And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.
And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue. This verse advances the timeline to Artaxerxes I (465-424 BC), showing sustained, multi-generational opposition. The enemies' persistence demonstrates that spiritual warfare doesn't relent when initial efforts fail. The named opponents—Bishlam ('man of peace,' ironically), Mithredath ('given by Mithra'), and Tabeel ('God is good')—represent a coalition of Persian officials and local leaders united against God's purposes.
The detail about Syrian (Aramaic) language and interpretation emphasizes official, governmental formality. Aramaic was the administrative language of the Persian Empire, ensuring this letter received serious official attention. The repetition 'written... written... interpreted' stresses the bureaucratic precision calculated to maximize damage. This wasn't casual complaint but sophisticated political maneuvering exploiting imperial administrative systems.
The passage demonstrates how evil works systematically through legitimate structures. The letter's official character made it more dangerous than physical attacks—it threatened to invoke imperial power against the returned exiles. This foreshadows Jesus's trial where opponents manipulated Roman legal systems to accomplish what they couldn't through religious authority alone.
Historical Context
Artaxerxes I 'Longimanus' (long-handed) ruled the Persian Empire during its mature period. His reign saw both Ezra's return (458 BC) and later Nehemiah's mission (445 BC). The empire's administrative sophistication allowed effective governance across vast territories through standardized Aramaic correspondence and local officials.
The Syrian (Aramaic) tongue had become the lingua franca of the Near East, displacing Akkadian. Its use in official correspondence reflects the linguistic unity that facilitated Persian administration. Jewish leaders needed to master Aramaic for political engagement, explaining its prominence in later biblical books (Daniel, Ezra). This bilingual reality shaped post-exilic Judaism's cultural adaptation while maintaining Hebrew for religious purposes.
Questions for Reflection
How do systems and institutions, originally designed for good, become instruments of opposition to God's work?
What wisdom is needed to navigate situations where legal or bureaucratic powers are manipulated against righteousness?
How should Christians maintain integrity when facing sophisticated political or institutional opposition?
Analysis & Commentary
And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue. This verse advances the timeline to Artaxerxes I (465-424 BC), showing sustained, multi-generational opposition. The enemies' persistence demonstrates that spiritual warfare doesn't relent when initial efforts fail. The named opponents—Bishlam ('man of peace,' ironically), Mithredath ('given by Mithra'), and Tabeel ('God is good')—represent a coalition of Persian officials and local leaders united against God's purposes.
The detail about Syrian (Aramaic) language and interpretation emphasizes official, governmental formality. Aramaic was the administrative language of the Persian Empire, ensuring this letter received serious official attention. The repetition 'written... written... interpreted' stresses the bureaucratic precision calculated to maximize damage. This wasn't casual complaint but sophisticated political maneuvering exploiting imperial administrative systems.
The passage demonstrates how evil works systematically through legitimate structures. The letter's official character made it more dangerous than physical attacks—it threatened to invoke imperial power against the returned exiles. This foreshadows Jesus's trial where opponents manipulated Roman legal systems to accomplish what they couldn't through religious authority alone.