The Preparation Of The Foundations For The New Temple And The Reaction Of The People (Ezra 3:8-13).
In the seventh month of the first year of their ‘coming to the house of God at Jerusalem' the returnees had celebrated the feasts of the seventh month. Now seven months later they would commence work on the Temple. In view of the fact that their order made to Sidon and Tyre had probably not yet been fulfilled simply due to the time required for its fulfilment all that they could do was lay the foundations. But they went about that with a will. Sheshbazzar had apparently laid a foundation stone, probably so that he could report back that the work on the building of the Temple had begun, but now other foundation stones were laid and the foundations prepared for when the material arrived. There would probably be a good amount of stones from the former Temple of Solomon to provide them with all the material that was necessary. Seeing the foundations laid would be a great boost to the new community, and we learn in this passage of the rejoicing that took place. Sadly difficulties would arise almost immediately. God expects us to build through difficulties, rather than removing them from us.
‘Now in the second year of their coming to the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the rest of their brothers, the priests and the Levites and all those who were come out of the captivity to Jerusalem, and appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to have the oversight of the work of the house of YHWH.'
‘Coming to the house of God in Jerusalem' refers to the arrival of the returnees at Jerusalem where the site of the house of God could be found (see on Ezra 2:68). This brings home the fact that the dating in this chapter is calculated from the time of the arrival of the returnees. In the first year of their return, in the seventh month, they had celebrated the seven month feasts on the new altar that they had erected. Now on the second month of the second year of their return they would lay the foundations of the Temple.
The work was to be the work of the whole community, the leaders Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and the rest of their brothers, that is the priests and the Levites and all who had come to Jerusalem out of the captivity (compare Ezra 3:2. The whole community were working as one). And they appointed the Levites of twenty years old and upwards to have the oversight of the work of the house of YHWH. They would be responsible for ensuring that everything went forward satisfactorily. The dual phrases ‘house of God' and ‘house of YHWH' are also found in Ezra 2:68. The work may have been deliberately begun in the second month as it was in the second month that the building of the first Temple had commenced (1 Kings 6:1; 2 Chronicles 3:2).
The selecting of Levites from twenty years old and upwards was based on what David had done earlier, when selecting those who would work for the service of the house of YHWH. He too had called on the Levites from twenty years old and upwards (1 Chronicles 23:24). It was especially necessary at this time as there were so few Levites (Ezra 2:40). For ‘to have the oversight of the house of YHWH' compare 1 Chronicles 23:4 from which (or from its source as outlined in 1 Chronicles 29:29) the phrase was taken. It is clear that an attempt was being made to equate the building of the two Temples, and thus to emphasise that the new Temple was being built in accordance with the words of David, just as the old had been. And, indeed what was now taking place was being built in accordance with the words of a Davidide, Zerubbabel. There is a deliberate indication of continuity.
‘Then stood Jeshua with his sons and his brothers, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, together, to have the oversight of the workmen in the house of God, the sons of Henadad, with their sons and their brothers the Levites.'
The Levites who were to ‘have oversight of the workmen in the house of God' are now detailed. The sentence is a little complicated but its essential meaning is clear. They were firstly ‘Jeshua his sons and his brothers, Kadmiel and his sons'. For these compare Ezra 2:40. In Ezra 2:40 Jeshua and Kadmiel appear to be the ancestral fathers of the clans. This presents us with three options:
1) That in Ezra 2:40 it is the contemporary leaders of the clans who are named and not the ancestral fathers of the clans. This appears unlikely, but not impossible.
2) That the contemporary leaders of the clans had, in view of the new beginning, taken the same names as the ancestral leaders of the clans. In view of examples that will follow later this could very well be the explanation. Taking a new name at a time of great crisis (like Jacob became Israel) was a tendency within Israel, and what better names to take at this crisis point than those of the ancestral clan leaders, especially as thereby they emphasised the continuity with the past. Compare how in Nehemiah 10 the covenant appears to be sealed in the names of the ancestral clan leaders, but may in fact have been sealed by men who, as leaders of the clan, had taken the names of the ancestral clan leaders
3) That it was pure coincidence resulting from the fact that names tended in Israel to be repeated in different generations.
Secondly there were ‘the sons of Henadad', who in view of their position in the sentence may well have held a secondary position, something confirmed by the fact that they are linked with the remainder of the Levites. Later the sons of Henadad would include Binnui (see Nehemiah 3:24; Nehemiah 10:9) and Bavai (Nehemiah 3:18). But that was over ninety years later when there was another Jeshua and another Kadmiel (Nehemiah 10:9), presumably grandsons of the ones mentioned above. Grandsons were, at this time, regularly named after their grandfathers.
‘The sons of Judah.' Note that Jeshua and his brothers and sons, and Kadmiel and his sons are called ‘sons of Judah'. This is the only use of the term in Ezra. Here it does not mean that they were descended from Judah the patriarch, but that they essentially belonged to, and were a part of, Judah the people (Ezra 1:2-3; compare ‘the sons of Israel' in Deuteronomy 23:17). All the returnees, without exception, could be seen as ‘sons of Judah', that is, as belonging to Judah the people, even those who were sons of Levi, Benjamin or other tribes. The term is stressing the oneness of the returnees.
Many, not liking this idea, have suggested an emendation of the text. In Ezra 2:40 Kadmiel is described as being ‘of the sons of Hodaviah ‘ and it is therefore suggested that that should be read here (bnyhwdwyh instead of bnyyhwdh). But we must always remember that in the days of the Temple the copyists knew the text by heart and would not just be copying a text but would be copying it as those who knew in their heads the words that they were copying. In those circumstances copying errors were far less likely, although clearly not impossible.
‘And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of YHWH, they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise YHWH, after the order of David king of Israel.'
Here the huge significance of the laying of the foundations is emphasised. It was accompanied by priests with their trumpets, dressed in their priestly apparel (Ezra 2:69), and Levites with their cymbals, as they praised YHWH for the ‘miracle' that had happened. For the trumpets and cymbals compare 2 Chronicles 5:12 where they had similarly celebrated the completion of the first Temple. See also 2 Chronicles 7:6. The same instruments had celebrated the bringing of the Ark into Jerusalem in the days of David (1 Chronicles 15:28). It was seen, as it was, as an historic moment. YHWH's house was being restored. The materials necessary for building had probably not yet arrived. The work would not be able to go on for some time. But the very fact of having laid the foundations was a triumph beyond what ten years earlier they could even have dreamed of. It was an event in itself.
‘After the order of King David (in the manner prescribed by King David).' Note the emphasis of continuity with what David had done. What David had done was being continued. God's work was again going forward. The writer was no doubt anticipating that God would work again in the same way as he had through David, who was seen as the pinnacle of Israel's history. He clearly had in mind the promises of the coming of a future David (Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11:1-4; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 30:9; Jeremiah 33:15; Ezekiel 34:23-24; Ezekiel 37:24-25).
‘To praise YHWH.' We must not let this fact get lost in the midst of the detail. They were set forward to praise YHWH. There was a huge feeling of praise and gratitude and worship. God was doing great things. They would later no doubt feel disappointed that things did not happen as quickly as they had hoped, but at this point in time they were full of praise and confidence. But God does not always work in accordance with our expectations.
‘And they sang one to another in praising and giving thanks to YHWH, saying, “For he is good, for his lovingkindness endures for ever towards Israel.” And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised YHWH, because the foundation of the house of YHWH was laid.'
The enthusiasm of the moment comes out here. There were huge celebrations because the foundations of the house of YHWH had been laid. They no doubt saw everything as now going forward without a hitch. Sadly it was to be otherwise. But they were not aware of that at the time. The scene is contagious:
· ‘They sang to one another in praising and giving thanks to YHWH.' We can see the joy on their faces as they looked at one another as they sang His praise. They were all in it together.
· ‘They shouted with a great shout.' It was a moment of great triumph.
· ‘They praised YHWH.' Their worship was genuine. Their hearts were full of thanksgiving and praise as they considered what He had done.
The ideas behind the words they sang ‘for He is good, for His covenant love is always towards Israel' are common in the Psalms. See Psalms 100:4-5; Psalms 106:1; Psalms 107:1; Psalms 118:1; Psalms 136:1. But here they stress that it was especially being shown towards His people, Israel.
‘And many of the priests and Levites and heads of fathers' houses, the old men who had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy, so that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people; for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard afar off.'
Those who were older, who had seen the first Temple, wept. This may have been because they were so emotionally moved at the thought that it was being restored that they broke forth into weeping, just as women tend to weep at weddings (the Jews were an emotional people), or it may have been because, as they looked at the foundations they were aware that it would not quite come up to the magnificence of the old (compare Haggai 2:3). In view of the fact that only the foundations were to be seen we suspect it was probably the former rather than the latter. The later despondency (Haggai 2:3) should possibly not be read back into this moment. But we are left to make our own decision on that. It may well be that they were disappointed as to its size. But however that may be, the shouts of joy exceeded the sound of weeping, so much so that the one could not be discerned from the other. Indeed their shouts of joy were so loud that they could be heard a long way off. There is probably a double meaning in these last words. They were, of course, literally true. But the writer will now go on to point out that they were also eventually ‘heard' by their enemies.