The books of Ezra and Nehemiah hold much confusion for Biblical scholars, as far as chronology is concerned. Some conclude Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries, while others believe Ezra arrived in Jerusalem over 50 years after Nehemiah’s ministry. Actually, the chronology of the books is very simple, IF, and only if, one decides with Jesus’ conclusion that scripture cannot or must not be read in a manner that forces it to contradict itself (John 10:35). In other words, one must labor to find a way in which two or more passages of scripture will not contradict. If this is done successfully, one would probably hold the truth of the matter in mind. How is this so, or why must this be done? It is because names of places have changed; sometimes people are known by more than one name; indeed, worldviews change from one age to another, so how one looks at something said in the scriptures triggers a different context of understanding than the original. Therefore, if one labors to understand the original meaning of the text, vis-à-vis what it meant to the original audience, one may very well be rewarded with the truth.
Reading genealogies is so boring; isn’t that true? Yet, from time to time, depending on the context of one’s study, they are very revealing. For example, none of the names that we find written in Ezra 8:1-14 are recorded in either the Book of Ezra or the Book of Nehemiah as having assisted in the rebuilding projects of either the Temple of God or the walls surrounding Jerusalem. That should come as a surprise for anyone who believes that the Decree of Artaxerxes had anything to do with either building project, and there are Biblical scholars who believe the decree permitted the building project to continue to its conclusion. Nevertheless, if none of the folks that Artaxerxes released to rebuild the Temple or the city are found to have participated in that labor, how can anyone conclude the Decree of Artaxerxes had anything to do with the Seventy Weeks Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27?
The labor of building the Temple began with Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah, and Joshua, the high priest. It was they and those with them who rebuilt the Altar of God on the Feast of Trumpets, immediately following their coming to Jerusalem after being released by Cyrus from their captivity in Babylon (Ezra 3:1-3), and the Seventy Weeks Prophecy begins there. Moreover, the project of rebuilding the Temple continued from the second month of the second year, after being released from Babylon (Ezra 3:8). Additionally, the text claims that, after both the leaders and the rest of the men who came out of the captivity, vis-à-vis the folks listed in the genealogy found in chapter two of the Book of Ezra, laid the foundations of the Temple, they paused to celebrate the fruit of their labor (Ezra 3:8-13). Nevertheless, after about a year or two, and after no little frustration created by the Samaritans, the labor ceased by the order of Cambyses, king of Persia (Ezra 4:1-6).
It didn’t begin again until the coming of Nehemiah, and it is reveled in his account that the building project included the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls (Nehemiah 4:1-7). Moreover, those who took part on this building project included the folks of the generation that was born in Judah after the children of the captivity returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, and they are listed in chapter three of the Book of Nehemiah! In each case, the name mentioned lists his father/grandfather as being one of those who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon with Zerubbabel, the governor, and Joshua, the high priest.[1] Genealogies are boring to read, but they are important to show some very important things, including the timeframe, showing when certain events occurred, and who was involved. So, let me repeat, none of the names listed in Ezra 8:1-14 who returned with Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, the king of Persia (cp. Ezra 7:7), participated in the building project at Jerusalem. What can we conclude from this point? The conclusion of the matter is that Ezra and company arrived after the building project was over. The Temple was already completed, and its dedication was celebrated a year prior to the release of Ezra (Ezra 6:15-18). Moreover, the city and its walls were also complete, and Ezra and company arrived in Jerusalem just in time (a few weeks prior), to participate in the celebration of dedicating the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 12:27, 35-36).
_______________________________________________________
[1] For example, Eliashib, the officiating high priest during the days when Nehemiah was in authority over the building project at Jerusalem, helped build the wall beginning at the Sheep Gate (Nehemiah 3:1). He was the grandson of Joshua the high priest, who had come up from the captivity (Nehemiah 12:10; cp. Ezra 2:2). Meremoth built the wall near the Fish Gate (Nehemiah 3:3), and he was the son of Urijah (Nehemiah 3:4), the son of Koz (cp. Ezra 2:61), and so on.
Smoodock's Blog 
146 responses to “The Chief Men Who Returned with Ezra”
Can you explain the difference between Rashi’s commentary in Torah and Gemara (Talmud)?
Rashi feared the hatred of Xtian hostility toward the Talmud. In Paris 1242 the Poop pope and king of Frog France burned all the hand written Talmudic manuscripts in the whole of France. This threat caused Rashi to conceal his understanding of Talmudic common law. Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash a common law commentary. The vast majority of Rashi comments on the Talmud not based upon the פרדס common law kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva. The major criticism made by the Baali Tosafot against their grand fathers commentary to the Talmud, that Rashi did not learn the Talmud as common law based upon precedents. The Hebrew for precedent … בנין אב.
The Rashi p’shat learned on the Talmud radically and disastrously impacted his commentary on Midrash Rabbah. There too Rashi p’shat does not follow the common law Rashi p’shat of his Chumash commentary. Rather Rashi p’shat on both the Talmud and Midrash duplicates the sh’itta of Ibn Ezra’s theory of p’shat; limited pretty much to a literal interpretation. About 25% of Rashi p’shat on the Chumash also follows this Ibn Ezra טיפש פשט literalism.
Why טיפש פשט? All the Xtian Bible mistranslations limit themselves to a טיפש פשט guideline. For example: בראשית contains the words ברית אש, ראש בית, ב’ ראשית yet all Bible translations limit their interpretation to “In the Beginning”. Another example of טיפש פשט heroin addiction to literal translations: the Sin of the Golden Calf where טיפש פשט understands this רמז Golden Calf metaphor restricted to a literal Golden Calf. This bird brained literalism makes thousands of generations of Xtian utterly ignorant to the commandment not to translate the Divine Presence Spirit Name יקוה (sp) to other words, like Allah, Lord, Yahweh, Jehovah etc etc etc. The רוח הקודש which Xtianaity transforms into their Trinity mystery nonsense dogmatism, this addiction to the heroin drug of literalism cause all generations of both Xtian and Muslim/Arab believers to fail to grasp that the Spirit Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment Spirit and not a word.
The טיפש פשט of Jesus who taught prayer as: “Our Father who art in Heaven etc”. The brit (This term does not correctly translate into “covenant”.) a oath sworn from within the heart NOT the Heavens. A precedent for this critical interpretation, from the p’suk: build me a Mishkan and I shall dwell within YOU”. The רוח הקודש Spirit Divine Presence lives within the hearts of His oath brit alliance People. Hence tefillah, (mistranslated as prayer), a matter of the heart and NOT the Heavens as Jesus falsely instructed his pupils.
Mosckerr, greetings. Wow, you can be serious, when you allow yourself to be. Can’t you? I appreciate you comment and the spirit in which you sent it. Thank you.
To begin with, let me say that I find it very difficult to understand some of what you are saying. I am not a Jew, but I know another Jew would read your comment and find it very clear. Secondly, I am aware that Jews have been persecuted by organized Christian churches and their members over the centuries from the founding of Christianity to the present. This is wrong and committed against the teachings of Jesus, as understood from the four Gospel narratives. It is also wrong, according to the rest of the New Covenant texts–Acts, and the epistles.
I have read some of the Talmud, both Babylonian and Jerusalem. I am able to understand some things that were written but not all. You have a much better grasp of what it says than I do. This doesn’t mean you and I would agree on everything that I am able to grasp, but I realize you are a better candidate for understanding the intent of the authors than I am. Moreover, you probably have been taught to grasp the reasons behind its symbolism. I think I am correct in thinking that some of that symbolism is there to keep folks like me from understanding what the author is saying. The language is meant to be understood only by folks like yourself. After all, it is folks like me who have persecuted folks like you.
That said, I will attempt to reply to your commentary on things like Christian literalism. I agree that this is a problem, but neither is everything symbolic. There was an Abraham, an Isaac and a Jacob. They were literal people, who had a relationship with God, and the study of their lives is important to understand our relationship with God. This is “literally” true.
You mentioned the Tetragrammaton, purposefully misspelled. I agree that the literal translations are bogus. I once was doing a private study of Hebrew (all on my own, no help), and I tried to pronounce the letters as written (no vowels) and all that came out was breath. That is my understanding of the name: breath, spirit. It cannot be pronounced. Nevertheless, if I were to refer to God, I would refer to him as Lord, but this wouldn’t be a translation of the Hebrew; its just a way to refer to him with respect.
Your commentary on “In the beginning…” is a little difficult to understand, since you didn’t translate the Hebrew. It is my understanding that the meaning has to do with God beginning to create and taking full responsibility for what he is doing. It is not simply the beginning of time or of an event. The words entail God’s integrity in his purpose. The Hebrew words you wrote, I am unable to understand. When I study the Hebrew for a Bible study, I am completely dependent upon the “experts” to tell me what the Hebrew means.
Concerning your commentary on Jesus’ model prayer: “Our Father who art in heaven…”, if I may, let me correct your literalism. The Temple at Jerusalem seems to have been a symbolic copy of man’s relationship with God before Adam’s rebellion. The Most Holy Place was “Heaven” (where God resides) or the Garden, Paradise, where man communed freely with God. After the rebellion man was cast out of the Garden and was unable to return, symbolized by the curtain between the Holy Place (Eden) and the Most Holy Place (the Garden). At Jesus’ baptism the “heavens” were opened and remained open. When the Jewish authorities asked when the Kingdom would appear, Jesus told them that the Kingdom wasn’t a place they could find on a map (they were being too literal). The Kingdom of God was “within you”. So, in Jesus’ model prayer “heaven” — the Kingdom of God, the place where God resides — is “within” man. God’s Presence is “with” us, “within” us. Access to the “heavens” (Most Holy Place) has been opened for man, and they remain open. All we need to do is “enter” and commune with our God.
[[[There was an Abraham, an Isaac and a Jacob. They were literal people, who had a relationship with God, and the study of their lives is important to understand our relationship with God. This is “literally” true.]]] T’NaCH prophets command mussar NOT history. Rava, one of the greatest sages in the generation prior to Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina sealing the Talmud Bavli, Rava referred to Job as being an “imaginary man”. Prophetic mussar does not depend upon nor requires physical literal historical persons. Prophetic mussar taught while sages sat at campfires and told moral stories.
Torah faith has no concept of belief in this or that God. The Mishna in fact teaches that people who attempt to contemplate upon that which is above them, or beneath them, or behind them … better that such persons never born.
Torah defines faith as the urgent pursuit of Judicial fair compensation for damages inflicted by one Jew upon another Jew. Repeatly the Book of Shmuel praise David. Only in the matter of the husband of Bat Sheva does David face prophetic mussar criticism. David never stood trial before a lateral common law Sanhedrin courtroom. Pursuit of Justice defines Torah faith. Just that simple.
Yes purposely mispelled lest people attempt to treat this Spirit Name like a common word which the human lips can pronounce.
[[[all that came out was breath. That is my understanding of the name: breath, spirit. ]]] Torah common law/משנה תורה\ learns by means of precedents. The mitzva of blowing the shofar serves as the chief precedent to blowing the Divine Spirit Name which lives, the Avraham oath brit faith, within the hearts of all Chosen Cohen Seed of Avraham.
[[[Your commentary on “In the beginning…” is a little difficult to understand, since you didn’t translate the Hebrew.]]] ברית אש\brit fire: swearing a Torah oath the fire of cutting a brit alliance. ראש בית\\Head of House – chosen first born Cohen People. ב’ ראשית\\two beginnings: Rabbi Yechuda the author of the Mishna, based upon the Torah name for the Book of דברים, as משנה תורה\common law. The Mishna a codification of the Sanhedrin court house’s common law judicial rulings. Written Torah opposed by Oral Torah. The latter, according to rabbi Akiva, he defines Oral Torah revelation at Horev, 40 after the sin of the Golden Calf.
The טיפש פשט\bird brained reasoning of these major Torah themes go far beyond limiting how the generation interpret the Written Torah by means of employment of the Oral Torah פרדס logic format totally separate apart and different than the Greek Philosophers logic models.
The oath alliance Avraham swore with HaShem (The Name, only pronounced by blowing tohor spirits from within the heart.), that this Spirit Name would for ever live within the hearts of the Chosen Cohen People/nation. Hence based upon this oath brit alliance HaShem/the Name\ lives within the hearts of the Chosen Cohen nation. The Name revelation of the 1st Sinai commandment does not dwell in the Heavens but rather within the chosen Cohen nation’s hearts.
Mosckerr, greetings and thank you for your explanation of the terms and he the Hebrew you used in your previous comment.
Obviously, we shall disagree on some things, but we are of similar, but different faiths, so a different understanding on some things is understandable. However, I feel I need to point out an error in your reply. I checked the Tanakh, and although the wording is different, the sense agrees with my own Bible. You said: “The Name revelation of the 1st Sinai commandment does not dwell in the Heavens…” Now, technically, I agree. The “heavens” point to the Most Holy Place in the Temple, and our hearts, as even you agree that the heart is the dwelling place of God (although you are a bit of an exclusivist on this point). Both the Tanakh and my Bible say that the “heavens” are the dwelling place of God (1Kings 8:30, 39, 43, 49; 2Chronicles 6:21, 30, 33; 2Chronicles 30:27; Psalm 123:1). If “heaven” is the symbolic dwelling place of God, then it is symbolic of something real. The scriptures mention several places were God dwells: the Garden of Genesis 2 & 3, the Tabernacle/Temple in the Most Holy Place, and in the hearts of his people. I believe the verses I pointed to above point to this.
[[[ “The Name revelation of the 1st Sinai commandment does not dwell in the Heavens…” Now, technically, I agree. The “heavens” point to the Most Holy Place in the Temple, and our hearts, as even you agree that the heart is the dwelling place of God (although you are a bit of an exclusivist on this point).]]] The oath brit alliance sworn between Avram and HaShem at the brit cut between the pieces: How shall I know that my as yet unborn seed, (Avram childless at this point in time), shall number as the stars in the Heavens? The oath alliance: The Spirit breath of the Divine Presence Name shall live within the hearts of your chosen Cohen seed for all generations.
The Book of Kings a Book of political satire, like Gullivers’ Travels. Tongue in cheek when it refers to king Shlomo as the wisest of all men. HaHaHa LOL. Even nigger Joe in the Tales of Huckleberry Finn understood this satire humor. Love Mark Twain.