The First Observance Of The Feasts Of The Seventh Month After The Return (Ezra 3:1-7).
It is probable that this is the first of the major feasts that the arrivees had been in a position to celebrate. (Had they been able to observe a Passover it would surely have been mentioned). Thus it occurred possibly in the seventh month in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia (Ezra 1:1), or alternately in the seventh month in the year in which they arrived. But the mention of the seventh month is not for dating purposes. It is in order to explain why they now acted as they did. For ‘the seventh month' was in Israel a month of feasts. First would come the feast of trumpets on the first day of the month, then the Day of Atonement on the tenth day of the month (although to be fully celebrated that required the Temple and a Holy of Holies), and then the feast of Tabernacles, which continued for seven days, commencing on the fifteenth day of the month (see Leviticus 23:23-36).
‘And when the seventh month was come, and the children of Israel were in the cities, the people gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem.'
The gathering of the people to Jerusalem would have been seen as one more evidence that Israel was now continuing as of old. It indicated that the assembly of the twelve tribes was once more taking place. We can therefore imagine with what joy they gathered. It would have made them feel an affinity with the people of Israel at the time of the Conquest, who would also have experienced a similar ‘first time', when they too were finally established ‘in their cities'. It would appear from this that this was the first opportunity for them to do this subsequent to their arrival in the land.
The mention of ‘the seventh month' is not for the purpose of dating the passage, but because it would arouse a chord in every reader's heart in view of its connection with the Feasts of that month. They would recognise that the people had been eagerly awaiting ‘the seventh month.' ‘When the seventh month was come -- the people gathered themselves together' does not necessarily mean that they awaited the seventh month before commencing preparations. The point is that the seventh month saw them all gathered in Jerusalem ready for the feasts to begin.
‘Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brothers the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brothers, and built the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt-offerings on it, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God.'
The non-mention of Sheshbazzar would appear to be fairly conclusive evidence that he was dead, or at least incapacitated. For the lead in what took place was taken by Jeshua, as chief priest, along with his brother priests, and Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, as at least governor-elect, along with his ‘brothers'. That the term ‘brothers' is to be taken widely is apparent from the fact that the priests have all been described as Jeshua's ‘brothers'. It may well simply indicate all the non-priestly returnees, seen very much as ‘brothers'. The emphasis is thus on the fact that all involved were in full agreement with what was happening, and indeed saw themselves as involved in it.
And their first act was to ‘build the altar of the God of Israel'. This may indicate that they built it from scratch, but it could equally indicate that they erected it on a primitive altar already there. For even if we had not had reason to think so, it would have been extremely unlikely that such a sacred spot had not been used for offerings and sacrifices during the preceding period. Archaeology continually evidences the fact that veneration of sacred sites continues long after any buildings have been destroyed. That this did in fact take place here is confirmed for us in Jeremiah 41:5; Haggai 2:14.
This ‘building of the altar of the God of Israel' was in accordance with YHWH's instructions through Ezekiel whereby he commanded the people to build an altar in Ezekiel 43:13-27, by which to service the heavenly Temple which had descended on a mountain outside Jerusalem (a Temple which was already there, invisible to the normal eye, and not commanded to be rebuilt). This may well have been in the minds of Jeshua and Zerubbabel, and would confirm the legitimacy of the altar. Furthermore such an altar had been authorised in Exodus 20:24-25, for none could doubt that the Temple mount where God had revealed His glory on the first Temple (2 Chronicles 7:1-2) was a place where YHWH had recorded His Name. And had not Abraham himself, on entering the land, built an altar to YHWH? (Genesis 12:7-8).
The emphasis on ‘the altar of the God of Israel' (a unique phrase) may be intended to emphasise that the previous altar used since the destruction of the Temple was not seen as being such. In other words it was not seen as legitimate (compare Haggai 2:14). Now it had been replaced by an altar that was legitimate. The previous altar might well have involved syncretistic worship.
In the Law of Moses the phrase ‘the God of Israel' is used three times and is uniquely connected with the worship of God. In Exodus 24:10 it refers to God when He appeared as the elders were gathered on Mount Sinai to eat before Him, inaugurating Israel as the covenant people. In Exodus 34:23 it refers to Him as the One before Whom the people will gather three times a year. In Numbers 16:9 it is used of God as having set aside the Levites to the service of the Tabernacle. Thus it was potent with meaning.
‘To offer burnt-offerings on it, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God.' And the aim of this altar was so that they could offer burnt offerings on it in accordance with the Law of Moses the ‘man of God' (i.e. prophet). Just as their gathering in assembly again fulfilled the Law of Moses, so would the offering of whole burnt offerings on the altar. Such burnt offerings were required during the feasts of the seventh month (see Numbers 29 for details, the offerings beginning on the first day of the month). So there was a great sense of repeating what had followed the Exodus.
‘And they set the altar on its spot, for fear was on them because of the peoples of the lands, and they offered burnt-offerings on it to YHWH, even burnt-offerings morning and evening.'
‘They set the altar on its spot.' This would seem to indicate that it was sited where the bronze altar had originally been sited in Solomon's Temple. They were being careful to ensure that they were following in the ways that God had commanded Israel. And one of the reasons for this activity was that they hoped thereby to obtain YHWH's assistance against the hostility being shown to them by those who already dwelt in Judah and Samaria. The ‘peoples of the lands' would be those who had been left in Judah when the exiles had been removed, who resented their coming back and taking back their family lands, and possibly also their religious isolationism, the neighbouring people in Samaria, who seemingly resented the same, and also possibly the Edomites who had taken over the land to the south, to say nothing of other antagonistic neighbours across the Jordan. Thus they clearly felt that by recommencing the worship of YHWH in the proper mode, and establishing the daily offerings, they would obtain YHWH's assistance in dealing with their enemies.
Then the altar being ready they offered on it burnt offerings in the morning and the evening. This was a great milestone for the new Israel for it signalled the commencement of the daily morning and evening offerings. The establishing of the morning and evening burnt offering, an offering which was required of Israel twice a day in perpetuity (Exodus 29:38-46; Numbers 28:3-8), would have been seen as an important stage in re-establishing the people of Israel. It commenced from the first day of the seventh month (Ezra 3:6), even though the Temple had not begun to be built.
‘And they kept the feast of tabernacles, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt-offerings by number, according to the ordinance, as the duty of every day required;'
Then (from the fifteenth day of the seventh month) they observed the feast of Tabernacles, in accordance with what was written in the Law of Moses in Numbers 29:12-40. They also offered the daily burnt offerings in accordance with the number required by the ordinance for the seventh month. The details of these daily offerings are found in Numbers 29:1-11. They would include the offerings on the feast of trumpets on the first day, the daily offerings, and the special offerings for the tenth day, for while the Day of Atonement could not be kept in accordance with Leviticus 16, because there was no Temple, the offerings of Numbers 29:7-11 could be offered.
‘And afterward the continual burnt-offering, and the offerings of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of YHWH which were consecrated, and of every one who willingly offered a freewill-offering to YHWH.'
And from then on they continued to offer the continual burnt offerings day by day (Numbers 28:3-8), and those of the new moons on the first day of each month (Numbers 28:11-15), and the offerings for all the set feasts which YHWH had consecrated, namely Passover and Unleavened Bread (Numbers 28:16-25), and the Feast of Sevens (Weeks) or of Firstfruits (Numbers 28:26-31), when they became due. And along with these were offered the freewill offerings which were willingly offered by God's people.
‘From the first day of the seventh month began they to offer burnt-offerings to YHWH, but the foundation of the temple of YHWH was not yet laid.'
And this whole procedure commenced from the first day of the seventh month. From then on they began to offer burnt offerings to YHWH, even though the foundation of the Temple of YHWH was not yet laid. This is referring to the foundation commenced in Ezra 3:10. In Ezra 6:16 we learn of a foundation laid by Sheshbazzar. This would suggest that on first arriving in the land Sheshbazzar had laid a foundation stone for the Temple, presumably so that he could report back to Cyrus that he had begun to fulfil his commission to build the Temple. But of course the work could not then proceed until the necessary time consuming preparations had been made, something clearly delayed, presumably because there were more important things to do, and possibly due to Sheshbazzar becoming ill. Now, with the work planned to recommence further foundation stones would be laid (Ezra 3:10). It was the practise in ancient days to have more than one foundation stone.
‘They gave money also to the masons, and to the stone workers (and/or ‘wood workers' and/or ‘carpenters'), and food, and drink, and oil, to those of Sidon, and to those of Tyre, to bring cedar-trees from Lebanon to the sea, to Joppa, according to the grant that they had of Cyrus king of Persia.'
The work could not proceed immediately. Money was given to the masons and ‘the stone workers' (the word has a wide meaning and could include wooworkers and carpenters) who would plan the work accordingly and list what was required, and then carry the work forward, and meanwhile an order was placed with Sidon and Tyre for them to provide cedar trees in accordance with requirements which were paid for by means of the export of grain, wine and olive oil (compare 2 Chronicles 2:15). The cedar trees were to be conveyed from Lebanon to the sea, and then by sea to the port of Joppa (or ‘to the sea of Joppa', that is the sea which surrounded the port of Joppa), compare 2 Chronicles 2:16. There appears to be a deliberate echoing of the words in 2 Chronicles 2, which themselves would be was based on earlier sources (compare 1 Chronicles 29:29), with the aim of equating the building of this Temple with that of Solomon. It may not have been as grand, but it was certainly as important. These purchases were all made possible by the grant (the word means permission, but in this case the permission included the resources to carry out the work - Ezra 6:4) made by Cyrus, the king of Persia. Whether this grant was the monies described in Ezra 1:4, or whether it was extra to this, we do not know. We can compare the further grants made in Ezra 6:8-10.