It is useful to appreciate who Ezra was. What was his family line? This is listed in Ezra 7:1-5. In this list, certain names stand out, Hilkiah, who was the high priest in the days of Josiah, 2 Chronicles 34:9, Zadok the priest in the days of David and Solomon, and going back further, Phineas, Eleazar and Aaron, the chief priest. So, Ezra was of the priestly line; in fact, going by his ancestors, very distinguished in the priestly line. He was one of over four thousand priests in Judea, most of whom had already returned to Judea years before Ezra. But he was the one selected by God to restore the true religious observance and worship in the country. He is reputed to have written three books of the Bible, Ezra, and the last two books of the Jewish Scriptures, 1 and 2 Chronicles. He also arranged the books of the Old Testament in the order in which we have them today in the Hebrew Bible, but not in the English Bible (compare “The Authority of the Bible”, page 85). So important was he in the eyes of his people that later tradition regarded him as no less than a second Moses. It is interesting that Ezra himself is not even mentioned in his book until the seventh chapter.

He was sent back by the king to investigate the spiritual condition of the Jews in Judea. This is mentioned in Ezra 7:14. The time setting of his return is mentioned in Ezra 7:1: “Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia…” These things were the building and dedication of the temple and the keeping of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, mentioned in Ezra, chapter 6. These events had occurred over fifty years earlier before Ezra came to Jerusalem, so the term “after these things” does not mean immediately after them.

The people of Israel had had a great amount of zeal during the building of the temple with the encouragement of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. In Haggai 2:6-7, we read, “For thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘Once more (it is a little while) I will shake heaven and earth, the sea and dry land; and I will shake all nations, and they shall come to the Desire of All Nations, and I will fill this temple with glory,’ says the LORD of hosts.” However, after the fifty-plus-years-period since completing the temple, nothing in this prophecy had occurred and there was the strong probability that the people had become slack concerning the observance of God’s Law.  

This was a reason for the king to send Ezra to Judea to inquire about their spiritual condition which is stated in Ezra 7:23: “Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it diligently be done for the house of the God of heaven. For why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?” He did not want the God of heaven to be displeased about what was happening in Judea and bring wrath on the king’s and his sons’ kingdom.

Ezra was fluent in two languages, Aramaic and Hebrew. In fact, parts of the book of Ezra were written in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8 to 6:18 and 7:12-16), but the majority of the book was written in Hebrew. At the time of Ezra, it is claimed that the language commonly spoken by the ordinary people was Aramaic, not Hebrew, although the religious, governmental and upper class did use Hebrew. The two languages have similarities but are not identical.

Ezra was an expert in the Law of Moses, commonly called the Torah, which made him a scribe as well as a priest. But why did he have to be skilled? This is mentioned in Ezra 7:6, “… this Ezra came up from Babylon; and he was a skilled scribe in the Law of Moses, which the LORD God had given. The king granted him all his request, according to the hand of the LORD his God upon him.” This is reinforced in Ezra 7:11, “This is a copy of the letter that king Artaxerxes gave Ezra the priest, the scribe, expert in the words of the commandments of the LORD, and of His statutes to Israel.”

The language of Hebrew has a number of features which, to be understood fully, require much instruction, training and knowledge. The first obstacle to be overcome is that the writing of the official scrolls in the temple or synagogues had no vowels. If we were to look at a modern printed Hebrew Bible, we would see marks under the letters suggesting which vowels, accents and pronunciations to employ for the text to make sense. However, these markings were added around the time of the Masoretes, somewhere around the eighth or ninth centuries CE. While the Masoretes were extremely accurate in copying the consonants in the scrolls, their additions as mentioned were according to their best understanding at the time.

To understand why skill was needed, we could look at a simple Hebrew word like “dm,” using English letters. It basically means “red”. When vowels are added, it can be either Adam or Edom, depending on context. The Masoretes added the required vowel marks to suggest which was the correct meaning. However, Ezra had to know what the correct meaning was because when he read it, there were no added prompts or markings for him to use at that time.

To complicate the situation further, there were no word breaks between words. The word breaks had been added more recently, probably again in the time of the Masoretes. Ezra had to determine where words started and finished among a continuous row of letters. As an English example, we might read “gtthntyslggrd” and after some thought realise it was “Go to the ant you sluggard,” by adding vowels and word breaks. However, the word breaks are usually correctly inserted but in extremely rare cases they are not in the correct position.

An example of this is in Proverbs 26:23: “Fervent lips with a wicked heart Are like earthenware covered with silver dross.” When analysed, fervent lips and a wicked heart are opposites, designating hypocrisy. However, with an earthenware pot covered with silver dross, both are of little value, silver dross, commonly called slag, being what’s left after the silver has been refined and removed from the ore. But if the word breaks are slightly modified, and the correct vowels added, “silver dross” becomes “glaze”, which has the effect of making something cheap and common look valuable, thus redefining the sentence into two opposites: “Fervent lips compared with a wicked heart” and “Cheap earthenware compared with a beautifully glazed item of pottery.” The glaze hides the cheapness of the item, in a similar way that fervent lips hide the wickedness of the heart.

The reason the word break was placed in the wrong position in that passage by the Masoretes was that the Hebrew word referring to glaze was unknown in the period when they finalised their text, but the words for silver and dross were known. By making the word breaks in particular positions and inserting the corresponding seemingly appropriate vowels, they could make some sort of sense, although not giving the correct meaning. More recent translations have corrected this error and, as an example, the Good News Version renders this proverb as “Insincere talk that hides what you are really thinking is like a fine glaze on a cheap clay pot.”

Aside from adding the correct vowels and word breaks, Ezra also had to be very familiar with the Oral Law. It refers to Jewish legal traditions and interpretations that are not part of the written Torah. They were passed down orally. Some of those were adopted to enable one to correctly obey many written laws, the details of which were not revealed in the written Law. However, many of those were added to “make a fence for the Law,” especially when referring to the Sabbath. Their additions and interpretations were rejected by Jesus Christ (compare “God’s Commanded Holy Days,” pages 17 following).

It is intended in a future Q&A to explain the necessity and history of the Oral Law.

So, we see that for Ezra to carry out the commission that God gave to him to restore true religion to the land of Judea, he had to understand the Scriptures in fine detail, including pronunciation and providing correct word breaks. He would have needed much instruction and training and inspiration from God. Also, he needed to know in minute detail the correct oral laws necessary to be able to apply God’s Law in the right way. Therefore, he needed to be a highly “skilled Scribe,” and an “expert in the words of the commandments of the LORD.”

Lead Writer: Paul Niehoff (Australia)

When we read 2 Samuel chapter 8, we find there is a list of the wars and military conquests of king David. It also lists who he put in charge of the various responsibilities of the army, civil service and religious service. This chapter also reveals in verse 15 a responsibility David himself had. “So David reigned over all Israel; and David administered judgement and justice to all his people.”

Here we find the terms judgement and justice used. Is this a redundancy, or do these words have significantly different meanings? Again, this expression is repeated in Isaiah 9:7 which describes the kingdom which will be established at the time of the coming of Jesus Christ to the earth. “Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgement and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.”

Justice and judgement are translated from two different Hebrew words; justice is translated from mishpat and Judgement from tsedaqah. What is the difference between these two Hebrew words? Mishpat refers to the literal letter of the law.  God gave Israel a very comprehensive law and it provided certain specific penalties if these laws were broken. So why was anything else needed?

If we examine Deuteronomy 17:8-11, we find that the Hebrew term for judgement is used. “If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgement or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses. And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgement. You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the LORD chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you. According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgement which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you.”

The implication here is not so much guilt or innocence but the degrees of guilt and accordingly what sentence should be applied. If it was just a matter of guilt or innocence, they would not have to go to the judge at Jerusalem. If the person was guilty, then the letter of the law should be applied, and there would be no problem. But obviously if they have to show them the sentence of judgement and they have to instruct them how to arrive at it, we are dealing with things that fall between the cracks. Things that aren’t specifically covered.

For example, it says in God’s law, that if a man has a slave, and he puts out the slave’s eye, or he breaks his tooth, the slave is entitled to his freedom. But what if he mangles his hand? Is the slave entitled to his freedom? The law does not mention mangled hands. It only talks about a tooth and an eye. What’s the answer? It must have happened that some other part of the anatomy was damaged, and the slave would wonder, does this give me my freedom or doesn’t it? So, the intent of the law had to be extracted from the literal instruction, looked at and a decision had to be made. Yes, this was obviously what God intended. He wasn’t just interested in eyes only or teeth only, He was interested in serious bodily injury, perpetrated on a slave. So, any such serious bodily injury would give the slave the right to his freedom. In other words, they looked behind the letter of the law to determine the intent of the law, so they could have equity. This was to enable the equitable intent of the law to be applied. This is what tsedaqah is.

In the Revised Standard Version, they use a different word. They use justice to translate mishpat, and equity to translate tsedaqah, to show that it is the equitable intent of the law which is meant by the Hebrew term tsedaqah. Literally, the Hebrew word tsedaqah means righteousness. In fact, many versions translate tsedaqah as righteousness. However, Hebrew does not have as many words as English. In Hebrew, one word frequently has a wide range of meanings. You have to know which meaning is intended in a particular passage, and not just blindly translate it the same way all the time. And so, it is obvious from the grammatical construction and the way it was applied in David’s reign, that this was the intent. The equitable intent of the law is what is meant by tsedaqah, and by ensuring equity is applied, righteousness will be obtained.

The Bible preserves for our instruction several situations which David faced; situations where he had to apply tsedaqah as well as just mishpat. It may not be just a case of something not covered in the law. Sometimes a crime was committed and there is no doubt the crime has been committed. It is a crime specifically mentioned in the law, a penalty is specifically assigned in the law for that crime, but to just apply the penalty would not really carry out true equity or righteousness. Equity would not be served. Justice would not truly be served by carrying out blindly the penalty for the infraction. And so, because of the special circumstances, something has to be done with the penalty. It needs to be made stiffer, a harsher penalty than provided for in the law be exacted to achieve equity, or because of the special circumstances, the opposite may be true. You have to soften the penalty because of the special circumstances. That’s what equity sometimes requires.

In our system, we don’t always have that leeway. Many times, sentences cannot be reduced or increased beyond certain limits because of sentencing laws enacted by the government of the day. But in Israel they could go either way because the interest was to ensure justice. So, if justice was served by making the penalty harsher, the judge could do it. If justice could be truly served by making it less harsh, the judge could do that as well.

In this Q&A, we will cover two situations in the life of David. The first situation mentioned where David was required to make a judgement was after he had committed adultery with Uriah’s wife Bathsheba and murdered Uriah. We find this in 2 Samuel 12:1-6. “Then the LORD sent Nathan to David. And he came to him, and said to him: ‘There were two men in one city, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had exceedingly many flocks and herds. But the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb which he had bought and nourished; and it grew up together with him and with his children. It ate of his own food and drank from his own cup and lay in his bosom; and it was like a daughter to him. And a traveler came to the rich man, who refused to take from his own flock and from his own herd to prepare one for the wayfaring man who had come to him; but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared it for the man who had come to him.’ So David’s anger was greatly aroused against the man, and he said to Nathan, ‘As the LORD lives, the man who has done this shall surely die! And he shall restore fourfold for the lamb, because he did this thing and because he had no pity.’”

In a case like this, the law prescribes a penalty. Exodus 22:1 states, “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep.” Nowhere does the law specify that the death penalty is required. Applying mishpat (justice) only requires restoration of four sheep. So why did David say the rich man should die? This is where tsedaqah (judgement) comes into play. The reason for David’s judgement was that the rich man had no pity. The lamb meant everything to its owner and wasn’t just an animal to him. It was like a son or daughter to him. He had a deep personal relationship with his lamb. He had raised it like a child. The rich man could easily have provided out of his own abundance for the wayfaring stranger and not even have missed it. But he hardened his heart to such a point that he took this poor man’s possession.

The fact that the owner of the lamb was poor of itself did not affect the penalty.  God’s law specifically says not to favor the poor. God stated this in Leviticus 19:15. “You shall do no injustice in judgement. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.”

After David declared the righteous judgement, Nathan informed him in 2 Samuel 12:7-12, that he was the rich man. “Then Nathan said to David, ‘You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel: “I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I would have also given you much more! Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.” Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.”’”

In this statement by Nathan, God reminded David that God gave him Saul’s house, or office, and Saul’s wives. When David was anointed king, he inherited Saul’s wives, and they joined his already existing harem. In the Middle East, this is how it was publicly symbolized that a person had succeeded to the throne. He may or may not have relations with them but they are his. It’s a sign of coming to royal power. When we read of Absalom’s rebellion soon after this, one of the things he did was to have sexual relations with David’s wives publicly. This was a way of saying “I have taken over the kingship.”

We should also point out that it was wrong for David to have more than one wife. Note our Q&A on polygamy for further explanation. https://www.eternalgod.org/question-and-answer-713/

We can also note that God gave David the house of Israel and Judah. After the death of Saul, the houses of Israel and Judah were never truly united. They had one king over them but they were partially divided, and finally totally divided after the death of Solomon.

Because David truly repented, God did not demand the death penalty that David himself had proclaimed, but God applied other severe penalties until David’s death. But nowhere did God state that David’s pronouncement of the death penalty for the rich man was excessive.

Another incident where David was required to give a judgement is in 2 Samuel 14. In this instance, David’s son Amnon had raped Absalom’s sister Tamar. Two years later, Absalom had his half-brother Amnon murdered. He then fled to his maternal grandfather’s homeland of Geshur and remained there for another three years.

In 2 Samuel 13:39, we read, “And king David longed to go to Absalom. For he had been comforted concerning Amnon because he was dead.” Here we see that David longed to go to Absalom but felt legally he could not because Absalom was a murderer. He longed after Absalom but analyzing the law, it wasn’t just a matter that Absalom deserved to be sentenced to death, but David himself quite possibly could have been the executioner if he was the nearest male relative of the murdered Amnon. He could have been considered to be the avenger of blood.

At this time Joab, the commander of the army, saw the problem that David was experiencing over this matter with Absalom. In 2 Samuel 14:1-3 we read what Joab did to resolve this problem. “So Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s heart was concerned about Absalom. And Joab sent to Tekoa and brought from there a wise woman, and said to her, ‘Please pretend to be a mourner, and put on mourning apparel; do not anoint yourself with oil, but act like a woman who has been mourning a long time for the dead. Go to the king and speak to him in this manner.’ So Joab put the words in her mouth.”

In 2 Samuel 14:4-11 she pleads her pretended case. “And when the woman of Tekoa spoke to the king, she fell on her face to the ground and prostrated herself, and said, ‘Help, O king!’ Then the king said to her, ‘What troubles you?’ And she answered, ‘Indeed I am a widow, my husband is dead. Now your maidservant had two sons; and the two fought with each other in the field, and there was no one to part them, but the one struck the other and killed him. And now the whole family has risen up against your maidservant, and they said, “Deliver him who struck his brother, that we may execute him for the life of his brother whom he killed; and we will destroy the heir also.” So they would extinguish my ember that is left, and leave to my husband neither name nor remnant on the earth.’ Then the king said to the woman, ‘Go to your house, and I will give orders concerning you.’ And the woman of Tekoa said to the king, ‘My lord, O king, let the iniquity be on me and on my father’s house, and the king and his throne be guiltless.’ So the king said, ‘Whoever says anything to you, bring him to me, and he shall not touch you anymore.’ Then she said, ‘Please let the king remember the LORD your God, and do not permit the avenger of blood to destroy anymore, lest they destroy my son.’ And he said, ‘As the LORD lives, not one hair of your son shall fall to the ground.’”

Here we see an example of David weighing up the circumstances of this supposed case and pronouncing his judgement. If only justice was considered, the brother should be put to death, if he was guilty of murder; or he had to flee to a city of refuge to stay there until the death of the high priest, if he was guilty of manslaughter (compare Exodus 21:12-14). But David considered that the widow had no one else to provide for her in her old age, as she said, “they would extinguish my ember that is left,” as embers provide warmth, symbolic of support. He also considered the fact that the inheritance might be removed from this part of the family and given to a different part of the family for their benefit, thus extinguishing this particular line of the family’s inheritance, Therefore, David removed the justified penalty. Another factor was that there was no one in the field to intervene in the fight and prevent the murder or manslaughter.

In 2 Samuel 14:12-17, the supposed widow then explains how this case and judgement that David has pronounced also applies to the situation with David, Amnon and Absalom. “Therefore the woman said, ‘Please, let your maidservant speak another word to the lord the king.’ And he said, ‘Say on.’ So the woman said: ‘Why then have you schemed such a thing against the people of God? For the king speaks this thing as one who is guilty, in that the king does not bring his banished one home again. For we will surely die and become like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away a life; but He devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him. Now therefore, I have come to speak of this thing to my lord the king because the people have made me afraid. And your maidservant said, “I will now speak to the king; it may be that the king will perform the request of his maidservant. For the king will hear and deliver his maidservant from the hand of the man who would destroy me and my son together from the inheritance of God.” Your maidservant said, “The word of the lord my king will now be comforting; for as the angel of God, so is my lord the king in discerning good and evil. And may the LORD your God be with you.”’”

So, the widow requested that as David pardoned the widow’s son who killed or perhaps even murdered his brother, he should also be able to pardon Absalom who murdered his half-brother Amnon.

Now David realized that Joab was involved in this case and that David could pardon Absalom because of the similarities in both situations. Both the invented case brought by the widow and the real case of Amnon and Absalom involved brother killing brother. One particularly strong reason for the similarities, and one that condemned David himself, was that no one was in the field to part the widow’s sons. In the case of Absalom murdering Amnon, David was very angry, but there is no mention of him punishing Amnon for his crime of rape, this being a breach of justice. If David had been the intercessor and had punished Amnon justly, Absalom might not have murdered Amnon two years later. This implies that David might have been a causative factor in the crime of murder.

After all these events, David pardoned Absalom and allowed Joab to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem, but David did not see Absalom. 2 Samuel 14:28 says: “And Absalom dwelt two full years in Jerusalem, but did not see the king’s face.” But when Absalom was killed by Joab for rebelling and assuming the kingship, David wept over his death. He probably realized that he was partly responsible for this unfortunate outcome.

So, while David was overall a man after God’s heart, and is praised because he ruled mainly with judgement and justice, he still exhibited human frailties, one of them being not applying correct justice and judgement within his own family.

As mentioned above, when Jesus Christ returns, He will rule in judgement and justice, and this is mentioned in Isaiah 11:3. “His delight is in the fear of the LORD, And He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes, Nor decide by the hearing of His ears; But with righteousness He shall judge the poor, And decide with equity for the meek of the earth; He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, And with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked.”

In the book of Habakkuk, God reveals why He does not hear Habakkuk’s cry to Him. A large part of the reason is the lack of true justice and judgement. Habakkuk 1:4. “Therefore the law is powerless, And justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous; Therefore perverse judgement proceeds.”

In concluding passages, God gives us a warning about judging in an unrighteous manner. This is explained well in Matthew 7:1-2 in the Amplified Bible (copyright 2015). “Do not judge and criticize and condemn [others unfairly with an attitude of self-righteous superiority as though assuming the office of a judge], so that you will not be judged [unfairly]. For just as you [hypocritically] judge others [when you are sinful and unrepentant], so will you be judged; and in accordance with your standard of measure [used to pass out judgment], judgment will be measured to you.”

But John 7:24 informs us how we should judge. Again, from the Amplified Bible, “Do not judge by appearance [superficially and arrogantly], rather judge fairly and righteously.

As we have the hope of being like God and being God—a member of the God Family—we should learn to live with both justice and righteous judgement, copying Christ’s example, in order to please Him.

Lead Writer: Paul Niehoff (Australia)