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”
Hope this latest response cleared up any confusion.
Have a nice day.
Some, but understanding other worldviews can be a stretch. At least it is for me. Presently, I’m doing my best to respond to your previous comment. May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you. :-)
Greetings Mosckerr, I hope you had a good and safe day. Israel, today, can be dangerous. Hope you are not close to that. Perhaps, we need to pause a moment. You said some things here that I would like to address. I don’t think I need to tell you that our wives are important. I don’t want to cause any problems with you in this department. Her feelings are important, and what we say here is not as important as that. So, if what we are doing clashes with your wife’s feelings, we need to stop.
I am enjoying our talk. Sometimes its a real reach for me to keep up and understand what you are saying, but there’s value there, even if all it is is understanding a worldview different from one’s own. There’s value in the ‘differences’ because they shed light on what we agree to. What we agree to has more value, because of our differences. Spending all one’s time with folks who agree with us is like playing solitaire. While that can be fun to do, it is somewhat more enjoyable to consider a perspective that we are unable to see on our own. That said, I sense you are pushing the envelope by discussing these things with me. I don’t want you to judge yourself or feel you are doing something unfavorable in the sight of God by speaking with me. We can stop anytime you wish. We’re not trying to “win” an argument here. The only “win” that will come out of this talk is that you and I will understand one another better afterward than when we began. That’s good enough for me. There’s value in that.
I believe you are referring to Matthew 15:21-28. The passage in John has Jesus seeking a drink from the woman.
Concerning Matthew’s account, Jesus ended up assisting her by healing her daughter. Why? The point is that the goyim didn’t at that time have a covenant relationship with the God of Israel, and the woman came to him, calling him the Son of David, a Messianic title. She had no grounds for that, but even the dogs (the goyim) have a right to the crumbs that fall from the table.
Yet, the JPS, a Jewish translation, uses the word “unclean” to translate ‘tumah’. The English word “unclean” isn’t limited to being dirty. It also has the meaning of being “spiritually or morally bad,” as though the person did something discreditable. It is as in the study at hand. Marriage isn’t wrong; yet, the Jews were mixing with the goyim, which if continued, there would eventually be no Jews, no covenant people. This was an ‘unclean’ thought. It made the marriages wrong. While the goyim could intermarry with one another, it would eventually destroy the Jews as a people. That was wrong.
Well, eventually Assyria would destroy the House of Israel, and Babylon which seems to have arisen out of the Assyrian Empire, destroyed the House of Judah. Yet, God asked Jonah to preach to Nineveh, the capital of Assyria and give them an opportunity to repent, saving them from the judgment of God. Jonah must have understood that Assyria was a real danger to his country and didn’t want to obey God, because obeying him in this thing endangered his own country. I suppose the “mussar” is to obey anyway. Love your enemies even when it hurts. There’s value there.
I trust that if you would look into what you say about the goyim, if you try to perceive from their point of view, you’d be just as surprised with the result that I am in seeking to understand the Jewish worldview. It may not be with you think. So, what is the ‘mussar’ of AD 70, from a Jewish perspective?
Yet, Jerusalem was destroyed twice, and your Temple, the symbol of your covenant with God, no longer exists. Why? Moreover, if the Tanakh is merely focused on justice between one Jew and another, why are there prophets, why Psalms (who sings in a court of law)? Why history? Why the judgment upon the nation?
This is hard to follow, and I’m still not certain I got it right. You seem to be saying that the first destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple had to do with Solomon’s sin of mixed marriages with the goyim (probably treaties), and Israel never recovered from the example he gave them. They, too, began to mix with the goyim. Okay, I can agree to this, but what about AD 70? That had nothing to do with Solomon’s sin.
Israel beheld the nations and wanted to be “like” them. Israel saw what Solomon did and wanted to be “like” him. We want to be “like” whatever we see and respect. If we see/consider God, we would want to be “like” him. God created us in his image, according to the text. Nevertheless, this ‘likeness’ isn’t concrete. That is, I don’t “look like” God. God doesn’t have ten fingers, ten toes and one nose. The likeness is more than that. It is spiritual. God was teaching man morality by the table he put before him, but Adam refused that and wanted to tell God what was “good and/or evil”. He wanted to call the shots, to prepare his own table, so God cast him out of the garden, and, relatively speaking, man was on his own, just as he wished, until he learned the ‘mussar’ of desiring to be “like” God from the inside out.
I’m having trouble understanding “g’lut” — my best thought is that it has something to do with desiring more than one should (from a dictionary). If this is its meaning, then you consider the desire of a Jewish Temple in Israel, something that should not be desired. Interesting perspective, and my worldview would agree, because I believe the Kingdom of God is “within” man. We are a kind of ‘tabernacle’ or tent that bears the Presence of God wherever we go, as opposed to a stationary Temple, like the one that stood in Jerusalem. The former ‘tabernacle’ was God’s idea, while the latter Temple was David’s.
Whether or not purposeful changes occurred, I don’t know, nor can it be proved one way or another. I receive the text just as it is. Nevertheless, man is prone to error. Copyist do make mistakes.
…for the same reason Jonah did, because it is a characteristic of God to reach out to the ignorant, in hope that judgment wouldn’t be necessary. Not everyone listens, and judgment comes, but some do and the remnant is preserved.
Okay! :-)
A particular and unique Messiah had been promised, and later it was promised that he would come through David’s lineage. Do you still seek such a person or is this a failed prophecy?
Who translates the Tanakh? We all, even the Jews who developed the Tanakh, translate the Hebrew manuscripts into the English.
Concerning the “end of days”, it’s odd, don’t you think, that “all generations” could be seen in the word “end of days” (אחרית), which, according to my Hebrew lexicon defines it as: “after part, end, issue, event, latter time (future), posterity, last, hindermost.” I suppose “posterity” could be “all generations”, but it appears that’s a stretch. The context of Moses’ remarks point to a specific generation, as does Jacob’s on his deathbed.
You avoided my question, by downplaying normal Jewish understanding and putting the ability to translate in the hands of elite Jews. That still seems like a club that no goyim, no matter what his credentials can enter.
While I do believe the AD 70 tragedy was judgment, it was certainly not as you have mentioned above. I do not hold to ‘authorities’ making blanket statements and making decisions “for” me. I don’t consider judgments made at religious councils binding. I have my own opinions, and I make my own decisions. While God did say he would scatter you among the nations, if national repentance didn’t occur, he never claimed he despised you. For the sake of your fathers: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, even at your worst, you are loved by God.
I am aware of the Jewish understanding of a “human god” being like Mt. Olympus, but this has absolutely nothing to do with what I claimed about Jesus’ life as depicted in any of the four Gospel narratives. Nothing in them would remind one of Greek mythology.
Then, I wonder what judgment looks like!
Does this mean you reject a good portion of the Torah that describes the content and manner in which the Tabernacle would be built, the furniture therein, and the sacrifices that were appropriate? Where’s your covenant without these? If the covenant is merely justice concerning one Jew and another, you can throw out these other things. Right? Just simply write them out of the Tanakh, so Jewish posterity won’t get confused.
Once again you simply avoided my point and question by finding fault with something I said. It makes no difference who the Bnai Brit Jew is. How does **HE** swear by the NAME of God? He can’t unless he uses a reasonable substitute for the NAME. You use HaShem. I use Lord, neither is the sound of the NAME. What am I missing here?
[[Yet, the JPS, a Jewish translation, uses the word “unclean” to translate ‘tumah’. ]] Consequent to the Rambam Civil War religious Jews do not know the difference between common law from statute law any better than Xtians. Jewish assimilation has had a tremendous impact upon my People through the generations.
[[no covenant people.]] Brit does not correctly translate into the English word covenant. A brit constitutes as an oath sworn alliance. This requires שם ומלכות. To interpret what this means requires פרדס logic which I can not discuss. Tohor & Tumah the two most complex and difficult subjects in the whole of the T’NaCH & Talmud.
[[give them an opportunity to repent, saving them from the judgment of God.]] T’shuva does not correctly translate into “repent”. Ya see the apples vs oranges differences between how פרדס logic interprets T’NaCH as opposed to how the Xtian bible perverts the T’NaCH. The Xtian bible imposed chapters within the T’NaCH. The organization of the T’NaCH made into sugyot/sub-chapters which the Xtian Order of chapters completely uproots. To what does this compare? Consider the word “God”, now change the order of the 3 letters and you have “Dog”. The Xtian Bible translations with their chapter organization did just that perversion.
[[ I suppose the “mussar” is to obey anyway. Love your enemies even when it hurts. There’s value there.]] Mussar compares to a seedling that spouts and grows into a tree. No man can cause another man to do t’shuva. Prophetic mussar functions as a seed that grows as an original idea within the hearts of the Jewish people. Who inspires a man to do t’shuva? mussar growing within the heart for years produces the fruits of t’shuva. T’shuva does not come from an outside source but rather from within the Yatzir within the heart.
The mussar of the g’lut of Assyria and Babylon inspires Yidden today just as the mussar of the Shoah inspires Yidden today.
[[ So, what is the ‘mussar’ of AD 70, from a Jewish perspective?]] Rejoice twice has the assimilated Temple abomination witnessed destruction. Jews have no need for a Catholic like Cathedral called a Temple.
[[Yet, Jerusalem was destroyed twice, and your Temple, the symbol of your covenant with God, no longer exists.]] No commandment to build any Temple. The prophet Natan commanded this mussar directly to king David. Judicial justice defines Torah faith. No more and No less.l
[[ “after part, end, issue, event, latter time (future), posterity, last, hindermost.” I suppose “posterity” could be “all generations”, but it appears that’s a stretch. The context of Moses’ remarks point to a specific generation, as does Jacob’s on his deathbed.]] All prophets command mussar to all generations. There is no last generation for the brit chosen Cohen nation who seed compares to the stars of the sky in multitude. The Torah speaks in the language of Man. End of times a metaphor meaning “to all generations”.
[[ but Adam refused that and wanted to tell God ]] The Aggadah story of Adam (1/4 of the Talmud Bavli Aggadic in nature), teaches the mussar of g’lut/exile. Mitzvot do not come by way of avarot/transgressions. King Shlomo worshipped avoda zarah. Everything he did – tumah. [[I’m having trouble understanding “g’lut” ]] G’lut = exile.
Cannot rationally discuss the mitzva of Moshiach without consideration of what Torah commandment serves as its basis.
[[[You avoided my question, by downplaying normal Jewish understanding and putting the ability to translate in the hands of elite Jews. ]]] The Oral Torah logic system does not require translations. The Aramaic targum delves into the language of Aramaic as does the Talmud itself.
Shabbat Shalom. Shalom a verb Peace a noun the translation of Peace as false as a $3 bill.
Greetings Mosckerr. I hope all is well with you and your family.
Okay, and I assume this is one of those things you can’t talk about, so I’ll move on. By the way, I am aware of Jewish assimilation. The Grecian Jews of the Diaspora (Hellenists) of the first century AD were a problem for some of the more discerning Jews of Jerusalem. They couldn’t or wouldn’t fellowship with them, even when those same Jews embraced Jesus as their Messiah, there was a problem of association.
Okay, moving on.
I am aware that the division of the word of God into chapters and verses sometimes ends in error, but in its defense, the division permits/helps the ordinary person to read and study scripture in a manner that we remember passages, and if passages, we know where to go to get the context and learn application. It isn’t a perfect tool, but its a good one nonetheless.
As for hiding the subtleties, the more educated folks like yourself would be able to find those subtleties anyway, chapter or no. The ordinary folks most likely wouldn’t be able to see them unless the subtleties are pointed out by you or someone who knows they’re there. This is similar to the chiastic structure in which the Christian scriptures are written. Chapters sometimes make finding what belongs where or a train of thought a problem. Nevertheless, the verses and chapters help the common folk, and the more educated, with a little extra thought and labor are able to see also the subtleties.
While I can agree to this somewhat, I cannot agree completely. We do change or receive strength to change from within, but the scriptures inspire the change, as do good books, rabbis and teachers, even common folk inspire change in their behavior, as they follow the Lord. Inspiration comes from the outside and works on a person’s heart.
Do I need to remind you that the Temple stood long before the existence of Catholicism? Our buildings of worship arose out of your synagogues. At one time many Jews and Christians worshiped together. We attended your places of worship on the Sabbath, and you attended ours on Sunday. Of course we are not so friendly today, but that’s another point entirely. Nevertheless, we are not to blame for your Temple. It arose out of the heart of David. The Tabernacle was a command from the Lord. So, I think “rejoicing” is out of place here, just like it would be at a funeral.
If I am understanding you correctly, judicial justice might be a beginning, but it hardly fulfills man’s obligation to his brother. We’re given the capacity to love for a reason. Judicial justice may stop the violence, but it has no affect upon the heart.
While I can agree that there is no end of time, there is a specific “time of the end” according to the scriptures. The angel told Daniel that the vision wasn’t for “all generations” but for the “time of the end” (Daniel 8:17). The “time of the end” had a specific place in history (Daniel 11:35). Violence would be a part of the “time of the end” (Daniel 11:40). The prophecy of Daniel was to be sealed until the “time of the end” (Daniel 12:4). The words in the Book of Daniel were sealed or closed to our understanding until the “time of the end” (Daniel 12:9). This, emphatically, doesn’t mean it is for “all generations.”
The rest you say you cannot discuss, and that’s okay by me.
May the God of your fathers bless you and keep you safe.