Ezra Comes To Jerusalem (Ezra 7:1-10).
Almost sixty years after the completion of the Temple, Ezra arrived in Jerusalem as an Expert in the Law of Moses, eager to teach it to the worshippers of YHWH, and accompanied by many Israelite exiles who had been given permission to return. It will be noted that Ezra 7:1-26 are written in the third person (‘he'). It is clear why from the introduction. Ezra is presenting his report to the king with due formality. There was no better way for a Jew to reveal his status than by outlining his genealogy. Without excessive boasting it revealed his pedigree and would impress those who heard because it connected him with the ancients. Thus the following narrative continued the note of formality, leading up to the king's commission. The change to the first person is initiated by Ezra's cry of praise and gratitude to God, and that continues until he comes to the end of his report in chapter 10 when he demonstrates how he and the people have fulfilled the king's commission..
‘ Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest,'
‘After these things' is a loose way of indicating that what is described comes chronologically after what has previously been described. It gives no indication of what the time gap between them might be, and in fact what has been described in the previous narrative had dealt with matters up to the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:11; Ezra 4:23).
Note how Ezra's pedigree is listed in detail, drawing attention to his direct descent from Eleazar, the son of Aaron. Apart from the omission of a few names, which was common practise in ancient genealogies, it coincides with that in 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Whether Seraiah was his actual father or grandfather, named after the Seraiah from whom he was descended (1 Chronicles 6:14), or whether he was simply that well known ancestor, it is impossible at this stage to determine. Probably the former is true. The aim of the genealogy was, of course, in order to establish Ezra's credentials as a son of Zadok (the High Priest in David's day whose descendants were approved by Ezekiel 43:19; Ezekiel 44:15), who was the son of Eleazar (the High Priest in Joshua's day), the son of the first Priest, Aaron, here called ‘the chief priest'.
It has been argued that Zadok was not the son of Ahitub, as it was Ahimelech who was the son of Ahitub (1 Samuel 22:9). But it is noteworthy that the same phrase is used of Zadok in 2 Samuel 8:17. There is no reason at all why Zadok's father should not have been called Ahitub. This book itself is a witness to how often the same name appears with reference to different people.
‘This Ezra went up from Babylon, and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which YHWH, the God of Israel, had given, and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of YHWH his God upon him.'
Ezra is described as ‘a ready (skilled and capable) Scribe in the Law of Moses, which YHWH the God of Israel had given'. He is thus seen as being an expert in the Law of Moses given at Sinai.
‘The king granted him all his request.' The idea behind this statement is that he was fully approved of by Artaxerxes who was willing to give him anything that he required for the fulfilment of his task. A comparison may be intended here with the Pharaoh of the Exodus who also granted to Moses, albeit reluctantly, all that he had requested (Exodus 12:31-32). Ezra may be being seen as the new Moses, swaying the king and leading his people into the promised land, bearing the Law of Moses, and having received the gifts from the people who were remaining behind (compare Ezra 1:4; Ezra 7:15-16). While we are nowhere told of things which Ezra did ask for, chief among them would be the king's authority to act in matters to do with the Law of Moses (Ezra 7:25), something which was very dear to Ezra's heart (Ezra 7:10). And it may also have included the treasures for God's house and the right to require from the officials in Beyond the River anything that he required for his task (Ezra 7:21). Much may also well have been provided in the way of beasts of burden in order to ensure the comfort of his journey. And the reason for the king's favour was because ‘the hand of YHWH his God was upon him' (Ezra 7:6)
‘And there went up (with him) some from the children of Israel, and from the priests, and the Levites, and the singers, and the gate-keepers, and the Nethinim, to Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king.'
‘Some from the children of Israel' probably reflects the fact of the presence of the children of Israel already in the land from the previous return (compare Ezra 3:1). It is less likely that ‘some of' is in contrast with those left in exile by their own choice. To the writer it was those who were in the land who were the new Israel (Ezra 2:2; Ezra 3:1; Ezra 6:16) Compare with this verse ‘the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people and the singers, and the gatekeepers, and the Nethinim' in 1:70) of the first returnees. The two groups would soon be combining. For information on these different classes see chapter 2, where it will be noted we have the same order, children of Israel, priests, Levites, singers, gate-keepers, and Nethinim (together with Solomon's servants). We should note that the reason why Ezra is not mentioned here is because his ‘going up' has already been mentioned in Ezra 7:6. ‘With him' is to be understood.
The journey of Ezra and his fellow-travellers took place in the seventh year of Artaxerxes. There may well be intended in the mention of the fact that it was the seventh year (the year of divine perfection) the thought of God's perfect timing. We can compare how the seventh year was always a year of rest for the land (Exodus 23:11) and release from debt (Deuteronomy 15:1-3) when they were in the land. It was also the year of release for the Habiru slave (Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12).
‘And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king.'
They arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month (the number of covenant) of the seventh year (the number of divine perfection) of Artaxerxes. That was in 458 BC. The journey took nearly four months, although with women and children in the caravan they would have to move at a slow pace. The use of the singular ‘he' refers back to the mention of Ezra in Ezra 7:6; Ezra 7:7 is an explanatory sentence which we would have possibly put in parenthesis. The use of the singular continues in Ezra 7:9.
‘For on the first day of the first month he began to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month he came to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him.'
The first day of the first month is the day of new beginning, the commencement of the religious calendar. It was on that date that ‘he began to go up --.' It was then that he gathered the people at the River of Ahava ready for the journey (Ezra 5:15), where there was a three day inspection. But the fact that he then discovered that no Levites had responded to his call (Ezra 8:15) meant that he had to persuade Levites and Nethinim to join him, and this delayed the start of the actual journey, which did not recommence until the twelfth day (Ezra 8:31). But because the good hand of God was upon him there were no further delays on the journey so that they made good time.
‘For Ezra had set his heart to seek the law of YHWH, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances.'
The reason why the good hand of God was upon him was that he had set his heart to look into the Law of YHWH so that it had entered into his heart, and then to actually ‘do it', living it out in his daily life. Finally he had set himself to teach its statutes and ordinances in Israel that others might benefit by it too. He was dedicated to a teaching ministry based on the Law of God. ‘Look into -- do -- teach, are the perfect combination for such a person. He meditated, then did, and then taught. It is what the Christian should do with the word of God. It is the man who does these things who will live by them (Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 4:1; Deuteronomy 8:1; Deuteronomy 12:1). To be a teacher without doing is to be deserving of heavy punishment (James 3:1).
This was where the later Scribes condemned by Jesus in Matthew 23; Mark 7 went astray. Instead of studying the Law as it was in itself, they studied what the elders had said about the Law. They thus failed to observe the true meaning of the Law. They found ways round it. And in consequence when they taught converts they made them ‘twofold more a son of Hell than themselves' (Matthew 23:13).