Chapter 2

1 The number that return, of the people, 36 of the priest, 40 of the Levetis, 43 of the Nethinims, 55 of Solomon’s servants, 62 of the priests which could not shew their pedigree. 64 The whole number of them, with their substance. 68 Their oblations.

1. Children of the province. While the city of Babylon was one of the capitals of the Persian Empire, and its land a satrapy under the administration of a satrap, Judah was a province. The use of this expression is evidence of the familiarity of the writer with the political situation of that time.

Every one unto his city. Upon their return the exiles not only settled in Jerusalem but also in neighboring towns and villages, such as Jericho, Tekoa, Gibeon, Mizpah, and a number of others (see Neh. 3:2–19; 11:20–35).

2. Zerubbabel. The political leader of the returning exiles. In ch. 3:2 and elsewhere he is called the son of Shealtiel. In 1 Chron. 3:19, however, he is listed among the sons of Pedaiah, a brother of Shealtiel. This seeming discrepancy can be explained by assuming a levirate marriage (see on Deut. 25:5–10) between Shealtiel’s childless widow and his brother Pedaiah, whose first male child by such a marriage would be considered the heir of Shealtiel (see on Matt. 1:12). Zerubbabel, though actually the son of Pedaiah, is called the son of Shealtiel in a majority of the passages that refer to him. The fact that in the only place where Zerubbabel is called Pedaiah’s son, Shealtiel appears without children, though older than his brother Pedaiah, supports the theory of a levirate marriage.

Haggai (ch. 1:1) speaks of Zerubbabel, a grandson of King Jehoiachin, as governor of Judah. Cyrus thus appointed the descendant of a former king of Judah to rule in the name of the Persian king, a choice with which Cyrus could expect the Jews to be pleased. They would naturally accord more willing service to one of their own princes than to a foreigner.

Jeshua. YeshuaФ is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew name usually translated “Joshua.” This Jeshua was the spiritual leader of the returning exiles, the “high priest” of Haggai 1:1 and Zech. 3:1, and is referred to also in Ezra 3:2; Neh. 12:1; etc. He was a direct descendant of Aaron, through his father Jozadak, high priest at the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s captivity (1 Chron. 6:3–15; Ezra 3:2). Jeshua was probably born in exile, since he lived to see the completion of the Temple 20 years after the return to Jerusalem.

Thus, two men of the old Jewish nobility led out in the restoration of Judah, one a descendant of the former reigning house as the appointed political leader, and the other a son of the last precaptivity high priest as spiritual head. Their names may have been suggested to Cyrus by a trusted counselor, such as Daniel, and both were no doubt chosen because of sterling character and because they enjoyed the confidence of their people.

Nehemiah. The function of the other ten leaders here enumerated is unknown, inasmuch as their names do not appear again except in the duplicate list of Neh. 7. They may have been the elders mentioned frequently in later passages (see ch. 5:5, 9; etc.).

The number of the men. The following list of exiles shows the importance attached by the Jews to ancestral lists. Though transported to Babylonia under the most miserable conditions imaginable, many had apparently succeeded in preserving their genealogical documents. Some, however, had not been so successful, and could not prove their pedigree. (v. 59).

The numbers of persons in the various family groups here given differ slightly from those of a duplicate list Nehemiah used almost a century later to guide him in the resettlement of Jerusalem. Of the 42 numbers given by Ezra (vs. 3–60), 18 differ from the corresponding numbers in Neh. 7. The differences are small, and can be explained by assuming that the lists were drawn up at different times, and that during the interval the population figures varied, owing to deaths and births, or for other reasons.

3. Children of Parosh. Or, “sons of Parosh.” The large family unit of Parosh, with 2,172 men, stands first, as it does again in the corresponding list of Neh. 7. The name Parosh means “flea.” It is unknown how the family came to adopt this name, but it is a fact that Arab tribal heads frequently bear animal names such as lizard, gazelle, shrewmouse, etc. Similarly, a Jewish tribal head may have taken the name “flea,” a name David figuratively assumed after having spared Saul’s life at the cave of Engedi, expressing his own humility in Saul’s presence (1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20).

4. Shephatiah. An old family, whose name means “Jehovah has judged.” This name appears frequently from the time of David onward.

5. Arah. This name, meaning “He has wandered,” is attested but once elsewhere, as that of a man of the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:39). However, the name is found in Babylonian documents, and may have been adopted during the Exile.

6. Pahath-moab. The largest family unit, with 2,812 men. The name means “governor of Moab,” implying that a former family head had governed Moab when that country was subject to Judah.

7. Elam. This name is attested in 1 Chron. 8:24; 26:3.

8. Zattu. Nothing is known of this or the following name, Zaccai (v. 9).

10. Bani. This name appears in Hebrew records since the time of David (2 Sam. 23:36).

11. Bebai. A Babylonian name. This family was either newly founded or had exchanged its former name for a Babylonian one during the Exile.

12. Azgad. The name is found nowhere else. The greatest numerical difference in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah occurs here, Ezra giving the number as 1,222, and Nehemiah (ch. 7:17) 2,322. A later copyist may be responsible for this seeming discrepancy.

13. Adonikam. The name attested only here means “My Lord is risen.”

14. Bigvai. A Persian name; the Bagoas in Greek records. A Persian governor by that name ruled over Judah toward the end of the 5th century b.c. This large family of 2,056 men returning with Zerubbabel may have taken the name Bigvai in honor of the Persians. This family may have come from an area bordering on Persia, and may have favored Persian policy. The Jews have always been very adaptable.

15. Adin. The names in vs. 15–19 are all Hebrew, but the persons are otherwise unknown.

20. Gibbar. After the 17 tribal units enumerated in vs. 3–19, 15 groups follow, classified according to cities or villages. The location of Gibbar is unknown. Nehemiah’s list has Gibeon here (Neh. 7:25).

21. Beth-lehem. In Judah, south of Jerusalem, now called Beit Lahm.

22. Netophah. A town near Bethlehem whose exact location is unknown. It is also not clear why the people of Netophah, Anathoth, Michmas, Bethel, and Ai (vs. 23, 27, 28) are called “men,” and all others “children,” or “sons.”

23. Anathoth. A Levitical city in Benjamin, now RaЖs elРKharruЖbeh near ФAnaµta, 3 mi. (4.8 km.) northeast of Jerusalem. It was formerly the home town of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 1:1). On the term “men,” see on v. 22.

24. Azmaveth. A town north of Anathoth, now called Hizmeh.

25. Kirjath-arim. Usually called Kirjath-jearim, now Tell elРAzhar, about 71/2 mi. (12 km.) west-northwest from Jerusalem.

Chephirah. Now Tell Kefireh, north of Kirjath-jearim.

Beeroth. On the road leading from Jerusalem to the north. Beeroth has been tentatively identified with RaЖs etРTahuЖneh, near Bethel.

26. Ramah. Probably erРRaЖm, 51/2 mi. (8.8 km.) north of Jerusalem.

Gaba. Or, Geba, known today as JebaФ, east of Ramah (see on 1 Sam. 13:3).

27. Michmas. Now MukhmaЖs, northeast of Gaba. On the term “men,” see on v. 22.

28. Beth-el. Now BeitйЖn. On the term “men,” see on v. 22.

Ai. Ai has been identified with etРTell east of Bethel, where excavations were carried on from 1933 to 1935. The identification is probably correct as regards postexilic Ai, although its correctness in regard to Joshua’s Ai is doubted (see on Joshua 7:2).

29. Nebo. Now NuЖba, near Aijalon, which lies about 12 mi. west-northwest of Jerusalem.

30. Magbish. An unknown locality in central Palestine.

31. The other Elam. In view of the fact that an Elam is mentioned among the families (v. 7), it is uncertain whether a locality or a family is here designated.

32. Harim. This name has also been generally considered that of a tribal unit rather than of a locality. A personal name, HarimmaХ, appears in Babylonian records of the 5th century, indicating that this family was one of those that adopted foreign names during the Exile.

33. Lod, Hadid, and Ono. These three places lay 25 mi. (40 km.) northwest of Jerusalem. Lod is called Lydda in the NT, and now bears the name of Ludd. Hadid, now elРHadйЖtheh, lay about 31/2 mi. (5.6 km.) east-northeast of Lod, while Ono, now Kefr ФAna, lay about 5 mi. (8 km.) north of Lod.

34. Jericho. This city lay in the Jordan valley and has generally been identified with Tell esРSultaЖn, adjoining modern Jericho (see Vol. I p. 124; Vol. II, p. 42).

35. Senaah. It is interesting to find at the close of all nonecclesiastical families and city groups the largest unit of all—3,630 men—with the strange name “children of Senaah.” That this group is mentioned last may indicate that it was considered less important than the others. Because of its feminine ending the name has been thought to represent a town but that so large a town should have existed without ever being mentioned elsewhere would be most unusual. How could such a place have disappeared without leaving any trace of its former existence? For this reason some commentators consider it to be the name of a family unit. But if so, why should it be mentioned alone, at the end of a number of city groups, in spite of its great number? It therefore seems reasonable to consider that the 3,630 “children of Senaah” were a class of low-caste people, as Meyer and Kittel have suggested. The name Senaah appears also in variant forms in Neh. 11:9 and 1 Chron. 9:7.

Settlements of the Persian Province of Judah According to Ezra and Nehemiah

Some think it possible that this name was given to people who could not prove their ancestry, and did not belong to a professional guild, such as the apothecaries or goldsmiths (Neh. 3:8, 31). They seem to have been men without an established place in society, with neither pedigree nor inherited rights. A common lot united them. They may not have fared well in Babylonia, and perhaps returned in great numbers with the hope of better opportunities in Palestine.

36. The priests. Of the priests, four families with a total of 4,289 men returned to Jerusalem, and three additional families that could not prove their eligibility (vs. 61–63). Three of the legitimate priestly families traced their descent back to persons who had been heads of priestly courses during the reign of David, namely Jedaiah, Immer, and Harim (1 Chron. 24:7, 8, 14). The other family originated from a certain Pashur, of whom nothing further is known. No Biblical person who bore this name can have been the ancestor of this family.

The four priestly families mentioned in this list of exiles were still the main representatives of the priesthood in Ezra’s time, 80 years later, when all four are mentioned in the list of those who had taken strange wives (Ezra 10:18–22).

40. The Levites. It is surprising to find the lower ecclesiastical workers returning in such small numbers—only 74 Levites, 128 singers, 139 gatekeepers, and 392 other Temple servants—a total of 733 men as compared with more than 4,000 priests who returned.

From the history of the kingdom of Judah we know that the Temple service had, at times, fallen into decay, and that many of the Temple personnel had been connected with the pagan high places (see on Judges 5:18) that had been established throughout the country. All of these were destroyed by Josiah as a part of his work of reform (2 Kings 23:5, 8, 13), and their priests taken to Jerusalem. But a place in the sanctuary and at the altar of the Temple was denied them, and they were apparently allowed to perform only the most menial tasks (see on 2 Kings 23:9).

Ezekiel refers to the misconduct of the Temple personnel prior to the Exile, but the Zadok priests seem to have remained at least comparatively free from idolatry, and, in the service of the Temple shown him in vision, were to have served as priests. Their Levitical brethren were to be allowed to perform only menial duties in the new Temple. The Levites could thus not expect positions of honor, and most of them may therefore have preferred to remain in exile.

Another possible reason for the small number of returning Levites may have been that relatively few of them had been taken into exile. Nebuchadnezzar at first deported only the higher officers, the nobility, and the armed forces. The Levites did not belong to any of these classes—at least not since the time of Josiah—and may therefore not have been deported in so great numbers as the priests. If but few Levites were in exile, the number of those returning would also be small.

41. The singers. A special class of Levites. Only one family is represented, that of Asaph, one of the leading musicians in the time of David (1 Chron. 6:39, 43; 16:5, 6). What had become of the descendants of the other musical directors mentioned in the titles of the Psalms and other Bible passages is not known.

42. Porters. Another profession known since the time of David. The Temple, with its many halls, gates, and courts, particularly upon the occasions of annual feasts, required a special police force to maintain order and security.

43. The Nethinims. The word thus translated is from the root nathan, “to give,” and means “given ones,” probably in the sense of being devoted, or dedicated to the sanctuary. Since the time of Joshua (Joshua 9:27), foreigners had been used for the most menial type of work in the Temple service. To this group of Temple servants prisoners of war may have been added from time to time (see Ezra 8:20). The returning Nethinims belonged to 35 families.

55. Solomon’s servants. King Solomon had apparently increased the service personnel of the Temple, inasmuch as the new buildings required much more attention (1 Kings 9:20, 21; 2 Chron. 8:7, 8). As the lowest rank of ecclesiastical workers, they are here mentioned last. They lived in separate towns, or in their own quarters in Jerusalem, and, though not Israelites, had agreed to keep the whole law (see Neh. 10:29–31). The Deuteronomic law required that they be considered a part of the congregation of Israel (Deut. 29:10–13; Ex. 20:10) and be treated as such. Ten families of “Solomon’s servants” returned with Zerubbabel.

58. All the Nethinims. The Nethinims (vs. 43–54) and “Solomon’s servants” (vs. 55–57) were apparently so closely related in origin and work that their number is given as if they were one group. A total of 45 families is represented, averaging eight men each. It is thus apparent that their family units were, for some unknown reason, much smaller than those of the full-blooded Jews. Later, at the time of Ezra, 220 more Nethinims returned (ch. 8:20). Reports must have reached Babylonia that those who returned under Zerubbabel had found good positions in the Temple service, and many more became willing to sever their connections with Mesopotamia and return to Palestine.

59. Tel-melah. The locations of all four Mesopotamian places mentioned in this text are unknown. From these four places came 652 men (v. 60) belonging to three family groups which could not give proof that they were descendants of former Jews. If their forebears had been legitimate inhabitants of Judah at the time of Nebuchadnezzar, they may perhaps have received especially rough treatment, either during the journey to Babylonia or as slaves after their arrival, and had consequently lost all identifying documents (see on v. 2).

61. Priests. Three returning families claimed to belong to the priesthood but were unable to present valid credentials. Admission to priestly office was denied them by the governor until a high priest would be able to procure a divine decision by means of the Urim and Thummim. It is strange that the number of these priests is not given either in this list or in that of Neh. 7.

Koz. It is possible that this family was later able to establish its priestly rights, because we find a certain “Meremoth the son of Urijah, the son of Koz” taking part in the building of the city wall in Nehemiah’s time (Neh. 3:4, 21). Ezra (ch. 8:33) simply calls him “Meremoth the son of Uriah the priest.” The members of this family seem either to have found their credentials or to have secured other evidence that their ancestors were priests, or, the Urim and Thummim had revealed God’s will with respect to them.

63. The Tirshatha. From the Persian tarshta, an honorific title for the governor of a province, equivalent to “His Excellency.” Its literal meaning is, “the feared one.”

Urim and … Thummim. See on Ex. 28:15, 30. Zerubbabel evidently anticipated that the power of obtaining direct answers from God by means of the Urim and Thummim, which had existed in pre-exilic times, would be restored as soon as the new congregation was re-established and the services of the Temple reinstituted. Whether his expectations were fulfilled is not known.

64. The whole congregation. The sum total of all the figures given in the preceding verses is 29,818, while the total number of returning exiles is given as 42,360. It is thus evident that besides the men enumerated in detail another 12,542 must have followed. Since the number 12,542 is too large for the three families of priests whose numbers were not given (see on v. 61), the suggestion that they were women must be considered a possible solution to the problem. Their relatively small number—in comparison with the number of returning men—can be explained by assuming that many men left their families with relatives in Babylonia until homes could be provided for them in Palestine. Presumably, the women were then to follow their husbands in a later caravan as soon as the situation in Palestine should make the trip advisable. Since, in the following verses, maidservants as well as menservants are counted, and female singers as well as their male colleagues, it seems certain that the wives of free citizens were not omitted from the count. Hence, we are to understand the 42,360 individuals listed as the total number of all returning citizens, men, women, and ecclesiastical personnel.

65. Beside their servants. After the enumeration of all Jews and also of those who claimed to belong to the congregation, 7,337 male and female slaves are mentioned. That they were not Jews is evident not only from their social position but also from the place they receive in this list—after the total of the “whole congregation” has been presented. It is surprising to find that in the 50 years of their captivity some of the Jews had improved their social standing to the extent that they had acquired slaves—one to every sixth Jew.

Singing men and singing women. Some have thought that these non-Jewish artists were to swell the comparatively small number of Levitical singers (see on v. 41). This is, however, unlikely. Some commentators consider them secular entertainers. When the Israelites left Egypt about 1,000 years earlier a “mixed multitude” of non-Israelites also went up with them (Ex. 12:38), and in the wilderness became a cause of much trouble (Num. 11:4). It would not be surprising to find that in leaving Babylonia the Jews were accompanied by a similar group.

66. Their horses. A total number of 8,136 riding animals and beasts of burden is listed as accompanying the expedition. Since the group desired to travel rapidly, the returning group took no sheep, goats, or cattle. Those who possessed such animals in Babylonia probably sold them and took the money with them.

68. When they came. The writer passes over the journey in silence (see on Gen. 24:7, 62), though it must have taken several weeks. The route is not mentioned, although the topography of the Near East leaves few uncertainties in this respect (see on Gen. 12:5). The caravan probably followed the banks of the Euphrates up to the 36th parallel, or went through the former homeland of Assyria to Arbela, and then followed the approximate course of the present Syro-Turkish border till they reached the Euphrates. From there, the desert between the Euphrates and the Orontes River was crossed, with the Aleppo oasis as a stopping place, midway across the desert. Reaching the Orontes, they probably followed this river up to its source, and then marched through the BeqaФ, the valley between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountain ranges, until they reached the upper course of the Jordan, and so entered Palestine. This was the route that most military forces of the Assyrians and Babylonians had taken in the past and that the captive parents and grandparents of this group apparently traversed in the opposite direction half a century earlier (see Jer. 39:5–7; 52:9, 10, 27).

The time of departure was probably the spring of 536 b.c. (see on ch. 1:1), and perhaps Jerusalem was reached in the summer of the same year. Eighty years later it took Ezra and his caravan almost four months to reach Jerusalem (chs. 7:8, 9; 8:31), and it is reasonable to think that Zerubbabel’s journey lasted as long as that of Ezra.

Offered freely. Arriving at the site of the former Temple, the members of the expedition conducted a thanksgiving service in which the heads of families and the people offered gifts for the planned reconstruction of the Temple building to the sum of 61,000 drams of gold and 5,000 silver minas.

This was a most remarkable sum for a group of people who had but recently regained liberty. A spirit of liberality must have taken hold of them like that which gripped the people at the building of the tabernacle at Sinai (see Ex. 36:5–7). They knew how God had fulfilled His promises through the prophets, and were willing to make a sacrifice to re-establish the Temple and its service.

God has ever provided His people with opportunities to give of the means entrusted to them. There is no better cure for the spirit of selfishness that naturally infects the human heart than to respond “freely” to calls to advance the cause of God in the earth and to help their fellow men. Those who truly love God will cultivate the spirit of liberality (see 2 Cor. 9:6, 7).

Ellen G. White comments

64, 65 PK 598

64–70PK 560