Chapter 5

1 Zerubbabel and Jeshua, incited by Haggai and Zechariah, set forward the building of the temple. 3 Tatnai and Shethar-boznai could not hinder the Jews. 6 Their letter to Darius against the Jews.

1. Then the prophets. This is the first mention of the work of prophets among the Jews after their return from exile. Prophecy seems to have been silent for about 16 years, ever since the “third year of Cyrus,” Daniel uttered his last message (Dan. 10:1). Now it was revived. Since we have the actual writings of the two prophets here mentioned, Haggai and Zechariah, we are well informed as to what they contributed by way of encouragement and guidance in the resumption of work on the Temple. It is evident from their words that the long delay in realizing the ardent hopes in regard to the rebuilding of the Temple had had an adverse effect on the spirit of the people. Experiencing opposition to their pious efforts to please God and to re-establish the Temple and its services, they allowed their enthusiasm to fade away. A selfish desire for comfort had taken the place of zeal for the honor of God.

Instead of watching for an opportunity to begin the work anew, and taking advantage of it, the people acquiesced in the indefinite postponement and said among themselves, “The time is not come, the time that the Lord’s house should be built” (Haggai 1:2). Laying aside the idea of pressing forward with the work, they had turned their energies to the practical object of establishing themselves in comfortable homes (Haggai 1:4, 9). The result of this complacency had been divine judgments, consisting of poor harvests, economic distress (Haggai 1:6, 1:9–11), and great political insecurity (Zech. 1:12 to 2:9). These conditions had not been recognized by the people as signs of God’s displeasure. Human agents were therefore raised up by God to interpret to the people the meaning of the circumstances in which they found themselves and to inspire them with new zeal.

Haggai the prophet. Nothing is known of him except his name and his work during a very few months at this most critical time. The name, which occurs occasionally in early Israelite history, appears far more often in the postexilic period. Eleven different Jews mentioned in Aramaic documents of 5th-century Elephantine bore this name, which has also been found in excavated documents in Palestine. The name may have come into favor because of the fame the prophet Haggai attained as a result of his successful ministry.

Zechariah the son of Iddo. Since, in Hebrew usage, the word “son” is also used in the sense of grandson, it is no mistake to call Zechariah the son of Iddo, although he was actually Iddo’s grandson (Zech. 1:1; see on 1 Chron. 6:13, 14). Zechariah’s father had either been less important than his grandfather, or had died early, with the result that Zechariah was probably brought up in his grandfather’s house.

Prophesied. Prophecy does not consist primarily in making predictions—as the word is commonly but inaccurately understood. Most prophetic messages were exhortation and instruction. Those who gave these messages were called prophets because they spoke in response to divine direction, and whatever they uttered as a result of this divine illumination was called prophesying.

2. Zerubbabel. The political and spiritual leaders of the people were still the same as in the time of Cyrus(see ch. 2:2). Haggai’s first message was especially directed to these leaders, and other messages of Haggai and Zechariah, given upon various occasions, aided and encouraged them in their work (Haggai 1:1; 2:21–23; Zech. 3:1–10; 4:6–10).

Began to build. The data given by Haggai reveal the successive stages that marked the resumption of building activity. The first call for action was sounded Aug. 29, 520 b.c. (Haggai 1:1). This appeal proved successful, for the leaders apparently began laying plans immediately, and actually set to work about three weeks later, Sept. 21, 520 b.c. (Haggai 1:15). When the site was cleared and the trenches were being dug for the new foundation, it again became apparent that the new Temple would not compare well in size and beauty with that of Solomon’s, and some expressions of disappointment were heard (Haggai 2:3, 9; cf. Ezra 3:12, 13). For this reason Haggai addressed another message of encouragement, this time to the people, on October 17 (Haggai 2:1). Two months later everything was ready for the laying of the foundation, and that great occasion, Dec. 18, 520 b.c. (Haggai 2:10, 18), was celebrated, in keeping with Oriental custom. On that day Haggai delivered two speeches, the last of which we have any record. In the meantime, two months after Haggai delivered his first recorded message, Zechariah joined him (Zech. 1:1). A study of the books of Haggai and Zechariah emphasizes the accuracy of the statement of Ezra 5:2, that “the prophets of God” were “helping them” in rebuilding the Temple. Their stirring messages of exhortation, instruction, and encouragement contributed much to the task; in fact, except for their inspired ministry, the Temple might have continued to lie desolate.

3. Tatnai. The satrap of “Beyond the River” was Ushtani, in Greek, Hystanes. He had been appointed in the spring of 520 by Darius, and resided in Babylon, inasmuch as he was concurrently satrap of Babylonia. Until recently it was thought that Ushtani was only another name for Tatnai, but a recently published cuneiform document mentions “Tattanni, governor of Ebir-nвri.” We know now that Tatnai was the deputy of Ushtani for the satrapy “Beyond the River.” Being in charge of two satrapies, Ushtani could not devote sufficient time to both; the satrapy of Babylonia required most of his attention. It is noteworthy that the Biblical report calls Tatnai a pachath, “governor,” exactly the same word (pahat) the cuneiform inscription uses to designate Tatnai.

Shethar-boznai. According to Herodotus (iii. 128), every satrap had a royal secretary, and this was probably the office held by Shethar-boznai. The name is attested in Old Iranian as SheЖthrabuЖzana, and in cuneiform documents in the form of Shatabarzana, Ushtabuzana.

Their companions. The complement of assistants and servants that formed the regular retinue of a satrap.

Who hath commanded you? The reason for this visit seems to have been another complaint made by the enemies of the Jews. Tatnai, apparently a conscientious Persian official, had decided to make a personal investigation before passing on the complaint. It is also possible, however, that Tatnai came to Jerusalem, not as the result of a complaint concerning the renewed building activities at the site of the Temple, but on a routine tour of inspection, perhaps his first, following appointment to the office of deputy satrap of “Beyond the River.” Arriving in Jerusalem and observing the building program in progress, he demanded to know the authority for it. It may seem strange today that he asked for the “command” for rebuilding the Temple rather than the “permit, ” but in the official language of the times a “permit” was a “command.”

This house. See on ch. 1:2.

This wall. The Aramaic word translated here and in v. 9 as “wall” is also used repeatedly in Aramaic documents from Elephantine (see pp. 79–83), but its meaning is nevertheless obscure. In those documents it can have the meaning “outfit,” “decoration,” “detail,” in three instances, but in another document seems to mean “specification.” It is certain, however, that it does not mean “wall,” a translation derived from the LXX and the Vulgate. In the light of the Elephantine texts the question of Tatnai should probably be translated, “Who has commanded you to build this temple, and to design these details [or, decorations]?”

4. Then said we unto them. The LXX reads, “Then said they [Tatnai and Shetharb-boznai] to them [the Jews].” The Aramaic clearly reads “we” rather than “they,” but such a reading cannot be harmonized with the context. It seems preferable to read “they,” thus making the first part of v. 4 a statement introducing the question of the latter part of the verse as one asked by Tatnai and Shethar-boznai (see vs. 6, 10).

5. The eye of their God. “The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous ” (Ps. 34:15). “He withdraweth not his eyes from the righteous ” (Job 36:7). The elders had acted in response to a direct command of God through His prophets (see on Ezra 5:1, 2), and God saw to it that they remained unmolested while carrying out His will.

While the author of Ezra gave all glory to God for the outcome of Tatnai’s visit, one cannot help admiring the impartiality of this important official, who acted according to the highest traditions of integrity of a Persian officer.

6. Tatnai. Concerning Tatnai and Shethar-boznai, see on v. 3.

The Apharsachites. Some of the older commentators took the word thus translated to mean “Persians,” but it was discovered to be an Old Iranian word designating an inferior class of officials.

8. The house of the great God. This is a remarkable expression in the mouth of a heathen. The Persians were Zoroastrians, and the monotheism of the Jews no doubt appealed to them as a religion similar to their own. This may partially explain why Persian kings and officials were, for the most part, sympathetically disposed toward the Jews in general and toward their desires and aspirations.

Great stones. Literally, “stones of rolling,” indicating stones of such a size as to require rollers in order to be moved. In ancient times stones of tremendous size were used for temples and public buildings. Some of these stones can be seen in Egyptian temples, such as the one in Karnak, or in a later buildings, such as the Roman temple at Baalbek or the superstructure of Abraham’s tomb in Hebron.

Timber is laid in the walls. A reference to the ancient architectural method of laying a row of timber in the walls for each three rows of stones. The decree of Cyrus expressly made mention of this procedure (ch. 6:4), and the Jews were meticulously following the order. The method of building walls by alternating one row of timber and three rows of stone is first mentioned in connection with Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 7:12). During the excavation of Megiddo a public building of the time of Solomon was uncovered which showed this architectural feature, the timber used being cedar. Other places where this practice has been observed are Carchemish, a Hittite city, and ancient Alalakh in northern Syria. The older Jews, who had seen Solomon’s Temple with the rows of timber in the walls, may be have desired to see the new Temple built in the same fashion, and made request to Cyrus accordingly. This seems to be the only plausible explanation for this provision in the official decree, because it was not the custom of the Persians to build walls in this way, or of any other nation of that time, so far as our knowledge goes.

9. Then asked we those elders. Zerubbabel, as governor of Judea, was the appointed representative of the Persian Government and probably received Tatnai and his staff in his own official mansion. Zerubbabel seems not to have revealed to Tatnai his own part in the rebuilding of the Temple, and to have referred Tatnai with all his questions to the “elders” of the people (see ch. 2:2, 68). That Zerubbabel is not the spokesman of the elders in the investigation is evident from their references to him as governor (vs. 14–16) by the name under which he was known to the Persian administration in Cyrus’ time (see on ch. 1:8). When Tatnai came none of the Jews knew what his attitude might prove to be, and the elders may have felt it the part of wisdom that Zerubbabel should remain in the background if an investigation were to be conducted. They may have reasoned that if Tatnai should stop the work, and perhaps send the responsible leaders to Persia to give an account of their doings, the state would thus not be deprived of Zerubbabel, whose leadership apparently meant much to them at this time.

10. Their names. See on v. 4. Tatnai deemed it important to send with his letter a list of the names of the leading men in charge of the new building program. Officials in the Persian capital could ascertain whether any of the men named had engaged in subversive activities, and whether they were the recognized leaders of the Jews. The list of names is unfortunately not included in the book of Ezra, and we do not know whose names Tatnai included. The name of the high priest, Jeshua, probably headed the list, but Zerubbabel’s name may not have been included (see on v. 9).

11. Servants. Humbly, the elders claimed to be no more than servants of God and to be following His directions. Thus they were bound to obey when God should speak.

God of heaven. This name of God was the one Jews customarily used in speaking about Him to their Persian overlords, as we know from the Elephantine papyri (see pp. 79–83).

Great king of Israel. That is, Solomon, greatest of all Jewish monarchs, so far as the extent and prosperity of his kingdom are concerned and the position it occupied among other kingdoms of his time.

12. Our fathers had provoked. Chiefly, by their flagrant idolatry and the moral abominations it involved—the sacrifice of children, and licentious rites belonging to the worship of Baal. For centuries, with only short and rare intervals, “the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen,” and even “polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem” (2 Chron. 36:14).

Nebuchadnezzar. For the final siege of Jerusalem see 2 Kings 24 and 25.

13. Cyrus the king of Babylon. On the date of the decree referred to, see on ch. 1:1. To call Cyrus “king of Babylon” is as correct as to give him the title “king of Persia” (ch. 1:1), Cyrus took Babylon in October, 539 b.c. The next spring, in his absence, his son Cambyses attended the New Year festival, at which each king of Babylon received his kingship by taking the hands of Bel Marduk, the chief god. Later that year, and thereafter, we find Babylonian documents prefixing “King of Babylon” to Cyrus’ title “King of Lands.”

King Cyrus. The repetition of the name Cyrus in this verse is significant, and was apparently used to emphasize the fact that the building activities did not represent a rebellious spirit, but were in accordance with a royal decree.

14. The vessels. See on ch. 1:7–11.

Nebuchadnezzar took. See on 2 Kings 24:13.

Sheshbazzar. See on chs. 1:8; 5:9. From the additional information here given we learn that Sheshbazzar, or Zerubbabel, as he was more commonly called, had been made governor of Judea, a fact not mentioned in the earlier account of Cyrus’ commission.

15. Let the house. The Temple place was an ancient, holy site, chosen by God Himself. It was the place to which God directed Abraham when he went forth to sacrifice his son (Gen. 22:2), where the angel stood and stayed the pestilence in David’s time (2 Sam. 24:16, 17), and where “the glory of the Lord filled the house” in Solomon’s day (2 Chron. 7:1).

16. Since that time. It is not clear whether the latter half of v. 16 is part of the answer given by the elders to Tatnai, which he reports to Darius (see v. 11), or Tatnai’s own opinion relative to the facts. Perhaps the latter is the more probable. Tatnai was possibly not aware that for a number of years previous to the second year of Darius the work had been suspended. It would seem that the work must have progressed rapidly, or Tatnai would not have concluded that the present state of progress might conceivably represent more than 15 years of work. It is also possible that a considerable time had elapsed since the renewal of building activity in the second year of Darius.

17. The king’s treasure house. Excavations have shown that documents of religious or literary nature were preserved in temple archives or in palaces, and economic and political documents in palace libraries. Numerous large archives consisting of many thousands of cuneiform tablets have been found in the ruined sites of the ancient world. The most famous of these archives is the so-called library of Ashurbanipal, found in one of his palaces at Nineveh. Other state libraries or archives have been found in the royal palaces at Mari on the central Euphrates, in the Hittite capital city of Khattushash (Boghazkцy), in the palace of Ugarit (Ras Shamrah), the palace of Ikhnaton at Amarna, and elsewhere. Whether royal treasures were kept in the same places is not yet certain, but this may easily have been the case. Hence, it was probably on the basis of good information that Tatnai proposed a search of the royal treasury for the decree of Cyrus, to determine whether the claim of the Jews was true.

At Babylon. Thinking that the decree had been issued at Babylon, Tatnai suggested an investigation of the files kept there. It is probable that neither the Jews, who suggested the search, nor Tatnai himself knew that the decree actually had been made at Ecbatana, the former capital of Media. It seems strange that the Jews were not able to produce a copy of the document to establish the truth of their claims. It is possible that their enemies, in a surprise attack, had stolen and destroyed their official files. This would have left the Jews without any legal evidence by which they could prove their right to rebuild the Temple.

It should be noted in this connection that Tatnai must have gained a favorable impression of the sincerity and good faith of the Jews. He did not stop the work, but allowed them to continue to build until a thorough investigation would determine the validity of their claims and the present king had had an opportunity to render a decision.

Ellen G. White comments

1    PK 573

2     PK 577, 579

5, 6 PK 578