Ezra 4 commentary

123
EZRA 4 COMMETARY EDITED BY GLE PEASE 1 When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the exiles were building a temple for the LORD, the God of Israel, BARES, "Adversaries - i. e., the Samaritans, a mixed race, partly Israelite but chiefly foreign, which had replaced to some extent the ancient inhabitants after they were carried into captivity by Sargon (see 2Ki_17:6 note). CLARKE, "Now when the adversaries - These were the Samaritans, and the different nations with which the kings of Assyria had peopled Israel, when they had carried the original inhabitants away into captivity, see Ezr_4:9 , Ezr_4:10 . GILL, "Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin,.... The Samaritans, as appears from Ezr_4:2 , heard that the children of the captivity; the Jews, who had been in captivity seventy years, and were just come out of it, and still were not quite free, but under the jurisdiction and control of the king of Persia: builded the temple unto the Lord God of Israel; that they were going about it, and had laid the foundation of it, which might soon come to their ears, the distance not being very great. Josephus (c) says they heard the sound of the trumpets, and came to know the meaning of it. HERY, "We have here an instance of the old enmity that was put between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. God's temple cannot be built, but Satan will rage, and the gates of hell will fight against it. The gospel kingdom was, in like manner, to be set up with much struggling and contention. In this respect the glory of the latter house was greater than the glory of the former, and it was more a figure of the temple of Christ's church, in that Solomon built his temple when there was no adversary nor evil occurrent, (1Ki_5:4 ); but this second temple was built notwithstanding great opposition, in the removing and conquering of which, and the bringing of the work to perfection at last in spite of it, the wisdom, power, and goodness of God were much glorified, and the church was encouraged to trust in him.

Transcript of Ezra 4 commentary

Page 1: Ezra 4 commentary

EZRA 4 COMMETARYEDITED BY GLE PEASE

1 When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the exiles were building a temple for the LORD, the God of Israel,

BARES, "Adversaries - i. e., the Samaritans, a mixed race, partly Israelite but chiefly foreign, which had replaced to some extent the ancient inhabitants after they were carried into captivity by Sargon (see 2Ki_17:6 note).

CLARKE, "Nowwhen the adversaries - These were the Samaritans, and the different nations with which the kings of Assyria had peopled Israel, when they had carried the original inhabitants away into captivity, see Ezr_4:9, Ezr_4:10.

GILL, "Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin,.... The Samaritans, as appears from Ezr_4:2,

heard that the children of the captivity; the Jews, who had been in captivity seventy years, and were just come out of it, and still were not quite free, but under the jurisdiction and control of the king of Persia:

builded the temple unto the Lord God of Israel; that they were going about it, and had laid the foundation of it, which might soon come to their ears, the distance not being very great. Josephus (c) says they heard the sound of the trumpets, and came to know the meaning of it.

HERY, "We have here an instance of the old enmity that was put between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. God's temple cannot be built, but Satan will rage, and the gates of hell will fight against it. The gospel kingdom was, in like manner, to be set up with much struggling and contention. In this respect the glory of the latter house was greater than the glory of the former, and it was more a figure of the temple of Christ's church, in that Solomon built his temple when there was no adversary nor evil occurrent, (1Ki_5:4); but this second temple was built notwithstanding great opposition, in the removing and conquering of which, and the bringing of the work to perfection at last in spite of it, the wisdom, power, and goodness of God were much glorified, and the church was encouraged to trust in him.

Page 2: Ezra 4 commentary

I. The undertakers are here called the children of the captivity (Ezr_4:1), which makes them look very little. They had newly come out of captivity, were born in captivity, had still the marks of their captivity upon them; though they were not now captives, they were under the control of those whose captives they had lately been. Israel was God's son, his first-born; but by their iniquity the people sold and enslaved themselves, and so became children of the captivity. But, it should seem, the thought of their being so quickened them to this work, for it was by their neglect of the temple that they lost their freedom.

II. The opposers of the undertaking are here said to be the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin, not the Chaldeans or Persians (they gave them no disturbance - “let them build and welcome”), but the relics of the ten tribes, and the foreigners that had joined themselves to them, and patched up that mongrel religion we had an account of, 2Ki_17:33. They feared the Lord, and served their own gods too. They are called the people of the land, Ezr_4:4. The worst enemies Judah and Benjamin had were those that said they were Jews and were not, Rev_3:9.

III. The opposition they gave had in it much of the subtlety of the old serpent. When they heard that the temple was in building they were immediately aware that it would be a fatal blow to their superstition, and set themselves to oppose it. They had not power to do it forcibly, but they tried all the ways they could to do it effectually.

JAMISO, "Ezr_4:1-6. The building hindered.

the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin— that is, strangers settled in the land of Israel.

K&D, "The adversaries of the Jews prevent the building of the temple till the reign of Darius (Ezr_4:1, Ezr_4:2). When the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the community which had returned from captivity were beginning to rebuild the temple, they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chiefs of the people, and desired to take part in this work, because they also sacrificed to the God of Israel. These adversaries were, according to Ezr_4:2, the people whom Esarhaddon king of Assyria had settled in the neighbourhood of Benjamin and Judah. If we compare with this verse the information (2Ki_17:24) that the kings of Assyria brought men from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria, and that they took possession of the depopulated kingdom of the ten tribes, and dwelt therein; then these adversaries of Judah and Benjamin are the inhabitants of the former kingdom of

Israel, who were called Samaritans after the central-point of their settlement. ה�ולה ,�ניsons of the captivity (Ezr_6:19, etc., Ezr_8:35; Ezr_10:7, Ezr_10:16), also shortly into

e.g., Ezr_1:11, are the Israelites returned from the Babylonian captivity, who ,ה�ולה

composed the new community in Judah and Jerusalem. Those who returned with Zerubbabel, and took possession of the dwelling-places of their ancestors, being, exclusive of priests and Levites, chiefly members of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, are called, especially when named in distinction from the other inhabitants of the land, Judah and Benjamin. The adversaries give the reason of their request to share in the building of the temple in the words: ”For we seek your God as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto Him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, which brought us up hither.”

The words זבחים אנחנו as ולא are variously explained. Older expositors take the Chethiv ולא

Page 3: Ezra 4 commentary

a negative, and make זבחים to mean the offering of sacrifices to idols, both because לא is a negative, and also because the assertion that they had sacrificed to Jahve would not have pleased the Jews, quia deficiente templo non debuerint sacrificare; and sacrifices not offered in Jerusalem were regarded as equivalent to sacrifices to idols. They might, moreover, fitly strengthen their case by the remark: “Since the days of Esarhaddon we

offer no sacrifices to idols.” On the other hand, however, it is arbitrary to understand זבח, without any further definition, of sacrificing to idols; and the statement, “We already sacrifice to the God of Israel,” contains undoubtedly a far stronger reason for granting their request than the circumstance that they do not sacrifice to idols. Hence we incline,

with older translators (lxx, Syr., Vulg., 1 Esdras), to regard לא as an unusual form of לו, occurring in several places (see on Exo_21:8), the latter being also substituted in the

present instance as Keri. The position also of לא before אנחנו points the same way, for the

negative would certainly have stood with the verb. On Esarhaddon, see remarks on 2Ki_19:37 and Isa_37:38.

BESO, ". ow when the adversaries of Judah, &c. — The Samaritans, the relics of the ten tribes, and foreigners that had joined themselves to them, and patched up that mongrel religion of which we had an account 2 Kings 17:33, where it is said, They feared the Lord, and served their own gods. They are called the people of the land, Ezra 4:4. Thus, the worst enemies that Judah and Benjamin had were those that said they were Jews, and were not.

COFFMA, "Verse 1EARLY A CETURY OF OPPOSITIO TO ISRAEL;

TWETY-FIVE YEARS FROM 535 TO 520 B.C.

"ow when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity were building a temple unto Jehovah, the God of Israel; then they drew near to Zerubbabel, and to the heads of the fathers' houses, and said unto them, Let us build with you; for we seek your God, as ye do; and we sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria who brought us hither. But Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of the fathers' houses of Israel said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us building a house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto Jehovah, the God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us. Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, and hired counselors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia."

This is an extremely abbreviated report, as a glance at the chronology of the rulers of Persia, given in the preceding chapter will show. A full twenty-five years of opposition is recorded in these five verses. These years included the remaining years of Cyrus' dominion, the twelve year reign of Cambyses, and into the second year of Darius I (Hystaspes).

Page 4: Ezra 4 commentary

Evidently, the great prophet Daniel was deceased early in this period, because it is evident that no powerful voice was available to defend the interests of Israel until the times of Darius I.

"Let us build with you, for we seek your God, as ye do" (Ezra 4:2). The people who thus approached the Jews were the remnants of the orthern Israel which remained after the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C.; and when wild animals became a threatening problem after many of the people were carried away by Assyria, the Assyrian kings repeopled the land with non-Israelites. It is true that they worshipped Jehovah, after a fashion; but their worship was corrupted by idolatry. Zerubbabel and all Israel were very wise to reject this offer of the Samaritans. The proof that they really had no love at all for Israel appears in their continued opposition.

"Since the days of Esarhaddon" (Ezra 4:2). "Isaiah had prophesied in 734 B.C. that orthern Israel would cease to be a distinct people within sixty-five years (Isaiah 7:8); and this was fulfilled by 669 B.C., during the reign of Esarhaddon (680-668 B.C.)."[1]

The following verses (Ezra 4:6-23) are, in fact, an unusually long parenthesis which describes the continual opposition of the people of the land to the development of Jerusalem until the times of Artaxerxes.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:1 ow when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel;

Ver. 1. ow when the adversaries of Judah] Aroused by those loud acclamations and outcries, Ezra 3:12-13. These adversaries were those Samaritans, Ezra 4:3, the kind of mongrels who wore religion as a cloak, which they either put on or threw off at pleasure, and as occasion required. Satan, saith one, doth not always appear in one and the same fashion; but hath as many several shapes as Proteus among the poets. Here he pretends devotion to his mischievous designs, but was frustrated.

That the children of the captivity] Istos deportatos, by way of contempt, as Junius rendereth it; as if the Jews were, therefore, hated of God because they had been transported, captivated. Cicero passeth the same censure of them in his oration, pro L. Flacco: Ista gens quam chara diis immortalibus esset docuit, quod est victa, quod elocata, quod servata. It appears how dear to God they be by their frequent captivities.

COSTABLE, "Verses 1-5Opposition during Cyrus" reign4:1-5

The Assyrian government encouraged its residents to move to Israel and to settle there after the fall of the orthern Kingdom in722 B.C. This was official government policy during the reigns of the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon (680-669

Page 5: Ezra 4 commentary

B.C.; 2 Kings 17:24) and Ashurbanipal (668-ca630 B.C.; Ezra 4:10). These immigrant people worshipped pagan idols ( 2 Kings 17:30-31), but also started worshipping Yahweh, whom they regarded as the god of the land in which they now lived ( 2 Kings 17:32-33). Eventually they intermarried with the Jews who had remained in the land. Their descendants became the Samaritans, a mixed breed racially and religiously. The exiles who returned from Babylon and their descendants despised them (cf. John 4:9). It was these people of the land who approached Zerubbabel and offered to help the Jews rebuild their temple ( Ezra 4:2).

"But "people of the land" is a vague term being attached to different groups during different phases of the historical period and having no inner continuity to the term itself. Chronologically, it cannot refer to Samaritan opposition, since the Samaritan sect is a much later emergence." [ote: Dumbrell, p67. Cf. R. J. Coggins, "The Interpretations of Ezra IV:4 ," Journal of Theological Studies16 (1965):124-27.]

Zerubbabel refused their offer because, even though they worshipped Yahweh, they did not worship Him exclusively, as the Mosaic Law specified ( Exodus 20:3). Zerubbabel realized that if their commitment to God did not include a commitment to obey His revealed will, the Jewish remnant could only anticipate endless disagreement, conflict, and frustration with them.

"This attitude of exclusiveness displayed by the Jews ... is troublesome to our modern society, where perhaps the highest virtue is the willingness to accept and cooperate with persons whose beliefs and practices differ from one"s own. If we are tempted to think that Zerubbabel and the other leaders were sinfully separatistic or mistaken in their evaluation of those who offered their assistance, we must observe that these outsiders are identified as "enemies." Their motives were clearly subversive." [ote: Breneman, p97.]

"The leaders in the province of Samaria may well have seen the emergence of a new, aggressive presence in Judah, and one which enjoyed the favor of the imperial government, as threatening.... An offer to share the labor, and presumably also the expense, of rebuilding the sanctuary would have been taken to entail, and would in fact have entailed, a share in controlling the temple itself with all that implied." [ote: Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra -, ehemiah , p107.]

The fact that these neighbors had no sincere interest in helping the Jews became obvious very quickly ( Ezra 4:4-5). Their persistent opposition continued into the reign of Darius I (Hystaspes) of Persia (521-486 B.C.).

"The Persian officials were bribed to frustrate the plans of the returnees. Bribery as a practice was well known in Persian times." [ote: Fensham, The Books . . ., p68.]

Persian Kings of the Restoration Period

Kings

Page 6: Ezra 4 commentary

Reigns

Scripture

Cyrus II (the Great)

559-530

Ezra 1:1; Ezra 4:5

Cambyses

530-522

Smerdis

522

Darius I

521-486

Ezra 5-6; Haggai; Zechariah

Xerxes (Ahasuerus)

486-464

Ezra 4:6; Esther

Artaxerxes I (Artashasta)

464-424

Ezra 4:7-23; chs7-10; ehemiah; Malachi

Darius II

423-404

ehemiah 12:22

Opposition during Ahasuerus" reign4:6

"When he [the writer] discussed the problems of the building of the temple in Ezra 4:1-5, it reminded him of later similar troubles with the rebuilding of the wall of

Page 7: Ezra 4 commentary

Jerusalem, and Song of Solomon 4:6-16 has been inserted, almost parenthetically, before the argument of the building of the temple has again been taken up in Ezra 4:24 ff. (already noted by C. F. Keil in the last [nineteenth] century)." [ote: Ibid, p70. See C. F. Keil, The Books of Ezra ,, ehemiah , and Esther , pp62-65.]

This king of Persia, whose Greek name was Xerxes, was the man Esther married. He ruled from486 to464 B.C. Since the restoration Jews completed the temple in515 B.C. ( Ezra 6:15), this verse shows that the neighbors of the returned exiles continued to oppose them long after they had finished rebuilding the temple.

"Without this foretaste of history to reveal the full seriousness of the opposition, we would not properly appreciate the achievements recorded in the next two chapters (5,6) nor the dangers hidden in the mixed marriages which Ezra would set himself to stamp out (chaps7-10)." [ote: Kidner, p48.]

PETT, "Verses 1-5The Enemies Of The Returnees Of Judah And Benjamin Seek To Hijack The Building Of The Temple (Ezra 4:1-5).

When they learned that work was beginning on the building of the Temple, the syncretistic Yahwists round about, who worshipped Baal and Asherah, and other gods alongside YHWH, sought to become a part of the enterprise. Had they been permitted to do so they would no doubt have taken it over and the result would have been a syncretistic Yahwism which included all the elements which were displeasing to God, and which would have included the introduction of priests who were not of the line of Aaron. The question was not a race one, but a religious one. And it was vital. The future of Yahwism was at stake. It is a reminder to us that we should beware of whom we align ourselves with.

Ezra 4:1

‘ow when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity were building a temple to YHWH, the God of Israel,’Those who approached with the request to have a part in the building of the Temple would not have appeared to be enemies, and would probably not have seen themselves as enemies. Their offer was no doubt genuine, although it unquestionably had a hidden agenda. They did not want to become Yahwists of a type represented by the returnees. 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. It was only when their offer was rejected that they outwardly became enemies. But the writer discerned things clearly when he recognised that from the start their position was one of opposition to all that the returnees now held dear, the uniqueness of YHWH, and the importance of eschewing idolatry. For these were the two things that they would have undermined.

Some explanation has to be found for the bitter enmity that then ensued, for the

Page 8: Ezra 4 commentary

writer goes on to demonstrate how bitter that enmity was, and how long it lasted, and how great the steps were that they were prepared to take in order to undermine the returnees. And this can only lie in the fact that they saw the purity of the faith of the returnees as a constant rebuke to their own ways. Had they been able to bring the returnees down to their level they would have been happy. But the constancy of the returnees was a continuing rebuke to them, and it brought home to them shallowness of what they themselves believed in. And that they could not stomach.

EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMMETARY, "THE LIMITS OF COMPREHESIO

Ezra 4:1-5; Ezra 4:24

THE fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra introduces the vexed question of the limits of comprehension in religion by affording a concrete illustration of it in a very acute form. Communities, like individual organisms, can only live by means of a certain adjustment to their environment, in the settlement of which there necessarily arises a serious struggle to determine what shall be absorbed and what rejected, how far it is desirable to admit alien bodies and to what extent it is necessary to exclude them. The difficulty thus occasioned appeared in the company of returned exiles soon after they had begun to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. It was the seed of many troubles. The anxieties and disappointments which overshadowed the subsequent history of nearly all of them sprang from this one source. Here we are brought to a very distinguishing characteristic of the Persian period. The idea of Jewish exclusiveness which has been so singular a feature in the whole course of Judaism right down to our own day was now in its birth-throes. Like a young Hercules, it had to fight for its life in its very cradle. It first appeared in the anxious compilation of genealogical registers and the careful sifting of the qualifications of the pilgrims before they left Babylon. In the events which followed the settlement at Jerusalem it came forward with determined insistence on its rights, in opposition to a very tempting offer which would have been fatal to its very existence.

The chronicler introduces the neighbouring people under the title "The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin"; but in doing so he is describing them according to their later actions; when they first appear on his pages their attitude is friendly, and there is no reason to suspect any hypocrisy in it. We cannot take them to be the remainder of the Israelite inhabitants of the orthern Kingdom who had been permitted to stay in their land when their brethren had been violently expelled by the Assyrians, and who were now either showing their old enmity to Judah and Benjamin by trying to pick a new quarrel, or, on the other hand, manifesting a better spirit and seeking reconciliation. o doubt such people existed, especially in the north, where they became, in part at least, the ancestors of the Galileans of ew Testament times. But the men now referred to distinctly assert that they were brought up to Palestine by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon. either can they be the descendants of the Israelite priests who were sent at the request of the colonists to teach them the religion of the land when they were alarmed at an incursion of lions; [2 Kings 17:25-28] for only one priest is directly mentioned in the history, and though he may have

Page 9: Ezra 4 commentary

had companions and assistants, the small college of missionaries could not be called "the people of the land" (Ezra 4:4). These people must be the foreign colonists. There were Chaldaeans from Babylon and the neighbouring cities of Cutha and Sepharvaim (the modern Mosaib), Elamites from Susa, Phoenicians from Sidon-if we may trust Josephus here (Ant., 12, v. 5) - and Arabs from Petra. These had been introduced on four successive occasions-first, as the Assyrian inscriptions show, by Sargon, who sent two sets of colonists; then by Esarhaddon; and, lastly, by Ashurbanipal. (The "Onsnappar" of Ezra 4:10) The various nationalities had had time to become well amalgamated together, for the first colonisation had happened a hundred and eighty years, and the latest colonisation a hundred and thirty Years, before the Jews returned from Babylon. As the successive exportations of Israelites went on side by side with the successive importations of foreigners, the two classes must have lived together for some time; and even after the last captivity of the Israelites had been effected, those who were still left in the land would have come into contact with the colonists. Thus, apart from the special mission of the priest whose business it was to introduce the rites of sacrificial worship, the popular religion of the Israelites would have become known to the mixed heathen people who were settled among them.

These neighbours assert that they worship the God whom the Jews at Jerusalem worship, and that they have sacrificed to Him since the days of Esarhaddon, the Assyrian king to whom, in particular, they attribute their being brought up to Palestine, possibly because the ancestors of the deputation to Jerusalem were among the colonists planted by that king. For a century and a half they have acknowledged the God of the Jews. They therefore request to be permitted to assist in rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem. At the first blush of it their petition looks reasonable and even generous. The Jews were poor; a great work lay before them; and the inadequacy of their means in view of what they aimed at had plunged the less enthusiastic among them into grief and despair. Here was an offer of assistance that might prove most efficacious. The idea of centralisation in worship of which Josiah had made so much would be furthered by this means, because instead of following the example of the Israelites before the exile who had their altar at Bethel, the colonists proposed to take part in the erection of the one Jewish temple at Jerusalem. If their previous habit of offering sacrifices in their own territory was offensive to rigorous Jews, although they might speak of it quite naively, because they were unconscious that there was anything objectionable in it and even regard it as meritorious, the very way to abolish this ancient custom was to give the colonists an interest in the central shrine. If their religion was defective, how could it be improved better than by bringing them into contact with the law-abiding Jews? While the offer of the colonists promised aid to the Jews in building the temple, it also afforded them a grand missionary opportunity for carrying out the broad programme of the Second Isaiah, who had promised the spread of the light of God’s grace among the Gentiles.

In view of these considerations we cannot but read the account of the absolute rejection of the offer by Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the twelve leaders with a sense of painful disappointment. The less pleasing side of religious intensity here

Page 10: Ezra 4 commentary

presents itself. Zeal seems to be passing into fanaticism. A selfish element mars the picture of whole-hearted devotion which was so delightfully portrayed in the history of the returned exiles up to this time. The leaders are cautious enough to couch their answer in terms that seem to hint at their inability to comply with the friendly request of their neighbours, however much they may wish to do so, because of the limitation imposed upon them in the edict of Cyrus which confined the command to build the temple at Jerusalem to the Jews. But it is evident that the secret of the refusal is in the mind and will of the Jews themselves. They absolutely decline any co-operation with the colonists. There is a sting in the carefully chosen language with which they define their work; they call it building a house "unto our God." Thus they not only accept the polite phrase "Your God" employed by the colonists in addressing them; but by markedly accentuating its limitation they disallow any right of the colonists to claim the same divinity.

Such a curt refusal of friendly overtures was naturally most offensive to the people who received it. But their subsequent conduct was so bitterly ill-natured that we are driven to think they must have had some selfish aims from the first. They at once set some paid agents to work at court to poison the mind of the government with calumnies about the Jews. It is scarcely likely that they were able to win Cyrus over to their side against his favourite proteges. The king may have been too absorbed with the great affairs of his vast dominions for any murmur of this business to reach him while it was being disposed of by some official. But perhaps the matter did not come up till after Cyrus had handed over the government to his son Cambyses, which he did in the year B.C. 532-three years before his death. At all events the calumnies were successful. The work of the temple building was arrested at its very commencement-for as yet little more had been done beyond collecting materials. The Jews were paying dearly for their exclusiveness.

All this looks very miserable. But let us examine the situation.

We should show a total lack of the historical spirit if we were to judge the conduct of Zerubbabel and his companions by the broad principles of Christian liberalism. We must take into account their religious training and the measure of light to which they had attained. We must also consider the singularly difficult position in which they were placed. They were not a nation; they were a Church. Their very existence, therefore, depended upon a certain ecclesiastical organisation. They must have shaped themselves according to some definite lines, or they would have melted away into the mass of mixed. nationalities and debased eclectic religions with which they were surrounded. Whether the course of personal exclusiveness which they chose was wisest and best may be fairly questioned. It has been the course followed by their children all through the centuries, and it has acquired this much of justification-it has succeeded. Judaism has been preserved by Jewish exclusiveness. We may think that the essential truths of Judaism might have been maintained by other means which would have allowed of a more gracious treatment of outsiders. Meanwhile, however, we must see that Zerubbabel and his companions were not simply indulging in churlish unsociability when they rejected the request of their neighbours. Rightly or wrongly, they took this disagreeable course with a great

Page 11: Ezra 4 commentary

purpose in mind.

Then we must understand what the request of the colonists really involved. It is true they only asked to be allowed to assist in building the temple. But it would have been impossible to stay here. If they had taken an active share in the labour and sacrifice of the construction of the temple, they could not have been excluded afterwards from taking part in the temple worship. This is the more clear since the very grounds of their request were that they worshipped and sacrificed to the God of the Jews. ow a great prophet had predicted that God’s house was to be a house of prayer for all nations. [Isaiah 56:7] But the Jews at Jerusalem belonged to a very different school of thought. With them, as we have learnt from the genealogies, the racial idea was predominant. Judaism was for the Jews.

But let us understand what that religion was which the colonists asserted to be identical with the religion of the returned exiles. They said they worshipped the God of the Jews, but it was after the manner of the people of the orthern Kingdom. In the days of the Israelites that worship had been associated with the steer at Bethel, and the people of Jerusalem had condemned the degenerate religion of their northern brethren as sinful in the sight of God. But the colonists had not confined themselves to this. They had combined their old idolatrous religion with that of the newly adopted indigenous divinity of Palestine. "They feared the Lord, and served their own gods." [Isaiah 56:7] Between them, they adored a host of Pagan divinities, whose barbarous names are grimly noted by the Hebrew historian-Succoth-benoth, ergal, Ashima, etc. [2 Kings 17:30-31] There is no evidence to show that this heathenism had become extinct by the time of the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. At all events, the bastard product of such a worship as that of the Bethel steer and the Babylonian and Phoenician divinities, even when purged of its most gross corruption, was not likely to be after the mind of the puritan pilgrims. The colonists did not offer to adopt the traditional Torah, which the returned exiles were sedulously observing.

Still it may be said, if the people were imperfect in knowledge and corrupt in practice, might not the Jews have enlightened and helped them? We are reminded of the reproach that Bede brings so sternly against the ancient British Christians when he blames them for not having taught the gospel to the Saxon heathen who had invaded their land. How far it would have been possible for a feeble people to evangelise their more powerful neighbours, in either case, it is impossible to say.

It cannot be denied, however, that in their refusal the Jews gave prominence to racial and not to religious distinctions. Yet even in this matter it would be unreasonable for us to expect them to have surpassed the early Christian Church at Jerusalem and to have anticipated the daring liberalism of St. Paul. The followers of St. James were reluctant to receive any converts into their communion except on condition of circumcision. This meant that Gentiles must become Jews before they could be recognised as Christians. ow there was no sign that the mixed race of colonists ever contemplated becoming Jews by humbling themselves to a rite of initiation. Even if most of them were already circumcised, as far as we know none of

Page 12: Ezra 4 commentary

them gave an indication of willingness to subject themselves wholly to Jewish ordinances. To receive them, therefore, would be contrary to the root principle of Judaism. It is not fair to mete out a harsh condemnation to Jews who declined to do what was only allowed among Christians after a desperate struggle, which separated the leader of the liberal party from many of his brethren and left him for a long while under a cloud of suspicion.

Great confusion has been imported into the controversy on Church comprehension by not keeping it separate from the question of tolerance in religion. The two are distinct in many respects. Comprehension is an ecclesiastical matter; tolerance is primarily concerned with the policy of the state. Whilst it is admitted that nobody should be coerced in his religion by the state, it is not therefore to be assumed that everybody is to be received into the Church.

evertheless we feel that there is, a real and vital connection between the ideas of tolerance and Church comprehensiveness. A Church may become culpably intolerant, although she may not use the power of the state for the execution of her mandates; she may contrive many painful forms of persecution, without resorting to the rack and the thumb-screw. The question therefore arises, What are the limits to tolerance within a Church? The attempt to fix these limits by creeds and canons has not been wholly successful, either in excluding the unworthy or in including the most desirable members. The drift of thought in the present day being towards wider comprehensiveness, it becomes increasingly desirable to determine on what principles this may be attained. Good men are weary of the little garden walled around, and they doubt whether it is altogether the Lord’s peculiar ground; they have discovered that many of the flowers of the field are fair and fragrant, and they have a keen suspicion that not a few weeds may lurk even in the trim parterre; so they look over the wall and long for breath and brotherhood, in a large recognition of all that is good in the world. ow the dull religious lethargy of the eighteenth century is a warning against the chief danger that threatens those who yield themselves to this fascinating impulse. Latitudinarianism sought to widen the fold that had been narrowed on one side by sacerdotal pretensions and on the other side by puritan rigour. The result was that the fold almost disappeared. Then religion was nearly swallowed up in the swamps of indifference. This deplorable issue of a well-meant attempt to serve the cause of charity suggests that there is little good in breaking down the barriers of exclusiveness unless we have first established a potent centre of unity. If we have put an end to division simply by destroying the interests which once divided men, we have only attained the communion of death. In the graveyard friend and foe lie peaceably side by side, but only because both are dead. Wherever there is life two opposite influences are invariably at work. There is a force of attraction drawing in all that is congenial, and there is a force of a contrary character repelling everything that is uncongenial. Any attempt to tamper with either of these forces must result in disaster. A social or an ecclesiastical division that arbitrarily crosses the lines of natural affinity creates a schism in the body, and leads to a painful mutilation of fellowship. On the other hand, a forced comprehension of alien elements produces internal friction, which often leads to an explosion, shattering the whole fabric. But the common mistake has been in

Page 13: Ezra 4 commentary

attending to the circumference and neglecting the centre, in beating the bounds of the parish instead of fortifying the citadel. The liberalism of St. Paul was not latitudinarian, because it was inspired by a vital principle which served as the centre of all his teaching. He preached liberty and comprehensiveness, because he had first preached Christ. In Christ he found at once a bond of union and an escape from narrowness. The middle wall of partition was broken down, not by a Vandal armed with nothing better than the besom of destruction, but by the Founder of a new kingdom, who could dispense with artificial restrictions because He could draw all men unto Himself.

Unfortunately the returned captives at Jerusalem did not feel conscious of any such spiritual centre of unity. They might have found it in their grandly simple creed, in their faith in God. But their absorption in sacrificial ritual and its adjuncts shows that they were too much under the influence of religious externalism. This being the case, they could only preserve the purity of their communion by carefully guarding its gates. It is pitiable to see that they could find no better means of doing this than the harsh test of racial integrity. Their action in this matter fostered a pride of birth which was as injurious to their own better lives as it was to the extension of their religion in the world. But so long as they were incapable of a larger method, if they had accepted counsels of liberalism they would have lost themselves and their mission. Looking at the positive side of their mission, we see how the Jews were called to bear witness to the great principle of separateness. This principle is as essential to Christianity as it was to Judaism. The only difference is that with the more spiritual faith it takes a more spiritual form. The people of God must ever be consecrated to God, and therefore separate from sin, separate from the world-separate unto God.

OTE.-For the section Ezra 4:6-23 see Chapter 14. This section is marked by a change of language; the writer adopts Aramaic at Ezra 4:8, and he continues in that language down to Ezra 6:18. The decree of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:12-26 is also in Aramaic.

PARKER, "Builders and Adversaries

WHY not regard the building of Jerusalem, of the altar, of any portion of the house of God, as typical of the life-building in which we are all engaged? We cannot but be builders: we are building a personal life; we are assisting to put up a social edifice; day by day in proportion as we are in earnest are we putting things together and giving life-shape and commodiousness. Let us think of good men, and great building; of good souls purified as it were with fire, trying to put up a life-house worthy of God"s own conception of life. The figure would be beautiful and graphic, nor would it strain the imagination, for we are all more or less conscious that in proportion as we are in earnest do we give shape and purpose and high and solemn meaning to all that we put our hands to.

How does the work go on? Is it all easy, smooth, delightful? Are all circumstances conducive to its prosecution and its ultimate and enduring success? How is the

Page 14: Ezra 4 commentary

weather with us? How do the winds treat our building? And is the society in the midst of which we are putting up our life-house sympathetic and fraternal? Here we come upon the experience of the first verse:—

"ow when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard." ( Ezra 4:1).

We cannot build without the adversaries hearing. There is little secret building in life. For a time we may proceed almost silently, with all the enjoyment of security from the prying and unsympathetic curiosity of enemies; but as the walls rise people stop, and look, and wonder, and interrogate. If those who stop are friends they will say, God bless the builders and their building! may it be roofed in during the summer weather, and may no harm come to so shapely an edifice! But there are many adversaries. The adversary is a man who seeks to discover flaws, disadvantages, mistakes; a man who magnifies all that is unworthy until he makes a great sore and wound of it, so as to offend as many as possible: he knows how the work could have been better done: he sees where every mistake has been committed; and under his breath, or above it, as circumstances may suggest, he curses the builders and their building, and thinks that such an edifice built by such men is but an incubus which the earth is doomed to bear. Regard the criticism of adversaries as inevitable. If we think of it only as incidental, occasional, characteristic of a moment"s experience, we shall treat it too lightly: the adversary is an abiding quantity in life; he hates all goodness; he dreads all prayer; he is against every soul that has an upward look. "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." The devil is a thousand strong; he is not located here or there nor confined to a particular province; he seems to fill the air, and to strike us from every point of the atmosphere. Be sober; be vigilant; take unto you the whole armour of God: there is no excess of panoply; every piece of the armour is essential.

How subtle the adversary is; how smooth-tongued; how lithe in his motions; how accommodating to the peculiarities of the mould through which he must pass in order to reach and secure his object!

LAGE, "I. The Interruption of the Building of the Temple. Ezra 4:1-5

1ow when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the Lord God of Israel; 2Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither 3 But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us 4 Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, 5And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Page 15: Ezra 4 commentary

II. An Original Document respecting the Hostile Machinations. Ezra 4:6-24

6And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem 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 8 Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this 9 sort: Then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites, 10And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, 11and at such a time. This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king; Thy servants the men on this side the river, and at such a time 12 Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations 13 Be it known now unto the king, that if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings 14 ow because we have maintenance from the King’s palace, and it was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king; 15That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city destroyed 16 We certify the king that, if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have17 no portion on this side the river. Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and unto the rest beyond the river, Peace, and at such a time18,The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me 19 And I commanded, and’ search hath been made, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein 20 There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all countries beyond the river; and toll, tribute, and custom was paid unto them 21 Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me 22 Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings? 23ow when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power 24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

EXEGETICAL AD CRITICAL

Ezra 4:1-5. The interruption. Ezra 4:1-3 first give its occasion. When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard of the undertaking in Jerusalem, they wished to unite

Page 16: Ezra 4 commentary

with them in building. They are called the adversaries, not of the children of the captivity, but of Judah and Benjamin, because their opposition and hostility had arisen already in pre-exile times, and indeed against the southern kingdom, which was then most suitably called that of Judah and Benjamin. בני הגולה—children or members of the captivity, is the name given to the returned exiles in Ezra 6:19 sq.; Ezra 8:35; Ezra 10:7, Ezra 10:16, etc.; so also briefly הגולה—e.g, Ezra 1:11. In order to establish their claim they maintain: We seek your God as ye (do).—דרש with ל or also with the simple accusative, is the constant expression for our somewhat ,אלcolorless expression worship God; properly it is to turn to God with petition or questions, or with desires in general, to apply to Him.—And sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon,etc.—The Kethib: “we do not offer” cannot well mean: we do not offer to other gods, for then it would be necessary to mention expressly these other gods. If it were original to the text it might perhaps simply have the sense we did not offer at all, not even to Jehovah, since we well knew that Jehovah would accept offering only at the one legitimate place of worship at Jerusalem. Then it would involve the meaning that they would gladly sacrifice to Jehovah, and on this very account desired to take part in building the temple at Jerusalem. But this view is opposed by the fact that they then would without doubt have too openly and boldly gone in the face of all truth, since they certainly had very many altars and sacrificed often enough. Moreover the emphatic position of אנהנו does not accord with this view; besides, in such a case we would expect the perf. זבחנו instead of the part. זבחים. It is very probable that לא here, as in fifteen other passages (comp. e.g. Exodus 21:8; 1 Samuel 2:3; 2 Samuel 16:18; 2 Kings 8:10) is for לו, in consequence of a mistake, or of design, in that they would state that their sacrifices did not properly deserve the name of sacrifices, as then לו likewise is found in Qeri, and is read by Esdras (αὐτῷ), by Sept, Syriac, and also indeed by the Vulg, which at least does not have the negative. Since the speakers designate themselves as those whom Esar-haddon had brought into their present abode (comp. Bähr on 2 Kings 19:37), we have to identify them beyond question with those colonists referred to in 2 Kings17, with the Samaritans Song of Solomon -called, whom the king of Assyria, 2 Kings 17:24, had brought up out of Babylon, Cutha, and other eastern countries, into the cities of Samaria. These colonists, when they first settled in Canaan, it is true, did not fear Jehovah; it was not till a considerable later period that they asked for an Israelite priest out of Assyria, in order to be instructed by him in the worship of Jehovah; but the words: since the days when Esar-haddon brought us up, are either a somewhat inexact statement, or are to be explained from their efforts to date their worship of Jehovah as far back as possible. Knobel (Zur Geschichte der Samaritaner, Denkschr. der Gesellsch. für Wissensch. und Kunst in Giessen, I:1, S147 sqq.), on account of these words, improperly holds them for those who had emigrated from Assyria with the Israelite priests. It is clear from our passage that the colonization spoken of in 2 Kings17, if it perhaps had already begun under Sargon and Sennacherib, yet chiefly took place under Esar-haddon. With this agree the cuneiform inscriptions, in accordance with which Esar-haddon had despoiled, not expressly, it is true, the land of the ten tribes, but yet Syria and Phœnicia of their ancient inhabitants, and provided them with new ones, comp. Schrader, l. c, upon our passage.[F1] The occasion of this request of the Samaritans, was the correct recognition of the fact that those who should have the temple at Jerusalem, would be

Page 17: Ezra 4 commentary

regarded as the leading nation, whilst those who should be excluded from this central point of the worship of the land would appear as less authorized, as intrusive; they likewise no doubt expected, if they were admitted to participation in the building of the temple, as well as to consultation with reference to it, to gain thereby influence in shaping the affairs of the congregation in general. If in addition to this they had also a religious interest in the matter, it was only in order to secure for themselves the favor of the God of the land, whom they recognised as Jehovah, and then therewith also the same possessions and blessings in their new home as the Jews designed for themselves. We cannot regard them as actuated by any higher and purer motive,—for their entire subsequent behaviour, which makes them appear as quite indifferent to religious affairs, and also that which we elsewhere learn of their religion, is opposed to that view. That which is said in 2 Kings17 on this subject cannot be understood (as Bähr on that chap.) as stating that they only in part retained their heathen gods, that many had already worshipped Jehovah only, that these latter had worshipped Him, if indeed in the form of a bull, yet, as the only God. There is no distinction between the different classes; for 2 kings4:33 is not, as Bähr translates, “there were also worshippers of Jehovah,”—but it is said of all; they feared Jehovah, and served their own gods, and of all it is then likewise said in 2 kings4:34: “they feared not Jehovah;” they prayed to Jehovah only as one of many, only as a limited being, only as an idol, not as the only true God. It is true the question then arises whether this syncretistic stand-point that in no respect can be regarded as even an approximative worship of Jehovah, that in truth was only ordinary heathenism, was still maintained by them in the times subsequent to the exile, whether they had not made an advance in religion beyond it. The question Isaiah, how the remnant of the ten tribes, who had maintained themselves in their habitations in the midst of the colonists, especially according to Jeremiah 41:4 sq.; and 2 Chronicles 34:9-10 (comp. Bähr on 2 Kings17, S401, and ägelsbach on Jeremiah 41:4 sq.), acted both with reference to these colonists in general, and to the claim here made by them. But if the long prevailing opinion were correct that the Samaritans for the most part consisted of the Israelites who remained in the land at the exile, so that they might bo regarded as an actual continuation of the people of the ten tribes, and the heathen elements among them had become more and more conformed to the Israelites, we cannot conceive why they did not maintain already now this their external and internal connection with Israel as well as on later occasions when it suited them so to do. That would have been the strongest reason that could have influenced the Jews to admit their claim. For great and respected predecessors, as Hezekiah, 2 Chronicles 30.; and Josiah, 2 Chronicles 34:33, had expressly occupied themselves in attracting the remnants of Israel to the worship of Jehovah at Jerusalem. At first the remnant may have kept themselves concealed from the new comers and the masters of the land, by contenting themselves with the more distant regions and lurking-places of the mountains. They certainly constituted merely despised and scattered bands, which neither sought nor offered any communication, whom therefore the colonists could not trust. Otherwise they would not have had a priest sent to them from Assyria, when they wished to worship Jehovah as the god of the land, comp. 2 Kings 17:2. Very soon, it is true, many of them approached the colonists, and mixed with them by marriage; but instead of exerting any influence in shaping them, they rather subordinated themselves—of

Page 18: Ezra 4 commentary

themselves having quite a strong inclination to heathenism—to the colonists as the more powerful and more favored on the part of the government and united with them in their manners and customs, and also in their religion, so that they more and more disappeared among them. This is very clear partly from the way in which the Samaritans here speak of themselves, partly from their subsequent actions, in that they in contrast to the Jews still preferred to be the representatives of the royal prerogatives of Persia, and designate themselves after their Assyrian places of origin (comp. Ezra 4:7 sq.), but give not the slightest hint of a connection with the ancient Israelites, or of having been in any way modified by them.[F2] Therefore it is improbable that they should have been influenced by these latter in making their claim upon the new congregation, as Berth. and after him Keil supposes. If they subsequently more and more decidedly went over to monotheism and the observation of the Mosaic law, they were moved thereto, not by the remnants of Israel, which had blended with them, but by the Jews themselves. They would not remain behind the new congregation in Jerusalem, for they could not conceal from themselves on reflection that the stand-point of the religion of Jehovah, as it was represented in Jerusalem, was higher than their own. And it was for this reason that they then accepted the first Prayer of Manasseh, and under his direction built the temple on Gerizim, by which circumstance the transformation was as a matter of course still further favored. Besides this there was the entire tendency of those times that was decidedly towards a higher and more spiritual worship of God. Moreover, in addition to such fragments of Israel as were lost among the Samaritans, others still were left in the land who Sought to preserve their independence. It is probable that these, who were of themselves more devoted to the religion of Jehovah, let themselves be directed by the judgments that passed over their kingdom, and the contrast that was exhibited between themselves and the colonists, still more decidedly to Jerusalem and the worship there conducted. In favor of this view is the fact that some of them already in the time of Josiah contributed to the restoration of the temple in Jerusalem ( 2 Chronicles 34:9-10), and that still after the destruction of the temple eighty men of Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria came in mourning to bring their gifts to the place where up to this time they had worshipped, Jeremiah 41:5-6. In accordance with some other evidence, there were still at the time such better elements in the northern region of the land. Among those who had separated themselves from the impurities of the nations to unite with the returned exiles in seeking Jehovah ( Ezra 6:21) belonged probably at least remnants of Israel as well as of Judah. And this sheds light upon the obscure question, how we are to account for the origin of the Jewish population in Galilee. Bertheau properly remarks with reference to such better elements: “They are the ancestors of a great part of the Jews whom we meet in subsequent times in northern Palestine.” There in northern Palestine they had not been dislodged by the colonists, who occupied the cities of Samaria. There, as to their old ancestral abodes, and to their kindred, must those return who now and subsequently gradually returned from any of the ten tribes. It is possible, indeed, that this better remnant of the northern kingdom soon still more decidedly than the Samaritans directed their attention to the temple at Jerusalem. But perhaps they had not yet concluded what relation they should assume to the congregation at Jerusalem; we may suppose that it was in consequence of the impulse that went forth from Jerusalem for them certainly much more than for the

Page 19: Ezra 4 commentary

Samaritans, that they reflected more deeply upon themselves, and finally attached themselves to the worship at Jerusalem.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:1-3. (1) The release of Israel and the Revelation -establishment of Jerusalem and the temple connected therewith was a beginning of the fulfilment of the great prophetic promises. Among these promises were those that said that the heathen would come near, to walk in the light of the Lord (especially Micah 4. Isq.; Isaiah 2:2, 24; 60:1 sq.); they were to take part in the communion with Him, and accordingly in His worship and kingdom, and rejoice in His blessings. When now the Samaritans drew nigh with the request that they might help in building the temple, was not their claim sustained by these prophets? Should not Israel have been ready gladly to contribute their part for the accomplishment of the prophecy, even if it should for the moment be burdensome to them? Did they not have to fear lest they should by a refusal strive against God’s own great thoughts and designs which had been expressed long before? If the one prophecy is compared and explained by the other, then it follows, certainly, that this conversion of the heathen was not to be expected until the appearance of the Messiah. But if the Lord had given the one thing that was to come with the better and Messianic times, namely the return to the land of their fathers, could He not then very soon also afford them the other, the appearance of the Messiah itself? At present, indeed, Israel had no other prince than Zerubbabel, who did not even have the majesty of an ordinary king, not to speak of Messianic majesty and glory. But if now the congregation had gained in strength and numbers by the reception of the Samaritans, would it not thereby have also gradually advanced an important stage, and would not other tribes and families also have gradually followed the Samaritans ? The congregation was obliged in those times, when so much was but feeble, and began to have but little prospect of improvement (comp. Zechariah 4:10), to look at so many things with the eye of faith, if they would make no mistakes; and grasp them in faith, if they would not lack courage for them from the outset—should they not then have seen here also in faith a beginning, that would have its continuation and completion; should they not have covered over with the veil of mildness and forbearance the many weaknesses which might still adhere to the Samaritans, and have excused them with the hope of better things? They felt themselves too weak to overcome the heathen elements that were natural to them, and to meet the influences which they would exert in case of a union. But should they not have overcome their feeling of weakness in the power of the enthusiasm of their faith? They were obliged to recognise likewise that something of good was in the Samaritans, and were in duty bound to God to trust in Him that He would make the good to prevail over the evil and secure the victory to the truth. Was it not, if they rejected the Samaritans, looking deeper, a lack of faith, unnecessary anxiety, and was not national narrow-mindedness, and uncharitable-ness mingled therewith? There are many who take this view of it, and are very much inclined to make use of such thoughts with reference to similar things, which are not entirely lacking at present. But however difficult it may appear to take a safe course in such a state of affairs, one thing is sure: The Samaritans had no right to an entrance into the congregation on their assertion that they had already always and from the beginning worshipped the Lord, for on the contrary this could have been the case only in that they could have

Page 20: Ezra 4 commentary

shown at some period of their history a decisive break with their previous heathenism and a real conversion to Jehovah. Such a conversion, however, of a true and hearty character, such as the prophets had prophesied as taking place in the Messianic time (comp. Isaiah 19:16 sq ) was not at all possible on their part. They needed first for this a turning unto them, a change on the part of the Lord. Israel was what it was in consequence of the divine election. The Samaritans also, and indeed all other nations, can become God’s people only when God extends His election clearly and effectually unto them likewise. They cannot choose Him, but He must choose them. It was His prerogative in this as in all other things, to take the initiative, if indeed He was the God of Revelation, and was to be honored as such. It was necessary that He should reveal Himself in some manner, that He should draw near them and become apprehensible; He must send a mediator, under whom they likewise might find themselves, and in whom there should be a righteousness, a perfection and glory which would be undoubtedly for them, yea, overpowering them, and above all, likewise rendering satisfaction for them, and of a sufficiently representative character; He must do a redemptive Acts, by which He should purchase and fake them to Himself. It was necessary that there should first be a new manifestation, which should lay anew foundation, and even on this account also another instrument than Zerubbabel and Jeshua, coming from heaven, the appearance of the Sum of righteousness itself, with healing in its beams even for the heathen. That the congregation in Jerusalem rightly judged the Samaritans has been attested by the Lord Himself in John 4:22, as Hengstenberg has well shown in his Gesch. des Reiches Gottes (“ye worship ye know not what”) and the history itself has shown that they justly estimated that the hour of God had not yet come. This hour did not strike until Christ the Lord authoritatively removed the fence that had been erected between Israel and the heathen.

(2) The congregation had at first for their own sake as well as for the sake of the Samaritans, to adopt an exclusive policy. Whilst, if they had taken the Samaritans into their membership they would have been ruined by the latter through their worldly conformity, now they remained a salt, that in good time might become useful even to them, yea, they became already in advance a warning and an impulse to them, in consequence of which they gradually turned to better things. The good Samaritan in the gospel makes it probable that the lord found here and there among them, hearts that were less hard than those of the priests and Levites in Jerusalem. The story of the Samaritan who was healed of leprosy, who alone rendered thanks to the Lord, is an evidence that the noblest virtue might easily thrive among them better than among the Jews. The Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well and the people of Sychar, then those in Samaria itself ( Acts 8) show a susceptibility for the Saviour, by which they might become true members of the people of God before many in the ancient congregation. Would that those, who as the Samaritans do not worship the true and holy God who does not allow His people to be put to shame, but only their own idols who are easily satisfied might have a clearer and stronger conception of the chasm that separates them from the true con gregation of the Lord! It would be a help for them that they need first of all.

(3) The congregation had to do without an increase such as would have come

Page 21: Ezra 4 commentary

through the Samaritan element; they must rather remain small and suffer persecutions than abandon unto corruption the blessings entrusted to them. But after that Jesus Christ has come into the world and redemption has been made for all, so that only the innermost inclination of the heart need be brought into consideration, it is much more difficult to properly recognize the Samaritan influence that would press into the Church, and there is need in this respect of a very great and especial care. Above all we must take this to heart, that no one has to be converted to us, to our opinions and methods, but that every one is to be converted to Jesus Christ alone. The two do not coincide as long as we are still in an imperfect state. But at all events conversion is the decisive thing. How necessary this is and how fundamental it must be has now become still clearer in the light of Jesus Christ. He who now without conversion thinks that he can take part in the kingdom of God, who disputes the necessity of conversion, the depth of human sinfulness, the strictness of the divine holiness, in that he sets before him the grand aim of humanizing Christianity, reconciling it with culture, would set aside the opposition of the world against the Church, the Church’s rigor, narrowness, lack of culture, whilst in truth he seeks to make the Church conformable unto the world—such an one is in fact to be placed on a par with the Samaritans: he Isaiah, indeed, because he is more accountable, worse than a Samaritan.—The state of affairs, however, to-day is an entirely different one, inasmuch as Samaritanism is not without, but within the congregation [that Isaiah, in the State Churches especially; to a limited extent in the free evangelical churches—Tr.], yea, at times indeed is to be found in those who govern the congregation, where then at any rate the parable of the wheat and tares comes into consideration with reference to the way of judging it and treating it.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:1-3. The Church cannot receive every one into her communion or suffer all to remain therein. Her duty to excommunicate is shown: 1) From what would happen if she excluded none—they would be made to conform to the world by the worldly-minded; 2) From what happens when they do exclude them—they manifest the worldly disposition in their hearts, and do much damage by their hostility; but they cannot ruin the congregation: the possibility remains that they themselves may be the subjects of saving influences.—Starke: o one should enter into communion in religious matters with strange and false religious opinions, 2 Corinthians 4:14; Titus 3:10. Tale-bearers and false and wicked talkers are cursed; for they perplex those who enjoy good peace ( Sirach 28:15), and invent villany, Psalm 64:7; Psalm 140:4 The Church of God and its members suffer greater injury by false friends than by open enemies, Psalm 41:10; 2 Corinthians 11:26.

Ezra 4:1-5. The duty of the congregation to be apparently intolerant: 1) Towards whom—even against many who would enjoy its communion; 2) how—excluding that which is excluded by its entire character and then bearing whatever evil is ascribed to them on account of this; 3) for what purpose—in order to preserve its best things and thereby at the proper time likewise offer salvation to their enemies.—Brentius: Ejusdem farinæ sunt, qui nunc hujus nunc illius religionis sunt. Injustum est; qui fides est persuasio certa de divinis promissionibus. Hi autem, cum

Page 22: Ezra 4 commentary

hinc inde fluctuent, non habent fidem.—The foolish behaviour of the world towards the Lord’s people: 1) The world would belong to the Lord’s people, and yet not be converted unto God; 2) They seek to set aside the worship of the true God, and yet can prosper only in the light that streams forth from it.

ISBET, "THERE ARE MAY ADVERSARIES‘The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin.’Ezra 4:1I. The return from captivity would be viewed with mingled feelings by the Samaritans and those transplanted from the East by Esar-Haddon, king of Assyria.—Since they are termed ‘the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin,’ it is not necessary to suppose that the offer made to Zerubbabel to join with him in building the Temple was sincere, as some have supposed. It was rather a crafty endeavour, as the sequel reveals, to join in the work with the intention of effectively blocking it. It was their selfish aim to keep Jerusalem weak. Even yet nations too readily assume that the prosperity of others must mean disadvantage to themselves, and try to retard their development.

II. The claim that they, too, sought Jehovah and sacrificed unto Him was specious.—It contained an element of truth which made it the more dangerous. ‘They combined their own idolatrous religion with that of the newly adopted indigenous divinity of Palestine.’ Therefore co-operation would have meant deterioration. Such an addition in the number of helpers would have meant subtraction of real devotion to Jehovah, multiplication of faction, and division of power. Zerubbabel and the chiefs of Israel were wise, therefore, to decline co-operation so fraught with material and moral danger. The Christian must ever be on his guard against dubious co-operation which means the sacrifice of truth on the altar of charity. To compromise integrity of devotion and simplicity of truth in order to augment the number of associates is to court certain failure and just condemnation.

III. Failing in their first cunning attempt, the veil of conciliation was cast off.—They revealed the real hostility of spirit by hindering in every possible way the erection of the Temple. They sought that a decree should be made to stop the work. In this clever stratagem they were successful. The people were made to cease ‘by force and power’ from building, and their purpose was frustrated, until the days of Darius, the king of Persia, fifteen to twenty years after. Evil is active to hinder the good in every generation. o man ever attempted a good work without finding opposition in some form or other. Still, in the end the Temple was built. If evil is powerful, God is all-powerful. Whatever difficulties and adversaries arise, God’s Will is the greatest force this world knows, and to Him belongeth victory.

Illustrations

(1) ‘We must beware of the proposal to join in with the ungodly. Their arguments may sound very fair, and appeal to a false liberality of sentiment, but the golden cup contains poison, and beneath the kiss is the traitor’s hand. This is why so many fair

Page 23: Ezra 4 commentary

enterprises have miscarried. They have afforded common ground for co-operation between the true and counterfeit Israel, whilst God has been alienated.’

(2) ‘“Ye have nothing to do with us.” That is the answer we must make to men who want to co-operate with us externally before they have co-operated with us spiritually and sacrificially. When they would assist us in our works of benevolence and in spreading some particular practical aspect of religion our reply should be, “Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God.” Grander would be the Church, more virgin in her beauty and loveliness, more snow-like in her incorruptibleness, if she could say to every bad man who offers her assistance, “Ye have nothing to do with us in building the house of our God: the windows shall remain unglazed, and the roof beams unslated, before we will touch money made by the sale of poison, or by practices that are marked by the utmost corruption and evil.”’

BI 1-3, "Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard.

The proposal of the Samaritans to the Jews

I. The proposal made by the Samaritans

1. Plausible in its form.

2. But evil in itself.

(1) They were not Israelites.

(2) They did not worship Jehovah as the true God. To have received such a people into community and co-operation with the true people of God would have been an set of utter unfaithfulness and disloyalty to Him.

(3) Their design in making this proposal was an unworthy one.

(4) The acceptance of their proposal would have been perilous to the Jews.

II. The proposal rejected by the jews.

1. An exclusive obligation in relation to the work is asserted.

2. The alleged similarity of worship is indirectly denied.

3. The command of Cyrus is adduced in support of this rejection. This was prudent. “Be ye wise as serpents,” etc.

4. The rejection of the proposal was unanimous.

5. The rejection of the proposal was prompt and decided. (William Jones.)

The proposals of the wicked and how to treat them

I. That the wicked often propose to enter into alliance with the good. These alliances are of different kinds.

1. Commercial.

2. Social

Page 24: Ezra 4 commentary

3. Matrimonial.

4. Religious.

II. That the proposals of the wicked for alliance with the good are often supported by plausible reasons.

III. That the alliances proposed by the wicked are always perilous to the good.

IV. That the proposals of the wicked for alliance with the good should always be firmly rejected. (William Jones.)

The uses of an enemy

1. The having one is proof that you are somebody. Wishy-washy, empty, worthless people, never have enemies. Men who never move, never run against anything; and when a man is thoroughly dead and utterly buried, nothing ever runs against him. To be run against, is proof of existence and position; to run against something, is proof of motion.

2. An enemy is, to say the least, not partial to you. He will not flatter. He will not exaggerate your virtues. It is very probable that he will slightly magnify your faults. The benefit of that is twofold. It permits you to know that you have faults; it makes them visible and so manageable. Your enemy does for you this valuable work.

3. In addition, your enemy keeps you wide awake. He does not let you sleep at your post. There are two that always keep wash—namely, the lover and the hater. Your lover watches, that you may sleep. He keeps off noises, excludes light, adjusts surroundings, that nothing may disturb you. Your hater watches that you may not sleep. He stirs you up when you are napping. He keeps your faculties on the alert.

4. He is a detective among your friends. You need to know who your friends are, and who are not, and who are your enemies. The last of these three will discriminate the other two. When your enemy goes to one who is neither friend nor enemy, and assails you, me indifferent one will have nothing to say or chime in, not because he is your enemy, but because it is so much easier to assent than to oppose, and especially than to refute. But your friend will take up cudgels for you on the instant. He will deny everything and insist on proof, and proving is very hard work. Follow your enemy and you will find your friends, for he will have developed them so that they cannot be mistaken. The next best thing to having a hundred real friends, is to have one open enemy. (C. F. Deems, D. D.)

The adversary an abiding quantity in life

The adversary is a man who seeks to discover flaws, disadvantages, mistakes; a man who magnifies all that is unworthy until he makes a great sore and wound of it, so as to offend as many as possible; he knows how the work could have been better done; he sees where every mistake has been committed; and under his breath, or above it, as circumstances may suggest, he curses the builders and their building, and thinks that such an edifice built by such men is but an incubus which the earth is doomed to bear. Regard the criticism of adversaries as inevitable. If we think of it only as incidental, occasional, characteristic of a moment’s experience, we shall treat it too lightly; the adversary is an abiding quantity in life. (J. Parker, D. D)

Page 25: Ezra 4 commentary

Let us build with you. Beware of your associates

Beware of your associates. With some men we ought not to build even God’s house. We may spoil the sacred edifice by taking money made by the ruin of men. The Samaritans who thus spoke to Zerubbabel and to the chief of the fathers were not telling an absolute lie. No absolute lie can ever do much in the world; its very nakedness would cause it to be driven out of society; it must wear some rag of truth. The Samaritans in the ancient time did worship God after their fashion, but they did not give up a single idolatrous practice; they wanted to have two religions—to serve in some sort all the gods there were, and then when one failed they could flee to another; so they would build any wall, any altar, any city, any sanctuary; they wanted to be at peace with all the gods, then they would know what to do in the day of adversity. We have spoken of the Samaritans of the ancient time: why not speak of the Samaritans of the present day who wish to do this very thing—men who can bow their heads in prayer, and drink toasts to the devil? “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” (J. Parker, D. D)

Simulated unselfishness

How oftentimes are people overcome by manner, by persuasiveness of tone, by assumed gentleness of spirit! The young creature is often so overcome; she says she knows he who has spoken to her is not a bad man; whatever he be he has a guileless tongue; his words are well chosen; he speaks them as a man might speak them who knows the gentleness of pity, all the sympathy of love; it is impossible that he can be simulating such tenderness; it is impossible that he can for selfish reasons be putting himself to such inconvenience and sacrifice. It is to-morrow that she finds out that beneath the velvet there lay the claw of the tiger. Nothing stands but character—real, simple, transparent, solid character. That will bear a thousand blasts of opposition and hostility, and at the end will seem the richer, the chester, for the rude discipline through which it has passed. (J. Parker, D. D)

The true builders of the spiritual temple of God

That Christian work should be done only by Christians may be supported by the following reasons.

I. They alone will build on the true foundation.

II. They alone will build with the true materials.

III. They alone will build in accordance with the true plan.

IV. They alone will build with the true aim. This is the glory of God.

V. They alone will build in the true spirit. That of—

1. Obedience.

2. Humility.

3. Patience.

Page 26: Ezra 4 commentary

4. Trust in God.

5. Self-consecration. (William Jones.)

Compromising help refused

How strangely history repeats itself. In this early struggle between the Jews and the Samaritans we have a foreshadow of many a struggle in the Christian Church. When Paul and the other apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, the Greeks and the Romans would willingly enough have tolerated Christianity if Christianity would but tolerate their idolatrous systems. They would even have patronised the new religion, and would have offered no opposition to the erection of an image of Jesus amongst the images of other gods. But, when they saw that Christianity demanded the renouncing of idolatry and the exclusive worship of the one living and true God, at once priests, rulers, and people rose in arms against the preachers. Every obstacle was placed in the way of the spread of Christianity. But in spite of all persecution the Church prospered. Idolatry fought for its life and gradually lost every battle, until, in the fourth and fifth centuries, the Gospel had conquered the Roman Empire, and Christianity became the nominal religion of all her people. This is the battle, too, that the Church has to fight to-day. We can and we ought to be liberal in many things, but the followers of Jesus dare not be so liberal as to allow men of the world and men of sin to engage hand in hand with them in the Master’s work. The Church ought, and she does, invite into her fellowship all classes. However fallen and bad men may be they are welcome to enter the Church. But they must leave the world and their sins behind them. There cannot be two masters. Christ must have the whole heart, the whole strength, and the entire devotion. (J. Menzies.)

Questionable money help should be refused

The Church will take money from anybody; the whole Christian Church in all her ramifications and communions cheats herself into the persuasion that she can take the money of bad men and turn it to good uses. Grander would be the Church, more virgin in her beauty and loveliness, more snow-like in her incorruptibleness, if she could say to every bad man who offers her assistance, Ye have nothing to do with us in building the house of our God: the windows shall remain unglazed, and the roof-beams unslated, before we will touch money made by the sale of poison or by practices that are marked by the utmost corruption and evil. (J. Parker, D. D)

Doubtful men a source of weakness to a church

Thus we can learn from the Old Testament a good deal that would bear immediate modern application. This is the right answer to all doubtful Christians as well as to all unbelievers. We should say to them, So long as you are doubtful you are not helpful:your character is gone on one side, and therefore it is ineffective on the other. But would not this class of discipline and scope of criticism shear down the congregations? Certainly. Would God they were shorn down! Every doubtful man amongst us is a loss, a source of weakness, a point of perplexity and vexation. We are only unanimous when we axe one in moral faith and consent. The critic will do us no good; the clever man who sees our metaphysical error will keep us back: only the soul that has given itself to Christ, out-and-out, in an unbargaining surrender, can really stand fire in the great war,

Page 27: Ezra 4 commentary

end build through all weathers, and hope even in the midst of darkness. We may have too many people round about us; we may be overburdened and obstructed by numbers. The Church owes not a little of its strength to the purity of its discipline. (J. Parker, D. D)

Mental penetration in leaders

Leaders must be critical. The man who has little responsibility can soon achieve a reputation for energy. Leaders must halt, hesitate, balance, and compare things, and come to conclusions supported by the largest inferences., There are men who would take a short and ready method in accomplishing their purpose: there are men of rude strength, of undisciplined and unsanctified force. But Zerubbabel and Jeshua must look at all the offers of assistance, and ask what their real value is; they must go into the sanctuary of motive, into the arcana of purpose end under-meanings. Zerubbabel and Jeshua—men who could undertake to build a city—were men who had mental penetration; they could see into other men. They saw into the Samaritan adversaries, and said, “Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God.” (J. Parker, D. D).

2 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."

BARES, "Compare 2Ki_17:24-28 notes.

Since the days - Esar-haddon reigned from 681-668 B.C. Thus, the Samaritans speak of what had taken place at least 130 years previously. There appear to have been at least three colonizations of Samaria by the Assyrian kings. The first is mentioned in 2Ki_17:24. Later in his reign Sargon added to these first settlers an Arabian element. Some 30 or 40 years afterward, Esarhaddon, his grandson, largely augmented the population by colonists drawn especially from the southeast parts of the Empire Ezr_4:10. Thus, the later Samaritans were an exceedingly mixed race.

Page 28: Ezra 4 commentary

CLARKE, "Let us build with you - We acknowledge the same God, are solicitous for his glory, and will gladly assist you in this work. But that they came with no friendly intention, the context proves.

GILL, "Then they came to Zerubbabel, and the chief of the fathers,.... These they addressed, as knowing that if they could not prevail with them, they could never succeed in their design; and these were no doubt the principal of the Samaritans that applied:

and said unto them, let us build with you; that is, the temple, they proposed to join with them, and assist them in it; which proposal at first sight might seem very agreeable and welcome, and would have been so had they been sincere, but they were not; they hoped, by getting among them, to have sown discord among them, and disunited them; and so by these or other means to have retarded the building; or if it went forward, that they might have a claim to it as theirs, at least as to set up their own idols in a part of it; the reasons they gave follow:

for we seek your God as ye do; which was false, for they did not worship him alone, but with idols, nor in the same manner as the Jews did:

and we do sacrifice unto him; but even that could not recommend them to the Jews, since they ought not to sacrifice, even to the Lord himself, but at Jerusalem: there is a various reading here; the textual reading is, "we do not sacrifice"; that is, to idols; the marginal reading is, "we sacrifice to him", which we follow; Aben Ezra takes in both, perhaps most rightly; "we do not sacrifice to any other, but to him"; which was also false:

since the days of Esarhaddon, king of Assur, who brought us up hither; to Samaria, from Babylon, and other places; see 2Ki_17:24.

HERY 2-3, " The opposition they gave had in it much of the subtlety of the old serpent. When they heard that the temple was in building they were immediately aware that it would be a fatal blow to their superstition, and set themselves to oppose it. They had not power to do it forcibly, but they tried all the ways they could to do it effectually.

1. They offered their service to build with the Israelites only that thereby they might get an opportunity to retard the work, while they pretended to further it. Now, (1.) Their offer was plausible enough, and looked kind: “We will build with you, will help you to contrive, and will contribute towards the expense; for we seek your God as you do,” Ezr_4:2. This was false, for, though they sought the same God, they did not seek him only, nor seek him in the way he appointed, and therefore did not seek him as they did. Herein they designed, if it were possible, to hinder the building of it, at least to hinder their comfortable enjoyment of it; as good almost not have it as not have it to themselves, for the pure worship of the true God and him only. Thus are the kisses of an enemy deceitful; his words are smoother than butter when war is in his heart. But, (2.) The refusal of their proffered service was very just, Ezr_4:3. The chief of the fathers of Israel were soon aware that they meant them no kindness, whatever they pretended, but really designed to do them a mischief, and therefore (though they had need enough of help if it had been such as they could confide in) told them plainly, “You have nothing to do with us, have no part nor lot in this matter, are not true-born Israelites nor faithful

Page 29: Ezra 4 commentary

worshippers of God; you worship you know not what, Joh_4:22. You are none of those with whom we dare hold communion, and therefore we ourselves will build it.” They plead not to them the law of their God, which forbade them to mingle with strangers (though that especially they had an eye to), but that which they would take more notice of, the king's commission, which was directed to them only: “The king of Persia has commanded us to build this house, and we shall distrust and affront him if we call in foreign aid.” Note, In doing good there is need of the wisdom of the serpent, as well as the innocency of the dove, and we have need, as it follows there, to beware of men,Mat_10:16, Mat_10:17. We should carefully consider with whom we are associated and on whose hand we lean. While we trust God with a pious confidence we must trust men with a prudent jealousy and caution.

JAMISO, "we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esar-haddon ... which brought us up hither— A very interesting explanation of this passage has been recently obtained from the Assyrian sculptures. On a large cylinder, deposited in the British Museum, there is inscribed a long and perfect copy of the annals of Esar-haddon, in which the details are given of a large deportation of Israelites from Palestine, and a consequent settlement of Babylonian colonists in their place. It is a striking confirmation of the statement made in this passage. Those Assyrian settlers intermarried with the remnant of Israelite women, and their descendants, a mongrel race, went under the name of Samaritans. Though originally idolaters, they were instructed in the knowledge of God, so that they could say, “We seek your God”; but they served Him in a superstitious way of their own (see on 2Ki_17:26-34, 2Ki_17:41).

BESO, "Ezra 4:2. They came to Zerubbabel, &c., and said, Let us build with you — Hearing that the temple was in building, they were presently aware that it would be a fatal blow to their superstition, and therefore set themselves to oppose it. But as they had not power to do it openly and by force, they endeavoured to do it secretly and by wiles. They offer their service to build with them, but only that by this conjunction with them they might pry into their counsels, find some matter of accusation against them, and thereby retard the work, while they pretended to further it. For we seek your God, as ye do — This was false; for though they sought the same God, they did not seek him only, nor seek him in the way he had appointed, as the true Jews did. And we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esar-haddon — Son of Sennacherib, and after him king of Assyria, who brought or sent these persons thither, either, 1st, in the days of Shalmaneser, who reigned in Assyria but eight years before Esar-haddon, and so Esar-haddon might be one of his commanders, and the man by whom that colony was sent; or, 2d, in the reign of Esar-haddon, who sent a second colony to strengthen the first.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:2 Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye [do]; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither.

Ver. 2. Let us build with you] Craftily and treacherously do they offer their cost and

Page 30: Ezra 4 commentary

pains, ut illis intermixti personas committerent, atque ita opus interverterent, saith one well; that, mingling with them, they might set them together by the ears, and so put a stop to the work. Thus Julian, to spite the Christians, first set the Jews to work to rebuild their temple; and when that would not be, he called home the Arian bishops out of banishment, to breed new broils in the Church. The Jesuits have a practice at this day of running over to the Lutheran Church, pretending to be converts, and to build with them; but it is only to keep up that bitter contention that is between the Calvinists and the Lutherans. And what ill offices they do among us at this day to heighten our divisions, and hinder the Reformation (by their wiles, much ensnared and hindered), good men are very sensible of. The Lord detect and defeat them.

For we seek your God, as ye do] ay, not as ye do. See 2 Kings 17:32-34, they feared the Lord, not filially, but for his lions; as the old Romans worshipped their Veiones, lest they should hurt them; and as the Caffrani (a people in India) worship devils in most terrible figure, that they may not punish them.

PETT, "Ezra 4:2

‘Then they drew near to Zerubbabel, and to the heads of fathers’ houses, and said to them, “Let us build with you; for we seek your God, as you do; and we sacrifice to him since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assyria, who brought us up here.”The opposition was mainly headed up by the leaders of the region of Samaria, as their argument reveals. Politically it was therefore powerful opposition, for up to this point of time they had had responsibility for Judah in its position within the governorship of Samaria, and possibly did still have such a responsibility, although having to defer to the leaders of Judah in local matters to do with the returnees, something which probably irked them. As appointed rulers they would also have had great influence with the kings of Persia on local matters. So it must have been tempting to yield to their request and curry their favour.

The argument seemed reasonable enough, but, of course, veiled the truth. They claimed to seek God as the returnees did. But it was not so. Alongside YHWH they worshipped other gods, and the priests were illegitimate from a covenant point of view, and were undoubtedly syncretistic (see 2 Kings 17:24-41). Furthermore their move may well have been a political one. Partial control of the Temple and its worship would have ensured their supremacy in local matters.

‘We sacrifice to him.’ Literally, ‘to Him we sacrifice’. Lo’ (to him) is a variant form of low (to him), a variant which is also found elsewhere. It can, however, also signify ‘not’, and some would argue that they are saying that ‘we have not sacrificed (i.e. legitimately) since the days of Esarhaddon’, hoping thereby to appeal to the orthodoxy of the returnees. But the position of lo’ in the sentence points to the meaning ‘to him’, which makes the better sense, for they would certainly have offered sacrifices during the period.

Page 31: Ezra 4 commentary

‘Since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assyria, who brought us up here.” The original settlers had been settled in the days of Sargon II, not long after the destruction of Samaria in 722 BC.. It may therefore simply be that ‘the adversaries’ had their history wrong. But the transportation of peoples was a major Assyrian policy, no doubt continued by Esarhaddon (681-669 BC), so that it is quite likely that some of the inhabitants of Samaria had been transported there by Esarhaddon, whilst others were transported out. We do know from historical texts that he was active in the area. The general picture was therefore probably a true one, with the population of Samaria being supplemented by transportees in the days of Esarhaddon, with other elements removed and transported elsewhere.

Since the days of Esarhaddon] Son and successor to Sennacherib, 2 Kings 19:37, grandson to Salmaneser; after whom, it seems, he brought a new colony into the land of Samaria, who proved deadly enemies to God’s people.

WHEDO, "2. Let us build with you — Did they honestly desire to unite with the Jews in rebuilding the temple, or was this proposition made with evil design to provoke a quarrel, and find an occasion of hindering the work of the exiles? The context implies the latter. Already the hostile attitude of this foreign population had caused them fear, (Ezra 3:3,) and their subsequent opposition shows that they had no real friendship toward the Jews, and apparently only sought occasion to trouble and perplex them in their attempts to rebuild the temple of Jehovah. It is possible that some of the hostility was prompted by lingering elements of the old Israelitish enmity toward Judah, which may have been still represented by Israelites dwelling among these heathen colonists in the cities of Samaria. Such priests as had taught them to worship Jehovah (2 Kings 17:28; 2 Kings 17:32) may also have inspired them with sentiments of hostility toward the kingdom of Judah.

We seek your God — They had been taught by Israelitish priests to fear Jehovah, but they also served their own idol gods. See note, 2 Kings 17:33.

Since the days of Esar-haddon — The first colonists of the depopulated towns of Samaria were settled there by Sargon, (see note on 2 Kings 17:24,) but other colonists were also transported thither by later kings, as this verse shows. Esar-haddon was the son and successor of Sennacherib. On his accession to the throne of Assyria see note on 2 Kings 19:37. He was the last Assyrian monarch whose name occurs in the Scriptures, and it was doubtless his captains who captured King Manasseh, and carried him to Babylon. 2 Chronicles 33:11-13. It is suggested by Rawlinson (Ancient Mon., vol. ii, page 194) that this planting of foreign colonists in Samaria, in addition to what Sargon had previously done, was done in connexion with the restoration of Manasseh to his kingdom. He hoped by that measure to strengthen the hold of Assyria upon Palestine. Esar-haddon reigned thirteen years, and was one of the most enterprising and powerful of the Assyrian kings.

Assur — An incorrect form of anglicising the Hebrew word אשור, Asshur, or

Page 32: Ezra 4 commentary

Assyria.

ELLICOTT, "(2) As ye do.—“They feared the Lord, and worshipped their own gods” (2 Kings 17:33): thus they came either in the spirit of hypocrites or with an intention to unite their own idolatries with the pure worship of Jehovah. In any case, they are counted enemies of the God of Israel.

We do sacrifice unto Him since the days of Esar-haddon.—He ended his reign B.C. 668, and therefore the Samaritans speak from a tradition extending backwards a century and a half.

Which brought us up hither.—Thus they entirely leave out of consideration what residue of Israel was yet to be found among them.

PARKER, ""Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do" ( Ezra 4:2).

Were the men who went up to build Jerusalem in earnest? Did Zerubbabel and Jeshua and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel speak in the same tone? Did they say, Here is unexpected help; we did not look for this assistance: yea, surely come and help us; the more the builders the sooner will the city be lifted up in its ancient beauty? Leaders must be critical. The man who has little responsibility can soon achieve a reputation for energy. Leaders must halt hesitate balance, and compare things, and come to conclusions supported by the largest inferences. There are men who would take a short and ready method in accomplishing their purpose; there are men of rude strength, of undisciplined and unsanctified force. But Zerubbabel and Jeshua must look at all the offers of assistance, and ask what their real value is; they must go into the sanctuary of motive, into the arcana of purpose and under-meanings. Zerubbabel and Jeshua—men who could undertake to build a city—were men who had mental penetration; they could see into other men. They saw into the Samaritan adversaries, and said,

3 But Zerubbabel, Jeshua 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."

Page 33: Ezra 4 commentary

BARES, "Ye have nothing to do with us - Because the Samaritans had united idolatrous rites with the worship of Yahweh 2Ki_17:29-41. To have allowed them a share in restoring the temple would have been destructive of all purity of religion.

As king Cyrus ... commanded us - The exact words of the edict gave the right of building exclusively to those who should “go up” from Babylonia to Judaea Ezr_1:3.

CLARKE, "Ye have nothing to do with us - We cannot acknowledge you as worshippers of the true God, and cannot participate with you in anything that relates to his worship.

GILL, "But Zerubbabel, and Joshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers, said unto them,.... The prince and high priest, and chief of the people:

you have nothing to do with us to build an house to our God; being neither of the same nation, nor of the same religion:

but we ourselves together will build to the Lord God of Israel; we and we only, who are together as one man, united in one body of people, and in the same religious sentiments, being Israelites; we separately, without admitting strangers among us, will build a temple to the God of Israel:

as King Cyrus, the king of Persia, hath commanded us; thereby letting them know that they acted by his authority, and the commission they had from him only concerned themselves, and not others.

JAMISO, "But Zerubbabel and Jeshua ... said ... Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God— This refusal to co-operate with the Samaritans, from whatever motives it sprang, was overruled by Providence for ultimate good; for, had the two peoples worked together, familiar acquaintanceship and intermarriage would have ensued, and the result might have been a relapse of the Jews into idolatry. Most certainly, confusion and obscurity in the genealogical evidence that proved the descent of the Messiah would have followed; whereas, in their hostile and separate condition, they were jealous observers of each other’s proceedings, watching with mutual care over the preservation and integrity of the sacred books, guarding the purity and honor of the Mosaic worship, and thus contributing to the maintenance of religious knowledge and truth.

K&D, "Zerubbabel and the other chiefs of Israel answer, “It is not for you and for us to build a house to our God;” i.e., You and we cannot together build a house to the God who is our God; “but we alone will build it to Jahve the God of Israel, as King Cyrus

commanded us.” יחד we together, i.e., we alone (without your assistance). By the ,אנחנו

Page 34: Ezra 4 commentary

emphasis placed upon “our God” and “Jahve the God of Israel,” the assertion of the adversaries, “We seek your God as ye do,” is indirectly refuted. If Jahve is the God of Israel, He is not the God of those whom Esarhaddon brought into the land. The appeal to the decree of Cyrus (Ezr_1:3, comp. Ezr_3:6, etc.) forms a strong argument for the sole agency of Jews in building the temple, inasmuch as Cyrus had invited those only who were of His (Jahve's) people (Ezr_1:3). Hence the leaders of the new community were legally justified in rejecting the proposal of the colonists brought in by Esarhaddon. For the latter were neither members of the people of Jahve, nor Israelites, nor genuine worshippers of Jahve. They were non-Israelites, and designated themselves as those whom the king of Assyria had brought into the land. According to 2Ki_17:24, the king of Assyria brought colonists from Babylon, Cuthah, and other places, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel. Now we cannot suppose that every Israelite, to the very last man, was carried away by the Assyrians; such a deportation of a conquered people being unusual, and indeed impossible. Apart, then, from the passage, 2Ch_30:6, etc., which many expositors refer to the time of the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, we find that in the time of King Josiah (2Ch_34:9), when the foreign colonists had been for a considerable period in the country, there were still remnants of Manasseh, of Ephraim, and of all Israel, who gave contributions for the house of God at Jerusalem; and also that in 2Ki_23:15-20 and 2Ch_34:6, a remnant of the Israelite inhabitants still existed in the former territory of the ten tribes. The eighty men, too, who (Jer_41:5, etc.) came, after the destruction of the temple, from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria, mourning, and bringing offerings and incense to Jerusalem, to the place of the house of God, which was still a holy place to them, were certainly Israelites of the ten tribes still left in the land, and who had probably from the days of Josiah adhered to the temple worship. These remnants, however, of the Israelites inhabitants in the territories of the former kingdom of the ten tribes, are not taken into account in the present discussion concerning the erection of the temple; because, however considerable their numbers might be, they formed no community independent of the colonists, but were dispersed among them, and without political influence. It is not indeed impossible ”that the colonists were induced through the influence exercised upon them by the Israelites living in their midst to prefer to the Jews the request, 'Let us build with you;' still those who made the proposal were not Israelites, but the foreign colonists” (Bertheau). These were neither members of the chosen people nor worshippers of the God of Israel. At their first settlement (2Ki_17:24, etc.) they evidently feared not the Lord, nor did they learn to do so till the king of Assyria, at their request, sent them one of the priests who had been carried away to teach them the manner of worshipping the God of the land. This priest, being a priest of the Israelitish calf-worship, took up his abode at Bethel, and taught them to worship Jahve under the image of a golden calf. Hence arose a worship which is thus described, 2Ki_17:29-33 : Every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans, i.e., the former inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes, had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt. And besides their idols Nergal, Asima, Nibhaz, Tartak, they feared Jahve; they sacrificed to all these gods as well as to Him. A mixed worship which the prophet-historian (2Ki_17:34) thus condemns: “They fear not the Lord, and do after their statutes and ordinances, not after the law and commandment which the Lord commanded to the sons of Jacob.” And so, it is finally said (2Ki_17:41), do also their children and children's children unto this day, i.e., about the middle of the Babylonian captivity; nor was it will a subsequent period that the Samaritans renounced gross idolatry. The rulers and heads of Judah could not acknowledge that Jahve whom the colonists worshipped as a local god, together with other gods, in the houses of the high places at Bethel and elsewhere, to be the God of Israel, to whom they were building a

Page 35: Ezra 4 commentary

temple at Jerusalem. For the question was not whether they would permit Israelites who earnestly sought Jahve to participate in His worship at Jerusalem-a permission which they certainly would have refused to none who sincerely desired to turn to the Lord God-but whether they would acknowledge a mixed population of Gentiles and Israelites, whose worship was more heathen than Israelite, and who nevertheless claimed on its account to belong to the people of God.

(Note: The opinion of Knobel, that those who preferred the request were not the heathen colonists placed in the cities of Samaria by the Assyrian king (2Ki_17:24), but the priests sent by the Assyrian king to Samaria (2Ki_17:27), has been rejected as utterly unfounded by Bertheau, who at the same time demonstrates, against Fritzsche on 1 Esdr. 5:65, the identity of the unnamed king of Assyria (2Ki_17:24) with Esarhaddon.)

To such, the rulers of Judah could not, without unfaithfulness to the Lord their God, permit a participation in the building of the Lord's house.

BESO, "Ezra 4:3. Ye have nothing to do with us — The chief of the fathers were soon aware that they meant them no kindness, whatever they might pretend, but really designed to do them an injury; and therefore, (though they had need enough of help, if it had been such as they could confide in,) they told them plainly they could not accept it, nor unite with them, as being of another nation and religion, and therefore not concerned in Cyrus’s grant, which was confined to the Israelites. But we ourselves will build — For you are none of those with whom we dare hold communion. Thus we ought to take heed with whom we go partners, and on whose hand we lean. While we trust God with an absolute confidence, we must trust men with a prudent caution. They do not plead to them the law of their God, which forbade them to mingle themselves with strangers, though they especially had an eye to that, but they urge what they knew would have greater weight with them, the king’s commission, which was directed to themselves only. In doing good we have need of the wisdom of the serpent, as well as of the innocence of the dove.

COKE, "Ver. 3. Ye have nothing to do with us, &c.— The Jews esteemed these people no better than idolaters; for, although from the time that they had been infested with lions, in the days of Ezar-haddon, they had worshipped the God of Israel, yet it was only in conjunction with their other gods whom they worshipped before; and therefore, notwithstanding their worship of the true God, since they worshipped false gods also at the same time, they were in this respect idolaters; which was reason enough for the true worshippers of God to have no communion with them.

TRAPP, "Verse 3Ezra 4:3 But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.

Ver. 3. But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua] Jeshua would be one to keep them out, though

Page 36: Ezra 4 commentary

they slighted him in their application to Zerubbabel and the chief of the fathers, Ezra 4:2.

Ye have nothing to do with us] You shall neither conquer us nor compound with us. This was right Roman resolution. They were wont to say of cowards in Rome, that there was nothing Roman in them. I can never sufficiently admire, saith one, the speech of blessed Luther, who, though he was very earnest to have the communion administered in both kinds, contrary to the doctrine and custom of Rome, yet he professes, if the pope, as pope, commanded him to receive in both kinds, he would receive but in one kind, lest he should seem to receive the mark of the beast. As for these reconcilers and moderators, saith another learned man, were they the wisest under heaven, and should live to the world’s end, they would be brought to their wit’s end before they could accomplish this work’s end, to make a reconciliation between Rome and us. They have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God. From such stand off, saith the apostle, 1 Timothy 6:5. Say to them, when they offer their cost and service, as here, Pura Deus mens est: procul, o procul este profani. This was one of those ancient laws of the twelve tables among the Romans, Impius ne audeto placare donis iram deorum, Let no profane person presume to think to pacify the gods with their pains or presents.

But we ourselves together will build, &c.] This the adversaries call combination, conspiracy, faction, sedition, &c., see Ezra 4:13. But what saith Tertullian? Cum boni, cum probi coeunt non est factio dicenda, sed curia. Et e contra, illis nomen factionis accommodandum est, qui in odium piorum et proborum conspirant (Apol. advers, gent. um 520). When good men get together, and hold together, it is not to be called a faction, but a court. As on the other side, they are to be counted factious, who conspire against the godly, as these malignants in the text did.

As king Cyrus, &c.] They had good authority for what they did, and they hold them to it.

PETT, "Ezra 4:3

‘But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’ (houses) of Israel, said to them, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we ourselves together will build to YHWH, the God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.’The reply of the leadership of the returnees (Zerubbabel, Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the fathers) was straight and direct, and theologically necessary. To have acceded would have destroyed all that they were seeking to do in re-establishing the true covenant of YHWH. ote that the decision was a cumulative one. It was made by Zerubbabel and Jeshua in consultation with ‘the heads of the fathers’, that is with those who had authority among the different families represented among the returnees. And it was decisive. It pointed out they it was the returnees who had been

Page 37: Ezra 4 commentary

given authority by Cyrus to build the Temple of ‘the God of Israel’, an important political point, for to have ignored it could have put them in the wrong with the Persian authorities. After all Cyrus had laid down strict regulations about its building (Ezra 6:3-5) and had given to them the Temple vessels in recognition of what they were to do. Politically therefore it was their responsibility. It had nothing to do with anyone else. They had been given the responsibility, and they, and they alone would ensure its fulfilment. However, there can be no question but that they also recognised the dangers involved in including outsiders in the project, outsiders whose ideas of Yahwism were very different from their own. Had they acceded the Temple and its worship would once again have become things of compromise.

We have a good example of what might have happened if we compare the situation with the worshippers at the Jewish Temple built at Elephantine (in Egypt), which we know about from papyri coming from 5th century BC. There 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, and an appeal was made to the Persian representative in Jerusalem, and to the Temple authorities (in which only Yahu’s name was used), seeking their assistance in obtaining permission to rebuild it. When there was no reply a further appeal was made to the Persian governors of Jerusalem and Samaria. We do not know if the Temple was ever rebuilt, but it was certainly syncretistic.

ELLICOTT, "(3) Ye have nothing to do with us.—The account in 2 Kings 17 carefully studied will show that the stern refusal of the leaders was precisely ill harmony with the will of God; there was nothing in it of that intolerant spirit which is sometimes imagined. The whole design of the Great Restoration would have been defeated by a concession at this point. The reference to the command of Cyrus is another and really subordinate kind of justification, pleaded as subjects of the King of Persia, whose decree was absolute and exclusive.

PARKER, ""Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God" ( Ezra 4:3).

That was not a friendly reply to a sympathetic approach; it was unmistakable, it was direct, it was complete. "Ye have nothing to do with us." That is the answer that we must make to men who want to co-operate with us externally before they have co-operated with us spiritually and sacrificially. That is the answer to infidels. When they would assist us in our works of benevolence and in spreading some particular practical aspect of religion, our reply should be, "Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God." The Church will take money from anybody; the whole Christian Church in all her ramifications and communions cheats herself into the persuasion that she can take the money of bad men and turn it to good uses. Grander would be the Church, more virgin in her beauty and loveliness, more snow-like in her incorruptibleness, if she could say to every bad man who offers her assistance, Ye have nothing to do with us in building the house

Page 38: Ezra 4 commentary

of our God: the windows shall remain unglazed, and the roof-beams unstated, before we will touch money made by the sale of poison, or by practices that are marked by the utmost corruption and evil.

Thus we can learn from the Old Testament a good deal that would bear immediate modern application. This is the right answer to all doubtful Christians as well as to all unbelievers. We should say to them, So long as you are doubtful you are not helpful: your character is gone on one side, and therefore it is ineffective on the other. But would not this class of discipline and scope of criticism shear down the congregations? Certainly. Would God they were shorn down. Every doubtful man amongst us is a loss, a source of weakness, a point of perplexity and vexation. We are only unanimous when we are one in moral faith and consent. The critic will do us no good; the clever man who sees our metaphysical error will keep us back: only the soul that has given itself to Christ out and out, in an unbargaining surrender, can really stand fire in the great war, and build through all weathers, and hope even in the midst of darkness. We may have too many people round about us; we may be overburdened and obstructed by numbers. The Church owes not a little of its strength to the purity of its discipline. But when a man comes forward and says he will assist us as far as he can; he cannot adopt our principles and doctrines, but he can do something towards helping us in external matters, should we not receive his help? Better, a thousand times better, if we could say to him, o, we are poor and few and socially of no account, but this is a holy work, and the hand that builds this house should be a hand wounded like its Master"s. Beware of all approaches from the adversary. Let us never co-operate with men in doing anything for the Church, or for benevolent objects, who deny our Lord. We cannot work with the infidel for any great ecclesiastico-political object; his purpose and ours are not the same, and to ally ourselves with him would be to present a false aspect to the Christian public, and to Christ himself.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:3. The Jews refused the Samaritans. The sing.ויאמר is used not only because the number of the verb is freer when it precedes the subject, but because Zerubbabel was the chief person who gave the answer; e. g. Zerubbabel spake in agreement with Jeshua, etc. Jeshua and the heads of the fathers of Israel had united in the answer. ישראל is used with ל, and accordingly is not the stat.abs. of the foregoing האבות, for otherwise this would not have the article, according to the usual combination with ראשי.—Ye have nothing to do with us to build, that Isaiah, it is not for you and us in common; comp. the expression “ what is to me and thee‚” namely, in common, Joshua 22:24; Judges 11:12; 2 Kings 3:13. In that they say: house—not unto God, as Ezra 1:4, but unto our God, they mean that Jehovah belongs to them more than to the Samaritans, yea, to them alone.—But we ourselves together=we as a compact unity, excluding others. They might appeal to the decree of Cyrus in this refusal, since if they were obliged to admit the Samaritans, they would not have gained, according to their feelings and knowledge, that which they had the right to expect from it, namely, an undisturbed worship of Jehovah in all its truth, free from all dangers. It is true it could not escape the congregation, that it was a very serious matter to make those their enemies who had probably connections, consideration and influence at the seat of government, and who

Page 39: Ezra 4 commentary

naturally regarded themselves as the outposts and guardians of the sovereignty of Persia in Canaan. But nevertheless the dangers to which they would have exposed themselves by a union with these Samaritans who appeared so objectionable, especially in a religious point of view, would have been far greater, and they should not be charged with too great anxiety, or one that cannot be entirely approved (against Ewald, Gesch. IV, S125, 135). Those who gradually imitated them when they kept themselves pure from their mixed religion, and through them were impelled to a monotheistic development, would, if they had gained an influence and rightful position in Jerusalem from the beginning, have involved them in their heathen doubt and obscurity. Their renunciation of the external advantages which were set before them by the proffered alliance was the result, on the one side, of a correct appreciation of that which they must regard as of the most importance, and on the other side of a candid and humble recognition of their weakness. As a matter of course they were obliged to take an entirely different course with reference to the remnants of the northern kingdom, when these in another way began to seek Jehovah again in sincerity, and on this account desired to be admitted into Jerusalem. That they did not fail in this particular we see in the circumstance that the Galilean ever had an undisputed admission.

4 Then the peoples around them set out to discourage the people of Judah and make them afraid to go on building. [7]

CLARKE, "Weakened the hands - Discouraged and opposed them by every possible means.

GILL, "Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building. By threatening them, or by dissuading the workmen from going on, by endeavouring to hinder their having materials from the Tyrians and Zidonians, or money out of the king's revenues to bear the expenses as ordered; see Ezr_6:4.

HERY 4-5, " When this plot failed they did what they could to divert them from the

Page 40: Ezra 4 commentary

work and discourage them in it. They weakened their hands by telling them it was in vain to attempt it, calling them foolish builders, who began what they were not able to finish, and by their insinuations troubled them, and made them drive heavily in the work. All were not alike zealous in it. Those that were cool and indifferent were by these artifices drawn off from the work, which wanted their help, Ezr_4:4. And because what they themselves said the Jews would suspect to be ill meant, and not be influenced by, they, underhand, hired counsellors against them, who, pretending to advise them for the best, should dissuade them from proceeding, and so frustrate their purpose (Ezr_4:5), or dissuade the men of Tyre and Sidon from furnishing them with the timber they had bargained for (Ezr_3:7); or whatever business they had at the Persian court, to solicit for any particular grants or favours, pursuant to the general edict for their liberty, there were those that were hired and lay ready to appear of counsel against them. Wonder not at the restlessness of the church's enemies in their attempts against the building of God's temple. He whom they serve, and whose work they are doing, is unwearied in walking to and fro through the earth to do mischief. And let those who discourage a good work, and weaken the hands of those that are employed in it, see whose pattern they follow.

JAMISO 4-5, "Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, etc.— Exasperated by this repulse, the Samaritans endeavored by every means to molest the workmen as well as obstruct the progress of the building; and, though they could not alter the decree which Cyrus had issued regarding it, yet by bribes and clandestine arts indefatigably plied at court, they labored to frustrate the effects of the edict. 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. The same arts were assiduously practiced during the reign of his successor, Smerdis, down to the time of Darius Hystaspes. In consequence of the difficulties and obstacles thus interposed, for a period of twenty years, the progress of the work was very slow.

K&D, "In consequence of this refusal, the adversaries of Judah sought to weaken the

hands of the people, and to deter them from building. ה�רץ ,the people of the land ,עםi.e., the inhabitants of the country, the colonists dwelling in the land, the same who in

Ezr_4:1 are called the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin. ויהי followed by the participle

expresses the continuance of the inimical attempts. To weaken the hands of any one,

means to deprive him of strength and courage for action; comp. Jer_38:4. יהודה are עםthe inhabitants of the realm of Judah, who, including the Benjamites, had returned from captivity, Judah being now used to designate the whole territory of the new community, as before the captivity the entire southern kingdom; comp. Ezr_4:6. Instead of the

Chethiv מב�הים, the Keri offer מבהלים, from בהל, Piel, to terrify, to alarm, 2Ch_32:18;

Job_21:6, because the verb בלה nowhere else occurs; but the noun �הה�, fear, being not

uncommon, and presupposing the existence of a verb � the correctness of the Chethiv ,�לcannot be impugned.

Page 41: Ezra 4 commentary

BESO, "Ezra 4:4. But the people of the land — Hebrew of that land; namely, the Samaritans, the present inhabitants of that province. Weakened the hands of the people of Judah — As they could not divert them from the work, they endeavoured to discourage them in it, by persuading them it was in vain to attempt it, and that they would never be able to finish what they had begun. And troubled them in building — Laying all the impediments they could in their way; by false reports and slanders; by threatenings; and by preventing materials or provisions from coming to them; or by enticing away their workmen, and other means described afterward.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:4 Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building,

Ver. 4. Then the people of the land] Who the nearer they came unto a conjunction with the Jews in matters of religion the deeper hatred they bare them. Thus at this day, a Jew hates a Christian worse than he doth a Pagan; so doth a Turk hate a Persian worse than he doth a Christian; a Papist, a Protestant worse than he doth a Turk; a formalist, a Puritan worse than he doth a Papist, Odia Theologica sunt acerbissima. Religious hatred is most shep.

Weakened the hands of the people of Judah] Discouraged them all they could, endeavouring to transfuse, as it were, a dead palsy into their fingers, that they might surcease, or, at least, slack their pains. Well might Solomon say, Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous: but who can stand before envy? surely the venom of all vices is found in this sharp fanged malignity.

And troubled them in building] Heb. Kept ado about them, and terrified them. This was to do the work of their father, the devil, that troubler of God’s Israel ( ad iniuriam inferendam totus comparatus, ο πονηρος), set upon it to vex such as begin but to build the tower of godliness, and to hinder them to the utmost.

PARKER, "How did the adversaries take this rebuke? They took it as we might have anticipated—

"Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building" ( Ezra 4:4).

All bad men can do work of that kind. What is so easy as to weaken a good man"s hands? othing of a positively hostile nature need be done, but a look, a tone, an intimation that can neither be reported nor quoted nor set forth in type,—these may all tend to the purpose of enfeeblement. Who cannot trouble another man in his life-purpose? Ask a question about him, write an anonymous letter concerning him—

Page 42: Ezra 4 commentary

and the man may be troubled, weakened, fretted, discomfited, and discouraged. Only in proportion as he sees God can he proceed with his work. Many a time the good man has said, Were not this work divine, I should gladly retire from it; were not this preaching the Gospel a divine ordinance and a personal inspiration, I would rather cleanse the public streets than be associated with its official service, considering how many there are who oppose and vex and trouble the ministers of Christ. But we must look up and look on, and toil ever as in the great Taskmaster"s eye. To thee, thou wounded, enthroned Christ, is this whole service rendered! We are not employed by one another; we are called to this blessed servitude, this gracious heavenly slavery, by him who will help us in every exigency and deliver us in every trouble. Even the weak have power to hinder. There lives not a cripple on all God"s earth that cannot at least shake his crutch in the face of the good man. We must not be deterred thereby. We must have long secret interviews with God, and then go forth, saying, Come weal, come woe, there shall be no break in my testimony, there shall be no division in my consecrated love.

What more did the Samaritans do? They appealed to an illegitimate king. The work was done "in the days of Artaxerxes." Let us be just to the men who bear this illustrious name. There were at least three of them; first, this man who was no king at all, but a Magian priest, who personated the son of the dead king, and came to the throne for something less than eight months. The historian says "in the days of Artaxerxes," not, "in the reign of." We know there are some men nominally kings who are not really royal. There are some men on all thrones who are personating other men. There are bastards even in the apostolic succession. Then there is an Artaxerxes of the seventh chapter of this book, a man quite of another temper and quality of mind. Then there is a third Artaxerxes in ehemiah , gracious and kindly to the Jews. But the Samaritans, knowing probably that this Magian priest had put on the royal purple, and was sitting there king without any right to be there; and knowing, perhaps, that they could strip his purple rags from his shoulders, and send him out a beggar into the world, communicated with him, and received a letter from him. A copy of the letter sent to Artaxerxes is given here, and this is the base policy—

LAGE, "Ezra 4:4-5. The consequence of this refusal was the interruption of the building of the temple. The Samaritans are called the people of the land in Ezra 4:4 because they, at least until this time had been the proper inhabitants of the land, and at all events constituted the chief part of the population. As such they were strong enough to slacken the hands of the people of Judah, that Isaiah, the people now inhabiting Judah. יהודה, already in pre-exile times the name of the southern kingdom is used here also as the name of the country (comp. Ezra 4:6). היה with the part. (slackening and affrighting) expresses the continuance of the action; the second participle is explanatory of the first, מבלהים לבנות, affrighting with reference to building=from building. The Kethibמבלהים is sufficiently established by the noun —.בהל prefers the usual form מבהלים,and by the Syriac; the Qeri (Isaiah 17:14 ) בלההWithout doubt they threatened the Jews with violence, and with punishment on the part of the government, as soon as they had frustrated the edict of Cyrus.—They

Page 43: Ezra 4 commentary

hired counsellors against them—for a cancelling of the edict according to Ezra 4:5, in that they were able to influence probably the ministers to whom Ezra 7:28; Ezra 8:25 refer, or other influential persons, to give advice to Cyrus unfavorable to the Jews. At court they naturally did not understand how it could be that those who were as much the inhabitants of the land as the returned exiles, and therefore seemed entitled to the God of the land, should be excluded. If Cyrus had seen in Jehovah his own supreme God, it must have been all the more annoying to him that those who apparently had the best intentions of worshipping Him, should be rejected. It would seem as if the reason why the Jews opposed the union could only be a national and political one, and the suspicion was quite natural, that they already designed to form not merely a religious community, but also had national and political designs, that they thus gave an entirely false interpretation to the decree of Cyrus. The part. סכרים is in continuation of the part. of the previous verse; The time during which they succeeded in frustrating the .שכר is a later form of סכרpurposes of the Jews, (for which הפר is to a certain extext the term.techn.), consisted of about fourteen years—from about the third year of Cyrus in Babylon (comp. Daniel 10:2 sq.) until the second of Darius, comp. Haggai 1:1.

PETT, "Ezra 4:4-5

‘Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, and hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.’This refusal to allow their participation in the building of the Temple did not please ‘the people of the land’ that is those people who had been in Samaria and Judah before the arrival of the returnees, thus a wider group than just the people of Samaria. o doubt stirred up by the people of Samaria they all recognised that the attitude of the returnees excluded them from Temple worship on their own terms. It was not that they were totally excluded. The returnees would unquestionably not have refused to acknowledge those who truly sought YHWH in accordance with the Law of Moses, as is made clear in Ezra 6:21. What they refused was those who sought to worship Him outside that Law, in accordance with their own ideas. It was not only the people of Samaria who were syncretistic. Such syncretism was widespread, as it had been in the days of Jeremiah (e.g. Jeremiah 7:30-31; Jeremiah 19:4-5; Jeremiah 32:34-35). The purity of the Temple and its worship was therefore the first concern of the returnees.

Thus the people of the land began to ‘weaken the hands’ of those who sought to build. They used all means. They combined the use of violence against them with political trickery. They not only made life difficult for them by direct means such as keeping them in constant fear of attack, and causing trouble for them wherever they could (a few burned fields and attacks on their properties would soon turn their minds to other things), but also hired experts to act with the Persian authorities in order to block the work that was going on. Details of some of these attempts will shortly be outlined, attempts which went far beyond just the question of the Temple,

Page 44: Ezra 4 commentary

and which continued on until the days of ehemiah, but they clearly commenced quite early on, although as the writer had no direct information concerning the earliest attempts he does not provide any details of them. What he does seek to demonstrate is that opposition to the returnees was so long lasting, that he was justified in calling them ‘enemies’, and that the returnees were therefore justified in rejecting their offer.

We note that these attempts commenced in the days of Cyrus, ‘all the days of Cyrus’ clearly covering a good part of his reign, and thus initially that we are dealing with a fairly long period before the recommencement of the work on the Temple in the days of Haggai and Zechariah, which occurred in the reign of Darius I. For they went on until that reign. Here we have an explanation of why the work on the Temple ceased for so long. It was largely due to the activities of these adversaries. In the days of Darius, however, the plan of the adversaries backfired, for it resulted in new authorisation for the building of the Temple, and financial provision for the purpose (Ezra 6:6-12).

5 They hired counselors 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.

BARES, "Hired counselors - Rather, “bribed” officials at the Persian court to interpose delays and create difficulties, in order to hinder the work.

Darius - i. e., Darius, the son of Hystaspes

CLARKE, "Hired counsellors - They found means to corrupt some of the principal officers of the Persian court, so that the orders of Cyrus were not executed; or at least so slowly as to make them nearly ineffectual.Until the reign of Darius - This was probably Darius the son of Hystaspes.

GILL, "And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose,....

Page 45: Ezra 4 commentary

Either to advise and persuade the king of Persia's officers in those parts not to supply them with money, or to influence the great men at his court to get the edict revoked: and this they did

all the days of Cyrus king of Persia; who, though the hearty friend and patron of the Jews, yet being engaged in wars abroad with the Lydians and Scythians, and leaving his son as viceroy in his absence, who was no friend unto them, the work went on but slowly, attended with interruptions and discouragements:

even until the reign of Darius king of Persia; who was Darius Hystaspis, between whom and Cyrus were Cambyses the son of Cyrus, and Smerdis the impostor, who pretended to be Smerdis, the brother of Cambyses; a space of about fifteen years.

K&D, "And they hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose (of

building the temple). וסכרים still depends on the ויהי of Ezr_4:4. סכר is a later

orthography of שכר, to hire, to bribe. Whether by the hiring of יועציט we are to

understand the corruption of royal counsellors or ministers, or the appointment of legal agents to act against the Jewish community at the Persian court, and to endeavour to obtain an inhibition against the erection of the temple, does not appear. Thus much only is evident from the text, that the adversaries succeeded in frustrating the continuance of the building “all the days of Koresh,” i.e., the yet remaining five years of Cyrus, who was for the space of seven years sole ruler of Babylon; while the machinations against the building, begun immediately after the laying of its foundations in the second year of the return, had the effect, in the beginning of the third year of Cyrus (judging from Dan_10:2), of putting a stop to the work until the reign of Darius, - in all, fourteen years, viz., five years of Cyrus, seven and a half of Cambyses, seven months of the Pseudo-Smerdis, and one year of Darius (till the second year of his reign).

BESO, "Ezra 4:5. And hired counsellors against them — Bribed some of the king’s council, in order that by their artifices, and interests in his court, they might give some stop to the work, and frustrate the purpose of the Jews. All the days of Cyrus king of Persia — For though Cyrus still favoured the Jews, yet he was then diverted by his wars, and his son Cambyses was left his viceroy, who was a wicked prince, and an enemy to the Jews. Even until the reign of Darius — The son of Hystaspis, who, having killed the magi, (that, after Cambyses, had possessed themselves of the kingdom,) was made king; and marrying Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, and loving her very much, confirmed the decree of Cyrus, and followed his steps, that he might stand the safer himself.

COKE, "Ver. 5. Until the reign of Darius— The most probable opinion is, that the Darius here meant was Darius Hystaspes, whose second year was the eighteenth after the first of Cyrus, according to Huet. And it is plain that Ahasuerus, mentioned in the sixth verse, was Cambyses; and Artaxerxes, mentioned in the seventh, the false Smerdis; because they were kings of Persia, who reigned between the time of Cyrus and the time of that Darius by whose decree the temple was finished. But, as that Darius was the son of Hystaspes, between whom and Cyrus there reigned none in Persia but Cambyses and Smerdis, it must hence follow, that

Page 46: Ezra 4 commentary

none but these could be the Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes that are said in this chapter to have put a stop to the work. See Prideaux, Ann. 522. Houbigant renders this verse thus: And because they had determined that they would prevent their undertaking, they hindered them all the days of Cyrus, &c.

REFLECTIOS.—Whoever sets his heart zealously to serve God, must expect opposition. Christ's church is never built, but Satan rages. o sooner do Zerubbabel and the children of the captivity (for yet the scars of this yoke were not healed) begin to build, than the Samaritans throw obstacles in their way. ote; Pretenders to religion are generally the bitterest enemies to true godliness.

1. They first, under pretence of joining in the work, desired to be incorporated among them professing to serve the same God; but they were liars, and meant only to sow discord, or to mar the service by introducing their own mongrel worship. ote; We must not believe every spirit; the darkest designs often lurk under the fairest professions.

2. The chief of the fathers, with Zerubbabel and Jeshua, aware of their design, refused any connection with them, and resolved to keep united among themselves; and while the law of God enjoined them to separate themselves from the nations, the king's commission authorized them. ote; (1.) othing so dangerous as bad connections. (2.) It is prudent to make use of our privileges as men, when they serve as a barrier to guard our religion.

3. The failure of this plot discouraged not their restless foes: at home, they sought to discourage the building, by ridiculing the attempt, or threatening to fall upon them, or preventing the necessary supplies from Tyre; while by bribing the counsellors who were about the persons of the king of Persia's governors, or the great men at his court, they sought to retard or stop the work; and this they continued till the reign of Darius. ote; (1.) The devil and his servants are restless in their attempts; the people of God must expect no truce. (2.) Many a wicked counsellor, for the sake of the fee, little cares how bad the cause is that he is engaged in.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:5 And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Ver. 5. And hired counsellors against them] But good counsellors would not have been hired, either to bolster out a bad cause, or to outface a good; to justify the wicked for a reward, or to take away the righteousness of the righteous from him. There is a notable instance of this in Papinian, a Pagan counsellor. Thou mayest (said he to Antoninus, the fratricide) command my neck to the block, but not my tongue to the bar. I prize not my life to the pleading of an ill cause. These sordida poscinummia in the text were none such. Some think they were courtiers and counsellors to the king; such as by whom the king was even bought and sold, as Aurelian, the good emperor was, who might know nothing but as his counsellors informed him. This made Alphonsus, king of Aragon, say, that kings were herein

Page 47: Ezra 4 commentary

most miserable, that whereas they abounded with all things else, the truth of matters they could seldom come by.

All the days of Cyrus king of Persia] Who, warring abroad, committed the government of his kingdom to his son Cambyses, a light and lewd lowly, easily prevailed with to hinder so good a work.

Even until the reign of Darius] i.e. Of Darius othus, say some, the son of Artaxerxes Longimanus, {named Ezra 4:7} the father of Artaxerxes Mnemon. But they do better, in my opinion, that understand the text of Darius Hystaspis, who succeeded Cambyses, and married his sister; seeking to ingratiate with the people by ratifying whatsoever Cyrus had decreed, and this of the temple among the rest, see Ezra 6:1.

WHEDO, "Verse 55. Hired counsellors against them — This is to be understood of such men as Bishlam and his companions, (Ezra 4:7,) who were commissioned and employed by the enemies of Judah to work with the officers of the Persian empire, and obtain their help to hinder the building of the temple.

To frustrate their purpose — amely, the purpose of the Jews to rebuild the house of God at Jerusalem. These counsellors probably prevailed on the governors of the neighbouring provinces to hinder the Jews from obtaining the material necessary for their work. This would greatly weaken and trouble the returned exiles, especially if the governor of Phoenicia had been prevailed on to oppose their obtaining cedar wood from Lebanon.

All the days of Cyrus — Who reigned, according to Herodotus, twenty-nine years. During his reign they obtained no reversal of his edict to have the temple rebuilt, but he was probably so much engaged in wars that the matter was left largely in the hands of the governors of the neighbouring provinces.

Until the reign of Darius — In his second year, Ezra 4:24. This Darius was the son of Hystaspes, famous in Persian history for his assassination of Smerdis the Magian, who had usurped the throne of Cyrus, assuming to be Cyrus’s son. See note on Ezra 4:24. Between Cyrus and this Darius two other kings reigned over Persia. The first was Cambyses, Cyrus’s son, (the Ahasuerus of the next verse,) who succeeded his father, and reigned seven years. The other was Gomates, one of the Magi, who took advantage of Cambyses’s absence to usurp the throne, and reigned seven months. So from the first year of Cyrus to the second of Darius was a period of thirty-eight years, during which hardly any thing was done towards rebuilding the temple except the laying of its foundation.

Ezra 4:6-23. These verses are regarded by a number of recent critics as an

Page 48: Ezra 4 commentary

interpolation, consisting of a document belonging to the times of ehemiah and Artaxerxes Longimanus, when, it is assumed, the Jews made an attempt to rebuild the walls and city of Jerusalem, but were made to cease, as herein described. The arguments by which this position is maintained are ingenious and plausible, but by no means conclusive. 1. It is said that Ahasuerus (Ezra 4:6) is the Scripture name of Xerxes, who was the son and successor of Darius Hystaspes; and that Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7) is in this same book (Ezra 7:1) the name of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son and successor of Xerxes. But it does not follow from this that Cambyses, and Smerdis the Magian, may not also have been known to the Jews under the names, respectively, of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. 2. It is urged that nothing is said in this document about the temple, but the Jews are charged with rebuilding the walls of the city. Comp. Ezra 4:12-13; Ezra 4:16. ow, as ehemiah, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, is informed that the walls of Jerusalem are broken down, and the gates burned with fire, (ehemiah 1:3,) it is assumed that in the earlier part of the reign of that king the Jews were rebuilding the city of Jerusalem, and were complained of in this letter to the king, and by his decree, as given in Ezra 4:21-22, the work was forcibly stopped, and the walls and gates, newly built, were again demolished. So this section, Ezra 4:6-23, belongs, chronologically, at the beginning of the Book of ehemiah. But all this is at best a very doubtful hypothesis, and too easily set aside to be of any force. The fact that in this letter the enemies of the Jews do not mention the temple, but represent that the walls of the city are being rebuilt, is in perfect keeping with the inimical and crafty designs of those enemies. We naturally expect them to misrepresent the Jews before the king, and their letter contains just truth enough to blind the king, and prevent him from understanding all the facts in the case, for he would not be likely to inquire whether the Jews were building the foundations and walls of the city, or only of the temple. Further, it is hardly supposable that if Artaxerxes Longimanus had written the letter in Ezra 4:17-22, he would so soon afterwards have shown Ezra such favours and such authority as is recorded in chapter vii, favours of such a character as caused Ezra to class him among those who even helped to complete the temple. See note on Ezra 6:14. or would the same king have been likely, a few years later, to have commissioned ehemiah to go and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. 3. It is also claimed by some that after the mention of Darius in Ezra 4:5, the writer goes forward to record the success of these enemies of Judah, subsequent to the times of Darius. But, on the contrary, it is much more evident, both from the words of Ezra 4:5 and Ezra 4:24, that in Ezra 4:6-23 the writer describes what took place between the time of Cyrus and the second year of Darius. The emphatic statement of Ezra 4:24, “Then ceased the work of the house of God,” can only refer to the statement immediately preceding, that upon receiving the king’s letter the enemies of Judah “went up in haste to Jerusalem… and made them to cease by force and power.”

ELLICOTT, "(5) And hired counsellors against them.—They adopted a systematic course of employing paid agents at the court: continued for eight years, till B.C. 529. Cambyses, his son, succeeded Cyrus; he died B.C. 522; then followed the pseudo-Smerdis, a usurper, whose short reign Darius did not reckon, but dated his own reign from B.C. 522. A comparison of dates shows that this was the first Darius, the son of Hystaspes.

Page 49: Ezra 4 commentary

6 At the beginning of the reign of Xerxes, [8] they lodged an accusation against the people of Judah and Jerusalem.

BARES, "Ahasuerus - Or, Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus. Persian kings had often two names.

CLARKE, "In the reign of Ahasuerus - This is the person who is called Cambyses by the Greeks. He reigned seven years and five months; and during the whole of that time the building of the temple was interrupted.

GILL, "And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign,.... According to Jarchi, this was Ahasuerus the husband of Esther; but, as most think (d), was Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus; so Josephus (e); who was an enemy to the Egyptians; and, fearing the Jews might take part with them, was no friend to them; their enemies therefore took the advantage of the death of Cyrus, and the first opportunity after Cambyses reigned in his own right:

and wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem; full of hatred and enmity, spite and malice, charging them as a turbulent, disobedient, and rebellious people.

HERY, "Cyrus stedfastly adhered to the Jews' interest, and supported his own grant. It was to no purpose to offer any thing to him in prejudice of it. What he did was from a good principle, and in the fear of God, and therefore he adhered to it. But, though his reign in all was thirty years, yet after the conquest of Babylon, and his decree for the release of the Jews, some think that he reigned but three years, others seven, and then either died or gave up that part of his government, in which his successor was Ahasuerus (Ezr_4:6), called also Artaxerxes (Ezr_4:7), supposed to be the same that in heathen authors is called Cambyses, who had never taken such cognizance of the despised Jews as to concern himself for them, nor had he that knowledge of the God of Israel which his predecessor had. To him these Samaritans applied by letter for an order to stop the building of the temple; and they did it in the beginning of his reign, being resolved to lose no time when they thought they had a king for their purpose. See how watchful the church's enemies are to take the first opportunity of doing it a mischief; let not its

Page 50: Ezra 4 commentary

friends be less careful to do it a kindness. Here is,

I. The general purport of the letter which they sent to the king, to inform him of this matter. It is called (Ezr_4:6) an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. The devil is the accuser of the brethren (Rev_12:10), and he carries on his malicious designs against them, not only by accusing them himself before God, as he did Job, but by acting as a lying spirit in the mouths of his instruments, whom he employs to accuse them before magistrates and kings and to make them odious to the many and obnoxious to the mighty. Marvel not if the same arts be still used to depreciate serious godliness.

JAMISO, "in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they ... an accusation— Ahasuerus was a regal title, and the king referred to was successor of Darius, the famous Xerxes.

K&D 6-7, "Complaints against the Jews to Kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta. -The right understanding of this section depends upon the question, What kings of Persia are meant by Ahashverosh and Artachshasta? while the answer to this question is, in part at least, determined by the contents of the letter, Ezr_4:8-16, sent by the enemies of the Jews to the latter monarch.

Ezr_4:6-7

And in the reign of Ahashverosh, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an

accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. שטנה, not to mention the

name of the well, Gen_26:21, occurs here only, and means, according to its derivation

from שטן, to bear enmity, the enmity; hence here, the accusation. ישבי ,שטנה belongs to על

not to תבו'; the letter was sent, not to the inhabitants of Judah, but to the king against

the Jews. The contents of this letter are not given, but may be inferred from the

designation שטנה. The letter to Artachshasta then follows, Ezr_4:7-16. In his days, i.e.,

during his reign, wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions.

mrof(yra, occurs only here in the)'נותיו for which the Keri offers the ordinary form ,'נותוHebrew sections, but more frequently in the Chaldee (comp. Ezr_4:9, Ezr_4:17, Ezr_4:23; Ezr_5:3, and elsewhere), in the sense of companions or fellow-citizens; according to Gesenius, it means those who bear the same surname (Kunje) together with another, though Ewald is of a different opinion; see §117, b, note. The singular would be written

And the writing of the letter was written in Aramaean (i.e., with .(Ewald, §187, d) 'נת

Aramaean characters), and interpreted in (i.e., translated into) Aramaean. נש/ון is of

Aryan origin, and connected with the modern Persian nuwishten, to write together; it

signifies in Hebrew and Chaldee a letter: comp. Ezr_4:18, where נש/ונא is used for א�ר/א

of Ezr_4:11. Bertheau translates ה8ש/ון copy of the letter, and regards it as quite ,'תב

identical with the Chaldee א�ר/א .Ezr_4:11; he can hardly, however, be in the right ,:רשגן

,does not mean a transcript or copy, but only a writing (comp. Est_4:8). This, too 'תב

does away with the inference “that the writer of this statement had before him only an Aramaean translation of the letter contained in the state-papers or chronicles which he

Page 51: Ezra 4 commentary

made use of.” It is not תב', the copy or writing, but ה8ש/ון, the letter, that is the subject of

ארמית interpreted in Aramaean. This was translated into the Aramaean or Syrian ,מתר�ם

tongue. The passage is not to be understood as stating that the letter was drawn up in the Hebrew or Samaritan tongue, and then translated into Aramaean, but simply that the letter was not composed in the native language of the writers, but in Aramaean. Thus Gesenius rightly asserts, in his Thes. p. 1264, et lingua aramaea scripta erat; in saying

which תרגם does not receive the meaning concepit, expressit, but retains its own

signification, to interpret, to translate into another language. The writers of the letter were Samaritans, who, having sprung from the intermingling of the Babylonian settlers brought in by Esarhaddon and the remnants of the Israelitish population, spoke a language more nearly akin to Hebrew than to Aramaean, which was spoken at the Babylonian court, and was the official language of the Persian kings and the Persian authorities in Western Asia. This Aramaean tongue had also its own characters, differing

from those of the Hebrew and Samaritan. This is stated by the words ארמית whence ,'תוב

Bertheau erroneously infers that this Aramaean writing was written in other than the ordinary Aramaean, and perhaps in Hebrew characters.

This letter, too, of Bishlam and his companions seems to be omitted. There follows, indeed, in Ezr_4:8, etc., a letter to King Artachshasta, of which a copy is given in Ezr_4:11-16; but the names of the writers are different from those mentioned in Ezr_4:7. The three names, Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel (Ezr_4:7), cannot be identified with the two names Rehum and Shimshai (Ezr_4:8). When we consider, however, that the writers named in Ezr_4:8 were high officials of the Persian king, sending to the monarch a written accusation against the Jews in their own and their associates' names, it requires but little stretch of the imagination to suppose that these personages were acting at the instance of the adversaries named in Ezr_4:7, the Samaritans Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel, and merely inditing the complaints raised by these opponents

against the Jews. This view, which is not opposed by the תב' of Ezr_4:7, - this word not

necessarily implying an autograph, - commends itself to our acceptance, first, because the notion that the contents of this letter are not given finds no analogy in Ezr_4:6, where the contents of the letter to Ahashverosh are sufficiently hinted at by the word

while, with regard to the letter of Ezr_4:7, we should have not a notion of its ;שטנה

purport in case it were not the same which is given in Ezr_4:8, etc.

(Note: The weight of this argument is indirectly admitted by Ewald (Gesch. iv. p. 119) and Bertheau, inasmuch as both suppose that there is a long gap in the narrative, and regard the Aramaean letter mentioned in Ezr_4:7 to have been a petition, on the part of persons of consideration in the community at Jerusalem, to the new king, - two notions which immediately betray themselves to be the expedients of perplexity. The supposed “long gaps, which the chronicler might well leave even in transcribing from his documents” (Ew.), do not explain the abrupt commencement of Ezr_4:8. If a petition from the Jewish community to the king were spoken of in Ezr_4:7, the accusation against the Jews in Ezr_4:8 would

certainly have been alluded to by at least a ו adversative, or some other adversative

particle.)

Besides, the statement concerning the Aramaean composition of this letter would have been utterly purposeless if the Aramaean letter following in Ezr_4:8 had been an entirely different one. The information concerning the language in which the letter was written has obviously no other motive than to introduce its transcription in the original

Page 52: Ezra 4 commentary

Aramaean. This conjecture becomes a certainty through the fact that the Aramaean letter follows in Ezr_4:8 without a copula of any kind. If any other had been intended,

the ו copulative would not more have been omitted here than in Ezr_4:7. The letter itself,

indeed, does not begin till Ezr_4:9, while Ezr_4:8 contains yet another announcement of it. This circumstance, however, is explained by the fact that the writers of the letters are other individuals than those named in Ezr_4:7, but chiefly by the consideration that the letter, together with the king's answer, being derived from an Aramaean account of the building of the temple, the introduction to the letter found therein was also transcribed.

BESO,"Ezra 4:6. In the reign of Ahasuerus — A common name of divers kings of Persia. This Ahasuerus was probably Smerdis, one of the magi who seized the kingdom after Cambyses. Wrote they unto him an accusation against Judah and Jerusalem — Importing that they intended to set up for themselves, and not to depend upon the king of Persia.

COFFMA, "Verse 6SAMARITA OPPOSITIO COTIUED UTIL 446 B.C.

"And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabel, and the rest of his companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letters was written in the Syrian character, and set forth in the Syrian tongue. Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort: then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions, the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar brought over, and set in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River, and so forth.

"This is the copy of the the letter they sent to Artaxerxes the king: Thy servants, the men beyond the River, and so forth. Be it known unto the king, that the Jews that came up from thee are come to us unto Jerusalem; they are building the rebellious and the bad city, and have finished the walls, and repaired the foundations. Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and in the end it will be hurtful unto the kings. ow because we eat the salt of the palace, and it is not meet for us to see the king's dishonor, therefore have we sent and certified the king: that search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time; for which cause was this city laid waste. We certify the king that, if this city be builded, and the walls finished, thou shalt have no portion beyond the River.

"Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and in the rest of

Page 53: Ezra 4 commentary

the country beyond the River: Peace, and so forth. The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me. And I decreed, and search hath been made, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. There have been mighty kings also over Jeruslaem, who have ruled over all the country beyond the River; and tribute, custom, and toll was paid unto them. Make ye now a decree to cause these men to cease, and that the city be not builded, until a decree shall be made by me. And take heed that ye be not slack herein: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?

"Then when the copy of king Artaxerxes' letter was read before Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews and made them to cease by force and power."

Here is the end of the long parenthesis. ote that this letter to Artaxerxes was followed promptly by his decree to shut down the building of Jerusalem (not the house of God; that had been finished long ago). "We must date this decree in 446 B.C.; and it was the news of this disaster which so shocked ehemiah and forced him into mourning and prayers (ehemiah 1:3,4)."[2] From this it is clear that the Samaritan opposition lasted from 535 B.C. to 446 B.C., a period of at least 89 years.

"Cause these men to cease ... until a decree shall be made by me" (Ezra 4:21). This was a very important line in the letter, because, according to the foolish tradition of Persian kings, "Their laws of the Medes and the Persians could not be altered." Artaxerxes, here, very wisely left the door open either for himself or a successor to change his mind and let the building of Jerusalem continue.

Having disposed of this long parenthesis in which he spelled out the Samaritan opposition, the author of Ezra at once resumed the narrative regarding the building of the temple, which had been delayed because of the Samaritan opposition, and as we learn from the Minor Prophets, because of the indifference of God's people themselves. Thus, between Ezra 4:23 and Ezra 4:24 there is a retrogression in time from 446 B.C. to 520 B.C., which was the second year of Darius I. Thus, he leaps backwards in the narrative some 74 years!

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:6 And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they [unto him] an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.

Ver. 6. And in the reign of Ahasuerus] That is, of Cambyses, who is also called Artaxerxes in the next verse; for these two names were given to many kings of Persia; like as Pharaoh was to the kings of Egypt, as a title of honour. Ahasuerus signifieth a hereditary prince. Daniel calleth him the prince of the kingdom of Persia, Daniel 10:13, because he was viceroy in his father’s absence. Infamous he is for many lewd pranks (as that he killed his brother, and then his own sister, after he had first married her, and made a law that any man might do the like), yet was he not so ungracious a son to Cyrus as our Henry II’s eldest son was; whom he not only crowned king during his own life, but also, to do him honour at his coronation,

Page 54: Ezra 4 commentary

renounced the name of a king for that day, and, as sewer, served at the table. For which he was thus requited, My father, said he, is not dishonoured by attending on me; for I am both a king’s and a queen’s son, and so is not he.

In the beginning of his reign] As loth to lose time (Esau began in the very womb to persecute Jacob), and as taking their fittest season for granting of suits.

Wrote they an accusation] Heb. a Satanical suggestion, a diabolical accusation, hatched in hell, and dictated by the devil. He it is that acteth and agitateth the saints’ adversaries and accusers; sitting upon their tongues and pens, and setting an edge on them.

WHEDO, "6. Ahasuerus — It is quite generally allowed that by this king we are to understand Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus. Some, indeed, have sought to identify him with Xerxes, the Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther, but that hypothesis is utterly incompatible with the order of time evidently followed in this book. How Cambyses came to be called Ahasuerus by our author may not be now decided, but the difference in the names is not in itself sufficient to disprove the identity of the persons, and the son of Cyrus may have borne both these names. It appears that Smerdis was known by various names. See note on Ezra 4:7. And the writer of Esther (Ezra 1:1) is careful to define the Ahasuerus of his book, assuming that there was more than one Ahasuerus known to his readers. Cambyses is represented in all accounts that remain of him as one of the most passionate and tyrannical of kings. He early assassinated his brother Smerdis, being jealous of him as a rival. He is said to have married his own sisters, and to have brutally killed one of them in a fit of madness. He invaded and conquered Egypt, and this was the great deed of his reign. While absent upon this expedition he learned, according to Herodotus, that Smerdis the Magian had usurped his throne, and in his haste to mount his horse and return home to punish the impious pretender his sword accidentally struck his thigh, and he died soon after from the wound. So the Magian continued for a time in peaceable possession of the empire.

An accusation — This Hebrew word is the feminine form of the name of . ששנהSatan, ( ששן,) the arch-adversary and accuser of mankind. This accusation against the Jews seems not to have accomplished any thing of note with this king of Persia, at least no result of it is recorded.

PETT, "Verses 6-23The Subsequent History Of The Enmity Revealed Against The Returnees Up To The Time Of ehemiah (Ezra 4:6-23).

What follows up to Ezra 4:23 goes beyond the question of building the Temple. The writer now wishes to bring out precisely how dangerous these adversaries would in the future prove to be, and how long lasting was their enmity. Their attitude was to be seen as not just a temporary one, but as a constant one, which would grow ever

Page 55: Ezra 4 commentary

more belligerent, would seek to frustrate all that the returnees tried to do, and would finally result in the intervention of the King of Persia himself. So he takes up the question of their continuing opposition, and ignoring chronology as being of secondary importance (he will turn back to the question of the building of the Temple in Ezra 4:24), he deals with the question of how their opposition would continue long after the building of the Temple.

What he is here dealing with and explaining is the continuing work of the hired experts who would go on with their activities for a long time, a work which had in view getting the returnees into trouble with the Persian authorities. This process would continue long after the building of the Temple. God’s people were to be allowed no rest. And the writer uses these examples because they were ones of which he had written details. We may presume hat he had no written evidence of earlier attempts. It is an indication of the hand of God at work that these attempts did not frustrate His purposes, although they did no doubt frustrate His suffering people. But one good thing it did do. It kept the returnees firmly to their purpose. There is nothing like opposition for the stiffening of resolve. Tribulation works patient endurance, and patient endurance produces expectancy, and that expectancy will not fail if it causes us to look truly to God (compare Romans 5:2-5).

Ezra 4:6

‘And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.’The opposition continued on over a long period. One major attempt to put the returnees in the wrong was made in the reign of Ahasuerus, that is of Xerxes I (486-465 BC), who took Esther as one of his wives. This was at least thirty years after the building of the Temple had been completed. And at that time an accusation was written against the returnees. But it clearly came to nothing.

EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMMETARY, "Verses 6-23THE COST OF A IDEALIST’S SUCCESS

Ezra 4:6-23

THE fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra contains an account of a correspondence between the Samaritan colonists and two kings of Persia, which follows sharply on the first mention of the intrigues of the enemies of Judah and Benjamin at the Persian court in the later days of Cyrus, and which precedes the description of the fortunes of the Jews in the reign of Darius. If this has its right chronological position in the narrative, it must relate to the interval during which the temple-building was in abeyance. In that case the two kings of Persia would be Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus, and Pseudo-Bardes. But the names in the text are Ahasuerus (Ahashverosh) and Artaxerxes (Artahshashta). It has been suggested that these are second names for the predecessors of Darius. Undoubtedly it was customary for Persian monarchs to have more than one name. But elsewhere in the Biblical

Page 56: Ezra 4 commentary

narratives these two names are invariably applied to the successors of Darius-the first standing for the welt-known Xerxes and the second for Artaxerxes Longimanus. The presumption therefore is that the same kings are designated by them here. Moreover, when we examine the account of the correspondence with the Persian court, we find that this agrees best with the later period. The opening verses of the fourth chapter of Ezra deal with the building of the temple; the last verse of that chapter and the succeeding narrative of the fifth chapter resume the same topic. But the correspondence relates to the building of the walls of the city. There is not a word about any such work in the context. Then in the letter addressed to Artaxerxes the writers describe the builders of the walls as "the Jews which came up from thee." [Ezra 4:12] This description would not fit Zerubbabel and his followers, who migrated under Cyrus. But it would apply to those who accompanied Ezra to Jerusalem in the reign of Artaxerxes. Lastly, the reign of Pseudo-Bardes is too brief for all that would have to be crowded into it. It only occupied seven months. Yet a letter is sent up from the enemies of the Jews; inquiry is made into the history of Jerusalem by Persian officials at the court; a reply based on this inquiry is transmitted to Palestine; in consequence of this reply an expedition is organised which effectually stops the works at Jerusalem, but only after the exercise of force on the spot. It is nearly impossible for all this to have happened in so short a time as seven months. All the indications therefore concur to assign the correspondence to the later period.

The chronicler must have inserted this section out of its order for some reason of his own. Probably he desired to accentuate the impression of the malignant and persistent enmity of the colonists, and with this end in view described the later acts of antagonism directly after mentioning the first outbreak of opposition. It is just possible that he perceived the unfavourable character of his picture of the Jews in their curt refusal of assistance from their neighbours, and that he desired to balance this by an accumulation of weighty indictments against the people whom the Jews had treated so ungraciously.

In his account of the correspondence with the Persian court the chronicler seems to have taken note of three separate letters from the unfriendly colonists. First, he tells us that in the beginning of the reign of Ahasuerus they wrote an accusation against the Jews. [Ezra 4:6] This was before the mission of Ezra, therefore it was a continuance of the old opposition that had been seen in the intrigues that preceded the reign of Darius; it shows that after the death of that friendly monarch the slumbering fires broke out afresh. ext, he names certain men who wrote to Artaxerxes, and he adds that their letter was translated and written in the Aramaic language-the language which was the common medium of intercourse in trade and official affairs among the mixed races inhabiting Syria and all the regions west of the Euphrates. [Ezra 4:7] The reference to this language probably arises from the fact that the chronicler had seen a copy of the translation. He does not tell us anything either of the nationality of the writers or of the subject of their letter. It has been suggested that they were Jews in Jerusalem who wrote to plead their cause with the Persian king. The fact that two of them bore Persian names-viz., Bishlam and Mithredath-does not present a serious difficulty to this view, as we know that

Page 57: Ezra 4 commentary

some Jews received such names, Zerubbabel, for example, being named Sheshbazzar. But as the previous passage refers to an accusation against the Jews, and as the following sentences give an account of a letter also written by the inimical colonists, it is scarcely likely that the intermediate colourless verse which mentions the letter of Bishlam and his companions is of a different character. We should expect some more explicit statement if that were the case. Moreover, it is most improbable that the passage which follows would begin abruptly without an adversative conjunction as is the case if it proceeded to describe a letter provoked by opposition to another letter just mentioned. Therefore we must regard Bishlam and his companions as enemies of the Jews. ow some who have accepted this view have maintained that the letter of Bishlam and his friends is no other than the letter ascribed to Rehum and Shimshai in the following verses. It is stated that the former letter was in the Aramaic language, and the letter which is ascribed to the two great officials is in that language. But the distinct statement that each group of men wrote a letter seems to imply that there were two letters written in the reign of Artaxerxes, or three in all.

The third letter is the only one that the chronicler has preserved. He gives it in the Aramaic language, and from Ezra 4:8, where this is introduced, to Ezra 6:18, his narrative proceeds in that language, probably because he found his materials in some Aramaic document.

Some have assigned this letter to the period of the reign of Artaxerxes prior to the mission of Ezra. But there are two reasons for thinking it must have been written after that mission. The first has been already referred to-viz., that the complaint about "the Jews which came up from thee" points to some large migration during the reign of Artaxerxes, which must be Ezra’s expedition. The second reason arises from a comparison of the results of the correspondence with the description of Jerusalem in the opening of the Book of ehemiah. The violence of the Samaritans recorded in Ezra 4:23 will account for the deplorable state of Jerusalem mentioned in ehemiah 1:3, the effects of the invasion referred to in the former passage agreeing well with the condition of the dismantled city reported to ehemiah. But in the history of Ezra’s expedition no reference is made to any such miserable state of affairs. Thus the correspondence must be assigned to the time between the close of Ezra and the beginning of ehemiah.

It is to Ezra’s company, then, that the correspondence with Artaxerxes refers. There were two parties in Jerusalem, and the opposition was against the active reforming party, which now had the upper hand in the city. Immediately we consider this, the cause of the continuance and increase of the antagonism of the colonists becomes apparent. Ezra’s harsh reformation in the expulsion of foreign wives must have struck the divorced women as a cruel and insulting outrage. Driven back to their paternal homes with their burning wrongs, these poor women must have roused the utmost indignation among their people. Thus the reformer had stirred up a hornet’s nest. The legislator who ventures to interfere with the sacred privacy of domestic life excites the deepest passions, and a wise man will think twice before he meddles in so dangerous a business. Only the most imperative requirements of religion and

Page 58: Ezra 4 commentary

righteousness can justify such a course, and even when it is justified nobody can foresee how far the trouble it brings may spread.

The letter which the chronicler transcribes seems to have been the most important of the three. It was written by two great Persian officials. In our English versions the first of these is called "the chancellor," and the second "the scribe." "The chancellor" was probably the governor of a large district, of which Palestine was but a provincial section, and "the scribe" his secretary. Accordingly it is apparent that the persistent enmity of the colonists, their misrepresentations, and perhaps their bribes, had resulted in instigating opposition to the Jews in very high places. The action of the Jews themselves may have excited suspicion in the mind of the Persian Satrap, for it would seem from his letter that they had just commenced to fortify their city. The names of the various peoples who are associated with these two great men in the title of the letter also show how far the opposition to the Jews had spread. They are given as the peoples whom Osnappar (Esar-bani-pal) had brought over and set in the city of Samaria, "and in the rest of the country beyond the river." [Ezra 4:10] That is to say, the settlers in the vast district west of the Euphrates are included. Here were Apharsathchites- who cannot be the Persians, as some have thought, because no Assyrian king ever seems to have penetrated to Persia, but may be the Paraetaceni of Herodotus, (1, 101), a Median people: Tarpelites- probably the people named among the Hebrews after Tubal: [Genesis 10:2] Apharsites- also wrongly identified by some with the Persians, but probably another Median people: Archeviles, from the ancient Erech (Uruk): [Genesis 10:10] Babylonians, not only from the city of Babylon, but also from its neighbourhood, Shushanchites, from Shusan (Susa), the capital of Susiana, Dehaites- possibly the Dai of Herodotus, (1, 125) because, though these were Persians, they were nomads who may have wandered far, Elamites, from the country of which Susa was capital. A terrific array! The very names would be imposing. All these people were now united in a common bond of enmity to the Jews of Jerusalem. Anticipating the fate of the Christians in the Roman Empire, though on very different grounds, the Jews seem to have been regarded by the peoples of Western Asia with positive antipathy as enemies of the human race. Their anti-social conduct had alienated all who knew them. But the letter of indictment brought a false charge against them. The opponents of the Jews could not formulate any charge out of their real grievances sufficiently grave to secure an adverse verdict from the supreme authority.

They therefore trumped up an accusation of treason. It was untrue, for the Jews at Jerusalem had always been the most peaceable and loyal subjects of the Great King. The search which was made into the previous history of the city could only have brought to light any evidence of a spirit of independence as far back as the time of the Babylonian invasions. Still this was enough to supplement the calumnies of the irritated opponents which the Satrap and his secretary had been persuaded to echo with all the authority of their high position. Moreover, Egypt was now in revolt, and the king may have been persuaded to suspect the Jews of sympathy with the rebels. So Jerusalem was condemned as a "bad city"; the Persian officials went up and forcibly stopped the building of the walls, and the Jews were reduced to a condition of helpless misery.

Page 59: Ezra 4 commentary

This was the issue of Ezra’s reformation. Can we call it a success? The answer to such a question will depend on what kind of success we may be looking for. Politically, socially, regarded from the standpoint of material profit and loss, there was nothing but the most dismal failure. But Ezra was not a statesman; he did not aim at national greatness, nor did he aim even at social amelioration. In our own day, when social improvements are regarded by many as the chief ends of government and philanthropy, it is difficult to sympathise with conduct which ran counter to the home comforts and commercial prosperity of the people. A policy which deliberately wrecked these obviously attractive objects of life in pursuit of entirely different aims is so completely remote from modern habits of thought and conduct that we have to make a considerable effort of imagination if we would understand the man who promoted it. How are we to picture him?

Ezra was an idealist. ow the success of an idealist is not to be sought for in material prosperity. He lives for his idea. If this idea triumphs he is satisfied, because he has attained the one kind of success he aimed at. He is not rich, but he never sowed the seed of wealth. He may never be honoured; he has determined to set himself against the current of popular fashion; how then can he expect popular favour? Possibly he may meet with misapprehension, contempt, hatred, death. The greatest Idealist the world ever saw was excommunicated as a heretic, insulted by His opponents, and deserted by most of His friends, tortured and crucified. The best of His disciples, those who had caught the enthusiasm of His idea, were treated as the offscouring of the earth. Yet we now recognise that the grandest victory ever achieved was won at Calvary, and we now regard the travels of St. Paul, through stoning and scourging, through Jewish hatred and Christian jealousy, on to the block, as nothing less than a magnificent triumphant march. The idealist succeeds when his idea is established.

Judged by this standard-the only fair standard-Ezra’s work cannot be pronounced a failure. On the contrary, he accomplished just what he aimed at. He established the separateness of the Jews. Among ourselves, more than two thousand years after his time, his great idea is still the most marked feature of his people. All along the ages it has provoked jealousy and suspicion, and often it has been met by cruel persecution. The separate people have been treated as only too separate from the rest of mankind. Thus the history of the Jews has become one long tragedy. It is infinitely sad. Yet it is incomparably more noble than the hollow comedy of existence to which the absence of all aims apart from personal pleasure reduces the story of those people who have sunk so low that they have no ideas. Moreover, with Ezra the racial idea was really subordinate to the religious idea. To secure the worship of God, free from all contamination-this was his ultimate purpose. In accomplishing it he must have a devoted people also free from contamination, a priesthood still more separate and consecrated, and a ritual carefully guarded and protected from defilement. Hence arose his great work in publishing the authoritative codified scriptures of the Jews. To a Christian all this has its defects-formalism, externalism, needless narrowness. Yet it succeeded in saving the religion of the Jews, and in transmitting that religion to future ages as a precious casket

Page 60: Ezra 4 commentary

containing the seed of the great spiritual faith for which the world was waiting. There is something of the schoolmaster in Ezra, but he is like the law he loved so devoutly-a schoolmaster who brings us to Christ. He was needed both for his times and also in order to lay the foundation of coming ages. Who shall say that such a man was not sent of God? How can we deny to his unique work the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? The harshness of its outward features must not blind us to the sublimity of its inner thought or the beneficence of its ultimate purpose.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:6-22 contains the original document respecting the hostile efforts of the Samaritans. The author adds what the Samaritans did and accomplished in the time of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, and the question arises first of all, what kings were meant under these names?[F3] Most ancient and modern interpreters, (comp. J. H. Michaelis, in loco.) had supposed that the author from Ezra 4:6 onward would explain why the building of the temple was discontinued for so long a time, as stated in Ezra 4:5, that he then entered into the period between Cyrus and Darius. They were led to this opinion by Ezra 4:24, which leads over to Darius, and what happened under him, in such a manner that it seems certainly, at first, as if the kings mentioned here in Ezra 4:6-7 had ruled before him. Luther, from this point of view, united this 6 th verse by “for” to the previous verse, instead of by the conjunction “and‚” and some, as Hartmann in the Chron. bibl, have appealed to this “for” as if it stood in the original text. Ahasuerus must, accordingly, have been Cambyses, Artaxerxes, Pseudo-Smerdis (so still Ewald, Gesch. IV, S137, and Köhler in Komm. zu. den. nachexil. Proph.[F4]). But the strongest objections at once arise against this view. How is it that these two kings should have names given them that they bear no where else ? How can we suppose that whilst all other Assyrian, Chaldean, and Persian kings bear essentially the same names among the Israelites with which they elsewhere appear, these two kings on one occasion should have had entirely different names among the Jews from those among their own people; for among the Persians Cambyses, so far as we know, only bore the name of Cambyses (old Persian Kambudschja), Smerdis however, after whom the Ps. Smerdis named himself, had only that of Tanyoxares or Tanyoxarkes (Cyrop. VIII:7, and Ctesias, Pers. fr. 8–13), or also Orapastes (Justin. Hist. Ezra 1:9), which name cannot be identified with ארתחששתא. This supposition is still less admissible, in that both these names every where else in the Old Test. designate other kings, and the same as those who had the corresponding names among the Persians. Ahasuerus, in the book of Esther, as is now generally recognized, is Xerxes; in Daniel 9:1, the Median king Cyaxares. These two Greek terms, Xerxes and Cyaxares, may be readily derived from the Persian fundamental forms of these names, which we find in the cuneiform inscriptions, Khsay or Khsay-arsa, by modification of vowels. So also the Hebrew term אחשורוש, However ארתחשסתא is in Ezra 7:8. and so also in the book of ehemiah, without question, Artaxerxes (Machrochir). It is true that it is there written ארתחשסתא (with שס), in our passage, however, תרתחששתא (with שש); but a different person cannot be inferred from this difference in writing. This is clear from Ezra 6:14, where the name is written as it is here, and yet must be referred to a Persian king ruling subsequently to Darius—certainly, therefore, to Artaxerxes Machrochir. In connection with these names that are used in our section, some other marks beside which point beyond Darius, gain importance. If the sixth verse really

Page 61: Ezra 4 commentary

came as is supposed to speak explanatory of the previous interval of time, it would at least have been more natural to connect with the conjunct, “for‚” as indeed Luther, without reason, has supplied it, rather than by “and.” At the outset it is improbable that Pseudo-Smerdis should have had time during his brief reign (only seven months) to reply to his officers in the manner narrated in Ezra 4:7-23; namely, after an accurate investigation with reference to the previous conduct of the Jews. In the letter of the Samaritans, or rather of the Persian officers among them, to the king, it no longer has to do with the building of the temple, but only with that of the city and its walls, which is all the more remarkable, as in the letter to Darius in Ezra 5:6 sq. the temple throughout is in the foreground. Furthermore Bertheau properly reminds us in notes on Ezra 4:4 that if the transaction with these kings had already previously transpired, the question of the Persian officers in the time of Darius, who had given the Jews commandment to build the house of God, would not have been very appropriate. Moreover the Jews would have spoken of the steps of the Samaritans and the prohibition of ארתחששתא when it must have been obligatory upon them to explain to the Persian officers in Ezra 5:16 why the building already begun under Cyrus had not been completed. By all these circumstances we are compelled to understand by אחשורוש really Xerxes, and by ארתחששתא really Artaxerxes, and to refer our section accordingly to the period subsequent to Darius. If it is objected to this view that the answer of ארתחששתא does not accord with the sending of Ezra under Artaxerxes in chap7.; so far as the one was unfavorable to the Jews and the other favorable, the fact is overlooked that in his answer ( Ezra 4:21) the king expressly reserves another command, which possibly would ordain the building of the city and its walls. When, however, Ewald (Gesch. 4. S138) asserts that in the time of Artaxerxes no intelligent person could any longer speak thus of the building of the city and its walls, as is the case in the letter of the Samaritans, the book of ehemiah shows how very necessary it still was that the city should be built up, and the walls Revelation -established even after Ezra. That which really appears to be against the view here advocated, is the manner in which Ezra 4:24 passes over from this king to Darius. By the use of one and the same verb in Ezra 4:21 (give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease), in Ezra 4:23 (they went up to Jerusalem and made them cease) and in Ezra 4:24 (then ceased the work) and apparently also by the use of באדין at the beginning of Ezra 4:24, the twenty-fourth verse is so closely united to the previous context, that it in fact seems to contain the result of that which immediately precedes. Hence then Herzfeld also (Gesch. Israels I, S303) and Schrader (Stud. u. Krit, 1867, S469) have supposed that our section, if it indeed originally extended to the time of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, must be referred by the author of our book, notwithstanding all, to Cambyses and Pseudo Smerdis, who placed it here under an error. But no real necessity for such a doubtful supposition can be found. The verb בטל might be written by the author again, in Ezra 4:24, after that he had used it in Ezra 4:21-23, notwithstanding he was here treating of a previous time. The temporal particle באדין, moreover, which in itself has the indefinite meaning of “illo tempore” can just as well refer to the beginning as to the middle or the end of the time spoken of before. If the twenty-fourth verse had been placed at the beginning of the fifth chapter instead of at the end of the fourth chapter, it would apparently occasion us no difficulty at all in giving it its proper reference. Should it be objected that such an anticipation of later events as

Page 62: Ezra 4 commentary

the view here advocated involves in Ezra 4:6-23, is in itself improbable, this objection is removed to a certain extent by Ezra 6:14, from which it results that our author was readily inclined to connect together in the closest way Artaxerxes and his time with Darius and the previous times. In this passage, where the elders of Judah in the time of Darius are spoken of, and where it is said of them, they built and completed in consequence of the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, and on the commandment of the God of Israel, and on the commandment of Cyrus and Darius, the additional clause “and Artaxerxes” is still more singular than in our passage. As the author there would embrace all who had afforded the congregation justice, protection, and help up to the time of Ezra, so here he might have very well had the intention of at once putting together summarily all the interruptions that were occasioned by the Samaritans. In as much as here the narrative was of their operations, it was really the best place for this purpose. Besides, another reason probably co-operated. The author probably had at his command no other document respecting the machinations of the Samaritans and their success at the court of Persia than this one of the time of Artaxerxes. Since now, as we have shown in the introduction, it was his method to accompany everything as far as possible with original documents, since moreover besides it was of the highest importance to justify by such a document the behaviour of the Jewish congregation towards the Samaritans, which had such great, severe, and long-lasting consequences, he here inserted it, after that he had made the transition through Ezra 4:6 to the latter period, since the disposition of the Samaritans in the somewhat later period here meeting us, was, to a certain extent, an evidence likewise of their previous hostility; and the disturbing interference which they occasioned according to the letter of Artaxerxes, was only the continuation of previous interruptions.

Ezra 4:6. And in the reign of Ahasuerus in the beginning of his reign, wrote they an accusation,etc.—This shows the zeal of the Samaritans; at once and at the very outset they sought to prejudice this king against the Jews. If the time of Darius, which had been favorable to the Jews, during which the Samaritans had impatiently waited for a change of affairs, had passed, this zeal can the more readily be explained. שטנה, hostility (comp. Genesis 26:21) has here the special meaning of accusation, just as שטן readily gains the special meaning of accuser. Since the author does not enter into particulars with reference to this writing of accusation, or even say whether it had any results at all, it seems here to be mentioned only in order briefly to show that the Samaritans, even in the subsequent period, were still active, and in order thus to give a transition to the following narrative as the principal thing.

7

Page 63: Ezra 4 commentary

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. [9] [10]

BARES, "Artaxerxes - Gomates, the Pseudo-Smerdis. He succeeded Cambyses (521 B.C.), and reigned for seven months, when he was deposed and executed by Darius Hystaspis.

Written in the Syrian tongue ... - Or, “written in Syriac characters and translated into Syriac.” On the use of this tongue as a medium of communication between the Jews and their Eastern neighbors, see 2Ki_18:26 note.

CLARKE, "In the days of Artaxerxes - After the death of Cambyses, one of the Magi named Oropaestus by Trogus Pompeius, Smerdis by Herodotus, Mardus by Aeschylus, and Sphendatates by Ctesias, usurped the empire, feigning himself to be Smerdis, the brother of Cambyses, who had been put to death. This is the person named Artaxerxes in the text: or, following the Hebrew, Artachshasta. It is generally believed, that from the time of Cyrus the great, Xerxes and Artaxerxes were names assumed by the Persian sovereigns, whatever their names had been before.

Written in the Syrian tongue - That is, the Syrian or Chaldean character was used; not the Hebrew.

Interpreted, in the Syrian tongue - That is, the language, as well as the character, was the Syriac or Chaldaic.

GILL, "And in the days of Artaxerxes,.... The same with Ahasuerus, in the preceding verse; and who also is Cambyses, which is his name in Heathen authors, Artaxerxes being a common name to the kings of Persia; though some (f) think this was Smerdis, the magician and impostor, who was between Cambyses and Darius; but as he reigned but seven months, it is not very likely that he should be wrote unto, and an answer received from him; besides he sent to every nation he ruled over (g), and so to the Jews, and proclaimed to them freedom from tribute and the militia for three years, to ingratiate himself to them:

wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions; or his company; for Jarchi thinks only one person is meant; that Mithredath Tabeel is the name of one of the adversaries of Judah; and that Bishlam is an appellative, and signifies that he wrote in peace, or in a way of salutation and greeting; but they seem to be the names of governors in the cities of Samaria under the king of Persia: these wrote

Page 64: Ezra 4 commentary

to Artaxerxes king of Persia; instigated by the Samaritans:

and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue; or Chaldee, of which Ezra gives a copy in the Chaldee language; the meaning either is, that it was written both in Syriac letters, and in the Syriac language; for sometimes words are written in one language and in the character of another, as the Syriac is sometimes written in, Hebrew characters, and the Hebrew in Roman; or else there was a postscript added to this letter, explaining some things in it, which also was written in the same language: some take (h) the word "nishtevan", rendered "written", to be the name of a province on the borders of the country beyond Euphrates, whose figure and characters were in high esteem, and fit to write in to kings; but the words and language were Syrian, and needed interpretation.

HERY 7-8, "The persons concerned in writing this letter. The contrivers are named (Ezr_4:7) that plotted the thing, the writers (Ezr_4:8) that put it into form, and the subscribers (Ezr_4:9) that concurred in it and joined with them in this representation, this misrepresentation I should call it. Now see here, 1. How the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and his temple, with their companions. The building of the temple would do them no harm, yet they appear against it with the utmost concern and virulence, perhaps because the prophets of the God of Israel had foretold the famishingand perishing of all the gods of the heathen, Zep_2:11; Jer_10:11. 2. How the people concurred with them in imagining this vain thing. They followed the cry, though ignorant of the merits of the cause. All the several colonies of that plantation (nine are here mentioned), who had their denomination from the cities or countries of Assyria, Chaldea, Persia, etc., whence they came, set their hands, by their representatives, to this letter. Perhaps they were incensed against these returned Jews because many of the ten tribes were among them, whose estates they had got into their possession, and of whom they were therefore jealous, lest they should attempt the recovery of them hereafter.

JAMISO, "Ezr_4:7-24. Letter to Artaxerxes.

in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, etc.— The three officers named are supposed to have been deputy governors appointed by the king of Persia over all the provinces subject to his empire west of the Euphrates.

the Syrian tongue— or Aramaean language, called sometimes in our version, Chaldee. This was made use of by the Persians in their decrees and communications relative to the Jews (compare 2Ki_18:26; Isa_36:11). The object of their letter was to press upon the royal notice the inexpediency and danger of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. They labored hard to prejudice the king’s mind against that measure.

K&D, "BESO,"Ezra 4:7. In the days of Artaxerxes, &c. — The sacred writer, having in the foregoing verse mentioned a stop being put to the building of the temple, till the reign of Darius, now proceeds to relate particularly how it was effected. By Artaxerxes here is probably meant the son of Cyrus, called Cambyses by heathen writers. Written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue — That is, it was written both in the Syrian character, and the Syrian language: for sometimes the Chaldee or Syrian words were written in the Hebrew character.

Page 65: Ezra 4 commentary

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:7 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.

Ver. 7. And in the days of Artaxerxes] This seems to be Cambyses’ Persian name, as Ahasuerus was his Chaldee name. It is as much as Bellator egregius, an excellent warrior. So Scipio was called Fulmen belli, the lightening bolt of war; Bajazet, the Great Turk, Gilderun, or lightning; Albert, Marquis of Brandenburg, was called Achilles Teutonicus (Bucholc.). Our Black Prince was so named, not of his colour, but of his courage, and of his dreaded acts in battle; for he assailed no nation which he overcame not, he besieged no city which he took not (Speed). Cambyses had great success in his wars, and added Egypt, and other countries, to the Persian monarchy.

Wrote Bishlam, Mithredath] These were the king of Persia’s toparchs or deputies, beyond the river Euphrates.

Written in the Syrian tongue] Called also the Chaldee, Babylonish, and Assyrian; commonly spoken by the Jews, who, in the seventy years’ captivity, lost the purity of their own language; like as the Latins also did, when the Goths, Vandals, and other barbarous nations overran them, and mingled with them.

And interpreted in the Syrian tongue] i.e. With Syrian characters, Et Scriptura et lingua erat Syriaca, ut sine interprete in aula regis intelligeretur, saith Shindler. It was so written that it might be understood at court without an interpreter.

WHEDO, "7. Artaxerxes — This king is to be identified with Smerdis the Magian, who, in the absence of Cambyses from the capital, and perhaps instigated by the reports of the king’s many tyrannical and brutal deeds, gave out that he was Smerdis the son of Cyrus, and took possession of the kingdom. He is called Gaumata in the Behistun inscription; Tanyoxares by Xenophon and Ctesias; and Oropastes by Justinus. Ewald thinks this latter name should be written Ortosastes, which would closely resemble Artaxerxes. This variety of names shows that no conclusive argument can be made against identifying Ahasuerus with Cambyses, (Ezra 4:6,) or Artaxerxes with Smerdis, solely from the difference in their names. The usurpation of the Magian seems to have been connected with an effort to overthrow the Zoroastrian religion in the Persian empire, and establish Magianism in its place. The Behistun inscription says that Smerdis destroyed the temples of worship in the land. But the usurper was assassinated after a reign of seven months, and Darius Hystaspes gained the throne, and restored the ancient religion of Ormazd. Rawlinson calls attention to the fact “that the only Persian king who is said to have interrupted the building of the temple is that Magian monarch, the pseudo-Smerdis, who was opposed to the pure Persian religion, and would therefore have been likely

Page 66: Ezra 4 commentary

to reverse the religious policy of his predecessors. The Samaritans weakened the hands of Judah, and troubled them during the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses; but it was not till the letter of the pseudo-Smerdis was received that the work of the house of God ceased. The same prince, that is, who is stated in the inscriptions to have changed the religion of Persia, appears in Ezra as the opponent of a religious work which Cyrus had encouraged, and Cambyses had allowed to be carried on.” — Hist. Ev., p. 148.

Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel — These, with the rest of their companions, were the “counsellors” (Ezra 4:5) whom the Samaritans hired to work with the Persian officers named in the next verse. They were probably persons that stood high in the community, possibly holding offices of some kind among the nations mentioned in Ezra 4:9. These counsellors wrote the document which follows, (Ezra 4:8-16,) that is, they drew up or prepared the letter for the Persian officers to sign and send unto Artaxerxes king of Persia. From the statement which follows, that the epistle was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue, we may infer that these counsellors first prepared it in a Palestinean dialect, that was commonly spoken among the colonists of Samaria, and the Persian officers mentioned in the next verse translated it into Syriac or Aramaean. The Syrian tongue here mentioned, and of which the following letter is a specimen, was the language current at the time of this writing in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Chaldea, and is more properly called Aramaean, ( ארמית ). It is commonly called Chaldee, and often distinguished from the Western-Aramaean, or more modern Syriac, and was the language of Babylonia at the time of the exile. During their exile the Jews acquired this language, and gradually lost the use of the ancient Hebrew, so that upon their return they transplanted this language to Palestine, and subsequently used it as their common tongue. The mass of the people who returned from exile were not able to understand the language in which the law was written, but required to have it explained to them, ehemiah 8:8; and for the same reason the Targums, or Chaldee paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures, were written. There seems to be a sort of confusion and tautology in the statement that it was “written… and interpreted” in this Aramaean language. The words are usually explained as meaning that the writing was both in the Aramaean characters and also in the Aramaean language. But the Hebrew word for interpreted is מתרגם, and properly means translated. From the same root comes the word Targum, the common name of the Chaldee translations of the Old Testament. So the apparently superfluous addition, translated into Aramaean, is, perhaps, best explained as a repetition designed to emphasize the fact that the epistle was not originally drawn up in Aramaean, but translated into that language before it was sent to the king. Hence it is seen how Bishlam and his companions wrote the letter which it seems the chancellor and scribe also wrote. The former wrote it in their common dialect, the latter translated it into Aramaean.

PETT, "Ezra 4:7

‘And in the days of Artaxerxes (Hebrew: Artachshasta) wrote Bishlam, Mithredath,

Page 67: Ezra 4 commentary

Tabeel, and the rest of his companions, to Artaxerxes king of Persia, and the writing of the letter was written in Aramaic (characters), and set forth in the Aramaic (language)’Another attack was made in the days of Artaxerxes, the king of Persia (old Persian arta-zxa-ra) (464-423 BC), who followed Xerxes I and was in the end the king who sent ehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. It is clear that the writer had obtained full details of what had occurred. He even knew the names of the experts responsible. He describes them as ‘Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his companions’. Mithredath is a Persian name (see Ezra 1:8) while Tabeel is an Aramaic name (compare Isaiah 7:6).

Alternatively the word Bishlam, if repointed can signify ‘in peace’ (be shalom), and it is so translated in LXX. Thus we could render ‘in the days of Artaxerxes, with the agreement of Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his companions wrote to Artaxerxes --’.

These ‘wrote to Artaxerxes in Aramaic script using the Aramaic language’. But this information is rather superfluous. It would have been sufficient to say that it was written in Aramaic. aturally someone using Aramaic would write in the Aramaic script. So alternately this may be translated as, ‘the writing of the letter was written in the Aramaic script but translated’, in other words it was translated into Hebrew using the Aramaic script. The change to using the Aramaic script for Hebrew records occurs around this time. It may be that it was because the copy he had was in Hebrew but in Aramaic script that he did not include its contents, not wanting to confuse his readers.

The second ‘Aramaic’ will then be a signpost standing on its own and indicating that what follows is in Aramaic, and is so until Ezra 6:18. This continued use of Aramaic may well have been because he wanted to present the original records which he will now call on, in the original Aramaic, but did not want to cause unnecessary confusion by switching to Hebrew for the explanatory verses. This would tie in with what we have suggested above about why the previous letter was not cited because it was a document translated into Hebrew but written in Aramaic script. We must remember that both he and his anticipated readers were equally fluent in Aramaic. In this regard we should note that the Aramaic section is in a Hebrew envelope. Ezra 4:1-7 is in Hebrew, as is Ezra 6:19-22. What comes in between is in Aramaic. This was much more tidy than a constant switching between Hebrew and Aramaic, and especially so if we see chapters 1-6 as the work of one writer, possibly even Ezra himself, with chapters 7-10 dealing with the work of Ezra, and including the Ezra first person memoirs (Ezra 7:27 to Ezra 9:15).

Furthermore there may be the intention of indicating that all that occurs in Ezra 4:8 to Ezra 6:18 does so at the behest of the Persian Empire. It is outside the control of the returnees. But in the end it is an indication that God controls the Persian Empire.

Once again nothing appears to have come of the accusation against the returnees,

Page 68: Ezra 4 commentary

which appears to have petered out without any repercussions.

Written In Aramaic: Ezra 4:8 to Ezra 6:18.

COSTABLE, "Verses 7-23Opposition during Artaxerxes" reign4:7-23

Artaxerxes was the successor of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), who ruled the Persian Empire from464to424 B.C. [ote: See William H. Shea, "Who Succeeded Xerxes on the Throne of Persia?" Journal of the Adventist Theological Society12:1 (Spring2001):83-88 , who argued that Darius succeeded Xerxes.] Clearly the incident reported in these verses took place long after the temple was complete. It really involved the attempt by Israel"s enemies to halt the rebuilding of Jerusalem"s wall in the days of ehemiah. It evidently took place about446 B.C. (cf. Ezra 4:21-23; ehemiah 1:1-3). The writer"s purpose in inserting this incident in the text was evidently to show the continued antagonism of Israel"s enemies and the faithfulness of God in giving the Jews victory over them.

"ear Eastern kings used an elaborate system of informers and spies. Egyptian sources speak of the "ears and eyes" of the Pharaoh. Sargon II of Assyria had agents in Urartu whom he ordered, "Write me whatever you see and hear." The efficient Persian intelligence system is described by Xenophon. [ote: Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 8:2:10-12.] The King"s Eye and the King"s Ear were two distinct officials who reported to the monarch. [ote: Cf. J. Balcer, "The Athenian Apiskopos and the Achaemenid "King"s Eye,"" American Journal of Philology98 (1977):252-63.] But God"s people could take assurance in their conviction that God"s intelligence system is not only more efficient than any king"s espionage network but is omniscient (cf. 2 Chronicles 16:9; Zechariah 4:10)." [ote: Yamauchi, " Ezra -, ehemiah ," p629. Cf. A. L. Oppenheim, "The Eyes of the Lord," Journal of the American Oriental Society88 (1968):173-79.]

The antagonists enlisted the help of local Persian officials, including Rehum and Shimshai ( Ezra 4:8), to appeal to Artaxerxes to issue an order stopping work on the walls. The letter was in Aramaic, the common language of the Persian Empire. This is the language in which it appears in the oldest Hebrew texts of Ezra. The writer evidently wrote all of Ezra 4:8 to Ezra 6:18 as well as Ezra 7:12-26 in Aramaic originally. The other Aramaic portions of the Old Testament are two words in Genesis 31:47 (translated "the heap of witness"), Jeremiah 10:11 (a divine announcement of the destruction of idols), and Daniel 2:4 b to Daniel 7:28 (which reports the words of Babylonian astrologers and following words addressed to the kings of the earth). Aramaic was a language well known to all the Jews living in the empire, as well as Gentiles. The writer may have written this entire section of the book in Aramaic to avoid changing back and forth from Hebrew to Aramaic so many times. [ote: Kidner, p136.]

"The end of Ezra 4:7 is literally "and he wrote the letter written in Aramaic and

Page 69: Ezra 4 commentary

translated in Aramaic."... This could mean that while the letter had been written in Aramaic, the author"s copy had been translated into Hebrew. [ote: Blenkinsopp, p112.] Since the actual letter is not given, however, it more likely would mean that although the letter had been written in Aramaic it was translated into Persian when it was read to the king." [ote: Breneman, p101.]

Osnappar ( Ezra 4:10) is evidently an Aramaic form of Ashurbanipal (669-ca660 B.C.), the Assyrian king who succeeded Esarhaddon. [ote: A. R. Millard, "Assyrian Royal ames in Biblical Hebrew," Journal of Semitic Studies21:1&2 (1976):11.] The phrase "beyond the river" ( Ezra 4:10-11; Ezra 4:16-17; Ezra 4:20) refers to the Persian province that lay to the southwest of the upper Euphrates, namely, the one that encompassed Syria and Palestine.

The Jews mentioned in this letter ( Ezra 4:12) would have been those who returned with Ezra in458 B.C, the second group of Jews to leave Babylon. That group attempted to rebuild the walls of the city, having received permission from Artaxerxes in458 B.C. to do so ( Ezra 7:21).

Israel"s enemies presented three reasons Artaxerxes should withdraw the Jews" building permit. They warned that the Jews would stop paying taxes when their fortifications were complete ( Ezra 4:13), and the consequent decline in revenue would hurt the king"s reputation ( Ezra 4:14). Moreover, if the Jews continued to rebuild a city that had a reputation for rebellion, their actions might encourage other peoples in other parts of the empire to revolt ( Ezra 4:15-16).

"The historical justification for the claim that Jerusalem is a chronically rebellious city will have consisted in such events as Hezekiah"s withholding of tribute from Assyria ( 2 Kings 18:7, ca724 B.C.) and Zedekiah"s abortive bid for freedom from the Babylonians, which led to the cataclysm of587 ( 2 Kings 24:20 ff.). The Assyrian and Babylonian annals were evidently available to the Persian kings. And it is clear that a nerve is touched." [ote: McConville, pp28-29.]

In his reply Artaxerxes explained that, having done some research, he had concluded that it seemed to be in his best interests to halt work temporarily. He put an order to stop work into effect only until he could determine a permanent solution to the problem ( Ezra 4:21, "until ..."). About two years later (444 B.C.), Artaxerxes released ehemiah to go to Jerusalem to finish rebuilding the wall ( ehemiah 2:8). Evidently the king had concluded that, all things considered, it was better to have Jerusalem defended than undefended.

When the Samaritans received Artaxerxes" reply, they immediately forced the Jews to stop building the wall. They may even have destroyed part of the rebuilt wall and burned the gates (cf. ehemiah 1:3).

"This was a day of great shame to the Jewish population because their honest endeavor was thwarted by their archenemies, the Samaritans, and it was forced on them by Samaritan soldiers." [ote: Fensham, The Books . . ., p76.]

Page 70: Ezra 4 commentary

ELLICOTT, "(7) In the days of Artaxerxes.—This must be Gomates, the Magian priest who personated Smerdis, the dead son of Cyrus, and reigned only seven months: note that the expression used is “days,” and not “reign” as in the previous verse. This Artaxerxes has been thought by many commentators to be the Longimanus of the sequel of this book and of ehemiah, and they have identified the Ahasuerus of Ezra and Esther with Xerxes. This would explain the reference to “the walls” in Ezra 4:12; but in Ezra 4:23-24 the sequence of events is strict, and the word “ceased” links the parts of the narrative into unity. Moreover, the Persian princes had often more than one name. At the same time, there is nothing to make such an anticipatory and parenthetical insertion impossible.

In the Syrian tongue.—The characters and the words were Syrian or Aramaic; this explains the transition to another language at this point,

LAGE, "Ezra 4:7. And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam,etc.—The Jewish congregation probably increased from the time of the building of the temple onward, and under Artaxerxes thought more seriously of Revelation -establishing the walls of the city, which then likewise through ehemiah actually took place. Bislam, Mithredath, Tabeel, etc., accordingly went to work anew against them. These names certainly indicate Samaritans who, without being Persian officials, enjoyed just as Sanballat subsequently, a certain degree of consequence. The pure Persian name Mithredath need not astonish us, since even Zerubbabel had a similar one (Sheshbazzar). We should expect instead of כנותו, for which the qeri has the usual form כנותיו, in accordance with Ezra 4:9; Ezra 4:17; Ezra 4:23; Ezra 5:3, etc., To whom the sing. suffix properly refers, whether to the first named Bislam.כנוותםor to the last named Tabeel is doubtful, is yet without any real importance. כנת, from which our plural is to be derived (comp. Ewald, § 187 d) is contracted from כנות as comp. Olsh.§ 198) אחות or אחית from אחת for אחות and פרות Genesis 49:22 from ,פרתc). It is not found elsewhere in Hebrew, and was here without doubt chosen simply with reference to Ezra 4:9; in Aramaic it is more frequent. Formed from כנה it designates those qui eodem cognomine, sive titulo utitur, sive eodem munere fungitur, according to Gesen, Thes.; in the Peschito it is more frequently employed for σύνδουλος.—And the rest of their companions.—This is according to Ezra 4:9 sq.: the others who were their companions.—And the writing of the letter was written in Aramaic.—כתב is no more here than in Esther 4:8, to be taken in the improved meaning of copy, (against Berth.) as if the author would say, that only the copy was in Chaldee, but the letter itself in another language. It means only writing, and the sense Isaiah, that the writers translated into Aramaic what they had thought in Samaritan or any other language, and therefore also at the same time wrote down in Aramaic, without doubt, for the reason that in Babylon at court, and among the Persian officials in anterior Asia the Aramaic language was the usual one, so to say, the official language, which otherwise would not have been employed in the letter of authority given to Ezra in Ezra 7:12 sq. נשתון is of Arian origin, to be compared with the new Persian nuwischten, to write, and means letter. Comp. Ezra 4:18. .interpret, translate into another language ,תרגם is part. pass. of מתרגם

Page 71: Ezra 4 commentary

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

BARES, "The chancellor - literally, “Lord of judgment;” the title, apparently, of the Persian governor of the Samaritan province. Every Persian governor was accompanied to his province by a “royal scribe” or “secretary,” who had a separate and independent authority.

CLARKE, "Rehum the chancellor - With this verse the Chaldee part of the chapter begins; and the same language continues to the end of Ezr_6:18.

These men wrote to Darius in their own language; and the king in the same dialect returns an answer, chap. 5. This circumstance adds authenticity to what is written: so scrupulous was the inspired penman, that he not only gave the words which each spoke and wrote, but he gave them also in the very language in which they were conceived and in the character peculiar to that language.

GILL, "Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort. This means the same letter as before; which, according to Jarchi, was sent in the name of Mithredath Tabeel and his company, was endited by Rehum, master of words or sense, and written by Shimshai the scribe, whom he makes to be a son of Haman (i); but it was written rather in all their names.

K&D, "Ezr_4:8

The writers of the letter are designated by titles which show them to have been among

the higher functionaries of Artachshasta. Rehum is called טעם .dominus consilii v ,�עלdecreti, by others consiliarius, royal counsellor, probably the title of the Persian civil

governor (erroneously taken for a proper name in lxx, Syr., Arab.); Shimshai, ספרא, the

Hebrew סופר, scribe, secretary. נמא' is interpreted by Rashi and Aben Ezra by אשר)נאמר',

as we shall say; נמא is in the Talmud frequently an abbreviation of נאמר or נימר, of like

Page 72: Ezra 4 commentary

signification with לאמר: as follows.

BESO,"Ezra 4:8-9. Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter, &c. — These two, as it was their office, put into writing, or drew up, a letter, agreeable to what had been resolved on in a council of the great men, or governors, mentioned in the foregoing verse. The Dinaites, &c. — These nine nations came out of Assyria, Persia, Media, Susiana, and other provinces of that vast empire; who, with one consent, joined in this letter or petition.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:8 Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort:

Ver. 8. Rehum the chancellor] Or, president of the council. It is of the Chaldee termination; the whole history also following to Ezra 6:19, is Chaldee, transcribed, as some think, out of the rolls and registers of the Chaldees, and here inserted.

WHEDO, "8. The chancellor — Hebrew, Lord of counsel, that is, a royal counsellor. He seems to have been the Persian governor and judge of the district of Samaria, and of the colonists mentioned in the next verse. The Sept. and Vulg. take the word as a proper name — Baaltam.

The scribe — Probably the secretary of the governor, or chancellor, and the one who translated this letter against Jerusalem into the Aramaean language.

In this sort — The two following verses (9-10) are to be regarded, not as an exact transcript, but a running paraphrase, giving the sentiment and general form of expression at the beginning of the letter. The introduction to the letter was in this sort, or after this manner. Hence the repetition in Ezra 4:11, after which follows what we may regard as an exact copy.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:8. Rehum the chancellor and Shim-shai the scribe, wrote a letter in this sort.—Although other authors of a letter are adduced here, yet it is impossible that another third letter should be introduced (against Berth.); for1) it is inconceivable that the author should have left the contents of the letter referred to in Ezra 4:7 so entirely undetermined. The contents of the letter mentioned in Ezra 4:6 he has at least characterized as an accusation. It is all the more inconceivable since the author has expressly designated the language of the letter mentioned in Ezra 4:17. Without doubt he regarded this as of especial importance2) Already the fact that the remark that the letter in Ezra 4:7 was written in Aramaic, is immediately followed by a section in Aramaic, and so also the fact that in accordance with Ezra 4:7, where Samaritans are designated at the outset as authors of the letter; again after the Persian officials in Ezra 4:9, Samaritan tribes are mentioned as taking part in the letter—all this is in favor of the view that it is only the contents of that letter which now follow (comp. Köhler, achexil. Proph. S21). 3) The word כנותו in Ezra 4:7, which is found nowhere else in Hebrew, looks evidently forward to the same word in Ezra 4:9. 4) If another letter were referred to in Ezra 4:8, a connecting

Page 73: Ezra 4 commentary

copula could no more be lacking here than at the beginning of Ezra 4:7, (Keil). Without doubt the Samaritans mentioned in Ezra 4:7, who had become known to the author elsewhere, had been the proper instigators of the letter, the Persian officials mentioned in Ezra 4:8 merely their instruments. The verb כתב which is likewise used of the former, does not by any means always mean: to write with one’s own hand. That the Persian officers had written the letter in combination with the Samaritans is besides expressly declared in a short introduction which had been given to it probably at Jerusalem, when they there added it to other important documents, in the form of an explanatory superscription. This introduction, which so to say had grown together with the document, the author has for accuracy and perspicuity taken up in Ezra 4:8-11, leaving it to the reader to put together correctly the different statements respecting the authorship in the manner indicated. Other interpreters, as Keil and Köhler (l.c.) suppose that he found the verses8–11a, and so also then the following letter itself in the history of the building of the temple written in Chaldee, which he used in Ezra 4:5-6. Whether however ho really had before him such a document is doubtful, as we have shown in the Introduction, § 2. Besides the abbreviation וכענת and the like, which stands at the end of Ezra 4:10, is found only in the superscriptions of letters, where things that are self-understood may be omitted (comp. Ezra 4:11; Ezra 4:17), not in a historical narrative.—בעל טעם = lord of understanding, counsellor, is not a proper name (Esdras, Alex, Syr, Vulg.), but a designation of the office of Rehum [the title apparently of the Persian governor of the Samaritan province. Rawlinson in loco.—Tr.], as ספרא, scribe, chancellor, is the designation of the office of Shimshai. [“According to Herodotus (III:128) every Persian governor was accompanied to his province by a ‘royal scribe’ or ‘secretary’ (γραµµατεύς), who had a separate and independent authority,” Rawlinson in loco.—Tr.]. אנרת= אגרא , in the later Hebrew חדא is used as an indef. article, as in the later Hebrew. אחד·כנמא has, according to Raschi and Ab. Ezra, arisen from כ and

נמא= נימא = נאמר , comp. in the Talmud אימא, I say תימא, thou sayest; thus literally: as we say,—then: in the following manner, or also, according as has been stated.

PETT, "Ezra 4:8

‘Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this manner,’The third attack was made by Rehum the chancellor (literally ‘lord commander’, high government official) and Shimshai the scribe (secretary). Rehum was probably a high official of a type typical of Persian rule, whose responsibility was to write directly to the king concerning matters that occurred in his area. He now wrote to Artaxerxes laying accusations against Jerusalem, no doubt stirred on by the adversaries spoken of earlier (Ezra 4:1), who had manufactured a case against the returnees. Artaxerxes was the king who sent Ezra the Scribe to the assistance of the returnees, and later ehemiah himself, so he was not anti-Jewish.

Page 74: Ezra 4 commentary

9 Rehum the commanding officer and Shimshai the secretary, together with the rest of their associates--the judges and officials over the men from Tripolis, Persia, [11] Erech and Babylon, the Elamites of Susa,

BARES 9-10, "These verses form the superscription or address of the letter (Ezr_4:11, etc.) sent to Artaxerxes.

The Dinaites were probably colonists from Dayan, a country often mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions as bordering on Cilicia and Cappadocia. No satisfactory explanation can be given of the name Apharsathchites (see Ezr_5:6 note). The Tarpelites were colonists from the nation which the Assyrians called Tuplai, the Greeks “Tibareni,” and the Hebrews generally “Tubal.” (It is characteristic of the later Hebrew language to insert the letter “r” (resh) before labials. Compare Darmesek for Dammesek, 2Ch_28:23margin). The Apharsites were probably “the Persians;” the Archevites, natives of Erech (Warka) Gen_10:10; the Susanchites, colonists from Shushan or Susa; the Dehavites, colonists from the Persian tribe of the Dai; and the Elamites, colonists from Elam or Elymais, the country of which Susa was the capital.

Ezr_4:10

A snapper was perhaps the official employed by Esar-haddon Ezr_4:2 to settle the colonists in their new country.

On this side the river - literally, “beyond the river,” a phrase used of Palestine by Ezra, Nehemiah, and in the Book of Kings, as designating the region west of the Euphrates.

And at such a time - Rather, “and so forth.” The phrase is vague, nearly equivalent to the modern use of et cetaera. It recurs in marginal references.

GILL, "Then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions,.... who all signed the letter; namely, the governors of the following nations:

the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites; which were colonies from several parts of Chaldea, Media, and Persia, and were settled in the several cities of Samaria, as several of their names plainly show, as from Persia, Erech, Babylon, Shushan, and Elimais; some account for them all, but with uncertainty; according to R. Jose (k) these were the Samaritans who first were sent out of five nations, to whom the king of Assyria added four more, which together make the

Page 75: Ezra 4 commentary

nine here mentioned, see 2Ki_17:24.

JAMISO, "the Dinaites— The people named were the colonists sent by the Babylonian monarch to occupy the territory of the ten tribes. “The great and noble Asnappar” was Esar-haddon. Immediately after the murder of Sennacherib, the Babylonians, Medes, Armenians, and other tributary people seized the opportunity of throwing off the Assyrian yoke. But Esar-haddon having, in the thirtieth year of his reign, recovered Babylon and subdued the other rebellious dependents, transported numbers of them into the waste cities of Samaria, most probably as a punishment of their revolt [Hales].

K&D 9-11, "Ezr_4:9-11

After this introduction we naturally look for the letter itself in Ezr_4:9, instead of which we have (Ezr_4:9 and Ezr_4:10) a full statement of who were the senders; and then, after a parenthetical interpolation, “This is the copy of the letter,” etc., the letter itself in Ezr_4:11. The statement is rather a clumsy one, the construction especially

exhibiting a want of sequence. The verb to אדין is wanting; this follows in Ezr_4:11, but as

an anacoluthon, after an enumeration of the names in Ezr_4:9 and Ezr_4:10 with שלחו. The sentence ought properly to run thus: “Then (i.e., in the days of Artachshasta) Rehum, etc., sent a letter to King Artachshasta, of which the following is a copy: Thy servants, the men on this side the river,” etc. The names enumerated in Ezr_4:9 and Ezr_4:10 were undoubtedly all inserted in the superscription or preamble of the letter, to give weight to the accusation brought against the Jews. The author of the Chaldee section of the narrative, however, has placed them first, and made the copy of the letter itself begin only with the words, “Thy servants,” etc. First come the names of the superior officials, Rehum and Shimshai, and the rest of their companions. The latter are

then separately enumerated: The Dinaites, lxx ∆ειναCοι, - so named, according to the

conjecture of Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 676), from the Median city long afterwards called Deinaver (Abulf. Geógr. ed. Paris. p. 414); the Apharsathchites, probably the

Pharathiakites of Strabo (15:3. 12) (Παρητακηνοί, Herod. i. 101), on the borders of Persia

and Media, described as being, together with the Elymaites, a predatory people relying on their mountain fastnesses; the Tarpelites, whom Junius already connects with the

Τάπουροι dwelling east of Elymais (Ptol. vi. 2. 6); the Apharsites, probably the Persians

_Gen ,ארך) the Archevites, probably so called from the city ;(prosthetic א with פרסיא)

10:10, upon inscriptions Uruk, the modern Warka; the בליא�, Babylonians, inhabitants of

Babylon; the Shushanchites, i.e., the Susanites, inhabitants of the city of Susa; הואP, in

the Keri היאP, the Dehavites, the Grecians (∆άοι, Herod. i. 125); and lastly, the Elamites,

the people of Elam or Elymais. Full as this enumeration may seem, yet the motive being to name as many races as possible, the addition, “and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnapper brought over and set in the city of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river,” etc., is made for the sake of enhancing the statement. Prominence being given both here and Ezr_4:17 to the city of Samaria as the city in which Osnapper had settled the colonists here named, the “nations brought in by Osnapper” must be identical with those who, according to Ezr_4:2, and 2Ki_17:24, had

Page 76: Ezra 4 commentary

been placed in the cities of Samaria by King Esarhaddon. Hence Osnapper would seem

to be merely another name for Esarhaddon. But the names Osnapper (lxx Qσσεναφάρ)

and Asarhaddon (lxx Qσαραδάν) being too different to be identified, and the notion that Osnapper was a second name of Asarhaddon having but little probability, together with the circumstance that Osnapper is not called king, as Asarhaddon is Ezr_4:2, but only “the great and noble,” it is more likely that he was some high functionary of Asarhaddon, who presided over the settlement of eastern races in Samaria and the lands west of the

Euphrates. “In the cities,” or at least the preposition (ב, must be supplied from the

preceding קריה� before נהרה עבר and in the rest of the territory, or in the cities of the :ש�ר

rest of the territory, on this side of Euphrates. עבר, trans, is to be understood of the countries west of Euphrates; matters being regarded from the point of view of the settlers, who had been transported from the territories east, to those west of Euphrates.

.means “and so forth,” and hints that the statement is not complete וכענת

On comparing the names of the nations here mentioned with the names of the cities from which, according to 2Ki_17:24, colonists were brought to Samaria, we find the inhabitants of most of the cities there named - Babylon, Cuthah, and Ava - here

comprised under the name of the country as בליא�, Babylonians; while the people of

Hamath and Sepharvaim may fitly be included among “the rest of the nations,” since certainly but few colonists would have been transported from the Syrian Hamath to Samaria. The main divergence between the two passages arises from the mention in our present verse, not only of the nations planted in the cities of Samaria, but of all the

nations in the great region on this side of Euphrates (נהרה All these tribes had .(עבר

similar interests to defend in opposing the Jewish community, and they desired by united action to give greater force to their representation to the Persian monarch, and thus to hinder the people of Jerusalem from becoming powerful. And certainly they had some grounds for uneasiness lest the remnant of the Israelites in Palestine, and in other regions on this side the Euphrates, should combine with the Jerusalem community, and the thus united Israelites should become sufficiently powerful to oppose an effectual resistance to their heathen adversaries. On the anacoluthistic connection of Ezr_4:11.

Ezr_4:11, Ezr_4:23; Ezr_5:6; Ezr_7:11, and frequently in the Targums and the ,:רשגן

Syriac, written תשגן: Est_3:14 and Est_4:8, is derived from the Zendish paiti (Sanscr.

prati) and çenghana (in Old-Persian thanhana), and signifies properly a counterword, i.e.,

counterpart, copy. The form with ר is either a corruption, or formed from a compound

with fra; comp. Gildemeister in the Zeitschr. für die Kunde des Morgenl. iv. p. 210, and

Haug in Ewald's bibl. Jahrb. v. p. 163, etc. - The copy of the letter begins with (יךPעב, thy

servants, the men, etc. The Chethib (עבדיך is the original form, shortened in the Keri into

Both forms occur elsewhere; comp. Dan_2:29; Dan_3:12, and other passages. The .עבPך)

,etc., here stands for the full enumeration of the writers already given in Ezr_4:9 ,וכענת

and also for the customary form of salutation.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:9 Then [wrote] Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites,

Page 77: Ezra 4 commentary

the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, [and] the Elamites,

Ver. 9. The Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites] This was not unity, but conspiracy, of a rabble of rebels against God and his people. So Psalms 83:5-6, &c., "They have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: the tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes," &c. A whole legion of devils could agree to enter into one poor man, to vex him; and to act as one in that possession.

WHEDO, "9. Of the names here given to the colonists according to the various cities or provinces of the Assyrian empire, the Dinaites, Apharsathchites, Tarpelites, and Apharsites are otherwise unknown. The various conjectures as to their origin are not worth recording. The Archevites were, perhaps, from the Babylonian city Erech. Genesis 10:10. The Babylonians were undoubtedly either from the city or province of Babylon. Compare 2 Kings 17:24. The Susanchites were evidently from Susa or Shushan, which became the metropolis of the Persian empire, (ehemiah 1:1; Esther 1:2,) but was originally the capital of the land of Elam. The Dehavites are generally thought to be identical with the Davi or Dahi of Herodotus, Strabo, and other classic writers, a Persian nomadic tribe, “whose name,” says Rawlinson, (Herod., i, p. 338,) “is equivalent to the Latin ‘Rustici,’ and who were spread over the whole country from the Caspian to the Persian Gulf and the Tigris.” The Elamites were natives of the province of which Shushan was the capital, (Daniel 8:2,) and which was originally settled by the descendants of Shem. Genesis 10:22.

ELLICOTT, "(9) Then wrote . . .—This verse and the following give the general superscription of the letter which the Persian officials wrote for the Samaritans: introduced, however, in a very peculiar manner, and to be followed by another introduction in Ezra 4:11. Of the names by which the Samaritans think fit to distinguish themselves the Apharsites and Dehavites are Persians; the Babylonians the original races of Babylon, Cuthah and Ava (2 Kings 17:24); the Susanchites are from Susa; the Apharsathchites, probably the Pharathia-kites, a predatory people of Media; the Archevites, inhabitants of Erech (Genesis 10:10). The Dinaites and Tarpelites can be only conjecturally identified.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:9-10 add to the summary statement of authorship a closer explanation: Then Rehum..… and the rest of their companions.—The verb “write” is to be supplied from the previous verse. Then the sense Isaiah, when they wrote the letter in question, they were active in common with their companions. As their companions, the communities transplanted to Palestine are then adduced according to their native lands in Eastern Asia. The Dinaites were perhaps from the Median city Deinaver, which still had this name in a quite late period (Abulf. Geogr. ed. Par, p414). Schrader would find it as Daniel -ya-a-ni, also Daniel -ya-i-ni in the inscription of the older Tiglath Pileser, who reckons them among the ahiri, that Isaiah, to the Armenians, I. c, S246. The Apharsathchites, perhaps identical with the Apharsachites in Ezra 5:6, were compared by Hiller (Onom. p655, 745) with the robber Parætakites (Herod. I:101; Strabo15:3, 12), on the boundary of Media and

Page 78: Ezra 4 commentary

Persia; Rawlinson regards the Apharsachites as the Afar-Sittaces, according to the inscriptions, and the Apharsachites as the Afar-Sacæ (comp. Rœd. in Gesen. Thes, app. p107). [But in his Com, in loco, Rawlinson regards these two names as only variations of the third form Apharsites, all referring to the same people, the Persians.—Tr.].—The Tarpelites remind us of the τάπουροι (Ptol. VI:2, 6) dwelling on the East of Elymais.[F5] The Apharsites are identified with the Persians, whose name is here provided with א prosthetic; Hiller (Onom. p655) thought of the Parrhasians in Eastern Media. The Archevites had their name probably from  אר ( Genesis 10:10), Arku in the inscriptions, the present Warka on the left bank of the Euphrates, southeast of Babylon (comp. Schrad. I. c, S18). The Babylonians are the inhabitants of Babylon, the Susanchites those of Susa, the Dehavites (Qeriרהיא), the ∆άοι of the Greeks (Herod. I:125), the Elamites, those of Elam or Elymais.

PETT, "Ezra 4:9-10

‘Then (wrote) Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions (colleagues), the Dinaites, and the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar brought over, and set in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River.’This would appear to be the preamble to the letter, a kind of official heading describing who were responsible for its contents. It would head up the letter, and is typical of Aramaic correspondence at the time.

‘Then.’ The word stands on its own and we might expect it to be followed by a verb like ‘wrote’. It may here, however, simply stand on its own and signify ‘this is the result’ or ‘as follows’.

Those responsible for the letter are then described. The names that follow Rehum and Shimshai are those of peoples who had been transported to the area by the Assyrians. They are here represented as having been transported by ‘the great and noble Os-napper’, (As-nipal as an abbreviation of Ashur-bani-pal, which is then revocalised, with r becoming l under Persian influence), but reference to such a transportation may have been a simplification (compare Ezra 4:2 where Esar-haddon was cited, presumably because those who led that deputation had been transported by Esar-haddon). A first transportation had taken place under Sargon II when the Israelites were replaced by peoples from Babylon, Cuthah, Avar, Hamath and Sepharvaim (2 Kings 17:24), and a further transportation both in and out had occurred under Esarhaddon (see Ezra 4:2). The Assyrians believed that by moving people around they could stop them from establishing roots, and thus becoming a danger. But we certainly do know that Ashur-bani-pal 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. It was continuing Assyrian policy. Thus the peoples described were what remained in the area after these different transportations, presented succintly as being transported by Ashur-bani-pal (they would not want to go into full detail).

Page 79: Ezra 4 commentary

‘The Dinaites.’ This can be repointed as meaning ‘the judges’ (there was no pointing in the ancient texts, only the consonants, so that it is not altering the original text). That would serve to bring out that the opposition was clearly high-powered. ‘And the Apharsathchites’. This may signify ‘the envoys’ or ‘the inspectors’. Thus two important groups of officials would be seen as adding their weight to the letter. It is an indication of how deep and widespread was the opposition to the Jews.

The names that follow are then listed without conjunctions, and are the names of peoples. ote among them the ‘Babylonians’ and ‘Elamites’, both well known from elsewhere. The aim is to bring out the widespread nature of the complainants. This was to be seen as no petty quarrel. All were to be seen as in agreement, and concerned for the welfare of the king as his noble subjects. Then comes the sweeping up statement, ‘and the rest of the nations’. By this time those ‘nations’ were a real mixture.

‘The great and noble Os-napper’. Os-napper is the Hebrew rendering of Ashur-bani-pal, and consists of As-nipal as an abbreviation of the name, which is then revocalised, with r becoming l under Persian influence. They wanted the king of Persia to know that they had never borne any grudge against their overlords, but rather respected and admired them, as, of course, they did him. They wanted him to think that they saw Ashur-bani-pal (Os-napper) as ‘great and noble’, implying by that, that that was also how as they saw the present king of Persia.

‘And set in the city of Samaria, and in the rest (of the land) beyond the River.’ These peoples had been set in Samaria and in the land west and south of the Euphrates. ‘Beyond the River’ was the name given to these lands which included Syria and Palestine. They were controlled by a Persian satrap, who was also at one stage satrap of Babylon, to whom the various ‘governors’ were responsible.

10 and the other people whom the great and honorable Ashurbanipal [12] deported and settled in the city of Samaria and elsewhere in Trans-Euphrates.

Page 80: Ezra 4 commentary

BARES, "Ezr_4:10

A snapper was perhaps the official employed by Esar-haddon Ezr_4:2 to settle the colonists in their new country.

On this side the river - literally, “beyond the river,” a phrase used of Palestine by Ezra, Nehemiah, and in the Book of Kings, as designating the region west of the Euphrates.

And at such a time - Rather, “and so forth.” The phrase is vague, nearly equivalent to the modern use of et cetaera. It recurs in marginal references.

CLARKE, "The great and noble Asnapper - Whether this was Shalmaneser, or Esar-haddon, or some other person, learned men and chronologists are not agreed. The Syriac terms him Asphid; but of this person we know no more than we do of Asnapper. He might have been the military officer who was appointed to escort this people to Judea.

GILL, "And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnappar brought over,.... The river Euphrates:

and set in the cities of Samaria; placed there in the room of the Israelites carried captive; this Asnappar was, according to Jarchi and others (l) Sennacherib; but, with Grotius, Shalmaneser; rather he was Esarhaddon, the son of the former, and grandson of the latter; so Dr. Prideaux (m); though he might be only some commander of the Assyrian monarch, who carried them over by his orders:

and the rest that are on this side the river; the river Euphrates:

and at such a time; which may respect the date of the letter, which, no doubt, was expressed, though not here given; or this, as some think, was the same with our &c. something following, unto King Artaxerxes greeting, or something like that; though David de Pomis (n) takes it to be the general name of the people beyond the river.

BESO, "Ezra 4:10. Whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over — Some take Asnapper to be another name for Shalmaneser, or for Esar-haddon, who sent these colonies hither. But it is more reasonable to think he was some great commander, or other person of eminence, who was appointed captain of this colony, and intrusted with the office of conducting them over the river Euphrates, and seeing them settled in these countries.

COKE, "Verse 10Ver. 10. The great and noble Asnapper— Grotius supposes, that Asnapper is another name for Salmanasar, or Ezar-haddon, who sent these colonies hither; but it is more probable, that he was some principal commander, who was intrusted by one or both of those kings to conduct them over the Euphrates, and see them settled in those countries. See Bishop Patrick. Instead of at such a time, in this, the 11th, 12th, and 17th verses, Houbigant, after the Vulgate, reads, dicunt salutem, send

Page 81: Ezra 4 commentary

health, or greeting.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:10 And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnappar brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest [that are] on this side the river, and at such a time.

Ver. 10. The great and noble Asnapper] Some great commander under the Assyrian monarch. There is, they say, a greatness belluine, and a greatness genuine. Asnapper, notwithstanding his big-swollen titles, might be rather great than good; and more notable than noble, obilitas sola est atque unica virtus (Juvenal).

On this side the river] That ancient river, the river Euphrates, which the more I see the more I admire, saith one.

WHEDO, "10. The great and noble Asnapper — Some have supposed that Asnapper is another name, or another form of the name, of Shalmanezer, or of Esar-haddon, and such a supposition is especially plausible here, as the name occurs in a document written in a different language, in which the form of the name might suffer change. But it is, perhaps, better to understand the name as the title of the Assyrian general or satrap by whom these nations were brought over and settled in Samaria. Thus it was Esar-haddon’s “captains” that carried Manasseh to Babylon. 2 Chronicles 33:11. To such an officer these nations would naturally apply the epithets great and noble.

On this side the river — Better, beyond the river, that is Euphrates. The writer employs the usus loquendi of the Persians, who would speak of the country west of the Euphrates as beyond the river. Furst renders it, the (western) bank district of the river. Syria and Palestine probably formed one satrapy under the Persian kings, and was under the charge of one governor. Compare Ezra 5:3, note.

And at such a time — Chald. וכענת, and so forth; compare Ezra 4:11 ; Ezra 4:17; Ezra 7:12 : a sort of abbreviation where certain items or forms of statement are assumed to be understood, and, therefore, not expressed, but simply indicated. Hence it indicates not the date of the letter, but the omission of certain formularies of introduction, and is equivalent to our et cetera — and so forth.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:10. And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over.—Since the author adds these words as a summing up, it is clear that he could not or would not enumerate all in detail, that he would represent them as all taking part together, and indeed not only so far as they dwelt in Samaria, but further than this also those in the other lands on this side of the river.—Thus did all these colonists here act in common, even those who dwelt as it were in Phœnicia and Syria, because they perhaps under all circumstances as foreigners over against the natives felt themselves united by the bond of a common situation, because they perhaps all feared also for their territory, if the Jews should

Page 82: Ezra 4 commentary

grow into a power, upon which the Israelites dwelling at a greater distance round about might lean. Since here all the colonists are to be mentioned in entirely general terms, we cannot regard it as singular that at this time on the one side entirely different names are mentioned from those in 2 Kings 17:24, where only those transported to Samaria are mentioned, that moreover on the other side the Samaritan nations are not so particularly mentioned as in that passage, where instead of the Babylonians in general, people from Babylon, Cuthah, etc., are named. Asnapper here might be regarded as another name of Esar-haddon, in Ezra 4:2, and indeed the more as we here have a Chaldee document; yet the supposition of different names for one and the same person is ever a doubtful one. It is not suitable, however, to understand thereby the commander-in-chief of Esar-Haddon [Rawlinson], for the epith. orn. “great and noble” are in favor of a king, although the title of king is not expressly added. It is probable therefore that a mutilation of the name Esar-Haddon has taken place.[F6] After the designation of the place: in the city of Samaria, the following ושאר, etc., may also be merely a designation of place; accordingly the ב, which is before קריה is to be supplied before it, and שאר is to be taken as neuter of the land or places. עבר־נהרה, on that side of the river, of the land to the west of the Euphrates, is explained as a now universally prevailing geographical expression. וכענת contracted into כעת (comp. Ezra 4:17) = etc., or “the like.” Perhaps the author himself already placed this expression of abbreviation at the introduction of the letter, in order to indicate that still other designations of lands are to be thought of as a matter of course; perhaps, however, it is derived from the author of our book, who would not copy that which was to be understood of itself.

11 (This is a copy of the letter they sent him.) To King Artaxerxes, From your servants, the men of Trans-Euphrates:

CLARKE, "And at such a time - The word וכענת ucheeneth has greatly perplexed all commentators and critics. The versions give us no light; and the Vulgate translates it et dicunt salutem, “and they wish prosperity.” Some translate it and so forth; and our translators supposed that it referred to the date, which however is not specified, and

Page 83: Ezra 4 commentary

might have been as easily entered as the words and at such a time.

In our first translation of the Bible, that by Coverdale, in 1535, the passage stands thus: “And other on this syde the water, and in Canaan.”

In that by Becke, 1549, it is thus: “And other on this syde the water, and in Ceneeth:” and in the margin he enters “or peace,” “or health.” In Cardmarden’s Bible, printed at Rouen, 1566, it stands thus: “And other that are nowe on thys syde the water.” In that printed by Barker, 1615, we find the text thus: “And Other that are beyond the river, and Cheeneth;” on which is the following marginal note: “To wit, Euphrates: and he meaneth in respect of Babel, that they dwelt beyond it.” And the note on Cheeneth is, “Which were a certain people that envied the Jews.” All this is merely guessing, in the midst of

obscurity; most of these having considered the original word כענת Ceeneth as the name

of a people; and in this they follow the Syriac, which uses the word Acaneth.

Calmet thinks we should read ובעת ubaeth, “and at this time;” as if they had said, “We

wish thee to enjoy the same health and prosperity at all future times, which thou dost at present.” This is not remote from the meaning of the Chaldee original.

GILL, "This is the copy of the letter they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king,.... Which Ezra brought with him from Babylon, and is contained in the five following verses:

thy servants the men on this side the river, and at such a time; this was the inscription of the letter, or the beginning of it.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:11 This [is] the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, [even] unto Artaxerxes the king; Thy servants the men on this side the river, and at such a time.

Ver. 11. Thy servants] ot thy subjects only, but thine officers.

WHEDO, "11. This is the copy — After this verse (Ezra 4:12-16) we seem to have an exact transcript of the substance of the letter that they sent. What precedes in Ezra 4:9-10 was a sort of paraphrase of the introduction to the letter. See note on Ezra 4:8.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:11. These are the contents of the letter which they sent.—Here we have at once announced in the first half of the verse the contents of the letter. It seems that already the beginning of the letter itself was used for this announcement, since it was certainly the style for the letter-writer to designate more closely in a superscription as well himself—which is now no longer the case here—as also the receiver of the letter. For only from such superscriptions can it be explained how at the beginning of every letter in our book almost the same formula occurs, comp. Ezra 4:17; Ezra 5:6; Ezra 7:11.—פרשגן, in the book of Esther thrice פתשגן, which two forms are likewise used interchangeably in the Targums, is translated by many after the Sept, Vulg, which, however, are not uniform in their usage, and the rabbin. interpreters as copy [so A. V.]. But very properly Benfey (Monatsnamen, p 193 sq.)

Page 84: Ezra 4 commentary

rendered this meaning doubtful. In Ezra 4:23 it does not suit, since the Persian officers had not received a copy, but the letter itself; and it is no more appropriate to Esther 3:14; Esther 8:13, and in Esther 4:8 another meaning suits at least as well. Accordingly the word seems to have rather the meaning of contents, as then indeed the Vulg. in Esther 3:14 has rendered it summa. Gildermeister (D. M. Zeitschr. IV, S210) and Haug (Ewald’s bibl. Jahrb. V, S 163 sq.) conjectures in the syllable פר the Persian fra, the Sanscrit pra=πρό, Proverbs, the new Persian far, in the corresponding פת the Zend paiti (Sanscrit prati) =προτί and ποτί, πρός; in שגן a word like çenghana, old Persian thanhana, from cenghdicere, prædicare.—In the second half of the verse, the letter begins: thy servants, the men on this side of the river, etc.—Here also there has been left off what usually stands at the beginning of a letter; the sense is: thy servants wish thee, O king, peace, comp. Ezra 4:17. Alongside of the form of the Qeri,  עבר, that of the Kethib, עבדי, is also justified.

PETT, "Ezra 4:11

‘And now this is the copy of the letter which they sent to Artaxerxes the king.’These word introduce the main body of the letter. It is by these words written here in Ezra 4:11 a that the main body of the letter is distinguished from the preamble.

Ezra 4:11

“Your servants the men beyond the River.”The preamble having provided the full details the opening address can be made in a few words. All the kings subjects were seen as his ‘servants’ from the greatest to the least, and they want him to know that it is as his ‘servants’ that they are writing. The aim will now be to demonstrate to the king how dangerous the returnees are. We must recognise that the details that we know would not be known to the king. All he would have to go on was past records and the advice passed on to him by these officials who represented a seemingly formidable group.

12 The king should know that the Jews 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.

Page 85: Ezra 4 commentary

GILL, "Be it known unto the king,.... The intent of this letter was, that it might be known to the king what follows:

that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem; this they observe partly out of contempt of the Jews, having been lately captive in Babylon, and partly to insinuate what ingratitude they were guilty of; that having got their liberty, and come to Jerusalem, they made use of it to the king's detriment:

building the rebellious and the bad city; as they suggest it had been to kings, even his predecessors, in former times, Ezr_4:15

and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations; which was a falsehood; for the most they had done was setting up the walls of their houses in Jerusalem, and laying the foundation of the temple; as for the walls of the city, they had not as yet done anything unto them.

JAMISO, "the Jews which came up from thee to us— The name “Jews” was generally used after the return from the captivity, because the returning exiles belonged chiefly to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Although the edict of Cyrus permitted all who chose to return, a permission of which some of the Israelites availed themselves, the great body who went to settle in Judea were the men of Judah.

K&D 12-16, "Ezr_4:12-16

The letter. Ezr_4:12 “Be it known unto the king.” On the form להוא for יהוא, peculiar to biblical Chaldee, see remarks on Dan_2:20. “Which are come up from thee,” i.e., from the territory where thou art tarrying; in other words, from the country beyond Euphrates. This by no means leads to the inference, as Schrader supposes, that these

Jews had been transported from Babylon to Jerusalem by King Artachshasta. מלק

answers to the Hebrew עלה, and is used like this of the journey to Jerusalem. “Are come

to us, to Jerusalem,” עלינא, to us, that is, into the parts where we dwell, is more precisely

defined by the words “to Jerusalem.” “They are building the rebellious and bad city, and

are setting up its walls and digging its foundations.” Instead of מרד/א (with Kamets and

Metheg under )ר the edition of J. H. Mich. has מרד/א, answering to the stat. abs. מרדא,

Ezr_4:15; on the other hand, the edition of Norzi and several codices read מרד/א, the

feminine of מרוד. For אוש/א� Norzi has באיש/א, from יש�, a contraction of איש�. For אשכללו

must be read, according to the Keri, שכללו The Shaphel .שורZא means to ,'לל from שכלל

complete, to finish. א]ין, bases, foundations. יחיטו may be the imperf. Aphel of חוט,

formed after the example of י\ים for יקים, omitting the reduplication, חוט .יחיט means to

Page 86: Ezra 4 commentary

sew, to sew together, and may, like רפא, be understood of repairing walls or foundations.

But it is more likely to be the imperf. Aphel of חטט, in Syriac hat, and in the Talmud, to

dig, to dig out, fodit, excavavit - to dig out the foundations for the purpose of erecting new buildings.

BESO,"Ezra 4:12. And have set up the walls thereof — This was a mere calumny, for they had attempted no such thing as to build the walls of Jerusalem. They had indeed built some houses, without which the place could not be inhabited, and were now employed in erecting the walls of the temple: but they had not begun to encompass the city with walls, to defend it against the incursions of their enemies. This was not undertaken till long after. The assertion of the Samaritans, therefore, was without foundation. But being confidently affirmed, they thought it would be easily credited by the king, whose heart and ears they had contrived to possess by their counsellors.

COKE, "Verse 12Ver. 12. The Jews— After the return from the captivity, the people in general came to be called Jews, because, though there were many Israelites among them, yet they chiefly consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; and though the edict of Cyrus gave all permission to return when they pleased, yet the sacred writers take notice only of those who returned in a body.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:12 Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls [thereof], and joined the foundations.

Ver. 12. The rebellious and the bad city] After so many years doth Jerusalem rue one perfidious act of Zedekiah; and, having once been treacherous, it still hears, "The rebellious and bad city," as if it had been a very πονηροπολις, a professed sanctuary of roguery (as the Jesuits say of Geneva), and as Florus saith of the temple at Jerusalem, that it was impiae gentis arcanum.

And have set up the walls thereof] This was no less false than scandalous. But malice careth not how true the accusation is, but how mischievous.

And joined the foundations] Chald. sewed together. Or, rather these false informers had sewed a lie together with great art, that it might seem a truth, Psalms 119:69. The proud have forged a lie against me, assuunt mendacium mendacio, they have taught their tongues to speak lies, Jeremiah 9:5, and are artists at it.

WHEDO, "12. The Jews — This name came to be the common appellation of all Israelites after the exile. It was, doubtless, due to the permanence of the kingdom of Judah long after the northern kingdom of Israel had ceased, and to the fact that by far the greater portion of the exiles who returned were of the tribe and kingdom of

Page 87: Ezra 4 commentary

Judah.

The rebellious and the bad city — “In their craftiness they do not mention the temple which the Jews were building, and which Cyrus had encouraged them to build, but they mention the city, which they were not building.” — Wordsworth.

Set up the walls — It was perfectly in keeping with the character of these enemies of the Jews to misrepresent their work in this way. The exiles had received a royal charter permitting them to rebuild the temple, but not to rebuild the walls of the city. By confounding the two things these crafty Samaritans make out a damaging case against the Jews.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:12-16. The information given to the king: Be it known unto the king.—להוא for יהוא as להון for יהון and להוין for יהוין, Ezra 7:25-26; Daniel 2:20; Daniel 2:28-29; Daniel 2:45, etc. ל has in Bib. Chald, occasionally also in the Targums, more frequently in the Talmuds, vindicated itself as preformative like נ in Syriac. Comp. Zöck, Daniel 2:20.[F7]—That the Jews—unto us have come.—אתו, they have come, is certainly more closely defined by the following participle “building.” But yet it is singular that in the time of Artaxerxes there was still mention made of coming. It seems that the coming of the Jews, even after the time of Cyrus, still went on; with the close connection, which those who remained behind maintained with the returned (comp. Zechariah 6:9 sq.; ehemiah 1:2 sq.), this might indeed have been pre-supposed as a matter of course.—Building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations. דתא ,ר with metheg in the second syllable, and so with kametz under ,מרis hardly a correct reading. We should read either מרדתא (so orzi) with short o sound in the second syll. from the form מרוד, which occurs in the Targums, and is given by the Peschito—an intensive formation like Hebrew קנוא; or מרדתא (J. H. Mich.) as stat. emphat. of the stat. abs., מרדא (comp. Ezra 4:15). We must certainly prefer the Qeriושוריא שכללו to ושורי אשכללו. A similar false separation of words is found in 2 Samuel 11:12. שכלל is shaphel of כלל, and means to make ready. That the perf. שכללו should follow the part, is in historical narrative not unusual; here, however, it has its special reason perhaps in the fact that the Samaritans would co-ordinate this expression: and they have made the walls ready, to the first and principal statement (אתו), in order to bring it into suitable prominence. Besides they may be charged in all probability with a kind of exaggeration, even if the perfect was not meant to be taken strictly. If the Jews had now really brought the walls so near to completion, ehemiah would not have found them still under this same king in the condition described in ehemiah 2. Since they yet let an imperfect follow the perfect, they indicate of themselves, as it were involuntarily, that the work still continued; otherwise the transition to the imperfect would be without any reason. ,dig, dig out, which is also found in Syriac ,חטט might be the imperf. Aphel of יחיטוsince יחיט would be for יחט; to dig out the foundations would then be simply=make excavations for the foundations; it might, however, still easier be taken as imperf. Aphel of חוט, properly sew together, then heal, improve; alongside of יקים the sharper form יקים is to be maintained, after the analogy of which under the influence of the guttural we have יחיט.

Page 88: Ezra 4 commentary

PETT, "Ezra 4:12

“And now be it known to the king, that the Jews who came up from you are come to us to Jerusalem. They are building the rebellious and the bad city, and have finished the walls, and repaired the foundations.”They want the king to realise what ‘the Jews who came up from you’ are doing. ‘The Jews who came up from you’ probably refers to the group who had come with Ezra which would still be at the back of his memory. They wanted him to see this group as a group of rebels who, as soon as they were out of the king’s sight, determined on rebellion. It would not have been so convincing to represent as rebels people who had already been there for over fifty years without causing any trouble, but a people stirred up to religious zeal by a formidable person like Ezra was a different matter. The point being made is that these newcomers have immediately set about building and fortifying Jerusalem. (Their charge would have had no teeth if it was the building of the Temple that was in mind).

ote their description of Jerusalem as ‘the rebellious and the bad city’. They wanted it immediately to have a tainted reputation. ‘And have finished the walls and repaired the foundation.’ This was no doubt an exaggeration. The reference to the repair of the foundations, would appear to indicate that the work on the walls was still going on, but they were far from finished, and it was, of course, due to behaviour like theirs that the walls were needed. It was they and their associates who threatened the peace of the people of Judah, not the other way round. We can compare with this the dangers from outside attack that ehemiah would have to face when he rebuilt the walls, even though that was specifically under the authorisation of the king.

Their accusations would have been reinforced by the fact that the Persians had been experiencing trouble from the region. Ezra and his party had arrived in 458 BC. In 448 BC Megabyzus, the satrap of the province Beyond The River, raised up a revolt against Persia. If these people who were writing the letter, who may not have been involved in that rebellion, could give the impression that Jerusalem was intending to join in this revolt, it would clearly add emphasis to their letter. There was also trouble in Egypt which had been going on for some years, and was not finally put down until 454 B, four years after the arrival of Ezra. Jerusalem would be known from Babylonian records as often causing trouble in collusion with Egypt. In both cases tribute would have been withheld. Thus to a king ruling far away in Persia, who was uneasy about the region, any seemingly warlike act could have been seen as a danger.

Page 89: Ezra 4 commentary

13 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 the royal revenues will suffer.

BARES, "Toll, tribute, and custom - Rather, “tribute, provision, and toll” (so Ezr_4:20). The “tribute” is the money-tax imposed on each province, and apportioned to the inhabitants by the local authorities; the “provision” is the payment in kind, which was an integral part of the Persian system; the “tolI” is probably a payment required from those who used the Persian highways.

The revenue - The word thus translated is not found elsewhere, and can only be conjecturally interpreted. Modern commentators regard it as an adverb, meaning “at last,” or “in the end,” and translate, “And so at last shall damage be done to the kings.”

CLARKE, "Toll, tribute, and custom - The first term is supposed to imply the capitation tax; the second, an excise on commodities and merchandise; the third, a sort of land tax. Others suppose the first means a property tax; the second, a poll tax; and the third, what was paid on imports and exports. In a word, if you permit these people to rebuild and fortify their city, they will soon set you at naught, and pay you no kind of tribute.

GILL, "Be it known now unto the king,.... And let it be seriously and thoroughly considered by him and his counsellors:

that if this city be builded, and its walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom; being able to defend themselves against the king's forces, sent to reduce them to their obedience; these three words take in all sorts of taxes and levies on persons, goods, and merchandise:

and so thou shall endamage the revenue of the kings; not only his own, but his successors':

this they thought would be a very strik

JAMISO, "toll, tribute, and custom— The first was a poll tax; the second was a property tax; the third the excise dues on articles of trade and merchandise. Their letter, and the edict that followed, commanding an immediate cessation of the work at the city walls, form the exclusive subject of narrative at Ezr_4:7-23. And now from this digression [the historian] returns at Ezr_4:24 to resume the thread of his narrative

Page 90: Ezra 4 commentary

concerning the building of the temple.

K&D, "Ezr_4:13

“Now be it known unto the king, that if this city be built up and ... they will not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and it (the city) will at last bring damage to the king.” The three

words (ה)בלו)והלךPמנ occur again, Ezr_4:20 and Ezr_7:24, in this combination as

designating the different kinds of imposts. הPמנ, with resolved Dagesh forte, for הPמ

(Ezr_4:20), signifies measure, then tax or custom measured to every one. לו�, probably a

duty on consumption, excise; (הלך, a toll paid upon roads by travellers and their goods.

The word הם:], which occurs only here, and has not been expressed by old translators,

depends upon the Pehlevi word אודום: it is connected with the Sanscrit apa, in the superl.

apama, and signifies at last, or in the future; comp. Haug, p. 156. מלכים, a Hebraized form

for מלכין, Ezr_4:15, is perhaps only an error of transcription.

BESO, "Ezra 4:13. Then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom — “By the first of these, Grotius understands that which every head paid to the king, and which we call poll-money; by the second, the excise, as we now speak, which was upon commodities and merchandise; and by the last, the land- tax.” — Dodd.

COKE, "Verse 13Ver. 13. Toll, tribute, and custom— By the first of these, מנדה mindah, Grotius understands that which every head paid to the king, and which we call poll-money; by the second, בלו belo, the excise, as we now call it, which was levied upon commodities and merchandize; and by the last, הלך halak, the land-tax. But Witsius, in his Miscell. part 2 is of opinion, that the first word rather signifies that part which every man paid out of his estate, according as it was valued; the second, that which was paid for every head; and the third, that which was paid upon the highway by every traveller who went about the country with any kind of merchandize.

REFLECTIOS.—1st, o sooner was Cyrus, the professed friend of the Jewish people, asleep in the grave, and Ahasuerus advanced to the throne of Persia, than the enemies of God's people determined to improve the opportunity. Happy were it, if the church's friends were as watchful to serve her interests, as her enemies are to do her mischief.

1. The general design was, to render them odious to the government, by representing them as a turbulent seditious people; and the vouchers for the accusation were, the Samaritan governors whom the king of Persia had appointed, backed and supported by all the colonies of different nations settled in Samaria. ote; (1.) Lying accusations are the lot of all God's people. (2.) When godliness is to be oppressed, subscriptions will not be wanting to support any charge, however

Page 91: Ezra 4 commentary

malicious or unjust. (3.) The many join in the general cry, usually without knowing why or wherefore.

2. The particulars of the letter are here recited, and show as much of the old serpent's cunning and malice as we might expect to find. [1.] To ingratiate themselves, and obtain the easier credit, they profess a high zeal for the king's honour, and deep gratitude for the maintenance or salaries which they received from him; and therefore they could not unconcerned see his government injured. ote; Pretended fears of danger to the state, are a common plea for the oppression of God's people. [2.] They brand the Jews as a people infamously disloyal; call Jerusalem the rebellious and bad city, which had in all times past been dangerous to kings and provinces; and, for the confirmation of their assertion, appeal to the records which contain Zedekiah's rebellion. ote; (1.) The enemies of God's people will not spare hard names; and the most are so easily influenced, that they conclude that a bad name must imply a bad thing. (2.) Dangerous designs are often imputed to God's people, when they of all others mean to be quiet in the land. (3.) If once an evil thing has been done by professors of religion an age ago, they are sure to have it laid at their door ever after, however much they disapprove and condemn it. (4.) When men desire occasion to stumble, the devil will not fail to supply them with it. [3.] They make a most lying report of the state of Jerusalem, and give a most malicious insinuation of the consequences: they declare that the walls of the city are set up, when it does not appear that a stone had been taken from the rubbish; that the temple alone engaged them; and that it was soon to be feared, there would be a general revolt of all the conquered provinces on this side the Euphrates, encouraged by the example of the Jews, to the dismembering of his kingdom, and the great loss of his revenue. ote; They who set their hearts against God's people hesitate not at lies; and, gross or improbable as they are, the world is always ready to swallow them.

2nd, God in wisdom sometimes permits innocence to be oppressed, and suffers the lying misrepresentations of the enemies of his people to prevail. But the day is coming when the lying lips shall be put to silence; and they who have loved as well as they who made a lie shall lie down together in the pit.

1. The king, without sending persons to the spot to make inquiry, credits the representations which his counsellors. who had been probably bribed, strenuously reported (for in a court what will not gold do?); and having found in the records Zedekiah's and Jehoiakim's struggle for liberty, and that former kings of Jerusalem had extended their dominions to the river Euphrates, he readily concludes that the danger was imminent, orders an immediate stop to be put to the building of the city, and appoints his governors in Samaria to see his orders executed. ote; It is difficult for kings, beset with courtiers and flatterers, to know the truth.

2. With delight and eagerness their enemies run to execute, yea to exceed their orders. They were only enjoined to cause the Jews to cease building the city, which was never begun; this, however, was easily construed to extend to the temple; and, having power on their side, there could be no resistance: thus the work continued at

Page 92: Ezra 4 commentary

a stand, till the second year of Darius Hystaspes. ote; (1.) othing gives greater pleasure to a carnal world, than the suppression of God's cause and truth. (2.) Patient submission under unjust oppression, is a hard lesson. (3.) Though for a while God permits wicked men and oppressors to ride over our heads, their triumphing is but for a moment.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:13 Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up [again, then] will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and [so] thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings.

Ver. 13. Be it known now unto the king] q.d. This is no light business, but of greatest importance; and, therefore, fit to be noted and noticed.

Then will they not pay toll, tribute, &c.] This is an old device of the devil and his imps, to represent God’s people to the world as anti-magistratical, and disturbers of the public peace. Thus they dealt by the primitive Christians, who were the emperors’ best subjects, and yielded them greatest respect and profit. Thus Francis, king of France, pretended and professed to the princes of Germany, whose friendship he desired, that he pursued the Lutherans with fire and sword, for no other cause but for that they were levellers, and enemies to civil government. This drew from Calvin, who was then but twenty-five years of age, that golden book of his, Institutions of Christian Religion, to free the Reformed Churches of that slur and slander. The like was suggested by the Arminians in the Low Countries, and by the Episcopal party here. It was in Tacitus’s time, unum crimen eorum qui crimine vacabant, the only fault of such as were indeed without fault.

And so thou shalt endamage the revenue] Diminish the annual revenues of the crown, which are well called the king’s strength here, because if these fail little good can be done, either at home or abroad, Henry, king of avarre (afterwards king of France), was wont to say, that he was a husband without a wife, a soldier without money, and a king without a kingdom. What would the king of Spain’s greatness soon come to were it not for his yearly incomes, his mines of America?

PETT, "Ezra 4:13

“Be it known now to the king, that, if this city is built, and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or rent, and in the end it will be hurtful to the kings.”They fed the king’s fears by pointing out that if the people of Jerusalem were allowed to make themselves secure by completing the defences, (thereby giving a clear indication that the walls were not yet finished), their next step would be to withhold ‘tribute, customs duties and rent’ (these are loan words from Akkadian and their exact equivalent is not known). And this would obviously be hurtful to the wellbeing and wealth of all future kings. The accumulation of wealth was one of the reasons for establishing an empire.

Page 93: Ezra 4 commentary

WHEDO, "13. Toll, tribute, and custom — Comprising all kinds of revenue. It is difficult to decide the precise import of each term. Following the etymology of the original words used, we may say that toll ( מנדה ) denotes some tax or portion measured out, an assessment; probably a poll tax. Tribute ( בלו ) comes from a root which signifies to consume, to use up. Hence Furst defines it as a tax on articles consumed; excise. Custom (  הל ) from the root which means to walk, or travel, may denote a sort of road tax or toll levied on travellers or caravans who passed over the public roads.

PARKER, ""Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings " ( Ezra 4:13).

These were the men who offered in the second verse to assist in the building of this very city! How double some men are! How infinitely plural are other men! How many faces have some persons—more faces than there are days in the year! Who could have supposed that the second and thirteenth verses could have been in the same chapter? Who can estimate the vagaries of inconsistency, or trace the policy of venality, turpitude, and self-seeking? Was this appeal ever made again in sacred history? Can we recall an instance in the ew Testament kindred to this? There should be no difficulty in quoting such an instance. Surely this is it: "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar"s friend"; and an appeal of that kind to a priest who only simulates his royalty, or to a procurator who has no knowledge of the real points in dispute, is likely to tell: the king says, I must be careful about toll, tribute, and custom; and particularly careful as other kings are coming after me, and I must not impoverish them;—and the procurator would say, Caesar must be honoured whoever goes down: crucify as many people as you please, only do not accuse me of disloyalty or high treason: I am Caesar"s friend; you can take what course you like. Such talk is even now in vogue. Anybody may go down, provided we keep up one particular phase of loyalty and consistency. Men are appealing to us saying, If this be done your sectarianism will be put an end to: if this action be completed, then all the devils in perdition will be let loose upon the land, and nothing but black ruin will stare the nation in the face; if you pursue this policy or that, then you are not Caesar"s friend. o matter how the appeal comes, it does come; we cannot always say, It will come in this form or come in that; but it would seem as if there was always a force at the heart, saying, If you do this, you will be disloyal, untrue; you will give false impressions to other people, and you will be involved in large collateral mischief. Always there comes from the blackness a messenger tapping at the door of our fear and saying, Let me in to tell thee that if thou dost thus, or Song of Solomon , or otherwise, great issues of an unpleasant character will certainly eventuate. What is the cure for all this? Inward conviction; solid purpose; a mind made up at the altar: then go straight forward, never being turned back by thunder, lightning, and rain, or by any form and measure of tempest, always pressing the waves, defying the enemy, and singing as we toil up the mountain.

For a time the bad Samaritans and the simulating priest succeeded. In the twenty-

Page 94: Ezra 4 commentary

third verse we find that the men who went up to build the house of God were made "to cease by force and power." A pitiable record! Has it come, then, to a mere question of competitive muscle? The men were not made to cease because their convictions changed; they were overpowered, they were outnumbered; it was a triumph of brute strength. They never gave in so long as they could lift a hand, but when the foe was too many and too strong, then for some two years they ceased to build. But they were building all the time in their hearts; the purpose of building was never surrendered. So it must be with us: our trade has gone down, our friends have cooled, the patronage that used to encourage us has been withdrawn, the enemy is very strong, the competition is overwhelming, and for a time we must give up: but, blessed be God, only for a time: Haggai the prophet is soon coming, and Zechariah , and when the right prophets come mind will triumph over matter, a sound doctrine will depose a rotten policy, and holy consecrated speech shall make men"s blood tingle with unexpected and uncalculated life, which, being properly regulated and set to work, shall yet see the house of God reared, roofed, completed, and shining like a light at midnight. Blessed are they who have part in such services! The discouragements are very many; sometimes our tears blind us; sometimes our hearts grow cold within us through very discouragement, and we say we have been victimised by a fanaticism, we have mistaken our vocation, we were not called to this ministry at all. The Holy Book seems to be inverted when we read it, so that we cannot make coherence or poetry of it; and the very altar seems to dissolve in ashes when we bow before it that we may pray; bad men have all their own way; the devil succeeds, he is rich, and he seems to lay his avaricious hands upon all things: let us give up. Then comes a voice, saying, o: ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin; look unto Jesus, the author and finisher of faith; put your trust in the living God; they that be for you are more than all that can be against you,—wait; sorrow may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning: men go forth sowing, bearing precious seed, and they come again bearing sheaves, rejoicing and shouting for very gladness of heart—hope: night cometh truly, but also the morning. What a morning when heaven dawns!

14 ow 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,

Page 95: Ezra 4 commentary

BARES, "We have maintenance - See the margin. The phrase “to eat a man’s salt” is common in the East to this day; and is applied not only to those who receive salaries, but to all who obtain their subsistence by means of another. The Persian satraps had no salaries, but taxed their provinces for the support of themselves and their courts.

CLARKE, "Now because we have maintenance from the king’s palace -More literally: Now because at all times we are salted with the salt of the palace; i.e., We live on the king’s bounty, and must be faithful to our benefactor. Salt was used as the emblem of an incorruptible covenant; and those who ate bread and salt together were considered as having entered into a very solemn covenant. These hypocrites intimated that they felt their conscience bound by the league between them and the king; and therefore could not conscientiously see any thing going on that was likely to turn to the king’s damage. They were probably also persons in the pay of the Persian king.

GILL, "Now because we have maintenance from the king's palace,.... Have posts under the king, to which salaries were annexed, by which they were supported, and which they had from the king's exchequer; or "salt" (o), as in the original, some places of honour and trust formerly being paid in salt; hence, as Pliny (p) observes, such honours and rewards were called "salaries":

and it was not meet for us to see the king's dishonour; to see any thing done injurious to his crown and dignity, to his honour and revenues, when we are supported by him; this would be ungrateful as well as unjust:

therefore have we sent and certified the king; of the truth of what is before related; and, for the further confirmation of it, refer him to the ancient records of the kingdom, as follows.

HERY, "A copy of the letter itself, which Ezra inserts here out of the records of the kingdom of Persia, into which it had been entered; and it is well we have it, that we may see whence the like methods, still taken to expose good people and baffle good designs, are copied.

1. They represent themselves as very loyal to the government, and greatly concerned for the honour and interest of it, and would have it thought that the king had no such loving faithful subjects in all his dominions as they were, none so sensible of their obligations to him, Ezr_4:14. Because we are salted with the salt of the palace (so it is in the margin), “we have our salary from the court, and could no more live without it than flesh could be preserved without salt;” or, as some think, their pay or pension was sent them in salt; or “Because we had our education in the palace, and were brought up at the king's table,” as we find, Dan_1:5. These were those whom he intended to prefer; they did eat their portion of the king's meat. “Now, in consideration of this, it is not meet for us to see the king's dishonour;” and therefore they urge him to stop the building of the temple, which would certainly be the king's dishonour more than any thing else. Note, A

Page 96: Ezra 4 commentary

secret enmity to Christ and his gospel is often gilded over with a pretended affection to Caesar and his power. The Jews hated the Roman government, and yet, to serve a turn, could cry, We have no king but Caesar. But (to allude to this), if those that lived upon the crown thought themselves bound in gratitude thus to support the interest of it, much more reason have we thus to argue ourselves into a pious concern for God's honour; we have our maintenance from the God of heaven and are salted with his salt, live upon his bounty and are the care of his providence; and therefore it is not meet for us to see his dishonour without resenting it and doing what we can to prevent it.

JAMISO, "we have maintenance from the king’s palace— literally, “we are salted with the salt of the palace.” “Eating a prince’s salt” is an Oriental phrase, equivalent to “receiving maintenance from him.”

K&D, "Ezr_4:14

“Now, because we eat the salt of the palace, and it does not become us to see the

damage of the king, we send (this letter) and make known to the king.” מלח to salt ,מלחsalt = to eat salt. To eat the salt of the palace is a figurative expression for: to be in the king's pay. See this interpretation vindicated from the Syriac and Persian in Gesen. thes. p. 790.

(Note: Luther, in translating “all we who destroyed the temple,” follows the Rabbis, who, from the custom of scattering salt upon destroyed places, Jdg_9:45,

understood these words as an expression figurative of destruction, and היכלא as the temple.)

participle of ,אריך) .deprivation, emptying, here injury to the royal power or revenue ,ערוה

.means fitting, becoming ,ערך) answering to the Hebrew ,ארך)

BESO, "Ezra 4:14. ow because we have maintenance from the king’s palace —In the Hebrew it is, we are salted with the salt of the palace. That is, are sustained by the king’s munificence, or have a salary from him, as Junius translates it. In ancient times, it appears, it was usual to allow those who had deserved well, and on that account were honourably provided for at the king’s charge, among other things, a daily quantity of salt; it being a thing very necessary in human life. Locke, however, who translates the clause, we have eaten of the king’s salt, understands the meaning to be, “We have engaged ourselves in a covenant of friendship with him.” It was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour — Thus they represent themselves as very loyal to the government, and mightily concerned for the honour and interest of it; and hence they urge the king to put a stop to the building of the city and temple of Jerusalem, as what would certainly be to his loss and dishonour.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:14 ow because we have maintenance from [the king’s] palace, and it was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king;

Ver. 14. ow because we have maintenance from the king’s palace] Chaldee, are

Page 97: Ezra 4 commentary

salted with the salt of the palace, Salarium de regis palatio pereipimus, have our salary from the court, as Junius rendereth it. The great use of salt makes it here put for all kind of commodity; like as bread is called pants, as if it were το παν, the all and whole of our sustenance, Deuteronomy 8:3.

And it was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour] Chaldee, nakedness, privities, which uncovered, cause contempt, as it befell oah in his drunkenness; and the king of Spain, when by Queen Elizabeth proclaimed bankrupt.

Therefore have we sent and certified the king] As knowing that Beneficium postulat officium, Bounty commands duty. Ingratitude is a monster in nature, a solecism in good manners, &c. Lycurgus would make no law against it, because he held that none could be so unreasonable as to be guilty of it. Yet Alphonsus complained of his ungrateful courtiers; and so did Frederick III, emperor of Germany. Queen Elizabeth also said, that in trust she had oft found treason. That traitor Parry had vowed her death, although he had been condemned for burglary, and saved by her pardon (Speed)

WHEDO, "14. We have maintenance from the king’s palace — Omit the interpolation, kings, of the translators. This version gives the sense, but the margin gives the Chaldee more correctly: We are salted with the salt of the palace. To take or eat one’s salt is a common saying among many nations for receiving one’s living from another. Our word salary comes from the Latin word for salt, (sal,) and arose from the custom of paying Roman soldiers in salt. These Samaritans profess great zeal for the king, inasmuch as they obtained their living from him.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:14. ow because we have maintenance from the king’s palace.—The writers would here at any rate state a reason for the following statement, that it was not meet for them to see the injury of the king. The rabbinical explanation followed by Luther: “we all, who have destroyed the temple,” is therefore not recommended; besides we would then have to expect at least instead of: salt the salt of the temple, scatter salt on the temple, comp. Judges 9:45; Jeremiah 17:6; Isaiah 51:6. To salt the salt of any one probably means to live through any one’s bounty, perhaps pay, and therefore be obligated to him, stand in his service. Syriac and Persian expressions accord with this, comp. Gesen, Thes., p790. We may also compare salarium. Whether the writer as an official really received pay from the palace of the king, or speaks figuratively, we cannot say.[F is according ערות מלכא[8to the analogy of the Hebrews, ערות, the uncovering, not in the sense of deprivation, but of dishonoring; the Sept. has properly ἀσχηµοσύνη, whilst the Vulg. employs læsiones. It would be a dishonoring of a great king if the Jews should throw off their allegiance (refuse to fulfil their duties). ארי, also in the Talmud= appropriate, fitting, is connected with  ער, arrange.—Therefore have we sent, namely, this letter, and made known to the king, namely, the following.

PETT, "Ezra 4:14

Page 98: Ezra 4 commentary

“ow because we eat the salt of the palace (literally ‘because we have salted the salt of the palace’), and it is not fitting for us to see the king’s dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king,”They wanted the king to recognise that they had no ulterior motive for their actions, and that they were writing solely due to their deep sense of loyalty to the king because having partaken of the royal benefits, they had a deep sense of what was owed to the king. To eat of someone’s salt, that is to receive their hospitality, was in ancient times to seal friendship, and give an assurance of peaceful intent. To act dishonourably after partaking of hospitality was deeply frowned on. Thus the king could be sure that their friendship and loyal support was genuine. Indeed, they wanted him to know, that it was precisely because they had such a deep sense of loyalty to him, that they had written to the king and certified what was going on. This does not necessarily signify that they had actually enjoyed hospitality at the king’s palace, although some of the leaders may well have done so when taking tribute, but simply to give that impression and indicate that they saw the benefits that they received from the king as putting them in the same position. Their words were enough to warm the heart. Who could refuse to be grateful for such touching loyalty? It was, of course, mainly pure pretence, but if they had in fact refrained from taking part in a rebellion (see above), it would have added emphasis to their claim.

In MT the words are ‘since we have salted the salt of the palace’, and this, repointed without altering the consonants, could be translated, ‘since our salt is the salt of the palace’. Solemn pledges were often linked with salt (Leviticus 2:13; umbers 18:19; 2 Chronicles 13:5), thus alternatively they may be saying, ‘because we have made a solemn covenant with you’.

15 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 of rebellion from ancient times. That is why this city was destroyed.

BARES, "The book of the records - Compare Est_2:23; Est_6:1; Est_10:2. The

Page 99: Ezra 4 commentary

existence of such a “book” at the Persian court is attested also by Ctesias.

Of thy fathers - i. e., thy predecessors ripen the throne, Cambyses, Cyrus, etc. If Artaxerxes was the Pseudo-Smerdis (Ezr_4:7 note), these persons were not really his “fathers” or ancestors; but the writers of the letter could not venture to call the king an impostor.

CLARKE, "The book of the records of thy fathers - That is, the records of the Chaldeans, to whom the Persians succeeded.

GILL, "That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers,.... That is, his predecessors in the Babylonian monarchy; though, as the Medes and Persians were included in that, and joined the Babylonians in their wars with others, and particularly with the Jews, the records of the Medes and Persians might also be applied to:

so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time; against the king of Babylon, particularly in the times of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah:

HERY, " They represent the Jews as disloyal, and dangerous to the government, that Jerusalem was the rebellious and bad city (Ezr_4:12), hurtful to kings and provinces, Ezr_4:15. See how Jerusalem, the joy of the whole earth (Psa_48:2), is here reproached as the scandal of the whole earth. The enemies of the church could not do the bad things they design against it if they did not first give it a bad name. Jerusalem had been a loyal city to its rightful princes, and its present inhabitants were as well affected to the king and his government as any of his provinces whatsoever. Daniel, who was a Jew, had lately approved himself so faithful to his prince that his worst enemies could find no fault in his management, Dan_6:4. But thus was Elijah most unjustly charged with troubling Israel, the apostles with turning the world upside down, and Christ himself with perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar; and we must not think it strange if the same game be still played. Now here,

(1.) Their history of what was past was invidious, that within this city sedition had been moved of old time, and, for that cause, it was destroyed, Ezr_4:15. It cannot be denied but that there was some colour given for this suggestion by the attempts of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah to shake off the yoke of the king of Babylon, which, if they had kept close to their religion and the temple they were now rebuilding, they would never have come under. But it must be considered, [1.] That they were themselves, and their ancestors, sovereign princes, and their efforts to recover their rights, if there had not been in them the violation of an oath, for aught I know, would have been justifiable, and successful too, had they taken the right method and made their peace with God first. [2.] Though these Jews, and their princes, had been guilty of rebellion, yet it was unjust therefore to fasten this as an indelible brand upon this city, as if that must for ever after go under the name of the rebellious and bad city. The Jews, in their captivity, had given such specimens of good behaviour as were sufficient, with any reasonable men, to roll away that one reproach; for they were instructed (and we have reason to hope that they observed their instructions) to seek the peace of the city where they were captives and

Page 100: Ezra 4 commentary

pray to the Lord for it, Jer_29:7. It was therefore very unfair, though not uncommon, thus to impute the iniquity of the fathers to the children.

K&D, "Ezr_4:15

“That search may be made in the book of the chronicles of thy fathers, so shalt thou find in the book of the Chronicles that this city has been a rebellious city, and hurtful to kings and countries, and that they have from of old stirred up sedition within it, on

which account this city was (also) destroyed.” יב\ר is used impersonally: let one seek, let

search be made. אZכרנP book of records, is the public royal chronicle in which the ,ספר

chief events of the history of the realm were recorded, called Est_6:1 the book of the records of daily events. Thy fathers are the predecessors of the king, i.e., his predecessors in government; therefore not merely the Median and Persian, but the Chaldean and Assyrian kings, to whose dominions the Persian monarchs had succeeded.

עלמא .rebellion ,שדר a verbal noun from the Ithpeal of ,אש/Pור יומת from the days of ,מן

eternity, i.e., from time immemorial. יומת is in the constructive state, plural, formed from

the singular יומא. This form occurs only here and Ezr_4:19, but is analogous with the

Hebrew poetical form ימות for ימים.

BESO, "Ezra 4:15. In the book of the records of thy fathers — That is, thy predecessors, the former emperors of this empire; namely, in the Assyrian and Babylonish records; which, together with the empire, were now in the hands of the Persian kings.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:15 That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city [is] a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city destroyed.

Ver. 15. In the book of the records] Chaldee, of the remembrances, that is, the chronicles usual in all kingdoms.

And know that this city is a rebellious city] {See Trapp on "Ezra 4:1"} {See Trapp on "Ezra 4:2"} Learn, that fidelity to governors is ever both safe and honourable. Zedekiah’s falsifying his oath to the king of Babylon, was the overthrow of that commonwealth. See what God himself saith, not without great indignation, Ezekiel 17:18, "Seeing he" (Zedekiah) "despised the oath by breaking the covenant, when, lo, he had given his hand, and hath done all these things, he shall not escape."

WHEDO, "15. Book of the records — Public and official annals of the kingdom, and of the acts of its kings, prepared by the scribes and recorders, and deposited for reference and use among the archives of the nation. See Introduction to the Books of Kings, (chapter on the sources.)

Of thy fathers — This word is here used of the king’s predecessors on the throne —

Page 101: Ezra 4 commentary

records of previous kings and dynasties that had held dominion over all Western Asia. These records contained accounts of the rebellions in different provinces of the empire, and of the efforts that had been made to suppress them; and prominent among them must have been the rebellions and wars of Judah and Jerusalem — the causes of their exile.

ELLICOTT, "(15) The book of the records of thy fathers.—“The book of the records of the Chronicles” which in Esther 6:1 is “read before the king.” This extended beyond his own fathers back to the times of the predecessors of the Median dynasty.

Of old time.—From the days of eternity, or time immemorial. The spirit of exaggeration if not of falsehood appears in every word here.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:15. That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers.—subj. of יבקר is he whose duty it is to search, the keeper of the archives, properly indef. subj.—דכרנה and דברונה (comp. Ezra 6:2) is the memorable occurrence from דבר=זבר . In Esther 6:1; this book is called more completely: the book of the memorable events of the day. The fathers of Artaxerxes are here his predecessors on the throne, and indeed including also those not Medo-Persian, especially the Chaldean, who in this connection come very particularly into consideration. For the rebellions that follow must mean above all those under Jehoiachim and Zedekiah. The manner of expression is properly explained from an inclination of the inhabitants of Western Asia to assume a connection of families between the dynasties that succeeded one another, but also from figurative language, which was all the more natural if Artaxerxes already had had many real ancestors for predecessors on the throne.—So shalt thou find.—These words may be taken as depending upon the verb make known in the previous verse, but yet really contains the consequence of the investigation. אשתדור is nom. verb, of Ithpaal of the verb שדר, uproar; it is found elsewhere only in Ezra 4:19. עבדין, they make (continually) uproar, indefin. subject, they make; in Ezra 4:19 there is made. מן יומת is also found in Syriac alongside of יומת from the days of old. The fem. form ,עלמאthe masc.; otherwise in Bib. Chald. the masc. יומי is used, as then in Heb. likewise the masc. is throughout the usual form, the fem. only occurring in poetry. With the clause: For which cause was this city destroyed, we certainly are to look back to the destruction of the city by ebuchadnezzar. החרבת is Hoph, which is used throughout in Bib. Chaldee for the Ittaphal.

PETT, "Ezra 4:15

“That search may be made in the book of the records of your fathers. So will you find in the book of the records, and know, that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful to kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time, which was the reason why this city was laid waste.”They then unleashed their masterstroke. Let the king examine the ancient records (the records of the kings of Babylon. The Persians saw themselves as continuing the Babylonian empire). He would soon discover that Jerusalem had constantly been a

Page 102: Ezra 4 commentary

rebellious city, and had caused damage to kings and provinces by their activity (especially in association with Egypt), and had been constantly involved in seditious activity. Indeed, that was the very reason why the walls of Jerusalem had been destroyed in the first place. And certainly history would have added some weight to their accusations, as three investments of Jerusalem would prove, but there was a huge difference between an established kingdom with its own army and a fierce sense of independence, and the motley group of returnees who were now in Jerusalem and rather had cause to be grateful to the kings of Persia, and were desperately seeking to protect themselves from the violent behaviour of the very people who had written the letter. The king, however, was not to know this. All he had to go on was past records, and a recognition of the instability of the region.

16 We inform the king that if this city is built and its walls are restored, you will be left with nothing in Trans-Euphrates.

GILL, "We certify the king, that if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up,.... As it formerly was, and now attempted, as they suggest:

by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river; the river Euphrates; intimating that the Jews would not only shake off his yoke, and refuse to pay tribute themselves, but would seize on all his dominions on that side the river, and annex them to their own.

HERY, "Their information concerning what was now doing was grossly false in matter of fact. Very careful they were to inform the king that the Jews had set up the walls of this city, nay, had finished them (so it is in the margin) and joined the foundations (Ezr_4:12), when this was far from being the case. They had only begun to build the temple, which Cyrus commanded them to do, but, as for the walls, there was nothing done nor designed towards the repair of them, as appears by the condition they were in many years after (Neh_1:3), all in ruins. What shall be given, and what done, to these false tongues, nay, which is worse, these false pens? sharp arrows, doubtless, of the mighty, and coals of juniper, Psa_120:3, Psa_120:4. If they had not been perfectly lost to all virtue and honour they would not, and if they had not been very secure of the king's countenance they durst not, have written that to the king which all their

Page 103: Ezra 4 commentary

neighbours knew to be a notorious lie. See Pro_29:12.

(3.) Their prognostics of the consequences were altogether groundless and absurd. They were very confident, and would have the king believe it upon their word, that if this city should be built, not only the Jews would pay no toll, tribute, or custom (Ezr_4:13), but (since a great lie is as soon spoken as a little one) that the king would have no portion at all on this side the river (Ezr_4:16), that all the countries on this side Euphrates would instantly revolt, drawn in to do so by their example; and, if the prince in possession should connive at this, he would wrong, not only himself, but his successors: Thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings. See how every line in this letter breathes both the subtlety and malice of the old serpent.

K&D, "Ezr_4:16

After thus casting suspicion upon the Jews as a seditious people, their adversaries bring the accusation, already raised at the beginning of the letter, to a climax, by saying that if Jerusalem is rebuilt and fortified, the king will lose his supremacy over the lands

on this side the river. נהP on this account, for this reason, that the present ,לקבלinhabitants of the fortified city Jerusalem are like its former inhabitants, thou wilt have no portion west of Euphrates, i.e., thou wilt have nothing more to do with the countries on this side the river-wilt forfeit thy sway over these districts.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:16 We certify the king that, if this city be builded [again], and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.

Ver. 16. We certify the king] They doubt not of audience, while they sang a song of Utile, which therefore they thus set on with more confidence than charity.

ELLICOTT, "(16) o portion on this side the river.—The same unscrupulous use of language: that is, if the river Euphrates is meant. In the days of Solomon, and once or twice subsequently, the Israelites had advanced towards the river, but it was not likely that they would ever do so again. The letter may, however, have been intended to suggest loosely that Jerusalem might become a centre of general disaffection.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:16. We certify the king, that if—by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.—The verse concludes with this inference and summing up. לקבל דנה=on this account, in consequence of this circumstance as in Daniel 2:12. They supposed that the fortified Jerusalem would not merely free itself from taxes, but also appropriate to itself all the territory on the west of the Euphrates, so that the great king would have nothing left, comp. Ecclesiastes 9:6; 2 Chronicles 10:16; Joshua 22:25; Joshua 22:27

PETT, "Ezra 4:16

“We certify to the king that, if this city be built, and the walls finished, by this means you will have no portion beyond the River.”The writers then underlined their point with a grim (and ridiculous) warning. If the city was built no one who lived in Beyond The River would be safe. With mighty

Page 104: Ezra 4 commentary

Jerusalem established the Persian empire might well find itself bereft of the province of Beyond The River. To any who know the facts such an idea was, of course, absurd. It was true that Egypt might well be a threat to the Empire with its struggle for independence. The rebellion of Megabyzus might also have been a potential danger. But little Jerusalem with its struggling immigrants was hardly in a position to affect either. They had no army, no chariots and no trained fighting men. That was why they wanted walls. The king, however, was not to know this.

The king could, of course have discovered all this by extensive enquiry, and perhaps he later did so. But for the present it was a simple matter just to make a quick check of the records and then to forbid the carrying on of the work. And that was what he did. Indeed, the fact that he stopped at that is evidence that he was not over duly concerned, simply being cautious lest there be any truth in it (it will be noted that he did not demand the dismantling of what had already been built).

17 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.

CLARKE, "Peace, and at such a time - The word וכעת ucheeth is like that which

we have already considered on Ezr_4:10, and probably has the same meaning.

GILL, "Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe,.... This affair, upon examination, being found to be of importance, the king of Persia thought fit to send an answer to the above letter, which was doing them an honour, and gave them the power and authority they wished to have:

and to the rest of their companions that dwelt in Samaria; in the kingdom, province, and cities of Samaria:

and unto the rest beyond the river; the river Euphrates, the rest of the nations

Page 105: Ezra 4 commentary

before mentioned, Ezr_4:9.

Peace, and at such a time: that is, all health and prosperity, &c.

K&D, "Ezr_4:17-22

The royal answer to this letter. ת�מא: - a word which has also passed into the Hebrew,

Ecc_8:11; Est_1:20 - is the Zend. patigama, properly that which is to take place, the

decree, the sentence; see on Dan_3:16. וש�ר עבר still depends upon (�: those dwelling in

Samaria and the other towns on this side the river. The royal letter begins with וכעת ,שלם

“Peace,” and so forth. עת' is abbreviated from ענת'.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:17 [Then] sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and [to] Shimshai the scribe, and [to] the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and [unto] the rest beyond the river, Peace, and at such a time.

Ver. 17. Peace, and at such a time] As the Latins saluting say, Ave, or Salve, the Greeks χαιρε, so the Hebrews and Syrians say, Shalom lach, that is, Peace be to thee (Hieron.). The Turks’ salutation at this day also is, Salaam aleek, the reply, Aleek Salaum, peace is a complexive blessing (Blount).

WHEDO, "17. An answer — The original word ( פתגם ) conveys the idea not only of an answer, but also of a decree: an edict.

Peace, and at such a time — Rather, peace, and so forth. This expression denotes that the customary formularies of introduction are omitted. See note on Ezra 4:11.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:17-22. The writers of the letter had manifestly desired to obtain by means of their information authoritative measures, authorizing them to restrain the Jews. These they obtained.—The king sent an edict—The abrupt way in which the letter of the king is mentioned may be explained from the fact that the same address as in Ezra 4:11 is here used, even if with slight differences. פתגמה from the Zend. patigama (modern Persian paigam, Armenian pattkam) is the command, and in this sense has even passed over into the Hebrew, comp. Ecclesiastes 8:11; Esther 1:20. At its root is the word paiti (πρός) and gam = go, accordingly=the approaching message (comp. Keil on Daniel 3:16). Moreover, comp. notes on Ezra 4:10.

PETT, "Ezra 4:17

‘Then sent the king an answer to Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions who dwell in Samaria, and in the rest of Beyond the River:’

Page 106: Ezra 4 commentary

We are now given a copy of the king’s reply. This would, of course, have been produced by the recipients as evidence that they were acting on behalf of the king. The reply is addressed to those who had sent the previous letter.

Ezra 4:17

“Peace.”A recognised form of greeting.

18 The letter you sent us has been read and translated in my presence.

BARES, "Hath been ... read - It is doubtful if the Persian monarchs could ordinarily read. At any rate, it was their habit to have documents read to them (compare Est_6:1). This is still the ordinary practice in Eastern courts.

GILL, "The letter which ye sent unto us,.... The plural number is used, being now become courtly for kings thus to speak of themselves:

hath been plainly before me; by such that understood both the Syrian and Persian languages; the letter was written in the Syrian language, and the king being a Persian, it was necessary it should be interpreted and explained to him.

K&D, "Ezr_4:18

“The letter which you sent to us has been plainly read before me.” מפרש part. pass.

Peal, corresponds with the Hebrew part. Piel מפרש, made plain, adverbially, plainly, and

does not signify “translated into Persian.”

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:18 The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.

Page 107: Ezra 4 commentary

Ver. 18. Hath been plainly read before us] This in the general was commendable; but he should have reserved (as Alexander used to do) ους αδιαβλητον, one ear free, and have heard both parties.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:18. The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.—מפרש, Pael part, passive, means here, since the Aramaic without doubt was chosen only because it was used at court, not translated, but explained, or adverbially, plainly, comp. the Pual part. in this sense in ehemiah 8:8, as then this word has the same meaning also in the Talmud.[F9]

19 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.

BARES, "The archives of the Babylonian kingdom would contain accounts of the insurrections raised, or threatened, by Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah 2Ki_24:1, 2Ki_24:10, 2Ki_24:20. It does not appear that there had ever been any rebellion against Persia.

CLARKE, "Hathmade insurrection against kings - How true is the proverb, “It is an easy thing to find a staff to beat a dog!” The struggles of the Israelites to preserve or regain their independency, which they had from God, are termed insurrection, rebellion, and sedition: because at last they fell under the power of their oppressors. Had they been successful in these struggles, such offensive words had never been used. In 1688 the people of England struggled to throw off an oppressive government, that was changing the times and the seasons, and overthrowing the religion of the country, and setting up in its place the spurious off-spring of popery and arbitrary government. They were successful; and it is called the Revolution: had they failed it would have been called rebellion; and the parties principally concerned would have been put to death.

GILL, "And I commanded, and search hath been made,.... In the records of his predecessors, whether Chaldeans or Persians:

Page 108: Ezra 4 commentary

and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein: and yet this could not be carried higher than to the times of Zedekiah and Jehoiakim, as before observed, which was not one hundred years ago, unless the rebellion of Hezekiah against the king of Assyria could be thought to be in these records, 2Ki_18:7, and yet from hence it is concluded as if in ages past they had been guilty of rebellion and sedition, and even always.

HERY 19-22, " The orders which the king of Persia gave, in answer to the information sent him by the Samaritans against the Jews. He suffered himself to be imposed upon by their fraud and falsehood, took no care to examine the allegations of their petition concerning that which the Jews were now doing, but took it for granted that the charge was true, and was very willing to gratify them with an order of council to stay proceedings. 1. He consulted the records concerning Jerusalem, and found that it had indeed rebelled against the king of Babylon, and therefore that it was, as they called it, a bad city (Ezr_4:19), and withal that in times past kings had reigned there, to whom all the countries on that side the river had been tributaries (Ezr_4:20), and that therefore there was danger that if ever they were able (which they were never likely to be) they would claim them again. Thus he says as they said, and pretends to give a reason for so doing. See the hard fate of princes, who must see and hear with other men's eyes and ears, and give judgment upon things as they are represented to them, though often represented falsely. God's judgment is always just because he sees things as they are, and it is according to truth. 2. He appointed these Samaritans to stop the building of the city immediately, till further orders should be given about it, Ezr_4:21, Ezr_4:22. Neither they, in their letter, nor he, in his order, make any mention of the temple, and the building of that, because both they and he knew that they had not only a permission, but a command, from Cyrus to rebuild that, which even these Samaritans had not the confidence to move for the repeal of. They spoke only of the city: “Let not that be built,” that is, as a city with walls and gates; “whatever you do, prevent that, lest damage grow to the hurt of the kings:” he would not that the crown should lose by his wearing it.

K&D, "Ezr_4:19

“And by me a command has been given, and search has been made; and it has been

found that this city from of old hath lifted itself (risen) up against kings,” etc. מתנ]א, lifted itself up rebelliously, as (in Hebrew) in 1Ki_1:5.

BESO, "Ezra 4:19-20. That rebellion and sedition have been found therein —One instance or two of it, in latter times, had served to fasten this odious character upon them, as if they had been always guilty of these crimes. There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem — And therefore the king thought it not advisable to permit them to go on with rebuilding the city, lest they should become powerful again.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:19 And I commanded, and search hath been made, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and [that] rebellion and sedition have been made therein.

Ver. 19. Hath made insurrection against kings] Chaldee, lift up itself against kings.

Page 109: Ezra 4 commentary

Pride is painted with a triple crown on her head; upon the first whereof is written Transcendo; , I ascend; upon the second, on obedio; , I disobey; upon the third, Perturbo. , I throw into confusion; Wat Tyler the rebel dared to say, that all the laws of England should come out of his mouth.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:19. And I commanded.—שים properly, Kal passive part.; in Bib. Chaldee is used instead of a tertia pers. praet. pass, accordingly, instead of the Ithpael (comp. Ezra 5:17; Daniel 4:3); moreover the Peil part, in Bib. Chald. usually gives a new preterite passive, and is for this purpose conjugated throughout with the afformatives of the verb. Alongside of שים, the form שום also occurs, in fem שומת, Daniel 6:18.—Search hath been made, and it is found that this city—hath made insurrection.—התנשא is here used as in 1 Kings 1:5 in Hebrew, of rising up in rebellion. Comp. Ezra 4:15.

20 Jerusalem has had powerful kings ruling over the whole of Trans-Euphrates, and taxes, tribute and duty were paid to them.

BARES, "Mighty kings ... - If this reference can scarcely have been to David or Solomon (see marginal reference), of whom neither the Babylonian nor the Assyrian archives would be likely to have had any account - it would probably be to Menahem 2Ki_15:16 and Josiah (2Ch_34:6-7; 2Ch_35:18).

CLARKE, "Beyond the river - That is, the Euphrates. Both David and Solomon carried their conquests beyond this river. See 2Sa_8:3, etc., and 1Ki_4:21, where it is said, Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river (Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines; and unto the borders of Egypt.

GILL, "There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all countries beyond the river,.... As David and Solomon; and the account of these they had in their records, see 2Sa_8:1

and toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them; as appears from the places

Page 110: Ezra 4 commentary

referred to; and this served to strengthen the insinuation made to the king, that if these people were suffered to go on building, he would lose his tribute and taxes in those parts.

K&D, "Ezr_4:20

“There have been powerful kings in Jerusalem, and (rulers) exercising dominion over the whole region beyond the river” (westward of Euphrates). This applies in its full extent only to David and Solomon, and in a less degree to subsequent kings of Israel and Judah. On Ezr_4:20, comp. Ezr_4:13.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:20 There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all [countries] beyond the river; and toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them.

Ver. 20. Beyond the river] Euphrates, the boundary of Solomon’s empire, 1 Kings 4:21; 1 Kings 4:24, as it was also promised, Genesis 15:18, Exodus 23:31, Deuteronomy 11:24, Joshua 1:4.

WHEDO, "20. Mighty kings also over Jerusalem — Reference is especially to Solomon, who reigned over all kingdoms between Egypt and the Euphrates, and received tribute from them. 1 Kings 4:21. David’s conquests had also extended to the Euphrates. 2 Samuel 8:3.

Toll, tribute, and custom — See on Ezra 4:13.

ELLICOTT, "(20) Mighty kings.—David and Solomon, and some few kings down to Josiah, had extended their sway and made nations tributary (2 Samuel 8; 1 Kings 10). The earlier kings’ names would perhaps be referred to historically, though not immediately connected with Persian annals.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:20. There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem which have ruled.—The reference is to Uzziah, Jotham, and perhaps David and Song of Solomon, if in any way a rumor of them had come to Babylon and to the Persians.[F10] Since these kings had subjugated the land to the west of the Euphrates, especially the territory of the Moabites and Ammonites and similar tribes, the suspicion was quite natural that Jerusalem would again strive for such a supremacy. ruling over all on that side of the :שליטין depends upon the previous כל before ב river. With reference to the following clause comp. Ezra 4:13.

PETT, "Ezra 4:20

“There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, who have ruled over all of Beyond the River, and tribute, customs duties, and rent, was paid to them.”This picture of a mighty kingdom receiving tribute, customs duties and rent may suggest that in the records was some memory of the great days of David and Solomon, for they alone could have been described as ‘ruling over all of Beyond the

Page 111: Ezra 4 commentary

River’, and indeed such a memory may have been conveyed by such men as Daniel who were high in the Babylonian, and then the Persian, hierarchy. But it might equally have been a rather exaggerated picture of the reign of kings like Hezekiah and Josiah. Either way the one time greatness of Jerusalem is brought out. The point behind the statement is that past kings of Jerusalem have indeed been mighty enough to trouble empires, reinforcing the idea of the danger that Jerusalem presented.

Alternately some see ‘the mighty kings’ as referring to the Babylonian and Persian kings, and suggest that by it the king is demonstrating that he has the same rights as his predecessor.

21 ow issue an order to these men to stop work, so that this city will not be rebuilt until I so order.

CLARKE, "Until another commandment shall be given fromme - The rebuilding was only provisionally suspended. The decree was, Let it cease for the present; nor let it proceed at any time without an order express from me.

GILL, "Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease,.... From building:

and that this city be not builded until another commandment shall be given from me; he might suspect that this case, in all its circumstances, was not truly stated, and that hereafter he might see reason to recede from the present orders he gave; and the rather, as by searching, and perhaps on his own knowledge, must have observed, that his father Cyrus had shown favour to the Jews, and had not only set them at liberty, but had encouraged them to rebuild their temple; which might be what they were about, and was the case, and nothing else, except their houses to dwell in.

K&D, "Ezr_4:21

“Give ye now commandment to hinder these people (to keep them from the work),

that this city be not built until command (sc. to build) be given from me.” י/שם, Ithpeal of

.שום

Page 112: Ezra 4 commentary

BESO, "Ezra 4:21. Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease —Thus he suffered himself to be imposed upon by their fraud and falsehood, and took no care to examine the allegations of their petition concerning what the Jews were now doing; but took all they had asserted for matter of fact, and therefore was very ready to gratify them with an order of council to stay proceedings. Until another commandment shall be given — So that, it appears, however, he kept his ears open to further information; which if he should receive, different from theirs, he might give other orders.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:21 Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until [another] commandment shall be given from me.

Ver. 21. Give you now commandment] Chaldee, Make a decree; which yet did but carry on God’s decree; for while persecutors sit backward to his command, they row forwards to his decree.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:21. Give ye now commandment, namely, to those who are building in Jerusalem. טעם is here as in Ezra 4:19, not in the sense of investigation, observation, as in Daniel 3:12, in connection with שום על, but in the sense of decision, command, לבטלא = that you cause to cease by your command. From this infinitive, as frequently in Hebrew, the construction passes over into the finite verb: and that this city be not built. The additional clause: until a command shall be given from me, namely, that defined by the context, for building, hence the stat. emph. This is not a mere phrase, that would make all things dependent upon himself .טעמאand his words, but a product of his prudence, since he really had in view the possibility of a change. With this agrees very well the earnestness and severity with which in

PETT, "Ezra 4:21

“ow give an order to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not built, until a decree shall be made by me.”So the king called on them to give an order (command) that the builders should cease work so that the city would not be fortified unless and until a decree came from him. It is not necessary to see this instruction to give an order as indicating an official decree (contrast Ezra 6:12). It is simply an instruction as to how to proceed. The word ‘order’, while of the same root as the one translated ‘decree’ in the latter half of the verse, is different from it. It is true that it is elsewhere used to indicate decrees, but that is when the orders are specifically made by the king. It is, however, also used of God ‘commanding’ where it is in contrast with the making of a decree (Ezra 6:14), whilst the same word is used of Rehum (Ezra 4:17) when he is called ‘lord commander’.

ote that there is no suggestion by the king that what had been built should be pulled down, and fortunately, in view of later events, the order was specifically

Page 113: Ezra 4 commentary

described as only temporary, with a possibility of it being rescinded by a decree from the king. This may suggest that he was not altogether happy with the story that he had been told and intended that the matter should be looked into further, but, as Ezra 4:22 makes clear, he nevertheless wanted his instruction to be carried out swiftly so as to ensure there was no possibility of the king’s revenues being affected.

22 Be careful not to neglect this matter. Why let this threat grow, to the detriment of the royal interests?

GILL, "Take heed now that ye fail not to do this,.... To put his orders into execution, and at once, without any loss of time, oblige the Jews to desist from rebuilding the walls of their city, which he was told they were doing, though a great falsehood:

why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings? of him and his successors, to be deprived of their toll, tribute, and customs, and to have insurrections, mutinies, and rebellions, in the dominions belonging to them.

K&D, "Ezr_4:22

“And be warned from committing an oversight in this respect,” i.e., take heed to

overlook nothing in this matter (זהיר, instructed, warned). “Why should the damage

become great (i.e., grow), to bring injury to kings?”

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:22 Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?

Ver. 22. Take heed now that ye fail not] This was to spur a free horse; like as letters were sent from King Philip and Queen Mary to Bishop Bonner, complaining that heretics were not so reformed as they should be, and exhorting him to more diligence.

Why should damage grow] Take heed of that howsoever. Multi reges graviorem

Page 114: Ezra 4 commentary

ducunt iacturam regionis, quam religionis, &c. (Bucholcer). Many kings consider it more serious to about to be thrown out of their kingdom than of their religion.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:22 he sharpens the previous command: and be careful—so זהיר, which is especially frequent in Syriac,—to make a mistake = that you may not make a mistake with reference to this matter. למה properly “to what” = that not, comp. Ezra 7:23, so also in Syriac. Accordingly the meaning Isaiah, that חבלה, damage, which easily grows as a pest, may not become great.

PETT, "Ezra 4:22

“And take heed that you be not slack in this. Why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?”So the king then called on them not to be slack in carrying out his instructions lest damage be caused both to his own treasury, and the treasury of his successors. They were to issue the decree immediately so as to ensure the prevention of what they feared. It will be noted that he made no reference to the use of force, although, of course, he would have expected the decree to be enforced if it was necessary. Thus they went beyond their remit in using force.

23 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.

CLARKE, "Made them to cease by force and power - Commanded them on pain of the king’s displeasure not to proceed, obliging all to remit their labors, and probably bringing an armed force to prevent them from going forward.

GILL, "Now when the copy of King Artaxerxes letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions,.... By him or them to

Page 115: Ezra 4 commentary

whom it was particularly directed:

they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews; not only in obedience to the king's command, but from an eagerness of spirit to put a stop to the proceedings of the Jews, to whom they had an aversion, instigated by the Samaritans:

and made them to cease by force and power; from going on with the building of the temple, which they reckoned a part of the city, and within their commission; this they did by showing the power and authority they had under the king's hand, and by the forces they brought with them to compel them to it, should they refuse to obey; or, however, they threatened them highly what they would do, if they did not desist.

HERY 23-24, "The use which the enemies of the Jews made of these orders, so fraudulently obtained; upon the receipt of them they went up in haste to Jerusalem,Ezr_4:23. Their feet ran to evil, Pro_1:16. They were impatient till the builders were served with this prohibition, which they produced as their warrant to make them cease by force and power. As they abused the king in obtaining this order by their mis-informations, so they abused him in the execution of it; for the order was only to prevent the walling of the city, but, having force and power on their side, they construed it as relating to the temple, for it was that to which they had an ill will, and which they only wanted some colour to hinder the building of. There was indeed a general clause in the order, to cause these men to cease, which had reference to their complaint about building the walls; but they applied it to the building of the temple. See what need we have to pray, not only for kings, but for all in authority under them, and the governors sent by them, because the quietness and peaceableness of our lives, in all godliness and honesty, depend very much upon the integrity and wisdom of inferior magistrates, as well as the supreme. The consequence was that the work of the house of God ceased for a time, through the power and insolence of its enemies; and so, through the coldness and indifference of its friends, it stood still till the second year of Darius Hystaspes, for to me it seems clear by the thread of this sacred history that it was that Darius, Ezr_4:24. Though now a stop was put to it by the violence of the Samaritans, yet that they might soon after have gone on by connivance, if they had had a due affection to the work, appears by this, that before they had that express warrant from the king for doing it (ch. 6) they were reproved by the prophets for not doing it, Ezr_5:1, compared with Hag_1:1, etc. If they had taken due care to inform Cambyses of the truth of this case, perhaps he would have recalled his order; but, for aught I know, some of the builders were almost as willing it should cease as the adversaries themselves were. At some periods the church has suffered more by the coldness of its friends than by the heat of its enemies; but both together commonly make church-work slow work.

K&D, "Ezr_4:23

The result of this royal command. As soon as the copy of the letter was read before Rehum and his associates, they went up in haste to Jerusalem to the Jews, and hindered

them by violence and force. אדרע with א prosthetic only here, elsewhere רעP (= (זרוע), arm,

violence. Bertheau translates, “with forces and a host;” but the rendering of אדרע or (זרועby “force” can neither be shown to be correct from Eze_17:9 and Dan_11:15, Dan_11:31,

nor justified by the translation of the lxx, ^ν(_πποις(καa(δυνάµει.

Page 116: Ezra 4 commentary

BESO, "Ezra 4:23. And made them to cease by force and power — As they abused the king by their misinformations, in the obtaining of this order, so they abused him in the execution of it; for the order was only to prevent the building of the city and its walls. But, having power in their hands, they on this pretence stopped the building of the temple. See what need we have to pray, not only for kings, but for all in authority under them; because the quietness of our lives depends much on the integrity and wisdom of inferior magistrates as well as the supreme.

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:23 ow when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter [was] read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.

Ver. 23. They went up in haste] Perurgente diabolo, the devil driving them, and their own malicious dispositions egging them thereunto (Bern.). So, when Queen Mary lay a dying, Harpsfeild, arch-deacon of Canterbury, being at London, made all post-haste home to dispatch those martyrs whom he had then in his cruel custody (Acts and Mon. 1562). So ambitious are wicked men of hell, they take long strides, and mend their pace, as if they feared lest it should be taken up before they come thither.

WHEDO, "23. Went up in haste — The haste was the more necessary that the Jews might have no opportunity to learn and expose their misrepresentations of their work. Had they had an opportunity to show that they were building not the city but the temple, the Samaritans might not have been so successful with the king.

By force and power — Literally, by arm and might, that is, by sheer violence. They forced them to cease work.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:23. The consequences of the royal edict are now added, probably by the same hand, that had added the introductory address of the original document.—ow when the contents of the letter . . . were read. A parenthetical clause begins with מן־די. It is not until אזלו that the principal clause continues.—They went up to Jerusalem, unto the Jews.—אזל may be connected with ל and על in the sense of “going to or unto” (comp. Ezra 5:8, Daniel 2:24; here both prepositions follow. The subject is supplied from the parenthetical clause. באדרע, properly, “with arm,” or “the power of the arm,” but this could not be the meaning here, were it not for וחיל= troops, which is accordingly added. The Sept. renders freely, but not incorrectly (against Keil): ἐν ἵπποις κὰι δυνάµει, comp. the Hebrew זרוע, Ezekiel 17:9, and זרועות, or זרועים, Daniel 9:15, 31, where also Keil explains the meaning as warlike powers. Instead of אדרע, almost always דרע occurs without the prosthetic א.

PETT, "Ezra 4:23

‘Then when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and

Page 117: Ezra 4 commentary

Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went in haste to Jerusalem to the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.’It would appear that the recipients of the letter went beyond the king’s command, for as soon as they had heard what the king had instructed they raced to Jerusalem and used violence in order to prevent the work continuing. The impression given is that, rather than issuing an order and seeing if it was carried out, they acted precipitously, probably in great glee. It was clearly a vindictive action. ehemiah 1:3 may well be seen as indicating that it was at this time that they demolished the wall and burned the gates.

Thus the writer ends the survey of history, the aim of which was to bring out how dangerous the adversaries would turn out to be.

24 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.

BARES, "It ceased - The stoppage of the building by the Pseudo-Smerdis is in complete harmony with his character. He was a Magus, devoted to the Magian elemental worship, and opposed to belief in a personal god. His religion did not approve of temples; and as he persecuted the Zoroastrian so would he naturally be hostile to the Jewish faith. The building was resumed in the second year of Darius (520 B.C.), and was only interrupted for about two years; since the Pseudo-Smerdis reigned less than one year.

CLARKE, "So it ceased unto the second year of -Darius - They had begun in the first year of Cyrus, b.c. 536, to go up to Jerusalem, and they were obliged to desist from the building b.c. 522; and thus they continued till the second year of Darius, b.c. 519. See the chronology in Hag_1:1 (note) and Zec_1:1 (note) and the following chapter, Ezra 5 (note).

GILL, "Then ceased the work of the house of God, which is at Jerusalem,.... How far they had proceeded is not said, whether any further than laying the foundation of it; though probably, by this time, it might be carried to some little height; however, upon this it was discontinued:

Page 118: Ezra 4 commentary

so it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia; not Darius Nothun, as some think, for from the first of Cyrus to the sixth of his reign, when the temple was finished, was upwards of one hundred years; yea, according to some, about one hundred and forty; which would carry the age of Zerubbabel, who both laid the foundation of the temple, and finished it, and the age of those who saw the first temple, to a length that is not probable; but this was Darius Hystaspis, who succeeded Cambyses the son of Cyrus, there being only, between, the short usurpation of Smerdis for seven months.

JAMISO, "Then ceased the work of the house of God— It was this occurrence that first gave rise to the strong religious antipathy between the Jews and the Samaritans, which was afterwards greatly aggravated by the erection of a rival temple on Mount Gerizim.

K&D, "“Then ceased the work of the house of God at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of Darius king of Persia.” With this statement the narrator returns to the notice in Ezr_4:5, that the adversaries of Judah succeeded in delaying the building of the temple till the reign of King Darius, which he takes up, and now adds the more precise information that it ceased till the second year of King Darius. The intervening section, Ezr_4:6, gives a more detailed account of those accusations against the Jews made by their adversaries to kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta. If we read Ezr_4:23 and Ezr_4:24 as successive, we get an impression that the discontinuation to build mentioned in Ezr_4:24 was the effect and consequence of the prohibition obtained from King Artachshasta, through the complaints brought against the Jews by his officials on this

side the river; the אדין� of Ezr_4:24 seeming to refer to the אדין of Ezr_4:23. Under this

impression, older expositors have without hesitation referred the contents of Ezr_4:6 to the interruption to the building of the temple during the period from Cyrus to Darius, and understood the two names Ahashverosh and Artachshasta as belonging to Cambyses and (Pseudo) Smerdis, the monarchs who reigned between Cyrus and Darius. Grave objections to this view have, however, been raised by Kleinert (in the Beiträgen der Dorpater Prof. d. Theol. 8132, vol. i) and J. W. Schultz (Cyrus der Grosse, in Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 624, etc.), who have sought to prove that none but the Persian kings Xerxes and Artaxerxes can be meant by Ahashverosh and Artachshasta, and that the section Ezr_4:6 relates not to the building of the temple, but to the building of the walls of Jerusalem, and forms an interpolation or episode, in which the historian makes the efforts of the adversaries of Judah to prevent the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem under Xerxes and Artaxerxes follow immediately after his statement of their attempt to hinder the building of the temple, for the sake of presenting at one glance a view of all their machinations against the Jews. This view has been advocated not only by Vaihinger, ”On the Elucidation of the History of Israel after the Captivity,” in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 87, etc., and Bertheau in his Commentary on this passage, but also by Hengstenberg, Christol. iii. p. 143, Auberlen, and others, and opposed by Ewald in the 2nd edition of his Gesch. Israels, iv. p. 118, where he embraces the older explanation of these verses, and A. Koehler on Haggai, p. 20. On reviewing the arguments advanced in favour of the more modern view, we can lay no weight at all upon the circumstance that in Ezr_4:6 the building of the temple is not spoken of. The contents of the letter sent to Ahashverosh (Ezr_4:6) are not stated; in that to Artachshasta (Ezr_4:11) the writers certainly accuse the Jews of building the rebellious and bad city (Jerusalem), of setting

Page 119: Ezra 4 commentary

up its walls and digging out its foundations (Ezr_4:12); but the whole document is so evidently the result of ardent hatred and malevolent suspicion, that well-founded objections to the truthfulness of these accusations may reasonably be entertained. Such adversaries might, for the sake of more surely attaining their end of obstructing the work of the Jews, easily represent the act of laying the foundations and building the walls of the temple as a rebuilding of the town walls. The answer of the king, too (Ezr_4:17), would naturally treat only of such matters as the accusers had mentioned.

The argument derived from the names of the kings is of far more importance. The

name אחשורוש (in Ezr_4:6) occurs also in the book of Esther, where, as is now universally

acknowledged, the Persian king Xerxes is meant; and in Dan_9:1, as the name of the Median king Kyaxares. In the cuneiform inscriptions the name is in Old-Persian Ksayarsa, in Assyrian Hisiarsi, in which it is easy to recognise both the Hebrew form

Ahashverosh, and the Greek forms Ξέρξης and Κυαξάρης. On the other hand, the name

Cambyses (Old-Persian Kambudshja) offers no single point of identity; the words are radically different, whilst nothing is known of Cambyses having ever borne a second name or surname similar in sound to the Hebrew Ahashverosh. The name Artachshasta, moreover, both in Est_7:1-10 and 8, and in the book of Nehemiah, undoubtedly denotes the monarch known as Artaxerxes (Longimanus). It is, indeed, in both these books

written ר/חשס/א] with ס, and in the present section, and in Ezr_6:14, ר/חשש/א]; but this

slight difference of orthography is no argument for difference of person, ארתחששתאseeming to be a mode of spelling the word peculiar to the author of the Chaldee section, Ezra 4-6. Two other names, indeed, of Smerdis, the successor of Cambyses, have been handed down to us. According to Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 7, and Ktesias, Pers. fr. 8-13, he is said to have been called Tanyoxares, and according to Justini hist. i. 9, Oropastes; and Ewald is of opinion that the latter name is properly Ortosastes, which might answer to Artachshasta. It is also not improbable that Smerdis may, as king, have assumed the

name of Artachshasta, Qρταξέρξης, which Herodotus (vi. 98) explains by µέγας(iρήιος. But neither this possibility, nor the opinion of Ewald, that Ortosastes is the correct reading for Oropastes in Just. hist. i. 9, can lay any claim to probability, unless other grounds also exist for the identification of Artachshasta with Smerdis. Such grounds, however, are wanting; while, on the other hand, it is à priori improbable that Ps. Smerdis, who reigned but about seven months, should in this short period have pronounced such a decision concerning the matter of building the temple of Jerusalem, as we read in the letter of Artachshasta, Ezr_4:17, even if the adversaries of the Jews should, though residing in Palestine, have laid their complaints before him, immediately after his accession to the throne. When we consider also the great improbability of Ahashverosh being a surname of Cambyses, we feel constrained to embrace the view that the section Ezr_4:6 is an episode inserted by the historian, on the occasion of narrating the interruption to the building of the temple, brought about by the enemies of the Jews, and for the sake of giving a short and comprehensive view of all the hostile acts against the Jewish community on the part of the Samaritans and surrounding nations.

The contents and position of Ezr_4:24 may easily be reconciled with this view, which also refutes as unfounded the assertion of Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, i. p. 303, and Schrader, p. 469, that the author of the book of Ezra himself erroneously refers the document given, Ezr_4:6, to the erection of the temple, instead of to the subsequent building of the walls of Jerusalem. For, to say nothing of the contents of Ezr_4:6,

although it may seem natural to refer the אדין� of Ezr_4:24 to Ezr_4:23, it cannot be

Page 120: Ezra 4 commentary

affirmed that this reference is either necessary or the only one allowable. The assertion

that אדין� is “always connected with that which immediately precedes,” cannot be

strengthened by an appeal to Ezr_5:2; Ezr_6:1; Dan_2:14, Dan_2:46; Dan_3:3, and

other passages. אדין�, then (= at that time), in contradistinction to אדין, thereupon, only refers a narrative, in a general manner, to the time spoken of in that which precedes it. When, then, it is said, then, or at that time, the work of the house of God ceased (Ezr_4:24), the then can only refer to what was before related concerning the building of the house of God, i.e., to the narrative Ezr_4:1. This reference of Ezr_4:24 to Ezr_4:1 is raised above all doubt, by the fact that the contents of Ezr_4:24 are but a recapitulation of Ezr_4:5; it being said in both, that the cessation from building the temple lasted till the reign, or, as it is more precisely stated in Ezr_4:24, till the second year of the reign, of Darius king of Persia. With this recapitulation of the contents of Ezr_4:5, the narrative, Ezr_4:24, returns to the point which it had reached at Ezr_4:5. What lies between is thereby characterized as an illustrative episode, the relation of which to that which precedes and follows it, is to be perceived and determined solely by its contents. If, then, in this episode, we find not only that the building of the temple is not spoken of, but that letters are given addressed to the Kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta, who, as all Ezra's contemporaries would know, reigned not before but after Darius, the very introduction of the first letter with the words, “And in the reign of Ahashverosh” (Ezr_4:6), after the preceding statement, “until the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezr_4:5), would be sufficient to obviate the misconception that letters addressed to Ahashverosh and Artachshasta related to matters which happened in the period between Cyrus and Darius Hystaspis. Concerning another objection to this view of Ezr_4:6, viz., that it would be strange that King Artaxerxes, who is described to us in Ezra 7 and in Nehemiah as very favourable to the Jews, should have been for a time so prejudiced against them as to forbid the building of the town and walls of Jerusalem, we shall have an opportunity of speaking in our explanations of Neh_1:1-11. - Ezr_4:24, so far, then, as its matter is concerned, belongs to the following chapter, to which it forms an introduction.

BESO,"Ezra 4:24. Then ceased the work of the house of God — For they neither could nor might proceed in that work against their king’s prohibition, without a special command from the King of heaven, which, however, they afterward received. But even then they were cold and indifferent about it, and were accordingly reproved by the Prophets Haggai and Zechariah 5:1, compared with Haggai 1:2. So that the work, in a great measure, stood still until the second year of the reign of Darius — This, as was intimated on Ezra 4:6, was Darius the son of Hystaspis, successor of Cambyses; not, as some would have it, Darius othus, the son of Artaxerxes Longimanus: for he was not emperor till above one hundred years after Cyrus, and, if he had been the Darius here intended, there must consequently have been about one hundred and thirty years from the beginning of the building of the temple to the finishing of it; which is not credible to any one that considers, 1st, That the same Zerubbabel did both lay the foundation, and finish the work, Zechariah 4:9. 2d, That some of the same persons who saw the finishing of this second house; had seen the glory of the first house, Haggai 2:3.

COFFMA, "Verse 24"Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem; and it ceased

Page 121: Ezra 4 commentary

until the second year of Darius I the king of Persia."

Chronologically, this verse comes exactly after Ezra 4:5, above, where it was stated that, "The people of the land hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose ... all the days of Cyrus king of Persia." In fact, this lobbying against the rebuilding of the temple went on throughout the remainder of the reign of Cyrus, through all the days of Cambyses, and until the second year of Darius I (520 B.C.).

A little later in Ezra (Ezra 6) we shall have a detailed report of how the opposition of the Samaritans was successfully checkmated and how Darius I ordered the temple to be rebuilt.

One of the significant revelations of the chapter is the racial makeup of what we have loosely called the "Samaritans." A remnant of those people was descended from the ten northern tribes of Israel; but as the letter to Artaxerxes shows, there were not less than nine different nationalities besides Israelites who constituted the population of Samaria.

"The great and noble Osnappar" (Ezra 4:10). This is the only mention in the Bible of this name. Rawlinson supposed that he was an officer of Esarhaddon;[3] Oesterley identified him as, "Ashurbanipal (668-626 B.C.), the son and successor of Esarhaddon."[4

TRAPP, "Ezra 4:24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which [is] at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Ver. 24. Then ceased the work of the house of God] And now the adversaries have got the ball on the foot, thinking to carry the game before them; but "the triumphing of the wicked is short," Job 20:5, and that they prosper at all in their designs it is non ad exitium, sed ad exercitium Sanctorum, not for the ruin of the Church, but for the exercise of the faith and patience of God’s people.

ELLICOTT, "(24) The second year.—The record here returns to Ezra 4:5, with more specific indication of time. The suspension of the general enterprise—called “the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem”—lasted nearly two years. But it must be remembered that the altar was still the centre of a certain amount of worship.

WHEDO, "24. Then ceased — That is, as the evident connexion with the preceding section shows, when these enemies, by authority from the king, forcibly obliged them to stop work on the temple. This verse shows that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:23 cannot be the same as the one mentioned Ezra 6:14; Ezra 7:1, but is a king who preceded Darius.

Unto the second year of… Darius — Artaxerxes, the pseudo-Smerdis, who issued the edict for the work to cease, was assassinated in less than a year after he began to

Page 122: Ezra 4 commentary

reign, and Darius Hystaspes immediately took the kingdom, so that the work of rebuilding was not made to cease for more than two years, probably not much more than one. See on Ezra 5:16. This Darius was the son of Hystaspes, and a descendant of the ancient Achaemenian kings. On the death of Cambyses, who died without issue; he was probably the hereditary heir to the throne, and this fact may have had much to do with his daring efforts to slay the Magian usurper. Having obtained the kingdom he instituted a general slaughter of the Magi, apparently aiming at their extermination. He restored the Zoroastrian temples and worship, which the Magian had attempted to destroy, and it was therefore very natural that he should revoke the edict which had caused the rebuilding of the Jewish temple to cease. His genealogy, and the principal acts of the first four years of his reign, are recorded in the celebrated Behistun inscription on the rocks of western Persia. Under him began those great struggles with the West which finally ended in the fall of the Persian empire before the arms of Alexander. “Darius Hystaspes was, next to Cyrus, the greatest of the Persian kings, and he was even superior to Cyrus in some particulars. To him, and him alone, the empire owed its organization. He was a skillful administrator, a good financier, and a wise and far-seeking ruler. Of all the Persian princes he is the only one who can be called ‘many sided.’ He was organizer, general, statesman, administrator, builder, patron of art and literature, all in one. Without him Persia would probably have sunk as rapidly as she rose, and would be known to us only as one of the many meteor powers which have shot athwart the horizon of the East.” — RAWLISO, Ancient Monarchies, vol. iii, p. 445.

LAGE, "Ezra 4:24. Then ceased the work of the house of God.—This verse already begins the continuation of Ezra 4:1-5, the further history of the building of the temple; at least it is introductory thereto. Our author himself (comp. notes on Ezra 4:6) here gives the results of the hostile effort, but not those of the last struggle, but those of the first under Cyrus, which already results from the idea of בטל, if it is taken in the strict sense. The author would not have gone back to the cessation, were it not that he would come to something that had already connected itself with the first intimation which had occasioned the cessation.[F11

PETT, "Verse 24After A Period Of Stagnation Work Begins On The Rebuilding Of The House of God, Which Causes Some Concern To The Persian Governor (Ezra 4:24 to Ezra 5:5).

Revealing that the work on the house of God ceased as a result of the activities of their adversaries the writer now describes how, as a result of the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah, the work on the Temple recommences, something which disturbs the Persian governor of the area because he is concerned about their use of valuable materials which could be being used for warlike purposes.

Ezra 4:24

‘Then the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem ceased, and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.”

Page 123: Ezra 4 commentary

The repetition of phrases makes clear that this verse is resuming what has been spoken of in Ezra 4:5. It is a technical device found often in the Old Testament where it is necessary to indicate that what lies in between is a parenthesis. Thus Ezra 4:6-23 are such a parenthesis.

Attention is now drawn to the fact that as a result of the widespread local opposition of their enemies, the work that had begun on the Temple by laying foundations (Ezra 3:8 to Ezra 4:1) had come to a full stop. From the indications given we can probably understand why:

1) Part of the problem probably lay in acts of violence perpetrated on the new community in order to distract them (Ezra 4:4). This might have included threats, and even attacks, on their houses and families if they left them unprotected; their enemies setting fire to fields of grain, as Samson did in the times of the judges; and even vindictive attacks on the persons of the returnees themselves. All this would involve the returnees in having to take protective measures which could only prevent them from concentrating on building the Temple.2) Furthermore, as we know, much of the timber had to be obtained from Sidon and Tyre (Ezra 3:7). This in itself would mean the work coming to a halt for a time, and with everyone against them we can imagine the difficulties that there would be in getting the supplies through. And once the work had halted for a time the initial enthusiasm would inevitably wane, especially as there were more immediate problems to be dealt with3) The machination of counsellors who were hired to present a case against them, may well have made them afraid of what the consequences might be of continuing, with the threat of Persian interference hanging over their heads (Ezra 4:5; Ezra 5:3).4) There were also the problems of erecting a Temple in the face of continual opposition, violently expressed against those who sought to build (Ezra 4:4).5) Added to all this would be their own need to build their own homes and ensure the welfare of their families (Haggai 1:4).6) Later this situation would be further exacerbated by the local famines which meant that their time was directed elsewhere as they struggled to survive (Haggai 1:6; Haggai 1:9-11).Taken together these things would have been sufficient to deter them from making the effort to build the Temple, which in itself was a difficult enough task. It thus took the activity of two prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, to stir them into action so that they recommenced the work.