Chapter Seven

1–6. Ezra, his genealogy and character. 7–10. Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem. 11–26. The letter of Artaxerxes, given to Ezra with a definition of his authority and instructions concerning the Jerusalem temple. 27–28. Concluding remarks.

Ezra 7:1. After these things, during the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, Ezra, son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah, “After these things” (cf. Gen 15:1 and others) – a common expression among biblical writers indicating that the narrative that follows relates to events later than those described above. The exact time of these events, however, is not specified. “In the reign of Artaxerxes.” In the original text the Persian king in whose reign Ezra departed from Babylon is called Artahshasta. Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 11 and following) and after him some older scholars (Michaels, Fritsche) believed that by Artahshasta in ch. VII the writer of Ezra means Xerxes, of whom, according to Josephus, Ezra was a friend. Modern exegetes, like our Slavic and Russian translations, usually identify Artahshasta with Artaxerxes (cf. Ezra 4:6). But the name Artaxerxes was borne by three Persian kings: Artaxerxes I Longimanus (465–424), Artaxerxes II Mnemon (405–358), and Artaxerxes III Ochus (358–338). The question arises: in the reign of which of the three named kings did Ezra arrive in Jerusalem? Given that the writer of the book we are examining uses the name Artaxerxes without any qualifications, the question posed is decided differently. According to the traditional understanding of the book of Ezra, shared by our domestic exegetes as well as many Western scholars, Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem occurred during the reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus around 459 B.C. Haneberg, Caulén, Masséro, De-Saulcy believe that Ezra came to Jerusalem in the reign of Artaxerxes II Mnemon. The question of the chronological relationship of Ezra’s activity to the activity of Nehemiah stands in close connection with the question just discussed. Specifically, according to Ezra 7:8, Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes. In the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh 2:1) Nehemiah came to Jerusalem, rebuilt the walls of the city, working together with Ezra, and returned to Susa in the 32nd year of the same king. A short time later Nehemiah came to Jerusalem a second time (Neh 13:6). According to the traditional view, all these facts belong to the time of Artaxerxes I Longimanus (465–424), and Ezra’s mission preceded Nehemiah’s mission. At the present time, however, this view has been subjected to serious doubt, and many scholars propose a different chronological order of the facts noted above. Thus, according to Honaeker, the first arrival of Nehemiah and the building of the Jerusalem walls falls in the 20th year of Artaxerxes I Longimanus (445 B.C.), while Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem was after this, specifically in the 7th year of Artaxerxes II Mnemon (398 B.C.). According to Bellanger, Lagrange, Imbert, Nehemiah’s first visit to Jerusalem, which occurred before Ezra’s arrival, took place in the reign of Artaxerxes III, and Ezra’s arrival occurred in the 7th year of Artaxerxes III. The testimony of the sources seems to favor the more traditional representation of the course of events and the recognition first of all that Ezra’s activity preceded Nehemiah’s arrival in Jerusalem (rather than the reverse). Thus, 1) in the narrative of the writers of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which appears to be set forth in chronological order, Ezra is discussed first (ch. VII-X), and then Nehemiah (Neh 1:1). 2) When Ezra arrived in Palestine, as is evident from ch. VII-X, he did not find a provincial governor of Judea there. This cannot be explained either by the fact that Ezra arrived during Nehemiah’s journey to the Persian king’s court, since this journey falls in the 20–32 years of Artaxerxes, and Ezra arrived in the 7th year, nor by the fact that Ezra arrived after the end of Nehemiah’s second governorship, since the persons who came with Ezra according to ch. VII could not have been in Jerusalem under Nehemiah’s time (Neh 2:1). For these reasons, the non-mention in Ezra 7-10 of a governor of the Persian king in Judea is most naturally understood to mean that Ezra arrived earlier than Nehemiah. 3) In favor of the traditional view of Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem before Nehemiah can be the honorable position which Ezra held already during Nehemiah’s first governorship (Neh 2:1). This position, one would naturally think, was created by the activity described in Ezra 7-10, and which thus falls before Nehemiah’s arrival. 4) In opposition to the traditional view of the chronological sequence of Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s missions, Honaeker puts forward the fact that Jerusalem at the time of Ezra appears (Ezra 7-10) to be settled and populated. Honaeker believes that the city was brought into such a state, as is evident from the source (Neh 3-4), only by Nehemiah, whose activity therefore preceded Ezra’s arrival. But this consideration cannot be deemed to carry particular weight. In Ezra 7-X there is no mention of Jerusalem’s lack of order, but this does not mean that Jerusalem was already finally settled. The expression Ezra 9:9 (“and they gave us protection in Judea and Jerusalem”) does not indicate the existence of Jerusalem’s walls. 5) In Ezra 4:7-23 it is reported that Persian officials together with representatives of certain peoples lodged a complaint with Artaxerxes about the building by the Jews of the walls of Jerusalem. From the expression Ezra 4:12 “the Jews who came from you” – it should be concluded that the complaint is about settlers who arrived during the reign of Artaxerxes. But from the sources it is known that during Artaxerxes’ reign only one group of settlers returned – namely that which came with Ezra (Ezra 7:1-8). Consequently, the attempt at restoration of the walls of Jerusalem mentioned in the complaint belongs to Ezra himself. This attempt did not succeed because the building of the walls was stopped “by a strong armed force” (Ezra 4:23). This testimony must be compared with the account Neh 1:2-4. Here it is reported that Hanani brought word to Nehemiah of the trouble and disgrace of the Jews and that the wall of Jerusalem was broken down and its gates were burned with fire. This report prompted Nehemiah to petition for permission to go to Jerusalem (Neh 2). From the comparison of Ezra 4:7-23 and Neh 1:1, it should therefore be concluded that Ezra arrived in Jerusalem earlier than Nehemiah. According to the traditional representation of the course of events, the time of Ezra’s arrival was the reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus (465–424). This is evident from the fact that among the contemporaries of Ezra and Nehemiah is named the high priest Eliashib, grandson of Jeshua. Since Jeshua served as high priest around 520 B.C., there is no reason to place the time of his grandson’s service (and consequently the time of Ezra’s activity) earlier than 465–424, that is, earlier than the reign of Artaxerxes I. The mention in the book of Ezra of the name Artaxerxes without further qualification is also more understandable if Artaxerxes I is meant. A writer who knew of several kings of this name could not have failed to indicate more clearly which king he was speaking of. The name Ezra, according to the explanation of Origen, means helper (βοηθός), and according to Jerome, helper (adjutor). The genealogy of Ezra is intended to prove that he was descended from Aaron. Comparison with 1 Chr 6:2-14, which lists the descendants of Aaron, shows that in the genealogy Ezra 7:1-5 some ancestors are omitted, perhaps through the error of copyists. Ezra is called the son of Seraiah. But between Ezra and Seraiah lies a period of about 130 years, since Seraiah according to 1 Chr 6:14 was the father of the high priest Jozadak taken captive, and according to 2 Kgs 25:18-21 was put to death in Riblah by order of Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore, Seraiah was obviously not Ezra’s father, and thus Ezra’s immediate ancestors are omitted, perhaps because they were not high priests.

Ezra 7:6. This Ezra went out from Babylon. He was a scribe, skilled in the law of Moses, which the Lord, God of Israel, had given. And the king granted him all he requested, because the hand of the Lord his God was upon him. “He was a scribe, skilled (sopher mahir) in the law of Moses.” In the earliest biblical books the word scribe (sopher) means writer and is used as the title of a state office (cf. 2 Sam 8:17; 2 Kgs 12:10). In later literature sopher means a scholar, a lawyer (cf. Jer 8:8) and is sometimes used as an honorable title (cf. Ezra 7:11). Some exegetes, considering it improper to find this honorable title on Ezra’s own lips, regard it as a later insertion. But there is no basis for seeing “unseemly boasting” (Schrader, Blake) on Ezra’s part in the use of this title, already because the title is given to Ezra in the royal decree and in this passage appears on his lips as a quotation from the decree.

Ezra 7:9. For on the first day of the first month was the beginning of the departure from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month he came to Jerusalem, because the good hand of his God was upon him, “On the first day of the first month was the beginning of the departure.” Probably (cf. Ezra 8:31) on the first day of the first month the decision about departure was made, and the actual departure followed later. More detailed information about Ezra’s journey is given below.

Ezra 7:11. And this is a copy of the letter which King Artaxerxes gave to Ezra the priest, the scribe, one learned in the words of the commandments of the Lord and his laws for Israel: V. 11 is a heading of the content of the decree of Artaxerxes that follows, provided in vv. 12–26 in Aramaic, defining the powers of Ezra. In the decree 1) permission is given to the Jews remaining in Babylon to go with Ezra to Jerusalem; 2) the powers of Ezra are defined, and 3) the king’s donations to the temple are listed. Negative criticism tends to consider the decree unreliable and sees in it a document invented by the writer of the book himself. Against the authenticity of the decree it is argued that its general content, testifying to an incredible benevolent attitude of Artaxerxes toward the Jews, as well as individual expressions revealing an improbable acquaintance of Artaxerxes with Jewish religion and worship. But the benevolent attitude of Artaxerxes toward the Jews does not contradict the policy of the Persian kings, as has been noted above also regarding the decrees of Cyrus and Darius.

Ezra 7:12. Artaxerxes, king of kings, to Ezra the priest, the scribe, the teacher of the law of the God of heaven, perfect (and so forth). The epithet “king of kings” is very often used by Persian kings in their inscriptions. In the Bible it is attributed also to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:37; Ezek 26:7). In the letter of the king a series of epithets is attached to the name of Ezra. According to the Russian text Ezra is called “teacher of the law of the God of heaven, perfect,” in the Vulgate – most learned (Esdrae doctissimo). But the meaning of the Aramaic gemir standing here (Russian rendering “perfect”) is not entirely clear. The familiarity of Artaxerxes with Judaism that troubles researchers, evident in the decree, can very simply be explained either by the consideration (Herzfeld, Rosenzweig, Bertholet) that the decree was composed by Ezra himself and Artaxerxes merely signed it, or else by the fact (Köhler) that the writer sets forth the content of the decree from memory and conveys its content in his own words.

Ezra 7:14. Since you are sent by the king and his seven counselors to make inquiries concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of your God which is in your hand, Concerning the seven counselors of the Persian king mention is also made in Esth 1:14. “According to the law of your God which is in your hand.” There is no basis to see in the cited expression an indication of some special copy of the law in Ezra’s possession and brought by him to Jerusalem. Corresponding to biblical usage (Num 31:4; 1 Sam 14:34), the expression is of a general character and indicates the law in general.

Ezra 7:16. And all the silver and gold that you find in the whole province of Babylon, together with the freewill offerings of the people and priests that are willingly offered for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem; Ezra 7:17. Therefore buy at once with this money bulls, rams, lambs, and their grain offerings and drink offerings, and offer them on the altar of the house of your God in Jerusalem. The reference is to extraordinary sacrifices, whereas in vv. 21–23 the usual sacrifices are in mind.

Ezra 7:22. Silver up to one hundred talents, wheat up to one hundred cors, wine up to one hundred baths, oil up to one hundred baths, and salt without fixed limit. “One hundred talents of silver” – the maximum amount which Artaxerxes orders to be given for the needs of the temple – amounts on our money to about 360,000 rubles. This sum, designated as is evident from the context properly for the purchase of sacrificial animals for public worship, seems too large and does not correspond to the temple’s needs. Köhler therefore considers the figure 100 in the passage in question to have arisen erroneously from the figure 10. However, given the wealth of the treasury of the Persian kings, it is hardly possible to see anything incredible in the cited figure. Moreover, the figure is specified as a maximum. “Wheat up to one hundred cors and wine up to one hundred baths.” Cor, a measure of dry goods, is mentioned also in 1 Kgs 5:11; Ezek 45:14; one hundred cors equal 660 quarters; one hundred baths of wine make up 3,637 liters.

Ezra 7:23. Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be done with diligence for the house of the God of heaven; [let no one lay a hand on the house of the God of heaven,] so that his wrath may not come upon the kingdom, the king, and his sons. The decree of Darius Hystaspes ordered that the expenses for sacrifices be taken from the income of the region beyond the Euphrates (Ezra 6:9-10). But this order apparently was soon repealed (Ezra 4:6). Whether the decree of Artaxerxes was observed is unknown. From Neh 10:33-35 it is evident that 13 years after Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem the people themselves made contributions for the needs of sacrifices.

Ezra 7:25. And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God which is in your hand, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people beyond the river – all those who know the laws of your God. And teach those who do not know them. Ezra 7:26. And whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, judgment shall be executed upon him, whether for death or for banishment or for a fine of money or for imprisonment. The magistrates and judges appointed by Ezra possessed the right of judgment “over all the people beyond the river,” that is, over the Jewish people living in Palestine and generally on this side of the Euphrates. The judgment and administration were to be conducted according to the law of God. “And teach those who do not know” – the reference is probably not to the propagation of Judaism, but in general to the treatment of foreigners living among the Jews. The law of God, after the king had given the order concerning its observance, became also the law of the king. Therefore, violators of the law were assigned punishment according to civil law. As is evident from v. 26, Ezra and the judges appointed by him were given the right to condemn the guilty to death. Some researchers question the reality of this authority. But Ezra condemned no one to death, and therefore there would be no reason to invent the authority contained in v. 26 if it had not been mentioned in the decree.