Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Ezra 9

by

Ezra is about the return from exile. However, as the book repeatedly indicates, the return is in many ways only partial. Many of the prophecies of return looked forward to the establishment of the new covenant in which God’s Spirit transformed God’s people to live according to God’s law.

Ezra 9-10 reveals that these prophesies had not yet come to pass. “Chapter 9 is central to the whole book because of the sharp contrast which it draws between the people of God as it ought to be as it actually is” (McConville 1985: 60).

More than four months after Ezra arrived in Jerusalem, some of the Jewish leaders made Ezra aware that the Israelites had broken the Mosaic law by intermarrying with the peoples of the lands (on the timing, see Steinmann 2010: 325). Since Ezra was sent to teach the law, it may be that the leaders came to him as a result of his teaching (Smith 2010: 89; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 40).

Ezra’s duties involved the whole providence, so it is also possible that he was not in Jerusalem all four months. This absence could have contributed to his lack of awareness of this problem until it was brought to his attention (Steinmann 2010: 325; Smith 2010: 88).

The Problem

The problem was that “the people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands.” (9:1). The nations that follow are not necessarily the nations that the people of Israel were currently failing to separate from. The point is that they had not separated themselves form the peoples of the land “whose detestable practices are like those of the Canaanites,” etc. (CSB; cf. NIV; Brown 2005c: 447).

By listing the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites” Ezra alluded to the Mosaic law. Exodus 34:11, Deuteronomy 7:1; 20:17 each contain lists with five of these eight names.

Exodus 34:11-16 occurs as part of the covenant renewal that took place after the golden calf incident. In the wake of having reverted to Egyptian idolatry while Moses was on Mount Sinai, God warned the Israelites against becoming ensnared in the idolatry of the “inhabitants of the land” (note the similarity to “peoples of the lands in Ezra). At stake was obedience to the first commandment (Garrett 2014: 659). To protect the first commandment, the Israelites were not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land. This would include a marriage covenant. Indeed, this passage “portrays the intermarriage of Israelites and pagans as illicit, on a level with going to a prostitute” (Garrett 2014: 660).

Deuteronomy 7:1-6 makes explicit what was implicit in Exodus 34:12’s prohibition on making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land. It not only repeats the ban on covenants but it specifies: “You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons” (7:2-3). At the root of forbidding intermarriage with pagans is the concern that the Israelites not follow the gods of these nations. Verse 6 also indicates that the Israelites were not to intermarry with pagans because God chose Israel to be a holy people to the Lord (cf. Ezra 9:2). The rest of Deuteronomy 7 links obedience to the Mosaic covenant with blessing. The implication is that disobedience will, at best, deprive Israel of the blessing.

Deuteronomy 20:16-18 teaches that all the inhabitants of these nations were to be put to death lest they “teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods.” Clearly the concern in the Mosaic law was that intermarriage with pagans would lead the Israelites into false worship. The people of the land were to be driven out or killed; they were not to be married.

These instructions clearly did not apply to people who converted to become followers of Israel’s God. For instance, Rahab was rightly spared execution, married an Israelite, and became part of the line of the Messiah. Moses had married a Cushite (Num. 12:1; though this marriage may have been prior to the giving of these laws, the concern about inter-marriage was present even among Abraham and Isaac; cf. Gen 24:3-4; 28:1-2), and God rejected criticism of this marriage. The book of Ruth presents positively Boaz’s marriage to Ruth, the Moabitess.

The Bible does have ethnic categories, and it sees nations as a significant part of the created order. But it does have a pours view, rather than a strictly genetic view, of how someone from one nation can become included in another. Any foreigner could proselytize and become an Israelite by submitting to the Mosaic covenant and to circumcision.

Thus the problem with these marriages is religious, not ethnic.

Not included in Exodus 34:11, Deuteronomy 7:1; 20:17, but included in the list in Ezra are the Ammonites, Moabites, and Egyptians. Ezra’s inclusion of these three nations might be an allusion to Solomon. 1 Kings 11:1 notes that he “loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharoah,” and lists Moabite and Ammonite at the end of the list. The Amonites and Moabites were also prohibited from entering the assembly (Deut. 23:2-4). The assembly is typically taken to refer to the people of Israel at worship (Block 2012: 534), though Aquinas takes it to refer to citizenship since Exodus 12:48 “excluded the men of no nation from the worship of God” (ST I-II q.105 a.3 resp.; ad. 1).

Notably, those excluded from the assembly were those “born of a forbidden union,” which would have included the intermarriages proscribed in Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 7. In addition, the Ammonites and Moabites were forbidden from entering because they sought Balaam to curse Israel. Notably, though Balaam found he could only speak blessing on Israel, he did try to bring God’s judgment on Israel by having Moabite women seduce the Israelites.

Ezra 9:2 specifies that this failure to separate from the peoples of the land specifically involved taking “wives from their daughters for themselves and for their sons” (loosely quoting Deut. 7:3; Steinmann 2010: 327). The result is that “the holy seed is mixed itself with the peoples of the lands” (LEB).

God had set Israel apart to be “a holy nation” (Ex. 19:6; 19:2; Deut. 7:6; cf. McConville 1985: 60; Brenneman 1993: 149). To mix with other nations was to violate this calling. Notably Psalm 106 speaks of Israel mixing with the nations in the pre-exilic period (Breneman 1993: 149). The Psalmist writes, “They did not destroy the peoples as Yhwh commanded them” (106:34). These commands were given in the passages where God forbade them to intermarry with the inhabitants of the land (Deut. 7:2; 20:16-17). But instead of destroying the peoples, “they mixed with the nations” (Ps. 106:35), which certainly includes the forbidden intermarriages. God warned that intermarrying would lead to idolatry (Dt. 7:4; 20:18), and Psalm 106 reveals that this is exactly what happened: they “learned to do as they did. They served their idols, which became a snare to them” (106:35-36). As a result, Yhwh was angry with his people and sent them into exile (106: 47; cf. vv. 40-46).

By committing the same sin as their forebears, the Israelites who returned from exile were setting the nation back on the path toward exile.

The dire situation is emphasized by Ezra 9:2’s allusion to Isaiah 6:13 (McConville 1985: 60; Steinmann 2010: 328-29). In the preceding verses God revealed to Isaiah that the people will remain hardened until the land is destroyed and they are sent into exile (Isa. 6:11-12). But there was hope. In the stump that remains is the holy seed. It may well be that the returned remnant saw themselves as the holy seed. And if the holy seed became corrupt, what remaining hope would there be?

There may be something ultimately eschatological in the reference to the holy seed (Rom. 11:16).

The intermarriages and the mixing of the holy seed with the peoples of the lands is characterized by the Jewish leaders as “faithlessness.” This is ominous, because Brown notes that “[t]he term used most frequently in explaining why the Exile took place” is this term (Brown 2005c: 452; cf. Steinmann 2010: 324 for the observation the Israel’s faithfulness tended to “result in corporate guilt and sometimes corporate punishment”). To make matters worse, it was the leading men who had taken the lead in this unfaithfulness.

If much of Ezra has been modeled on the exodus and the people’s entrance into the promised land, chapter 9 plunges the reader into the days of the judges and the wicked kings who led the nation into exile. It is difficult to over-emphasize the dire turn the book has taken.

Ezra’s Response

Ezra responded by tearing his clothes and pulling hair from his head and beard (9:3). Steinmann observes, “Pulling out tufts of his hair and beard was a way of showing deepest grief while still adhering to God’s Word, since the next step—shaving one’s head or beard to grieve a death—was forbidden” (Steinmann 2010: 330, referencing Lev 19:27–28; Deut 14:1; cf. Is 22:12; Jer 16:6; 41:5; 48:37; Ezek 7:18; 27:31; Amos 8:10; Micah 1:16; Job 1:20).

Some interpreters have suggested that Ezra already knew of this problem, that he was making a demonstration to make a point. But the text indicates points to Ezra being shocked at this news. His actions of grief are genuine (Steinmann 2010: 325; Smith 2010: 88). Indeed, the text says that he was “appalled.” The CSB translates this as “devastated.” The word has been defined as “reduced to shuddering” (CHALOT, s.v. שׁמם).

There remained a remnant of those who “trembled at the words of the God of Israel.” These would be people who feared Yhwh. But in this particular case they tremble because they know the faithlessness of their fellow citizens leaves them open to God’s judgment.

Ezra sat appalled with his torn clothes until the evening sacrifice, which was offered at around 3:00 pm (Steinmann 2010: 330). At that time he offered up a prayer of confession to God.

Once again Ezra’s actions should remind readers of Moses, who interceded for the people of Israel when they sinned by creating the golden calf (Fensham 1982: 125; McConville 1985 63; Levering 2007: 103). And yet, Ezra did not actually intercede in this prayer. Rather he confessed the people’s sin and confessed God’s grace to the people (Smith 2010: 90; Steinmann 2010: 334).

Ezra began the prayer by confessing the enormity of the people’s sin and guilt: “higher than our heads,” “mounted up to the heavens.” Though the natural human tendency is to minimize our guilt by comparing ourselves among ourselves, the spiritually-minded man recognizes that we never can recognize the enormity of our sin and guilt the way God sees it.

Notice also that Ezra acknowledged the sin and guilt as is own—even though he has not committed this sin and is appalled by it (Steinmann 2010: 335). Ezra was part of a nation in covenant with God. He stands in the temple praying as a priest, a representative of that nation before God.

Finally, notice that Ezra’s awareness of this sin led to shame. Sin should always lead to shame before God. Pride is the sin of the antichrist that keeps the sinner for God. Shame for sin is one of the first steps in repentance.

In verse 7, Ezra looked into Israel’s past. Israel has “been in great guilt” since “the days of our fathers to this day.” That is, from the time of the exodus when the nation was founded, the people were continually guilty of sin. Even while God was establishing the covenant with them, Israel was turning away from him to worship the golden calf. After God brought Israel into the land, the people turned away from God in the days of the judges. After God gave them a king, they turned to worship false gods. Truly, from the days of their fathers until Ezra’s own day they were in great guilt.

As a result God gave the people over to “sword” (Jer. 9:16; 15:2; 21:7; Eze. 5:12; 7:15; Amos 4:10), “captivity” (Jer. 9:16; 15:2; 20:5; Lam. 1:5; Eze. 12:11), “plundering” (Judges 2:14; 2 Kings 17:20; Jer. 20:5; Lam. 1:4) and “utter shame (Jer. 2:26; Lam. 1:4; Eze. 7:18)” (references gleaned from Goldingay 2003: 705-6; Steinmann 2010: 335-36).

In verses 8-9, however, Ezra turned to consider the grace that God had given to Israel under the Persian rule: “But now for a brief moment favor has been shown by Yhwh our God.” First, God left a remnant. In the midst of prophecies about judgment, the prophets also promised that Yhwh would preserve for himself a remnant that he would return to the land (Isa. 10:20-22; 11:16; Jer. 23:3; 31:7; 42:2; Zech. 8:6, 11-12; Breneman 1993: 152-53). Though some of these passages are eschatological, Ezra would not have known how far off the eschaton was an whether or not the remnant that returned to the land his day would be the beginning of the fulfillment of those eschatological promises or not.

Second, Ezra said that God gave them “a peg in his holy place.” The peg in God’s holy place draws on tabernacle imagery. The peg, or tent stakes, were used in the tabernacle. This imagery is drawn on by two passages from Isaiah (33:20; 54:1-4) which look toward the eschatological restoration of Israel. But Ezra saw at least a preliminary fulfillment in his day (Steinmann 2010: 336-37).

Third, even though the Israelites are still slaves—they were still under the rule of Persia—God showed his steadfast love to Israel by having those kings allow them to rebuild the temple and by protecting them in Jerusalem. Ezra saw here a little resurrection of Israel (perhaps an allusion to Ezekiel 37) (cf. Steinmann 2010: 333).

And yet after all this grace after judgment, Israel has turned again to sin. So Ezra can only ask, “what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken your commandments” (9:10).

Ezra then described what God commanded Israel through God’s “servants the prophets.” In verses 11-12 Ezra had Deuteronomy 7:1-5 primarily in mind. That passage forbids intermarriage with the peoples of the land lest they turn Israel to idolatry and Yhwh in his anger destroy Israel. But Ezra drew on a wealth of Scripture passages as he summarizes God’s commands (see Fensham 1982: 131; Williamson 1985: 137; Breneman 1993: 154; Brown 2005c: 451; Steinmann 2010: 340-41).

When he spoke of “the land that your are entering to take possession of it,” Ezra was clearly alluding to Deuteronomy 7:1 which begins, “When the Yhwh your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it.” But that phrase is also common throughout Deuteronomy (4:5; 11:10, 29; 23:20; 28:21; 28:63; 30:16, 18). In a number of these passages the message is that if Israel is to remain in the land, they must obey God’s law.

When Ezra spoke of the land as “a land impure with the impurity of the peoples of the land,” he was alluding primarily to Leviticus 18:24-30. This passage indicates that the “people of the land” (an important phrase in Ezra) were driven out of the land because of the abominations that defiled/made the land unclean. That these people were driven out of the land relates Leviticus 18:25 to Exodus 23:31-33 and 34:11-16, which command the Israelites not to marry those whom God was going to drive from the land. The implication is that by marrying the people of the land, the Israelites will allow the uncleanness to spread and will be exiled as a result. This is exactly what the prophets revealed happened. God therefore contends with Israel for defiling the good land that he brought his people to (Jer. 2:7). The result of Israel’s defilement of the land, Ezekiel observed, was judgment and exile (Eze. 36:17-19).

When Ezra referred to the “abominations that have filled the land from end to end,” he is still referring to Leviticus 18, which speaks of the abominations of the people of the land (18:26, 27, 29). Sadly both the former and the latter prophets repeatedly refer to Israel also perpetuating these abominations (1 Kings 14:24; 2 Kings 16:3; 21:2, 11; Jer. 7:10; 16:18; 44:22; Eze. 7:20). But Israel was worse than the nations: “Not only did you walk in their ways and do according to their abominations within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways.” Indeed, Israel too filled the land, “from end to end” with abominations (2 Kings 10:21; 21:16).

It was for this very reason that God commanded the Israelites to “not give your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons” (Ezra 9:12, quoting Deut. 7:3).

Ezra then alluded to Deuteronomy 23:6 when he said, “never seek their peace or prosperity.” This is the passage that excludes the Ammonites and Moabites from the assembly of Israel. Of course, if one married into these nations, one would seek their peace and prosperity. That was one of the reasons leaders contracted marriages with people of other nations in ancient times.

Ezra then observed in his prayer that obedience to this command will result in the Israelites “being strong and eating the good of the land.” This is an allusion to Deuteronomy 11:8 and Isaiah 1:19. In Deuteronomy, Moses said, “You shall therefore keep the whole commandment that I command you today, that you may be strong and go in and take possession of the land that you are going over to possess, and that you may live long in the land” (Deut. 11:8-9). In Isaiah 1:19, Yhwh said, “If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land.”

When David charged Israel before his death, he commanded them to “observe and seek out all the commandments of Yhwh your God, that you may possess this good land and leave it for an inheritance to your children after you forever” (1 Chron. 28:8).

Ezra 9:11-12 reveals Ezra to be a Bible-saturated man. When he prayed, applicable words and phrases from all over the Old Testament Scriptures, came to his lips, and he was able to pray them in the sight of all the people. These verses, however, also imply that if Israel was going to go down the path of disobedience once again, they would once again face exile from the land.

Ezra’s recitation of what God commanded, contained allusions to Israel’s past disobedience, as recorded in Scripture. With this in mind, he confessed that, even considering all of judgments Israel had received, the punishment was less than was deserved (9:13). Given God’s grace, how can Israel then turn and “break your commandments again and intermarry with the peoples who practice these abominations?” (9:14). He could only ask, “Would you not be angry with us until you consumed us, so that there should be no remnant, nor any to escape?” (9:14).

At this point Ezra could only confess that God is just and that they cannot stand before him in their guilt (9:15). There was no plea for mercy. How could there be? The people had not yet repented. Ezra left them standing before a just God in their guilt. They must repent or face the wrath of God. The grace that God has shown in the past now made their sin worse than ever. But it also implied that there may be hope for the future.

Ezra 7:11-8:36

by

This section of the book is about God’s providential work of returning additional Jews to Jerusalem. The opposition to the temple and to the true worship of God recounted in the previous chapters has given way to strong Persian support for the temple and for the worship of God according to his Law. The combination of strong providential support from the Persian king and the emphasis on the law of God transitions the reader’s focus from the external threats to the internal threats to true worship.

God’s Providential Working

The letter from Artaxerxes to Ezra stands in contrast with the opposition recounted in chapter 4. T In that chapter the opponents of the Jews had told Artaxerxes that Jerusalem was a rebellious city and that the fortification of Jerusalem would lead to lost revenue (because Judah would no longer pay tribute) and to loss of control over the province Beyond the River (4:12-13, 16). Artaxerxes believed these claims and ordered that Jerusalem not be rebuilt, even telling the Jewish opponents to “take care not to be slack in this matter” (4:21-22).

The timing of this opposition within the reign of Artaxerxes is unknown since the correspondence between Artaxerxes and the opponents of the Jews, Rehum and Shimshai, is not dated. However, it is possible that it occurred subsequent to the return that Ezra is narrating in chapters 7-8.

The Egyptians rebelled against Artaxerxes in 461 BC and were not subdued for another decade. Ezra, returning in 458 BC would have come to Jerusalem toward the beginning of this period. This may provide the context for Artaxerxes generosity toward the beautification of the temple. He may have wanted the subjects of that region to be pleased with the Persians. He also wanted the Jewish God, whom he probably thought of as a regional god, to not be angry with him (7:23). However, the building of the city walls during the Egyptian rebellion, the war with the Greeks that followed (the Athenians had fought alongside the Egyptians in their rebellion), or later rebellion of Megabyzus would not have been viewed favorably by Artaxerxes. (On the historical background, see Yamauchi 1984:570-71; Steinmann, 2910: 27-29.)

Nehemiah 1:3-4 likely implies that Nehemiah heard fresh news about the breaking down of Jerusalem’s walls and the burning of its gates (Steinmann 2010: 388-39). It may be that Nehemiah 1 records his reaction to the forceful end of the wall-building described in Ezra 4:23. If that is the case, then the favorable letter Ezra received from Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:12-26) preceded the opposition recorded in chapter 4 by thirteen years.

The literary effect is to move the reader’s focus from opposition to favor. This should not be seen as in any way deceptive on Ezra’s part. It may be that the book was written under the shadow of opposition and that by condensing the description of opposition into a single thematic section of the book followed by accounts of God’s providential work in the Persian leaders, Ezra was directing his original readers to hope for God future providential working in their present situation.

In any event, the generosity of Artaxerxes in this letter is notable. Any Israelite who wished to return to the land with Ezekiel was permitted to do so (7:14). The king and court provided Ezra with silver and gold for the temple and its worship (7:15-17). The wealth provided is portrayed as being more abundant than actually needed (7:18). In addition, the province Beyond the River was to provide additional funds (7:22). Herodotus records that the tribute taken in by the provincial government was 350 talents, so to allow Ezra up to 100 talents along with wheat, wine, oil, and salt is exceedingly generous (Herodotus, The Histories, 3.91; Shepherd 2018: 33). In addition, Ezra is given several blank checks: “whatever else is required for the house of your God, which it falls to you to provide, you may provide it out of the kings treasury” (7:20); “whatever is decreed by the God of heaven, let it be done in full for the house of the God of heaven” (7:23).

Not only did Darius lavish gifts on Ezra and the temple, he also prohibited levying tribute on anyone who served in the temple worship—from priests to servants (7:24).

This was not a special exemption for the Jewish temple alone but a Persian policy. “Darius I made specific mention of a long-standing royal policy in these matters in the course of a rebuke to one of his officials in Asia Minor” (Kidner 1979: 22). In that case, Darius corrected officials who imposed tribute on those who officially served in the worship of Apollo (Kidner 1979: 72; Breneman 1993: 135). However, the fact that this policy was not uniquely aimed at Israel does not diminish in the least the idea that God was providentially showing special favor on Israel through Artaxerxes’s decree. God uses empire-wide policies to benefit his people.

Artaxerxes had both political and religious motives for his generosity. As Kidner observes, “religion and politics were inseparable” at this period (Kidner 1979: 71). A king under pressure may have truly desired all of the gods of his empire to favor him (cf. Breneman 1993: 135).

Ezra, however, saw the hand of God behind the actions of the king. He responded to the letter of Artaxerxes with praise to Yhwh for moving the king’s heart to beautify the temple.

A final example of God’s providence in these chapters is the safe transport of all of this wealth from Babylonia to Jerusalem without military protection (8:31). Ezra specifically did not request an escort because he was concerned that doing so would communicate to the king that God could not protect them—as they had clearly communicated to the king (8:22; Steinmann 2010: 312).

Ezra 8:22 does not imply that it would always be wrong for God’s people to accept a military escort when traveling. God uses means, and his people are right to avail themselves of those means, as Nehemiah did when he accepted military protection (2:9; Steinmann 2010: 313). However, God’s people often give up what they could rightfully claim to promote the name of God and his interests in the world (1 Cor. 9:1-12).

God’s providential work on behalf of his people is emphasized in Ezra 7-8 by the repeated use of the phrase “for the hand of Yhwh his God was on him” (with variants). The phrase is first used in the introductory verses of chapter 7 with the summary statement: “the king granted [Ezra] all that he asked, for the hand of Yhwh his God was on him” (7:6). This was something that Ezra had told Artaxerxes: “The hand of our God is for good on all who seek him and the power of his wrath is against all who forsake him” (8:22). In his response to Artaxerxes’s letter, Ezra said, “I took courage, for the hand of Yhwh my God was on me” (7:28). In response to finding Levites to accompany them back to Jerusalem, Ezra wrote, “by the good hand of our God on us, they brought us a man of discretion” (8:18). In describing the journey, Ezra wrote, “The hand of our God was on us, and he delivered us from the and of the enemy and from ambushes on the way” (8:31). Ezra’s safe arrival in Jerusalem, which is recorded at the beginning of this section to emphasize God’s faithfulness, is noted with the observation “he came to Jerusalem, for the good hand of his God was on him” (7:9).

The repetition is meant to drive home that Yhwh was providentially at work in Ezra’s return.

For Continued Return from Exile (Second Exodus)

The return to the land from captivity continues to be portrayed as a second exodus. The great wealth that the king of Persia provides for Ezra recalls the spoiling of the Egyptians (Throntveit 1992: 45).

Artaxerxes also commissioned Ezra to “appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province Beyond the River” (7:25). This also puts Ezra in the role of a second Moses, for Moses did this task in the first exodus (Ex. 18:13-27) (Throntveit 1992: 45). This harmonizes with the emphasis in these chapters on Ezra teaching the law of Moses to the people.

The fact that Ezra was returning to the land to further the worship of God (an emphasis in Artaxerxes’s letter, 7:15-20) also points back to the original exodus (Throntveit 1992:45-46). God wanted Pharaoh to let the people go so that they could properly worship God. In this, and in the provision of wealth, Artaxerxes acted as a kind of anti-Pharaoh. God used a “strong hand” with Pharaoh (Ex. 6:1; 13:3, 9, 14) by hardening his heart so that God could display his power to the nations. With Artaxerxes the hand of God is still the decisive factor, but it is used to soften the heart of the king, not harden it.

The fact that Ezra took courage to lead the people to go up to the land (7:28) may be an allusion to Joshua 1, in which God told Joshua to “Be strong and courageous” (the word translated strong in Joshua 1:6, 7, 9 being the same word translated courage in Ezra 7:28). The three days camped beside the river of Ahava as well as a three-day pause after arriving is also thought by some to evoke Joshua’s camping three days by the Jordan before entering the land (7:15, 32; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 36-37, 39). This is possible, but less clear than some of the other parallels.

The returnees themselves are once again described in such a way as to represent the return of the whole nation. After noting representatives from two priestly families and a Davidic descendant, Ezra lists twelve families, which mirror the number of the tribes of Israel (Throntviet 1992: 45; Steinmann 2010: 281).

Ezra contains numerous allusions back to the book of Numbers. The word for camping occurs repeatedly in that book, and its mention in Ezra 8:15 may be a subtle allusion (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 36-37).

The need for Levites on the journey back may have also been necessitated by Ezra’s purposeful attempt to evoke the exodus journey since there were already Levites in Jerusalem serving in the temple (Williamson 1985: 116). In Numbers the Levites, along with the priests, had the responsibility of caring for the transport of temple things, as they do also in Ezra’s return journey (8:30) (Williamson 1985: 118).

The date on which Ezra led the people to depart, the twelfth day of the first month, also bears exodus symbolism. Passover was on the tenth day of the month. The Israelites left Egypt on the eleventh day. Ezra leaves for Israel on the twelfth day (Levering 2007: 95).

Also closely connected with the exodus was the giving of the Law. If Israel lived according to the Law, God promised that it would dwell in the land. Now as the people return to the land, adherence to the Law is again emphasized.

For Life under God’s Law

These chapters in Ezra stress that the point of return is not merely the physical return of the people to the land or the physical building and beautifying of the temple. The point of returning to the land is to live under God’s Law.

Ezra 7:1-10 emphasize Ezra’s role as a “scribe skilled in the Law of Moses” and committed to “study,” “do,” and “teach” the law. Verse 11 reinforces this characterization. Ezra is “the priest, the scribe, a man learned in matters of the commandments Yhwh and his statutes for Israel.” Whenever Artaxerxes refers to Ezra by name in the letter that he gave him, Ezra is identified as “the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of heaven” (7:12, 21). (Recall that priests had the duty of teaching the Law of God.) When Artaxerxes directly addresses Ezra in the letter, he does so in relation to Ezra’s possession of the wisdom of God (found in the Law).

These descriptions are not mere formalities. They describe the traits necessary for Ezra to be able to carry out the mission that Artaxerxes has in mind for Ezra. The king wanted Ezra to “make inquiries about Judah and Jerusalem according the Law of your God, which is in your hand” (7:14). This could possibly be translated “to be superintended over Judah and Jerusalem according to the Law of your God, which is in your hand (cf. Steinmann 2010: 293).

According to Steinmann, “Steiner makes a strong case that the Pael (D) of בָּקַר with the preposition עַל in the sense of “over” means “to exercise the office of overseer over” people (here, those in Yehud). The Aramaic expression is analogous to the Greek office of ἐπίσκοπος, ‘overseer, superintendent’” (Steinmann 2010: 293).

In either case, Artaxerxes wanted Ezra to align Judah and Jerusalem with the law of God. He closed the letter by telling Ezra to appoint magistrates and judges who knew the law of God, to teach the law of God to those magistrates and judges who did not know it (7:25). Ezra was then authorized to bring punishment on those Jews who did not obey God’s laws (or the king’s): death, banishment, confiscation of property, and imprisonment are all mentioned as possible punishments (7:27).

Note that there is a parallel between the wisdom of God and the law of God in 7:14, 24 (Kidner 1979: 72). Shepherd notes, “Such an equation is anticipated already in Deut 4:6, which also provides a precedent (1:16–17; 17:8–13) for the appointing of judges (שָׁפְטִין/šāpəṭîn; Ezra 7:25; cf. Deut 16:18)” (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 34

The emphasis on the law in these chapters is tied to Ezra’s interest in moral purity. It may be that the mention of Phinehas should evoke the actions of Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron who averted God’s wrath by killing and Israelite man and Moabite woman in the act of intercourse. The context for Phineas’s actions were the efforts of Moabite women to lead the Israelite men into idolatry—a foreshadowing of the problem of intermarriage in chapters 9-10 (Levering 2007: 89-90).

Likewise the presence of the Levites traveling back with the temple vessels may have evoked the responsibility of the Levites to guard the purity of the tabernacle and its furniture (Levering 2007: 92). The holiness of the vessels, the silver and gold dedicated to the temple, and the priests who are transporting it is emphasized by Ezra (8:28). Indeed, Ezra’s confidence that the Lord’s hand was on them for good was tied to the fact they sought the Lord and did not forsake him (8:22). Though Ezra did not make the link with obedience to the law versus forsaking God’s law explicit, it is implicit.

Praise and Prayer

Ezra sought God in his Word, but the Word and prayer are closely linked in Scripture. After Artaxerxes’s letter, Ezra prayed a prayer of praise to God for his providential work on their behalf. Before setting out on the journey Ezra proclaimed a fast and prayed for a safe journey. When the people arrived, they offered sacrifices to God.

Ordering Loves

by

There does seem to be a Scriptural basis ordering of loves:

God should have priority in our loves above everybody else (Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 19:27). The command to love him precedes the command to love our neighbor. We ought to love our neighbor because he is made in God’s image. Indeed, one must give God priority over one’s highest loves: one’s own life, father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters (Ex. 32:25-29; Dt. 13:6-10; 33:8-9).

The neighbor that we are obligated to love should be understood expansively to include all people (Luke 10:29-37). And yet, there is within that category an ordering of loves. Paul says, “as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone,” but he introduces an order when he says, “especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). Similarly Paul taught that Christians are to be honest with other Christians “for we are members one of another” (Eph. 4:25). This does not mean that Christians may lie to unbelievers, but there are additional reasons for not lying to other Christians (see S. M. Baugh, Ephesians, EEC, 390-91).

The priority given to love of family is taught when Paul says,” If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim. 5:8).” Likewise, the command for children to honor their father and mother sets the father and mother apart in terms of the children’s priority of loves (Ex. 20:12; Dt. 5:6; Eph. 6:1-2). The leaving of father and mother and cleaving to one’s wife show the priority that spouses have in the ordering of loves (Gen. 2:24).

Thus, after God one’s spouse, children, and parents–followed by other relatives–have a priority in one’s love. But the natural family at times ought to give way to the family created by union with Christ, such as when Jesus identifies as his mother and brothers “those who hear the word of God and do it (Luke 8:21).

Most people also recognize the importance of proximity in helping others. The good Samaritan helped the he came across in his path.

Note also that the ordering of loves does not contravene the command to love all men, because Christians are to love even their enemies (Matt. 5:44-45). Furthermore, the Christian may not give preference to the rich over the poor, or give preference to those whom they think might in turn benefit them (James 2:1; Jude 16). That would be a wrong ordering of loves.

Sources: Peter Lombard, Sentences bk. 3, dist. 29; Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Bk. 3, Dist. 29, art. 6; Godefridus Udemans, The Practice of True Faith, Hope, and Love, Classics of Reformed Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2012), Kindle loc 451; Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, ed. Joel R. Beeke,   trans. Bartel Elshout (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage1995), 4:54.

Ezra 7:1-10

by

Chapter 7 marks the beginning of the second half of the book of Ezra. Chronologically the book moves forward to the reign of Artaxerxes. Topically, the book turns to focus on the internal needs of the Israelites rather than on external opposition.

The book of Esther took place in the time period between the end of Ezra 6 and the beginning of Ezra 7.

Return from Exile as a Second Exodus

Though Ezra 8:31 gives the actual departure date as the twelfth day of the first month, 7:9 highlights that preparations for departure began on the first day of the first month. Since that was the day Israel left Egypt in the first exodus (Ex. 12:2; Num. 33:3; cf. Isa. 11:11.16), Ezra may have been making a connection between his return and the exodus (Williamson 1985: 93; Breneman 1993: 129; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 31).

Some read this verse as stating that Ezra began his journey on this date but was delayed so that he actually left on the twelfth. Steinmann, however, argues for the translation “it was the foundation of the ascent from Babylon” (Steinmann 2010: 285). In other words, this date marks the beginning of a preparatory stage of the journey.

In the first exodus, God led the people out of Egypt, had them build the tabernacle, gave them the law, and led them into the land. This same combination of temple, land, and law is at work in Ezra as well. The first part of the book recounted the rebuilding of the temple in connection with the people’s return to the land. But true temple worship and true life in the land requires the law as well. Levering notes that “for the land to be what it truly is, it requires not merely the temple but the indwelling of God. This indwelling is impossible unless the people are holy” (Levering 2007: 81). This is the whole point of Exodus 33:3-4. The position of the land without the presence of God is of no value. This is also the point of Ezekiel 10. The existence of a temple structure is of no value if God is not present.

A purpose of the law was to instruct the people in how to be holy before a holy God. Just as Moses brought the law to the people in the first exodus, so Ezra in this second exodus instructs the people in the law of Moses (Kidner 1979: 70; Levering 20007: 88).

In both the first and the second exodus the hand of God was at work. God’s mighty hand compelled Pharaoh to let the Israelites go (Ex. 3:19; 6:1; 7:4-5; 13:9), and in Ezra’s day the hand of Yhwh led Artaxerxes to give to Ezra all that he asked for with regard to the journey to the land (Levering 2007: 88).

God’s Providential Work

The repetition of “the hand of Yhwh his God was on him” (7:6) and “the good hand of his God was on him (7:9) in Ezra 7:1-10 highlights also God’s providential working on behalf of his people. In verse 6 the hand of God being on Ezra explains why the “king granted him all that he asked.” Though what Ezra asked for has not yet been related, the reader already knows it will be granted.

In verse 9 the hand of God on Ezra explains why they arrived safely in Jerusalem. Brown (2005a: 47-48) notes that account could have been structured to build suspense by delaying the outcome of Ezra’s journey to chapter 8. This is especially the case since 8:21-23 indicates that there was some anxiety about their safety in the journey. However, 7:8 records the date that Ezra arrived at Jerusalem prior to providing the date when he prepared to leave.

Ezra … deliberately undermined his story’s potential for suspense in favor of a temporal strategy that supports his theological purpose. … At least nine times throughout this episode Ezra inserted narrative references to God’s personal activity. Whereas magnified narrative suspense would have provided an opportunity to focus on faith, Ezra’s minimal suspense maximizes the reader’s awareness of God’s prevenient grace at work on behalf of His people (Brown 2005a: 48).

Ezra the Priest

Chapter 7 opens with a lengthy recitation of Ezra’s genealogy. He stands in the line of priests that extends back to Aaron. As is common in biblical genealogies, the list is not comprehensive.

Ezra is said to be the “son of Seraiah,” who was the grandfather of Joshua the son of Jozadak. The generations between Ezra and Seriah have been omitted. (Son in the Old Testament does not always refer to a direct descendant of a father but can indicate more distant descent as well.) The generations after Seraiah may have been omitted because though Seraiah was a high priest, Ezra was not. He came from a different line of descent from Seraiah than Joshua (KD 4:59-60).

Comparison with 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 reveals that six names between Azariah and Meraioth have been omitted as well. Some think that this was due to a scribal error (Williamson 1985: 93; Steinmann 2010: 286-87). However, there is no textual evidence that these names were ever included. Since biblical genealogies often omit some generations, it is better to conclude that these names were not initially included (KD 4:60; Steveson 2011: 61).

The point of the lengthy genealogy is to highlight Ezra’s importance (Breneman 1993:126) and to link him to the time of Moses and the initial establishment of the priesthood (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 30-31). Ezra remains concerned to establish continuity between the returnees and their forebears.

Notably, Ezra is not described as carrying out the cultic duties of the priests, though this should not cause readers to think that he was uninvolved in the temple or sacrificial system. However, the priests were also to teach the law to the people (McConville 1985: 46; Steinmann 2010: 288). Thus Ezra’s role as a scribe and teacher of the law is tightly connected with his responsibilities as a priest.

Deuteronomy 31:9-13 links the priestly instruction in the law to the Feast of Booths. See Nehemiah 8 which links Ezra’s instruction of the people with the Feast of Booths.

Ezra 5: Three Worship Events

by

This section of Ezra closes with a series of worship events: the dedication of the house of God, the Passover, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

The dedication of the temple testified to the already/not yet nature of the return from exile. The dedication offering is made for “all Israel.” This is symbolized by having one goat sacrificed for each of the twelve tribes (6:17) (Steinmann 2010: 190; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 28). Nonetheless, it is only a remnant that has gathered to dedicate the rebuilt temple. The number of animals sacrificed was small compared to what Solomon offered at the dedication of the first temple (1 Kings 8:5, 63; cf. 2 Chon. 30:24; 35:7 )(Steinmann 2010: 271).

Ezra is careful to point out that the priests and their divisions are set up according to the Book of Moses. This may be a reference to Numbers 18 (cf. 1 Chron 23-26) (Steinmann 2010: 271).

The following portrayal of Passover may also draw on Numbers. Shepherd observes, “[T]he insistence on the purity of the Levites in Ezra’s account (טָהוֹר/ṭāhôr; 6:20) resonates specifically with the extensive instructions for the cleansing (טִהַר/ṭihar) of the Levites in Num 8:6–26.” Furthermore, Numbers 9:14 emphasizes that sojourners needed to be purified according to the law in order to participate. “Finally, the specific sequence of the (re)dedication by the tribal leaders (Ezra 6:17; Num 7), purification of the Levites (Ezra 6:20a; Num 8), and celebration of the Passover (Ezra 6:20b–21; Num 9) that appears in both Ezra and Numbers seems unlikely to be accidental” (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 29).

Passover is a fitting feast for Ezra to record since it celebrates the Exodus from Egypt, and it is here “eaten by the people of Israel who had returned from exile” (6:21). Notably, it was also eaten “by everyone who had joined them and separated himself from the uncleanness of the peoples of the land.” The people who came up in the Exodus were not all Israelites by descent; some were Egyptian. God’s intention has always been for Israel to bring the other nations to God. Similarly, the prophets predicted that in the second exodus, the nations would come to worship God in Jerusalem. There is an anticipation of the fulfillment of those prophecies here.

Notably, the problem with the peoples of the land is not their ethnicity but their religious uncleanness. People of all ethnicities are invited to worship Yhwh with the Israelites if they will purify themselves from uncleanness.

It is also fitting that this section of Ezra, focused on the rebuilding of the temple, closes with an emphasis on joyful worship. The purpose of the temple is for worship. The last verse of chapter 6 brings in this fulfillment of the chief end of man—worshipping God with joy—with the other themes of the section: God’s providential working through the Persian kings to bring about the construction of the House of the God of Israel.

Darius is here called “king of Assyria,” which is an odd title for a Persian king. But the exile began under Assyria. Assyria was conquered by Babylon, and Babylon by Persia. Thus through conquest, the Persian king could be seen as the Assyrian king. This title is probably used to signify the end of the exile from the Assyrians (cf. Brenneman 1993: 122-23).

Steinmann on Genesis in Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

by

Andrew Steinmann’s commentary on Genesis just released today, replacing Derek Kidner’s contribution in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. While Kidner is a classic, Steinmann is one of my favorite current Old Testament commentators. Based on the Look Inside the Book feature, I can see that he clearly defends the Mosaic authorship of Genesis, operates with an early date for the exodus, and defends the days of creation as actual days (in distinction from a framework/analogical day approach).

Ezra 5: Search of the Royal Archives and Darius’s Decree

by

Search of the Royal Archives

Tattenai’s recommendation to Darius was to search the royal archives in Babylon for the decree of Cyrus that the Jewish leaders mentioned (5:17). Darius does decree for the search of the archives to be made, and a memorandum describing the decree was found in Ecbatana, which was where the Persian kings resided in the summer” (6:1-2; Williamson 1985: 80).

These are the kinds of details that a writer who was fabricating an account at a much later date would not get right. They attest the genuineness of the account (Williamson 1985: 80; Steinmann 2010: 266).

Ezra 6:3-5 presents the memorandum of Cyrus’s decree which was found in Ecbatana. The Jewish leaders said that Cyrus decreed the rebuilding of the temple and that he sent back the temple vessels to be placed in the rebuilt temple. The memorandum confirms these points (Breneman 1993: 115; Steinmann 2010: 268). However, it adds some additional material, most notably that cost of the building project would be paid from the royal treasury (6:4). This is an example of potential opposition being providentially redirected to support.

Darius’s Decree

Darius fully supported Cyrus’s decree. He ordered that Tattenai not interfere with the project but instead pay for the cost of rebuilding—and for the cost of the sacrificial animals. He further requests for prayers to be made on behalf of himself and his sons. This seems to reflect the Persian policy of aligning with all of the gods of the conquered peoples.

The details regarding sacrifices are correct in Darius’s decree, which probably indicates that Darius made use of Jews to write the decree. Steinmann says that this reflects the “standard Persian practice of consulting religious authorities (in this case, Judeans) to ensure that worship practices of a particular religion were followed correctly” (Steinmann 2010: 269; cf. Kidner 1979: 64).

The decree is backed up with provisions for enforcement. Kidner notes that “[t]here was poetic justice intended in making a man’s own house his instrument of execution for tampering with the house of God (Kidner 1979: 64). Notably, Darius recognizes that God has caused his name to dwell in Jerusalem. God himself, Darius recognizes, will ensure that the decree to carry out the rebuilding of the temple will be carried out.

Conclusion: Tying up Narrative Threads

Verses 13-15 bring to an initial resolution the part of the narrative begun in 5:1 by tying together the various narrative threads. Tatttenai and his associates are diligent to carry out Darius’s decree. The elders of the Jews, with the support of the prophets. And the building is finished according to the decree of God and of the Persian kings. The decree of the kings comes from the decree of God (Steinmann 2010: 269-70; Brown 2005a: 43).

The mention of Artaxerxes in the list of kings is a bit odd since Artaxerxes reigned after the temple had been completed. Since Artaxerxes contributed to the beautifying of the temple (Ezra 7:29; cf. 7:15-24), Ezra includes him in the list (Williamson 1985: 84). Brown notes, “Ezra’s use of anachrony signals that thematic development is again overriding chronological presentation. The inclusion of Artaxerxes’ name in 6:14 brings into one compass all the Persian kings who contributed to the temple—from initial rebuilding to final beautification—and unites the entire preceding narrative around one of the narrative’s theological centerpoints: Yahweh’s sovereign control of history” (Brown 2005a: 42-43).

Ezra recorded that the temple was completed in the sixth year of Darius’s reign. Though Ezra does not himself make the connection to the seventy years’ prophecy (just as he did not in Ezra 1 make explicit mention of that prophecy), the date enables the diligent reader to make the connection. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple in 586 BC, and the Second Temple was dedicated in 516 BC.

OneNote rated Best Note-Taking App

by

The Verge rated OneNote as the best note-taking app for most people. Interestingly, its only complaints were features that I find essential to my use of the program:

I find its interface a little overwrought: your notes are kept in “pages,” which are nested into “sections,” which are then nested into multiple “notebooks” (and you can even have subpages nested within your pages). The extra layers of organization are the most infuriating things about OneNote. The second most infuriating thing is that it treats each page like a “canvas” where text is just one of many possible elements — which is great in theory, but in practice sometimes makes for a weird interface where you end up typing in an extraneous text box.

If you’re not annoyed to death by those interface issues, you’ll find OneNote to be fast, reliable, and powerful.

However, it is the nesting feature that allows me to have notebooks on the Bible, Biblical Theology, Systematic Theology, etc. with sections and pages that cover the books and chapters of the Bible or the loci of Systematic Theology and their doctrines. I’ve not found other note-taking apps to allow for this kind of organization.

The canvas feature is not quite as essential to my note-taking. But especially on work projects, I make use of it to organize material that I want to keep distinct, but still want to gather on a single page.

Ezra 5: Temple Building Resumed

by

Ezra 5-6 forms a cohesive unit that concludes the first part of the book of Ezra. Chapter 4, after the recitation of various kinds of opposition, ended with the observation “work on the house of God that is in Jerusalem stopped, and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

The Prophets

In the second year of Darius, God raised up the prophets Haggai and Zechariah to stir up the people to begin work on the temple once more. The prophets exercised divine authority because they speak “in the name of the God of Israel who was over them” (5:1).

The pronoun in the phrase “over them” could refer to either the prophets or the people. Brenneman notes, “it would seem best to apply the phrase to the Jews because the whole community was subject to God’s will” (Breneman 1993: 107), but whatever the referent, the phrase communicates God’s authority is conveyed in the prophetic message (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 24-25; Kidner 1979: 60).

Ezra does not reveal in his narrative that part of the problem lay with the people themselves. But the book of Haggai reveals that the people had developed excuses for avoiding continued work on the temple. They had even come under the curses of the Mosaic covenant (cf. Hag. 1:5-11 and Deut. 28:16-18, 22-24). Both Joshua and Zerubbabel seemed to need prophetic encouragement that God was with them in the rebuilding endeavor (see Hag. 2 and Zech. 4:11-14; 6:11-15). Furthermore, they all needed to be encouraged to not despise the day of small things (Zech. 4:10; cf. Hag. 2:1-9).

Zerubbabel and Joshua were responsive to the prophets’ preaching, and they lead the people in beginning again to rebuild the temple.

Tattenai’s Inquiry

However, as soon as the building project was restarted, the people encountered another challenge. Tattenai, the governor of the province Beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai (presumably Tattenai’s secretary or assistant), and others with them came to investigate. While Zerubbabel was governor over the region of Judah, Tattenai was governor over the larger province Beyond the River, and thus held a higher position than Zerubbabel.

Tattenai did not seem to be fundamentally opposed to the rebuilding of the temple, as the peoples of the land were (Williamson 1985: 76; Steinmann 2010: 263; Steveson 2011: 53). But he did believe that it was his responsibility to confirm that the Jews did have permission to rebuild the temple. The fact that Persian officials had put a stop to the rebuilding during the reign of Cyrus at least cast some uncertainty about whether the project would be permitted to go forward. The request for names may also have struck the Jews as ominous. If the Persian response was unfavorable, what would be done with the names (Kidner 1979: 61)?

While the Jews would have remained in suspense during the months in which Tattenai’s inquiry took place, Ezra records a fact that signals the outcome and which should have encouraged the Jews. Tattenai did not prevent the Jews from continuing to rebuild the temple while he waited for a response from Darius (KD, 49; Breneman 1993: 109).

Ezra’s explanation is that “the eye of their God was on the elders of the Jews” (5:4). Notably, when Solomon dedicated the first temple, God told Solomon, “My eyes and my heart will be there for all time” (2 Chron. 7:16; cf. Shepherd and Wright 2018: 25). However, if the people turned away from God’s commandments, God said, “this house that I have consecrated for my name, I will cast out of my sight, and I will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples” (2 Chron. 7:20). That judgment had happened, but it could not be the final word because of the previous promise that God’s eyes would be on the temple for all time. So God’s eye on the Jewish leaders who were rebuilding the temple was a sign that they were moving out of judgment and being restored to blessing. This is precisely what Jeremiah prophesied: “Thus says Yhwh, the God of Israel: Like these good figs, so I will regard as good the exiles from Judah…. I will set my eyes on them for good, and I will bring them back to this land” (Jer. 24:5-6; cf. Shepherd and Wright 2018: 25).

Examples of Opposition

by

Ezra 4:5 brings the reader up to the point at which the temple is rebuilt in the second year of the reign of Darius (cf. 4:24). However, verse 6 moves thirty-five years after the temple rebuilding to the reign of Xerxes (cf. Brown 2005a: 39-40). Thus verses 6-23 recount the opposition that the Jews continued to face after the temple. The text brings the reader into the reign of Artaxerxes. In verse 24, the narrative reverts to the time of Darius’s second year and the finishing of the temple’s construction.

Older commentators, like Matthew Henry, identified Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:6, 7 with Cambyses  (Henry 1991: 618; cf. Josephus, Ant. 11.2.1-2). But there is no evidence that אחשׁורושׁ or ארתחשׁשׂתא refer to Cambyses while these are the Aramaic names for Xerxes and Artaxerxes (Brown 2005b: 183-87; cf. Williamson 1985: 57).

Steinmann agrees with other modern commentators that chapter 4 does not present a chronological account, and he offers a proposal for why the chronology is disrupted. He holds that the entire Aramaic section from 4:8 to 6:18 is a document prepared by Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and others, possibly at the behest of Nehemiah, to persuade Artaxerxes to allow for the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. This document was written so that the most recent events were recorded first and then moves backward in time. Though not written by Jews (cf. 5:5, which refers to “their God” and note the fact that the name Yhwh does not appear in the Aramaic section), it was written to favor their cause (Steinmann 2010: 201-2). In this document the entire city of Jerusalem is understood to be the house of God; thus the whole city, not just the temple proper ought to be rebuilt (Steinmann 2010: 248).

In response, it is not clear that this section forms an argument for the rebuilding of the walls. The verses relating to wall building focus on opposition, and there is a significant difference between rebuilding a temple and rebuilding city walls (Williamson 1985: 59; cf. Fensham 1982: 71). Most significantly, verse 24 appears to be a “repetitive resumption.” That is, words from 4:5 are repeated in 4:24 to bracket the intervening verses (Williamson 1996: 45; cf. Kidner 1979: 59; McConville 1985: 25). Since the resumption connects to text that precedes the Aramaic section, Steinmann’s theory that 4:8-6:18 is self-contained is not possible.

Ezra looked ahead at this point to the opposition to rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls for multiple reasons. First, this digression highlights the depth of opposition that the Jews faced. Lest anyone wonder if the Jewish leaders simply brought opposition upon themselves for spurning an offer of help, this digression demonstrates the depth of opposition. It lasted long after the temple was rebuilt. It reveals that these adversaries are going to relentlessly oppose the Jews at every turn. The Jewish leadership was right to avoid the trap of their adversaries’ offer (cf. Williamson 1985: 57; McConville 1985: 26).

On a literary level, this digression delays the resolution of the problem of halted temple construction. This narrative delay combined with the greater insight the digression gives to the depth of opposition only heightens the reader’s sense of the significance of Israel’s triumph in rebuilding the temple (Kidner 1979: 53-54; Brown 2005b: 40-41).

Finally, Ezra lived through the period being recounted in this section of the book (he and those he led back to Jerusalem may be referred to in 4:12; Kidner 1979: 58; Levering 2007: 65, n. 4; cf. Williamson 1985: 63). If Ezra was written around the time of the conflict over the rebuilding of the walls (possibly writing before Nehemiah returned), then linking the current opposition to the wall-building with the failed opposition to the temple-building would encourage his original readers (cf. Brown 2005b: 41).

First Letter of Opposition

Ezra first recorded an unspecified accusation from the reign of Ahasuerus (also known as Xerxes; the king who added Esther to his harem). The letter was written “in the beginning of his reign,” which may indicate that it was written in 486 BC, the partial year prior to his first full year of reigning (Williamson 1985: 60). Williamson notes that “just prior to Xerxes’ accession Egypt rebelled against her Persian overlord, obliging Xerxes to pass through Palestine during 485 B.C.” (Williamson 1985: 60). This unrest lasted until 483 BC (Steinmann 2010: 224). The unrest in this region gave the adversaries of the Jews an opportunity to lodge an accusation against the Judeans and Jerusalemites.

Second Letter of Opposition

Verse 7 documents letter of opposition, written in the days of Artaxerxes by Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and others. Since the following verse lists different authors, verse 7 is probably refers to a distinct letter (Kidner 1979: 57; Williamson 1985: 61; McConville 1985: 27). The content of the letter is not specified.

The statement, “The letter was written in Aramaic and translated,” is difficult. Williamson suggests that it was probably translated into Hebrew (the primary language of the author of Ezra). But it was written with an Aramaic script, which was notable at the time since it was not yet common (Williamson 1985: 61; cf. Breneman 1993: 102).

Third Letter of Opposition

This third letter was written in Aramaic, and Ezra switched to Aramaic at this point to give the letter in its original language. Ezra first provides the senders’ designation of themselves. They identify themselves as deportees who were settled by the Assyrians in Israel. They were settled in the land at a later date from those mentioned in 2 Kings 17 or Ezra 4:2. They also claim a Persian heritage. Ashurbanipal (Osnappar) did conquer Elam and Susa in 642-643 BC (Williamson 1985: 62). These deportees were from that event. The fact that they were from Persia could incline Artaxerxes to credit their report.

Steinmann notes that many translations in 4:9 translate “the judges, the governors, the officials.” He argues against combining titles and ethnic designations: “Instead all the entries in this list ought to be understood as ethnic designations, as in the KJV and 2 Esdras 4:9. The Dinaites may be people from the city Dîn-šarru, near Susa, who were captured and brought to Ashurbanipal in Ashur and then probably resettled in yet other places. The origin of the Apharsathcites is unknown. The Tarpelites may be inhabitants of Tripoli in Syria” (Steinmann 2010: 238).

They accused Jews who had come from Artaxerxes of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem because they planned to rebel against Persia. This could be an accusation directed at Ezra and the those he led back to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:1-26; Kidner 1979: 58; Levering 2007: 65, n. 4; cf. Williamson 1985: 63), though the statement is not specific enough to be certain of anything other than that this predates Nehemiah (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 22).

The accusers suggested that a search of records would demonstrate that Jerusalem was destroyed because it had stirred up revolts and refused to pay tribute. This is a reference to pre-exilic Jerusalem. Toward the end of the Southern Kingdom, Judean kings did at times try to shake off their vassalage. Notably, Jeremiah warned the Judeans against rebelling in this way (Jer. 27-28). Their disobedience now brought about further difficulties.

This argument, however, is weak. Jerusalem was no longer the capital of an independent nation that was seeking to maintain its independence. The fact that the rebuilt Jerusalem never did rebel against Persia demonstrates the emptiness of the claim (Shepherd and Wright 2018: 23).

However, in the first part of Artaxerxes reign, the Egyptians rebelled (461 BC). The Persian general who defeated the Egyptians then rebelled against Artaxerxes in 449 BC. During this same time, the Persians were fighting the Greeks (Levering 2007: 66; Steinmann 2010: 246-47). Since Jerusalem was in proximity to these rebellions, the accusations resonated with Artaxerxes. He did not wish to deal with another rebellion, and the Persian empire at this time could not afford a reduction in revenue that would come if a portion of the empire broke away (McConville 1985: 28).

Though the accusation was weak on the merits, it was skillfully crafted to target areas that concerned Artaxerxes. Finding in the historical record that pre-exilic Jerusalem did rebel against its overlords, and recognizing that these overlords (the “mighty kings”) received financial benefit from a subdued Jerusalem, Artaxerxes ordered the wall building in Jerusalem to cease (Williamson 1985: 64; Shepherd and Wright 2018: 23).

Artaxerxes commanded that Rehum, Shimshai, and the others who wrote him “not be slack” in putting an end to the wall-building. They certainly had no desire to “be slack.” Indeed, they used force to make the Jews stop their building. They may have even damaged what had already been built (cf. Neh. 1:3; Steinmann 2010: 248).

Resumption

The “then” that begins verse 24 does not indicate that the work on the temple ceased subsequent to Artaxerxes’ decree since Darius clearly ruled before Artaxerxes. Verse 24 resumes the narrative line left off in verse 5 (Fensham 1982: 77).

Yamauchi observes that in the first two years of Darius’s reign he had to deal with rebellion. But once the rebellion was put down, he was willing for the temple to be rebuilt (Yamauchi 1988: 634).