King James Version
Ezra 5
17 verses with commentary
The Rebuilding Resumed
Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them.
View commentary
The prophets Haggai and Zechariah emerged during a critical period when temple reconstruction had ceased for approximately 16 years (536-520 BC). The Hebrew phrase 'prophesied unto the Jews' (hitnabbeu al-yehudaya) indicates they spoke authoritatively in God's name, not merely offering human encouragement. The specification 'in the name of the God of Israel' (beshem elohe Yisrael) emphasizes prophetic authority derived from divine commission, not personal opinion.
Haggai's ministry began in the second year of Darius (520 BC, Haggai 1:1), confronting the people's priority of building personal houses while God's house lay in ruins. Zechariah, son of Iddo, began his ministry two months later (Zechariah 1:1), providing complementary apocalyptic visions of future glory motivating present obedience. Their combined ministry demonstrates how God raises up prophetic voices at crucial moments to redirect His people.
Theologically, this verse illustrates that God's work requires both human effort and divine enablement. The people had legitimate reasons for discouragement—opposition, economic hardship, governmental prohibition. Yet God didn't accept these excuses but sent prophets to reignite vision and courage. This teaches that divine calling transcends circumstances, and God provides resources (prophetic encouragement) for challenges He ordains.
Haggai's ministry began in the second year of Darius (520 BC, Haggai 1:1), confronting the people's priority of building personal houses while God's house lay in ruins. Zechariah, son of Iddo, began his ministry two months later (Zechariah 1:1), providing complementary apocalyptic visions of future glory motivating present obedience. Their combined ministry demonstrates how God raises up prophetic voices at crucial moments to redirect His people.
Theologically, this verse illustrates that God's work requires both human effort and divine enablement. The people had legitimate reasons for discouragement—opposition, economic hardship, governmental prohibition. Yet God didn't accept these excuses but sent prophets to reignite vision and courage. This teaches that divine calling transcends circumstances, and God provides resources (prophetic encouragement) for challenges He ordains.
Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them.
View commentary
The phrase 'then rose up' (wayyaqum) indicates decisive response to prophetic word. Zerubbabel and Jeshua didn't hesitate or deliberate but acted immediately upon receiving divine direction through the prophets. This demonstrates proper relationship between prophecy and leadership—spiritual authority speaks God's word; civil and religious leaders implement it.
The clause 'and with them were the prophets of God helping them' shows ongoing prophetic support beyond initial encouragement. The Hebrew mesayin lehon means assisting or supporting, indicating Haggai and Zechariah didn't merely deliver messages then depart but remained involved, providing continued encouragement and guidance. This models integrated ministry where prophetic voices and practical leaders work collaboratively.
Beginning 'to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem' marks transition from inaction to obedience. Despite no change in external circumstances—opposition remained, economic challenges persisted, Persian authorization was uncertain—they obeyed prophetic direction. This demonstrates that faith acts on God's word before seeing circumstances resolve, trusting divine provision will follow obedience rather than waiting for favorable conditions before obeying.
The clause 'and with them were the prophets of God helping them' shows ongoing prophetic support beyond initial encouragement. The Hebrew mesayin lehon means assisting or supporting, indicating Haggai and Zechariah didn't merely deliver messages then depart but remained involved, providing continued encouragement and guidance. This models integrated ministry where prophetic voices and practical leaders work collaboratively.
Beginning 'to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem' marks transition from inaction to obedience. Despite no change in external circumstances—opposition remained, economic challenges persisted, Persian authorization was uncertain—they obeyed prophetic direction. This demonstrates that faith acts on God's word before seeing circumstances resolve, trusting divine provision will follow obedience rather than waiting for favorable conditions before obeying.
Tattenai's Letter to Darius
At the same time came to them Tatnai, governor on this side the river, and Shetharboznai, and their companions, and said thus unto them, Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall?
View commentary
Tatnai, as 'governor on this side the river' (pachath abar nahara), governed the Persian satrapy west of the Euphrates, making him Zerubbabel's superior in the imperial hierarchy. His arrival 'at the same time' as construction commenced suggests intelligence networks informed Persian authorities of the activity. Shethar-boznai likely served as Tatnai's secretary or assistant official.
The question 'Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall?' focuses on authorization within Persian bureaucracy. Ancient Near Eastern empires required royal permission for significant building projects, especially fortifications. Tatnai's concern was procedural—ensuring proper authorization existed—rather than merely hostile opposition. This demonstrates how God's work must sometimes navigate governmental systems and regulations.
Theologically, this verse illustrates that obeying God doesn't exempt believers from accountability to earthly authorities. Zerubbabel and Jeshua couldn't claim divine calling as reason to ignore imperial law. Instead, they had to demonstrate that their work had proper authorization (Cyrus's original decree). This models Christian dual citizenship—ultimate allegiance to God while respecting legitimate governmental authority (Romans 13:1-7).
The question 'Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall?' focuses on authorization within Persian bureaucracy. Ancient Near Eastern empires required royal permission for significant building projects, especially fortifications. Tatnai's concern was procedural—ensuring proper authorization existed—rather than merely hostile opposition. This demonstrates how God's work must sometimes navigate governmental systems and regulations.
Theologically, this verse illustrates that obeying God doesn't exempt believers from accountability to earthly authorities. Zerubbabel and Jeshua couldn't claim divine calling as reason to ignore imperial law. Instead, they had to demonstrate that their work had proper authorization (Cyrus's original decree). This models Christian dual citizenship—ultimate allegiance to God while respecting legitimate governmental authority (Romans 13:1-7).
Then said we unto them after this manner, What are the names of the men that make this building? make: Chaldee, build
View commentary
The question "What are the names of the men that make this building?" reflects standard Persian administrative procedure. Officials required identification of project leaders for accountability purposes. The Aramaic text uses shemahath (names) emphasizing that the Persian authorities sought to document individual responsibility. Notably, this question assumes the Jews had proper authorization—the officials were merely gathering information for their report, not immediately halting construction.
The request for names served multiple purposes: legal documentation, establishing chains of command, and potential prosecution if the project proved unauthorized. Yet God sovereignly used this bureaucratic inquiry to trigger the archival search that would ultimately vindicate the Jews. Human investigation intended to challenge God's work instead confirmed His purposes.
The request for names served multiple purposes: legal documentation, establishing chains of command, and potential prosecution if the project proved unauthorized. Yet God sovereignly used this bureaucratic inquiry to trigger the archival search that would ultimately vindicate the Jews. Human investigation intended to challenge God's work instead confirmed His purposes.
But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, that they could not cause them to cease, till the matter came to Darius: and then they returned answer by letter concerning this matter.
View commentary
But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews. The Aramaic phrase ayin elahahon (eye of their God) employs a powerful anthropomorphism expressing divine watchfulness and protection. Unlike human surveillance meant to control, God's "eye" signifies covenant care and sovereign oversight. The elders continued building because God's protective gaze superseded Persian authority.
The officials "could not cause them to cease" despite having apparent authority to halt unauthorized construction. This divine restraint parallels God's protection of Israel throughout Scripture (Psalm 121:4; Zechariah 2:8). The matter proceeding to Darius was not a setback but God's providential arrangement—the king's investigation would discover Cyrus's original decree and confirm Jewish authorization.
The verse demonstrates the interplay between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The Jews worked faithfully while God ensured their enemies could not prevail. Providence operates through ordinary means—bureaucratic processes, delayed decisions, archival searches—all orchestrated by God's watchful eye.
The officials "could not cause them to cease" despite having apparent authority to halt unauthorized construction. This divine restraint parallels God's protection of Israel throughout Scripture (Psalm 121:4; Zechariah 2:8). The matter proceeding to Darius was not a setback but God's providential arrangement—the king's investigation would discover Cyrus's original decree and confirm Jewish authorization.
The verse demonstrates the interplay between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The Jews worked faithfully while God ensured their enemies could not prevail. Providence operates through ordinary means—bureaucratic processes, delayed decisions, archival searches—all orchestrated by God's watchful eye.
The copy of the letter that Tatnai, governor on this side the river, and Shetharboznai, and his companions the Apharsachites, which were on this side the river, sent unto Darius the king:
View commentary
The formal letter introduction identifies the senders and recipient with precise bureaucratic terminology. Tatnai (Tattenai in Aramaic) served as governor (pechah) of the Trans-Euphrates satrapy—the vast region "on this side the river" encompassing Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine. Shethar-boznai likely served as his secretary or deputy. The "Apharsachites" (Apharsekaye) were Persian officials or inspectors stationed throughout the satrapy.
The careful documentation of official titles and geographic jurisdiction reflects authentic Persian chancellery style. Archaeological discoveries of Persian-period correspondence confirm this precise administrative language. The letter's preservation in the biblical text demonstrates God's providential arrangement of historical documentation—what began as a challenge became evidence of divine faithfulness.
The careful documentation of official titles and geographic jurisdiction reflects authentic Persian chancellery style. Archaeological discoveries of Persian-period correspondence confirm this precise administrative language. The letter's preservation in the biblical text demonstrates God's providential arrangement of historical documentation—what began as a challenge became evidence of divine faithfulness.
They sent a letter unto him, wherein was written thus; Unto Darius the king, all peace. wherein: Chaldee, in the midst whereof
View commentary
The letter's salutation "Unto Darius the king, all peace" employs the Aramaic greeting shelama kolla (complete peace). This formal diplomatic opening expressed loyalty and proper respect for royal authority. The greeting mirrors formulas found in other ancient Near Eastern correspondence and establishes the letter's official nature.
The brief salutation contrasts with the detailed report that follows, demonstrating professional efficiency in imperial communication. Persian administration valued concise, factual reporting. The respectful tone indicates Tatnai was not necessarily hostile to the Jews but dutifully fulfilling his administrative obligations.
The brief salutation contrasts with the detailed report that follows, demonstrating professional efficiency in imperial communication. Persian administration valued concise, factual reporting. The respectful tone indicates Tatnai was not necessarily hostile to the Jews but dutifully fulfilling his administrative obligations.
Be it known unto the king, that we went into the province of Judea, to the house of the great God, which is builded with great stones, and timber is laid in the walls, and this work goeth fast on, and prospereth in their hands. great: Chaldee, stones of rolling
View commentary
Tatnai's report provides remarkable testimony to the temple reconstruction's progress. The phrase "the house of the great God" (beth elaha rabba) acknowledges Yahweh's significance—even this Persian official recognized Israel's God as "great." The construction details—"great stones" and "timber laid in the walls"—describe substantial, permanent construction rather than temporary structures.
Most significantly, the report states "this work goeth fast on, and prospereth in their hands." The Aramaic matzlach (prospereth) indicates thriving success. Despite years of opposition, prophetic encouragement through Haggai and Zechariah had revitalized the project. God transformed what opponents intended as a damaging report into documentation of His blessing. The officials inadvertently testified that God was prospering His people's work.
Most significantly, the report states "this work goeth fast on, and prospereth in their hands." The Aramaic matzlach (prospereth) indicates thriving success. Despite years of opposition, prophetic encouragement through Haggai and Zechariah had revitalized the project. God transformed what opponents intended as a damaging report into documentation of His blessing. The officials inadvertently testified that God was prospering His people's work.
Then asked we those elders, and said unto them thus, Who commanded you to build this house, and to make up these walls?
View commentary
The officials' questions sought to establish authorization: "Who commanded you to build this house?" The Aramaic sam teem (gave command/decree) indicates they sought official documentation—a royal decree authorizing construction. Persian law required such authorization for significant building projects, especially those involving fortifications or temples that could serve as centers of political resistance.
The question "to make up these walls" may refer either to the temple walls or potentially Jerusalem's city walls, which would raise greater security concerns. The officials' inquiry was legally appropriate—they needed to verify that this substantial construction project had proper imperial authorization. Their investigation, though initially threatening, would ultimately vindicate the Jewish community.
The question "to make up these walls" may refer either to the temple walls or potentially Jerusalem's city walls, which would raise greater security concerns. The officials' inquiry was legally appropriate—they needed to verify that this substantial construction project had proper imperial authorization. Their investigation, though initially threatening, would ultimately vindicate the Jewish community.
We asked their names also, to certify thee, that we might write the names of the men that were the chief of them.
View commentary
The officials requested names "to certify thee"—that is, to provide the king with documented accountability. The Aramaic lehodautakh (to inform you) indicates the letter's purpose was providing complete information for royal evaluation. Recording "the names of the men that were the chief of them" would enable the king to investigate the leaders' backgrounds and legitimacy.
This bureaucratic meticulousness, though threatening to the Jews, demonstrated Persian administrative thoroughness. Every significant project required identifiable leadership accountable to imperial authority. Yet God used this documentation requirement to establish the legitimacy of Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and other leaders—their names would be permanently recorded in both Persian archives and Scripture.
This bureaucratic meticulousness, though threatening to the Jews, demonstrated Persian administrative thoroughness. Every significant project required identifiable leadership accountable to imperial authority. Yet God used this documentation requirement to establish the legitimacy of Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and other leaders—their names would be permanently recorded in both Persian archives and Scripture.
And thus they returned us answer, saying, We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house that was builded these many years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and set up.
View commentary
The Jewish elders' response begins with bold theological confession: "We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth." The Aramaic title elah shemaya ve'ar'a (God of heaven and earth) asserts Yahweh's universal sovereignty over all creation—not merely a local deity but the cosmic Creator. This confession before Persian officials paralleled Daniel's testimony in Babylon, maintaining covenant identity under foreign rule.
Their reference to Solomon ("a great king of Israel") connected the current project to Israel's glorious past. The original temple "builded these many years ago" stood approximately 400 years before its destruction, representing the pinnacle of Israel's architectural and spiritual achievement. By invoking Solomon's legacy, the elders established continuity between their restoration work and divinely authorized worship.
Their reference to Solomon ("a great king of Israel") connected the current project to Israel's glorious past. The original temple "builded these many years ago" stood approximately 400 years before its destruction, representing the pinnacle of Israel's architectural and spiritual achievement. By invoking Solomon's legacy, the elders established continuity between their restoration work and divinely authorized worship.
But after that our fathers had provoked the God of heaven unto wrath, he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this house, and carried the people away into Babylon.
View commentary
The elders' confession of national sin is theologically remarkable: "Our fathers had provoked the God of heaven unto wrath." The Aramaic hargizu (provoked to anger) acknowledges that exile was divine judgment, not merely political misfortune. They accepted responsibility rather than blaming circumstances, demonstrating genuine repentance and covenant understanding.
Nebuchadnezzar is explicitly named as God's instrument: God "gave them into the hand of" the Babylonian king. This confession echoes Jeremiah's prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar was God's servant executing divine judgment (Jeremiah 25:9). The Jews acknowledged that temple destruction and exile resulted from covenant unfaithfulness, not Babylonian superiority. Even in appealing to Persian authorities, they maintained theological integrity about their history.
Nebuchadnezzar is explicitly named as God's instrument: God "gave them into the hand of" the Babylonian king. This confession echoes Jeremiah's prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar was God's servant executing divine judgment (Jeremiah 25:9). The Jews acknowledged that temple destruction and exile resulted from covenant unfaithfulness, not Babylonian superiority. Even in appealing to Persian authorities, they maintained theological integrity about their history.
But in the first year of Cyrus the king of Babylon the same king Cyrus made a decree to build this house of God.
View commentary
The elders pivoted from judgment to restoration: "But in the first year of Cyrus..." The Aramaic beram (but/however) marks a dramatic transition from exile to return. Cyrus is notably called "king of Babylon"—his title after conquering that empire in 539 BC—emphasizing that the same throne that destroyed the temple now authorized its rebuilding.
The decree (teem) to rebuild represented divine reversal of judgment. What Nebuchadnezzar destroyed, Cyrus would restore. This pattern—exile followed by restoration—embodied the prophetic promises of Jeremiah and Isaiah. The elders' testimony connected Persian imperial history to God's redemptive plan, demonstrating that human kingdoms ultimately serve divine purposes.
The decree (teem) to rebuild represented divine reversal of judgment. What Nebuchadnezzar destroyed, Cyrus would restore. This pattern—exile followed by restoration—embodied the prophetic promises of Jeremiah and Isaiah. The elders' testimony connected Persian imperial history to God's redemptive plan, demonstrating that human kingdoms ultimately serve divine purposes.
And the vessels also of gold and silver of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took out of the temple that was in Jerusalem, and brought them into the temple of Babylon, those did Cyrus the king take out of the temple of Babylon, and they were delivered unto one, whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor; governor: or, deputy
View commentary
The return of temple vessels provided tangible proof of Cyrus's decree. These vessels—sacred implements Nebuchadnezzar had plundered and placed in Babylonian temples (Daniel 1:2; 5:2-3)—symbolized Israel's humiliation. Their restoration reversed that shame. The movement from "temple of Babylon" to "temple that was in Jerusalem" illustrated God's sovereignty over sacred objects and human empires.
Sheshbazzar's appointment as governor (pechah) gave the restoration official Persian sanction. His Babylonian name (possibly meaning "Shamash protect the father") masked his Davidic lineage as Zerubbabel's predecessor or possibly an alternative name. The vessels' transfer through proper administrative channels—from Persian treasury to appointed governor—established unassailable legal precedent.
Sheshbazzar's appointment as governor (pechah) gave the restoration official Persian sanction. His Babylonian name (possibly meaning "Shamash protect the father") masked his Davidic lineage as Zerubbabel's predecessor or possibly an alternative name. The vessels' transfer through proper administrative channels—from Persian treasury to appointed governor—established unassailable legal precedent.
And said unto him, Take these vessels, go, carry them into the temple that is in Jerusalem, and let the house of God be builded in his place.
View commentary
Cyrus's command contained two directives: transport the vessels to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. The Aramaic hekal (temple) specifically denotes a palace or sanctuary, emphasizing the structure's sacred purpose. The phrase "in his place" (al athreih) required rebuilding on the original site—the threshing floor David purchased (2 Samuel 24:18-25), where Solomon constructed the first temple.
The authorization "let the house of God be builded" transformed temple reconstruction from Jewish initiative to Persian imperial decree. This legitimized the project within the empire's legal framework. The Jews were not acting independently but executing orders that traced back to Cyrus himself—documentation that would prove decisive when Darius searched the archives.
The authorization "let the house of God be builded" transformed temple reconstruction from Jewish initiative to Persian imperial decree. This legitimized the project within the empire's legal framework. The Jews were not acting independently but executing orders that traced back to Cyrus himself—documentation that would prove decisive when Darius searched the archives.
Then came the same Sheshbazzar, and laid the foundation of the house of God which is in Jerusalem: and since that time even until now hath it been in building, and yet it is not finished.
View commentary
Sheshbazzar "laid the foundation" (yahab ushsaya) upon returning to Jerusalem, fulfilling Cyrus's commission. This initial foundation work occurred around 536 BC. The statement "since that time even until now hath it been in building, and yet it is not finished" summarized approximately 16 years of interrupted progress.
The admission that the temple remained incomplete after years of work implicitly explained why officials might question the project's legitimacy. Construction had halted during opposition from local adversaries (Ezra 4:4-5, 24), only resuming when Haggai and Zechariah prophesied (Ezra 5:1-2). Yet the elders' response emphasized continuous authorization, not continuous construction—the decree remained valid regardless of work interruptions.
The admission that the temple remained incomplete after years of work implicitly explained why officials might question the project's legitimacy. Construction had halted during opposition from local adversaries (Ezra 4:4-5, 24), only resuming when Haggai and Zechariah prophesied (Ezra 5:1-2). Yet the elders' response emphasized continuous authorization, not continuous construction—the decree remained valid regardless of work interruptions.
Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let there be search made in the king's treasure house, which is there at Babylon, whether it be so, that a decree was made of Cyrus the king to build this house of God at Jerusalem, and let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter.
View commentary
The chapter concludes with a respectful request: "if it seem good to the king, let there be search made." The Aramaic formula acknowledges royal prerogative while suggesting appropriate action. Tatnai did not prejudge the case but requested archival investigation—a procedurally correct approach that served divine purposes. The "treasure house" (beth ginzaya) in Babylon housed imperial records and valuables, including conquered temple treasures and administrative documents.
The request to "send his pleasure to us concerning this matter" deferred to Darius's judgment. This neutral tone—neither condemning nor endorsing the Jews—allowed the evidence to determine the outcome. God sovereignly orchestrated events so that opponents' investigation would discover Cyrus's decree, not in Babylon but in Ecbatana (Ezra 6:2), demonstrating that His purposes cannot be thwarted even when hidden in distant archives.
The request to "send his pleasure to us concerning this matter" deferred to Darius's judgment. This neutral tone—neither condemning nor endorsing the Jews—allowed the evidence to determine the outcome. God sovereignly orchestrated events so that opponents' investigation would discover Cyrus's decree, not in Babylon but in Ecbatana (Ezra 6:2), demonstrating that His purposes cannot be thwarted even when hidden in distant archives.