In the first year of King Cyrus, the king issued a decree concerning the temple of God in Jerusalem: Let the temple be rebuilt as a place to present sacrifices, and let its foundations be laid. It is to be sixty cubits high and sixty cubits wide … - Ezra 6:3

Today's Scripture Reading (November 15, 2026): Ezra 6

When the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center fell, it didn't take long for discussions to begin about rebuilding the Trade Center complex. Many ideas emerged, including an initial argument that the complex should not be rebuilt at all, but eventually other ideas won out. The winning argument was that the spirit of man demanded that the Trade Center be rebuilt bigger and better than before. What better response could there be to those who attacked the Trade Center in the first place than to prove that the United States could not be defeated by terrorists? The Trade Center would rise from the ashes, bigger and better than ever before. It is a common reaction. When something is destroyed, no matter how it happened, we often feel it is our responsibility to rebuild it bigger and better than before.

Ezra says that, at the request of Jerusalem's enemies, the King was to search to see whether a decree had ever been issued to rebuild the destroyed Temple of Jerusalem. The Temple had been the center of all life in Jerusalem, and those who opposed Israel also opposed the Temple's rebuilding, fearing that it could be the spark that would give life to the defeated Children of Israel.

And so, a search was made, and an edict was found. The edict was issued in the first year of Cyrus the Great's reign. The edict did, in fact, order the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. But the edict did more than just order the rebuilding of the Temple; it also appears to give the dimensions of the future Temple. The Temple seems to be ordered to be a cube, sixty cubits (or 27.5 meters or 90 feet) in every direction. The new Temple that had been ordered by Cyrus would be bigger and better than the one Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed.

But there is a problem. When the Second Temple was finished, it was actually smaller than the First, not bigger. The most obvious reason for the discrepancy is that while the spirit of man demanded something bigger, the reality was that the people living in Judah, and those returning from exile, were poor. They couldn't afford the temple that Cyrus had allowed them to build, so they built something smaller. While the spirit of man demanded something bigger, the pocketbook couldn't keep up.

The exiles built what they could, the best they could afford, as their sacrifice to their God. This smaller Temple would once again become the center of life in Jerusalem, and though it was smaller, it would stand as a testimony to the nations.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Haggai 1

Now if it pleases the king, let a search be made in the royal archives of Babylon to see if King Cyrus did in fact issue a decree to rebuild this house of God in Jerusalem. Then let the king send us his decision in this matter. - Ezra 5:17

Today's Scripture Reading (November 14, 2026): Ezra 5

Sometimes it is easy to believe that Adolf Hitler somehow invented the war against the Jews. After all, in the wake of World War I, the Treaty of Versailles, and the devastation these events inflicted on Germany, Hitler needed someone to blame for his nation’s many problems, and the Jews became easy targets. The truth is that even in Germany, anti-Semitism has a history that predates Hitler’s obsession with and campaign against the Jews. In 1873, German journalist Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet titled “The Victory of the Jewish Spirit over the Germanic Spirit.” Six years later, Marr published a second pamphlet, this one entitled “The Way of Victory of Germanicism over Judaism.” Marr came to believe the two cultures could not coexist. In fact, Marr strongly believed one culture could succeed only if the other died. It is a belief that, five decades later, Hitler would attempt to turn into a plan of action to be carried out against the Jews so that Germany could survive. Hitler almost carried out the plan.

However, anti-Semitic roots in culture run much deeper than that. The reality is that hatred against the Semitic races can be traced almost to the beginning of recorded history. It was definitely present when the exiles began their return to Palestine. So those who opposed the Jews wrote a letter to the king. The letter's intent seems clear. A search was to be conducted of the records to find out whether permission had ever been given for the Jews to rebuild their Temple. Those who opposed Israel knew that rebuilding the Temple could be a problem because the Temple was the center of Jewish Nationalism. As long as the Temple lay in ruins, the Jews would remain defeated. Rebuilding the Temple meant restoring Israel's strength. Giving Israel back its Temple would be insane.

The message is clear. The writers of the letter stand ready to serve the king and halt the rebuilding of Jerusalem. These leaders argued that Jerusalem must be denied her Temple and her national identity. The people of Israel had become strangers even within their own borders, a condition that sometimes seems true even in our contemporary experience. The people of the area believed they could be safe only if the stranger was removed; in the end, Israel must die.    

A national identity that does not respect the foreigner within its borders is always wrong. This diversity within a nation should be seen as a strength, not a weakness. We are very different from each other, but if we are willing to work together, these differences can help us solve our planet's problems. Any other view can only be labeled short-sighted, and in the end, it will not only be destructive to others but will also destroy us.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Ezra 6

Then the peoples around them set out to discourage the people of Judah and make them afraid to go on building. – Ezra 4:4

Today's Scripture Reading (November 13, 2026): Ezra 4

Fear strongly affects what we do. We have seen it in elections all over the world. One of the autocrats' tools is to make people afraid to vote, or afraid to vote against the incumbent or ruling party. We see it almost everywhere in modern politics. Usually, one side hopes for a large turnout, while others work to spread fear so some won't show up, or to convince people it is not worth the effort to show up or try. The hope is that people realize it is worth the effort and that every vote matters. Discouragement seems to be a constant in almost everything that we do.

One question we need to ask ourselves and others is: what are we involved in that is really worthwhile? It is not a spiritual question, although it could be. Something worthwhile might be providing a needed service; it could be building a corporation, or working in a non-profit that provides an essential service. It might be involvement in a church or religious group that works to make the world a better place. It might be raising your kids to know the difference between right and wrong. Where are you making a difference, one that is worthwhile?

Wherever it is that you can make a difference, you can expect someone will want to discourage you. Someone will want to make you afraid and lead you to question the direction in which you are going. Somebody will tell you that you are wasting your time, or that you are doing it wrong. If it is really worthwhile, someone will want to stop you. I think too often we hit rough spots and question whether this is the direction in which we should be moving. Does the fact that it is hard or that we are meeting with resistance mean that we should stop? My answer is an emphatic no, because I strongly believe that anything worthwhile will meet resistance.

This is the message I keep giving to myself as I meet resistance trying to do the hard things. The question is really this: Is what I am doing worthwhile? I am convinced that what I am doing is worthwhile. The friends that have gathered around me to join in the journey are important to me. Together, we are rebuilding something the same way Ezra did 2500 years ago. And because of that, I am committed to persist through the resistance.  

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Ezra 5

Then Joshua son of Jozadak and his fellow priests and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and his associates began to build the altar of the God of Israel to sacrifice burnt offerings on it, in accordance with what is written in the Law of Moses the man of God. – Ezra 3:2

Today's Scripture Reading (November 12, 2026): Ezra 3

The opposite of the Baptist ideal of separating church and state may be either Caesaropapism or theocracy. The fundamental difference between the two is which authority ultimately holds power: the church or the secular government. Caesaropapism combines secular and religious power under government control. Great Britain is a practical, if largely ceremonial, example. The British monarch is also the head of the Church of England, although that arrangement may change. Theocracy reverses this structure, placing secular authority under a religious leader. Iran is an example: its Islamic leader also governs the nation. Biblically, Israel during the period of the Judges, before the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon, was intended to function as a theocracy, with God as its ruler. Yet that arrangement never truly succeeded; instead, Israel became characterized by chaos. Neither Caesaropapism nor theocracy separates the church's powers from the state's.

Today, genuine Caesaropapism and theocracy are rare. Even in Great Britain, Caesaropapism has largely been reduced to a ceremonial role. The separation of church and state is a principle governing most modern societies, although there are occasions when the two should come together. The aftermath of a disaster is one such example. In those moments, political officials and religious leaders often stand together in solidarity, setting aside their differences to support the community.

As the exiles began returning from captivity, a clear division emerged between the powers of church and state. After the devastation of the Babylonian captivity, anything good in Judah required secular and religious authorities to work together toward a common purpose. Joshua was the high priest, while Zerubbabel was the prince, the heir to David's throne, and the governor of Judah. Both men were essential to restoring the nation's religious and civic life.

Great achievements always require the full community's participation. Even today, the church and the state must sometimes work together to accomplish what is best for society.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Ezra 4

Now these are the people of the province who came up from the captivity of the exiles, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had taken captive to Babylon (they returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to their own town … Ezra 2:1

Today's Scripture Reading (November 11, 2026): Ezra 1 and 2

In Canada, Quebec separatism is a recurring idea. This idea stems from the belief that Quebec not only has a different language from the rest of Canada (Quebec is predominantly French, while the rest of Canada, especially west of Quebec, is primarily English) but also a significantly different culture. Quebec fears that the rest of Canada not only fails to understand this essential difference but also actively seeks to minimize the French ethos, destroying Quebec's unique culture in the process. Whether that is true or not doesn't really matter; it's how some Quebecers feel.

Quebec separation isn't the only separation concept in Canada. Not surprising for a country of Canada's physical size (Canada occupies the second-largest land area in the world, after Russia), some factions feel out of step with the nation's central power. Another group of separatists lives in the country's western portion and is led by Alberta. Politically, Western Canadians often oppose the federal government on many issues, but Western Separatism is not a cultural ideal; it is fiscal. The dream is that if Western Canada, especially Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, were to separate from Canada and unite with the Pacific Northwest area of the United States and Alaska to form one nation, the resulting union would be one of the world's strongest economies. It is a dream that will probably never happen (I want to say never, but who knows what extremes the future might hold), but for some, the dream keeps them warm at night.

Ezra begins his record with the expression "people of the province," a carefully chosen phrase. It highlights how far Judah (and Israel) had fallen. Once, Israel had been a power the region had to reckon with. During the days of David, Israel's military was feared, and the surrounding nations were effectively brought under its control. During the reign of David's son Solomon, Israel became an economic powerhouse. This was Israel's golden age. But as Ezra prepares to return to the land of Israel, it is no longer a powerhouse; it is not even a nation; it is a province, once a province of Babylon and now a province of Persia, but still just a province. The dream of separatism still existed in Israel: to once more become a nation as it was under the reigns of David and Solomon in the golden age. Still, it would not become a reality until briefly during the 2nd Century B.C.E., and then not again until after World War II.

As Ezra evaluates the return of the people of Judah, he understands that this once-great nation had become a province. The proud had been humbled. Yet God was still there. God's presence had never left his people, and God promised that, regardless of Israel's external reality, he would never leave them.

We are heirs to the same promise. No matter our external reality, God will never leave us or forsake us.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Ezra 3

At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. – Daniel 12:1

Today's Scripture Reading (November 10, 2026): Daniel 12

Filmmaker Michael Moore argues that "capitalism and democracy" are actually opposites. Capitalism is a system that guarantees that a few will do very well, while everybody else will serve them. A democracy is a system in which everybody has a seat at the decision-making table. Moore is probably right, but I am not sure we really understand the idea of opposites. I think most of us would put capitalism and democracy on the same side, standing tall against communism, which we would argue is the opposite of capitalism. Yet I see truth in Moore's revelation, while acknowledging that we struggle to identify something's opposite.

In Christianity, we often cast Satan and Jesus as opposites. However, the analogy doesn't really hold. For one thing, we believe Jesus is God Incarnate, God who has come down to us. Satan is not God, nor is he the Son of God. Satan is an angel, so it makes sense that the opposite of Satan would also be an angel.

Enter Michael. Like Satan, Michael is often seen as the angel involved in our most serious spiritual battles. Satan is the great accuser, pointing his metaphorical finger at our lives and asking questions that make our hearts sink. He knows the evil that lurks in the human heart and seeks to make that evil our reality. Satan's argument is often, "You know you can't do any better, so why not give in to the desires of the heart?" End the struggle now, because the fight just isn't worth it.

Daniel says Michael struggles on the other end of the moral spectrum. He is the protector, the one who sees the best in us and encourages us toward it. He knows the battle is worth our participation and that we can be better than we are if we can shake the voice of Satan from his perch inside our heads. Satan seeks to divide. Michael supports Jesus' work in our lives, always striving to unite, support, and save.

Daniel describes a time of great distress. Israel and the people of God have faced many periods of great difficulty; however, this will be worse than any that has gone before. At that time, a battle will ensue. All we need to know is that deliverance will be assured for everyone whose name is written in "the book." It is not a promise that all will be saved. Satan will win the battle with some, convincing them that their lives are evil and that they are unworthy of salvation. Satan will divide the people until they stop believing that Michael stands ready to defend them. Still, for those who trust in God and his Messiah, for those who will permit Michael to stand in the struggle on their behalf, he is ready to deliver, even if that someone is us.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Ezra 1 and 2

Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will arise in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece. – Daniel 11:2

Today's Scripture Reading (November 9, 2026): Daniel 11

Xerxes I's rise to power in the Persian Empire was somewhat unexpected. Xerxes was crowned King of Kings in Persia in October 486 B.C.E. The rise to power was unexpected because Xerxes was not his father Darius's eldest son, and in almost every other nation in the known world the crown passed to the eldest son.

Xerxes' older brother (actually older half-brother) was named Artabazanes. Artabazanes claimed the right to the Persian throne under the traditions of other nations. However, Darius ruled against his oldest son. There are probably two reasons for this decision. First, Darius is believed to have divided his life into two sections. The first was the period he lived as "Darius the Subject." During this time, it is thought that an impostor ruled the throne of Persia. The throne belonged to Bardiya, Cyrus the Great's youngest son. Traditional histories hold that Bardiya died in the spring of 522 B.C.E., though the people were kept in the dark. Instead, an impostor ruled in Bardiya's name. Darius killed this impostor later that year, and the next day Darius was crowned king, ending the life of "Darius the Subject" and beginning the life of "Darius the King." Artabazanes was the oldest son, but he was born to "Darius the Subject." Xerxes was the oldest son of "Darius the King," so he ascended the Persian throne after his father's death. The second argument for Xerxes' rise over his older brother is that Artabazanes' mother was a commoner, while Xerxes' mother was, like Darius, from Persia's ruling class. So, Xerxes became the King of Kings of the Persian Empire.

This section of Daniel is so precise that some critics have argued it must have been written after the events. Aside from the prophecy's precision, there is no reason to date this writing late. There is no doubt that the fourth king Daniel writes about is Xerxes, the son of Darius the Great (Darius the King). He would be richer than those who came before him precisely because he was the son of Darius the Great. Darius presided over the Persian Empire at its height, and at the time of his death he was preparing to move against Greece, stockpiling the resources and finances needed for that conflict. When he took the throne, Xerxes inherited all of these resources.

Nevertheless, even though Xerxes had all the advantages the kings before him lacked and could marshal support for his move against the Greeks, he could not hold his gains in Greece. Trouble at home forced Xerxes to send part of his army home, and the portion left in Greece was defeated, ending the hope that he could complete the military dream that had started with his father. Xerxes stirred everyone against Greece, but he could not defeat it.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Daniel 12