SermonIndex

Home
Bible
T4T
Ezra
Chapter 2

Ezra 2

Scripture
Sermons
Commentary

The list of groups that returned to Judah

¹King Nebuchadnezzar’s soldiers had captured many Israeli people and taken them to Babylonia. Many years later, some Israeli people returned to Judah. Some returned to Jerusalem, and some returned to other places in Judah. They went to the towns where their ancestors had lived. This is a list of the groups who returned. ²The leaders of those groups were Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah. There were: ³2,172descendants of Parosh ⁴372descendants of Shephatiah ⁵775descendants of Arah ⁶2,812descendants of Pahath-Moab, from the families of Jeshua and Joab ⁷1,254descendants of Elam ⁸945descendants of Zattu ⁹760descendants of Zaccai ¹⁰642descendants of Bani ¹¹623descendants of Bebai ¹²1,222descendants of Azgad ¹³666descendants of Adonikam ¹⁴2,056descendants of Bigvai ¹⁵454descendants of Adin ¹⁶98descendants of Ater, whose other name was Hezekiah ¹⁷323descendants of Bezai ¹⁸112descendants of Jorah ¹⁹223descendants of Hashum ²⁰95descendants of Gibbar.

People whose ancestors had lived in these towns in Judah: ²¹123from Bethlehem ²²56from Netophah ²³128from Anathoth ²⁴42from Azmaveth ²⁵743from Kiriath-Jearim, Kephirah, and Beeroth ²⁶621from Ramah and Geba ²⁷122from Micmash ²⁸223from Bethel and Ai ²⁹52from Nebo ³⁰156from Magbish ³¹1,254from Elam ³²320from Harim ³³725from Lod, Hadid, and Ono ³⁴345from Jericho ³⁵3,630from Senaah.

³⁶Priests who returned: 973descendants of Jedaiah (that is, those from the family of Jeshua) ³⁷1,052descendants of Immer ³⁸1,247descendants of Pashhur ³⁹1,017descendants of Harim. The ones from the rest of the tribe of Levi who returned were: ⁴⁰74descendants of Jeshua and Kadmiel, who were from the family of Hodaviah ⁴¹128singers who were descendants of Asaph ⁴²139◄gatekeepers/men who guarded the gates of the temple► who were descendants of Shallum, Ater, Talmon, Akkub, Hatita, and Shobai.

⁴³The ◄temple workers/men who would work in the temple► who were descendants of these men: Ziha, Hasupha, Tabbaoth, ⁴⁴Keros, Siaha, Padon, ⁴⁵Lebanah, Hagabah, Akkub, ⁴⁶Hagab, Shalmai, Hanan, ⁴⁷Giddel, Gahar, Reaiah, ⁴⁸Rezin, Nekoda, Gazzam, ⁴⁹Uzza, Paseah, Besai, ⁵⁰Asnah, Meunim, Nephusim, ⁵¹Bakbuk, Hakupha, Harhur, ⁵²Bazluth, Mehida, Harsha, ⁵³Barkos, Sisera, Temah, ⁵⁴Neziah, and Hatipha.

⁵⁵These descendants of King Solomon’s servants returned:

Sotai, Hassophereth, Peruda, ⁵⁶Jaalah, Darkon, Giddel, ⁵⁷Shephatiah, Hattil, Pokereth-Hazzebaim, and Ami.

⁵⁸Altogether, there were 392 temple workers and descendants of Solomon’s servants who returned.

⁵⁹There was another group who returned to Judah from Tel-Melah, Tel-Harsha, Kerub, Addan, and Immer towns in Babylonia. But they could not prove that they were descendants of people who previously lived in Israel.

⁶⁰This group included 652 people who were descendants of Delaiah, Tobiah, and Nekoda. ⁶¹Hobaiah’s clan, Hakkoz’s clan, and Barzillai’s clan also returned. Barzillai had married a woman who was a descendant of Barzillai from the Gilead region, and he had taken for himself the name of his father-in-law’s clan. ⁶²The people in that group searched in the documents that had the names of the ancestors of all the clans, but these men’s names were not found. So they were not permitted do the work that priests did. ⁶³The governor told them that they would need to ask a priest to consult Yahweh by ◄casting/throwing the sacred lots/stones that had been marked►, to determine if those men were truly Israelis. When the priests did that, if the stones showed that those men were Israelis, they would be permitted to eat the shares of the sacrifices that were given to the priests.

⁶⁴Altogether 42,360 Israeli people who returned to Judah. ⁶⁵There were also 7,337 servants and 200 musicians, both men and women, who returned. ⁶⁶The Israelis brought with them from Babylonia 736 horses, 245 mules, ⁶⁷435 camels, and 6,720 donkeys. ⁶⁸When they arrived at the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem, some of the clan leaders gave money for the supplies needed to rebuild the temple at the place where the temple had been previously. ⁶⁹They all gave as much money as they were able to give. Altogether they gave 61,000 gold coins, ◄6,250 pounds/3,000 kg.► of silver, and 100 robes for the priests. ⁷⁰Then the priests, the other descendants of Levi, the musicians, the temple guards, and some of the other people started to live in the towns and villages near Jerusalem. The rest of the people went to the other places in Israel where their ancestors had lived.

Adam Clarke
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
John Gill
Keil-Delitzsch
Matthew Henry
Tyndale

Introduction

An account of those who returned from Babylon, vv. 1-35. The children of the priests who returned, Ezr 2:36-39. Of the Levites, Ezr 2:40. Of the singers, Ezr 2:41. Of the porters, Ezr 2:42. Of the Nethinim, and the children of Solomon's servants, vv. 43-58. Others who could not find out their registers, Ezr 2:59-62. The number of the whole congregation, Ezr 2:63, Ezr 2:64. Of their servants, maids, and singers, Ezr 2:65. Their horses and mules, Ezr 2:66. Their camels and asses, Ezr 2:67. The offerings of the chief men when they came to Jerusalem, Ezr 2:68, Ezr 2:69. The priests, Levites, singers, porters, and Nethinim, betake themselves to their respective cities, Ezr 2:70.

Verse 1

These are the children of the province - That is, of Judea; once a kingdom, and a flourishing nation; now a province, subdued, tributary, and ruined! Behold the goodness and severity of God! Some think Babylon is meant by the province; and that the children of the province means those Jews who were born in Babylon. But the first is most likely to be the meaning, for thus we find Judea styled, Ezr 5:8. Besides, the province is contradistinguished from Babylon even in this first verse, The children of the province - that had been carried away unto Babylon.

Verse 2

Which came with Zerubbabel - There are many difficulties in this table of names; but as we have no less than three copies of it, that contained here from Ezra 2:1-67, a second in Nehemiah 7:6-69, and a third in 1 Esdras 5:7-43, on a careful examination they will be found to correct each other. The versions also, and the Variae Lectiones of Kennicott and De Rossi, do much toward harmonizing the names. Though the sum total at the end of each of these enumerations is equal, namely 42,360, yet the particulars reckoned up make in Ezra only 29,818, and in Nehemiah 31,089. We find that Nehemiah mentions 1765 persons which are not in Ezra, and Ezra has 494 not mentioned by Nehemiah. Mr. Alting thinks that this circumstance, which appears to render all hope of reconciling them impossible, is precisely the very point by which they can be reconciled; for if we add Ezra's surplus to the sum in Nehemiah, and the surplus of Nehemiah to the number in Ezra, the numbers will be equal. Thus: - The number in Ezra 29,818 Surplus in Nehemiah. 1,765 Sum total 31,583 The number in Nehemiah 31,089 The surplus in Ezra 494 Sum total 31,583 If we subtract this sum 31,583 from 42,360, we shall have a deficiency of 10,777 from the numbers as summed up in the text; and these are not named here, either because their registers were not found, or they were not of Judah and Benjamin, the tribes particularly concerned, but of the other Israelitish tribes; see Ezr 2:36.

Verse 3

The children of Parosh - Where the word children is found in this table, prefixed to the name of a man, it signifies the descendants of that person, as from Ezra 2:3-21. Where it is found prefixed to a place, town, etc., it signifies the inhabitants of that place, as from Ezr 2:21-35.

Verse 21

The children of Beth-lehem - The inhabitants: see before.

Verse 33

The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono - These were cities in the tribe of Benjamin; see on Ch1 8:12 (note).

Verse 36

The priests - The preceding list takes in the census of Judah and Benjamin.

Verse 55

The children of Solomon's servants - The Nethinim, and others appointed to do the meaner services of the holy house.

Verse 63

The Tirshatha - This is generally supposed to be Nehemiah, or the person who was the commandant; see Neh 8:9; Neh 10:1, for the word appears to be the name of an office. The Vulgate and Septuagint write it Atershatha, the Syriac and Arabic render it the princes of Judah. Some suppose the word to be Persian, but nothing like it of the same import occurs in that language at present. If, as Castel supposed, it signifies austerity, or that fear which is unpressed by the authority of a governor, it may come from ters, Fear, or tersh, Acid, the former from tarsidan, to Fear or Dread. Should not eat of the most holy things - There was a high priest then, but no Urim and Thummim, these having been lost in the captivity.

Verse 66

Their horses - seven hundred, etc. - They went into captivity, stripped of every thing; they now return from it, abounding in the most substantial riches, viz., horses 736, or, according to Esdras, 7036; mules, 245; camels, 435; asses, 6720; besides gold, and silver, and rich stuffs. See below.

Verse 69

Threescore and one thousand drams of gold - דרכמונים darkemonim, drakmons or darics; a Persian coin, always of gold, and worth about 1. 5s., not less than 76,250 sterling in gold. Five thousand pounds of silver - מנים manim, manehs or minas. As a weight, the maneh was 100 shekels; as a coin, 60 shekels in value, or about 9.; 5000 of these manehs therefore will amount to 45,000, making in the whole a sum of about 120,000; and in this are not included the 100 garments for priests. Thus we find that God, in the midst of judgment, remembered mercy, and gave them favor in the land of their captivity.

Verse 70

Dwelt in their cities - They all went to those cities which belonged originally to their respective families.

Introduction

NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE THAT TURNED. (Ezra 2:1-70) children of the province--that is, Judea (Ezr 5:8), so called as being now reduced from an illustrious, independent, and powerful kingdom to an obscure, servile, tributary province of the Persian empire. This name is applied by the sacred historian to intimate that the Jewish exiles, though now released from captivity and allowed to return into their own land, were still the subjects of Cyrus, inhabiting a province dependent upon Persia. came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city--either the city that had been occupied by his ancestors, or, as most parts of Judea were then either desolate or possessed by others, the city that was rebuilt and allotted to him now.

Verse 2

Which came with Zerubbabel--He was the chief or leader of the first band of returning exiles. The names of other influential persons who were associated in the conducting of the caravans are also mentioned, being extracted probably from the Persian archives, in which the register was preserved: conspicuous in the number are Jeshua, the high priest, and Nehemiah.

Verse 3

The children--This word, as used throughout this catalogue, means "posterity" or "descendants."

Verse 5

children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five--The number is stated in Neh 7:10 to have been only six hundred fifty-two. It is probable that all mentioned as belonging to this family repaired to the general place of rendezvous, or had enrolled their names at first as intending to go; but in the interval of preparation, some died, others were prevented by sickness or insurmountable obstacles, so that ultimately no more than six hundred fifty-two came to Jerusalem.

Verse 23

The men of Anathoth--It is pleasant to see so many of this Jewish town returning. It was a city of the Levites; but the people spurned Jeremiah's warning and called forth against themselves one of his severest predictions (Jer 32:27-35). This prophecy was fulfilled in the Assyrian conquest. Anathoth was laid waste and continued a heap of ruins. But the people, having been brought during the captivity to a better state of mind, returned, and their city was rebuilt.

Verse 36

The priests--Each of their families was ranged under its prince or head, like those of the other tribes. It will be remembered that the whole body was divided into twenty-four courses, one of which, in rotation, discharged the sacerdotal duties every week, and each division was called after the name of its first prince or chief. It appears from this passage that only four of the courses of the priests returned from the Babylonish captivity; but these four courses were afterwards, as the families increased, divided into twenty-four, which were distinguished by the names of the original courses appointed by David [Ch1 23:6-13]. Hence we find the course of Abijah or Abia (Ch1 24:10) subsisting at the commencement of the Christian era (Luk 1:5).

Verse 55

The children of Solomon's servants--either the strangers that monarch enlisted in the building of the temple, or those who lived in his palace, which was deemed a high honor.

Verse 61

the children of Barzillai--He preferred that name to that of his own family, deeming it a greater distinction to be connected with so noble a family, than to be of the house of Levi. But by this worldly ambition he forfeited the dignity and advantages of the priesthood.

Verse 63

Tirshatha--a title borne by the Persian governors of Judea (see also Neh 7:65-70; Neh 8:9; Neh 10:1). It is derived from the Persian torsh ("severe"), and is equivalent to "your severity," "your awfulness."

Verse 64

The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore--This gross amount is twelve thousand more than the particular numbers given in the catalogue, when added together, come to. Reckoning up the smaller numbers, we shall find that they amount to 29,818 in this chapter, and to 31,089 in the parallel chapter of Nehemiah [see Neh 7:66-69]. Ezra also mentions four hundred ninety-four persons omitted by Nehemiah, and Nehemiah mentions 1765 not noticed by Ezra. If, therefore, Ezra's surplus be added to the sum in Nehemiah, and Nehemiah's surplus to the number in Ezra, they will both become 31,583. Subtracting this from 42,360, there will be a deficiency of 10,777. These are omitted because they did not belong to Judah and Benjamin, or to the priests, but to the other tribes. The servants and singers, male and female, are reckoned separately (Ezr 2:65), so that putting all these items together, the number of all who went with Zerubbabel amounted to fifty thousand, with eight thousand beasts of burden [ALTING, quoted in DAVIDSON'S Hermeneutics].

Verse 68

some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the Lord offered freely for the house of God, &c.--The sight of a place hallowed by the most endearing and sacred associations, but now lying in desolation and ruins, made the wellsprings of their piety and patriotism gush out afresh. Before taking any active measures for providing accommodation to themselves and their families, the chief among them raised a large sum by voluntary contributions towards the restoration of the temple.

Verse 69

drams of gold--rather, "darics," a Persian coin (see on Ch1 29:7). priests' garments--(compare Neh 7:70). This--in the circumstances--was a very appropriate gift. In general, it may be remarked that presents of garments, or of any other usable commodities, however singular it may seem to us, is in harmony with the established notions and customs of the East. Next: Ezra Chapter 3

Introduction

INTRODUCTION TO EZRA 2 This chapter contains a list of those that went up from Babylon to Jerusalem, of their leaders, their chief men, princes and priests, Ezr 2:1 of the people, described by their families, towns, and cities, and number of persons, Ezr 2:3, of the priests, Levites, and Nethinims, Ezr 2:36, and of those that could not make out their genealogy, people and priests, Ezr 2:59, and then the sum total of the whole congregation is given, Ezr 2:64, besides men and maidservants, singing men and women, and cattle of divers sorts, Ezr 2:65, and the chapter is closed with an account of the freewill offerings of the principal men towards the building of the temple, and of the settlement of the people in their respective cities, Ezr 2:68.

Verse 1

Now these are the children of the province,.... Either of the province of Babylon, as Aben Ezra, where they were either born, or had dwelt for many years; or else rather, according to Jarchi, of the province of Judea, as it is called, Ezr 5:8 once a flourishing kingdom, but reduced to a province of the Babylonian monarchy, now in the hands of the Medes and Persians, of which province they and their fathers originally were: that went out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon; who either in person, or in their parents, were carried captive by him, and who were the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; and they are only mentioned, because they were the principal that returned, though there were some of the other tribes that also came up with them: and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, everyone unto his city; that he dwelt in before, or was now assigned to him by lot, see Neh 11:1, &c.

Verse 2

Which came with Zerubbabel,.... The head of them, the prince of Judah; and the chief that came with him are the ten following; Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah; the first of these, Jeshua, was Joshua the high priest, the son of Josedech, Hag 1:1. Dr. Lightfoot (s) thinks that Nehemiah is the same, whose name the following book bears; and that Mordecai is he who was uncle to Esther, so Aben Ezra; but, if so, they must both return again; for that Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Neh 1:1, and that Mordecai brought up his niece in the city of Shushan, in the times of Ahasuerus, is certain; and this, with respect to both, is denied by others (t), who take them to be different men of the same name; and the same writer is of opinion that Seraiah, and who is called Azariah, Neh 7:7 is the same with Ezra, who therefore must and did return, since he went up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, Ezr 7:1, as for the others, we know nothing more of them than their names: the number of the men of the people of Israel; either of the principal of them before named, or of the common people, which next follows. (s) Works, vol. 1. p. 127. So Broughton, Works, p. 258. (t) Vid. Rainold. de Libr. Apocryph. Praelect. 111, 117, 148.

Verse 3

The children of Parosh, two thousand an hundred and seventy two. From hence, to the end of Ezr 2:35, a list is given of the captives that returned, described by the families they were of, their ancestors from whence they sprung, or the towns and cities to which they originally belonged, and by their numbers; otherwise nothing more of them is known. , a list is given of the captives that returned, described by the families they were of, their ancestors from whence they sprung, or the towns and cities to which they originally belonged, and by their numbers; otherwise nothing more of them is known. Ezra 2:36 ezr 2:36 ezr 2:36 ezr 2:36The priests,.... An account of them is given in this and the three following verses, and only four families are mentioned, those of Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, and Harim, and the number of them amounted to 4289; these, according to the Jews, were heads of four courses, which were all that returned from Babylon (u). (u) T. Hieros. Taanioth, fol. 68. 1.

Verse 36

The Levites,.... Singers and porters, who are reckoned in this, and the two following verses, whose numbers were no more than three hundred and forty one; whereas, in the times of David, they were 38,000, Ch1 23:3. . Ezra 2:43 ezr 2:43 ezr 2:43 ezr 2:43The Nethinims,.... Supposed by Aben Ezra and Jarchi to be the Gibeonites, who were "given" by Joshua, as the word Nethinims signifies, to the congregation, to be hewers of wood and drawers of water; but rather were those that were given by David to assist the Levites; of these is an account from hence to the end of Ezr 2:58, together with those who descended from Solomon's servants, who seem to be the remains of the Canaanites in the land, whom Solomon made bondservants of, Kg1 9:20, who, and their posterity, became proselytes; or those sprung from men that were domestic servants of Solomon's, and valued themselves on that account; the number of the Nethinims and these together were three hundred ninety and two.

Verse 40

And these were they that went up from Telmelah, Telharsa,.... Places in the land of Babylon, see Isa 37:12. Cherub, Addan, and Immer; but they could not show their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel; these were such that professed the Jewish religion, and went for Jews in Babylon, but could not trace their pedigree, and tell what family they were of, who their ancestors, and where they had lived in Judea; they had lost their genealogical tables, if they ever had any, and could not make it out, whether their parents were Israelites or proselyted Gentiles; or they were such who had been exposed, and taken out of the streets, and their parents unknown.

Verse 43

The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, and the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two. These, though their immediate parents were known, yet by their being mentioned here, it seems as if they could not carry their genealogy further, and make it clearly appear what was the house of their fathers, or what their family. The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, and the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two. These, though their immediate parents were known, yet by their being mentioned here, it seems as if they could not carry their genealogy further, and make it clearly appear what was the house of their fathers, or what their family. Ezra 2:61 ezr 2:61 ezr 2:61 ezr 2:61And of the children of the priests,.... Who could not make out their pedigree, for those that could are mentioned before: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; how the latter came by this name follows: which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name; this man married a woman that descended from the famous Barzillai the Gileadite, in the times of David; and the priesthood being in disuse, and mean and despicable, in Babylon, he chose to take the name of his wife's family, and pass for a descendant from that, and perhaps destroyed, or at least neglected, to take care of the genealogy of his own family.

Verse 59

These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy,.... To find their names written and registered there; for the Jews kept public registers of their priests, their descent, marriages, and offspring, that it might be known who were fit, and who not, to officiate as such: but they were not found; their names were not there, nor any account taken of them: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood; were not suffered to attend at the altar, and offer sacrifice, and enjoy the privileges belonging to that office.

Verse 60

And the Tirshatha said unto them,.... By whom Jarchi understands Nehemiah, and observes, that their rabbins say he was so called, because the wise men allowed him to drink the wine of the Gentiles, he being cupbearer to the king; but Aben Ezra, with greater probability, takes it to be a name of honour and grandeur in the Chaldee language, as a prince or governor; and no doubt Zerubbabel is meant, the prince of the Jews, the same with Sheshbazzar, Ezr 1:8 according to Gussetius (w), this office was the same with that of the king's commissary in a province, delegated to carry his orders, make them known, and see them put in execution; and that this name Tirshatha is the same with Tithraustes in Aelian (x); but that seems to be not the title of an office, but the personal name of a man that was a chiliarch: that they should not eat of the most holy things; as of the shewbread, and those parts of the sin offerings, and of the peace offerings and meat offerings, which belonged to the priests, which the governor forbid these to eat of, who were rejected from the priesthood: till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim; as yet there was not any priest that had them; they were not to be found at the return from Babylon; the governor might hope they would be found, and a priest appear clothed with them, when it might be inquired of the Lord by them, whether such priests, before described, might eat of the holy things or not; but since the Jews (y) acknowledge that these were one of the five things wanting in the second temple; it is all one, as the Talmudists (z) express it, as if it had been said, until the dead rise, or the Messiah comes; and who is come, the true High Priest, and with whom are the true Urim and Thummim, lights and perfections to the highest degree, being full of grace and truth; of the Urim and Thummim; see Gill on Exo 28:30. (w) Ebr. Comment. p. 809. (x) Var. Hist. l. 1. c. 21. Vid. Corn. Nep. Vit. Conon. l. 9. c. 3. (y) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 21. 2. (z) T. Bab. Sotah, fol. 48. 2. & Gloss. in Kiddushin, fol. 60. 2.

Verse 61

The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore. But the sums before given make no more, with Zerubbabel, and the ten principal men, than 29,829, so that there are more than 12,000 wanting; wherefore, in answer to the question, where are the 12,000? the Jews say in their chronology (a) these are they of the other tribes, who set up the altar on its bases, and gave money to the masons, &c. Ezr 3:1, this was a much larger number than were carried captive; see Kg2 24:14, but not to be compared with the number that came out of Egypt, Exo 12:37. An Arabic writer (b) makes them 50,000, but wrongly. (a) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 29. p. 86. (b) Abulpharag. Hist. Dynast. Dyn. 5. p. 82.

Verse 62

Besides their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven,.... This shows that the greater part of those that returned were of the poorer sort, since there were so few servants that belonged unto them; these came not into the above account: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women; among the servants, who were kept by persons of figure for their pleasure and recreation, see Ecc 2:8, for that these were such as were employed in sacred service is not so clear, especially the latter, though some conclude it from Ch1 25:5, but rather they were such as were employed at marriages, festivals, and funerals; though Jarchi thinks they were employed by the returning captives, to make them cheerful as they travelled along; see Gill on Isa 55:12.

Verse 63

So that the far greatest part of them must walk on foot, since these can be thought to be little more than sufficient to carry their goods or baggage; some copies of the Vulgate Latin read six hundred and thirty six horses (c). (c) Ed. of Sixtus V. and the Lovain in James's Contrariety of Popish Bibles, p. 295.

Verse 64

And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the Lord that is at Jerusalem,.... That is, when they came to the place where it formerly stood, and where were still the ruins of it: offered freely for the house of God, to set it up in its place; to rebuild it upon the spot where it formerly stood; this they did besides the freewill offerings they brought with them from Babylon.

Verse 65

They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the world threescore and one thousand drachms of gold,.... These "darcemons or darics" were a Persian coin; one of which, according to Brerewood (k), was of the value of fifteen shillings of our money, and so this quantity of them amounted to 45,750 pounds; but according to Bishop Cumberland (l) they were of the value of twenty shillings and four pence of our money, and so came to upwards of 61,000 pounds; these everyone, according to his ability, put into the common stock or treasury for the work of building the temple; the Vulgate Latin (m) reads 40,000: and five thousand pounds of silver; and an Hebrew "mina", or pound, being of our money seven pounds, ten shillings, according to Brerewood (n), amounted to 31,250 pounds: but others (o), reckoning a drachm of gold at ten shillings, and a mina or pound of silver at nine pounds, make the whole to amount only to 75,500 pounds of our money: and one hundred priests' garments; which, as they were laid up among treasures, so were necessary for the service of the temple. (k) De Pret. & Ponder. Vet. Num. ch. iii. v. (l) Scripture Weights & Measures, ch. 4. p. 115. (m) Sixtus V. Lovain & MSS. in James ut supra. (Contrariety of Popish Bibles, p. 295) (n) Ut supra, (De Pret. & Ponder. Vet. Num.) ch. iv. v. (o) Universal History, vol. 10. p. 183, marg.

Verse 66

So the priests and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities,.... Which were assigned to them out of the several tribes, and in which they or their forefathers had dwelt before the captivity: and all Israel in their cities; as those of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, so of the other ten, as many as returned and joined those who were left in the land. Next: Ezra Chapter 3

Introduction

List of Those Who Returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua - Ezra 2 The title (Ezr 2:1 and Ezr 2:2) announces that the list which follows it (vv. 3-67) contains the number of the men of the people of Israel who returned to Jerusalem and Judah from the captivity in Babylon, under the conduct of Zerubbabel, Joshua, and other leaders. It is composed of separate lists: of the families of the people, vv. 3-35; of the priests and Levites,Ezr 2:36-42; of the Nethinims and servants of Solomon, vv. 43-58; of families who could not prove their Israelite descent, and of certain priests whose genealogy could not be found, Ezr 2:59-63; and it closes with the sum-total of the persons, and of their beasts of burden, Ezr 2:64-67. This is followed by an enumeration of the gifts which they brought with them for the temple (Ezr 2:68 and Ezr 2:69), and by a final statement with regard to the entire list (Ezr 2:70). Nehemiah also, when he desired to give a list of the members of the community at Jerusalem, met with the same document, and incorporated it in the book which bears his name (Neh 7:6-73). It is also contained in 1 Esdr. 5:7-45. The three texts, however, exhibit in the names, and still more so in the numbers, such variations as involuntarily arise in transcribing long lists of names and figures. The sum-total of 42,630 men and 7337 servants and maids is alike in all three texts; but the addition of the separate numbers in the Hebrew text of Ezra gives only 29,818, those in Nehemiah 31,089, and those in the Greek Esdras 30,143 men. In our elucidation of the list, we shall chiefly have respect to the differences between the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah, and only notice the variations in 1 Esdras so far as they may appear to conduce to a better understanding of the matter of our text.

Verse 1

The title. - "These are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of the carrying away (i.e., of those which had been carried away), whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, every one to his city." In Neh 7:6 לבבל is omitted, through an error of transcription caused by the preceding בּבל; and וליהוּדה stands instead of ויהוּדה, which does not, however, affect the sense. המּדינה is the province whose capital was Jerusalem (Neh 11:3), i.e., the province of Judaea as a district of the Persian empire; so Ezr 5:8; Neh 1:2. The Chethiv נבוכדנצור is similar to the form Nebucadrezor, Jer 49:28, and is nearer to the Babylonian form of this name than the usual biblical forms Nebucadnezzar or Nebucadrezzar. For further remarks on the various forms of this name, see on Dan 1:1. They returned "each to his city," i.e., to the city in which he or his ancestors had dwelt before the captivity. Bertheau, on the contrary, thinks that, "though in the allotment of dwelling-places some respect would certainly be had to the former abode of tribes and families, yet the meaning cannot be that every one returned to the locality where his forefathers had dwelt: first, because it is certain (?) that all memorial of the connection of tribes and families was frequently obliterated, comp. below, Neh 7:61-64; and then, because a small portion only of the former southern kingdom being assigned to the returned community, the descendants of dwellers in those towns which lay without the boundaries of the new state could not return to the cities of their ancestors." True, however, as this may be, the city of each man cannot mean that "which the authorities, in arranging the affairs of the community, assigned to individuals as their domicile, and of which they were reckoned inhabitants in the lists then drawn up for the sake of levying taxes," etc. (Bertheau). This would by no means be expressed by the words, "they returned each to his own city." We may, on the contrary, correctly say that the words hold good potiori, i.e., they are used without regard to exceptions induced by the above-named circumstance. אשׁר־בּאוּ, Ezr 2:2, corresponds with the העלים of Ezr 2:1; hence in Neh 7:7 we find also the participle בּאים. They came with Zerubbabel, etc., that is, under their conduct and leadership. Zerubbabel (Ζοροβάβελ, זרבּבל or זרוּבבל, probably abbreviated from בּבל זרוּע, in Babylonia satus seu genitus) the son of Shealtiel was a descendant of the captive king Jehoiachin (see on Ch1 3:17), and was probably on account of this descent made leader of the expedition, and royal governor of the new settlement, by Cyrus. Jeshua (ישׁוּע, the subsequently abbreviated form of the name Jehoshua or Joshua, which is used Neh 8:17 also for Joshua the son of Nun, the contemporary of Moses) the son of Josedech (Hagg. Jos 1:1), and the grandson of Seraiah the high priest, who was put to death by Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, was the first high priest of the restored community; see on Ch1 6:15. Besides those of Zerubbabel and Joshua, nine (or in Nehemiah more correctly ten) names, probably of heads of families, but of whom nothing further is known, are placed here. 1. Nehemiah, to be distinguished from the well-known Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah, Neh 1:1; 2. Seraiah, instead of which we have in Neh 7:7 Azariah; 3. Reeliah, in Nehemiah, Raamiah; 4. Nahamani in Nehemiah, Εὐηνέος in 1 Esdras 5:8, omitted in the text of Ezra; 5. Mordecai, not the Mordecai of the book of Esther (Est 2:5.); 6. Bilshan; 7. Mispar, in Nehemiah Mispereth; 8. Bigvai; 9. Rehum, in 1 Esdras Ροΐ́μος; 10. Baanah. These ten, or reckoning Zerubbabel and Joshua, twelve men, are evidently intended, as leaders of the returning nation, to represent the new community as the successor of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is also unmistakeably shown by the designation, the people of Israel, in the special title, and by the offering of twelve sin-offerings, according to the number of the tribes of Israel, at the dedication of the new temple, Ezr 6:16. The genealogical relation, however, of these twelve representatives to the twelve tribes cannot be ascertained, inasmuch as we are told nothing of the descent of the last ten. Of these ten names, one meets indeed with that of Seraiah, Neh 10:3; of Bigvai, in the mention of the sons of Bigvai, Ezr 8:14; of Rehum, Neh 3:17; Neh 12:3; and of Baanah, Neh 10:28; but there is nothing to make the identity of these persons probable. Even in case they were all of them descended from members of the former kingdom of Judah, this is no certain proof that they all belonged also to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, since even in the reign of Rehoboam pious Israelites of the ten tribes emigrated thither, and both at and after the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, many Israelites might have taken refuge and settled in Judah. The last words, Ezr 2:2, "The number of the men of the people of Israel," contain the special title of the first division of the following list, with which the titles in Ezr 2:36, Ezr 2:40, Ezr 2:43, and Ezr 2:55 correspond. They are called the people of Israel, not the people of Judah, because those who returned represented the entire covenant people.

Verse 3

List of the houses and families of the people. Comp. Neh 7:8-38. - To show the variations in names and numbers between the two texts, we here place them side by side, the names in Nehemiah being inserted in parentheses. Ezra II Ezra II Neh. VII 1. The Sons of Parosh 2172 2172 2. The Sons of Shephatiah 372 372 3. The Sons of Arah 775 652 4. The Sons of Pahath Moab, of the sons of Joshua and Joab 2812 2818 5. The Sons of Elam 1254 1254 6. The Sons of Zattu 945 845 7. The Sons of Zaccai 760 760 8. The Sons of Bani (Binnui) 642 648 9. The Sons of Bebai 623 628 10. The Sons of Azgad 1222 2322 11. The Sons of Adonikam 666 667 12. The Sons of Bigvai 2056 2067 13. The Sons of Adin 454 655 14. The Sons of Ater of Hezekiah 98 98 15. The Sons of Bezai 323 324 16. The Sons of Jorah (Harif) 112 112 17. The Sons of Hashum 223 328 18. The Sons of Gibbar (Gibeon) 95 95 19. The Sons of Bethlehem 123 123 20. The Men of Netophah 56 56 21. The Men of Anathoth 128 128 22. The Sons of Azmaveth (men of Beth-azmaveth) 42 42 23. The Sons of Kirjath-arim, Chephirah, Beeroth 743 743 24. The Sons of Ramah and Gaba 621 621 25. The Men of Michmas 122 122 26. The Men of Bethel and Ai 223 123 27. The Sons of Nebo (Acher) 52 52 28. The Sons of Magbish 156 wanting 29. The Sons of other Elam 1254 1254 30. The Sons of Harim 320 320 31. The Sons of Lod, Hadid, Ono 725 721 32. The Sons of Jericho 345 345 33. The Sons of Senaah 3630 3930 Total 24,144 25,406 The differences in the names are unimportant. In Ezr 2:6 the ו copulative inserted between the names ישׁוּע and יואב, both in Nehemiah and 1 Esdras, is wanting; the name בּני (Ezr 2:10) is written בּנּוּי in Nehemiah (Neh 7:15); for יורה (Ezr 2:18), Neh 7:24 has חריף, evidently another name for the same person, Jorah having a similarity of sound with יורה, harvest-rain, and חריף with חרף, harvest; for נּבּר (Ezr 2:20), Neh 7:25 more correctly read גּבעון, the name of the town; and for ערים קרית (Ezr 2:25), Neh 7:29 has the more correct form יערים קרית: the sons of Azmaveth (Ezr 2:24) stands in Nehemiah as the men of Beth-azmaveth; while, on the other hand, for the sons of Nebo (Ezr 2:29), we have in Nehemiah (Neh 7:33) the men of Nebo Acher, where אחר seems to have been inserted inadvertently, Elam Acher so soon following. (Note: This view is more probable than the notion of Dietrich, in A. Merx, Archiv fr wissensch. Forschung des A. T., No. 3, p. 345, that by the addition אחר in Nehemiah, the Nebo in Judah is distinguished from the Nebo in Reuben.) The names Bezai, Jorah, and Hashum (Ezr 2:17-19) are transposed in Nehemiah (Neh 7:22-24) thus, Hashum, Bezai, and Harif; as are also Lod, etc., and Jericho, (Ezr 2:33, Ezr 2:34) into Jericho and Lod, etc. (Nehemiah, vv. 36, 37). Lastly, the sons of Magbish (Ezr 2:30) are omitted in Nehemiah; and the sons of Bethlehem and the men of Netophah (Ezr 2:21 and Ezr 2:22) are in Nehemiah (Neh 7:26) reckoned together, and stated to be 188 instead of 123 + 56 = 179. A glance at the names undoubtedly shows that those numbered 1-17 are names of races or houses: those from 18-27, and from 31-33, are as certainly names of towns; there, therefore, inhabitants of towns are named. This series is, however, interrupted by Nos. 28-30; Harim being undoubtedly, and Magbish very probably, names not of places, but of persons; while the equality of the number of the other, Elam 1254, with that of Elam (No. 6), seems somewhat strange. To this must be added, that Magbish is wanting both in Nehemiah and 2 Esdras, and the other Elam in 1 Esdras; while, in place of the sons of Harim 320, we have in 1 Esdr. 5:16, in a more appropriate position, υἱοὶ Ἀρομ 32. Hence Bertheau infers that Nos. 28 and 29, sons of Magbish and sons of Elam Acher (vv. 30 and 31), are spurious, and that Harim should be written Ἀρώμ, and inserted higher up. The reasons for considering these three statements doubtful have certainly some weight; but considering the great untrustworthiness of the statements in the first book of Esdras, and the other differences in the three lists arising, as they evidently do, merely from clerical errors, we could not venture to call them decisive. Of the names of houses or races (Nos. 1-17 and 30), we meet with many in other lists of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah; (Note: In the list of those who went up with Ezra (Ezra 8), the sons of Parosh, Pahath-Moab, Adin, Elam, Shephatiah, Joab, Bebai, Azgad, Adonikam, Bigvai, and, according to the original text (Ezr 8:8, Ezr 8:10), also the sons of Zattu and Bani. In the lists of those who had taken strange wives (Ezra 10) we meet with individuals of the sons of Parosh, Elam, Zattu, Bebai, Bani, Pahath-Moab, Harim, Hashum, and of the sons of Nebo. Finally, in the lists of the heads of the people in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 10:15.) appear the names of Parosh, Pahath-Moab, Elam, Zattu, Bani, Azgad, Bebai, Bigvai, Adin, Ater, Hashum, Bezai, Harif, Harim, Anathoth, together with others which do not occur in the list we are not treating of.) whence we perceive, (1) that of many houses only a portion returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua, the remaining portion following with Ezra; (2) that heads of houses are entered not by their personal names, but by that of the house. The names, for the most part, descend undoubtedly from the time anterior to the captivity, although we do not meet with them in the historical books of that epoch, because those books give only the genealogies of those more important personages who make a figure in history. Besides this, the genealogies in Chronicles are very incomplete, enumerating for the most part only the families of the more ancient times. Most, if not all, of these races or houses must be regarded as former inhabitants of Jerusalem. Nor can the circumstance that the names given in the present list are not found in the lists of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (1 Chron 9 and Neh 11) be held as any valid objection; for in those lists only the heads of the great races of Judah and Benjamin are named, and not the houses which those races comprised. The names of cities, on the other hand (Nos. 18-33), are for the most part found in the older books of the Old Testament: Gibeon in Jos 9:3; Bethlehem in Rut 1:2; Mic 5:1; Netophah, Sa2 23:28 - see comm. on Ch1 2:54; Anathoth in Jos 21:18; Jer 1:1; Kirjath-jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, as cities of the Gibeonites, in Jos 9:17; Ramah and Geba, which often occur in the histories of Samuel and Saul, also in Jos 18:24-25; Michmash in Sa1 13:2, Sa1 13:5; Isa 10:28; Bethel and Ai in Jos 7:2; and Jericho in Jos 5:13, and elsewhere. All these places were situate in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and were probably taken possession of by former inhabitants or their children immediately after the return. Azmaveth or Beth-azmaveth (Neh 7:28) does not occur in the earlier history, nor is it mentioned out of this list, except in Neh 12:29, according to which it must be sought for in the neighbourhood of Geba. It has not, however, been as yet discovered; for the conjecture of Ritter, Erdk. xvi. p. 519, that it may be el-Hizme, near Anta, is unfounded. Nor can the position of Nebo be certainly determined, the mountain of that name (Num 32:3) being out of the question. Nob or Nobe (Sa1 21:2) has been thought to be this town. Its situation is suitable; and this view is supported by the fact that in Neh 11:31., Nob, and not Nebo, is mentioned, together with many of the places here named; in Ezr 10:43, however, the sons of Nebo are again specified. As far as situation is concerned, Nuba, or Beit-Nuba (Robinson's Biblical Researches, p. 189), may, as Bertheau thinks, correspond with this town. Magbish was by many older expositors regarded as the name of a place, but is certainly that of a person; and no place of such a name is known. The localities Lod, Hadid, and Ono (Ezr 2:33) first occur in the later books of the Old Testament. On Lod and Ono, see comm. on Ch1 8:12. חדיד is certainly Ἀδιδά (1 Macc. 12:28, 13:13), not far from Lydda, where there is still a place called el-Hadithe, Arab. 'l-hdı̂th (Robinson's Biblical Researches, p. 186). סנאה, Ezr 2:35, is identified by older expositors with Σεννά, ν͂ν Μαγδαλσεννά, which Jerome describes as terminus Judae, in septimo lapide Jerichus contra septentrionalem plagam (Onom. ed. Lars. et Parth. p. 332f.); in opposition to which, Robinson, in his above-cited work, identifies Magdal-Senna with a place called Mejdel, situate on the summit of a high hill about eighteen miles north of Jericho. The situation, however, of this town does not agree with the distance mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, and the name Mejdel, i.e., tower, is not of itself sufficient to identify it with Magdal-Senna. The situation of the Senaah in question is not as yet determined; it must be sought for, however, at no great distance from Jericho. Of the towns mentioned in the present list, we find that the men of Jericho, Senaah, and Gibeon, as well as the inhabitants of Tekoa, Zanoah, Beth-haccerem, Mizpah, Beth-zur, and Keilah, assisted at the building of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Neh 3:2-3, Neh 3:7). A larger number of towns of Judah and Benjamin is specified in the list in Neh 11:25-35, whence we perceive that in process of time a greater multitude of Jews returned from captivity and settled in the land of their fathers.

Verse 36

The list of the priests is identical, both in names and numbers, with that of Neh 7:39-42. These are: The sons of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua 973 The sons of Immer 1052 The sons of Pashur 1247 The sons of Harim 1017 Total 4289 Jedaiah is the head of the second order of priests in Ch1 24:7. If, then, Jedaiah here represents this order, the words "of the house of Jeshua" must not be applied to Jeshua the high priest; the second order belonging in all probability to the line of Ithamar, and the high-priestly race, on the contrary, to that of Eleazar. We also meet the name Jeshua in other priestly families, e.g., as the name of the ninth order of priests in Ch1 24:11, so that it may be the old name of another priestly house. Since, however, it is unlikely that no priest of the order from which the high priest descended should return, the view that by Joshua the high priest is intended, and that the sons of Jedaiah were a portion of the house to which Joshua the high priest belonged, is the more probable one. In this case Jedaiah is not the name of the second order of priests, but of the head of a family of the high-priestly race. Immer is the name of the sixteenth order of priests, Ch1 24:14. Pashur does not occur among the orders of priests in 1 Chron 24; but we find the name, Ch1 9:12, and Neh 11:12, among the ancestors of Adaiah, a priest of the order of Malchijah; the Pashur of Jer 20 and Jer 21:1-14 being, on the contrary, called the son of Immer, i.e., a member of the order of Immer. Hence Bertheau considers Pashur to have been the name of a priestly race, which first became extensive, and took the place of an older and perhaps extinct order, after the time of David. Gershom of the sons of Phinehas, and Daniel of the sons of Ithamar, are said, Dan 8:2, to have gone up to Jerusalem with Ezra, while the order to which they belonged is not specified. Among the priests who had married strange wives (Ezr 10:18-22) are named, sons of Jeshua, Immer, Harim, Pashur; whence it has been inferred "that, till the time of Ezra, only the four divisions of priests here enumerated had the charge of divine worship in the new congregation" (Bertheau). On the relation of the names in Ezr 2:36-39 to those in Neh 10:3-9 and 12:1-22, see remarks on these passages.

Verse 40

Levites, Nethinim, and Solomon's servants. Comp. Neh. 7:43-60. Ezra Neh. Levites: the sons of Jeshua and Kadmiel, of the sons of Hodivah 74 74 Singers: sons of Asaph 128 148 Sons of the door-keepers; sons of Shallum, Ater. Etc. 139 138 Nethinim and servants of Solomon, in all 392 392 Total 733 752 The Levites are divided into three classes: Levites in the stricter sense of the word, i.e., assistants of the priests in divine worship, singers, and door-keepers; comp. Ch1 24:20-31, Ch1 24:25, and 26:1-19. Of Levites in the stricter sense are specified the sons of Jeshua and Kadmiel of the sons of Hodaviah (וקדמיאל, and הודויה of our text are evidently correct readings; and לקדמיאל and הודיה, Keri להודיּה, Neh 7:43, errors of transcription). The addition, "of the sons of Hodaviah," belongs to Kadmiel, to distinguish him from other Levites of similar name. Jeshua and Kadmiel were, according to Ezr 3:9, chiefs of two orders of Levites in the times of Zerubbabel and Joshua. These names recur as names of orders of Levites in Neh 10:10. We do not find the sons of Hodaviah in the lists of Levites in Chronicles. Ezr 2:41 Of singers, only the sons of Asaph, i.e., members of the choir of Asaph, returned. In Neh 11:17 three orders are named, Bakbukiah evidently representing the order of Heman. Ezr 2:42 Of door-keepers, six orders or divisions returned, among which those of Shallum, Talmon, and Akkub dwelt, according to Ch1 9:17, at Jerusalem before the captivity. Of the sons of Ater, Hatita and Shobai, nothing further is known. Ezra 2:43-58 The Nethinim, i.e., temple-bondsmen, and the servants of Solomon, are reckoned together, thirty-five families of Nethinim and ten of the servants of Solomon being specified. The sum-total of these amounting only to 392, each family could only have averaged from eight to nine individuals. The sons of Akkub, Hagab and Asnah (Ezr 2:45, Ezr 2:46, and Ezr 2:50), are omitted in Nehemiah; the name Shalmai (Ezr 2:46) is in Neh 7:48 written Salmai; and for נפיסים, Ezr 2:50, Neh 7:52 has נפושׁסים, a form combined from נפוּסים and נפישׁים. All other variations relate only to differences of form. Because Ziha (ציהא, Ezr 2:43) again occurs in Neh 11:21 as one of the chiefs of the Nethinim, and the names following seem to stand in the same series with it, Bertheau insists on regarding these names as those of divisions. This cannot, however, be correct; for Ziha is in Neh 11:21 the name of an individual, and in the present list also the proper names are those of individuals, and only the sons of Ziha, Hasupha, etc., can be called families or divisions. Plural words alone, Mehunim and Nephisim, are names of races or nations; hence the sons of the Mehunim signify individuals belonging to the Mehunim, who, perhaps, after the victory of King Uzziah over that people, were as prisoners of war made vassals for the service of the sanctuary. So likewise may the sons of the Nephisim have been prisoners of war of the Ishmaelite race נפישׁ. Most of the families here named may, however, have been descendants of the Gibeonites (Jos 9:21, Jos 9:27). The servants of Solomon must not be identified with the Canaanite bond-servants mentioned Kg1 9:20., Ch2 8:7., but were probably prisoners of war of some other nation, whom Solomon sentenced to perform, as bondsmen, similar services to those imposed upon the Gibeonites. The sons of these servants are again mentioned in Neh 11:3. In other passages they are comprised under the general term Nethinim, with whom they are here computed. Among the names, that of הצּבים פּכרת (Ezr 2:57), i.e., catcher of gazelles, is a singular one; the last name, אמי, is in Neh 7:59 אמון.

Verse 59

Those who went up with, but could not prove that they pertained to, the nation of Israel. Comp. Neh 7:61 and Neh 7:62. - Three such families are named, consisting of 652, or according to Nehemiah of 642, persons. These went up, with those who returned, from Tel-melah (Salthill) and Tel-harsa (Thicket or Forest Hill), names of Babylonian districts or regions, the situations of which cannot be ascertained. The words also which follow, אמּר אדּן כּרוּב, are obscure, but are certainly not the names of individuals, the persons who went up not being specified till Ezr 2:60. The words are names of places, but it is uncertain whether the three are used to express one or three places. In favour of the notion that they designate but one locality, may be alleged that in Ezr 2:60 only three races are named, which would then correspond with the districts named in Ezr 2:59 : Tel-melah, Tel-harsa, and Cherub-Addan-Immer; a race from each district joining those who went up to Jerusalem. The three last words, however, may also designate three places in close proximity, in which one of the races of Ezr 2:60 might be dwelling. These could not show their father's house and their seed, i.e., genealogy, whether they were of Israel. הם, as well as the suffixes of זרעם and בּית־אבותם, refers to the persons named in Ezr 2:60. They could not show that the houses of Delaiah, Tobiah, and Nekoda, after which they were called, belonged to Israel, nor that they themselves were of Israelitish origin. Cler. well remarks: Judaicam religionem dudum sequebantur, quam ob rem se Judaeos censebant; quamvis non possent genealogicas ullas tabulas ostendere, ex quibus constaret, ex Hebraeis oriundos esse. One of these names, Nekoda, Ezr 2:48, occurring among those of the Nethinim, Bertheau conjectures that while the sons of Nekoda here spoken of claimed to belong to Israel, the objection was made that they might belong to the sons of Nekoda mentioned Ezr 2:48, and ought therefore to be reckoned among the Nethinim. Similar objections may have been made to the two other houses. Although they could not prove their Israelite origin, they were permitted to go up to Jerusalem with the rest, the rights of citizenship alone being for the present withheld. Hence we meet with none of these names either in the enumeration of the heads and houses of the people, Neh 10:15-28, or in the list Ezra 10:25-43.

Verse 61

Priests who could not prove themselves members of the priesthood. Comp. Neh 7:63-65. - Three such families are named: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, the sons of Barzillai. These could not discover their family registers, and were excluded from the exercise of priestly functions. Of these three names, that of Hakkoz occurs as the seventh order of priests; but the names alone did not suffice to prove their priesthood, this being also borne by other persons. Comp. Neh 3:4. The sons of Barzillai were the descendants of a priest who had married a daughter, probably an heiress (Num), of Barzillai the Gileadite, so well known in the history of David (Sa2 17:27; Sa2 19:32-39; Kg1 2:7), and had taken her name for the sake of taking possession of her inheritance (the suffix שׁמם refers to בּנות; see on Num 27:1-11). That by contracting this marriage he had not renounced for himself and his descendants his priestly privileges, is evident from the fact, that when his posterity returned from captivity, they laid claim to these privileges. The assumption, however, of the name of Barzillai might have cast such a doubt upon their priestly origin as to make it necessary that this should be proved from the genealogical registers, and a search in these did not lead to the desired discovery. כּתבם is their ספר יחשׂ, Neh 7:5, the book or record in which their genealogy was registered. The title of this record was המּתיחשׁים, the Enregistered: the word is in apposition to כּתבם, and the plural נמצאוּ agrees with it, while in Neh 7:64 the singular נמצא agrees with כתבם. They were declared to be polluted from the priesthood, i.e., they were excluded from the priesthood as polluted or unclean. The construction of the Pual יגאלוּ with מן is significant.

Verse 63

The Tirshatha, the secular governor of the community, i.e., as is obvious from a comparison of Neh 7:65 with Neh 7:70, Zerubbabel, called Hag 1:1 יהוּדה פּחת. תּרשׁתא, always used with the article, is undoubtedly the Persian designation of the governor or viceroy. Nehemiah is also so called in Neh 8:9 and Neh 10:2, and likewise הפּחה, Neh 12:26. The meaning of the word is still matter of dispute. Some derive it from the Persian trsı̂dn, to fear, and trs, fear = the feared or respected one (Meier, Wurzelb. p. 714); others from Persian trš, acer, auster, the strict ruler; others, again (with Benfey, die Monatsnamen, p. 196), from the Zend. thvôrestar (nom. thvôresta), i.e., praefectus, penes quem est imperium: comp. Gesenius, thes. p. 1521. The Tirshatha decided that they were not to eat of the most holy things till there should arise a priest with Urim and Thummim, i.e., to give a final decision by means of Urim and Thummim. עמד, according to the later usage of the language, is equivalent to קוּם, comp. Dan 8:3; Dan 11:2, and other places. The prohibition to eat of the most holy things (comp. on Lev 2:3) involved the prohibition to approach the most holy objects, e.g., the altar of burnt-offering (Exo 29:37; Exo 30:10), and to enter the most holy place, and thus excludes from specific priestly acts: without, however, denying a general inclusion among the priestly order, or abolishing a claim to the priestly revenues, so far as these were not directly connected with priestly functions. On Urim and Thummim, see on Exo 28:30. From the words, "till a priest shall arise," etc., it is evident that the then high priest was not in a position to entreat, and to pronounce, the divine decision by Urim and Thummim. The reason of this, however, need not be sought in the personality of Joshua (Ewald, Gesch. iv. 95), nor supposed to exist in such a fact as that he might not perhaps have been the eldest son of his father, and therefore not have had full right to the priesthood. This conjecture rests upon utterly erroneous notions of the Urim and Thummim, upon a subjectivistic view, which utterly evaporates the objective reality of the grace with which the high priest was in virtue of his office endowed. The obtainment of the divine decision by Urim and Thummim presupposes the gracious presence of Jahve in the midst of His people Israel. And this had been connected by the Lord Himself with the ark of the covenant, and with its cherubim-overshadowed mercy-seat, from above which He communed with His people (Exo 25:22). The high priest, bearing upon his breast the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim, was to appear before Jahve, and, bringing before Him the judgment of Israel, to entreat the divine decision (Exo 28:30; Num 27:21). The ark of the covenant with the mercy-seat was thus, in virtue of the divine promise, the place of judgment, where the high priest was to inquire of the Lord by means of the Urim and Thummim. This ark, however, was no longer in existence, having been destroyed when Solomon's temple was burned by the Chaldeans. Those who returned with Zerubbabel were without the ark, and at first without a temple. In such a state of affairs the high priest could not appear before Jahve with the breastplate and the Urim and Thummim to entreat His decision. The books of Samuel, indeed, relate cases in which the divine will was consulted by Urim and Thummim, when the ark of the covenant was not present for the high priest to appear before (comp. Sa1 23:4, Sa1 23:6, Sa1 23:9, etc., Sa1 14:18); whence it appears that the external or local presence of the ark was not absolutely requisite for this purpose. Still these cases occurred at a time when the congregation of Israel as yet possessed the ark with the Lord's cherubim-covered mercy-seat, though this was temporarily separated from the holy of holies of the tabernacle. Matters were in a different state at the return from the captivity. Then, not only were they without either ark or temple, but the Lord had not as yet re-manifested His gracious presence in the congregation; and till this should take place, the high priest could not inquire of the Lord by Urim and Thummim. In the hope that with the restoration of the altar and temple the Lord would again vouchsafe His presence to the returned congregation, Zerubbabel expected that a high priest would arise with Urim and Thummim to pronounce a final decision with regard to those priests who could not prove their descent from Aaron's posterity. This expectation, however, was unfulfilled. Zerubbabel's temple remained unconsecrated by any visible token of Jahve's presence, as the place where His name should dwell. The ark of the covenant with the cherubim, and the Shechinah in the cloud over the cherubim, were wanting in the holy of holies of this temple. Hence, too, we find no single notice of any declaration of the divine will or the divine decision by Urim and Thummim in the period subsequent to the captivity; but have, on the contrary, the unanimous testimony of the Rabbis, that after the Babylonian exile God no longer manifested His will by Urim and Thummim, this kind of divine revelation being reckoned by them among the five things which were wanting in the second temple. Comp. Buxtorf, exercitat. ad historiam Urim et Thummim, c. 5; and Vitringa, observat. ss. Lib. vi. c. 6, p. 324f.

Verse 64

The whole number of those who returned, their servants, maids, and beasts of burden. Comp. Neh 7:66-69. - The sum-total of the congregation (כּאחד, as one, i.e., reckoned together; comp. Ezr 3:9; Ezr 6:20) is the same in both texts, as also in 1 Esdras, viz., 42,360; the sums of the separate statements being in all three different, and indeed amounting in each to less than the given total. The separate statements are as follow: - AccordingtoEzra AccordingtoNehemiah Accordingto1 Esdras Men of Israel 24,144 25,406 26,390 Priests 4,289 4,289 2,388 Levites 341 360 341 Nethinim and servants of Solomon 392 392 372 Those who could not prove their Israelitish origin 652 642 652 Total 29,818 31,089 30,143 These differences are undoubtedly owing to mere clerical errors, and attempts to reconcile them in other ways cannot be justified. Many older expositors, both Jewish and Christian (Seder olam, Raschi, Ussher, J. H. Mich., and others), were of opinion that only Jews and Benjamites are enumerated in the separate statements, while the sum-total includes also those Israelites of the ten tribes who returned with them. In opposing this notion, it cannot, indeed, be alleged that no regard at all is had to members of the other tribes (Bertheau); for the several families of the men of Israel are not designated according to their tribes, but merely as those whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken away to Babylon; and among these would certainly be included, as Ussher expressly affirms, many belonging to the other tribes who had settled in the kingdom of Judah. But the very circumstances, that neither in the separate statements nor in the sum-total is any allusion made to tribal relations, and that even in the case of those families who could not prove their Israelitish origin the only question was as to whether they were of the houses and of the seed of Israel, exclude all distinction of tribes, and the sum-total is evidently intended to be the joint sum of the separate numbers. Nor can it be inferred, as J. D. Mich. conjectures, that because the parallel verse to Ezr 2:64 of our present chapter, viz., 1 Esdr. 5:41, reads thus, "and all of Israel from twelve years old and upwards, besides the servants and maids, were 42,360," the separate statements are therefore the numbers only of those of twenty years old and upwards, while the sum-total includes those also from twelve to twenty years of age. The addition "from twelve years and upwards" is devoid of critical value; because, if it had been genuine, the particular "from twenty years old and upwards" must have been added to the separate statements. Hence it is not even probable that the author of the 1st book of Esdras contemplated a reconciliation of the difference by this addition. In transcribing such a multitude of names and figures, errors could scarcely be avoided, whether through false readings of numbers or the omission of single items. The sum-total being alike in all three texts, we are obliged to assume its correctness. Ezr 2:65 "Besides these, their servants and their maids, 7337." אלּה is, by the accent, connected with the preceding words. The further statement, "And there were to them (i.e., they had) 200 singing men and singing women," is striking. The remark of Bertheau, that by להם the property of the community is intended to be expressed, is incorrect; להם denotes merely computation among, and does not necessarily imply proprietorship. J. D. Mich., adopting the latter meaning, thought that oxen and cows originally stood in the text, and were changed by transcribers into singing men and singing women, "for both words closely resemble each other in appearance in the Hebrew." Berth., on the contrary, remarks that שׁורים, oxen, might easily be exchanged for שׁררים or משׁררים, but that שׁור has no feminine form for the plural, and that פּרות, cows, is very different from משׁררות; that hence we are obliged to admit that in the original text שׁורים stood alone, and that after this word had been exchanged for משׁררים, משׁררות was added as its appropriate complement. Such fanciful notions can need no serious refutation. Had animals been spoken of as property, להם would not have been used, but a suffix, as in the enumeration of the animals in Ezr 2:66. Besides, oxen and cows are not beasts of burden used in journeys, like the horses, mules, camels, and asses enumerated in Ezr 2:66, and hence are here out of place. וּמשׁררות משׁררים are singing men and singing women, in 1 Esdras ψάλται καὶ ψαλτῳδοί, who, as the Rabbis already supposed, were found among the followers of the returning Jews, ut laetior esset Israelitarum reditus. The Israelites had from of old employed singing men and singing women not merely for the purpose of enhancing the cheerfulness of festivities, but also for the singing of lamentations on sorrowful occasions; comp. Ecc 2:8; Ch2 35:25 : these, because they sang and played for hire, are named along with the servants and maids, and distinguished from the Levitical singers and players. In stead of 200, we find both in Nehemiah and 1 Esdras the number 245, which probably crept into the text from the transcriber fixing his eye upon the 245 of the following verse. Ezr 2:66-67 The numbers of the beasts, whether for riding or baggage: horses, 736; mules, 245; camels, 435; and asses, 6720. The numbers are identical in Neh 7:68. In 1 Esdr. 5:42 the camels are the first named, and the numbers are partially different, viz., horses, 7036, and asses, 5525.

Verse 68

Contributions towards the rebuilding of the temple, and concluding remarks. Comp. Neh 7:70-73. - Some of the heads of houses, when they came to the house of Jahve, i.e., arrived at the site of the temple, brought free-will offerings (התנדּב; comp. Ch1 29:5) to set it up in its place (העמיד, to set up, i.e., to rebuild; identical in meaning both here and Ezr 9:9 with הקים). After their ability (כּכוחם; comp. Ch1 29:2) they gave unto the treasure of the work, i.e., of restoring the temple and its services, 61,000 darics of gold = 68,625, and 5000 mina of silver, above 30,000, and 100 priests' garments. The account of these contributions is more accurately given in Neh 7:70-72, according to which some of the heads of houses gave unto the work (מקצת as Dan 1:2 and elsewhere); the Tirshatha gave to the treasure 1000 darics of gold, 50 sacrificial vessels (see on Exo 27:3), 30 priests' garments, and 500 ... This last statement is defective; for the two numbers 30 and 500 must not be combined into 530, as in this case the hundreds would have stood first. The objects enumerated were named before 500, and are omitted through a clerical error, מנים וכסף "and silver (500) mina." And some of the heads of houses (others than the Tirshatha) gave of gold 20,000 darics, of silver, 2200 mina; and that which the rest of the people gave was-gold, 20,000 darics, silver, 2000 mina, and 67 priests' garments. According to this statement, the Tirshatha, the heads of houses, and the rest of the people, gave together 41,000 darics in gold, 4200 mina in silver, 97 priests' garments, and 30 golden vessels. In Ezra the vessels are omitted; and instead of the 30 + 67 = 97 priests' garments, they are stated in round numbers to have been 100. The two other differences have arisen from textual errors. Instead of 61,000 darics, it is evident that we must read with Nehemiah, 41,000 (1000 + 20,000 + 20,000); and in addition to the 2200 and 2000 mina, reckon, according to Neh 7:70, 500 more, in all 4700, for which in the text of Ezra we have the round sum of 5000. The account of the return of the first band of exiles concludes at Ezr 2:70, and the narrative proceeds to the subsequent final statement: "So the priests, etc ... .dwelt in their cities." העם וּמן, those of the people, are the men of the people of Israel of Ezr 2:2, the laity as distinguished from the priests, Levites, etc. In Nehemiah the words are transposed, so that העם מן stand after the Levitical door-keepers and singers. Bertheau thinks this position more appropriate; but we cannot but judge otherwise. The placing of the people, i.e., the laity of Israel, between the consecrated servants of the temple (the priests and their Levitical assistants in the sacrificial service) and the singers and door-keepers, seems to us quite consistent; while, on the other hand, the naming of the שׁוערים before the משׁררים in Nehemiah seems inappropriate, because the performance of the choral service of the temple was a higher office than the guardianship of the doors. Neither can we regard Bertheau's view, that בּעריהם, which in the present verse follows והנּתינים, should be erased, as a correct one. The word forms a perfectly appropriate close to the sentence beginning with ויּשׁבוּ; and the sentence following, "And all Israel were in their cities," forms a well-rounded close to the account; while, on the contrary, the summing up of the different divisions by the words כל־ישׂראל in Nehemiah, after the enumeration of those divisions, has a rather heavy effect. (Note: In 1 Esdr. 5:46, this verse, freely carrying out the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah, with regard also to Neh 12:27-30, runs thus: "And so dwelt the priests, and the Levites, and the people, in Jerusalem and in the country, the singers also and the porters, and all Israel in their villages.")

Introduction

That many returned out of Babylon upon Cyrus's proclamation we were told in the foregoing chapter; we have here a catalogue of the several families that returned (Ezr 2:1). I. The leaders (Ezr 2:2). II. The people (v. 3-35). III. The priests, Levites, and retainers to the temple (v. 35-63). IV. The sum total, with an account of their retinue (Ezr 2:64-67). V. Their offerings to the service of the temple (Ezr 2:68-70).

Verse 1

We may observe here, 1. That an account was kept in writing of the families that came up out of captivity, and the numbers of each family. This was done for their honour, as part of their recompence for their faith and courage, their confidence in God and their affection to their own land, and to stir up others to follow their good example. Those that honour God he will thus honour. The names of all those Israelites indeed that accept the offer of deliverance by Christ shall be found, to their honour, in a more sacred record than this, even in the Lamb's book of life. The account that was kept of the families that came up from the captivity was intended also for the benefit of posterity, that they might know from whom they descended and to whom they were allied. 2. That they are called children of the province. Judah, which had been an illustrious kingdom, to which other kingdoms had been made provinces, subject to it and dependent on it, was now itself made a province, to receive laws and commissions from the king of Persia and to be accountable to him. See how sin diminishes and debases a nation, which righteousness would exalt. But by thus being made servants (as the patriarchs by being sojourners in a country which was theirs by promise) they were reminded of the better country, that is, the heavenly (Heb 11:16), a kingdom which cannot be moved, or changed into a province. 3. That they are said to come every one to his city, that is, the city appointed them, in which appointment an eye, no doubt, was had to their former settlement by Joshua; and to that, as near as might be, they returned: for it does not appear that any others, at least any that were able to oppose them, had possessed them in their absence. 4. That the leaders are first mentioned, v. 2. Zerubbabel and Jeshua were their Moses and Aaron, the former their chief prince, the latter their chief priest. Nehemiah and Mordecai are mentioned here; some think not the same with the famous men we afterwards meet with of those names: probably they were the same, but afterwards returned to court for the service of their country. 5. Some of these several families are named from the persons that were their ancestors, others from the places in which they had formerly resided; as with us many surnames are the proper names of persons, others of places. 6. Some little difference there is between the numbers of some of the families here and in Neh. 7, where this catalogue is repeated, which might arise from this, that some who had given in their names at first to come afterwards drew back - said, I go, Sir, but went not, which would lessen the number of the families they belonged to; others that declined, at first, afterwards repented and went, and so increased the number. 7. Here are two families that are called the children of Elam (one Ezr 2:7, another Ezr 2:31), and, which is strange, the number of both is the same, 1254. 8. The children of Adonikam, which signifies a high lord, were 666, just the number of the beast (Rev 13:18), which is there said to be the number of a man, which, Mr. Hugh Broughton thinks, has reference to this man. 9. The children of Bethlehem (Ezr 2:21) were but 123, though it was David's city; for Bethlehem was little among the thousands of Judah, yet there must the Messiah arise, Mic 5:2. 10. Anathoth had been a famous place in the tribe of Benjamin and yet here it numbered but 128 (v. 23), which is to be imputed to the divine curse which the men of Anathoth brought upon themselves by persecuting Jeremiah, who was of their city. Jer 11:21, Jer 11:23, There shall be no remnant of them, for I will bring evil upon the men of Anathoth. And see Isa 10:30, O poor Anathoth! Nothing brings ruin on a people sooner than persecution.

Verse 36

Here is an account, I. Of the priests that returned, and they were a considerable number, about a tenth part of the whole company: for the whole were above 42,000 (Ezr 2:64), and four families of priests made up above 4200 (Ezr 2:36-39); thus was the tenth God's part - a blessed decimation. Three of the fathers of the priests here named were heads of courses, Ch1 24:7, Ch1 24:8, Ch1 24:14. The fourth was Pashur, v. 38. If these were of the posterity of that Pashur that abused Jeremiah (Jer 20:1), it is strange that so bad a man should have so good a seed, and so numerous. II. Of the Levites. I cannot but wonder at the small number of them, for, taking in both the singers and the porters (Ezr 2:40-42), they did not make 350. Time was when the Levites were more forward to their duty than the priests (Ch2 29:34), but they were not so now. If one place, one family, has the reputation for pious zeal now, another may have it another time. The wind blows where it listeth, and shifts its points. III. Of the Nethinim, who, it is supposed, were the Gibeonites, given (so their name signifies) by Joshua first (Jos 9:27), and again by David (Ezr 8:20), when Saul had expelled them, to be employed by the Levites in the work of God's house as hewers of wood and drawers of water; and, with them, of the children of Solomon's servants, whom he gave for the like use (whether they were Jews or Gentiles does not appear) and who were here taken notice of among the retainers of the temple and numbered with the Nethinim, Ezr 2:55, Ezr 2:58. Note, It is an honour to belong to God's house, though in the meanest office there. IV. Of some that were looked upon as Israelites by birth, and others as priests, and yet could not make out a clear title to the honour. 1. There were some that could not prove themselves Israelites (Ezr 2:59, Ezr 2:60), a considerable number, who presumed they were of the seed of Jacob, but could not produce their pedigrees, and yet would go up to Jerusalem, having an affection to the house and people of God. These shamed those who were true-born Israelites, and yet were not called Israelites indeed, who came out of the waters of Judah (Isa 48:1), but had lost the relish of those waters. 2. There were others that could not prove themselves priests, and yet were supposed to be of the seed of Aaron. What is not preserved in black and white will, in all likelihood, be forgotten in a little time. Now we are here told, (1.) How they lost their evidence. One of their ancestors married a daughter of Barzillai, that great man whom we read of in David's time; he gloried in an alliance to that honourable family, and, preferring that before the dignity of his priesthood, would have his children called after Barzillai's family, and their pedigree preserved in the registers of that house, not of the house of Aaron, and so they lost it. In Babylon there was nothing to be got by the priesthood, and therefore they cared not for being akin to it. Those who think their ministry, or their relation to ministers, a diminution or disparagement to them, forget who it was that said, I magnify my office. (2.) What they lost with it. It could not be taken for granted that they were priests when they could not produce their proofs, but they were, as polluted, put from the priesthood. Now that the priests had recovered their rights, and had the altar to live upon again, they would gladly be looked upon as priests. But they had sold their birthright for the honour of being gentlemen, and therefore were justly degraded, and forbidden to eat of the most holy things. Note, Christ will be ashamed of those that are ashamed of him and his service. It was the tirshatha, or governor, that put them under this sequestration, which some understand of Zerubbabel the present governor, others of Nehemiah (who is so called, Neh 8:9, Neh 10:1, and who gave this order when he came some years after); but the prohibition was not absolute, it was only a suspension, till there should be a high priest with Urim and Thummin, by whom they might know God's mind in this matter. This, it seems, was expected and desired, but it does not appear that ever they were blessed with it under the second temple. They had the canon of the Old Testament complete, which was better than Urim; and, by the want of that oracle, they were taught to expect the Messiah the great Oracle, which the Urim and Thummim was but a type of. Nor does it appear that the second temple had the ark in it, either the old one or a new one. Those shadows by degrees vanished, as the substance approached; and God, by the prophet, intimates to his people that they should sustain no damage by the want of the ark, Jer 3:16, Jer 3:17. In those days, when they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered to it, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord, neither shall it come to mind, for they shall do very well without it.

Verse 64

Here is, I. The sum total of the company that returned out of Babylon. The particular sums before mentioned amount not quite to 30,000 (29,818), so that there were above 12,000 that come out into any of those accounts, who, it is probable, were of the rest of the tribes of Israel, besides Judah and Benjamin, that could not tell of what particular family or city they were, but that they were Israelites, and of what tribe. Now, 1. This was more than double the number that were carried captive into Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, so that, as in Egypt, the time of their affliction was the time of their increase. 2. These were but few to begin a nation with, and yet, by virtue of the old promise made to their fathers, they multiplied so as before their last destruction by the Romans, about 500 years after, to be a very numerous people. When God says, "Increase and multiply," a little one shall become a thousand. II. Their retinue. They were themselves little better than servants, and therefore no wonder that their servants were comparatively but few (Ezr 2:65) and their beasts of burden about as many, Ezr 2:66, Ezr 2:67. It was not with them now as in days past. But notice is taken of 200 singing-men and women whom they had among them, who, we will suppose, were intended (as those Ch2 35:25) to excite their mourning, for it was foretold that they should, upon this occasion, go weeping (Jer 50:4), with ditties of lamentation. III. Their oblations. It is said (Ezr 2:68, Ezr 2:69), 1. That they came to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem; and yet that house, that holy and beautiful house, was now in ruins, a heap of rubbish. But, like their father Abraham, when the altar was gone they came with devotion to the place of the altar (Gen 13:4); and it is the character of the genuine sons of Zion that they favour even the dust thereof, Psa 102:14. 2. That they offered freely towards the setting of it up in its place. That, it seems, was the first house they talked of setting up; and though they came off a journey, and were beginning the world (two chargeable things), yet they offered, and offered freely, towards the building of the temple. Let none complain of the necessary expenses of their religion, but believe that when they come to balance the account they will find that it clears the cost. Their offering was nothing in comparison with the offerings of the princes in David's time; then they offered by talents (Ch1 29:7), now by drams, yet these drams, being after their ability, were as acceptable to God as those talents, like the widow's two mites. The 61,000 drams of gold amount, by Cumberland's calculation, to so many pounds of our money and so many groats. Every maneh, or pound of silver, he reckons to be sixty shekels (that is, thirty ounces), which we may reckon 7l. 10s. of our money, so that this 5000 pounds of silver will be above 37,000l. of our money. It seems, God had blessed them with an increase of their wealth, as well as of their numbers, in Babylon; and, as God had prospered them, they gave cheerfully to the service of his house. 3. That they dwelt in their cities, Ezr 2:70. Though their cities were out of repair, yet, because they were their cities, such as God had assigned them, they were content to dwell in them, and were thankful for liberty and property, though they had little of pomp, plenty, or power. Their poverty was a bad cause, but their unity and unanimity were a good effect of it. Here was room enough for them all and all their substance, so that there was no strife among them, but perfect harmony, a blessed presage of their settlement, as their discords in the latter times of that state were of their ruin.

Verse 1

2:1-70 This chapter is the first of Ezra’s major digressions from the main story line. The returning exiles needed to keep track of who the true Jews were so that the community could maintain its identity (by knowing whom they could marry) and theological purity (by knowing who could worship at the Temple). This list is not an initial list (cp. Neh 7:6-73) of all the Jews who returned to Jerusalem but a slightly later list (after Sheshbazzar had died) of people who had settled in their towns.

Verse 2

2:2 Jeshua (a variant spelling of Joshua), son of Jehozadak (3:2, 8), from the line of Aaron, was the high priest (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1). The Nehemiah mentioned here is not the person who later built the walls of Jerusalem, nor is this Mordecai the famous relative of Esther.

Verse 3

2:3-20 The family of: In the ancient Near East, an individual’s identity was closely connected to the question, “Who are your father and your family?” Ultimately, the priests were identified as the sons of Aaron. If this link could not be verified, they were barred from service (2:61-62). Others were identified by a well-known elder in their group.

Verse 21

2:21-35 The people of . . . The citizens of: Some of the returnees were identified by their towns of origin. Apparently, not all knew their genealogical histories or had large families with renowned leaders. Most of the cities mentioned were concentrated in a relatively small area in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

Verse 36

2:36-42 the priests . . . the Levites: Only seventy-four Levites returned to Jerusalem—a very low number. Ezra later worked hard to get thirty-eight more to come with him (see study note on 8:18).

Verse 41

2:41-42 The singers played instruments and sang for worship at the Temple (1 Chr 25:1-31; Pss 73–83) while the gatekeepers regulated the Temple gates and storehouses (1 Chr 9:26-27; 2 Chr 23:19; Neh 12:25). • Asaph was one of the three Levites David had appointed to conduct music at the Temple (1 Chr 16:5, 7), and he wrote a collection of psalms (Pss 50, 73–83). His family carried on his work (1 Chr 25:1-7).

Verse 43

2:43-54 The Temple servants were probably descendants of the Gibeonites (Josh 9:23-27). They assisted the Levites (8:20) by carrying water and wood and by sweeping floors.

Verse 55

2:55-58 The descendants of the servants of King Solomon are connected with the Temple servants (2:43-54). Their names might indicate their responsibilities: e.g., Hassophereth (“the scribe”) probably kept inventories, and Pokereth-hazzebaim (“gazelle-hunter”) likely hunted game.

Verse 59

2:59-60 Some returnees believed in Israel’s God but had no genealogical records to prove that they were Israelites. Without this information, the other Israelites did not know whether to treat them as brothers and intermarry with them or to treat them as outsiders. The genealogies in 1 Chr 1–9 illustrate how carefully many family histories were kept.

Verse 61

2:61-63 were not found: The lack of a genealogy was problematic for three families (2:61-62). They were excluded from priestly privileges or responsibilities until the high priest received divine direction through the use of the Urim and Thummim to determine the will of God (see Exod 28:30; Num 27:21). Although using the Urim and Thummim resembled throwing dice or drawing straws, when done by the priest, the result was a divine decision rather than blind chance.

Verse 64

2:64-66 42,360 people: This number, which does not match the total of individuals (28,774) listed in 2:3-42, might include children. • The large number of servants and animals shows that some of the Jews who returned were wealthy.

Verse 68

2:68-69 As when the Tabernacle was built (Exod 25:2-7; 35:4-9) and the Temple was renovated (2 Kgs 12:1-21), the people gave voluntary offerings to finance this effort. These funds supplemented the provincial grant by Darius (Ezra 6:8) and gifts from Israelites who stayed in Babylon (1:6). Each gave as much as he could based on his resources.

Verse 69

2:69 Each of the gold coins (Hebrew darics) was worth a month’s wages for a professional soldier. • 6,250 pounds (Hebrew 5,000 minas): Each mina weighed 20 ounces and was equal to 60 shekels of silver; each shekel was worth an average worker’s monthly wages.

From Babylon to Jerusalem - (Ezra) ch.3 & 4

(Through the Bible) Ezra

(Haggai) Pointed Powerful Paralysing Preaching

Introduction

Verse 1

Verse 2

Verse 3

Verse 21

Verse 33

Verse 36

Verse 55

Verse 63

Verse 66

Verse 69

Verse 70

Introduction

Verse 2

Verse 3

Verse 5

Verse 23

Verse 36

Verse 55

Verse 61

Verse 63

Verse 64

Verse 68

Verse 69

Introduction

Verse 1

Verse 2

Verse 3

Verse 36

Verse 40

Verse 43

Verse 59

Verse 60

Verse 61

Verse 62

Verse 63

Verse 64

Verse 65

Verse 66

Introduction

Verse 1

Verse 3

Verse 36

Verse 40

Verse 59

Verse 61

Verse 63

Verse 64

Verse 68

Introduction

Verse 1

Verse 36

Verse 64

Verse 1

Verse 2

Verse 3

Verse 21

Verse 36

Verse 41

Verse 43

Verse 55

Verse 59

Verse 61

Verse 64

Verse 68

Verse 69