Ezra 4

When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the exiles were building a temple for the LORD, the God of Israel, they came to Zerubbabel and to the heads of the families and said, “Let us help you build because, like you, we seek your God and have been sacrificing to him since the time of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here.” Ezra 4:1-2

We notice that these people were labeled as enemies by God before they ever proved themselves to be so. Kidner says: “Nothing that is attempted for God will not go unchallenged, and scarcely a tactic be unexplored by the opposition.” [1] The enemies had many tactics. After their help was rejected, they first resisted the temple construction. Later in the chapter, we will see that they resisted Jerusalem’s rebuilding of her fortifications and walls. Coffman notes how a full twenty-five years of opposition is mentioned in these first five verses. This period would run through the latter part of the reign of Cyrus, the reign of Cambyses, the brief reign of Pseudo-Smerdis and to the second year of the reign of Darius I. [2]

These enemies were very deceitful and at first, offered to help Israel build the temple. Then they “blew their cover” by mentioning the fact that they were worshipping the same God as Israel. That was quite impossible since they had no approved priesthood or altar. [3] They were really convicting themselves of syncretism, or mixing religions, a thing which Israel at this point despised. It was the very thing that had initially caused their dispersion. These people were supposedly holding to the true God and at the same time including pagan gods and goddesses in their worship (2 Ki. 17:33). Pett says of them: “They wanted a comfortable Yahwism of the kind that they had long enjoyed, one that made few demands and that allowed them their pagan festivities and their revels in the mountains.” [4]

To further identify these people, we can say with certainty that they were Samaritans. In 722 BC the ten northern tribes of Israel were defeated by the Assyrians. It was a practice of the Assyrians to settle conquered foes somewhere in their own territory and bring in other people to live in the conquered people’s land (2 Ki. 17:24). They probably felt this would put an end to nationalistic uprisings. This moving and transplanting of populations continued for some time after Israel’s defeat. They mention that King Esarhaddon had brought them to the land. We read in the Bible that the ten tribes were defeated by King Shalmaneser (727-722 BC) who began their deportation (2 Ki. 17:3-6). Two Assyrian kings, Sargon II (722-705 BC) and Sennacherib (705-681 BC) ruled before Esarhaddon (681-669 BC). We thus realize that the deportations went on for a long time. Of course, it had been prophesied by Isaiah in about 734 BC that these northern tribes would be conquered within sixty-five years (Isa. 7:8). [5]

When the people of Israel were removed from the land and others were brought in, the people began to experience great difficulty. Therefore, a priest from Israel was sent to teach them about the true God, but that did not seem to dampen their worship of false gods (2 Ki. 17:24-34). Samaria was thus a land of religious mixture, of syncretism and the returning remnant did well to resist them and their help. We think today about how these principles still apply. The apostle Paul warns Christians to steer clear of the world’s thinking and rather to do the will of God (Rom. 12:2). [6] We must not let ourselves become a religious mixture. This is not at all acceptable to the spirit of our postmodern age but it is acceptable and pleasing to God.

“But Zerubbabel, Joshua and the rest of the heads of the families of Israel answered, ‘You have no part with us in building a temple to our God. We alone will build it for the LORD, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus, the king of Persia, commanded us’” (4:3). Other translations clarify this response: “You have nothing in common with us” (NAS); “It is out of the question that you should join us” (NJB). Again, this kind of talk would petrify our politically correct establishment today. This present evil age (Gal. 1:4) insists upon universal syncretism. Zerubbabel, Joshua and Israel’s elders would have none of it. Beloved radio pastor Dr. G. Vernon McGee quips, “The Israelites do not seem to be interested in the ecumenical movement at all.” [7] Perhaps Winston Churchill gave the best advice here: “Never give in, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.” [8]

A good example of the dangers of syncretism is seen in the Jewish temple built in Elephantine, Egypt. Pett describes papyri coming from it in the 5th century BC: “Yahu (YHWH) was worshipped, but it was alongside Ishum-bethel, Anath-bethel, Anath-yahu, and Herem-bethel. Anath was a well-known Canaanite goddess and was probably here seen as, among other things, the consort of Yahu. The temple was destroyed by the Egyptians in 410 BC.” [9]

Of course, with socializing would come intermarrying and a lot of other things contrary to the law of Moses (Deut. 7:1-11; 12:1-3). [10] Israel was set apart by the Lord to be separate from other people. They were to be, “…a kingdom of priests and a holy nation…” (Exo. 19:6). Breneman comments, “From this point to the end of Nehemiah they had to function in a hostile environment.” [11]

Opposition To Building

Then the peoples around them set out to discourage the people of Judah and make them afraid to go on building.” Ezra 4:4

Literally, here we have a Hebrew idiom, “to weaken the hands” of the laboring Israelites. [12] They were discouraged by these enemies and the work of rebuilding the temple stopped for about 15 years until 520 BC. The Scottish divine Robert Jamieson says of the enemies: “Their success in those underhand dealings was great; for Cyrus, being frequently absent and much absorbed in his warlike expeditions, left the government in the hands of his son Cambyses, a wicked prince, and extremely hostile to the Jews and their religion.” [13]

“They bribed officials to work against them and frustrate their plans during the entire reign of Cyrus king of Persia and down to the reign of Darius king of Persia” (4:5). Commentators are pretty-well agreed that they bribed high Persian officials in order to stop the temple work. The work was officially halted by a decree of Cambyses in 534 BC. The building was hindered through the reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis and down to the reign of Darius I. We will soon see that they continued on with their evil efforts for a very long period of time. Wiersbe says, “Opportunity and opposition usually go together; and the greater the opportunity, the greater the opposition….1 Cor. 16:9.” [14]

“At the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, they lodged an accusation against the people of Judah and Jerusalem” (4:6). With the mention of King Xerxes we have a giant leap in history down to the reign of Xerxes or Ahasuerus (485-465 BC) and the time of Queen Esther. McConville comments here: “The effect is similar to one that is produced in many modern stories and films by a “flashback” – except here we have a “flash-forward.” [15] It seems that Ezra was trying to show that the persecution of Israel was a continuing thing.

We would surely have to agree with him. Even in the modern era as Israel returned to her land the second time (Isa. 11:11) she was greatly persecuted by the surrounding Arab Moslem people. When the nation of Israel declared her independence on May 14, 1948, she was immediately attacked by six Arab armies from the surrounding nations of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. By a great miracle, Israel fended off these attacks and preserved her nationhood. On May 25, 1967, the surrounding nations of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, moved into positions to attack Israel once more. Israel preempted this attack and scored a miraculous defeat of these nations. It was the famous Six-Day-War from June 5-10, 1967. On October 6, 1973, Israel’s most holy day of Yom Kippur, the nation suffered a surprise coordinated attack by Egypt and Syria. They were quickly joined by Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Since Israel was caught unprepared, this was a costly war. It continued from October 6 to October 24 before Israel became the clear victor. There were other wars from surrounding people and with that, constant terror attacks have continued to this day.

We note in verse 6 that as soon as King Xerxes came to power the enemies approached him concerning Israel. When a new king comes to power it is an opportunity to get a quick judgment in one’s favor. It is interesting that the Hebrew word for accusation ( sitnah ) comes from the Hebrew for satan, the accuser (1 Chr. 21:1; Job 1:6). [16]

“And in the days of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his associates wrote a letter to Artaxerxes. The letter was written in Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language” (4:7). With this verse, the author makes another “flash-forward” to the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-425 BC). We note here that the letter to Artaxerxes was written in the Aramaic language. Starting in the next verse everything from verse 8 to 6:18 is written in Aramaic. Later, Ezra 7:12-26 is also in Aramaic. Utley remarks: “It must be remembered that the Persians spoke Persian but used Aramaic as the official language of the empire because of the wide variety of languages in the ancient Near East. Aramaic is a Semitic language which was used by the Assyrians.” [17]

We simply have to stop and consider some of the dynamics that were probably going on in Persia. Daniel was a man of great influence for Israel and lived at least until the third year of King Cyrus’s reign over the Jews or to 536 BC (Dan. 10:1). At this point, he was probably somewhere in his mid-80s. He no doubt saw the exiles return in 537. Chances are that he lived much longer since he was a very hardy soul. He probably exerted much influence on the Persians and especially on King Cyrus. Then there was Jewish Queen Esther who exerted Jewish influence on King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) in the period of the 470 and 480s. With all this positive Jewish influence we can understand why Artaxerxes was so favorable to send Ezra to Jerusalem in 458 BC and why Nehemiah would become the king’s cupbearer and later be sent by the king to build the wall around Jerusalem in 444 BC. With all this background we can understand why the appeal of Bishlam, Mithredath and Tabeel came to nothing.

This whole section reflects a quite confusing time sequence and scholars have offered several ideas and opinions on it. Some seem to think that the construction here refers to the temple and this is not the case. Kidner comments: “…It should hardly need emphasizing that the walls and foundations are those of the city, not the temple; but the two operations are often confused. By the reign of Artaxerxes the new temple had been standing for half a century.” [18]

Official Letters And Documents

Rehum the commanding officer and Shimshai the secretary wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king as follows: Ezra 4:8

It would be good for us to know a little about Rehum and Shimshai. With the mention of them, we learn that the opposition facing the Jews was from the highest realms. Nineteenth- century American theologian, Albert Barnes, notes: “Every Persian governor was accompanied to his province by a “royal scribe” or “secretary,” who had a separate and independent authority.” [19] These governors were known as satraps. So, what we have here is a high governor of some territory “Beyond the River” or beyond the Euphrates. It seems most likely that he was the governor of Samaria. Jerusalem was actually within the province of Samaria. Guthrie says, “…Since Jerusalem was within the province of Samaria at this time there would be mutual resentment based upon long-standing rivalry.” [20] Shimshai was more than just a secretary. Utley comments: “We learn from Herodotus (Hist. 3.128) that each Persian satrap had a special scribe appointed by the Persian king to keep tabs on them…” [21]

What we have here is an official government document written in the Aramaic language and included word for word in the biblical text.

“Rehum the commanding officer and Shimshai the secretary, together with the rest of their associates – the judges, officials and administrators over the people from Persia, Uruk and Babylon, the Elamites of Susa,” (4:9). What we see in this verse is probably the preamble to the letter or the letter’s official summary which would be found on the outside of the papyrus scroll. [22] In his letter Rehum is including other members of government, such as judges, high officials and administrators. All this makes the letter sound a lot more official. We have a quick summary of some of the people who made up Samaria. There were people from Persia, Uruk, Babylon and Susa. We cannot be sure about Uruk (cf. Gen. 10:10) but Susa was probably a reference to Shushan, the capital city of Elam. [23] “and the other people whom the great and honorable Ashurbanipal deported and settled in the city of Samaria and elsewhere in Trans-Euphrates” (4:10). Here we have the mention of another Assyrian king by the name of Ashurbanipal (669-631 BC), again illustrating how long the deportation process of Israel continued. Pett comments, “…we certainly do know that Ashurbanipal campaigned in this area in 640-639 BC, against a rebellion that had broken out, and at such a time, transportations, both in and out, were likely.” [24] Several translations have his name as Osnapper, which is the Hebrew rendering of Ashurbanipal.

“(This is a copy of the letter they sent him.) To King Artaxerxes, From your servants in Trans-Euphrates:” (4:11). This letter was sent to King Artaxerxes I Longimanus (465-424 BC). Utley says, “It is obvious that we have jumped from the finishing of the temple (cf. Ezra 1-5) to the finishing of the walls (cf. Ezra 4:16, 21; Ezra 7-10, and Nehemiah).” [25]

The flash-forwards and flash-backs make us a little dizzy but we must persevere. The work of both Ezra and Nehemiah was carried on in the reign of Artaxerxes. Regarding the expression “Beyond the River,” (Trans-Euphrates) Guthrie more clearly defines it saying: “…this was the official designation of the fifth Persian satraphy, which included all Palestine [ sic ] and Syria.” [26]

“The king should know that the people who came up to us from you have gone to Jerusalem and are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city. They are restoring the walls and repairing the foundations” (4:12). We might remind ourselves again of what was happening in the reign of Artaxerxes. Ezra came to Jerusalem in 458 BC with another group of exiles and Nehemiah came in 444 BC and began to build the wall around the city. Such actions were greatly disturbing to the locals. We can understand why the king was in favor of Ezra and Nehemiah. The Persians were having frontier revolts both in Trans-Euphrates and Egypt at the time, so having two loyal servants in the area was no doubt a comfort to the king. [27]

“Furthermore, the king should know that if this city is built and its walls are restored, no more taxes, tribute or duty will be paid, and eventually the royal revenues will suffer” (4:13). McConville comments: “The ingenuity of the tactic is only fully appreciated when we realize that the Persian Empire in the 5th century BC was troubled by rebellions, notably that of the satrap Megabyzus in the province of Trans-Euphrates. It was also a period when Persia’s treasuries may have been at a low ebb, following the costly and disastrous wars against the Greeks…Marathon…Thermopylae.” [28] These scheming leaders knew exactly where to hit the king – right in his pocketbook. The royal revenues might have consisted of several things. Jameson says they included the poll tax, property tax and dues on items of trade. [29]

“Now since we are under obligation to the palace and it is not proper for us to see the king dishonored, we are sending this message to inform the king,” (4:14). The ESV translation has a more literal wording and reads: “Now because we eat the salt of the palace and it is not fitting for us to witness the king’s dishonor, therefore we send and inform the king,” (4:14 ESV). Breneman explains: “Salt was often used to seal covenants; thus it implies loyalty (cf. Lev. 2:13; Num. 18:19; 2 Chr. 13:5). ‘Eating the salt of’ came to be an idiomatic expression for ‘being in the service of’ or ‘receiving a salary from.’ Our word ‘salary’ is derived from Latin salarium, ‘salt money.’” [30] “so that a search may be made in the archives of your predecessors. In these records you will find that this city is a rebellious city, troublesome to kings and provinces, a place with a long history of sedition. That is why this city was destroyed” (4:15). Well, there was quite a bit of evidence that could conceivably support the claim and this was no doubt their masterstroke. McConville elaborates: “Hezekiah’s withholding of tribute from Assyria (2 Ki. 18:7. c. 724 BC) and Zedekiah’s abortive bid for freedom from the Babylonians…The Assyrian and Babylonian annals were evidently available to the Persian kings. And it is clear that a nerve is touched.” [31] In fact, as Judah declined, many treaties were broken with Babylon and elsewhere.

“We inform the king that if this city is built and its walls are restored, you will be left with nothing in Trans-Euphrates” (4:16). This was a bluff of course since Judah had no army and no chariots. [32] They were trying to terrify the king with the thought that much of his empire in Trans-Euphrates would be lost. It was a lie.

“The king sent this reply: To Rehum the commanding officer, Shimshai the secretary and the rest of their associates living in Samaria and elsewhere in Trans-Euphrates: Greetings. The letter you sent us has been read and translated in my presence” (4:17-18). In this day before email and electronic records, the tracking down of historical accounts must have been a daunting task. However, it was at least possible to search the records of ancient kingdoms.

“I issued an order and a search was made, and it was found that this city has a long history of revolt against kings and has been a place of rebellion and sedition. Jerusalem has had powerful kings ruling over the whole of Trans-Euphrates, and taxes, tribute and duty were paid to them” (4:19-20). It was true that David and Solomon were powerful kings and their kingdoms at times extended as far as the Euphrates (cf. 2 Sam. 8:3;1 Ki. 4:21). It was also true that some of Israel’s kings broke treaties with other nations as we mentioned in verse 15 (cf. 2 Ki. 15:16; 24:1, 10, 20).

“Now issue an order to these men to stop work, so that this city will not be rebuilt until I so order. Be careful not to neglect this matter. Why let this threat grow, to the detriment of the royal interests?” (4:21-22). It is significant that the king spoke here of the rebuilding of the city and not the rebuilding of the temple. We do not know the exact timeframe of this decree. Artaxerxes began his rule in 465 BC, and it could have happened soon after that, perhaps because of some political crisis. Obviously, his thinking had changed by 458 when he sent Ezra and certainly by 444 when he sent Nehemiah specifically to build the wall around Jerusalem.

We see something interesting in the king’s reply. He ordered that the work be stopped until he so ordered. This was an escape clause for the king. [33] According to a very foolish law of the Medes and Persians, a king’s order could never be repealed (Dan. 6:12). So, this order was of a temporary nature.

“As soon as the copy of the letter of King Artaxerxes was read to Rehum and Shimshai the secretary and their associates, they went immediately to the Jews in Jerusalem and compelled them by force to stop” (4:23). Anders says, “Military force is implicit in the language.” [34] Some commentators feel that they not only stopped the work but destroyed some of the building progress that was made. [35]

“Thus the work on the house of God in Jerusalem came to a standstill until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia” (4:24). We need to understand that verses 6-23 are a parenthesis regarding the building of defensive walls round about Jerusalem. Now this passage returns to the first matter of finishing the holy temple. [36] We have probably jumped from somewhere in the 440s back in time to 516 BC. Pfeiffer & Harrison say: “Older commentators, thinking that 4:24 had to follow 4:23 chronologically, were forced to interpret Ahasuerus in 4:6 as Cambyses, and Artaxerxes in 4:7 as Smerdis!…” [37] These kinds of flash forwards and flashbacks can make Bible commentators a little crazy.

Footnotes

1. Kidner, Ezra & Nehemiah, p. 48.

2. Coffman, Commentary on Ezra, Coffman Commentaries on the Bible, v. 4:1.

3. Utley, Free Bible Commentary, Ezra, v. 4:2.

4. Pett, Commentary on Ezra, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 4:1.

5. Coffman, Commentary on Ezra, Coffman Commentaries on the Bible, v. 4:1.

6. McConville, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, p. 27.

7. J. Vernon McGee, History of Israel, Ezra Nehemiah, Esther (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991), p. 27.

8. Quoted in Geert Wilders, Marked For Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me, p. 216.

9. Pett, Commentary on Ezra, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 4:3.

10. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, OT, p. 739.

11. Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, The New American Commentary, p. 98.

12. Guzik, Enduring Word Commentary, Ezra, vs. 4:4-5.

13. Robert Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, & David Brown, Commentary on Ezra, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. 1871-78, v. 4:4. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/jfb/ezra-1.html.

14. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, OT, p. 739.

15. McConville, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, p. 25.

16. Pfeiffer & Harrison, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 427.

17. Utley, Free Bible Commentary, Ezra, v. 4:7.

18. Kidner, Ezra & Nehemiah, p. 52.

19. Barnes, Commentary on Ezra, Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible, v. 4:8.

20. Guthrie, ed., The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 400.

21. Utley, Free Bible Commentary, Ezra, v. 4:8.

22. Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, The New American Commentary, p. 102.

23. John Dummelow, Commentary on Ezra, John Dummelow’s Commentary on the Bible, 1909, v. 4:9. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/dcb/ezra-1.html.

24. Pett, Commentary on Ezra, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 4:9-10.

25. Utley, Free Bible Commentary, Ezra, v. 4:12.

26. Guthrie, ed., The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 401.

27. Anders, g. ed. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Holman Old Testament Commentary, p. 46.

28. McConville, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, p. 28.

29. Jamieson, et. at. Commentary on Ezra, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, v. 4:13.

30. Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, The New American Commentary, p. 103.

31. McConville, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, p. 28.

32. Pett, Commentary on Ezra, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 4:15.

33. Anders, g. ed. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Holman Old Testament Commentary, p. 47.

34. Ibid.

35. Pett, Commentary on Ezra, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 4:23.

36. Ibid., p. 24.

37. Pfeiffer & Harrison, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 428.