5:1–2 The OT prophets, God’s appointed spokesmen who are endowed with God’s authority, arise at specific moments in redemptive history. Here the postexilic prophets Haggai and Zechariah are with the leaders and people, “supporting them” (v. 2). As such they inject life into the people, revitalizing the work begun initially in 538 BC but dormant until 520, the second year of Darius’s reign (4:24; Hag. 1:15). Like an endurance athlete lacking oxygen and out of nutrition, the returnees are exhausted, weakened, and floundering. Troubled by opponents, they lay fatigued and failing, their will and purpose adrift. Before them a temple corpse leads them to believe that God had abandoned his rule over them (Isa. 63:17–19).

Enter these prophets, administering the nourishment of God’s word, their very presence reminding the disheartened that the God of Israel yet remains “over them” (Ezra 5:1). They are still his people, called by his name as his very possession (Ex. 19:5). He still blesses them, guards them, and gives them his peace (Num. 6:24–27). Indeed, Haggai blends rebuke for the self-interest that has contributed to their current sorry state (Hag. 1:3–6) with the comfort that the Lord is still present as their God. As earlier with Cyrus and the community (Ezra 1:1, 5), so now by the prompting of the prophetic word God once more “stirs” the spirit of Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the whole remnant (Hag. 1:12–15; Zech. 4:8–9) to arise and build. With the altar in its place (Ezra 3:3) and the temple foundation established (3:10), the beginning is made on God’s house proper (5:2).

5:3–5 The events here occur “at the same time” (v. 3), promoting the view that the words of prophetic succor barely reach Zerubbabel and Jeshua before, as in chapter 4, immediate challenges arise to the building project. Those challenges come in the form of enquiries from Tattenai “the governor” and Shethar-bozenai, the latter individual otherwise unknown and his role unstated (although he was likely an assistant or secretary; cf. 4:9). A collective group known as “their associates” round out the authorities.86 This triad (Tattenai, Jeshua, and associates) stands toe to toe with the aforementioned triad of Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and their prophetic reinforcements (5:2).

The title “governor” (Aram. pekhah) was pliable, as attested by its bestowal upon numerous persons with varying levels of responsibility.87 Elsewhere, others called “governor” include Sheshbazzar (v. 14) and, in Darius’s later response, an unnamed “governor of the Jews” (6:7). In this historical context, the referent must be Zerubbabel, according to Haggai (Hag. 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21). Later under Artaxerxes, Nehemiah will also be called “governor” (Neh. 5:14; 12:26).88 In the context of Ezra 5:3, the title grants to Tattenai the requisite authority to investigate the building project, especially since his oversight as governor of the province “Beyond the River” (5:3, 6; 6:6, 13) includes the province of Judah (5:8).89

Investigative authority in hand, the group headed by Governor Tattenai “came to” the group headed by Zerubbabel. Unlike Rehum in the prior chapter, Tattenai asks questions and reports the reply without asserting sedition. Nonetheless, given that his questions come at precisely “the same time” as the prophetic support to rebuild the temple is given, it seems we are once again witnessing a face-off between the power of God and of men. Moreover, while the combination of verb and prepositional phrase translated “came to” (v. 3) occurs nowhere else in the Aramaic portions of the Bible, a parallel Hebrew phrase frequently expresses aggression, as attested elsewhere by the ESV translation “came against” or “came upon” (e.g., Gen. 34:25, 27; 1 Sam. 12:12; 30:23; 2 Kings 7:6; 2 Chron. 20:2, 12, 22; 28:20; Zech. 12:9; 14:16).90 Most importantly, the narrator tells us that only the watchful, caring eye of God prevents the cessation of the building project, even if temporarily (Ezra 5:5; cf. Deut. 11:12; Ps. 33:18). Why provide this potent theological interpretation of events unless Tattenai is in fact making some attempt to halt construction?

Fortunately, he offers no show of force (cf. Ezra 4:23) but simply asks two questions: Who granted you permission to build? And who are you? (cf. 5:9–10). With the first question he seeks to discover who exactly has given the Jewish leaders permission both “to build” and “to finish” the structure (v. 3). The word “structure” (Aram. usharnaʼ) testifies to the advanced nature of the work; it likely refers to the wood used within the walls themselves in accordance with a construction method common in the ancient Near East (5:8; 6:4; cf. 1 Kings 6:36; 7:12). Other possibilities for this “structure” include the wood lining interior walls, parallel to those in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6:14–18), or even to the temple furnishings themselves (Ezra 6:5). The mention of the report and the official reply from Darius (5:5) prepare us for the crucial content of Ezra 5:6–6:18 that follows.

5:6–10 As in the previous letter to Artaxerxes (4:11) and other notable royal documents (4:23; 7:11), we learn that what follows is a copy of a document from Tattenai and others to the king. Although new to Darius, most of the information in the narrative introduction to the letter (5:6–7a), and even the questions in the letter itself, repeat prior information (vv. 9–10; cf. vv. 3–4).

The new information given in verse 8 reveals Tattenai’s real concern using verbal forms (participles) describing the status of a building project moving quickly toward completion. Within wider biblical use, the mention of a work that “prospers” typically points to the success of God’s people in carrying out the mission he has given them (Gen. 24:40; 39:2, 3; Josh. 1:8; 2 Chron. 7:11). Likewise, in Ezra-Nehemiah prospering or success comes through submission to the prophetic word (Ezra 6:14) or as an answer to prayer (Neh. 1:11; 2:20). The mention of timber “laid in the walls” is consistent with the “structure” noted above in Ezra 5:3, while the phrase translated “huge stones” (cf. 6:4) may refer to size or to the technique by which they were shaped to fit in place.91 Finally, the diplomatic phrase “the great God” reflects respect rather than the elevation of Israel’s God above all others.

5:11–17 Nested within the quoted letter, these verses report the response of “those elders” to the questions initially posed (vv. 9–10; cf. vv. 3–4). The elders, found only in 5:1–6:18, are titled more fully “the elders of the Jews” (5:5; 6:7, 8, 14), likely referring to their role as representatives of the people. Their response begins by answering the second question (Who are you?), albeit obliquely. Rather than submitting the individual names requested, the collective identify themselves as “servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11).

What follows in verses 11–12 begins the answer to the first question (Who granted you permission to build?). These verses are a remarkable synopsis of biblical history, moving from God’s work as creator of heaven and earth (Genesis 1–2) to the climactic moment of temple construction under Solomon (1 Kings 6–8) to the low point of Israel’s history in Nebuchadnezzar’s temple destruction and population deportation (2 Kings 25:8–11).92 The reference to Solomon as the great king serving the great God makes perfect sense in this context, considering that the elders’ description of Solomon’s work on the first temple includes both its “building” (Aram. benah) and its “finishing” (kelal), actions that parallel the binding together of “building” and “finishing” projects found throughout the current and prior pericopes (Ezra 4:12, 13, 16; 5:3, 9, 11; 6:14).

The adversative “but because” heading verse 12 provides the theological rationale for the sack of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar’s human army (cf. Judg. 6:1; 13:1; 2 Kings 17:20; 1 Chron. 6:15; Jer. 21:7; Neh. 9:30). This balances Rehum’s half-truth alleging that Jerusalem fell primarily because of its rebellion against kings (Ezra 4:15; cf. 2 Kings 18:7; 24:1, 19–20). In summary, how do the elders answer the question of identity? “We are servants of God,” they reply in effect, “with a celebrated royal history and a temple, now leveled in crumbled layers of ash, wood, and stone because of our unfaithfulness.”

God leaves neither temple nor people in a state of disrepair (Ezra 5:13–16). Like the apostle Paul’s “therefore” in Romans 8:1, the adversative “however” (Ezra 5:13) throws a grace punch to the gut of the “but because” in verse 12. Although the shattered temple and exile reveal God’s anger at sin, yet, through Cyrus’s decree, the Lord ordains his people to rebuild and repopulate. That decree—its timing and contents—along with the fact that the temple vessels pilfered previously by Nebuchadnezzar and placed in the temple of Babylon are returned to Sheshbazzar, repeat information that opens Ezra, the only other place where Sheshbazzar is named (vv. 13–14; cf. 1:8, 11). That information, now repeated some eighteen years later, answers the question of the expressed authority under which they rebuild. Further fresh details about Sheshbazzar, previously unstated but perhaps assumed, fill out his portrait. First, we learn that Cyrus granted him the title and authority of “governor” (pekhah).93 With this authority, the imperatives “take . . . go and put” highlight his task with respect to restoring the valuable temple vessels in a house yet to be built.

The grammatical prominence of “this Sheshbazzar” and the description of the temple status that follows in 5:16 raise two questions. First, why does the text highlight Sheshbazzar’s role in laying the temple foundation when he is unmentioned in chapter 3, where that work is instead attributed to Zerubbabel and Jeshua? Second, the earlier narrative indicated that work on the house of God had ceased from some time during Cyrus’s reign until Darius’s second year (4:4–5, 24; Hag. 1:1–2). This appears to contradict the temporal markers “and from that time until now” and the concluding verbal forms that seem to indicate ongoing building activity throughout the entire period.

The answer to the first question hinges on the identification of Sheshbazzar and his connection to Zerubbabel (cf. Introduction: Interpretive Challenges: The Identity of Sheshbazzar). The position adopted here is that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are separate individuals, each acting within his own sphere of influence. Crediting Sheshbazzar rather than Zerubbabel with laying temple foundations makes sense within an official administrative document that stresses Sheshbazzar’s role as governor.94 Concerning the second issue, the simplest explanation assumes good-faith communication. A construction project can be started, face a lengthy work stoppage before completion, and still be accurately described as being “in building” during the period of delay. Understandably, the elders seek to present themselves as compliant with Cyrus’s call to rebuild. It is therefore reasonable to take the evaluation “until now it has been in building” as true of the wider task without denying specific moments of stasis within the project (cf. Ezra 4:4–5).

Universally, English versions treat 5:16 as the end of the nested quotation that began in verse 11. The final appeal from Tattenai and friends to Darius in verse 17 entreats him to search the royal archives95 and respond with his will for the matter. The deferential tenor of the request counters the more accusatory tone from Rehum during Artaxerxes’s reign (4:15). Tattenai reasonably assumes that if the decree of Cyrus exists, it will be found in Babylon, given the city’s status as the prior dwelling place of those now building in Jerusalem.