David In Ezra-Nehemiah

By Dean R. Ulrich

[Dean R. Ulrich has taught Old Testament at Trinity School for Ministry and China Reformed Theological Seminary. He holds doctorates from Westminster Theological Seminary and North-West University.]

I. Introduction

Recent scholarship on Ezra-Nehemiah tends to say that Ezra-Nehemiah lacks any messianic expectation for the royal line of David. According to Sara Japhet, “The House of David, as the vehicle of aspirations to national unity and as the symbol ‘par excellence’ of salvific hopes, has no place in this world view [of Ezra-Nehemiah which despairs of release from Persian control] and therefore is conspicuously absent from the book [of Ezra-Nehemiah].”[1] Similarly, H. G. M. Williamson says that “the importance of the covenant with David and his dynasty, including the hope for its future restoration, is nowhere raised in Ezra-Nehemiah.”[2] Tamara Eskenazi adds that “this ‘author’ [of Ezra-Nehemiah] is not interested in David” but later retreats a bit to say that “Ezra-Nehemiah is only marginally interested in David.”[3] Meanwhile, Christiane Karrer-Grube asserts, “The idea of an independent Davidic kingdom in Judah is definitely rejected by Nehemiah,” and “There is no place [in Ezra-Nehemiah] for a Judean, Davidic king.”[4] If these assessments are accurate, then God’s promise to David of an eternal dynasty that establishes righteousness to the ends of the earth (2 Sam 7:16; Ps 72; Ps 89:20–29; Isa 11:1–5) does not factor into the future outlook of Ezra-Nehemiah.

This article will argue that these statements are worded too strongly and need to be revised in view of the eleven occurrences of David’s name in Ezra-Nehemiah.[5] To be more specific, this article denies that the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah mentions David’s name in an eschatologically neutral way. The political reality of Persian dominance may have tempered post-exilic hope for the realization of earlier prophecies about the restoration of Davidic kingship. Even so, the hope existed, and the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah shared it.

David’s role in Ezra-Nehemiah is bound up with the structure and message of the book.[6] The book mentions David in strategic locations; hence, references to David do not occur randomly. Rather, they contribute to the unity of the book. Understanding David’s role in Ezra-Nehemiah requires some discussion of the book’s purpose and the book’s way of accomplishing its purpose. The next section will address this matter, and then the following section will say more about David in Ezra-Nehemiah.

II. The Structure And Message Of Ezra-Nehemiah

Ezra-Nehemiah begins with Cyrus’s decree to rebuild Yahweh’s temple and concludes with a jubilant dedication of the wall of Jerusalem.[7] By making Cyrus’s decree the opening section of the book, the author signals to the reader that the execution of this decree lies at the center of the book’s purpose. Tracing the theme through the book, however, can exasperate the reader. Because the book has diverse components, an initial reading does not give the impression of coherence. Both Ezra (Ezra 8:15–9:15) and Nehemiah (Neh 1:1–7:5; 12:27–43; 13:6–31) speak in the first-person singular, giving the book two first-person voices or what are often called memoirs. Moreover, a third-person voice reports the first return from Babylon (Ezra 1–6), Ezra’s return (Ezra 7:1–8:14), Ezra’s handling of the problem of mixed marriages (Ezra 10), Ezra’s reading of the law (Neh 8), the priest’s confession of sin (Neh 9), and the people’s repentance (Neh 10). Aramaic sections, numerous lists, and dischronologization in Ezra 4 add to the confusion and make it hard to get a sense of the whole.

Even so, Ezra-Nehemiah has demonstrable unity and structure. The lists, as uninviting as they may be, are the key to the structure and message of the book.[8] One list, a list of returnees, appears twice, in Ezra 2 and Neh 7. From a literary point of view, this repetition signals artistry and theme. Ezra 2 and Neh 7 divide the book into three major sections: Ezra 1, Ezra 2–Neh 7, and Neh 8–13. Ezra 2 and Neh 7 frame the middle section, which has three sub-sections. Each of the sub-sections involves a return of exiles under a named leader.[9] The sub-sections will receive further comment below. Throughout the book some of the names in Ezra 2 and Neh 7 appear in other contexts, such as the account of intermarriage in Ezra 10 and the pledge of repentance in Neh 10. The names, then, unify the events that occur between the return from Babylon in 539 and the dedication of the wall in 445. A near century’s worth of descendants and events participated in a continuous effort to implement Cyrus’s decree.[10] Several generations of descendants of those listed in Ezra 2 and Neh 7 contributed to the grand project of rebuilding a new temple and city.

Ezra 4:6–23 and 6:14 add support to this generational understanding of the execution of Cyrus’s decree. Ezra 4:6–23 falls between references to Darius in Ezra 4:5 and 4:24 and so seems to introduce historical confusion into the account of rebuilding the temple. Both Xerxes (Ahasuerus) and Artaxerxes reigned after Darius. A question arises about why the writer would interrupt the narrative about opposition to rebuilding the temple during Darius’s reign in order to talk about events during the reigns of his two successors. Moreover, Ezra 6:15 reports the completion of the temple in the sixth year of Darius’s reign. If the temple was completed before the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, one also wonders why the writer would introduce extraneous information about a later period. At first glance, then, Ezra 4:6–23 seems to be out of place in a section of the book that describes events toward the end of the sixth century BC and not events in the middle of the fifth century BC. Because Ezra 7–Neh 13 deals with this later time period, Ezra 4:6–23 would seem to belong somewhere in that part of the book. Ezra 4:1–5, however, mentions the opposition to the reconstruction of Yahweh’s house and city. Verses 6–23 may seem to be premature and intrusive, but they make sense in view of Ezra 6:14. This verse understands that the implementation of Cyrus’s decree, which is equated with God’s decree, occurred over a span of time that went beyond the reign of Cyrus. In actuality, the post-exilic community rebuilt Yahweh’s house and city during the reigns of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes.[11] Over the course of those three reigns, the post-exilic community faced not just the instance of adversity in Ezra 4:4–5 but also other cases which are detailed in Ezra 4:6–23 and Neh 4–6. It is as if the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah, knowing what will come later in the book, says in Ezra 4:6, “While we are on the subject of opposition, let me suspend the narrative for a moment and give you some other examples of enmity. From start to finish, the whole project met with resistance and setbacks.”[12] Ezra 4:6–23 and 6:14 let the reader know that the completion of the temple during Darius’s reign did not exhaust the intention of Cyrus’s decree (or God’s). Rebuilding the temple constituted the first stage of a larger undertaking. More work still had to occur, and none of it would happen free of hardship.

Returning now to the structure of the book, the first section in Ezra 1 announces the theme as the carrying out of Cyrus’s decree to rebuild the Jerusalem temple. This edict included not only the permission to rebuild but also the provision of supplies. Furthermore, Cyrus returned the sacred vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had triumphantly removed from the first temple and that Belshazzar had handled disrespectfully on the night of his death (Dan 5). From a theological point of view, the execution of Cyrus’s decree would remain incomplete without the restoration of these implements of worship. Ezra 1:9–10 gives an itemized list of these articles that represented not only continuity with the worship of pre-exilic Israel but also discontinuity from the shame of the exile. The return of the vessels to Yahweh’s temple draws attention to his saving presence again in the midst of his people—a truth that was not so evident when these implements were in the temple of another god.[13] This material link to the past assured the post-exilic community that God’s promises were still in effect. These promises, which had underlain Israel’s praise and prayer before the exile, now gave hope of an open future to those returning from exile. Yahweh still cared about them.

The second section of the book (Ezra 2–Neh 7) describes the performance of Cyrus’s decree in three stages that encompass about a hundred years from the issue of the decree in 539 BC to the completion of the wall in 445 BC.[14] During the first stage, the returnees under Zerubbabel, Joshua, Haggai, and Zechariah rebuilt the temple over the course of about twenty years and dedicated it in 516 BC. Ezra 3–6 describes this stage. Haggai’s criticism of the returnees’ spiritual apathy (Hag 1:2–11) indicates that restored worship requires more than a refurbished building, and, as seen in Ezra 7–10, the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah shares this conviction. So for the second stage, Ezra returned in 458 BC to rebuild the people on the law of Moses. If Solomon’s temple had been defiled by all sorts of abominable practices (Ezek 8), a new temple required a properly taught community that would singularly and fervently honor Yahweh with their worship and lifestyle. It is one thing to have a new building and another to have proper worship within the building.[15] Douglas Green insightfully observes that two walls are built in Ezra-Nehemiah: Ezra’s wall and Nehemiah’s wall. Green refers to Ezra’s teaching as an “invisible, spiritual wall of obedience to the Law, by which Israel was to ‘separate themselves’ from the unclean Gentiles.” Moreover, “‘the house of God’ will never be fully complete until a qualified people—separated from the foreign nations—is found to inhabit it.”[16] Ezra 7–10 describes this stage, or at least the beginning of it. More instruction at a later time followed the third stage and is reported in Neh 8.[17] During the third stage, Nehemiah supervised the rebuilding of the wall, the purpose of which was not so much to keep foreign generals out of Yahweh’s city as to protect the sanctity of the temple from spiritually unfit people, whether Jew or Gentile.[18] According to Eskenazi, “the building of the wall is an extension of building the temple.” The wall gives “temple-like sanctity to the city as a whole.”[1]9 If the city is understood not only as a place but also as a people who worship at the temple, then the enlargement of holy space that Ezekiel envisioned makes sense.[20] Nehemiah 1–6 describes this third stage. Only when these three stages were complete had the generations of descendants of those listed in Ezra 2 and Neh 7 fully executed Cyrus’s decree.[21]

The third section of Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 8–13) celebrates the completion of the building project. More teaching, confessing, and repenting occur in preparation for inhabiting the new Jerusalem and worshiping Yahweh. The specific commitments of the people in Neh 10:30–39 tailor repentance to the circumstances of the post-exilic community. After a listing of the residents of the new Jerusalem in Neh 11, Neh 12:1–26 identifies the religious personnel who ministered at the temple during the nine decades between Cyrus’s decree and Nehemiah’s labor. The names of Zerubbabel and Jeshua in v. 1 (cf. Ezra 3:8–9) and Ezra and Nehemiah in v. 26 frame the multi-generational list. Like Ezra 2 and Neh 7, Neh 12 makes all names listed participants in one work of restoration that climaxes in vv. 27–47 with jubilant dedication of the finished project. The celebration of the temple’s completion and installation of priests in Ezra 6:16–18 anticipate the installation and worship in Neh 12.[22] This worship brings David back into view and gives the repentance in Neh 10 an eschatological outlook that will be explained in the following pages.

III. The Role Of David In Ezra-Nehemiah

The discussion of the structure and message of Ezra-Nehemiah in the previous section leads to a consideration of David’s role in the book. As mentioned earlier, David’s name appears eleven times. Because Ezra-Nehemiah describes events that occurred long after the united and divided monarchy, David may not receive the extensive attention in Ezra-Nehemiah that he does in Chronicles. Nevertheless, references to David’s organization of worship in Ezra 3 and Neh 12 frame Ezra-Nehemiah just as much as the lists in Ezra 2 and Neh 7 and so invest the contents of the book with a Davidic interest that is usually minimized.

1. David As A Liturgist

Gregory Goswell argues that Ezra-Nehemiah presents David as a liturgist but not as a king (i.e., a messiah) who will rule righteously over God’s people and world.[23] It is true that Ezra 3:10, Neh 12:24, and Neh 12:36 emphasize David’s organization of temple activities. David’s promotion of proper worship is very much present in Ezra-Nehemiah, just as it is in Chronicles. In this regard, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah share a presentation of David as a king who is devoted to the temple, and this presentation matches the role of the נָשִׂיא (the royal figure) in Ezek 44–46.[24] Ezekiel, of course, ministered in Babylon during the exile and so lived before the Chronicler and writer of Ezra-Nehemiah. It is hard to avoid supposing that Ezekiel influenced the pictures of David in both Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, along with Haggai and Zechariah, share a common post-exilic interest in the reconstruction of the temple and the resumption of right worship.

Nehemiah 12:24 and 12:36 additionally refer to David as a man of God (cf. 2 Chr 8:14), a term used of Moses in his role as a prophet. In Deut 33:1, Moses the man of God gives a prophetic blessing to each of the tribes before they enter the Promised Land. Meanwhile, Josh 14:6 in the context of assigning patrimonies refers back to God’s promise of life to Caleb through Moses the man of God. Then in 1 Chr 23:14 and 2 Chr 30:16, Moses the man of God is said to have received the laws about priestly activity. The latter verse specifically records how priests and Levites during Hezekiah’s reign acted אִישׁ־הָאֱלהִים מֹשֶׁה כְּתוֹרַת (“according to the law of Moses the man of God”). A similar expression occurs in Ezra 3:2 with reference to the leaders of the post-exilic community that rebuilt the altar אִישׁ־הָאֱלֹהִים מֹשֶׁה בְּתוֹרַת כַּכָּתוּב (“according to what is written in the law of Moses the man of God”). So then, Moses is a man of God because he received revelation. The same observation can be made about David as a man of God. While it is true that David, when establishing temple worship, uttered no oracles in the manner of a classical prophet, he nevertheless received revelation about Israel’s worship, and that revelation put him on par with Moses.[25]

The point of the term man of God in reference to David is that David did not make innovations to Israel’s cult on his own.[26] Just as Moses on Mount Sinai received a blueprint for the tabernacle and its service, so David was authorized by Yahweh to revise public worship at God’s house in Jerusalem.[27] In fact, David told Solomon that Yahweh had given the plan for the temple in writing (1 Chr 28:19; cf. 1 Chr 22:8).[28] For this reason, the Chronicler considered David a prophet.[29] By referring to David as a man of God even as he called Moses a man of God, the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah similarly regarded Davidic worship as the divinely revealed pattern for the post-exilic community (cf. 1 Chr 28:11–19). Post-exilic worship at the completion of the temple project was the continuation of the revised worship prescribed by David.[30] Similar to the Chronicler, the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah thought that David “brought the worship of Yahweh to its highest perfection and its true fulfillment.”[31] That fulfillment, however, went beyond liturgical rubrics to encompass the theology of God’s covenant with David. Davidic worship cannot be separated from Davidic theology.[32]

2. David As A Subject Of The Liturgy

As noted earlier, the first section of Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 1) mentions the temple vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had removed from the temple in Jerusalem and put in the temple of his god. Cyrus allowed those vessels to return to Yahweh’s rebuilt temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:7–8). Previous revelation (2 Sam 7:1–16; 1 Kgs 8:15–21; Ps 20:2) had linked God’s house with God’s king. Moreover, the desecration of God’s house (Ps 74) that resulted in the capture of the temple vessels prompted questions about God’s promise to David (Ps 89:38–51). In the minds of God’s people, God’s house as represented by the temple vessels did not exist independently of God’s promises to David. If the destruction of the temple occurred in tandem with the exile of a Davidic descendant (2 Kgs 25:7, 9), then hope for the restoration of David’s throne accompanied the reconstruction of the temple. Ezra 3:10–11 bears witness to that hope. The laying of the temple’s foundation leads to worship according to David’s design.

Ezra 3:10 says that the first wave of exilic returnees, after laying the foundation for the temple in partial accordance with Cyrus’s decree (Ezra 1:2), worshiped in the manner of David that is described in 1 Chr 22–29. Similarly, Neh 12:36, 45–46 link the worship after the completion of the wall (and thus after the full execution of Cyrus’s decree) with David’s design for worship. Both temples, of course, were in Jerusalem, which Ezra 3:15 and Neh 12:37 call the City of David. The latter verse also reminds the reader that the house of David (i.e., the royal palace) was in Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Ezra 8:20 mentions David in connection with Ezra’s return to Jerusalem with 220 temple servants who would assist the Levites in leading worship and instructing the people. Ezra-Nehemiah presents the building of the temple, community, and wall not only as the three stages of carrying out Cyrus’s decree but also as the three prerequisites for Davidic worship in the post-exilic era. This observation suggests a reconsideration of the place of David in Ezra-Nehemiah. Along with Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah presents King David as the one who organizes Israel’s worship at the temple, but that worship, according to other parts of the OT, expressed hope for God to work out his redemptive plan through his chosen king in his chosen city.

As was the case with the company of worshipers at the opening of the first temple (2 Chr 5:13), those who celebrated the laying of the second temple’s foundation in Ezra 3:10–11 had a portion of 1 Chr 16:34 on their lips. This verse affirms: כִּי לַיהוָה הוֹדוּ חַסְדּוֹ לְעוֹלָם כִּי טוֹב (“Give thanks to Yahweh for he is good because his loving-kindness lasts forever”). These words are part of a song that David first gave to Asaph for the occasion of the ark’s entrance into Jerusalem (1 Chr 16:7).[33] David wrote, טוֹב כִּי חַסְדּוֹ כִּי־לְעוֹלָם (“For he is good because his loving-kindness lasts forever”) about the covenant God of Israel, and God’s people sang these words at three crucial moments in their history: the entrance of the ark into Jerusalem, the entrance of the ark into the first temple, and the completion of the foundation for the second temple. Each of these events represented advances in God’s plan of redemption, which is tied not only to the people of Israel but also to the house of David. David’s transfer of the ark to Jerusalem with Yahweh’s approval gave theological legitimacy to his kingship, as did Solomon’s construction of the first temple. If David correctly understood that Yahweh had linked his redemptive program with Davidic kingship (cf. Ps 89:19–29, 49), then these quoted words in Ezra 3:11 (כִּי־לְעוֹלָם טוֹב כִי עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵל חַסְדּוֹ) cannot be separated from that redemptive-historical context. Moreover, there is no warrant for thinking that the singers in Ezra 3 recalled only David’s composition of the words and not the theological context for which he composed them.

Whether or not the same person wrote Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, Ezra 3:11 must surely be read in view of 1 Chr 16:34 and 2 Chr 5:13.[34] If the builders and priests in Ezra 3:10–11 did not sing in conscious recollection of David’s song of thanksgiving in 1 Chr 16 or its echo in 2 Chr 5—and their ignorance or forgetfulness seems unlikely—the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah makes the Davidic connection anyway for the reader. Moreover, Ezra 8:20 connects Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem with David’s organization of the Levites. This verse occurs in the so-called Ezra Memoir in which Ezra speaks in first person. Not just the unnamed writer of Ezra-Nehemiah but Ezra himself considered his mission in Jerusalem to be in continuity with David’s revision of worship. Ezra the priest followed the upgrades of David the king because Ezra the priest knew that David the king had received revelation from Yahweh. That revelation pertained to the Davidic covenant that Davidic worship celebrated. Ezra the priest traveled to Jerusalem with Artaxerxes’s blessing in order to instruct God’s people in the theology and worship of David the king. That theology grew out of the royal hope in God’s covenants with Abraham (Gen 17:6; 49:10) and Moses (Deut 17:14–20). Not to be overlooked is how the royal hope in Moses’ day received confirmation from Balaam’s fourth oracle (Num 24:17). Ezra the priest, of course, was well-versed in the Law of Moses (Ezra 7:6) and would have been able to make these connections between the Pentateuch and David’s reign.

Why Ezra or the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah did not say more about Davidic theology in Ezra 3 is hard to explain. The weeping in Ezra 3:12 may have to do not only with the reduced splendor of the post-exilic temple (cf. Hag 2:3) but also with the absence of a politically independent descendant of David for the dedication (cf. 1 Kgs 8:22; 2 Chr 6:12). Nevertheless, concluding that Ezra or the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah had no interest in Davidic theology goes beyond the evidence. David is mentioned, and his words that were sung (i.e., the liturgy) at the completion of the foundation had a history to them. They had accompanied God’s redemptive activity through David and his descendants.

The worshipful dedication of the foundation in Ezra 3 led eventually to the jubilant dedication of the completed temple in Ezra 6:16–22. Eskenazi possibly overstates the case when she says that the “ceremony celebrating the completion of the temple [in Ezra 6] is so cursorily described because only a certain stage has concluded. The house of God is not yet finished.… It is too early for the ‘grand opening’ ceremonies.”[35] To be sure, Neh 12 describes the grand opening or, perhaps, grand finale that marks the full implementation of Cyrus’s decree, but, as Williamson advises, the “unaffected note of joy that accompanied the resumption of temple worship [in Ezra 6] … should not be overlooked.”[36] Ezra 6 may celebrate a small beginning (Zech 4:10), but those who participated in it, as well as the author of Ezra-Nehemiah who recorded it, considered the completion of the temple, installation of priests, and observance of the Passover a momentous and joyous occasion in its own right. God had begun a new work that signaled the participation of the post-exilic community in the continuing unfolding of God’s redemptive plan.[37] The returnees were heirs of the promises made to Moses (Ezra 6:19–22) and David (Ezra 3:10–11). With regard to Moses, the first members of the post-exilic community had experienced a second exodus that imbued the Passover with richer awareness of God’s saving power on behalf of his people. With regard to David, the post-exilic community worshiped God with Haggai’s promise (cf. Ezra 5:1 with Hag 2:7–9, 23) that Zerubbabel was God’s signet, that is, a signature guaranteeing a future for the house of David. A Davidic descendant would rule over the nations, and they would come to God’s house to worship. For this reason, the glory of the second temple would exceed that of the first.[38]

The completion of the temple, however, did not fully carry out Cyrus’s decree. As already mentioned, Ezra 7–Neh 6 describes Ezra’s teaching of the law and Nehemiah’s reconstruction of the wall. In both cases, David is recalled with reference to his organization of Israel’s practice of religion (Ezra 8:20; Neh 12:24, 36, 46). As seen in Solomon’s prayer of dedication for the first temple, God’s royal program with David included teaching the Israelites his law (cf. 1 Kgs 8:36; 1 Chr 6:27) so that they might know how to live distinctly as his people (1 Kgs 8:53). A temple without a taught and sanctified people will soon be defiled. Even the Persian king Artaxerxes seemed to understand this basic need of instruction (Ezra 7:25).[39]

So then, Ezra 3:10, Ezra 8:20, and Neh 12:24–46 associate the commencement and the completion of the execution of Cyrus’s decree with David’s program of worship—a program rooted in royal theology. Yahweh may have used a pagan king to authorize and finance the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple, but Yahweh also had another king, even David, in mind.[40] The execution of Cyrus’s decree advanced God’s promises to David—promises that some circumstances in the post-exilic age seemed to deny or at least suspend indefinitely. Even so, the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple and the restoration of Davidic worship confirmed two truths for the post-exilic community. First, Yahweh continued to elect Jerusalem as the place for his name (Deut 12:5; 1 Kgs 8:29; 2 Chr 7:12) and the center of the nations (Ezek 5:5; 38:12). Redemption would go out from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. Second, Yahweh continued to elect David as his vice-regent. Redemption, even after the exile in the absence of a Davidic scion ruling in Jerusalem, would remain tied to David, who as king of Yahweh and man of God revised Mosaic worship. This revision took into account theological developments (i.e., the election of David and Jerusalem) that were revealed during the movement of redemptive history after Moses.

Goswell may say that the references to David in Ezra-Nehemiah “memorialize him as a great figure of the past” without conveying any messianic expectation for the future.[41] It is doubtful, though, that anyone in the post-exilic community could have heard David’s name in the context of worship and thought only of his revision of worship—as if Davidic worship could be isolated from the Davidic covenant. Davidic worship involved both David’s liturgical organization and David’s theological significance. To recast the language of Japhet, Ezra-Nehemiah does consider David the symbol par excellence of salvific hope and national unity. It shares the Chronicler’s perspective that there is no salvation apart from Davidic kingship and no true worship of Yahweh apart from God’s promises to David. The post-exilic community rebuilt the temple not so much because of Cyrus’s edict but because of its faith in God’s promise to David. That faith was kept alive by the prophecies in Isa 55:3, Jer 33:20–21, and Ezek 37:24–27—texts that by anyone’s dating were available to the post-exilic community. The references to David in Ezra 3, Ezra 8, and Neh 12 attest that the temple liturgy remained centered on David, as does the book of Ezra-Nehemiah. If Ezra-Nehemiah does not share this royal theology with the rest of the OT, then why do references to David run throughout the narrative? In the words of Eskenazi, “repetitions are significant vehicles for the text’s intention.”[42] The references to David are not tangential to the structure or message of Ezra-Nehemiah. This book maintains the OT’s hope in God’s covenant with David.

3. Implications Of The Centrality Of Davidic Liturgy And Theology

It appears, then, that Ezra-Nehemiah has two frames that partially overlap and teach complementary messages. First, the lists of names in Ezra 2 and Neh 7 divide the book into three sections that have to do with Cyrus’s decree to rebuild Yahweh’s temple. Performing this decree involved building the temple itself, the community of worshipers, and the wall around Jerusalem. Second, the references to Davidic worship in Ezra 3 and Neh 12 set the construction of the second temple in a larger context than the Persian Empire. The events of Ezra-Nehemiah also belong to redemptive history. The real king in Israel is Yahweh, not Cyrus, Darius, or Artaxerxes. Ezra-Nehemiah assures its readers that Yahweh used the policies of Gentile kings and the messiness of affairs in the post-exilic community to work out his plan of salvation. This plan, which is not announced or described for the first time in Ezra-Nehemiah, has God’s covenant with David at its center. Moreover, the reference to David in Ezra 8:20 means that Ezra-Nehemiah associates David with all three stages of the performance of Cyrus’s decree. The reference in Ezra 3:10 ties David to the reconstruction of the temple. The reference in Ezra 8:20 links David with Ezra’s teaching ministry that prepared people to worship at the temple. The references to David in Neh 3:15–16 and 12:24–46 occur in the context of rebuilding the wall and celebrating its completion. References to David at the beginning, middle, and end of Cyrus’s rebuilding project remind the original and subsequent readers of the Bible’s grand, sweeping narrative that has God’s covenant with David at its heart. Ezra-Nehemiah is an integral chapter of that larger story.

Not to be forgotten at this point is the reference to Jeremiah in Ezra 1:1. The writer of Ezra-Nehemiah regards post-exilic history as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecies of restoration. Those prophecies, however, are not restricted to the admittedly disappointing realities of the post-exilic age. Rather, Jeremiah’s words also include both the internal transformation of the heart that is made possible by the new covenant (Jer 31:33) and the arrival of a Davidic descendant who has the magnificent name of Yahweh Is Our Righteousness (Jer 23:5–6; 33:15–16).[43] The opening verse of Ezra-Nehemiah signals that the book wants to be read in view of this eschatological outlook.[44] The performance of Cyrus’s decree with Davidic reminders at the beginning, middle, and end contributes to the outworking of Jeremiah’s vision of a glorious future.

IV. Other Considerations

As previously acknowledged, the book of Ezra-Nehemiah presents its readers with many challenges. The contents of the book do not seem to fit easily into one interpretive approach. This section addresses two matters that may seem to undermine the present effort to see a messianic role of David in Ezra-Nehemiah.

1. No Reference To The Monarchy In Nehemiah 10:30–39

The prayer of confession in Neh 9 includes an acknowledgement of the covenantal failure of the kings of Israel and Judah (vv. 32–35), but the steps of repentance in Neh 10:30–39 say nothing about redressing the abuses of the monarchy. This oversight might seem to argue against a Davidic interest in Ezra-Nehemiah.[45] Perhaps, but the political situation of the post-exilic community could account for the absence of any planned reforms of the monarchy in Neh 10:30–39 or of any messianic zeal surrounding the Davidic descendant, Hattush, in Ezra 8:2. This practical concern, however, does not indicate a total lack of interest in God’s promises to David. It simply means that the post-exilic community did not try to implement the royal eschatology of earlier prophets. It accepted its political reality at the time and focused on other pastoral issues about which something could be done immediately.[46] With or without a Davidic king in Jerusalem, this community recognized its present need to restore its relationship with God and took concrete steps, after receiving instruction from Ezra and the Levites, to do so.

Nevertheless, an emphasis on practical expressions of repentance does not mean that there was no eschatological hope. When the foundation was laid and the wall finished, God’s people worshiped in the manner of David. As already mentioned, these folks hardly employed the rubrics of Davidic liturgy with no thought of the Davidic theology of the liturgy. Davidic liturgy and Davidic theology cannot be separated. If a Davidic descendant was not presently revitalizing David’s kingdom, the post-exilic community still recalled David in its worship. Its eschatology in worship shaped its behavior in daily life. Moreover, the theology of the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah, as seen in Ezra 3:10–11 and 6:19–22, could include the continuing redemptive-historical significance of both Moses and David. The God who saved his people by Moses’ leadership during the events of the Exodus would continue to save them through the Davidic kingship that is remembered in Davidic worship.

2. The Significance Of Nehemiah 13

The writer of Ezra-Nehemiah might have wished that he could have ended the book at Neh 12:47. This stopping point would say in effect that the post-exilic community continued to praise God according to David’s design and evidence the fruit of repentance. But Ezra-Nehemiah does not end with Neh 12. Ezra-Nehemiah also has Neh 13. The joy of Neh 12 is not the last word in the book.

Nehemiah 13 demonstrates how the post-exilic community failed to make good on its pledge of repentance in Neh 10. Though Ezra tried so valiantly to prepare a holy people to live in a holy city and worship in a Davidic way at a new temple, he would surely share Nehemiah’s frustration and prayer in Neh 13:14, 22, 29, and 31. In spite of all that the descendants of those listed in Ezra 2 and Neh 7 had accomplished (and who cannot marvel at what God did through these ordinary people?), they did not build the New Jerusalem but only a foretaste of it. Zechariah 4:10 refers to this beginning as a day of small things. Those who lived in Ezra-Nehemiah’s Jerusalem may have tasted the city of God, but they fell short of the eventual perfection of the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem.[47] They even went so far as to defile Yahweh’s temple yet again by allowing Tobiah, the enemy, to live within God’s house (cf. Neh 13:9). Moreover, Neh 13:26 records how the post-exilic community repeated its earlier sin of intermarriage, which the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah compares to the disastrous marriages of Solomon and thereby recalls the failures of Davidic kingship. Who could imagine that all the pure joy of Neh 12 could be spoiled so quickly by the relapses of Neh 13? John Sietze Bergsma rightly says that “Ezra-Nehemiah ends on a distinctly melancholy note.”[48] What’s more, the disappointment in Neh 13 was not a momentary setback. It continued into the intertestamental period and prompted the founding of diverse communities in Judaism. Later, Luke’s account of John the Baptist’s ministry in the first century AD drew attention to continuing economic oppression (Luke 3:12–14; cf. Neh 5). Of course, both John and Jesus condemned religiosity that was devoid of love for God and neighbor.

As Zechariah opened his book with a call to repentance and so recognized the inability of the exile to change the human heart, so Ezra-Nehemiah closes not with utopia but with prayer in the face of bitter reality. More than the implementation of Davidic worship is needed to answer Nehemiah’s prayer. If Ezra-Nehemiah begins with a reference to Jeremiah, then Jeremiah’s new David, whose name is Yahweh Is Our Righteousness, would have to implement a new covenant that changes the heart and makes lasting righteousness possible. Only then will the jubilant worship of Neh 12 become an uninterrupted practice.

V. Conclusion

This article has responded to the prevalent conviction that Ezra-Nehemiah lacks the Davidic emphasis and hope that is found in other parts of the OT. David’s name occurs eleven times in Ezra-Nehemiah at key moments in the book’s unfolding narrative. David is associated with the dedication of the temple’s foundation, the teaching ministry of Ezra, and the worship after the completion of the wall. According to the author, the post-exilic community implemented David’s design for temple service and worship. Though the book is aware of this community’s shortcomings, the partial realization of the Davidic ideal anticipates greater fulfillment in the future. The God of Ezra-Nehemiah works through imperfect people and has not brought them this far to abandon them at the end of the book. Nehemiah may prayerfully admit his limitations, but this honesty constitutes a plea to God to do what humans cannot. Nehemiah trusts God to redeem the labor of his hands. If what happens in Ezra-Nehemiah is associated with the prophecy of Jeremiah, then the author of Ezra-Nehemiah would know of Jeremiah’s expectation of a new David. Therefore, references to Davidic worship in Ezra-Nehemiah imply the Davidic theology and eschatology of Jeremiah. Ezra-Nehemiah’s David posthumously leads God’s people in faithful worship that grows out of instruction in the law of Moses and the concomitant transformation of the heart. Such is the OT’s ideal of kingship.

Notes

1. Sara Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982): 76.
2. H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 9-10.
3. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah, SBLMS 36 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 33, 36.
4. Christiane Karrer-Grube, “Scrutinizing the Conceptual Unity of Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, ed. Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt, Hebrew Bible Monographs 17 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), 155, 159.
5. Ezra 3:10; 8:2, 20; Neh 3:15, 16; 12:24, 36, 37 (2x), 45, 46.
6. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah are counted as one book in the HB. The Masoretic notes at the end of Nehemiah identify Neh 3:32 as the center of the book. Given that no notes follow Ezra 10, the book of Ezra evidently factors into the count for the book of Nehemiah. Common themes, including the same list of names in Ezra 2 and Neh 7, also appear in both books and unite them. For arguments in favor of the literary unity of Ezra and Nehemiah, see Paul L. Redditt, Ezra-Nehemiah, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2014), 3-4, 30; H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC 16 (Waco: Word, 1985), xxi. See also the following articles in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, “Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Responses and Reflections,” 315; Lisbeth S. Fried, “Who Wrote Ezra-Nehemiah—And Why Did They?,” 75; Karrer-Grube, “Conceptual Unity,” 136-37, 149; Hannah K. Harrington, “Holiness and Purity in Ezra-Nehemiah,” 98-116; David Janzen, “The Cries of Jerusalem: Ethnic, Cultic, Legal, and Geographic Boundaries in Ezra-Nehemiah,” 117-20; Kyung-jin Min, “Nehemiah Without Ezra?,” 160-75; H. G. M. Williamson, “More Unity Than Diversity,” 337-39. The next section of this article will mention other sources that support the literary unity of Ezra-Nehemiah. Nevertheless, not everyone considers Ezra and Nehemiah a literary unity. See, e.g., Bob Becking, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Construction of Early Jewish Identity, FAT 80 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 5-6, 13; David Kraemer, “On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,” JSOT 59 (1993): 75-92; Juha Pakkala, “The Disunity of Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah, 200-201; James C. VanderKam, “Ezra-Nehemiah or Ezra and Nehemiah?,” in Priest, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al., JSOTSup 149 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), 60-75. On the basis of the Masoretic notes, structural analysis of Ezra-Nehemiah, and common themes in Ezra-Nehemiah, this article will approach Ezra and Nehemiah as one book.
7. Ezra-Nehemiah, of course, does not end with the worship service in Neh 12 but with Nehemiah’s report of troubling developments in Neh 13. The significance of Neh 13 for the message of Ezra-Nehemiah will be discussed later.
8. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 37. See also Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, “The Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Integrity of the Book,” JBL 107 (1988): 644-46. Much of the following material in this section reflects the results of Eskenazi’s research.
9. Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 775.
10. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 45; Eskenazi, “Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah,” 647, 655. Cf. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 376.
11. Cf. Michael W. Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72B–10:40): An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study, SBLDS 164 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 43; Douglas J. E. Nykolaishen, “The Restoration of Israel by God’s Word in Three Episodes from Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah, 196. Ezra-Nehemiah, for some unknown reason, does not report any building activity during the reign of Xerxes, who ruled after Darius and before Artaxerxes.
12. Cf. the explanation in Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 57.
13. Peter R. Ackroyd, Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1987), 57-58; Lisbeth S. Fried, “The Land Lay Desolate: Conquest and Restoration in the Ancient Near East,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 40.
14. On the three stages, cf. G. J. Venema, Reading Scripture in the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 9-10, 31; 2 Kings 22-23; Jeremiah 36; Nehemiah 8, OTS 48 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 163-64.
15. Cf. Matthew Levering, Ezra and Nehemiah, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2007), 34-35, 83.
16. Douglas Green, “Ezra-Nehemiah,” in A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Leland Ryken and Tremper Longman III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 207, 209-10. Venema (Reading Scripture, 145) similarly says, “[Ezra] returns to Jerusalem in order to restore the temple cult, for which the starting-point is to be ‘the torah of Moses.’”
17. Some scholars (Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 2-6; Lester L. Grabbe, “The Law of Moses in the Ezra Tradition: More Virtual Than Real?,” in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. James W. Watts, SBLSS 17 [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001], 94-97; Pakkala, “Disunity of Ezra-Nehemiah,” 202-3; Titus Reinmuth, “Nehemiah 8 and the Authority of Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah, 242-43, 251-56) wonder why Ezra supposedly waited thirteen years to teach the law (cf. Ezra 7:7 with Neh 2:1, 6:15, and 8:2). Ezra 9, however, gives the impression that Ezra did not wait. Ezra’s prayer of confession, in response to a report of intermarriage, alludes to previous revelation. Based substantially on Scripture (e.g., Ezra 9:10-12), the prayer itself is didactic, but surely Ezra’s listeners were not hearing these references to the law for the first time in this prayer. That Ezra 7-10 does not explicitly say that Ezra taught the law does not preclude the likelihood that he did (cf. Karrer-Grube, “Conceptual Unity,” 141; Min, “Nehemiah without Ezra?,” 168; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 129, 150). If the listeners of the prayer were scripturally literate enough to understand the prayer, it is not unreasonable to think that Ezra’s instruction lay behind their confession of intermarriage, their intelligent hearing of the prayer, and their repentance in accordance with the law (Ezra 10:3). Both ancient and modern historians select the facts that they want to discuss and then present those facts in a way that serves their purpose for doing historiography. Ezra 9-10, in keeping with the book of Ezra-Nehemiah, may want to emphasize the initiative that laypeople took to promote their relationship with Yahweh (cf. Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 87, 121, 144-45, 155-56, 243; Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 1, 47-53, 62-70; Eskenazi, “Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah,” 648; Karrer-Grube, “Conceptual Unity,” 139-41). They nevertheless approached a superbly learned priest (Ezra 7:6) at their moment of conviction. Why? The theological answer is that the Holy Spirit worked in concert with the teaching of God’s Word to transform hearts. The exegetical answer must be that Neh 8:1-8 does not record the first instance of Ezra’s teaching. Neh 8:9, which places Ezra and Nehemiah together in Jerusalem for the events of Neh 8-10, rules out postulations of editorial dischronologization that would relocate Ezra’s teaching in Neh 8 to the time period of Ezra 9-10 (cf. William Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic W. Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 564).
18. Cf. Grabbe, “Law of Moses,” 110; Manfred Oeming, “The Real History: The Theological Ideas Behind Nehemiah’s Wall,” in New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah: History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation, ed. Isaac Kalimi (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 142-43.
19. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 83. See also p. 86.
20. For Ezekiel’s influence on Ezra-Nehemiah, see Fried, “Who Wrote Ezra-Nehemiah?,” 79-90, 97. See also Joseph Blenkinsopp’s endorsement of Fried’s essay in “Ezra-Nehemiah: Unity or Disunity?” in the same volume, pp. 307 and 314.
21. Venema, Reading Scripture, 163-64.
22. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 57; Eskenazi, “Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah,” 647.
23. Gregory Goswell, “The Absence of a Davidic Hope in Ezra-Nehemiah,” TrinJ 33 (2012): 26-27, 30. See also Becking, Ezra, Nehemiah, 34; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 51.
24. Cf. Gabriele Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 45; Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, VTSup 56 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 50-55.
25. Simon J. De Vries, “Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles,” JBL 107 (1988): 629; Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Books of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought, trans. Anna Barber (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 185-87; Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 524; William Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History, JSOTSup 160 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 61-62; William M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period, JSOTSup 197 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 50-51, 193-208, 238.
26. Cf. Klein, 1 Chronicles, 527.
27. H. G. M. Williamson, Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography, FAT 38 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 156, says, “As the temple was associated with the patriarchs by its site [Moriah in Gen 22:2 and 2 Chr 3:1], so it was associated by its design with Moses.” These associations strengthened the continuity between Davidic worship and earlier worship.
28. 2 Chr 8:14 says that David the man of God gave a מִצְוַה (“commandment”) to Solomon.
29. Raymond B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, WBC 15 (Waco: Word, 1987), 236; Japhet, Ideology, 365n62.
30. Cf. Sara Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 628; John W. Wright, “The Legacy of David in Chronicles: The Narrative Function of 1 Chronicles 23-27, ” JBL 110 (1991): 236-37.
31. De Vries, “Moses and David,” 639.
32. This truth is seen in the policy of Jeroboam I (1 Kgs 12:26-27) who did not want his northern subjects worshiping in David’s manner at Jerusalem. Jeroboam I feared that engaging in Davidic worship would influence his subjects to remain committed to David as Yahweh’s king (cf. 1 Kgs 11:32-39). If Jeroboam I made this connection, surely Ezra and the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah did. The references to Israel’s kings in Ezra 9:7 and Neh 9:34 confirm familiarity with the history of the monarchy on the part of Ezra and the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah. There is no reason to think that these men were unaware of the Davidic theology that lay behind Jeroboam’s decision. His politically motivated prohibition of Davidic worship became the standard by which the writer of Kings evaluated most of the northern kings after Jeroboam I. Generational apostasy and injustice (the evil ways of Neh 9:35) resulted from the repetition of Jeroboam I’s civil religion.
33. David’s song of thanksgiving in 1 Chr 16:8-36 has content that appears in three psalms (1 Chr 16:8-22//Ps 105:1-15; 1 Chr 16:23-33//Ps 96; 1 Chr 16:34-36//Ps 106:1, 47-48). None of the psalms has a title that assigns authorship to David or anyone else. The song does not appear in the parallel account in 2 Sam 6. For the significance of this song for the Chronicler’s post-exilic audience, see Trent C. Butler, “A Forgotten Passage from a Forgotten Era (1 Chr. XVI 8-36),” VT 23 (1978): 142-50.
34. This observation does not necessitate the composition of Chronicles before Ezra-Nehemiah. The singers and the writer of Ezra-Nehemiah could have known about the events in 1 Chr 16 and 2 Chr 5 from another source. Regarding common authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, see Paul L. Redditt, “The Dependence of Ezra-Nehemiah on 1 and 2 Chronicles,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah, 216-39.
35. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 56-57.
36. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 85.
37. Ibid., 87. See also Klaus Koch, “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism,” JSS 19 (1974): 188-89, 196; J. Gordon McConville, “Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfillment of Prophecy,” VT 36 (1986): 206-7.
38. Cf. Levering, Ezra and Nehemiah, 69-70.
39. The self-interest of Artaxerxes’s religious tolerance is not denied. See Gregory Goswell, “The Attitude to the Persians in Ezra-Nehemiah,” TrinJ 32 (2011): 192-93.
40. Cf. Nykolaishen, “Restoration of Israel,” 181-82. Contrast Karrer-Grube, “Conceptual Unity,” 155, 159.
41. Goswell, “Absence of a Davidic Hope,” 27.
42. Eskenazi, “Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah,” 646. Calling “the literary qualities of Old Testament texts … the media of ideology,” Richard L. Pratt, “First and Second Chronicles,” in A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, 193, 205, says that “ideology and literary art go hand in hand in Old Testament interpretation.”
43. Cf. Levering, Ezra and Nehemiah, 40-41.
44. Levering (ibid., 21) says that “the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are best appropriated and understood in light of other biblical texts.” For him (pp. 48-49), these other texts (e.g., Jer 30:9, Matt 1:12, Luke 3:27) necessitate reading Ezra-Nehemiah as part of the movement of redemptive history in which Zerubbabel anticipates another Davidic descendant ultimately named Jesus. Contrast Karrer-Grube (“Conceptual Unity,” 150, 155, 158-59) who recognizes the programmatic significance of Jeremiah for Ezra-Nehemiah but denies that the Davidic hope in Jeremiah is preserved in Ezra-Nehemiah.
45. For example, Duggan (Covenant Renewal, 28) says, “The vision of history in Neh 9:6-37, with its concentration on the Mosaic covenant and the exodus and its failure to mention David in connection with the temple, contrasts greatly with Chronicles, which concentrates on the Davidic covenant in service of the temple with comparatively muted reference to the wilderness era (e.g., 2 Chr 6:5).”
46. In the context of demonstrating how Nehemiah, though not a Davidic descendant, resembles an ideal king, Iain Duguid (“Nehemiah–The Best King Judah Never Had,” in Let Us Go Up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda, VTSup 153 [Leiden: Brill, 2012], 270) says, “Certainly there were no overheated messianic hopes, nor incitements to rise up and throw off the Persian yoke, but included in the underlying tone are both gratitude for what God has already done through the Persian authorities in the ‘now,’ and a patient expectation that there is still more to come in the ‘not yet.’”
47. John Sietze Bergsma (“The Persian Period as Penitential Era: The ‘Exegetical Logic’ of Daniel 9.1-27, ” in Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods, in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd, ed. Gary N. Knoppers, Lester L. Grabbe, and Deirdre N. Fulton, LSTS 73 [New York: T&T Clark, 2008], 60) says that “the initial return of the exiles was at best a partial fulfillment of prophecy.” See also Gregory K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 894-95.
48. Bergsma, “Persian Period as Penitential Era,” 60-61.