The Chief Men Who Returned with Ezra

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’…

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.

146 responses to “The Chief Men Who Returned with Ezra”

  1. No way. Not my place to declare “who is Jewish”, when the Talmud has already done just that.

    Who has been condemned by the Talmud? It was written long ago, but you condemn your chief rabbi today.

    [[ In as much as I can tell, they were Jews just like the Jews you condemn here.]] I do not understand this sentence.

    Well, not only do you condemn the Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah in the first century AD, but you also condemn the high priest, saying he was bought and paid for, and you condemn the chief rabbi today. You have presented no evidence for your point of view. You merely make these categorical statements condemning Jews that you don’t agree with.

    [[Well, that’s true according to your worldview. According to my worldview it is “by grace alone, by faith in Christ alone.”]] The fruits of 2000+ years of Xtian barbarity and injustice toward the Jews … the Shoah.

    Christians have not persecuted Jews for 2000 years. There is a 2000 year period, extending from the present to the birth of Jesus, and during that time Christians persecuted Jews **sometimes** and Jews persecuted Christians **sometimes**.

    [[Why was man exiled from the garden? Did God grow tired of him?]] As mentioned previously, the story of Adam in the garden introduces the key Torah concept the curse of g’lut/exile.

    Yet, you haven’t said **WHY** Adam was exiled/cast out of the Garden! Did God create Adam, place him in the Garden, and then change his mind and cast him out? I don’t think so. What’s you take on this?

    The T’NaCH sealed by the men of the Great Assembly in the generation of Ezra. Based upon this masoret within the Talmud, Rabbi Yechuda sealed the Mishna in 210 CE and Rav Ravina and Rav Ashi sealed the Gemarah in Iraq in about 450CE. Torah common law stands upon precedents.

    That’s a stretch! How did Jews of the first century AD know the Tanakh was sealed in the Talmud, if the Talmud wasn’t written down and codified until centuries after the birth of Christianity? The book of the Tanakh could not have been sealed until the Talmud was written down, if you use the Talmud as your evidence for codification.

  2. The Tanakh wasn’t sealed until centuries after the birth of Christianity.

  3. [[[What is the third dimension in reading? Imagination? Whatever you claim is correct?]]] Prophetic mussar for Aggadita and Midrashim. Halachic precedents from other sources in the Talmud compared to a similar language but completely different halachic opinion on a sugya of Gemarah and its commentary learning whereby the Gemarah re-interprets the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna something like different facets of the same diamond. Herein defines Torah Common Law. Common Law in Hebrew: משנה תורה. The 2nd Name of the Book of דברים … משנה תורה.

    I still don’t see your point that this is three dimensional reading.

  4. Occupied territories the propaganda of UN 242. 242 declared it “inadmissible” to acquire land through war. The canard of “occupied territory” coined by UN 242. Yet America acquired land through the 1848 Mexican American War. Britain acquired Canada following the 7 year war! Trash in — Trash out. False premise, equally false conclusions reached.

    Mosckerr, this has absolutely nothing to do with my post: “The Chief Men Who Returned with Ezra.” It also has nothing to do with anything we’ve been discussing in the comments. I have no desire to discuss with you the world’s injustice to the Jews from 2000 years ago to the present. Please stick with the subject matter at hand.

  5. Why do all the super commentaries written on the common law halachic codifications of the B’hag, Rif, Rosh, fail to learn these halachic codes as common law but rather pervert it, into a religious code which determines halachic ritual practices?
    Profile photo for Moshe Kerr
    The transformation in Jewish scholarship reflects a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and methodological factors. The shift from a common law perspective to a more dogmatic interpretation has had profound implications for how halacha is understood and applied today. A deeper engagement with the Talmud’s inherent common law characteristics could potentially restore the dynamism and adaptability that once defined Jewish legal thought…

    This is an abbreviation of the 6 ½ pages you sent to me. Once again, you have departed from our discussion to go on and on about what you wish to preach. I won’t permit that on my website. If you cannot stick to the subject matter presented in my studies, this discussion will have to end.