters"- and surely Ezra consciously alluded to this when by the river Ahava he fasted for the exiles to return in a "right / straight way". He knew that these prophecies of restoration would not just automatically come true- they had to be fulfilled by much prayer, fasting and stepping out in faith. But so very few perceived that. And the challenge remains for us today- to walk in the way which God’s Angels have potentially prepared for us, with prayer and boldness. I feel this is especially true in the matter of latter day witnessing. See on <a href='B:290 52:8'>Isa 52:8</a>.</p>


text:
<p>For I was ashamed to ask of the king a band of soldiers and horsemen to help us against the enemy in the way, because we had spoken to the king saying, The hand of our God is on all those who seek Him for good; but His power and His wrath is against all those who forsake Him- Josephus claims that the treasure annually remitted to Jerusalem from Babylon in Roman times was escorted by an army of 20,000 men. So to travel without any soldiers for defence was a truly brave and faithful undertaking. Indeed, Ezra seems to reason that to accept such human strength would be to "forsake Him". To not trust in God, to hedge our bets, as it were, is portrayed here as forsaking Him.</p><p>Ezra was ashamed to ask for help against Judah’s enemies, the implication being that he wanted that human help but was ashamed to ask for it from the King. He had initially believed those words of Isaiah, but found it hard to maintain that level of faith. But they should have had faith in the restoration prophecy’s promise: “Fear not ... I will help you” (<a href='B:290 41:10'>Isa 41:10</a>). Yahweh had promised support for them if they returned to the land; He would preserve them on the way. Consider <a href='B:290 50:10'>Isa 50:10</a>: “Who is among you that feareth the LORD, that obeyeth the voice [s:w. Ezra 1 :1 re the proclamation of Cyrus] of his servant [i:e. Cyrus, <a href='B:290 45:1'>Isa 45:1</a>], that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the LORD, and stay upon his God”. Yet Ezra was ashamed to ask the king for soldiers to guard them on the journey only because he had earlier told the king that Yahweh would be with them (<a href='B:150 8:22'>Ezr 8:22</a>), as if he really did want the support but was ashamed to ask for it. He disallowed Isaiah’s prophesy that the restored Israel would never be ashamed [s:w. <a href='B:150 8:22'>Ezr 8:22</a>; <a href='B:150 9:6'>Ezr 9:6</a>] nor confounded (<a href='B:290 45:17'>Isa 45:17</a>; <a href='B:290 49:23'>Isa 49:23</a>; <a href='B:290 54:4'>Isa 54:4</a>). Nehemiah accepted such support when he came up from Babylon (<a href='B:160 2:9'>Neh 2:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>So we fasted and begged our God for this: and He was entreated of us- This is Ezra writing up the incident after having reached Judah safely.</p>


text:
<p>Then I set apart twelve of the chiefs of the priests, even Sherebiah, Hashabiah, and ten of their brothers with them- LXX "And I assigned of the chiefs of the priests twelve unto Sherebiah". This would place the priests in a subordinate position to the Levites. Perhaps this was intentional, because Ezra had been disturbed at the lack of Levites amongst them, as likewise was the case in Ezra 2. There were many who wanted the glory of priesthood, but very few prepared to do the humble work of service. And he therefore exalts those humble workers. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>and weighed to them the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, even the offering for the house of our God, which the king, and his counsellors, and his princes, and all Israel there present, had offered- "There present" is literally "that were found", as if out of the huge Jewish population in Babylon, these were the only ones found present:&nbsp; <a href='B:330 40:42'>Eze 40:42</a> speaks of the vessels to be used in the temple [AV “instruments”] with the same word used for the temple vessels which were brought up out of Babylon back to Judah, in fulfilment of several of Isaiah’s ‘Kingdom’ passages (<a href='B:150 1:6-11'>Ezr 1:6-11</a>; <a href='B:150 8:25-33'>Ezr 8:25-33</a> cp. <a href='B:290 52:11'>Isa 52:11</a>; <a href='B:290 66:20'>Isa 66:20</a>). The restoration of the kingdom could potentially have happened at the time of Ezra. But Ezra didn’t take this potential forward, for he neglected the commands in Ezekiel to only use Zadokite priests, and he was obsessed with keeping the law of Moses, the old covenant, rather than accepting the new covenant and the new, non-Mosaic worship system of Ezekiel 40-48.</p>


text:
<p>I weighed into their hand six hundred fifty talents of silver, and silver vessels one hundred talents; of gold one hundred talents- The total value of all this is huge. I don't believe the figures are exaggerated; it is simply so psychologically credible and true to experience that when a majority refuse to respond to God’s call as required, they are eager to donate wealth, as if to as it were buy themselves out of their personal responsibilities.</p>


text:
<p>and twenty bowls of gold, of one thousand darics; and two vessels of fine bright brass, precious as gold- The total value of all this would probably have worked out at something like 130 million British pounds as of 2018. To carry all this in cash without military escort, and to arrive with it all safely after a four month journey through Bedouin and robber infested territory, was an amazing miracle.</p>


text:
<p>I said to them, You are holy to Yahweh, and the vessels are holy; and the silver and the gold are a freewill offering to Yahweh, the God of your fathers- Ezra perceived a parallel between the vessels and those who carried them. Paul uses this same idea, describing all believers as a vessel made holy to the Lord (<a href='B:590 4:4'>1Th 4:4</a>; <a href='B:620 2:21'>2Ti 2:21</a>). Perhaps his allusion recognizes that the situation at the restoration didn’t come about as was prophetically possible, and has now been reinterpreted with reference to God’s new people and their spiritual work in the spiritual house of God today.</p>


text:
<p>Guard and keep them, until you weigh them before the chiefs of the priests and the Levites, and the princes of the fathers’ households of Israel, at Jerusalem, in the rooms of the house of Yahweh- "Guard" is Heb. 'keep awake'. To remain awake and keep that committed unto us is very much New Testament language (e.g. <a href='B:610 6:20'>1Ti 6:20</a>; <a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a>) for our keeping of that which is committed to our trust until we arrive at Zion, the future Kingdom of God, when there will be the day of judgment, cp. the weighing of the vessels to ensure those carrying them had preserved them. Again, these allusions recognize that the situation at the restoration didn’t come about as was prophetically possible, and has now been reinterpreted with reference to God’s new people and their spiritual work in the spiritual house of God today.</p>


text:
<p>So the priests and the Levites received the weight of the silver and the gold, and the vessels, to bring them to Jerusalem to the house of our God- We note how the priests and Levites were given equal responsibility in transporting this vast wealth. Ezra had been disturbed at the lack of Levites amongst them, as likewise was the case in Ezra 2. There were many who wanted the glory of priesthood, but very few prepared to do the humble work of service. And he therefore exalts those humble workers. See on :15,24,33.</p>


text:
<p>Then we departed from the river Ahava on the twelfth day of the first month, to go to Jerusalem: and the hand of our God was on us, and He delivered us from the hand of the enemy and the bandit by the way- This was no small miracle, carrying such a huge amount of wealth in cash with no military escort. See on :32. The text implies there were indeed enemies and bandits by the way, but the hand of God was greater than "the hand of the enemy". This was to encourage them upon settling in Judah that the hand of their enemies would never be greater than God’s hand- if they allowed Him to act and humbled themselves beneath that hand.</p>


text:
<p>We came to Jerusalem, and stayed there three days- This was the result of God’s "hand" upon them (:31). When Nehemiah speaks of them having been redeemed by Yahweh’s “strong hand” (<a href='B:160 1:10'>Neh 1:10</a>). he is using the language of <a href='B:290 40:10'>Isa 40:10</a>, regarding how Yahweh would come to Zion and save Israel from Babylon and restore them to the land “with strong hand”. Nehemiah saw the prophecy could have been fulfilled then. The way Zerubbabel (<a href='B:150 2:2'>Ezr 2:2</a>; <a href='B:160 7:5-7'>Neh 7:5-7</a>), Ezra (<a href='B:150 7:8'>Ezr 7:8</a>; <a href='B:150 8:32'>Ezr 8:32</a>) and Nehemiah (<a href='B:160 2:11'>Neh 2:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>) are described as ‘coming to Jerusalem’ may hint that they could have fulfilled this coming of Yahweh to Zion; they could have been Messianic figures (<a href='B:160 2:11'>Neh 2:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>).</p><p>Perhaps they remained stationary for three days to praise and thank God; for they had likewise begun their journey with three days of fasting and prayer (:15). So often we forget to thank God with the same intensity with which we asked Him for help. It was this three days of praise which may have inspired Nehemiah to do likewise on arrival in Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 2:11'>Neh 2:11</a>). The Godly examples and prayer patterns of others really should affect us, and our examples likewise influence others.</p>


text:
<p>On the fourth day the silver and the gold and the vessels were weighed in the house of our God into the hand of Meremoth the son of Uriah the priest; and with him was Eleazar the son of Phinehas; and with them was Jozabad the son of Jeshua, and Noadiah the son of Binnui, the Levite- Transparency is clearly the order of the day- for I have suggested that there was over 130 million British pounds worth of gold and silver being dealt with. We note that the money was counted by two priests and two Levites. Again we see the Levites paralleled with the priests. This was a particular theme with Ezra; see on :15,24,31.</p>


text:
<p>Everything was counted and weighed: and all the weight was written at that time- I suggested above that the total value of all this would probably have worked out at something like 130 million British pounds as of 2018. To carry all this in cash without military escort, and to arrive with it all safely after a four month journey through Bedouin and robber infested territory, was an amazing miracle. It would have made the temple storerooms a place of great value.</p>


text:
<p>The children of the captivity, who had come out of exile, offered burnt offerings to the God of Israel, twelve bulls for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs and twelve male goats for a sin offering: all this was a burnt offering to Yahweh- The twelve goats implied that Israel and Judah were to be united as one at this time. This was the potential implicit in the restoration prophecies. See on <a href='B:150 6:17'>Ezr 6:17</a>. Despite all the great offering of such huge wealth, they offered sin offerings, ever aware that donation of wealth alone cannot reconcile us to God. And Ezra clearly had in mind that the community had not repented as they had been intended to. Many had returned to their land but not to their God. The way these sacrifices match those offered by Zerubbabel's group (<a href='B:150 6:17'>Ezr 6:17</a>) may have hinted that they had not devoted themselves to the work as they ought to have done.</p>


text:
<p>They delivered the king’s commissions to the king’s satraps, and to the governors beyond the River: and they furthered the people and God’s house- This support of the temple and kingdom work by leaders of the Gentiles was a small fulfilment of the restoration prophecies about this. But those prophecies featured the full reestablishment of God’s Kingdom, with these leaders themselves becoming proselytes and carrying the Jews back to their land. They were to lift up the people (s:w. "furthered") and bring them back (<a href='B:290 49:22'>Isa 49:22</a>). This just didn’t happen, because the Jews and Gentiles were not repentant, and Ezra in any case was&nbsp; seeking to only reestablish the old covenant and had little interest in accepting the new covenant, or obeying the laws of the temple system as given in Ezekiel 40-48.</p>


text:
<p>Now when these things were done- There is an intended anticlimax here, a juxtaposition of God’s amazing grace to the exiles in Ezra 8 now contrasted with their fall into sin. The same thing happens at <a href='B:510 5:1'>Act 5:1</a>, and often in the Biblical record.</p><p>The princes drew near to me saying, The people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands and are following their abominations, even those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites- See on :14; <a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a>. <a href='B:330 42:20'>Eze 42:20</a> commands for the restored Kingdom: “He measured it by the four sides: it had a wall round about, five hundred reeds long, and five hundred broad, to make a separation between the sanctuary and the profane place”. This reflected the difference between God’s people, His “sanctuary” (<a href='B:230 114:2'>Psa 114:2</a>), and the surrounding world. But Judah did not ‘separate’ themselves from the surrounding tribes but instead married them and worshipped their idols (s:w. <a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a> “The people of Israel... have not separated themselves from the people of the land, doing according to their abominations…for they have taken of their daughters for themselves”). The same word for “abominations” occurs in the same context in <a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>: “Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god”. Yet it had been emphasized that the temple system Ezekiel described was to be free of all the “abominations” [s:w:] previously committed by Israel (<a href='B:330 43:8'>Eze 43:8</a>; <a href='B:330 44:6-7'>Eze 44:6-7</a>; <a href='B:330 44:13'>Eze 44:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy seed have mixed themselves with the peoples of the lands. Yes, the hand of the princes and rulers has been chief in this trespass- These relationships and children are defined as being part of mixing with the abominations of the peoples (:1). And "abominations" always refers to idol worship. So it could be that the relationships with "their daughters" were a result of sleeping with cult prostitutes and having children thereby. There was therefore far more to what happened than simply marrying out of the faith. To 'take daughters for themselves' may not mean marriage itself, but could refer to the kind of cultic relationships which went along with idol worship at the shrines. This is why the separation from these women with whom they had had children (<a href='B:150 10:3'>Ezr 10:3</a>) would not then be quite the same as breaking up marriage and full blown family life. Israel are only specifically called "the holy seed" in <a href='B:290 6:13'>Isa 6:13</a>, where the idea was that after their experience of judgment, those who survived would be a "holy seed" who would shoot forth the Messianic "Branch" from the decaying stump of the house of David. But now the "holy seed" had corrupted themselves; for they were the minority preserved from judgment, and now they had corrupted their holiness. So the possibilities of the reestablishment of the Kingdom of God in Israel which the prophets were full of... was now precluded. They failed to see themselves and their offspring as anything so "holy" to Yahweh. This is the root of all sin- a failure to appreciate our holy standing in His eyes, our sanctification in Christ.</p>


text:
<p>When I heard this thing, I tore my garment and my robe, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down confounded- The temple still lay “waste” (<a href='B:440 1:4'>Hag 1:4</a>; <a href='B:440 1:9'>Hag 1:9</a>) just as it had lain “desolate” [s:w. <a href='B:300 33:10'>Jer 33:10</a>; <a href='B:300 33:12'>Jer 33:12</a>] after the Babylonian destruction. The ‘restoration’ was in fact not really a restoration at all, in God’s eyes. Thus Ezra sat down desolate [s:w. "confounded"] at the news of Judah’s apostasy in having children by the surrounding women; using the very same word as frequently used to describe the ‘desolate’ / 'confounded' Jerusalem that was to be rebuilt (<a href='B:150 9:3'>Ezr 9:3</a> cp. <a href='B:290 49:8'>Isa 49:8</a>; <a href='B:290 49:19'>Isa 49:19</a>; <a href='B:290 54:3'>Isa 54:3</a>; <a href='B:290 61:4'>Isa 61:4</a>). He tore his priestly garment (<a href='B:150 9:3'>Ezr 9:3</a>), as if he realized that all Ezekiel’s prophesies about those priestly garments now couldn’t come true (s:w. <a href='B:330 42:14'>Eze 42:14</a>; <a href='B:330 44:17'>Eze 44:17</a>; <a href='B:330 44:19'>Eze 44:19</a>). <a href='B:290 58:12-13'>Isa 58:12-13</a> prophesied that the acceptable rebuilding of Zion was dependent upon Judah keeping the Sabbath acceptably; and yet Nehemiah’s record makes clear their tragic abuse of the Sabbath at the time of the restoration; and this therefore meant that the rebuilding of the temple and city were not going to fulfill the Messianic prophecies about them which existed.</p><p>The Lord would have meditated upon the way righteous men had taken upon themselves the sins of their people. Thus Jeremiah speaks as if he has committed Israel's sins; Ezra rends his clothes and plucks off his hair, as if he has married out of the Faith (<a href='B:150 9:3'>Ezr 9:3</a> cp. <a href='B:160 13:25'>Neh 13:25</a>; the Lord received the same sinner's treatment, <a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a>). Moses' prayer for God to relent and let him enter the land was only rejected for the sake of his association with Israel's sins (<a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then were assembled to me all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the transgression of those that had been carried away; and I sat confounded until the evening offering- See on :7. The double reference in <a href='B:290 66:1-5'>Isa 66:1-5</a> to trembling at Yahweh’s word is a definite prediction of the situation in <a href='B:150 9:4'>Ezr 9:4</a>; <a href='B:150 10:3'>Ezr 10:3</a>, where the same rare Hebrew word is used regarding how those of the exiles who repented for their marriage out of the Faith trembled before the word in repentance. Then, at that point, the Kingdom blessings could have been brought about, as described in the rest of Isaiah 66. But again, there was no staying power in their repentance. By Nehemiah’s time, and by Malachi’s time even after his, marriage out of the Faith was still their weakness. </p><p>I have argued on Is. 56:4 that actually the better response would have been not to divorce those women, but to lead them into covenant with Israel's God. For Isaiah 56 offers a place amongst God's people to Gentiles and eunuchs, those previously excluded. So these who trembled at God's word responded to the word, but in a less than ideal way. Still God was thrilled with them.</p>


text:
<p>At the evening offering I arose up from my humiliation, even with my garment and my robe torn; and I fell on my knees, and spread out my hands to Yahweh my God- "Rose up / arose" is a word used often of the 'rising up' of the exiles to rebuild Jerusalem (<a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 3:2'>Ezr 3:2</a>; <a href='B:150 9:5'>Ezr 9:5</a>; <a href='B:160 2:18'>Neh 2:18</a>; <a href='B:160 3:1'>Neh 3:1</a>). This was a fulfilment of the command to "Arise... Jerusalem!" (<a href='B:290 51:17'>Isa 51:17</a>; <a href='B:290 52:2'>Isa 52:2</a>; <a href='B:290 61:4'>Isa 61:4</a>). Perhaps Ezra was motivated by these prophecies to now "arise", hoping that somehow his people would still be raised up. But this 'arising' was to be associated with the dawning of Zion's light in the form of Yahweh's glory literally dwelling over Zion (<a href='B:290 60:1'>Isa 60:1</a>). This didn’t happen at the time, because the appearance of 'arising' by the exiles was only external and wasn't matched by a spiritual revival. Ezra was driven to appeal to God directly and solely from himself with his priestly garments now in ruins. I have noted earlier that his focus upon teaching the law of Moses was rather missing the point- that the old covenant had been broken by Judah, and they could only throw themselves upon the grace of the new covenant.</p>


text:
<p>and I said, My God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to You, my God; for our iniquities have increased over our head, and our guiltiness has grown up to the heavens- The description of Ezekiel's Temple was to be given to the captives in Babylon by Ezekiel, to lead them to repentance and to assure them of what could be if they repented. Then when the invitation to leave Babylon and return came in the time of Ezra, they ought to have been motivated to return to the land and build the temple which Ezekiel had explained to them. But sadly most of them weren’t very deeply motivated at all; they wanted to build a temple, but not to the extent Ezekiel had outlined. Consider in this light <a href='B:330 43:10-11'>Eze 43:10-11</a>: “Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them”. Then, when the temple was built, they were to be obedient in all the ways in which they hadn’t been obedient in the past, with the result that they were now sitting in captivity (E. 44:24). This was the tragedy felt by Ezra, when he realized the exiles were not living as they should be: “O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God; for our iniquities are increased” (<a href='B:150 9:6'>Ezr 9:6</a>). Israel would only be able to build the temple properly if they were “ashamed of their iniquities” (<a href='B:330 43:10'>Eze 43:10</a>). And Ezra knew they weren’t. And thus he sought to take upon himself that shame, believing that God would accept his shame on behalf of the people. Note in passing how he speaks of blushing before God. You only blush in someone’s presence. And this was how close and real Ezra felt his God to be:&nbsp; Perhaps this repentance of a remnant explains why in fact the record of Ezekiel's temple was written down at all- for <a href='B:330 43:11'>Eze 43:11</a> seems to say that it would be written down if Judah were ashamed of their sins. Ezekiel's opening chapters record him being forewarned by God that they would not generally be responsive to his ministry; and yet some were, like Ezra, and maybe this was eagerly seized upon by God as the basis for allowing the writing down and preservation of the specifications we have in Ezekiel 40-48.</p><p>Isaiah 45 is as clear a prophecy as any could wish. God categorically stated that Cyrus would be raised up by Him in order to release the captives in Babylon, and to enable the building of Jerusalem (<a href='B:290 45:12'>Isa 45:12</a>); all because God had formed the land [AV “earth”] of Israel to be inhabited and not to be left without His people dwelling upon it. And this happened; the captives were released (although most preferred to stay put in Babylon), and the building of Jerusalem was enabled (although the work was not done very enthusiastically by Judah, and they preferred to build their own houses rather than Yahweh’s). But the prophecy goes on in <a href='B:290 45:13-17'>Isa 45:13-17</a>: “I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts. Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God…They shall be ashamed, and also confounded, all of them: they shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols. But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end”. But the Egyptians and Ethiopians didn’t come and fall down before Judah, as the Queen of Sheba had before Solomon. Nor did they accept Yahweh as the only God, and ditch their idols. Instead, the returned Jews worshipped the idols of Egypt, and married their women (<a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a>). And thus Israel were ashamed and confounded in the future. The same Hebrew words for “ashamed [and] confounded” occur in <a href='B:150 9:6'>Ezr 9:6</a>, where as a result of Ezra realizing that Judah had married the local women and broken covenant with Yahweh, he admits: “I am ashamed and blush [s:w. ‘confounded’] to lift up my face to thee, my God: for our iniquities are increased….". The words of Isaiah 45 could have had their fulfilment in the time of Cyrus; the surrounding nations could have come and worshipped before Judah, and the whole earth quit their idols and look unto Yahweh as a just God and a saviour. But Judah would not. Judah in the new temple would not “defile” Yahweh’s Name any more (<a href='B:330 43:7-8'>Eze 43:7-8</a>); but they were lazy to keep the uncleanness laws, they did defile Yahweh by touching dead bodied and then offering the sacrifices (<a href='B:440 2:13-14'>Hag 2:13-14</a> s:w:), just as Israel previously had been defiled by touching the dead bodies of their kings and then offering sacrifices (<a href='B:330 43:7'>Eze 43:7</a>); but now, Judah thought they were above God’s law, and therefore did exactly the same things which had caused the temple to be destroyed in the first place. The promise that Yahweh would dwell in the new temple was conditional on them not touching dead bodies (<a href='B:330 43:9'>Eze 43:9</a>); but <a href='B:440 2:13'>Hag 2:13</a> makes it apparent that they did this very thing at the time of the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>Since the days of our fathers we have been exceeding guilty to this day; and for our iniquities we, our kings and our priests, have been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plunder and to confusion of face, as it is this day- The sins of those who returned are styled "the transgression of those that had been carried away" (<a href='B:150 9:4'>Ezr 9:4</a>). Yet those who returned to the land weren't mainly the generation who had been carried away. The intended confusion is surely to suggest that those who returned committed the same sins as had led Judah into captivity a generation earlier. And Ezra comments on this fact here in his subsequent prayer. He feels shame of face just as his people did.</p>


text:
<p>Now for a little moment grace has been shown from Yahweh our God, to leave us a remnant to escape- See on :13. Ezra saw that “little moment" or "space” as a time when they received grace; he understood the prophecy of the figs in Jeremiah 24, that it was only through the captivity and the fact God had graciously not destroyed them but rather preserved them there, that there was the opportunity for a remnant to re-establish the Kingdom. What may appear to some as forsaking is in fact God’s grace to us, when spiritually discerned- whether it be deep within our own lives, or in the state of affairs upon this planet. Yet it should be noted that the prophecy of <a href='B:300 24:6-7'>Jer 24:6-7</a> about the good figs seems not to have come true at the restoration- although it could potentially have done so.</p><p>And to give us a nail in His holy place- I submit that the Messianic prophecies of the restoration prophets could have had their fulfilment in Joshua the High Priest and Zerubbabel, or some other Messianic figure at that time. Everything was made possible to enable this- Joshua, who couldn’t prove his Levitical genealogy, was given “a place of access” amongst the priesthood, those who “stood” before the Lord (<a href='B:450 3:7'>Zec 3:7</a> RV). Ezra thanked God that they had returned and that they had “a nail in his holy place” (<a href='B:150 9:8'>Ezr 9:8</a>), a reference surely to a Messiah figure whom he felt to be among them, the “nail in a sure place” of <a href='B:290 22:23'>Isa 22:23</a>. According to <a href='B:470 1:12'>Mat 1:12</a> and <a href='B:490 3:27'>Luk 3:27</a>, Zerubbabel was the Prince of Judah, and the rightful heir to David’s throne. But due to his weakness, the fulfilment was deferred to Jesus.</p><p>The sense of the Hebrew seems to be as GNB "you have been gracious to us and have let some of us escape from slavery and live in safety in this holy place". LXX "to give us an establishment in the place of his sanctuary". Ezra's focus was on the return of the people to the temple, to the holy place; whereas clearly enough, the desire of the majority was to get land for their own farms and houses outside of Jerusalem.</p><p>That our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage- Blindness had been their punishment for not wanting to see; and despite little evidence that they did want to see, God was trying to open their eyes all the same, and to give them revival, new life, in bondage. For they were still in bondage to the Persians and were not independent of them. But they had spurned all that huge grace.</p>


text:
<p>For we are bondservants; yet our God has not forsaken us in our bondage- Although the Apocryphal book of Baruch isn’t inspired, it gives a significant window into the mindset of the exiles in Babylon. Bar_1:10 mentions how the attitude was that the majority wanted to send funds to support the ‘good work’ going on in Judah- but didn’t want to return there themselves. Like the book of Esther, this indicates that the exiles had soon quit languishing by the rivers of Babylon, and had quickly acquired wealth and some degree of prosperity. Inspired prophecies had warned them of the fall of Babylon, and their need to flee out of it and return to Judah. And yet Bar_1:12 records the exiles praying “that we may live long under the protective shadow of [the] king of Babylon”. This is in sad contrast to Daniel’s prophecies that the sheltering tree of Babylon was to be cut down! There ought to have been an urgency about the need to flee from Babylon. <a href='B:450 2:10'>Zec 2:10</a> speaks of the need to "flee" and "escape"- the language of crisis. And the call "Ho!" means quite literally "Hey!!". The urgency to flee was spiritual rather than physical- for there's no evidence that when Babylon fell to the Persians, the Jews were punished. Indeed they appear [from Esther] to have prospered even more. Hence the urgent appeal was to flee from the spiritual crisis which they faced in Babylon. And yet they didn’t perceive the danger, just as so many today don't. For the call to leave Babylon is applied in New Testament passages like 2 Corinthians 6 to our call to leave the world in which we live. The urgency of 'fleeing' from Babylon was understood by Nehemiah, when he referred to those who had returned to the land as those who has "escaped" from Babylon (<a href='B:160 1:2'>Neh 1:2</a>)- even though they had returned with every blessing from the authorities. He perceived as few did the vital danger of remaining in the soft life of Babylon. Ezra likewise had referred to the Jews in Babylon as those "in bondage... bondmen" (<a href='B:150 9:9'>Ezr 9:9</a>)- when historical records, as well as the book of Esther and the fact Nehemiah the Jew was the king's cupbearer, show that the Jews were very far from being servants in Babylonian society. Yet Ezra perceived the spiritual poverty and servanthood of remaining in that affluent society.</p><p>But has extended loving kindness to us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, to repair its ruins- "To give us a reviving" uses the same word for "put" when we read of God putting a new heart and spirit in His revived people if they entered the new covenant at the restoration: “And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you” (<a href='B:330 36:27-29'>Eze 36:27-29</a>). They revived the stones out of the heaps (<a href='B:160 4:2'>Neh 4:2</a>). A new spirit was potentially given to them, God put in the heart of men like Nehemiah to revive the work (<a href='B:160 2:12'>Neh 2:12</a> s:w:). But this didn’t force them to be obedient. They chose not to be.</p><p>Ezekiel 37 had its primary fulfilment in the return under Ezra. Then, Israel was given “a quickening” (<a href='B:150 9:9'>Ezr 9:9</a> LXX), in fulfilment of how the dry bones in captivity were revived. At that time, Judah could have fully revived. But most of them chose to stay in Babylon. If there had been a full revival, then the events of Ezekiel 38, 39 would have taken place. It has been suggested that there was a&nbsp; primary fulfilment of Ezekiel 38/9 in an unrecorded invasion of the land at the time of the restoration. However, historical evidence for this is severely lacking . And yet the Scythian tribes such as Magog, Gomer, Meshech, Tubal etc. are all recorded as being the scourge of the Middle East at that time. They were marauding into more prosperous areas “to take a spoil”, especially “cattle and goods”, at around Ezekiel’s time. They could so easily have turned their attentions toward Israel. That invasion could have happened; but it didn’t:&nbsp; But because Israel were not faithful the temple was not built properly, and therefore the Ezekiel 38 invasion didn’t happen, and therefore Yahweh’s intervention and establishment of His Kingdom as described in Ezekiel 39 didn’t occur.</p><p>And to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem- <a href='B:450 2:4'>Zec 2:4</a> had foretold that “Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein”, seeing that Yahweh Himself would be as a wall of fire around her to protect her from her adversaries (Ezra had recognized this promise, that God would be a wall to them- <a href='B:150 9:9'>Ezr 9:9</a>). Note how this prophecy is introduced by an Angel with a measuring reed measuring out the rebuilt Zion (<a href='B:450 2:1'>Zec 2:1</a>), just as we have in Ezekiel 40. But Judah disbelieved the promise of a Divine wall of fire, and insisted on building a physical wall to protect them; and the record in Nehemiah has plenty of reference to their setting up of bars and gates in their fear (<a href='B:160 3:3'>Neh 3:3</a>; <a href='B:160 3:6'>Neh 3:6</a>; <a href='B:160 3:13-15'>Neh 3:13-15</a>). By doing so they disallowed the fulfilment of <a href='B:330 38:11'>Eze 38:11</a>, and thereby precluded what was prophesied as subsequently following. If they had trusted Him and paid their tithes, their cattle would have multiplied, and the Scythian tribes would have come down to seek to take them, as <a href='B:330 38:12-13'>Eze 38:12-13</a> foretold. But as it happened, their cattle were diseased and their agriculture not blessed because of their dilatory attention to Yahweh’s house that lay waste (<a href='B:440 1:11'>Hag 1:11</a>). So therefore there was no invasion, and no victory against the nations, and no Kingdom established at that time.</p>


text:
<p>Now, our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken Your commandments- Again we note Ezra's total identity with his sinful people. This is proof enough that there is no "guilt by association" as believed by so many groups. Rather there is to be the very opposite- freewill association of ourselves with the guilt of sinners, that we might thereby appeal to them and intercede for them. And this was in fact the very basis of our redemption through the work of the Lord Jesus.</p>


