Ezra 2:1

Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(1) The children of the province that went up out of the captivity.—They came from “the captivity,” which was now as it were a generic name—“Children of the captivity” in Babylon (Daniel 2:2), in Judah (Ezra 4:1)—and became “children of the province,” the Judæan province of Persia.

Every one unto his city.—So far, that is, as his city was known. The various cities, or villages, are more distinctly enumerated in Nehemiah.

Benson Commentary

Ezra 2:1. The children of the province — That is, of Babylon, for they are here spoken of whom Nebuchadnezzar had brought captive to Babylon, and not those of the ten tribes, who had been dispersed before, by the kings of Assyria, into various provinces; and who afterward returned to Jerusalem in separate companies. Zerubbabel was in the province of Babylon, and to him those captives joined themselves who lived nearest in the same province. This is the reason why those of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin returned first, though a liberty of returning was granted to all the tribes. Another reason is, because the rebuilding of the temple principally concerned them, as Jerusalem was within their dominion. — Houbigant. That went out of captivity — By the words captivity and captives, when applied to the Jews being carried to Babylon, we are not to understand that they were made slaves to private persons, and bought and sold from one to another, as captives generally were: for they seem to have been transported to Babylon as a colony, to serve the king only. And we do not find that they ever became the property of private persons in Babylon, but lived there free; only subject, as is probable, to some services for the king. Otherwise Cyrus must have redeemed them from the masters, whose property they were, or at least have made a proclamation that every one should let them go free; of neither of which is any mention made. And besides this, when liberty was given to all, of returning to their own land, we find that but few, comparatively speaking, accepted of it, which would scarce have been the case had they been slaves to private persons. Every one unto his city — Either those cities and towns which had belonged to their several ancestors; or rather, those which were now allotted to them, and from this time possessed by them. For their former cities were either demolished, or possessed by other persons, whom they were not now in a capacity to disturb.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

2:1-35 An account was kept of the families that came up out of captivity. See how sin lowers a nation, which righteousness would exalt!

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

The province - Judaea was no longer a kingdom, but a mere "province" of Persia. "The children of the province" are the Israelites who returned to Palestine, as distinct from those who remained in Babylonia and Persia.

Every one unto his city - That is, to the city whereto his forefathers had belonged. Of course, in the few cases where this was not known Ezra 2:59-62, the plan could not be carried out.

Two other copies of the following list have come down to us - one in Nehemiah 7:7-69, and the other in 1 Esdras 5:8-43. All seem to have been taken from the same original document, and to have suffered more or less from corruption. Where two out of the three agree, the reading should prevail over that of the third.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

CHAPTER 2

Ezr 2:1-70. Number of the People That Turned.

1. children of the province—that is, Judea (Ezr 5:8), so called as being now reduced from an illustrious, independent, and powerful kingdom to an obscure, servile, tributary province of the Persian empire. This name is applied by the sacred historian to intimate that the Jewish exiles, though now released from captivity and allowed to return into their own land, were still the subjects of Cyrus, inhabiting a province dependent upon Persia.

came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city—either the city that had been occupied by his ancestors, or, as most parts of Judea were then either desolate or possessed by others, the city that was rebuilt and allotted to him now.The number of the people that returned, Ezra 2:1-35; and of the priests, Ezra 2:36-39; of the Levites, Ezra 2:40; of the singers, Ezra 2:41; of the porters, Ezra 2:42; of the Nethinims, Ezra 2:43-54; and of Solomon’s servants, Ezra 2:55-60. Concerning the priests that could not show their pedigree, Ezra 2:61-6:3. The whole number of them and their substance, Ezra 2:64-67. Their oblations, Ezra 2:68-70.

The children of the province, i.e. the Israelites, called the children of the province, either,

1. Of Babylon, of which province we oft read, as Ezra 7:16 Daniel 2:48 Daniel 3:1,2,30, called the province by way of eminency; of which they are called children, because of their birth and habitation in it for a long time, it being usual to call the inhabitants of any city or place its children. Or rather,

2. Of Judea, called a province, Ezra 5:8. And he calls it thus emphatically, to mind himself and his brethren of that sad change which their sins had made among them, that from an illustrious, independent, and formidable kingdom, were fallen to be an obscure, servile, and contemptible province, first under the Chaldeans, and now under the Persians. Every one unto his city; either unto those cities or towns which belonged to their several ancestors; or rather, to those which were now allotted to them, and from this time possessed by them. For their former cities were either demolished. or possessed by other persons, which they were not now in a capacity of disturbing.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Now these are the children of the province,.... Either of the province of Babylon, as Aben Ezra, where they were either born, or had dwelt for many years; or else rather, according to Jarchi, of the province of Judea, as it is called, Ezra 5:8 once a flourishing kingdom, but reduced to a province of the Babylonian monarchy, now in the hands of the Medes and Persians, of which province they and their fathers originally were:

that went out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon; who either in person, or in their parents, were carried captive by him, and who were the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; and they are only mentioned, because they were the principal that returned, though there were some of the other tribes that also came up with them:

and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, everyone unto his city; that he dwelt in before, or was now assigned to him by lot, see Nehemiah 11:1, &c.

Geneva Study Bible

Now these are the children {a} of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;

(a) Meaning Judea, which was a province that is, a country which was in subjection.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

1. Now these are the children of the province] ‘Now’, as in chap. Ezra 1:1 : the beginning of a new document. ‘The province’ here and in Nehemiah 1:3; Nehemiah 11:3, is the same as ‘the province of Judah’ (Ezra 5:8), i.e. the particular district of which Jerusalem was the centre and of which Zerubbabel was governor or ‘pekhah’. ‘The children of the province’ are the Jews inhabiting Jerusalem and its vicinity as distinct from the Jews that were left in Babylon. The phrase is perhaps an indication of the register having been transcribed at Babylon.

out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away] The comma in the A.V. tends to confuse the meaning. The R.V. better, out of the captivity of those which had been carried away. The English fails to give the sense of the passage. The words ‘those which had been carried away’ translate the one Hebrew word rendered in chap. Ezra 1:11 and elsewhere ‘the captivity’ (hag-gôlah). This was the technical abstract noun used to designate the Jews that had been carried away into foreign lands. The words here used are more nearly reproduced in the Greek version ἀπὸ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας τῆς ἀποικίας. ‘From the captivity of the Gôlah’ means therefore ‘out of the condition and scene of captivity which was the lot of ‘the deportation’, i.e. of those who had been forcibly removed from their homes’. Cf. Ezra 1:11, Ezra 6:20.

Nebuchadnezzar] R.V. margin, ‘Heb. Nebuchadnezzor’. This spelling represents the preferable reading of the original in this verse. It again indicates the different origin of this section from chap. Ezra 1:7, where the Hebrew has ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ without any variant spelling. ‘Nebuchadnezzor’ attempts more nearly to reproduce the final syllable of the Assyrian ‘Nabû-kudur-uṣur’ i.e. ‘Nebo, defend the crown’. He is called ‘Nebuchadrezzar’ in several places. Once in Jeremiah 49:28 (C’thib) ‘Nebuchadrezzor’.

The great king of Babylon reigned 43 years (605–562). The two chief ‘deportations’ took place (1) in 598, when Nebuchadnezzar carried away king Jehoiachin and all the principal inhabitants of Jerusalem; (2) in 587–6, when the city was destroyed.

every one unto his city] It is impossible to take these words as literally applicable to the year of the Return. The Jews on their return to their own land at first only occupied Jerusalem and the country immediately adjacent. The work of settling into their own cities was the work of years. But the process was complete at the time when this heading was attached to the register of names. The writer summarizes the movement, which in his own time was long past, cf. Ezra 2:70, Ezra 3:1.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 1. - These are the children of the province. i.e. of Judaea, which was a province of Persia, distinguished here from Babylon, which was one of the capitals - a mode of speech indicating the foreign standpoint of Ezra. Unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city. Jerusalem was not the only site occupied by the people on their return. Many took up their abodes in the neighbouring towns and villages, such as Jericho, Tekoah, Gibeon, Mizpah, Zanoah, etc. (see Nehemiah 3:2-19, and Nehemiah 7:20-35). These were chiefly persons whose families had belonged to those places. Ezra 2:1

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

The title. - "These are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of the carrying away (i.e., of those which had been carried away), whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, every one to his city." In Nehemiah 7:6 לבבל is omitted, through an error of transcription caused by the preceding בּבל; and וליהוּדה stands instead of ויהוּדה, which does not, however, affect the sense. המּדינה is the province whose capital was Jerusalem (Nehemiah 11:3), i.e., the province of Judaea as a district of the Persian empire; so Ezra 5:8; Nehemiah 1:2. The Chethiv נבוכדנצור is similar to the form Nebucadrezor, Jeremiah 49:28, and is nearer to the Babylonian form of this name than the usual biblical forms Nebucadnezzar or Nebucadrezzar. For further remarks on the various forms of this name, see on Daniel 1:1. They returned "each to his city," i.e., to the city in which he or his ancestors had dwelt before the captivity. Bertheau, on the contrary, thinks that, "though in the allotment of dwelling-places some respect would certainly be had to the former abode of tribes and families, yet the meaning cannot be that every one returned to the locality where his forefathers had dwelt: first, because it is certain (?) that all memorial of the connection of tribes and families was frequently obliterated, comp. below, Nehemiah 7:61-64; and then, because a small portion only of the former southern kingdom being assigned to the returned community, the descendants of dwellers in those towns which lay without the boundaries of the new state could not return to the cities of their ancestors." True, however, as this may be, the city of each man cannot mean that "which the authorities, in arranging the affairs of the community, assigned to individuals as their domicile, and of which they were reckoned inhabitants in the lists then drawn up for the sake of levying taxes," etc. (Bertheau). This would by no means be expressed by the words, "they returned each to his own city." We may, on the contrary, correctly say that the words hold good potiori, i.e., they are used without regard to exceptions induced by the above-named circumstance. אשׁר־בּאוּ, Ezra 2:2, corresponds with the העלים of Ezra 2:1; hence in Nehemiah 7:7 we find also the participle בּאים. They came with Zerubbabel, etc., that is, under their conduct and leadership. Zerubbabel (Ζοροβάβελ, זרבּבל or זרוּבבל, probably abbreviated from בּבל זרוּע, in Babylonia satus seu genitus) the son of Shealtiel was a descendant of the captive king Jehoiachin (see on 1 Chronicles 3:17), and was probably on account of this descent made leader of the expedition, and royal governor of the new settlement, by Cyrus. Jeshua (ישׁוּע, the subsequently abbreviated form of the name Jehoshua or Joshua, which is used Nehemiah 8:17 also for Joshua the son of Nun, the contemporary of Moses) the son of Josedech (Hagg. Jos 1:1), and the grandson of Seraiah the high priest, who was put to death by Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, was the first high priest of the restored community; see on 1 Chronicles 6:15. Besides those of Zerubbabel and Joshua, nine (or in Nehemiah more correctly ten) names, probably of heads of families, but of whom nothing further is known, are placed here. 1. Nehemiah, to be distinguished from the well-known Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah, Nehemiah 1:1; 2. Seraiah, instead of which we have in Nehemiah 7:7 Azariah; 3. Reeliah, in Nehemiah, Raamiah; 4. Nahamani in Nehemiah, Εὐηνέος in 1 Esdras 5:8, omitted in the text of Ezra; 5. Mordecai, not the Mordecai of the book of Esther (Esther 2:5.); 6. Bilshan; 7. Mispar, in Nehemiah Mispereth; 8. Bigvai; 9. Rehum, in 1 Esdras Ροΐ́μος; 10. Baanah. These ten, or reckoning Zerubbabel and Joshua, twelve men, are evidently intended, as leaders of the returning nation, to represent the new community as the successor of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is also unmistakeably shown by the designation, the people of Israel, in the special title, and by the offering of twelve sin-offerings, according to the number of the tribes of Israel, at the dedication of the new temple, Ezra 6:16. The genealogical relation, however, of these twelve representatives to the twelve tribes cannot be ascertained, inasmuch as we are told nothing of the descent of the last ten. Of these ten names, one meets indeed with that of Seraiah, Nehemiah 10:3; of Bigvai, in the mention of the sons of Bigvai, Ezra 8:14; of Rehum, Nehemiah 3:17; Nehemiah 12:3; and of Baanah, Nehemiah 10:28; but there is nothing to make the identity of these persons probable. Even in case they were all of them descended from members of the former kingdom of Judah, this is no certain proof that they all belonged also to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, since even in the reign of Rehoboam pious Israelites of the ten tribes emigrated thither, and both at and after the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, many Israelites might have taken refuge and settled in Judah. The last words, Ezra 2:2, "The number of the men of the people of Israel," contain the special title of the first division of the following list, with which the titles in Ezra 2:36, Ezra 2:40, Ezra 2:43, and Ezra 2:55 correspond. They are called the people of Israel, not the people of Judah, because those who returned represented the entire covenant people.