The Pulpit Commentary — Ezra — Section 59

progress of the building of it. Circumstances were adverse to the Jews• these aro recorded in Ezra iv., and are illustrated in the Persian history of the ti~e. There crept O'l"er the people a growing indifference to the work ; they became unready for the self-denial which it demanded; their spiritual unfitness for it was increased by the presence of the external obstacles: to understand this we must turn to the proph_ecies of Haggai and Zechariah. This is the right way to study all history. The issue of events cannot be understood apart from the moral condition of the men who are affected by them; men's moral condition, again, and their actions are profound_ly affected by circumstances. The Divine Provide!1ce ordains and permits events ; m the use we make of them our character reveals itself, here our responsi• bility lies. The letter of Artaxen::es effectually prevented the progress of the building: " then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem." No prophet rebuked the people during this period ; rebukes of inaction, when activity is impossible only fret and wear out the soul. There is "a time to keep silence," as well as "a ti:ne to speak." With the accession of Darius, work, though it might be arduous became possible; and the1;1 Haggai and Zechariah d~d not spare their ":ords. God 'gives us men as well as times and seasons. He gives also men of different qualifications according to different needs: the preacher as well as the workman; him who has insight into the springs of human conduct as well as him who can lend activity. Haggai and Zechariah are henceforth joined with Zerubbabel and Jeshua as builders of the temple ( eh. v. 2; vi. 14). I. THE OUTWARD HINDRANCES. (a) The jealousy of the surrounding heathen ( eh. iv. 1--3). These were the people mentioned in 2 Kings xvii. 24---41, sent to occupy the northern kingdom when the Israelites were carried away into Assyria. They were superstitious (2 Kings xvii. 26), followers of the lustful and cruel worship, to contend against which the Hebrew nation was raised up (vers. 29- 31 ). They had no conception of Deity but that of polytheism (vers. 26, 32, 33, 41). It was impossible for the Jews to admit their partnership in building the temple. It would have been treason to the object for which Cyrus had sent them back ; it would have been a denial of their own faith; it would have been a new provocation of God. Our age, which understands that truth is one and indi- visible, ought to be able tu see that not intolerance, but fidelity, prompted their refusal. These people, from whom the leaders of the Jews expected trouble at the first ( eh. iii. 3), and whom they counted "adversaries" ( eh. iv. 1), directly opposed them (ver. 4), and intrigued against them at the court of Persia (ver. 5)., (b) No direct appeal was made to Cyrus to countermand the proclamation which was the charter of the Jews' return. "The law of the Medes and Persians altereth not." But no protection uas afforded them. The history of the later years of Cyrus is obscure. "The warlike prince," says Rawlinson, "who conquered the Persian empire did little to organise it." He was pursuing schemes of conquest to the last. The Jews were left in their feebleness to execute his original decree in their favour as best they could. (c) The troubled history of Cambyses, the Ahasuerus of Ezra, enables us to understand why he too was indifferent to a local quarrel in a distant province. His jealousy of his brother was his first engrossing care. Then came his schemes of conquest, necessitating his absence from his capital ; and 11 finally, the revolution which placed the Pseudo-Smerdis (Artaxen::es) on the throne. We can understand the indecisive character of Ezra iv. 6. (d) The whole character of the Persian rule was changed on the accession of Artaxerxes. A usurper, he had no loyalty to the purpose of Cyrus. A "Maginn," he was out of sympathy with the Zoroastrianism of his great predecessor. Appeal was made to political jealousy alone; the history of the Jews had shown they were too strong to be tolerated (vers. 12-16). The appeal was successful: "then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem." II. THE MORAL HINDRANCES. The people were reluctant to resume work when the accession of Darius made it possible. Darius was a second Cyrus ; " the greatest of the Pernian monarchs." He was a strong man, a conqueror. He knew the need of good government, and organised his empire. He abolished tributary kingships, nnd placed in every district an officer directly responsible to the supreme authority, CH, IV. 17-24.) THE BOOK OF EZRA, 63