Structure, Themes, And Theology In Ezra-Nehemiah

By George Van Pelt Campbell

[George Van Pelt Campbell is Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies and Sociology at Grove City College, Grove City, PA.]

Abstract

Ezra and Nehemiah were originally a single book with one overarching argument. The book is structured in four movements that address successive stages of a common theme: the manner whereby the people of God rebuilt the house of God. But rebuilding the house of God is not limited to rebuilding the temple. It also involves restoration of full spiritual vitality to the people of God. Ezra-Nehemiah is a manual on spiritual renewal, and preaching the book is a call to the successive stages of spiritual revitalization.

The Unity Of Ezra-Nehemiah

Ezra and Nehemiah were originally written as one book.[1] As Eskenazi has pointed out,[2] the parameters of Ezra-Nehemiah have been challenged in two different ways. The similarities of Ezra-Nehemiah to Chronicles have led the majority of scholars since 1832 to construe Ezra-Nehemiah as part of the book of Chronicles. On the other hand, Ezra and Nehemiah are usually separated in the popular mind into two separate books, an impression fostered by their separation in modern English translations of the Bible.

In 1832 L. Zunz suggested that many of the scholarly problems related to Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah could be solved by postulating that the three, in that order, form a continuous work written by the Chronicler.[3] His view was quickly adopted and reigned as the scholarly consensus into the 1960s.[4] The consensus was first challenged by Sara Japhet in 1968.[5] Other scholars have followed Japhet, both by undermining the foundations on which the scholarly consensus was built and by adding new and substantial arguments that dispute the supposed similarity of Chronicles to Ezra-Nehemiah.[6] As a result, the conclusion that the books are a unity can no longer be considered secure.[7] Further, the oldest extant manuscripts separate Chronicles from Ezra-Nehemiah, as do the early lists of biblical books by the church fathers and the rabbis.[8] In light of the evidence it seems best to agree with Eskenazi that “the accumulated force of the arguments against common authorship is more compelling and favors the conclusion that Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles are separate books.”[9]

Meanwhile, the original unity of Ezra-Nehemiah is widely acknowledged.[10] In fact, the separation of Ezra-Nehemiah into two books is a comparatively late development, first attested in the Hebrew Bible in 1448. The separation arose in Christian circles first with Origen (AD 185-253). Although Jerome held to the books’ unity, he acknowledged their separation “amongst the Greeks and Latins” (Prologus Galeatus) and followed the separation in his Vulgate (AD 405), from which the division became standard in Christian circles. The unity of the original work, however, is uniformly attested from early times in the Septuagint (c. 250 BC), Josephus (AD 37–c.100), and rabbinic writings (Baba Bathra 15a). The Septuagint calls the combined Ezra-Nehemiah Esdras B, and the concluding Masoretic notes, which occur after each book and list the number of verses in each book as well as the middle verse, occur only after Nehemiah and list the middle verse of the work as Nehemiah 3:32, proof that the Masoretes considered Ezra-Nehemiah a unified whole.

In spite of such powerful external evidence, some conservative scholars persisted in denying the unity of the book, maintaining that the repetition of Ezra 2 in Nehemiah 7 would have been impossible in a single work.[11] A perfectly reasonable explanation for the repetition is at hand, as will be discussed below.[12]

It is best to conclude that Ezra-Nehemiah is a unified whole, separate from Chronicles, and that the unified whole is the proper object of theological inquiry.

The Structure Of Ezra-Nehemiah

Ezra-Nehemiah displays obvious clues regarding its structure. The book bristles with repetitions and parallel pericopes, unusual arrangements of material from obviously diverse sources, leitmotifs, and other literary devices. While such characteristics are now commonly recognized as literary devices that carry the meaning of the text,[13] they have often led to Ezra-Nehemiah being considered a poorly redacted document and invited speculations about its “original” form rather than investigations about the author’s purpose. Eskenazi summarized what is still the state of affairs in Ezra-Nehemiah studies:

Little progress has been made in clarifying such a structure. Although it is no longer fashionable to recompose Ezra-Nehemiah into a presumed, pristine ‘original,’ . . . very few scholars explain or even describe the present form of the book. Most commentaries simply follow the sequence of chapters in the book with but an occasional glance at what the overall design might be. They describe some of the major blocks in terms of literary or historical categories, noting the confusing peculiarities in the book . . . without coming to conclusions about the nature of the present composition of the book.[14]

The most obvious structural feature in Ezra-Nehemiah is the parallel nature of the four major sections of the book:[15]

Ezra	1-6	Rebuilding the temple
Ezra	7-10	Religious reform
Nehemiah	1-7	Rebuilding the city wall
Nehemiah	8-13	Religious reform

The parallelism extends to the microstructure as well:

Ezra	Event	Nehemiah
1	Return to Jerusalem including	2
	(1) King’s permission
	(2) Journey
2	List	3
	Ezra: Returnees
	Nehemiah: Builders
3	Building	5
4	Opposition	4
5-6	Completion	6
7	Emphasis on the law	8
8	List of returnees	7
8	Prayer and fasting	9
9	Confession of sin	9
10	Repentance from sin with a list	10

While the lists are not exhaustive and the order is not identical, the parallel in material is too striking to be coincidental. Taken together with the repetition of the list of returnees in Ezra 2=Nehemiah 7, the evidence seems to suggest that the book is the product not of a clumsy redactor, but of a skilled literary artist.[16]

The basic four-fold structure of Ezra-Nehemiah is widely recognized. Williamson has perceptively argued for a climactic structure in which the first three sections lead up to and culminate in the fourth. He points out that one celebration is strategically placed at the end of the first section (Ezra 1-6) while all other celebration is postponed until the grand climax in part four (Neh. 8-13).[17] Pursuing this approach, Eskenazi has articulated the following structure for Ezra-Nehemiah:[18]

I. Potentiality (objective defined): decree to the community to build the house of God (Ezra 1:1-4)

II. Process of actualization: the community builds the house of God according to decree (1:5–Neh. 7:72)

A. Introduction: proleptic summary (Ezra 1:5-6)

B. First movement: the returnees build the altar and the Temple according to the decree and the Torah (Ezra 1:7-6:22)

C. Second movement: Ezra and the exiles build the community according to the Torah (Ezra 7:1-10:40)

D. Third movement: Nehemiah and the Judeans build the wall (Neh. 1:1-7:5)

E. Recapitulation: list of returnees (Neh. 7:6-72)

III. Success (objective reached): the community dedicates the house of God according to Torah (Neh. 8:1-13:31)[19]

Two major pieces of evidence support this structural arrangement. First, the repetition of the list of returnees in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, Eskenazi argues, is actually the major clue to the book’s structure.[20] Repetition is widely recognized as a major literary device serving a number of purposes.[21] Repetition as an inclusio unifies the material bounded by the inclusio. When examined from this perspective, the repetition of the list of returnees brackets precisely the first three major sections of the book that precede the fourth climactic section (Neh. 8-13). The repetition, then, defines what precedes the central section as an introduction and what follows it as the conclusion.[22] The repetition formally signals what has often been intuitively recognized.

Second, the parallel structure of the three central sections (Ezra 1:7–Neh. 7:5) confirms Eskenazi’s proposed structure.[23] As Williamson says, three parallel “chapters” describe “the restoration of the temple, the community, and the city of Jerusalem.”[24] Eskenazi outlines the structure of the three sections as follows:

I.	Introduction: Preparations, characters, task (Ezra 1:7-2:67; Ezra 7:1-28; Neh. 1:1-2:8)
II.	Initial implementation of the task (Ezra 2:68-3:13; Ezra 8:1-36; Neh. 2:9-3:32)
III.	Conflict (Ezra 4:1-24; Ezra 9:1-15; Neh. 3:33-5:19)
IV.	Resolution of the conflict (Ezra 5:1-6:13; Ezra 10:1-17; Nehemiah 6:1-15)
V.	Conclusion (Ezra 6:14-22; Ezra 10:18-44; Neh. 7:1-5)[25]

Ezra-Nehemiah, then, is a carefully structured book that states its theme (Ezra 1:1-4), develops the actualization of the theme in three parallel movements (Ezra 1:5–Neh. 7:72), and concludes with a celebration of success (Neh. 8-13).

The Theme Of Ezra–Nehemiah

Ezra-Nehemiah declares its theme in the opening paragraph: the rebuilding of the house of God (Ezra 1:1-4). The concept of the “house of God” will be extended beyond the temple to include the people of God and the city of God as well. This extension anticipates both New Testament and eschatological themes, thus explicating some of the book’s unexpected features. So the book develops one major theme: the manner whereby the people of God rebuilt the house of God.

Rebuilding The House Of God

Ezra 1:1-4 introduces Ezra 1-6 and states its theme, rebuilding the house of God.[26] The centrality of rebuilding the house of God is emphasized by its repetition in 1:2 and 1:3 as the focus of both the king’s assignment from God and the people’s assignment from the king. The immediate report in 1:5 that the people prepared to go up and rebuild the house of God strengthens the theme. The “going up” of 1:5 is elaborated in chapter 2 and the rebuilding in chapters 3-6. The entire section exposits the theme stated in 1:1-4.

Three terms that first occur in Ezra 1:1-4 resurface repeatedly in Ezra 1-6 and demonstrate the connection between the two segments.[27] The terms עלה (“go up”), בנה (“build”), and בית (“house”) become leitmotifs, unifying Ezra 1-6 as the story of the people going up to build the house of God. The terms עלה and בנה occur together in 1:3 and 1:5, then separately (though in the same order), עלה in 2:1 and בנה in 3:2, serving almost as headings signifying the historical enactment of Cyrus’s edict. Ezra 1-6 is thus carefully crafted to portray the enactment of Cyrus’s decree.

However, by the end of Ezra 6 that rebuilding is complete. Green points out, “Because the goal set by the decree of Cyrus has been accomplished, there seems little reason for the narrative to continue.”[28] Yet Ezra-Nehemiah has just begun. The first clue that for the author the “house of God” is broader than just the temple in Jerusalem comes in Ezra 4:6-23, which proleptically “recounts the attempts to prevent the rebuilding of the entire city of Jerusalem during the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes. This apparent digression is best explained,” Green continues, by recognizing that the “house of God”

is now more broadly defined (see Ezra 3:6-8); it extends to the city of Jerusalem itself (Ezra 4:12). Note also that the rebuilding of the city is described in terms of the restoration of its walls and its foundations (Ezra 4:12-16). This is important for the development of the narrative because it creates the expectation that the “house of God” cannot be completed until those walls are rebuilt. The expectation will remain unfulfilled throughout the rest of the book of Ezra.[29]

The second clue that the “house of God” is broader than the temple comes in Ezra 6:14 and again involves reference to Artaxerxes.[30] As mentioned earlier, reading Ezra-Nehemiah with a pre-exilic understanding of the “house of God” would make the reader expect that the dedication of the temple completed the task set out in the introduction (Ezra 1:1-4). But to reinforce that he has more in mind, the author says at the end of this movement, “They finished their building by the decree of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes, king of Persia” (Ezra 6:14). As Williamson says, “The inclusion of Artaxerxes at this point is surprising, since the events of this chapter date from before his reign.”[31] Fensham has called his inclusion here “exceedingly difficult,”[32] pointing out that most scholars regard it as an early gloss. Far better is regarding it as a “proleptic summary”[33] serving two functions. First, it informs the reader that the work done on the temple[34] in fact did not in fact exhaust the “house of God,” as discussed above. Second, it prepares the reader for the introduction in Ezra 7:1 of that aspect of the work on the house of God that is treated in the second movement, Ezra 7-10, under Artaxerxes. The proleptic mention of Artaxerxes in connection with building the house of God at the end of the first movement, followed by the introduction of the second movement under his name, indicates that the second movement is another step in the building of the house of God, a second step in the accomplishment of the book’s theme. This conclusion is confirmed by the parallel structure of the three central sections (Ezra 1–Neh. 7) that binds them together as three parts of one process. It is also confirmed by the sudden reappearance in 7:6, 7, 9, and 8:1 of the root עלה (“go up”), picked up from the introduction. The book’s second movement is, in Eskenazi’s words, “preoccupied with the human component of the house of God.”[35] Williamson agrees, asserting that Ezra 7-10 is “the next formative step in the constitution of the post-exilic community.”[36]

The third movement of the book (Neh. 1-7) is yet another step in the building of the house of God. In addition to the clear connection with Artaxerxes stated in the text (Neh. 2:1), the incomplete time reference in 1:1 (“in the twentieth year [of Artaxerxes]”), which does not specify a king, indicates that Nehemiah 1 continues Ezra’s narrative and depends on it. Finally, Nehemiah 1:3 and 2:17 cite Jerusalem’s reproach as a foil for the introduction of the term בנה (“build”), the motif taken from Ezra 1. The first and third movements thus form a chiasm, framing the entire body of the book with two treatments of the “building of the house of God,” each portraying a different aspect of the work.

The body of Ezra-Nehemiah thus details the building of the house of God, that is, the restoration of the post-exilic community, as involving three steps: “the restoration of the temple, the community, and the city of Jerusalem.”[37]

Evidence of the broad meaning of “house of God” in Ezra-Nehemiah goes far beyond structural considerations.[38] The book is obviously concerned to portray the full spiritual restoration of the post-exilic community to functioning as the community of God.[39]

This is the theme of Ezra-Nehemiah.

While much evidence could be marshalled,[40] a few samples must suffice. First, Ezra 1:1 may be cited. Scholars struggle to explain the cryptic reference to the fulfillment of the words of Jeremiah. It is usually thought to refer to the seventy-year terminus of Babylonian captivity (Jer. 29:10), but the seventy-year limit is not discussed in Ezra-Nehemiah. Williamson and Eskenazi have discussed the problem[41] and concluded that the reference is cryptic because it was intended to be cryptic. Eskenazi put it well:

Jeremiah’s word in Ezra-Nehemiah is open-ended, inviting the reader to ponder what precisely will be completed. Such musings are rewarded. . . . Other elements in Jeremiah’s words, besides the end of the exile, come into being. Most prominent among these is the vision of the future in which God’s sanctity encompasses the whole of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 11:1).[42]

Jeremiah devotes much attention to Israel’s Babylonian exile (Jer. 25-29) and subsequent restoration (chs. 30-33). The vision of the return from exile is resplendent, including repatriation and restoration of full blessing. The restoration includes a return to worship in the temple (33:10-11), the rebuilding of Jerusalem (30:18; 31:38-40), and the reestablishment of the community (30:19-20). Beyond this are promised peace, security, and assurance of God’s presence (30:10-11, 17). Jeremiah’s word of restoration went far beyond predicting repatriation after a seventy-year exile; it disclosed the full spiritual revitalization of the people of God.

Most surprising, therefore, is the constant tendency among scholars to assume that the reference to Jeremiah’s word in Ezra 1:1 is limited to the prophet’s brief allusion to the exile’s terminus.[43] It is not, however, without reason. Ezra 1:1-3 is a nearly exact quote of 2 Chronicles 36:22-23. Since Ezra-Nehemiah is often assumed to be an appendix to Chronicles, and since the passage in 2 Chronicles follows a citation of Jeremiah’s reference to the terminus of the exile, it is assumed that Ezra 1:1 refers to the terminus as well. This, however, is precisely not the case. Literary dependence between the texts is certain.[44] That the author of Ezra omitted Chronicles’s mention of the seventy years, choosing to begin his quotation just after this reference, clearly shows that he did not intend to refer to the seventy years. Only specifying the terminus aspect of Jeremiah’s prophecy would lead a reader to so limit a reference to Jeremiah’s word about the restoration. The author of Ezra-Nehemiah intended no such limitation.[45]

Ezra-Nehemiah, then, opens with a statement that the book will chronicle the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s vision of the full spiritual revitalization of God’s people. The three “chapters” of Ezra-Nehemiah’s body articulate that spiritual rebuilding by describing the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 1-6; cf. Jer. 33:10-11), the community (Ezra 7-10; cf. Jer. 30:19-20), and the city of Jerusalem (Neh. 1-7; cf. Jer. 30:18; 31:38-40), precisely as Jeremiah had predicted. The citation of Jeremiah in Ezra 1:1 is clear evidence that the “house of God” means more than the temple in Ezra-Nehemiah. The house of God is now equivalent to God’s kingdom, and its rebuilding signifies restoration to full spiritual vitality after the spiritual disintegration of the exile (cf. Jer. 29:10-11; 31:6-7; עלה [“go up”] is also used in Jer. 31:6).

Another indication that the house of God includes people and city as well as the temple is found in Nehemiah 12:30.[46] After rebuilding the walls, a dedication ceremony is held, beginning with a ceremonial purification of the people, gates, and wall (Neh. 12:27-30). As Yamauchi says, “The Levites are said to have cleansed all that was holy in the temple (1 Chron. 23:28) and the temple itself (2 Chron. 29:15) during the times of revival.”[47] But Williamson points out, “The purification of the wall and the gates is an unparalleled idea, but may reflect an increasing awareness of the sanctity of Jerusalem, ‘the holy city’ (cf. 11:1).”[48] Clines points out the eschatological ties of the passage: “The theocratic ideal is very prominent here; even the gates and wall stones of the ‘holy city’ (11:1) are sacralized (cf. Ezek. 48:35; Zech. 14:20).”[49] Thus in Ezra-Nehemiah the holiness associated with the temple is extended to people and city as well, corresponding to the threefold structure of the book and demonstrating that the command to build the house of God is fulfilled in the dedication of temple, people, and city. Jeremiah had seen a day in which Jerusalem would be rebuilt and would be holy (Jer. 21:38-40). Here in Nehemiah 12:30 the “word of the Lord spoken through Jeremiah” (Ezra 1:1) is fulfilled.

The final evidence to be considered for this broadening of “house of God” is the statement of Nehemiah 12:40 that the dedication ceremony took place “in the house of God.” The problem here is that laity were not allowed to enter such a holy sphere. Eskenazi summarizes well: “Scholars, uneasy with the implication of this verse, postulate either that at this point the laity must have separated from the clergy or that the assembly takes place in front of the temple or the house of God rather than in it.”[50]

The text of Ezra-Nehemiah, however, posits no such separation, stating simply that the two choirs took their places “in the house of God.” The most straightforward meaning seems to be that the “house of God” in 12:40 is conterminous with the city of Jerusalem. Eskenazi is correct: “The two processions, laity and all, stand in the house of God. They can do so from the cultic perspective because they have been purified; they can do so practically because the house of God refers to the wide space within the wall. It is because the wall is the real boundary of the house of God that the initial building of the wall began with sanctification by the high priest (Neh. 3:1).”[51]

Subsidiary Themes In Ezra-Nehehiah

Two subsidiary themes in Ezra-Nehemiah are important for a full grasp of the book’s message. Both have been developed at length by Eskenazi.[52]

The first subtheme is the people of God. The people, as opposed to the leaders, are highlighted in numerous ways, such as the several detailed lists and the fact that the people do the actual work in the book (cf. Ezra 1:3; 2:1; 3:1; 6:16; Neh. 2:17-18; 3:1-31). Leaders there are, but the people are the focus.

The second subtheme is the importance of written documents, particularly the law of Moses. Throughout the book, actions are set in motion by written decrees or the written law, God being the author of both (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:1-3, 22; 7:1, 5-6, 9-10; Neh. 8:1-18; 9:1-4). The authority lies in the written word more than with the leaders.

At this point it is possible to see how Ezra-Nehemiah anticipates New Testament and eschatological themes. The major theme of Ezra-Nehemiah, the extension of the house of God, anticipates the New Testament truth that God dwells with his people. A major theme of the Scriptures is God’s presence.[53] In Jesus God’s presence comes among men in a person called Immanuel (Matt. 1:23), “tabernacling” among us (John 1:14). The Lukan and Pauline corpora in particular develop the grand New Testament truth of the Spirit indwelling the believer so that the believer becomes the “temple of God” (1 Cor. 6:19). The body of Christ, corporately, is also called “God’s temple” (1 Cor. 3:16-17). This broadening of God’s dwelling place is completed in Revelation 21:1-3, where in the new Jerusalem, the “holy city” (Rev. 21:2; cf. Neh. 11:1), it is proclaimed, “Now the dwelling of God is with men.” Here the house of God is Jerusalem, inhabited by the people of God, just as it first was in Ezra-Nehemiah.

Ezra-Nehemiah’s focus on the importance of the people also comes to full expression in the New Testament. The New Testament doctrine of the body of Christ, with its affirmation of the group and each member, completes the transition from a leader-focused Judaism to a people-focused Christianity (cf. 1 Cor. 12). Individual believers now fulfill what were previously sacred functions as a “a royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9).

Ezra-Nehemiah’s emphasis on written documents obviously begins what will later be the New Testament emphasis on the written word of God, the Scriptures. As Hebrews 1:1-3 declares, God’s speaking, previously communicated through the prophets and other means, is now communicated through his Son and, of course, through the Scriptures, which are our only substantial source of information about him.

The structure and themes of Ezra-Nehemiah combine to suggest the book’s purpose. As Eskenazi puts it, “The book concentrates on how the people of God build the house of God in accordance with divinely ordained documents.”[54]

The Theology Of Ezra-Nehemiah

Having examined the structure and themes of Ezra-Nehemiah, it is possible to state the abiding relevance,[55] or theology,[56] of the book. Since the book’s theme is the manner of rebuilding the house of God, and the “house of God” is broadened to include the full restoration to spiritual vitality predicted by Jeremiah (Ezra 1:1), it is evident that the book’s purpose is to expound a theology of spiritual revitalization. Ezra-Nehemiah describes the spiritual revitalization of post-exilic Judaism as an example of how the house of God can be rebuilt in any generation. Childs concurs that Ezra-Nehemiah was written “in order to describe the restoration as a theological model for obedient and holy people of God.”[57] In describing the manner of post-exilic revival, the book provides a paradigm for spiritual renewal.[58]

In support of this conclusion several arguments can be made. First, the book addresses spiritual disintegration (Neh. 1:3; 2:17), a situation that recurs in every generation. Second, the word “revival” appears in Ezra 9:8-9.[59] Third, perhaps the most extensive confirmation comes from a major subtheme in Ezra-Nehemiah: the portrayal of the post-exilic return as a second exodus.

The second-exodus motif in Ezra-Nehemiah has been widely recognized.[60] It is particularly prominent in Ezra 1. Through significant or unusual vocabulary and themes drawn from the exodus narratives, the author portrays the post-exilic return as a second exodus. As Williamson has said, “The purpose of this typological pattern is to encourage the readers to interpret the return as an act of God’s grace that can be compared in its significance with the very birth of the nation of Israel itself.”[61] That is, the return in Ezra-Nehemiah is presented as a spiritual rebirth after the virtual death of the nation in the exile.[62] As such, it serves as a theological model for spiritual rebirth in subsequent generations.

Together the four major sections of Ezra-Nehemiah expound the process of spiritual renewal. Each section elaborates one of the components.

Ezra 1-6: Renewal Requires A Return To Worship

Ezra 1-6 is occupied with the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the center of worship of the Lord. That the rebuilding of the temple was the first project in Ezra-Nehemiah speaks to the priorities of the community[63] and of each generation that seeks renewal. Worship in the Old Testament was obviously intended to involve more than ritual; it was to express in concrete form the love of God that was the heart and soul of the religion of Yahweh. Ezra 1-6 declares that the first step in renewal is to return to the first priority as first priority.

Ezra 7-10: Renewal Requires A Return To Holiness

Ezra 7-10 is concerned with the spiritual renewal of the people under Ezra. Chapter 7 introduces Ezra as a man of the law and chapters 9-10 describe his revival. The section portrays Ezra’s work as a separation of the people (see the lists of the people in Ezra 8, 10) from foreign influence (Ezra 9-10) unto the law of God. Hence holiness (קדשׁ, “holy, separated unto Yahweh”) is the theme of the section.[64] Further, Green notes, “By placing this account of Ezra’s activities (Ezra 7:1-10:44) in the middle of the narrative of the rebuilding of the temple and city walls (Ezra 3:1-6:22; Nehemiah 1:1-6:16), the people’s adherence to the Law and specifically their separation from foreign wives becomes an integral part of what it means to rebuild the ‘house of God.’ It suggests that the ‘house of God’ will never be fully complete until a qualified people—separated from the foreign nations—is found to inhabit it.”[65] By placing this material here, the author showed that for renewal to occur, the positive step of allegiance to Yahweh necessarily involved the negative step of separation from all other allegiances. The second step in renewal is a return to holiness.

Nehemiah 1-7: Renewal Requires Rebuilding God’s Reputation

Nehemiah 1-7 details the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. This rebuilding is usually seen as necessary for the protection of the temple and population of Jerusalem. But the text itself is quite emphatic in stating a different purpose for the rebuilding of the walls. Nehemiah 1:2-3 reveals the author’s concern as the “disgrace” (חרפה) of the “remnant,” a concern stated in exactly the same terms in Nehemiah 2:17. As Kidner has said, “It is the disgrace, not the insecurity of their position which strikes him—for Jerusalem should be seen as ‘the city of the great King,’ and ‘the joy of all the earth.’ ”[66] Hence bound up with the reputation of the people of God is the reputation of God himself. This is implied in Nehemiah 1:9, where Jerusalem is described as “the place I have chosen as a dwelling for my name.” As Williamson has said, “The word ‘reproach’ (חרפה), in particular, is heavy with overtones of the punishment of the exile, behind which lies the disrepute brought upon God’s name among the nations by those who should have been his servants.”[67] Moreover, the city of Jerusalem is called “the place I have chosen as a dwelling for my name” (Neh. 1:9) and is, by the end of the book, the location of God’s presence just as much as was the temple itself (Neh. 12:40). Hence the author is concerned with the rebuilding of the symbol of the reputation of God’s people, which cannot be separated from the reputation of God himself. The third step in renewal is to rebuild the reputation of God and of his people so that the house of God stands fully repaired.

Nehemiah 8-13: Renewal Is Perpetuated By Continued Commitment To Obedience

Nehemiah 8-13, as shown earlier, is the climax of the three earlier sections of the book. Theologically it moves beyond describing another step in the process of renewal to model the means whereby renewal is perpetuated.[68] Chapters 8-10 begin the section with a covenant renewal ceremony[69] in which the entire community formally reaffirms its commitment to adhere to the law of God, not as a means to renewal, but as the seal of renewal.[70] Chapter 11 provides for the populating of Jerusalem so that it could function as the “holy city” (11:1), and chapter 12 provides for full cultic functioning.[71] After the formal dedication of the full house of God—priests, people, gates, and wall, corresponding to the three central sections of Ezra-Nehemiah (12:27-47)—chapter 13 recounts Nehemiah’s final religious reforms. Chapter 13 has appeared to some to be an anticlimax. Yet, as Williamson has said, “it remains significant that examples of failure in each of the book’s major concerns are incorporated into the closing chapter. The temple and its services (e.g., v. 11), the separation from foreigners (vv. 22-28), and the use of the wall (vv. 15-25) remind us of the first three major sections of the work.”[72] Thus the book closes with a reminder that issues that have been dealt with need subsequent scrutiny. The author declares that the fruits of renewal are perpetuated by continuing commitment to God’s law.

Theologically, then, Ezra-Nehemiah shows that spiritual renewal requires rebuilding worship, rebuilding holiness, and a rebuilding of God’s reputation, and that it is perpetuated by continued commitment to obedience.

Ezra-Nehemiah is a scriptural manual on revival. God’s people wax and wane during their spiritual journey, and God has given in Ezra-Nehemiah a book to address this perennial issue. Pastors who see their congregations in need of spiritual renewal, or in need of preserving and continuing their spiritual vitality, would do well to preach through this book.[73]

Notes

1. Klein writes, “The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally considered a single literary work called Ezra” (Ralph W. Klein, “The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary [Nashville: Abingdon, 2015], 4:3).
2. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 36 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 11-36. The following discussion depends on Eskenazi’s helpful treatment.
3. He suggested that the Chronicler’s work originally consisted of all or most of Chronicles and all or parts of Ezra-Nehemiah (Klein, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 4:3, citing L. Zunz, “Dibre hajamin oder die Bücher der chronik,” Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden [1832; reprint, Berlin: Louis Lamm, 1919], 21-32). See also Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 530-31, 541-42; J. Alberto Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 414, 420.
4. Klein, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 4:3-4.
5. Klein, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 4:3. See Sara Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, Investigated Anew,” Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 330-71.
6. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 16.
7. Ibid., 14-36.
8. Ibid., 14, and n. 17-19.
9. Ibid., 36; Klein agrees (“Ezra and Nehemiah,” 4:3-4).
10. Klein, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 4:3-4; H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1985), xxi–xxiii; H. Charles Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 1; Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 11-14.
11. For example, Roland K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 1135-36; E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 378; Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 410-11.
12. Tamara C. Eskenazi, “The Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah,” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 641-56.
13. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 5.
14. Eskenazi, “Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah,” 641. Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 624-38, and Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xlvii–lii, are noteworthy exceptions. See Eissfeldt, Introduction, 541-51, for an example of the standard scholarly approach.
15. Klein’s outline is very similar to this, though he divides Nehemiah 8-13 into two units (“Ezra and Nehemiah,” 4:10-11).
16. Robert Alter observes that a literary approach “leads not to a more ‘imaginative’ reading of biblical narratives, but to a more precise one” (The Art of Biblical Narrative [New York: Basic Books, 1981], 21).
17. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xlix–1; so Childs, Introduction, 632-33.
18. See Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 37-126; Eskenazi, “Structure,” 641-56.
19. Eskenazi, “Structure,” 652.
20. Ibid., 642-48.
21. See, for example, Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 365-440; Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 88-113; H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure,” Biblica 62 (1981): 153-68; Burke O. Long, “Framing Repetitions in Biblical History,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 385-99.
22. Eskenazi, “Structure,” 645. The functions of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 are discussed extensively by Eskenazi in “Structure” and in Age of Prose, 88-95. See also the useful discussions in Mark A. Throntveit, Ezra-Nehemiah, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1992), 18-20, 93.
23. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xlix–1; Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 44-45.
24. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xlix.
25. Based on Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 45, 46-47, 60-1, 77-78.
26. Cf. Derek Kidner: “Ezra 1-6 . . . is concerned with one great enterprise, the rebuilding of the house of God” (Ezra and Nehemiah, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979], 31). See also Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xlix.
27. These terms have been discussed by Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 19-20, and Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 42, 45-46, 60.
28. Douglas Green, “Ezra-Nehemiah,” in A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 207. Green references Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 55-56.
29. Green, “Ezra-Nehemiah,” 207-8.
30. See Eskenazi’s discussion, Age of Prose, 56-57.
31. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 83. Klein attributes proleptic inclusion of Artaxerxes to the writer’s desire to acknowledge his eventual financial support for the project (“Ezra and Nehemiah,” 4:38).
32. Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 92.
33. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 56.
34. Modern English translations tend to render Ezra 6:15a along the lines of “The temple was finished/complete [שׁיציא] on [עד] the third day of the month of Adar” (see NASB, ESV, CSB, NIV). Eskenazi, however, follows Batten in noting that the preposition suggests a better reading would be “They brought out or continued the work until . . .” “It implies that only a stage of the building is complete at this point” (Age of Prose, 56, n. 42).
35. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 60.
36. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xlix; cf. p. 94.
37. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xlix; cf. Childs, who says, referring to Nehemiah 8, “The reading of the law has been assigned to this section of Nehemiah because it was only after the completion of the wall and the settlement of the people (7:5ff.) that the conditions for the full restoration of the community were met” (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 636-37).
38. Our treatment depends on Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 41, 53-57, 71-73, 83-87, 104-9, 119-21.
39. Commentators often hint at this in descriptions of the book’s purpose. For example, Joseph Blenkinsopp refers to Ezra-Nehemiah as a “new beginning” (Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, Old Testament Library [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988], 74, 76); Kidner comments, “This is the holy nation, given a new chance to live up to its calling” (Ezra and Nehemiah, 91); C. F. Keil wrote that Nehemiah “has also the same historical object [as Ezra], viz. to show how the people of Israel after their return from the Babylonian captivity, were . . . fully re-established in the land of promise as the congregation of the Lord” (The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch [reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970], 143).
40. See, for example, the broad use of “house” of God in Numbers 12:7.
41. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 8-10; Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 44.
42. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 44. See also the detailed discussion of the use of Jeremiah in Ezra-Nehemiah in J. G. McConville, “Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfillment of Prophecy,” Vetus Testamentum 36 (1986): 214-18.
43. Allusions are often intended to bring the entire context of the alluded text to the listener’s mind. That the author alludes to Jeremiah without making a specific reference suggests that he intends the reader to recall Jeremiah’s remarks about restoration as a whole.
44. The point holds regardless of which text is given chronological priority. Either Chronicles added the reference to the terminus in 2 Chronicles 36:21 because the text as it stood in Ezra 1 was too broad, or Ezra 1:1 deleted the reference to the terminus because it was too specific. This article assumes the priority of Chronicles, though this makes no substantive difference to the argument made here.
45. A similar example of precision in handling of an Old Testament quotation is seen in the use of Isaiah 40:3 in the beginning of both Mark and Luke (Mark 1:2-3, Luke 3:4-6). Luke extends the quotation to include also Isaiah 40:4-5 so as to structure his gospel (and Acts) around the themes included there (see David W. Pao, Acts and the New Isaianic Exodus [Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016]).
46. The substance of the view taken here is based on Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 117-20.
47. Edwin Yamauchi, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 4:756.
48. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 373. McConville points out that in Ezra 9:8 the “holy place” refers to Jerusalem (“Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfillment of Prophecy,” 215).
49. D. J. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, New Century Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 230.
50. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 121. Such equivocations can be seen in Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 233; Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 257.
51. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 121.
52. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 40-42; regarding the people of God, see pages 48-53, 62-70, 79-83, 97-104, 117-19; regarding the documents see pages 58-60, 73-77, 87-88, 109-11, 122.
53. Samuel Terrien, The Elusive Presence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978).
54. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 44.
55. John Bright’s The Authority of the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1967; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975) is a helpful treatment of how to establish the abiding relevance of the Old Testament material. Other useful treatments include Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an Exegetical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 131-64; see also 185-231; Walter Liefeld, New Testament Exposition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 29-114; Haddon Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 31-113; Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 35-48. For a different approach see David Buttrick, Homiletic: Moves and Structures (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 23-36, 239-81.
56. “Theology” here means not systematic theology, which organizes the teaching of a book under the categories used in dogmatics, but biblical theology, which seeks to articulate the book’s message using the biblical author’s terms and categories. See Robert C. Dentan, Preface to Old Testament Theology, rev. ed. (New York: Seabury, 1963); Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).
57. Childs, Introduction, 637.
58. Revival is addressed in various biblical passages. For example, Kaiser, after discussing 2 Chronicles 7:14, says, “It is not an extravagant claim . . . to see the theme of revival as one of the central organizing motifs of 2 Chronicles” (Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Quest for Renewal: Personal Revival in the Old Testament [Chicago: Moody, 1986], 15). H. G. M. Williamson concurs (using the term “full restoration”) (1 and 2 Chronicles, New Century Bible [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 225-26).
59. See Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 125-27, 136-37; Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, 74, 75.
60. E.g. Klein, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 4:41; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, li, 8, 16-20, 93, 111, 274, 296; Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, 8; Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 44-45, 156; Kidner, Ezra, Nehemiah, 33, 64, 109; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 74-75; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 97; K. Kock, “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism,” Journal of Semitic Studies 19 (1974): 173-94, esp. p. 184; J. G. McConville, “Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfillment of Prophecy,” 208, 216; contra Childs, Introduction, 634; W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, Handbuch zum Alten Testament 20 (Tübin-gen: Mohr, 1949), 3-7.
61. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 20.
62. Williamson uses the term “rebirth” (Ezra, Nehemiah, 20); others refer to the period as a “replanting” (Kidner, Ezra and Nehemiah, 36) or a “new beginning” (Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 74, 76).
63. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 51.
64. “Separation” (בדל) is a prominent motif: Green points out that the term occurs in Ezra 6:21, 10:11, Nehemiah 9:2, 10:29, and also in Ezra 10:8 and Nehemiah 13:3 (Green, “Ezra-Nehemiah,” 207).
65. Green, “Ezra-Nehemiah,” 209-10.
66. Kidner, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 83.
67. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 191.
68. Kaiser titled Nehemiah 10-13 “The Necessity of Preserving the Gains Made in God’s Work” (Toward an Exegetical Theology, 206). Klein says, “Nehemiah 13 reminds the reader that even the best intentions of the perfect community, under ideal leadership (see the ceremonies in Nehemiah 8-10), can fail and the people can lapse into sin” (Klein, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 4:9).
69. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 275-76; cf. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 96.
70. Childs, Introduction, 636; so also Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1.
71. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 366.
72. Ibid., lii.
73. The most useful commentaries for preaching through the book are Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah; Kidner, Ezra and Nehemiah; and Throntveit, Ezra-Nehemiah. Green, “Ezra-Nehemiah,” is also very useful.