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. Jewish assimilation defines 2nd Sinai avoda zarah as does Jewish assimilation like Jews for JeZeus.

  2. A Goy simply not Jewish just that simple. Sorry impossible to rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah and possess the means for alien Aliens guilty of the Shoah holocaust to translate the Torah correctly.

    Don’t know what Shoah holocaust is. Probably doesn’t matter, because you miss the point. You claimed that goyim scholars cannot translate Hebrew properly, saying **ALL** Christian translations of the scriptures are an abomination. I took an example from the Tanakh and quoted the same scripture in the KJV and there wasn’t any difference in the sense. This proves your statement about Christian translations wrong. So, if we are wrong then so is the Tanakh an abomination. You’re the judge here what’s your verdict?

  3. How? Please quote your evidence that I deny your general statement which lacks to date any qualifying particulars. The 13 middot spirits, not words. Words can be written, k’vanna of spirits cannot be written. The NaCH prophets interpreted the k’vanna of the 13 middot of Horev.

    Originally, you made the statement:

    Torah common law views personal beliefs as comparable to a judge accepting bribes.

    To which I replied:

    Because you have believed your rabbi, does this mean you’ve accepted a bribe?

    You admitted earlier that you studied under the tutelage of a rabbi you respect. Therefore, you **BELIEVED** what he told you about the Tanakh and the Talmud, but this was a side issue.
    Anyway, you replied to my statement above:

    No. Oral Torah a logic system. Not a belief system.

    Then I replied as above, to which you now take issue. I have shown that not only has it been necessary for you to BELIEVE your rabbi, it is also necessary for you to believe the Oral Torah (if there ever was one) was written down for the first time over a thousand years after the oral testimony began—all error free. You **must** BELIEVE this is so for you to judge everything else by what you are told in the Talmud. Therefore, your faith is based upon a believe system like everyone else’s faith. It makes no difference how logical you think the Talmud is. First, you must BELIEVE the things written therein are true and came down to you error free.

  4. Repeatedly have pointed out specifics of Xtian blank pages. Brit does not translate into covenant. Tefillah does not translate into prayer. Tefillah a matter of the heart whereas the false prophet JeZeus declared to his disciples that “Our Father who art in Heave”.
    You do not speak Hebrew or Aramaic therefore you can only speculate that the KJV, like the example tohor does not translate as unclean, not brain dead stupid false and wrong.

    Let’s get one thing straight. In the beginning I looked up a lot of the Jewish words you used in your replies to get as sense of what you were saying. I’m not doing that any longer. If you wish to be understood clearly speak in terms a goyim can understand. If you don’t care about being understood, that’s okay too. I’ll make due. Just saying how things are right now.

    Concerning “brit” and “covenant” – I quoted a passage in the Tanakh where “brit” was translated into “covenant”. That should be enough to show you are wrong, unless, of course you also think the Tanakh is an abominable translation of the Hebrew.

    Concerning “tefillah” not translating to prayer, once again, I’ll quote the Tanakh:
    כִּֽי־אַתָּה֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה צְבָא֜וֹת אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל גָּלִ֜יתָה אֶת־אֹ֤זֶן עַבְדְּךָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר בַּ֖יִת אֶבְנֶה־לָּ֑ךְ עַל־כֵּ֗ן מָצָ֤א עַבְדְּךָ֙ אֶת־לִבּ֔וֹ לְהִתְפַּלֵּ֣ל אֵלֶ֔יךָ אֶת־הַתְּפִלָּ֖ה הַזֹּֽאת׃
    Because You, O LORD of Hosts, the God of Israel, have revealed to Your servant that You will build a house for him, Your servant has ventured to offer this prayer to You.
    The word “prayer” in the citation is “tefillah”.

  5. The Talmud the codified Sanhedrin common law system of precedent CASE/Law. Just that simple. The Oral Torah requires wisdom of Pardes Logic which compares Case/Law with similar but different CASE/Law.

    This is the second time you replied to this reply of mine. Previously, you asked me to display my evidence, which I did above. Your Talmud is a belief system, as shown above.