Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Ezra 3: The Restoration of True Worship

by

Ezra 2 closed with the exiles each returning to their own cities. But in the seventh month the Israelites all came to Jerusalem. The Feast of Trumpets was observed on the first day of the seventh month (Lev. 23:23-25; Num. 29:1-6). Special sacrifices were offered at the beginning of each month, the new moon (Num. 28:11-15). But the blowing of the trumpets on the first day of the seventh month signified that this month was set apart in a special way for the worship of God. The Day of Atonement and the Feast of Booths occurred in this month (EDBT, 252).

The Israelites were not required to come to Jerusalem for the Feast of Trumpets as they were for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths (Dt. 16:16). However, on their first year back in the land, the Israelites gathered “as one man” to Jerusalem. This emphasizes the importance of worship to the returned exiles, and it shows their unity (Brenneman 1993: 89).

Certain sacrifices were supposed to be offered on the Feast of Trumpets (Num. 29:2-6). For these sacrifices to be offered the Temple altar needed to be rebuilt. This is precisely what Joshua, the high priest, the other priests, Zerubbabel, and his kinsmen did. It is appropriate for Joshua and the priests to be mentioned first in this endeavor, but since temple building is the in the provenance of the Davidic son (2 Sam 7:13), it is appropriate for Zerubbabel and his kinsmen to also be involved.

Sheshbazzar was probably the governor at this time, but if he was not in the Davidic line, as Zerubbabel was, then it was more appropriate for Zerubbabel to take the lead in matters relating to the rebuilding of the Temple and for Ezra to highlight Zerubbabel’s role.

Though the sacrifices for the Feast of Trumpets were the first sacrifices that the altar was built for, Ezra notes they also offered the other sacrifices required by the law: “the continual burnt offering (Ex 29:38-42; Num 28:1-8), the New Moon offering (Num 28:11-15), the three annual pilgrimage feasts (e.g., Ex. 23:14-17) and voluntary contributions (e.g., Lev 22:17-25)” (Steinmann 2010: 190).

After the Feast of Trumpets, the returned exiles also kept the Feast of Booths (3:4). This was an appropriate feast to celebrate soon after their return to the land because it commemorated the first exodus. To observe the Feast of Booths, the Israelites would travel to Jerusalem and live in temporary shelters (the booths that gave the feast its name) (McConville 1985: 20; Steinmann 2010: 213). It may also have been the case that the Feast of Booths was closely connected with bringing the ark into the first temple (1 Kings 8:2; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 18).

The other feast celebrated in the seventh month was the Day of Atonement. Ezra does not mention that feast, however, because it was impossible to observe. Not only was there no temple, but there would never be an ark of the covenant in the Second Temple. This meant that the Day of Atonement, as prescribed in the law of Moses, could never again be carried out.

In the end, the typological Day of Atonement would find its fulfillment in the actual atonement of Christ on the cross. But from the exile until the death of Christ there was a significant gap Israelite worship. The exile was due to human sinfulness, and yet the central ceremony having to do with atonement from sin was not observable in the way that God had ordained it to be observed.

Ezra 2

by

Ezra 2 may be the most difficult chapter for modern readers. It is a list of names, most of which are unfamiliar to the reader, along with numbers of returnees. And yet, this chapter is also inspired Scripture. Further, when the book is read aloud, this chapter takes a significant amount of time to read. Its inclusion is purposeful and important.

Because the list is schematized, the structure is easy to follow:

heading (1-2), lists of lay people [according to their family (3-20), according to their ancestral town (21-35)] (3-35), of priests (36-39), Levites (40), singers (41), gatekeepers (42) and other temple servants [the netinim (43-34), the sons of Solomon’s servants (55-57)] (43-58), and of those whose genealogies could not be proved (59-63); totals (64-67); summary of gifts for the temple building (68-69), and conclusion (70). [Williamson 1985: 28; cf. Steinmann 2010: 167]

Verse 1 specifies that the returnees “came up out of the captivity of those exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried captive to Babylonia.” This detailed description firmly links the returnees to the exile, and thus establishes continuity between the returning exiles and pre-exilic Israel. This continuity is one of the major purposes of this list.

The opening to chapter 2 also specifies that the exiles returned “each to his own town” (2:1). In the books of Numbers and Joshua God allotted the land that the people from each tribe were to inhabit. The return from exile is a return to these divine allotments. Shepherd notes that this “was not merely a symbolic but also [a] quite literal (re)settlement of the land.” (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 14, 17).

Ezra consistently emphasizes the reality of the return while at the same time emphasizing its partial nature. He speaks of the returning exiles as “the men of the people of Israel” (2:2). This signals that a return of all Israel is in view (KD 4:21; Breneman 1993: 77). In addition, the leaders of the return were likely twelve in number, symbolizing a restoration of the twelve tribes. But the text also signals the partial nature of the return when it says that they “returned to Jerusalem and Judah.” The locations of the towns where the location is known were all in Judah and Benjamin, that is, generally in the region of the southern kingdom of Judah (Steinmann 2010: 173).

Ezra only lists eleven leaders in 2:2, but the parallel text in Nehemiah includes a twelfth name, Nahamani. An additional name is also present in the parallel in 1 Esdras 5:8. Possibly Ezra originally had twelve names listed (Steinmann 2010: 154, 70; cf. KD 4:21; Williamson 1985: 32). Another possibility is that Ezra originally listed only eleven names because Sheshbazzar, mentioned in 1:8, was understood to be the twelfth leader. Nehemiah, with his list in a different context, perhaps inserted a different leader to keep the number at twelve.

It is not clear that the twelve leaders were each from one of the twelve tribes. Not enough is known of many of the leaders to ascertain this (KD 4:21). It may be that the number of leaders is symbolic, as with the number of disciples chosen by Christ. The number twelve was significant, and the disciples were promised rule over the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28), but the disciples were not each from one of the twelve tribes.

The first of the leaders listed, Zerubbabel, was a governor over the province of Judah after Sheshbazzar (Hag. 1:1; 2:2). He was the grandson of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) (1 Chron. 3:17), who was king when Nebuchadnezzar led the Judeans (and their temple vessels) into exile (2 Kings 24:12-15). The name Zerubbabel means “offspring of Babylon” and may be an indication that he was born in Babylon (DOTHB, 1016). He is identified as the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hag. 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 23) and as the son of Pedaiah, a brother of Shealtiel (1 Chron. 3:19). It may be that Pedaiah is not Zerubbabel’s biological father but that Pedaiah married Shealtiel’s widow in a levirate marriage, which made Zerubbabel legally the son of Shealtiel (DOTHB, 1016; Williamson 1985: 32).

Zerubbabel stands in the line of Davidic kings. He is in the genealogy of Christ in both Matthew (1:12-13) and Luke (3:27).  But he is never king over Israel. In fact, Ezra does not even mention Zerubbabel’s Davidic lineage. This is another evidence that Ezra understands the return from exile to be partial. The prophets predicted the restoration of the Davidic throne along with the return of exile. But the return in Ezra’s day happens without the restoration of the Davidic monarchy (cf. Levering 2007: 48).

Jeshua (Joshua in Haggai [1:1, 4, 12, 14; 2:2, 4, 18] and Zechariah [Zec 3:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; 4:14; 6:11, 12]) is identified as the son of Jozadak in Ezra 3:2. Jozadak was the son of Seraiah (1 Chron. 6:14) who was the chief priest when Nebuchadnezzar finally put an end to Judah during the reign of Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:18). He was killed (2 Kings 25:21), but Jehozadak went into exile (1 Chron. 6:15). Jeshua/Joshua is the chief priest upon the return from exile.

Of the remaining leaders nothing further is known.

After the listing of the leaders comes the listing of lay people according to family or town. The two categories of “kinship and land” were of the utmost importance in Israel. Wright observes,

If you belonged to an Israelite family living on its inherited portion of the land given to your tribe, then you had secure membership in all the affairs of the community. If you were (or became) familyless (widows and orphans) or landless (foreigners, immigrants), then you were much more vulnerable and insecure. That is why the laws repeatedly urge Israelites to take special care of those categories of people in their midst. [Shepherd and Wright 2018: 134]

It is for this reason that this list emphasizes these two aspects of life. These are people who can claim kinship and land within the covenant promises.

The listing then follows the pattern of the listing in Numbers by moving from the people to the priests and the Levites. This is another subtle reminder of the new exodus theme (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 15).

The priests had been divided into twenty-four groups by David (1 Chron. 24:1-19), but only four of these groups are represented in this list. However, compared to the priests even fewer Levites returned. This also points to the partial nature of this return.

After the Levites comes the listing of the temple servants (ESV, NASB, NIV, CSB), or the nethinim (NKJV; cf. KJV). The term Nethinim is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew word which refers to the ones who are given. Ezra may be continuing to pattern this list after Numbers. In Numbers the Levites were “given” to the priests to help in the tabernacle service (Num. 3:9; 8:19). These temple servants may have been given to the Levites to assist them (Williamson 1985: 35; cf. Num. 31:30-47 and Breneman 1993: 81).

Following the priests and Levites were those who could not demonstrate their ancestry. Some have suggested that this demonstrates a concern for “racial purity” that differs from an earlier acceptance of proselytes (Williamson 1985: 36), but Ezra recognizes the existence and legitimacy of non-Israelites who proselytized (Ezra 6:21).

The difficulty of not being able to establish one’s ancestry was most significant for those who believed themselves to be in the priestly line. They could not serve as priests until their genealogy could be established. The governor of the time, probably Sheshbazzar, determined that they could not be treated as priests until a high priest with the Urim and Thummim could determine that they were indeed priests (2:63).

The Urim and Thummim were placed in the high priest’s breastplate and were used for determining God’s will in certain matters (Ex. 28:30; Num. 27:21). They were evidently not operative or present at the time of the return, and they do not seem to have survived the exile (Steinmann 2010: 174-75). Notably, the second temple, the rebuilding of which is described in Ezra, never had the ark of the covenant nor was it filled with the presence of Yhwh. It may be that the presence of Yhwh and the ability to inquire of him using the Urim and Thummim went together, and this explains why they were never used after the return from exile (KD 4:27-28). This all points, once again, to the partial nature of return from exile. The great expectations of the prophets regarding what would happen with restoration after exile are not coming to pass, even though a partial restoration is taking place.

The final total of those returning also testifies to the fact that this is the return of a remnant. In the first exodus, the number of the fighting men in Israel numbered 603,550 (Num. 1:45-46). This number excluded the Levites, women, children, and the aged. Some think that the actual total of Israelites in the first exodus was around 2 million. Here only 42,360 return (cf. Levering 2007: 47-48).

If one totals the numbers given in the list, the number of returnees comes out at 29,818. Parallels in Nehemiah 7 and 1 Esdras 5 yield different totals, possibly due to textual corruption in the various lists. But all three sources agree that the given total is 42,360 (Steinmann 2010: 175). The best solution is probably that woman were not counted in the list but were included in the total (Steinmann 2010: 176; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 16). The ratio of men to women would have been off if this was the case, but this could be explained by the fact that it may have been easier for young, unmarried men to make this journey than for families to do so. It might also shed some light into the problem of inter-marriage with unbelieving foreigners later in the book (Steinmann 2010: 176). Steveson rejects this explanation, noting that women are mentioned alongside men in the numbers of singers and servants (Ezra 2:65; Steveson 2011: 35, n. 45). But the mention of women comes in a separate enumeration, following the total. The preceding lists, which are the ones the total refers to, is headed by the phrase, “The number of the men of the people of Israel,” thus specifying that the men in particular are in view.

The actual arrival back in the land is only briefly noted: “when they came to the house of Yhwh that is in Jerusalem.” However, it is notable that the arrival is focused on the temple. Coming to the land was only important if the people enjoyed God’s presence in the land. Thus there is an emphasis on Jerusalem and the temple (Levering 2007:49).

There may be a hint from the beginning that all is not well in the fact that only “some … offered willingly for the house of God to restore it on its foundation (McConville 1985: 17).

The chapter closes with the same emphasis with which it opened. The people returned their own cities. This is a restoration to the land allotments that God had appointed. So the return from exile focused on Jerusalem, but it was not limited to it. It extended to the rest of the land (Shepherd and Wright 2018:17).

New Testament scholars speak of the already / not yet nature of the kingdom. Some of the kingdom promises are being fulfilled now as Christ reigns from the Fathers right hand. But other kingdom promises w wait for Christ’s return for fulfillment.

The Book of Ezra presents readers with an already / not yet approach to the return from exile. Some of the promises from the prophets about return from exile were already being fulfilled for them. Others would not be fulfilled until the ministry of Christ, and others have still not yet been fulfilled but await Christ’s return. The Book of Ezra, can serve as a guide for how we live in the already / not yet era.

Ezra 1:5:1-11

by

The remainder of Ezra 1 flows from Cyrus’s decree. Just as Yhwh “stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia” (1:1), so he also “stirred” up the Jews to return (1:6). Just as Cyrus decreed that that Jews could return to Jerusalem to “rebuild the house of Yhwh, the God of Israel” (1:3), so God stirred up the returnees “to go up to rebuild the house of Yhwh that is in Jerusalem” (1:5). And just as Cyrus decreed that the returning sojourners “be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings” (1:4), so “all who were about them aided them with vessels of silver, with gold, with goods, with beasts, and with costly wars, besides all that was freely offered” (1:6) (Steinmann 2010: 141-42).

Thus the themes of the first four verses continue throughout the chapter. Yhwh was clearly at work in the returnees just as he was at work in Cyrus to permit the return (Breneman 1993: 71-72). Cyrus’s return of the vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the temple also shows Yhwh’s providential working (Breneman 1993: 72). Even the passive in verse 11—the exiles were brought up from Babylonia to Jerusalem—points to God’s providence. Who brought the exiles up from Babylonia to Jerusalem? Yhwh (Williamson 1985: 19).

This is all in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy. His prophecy of return in seventy years does not specifically mention the return of the temple vessels, but it occurs in a context in which the return of those vessels was under discussion (Jer. 28:3, 6). Further, the return of the people was specifically in view in Jeremiah 29. Jonathan Edwards proposed that a fulfillment of Jeremiah 51:44 was also in view: “And I will punish Bel in Babylon, and take out of his mouth what he has swallowed.” Edwards suggested that the temple vessels were what Bel had swallowed because they were carried to his temple (Edwards 2006: 418). This is possible, but the context points to the return of the people as a result of the Medes conquering Babylon.

The same Hebrew word is used to refer to Cyrus bringing out the temple vessels and Nebuchadnezzar carrying them away from Jerusalem. This wordplay highlights that Cyrus’s action is a reversal of the exile. The Babylonian kings took the idols from the temples of the conquered peoples to Babylon; Cryus restored these images to their temples (COS 2.314-16). The Israelite temple had no images; the temple vessels would have been the equivalent in the eyes of the Babylonians and Persians (Kidner 1979: 37; Williamson 1985: 16-17; Yamauchi 1988: 604; Breneman 1993: 72).

This section emphasizes that the return was for the rebuilding of the temple. Verse 6 specifies that God stirred up the returnees “to rebuild the house of Yhwh that is in Jerusalem.” The catalog of temple vessels that were being returned also served to emphasize the temple-focused nature of the return (Breneman 1993: 71).

The enumeration of the vessels totals 2,499, but Ezra 1:11 gives a total of 5,400. An ancient suggestion is that only the major vessels were enumerated but that all the vessels, including minor vessels, were included in the total. Some modern interpreters accept this suggestion, while others suggest that the discrepancy is due to scribal error (KD 4:18-19; Yamauchi 1988: 604; Steinmann 2010: 144-45).

The emphasis on the temple is related to the portrayal of the return as a second exodus. The book of Exodus gives a great deal of space to the tabernacle (Breneman 1993: 71). The gifts of silver and gold from the Jews Gentile neighbors also recalls the spoiling of the Egyptians by Israel in the first exodus (Ex. 3:22; 11:2; 12:35; Ps 105:37) (Williamson 1985: 16; 1996: 85; Breneman 1993: 72; Steinmann 2010: 139). Even the reference to Sheshbazzar as “prince of Judah” may allude to the princes of the tribes in Numbers (Num 2:3-31; 7:1-83; 34:18-28), who brought the tabernacle vessels as part of a dedication offering of the altar (Num. 7:84-86) (Williamson 1985: 17-18).

The identity of Sheshbazzar is a matter of debate. Because both Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are said to have laid the foundation of the temple (Ezra 3:8; 5:2, 16), some claim that these are two names for the same man (KD 4:17). However, others note that Ezra 5:14-16 seems to be an explanation to Tattenai, the governor of the Province Beyond the River, of Sheshbazzar’s identity. Tattenai would have known Zerubbabel, the present governor of Judah (Ezra 5:2) (Williamson 1985: 17; Howard 193: 303). In addition, while people in this period could have more than one name, it is more likely for a Jewish person to have a Jewish name and a Babylonian name. But if Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are identified, this individual would, oddly, have two Babylonian names (Williamson 1985: 17). It is most likely that both men returned to the land under Cyrus, that  Sheshbazzar was the first governor of over the returned exiles, and that he was succeeded by Zerubbabel. On this view, both men could have been involved in laying the foundation of the temple (Steinmann 2010: 33-34).

Scripture quotations are from the ESV, with Yhwh substituted for the LORD.

Ezra 1:1-4: Fulfilled Prophecy

by

Ezra 1:1 masterfully opens the book of Ezra by revealing the time period being covered (Cyrus’s first year as king, 538 BC), the fact that Yhwh stood behind the proclamation of return (“stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia”), and God’s purpose in returning the people to the land (“that the word of Yhwh by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled”).

The first year of Cyrus is reckoned from when he began to reign over Babylon (KD 3:15; Steinmann 2010: 134). This was the first year that he began to reign over the Jews, who had until that time been ruled by the Babylonians.

The prophecy most directly alluded to is found in Jeremiah 29:1-23, a letter from Jeremiah to the exiles who were taken to Babylon in 597 BC (Longman 2008: 192). False prophets predicted that the exiles would be back in Israel with their king and the temple vessels within two years (Jer. 28:2-4). But in Jeremiah’s letter, Yhwh declares that the exiles should prepare for an extended stay in Babylon. They were to be build houses, marry, and have children (they are to be fruitful and multiply, Genesis 1:28). They were to seek Babylon’s welfare and to pray for Babylon. Verse 10 then specifies the length of their captivity: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place [that is, Jerusalem, from which the letter was sent].” God made it clear that the exile did not put an end to his purposes for Israel: “I know the plans I have for you, declares Yhwh, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope” (29:10).

The first wave of exiles went into captivity in 605 BC. The first year of Cyrus (Ezr. 1:1) is 538 BC, which is 67 years after the first wave of captivity. Sixty-seven years is very close to seventy. If the decree from Cyrus was actually made in 539 BC, as some think, and if it took some time for the return trip to be organized, some of the people may have returned exactly seventy years from the first wave of captivity (Talbert 2003: 6; Steveson 2011: 18).

Notably, God had called on the people to pray to him and to seek him in the context of restoration from exile (Jer. 29:12-14). Those who read Ezra within its canonical context should expect the books to be concerned not only with the physical return of the people to the land but also with the return of their hearts to God.

Jeremiah’s letter closed with a condemnation of two false prophets who also “committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives” (Jer. 29:23). If the original readers of Ezra noticed that Ezra 1:1 directed them to Jeremiah’s letter, they would have seen a warning against sexual sin. Thus the book, in a way, opens and closes on a similar note.

Though Jeremiah 29 is likely the passage that Ezra is alluding to most directly, there are several more passages that are relevant. Second Chronicles 36:17-23 parallels Ezra 1:1-4, with verses 22-23 being an almost verbatim quotation of Ezra 1:1-4. The preceding verses in Chronicles provide some additional information. They specify that the seventy years of exile were prophesied so that the land could enjoy its Sabbaths (36:21).

Jeremiah 25:8-12 is a similar prophecy that also mentions a seventy-year time frame. This prophecy is somewhat different from the one in Jeremiah 29. Instead of the seventy years marking the return of the people, God said that after seventy years Babylon will be judged. In addition, this passage mentions not only Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Judah but also of the surrounding lands. It may be, then, that a slightly different seventy-year period is in view in Jeremiah 25. Nineveh fell to the Babylonians in 612 BC, and Babylon fell to the Persians in 539 BC, a span of 73 years. Another decisive battle against the Assyrians occurred in 609 BC, which if taken as the terminus a quo, would lead to a span of exactly 70 years (Talbert 2003: 5; Fensham 1982: 43).

There may be one more seventy-year period to consider. In Zechariah 1:12, the angel of Yhwh asks Yhwh of hosts, “How long will you have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which you have been angry these seventy years?” Zechariah, along with Haggai, were prophets in Jerusalem after the return from exile under Cyrus (Ezr. 5:1; 6:14). They encouraged the rebuilding of the temple. This seems to indicate that there was a seventy-year period still in effect while the temple as being rebuilt (cf. Zech. 7:4-5). The book of Zechariah was likely written in 520 BC (McComiskey 1998: 1039). Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple around 586 BC. Thus these words were written some 66 years after the destruction of the temple. The Second Temple was dedicated in 516 BC, 70 years after its destruction. (I am indebted to Layton Talbert for observations on the significance of these Zechariah texts.)

Isaiah 44:22-45:13 does not mention the seventy-year time frame, but it clearly predicts the events of Ezra 1. Well over 150 years before Cyrus conquered Babylon, Yhwh, through Isaiah, called Cyrus by name and said: “He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill my purpose” (44:28). The purpose being that Jerusalem will be built and the foundations of the temple would be laid (44:28). Specifically, Yhwh said, “I have stirred him up in righteousness, and I will make all his ways level; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward” (45:13).

The prophecies surrounding the return from exile are startlingly specific. Cyrus is mentioned by name, and a specific span of time is designated. Surely these prophecies should have given the Israelites hope while in exile, but the purpose of the specificity was much greater. It was so that “people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am Yhwh, and there is no other” (Isa. 45:6).

Several of these prophecies are clearly fulfilled in Ezra, but Ezra does not explicitly make the connections laid out above. McConville suggests that the reason that Ezra alludes to these prophecies but does not explicitly identify how they were fulfilled is that he wished both to affirm the reality of the fulfilled prophecies and avoid giving “the impression that the return from exile is God’s final act, ushering in a Messianic age in which the people of Judah enjoy pre-eminence in the world and even the servitude of the nations (Isa. 60:10)” (McConville 1985: 9).

Scripture quotations are from the ESV, with Yhwh substituted for the LORD.

Structure of Ezra

by

The book of Ezra can be divided into two major sections, chapter 1-6 and chapter 7-10, each of which can be divided into two sub-sections. The first section deals with the first return under Cyrus (chs. 1-2) and the rebuilding of the temple (chs. 3-6). The second deals with the return with Ezra (chs. 7-8) and his dealing with marriage to foreign wives (chs. 9-10) (Steinmann 2010: 68-71; Merrill 2011: 347; Breneman 1993: 59-61; cf. Fensham 1982: 27-29; Steveson 2011: 13-14). Many smaller divisions are marked not only by thematic unity but by the fact that they are documents (decrees, lists, etc.) that have been incorporated into the book.

Two portions of Ezra are written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew (4:8-6:18; 7:12-26), and this seems to be caused by the weaving of documents into the book. The Aramaic begins in Ezra 4:8 with a letter written to King Artaxerxes. Since Aramaic was the language of diplomacy in the Persian empire, the letter would have been written in Aramaic. Ezra is simply presenting the original document. Similarly, Ezra 7:12-26 records a decree of Artaxerxes which would have originally been given in Aramaic.

However, not all of the verses in Aramaic are reproductions of diplomatic correspondence or decrees of Persian kings. Some of the narrative is also given in Aramaic. Some have theorized that Ezra continued to write in Aramaic after inserting the Aramaic letters to demonstrate that he understood the language and was accurately interpreting the correspondence. He reverts back to Hebrew in 6:19 due to the religious nature of that section (Snell 1980: 32-51; Howard 1993: 292).

Notably, the book does not proceed in a strictly chronological fashion. Chapters 1-3 take place in the reign of Cyrus. Chapter 4 describes opposition from “the people of the land,” with verse 5 indicating that opposition to rebuilding the temple lasted from the reign of Cyrus (through the reign of Cambyses) until the reign of Darius I. Ezra 4:6 recounts that during the reign of Ahasuerus/Xerxes, an accusation was made against those living in Judah and Jerusalem. Ezra 4:7-23 moves to the reign of Artaxerxes in the period just before Nehemiah’s mission to Jerusalem (457 BC). Ezra 4:24-6:22 then moves back to the time of Darius I (520-516 BC). The latter half of the book, 7:1-10:44, is located in the reign of Artaxerxes, but in an earlier period (458 BC) than the events recounted in 4:7-23 (Brown 2005a: 34-35, though with the data conceptualized differently).

Ezra’s nonchronological ordering serves a larger literary and theological purpose. By clustering external opposition in the first section of the book, Ezra is able to show the depth of opposition that the Jews faced and is thus better able to display the sovereignty of God in overruling that opposition (Brown 2005b: 191). Frontloading the opposition also “aligns the reader’s sympathies strongly in favor of the Jews,” places the reader’s view of the Jews’ failures in proper perspective (Brown 2005b: 101). Most significantly, as Brown observes, “[b]y placing chapters 7–10 out of chronological order, Ezra isolated all the returnees’ external problems to chapters 1–6 so that he could direct the reader’s undivided attention to the most serious problems faced by God’s people—internal problems” (Brown 2005a: 47).

Best Commentaries on 2 Peter

by

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. New American Commentary. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H,  2003.

This is my top choice for 2 Peter. Though there are more detailed commentaries on this book, Schreiner combines exegetical skill with sound theology like no one else on 2 Peter. There are numerous theological challenges in 2 Peter and Schreiner navigates them better than any single commentary. Schreiner’s commentary is ideal for the pastor because he does not go into unnecessary grammatical or linguistic detail. However, he does competently handle these issues when they affect interpretation. Schreiner also does a good job in showing how the sections of the book fit together.

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by David A. Hubbard. Waco: Word, 1983.

This is perhaps the premier scholarly commentary on the book. It gives a strong exegetical treatment. He provides the reader with the interpretive options and more often than not guides the reader to the correct understanding of the text. He is not as consistently correct as Schreiner, but he is close. However, this commentary is marred by its denial of Petrine authorship, and this does affect Bauckham’s interpretation at places.

Giese, Curtis P. 2 Peter and Jude. Edited by Dean O. Wenthe and Curtis P. Giese. Concordia Commentary. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2012.

This is another excellent exegetical treatment of the book which gives detailed comments on the language, careful exposition, and theological interaction. It is written from conservative Lutheran tradition. I appreciated the conservative approach, but dissent from some specific Lutheran interpretations.

Luther, Martin. The Catholic Epistles. Luther’s Works, Vol. 30. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999.

Luther’s commentary on 2 Peter is insightful and not to be missed. He does an excellent job of expositing Peter’s moral exhortations in their relation to the gospel of grace.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. Translated by John Owen. Grand Rapids, MI: Logos Bible Software, 2010.

Calvin is always to be consulted. He is consistently careful and correct in his interpretations.

Lillie, John. Lectures on the First and Second Epistles of Peter. New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1869.

I highly recommend Lille. In wrestling with several passages containing interpretative difficulties, I found that Lille provided the most insightful way forward. He is both exegetical and theological in his comments.

Green, Micahel. 2 Peter and Jude. Revised edition. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Edited by Leon Morris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

This contains an excellent defense of Petrine authorship as well as helpful, though brief comments. When I studied 2 Peter in seminary, I used Green, Bauckham, and Hiebert as my main commentaries. However, I found that recently I use him less because of the subsequent excellent, fuller commentaries available.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary. Greenville, SC: BJU Press, 1989.

This is an under-rated commentary. Every time I turn to Hiebert I find sensible, helpful exposition. If a conservative lay-person wanted one commentary on 2 Peter and Jude, I’d point them to either Schriener or Hiebert.

Green, Gene L. Jude and 2 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.

Green is worth looking at, but he would not be my first choice. He is well-versed in the social world of the first-century. This is sometimes illuminating, but it sometimes leads Green astray.

Other Works

Brown, John. Parting Counsels: An Exposition of the First Chapter of the Second Epistle of the Apostle Peter, with Four Additional Discourses. Edinburgh; London; Glasgow: William Oliphant and Sons; Hamilton, Adams & Co.; David Robertson, 1856.

Brown’s work on 2 Peter 1 is not organized verse-by-verse sequence, which makes this somewhat more difficult to use. But it is full of insight and well worth reading.

Lloyd-Jones, D. M. Expository Sermons on 2 Peter. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1983.

Lloyd-Jones is always worth reading. These sermons are no exception.

Charles, J. Daryl. Virtue Amdist Vice: The Catalog of Virtues in 2 Peter 1. JSNT 150. Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.

Chapter 6 provides a brief commentary on 2 Peter 1:1-11. Preceding that chpater are helpful studies about the Stoic worldview, the place of virtue and ethics in 2 Peter, and genre and authorship of the book.

Davids, Peter H. 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011.

I don’t usually find Davids helpful, but this was a serviceable handbook on the grammar and syntax of 2 Peter. Davids has also written a commentary on 2 Peter and Jude in the Pillar series.

Ezra and Nehemiah: One Book or Two?

by

The earliest available evidence indicates that Ezra and Nehemiah were considered to be a single book. Williamson briefly summarizes this evidence:

(1) in order to make sense of Josephus’ enumeration of the biblical books (Contra Apionem §40), it must be assumed that he counted Ezra and Nehemiah as one. (2) Melito, Bishop of Sardis, quotes Jewish sources in Palestine which speak of the whole work as “Ezra”; cf. Eusebius Hist Eccl. 4.26.14. (3) The Talmud includes the activities of Nehemiah in the book of Ezra and even asks, “Why, then. was the book not called by his name?” (Bab Sanh. 93b; cf. B. Bat, 14b, where only Ezra is listed). (4) The Masoretes clearly regard the books as one because they count Neh 3:22 as the middle verse and add their annotations for the whole only at the end of Nehemiah. (5) The medieval Jewish commentators move directly from Ezra to Nehemiah without interruption; cf. the commentaries of Ibn Ezra and Rashi ad loc. in any Rabbinic Bible, e.g. Biblia Rabbinica (Jerusalem; Makor. 1972). (6) In the earliest Hebrew manuscripts the books are not divided. To this list we should add that (7) in the earliest manuscripts of the LXX the two books are treated as one [Williamson 1985: xxi].

The first evidence of Ezra and Nehemiah being treated separately occurs in the patristic period, though with the recognition that the books were considered one by the Jews (DTIB, 223; Williamson 1985: xxi).

The antiquity of the evidence for the unity of Ezra-Nehemiah has led many modern scholars to affirm that these books were originally a unity (NIDOTTE, 4:977-78; DTIB, 223, 533; Williamson 1985: xxii; Fensham 1982: 1; Breneman 1993: 37-38).

However, other interpreters, while recognizing that these books were at an early date seen as one, understand them to have originated as two separate books. These interpreters commonly note that Ezra 2 is repeated in Nehemiah 7:6-70, which would be unlikely if the books were originally a single work (Young 1977: 378; Yamauchi 1988: 572-73; Archer 1994: 456). The book of Nehemiah also begins with an introductory statement that sets it apart as a distinctive work: “The words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah” (Steinmann 2010: 18). Notably, though Jews saw Ezra and Nehemiah as a single book, the Gemera identified Ezra and Nehemiah as authors of their respective parts (Young 1977: 378).

Recent proponents of the unity of Ezra-Nehemiah often draw on the work of Eskenazi, who posits that the repetition of the Ezra 2 material in Nehemiah 7 determines the structure of the book. On this view, Ezra-Nehemiah has a three-part structure. Verses 1:1-4 introduce the book by setting the goal of rebuilding “the house of God.” Ezra 1:5-Nehemiah 7:72 form the core of the book, with the repeated list in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 serving as an inclusion for this section. The final section of the book, Nehemiah 8:1-13:31 show demonstrates “success”: “the community dedicates the house of God according to Torah” (Eskenazi 1988: 652).

However, Eskenazi’s proposal is suspect at a number of points. To unify the book around the theme of “build[ing] the house of God,” Eskenazi has to identify Jerusalem as a whole, not just the temple, as the house of God so that Nehemiah’s wall-building project can be identified as part of rebuilding the house of God. But, according to Steinmann, “the book of Nehemiah constantly and clearly distinguishes between the house of God and the city of Jerusalem.” Further, the list of returnees in Ezra 2 does not truly serve as an inclusio for Eskenazi since she actually begins the section with Ezra 1:5. Ezra 1:5-8 contains a list of the vessels to be returned to the temple. Given the proposed “house of God” theme, it would make more sense for the inclusio to be comprised of this list of temple vessels rather than in a list of the first returnees (Steinmann 2010: 16-17).

The distinct beginning of Nehemiah does not serve as an obstacle to proponents of Ezra-Nehemiah who view both books as a compilation of many different sources. For instance, Williamson argues that Ezra 1-6 was composed from various sources (decrees, lists, letters, etc.). Ezra 7-10, with Nehemiah 8 originally standing between Ezra 8 ad 9, comprise an “Ezra Memoir.”  Williamson also posits a “Nehemiah Memoir” comprised of “Neh 1-7; parts of 12:27-43, and 13:4-31 (with the lists in Nehemiah 3 and 7 possibly not being original to the “Nehemiah Memoir”). Finally, Williamson concludes that “[i]n the later chapters of Nehemiah, there is a collection of different types of material whose origins have been variously explained” (Williamson 1985: xxiii-xxxv).

Obviously, such a view is not disturbed by a distinct beginning in Nehemiah 1:1 since, on this view, the whole book is a rather transparent composition from many sources. However, this source-critical argument for the unity of Ezra-Nehemiah needlessly damages the integrity of Nehemiah.

Those who view the books as originally independent have to account for their combination into a single book. Steinmann notes several possible reasons for combining these books. Perhaps they simply were both placed on a single scroll due to the similarity of their material. Or perhaps it was attractive to make the number of canonical books match the number of letters in the alphabet, requiring combination (Steinmann 2010: 15). Or perhaps Ezra’s ending was viewed as a negative way to end a canonical book. Though the end of Nehemiah is also dealing with the problem of marriage to foreign wives, the closing verses of Nehemiah are more positive than the closing verses of Ezra. Though these proposals are speculative, they demonstrate the viability of the view that Ezra and Nehemiah were independent works later combined.

I think it is best to Ezra and Nehemiah as distinct works which maintain their own individual integrity. However, because of the similarity in historical situation and theme they bear a close canonical relation with one another.

Two Articles on Purgatory

by

Walls, Jerry L. “Purgatory for Everyone,” First Things 122 (April 2002): 25-31.

Walls, a Methodist, argues for purgatory on the grounds that salvation involves transformation, that this transformation to perfection  is often not complete in this life, and that this transformation cannot be effected immediately upon death because such transformation requires human cooperation and takes time.

Barrett, Matthew. “Should Evangelicals Embrace the Doctrine of Purgatory,” Credo 3, no. 1 (Jan 2013): 44-54.

Barrett provides a helpful summary of Walls’s argument (drawing on Walls’ book on purgatory) followed by several compelling reasons why Walls’s argument fails.

Walls tries to open the door for purgatory by claiming Scripture does not directly speak to the issue one way or the other–allegedly allowing for the doctrine to be deduced from other doctrines. Barrett, however, observes that there are numerous Scriptures that promise believers will be with the Lord after death. Most notably, Jesus promised this to the thief on the cross–a candidate for post-mortem purgation and sanctification if there ever was one.

Barrett also notes significant doctrinal problems, such as Walls’s formulation requiring a libertarian view of free will,  his advocacy of postmortem opportunities for salvation, and his raising the possibility of apostasy after death.

Finally, Barrett does not think that Walls’s attempt to make purgatory about sanctification rather than justification removes the works salvation problem.  

Ten Best Books Finished in 2018

by

Henry, Matthew and J. B. Williams, The Lives of Philip and Matthew Henry. Carlisle, PA: Banner, 1974.

This book combines in one volume Matthew Henry’s biography of his father Philip as expanded by J. B. Williams and William’s own biography of Matthew Henry. Both are worth reading, but Matthew Henry’s biography of Philip Henry is golden. It will repay repeated reading. It is the kind of biography that warms religious affections, convicts, and encourages the Christian in his walk with Christ. It is surely one of the best biographies that I’ve read.

Chambers, Whitaker. Witness. New York: Random House, 1952.

This compelling autobiography frames the 20th-century struggle with communism/socialism in the 20th century in religious terms. Chambers’s insights into the religious nature of communism and socialism make the book worth reading. But it is also a spy story and a court-room drama.

Edwards, Jonathan.Religious Affections. Edited by John E. Smith. Works of Jonathan Edwards. Edited by Harry S. Stout. New Haven: Yale, 2009.

Affections, which for Edwards involve the strong inclinations of the will and the mind and which are to be distinguished from passions, are essential to true religion according to Edwards: “True religion, in great part, consists in holy affections” (95). Edwards unpacks this thesis in three parts. First, he provides then reasons that support the truth of the statement. In taking notes on this section of the book I largely quoted the statement of the argument and then noted the numerous supporting Scripture texts. Second, Edwards debunks twelve signs that people might rely on as evidence that they do have religious affections. Third, Edwards gives twelve actual evidences of religious affections. In this section of the book I was noted both the numerous Scripture support and made extracts.

The third section of this book repays repeated devotional reading. Once the book has been read, it would be worth dipping back into the third section to guide prayer and self-examination.

Luther, Martin. Career of the Reformer III. In Luther’s Works. Volume 33. Edited by Helmutt Lehmann and Philip S. Watson. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1999. [Bondage of the Will]

The Bondage of the Will is essential reading. Luther believed that Erasmus, to whom he is responding, reached the heart of the Reformation in his critique. It is important to recognize that by bondage of the will Luther does not mean that people do not do what they please. Rather, he means that the will is so bound by sin that people will not choose to come to God apart from the working of God upon their hearts. Luther’s argumentation is both theological and exegetical.

Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man. Translated by William Crookshank. 1822; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2010.

This is an excellent theology that is strong in its exegetical basis.

Leeman, Jonathan. How the Nations Rage: Rethinking Faith and Politics in a Divided Age. Nashville: Nelson, 2018.

Good books on Christians and politics are difficult to find. Often Christians are tempted to baptize current political philosophies (whether from the left or right) rather than testing these philosophies against Scripture. Leeman does an admirable job of letting the Bible challenge our customary ways of thinking. Leeman does an excellent job working through the issues of church and state, the non-neutrality of the public square, the origin and purposes of government, and how Christians should speak in the public square. This is probably the best brief book on politics that I’ve read.

See full review here.

Bauckham, Richard. “Structure and Composition.” In Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. New York: T&T Clark, 1993.

This is an article, not a book, but it is good enough to include. Bauckham has put forward the best proposal on the structure of Revelation.

See full review here.

Packer, J. I. Knowing God. Downers Grove: IVP, 1973.

There is good reason that this book is considered a classic. It is an accessible introduction to the essentials of the Christian faith. A Christian with few books who mastered this one alongside his Bible would truly be a theologian in the older sense of theology: the science of living blessedly forever.

DeYoung, Kevin.  The Hole In Our Holiness. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.

This is a readable and yet profound book on holiness.  It is theologically precise and devotionally stirring. It magnifies the grace of God and spurs the Christian to pursue holiness with great effort. This is a must read.

Ward, Mark. Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2018.

When Mark first told me about his idea for this book, I think I discouraged him from writing it. I wasn’t sure there needed to be another book about the King James Version debate, and I thought he could better direct his energies elsewhere. I was wrong. This book makes an original contribution to the debate by avoiding the issue of textual criticism and focusing on the changes to the English language that makes the King James translation now a stumbling block to understanding God’s Word if not used alongside other translations and resources.

To those who prefer a text-type other than that reflected in most modern translations, Mark makes a truly modest proposal: develop a modern English translation from your preferred Greek and Hebrew texts.

Full review here.