Passage Workspace

Ezra 4:7

A focused desk for reading, commentary, cross-references, original language notes, and your own observations.

Chapter Interlinear Verse Page

Ezra 4:7

7 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.

Chapter Context

Ezra 4 is a historical narrative chapter in the Old Testament that explores themes of prayer, sacrifice, wisdom. Written during the post-exilic return (c. 458-440 BCE), this chapter should be understood within its historical context: The Persian Empire allowed religious freedom while maintaining political control.

The chapter can be divided into several sections:

  1. Verses 1-5: Introduction and setting the context
  2. Verses 6-12: Development of key themes
  3. Verses 13-20: Central message and teachings
  4. Verses 21-24: Conclusion and application

This chapter is significant because it contributes to the biblical metanarrative of redemption. When studying this passage, it's important to consider both its immediate context within Ezra and its broader place in the scriptural canon.

Verse Study

Ezra 4:7

7 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.

Analysis

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.

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?

Cross-References

Original Language

וּבִימֵ֣י H3117 אַרְתַּחְשַׁ֖שְׂתְּא H783 כָּת֥וּב H3789 בִּשְׁלָ֜ם H1312 מִתְרְדָ֤ת H4990 טָֽבְאֵל֙ H2870 וּשְׁאָ֣ר H7605 כְּנָוֺתָ֔ו H3674 עַל H5921 אַרְתַּחְשַׁ֖שְׂתְּא H783 מֶ֣לֶךְ H4428 פָּרָ֑ס H6539 +6