Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity. Ezra 2:1, 2 Going up out of captivity William Jones. 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 People's 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 o'clock 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 number of the men of the people of Israel. Ezra 2:2-64 A suggestive record William Jones. Consider — I. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FACT OF THE RECORD. 1. It Was an honour to the pious and patriotic ones who returned. 2. It is an illustration of the Divine record of God's spiritual Israel ( Luke 10:20 ). 3. It suggests that every one of His people is precious in the sight of God ( Isaiah 49:16 ). II. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE RECORD. We have in this list — 1. Significant persons. (1) Zerubbabel, an ancestor of the Messiah ( Matthew 1:12 ). (2) Jeshua, who was a distinguished type of Jesus Christ ( Zechariah 3 ., 6:11-13). 2. A significant place: Bethlehem (ver. 21). 3. Significant numbers. ( William Jones. ) Religious service William Jones. It is here suggested — I. THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS SPHERES OF SERVICE IN THE CHURCH OF GOD ( Ephesians 4:11, 12 ). II. THAT THE HUMBELEST SPHERE OF SERVICE IN THE CHURCH OF GOD IS A PLACE OF PRIVILEGE AND HONOUR. III. THE PRIVILEGE OF SEVICE IN THE CHURCH OF GOD IS NOT LIMITED TO ANY PARTICULAR RACES OR CLASSES OF MEN. ( William Jones. ) These sought their register. Ezra 2:62 The importance of a clear spiritual pedigree William Jones. I. THE DOUBTFUL PEDIGREE AMONGST THE PEOPLE IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF UNCERTAINTY AS TO OUR SPIRITUAL STATE. 1. This uncertainty may consist with association with the people of God (Vers. 59, 60). 2. This uncertainty must involve spiritual loss. (1) Of spiritual joy. (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. II. THE DOUBTFUL PEDIGREE AMONGST THE PRIESTS IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF UNCERTAINTY AS TO OUR MINISTERIAL CALLING AND CONDITION. 1. A ministerial pedigree may be lost by reason of worldliness. 2. The loss of ministerial pedigree involves a corresponding loss of ministerial power and reward. 3. The final decision as to the standing of a minister of uncertain pedigree must be given by God Himself (ver. 63). ( William Jones. ) Melancholy records J. Parker, D. D Here is the picture of men seeking a register, and finding nothing in it; looking up old family papers, and their names are not found in the tender record. A man not known at home! He may have been born there, and have lived a good many years of his early life there; but to-day he has no record on the hearthstone, no place at the table, no portion in the family memory: it would be a breach of courtesy to name his name. Something must have happened. There is an ineffable sadness about this: all nature seems to be violated; instincts have been rooted out; natural affection seems to have been burned down and utterly destroyed. Consider the tremendous possibility of outliving one's natural rights, or forfeiting birthright, inheritance, paternal blessing, all the wealth of home's true love. Talk of falling from grace! What is this but an apostasy from the best grace — a fall from childhood's trust, the wilful obliteration of the name from the scroll whose meaning is nothing but love? Here is a child who is not named in the will. Consider what you have done. How infinite in detestation must have been the character which resulted in this issue! Take more general ground, and the principle still applies. Here is a man who is unknown in the community; his name may be written upon certain official papers, but it is not inscribed on the scroll of the heart, on the memory of gratitude; it is not to be found anywhere put up as a thing most prized and loved. He is but a figure in the community, but a tax-payer, but an occupier of a house; he is not a living presence in any sense of beneficence. When he is buried no one will miss him in the heart. His name is not written upon the register of trust, affection, or benevolent interest. Seeing that all these things are possible, there must be a reason for them: what is it? It is always a moral reason, where it touches any conception of general justice. At the last shall we go to the book of life and not find our names there? The answer is in our own lives. Sad to turn away from the record, saying, "My name is not there!" But, blessed be God, the humblest, least, vilest may, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, the whole mystery of the priesthood of Christ, have their names written in heaven. ( J. Parker, D. D ) And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem, offered freely. Ezra 2:65-70 Possessions and offerings William Jones. I. The completion of their journey. "They came to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem." II. THE EXTENT OF THEIR POSSESSIONS (vers. 65-67). III. THE PRESENATION OF THEIR OFFERINGS. 1. The object of their offerings. 2. The spirit of their offerings. (1) They offered promptly, without delay. (2) They offered spontaneously, without constraint. 3. The measure of their offerings. (1) Proportionately. (2) Liberally. IV. THE SETTLEMENT IN THEIR CITIES. This suggests — 1. Home after exile. 2. Rest after a long and tedious journey. ( William Jones. ) Offering freely A. J. Gordon. As I was reading my Greek Testament the other day, I was delighted with a discovery concerning the well-known text: God loveth a cheerful giver. The word cheerful is our word for hilarious. And I began to imagine what would happen if the meaning of the word was put into action. "Will you give five pounds to missions?" "Will you contribute a hundred pounds towards our evangelistic work this winter?" "Ha, ha, ha! I am only too glad for the opportunity to give, since I have so abundantly received." And the hilarious giver writes out a cheque on the spot. How much better that sounds than the doleful, "Oh, dear! I am tired with the never-ending calls for money, money, money." But this "hilarious" giving is not possible except the Spirit is dwelling richly within. For only the Spirit shows the greatness of that salvation which we received through Christ, and the greatness of our consequent obligation. ( A. J. Gordon. ) The Church the rallying point of nations E. Monro. The temple and its worship marked the last days of the kingdom of the Jews anterior to their captivity, and formed the point around which the returning wanderers gathered at their restoration to the home of their fathers. So around the Church, the events of all successive empires have gathered since the day of Pentecost. I. Every STATE OF IMPORTANCE, alike in ancient, mediaeval, or modern history HAS GATHERED ROUND THE CHURCH, AND HAS RECEIVED ITS SHAPE AND DEFINITENESS FROM HER. Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece, and Rome each became important in their different times in proportion as they were able to bless or to chasten the Church of God. The long dynasties that ruled on the banks of the Nile; the invasion of the Hyksos; the vast undertakings of Rameses or Amasis; the gigantic records of antiquity which rise in such sepulchral magnificence in Egypt from amidst her waste of sand; the high philosophy of one Ptolemy and the literary research of another, proclaim one after the other in successive generations the splendour of an empire whose principal end of existence was to aid in the throes of the early Church; to give a home to the famine.stricken patriarchs; to be a scourge in the successive invasions of Shishak, Pharaoh Hophra, and Pharaoh Necho, and to be the probation of the Jews when God ordained the Chaldean captivity. All these seem to have been the main objects for which Egypt existed as a nation. So in each successive period in after-history the Church became more and more the central body which gave shape to the kingdoms of the world, alike in mediaeval as in modern history. The vast multitudes from the north-east of Europe which swept like a bankless flood over the fertile plains of Italy, arrested by the walls of Constantinople or of Rome, or diverted by the intercession of or Gregory, became at length themselves children of the Church whom they had persecuted; and the imaginative genius of the Goth lent mellowness, sublimity, and tone to the architecture and service of the Church. Men who came to persecute remained to pray, and the Gothic invasion formed an era in ecclesiastical history. The kingdom of France beheld a repetition of the acts of in the conversion of ; and Clotilds and her husband resembled in the story of their conversion , king of Kent, and Bertha his wife. followed in the passage of years, in family as well as name mixed up with those who were giving protection to while they received their own definiteness from the Church of Christ. And the gifts of Pepin became a record to a long after-day of the power which the Church had to give shape to the early civilisation of Europe. From the death of Charlemagne throughout eight following centuries, the interests of Europe became synonymous with those of France or Germany, while they oscillated in alternating supremacy, each of them seeking the recognition of the Church for their claims. The Great Reformation which broke out over Northern and Western Europe bore upon the billows of its tempestuous sea the vessels that carried the destinies of Spain and Austria, France and England, and many of the minor states of Germany; while religious questions became the direct causes which shook the dynasty of the Stuarts, and agitated France through the illustrious periods of Catharine de Medici and Henry the Great and the imbecile reign of Louis XIII; while the names that have rendered so many pages of French history interesting — the Hugonot and Coligni, Conde and Turenne — were immediately brought out by questions connected with the doctrine and discipline of the Church in defence of which each one of them was brought before the notice of history. II. THE CHURCH HAS IN HER THAT PRINCIPLE OF VITALITY WHICH GIVES HER THE POWER TO REKINDLE LIFE WHERE IT HAS BEEN EXTINCT, AND TO RECONSTRUCT THE SHATTERED PORTIONS OF FABRICS WHICH HAVE FALLEN TO DECAY. The children of Israel, leaving their patriarchal government at Goshen to enter upon that developed state of their history which was to issue in the kingly line of David, preserved their nationality and drew together their otherwise scattered forces around the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the lawgiver; and the Church of God became in the wilderness of Sinai the source and fountain of national life and existence to the tribes reseeking their home. A second time the chosen people were called upon to bewail their sins in a long captivity; a second time their national distinctiveness bid fair to be lost, but the voices of Daniel and Ezekiel sounded loudly to penitence and prayer by the Chebar and in Babylon. These were the voices of the Church of God — these represented that eternal principle around which national and individual existence might coil and find compactness. These were the forces from within which kept together the people of the captivity, and were the means of restoring them in their national integrity to their homes. Forlorn and orphaned indeed must the returning tribes have felt; like men who in the chill of the morning wander amid the fading flowers of the banquet of yesterday. At that moment the Church again became the centre of their national revival and around the foundation stones of the temple the scattered people again became a nation. ( E. Monro. ).

Benson Commentary Ezra 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; Ezra 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. Ezra 2:2 Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: Ezra 2:2 . Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, &c. — These were their heads, who undertook to conduct them: among whom Zerubbabel was their prince or leader, as Jeshua was high-priest, who is mentioned next to him. Nehemiah, whose name follows, is not the person whose book comes after this: for he did not go to Judea now, but afterward; or, if he did, he returned to Babylon again. The number of the men of the people — This is a kind of title to the following verses. This catalogue differs in some names and numbers from that Nehemiah 7., which might be, because several names were given to the same persons; and because of the many changes which might happen in the same families between the time of the first making of this catalogue by Ezra, and the making it anew so many years after. Ezra 2:3 The children of Parosh, two thousand an hundred seventy and two. Ezra 2:3 . The children — The posterity, as that word is generally taken in this catalogue. Of Parosh — That descended either from Parosh, or from that family whereof Parosh was the chief. And so for the rest. Ezra 2:4 The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy and two. Ezra 2:5 The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five. Ezra 2:5 . Seven hundred, &c. — In Nehemiah 7:10 , they were only six hundred and fifty-two; it seems seven hundred and seventy-five marched out of Babylon, but some of them died, others were hindered by sickness or other casualties, and so there came only six hundred and fifty-two to Jerusalem. And the like is to be said in the like differences; which it suffices to hint once for all. Ezra 2:6 The children of Pahathmoab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve. Ezra 2:7 The children of Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four. Ezra 2:8 The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five. Ezra 2:9 The children of Zaccai, seven hundred and threescore. Ezra 2:10 The children of Bani, six hundred forty and two. Ezra 2:11 The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty and three. Ezra 2:12 The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two. Ezra 2:13 The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six. Ezra 2:14 The children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty and six. Ezra 2:15 The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four. Ezra 2:16 The children of Ater of Hezekiah, ninety and eight. Ezra 2:17 The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and three. Ezra 2:18 The children of Jorah, an hundred and twelve. Ezra 2:19 The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty and three. Ezra 2:20 The children of Gibbar, ninety and five. Ezra 2:20-21 . The children of Gibbar — Or , as it is in Nehemiah 7:25 , of Gibeon, these being the citizens of that city. For this is not the name of a man, but of a place; and the same may be said of several names that follow. The children of Beth-lehem — The remainders of the inhabitants of that city: so little was Beth-lehem among the thousands of Judah! Yet thence must the Messiah arise. Netophah and Anathoth also, in the next two verses, were towns, not men. Ezra 2:21 The children of Bethlehem, an hundred twenty and three. Ezra 2:22 The men of Netophah, fifty and six. Ezra 2:23 The men of Anathoth, an hundred twenty and eight. Ezra 2:24 The children of Azmaveth, forty and two. Ezra 2:25 The children of Kirjatharim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred and forty and three. Ezra 2:26 The children of Ramah and Geba, six hundred twenty and one. Ezra 2:27 The men of Michmas, an hundred twenty and two. Ezra 2:28 The men of Bethel and Ai, two hundred twenty and three. Ezra 2:29 The children of Nebo, fifty and two. Ezra 2:30 The children of Magbish, an hundred fifty and six. Ezra 2:31 The children of the other Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four. Ezra 2:32 The children of Harim, three hundred and twenty. Ezra 2:33 The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred twenty and five. Ezra 2:34 The children of Jericho, three hundred forty and five. Ezra 2:35 The children of Senaah, three thousand and six hundred and thirty. Ezra 2:36 The priests: the children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred seventy and three. Ezra 2:36 . The priests — Having numbered the people that went of Judah and Benjamin, he proceeds now to the tribe of Levi, and first mentions the priests. Ezra 2:37 The children of Immer, a thousand fifty and two. Ezra 2:38 The children of Pashur, a thousand two hundred forty and seven. Ezra 2:39 The children of Harim, a thousand and seventeen. Ezra 2:39 . The children of Harim — The head of one of the twenty-four courses which David appointed, ( 1 Chronicles 24:8 ,) of all which courses, some observe here, are not above four or five that returned. There is another Harim mentioned above, Ezra 2:32 , but that was no priest as this was, Ezra 2:36 . Ezra 2:40 The Levites: the children of Jeshua and Kadmiel, of the children of Hodaviah, seventy and four. Ezra 2:41 The singers: the children of Asaph, an hundred twenty and eight. Ezra 2:42 The children of the porters: the children of Shallum, the children of Ater, the children of Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children of Hatita, the children of Shobai, in all an hundred thirty and nine. Ezra 2:43 The Nethinims: the children of Ziha, the children of Hasupha, the children of Tabbaoth, Ezra 2:43 . Nethinims — Persons devoted to the inferior services of the priests and Levites. Commonly supposed to be the Gibeonites, given (so their name signifies) by Joshua first, and again by David, when Saul had expelled them, to the priests and Levites, for those services. Ezra 2:44 The children of Keros, the children of Siaha, the children of Padon, Ezra 2:45 The children of Lebanah, the children of Hagabah, the children of Akkub, Ezra 2:46 The children of Hagab, the children of Shalmai, the children of Hanan, Ezra 2:47 The children of Giddel, the children of Gahar, the children of Reaiah, Ezra 2:48 The children of Rezin, the children of Nekoda, the children of Gazzam, Ezra 2:49 The children of Uzza, the children of Paseah, the children of Besai, Ezra 2:50 The children of Asnah, the children of Mehunim, the children of Nephusim, Ezra 2:51 The children of Bakbuk, the children of Hakupha, the children of Harhur, Ezra 2:52 The children of Bazluth, the children of Mehida, the children of Harsha, Ezra 2:53 The children of Barkos, the children of Sisera, the children of Thamah, Ezra 2:54 The children of Neziah, the children of Hatipha. Ezra 2:55 The children of Solomon's servants: the children of Sotai, the children of Sophereth, the children of Peruda, Ezra 2:55 . The children of Solomon’s servants — Who had lived in Solomon’s family, and after his death called themselves and their families by that name, esteeming it a great honour that they had been servants to so great a prince. Ezra 2:56 The children of Jaalah, the children of Darkon, the children of Giddel, Ezra 2:57 The children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, the children of Pochereth of Zebaim, the children of Ami. Ezra 2:58 All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants, were three hundred ninety and two. Ezra 2:59 And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel: Ezra 2:59 . Which went up from Tel-melah, &c. — These were names of some cities in the Babylonish empire, from whence many went along with the Jews to Judea. They were of the Jewish religion, and probably were the children of those who had been carried captive before the general captivity; but they had lost their genealogies, and could not show from what families they were derived, and therefore could not obtain any certain possession in Judea, as those did who knew and could show to what family and city they belonged. Ezra 2:60 The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two. Ezra 2:61 And 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: Ezra 2:61-62 . And was called after their name — Namely, Barzillai; a name which he preferred before that of his own family, accounting it, as appears, a greater honour to be allied to so noble a family than to be a priest of the Lord. But by this vain ambition he deprived himself of the honour and advantage of the priesthood, as is here noted. They sought their register — The Jews were generally very exact in their genealogies, from their own choice and interest, that they might preserve the distinctions of the several tribes and families, which was necessary both to make out their titles to offices or inheritances, and to govern themselves thereby in the matter of marriages, and from the special providence of God, that so it might be certainly known of what tribe and family the Messiah was born. Ezra 2:62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood. Ezra 2:63 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. Ezra 2:63 . The Tirshatha — The governor or king’s commissioner, namely, Zerubbabel: whence Nehemiah is so called, Nehemiah 8:9 ; Nehemiah 10:2 . That they should not eat of the most holy things — That they should not partake of the sacrifices offered for sin, nor of the right shoulder of peace- offerings, nor of the show-bread; which were all most holy, and the portion of the priests alone. Till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim — Till the Lord himself should show, by an answer given to some high- priest, inquiring of him by Urim and Thummim, as had been anciently done, whether they were of the line of Aaron or not. But as God had ceased to give an answer this way long before this time, therefore, it was as much as to say, that as their names were not found in the authentic genealogical registers of the priests, they should for ever be excluded, till some divine oracle pronounced them to have a right to the priesthood. Hereby it appears, that the Urim and Thummim were lost in the destruction of the city and temple, though the Jews fed themselves with hopes of recovering them, but in vain. And by the want of that oracle, they were taught to expect the great oracle, the Messiah. Ezra 2:64 The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Ezra 2:64 . Forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore — This is more than double the number which were carried away captive by Nebuchadnezzar. But here occurs a small difficulty; (like that in the end of the foregoing chapter;) for if we put together the several sums before mentioned, they amount to no more than twenty-nine thousand eight hundred and eighteen; so there wants about twelve thousand to make up this number of forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty. Therefore, either these were of the rest of the tribes of Israel, who came up with those of Judah and Benjamin: or, they might be Levites or other Israelites, who could not make out their descent: or else, which is most probable, some mistake in the numbers has been made by transcribers, which might easily happen, even though in general very great care was taken. Ezra 2:65 Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women. Ezra 2:65 . And singing-women — For women as well as men were employed in this exercise, in the temple-service. Ezra 2:66 Their horses were seven hundred thirty and six; their mules, two hundred forty and five; Ezra 2:67 Their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty. Ezra 2:68 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: Ezra 2:68 . When they came to the house of the Lord — That is, to the place in which the temple had stood, and where the ruins still remained. Offered freely — Made a new offering, besides that which they had brought out of Babylon, from their brethren there, mentioned Ezra 1:4 ; Ezra 1:6 . By this it appears that the Jews were not made absolute slaves in Babylon, but had liberty to trade and get riches for themselves; some of them being advanced to considerable offices in the king’s court. Otherwise they could not have been able to offer such sums as are mentioned in the next verse. Ezra 2:69 They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold, and five thousand pound of silver, and one hundred priests' garments. Ezra 2:69 . Threescore and one thousand drachms of gold, &c. — About seventy-five thousand and five hundred pounds of our money; for every drachm of gold is worth ten shillings of our money, and every mina, or pound of silver, nine pounds; for it contains sixty shekels, and every shekel of silver is worth three shillings of our money. And one hundred priests’ garments — Garments, as well as gold and silver, were wont to be laid up in treasuries, Matthew 6:20 . We may infer then, from these rich offerings, not only, as has been just intimated, that the Jews were not made such poor slaves in Babylon as wrought for their lords and masters, but that there may not be all the truth imaginable in that common saying among them, that they were only the bran, that is, the dregs of the people, who returned to Jerusalem at the end of the captivity, and that all the fine flour stayed behind at Babylon. See Prideaux’s Connect., Ann. 536, and Dodd. Ezra 2:70 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. Ezra 2:70 . And all Israel in their cities — In the cities which their families had inhabited before their captivity. As to those who could not prove themselves Israelites by any genealogical register, they probably settled in those lands which were not claimed, or followed handicraft employments, of one sort or other, in the cities. Although their cities were out of repair, yea, in a ruinous state, yet, because they were their cities, such as God had assigned them, they were content to dwell in them; and were thankful for liberty and property, though they had little of pomp, plenty, or power. Their poverty was an afflictive cause, but their unity and unanimity were happy effects of it. Here was room enough for them all, and all their substance, so that there was no strife among them, but perfect harmony: a blessed presage of their comfortable settlement, as their discords in the latter times of that state were of their ruin. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary Ezra 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; THE SECOND EXODUS Ezra 2:1-67 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" { Ezra 2:1 } - i.e. , of the Persian province of Judaea-and their leader bore the title of a Persian governor. {Tirshatha. Ezra 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 man’s 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 2:1-70 , the second in Nehemiah 7:1-73 , and the third in RAPC 1Es 5:1-73 . 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 Lord’s 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 Ezra 5:16 we read that Sheshbazzar laid the foundation of the temple, while in Ezra 3:8 this work is ascribed to Zerubbabel, with whom the origin of the work is again connected in Ezra 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. Nehemiah’s 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 Ezra 1:5 } The dispersion of the Northern Kingdom had begun two centuries earlier than Nebuchadnezzar’s 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. { Luke 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. { Ezekiel 44:9-16 } We see from the arrangement in Ezra that the prophet’s 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 Solomon’s 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." { Psalm 126:1-3 } Ezra 2:68 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: THE NEW TEMPLE Ezra 2:68-70 ; Ezra 3:1-13 UNLIKE the historian of the exodus from Egypt, our chronicler gives no account of adventures of the pilgrims on the road to Palestine, although much of their way led them through a wild and difficult country. So huge a caravan as that which accompanied Zerubbabel must have taken several months to cover the eight hundred miles between Babylon and Jerusalem; for even Ezra with his smaller company spent four months on their journey. { Ezra 7:8-9 } A dreary desert stretched over the vast space between the land of exile and the old home of the Jews among the mountains of the West; and here the commissariat would tax the resources of the ablest organisers. It is possible that the difficulties of the desert were circumvented in the most prosaic manner-by simply avoiding this barren, waterless region, and taking a long sweep round by the north of Syria. Passing over the pilgrimage, which afforded him no topics of interest, without a word of comment, the chronicler plants us at once in the midst of the busy scenes at Jerusalem, where we see the returned exiles, at length arrived at the end of their tedious journey, preparing to accomplish the one purpose of their expedition. The first step was to provide the means for building the temple, and contributions were made for this object by all classes of the community-as we gather from the more complete account in Nehemiah { Nehemiah 7:70-72 } -from the prince and the aristocracy to the general public, for it was to be a united work. And yet it is implied by the narrative that many had no share in it. These people may have been poor originally or impoverished by their journey, and not at all deficient in generosity or lacking in faith. Still we often meet with those who have enough enthusiasm to applaud a good work and yet not enough to make any sacrifice in promoting it. It is expressly stated that the gifts were offered freely. No tax was imposed by the authorities; but there was no backwardness on the part of the actual donors, who were impelled by a glowing devotion to open their purses without stint. Lastly, those who contributed did so "after their ability." This is the true "proportionate giving." For all to give an equal sum is impossible unless the poll-tax is to be fixed at a miserable minimum. Even for all to give the same proportion is unjust. There are poor men who ought not to sacrifice a tenth of what they receive; there are rich men who will be guilty of unfaithfulness to their stewardship if they do not devote far more than this fraction of their vast revenues to the service of God and their fellow-men. It would be reasonable for some of the latter only to reserve the tithe for their own use and to give away nine-tenths of their income, for even then they would not be giving "after their ability." After the preliminary step of collecting the contributions, the pilgrims proceed to the actual work they have in hand. In this they are heartily united; they gather themselves together "as one man" in a great assembly, which, if we may trust the account in Esdras, is held in an open space by the first gate towards the east, {RAPC 1Es 5:47 } and therefore close to the site of the old temple, almost among its very ruins. The unity of spirit and the harmony of action which characterise the commencement of the work are good auguries of its success. This is to be a popular undertaking. Sanctioned by Cyrus, promoted by the aristocracy, it is to be carried out with the full co-operation of the multitude. The first temple had been the work of a king; the second is to be the work of a people. The nation had been dazzled by the splendour of Solomon’s court, and had basked in its rays so that the after-glow of them lingered in the memories of ages even down to the time of our Lord. { Matthew 6:29 } But there was a healthier spirit in the humbler work of the returned exiles, when, forced to dispense with the king they would gladly have accepted, they undertook the task of building the new temple themselves. In the centre of the mosque known as the "Dome of the Rock" there is a crag with the well-worn remains of steps leading up to the top of it, and with channels cut in its surface. This has been identified by recent explorers as the site of the great Altar of Burnt-offerings. It is on the very crest of Mount Moriah. Formerly it was thought that it was the site of the inmost shrine of the temple, known as "The Holy of Holies," but the new view, which seems to be fairly established, gives an unexpected prominence to the altar. This rude square structure of unhewn stone was the most elevated and conspicuous object in the temple. The altar was to Judaism what the cross is to Christianity. Both for us and for the Jews what is most vital and precious in religion is the dark mystery of a sacrifice. The first work of the temple-builders was to set up the altar again on its old foundation. Before a stone of the temple was laid, the smoke of sacrificial fires might be seen ascending to heaven from the highest crag of Moriah. For fifty years all sacrifices had ceased. Now with haste, in fear of hindrance from jealous neighbours, means were provided to re-establish them before any attempt was made to rebuild the temple. It is not quite easy to see what the writer means when, after saying "And they set the altar upon his bases," he adds, "for fear was upon them because of the people of those countries." The suggestion that the phrase may be varied so as to mean that the awe which this religious work inspired in the heathen neighbours prevented them from molesting it is far-fetched and improbable. Nor is it likely that the writer intends to convey the idea that the Jews hastened the building of the altar as a sort of Palladium, trusting that its sacrifices would protect them in case of invasion, for this is to attribute too low and materialistic a character to their religion. More reasonable is the explanation that they hastened the work because they feared that their neighbours might either hinder it or wish to have a share in it-an equally objectionable thing, as subsequent events showed. The chronicler distinctly states that the sacrifices which were now offered, as well as the festivals which were established later, were all designed to meet the requirements of the law of Moses-that everything might be done "as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God." This statement does not throw much light on the history of the Pentateuch. We know that that work was not yet in the hands of the Jews at Jerusalem, because this was nearly eighty years before Ezra introduced it. The sentence suggests that according to the chronicler some law bearing the name of Moses was known to the first body of returned exiles. We need not regard that suggestion as a reflection from later years. Deuteronomy may have been the law referred to; or it may have been some rubric of traditional usages in the possession of the priests. Meanwhile two facts of importance come out here - first, that the method of worship adopted by the returned exiles was a revival of ancient customs, a return to the old ways, not an innovation of their own, and second, that this restoration was in careful obedience to the known will of God. Here we have the root idea of the Torah. It announces that God has revealed His will, and it implies that the service of God can only be acceptable when it is in harmony with the will of God. The prophets taught that obedience was better than sacrifice. The priests held that sacrifice itself was a part of obedience. With both the primary requisite was obedience-as it is the primary requisite in all religion. The particular kind of sacrifice offered on the great altar was the burnt-offering. Now we do occasionally meet with expiatory ideas in connection with this sacrifice; but unquestionably the principal conception attached to the burnt-offering in distinction from the sin-offering, was the idea of self-dedication on the part of the worshipper. Thus the Jews re-consecrated themselves to God by the solemn ceremony of sacrifice, and they kept up the thought of renewed consecration by the regular repetition of the burnt-offering. It is difficult for us to enter into the feelings of the people who practised so antique a cult, even to them archaic in its ceremonies, and dimly suggestive of primitive rites that had their origin in far-off barbaric times. But one thing is clear, shining as with letters of awful fire against the black clouds of smoke that hang over the altar. This sacrifice was always a "whole offering." As it was being completely consumed in the flames before their very eyes, the worshippers would see a vivid representation of the tremendous truth that the most perfect sacrifice is death-nay, that it is even more than death, that it is absolute self-effacement in total and unreserved surrender to God. Various rites follow the great central sacrifice of the burnt-offering, ushered in by the most joyous festival of the year, the Feast of Tabernacles, when the people scatter themselves over the hills round Jerusalem under the shade of extemporised bowers made out of the leafy boughs of trees, and celebrate the goodness of God in the final and richest harvest, the vintage. Then come New Moon and the other festivals that stud the calendar with sacred dates and make the Jewish year a round of glad festivities. Thus, we see, the full establishment of religious services precedes the building of the temple. A weighty truth is enshrined in this apparently incongruous fact. The worship itself is felt to be more important than the house in which it is to be celebrated. That truth should be even more apparent to us who have read the great words of Jesus uttered by Jacob’s well, "The hour cometh when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth." { John 4:21 ; John 4:23 } How vain then is it to treat the erection of churches as though it were the promotion of a revival of religion! As surely as the empty sea-shell tossed up on the beach can never secrete a living organism to inhabit it, a mere building-whether it be the most gorgeous cathedral or the plainest village meeting-house-will never induce a living spirit of worship to dwell in its cold desolation. Every true religious revival begins in the spiritual sphere and finds its place of worship where it may-in the rustic barn or on the hillside-if no more seemly home can be provided for it, because its real temple is the humble and contrite heart. Still the design of building the temple at Jerusalem was kept constantly in view by the pilgrims. Accordingly it was necessary to purchase materials, and in particular the fragrant cedar wood from the distant forests of Lebanon. These famous forests were still in the possession of the Phoenicians, for Cyrus had allowed a local autonomy to the busy trading people on the northern seaboard. So, in spite of the king’s favour, it was requisite for the Jews to pay the full price for the costly timber. Now, in disbursing the original funds brought up from Babylon, it would seem that the whole of this money was expended in labour, in paying the wages of masons and carpenters. Therefore the Jews had to export agricultural products-such as corn, wine, and olive oil-in exchange for the imports of timber they received from the Phoenicians. The question at once arises, how did they come to be possessed of these fruits of the soil? The answer is supplied by a chronological remark in our narrative. It was in the second year of their residence in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood that the Jews commenced the actual building of their temple. They had first patiently cleared, ploughed, and sown the neglected fields, trimmed and trained the vines, and tended the olive gardens, so that they were able to reap a harvest, and to give the surplus products for the purchase of the timber required in building the temple. As the foundation was laid in the spring, the order for the cedar wood must have been sent before the harvest was reaped-pledging it in advance with faith in the God who gives the increase. The Phoenician woodmen fell their trees in the distant forests of Lebanon; and the massive trunks are dragged down to the coast, and floated along the Mediterranean to Joppa, and then carried on the backs of camels or slowly drawn up the heights of Judah in ox-wagons, while the crops that are to pay for them are still green in the fields. Here then is a further proof of devotion on the part of the Jews from Babylon-though it is scarcely hinted at i