Ezra 2: 1 – 70
Exodus II
2 Now these are the people of the province who came back from the captivity, of those who had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away to Babylon, and who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, everyone to his own city. 2 Those who came with Zerubbabel were Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: 3 the people of Parosh, two thousand one hundred and seventy-two; 4 the people of Shephatiah, three hundred and seventy-two; 5 the people of Arah, seven hundred and seventy-five; 6 the people of Pahath-Moab, of the people of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve; 7 the people of Elam, one thousand two hundred and fifty-four; 8 the people of Zattu, nine hundred and forty-five; 9 the people of Zaccai, seven hundred and sixty; 10 the people of Bani, six hundred and forty-two; 11 the people of Bebai, six hundred and twenty-three; 12 the people of Azgad, one thousand two hundred and twenty-two; 13 the people of Adonikam, six hundred and sixty-six; 14 the people of Bigvai, two thousand and fifty-six; 15 the people of Adin, four hundred and fifty-four; 16 the people of Ater of Hezekiah, ninety-eight; 17 the people of Bezai, three hundred and twenty-three; 18 the people of Jorah, one hundred and twelve; 19 the people of Hashum, two hundred and twenty-three; 20 the people of Gibbar, ninety-five; 21 the people of Bethlehem, one hundred and twenty-three; 22 the men of Netophah, fifty-six; 23 the men of Anathoth, one hundred and twenty-eight; 24 the people of Azmaveth, forty-two; 25 the people of Kirjath Arim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred and forty-three; 26 the people of Ramah and Geba, six hundred and twenty-one; 27 the men of Michmas, one hundred and twenty-two; 28 the men of Bethel and Ai, two hundred and twenty-three; 29 the people of Nebo, fifty-two; 30 the people of Magbish, one hundred and fifty-six; 31 the people of the other Elam, one thousand two hundred and fifty-four; 32 the people of Harim, three hundred and twenty; 33 the people of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred and twenty-five; 34 the people of Jericho, three hundred and forty-five; 35 the people of Senaah, three thousand six hundred and thirty. 36 The priests: the sons of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred and seventy-three; 37 the sons of Immer, one thousand and fifty-two; 38 the sons of Pashhur, one thousand two hundred and forty-seven; 39 the sons of Harim, one thousand and seventeen. 40 The Levites: the sons of Jeshua and Kadmiel, of the sons of Hodaviah, seventy-four. 41 The singers: the sons of Asaph, one hundred and twenty-eight. 42 The sons of the gatekeepers: the sons of Shallum, the sons of Ater, the sons of Talmon, the sons of Akkub, the sons of Hatita, and the sons of Shobai, one hundred and thirty-nine in all. 43 The Nethinim: the sons of Ziha, the sons of Hasupha, the sons of Tabbaoth, 44 the sons of Keros, the sons of Siaha, the sons of Padon, 45 the sons of Lebanah, the sons of Hagabah, the sons of Akkub, 46 the sons of Hagab, the sons of Shalmai, the sons of Hanan, 47 the sons of Giddel, the sons of Gahar, the sons of Reaiah, 48 the sons of Rezin, the sons of Nekoda, the sons of Gazzam, 49 the sons of Uzza, the sons of Paseah, the sons of Besai, 50 the sons of Asnah, the sons of Meunim, the sons of Nephusim, 51 the sons of Bakbuk, the sons of Hakupha, the sons of Harhur, 52 the sons of Bazluth, the sons of Mehida, the sons of Harsha, 53 the sons of Barkos, the sons of Sisera, the sons of Tamah, 54 the sons of Neziah, and the sons of Hatipha. 55 The sons of Solomon’s servants: the sons of Sotai, the sons of Sophereth, the sons of Peruda, 56 the sons of Jaala, the sons of Darkon, the sons of Giddel, 57 the sons of Shephatiah, the sons of Hattil, the sons of Pochereth of Zebaim, and the sons of Ami. 58 All the Nethinim and the children of Solomon’s servants were three hundred and ninety-two. 59 And these were the ones who came up from Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Cherub, Addan, and Immer; but they could not identify their father’s house or their genealogy, whether they were of Israel: 60 the sons of Delaiah, the sons of Tobiah, and the sons of Nekoda, six hundred and fifty-two; 61 and of the sons of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Koz, and the sons of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called by their name. 62 These sought their listing among those who were registered by genealogy, but they were not found; therefore they were excluded from the priesthood as defiled. 63 And the governor said to them that they should not eat of the most holy things till a priest could consult with the Urim and Thummim. 64 The whole assembly together was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty, 65 besides their male and female servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven; and they had two hundred men and women singers. 66 Their horses were seven hundred and thirty-six, their mules two hundred and forty-five, 67 their camels four hundred and thirty-five, and their donkeys six thousand seven hundred and twenty. 68 Some of the heads of the fathers’ houses, when they came to the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem, offered freely for the house of God, to erect it in its place: 69 According to their ability, they gave to the treasury for the work sixty-one thousand gold drachmas, five thousand minas of silver, and one hundred priestly garments. 70 So the priests and the Levites, some of the people, the singers, the gatekeepers, and the Nethinim, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities.
You might be saying to yourselves right now, ‘Oh no, he’s going to go over 70 verses today.’ My answer is ‘yep’.
Seventy has a sacred meaning in the Bible that is made up of the factors of two perfect numbers, seven (representing perfection) and ten (representing completeness and God's law). As such, it symbolizes perfect spiritual order carried out with all power. It can also represent a period of judgment.
Seventy (70) elders were appointed by Moses (Numbers 11:16). After reading the covenant God gave him to read to the people, Moses took 70 elders, along with Aaron and his sons, up Mount Sinai to have a special meal with God himself (Exodus 24:9 - 11)!
Ancient Israel spent a total number of 70 years in captivity in Babylon (Jeremiah 29:10). Seventy is also specially connected with Jerusalem. The city kept 70 years of Sabbaths while Judah was in Babylonian captivity (Jeremiah 25:11). Seventy sevens (490 years) were determined upon Jerusalem for it to complete its transgressions, to make an end for sins and for everlasting righteousness to enter it (Daniel 9:24).
Today’s chapter title is ‘Exodus II’. This chapter describes the ‘Exodus’ of God’s people from captivity again. This time it is not from Egypt but from Babylon.
I am amazed that today’s chapter has 70 verses. I see the awesome handprint of our Precious Holy Spirit.
In this chapter we are provided with a list of those who returned from Babylon, taking advantage of Cyrus’ edict. This list must have been recorded early on and deposited in a recognized official place (compare Nehemiah 7.5). While it might be our tendency to take a quick look at the list of names and move on we should not disregard its spiritual lessons. We should recognize that:
• 1). It indicates that God is interested in individuals. He knew the tribal names of everyone who returned. It is a reminder to us that, if we are truly His, we are all numbered by God, and that our names are written in Heaven (Luke 10.20). He has chosen us individually in Christ before the world began (Ephesians 1.4) and recorded our names in the Lamb’s book of life (Revelation 13.8; 21.27). We are ‘written with the righteous’ (Psalm 69.28; Malachi 3.16).
• 2). This was a record of those who were most faithful among God’s people, and not one of them was forgotten before God, even down to the lowliest slave. It is the Old Testament equivalent to the roll of honor in Hebrews 11. Out of zeal for God, and a desire for His glory, these people left their comfortable lives in Babylonia for a country that many of them had never seen, in order to rebuild there God’s Temple, and re-establish God’s people. It was not an easy way that they chose. They would face famine and hardship, disease and violence. They would be reduced therefore almost to poverty, in spite of their grand houses. But they did it because they felt that God had called them. They knew that it was what He wanted them to do.
• 3). To the Jews such a list was of deep interest. It stressed the connection of the new Israel with the old, and the preservation of family names and descent. Indeed, it is probable that many took new names, based on the past, connecting them with their history. It was bringing out that God was restoring His people to the land, a people whose antecedents had been clearly demonstrated. These were the very people who had been removed from the land decades before.
Following these names, we find listed the names of the families which returned from Babylon around this time. These were all able to demonstrate from their genealogies that they were true Israelites who could trace themselves back to pre-exilic times. This is in contrast with those who could not do so (verses 59-60). One importance of this would come out when they sought to claim back family land.
A comparable list can be found in Nehemiah 7.5-73. There are, however, interesting differences An explanation for some, if not all, of the differences is that the two lists represent the list of returnees as prepared on different dates during the first months of arrival, the second one being updated as a result of information submitted from the various clans, because of the arrival of further exiles (e.g. the sons of Azgad). In this updated listing account would be taken of deaths and comings of age, and further arrivals and departures. If Sheshbazzar died in the period between the two lists, we have a good explanation as to why his name was replaced in the twelve by Nahamani (Nehemiah 7.7). Indeed, his death and the subsequent appointment of Zerubbabel may have been a major reason for the updating of the list as the position of the new Israel was consolidated. This would suggest that the original list was the one in Ezra, with that in Nehemiah being the updated one.
As to when the list was compiled there are indications, such as the listing of some by residence, and the reference to ‘everyone to his city’ (verse 1), that it was certainly after they had arrived in Judah and settled down.
(chapter 1 verse 11) All the articles of gold and silver were five thousand four hundred. All these Sheshbazzar took with the captives who were brought from Babylon to Jerusalem.
2 Now these are the people of the province who came back from the captivity, of those who had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away to Babylon, and who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, everyone to his own city.
Putting these three verses together brings out why Sheshbazzar’s name is not mentioned in chapter 2 verse 2. Sheshbazzar has already been mentioned in 1.11. It was he who brought them all up out of the captivity, commencing with the other leaders, and then going on to the full details of the whole. Chapter 1.11 clearly links with chapter 2. Please notice the repetition of ‘the captivity’; the ‘bringing up’ and the ‘coming up’; and the reference to being ‘brought up from Babylon’, having been ‘carried away to Babylon’. There is a deliberate linking of the two verses.
The list is a list and numbering of the adult males of those who had returned from exile in Babylon, (to which they had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar), and had taken up residence in their own cities, taking possession of their own land. They would be sharing these cities with those who had not gone into captivity.
2 Those who came with Zerubbabel were Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel:
If Sheshbazzar is included in the Ezra list, as ‘bringing up to Jerusalem’ those who were named), the number of leaders comes to twelve. It is possible that he died within months of arrival with the result that Nahamani (see Nehemiah 7.7) replaced him in the list to maintain the twelve as representing the twelve tribes of Israel. His early death, after having laid the foundation stone of the Temple (Ezra 5.16), may indeed partly explain why work on the new Temple did not progress. It was he who had directly received the charge to build the Temple.
Zerubbabel certainly at some early stage took over from Sheshbazzar (although not necessarily at that stage officially), for it is he who was responsible for the building of a new altar (3.2), which must have been early on, almost certainly during the first year of the return, and who was prominent when the work of building the new Temple recommenced for a short while in the second year of their return (3.8). He was later described as ‘governor’ when the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah resulted in the final rebuilding of the Temple, but we do not know when the appointment was made, nor over precisely what he governed.
Zerubbabel (a grandson of Jehoiachin - 1 Chronicles 3.9) and Jeshua (Joshua the High Priest - Zechariah 3.1) are well known to us because of their future prominence (Haggai 1.1), but the remainder are unidentifiable on the basis of the information we have. Familiar names like Nehemiah, Seraiah and Mordecai simply indicate the popularity of those names in Jewish circles. They do not refer to those known to us by those names. Bigvai would appear to be a Persian name, but Jews in exile undoubtedly took foreign names, and it may simply indicate that for certain purposes, such as trading with Persia, he had found it useful. Apart from Zerubbabel and Jeshua we have no means of knowing their tribal connection as by the time of the earlier destruction of Jerusalem Judah contained families from all twelve tribes.
The number given is ‘the number of the men of the people of Israel’, which probably indicates the mature males (those over twenty years of age as in Exodus 30.14). It is probable that the sum total in verse 64 (of 42,360) also includes women, which would explain why it is so much higher than the sum of the ages given (in Ezra amounting to 29,818). In view of the numbering of female slaves and female singers, and even of domestic animals, the women of the assembly could hardly have been excluded.
Some submitted their numbers in terms of their family name. Those named were probably heads of families who had lived centuries before, to whom the particular group looked back with respect and awe that there was a tendency for prominent returnees to take the names of their ancestors in order to stress the continuity of the old Israel. Others, mainly Benjamites, were described in terms of their domicile. The list begins with those who were described in terms of family association.
3 the people of Parosh, two thousand one hundred and seventy-two;
A further group of this clan/family returned under Ezra (8.3). Some of the family were among those who would have foreign wives (10.25). One descendant, Pedaiah, helped to rebuild the city walls (Nehemiah 3.25). One of their number, along with others, "sealed" the covenant of Nehemiah as ‘chiefs of the people’ (Nehemiah 10.1, 14)
4 the people of Shephatiah, three hundred and seventy-two;
A well attested Jewish name meaning "Yah has judged".
5 the people of Arah, seven hundred and seventy-five;
In Nehemiah 7 the number given is six hundred and fifty-two. This might suggest that some had returned to their fellow-Jews in Babylon, or that one hundred and twenty-three men had died prematurely, possibly through pestilence or violence, requiring an adjustment to be made in the list used in Nehemiah.
6 the people of Pahath-Moab, of the people of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve;
The sons of Pahath-Moab (‘governor of Moab’) were divided into two families, those of Jeshua and Joab who had possibly been actual sons of Pahath-Moab. Both names were common in Israel/Judah. The ancestor of these returnees had seemingly been governor of Moab when it was under Israel’s jurisdiction. Further members of the clan would return with Ezra (8.4), while Hashub, a "son of Pahath-moab," is named among the repairers of both the wall and the "tower of the furnaces" at Jerusalem (Nehemiah 3.11). Pahath-Moab is the name of one of the signatories who sealed the "sure covenant" of (Nehemiah 10.14).
In Nehemiah 7 the number given is two thousand, eight hundred and eighteen. The increase is explicable in terms of sons coming of age in the period between the two lists, possibly as set off against some who had died. Alternately a few members of the family may have returned in a party which arrived after this first list was made, a party that was mainly made up of members of the family of Azgad.
7 the people of Elam, one thousand two hundred and fifty-four;
The name as such is attested elsewhere in Israel in Nehemiah 12.42. Further members of the family returned with Ezra (8.7). Others were involved with foreign wives (10.26), and one of their number, Shecaniah, was prominent in dealing with the matter (10.2). An Elam connected with the family was a sealant of the sure covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10.14).
8 the people of Zattu, nine hundred and forty-five;
2.8 ‘The sons of Zattu, nine hundred and forty-five.’
The sons of Zattu were involved in marrying foreign wives (10.27) and one was a signatory to Nehemiah’s covenant (Nehemiah 10.14). In Nehemiah 7 the number is eight hundred and forty five. Once again this may be the consequence of some becoming disillusioned and returning to a securer life in Babylon, or the result of deaths by pestilence or violence.
9 the people of Zaccai, seven hundred and sixty;
This may be the same as the family of Zabbai (qere Zaccai) in Nehemiah 3.20, relating to the repairing of the wall, and the family of Bebai, one of whose sons was named Zabbai, who were involved with foreign wives in 10.28.
10 the people of Bani, six hundred and forty-two;
The sons of Bani were involved in taking foreign wives (10.29), as were other ‘sons of Bani’ (10.34), one of those sons was named Bani and another Binnui (10.38). Nehemiah 7 calls them the sons of Binnui and numbers them at six hundred and forty-eight. The difference in name is minimal, the one being an alternative of the other. The numbered members of the family had clearly increased by six.
11 the people of Bebai, six hundred and twenty-three;
Nehemiah 7 has six hundred and twenty-eight, indicating another increased family, this time by five. A further group of the sons of Bebai arrived with Ezra (8.11), while one who was named Bebai sealed the sure covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10.15).
12 the people of Azgad, one thousand two hundred and twenty-two;
The name means "strong is Gad". Nehemiah 7 has two thousand, three hundred and twenty-two, an increase of eleven hundred. This suggests that a further party of the sons of Azgad had arrived after this list in Ezra was made, but prior to Nehemiah’s list. Further sons of Azgad arrived with Ezra (8.12). Azgad was among the leaders who sealed Nehemiah’s sure covenant (Nehemiah 10.15).
13 the people of Adonikam, six hundred and sixty-six;
The name means "my lord has risen up". In Nehemiah 7 there is an increase of one, possibly due to someone coming of age. Further sons of Adonikam arrived with Ezra (8.13).
14 the people of Bigvai, two thousand and fifty-six;
2.14 ‘The sons of Bigvai, two thousand, and fifty-six.’
Nehemiah 7 has two thousand and sixty-seven, an increase of eleven. Once again, the increase could be through men coming of age, and/or as a result of some who had come with the later arrival of sons of Azgad. A further seventy-two males would arrive later under Ezra (8.14). Bigvai was one of those who sealed Nehemiah’s sure covenant.
15 the people of Adin, four hundred and fifty-four;
The name means ‘adorned’. In Nehemiah 7 there is an increase of one, probably because of a coming of age (or a combination of deaths and comings of age). A further group, led by Ebed, the son of Jonathan, arrived with Ezra (8.6). Adin also was one of those who sealed the covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10.16).
16 the people of Ater of Hezekiah, ninety-eight;
‘Of Hezekiah’ distinguishes the sons of Ater here from the sons of Ater were gatekeepers (verse 42). Ater was a sealant of the covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10.17).
17 the people of Bezai, three hundred and twenty-three;
Bezai was a sealant of the covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10.18). In Nehemiah 7 there is an increase of one, presumably through a coming of age, and Bezai, along with Jorah/Hariph, comes after Hashum.
18 the people of Jorah, one hundred and twelve;
In Nehemiah 7 these are given the family name of Hariph. Hariph was a sealant of the covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10.19). Jorah (‘autumn rain’) was probably Hariph’s (‘harvest time’) alternate name.
19 the people of Hashum, two hundred and twenty-three;
Nehemiah 7 gives a number of three hundred and twenty-eight, an increase of one hundred and five. Possibly some had arrived with the later arrival of sons of Azgad, or they may have come in their own party. Sons of Hashum were involved with foreign wives (10.33).
20 the people of Gibbar, ninety-five;
Gibbar means ‘hero’. In Nehemiah 7 the family is called Gibeon.
We now come to those families who submitted their numbers in terms of domicile. This may simply have been because it was easier to prove connection with a pre-exilic town than it was to prove family connection. It may be significant that most of the towns are Benjamite towns, while the exceptions, Bethlehem and Netophah, are very close to Benjamite territory.
21 the people of Bethlehem, one hundred and twenty-three;
Bethlehem (of Judah) was a town five miles south of Jerusalem. The name means ‘house of food (bread)’. It was the town in which David was reared, and one of the places in which Samuel offered sacrifices. This is the first mention of an incoming group in terms of its town. In Nehemiah 7 the sons of Bethlehem and the men of Netophah (verse 22) are listed together as ‘the men of Bethlehem and Netophah’. This suggest that at the time of the second list one submitter submitted the increase in the number of the two groups as a combined figure, necessitating the conjunction of the two in the list. In Nehemiah 7 they number in total one hundred and eighty eight, as against a sum of one hundred and seventy nine here. The increase of nine may be due to comings of age, or to a few more of the clan arriving with the later arriving sons of Azgah.
22 the men of Netophah, fifty-six;
Netophah was seemingly also in Judah and was the birthplace of two of David's heroes, Maharai and Heleb (2 Samuel 23.28, 29), and also of Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, one of the captains who came to offer allegiance to Gedaliah (2 Kings 25.23; Jeremiah 40.8). In 1 Chronicles 9.16 "the villages of the Netophathites" are mentioned as the dwelling places of certain Levites, whilst in Nehemiah 12.28 they are the dwelling places of some of the "sons of the singers." Being placed in the list between Bethlehem and Anathoth it would appear to be near Bethlehem, something confirmed by the uniting of the numbers in Nehemiah 7.
23 the men of Anathoth, one hundred and twenty-eight;
Anathoth was a town which lay between Michmash and Jerusalem (Isaiah 10.30), in the territory of Benjamin, being about two and a quarter mile north east of Jerusalem. It was assigned to the Levites (Joshua 21.18). It was the native town of Abiathar (1 Kings 2.26), and of the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1.1), and it was near Anathoth that Jeremiah bought a field in order to demonstrate that land would once more be bought and sold in Judah (Jeremiah 32.7). Two of David's distinguished soldiers, Abiezer (2 Samuel 23.27) and Jehu (1 Chronicles 12.3), also came from Anathoth. As we gather here, it was again occupied by Benjamites after the return from the Exile (Nehemiah 11.32).
24 the people of Azmaveth, forty-two;
Nehemiah 7 has ‘the men of Beth-azmaveth’, which suggests the name of a town. Azmaveth was the name of one of David's 30 mighty men (2 Samuel 23.31), and of the father of two warriors who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chronicles 12.3). It was also the name of a descendant of Jonathan, the son of Saul (1 Chronicles 8.36; 9.42), and of one who was set over David’s treasures (1 Chronicles 27.25).
25 the people of Kirjath Arim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred and forty-three;
These three cities (the first as Kiriath-jearim - the city of the forests) were members of the Gibeonite confederacy (Joshua 9.17), and were in Judah/Benjamin (Joshua 15.60). Kiriath-jearim was on the border of Judah and Benjamin and was also known as Kiriath-Baal) (Joshua 18.14-15). In Joshua 15.9-11 it was also known as Baalah). It had clearly been a sanctuary of the Canaanite god Baal. It was in Judah, although if we identify it with Kiriath, it was also seen as in Benjamin (Joshua 18.28). It was in Kiriath-jearim that the ark rested for twenty years (1 Samuel 7.1-2).
26 the people of Ramah and Geba, six hundred and twenty-one;
Nehemiah 7 has ‘the men of --’. Ramah (‘the height’) was Ramah of Benjamin, near Bethel, in Gibeon and Beeroth (Joshua 18.25). It was here that the Levite and his concubine planned to rest for the night (Judges 19.13). Deborah the prophetess lived close by (Judges 4.5). Here Baasha of Israel built a fortress, which Asa of Judah demolished (1 Kings 15.17, 21-22). It was here that Nebuzaradan gathered the people being taken into exile after the fall of Jerusalem, and from which Jeremiah was released (Jeremiah 40.1). Geba (‘a hill’) was in Benjamin, seven miles north of Jerusalem. It was assigned to the Levites (Joshua 21.17), and from its slopes Jonathan, with his armour-bearer, revealed himself to the Philistines in a daring attack (1 Samuel 14.1). It was fortified by King Asa (1 Kings 15.22) as on the northern border of Judah (2 Kings 23.8). From here came some of ‘the sons of the singers’ who sang at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 12.29). Both Ramah and Geba are both described as occupied by the sons of Benjamin in the time of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 11.31, 33).
27 the men of Michmas, one hundred and twenty-two;
Michmas was also known as Michmash. It was a town in the territory of Benjamin, and its settlement by Benjamites after the exile is confirmed in Nehemiah 11.31. It was apparently not of sufficient importance in the time of Joshua to secure mention in the list of cities given in Joshua 18.21 ff. Michmash first appears as occupied, along with the Mount of Bethel, by Saul with 2,000 men, at the time when Jonathan, advancing from Gibeah, smote the Philistine garrison in Geba (1 Samuel 13.2). To avenge this injury, the Philistines came up in force and encamped in Michmash (1 Samuel 13.5, 16), from which they sent out ‘spoilers’. Saul and Jonathan with 600 men meanwhile held Geba, which had been taken from the Philistine garrison (1 Sam 13:16). During the Assyrian advance on Jerusalem in Isaiah 10.28, they ‘laid up their stores at Michmash, crossed the pass, and spent the night at Geba’. Thus the two sites are fairly close to each other. Michmash is about 7 miles North of Jerusalem.
28 the men of Bethel and Ai, two hundred and twenty-three;
The list of Nehemiah 7 shows one hundred less. This reduction in numbers may have been due to an outbreak of pestilence or violence, or it may have been caused by some who were dissatisfied with the situation and returned to Babylon.
Ai was east of Bethel, but close enough for both to be seen from a mid-point (Genesis 12.8). Bethel and Ai were the first two towns that the Israelites encountered when they went up the pass after destroying Jericho. Ai was taken but, while Bethel’s army was defeated, Bethel was probably not captured at that time (Joshua 8). Bethel (formerly called Luz) was about 12 miles north of Jerusalem. Abraham built an altar and offered sacrifices in its vicinity (Genesis 12.8). It was in its vicinity also that Jacob had his dream of the steps leading up to Heaven. It is named as a border town in the lists of both Joseph (Ephraim) and Benjamin (Joshua 16.1-2; 18.13) and was possibly initially shared by the two tribes. The Ark rested there for a time in the early days (Judges 20.18), and it was included in Samuel’s circuit as judge (1 Samuel 7.16). After the division into Judah and Northern Israel it became an important shrine in Northern Israel, and was roundly criticised by the prophets for its idolatrous associations (1 Kings 12.29; Amos 7.13). It became part of Judah in the days of Josiah (2 Kings 23.15).
29 the people of Nebo, fifty-two;
Nehemiah 7 speaks of Nebo as Nebo Acher (or ‘the other Nebo’). The town possibly had the longer name of Nebo Acher to distinguish it from Nebo in Reuben (Numbers 32.3, 38). From its position here it would appear to have been a Benjamite town. It may be represented by Beit Nuba, 12 miles northwest of Jerusalem.
30 the people of Magbish, one hundred and fifty-six;
These are omitted in Nehemiah 7. No town of this name is known, and it may have been a relatively small one. It may be that these sons of Magbish had decided to return to their fellow-clan members in Babylonia, or that the town had been raided and its inhabitants massacred. Alternately it may have been wiped out by a virulent disease. Some relate the name to Magpiash, one of the sealants of the sure covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10.20) which, if it is correct, might suggest that some returned later.
31 the people of the other Elam, one thousand two hundred and fifty-four;
Nehemiah 7.33 speaks of ‘the other Nebo’ or ‘Nebo Acher’, so that Elam Acher may, on the same basis, be the name of a town. Certainly, from its position here Elam Acher would appear to be the name of a Benjamite town (a Benjamite of the name is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 8.24).
32 the people of Harim, three hundred and twenty;
‘Sons of Harim’ are mentioned among those who married foreign wives (Ezra 10.31), and we find an Harim among those who sealed Nehemiah’s covenant (Nehemiah 10.27), although it may be that it was sealed in the family name. In Nehemiah 3.11 Malchijah, son of Harim, is mentioned as one of the wall-builders. These ‘sons of Harim’ may well, however, have been named after their town.
33 the people of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred and twenty-five;
In Nehemiah 7 this comes after the sons of Jericho, and they number seven hundred and twenty-one, no doubt due to deaths. Ono and Lod with their ‘towns’ are said to have been ‘built’ (fortified?) by Shemed, a Benjamite (1 Chronicles 8.12). The towns lay in the Shephelah (lowland hills), perhaps in ge ha-charashim, "the valley of craftsmen", and their habitation by Benjamites after the Exile is mentioned in Nehemiah 11.35. It was in one of the villages in the plain of Ono that Sanballat and his friends vainly tried to trick Nehemiah into a conference to do him harm (Nehemiah 6.2). In the New Testament Lod appears as Lydda. Here the apostle Peter visited the saints and healed the palsied Arenas, and from here he was summoned by messengers from Joppa on the death of Dorcas (Acts 9.32).
34 the people of Jericho, three hundred and forty-five;
Jericho was probably named after the god Yarich. It was in the Jordan rift valley in Benjamite territory (Joshua 18.21), at the bottom of the pass that led up to Jerusalem and was known as ‘the city of the Palm Trees’ (Deuteronomy 34.3; 2 Chronicles 28.15). It was the first ‘city’ captured by Joshua after crossing the Jordan. Elijah had a school of the prophets there (2 Kings 2.5). The men of Jericho, which was by then only a small town, assisted Nehemiah in the building of the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 3.2).
35 the people of Senaah, three thousand six hundred and thirty.
In Nehemiah 7 these number three thousand, nine hundred and thirty. This suggests that a fairly large party of them accompanied the later arrivals of the sons of Azgad or came in their own caravan. In Nehemiah 3.3 the name occurs with the definite article, ha-senaah, referring to a wall builder. The people may be identical with the Benjamite clan Hassenuah (1 Chronicles 9.7).
The priests were divided up into four courses, as opposed to the twenty-four courses pertaining under David (1 Chronicles 24.1-19). But these four courses would eventually in the future be divided up into twenty-four under the names of the old courses. The number of priestly families as a whole amount to four thousand, two hundred and eighty-nine, roughly a tenth of the total of forty two thousand, three hundred and sixty who returned, and an even larger percentage of the named families. This was to be expected as they had a greater incentive for returning to Jerusalem. There would be a further addition to priestly numbers when some returned along with Ezra (8.2).
36 The priests: the sons of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred and seventy-three;
The Priests are separately designated as a group. These were able to demonstrate their ancestry, and therefore their legitimacy to act in the forthcoming Temple.
Jedaiah (‘Yah knows’) was the head of the second order of priests in the time of David (1 Chronicles 24.7). The addition of the statement ‘of the house of Jeshua’ possibly indicates that a different Jedaiah was in mind, one who was descended from Jeshua, the head of the ninth order of priests (1 Chronicles 24.11). Jedaiah was a very popular name among the priests. For example, two Jedaiahs are named as priests who came with Zerubbabel from Babylon (Nehemiah 12.1, 6-7), who were chiefs of priests in the days of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, the High Priest under Zerubbabel (Nehemiah 12.1, 7). Furthermore, two Jedaiahs as family names are found in the list of priests who were ‘heads of fathers’ houses’ in the days of Joiakim who succeeded Jeshua as High Priest (Nehemiah 12.12, 19, 21). In this regard we should note that there was a tendency for names to be passed on to grandsons. A Jedaiah is also named as one of the priests who later took up dwelling in Jerusalem (Nehemiah 11.10; 1 Chronicles 9/10). A Jedaiah (presumably one of those mentioned in Nehemiah 12.6-7) was involved in the symbolic crowning of Jeshua the High Priest as ‘the Branch’ in Zechariah 6.10, 14.
Jeshua was a very popular name. Jeshua was the name of a Levite who lived in Hezekiah’s time (2 Chronicles 31.15). Jeshua the son of Jozadak was the name of the High Priest alongside Zerubbabel (e.g. Ezra 3.2; Zechariah 3; etc), and in this very same list a Jeshua is the son of Pahath-Moab (2.6), whilst another is a head of a Levite family (2.40). Another Jeshua had, along with others, oversight of workmen restoring the Temple in the early days of the return (Ezra 3.9), whilst still another, a Levite, was among those who helped the people to understand the Law in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Nehemiah 8.7). It was this latter who, along with others, led worship, and called on the people to worship (Nehemiah 9.4-5), and may have been the father of ‘Jozabad, the son of Jeshua’, whom, along with others, received the silver, gold and vessels for use in the Temple (Ezra 8.33). Jeshua, the son of Azaniah, was one of those who sealed the sure covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10.9). Nehemiah 12.10 refers to a Jeshua who came up with Zerubbabel (see Ezra 2.40 above), while a further Jeshua, the son of Kadmiel, is referred to in Nehemiah 12.24 as present at the dedication of the walls in the time of Nehemiah. The famous Jeshua the son of Nun is mentioned in Nehemiah 8.17.
37 the sons of Immer, one thousand and fifty-two;
Immer was the name of the sixteenth order of priests in David’s time (1 Chronicles 24.14). Two ‘sons of Immer’, Hanani and Zebediah married foreign wives (10.20). Zadok, the ‘son’ of Immer’, who lived in Jerusalem, helped in the building of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Nehemiah 3.29). Also living in Jerusalem was Amashsai, the son of Azazel, the son of Ahzai, the son of Meshillemoth, the son of Immer, a line (which probably only included prominent ancestors) that evidences the fact that Immer was long dead (Nehemiah 11.13). Jeremiah 20.1 speaks of a ‘Pashhur, the son of Immer’ living before the Babylonian Exile. In 2.59 we learn of a place in Babylonia which was called Immer, the returnees from which could not prove their genealogy.
38 the sons of Pashhur, one thousand two hundred and forty-seven;
Pashhur, which means ‘one who splits, one who cleaves’, was a common Jewish name. Six ‘sons of Pashhur’ married foreign wives (10.22). A Pashhur also sealed the sure covenant of Nehemiah in Nehemiah 10.3.
We have already seen that a Pashhur who was ‘the son of Immer’ lived before the Babylonian Exile, and treated Jeremiah the prophet very badly (Jeremiah 20.1-3). There was also at that time a Pashhur, the son of Malchijah (Jeremiah 21.1; 38.1; Nehemiah 11.12), and a Gedaliah the son of a different Pashhur (Jeremiah 38.1) who were also antagonistic towards Jeremiah. However, none of these indicate the Pashhur who was the source of the clan name. All that they demonstrate is that Pashhur was a common Jewish name likely to have been borne by a clan chief.
39 the sons of Harim, one thousand and seventeen.
Harim was the name of the third order of priests in the days of David (1 Chronicles 24.8), and this probably indicates their descent from him. In 10.21 the ‘sons of Harim’ covenant to put away foreign wives, and in Nehemiah 12.15 they are listed among the priests who ‘went up with Zerubbabel’. A priestly Harim seals the covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10.27).
We have already had ‘sons of Harim’ referred to in verse 32, but they were of a non-priestly family, and there Harim was possibly a town. Some of the sons of Harim also married foreign wives (10.31), while one sealed the covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10.27).
Malchijah, the son of Harim, was one of the wall-builders in Nehemiah 3.11.
Compared with 4,289 priests who returned, only 74 Levites returned. Ezra later gathered those who were returning with him he says, ‘I viewed the people and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi’, a situation which he set about remedying (8.15). The Levites were clearly not enthusiastic about returning. This is partly explicable by the fact that as the Levites only assisted the priests in worship, it was something not so appealing as being a fully-fledged priest (as 8.15 confirms), and partly by the fact that the priests would have been exiled in large numbers as people of importance, whilst the Levites may well have been seen as ‘the poor of the land’, and thus not exiled in large numbers. The lowly state of the Levites as compared with the priests is brought out in Ezekiel 44.10-31. It is clear from Ezekiel 44 that the Levites bore a large part of the blame for the encouragement of idolatrous worship in pre-Exilic days.
40 The Levites: the sons of Jeshua and Kadmiel, of the sons of Hodaviah, seventy-four.
Details are now given of the generality of Levites, who would assist the priests in worship, who were among those who returned. This will then be followed by the more specialist singers and gatekeepers, who may not at this time have described themselves as ‘Levites’, although they were originally.
The two orders of Levites who returned are the sons of Jeshua, (the son of Azaniah - Nehemiah 10.4) and the sons of Kadmiel, who was ‘of the sons of Hodaviah’. According to Ezra 3.9 Jeshua and Kadmiel were chiefs of two orders of Levites in the times of Zerubbabel and Joshua, who had oversight of the workmen of the house of God. Both played their part in the ceremony of praising God for the return (Nehemiah 9.4-5), and in sealing the covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10.9) and these names reoccur as names of orders of Levites in Nehemiah 12.8.
The singers were a special order of Levites who according to 1 Chronicles 6.31-32 had been responsible for leading the singing and musical accompaniment in Tabernacle and Temple worship.
41 The singers: the sons of Asaph, one hundred and twenty-eight.
It would appears that of the three orders in the time of Solomon (2 Chronicles 5.12) only ‘sons of Asaph’ had returned at this stage. It is, of course, always possible that of the musicians only sons of Asaph had been exiled. In 3.10-11 the lead in singing and playing was taken by Mattaniah, a ‘son of Asaph’. In Nehemiah 11.22-23 we learn of ‘the sons of Asaph, the singers, over the house of God’, and they were so important that ‘the king’ gave commandment concerning them, and they had a settled provision as every day required.
The Gatekeepers were another special order of Levites. In 1 Chronicles 9.17 we are informed that in earlier pre-Exilic days the gatekeepers included ‘Shallum and Akkab and Talmon, and Ahiman and their brothers. Shallum was the chief’. These were the ones who dwelt in Jerusalem. Others dwelt in their own towns and could be called on at special times (1 Chronicles 9.25). The gatekeepers were responsible for opening the Temple doors each morning, watching over the chambers and treasuries, having charge of the vessels of service, having responsibility for the furniture, the vessels of the sanctuary, the fine flour and wine and oil, and the frankincense and spices (1 Chronicles 9.26-30).
42 The sons of the gatekeepers: the sons of Shallum, the sons of Ater, the sons of Talmon, the sons of Akkub, the sons of Hatita, and the sons of Shobai, one hundred and thirty-nine in all.
The gatekeepers are listed in six orders, and in the case of three of them (Shallum, Talmon and Akkab) their descent is from the gatekeepers mentioned above who dwelt in Jerusalem.
The Nethinim (given ones) probably had their origin in the Gibeonites who were forced to become ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water’ for the Tabernacle (Joshua 9.27). Whoever they were they were ‘given to God’. They would later be added to by prisoners of war and other slaves, as 8.29 makes clear when it speaks of them as ‘those whom David and the princes had given for the service of the Levites’. The Nethinim are distinguished in the list from ‘Solomon’s servants’ (verse 55), but included with these in the final total of two (verse 58), they thus clearly had similar functions. Nevertheless, their status was such that they were exempt from taxes (7.24), had their own quarters in Jerusalem (3.26, 31), and took the oath connected with the sure covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10.28-31).
43 The Nethinim: the sons of Ziha, the sons of Hasupha, the sons of Tabbaoth,
The families of the Nethinim are now listed. There are thirty-five of them (in Nehemiah thirty two), and therefore, in view of the small total number (verse 58), there were a limited number in each family. This ties in with them as not having a long ancestry. The number of non-Israelite names is very illuminating.
As has been stated, while having a lowly place among the Temple personnel, these, along with the Levites, singers and gatekeepers, were exempted from taxes (7.24), had their own quarters in Jerusalem (3.26, 31), and took the oath connected with the sure covenant of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10.28-31).
44 the sons of Keros, the sons of Siaha, the sons of Padon, 45 the sons of Lebanah, the sons of Hagabah, the sons of Akkub, 46 the sons of Hagab, the sons of Shalmai, the sons of Hanan, 47 the sons of Giddel, the sons of Gahar, the sons of Reaiah, 48 the sons of Rezin, the sons of Nekoda, the sons of Gazzam, 49 the sons of Uzza, the sons of Paseah, the sons of Besai, 50 the sons of Asnah, the sons of Meunim, the sons of Nephusim, 51 the sons of Bakbuk, the sons of Hakupha, the sons of Harhur, 52 the sons of Bazluth, the sons of Mehida, the sons of Harsha, 53 the sons of Barkos, the sons of Sisera, the sons of Tamah, 54 the sons of Neziah, and the sons of Hatipha.
Tabbaoth, possibly the people of Tabbath (Judges 7.22). Meunim (2 Chronicles 26.7) and Nephisim (1 Chronicles 5.19) may well be the names of enemy tribes from which these were captured. The sons of Akkub, Hagab and Asnah are omitted in Nehemiah 7, possibly having returned to Babylonia, or possibly having been wiped out by pestilence or violence (they would be few in number). For Shamlai Nehemiah 7.48 has Salmai. For Nephisim Nehemiah 7.52 has Nephusheism, an alternative name.
The fact that the total of the sons Of Solomon’s servants was combined with the total of the Nethinim (verse 58) suggests that they had similar duties. The title ‘servants’ is not necessarily derogatory. Those who were the highest in the land could be called ‘servants of the king’. They are not mentioned outside the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, nevertheless it cannot be doubted that they had been in existence in the pre-Exilic period. We have no mean of knowing how, or whether, their duties differed from those of the Nethinim. They are probably included in the exemption from taxes of 7.24, and may well, when on duty, have resided in Ophel like the Nethinim.
It is, however, clear that once the Temple was built on its comparatively huge scale (as compared with the Tabernacle), more ‘servants would be required, something which Solomon no doubt ensured either using foreign captives, or by forcing the Canaanites into such service, having duly circumcised them. Gradually the positions, possibly invidious at first, would have come to be seen as honoured ones. Service in the Temple would have been seen as the highest form of service
55 The sons of Solomon’s servants: the sons of Sotai, the sons of Sophereth, the sons of Peruda, 56 the sons of Jaala, the sons of Darkon, the sons of Giddel, 57 the sons of Shephatiah, the sons of Hattil, the sons of Pochereth of Zebaim, and the sons of Ami.
There are slight, but immaterial, differences in form between these names and those in Nehemiah 7.57-59. Hassophereth (‘the scribes) become Sophereth. Peruda becomes Perida, Jaalah becomes Jaala, Amon becomes Ami. They are probably simply due to variant spellings. The names Hassophereth meaning ‘the scribes’ and Pochereth-hazzebaim meaning ‘the gazelle-keepers’ may indicate something of their special duties.
58 All the Nethinim and the children of Solomon’s servants were three hundred and ninety-two.
A combined total is now given of the Nethinim and the sons of Solomon’s servants. Their ‘families/clans’ were clearly limited in size.
59 And these were the ones who came up from Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Cherub, Addan, and Immer; but they could not identify their father’s house or their genealogy, whether they were of Israel:
Note the two things that they could not do, they could not trace their father’s houses in Israel, and they could not prove that they were descended from Israelites. This would appear to confirm that the previous names have been names of pre-Exilic father’s houses.
It may well be that these people were the product of earlier exiles so that they had been in Babylonia for a long time. Thus, the only method they had of attempting to demonstrate their Jewishness was by the naming of cities or districts known to have received exiles from Israel/Judah, combined of course with their circumcision and observance of the Sabbath.
60 the sons of Delaiah, the sons of Tobiah, and the sons of Nekoda, six hundred and fifty-two;
The name Delaiah was a good Israelite name. It was the name of a descendant of David in 1 Chronicles 3.24, of the leader of the twenty third order of David’s priests (1 Chronicles 24.18), and of one of the princes who pleaded with Jehoiakim not to destroy the roll containing the prophecies of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36.12, 25). It was also the name of the father of the wary Shemaiah in Nehemiah 6.10. But it was, of course no proof of Israelite ancestry.
In contrast Tobiah and Nekoda are not found directly as Israelite names. Tobiah (‘Yah is good’) certainly has connections with Yahwism, but as far as we know was borne only by the Ammonite deputy of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria (Nehemiah 2.10; 4.7; 6.1, 14, 17), who was probably a Yahwist of the debased (idolatrous) kind (4.2), for he named his son Jeho-hanan (Nehemiah 6.17). Nekoda is the name of the father’s house of one of the Nethinim (verse 48), but that may have been a foreign name.
Far more important was the situation of the priests who could not demonstrate their ancestry, for this excluded them from priestly office, and from reception of priestly benefits such as the tithe, and the parts of offerings and sacrifices particular to the priests. They would also presumably be liable to pay taxes. The exclusion was necessary because for a non-Aaronide to participate in the priesthood would have been seen as a major sacrilege (compare Numbers 16). The risk could not be taken.
61 and of the sons of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Koz, and the sons of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called by their name.
Those now mentioned are distinguished from the non-Priests mentioned. These claimed to be sons of the priests.
The name Hakkoz was a good priestly name being borne by the seventh order of David’s priests (1 Chronicles 24.10). It was also the name of one of Judah’s descendants. But clearly the family could not prove its ancestry.
Barzillai was a wealthy Israelite, a Gileadite, who assisted David during the rebellion of his son Absalom (2 Samuel 12.31-39). But he was not an Aaronide. The argument of the sons of Barzillai was that they were Aaronides, but that the Barzillai in question had taken the name of his wife’s family, presumably for inheritance purposes. At this time the name change was preventing proof of his ancestry. A second consideration might also have been that having inherited wealth he had disqualified himself as a priest since the priest’s only inheritance was to be YHWH (Numbers 18.20).
62 These sought their listing among those who were registered by genealogy, but they were not found; therefore, they were excluded from the priesthood as defiled.
It would appear that records of ancestry of the priests had been taken to Babylon by the captives or may even have been memorised and written down once they arrived there and that when these were consulted no trace could be found of the above families.
In consequence of their failure to prove their ancestry they were considered ‘polluted’ (not proven as Aaronides and therefore unfit to serve) and therefore excluded from the current priesthood. They would, of course, be accepted as Israelites on the same basis as those above. As they were presumably circumcised they would have the same rights as proselytes to take part in the worship of YHWH, and to be adopted as Israelites (Exodus 12.48). It is striking that no number is given in respect of these. Their status was pending.
63 And the governor said to them that they should not eat of the most holy things till a priest could consult with the Urim and Thummim.
The Tirshatha was clearly in control of matters, and it was his decision, not to exclude them forever, but to exclude them from eating of the priest’s portions until their position could be determined by the use of the Urim and Thummim, utilised by ‘a (High) Priest’. The Urim and Thummim were the sacred lots carried in the High Priest’s breastpouch (Exodus 28.30). These would appear to have given the answers of ‘yes’ or ‘no answer’.
‘The Tirshatha.’ This would appear to be a Persian title meaning ‘governor’. Indeed Sheshbazzar was probably officially appointed as Tirshatha, with ‘governor’ (5.14) being an interpretation of it. The term is also used in the Book of Nehemiah of Sheshbazzar (7.65, 70) and Nehemiah (8.9; 10.1).
64 The whole assembly together was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty,
The sum total of all who represented Israel comes to 42,360. The males enumerated above come to 29,818, plus whatever number the defrocked priests came to. That leaves just over 12,000 to be accounted for. But since in the next verse female slaves and female singing women are counted, and in the following verses domestic animals are numbered, it would be quite remarkable if the female members of Israel were ignored. Indeed it would have been a direct insult. Thus, we may see them as represented in the remaining 12,000. If it then be argued that 12,000 females hardly suffices when there are 30,000 males we can reply, firstly that many of the males might well have left their families behind, intending to bring them to Judea once they had satisfactorily settled and were confident that they would be able to feed them, and secondly that many of the males who made the decision to come might well have been unmarried. It was the unmarried ones who would be more prepared to take the risks involved in returning. Indeed, this lack of females might well have been part of the cause of several them married foreign wives. But, of course, there would be Israelite women who had remained in the land who would also be available.
65 besides their male and female servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven; and they had two hundred men and women singers.
These were additional to the assembly of Israel. This very much points then to the fact that these were slaves. Israelite servants would have been counted as part of the assembly. The singing men and women would not be Temple singers, already counted in verse 41, but singers for entertainment in wealthy households and for purposes of mourning (2 Samuel 19.35; Ecclesiastes 2.8; 2 Chronicles 35.25). Thus, the total number of slaves was approximately seven thousand, five hundred and thirty seven. These would not be Israelite slaves. Such were forbidden in Israel (Leviticus 25.39-41). The ownership of these slaves points to a certain initial level of wealth in the restored community, although this would soon be depleted by famine and robbery (Haggai 1.6, 9-12).
66 Their horses were seven hundred and thirty-six, their mules two hundred and forty-five, 67 their camels four hundred and thirty-five, and their donkeys six thousand seven hundred and twenty.
These are possibly enumerated as evidence of wealth, or because they were having faithfully served the needs of the community on their journey. The camels and asses especially would have been necessary in order to carry the possessions of the emigrants. The horses and mules would have been for the most important to ride on. It is noteworthy that cattle, sheep and goats are unmentioned. This would tend to support the idea that there was in the statement an indication of their gratitude to God in providing them with means of transportation. It was an indication that God was with His people. He had not allowed them to struggle on without help.
68 Some of the heads of the fathers’ houses, when they came to the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem, offered freely for the house of God, to erect it in its place:
Note the dual emphasis on ‘the house of YHWH’, ‘the house of God’. This is what the next four chapter will be all about, the erection of the house of YHWH. ‘They came to the house of YHWH.’ By this time the Temple mount was so sacred that it could be described as ‘the house of YHWH’, even though His house, as the ‘house of God’ had not yet been erected. Sacrifices and offerings had continued to be made here by dedicated priests even during the Exile. Compare how Jacob could speak of the place where he had his vision and made his offering to God as ‘the house of God’ (Genesis 28.17) even though there was no building there.
69 According to their ability, they gave to the treasury for the work sixty-one thousand gold drachmas, five thousand minas of silver, and one hundred priestly garments.
What was given ‘into the treasury of the work’ (the Temple building fund) was ‘in accordance with their ability’. This is a reminder that God never requires of us more than we are able to give.
70 So the priests and the Levites, some of the people, the singers, the gatekeepers, and the Nethinim, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities.
This confirms what was said in verse 1 that all returned to their own cities. The people are listed in terms of previous designations, the priests, the Levites, some of the people (this my have in mind that the remainder were still in exile, or simply that some did not choose to dwell in cities, or that some could not dwell in their cities because they were already fully occupied (e.g. by the Edomites in the south) or more likely that some could not identify which were their own cities e.g. those who were unsure of their ancestry), the singers and the gatekeepers and the Nethinim (with the son of Solomon’s servants included with the Nethinim, as they were in the totals). All these, apart from those who chose not to do so, or could not identify them, dwelt in their cities. Thus ‘all Israel’, as summed up in the previous descriptions, were in their cities. The return was complete. Israel was once more in place in accordance with God’s allocation after the conquest. The summary is a cry of triumph. Israel has been restored!
