Brief Introduction to the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah (with Bibliography)

Ezra begins his record in 538 BC just after the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus king of Persia (cf. Ezra 1:1) and describes some of the events leading to his own work in Jerusalem some eighty years later (458 BC) where Nehemiah takes up his primary work some twenty more years later (430-424 BC; cf. Ezra 7:7-8; Neh.13:6).  Ezra may have returned to Susa sometime after his initial visit in 458 BC.  Nehemiah arrived in 458 BC as governor of Judah and stayed for approximately twelve years during which time Ezra seems to have returned to Jerusalem.  Nehemiah returned again in 430 BC for further reforms.  It appears that the temple had been initially begun under the governor of Judah Sheshbazzar prior to Ezra’s arrival, but began again following the prophetic ministries of Haggai and Zechariah in about 520BC.  The completion and rededication of the temple occurred about 515 BC (Ezra 6:16-18). 

The nature of Ezra-Nehemiah shows essentially that they are compilations of edicts, lists, letters and the “memoirs” of Ezra and Nehemiah respectively.  The Hebrew text treats the two books of the English Bible as a single work (cf. Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra 15a; Jos.Con.Ap.3:8; Melito of Sardis according to Eusebius’ Ecc.Hist.IV.26 ; Jerome Prologue to the Galatians).  They were likely completed sometime ca. 400-300 BC though the earlier, rather than the later date, seems preferable (Williamson xxxvi).  It is likely the books were not originally written as a unity in part because of the repetition of lists (Ezra 2; Neh.7:6-70).  They were, however, early on joined together as a single volume and so should be regarded as such.

Bibliography

Archer, Gleason.  A Survey of Old Testament Introduction.  Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994. pp.395-401.  Arnold, Bill T., and H. G. M. Williamson, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.  Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence Fretheim, and David L. Peterson.  A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament.  Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1999. pp. 424-428.  Breneman, Mervin.  Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.  The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, Vol. 10.  Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 1993.  Brueggemann, Walter.  An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination.  Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. pp. 363-374.  Childs, Brevard S.  “Ezra and Nehemiah,” An Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture.     Philadelphia, PA: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1979.  pp. 624-638.  Fensham, F. Charles.  The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.  The New International Commentary on the Old Testament.  Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982.  Harrison, Ronald K.  “The Book of Ezra-Nehemiah,” Introduction to the Old Testament.  Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1969. pp. 1135-1151.  Kaiser, Jr., Walter C.  Toward an Old Testament Theology.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991.  pp.258-261.  Kidner, Derek.  Ezra and Nehemiah.  Vol. 12, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries.  Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.  VanGemeren, Willem A., Gen.Ed.  New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.  5 Volumes. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997.  Waltke, Bruce K.  An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical and Thematic Approach.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007. pp.771-802.  Williamson, H. G. M.  Ezra, Nehemiah.  Vol. 16, Word Biblical Commentary.  Nelson Reference & Electronic, 1985.  Young, Edward J.  “Ezra-Nehemiah,” An Introduction to the Old Testament.  London: The Tyndale Press, 1956.  pp. 369-379.

List of Abbreviations

1 Macc      = First Maccabees

1 Esd         = First Esdras

2 Macc      = Second Maccabees

AD             = Anno Domini (the Year of our Lord)

Aram.        = Aramaic

BC             = Before Christ

ca.              = approximately

cf.              = cross reference

Eusebius’

Ecc.Hist.   = Eusebius’ Church History

Heb.           = Hebrew

Josephus

Ant.           = Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews

Con.Ap.     = Josephus’ Against Apion

KJV           = King James Version of the Bible

LXX          = Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible

NASB       = New American Standard Bible (1995)

NET          = New English Translation

NIDOTTE = New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis

NIV           = New International Version (1984)                                          

NRS          = New Revised Standard Version (1989)

NT             = New Testament

OT             = Old Testament

RSV           = Revised Standard Version

The books of the Bible are as follows: Gen. Exo. Lev. Num. Deut. Josh. Jud. 1-2 Sam. 1-2 Kings 1-2 Chron. Ezra Neh. Esther Job Ps. Prov. Ecc. Song Isa. Jer. Lam. Eze. Dan. Hos. Joel Amos Oba. Jonah Mic. Nah. Hab. Zeph. Hag. Zech. Mal. Mt. Mk. Lk. Jn. Acts Rom. 1-2 Cor. Gal. Eph. Phil. Col. 1-2 Thess. 1-2 Tim. Tit. Phile. Heb. James 1-2 Pet. 1-3 Jn. Jude Rev.

The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History

There are three primary schools of thought on the Deuteronomistic History. The first to postulate the DH was Martin Noth, who went against the grain of previous scholars of the Old Testament, and argued that rather than the books of Joshuah-2 Kings being the work of various authors and/or redactors that there was actually only a single author/redactor whom he called the Deuteronomistic Historian (Dtr) and whose work he labelled the Deuteronomistic History (DH). Instead of seeing many strands of tradition and compositions, Noth recognized a unification of these works which in his estimation represented five different “histories” of Israel with singular authorial intent. This singular tradent compiled numerous sources (including citing some by name) and composed his work as the theological history of Israel from the end of Moses' life to the end of the monarchy. According to Noth, it was written shortly after the release of Jehoiachin from imprisonment at the hands of the Babylonians and was intended to help Israel reflect upon the reason for their exile and God's just judgment.

Following the work of Noth, several scholars (von Rad and Wolff) noted what they believed to be redactional activity accomplished after the proposed date of the Dtr of Noth's theory. There were also issues with the largely negative assessment of Noth concerning the authorial intent of his Dtr.

This in turn led to two further schools of thought: the so-called “Harvard school” and the “Göttingen school.” The former was led by the work of Frank Moore Cross who postulated a double redaction of the DH. Essentially Cross held to Noth's theory of the more negative view of the Dtr, but added a second view for this author/editor: “grace” (DOT:HB 223). He also believed there was a later author/editor whom he labelled Dtr² in contradistinction to Dtr¹. The work of Dtr¹ was (according to this school) composed sometime around the reign of Josiah and he held to hope for redemption because of the Josainic reforms. While Dtr¹ held to the double message of judgment/grace (with the emphasis on the latter as the hope of Israel); Dtr² was believed to have written during the exile and appended (and inserted into the DH of Dtr¹) passages which indicated the inevitability of exile despite the earlier Josianic reforms. This was an attempt to explain the notions of judgment, hope and finally judgment.

A German scholar, R. Smend Jr., founded the “Göttingen school” of thought on the DH distinct from the “Harvard school” of Cross. Smend and his “school” postulated that Noth's Dtr was an exilic initial and primary compiler whom he called DtrG (or DtrH). This work was added to by a later redactor (whome he called DtrN) who had a particular nomistic intent to his writing and thus emphasized the law and problems of foreign presence and influence in Israel. One of Smend's students felt that Smend's theories did not sufficiently deal with all of the material of the DH and so he added a further (and later) redactor whom he labelled DtrP as the prophetic Deuteronomist. This final redactor made much of the reign of Manasseh according to Dietrich. However, it remains questionable (even among those of the “Göttingen school”) whether there really is any distinction to be made between DtrH and DtrP.

Bibliography

Richter, Sandra L. “Deuteronomistic History,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books (Eds. Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005): 219-230.

Keeping Focus

This last Wednesday I lost a very close friend to cancer.  Chuck Friesen was one of those rare jewels who shined even in the most difficult of nights (even when he was covered in his Harley leathers).  He was relentless in his study of Scripture and we would often talk at length over minutiae of this or that detail.  His beloved NASB (which I occasionally gave him a bad time about) was tattered from being so well read and the pages were covered in highlighting, underlining and marginal notes.  In his last year he spent himself on improving his Greek by translating 1 John and writing a commentary on its Greek text (it was heavy plowing to read with all of the details he had added...and I read A LOT of commentaries on Greek and Hebrew text).  He did all of this knowing that he had been given a short life expectancy.  It was a constant reality check for me to focus on the long-term and not simply the momentary (even afflictions). 

Why should someone spend their life in study in greater detail knowing their end is any day?  The short answer is that we are not simply biding our time.  We are preparing for God's kingdom (even as we are living in it now).  Keeping focus on the long-term means recognizing that what I am doing right now actually has bearing on me now and in the age to come.  Thank you Chuck for being a blessing in my life...for the lunches (even when you were too sick to eat)...for the Bible discussions (even when you already knew the answers)...and mostly just for being my friend for this journey.  Blessings brother!

My Sabbatical

I'm nearly done with my June sabbatical from the church and I've discovered it has been invaluable (although only time will tell what further reaching effects it will have).  As a part of my time on sabbatical I have been intentional about several different projects: Master's thesis work and Pastoral enhancement.

I spent seven days in the beginning of the month writing my thesis up in Canada with no distractions or family.  It was not only refreshing to get away by myself, but I was able to hammer out 65 pages on my thesis.  Now I feel like I'm on track for finishing it well.

I also have taken the weekends to visit with pastors in rural/semi-rural communities who have been ministering in their churches for over 10 years now.  I have picked up a number of very helpful tips both for church and personal enhancement. 

I've also managed to read three books on different preaching techniques (Biblical Preaching by Haddon Robinson [which I've read parts of the original volume before]; Preaching Re-Imagined by Doug Pagitt; and Finding the Plot by Roger Standing) as well as another book about resting titled: "For God's Sake Rest!" (thanks for this last one, Dave I. :-) ).  I have found these to be wonderfully helpful in thinking through several areas of my current ministry and what I might do better in the future.

Lastly I'm driving to Springfield, MO for the Faith and Science Conference (hosted by the Assemblies of God) which promises (according to the list of presenters and topics I just received) to be very beneficial and enlightening for my thesis work on "The Meaning and Significance of Yom in Genesis 1: Theological Reflections".

I figured I would share what I've been up to for this sabbatical and just encourage other pastors who've served their communities for 7 or more years to seriously consider taking a sabbatical that is planned out.  What would you do if you received a sabbatical within the next year?

Esther 9-10 - The Day of Reckoning and Rejoicing

9:1-4 – The day arrives.  After all that had been done and the joy of chapter eight, the actual day for the struggle of the Jews had yet to be decided though things were increasingly in the favor of the Jews.  The Jews had been authorized to defend themselves against anyone taking aggression against them on the thirteenth of the twelfth month.  Not only could they take action against such persons, but they also had the support of the government officials and so “the tables were turned” (cf. Jer.30:16).  The rise of Mordecai lent tremendous support to the upsurge of Jewish support by the various government personnel including those who were earlier mentioned as caring for the monies that Haman would have contributed to the coffers of Persia (9:3-4; cf. 3:9). 

9:5-17 – The defeat of the Jewish enemies and the end of Haman.  Rather than this being a Jewish killing spree, it was an organized and authorized response to aggression against the Jews.  In fact, the author of Esther repeats three times that the Jews did not take any plunder as they had been authorized to do by the edict from Mordecai (9:10, 15, 16; cf. 8:11).  It is stated that the Jews “did what they pleased” which would be a reversal of what Xerxes had told Haman he could do to the people he plotted against (cf. 3:11).  What they “pleased” was not the same level of destruction that had been plotted against them though.  However, the sons of Haman were all put to death and thus their names were listed in order to signify the complete destruction of Haman’s family line.  As an aside, the names of his ten sons are listed in the Hebrew text with the name to one side and the definite direct object marker to the other creating a clearly distinct list-type following the pattern of the list of defeated kings in Joshua 12:9-24 and cities gifted by David after defeating his enemies at Ziklag in 1 Samuel 20:27-31.  There was a clear accounting to the king of all those killed in the citadel of Susa (9:11-12), Susa proper (9:15) and throughout the empire (9:16).  After reporting to the king the initial slaughter of the Jewish enemies in the citadel of Susa he asked what more could be done for Esther giving her a sort of carte blanche to do as she desired.  So Esther requested that the enemies in Susa proper be dealt with the next day.  Were they expected to try to continue to attack the Jews?  Why should she ask for another day of killing?  The text does not answer this.  The killing that lasted an extra day in the city of Susa became the reason that the celebration of Purim was observed on two different dates by Jews in the cities and those in the country (9:18-19).  Esther also asked that Haman’s ten sons that were killed be hung on gallows for a public display of their shame (cf. 1 Sam.31:1-13 – the public display of the bodies of King Saul and his sons by hanging).  The numbers reported killed (500; 300; 75,000) have been considered nothing more than items of farcical comedy by some (Berlin 81-82), but records of factual history by others (Jobes 199) despite the excessive numbers. 

9:18-32 – The institution of Purim.  The “day of feasting and joy” was not observed on the days of killing and battle, but on the day after when things were peaceful finally.  Also, the “celebration is…different from the feasts prescribed by the Torah.  Rather than being imposed on the people from above as God’s command met, Purim began as the spontaneous response of God’s people to his omnipotent faithfulness to the promises of the covenant” (Jobes 214).  The institution of this day (though celebrated on different days in different locations) became one of celebration for having gained “rest” from enemies (contrast how Haman plotted to take “rest” from Jews by their enemies – 3:8).  It was not a celebration of battle or destruction.  It was a celebration of joy having come from sorrow and rest from enemies and thus a day for blessing others including particularly the poor (9:19, 22).  Thus, Mordecai wrote and sent letters about these events to all of the Jews throughout the empire and described what should be done concerning this celebration that it should be carried out in perpetuity (9:27-28; cf. Exo.17:14).  The Jews received this gladly (9:23, 27).  As part of the closing remarks the story was written in summary fashion (9:24-25) as an “‘official version’ of the story…simplified and sanitized” to make the king seem to be the one responsible for saving the Jews from wicked Haman and thus leading to the reversal of events (Berlin 90).  This all was used for an etiological explanation for the name “Purim” as the casting of the pur (an Akkadian term that had the Hebrew plural affixed to it for unknown reasons in naming the festival) or lot which would otherwise apparently be lost to the readers of the book since it was some time after the initial events.  Esther also wrote a letter of commendation for this celebration.  Both of their letters were sent to all of the provinces of the empire as a message of “goodwill and assurance” (Heb. shālôm w^ə’ĕmet “peace and truth”; cf. Isa.39:8; Jer.33:6; and the reverse order in Zech.8:19).  Not only was there to be feasting, but this appears to have been preceded by a time of fasting (likely over the days of conflict leading to the celebration with rest and feasting).  Why should Esther have written something more than what Mordecai had written and what might this have added to the credibility of that writing?  Perhaps this adds to the established authority of Esther who earliest in the story was submissive and now was one who acted the part of the queen as one with authority.

10:1-3 – The continued rise of Mordecai.  The conclusion of the book (technically 9:18-10:3) acts as a sort of appendix to summarize what happened after the events of the victory of the Jews against their enemies where the Lord had turned their “lot” from sorrow and destruction into one of joy and blessing.  The final few verses enumerate how Mordecai continued to exercise authority throughout the empire as well as to be recorded in the annals of Persia for all he did (following the identical pattern for recordings of the kings of Israel and Judah, for example: 1 Kings 14:29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:14; 1 Chron. 27:24; 2 Chron.25:26).  Mordecai was exalted among the Jews because of all he did on their behalf (cf. the celebration of “Mordecai’s Day” in 2 Macc.15:36).  Why should Mordecai be so exalted in the conclusion of a book named after Esther?

Esther 7-8 - The Plot of Haman Reversed

7:1-10 – Haman Hanged.  After the second banquet, the king once again asked what Queen Esther wanted (“petition” and “request”) and offered her whatever she should ask for.  Her answer was to ask whether he truly favored her or not and to make a “petition” for her own life and a “request” for the life of her people which would serve to connect the two as a singular desire—her lot would be that of her people (7:3).  However, she leaves off just who “her people” are and only speaks of their current lot as those who have been “sold for destruction and slaughter and annihilation” (7:4).  She exercises wisdom in speaking to the king (who has earlier shown a penchant for over-reaction) by stating that she would not be bothering the king with something like this if it were not imperative to survival.  The king’s reply shows his anger already rising by the manner in which he asks who and where this individual is.  Esther’s answer is also biting as she states it the type of man who has done this and that it was Haman.  Haman’s reaction was noticeably fearful because he suddenly realized that the king had determined to destroy him and that his life was solely in the hands of Queen Esther.  With a dark comedic twist, Haman fell (cf. “fall” prophesied in 6:13) upon the couch of Esther with all of his pleading and the king returned just at that moment from having left the banquet hall for unknown reasons.  The king appears to have used this occasion as a “pretext to punish” Haman and relieve himself from the liability of involvement in the plot to kill the Jews by admitting his own involvement (Berlin 64-65, 70).  Exactly what the covering of Haman’s face refers to is unclear unless perhaps it was to remove Haman from the sight of the king (though this is a peculiar practice).  At that moment one of the king’s eunuchs mentioned the gallows Haman had set up at his house for Mordecai who had rescued the king.  The mention of the gallows was sufficient for the king to command Haman’s hanging from the very gallows Haman had built.  This apparently satisfied the king’s anger, but did not resolve the edict issued for the destruction of the Jews.  The king once again showed a penchant for short-sightedness.  It is striking that with the short statement “they hanged Haman”, his life was ended and the reversal begun.

8:1-8 – A plea for the Jews.  Not only did Haman suffer the ignominy of death by his own making, but all of his “estate” (lit. “house”) was taken and given to Esther who in turn gave it and Haman’s position in the kingdom (noted by the signet ring) to Mordecai (cf. Ezra 6:11; Herodotus 3.129).  The words of the Psalmist are rather fitting for what occurred: ^“He becomes the victim of his own destructive plans and the violence he intended for others falls on his own head.  I will thank the LORD for his justice; I will sing praises to the sovereign LORD!” (Psalm 7:16-17 NET).  Finally, the relationship between Mordecai and Esther was revealed and literally “all that he was to her” is what was made known (8:1).  Esther had received only part of what she had asked of the king, but not the repeal of the first decree to slaughter the Jews.  It was truly courageous that Esther should continue to plead for the lives of the Jews rather than to be satisfied with the blessing of herself and Mordecai.  However, the king would not (and according to Esther 1:19; 8:8 “could not”) repeal the initial decree against the Jews.  So he instead left the protection of the Jews to Mordecai and Esther essentially once again not really caring what became of these people or admitting his own role in the affair.

8:9-17 – A decree for the Jews.  In a reversal of events, the royal secretaries were called to write a decree for the Jews and all the same leaders of the empire that had been enumerated before (compare 3:12; however notice the naming of the Jews leading the list of rulers which gives particular emphasis to them).  This was done seventy days later than the original decree which may have theological significance in connection with the time of the exile, but must be deduced by counting from the date of this decree back to the date of the first (Berlin 76; Bush 442).  The decree was also notably written not only in the language of all the leaders, but particularly of the Jews so that they could read it themselves (cf. 1:22).  The messengers sent were described as being sent on “fast horses especially bred for the king” in order to dispatch the decree that much faster than the first decree had been sent (cf. 3:15; 8:10, 14).  The decree permitted the Jews to retaliate and defend themselves against any who tried to carry out the initial decree in a manner of retaliation equal to the original intended attack (cf. 3:13; though the retaliation was not carried out in an equal manner according to 9:16).  The NIV incorrectly translates “women and children” as if the Jews would be defending theirs instead of attacking the women and children of their attackers which actually fits the grammar of the Hebrew, but is difficult theologically because of modern propensities against such a notion (Bush 443, 447; Jobes 180-181).  Indeed, how could such a thing be acceptable? 

This would be carried out on the same day (the thirteenth of the twelfth month) as the attack so it would be evident who was attacking.  The decree also would make evident to all those who would have attacked that they were now given official approval by the king to defend themselves and thus should have prevented any attack.  Whereas Mordecai had been clothed in sack-clothe and ashes in chapter four, here he was clothed in royal accoutrements.  In 3:15 the city of Susa was “bewildered,” but here the city “held a joyous celebration.” In 4:3 the Jews mourned with “fasting, weeping and wailing,” but in 8:16-17 their lot was one of feasting with “happiness, joy, gladness and honor.”  Not only were the Jews now pleased with what was happening, but many Gentiles appear to have sided with them (though it is debatable whether they converted to Judaism or simply outwardly aligned themselves with the Jews).  But nothing had officially been carried out at this point.  The Jews were still left to defend themselves and determine their lot in life as a people, but now they had the favor of the empire with a queen on the throne and a grand-vizier in command.  What would be the outcome?

New Feature

Blogger has added a "Follow by Email" feature to their site and so....anyone interested in following this blog by email can now sign up through the link I've added.  Happy reading!