Bible Book of the Month for June 22, 1959, was Nehemiah. Much of what was said concerning title and date for that book is relevant for the Book of Ezra, for there is every evidence that the two formerly existed as one. Ordinarily, Masoretic notations occur at the end of a book in the Hebrew Bible as an indication of the book’s conclusion. This was a technique used for the preservation of textual purity. No such notation occurs at the close of our present Book of Ezra. However, we find notations at the conclusion of Nehemiah and these have reference to the material of both Ezra and Nehemiah, an indication that the two were considered together. Similar Masoretic notations were used to indicate the middle of a book, as in the case of Nehemiah 3:32. Here the remarks are further evidence of unity, for Nehemiah 3:32 is the middle of the Ezra-Nehemiah material. However, as early as around A.D. 400, both Latin and Greek Christians were treating Ezra and Nehemiah as separate books. One cannot be certain whether both parts are by one author or whether the Masoretes may have placed the two together because they dealt with similar settings and situations. A tracing of their exact relationship to each other is difficult due to (1) the various titles by which the books are called and (2) the internal textual variation. Sometimes the two are called I Esdras and at times, II Esdras. Generally, however, the title I Esdras is used to refer to a certain Greek rendering of Ezra which has as its introduction a duplication of the material from 2 Chronicles 35:1–36:21, and which internally has a different arrangement of the text. Our present Ezra 4:7–24 follows 1:3–11. In addition, there is other interpolated material which the usual biblical manuscripts exclude. Second Esdras ordinarily is a term used with reference to the material included as our canonical Ezra-Nehemiah.

No date is specified for either the books or their chief characters. The nearest thing to a specific date for Ezra is that he returned to Palestine in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, king of Persia (7:7), while Nehemiah returned in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 1:1 f.). The simple listing of the chronologies would place Nehemiah after Ezra, for certainly the twentieth year follows the seventh. The arrangement of the books in our canon, Ezra preceding Nehemiah, would suggest the same, and thus has much of tradition surmised. It is strange that there is no notation as to which Artaxerxes is intended, for there were three in proximity—Artaxerxes I (464–424 B.C.), Artaxerxes II (404–358 B.C.), and Artaxerxes III (358–338 B.C.). External conditions would place the return in the reign or reigns of Artaxerxes I or II. Since the time of Hoonacker (1890–1924), there has been much effort to champion Nehemiah’s precedence over Ezra. This would place Nehemiah in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I, 444 B.C., and Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes II, 397 B.C. This is not just a wild suggestion but one which is based primarily upon a study of the names of the high priests listed in Ezra-Nehemiah and upon finds from the island of Elephantine, located at the first cataract of the Nile River. However, as mentioned in the former article on Nehemiah, the data is at times conflicting, variously interpreted, and too complicated for discussion in the limited space available here. Fair and excellent summary treatment is to be found in H. H. Rowley’s “The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. A very readable and more recent attempt at reconstruction is to be found in John Bright’s A History of Israel (pp. 363–386). Suffice it to say that the uncertainty and confusion as to textual arrangement, perplexity in dating, questions of precedence, and nonidentity of authorship may account for the fact that there is no New Testament reference to Ezra-Nehemiah. In the wake of such a long history of questions, it is understandable that there has been tension between those who, like Torrey, consider Ezra as nothing more than fictional imagination and others who take it at face value as literal history. But since one cannot be sure that the writer was seeking to give a strictly chronological history, perhaps a more accurate appraisal would be the middle course of acceptance with a consideration as to textual and source errors and transmission confusion.

Article continues below

Regardless of the point of view with which one approaches the book, the writing itself furnishes invaluable insight into the conditions faced by those returning from exile. This is of more than historical value. Exilic release meant the possibility of covenant continuation with the inherent mission of sharing the covenant faith which the covenant implied. This New Exodus involved new opportunity, an opportunity which could be fulfilled only if Israel were characterized by pure faith, stable homes, and an uncompromised and non-syncretistic orthodoxy. Such was not the case, as the book relates. Therefore, Ezra had the tremendous task of issuing the call for separation. In so doing, he was at times cold, harsh, and uncompromising. Yet, faced not only with the covenant task but also a noncovenant-like people, he needed to be stern. As so often happens, Ezra, in trying to reach his goal, overemphasized and exaggerated one portion of it. Consequently, the purpose of separation—in order to be purified in preparation for the mission of sharing faith—was forgotten. Thus it was that in God’s providence, a challenge to a universal mission, as is found in books like Jonah and Ruth, was necessary. We see the entire panorama as a wholesome revelation of God’s plan and purpose for cultic and personal purity in order that the faith which the worship center and worship people represented might be shared with and witnessed to others. The Book of Ezra is quite important as a mirror in which to understand the larger world mission of the Church.

Article continues below
THE CLARION CALL

Certainly the ministry of Ezra is to be remembered for its clarion call back to the Word of God. Were Ezra’s ministry re-emphasized in modern terminology, it would be a call “back to the Bible.” Preservation of the law was not enough (7:6); Ezra’s concern was to transmit it, interpret it, and make it relevant for his people (7:10). It is not necessary to dwell at length on the identity of the law to which the people were called. The people readily accepted it as authoritative, and testimony was given that its basic contents were known to the prophets (9:10, 11). The period of the Exile had furnished time for reflection upon and the organization of written and oral traditions. This was a call to the formalized moral, ethical, and spiritual principles of the Pentateuch. The book makes it plain that the people themselves recognized the necessity of a continuation of Israel, and indeed the returning exiles considered themselves to be that Israel built around the revelation of God. Though his position has not gained much momentum, Kurt Gallings’ argument (“Gola-List According to Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXX, 1951) that an effort was made to continue something of the earlier amphictyonic organization seems logical. Such an emphasis upon early tribal structure would naturally carry with it the emphasis of early Mosaic law and atmosphere.

Let it be stressed that any consideration of Ezra’s pertinent value should not pass too quickly over the historical contribution of the book. The work of Albright and others (cf. W. F. Albright, The Biblical Period, p. 49) has established the historicity of the once questioned Edict of Cyrus (1:1 f.). There is no reason to question the Aramaic portions of the book. Those who hold them to be fabrications have no case; it was normal procedure for official correspondence, as the Aramaic in Ezra purports to be, to appear in the official language used by the Persian court (cf. The Interpreter’s Bible, III, p. 557).

Article continues below
CONTENT

Perhaps the Book of Ezra can best be comprehended through the dual division of (1) The Early Return from Babylon (chaps. 1–6) and (2) The Career and Reforms of Ezra (chaps. 7–10).

1. The Early Return from Babylon (chaps. 1–6). Jeremiah had spoken of a seventy year captivity (29:10). Seventy subtracted from 605 B.C. (the time of the first captivity) gives about 536/535 B.C. Thus one gathers that Cyrus’ edict, which allowed the return under Sheshbazzar (chaps. 1; 2), is testimony to God’s providence. The favorable use of Cyrus is further testimony that God can take even a man of this world, a pagan, and use him as his servant. Isaiah 45:1 presents a similar situation.

The identification of Sheshbazzar, who planned with Cyrus concerning the initial return, is difficult. Albright’s suggestion that the name linguistically is to be equated with Sin-ab-usur, the fourth son of Jehoiachin, is probably accurate (cf. Journal of Biblical Literature, XL, 1921, p. 108 f.). It is logical that he, as head of the remaining Davidic family, should have assumed a place of leadership in the preparations. He may have written the decree which Cyrus signed, thus authenticating the latter’s decision to “let God’s people go.” Regardless of how the decree came about, the writer of the book definitely felt that the Lord moved Cyrus (1:1). How much validity Cyrus saw in Israel’s witness to the exclusive claim of Yahweh, it is impossible to tell. Nor will one ever know how much of the expression contained in the decree was mere lip service, mere accommodation to gain the favor of subject peoples. Elsewhere (the Cyrus Cylinder) Cyrus represents himself as the servant of the god Marduk, so he was not adverse to accommodation when it aided his own schemes. It is interesting to note (see the catalogue of returning Israelites in chap. 2) that this decree covered the entire territory which Cyrus controlled. Thus, Jews returned in 536, not only from the Babylonian but also from the Assyrian captivity. Consequently, to speak of “ten lost tribes” is a mistake. Remnants of northern and southern peoples returned.

Article continues below

Life back in Palestine (chaps. 3–6) was not as promising as it might have been. A good beginning was made as the people started rebuilding the Temple on the very spot where it had stood before (3:8). Five excellent qualities among the people made for a propitious start. Various groups gave freely (2:68); they gave proportionately (2:69); there was unanimity among them (3:1); there was appreciation for the revealed tradition (3:2 b); and their activity was joyful (3:11). But contrary to the old adage, not all that begins well ends well. Almost as it is today, there was internal unrest and external intervention. Some were disappointed in the new opportunities and mourned for the “good old days” (3:12). As if this were not disconcerting enough, Samaritan adversaries desired to participate in the task (4:1, 2). They claimed to worship the same deity the Israelites did, but because they came from an Assyrian background it must have been a syncretistic allegiance at best (4:2). Not bigoted exclusiveness but an appreciation of the dangers of being unequally yoked together caused the Israelites to deny the Samaritan request. Involved here is the principle of letting God’s people do God’s work (4:3). We note a parallel effort to intervene in the work in the reference to the “people of the land” (4:4). Those mentioned in verses 1 following and 4 are probably of the same group, for after the fall of the Northern Kingdom (722/21 B.C.) immigrants from Assyria intermarried with Israelites who were not taken into captivity. This union gave birth to the people called Samaritans whom the Jews considered half-breeds, not only in race but in culture and religion. Until the exiles were permitted to return, the Samaritans had been allowed to govern all of this section of Palestine. Permission to take some of the territory and set up a self-governing province around Jerusalem certainly was not looked upon with favor; so it is doubtful that the Samaritan offer to help with the building task had any sincerity about it. In fact, the conspiracies reported in the succeeding passages prove that it was not. Opposition and discouragement from both internal and external sources were so momentous that the building task and the accompanying religious revival were discontinued. A time of general religious degeneration and deterioration set in and continued for a period of approximately sixteen years (4:24).

Article continues below

At this point, it should be mentioned that in chapters 4 and 5, there seems to be either chronological confusion or textual displacement, for chapter 4 makes reference to Ahasuerus (485–465 B.C.) and Artaxerxes (464–424 B.C.) while chapter 5 skips back to Darius who preceded these two, 522–485 B.C. There is justification here for the frequent suggestion that 5:1–6:18 formerly must have preceded 4:6–23. But at any rate the setting would indicate much frustration in the efforts to rehabilitate both civil and religious life. Fortunately Haggai and Zechariah, an older prophet and a younger prophet, were raised at the time to issue a prophetic challenge and recall to the task (5:1). After a lapse of so many years, there seemed to be hope again, but it was not easy. This was a time (c. 520 B.C.) of general unrest in the Persian Empire. Revolts were rampant in various sections of the Persian domain. Enemies of the Jews in Palestine immediately contacted Darius with the implication and inference that Jewish Temple rebuilding signified the seed of new revolt. However, a search of the official archives brought to light precedent and permission for the Jewish Temple, and official sanction was given to the project (chap. 6). Finally the Temple was finished in the sixth year of Darius, about 516 B.C. (6:15).

2. The Career and Reforms of Ezra (chaps. 7–10). It is not until chapter 7 that the reader is actually introduced to Ezra, the individual for whom the book was named. The return under Ezra (chaps. 7; 8) is prefaced by a remarkable statement of faith (8:22). Bold man that he was, he had expressed confidence in God’s blessing upon the pilgrimage. He proceeded “from faith to faith” as a man traveling under a commission, for he was certain that God had tapped his shoulder (7:6).

As spiritual leader of the returning band, Ezra must have returned homeward with a light step. Yet, upon his arrival, we note that he met with disappointment. The religious revival which formally broke out upon the completion of the Temple (6:16 f.) proved unfortunately to be as fleeting as the dew of the morning. Even the religious leaders were foremost in compromising with sin, the ugly sin of adultery and of idolatry. The spiritual mission was in reverse; the community had converted the church (9:1 f.)! Waiting and pleading as a true intercessor, Ezra’s burdened prayer was one of thanksgiving for past opportunity and petition for forgiveness and additional opportunity for revival. Ezra recognized the immediate need for a genuine revival which might revitalize the covenant community. Consequently, the remainder of the book is dedicated to the reforms of Ezra (chaps. 9; 10). Much of the problem consisted of mixed marriages. If Ezra’s reforms sound stern and overdrawn (and they were), remember his point of view that assimilation of the covenant people meant loss of covenant mission. Force cannot accomplish what is lacked in inward religious spontaneity. His legislation failed because the people soon returned to their compromised status. Nevertheless, the principle involved of the “purity of God’s people” remains a valid one. It was a reluctant acquiescence (10:12, 13). Ensuing history has indicated that the pattern was little bettered. The book ends in an atmosphere of suspension. There was yet needed someone to fulfill the covenant mission of voluntary and willing witness.

Article continues below
BIBLIOGRAPHY

In addition to the sources mentioned above, much value is to be gained from the use of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (International Critical Commentary), by Loring W. Batten. A somewhat more conservative treatment, though brief, is to be found in An Introduction to the Old Testament, by Edward J. Young. Other helpful materials are discussions in Israel After the Exile (The Clarendon Bible), by W. F. Lofthouse; Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (The Expositor’s Bible), by Walter F. Adeney; Understanding the Old Testament, by Bernhard W. Anderson; and A Light to the Nations, by Norman K. Gottwald.

RALPH H. ELLIOTT

Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew

Midwestern Baptist

Theological Seminary

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.

Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.

Tags:
Issue: