Ezra's Commission From The Persian King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-26).
We are now provided with a copy of Artaxerxes' decree to Ezra, recorded in its original Imperial Aramaic. We must remember that this was the same king as the one who would order the work on the walls of Jerusalem to cease (Ezra 4:7-24), something which probably took place a few years later. On the other hand we must remember that he was a busy king with many preoccupations. One of those was with regard to the religious welfare of his people, and a desire to keep the gods on his side, another was with the need to keep the realm safe from rebellion. And for both he was dependent on advisers. Just as there were enemies who would seek to present them to the king in the worst light, so there were Jews in high places who would see it as their responsibility to keep the welfare of their fellow-Jews before him (consider Nehemiah later), and it was no doubt they who had impressed on the king the need for the Jews in Judah and the surrounding area to be properly taught the Law of God so that God might feel benevolently disposed towards the empire, and had brought home the need for a people mainly living in relative poverty to have financial assistance in order to maintain the complicated requirements of Temple worship.
We must presume that the king had had consultations with Ezra prior to the decree, and no doubt Ezra had made his own views known in the form of guidance to the king subject to his approval (compare Tattenai in Ezra 5:17), so that much that is in the decree might have resulted from this advice. Alternatively the advice might have come from Jews in high places. We do not know whether Ezra was already a minister of state as ‘the Scribe of the Law of the God of Heaven', or whether this was a title given to him at this time so as to indicate to all that he was acting on the king's authority.
The authenticity of the letter is confirmed by the use of Imperial Aramaic, the way the letter is constructed, the use of Persian loan-words, and the agreement of its contents with Persian imperial policy. It indicates Persian authorship influenced by Jewish ideas, which is what we would expect in such a document.
Note the careful pattern of the letter. The opening commission is to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem in accordance with the Law (Ezra 7:14), and the closing commission is to appoint judges over those who know the Law, so as to ensure its fulfilment, while at the same time teaching that Law to those ignorant of it (Ezra 7:25-26). In between come the provisions for financing worship that will be pleasing to God so that He might bless the king, and the decree issued to the treasurers in Beyond the River ensuring continual provision.
‘Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave to Ezra the priest, the scribe, even the scribe of the words of the commandments of YHWH, and of his statutes to Israel:'
This introduction may have been part of the official introduction heading the letter, depicting the official responsibility given to him. It specifically defines what his responsibilities were to be. He was to have responsibility for ‘the words of the commandments of YHWH and of His statutes for Israel', in other words he was to teach them to, and if necessary enforce them on, the people who worshipped YHWH (Ezra 7:25). The words are very reminiscent of the Law of Moses which often speaks of the ‘commandments and statutes' of YHWH, often accompanied by the promise that if they observed them it would go well with them, which was Artaxerxes concern (e.g. Exodus 15:26; Leviticus 26:2-3; Deuteronomy 4:39-40; Deuteronomy 6:2; Deuteronomy 10:13; Deuteronomy 27:10; Deuteronomy 28:15; Deuteronomy 28:45; Deuteronomy 30:10). There may be an echo in the wording (but not the idea) of 2 Kings 17:19 ‘the commandments of YHWH -- the statutes of Israel'. This indicates the influence of Jewish advisers, or even of Ezra himself.
We now come to the main contents of the letter, which is written in Aramaic, and follows the typical pattern of letters sent by Persian kings, found both here in Ezra and in papyri.
‘Artaxerxes, king of kings, to Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect.'
The addresser is Artaxerxes ‘king of kings'. This was one title in regular use by Persian kings (but not by Greek kings later) illustrating their authority over many kings. The addressee, Ezra, is entitled ‘the scribe of the law of the God of Heaven' (compare Ezra 7:21), which was clearly his official title. This may have been a new title conferred on him in view of the task ahead, or may have denoted his official position as a Jewish adviser to the king, which would explain why he was chosen for the task. In view of the large numbers of Jews scattered throughout the Persian empire (see e.g. Esther 3:8; Esther 8-9) such an adviser would be useful. Compare Nehemiah 11:24.
‘Perfect.' Compare the use of ‘peace' and ‘all peace' in Ezra 4:17; Ezra 5:7. This may well have been a recognised technical abbreviation used as a greeting, indicating something like ‘perfect peace', or ‘may everything be perfect'. Some see it as adverbial and meaning ‘perfectly', referring to Ezra as ‘a perfect or complete priest'.
That Ezra was given considerable authority by the king comes out in the body of the letter which follows:
· He was authorised to take with him all of ‘the people of Israel' who wished voluntarily to return with him (Ezra 7:12-13). Depicted as fulfilled in chapter 8, with full names given.
· He was sent by the king and his seven chief counsellors to enquire into the religious situation in Judah and Jerusalem, concerning which there was clearly concern (Ezra 7:14). Depicted as fulfilled in Chapter s 9-10.
· He was taking to Jerusalem the gifts of the king and his counsellors, together with the freewill offerings of others, in order to make satisfactory offerings to the God of Heaven, and with authority to do whatever he felt best with what remained, ‘in accordance with the will of God' (Ezra 7:15-18). Demonstrated as fulfilled in Ezra 8:24-30; Ezra 8:33-35.
· He was to deliver to the house of God in Jerusalem valuable vessels for use in that house (Ezra 7:19). Demonstrates as fulfilled in Ezra 8:33-34.
· He was given the king's authority to call on the king's treasury for whatever should be needful for the house of God up to certain prescribed limits (Ezra 7:20-22) so that God's requirements be satisfied (Ezra 7:23). Depicted as fulfilled in Ezra 8:36.
· He was to announce freedom from all taxes for Temple personnel, presumably having the authority to ensure that the order was carried out (Ezra 7:24).
· He was to appoint magistrates and judges to ensure that the laws of God were carried out satisfactorily by ‘all the people in Beyond the River' (presumably all who were recognised as subscribing to them), and to teach all those who did not know them (Ezra 7:25), with authority to punish as he decided right, even up to the Death penalty (Ezra 7:26). Demonstrated as fulfilled in chapter 10. 6 ff. with full names of transgressors given.
It is quite clear from this that he had powerful authority specifically granted to him by the king, an authority which was to be recognised by Persian officials.
‘And so I make a decree, that all those of the people of Israel, and their priests and the Levites, in my realm, who are minded of their own free will to go to Jerusalem, go with you.'
This is the second decree of which we know (compare Ezra 1:3) by which Israelites informed that they were officially allowed to return to their homeland. It includes any of ‘the people of Israel, and their priests and the Levites' a phrase which parallels the main divisions in chapter 2. For ‘the people of Israel' compare Ezra 2:2; Ezra 9:1; Nehemiah 7:7. See also Ezra 2:70. In contrast ‘the children of Israel' unqualified always means the whole of the returnees, including priests and Levites (Ezra 3:11; Ezra 6:16; Ezra 6:21; Nehemiah 2:10; Nehemiah 7:73; Nehemiah 9:1), or the whole of Israel (Nehemiah 8:14; Nehemiah 8:17; Nehemiah 13:2), except in the one case where it is qualified by ‘some' (Ezra 7:7). There is one exception in Nehemiah 10:39 where the children of Israel are paralleled with the children of Levi in bringing the priests' heave offering to the Temple, but that was necessary in consequence of the telescoping of the passage. The children of Israel brought the tithes to the Levites in their cities, but brought their heave offerings to the priests when they offered sacrifices. It was the Levites who then brought their tithe of the tithes to the priests as a heave offering (Numbers 18:24). It is striking that in Artaxerxes' letter we should find the phrase ‘the people of Israel' used as indicating one of the three groups, as distinguished from the priest and the Levites, something which suggests that Ezra had a hand in what the letter contained.
But for any who returned it was to be totally of their own freewill. There was to be no enforced repatriation, although the decision would be in the hands of the adult men.
‘Forasmuch as you are sent by the king and his seven counsellors, to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of your God which is in your hand,'
The king emphasises that Ezra has been sent ‘by the king and his seven counsellors', that is, his inner court. Compare Esther 1:14 where the seven ‘saw the king's face and sat first in the kingdom'. They are also spoken of by Herodotus and Xenophon. There could be no greater authority.
Ezra was commissioned by this inner counsel of the king of Persia, to investigate the situation in Judah and Jerusalem in order to ensure that they were conforming to ‘the Law of God which is in your hand'. This makes clear that he had received disturbing reports from somewhere which suggested that all was not well with the worship of Judah and Jerusalem, which might well, in his view, have invalidated or weakened their prayers for the life of the king. It explains why Ezra dealt so severely with the matter of foreign wives, for the point was not that they were foreign, but that they were encouraging the worship of foreign gods (Ezra 9:1). The very purpose that Persia had in ensuring the rebuilding of the Temple on its sacred site was in order to please the God of Heaven (Ezra 6:3-10). They did not want this to be rendered ineffective by wrong ritual behaviour.
‘The Law of God which is in your hand.' This probably simply signifies that as a priest and son of Aaron he was seen as being versed in the Law of God, because every legitimate priest had ‘the Law of God in his hand'. This was now the priest's purpose in Exile. To teach the Law of God. This may indeed have been the significance, at least as seen by the priests of Ezra's day, of the enigmatic phrase ‘to fill the hand'. The phrase is connected in the Law of God with the consecration of the Levitical priests. In Exodus 28:41, God instructs Moses: “you shall anoint [Aaron and his sons], and fill their hand, and consecrate them, and they shall function as priests for me.” See also Exodus 29:9; Exodus 29:33; Exodus 29:35; Leviticus 8:33; Leviticus 16:32; Leviticus 21:10; Numbers 3:3. This was no longer possible among the Dispersion in Ezra's day. Whatever was signified may well therefore have been replaced by the Law of God.
‘And to carry the silver and gold, which the king and his counsellors have freely offered to the God of Israel, whose dwellingplace is in Jerusalem, and all the silver and gold that you will find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill-offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem,'
Ezra's next responsibility was to carry to Jerusalem the gifts which the king and his counsellors were freely offering to the God of Israel who dwelt there. This can be compared with Ezra 6:8-10. It was a sincere offering to ‘the God of Israel' (a name which again hints at Jewish influence on the contents of the letter), although clearly with a view to obtaining his favour. While the counsellors were to be seen as ‘freely offering' it is doubtful if they could have done much else. To have refused would have been seen as wishing ill on the king.
The king also envisages them receiving gifts throughout all the province of Babylon. This would include contributions from various of the aristocracy (‘the princes' - Ezra 8:25), and members of the Jewish population. Furthermore there would be a receiving of gold and silver as a freewill offering, both from the ordinary people and from the priests, as gifts for the house of their God in Jerusalem. ‘Their God' makes clear that it was mainly Jews who were in mind. Some, however, see ‘all the silver and the gold that you will find in all the province of Babylon' as referring to gifts from non-Jews, but, apart from the aristocracy under pressure from the king (Ezra 8:25), it does not say so, although some may well have been willing to give in hope of benefiting from the blessing of the God of Heaven.
‘Therefore you shall with all diligence buy with this money bullocks, rams, lambs, with their meal-offerings and their drink-offerings, and shall offer them on the altar of the house of your God which is in Jerusalem.'
The first use of these riches will be to buy bullocks, rams, lambs, grain and wine so that with all due diligence they might make offerings on the altar in the house of their God at Jerusalem.
‘And whatever shall seem good to you and to your brothers to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, that do you after the will of your God.'
But it was recognised that the riches provided were to be far more than could be spent sensibly on the daily offerings, and the remainder was therefore at the disposal of Ezra and his brother priests for them to do with it what seemed good to them in accordance with the will of God. They would know best what was required by their God. There may be in mind, among other things, the adorning of the Temple itself (which would explain the reference to Artaxerxes in Ezra 6:14), and possibly special festivities for celebrating their arrival in Jerusalem.
‘And the vessels which are given you for the service of the house of your God, do you deliver before the God of Jerusalem.'
These vessels were probably the gift of Artaxerxes, given by him so at to earn the approbation of ‘the God of Jerusalem'. They were intended for service in the house of Ezra's God, and he was to deliver them before God on his behalf. The next verse may suggest that Artaxerxes had learned from his Jewish advisers that there was a shortage of vessels in the Temple, possibly due to the fact that not all the Temple vessels and been preserved, and thus given back.
‘And whatever more shall be needful for the house of your God, which you shall have occasion to bestow, bestow it out of the king's treasure-house.'
Furthermore if there was anything else needed in the house of God which Ezra felt that it was necessary in some way to obtain so that he could bestow it on the Temple, he was, within broad limits, to bestow it on the Temple from the king's treasury. And to this end he included in his letter a copy of a letter addressed to the king's treasurers in Beyond the River, the details of which are now provided in Ezra 7:21-22. The inclusion of one letter within another in this way has been evidenced in external sources.