Ezra 7:28

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 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 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 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 Ezra. 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 Ezra-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 collaborator, 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

Ezra 6:1,2 PK 579

Ezra 6:3-5 PK 558

Ezra 6:7-10,12 PK 579

Ezra 6:8-12 PK 598; TM 203

Ezra 6:14 DA 233; GC 326; PK 607, 698

Ezra 6:14-17,19 PK 596

Ezra 7:1-28 PK 607-614

Ezra 7:1 DA 233; PK 698

Ezra 7:1-5 PK 608

Ezra 7:6 PK 609

Ezra 7:9 DA 233; PK 611,617, 698

Ezra 7:10 PK 608, 623

Ezra 7:11,12 PK 610

Ezra 7:12,13 PK 607

Ezra 7:12-26 GC 326; LS 58; IT 52

Ezra 7:13 PK 611

Ezra 7:14,15,20,23 PK 610

Ezra 7:24-26 PK 611

Ezra 7:27,28 PK 612

Ezra 7:28 PK 614

=== 15 Ezra 08-10.txt ===