Ezra 2:1,2

TEXT AND VERSE-BY-VERSE COMMENT

B. This is a list of the leaders and groups among the returnees
1. The introduction of the list gives the names of their leaders.

TEXT, Ezra 2:1-2 a

1

Now these are the people of the province who came up out of the captivity of the exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away to Babylon, and returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his city.

2a

These came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah.

COMMENT

Ezra 2:1 Now, these are the people, refers to the total list, to Ezra 2:63. The phrase, people of the province, reminds us that the returnees were not free, nor were they returning to a free land. The Judah to which they returned was still a province of Persia, and the people still subjects of the Persian king. Judah was one subdivision of the Fifth Persian Satrapy.[9]

[9] See The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. III, p. 576.

The significance of this migration contrasted sharply with the Israelites-' original coming into the land of Egypt, from slavery to freedom. The first exodus witnessed the birth of a nation: the second saw only a migration within the boundaries of an empire, sanctioned by the ruler because it did not include the deliverance of the subject people from servitude.[10]

[10] W. F. Adeney, Expositor's Bible: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, p. 37.

Yet the Prophets had emphasized it as something that would surpass even their coming up out of bondage in Egypt (Isaiah 43:18-21, for example)! But it is still a remarkable story; how many other examples can be given of a people so completely subjugated, who became a significant nation again?

No account is given of the people who had been left in the land, and who may or may not have been on hand to greet those now returning. The ones who had come through the experience of the Captivity preferred to ignore those who had remained in Judah, and to treat them as inferiors.
Their return to Jerusalem, and Judah, each to his city, would indicate that Jerusalem was the end of the expedition: the first center at which they arrived, and which they restored to habitable condition.
The phrase, each to his own city, need not be taken absolutely literally. It may indicate the pattern which they followed next, of proceeding as far as possible to restore and settle in many of the individual towns of their ancestry, Or it may indicate that they had been assigned to repopulate certain areas before they left Babylon.
Many of the ancient settlements were not reoccupied at this time, judging from archaeological remains. Even if every returnee actually sought out his ancestral town and settled there, it would be unlikely that every ancient town would have enough representatives among the returnees to receive a significant settlement. They were a pitifully small number compared with the population when the land had been conquered and its people carried off by Nebuchadnezzar.

Ezra 2:2. Here we plunge into a long list of names and statistics. We are tempted to ask, Why are such lists frequently included in the Bible? Didn-'t the authors realize how boring these tend to become? This doesn-'t make for easy reading, or especially rewarding either, from the standpoint of Spiritual enrichment.

Three things could be cited to justify this list, and all such lists in general, in the Bible.
1) Names and events are a part of the fabric of history, and their inclusion is a reminder that the events were historical: that one generation at least could have verified or questioned their authenticity. Judaism and Christianity share the distinction of being historical religions; there is a finality and decisiveness to historical events. Books of pretended history may also contain such lists, but they would have little value if the books did not exist during or shortly after the lifetime of the persons involved in the making of the events and statistics which they record.
2) Archaeologists, philologists, and other technicians in the study of history find these to be amazingly informative; the fact, for example, that few of the names resemble those from the earlier parts of the Bible may indicate the completeness of the break with the past which the Hebrew people underwent in the Captivity. The philologist will note that many of the names actually contain foreign words; this speaks eloquently of the foreign surroundings in which the previous generation had grown up. Many of the names are more Babylonian than Hebrew.[11]

[11] A detailed treatment of this list, with the foreign components of some of the names, is available in Keil and Delitzsch's Commentary on The Old Testament, on this chapter of Ezra.

3) If your name and the names of your intimate friends or relatives were on this list, you would find it quite interesting. We tend to minimize the importance of church rolls, but the Holy Spirit of God may value them quite highly. Judging from these Biblical examples, He obviously feels that such memorials have their place, possibly to teach respect for the significant makers of history in the past, and to remind us of His concern for the individual.
Having noted this, however, we will not call further attention to most of the names, but will only point out some patterns that occur.

Ezra 2:2. These are the names of their leaders. The omission of two names may be as significant as the eleven which are included. First, we had heard of Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8); though he was referred to previously as the prince of Judah to whom the holy articles were committed by the Persian treasury, his name is not included here. Has he died in the interim? Or is he simply called by another name, i.e., Zerubbabel? We will hear Sheshbazzar mentioned again in Ezra 5:16; his omission in the verse before us now strengthens the likelihood that the one person was known by either name.

Secondly, an almost identical list of names appears in Nehemiah 7:7. One difference is that Nehemiah includes a twelfth character, Nahamani. Why is he omitted here? The verse before us ends with a reference to the people of Israel (not merely Judah). Twelve names, reminders of the twelve original tribes, would be so appropriate here. Was this one man's name dropped because of some action which he took later on? Then what was the thing which he did, which caused Ezra to drop his name? Did he fail to complete the trip, or forsake the returnees soon after the return to Babylon? Or are we being reminded that it is an incomplete list, and there may be many reasons why some individuals are not mentioned?

The first explanation for the omission that would come to mind is a copyist's error; at some time in antiquity when all copies were produced by hand, someone left out this name inadvertently. Of course this is a possibility; almost no one would say all these copyists were inspired against error; except that we feel this explanation is made use of much too often, where no evidence for it exists, either to avoid some difficulty in the text or to get rid of something that doesn-'t fit the commentator's theories. Other explanations, where they can reasonably be made, are certainly preferable.
The most natural explanation, or guess, is that he died or was incapacitated before completing his full round of duties.
Whatever the reason, he was one of the leaders and Nehemiah gives us adequate justification for including him. An omission of a name is not necessarily an error or discrepancy; such omissions occur even in genealogical lists.[12] It apparently was not regarded as important to include every detail in every instance.

[12] Amaziah's name is omitted by Matthew in the genealogy of Jesus; cf. Matthew 1:8, 2 Chronicles 25:25; 2 Chronicles 26:23.

Further comment on the significance of the twelve names to the twelve tribes of Israel, and on the difference in these names in Ezra and Nehemiah will be reserved till we arrive at Nehemiah seven. For the present, each difference can be accounted for as a normal variation in spelling.
Another question that arises about verse two is its punctuation, and therefore the relationship between these names. The King James Version (KJV) has a semicolon after Zerubbabel, thus indicating his primacy in leadership. Many of the more recent translations have a comma, suggesting the equal share which all of this group had in leadership, though Zerubbabel's name still heads the list. It is a subtle distinction, but it does say something. (The Hebrew text can be translated either way, with equal accuracy.)
For example, is this a list of contemporaries, or does it include leaders of later expeditions? Some note the names of Nehemiah and Mordecai, which would fit a later period. Also, Ezra's name may be hidden in a longer form, Seraiah; and Bigvai is the name of a governor of Judah under Darius II.[13] However, it is more likely that the persons in verse two are other men of the same name, and not the persons better known to us from later times. The flow of the narrative itself, eventuating in the observance of a religious festival in Ezra 3:1 ff., suggests that we have here a description of one historic event, at one point in time, and that these were the leaders who shared in that one event.

[13] The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. III, p. 577.

WORD STUDIES

ZERUBBABEL: a seed of Babylon: a reminder that God preserved a seed of His people through the Babylonian Captivity, from which His nation would once again spring to life,

TEMPLE SERVANTS (Ezra 2:43): literally, the Nethinim: those given. The word is a plural form; it comes from the word Nathan. These were the persons given to the priests to assist with the menial tasks of preparing for sacrifice and worship.

JESHUA, or its variant, JOSHUA: Jehovah is Salvation, or Salvation from Jehovah. This is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek name, Jesus.

MINA: the basic meaning is to divide out, or measure out, or number. Money originally had to be measured, or weighed, at each transaction. This is the word Mene in the handwriting on the wall, in Daniel 5:25 f. Note that the consonants are the same as those in our word money, and in reverse order, the first two consonants in number. Can you find the two letters hidden in the denomination of a bill? In numismatics? Now you are looking at the building blocks of language!