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, and who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, everyone to his city; who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel:
The children of Parosh, two thousand one hundred seventy-two. The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy-two. The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy-five. The children of Pahathmoab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred twelve. The children of Elam, one thousand two hundred fifty-four. The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty-five. The children of Zaccai, seven hundred sixty. The children of Bani, six hundred forty-two. The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty-three. The children of Azgad, one thousand two hundred twenty-two. The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty-six. The children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty-six. The children of Adin, four hundred fifty-four. The children of Ater, of Hezekiah, ninety-eight. The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty-three. The children of Jorah, one hundred twelve. The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty-three. The children of Gibbar, ninety-five. The children of Bethlehem, one hundred twenty-three. The men of Netophah, fifty-six. The men of Anathoth, one hundred twenty-eight. The children of Azmaveth, forty-two. The children of Kiriath Arim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred forty-three. The children of Ramah and Geba, six hundred twenty-one. The men of Michmas, one hundred twenty-two. The men of Bethel and Ai, two hundred twenty-three. The children of Nebo, fifty-two. The children of Magbish, one hundred fifty-six. The children of the other Elam, one thousand two hundred fifty-four. The children of Harim, three hundred twenty. The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred twenty-five. The children of Jericho, three hundred forty-five. The children of Senaah, three thousand six hundred thirty.
The priests: the children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred seventy-three. The children of Immer, one thousand fifty-two. The children of Pashhur, one thousand two hundred forty-seven. The children of Harim, one thousand seventeen.
The Levites: the children of Jeshua and Kadmiel, of the children of Hodaviah, seventy-four. The singers: the children of Asaph, one hundred twenty-eight. The children of the gatekeepers: 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 thirty-nine.
The temple servants: the children of Ziha, the children of Hasupha, the children of Tabbaoth, the children of Keros, the children of Siaha, the children of Padon, the children of Lebanah, the children of Hagabah, the children of Akkub, the children of Hagab, the children of Shamlai, the children of Hanan, the children of Giddel, the children of Gahar, the children of Reaiah, the children of Rezin, the children of Nekoda, the children of Gazzam, the children of Uzza, the children of Paseah, the children of Besai, the children of Asnah, the children of Meunim, the children of Nephisim, the children of Bakbuk, the children of Hakupha, the children of Harhur, the children of Bazluth, the children of Mehida, the children of Harsha, the children of Barkos, the children of Sisera, the children of Temah, the children of Neziah, the children of Hatipha.
The children of Solomon’s servants: the children of Sotai, the children of Hassophereth, the children of Peruda, the children of Jaalah, the children of Darkon, the children of Giddel, the children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, the children of Pochereth Hazzebaim, the children of Ami. All the temple servants, and the children of Solomon’s servants, were three hundred ninety-two.
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 offspring, whether they were of Israel: the children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty-two. Of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz, and the children of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name. These sought their place among those who were registered by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they deemed disqualified and removed from the priesthood. The governor told them that they should not eat of the most holy things until a priest stood up to serve with Urim and with Thummim.
The whole assembly together was forty-two thousand three hundred sixty, in addition to their male servants and their female servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty-seven; and they had two hundred singing men and singing women. Their horses were seven hundred thirty-six; their mules, two hundred forty-five; their camels, four hundred thirty-five; their donkeys, six thousand seven hundred twenty.
Some of the heads of fathers’ households, when they came to Yahweh’s house which is in Jerusalem, offered willingly for God’s house to set it up in its place. They gave according to their ability into the treasury of the work sixty-one thousand darics of gold, and five thousand minas of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments.
So the priests and the Levites, with some of the people, the singers, the gatekeepers, and the temple servants, lived in their cities, and all Israel in their cities.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 6, 16, 21, 36, 43, 55, 61, 63, 69 Meaning, Judea, which was a province, that is, a…
Meaning, Judea, which was a province, that is, a country which was in subjection.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 43, 55, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70 Ezr 2:1 Now these [are] the children of the…
Ezr 2:1 Now these [are] the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;
Ver. 1. Now these are the children of the province] That is, of Judaea, now a province, though formerly a princess; now solitary and tributary that was once populous and great among the nations, Lam 1:1. Medinah, the word here rendered province, sometimes signifieth Metropolis, aliis ius dicens, a place that giveth laws to other places, and so Judaea in her flourish had been. See Ezr 4:20. But now it was otherwise, and so it is at this day, not only with Judaea, but with other renowned empires and kingdoms not a few, all which (together with most of those Churches and places so much mentioned in Scripture) are swallowed up in, the greatness of Turkish Empire. That Medina, a city in Arabia (where Mahomet lieth buried, and where his sepulchre is no less visited than is Christ’s sepulchre at Jerusalem), holdeth this Medina in hard subjection; making her children pay for the very heads they wear; and so grievously afflicting them, that they have cause enough to take up anew Jeremiah’s elegy over their doleful captivity.
Read full note →
That went up out of the captivity] That lifted themselves in Babylon, to go up. Which if any failed to do (as by comparing Ezr 2:5 of this chapter with Neh 7:10, it appeareth some did), it was because either they changed their minds or their lives before they came there. When that noble Marquis Galeacius Caracciolus set forward for Geneva, some of his most familiar friends promised and vowed to accompany him there (His Life by Crashaw); but various of them, when they came to the borders of Italy, turned back again, &c.; and so might many of these engagers, magis amantes mundi delicias, quam Christi divitias, et graviorem ducentes iacturam regionis, quam religionis.
Which had been carried away] But had God’s promise that they should return, be built up, planted, and not rooted out, Jer 24:6, and his command to marry and beget children, Jer 29:6, which should inherit the promises: for they are good surehold.
Whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon] That Metus Orbis, et Flagellum Dei, as Attilas, king of Huns, proudly styled himself, that is, the terror of the world, and scourge in God’s hand. See Isa 10:5. That Ira Dei et Orbis Vastitas as Tamerlane loved to be called: The wrath of God and ruin of the world (Bucholc.).
Had carried away unto Babylon] As to his lions’ den, Nah 2:11, but God sent from heaven and saved them with such a mighty salvation, as eclipsed that deliverance out of Egypt, Jer 23:7-8.
Every one unto his city] Appointed him by the present governors. For during their abode in Babylon Judaea lay utterly waste and uninhabited. The land kept her sabbaths, resting from tillage, and God, by a wonderful providence, kept the room empty till the return of the natives.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 16, 21, 25, 39, 43, 55, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69 The children of the province, i.e. the Israelites, called…
The children of the province, i.e. the Israelites, called the children of the province, either,
1. Of Babylon, of which province we oft read, as Ezr 7:16; Dan 2:48; Dan 3:1,2,30, called the province by way of eminency; of which they are called children, because of their birth and habitation in it for a long time, it being usual to call the inhabitants of any city or place its children. Or rather,
Read full note →
2. Of Judea, called a province, Ezr 5:8. And he calls it thus emphatically, to mind himself and his brethren of that sad change which their sins had made among them, that from an illustrious, independent, and formidable kingdom, were fallen to be an obscure, servile, and contemptible province, first under the Chaldeans, and now under the Persians. Every one unto his city; either unto those cities or towns which belonged to their several ancestors; or rather, to those which were now allotted to them, and from this time possessed by them. For their former cities were either demolished. or possessed by other persons, which they were not now in a capacity of disturbing.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 36, 64 We may observe here, 1. That an account was…
We may observe here, 1. That an account was kept in writing of the families that came up out of captivity, and the numbers of each family. This was done for their honour, as part of their recompence for their faith and courage, their confidence in God and their affection to their own land, and to stir up others to follow their good example. Those that honour God he will thus honour. The names of all those Israelites indeed that accept the offer of deliverance by Christ shall be found, to their honour, in a more sacred record than this, even in the Lamb's book of life. The account that was kept of the families that came up from the captivity was intended also for the benefit of posterity, that they might know from whom they descended and to whom they were allied. 2. That they are called children of the province. Judah, which had been an illustrious kingdom, to which other kingdoms had been made provinces, subject to it and dependent on it, was now itself made a province, to receive laws and commissions from the king of Persia and to be accountable to him. See how sin diminishes and debases a nation, which righteousness would exalt. But by thus being made servants (as the patriarchs by being sojourners in a country which was theirs by promise) they were reminded of the better country, that is, the heavenly (Heb 11:16), a kingdom which cannot be moved, or changed into a province. 3. That they are said to come every one to his city, that is, the city appointed them, in which appointment an eye, no doubt, was had to their former settlement by Joshua; and to that, as near as might be, they returned: for it does not appear that any others, at least any that were able to oppose them, had possessed them in their absence. 4. That the leaders are first mentioned, v. 2. Zerubbabel and Jeshua were their Moses and Aaron, the former their chief prince, the latter their chief priest. Nehemiah and Mordecai are mentioned here; some think not the same with the famous men we afterwards meet with of those names: probably they were the same, but afterwards returned to court for the service of their country. 5. Some of these several families are named from the persons that were their ancestors, others from the places in which they had formerly resided; as with us many surnames are the proper names of persons, others of places. 6. Some little difference there is between the numbers of some of the families here and in Neh. 7, where this catalogue is repeated, which might arise from this, that some who had given in their names at first to come afterwards drew back - said, I go, Sir, but went not, which would lessen the number of the families they belonged to; others that declined, at first, afterwards repented and went, and so increased the number. 7. Here are two families that are called the children of Elam (one Ezr 2:7, another Ezr 2:31), and, which is strange, the number of both is the same, 1254. 8. The children of Adonikam, which signifies a high lord, were 666, just the number of the beast (Rev 13:18), which is there said to be the number of a man, which, Mr. Hugh Broughton thinks, has reference to this man. 9. The children of Bethlehem (Ezr 2:21) were but 123, though it was David's city; for Bethlehem was little among the thousands of Judah, yet there must the Messiah arise, Mic 5:2. 10. Anathoth had been a famous place in the tribe of Benjamin and yet here it numbered but 128 (v. 23), which is to be imputed to the divine curse which the men of Anathoth brought upon themselves by persecuting Jeremiah, who was of their city. Jer 11:21, Jer 11:23, There shall be no remnant of them, for I will bring evil upon the men of Anathoth. And see Isa 10:30, O poor Anathoth! Nothing brings ruin on a people sooner than persecution.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 36, 40, 43, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 Now these are the children of the province,.... Either…
Now these are the children of the province,.... Either of the province of Babylon, as Aben Ezra, where they were either born, or had dwelt for many years; or else rather, according to Jarchi, of the province of Judea, as it is called, Ezr 5:8 once a flourishing kingdom, but reduced to a province of the Babylonian monarchy, now in the hands of the Medes and Persians, of which province they and their fathers originally were:
that went out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon; who either in person, or in their parents, were carried captive by him, and who were the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; and they are only mentioned, because they were the principal that returned, though there were some of the other tribes that also came up with them:
Read full note →
and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, everyone unto his city; that he dwelt in before, or was now assigned to him by lot, see Neh 11:1, &c.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 21, 39, 43, 55, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70 The leaders that returned, ver. 1, 2. The people,…
The leaders that returned, ver. 1, 2. The people, ver. 3-35 The priests, Levites and retainers to the temple, ver. 36-63. The sum total and their substance, ver. 64-67. Their offerings, ver. 68-70.
The province - Of Judah, called a province, chap. v, 8. And he calls it thus emphatically to mind himself and his brethren of that sad change which their sins had made among them, that from an illustrious, independent, and formidable kingdom, were fallen to be an obscure, servile, and contemptible province, first under the Chaldeans, and now under the Persians.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 21, 33, 36, 55, 63, 66, 69, 70 An account of those who returned from Babylon, 1-35.
CHAPTER II
An account of those who returned from Babylon, 1-35.
Read full note →
The children of the priests who returned, 36-39.
Of the Levites, 40.
Of the singers, 41.
Of the porters, 42.
Of the Nethinim, and the children of Solomon's servants, 43-58.
Others who could not find out their registers, 59-62.
The number of the whole congregation, 63, 64.
Of their servants, maids, and singers, 65.
Their horses and mules, 66.
Their camels and asses, 67.
The offerings of the chief men when they came to Jerusalem,
68, 69.
The priests, Levites, singers, porters, and Nethinim, betake
themselves to their respective cities, 70.
NOTES ON CHAP. II
Verse 1. These are the children of the province] That is, of Judea; once a kingdom, and a flourishing nation; now a province, subdued, tributary, and ruined! Behold the goodness and severity of God! Some think Babylon is meant by the province; and that the children of the province means those Jews who were born in Babylon. But the first is most likely to be the meaning, for thus we find Judea styled, Ezr 5:8. Besides, the province is contradistinguished from Babylon even in this first verse, The children of the province-that had been carried away unto Babylon.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 20, 36, 39, 43, 55, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70 Ezr 2:1. The children of the province — That…
Ezr 2:1. The children of the province — That is, of Babylon, for they are here spoken of whom Nebuchadnezzar had brought captive to Babylon, and not those of the ten tribes, who had been dispersed before, by the kings of Assyria, into various provinces; and who afterward returned to Jerusalem in separate companies. Zerubbabel was in the province of Babylon, and to him those captives joined themselves who lived nearest in the same province. This is the reason why those of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin returned first, though a liberty of returning was granted to all the tribes. Another reason is, because the rebuilding of the temple principally concerned them, as Jerusalem was within their dominion. — Houbigant. That went out of captivity — By the words captivity and captives, when applied to the Jews being carried to Babylon, we are not to understand that they were made slaves to private persons, and bought and sold from one to another, as captives generally were: for they seem to have been transported to Babylon as a colony, to serve the king only. And we do not find that they ever became the property of private persons in Babylon, but lived there free; only subject, as is probable, to some services for the king. Otherwise Cyrus must have redeemed them from the masters, whose property they were, or at least have made a proclamation that every one should let them go free; of neither of which is any mention made. And besides this, when liberty was given to all, of returning to their own land, we find that but few, comparatively speaking, accepted of it, which would scarce have been the case had they been slaves to private persons. Every one unto his city — Either those cities and towns which had belonged to their several ancestors; or rather, those which were now allotted to them, and from this time possessed by them. For their former cities were either demolished, or possessed by other persons, whom they were not now in a capacity to disturb.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 43, 59, 63, 64, 69, 70 The province - Judaea was no longer a kingdom,…
The province - Judaea was no longer a kingdom, but a mere “province” of Persia. “The children of the province” are the Israelites who returned to Palestine, as distinct from those who remained in Babylonia and Persia.
Every one unto his city - That is, to the city whereto his forefathers had belonged. Of course, in the few cases where this was not known Ezr 2:59-62, the plan could not be carried out.
Read full note →
Two other copies of the following list have come down to us - one in Neh. 7:7-69, and the other in 1 Esdras 5:8-43. All seem to have been taken from the same original document, and to have suffered more or less from corruption. Where two out of the three agree, the reading should prevail over that of the third.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 40, 43, 55, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70 Now. This catalogue is given again, 2 Esdras vii.…
Now. This catalogue is given again, 2 Esdras vii. 6., and 3 Esdras v. 7., immediately (Haydock) after the long interpolated story (Kennicott) of the three guards, concerning the superior strength of wine, the king, women or truth, in which Zorobabel gains the victory, in favour of the latter. (Haydock) --- The rest of the book is taken from other inspired writings; (Sandford) and this story may be borrowed Josephus: so that there is no reason for asserting "that one whole book is now lost out of the sacred canon." (Kennicott) --- Yet this argument is by no means conclusive, as the Paralipomenon consists of such supplements, &c. These three catalogues very considerably, not only in the proper names, but also in the numbers, (Haydock) though they must have been the same originally, and still give the same total, 42,360. We cannot find that number at present, by above 8,400. In many cases, the disagreement consists of a single unit, hundred, &c., which may lead us to suspect that the Palmyrene, or the more ancient Sidonian notation, may have been adopted in some Hebrew manuscripts, being used about the time of Christ. See Swinton’s tables, (Phil. Trans. xlviii., and l.) where the Sidonian coins express the units by small perpendicular strokes; and the Palmyrene inscriptions only admit four of these together, having an arbitrary mark for 5: "the hundreds and units after the tens, are expressed in both, in the same manner as the single units." (Kennicott, 2 Diss.) --- Cordell (manuscript note on this author) disapproves of this mode of correcting, and says that the females are included in the total sum, being 12,542, not recorded in the separate sums. But this number seems too small, as there are generally as many of that sex as of the other. (Haydock) --- Some find the total 31,583, which leaves 10,777 wanting to complete 42,360, as these could not make out their genealogies, or were of the ten tribes. In this chapter only 29,818 are specified, whereas [in] 2 Esdras vii. has 31,089; the latter reckons 1765 unnoticed by Esdras, who has 494 not specified in Nehemias. The difference, that seems to make a reconciliation impossible, is what make these authors agree; for, if you add the surplus of each to the other, the same total, 31,583, will arise. (Alting. ep. 59.) This solution, though ingenious, is not solid or satisfactory. (Rondet, t. v. p. 176.) --- De Vence rather thinks that the difference is to be laid to the charge of transcribers, or that some people enrolled themselves after the registers had been made up; so that they are only included in the general sum. (Haydock) --- Some things may have been inserted from 2 Esdras, though here out of place, (Grotius) as we find similar anachronisms, 1 Paralipomenon ix. 2., and perhaps Genesis xxxvi. 31. Nehemias may also have included those whom he brought back along with these; unless we allow that some one, by attempting to reconcile the two, has thrown all into confusion. It seems undeniable, that some additions have been made to the latter book, chap. xii. 11., and 22. The list given [in] 1 Paralipomenon ix. 4., comprises only those who came first from Babylon. (Calmet) --- After this remark, it will hardly be requisite to specify all the variations of names and numbers. (Haydock) --- "For what can be hence inferred, but that there are some arithmetical mistakes in Scripture, which no one denies?" (Huet) --- "Almost all who are conversant with ancient copies, agree in the decision of St. Jerome, as they cannot but perceive that some variations have crept in, particularly with respect to numbers and proper names." (Walton) --- Province, born in Chaldea, (Menochius) or rather belonging to Judea, which was now considered as a province of the empire, (Calmet) and paid tribute, chap. iv. 13., and 2 Esdras ix. 36. (Tirinus) --- In 3 Esdras, we read, "These are they of Judea." --- Nabuchodonosor had taken some of these; the rest were chiefly their descendants. --- Juda now is used to denote Judea. (Haydock)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 Ezr_2:1-67. (Comp. Neh_7:6-73.)
B.—THE CATALOGUE OF THE RETURNING EXILES AND THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE
Ezr_2:1-67. (Comp. Neh_7:6-73.)
Read full note →
I. The catalogue of the families and households of the people. Ezr_2:1-35
1Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city; 2Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mizpar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: 3The children of Parosh, two thousand a hundred seventy and two. 4The children of Shephatiah, there hundred seventy and two. 5, 6The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five. The children of Pahathmoab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve. 7, 8The children of Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four. The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five. 9The children of Zaccai, seven hundred and 10, threescore. 11The children of Bani, six hundres forty and two. The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty and three. 12The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two. 13The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six.
14the children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty and six. 15The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four. 16The children of Ater of Hezekiah, ninety and eight. 17The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and three. 18The children of Jorah, a hundred and twelve. 19The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty and 20 three. The children of Gibbar, ninety and five. 21The children of Beth-lehem, 22a hundred twenty and three. 23The men of Netophah, fifty and six. The men of Anathoth, a hundred twenty and eight. 24The children of Azmaveth, forty and two. 25The children of Kirjath-arim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred and forty and three. 26The children of Ramah and Gaba, six hundred twenty and one. 27The men of Michmas, a hundred twenty and two. 28The men of Beth-el and 29Ai, two hundred twenty and three. 30The children of Nebo, fifty and two. The children of Magbish, a hundred fifty and six. 31The children of the other Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four. 32The children of Harim, three hundred and twenty. 33The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred twenty and five. 34The children of Jericho, three hundred forty and five. 34The children of Senaah, three thousand and six hundred and thirty.
II. The catalogue of the Priests, Levites, and Servants of the Temple Ezr_2:36-58
36The priests: the children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred seventy 37and three. 38The children of Immer, a thousand fifty and two. The children of Pashur, a thousand two hundred forty and seven. 39The children of Harim, a thousand and seventeen. 40The Levites: the children of Jeshua and Kadmiel, ofthe children of Hodaviah, seventy and four. 41The singers: the children of Asaph, a hundred twenty and eight. 42The children of the porters: the children of Shallum, the children of Ater, the children of Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children 43of Hatita, the children of Shobai, in all a hundred thirty and nine. The Nethinim: 44the children of Ziha, the children of Hasupha, the children of Tabbaoth, The children of Keros, 45the children of Siaha, the children of Padon, The children of Lebanah, 46the children of Hagabah, the children of Akkub, The children of Hagab, thechildren of Shalmai, 47the children of Hanan, The children of Giddel, the children of Gahar, 48the children of Reaiah, The children of Rezin, the children of Nekoda, 49the children of Gazzam, The children of Uzza, the children of Paseah, the children of Besai, 50The children of Asnah, the children of Mehunim, the children of Nephusitn, 51The children of Bakbuk, the children of Hakupha, the children of Harhur, 52The children of Bazluth, the children of Mehida, the children of Harsha, 53, 54 The children of Barkos, the children of Sisera, the children of Thamah, The children of Neziah, 55the children of Hatipha. The children of Solomon’s servants:56the children of Sotai, the children of Sophereth, the children of Peruda, The childrenof Jaalah, 57the children of Darkon, the children of Giddel, The children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, the children of Pochereth of Zebaim, the children 58of Ami. All the Nethinim, and the children of Solomon’s servants, were three hundred ninety and two.
III. The members of the People and the Priests without Genealogy Ezr_2:59-64
59And these were they which went up from Tel-melah, Tel-harsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father’s house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel: 60The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two. 61And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name: 62These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood. 63And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.
IV. Sum total of those who returned, their Servants and Beasts of Burden. Ezr_2:64-67
64The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and 65 threescore, Besides their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing 66men and singing women. Their horses were seven hundred thirty and six; their mules, two hundred forty and five; 67Their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty.
V. Contributions for the Building of the Temple, and Closing Remarks Ezr_2:68-70
68 And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem, offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place: 69They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold, and five thousand pounds of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments. 70So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinim, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The same catalogue as that here given is likewise found in Neh_7:6-73. The two texts differ, to some extent, in the names, and especially in numbers. This is not so remarkable, considering the long list; at the bottom these differences are insignificant enough. This is clear from the notes made in connection with the translation. We have passed over some very trifling deviations, which are manifestly to be regarded as due to oversight of the copyist. The peculiarities of Esdras are scarcely anywhere of such a character that we can find in them an evidence of the original reading. This catalogue of the constituents of the new community may be placed in parallelism with that of the constituents of the ancient community, Num_1:5 sq.
Verses 1 and 2 give the individual members connected with the names of their heads.—And these are the children of the province,etc.מְדִינָה, from דִּין, properly, judicial or official district, is here the province given in charge to the judge or governor of Jerusalem (Neh_11:3), just as in Ezr_5:8; Neh_1:2. [“ The children of the province are the Israelites who returned to Palestine, as distinct from those who remained in Babylon or Persia” (Rawlinson).—Tr.] Instead of the usual form Nebuchadnezzar (with a in the last syllable), the Kethib has Nebuchadnezzor (with o), a form which, to a certain extent, is nearer to the Chaldee pronunciation of the name. Another approximation is the form Nebuchadrezzar (with r in the penult) in Jer_21:2; Jer_21:7; Jer_32:1; Jer_35:11; Jer_39:11, etc.; Eze_26:7; Eze_29:18 sq.; Eze_30:10,—and both approximations are combined in that of Nebuchadrezzor. The name in Chaldee, according to Ménant, Grammaire Assyrienne, 1868, p. 327, is nabu kadurri usur; according to Schrader, die Keilinschriften, etc., S. 235, is Nabiuvkudurrinsur and means “Nebo protect, or protect the crown.” That in Hebrew a נ is usual in the penult, instead of ר is connected with the fact that the primitive form of usur is nasar.—Every one unto his city.—אִישׁ לְעִירוֹ is apparently used from the subsequent standpoint of the author of the document. It certainly does not mean, according to the city, which was already theirs from the time of the fathers—for only a small portion of the former southern kingdom was taken possession of by the new community. Thus many did not return to the cities where their ancestors had dwelt, but to the city which subsequently was their own when this catalogue was prepared (with Bertheau against Keil [Rawlinson]). Comp. 5:70.
Ezr_2:2. Which came with Zerubbabel.—Whilst וַיָּשׁוּבוּ in Ezr_2:1 is conceived as merely a continuation of אֱשֶׁר בָּאוּ אֱשֶׁר הֶגְלָה is in Ezr_2:2, a parallel, co-ordinate clause. Hence it again has the preterite. Nehemiah in Ezr_2:1 uses the participle בָּאִים corresponding with the הָעֹלִים in Ezr_2:1.—Zerubbabel, now זְרוּבָבֶל, and sometimes זְרֻבָּבֶל is formed not from זְרוּי (scattered), as would seem at first sight, but from זְרוּעַ (sowed) and בָּבֶל(that is born in Babylon). Comp. also Ezr_1:11 Jeshua—יֵשׁוּעַ (later form of יְהוֹשׁוּעַ comp. Neh_8:17) is here the first high-priest of the new community, the son of Jehozadak, the grandson of the high-priest Seraiah, 1Ch_6:14, whom Nebuchadnezzar put to death at Riblah, in the land of Hamath, 2Ki_25:18 sq. Comp. Ezr_3:2, and Ezr_5:2. In Hag_1:2; Hag_1:14, and Zec_3:1, we find the older form of his name Jehoshua. The other men here named who come into consideration as chiefs are unknown to us. For Nehemiah and Mordecai are not at all to be identified with the later persons who bore these names. Instead of Seraiah, Nehemiah 7. gives Azariah; but in Neh_10:2 both names are found alongside of one another as names of families of priests in the time of Nehemiah, so that we may conjecture that both names were then favorites and in frequent use in the families of the priests, and therefore would be easily interchanged. If we count here the name of Nahamani, who is named in Neh_7:7, but is missing here, we have just twelve heads which, without doubt, refers to a new division of the community into twelve divisions. That the idea at the basis of this catalogue was that the new community represented entire Israel and its twelve tribes, is clear from the title that directly follows—number of the men of the people of Israel—especially however from the twelve sin-offerings in Ezr_6:1. Notwithstanding this fact it may be that the twelve were all from the three tribes to which almost all those that returned belonged, Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. The last words of the verse, “the number of the men of the people of Israel,” constitute the special title of the first section of the catalogue after the analogy of Ezr_2:36; Ezr_2:40; Ezr_2:43; Ezr_2:55.
Ezr_2:3-35. The families and households of the people. Many of the names mentioned in Ezr_2:3-19 and Ezr_2:32 meet us again in the register of the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, thus the children Parosh, Pahath-Moab, Adin, Elam, Shephatiah, Joab, Bebai, Azgad, Adonikam, Bigvai, and according to the original reading, the children of Zattu and Bani, in Ezra 8, in the catalogue of those returning with Ezra; so likewise men of the sons of Parosh, Elam, Zattu, etc., in Ezra 10, among these, who had strange wives, and also in Neh_10:15 sq., “from which we see, a) that of many families only a part returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua; another part followed under Ezra; b) that heads of the fathers’ houses are not mentioned for the sake of their personal names, but for the names of the houses of which they were fathers originating without doubt from more ancient times” (Keil). Since in vers, 30–35 the inhabitants of the other cities are mentioned according to the names of their localities, so probably the most or all which bear the names of their fathers’ houses are to be regarded as inhabitants of Jerusalem.
The names in Ezr_2:3-19 are beyond question names of families or households, and those in Ezr_2:20-29; Ezr_2:33-35 are just as surely names of cities. This order seems, however, to be interrupted by Ezr_2:30-32, in that perhaps Harim, according to Ezr_10:21, the other Elam, after the analogy of Ezr_2:7, and perhaps also Magbish, are names of persons, not of places. Yet Ezr_10:21 is not entirely decisive for Harim as the name of a person, since in Neh_10:15 sq., likewise, names of places, as for example Anathoth, occur in Ezr_2:19 in the middle among names of families. Besides it is possible that the text in Ezr_2:30-32 may have been corrupted; it seems strange that with the other Elam here the same number, 1254, occurs as with the Elam of Ezr_2:8, and that the name Magbish is not found either in Nehemiah or Esdras. In Esdras the other Elam is passed over, and instead of the children of Harim three hundred and twenty, there is (Ezr_5:16) in the corresponding place, that is, among the names of families, ὐιόι ’ Aρόμ, thirty-two. The cities mentioned in Ezr_2:20-35 occur for the most part in other parts of the Old Testament: Gibeon, which, according to Neh_7:25, is to be read for Gibbah, already in Jos_9:3; Bethlehem in Rth_1:2; Mic_5:1; Netopha (apparently in the vicinity of Bethlehem) in 2Sa_23:38 sq.; 2Ki_25:23; 1Ch_2:54; Anathoth in Jos_21:18; Jer_1:1; Kirjath arim, Chephira and Beeroth as cities of the Gibeonites, Jos_9:17; Rama and Geba already in Jos_9:25 sq., and then especially in the history of Samuel and Saul; Michmas in 1Sa_13:23; Isa_10:28; Bethel and Ai in Jos_7:2 and Jericho in Jos_5:13, etc.; all situated in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and first of all taken possession of by those who returned. On the other hand Azmaveth or Bethazmaveth, Neh_7:28, occurs besides only in Neh_12:29. Accordingly it was situated apparently in the neighborhood of Geba. It has not yet been discovered. Ritter’s conjecture (Erdk. 16. S. 519) that it is El-Hizme in the vicinity of Anata has nothing in its favor. Nebo, which has nothing to do with the mountain of this name, Num_32:32, has been identified with Nob, or Nobe, 1Sa_21:2, whose situation would certainly suit, especially as in Neh_11:31 sq., among many other places named here Nob, but not Nebo, is mentioned. Besides the sons of Nebo occur again in Ezr_10:43. Bertheau thinks of Nuba or Beit-Nuba (Robinson, New Biblical Researches, III. page 144). Lod is Lydda, where Peter healed the paralytic (Act_9:32 sq.), at present Ludd, comp. 1Ch_8:12. Ono, which occurs again in Neh_11:35 and 1Ch_8:12, must have been situated in the vicinity of Lydda. There also we must seek Hadid, now El Haditheh (Robinson, B. R., p. 143), according to 1Ma_12:38; 1Ma_13:13. Senaah was regarded by the more ancient interpreters as Σεννὰ νῦν Μαγδαλσεννά‚ which, according to Jerome, was situated as terminus Judæ in septimo lapide Jerichus contra septentrionalem plagam (Onom. ed. Lars, et Parth., p. 332), and which is hardly to be identified, as Robinson (b. r. III. p. 295), with Mejdel, which is too far distant, four German miles north of Jericho, situated on a lofty mountain-top. At the building of the walls of the city, Nehemiah 3., there are mentioned besides the men of Jericho, Senaah and Gibeon, inhabitants also of Tekoah, Zanoah, Bethhaccerem, Mizpah, Bethsur and Keilah, and a still greater number of cities occurs in Neh_11:25-35. From this it is clear that gradually the cities of Judah and Benjamin were taken possession of, and more and more of them inhabited.
Ezr_2:36-39. The priest-classes. Of the four names mentioned here three agree with the names of three classes of priests, which were among the twenty-four classes introduced by David, 1Ch_24:7 sq.; Jedaiah was the second, Immer the sixteenth, Harim the third class. It is very probable, therefore, that the divisions here are connected with such classes. For additional remarks upon this subject, vid. notes upon Neh_12:1 sq. The house of Jeshua, however, may very properly refer to the house of the high-priest Jeshua, to which the children of Jedaiah belonged. This view is favored by the fact that among those who returned, in all probability, this family was more numerously represented perhaps by a class of priests belonging to it. It is true the high-priest Jeshua belonged to the line of Eleazar; the class of Jedaiah, on the other hand, it is supposed, we must seek as the second in the line of Ithamar, and yet the order of classes was determined by lot, 1 Chronicles 24., and it is a very natural supposition, since there is some uncertainty in the passage as to the method of the lot, that the second class was of Eleazar’s line. Else Jeshua might also be the name of an ancient head of the family; in 1Ch_24:11 it is the name of the ninth class of priests.—The children of Pashur constitute a new class, which does not occur in 1 Chronicles 24., as a class of priests, and this name does not occur among the nine classes subsequent to the exile, Nehemiah 12. They occur again, however, in Ezr_10:18-22 among the priests who had married strange wives, alongside of the sons of Jeshua, Immer and Harim. The name Pashur is besides found even in more ancient times, 1Ch_9:12; Neh_11:12 Jeremiah 20, 21.
Ezr_2:40-58. The Levites, servants of the temple (Nethinim), and servants of Solomon The Levites fall into three divisions according to their different official duties; the first was the Levites in the narrower sense, the assistants of the priests in the divine worship, the second was the singers, the third the porters, 1Ch_24:20-31; 1 Chronicles 25 and 1Ch_26:1-19. The children of Jeshua and Kadmiel are mentioned in Ezr_2:40 as Levites in the narrower sense. The additional clause: of the children of Hodaviah, belongs probably only to the last family, the children of Kadmiel, comp. notes on Ezr_3:9; the name is not found in the lists of Levites in Chronicles.—Of the singers (Ezr_2:41) only the members of the choir of Asaph returned with the first company. Yet in Neh_11:17 three classes are mentioned again as in times before the exile.—Of the six classes of porters (Ezr_2:42) three, Shallum, Talmon and Akkub, are mentioned 1Ch_9:17 as those who dwelt in Jerusalem already before the exile. Thirty-five families of the Nethinim are mentioned (Ezr_2:43-54), of the servants of Solomon ten families (Ezr_2:55-57). In Nehemiah the children of Akkub, Hagab and Asnah have fallen out, and some names are written differently, partly through oversight, partly on account of another method of writing them. The most of the families of the Nethinim may have descended from the Gibeonites, Jos_9:21-27. The children of Mehunim, however, in Ezr_2:50, belonged, as the plural form of the name shows, to the tribe or people of the Mehunim, and were probably prisoners of war,—perhaps after the victory of the king Uzziah over that people (2Ch_26:7) they had been given to the sanctuary as bondsmen. The children of Nephusim might have been prisoners of war from the Ishmaelite tribe of נָפִישׁ, Gen_25:15. The children of the servants of Solomon, who are mentioned again in Neh_11:3, elsewhere connected with the Nethinim, with whom they are here arranged in the enumeration, were certainly not the descendants of those Amorites, Hethites, etc., whom Solomon, 1Ki_9:20 sq.; 2Ch_8:7 sq., had made tributary and bondsmen [Rawlinson], but apparently prisoners of war from tribes that, were not Canaanites. The name פֹּכֶרֶת הַצְּבָיִם in Ezr_2:57 probably denotes: catcher of gazelles.
Ezr_2:59-60. Fellow-countrymen, who could not show their ancestry. They went up from Tel Melah (salt-hill), Tel Harsa (bush or wood-hill), Cherub, Addan and Immer. The last three words are probably not names of persons, they are first mentioned in Ezr_2:60, but still as names of places. Like Tel Harsa, they might likewise be connected without מִן. Perhaps they may designate one district, that is, three places situated close to one another in the same district. We have then perhaps three districts for the three families named in Ezr_2:60.—[Rawlinson regards these as villages of Babylonia, at which the Jews here spoken of had been settled. The first and third he regards as really identified with the Thelmé and Chiripha of Ptolemy.—Tr.]—They could not show their fathers’ house, that is, could not prove to which of the fathers’ houses of Israel their forefathers, after whom they were called, Delaiah, Tobiah and Nekoda, belonged.—And their seed, that is, their family-line, whether they were of Israelite origin or not. Clericus properly remarks: Judaicam religionem dudum sequebantur, quamobrem se Judæos censebant: quamvis non possent genealogicus tabulas ostendere, ex quibus constaret, ex Hebræis oriundos esse. It is possible that there was a doubt whether the children of Nekoda here mentioned did not belong to the Nethinim family of the same name in Ezr_2:48, and with respect to the other two families, there were similar doubts (Bertheau). Since we do not find any of these names again in the enumeration of the heads of the people and fathers’ houses in Neh_10:15-28, or in the list of Ezr_10:25-43, it seems that although they were not expelled, yet the right of citizenship was withheld from them.
Ezr_2:61-63. Priests who could not show that they belonged to the priesthood, the children of Habaiah, Hakkoz and Barzillai. Whether these children of Hakkoz claimed to belong to the seventh class of priests of the same name, 1Ch_24:10, is uncertain. The name occurs also elsewhere, comp. Neh_3:4.—The children of Barzillai were descended from a priest who properly bore another name, but who married a daughter of the Gileadite Barzillai, well-known in the history of David (2Sa_17:27; 2Sa_19:32-39; 1Ki_2:7). It is conjectured that she was an heiress (Numbers 36), and to obtain possession of her inheritance, he assumed her name. Comp. Num_27:4. The name Barzillai and membership in a family of Gilead might have subsequently rendered the priestly origin of his posterity doubtful, although they would by no means have lost the right of the priesthood, if they could have proved in any way their priestly origin. The suffix with שְׁמָם must be referred back to בָּנוֹת. For the masc. form for the fem., comp. Gesen., § 121, Anmerk. 1. Their register in Ezr_2:62 is their סֵפֶר הַיַּחַשׂ , Neh_7:5, their writing of genealogy, their register of their descent; this writing had the title of הַמִּתְיַחֲשִׂים, those registered as to genealogy; for this word is in apposition with כְּתָבָם, and נִמְצָאוּ refers back to this plural, for which in Neh_7:64 the sing., נִמְצָא, referring back to כְּתָבָם, is found, as we say in Germany, not to be able to find their forefathers, instead of the register of their forefathers.—They were as polluted put from the priesthood.—וַיְגֹאֲלוּ is a pregnant term=they were declared polluted, so that they were excluded from the priesthood. The more definite decision respecting them was given according to Ezr_2:63 by the Tirshatha, the civil governor of the community, according to Neh_7:65, comp. with Ezr_2:70, Zerubbabel, who, Hag_1:1; Hag_1:14; Hag_2:2; Hag_2:21, is called פַּחַת יְהוּדָה. In Neh_8:9; Neh_10:2 Nehemiah bears this title, who besides in Neh_12:26 likewise has the title פֶּחָה, Tirshatha is without doubt the Persian designation of the governor. It is probably not connected with taras, fear = the one feared [Rawlinson, who regards it as the Persian tarsata, past part, of tars=to fear=the feared, a title which well might be given to one in authority. He compares the German gestrenger Herr and our title of “Reverend.”—Tr.], or with tarash, acer, auster=the severe lord, but is from the Zend thuorestar (nom. thuoresta)=præfectus, penes quem est imperium, Gesen., Thes., p. 1521; Benfey, die Monatsnamen, S. 196. The reason why the name of Zerubbabel is not added, and why he is not mentioned in Neh_7:65-70 in connection with this title, is that there is no importance to be ascribed here to the person, but only to the position expressed by the title. It is not strange that the civil governor made this decision with reference to the priesthood, because of the close connection between the civil and religious affairs of the community at Jerusalem. Their prohibition from eating of the most holy things, that is, of those that were consecrated to the Lord, of which none but the priests could partake, and these only of certain prescribed parts in the holy place (comp. Lev_2:3), excluded them from participation in those revenues that were immediately connected with priestly occupations, and therefore without doubt likewise from the priestly occupations themselves. The children of Habaiah, etc., were not to come near the most holy things, e. g. the altar of burnt-offerings (Exo_29:37; Exo_30:10), and especially were not to enter the most holy places (Num_28:10). A portion of the general fees which were offered to the priests was not denied them, since their right to the priesthood was not expressly denied, but left in suspenso—Till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim.—עָמַד is according to later usage for קוּם (comp. Dan_8:23; Dan_11:2, etc.). The question arises why the high-priest Jeshua could not have given the desired decision by means of Urim and Thummim, for the use of which we are to compare Exo_28:30. The reason could hardly have been of such a personal and external character as Ewald, Gesch. Isr. 4:95 conjectures, as if Jeshua was perhaps not the eldest son of his father, and therefore not entirely suited to the high-priesthood. It is probable that in the times subsequent to the exile there was no longer as formerly any more decisions by means of Urim and Thummim. Little importance is to be given to the opinion of Josephus Arch. 3, 8, 9, that its use had not ceased till two hundred years before his time, since he acts upon the opinion that it had been used for the purpose of predicting victory. The Rabbins reckon this method of divine revelation among the five things which from the beginning were lacking in the second temple. Comp. Buxtorf, exercitt. ad historiam Urim et Thummim, cap. 5, and Vitringa observatt., s. VI., cap. 6, p. 324 sq. We are rather to suppose that they believed that they must wait until such a time when the high-priest would again be able to fulfil his entire calling. The temple must first arise again, and the Lord must declare His presence again in some special practical and unmistakable manner, without which indeed a revelation through Urim and Thummim was inconceivable.
Ezr_2:64-67. The sum-total of those that returned, their servants and maid-servants and beasts of burden. The sum of 42,360 is given in our passage in Nehemiah and Esdras, for the whole congregation together (so manifestly here כְּאֶחָד, (it is otherwise in Ezr_3:9; Ezr_6:20); a number which is not gained by adding the detailed numbers together, either here or in Neh. or Esdras, for the sum total is much too great for the detailed numbers, which amount to only 29,818 here, in Nehemiah 31,089, in Esdras 30,143. How then did this difference arise? Even Keil is convinced that it is due only to mistakes of copyists. “Any attempt to explain them (the differences) in any other way cannot be justified.” But if this were really so, there would be greater differences between the detailed numbers as they are given here and in Nehemiah; and reckoned together they would, in accordance with one or the other texts, approximately make out the sum total of 42,360. If such essential mistakes as these occurred in copying, then the fact that the result of reckoning together the numbers agrees, at least in the main, and that each text is about the same number behind the sum total of 42,360, could not be possible unless the mistakes were above all in this sum total, which however is inconceivable in connection with the exact agreement which everywhere prevails. It is certainly clear that the sum total was not meant to embrace any others, such as those who returned of the ten tribes (Seder Olam, Raschi, Usserius, J. H. Mich., et al.) but only the constituent parts contained in the previous verses. But perhaps it was understood of itself according to the fundamental notions and ideas of the time that there were others still belonging to the 2172 sons of Parosh, etc., who properly were not reckoned with them, but who yet united with them in constituting the “entire congregation,” כָּל־הַקָּהָל, and were given with them in summing it up. It depends upon the idea of כָּל־הַקַהָל. Possibly if the number of the children of Parosh, etc., were to be given, only the independent people, especially the heads of families, came into consideration; whilst in the “entire congregation” there were, counted perhaps likewise the larger sons, who had reached the age of discretion, Neh_8:2-3. If in Esdras 5:41 our Ezr_2:64 reads “all of Israel from twelve years old and upwards, besides the servants and maid-servants, were 42,360,” this addition, “from twelve years and upward,” is indeed critically worthless, yet it might rest upon a correct knowledge of ancient customs, although perhaps the age of twelve years corresponds only with latter circumstances. If the servants and maid-servants were reckoned to the כָּל־הַקָּהָל, whose number is given in Ezr_2:65, they might have been counted in the sum total, although they were not taken into consideration in the detailed, numbers.
Ezr_2:65. Besides their servants and maids.—אֵלֶּה, which is properly connected with the subsequent words by the accents, is explained as referring to the following sum, 7337=besides their servants, etc., who make out the following numbers. The additional clause: And they had two hundred singing men and women, can only mean: and they who returned—for the suffix לָהֶם, certainly refers to those to whom the suffix of עַבְדֵיהֶם, etc., also refers,—had singing men and women, who because they were hired and paid, stood upon the same footing as the servants and maids, and since they were probably not of Israelite origin, did not belong to the congregation. They served, however, doubtless to increase the joy of the feasts, and for singing dirges in connection with sorrowful events, comp. Ecc_2:8; 2Ch_35:25. At any rate these singing people are to be distinguished from the Levitical singers and musicians who took part in divine worship. J. D. Mich. would change these singing men and women into oxen and cows (as if מְשֹׁרְרִים were for שְׁוָרִים) since we would rather expect these here, after the domestics, and in connection with the horses, mules, camels, and asses. But it may be that the returning exiles only took with them beasts of burden, or at least chiefly of these, and obtained their cattle rather on their arrival in Canaan. If animals were intended here, we would not have לָהֶם, but the suffix as in the following verse.
Ezr_2:68-70. Contributions for the building of the temple and closing remarks.
Ezr_2:68. And of the heads of the people = some of them. Comp. וּמִן־הָעָם in Ezr_2:70. Neh. uses instead וּמִקְצָת, a part, as Dan_1:2, etc., הִתְנַדְּבוּ they freely offered gifts, and indeed for the house of God. Comp. notes upon Ezr_1:6. לְהַעֲמִידוֹ, = in order to erect it, rebuild it=לְהָקִימוֹ, comp. Ezr_2:63.
Ezr_2:69. They gave to the treasure of the work, that is, into the treasure that was collected for the work of the temple 61,000 darics of gold, (דַּרְכְּמוֹן here and Neh_7:70 sq., for which אֲדַרְכּוֹן, with א, prosthetic. 1Ch_29:7, and Ezr_8:27, the Greek, δαρεικός, a Persian gold coin worth twenty-two German marks, [shillings, English] or seven and a half German thalers [five and a half American dollars], comp. 1Ch_29:7) = 457,500 German thalers, and 5,000 pounds of silver (above 200,000 German thalers) and 100 priests’ garments. It seems that our author has here abbreviated the list that was before him, and given the figures in round numbers. We recognize here, as Bertheau properly points out, expressions peculiar to the author: “house of Jehovah, which is in Jerusalem,” comp. chapter Ezr_1:4; Ezr_3:8; הִתְנַדֵּב comp. chapter Ezr_1:6; Ezr_3:5 :1Ch_29:5-6; לְהַעֲמִיד, comp. 1Ch_16:16; 2Ch_9:8; Ezr_9:9; כְּכֹחָם, comp. 1Ch_29:2; “they gave into the treasure,” comp. 1Ch_29:8, etc. In Nehemiah the text of the document has been more faithfully retained.—In accordance with this some of the heads of fathers’ houses contributed to the work, viz., the Tirshatha (who comes into consideration as the first of these heads, and is mentioned by himself, with his contribution, which was probably especially large) gave to the treasure 1000 darics of gold, 50 sacrificial bowls, and 30 priests’ garments, and 500, probably pounds, of silver). It cannot mean 530 priests’ garments, for then the hundreds should stand first. Perhaps the things numbered have fallen away before the 500, in all, probably, וְכֶסֶף מָנִים. Some (viz., others besides the Tirshatha) heads of fathers’ houses gave 20,000 darics of gold, 2200 pounds of silver, and the rest of the people gave 20,000 darics of silver, 2000 pounds of silver, and 67 priests’ garments. Accordingly the sum total amounted to 41,000 darics of gold, 4700 pounds of silver, 97 priests’ garments, and 50 sacrificial bowls. An important difference between these statements and our text of the book of Ezra is found in 41,000 darics, for which Ezra has 61,000. Since this cannot be balanced by the 50 sacrificial bowls, which are passed over in our text, the 61,000 must be ascribed to a copyist’s error.
Ezr_2:70. Here, in the closing remarks, the hand of our author may be recognized. The original text read somewhat thus: And the priests and Levites and some of the people and entire Israel dwelt in their cities.—But the author would in his own way specify the persons who took part in the divine worship, and adds therefore after those of the people, the singers and door-keepers and temple servants, and in connection therewith perhaps also that which directly followed the former, in their cities, which is missing in Nehemiah. In Nehemiah this statement is improved in this way, that he lets the Levitical singers and porters follow immediately after the Levites, and indeed the porters first, notwithstanding their office was less honorable than that of the singers, because he is not concerned with the dignity of their office, but with their membership among the Levites. It is true he had the disadvantage of being obliged to separate the Nethinim, whom he could not very well place “before those of the people,” by וּמִן הָעָם from the porters and singers. וּמִן הָעָם at any rate does not mean “some,” “many of the people;” the meaning cannot be that at first only some of them took possession of their cities, against which is the concluding statement “and all Israel were in their cities,”1 but the others of the people, besides the priests and Levites. Respecting the in their cities, comp. remarks on Ezr_2:1. Our author in a similar manner, as in the closing verse of the first chapter, passes over many things that would have seemed worthy of mention under other circumstances, as in what condition they found the cities, where they settled, whether they contended with the inhabitants of the laud for them, how they accomplished their organization and the like. The reason is the same as that adduced in our notes upon Ezr_1:11.
THOUGHTS UPON THE HISTORY OF REDEMPTION
Ezr_2:2. Since the people formed the new congregation no longer as a nation, or according to their external membership in the nation,—since all depended upon the free choice of particular families,—there is no longer any mention of the ancient distinction of tribes which was based on merely natural laws. But the congregation, notwithstanding, again has its heads, and indeed again exactly twelve, as the people in the times before the exile had had twelve elders of tribes. Doubtless they needed them still just as much, if not even still more, since indeed the Persian king and his officers did not occupy themselves so immediately, and in so many ways, in their affairs as the previous royal government had done. The restoration of the temple and its worship was imposed directly and pre-eminently upon them, and they certainly had pre-eminently to take care that the law of God should prevail as thoroughly as possible in the life of the congregation. Hence there is sufficient reason that they should be placed foremost here just as the twelve elders of tribes had been in the time of Moses, Num_1:15-16. There must always be office-holders, ranks, and a corresponding subordination in the congregation of God, as surely as it ever needs guidance and training. And if the officials are no longer given by natural rank, or appointed by the state, if the relation to them is thus a more tender one, then they ought to meet them as those who have been freely chosen to positions of trust, with all the more respect, yea, reverence.
Ezr_2:36-39. The priests were disproportionately numerous in the new congregation. They made up about the seventh part of the whole. If in consequence of this they were obliged to be all the more discreet to maintain themselves, since the offerings falling to them hardly sufficed for their support,—if therefore it could not be permitted them to acquire land for themselves, work them, or to learn trades and practice them, then it was without doubt the very reverse of what they ought to have done, when they, in consequence of this, became conformed to the world and helped to favor the mingling with heathenism, as we observe to be the case even in the high priestly family itself. Comp. Ezr_10:18. They ought, owing to their great numbers, to have offered to the congregation all the greater support against the worship of idols and apostasy from the law, and at any rate they should have been a living, practical reminder of their most appropriate and highest tasks. They should have more and more impressed upon the entire congregation a priestly, spiritual character. The universal priesthood, which the worldly Christians claim, in a false sense, should be imparted more and more decidedly to the true congregation in the true sense.
Ezr_2:64-67. The new congregation must have appeared to themselves extraordinarily small and weak, when they compared themselves with the first beginnings in the time of Moses, when the men of war were about 600,000. (Comp. Num_1:46; Num_26:51.) It was all the more incumbent upon them to maintain themselves as far as possible in unity with those who remained behind in exile, and cultivate the bond of communion with them, accordingly widen their views, and keep themselves from narrow-heartedness,—or, if their relation to them proved again to be only a loose one, to consider themselves as a mere remnant, that had been preserved from the divine judgment by grace, accordingly to let themselves be reminded by their weakness of the divine holiness as well as compassion. The weaker they were in themselves, the more were they prompted, at all events, to seek their strength in the Lord, and expect their help from Him. Moreover we may conclude from their small numbers that it is not the great multitude to which the development of the church leads; rather those by whom God’s thoughts of redemption are to realize themselves chiefly and most immediately, constitute naturally only a small minority. Besides, we may conclude from Ezr_2:65-67 that among those who returned there were likewise men who were quite wealthy, that therefore the idea is not at all correct that only those had sought out Jerusalem again who had nothing to lose in Chaldea (Talm. bab. tract. Kidduschim). Without doubt God was able already in the Old Testament times to awaken a living zeal for His cause, not only among the poorer, but also, at the least, of making here and there also the rich, with their possessions, serviceable to His cause.
Ezr_2:68-69. By offering gold and the other gifts which had reference to the restoration of worship, the new congregation showed their earnest desire to really become what was incumbent upon them to be. Christianity should never fall behind them; but although its task is mainly the internal and spiritual offerings, they should be ready to prove the truth of their spirituality, where it is necessary, by external offerings likewise.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Ezr_2:1-2. Take care that thou and thy house above all belong to those who constitute the congregation of the Lord. Only they are named and numbered in the book of life.
Ezr_2:68-69. Let not thy house, but God’s house, be thy chief care. With reference to the statements respecting the riches of the returned exiles in Ezr_2:65 sq. Brentius appropriately remarks: Ejecti erant Judæi e Hierusalem propter scelera sua. Nihilominus fovit eos inter gentes et locupletavet eos. Unde Jereæm vigesimo nono dicilur: Ego scio cogitationes, quas cogito super vos, cogitationes pacis et non afflictionis, ut dem vobis finem. With the same appropriateness Starke: “The Lord killeth and maketh alive, leadeth into Sheol and again out of it, 1Sa_2:6. Let no one, therefore, utterly lose courage in enduring crosses, suffering, poverty and misery, persecution and imprisonment. God extends His church amidst crosses and persecutions all the more, and causes it to bloom as a palm-tree, Psa_92:13; Mat_16:18; Act_11:19-21.” Upon Ezr_2:68 : “Whatever we give to the glory of God, we should give willingly, for God loveth a cheerful giver.” Upon Ezr_2:70 : “My God, if Thou wilt redeem me some day out of this body in the world, then remove me likewise to the eternal and true fatherland and Canaan, the right to which our first parents lost by their disobedience for themselves and all men, but which, Christ has regained for us.” [Scott: Our gracious Lord will carry us through those under takings which are entered on according to His will with an aim to His glory, and in dependence on His assistance; and then we shall be made superior to all difficulties, hardships and dangers.—Henry: ’Tis an honor to belong to God’s house, though in the meanest office there.—Let none complain of the necessary expenses of their religion, but believe that when they come to balance the account, they will find it quit cost—Tr.
Footnotes:
[1][“All Israel” is interpreted by Rawlinson as referring to representatives of the ten tribes.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 5, 23, 36, 55, 61, 63, 64, 68, 69 Which came with Zerubbabel--He was the chief or leader…
Which came with Zerubbabel--He was the chief or leader of the first band of returning exiles. The names of other influential persons who were associated in the conducting of the caravans are also mentioned, being extracted probably from the Persian archives, in which the register was preserved: conspicuous in the number are Jeshua, the high priest, and Nehemiah.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 7, 41, 42, 43, 55, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 69, 70 1. Children of the province — By the province…
1. Children of the province — By the province the district of Judah is meant, which had Jerusalem for its capital. The children or sons of this province, like “sons of Greece,” “sons of Italy,” were those to whom that province was the fatherland. Some of them had probably been born in exile, but doubtless a large proportion of them had been children or youths when their fathers were led into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. Some were “ancient men that had seen the first house,” (Ezr_3:12;) so that this list was largely composed of the same individuals whom Nebuchadnezzar… had carried away unto Babylon. Every one unto his city — With most of those in this list it was probably easy to ascertain their native city, and as far as possible the returning exiles would naturally seek their ancestral homes again. Such as “could not show their father’s house,” (Ezr_2:59,) were probably assigned to special districts or towns.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 1. Now these are the children of the province]…
1. Now these are the children of the province] ‘Now’, as in chap. Ezr_1:1 : the beginning of a new document. ‘The province’ here and in Neh_1:3; Neh_11:3, is the same as ‘the province of Judah’ (Ezr_5:8), i.e. the particular district of which Jerusalem was the centre and of which Zerubbabel was governor or ‘pekhah’. ‘The children of the province’ are the Jews inhabiting Jerusalem and its vicinity as distinct from the Jews that were left in Babylon. The phrase is perhaps an indication of the register having been transcribed at Babylon.
out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away] The comma in the A.V. tends to confuse the meaning. The R.V. better, out of the captivity of those which had been carried away. The English fails to give the sense of the passage. The words ‘those which had been carried away’ translate the one Hebrew word rendered in chap. Ezr_1:11 and elsewhere ‘the captivity’ (hag-gôlah). This was the technical abstract noun used to designate the Jews that had been carried away into foreign lands. The words here used are more nearly reproduced in the Greek version ἀπὸ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας τῆς ἀποικίας. ‘From the captivity of the Gôlah’ means therefore ‘out of the condition and scene of captivity which was the lot of ‘the deportation’, i.e. of those who had been forcibly removed from their homes’. Cf. Ezr_1:11, Ezr_6:20.
Read full note →
Nebuchadnezzar] R.V. margin, ‘Heb. Nebuchadnezzor’. This spelling represents the preferable reading of the original in this verse. It again indicates the different origin of this section from chap. Ezr_1:7, where the Hebrew has ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ without any variant spelling. ‘Nebuchadnezzor’ attempts more nearly to reproduce the final syllable of the Assyrian ‘Nabû-kudur-uṣur’ i.e. ‘Nebo, defend the crown’. He is called ‘Nebuchadrezzar’ in several places. Once in Jer_49:28 (C’thib) ‘Nebuchadrezzor’.
The great king of Babylon reigned 43 years (605–562). The two chief ‘deportations’ took place (1) in 598, when Nebuchadnezzar carried away king Jehoiachin and all the principal inhabitants of Jerusalem; (2) in 587–6, when the city was destroyed.
every one unto his city] It is impossible to take these words as literally applicable to the year of the Return. The Jews on their return to their own land at first only occupied Jerusalem and the country immediately adjacent. The work of settling into their own cities was the work of years. But the process was complete at the time when this heading was attached to the register of names. The writer summarizes the movement, which in his own time was long past, cf. Ezr_2:70, Ezr_3:1.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 36, 40, 42, 43, 55, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70 (1) The children of the province that went up…
(1) The children of the province that went up out of the captivity.—They came from “the captivity,” which was now as it were a generic name—“Children of the captivity” in Babylon (Dan_2:2), in Judah (Ezr_4:1)—and became “children of the province,” the Judæan province of Persia.
Every one unto his city.—So far, that is, as his city was known. The various cities, or villages, are more distinctly enumerated in Nehemiah.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 20, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 55, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70 THE NUMBER OF THOSE WHO RETURNED FROM CAPTIVITY WITH…
THE NUMBER OF THOSE WHO RETURNED FROM CAPTIVITY WITH ZERUBBABEL, AND THE NAMES OF THE CHIEFS. (Ezr_2:1-64) It has been argued that the whole of this chapter is out of place here, and has been transferred hither from Nehemiah, (Neh_7:6-73) where it occupies its rightful position (Bishop A. Hervey). According to this view, the list is one embodying the results of the census made by Nehemiah, not a list of those who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel But it seems strange that such a theory should ever have been seriously maintained, since not only does Ezra declare the list to be a catalogue of those "which came with Zerubbabel" (ver. 2), but Nehemiah himself warns us that it is "a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first" (Neh_7:5). The Jews, like other Semitic races, especially the Arabs, set great store by their genealogies; and, to secure a sound basis for these in the restored community, it was essential that a correct record should be kept of the families by which the state was re-established. Already there was a large number of Jews among the captives which could not show their father"s house, or their pedigree, whether they were of Israel" (ver. 59). It was essential, according to Jewish ideas, that such ignorance should, at the least, be arrested, and not spread through the nation. Hence the elaborate genealogies with which the first Book of Chronicles opens (chs. 1.-8.), and hence also the present list.
The list may be divided into ten parts:
Read full note →
1. Enumeration of the leaders (ver. 2).
2. Numbers of those who returned, arranged according to families (vers. 3-19).
3. Numbers of those who returned, arranged according to localities (vers. 20-35).
4. Numbers of the priests, arranged according to families (vers. 36-39).
5. Numbers of the Levites, arranged similarly (vers. 40-42).
6. Families of the Nethinim (vers. 43-54).
7. Families of "Solomon"s servants" (vers. 55-57).
8. Number of these last two classes together (ver. 58).
9. Account of those who could not show their genealogy (vers. 59-63).
10. General summation (ver. 64).
These are the children of the province. i.e. of Judaea, which was a province of Persia, distinguished here from Babylon, which was one of the capitals a mode of speech indicating the foreign standpoint of Ezra. Unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city. Jerusalem was not the only site occupied by the people on their return. Many took up their abodes in the neighbouring towns and villages, such as Jericho, Tekoah, Gibeon, Mizpah, Zanoah, etc. (see Neh_3:2-19, and 7:20-35) These were chiefly persons whose families had belonged to those places.
Zerubbabel, Jesbua, etc. In the corresponding verse of Nehemiah (Neh_7:7) there are twelve names, one of which (it is probable) has accidentally fallen out here. The twelve are reasonably regarded as either the actual heads of the twelve tribes, or at any rate as representing them. Notwithstanding the small number among the returned exiles who belonged to other tribes than those of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, there was a manifest wish on the part of the chiefs to regard the return as in some sort that of all the tribes. (see Ezr_2:70 Ezr_6:17 Ezr_8:35, etc.) The number of the men. The lists in Nehemiah and the apocryphal Esdras differ in many details, and furnish strong evidence of the corruption to which numbers are liable from the mistakes of copyists, and the facility of error when there is no check from the context. Of the forty-two numbers here given by Ezra (vers. 3-60), as many as eighteen differ from the corresponding numbers in Nehemiah. The difference, however, is mostly small; and even the sum of the differences is trivial (see comment on ver. 64).
HOMILETICS Vers. 1-67.
The muster-roll.
The last chapter gave us a catalogue of the sacred vessels returned. In that portion of the present chapter which concludes with the above verses we have a similar catalogue of the sacred people returned. (see Lam_4:2) The first verse seems to show us where this catalogue was made out, viz., in the land of their exile, where Judaea was constantly spoken of as "the province". (comp. Ezr_5:8; Neh_1:3 Neh_11:3) If the nearly identical catalogue which Nehemiah (Neh_7:5) describes himself as having found at Jerusalem, about 103 years afterwards, were the same catalogue as corrected and laid up after the arrival of the exiles at Jerusalem, this might account for the various minor differences which are discoverable between them. Many enrolled to start might never start, or never arrive; some not enrolled to start might join afterwards and be enrolled then. At any rate it is easier to suppose something of this kind than to suppose, in connection with such careful and formal documents of state, so many glaring "mistakes." See also the very curious coincidences with regard to numbers in this case adduced by Wordsworth in loc. ; coincidences hardly to be accounted for except on the supposition of some secret but perfect method of numerical reconciliation. We may take the catalogue before us, therefore, very much as it stands. Not improbably, according to its own methods of interpretation, it is quite correct as it stands. Can we regard it as being also instructive from a moral point of view? Perhaps if we merely regard it in a general way, and as setting before our notice, first, the kind of men, and second, the number of men, that came up, we shall find even this apparently barren Scripture not without some sacred use to us. Some lessons can also be gathered from the very names we find here.
I THE KIND OF MEN THAT CAME UP. They appear to have been men, in the main, loving the old state of things. They were conservatives, e.g. , in politics, keeping still, in the person of Zerubbabel as their chief civil ruler, to the ancient dynasty, that of David. They are also thought by some, comparing the names in ver. 2 with the probably correcter account in Neh_7:7, and with Ezr_6:17; 1Ki_18:31, to have shown the same spirit touching the ancient twelve-fold "constitution" of Israel. In Church matters, again, so to call them, the returning exiles showed their strong respect for precedents and the past by submitting to Jeshua as chief priest. (see 2Ki_25:18-21; 1Ch_6:15; Hag_1:1, Hag_1:14) Also we see another branch of this Church conservatism of theirs in the especial importance attached by them to the question of genealogy. While, further yet, on this last-mentioned matter, the only proposal made for settling the doubts that beset it was by an ancient method again (ver. 63). Nor is it altogether unworthy of remark in this connection that they also appear to have been men showing great attachment to race and place, and assembling together for their proposed return to Jerusalem in family groups. In most cases these groups are described as "the children" of some one man. This is the case of vers. 1-17, and again of vers. 33-35. In other cases (vers. 18-33) the groups are described as being connected with particular towns, which, considering how necessarily near of kin all Israelitish fellow-townsmen had formerly been, comes to much the same thing. (see Num_36:7; 1Ki_21:3) All the priests also who returned amongst them are in similar groups, being all described as belonging to four "courses" or family lines (vers. 36-39). The same kind of thing, again, is true of the Levites (vers. 40-42), and even of those Nethinims and children of Solomon"s servants who appear to have been the "hewers of wood" and "drawers of water" for the congregation at large. A strong "clannish" spirit, a great desire to be and do as in" the old times before them," seems to have prevailed among all; the same spirit which afterwards degenerated into that false conservatism, the conservatism of mere human traditions, (comp. Jer_6:16 and Jer_18:15) found in Pharisaism and Rabbinism. Meanwhile, however, and while still uncorrupted, it made them just the men for their work: returned refugees, not colonists; men called upon merely to rebuild and restore, and not, like Moses before and the apostles of Christ after them, to devise and create.
II The NUMBER of those who returned is also worthy of note. They were only a few, all told; some 50, 000, of all sorts, including, so it would seem from comparing the items, about 10, 000 souls of some kind not mentioned in the detailed catalogue. How different from the 600, 000 "that were men," beside women and children and many others, that had come up out of Egypt so many generations previously! How many others must have been left behind! (as some indication of the state of things on this point, see Est_9:16) Counting also by the number of families or groups that returned, what are thirty-five, the whole number mentioned here, out of the many thousands of Israel! Moreover, a comparison of this chapter with what we read in ch. 8. of such names as Pharosh, Pahath-Moab, Adin, Shephatiah, and others, shows that all the members even of these thirty-five families did not come back at the first. So also, although the proportion of priests returning was very considerable (about one tenth of the whole), only four courses out of the twenty-four (vers. 36-39 1Ch 24) were represented among them; whilst some 341 Levites of all three descriptions, as against 38, 000 in David"s time, and some 392 Nethinims and others, comprised in forty-five groups, complete the catalogue given, except of cases of doubt. Yet even these few appear to be many, viewed from a different point. Of beasts of burden of all kinds they had rather more than 9000 amongst them (about one to every six travellers); but of these only 736 were horses; and of camels, the animals so especially required by them in the desert journey before them, there were only 435 a very different proportion indeed to that which we read of in Gen_24:10, where ten camels appear to have been provided for one traveller"s use. Altogether it may well be questioned whether caravans of greater apparent importance in every way do not annually cross the deserts of the East without leaving any visible trace behind them on the history of the day. The secret of the difference was in the "blessing" that went with them. In those holy vessels, in the duty before them, and in the presence among them of the prophets and priests of Jehovah, and of the ancestor of the coming Saviour, they were indeed "bearing precious seed". (Psa_126:6) That being so, their small number was just the proper one for God"s use; sufficient to form a nucleus and make a beginning, but not sufficient to give them the appearance of being more than instruments in his hands. (comp. Jud_1:7:2, 4; and in connection with the very people and time we are speaking of Zec_4:6)
III A word or two may be added, finally, as to the special NAMES we find here. It cannot surely be a mere coincidence that we find this second entrance into Canaan, this return from Babylonian captivity, headed (ecclesiastically) by one bearing the greatest of Jewish names. Are not such truths as we find in Psa_68:18; Act_7:45; Col_2:15, etc. pointed to here by this name of Jeshua? See further, as to the typical relation between this "Jeshua" and the man Christ "Jesus," Isa_11:1 Jer_23:5; Zec_3:8 Zec_6:11-13, etc. Also let the name of Bethlehem in ver. 21 of this chapter be noted. Was not the fact there recorded, the return, viz., of certain Bethlehemites to their ancestral home in Judah, one step in the many steps taken to fulfil the prophecy of Mic_5:2, and to make this town of Bethlehem in after ages the exact spot where heaven came nearest to earth? When we remember, indeed, yet further, as before noted, that we have in the name of Zerubbabel the name of a direct ancestor of Messiah himself, (Mat_1:13, Mat_1:16) as also what we read in Heb_7:9, Heb_7:10, can we not, in these three names of Jeshua, Zerubbabel, and Bethlehem, prophetically see the Lord Jesus himself leading his people back to their land? And can we not also, in the march of that little company, as it were, hear the very sound of his feet? How true, therefore, and how much to be remembered by us, what we read of as declared on this subject by apostles, by angels, by himself. (Joh_5:39, Joh_5:46; Act_10:43; Rev_19:10)
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD Vers. 1, 2.
The restoration of Israel.
This is an important subject. Great portion of Scripture occupied with it. Events of the utmost moment connected with it.
I AS THE SCATTERING OF ISRAEL WAS GRADUAL, SO MAY HIS GATHERING BE.
1. His tribes became distributed into two kingdoms.
(1) United until the evil days of Rehoboam. (see 1Ki_12:20)
(2) Thence distinguished as Judah and Israel. Under the name of Judah is comprehended also the small tribe of Benjamin, with priests and others of the tribe of Levi.
2. The ten tribes were first carried captive by the Assyrians. This was in two detachments.
(1) By Tiglath-pileser, B.C. 739. (see 2Ki_15:29)
(2) By Shalmaneser eighteen years later, when the deportation was complete. (see 2Ki_17:6, 2Ki_17:18)
3. The Jews were afterwards carried away to Babylon. This was 130 years later, and was also accomplished in two detachments, viz.
(1) That, B.C. 599, when Nebuchadnezzar removed the principal people. (2Ki_24:14)
(2) That eleven years later, when the remnant was removed. (see 2Ki_25:11)
(3) Then, six centuries later, came the dispersion by the Romans. Prophecy views the scattering as a whole, without breaking it up into its details, and so it views the restoration; and as the scattering was accomplished at long intervals by instalments, so may the gathering be.
II THIS RESTORATION BY EZRA WAS NOT THE FULL ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PROPHECIES.
1. The ten tribes were not included in it.
(1) They were the "children of the province." Not of Babylon, as some think, for Babylon is contrasted with it here. But of Judaea, now a province of the Persian empire. (see Ezr_5:8) Behold the goodness and severity of God!
(2) Further specified as "those whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away." No mention made of those before carried into Assyria.
(3) Further, as "the number of the men of the people of Israel." Given in detail in this chapter. Here we find children of Judah, of Benjamin, of Levi and the priests, and even of the Gibeonites, but no mention of Ephraim and his associates.
(4) But the restoration of the ten tribes is promised. (see Eze_11:15-17) (What a rebuke to those who repeat this conduct of Judah in exclusively claiming for themselves as Christians the promises made to Israel!) Therefore there is yet a grand restoration for Israel.
2. This restoration did not reunite the divided nation.
(1) This fact already shown.
(2) But prophecy requires this. (see Eze_37:21, Eze_37:22) "Therefore," etc.
3. This restoration was not permanent.
(1) Even the Jews were subsequently scattered by the Romans. Have since been kept scattered by Romanists and Mahomedans.
(2) But prophecy requires this. (see Jer_31:10; Eze_34:27; Amo_9:14, Amo_9:15) "Therefore," etc.
III THIS RESTORATION WAS A PLEDGE OF THE GREATER EVENT.
1. It answered great purposes of prophecy.
(1) Those connected with the incarnation. To take place while the tribe-rod was yet with Judah. (see Gen_49:10) (See Julius Bate on "The Blessing of Judah by Jacob.") While the family of David yet had their genealogies; while yet they dwelt near Bethlehem. (see Mic_5:2)
(2) Those connected with the atonement. Jerusalem the place of sacrifices. Zion the place from whence the gospel law should issue. (see Isa_2:3; Joe_2:32)
2. There is a prophecy in accomplished predictions.
(1) The preservation of the Jews amongst the nations. Without a parallel in history. What for? (see Jer_30:11) "Full end" of Assyria, Babylon, Rome. Anti-christian nations doomed.
(2) History of the land as remarkable as that of the people. No permanent settlers. Romans, Greeks, Saracens, Papists, Turks!
3. The Jews expect their restoration.
(1) Good reason, for the word is sure.
(2) Their faith is patient. Centuries of disappointment. Is our faith so patient under trials? J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Vers. 1-67.
Spiritual significances.
What signifies to us, it may be asked, the exact number of the children of Parosh and Shephatiah (vers. 3, 4)? What does it signify to us that the heads of the returning families bore such and such a name? Why record this? What is
I THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS RECORD OF NAMES AND NUMBERS? The pains which the children of Israel took to keep a strict record of their families in Persia may have been
(a) an act of faith: it may have been the expression of their belief that God"s word of promise spoken by Jeremiah would (Jer_1:1) be fulfilled, and that the hour would come when they or their children would lay claim to their ancestral inheritance. Or it may have been
(b) a habit of obedience, which itself is suggestive enough. It was the will of their Divine Sovereign that everything, however minute, which pertained to his people should be scrupulously cared for. Nothing was unimportant that pertained to the people of God. It was worth while to chronicle every birth in every household of every family of every tribe of the holy nation. It was important to count every head of every division and rank of those who came out of Babylon, the "ransomed of the Lord." This striking particularity has no little interest to us. Things which the great and good among men would overlook as unimportant, are accounted not unworthy of regard by the Highest and the Best One. He who redeems us from a worse captivity than that of Babylon, and leads us to a better heritage than the earthly Jerusalem, counts everything of consequence that relates to his redeemed ones. He writes their names in the palms of his hand; he counts their tears; he hears their sighs; he orders their steps. Not one is overlooked; every name is entered in the book of life; every liberated soul has a place in the heart of the Redeemer.
II THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LOSS OF THE RECORD (vers. 59, 62, 63). "These could not show their father"s house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel" (ver. 59). "These sought their register.... but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood," etc. (vers. 62, 63).
(a) Some of the Jews had not taken sufficient pains to prove that they were of the people of God.
(b) Others, who believed themselves (rightly, no doubt) to be descendants of Aaron had lost their register; perhaps some of these may have more cared to claim and prove descent from the "honourable" house of Barzillai (ver. 61), esteeming such secular rank of greater value than the more sacred lineage. The descendants of both of these classes suffered through their neglect; the latter more particularly, for they were separated from the priesthood for an uncertain and, as it turned out, an indefinitely long period. The retention of our claim to be of the "Israel of God," or to be of those who" minister in holy things" in the gospel of Jesus Christ, does not depend on any documentary evidence; no revolutions here can affect the roll that is "written in heaven;" but carelessness about our own spiritual life, negligence in the worship of God, inattention to the claims of our spirit, indifference to the work and the want of other souls this may lead to our name being "blotted out from the book of life," or to our being counted all unworthy to "speak in the temple the words of this life" to others.
III THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PAUCITY OF THEIR NUMBER (ver. 64). "The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and three score." Counting children they may have amounted to 50, 000. This was but a small number compared with that of the exodus from Egypt, a feeble nucleus of a renewed nation! But the slenderness of their number was fitted
(a) to bind them the more to the service of God, and
(b) to knit them together in closer bonds of union.
A small number, devoted to Christ and united to one another, is far more powerful than an undevout and inharmonious multitude.
IV THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SCANTINESS OF THEIR RESOURCES (vers. 65-67). Their "servants and maids," and their "singing men and singing women" (ver. 65), their "horses and mules" (ver. 66), their "camels and asses" (ver. 67), made but a small show of property for the ransomed people. Doubtless there were amongst them men "well to do," if not wealthy. But the greater part of the rich members of the community remained behind. They who had the most to lose were least likely to accept the invitation to go up to Jerusalem. They who had least to leave behind them were most easily convinced of the wisdom of returning.
hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven." "Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven. C.
HOMILIES BY J.S. EXELL.
Vers. 1-70.
Men forsaking the worldly life.
We regard the people returning from Babylon as typical of men going out of the worldly life into the life and work of the kingdom of God. Observe
I THAT MEN FORSAKE THE WORLDLY LIFE FROM CHOICE. Cyrus compelled no man to leave the land of captivity. The Jews left Babylon in the exercise of their own free will. Israel as a nation went out of Egypt; but as individuals they come out of Babylon. Heaven compels no man to forsake sin.
1. It was a good choice. It was better to build the temple than to work in Babylon; the spiritual is better than the servile; it is good to serve God.
2. It was a wise choice. They would be honoured as the heroic builders of the second temple; and how would they be blessed in their holy toil. It is wise to choose the unworldly life.
3. It was a self-denying choice. They had to leave friends and companions behind; they had to forsake vested interests, and enter an unknown future. The unworldly life necessitates self-denial, but the reward is a hundredfold.
4. It was a believing choice. They believed that God would be with them, and that his angel would go before them. There are great duties in the pursuit of an unworldly life; there are many temples to erect, but God is an infinite resource.
II THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS ENCOURAGEMENTS TO MEN FORSAKING THE WORLDLY LIFE.
1. They have encouragements of a spiritual nature. "The priests" are with them (ver. 36). All that belongs to heaven"s priesthood goes along with the unworldly life in its march from Babylon.
2. They have encouragements of a social nature (ver. 64). The companionships of the unworldly life are helpful.
3. They have encouragements of a joyful nature. "The singers" are with them (ver. 41). And men who seek to live an unworldly life are accompanied by many celestial joys.
4. They have encouragements of a varied nature. There were many to aid in unnumbered ways the people in their new work.
III THAT IN FORSAKING THE WORLDLY LIFE MEN MUST BE SOLICITOUS AS TO THE EVIDENCES OF THEIR MORAL REALITY. "But they could not show their father"s house" (vers. 59-63). These were with the returning people, and to all appearance as loyal as any of them, but they could not prove their oneness with them.
1. There is a register within. Are the dispositions of a renewed life within us? have we the testimony of a good conscience?
2. There is a register around us. Whom do men say that we are? Are our lives such as become the builders of God"s temple?
3. There is a register above us. God"s witness is true. The register is soon lost by sin. Let us not sacrifice it to temporal gain; let us not sacrifice it by marriage (ver. 61). If we lose it we shall be morally unclean, spiritually depraved, and eternally cast out (vers. 62, 63). We must prove our religion as well as possess it.
IV THAT IN FORSAKING THE WORLDLY LIFE MEN MUST GIVE THEMSELVES ENTIRELY TO THE NEW TOILS THAT DEVOLVE UPON THEM (vers. 68-70).
1. They came to the work. "They came to the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem." Sight quickens activity. The ruined temple would awaken a sense of duty.
2. They gave to the work. "They gave after their ability." Ability is the universal law of service. Men who enter upon the unworldly life must be ready for all the work of the Lord. E.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 62, 65 Now these are the children of the province that…
Ezr_2:1-2
Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity.
Read full note →
Going up out of captivity
I. The deliverance from captivity.
1. This captivity had been--
(1) A degradation;
(2) a subjection;
(3) a transformation;
(4) a retribution.
The most deplorable degradation and the most real and terrible subjection are those of sin.
2. This deliverance--
(1) Originated in the favour of God;
(2) was effected by an unlikely agent;
(3) was permissive and not compulsory.
Salvation from the bondage of sin is freely offered in the gospel, but no one is compelled to accept the offer.
II. The journey home. This journey was--
1. A restoration.
2. A restoration to their own home.
3. A restoration to religious privileges. The salvation of Jesus Christ restores man to his true condition and to his forfeited inheritance.
III. The subordination to leaders. Society could not exist without leaders and rulers. They are necessary--
1. For the maintenance of order.
2. For insuring progress.
3. Because of the differences in the characters and abilities of men. (William Jones.)
Emancipation
The Rev. J. Jackson Fuller, of the Cameroons, a coloured missionary, said at the Young Peoples Meeting of the Baptist Centenary: Although our fathers in my country were born under the British flag, yet we were nothing more and nothing else than the chattels of the Englishman. We were British slaves, and it was partly by the missionaries going to our country--the island of Jamaica--and telling us of the love of Jesus Christ that their vivid description of our oppressed condition aroused the English nation, and in the year 1834, after paying twenty millions of money, you set us all free. The very day you passed the Emancipation Act in England, I was made free. You young people would have been glad, or your fathers before you would have been glad, had they the opportunity of seeing that morning in the year 1884 when thousands of children and their fathers and mothers gathered together during the evening, waiting for that morning of the 31st of July to dawn. At eleven oclock at night they gathered in mass and waited for the hour to pass when the clock should strike twelve. And then you would have been glad to see that mighty mass of human beings rise on their feet and sing the Doxology--Praise God, from whom all blessings flow. I was among that number that gathered that night. I heard the Doxology sung. I am one of the boys that were rescued when you paid twenty millions of money and set our fathers free.
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 68 THE journey of the returning exiles from Babylon has…
THE SECOND EXODUS
Ezr_2:1-67
Read full note →
THE journey of the returning exiles from Babylon has some points of resemblance to the exodus of their fathers from Egypt. On both occasions the Israelites had been suffering oppression in a foreign land. Deliverance had come to the ancient Hebrews in so wonderful a way that it could only be described as a miracle of God; no material miracle was recorded of the later movement; and yet it was so marvellously providential that the Jews were constrained to acknowledge that the hand of God was not less concerned in it.
But there were great differences between the two events. In the original Hegira of the Hebrews a horde of slaves was fleeing from the land of their brutal masters; in the solemn pilgrimage of the second exodus the Jews were able to set out with every encouragement from the conqueror of their national enemy. On the other hand, while the flight from Egypt led to liberty, the expedition from Babylon did not include an escape from the foreign yoke. The returning exiles were described as "children of the province" {Ezr_2:1} - i.e., of the Persian province of Judaea-and their leader bore the title of a Persian governor. {Tirshatha. Ezr_2:63} Zerubbabel was no new Moses. The first exodus witnessed the birth of a nation; the second saw only a migration within the boundaries of an empire, sanctioned by the ruler because it did not include the deliverance of the subject people from servitude.
In other respects the condition of the Israelites who took part in the later expedition contrasts favourably with that of their ancestors under Moses. In the arts of civilisation, of course, they were far superior to the crushed Egyptian bondmen. But the chief distinction lay in the matter of religion. At length, in these days of Cyrus, the people were ripe to accept the faith of the great teachers who hitherto had been as voices crying in the wilderness. This fact signalises the immense difference between the Jews in every age previous to the exile, and the Jews of the return. In earlier periods they appear as a kingdom, but not as a Church; in the later age they are no longer a kingdom, but they have become a Church. The kingdom had been mainly heathenish and idolatrous in its religion, and most abominably corrupt in its morals, with only a thin streak of purer faith and conduct running through the course of its history. But the new Church, formed out of captives purified in the fires of persecution, consisted of a body of men and women who heartily embraced the religion to which but few of their forefathers had attained, and who were even ready to welcome a more rigorous development of its cult. Thus they became a highly developed Church. They were consolidated into a Puritan Church in discipline, and a High Church in ritual.
It must be borne in mind that only a fraction of the Jews in the East went back to Palestine. Nor were they who tarried, in all cases, the more worldly, enamoured of the fleshpots. In the Talmud it is said that only the chaff returned, while the wheat remained behind. Both Ezra and Nehemiah sprang from families still residing in the East long after the return under Zerubbabel.
It is in accordance with these conditions that we come across one of the most curious characteristics of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah-a characteristic which they share with Chronicles, viz., the frequent insertion of long lists of names.
Thus the second chapter of Ezra contains a list of the families who went up to Jerusalem in response to the edict of Cyrus. One or two general considerations arise here.
Since it was not a whole nation that migrated from the plains of Babylon across the great Syrian desert, but only some fragments of a nation, we shall not have to consider the fortunes and destinies of a composite unity, such as is represented by a kingdom. The people of God must now be regarded disjunctively. It is not the blessing of Israel, or the blessing of Judah, that faith now anticipates; but the blessing of those men, women, and children who fear God and walk in His ways, though, of course, for the present they are all confined to the limits of the Jewish race.
On the other hand, it is to be observed that this individualism was not absolute. The people were arranged according to their families, and the names that distinguished the families were not those of the present heads of houses, but the names of ancestors, possibly of captives taken down to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. As some of these names occur in later expeditions, it is plain that the whole of the families they represented were not found in the first body of pilgrims. Still the people were grouped in family order. The Jews anticipated the modern verdict of sociology, that the social unit is the family, not the individual. Judaism was, through and through, a domestic religion.
Further, it is to be noted that a sort of caste feeling was engendered in the midst of the domestic arrangement of the people. It emerges already in the second chapter of Ezra in the cases of families that could not trace their genealogy, and it bears bitter fruit in some pitiable scenes in the later history of the returned people. Not only national rights, but also religious privileges, come more and more to depend on purity of birth and descent. Religion is viewed as a question of blood relationship. Thus even with the very appearance of that new-born individualism which might be expected to counteract it, even when the recovered people is composed entirely of volunteers, a strong racial current sets in, which grows in volume until in the days of our Lord the fact of a mans being a Jew is thought a sufficient guarantee of his enjoying the favour of Heaven, until in our own day such a book as "Daniel Deronda" portrays the race-enthusiasm of the Israelite as the very heart and essence of his religion.
We have three copies of the list of the returning exiles-one in Ezra 2, the second in Nehemiah 7, and the third in RAPC 1 Esdras 5. They are evidently all of them transcripts of the same original register; but though they agree in the main, they differ in details, giving some variation in the names and considerable diversity in the numbers-Esdras coming nearer to Ezra than to Nehemiah, as we might expect. The total, however, is the same in every case, viz., 42,360 (besides 7337 servants)-a large number, which shows how important the expedition was considered to be.
The name of Zerubbabel appears first. He was the lineal descendant of the royal house, the heir to the throne of David. This is a most significant fact. It shows that the exiles had retained some latent national organisation, and it gives a faint political character to the return, although, as we have already observed, the main object of it was religious. To fervent readers of old prophecies strange hopes would dawn, hopes of the Messiah whose advent Isaiah, in particular, had predicted. Was this new shoot from the stock of David indeed the Lords Anointed? Those who secretly answered the question to themselves in the affirmative were doomed to much perplexity and not a little disappointment. Nevertheless Zerubbabel was a lower, a provisional, a temporary Messiah. God was educating His people through their illusions. As one by one the national heroes failed to satisfy the large hopes of the prophets, they were left behind, but the hopes still maintained their unearthly vitality. Hezekiah, Josiah, Zerubbabel, the Maccabees all passed, and in passing they all helped to prepare for One who alone could realise the dreams of seers and singers in all the best ages of Hebrew thought and life.
Still the bulk of the people do not seem to have been dominated by the Messianic conception. It is one characteristic of the return that the idea of the personal, God-sent, but human Messiah recedes; and another, older and more persistent Jewish hope comes to the front-viz., the hope in God Himself as the Saviour of His people and their Vindicator. Cyrus could not have suspected any political designs, or he would not have made Zerubbabel the head of the expedition. Evidently "Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah," to whom Cyrus handed over the sacred vessels of the temple, is the same man as Zerubbabel, because in Ezr_5:16 we read that Sheshbazzar laid the foundation of the temple, while in Ezr_3:8 this work is ascribed to Zerubbabel, with whom the origin of the work is again connected in Ezr_5:2.
The second name is Jeshua. The man who bears it was afterwards the high-priest at Jerusalem. It is impossible to say whether he had exercised any sacerdotal functions during the exile; but his prominent place shows that honour was now offered to his priesthood. Still he comes after the royal prince.
Then follow nine names without any description. Nehemiahs list includes another name, which seems to have dropped out of the list in Ezra. These, together with the two already mentioned, make an exact dozen. It cannot be an accident that twelve names stand at the head of the list; they must be meant to represent the twelve tribes-like the twelve apostles in the Gospels, and the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem in the Apocalypse. Thus it is indicated that the return is for all Israel, not exclusively for the Judaean Hebrews. Undoubtedly the bulk of the pilgrims were descendants of captives from the Southern Kingdom. {See Ezr_1:5} The dispersion of the Northern Kingdom had begun two centuries earlier than Nebuchadnezzars invasion of Judaea; it had been carried on by successive removals of the people in successive wars. Probably most of these early exiles had been driven farther north than those districts which were assigned to the Judaean captives; probably, too, they had been scattered far and wide; lastly, we know that they had been sunken in an idolatrous imitation of the manners and customs of their heathen neighbours, so that there was little to differentiate them from the people among whom they were domiciled. Under all these circumstances, is it remarkable that the ten tribes have disappeared from the observation of the world? They have vanished, but only as the Goths have vanished in Italy, as the Huguenot refugees have vanished in England-by mingling with the resident population. We have not to search for them in Tartary, or South America, or any other remote region of the four continents, because we have no reason to believe that they are now a separate people.
Still a very small "Remnant" was faithful. This "Remnant" was welcome to find its way back to Palestine with the returning Judaeans. As the immediate object of the expedition was to rebuild the temple at the rival capital of Jerusalem, it was not to be expected that patriots of the Northern Kingdom would be very eager to join it. Yet some descendants of the ten tribes made their way back. Even in New Testament times the genealogy of the prophetess Anna was reckoned from the tribe of Asher. {Luk_2:36} It is most improbable that the twelve leaders were actually descendants of the twelve tribes. But just as in the case of the apostles, whom we cannot regard as thus descended, they represented all Israel. Their position at the head of the expedition proclaimed that the "middle wall of partition" was broken down. Thus we see that redemption tends to liberalise the redeemed, that those who are restored to God are also brought back to the love of their brethren.
The list that follows the twelve is divisible into two sections. First, we have a number of families; then there is a change in the tabulation, and the rest of the people are arranged according to their cities. The most simple explanation of this double method is that the families constitute the Jerusalem citizens.
The towns named in the second division are all situated in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The only part of Palestine as yet restored to the Jews was Jerusalem, with the towns in its vicinity. The southern half of Judaea remained in the hands of the Edomites, who begrudged to the Jews even the resumption of the northern portion-and very naturally, seeing that the Edomites had held it for half a century, a time which gives some assurance of permanent possession. This must be borne in mind when we come across the troubles between the returned exiles and their neighbours in Palestine. We can never understand a quarrel until we have heard both sides. There is no Edomite history of the wars of Israel. No doubt such a history would put another face on the events-just as a Chinese history of the English wars in the East would do, to the shame of the Christian nation.
After the leaders and the people generally come the successive orders of the temple ministry. We begin with the priests, and among these a front rank is given to the house of Jeshua. The high-priest himself had been named earlier, next to Zerubbabel, among the leaders of the nation, so distinct was his position from that of the ordinary priesthood. Next to the priests we have the Levites, who are now sharply separated from the first order of the ministry. The very small number of Levites in comparison with the large number of priests is startling-over four thousand priests and only seventy-four Levites! The explanation of this anomaly may be found in what had been occurring in Chaldaea. Ezekiel declared that the Levites were to be degraded because of their sinful conduct. {Eze_44:9-16} We see from the arrangement in Ezra that the prophets message was obeyed. The Levites were now separated from the priests, and set down to a lower function. This could not have been acceptable to them. Therefore it is not at all surprising that the majority of them held aloof from the expedition for rebuilding the temple in sullen resentment, or at best in cool indifference, refusing to take part in a work the issue of which would exhibit their humiliation to menial service. But the seventy-four had grace to accept their lowly lot.
The Levites are not set in the lowest place. They are distinguished from several succeeding orders. The singers, the children of Asaph, were really Levites; but they form a separate and important class, for the temple service was to be choral-rich and gladsome. The door-keepers are a distinct order, lowly, but honourable, for they are devoted to the service of God, for whom all work is glorious.
"They also serve who only stand and wait."
Next come the Nethinims, or temple-helots. These seem to have been aborgines of Canaan who had been pressed into the service of the old Jerusalem temple, like the Gibeonites, the hewers of wood and drawers of water. After the Nethinims come "the children of Solomons servants," another order of slaves, apparently the descendants of the war captives whom Solomon had assigned to the work of building the temple. It shows what thorough organisation was preserved among the captives that these bondsmen were retained in their original position and brought back to Jerusalem. To us this is not altogether admirable. We may be grieved to see slavery thus enlisted in the worship of God. But we must recollect that even with the Christian gospel in her hand, for centuries, the Church had her slaves, the monasteries their serfs. No idea is of slower growth than the idea of the brotherhood of man.
So far all was in order; but there were exceptional cases. Some of the people could not prove their Israelite descent, and accordingly they were set aside from their brethren. Some of the priests even could not trace their genealogy. Their condition was regarded as more serious, for the right of office was purely hereditary. The dilemma brought to light a sad sense of loss. If only there were a priest with the Urim and Thummim, this antique augury of flashing gems might settle the difficulty! But such a man was not to be found. The Urim and Thummim, together with the Ark and the Shekinah, are named by the rabbis among the precious things that were never recovered. The Jews looked back with regret to the wonderful time when the privilege of consulting an oracle had been within the reach of their ancestors. Thus they shared the universal instinct of mankind that turns fondly to the past for memories of a golden age, the glories of which have faded and left us only the dingy scenes of everyday life. In this instinct we may detect a transference to the race of the vaguely perceived personal loss of each man as he reflects on those far-off, dream-like child-days, when even he was a "mighty prophet," a "seer blest," one who had come into the world "trailing clouds of glory." Alas! he perceives that the mystic splendours have faded into the light of common day, if they have not even given place to the gloom of doubt, or the black night of sin. Then, taking himself as a microcosm, he ascribes a similar fate to the race.
Nothing is more inspiriting in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ than its complete reversal of this dismal process of reflection, and its promise of the Golden Age in the future. The most exalted Hebrew prophecy anticipated something of the kind; here and there it lit up its sombre pages with the hope of a brilliant future. The attitude of the Jews in the present instance, when they simply set a question on one side, waiting till a priest with Urim and Thummim should appear, suggests too faint a belief in the future to be prophetic. But like Socrates hint at the possibility of one arising who should solve the problems which were inscrutable to the Athenians of his day, it points to a sense of need. When at length Christ came as "the Light of the World," it was to supply a widely felt want. It is true He brought no Urim and Thummim. The supreme motive for thankfulness in this connection is that His revelation is so much more ample than the wizard guidance men had formerly clung to, as to be like the broad sunshine in comparison with the shifting lights of magic gems. Though He gave no formal answers to petty questions such as those for which the Jews would resort to a priest, as their heathen neighbours resorted to a soothsayer, He shed a wholesome radiance on the path of life, so that His followers have come to regard the providing of a priest with Urim and Thummim as at best an expedient adapted to the requirements of an age of superstition.
If the caravan lacked the privilege of an oracle, care was taken to equip it as well as the available means would allow. These were not abundant. There were servants, it is true. There were beasts of burden too-camels, horses, asses; but these were few in comparison to the numbers of the host-only at the rate of one animal to a family of four persons. Yet the expedition set out in a semi-royal character, for it was protected by a guard of a thousand horsemen sent by Cyrus. Better than this, it possessed a spirit of enthusiasm which triumphed over poverty and hardship, and spread a great gladness through the people. Now at length it was possible to take down the harps from the willows. Besides the temple choristers, two hundred singing men and women accompanied the pilgrims to help to give expression to the exuberant joyousness of the host. The spirit of the whole company was expressed in a noble lyric that has become familiar to us:-
"When the Lord turned again the captivity of Zion,
We were like unto them that dream.
Then was our mouth filled with laughter,
And our tongue with singing;
Then said they among the nations,
The Lord hath done great things for them.
The Lord hath done great things for us;
Whereof we are glad." {Psa_126:1-3}
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.] In this chapter we have…
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.] In this chapter we have the list of those who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel, and their contributions for rebuilding the Temple. The contents may be arranged thus—
1. The description of the chapter (Ezr_2:1), with the names of the leaders of the exodus (Ezr_2:2).
Read full note →
2. The numbers of the people who returned, arranged—
(1) according to families (Ezr_2:3-19;
(2) according to cities (Ezr_2:20-35).
3. The numbers of the priests and Levites who returned, arranged according to families (Ezr_2:36-42).
4. The numbers of the Nethinim and the descendants of Solomon’s servants (Ezr_2:43-58).
5. People and priests who could not produce their genealogy (Ezr_2:59-63).
6. The sum total of the persons who returned, with their servants and beasts of burden (Ezr_2:64-67).
7. The offerings of those who returned for the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezr_2:68-69), and a concluding statement (Ezr_2:70). This catalogue appears also in the Book of Nehemiah (chap. Ezr_7:6-28), he having “found” the document (Ezr_2:5), and incorporated it in his work. It also appears in the apocryphal book, 1Es_5:7-45. The three texts differ to some extent in the names, and yet more in the numbers. The differences, however, are unimportant, and arose probably from the mistakes of copyists, to which there is great liability in transcribing long lists of names and numbers.
Ezr_2:1. The province] “i.e. the province of Judea as a district of the Persian Empire; so chap. Ezr_5:8, Neh_1:3.”—Keil. Every one unto his city] All who returned did not settle in Jerusalem. Many were located in neighbouring cities and villages.
Ezr_2:2. Zerubbabel] = “born in Babylon.” His Chaldean name was Sheshbazzar (chap. Ezr_1:8). Jeshua] A later and abbreviated form of Jehoshua. He was the son of Jehozadak (1Ch_6:14), or, as it is written in Hag_1:1, Josedech; was probably born in Babylon; and was the first high priest of the restored community. “A man of earnest piety, patriotism, and courage. “The names of nine other persons are given in this verse. Nehemiah (chap. Ezr_7:7) gives the name of Nahamani, which is not mentioned here, and makes twelve in all. Of these ten persons we know nothing except their names, and that, with Zerubbabel and Jeshua, they were probably the twelve heads of twelve divisions into which the new community was arranged. Nehemiah] is not “Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah” (Neh_1:1); Seraiah] is Azariah; Reelaiah] is Raamiah; Mizpar] is Mispereth; and Rehum] is Nehum, in Neh_7:7; Mordecai] not Mordecai the cousin and foster-parent of Esther (Est_2:7). The number of the men of the people of Israel] is “the special title of the first division (Ezr_2:3-35) of the following list, with which the titles in Ezr_2:36; Ezr_2:40; Ezr_2:43; Ezr_2:55 correspond. They are called ‘the people of Israel,’ not the people of Judah, because those who returned represented the entire covenant people.”—Keil. Although, as we before stated, those who returned were almost all from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi.
Ezr_2:3-35] It is not necessary for us to enter into a comparison of the names and numbers here given and those of the corresponding passage in Nehemiah.
Ezr_2:36-39. The priests] This brief catalogue corresponds exactly with Neh_7:39-42.
Ezr_2:40-42. The Levites] were of three classes—
1. Those who assisted the priests in Divine worship.
2. The singers.
3. The porters. (Comp. 1Ch_24:20-31; 1Ch_24:25; 1Ch_26:1-19)
Ezr_2:43-54. The Nethinims] Nethinim = “given or dedicated ones;” from נָתַן = “to give,” “dedicate,” &c. They were captives of war, who were given to the Levites to be employed in the rougher and more laborious duties of their offices (Num_31:47; Jos_9:27). “The Nethinims, whom David and the princes had appointed (Heb. given) for the service of the Levites” (chap. Ezr_8:20). Keil briefly designates them “temple-bondsmen.”
Ezr_2:55-57. The children of Solomon’s servants] were, according to Plumptre (Bibl. Dict.) and Rawlinson, the descendants of the remnant of the ancient Canaanites, upon whom Solomon “levied a tribute of bond-service” (1Ki_9:20-21; 2Ch_8:7-8). But, according to Keil and Schultz, they were prisoners of war from some other nations, whom Solomon made to do services similar to those of the Gibeonites (Jos_9:27). In rebuilding the Temple their services would be of great importance.
Ezr_2:58. Three hundred ninety and two] So also Neh_7:60.
Ezr_2:59-60. Could not show their father’s house, and their seed] Margin: “pedigree.” “Although they could not prove their Israelite origin, they were permitted to go up to Jerusalem with the rest, the rights of citizenship alone being for the present withheld.”—Keil.
Ezr_2:61-63. Children of the priests] who could not prove that they belonged to the priesthood.
Ezr_2:61. Which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai] &c. Keil and Schultz think that the daughters of Barzillai were heiresses, and that the priest who married one of them assumed her name in order to take possession of her inheritance. But this, to say the least, is very questionable, seeing that they had brothers (1Ki_2:7); and daughters, according to Jewish law, did not inherit any of their father’s property except in those cases in which he had no son (Num_27:8). It is more probable that the name of the wife’s family was preferred because of the honourable associations of that name; for Barzillai the Gileadite “was a very great man,” and distinguished by reason of his relations to king David (2Sa_17:27-29; 2Sa_19:31-39; 1Ki_2:7). The change of name would not invalidate the claim of the descendants of the family to the priesthood; but in process of time it might have occasioned doubts as to their priestly origin.
Ezr_2:62. Therefore, were they, as polluted] &c. Margin: “Heb., they were polluted from the priesthood.” They were pronounced unclean, and so excluded from the priesthood.
Ezr_2:63. Tirshatha] Margin: “Or, governor.” It is the Persian title of the civil governor, and is here given to Zerubbabel. It was afterwards applied to Nehemiah (Neh_8:9; Neh_10:1). Not eat of the most holy things] (comp. Lev_2:3; Num_18:9). This prohibition involved their exclusion from the discharge of priestly functions. “A portion of the general fees which were offered to the priests was not denied them, since their right to the priesthood was not expressly denied, but left in suspenso.”—Schultz. Till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim] Zerubbabel expected that when the altar and Temple were rebuilt, Jehovah would again grant them some special manifestation of His presence, and would restore the privilege of obtaining direct answers from Him by means of Urim and Thummim. His expectation, however, was never fulfilled.
Ezr_2:64] The number here given agrees exactly with that given both in Nehemiah and in 1 Esdras. “The sum total being alike in all three texts, we are obliged to assume its correctness.”—Keil.
Ezr_2:65. Their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven] In Neh_7:67 the same number of servants is given. Two hundred singing men and singing women] These singers were employed to increase the delight of the festivities, and to chant dirges in times of mourning (2Ch_35:25; Ecc_2:8); and as they were hired and paid, and were probably not of Israelite origin, they are here classed with the servants.
Ezr_2:66-67] With these verses Neh_7:68-69, exactly agree.
Ezr_2:68. When they came to the house of the Lord] i.e. to the site of the Temple. Probably considerable ruins of the Temple were yet remaining.
Ezr_2:69] The account of the offerings given in Neh_7:70-72 differs from that in this verse, and is held both by Keil and by Schultz to be more correct. Threescore and one thousand drams, or darics, of gold] According to Rawlinson, the daric was worth £1, 1 Samuel 10½d. of our money. The 61,000 darics were therefore equal to £66,718, 15s. Five thousand pound, or mina, of silver] The Greek silver mina was worth a little over £4 of our money; and the value of the Hebrew silver manch, according to Rawlinson, was probably not very different from the Greek. Thus the offering in silver would be worth over £20,000; and the entire offering in money worth nearly £90,000. Keil, however, reckons the 61,000 darics of gold to be worth £68,625, and the 5000 mina of silver, £30,000, and the entire offering nearly £99,000.
GOING UP OUT OF CAPTIVITY
(Ezr_2:1 and part of 2)
We have here presented to our notice—
I. The deliverance from captivity. “These are the children of the promise that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away into Babylon.” The captivity from which they were escaping was
(1.) A degradation. It was the loss of their power and independence.
(2.) A subjection. It was the loss of their freedom. They were brought under the power of their conquerors.
(3.) A transportation. “Nebuchadnezzar the king carried them away unto Babylon.” From their own land, with all its hallowed and inspiring memories and associations, they were forcibly removed unto the land of their heathen conquerors.
(4.) A retribution. Their captivity was the punishment of their numerous, heinous, and long-continued sins against God, and especially their forsaking Him by the adoption of dolatrous customs. Nebuchadnezzar was the rod of God for their chastisement.
The most deplorable degradation and the most real and terrible subjection are those of sin.
But now many of the Jews are going “up out of the captivity.” The offer of release has been made, and they who are mentioned in this chapter have accepted it.
Concerning this deliverance, notice:—
1. It originated in the favour of God (chap. Ezr_1:1).
2. It was effected by an unlikely agent. Cyrus.
3. It was permissive, not compulsory. The Jews were quite free to accept or to decline the offer of Cyrus.
Salvation from the bondage of sin is freely offered in the Gospel, but no one is compelled to accept the offer. All who accept it do so willingly, of their own accord.
II. The journey home. “And came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city.” It is here suggested that this journey was:—
1. A restoration. “And came again.” They were going unto the land which God had given to their fathers; to the scenes of the most sacred and stirring events in their national history.
2. A restoration to their own home. “Came again every one unto his city.” It seems to us that where it was practicable the returning Jews would settle in the cities where their ancestors had resided, and take possession of the inheritances which they had held. They went back to the scenes amid which their forefathers lived and laboured, to the lands which they had cultivated, to the places where they had prayed and worked, rejoiced and wept, loved and suffered, lived and died. There must have been in this a very strong and tender attraction to many hearts. (a).
3. A restoration to religious privileges. “Came again unto Jerusalem.” Jerusalem was not only the metropolis of the nation, but the holy city, the place where the Temple had been and was to be again. “This Mount Zion, wherein Thou hast dwelt” (Psa_74:2). “Jerusalem … whither the tribes go up,” &c. (Psa_122:4).
The salvation of Jesus Christ restores man to his true condition and to his forfeited inheritance. “When divine grace,” said Legh Richmond, “renews the heart of the fallen sinner, Paradise is regained, and much of its beauty restored to the soul.”
But they were not returning with complete independence. They were still “the children of the province.” Judea remained a “province” of the Persian Empire. Full religious freedom was granted unto them, but politically they remained subject to Persian rule. Sin, even when it is forgiven, blotted out, always leaves some detriment, or loss, or pain behind it. (b).
III. The subordination to leaders. “Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mizpar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanab.” Zerubbabel prince of Judah was bead over all. Jeshua was the head of the party as regards its religious duties; and in addition to these there were ten recognised leaders. Society could not exist without rulers and leaders. They are necessary—
1. For the maintenance of order. The authority of law must be maintained; its sanctions must be enforced, or the bands of society would be utterly dissolved, &c. And for this purpose rulers or magistrates are necessary.
2. For insuring progress. The growth and improvement of a community are impossible apart from the exercise of wise leadership.
3. Because of the differences in the characters and abilities of men. By their native faculties, their character, and their training, some men almost inevitably become the rulers and leaders of others. (c).[1]
[1] These points are treated in a less fragmentary manner in the Hom. Com. on Numbers, p. 12.
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) There is a sanctity in a good man’s house which cannot be renewed in every tenement that rises on its ruins: and I believe that good men would generally feel this; and that having spent their lives happily and honourably, they would be grieved at the close of them to think that the place of their earthly abode, which had seen, and seemed almost to sympathise in, all their honour, their gladness, or their suffering—that this, with all the record it bare of them, and all of material things that they had loved and ruled over, and set the stamp of themselves upon—was to be swept away, as soon as there was room made for them in the grave; that no respect was to be shown to it, no affection felt for it, no good to be drawn from it by their children; that though there was a monument in the church, there was no warm monument in the hearth and house to them; that all that they ever treasured was despised, and the places that had sheltered and comforted them were dragged down to the dust. I say that a good man would fear this; and that, far more, a good son, a noble descendant, would fear doing it to his father’s house. I say that if men lived like men indeed, their houses would be temples—temples which we should hardly dare to injure, and in which it would make us holy to be permitted to live; and there must be a strange dissolution of natural affection, a strange unthankfulness for all that homes have given and parents taught, a strange consciousness that we have been unfaithful to our father’s honour, or that our own lives are not such as would make our dwellings sacred to our children, when each man would fain build to himself, and build for the little revolution of his own life only.…
When men do not love their hearths, nor reverence their thresholds, it is a sign that they have dishonoured both, and that they have never acknowledged the true universality of that Christian worship was indeed to supersede the idolatry, but not the piety, of the pagan. Our God is a household God, as well as a heavenly One; He has an altar in every man’s dwelling; let men look to it when they rend it lightly and pour out its ashes … It is one of those moral duties, not with more impunity to be neglected because the perception of them depends on a finely toned and balanced conscientiousness, to build our dwellings with care, and patience, and fondness, and diligent completion, and with a view to their duration at least for such a period as, in the ordinary course of national revolutions, might be supposed likely to extend to the entire alteration of the direction of local interests.—John Ruskin, M.A.
Home! angels encamp about it. Ladders are let down from heaven to every pillow in that house. Over the child’s rough crib there are chantings as sweet as those that broke above Bethlehem. It is home! home! The children of the family will grow up, and though they may get splendid residences of their own, they will never forget that homely place, the place where their father rested, and their mother sang, and their sisters played. If you wanted to gather up all tender memories, all lights and shadows of the heart, all banquetings and reunions, all filial, fraternal, paternal, conjugal affections, and had only just four letters with which to spell out that height, and depth, and length, and breadth, and magnitude, and eternity of meaning, you would write it out with these four capital letters: H-O-M-E.—T. de Witt Talmage, D.D.
(b) Even pardoned sins must leave a trace in heavy self-reproach. You have heard of the child whose father told him that whenever he did anything wrong a nail should be driven into a post, and when he did what was good he might pull one out. There were a great many nails driven into the post, but the child tried very hard to get the post cleared of the nails by striving to do right. At length he was so successful in his struggles with himself that the last nail was drawn out of the post. The father was just about to praise the child, when stooping down to kiss him, he was startled to see tears fast rolling down his face. “Why, my boy, why do you cry? Are not all the nails gone from the post?” “Oh yes! the nails are all gone, but the marks are left.” That is a familiar illustration, but don’t despise it because of that. It illustrates the experience of many a grey old sire, who, looking upon the traces of his old sins as they yet rankle in his conscience, would give a hundred worlds to live himself back into young manhood, that he might obliterate the searing imprint of his follies. Have you never heard of fossil-rain? In the stratum of the old red sandstone there are to be seen the marks of showers of rain which fell centuries and centuries ago, and they are so plain and perfect that they clearly indicate the way the wind was drifting, and in what direction the tempest slanted from the sky. So may the tracks of youthful sins be traced upon the tablet of the life when it has merged into old age—tracks which it is bitter and sad remorse to look upon, and which call forth many a bootless longing for the days and months which are past.—A. Mursell.
(c) In the long run leadership resolves itself into a question of personal qualification. For a time men may arise who claim commanding positions who are unable to discharge the duties which their ambition has coveted. In such instances there would seem to be a miscarriage of the natural law and order of things; yet it is only temporary; sooner or later unqualified men have to resign positions which they ought never to have assumed.—Joseph Parker, D.D.
In a great leader many elements of qualification are combined. Other men may excel him in detached points, but taken as a whole he rules not perhaps by one dominant faculty, but by a noble proportion of natural and acquired gifts. The position of a leader is not so easy as it may appear to be to unreflecting observers. Men see the elevation, not the strain and responsibility which that elevation involves. The only sound rule for promotion to influential positions in the Church is, that wisdom, wheresoever found, in the rich or the poor, the old or the young, should be recognised and honoured.—Ibid.
A SUGGESTIVE RECORD
(Ezr_2:2 (last clause)–64: “The number of the men of the people of Israel: The children of Paresh,” &c.)
Consider:
I. The significance of the fact of the record.
1. It was an honour to the pious and patriotic ones who returned. In going back to their own land at this time, and for the purpose of rebuilding the Temple, they acted very religiously and courageously; and to their praise their names were recorded, and in the providence of God the record has been preserved to this day. “Them that honour Me I will honour.”
2. It is an illustration of the Divine record of God’s spiritual Israel. The name of every true believer in Jesus Christ is “written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Rev_21:27). “Rejoice, because your names are written in heaven” (Luk_10:20; comp. Exo_32:32; Psa_69:28; Php_4:3; Heb_12:23; Rev_13:8). “The Lord knoweth them that are His.” (a).
3. It suggests that every one of His people is precious in the sight of God. “A book of remembrance was written before Him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name. And they shall be Mine, saith the Lord of Hosts, in that day when I make up My jewels.” He knows the number of His people, and the name of every one of them. “He calleth His own sheep by name.” He will not lose any one of them. He has not only written their names in His book of life, but has graven them upon the palms of His hands (Isa_49:16). (b).
II. The significance of the contents of the record. We have in this list—
1. Significant persons.
(1.) Zerubbabel, “the prince of Judah,” an ancestor of the Messiah (Mat_1:12; Luk_3:27). It was important that his name should be recorded, that no link might be absent from the chain of evidence which shows that our Lord was of the family of king David (comp. Isa_11:1; Jer_23:5; Mat_1:1-17; Mat_22:42).
(2.) Jeshua, who was a distinguished type of Jesus Christ (Zechariah 3, Zec_6:11-13).
2. A significant place. Bethlehem (Ezr_2:21). This place must be rebuilt, and reinhabited by Jews; for in the Divine purposes a great destiny awaited it (Mic_5:2; Mat_2:1). Here, then, in this record we have two persons and one place which sustained close relations to the Messiah.
3. Significant numbers.
(1.) The number of those who settled in Bethlehem was small—“an hundred twenty and three.” Bethlehem was “little among the thousands of Judah.” Yet how illustrious and universal is its renown! Size and populousness are utterly unsatisfactory tests of worth and greatness. (c).
(2.) The number of those who settled in Anathoth was also small—“an hundred twenty and eight” (Ezr_2:23). In this we have an illustration of the fulfilment of the Divine threatenings (Jer_11:21-23). The word of the Lord, whether it be a promise or a menace, shall surely be accomplished in due season.
(3.) The number of the whole was comparatively small. “The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand, three hundred and threescore” (Ezr_2:64). What a small number as compared with the 603,550 men “that were able to go forth to war in Israel,” who were numbered in the desert of Sinai! How small, too, as compared with the 601,730 men “able to go to war in Israel,” who were numbered in the plains of Moab, before the entrance into the Promised Land! The smallness of the number of those who returned to their own land may be viewed—(i.) As a discredit to those who remained in Babylon. In them the love of material prosperity was stronger than the love of country. They had neither piety nor patriotism enough to inspire them to make the sacrifices and encounter the perils which the return to their own land involved. (ii.) The greater honour to those who returned. They acted with a noble faithfulness and independence in doing what they deemed to be their duty and privilege, though they were in a minority, and though the course they followed involved loss and danger. They had the courage of their convictions; they were heroes in their fidelity to their country and to their God. (iii.) An element which contributed to the success of their undertaking. To settle down again in the deserted land, and to rebuild the ruined Temple in the face of difficulty and opposition, demanded men of the right quality rather than men in great multitude. It was force of character, and not force of numbers, that was needed for the success of the returning exiles—men of sincere piety and fervent patriotism. As the victory of Gideon over the Midianites was achieved not by the 32,000, some of whom were fearful and others lacking zeal, but by the 300 eager and heroic ones; so with this company under Zerubbabel, success was to be achieved by their faith and courage, not by their multitudinousness. (d).
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) God knows the persons of all His own. He hath in His infinite understanding the exact number of all the individual persons that belong to Him (2Ti_2:19): “The Lord knows them that are His.” He knows all things, because He hath created them; and He knows His people because He hath not only made them, but also chose them. He could no more choose He knew not what, than He could create He knew not what. He knows them under a double title; of creation as creatures in the common mass of creation, as new creatures by a particular act of separation. He cannot be ignorant of them in time whom He foreknew from eternity. His knowledge in time is the same as He had from eternity’; He foreknew them that He intended to give the grace of faith unto; and He knows them after they believe, because He knows His own act in bestowing grace upon them, and His own mark and seal wherewith He has stamped them. No doubt but He that “calls the stars of heaven by their names” (Psa_147:4), knows the number of those living stars that sparkle in the firmament of His Church. He cannot be ignorant of their persons when He numbers the hairs of their heads, and hath registered their names in the book of life. As He only had an infinite mercy to make the choice, so He only hath an infinite understanding to comprehend their persons. We only know the elect of God by a moral assurance in the judgment of charity, when the conversation of men is according to the doctrine of God. We have not an infallible knowledge of them, we may be often mistaken; Judas, a devil, may be judged by man for a saint till he be stripped of his disguise. God only hath an infallible knowledge of them; He knows His own records, and the counterparts in the hearts of His people; none can counterfeit His seal, nor can any raze it out. When the Church is either scattered like dust by persecution, or overgrown with superstition and idolatry, that there is scarce any grain of true religion appearing, as in the time of Elijah, who complained that he was left alone, as if the Church had been rooted out of that corner of the world (1Ki_19:14; 1Ki_19:18); yet God knew that He had a number fed in a cave, and had reserved seven thousand men that had preserved the purity of His worship, and not bowed the knee to Baal. Christ knew His sheep, as well as He is known of them; yea, better than they can know Him (Joh_10:14). History acquaints us that Cyrus had so vast a memory that be knew the name of every particular soldier in his army, which consisted of divers nations; shall it be too hard for an infinite understanding to know every one of that host that march under His banner? May He not as well know them as know the number, qualities, influences, of those stars which lie concealed from our eye as well as those that are visible to our sense? Yes, He knows them, as a general to employ them, as a shepherd to preserve them. He knows them in the world to guard them, and He knows when they are out of the world to gather them, and call out their bodies though wrapped up in a cloud of the putrefied carcasses of the wicked. As He knew them from all eternity to elect them, so He knows them in time to clothe their persons with righteousness, to protect their persons in calamity, according to His good pleasure, and at last to raise and reward them according to His promise.—Stephen Charnocke, B.D.
(b) Our God has a particular notice of us, and a particular interest in our personal history. And this was one of the great uses of the incarnation; it was to humanise God, reducing Him to a human personality, that we might believe in that particular and personal love in which He reigns from eternity. For Christ was visibly one of us, and we see in all His demonstrations that He is attentive to every personal want, woe, cry of the world. When a lone woman came up in a crowd to steal, as it were, some healing power out of His person, or out of the hem of His garment, He would not let her off in that impersonal, unrecognising way; He compelled her to show herself and to confess her name, and sent her away with His personal blessing. He pours out everywhere a particular sympathy on every particular child of sorrow; He even hunts up the youth He has before healed of his blindness, and opens to him, persecuted as he is for being healed, the secrets of His glorious Messiahship. The result, accordingly, of this incarnate history is that we are drawn to a different opinion of God; we have seen that He can love as a man loves another, and that such is the way of His love. He has tasted death, we say, not for all men only, but for every man. We even dare to say, for me—who loved me and gave Himself for me. Nay, He goes even further than this Himself, calling us friends, and claiming that dear relationship with us,—friends because He is on the private footing of friendship and personal confidence: “The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth, but I have called you friends.” He even goes beyond this, promising a friendship so particular and personal, that it shall be a kind of secret, or cipher of mutual understanding open to no other—a new white stone given by his King, “and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.”
… His Saviour and Lord is over him and with him, as the Good Shepherd calling him by name; so that he is finally saved, not as a man, or some one of mankind led forth by his Lord in the general flock, but as the Master’s dear Simon, or James, or Alpheus, or Martha, whose name is so recorded in the Lamb’s book of life.—Horace Bushnell, D.D.
(c) The moral magnitude of things has no relationship to the physical. What if a man should say that Washington was not a great man because he was not a ten-thousandth part as great as the Alleghany Mountains, comparing moral magnitude with physical? What has the size of a man, or the duration on earth of a man, or his physical powers, to do with the moral measurement that belongs to the understanding, the reason, or the moral sentiments? Is a battle great by the size of the nation that fought it, or the field that it was fought in? Or is it great by the skill and the bravery enacted, and by the long-reaching sequences that flow from it? The part which this world is to play in the far future, the experiment of human life, the story of Divine sacrifice and love, the part which redeemed men are to enact in their translation into the heavenly sphere—these all give a moral grandeur to this world, and utterly overcome the objection that God would not be likely to give minute personal thought to the evolutions of individual life.—H. W. Beecher.
(d) Gideon’s army, we see, must be lessened. And who so fit to be cashiered as the fearful? God bids him, therefore, proclaim licence for all faint hearts to leave the field. God will not glorify Himself by cowards. As the timorous shall be without the gates of heaven, so shall they be without the lists of God’s field. Reader! does but a foul word, or a frown, scare thee from Christ? Doth the loss of a little land or silver disquiet thee? Doth but the sight of the Midianites in the valley strike thee with terror? Home then, home to the world; thou art not for the conquering band of Christ. If thou canst not resolve to follow Him through infamy, prisons, racks, gibbets, flames, depart to thy house, and save thyself to thy loss.—Bishop Hall.
RELIGIOUS SERVICE
(Ezr_2:36-58)
This section of the record suggests the following observations concerning service in the Church of God:—
I. There are various spheres of service in the Church of God. In the verses before us there are several classes of persons, and each of these classes had its own proper duties to discharge. The priests (Ezr_2:36-39), the Levites who assisted the priests (Ezr_2:40), the Levitical choir or choirs (Ezr_2:41), the Levitical porters or gate-keepers (Ezr_2:42), the Nethinim, who performed the more menial and laborious duties (Ezr_2:43-54), and “the children of Solomon’s servants,” who were a grade lower even than the Nethinim, and did the humblest work of all. In these we have an illustration of the various spheres of religious work in this Christian dispensation. “He gave gifts unto men. And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;” &c. (Eph_4:11-12). In our own day we have pastors, preachers, evangelists, conductors of prayer-meetings, Sunday-school teachers, tract distributors, visitors of the sick and sorrowful, leaders of the psalmody of the church, and managers of its financial and other business arrangements. In the work of the Lord Jesus amongst men there is scope for every kind and degree of faculty. The feeblest power may be beneficially employed; and the greatest gifts may find spheres of service which demand their utmost exercise. This fact deprives the idlers in the Church of God of any legitimate excuse for their indolence. There is work for every one, and suited to every capacity; and the obligation of service rests upon every one. Let every one, then, be up and doing, &c. (a).
II. The humblest sphere of service in the Church of God is a place of privilege and honour. This seems to us to be fairly deducible from the fact that the Nethinim and “the children of Solomon’s servants” are here recorded and numbered. Even the bondsmen taken from alien and conquered peoples, being employed in the most menial services in connection with the Temple, find a place in this sacred record of the returning people of God. That we are permitted to do anything for Jesus our Lord, if it be the very lowest and humblest service, should be regarded as a precious privilege and a high honour. Is it not an honour that we may aid in any way, and in any degree, in the conversion, education, or progress of a soul immortal and redeemed by the precious blood of Christ? Is it not an honour that we are permitted, nay, called to be co-workers with our Lord and Saviour in His great redemptive undertaking? (b).
III. The privilege of service in the Church of God is not limited to any particular races or classes of men. Neither the Nethinim nor “the children of Solomon’s servants” were Israelites; but they were not excluded from the privilege of employment in connection with the Temple and its services. In this Christian age no races or classes are privileged to share in this service to the exclusion of others. All men may participate in the blessings of Christ’s salvation; and every true Christian may serve in some sphere of holy work, and ought so to serve. “For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him.” In the Christian life “there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free; but Christ is all, and in all.” Neither is there any exclusive sacerdotal class with special privileges and powers. Every sphere of Christian service is open to every Christian who possesses the qualifications for efficiently discharging the duties of such sphere. (c).
Let every Christian, then, promptly undertake and faithfully discharge some service in the cause of our Lord and Saviour. “Son, go work to-day in My vineyard.” “Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?”
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Every Christian who wants to have a blessing for himself or for others, must set to work by active exertion. Some of you young men might preach—you have the ability, you have the time for study; I want you to lay out your talents in that holiest of enterprises: in the street corners, anywhere, proclaim Christ. Some of you ought to be teaching in Sabbath-schools, but you are putting that talent by; it is rusting, it is spoiling, and you will have no interest to bring to your Master for it. I want that Sabbath-school talent to be used. Many of you might do good service by teaching senior classes at your own houses. This work might be most profitably extended. If our intelligent Christian brethren and matrons would try to raise little classes, of six, eight, ten, or twelve, at home, I know not what good might come of it. You would not be interfering with any one else; for in such a city as this, we may all work as hard as we will, and there is no chance of interfering with each other’s labours. This sea is too large here for us to be afraid of other folks running away with our fish. Some of you, perhaps, will do best in tract distribution: well, do it—keep it up; but mind there is something in the tract—and that is not always the case—mind there is something worth reading, which will be of use when read. Do not give away somnolent tracts, which are more likely to send the readers to sleep than to prayer. Some of them might be useful to physicians, when they cannot get their patients to sleep by any other means. Get something useful, interesting, telling, scriptural, and give it away largely out of love to Jesus. And if these labours do not suit your taste, talk personally to individuals. Christ at the well! What a schoolmaster for us! Talk to the one woman, the one child, the one carter, the one labourer, whoever he may be. He who makes one blade of grass grow that would not otherwise have grown, is a benefactor to his race; and he who scatters one good thought which would not else have been disseminated, has done something for the kingdom of Christ. I cannot tell you what is most fit for everybody to do; but if your heart is right, there is something for each one. There are so many niches in the temple, and so many statues of living stone to fill those niches, to make it a complete temple of heavenly architecture. You and I must each find our own niche. Remember, Christian, your time is going. Do not be considering always what you ought to do, but get to work; shut your eyes and put your hand out, and “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might.” The very first Christian effort will do, only do it with your might; do it in the name and strength of God.—C. H. Spurgeon.
(b) I know of no service that can be more distinguished than the doing of good, the scattering of blessings among the sons of men. Methinks the very angels before the throne might envy us poor men who are permitted to talk of Christ, even though it be but to little children. I reckon the humblest ragged-school teacher to be more honoured than even Gabriel himself, in being commissioned to tell out the story of the Cross, and to win youthful hearts to the Saviour’s service. You are not employed as scullions in your Master’s kitchen, though you might be content with such a service; you are not made as His hired servants, to toil in meanest drudgery, you are not sent to be hewers of wood and drawers of water; but you are His friends, the friends of Jesus, to do such work as He did; and even greater works than He did are you enabled to do, because He hath gone to His Father. “This honour have all the saints,” the honour of being gentlemen-at-arms under Jesus, the Captain of their salvation.—Ibid.
(c) The work of conversion is not to be the exclusive prerogative of the pulpit. There is no sacerdotalism in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We have a great High Priest, but it is Jesus. There is a holy priesthood, but it is no privileged caste, it is no modern tribe of Levi; it is the whole community of the faithful, the Church of God which He has purchased with His own blood. That figment of old Popery, which restricts all endeavour to spread the Gospel of Christ to the clergy merely, is alien from Apostolic teaching, and would leave the harvest to rot, neglected in the field, because of the miserable fewness of the reapers to gather it in. Though I yield to no man under heaven in respect for the office of the Christian ministry; though I would rather, far rather if I know myself, have the seal of its baptism upon my brow than the coronet of any earthly-patented nobility, I do feel that I am but fulfilling one of its most solemn vocations, when I summon every member of the sacramental host to participate in the glorious war. God forbid that I should trespass upon the crown rights of any of the blood royal of heaven. I should feel as if that were for a guardian to squander his ward’s inheritance, or for a father to paralyse the growing manhood of his children, to deprive you, the very poorest of you, the luxury of doing good. The highest honour in this world, the honour of bringing souls to Christ, may be the common privilege of you all. The child with the linen coat, who listens, as did little Samuel, when the Master speaks; the love-watchers of the paralytic, who, if they can do nothing else, can take him and let him down through the roof to the room where Jesus is; the little servant-maid that waits upon Naaman’s wife—all, all may have an apostolical commission, and may share in the glories of an apostolical reward. There is not a single member of a single church in the world that is exempt from this service. All are summoned to the labour, and all, oh! infinite condescension! may be workers together with God.—W. M. Punshon, LL.D.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A CLEAR SPIRITUAL PEDIGREE
(Ezr_2:59-63)
Consider:
I. The doubtful pedigree amongst the people as an illustration of uncertainty as to our spiritual state. Ezr_2:59-60 suggest concerning such uncertainty—
1. That it may consist with association with the people of God. Those who “could not show their father’s house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel,” were permitted to go up to Jerusalem with those whose Israelitish descent was beyond question. And they whose evidences as to their spiritual lineage are not clear and conclusive, may have a name and a place amongst God’s spiritual Israel. And more than this, they may really be true members of that Israel. Sincere believers in the Lord Jesus Christ do not always realise the blessedness of Christian assurance. Sometimes even he “that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of His servant, walketh in darkness, and hath no light.” (a).
2. That it must involve spiritual loss. Those persons of doubtful pedigree who journeyed with the Jews to Jerusalem, could not enjoy the full rights of citizenship until they proved their Israelitish descent. And doubt as to our spiritual lineage must involve loss—
(1.) Of spiritual joy. Such doubters are strangers to the strong consolation which they enjoy who can say, “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day;” and who can utter the triumphant challenge, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation,” &c. (Rom_8:35-39). (b).
(2.) Of spiritual usefulness. Lacking Christian assurance, our testimony for Christ would be likely to be deficient in clearness and attractiveness, in fervour and force; it would especially fail to set forth the joyful character of true religion. And thus our religious usefulness would be diminished. (c).
II. The doubtful pedigree amongst the priests as an illustration of uncertainty as to our ministerial calling and condition. A man’s ministerial pedigree in the Church of Christ may be said to be unquestionable when he possesses—
1. The Divine vocation. The true minister is assured that he is called of God to his work. He can enter into the feeling of the Apostle, who said, “Necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel!”
2. The Divine qualification. If a man is unfitted for the sacred duties of the ministry, his ministerial pedigree is ruinously defective.
3. The Divine sanction. That a ministry is blessed to the conversion of sinners and the edification of Christian believers is an evidence that it is approved by God.
The verses under consideration (61–63) suggest—
1. That a ministerial pedigree may be lost by reason of worldliness. The children of the priests who could not find “their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy,” were descendants of one who “took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name.” Now Barzillai was a great man in his day, and the priest who married his daughter seems to have esteemed his alliance with that distinguished family more highly than the dignity of his priesthood, and so he adopted the name of Barzillai for his family, and his family register was with the house of Barzillai, and not with the house of Aaron, and in this way it seems to have been lost His preference for worldly distinction issued in the suspension, if not the total loss, of the sacerdotal heritage of his descendants. We regard this as an illustration of the effect of worldliness on the character and influence of a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The eager pursuit of either the possessions or the distinctions of this present world tends to despoil the Christian minister of spiritual power—to render his perceptions of truth less quick and clear, his spiritual sympathies and susceptibilities less true and active, his spiritual zeal less fervent, his spiritual aspirations less intense and constant, &c. (d).
2. The loss of ministerial pedigree involves a corresponding loss of ministerial power and reward. The priests whose pedigree could not be found were prohibited from discharging certain priestly functions, and from receiving certain emoluments of that office. “They were polluted from the priesthood; and the Tirshatha said unto them that they should not eat of the most holy things,” &c. If a minister of the Gospel, from worldliness or any other cause, suffer personal spiritual deterioration or loss, it will tell sadly upon his influence for good, and upon the joy and spiritual reward which he finds in his work. (e).
3. The final decision as to the standing of a minister of uncertain pedigree must be given by God Himself. “And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.” The high priest in former times sought to know the will of God by means of Urim and Thummim, and the decisions which were given by this medium were regarded as those of God Himself. So the case of the priests of uncertain pedigree was left for the decision of God. Doubtless there are certain questions of ministerial character and qualification with which Church courts and councils are competent to deal. But when a man’s ministerial pedigree is merely doubtful or uncertain, the final decision must be left to the great Searcher of hearts. “To his own Master he standeth or falleth.”
“All to the great tribunal haste,
The account to render there;
And shouldst Thou strictly mark our faults,
Lord, how should we appear?”
—Doddridge.
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) Faith, let us remember, is the root, and assurance is the flower. Doubtless you can never have the flower without the root; but it is no less certain you may have the root and not the flower. Faith is that poor trembling woman who came behind Jesus in the press, and touched the hem of His garment (Mar_5:25); assurance is Stephen standing calmly in the midst of his murderers, and saying, “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God (Act_7:56). Faith is the penitent thief, crying, “Lord, remember me” (Luk_23:42); assurance is Job sitting in the dust, covered with sores, and saying, “I know that my Redeemer liveth” (Job_19:25). “Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him” (Job_13:15). Faith is Peter’s drowning cry, as he began to sink, “Lord, save me!” (Mat_14:30); assurance is that same Peter declaring before the council, in aftertimes, “This is the Stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved” (Act_4:11-12). Faith is the anxious, trembling voice, “Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief” (Mar_9:24); assurance is the confident challenge, “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? Who is he that condemneth?” (Rom_8:33-34). Faith is Saul praying in the house of Judas at Damascus, sorrowful, blind, and alone (Act_9:11); assurance is Paul the aged prisoner, looking calmly into the grave, and saying, “I know Whom I have believed. There is a crown laid up for me” (2Ti_1:12; 2Ti_4:8). Faith is life. How great the blessing! Who can tell the gulf between life and death? And yet life may be weak, sickly, unhealthy, painful, trying, anxious, worn, burdensome, joyless, smileless to the very end. Assurance is more than life. It is health, strength, power, vigour, activity, energy, manliness, beauty.—Bishop Ryle.
Suppose thou hast not yet attained so much as to this inward peace, yet know thou hast no reason to question the truth of thy faith for want of this. We have peace with God as soon as we believe, but not always with ourselves. The pardon may be past the prince’s hand and seal, and yet not put into the prisoner’s hand. Thou thinkest them too rash (dost not?) who judged Paul a murderer by the viper [that fastened on his hand. And who art thou, who condemnest thyself for an unbeliever, because of those troubles and inward agonies which may fasten for a time on the spirit of the most gracious child God hath on earth?—W. Gurnall.
(b) A man may praise God for the redemption of the world, &c., who has no consciousness of having secured an interest in it, but not like him who feels he has a property in it. How different will be their feelings! Just as great will be the difference of interest which will be felt by a stranger passing through a beautiful estate, and by the owner of it. One may admire the richness of the soil, the beauty of its crops, and the stateliness of its trees; but his interest in it will fall very far short of his who has the title and property in it.—H. G. Salter.
(c) Christianity did not in its beginning succeed by the force of its doctrines, but by the lives of its disciples. It succeeded first as a light, in accordance with the Master’s command, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Make religion attractive by the goodness that men see in you; so sweet, so sparkling, so buoyant, so cheerful, hopeful, courageous, conscientious and yet not stubborn, so perfectly benevolent, and yet not mawkish or sentimental, blossoming in everything that is good, a rebuke to everything that is mean or little; make such men of yourselves that everybody that looks upon you may say, “That is a royal good fellow; he has the spirit that I should like to lean upon in time of trouble, or to be a companion with at all times.” Build up such a manhood that it shall be winning to men. That is what the early Church did.—H. W. Beecher.
(d) What the astronomers say of the eclipse of the sun, that it is occasioned by the intervening of the moon between the sun and our sight, is true in this case: if the world get between Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, and our sight, it will darken our sight of Jesus Christ, and bring eclipses upon our comforts and graces. Again, those men that dig deep into the bowels of the earth, they are oftentimes choked and stifled by damps that come from the earth. So is it with Christians, those that will be ever poring and digging about the things of this world, it is a thousand to one that if from worldly things a damp doth not arise to smother their comforts and quench their graces. Lastly, a candle, though it may shine to the view of all, yet put it under ground, and, though there be not the least puff of wind, the very damp will stifle the light of the flame; and so it is that men may shine like candles in their comforts, yet bring them but under the earth, and a clod of that will stifle their candle, will damp their spiritual comforts, and bereave them of those joys that are in themselves unspeakable.—John Magirus.
(e) A true minister is a man whose manhood itself is a strong and influential argument with his people. He lives in such relations with ‘God, and in such a genuine sympathy with man, that it is a pleasure to be under the influence of such a mind. Just as, lying on a couch on a summer’s evening, you hear from a neighbouring house the low breathing of an instrument of music, so far away that you can only hear its palpitation, but cannot discern the exact tune that is played, and are soothed by it, and drawn nearer to hear more; so the true man, the true Christian minister, is himself so inspiring, so musical, there is so much of the Divine element in him, rendered homelike by incarnation with his disposition, brought down to the level of man’s understanding, that wherever he goes, little children want to see him, plain people want to be with him; everybody says when he comes, “Good;” and everybody says when he goes away, “I wish he had stayed longer;” all who come in contact with him are inclined to live a better life. Manhood is the best sermon. It is good to fill the mind with the goodness and sweetness of the thing itself to which you would fain draw them. “Go, preach,” was no more authoritative than “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”—H. W. Beecher.
POSSESSIONS AND OFFERINGS
(Ezr_2:65-70)
These verses present the following homiletical topics, which may be considered with advantage:—
I. The completion of their journey. “They came to the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem.” No account of the journey is given by the historian. It is, however, certain that the journey was—
(1) long, the distance was more than one thousand miles, and Ezra and his company (who went up many years afterward) were four months on the way (chap. Ezr_7:9);
(2) difficult, by reason of their uncertainty as to the best way, and the comparatively small number of beasts of burden;
(3) perilous, as we see from chap. Ezr_8:22. The country through which their course lay was infested by Bedouin Arabs, who frequently plundered and assaulted travellers. But the returning Jews were sustained, guided, and guarded by the Lord their God. It was by His blessing that they reached their destination in safety. So will He lead and keep all those who forsake sin, seek to do His will, and set their faces Zion-ward. “An highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called, The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but He Himself shall be with them, walking in the way; and the foolish shall not err therein. No lion shall be there,” &c. (Isa_35:8-10).
II. The extent of their possessions. “Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven,” &c. (Ezr_2:65-67). There might have been some wealthy men amongst them; but viewed as a whole this company was certainly poor. Their reduced and impoverished condition is indicated by the number of servants and beasts of burden in relation to the number of persons. They had only one slave to every six persons, one horse to every fifty-eight persons, one mule to every one hundred and seventy-three persons, one camel to every ninety-eight persons, and one ass to every seven persons. Sin always impoverishes and degrades the sinner. Some forms of it lead to temporal poverty, e.g., drunkenness, indolence, wastefulness. “For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty; and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags” (Pro_23:21). “I went by the field of the slothful,” &c. (Pro_24:30). But the worst poverty to which sin leads is that of the spirit. It despoils man of high and holy thoughts, of pure and pious aspirations, of generous and noble purposes; it tends to make him “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked;” and to render him unconscious of his destitution and degradation.
III. The presentation of their offerings. “And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the Lord,” &c. (Ezr_2:68-69). Notice:
1. The object of their offerings. “They offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place.” Their contributions were for the rebuilding of the Temple. In this way they sought to promote the honour of God; and they were faithful to the purpose for which they were permitted to leave Babylon. Offerings for the building of temples for the worship of the Most High are both prudent and pious; they are encouraged both by philanthropy and by religion; they promote the good of humanity and the glory of God.
2. The spirit of their offerings.
(1.) They offered promptly, without delay; soon as “they came to the house of the Lord, which is at Jerusalem.” If they could not begin to rebuild the Temple at once, they could contribute towards the expenses of rebuilding, and they did so.
(2.) They offered spontaneously, without constraint. “They offered freely for the house of God.” “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart; not grudgingly, or of necessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver.” It is probable that gratitude for the mercies received during the journey, and for their safe arrival at their destination, would prompt them to present hearty offerings. (a).
3. The measure of their offerings. “They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work,” &c. This seems to imply—
(1.) Proportion; that they gave according to their means, the rich according to his riches, and the poor according to his poverty. “If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, not according to that he hath not.” (b).
(2.) Liberality; that each one who gave, gave as much as he could. The total amount contributed was, at least, about £90,000; which gives an average of about £2 per person, including servants. An example worthy of imitation by many congregations in our day which are far more favourably circumstanced. (c).
IV. The settlement in their cities. “So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities.” Two ideas are suggested—
1. Home after exile. “Dwelt in their cities.” Their cities; not the cities of their conquerors. The cities were to a great extent ruined and desolate; but they were their own. It was the land of their fathers, and their own land. (d).
2. Rest after a long and tedious journey. The toils and perils of their pilgrimage were over. Rest in their own cities would be sweet to their weary feet, but sweeter still to their spirits.
“But rest more sweet and still,
Than ever nightfall gave;
Our yearning hearts shall fill,
In the land beyond the grave.
There shall no tempests blow,
No scorching noontide beat;
There shall be no more snow,
No weary, wandering feet.
So we lift our trusting eyes
From the hills our fathers trod,
To the quiet of the skies,
To the Sabbath of our God.”
—Mrs. Hemans.
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) “She hath done what she could.” The costliness of her gift in proportion to her means, while it was nothing to Him she would honour, was a guarantee that she was not trifling. Had it been far less than it was, and had it been all she could bring, His blessing would have been the same. For mind, He does not say, “Stop, consider, this alabaster box really cost a good deal of money; it could not have been bought for less than three hundred denarii.” No; but He says, “She hath done what she could;” that is, she hath demonstrated the deep and tender attachment of her soul. She believes on her Lord. She loves the Saviour for His holiness, His mercy, His Divine benignity. One penny’s worth, if it is only the utmost that self-denial can do, is as good for that as ten thousand shekels. Did He not declare as much, in what He said of the two mites that the poor widow cast into the Temple treasury? Nay, did He not equally accept, and bless with the same favour, another woman, poorer and frailer still, who had nothing to give Him but tears and kisses for His feet? The whole spiritual meaning of gifts consists in the disposition of the giver. Distinctions of weight and measure, standards of currency, tables of value, rates of exchange, calculations of outlay, colour, material, and shape, vanish before that simple and royal touchstone in the breast. It is felt to be so, even in the presents of human friendship; and spiritual sincerity does not pass for less in the eyes of Him who searches and sees the heart.—F. D. Huntington, D.D.
(b) Hohannes, the blind missionary of Harpoot, tells of a place where the Board had spent much money with little result, where he was sent. It was a poor place. The people were to raise six hundred piastres; and the Board was to pay the balance of his salary. The people said they could not raise that sum; a neighbouring pastor said it was impossible, they were so poor. After much anxiety, the missionary laid the case before God in prayer, when it was impressed upon him that each should give his tenth. He proposed it to the people, and they agreed to it. The money was easily raised, and amounted to more than the entire salary. That people never prospered so much before; their crops were abundant, and their satisfaction great. They not only supported their preacher and school-teacher, but gave two thousand piastres to other purposes.—Dict. of Illust.
(c) If there be any principle in our religion; if our obligation to worship be anything more than a seemly form, or an irksome impost upon time and thought; if the idea of God within us be not a remote and impersonal divinity, but a Being warm, near, watchful, provident, the living God of our clinging heart and of our crying soul, then surely it were mockery to render any homage but the truest at His footstool, and to offer any gifts but the chiefest on His altar. The old heathen understood this matter better. Their eyes were blinded and their rites were cruel, but they never erred in this. The goodliest spoil, the most fragrant libation, the fairest in the stall, the nearest to the heart, were reserved to be devoted to their gods; and shall we, heirs of all the ages and of all the economies, we on whom God has caused to shine a sun in His meridian of privilege—shall we anger our God against us by our selfish indifference to His claims, or by our unfilial withholding of His honour? We to whom He has given every faculty which makes us capable of God, shall we withhold from Him the hearts which He asks only to brighten and redeem? We to whom He has allotted a day so clear and so brilliant, shall we insult Him by the offer of the refuse of our time? We who are gifted by Him alike with our wealth and with our power to amass it, shall we deal out our niggard pittance in His cause like the coarse miser churl who parts with coin like blood? Brethren, I summon you, with all possible solemnity, to answer this invocation. If there has been indifference in the past, let our penitence mourn it, and let our consecration atone it, to-day. It is but little at the best that we can offer; our collective wealth would be absorbed by one single city’s needs. Our influence, even at its widest, is contracted within a narrow span. The shadows gather swiftly upon the noon of our very longest day. We are feeble, and half our time must be spent in sleep that we may recruit our strength. We are frail, and Death standing by laughs at our arithmetic when we calculate on future years. We receive unfinished labours from our fathers, and we transmit them unfinished to our children. Watchmen in the night, it is not given to us to tarry until the morning. Guardians of the battle-flag, we can but wave it gallantly for awhile; but we know full well that our hands will stiffen, and that our comrades will bury us before the work is done. But the present is ours. We have room to work; we have light to work in. There are ample opportunities, and there are passionate needs, and there are strong encouragements, and there are facilities such as no age ever possessed, for honest work for God. Now who, then, is willing to consecrate his service this day unto the Lord? Give Him your hearts, dear brethren—your costliest and most acceptable offering. The sordid and the worldly may despise your choice, but there awaits you on earth God’s palpable smile, and the blessing of those that are ready to perish; and in heaven the angel’s welcome, and the conqueror’s palm, and the King’s palace as the soul’s home, and the King Himself in His beauty as your exceeding great reward—W. M. Punshon, LL.D.
(d) No bricks and mortar and timber can make a home. No marble, however fine and polished, can make a home. No gold, or silver, or tapestry, or painting, can make a home. It is that which makes heaven which makes a home even on this earth. It is love that makes a home. To love, and to be loved, though it be in the peasant’s cot, though it be in the rudest barn through the fissures of which the wind makes music, is to be at home; and often you find homes in the rudest dwellings, and none in the most splendid palaces. But where love is likely to be disturbed—where some rude hand can take the threads that love is ever spinning and tying and fastening, and cut them and sever them, the home feeling must of course be partial. And we long for a place and a state where those whom we love will never be taken from us, and where we shall know that we shall abide eternally in the presence of those who love us. “We seek one to come.” A higher and a settled dwelling-place, a final home, a permanent state of being.—Samuel Martin.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The Names and Number of those who returned
The Names and Number of those who returned
1. The province] i.e. the Persian province of Judæa (Ezr_5:8). Had carried away] in 597 b.c. and 586 b.c. Every one unto his city] i.e. to the provincial towns. This process can only have taken place very gradually.
Read full note →
2. Zerubbabel] for his relation to Sheshbazzar see on Ezr_1:8 for his ancestry see on Ezr_3:2. The list of names that follows is repeated, with some variants, in Neh_7:7-73. Jeshua] the high priest, called by Haggai 'Joshua.' The names in this v. number 11, but in the corresponding passage in Neh (Neh_7:7) they amount to 12, and are probably intended to be symbolic of the 12 tribes of Israel (cp. Ezr_6:17), the number of which was recalled at a later date by the 12 he-goats offered as a sin-offering at the dedication of the restored Temple (Ezr_6:17), and by the sacrifices described in Ezr_8:35 : cp. also the expression 'all Israel' in Ezr_2:70. Nehemiah] not the Nehemiah of Neh_1:1.
3-9. The names in these vv. are those of families.
16. Of Ater of Hezekiah] i.e. the descendants of Ater through Hezekiah, one of his sons.
20-35. The names in these vv. are those of localities.
29. Nebo] not the Nebo in Reuben, E. of the Jordan (Num_32:38), but situated in Judah, identified by some with Nob (Isa_10:32), by others with the modern Nuba, S. of Jerusalem.
31. The other Elam] in contrast to the Elam of Ezr_2:7.
36-39. Of the four priestly houses here named, one, Pashur, is not among the 24 enumerated in 1Ch_24:7-18, but is probably a branch of the house of Malchijah (1Ch_24:9): see Neh_11:12.
40. Seventy and four] The small number betrays a backwardness on the part of the Levites similar to that which they manifested on a subsequent occasion: see Ezr_8:15.
42. The porters] they kept the Temple gates (1Ch_9:17).
43. The Nethinims] i.e. Temple servants: see Neh_8:17, and on 1Ch_9:2.
55. The children of Solomon's servants] probably descendants of the native Canaanites employed by Solomon on his buildings: see 1Ki_9:21.
59. Tel-melah, etc] localities in Babylonia.
62. Sought their register, etc] i.e. sought their entry among those who were enrolled as being Israelites of pure descent. As polluted] Only those were admitted to the priesthood who could prove their descent from Aaron, in accordance with Num_3:10; Num_16:40.
63. The Tirshatha] i.e. Zerubbabel, the title meaning 'governor,' perhaps one subordinate to a 'satrap.' Eat of the most holy things] the privilege of the priesthood only (Num_18:8-19). Till there stood up, etc.] In early times the high priest used to enquire of the Lord by Urim and Thummim: see on Exo_28:30.
64. Forty and two thousand, etc.] The total number here given disagrees with the sum of the items, which only amounts to 29,818 (in Neh_7:66, 31,089, the difference perhaps being due to textual errors).
65. Singing men, etc.] These were minstrels employed on secular occasions (cp. Sir_12:7-8), distinct from the singers of Ezr_2:41, who were intended for the Temple.
69. Drams] The dram (Gk. drachma), like the pound (maneh), was a weight, equivalent to the Hebrew half-shekel. The pound contained 100 drams. Some authorities render the word translated 'dram' by daric, a gold coin worth a guinea. A pound of silver was worth about 4.
70. Dwelt in their cities] i.e. occupied several of the provincial cities. Some scholars have held that only a few (if any) Jews returned to Jerusalem in the reign of Cyrus (whose decree in Ezr_6:3-5 only directs the construction of the Temple, not the restoration of. any exiles), and that the Temple was not begun as related in Ezra 3, but built for the first time in the reign of Darius by the remnant of the people left in Judæa (Hag_1:12, Hag_1:14; Zec_8:6, Zec_8:11). There seems, however, no adequate reason to question the substantial truth of Ezra 1-3.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 63 are the children
are the children
Probably individuals from all of the tribes returned to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah, but speaking broadly, the dispersion of the ten tribes (Ephraim- Israel) still continues; nor can they now be positively identified. They are, however, preserved distinct from other peoples and are known to God as such, though they themselves, few in number, know Him not Deu 28:62; Isa 11:11-13; Hos 3:4; Hos 8:8.
Read full note →
The order of the restoration was as follows:
(1) The return of the first detachment under Zerubbabel and Jeshua (B.C. 536), Ezra 1-6, and the books of Haggai and Zechariah;
(2) the expedition of Ezra (B.C. 458), seventy-eight years later (Ezra 7-10);
(3) the commission of Nehemiah (B.C. 444), fourteen years after the expedition of Ezra. Neh 2:1-5.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 1. The leaders (Ezr 2:1-2)
CHAPTER 2
1. The leaders (Ezr 2:1-2)
Read full note →
2. The names of the returning exiles (Ezr 2:3-35)
3. The priests (Ezr 2:36-39)
4. The Levites and singers (Ezr 2:40)
5. The porters and Nethinim (Ezr 2:42-54)
6. Solomon’s servants (Ezr 2:55-58)
7. Those of doubtful descent (Ezr 2:59-63)
8. The number of the whole company (Ezr 2:64-67)
9. The offering of the house of God (Ezr 2:68-70)
Ezr 2:1-2. This chapter contains the names of the returning remnant. It is a specimen page of the records which God keeps, and from which we may learn that He remembers His people, whom He knows by name and whose works are not forgotten by Him. In the book of Nehemiah this list is repeated (chapter 7) with an additional record of those who helped in building the wall. He has a book of remembrance (Mal 3:16); and the apostle reminded the Hebrew believers of this fact when he wrote: “For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love, which ye have showed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints and do minister” (Heb 6:10). There were twelve leaders. Only eleven are given by Ezra; in Nehemiah’s record we find an additional name (Nahamani), making twelve in all. Zerubbabel was the leader of the returning captives. His name means “seed of Babylon.” He is called the son of Shealtiel, the son or grandson of Jeconiah, and was therefore a descendant of David. His name appears in the two genealogies of Matthew (Mat 1:12) and Luke (Luk 3:27). In 1Ch 3:19 he is called the son of Pedaiah, who was Shealtiel’s brother. This double ascription of parentage may probably be accounted for by Pedaiah having contracted a levirate marriage with Shealtiel’s widow. The second leader was Jeshua, also called Joshua. He was a son of jehozadak and grandson of the high priest Seraiah. Zerubbabel, the princely leader, son of David, and Joshua, the high priest, are types of Christ. (See Zech. 4 and 6.) Nehemiah is not the Nehemiah who led the other expedition years later, nor is Mordecai the uncle of Queen Esther, who was an old man and evidently remained in Shushan (Est 10:3). The names Nehemiah and Mordecai were quite common among the Jews. The names of some of the others appear in a slightly changed form in Nehemiah; it was a Jewish custom to call a person by different names.
Ezr 2:3-35. The descendants of the different persons are now given. In all we find 24,144 descendants. Their individual names are not recorded but the Lord knows them all, and cared for each member and sustained them in the journey homeward. Even so He knows all His sheep and keeps every member of His body, leading them home to glory. If some of the numbers do not agree with Nehemiah’s record, there is no doubt a good reason for it. For instance, the descendants of Arah are here 775 and in Nehemiah we find only 652 recorded. Probably 775 had enrolled their names but only 652 went. All the names recorded may be traced in other portions of the Scriptures.
Ezr 2:36-39. The different temple officials are recorded next. These are priests, Levites, singers, porters and Nethinim. The priests are first mentioned. In 1 Chronicles 24 there are mentioned twenty-four courses. Jedaiah, Immer and Harim are found in the record of the Chronicles. In all there were 4,289 priests who went back. And these constituted four courses only.
Ezr 2:40-41. Only seventy-four Levites returned. This was a very small number. (Hodaviah should be read Judah; chapter 3:9.) There were more singers than Levites. The children of Asaph, that sweet and blessed singer in Israel, were one hundred and twenty-eight. No doubt they encouraged the returning exiles in song, by the spirit of praise and worship. The Babylon experience, so beautifully expressed in Psalm 137, was passed. “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the LORD’s song in a strange land?” All was changed now. God was working. Deliverance had come and singing no doubt was heard again among the returning hosts. But why were so few Levites ready to go back? According to the divine instruction in the Law they were to have no inheritance save in the LORD. It was a test of faith to return under these circumstances, and for this reason many Levites must have tarried in Babylon, where things were abundant. Those who returned were tested (Neh 13:10).
Ezr 2:42-54. The names of the porters and Nethinim. There were in the company one hundred and thirty-nine porters. The Nethinim were temple servants. The word means “given” or “devoted,” i.e., to God. We find this name in only one other passage (1Ch 9:2). According to Ezr 8:20 this order originated with King David. Jewish tradition identifies them with the Gibeonites, whom Joshua appointed as helpers to the Levites (Jos 9:3-27). Whatever their origin, they were devoted servants of God assigned to certain duties in the temple.
Ezr 2:55-58. Then comes the record of the children of Solomon’s servants. These with the Nethinim were three hundred and ninety-two. Nothing certain is known of these additional servants, whose duty seems to have been similar to that of the Nethinim. Some regard them as the descendants of the strangers whom Solomon had enlisted in the building of the temple (1Ki 5:13).
Ezr 2:59-63. These verses tell us of the great caution exercised by the people not to tolerate one in their midst whose origin was in any way doubtful. They were determined that Israel should be an unmingled Israel. Therefore they were most careful in examining the genealogies to exclude all who could not be clearly established as true Israelites, for none but such should engage in the work. The true family of God was now marked out and all who could not clearly prove their connection were set aside. There were six hundred and fifty-two who had joined the company from the Babylonish places Tel-melah, Tel-harsa, Cherub, Addan and Immer. They were the children of Delaiah, of Tobiah and Nekoda. These could not show their descent. They were allowed to return with the rest, but their names are not found in Ezr 10:25-43 or in Neh 10:15-28. And also children of priests sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found; they were therefore counted as polluted and put from the priesthood. Tirshatha is the governor (a Persian title meaning “your severity”); his name was Sheshbazzar, the official title of Zerubbabel, the prince (chapter 1:8). Nehemiah also had that title (Neh 8:9). Zerubbabel, the governor, ruled that those uncertified priests should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim. And how many are there today in the professing Church who are in the same uncertainty. While making an outward profession, they have no assurance, they have no clear title and do not know that they belong to the holy priesthood into which grace brings all who have been born again. The Church has become a great house (2Ti 2:20-21) in which we find the true children of God and those who are such only in profession. If there is to be a return from the Babylon which Christendom is today, the same principle of separation must be maintained. Only those who are born again, who can “show their father’s house,” constitute the members of the body of Christ.
Ezr 2:64-67. The number of the whole congregation was 42,360. There were also 7,337 servants and maids, among them two hundred singers; the latter must be distinguished from those mentioned in verses 41 and 70. Singing was evidently a very prominent occupation on the journey towards the homeland! Their groans were ended. The captivity was behind and freedom before. How beautiful the chanting of their great psalms must have been as they journeyed on. But greater still will be the time when the wandering remnant, so long scattered among the nations, turns homeward; when through the coming of their King their groans will end forever, and when they sing the Hallelujah chorus in the kingdom of righteousness and peace.
There were likewise 736 horses, 245 mules, 435 camels and 6,720 asses.
Ezr 2:68-70. These last verses tell us of what happened when they came to Jerusalem. They must have sought at once the ruins of the former temple, for that is the spot they loved. Significant it is that though it was razed to the ground, it still existed in the mind of God, and also in the thoughts of the people. It does not say “when they came to the ruins,” but “when they came to the house of the LORD.” And then the hearts of the fathers were touched, and they gave after their ability unto the treasurer of the work 61,000 drams of gold and 5,000 pounds of silver and one hundred priests’ garments. They were faithful in their giving, not according to the Law, the tenth part, but after their ability. And in the New Testament the rule for the Church as to giving is stated in 1Co 16:2, “Upon the first day of the week, let each one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him.”
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 36, 59, 65 The Household of the People
The Household of the People
v. 1. Now, these are the children of the province, for that is what Judah had now become, a mere province of the Persian empire, that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, as distinguished from those who preferred to remain in Babylon or Persia, whom Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city, the city which was rebuilt and allotted to every one now;
Read full note →
v. 2. which came with Zerubbabel, who had been appointed governor of the returned exiles in Judah: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mizpar, Bigvai, Rebum, Baanah. All told, Cf Nehemiah 7, there were twelve priestly heads, who represented, in a way, the twelve tribes of Israel. The number of the men of the people of Israel:
v. 3. the children of Parosh, two thousand an hundred and seventy and two.
v. 4. The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy and two.
v. 5. The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five. That many were enrolled in the lists of the descendants of Arah, but more than a hundred fewer actually settled in Judah and were there mustered, Nehemiah 7.
v. 6. The children of Pahath-moab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve.
v. 7. The children of Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four.
v. 8. The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five.
v. 9. The children of Zaccai, seven hundred and threescore.
v. 10. The children of Bani (or Binnui), six hundred forty and two.
v. 11. The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty and three.
v. 12. The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two.
v. 13. The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six.
v. 14. The children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty and six.
v. 15. The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four.
v. 16. The children of Ater of Hezekiah, ninety and eight.
v. 17. The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and three.
v. 18. The children of Jorah (or Hariph), an hundred and twelve.
v. 19. The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty and three.
v. 20. The children of Gibhar, ninety and five. The name is really Gibeon, Neh 7:25; for the rest of the names from this point are those of the cities from which the fathers of the present exiles had come.
v. 21. The children of Bethlehem, the former inhabitants of the city and their descendants, an hundred twenty and three.
v. 22. The men of Netophah, a small town near Bethlehem, fifty and six.
v. 23. The men of Anathoth, a Levitical city, the home of Jeremiah, against which he had prophesied in one of his severest predictions, Jer 32:27-35, an hundred twenty and eight.
v. 24. The children of Azmaveth (also known as Beth-azmaveth), forty and two.
v. 25. The children of Kirjath-arim, west of Jerusalem, Chephirah, and Beeroth, three cities of the Gibeonites, Jos 9:17, seven hundred and forty and three.
v. 26. The children of Ramah and Gaba, north of Jerusalem, Jos 9:25-26, six hundred twenty and one.
v. 27. The men of Michmas, 1Sa 13:23, an hundred twenty and two.
v. 28. The men of Bethel and Ai, still farther north of Jerusalem, Jos 7:2, two hundred twenty and three.
v. 29. The children of Nebo, the ancient Nob or Nobe, 1Sa 21:2, fifty and two.
v. 30. The children of Magbish, an hundred fifty and six.
v. 31. The children of the other Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four.
v. 32. The children of Harim, three hundred and twenty.
v. 33. The children of Lod, the later Lydda, Hadid (or Harid), and Ono, seven hundred twenty and five.
v. 34. The children of Jericho, in the lowlands of the Jordan toward the east, three hundred forty and five.
v. 35. The children of Senaah, three thousand and six hundred and thirty. It seems, from this list, that the cities in the neighborhood of Jerusalem were settled first and in the course of time more and more of them inhabited, as other exiles joined them and as their number increased.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, 34, 36, 40, 43, 47, 51, 55, 59, 61, 64, 66, 68, 70 General Information:
General Information:
This begins a list of the names of people who returned from the exile.
Read full note →
went up
This is an idiom that refers to traveling toward Jerusalem. AT: "returned" or "came back" (See: Idiom)
Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah
These are men's names. (See: How to Translate Names)
This is the record
This refers to the list of men in Ezr 2:3-35.
translationWords
captive
king
Nebuchadnezzar
exile
Babylon
Jerusalem
Judea
Zerubbabel
Joshua
Nehemiah
Israel
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 3, 21, 36, 41, 43, 55, 59, 61, 64, 68, 69 2:1-70 This chapter is the first of Ezra’s major…
2:1-70 This chapter is the first of Ezra’s major digressions from the main story line. The returning exiles needed to keep track of who the true Jews were so that the community could maintain its identity (by knowing whom they could marry) and theological purity (by knowing who could worship at the Temple). This list is not an initial list (cp. Neh 7:6-73) of all the Jews who returned to Jerusalem but a slightly later list (after Sheshbazzar had died) of people who had settled in their towns.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.