Session 1: Introduction
Series: Back To Jerusalem: Rebuilding Faith, Worship, and Society in Ezra–Nehemiah.
Dr. Randy White
Download these notes here: https://humble-sidecar-837.notion.site/Handouts-283b35a87d638014848cde91895674b9?source=copy_link
Ezra–Nehemiah as One Book
Modern readers typically encounter Ezra and Nehemiah as two separate books, assuming they describe successive historical periods.
Ezra → return from exile, temple rebuilding, spiritual reform.
Nehemiah → wall-building, civic restoration.
This sequential reading has been the standard Christian presentation for centuries.
But in the Hebrew tradition, Ezra–Nehemiah is a single book.
Division came later in Greek and Latin transmission, mainly for practical reasons (two scrolls easier than one).
Jerome explicitly says the split was because of length, not history.
Once divided, readers assumed two eras, and this hardened into chronological tradition.
This study treats Ezra–Nehemiah as one unified narrative, allowing the text itself—not later editorial choices—to determine structure and chronology.
The Traditional View
Chronological scheme:
Ezra’s ministry = 458 BC (7th year of Artaxerxes I).
Nehemiah’s arrival = 445 BC (20th year).
Ezra 1–6 dated ~537 BC → nearly 80 years before Ezra’s own return.
Two seventh-month feasts: Ezra 3 vs. Nehemiah 8 separated by almost a century.
Interpretive framework shaped by this timeline:
Ezra = spiritual reformer, temple and Torah.
Nehemiah = civic administrator, walls and infrastructure.
Two feasts treated as distinct national observances.
Problem: This framework rests more on book division than on textual statements.
The Bullinger-Style View
E. W. Bullinger’s approach:
Reads Ezra–Nehemiah as one literary unit (Masoretic tradition: Sefer Ezra).
Ezra = compiler/author; Nehemiah = memoir contributor.
Produces a single structured narrative, not two stitched accounts.
Chronological reordering:
Nehemiah 1–6 (wall building) placed before Ezra 3–6 (altar/temple).
Two seventh-month feasts = the same event, central in a chiastic structure.
Key argument:
Current canonical order reflects Christian editorial tradition, not the original inspired sequence.
Persian king names (Darius, Artaxerxes, Ahasuerus) treated as titles, not distinct individuals → compressed timeline.
“Fixed points” Bullinger uses to anchor chronology:
Nehemiah’s description of ruin (1:3; 2:3, 13–14):
City walls broken, gates burned—no functioning temple-city complex.
Incompatible with a glorious rebuilt temple decades earlier.
Haggai 1:4 rebukes people for living in paneled houses while temple lies waste.
Nehemiah 7:4 still says houses were not built after the wall’s completion.
Ezra 3:6: burnt offerings began, but foundation not yet laid.
Ezra 5:16: foundation laid by Sheshbazzar, still unfinished.
Bullinger’s case:
These details contradict traditional sequencing but harmonize if Nehemiah precedes Ezra’s temple work.
Nehemiah’s inquiries (1:2) suggest no prior large return had occurred.
Nehemiah 7:1–4 indicates the city remained undeveloped even after wall completion.
The two feasts are one event seen from two perspectives.
Reconsidering the Chronology
Traditional Christian chronology is not demanded by the text but grew from the later editorial division.
Greek/Latin division was pragmatic; chronological interpretation followed later.
Once divided, Ezra’s story felt like it ended, and Nehemiah’s like a new chapter, even though the text itself doesn’t specify a gap.
Timelines were built on this assumption, eventually inserting Esther between Ezra and Nehemiah, reinforcing the gap.
Bullinger’s approach reverses this process:
Questions the existence of the gap itself.
Reads the seventh-month feasts as one, restores structural unity.
Conclusion
The traditional two-era view stems from later editorial division, not textual necessity.
Bullinger highlights this by treating division as cause, not result, of chronological assumptions.
Reading Ezra–Nehemiah as one book reveals a single restoration narrative, centered on one covenant renewal event, compiled by Ezra with Nehemiah’s memoirs.
Even if Bullinger’s exact chronology is not adopted, recognizing this editorial history allows fresh readings of the text on its own terms.
