_NEW DIFFICULTIES MET IN A NEW SPIRIT._
EZRA v. 3-vi. 5.
It is in keeping with the character of his story of the returned Jews
throughout, that no sooner has the chronicler let a ray of sunshine
fall on his page--in his brief notice of the inspiriting mission of
the two prophets--than he is compelled to plunge his narrative again
into gloom. But he shows that there was now a new spirit in the Jews,
so that they were prepared to meet opposition in a more manly fashion.
If their jealous neighbours had been able to paralyse their efforts
for years, it was only to be expected that a revival of energy in
Jerusalem should provoke an increase of antagonism abroad, and
doubtless the Jews were prepared for this. Still it was not a little
alarming to learn that the infection of the anti-Jewish temper had
spread over a wide area. The original opposition had come from the
Samaritans. But in this later time the Jews were questioned by the
Satrap of the whole district east of the Euphrates--"the governor
beyond the river,"[41] as the chronicler styles him, describing his
territory as it would be regarded officially from the standpoint of
Babylon. His Aramaic name, Tattenai, shows that he was not a Persian,
but a native Syrian, appointed to his own province, according to the
Persian custom. This man and one Shethar-bozenai, whom we may assume
to be his secretary, must have been approached by the colonists in
such a way that their suspicions were roused. Their action was at
first only just and reasonable. They asked the Jews to state on what
authority they were rebuilding the temple with its massive walls. In
the Hebrew Bible the answer of the Jews is so peculiar as to suggest a
corruption of the text. It is in the first person plural--"Then said
_we_ unto them," etc.[42] In the Septuagint the third person is
substituted--"Then said _they_," etc., and this rendering is followed
in the Syriac and Arabic versions. It would require a very slight
alteration in the Hebrew text. The Old Testament Revisers have
retained the first person--setting the alternative reading in the
margin. If we keep to the Hebrew text as it stands, we must conclude
that we have here a fragment from some contemporary writer which the
chronicler has transcribed literally. But then it seems confusing.
Some have shaped the sentence into a direct statement, so that in
reply to the inquiry for their authority the Jews give the names of
the builders. How is this an answer? Possibly the name of Zerubbabel,
who had been appointed governor of Jerusalem by Cyrus, could be quoted
as an authority. And yet the weakness of his position was so evident
that very little would be gained in this way, for it would be the
right of the Satrap to inquire into the conduct of the local governor.
If, however, we read the sentence in the third person, it will
contain a further question from the Satrap and his secretary,
inquiring for the names of the leaders in the work at Jerusalem. Such
an inquiry threatened danger to the feeble Zerubbabel.
[41] Ezra v. 3.
[42] Ezra v. 4.
The seriousness of the situation is recognised by the grateful comment
of the chronicler, who here remarks that "the eye of their God was
upon the elders of the Jews."[43] It is the peculiarity of even the
dryest records of Scripture that the writers are always ready to
detect the presence of God in history. This justifies us in describing
the Biblical narratives as "sacred history," in contrast to the
so-called "secular history" of such authors as Herodotus and Livy. The
narrow conception of the difference is to think that God was with the
Jews, while He left the Greeks and Romans and the whole Gentile world
to their fate without any recognition or interference on His part.
Such a view is most dishonouring to God, who is thus regarded as no
better than a tribal divinity, and not as the Lord of heaven and
earth. It is directly contradicted by the Old Testament historians,
for they repeatedly refer to the influence of God on great world
monarchies. No doubt a claim to the Divine graciousness as the
peculiar privilege of Israel is to be seen in the Old Testament. As
far as this was perverted into a selfish desire to confine the
blessings of God to the Jews, it was vigorously rebuked in the Book of
Jonah. Still it is indisputable that those who truly sought God's
grace, acknowledged His authority, and obeyed His will, must have
enjoyed privileges which such of the heathen as St. Paul describes in
the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans could not share. Thus
the chronicler writes as though the leaders of the Jews in their
difficulties were the special objects of the Divine notice. The eye of
God was on _them_, distinctively. God is spoken of as _their_ God.
They were men who knew, trusted, and honoured God, and at the present
moment they were loyally carrying out the direction of God's prophets.
All this is special. Nevertheless, it remains true that the chief
characteristic of Biblical history is its recognition of the presence
of God in the affairs of mankind generally, and this applies to all
nations, although it is most marked among those nations in which God
is known and obeyed.
[43] Ezra v. 5.
The peculiar form of Providence which is brought before us in the
present instance is the Divine observation. It is difficult to believe
that, just as the earth is visible to the stars throughout the day
while the stars are invisible to the earth, we are always seen by God
although we never see Him. When circumstances are adverse--and these
circumstances are only too visible--it is hard not to doubt that God
is still watching all that happens to us, because although we cry out
in our agony no answer breaks the awful silence and no hand comes out
of the clouds to hold us up. It seems as though our words were lost in
the void. But that is only the impression of the moment. If we read
history with the large vision of the Hebrew chronicler, can we fail to
perceive that this is not a God-deserted world? In the details His
presence may not be discerned, but when we stand back from the canvas
and survey the whole picture, it flashes upon us like a sunbeam spread
over the whole landscape. Many a man can recognise the same happy
truth in the course of his own life as he looks back over a wide
stretch of it, although while he was passing through his perplexing
experience the thicket of difficulties intercepted his vision of the
heavenly light.
Now it is a most painful result of unbelief and cowardice working on
the consciousness of guilt lurking in the breast of every sinful man,
that the "eye of God" has become an object of terror to the
imagination of so many people. Poor Hagar's exclamation of joy and
gratitude has been sadly misapprehended. Discovering to her amazement
that she is not alone in the wilderness, the friendless, heart-broken
slave-girl looks up through her tears with a smile of sudden joy on
her face, and exclaims, "Thou God seest me!"[44] And yet her happy
words have been held over terrified children as a menace! That is a
false thought of God which makes any of His children shrink from His
presence, except they are foul and leprous with sin, and even then
their only refuge is, as St. Augustine found, to come to the very God
against whom they have sinned. We need not fear lest some day God may
make a miserable discovery about us. He knows the worst, already. Then
it is a ground of hope that while He sees all the evil in us God still
loves His children--that He does not love us, as it were, under a
misapprehension. Our Lord's teaching on the subject of the Divine
observation is wholly reassuring. Not a sparrow falls to the ground
without our Father's notice, the very hairs of our head are all
numbered, and the exhortation based on these facts is not "Beware of
the all-seeing Eye!" but "Fear not."[45]
[44] Gen. xvi. 13.
[45] Luke xii. 7.
The limitation of the chronicler's remark is significant. He speaks of
the _eye_ of God, not of God's mighty hand, nor of His outstretched
arm. It was not yet the time for action; but God was watching the
course of events. Or if God was acting, His procedure was so secret
that no one could perceive it. Meanwhile it was enough to know that
God was observing everything that was transpiring. He could not be
thought of as an Epicurean divinity, surveying the agony and tragedy
of human life with a stony gaze of supercilious indifference, as the
proud patrician looks down on the misery of the dim multitude. For God
to see is for God to care; and for God to care is for God to help. But
this simple statement of the Divine observation maintains a reserve as
to the method of the action of God, and it is perhaps the best way of
describing Providence so that it shall not appear to come into
collision with the free will of man.
The chronicler distinctly associates the Divine observation with the
continuance of the Jews in their work. Because the eye of God was on
them their enemies could not cause them to cease until the matter had
been referred to Darius and his answer received. This may be explained
by some unrecorded juncture of circumstances which arrested the action
of the enemies of Israel; by the overruling Providence according to
which the Satrap was led to perceive that it would not be wise or just
for him to act until he had orders from the king; or by the new zeal
with which the two prophets had inspired the Jews, so that they took
up a bold position in the calm confidence that God was with them.
Account for it as we may, we see that in the present case the Jews
were not hindered in their work. It is enough for faith to perceive
the result of the Divine care without discovering the process.
The letter of the Satrap and his secretary embodies the reply of the
Jews to the official inquiries, and that reply clearly and boldly
sets forth their position. One or two points in it call for passing
notice.
In the first place, the Jews describe themselves as "servants of the
God of heaven and earth." Thus they start by mentioning their
religious status, and not any facts about their race or nation. This
was wise, and calculated to disarm suspicion as to their motives; and
it was strictly true, for the Jews were engaged in a distinctly
religious work. Then the way in which they describe their God is
significant. They do not use the national name "Jehovah." That would
serve no good purpose with men who did not know or acknowledge their
special faith. They say nothing to localise and limit their idea of
God. To build the temple of a tribal god would be to further the ends
of the tribe, and this the jealous neighbours of the Jews supposed
they were doing. By the larger title the Jews lift their work out of
all connection with petty personal ends. In doing so they confess
their true faith. These Jews of the return were pure monotheists. They
believed that there was one God who ruled over heaven and earth.
In the second place, with just a touch of national pride, pathetic
under the circumstances, they remind the Persians that their nation
has seen better days, and that they are rebuilding the temple which a
great king had set up. Thus, while they would appeal to the generosity
of the authorities, they would claim their respect, with the dignity
of men who know they have a great history. In view of this the next
statement is most striking. Reciting the piteous story of the
overthrow of their nation, the destruction of their temple, and the
captivity of their fathers, the Jews ascribe it all to their national
sins. The prophets had long ago discerned the connection of cause and
effect in these matters. But while it was only the subject of
prediction, the proud people indignantly rejected the prophetic view.
Since then their eyes had been opened by the painful purging of dire
national calamities. One great proof that the nation had profited by
the fiery ordeal of the captivity is that it now humbly acknowledged
the sins which had brought it into the furnace. Trouble is
illuminating. While it humbles men, it opens their eyes. It is better
to see clearly in a lowly place than to walk blindfold on perilous
heights.
After this explanatory preamble, the Jews appeal to the edict of
Cyrus, and describe their subsequent conduct as a direct act of
obedience to that edict. Thus they plead their cause as loyal subjects
of the Persian empire. In consequence of this appeal, the Satrap and
his secretary request the king to order a search to be made for the
edict, and to reply according to his pleasure.
The chronicler then proceeds to relate how the search was prosecuted,
first among the royal archives at Babylon--in "the house of
books."[46] One of Mr. Layard's most valuable discoveries was that of
a set of chambers in a palace at Koyunjik, the whole of the floor of
which was covered more than a foot deep with terra-cotta tablets
inscribed with public records.[47] A similar collection has been
recently found in the neighbourhood of Babylon.[48] In some such
record-house the search for the edict of Cyrus was made. But the
cylinder or tablet on which it was written could not be found. The
searchers then turned their attention to the roll-chamber at the
winter palace of Ecbatana, and there a parchment or papyrus copy of
the edict was discovered.
[46] Ezra vi. 1.
[47] "Nineveh and Babylon," p. 345.
[48] Bertheau-Ryssel, "Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch," p. 74.
One of the items of this edict as it is now given is somewhat
surprising, for it was not named in the earlier account in the first
chapter of the Book of Ezra. This is a description of the dimensions
of the temple which was to be built at Jerusalem. It must have been
not a little humiliating to the Jews to have to take these
measurements from a foreign sovereign, a heathen, a polytheist.
Possibly, however, they had been first supplied to the king by the
Jews, so that the builders might have the more explicit permission for
what they were about to undertake. On the other hand, it may be that
we have here the outside dimensions, beyond which the Jews were not
permitted to go, and that the figures represent a limit for their
ambitions. In either case the appearance of the details in the decree
at all gives us a vivid conception of the thoroughness of the Persian
autocracy, and of the perfect subjection of the Jews to Cyrus.
Some difficulty has been felt in interpreting the figures because they
seem to point to a larger building than Solomon's temple. The height
is given at sixty cubits, and the breadth at the same measurement. But
Solomon's temple was only thirty cubits high, and its total breadth,
with its side-chambers, was not more than forty cubits.[49] When we
consider the comparative poverty of the returned Jews, the
difficulties under which they laboured, the disappointment of the old
men who had seen the former building, and the short time within which
the work was finished--only four years[50]--it is difficult to believe
that it was more than double the size of the glorious fabric for which
David collected materials, on which Solomon lavished the best
resources of his kingdom, and which even then took many more years in
building. Perhaps the height includes the terrace on which the temple
was built, and the breadth the temple adjuncts. Perhaps the temple
never attained the dimensions authorised by the edict. But even if the
full size were reached, the building would not have approached the
size of the stupendous temples of the great ancient empires. Apart
from its courts Solomon's temple was certainly a small building. It
was not the size, but the splendour of that famous fabric that led to
its being regarded with so much admiration and pride.
[49] 1 Kings vi. 2.
[50] Ezra iv. 24, vi. 15.
The most remarkable architectural feature of all these ancient temples
was the enormous magnitude of the stones with which they were built.
At the present day the visitor to Jerusalem gazes with wonder at huge
blocks, all carefully chiselled and accurately fitted together, where
parts of the old foundations may still be discerned. The narrative in
Ezra makes several references to the great stones--"stones of
rolling"[51] it calls them, because they could only be moved on
rollers. Even the edict mentions "three rows of great stones,"
together with "a row of new timber,"[52]--an obscure phrase, which
perhaps means that the walls were to be of the thickness of three
stones, while the timber formed an inner pannelling; or that there
were to be three storeys of stone and one of wood; or yet another
possibility, that on three tiers of stone a tier of wood was to be
laid. In the construction of the inner court of Solomon's temple this
third method seems to have been followed, for we read, "And he built
the inner court with three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar
beams."[53] However we regard it--and the plan is confusing and a
matter of much discussion--the impression is one of massive strength.
The jealous observers noted especially the building of "the wall" of
the temple.[54] So solid a piece of work might be turned into a
fortification. But no such end seems to have been contemplated by the
Jews. They built solidly because they wished their work to stand. It
was to be no temporary tabernacle; but a permanent temple designed to
endure to posterity. We are struck with the massive character of the
Roman remains in Britain, which show that when the great world
conquerors took possession of our island they settled down in it and
regarded it as a permanent property. The same grand consciousness of
permanence must have been in the minds of the brave builders who
planted this solid structure at Jerusalem in the midst of troubles and
threatenings of disaster. To-day, when we look at the stupendous
Phoenician and Jewish architecture of Syria, we are struck with
admiration at the patience, the perseverance, the industry, the
thoroughness, the largeness of idea that characterised the work of
these old-world builders. Surely it must have been the outcome of a
similar tone and temper of mind. The modern mind may be more nimble,
as the modern work is more expeditious. But for steadfastness of
purpose the races that wrought so patiently at great enduring works
seem to have excelled anything we can attain. And yet here and there a
similar characteristic is observable--as, for example, in the
self-restraint and continuous toil of Charles Darwin, when he
collected facts for twenty years before he published the book which
embodied the conclusion he had drawn from his wide induction.
[51] Ezra v. 8.
[52] Ezra vi. 4.
[53] 1 Kings vi. 36.
[54] Ezra v. 9.
The solid character of the temple-building is further suggestive,
because the work was all done for the service of God. Such work should
never be hasty, because God has the leisure of eternity in which to
inspect it. It is labour lost to make it superficial and showy without
any real strength, because God sees behind all pretences. Moreover,
the fire will try every man's work of what sort it is. We grow
impatient of toil; we weary for quick results; we forget that in
building the spiritual temple strength to endure the shocks of
temptation and to outlast the decay of time is more valued by God than
the gourd-like display which is the sensation of the hour, only to
perish as quickly as it has sprung up.