Ezra-Nehemiah

Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching

Mark A. Throntveit

• Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781611641745
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

Studies in the books of Ezra-Nehemiah have tended to become bogged down with such questions as, "Who came first, Ezra or Nehemiah, and were they contemporaries? When did Ezra make his journey to Jerusalem, how many trips did he make, and which route did he take?" In this commentary, the author undertakes a theological reading which emphasizes its character as narrative and story. He avoids rearranging the text and, with the exception of chapter five of Nehemiah, he seeks to understand the narrative as it was received. In general, Mark Throntveit avoids an overly historical approach to the text and presents a clear picture of Ezra and Nehemiah.

PART ONE

Return and Reconstruction

EZRA 1:1—NEHEMIAH 7:3

Ezra–Nehemiah begins with an extended treatment of the formative days of the restoration period. In the perspective of these books, however, theology and not chronology forms the basis of the presentation. In its present form, the salient theological moments of the restoration period coincide with three parallel returns spanning nearly a century and separated by significant chronological gaps:

1. Sheshbazzar/Zerubbabel (538 B.C.; Ezra 1–6);
2. Ezra (458 B.C.; Ezra 7–10);
3. Nehemiah (445 B.C.; Nehemiah 1:1–7:3).

Each of these three returns culminates in a different project of reconstruction: respectively, the temple, the community, and the walls of Jerusalem. In addition, all three share a common progression in which an initial return under the divinely prompted authorization of the Persian crown (Ezra 1:1; 6:22; 7:6, 27f.; Neh. 1:11; 2:4, 8) is followed by nearly constant opposition to the reconstruction project and the overcoming of the opposition with God’s help.

Each of the three returns that structure this first part of Ezra–Nehemiah has been carefully crafted to proclaim that the postexilic community stands in strict continuity with its preexilic ancestors in an attempt to assure the reader that one can live a life of faith even when one is subjected to foreign rule.

Return Under Zerubbabel
and Reconstruction of Temple

EZRA 1–6

A number of earlier sources—the proclamation of Cyrus that enabled the return (1:2–4), the list of temple vessels (1:9–11a), the long list of those who had returned with Zerubbabel (2:1–67), two letters summarized in 4:6 and 7, and two additional sets of Aramaic correspondence between the community’s opponents (4:8–16; 5:6–17) and the Persian throne (4:1'7–22; 6:3–12) the latter including the official transcript of Cyrus’s proclamation in verses 3–5—are skillfully woven into the fabric of a narrative designed to accentuate the continuity between the present community and the past. This is done in a number of ways, the investigation of which will order the exposition.

Ezra 1–2

Continuity with the Past

That It Might Be Accomplished (1:1–4)

Something new had happened! In the past, God had frequently made use of foreign nations through the agency of their kings, but God’s purpose had always been to chastise Israel. The nations had become the rods of divine wrath (e.g., Isa. 5:26–30; 7:18–19; 10:5; Hos. 10:10; Amos 6:14; I Chron. 5:26; II Chron. 21:16). The Chronicler’s final example of this activity records the devastation that resulted in the Babylonian exile:

Therefore he [God] brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who killed their youths with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion on young man or young woman, the aged or the feeble; he [God] gave them all into his [the king’s] hand (II Chron. 36:17).

But now, when he “stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia” (1:1) with the positive intention of redemption that Israel might return to the land, God’s use of the nations encompassed a new purpose.

Seen against the backdrop of ancient history, there is little to commend the audacity of this claim. As the long inscription known to us from the Cyrus Cylinder makes plain, the Persian throne returned all the exiled communities in Babylon without distinction and covered the initial costs of the rebuilding of their sanctuaries, that “all gods which I have brought to their cities pray daily to Bel and Nabu for my length of days.” The motivation, at least in Cyrus’s opinion, was political. Whereas the Babylonians had attempted to quash rebellion and thereby solidify their position by deporting potential threats to their security, Cyrus and the Persians felt that as a matter of policy it was preferable to provide the subject peoples of the empire with a measure of self-determination and religious autonomy in the hope that this enlightened approach would instill feelings of loyalty.

Nevertheless, the audacious claim of the text remains. It was God who “stirred” Cyrus to make his monumental proclamation. The reason for God’s activity in this regard is also given: “that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished.” The specific prophecy referred to is Jeremiah 29:10:

For thus says the LORD: Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place.

Attempts to account for the seventy-year period have tended to obscure the emphasis on the return. Possibly the period of Jehoiakim’s exile (II Chron. 36:6) is to be included along with the primary period following the fall of Jerusalem in 587. A fairly exact correspondence would cover the period between the destruction of the temple in 587 and its completed restoration in 515 (cf. Zech. 1:12; 7:5). Be that as it may, the text is concerned with the return itself as the primary fulfillment of Jeremiah’s vision. As if to cement this emphasis, Ezra 1:1 conflates material from Second Isaiah that refers to God’s stirring up of Cyrus to overthrow Babylon and restore Israel in its presentation (41:2; 44:28; 45:1, 13; but notice this emphasis in Jer. 51.1 as well).

The importance of this textual claim lies in its intended effect upon the community. By insisting that the return be interpreted as the activity of the same God who had previously raised up Israel’s enemies for judgment, the overriding concern for continuity is preserved. The questions of the community regarding their place in God’s plan and God’s disposition toward them were decisively answered in such a way that restoration was enabled and encouraged. All the might and power of the ancient world was under the control of their God, and their God had chosen to place it at their disposal.

Thus, these few verses proclaim nothing less than the announcement of God’s gracious activity in fulfillment of the hopes and promises the great prophets of the exile had used to ease the pain of God’s judgment. They summon the restoration community to regard themselves as Israel reborn, recalled from the grave of doubt and despair to walk in the newness of this latest recreation of God’s people. God had not forgotten them. God had not been defeated by the gods of Babylon. God had been faithful to the promises all along. Even in the chastisement of the people during the seventy years of exile, divine grace is attested in God’s refusal to give them over to death. God was with them, in their midst, and at their head, leading them on to a second chance, a new opportunity to affirm their place in the great plan of redemption.

A Second Exodus (1:5–11)

Just as God had “stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia so that he sent a herald,” which enabled the return from Babylon (1:1), so now the people’s faithful response to that proclamation came from “everyone whose spirit God had stirred … to go up” (1:5). In reading these books of the postexilic restoration, so frequently characterized by an emphasis on Law, obedience, and narrow perspective, it is crucial to see that they begin with twin statements that affirm the gracious prompting of God as the motivational force behind both aspects of the return. The pattern will continue throughout the narrative. The second major section of the story, Ezra 7–10, will begin with God’s prompting of the Persian king to act benevolently toward Israel by granting Ezra “all that he asked, for the hand of the LORD his God was upon him” (7:6). Similarly, the third major section of the story, Nehemiah 1–7, will again express the conviction that God was responsible for the gracious support of the Persian throne when Nehemiah states, “the king granted me what I asked, for the gracious hand of my God was upon me” (Neh. 2:8).

To a community struggling with questions of the divine disposition, this proclamation offered security and assurance. Without this community response, initiated at God’s prompting, the edict of Cyrus would have had little effect. As it was, the response did not include all who were in Babylon. Many had learned to cope and even thrive in the environs of Mesopotamia and so were unwilling to pull up stakes and return to the impoverished conditions of Palestine. That the priestly families comprised a disproportionate ten percent of those who returned is a sobering testimony to the numbers who chose to stay behind. Especially ill-represented were the Levites who may have felt they had little to gain in a secondary role in the Jerusalem temple.

But this should not blind us to the faithful response of those who did set out courageously with Zerubbabel. Their faithful response to the stirring of God can serve as a reminder that there is no redemption without regeneration, and that God can and will work with what is available. Neither should we disparage those who stayed behind, even if for no other reason than that God’s primary instruments in the restoration, Ezra and Nehemiah, were both born and nurtured in the faith of families still living in Babylon long after Zerubbabel’s initial return.

Concerned as it is to foster an appreciation of the continuity between pre- and postexilic Israel, the text depicts the return from Babylon as a “second exodus.” In this depiction the reader is asked to make connections with the prophecy of Second Isaiah, who also spoke of the return in this fashion (Isa. 43:14–21; 48:20–21; 51:10; 52:12).

One of the ways in which the text recalls the exodus is found in the summons to their now-conquered Babylonian neighbors to provide the returnees with silver, gold, and other gifts (vv. 4, 6). This strongly echoes the Exodus theme of “despoiling the Egyptians,” which is foreshadowed in Moses’ original commission (Exod. 3:21f.), reintroduced in the announcement of the final plague (Exod. 11:2), and fulfilled in the report of Israel’s garnering of silver and gold from the Egyptians due to God’s gracious provision (Exod. 12:35f.). In both instances their past captors generously met the needs of the people of God, whether for the hazardous journey or for the reestablishment of worship.

A further allusion to the exodus tradition is found in Ezra 2:68f., where the provision of material goods by the captors is matched by a “freewill” contribution by some of the leaders of the community toward the rebuilding of the Temple. Exodus 35:21–29 records a similar freewill offering of the people to contribute to the erection of the Tent of Meeting in response to the request of Exodus 25:2–9. The curious mention of the livestock that accompanied the returnees in the verses immediately preceding (Ezra 2:64–67), may be an allusion to the description of the exodus group in Exodus 12:38: “A mixed crowd also went up with them, and livestock in great numbers, both flocks and herds,” as well.

In many ways the clearest expression of continuity appears in the material concerning the cultic vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off as war trophies (vv. 7–11; cf. the further elaboration of this theme in Ezra’s mission 7:19; 8:25–30, 33–34). The presence of these vessels in the temple of the Babylonian gods had been a graphic reminder of the apparent victory of those gods over Yahweh, the God of Israel. That Babylon understood its possession of the vessels in this way is strongly suggested by Daniel 5:1–4, which relates Belshazzar’s toasting the power of his gods with the very vessels that had been removed from Jerusalem. Ironically, it was on this same night that Babylon was captured (Dan. 5:23, 30). The return of those vessels to a fully furnished temple would powerfully symbolize both the restoration of worship and the continuity with the past that the nascent community so desperately needed to see. In addition, any lingering doubts as to God’s intention with regard to his people could now be swept away.

Closer examination of this episode reveals that the material framing the actual list that formed the nucleus of the passage is carefully structured to emphasize this movement of the vessels “from Jerusalem …. to Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:7–11):

AVessels carried away from Jerusalem are brought out (7)

BVessels counted out to Sheshbazzar (8)

XThe list of vessels (9–1la)

B'Vessels brought up by Sheshbazzar (11b)

A'With exiles from Babylonia to Jerusalem (11c)

The structure also emphasizes the precise enumeration of the vessels. Unfortunately such precision does not extend to the textual witnesses we have; the RSV has chosen the 1 Esdras text to ease the numerical difficulties of a Hebrew text (retained in NRSV) that does not add up. The point of this painstaking counting out lies in its testimony to the completeness of the restoration as restoration and not mere innovation, as the numbering of each utensil proclaims the cultic assurance of God’s covenantal continuance with the people.

Important as these allusions to the exodus are for their intended purpose of providing continuity with the past for the restoration community, the differences between the two situations ought not be overlooked. Whereas the exodus concerned the deliverance of Hebrew slaves from the oppression of their cruel masters, those who returned with Zerubbabel left with the considerable support of a king who had conquered their nemesis. Furthermore, the flight from Egypt had resulted in the establishment of a people and an autonomous nation. This political liberation had no such counterpart in the return, which only allowed the reestablishment of the temple and its worship. They were still regarded as “people of the province” (Ezra 2:1), under the jurisdiction of the Persian throne. Instead of a nation that could organize and perhaps vindicate itself, now there could be only a religious entity, a congregation. As such, one of the tasks that Ezra in particular would have to deal with was the reconstitution of the people of God within the political structures of the Persian Empire.

Israel Transplanted (Ezra 2)

Throughout the course of the commentary we shall see that the numerous lists contained in these books serve a very practical purpose. Most simply put, that purpose is to provide the reader with a running commentary on the status of the community in relation to the developing situation of reform. The long register of those who returned with Zerubbabel in Ezra 2:1–70 catalogs those who were, in Kidner’s evocative phrase, “the living portions of Israel, roots and all, for transplanting” (p. 36). Though the same list, displaying minor discrepancies, appears with a different purpose in Nehemiah 7:6–73, here it provides a triple emphasis on the restoration community’s continuity with the past.

First of all, comparison with its twin listing in Nehemiah 7 suggests that an additional name has dropped out of verse two, that of Nahamani (cf. Neh. 7:7). This would yield a total of twelve names for the leadership of the nation, and while there is no explicit linkage of these men to the twelve tribes, we may take the number as suggestive of a complete restoration of the tribes that formed sacral Israel (vv. l–2a).

Second, this suggestion is furthered by the observation that the list falls into two carefully delineated sections:...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-title Page
• Interpretation
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Series Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Contents
• Introduction
• Part One: Return and Reconstruction–Ezra 1:1–Nehemiah 7:3
• Part Two: Renewal and Reform–Nehemiah 7:4–12:43
• Coda: Remember Me, O My God
• Bibliography