week 7 exegesis paper 3

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY

Exegesis Research Paper: Final Draft

Submitted to Dr. C. Fred Smith/ Professor

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of

RTCH 500-B16

Research, Writing, and Ministry Preparation

by

Douglas W. Clarke

June 24, 2017

Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1

Context……………………………………………………………………………………………1

Unity of Ezra and Nehemiah………………………………………………………………1

The Province Beyond the River and Persian Decree……………………………………...3

Beyond the River and the Destruction of Jerusalem……………………………………...5

Message…………………………………………………………………………………………..7

God’s Judgement Against Israel………………………………………………………….7

Nehemiah’s Prayer of Intercession………………………………………………………..9

Artaxerxes and the Prayer of Nehemiah…………………………………………………11

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................15

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..16

i

Introduction

Context

It is not possible to approach the text of Nehemiah 1:5-11 apart from the literary and historical context that it lies within. The circumstances that led to the destruction of Jerusalem present the framework for Nehemiah’s prayer and are crucial for understanding the implications of the mosaic law referenced therein. Furthermore, the literary construction of the text presents information within the text that is critical for the interpretation of Nehemiah’s prayer.

Unity of Ezra and Nehemiah

To accurately approach the text of Nehemiah, careful consideration needs to be given to its relationship to the book of Ezra. Originally, the two texts were united and a division did not take place until Origen in the third century.[footnoteRef:1] Hebrew manuscripts and the earliest manuscripts of the LXX also place these two books as one single text.[footnoteRef:2] Beyond manuscript evidence, unification of the text was the position held by the Talmud, Josephus, Melito, the Masoretes, and Jewish commentators up until medieval times.[footnoteRef:3] [1: F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah in New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), 1.] [2: H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, Vol. 16 of Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), xxi-xxiii.] [3: Ibid.]

Further evidence for the unification of the two texts comes from within the books themselves. At times the text seems to function in a more cyclical fashion rather than in chronological order. This can be seen particularly in the way the Ezra 4:7-23 interrupts the narrative of Cyrus’ decree and jumps to the hold placed on rebuilding by Artaxerxes I.[footnoteRef:4] Ezra 4:24 then goes back in narrative to time of King Darius. [4: Unless otherwise noted, all biblical references are in the English Standard Version.]

Further evidence can be seen in the transition from Ezra 10 to Nehemiah 1. The first verse states, “Now it happened in the month of Chislev, in the twentieth year” (Neh. 1:1). This continuation assumes that the reader is already familiar with whose reign was in its twentieth year. The last reference to any king was made in Ezra 7 and referred to Artaxerxes I’s decree for Ezra to re-establish mosaic law in Jerusalem and Beyond the River. Goswell holds that the author’s lack of an introduction to Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 1 implies a continuation from Erza 10.[footnoteRef:5] [5: Greg Goswell, “The Handling of Time in Book of Ezra-Nehemiah,” Trinity Journal 31, no 2 (Fall 2010): 189-190.]

It would be difficult to establish the circumstances that led to Nehemiah’s prayer apart from the unification of these two books. There would be major plot holes and inconsistencies within the narratives that would be difficult to reconcile. However, if Ezra and Nehemiah are to be viewed as one text, then these holes and inconsistencies decrease drastically. These texts help to fill in the gaps that are left if the texts are addressed alone.[footnoteRef:6] In unifying the two texts, the thirteen-year gap that takes place between Ezra 7 and Nehemiah 2 can be filled; which gives a very clear indication as to the circumstances that led to the prayer in Nehemiah 1:5-11.[footnoteRef:7] [6: Goswell, Handling of Time, 188.] [7: Gary E. Shnittjer, “The Bad Ending of Ezra-Nehemiah,” Bibliotheca Sacra 173, no 689 (January-March 2016): 37-38.]

The Province Beyond the River and Persian Decree

Nehemiah 1:3 sets the context for Nehemiah to intercede in prayer on behalf of the Israelites before their God. While in Susa, he receives news from Judah that the walls had been burned down and the exiles are in “great trouble and shame” (Neh. 1:3). This leads Nehemiah into months of mourning and prayer. However, his prayer is not initially a prayer of request, but rather of repentance for the sins of the nation. It was these sins that led to judgment upon the nation that culminated in the shame of the people and destruction of the walls.

In 538 B.C., King Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.[footnoteRef:8] This was done in fulfillment of the prophesies of Isaiah 44:28-45:1-4, in which Cyrus is mentioned by name as the king that Yahweh will use to restore Jerusalem and the temple. It is believed that Cyrus was versed in various religions and had read the prophecy concerning his reign, which furthered his desire to establish and prosper Jerusalem.[footnoteRef:9] [8: James Montgomery Boice, Nehemiah An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990), 16.] [9: Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), 197-198.]

Following this decree, opposition began to rise against Israel by a group known as Beyond the River (Ezra 3:3; 4:1-4; 9-10; 5:6). Breneman believes that Beyond the River was made up of the Assyrian descendants that were sent by Sargon II to repopulate Israel, the Northern Kingdom, and Samaria after Samaria fell in 722 B.C.[footnoteRef:10] While Beyond the River was a thorn in the side of Israel from the initial establishment of Cyrus’ decree, tensions grew increasingly worse following the decrees of Darius and Artaxerxes. Ezra 5 records opposition to the rebuilding of the temple by the governors of Beyond the River. Sixteen years had passed since the initial decree was given by Cyrus. These governors had written a letter to King Darius to provoke him to check the royal archives and verify the validity of this decree (Ezra 5:17). King Darius’ reply confirmed this prior decree, but added new ramifications to it; namely that Beyond the River was to pay for all construction and sacrificial expenses out of the province’s royal revenue (Ezra 6:6-10). This stipulation would have been a harsh rebuke against their opposition to the Jews.[footnoteRef:11] In the seventh year of King Artaxerxes I reign, Ezra was sent to Jerusalem to establish rule according to the Mosaic Law (Ezra 7:1-10). [10: Mervin Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Vol. 10, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1993), 96-97.] [11: Mark A. Throntveit, Ezra-Nehemiah, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1989), 34.]

Beyond the River and the Destruction of Jerusalem

Upon the commission of Ezra, Artaxerxes established a new decree regarding Beyond the River that included the following stipulations: First, the treasury of Beyond the River was to supply anything requested by Ezra for the implementation of temple worship (Ezra 7:21-23); second, Beyond the River may not impose any taxes or customs upon anyone associated with temple worship (Ezra 7:24); third, Ezra was to appoint judges and magistrates to teach the Mosaic Law to those in Beyond the River and anyone who did not comply was to be judged according to this law; even up to banishment and death (Ezra 7:25-26). Williamson finds this decree difficult to interpret; he states that it is improbable that this only applies to Judah and Jerusalem, but that it would be difficult to accept it being applied to the various people groups in Beyond the River.[footnoteRef:12] Williamson’s reasoning for denying that this applies to all of Beyond the River is that it would be too difficult to force them all to submit to Jewish law.[footnoteRef:13] [12: Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 103-105.] [13: Ibid.]

However, if Beyond the River’s petition in Ezra 4:7-16 can be applied as a response to this decree, then Williamson was correct in anticipating rebellion against the throne. In 460 B.C., Artaxerxes I faced revolt from the Athenians and Egyptians as they sought control over the Mediterranean Sea; this revolt lasted until 456, when it was suppressed by Persian General Megabyzus.[footnoteRef:14] In 449 B.C., Megabyzus started a revolt in Beyond the River against Artaxerxes that the king was unable to suppress.[footnoteRef:15] Megabyzus only stopped the revolt when he felt that he had made his point against the throne.[footnoteRef:16] With the history of previous rebellions present, the letter sent to Artaxerxes rhetorically appeals to the king’s desire to avoid future conflict (Ezra 4:7-16). Two warnings are given to the king: First, according to Babylonian documentation regarding the Jews, Israel is historically rebellious and problematic for those in authority over them. If Jerusalem is rebuilt and fortified, they will bring shame to the throne through revolt. Second, if the king allows the work on Jerusalem to continue then he will have no possession in Beyond the River and runs the risk of another revolt. With the prior oppressive decrees placed on the province this would have been a final appeal against Israel before forcefully lashing out at the king. [14: Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 15.] [15: Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 16.] [16: Ibid.]

In response to Beyond the River, Artaxerxes confirms Israel’s history according to Babylonian records and decrees that building is “to cease, and that this city be not rebuilt, until a decree is made by me” (Ezra 4:21). Upon institution of this decree, the province Beyond the River took Jerusalem by force. Upon implementation, the work stoppage was conducted by military force and was executed violently.[footnoteRef:17] Josephus describes this assault, [17: Goswell, Handling of Time, 192-193.]

The neighboring nations did a great deal of mischief to the Jews, while in the daytime they overran the country and pillaged it, and in the night did them mischief, insomuch that not a few were led away captive out of the country, and out of Jerusalem itself, and that the roads were in the daytime found full of dead men.[footnoteRef:18] [18: Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, Translated by William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987), 296.]

This attack upon Jerusalem was the long-awaited victory against the Jews that the province had desired and would have reversed all previous decree’s that had oppressed them. Williamson states that this is the only possible event that can align with Nehemiah 1:3 and that these events may have taken place in the thirteen years between Ezra 7 and Nehemiah 2.[footnoteRef:19] It is also reasonable to conclude that Ezra was present in Jerusalem when these events took place.[footnoteRef:20] [19: Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 172.] [20: Ibid.]

Message

These circumstances surrounding the destruction of Israel leave many unanswered questions. Especially when the hand of God was heavily upon them upon the throughout the majority of the return from exile. However, there appears to be a shift in divine favor in which Yahweh removes His hand from Israel, turns the king’s heart against them, and allows Beyond the River to over throw the city. Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem and Nehemiah’s prayer reveal that these circumstances were a product of God’s judgment against the nation.

God’s Judgement Against the Israelites

The intention of Ezra’s mission in Jerusalem was to establish Mosaic Law in accordance with temple worship. However, upon his arrival, he discovered that the post exilic Jews had returned to practicing the abominations of the pagan nations (Ezra 9:1). The primary sin on display that plagued Israel was intermarriage with pagan women and culprits were the high-ranking officials of the Israelites (Ezra 9:2-3).

Within the unified text, there are two ways that Ezra 9 can be approached; either cyclically or chronologically. Goswell holds to a cyclical view of Ezra 9-10 and Nehemiah 9, arguing that these texts describe the same events.[footnoteRef:21] In opposition, Southwood argues that an examination of the finer details of both texts shows that these are two separate incidences in which Israel had fallen to intermarriage.[footnoteRef:22] Both positions have valid arguments to support their respective stances. Regardless of which position is held, the underlying issue of intermarriage is the focal point of Israel’s condition. Schnittjer describes the condition of Israelites upon Nehemiah’s return as a people with a, “hardened addiction to Torah violation.”[footnoteRef:23] This rebellious behavior becomes a recurring theme and aligns the people with their disobedient pre-exilic ancestors.[footnoteRef:24] [21: Goswell, Handling of Time, 188-191.] [22: Katherine Southwood, “And They Could Not Understand Jewish Speech’: Language, Ethnicity, and Nehemiah’s Intermarriage Crisis,” The Journal of Theological Studies 62, pt. 1 (Apr. 2011): 1-19.] [23: Schnittjer, Bad Ending, 38.] [24: Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 223.]

The disobedience of the post-exilic Jews had not escalated to the point that the pre-exilic Jews had previously reached. However, this does not excuse them from falling under the same condemnation as their forefathers. The Mosaic Law established a quid pro quo relationship between the Israelites and their God (Lev. 26; Deut. 28). If the Israelites were obedient to the law, God would prosper them. However, disobedience would evoke divine justice and wrath. The post exilic Jews had fallen under the same disobedience that had led the nation into exile in the first place.[footnoteRef:25] Scnittjer believes that the intended message of Ezra and Nehemiah collectively is to show the hopelessness of the Israelites to obey God in light of His continual favor towards them and ultimately Jerusalem’s destruction.[footnoteRef:26] The law states that one of the many ways that judgment for disobedience will come upon Israel is through the invasion and force of foreign nations (Lev. 26:31-33; 37-39; Deut. 28:25-26; 31-34; 36-44). For many years, Yahweh showed mercy and favor to the nation of Israel in restraining Beyond the River’s attempts to destroy the Jewish people. However, due to the continual disobedience of the Israelites, God removed his hand of protection and His judgement against Jerusalem was executed by Beyond the River (Ezra 10:14). [25: Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 56-57.] [26: Schnittjer, Bad Ending, 45-46.]

Nehemiah’s Prayer of Intercession

Nehemiah’s arrival to Jerusalem took place 13 years after the arrival of Ezra (Neh. 1:1). Prior to his arrival, Nehemiah served as the cupbearer to Artaxerxes I and was stationed in Susa prior to receiving news that Jerusalem was in ruins. This signifies that Nehemiah took no physical part in the disobedience that led to the destruction of the city. Nehemiah was physically in a different city while these events were unfolding, thus he was spatially separated from the sins of people. Second, it can be argued that Nehemiah’s position as cupbearer would have suggested that he was a eunuch.[footnoteRef:27] Williamson argues that a eunuch would not have been accepted as a Jewish leader and a lack of opposition to this condition in the text supports this view.[footnoteRef:28] However, Nehemiah’s appointment as governor was not by Jewish rule, but by the Persian throne which makes Jewish rejection irrelevant. The separation of space and the physical inability to sexually co-inhabit with foreign women removes Nehemiah from the physical acts that brought destruction on Jerusalem. [27: Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 157.] [28: Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 174-175.]

Regardless of Nehemiah’s innocence and separation from the guilt of Jerusalem, he seeks to align himself with the guilty and petitions mercy from God on their behalf (Neh. 1:5-11). Within the context of this prayer, it is not the judgement or destruction of Jerusalem that concerns Nehemiah, rather, he is concerned with their sinfulness and seeks repentance on their behalf.[footnoteRef:29] Furthermore, the people seemed unable to adequately repent of their sins due to continuing in the cycle of sin that they were currently involved in. They needed someone who was set apart from their sin to intervene on their behalf, Nehemiah did so through his prayer. [29: Throntveit, Ezra-Nehemiah, 64-65.]

Nehemiah’s language and appeal to the law shows that he was more than a mere cupbearer, but was versed in Deuteronomistic Law.[footnoteRef:30] It is by this law that he confesses the sins of Israel and appeals to God for his mercy upon them and their restoration. Nehemiah begins his Prayer through acknowledging the faithfulness of God to keep His promises and to love those keep His commandments. The Israelites had not kept His promises and, according to the law, deserved nothing but due justice. Yet Nehemiah pleads for their mercy and repents on their behalf (Neh. 1:5-7). Williamson comments, [30: Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, ]

In moving forward toward the first element in his petition, Nehemiah is conscious that the exile and the continuing depressed conditions in which the Jews now find themselves are evidence that God had already fulfilled the word to punish the people’s persistent sin. . . Nehemiah therefore sees these conditions of God’s power, not of his weakness. Therefore, he pleads, that God is equally able, now that he and the people generally (v 10) are showing signs of repentance, to restore their fortunes.[footnoteRef:31] [31: Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 173.]

While the people may have shown temporal repentance, they were in no position to petition for favor. It is here that Nehemiah calls God to remember his promises to Israel if they return to Him and keep His commandments (Neh. 1:8-10). Through this prayer of intercession, Jerusalem’s walls were restored and the prior grace was restored to Israel apart from the people condition or past sins.[footnoteRef:32] [32: Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 156-157.]

Artaxerxes and the prayer of Nehemiah

Nehemiah’s prayer reveals that he had formulated a plan for the restoration of Israel (Neh. 1:11). This plan would be an appeal before Artaxerxes I on behalf of the Israelites to recommence construction and restoration on Jerusalem’s walls. However, such a petition before the king would be a request for the throne to reverse the prior decree that stopped rebuilding and led to the destruction of the city (Ezra 4:7-23). Fensham describes Persian kings as fickle and emotionally unstable and Nehemiah’s proximity as cupbearer would testify to this.[footnoteRef:33] Asking an emotionally unstable king to reverse a prior decree that may cause civil unrest in the kingdom was a dangerous task to undertake.[footnoteRef:34] [33: Ibid.] [34: Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 173-174.]

Nehemiah did not see Artaxerxes as having any power beyond that which was providentially appointed by God. Rather, he was the vessel through which restoration would come to the people of God and he was willing to lay down his life to accomplish this task. God’s providential hand upon Nehemiah led to a restraining order being place on Beyond the River, a fully supply of building materials, and the completion of the city walls within 52 days of the start of the project (Neh. 2:5-10; 6:15).

Significance

Isaiah 53 speaks of a suffering servant that would make “intercession for the transgressors” (Is. 53:12). In its original context, the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 may historically refer to the death of Zerubbabel at the hands of Tattenai during the reign of Darius I.[footnoteRef:35] However, Watts would state that beyond the historical interpretation, the text has strong Christological implications.[footnoteRef:36] This is confirmed as the New Testament writers believed that Christ’s work at Calvary was a fulfillment of Isaiah 53 (Mk. 53:12; LK. 22:37; Jn. 28:38; Acts 8:32; Rom. 10:16; 1 Pt. 2:24). Considering New Testament interpretation, Isaiah 53:12 is strongly reflective of the priestly work of Christ.[footnoteRef:37] [35: John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66, Vol. 25 in Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 222-227.] [36: Ibid., 233.] [37: Young, Isaiah, 359.]

In comparison, Nehemiah’s prayer is especially reflective of the intercessory work of Christ according to the priesthood of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:25). The Levitical Priesthood was assigned to intercede on behalf of the people for their sins and themselves (Lev. 16). However, this sacrifice was insufficient to remove sin from the camp and needed to be offered continually (Heb. 10). There was no need for Christ to offer continual sacrifices for the people and for Himself. Christ was holy and set apart from the sins of the people. Allen states that Christ was separated from everything that would classify him as impure and disqualify him from interceding for the people as their high priest.[footnoteRef:38] In the same sense Nehemiah was also separated from the sin of intermarriage that plagued post exilic Israel and called judgement upon them. In this circumstance, Ezra explicitly mentions, “the priests and the Levites,” as primary culprits in Israel’s disobedience. This would make Nehemiah far superior to offer intercession on behalf of the people. Spatially, he was removed from participation with Israel until the 20th year of Artaxerxes reign when he returned to Jerusalem. Conditionally, he was unable to partake in this sin due to being a eunuch in the King’s Courts. These two conditions set him apart from Israel’s guilt and made him a better intercessor than the Levitical priesthood. [38: David L. Allen, Hebrews, Vol. 35 in The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2010), 430.]

Although Nehemiah was separate from the Israel’s guilt, he comes alongside them in their current condition and present’s their case before God (Neh. 1:5-11). This is same role the Christ plays as our advocate before the courts of God (1 Jn. 2:1). The picture painted by the term, paraclete, rightly aligns with Christ’s intercessory work as high priest.[footnoteRef:39] He is the one who intercedes before the guilty and pleases their cause before God the Father.[footnoteRef:40] However, paraclete is in the passive tense which presents the imagery of an advocate who comes alongside the guilty to help them in the courts of God and presents their case before Him.[footnoteRef:41] Such a description precisely describes the intercessory work of Nehemiah. He was separate from the guilt of Israel, yet he aligned himself with the guilty to present their case before God and to appeal to His forgiveness on their behalf. [39: F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 49.] [40: John Albert Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, Vol 2, trans, Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent (London: Forgotten Books, 2015), 786.] [41: James Montgomery Boice, The Epistles of John, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 38.]

In the case of the Israelites, God had rightly brought charges against them and had executed justice. However, Romans 8:34 further argues that Christ continually intercedes on behalf of His people before God.[footnoteRef:42] Nehemiah’s role as intercessor and advocate was not an isolated incident. The news of Israel’s circumstances reached him in the month of Chislev and his appeal to Artaxerxes I was not until the month of Nisan (Neh. 1:1; 2:1). This was approximately five months that Nehemiah continually petitioned the Lord to forgive the people and gather them back to himself.[footnoteRef:43] Just as Christ petitions God continually on behalf of His elect, Nehemiah continually petitioned God on behalf of national Israel. Bruce concludes, “When God enters into judgement, the outlook for the opposing party is bleak (Rom. 3:4); but if God takes the side of the defendant, no amount of evidence for the prosecution can procure and adverse verdict.”[footnoteRef:44] As God had sided with Christ as the defendant on behalf of those He has redeemed, God has sided with Nehemiah on behalf of Israel and by grace restored them from their prior judgement. [42: Robert H. Mounce, Romans, Vol 27 in The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishers, 1995), 190-191.] [43: John H. Walton, Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 19.] [44: F. F. Bruce, Romans, Vol 6 in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), 169.]

Conclusion

The book of Nehemiah cannot be adequately understood apart from the historical and literary context that defines its pages. The history that builds to Nehemiah’s prayer gives depth and clarity to the conditions that lead to Nehemiah’s mourning. Israel has fallen back into disobedience to the Mosaic Laws of God and brought judgement upon themselves. Considering these circumstances, Nehemiah seeks to intercede on behalf of the people. By grace, Nehemiah’s prayerful petition is accepted and God grants restoration to Israel. This petition on behalf of the people presents Nehemiah as a type of the Christ that would come and intercede on behalf of sinners before the courts of God.

Bibliography

Allen, David L. Hebrews. Vol. 35 in The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2010.

Bengel, John Albert. Gnomon of the New Testament. Vol 2. Translated by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent. London: Forgotten Books, 2015.

Boice, James M. Nehemiah: An Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005.

Boice, James Montgomery. The Epistles of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004.

Breneman, Mervin. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Vol. 10 in The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1993.

Bruce, F. F. Romans. Vol. 6 in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles of John. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.

Fensham, F. Charles. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

Goswell, Greg. “The Handling of Time in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah.” Trinity Journal 31, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 187-203.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans. Vol 27 in The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishers, 1995.

Schnittjer, Gary Edward. “The Bad Ending of Ezra-Nehemiah.” Bibliotheca Sacra 173, no. 689 (Jan-Mar 2016): 32-56.

Throntveit, Mark A. Ezra-Nehemiah. Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1992.

Walton, John H. Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 34-66. Vol. 25 in Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987.

Williamson, H. G. M. Ezra, Nehemiah. Vol. 16 in Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 198.

Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972.

1