J. Brian Tucker

Author and Date. The work does not identify an author; however, Ezra was likely responsible for the so-called Ezra memoir, Ezr 7:28–9:15, written in the first person. A significant portion of canonical Ezra includes official documents and letters, which would indicate the work of a compiler; Ezra may well have been the editor of these documents (cf. Ezr 1:2–4; 4:11–16, 17–22; 5:7–17; 6:2b–5, 6–12; 7:12–16). All are written in Aramaic with the exception of Ezr 1:2–4. Some argue that the similarity of 2Ch 36:22–23 with Ezr 1:1–3 and the priestly perspective in both works point toward one person involved in the creation of both (cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009], 166; H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC, vol. 16 [Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985], xxi–xxiii). The opening of Neh 1:1 indicates the separate literary creation of that work; however, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were combined into one quite early on (cf. Josephus, Contra Apion 1.40; Baba Bathra 15a; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.26.14). Second Maccabees 2:13 provides a plausible scenario in which Ezra would have had access to the type of documents evident in Ezra-Nehemiah (e.g., the Nehemiah memoir in Neh 1:1–7:5). If one accepts this framework, then one may date the composition of Ezra, and by extension Nehemiah, to some time between 440 BC and 430 BC (cf. Neh 1:1; 8:2; 12:2; 13:6; Ezr 7:8).

Ezra offers the canonical retelling of the return of the Judeans from the Babylonian captivity. It comes after 2 Chronicles in the English Bible, but the Hebrew Bible places it before Chronicles. This raises the question, why is Ezra-Nehemiah canonically before Chronicles in the Hebrew Bible? Chronicles was probably written after the events narrated in Ezra and Nehemiah. The conditions were such that they continued to reflect exile rather than restoration (Ezr 9:6–15; Neh 9:32–36). So the question of Israel’s place in God’s plan and the continuing relevance of the promises made to David were significant communal concerns. Thus Chronicles provides an interpretation of Israel’s history that addresses the specific concerns of postexilic Israel. In this way, Ezra-Nehemiah serve as excellent canonical introductions to 1 and 2 Chronicles. As just alluded to, in the Hebrew Bible, Ezra forms one book with Nehemiah (Ezra-Nehemiah), as it does in the Septuagint, where it is called "Esdras B." This is distinct from 1 Esdras, which is an apocryphal book that served as a source for Josephus in the writing of his Jewish Antiquities. Esdras is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name "Ezra."

Theme and Purpose. The theme of the book of Ezra is the restoration of the covenant identity of Israel through God’s providence. The purposes of the book flow from this theme. (1) Ezra wrote because he wished to narrate the way God fulfilled His promises to restore His covenant people to the land of Judah after the Babylonian captivity. (2) He wrote to reveal God’s providential care of His children and illustrate the way imperial powers can be used to further God’s redemptive purposes. (3) He wrote so that the process of restoration involved in the rebuilding of political and religious structures necessary to secure the continuity of Judean covenantal identity during the Persian period would be remembered. (4) He wrote in order to detail the rebuilding of the temple and the reconstitution of the people of God living in accordance with the law of Moses. (5) Ezra wrote because he (and Ezra-Nehemiah combined) understands the return from captivity as a promise of an even greater return. That is to say, Ezra presents the return from the exile as a fulfillment of prophecy (Ezr 1:1–4), but the conclusion to Nehemiah shows how Israel had still not kept the Mosaic covenant. So, although the return from exile was part of God’s graciousness to Israel, it did not tell the entire story. Rather, it pointed to an eschatological day of fulfillment, when Messiah would fulfill all the promises God made to His people.

Contribution. Ezra contributes to the biblical narrative in four ways. (1) It provides the narrative description of the return of the Judeans from the Babylonian captivity and thus continues the story that began in 1 and 2 Chronicles. (2) It explains the presence of the Judeans in Israel, and the religious and political events that took place for their resettlement in the promised land and the rebuilding of the temple. (3) It provides the historical context for the prophetic ministries of Haggai and Zechariah; without Ezra their prophetic oracles would lack significant context. (4) It reveals the origins of early Judaism and the contours of Jewish identity that are central to the later biblical-theological context.

Ezra is a historical narrative or chronicle that presents a theological interpretation of the events it narrates. This does not mean that the book is unhistorical; its events parallel quite nicely the inscriptional and archaeological records (e.g., Elephantine papyri, ANET, 491–92; Cyrus Cylinder, ANET³, 315–16). It does mean that it provides its audience with a theological interpretation of salvation history. It includes sources from administrative documents, letters, lists, and genealogies; however, it lacks the prophetic discourse evident in Haggai and Zechariah, two works that describe similar postexilic circumstances.

Background. The events narrated in Ezra occurred during the Persian imperial period, and opened with Cyrus II, who reigned from 550 to 530 BC. He had overthrown the Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus in 539 BC and then consolidated his power throughout Mesopotamia, reinforcing the political domination of the Achaemenid dynasty (named after Achaemenes, who ruled Persia from 705 to 675 BC, and founded the royal family of whom Cyrus was a member). Cyrus reversed the forced migration policies of the Babylonians and initiated a program of repatriation. The Judeans living in Babylon, as new citizens of the Persian Empire, benefited from this change in imperial policy. In 538 BC, Cyrus issued a proclamation that allowed the Judeans to return to the province of Judah for the purpose of rebuilding the temple and reinhabiting Jerusalem (Ezr 1:1–4; 6:3–5).

Cambyses, who ruled from 530 to 522 BC, is not mentioned in the narrative, but Darius I, who reigned from 522 to 486 BC, plays a significant role. He received a letter from a provincial official concerning the rebuilding of the temple (5:6–17), and after investigating Cyrus’ original proclamation, he decreed that the construction project should continue (6:1–12). The narrative also mentions complaints made to Xerxes, who reigned from 496 to 465 BC, concerning the Judeans (4:6). Artaxerxes I, who was emperor from 465 to 424 BC, ruled during the mission of Ezra. The nature of the opposition during this period related to the building of the walls rather than the temple, which had been completed during the reign of Darius I. The arguments of Rehum and Shimshai convinced Artaxerxes I, and he ordered the rebuilding of the walls to stop (4:8–23). He eventually reversed his decision and allowed Ezra to lead another group of exiles to Jerusalem in 458 BC. Though outside the narrative of Ezra, Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem 13 years later, in 445 BC, to inspect the walls (Neh 2:1) and returned again in 433 BC (Neh 5:14; 13:6). The combined narrative time of Ezra-Nehemiah is around 105 years and covers the reign of five Persian kings (Edwin M. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996], 395–6).

Ezra 1:1–6:22 describes the initial and subsequent returns of the exiles from Babylon, as well as the reconstruction of the temple. The events narrated here occurred about 80 years before Ezra arrived in Judah; the temple had been restored for almost 60 years. These chapters provide a theological interpretation of history and emphasize God’s providence and sovereignty.

Chapter 1 shows the way a small postexilic community of Jews could understand themselves as the covenant people of God. God’s fulfillment of the promises proclaimed by Isaiah and Jeremiah restored significant continuity in the ritual life of the preexilic community. The worship articles were from the previous temple, and some of the diaspora group members were Levites. God’s providence and sovereignty were evident, as He used an imperial power and an obscure Babylonian Jew to accomplish His salvation goals in history and lead the exiles out of captivity into the promised land.

1:1. In 538 BC, God moved on the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to allow the Jews in exile to return to the land of Judah, a course of action that Isaiah had prophesied (Is 44:28; 45:1, 13). This proclamation also provided an initial and partial fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the length of Babylonian captivity (cf. Jr 25:11–12; 29:10; 51:11; 2Ch 36:20). The timing of these events is often a matter of scholarly dispute; however, if the first captives were taken to Babylon in 605 BC (cf. Dn 1:1; Jr 25:1), then 536 BC would have been the seventieth year (Ezr 3:8). Thus, God remembered His covenant people and fulfilled His promise to them, even by the agency of an imperial power (Mervin Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther [Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1993], 67).

1:2–4. The proclamation of Cyrus provided freedom for the Jews and allowed them to return to Jerusalem, which is in Judah to rebuild the temple. An Aramaic version of this proclamation occurs in 6:2–5. This latter declaration is more of an administrative "memorandum" and parallels quite closely the Elephantine papyrus, dated to 407 BC, requesting permission from the governor to rebuild a temple in that Egyptian city (Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Ezra and Nehemiah," in John H. Walton, ed., 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, ZIBBC, vol. 3 [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009], 399).

The original proclamation of Cyrus was part of his broader political strategy that allowed conquered peoples to return to their homeland and rebuild their cities. This is evident in the Cyrus Cylinder, an inscription struck in 539 BC on the occasion of Cyrus’s capture of Babylon. On the cylinder, written in Akkadian, Cyrus declared himself the great and benevolent king over all, the one who restored peoples to their land and returned the religious objects that had been stolen from their temples (ANET, 316). In this way, God used the political inclinations of Cyrus to further His purposes with regard to His covenant people. The Jews in Babylon were now free to return and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel, while the Jews who chose to remain in Mesopotamia were encouraged to support those returning with a freewill offering for the house of God which is in Jerusalem.

1:5–8. God now moved the hearts of some of the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. This explanation provides a theological reason that some Jews chose not to return to Judah—God had not stirred their hearts to do so. The return was organized through existing kinship structures, which relied on the heads of fathers’ households for social control and cohesion. Continuity with previous expressions of Jewish identity is evident with the further description of these people as being from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, as well as those who were priests and Levites. Jewish identity had proven to be remarkably stable throughout the Persian period, and the ritual life of this covenant community embodied that identity.

Echoing an exodus motif, all those about them, i.e., the exiles’ Babylonian neighbors, gave them gifts, supplies, and food for their journey back into the land of promise (cf. Ex 3:21–22; 12:35–36; Ps 105:37). Furthermore, King Cyrus brought out the articles from the temple, which had been removed by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezr 6:5; 2Ch 36:7, 10, 18). Removing religious items from a defeated foe’s sanctuaries communicated domination by putatively showing that the group’s deity was no longer able to protect them (1Sm 5:2; Jr 27:16, 21–22; Dn 5:23). Returning the items that were part of the ritual life of the community provided continuity of worship. Cyrus had Mithredath the treasurer give an accounting of the items to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah. He was a Babylonian Jew who led the returnees on the four-month journey to the land of Judah in 537 BC (Ezr 1:11; 7:8–9). Sheshbazzar served as the deputy governor of Judah under the satrap, a name given to governors in the Persian Empire, in Samaria (5:14, 16). Josephus wrongly conflated him with Zerubbabel (Ant. 11.13–14 or 11.1.3), and others have tried to identify him with Shenazzar in 1Ch 3:18, though there is little basis for this identification (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 17–19).

1:9–11. Mithredath provided a count of the utensils from the temple; the listing totaled 2,499, but the complete inventory resulted in 5,400 objects. Most English translations describe these as dishes and bowls; however, the Hebrew terms are either obscure, or loan-words that could also refer to basins, censers, and possibly even knives (David John Alfred Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NCBC [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984], 41–3). The text is clear that worship items included gold and silver vessels (5:14; 6:5) but not the less valuable bronze items, which may have been melted down for reuse (2Kg 24:13; 25:13–17). The list points out significant links between preexilic and postexilic ritual practice. The ark of the covenant (1 Ch 28:13–18; 2Ch 5:1), however, is conspicuously absent (Edwin M. Yamauchi, Africa and the Bible [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004], 102). After enumerating the temple articles, Sheshbazzar brought them all up with the exiles, and this small group, those "whose spirit God had stirred" (Ezr 1:5), departed for Jerusalem. God used Sheshbazzar, an otherwise unknown and obscure historical figure, as He worked in history to restore His covenant people and lay the foundation for the origins of what became, during the Second Temple period, Judaism (Blenkinsopp, Judaism: The First Phase, 9–11).

In Ezra, the genealogy prepared for the rebuilding of the temple and the reestablishment of worship in accordance with the law of Moses. A genealogy may not seem the most effective way to address this issue; however, it clarified questions of ethnic identity and provided a framework by which to interpret God’s expectation for purity and His restorative work among the covenant people now situated within the land He had promised them. How does a genealogy accomplish this? First, it assures members of the community that they are valued and numbered among God’s people. Second, as members of the covenant people, their ethnic identity is central to God’s continuing plan for ethnic Israel, and a genealogy provides a reminder of this for the returnees. Third, this list provides legitimization for those in Israel who find themselves in a culture not oriented toward God’s standards of purity (Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 73–5).

2:1–2a. Scholars often note that the genealogical listing in 2:1–70 is quite similar to the listing in Neh 7:6–73 (1 Esdras 5:4–46), but each has a different rhetorical purpose. Many scholars think the Neh 7 version came first, though there is no consensus on this issue (F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, NICOT [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982], 49). The composite list in Ezr 2 probably included prominent individuals who returned at various times between 537 and 515 BC. It indicated the reconstitution of the tribes of Israel in the Promised Land (cf. Neh 7:7). The list in 2:2a provided further information only for Zerubbabel and Jeshua. Ezra 3:2, 8 describes Zerubbabel as the son of Shealtiel; but 1Ch 3:19 lists him as the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiel’s younger brother. Two ways to resolve this exist. (1) Shealtiel died early, and Pedaiah became the head of the household. (2) This is an instance of a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5–6). It is hard to determine which of the two is more likely when 1Ch 3:19 is taken into consideration, following Thompson, "The explanation may be that Shealtiel died childless and Zerubbabel was born to Pedaiah by a levirate marriage with Shealtiel’s widow" (J. A. Thompson, 1, 2 Chronicles, NAC [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001], 70). Zerubbabel, a descendant of King David, became the governor of Judah (Hg 1:1) subsequent to Sheshbazzar holding the position (Ezr 5:14), though it is not clear when that change occurred. Sheshbazzar started the work on the temple (5:16), then Zerubbabel became the governor (3:2) and finished the temple in 516 BC (6:15). Jeshua, who is called "Joshua" in Hg 1:1, was the high priest and grandson of Seraiah, the final high priest prior to the exile (2Kg 25:18). The person described as Nehemiah is most likely not the leader who arrived in Jerusalem around 80 years later in 445 BC.

2:2b–35. This group of well-known family and place names is organized under the covenant name Israel. This was a reminder that God is faithful to His covenant promises. Israel’s ethnic identity also had a geographical component to it, and specific locations were identified with the groups in vv. 21–35. The towns described were within the region given to the tribe of Benjamin and located, with the exception of Netophah and Bethlehem, north of Jerusalem (Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 78). These probably were the villages that the returnees and/or their ancestors had originally left, which leaves open the question as to whether they returned to these specific locales. While the alternate means of identification may represent different ways of registering people during the various returns between 537 and 515 BC, the importance of the land in the formation of Jewish social identity provides another possible explanation. These newly arriving people of Israel needed a sense of roots; this could come by identification with their tribal linage (vv. 3–20), and these preexilic locations provided them with a constant reminder of God’s covenant faithfulness (vv. 21–35).

2:36–58. The social function of the genealogy is quite evident in the next list, those ministering within the temple. The priestly families of Jedaiah, Immer, Pashhur, and Harim also appear in 10:18–22. The Levites were descendants of Levi, subordinate to the descendents of Aaron, who made up the priestly families (8:15–20; 1Ch 24:26–28). The Levites, singers, and gatekeepers all engaged in tasks associated with temple worship (Ezk 44:10–14; 1Ch 9:17; 15:16). The temple servants and sons of Solomon’s servants assisted the Levites with the more routine temple duties (1Ch 9:2; Ezr 7:24).

2:59–63. The need for communal holiness required the reconstitution of a group set apart for ritual-communal purposes. This action drew a boundary around those who were not able to give evidence of their fathers’ households. These lay and priestly families were separated from the community of Israel and considered unclean. The governor directed them not to partake of the sacred food until a priest stood up with Urim and Thummim. The high priest kept these small objects, possibly different colored pebbles of different colors, with inscriptions indicating "yes" or "no," in his garments; they helped him determine God’s will (Ex 28:30; Nm 27:21). It appears they had fallen into disuse after the time of the early monarchy and were revived during the time of Ezra (1Sm 14:41; Neh 7:65). Some suggest this disuse occurred because of the presence of prophetic revelation; however, they were introduced during the time of Moses, and prophetic revelation was active during that period. More likely, argues Fyall, the reinstatement of the Urim and Thummim at this time was done to emphasize continuity with Israel’s past and "provided a way of access to God" (Robert S. Fyall, The Message of Ezra and Haggai: Building for God [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010], 51). The resolution with regard to these six families is unclear from the text. The point, however, is clear: purity concerns would predominate in the formation of identity within the postexilic community, just as within the preexilic one, except now genealogical records would determine whether or not one was part of Israel (Ezr 2:59).

2:64–70. The whole assembly numbered 42,360. The combined total of the preceding list is 29,818; however, the aggregate nature of the lists and the likelihood of inadvertently omitting some names may plausibly explain the discrepancy (Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 85). The number 42,360 is nonetheless correct and detailed those considered part of the assembly, with the numbers of servants, singers, and animals listed separately. The presence of servants and various animals indicates economic diversity among the people of Israel, although later, in 520 BC, Haggai would point out that their neglect of the house of God had brought economic distress on the community (Hg 1:7–11). Some heads of various kinship groups offered significant financial resources to restore the foundation of the temple. The majority of the exiles settled in the villages around Jerusalem, while those associated with the temple settled within the city proper. The initial group of exiles was now ready to rebuild the temple and reestablish proper worship of God as Moses had laid it out in the law, which is the concern of chap. 3.

Sheshbazzar led the exiles into a time of renewal in their ritual and worship life. He delegated Zerubbabel and Jeshua to oversee the initial stages of this project. After living in Judah for about six months, they restored the sacrifices on the rebuilt altar. After seven months, they laid the foundation for the restoration of the temple. This engendered different expressions of worship, and it served as a catalyst for those who opposed God’s activity among His people.

3:1–7.Dt 1 The events described in this section, when the seventh month came, occurred during the sacred month of Tishri (Sept–Oct), probably in 537 BC. Specifically, 3:6 says sacrifices were restored on the first of the seventh month—this is the date of the first fall feast, Trumpets. These fall feasts culminated in the Feast of Booths (v. 4). Two terms indicate the salience of their social identity: the sons of Israel and as one man. The emerging sense of community had its source in their common identity expressed in their worship of the God who chose Israel (Ex 19:5; Lv 11:44; Dt 14:2, 21).

Two of the key leaders in the restoration of the ritual life of the community were Jeshua and Zerubbabel (see discussion at 2:1–2a). Their initial worship focus, following the earlier example of David (2Sm 24:25), was to build the altar of the God of Israel. They built this in accordance with the law of Moses (Ex 20:25). This implicitly criticized those who had continued to offer sacrifices at the defiled altar in Jerusalem during the Babylonian captivity (cf. Jr 41:5; Ezr 4:2). The exiles committed themselves to ritual purity and to line up their worship practices with the law of Moses. The desire to show continuity with the identity of the preexilic community led the Israelites to build the altar on its foundation, i.e., in the exact location of the preexilic altar. They offered burnt offerings morning and evening; this was also in accord with the law of Moses (Nm 28:2–4). The return of the exiles did not please everyone; the peoples of the lands, i.e., the Samaritans and those foreigners who had lived in this region prior to the Israelites’ return, became increasingly hostile to the restored community (Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 92).

The Israelites celebrated the Feast of Booths from the 15th to the 21st days of Tishri (Lv 23:34). This was the last of the three pilgrimage festivals (Ex 23:14–16), and the law of Moses contained detailed prescriptions for its observance, which the returnees followed as it is written (Nm 29:12–38). The feast reminded the worshipers of God’s providential care in the past and their ongoing need to trust Him for protection, security, and deliverance. Living for seven days in huts covered with branches draped with fruits and vegetables physically reminded them of their dependence on God and also served as a communal embodiment and memorial of the exodus (Lv 23:40). In a later observance of this feast, Ezra read the law of Moses to the people (Neh 8:13–18).

The restoration of a comprehensive program of sacrifices preceded the first attempt to rebuild the temple. It involved the entire community, as they offered a freewill offering to the Lord. As the formation of this community continued, worship would serve as the primary way to express the ongoing transformation of their identity. This process was just beginning, however. The foundation of the temple of the Lord had not been laid; significant work still remained, but God was with them. They would have to accomplish this work in the midst of hostile neighbors; however, they had the permission of Cyrus king of Persia (Ezr 6:3–5), and more important, they had experienced the presence of God even before the rebuilding of the temple.

3:8–13. The returnees began to rebuild the temple in the second year, i.e., 536 BC, in the second month (April–May); this is the same month in which Solomon began to build the first temple (1Kg 6:1). Due to opposition (Ezr 4:1–5), they did not complete this project during this time, though they laid the foundations. A second period of temple rebuilding started in 520 BC, and the completion of the temple itself came in 516 BC (5:2; 6:15; Hg 1:14, 15). Zerubbabel, Jeshua and others from the captivity … began the work. The leaders delegated some of it to others, e.g., the Levites, and reduced their qualifying age to twenty, probably because of the paucity of their numbers (cf. Ezr 2:40; Nm 4:1–3; 1Ch 23:3, 24). They, then, managed the workmen in the temple of God.

Once the workers had laid the foundation, the community gathered to praise God for what He had allowed them to accomplish. This postexilic community showed significant continuity with the ritual and worship life of the preexilic one, so much so that they not only ordered their worship according to the law of Moses, but more specifically according to the directions of King David of Israel (1Ch 25:1). The psalm they sang came from Ps 100:5, and had previously signaled anticipation of God’s glory and presence (1Ch 16:34; 2Ch 5:13). They had not yet rebuilt the temple, but they had laid the foundation of the house of the Lord, and that resulted in great shouts of praise and celebration. Some, on the other hand, wept with a loud voice when they saw the extent of the foundations in comparison to the earlier temple, an experience repeated in 520 BC when temple construction restarted a second time (cf. Hg 2:3; Zch 4:8–10). The foundation of the temple served as a concrete reminder that the Israelite’s community belonged to God, and His call formed the foundation of their identity as God’s chosen people (Dt 7:6–8). Two points of application emerge from Ezr 3:1–13. (1) A way to deal with personal hurts from the past is to unite with others who want to make a spiritual impact. (2) Spend money for kingdom purposes, and then celebrate what God can do through generous giving. The returnees quickly learned that God’s renewing work did not please everyone; this becomes evident in chap. 4.

Chapter 4 is a thematically-ordered listing of the opposition that the various communities in Judah experienced from their arrival in Judah led by Sheshbazzar until the time of Nehemiah and the building of the walls around Jerusalem almost 100 years later. This chapter examines the unrelenting hostility of those opposed to God’s renewing work and the challenges faced by those called to fulfill God’s purpose in the world.

4:1–5. The opposition in vv. 1–5 occurred during the reign of Cyrus and covered the period from 536–530 BC. The enemies were the people from Samaria who asked Zerubbabel to allow them to build the temple with the returning exiles (Yamauchi, "Ezra and Nehemiah," 405). The Samaritans descended from those deported by Sargon II to repopulate Israel after the fall of the northern kingdom in 722 BC, along with a later forced migration of Egyptians by Esarhaddon in 671 BC. They were syncretistic in their worship, combining the worship of Yahweh with other gods in the ancient Near East (cf. 2Kg 17:24–33; Jr 41:5). Concerns for ritual purity led Zerubbabel and the other leaders to conclude that these outsiders should have nothing in common with those working on the temple. Furthermore, they reminded these so-called willing volunteers that Cyrus, the king of Persia had allowed this building project, implying that their interference would go against Persian imperial policy. The opposition, however, did not cease. The people of the land, those already introduced in Ezr 3:3, discouraged and frightened the builders. They hired counselors to delay the rebuilding process. The enemies continued these tactics through the reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius I (Matthew Levering, Ezra & Nehemiah, BTCB [Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2007], 64–6). The actual work on the temple ceased in 530 BC (Ezr 4:24) and did not start again until 520 BC (Ezr 5:2). It was then completed during the reign of Darius I in 516 BC (Ezr 6:15).

4:6–24. Though the exiles had permission to return to Judah, they still lived under an imperial power, and the Israelites’ enemies relied on that as a way to thwart their progress. The following section is a rhetorical digression, diverting from the primarily chronological narrative in order to reinforce the theme of persistent opposition experienced by the returning exiles, whether in rebuilding the temple or in the later building of the walls. The Jewish leaders had rejected offers of assistance from the people of the land, and vv. 6–23 provides a case study that reveals that these people were disingenuous in their offer; their motivation was to hinder rather than support progress. This revelation justified the leaders’ rejection of their overtures of help.

During his reign, Ahasuerus, i.e., Xerxes (486–465 BC) received complaints concerning those living in Judah and Jerusalem. The nature of the accusation is unclear, but some relation to the rebellion in Egypt remains a conjecture. The next accusation occurred during the days of Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC) and consisted of a letter written in Aramaic, which had become the lingua franca in the Persian Empire (Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 244). The Aramaic text extends from 4:8 to 6:18. The letter, which begins in v. 12, came from the officials in Samaria and accused the Jews who sought to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls of subversive behavior. The writers contended that if the city is rebuilt and the walls are finished, those in Jerusalem would cease paying their required tribute, custom or toll to the Persians—an effective economic argument. Next, they employed the notion of honor and shame, which played a dominant role in public life, to assert that these exiles were seeking to dishonor the king. This public challenge to his honor required a response—an effective cultural argument. There was only one solution: since a Persian king had issued the initial proclamation to allow these subversive exiles to rebuild, likewise the Persian king should use his authority to put an end to the project. Otherwise, when they completed the walls, then the Persian Empire would lose Judah, and in light of the trouble in Egypt and Greece it could not allow this to happen. The letter convinced him, and consequently Artaxerxes I issued a decree to cease the rebuilding of the walls immediately. Rehum, Shimshai, and the others entered Jerusalem and stopped them by force of arms.

What were the rhetorical purposes of this digression and these letters? (1) They indicated that if the rebuilding of Jerusalem were going to happen, it would come from God’s power and not by political might (Ps 127:1). (2) They explained the reason the rebuilding stopped for a period of time. (3) They provided a reminder that the rulers of this age did not understand the ways of God (see 1Co 2:6–9).

The digression ends in v. 24, and the narrative comes back to the original opposition from vv. 1–5 in the time of Sheshbazzar, during the reign of Cyrus in 530 BC. The effectiveness of the initial opposition by the enemies of Jerusalem and Benjamin was evident: the work on the house of God in Jerusalem ceased. It would not begin again until 520 BC, a time of relative peace and stability after Darius I had consolidated his power through two years of military conquests, recounted on the Behistun Inscription, a massive trilingual monument, which shows a life-size Darius dominating diminutive figures, representing his enemies (Yamauchi, "Ezra and Nehemiah," 408–9). Those involved in God’s renewing work will experience opposition from those who do not understand His ways. So it should not be a surprise when opposition comes; however, God’s plans ultimately will not be thwarted (Ex 14:13–14). Ezra 5 makes this truth clear.

This section begins with the introduction of the prophetic ministries of Haggai and Zechariah. These served as the revelatory impetus for the completion of the temple. God continued to work through the imperial powers and their local collaborators to accomplish His desire for the rebuilding of the temple. For this to take place the returned exiles had to recount the way Cyrus had originally allowed them to return and build.

5:1–2. Work on the temple had ceased for ten years when the prophets Haggai and Zechariah emerged to call the Jews to begin again to rebuild the temple (Hg 1:1; Zch 1:1). Led by Zerubbabel and Jeshua, the two prophets of God were with them supporting them by offering motivation, encouragement, and perspective concerning the importance of completing this task (Ezr 6:14). Haggai’s message provided encouragement in three ways. (1) It pointed out that the rebuilding of the temple would ameliorate the Judeans’ current dire economic situation (cf. the comments on Hg 1:10; 2:18–19). (2) It reminded them that even though this temple was small in comparison to Solomon’s, God’s glory and the wealth of the nations (or perhaps the Desired One of the nations, the Messiah) would fill it (see comments on Hg 2:3, 7–9). (3) It encouraged the people about their future security and protection. Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, was from the Davidic line (1Ch 3:17), and God had chosen him as a vessel through whom He would provide victory over Israel’s enemies. Zechariah’s message resonated with these same three themes (cf. Zch 1:16; 4:9; 8:3, 12–13), but also addressed three further topics. (1) God would fulfill His promises to Abraham (Zch 2:11). (2) God would no longer remember their sins (Zch 3:9). (3) The ultimate transformation of history would come through God’s Messiah (cf. Zch 3:8; Is 11:1–10; Mk 8:29). Both of these prophets were able to see the way God’s specific plans for the returned exiles fit into His broader plans for salvation history (Levering, Ezra & Nehemiah, 69–73).

5:3–5. The Jews began to rebuild the temple; however, immediately the provincial rulers and their local collaborators challenged their actions. Tattenai and Shethar-bozenai had no awareness of Cyrus’s decree, and thus Zerubbabel and Jeshua’s reimplementation of it rightly troubled them. Tattenai probably functioned in the broad sense as a governor under the satrap Ushtannu, who ruled the province of Babylon and Beyond the River, while Shethar-bozenai may have been Tattenai’s scribe (cf. Shimshai, 4:8) or more likely one of the Persian imperial officials responsible for inspecting the provinces for the king (4:9; 6:6). This broad interpretation of governor still allows for the description of Zerubbabel as governor of Judah (Hg 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21), though perhaps with limited authority. The Persian officials enquired about the structure, and about those involved in its reconstruction. The officials allowed them to continue to work until they received a response from Darius I, which thus showed that God, in His providence, was watching over them—the eye of their God was on the elders of the Jews.

5:6–17. The Persian officials composed a report to Darius I, and this section recounts the contents of the letter. The Elamite texts in Persepolis, dating to the time of Darius I, include administrative reports such as this (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 78). They addressed the mundane aspects of provincial life as it intersected with imperial concerns. The report included the following: (1) a review of the physical structure, with its huge stones and beams (cf. Ezr 6:4; 1Kg 6:36); (2) a recounting of the enquiries put to the Jewish leaders, i.e., elders; (3) an extensive detailing of the responses given by the men, which mirrors the narrative in Ezr 1:1–11; (4) a request for verification of the decree issued by King Cyrus. The religious identity of the leaders is brought to the fore in 5:11–12 as they assert key aspects of their worldview: (1) they are servants of the God of heaven and earth; (2) they are rebuilding the house of the God who is involved in history; and (3) they understand the way the failures of the previous generation led to the captivity of their people.

Darius I had his officials search for the original proclamation allowing the Jews to return and rebuild the temple in Jerusalem; they found it in Ecbatana. After reading the decree, Darius I issued a further proclamation to allow the Jews to complete their work and to prevent the local officials from interfering with their progress. With renewed imperial support and vigorous prophetic encouragement, the people finished and dedicated the temple. The community then celebrated the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread as initial expressions of their renewed identity as the covenant people of God.

6:1–7. The search for Cyrus’ proclamation began in Babylon since the Jews left from there to go to Judah. It ended in Ecbatana (located 200 miles southwest of the Caspian Sea), the capital of Media, the summer residence for the Persian kings, with the discovery of a scroll containing a relevant memorandum. This was probably not the original decree, which a scribe would have written on a clay tablet, but rather a record of the decree with further administrative details (cf. 1:2–4; Xanthos Charter, c. 358 BC; Yamauchi, "Ezra and Nehemiah," 411–2). It stipulated the size of the rebuilt temple, though if followed would have resulted in one larger than the original (1Kg 6:2). The financing would come from the royal treasury, and the gold and silver utensils previously taken would regain their proper location within the temple (Dn 5:2–4). Darius I then ordered his provincial officials to keep away from there, i.e., not to interfere any further with the rebuilding of the temple, and to let Zerubbabel and the elders of the Jews rebuild this house of God on its site. They were to rebuild the temple in its original location; an inscription of Nabonidus indicates that he rebuilt the temple of Sippar, a city of Babylonia on the Euphrates, over the foundations of the earlier temple of Sargon II, king of Assyria and Babylonia from 721 to 705 BC (COS, 2.123A).

6:8–12. The Persian kings were interested in the restoration of indigenous religious sanctuaries throughout their empire, and Darius’s proclamation fit within that context (cf. ANET, 491–92). This was an adroit political maneuver, because it secured the loyalty of their subjects, while offering putative support for foreign cults—notice also that he required the Jews to pray for the life of the king and his sons. The end of the Cyrus Cylinder included this strategic request for all those repatriated to their sacred cities. Herodotus attested to this imperialistic intrusion into accepted ritual life. As the sacrifice was being offered, the one involved, "prays that it may be well with the king and all the Persians" (1.132). The financial and ritual resources necessary for the completion of the temple were to come from Tattenai’s provincial coffers. This would result in the offering of acceptable sacrifices to the God of heaven. The decree included a sentence of death on anyone who violates this edict. Darius I impaled some of his enemies (cf. Herodotus 3.159; the Behistun Inscription), so this was no idle threat. Coupled with Darius’ curse on anyone who tried to destroy this house of God in Jerusalem, this dire warning served as an effective means of social control throughout the Persian Empire.

6:13–18. The provincial officials and the local collaborators carried out the decree with all diligence, providing much needed political and economic support. The prophetic and spiritual support continued from Haggai and Zechariah (Hg 1:12–15). As a result, they finished building the temple, a project completed through God’s command and the political proclamations of the Persian emperors on March 12, 516 BC, the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.

Next, the community gathered to dedicate this house of God with joy (cf. 1Kg 8 for the first temple’s dedication). The hundreds of animal sacrifices offered were small in comparison to previous dedications (1Kg 8:5, 63; 2Ch 30:24; 35:7). Also, the sin offering for all Israel indicated social identification with the tribes of Israel. The leaders organized ritual life in a manner consonant with the preexilic community and in accordance with the book of Moses. The returned exiles thus embodied the identity of the covenant people of God.

6:19–22. A month later, with the temple dedication complete, the community observed the Passover. This was the first time in 70 years that the reconstituted sons of Israel were able to observe, in Jerusalem, the feast that commemorated their liberation from Egyptian oppression (Ex 12:1–14) and redemption as a nation. The joyous, worship-focused seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread followed (Lv 23:5–6; Ps 105:42–43; Neh 8:10). The priests and the Levites had purified themselves with the washings outlined in the law of Moses (Ex 29:4; Nm 8:7).

The returned exiles, though committed to purity within their community, included among their group others who had separated themselves from the impurity of the nations of the land. These inhabitants of Judah had to make two decisions. (1) They had to reprioritize any aspects of their social identity inconsistent with their identification with the people of God. (2) They had to reorient their religious and political focus and seek the Lord God of Israel, because it was God who had turned the heart of the king of Assyria (Pr 21:1; Herodotus 1.178). This unexpected title for Darius, king of Persia, rhetorically connected him with the history of Israel, where in 2Kg 17, with the fall of Samaria, the northern tribes were deported to Assyria. Also, Kidner points out Assyria is functioning here as the quintessential oppressor (see Neh 9:32) (F. D. Kidner, Ezra and Nehemiah, TOTC [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979], 60). The reference to Assyria also provided a subtle reminder that God’s providence oversees the course of history (Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 122). The renaissance of Jerusalem during the Persian period occurred because of God’s faithfulness to His promises (Jr 23:3).

Ezra 7:1–10:44 recounts another migration of Judeans from Babylon, during the time of Artaxerxes I under the leadership of Ezra. The events narrated here occurred about 80 years after the first migration under Sheshbazzar. Much of this section reflects the personal memoirs of Ezra and is intensely personal. These chapters emphasize the importance of purity to the identity of God’s people and how living according to God’s law results in reformation and renewal.

The narrative moves forward several decades to describe another group of immigrants led by Ezra, under the patronage of the Persian King Artaxerxes I. Ezra was a different type of leader from Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah. A priest, a scribe, and one who knew the law of God, he was also politically clever and navigated the Persian imperial context in a manner that allowed God’s people to return with the financial, judicial, and spiritual resources necessary to address the challenges awaiting them.

7:1–10. The narrative first orients itself to what preceded it. The completion of the temple had occurred in 516 BC (6:15); however, Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in 458 BC (vv. 7–9). Thus, a span of 58 years had passed since the completion and dedication of the temple. Darius I reigned from 522–486 BC and was followed by Xerxes (486–465 BC), referred to as Ahasuerus in 4:6, which recorded opposition to the rebuilding of the foundations of the temple (Est 1:1–2; Herodotus 3.89; 7.138–239). Xerxes had married Esther, who secured the safety of the Jews by thwarting the plans of Haman (Est 7:1–10). The events associated with Esther occurred during the time between chaps. 6 and 7 of Ezra. Artaxerxes I ascended to the throne in 465 BC and reigned until 424 BC. Thus, if the events narrated in Ezr 7 occurred in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes I, this would place Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem in 458 BC (v. 7). The text provides a genealogy for Ezra son of Seraiah that traced his linage back to Aaron the chief priest (1Ch 6:7–10). This provided spiritual legitimation for his mission and established continuity with the preexilic people of Israel. Ezra’s home was in Babylon, and he was a scribe skilled in the law of Moses. Thus, he was well-trained and capable of teaching the Israelites concerning the social implications of the Torah. In spite of the decree against the returned exiles (4:19–22), Ezra found favor with Artaxerxes I, and the king granted his request that he and others could return to Judah and Jerusalem—possibly to verify whether or not there was a subversive intent by the Judeans (4:21). A brief travelogue narrates the 118-day journey with its 11-day delay and concludes with Ezra and a new group of returned exiles arriving safely in Jerusalem (cf. 8:31). Once in Jerusalem, Ezra committed himself to study the law, to practice it, and to teach it to those living in Jerusalem. This provides an apt description of those who are likewise committed to God’s mission (Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 130–1).

7:11–20. Artaxerxes’ decree authorized Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem, and the Aramaic text follows. The proclamation declared that the people of Israel, priests, and Levites could go to Jerusalem. Notice the designation "Israel" rather than "Judah" (cf. 1:2), which might have indicated Persian awareness of an emerging national identity. Ezra’s purpose was to inquire and determine the extent to which the returned exiles lived in accordance with the law of [their] God. This followed Persian imperial policy, which sought to exert hegemonic control over the local expressions of religious devotion (Herodotus 1.132). Artaxerxes reinforced his imperial legitimation by providing the economic means to maintain ritual life in Jerusalem (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 100). He positioned himself as the patron of the Jewish people. He provided the silver and gold necessary to purchase the sacrifices in the temple to maintain a robust worship life among these Persian citizens in the province of Judea. The resources provided would more than cover the costs of the sacrifices, so Artaxerxes allowed the leaders to use the finances for purchasing utensils for the house of God. Finally, in one last expression of his beneficence, the king declared that the royal treasury would cover any other needs for the temple.

7:21–26. Artaxerxes I further legitimized Ezra’s mission by allowing him to request resources from the provinces beyond the River. Ezra, who functioned as the royal patron’s broker, did have set limits, a subtle reminder that it was Artaxerxes I who had allowed all of this to occur (cf. Josephus, Ant. 12.3.3). The Persian king had now positioned himself as the patron of the Judeans in hope that their God would favor him and extend his reign in peace and prosperity even unto his sons. Furthermore, to ensure that the God of heaven would favor the king, he released the servants of this house of God from tax, tribute or toll. Thus the workers in the temple could offer their service without hindrance, distraction, or delay. His task as the king’s broker included a commission for Ezra to appoint magistrates and judges throughout the province. This would ensure that those who opposed the law of God or the law of the Persians would face appropriate consequences. Moreover, Ezra was to teach those who did not know the law. Artaxerxes rhetorically exerted imperial power in declaring that those who did not obey the conjoined laws of God and the Persians would face death, expulsion, imprisonment, or seizure of property (Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 108). Obedience to the emperor, religious devotion, and ethical behavior combined to provide legitimation for Ezra’s mission as Artaxerxes’ broker. The narrative, however, also provides an alternative explanation: legitimization for Ezra’s mission came, he said, "because the good hand of his God was upon him" (7:9).

7:27–28. The text returns to Hebrew at this point. The text from here to Ezr 9:15 may have reflected Ezra’s personal journal; this conclusion follows primarily from the presence of first-person pronouns beginning in Ezr 7:28 (Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 136). Ezra first worshiped God for the favor he had found with the king in that he would allow the beautification of the temple—a fulfillment of Is 60:7, 13. This probably accounts for Artaxerxes’ intrusion into the narrative in Ezr 6:14, and brings to the fore Ezra’s understanding of God’s providential care for His people. The personal application of this truth strengthened Ezra as he gathered leading men to lead a new group of immigrants to the Persian province of Judea.

This section provides a further description of Ezra’s return to Jerusalem, including the interplay between God’s providence and human action. Its purpose is to address the issues of identity continuity, the lack of incentive to return to Jerusalem, and why those in exile should return. Its function within the book is to connect two important theological themes: (1) the hand of our God (7:6, 9, 28; 8:18, 22, 31) and (2) God’s demand for holiness (2:58–63; 4:1–3; 6:20–22; 8:24–30; 9:1–10:44). This chapter outlines the individuals who participated in the immigration and the way Ezra recruited more Levites for temple service. It records the prayers offered for the journey and ends with a recounting of the delivery of the articles for the temple and the reaffirmation of Israel’s covenant identity.

8:1–14. Ezra began by describing those who returned with him. He listed the descendants of 15 individuals, totaling around 1,500. However, if that number included the Levites (8:15–20), women, and children, it would rise to around 5,000, a significantly smaller number than the 42,360 who composed the initial return (2:64). Gershom and Daniel descended from Aaron through Phinehas and Ithamar, respectively (Ex 6:23–25; 28:1), while Hattush descended from David (1Ch 3:22). By placing the priestly family before the royal family, Ezra, also of the family of Phinehas (Ezr 7:5), showed that he viewed them as more important. The primary concern of this restored community was purity (Nm 25:7–8), though a desire for a Davidic ruler in Judah could occupy them as well. Ezra next included 12 other families; this may represent a full complement of the house of Israel, i.e., rhetorically the 12 tribes of Israel had returned to the land (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 111). Ezra 2, a listing from 80 years earlier, contained all the names on this genealogy with the exception of Joab (8:9). Thus, the initial group of returnees included those who left family members in Babylon, and the descendants of many of those families had now returned with Ezra.

8:15–20. Ezra assembled those who returned by the river that runs to Ahava. The exact location is unknown, but it was most likely near the city of Babylon. Then he noticed the absence of Levites among them (cf. 2:36–42). So he sent for the leading men and teachers and instructed them to journey to Casiphia (exact location unknown but probably close to Ahava) with a message for Iddo and his brothers. They obeyed and found a man of insight … Sherebiah, and 37 other Levites, including Hashabiah, and 220 temple servants willing to leave Babylon and return to Israel (8:24). These Levites would serve in the temple (Nm 3:5–8), but, of equal importance, they would interpret God’s law for the people (e.g., Sherebiah, Neh 8:7–8; 9:4–5; 12:8, 24). Furthermore, they would guard the integrity of the worship of the people of Israel even as their Levite ancestors did (Ex 32:26–29).

8:21–23. Ezra prepared the people both spiritually and physically for the journey back to the promised land. To accomplish this, the narrative, as in Ezr 1–3, draws on motifs from the exodus (Blenkinsopp, Judaism: The First Phase, 165). Ezra proclaimed a fast that would result in a spirit of humility as well as God’s protection on their journey (cf. 10:6). There would be no pillar of cloud by day, or a pillar of fire by night (Ex 13:21–22), but the hand of God would rest upon them (cf. Is 40:3). Ezra then recognized that his previous statements to the king concerning God’s protection would not allow him now to request an imperial escort (cf. Neh 2:9). The returnees continued to fast and pray, and God heard them (cf. Ezr 9:15; Jos 1:7–9). Leaders should follow Ezra’s example here: humble trust in God’s guidance and protection actually signal a leader’s strength, not weakness (Ac 14:23; 2Co 12:9–10).

8:24–30. The physical preparation for the journey began by weighing the silver, gold, and the utensils donated to the temple by Artaxerxes I. This provided a baseline amount and would reveal any losses or thefts during the journey. These articles were holy and reflected a freewill offering to the Lord. How did these articles become holy? First, notice the people and the objects both are considered holy (v. 28). Second, the idea here is "consecrated" or "set apart" (qodes), not just in a generic way, but to the Lord (vv. 24, 28). Third, in this situation, holiness is imputed to both groups by God’s Word, emphasizing that they are separated from profaneness and uncleanness (cf. Lev 20:26; 22:2–3; Hab 1:13a). Therefore, only the priests and the Levites, also described as holy, would handle and protect these "consecrated" articles. Ezra delegated to them the responsibility that these offerings, from the emperor and those staying in Babylon, came safely to Jerusalem to the house of our God. Ezra’s leadership had both spiritual and administrative challenges, but he proved himself a capable leader, and now this group of exiles was ready to return to Judah and Jerusalem (Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 144).

8:31–34. With the preparations complete, Ezra and the returning exiles left their encampment on the twelfth day of Nisan, i.e., April 19, 458 BC. They made the four-month, 900-mile journey without incident because the hand of our God was over us. The focus on the hand of God is evident in 8:18, 22, 31, and brings to the fore the idea of God’s providence, defined by Culver as, "the continuous going forth of God’s power whereby He causes all features of the created universe to fulfill the design for which He created them" (Robert Duncan Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical [Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Mentor, 2005], 194). God’s providence was evident in the beginning and ending details of their return (8:18, 31; cf. Neh 9:6), but also served as a warning to those "who forsake Him," while also serving as a comfort to those "who seek Him" (Ezr 8:22). They arrived in Jerusalem on August 4 (7:8) and rested for three days (cf. Neh 2:11). They weighed the silver, gold, and the utensils before the temple leadership and accounted for and recorded everything—now their journey was complete. Ezra followed expected Persian accounting practices by recording everything in detail. His commitment to integrity is an important model for those reading this narrative today.

8:35–36. The returned exiles, following the instructions of the king, engaged in worship (7:17). They offered bulls, rams, lambs, and goats, all of which the people had offered when they dedicated the temple 57 years earlier (6:17). After they completed their worship, they delivered Artaxerxes’ decree to the surrounding satraps and governors. The provincial officials and their local collaborators followed the king’s directive and supported the people and the house of God.

With the covenant identity of the people of God now reaffirmed (chap. 8), these new inhabitants in Jerusalem would have to negotiate existing identity structures in order to maintain their identity as a holy community. That is the concern of chap. 9.

Ezra identified a threat to Israel’s covenant identity. He discovered that the Judeans had intermarried with idolatrous non-Judeans. Ezra continued his previously established pattern of prayer and then action. He interceded for the Judeans and confessed their sin before God, and then acted.

9:1–2. Within four months of his arrival in Jerusalem (10:9), the princes approached Ezra with a major threat to the identity of the covenant community—Judeans had taken wives from among the peoples of the lands (Gn 15:19–21; Ex 3:8, 17). The group that informed Ezra of this situation would not have consisted of the princes and the rulers, themselves implicated in this repudiation of covenantal identity. Malachi had prophesied prior to the arrival of Ezra, but he also indicated that the Judeans had divorced their wives in order to take foreign ones in their place (Mal 2:10–16). Notice the two associated actions: (1) They had not separated themselves. (2) They participated in the abominations of the foreign nations. The issue not only concerned intermarriage, but also communal purity and idolatry (Ex 34:11–16; Dt 7:3–4). The holy race refers to the Jewish people. "Race" is an incorrect translation. Literally, the word means "holy seed," and it refers to the distinctive lineage of the Jewish people as used in the Abrahamic covenant (Gn 17:7, where the NASB translates it "descendants"), and described Israel’s unique covenant identity. This type of ethnic reasoning points to the very real possibility that cultural and social integration at this level would result in a lack of purity within the community—a loss of covenant identity (cf. Ps 106:35; Ex 19:6). The princes who approached Ezra characterized the offenders as people who embodied unfaithfulness, those who had violated their covenantal identity (Jos 7:11; 22:16, 20–22).

9:3–5. When Ezra heard of this situation, he expressed mourning and outrage by ritually tearing his robe (Gn 37:34; 2Kg 19:1) and pulling out his hair (cf. Neh 13:25; Is 22:12); he sat down appalled (cf. Josephus, Ant. 11.142). One group existed, however, whose covenantal identity remained salient; they trembled at the words of the God of Israel, i.e., they continued to obey the law of Moses (Ezr 10:3; Is 66:2, 5). The group sat appalled until the evening offering, i.e., 3:00 p.m., when Ezra decided to speak (cf. Ac 3:1). Ezra then fell on his knees and stretched out his hands in a prayer of confession.

9:6–9. Ezra’s prayer was intensely personal; he was ashamed and embarrassed because of the community’s iniquities and guilt (Jr 31:19). He recounted the history of the disobedience of the covenant people and concluded that their sin had resulted in exile at the hand of the kings of the lands, i.e., the imperialistic powers that had subjugated Israel (cf. Dt 28:15–68; 2Kg 17:20; Jr 24:9–10). Here Ezra’s confession brings to the fore both the individual and corporate guilt. While it is clear that individual sin must be addressed, all too often, collective sin is ignored. Sin, however, is also corporate, and our individual sinful acts contribute to the broader communal ethos of sinfulness. Ezra recognizes the interconnected nature of individual and corporate guilt. Fyall further applies this idea by stating, "We cannot escape the effect of the sins of earlier generations nor the consequences of our sins for future generations" (Fyall, Ezra and Haggai, 125). However, Ezra interpreted the events associated with Cyrus’s edict as a brief moment of grace given by God. His beneficence resulted in a remnant who embodied their covenantal identity (cf. Is 10:20–22; Jr 24:4–7). This grace allowed the Judeans to find favor with the kings of Persia, and even though Israel was still in bondage to the Persians, they had restored the temple in Jerusalem. God had not forsaken His people (Is 44:26).

9:10–15. Ezra confessed that the community had forsaken God’s commandments, especially with regard to intermarriage with foreigners. He employed scriptural reasoning, and gathered a catena of commands drawn from Israel’s Scriptures to describe the nature and extent of Israel’s disobedience (e.g., Lv 18:25; Dt 4:5; 7:1–5; 11:8; 18:9; 23:6; 2Kg 16:3; 21:16; Is 1:19; cf. Mal 2:10–16). Ezra’s mediatory role is reminiscent of Moses’ with regard to the sin of worshiping the golden calf (Ex 32:10–13). Ezra recognized that God would be just if He were to destroy them and bring renewed judgment on the Judeans (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 137). He also saw the existence of the remnant as an indication of God’s mercy (Dt 32:4). The conclusion of Ezra’s prayer not only functioned as a petition for divine clemency, but also exerted social influence within the community and motivated them to reconcile with God.

Shecaniah suggested to Ezra that they make a covenant with God to divorce their foreign wives. The community gathered together and delegated a group to investigate the matter. Two months later, priests and Levites put away 27 wives, while the rest of the community divorced 83 wives. The result of these actions included reformation and renewal within the covenant community and a reaffirmation of their particular identity as the people of God.

10:1–4. Ezra continued to pray and intercede for the people who had gathered to him from Israel and they wept bitterly. This iniquity had apparently gone on for a considerable time since it involved children (10:3, 44). However, the people began to realize that they had not followed God’s law and had neglected their identity as a people set apart for God, choosing to live like the foreign nations. Shecaniah spoke for the group and declared that they have been unfaithful to our God. His solution was a covenant with our God. This renewed covenant would require the Judeans to put away all the foreign wives and their children. Shecaniah was confident that this act would renew hope for Israel. With the use of the group descriptor Israel, their covenant identity began to emerge. The community agreed to order their social life according to the law. The communal reformation occurred as they renewed the covenant; a similar situation had occurred during the revival at Shechem in Jos 24:2–27. Shecaniah provided support to Ezra and exhorted him to be courageous and act (Jos 1:7).

Often the question of whether this episode provides interpretive texture for Paul’s instructions in 1Co 7:12–14 arises (Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 165). (1) The narrative here is descriptive and not prescriptive, and one should thus be hesitant to invoke this over Paul’s teaching in 1 Co 7 (see the comments on 1Co 7:10–16). (2) The situations in view are too dissimilar; one considers those who had disobeyed God’s law by taking foreign wives, while the Corinthian correspondence addresses individuals who began to follow Christ after they had already married. Nevertheless, for followers of Christ who intentionally marry those who are not believers, it would still be inappropriate to follow Ezra’s pattern rather than the clear directions of the apostle Paul.

10:5–8. Ezra had the people take an oath to follow through with the covenant they had made. Ezra rose and withdrew from the people to fast and mourn by himself because of the unfaithfulness of the exiles. While Ezra continued to fast and pray, the leaders and elders of Israel called all the exiles to an assembly in Jerusalem. Any who did not come to the gathering would forfeit their property rights and be excluded from the assembly of the exiles, i.e., they would lose their identity as a member of the covenant community (Lv 7:21).

10:9–12. The Judeans gathered in the temple square, trembling on account of the situation and the rain. Ezra began by pointing out that the people have been unfaithful to God because they had married foreign wives. This section simply restates previously introduced material (9:1–2, 4, 6–7; 10:2). The return from exile had indicated that God had forgiven Israel’s sin (Is 40:1–3), but their actions added to the guilt of Israel. Ezra called the assembly of the exiles to make confession for their sin and then: (1) to withdraw from the peoples of the land, and (2) to divorce their foreign wives. Upon hearing Ezra’s instructions, the returned exiles agreed to the suggested course of action.

10:13–17. The complete implementation of the renewed covenant took three months (vv. 16–17). The assembly of the exiles suggested that their leaders should determine who had actually married a foreign woman and discern the possible presence of proselytes. The community was unified in their decision to put away the foreign wives, but a small group did oppose it, though their reasons are not clear. Ezra organized the heads of fathers’ households to investigate the matter. This group determined that a little over 100 couples were involved in marriage to pagans. Collectivist societies ascribe social identity based on group membership and social categorization. The social-spiritual dilemma associated with mixed marriages exemplifies the way individual sins can affect communal life (cf. Jos 7:1, 11). Ezra was concerned with the formation of Jewish identity during the Persian period. This explains why Ezra and the assembly of the exiles had to go to such so-called extreme measures: the very identity of the covenant people of God was at stake—there was no other solution.

10:18–43. The list included priests, Levites, and elite Judean families; these would have experienced the temptation to intermarry with non-Jews the most strongly. For example, the sons of the high priest Jeshua (2:1; Hg 1:1), once found guilty, divorced their wives and sacrificed a ram as a guilt offering (Lv 5:17–19). Only the priestly offense required the pledge and the sacrifice; however, the Leviticus passage addresses unintentional sins. This could indicate that they did not understand fully the social implications of following the law of Moses. If this was the case, it points to the importance of Ezra’s teaching ministry (7:10) and calls for contemporary teachers of God’s Word to commit themselves to the accurate exposition and application of the Scriptures.

10:44. The list of the men implicated in the mixed marriages, which covers around 110, concludes that some of them had wives by whom they had children. This statement has greatly contributed to negative characterizations of early Judaism and the reforms enacted by Ezra. The issue that this solution sought to address, however—mixed marriages—would have obliterated Jewish covenantal identity. Building on the identity framework mentioned earlier from Herodotus 8.144, mixed marriage could have broken Jewish kinship ties, diluted speech patterns, led to syncretism with foreign gods, and changed the common way of life that had its basis in the law of Moses. The problem Ezra faced did not go away, and the characteristics of social identity mentioned by Herodotus are still at issue in Neh 13:23–29. While these painful reforms created emotional havoc for the families involved, the text is silent concerning these foreign family members. Many would have returned to their original household. Others would begin the process of proselyte conversion and assimilate into the assembly. Finally, people could choose to live by the standards of the Israelite community and dwell among them as resident aliens; in that case they would have access to the financial and material support evident in the law (Dt 10:18; 14:29; 24:19–21).

In dealing with mixed marriages, Ezra has addressed the need for covenant faithfulness among the returned exiles. This fits with the overall theme of Ezra—restoration of the covenant identity of Israel through God’s providence. The book of Ezra has demonstrated not only how the Lord returned His people to their land, but also, now that they had returned, how the Lord sought to keep them faithful to Him and His Word.