Chapter 7

1 Ezra goeth up to Jerusalem. 11 The gracious commission of Artaxerxes to Ezra. 27 Ezra blesseth God for his favour.

1. Now after these things. The author makes a marked division between the first and second sections of the book by means of an expression used nowhere else in the book of Ezra. The actual time interval between events described in ch. 6 and in ch. 7 seems to have been almost 58 years—from the spring of 515 b.c. (see ch. 6:15) to the early months of 457 b.c. (see ch. 7:7).

Artaxerxes. For the spelling of the king’s name see Additional Note on Chapter 4. With the majority of conservative scholars, this commentary holds that the Artaxerxes here mentioned is Artaxerxes Longimanus, who reigned from 465–423 b.c. For a summary of the evidence in favor of this view, see Additional Note at the close of this chapter.

Ezra the son of Seraiah. Ezra was probably the great-great-grandson of Seraiah. In the language of the Bible writers, every descendant is a “son,” and every ancestor a “father.” Christ is “the son of David,” and David “the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1). Joram “begat Ozias [Uzziah]” (Matt. 1:8), his great-great-grandson (see 1 Chron. 3:11, 12, where Uzziah’s other name, Azariah, is used). Ezra probably omits the names of his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, who were undistinguished, and claims descent from Seraiah, the last high priest to minister in Solomon’s Temple (2 Kings 25:18).

Azariah, the father of Seraiah, is mentioned only in the genealogical list of 1 Chron. 6:13, 14 and in Ezra 7:1, but Azariah’s father Hilkiah is no doubt the high priest of Josiah’s time (2 Kings 22:4–14; 2 Chron. 34:14–22).

5. The son of Aaron. In vs. 1–5 Ezra traces his genealogy back to Aaron, the first high priest. A comparison with the genealogical list provided in 1 Chron. 6:3–15 shows that Ezra omitted six names between the Azariah and Maraioth of v. 3, which are found in 1 Chron. 6:7–10, and another name (Meraioth) between Zadok and Ahitub of v. 2 (see 1 Chron. 9:11). The abbreviation of genealogies by the omission of unimportant names was a common practice among the Jews. A notable instance is the omission of several names in Matthew’s genealogy of Christ (see on Matt. 1:5, 11, 15, 17).

Although Ezra was a descendant of Aaron, and thus belonged to the high-priestly family, he was not a high priest himself, but only a “priest” (Ezra 7:11, 12; Neh. 8:2).

6. Ezra went up. See ch. 2:1, where the same expression, “went up,” is used in regard to the first group of returning exiles.

Ready. Heb. mahir, a word used also in Aramaic and Egyptian to designate a skilled, fast-writing scribe. In the Elephantine papyri Ahikar refers to himself as “a wise and ready scribe,” and uses the same word mahir. He thus wished to indicate that he was not only a scribe but a learned man. In Egypt, where mahir had become a professional title for skilled scribes, such a man was highly trained in every phase of secular learning. Ezra, however, used his talents in the realm of religion, being a scholar “in the law of Moses.” See on v. 11.

Which the Lord God. It is characteristic of Ezra’s piety never to forget that the law was not a mere human code given by an earthly lawgiver, but a direct, divine gift—“the law of the Lord” (v. 10), “the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel” (v. 11), and “the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses” (Neh. 8:14).

All his request. Ezra had made a favorable impression on the king and had won his confidence. How this was accomplished is unknown.

7. The children of Israel. The same six classes of colonists are here mentioned as returning under Ezra that, according to the earlier narrative (ch. 2:70), had accompanied Zerubbabel. The order of mention is nearly, but not quite, the same.

Seventh year of Artaxerxes. Ezra probably counted the 7th year of Artaxerxes according to the Jewish custom, that is, in terms of the Jewish civil calendar year, which began in the fall (see Vol. II, pp. 110, 112, 138, 140). The 7th regnal year of Artaxerxes I began in the fall of 458 b.c. and ended in the fall of 457, according to the table on page 108 of this volume. For an explanation of these dates and those of vs. 8, 9, see pp. 100–103 of this volume.

8. He came to Jerusalem. From v. 9 it appears that the first day of the first month (Nisan) of the religious year had been selected for the beginning of the journey. This is not surprising, since the dry season was usually used for such a journey, one that a caravan required several months to complete. Similarly, all military campaigns were begun in the spring. The day of departure, according to the Jewish calendar on p. 108, was most probably March 27, 457 b.c. The time occupied on the way was nearly four months. The exiles arrived at Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month (Ab), or approximately July 23, 457 b.c. That it took Ezra’s group four months to reach Jerusalem seems at first thought a long time, but it should not be forgotten that a caravan like his must have taken a number of prolonged rests, one of which is recorded as occurring at Ahava (ch. 8:15). The log of the march of the army of the younger Cyrus from Ephesus to Cunaxa near Babylon provides an actual record of such a journey. Although Cunaxa was reached in 91 marching days, the entire journey, including resting days, occupied about half a year (Xenophon Anabasis ii. 1. 6). We need not be surprised, therefore, that Ezra’s journey occupied four months. Some delay must almost certainly have been occasioned by the perils of the trek (see ch. 8:31). As to the probable route, see on ch. 2:68.

9. The good hand. The special divine favor here referred to probably includes the royal response to Ezra’s request (see v. 6), and deliverance from enemies who had intended to attack the caravan on the way (see ch. 8:21–23, 31).

10. Prepared his heart. Ezra was a consecrated man. The aim and ambition of his life was to know the will of God, to cooperate with God, and to teach others to do likewise. This was the man God now called to do a special work.

11. The priest. The genealogy of vs. 1–5 implies that Ezra was priest, but v. 11 provides the only specific statement of this fact. Nehemiah also so designates Ezra (ch. 8:2, 9).

The scribe. Here for the first time sopher is used in the NT sense of grammateus, “scribe,” meaning a man trained in the exposition of the Scriptures. Ezra stands at the head of a line of famous Hebrew scholars, which in the time of Christ included men like Hillel and Gamaliel, whom the Jews considered worthy successors of Ezra.

12. King of kings. The decree itself is quoted in vs. 12–26, written in Aramaic exactly as it issued from the Persian chancellery. It is closely related in form and content to the documents found in chs. 4 to 6, and is now, following the discovery of similar documents in Elephantine, recognized as genuine by even the most critical scholar. “Kings of kings” was a recognized title of the Persian monarchs, and is found in every Persian inscription of any considerable length. The title was first used by Assyrian kings, who thereby expressed the fact that they ruled over many vassal kings whom they retained on their respective thrones in conquered lands. The title was later taken over by the kings of Babylon (see Dan. 2:37), and then by the Persian kings when they became masters of the world.

Ezra the priest. It is interesting to note that the decree does not make use of the ordinary Aramaic word kumraХ, “priest,” but the loan word kahen, taken from the Heb. kohen. In Aramaic documents from Elephantine, writers also make a clear distinction between pagan priests, for whom they used the ordinary Aramaic word kumraХ, and the true priests of God, whom they designated by the word, kahanaХ. The use of this word in the document of Ezra 7 therefore indicates that the decree, although approved and issued by the king and in his name, was composed by a Jew in the imperial chancellery. Other evidence found in this decree points in the same direction.

A scribe of the law of the God of heaven. Aramaic, saphar dathaХ diРХelah shemayyaХ. A correct explanation of this title was made in the 1930’s by H. H. Schaeder. On the basis of analogous titles he shows that it designates a high officer in the Persian chancellery in charge of affairs pertaining to “the law of the God of heaven.” Accordingly, Ezra was a reporter of Jewish religious affairs in the Persian government. Similarly we find in the later Parthian and Sassanide government the head of the Jewish population (resh galuthaХ, “head of the exiles”) occasionally ranking with the highest government officials. Neh. 11:24 also testifies to the existence of such an office in the time of Artaxerxes I. We are unable to say how Ezra received this appointment, but it is evident that appointment to this office would make him the most influential Jew in Babylon. That he used his influence in the interest of his people is proved by the contents of the decree.

Perfect. The Aramaic has only the word gemir, meaning “completed,” and is considered by most scholars to be either an abbreviated formula indicating the end of a document or a word meaning “issued.” In the first case the word “peace” must be supplied, as the KJV has done, but the second interpretation considers the text complete as it stands.

And at such a time. See on ch. 4:17.

13. All they of the people. The decree of Artaxerxes is as broad in scope as the proclamation of Cyrus (ch. 1:3), and gives permission not only to the Jews but to all Israelites of every tribe to accompany Ezra to Jerusalem. That Israelites of all the tribes actually went up to Jerusalem on the occasion is implied by the reference to “twelve bullocks for all Israel,” which those who returned with Ezra offered, on their arrival, to the “God of Israel” (see on ch. 8:35).

14. Seven counselors. In Esther 1:14 the seven counselors appear as seven princes, who “saw the king’s face” and “sat the first in the kingdom.” No inscriptions have thus far been found to explain further the functions of this group. The conjecture has been made that it refers to the heads of the seven great Persian families, which, according to Herodotus (iii. 84), had privileges that went beyond those enjoyed by other families, including the right of unrestricted access to the royal presence.

The law of thy God. Ezra’s commission included the duty of carrying out an investigation into the religious conditions in the province of Judea. For this, the law of God would, of course, be made the standard. The words concerning the law have frequently been understood by critical scholars as implying that Ezra was the author, or at least an editor, of the law referred to. That this view is incorrect can be seen from v. 25, which indicates that this law was already well known to the Palestinian Jews before Ezra’s arrival. It is therefore obvious that “the law of thy God” was a book, or books, already in the possession of Ezra, and of the Jews in Palestine as well. The nature of this law, already known to the Jews of Babylon and Palestine, is revealed in Neh. 8.

15. The silver and gold. Financial affairs assume a most important role in this decree. Gifts which Ezra was commissioned to take to Jerusalem came from three sources—the king and his counselors, a collection taken among non-Jewish friends in the satrapy of Babylonia, and freewill offerings made by Jews resident outside of Palestine (v. 16). In ancient times the transmission of great sums of money was made by well-protected caravans. The highways of travel were never safe from robbers, and the larger the remittance the greater the danger of its being intercepted. Josephus relates (Antiquities xviii. 9. 1) that the gifts annually remitted to Jerusalem from Babylon in Roman times were escorted by a great number of armed men.

Whose habitation. This phrase is similar, but not identical, to that used by Cyrus in ch. 1:2, 3. It does not necessarily mean that Artaxerxes considered the God of the Jews a local deity, but simply that the location of His Temple was at Jerusalem. If a Jew such as Ezra was the the actual author of this decree, which was then approved by Artaxerxes (see v. 12), he would naturally use phraseology such as this.

17. Buy speedily. Rather, “buy judiciously” or “with all diligence” (RSV). Artaxerxes was not concerned with how soon the money was to be spent, but how well. The primary purpose of the money sent by Ezra was to maintain the Jewish ritual (see ch. 6:9, 10).

18. Whatsoever shall seem good. The remainder of the money was to be spent in any way that Ezra, acting under divine guidance, might direct. Ezra was thus free to use as much of the money as he deemed wise for purposes he might consider necessary, without asking specific permission each time. The decree thus gave him the right to use money for such things as repair work on the Temple or for rebuilding the wall. At the time the decree was written Ezra may have considered this freedom of action desirable. Later, when the Samaritans showed their enmity, he may have regretted not having specific objectives mentioned in the decree that were to be financed with the royal appropriation.

19. The vessels also. It does not appear that these were sacred vessels originally belonging to the first Temple, like those Cyrus had entrusted to Zerubbabel. Rather, it would seem, they were part of the voluntary offering (v. 15), in which they are distinctly included (see ch. 8:26–28). Perhaps the vessels sent with Zerubbabel had proved too few for the great festivals. There are parallels in ancient history, of kings sending expensive vessels as gifts to other kings, or to the temples of allied nations. Artaxerxes’ gift was thus by no means unusual.

20. Whatsoever more. Here the flexibility of the decree becomes apparent. Ezra is granted unlimited access to the royal revenue of the province of Judea, to be used for any purpose connected with the Temple. Within the limitations stated in v. 22, Ezra’s own discretion was to determine what should be done.

King’s treasure house. Not the royal treasury at Susa or Persepolis, where tribute from the various provinces was stored, but the local treasury of Judea, to which the Jews made their remittances and from which Ezra was now authorized to draw.

21. All the treasurers. The “decree” included in Ezra’s authorization was probably sent out separately to the royal treasurer resident in Judea, and to those in the satrap’s office who dealt with the financial matters of that province. It was hardly the intent of Artaxerxes that Ezra should demand the revenue of such provinces as Samaria or Ammon, whose inhabitants were Judea’s enemies. The Aramaic title translated “treasurer” appears also on objects from Persepolis.

Ezra … the scribe. On Ezra’s official title, see on v. 12.

22. Unto an hundred talents of silver. According to the weight of the light Babylonian talent, this would be 3,013 kgs., or 3.32 tons. In addition, Ezra could require 100 cor of wheat (22,000 liters, or 624 bu.), and 100 baths (2,200 liters, or 581 gals.) each of wine and oil.

In the Babylonian contract tablets oil and wine are usually dealt with in “jars” whose capacity is not known. Prices for wine varied from one to eight shekels a jar, according to the quality of the wine and the season of the year. Compare Vol. I, p. 169.

A requisition to the treasurer for wheat, wine, oil, and salt seems strange today, but was natural enough in the Persian system, where taxation was partly in kind and every province was required to remit to the royal court the choicest portion of its produce. Wine, corn, oil, and salt were all produced abundantly in Palestine, which was “a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of oil olive and of honey” (2 Kings 18:32), and, in the region about the Dead Sea, abounded with salt.

23. Wrath against the realm. In the seventh year of Artaxerxes I there was “wrath against the realm” of Persia of a most serious nature. Egypt had revolted from the Persiansc. 463 b.c., and in the following year, with the assistance of the Athenians, had driven the last Persian out of the country. Toward the close of 459 a vain attempt was made to force Athens to recall her troops. In 458 Artaxerxes resolved to attempt the recovery of the revolted country. Soon thereafter he issued this decree authorizing Ezra’s expedition to Jerusalem. History records that from the year 457 b.c. on things went well for the Persians in Egypt. Memphis was recovered in that year, and in 456 the Athenian troops were finally defeated and the province of Egypt recovered.

And his sons. When Artaxerxes came to the throne he was still quite young, and it is not known how many sons he had in his seventh year. Ultimately, the number reached 18 (Ctesias Excursus Persika 44).

24. We certify. The older commentators have seen in the pronoun “we” either a plural of majesty, still in common use by royalty and perhaps comparable to the editorial “we,” or an indication that Artaxerxes here includes his sons. Both views, however, are incorrect. A better understanding of Aramaic shows that the subject of the active participle “certify,” or “notify,” is indefinite, and that the phrase should be translated in the passive sense “you are notified.”

It shall not be lawful. On the three taxes mentioned here see on ch. 4:13. Documentary evidence reveals that the Egyptian priesthood was exempt from taxes during most of its history (see on Gen. 47:22). Although there is no documentary evidence confirming the same custom in Persia, the fact that this privilege was granted to the Jewish Temple personnel implies that the Persian priesthood also was tax exempt. Ezra would hardly have secured such a grant for the priests of his people if the Persian priesthood had not enjoyed similar privileges.

That the policy of exempting priests from taxation is not without parallel even in the time of the Persians can be seen from a Greek inscription in which Darius I censures a certain Gadatas for ignoring the royal policy by exacting “tribute from the sacred cultivators of Apollo.” Antiochus the Great also granted similar privileges to the Jewish priesthood (Josephus Antiquities xii. 3. 3).

25. Magistrates and judges. The closing part of the decree (vs. 25 and 26) authorizes Ezra to reorganize the judicial system of Judea and to be responsible for all future appointments of judicial officers in that province. The word shaphetin, “magistrates,” is simply the Aramaicized Hebrew equivalent of the word translated “judges.” The word has not been found in non-Jewish documents written in Aramaic, but its root verb appears in Jewish records found at Elephantine. Its use in the decree of Ezra 7 is one more proof that a Hebrew-speaking Jew, probably Ezra, was responsible for the wording of this document.

Beyond the river. See on Ezra 4:10. That Ezra’s jurisdiction was not intended to cover the entire area of “Beyond the River” is evident from the additional explanatory clause, “all such as know the laws of thy God.” It assigns to Ezra’s jurisdiction only the Jewish portion of the population, including Jewish proselytes.

Teach ye them. Ezra, who was probably responsible for the wording of the decree, must have known something about the spiritual conditions prevailing in Judea, which had convinced him of the need for instructing the returned exiles in the law of God. Knowing that his personal conviction on the matter might not carry much weight with the leadership in Judea, he secured royal authorization for this work in order that the Jews might not be tempted to slight this aspect of his program of reform. That the initiative for these provisions in the decree came from Ezra is implied in vs. 6, 28.

26. Let judgment be executed. Finally, Ezra was authorized to enforce the law, with the power to fine, imprison, banish, or execute offenders, as he should deem right. These powers were always entrusted by the Persians to the civil administrators of provinces, who ruled as autocrats within their respective territories, responsible to the king alone. The grant of such far-reaching responsibilities to Ezra shows that Artaxerxes did not consider him merely a religious leader. He was invested with secular authority over every branch of the administration of the Judean province, except, perhaps, that of finance.

27. Blessed. Having quoted the important document in Aramaic, the language in which it was originally issued, Ezra now proceeds in Hebrew, which continues without interruption to the close of the book. A true man of God, he expresses gratitude for answered prayer.

Beautify the house. Ezra’s word of gratitude indicates that Artaxerxes had given authorization for further building activities in connection with the Temple. It is not known whether this work consisted of decorations only or whether it included also buildings. This text doubtless explains why Ezra included Artaxerxes among the kings whose “commandment” caused the Temple to be built (see ch. 9:9, and on ch. 6:14).

28. Unto me. Many modern commentators have thought that only those parts of the book of Ezra which are written in the first person singular can be attributed to Ezra, and that those parts which refer to Ezra in the third person singular were written by someone else (see chs. 7:1–11; 10:1). However, a careful study of ancient documents shows that a change of pronouns is no proof of a change in authorship. Examples can be given from Egyptian (the Sinuhe story, see on Ex. 2:15), Assyrian (Annals of Sargon II), Aramaic (Ahikar story), Hebrew (Dan. 4), and Greek (Thucydides) documents, in which the same peculiarity appears. Even in some modern literary works writers change suddenly from the first to the third person or vice versa, as Kittel has shown.

Before the king. See on v. 15. Here is further evidence that Ezra had appeared before Artaxerxes and his cabinet as a petitioner (see also v. 6). Although it must be assumed that Ezra’s tact and wisdom were responsible for much of the success that crowned his efforts, especially in obtaining the decree, the hand of Providence led him on step by step. He freely acknowledged that his success was due to God’s goodness and that God had worked on the hearts of the king and the rulers before whom he had appeared.

additional note on chapter 7

Until the closing years of the 19th century Jews and Christians alike considered the Artaxerxes of the book of Ezra to be the first Persian king who bore this name. He was called by the Greeks Artaxerxes Longimanus (meaning “long hand”), and reigned from 465 to 423 b.c. Since 1890, however, the situation has changed markedly. In that year a Belgian scholar, A. van Hoonacker, published his first study on the chronological order of Ezra and Nehemiah, arguing for a reversal of the traditional order and essaying to make Ezra one of the successors of Nehemiah. This view of the successors of Nehemiah. This view has won many followers in the scholarly world. Those who reverse the traditional order are now about equal in number to those who still adhere to it. In view of the importance of this question, particularly with respect to the prophecy of Dan. 9:24–27 and its exact dating, a more detailed analysis of the problem is here given.

Scholars who believe that Ezra followed Nehemiah can be grouped as follows: (1) those dating the events of Ezra 7 in the last years of the reign of Artaxerxes I, usually in his 37th regnal year (427 b.c.) instead of in the 7th, as in the Bible text, and (2) those who assign Ezra’s expedition to the 7th year of the reign of Artaxerxes II (405/04–359/58 b.c.).

The views of the first group need no discussion in this commentary, for they involve nothing more than a conjectural emendation of the text, which rejects the date as given in Ezra 7 and substitutes another in its place. The majority of scholars who believe the Ezra’s activity in Jerusalem followed that of Nehemiah belong to this first group.

More impressive are the arguments of scholars belonging to the second group. They point out that the Bible does not indicate which of the three Artaxerxes of history is meant in Ezra 7, and that they do no violence to the Biblical record by placing the events of Ezra 7 and 8 in the 7th year of Artaxerxes II instead of the 7th year of Artaxerxes I. Since every student of the Bible will admit that the events recorded are not always presented in chronological order, one is not entitled, a priori, to reject a view that assigns Ezra 7–10 to a time after the events described in Nehemiah. A careful study of all the evidence is essential to a valid decision with respect to the matter.

To begin with, it is appropriate to inquire as to the reasons why scholars forsook the long-held position that Ezra came to Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes I, and Nehemiah in the 20th year of the same king. Of numerous arguments brought forth in favor of reversing the traditional order only five are of any particular significance. These assert:

      1. That Nehemiah knows little of Erza. If Ezra had come to Jerusalem armed with extensive administrative, religious, and judicial powers, as Ezra 7 implies, why does he not play a more important role in Nehemiah’s time? It is true that Ezra is mentioned as reader of the law (Neh. 8:1–6, 9), and as one of the leaders of the two processional choirs at the dedication of the wall (Neh. 12:36), but his activities are completely overshadowed by those of Nehemiah. If, on the other hand, he was a comparatively young priest of Aaronic descent in the time of Nehemiah, it was only natural that he should be a reader of the law, but without an important place in the civil administration. Later, presumably, he gained the ear of the Persian king and was dispatched to Judah with the extensive powers listed in Ezra 7.

      2. That Nehemiah is silent about the exiles who returned with Ezra. In his endeavor to repopulate the capital of the country, Nehemiah reviews the census of the various groups that returned with Zerubbabel almost a century previously (Neh. 7), but seems to ignore completely those who, according to Ezra 7 and 8, returned only 13 years earlier, if Ezra’s return took place in 457 b.c. If, however, Ezra came with about 5,000 or 6,000 people in the time of Artaxerxes II, Nehemiah could base his repopulation measures on the only census available, that of Zerubbabel.

      3. That Ezra finds a commission instituted by Nehemiah. When Ezra arrived in Jerusalem he handed over the treasures entrusted to him by Artaxerxes to four Levites, who were apparently in charge of the Temple funds (Ezra 8:33). Nehemiah reports that during his second term of office he appointed a commission of four over the treasuries (Neh. 13:13), implying that such an institution did not exist before his time. Hence it is concluded that Ezra must have arrived at Jerusalem after the commission had been set up, that is, after Nehemiah’s first governorship.

      4. That the wall had been built before Ezra’s arrival. Ezra expressed his gratitude to God for having given “a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem” (Ezra 9:9), which apparently, had but recently been completed. Nehemiah, however, found only ruins, and had to rebuild the wall in the first year after his arrival at Jerusalem.

      5. That the high priest Johanan belonged to a later generation. Johanan is usually quoted as the chief witness in favor of the view that Ezra followed Nehemiah. Johanan, the son of Eliashib, is one of the last dignitaries, probably high priests, mentioned in the book of Nehemiah (Neh. 12:22, 23). Since Eliashib was high priest during Nehemiah’s governorship (Neh. 3:1, 20, 21; 13:4, 7), Johanan, who was either his son or grandson (Joiada is placed between Eliashib and Johanan in Neh. 12:22), belonged to a later generation. This conclusion agrees with the fact that Johanan is mentioned in a Jewish document as having been high priest in 410 b.c. Among the Elephantine papyri (see pp. 79–83) is a letter written Nov. 25, 407 b.c. (according to the Persian calendar) and addressed to Bigvai, the Persian governor of Judea. This letter states that the writers had written three years earlier to “Johanan, the high priest, and his colleagues, the priests who are in Jerusalem” (Cowley’s edition, No. 30).

Moreover, Johanan, the son of Eliashib, had a chamber in the Temple at Jerusalem when Ezra arrived in that city (Ezra 10:6). If Ezra came to Jerusalem in 457 b.c., and found Johanan in possession of a Temple chamber, the latter must have been an officiating priest at least 20 years of age (see Ezra 3:8), presumably much older. If, according to the papyrus mentioned, Johanan was high priest in 410 b.c., he must at that time have been at least 67 years old, and since his successor Jaddua (Neh. 12:11, 22) was high priest when Alexander the Great was traversing Palestine (332 b.c.; see Josephus Antiquities xi. 8. 4, 5), 78 years later, Jaddua must have been about 100 years of age.

Those who hold that Nehemiah preceded Ezra declare that the apparent difficulty of conceiving that Jaddua functioned as a high priest at the age of 100 can be solved by assuming that Ezra arrived in Jerusalem under Artaxerxes II (405/04–359/58 b.c.). It can then be said that Johanan became high priest shortly before 410 b.c., as successor to Joiada, the son of Eliashib, Nehemiah’s contemporary. Presuming that Johanan was about 30 years old in 410, he would have reached the age of 43 when Ezra arrived at Jerusalem in the 7th regnal year of Artaxerxes II, and thus had an office in the Temple, which Ezra could use (Ezra 10:6). If we presume further that Jaddua was born late in Johanan’s life, perhaps when Johanan was 40 years old, he would have reached the age of about 70 years at the time of Alexander’s visit.

These are the five most important arguments that scholars set forth in favor of reversing the traditional sequence of the expeditions of Ezra and Nehemiah. These arguments will now be considered from the viewpoint of the traditional Erza-Nehemiah sequence.

      1. The position of Ezra in Nehemiah’s time was a normal one. Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in 457 b.c. armed with great powers, but not as governor like Nehemiah, 13 years later. Ezra had gained the favor of the king, who authorized him to return to Judea and reorganize the judicial system according to Jewish laws (see Ezra 7:26). He also received far-reaching financial grants and apparently the right to fortify the city. During the rebellion of Megabyzos, satrap of “Beyond the River” (see p. 62), to which the province of Judea belonged, the Samaritans may have taken the opportunity of communicating directly with the king, assuring him of their own loyalty but at the same time accusing the Jews of sinister intent in rebuilding their city wall. Artaxerxes, vacillating by nature and an opportunist, may have gratefully accepted the declaration the Samaritans made, hoping that their loyalty would bring difficulties to the rebellious Megabyzos in his own satrapy, and allowed the Samaritans to call a halt to the rebuilding of the Jerusalem wall. Not satisfied with merely stopping the activity of the Jews, however, the Samaritans may have demolished parts of it and burned certain gates (see on Neh. 1:3).

After a reconciliation between Megabyzos and Artaxerxes had taken place, normal relations with the satrapy “Beyond the River” were restored, and Nehemiah heard from his brother (see on Neh. 1:2) of what had happened in Judea during the time connections with that province had been severed. Thereupon Nehemiah requested the king, whose favor he enjoyed, to be sent to Jerusalem with full authority to rebuild the wall (Neh. 1 and 2).

Although Nehemiah received full authority to rebuild the wall, he proceeded with utmost caution upon his arrival in Jerusalem, fully aware of the power and persistence of his enemies. His initial secrecy (Neh. 2:12–16), together with the determination with which he later faced opposition to his work, shows how well he was qualified to complete the task Ezra had been engaged in, but had been prevented from completing.

For this reason Ezra may have felt it wise to remain in the background until the work on the wall was finished. Ezra may also have been accused by his enemies among the Jews of causing unrest and friction between Judah and its neighbor nations because he expelled the heathen wives from Jewish homes when he returned to Jerusalem (Ezra 9 and 10). Prudence may therefore have dictated a course of action which at first made it appear that Nehemiah had little to do with Ezra.

However, with the wall completed and nothing serious to fear, Nehemiah would naturally accord Ezra his rightful place in the affairs of the nation. At the dedication of the wall, he called on Ezra to lead one of the two processional choirs of praise, while he directed the second one himself (Neh. 12:36, 38). It was only fitting that the two processions should be led by the two men who had been so prominent in the work of restoring the wall.

Later, when the festival season arrived, Ezra was the undisputed religious leader and directed the activities of the people (Neh. 8:1–6, 9, 13). This shows that Nehemiah did not ignore Ezra, but accorded him his rightful place as soon as conditions permitted it. It is not true, as has been claimed, that Ezra’s name can be dropped from Neh. 8 and 12 without the slightest consequence to the narrative. If this were done, one of the two processions at the time of the dedication of the wall would have no leader. The explanation that makes Ezra first the predecessor, and later the colaborer, of Nehemiah is fully consistent with known facts.

      2. Nehemiah used the oldest census list available. That Nehemiah used the census list of Zerubbabel’s time as a basis for his measures to repopulate Jerusalem (Neh. 7) does not imply that he ignored those exiles who had recently returned with Ezra, or that they had not yet returned. Our knowledge of the events of that time are only fragmentary. It is possible that the exiles accompanying Ezra had been more willing to live in Jerusalem than had those of Zerubbabel’s time, a situation that would have led Nehemiah to review the earlier census list. Another reason for consulting the oldest available list may have been the fact that the 50,000 exiles of Zerubbabel’s expedition were more equally distributed over the country than the comparatively smaller group that arrived in Jerusalem with Ezra. Since Zerubbabel’s list mentions 45 groups, excluding servants and entertainers, and Ezra’s list only 18 groups, it is evident that the first list provided a better representation of the population quotas than the latter. The fact that Ezra’s list is not mentioned in Neh. 7 does not prove that it did not exist in Nehemiah’s time.

      3. Nehemiah did not organize a new treasurer’s office. It is false to assume that Nehemiah, during his second governorship, instituted treasurers for the first time. The report of Neh. 13:10–14 clearly states that on his arrival at Jerusalem the second time Nehemiah found that for some time no payments of tithe had been made by the people and that the Temple personnel had therefore been forced to cultivate the fields in order to make a living. Nehemiah rectified this situation immediately upon his return. By persuading the Jews to resume tithe paying he succeeded in recalling the Levites and singers to the Temple. Treasurers would be needed to handle the funds, and four men were therefore appointed. The mention of four treasurers in Ezra 8:33 does not warrant the conclusion that it was necessarily customary to have all Temple funds handled by a commission of four. To assume that such a commission did not exist before Nehemiah’s second term of service is without factual basis.

      4. Ezra thanked God for the permission to build a wall. If the reconstruction of the history of Ezra’s activity as reviewed briefly under No. 1 accords with the facts, Ezra was empowered to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem at the time of his return in 457 b.c. If so, it is not strange to find him thanking God (Ezra 9:9) for influencing the kings of Persia to give Israel a “reviving” (Cyrus and Artaxerxes I), to assist Israel in setting up the house of their God (Cyrus and Darius I), and to “give” them “a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem” (Artaxerxes I). It should be noted that Ezra does not state that the wall had already been finished. His words could be understood in this sense only if other evidence were forthcoming that proved that the building of the wall had been completed before his prayer was uttered. But taken alone, the statement may as well be interpreted to mean that by God’s grace a permit had been granted to go forward with the rebuilding of the wall. The words do not imply that the wall was already finished, and this text cannot be taken as evidence that Ezra’s reform, described in chs. 9 and 10, took place after the events recorded in the book of Nehemiah.

      5. The age of Johanan was not abnormal. There is no reason to doubt that the Johanan mentioned in a Jewish document from Elephantine as high priest in 410 b.c. is the Johanan, son Eliashib, of Neh. 12:22, 23. Most probably he was also the man in whose office Ezra wept (Ezra 10:6). Even if at the time of Ezra’s return to Jerusalem in 457 b.c. Johanan was already a respected priest of about 30 years of age, and had his own office adjacent to the Temple, he could still be high priest in 410 b.c., at the age of between 70 and 80 years, when the afore-mentioned letter of the Jews of Elephantine was written to him.

The only difficulty in this interpretation is in connection with Jaddua, if he was Johanan’s successor as high priest and was still officiating in Alexander’s time, 75 years after the Elephantine letter to Johanan, as Josephus seems to indicate (Antiquities xi. 8. 4, 5). However, this difficulty appears to be more serious than it actually is. Even if Josephus is correct in claiming that the high priest of Alexander’s time was Jaddua, there is no proof that this was the same Jaddua as the one mentioned in Neh. 12:11, 22. The book of Nehemiah itself knows of another Jaddua, mentioned as a family head who signed the covenant of Nehemiah’s time (Neh. 10:21). Hence, the Jaddua of Neh. 12:11, 22, who succeeded Johanan as high priest, could have been the grandfather of a high priest by the name of Jaddua who officiated in the Temple at the time of Alexander’s visit.

It should be remembered that the historian Josephus made at least one serious mistake in his narration of the history of this time by making Sanballat a contemporary of Alexander (Antiquities xi. 8. 2, 3). We know from the Bible and from the contemporary records found at Elephantine that Sanballat lived in the time of Nehemiah (see on Neh. 2:10).

It is therefore altogether possible that he also confused the names of the Jewish high priests, though it would not therefore be necessary to assume that the story of Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem must be considered legendary.

From the above discussion it is obvious that the evidence adduced in favor of considering Ezra as later than Nehemiah is at best very weak. In recognition of this fact, many scholars have declined to reverse the traditional sequence. Furthermore, such a proposed reversal involves the defenders of the reversal theory in some of the same difficulties they seek to avoid. This can be seen from the two following points.

      1. The age of Meremoth. When Ezra arrived at Jerusalem in 457 b.c. he delivered the treasures, brought up from Babylon, to the priest Meremoth, the son of Uriah (Ezra 8:33). This same Meremoth is mentioned 13 years later as an active supporter of Nehemiah and an enthusiastic builder of two sections of the wall (Neh. 3:4, 21). No difficulties are involved in the same man’s carrying out the various tasks attributed to him in the afore-mentioned texts, during the course of 13 years, from 457 to 444.

If, however, as claimed, Ezra arrived in 397 b.c., in the 7th year of Artaxerxes II, 47 years after Nehemiah’s wall was built, it was a very old Meremoth who received the treasures from Ezra. Even if Meremoth was 25 years old at the time he was responsible for building two wall sections, he would have reached the age of 72 when he officiated as one of the treasurers at the time of Ezra’s return. While this would certainly be possible, it should be noted that the new theory automatically assigns to Meremoth an age the proponents of that theory declare is incredible for Johanan.

Another point to remember is that in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah each high priest presumably served for life, and it is only to be expected that those holding the office would be advanced in years toward the close of their successive terms of service. Thus Aaron served as high priest to the age of 123, Eli to the age of 98, and Jehoiada to the age of 130 (Num. 33:39; 1 Sam. 4:15; 2 Chron. 24:15).

      2. The age of Ezra. A much greater difficulty for the holders of the reversal theory is encountered in Ezra’s age, if he arrived at Jerusalem 47 years after Nehemiah. Proponents of the new theory represent Ezra as the great religious leader in the activities described in Neh. 8, and as one of the two leaders at the dedication of the wall. But one chosen to lead out in these activities instead of the high priest must have been a man of distinction and a most influential person—hence, not a youth. It is difficult to imagine one selected for these roles as being less than 40 years of age, or that Nehemiah would have chosen him unless he was known for specific and important achievements accomplished prior to that time. Yet to allow Ezra a respectable age in Nehemiah’s time leads inevitably to a ridiculously high age for him at the time of his supposed return from Babylon 47 years later, in the year 397 b.c.

Recognizing this serious difficulty, many scholars who reverse the Biblical order of Ezra and Nehemiah either delete Ezra’s name from texts that associate him with Nehemiah, or arbitrarily assign his expedition to the 37th year of Artaxerxes I. For readers of this commentary it is sufficient to point out that both of these proposals are based on deliberate alterations of the Bible text. The conservative student of the Bible finds no reason for reversing the order of the arrival of Ezra and Nehemiah as given in the Bible. Such a transposition not only does not solve all the difficulties it proposes to disposes of, but creates new ones, and renders a reconstruction of the history of that time most difficult. We cannot ignore either the statements of Inspiration or the known facts of history.

Ellen G. White comments

1–28PK 607–614

1     DA 233; PK 698

1–5PK 608

6     PK 609

9     DA 233; PK 611, 617, 698

10   PK 608, 623

11, 12  PK 610

12, 13  PK 607

12–26GC 326; LS 58; 1T 52

13   PK 611

14, 15, 20, 23  PK 610

24–26PK 611

27, 28  PK 612

28   PK 614