Isaiah’s New Heavens and New Earth (Part 5): Your Brothers Who Hate You – Nehemiah and the Enemies Within
By Robert E. Cruickshank, Jr. with Daniel E. Harden
Daniel E. Harden (Editor)
Eric Ogea (Proofreader)
Featured Image: Nehemiah and the Enemies Within[1]
Copyright © Robert E. Cruickshank, Jr. (May 16, 2025)
All Rights Reserved
“Hear the word of the Lord, you who tremble at His word: Your brothers who hate you, who exclude you on account of My name, have said, ‘Let the Lord be glorified, so that we may see your joy.’ But they will be put to shame. A sound of uproar from the city, a voice from the temple, the voice of the Lord who is dealing retribution to His enemies” (Isaiah 66:5-6).
In our last article, we noted how the phrase “tremble (ha’red) at His word” is distinct terminology connecting Isaiah’s “new heavens and earth” to the restoration period after the return from exile.[2] Just about any scholarly treatment of Isaiah will point out that the phraseology is used to characterize the returning exiles at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.[3] What makes this connection particularly significant is that the exact form of the rare Hebrew word “ha’red”[4] appears in only two biblical contexts:
- Isaiah’s prophecy (Isaiah 66:2, 5)
- Ezra’s historical account (Ezra 9:4 and 10:3)
In both Isaiah and Ezra, the trembling takes place in reverent reaction to God’s word. When the returnees renew their covenant with the Lord, they “tremble” (ha’red) at the commandments of God and commit to following His law (Ezra 10:3).
However, not all of the returnees supported the reform program. Ezra mourned “over the unfaithfulness” of some of his fellow “exiles” (Ezra 10:6) and made a proclamation that any “exiles” who did not “assemble at Jerusalem” within “three days” would be “excluded from the assembly of the exiles” (Ezra 10:7-8). Isaiah 66:5 echoes and reverses this. Isaiah speaks of “your brothers who hate you” and seek to “exclude you.” As John D. Watts observes, Isaiah’s words accent “the bitterness of the fraternal struggle that had occasioned their previous expulsion.”[5] In other words, having been earlier excluded by the faithful exiles, and filled with hate, the unfaithful returnees now sought to exclude those who were faithful. In simple terms, it was all about payback.
In Isaiah, the hateful brothers say, “Let the Lord be glorified (ka’ved), so that we may see your joy.” This doesn’t seem to make sense. As Goldingay points out, “…one would expect something more negative.”[6] Once again, however, the original intent gets lost in translation. “Glorified” probably isn’t the best rendering of ka’ved here. As Goldingay notes, “the verb usually signifies ‘be heavy,’ and the Old Testament refers a number of times to Yhwh’s hand being heavy on people (e.g. Ps 32.4).”[7] In essence, the hate-filled brothers are saying, “May the Lord come down heavily upon you, and we’ll see how happy you are then.”
Basically, as the events of the restoration period unfolded and played out, there arose a schism between the returning exiles. The unfaithful exiles were excluded by Ezra, and they aimed to turn it back around on the faithful exiles and exclude them instead. This schism, in turn, comes to a head in the book of Nehemiah, as the conspiracy against him to halt the rebuilding project in Jerusalem appears to reflect the words of Isaiah 66:5-6.[8]
Nehemiah in Isaiah
If Isaiah 66:5-6 is indeed referring to the events of Nehemiah’s day, this would be the second appearance of those events in the Prophecy.[9] The Judean governor made his first appearance back in chapter 60, where the prophet looks ahead to the day when “foreigners will build up your walls, and their kings will minister to you” (Isa. 60:10). This is a fitting description of the restoration period as Nehemiah had the full support and funding of the Persian Empire to rebuild and restore Jerusalem’s fallen wall.
Nehemiah was granted Permission by King Artaxerxes to go to Jerusalem and make the needed repairs (Neh. 2:8). He was provided with royal letters ensuring safe travel (Neh. 2:7), and an official military escort (Neh. 2:9). He was appointed as governor of Judah (Neh. 5:14), and the king’s forest would provide the resources required for the project (Neh. 2:8). All of this was “granted” to Nehemiah because “the good hand of God” was upon him (Neh. 2:8).
But nothing good ever comes easy, and the wall didn’t go up without Nehemiah’s enemies trying to take him down. Like Zerubbabel before him, when he rebuilt the temple, Nehemiah would encounter much resistance during his efforts to rebuild the wall. Unlike Zerubbabel, however, Nehemiah’s resistance would come from both within and without. While he sought the welfare of his own people (Neh.2:10), not everyone would be on board with Nehemiah’s plans. His own “brothers” who “hate” him would seek to “exclude” him in God’s very “name” (Isa. 66:5), but his enemies would ultimately be “put to shame” (Isa. 66:6).
The Exiled Community as “Brothers”
The word “brothers” in Isaiah 66:5 and 66:20 is a frequent designation in Nehemiah for the returned community of exiles.[10] Examples include:
“…their Jewish brothers” (Neh. 5:1).
“…our brothers…” (Neh. 5:5).
…his brother…” (Neh. 5:7).
“…our Jewish brothers…” (Neh. 5:8a).
“…your bothers…” (Neh. 5:8b).
“…I and my brothers…” (Neh. 5:10).
“…I nor my brothers…” (Neh. 5:14).
Earlier, Nehemiah had inspired his armed men stationed behind the wall (Neh. 4:13) to “fight for your brothers” against impending threat (Neh. 4:14). In the closing chapter, Nehemiah restores the tithe and appoints “reliable” men to “distribute to their brothers” (Neh. 13:13). From these examples, we can see that it was common to refer to the Judean returnees as “brothers” during this time.
But Isaiah speaks to this future community and refers to “your brothers who hate you, who exclude you for my name’s sake” (Isa. 65:5). At first, this doesn’t seem to fit. In every instance cited above, Nehemiah uses “brothers” in a positive light rather than a negative one. In chapter 4, he stations armed guards to defend them. He doesn’t hate his brothers, and they don’t hate him. In chapter 5, he takes a stand against those who would misuse them through usury and over-taxation. In chapter 13, he ensures that their needs are met. In none of these instances does Nehemiah speak negatively of his Judean “brothers,” nor do they “hate” him.
So, what is going on? How do we make sense out of Isaiah’s prophetic statement? How does Isaiah’s statement match what is going on in the post-exilic book of Nehemiah? The key is in Nehemiah 6 and the conspiracy against Nehemiah’s efforts to finalize the restoration by rebuilding Jerusalem’s wall.
With Brothers Like These, Who Needs Enemies?
In Nehemiah 6, Nehemiah’s three “enemies” Tobiah, Sanballat, and Geshem (Neh. 6:1) send a letter asking him to “meet” with them “at Chephirim in the plain of Ono” (Neh. 6:2a). Nehemiah wisely passes on the offer, perceiving that they were “planning” to do him “harm” (Neh. 6:2b). Tobiah, Sanballat, and Geshem then accuse Nehemiah of plotting a rebellion against Persia in which he would take the reigns as the new king of Judah (Neh. 6:6,7). Nehemiah flatly denies the charges, which are nothing more than inventions of their own minds (Neh. 6:8). The express purpose of the false accusation was to induce fear and halt the restoration effort (Neh. 6:9). Their goal was to “frighten” Nehemiah and cause him to “sin” in order that they might have an “evil report” to use against him (Neh. 6:13).
The leader of the treacherous trio was “Tobiah the Ammonite,” who was “very angry (ra’a) that someone had come to seek the good of the sons of Israel” (Neh. 2:10).[11] Unfortunately, many of those “sons of Israel” were in league with Tobiah and his cohorts – and at odds with their own “brother,” Nehemiah:
“Also in those days many letters went from the nobles of Judah to Tobiah, and Tobiah’s letters came to them. For many in Judah were bound by oath to him because he was the son-in-law of Shecaniah the son of Arah, and his son Jehohanan had married the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah. Moreover, they were speaking about his good deeds in my presence and reported my words to him. Then Tobiah sent letters to frighten me” (Neh. 6:17-18).
As shown above, Nehemiah repeatedly refers to his fellow Judeans as his “brothers.” This verse reveals that some of these same Judean brothers, the very “nobles of Judah” in fact, were in collusion with Tobiah to bring Nehemiah down. One of Tobiah’s chief co-conspirators was “Shemaiah the son of Delaiah, son of Mehetabel” (Neh. 6:10a). Based on his name and genealogy, Shemaiah was a Jew. He was one of the Jews “bound by oath” to Tobiah (Neh. 6:17) trying to induce fear on the part of Nehemiah (Neh. 6:18) and halt the rebuilding project.
Over a decade earlier,[12] the Restoration Prophet Zechariah admonished the people not to give into that fear, and to ignore that oath, when the time came (Zech. 8:13-17).[13]
Shemaiah didn’t listen.
Under the guise of concern for his Jewish brother, Shemaiah advises to Nehemiah to hide in the temple so Tobiah’s forces wouldn’t come and kill him in the dead of night (Neh. 6:10b). This, however, would have been the very “sin” by which Tobiah and his henchmen could have crafted the “evil report” against Nehemiah (Neh. 6:13). Since Nehemiah wasn’t a priest, he would have violated temple laws by entering the sanctuary. Nehemiah wisely rejects Shemaiah’s plan by responding, “Could one such as I go into the temple to save his life? I will not go in” (Neh. 10:11).
At this point, Nehemiah realizes that Shemaiah, his own Judean brother, was not his friend at all – and had no interest in trying to help him. (Neh. 6:12a). Just the opposite. Shemaiah was hired by Tobiah to betray him (Neh. 6:12b). Shemaiah was a sellout. He was a traitor. He was the Judas of Nehemiah’s day. This dovetails perfectly with Isaiah’s prophetic words concerning “your brothers who hate you” and “exclude you for my name’s sake” (Isa. 66:5).
Exclude You for My Name’s Sake
The phrase “exclude you,” in Isaiah 66:5, is a translation of the Hebrew na’dah, and carries the idea of “to cast out” or to “put away.”[14] This is exactly what Nehemiah’s detractors were attempting to do. They wanted him excluded. They wanted him gone. They wanted him out of the picture. The idea of exclusion in Isaiah 66:5 fits the situation in Nehemiah 6 like a hand in a glove, as does the idea that they were disingenuously doing this for God’s “name’s sake” – also used in Isaiah 66:5.
Once Nehemiah had figured out the plot against him and uncovered Shemaiah’s true intentions, he says, “I perceived that surely God had not sent him” when “he uttered his prophecy” (Neh. 6:12). Therein lies the rub. Shemaiah was masquerading as a prophet of God, coming in the name of God. And he wasn’t the only one.
Among the ilk of cronies trying to intimidate him, Nehemiah calls out “Noadiah the prophetess and the rest of the prophets who were trying to frighten me” (Neh. 6:14b). Prior to this, the title “prophetess” (nevi’ah) was reserved for women who truly served God in a prophetic role (e.g., Miriam in Exodus 15:20, Deborah in Judges 4:4, Huldah in 2 Kings 22:14). This “prophetess” and these “prophets” were falsely acting in God’s name out of hate for their own Jewish “brother.”
Doing the Lord’s Dirty Work
But the idea that Nehemiah’s adversaries were supposedly acting in God’s “name” when they sought to “exclude” him runs even deeper than this. Again, throughout the narrative, the lead antagonist is Tobiah. The name Tobiah (Toviyyah) literally means, “Yahweh is good” or “The Lord is good.”[15] The tense conflict between Tobiah and Nehemiah is an important subplot in the Nehemiah storyline. With that said, there is an equally important wordplay on Tobiah’s name when the nefarious character is introduced – the importance of which gets lost in translation. Tobiah (Toviyyah), whose name means “Yahweh is good,” is very displeased or “angry” (ra’a) that someone else had come to “seek the good” (l ebaqqes to’bah) of the sons of Israel.”
This sets the stage and tone for all that follows, and the returning exiles would have to decide which one really sought their “good” (to’bah) and was honestly following the Lord. Was it the one whose name literally means “the Lord is good” (Tobiah) or the one who literally sought the good of the Lord’s people (Nehemiah)? The play on words is transparent when the top layer (the English translation) is peeled back and the full force of the text shows through. Likewise, the clear connection to Nehemiah regarding those who “hate” and “exclude” the righteous under the banner of God’s “name’s sake,” in Isaiah 66:5, becomes equally transparent.
This concept of inclusion versus exclusion (echoing Isaiah 66:5) undergirds the Nehemiah storyline, as two bitter rivals angrily battle it out.
The first chapter opens with Nehemiah becoming “angry” (ra’a) upon hearing of the distress and reproach of those who had survived the captivity living in Jerusalem, which was still in shambles while its wall remained in ruins (Neh. 2:3). As stated above, Tobiah (cast as one disingenuously seeking Israel’s good) becomes very “angry”(ra’a) himself when Nehemiah truly sought Israel’s good (Neh. 2:10). The story arcs full circle when Nehemiah becomes “angry” (ra’a) once again upon hearing that his enemy, Tobiah, had taken up residence in the courts of the house of the Lord (Neh. 13:8a). Upon that, Nehemiah kicks Tobiah out – along with all of his belongings (Neh. 13:8b). In the end, the one who sought to exclude and cast out Nehemiah, in the name of the Lord, was the one who was himself cast out and excluded – as Nehemiah faithfully served the Lord.
Trouble in the Temple
Tobiah’s expulsion from the temple links back to Isaiah 66:6 where “an uproar is heard from the city, a voice from the temple, the voice of the Lord who is rendering recompense to his enemies.” As Goldingay comments, “So the prophet is aware of hearing a sound of uproar from the city, then realizes that more specifically it comes from the temple.”[16]
As history would have it, Nehemiah made quite the uproar when he learned that Tobiah had free room and board “in the courts of the house of God” (Neh. 13:7). A “large room was prepared for him” where they “formerly kept the grain offerings, the frankincense, the tithes of grain, wine and oil, prescribed for the Levites, the singers and the gatekeepers, and the contributions for the priests” (Neh. 13:5). This was all made possible by Eliashib the priest, who was “related to Tobiah” (Neh. 13:4).
Earlier it was pointed out that Tobiah’s name means “Yahweh is good,” but he’s introduced in the narrative as an “Ammonite” (Neh. 2:10). This is a strange mixture, and most scholars conclude that Tobiah “was of mixed ancestry,” and this would account for his “Yahwist” name.[17] As David Clines explains, Tobiah was “a half-Jew who had insinuated himself into the confidence of the upper classes of Jerusalem.”[18]
Tobiah was most likely the product of the intermarrying that took place when many Judeans fled to Ammon and Moab during the Babylonian incursions (Jer. 40:11a). When they learned that Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign was over, and that he had “left a remnant in Judah” (Jer. 40:11b), they returned home “and came back to the land of Judah” (Jer. 40:12). An Ammonite with a Judean name is strong evidence that Tobiah was a result of the mixed marriages that ensued during this time. Hence, Nehemiah closes his book being appalled that “the Jews had married women from Ashod, Ammon, and Moab” (Neh. 13:23), and makes the people swear by God that they would no longer give their children to foreign marriage. He reminds them of Solomon, saying: “…the foreign women caused even him to sin” (Neh. 13:24).
Upon reading “aloud from the book of Moses,” Nehemiah learns that “no Ammonite or Moabite should ever enter the assembly of God” (Neh. 13:1). That’s when Nehemiah takes action, kicks Tobiah out along with his belongings, and orders that the room be cleaned (Neh. 13:8-9). After cleaning house, Nehemiah then restores the temple chambers to their true purpose, restores the tithe, and reinstitutes the Sabbath (Neh. 13:10-18). With Jerusalem’s temple rebuilt, her wall restored, and God’s law reestablished, the restoration was now complete.
The “uproar” that Isaiah heard in the “temple” was the future voice of Nehemiah, as he looked in outrage over what it had become as opposed to what it should have been. And just like he restored the wall around Jerusalem, Nehemiah restored the temple inside Jerusalem to its true purpose and function. His “brothers” who tried to “exclude” him for God’s “name’s sake” were “put to shame” (Isa. 66:5), and “recompense” was “rendered” to the Lord’s “enemies” (Isa. 66:6). In the end, Tobiah, Sanballat, and Geshem failed, and Nehemiah prevailed.
Recap
Like all that precedes it in Isaiah’s final two chapters, Isaiah 66:5-6 is best understood through the lens of the post-exilic period. Isaiah’s prophetic words about “your brothers who hate you” and seek to “exclude you for My name’s sake” align closely with the opposition Nehemiah faced during the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s wall.
As wonderful as this time in Israel’s history was, the restoration period was still marked by internal strife among the returnees — specifically between faithful and unfaithful exiles. Nehemiah’s opponents, including Tobiah, along with some supposed “brothers,” conspired against him under a false pretense of serving God, echoing Isaiah’s portrayal of betrayal cloaked in religious language. The odds seemed to have been stacked against Nehemiah, as many in Judeah had unwisely bound themselves by an oath to Tobiah.
In the end, Nehemiah’s steadfast commitment to the Lord paid off. Supported by God and Persian authorities, he resisted manipulation, rooted out corruption, and ultimately restored both the temple and the wall around Jerusalem. Nehemiah’s actions vindicated the faithful and fulfilled Isaiah’s vision of God meting out retribution against the enemies within.
Takeaways For Today
Isaiah 66:5-6, along with Nehemiah’s story, reminds us that not everyone who claims to act in God’s name truly follows Him. We must use discernment when choosing who to listen to and who not to listen to.
The Judeans’ oath to Tobiah also reminds us of Jesus’s warning about oath-taking in the New Testament (Matt. 5:34). Oaths can entrap us and compromise our integrity when they tie us to the wrong people or purposes. We must always be cautious regarding who and what we’re committing ourselves to.
Nehemiah’s example teaches us to stand firm – even amidst betrayal, lies, and fear tactics. He refused to violate God’s law, and his loyalty to God’s word outweighed any pressure to compromise. Like Nehemiah, believers today are called to do the right thing even when it’s unpopular, risky, or lonely. Faithfulness often means standing apart from the crowd.
Finally, despite fierce opposition, Nehemiah succeeded because “the good hand of God” was upon him. His unwavering trust in God brought victory, vindication, and restoration. Trusting God in hard times leads to lasting results. Our calling is to remain faithful and leave the outcome to Him. God honors steadfast obedience. Sometimes, the voices tempting us to disobey come from without and sometimes they come from within. We need to blot those voices out and listen to Him.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————-
[1] Courtesy of Myrtle Tree Productions
[2] Robert E. Cruickshank, Jr. with Daniel E. Harden, Isaiah’s New Heavens and New Earth (Part 4): The Temple, the Tremblers, and True and False Worship – The Burros of Berea https://bit.ly/3GSSu8f
[3] For example, Paul V. Niskanen, Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry, Isaiah 56–66 (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2014): 96.
[4] Specifically, it is “in the participial form with reference to a plurality only in Isa. 66.2,5 and in Ezra 9.4 and 10.3” (Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Trito-Isaiah [Isaiah 56-66] and the gôlāh group of Ezra, Shecaniah, and Nehemiah (Ezra 7-Nehemiah 13): Is there a connection?” [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43.4, 2019]: 672).
[5] John D. Watts, World Biblical Commentary: Isaiah 34-66 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005): 932.
[6] Goldingay, John. Isaiah 56-66 (ICC): A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (T&T Clark, 2025): 492.
[7] Goldingay, Isaiah 56-66, 492. Examples include:
“The hand of the Lord was heavy against the people of Ashdod, and he terrified and afflicted them with tumors, both Ashdod and its territory” (1 Sam. 5:6).
“They sent therefore and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines and said, “Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it return to its own place, that it may not kill us and our people. For there was a deathly panic throughout the whole city. The hand of God was very heavy there.” (1 Sam. 5:1).
“The battle pressed hard against Saul, and the archers found him, and he was badly wounded by the archers” (1 Sam. 31:3).
[8] Westermann devotes an entire a short chapter to verse 5 alone, recognizing the “tremblers” as those of Ezra: “The people addressed are those ‘who tremble at his word’. We have met with this designation already, at the end of 66.2. Since its only other occurrence is in Ezra 9.4 and 10.3, it must be a designation of the devout used in worship, but current only for a short time after the return.” He notes an apparent “cleavage”, a disagreement or split among the Jews, but doesn’t go much further than that. In a final note on v. 5, he says, “The utterance presumes that signs of a cleavage were beginning to appear in Judah in the early post-exilic period.” Westerman accurately places it as post-exilic but doesn’t identify what the schism is. He speculates that it is still future to the post-exilic Trito-Isaiah writer – a speculation that is totally dependent on there being three different writers of Isaiah, one of which was after exile. Claus Westerman, The Old Testament Library: Isaiah 40-66 (The Westminster Press; Philadelphia PA, 1969) 492-494.
The notion of a “third Isaiah” (presupposing that there were already two Isaiahs at this point) was introduced by the German scholar Bernhard Duhm in 1892. Chapters 56-66 are allegedly the work of this “third Isaiah. Duhm’s thesis was based on the fact that these chapters align so closely with the Ezra/Nehemiah, the Persian period, and the return from exile that they must have been penned by someone living at the time (See: Elizabeth Achtemeier, The Community Message of Isaiah 56-66 [Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982]): 12-13.
Like so many of the ideas posited by the liberal critical scholarship of that era, this line of thought has made its way into mainstream Evangelicalism. There is hardly a commentator today who doesn’t accept the notion of a first, a second, and a third Isaiah.
Evangelicals who hold to a high view of Scripture, however, should reject the concept of multiple authorship of Isaiah. The book itself claims only one author: “Isaiah, the son of Amoz…during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” (Isa. 1:1).
The reason that Isaiah 56-66 comports so well with the post-exilic period is that this is predictive prophecy, and Isaiah was a true prophet. Getting lost in the minutia of this should not cause us to lose sight of the fact that the very reason this theory was concocted in the first place was the affinity of Isaiah’s final section with the time of the restoration after the return from exile.
Ironically, Evangelicals have aligned themselves with the liberal three Isaiahs thesis, which is rooted in the rejection of predictive prophecy, yet they turn around and warp-speed Isaiah 56-66 to the end of world history – making this so-called “Third Isaiah” a predictive prophet himself. At the same time, they typically ignore the connections of Isaiah 56-66 to Ezra/Nehemiah – the very thing for which “Third Isaiah” was created to deal with.
In a nutshell, there is no “Third Isaiah.” The final chapters of Isaiah reflect the return from exile because this is what those chapters were prophetically about.
[9] There is no real consensus on what the second half of Isaiah 66:5 is referring to. We are taking the position that it refers to Nehemiah, but it should also be noted that the Septuagint reads a little differently, casting the “brothers” in a more favorable light: “Hear the word of the Lord, you who tremble at his word; speak, our brothers, to those who hate and abominate us so that the name of the Lord may be glorified and seen in their joy, but those ones shall be put to shame.” This rendering is a departure from the Hebrew manuscripts, so seems unlikely. However, if it is correct, then the reference to the ones that hate would be more likely aimed at those that opposed the building of the temple in Zerubbabel’s day.
[10] Goldingay, Isaiah 56-66, 491.
[11] Tobiah would have actually been a half-brother, but more on that later.
[12] There is consensus on a date of 516 BC for the completion of Zerubbabel’s temple. There is likewise consensus for a date of 520 BC for Zechariah. The conventional date for Nehemiah rebuilding the wall is 458 BC – putting a 58-year gap between the two events. James Jordan’s revised chronology tightens that gap considerably, with Nehemiah completing his work in 502 BC (James B. Jordan, Artaxerxes, and Ahasuerus in the Bible [Monroe, Louisiana: Athanasius Press, 2104]: 73). Regardless of the precise dates, the sequence remains the same. Zechariah prophecies before both the rebuilding of the temple and the wall.
[13] See: Mordecai or the Millennium? Ancient History, Pop-Prophecy, and the Meaning of Zechariah 8:23 (Part 1: A Man, A Jew) – The Burros of Berea https://bit.ly/44AWlRl
[14] STEP Bible (Tyndale House), entry for נָדָה (na.dah) ‘to put away’
[15] STEP Bible (Tyndale House), entry for “Tobiah” טוֹבִיָּ֫הוּ (to.viy.ya.hu)
[16] Goldingay, Isaiah 56-66, 493.
[17]Gary N. Knoppers, “Nehemiah and Sanballat: The Enemy Without or Within?,” in Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz, ed., Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE (Winona Lake, Indiana
Eisenbrauns 2007) :318.
[18] David J. Clines, The New Century Bible Commentary: Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984): 145.
