Nehemiah 7: 1 – 73
Neighborhood Watch
7 Then it was, when the wall was built, and I had hung the doors, when the gatekeepers, the singers, and the Levites had been appointed, 2 that I gave the charge of Jerusalem to my brother Hanani, and Hananiah the leader of the citadel, for he was a faithful man and feared God more than many. 3 And I said to them, “Do not let the gates of Jerusalem be opened until the sun is hot; and while they stand guard, let them shut and bar the doors; and appoint guards from among the inhabitants of Jerusalem, one at his watch station and another in front of his own house.” 4 Now the city was large and spacious, but the people in it were few, and the houses were not rebuilt. 5 Then my God put it into my heart to gather the nobles, the rulers, and the people, that they might be registered by genealogy. And I found a register of the genealogy of those who had come up in the first return, and found written in it: 6 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, and who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, everyone to his city. 7 Those who came with Zerubbabel were Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahamani, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispereth, Bigvai, Nehum, and Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: 8 the sons of Parosh, two thousand one hundred and seventy-two; 9 the sons of Shephatiah, three hundred and seventy-two; 10 the sons of Arah, six hundred and fifty-two; 11 the sons of Pahath-Moab, of the sons of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and eighteen; 12 the sons of Elam, one thousand two hundred and fifty-four; 13 the sons of Zattu, eight hundred and forty-five; 14 the sons of Zaccai, seven hundred and sixty; 15 the sons of Binnui, six hundred and forty-eight; 16 the sons of Bebai, six hundred and twenty-eight; 17 the sons of Azgad, two thousand three hundred and twenty-two; 18 the sons of Adonikam, six hundred and sixty-seven; 19 the sons of Bigvai, two thousand and sixty-seven; 20 the sons of Adin, six hundred and fifty-five; 21 the sons of Ater of Hezekiah, ninety-eight; 22 the sons of Hashum, three hundred and twenty-eight; 23 the sons of Bezai, three hundred and twenty-four; 24 the sons of Hariph, one hundred and twelve; 25 the sons of Gibeon, ninety-five; 26 the men of Bethlehem and Netophah, one hundred and eighty-eight; 27 the men of Anathoth, one hundred and twenty-eight; 28 the men of Beth Azmaveth, forty-two; 29 the men of Kirjath Jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred and forty-three; 30 the men of Ramah and Geba, six hundred and twenty-one; 31 the men of Michmas, one hundred and twenty-two; 32 the men of Bethel and Ai, one hundred and twenty-three; 33 the men of the other Nebo, fifty-two; 34 the sons of the other Elam, one thousand two hundred and fifty-four; 35 the sons of Harim, three hundred and twenty; 36 the sons of Jericho, three hundred and forty-five; 37 the sons of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred and twenty-one; 38 the sons of Senaah, three thousand nine hundred and thirty. 39 The priests: the sons of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred and seventy-three; 40 the sons of Immer, one thousand and fifty-two; 41 the sons of Pashhur, one thousand two hundred and forty-seven; 42 the sons of Harim, one thousand and seventeen. 43 The Levites: the sons of Jeshua, of Kadmiel, and of the sons of Hodevah, seventy-four. 44 The singers: the sons of Asaph, one hundred and forty-eight. 45 The gatekeepers: the sons of Shallum, the sons of Ater, the sons of Talmon, the sons of Akkub, the sons of Hatita, the sons of Shobai, one hundred and thirty-eight. 46 The Nethinim: the sons of Ziha, the sons of Hasupha, the sons of Tabbaoth, 47 the sons of Keros, the sons of Sia, the sons of Padon, 48 the sons of Lebana, the sons of Hagaba, the sons of Salmai, 49 the sons of Hanan, the sons of Giddel, the sons of Gahar, 50 the sons of Reaiah, the sons of Rezin, the sons of Nekoda, 51 the sons of Gazzam, the sons of Uzza, the sons of Paseah, 52 the sons of Besai, the sons of Meunim, the sons of Nephishesim, 53 the sons of Bakbuk, the sons of Hakupha, the sons of Harhur, 54 the sons of Bazlith, the sons of Mehida, the sons of Harsha, 55 the sons of Barkos, the sons of Sisera, the sons of Tamah, 56 the sons of Neziah, and the sons of Hatipha. 57 The sons of Solomon’s servants: the sons of Sotai, the sons of Sophereth, the sons of Perida, 58 the sons of Jaala, the sons of Darkon, the sons of Giddel, 59 the sons of Shephatiah, the sons of Hattil, the sons of Pochereth of Zebaim, and the sons of Amon. 60 All the Nethinim, and the sons of Solomon’s servants, were three hundred and ninety-two. 61 And these were the ones who came up from Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Cherub, Addon, and Immer, but they could not identify their father’s house nor their lineage, whether they were of Israel: 62 the sons of Delaiah, the sons of Tobiah, the sons of Nekoda, six hundred and forty-two; 63 and of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Koz, the sons of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called by their name. 64 These sought their listing among those who were registered by genealogy, but it was not found; therefore, they were excluded from the priesthood as defiled. 65 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. 66 Altogether the whole assembly was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty, 67 besides their male and female servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven; and they had two hundred and forty-five men and women singers. 68 Their horses were seven hundred and thirty-six, their mules two hundred and forty-five, 69 their camels four hundred and thirty-five, and donkeys six thousand seven hundred and twenty. 70 And some of the heads of the fathers’ houses gave to the work. The governor gave to the treasury one thousand gold drachmas, fifty basins, and five hundred and thirty priestly garments. 71 Some of the heads of the fathers’ houses gave to the treasury of the work twenty thousand gold drachmas, and two thousand two hundred silver minas. 72 And that which the rest of the people gave was twenty thousand gold drachmas, two thousand silver minas, and sixty-seven priestly garments. 73 So the priests, the Levites, the gatekeepers, the singers, some of the people, the Nethinim, and all Israel dwelt in their cities. When the seventh month came, the children of Israel were in their cities.
A neighborhood watch or town watch also called a crime watch is an organized group of civilians devoted to crime and vandalism prevention within a neighborhood.
The aim of neighborhood watch includes educating residents of a community on security and safety and achieving safe and secure neighborhoods. However, when a criminal activity is suspected, members are encouraged to report to authorities, and not intervene.
In the United States neighborhood watch builds on the concept of a town watch from Colonial America.
The town watch program is like that of the neighborhood watch, the major difference is that the Town Watch tend to actively patrol in pseudo-uniforms, i.e. marked vests or jackets and caps, and is equipped with two-way radios to directly contact the local police. The Town Watch serves as an auxiliary to the police which provides weapons, equipment, and training. The town watch usually returns their gear at the end of their duty.
Like the town watchman of colonial America, each civilian must take an active interest in protecting his or her neighbors and be willing to give his or her time and effort to this volunteer activity.
The current American system of neighborhood watches began developing in the late 1960’s as a response to the escalating crime in New York City. The inspired call was for people to keep their eyes on the streets and connect with each other in their neighborhoods. Soon thereafter, the neighborhood watch became more involved and partnered with law enforcement agencies to report other types of crime as well.
We are going to see that the town watch program was not really a new idea. It was developed many thousands of years ago by Nehemiah. The walls of Jerusalem having been rebuilt, and the doors in the gateways being in their place, what next remained was to ensure their proper control so that Jerusalem would be safe from bands of terrorists. This required proper supervision of the gates, and control over when they should be opened.
We must remember that at this time Jerusalem itself was relatively sparsely populated. The main inhabitants were priests, Levites and Nethinim (Temple servants - 3.26), who were necessarily there in order to maintain the proper functioning of the Temple. Thus, when Nehemiah set about arranging for a guard he naturally looked for men experienced in such guard duties, and who better than the men who were experienced at controlling the gates of the Temple, ‘the gatekeepers’ (7.45; Ezra 2.42)? However, in view of the extra burden being placed on them, others were required to supplement them, and for this purpose he called on the services of the Levites, men who were concerned about the security of the Temple and experienced at administration and control.
Furthermore, he wanted strong men to have overall control, and so he appointed his brother Hanani, whom he knew that he could trust implicitly. To them he gave instructions o when the gates should be open and shut.
7 Then it was, when the wall was built, and I had hung the doors, when the gatekeepers, the singers, and the Levites had been appointed,
The wall having been built and the doors set in place in the gateways, Jerusalem was at last secure, but it was important that experienced and trained men be given responsibility for the gateways. And to this end he appointed experienced Temple gatekeepers (1 Chronicles 9.17-19). These were then supplement by singers and Levites, who were organized bodies capable of administering and controlling, as the gatekeepers from then on had double duties (to guard the Temple and the city).
Both singers and Levites were experienced at administrating and controlling and were men of reliability who had a special concern for the security of the Temple. The singers, being Levites, would also have engaged in the normal activities of Levites. This may not have been a permanent arrangement, but rather one which solved the immediate demands. Once the city was fully functioning, specialist gatekeepers could be trained.
2 that I gave the charge of Jerusalem to my brother Hanani, and Hananiah the leader of the citadel, for he was a faithful man and feared God more than many.
To govern Jerusalem and ensure its safety he required men whom he knew that he could rely on. So over Jerusalem he set his brother, Hanani, a man whom he knew well as a reliable man and one whom he could trust implicitly, and Hananiah who was governor of the fortress in Jerusalem. The latter he knew to be a faithful man, and one who wholly loved and feared God. They would be responsible for the security of Jerusalem. This was not to supplant ‘the rulers of the half districts of Jerusalem’ (3.9, 12), for they were not responsible for administering Jerusalem itself, but the whole area around Jerusalem.
The fortress was to the north of the Temple and may well have been partly garrisoned by Nehemiah’s escort, supplementing the guards already there. But while there were no walls it had been unable to give Jerusalem proper protection, probably concentrating more on securing the Temple against raids.
3 And I said to them, “Do not let the gates of Jerusalem be opened until the sun is hot; and while they stand guard, let them shut and bar the doors; and appoint guards from among the inhabitants of Jerusalem, one at his watch station and another in front of his own house.”
During the danger period when men were having a rest break the gates should not be opened. These were unusual steps but arose from Nehemiah’s sense that his enemies were not to be trusted.
As well as giving instructions about the guarding of the gates Nehemiah also called on Hanani and Hananiah to set up a general system of watches around the city walls. These watches were to be made up of the ordinary inhabitants of Jerusalem, who were to organize watches adjacent to their own homes. The walls had presumably been built in a way which enabled this, with watch posts on the walls, while some houses would have been part of the walls and could themselves act as watch posts.
The next thing that needed to be done was to re-inhabit Jerusalem, for while it was still sparsely inhabited, and partially in ruins, it was always going to be vulnerable. But it was important that the new inhabitants should be genuine Israelites, and to that end Nehemiah began to investigate the genealogy of the rulers and the people. He thus gathered the people together for that purpose. This turned attention to the genealogical records kept in the gate-houses of cities as they kept a record of their inhabitants, and it was in the course of this that he discovered, possibly in one of the gate-houses of Jerusalem, or possibly in the Temple, the list of the earliest returnees from Babylon who had arrived in Judah in response to the edict of Cyrus (Ezra 1.2-4).
This list is very similar to the one in Ezra 2, but the differences are such that they are not likely simply to be due to copying errors. Indeed, this list in Nehemiah appears to be one made some time after the list in Ezra 2, for meanwhile Sheshbazzar had seemingly died. In Ezra 2.2 Sheshbazzar must be included (from 1.11) to make up the names of the leaders to twelve names, symbolizing the twelve tribes. Here in 7.7 another name is added (Nahamani) to make up the twelve. This list is probably, therefore, an updating and revising of the original list cited in Ezra, made when Zerubbabel took over on Sheshbazzar’s death. This is confirmed by the fact that the list here in Nehemiah is regularized in verses 26-31 by the continuous use of ‘men of’ (Ezra 2.21-29).
Why should Nehemiah include this list in his report to the king? The answer is probably so as to link what he had achieved in building the walls of Jerusalem with those who had returned to Jerusalem and Judah under the decree of Cyrus and had built the Temple. He was making clear that the king was benefiting those whom Cyrus had previously determined to benefit. It was their sons who were being protected and defended.
On our part we should not just pass over these lists without thought. They bear witness to God’s detailed interest in His people. They remind us that every one of them is recorded before God. In a sense it is a list of the redeemed.
It indicates that God is interested in individuals and that he knew the tribal names and numbers of everyone who returned. It is a reminder to us that we too, if we are truly His, 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), and that is why we are ‘written with the righteous’ (Psalm 69.28; Malachi 3.16).
It 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 God’s Temple, and re-establish God’s people. It was not an easy path that they chose. They would face famine and hardship, disease and violence. They would at times be reduced almost to poverty. But they did it because they felt that God had called them. They knew that it was what He wanted them to do.
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 of the returnees on returning took new names for themselves, based on the past, deliberately connecting themselves 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.
The list commences with the names of twelve leading men, ‘princes’ of Israel. The intention was almost certainly that they symbolized the twelve tribes of Israel all of whom were represented among the Jews, for many had moved to Judah for religious reasons, or because of their loyalty to the house of David, or as refugees.
Following these names, we find listed the names of the families which returned from Babylon following the decree of Cyrus. These were all able to demonstrate from their genealogies that they were true Israelites, i.e. could trace themselves back to pre-exilic times. This is in contrast with those who could not do so (verses 61, 64). One importance of this would come out when they sought to claim back family land.
A comparable list can be found in Ezra 2.1-70. 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 because of information submitted from the various clans, because of the arrival of further exiles. 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 (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 recorded here being the updated one.
4 Now the city was large and spacious, but the people in it were few, and the houses were not rebuilt.
The walls having been completed, and the doors having been hung in the gates, Nehemiah now turned his thoughts onto the question of the lack of inhabitants in Jerusalem. It was a large city, but few were there living there permanently and most of the houses were in ruins.
5 Then my God put it into my heart to gather the nobles, the rulers, and the people, that they might be registered by genealogy. And I found a register of the genealogy of those who had come up in the first return, and found written in it:
So God put it into his heart to gather the leaders and the people together in order that their genealogies might be confirmed. This was presumably with a view to causing Jerusalem to be inhabited with people of true Jewish descent. And in giving this matter further investigation he discovered in a record office the list already mentioned, that of those who had returned from Babylon with Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel. In it was written as follow:
6 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, and who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, everyone to his city. 7 Those who came with Zerubbabel were Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahamani, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispereth, Bigvai, Nehum, and Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel:
The opening heading of the record indicated that it was a list of the males in the district of Judah who had returned from the captivity, who had previously been led captive off by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. They had returned to their own cities.
The returnees had arrived under their twelve leaders, symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel, whose names were as listed. The comparable list in Ezra show them as, Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum and Baanah, to which we should add Sheshbazzar to make up the twelve. The aim of presenting twelve leaders may have been in order to echo the Exodus (Numbers 1.1-16). There are several seeming differences between Ezra and Nehemiah, but it would have been quite normal Jewish practice for them to have taken new names, indicating a new beginning (compare how Saul became Paul).
These submitted their numbers in terms of their clan or family association. Those named would have been heads of clan’s centuries before, to whom the clan looked back with respect and awe.
8 the sons of Parosh, two thousand one hundred and seventy-two; 9 the sons of Shephatiah, three hundred and seventy-two; 10 the sons of Arah, six hundred and fifty-two; 11 the sons of Pahath-Moab, of the sons of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and eighteen; 12 the sons of Elam, one thousand two hundred and fifty-four; 13 the sons of Zattu, eight hundred and forty-five; 14 the sons of Zaccai, seven hundred and sixty; 15 the sons of Binnui, six hundred and forty-eight; 16 the sons of Bebai, six hundred and twenty-eight; 17 the sons of Azgad, two thousand three hundred and twenty-two; 18 the sons of Adonikam, six hundred and sixty-seven; 19 the sons of Bigvai, two thousand and sixty-seven; 20 the sons of Adin, six hundred and fifty-five; 21 the sons of Ater of Hezekiah, ninety-eight; 22 the sons of Hashum, three hundred and twenty-eight; 23 the sons of Bezai, three hundred and twenty-four; 24 the sons of Hariph, one hundred and twelve;
A further group of the sons of Parosh arrived under Ezra in 458 BC (Ezra 8.3). A few of the sons of Parosh were among those who took idolatrous foreign wives (Ezra 10.25). They seemingly assisted in the building of the walls of Jerusalem (3.25). One of their number was among those who signed Nehemiah’s covenant as one of the chiefs of the people (10.1, 14)
In Ezra 2 the number is given as seven hundred and seventy-five. This may indicate that some had returned to Babylon in disillusionment, or that meanwhile one hundred and twenty-three had died through plague or massacre. Life was not easy in the new Israel.
The sons of Pahath-moab (which means ‘governor of Moab’) were divided into two sub-clans, the sons of Jeshua and the sons of Joab. The increase by six as compared with Ezra 2.6 might indicate those who had since become adults, less possibly some who had died, or alternately it could be that a few sons of Pahath-moab had later arrived with a party which was mainly made up of sons of Azgad (verse 17).
Further members of the clan arrived with Ezra (Ezra 8.7), while others took idolatrous foreign wives (Ezra 10.26). One of their number, Shecaniah, was prominent in dealing with this latter problem. ‘Elam’ signed Nehemiah’s covenant (10.1).
Sons of Zattu were involved in marrying idolatrous foreign wives (Ezra 10.27) and one was a signatory to Nehemiah’s covenant (10.14). In Ezra 2 the number is nine hundred and forty-five. Once again this may be the consequence of some becoming disillusioned and returning to a securer life in Babylon or be the result of deaths by pestilence or violence.
This may be the same as the family of Zabbai and may be connected with the family of Bebai, one of whose sons was named Zabbai, who were involved with idolatrous foreign wives in Ezra 10.28.
Binnui is called Bani in Ezra 2.10. In the earlier Ezra list, we are told that they numbered six hundred and forty two. The numbered members of the family had clearly increased by six, probably due to more becoming adults during the period. Or some may have arrived with the sons of Azgad.
The sons of Bani were involved in taking idolatrous foreign wives (Ezra 10.29), as were other ‘sons of Bani’ (Ezra 10.34), one of those sons was named Bani and another Binnui (10.38). The difference in name is minimal, the one being an alternative of the other.
Ezra 2 has six hundred and twenty-three, indicating another increased family, this time by five. A further group of the sons of Bebai arrived with Ezra (Ezra 8.11), while one who was named Bebai sealed the sure covenant of Nehemiah (10.15).
The name Asgad means "strong is Gad". Ezra 2 has one thousand, two hundred and twenty-two, an increase here of eleven hundred. This suggests that a further party of the sons of Azgad had arrived after the list in Ezra was made. Further sons of Azgad arrived with Ezra (Ezra 8.12). An Azgad is named among the leaders who sealed Nehemiah’s sure covenant (10.15).
Ezra 2.13 numbers them at six hundred and sixty six. The name means "my lord has risen up". There is thus an increase of one, possibly because one more came of age than possibly died. Further sons of Adonikam arrived with Ezra (Ezra 8.13).
Ezra numbers them at two thousand and fifty-six. There is thus an increase of eleven. Once more this could be an increase through men coming of age (less deaths), and/or because of some who had come with the later arrival of the additional sons of Azgad. A further seventy-two males would arrive later under Ezra (Ezra 8.14). Bigvai was one of those who sealed Nehemiah’s sure covenant.
The name Adin means ‘adorned’. Ezra 2 numbers them at four hundred and fifty-four, an increase here of two hundred and 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 (Ezra 8.6). An Adin also was one of those who sealed the covenant of Nehemiah (10.16).
The mention of ‘Of Hezekiah’ distinguishes the sons of Ater here from the sons of Ater who were gatekeepers (verse 45). An Ater was a sealant of the covenant of Nehemiah (10.17).
In Ezra 2 they number two hundred and twenty-three. There is thus an increase of one hundred and five. Possibly some had arrived from Babylon with the later arrival of sons of Azgad, or they may have come in their own party. Sons of Hashum were involved with idolatrous foreign wives (Ezra 10.33).
Bezai was a sealant of the covenant of Nehemiah (10.18).
In the Ezra 2 list these are given the name ‘sons of Jorah’. Jorah (‘autumn rain’) was probably Hariph’s (‘harvest time’) alternate name. An Hariph was a sealant of the covenant of Nehemiah (10.19).
We now come to those families who submitted their numbers in terms of domicile. This may simply have been because of the choice of the submitter, or it may have been though custom. Or, indeed, it may 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
25 the sons of Gibeon, ninety-five; 26 the men of Bethlehem and Netophah, one hundred and eighty-eight; 27 the men of Anathoth, one hundred and twenty-eight; 28 the men of Beth Azmaveth, forty-two; 29 the men of Kirjath Jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred and forty-three; 30 the men of Ramah and Geba, six hundred and twenty-one; 31 the men of Michmas, one hundred and twenty-two; 32 the men of Bethel and Ai, one hundred and twenty-three; 33 the men of the other Nebo, fifty-two; 34 the sons of the other Elam, one thousand two hundred and fifty-four; 35 the sons of Harim, three hundred and twenty; 36 the sons of Jericho, three hundred and forty-five; 37 the sons of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred and twenty-one; 38 the sons of Senaah, three thousand nine hundred and thirty.
In Ezra 2 these are listed as ‘sons of Gibbar’. Gibbar means ‘hero’. Here they are called ‘sons of Gibeon’. This may have been because of the connection of the sons of Gibbar with the city of Gibeon, in which case this list in Nehemiah appears to transfer them to the list of those enrolled by domicile which now commences.
Ezra 2.21-22 lists the two towns separately, numbering one hundred and twenty three from Bethlehem, and fifty six from Netophah. There is thus here an increase of nine, due to men reaching adulthood, less deaths, or possibly more arriving with the Azgar party.
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. Depending on how we see Gibeon, this is the first mention of an incoming group in terms of its town.
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).
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; 11.21 ff, etc.), 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.
In Ezra 2 they are called ‘the sons of Azmaveth’, but the name here suggests the name of a town. Azmaveth was the name of one of David's 30 mighty men (2 Samuel 23.31; 1 Chronicles 11.33), 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).
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)
It was in Kiriath-jearim that the ark rested for twenty years (1 Samuel 7.1-2). The prophet Uriah, who was martyred by King Jehoiakim in the days of Jeremiah, was born there (Jeremiah 26.20).
Ezra 2 has ‘sons 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 on that tragic occasion (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, eleven seven miles north of Jerusalem. It was assigned to the Levites (Joshua 21.17), and from its slopes Jonathan, with his armor-bearer, revealed himself to the Philistines in a daring attack (1 Samuel 14.1 ff.). 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 (12.29).
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.
The list in Ezra 2 shows one hundred more. This reduction in numbers here 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). We can assess that 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 criticized by the prophets for its idolatrous associations (1 Kings 12.29). It became part of Judah in the days of Josiah (2 Kings 23.15).
Ezra 2 speaks simply of ‘the sons of 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 town12 miles northwest of Jerusalem.
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.
‘Sons of Harim’ are mentioned among those who married idolatrous foreign wives (Ezra 10.31), and we find an Harim among those who sealed Nehemiah’s covenant (10.27), although it may be that it was sealed in the family name. In 3.11 Malchijah, son of Harim, is mentioned as one of the wall-builders.
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). 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).
In Ezra 2 this description comes after the sons of Jericho, and the ‘sons’ number seven hundred and twenty-five. The difference is no doubt due to deaths being more than comings of age. Life was very dangerous. 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 11.35. As we have seen 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 in order to do him harm (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).
In Ezra 2 the number was three thousand six hundred and thirty. This suggests that a large party of them accompanied the later arrivals of the sons of Azgad, or came in their own caravan, the name occurs with the definite article, ha-senaah, referring to wall builders. The people may be identical with the Benjamite clan Hassenuah (1 Chronicles 9.7).
The priests are here divided up into four courses, in contrast with 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 returning amount as a whole 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 (Ezra 8.2).
39 The priests: the sons of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred and seventy-three; 40 the sons of Immer, one thousand and fifty-two; 41 the sons of Pashhur, one thousand two hundred and forty-seven; 42 the sons of Harim, one thousand and seventeen.
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). On the other hand, ‘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 (12.1, 6-7), who were chiefs of priests in the days of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, the High Priest under Zerubbabel (12.1, 7; Ezra 3.2, 8). 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 (12.12, 19, 21). In this regard we should note that there was a tendency for names to be passed on to grandsons.
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 idolatrous foreign wives (Ezra 10.20). Zadok, the ‘son of Immer’, (probably a relatively contemporary one) who lived in Jerusalem, helped in the building of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (3.29).
Pashhur, which means ‘one who splits, one who cleaves’, was a common Jewish name. Six ‘sons of Pashhur’ married idolatrous foreign wives (Ezra 10.22). A Pashhur, or someone who signed in the clan name, also sealed the sure covenant of Nehemiah in 10.3.
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 Ezra 10.21 the ‘sons of Harim’ covenanted to put away idolatrous foreign wives, and in 12.15 they are listed among the priests who ‘went up with Zerubbabel’. A priestly Harim seals the covenant of Nehemiah, or someone does it in the family name (10.27).
43 The Levites: the sons of Jeshua, of Kadmiel, and of the sons of Hodevah, seventy-four.
Compared with 4,289 priests who returned, only 74 Levites returned, to which we might add the 148 singers (128 in Ezra 2) and the 138 (139 in Ezra 2) gate-keepers, making 360 (341 in Ezra 2) in all. These small numbers tie in with the fact that when 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 (Ezra 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 the Temple, it was something that was not so appealing as being a fully-fledged priest (as Ezra 8.15 confirms), and partly by the fact that the priests would have been exiled in large numbers as people of importance, while 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.
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 - 10.4) and the sons of Kadmiel, who was ‘of the sons of Hodaviah’. Ezra 2.40 reads, ‘the sons of Joshua, of Kadmiel of the sons of Hodaviah’, an alternative rendering of the name.
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.
The singers were a special order of Levites (Ezra 3.10-11; but seemingly not designated as Levites here) who according to 1 Chronicles 6.31-32 had been responsible for leading the singing and musical accompaniment in Tabernacle and Temple worship. Asaph is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 6.39. Of the singers/musicians, only the sons of Asaph, i.e. members of the musical group of Asaph, returned at this stage. Thus, in Ezra 3.10-11 we read that at the laying of foundations of the new Temple ‘they set --- the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals to praise YHWH, after the order of David the King of Israel’ (see 1 Chronicles 15.16-22).
44 The singers: the sons of Asaph, one hundred and forty-eight.
Possibly more accurately we must see them as the musicians, for part of their privilege was to play the cymbals and other instruments (1 Chronicles 15.16).
Ezra 2 gives us one hundred and twenty-eight. The increase occurring in the time between the two lists may be due to comings of age, or to further singers returning with the sons of Azgad (see on 7.17).
It would appear 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 Ezra 3.10-11 the lead in singing and playing was taken by Mattaniah, a ‘son of Asaph’. In 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’ (Artaxerxes) gave commandment concerning them, and they had a settled provision as every day required. The kings of Persia took a deep interest in looking after those who played their part in the religious ritual of their subjects and their various gods. They wanted the gods on their side.
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; and 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).
45 The gatekeepers: the sons of Shallum, the sons of Ater, the sons of Talmon, the sons of Akkub, the sons of Hatita, the sons of Shobai, one hundred and thirty-eight.
The number of gate-keepers has reduced by one compared with the list in Ezra 2, no doubt due to comings of age and deaths. 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. Of the remaining three (Ater, Hatita and Shobai) we cannot find out much. Their descent was no doubt from those who dwelt in the towns outside Jerusalem. As we saw in verse 16 there were other ‘sons of Ater’, but they were distinguished as being ‘of Hezekiah’. They were non-Levities.
46 The Nethinim: the sons of Ziha, the sons of Hasupha, the sons of Tabbaoth, 47 the sons of Keros, the sons of Sia, the sons of Padon, 48 the sons of Lebana, the sons of Hagaba, the sons of Salmai, 49 the sons of Hanan, the sons of Giddel, the sons of Gahar, 50 the sons of Reaiah, the sons of Rezin, the sons of Nekoda, 51 the sons of Gazzam, the sons of Uzza, the sons of Paseah, 52 the sons of Besai, the sons of Meunim, the sons of Nephishesim, 53 the sons of Bakbuk, the sons of Hakupha, the sons of Harhur, 54 the sons of Bazlith, the sons of Mehida, the sons of Harsha, 55 the sons of Barkos, the sons of Sisera, the sons of Tamah, 56 the sons of Neziah, and the sons of Hatipha. 57 The sons of Solomon’s servants: the sons of Sotai, the sons of Sophereth, the sons of Perida, 58 the sons of Jaala, the sons of Darkon, the sons of Giddel, 59 the sons of Shephatiah, the sons of Hattil, the sons of Pochereth of Zebaim, and the sons of Amon. 60 All the Nethinim, and the sons of Solomon’s servants, were three hundred and ninety-two.
The Nethinim (given ones) probably had their initial 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 supplemented by prisoners of war and other slaves, as Ezra 8.29 makes clear when it speaks of them as ‘those whom David and the princes had given for the service of the Levites’. Others were no doubt ‘given’ later by various kings.
About the Gibeonites, many of them had probably merged into Israel and would no doubt for this purpose at some stage have become of those who were circumcised. They might well therefore have been relieved from the lower duties, being replaced by prisoners of war and slaves. But there were certainly others who retained their identity as Gibeonites, and they clearly had an element of freedom (2 Samuel 21.2-9). And this at the time when David introduced the prisoners of war and slaves into the Temple. No doubt the slaves and prisoners of war, being required to work in the Temple, were also circumcised, and that not all of them saw their position as humiliating and undesirable comes out in the fact that so many of them chose to return from Exile as compared with the generality of Levites (verse 43). Further Nethinim would return with Ezra (Ezra 8.29). The Nethinim had their quarters in Ophel (‘eminence’), a district in Jerusalem near the Temple and near the old Water Gate (3.26; 11.21).
The families of the Nethinim are now listed. There are thirty-two of them (in Ezra 2 thirty five), 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.
As has been stated, whilst having a lowly place among the Temple personnel, these, along with the Levites, singers and gatekeepers, were exempted from taxes (Ezra 7.24), had their own quarters in Jerusalem (3.26, 31), and took the oath connected with the sure covenant of Nehemiah (10.28-31).
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 (note the plural ending) from which these were captured.
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 by the use of foreign captives, or by forcing the Canaanites into such service, having duly circumcised them. Gradually the positions, possibly looked down as low level of work at first, would have come to be seen as honored ones. Service in the Temple would have been the highest form of service
A combined total is now given of the Nethinim and the sons of Solomon’s servants. Their ‘families/clans’ were clearly limited in size.
The fact that they stand out as those who could not prove their descent demonstrates how careful Jewish families were to keep records of descent. The main problem that would result from this would be the proving of their right to land in Israel. 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). Indeed, the fact that they are listed demonstrates their acceptability to the other immigrants already listed, but it is noteworthy that their names do not occur later in Ezra/Nehemiah. They were not called on to seal the covenant, or to supervise the building of the wall in Jerusalem, and so on.
61 And these were the ones who came up from Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Cherub, Addon, and Immer, but they could not identify their father’s house nor their lineage, whether they were of Israel: 62 the sons of Delaiah, the sons of Tobiah, the sons of Nekoda, six hundred and forty-two;
The Babylonian towns or districts mentioned are not testified to in inscriptions and records, apart from here. Note the two things that these returnees 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 in fact the product of earlier exiles with the consequence being 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 Babylonian cities or districts known to have received exiles from Israel/Judah, combined of course with the fact that they were circumcised, worshipped in synagogues and observed the Sabbath.
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).
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 (2.10), who was probably a Yahwist of the debased (idolatrous) kind (Ezra 4.2), for he named his son Jeho-hanan (6.17). Nekoda is the name of the father’s house of one of the Nethinim (verse 50), 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 a major sacrilege (compare Numbers 16). The risk could not be taken.
63 and of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Koz, the sons of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called by their name. 64 These sought their listing among those who were registered by genealogy, but it was not found; therefore they were excluded from the priesthood as defiled. 65 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.
Those now mentioned are distinguished from the non-Priests mentioned above. These claimed to be sons of the priests, but could not demonstrate the fact.
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 this family could not prove its ancestry. However, it may well have done so later, for in Ezra 8.33 we read of ‘Meremoth, the son of Uriah the priest’ who may have been the same as ‘Meremoth, the son of Uriah, the son of Hakkoz’ (3.4, 21). On the other hand that may have been a different Hakkoz, or a different Meremoth.
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. It is clear that 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). The name Habaiah is not testified to in the Old Testament, but, of course, incorporates the name of YHWH.
It would appear that records of ancestry of the priests had been taken to Babylon by the captives, or may even have been memorized 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 as priests was pending.
The Tirshatha was clearly in control of matters, and it was his decision, not to exclude them for ever, but to exclude them from eating of the priest’s portions until their position could be determined using the Urim and Thummim, utilized by ‘a (High) Priest’. The Urim and Thummim were the sacred lots carried in the High Priest’s breast pouch. These would appear to have given the answers of ‘yes’ or ‘no answer’.
66 Altogether the whole assembly was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty, 67 besides their male and female servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven; and they had two hundred and forty-five men and women singers. 68 Their horses were seven hundred and thirty-six, their mules two hundred and forty-five, 69 their camels four hundred and thirty-five, and donkeys six thousand seven hundred and twenty.
The sum of the returnees who represented Israel comes to 42,360. The adult male returnees enumerated above come to 31,089 (Ezra 29,818), plus whatever number the defrocked priests came to. That leaves just over 11,000 to be accounted for. They may have been made up of the underage males. 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 11,000 (with under age children being ignored). If it then be argued that 11,000 females hardly suffices when there are 31,000 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 a number of them marrying foreign wives. But, of course, there would also be Israelite women who had remained in the land who would also be available, who were, however, mainly
These male and female slaves were additional to the assembly of Israel. This very much points then to the fact that these were foreign 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 44, but singers for entertainment in wealthy households and for purposes of mourning (compare 2 Samuel 19.35; Ecclesiastes 2.8; 2 Chronicles 35.25). They were presumably also slaves. Thus the total number of slaves was by this time approximately seven thousand, five hundred and eighty two. These would not be Israelite slaves. Such were forbidden in Israel (Leviticus 25.39-41).
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 to carry the possessions of the emigrants. The horses and mules would have been for the most important to ride on (the horses for the outriders). It is noteworthy that cattle, sheep and goats are unmentioned. This would tend to support the idea that there was in this 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.
70 And some of the heads of the fathers’ houses gave to the work. The governor gave to the treasury one thousand gold drachmas, fifty basins, and five hundred and thirty priestly garments. 71 Some of the heads of the fathers’ houses gave to the treasury of the work twenty thousand gold drachmas, and two thousand two hundred silver minas. 72 And that which the rest of the people gave was twenty thousand gold drachmas, two thousand silver minas, and sixty-seven priestly garments.
One main purpose in coming to Jerusalem was to rebuild the Temple and include offerings for the king of Persia (Ezra 1.2-4). Thus, once having arrived in Judah the heads of fathers’ houses together with the people, would contribute towards the work. Here the heads of fathers’ houses are then revealed as including the governor.
The generosity of the governor is first outlined. He gave to the treasury (with the building of the Temple in mind) a thousand drachmas of gold, fifty basins (not mentioned by Ezra), five hundred (minas of silver), and thirty priests’ garments.
Some of the other ‘heads of fathers’ (houses) gave in total twenty thousand of gold drachmas, and two thousand two hundred minas of silver, a generous offering. The description ‘some of’ may indicate that there was a lack of generosity among other heads of fathers’ (houses), or it may simply mean that the remainder made their contributions along with the rest of the people.
The rest of the people gave ‘twenty thousand drachmas of gold, and two thousand minas of silver, and sixty-seven priests’ garments.’ The garments would have been made and embroidered with the help of the women.
Thus, a goodly sum was provided for the building of the Temple along with basins and priests’ garments. The priests’ garments would be very necessary since the seventh month was approaching, when the feast of Tabernacles would be celebrated.
73 So the priests, the Levites, the gatekeepers, the singers, some of the people, the Nethinim, and all Israel dwelt in their cities. When the seventh month came, the children of Israel were in their cities.
All these, apart from those who chose not to do so, or could not identify their cities, 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! And they are back in their old cities.
Then it is stressed that when the next great Feast came following their arrival (the seventh month was a red-letter month in the Jewish calendar, containing the Feast of trumpets, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles) they were all in their cities. This feast was a celebratory feast, and the point is that when it came they had good reason for celebration.
